Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/12/2006FILE COPY PLANNING December 12, 11. 11 South Coast Air Quality Management District Government Center Building -Auditorium 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 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 21825 Copley Drive, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please call (909) 839-7030 during regular business hours. in an effort to comply with the requirements of Title 11 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting must inform the Department of Community & Development Services at (909) 839-7030 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. em I•y�OItPpR TES tljg9 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 Chairman Steve Nelson Vice Chairman Pony Torng Commissioner Kwang Ho Lee Commissioner Kathleen Nolan Commissioner Osman Wei 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 21825 Copley Drive, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please call (909) 839-7030 during regular business hours. in an effort to comply with the requirements of Title 11 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting must inform the Department of Community & Development Services at (909) 839-7030 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. em I•y�OItPpR TES tljg9 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 Next Resolution No. 2006-57 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, December 12, 2006 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Steve Nelson, Vice Chairman Tony Torng, Kwang Ho Lee, Kathleen Nolan, Osman Wei 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is the time and place for the general public to address the members of the Planning Commission on any item that is within their jurisdiction, allowing the public an opportunity to speak on non-public hearing and non -agenda items. Please complete a Speaker's Card for the recording Secretary (Completion of this form is voluntary.) There is a five-minute maximum time limit when addressing the Planning Commission. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chairman 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine and are approved by a single motion. Consent calendar items may be removed from the agenda by request of the Commission only. 4.1 Minutes of Regular Meeting: November 28, 2006. 5. OLD BUSINESS: None. 6. NEW BUSINESS: None. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No 54081 Zone Change No. 2006-02/Planned Development Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03, Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-18 Variance No. 2006-02 and Tree Permit No. 2002-13 —In accordance to the Subdivision Map Act, City's Subdivision Ordinance Title 21, Development Code — Title 22, Sections 22.14, 22.58, 22.22, 22.54 and 22.38, the proposed project is a 22 -lot subdivision on a site of approximately 12.9 acres. It would provide for the development of 16 single-family detached homes on individual parcels ranging in size from approximately 5,705 square feet to DECEMBER 12,2006 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 10,506 square feet. The proposed project would include: the construction of private streets, graded pads, manufactured slopes and retaining walls; an easement for a public pedestrian trail in a portion of proposed open space areas; and the removal of a portion of existing vegetation. The current zoning of the project site is R-1-10,000. The Zone Change to RL/Planned Development Overlay provides for compliance with the General Plan land use designation and maximum flexibility in the site planning and design, thereby allowing smaller lots in order to retain more open space within the project boundaries. The Conditional Use Permit relates to grading and development within a hillside area. The Variance relates to retaining walls that are proposed at a height greater than six feet. The Tree Permit relates to the removal, replacement and protection of oak and walnut trees. (Continued from November 28, 2006) Project Address: The proposed project site is located at the southern terminus of Crooked Creek Dr. in the City of Diamond Bar. Property Owner: Mr. Daniel Singh, Jewel Ridge, LLC Applicant: 10365 W. Jefferson Blvd. Culver City, CA 90232 Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15070, the City prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15105, the public review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2006071129) began July 28, 2006, and ended August 28, 2006, The Planning Commission will consider whether to recommend adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City Council. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending City Council approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03, Zone Change No. 2006-02/Planned Development Overlay District No. 2006-01, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 54081, Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-18, Variance No. 2006-02 and Tree Permit No. 2002-13. 8. PUBLIC HEARING(S): — 8.1 Development Review DR 2006-19 - In accordance to Chapter 22.48 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code the applicant has requested approval of plans to construct a new three-story 3,668 sq. ft. single-family residence with an DECEMBER 12, 2006 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION attached 440 sq. ft. garage. The site is an undeveloped vacant lot. The subject property is zoned R-1 (8,000) and it contains 33,327 square feet of land area. Project Address: 1200 Chisolm Trail Drive Property Owner: Anna Lee 6111 Glenwood Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Applicant: Yuri Roe 533 S. Saint Andrew Place, Suite 320 Los Angeles, CA 90020 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 pursuant to the provisions of Article 19 Sections 15303 and 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review DR 2006-19, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. 8.2 Development Review No. 2006-13 - In accordance to Chapter 22.48 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code, the applicant has requested approval of plans to demolish the existing dwelling unit and construct a new three-story 13,730 square foot single-family residence with an attached 1,375 sq. ft. garage. The subject property is zoned R-1 (40,000) and it contains 51,836 gross square feet of land area. Project Address: 2366 Clear Creek Lane Property Owner: Lawrence and Heneretta Ogbechie Applicant: 2366 Clear Creek Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 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 pursuant to the provisions of Article 19 Sections 15301 and 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines. DECEMBER 12, 2006 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2006-13, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. 8.3 Development Review No. 2006-22 - In accordance to Chapter 2.248 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code, the applicant has requested approval of plans to construct a new three-story 11, 534 sq. ft. single-family residence with an attached 1,236 sq. ft. garage. The subject property is zoned R-1 (40,000) and it contains 45,119.sq. ft. of land area. Project Address: 2112 Rocky View Rd. Property Owner: Chacko Jacob 1801 E. Edinger Ave., Suite 235 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Applicant: Pete Volbeda, Architect 615 N. Benson Ave., Unit C Upland, CA 91786 Environmental Determination: This project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA.) Based on that assessment, the City has been determined that the project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the provisions of Article 19 Sections 15303 and 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further environmental assessment is necessary. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2006-22, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10. STAFF COMMENTS/ INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: CITY COUNCIL MEETING: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 - 6:30 p.m. SCAQMD/Government Center Auditorium 21865 Copley Drive DECEMBER 12, 2006 CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING: 12. ADJOURNMENT: PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION City offices will be closed Monday, December 25 and Tuesday, December 26, in observance of the Christmas Holiday. City offices will re -open Wednesday, December 27, 2006 Tuesday, January 9, 2007 — 7:00 p.m. SCAQMD/Government Center Auditorium 21865 Copley Drive Thursday, January 11, 2007 — 7:00 p.m. SCAQMD/Government Center Hearing Board Room — 21865 Copley Drive Thursday, January 25, 2007 — 7:00 p.m. SCAQMD/Government Center Hearing Board Room — 21865 Copley Drive MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 28, 2006 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Wei led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Kathleen Nolan, Osman Wei and Chairman Steve Nelson. Absent: Vice Chairman Tony Torng was excused. Also present: Nancy Fong, Community Development Director; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; Linda Smith, Development Services Associate; Gregg Kovacevich, Assistant City Attorney, Sandra Campbell, Contract Senior Planner; Peter Lewandowski, City Environmental Consultant and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 3 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chair/Nelson moved Item 7.2 to the end of the Public Hearings. 4 CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 14, 2006. C/Nolan moved, C/Lee seconded to approve the Minutes of November 14, 2006 Workshop as corrected by VC/Torng. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Wei, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Torng 5. OLD BUSINESS: None ADRAFT NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 Vestinq Tentative Tract Map No 54081 Zone Change No. 2006-02/ Planned Development Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03, Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-18, Variance No. 2006-02 and Tree Permit No. 2002-13 — In accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, City's Subdivision Ordinance — Title 21, Development Code — Title 22, Sections 22.14, 22.58, 22.22, 22.54 and 22.38, the proposed project was a 22 lot subdivision on a site of approximately 12.9 acres that would provide for the development of 16 single-family detached homes on individual parcels ranging in size from approximately 5,705 square feet to 10,506 square feet. The proposed project would include the construction of private streets, graded pads, manufactured slopes and retaining walls; an easement for a public pedestrian trail in a portion of proposed open space areas, and the removal of a portion of existing vegetation. The current zoning of the project site is R-1-10,000. The Zone Change to RL/Planned Development Overlay provides for compliance with the General Plan land use designation and maximum flexibility in the site planning and design, thereby allowing smaller lots in order to retain more open space within the project boundaries. The Conditional Use Permit relates to grading and development within a hillside area. The Variance relates to retaining walls that are proposed at a height greater than six feet. The Tree Permit relates to the removal, replacement and protection of oak and walnut trees. (Continued from October 10, 2006) PROJECT ADDRESS: At the southern terminus of Crooked Creek Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ Daniel Singh APPLICANT: Jewel Ridge, LLC 10365 W. Jefferson Boulevard Culver City, CA 90232 NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of a resolution recommending City Council approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03, Zone Change No. 2006-02/ Panned Development Overlay District No. 2006-01, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 54081, Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-18, Variance No. 2006-02 and Tree Permit No. 2002-13 as amended. Chair/Nelson re -opened the public hearing. Lawrence Berner, 3716 Crooked Creek Drive, a 30 -year resident said he was concerned that construction of the three 16 -foot high brick walls behind the homes would completely ruin the views. Additionally, he was concerned about the mud and water coming down his drainage ditch. Gregory Shockley, 3711 Crooked Creek Drive, said he reviewed the documentation and found certain items to be very disappointing and could not understand how the project got to this point. The geology report indicates the ground is subject to liquefaction in the event of an earthquake and he believed that with the added weight of deep watering it would lead to problems like those that took place in Anaheim Hills, Blue Bird Canyon (Laguna) and two years ago in Diamond Bar. He also wondered why there was no traffic mitigation plan. Jeff Layton, 3703 Crooked Creek Drive, spoke about the increased noise, loss of country view due to construction of a wall visible from the freeway and possible failure of the retaining wall -and threat of personal and property loss as a result. - Joyes Tweed, 2115 Running Branch, said she was pleased with the applicant's efforts to meet the requested changes. However, she was not satisfied that only one picture was taken from only one backyard because there are number of residences that will be affected. The project will also affect people who have property on the lower section of Diamond Bar and she was not comfortable about how their backyards would be affected and whether it had been properly explained during this process. She was also concerned about the resident at the very end of the street because itwas not apparent whether that resident would be looking into walls across the street as well as next to them. She wanted to see more explanation and view from all locations prior to approval. ® NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION June Sutherland, 20850 Gold Run Drive, said she was concerned about drainage from the top of the hill to the lower portion because she felt the drainage channel might be rendered inadequate by the project. She believed that the retaining wall would be visible from the freeway and place a negative impact on the surrounding property values. This project does not lend itself to country living, which is the reason people live in Diamond Bar. She said she was also concerned about the trees marked as "dead and dying" and felt the City should hire an Arborist to meet with a committee of residents that would ultimately be affected by the project. She also believed that the tree replacement ratio was too little because 10 -gallon replacement trees would not replace 100 year-old trees. She stated her belief that heretofore it had been difficult to get projects built in the City and giving variances of such drastic bias to the developer was unfair to the long-time residents of Diamond Bar. Daniel Singh, applicant, responded to speakers that he attempted to gain access to backyards of residences that directly face the property and only a few were willing to give his crew access to their backyards to take photographs. He presented additional renderings to the Commission that he said showed in 10 years how difficult it would be to see what had been built. In spite of their being no view ordinance for the City the applicant wants to cooperate and has sought guidance from staff to be as aesthetically pleasing as possible. Mr. Singh said that his biologist was present and would testify that all of the trees would be mitigated on-site and that the habitat area had been mitigated for the oak tree woodland. The City conducted an independent study of the project and asked for some changes that were ultimately included in the Arborists' report. The reason for requesting a zone change is to attempt to preserve as much of the open space as close to the development as possible. The applicant's biologist offered to answer questions. Hunter J. Tannery, 3802 Castle Rock Road, said he does not want any houses built because the animals would disappear and there would be no place for people to hike. Every day he plays with his dog in the backyard and they enjoy the view and do not want the City to tear down the country and make houses. NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION Norma Leon Enclade, 3611 Crooked Creek, said she was concerned by how the residents would be impacted by the construction that is occurring at the end of Crooked Creek. It seems the area will be developed and how do the residents ensure the safety of their children as construction trucks are coming in and out when children are playing in the street. If there were a question of liquefaction what percentage of the existing and thoroughly cemented vegetation would be left in place to prevent liquefaction that could occur? She believed there were a lot of children that took pleasure in exploring the area and felt it would be lost due to development. At what point does Diamond Bar cease development in favor of its residents? Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. CMei said that although he was absent from the October 10 public hearing for this project he familiarized himself with the details of the project and read the minutes of the meeting. He asked the developer to respond to the following questions: 1) Is there sufficient drainage to mitigate future mudflow and excess water; 2) will the project infringe on the wildlife habitat and 3) is the tree replacement ratio and size sufficient and would there be sufficient replacement of vegetation to prevent excess mud and waterflow; 4) respond to the concerns about the safety of children during construction. C/Lee said that last time he asked if the developer could lower the height of the retaining wall. Also, it appears that the developer did not respond to traffic concerns. CDD/Fong responded that it was the Commission's direction that the applicant was to provide additional information and one of the directions was for the applicant to determine whether he could reduce the height of the retaining wall. AssocP/Lungu explained that staff asked the developer to push the five and six foot retaining walls back to make the trail connection as required by the Trails Master Plan. As a result, the walls might have to be higher than five or six feet each. The developer responded that he could provide the area for the trail and retain the three five-foot high retaining walls. Other walls throughout the project are a series of five or six foot high retaining walls with planter areas between each wall. EC/Lewandowski again explained that with the preparation of the environmental documents for this project a traffic study was prepared that NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION examined the associated trip generation characteristics. The traffic study calculated the number of daily trips as well as, peak hour trips and clearly the project as with any project, would add traffic to the local roadways. However, the added traffic does not manifest in the need for signalization or additional traffic mitigations. C/Lee asked if this was a proper answer to the residents' concerns. CDD/Fong pointed out that this project consists of only 16 houses and although the 16 trips would add some traffic to the general area it would not be enough to warrant signals or stop signs. The City's traffic engineer will be looking at the issue and if the residents have concerns about the general area they are invited to address the Traffic and Transportation Commission and Neighborhood Traffic Management Program meetings. In general, there may be some mitigation measures that can occur in the area. However, based on expert analysis, this specific project does not warrant additional mitigation measures. C/Nolan stated that the photos showing the property from the northbound SR57 are unclear and there is no clear understanding of how the "gateway to the City of Diamond Bar' would appear if this project were built. It is an important view corridor and she wanted to see how the views would be impacted by rooftops and retaining walls from all points of entry. CDD/Fong responded that the Commission's direction from last meeting was that the applicant needed to do a photo simulation to show what drivers would see as they traveled the northbound and southbound SR57. The photos did not provide that kind of information to the Commission. C/Nolan said she would like to see a rendition/drawing/graphic design rendition of what would appear in view — the homes, the rooftops, and the retaining walls as to what would be seen in the Diamond Bar gateway. She also wanted to see a rendition of what adjacent residents would see today and 10 years from completion of the project. Gary Dante, Civil Engineer for the project said he took the pictures from the ground and from the freeway. Basically, coming from the freeway there would be no direct view into the site. The closest view would be about a three second view from about a mile away. As one approaches the site there is a barrier of trees that completely block the view of the site. NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION Therefore, he does not believe there is a view corridor from the SR57. The view corridor from the houses below shows that with the separation of the walls and the planting between the walls the project is a considerable distance away from the back yards and those residents would not feel crowded because of this project. In addition, there is a 10 -foot no man's land even before the walls start. The five-foot walls are five feet high so that they step back and each step would have plantings that would render the walls nearly invisible. Mr. Dante responded to C/Nolan that the first retaining wall would be about 15 feet back from the rear of the closest resident's rear yards. Additionally, the walls curve at the closest point and the photo was taken from the closest backyard. In some areas the walls are fifty feet from the backyards. He felt the mitigation was good. C/Nolan asked if staff agreed about the view from the SR57. CDD/Fong said that in fairness the applicant should simulate a photo without the high landscaping at the edge of the freeway in order to provide a true picture of what would be viewed from the SR57. The hills of Diamond Bar are very important to its image. Additionally, the developer could provide another photo that included the freeway landscape. Chair/Nelson asked for clarification of the hydrology drainage changes that would occur as a result of the project and the need to accommodate those changes. EC/Lewandowski responded that the applicant provided hydrology and geotechnical study evaluations, which were reviewed by the City's Engineer and found to be acceptable relative to the City's standards and in conformance with the County's requirements. With the introduction of impervious surfaces and the change in the site topography, clearly the drainage characteristics of the site would be modified. The modifications will necessitate drainage facilities to be incorporated along the roadway with the drainage safely conveyed to the channel. The changes in accordance with County requirements will not result in a substantive change in the quantity or quality of the water that is discharged from the project site. Chair/Nelson asked what safety measures would be implemented to provide for maximum pedestrian safety during construction. Mr. Lewandowski responded that from a traffic engineering perspective there were no a DRAFI NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION additional mitigation measures included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. As a matter of policy the City requires a construction plan and stipulates that construction shall occur in accordance with the City's requirements and not adversely impact local residents. He believed there were a number of issues relative to this particular project. This site has a single point of access along a residential street and all construction traffic would therefore have to access the project site via the roadway. Ultimately, if there are safety considerations, and the City is very sensitive to those issues, those are enforcement actions that would have to be monitored by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. Mr. Lewandowski confirmed to Chair/Nelson that the site balanced, that there would be no offsite earth movement and all grading would be contained within the project site's development envelope. As with all construction activity the site would be fenced and all construction equipment would be staged on the project site. CDD/Fong stated that the Commission could impose a condition that required the applicant to provide a construction traffic safety mitigation plan. Chair/Nelson felt such a requirement would address the concerns expressed this evening. Chair/Nelson asked if the trail went through the project and accessed the open space. CDD/Fong explained that the trail along Crooked Creek would lead to the regional trail at the edge of the City limits and that there would be a trailhead further up on the project site. Chair/Nelson asked if the grading would be visible from the SR57. Mr. Dante responded that the site was very low and that there were two streets between the freeway and the project site with houses on both sides of each street. Those houses would block the view as well, even if the freeway hedges were removed. The grading is not changing much of the site viewscape and the hill blocks part of the site. Chair/Nelson said he had difficulty believing there would be no view of the terraced grading. Mr. Dante said it was downhill from the freeway. Chair/Nelson asked Mr. Dante to take a photograph and simulate the grading and the roofs onto the photograph and if some parts of the graded slope are in fact visible that the applicant show what it would look like now, at a five year and 10 year interval. He believed it would be hidden but he wanted to know what it would look like and that was his request at the last Commission meeting. Mr. Dante said he would do a line of site because the site cannot be seen since it is down at the river level. NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION ChairlNelson asked what size trees were being used for the terraces behind the homes. Mr. Singh responded that they were 10 -gallon on 10 -foot center plantings Chair/Nelson recommended that the applicant consider mixing in larger trees to provide better screening in a shorter period of time. CDD/Fong stated that the City's Code requires that all trees must be a minimum 15 -gallon and a certain percentage must be 24" boxed trees. Mr. Singh said that when he reviewed the plan the tree sizes were interspersed. C/Nolan reiterated her concern about being provided a better rendition of what current residents would view from their back yards. Chair/Nelson said he was more comfortable with the project at this point. He thanked the applicant for making certain advancements such as an increased ratio of replacement trees and having a qualified restoration biologist on board. However, the Commission needs a little more on the visuals. In response to Chair/Nelson CDD/Fong confirmed that staff could review the construction safety plan. CDD/Fong explained that the there was no time limitation on this Zone Change. Chair/Nelson moved, C/Wei seconded, to reopen the public hearing and continue the matter to December 12, 2006. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Wei, Chair/Nelson NOES:. COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: VC/Torng 8. Conditional Use Permit No 2006-01 and Development Review No. 2006-01— In accordance with Development Code Sections 22.58, 22.48 and 22.42 these new applications update and replace the previous Conditional Use Permit No. 1997-02 and Development Review No. 1997-06; change the vendor information; modifies the lease area; adds additional antenna on the existing park light pole behind the existing ones, and modify the equipment area to an enclosed building to match existing park facilities. NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT ADDRESS: Peterson Park 24142 E. Sylvan Glen Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: City of Diamond Bar 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: John Talbot and J -Daniel Fox New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC c/o Wireless Development Resources, LLC P.O. Box 8823 Newport Beach, CA 92660 And Ryan Wells MMI Titan 129006 th Floor, Park Plaza Drive Cerritos, CA 90703 DSA/Smith presented staff's report and recommended. Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No 2006-01 and Development Review No. 2006-01, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Eric Stone, P.O. Box 9320 Cedarpines Park, CA 92322, said he owned 10 acres directly across the freeway from the site. One of the big differences he noticed with respect to this site was that it was not necessarily the best service site nor was it being camouflaged to be aesthetically pleasing for the City. The pictures clearly show the building "in your face." Since he was able to secure a copy of the agenda only today he asked if the Commission would consider continuing the item. Daniel Fox, Cingular Wireless offered to answer questions. NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Nolan asked if the map showed the current service area and Mr. Fox responded that it indicated future coverage. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. CDD/Fong responded to Chair/Nelson that a map showing opportunities and analysis of possible cell sites in the City of Diamond Bar exists that was used to adopt the wireless ordinance with a pre -approved location for cell sites. Wireless carriers that wish to be approved for those locations are required only to go through a development review application. Carriers wishing to locate in other locations must go through the Conditional Use Permit process. The City has allowed wireless companies to use park sites for providing sales and services to Diamond Bar residents as an economic benefit to the City. There are currently tall light fixtures in the park that does not affect adjacent residents and the City encourages carriers to place their sites within park facilities if it provides adequate reception. Mr. Stone is seeking other providers to locate on his property. However, his cell site is now a non -conforming use of the property. CDD/Fong explained to C/Nolan that the current tower will be replaced and a structure to house the equipment will be built to look like a park structure. Mr. Stone stated that this co -location could mean the elimination of the structure altogether, which would, in his opinion, create a more park -like atmosphere. He felt the proposed structure was unsightly and wondered if the applicant was given an opportunity to consider alternatives. His location is a stealth location with zero impact on the park and residents. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. Chair/Nelson felt the site was a great location, definitely better than locating it in a concrete tree. He said he was prepared to move forward unless there was a reason to continue the matter. Chair/Nelson moved, C/Nolan seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-01 and Development Review No. 2006-01, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Wei, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: VC/Torng 8.2 Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-02 Development Review No. 2006-01 Conceptual Sign Plan No 2006-01 and Mitigated Negative Declaration.— In accordance with Chapter 21 of the Diamond Bar Development Code, the applicant requested approval of the following: Demolition of an existing service station building and canopy and removal of the existing underground gas pumps and pavement; and, construction of an approximately 2945 square foot convenience store, attached 843 square foot self-service carwash, 2750 square foot canopy and five pump islands. PROJECT ADDRESS: 150 Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ John Amabile APPLICANT: Chevron Products Co. 145 S. State College Boulevard Brea, CA 92822 CSP/Campbell presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-07, Development Review No. 2006-05, Conceptual Sign Plan No. 2006-05 and Mitigated Negative Declaration, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Tamara Finner, RHL Design Group, on behalf of the applicant, said that staff was very helpful and knowledgeable. She asked for elimination of Condition 5.b. (6) of the draft resolution requiring the applicant to come in a second time for a Conditional Use Permit for the freeway sign. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. iW � ', NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Fong responded to the applicant that staff was ready to approve the Comprehensive Sign Program minus the existing pole sign. There are design issues that have not been resolved and staff would propose to condition the project to allow for review of the signs. C/Lee said he was concerned about two projects taking place at the same time and about the safety issues during construction. He wanted to know how long the project would take to complete. Staff was not sure that both projects would be under construction at the same time. C/Lee moved, C/Nolan seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-02, Development Review No. 2006-05, Conceptual Sign Plan No. 2006-01 and Mitigated Negative Declaration, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Wei, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Torng 8.3 Negative Declaration No 2006-04 Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-07, Development Review NO. 2005-36 Minor. Variance No. 2006-05 and Comprehensive Sign Program No. 2006-06 — In accordance with Development Code Sections 22.58, 22.48, 22.52 and 22.36, the proposed project was a request to remodel and enlarge an existing service station as follows: Demolish one existing service bay; expand the existing convenience mart to 1,700 square feet to incorporate the two remaining service bays; add a 720 square foot drive-through carwash; and upgrade the exterior design of structures on site. The application approvals are required for the following reasons: a Conditional Use Permit to allow the drive-through carwash; Development Review to change the exterior design of structures; a Minor Variance to allow a two percent reduction in the required 15 percent landscaping; and a Comprehensive Sign Program to ensure proposed wall and monument signs that were architecturally integrated. PROJECT ADDRESS: 206 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION PROPERTY OWNER: Sam Anabi Anabi Oil Corporation 1224 San Dimas Canyon Road San Dimas, CA 91773 APPLICANT: Western States Engineering, Inc. 4887 E. La Palma, Suite 707 Anaheim, CA 92807 AssocP/Lungu presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Negative Declaration No. 2006-04, Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-07, Development Review No. 2005-36, Minor Variance No. 2006-05 and Comprehensive Sign Program No. 2006-06, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Lee talked about the congestion in the area and voiced his concern about the tight turning radius from the drive through to the carwash area. He was concerned about the elderly and female drivers or drivers who don't know how to handle their cars well. They may hit the corners of the island. He also felt the applicant should comply with the required landscape percentage. C/Lee believed it would be safer if the applicant eliminated three or four parking space in order to provide more landscaping. CDD/Fong responded that the applicant would have to comply with the required number of parking spaces. C/Lee reiterated that he was most concerned about the safety of the pedestrians and a 90 -degree turn in to the carwash would be safer. AssocP/Lungu said that addition of landscaping near the monument sign would put the applicant at over the 13 percent. Since the applicant is attempting to work with the current site there is little opportunity for change and staff is attempting to add as much landscaping as possible, work with what is available and also provide enough parking for the convenience mart. C/Nolan commented that it was her understanding that the applicant would be removing a walled landscaped area and replacing it with ground level landscaping which would give the appearance of more landscaping. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. ClDRAFT NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 15 PLANNING COMMISSION Joseph Karaki, architect for the project, thanked staff for their endless effort to put the project together. The turning radius for the carwash is a standard turning radius that complies with any turning radius for a drive-through, carwash and fast food with 32 feet on the outside and 18 feet on the inside. Mr. Karaki responded to C/Lee that the applicant reduced the building size by 400 to 500 square feet and in order for the food mart to survive it would not be economically feasible to further reduce the size. He assured C/Lee that the radius was standard and would not jeopardize the safety of pedestrians. In fact, the oil company would not accept any standards that would jeopardize their clients. C/Lee said he was not comfortable with the proposed design and wanted the applicant to provide an alternative design. C/Wei recommended a slight variation in the turn area to widen the radius to satisfy C/Lee's concerns. C/Lee and the applicant concurred. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Lee moved, C/Nolan seconded to approve Negative Declaration No. 2006-04, Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-07, Development Review No, 2005-36, Minor Variance No. 2006-05 with consideration of modifying the turning radius to widen the driving area as suggested by C/Wei, and Comprehensive Sign Program No. 2006-06, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution as amended. Chair/Nelson recused himself from consideration of Item 7.2 and left the dais. RECESS: Chair/Nelson recessed the Planning Commission meeting at 9:23 p.m. RECONVENE: AC/Lee reconvened the Planning Commission meeting at 9:33 p.m. 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.2 South Pointe West Residential Development and Public Park (Continued from November 28, 2006) MDR NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 16 PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT ADDRESS: South of Larkstone Drive, East of Morning Sun Avenue, West of Brea Canyon Road and, Northwest of Peaceful Hills Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ South Pointe West, LLC APPLICANT: 2632 W. 237th Street, Suite 201 Torrance, CA 90505 A. Environmental Impact Report No. 2005-03 — In accordance with CEQA guidelines, the applicant requested the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council for certification of the EIR for the South Pointe West project consisting of 99 single family units, open space areas and a neighborhood park. The EIR covers the project site of approximately 31.28 acres, an off- site neighborhood park site of approximately 3.24 acres, and a stockpile site of approximately 7.45 acres to be used as a potential depository for excess earth material from the tract map area. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission hold a Public Hearing to consider the draft EIR. B. General Plan Amendment No. 2005-01, Specific Plan No. 2005-01, Vesting Tentative Tract No. 063623 Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-01 Development Review No. 2005-27, Development Agreement No. 2005-01 Zone Change No. 2006-03 and Tree Permit No. 2005-06 — In accordance with provisions of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code, the applicant requested the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation for City Council approval of the South Pointe West project consisting of 99 single family units, open space areas and a neighborhood park. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold a Public Hearing to consider the proposed project. NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 17 PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Fong presented a recap of the proposed project and public concerns. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend the following to the City Council: • Certify the Environmental Impact Report-EIR NO. 2005-01, and State Clearance House No. 2005111118 complete and adequate and in compliance with CEQA; • Adopt the EIR Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration; • Approve the General Plan Amendment No. 2005-01 and Zone Change No. 2006-03; • Approve Development Agreement No. 2005-01; • Approve Specific Plan No. 2005-01 and Vesting Tentative Tract No. 063623; • Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-05, Development Review No. 2005-07 and Tree Permit No. 2005-06. There were no Commissioner disclosures. offered. C//Wei asked staff to point out the area of the proposed approximate 7.45 -acre site to be used as a repository for access earth material from the tract map area and CDD/Fong complied. AC/Lee reopened the Public Hearing. Steve Schwartz, South Pointe West, explained that stockpiling was proposed so that the site would not have any export and accordingly, the applicant arranged for the WVUSD to permanently raise their pad to cover excess dirt if needed. His firm has been involved in construction projects in the City for the past 10 years and builds quality products. When his company entered into escrow on this project there were competing concerns that had to be addressed. Because of the high price the school district was asking his firm was NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 18 PLANNING COMMISSION the only bidder and as such, it was difficult to make the project work. In addition, the City requested his company to fulfill an obligation for a park site the school district had years ago that was unknown to the developer at the time of purchase. As such, in order for the project to be economically feasible, South Pointe West looked at a denser attached project that would be harmonious with the neighborhood, which was not possible with an R-1 zoning. The proposed project was a compromise with an R-1 feel that is acceptable to the buying community. He said he was very proud of the product that his firm brought forward to the Commission. Tom Powers, on behalf of Mrs. Kim, 1704 Morning Sun, stated Mrs. Kim's property is adjacent to the Morning Sun gate. She is concerned about the loss of privacy and view and homes that will look down onto her property. Mrs. Kim is trusting staff that the property will be mitigated. Traffic concerns have been addressed. However, itis a two -block winding drive to get to Colima where there is no traffic signal. He said they had been working with Mr. Gould on planting trees and impressing their concerns. Stephanie Lee, 1611 Morning Sun Avenue, said she and her husband moved to the area because theywanted views of the countryside and open spaces. She wanted to know why the project proposed crowded housing when there was so much space available. She would prefer to see houses with space between them like other nice houses in the area. John Coursen, 1719 Chapel Hill Drive, thanked staff for their courteous and patient assistance as he has attempted to learn more about the project. He reiterated his concerns about traffic safety associated with the entrance gate onto Morning Sun. The streets directly affected are Morning Sun, Shepherd Hills Drive, Chappell Hills Drive and Tam Oshanter. While the studies addressed the congestion issue they did not consider the design and safety affecting these streets. In addition, the reports do not address safety concerns in the area of the second gate. He recalled that at the previous NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 19 PLANNING COMMISSION meeting he and several residents were concerned about traffic on their side and the Commission specifically requested additional information on the issue. So far everyone has been non-responsive. These streets are quiet back -of -the -subdivision streets and cul-de- sacs and are not designed as thoroughfares. There is a large amount of pedestrian traffic, school children and families. Not previously mentioned, there are no sidewalks, no stop signs and no speed humps on the streets. The Los Angeles County ordinance requires that this type of subdivision have pedestrian safety mitigation measures beyond what is currently available in the neighborhoods. What is proposed as Street "A" within the subdivision has a sidewalk and it has been discussed that the streets on Larkstone would include sidewalks, which is not the case at the second access proposed for Morning Sun. He asked what Diamond Bar's exposure would be to litigation and liability in the event that the City knowingly approved an access point that would clearly violate LA County safety standards for roadway design in these neighborhoods. Further, as a parent he is very concerned because his son would soon be walking the same path to school buses and dodging traffic from that access point. He asked the Commission to consider eliminating the Morning Sun Avenue access point. Barbara Beach Courchesne, 2021 Peaceful Hills Road, said it was not possible to review the EIR information on this project because the information was unavailable or Ms. Campbell did not have permission to give it to her. On November 14 Chair/Nelson and CDD/Fong indicated there were issues with the EIR and those issues would be corrected and revealed. Tonight the EIR is perfect and she has concerns about what happened during the past two weeks and why a copy was not available to her. It seemed to her that 10 years had passed and nothing had changed in the City, a very sad statement for her to make. Why was the public hearing originally convened if the EIR had questions and concerns? Is the completion of escrow on this property with the Walnut School District contingent upon approval of this development? How can one comment at a public hearing when one does not have access to the documents or to the information? A` DRAFT NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 20 PLANNING COMMISSION What is Diamond Bar's policy on public documents? How can she receive a copy of that policy? The minutes of November 14 accurately describe what the residents said. However, there are statements that CDD/Fong and Chair/Nelson made that she considered crucial that were not in the minutes. So she would like an unabridged copy of a tape. She would like to know how she would get it and who has to give her permission to get it. What must she do to receive a copy of all documents for Public Hearings on this development from the review all the way up to today? And she needs to know who needs to approve that release because these are public documents. This is a right of a citizen, especially a citizen who is highly impacted by this project. The school is very anxious to sell this property but these developers are going to build 99 houses. She wanted to know where all of the children living in the houses would go to school. She hoped the school district would not come back and ask her for a bond to buy land somewhere else to build another school. She wanted the Commission to know that she had been an educator for 46 years. She was very impressed tonight by both C/Wei and C/Lee and their concerns about residents when talking about the project in Item 8.2. They were concerned about water, traffic, wildlife and walls and she did not hear that concern with this project and she was confused and angry. She wondered if there was no concern because the people who lived on Morning Sun were of no concern to the Commissioners. The residents have as much concern and as much rage as she has. She quoted from a document entitled The Notice of Annexation of Territory. The document stated that "anyone who buys any lot becomes an automatic member of the Pathfinder Association, Inc. and must abide by the restrictions" and it says that "any unit owner can enforce that" and she planned to do that. Gayle Esfahaniha, 1720 Morning Sun, said she understood about the traffic study and its impact but it did not address the traffic. Ninety- nine homes could potentially have about 300 cars coming down the street every morning and every evening as well as other trips throughout the day. There are no sidewalks and there are children and joggers in the street. She asked to view the chart that indicated benefits and impacts. She questioned the benefit "preservation of NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 21 PLANNING COMMISSION open space" and felt it should be moved to the impact side of the chart. If 99 homes are built it will diminish the current open space and that is not a benefit. As far as repair of the landslide it could be done without crowding the area with so many homes. She was told that additional weight would raise the water level. No one can predict how much rain and whether or not there will be an earthquake. She would hate to see all of those families in 99 homes disrupted because of dollars. When it comes to loss of life there is no dollar amount that can replace a loss of life. Several years ago she was forced to put her children in public school and thought South Pointe would be the school they would attend. Because of the boundary it was Rincon. She tried to .get them into South Pointe but was told the school was already very overcrowded and was not open to additional students. Her child went to Rincon, another school that was overcrowded where her child had no desk. Fortunately, in about two weeks she was able to get him back into private school. If the schools were overcrowded several years ago what will they be like with an additional 99 families? The applicant may have met legal requirements but the residents in the area are not comfortable with this project. She asked the Commission to consider the quality of life of the residents when ruling on this project. She said Diamond. Bar was not about 99 homes in such a small area. Tim Kutrus, 1611 Morning Sun Avenue; said there was much public outcry tonight about "country living" and in his opinion the polar opposite of "country living" is high density housing. This is a neighborhood of single-family homes on every side. He agreed that the property owners had a right to develop the property and make a profit but it should be with detached single-family homes that have space in between them to mirror the surrounding area. This area is zoned R-1 for a reason. Secondly, this area does not require a gated community because it is a very safe area. This proposed development is not comparable to "The Country Estates." The proposed development is more like condominiums. With respect to benefits versus impact, the indirect benefit is money to the schools. Preservation of open space is more appropriate listed under "impacts." Property tax revenue equals money. Traffic Impact Fees AFT NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 22 PLANNING COMMISSION equal money. The property owner was obligated to repair the landslide and it had not been done. A two million dollar contribution equals money, money, and more money. Impacts: These are crowded houses that are close together; the City loses the open space feeling of this area; the residents lose the countryside and the country living atmosphere. He would agree that if this were the last open space in the City of Diamond Bar and there was an acute housing shortage he could say that the benefits outweighed the impact because the City would need this project, but the City does not need this project. Keep it R-1 and build houses that look like the surrounding neighborhoods so that everyone can be happy. James Osowski, 20551 Summertown Street, concurred with previous speakers. He asked the Commissioners to consider how they would feel if they lived in this neighborhood and had the opportunity come before the Commission tonight whether the Commissioners would really want this project. Mr. Schwartz responded to speakers that he was proud of the proposed project and felt it would be a great addition to the City. He said his firm believed there was an acute need for housing in the City of Diamond Bar and this would be one of the few new housing projects built in the City during this time period. With respect to the designation of "open space" he agreed with staff's position that it was a benefit to take a certain amount of the space that was privately owned and make it permanent open space. The arguments made by some of the neighbors that this project takes away open space would be correct except that the property is privately owned and is not therefore open space. With respect to schools and school capacity, this is one of the best things that could happen to the school district. The school district is very supportive of this project because they will be receiving over $11 million including school fees and purchase price for the property, dollars that are important to the district. With respect to the landslide, the applicant, staff and the school district have engaged four soils engineers for the City, County, school district and applicant to look at this site and review and test it. All of the engineers are in agreement that the fix from a geotechnical standpoint is relatively simple. There is a landslide approximately 20 feet deep NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 23 PLANNING COMMISSION that needs to be cut out, the dirt removed and properly placed back. All four engineers agree that once that is done under the supervision of the City's inspectors and a licensed soils engineer that there will be no further slides. And having done some very difficult projects with landslides in the past including three within the City of Diamond Bar his firm is very familiar with this type of work and have had no problems with any of the projects they have completed. CDD/Fong responded to speakers that with respect to potential loss of privacy, as a result of this project certain areas would be preserved in open space. The closest property is about 30 feet from the backyard to the nearest house. The proposed houses are at a higher elevation but they are much further away from the houses. In addition there will be landscaping between the project and the current residences and she did not believe there would be any loss of privacy. Rich Baretto, Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers, said his firm prepared the traffic study for this project. His understanding is that the entry is a residence only entry and visitors will be required to enter the site from Larkstone Drive. About 30 percent of the project traffic would utilize the entry gate and there would be a little more than 300 daily trips in and out of the entry point. Consistent with the City's guidelines as well as, LA County guidelines, the study looked at residential traffic impacts along four segments within the area and concluded that the project, with its added traffic would not create a significant impact through added volumes. Pedestrian safety at the project entry as it accesses Morning Sun has adequate sightlines so that as traffic exits the project drivers are able to see in both directions. There is a sidewalk that leads from the internal roadway that exists all the way to Morning Sun. While there are no streets within the existing community it is not the applicant's responsibility to construct sidewalks outside of their property line. The study also concluded that there were adequate sightlines for cars to get in and out of the secondary access. With respect to stacking and queuing the gate would have to be located far enough into the project (50 feet) so that there is no queuing back onto Morning Sun. NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 24 PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Fong responded to Barbara Beach-Courchesne that the EIR has been available for public review at the counter in City Hall and a copy of the EIR has been available at the Diamond Bar Library since August 2006. The staff report for this continued public hearing was available prior to Thanksgiving and is available for review at the City Hall public counter. CDD/Fong stated that at the last Planning Commission meeting the EIR was complete except for the response. to comments. When the City receives comments from various agencies staff must respond and staff was waiting for comments from the Department of Fish and Game. Since that time, the response to comments has been completed and all comments were routed to the agencies that responded to the EIR. Another missing item was the Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Consideration, findings that are prepared for review by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to taking action. Those two missing items caused this public hearing to be continued to this evening and the items were available for review as part of tonight's agenda packet that was available prior to Thanksgiving. The Environmental Impact Report was completed and circulated and the City has met the CEQA requirements. CDD/Fong responded to speakers that the adjacent community within the unincorporated areas of LA County follows LA County standards. This project is proposed within the boundaries of the City of Diamond Bar and follows the City's standards. Residents were concerned about their neighborhoods not having sidewalks and were concerned that cars coming down the drive from Shepherd Hills would increase the safety hazard for pedestrians. "The Country Estates" is a gated community that has no sidewalks. Many communities chose not to have sidewalks and she could not answer for LA County standards and could not answer for residents who lived in Rowland Heights. The proposed project has a sidewalk that links the residences to the park and to the school. CDD/Fong stated a speaker commented that the project should be zoned R-1. The site is currently zoned R-1 and it is proposed to be NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 25 PLANNING COMMISSION changed to Specific Plan. R-1, 10,000 meaning there could be four units or four lots to an acre, which translates to more than 99 units. However, the developer is proposing 99 units to cluster them closer together and preserve more open space. Nelson Reis, 1728 Morning Sun Avenue, asked if there was anyway the secondary gate could be eliminated. He was concerned about privacy due to the height of the proposed three-story structures that could be viewed from his backyard. There could be fewer homes built and the ground could still be preserved. Michael Thomas, 20521 Shepherd Hills Road, said that although the traffic engineer said it was not the applicant's responsibility to install sidewalks in his area, the applicant appears to be installing sidewalks on the Diamond Bar side of the project. He agreed the secondary gate should be eliminated. A resident living at 1728 Morning Sun said she agreed with the rest of her neighbors. Unfortunately, LA County is not present to represent the residents. She agreed with her other neighbors that the developers had a right to develop the property but who is representing the residents in the unincorporated area of LA County. She and her fellow residents are good Diamond Bar neighbors and shop at Diamond Bar stores and hoped that Diamond Bar would be good neighbors as well. AC/Lee closed the public hearing. C/Wei stated that the Commissioners understand that the applicant conforms to the requirements of the various agencies that are looking for the benefit of the residents. He recommended the City consider installing stop signs, speed limit signs, warning signs and speed humps to help mitigate the traffic problems created by this development. He said he also understood that if the concerns fell outside of the City limits of Diamond Bar there could be no required conditions for traffic mitigation. However, the applicant may be able to install certain traffic mitigation measures outside of the City. C/Wei NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 26 PLANNING COMMISSION believed that because this was the United States that all documents and meetings concerning this and other City matters were available, transparent, and accessible to residents. Planning Commission seats are "hot" seats and all of the Commissioners live in Diamond Bar Planning Commissioners are charged with protecting both the City and its residents and must look at the benefit of the project overall. Any improvements will bring negative as well as positive impacts. He would not say that the Planning Commission's decisions were all corrector not correct. In Diamond Bar there is not much more land to be developed and the Commissioners have to look at whether this project is necessary to the City. At the same time the developer has to consider all aspects of a potential project and fortunately, there are many governing agencies that make certain developers complete their due diligence. Also fortunate is that California is in the forefront of environmental impact concerns such as safety, quality, energy, wildlife, etc. At the same time developers must conform to the requirements of all of the various agencies and if developers are approved by those agencies it means they meet the basic requirements for their projects. Sometimes individuals have to sacrifice their comfort level for the overall good and the rights of individual property owners. In his opinion, developers try very hard to accommodate the residents. In response to speakers, traffic safety and construction safety can be dealt with through modern engineering technology and the concerns about safety should not be as great as they might have been in the past. Surely no one can predict what Mother Nature will do with all of the faults that lie beneath the surface. Traffic safety is a matter of driver education, traffic system improvements and the attention of the people who live along the street as well as, law enforcement. The Commission will urge the City to study the area to make certain there are proper traffic mitigation measures in place to ensure proper safety and enforcement in the area. C/Nolan said she lives in one of the communities affected by this project. The Commission has a responsibility to the residents of Diamond Bar and has the responsibility of looking at the facts of the situation through review of the EIR, traffic studies and so forth. With fir NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 27 PLANNING COMMISSION respect to traffic, there are three proposed traffic improvements that will happen now and through the years 2010 and 2020. The City has the same concerns that the residents have — safety, privacy and so forth. With respect to the zoning, this is a new type of condominium project and that has to be taken into consideration and Commissioners do not take comments lightly nor do they take their responsibilities lightly. AC/Lee asked if the developer could explain the impact of a gated community within a non -gated community. Mr. Schwartz responded that his firm had done numerous gated projects throughout Southern California and whether it was a real or perceived safety issue it was very important to residents to have the perception of safetythat a gate provides. In his opinion it is essential to have this be a gated community from a value standpoint. The City has asked his company for a lot of things including giving up property to fulfill other obligations, to pay fees, etc., and for this to be a gated community would be very critical to the developer. AC/Lee said that a long time ago he thought that development was only good for developers but in certain areas development is part of the renovation process of a community. Landis very important—one of the most important assets to developers and community members. And he wanted to remain unbiased in his decision process. AC/Lee moved, C/Nolan seconded, to recommend that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report; recommend approval of the Mitigation Monitoring Program; and, adopt the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration for the South Point West Specific Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 063623 for a site comprised of approximately 34.52 acres generally located south of Larkstone Drive, east of Morning Sun Avenue and west of Brea Canyon Road. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: Q DRA NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 28 PLANNING COMMISSION Ea AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Wei NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nelson ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Torng AC/Lee moved, C/Wei seconded to recommend City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2005-01, Specific Plan No. 2005-01, Vesting Tentative Tract No. 063623, Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-01, Development Review No. 2005-27, Development Agreement No. 2005-01, Zone Change No. 2006-03 and Tree Permit No. 2005-06. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Wei NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nelson ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Torng PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Wei stated that tonight's decision on Item 7.2 was a recommendation for approval to the City Council and that the City Council is the final authority on the matter. AC/Lee said he appreciated residents participating in this process. The applicants did a greatjob and performed their due diligence; and they made a genuine effort to bring forth a good project. He said he trusted the developer's ethics and professionalism and asked the developer to please take all comments into consideration. He thanked staff for a great report. 10. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS. 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 29 PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Acting Chairman Lee adjourned the regular meeting at 11:08 p.m. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Nancy Fong Community Development Director Steve Nelson, Chairman Kwang Ho Lee, Acting Chairman �I01►'D $AR's 111 rid �"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: 7. 1— Public hearing continued from November 28, 2006 MEETING DATE: December 12, 2006 CASE/FILE NUMBER: 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 2. Zone Change No. 2006-02 and Planned Development Overlay District No. 2006-01 3 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 54081 4. Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-18 5. Variance No. 2002-02 6. Tree Permit No. 2002-13 PROJECT LOCATION: Southern Terminus of Crooked Creek Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (APN #8714-028-003) APPLICATION REQUEST: To adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program; to subdivide a 12.9 acre site into 16 residential lots ranging in size from 5,705 to 10,506 square feet for the eventual development with single-family homes; to change the zoning from R-1- 10,000 to RL -PD; to grade and develop in a hillside area; to allow retaining walls with an exposed height of 10 feet which exceed the allowed exposed height adjacent to a street; and to remove, replace and protect oak and walnut trees. PROPERTY OWNER / Mr. Daniel Singh APPLICANT: Jewel Ridge, LLC 10365 W. Jefferson Boulevard Culver City, CA 90232 STAFF RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends the Planning Commission: Open the continued public hearing; receive comments on the project; close the public hearing and begin deliberations on VTTM No. 54081 and its entitlements; and recommend approval of Zone Change No. 2006-03 and Planned Development Overlay District 2006-01, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 and Mitigation Monitoring Program, VTTM No. 54081, Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-18, Variance No 2002- 02 and Tree Permit No. 2002-12. VTTM 54081 BACKGROUND: VTTM No. 54081 was presented to the Planning Commission at a public hearing on October 10, 2006. The Commission continued the public hearing to November 28, 2006 to give the applicant time to address the Commission's concerns related to retaining _ .wall _heights,_. vegetation replacement and _ views, after_ the project's development. At the November 28, 2006 meeting, the applicant provided a revised preliminary landscape plan showing the three -10 foot high retaining walls reduced to a height of five feet each; the use of vegetation indigenous to the area that functions as an extension of the existing hillside; and replacement walnut and oak trees. The Commission found the revised preliminary landscape plan acceptable. The applicant also provided photographic views from 13 locations along the SR 57 freeway to the project site and artist's renderings of views from the backyards of the homes on Crooked Creek Drive at five and ten year intervals with section renderings. The Commission felt that the photographic views did not accurately reflect the current view or show the results from grading the project site and constructing homes. Additionally, the renderings did not show the view from the second story of the homes on Crooked Creek Drive at five and ten year intervals. As a result, the Commission continued the public hearing to December 12, 2006 to allow the applicant additional time to provide the photo simulations and renderings. ANALYSIS: At the November 28, 2006 continued public hearing for this project, the Planning Commission directed the applicant to re -address the following concerns. Provide photographic simulations of the project site as viewed from the SR 57 freeway. Simulate the grading and roof tops on to the photograph and show the graded slope at the project site. At the November 28, 2006, the applicant presented the Commission with photographic views from the SR 57 freeway north bound. The view showed that the project was not visible from the freeway. The applicant has submitted a photographic view and photo simulation from the SR 57 freeway southbound. The photographic view shows the project site as it is today. The photo simulation shows the project site in ten years with a view of the second story and roof top of six homes and open space hillside. it also shows that existing vegetation along with trees planted as part of the proposed project's mitigation will prevent seeing a majority of the proposed homes from the SR 57 freeway south bound. However, the applicant did not provide a photographic view and photo simulation from the SR 57 freeway north bound. VTTM 54081 3. Provide an artist's renderings before and after the project's construction from the backyards of the second story of existing homes located on Crooked Creek Drive.. The renderings after the project's construction should be at five and ten year intervals. The artist's renderings submitted by the applicant show the view from the second story basically the same as the view from the first story presented to the Commission on November 28, 2006. Due to the elevation difference between the pads of homes on Crooked Creek Drive and e proposed homes, the series of retaining walls are necessary. According to the applicant's plans, Lot 80 on Crooked Creek Drive has a pad elevation of approximately 665. Lot 13'of VTTM 54081 directly behind Lot 80 has a pad elevation of 690. Due to the topography, there is an elevation difference of 25 feet. Therefore, the view of the walls can not be avoided unless Lots 10 through 16 were not graded. The first wall of the series of three walls will be located approximately 12 feet at the narrowest point to 30 feet at the widest point from the property line of the homes on Crooked Creek Drive. The proposed landscaping will assist in mitigating the view, but the walls will still be seen. Provide a construction safety mitigation plan to address the safety concerns on local residential streets. A condition has been added to the resolutions as follows: Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Tree Permit Resolution, page 11, 5. b. 12; and VTTM 54081 and Mitigated Negative Declaration Resolution, page 9, Tb. 12. The condition states: `Prior to issuance of any permits or grubbing of the site, whichever comes first, the applicant shall submit a construction traffic safety mitigation plan that addresses such items as, but not limited to, lane closures, truck routes, traffic control measures for the construction area, street cleaning, etc. for the City's review and approval." 4. On November 28, 2006, public comments expressed concerns related to traffic, retaining walls behind the homes on Crooked Creek Drive and their view, dead and dying trees, safety of children and drainage. A traffic study was prepared for this project and reviewed and accepted by the City. The study examines trips, daily and peak hours, generated by this project. The study shows the project would add trips to the local roadways. However, the added trips did not manifest the need for signalization or additional traffic mitigation. As discussed above, retaining walls are needed due to the elevation differences between the pad for existing homes and proposed homes. The view of the walls can be mitigated to some extent with landscaping. The dead and dying trees, to be replaced at a 3:1 and 1:1 ratio respectively, were addressed to the Commission's satisfaction in the revised landscape plans. VTTM 54081 The safety of children is addressed by adding a condition to the project requiring the applicant to provide a construction safety mitigation plan for the City's review and approval. The drainage was addressed in a drainage study prepared by the applicant and reviewed and accepted by the City. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: As directed by the Planning Commission, staff mailed continued public hearing notices to approximately 219 property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the project site at least 10 days prior to the continued public hearing date of November 28, 2006. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has prepared an Initial Study and determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is required for this project. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 (SCH #2006071129) was prepared by the City's environmental consultant, Environmental Impact Sciences. The 30 day review period began on July 28, 2006 and ended on August 28, 2006. The additional information provided and attachment to this staff report does not substantially change this project. Therefore, it is not required that the Negative Declaration be recirculated. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the following to the City Council: approval of Zone Change No. 2006-02 and Planned Development Overlay District No. 2006-01, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 (SCH #2006071129) and Mitigation Monitoring Program and Vesting Tentative Map No. 54081, Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-18, Variance No. 2006-02, Tree Permit No. 2002-13, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as listed within the attached resolutions to City Council. Pre'ared by. Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Nancy Fong, AICP, Community Development Director VT'M 54081 Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution recommending to City Council approval of Zone Change No. 2002-02 and Planned Development Overlay District No. 2006-01; 2. Draft Resolution recommending to City Council approval of VTTM No.53430 and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 (SCH #2006071129) and Mitigation Monitoring Program; 3 Draft Resolution recommending to City Council approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-13, Variance No. 2006-02 and Tree Permit No. 2002-13 and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 (SCH #2006071129) and Mitigation Monitoring Program; 4. Planning Commission Minutes dated November 28, 2006; 5. Planning Commission Staff Reports dated October 10, 2006 and November 28, 2006; 6. SR 57 Freeway Southbound View of VTTM 54081; and 7. Artist's Renderings of views from the back yards at five and 10 year intervals. VTTM 54081 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 2006-02, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT NO. 2006-01 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2006-03 (SCH #2006071129) AND MITIGATION REPORT AND MONITORING PROGRAM WHICH CHANGES THE EXISTING ZONING FROM R-1-10,000 TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL -PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (RL -PD) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF CROOKED CREEK DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA (APN NO. 8714-028-003). A. RECITALS 1. The property owner/applicant, Daniel Singh, Jewel Ridge, LLC, has filed an application for Zone Change No. 2006-02 for a property identified as APN No. 8714-028-003 located at the southern terminus of Crooked Creek Drive, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Zone Change shall be referred to as the "Application." 2. On September 14, 2006, public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 209 property owners of record within a 1,000 -foot radius of the project site. In accordance with Public Resource Code, Section 21092.5, on November 23, 2005, agencies that responded to the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration were notified in writing of the September 14, 2006 Planning Commission public hearing. On September 15, 2006, public hearing notices were posted in three public places within the City of Diamond Bar and the project site was posted with a display board. On September 19, 2006, notification of the public hearing for this project was provided in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. 3. On October 10, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. At that time, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to November 28, 2006 to allow the applicant time to address the Commission's concerns. On November 28, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted the continued public hearing. At that time, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to December 12, 2006 to allow the applicant additionally time to address the Commission's concerns. 5. On December 12, 2006, the Planning Commission concluded the public hearing. B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 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. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the project identified above in this Resolution required a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). MND No. 2006-03 (SCH # 2006071129) has been prepared according to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder. The 30 day public review period for the MND began July 28, 2006, and ended August 28, 2006. Furthermore, the Planning Commission has reviewed the MND and related documents in reference to the Application. Based on substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above referenced meeting on October 10. 2006, including the written and oral staff report, together with public testimony, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: Zone Change (a) The project relates to vacant land located at the southern terminus of Crooked Creek Drive, east of the SR -57 Freeway, Brea Canyon Road and Brea Canyon flood control channel and north of the City's southern boundary. It is an irregular shaped hillside parcel of approximately 12.9 acres, sloping down to the south and west and sloping up to the east. (b) Generally the following zones and uses surround the project site: to the north and east is the R-1-9,000 zone and residences; to the west is the R-1-7,500 zone and residences, flood control channel and SR -57; and to the south is the A-2-1 zone and vacant land. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX (c) The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (RL) Maximum 3 DU/AC and a current zoning designation of Single Family Residence -Minimum Lot Size 10,000 square feet (R-1-10,000) which was a Los Angeles County nomenclature adopted when the City was incorporated. (d) The Application request is for approval to change the existing zoning designation of R-1-10,000 to Low Density Residential (RL - PD) which is a City nomenclature. (e) Pursuant to the General Plan, the maximum gross density for the RL land use designation is 3.0 dwelling units per acre or less. The Commission has determined that the Low Density Residential (RL) zone implements the Strategies of the General Plan. (f) The property will be able to adhere to the development standards for the RL zoning district as prescribed in the City's Development Code. (g) The Planned Development Overlay District is needed to reduce the square footage of each lot in order to preserve the open space identified as Lot "C". As such, the project has been reduced to 16 dwelling unit on 12.9 gross acres or a density of 0.81 dwelling units per acre. (h) The Planned Development Overlay District is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies in that clustering is used in order to preserve open space and natural resources. (i) With the Planned Development Overlay District, the future detached single-family residences will still be able to comply with all required Development Code and Municipal Code standards. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraph 1, 2, and 3 above, the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council the zone change from Single Family Residence -Minimum Lot Size 10,000 square feet (R-1-10,000) to Low Density Residential (RL). 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 Daniel Singh, Jewel Ridge, LLC, 10365 W. Jefferson Blvd., Culver City, CA 90232 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2006, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. M Steve Nelson, Chairman 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 12th day of December 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner: NOES: Commissioner: ABSENT: Commissioner: ABSTAIN: Commissioner: Nancy Fong, Secretary 4 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2006-03 (SCH #2006071129) AND MITIGATION REPORT AND MONITORING PROGRAM AND APPROVAL OF HILLSIDE MANAGEMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-18, VARIANCE NO. 2002-02 AND TREE PERMIT NO. 2002-13 FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 54081, A 16 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, THE CONSTRUCTION OF RETAINING WALLS THAT EXCEED THE ALLOWED EXPOSED HEIGHT ADJACENT TO A STEET AND THE REMOVAL, REPLACEMENT AND PRESERVATION OF OAK AND WALNUT TREES. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF CROOKED CREEK DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA (APN NO. 8714-028-003), A. RECITALS 1. The property owner/applicant, Daniel Singh, Jewel Ridge, LLC, has filed an application for Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-18, Planned Development Overlay District No. 2006-01, Variance No. 2002-02 and Tree Permit No. 2002-14 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 54081 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit, Planned Development Overlay, Variance and Tree Permit shall be referred to as the "Application." 2. On September 14, 2006, public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 209 property owners of record within a 1,000 -foot radius of the project site. In accordance with Public Resource Code, Section 21092.5, on November 23, 2005, agencies that responded to the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration were notified in writing of the September 14, 2006 Planning Commission public hearing. On September 15, 2006, public hearing notices were posted in three public places within the City of Diamond Bar and the project site was posted with a display board. On September 19, 2006, notification of the public hearing for this project was provided in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. On October 10, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. At that time, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to November 28, 2006 to allow the applicant time to address the Commission's concerns. 4. On November 28, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted the continued public hearing. At that time, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to December 12, 2006 to allow the applicant additionally time to address the Commission's concerns. 5. On December 12, 2006, the Planning Commission concluded the public hearing. B. RESOLUTION. NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the project identified above in this Resolution required a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). MND No. 2006-03 (SCH # 2006071129) has been prepared according to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder. The 30 day public review period for the MND began July 28, 2006, and ended August 28, 2006. Furthermore, the Planning Commission has reviewed the MND and related documents in reference to the Application. 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 wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: (a) The project relates to vacant land located at the southern terminus of Crooked Creek Drive, east of the SR -57 Freeway, Brea Canyon Road and Brea Canyon flood control channel and north of the City's southern boundary. It is an irregular shaped hillside parcel of approximately 12.9 acres, sloping down to the south and west and sloping up to the east. (b) The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (RL) Maximum 3 DU/AC. (c) The project site is within the Single Family Residence -Minimum Lot Size 10,000 Square Feet (R-1-10,000) Zone. However, Zone Change Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX No.2006-02 within Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006-43 recommends that the City Council approve the zone change from R-1-10,000 to Low Density Residential -Planned Development (RL - PD) for General Plan compliance. (d) Generally the following zones and uses surround the project site: to the north and east is the R-1-9,000 zone and residences; to the west is the R-1-7,500 zone and residences, flood control channel and SR -57; and to the south is the A-2-1 zone and vacant land. (e) The Application request includes the following: a 16 lot residential subdivision on 12.9 acres; Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Report and Monitoring Program; a zone change from R-1- 10,000 to RL/PD; grading and development in a hillside area; retaining walls adjacent to the street that exceed the allowable exposed height; and the removal and replacement of oak and walnut trees. Conditional Use Permit for Hillside Management Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 22.22.150, pertaining to required findings for a Conditional Use Permit for hillside development, the Planning Commission finds as follows: (f) The proposed map is a.16 lot residential subdivision for the eventual development of 16 single- homes. The map approval includes grading the project site to create buildable pads for each lot, Streets "A" and "B" within the map's boundaries of the project site with Street "A" as an extension of Crooked Creek Drive, the revegetation of Open Space Lots "A", "B", "C" and "D". The proposed project will result in changes in the existing topography of the project site. Grading will create manufactured slopes at a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) ratio utilizing a landform grading technique. As a result, manufactured slopes will have characteristics resembling slopes created by nature. Round -off cut edges will be utilized to conform to the natural grade. Proper transitioning to natural slopes will be achieved through the use of irregular curvilinear shapes that will blend into the adjoining topography. Revegetation of the manufactured slope will be applied in patterns which occur in nature. Down slope drainage devices will be designed to follow the natural lines of the landform graded manufactured slopes, or tucked away in special swale and berm combinations in order to conceal the drains from view. Therefore, the proposed project will provide the appearance of natural topographic features by means of landform grading so as to blend man-made or manufactured slopes into the natural topography. (g) The proposed project is located on an "in fill" parcel that is surround by existing detached single-family residences that have a General 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (RL) Maximum 3 Du/Ac. The zoning designation as prescribed in Zone Change 2006- 02 for this project also requires maximum 3 Du/Ac. The proposed 16 single-family residential lots will vary in size from 5,705 to 10,506 square feet, with a majority of the lot sizes between 6,229 to 7,325 square feet which is smaller than the minimum 10,000 square feet which is specified in this zoning district. With the approved Planned Development Overlay District, the proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and standards of the Development Code. The reason for using the Planned Development Overlay District is to reduce the square footage of each lot in order to preserve the open space identified as Lot "C". As such, the project has been reduced to16 dwelling unit or a density of 0.81 dwelling units per acre and will provide approximately 8.89 acres or69 percent of the project site in open space, which is in compliance with the General Plan and proposed Zone Change for this project. As such, the proposed project will preserve the open space in Lot "C". (h) MND No. 2006-03 and Mitigation Report and Monitoring Program (SCH #2006071129) has been prepared for this project and has analyzed visual impacts, scenic resources, drainage courses, watershed areas, steep slopes and vernal pools. According to the. MND, the project site is not considered a scenic vista, view corridor, or watershed area. Additionally, the project site does not contain vernal pools, major natural topographic feature, drainage courses or steep slopes. However, the one slope area is located on open space Lot "C" which is being preserved. (i) According to the MND prepared for the project site, the project site does not contain prominent landmark features, significant ridgeline, or natural rock outcropping. However, the project does have protected trees and woodlands. According to the project biological assessment prepared for this project and discussed in the MND, the proposed project will impact 11.5 acres of mixed Coast Live Oak and California walnut woodland with understory dominated by poison oak. This woodland acreage is identified by the California Department of Fish and Game as a sensitive resource and has a minimum replacement ratio of 1:1. A survey indicates that a total of 468 oak and walnut trees exist on the project site. A total of 269 of these trees will be removed due to the proposed grading. However, 197 oak and walnut trees had deteriorated to the point of dying or dead. The remaining 72 trees (43 oaks and 29 walnuts) are considered healthy and recommend for replacement at a 3:1 ratio per the City's Tree Permit requirements. Mitigation will include a combination of on-site and/or off-site preservation, enhancement and/or restoration. The applicant will implement the mitigation plan, as approved by the City and according 4 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX to the guidelines and performance standards of the plan. Therefore, the environmental effect will be reduced to "less than significant". (j) The proposed map will cause the eventual development of 16 detached single-family homes. The homes will be required to comply with development standards set forth by conditions of approval within this resolution that relate to setbacks, building height and the location of accessory structures. Additionally, future homes will be required to obtain approval through the City's Development Review process. Colors and material will be required to be compatible with other homes in the surrounding area. Furthermore, the City's Design Guidelines will also apply to the development of future homes. Foundation design will be required to comply with the California Uniform Building Code. (k) The proposed project will confine development to adjacent to its western boundaries and will leave the majority of the eastern portion and most of the area adjacent to the southern boundary as open space and is referred to on the map as Lot "C". Therefore, a portion of this area will not be graded at all. The remaining area will use landform grading and will revegetate the grading area pursuant to the MND and Mitigation Report and Monitoring Program. (1) At this time, the construction of residential units is not part of the application request. The future development will be required to obtain approval through the City's Development Review process and comply with the City's Design Guidelines and comply with development standards set forth in this resolution. This process analyzes building designs, locations, and arrangements, privacy and protection. (m) Grading will create manufactured slopes at a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) ratio utilizing a landform grading technique. As a result, manufactured slopes will have characteristics resembling slopes created by nature. Round -off cut edges will be utilized to conform to the natural grade. Proper transitioning to natural slopes will be achieved through the use of irregular curvilinear shapes that will blend into the adjoining topography. Revegetation of the manufactured slopes will be applied in patterns which occur in nature, thereby minimizing the visual effect of grading. The revegetation will be accomplished with suitable plant material requiring minimal cultivation and irrigation in order to thrive, thereby fostering slope stability and minimizing the potential for erosion. (n) The utilization of street designs and improvements which serve to minimize grading alterations and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillside. 5 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX The proposed project is located directly at the southern terminus of Crooked Creek Drive. The project proposes two private streets, identified as Streets "A" and "B" with Street "A" as an extension of Crooked Creek Drive and the only access to the project site. It is required that the extension align with the existing section of Crooked Creek Drive. All improvements to streets will be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Development Overlay District Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 22.22.150, pertaining to required findings for a Conditional Use Permit for Planned Development Overlay District, the Planning Commission finds as follows: (o) Zone Change 2006-02 will change the existing zoning from R-1- 10,000 to Low Density Residential (RL) Maximum 3 Du/Ac which is consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the project site. However, the Planned Development Overlay is needed to reduce the square footage of each lot in order to preserve the open space identified as Lot "C". As such, the project has been reduced to 16 dwelling unit on 12.9 gross acres or a density of 0.81 dwelling units per acre. With the Planned Development Overlay lots will be reduced in size and will vary from 5,705 to 10,506 square feet, with a majority of the lot sizes between 6,229 to 7,325 square feet. With the proposed lot sizes and Planned Development Overlay, the future detached single-family residences will still be able to comply with all required Development Code and Municipal Code standards. (p) The General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (RL) Maximum 3 Du/Ac. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. It has a proposed gross density of 0.81 dwelling units per acres, which meets the General Plan land use designation for the project site. Additionally, the project uses landform grading and retains a natural area (open space/Lot "C") by clustering the development mainly in the western portion of the project site. Furthermore, the proposed project is using a Planned Development Overlay that is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. There is no applicable specific plan that applies to the project. (q) As discussed in Finding (g), 0), (1) and (o) above, the design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. (r) The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed including access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and the absence of physical constraints as described in Findings (g), 0), (1) and (o) above. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX (s) The MND and Mitigation Report and Monitoring Program reviewed issues related to public interest, health, safety and improvement related to this project. It was found that the project will not have a significant effect on these issues. In some instances mitigation measures are incorporated into the projectto ensurethatthe project's effect on these issues will be "less than significant". Therefore, granting the Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located. (t) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project required a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). MND No. 2006-03 (SCH # 200.6071129) has been prepared according to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder. Variance .Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 22.54.040, pertaining to required findings for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: (u) In accordance with Development Code Section 22.524, an application for a Variance may be filed and considered in order to increase retaining walls heights from the allowed six feet depending on topography constraints. Development Code Section 22.22 requires retaining walls not exceed three feet in exposed height adjacent to a street. Additionally, retaining walls adjacent to the street shall be no more than three terraced or stepped walls. The applicant proposes retaining walls adjacent to Streets "A" and "B' at exposed heights of five and six feet, which do not exceed three terraced walls. These walls are needed to create a cut into open space Lot "C" for the new streets due to the grade differences between the new streets and Lot "C". The City's Trails Master Plan delineates a trail that traverses the project site. To create a useable pedestrian trail with trail head that connects to existing or planned trails, the trail must be relocated. Retaining walls are needed to create the walking trail area adjacent to Street "A" taking access from existing Crooked Creek Drive. Retaining walls will cut into open space Lot "C" adjacent to Street "A". The proposed retaining walls will be set back approximately ten feet more then as shown on the map. Changing the location of the walls Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX will increase their exposed height to approximately ten feet. As a result, Variance approval is required for the increased height of these proposed retaining walls. A geo-rid retaining wall system with cells for plant material will be used for all retaining walls. (v) Granting the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zoning districts and denied to the property owner for which the Variance is sought. As referenced above in Finding (u), granting the Variance is necessaryin orderto relocate and create the pedestrian trail pursuant to the City's Trails Master Plan and the topographical constraints of the project site related to the preservation of open space Lot "C (w) Due to the constraints of the project site related to topography and an increase in wall heights will allow the applicant to develop the project site with buildable pads, trail easement and open space. Therefore, granting the Variance will be consistent with the General Plan. The project area does not have a specific plan. Before the issuance of any City permits, the proposed project is required to comply with all conditions within the approved resolutions for this project, landscaping requirements for screening the walls along with geo-grid wall system and the Building and Safety Division, Public Works Department, and Fire Department requirements. The referenced agencies through the permit and inspection process will ensure that the proposed project and retaining walls are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. Tree Permit Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 22.38.110, pertaining to required findings for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: (x) According to the MND and Mitigation Report and Monitoring Program prepared for the project site, focused surveys were prepared for native trees and special status plants/vegetation. The potential significance of environmental impacts on biological resources has been assessed. According to the project biological assessment, the proposed project will impact 11.5 acres of mixed Coast Live Oak and California walnut woodland with understory dominated by poison oak. This woodland acreage is identified by the California Department of Fish and Game as a sensitive resource and has a minimum replacement ratio of 1:1. A survey indicates that a total of 468 oak Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX and walnut trees exist on the project site. A total of 269 of these trees will be removed due to the proposed grading. However, 197 oak and walnut trees had deteriorated to the point of dying or dead. The remaining 72 trees (43 oaks and 29 walnuts) are considered healthy and recommend for replacement at a 3:1 ratio per the City's Tree Permit requirements. Mitigation will include a combination of on-site and/or off-site preservation, enhancement and/or restoration. The applicant will implement the mitigation plan, as approved by the City and according to the guidelines and performance standards of the plan. 5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-18 for. hillside development and Planned Development Overlay, Variance No. 2006-02 and Tree Permit No 2002-13 for VTTM No. 54081 subject to the following conditions and Standard Conditions attached and referenced herein: a. GENERAL 1. This approval shall be null and void and of no effect unless the Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 (SCH # 2006071129) and Mitigation Report and Monitoring Program is adopted and VTTM No. 54081, Zone Change No. 2006-02, Planned Development Overlay, Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-13, Variance No. 2006-02 and Tree Permit No. 2002-13 are approved. This approval is valid for three years. Two extensions of time, one year each, may be approved pursuant to Development Code Section 22.66. b. SITE DEVELOPMENT 1. A trail is located within the project site. Prior to final map approval, applicant shall dedicate to the City an irrevocable easement of 20 feet adjacent to the southern boundary of the map and 10 feet on the east side of Street "A" for the pedestrian trail. Easement shall -be identified on the map. Prior to final map approval, applicant shall submit a detail plan indicating a trail width of 10 feet that is ADA accessible with a three foot wide planter in front of the wall adjacent to the trail. The detail plan shall also delineate the following: trail surface of decomposed granite; trail head located at the end of Street "A" and adjacent to the southern boundary of the map; seating/bench; trash container; shade; and sign/kiosk at the entrance of the tract within Lot A. Prior to final map approval, Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX the detail plan of the trail shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Improvements to Lot "A" shall be completed prior to final inspection and issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy of the first house. 3. Prior to final map approval, applicant shall design the 20 foot trail adjacent to the southern boundary of the map for review and approval of the Community Development Director. To insure the development of this section of the trail, the applicant shall submit a bond or cash deposit to the City for the estimated development cost of this section of the trail. The bond or cash deposit shall remain with the City until such time as this section of the trail is developed or the easement is vacated. 4. Because of the trail head location, Lots 8 and 9 shall be designed with a common driveway. Prior to final map approval, applicant shall submit a detail plan delineating the common driveway to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. 5. Retaining walls shall not exceed a maximum exposed height of six feet. Retaining walls located on the east side of Street "A" and adjacent to the pedestrian trail easement shall not exceed an exposed height of 10 feet. Walls with an exposed height of ten feet shall be constructed by using a geo-grid lock and load retaining wall system in earth tone color. Irrigation shall be incorporated into the retaining wall system with pockets in the wall for plant material. All other retaining walls shall be constructed from split face block with caps of the same material. Plant material shall be the kind that cascades down the wall. Prior to final map, applicant shall provide a retaining wall plan delineating the irrigation and species, quantity and size of all plant material within the wall system. For the planter areas between and in front of the walls, trees shall be a minimum 15 gallon size and planted eight feet on center. Shrubs shall be a minimum size of five gallons and planted three feet on center. Appropriate vines shall be planted between the shrubs to cover the walls. All landscaping and irrigation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Prior to final map approval, applicant shall submit a detail plan that includes landscaping/irrigation for the circle entry into the project. Prior to final map approval, the detail plan shall be 10 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. 8. All open space lots/common lots (Lots "A", "B", "C" and "D" shall remain as open space/common lots and shall be identified on the final map as such granting the City the right to prohibit the erection of structures and including any construction activities on any said lot. 9. This project shall comply with the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program. 10. Uses permitted in the RL zoning district as listed in the Development Code shall be the only uses allowed in the RL - PD zoning designation for the project site. 11. Oak and walnut trees removed shall be replaced at a 3:1 ration. Dead or dying oak and walnut trees removed shall be replaced at a 1:1 ratio 12. Prior to issuance of any permits or grubbing of the site, whichever comes first, the applicant shall submit a construction traffic safety mitigation plan that addresses such items as, but not limited to: lane closures, truck routes, traffic control measures for the construction area, street cleaning, etc. for the City's review and approval. C. PUBLIC WORK/ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Prior to final map approval and in conjunction with the grading plan, applicant shall submit a detailed plan showing the location, planned depth and design of the recommended caisson/tiebacks along with structural calculations supporting their design with geotechnical input from the geotechnical consultant. The submittal shall be approved by the Public Works/Engineering Department and Building and Safety Division prior to final map. 2. Prior to final map approval, applicant shall submit to the Public Works/Engineering Department the design of the geogrid- stablized slope prepared by a qualified licensed engineer using the parameters provided. The design shall be prepared by an engineer familiar with geogrid slope design and shall be reviewed and wet stamped by the developer's geotechnical consultant. The design and supporting calculations shall be submitted to the Public Works/Engineering Department and Building and Safety Division for approval prior to final map. 11 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX d. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION 1. Prior to final map approval, applicant shall submit to the Building and Safety Division the design of all retaining walls for review and approval concurrently with the grading plan check. e. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE PREVENTION 1. Access shall comply with Section 902 of the Fire Code, which requires all weather access. All weather access my require paving. 2. Fire Department access shall be extended to within 150 feet distance of any exterior portion of all structures. 3. Where driveways extend further than 300 feet and are of single access design, turnarounds suitable for fire protection equipment use shall be provided and shown on the final map. Turnarounds shall be designed, constructed and maintained to insure their integrity for Fire Department use. Where topography dictates, turnarounds shall be provided for driveways that extend over150 feet in length. 4. Private driveways shall be indicated on the final map as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" with the widths clearly depicted and shall be maintained in accordance with the Fire Code. 5. The property is located within the area described by the Fire Department a "Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone". A "Fuel Modification Plan" shall be submitted and approved prior to final map clearance. (Contact Fuel Modification Unit Fire Station #32, 605 N. Angelino Avenue, Azusa, CA 91702-2904, Phone (626-969-5205, for details.) 6. Applicant shall provide Fire Department or City approved street signs and building access numbers prior to occupancy. 7. Applicant shall provide water mains, fire hydrants and fire flows as required by the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, for all land shown on map which shall be recorded. 8. Fire hydrant shall conform to the following requirements: (a.) Install three public fire hydrants; (b.) Upgrade/verify one existing public fire hydrant; (c.) Measure 6" x 4" x 2%Z' brass or bronze, conforming to 12 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX current AWWA standards C503 or approved equal; (d.) On site hydrants shall be installed a minimum of 25 feet form a structure or protected by two hour fire wall' 9. The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this location shall be 1250 gallons per minute at 20 psi for duration of two hours, over and above maximum daily domestic demand. One hydrant flowing simultaneously, may be used to achieve the required fire flow 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: Daniel Singh, Jewel Ridge Estates, LLC, 10365 W. Jefferson Blvd., Culver City, CA 90232 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2006, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. BY: Steve Nelson, Chairman 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 12th day of December 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner: NOES: Commissioner: ABSENT: Commissioner: ABSTAIN: Commissioner: ATTEST: Nancy Fong, Secretary 13 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX �`DIA1►TOl�D�SI' m, OwL [nat ky'/7 am, z1yoluyiIgulN' �d = PROJECT #: VTTM No. 54081 MND No. 2006-03 ZC 2006-02/Planned Development Overlay, CUP 2002-18, VAR 2002-02 and TP No. 2002- 13 SUBJECT: Sixteen lot residential subdivision APLICANT: Daniel Singh, Jewel Ridge, LLC LOCATION: Southern Terminus of Crooked Creek Drive ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION AT (909) 839- 7030, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS In accordance with Government Code Section 66474.9(b) (1), the applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its officers, agents and employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding to attack, set-aside, void or annul, the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 54081 brought within the time period provided by Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the city and/or its officers, agents and employees are made a party of any such action: (a) Applicant shall provide a defense to the City defendants or at the City's option reimburse the City its costs of defense, including reasonable attorneys fees, incurred in defense of such claims. 14 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX (b) Applicant shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the City descendents. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action of proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof. 2. Applicant shall include signed copies of the Planning Commission Resolution of Approval Nos. 2006-43, 2006-44, 2006-45, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 3. Revised plans (such as but not limited to site plan, elevations, landscape/irrigation plan, grading plan, etc.) incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval prior to the plan check. 4. Notwithstanding any previous subsection of the resolution, the Department of Fish and Game requires payment of the fee pursuant to Section 711.4 of that Fish and Game Code. Said payment shall be made by the applicant to the city within five days of this approval. 5. The project site shall be maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of approval and all laws, or other applicable regulations. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and any applicable Specific Plan in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 8. Prior, to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all conditions of approval shall be completed. B. FEESIDEPOSITS Applicant shall pay development fees (including but not limited to Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works/Engineering Department and Mitigation Monitoring) at the established rates, prior to final map approval, issuance of building or grading permit (whichever comes first), as required by 15 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX the City. School fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permit. In addition, the applicant shall pay all remaining prorated City project review and processing fees prior to the map's recordation or issuance of building permit, whichever come first. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall pay a fee to the City in -lieu of dedication for parkland pursuant to Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 21.32. Prior to any Public Hearing or final map approval, all deposit accounts for the processing of this project shall have no deficits. 4. Notwithstanding any previous subsection of the resolution, the Department of Fish and Game required payment of the fee pursuant to Section 711.4 of that Fish and Game Code. Said payment shall be made by the applicant to the city within five days of this grant's approval. C. TIME LIMITS 1. This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant and owner of the property involved have filed within 15 days of approval of this map, at the City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department/ Planning Division an Affidavit of Acceptance stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this approval. 2. In accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66463.5, VTTM No. 54081 is valid for three years. An extension of time may be requested in writing and shall only be considered if submitted to the city no less than 60 days prior to the approval's expiration date. Final map approval will not be granted unless the map is in substantial compliance with VTTM No. 54081 including all conditions and the applicant has entered into a subdivision improvement agreement to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. D. SITE DEVELOPMENT The project site shall be developed in substantial conformance with VTTM No. 54081 except as conditions herein, and as conditioned in Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-13, Variance No. 2006-02 and Tree Permit No. 2002- 13 submitted to and recommended approval by the Planning Commission to the City Council collectively referenced herein as Exhibit "A" - the subdivision map, Exhibit "B" — Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 and Mitigation Report and Monitoring Program dated July 2006, as modified herein. 2. The Mitigation Monitoring Program outlined in Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 (SCH # 2006071129) and approved by the City shall be 16 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX implemented and complied with rigorously. The mitigation monitoring fees shall be deposited with the City 90 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit. All costs related to the ongoing monitoring shall be secured from the applicant and received by the City prior to the approval of the final map. 3. Proposed future custom single-family residential units shall comply with the City's Development Review process. 4. A Home Owner's Association (HOA) shall be formed. The HOA shall have Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) and Articles of Incorporation of the HOA are subject to the approval of Planning Division and Public Works/Engineering Department and the City Attorney. The CC&R's shall be recorded concurrently with the final map or prior to the issuance of any City permits, which ever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The HOA shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the names and addresses of the officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. 5. Prior to the final map recordation or issuance of building permit, whichever come first, the application shall provide the City with a "Buyer's Awareness Package." for the City's review and approval. The "Buyer's Awareness Package" shall include, but is not limited to, information pertaining to geological issues regarding the property, wildlife corridors, oak and walnut trees, natural vegetation preservation issues, maintenance program for urban pollutant basins, fuel modification, all mitigation measures within the Mitigation Report and Monitoring Program and Exhibit "A" which delineates each lot's building envelope, explanatory information pertaining to restrictions on the use of properties as necessary, and similar related matters. The applicant shall give each buyer a copy of the "Buyer's Awareness Package" and shall document their receipt of the same in the escrow instructions of each lot and document their receipt to the City. 6. Applicant, through the "Buyer's Awareness Program" shall segregate green waste for reuse as specified under the City's Source Reduction Recycling Element, and County Sanitation District's waste division policies. 7. All single-family residential units shall be required to obtain Development Review approval. Additionally, single-family residential dwelling units shall use the following development standards: a. Front yard setback minimum 20 feet from front property line; b. Side yard setbacks minimum five and 10 feet from the from the edge of the buildable pad or side property lines, whichever is applicable; C. Distance between single-family residential dwelling units shall be a minimum 15 feet; 17 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX d. Rear yard setback 20 feet from the edge of the buildable pad or rear property line, whichever is applicable; and e. Accessory structures shall utilize setback distances from the edge of pad or property line whichever is applicable and be consistent with the RL/PD zoning district at the time of permit issuance. All ground -mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, air conditioning condensers, etc. shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berms, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. Prior to final map approval or issuance of building permit, whichever come first, street names shall be submitted for City review and approval. Street names shall not duplicate existing streets within the City of Diamond Bar's postal service zip code areas. 10. House numbering plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. House numbering plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. 11. All lighting fixtures adjacent to interior property lines shall be approved by the Planning Division as to type, orientation and height. 12 . A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. E. LANDSCAPE, PRESERVED AND PROTECTED TREES Prior to final map approval, a detailed landscape/irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits and recordation of the map, which ever occurs first.. Prior to final map approval, a fuel modification plan for landscape/irrigation prepared by a registered landscape architect shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or the initiation of any activity that involves the removal/disturbance of oak and walnut woodland habitat; the applicant shall develop a detail oak and walnut woodland mitigation plan in 18 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX accordance with the Mitigated Negative Declaration's Mitigation Report and Program and submit the plan to the City for review and approval. Mitigation shall include offsite preservation and or restoration at no less than 1:1 acreage ratio. The native trees protected under the City's tree preservation and protection standards require a minimum replacement ratio of 3:1. It is estimated that a total of 269 trees will be removed. However, 197 are oak and walnut trees have deteriorated to the point of dying or are dead. The remaining 72 trees (43 oak and 29 walnuts) are considered healthy and will be removed due to the project's development. Any off-site mitigation shall be in accordance with the requirements and approval of the California Department of Fish and Game: If in -lieu fees are used for a part of or all mitigation, this mitigation method shall also be in accordance with the requirements and approval of the California Department of Fish and Game and the City of Diamond Bar. 4. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall submit revegetation landscape and irrigation plans for slopes within the project site for Planning Division review and approval. Said slope shall be landscaped at the completion of grading activities. All slope planting, irrigation and revegetation areas shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit/lot is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for the unit/lot, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that the vegetation is in satisfactory condition. SOLID WASTE 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. 2. Mandatory solid waste disposal services shall be provided by the City franchised waste hauler to all parcels/lots or uses affected by approval of this project. 3. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-ups shall be for individual units with all receptacles shielded from public view. 19 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, (909) 839-7040, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL 1: A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and weed control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for review and approval prior to approval and recordation of the Final Tract Map and prior to approval of street improvement and grading plans. Developer shall upgrade and construct all trails, including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements. 2. A title report/guarantee showing all fee owners, interest holders, and nature of interest shall be submitted for final map plan check. An updated title reporUguarantee and subdivision guarantee shall be submitted ten (10) business days prior to final map approval. 3. A permit from the Los Angeles County Public Works Department shall be required for work within its right-of-way or connection to its facilities. 4. Any existing easement for open space, utilities, riding and hiking trials shall be relocated and/or grading performed, as necessary, to provide, for the portion within the project site, practical access for the intended use. 5. Prior to final map approval, written certification that all utility services and any other service related to the site shall be available to serve the proposed project and shall be submitted to the City. Such letters shall be issued bythe district, utility and cable television company, within ninety (90) days prior to final map approval. 6. Prior to final map approval, applicant shall submit to the City Engineer the detail cost estimates for bonding purposes of all public improvements. 7. Prior to final map approval, if any public or private improvements required as part of this map have not been completed by applicant and accepted by the City, applicant shall enter into a subdivision agreementwith the City and shall post the appropriate security. 8. Prior to final map approval all site grading, landscaping, irrigation, street, sewer and storm drain improvement plans shall be approved by the City Engineer, surety shall be posted, and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all public and private improvements. 20 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX 9. Prior to issuance of grading permits, surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all drainage facilities necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 10. Any details or notes which may be inconsistent with requirement or ordinances, general conditions or approval, or City policies shall be specifically approved in other conditions or ordinance requirements are modified to those shown on the tentative parcel map upon approval by the Advisory agency. 11. All identified geologic hazards within the vesting tentative tract map boundaries which cannot be eliminated as approved by the City Engineer shall be indicated on the final map as `Restricted Use Area" subject to geologic hazard. The applicant shall dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the erection of buildings or other structures within such restricted use areas shown on the final map. 12. Easements for disposal of drainage water onto or over adjacent parcels shall be delineated and shown on the final map, as approved bythe City Engineer. 13. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient street, sewer, and drainage improvements shall be completed beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access, proper outfall for sewers and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the final map. 14. Prior to any work performed in the street right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department in addition to any other permits required. 15. Applicant shall label and delineate on the final map any private drives or fire lanes to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 16. Easements, satisfactory to the City Engineer and the utility companies, for public utility and public services purposes shall be offered and shown on the final map for dedication to the City. 17. After the final map records, applicant shall submit to the Public Works/Engineering Department, at no cost to the City, a full size reproducible copy of the recorded map. Final approval of the public improvements shall not be given until the copy of the recorded map is received by the Public Works/Engineering Department. 18. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall provide to the City as built mylars, stamped by appropriate individuals certifying the plan for all improvements at no cost to the City. 21 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX 19. Applicant shall contribute funds to a separate engineering trust deposit against which charges can be made by the City or its representatives for services rendered. Charges shall be on an hourly basis and shall include any City administrative costs. 20. Applicant shall provide digitized information in a format defined by the City for all related plans, at_no cost to the City. 21. All activities/improvements proposed for this VTTM No. 54081 shall be wholly contained within the boundaries of the map. Should any off-site activities/improvements be required, approval shall be obtained from the affected property owner and the City as required by the City Engineer. B. GRADING 1. No grading or any staging or construction shall be performed prior to final map approval by the City Council and map recordation. All pertinent improvement plans shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval by the City Council 2. Retaining wall location shall be shown on the grading plan and submitted with a soils report to the Public Works/Engineering Department for review and approval concurrently with the grading plan check. 3. Exterior grading and construction activities and the transportation of equipment and materials and operation of heavy grading equipment shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Dust generated by grading and construction activities shall be reduced by watering the soil prior to and during the activities and in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 402 and Rule 403. Reclaimed water shall be utilized whenever possible. Additionally, all construction equipment shall be properly muffled to reduce noise levels. 4. All equipment .staging areas shall be located on the project site. Staging area, including material stockpile and equipment storage area, shall be enclosed within a 6 foot -high chain link fence. All access points in the defense shall be locked whenever the construction site is not supervised. 5. Precise grading plans for each lot shall be submitted to the Community Development Department/Planning Division for approval priorto issuance of building permits. (This may be on an incremental or composite basis). 6. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, City Grading Ordinance, Hillside Management Ordinance and acceptable grading practices. 22 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX The maximum grade of driveways serving building pad areas shall be 15 percent. In hillside areas driveway grades exceeding 10 percent shall have parking landings with a minimum 16 feet deep and shall not exceed five (5) percent grade or as required by the City Engineer. Driveways with a slope of 15 percent shall incorporate grooves for traction into the construction as required by the City Engineer. At the time of submittal of the 40 -scale grading plan for plan check, a detailed soils and geology report shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. Said report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and/or geologist licensed by the State of California. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the report shall address, but not be limited to the following: a. Stability analyses of daylight shear keys with a 1:1 projection from daylight to slide plane; a projection plane shall have a safety factor of 1.5. b. All soils and geotechnical constraints (i.e., landslides, shear key locations, etc.,) shall be delineated in detail with respect to proposed building envelopes. Restricted use areas and structural setbacks shall be considered and delineated prior to recordation of the final map. C. Soil remediation measures shall be designed for a "worst case" geologic interpretation subject to verification in the field during grading: d. The extent of any remedial grading into natural areas shall be clearly defined on the grading plans. e. Areas of potential fordebris flow shall be defined and proper remedial measures implemented as approved by the City Engineer. f. Gross stability of all fill slopes shall be analyzed as part of geotechnical report, including remedial fill that replaces natural slope. g. Stability of all proposed slopes shall be confirmed by analysis as approved by the City Engineer. h. All geologic data including landslides and exploratory excavations must be shown on a consolidated geotechnical map using the 40 - scale final grading plan as a base. . i. All geotechnical and soils related findings and recommendations shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading permits and recordation of the final map. 9. Prior to issuance of grading permits, storm drain improvement plans shall be approved by the City Engineer and Los Angeles County Public Works Department and surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all drainage facilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 23 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX 10. Final grading plans. shall be designed in compliance with the recommendations of the final detailed soils and engineering geology reports. All remedial earthwork specified in the final report shall be incorporated into the grading plans. Final grading plans shall be signed and stamped by a California registered Civil Engineer, registered Geotechnical Engineer and registered Engineering Geologist and approved by the City Engineer. 11. A Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP) conforming to City Ordinance is required to be incorporated into the grading plan and approved by the City Engineer. The applicant shall incorporate Structural or Treatment Control Best Management Practices for storm water runoff into the grading plans for construction and post -construction activities respectively. 12. All slopes shall be seeded per landscape plan and/or fuel modification plan with native grasses or planted with ground cover, shrubs, and trees for erosion control upon completion of grading or some other alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and a permanent irrigation system shall be installed. 13. An erosion control plan shall be approved by the City Engineer. Erosion control plans shall be made in accordance to the City's NPDES requirements. 14. Submit a stockpile plan showing the proposed location for stockpile for grading export materials, and the route of transport. 15. Prepare a horizontal control plan and submit concurrently with the grading plan for review and approval. 16. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, a pre -construction meeting must be held at the project site with the grading contractor, applicant, and city grading inspector at least 48 hours prior to commencing grading operations. 17. Rough Grade certifications by project soils engineer shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits for the foundations of structures. Retaining wall permit may be issued without a rough grade certificate. 18. Final Grade certifications by project soils engineer and civil engineers shall be submitted to the Public Works/Engineering Department prior to the issuance of any project final inspections/certificate of occupancy. C. DRAINAGE All terrace drains and drainage channels shall be constructed in muted earth tones so as not to impart adverse visual impacts. Terrace drains shall follow landform slope configuration and shall not be placed in an exposed 24 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX positions. All down drains shall be hidden in swales diagonally or curvilinear across a slope face. 2. All drainage improvements necessary for dewatering and protecting the subdivided properties shall be installed prior to issuance of building permits, for construction upon any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or within a parcel relative to which a building permit is requested. 3. All identified flood hazard locations within the tentative map boundaries which cannot be eliminated as approved by the City Engineer shall be shown on the final map and delineated as "Flood Hazard Area." 4. Storm drainage facilities shall be constructed within the street right-of-way or in easements satisfactory to the City Engineer and the Los Angeles County Flood Control Districts. All storm drain facilities plans shall be plan checked by the City and County of Los Angeles and all fees required shall be paid by the applicant. 5. A final drainage study and final drainage/storm drain plan in a 24" x 36" sheet format shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer and Los Angeles Public Works Department prior to grading permit. All drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with County of Los Angeles Standards. Private (and future) easements for storm drain purposes shall be offered and shown on the final map for dedication to the City. 6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a complete hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Los Angeles Public Works Department. 7. A comprehensive maintenance plan/program shall be submitted concurrently with the storm drain plans to the Public Works/Engineering Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. D. STREET IMPROVEMENT 1. The applicant shall replace and record any centerline ties and monuments that are removed as part of this construction with the Los Angeles County Public Works Survey Division. 2. Prior to the issuance of any City permits, the applicant shall provide written permission to the satisfaction of the City from any property owners which will be affected by offsite grading. 25 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX 3. Street improvement plans in a 24" x 36" sheet format, prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Streets shall not exceed a maximum slope of 12 percent. 4. New street centerline monuments shall be set at the intersections of two or more streets, intersections of two or more streets, intersections of streets with tract boundaries and to mark the beginning and ending of curves or the points of intersection of tangents thereof. Survey notes showing the ties between all monuments set and four (4) durable reference points for each shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval in accordance with City Standards, prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. 5. The design and construction of private street improvements shall be set to City and County standards and designed to a design speed of 35 mph. 6. Prior to final map recordation, the applicant shall submit plans delineating the improvement and extension of Crooked Creek Drive for the City's review and approval. The improvement and extension shall occurwithin the project site boundaries of the proposed map. The improvement and extension of Crooked Creek Drive shall be completed prior to final inspection of grading activities. E. UTILITIES Easements, satisfactory to the City Engineer and the utility companies, for public utility and public services purposes shall be offered and shown on the detailed site plan for dedication to the City. Prior to final map approval, a water system with appurtenant facilities to serve all lots/parcels in the land division designed to the Walnut Valley Water District (WVWD) specifications shall be provided and approved by the City Engineer. The system shall include fire hydrants of the type and location as determined by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The water mains shall be sized to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, WVWD and Fire Department. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall construct or enter into an improvement agreement with the City guaranteeing construction of the necessary improvements to the existing water system according to Walnut Valley Water District (WVWD) specifications to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows as may be required bythe City Engineer, WVWD and Fire Department. 4. Prior to final map approval or issuance of building permit whichever comes first, written certification that all utility services and any other service related to the site shall be available to serve the proposed project and shall be submitted to the City. Such letters shall be issued by the district, utility and 26 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX cable television company, if applicable, within ninety (90) days prior issuance of grading permits. Prior to recordation of final map, applicant shall provide separate underground utility services to each parcel per Section 21.30 of Title 21 of the City Code, including water, gas, electric power, telephone and cable TV, in accordance with the respective utility company standards. Easements required by the utility companies shall be approved by the City Engineer. 6. Applicant shall relocate and underground any existing on-site utilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the respective utility owner. Underground utilities shall not be constructed within the drip line of any mature tree except as approved by registered arborist. SEWERS 1. Prior to final map approval, applicant shall submit a sanitary sewer area study to the City and County Engineer to verify that capacity is available in the sewerage system to be used as the outfall for the sewers in this land division. If the system is found to be of insufficient capacity, the problem shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. 2. Each dwelling unit shall be served by a separate sewer lateral which shall not cross any other lot lines. The sanitary sewer system serving the tract shall be connected to the City or District sewer system. Said system shall be of the size, grade and depth approved by the City Engineer, County Sanitation District and Los Angeles County Public Works and surety shall be provided and an agreement executed prior to approval of the final map. 3. Applicant shall obtain connection permit(s) from the City and County Sanitation District prior to issuance of building permits. The area within the tentative map boundaries shall be annexed into the County Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District and appropriate easements for all sewer main and trunk lines shall be shown on the final map and offered for dedication on the final map. 4. Applicant, at applicant's sole cost and expense, shall construct the sewer system in accordance with the City, Los Angeles County Public Works Division and County Sanitation District Standards prior to occupancy. G. TRAFFIC MITIGATIONS All traffic mitigations shall be implemented and constructed in accordance with the traffic report prepared by Overland Traffic Consultants, Inc. dated October 2002 and revised September 2003 and conditions of project 27 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX approval for the VTTM No. 54081, prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 839-7020, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Plans shall conform to State and Local Building Code (i.e., 2001 California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and the 2001 National Electrical Code) requirements and all other applicable construction codes, ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of plan check submittal. 2. Submit Public Works/Engineering Department approved grading plans showing clearly all finish elevations, drainage, and retaining walls locations. 3. All retaining walls shall be submitted to the Building & Safety and Public Work Departments for review and approval. 4. Submit grading plans showing clearly all finish elevations, drainage, and retaining wall locations. No building permits shall be issued prior to submitting a pad certification. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE PREVENTION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Emergency access shall be provided, maintaining free'and clear, a minimum 28 foot at all times during construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire Department that temporary water supply for fire protection is available pending completion of the required fire protection system. Prior to recordation, the final map shall comply with all Fire Department requirements. END 28 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE MAP NO. 54081 AND ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2006-03 (SCH #2006071129) AND MITIGATION REPORT AND MONITORING PROGRAM AS SET FORTH THEREIN FORA 16 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF CROOKED CREEK DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA. A. RECITALS The property owner/applicant, Daniel Singh, Jewel Ridge, LLC has filed an application for approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 54081 and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 (SCH #2006071129) and Mitigation Report and Monitoring Program, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Map, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be referred to as the "Application." 2. On September 14, 2006, public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 209 property owners of record within a 1,000 -foot radius of the project site. In accordance with Public Resource Code, Section 21092.5, on November 23, 2005, agencies that responded to the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration were notified in writing of the September 14, 2006 Planning Commission public hearing. On September 15, 2006, public hearing notices were posted in three public places within the City of Diamond Bar and the project site was posted with a display board. On September 19, 2006, notification of the public hearing for this project was provided in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. 3. On October 10, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. At that time, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to November 28, 2006 to allow the applicant time to address the Commission's concerns. 4. On November 28, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted the continued public hearing. At that time, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to December 12, 2006 to allow the applicant additionally time to address the Commission's concerns. On December 12, 2006, the Planning Commission concluded the public hearing. B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 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. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the project identified above in this Resolution required a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), MND No. 2006-03 (SCH # 2006071129) has been prepared according to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder. The 30 day public review period for the MND began July 28, 2006, and ended August 28, 2006. Furthermore, the Planning Commission has reviewed the MND and related documents in reference to the Application. 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, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that changes and alterations have been required in or incorporated into and conditioned upon the project specified in the application, which mitigate or avoid significant adverse environmental impacts identified in MND No. 2006-03 (SCH #2006071129)) 5. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt MND No. 2006-03 (SCH #2006071129) and Mitigation Report and Monitoring Program attached herein as Exhibits "B" and hereby incorporated by reference. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: (a) The project relates to vacant land located at the southern terminus of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX Crooked Creek Drive, east of the SR -57 Freeway, Brea Canyon Road and Brea Canyon flood control channel and north of the City's southern boundary. It is an irregular shaped hillside parcel of approximately 12.9 acres, sloping down to the south and west and sloping up to the east. (b) The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (RL) Maximum 3 DU/AC. (c) The project site is within the Single Family Residence -Minimum Lot Size 10,000 Square Feet (R-1-10,000) Zone. However, Zone Change No.2006-02 within Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX recommends that the City Council approve the zone change from R-1-10,000 to Low Density Residential (RL) for General Plan compliance. (d) Generally the following zones and uses surround the project site: to the north and east is the R-1-9,000 zone and residences; to the west is the R-1-7,500 zone and residences, flood control channel and SR - 57; and to the south is the A-2-1 zone and vacant land. (e) The Application request includes the following: a 16 lot residential subdivision on 12.9 acres; Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Report and Monitoring Program; a zone change from R-1- 10,000 to RL/PD; grading and development in a hillside area; retaining walls adjacent to the street that exceed the allowable exposed height; and the removal and replacement of oak and walnut trees. Tentative Map Findings Pursuant to Subdivision Code Section 21.20 the Planning Commission has made the following required findings: (f) The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Low Density Residential/Maximum 3 Du/Ac (RL). The General Plan describes this designation as a residential land use category for detached single-family residences with a maximum density allowed for new subdivisions as three dwelling unit per acre or less. The proposed map is a 16 lot subdivision with a gross density of 0.81 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with the General Plan. Additionally, the proposed map, as designed, with the incorporation of landform grading, the extension of Crooked Creek Drive (referred to as Street "A" on the map), revegetation of slopes, and installation of sewers and drainage facilities is in accordance with the Objectives and Strategies of the General Plan. Furthermore, the proposed land use represents an extension of the existing development pattern in the project area and the subject property could be characterized as an 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX "infill" site. As a result, VTTM 54081 is consistent with the General Plan including its design and improvements. (g) The project site is approximately 12.9 gross acres. VTTM 54081 proposes to subdivide 12.9 gross acres into 16 residential lots for the development of 16 detached single-family residences with two streets and four open space lot for revegetatioh. As such, the proposed gross density is 0.81 dwelling units per acre. Pursuant to the General Plan, it is possible to subdivide the project site into approximately 30 lots with two streets. However, a lower density it proposed in order to preserve the open space identified on the as Lot "C". Additionally, the MND prepared for this project reviewed the suitability of the project site, circulation, grading, aesthetics, land use, etc. The MND concluded that the proposed map would not have a significant effect on the environment and with the incorporation of mitigation measures. Therefore, the project site is physically suitable for the proposed type of development and density, (h) The MND for this project analyzed whether or not the proposed map would cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The MND concluded that with the implementation of mitigation measures as prescribed in the Mitigation Report and Monitoring Program summarized as follows, it is anticipated that the proposed map's impacts would be reduced to a level "less than significant" and the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 1. Aesthetics. According to the MND, the environmental issue related to Aesthetics has the potential to be significant unless mitigated to a level of less than significant. The proposed series of retaining walls located along or near rear property lines may partially impede existing views. In order to mitigate the view of the retaining walls, landscaping with irrigation will be used within the wall cells and planter areas between and in front of all retaining walls. 2. Air Quality. Environmental issues related to Air Quality affected by dust and particulate matter may be potentially significant during grading and construction. The applicant is required to: water all exposed surfaces three times daily; limit off-road trucks to no more than 15 mph; use soil stabilizers; replace ground cover in 4 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX disturbed area as quickly as feasible; and cover all stockpiles. Additionally, all exterior point for on-site residential units will conform to specific specification that will reduce volatile organic compounds (VOC). Transportation/Traffic. The project entry will be a "traffic roundabout". According to the MND, roundabouts are a traffic calming device that reduces speed. However due to the intersecting of Streets "A" and "B" at the roundabout, a conflict point for vehicles, bicycles, or pedestrians may occur. As a result, the final design, development plans, and geometrics of all on-site streets shall be approved by the City Engineer and comply with the City's street standards. 4. Hazards/Hazardous Materials. Project site is located directly adjacent to a "Very High Fire Hazard Zone". As a result, the applicant is required to prepare and submit a fuel modification plan to the City and Fire Department for approval and comply with all fire codes. Additionally, the applicant is required to prepare a construction fire prevention and control plan outlining all activities that will occur during construction, access through the project site and fire safety and suppression for approval by the 'Fire Department and City. Biological Resources. A biological assessment acknowledges that walnut and oak woodlands and California black walnut and oak trees exist at the project site. In recognition of a potentially significant impact to biological resources, mitigation measures that will reduce the impacts to significantly less are as follows: replacement of oak and walnut trees at a 3:1 ratio on-site and off-site locations and oak and walnut woodlands with a five year monitoring plan funded by the applicant; on-site grading activities must occur prior to April 2007', or a new biological survey must be conducted to reassess the presence or absence of protected biological resources; information regarding biological resource must be in the covenant, conditions and restrictions (CC&R's); landscape plans for all common areas shall incorporate replacement species, native drought -tolerant, non-invasive plant species and weed prevention and control; and all Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX construction and material staging activities must be confined within the project boundaries (i) The MDN analyzed impacts related to the design of the subdivision and improvements related to the project. Mitigation measures related to air quality, .hazards and hazardous materials and traffic will be incorporated into the proposed map. Mitigation measures are summarized for these environmental issues and discussed above in Item (h). Additionally, the project will be required to comply with the following: manufactured slopes will be designed at a slope ratio of no steeper 2:1; Uniform Building Code compliance will be required; all grading will be performed under the observation of a registered geotechnical engineer; comply with all Los Angeles County Fire Department code will be required; all property owners will be provided with a disclosure statement identifying the responsibility of maintaining the fuel modification zones as defined in the approved Fuel Modification Plan. As a result, the proposed project's design or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health or safety problems. Q) The proposed project also consists of relocating an existing recreational trail pursuant to the City's Trails Master Plan. Additionally, the Trails Master Plan identifies a potential "Class A" trail head in proximity to the project site. The proposed on-site trail head and pedestrian trail easement is identified on the map. The applicant will be required to dedicate to the City an irrevocable easement of 20 feet for the pedestrian trail. The easement will be located on the east side of Street "A" and adjacent to the southern boundary of the map. At the entrance of the tract in Lot "A", a sign/kiosk will installed identifying the trail. Improvements for the trail are set forth as conditions of the project. Therefore, the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. (k) According to the MND prepared forthis project, environmental issues related to hydrology and water quality are "less than significant" and discharge sewerage would not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. (1) A geotechnical report was prepared for this project and reviewed by the City. The report was approved with conditions that are incorporated into the project design. Additionally, the MND prepared for this project indicates that with the implementation of these conditions in combination with applicable Municipal Code and UBC Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX requirements and appropriate engineering practices will ensure impacts related to geology will be "less than significant". (m) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (RL). It will be graded in compliance with the City's applicable hillside management and development standards. The physical size and design of the proposed subdivision will allow for compliance with the City's Development Code standards for the construction of detached single family residences. The proposed map is in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and is consistent with the City's Subdivision Ordinance -Title 21. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 and Mitigation Report and Monitoring Program (SCH # 2006071129) and recommends that the City Council approve VTTM 54081 subject to the following conditions and Standard Conditions attached and referenced herein: a. GENERAL This approval shall be null and void and of no effect unless the Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 (SCH # 2006071129) and Mitigation Report and Monitoring Program is adopted and VTTM No. 54081, Zone Change No. 2006-02, Planned Development Overlay, Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-13, Variance No. 2006-02 and Tree Permit No. 2002-13 are approved. This approval is valid for three years. Two extensions of time, one year each, may be approved pursuant to Development Code Section 22.66. b. SITE DEVELOPMENT A trail is located within the project site. Prior to final map approval, applicant shall dedicate to the City an irrevocable easement of 20 feet adjacent to the southern boundary of the map and 10 feet on the east side of Street "A" for the pedestrian trail. Easement shall be identified on the map. Prior to final map approval, applicant shall submit a detail plan indicating a trail width of 10 feet that is ADA accessible with a three foot wide planter in front of the wall adjacent to the trail. The detail plan shall also delineate the following: trail surface of decomposed granite; trail head located at the end of Street "A" and adjacent to the southern boundary of the map; 7 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX seating/bench; trash container; shade; and sign/kiosk at the entrance of the tract within Lot A. Prior to final map approval, the detail plan of the trail shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Improvements to Lot "A" shall be completed prior to final inspection and issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy of the first house. Prior to final map approval, applicant shall design the 20 foot trail adjacent to the southern boundary of the map for review and approval of the Community Development Director. To insure the development of this section of the trail, the applicant shall submit a bond or cash deposit to the City for the estimated development cost of this section of the trail. The bond or cash deposit shall remain with the City until such time as this section of the trail is developed or the easement is vacated. Because of the trail head location, Lots 8 and 9 shall be designed with a common driveway. Prior to final map approval, applicant shall submit a detail plan delineating the common driveway to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Retaining walls shall not exceed a maximum exposed heightof six feet. Retaining walls located on the east side of Street "A" and adjacent to the pedestrian trail easement shall not exceed an exposed height of 10 feet. Walls with an exposed height of ten feet shall be constructed by using a geo-grid lock and load retaining wall system in earth tone color. Irrigation shall be incorporated into the retaining wall system with pockets in the wall for plant material. All other retaining walls shall be constructed from split face block with caps of the same material. Plant material shall be the kind that cascades down the wall. Prior to final map, applicant shall provide a retaining wall plan delineating the irrigation and species, quantity and size of all plant material within the wall system. For the planter areas between and in front of the walls, trees shall be a minimum 15 gallon size and planted eight feet on center. Shrubs shall be a minimum size of five gallons and planted three feet on center. Appropriate vines shall be planted between the shrubs to cover the walls. All landscaping and irrigation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX 7. Prior to final map approval, applicant shall submit a detail plan that includes landscaping/irrigation for the circle entry into the project. Prior to final map approval, the detail plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. 8. All open space lots/common lots (Lots "A", "B", "C" and "D") shall remain as open space/common lots and shall be identified on the final map as such granting the City the right to prohibit the erection of structures and including any construction activities on any said lot. 9. This project shall comply with the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program. 10. Uses permitted in the RL zoning district as listed in the Development Code shall be the only uses allowed in the RL - PD zoning designation for the project site. 11. Oak and walnut trees removed shall be replaced at a 3:1 ration. Dead or dying oak and walnut trees removed shall be replaced at a 1:1 ratio 12. Prior to issuance of any construction permits or grubbing of the site, whichever comes first, the applicant shall submit a construction traffic safety mitigation plan that addresses such items as, but not limited to: lane closures, truck routes, traffic control measures for the construction area, street cleaning, etc. for the City's review and approval PUBLIC WORK/ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. Priorto final map approval and in conjunction with the grading plan, applicant shall submit a detailed plan showing the location, planned depth and design of the recommended caisson/tiebacks along with structural calculations supporting their design with geotechnical input from the geotechnical consultant. The submittal shall be approved by the Public Works/Engineering Department and Building and Safety Division prior to final map. 2. Prior to final map approval, applicant shall submit to the Public Works/Engineering Department the design of the geogrid- stablized slope prepared by a qualified licensed engineer using the parameters provided. The design shall be prepared by an engineer familiar with geogrid slope design and shall be 9 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX reviewed and wet stamped by the developer's geotechnical consultant. The design and supporting calculations shall be submitted to the Public Works/Engineering Department and Building and Safety Division for approval prior to final map. d. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION 1. Prior to final map approval, applicant shall submit to the Building and Safety Division the design of all retaining walls for review and approval concurrently with the grading plan check. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE PREVENTION 1. Access shall comply with Section 902 of the Fire Code, which requires all weather access. All weather access my require paving. 2. Fire Department access shall be extended to within 150 feet distance of any exterior portion of all structures. 3. Where driveways extend further than 300 feet and are of single access design, turnarounds suitable for fire protection equipment use shall be provided and shown on the final map. Turnarounds shall be designed, constructed and maintained to insure their integrity for Fire Department use. Where topography dictates, turnarounds shall be provided for driveways that extend over150 feet in length. 4. Private driveways shall be indicated on the final map as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" with the widths clearly depicted and shall be maintained in accordance with the Fire Code. 5. The property is located within the area described by the Fire Department a "Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone". A "Fuel Modification Plan" shall be submitted and approved prior to final map clearance. (Contact Fuel Modification Unit, Fire Station #32, 605 N. Angelino Avenue, Azusa, CA 91702-2904, Phone (626-969-5205, for details.) 6. Applicant shall provide Fire Department or City approved street signs and building access numbers prior to occupancy. 7. Applicant shall provide water mains, fire hydrants and fire flows as required by the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, for all land shown on map which shall be recorded. 10 Planning Commission Resolulion No. 2006 -XX Fire hydrant shall conform to the following requirements (a.) Install three public fire hydrants; (b.) Upgradelverify one existing public fire hydrant; (c.) Measure 6" x 4" x 2"/2' brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA standards C503 or approved equal; (d.) On site hydrants shall be installed a minimum of 25 feet form a structure or protected by two hour fire wall' 9. The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this location shall be 1250 gallons per minute at 20 psi for duration of two hours, over and above maximum daily domestic demand. One hydrant flowing simultaneously, may be used to achieve the required fire flow 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: Daniel Singh, Jewel Ridge Estates, LLC, 10365 W. Jefferson Blvd., Culver City, CA 90232 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2006, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. FOR Steve Nelson, Chairman 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 12th day of December 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner: NOES: Commissioner: ABSENT: Commissioner: ABSTAIN: Commissioner: ATTEST: Nancy Fong, Secretary 11 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX DDli'►IOND BAR IICOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PROJECT #: VTTM No. 54081, MND No. 2006-03, ZC No.. 2006-02/Planned Development Overlay CUP No. 2002-18, VAR No. 2002-02 and TP No. 2002-13 SUBJECT: Sixteen lot residential subdivision APLICANT: Daniel Singh Jewel Ridge, LLC LOCATION: Southern Terminus of Crooked Creek Drive ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION AT (909) 839- 7030, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS In accordance with Government Code Section 66474.9(b) (1), the applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its officers, agents and employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding to attack, set-aside, void or annul, the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 54081 brought within the time period provided by Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the city and/or its officers, agents and employees are made a party of any such action: (a) Applicant shall provide a defense to the City defendants or at the City's option reimburse the City its costs of defense, including reasonable attorneys fees, incurred in defense of such claims. 12 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX (b) Applicant shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the City descendents. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action of proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof. 2. Applicant shall include signed copies of the Planning Commission Resolution of Approval Nos. 2006-43, 2006-44, 2006-45, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 3. Revised plans (such as but not limited to site plan, elevations, landscape/irrigation plan, grading plan, etc.) incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval prior to the plan check. 4. Notwithstanding any previous subsection of the resolution, the Department of Fish and Game requires payment of the fee pursuant to Section 711.4 of that Fish and Game Code. Said payment shall be made by the applicant to the city within five days of this approval. 5. The project site shall be maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of approval and all laws, or other applicable regulations. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and any applicable Specific Plan in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 8. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all conditions of approval shall be completed. B. FEES/DEPOSITS 1. Applicant shall pay development fees (including but not limited to Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works/Engineering Department and Mitigation Monitoring) at the established rates, prior to final map approval, issuance of building or grading permit (whichever comes first), as required by the City. School fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permit. 13 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX In addition, the applicant shall pay all remaining prorated City project review and processing fees prior to the map's recordation or issuance of building permit, whichever come first. 2. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall pay a fee to the City in -lieu of dedication for parkland pursuant to Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 21.32. 3. Prior to any Public Hearing or final map approval, all deposit accounts for the processing of this project shall have no deficits. 4. Notwithstanding any previous subsection of the resolution, the Department of Fish and Game required payment of the fee pursuantto Section 711.4 of that Fish and Game Code. Said payment shall be made by the applicant to the city within five days of this grant's approval. C. TIME LIMITS 1. This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant and owner of the property involved have filed within 15 days of approval of this map, at the City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department/ Planning Division an Affidavit of Acceptance stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this approval. 2. In accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66463.5, VTTM No. 54081 is valid for three years. An extension of time may be requested in writing and shall only be considered if submitted to the city no less than 60 days prior to the approval's expiration date. Final map approval will not be granted unless the map is in substantial compliance with VTTM No. 54081 including all conditions and the applicant has entered into a subdivision improvement agreement to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. D. SITE DEVELOPMENT The project site shall be developed in substantial conformance with VTTM No. 54081 except as conditions herein, and as conditioned in Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-13, Variance No. 2006-02 and Tree Permit No. 2002-13 submitted to and recommended approval by the Planning Commission to the City Council collectively referenced herein as Exhibit "A" - the subdivision map, Exhibit "B" — Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 and Mitigation Report and Monitoring Program dated July 2006, as modified herein. 2. The Mitigation Monitoring Program outlined in Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 (SCH # 2006071129) and approved by the City shall be implemented and complied with rigorously. The mitigation monitoring fees 14 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX shall be deposited with the City 90 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit. All costs related to the ongoing monitoring shall be secured from the applicant and received by the City prior to the approval of the final map. 3. Proposed future custom single-family residential units shall comply with the City's Development Review process. A Home Owner's Association (HOA) shall be formed. The HOA shall have Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) and Articles of Incorporation of the HOA are subject to the approval of Planning Division and Public Works/Engineering Department and the City Attorney. The CC&R's shall be recorded concurrently with the final map or prior to the issuance of any City permits, which ever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The HOA shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the names and addresses of the officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. 5. Prior to the final map recordation or issuance of building permit, whichever come first, the application shall provide the City with a "Buyer's Awareness Package." for the City's review and approval. The "Buyer's Awareness Package" shall include, but is not limited to, information pertaining to geological issues regarding the property, wildlife corridors, oak and walnut trees, natural vegetation preservation issues, maintenance program for urban pollutant basins, fuel modification, all mitigation measures within the Mitigation Report and Monitoring Program and Exhibit "A" which delineates each lot's building envelope, explanatory information pertaining to restrictions on the use of properties as necessary, and similar related matters. The applicant shall give each buyer a copy of the "Buyer's Awareness Package" and shall document their receipt of the same in the escrow instructions of each lot and document their receipt to the City. 6. Applicant, through the "Buyer's Awareness Program" shall segregate green waste for reuse as specified under the City's Source Reduction Recycling Element, and County Sanitation District's waste division policies. 7. All single-family residential units shall be required to obtain Development Review approval. Additionally, single-family residential dwelling units shall use the following development standards: a. Front yard setback minimum 20 feet from front property line; b. Side yard setbacks minimum five and 10 feet from the from the edge of the buildable pad or side property lines, whichever is applicable; C. Distance between single-family residential dwelling units shall be a minimum 15 feet; 15 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX d. Rear yard setback 20 feet from the edge of the buildable pad or rear property line, whichever is applicable; and e. Accessory structures shall utilize setback distances from the edge of pad or property line whichever is applicable and be consistent with the RL/PD zoning district at the time of permit issuance. All ground -mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, air conditioning condensers, etc. shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonrywalls, berms, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. Prior to final map approval or issuance of building permit, whichever come first, street names shall be submitted for City review and approval. Street names shall not duplicate existing streets within the City of Diamond Bar's postal service zip code areas. 10. House numbering plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. House numbering plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. 11. Ail lighting fixtures adjacent to interior property lines shall be approved by the Planning Division as to type, orientation and height. 12. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. E. LANDSCAPE, PRESERVED AND PROTECTED TREES Prior to final map approval, a detailed landscape/irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits and recordation of the map, which ever occurs first. Prior to final map approval, a fuel modification plan for landscape/irrigation prepared by a registered landscape architect shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or the initiation of any activity that involves the removal/disturbance of oak and walnut woodland habitat; the 16 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX applicant shall develop a detail oak and walnut woodland mitigation plan in accordance with the Mitigated Negative Declaration's Mitigation Report and Program and submit the plan to the City for review and approval. Mitigation shall include offsite preservation and or restoration at no less than 1:1 acreage ratio. The native trees protected under the City's tree preservation and protection standards require a minimum replacement ratio of 3:1. It is estimated that a total of 269 trees will be removed. However, 197 are oak and walnut trees have deteriorated to the point of dying or are dead. The remaining 72 trees (43 oak and 29 walnuts) are considered healthy and will be removed due to the project's development. Any off-site mitigation shall be in accordance with the requirements and approval of the California Department of Fish and Game. If in -lieu fees are used for a part of or all mitigation, this mitigation method shall also be in accordance with the requirements and approval of the California Department of Fish and Game and the City of Diamond Bar. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall submit revegetation landscape and irrigation plans for slopes within the project site for Planning Division review and approval. Said slope shall be landscaped at the completion of grading activities. All slope planting, irrigation and revegetation areas shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit/lot is sold and occupied by the buyer. Priorto releasing occupancy for the unit/lot, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that the vegetation is in satisfactory condition. SOLID WASTE 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. 2. Mandatory solid waste disposal services shall be provided by the City franchised waste hauler to all parcels/lots or uses affected by approval of this project. 3. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-ups shall be for individual units with all receptacles shielded from public view. 17 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, /009\839~7048, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL 1 A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and weed conbn|, in accordance with City Master Trail drawingo, shall besubmitted for review and approval prior toapproval and recordation of the Final Tract YNupand prior to approval of otn*ed improvement and grading plans. Developer shall upgrade and construct all trails, including fencing and drainage devices, )nconjunction with street improvements. 2. Atitle report/guarantee showing all fee owners, interest holders, and nature of interest shall be submitted for final map plan check. An updated title report/guarantee and subdivision guarantee shall be submitted ton (10) business days prior tofinal map approval. 3. A permit from the Los Angeles County Public Works Department shall be required for work within its hght-of-wayorconnection toits facilities. 4. Any existing easement for open space, utilities, riding and hiking trials shall be relocated and/or grading podhnned, as naooeuary, to provde, for the portion within the project site, practical access for the intended use. 5. Prior to final map approval, written certification that all utility services and any other service related to the site oheU be available to serve the proposed project and shall bosubmitted tuthe City. Such letters shall boissued bythe district, utility and cable television company, within ninety (90) days prior to final map approval. O. Prior tofinal map appmva|, applicant shall submit to the City Engineer the detail cost estimates for bonding purposes ofall public improvements. 7. Prior tofinal map approval, ifany public orprivate improvements required oo part ofthis map have not been completed byapplicant and accepted bythe City, applicant shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City and shall post the appropriate security. 8. Prior to final map approval all site gmding, landaoaping, irrigution, street, sewer and storm drain improvement plans shall boapproved bythe City 18 Planning Commission Resolution No. m06 -XX Engineer, surety shall be posted, and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all public and private improvements. 9. Prior to issuance of grading permits, surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all drainage facilities necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 10. Any details or notes which may be inconsistent with requirement or ordinances, general conditions or approval, or City policies shall be specifically approved in other conditions or ordinance requirements are modified to those shown on the tentative parcel map upon approval by the Advisory agency. 11. All identified geologic hazards within the vesting tentative tract map boundaries which cannot be eliminated as approved by the City Engineer shall be indicated on the final map as "Restricted Use Area" subject to geologic hazard. The applicant shall dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the erection of buildings or other structures within such restricted use areas shown on the final map. 12. Easements for disposal of drainage water onto or over adjacent parcels shall be delineated and shown on the final map, as approved by the City Engineer. 13. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient street, sewer, and drainage improvements shall be completed beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access, proper outfall for sewers and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the final map. 14. Prior to any work performed in the street right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department in addition to any other permits required. 15. Applicant shall label and delineate on the final map any private drives or fire lanes to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 16. Easements, satisfactory to the City Engineer and the utility companies, for public utility and public services. purposes shall be offered and shown on the final map for dedication to the City. 17. After the final map records, applicant shall submit to the Public Works/Engineering Department, at no costto the City, a full size reproducible copy of the recorded map. Final approval of the public improvements shall not be given until the copy of the recorded map is received by the Public Works/Engineering Department. 19 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX 18. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall provide to the City as built mylars, stamped by appropriate individuals certifying the plan for all improvements at no cost to the City. 19. Applicant shall contribute funds to a separate engineering trust deposit against which charges can be made by the City or its representatives for services rendered. Charges shall be on an hourly basis and shall include any City administrative costs. 20. Applicant shall provide digitized information in a format defined by the City for all related plans, at no cost to the City. 21. All activities/improvements proposed for this VTTM No. 54081 shall be wholly contained within the boundaries of the map. Should any off-site activities/improvements be required, approval shall be obtained from the affected property owner and the City as required by the City Engineer. B. GRADING No grading or any staging or construction shall be performed prior to final map approval by the City Council and map recordation. All pertinent improvement plans shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval by the City Council. Retaining wall location shall be shown on the grading plan and submitted with a soils report to the Public Works/Engineering Department for review and approval concurrently with the grading plan check. Exterior grading and construction activities and the transportation of equipment and materials and operation of heavy grading equipment shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Dust generated by grading and construction activities shall be reduced by watering the soil prior to and during the activities and in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 402 and Rule 403. Reclaimed water shall be utilized whenever possible. Additionally, all construction equipment shall be properly muffled to reduce noise levels. 4. All equipment staging areas shall be located on the project site. Staging area, including material stockpile and equipment storage area, shall be enclosed within a 6 foot -high chain link fence. All access points in the defense shall be locked whenever the construction site is not supervised. Precise grading plans for each lot shall be submitted to the Community Development Department/Planning Division for approval prior to issuance of building permits. (This may be on an incremental or composite basis). 20 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, City Grading Ordinance, Hillside Management Ordinance and acceptable grading practices. 7. The maximum grade of driveways serving building pad areas shall be 15 percent. In hillside areas driveway grades exceeding 10 percent shall have parking landings with a minimum 16 feet deep and shall not exceed five (5) percent grade or as required by the City Engineer. Driveways with a slope of 15 percent shall incorporate grooves for traction into the construction as required by the City Engineer. 8. At the time of submittal of the 40 -scale grading plan for plan check, a detailed soils and geology report shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. Said report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and/or geologist licensed by the State of California. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the report shall address, but not be limited to the following: a. Stability analyses of daylight shear keys with a 1:1 projection from daylight to slide plane; a projection plane shall have a safety factor of 1.5. b. All soils and geotechnical constraints (i.e., landslides, shear key locations, etc.,) shall be delineated in detail with respect to proposed building envelopes. Restricted use areas and structural setbacks shall be considered and delineated prior to recordation of the final map. C. Soil remediation measures shall be designed for a "worst case" geologic interpretation subject to verification in the field during grading. d. The extent of any remedial grading into natural areas shall be clearly defined on the grading plans. e. Areas of potential for debris flow shall be defined and proper remedial measures implemented as approved by the City Engineer. f. Gross stability of all fill slopes shall be analyzed as part of geotechnical report, including remedial fill that replaces natural slope. g. Stability of all proposed slopes shall be confirmed by analysis as approved by the City Engineer. h. All geologic data including landslides and exploratory excavations must be shown on a consolidated geotechnical map using the 40 - scale final grading plan as a base. i. All geotechnical and soils related findings and recommendations shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading permits and recordation of the final map. 21 Planning commission Resolullon No. 2006 -XX 9. Priorto issuance of grading permits, storm drain improvement plans shall be approved by the City Engineer and Los Angeles County Public Works Department and surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all drainage facilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 10. Final grading plans shall be designed in compliance with the recommendations of the final detailed soils and engineering geology reports. All remedial earthwork specified in the final report shall be incorporated into the grading plans. Final grading plans shall be signed and stamped by a California registered Civil Engineer, registered Geotechnical Engineer and registered Engineering Geologist and approved by the City Engineer. 11. A Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP) conforming to City Ordinance is required to be incorporated into the grading plan and approved by the City Engineer. The applicant shall incorporate Structural or Treatment Control Best Management Practices for storm water runoff into the grading plans for construction and post -construction activities respectively. 12. All slopes shall be seeded per landscape plan and/or fuel modification plan with native grasses or planted with ground cover, shrubs, and trees for erosion control upon completion of grading or some other alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and a permanent irrigation system shall be installed. 13. An erosion control plan shall be approved by the City Engineer. Erosion control plans shall be made in accordance to the City's NPDES requirements. 14. Submit a stockpile plan showing the proposed location for stockpile for grading export materials, and the route of transport. 15. Prepare a horizontal control plan and submit concurrently with the grading plan for review and approval. 16. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, a pre -construction meeting must be held at the project site with the grading contractor, applicant, and city grading inspector at least 48 hours prior to commencing grading operations. 17. Rough Grade certifications by project soils engineer shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits for the foundations of structures. Retaining wall permit may be issued without a rough grade certificate. 22 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX 18. Final Grade certifications by project soils engineer and civil engineers shall be submitted to the Public Works/Engineering Department prior to the issuance of any project final inspections/certificate of occupancy. C. DRAINAGE All terrace drains and drainage channels shall be constructed in muted earth tones so as not to impart adverse visual impacts. Terrace drains shall follow landform slope configuration and shall not be placed in an exposed positions. All down drains shall be hidden in swales diagonally or curvilinear across a slope face. All drainage improvements necessary for dewatering and protecting the subdivided properties shall be installed prior to issuance of building permits, for construction upon any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or within a parcel relative to which a building permit is requested. 3. All identified flood hazard locations within the tentative map boundaries which cannot be eliminated as approved by the City Engineershall be shown on the final map and delineated as "Flood Hazard Area." Storm drainage facilities shall be constructed within the street right-of-way or in easements satisfactory to the City Engineer and the Los Angeles County Flood Control Districts. All storm drain facilities plans shall be plan checked by the City and County of Los Angeles and all fees required shall be paid by the applicant. A final drainage study and final drainage/storm drain plan in a 24"x36" sheet format shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer and Los Angeles Public Works Department prior to grading permit. All drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with County of Los Angeles Standards. Private (and future) easements for storm drain purposes shall be offered and shown on the final map for dedication to the City. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a complete hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Los Angeles Public Works Department. 7. A comprehensive maintenance plan/program shall be submitted concurrently with the storm drain plans to the Public Works/Engineering Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. 23 Planning Commission Resolubon No. 2006 -XX D. STREET IMPROVEMENT The applicant shall replace and record any centerline ties and monuments that are removed as part of this construction with the Los Angeles County Public Works Survey Division. 2. Prior to the issuance of any City permits, the applicant shall provide written permission to the satisfaction of the City from any property owners which will be affected by offsite grading. Street improvement plans in a 24" x 36" sheet format, prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Streets shall not exceed a maximum slope of 12 percent. New street centerline monuments shall be set at the intersections of two or more streets, intersections of two or more streets, intersections of streets with tract boundaries and to mark the beginning and ending of curves or the points of intersection of tangents thereof. Survey notes showing the ties between all monuments set and four (4) durable reference points for each shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval in accordance with City Standards, prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. 5. The design and construction of private street improvements shall be set to City and County standards and designed to a design speed of 35 mph. 6. Prior to final map recordation, the applicant shall submit plans delineating the improvement and extension of Crooked Creek Drive forthe City's review and approval. The improvement and extension shall occur within the project site boundaries of the proposed map. The improvement and extension of Crooked Creek Drive shall be completed prior to final inspection of grading activities. E. UTILITIES 1. Easements, satisfactory to the City Engineer and the utility companies, for public utility and public services purposes shall be offered and shown on the detailed site plan for dedication to the City. 2. Prior to final map approval, a water system with appurtenant facilities to serve all lots/parcels in the land division designed to the Walnut Valley Water District (WVWD) specifications shall be provided and approved by the City Engineer. The system shall include fire hydrants of the type and location as determined by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The water mains shall be sized to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, WVWD and Fire Department. 24 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX 3. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall construct or enter into an improvement agreement with the City guaranteeing construction of the necessary improvements to the existing water system according to Walnut Valley Water District (WVWD) specifications to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows as may be required bythe City Engineer, WVWD and Fire Department. 4. Prior to final map approval or issuance of building permit whichever comes first, written certification that all utility services and any other service related to the site shall be available to sere the proposed project and shall be submitted to the City. Such letters shall be issued by the district, utility and cable television company, if applicable, within ninety (90) days prior issuance of grading permits. 5. Prior to recordation of final map, applicant shall provide separate underground utility services to each parcel per Section 21.30 of Title 21 of the City Code, including water, gas, electric power, telephone and cable TV, in accordance with the respective utility company standards. Easements required by the utility companies shall be approved by the City Engineer. 6. Applicant shall relocate and underground any existing on-site utilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the respective utility owner. 7. Underground utilities shall not be constructed within the drip line of any mature tree except as approved by a registered arborist. F. SEWERS Prior to final map approval, applicant shall submit a sanitary sewer area study to the City and County Engineer to verify that capacity is available in the sewerage system to be used as the outfall for the sewers in this land division. If the system is found to be of insufficient capacity, the problem shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. Each dwelling unit shall be served by a separate sewer lateral which shall not cross any other lot lines. The sanitary sewer system serving the tract shall be connected to the City or District sewer system. Said system shall be of the size, grade and depth approved by the City Engineer, County Sanitation District and Los Angeles County Public Works and surety shall be provided and an agreement executed prior to approval of the final map. 3. Applicant shall obtain connection permit(s) from the City and County Sanitation District prior to issuance of building permits. The area within the tentative map boundaries shall be annexed into the County Consolidated 25 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX Sewer Maintenance District and appropriate easements for all sewer main and trunk lines shall be shown on the final map and offered for dedication on the final map. Applicant, at applicant's sole cost and expense, shall construct the sewer system in accordance with the City, Los Angeles County Public Works Division and County Sanitation District Standards prior to occupancy. G. TRAFFIC MITIGATIONS All traffic mitigations shall be implemented and constructed in accordance with the traffic report prepared by Overland Traffic Consultants, Inc. dated October 2002 and revised September 2003 and conditions of project approval for the VTTM No. 54081, prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 839-7020, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Plans shall conform to State and Local Building Code (i.e., 2001 California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and the 2001 National Electrical Code) requirements and all other applicable construction codes, ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of plan check submittal. 2. Submit Public Works/Engineering Department approved grading plans showing clearly all finishelevations, drainage, and retaining walls locations. 3. All retaining walls shall be submitted to the Building & Safety and Public Work Departments for review and approval. 4. Submit grading plans showing clearly all finish elevations, drainage, and retaining wall locations. No building permits shall be issued prior to submitting a pad certification. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE PREVENTION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Emergency access shall be provided, maintaining free and clear, a minimum 28 foot at all times during construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. 26 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX Prior to the issuance of any building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire Department that temporary water supply forfire protection is available pending completion of the required fire protection system. 3. Prior to recordation, the final map shall comply with all Fire Department requirements. END 27 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 28, 2006 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Wei led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Kathleen Nolan, Osman Wei and Chairman Steve Nelson. Absent: Vice Chairman Tony Torng was excused. Also present: Nancy Fong, Community Development Director; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; Linda Smith, Development Services Associate; Gregg Kovacevich, Assistant City Attorney, Sandra Campbell, Contract Senior Planner; Peter Lewandowski, City Environmental Consultant and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCEIPUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 3 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chair/Nelson moved Item 7.2 to the end of the Public Hearings. 4 CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Workshop of November 14, 2006. C/Nolan moved, C/Lee seconded to approve the Minutes of November 14, 2006 Workshop as corrected by VC/Torng. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Wei, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Torng 5. OLD BUSINESS: None November 28, 2006 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 Planned Development Mitigated Negative ueciaration NO. tuuo-v.s, Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-18, Variance No. 2006-02 and Tree Permit No. 2002-13 — In accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, City's Subdivision Ordinance — Title 21, Development Code — Title 22, Sections 22.14, 22.58, 22.22, 22.54 and 22.38, the proposed project was a 22 lot subdivision on a site of approximately 12.9 acres that would provide for the development of 16 single-family detached homes on individual parcels ranging in size from approximately 5,705 square feet to 10,506 square feet. The proposed project would include the construction of private streets, graded pads, manufactured slopes and retaining walls; an easement for a public pedestrian trail in a portion of proposed open space areas, and the removal of a portion of existing vegetation. The current zoning of the project site is R-1-10,000. The Zone Change to RL/Planned Development Overlay provides for compliance with the General Plan land use designation and maximum flexibility in the site planning and design, thereby allowing smaller lots in order to retain more open space within the project boundaries. The Conditional Use Permit relates to grading and development within a hillside area. The Variance relates to retaining walls that are proposed at a height greater than six feet. The Tree Permit relates to the removal, replacement and protection of oak and walnut trees. (Continued from October 10, 2006) PROJECT ADDRESS: At the southern terminus of Crooked Creek Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ Daniel Singh APPLICANT: Jewel Ridge, LLC 10365 W. Jefferson Boulevard Culver City, CA 90232 November 28, 2006 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of a resolution recommending City Council approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03, Zone Change No. 2006-02/ Panned Development Overlay District No. 2006-01, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 54081, Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-18, Variance No. 2006-02 and Tree Permit No. 2002-13 as amended. Chair/Nelson re -opened the public hearing. Lawrence Berner, 3716 Crooked Creek Drive, a 30 -year resident said he was concerned that construction of the three 16 -foot high brick walls behind the homes would completely ruin the views. Additionally, he was concerned about the mud and water coming down his drainage ditch. Gregory Shockley, 3711 Crooked Creek Drive, said he reviewed the documentation and found certain items to be very disappointing and could not understand how the project got to this point. The geology report indicates the ground is subject to liquefaction in the event of an earthquake and he believed that with the added weight of deep watering it would lead to problems like those that took place in Anaheim Hills, Blue Bird Canyon (Laguna) and two years ago in Diamond Bar. He also wondered why there was no traffic mitigation plan. Jeff Layton, 3703 Crooked Creek Drive, spoke about the increased noise, loss of country view due to construction of a wall visible from the freeway and possible failure of the retaining wall and threat of personal and property loss as a result. Joyes Tweed, 2115 Running Branch, said she was pleased with the applicant's efforts to meet the requested changes. However, she was not satisfied that only one picture was taken from only one backyard because there are number of residences that will be affected. The project will also affect people who have property on the lower section of Diamond Bar and she was not comfortable about how their backyards would be affected and whether it had been properly explained during this process. She was also concerned about the resident at the very end of the street because it was not apparent whether that resident would be looking into walls across the street as well as next to them. She wanted to see more explanation and view from all locations prior to approval. November 28, 2006 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION June Sutherland, 20850 Gold Run Drive, said she was concerned about drainage from the top of the hill to the lower portion because she felt the drainage channel might be rendered inadequate by the project. She believed that the retaining wall would be visible from the freeway and place a negative impact on the surrounding property values. This project does not lend itself to country living, which is the reason people live. in Diamond Bar. She said she was also concerned about the trees marked as "dead and dying" and felt the City should hire an Arborist to meet with a committee of residents that would ultimately be affected by the project. She also believed that the tree replacement ratio was too little because 10 -gallon replacement trees would not replace 100 year-old trees. She stated her belief that heretofore it had been difficult to get projects built in the City and giving variances of such drastic bias to the developer was unfair to the long-time residents of Diamond Bar. Daniel Singh, applicant, responded to speakers that he attempted to gain access to backyards of residences that directly face the property and only a few were willing to give his crew access to their backyards to take photographs. He presented additional renderings to the Commission that he said showed in 10 years how difficult it would be to see what had been built. In spite of their being no view ordinance for the City the applicant wants to cooperate and has sought guidance from staff to be as aesthetically pleasing as possible. Mr. Singh said that his biologist was present and would testify that all of the trees would be mitigated on-site and that the habitat area had been mitigated for the oak tree woodland. The City conducted an independent study of the project and asked for some changes that were ultimately included in the Arborists' report. The reason for requesting a zone change is to attempt to preserve as much of the open space as close to the development as possible. The applicant's biologist offered to answer questions. Hunter J. Tannery, 3802 Castle Rock Road, said he does not want any houses built because the animals would disappear and there would be no place for people to hike. Every day he plays with his dog in the backyard and they enjoy the view and do not want the City to tear down the country and make houses. November 28, 2006 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION Norma Leon Enclade, 3611 Crooked Creek, said she was concerned by how the residents would be impacted by the construction that is occurring at the end of Crooked Creek. It seems the area will be developed and how do the residents ensure the safety of their children as construction trucks are coming in and out when children are playing in the street. If there were a question of liquefaction what percentage of the existing and thoroughly cemented vegetation would be left in place to prevent liquefaction that could occur? She believed there were a lot of children that took pleasure in exploring the area and felt it would be lost due to development. At what point does Diamond Bar cease development in favor of its residents? Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Wei said that although he was absent from the October 10 public hearing for this project he familiarized himself with the details of the project and read the minutes of the meeting. He asked the developer to respond to the following questions: 1) Is there sufficient drainage to mitigate future mudflow and excess water; 2) will the project infringe on the wildlife habitat and 3) is the tree replacement ratio and size sufficient and would there be sufficient replacement of vegetation to prevent excess mud and water flow; 4) respond to the concerns about the safety of children during construction. C/Lee said that last time he asked if the developer could lower the height of the retaining wall. Also, it appears that the developer did not respond to traffic concerns. CDD/Fong responded that it was the Commission's direction that the applicant was to provide additional information and one of the directions was for the applicant to determine whether he could reduce the height of the retaining wall. AssocP/Lungu explained that staff asked the developer to push the five and six foot retaining walls back to make the trail connection as required by the Trails Master Plan. As a result, the walls might have to be higher than five or six feet each. The developer responded that he could provide the area for the trail and retain the three five-foot high retaining walls. Other walls throughout the project are a series of five or six foot high retaining walls with planter areas between each wall. EC/Lewandowski again explained that with the preparation of the environmental documents for this project a traffic study was prepared that November 28, 2006 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION examined the associated trip generation characteristics. The traffic study calculated the number of daily trips as well as, peak hour trips and clearlythe project as with any project, would add traffic to the local roadways. However, the added traffic does not manifest in the need for signalization or additional traffic mitigations. C/Lee asked if this was a proper answer to the residents' concerns. CDD/Fong pointed out that this project consists of only 16 houses and although the 16 trips would add some traffic to the general area it would not be enough to warrant signals or stop signs. The City's traffic engineer will be looking at the issue and if the residents have concerns about the general area they are invited to address the Traffic and Transportation Commission and Neighborhood Traffic Management Program meetings. In general, there may be some mitigation measures that can occur in the area. However, based on expert analysis, this specific project does not warrant additional mitigation measures. C/Nolan stated that the photos showing the property from the northbound SR57 are unclear and there is no clear understanding of howthe "gatewayto the City of Diamond Bar" would appear if this project were built. It is an important view corridor and she wanted to see how the views would be impacted by rooftops and retaining walls from all points of entry. CDD/Fong responded that the Commission's direction from last meeting was that the applicant needed to do a photo simulation to show what drivers would see as they traveled the northbound and southbound SR57. The photos did not provide that kind of information to the Commission. C/Nolan said she would like to see a rendition/drawing/graphic design rendition of what would appear in view — the homes, the rooftops, and the retaining walls as to what would be seen in the Diamond Bar gateway. She also wanted to see a rendition of what adjacent residents would see today and 10 years from completion of the project. Gary Dante, Civil Engineer for the project said he took the pictures from the ground and from the freeway. Basically, coming from the freeway there would be no direct view into the site. The closest view would be about a three second view from about a mile away. As one approaches the site there is a barrier of trees that completely block the view of the site. November 28, 2006 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION Therefore, he does not believe there is a view corridor from the SR57. The view corridor from the houses below shows that with the separation of the walls and the planting between the walls the project is a considerable distance away from the back yards and those residents would not feel crowded because of this project. In addition, there is a 10 -foot no man's land even before the walls start. The five-foot walls are five feet high so that they step back and each step would have plantings that would render the walls nearly invisible. Mr. Dante responded to C/Nolan that the first retaining wall would be about 15 feet back from the rear of the closest resident's rear yards. Additionally, the walls curve at the closest point and the photo was taken from the closest backyard. In some areas the walls are fifty feet from the backyards. He felt the mitigation was good. C/Nolan asked if staff agreed about the view from the SR57. CDD/Fong said that in fairness the applicant should simulate a photo without the high landscaping at the edge of the freeway in order to provide a true picture of what would be viewed from the SR57. The hills of Diamond Bar are very important to its image. Additionally, the developer could provide another photo that included the freeway landscape. Chair/Nelson asked for clarification of the hydrology drainage changes that would occur as a result of the project and the need to accommodate those changes. EC/Lewandowski responded thatthe applicant provided hydrology and geotechnical study evaluations, which were reviewed by the City's Engineer and found to be acceptable relative to the City's standards and in conformance with the County's requirements. With the introduction of impervious surfaces and the change in the site topography, clearly the drainage characteristics of the site would be modified. The modifications will necessitate drainage facilities to be incorporated along the roadway with the drainage safely conveyed to the channel. The changes in accordance with County requirements will not result in a substantive change in the quantity or quality of the water that is discharged from the project site. Chair/Nelson asked what safety measures would be implemented to provide for maximum pedestrian safety during construction. Mr. Lewandowski responded that from a traffic engineering perspective there were no November 28, 2006 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION additional mitigation measures included in the Negative Declaration. As a matter of policy the City requires a construction plan and stipulates that construction shall occur in accordance with the City's requirements and not adversely impact local residents. He believed there were a number of issues relative to this particular project. This site has a single point of access along a residential street and all construction traffic would therefore have to access the project site via the roadway. Ultimately, if there are safety considerations, and the City is very sensitive to those issues, those are enforcement actions that would have to be monitored by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. Mr. Lewandowski confirmed to Chair/Nelson that the site balanced, that there would be no offsite earth movement and all grading would-be contained within the project site's development envelope. As with all construction activity the site would be fenced and all construction equipment would be staged on the project site. CDD/Fong stated that the Commission could impose a condition that required the applicant to provide a construction traffic safety mitigation plan. Chair/Nelson felt such a requirement would address the concerns expressed this evening. Chair/Nelson asked if the trail went through the project and accessed the open space. CDD/Fong explained that the trail along Crooked Creek would lead to the regional trail at the edge of the City limits and that there would be a trailhead further up on the project site. Chair/Nelson asked if the grading would be visible from the SR57. Mr. Dante responded that the site was very low and that there were two streets between the freeway and the project site with houses on both sides of each street. Those houses would block the view as well, even if the freeway hedges were removed. The grading is not changing much of the site viewscape and the hill blocks part of the site. Chair/Nelson said he had difficulty believing there would be no view of the terraced grading. Mr. Dante said it was downhill from the freeway. Chair/Nelson asked Mr. Dante to take a photograph and simulate the grading and the roofs onto the photograph and if some parts of the graded slope are in fact visible that the applicant show what it would look like now, at a five year and 10 year interval. He believed it would be hidden but he wanted to know what it would look like and that was his request at the last Commission meeting. Mr. Dante said he would do a line of site because the site cannot be seen since it is down at the river level. November 28, 2006 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Nelson asked what size trees were being used for the terraces behind the homes. Mr. Singh responded that they were 10 -gallon on 10 -foot center plantings Chair/Nelson recommended that the applicant consider mixing in larger trees to provide better screening in a shorter period of time. CDD/Fong stated that the City's Code requires that all trees must be a minimum 15 -gallon and a certain percentage must be 24" boxed trees. Mr. Singh said that when he reviewed the plan the tree sizes were interspersed. C/Nolan reiterated her concern about being provided a better rendition of what current residents would view from their back yards. Chair/Nelson said he was more comfortable with the project at this point. He thanked the applicant for making certain advancements such as an increased ratio of replacement trees and having a qualified restoration biologist on board. However, the Commission needs a little more on the visuals. In response to Chair/Nelson CDD/Fong confirmed that staff could review the construction safety plan. .CDD/Fong explained that the there was no time limitation on this Zone Change. Chair/Nelson moved, C/Wei seconded, to reopen the public hearing and continue the matter to December 12, 2006. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Wei, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: VC/Torng 8. Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-01 and Development Review No. 2006-01 — In accordance with Development Code Sections 22.58, 22.48 and 22.42 these new applications update and replace the previous Conditional Use Permit No, 1997-02.and Development Review No. 1997-06; change the vendor information; modifies the lease area; adds additional antenna on the existing park light pole behind the existing ones, and modify the equipment area to an enclosed building to match existing park facilities. C - �JBg 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• 7.1— Public hearing continued from October 10, 2006 MEETING DATE: November 28, 2006 CASEXILE NUMBER: 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 2. 2. Zone Change No. 2006-02 and Planned Development Overlay District No. 2006-01 3 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 54081 4. Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-18 5. Variance No. 2002-02 6. Tree Permit No. 2002-13 PROJECT LOCATION: Southern Terminus of Crooked Creek Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (APN #8714-028-003) APPLICATION REQUEST: To adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program; to subdivide a 12.9 acre site into 16 residential lots ranging in size from 5,705 to 10,506 square feet for the eventual development with single-family homes; to change the zoning from R-1-10,000 to RL -PD; to grade and develop in a hillside area; to allow retaining walls with an exposed height of 10 feet that exceed the allowed exposed height adjacent to a street; and to remove, replace and protect oak and walnut trees. PROPERTY OWNER / Mr. Daniel Singh APPLICANT: Jewel Ridge, LLC 10365 W. Jefferson Boulevard Culver City, CA 90232 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission: Open the continued public hearing; receive comments on the project; close the public hearing and begin deliberations on VTTM No. 54081 and its entitlements; and recommend approval of Zone Change No. 2006-03 and Planned Development Overlay District 2006-01, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 and Mitigation Monitoring Program, VTTM No. 54081, Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-18, Variance No 2002-02 and Tree Permit No. 2002-12. VTTM 54081 BACKGROUND: VTTM No. 54081 was presented to the Planning Commission at a public hearing on October 10, 2006. The Commission continued the public hearing to November 28, 2006 to give the applicant time to address the Commission`s concern. ANALYSIS: At the October 10, 2006 public hearing for this project, the Planning Commission directed the applicant to address the following concerns. The height of three 10 foot high retaining walls adjacent to the proposed pedestrian trail easement located on the east side of Street "A". According to the applicant's preliminary landscape plan, the three retaining walls have been reduced in height and are proposed at an exposed height of five feet each. 2. Provide an artist's renderings before and after the project's construction from the SR 57 freeway. Artist's renderings were not provided. The applicant provided photographic views from 93 locations along the SR 57 freeway to the project site. The views show that the project site can not be seen from the SR 57 freeway. Staff believes that photographs taken from a different lane of the freeway, with the development of the site started and/or completed, the disturbance of the hillside and portions of the homes would be visible. As a result, staff believes that the Commission's concern regarding the view from the freeway is not adequately addressed. Provide artist's renderings from the backyards of residents affected by the project. Show progression at five and ten year intervals. The applicant provided a photograph of the existing backyard view at ground level from Lot 82 located on Crooked Creek Drive to the project site. Artist's renderings have also been provided of this view at five and 10 year intervals and section renderings showing the views from Lots 80 and 82. The renderings indicate that the view from the backyards of the homes on Crooked Creek Drive will change substantially. However, with the maturity of the plant materials used to buffer the retaining walls, the walls could effectively be screened and the view softened. But, the applicant did not consider the view from the second floor of the existing homes which would certainly be different from the view at ground level. The retaining walls and new home viewed from the second floor would be more obtrusive. Staff believes that the view concern is not adequately addressed. Provide documentation that the oak and walnut trees removed by this project's development will be mitigated to less than significant. VTTM 54081 The applicant provided a preliminary landscape plan that shows on-site mitigation as follows: a. The removal of 43 oak trees and their replacement at a 3:1 ratio for a total of 129 replacement oak trees: b. The removal of 29 walnut trees and their replacement at a 3:1 ratio for a total of 87 replacement walnut trees: and c. One -hundred and ninety-seven (197) dead or drying oak and walnut trees that will be replaced at a 1:1 ratio for a total of 197 replacement trees. The total tree replacement is 413 trees. A fuel modification plans was also submitted by the applicant. This plan will be provided to the Fire Department for review prior to final map approval. 5. Provide a landscape plan that uses vegetation that is indigenous to the area, looks like the surrounding area and functions as an extension of the hillside. The preliminary landscape plan uses planting patterns that occur in nature. Several of plant species are native to southern California. Additionally, proposed vines are located between proposed lots and existing homes on Crooked Creek Drive or on lots adjacent to the flood control channel. Vines are also located next to the project site's south property line and natural open space area. These vines need to be deleted from the plan and replaced with a species that is appropriate next to a natural open space area. The City's environmental consultant, Environmental Impact Sciences who prepared the Mitigated Negative Declaration, has reviewed the plans and finds that from a CEQA perspective, the plans do not introduce substantially new information that would change the project. Therefore, the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project is still an appropriate document for CEQA compliance. Additionally, the plans are a full and adequate solution to vegetation related impacts. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: As directed by the Planning Commission, staff mailed continued public hearing notices to approximately 219 property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the project site at least 10 days prior to the continued public hearing date of November 28, 2006. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has prepared an Initial Study and determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is required for this project. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 (SCH #2006071129) was prepared by the City's environmental consultant, Environmental Impact Sciences. The 30 day review period began on July 28, 2006 and ended on August 28, 2006. The additional information provided and attachment to this staff report does not substantially change this project. Therefore, it is not required that the Negative Declaration be recirculated. VTTM 54081 RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the following to the City Council: approval of Zone Change No. 2006-02 and Planned Development Overlay District No. 2006-01, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 (SCH #2006071129) and Mitigation Monitoring Program and Vesting Tentative Map No. 54081, Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-18, Variance No. 2006-02, Tree Permit No. 2002-13, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as listed within the attached resolutions to City Council. Yrepare,d byw a — nn J. Lungu, Associate Planner 1- 64 Reviewed by: Nancy Fong, Al Community Develo mend irector Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution recommending to City Council approval of Zone Change No. 2002-02 and Planned Development Overlay District No. 2006-01; 2. Draft Resolution recommending to City Council approval of VTTM No.53430 and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 (SCH #2006071129) and Mitigation Monitoring Program; 3 Draft Resolution recommending to City Council approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-13, Variance No. 2006-02 and Tree Permit No. 2002-13 and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 (SCH #2006071129) and Mitigation Monitoring Program; 4. Planning Commission Minutes dated October 10, 2006; 5. Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 10, 2006; 6. 57 Freeway View of VTTM 54081; 7. Artist's Renderings of views from the back yards of Lots 80 and 82 located on Crooked Creek Drive; and 8. Conceptual Landscape Plan and Fuel Modification Plan. VTTM 54081 OCTOBER 10, 2006 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION be conducted on or after 3:00 p.m., and 2) if there is a parking problem the Conditional Use Permit could be subject to review. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, Lee, Torng, VC/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Wei 7.4' Vesting Tentative Tract Map No 54081 • Zone Change No. 2006-021 Planned Development; Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03; Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-18; Variance No. 2006-02 and Tree Permit No. 2002-13 — In accordance to the Subdivision Map Act, City's Subdivision Ordinance -Title 21, Development Code — Title 22, Sections 22.14, 22.58, 22.22, 22.54 and 22.38, the proposed project is a 22 -lot subdivision on a site of approximately 12.9 acres. It would provide for the development of 16 single-family detached homes on individual parcels ranging in size from approximately 5,705 square feet to 10,506 square feet. The proposed project would include: the construction of private streets, graded pads, manufactured slopes and retaining walls; an easement for a public pedestrian trail in a portion of proposed open space areas; and the removal of a portion of existing vegetation. The current zoning of the project site is R-1-10,000. The Zone Change to RL/Planned Development Overlay provides for compliance with the General Plan land use designation and maximum flexibility in the site planning and design, thereby allowing smaller lots in order to retain more open space within the project boundaries. The Conditional Use Permit relates to grading and development within a hillside area. The Variance relates to retaining walls that are proposed at a height greater than six feet. The Tree Permit relates to the removal, replacement and protection of oak and walnut trees. PROJECT ADDRESS: Southern Terminus of Crooked Creek Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ Daniel Singh APPLICANT: Jewel Ridge, LLC 10365 W. Jefferson Boulevard Culver City, CA 90232 OCTOBER 10, 2006 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION AssocP/Lungu presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission adoption of a resolution recommending City Council approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03, Zone Change No. 2006-02/ Planned Development Overlay District No. 2006-01, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 54081, Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-18, Variance No. 2006-02 and Tree Permit No. 2002-113- C/Torng asked for clarification of the number of units per acre as being three instead of four or five. CDD/Fong responded that the three units per acre requested via the zone change conform to the City's General Plan designation for low density residential. In addition, the purpose for the Planned Development Overlay is to allow for flexibility in the development standards and density. However, the density will not exceed what the General Plan allows. In short, this allows for preserving more than 30 percent of the land area as Open Space with the transference of density to the more developable portion of the parcel. AssocP/Lungu responded to C/Torng that this project is an entire subdivision and the City would not be able to change the zoning for a particular lot. C/Torng asked why there was a discrepancy in the tree replacement number from 98 in the initial study to 73 (Page 9) in the final study. Also, the initial study called for 2:1 replacement rather than 3:1 replacement. AssocP/Lungu responded that the applicant suggested a 2:1 replacement; however City code calls for a 3:1 replacement. C/Torng said the study referred to dead or dying trees and wondered if that was the reason for the 73 instead of 98. AssocP/Lungu responded that replacement was based on the number of living trees. AssocP/Lungu said she would review the numbers. C/Torng said he was concerned about the variance request for up to a 10 - foot retaining wall for hillside development and asked if there was a rule of thumb for approval. CDD/Fong responded that this was a variance and the Planning Commission would have to make findings in order to support the variance. C/Nolan disclosed that she spoke with staff about the proposed project prior to tonight's meeting for purposes of clarification only. There were no other Commissioner disclosures offered. OCTOBER 10, 2006 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION Ron Brown, RDC, Asset Manager for Jewel Ridge Estates, 159 South Waverly Drive, Alhambra, thanked the Commission for the opportunity to present the 16 -lot residential development proposed project. Mr. Brown outlined the history of the proposed project. The subject property consists of approximately 13 -acres and the maximum allowable density is 30 -units. As previously stated, the proposed project is 16 units to be located in the already disturbed area that is relatively flat. The existing zoning is R-1- 10,000 and the total grading quantities to develop the subject property is 98,000 cubic yards. Approximately two-thirds of the site will remain as undeveloped Open Space. During the past four years of pursuing this project, the City's Planning staff critiqued at least 12 different proposals. The initial project was for 26 units, which was reduced by response to City Planning comments. The preliminary vision for future houses is 2800 square feet and prices ranging from the high $800,000's to the low $900,000. He strongly noted that the zone change request was consistent with the City's General Plan and was not being requested to allow for increased density, rather to allow for a smaller development that preserves more Open Space than would otherwise be allowed under the existing zoning. In addition, the density was less than the density of the surrounding development. The applicant and staff held a meeting with the surrounding community to illicit input of.the proposed project prior to staff presenting the project to the Planning Commission this evening. Daniel Singh, Jewel Ridge, LLC, 10365 W. Jefferson Boulevard, Culver City, CA 90232 presented an overview of the project from its initial submittal to its present iteration and presided over the power point presentation. C/Lee asked if the applicant planned to build more houses in the future or if 16 units would be the maximum. Mr. Singh responded that the application was for 16 units and that was the maximum number projected. C/Lee expressed concern because he did not want the applicant to build more houses. C/Lee asked if staff could lock this project into 16 units only because the pad was designed for future houses. He also asked why the applicant asked for a 10 -foot retaining wall. CDD/Fong explained that this was a Vesting Tentative Tract Map meaning that the proposal for 16 -units was legal and could not be changed to increase the number of lots. Conversely, the applicant could reduce the number of lots but would have to come back to the Planning Commission to seek such a reduction. The Open Space lots will be deed restricted to Open Space. He asked the applicant if he was willing to reduce the height of the retaining wall to six feet and redesign the trail. Mr. Singh said that a redesign to six feet would require two OCTOBER 10, 2006 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION retaining walls instead of one retaining wall. Therefore, it would result in one six-foot retaining wall and one four -foot retaining wall and whatever design was proposed would be plan checked and approved by the City. C/Torng said he felt residents would be concerned about the view impact and asked if the trees would be planted on the upper side. Mr. Singh explained that the conditions of approval include a condition whereby the City controls the plantings. Therefore, staff would not allow a permit to be issued unless there was a buffer or screening mirroring that proposed in the renderings. CDD/Fong explained that staff imposed a condition of approval requiring landscaping between the retaining walls. This is a conceptual map and prior to recordation of the Final Map the applicant is required to provide a detailed landscape plan that staff will verify the compliance with the conditions of approval. C/Torng felt the area presented fire danger and asked the applicant to elaborate on his plan for fire prevention. Mr. Singh explained that currently hillside access is constrained and the only access is from the north. By opening the development, additional access is provided to areas that were difficult to access prior to the development. Furthermore, the applicant is required to provide a 200 -foot buffer, fire resistant plantings and so forth as conditioned. C/Torng asked the applicantto elaborate on the flood zone situation. Mr. Singh responded that the proposed development is in a higher elevation than the existing stream and channel so there is no issue because the water would flow downhill. The applicant submitted a hydrology report indicating the water flow that staff reviewed and in addition, there will be an additional hydrology report based upon the grading plan and such issues will be dealt with throughout the permit process. VC/Nelson opened the public hearing. Lucy Robinson, 3636 Crooked Creek Drive, said she strongly opposed the proposed project. She lives on the side of Crooked Creek that faces the retaining walls that would be viewed from her yard.. The vegetation that they have enjoyed is quickly disappearing. In addition, there is a safety issue for the children with the removal of the cul-de-sac. Fire is another issue of concern because increased development presents additional fire issues. She said she was also concerned about potential sliding in the area of the development. OCTOBER 10, 2006 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION Greg Shockley, 3711 Crooked Creek Drive, (west side of the street opposite the development) asked the Planning Commission to look at the aerial photograph off of the GIS on the D.B. website and ask for a transparency of the modified graded area. The majority of the existing trees will be gone and adjacent neighbors will be looking at modified slopes. Additionally, the proposed 10 -foot retaining wall is a combination of three six-foot retaining walls. The retaining walls will be an excellent surface for bouncing freeway noise into his and his neighbor's front yards. Freeway noise is so bad in his backyard now that it is difficult to carry on a conversation. The subdivision is about 12.9 acres and has the capacity to accommodate 53 lots of 10,000 square feet each. He said he would rather have houses randomly interspersed among the 12 acres. The residents of Crooked Creek will receive absolutely no benefit from the proposed development. The variances are proof that the applicant could not use the land without heavy modification. He asked the Commission to take a closer look at this project before making its decision. Jeff Layton, 3703 Crooked Creek Drive, agreed with what Mr. Shockley stated and said that in addition he was looking at this project as a quality of life issue for the people who live on Crooked Creek Drive. He was concerned about the height of the retaining wall across from his property and the noise that would be reflected off of the wall. Also, the wall will appear massive from eye level. How long will the new trees last and will they act as a noise buffer? He heard there would not be a gate at the end of Crooked Creek and wondered if it could be instituted following approval? The loss of the natural trees will be a huge negative impact on the area. He also had concerns about fire access and trail access and felt it would not happen if a gate were allowed at the end of the street. He was also concerned about traffic from 19 additional houses that would feed through what used to be a cul-de-sac. Eleanor Reza, 3748 Castle Rock Road, said that as a 19 -year resident she has enjoyed the "country hillside setting" and wildlife in her backyard that directly abuts the channel draining into Brea Canyon and where the development is proposed. Since living in Diamond Bar she has seen quite a bit of housing development and loss of wildlife habitat. Should the proposed housing development occur her new backyard view would be of a six-foot retaining wall. She asked when it might be a good idea to stop approving OCTOBER 90, 2006 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION housing developments in the City. A recent quote from the Diamond Bar City Newsletter (June 2006) states: "one of the best features of D.B. is that it is surrounded by rolling hills and open space. However, that means that the City is in a careful balance with nature, wildlife such as Coyote's, Mountain Lions and Bobcats." She asked if the careful balance with native wildlife meant eliminating their habitat and have there been any wildlife impact surveys done for this project. Steven Greenhut, 3622 Crooked Creek Drive, said that one of the main reasons he and his family moved to the cul-de-sac about eight years ago was for the hillsides and although he did not relish the thought of a new development he supported the project because he did not believe that City officials should stop people from building within approved. zoning and within the General Plan. The applicant is seeking variances but is building far fewer houses than allowed under the current zoning. When he moved to the City, Mr. Greenhut did his due diligence and discovered the property was zoned for three houses per acre and he and his wife agreed they could live with such a project. His specific concern was the maintenance of the I 0 -foot areas behind his side of the street and the beginning of the retaining walls. A homeowner at 3723 Crooked Creek Drive, said she was happy about the area. She paid extra for the last lot and the views. Also, her children play in the cul-de-sac and there is no traffic passing by her house. She was very concerned and fearful about a big change to her house and the additional traffic in the area. People have been driving tractors over her front walk to get the equipment into the lot to grade streets and the winds blow a lot of dust toward her house. Mr. Shockley said he was not opposed to development on the property but felt it would be prudent for the applicant to build in accordance with the property by using step footings, multi-level housing and so forth rather than proposing extensive grading and tree removal. George Wong, 20880 Gold Run Drive, said he was not too concerned about the development but he was concerned about the increased traffic. It appeared to him that the only egress was via Crooked Creek Drive and as such, if he lived on Crooked Creek he would be against the development because there was no other exit. OCTOBER 10, 2006 PAGE 15 PLANNING COMMISSION Art Melendez, 3710 Crooked Creek Drive, concurred with previous speakers about the traffic, noise and dust. There area lot of kids that play out in the street because it is safe. With trucks and more traffic going through the area it will create a safety hazard and he believed the City would have to consider installing speed humps or other traffic calming devices. He said he opposed the project. Joy Tweed, 21155 Running Branch Road, said she agreed with everyone who spoke about problems of ingress and egress for the housing development off of Brea Canyon. She was concerned that any increase in the number of vehicles would create further problems. She moved to Diamond Bar in 1971 and at that time the slogan was "Country Living" in Diamond Bar With the arrangements of the high retaining walls she can no longer consider it country living. She believed that with the intelligence of the building staff there was a strong possibility that this project could be reviewed to limit the size of the area. She said she would like to have the applicant provide a park in the area for the children as a trade-off to the project. James Eng, 20935 Running Branch Road, concurred with most of the speakers about the traffic. During peak afternoon hours it is difficult if not impossible to turn into his neighborhood and he believed the City should take a closer look at the traffic pattern in the area, Mr. Singh responded to public speakers. He stated that a noise study was conducted that analyzed the future potential noise generated by the project once the project was completed. The noise report concluded that there would be no significant impact to the community. Regarding the proposal and variances, the initial application did not include a zone change and two of the variances. The requested changes are in fact a trade-off resulting in a smaller development envelope and larger open space. Again, the property has a General Plan designation and by allowing a smaller development a trade off is a large open space that is protected in perpetuity. To the speaker who talked about a transparency, a biological report was completed, a transparency was done and habitats were identified and the impacts as a result of the development were identified with the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Of course there are trees that will be removed but the mitigation calls for replanting those trees, at a 3:1 ratio. In addition, the applicant is required to ensure and guarantee the survival of the OCTOBER 10, 2006 PAGE 16 PLANNING COMMISSION trees for the ensuing five years. A gate was originally proposed. Pursuant to the community meeting staff is recommending that no gate be installed and the applicant has agreed. Currently, there is no trail. However, the development will provide for a future trail. Four surveys were completed and the City's consultant verified the accuracy of the surveys. The 10 -foot area behind the wall between the Crooked Creek residents and the project area can be addressed during the process of completing the CC&R's for the homeowners association with language to require that the homeowner's association be required to maintain the 10 feet. Dust control and other mitigation measures are proposed to include watering and no grading should winds exceed a certain velocity. A traffic report was completed and reviewed by the City's consultant who found that no adverse impacts would result upon completion of the project. A park project has been conditioned for the applicant to pay a Quimby fee, which will be set aside for future parks contemplated by the City. Additionally, 70 percent of the project will be permanently protected as Open Space. VC/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Lee asked the applicant to comment on rights of view. Mr. Singh stated that staff is very cognizant of views. As such, staff conditioned the project to provide lower walls and provide screening. In addition, staff directed the applicant to flip the houses closer to the existing residences to lessen their visibility and ensure heavy planting between the tiers to mitigate the second wall. C/Lee asked the applicant to comment on the loss of the cul-de-sac "playground" and whether the applicant intended to develop a portion of the open space as a small park or play area. Mr. Singh reiterated the City's ordinance that -the applicant is required to contribute to Quimby funds and the City decides the appropriate locations for its parks. C/Nolan said she empathized with residents about preserving the landscape of the community. She lives opposite Crestview and the residents lost a group of trees that were called the "dog trees" when the area developed. She visited the site today and could not find the street for the project. She said she would like to visit the site in order to see what the residents will view. She referred to a remark about vegetation _ walls with cells and vegetation growing off of the cells. She asked where the reference could be found and if it was intended to reduce noise. Mr. Singh explained that the retaining wall was a decorative wall with cells that have vegetation growing OCTOBER 10, 2006 PAGE 17 PLANNING COMMISSION out of them to camouflage the walls and blend them .into the existing environment. The walls are directly opposite the current homeowners. To many of the residents the area is already visually blocked because there is currently a wall behind the property. The areas that residents view are the upper elevations of the proposed site that will be maintained as open space and generally undisturbed. C/Nolan asked if there is an "owner's right to view?" CDD/Fong responded that the City does not have a view protection ordinance. To C/Torng's question about the size of the houses, Mr. Singh reiterated that the average house would consist of 2800 square feet two-story house with an average of 1500 square foot pad coverage. From the applicant's standpoint the City was trying to balance the natural area. The original project called for grading 60 to 70 percent of the natural envelope. The City tried to limit the project to the area that was already being disturbed and that is how the 'plan evolved and that is the reason for the zone change. Conversely, the project now impacts only 30 percent of the area with 70 percent remaining undisturbed. The current Crooked Creek residences sell for about $500,000 - $600,000 and the proposed project incorporates houses selling in the $800,000-$900,000 range. CDD/Fong responded to C/Torng that the applicant is building 16 homes and is required to pay park fees that will be used to improve or expand existing parks. There will be no new park in the area. In order to create parks there must be land available for parks. C/Torng believed that even small traffic impacts should be considered drastic impacts due to the volume of traffic. Otherwise, there would be no mitigation and benefit for the community. He supported the residents concerns about traffic impacts. Peter Lewandowsky, Environmental Impact Services, the City's consultant, stated that all of the comments from the community were specific and germane to the project. Relative to traffic, there are a number of issues. The primary focus,of the traffic analysis looked at internal circulation, ingress/egress, street right-of-way and turnaround, etc. to make sure that those features were sufficient to accommodate the project. The 16 vehicles will generate about 160 trips per day. Relative to the traffic volumes in the area it is a small number in the overall context of traffic and as a result, the traffic analysis did not look beyond the project site. In short, the study did not OCTOBER 10, 2006 PAGE 18 PLANNING'COi1 MISSION pass the threshold standards for traffic analysis for traffic signals and turning movements beyond the site. He concurred that it was a significant impact to the residents on Crooked Creek and concurred with the heartfelt comments of residents who feared the project might change the character of the street. With respect to safety, additional traffic along the roadway should prompt residents to consider the safety of the children, an enforcement issue related to the traffic enforcement agency to ensure traffic volumes are maintained. The development will result in a secondary point of emergency access in the event that emergency ingress and egress is required for fire reasons. There is no mechanism relative to the current procedures and methodologies with which traffic is assessed to impose significant threshold criteria. C/Torng said the residents of Crooked Creek, Running Branch and Gold Run experience significant traffic issues and wanted staff to think about it. C/Torng said he was concerned about the 25 percent grade and wanted to know if the pictures depicted reality. Mr. Singh confirmed that the picture was taken using a 3D model of the existing topography and it is an exact replica of the existing conditions. There are steep slopes in the area but those slopes are not being developed. The area being developed is relatively flat. Mr. Singh stated that the applicant would be open to considering a proportionate share for traffic mitigation. During the community meeting similar issues were raised and M/Herrera said that the City had adopted signalization at one of the intersections and the project would be willing to contribute its fair share. Mr. Singh responded to C/Torng that the project is conditioned to mitigate for noise issues by providing blocks with vegetation to prevent the noise bouncing back and forth. CDD/Fong and Mr. Singh confirmed to C/Torng that there would be no gate and that there would be a turnaround at the project entrance to mitigate the safety concern. VC/Nelson said he agreed with Mr. Lewandowsky that all concerns were valid. However, from his perspective he identified most closely with Mr. Greenhut's statement that he in no way wanted to restrict or take away the applicant's rights to the fair and reasonable use of the property. However, it was his obligation and duty to do everything possible to make it OCTOBER 10, 2006 PAGE 19 PLANNING COMMISSION as good a project as possible in consideration of the neighbors' concerns and the concerns of the community at large. To that end, he cannot act on this project until he sees an actual artist's rendering of the views of the property, the grading that will take place and what it will do or not do to the hillside from the SR57. He said he could not agree more with Ms. Tweed that "Country Living" was the theme in the City. He is a realist and knows where the City is heading. Nevertheless, it is a hillside that has always had special meaning as an entry view into the City. Secondly, he did not believe he could act on the project until he had artist's renderings of the views from the back yards that would be affected. Further, he is not at all comfortable with the oak tree and walnut tree and woodland mitigation. As it is currently presented it appears to be deferred mitigation. He cannot read the documentation as it currently exists and feel comfortable that potentially significant impacts to oak trees and oak woodlands and walnut trees and walnut woodlands can be mitigated to less than a significant level in terms of the number of trees proposed to replace current trees under the ordinance as well as the acreage of the communities those trees .provide. As an example, in 1976 he and others prepared the 1976 Significant Ecological Area Study for the LA County General Plan and this hillside was designated as part of the SEA area. In 2000 his firm prepared an update and saw no reason to remove it from that category. He believed that there was ecological value and he wanted to feel comfortable that it could be mitigated. He wanted to know what if anything could be done for the trees that are claimed to be "dead and dying" because the Department of Fish and Game says that "dead and dying" trees are in fact habitat for a whole suite of species -and he did not want those simply "written off." He also wanted the applicant to find a similar property as a commitment to part of the plan. With respect to the landscape plan he would like to use vegetation that was usual to the area — local or indigenous rather than like a garden - it should look like the surrounding hillside and function as an extension of that. He asked if the vines were intended for the gridlock and Mr. Singh responded affirmatively. VC/Nelson said he was not prepared to advise a good replacement but said that most vine species are highly invasive and he would not want to create a situation that would allow vines to creep into undisturbed woodlands and take over. He recommended that the applicant consult a restoration ecologist who might have an idea about how to replace the vines. OCTOBER 10, 2006 PAGE 20 PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Singh pointed out that most of the trees had been removed as a result of the slopes and not of the development and did not see a reason for offsite mitigation requirements. The project should be able to mitigate on-site. VC/Nelson said that if the applicant could replace the trees on a 1:1 basis and duplicate the community and replace the 73 trees at 3:1 and do something on the "dead and dying" trees such as a 1:1 replacement it would be acceptable to him. CDD/Fong felt .that 30 days might not be sufficient time for the City's consultant to review the plans. In addition she had not verified that the applicant could provide the artists rendering in 30 days. C/Torng and C/Lee asked for input with respect to the retaining wall and whether a redesign was appropriate or possible. C/Torng moved, C/Lee seconded to re -open the public hearing. Without objection, the motion was so ordered. VC/Nelson moved, C/Lee seconded, to continue the public hearing to November 28, 2006, with notices of the continued public hearing mailed to residents within 1000 feet of the project. The purpose of the continued public hearing was to allow the applicant sufficient time to respond to Commissioners' concerns. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Nelson, Lee, Nolan, Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Wei PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Lee welcomed Commissioner Nolan. C/Torng commended staff on its support and commended staff for bringing forward the Jewel Ridge project. He welcomed Commissioner Nolan. C/Nolah thanked her colleagues for welcoming her and said she looked forward to working on the Commission. VC/Nelson welcomed C/Nolan and thanked staff for wonderful staff reports. OCTOBER 10, 2006 PAGE 21 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS. 9.1 Project Status Report Update. 9.2 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Fong stated that she hoped to schedule a workshop for today. However, due to the absence of C/Wei the JCC Development workshop was postponed to October 24 as recommended by the City Attorney. The workshop will commence at 6:00 p.m. prior to the regular Commission meeting. Dinner will be served for the Commissioners between 5:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. with the location tentatively set for Room CC -2. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Vice Chairman Nelson adjourned the meeting at 10:23 p.m. Attest: Respectfu 5umiffed Nancy Fong Community D vel ment Director eve Nelson, Vice Chalrman - LIAIFTOlI'D SAh� PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT 21825 COPLEY DRIVE — DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 — TEL. (909) 839-7030 — FAX (909) 861-3117 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 7.4 MEETING DATE: October 10, 2006 CASE/FILE NUMBER: 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 2. Zone Change No. 2006-02 and Planned Development Overlay District No. 2006-01 3 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 54081 4. Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-18 5. Variance No. 2002-02 6. Tree Permit No. 2002-13 PROJECT LOCATION: Southern Terminus of Crooked Creek Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (APN #8714-028-003) APPLICATION REQUEST: To adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program; to subdivide a 12.9 acre site into 16 residential lots ranging in size from 5,705 to 10,506 square feet for the eventual development with single-family homes; to change the zoning from R-1-10,000 to RL -PD; to grade and develop in a hillside area; to allow retaining walls with an exposed height of 10 feet that exceed the allowed exposed height adjacent to a street; and to remove, replace and protect oak and walnut trees. PROPERTY OWNER / Mr. Daniel Singh APPLICANT: Jewel Ridge, LLC 10365 W. Jefferson Boulevard Culver City, CA 90232 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission: Open the public hearing; receive comments on the project; close the public hearing and begin deliberations on VTTM No. 54081 and its entitlements; and recommend approval of Zone Change No. 2006-03 and Planned Development Overlay District 2006-01, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 and Mitigation Monitoring Program, VTTM No. 54081, Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-18, Variance No 2002-02 and Tree Permit No. 2002-12. BACKGROUND: A. Project Processing: The proposed project was submitted to the City on November 6, 2002. The staff prepared the first letter to the applicant deeming the application incomplete on November 21, 2002 and a follow—up second letter sent on December 11, 2002. Both letters discussed many issues and concerns regarding the project's design, retaining wall heights, environmental issues, grading, acceptance of the geotechnical report, revegetation, etc. In 2003, 20 letters were sent over the year to the applicant reiterating the many issues and concerns referenced above. The letters also discussed updating the biological assessment and tree survey submitted by the applicant .and the need for preparing an air quality assessment and noise analysis. Because the applicant did not respond in a manner that resolved all the issues and concerns completely, 18 additional letters were sent to the applicant throughout 2004. Again these letters reiterated some of the same issues and concerns. Also discussed in these letters was a recommendation to hire consulting firms to prepare the air quality assessment and noise analysis and an update.of the biological assessment and tree survey. Furthermore, staff had three meetings with the applicant and his team during 2004 to discuss these issues. In 2005, the applicant sent a "work in progress" revised map addressing some of the concerns and issues discussed in the past. Six letters were sent to the applicant reiterating project concerns and issues not addressed in the revised map. A Tree Permit was issued for the removal of trees to do borings for further geotechnical analysis. A Stop Work Order was subsequently issued for non-compliance with Tree Permit conditions. Several site visits occurred because of non-compliance with the Tree Permit and Stop Work Order. The geotechnical report was approved subject to conditions in 2006. Also in 2006, the revised map for the project's first public hearing was submitted and the environmental document was completed and circulated. In total, staff has sent approximately 45 letters to the applicant between 2002 and 2005. A detailed chronology of these activities is attached to this report. The purpose of the letters was to assist the applicant in preparing and completing adequate plans for the Planning Commission and City Council. B. Site Description: The project site is located at the southern terminus of Crooked Creek Drive, east of the SR -57 Freeway, Brea Canyon Road and Brea Canyon flood control channel and north of the City's southern boundary. It is an irregular-shaped hillside parcel, approximately 12.9 acres in size. The property is surrounded by TTM 54081 Page 2 single-family homes on the north, west and east and undeveloped land to the south outside of the City's boundary. In general, the project site is slopes down to the south and west and slopes up to the east. It is characterized by a moderately steep western facing slope approximately 200 feet high and level canyon on the westerly side adjacent to the flood control channel. Elevations on the project site range from 644 feet above mean sea level in the western portion adjacent to the flood control channel to 840 feet at the southeast portion. Vegetation on the site consists of non-native grassland, oak and walnut trees and coast Live oak and walnut woodlands. Additionally, an existing recreational trail easement traverses the eastern portion of the project site. C. Site and Surrounding General Plan and Zoning and Use: .ANALYSIS: A. Applications and Review Authority (Subdivision Ordinance. Title 21; and Development Code Sections 22 14 22 58 22.22 22.54 22.38 and 22.44) The proposed project involves six applications as follows: 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 and Mitigation Report and Monitoring Program to address impacts that the propose project map have on the environment. 2. Zone Change application to change the project site's zoning RL -PD to. coincide with the General Plan's land use designation. 3. Subdivision application for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 54081 to subdivide the project site into 16 residential lots, four open space lots (Lots "A", "B", "C" and "D") and private Streets "A" and "B"; 4. Conditional Use Permit application for development in hillside areas with slopes of 10 percent or greater and to ensure the application of the City's hillside management standards to the project; and for the TTM 54081 Page 3 General Plan Zone Use Project Site RL/Maximum 3 DU/AC R-1-10,000 Vacant North RL/Maximum 3 DUTAC R-1-9,000 Residential South AG/SP (Sphere of Influence) A-2-1 Vacant East RL/Maximum 3 DU/AC R-1-9,000 Residential West RUMaximum 3 DU/AC R-1-7,500 Reside ntiallflood control channel/ SR -57 .ANALYSIS: A. Applications and Review Authority (Subdivision Ordinance. Title 21; and Development Code Sections 22 14 22 58 22.22 22.54 22.38 and 22.44) The proposed project involves six applications as follows: 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 and Mitigation Report and Monitoring Program to address impacts that the propose project map have on the environment. 2. Zone Change application to change the project site's zoning RL -PD to. coincide with the General Plan's land use designation. 3. Subdivision application for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 54081 to subdivide the project site into 16 residential lots, four open space lots (Lots "A", "B", "C" and "D") and private Streets "A" and "B"; 4. Conditional Use Permit application for development in hillside areas with slopes of 10 percent or greater and to ensure the application of the City's hillside management standards to the project; and for the TTM 54081 Page 3 establishment of a Planned Development Overlay District to allow flexibility in design, density and intensity. In this case, the PD Overlay District allows the consideration of residential lots that are less than 10,000 square feet in exchange of more open space; Variance application is for proposed retaining walls with a maximum exposed height of 10 feet, which exceeds the allowed three feet exposed height adjacent to a street; and 6. Tree Permit application for the preservation, removal and replacement of oak and walnut trees with a diameter of eight inches at breast height (DBH); For the Zone Change and Planned Development Overlay and Vesting Tentative Tract Map, the City Council is the review authority with the Planning Commission giving its recommendation. For the Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Tree Permit applications, the Planning Commission is the review authority. According to the Development Code, when more than one application is involved, all applications shall be processed simultaneously by the highest review authority. In this case, the Planning Commission will review all applications and provide a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will be the final decision maker for the project. B. Project Components The proposed 16 single-family residential lots will vary in size from 5,705 to 10,506 square feet, with a majority of the lot sizes between 6,229 to 7,325 square feet. Each lot will be graded with a development pad. In addition to the 16 custom residential lots, the project will consist of four letter lots identified as Lots "A", "B", "C" and "D". These lots will be common lots maintained by the homeowners' association, which will be formed in the future. Additionally, these lots, especially Lot "C", will be used for on-site mitigation with regards to oak and walnut trees and understory replacement. Streets "A" and "B" are proposed as private streets with sidewalk, curb and gutter on the side of the street developed with homes. Street "A" is a continuation of Crooked Creek Drive and Street "B" intersects Street "A" at the project entrance. The proposed project also consists of relocating an existing recreational trail pursuant to the City's Trails Master Plan. Additionally, the Trails Master Plan identifies a potential "Class A" trail head in proximity to the project site. The proposed on-site trail head and pedestrian trail easement is identified on the map. The applicant will be required to dedicate to the City an irrevocable easement of 20 feet for the pedestrian trail. The easement will be located on the east side of Street "A" and adjacent to the southern boundary of the map. At the entrance of the tract in Lot "A", a sign/kiosk will installed identifying the trail. Improvements for the trail are set forth as conditions of the project. TTM 54081 Page 4 C. General Plan The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Low Density Residential (RL) Maximum Three Dwelling Units Per Acre (3 DU/AC). The proposed map has a gross density of 0.81 dwelling units per acre. As such, the proposed map is in compliance with the City's General Plan with regards to density. D. Zone Change and Planned Development Overlay District The General Plan land use designation for this project is Low Density Residential (RL)/Maximum Three Dwelling Units Per Acre (3 DU/AC). The current zoning for the project site is R-1-10,000. A zoning change to Low Density Residential (RL) is being processed in order to bring the zoning in compliance with the General Plan. In addition, a Planned Development Overlay District (PD) is being proposed to modify the required minimum lot size. Therefore, the zoning nomenclature will be changed to RL -PD. E. Conditional Use Permit for Hillside Development The City's hillside management standards apply to a project having a natural slope of 10 percent or greater. The proposed project has natural slopes ranging from less than 10:1(8.4%) to 4:1(24.8%) with an average natural slope if 24.35 percent. As such, a project shall be subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. To prepare the project site for development, the following grading quantities are estimated: 98,000 cubic yards of cut; 86,000 cubic yards of fill; and 5,000 cubic yards of export. The applicant proposes to grade the project site in a manner that provides sixteen residential lots, each with a development pad, four open space lots (Lots "A", "B" "C" and "D") and two private streets to create a private, non -gated community. Additionally, grading includes the repair of landslide areas located on the lower portion of the descending natural slope. Access to the project will be at the terminus of Crooked Creek Drive. Grading will also occur within a portion of Lot "C", cutting into the easterly slope to provide for the streets. Retaining walls will be used to support the graded pads and cut into the easterly slope to for the streets. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Development Overlay District The purpose of a Planned Development Overlay is to promote quality design, innovative site planning, and transfer of development rights and mixed uses consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. The intent of the planned development standards is to preserve a minimum 30 percent of the project's gross acreage as open space, incorporate amenities beyond those expected under conventional development standards and to achieve greater flexibility in design. TTM 54081 Page 5 Application for the Planned Development Overlay District requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit to modify development standards (i.e., minimum lot area, setbacks, site coverage, height, landscaping or off-site parking) normally required in a specified zone. However, proposed development within a Planned Development Overlay must comply with all other applicable provisions of the Development Code. For this project, the maximum number of dwelling units per acre is three. Therefore, it is possible that about 30 lots plus streets could be established for residential development. However, the Planned Development Overlay is use to reduce the square footage of each lot in order to preserve the open space identified as Lot "C". As such, the project has been reduced to 16 dwelling unit or a density of 0.81 dwelling units per acre and maintains 8.9 acres or 69 percent in open space. G. Variance The purpose of a variance is to allow a deviation from required development standards when special circumstances, applicable to the property (i.e., location, size, shape, surroundings, topography, or other conditions) which inhibit the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity under the same zone. The applicant proposes retaining walls throughout the project site due to the topography of the site and grading activities related to cut and fill that are needed to prepare the site for 16 lots with buildable pads, streets and access point. The walls are proposed in a series of two or three at an exposed height of five or six feet each. They are part of each lots development and cut into portions of Lot "C" in order to construct the streets. Pursuant to the City's hillside management standards, the maximum allowed exposed height of retaining walls adjacent to a street is three feet. Additionally, no more than three terraced or stepped walls can be used. The retaining walls adjacent to Streets "A" and "B' are proposed at an exposed heights of five and six feet and do not exceed three terraced walls. Also to create the pedestrian trail adjacent to Street "A" and Lot "C", the proposed retaining walls need to be set back ten feet more then as shown on the map. Changing the location of the walls will increase the exposed height to approximately ten feet. As a result, Variance approval is required for the increased height of these proposed retaining walls. A geo-grid retaining wall system with cells for plant material will be used for the retaining walls adjacent to the street. For all other walls, split face block in earth tone will be required. H. Tree Permit According to the biological assessment, the proposed project will impact 11.5 acres of mixed coast live oak and California walnut woodland with understory dominated by poison oak. This woodland acreage is identified by the California TTM 54081 Page 6 Department of Fish and Game as a sensitive resource and has a minimum replacement ratio of 1:1. A survey indicates that a total of 468 oak and walnut trees exist on the project site. A total of 269 of these trees will be removed due to the proposed grading. However, 197 oak and walnut trees are deteriorated to the point of where they are either dying or dead. The remaining 72 trees (43 oaks and 29 walnuts) are considered healthy and are recommended for replacement at a 3:1 ratio per the City's Tree Permit requirements. Mitigation will include a combination of on-site and/or off-site preservation, enhancement and/or restoration. The applicant will implement the mitigation plan, as approved by the City and according to the guidelines and performance standards of the plan. Mitigated Negative Declaration Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has prepared an Initial Study and determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is required for this project. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 (SCH #2006071129) was prepared by the City's environmental consultant, Environmental Impact Sciences. 1. Purpose of a MND: a. A MND is an informational document that evaluates whether or not there is substantial evidence that a project will have the potential to significantly effect the environment. It is used to guide and assist the City staff, Planning Commission, City Council, and public in the consideration and evaluation of potential environmental implications that may result from the proposed project's development. A MND may be prepared if the Initial Study identifies a potentially significant effect for which the applicant has made or agrees to make project revisions that clearly mitigate the effects. For a MND, specific mitigation measures are developed and agreed to before project approval. The mitigation measures are incorporated into a mitigation reporting and monitoring program which becomes part of the MND. 2. MND Process: a. Initial Study An Initial Study is the first step in determining the appropriate environmental document for a project. It is a preliminary analysis to determine whether or not an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration is need for a project. If the Initial Study concludes that the project will not significantly effect the environment or may have the potential to effect the environment but can be mitigated to a level of less than significant, a Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared TTM 54081 Page 7 respectively. Staff and the City's environmental consultant completed the Initial Study questionnaire for the proposed project and identified several areas, namely aesthetics, air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, biological resources and transportation and traffic that have the potential to effect the environment but will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. b Notice of Availability (NOA) Once the MND is prepared, a NOA is prepared and distributed to agencies that have or may have the responsibility for providing service to the project or may be impacted by the project for review and response. The response period is typically 20 days. However, for this project the response period is 30 days because it was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by state agencies. As a result, the NOA for this project was circulated on July 28, 2006 with the review period ending on August 28, 2006. C. Notice of Intent to Adopt A Notice of Intent to Adopt and Public Hearing is sent to the County Clerk, the public and responsible agencies. The Notice of Intent to Adopt is a minimum 20 day notice. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall consider the proposed MND with the Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program, and then make a recommendation to the City Council. Environmental Factors and Effects Analyzed In the MND The Initial Study process for this project determined that the following environmental issues will have "no impact" or "less than significant impact and are not addressed in the MND: Agricultural Resources Population/Housing Land Use and Planning Recreation Mineral Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology and Water Quality Noise Public Services Utilities and Service Systems The following environmental issues could have a potentially significant effect on the environment unless mitigated to less than significant. But with the incorporation of the project's mitigation program, impacts associated with the implementation of this project will be reduced to a level "less than significant". Aesthetics Hazards/Hazardous Materials Air Quality Biological Resources Transportation/Traffic TTM 54081 Page 8 (1.) Aesthetics. According to the MND, the environmental issue related to aesthetics has the potential to be significant unless mitigated to a level of less than significant. The proposed series of retaining walls located along or near rear property lines may partially impede existing views. In order to mitigate the view of the retaining walls, landscaping with irrigation will be used within the wall cells and planter areas between and in front of all retaining walls. (2.) Air Quality. Environmental issues related to Air Quality affected by dust and particulate matter may be potentially significant during grading and construction. The applicant is required to: water all exposed surfaces three times daily; limit off-road trucks to no more than 15 mph; use soil stabilizers; replace ground cover in disturbed area as quickly as feasible; and cover all stockpiles. Additionally, all exterior points for on- site residential units will conform to specifications that will reduce volatile organic compounds (VOCs). (3.) Transportation/Traffic. The project entry will be a "traffic roundabout". Although the streets of the proposed project are private, staff believes this project should not be gated due to the awkwardness of the proposed gates location in the traffic roundabout. According to the MND, roundabouts are a traffic calming device that reduces speed. However due to the intersecting of Streets "A" and "B" at the roundabout, a conflict point for vehicles, bicycles, or pedestrians may occur. As a result, the final design, development plans, and geometrics of all on-site streets shall be approved by the City Engineer and comply with the City's street standards. (4.) Hazards/Hazardous Materials. The project site is located directly adjacent to a "Very High Fire Hazard Zone". As a result, the applicant is required to prepare and submit a fuel modification plan to the City and Fire Department for approval and comply with all fire codes. Additionally, the applicant is required to prepare construction fire prevention and control plan outlining all activities that will occur during construction, access TTM 54081 Page 9 through the project site and fire safety and suppression for approval by the Fire Department and City. (5.) Biological Resources. A biological assessment acknowledges that walnut and oak woodlands and California black walnut and oak trees exist at the project site. In recognition of a potentially significant impact to biological resources, mitigation measures that will reduce the impacts to significantly less are as follows: replacement of oak and walnut trees at a 3:1 ratio on-site and off-site locations and oak and walnut woodlands with a five year monitoring plan funded by the applicant; on-site grading activities must occur prior to April 2007, or a new biological survey must be conducted to reassess the presence or absence of protected biological resources; information regarding biological resource must be in the covenant, conditions and restrictions (CC&R's); landscape plans for all common areas shall incorporate replacement species, native drought -tolerant, non-invasive plant species and weed prevention and control; and all construction and material staging activities must be confined within the project boundaries e. Public Review Period/Response to Comments At the conclusion of the public review period, comments received are responded to and included as part of the MND that is reviewed by the decision makers. Revision to the Project Design After the close of the MND review period and based on the environmental analysis and comments received, the 'applicant may need to restudy and redesign the subdivision and its grading concept. g. Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) CEQA requires public agencies to set up a Monitoring Program as part of the MND. The purpose of the MMP is to insure compliance with the mitigation measures. At the time of the MND's adoption, the MMP is adopted. This project's MMP has been prepared for consideration. NOTICE OF PUBLIC I LEARING: Notice for this project was published in the Inland Valley Bulletin and the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on September 28, 2006. Public hearing notices were mailed to TTM 54081 Page 10 approximately 219 property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the project site on September 25, 2006. Furthermore, the project site was posted with a display board and the public notice was posted in three public places by September 27, 2006. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the following to the City Council: approval of Zone Change No. 2006-02 and Planned Development Overlay District No. 2006-01, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 (SCH #2006071129) and Mitigation Monitoring Program and Vesting Tentative Map No. 54081, Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-18, Variance No. 2006-02, Tree Permit No. 2002-13, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as listed within the attached resolutions to City Council. Prepared by: A n J. L gu 6� ssociate Planner Attachments: Reviewed by: Nancy Fong, AICP, Community Development Director 1. Draft Resolution recommending to City Council approval of Zone Change No. 2002-02 and Planned Development Overlay District No. 2006-01; 2. Draft Resolution recommending to City Council approval of VTTM No.53430 and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 (SCH #2006071129) and Mitigation Monitoring Program; 3 Draft Resolution recommending to City Council approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-13, Variance No. 2006-02 and Tree Permit No. 2002-13 and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 (SCH #2006071129) and Mitigation Monitoring Program; 4. Exhibit "k—Tentative Map No. 54081 dated October 10, 2006; 5. Exhibit "B" Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 (SCH #2006071129) and Mitigation Report and Monitoring Program; and 6. Exhibit "C Response to Comments; 7. Chronology of VTTM 54081; and 8. Photo simulations of project after development. TTM 54081 Page 11 W CJ 30' 30' 6 0' co rl- 00 Lap 8 AD PPp� B' �3 9po p�Q�6 oll (3) 6' MAX. WALLS 1 by oe p(Ij (3) 6' MAX. WALLS 4 �a�bs 00 Lap 8 AD PPp� B' �3 9po p�Q�6 oll (3) 6' MAX. WALLS 1 by oe p(Ij (3) 6' MAX. WALLS f Agenda Item 7.1 — VTTM No. 54081 Attachments found in project file 9! DIAMOND BAR COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT - 21825 COPLEY DRIVE—DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 --TEL (909) 839-7030—FAX (909) 861-3117-www.Cityofdiamondbar.com AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: g• MEETING DATE: December 12, 2006 CASE/FILE NUMBER: Development Review No. DR 2006-19 PROJECT LOCATION: 1200 Chisholm Trail Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICATION REQUEST: Construct a three-story, 3,668 square foot single- family residence with an attached 440 square foot garage PROPERTY OWNERS: Anna Lee 6111 Glenwood Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647 APPLICANT: Yun Roe 533 S. Saint Andrew Place Suite 320 Los Angeles, CA 90020 STAFF Conditional Approval RECOMMENDATION: DR 2006-19 PAGE BACKGROUND: A. Project Description: The applicant is requesting approval of a Development Review Application to construct a new three-story, 3,668 square foot single family residence with an attached 440 sq. ft. garage. B. Site Description: The site is legally described as Lot 15 of Tract 37873 and the Tax Assessor Parcel is APN. 8717-026-038. The site is located on the west side of Chisholm Trail at the intersection of Rio Lobos Road. The subject property is vacant and it slopes in a northwesterly direction. The parcel contains 33,327 square feet of land area. The average slope of the site is in excess of 28 percent. The site is currently vacant. The building pad is approximately 1,310 square feet. ANALYSIS: A. Review Authority (Section 22.48: The construction of a single family residence requires approval of a Development Review Application. B. Site and Surrounding General Plan Zoning and Uses: Table 1 C. Development Review (22.48): 1. Development Standards: The following comparison (Table 2) shows that the proposed project meets the City's Development Standards for Residential Development in the R-1 (8,000) Zone: DR 2006-19 PAGE General Plan Zone Uses SiteSingle Family Residential R-1 (8,000) Vacant North Multi -Family Residential _ R-1 8,000) _ Vacant South Single Family ResidentialR-1 (8,000) Vacant East Single Family Residential R-1 (8,000) Residential West Multi -Family Residential/Commercial R-4/C-3JMulti-Family residential C. Development Review (22.48): 1. Development Standards: The following comparison (Table 2) shows that the proposed project meets the City's Development Standards for Residential Development in the R-1 (8,000) Zone: DR 2006-19 PAGE Table 2 2. Landscaping: The applicant indicates that no existing mature tree will be removed from the site to accommodate the proposed project. The landscape plan indicates that 13 new trees will be planted as part of this project. 3. Grading: The submitted plans indicate that the proposed project will require a cut of approximately 15 cubic yards and the import of approximately 1,820 cubic yards of fill material. A series of retaining walls will be constructed in order to prepare a building pad for the proposed dwelling unit. 4. Additional Review: The Public Works Department, the Building and Safety Division, and Fire Department reviewed this project- Their comments are included in both this report and the recommended conditions of approval. 5. Covenant and Agreement: 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 Recorder Office prior to building permit issuance. DR 7.006-19 PAGE Residential District General Development Standards Development R-1(8,000) RLM — Development Proposed Meets Requirements Feature Standard Minimum lot area 8,000 sq. ft. 33,327 sq. ft. Yes Residential density i single-family unit per lot 1 single-family unit Yes Front setback 20 feet 20 feet, 3 inches Yes 10 feet on one side and 5 feet on the 17' 6" and 5 feet & 28'-6" betweenadjoining Yes Side setbacks other with not less than 15 feet between adjoining structures Rear setback 20 feet from property line Over 125 Yes 40% 10.25% Yes Lot coverage Building height limit 35 feet maximum 35 feet Yes Landscaping 50% of Front Yard 50% Yes. 2 spaces fully enclosed 2 spaces. fully enclosed Yes Parking 2. Landscaping: The applicant indicates that no existing mature tree will be removed from the site to accommodate the proposed project. The landscape plan indicates that 13 new trees will be planted as part of this project. 3. Grading: The submitted plans indicate that the proposed project will require a cut of approximately 15 cubic yards and the import of approximately 1,820 cubic yards of fill material. A series of retaining walls will be constructed in order to prepare a building pad for the proposed dwelling unit. 4. Additional Review: The Public Works Department, the Building and Safety Division, and Fire Department reviewed this project- Their comments are included in both this report and the recommended conditions of approval. 5. Covenant and Agreement: 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 Recorder Office prior to building permit issuance. DR 7.006-19 PAGE 6. General Plan, Design Guidelines and Compatibility with Neighborhood: The proposed project with the conditions of approval complies with the adopted goals and objectives as set forth in the General Plan. The proposed project will not negatively affect the existing surrounding land uses and the design is compatible with the existing neighborhood. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site and the notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. A notice display board was posted at the site, and a copy of the legal notice was posted at the City's designated community posting sites. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The City has determined that this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15303 and 15332. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution conditionally approving Development Review No. DR 2006-19 subject to the conditions set forth in the attached resolution. Prepared by: David M. Meyer, AICP LDM Associates, Inca ATTACHMENTS: Reviewed by: Nancy Fong, AICP Community Development Director 1. Draft Resolution of Approval with required findings; 2. Exhibit "A" — site plan, floor plan, and elevations. DR 2006-19 PAGE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. DR 2006-19 A REQUEST TO THREE-STORYCONSTRUCT A FAMILY ON LOT NO. 15 OF TRACT 37873, LOCATED AT 1200CHISHOLM TRAILDRIVE - APN: 8717-026-038 A. RECITALS 1. The Planning Commission considered an application filed by Yun Roe on behalf of the property owner, Ms. Anna Lee, requesting approval of plans to construct a three-story, single family residence containing 3,668 square feet of living area with an attached 440 square foot garage at 1200 Chisolm Trail Drive. 2. The subject property is zoned R1-(8,000) and it contains 33,327 sq. ft. of land area. 3. The subject property is legally described as Lot 15, Tract 37873 and the Assessor Parcel Number is (APN) 8717-026-038. 4. Public Hearing notification was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers and property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site were notified of the proposed project by mail. Further, a public hearing notice display board was posted at the site, and at three other locations within the project vicinity. 5. On December 12, 2006 the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing, solicited testimony from all interested individuals, and concluded said hearing on that date. B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The Planning Commission hereby determines that the proposed project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15303 and 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. 3 The vlanning cons considered therecordion hereby aswholecincludinghaving 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 wildlife resources or the habitat up on which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this Planning Commissionhereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. Based upon the information contained in the submitted plans, the associated staff report and testimony given at the public hearing the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW a. 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 areas (e.g., specific plans, community plans, or planned developments). The proposed single-family residence is consistent with the R-9 (8,000) RLM Development Standards and Design Guidelines. b. 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 single-family residence will not impact the existing or future development of the surrounding neighborhood. C. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48 DBDC, the General Plan, City Design Guidelines, or any applicable specific plan. The design of the proposed single-family residence is compatible with existing homes in the surrounding neighborhood. d. 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. The project's design is consistent with other single-family residences in the neighborhood. e. 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. The proposed single-family residence will not negatively impact the public health, safety or general welfare. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves this Application subject to the following conditions: a. Planning Division (1) Development shall substantially comply with the plans and documents presented to the Planning Commission at the public hearing regarding this proposed project. (2) 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. (3) Public sidewalk and associated street improvements shall be installed across the front of the subject property in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer. (4) All retaining wall shall be constructed of decorative masonry material acceptable to the Director of Community Development. All retaining wall shall be screened from view by dense landscaping. b. Building and Safety Division (1) Fire Department approval is required. Please contact the Fire Department. (2) Applicant shall provide temporary sanitation facilities while under construction. (3) Applicant shall submit an application to the Walnut Valley Water District for Fire Flow and submit their approval to the Building and Safety Division prior to the issuance of building permits. c. Standard Conditions — Attachment "A". The applicant shall comply with the standard development conditions attached hereto and labeled Attachment "A". 3 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 the applicant and the property owner. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12T" DAY OF DECEMBER -2006, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. go Steve Nelson, 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 12th day of December 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ATTEST: Nancy Fong, Secretary Attachment: Standard Conditions- Attachment "A" 4 DIAMUl�D'PB�R COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT m STIANDARD USE PERMITS, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL NEW AND REMODELED STRUCTURES PROJECT No: Development Review No. 2006-19 SUBJECT: Construction of a new 3 -story Single-FamilV Dwelling PROPERTY Anna Lee OWNER: APPLICANT: Yun Roe LOCATION: 1200 Chisolm Trail Drive Diamond Bar CA 91765 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. FAPPLICANT SHALL OR COMPLIANCE WIITHTACT THE THE FOLLOWINGNG DIVISION T (909) 839-7030, CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. In accordance with Government Code Section 66474.9(b)(1), the applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its officers, agents and employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding to attack, set-aside, void or annul, the approval of Development Review No. 2006- 19 brought within the time period provided by Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the city and/or its officers, agents and employees are made a party of any such action: (a) Applicant shall provide a defense to the City defendants or at the City's option reimburse the City its .costs of defense, including reasonable attorneys fees, incurred in defense of such claims. 5 (b) Applicant shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the City descendents. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action of proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof. 2. This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant and owner of the property involved have filed, within twenty-one (21) days of approval of this Development Review No. 2006-19, 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 approval. Further, this approval shall not be effective until the applicants pay remaining City processing fees, school fees and fees for the review of submitted reports. 3. All designers, architects, engineers, and contractors associated with this project shall obtain a Diamond Bar Business Registration and zoning approval for those businesses located in Diamond Bar, 4. Signed copies of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans. The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 5. Prior to the plan check, revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval. 6. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all conditions of approval shall be completed. 7. The project site shall be maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of approval and all laws, or other applicable regulations. 8. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and any applicable Specific Plan in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 9. Site, grading, landscape/irrigation and roof plans, elevations and sections shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of City permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 10. Property owner/applicant shall remove the public hearing notice board within three days of this project's approval. 11. The applicant shall comply with requirements of City Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works Department, and the Fire Department. B. FEESIDEPOSITS Applicant shall pay development fees (including but not limited to Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works Department and Mitigation Monitoring) at the established rates, prior to issuance of building or grading permit(whichever comes first), as required by the City. School fees as required shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permit. In addition, the applicant shall pay all remaining prorated City project review and processing fees prior to issuance of grading or building permit, whichever comes first. Prior to any plan check, all deposit accounts for the processing of this project shall have no deficits. C. TIME LIMITS The approval of Development Review No. 2006-19 shall expire within two years from the date of approval if the use has not been exercised as defined per Municipal Code Section 22.66.050(b)(1). The applicant may request in writing a one year time extension subject to Municipal Code Section 22.60.050(c) for Planning Commission approval. D. SITE DEVELOPMENT The project site shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the approved plans submitted to, approved, and amended herein by the Planning Commission, collectively attached hereto as Exhibit "A" including: site plans, floor plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and Development Code regulations. 2. Prior to the issuance of any permits, 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 Recorders Office. 3. All ground -mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, air conditioning condensers, etc. shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berms, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 4. No amplified music or sound shall be permitted. Applicant shall comply with the City's noise standards. 7 5. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened from public view. 6. All structures, including walls, trash enclosures, canopies, etc, shall be maintained in a structurally sound, safe manner with a clean, orderly appearance. All graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours by the property owner/occupant. E. LANDSCAPE, PRESERVED AND PROTECTED TREES 1. Prior to issuance of any permits, detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval. 2. Prior to plan check submittal, a final landscape/irrigation plan shall be submitted with the type of planting materials, color, size, quantity and location including proposed sites for the planting of protected/preserved trees and additional species to mask the retaining wall height. 3. Prior to the Planning Division's final inspection and/or Certificate of Occupancy issuance, the landscaping/irrigation shall be installed or replaced. Any dense plant material proposed in the front setback shall not exceed a 42 inches maximum height. 4. Prior to releasing occupancy, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that the slope vegetation is in satisfactory condition. 5. Retaining walls shall not exceed an exposed height of six (6) feet. All retaining walls shall be earth tone in color and constructed from decorative material (i.e., split face, stack stone, etc.). Retaining walls or fences located within the front yard setback shall not exceed an exposed height of 42 inches. F. SOLID WASTE The site shall be maintained in a condition, which is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement approved herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction shall be done only by the property owner, applicant or by a duly permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas within the City. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor used has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. Mandatory solid waste disposal services shall be provided by the City franchised waste hauler to all parcels/lots or uses affected by approval of this project. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, (909) 839-7040, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL 1. An Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted concurrently with the grading plan clearly detailing erosion control measures. These measures shall be implemented during construction between October 1St and April 15th. The erosion control plan shall conform to national Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards and incorporate the appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's). 2. The applicant shall comply with Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) requirements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 3. Grading and construction activities and the transportation of equipment and materials and operation of heavy grading equipment shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Dust generated by grading and construction activities shall be reduced by watering the soil prior to and during the activities and in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 402 and Rule 403. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. Additionally, all construction equipment shall be properly muffled to reduce noise levels. B. SOILS REPORT/GRADING/RETAINING WALLS Prior to grading plan submittal, a geotechnical report prepared by a Geotechnical Engineer, licensed by the State of California, shall be submitted by the applicant for approval by the City. Upon approval of the geotechnical report, the applicant shall submit drainage and grading plans prepared by a Civil Engineer, licensed by the State of California, prepared in accordance with the City's requirements for the City's review and approval. A list of requirements for grading plan check is available from the Public Works Department. All grading (cut and fill) calculations shall be submitted to the City concurrently with the grading plan. 3. Finished slopes shall conform to City Code Section 22.22.080 - Grading. 4. All easements and flood hazard areas shall be clearly identified on the grading plan. 5. The grading plan shall show the location of any retaining walls and the elevations of the top of wall/footing/retaining and the finished grade on both sides of the retaining wall. Construction details for retaining walls shall be shown on the grading plan. Calculations and details of retaining walls shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for review and approval. 6. All equipment staging areas shall be located on the project site. Staging area, including material stockpile and equipment storage area, shall be enclosed within a 6 foot -high chain link fence. All access points in the defense shall be locked whenever the construction site is not supervised. 7. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, City Grading Ordinance, Hillside Management Ordinance and acceptable grading practices. 8. The maximum grade of driveways serving building pad areas shall be 15 percent. In hillside areas driveway grades exceeding 15 percent shall have parking landings with a minimum 16 feet deep and shall not exceed five (5) percent grade or as required by the City Engineer. Driveways with a slope of 15 percent shall incorporate grooves for traction into the construction as required by the City Engineer. All slopes shall be seeded per landscape plan and/or fuel modification plan with native grasses or planted with ground cover, shrubs, and trees for erosion control upon completion of grading or some other alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 10. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a pre -construction meeting shall be held at the project site with the grading contractor, applicant, and city grading inspector at least 48 hours prior to commencing grading operations. El 11. Rough grade certifications by project soils engineer shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits for the foundation of the residential structure. Retaining wall permits may be issued without a rough grade certificate. 12. Final grade certifications by project soils and civil engineers shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of any project final inspections/certificate of occupancy respectively. D. DRAINAGE 1. Detailed drainage system information of the lot with careful attention to any flood hazard area shall be submitted. All drainage/runoff from the development shall be conveyed from the site to the natural drainage course. No on-site drainage shall be conveyed to adjacent parcels, unless that is the natural drainage course. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a complete hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Los Angeles Public Works Department. E. UTILITIES Will Serve Letters shall be submitted stating that adequate facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the City from all utilities such as, but not limited to, phone, gas, water, electric, and cable. Applicant shall relocate and underground any existing on-site utilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the respective utility owner. 3. Underground utilities shall not be constructed within the drip line of any mature tree except as approved by a registered arborist. SEWERS/SEPTIC TANK Applicant shall obtain sewer connection permit(s) from the City and County Sanitation District prior to issuance of building permits. 11 APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 839-7020, FOR. COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Plans shall conform to State and Local Building Code (i.e., 2001 California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and the 2001 National Electrical Code) requirements and all other applicable construction codes, ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of plan check submittal. 2. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been met. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 3. The minimum design load for wind in this area is 80 M.P.H. exposures "C" and the site is within seismic zone four (4). The applicant shall submit drawings and calculations prepared by a California State licensed Architect/Engineer with wet stamp and signature. 4. This project shall comply with the energy conservation requirements of the State of California Energy Commission. Kitchen and bathroom lights shall be fluorescent. 5. Submit Public Works Department approved grading plans showing clearly all finish elevations, drainage, and retaining walls locations. 6. "Separate permits are required for pool, spa, pond and tennis court" and shall be noted on plans. 7. A height survey shall be required at completion of framing. 8. Number of plumbing fixtures shall be in compliance with CBC Appendix 29. 9. Please provide exact living area square feet per floor clearly and accurately on each floor. 10. Verify adequate exit requirements. The distance between required exits shall be %2 of the building diagonal. 11. Building setback from any slope (toe or top) shall meet Chapter 1.8 of the 2001 California Building Code. 12 12. All balconies shall be designed for 401b. live load. 13. Guardrails shall be designed for 201b. load applied laterally at the top of the rail. 14. Indicate all easements on the site plan. 15. Fire Department approval shall be required. Contact the Fire Department to check the fire zone for the location of your property. If this project is located in High Hazard Fire Zone it shall meet of requirements of the fire zone. a. All roof covering shall be "Fire Retardant, Class "A", the roofs shall be fire stopped at the eaves to preclude entry of the flame or members under the fire, b. All unenclosed under -floor areas shall be constructed as exterior wall. c. 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. d. Chimneys shall have spark arresters of maximum '/2 inch screen. 16. All retaining walls shall be submitted to the Building & Safety and Public Work Departments for review and approval. 17. Submit grading plans showing clearly all finish elevations, drainage, and retaining wall locations. No building permits shall be issued prior to submitting a pad certification. 18. The project shall be protected by a construction fence and shall comply with the NPDES & BMP requirements (sand bags, etc.). 19. Check drainage patterns with Engineering Department. Surface water shall drain away from building at a 2% minimum slope. 20. Specify location of tempered glass as required by code. 21. Specify 1/4"/ft slope for all flat surfaces/ decks with approved water proofing material. Also, provide guardrail connection detail (height, spacing, etc.). 22. Private property sewer/septic system shall be approved by the Los Angeles County Health Department and the California Water Control Board. 13 APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT FIRE PREVENTION FOR FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY COMPLIANCE WITH THE Emergency access shall be provided, maintaining free and clear, a minimum 28 foot at all times during construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire Department that temporary water supply for fire protection is available pending completion of the required fire protection system. 14 Q �� w�nlrru K�•�n �Y ••�•a �r i F nar-ssc [c�a i oma- W.)'s+� w 3[gf��,J otc/ "ama It6xx ayes Mm 6 S9Lt6lY� 13V8 ONO la a0183jNl ONINWId B 3ruDRJHDW '•a4 Nlll. 'I�IfD OOZI 553ti00V n I ,-!S©d 3snOH IIVU WIOSIHO Q CCKO[ Mtt% YVJ tWB-[tf IftL) i3L i� OIeDe w 64C?]fH SITZ Otq "a17i 3tlAiSRY. hex 99LI6 WJ WB ONOHVq N01URN1 ® ONINNV1d B 31111 UHOLtl 'LO llYtl1 fl1061H] OOZI : SS3tlo01' Sad 3snOH IIVdi WIOSIHO s g i i S9GI6 Y3 are M 031 a ina massa aoss3anoY i i i i a E _ ----- �p� g ccia icoa-cxc uia moos"Y.i sr[ r wi o�u •wie �esi�x epee U0183INI p `JNINWd a 38ni33aHOi Y i i ---------� - i Sad 3snOH llni MOSIHO i - 3 g m - ------ - ---------- --------- - i i i i i i i i i i i i -- ----- _ - ----------- e i i ---------� - i i - 3 i - ------ - ---------- --------- - ----- ---- ------------------ -- i i I otooe h ffi'[r IN W't a1t1 "M� 3nw-�x 6syc 59Lt6 VO are aHomla 9NINNYId B 3afllD311HOar ..Houral Ii IH] OOLI : 59a0T' 210Rl31N1 a Sad 3snOH Ini MOSIHO g a g _ a nzrtvc fcLO acvi LWY--[LL Ica) zu. oL00E ra simin sm oL4 "w� ease 99LI9 WJ 801831NI 8 9NINNVId B 3?3nlUaUHJW rm m ooz9 � 'ice 0921 553tlaQ'! Sad 36f10H lWi MOSIHO mor 0 I I 0 I I 0 Q I I I I I I I j k I k = g4 mor 0 I I 0 I I 0 Q I I I I I I I j k I k = I i j I j I a I 4 z N I I I -F-- ---------® ---------- C)I I x I i\ � I I I I I 99116 MH aY6 6O ()O'6oz6 a6 Tnai mosiNa l - ss3aaar a m r g a LO o Q rLrsx IctD and tcw-ezc (ctL1 �xu atone sdmxi sm oIU "arcie 3tlIlEN{ eeac M0RJ31NI 9 9NINNnd S 3afW3MHUatl Sad 3snOH 11"i MOSIHO g 5 & S F ani oboe w simfrn sm out 'mie on�six eeac 59116 vOWGloo Dols a ao 31NJ @ 9NINNv9d ® 3UfUDaUHDLv lIVN1 tflOSlll7 OOZt 553tl00Y Sad isnOH IiIViil INIOSIHO g a g g g w LtLY-LYf (SIL) a{V! IWa-LLC fit) %[il �ry Dim w s�aln sm alt/ ^wie , sox 59416 vo are ONOm10 o 210RI31N1 eNINNvId B 3af11�3llH�.h' 1 ao inat msslNs ossa ss3aam B aY R g o P o Q Sad 3snOH IIV'di WIOSIHO g # g s w wnW �N��� awi• pp � 6 i E16o-iV[ 199 O ulooa n 53y9t+ wi Ol[F `mla 3xxsax aeac SBLL6 V� WB AD.0o 16 a aoia�i 8 JNINNYId 6 3NHLO3llHOW NOIYlLL IIIDSIq.00Z{ SS3tl60V m F o Q Sad 3snOH IM]i WIOSIHO s a olm Kl 53'S" Sal olu `ace 3SH M OBB£ 99LIS Y� iN8 ONOYP/w IYUL MIHJ OOLI : s43uoay 9NINNYId B 38rLLOaUHOEY 'NO o >•.� o iIORl31NI 9 Sad 3SnOH IMJI MOSIHO g g g IT AP ' PLANNING COMMISSION r�s9eo 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: December 12, 2006 CASE/FILE NUMBER: Development Review No. DR 2006-13 2366 Clear Creek Lane PROJECT LOCATION: Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICATION REQUEST: Demolish an existing dwelling unit and construct a 13,730 sq.ft. single-family Ii151,836 ence with an square foot parcel eof 1,375 sq. ft.. garage on a land. PROPERTY OWNERS: Lawrence and Heneretta Ogbechie 2366 Clear Creek Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 George Midley APPLICANTS: 23441 Golden Springs Drive, Suite 222 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 STAFF Conditional Approval RECOMMENDATION: DR 2006-13 - PAGE 1 BACKGROUND: A. Project Description: The applicant is requesting approval of a Development Review Application to demolish an existing single-family dwelling unit and to construct a new three-story, 13,730 square foot house with an attached 1,375 square foot garage. The proposed project includes a swimming pool and an illuminated tennis court. B. Site Description: The site is located on the north side of Clear Creek Lane approximately 580 feet east of Indian Creek. The site is legally described as Lot 47, Tract 30577. The Tax Assessor Parcel No. is 8713-040-021. The site contains 51,836 gross square feet of land area. It is currently developed with a residential dwelling unit. The site slopes in a northerly direction and the average slope is in excess of 28%. The site belongs to the Country Estates Homeowners Association. ANALYSIS: A. Review Authority (Section 22.48): The construction of a single family residence requires approval of a Development Review Application. B. Site and Surrounding General Plan, Zoning and Uses: Table 1 C. Development Review (22.48): Development Standards: The following comparison (Table 2) shows that the proposed project meets the City's Development Standards for Residential Development in the R-1 (40,000) RR Zone: DR 2006-13 -PAGE 2 General Plan Zone Uses Site Single Family Residential R-1 (40,000) RR Residential North Single Family Residential R-1 (40,000) RR Residential South Single Family Residential R-1 40,000) RR Residential East Single Family Residential R-1 (40,000) RR Residential West Single Family Residential R-1 40,000) RR Residential C. Development Review (22.48): Development Standards: The following comparison (Table 2) shows that the proposed project meets the City's Development Standards for Residential Development in the R-1 (40,000) RR Zone: DR 2006-13 -PAGE 2 2. Landscaping: The submitted landscape plan indicates that twenty-two mature trees will be removed to accommodate the proposed development. Fifteen of the trees to be removed are California Black Walnut. The applicant's arborist report indicates that these trees are in fair to poor condition with various amounts of dieback and trunk and or branch rot. The other five trees are reported to be a Monterey Pines, Stone Pine and Camphor trees. These trees are reported to be in poor condition. The applicant will be required to replace the removed trees at a ratio of two to one. The minimum size of the required 44 replacement trees will be twenty- four inch box specimen. The submitted landscape plan provides for the required replacement tree. 3. Gradin : The proposed project will require the construction of numerous retaining walls. To create the building pads, a cut of 3,875 cubic yards and a fill of 4,990 yard are required. There will be an import of approximately 1,115 cubic yards of fill material. 4. Covenant and Agreement: A condition of approval requires the property owner to complete and record a "Covenant and Agreement to Maintain a DR 2006-13 - PAGE 3 Table 2 Residential District General Development Standards Development R-1(40,000) RR—Development Meets Proposed Requirements Feature Standard Minimum lot area 1 Acre 51,636 sq. ft. Yes Residential density 1 single-family unit per lot 1 single-family unit Yes Front setback 30 feet 30 feet Yes 15 feet on one side and 10 feet on 36'-9"- North side Yes Side setbacks the other, not less than 25 feet een side 42' 10'betSouth eures between structures Rear setback 25 feet from property line 25 feet Yes 30% 12% Yes Lot coverage Building height limit 35 feet maximum 35 feet Yes Landscaping 50% of Front Yard o 23% Yes_ 2 fully enclosed 6 spaces fully enclosed Yes Parkin g spaces 2. Landscaping: The submitted landscape plan indicates that twenty-two mature trees will be removed to accommodate the proposed development. Fifteen of the trees to be removed are California Black Walnut. The applicant's arborist report indicates that these trees are in fair to poor condition with various amounts of dieback and trunk and or branch rot. The other five trees are reported to be a Monterey Pines, Stone Pine and Camphor trees. These trees are reported to be in poor condition. The applicant will be required to replace the removed trees at a ratio of two to one. The minimum size of the required 44 replacement trees will be twenty- four inch box specimen. The submitted landscape plan provides for the required replacement tree. 3. Gradin : The proposed project will require the construction of numerous retaining walls. To create the building pads, a cut of 3,875 cubic yards and a fill of 4,990 yard are required. There will be an import of approximately 1,115 cubic yards of fill material. 4. Covenant and Agreement: A condition of approval requires the property owner to complete and record a "Covenant and Agreement to Maintain a DR 2006-13 - PAGE 3 Single Family Residence" on a City form. The covenant must be recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder Office prior to building permit issuance. 5. Additional Review: The Public Works Department, the Building and Safety Division, and Fire Department reviewed this project. Their comments are included in both the report and the recommended conditions of approval. 6. General Plan Design Guidelines and Compatibility with Neighborhood: The proposed project complies with the adopted goals and objectives as set forth in the General Plan. The proposed project will not negatively affect the existing surrounding land uses and the design is compatible with the existing neighborhood. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site and the notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. A notice display board was posted at the site, and a copy of the legal notice was posted at the City's designated community posting sites. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The City has determined that this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15332 of the CEQA guidelines. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution conditionally approving Development Review No. DR 2006-13 subject to the conditions set forth in the attached resolution_ Prepared by: Reviewed by: David M. Meyer, AICP Nancy Fong, AICP LDM Associates, Inc. Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution of Approval with required findings 2. Exhibit "A" — site plan, floor plan, and elevations DR 2006-13 - PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. DR 2006-13 FOR THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON LOT NO. 47 OF TRACT 30577, LOCATED AT 2366 CLEAR CREEK LANE - APN: 8713-040-021 A. RECITALS 1. The Planning Commission considered an application filed oby l of George Midley (property owners' representative) requesting app Peo demolish an existing dwelling and to construct a new three story single- family residence containing 13,730 square feet of enclosed floor area with an attached 1,375 square foot garage. The proposed project includes a swimming pool and an illuminated tennis court. The site is addressed as 2366 Clear Creek Lane. 2. The subject property is zoned R1-(40,000) RR and it contains 51,836 gross square feet of land area. 3. The subject property is legally described as Lot 47, Tract 30577 and the Assessor Parcel Number is (APN) 8713-040-021. 4. Public Hearing notification was published in the San Gabriel Vallev Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers and property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site were notified of the proposed project by mail. Further, a public hearing notice display board was posted at the site, and at three other locations within the project vicinity. 5. On December 12, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing, solicited testimony from all interested individuals, and concluded said hearing on that date. B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The Planning Commission hereby determines that the proposed project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. 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 wildlife resources or the habitat up on 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 information contained in the submitted plans, the associated staff report and testimony given at the public hearing the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW a. The design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, development standards of the applicable zone district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for specialized areas (e.g., specific plans, community plans, or planned developments). The proposed single-family residence is consistent with the RR Zone Development Standards and Design Guidelines. b. 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 single-family residence will not impact the existing or future development of the surrounding neighborhood. C. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48 Diamond Bar Development Code, the General Plan, City Design Guidelines, or any applicable specific plan. The design of the proposed single-family residence is compatible with existing homes in the surrounding neighborhood. d. 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. e. The project's design is consistent with other single-family residences in the neighborhood. 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. The proposed single-family residence will not negatively impact the public health, safety or general welfare. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves this Application subject to the following conditions: a. Planning Division (1) Development shall substantially comply with the plans and documents presented to the Planning Commission at the public hearing regarding this proposed project. (2) 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. (3) The recreational court lighting shall comply with the provisions of Section 22.16.050. (4) The maximum height of the fencing surrounding the proposed tennis court shall not exceed 10 feet as measured from the court surface. (5) The tennis court shall be surrounded by dense landscaping such as trees and shrubs to screen the recreational court from the surrounding parcels of land. The required landscape plan shall be revised to provide for such landscaping and the plan shall be subject to review and approval of the Director of Community Development. b. Building and Safety Division (1) Fire Department approval is required. Please contact the Fire Department. (2)— Applicant shall. provide_. temporary sanitation facilities while under construction. (3) Applicant shall submit an application to the Walnut Valley Water District for Fire Flow and submit their approval to the Building and Safety Division prior to the issuance of building permits. C. Standard Conditions — Attachment "A". The applicant shall comply with the standard development conditions attached hereto and labeled Attachment "A". 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 the applicant and the property owner. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2006, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. In Steve Nelson, 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 12`h day of December 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ATTEST: Nancy Fong, Secretary Attachment: Standard Conditions- Attachment "A" 4 IDIIFTOND BARS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Attachment"A"" STANDARD CONDITIONS USE PERMITS, NEW AND REMODELED .'. PROJECT No: Development Review No. 2006- SUBJECT- Construction of a new 3 -story Single -Family Dwelling PROPERTY Lawrence and Heneretta Ogbechie OWNER: APPLICANT: George Midley LOCATION: 2366 Clear Creek Lane Diamond Bar CA 91765 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT WIHEOLLOW NG CON CONDITIONS: TO SAT (909) 839-7030, FORCOMPLIANCE A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. In accordance with Government Code Section 66474.9(b)(1), the applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its officers, agents and employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding to attack, set-aside, void or annul, the approval of Development Review No. 2006-13 brought within the time period provided by Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the city and/or its officers, agents and employees are made a party of any such action: (a) Applicant shall provide a defense to the City defendants or at the City's option reimburse the City its costs of defense, including reasonable attorneys fees, incurred in defense of such claims. (b) Applicant shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the City descendents. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action of proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof, L This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant and owner of the property involved have filed, within twenty-one (21) days of approval of this Development Review No. 2006-13, 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 approval. Further, this approval shall not be effective until the applicants pay remaining City processing fees, school fees and fees for the review of submitted reports. 3. All designers, architects, engineers, and contractors associated with this project shall obtain a Diamond Bar Business Registration and zoning approval for those businesses located in Diamond Bar. 4. Signed copies of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans. The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 5. Prior to the plan check, revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval. 6. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all conditions of approval shall be completed. 7. The project site shall be maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of approval and all laws, or other applicable regulations. 8. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and any applicable Specific Plan in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 9. Site, grading, landscape/irrigation and roof plans, elevations and sections shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of City permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 10. Property owner/applicant shall remove the public hearing notice board within three days of this project's approval. 11. The applicant shall comply with requirements of City Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works Department, and the Fire Department. B. FEES/DEPOSITS 1. Applicant shall pay development fees (including but not limited to Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works Department and Mitigation Monitoring) at the established rates, prior to issuance of building or grading permit(whichever comes first), as required by the City. School fees as required shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permit. addition, the applicant shall pay all remaining prorated City project review and processing fees prior to issuance of grading or building permit, whichever comes first. 2. Prior to any plan check, all deposit accounts for the processing of this project shall have no deficits. C. TIME LIMITS 1. The approval of Development Review No. 2006-13 shall expire within two years from the date of approval if the use has not been exercised s can defined per Municipal Code Section 22.66.050(b)(1). The app may request in writing a one year time extension subject to Municipal Code Section 22.60.050(c) for Planning Commission approval. D. SITE DEVELOPMENT 1. The project site shall be developed and maintained in substa and ial conformance with the approved plans submitted to, approved, amended herein by the Planning Commission, collectively referenced herein as Exhibit "A" including: site plans, floor plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and Development Code regulations. 2. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the Applicant shall complete and record a "Covenant and Agreement to Maintain a Single -Family by the y. Residence" ompl ted, on a form to be and recorded withtheLos Angeles CtountyhReco dens officnt e, complete 3. All ground -mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, air conditioning condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view. and masonry adequately walls, berms, and/or le use of a andscaping la d capi g t combination satisfactionconcrete or of the Planning Division. 4. No amplified music or sound shall be permitted. Applicant shall comply with the City's noise standards. 5. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened from public view. 6. All structures, including walls, trash enclosures, canopies, etc, shall be maintained in a structurally sound, safe manner with a clean, orderly appearance. All graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours by the property - - owner/occupant. E. LANDSCAPE, PRESERVED AND PROTECTED TREES 1. Prior to issuance of any permits, detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval. 2. Prior to plan check submittal, a final landscape/irrigation plan shall be submitted with the type of planting materials, color, size, quantity and location including proposed sites for the planting of protected/preserved trees and additional species to mask the retaining wall height. 3. Prior to the Planning Division's final inspection and/or Certificate of Occupancy issuance, the landscaping/irrigation shall be installed or replaced. Any dense plant material proposed in the front setback shall not exceed a 42 inches maximum height. 4. Prior to releasing occupancy, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that the slope vegetation is in satisfactory condition. 5. Retaining walls shall not exceed an exposed height of six (6) feet. All retaining walls shall be earth tone in color and constructed from decorative material (i.e., split face, stack stone, etc.). Retaining walls or fences located within the front yard setback shall not exceed an exposed height of 42 inches. F. SOLID WASTE The site shall be maintained in a condition, which is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement approved herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction shall be done only by the property owner, applicant or by a duly permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas within the City. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor used has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. 2. Mandatory solid waste disposal services shall be provided by the Cit f franchised waste hauler to all parcels/lots or uses affected by approval this project. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, (909)839-7040, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL 1. An Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted concurrently with the grading plan clearly detailing erosion control measures. These measures shall be implemented during construction between October Vt and April 15th. The erosion control plan shall conform to national Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards and incorporate the appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's). 2. The applicant shall comply (SUSMP requirements to he Standard Urban Mitigation Plan ) satisfaction onof the City Engineer. 3. Grading and construction activities and the transportation of equipment and materials and operation of heavy grading equipment shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Dust generated by grading and construction activities shall be reduced by watering the soil prior to and during the activities and in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 402 and Rule 403. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. Additionally, all construction equipment shall be properly muffled to reduce noise levels. B. SOILS REPORT/GRADING/RETAINING WALLS 1. Prior to grading plan submittal, a geotechnical report prepared by a Geotechnical Engineer, licensed by the State of California, shall be submitted by the applicant for approval by the City. 2. Upon approval of the geotechnical report, the applicant shall submit drainage and grading plans prepared by a Civil Engineer, licensed by the State of California, prepared in accordance with the City's requirements for the City's review and approval. A list of requirements for grading plan check is available from the Public Works Department. All grading (cut and fill) calculations shall be submitted to the City concurrently with the grading plan. 3. Finished slopes shall conform to City Code Section 22.22.080 -Grading. 4. All easements and flood hazard areas shall be clearly identified on the grading plan. 5. The grading plan shall show the location of any retaining walls and the elevations of the -top of -wall/footing/retaining and the finished grade on both sides of the retaining wall. Construction details for retaining walls shall be shown on the grading plan. Calculations and details of retaining walls shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for review and approval. 6. All equipment staging areas shall be located on the project site. Staging area, including material stockpile and equipment storage area, shall be enclosed within a 6 foot -high chain link fence. All access points in the defense shall be locked whenever the construction site is not supervised. 7. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, City Grading Ordinance, Hillside Management Ordinance and acceptable grading practices. 8. The maximum grade of driveways serving building pad areas shall be 15 percent. In hillside areas driveway grades exceeding 15 percent shall have parking landings with a minimum 16 feet deep and shall not exceed five (5) percent grade oras required by the City Engineer. Driveways with a slope of 15 percent shall incorporate grooves for traction into the construction as required by the City Engineer. 9. All slopes shall be seeded per landscape plan and/or fuel modification plan with native grasses or planted with ground cover, shrubs, and trees for erosion control upon completion of grading or some other alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 10. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a pre -construction meeting shall be held at the project site with the grading contractor, applicant, and city grading inspector at least 48 hours prior to commencing grading operations. 11. Rough grade certifications by project soils engineer shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits for the foundation of the residential structure. Retaining wall permits may be issued without a rough grade certificate. 12. Final grade certifications by project soils and civil engineers shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of any project final inspections/certificate of occupancy respectively. 10 D. DRAINAGE Detailed drainage system information of the lot with careful attention to any flood hazard area shall be submitted. All drainagelrunoff from the development shall be conveyed from the site to the natural drainage course. No on-site drainage shall be conveyed to adjacent parcels, unless that is the natural drainage course. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a complete hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Los Angeles Public Works Department. E. UTILITIES Will Serve Letters shall be submitted stating that adequate facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the City from all utilities such as, but not limited to, phone, gas, water, electric, and cable. Applicant shall relocate and underground any existing on-site utilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the respective utility owner. Underground utilities shall not be constructed within the drip line of any mature tree except as approved by a registered arborist. SEWERS/SEPTIC TANK Applicant shall obtain sewer connection permit(s) from the City and County Sanitation District prior to issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 839- 7020, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Plan's shall conform to State and Local Building Code (i.e., 2001 California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and the 2001 National Electrical Code) requirements and all other applicable construction codes, ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of plan check submittal. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been met. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 11 3. The minimum design load for wind in this area is 80 M.P.H. exposures "C and the site is within seismic zone four (4). The applicant shall submit drawings and calculations prepared by a California State licensed Architect/Engineer with wet stamp and signature. 4. This project shall comply with the energy conservation requirements of the State of California Energy Commission. Kitchen and bathroom lights shall be fluorescent. 5. Submit Public Works Department approved grading plans showing clearly all finish elevations, drainage, and retaining walls locations. 6. "Separate permits are required for pool, spa, pond and tennis court" and shall be noted on plans. 7. A height survey may be required at completion of framing. 8. Number of plumbing fixtures shall be in compliance with CBC Appendix 29. 9. Please provide exact living area square feet per floor clearly and accurately on each floor. 10. Verify adequate exit requirements. The distance between required exits shall be 1/2 of the building diagonal. 11. Building setback from any slope (toe or top) shall meet Chapter 18 of the 2001 California Building Code. 12. All balconies shall be designed for 401b, live load. 13. Guardrails shall be designed for 201b. load applied laterally at the top of the rail. 14. Indicate all easements on the site plan. 15. Fire Department approval shall be required. Contact the Fire Department to check the fire zone for the location of your property. If this project is located in High Hazard Fire Zone it shall meet of requirements of the fire zone. a. All unenclosed under -floor areas shall be constructed as exterior wall. b. All openings into the attic, floor and/or other enclosed areas shall be covered with corrosion -resistant wire mesh not less than 1/4 inch or more than 1/2 inch in any dimension except where such openings are equipped with sash or door. 12 16. All retaining walls shall be submitted to the Building & Safety and Public Work Departments for review and approval. 17. Submit grading plans showing clearly all finish elevations, drainage, and retaining wall locations. No building permits shall be issued prior to submitting a pad certification. 18. The project shall be protected by a construction fence and shall comply with the NPDES & BMP requirements (sand bags, etc.). 19. Check drainage patterns with Engineering Department. Surface water shall drain away from building at a 2% minimum slope. 20. Specify location of tempered glass as required by code. 21. Specify 114"M slope for all flat surfaces/ decks with approved water proofing material. Also, provide guardrail connection detail (height, spacing, etc.). 22. Private property sewer/septic system shall be approved by the Los Angeles County Health Department and the California Water Control Board. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE PREVENTION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Emergency access shall be provided, maintaining free and clear, a minimum 28 foot at all times during construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire Department that temporary water supply for fire protection is available pending completion of the required fire protection system. END 13 F M Lk,y +�n. r+k 1 P1 i r'lr � 1 f at 1�Jt k id � y f�9 �Y�a I ��C C�� SFA �•I 4'Lf �,9 cs�`�fF+d t RE? Hill E�'ri + ` d+uh�xJ P�i:r' TI —� L� y Id'� k x y mi �• mtj��. Sts tUtov- ral EZ sY s �F��n { c d7�f V �F Wr �110b iy'�•'� .� ��a�. SUN kFi � J,� � �� �+ V ] 7 t l�i 1��� � ^aLtx �tx5•t�'4�e ++1,,�� � r•. ,:in �;�aT 5: 17-5'i �4 aii1 d s t k r %if �4 � (r R t 4 IAtc D a PROPOSED RESIDENCE FOR G M &ASSOCIATES 1--H DRAMRS.OGBECHIE ue„e 0 ]66 CL V.¢ CfiFEx Owuaxo twa. G eav/See-5teae C I I I 1 m it i g� b i� Ln G °z 633qEF's_�i cRs sed:.€'gid®Saa�aa3a3 �'£ F ,G RF^y��FR60E @F'G;EooQ �'Qgii�n^nY D e .� ON 2Bas m"an �on lit I1 . ;011 Pill- 11-';!Pl�°€9 AS 'E ' `s$ ♦ �� 5 y a RP Z =;ea"0 �£@m.nxs�ta'"�^�ga�ym€e�NFe y 9 p g a€ a I- see MIN cR Q$s g kg Gs A a€ .€eaa€gn��` egnaya 4°ag a .m Ifie so � €�.If's €r l,�€q��alld � � s�a�_. �.e�a� ����nis�P'+�sg^g��^��@���5��•nS A�`A: F�oay�@Q�g>g ���S kc _^^o� S€@RS R»F-, 2 10; "`as€e€ Er a NDS I €, ym.p o e�.in e. a � �. `��eas �^�€ � '�='g ti a^ 5m�y 3`- sellae Ego QpF az� �01115� Af a �G_agss. A@Raa�4 a" $� 0P ^qg i.��'•.,� $gee E x oR� a-py_9 9 g1 . - �R , ash:. s 390fi"�z p 10,_ De" �p aR R^"I "-€ `'a�sag� gg ��€P y"' �^,. ?^ sf - s "- c= e�,Ja� ,xos - zA l 1 0 age 11t 1 g qj p 11 o A zoz L l9 LCA L L gg9�= m; 11 ask�g se � e� I1�2 t sad eB� � o i z @ O e p o m aar ann iso Z p o =;ea"0 �£@m.nxs�ta'"�^�ga�ym€e�NFe y 9 p g a€ a I- see MIN cR Q$s g kg Gs A a€ .€eaa€gn��` egnaya 4°ag a .m Ifie so � €�.If's €r l,�€q��alld � � s�a�_. �.e�a� ����nis�P'+�sg^g��^��@���5��•nS A�`A: F�oay�@Q�g>g ���S kc _^^o� S€@RS R»F-, 2 10; "`as€e€ Er a NDS I €, ym.p o e�.in e. a � �. `��eas �^�€ � '�='g ti a^ 5m�y 3`- sellae Ego QpF az� �01115� Af a �G_agss. A@Raa�4 a" $� 0P ^qg i.��'•.,� $gee E x oR� a-py_9 9 g1 . - �R , ash:. s 390fi"�z p 10,_ De" �p aR R^"I "-€ `'a�sag� gg ��€P y"' �^,. ?^ sf - s "- c= e�,Ja� ,xos - zA l 1 0 age 11t 1 g qj p 11 o A zoz L l9 LCA L L gg9�= m; 11 I1�2 G g_ ^ L L ;,- I .4"N"n Cg°xi��b x n I I ! _ _ sn OOOOOOO�OOOOOOOg j y IV � aQs as Ei P -MP A L TI'm 3 CenterUne CLEAR CREEK , P OPOSED RESIDENCE _POR G M & ASSOCIATES �'E p' I I -- / I. t/ 1 w- L_ -J I A2 I abl°l 6'Y-a�LL h�mI tic � I (z ate i gz C Qj Isn^ I i s z u P OPOSED RESIDENCE _POR G M & ASSOCIATES �'E E ss c v xo e.,a, cx -- — � I I f li I I' j j ��•�•' ��I �o•A-'! j i ! i I i i i i I ! I i i I i I i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 j i i i i 1 i i i I OI'VNI��.�................ K,. ,..,..,.,�....:.a�. .... ,....,.�... �. .... u ,a, ' a Av PROPOSED RESIDENCE FOR G M & ASSOCIATESffi � ph os A ' o DRA MRS OGBECHIE o, m -PROPOSED RESIDENCE FOR O o DR. Ec MRS. ®G lEC HI E . O _ o ,4 � kl� O O a I y O c C bo g m -PROPOSED RESIDENCE FOR O o DR. Ec MRS. ®G lEC HI E . ,4 O kl� c X00 O a m -PROPOSED RESIDENCE FOR o DR. Ec MRS. ®G lEC HI E . PROPOSED RESIDENCE FOR MRS OGBECEIE z 1P '-O alAMoib BPR CA � 3 PROPOSED RESIDENCE FOR G M & ASSOCIATES cAn ala a � DRA MRS OGBECHIE c:) ¢ c 2]66 CLFM CaEEK DtiMOND BPA. CA voa/aax xzxa e. v e1h N k - PROPOSED RESIDENCE FOR n�e�h nliininulnnnnil nui i Iun unilunnnil i�inuiil r I _i i z II tj, I I, I j II r j a I g se r m PROPOSED RESIDENCE FOR G M & ASSOCIATES NIRS. OGBECHIE 55 nliininulnnnnil nui i Iun unilunnnil i�inuiil r I _i i z II tj, I I, I j II r j a I g m PROPOSED RESIDENCE FOR G M & ASSOCIATES NIRS. OGBECHIE oQ ass caccx: an+,oNo ara, u zA ' II II I��I) II❑ I �; 1111111 1111 I I IIIIIIII IIII111IIIII ;� I�III ( j j�l II iii 11 1111111 l��I I�j IIiIIII��1 111111I111II III:I s r g �Q PROPOSED RESIDENCE FOR G M & ASSOCIATES 6 §'A DRA MRS. OGBECHIE Z A ]lee cLEAA [IiEFX WAONO BnR. G ° 9 , p nlnui nnnnl�uuunl unnlnnlinnl unnn� nunnl nunnl II I t -� -f--� I I I. �Ilillll,�Illllll„ v Il,1.1.l��,1,llll,�I,��lil��ili���lll�ll�l�lill�ll i - II II II I��I) II❑ I �; 1111111 1111 I I IIIIIIII IIII111IIIII ;� I�III ( j j�l II iii 11 1111111 l��I I�j IIiIIII��1 111111I111II III:I s r g �Q PROPOSED RESIDENCE FOR G M & ASSOCIATES 6 §'A DRA MRS. OGBECHIE Z A ]lee cLEAA [IiEFX WAONO BnR. G ° 9 , PROPOSED RESIDENCE FOR 0 DR. MRS. ®GBEGEEE 2 rn PROPOSED RESIDENCE FOR - DRAMRS. OGSECHIE O xass cicaa a SHRUBS O.Aa vtletlP vnl Mese ttlt otlF NA 5 Nva Fnpnta I ' � �v ®5woetaure c Z I In j /W � i II ,sYeltrfo Popgvet j �f�n,7� li _ kka ramvd n'Elar /4¢ I > � 1 ----- , - -- QW-1)"P 9 9E-NA SEECFI0S RESIDENCE CONCEPTUAL.CALANDSCAPE PLAN 'i -� ° DIAMOND BAR, CA' 7 7DIAI►IO11TD SAR y. ,-t�-,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: MEETING DATE: CASE/FILE NUMBER: PROJECT LOCATION: 8.3 December 12, 2006 Development Review No. 2006-22 2112 Rocky View Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICATION REQUEST: Construct a three-story 11,534 sq. ft. single-family residence with an attached 1,236 sq. ft. garage, a detached 506 square foot guesthouse and a detached 314 square foot gazebo PROPERTY OWNERS: APPLICANT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Chacko Jacob 1801 E. Edinger Ave., Suite #235 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Pete Volbeda, Architect 615 N. Benson Ave., Suite "C Upland, CA 91786 Conditional Approval DR 2006-22 - PACE 1 BACKGROUND: A. Project Description: The applicant is requesting approval of a Development Review Application to construct a three-story, 11,534 square foot single-family residence with an attached 1,236 square foot 5 -car garage. In addition, the project includes a 506 square foot detached guesthouse and 314 square foot detached gazebo. B. Site Description: The subject property is located on the northeasterly side of Rocky View Road approximately 150 east of Lazy Trail. The property in question is rectilinear in configuration with 129 feet of street frontage and a lot depth of 280 feet. The site contains 45,119 square feet of land area. The subject property slopes in an easterly direction. The street frontage is 55 feet higher than the southeasterly corner of the lot. The easterly portion of the site contains a Flood Hazard Area and a Restricted Use Area. The average slope of the site is approximately 20%. The private street is fully improved and the site has fully improved frontage. All public utilities are available to the site to include public sewers. The site belongs to the Country Estates Homeowners Association. The site is legally described as Lot 123 of Tract 30091. The Tax Assessor Parcel No. is 8713-030-001. The site is currently vacant. The fully prepared building pad is approximately 10, 500 to 12,000 square feet in size. ANALYSIS: A. Review Authority (Section 22.48): The construction of a single family residence requires approval of a Development Review Application. B. Site and Surrounding General Plan, Zoning and Uses: Table 1 DR 2006-22 - PAGE 2 General Plan Zone Uses Site Single Family Residential R-1 (40,000) Vacant North Single Family Residential R-1 (40,000) Residential South Single Family Residential R-1 (40,000) Residential East Single Family Residential R-1 (40,000) Residential West Single Family Residential R-1 (40,000) Residential DR 2006-22 - PAGE 2 C. Development Review (22.48): Development Standards: The following comparison (Table 2) shows that the proposed project meets the City's Development Standards for Residential Development in the R-1 (40,000) RR Zone. Table 2 - Residential District General Development Standards Development Feature RR — Zone Permitted Development Standard Proposed Meets Requirements Minimum lot area 1 Acre 45,119 sq. ft. Yes Residential density 1 single-family unit per lot 1- guesthouse 1 single-family unit 1 -detached guesthouse Yes Front setback 30 feet 30 feet' Yes Side setbacks 15 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other & 25 ft. between adjoining Bldgs. 16 feet and 10 feet wlmin. 28 ft. btwn Bldgs. Yes Rear setback 25 feet from property line 144'-8" Yes Lot coverage 30% 15.9% Yes Building height limit 35 feet maximum 35 feet maximum Yes Landscaping 50% of required Front Yard Minimum 58% Proposed Yes Parking 2 spaces fully enclosed 5 spaces'fully enclosed Yes Gradin : The applicant has indicated that the proposed project will require the import of approximately 7;500 cubic yards of fill material to create the proposed building pads. The created building pads for the main house, the guesthouse and the patio areas range from 5 feet to over 13 feet of fill. In addition, the applicant has requested approval of four crib walls (retaining) that will have an exposed face of eight (8) feet. In accordance with the provisions of Section 22.20.030 Diamond Bard Development Code, the Director or the Planning Commission may approve up to a maximum of eight feet high walls in the rear and interior side yards to enclose or screen areas within the rear of the parcel. The amount of fill (7,500 cubic yards) in creating the building pads is excessive; however, the code does not have provisions that prohibit it. The applicant has DR 2006-22 - PAGE 3 not use or maximizes the use of grading techniques such as split pads, stepped pads to take up the change in grades, reduce the amount of fill and the building effective bulk, as suggested by the Hillside Management Ordinance. The proposed four cribs walls drastically modify the slopes especially in the restricted use area in the rear yard. Staff had recommended that the applicant minimize the grading and avoid excessive use of crib/retaining. walls. The applicant stated that his disagreed with staff assessment. The applicant has submitted geotechnical report for review after the conceptual grading plan has been prepared, therefore staff has placed a condition requiring the grading plan be prepared by a licensed engineer and submitted for City review and approval to confirm the proposed grading concept, prior to submittal of any plan check. Any substantial changes may require Planning Commission review and approval again. Landscaping: The applicant has indicated that the landscaping will comply with the Los Angeles County Fire Department Fuel Modification Plan for Fire Hazard Zone 4. The theme of the landscaping revolves around Mexican fan palm with Crape myrtle and African sumac trees as accent trees. The applicant proposes to use Bougainvillea and English ivy to screen the retaining walls. The material for the retaining walls has not been identified. Staff has placed a condition requiring the design and material for the criblretaining walls and the landscaping against the walls be subjected to director's review and approval. In addition, staff placed a condition requiring the types of tree and shrub species to be more indigenous to the natural slope in the restricted use area instead of using Mexican fan palm. Further, a license landscape architect shall prepare the detailed landscape plan. HOA Approval: Since City incorporation and as a courtesy to the Country Estates Homeowners Association staff has requested applicant to show proof of association approval prior to scheduling any project within the Country Estates for Planning Commission review. The majority of the applicants have sought approval from the Association and show proof to the city. The applicant has indicated that they do not wish to submit the proposed plans to the Country Estates Homeowners Association prior to seeking approval from the Planning Commission. Because the City does not enforce private association rules, and as requested by the applicant, staff continues to process the application and forward it for Commission review. The applicant stated that he is prepared to deal with the requirement of the Association. Staff has placed a condition requiring the applicant to show proof from the Association prior to submittal of any plan check. DR 2006-22 - PAGE 4 5. Additional Review: The Public Works Department, the Building and Safety Division, and Fire Department reviewed this project. Their comments are included in both the report and the recommended conditions of approval. 6. Covenant and Agreement: 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 Recorder Office prior to building permit issuance. General Plan Desiqn Guidelines and Compatibility with Neighborhood: The proposed project with the conditions of approval, complies with the adopted goals and objectives as set forth in the General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the surrounding residentialdevelopment, the proposed project will not negatively affect the existing surrounding land uses, and the design is compatible with the existing neighborhood. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site and the notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. A notice display board was posted at the site, and a copy of the legal notice was posted at the City's designated community posting sites. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The City has determined that this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15303 and 15332. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution conditionally approving Development Review No. DR 2006-22 subject to the conditions set forth in the attached resolution. Prepared by: David D. Meyer, AICP LDM Associates, Inc ATTACHMENTS: Reviewed by: Nancy Fong, AICP Community Development Director 1. Draft Resolution of Approval with required findings 2. Exhibit "A" — site plan, floor plan, and elevations DR 2006-22 - PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2006-22 FOR THE REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A THREE-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND A DETACHED GUESTHOUSE ON LOT NO. 123 OF TRACT 30091, LOCATED AT 2112 ROCK VIEW ROAD - APN: 8713-030-001 A. RECITALS 1. The Planning Commission considered an application filed by Mr. Pete Volbeda, Architect, on behalf of the property owner, Mr. Chacko Jacob, requesting approval of plans to construct a new three-story, 11,534 square foot single-family residence with an attached 1,236 square foot garage and 'a detached 506 square foot guesthouse and a 314 square foot gazebo at 2112 Rock View Road. 2. The subject property is zoned R1-(40,000) RR and it contains 45,119 sq. ft. of land area. 3. The subject property is legally described as Lot 123, Tract 30091 and the Assessor Parcel Number is (APN) 8713-030-001. 4. Public Hearing notification was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers and property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site were notified of the proposed project by mail. Further, a public hearing notice display board was posted at the site, and at three other locations within the project vicinity. 5. On December 12, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing, solicited testimony from all interested individuals, and concluded said hearing on that date. B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The Planning Commission hereby determines that the proposed project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) in accordance to Sections 15303 and 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. 3. 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 wildlife 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 information contained in the submitted plans, the associated staff report and testimony given at the public hearing the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW a. The design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, development standards of the applicable zone district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for specialized areas (e.g., specific plans, community plans, boulevards, or planned developments.) The proposed single-family residence and detached guesthouse are consistent with the RR zone's Development Standards and the City's. Design Guidelines. In addition the proposed project with conditions of approval is consistent in terms of mass, scale and appearance of the surrounding single-family dwelling units. b. The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and it will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. The subject property is located within a designed and developed residential estate neighborhood. The existing public and private improvements have created to support the development of the surrounding neighborhood to include the property in question. The proposed single-family residence will not negatively impact the existing or future development of the surrounding neighborhood. C. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48 Diamond Bar Development Code, the General Plan, City Design Guidelines, or any applicable specific plan. The design of the proposed single-family residence and detached guesthouse with the conditions of approval is consistent with the terms and conditions of the log -range planning policy documents 2 adopted by the City of Diamond Bar. The proposed project is compatible with the scope, scale and appearance of the surrounding existing homes. The proposed project is an infill development that will complete the neighborhood residential character. d. 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. The project's design and use of construction material are consistent with other single-family residences in the neighborhood. e. 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. The proposed single-family residence will not negatively impact the public health, safety or general welfare. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves this Application subject to the following conditions: a. Planning Division (1) Development shall substantially comply with the plans and documents presented to the Planning Commission at the public hearing regarding this proposed project. (2) The applicant shall provide proof of approval for the development plans from the Diamond Bar Country Estates Homeowners Association, prior to submittal of plan check. (3) The applicant shall obtain the services of a licensed landscape architect to prepare the final landscape plans for the proposed project. The landscape plans shall include the design and selection of material that will be used to construct the masonry crib walls. The proposed plant material shall be selected and sized to screen the retaining walls from view. The tree species for the rear yard within the restricted use area shall include Oak, Sycamore, Pine and not Mexican fan palm. The detailed landscape plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Director review and approval, prior to plan check. (4) The required landscape plan shall be designed to meet the requirements of the Los Angeles County Fire Department's 3 Fuel Modification Plan in terms of plant selection, placement and maintenance. (5) The round gazebo within the restricted use area shall be subject to a separate plot plan. The color and material for the gazebo shall be of earth tone to blend with the slopes area. (6) Detailed elevations for the guesthouse shall be submitted for review and approval prior to submittal of plan check. (7) The applicant shall retain the services of a licensed civil engineer to prepare the final grading plan. The civil engineer shall be given the goal of reducing the height of the retaining walls to six feet or less. Any changes to the grading plan presented to the Planning Commission shall require Planning Commission review and approval. (8) 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. Building and Safety Division (1) Fire Department approval is required. Please contact the Fire Department. (2) Applicant shall provide temporary sanitation facilities while under construction. (3) Applicant shall submit an application to the Walnut Valley Water District to obtain a "Will Service" certificate that will meet the domestic and Fire Flow requirements for the proposed project. Written verification shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Division prior to the issuance of building permits. C. Standard Conditions — Attachment "A". The applicant shall comply with the standard development conditions attached hereto and labeled Attachment "A". 4 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 the applicant, Pete Volbeda, Architect, 615 N. Benson Ave., Unit C, Upland, CA 91786. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2006, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. By: Steve Nelson, 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 12th day of December 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ATTEST: Nancy Fong, Secretary Attachment: Standard Conditions- Attachment "A" 61 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT _IDIA1►i01�rD SAR � Attachment COMMERCIALUSE PERMITS, AND RESIDENTIAL NEW AN' 1, STRUCTURES PROJECT No: Development Review No. 2006-22 SUBJECT: Construction of a new 3 -story Single -Family Dwelling & Detached Guesthouse PROPERTY Chacko Jacob OWNER: 1801 E. Edinger Ave., Suite ## 235 Santa Ana, CA 92705 APPLICANT: Pete Volbeda, Architect 615 N. Benson Ave., Unit C Upland, CA 91786 LOCATION: 2112 Rocky View Rd., Diamond Bar, CA 91765 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION AT (909)839-7030, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS - In accordance with Government Code Section 66474.9(b)(1), the applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its officers, agents and employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding to attack, set-aside, void or annul, the approval of Development Review No. 2006- 34 brought within the time period provided by Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the city and/or its officers, agents and employees are made a party of any such action: 11 (a) Applicant shall provide a defense to the City defendants or at the City's option reimburse the City its costs of defense, including reasonable attorneys fees, incurred in defense of such claims. (b) Applicant shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the City descendents. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action of proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof. 2. This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant and owner of the property involved have filed, within twenty-one (21) days of approval of this Development Review No. 2006-34, at the City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this approval. Further, this approval shall not be effective until the applicants pay remaining City processing fees, school fees and fees for the review of submitted reports. 3. All designers, architects, engineers, and contractors associated with this project shall obtain a Diamond Bar Business Registration and zoning approval for those businesses located in Diamond Bar. 4. Signed copies of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans. The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 5. Prior to the plan check, revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval. 6. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all conditions of approval shall be completed. 7. The project site shall be maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of approval and all laws, or other applicable regulations. 8. Approval of this request shall not waive I cable compliance with Ordinances, sections othe f Development Code, all other app Y applicable Specific Plan in effect at the time of building permit issuance. g. Site, grading, landscape/irrigation and roof plans, elevations and sections shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of City permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 10. Property owner/applicant shall remove the public hearing notice board within three days of this project's approval. 11. The applicant shall comply with requirements of City Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works Department, and the Fire Department. B. FEES/DEPOSITS Applicant shall pay development fees (including but not limited to Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works Department and Mitigation Monitoring) at the established rates, prior to issuance of building or grading permit(whichever comes first), as required by the City. School fees as required shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permit. In addition, the applicant shall pay all remaining prorated City project review and processing fees prior to issuance of grading or building permit, whichever comes first. 2. Prior to any plan check, all deposit accounts for the processing of this project shall have no deficits. C. TIME LIMITS The approval of Development Review No. 2006-22 shall expire within two years from the date of approval if the use has not been exercised as defined per Municipal Code Section 22.66.050(b)(1). The applicant may request in writing a one year time extension subject to Municipal Code Section 22.60.050(c) for Planning Commission approval. D. SITE DEVELOPMENT The project site shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the approved plans submitted to, approved, and amended herein by the Planning Commission, collectively referenced herein as Exhibit "A" including: site plans, floor plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code regulations. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the Applicant shall complete and record a "Covenant and Agreement to Maintain a Single -Family Residence with a Guesthouse" on a form to be provided by the City. The covenant shall be completed and recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorders Office. All ground -mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, air conditioning condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or 0 masonry walls, berms, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. �. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened from public view. 5. All structures, including walls, trash enclosures, canopies, etc, shall be maintained in a structurally sound, safe manner with a clean, orderly appearance. All graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours by the property owner/occupant. E. LANDSCAPE, PRESERVED AND PROTECTED TREES 1. Prior to issuance of any permits, detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval. 2. Prior to plan check submittals, additional landscaping trees and shrubs are. required to soften the height of the rear retaining walls from the downhill properties. The revised final landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval. 3. Prior to plan check submittal, a final landscape/irrigation plan shall be submitted with the type of planting materials, color, size, quantity and location including proposed sites for the planting of protected/preserved trees and additional species to mask the retaining wall height. 4. Prior to the Planning Division's final inspection and/or Certificate of occupancy issuance, the landscaping/irrigation shall be installed or replaced. Any dense plant material proposed in the front setback shall not exceed a 42 inches maximum height. 5. Prior to releasing occupancy, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that the slope vegetation is in satisfactory condition. 6. Retaining walls located in the first two-thirds of the subject property shall not exceed an exposed height of six (6) feet. Retaining walls located in the rear one-third of the subject property shall not exceed an exposed height of eight (8) feet if approved by the Director. All retaining walls shall be earth tone in color and constructed from decorative masonry material (i.e., split face, stack stone, etc.)as may be approved by the Director. Retaining walls or fences located within the front yard setback shall not exceed an exposed height of 42 inches. F. SOLID WASTE The site shall be maintained in a condition, which is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement approved herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction shall be done only by the property owner, applicant or by a duly permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas within the City. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor used has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. 2. Mandatory solid waste disposal services shall be provided by the City franchised waste hauler to all parcels/lots or uses affected by approval of this project. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, (909) 839-7040, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL 1. Applicant shall follow special requirements as required by the City Engineer for construction in a Restricted use Area. No portion of the habitable structure shall be located in the Restricted Use Area and a Covenant and Agreement to construct in a Restricted Use Area shall be recorded and returned to the City prior to the issuance of any grading or retaining wall permits. 2. An Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted concurrently with the grading plan clearly detailing erosion control measures. These measures shall be implemented during construction between October 1" and April 15th. The erosion control plan shall conform to national Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards and incorporate the appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's). 3. The applicant shall comply with Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) requirements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 4. Grading and construction activities and the transportation of equipment and materials and operation of heavy grading equipment shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Dust generated by grading and construction activities shall be reduced by watering the soil prior to and during the activities and in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 402 and Rule 403. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. 10 Additionally, all construction equipment shall be properly muffled to reduce noise levels. B. SOILS REPORTIGRADINGIRETAINING WALLS 1. Prior to grading plan submittal, a geotechnical report prepared by a Geotechnical Engineer, licensed by the State of California, shall be submitted by the applicant for approval by the City. ?. Upon approval of the geotechnical report, the applicant shall submit drainage and grading plans prepared by a Civil Engineer, licensed by the State of California, prepared in accordance with the City's requirements for the City's review and approval. A list of requirements for grading plan check is available from the Public Works Department. All grading (cut and fill) calculations shall be submitted to the City concurrently with the grading plan. 3. Finished slopes shall conform to City Code Section 22.22.080 -Grading. 4. All easements and flood hazard areas shall be clearly identified on the grading plan. 5. The grading plan shall show the location of any retaining walls and the elevations of the top of wall/footing/retaining and the finished grade on both sides of the retaining wall. Construction details for retaining walls shall be shown on the grading plan. Calculations and details of retaining walls shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for review and approval. 6. All equipment staging areas shall be located on the project site. Staging area, including material stockpile and equipment storage area, shall be enclosed within a 6 foot -high chain link fence. All access points in the defense shall be locked whenever the construction site is not supervised. 7. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, City Grading. Ordinance, Hillside Management Ordinance and acceptable grading practices. 8. The maximum grade of driveways serving building pad areas shall be 15 percent. In hillside areas driveway grades exceeding 15 percent shall have parking landings with a minimum 16 feet deep and shall not exceed five (5) percent grade or as required by the City Engineer. Driveways with a slope of 15 percent shall incorporate grooves for traction into the construction as required by the City Engineer. 11 9. All slopes shall be seeded per landscape plan and/or fuel modification plan with native grasses or planted with ground cover, shrubs, and trees for erosion control upon completion of grading or some other alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 10. Submit a stockpile plan showing the proposed location for stockpile for grading export materials, and the route of transport. 11. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a pre -construction meeting shall be held at the project site with the grading contractor, applicant, and city grading inspector at least 48 hours prior to commencing grading operations. 12. Rough grade certifications by project soils engineer shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits for the foundation of the residential structure. Retaining wall permits may be issued without a rough grade certificate. 13. Final grade certifications by project soils and civil engineers shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of any project final inspections/certificate of occupancy respectively. D. DRAINAGE Detailed drainage system information of the lot with careful attention to any flood hazard area shall be submitted. All drainage/runoff from the development shall be conveyed from the site to the natural drainage course. No on-site drainage 'shall be conveyed to adjacent parcels, unless that is the natural drainage course. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a complete hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Los Angeles Public Works Department. E. OFF-SITE STREET IMPROVEMENTS The applicant shall replace and record any centerline ties and monuments that are removed as part of this construction with the Los Angeles County Public Works Survey Division. F. UTILITIES Will Serve Letters shall be submitted stating that adequate facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the 12 City from all utilities such as, but not limited to, phone, gas, water, electric, and cable. Applicant shall relocate and underground any existing on-site utilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the respective utility owner. Underground utilities shall not be constructed within the drip line of any mature tree except as approved by a registered arborist. F. SEWERS/SEPTIC TANK Applicant shall obtain connection permit(s) from the City and County Sanitation District prior to issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT' THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 839-7020, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Plans shall conform to State and Local Building Code (i.e., 2001 California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and the 2001 National Electrical Code) requirements and all other applicable construction codes, ordinances and regulations in effect at .the time of plan check submittal. 2. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been met. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 3. The minimum design load for wind in this area is 80 M.P.H. exposures °C and the site is. within seismic zone four (4). The applicant shall submit drawings and calculations prepared by a California State licensed Architect/Engineer with wet stamp and signature. 4. This project shall comply with the energy conservation requirements of the State of California Energy Commission. Kitchen and bathroom lights shall be fluorescent. 5. Submit Public Works Department approved grading plans showing clearly all finish elevations, drainage, and retaining walls locations. 6. "Separate permits are required for pool, spa, pond and tennis court" and shall be noted on plans. 7. A height survey shall be required at completion of framing. 8. Number of plumbing fixtures shall be in compliance with CBC Appendix 29. 13 9. Please provide exact living area square feet per floor clearly and accurately on each floor. 10. Verify adequate exit requirements. The distance between required exits shall be Il of the building diagonal. - - 11. Building setback from any slope (toe or top) shall meet Chapter 18 of the 2001 California Building Code. 12. All balconies shall be designed for 401b. live load. 13. Guardrails shall be designed for 201b. load applied laterally at the top of the rail. 14. Indicate all easements on the site plan. 15. Fire Department approval shall be required. Contact the Fire Department to check the fire zone for the location of your property. If this project is located in High Hazard Fire Zone it shall meet of requirements of the fire zone. a. All unenclosed under -floor areas shall be constructed as exterior wall. b. All openings into the attic, floor and/or other enclosed areas shall be covered with corrosion -resistant wire mesh not less than 1/4 inch or more than 1/2 inch in any dimension except where such openings are equipped with sash or door. 16. All retaining walls shall be submitted to the Building & Safety and Public Work Departments for review and approval. 17. Submit grading plans showing clearly all finish elevations, drainage, and retaining wall locations. No building permits shall be issued prior to submitting a pad certification. 18. The project shall be protected by a construction fence and shall comply with the NPDES & BMP requirements (sand bags, etc.) 19. Check drainage patterns with Engineering Department. Surface water shall drain away from building at a 2%.minimum slope. 20. Specify location of tempered glass as required by code. 21. Specify 114"Ift slope for all flat surfaces/ decks with approved water proofing material. Also, provide guardrail connection detail (height, spacing, etc.) 14 22. Private property sewer/septic system shall be approved by the Los Angeles County Health Department and the California Water Control Board. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE PREVENTION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Emergency access shall be provided, maintaining free and clear, a minimum 28 foot at all times during construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire Department that temporary water supply for fire protection is available pending completion of the required fire protection system. 15 PETE VOLEEUP Pi-EhitagLup@ I Pl0ri9ih'g E 86 615 N BENSON AVE., SUTE D J? �AND CA 9 H �AB I A �TB U I �LDE R TEI_ 909 3731150 ....................... V) 19 C) 0 C) PETE VOLEEUP Pi-EhitagLup@ I Pl0ri9ih'g E 86 615 N BENSON AVE., SUTE D J? �AND CA 9 H �AB I A �TB U I �LDE R TEI_ 909 3731150 M M VULDEUP PgkitopW 615 N BENSON AVE C, UPLAhO, CA. 9V86 TEL 909 373 )ISO - -- -------------------- ----------- ------------------ I I In z 1 r> 1 I ---------- ---------------------------------------------�a fA 1ml1 Y � �yc A i a o 1 I , 1 I 1 2:12 ROOF A� - A - ------------- d d00N ZtZ I , I O? I \�E -------------- I N m A N ? N a p n cn to mom m= -- m --_r---"------ ---------------- --- n 'o n P m -rl D w �1 N � r Opp I w? w�o�oo = O 1 n ------- 0 �O 1 V lP N < W N r I = I_____________.J 7 a eR =o I 1 Rgoav� � e x 0 i i g I A------------- � ___ HABITAT BUILDERS TEL615 BENSON AVEC UPLAND. 111 116 07 — TEL 909 373 1150 �u av9 pun PETE 40LUMP AFz9hkggLw@ Plpmmrg 1 615 N BENSON AVE., SUITE C UPLAND CA 91786 7- --A� TEL 9093731150 FAX9 v3llv / /: _ \ \. y. ! }� , '� > n p mLEUPApA PIS , W _ , e,_a AVE, SUITE cUPLAND a _, _r w = T+ymL h z w a a LL m C oz z LL OG Q C � u LL i O LL C H h U _ G C O z Z W WU S J Um mCL CL D Z cL 0 it S n dX z z z L) z z z 0 O O O U r U U J IL J a J ng a ¢ a ¢ ¢ U o m M LLI F r ri J N :3 J a :z J a Zz IL 22z �' 00 00 00 ohm' Uc`o._� C) . zQ OF zQ U- ZQ 00 00 00 Mz z �LL LL ui vN o S a oz Zz oz U O_ O 0 z O 0 Z zF- z~ zF- ❑ Ua O UQ U) W ❑ U¢ U) O 0 U nU a d d0 20 a0 w ¢ LL Q LL d ¢ LL IL F W a UO .CL W 2., U, - CL ¢ Q) w ¢ w w z a Q. a ¢ C¢j ❑ z W z S 7E 4 m 2 Lli a� O W W o > a LU o W? m U z 0w w o z 0 z o¢ ¢ O LU C7 d U) 1 cZ J J Q J Q Q U LL U) z d 0. Q Q Q Q U > ❑ ❑ J J m m c N CV f�% r Lfl CO s- moo C?C? N ct CO O p o O .. (n {- Q1 ov �n co o cb 0 � 0 O "� 6 in u� ooa 000000. 00 000 -.m: m ak m N a p O N 'o o o o 0 �y 0o o 0 0 ao NN Lu Ul C6 U Gc N o N N �¢ N NaNNN G,.22 CJ �N N d N O Q CcN �f�- d� > D O D ��U'Li l0.-CC)❑OJ.. ❑o p U> O a W z Y W W p0. rn c cr W T (n v m Z 0 c o O ❑ c E co e c IL c c [meq v Y -J J om ',oma_ F ro mac' J O a m o WK . LLJ Z S m$ mw O -SmH a ? O U o c!j u F �? ¢ O U.D S } N F Z E ¢ d a W U� D LU WI- z N 0= z �- U) v �w 2 a Y U m O uf0. a [- w CL O ❑ p W ❑ Of W a) U � S D 4 n z Z °� U V o o c N S W �_ Z Z W o N U 'v� CO D 'B .- N U) `z Z 7z uj Z CD 'O M N �_ W D W t N� N NZ �Spw Q d NQ rc'` U USc .�.� NU O z Z W WU S J Um mCL CL D Z cL 0 it S n dX N Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z I I O I O i Z I I I I I O O O O O O O O Q Q Q Q Z Q Q Q Q Q U U U U U U U U U ia a ¢ a LU o- C¢L., CL a J a CL 0- ~CL W~ W E- F- -Jh Lb LU I- H I- W CL CL CL- LL a 0 a a. a a. �Ez M :Ez M rr :2z 22z MEz :�z :Ez (n 00 00 00 00 O 00 00 00 00 00 U UF- OF OF w OF OF OF UF. 0- zq zq zQ Zq 0 ZQ zq zq Zq z OO OX OZ O0 O0 O� OT O0 OX 0LL 0 00 00 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 00 wz LU 2! Lu w_z w_ w_z LL wz LL wz w_z wz W J LL J LL J -Q W J w J w J w J w J LL J -Q 1-q =q �0 1-Q F q -Q F -q F q Oz Oz Oz Oz O Oz Oz Oz Oz 0z zp zp zp C7 0 zp (7 �N (7 zp zp zp zp zp F- F h Z Z F f- Z W of ? I- F I- h I- h f- F f- F- Z- Z- Z- M Cn Z- U) > } U) Z- W Z- Z- Z- Z- ¢� U� ¢� U� ¢0 On 0 W W W ¢W On U) W QQ U) W ¢ ¢� ¢=J ¢� Q� �Q -,Q U U U U U0 U0 -, q U0 -, ¢ U0 U0 �¢ aO� aX EL O O �¢ am O I-� zz0 Jq a-ofd0� 0-c[ J¢ az J¢ 0- Df a_0 a0 CL c Of a0 z LU< Of 0-0 0.0 0-0 a0 0-0 ¢w ¢LL ¢U_ a a ¢w a F-- a ¢L. ¢LL ¢LL ¢U_ ¢w w U coQ CC). U'. z OU U r-L Q Z Q W W W W Y J J Q U D Z p' U] Z CL ZLU Z W C7 W Q Q W Z > Q W L [n UL = W > O 4 W Q O O C9 FW- O O QOQ a�a J J J ¢ ¢ J U p J ¢ M J J Q U) J J Q Q Q V) U) ¢ J ¢ ¢ J ¢ <C J J J a N C? t(7 p N O N Q r M NO N N O.m M O C� M!! r O fO N fO f'7 ti L=.% Nm N tom] 00 O O OHO O SCJ O C O 00 1 c0 O � O (D O N O N N O N O O N N N O N N N N N O N N N N O N A o O N U �4 D ��� � !L'CL CC d' d" �aN .a �>U UOU U ❑F- O U O ❑N y a C G O {- o o U M e� m c „"' -y w Z O .o 0 c W cmi > m m Y U' d fL C7 -ao CLQ m m Y W a Y IY W= �' W= �' C W° 0 W � d W J o z ¢ = W- 4. O UJ c a z U O = zQ Z� '� N C) Um O a zo O m Zn z= �E _- �� CD 0 z QY f -E_ _ - U O W 0 W o = z- LL z LLE lL -O, OU LU m (� m ¢- Z" O 0 m z - -� q�E zE 0 J L OU +� 'mac ¢ O� ¢ Oc I- C qo f- ¢m U �- m U)- J a �_ }c3 Cho J N ¢_ ® U LL 0z I C7c :1 (7L, ¢ Ed� tl Kc �c a ¢•- �o O U E DJ 'S N N> C o@ N N O N_ 'S 'S 41 y OV Ln p uj Q. � CO N � �•- N d m � Z CO U �¢ N CO m N U N h- C, L D N CO G� N U) CO 01 � Z C.4 M m C 7 d= Q m C d Z a' � U) d w O W O N N �- N N N N N M N Stella Marquez From: Fort Shockley [fortshockley@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 5:33 PM To: Stella Marquez Subject: Planning Commission Vesting Track Map 54081 In Vesting Tentative Tract Map No... Dear Planning Commission Member, Attached you will find a public opinion with supporting photos on the vesting of tract map 54081 1 would appreciate it if it could be read and added to the public record. Thank you, Greg Shockley Gregory Shockley 3711 Crooked Creek Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Current Planning Commissioners: Steve Nelson, Chairman Tony Torng, Vice Chairman Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee Kathleen Nolan Osman Wei 11 December 2006 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No 54081 Zone Change No. 2006-02/Planned Development Mitigated Negative Declaration No 2006-03 Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-18 Variance No. 2006-02 and Tree Permit No. 2002-13 —In accordance to the Subdivision Map Act, City's Subdivision Ordinance —Title 21, Development Code — Title 22, Sections 22.14, 22.58, 22.22, 22.54 and 22.38, the proposed project is a 22 -lot subdivision on a site of approximately 12.9 acres. It would provide for the development of 16 single-family detached homes on individual parcels ranging in size from approximately 5,705 square feet to 10,506 square feet. The proposed project would include: the construction of private streets, graded pads, manufactured slopes and retaining walls; an easement for a public pedestrian trail in a portion of proposed open space areas; and the removal of a portion of existing vegetation. The current zoning of the project site is R-1-10,000. The Zone Change to RL/Planned Development Overlay provides for compliance with the General Plan land use designation and maximum flexibility in the site planning and design, thereby allowing smaller lots in order to retain more open space within the project boundaries. The Conditional Use Permit relates to grading and development within a hillside area. The Variance relates to retaining walls that are proposed at a height greater than six feet. The Tree Permit relates to the removal, replacement and protection of oak and walnut trees. (Continued from October 10, 2006) Project Address: The proposed project site is located at the southern terminus of Crooked Creek Dr. in the City of Diamond Bar. Property Owner/Applicant: Mr. Daniel Singh, Jewel Ridge, LLC, 10365 W. Jefferson Blvd., Culver City, CA 90232 Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15070, the City prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15105, the public review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2006071129) began July 28, 2006, and ended August 28, 2006. The Planning Commission will consider whether to recommend adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City Council. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending City Council approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03, Zone Change No. 2006-02/Planned Development Overlay District No. 2006-01, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 54081, Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-18, Variance No. 2006-02 and Tree Permit No. 2002-13. I am opposed to granting the variances and tree permit required to construct the proposed development. I fully understand that since the parcel's sale it has become private property, the use of which is a keystone of our American way of life and guaranteed by our Constitution. However, the proposed change of zoning, variances, tree permit, retaining wall structures, and additional peak hour traffic will have a significant and long-lasting negative impact on the quality of life for residents of the Suburban Track and beyond. Diamond Bar becoming a city was intended, in part, to give residents greater local control. Unfortunately, we seem to be "Mitigated Negative Declaration-ing" away the greatest resource we have to offer: our undeveloped open space. The semi -rural setting and good school districts are two big reasons people are attracted to Diamond Bar. In whittling away remaining rural habitats nearly out of existence, the very character of our city is being damaged. City residents are negatively impacted by excessive peak hour traffic congestion, even on residential streets; summer water shortages; and the loss of undeveloped open space. While it may seem as though residents are saying this is acceptable, it is not. Although City officials and staff continue to point to areas like the Edison power line easement and the more southerly parts of Brea Canyon as open space, we will have little or no influence over their development. So, it is incumbent upon Diamond Bar residents to speak up and have an influence where they can. When Daniel Singh purchased this parcel, it was known that it is a single parcel, zoned as R-1-10000. The zoning indicates the minimum lot size that is satisfactory and suitable for construction at that location. It does not guarantee or assure the developer that the parcel can be broken up into 10000 square foot lots, or that these lots will be suitable for residential use. Nor does it assure that all of these lots will be suitable for construction, given current knowledge of geology, engineering, and construction practices. To date, there is nothing being done for a "planned development" theme other than residences and minimal re -vegetation on modified slopes. Mr. Singh's own statement at the first Planning Commission meeting indicated he was unfamiliar with the public pedestrian trail through a proposed open space area. And, since there is no pedestrian trial on the filed and stamped drawings, it is probably safe to assume that there is no pedestrian trial, nor future plans for one. Given that information, and other guidelines in the development code, the only reason to change the zoning to a planned development overlay is to increase profitability for a landowner who has no plans of living on this parcel and has little interest in Diamond Bar other than maximizing profits. According to the current plan, a few of the walnut trees that would be removed due to the planned grading are the largest remaining samples in South Diamond Bar. Although these are not the stately Black Walnut trees of the Midwest and East Coast — instead they are scraggly, random -branched, poor shade trees - they are the best we have, and it will take more than fifty years to replace them and the habitat they provide. The fact of the mater is, if we grant tree permits of the magnitude of Tree Permit No. 2002-13 on this undeveloped land, the reason. many of us moved to and live in Diamond Bar will be gone. This parcel can be developed around specimens. There are also questions about the geologic suitability of this section, as the compiled Mitigated Negative Declaration indicates this parcel is subject to liquefaction. This phenomenon can and has been dealt with effectively by engineers for a number of years, using reliable, earthquake tested wall systems which are inspected, maintained, modified, and upgraded as required after every major seismic event. Further, the walls are generally located and constructed in a manner that does not jeopardize people's lives in the event of failure. The proposed 1.8 -foot retaining wall structure, as planned, could fail due to a combination of groundwater, deep watering from new up-slope residences, and an earthquake. This would create a hazardous, life threatening situation for residents on the east side of Crooked Creek, and it will destabilize the existing residences on the south side of Running Branch. The system proposed to build these retaining walls has been laboratory tested, but it has not been successfully tested in an actual seismic event; in fact, the precursor to this design has failed during actual earthquakes in California. That, coupled with the fact that sixteen residences are highly unlikely to have the financial resources required to maintain and upgrade this structure in the future adds to the fact that this is a poorly designed project feature, I would ask you to consider whether or not you would approve this project, with variances and permits, for a land owner who currently lives in Diamond Bar on an individual, comparable sized lot, who plans to destroy several important oak and walnut trees and to build retaining wall structures fifteen and eighteen feet above existing grade. I believe this is a precedent -setting situation that is, unfortunately, being driven by profit rather than by the desire to create a more suitable living situation for residents. Mr. Singh has the data in his computer to provide us with any of the requested views he failed to produce at the previously Planning Commission meeting. When he makes his presentation, showing various views of the project, he should be able to change the viewpoint to any location in the drawings, including the backyard and second floor of any of the residents on the east side of Crooked Creek. These views will give everyone, involved in the decision making process a more reasonable and believable standpoint from which to make their decision.. The existing Diamond Bar Plamung Code provides ample opportunities and examples for hillside and slope development without taking these drastic measures. The current zoning R-1- 10000, being a minimum standard, provides plenty of opportunity for a subdivision with generous sized lots, protection of habitat, and a well thought out merger of pleasing of living environment and native habitat. The total combination of these variances and permits will have negative impact on our quality of life and urban environment that engineers don't seem to be able to quantify. I would urge you to take a difficult move and disapprove the Vesting Tentative Tract Map No 54081 Zone Change No 2006-02/Planned Development, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-18 Variance No. 2006-02 and Tree Permit No. 2002-13 for the above reasons. You, the Planning Commission, are charged with deciding whether or not this is a tolerable loss of quality of life, brought about by the destruction of irreplaceable vistas and habitat, and the creation of a potentially life threatening manmade disaster. A majority of the citizens, landowners, and residents in the immediate area have voiced opposition to various aspects of the proposal because we believe the property can be developed within the guidelines of current zoning and the current Diamond Bar Planning Code, while continuing to be sensitive to ecologic, geologic, and traffic issues. The proposed zoning change to a planned overly development does little more than increase profit for Mr. Singh and his investors while we, the existing residents, will have to live with and look at the results of this development. However, if current resident concerns are addressed and taken into account when finding more viable ways of developing this land, our opposition will be removed. Attached you will find photographs of the trees that will be trees that will be removed due to the construction of the retaiuung wall. Photos of the tree canopy removed behind 3617, 3710 and 3702 Crooked Creek Dr including lines indicating the heights of the 18' retaining wall structure and a line for a 6' privacy fence that is sure to be added by subsequent land owners. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF DIAMOND BAR On December 12, 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 December 8, 2006, a copy of the Notice for the Regular Meeting of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission, to be held on December 12, 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 Diamond Bar Library 1061 Grand Ave. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on December 8, 2006, at Diamond Bar, California. eIla Marquez Community Development Department gA\a ff-idavi tposting.doc VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION' AGENDAITEMSUBJECT: C- C r400 5' o 5— TO: Planning Commission Secretary DATE: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZA11ON: SUBJECT: I would like to address the Planning Commission on the above stated item. Please have the Commission Minutes reflect my name and address as printed above. A Signature NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and address the Planning Commission. This form is intendei to assist the Chairman in ensuring that all persoM wishing to address the Commission will have the Opportunity, and to ensure correct spelling of names in the Minutes. VOLUNTARY REQST TO ADDRESS TETE PLANNING COMMISSION UE :za-y AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT: TO: Panning Commission Secretary DATE: FROM: Czr ADDRESS' 37 -ORGANIZATION: SUBJECT: I would liketo address the planning Commission on the above stated item. Please have the Commission Minutes reflect my name and address as printed above. nature . NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and address the Planning Commission. This form is. intendf Uln to mist the Chairman in ensuring that all persons wishing to address the Commission Will have the opportunity and to ensure correct spelling of names in the Minutes. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMiVIISSION AGENDA ITEM * SUBJECT: TO: Planning Commission Secretary DATE: R& FROM: ADDRESS:7��3 ORGANIZATION: SUBJECT: I would like to .address the Planning Commission on the above stated item. PrIlAue have the Commission Minutes reflect my name and address ds printed above. VVI au Signature . NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and address the Planning Commission. This form is intender to assist the Chairman in ensuring that all persons wishing to address the Commission will have the opportunity and to ensure correct spelling of names in the Minutes.