Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/9/2007R PLANNING FILE COPY I_[�3�17e1 January 9, 2007 7:00 P.M. South Coast Air Quality Management District Government Center Building - Auditorium 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA Chairman Vice Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Steve Nelson Tony Torng Kwang Ho LeI Kathleen Nola Osman, Wei Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Planning Division of the Community Development Department, located at 21825 Copley Drive, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please call (909) 839-7030 during regular business hours. In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title I/ of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need, of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting must inform the Community Development Department at (909) 839-7030 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. 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 nfDiamond Bar Planning Commission ' . .�3��\O� ~~D0OO�8|On The [neeiOgS of the Diamond Bar P|@DDiOg COOlOOisSOO are open to the public. A member Of the public may address the Commission onthe subject ofone O[more agenda items and/or other items [f which are within the SUbi8[t matter jurisdiction of the Diamond Bar Planning Co[DDniaoiUD. A request tUaddress the Commission should besubmitted inwriting 8tthe public hearing, tDthe Secretary ofthe Commission. As e g8Oan3| rU|8. the opportunity for public comments will take place at the discretion of the Chur. HoxveVgF, 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 OD 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 p[Ofaeob>D8| and businesslike nl@Onac Comments and questions are welcome Go that all points of view are considered prior to the Commission making recommendations to the staff and City Council. |naccordance with State Law (Brown 4ct)'all matters to be acted on by the Commission must be posted at least 72 hours prior to the Cornnnioakon rne8bDg. In case ofemergency or when a subject matter may act onitem that isnot onthe posted agenda. INFORMATION RELATING TO AGENDAS AND ACTIONS OF THE COMMISSION 4o8Od8S for Diamond Bar Planning Conn0O�SiOD meetings are prepared by the Planning Division of the - Community Development Department. Agendas are available 72hours prior tothe meeting atCity Hall and the public library, and may be accessed by personal computer at the number below. Every meeting of the Planning Commission is [aoondad 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 oOnd|esn microphone and sign |8ngU8ga interpreter services are available by giving notice at least three business days in advance of the meeting. Please t8|GphOOe/S0B\83B-7D3Ob8bw88D7:3O8.nl.8Dd 5:3Op.[D..Monday through Thursday, and 7:308.Dl. Copies of Agenda, Rules of the Commission, Cassette Tapes of Meetings (909) 839-7030 General Agendas (9O9)O39-703O CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 9, 2007 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. Next Resolution No. 2007-01 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 1 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 Sneaker's Card for the recordina Secretary (Comdetion of this form is voluntary.) There is a five-minute maximum time limit when addressing the Planning Commission. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chairman 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine and are approved by a single motion. Consent calendar items may be removed from the agenda by request of the Commission only. 4.1 Minutes of Regular Meeting: December 12, 2006. 5. OLD BUSINESS: None. 6. NEW BUSINESS: None. 7. 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 JANUARY 9, 2007 A 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 December 12, 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. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS I INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9. STAFF COMMENTS / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. JANUARY 9, 2007 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: CITY COUNCIL MEETING: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING: 11. ADJOURNMENT: PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 16,2007 - 6:30 p.m. SCAQMD/Government Center Auditorium 21865 Copley Drive Tuesday, January 23, 2007 — 7:00 p.m. SCAQMD/Government Center Auditorium 21865 Copley Drive Thursday, February 8, 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 DECEMBER 12, 2006 Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government'Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: , Commissioner Nolan led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Kathleen Nolan, Osman Wei, Vice Chairman Tony Torng and Chairman Steve Nelson. Also present: . Nancy Fong, Community Development Director; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; Gregg Kovacevich, Assistant City Attorney; and Stella Marquez, Senior Adm.inistrative 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 Regular Meeting of November 28, 2006. C/Lee moved, C/Wei seconded to approve the Minutes of November 28, 2006, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 5. OLD BUSINESS: 6. NEW BUSINESS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: None None Lee, Wei, Nolan, Chair/Nelson None VC/Torng None `11 DRAFT DECEMBER 12, 2006 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 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 with the Subdivision Map Act, City's Subdivision Ordinance — Title 21, Development Code — Title 2.2, 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 November 28, 2006) PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: At the southern terminus of Crooked Creek Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Daniel Singh Jewel Ridge, LLC 10365 W. Jefferson Boulevard Culver City, CA 90232 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. URAFT DECEMBER 12, 2006 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION �A AssocP/Lungu referenced a letter staff received today regarding the author's concerns about the project and why he believed it should not be approved. Daniel Singh stated that this was the third Planning Commission hearing on this matter in spite of the fact that staff recommended approval. The Commission was concerned about visual impacts even though the City's attorney has made it clear that the City has no view ordinance. Nevertheless, the applicant has cooperated and provided responses to Commissioner's concerns.. During the second hearing the Commission was presented before and after views from three lots that back up to the proposed project, five and 10 -year simulations of what the project appearance would be and a series of photos from the northbound SR57 that confirm the site would not be visible due to the vegetation along the freeway. Also provided at the second hearing was a revised landscape plan that utilized more indigenous vegetation and landscape plan that showed the complete on-site mitigation for oak tree and oak woodland replacement. The mitigation also included dead trees. Present during the November 28 meeting was the biologist that has assisted the applicant throughout the entire process. The applicant also provided a landscape plan that illustrated the modified areas. At the last hearing the Comm*ission requested additional visual simulation of the project from the second story as well as a before and after view from the southbound SR57 and the applicant has complied. The vegetation along the freeway is the same in the depictions of the five, 10 and existing views. He reviewed the proposed project, well under the allowable maximum number of units and the project now before t ' he Commission is a compromise based on discussions with staff and consultants. The initial project was reduced from 26 houses to 16 houses based on staff's input. The zone change request is consistent with the General Plan and is not being requested to allow an increase in density; rather, to allow a small development that preserves more open space than would not have been made available under the existing zoning. Mr. Singh stated that the applicant has made every effort to cooperate with staff and the Commission and has expended more than $15,000 attempting to respond to the Commissioner's requests. He hoped the Commission would approve the project at this time. Chair/Nelson re -opened the public hearing. Jeff Layton, 3703 Crooked Creek Drive, stated that at the last meeting he was disappointed about the applicant's presentation and was disappointed that he was not allowed to speak after the presentations were made because DECEMBER 12,2006 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION he understood it was to be an open hearing. He also felt the engineer was being evasive. The so-called credible biologist was not knowledgeable about basic requirements and did not make a good presentation. He felt that in general the presentation was far below expectations. He also believed that the photos presented this evening were not indicative of what would occur even within the first five years. Mr. Layton said he was concerned about the steepness of the hillside and what the project would look like from both sides of the street. Gregory Shockley, 3711 Crooked Creek Drive, said he wanted to salvage the firewood from the project. He provided photographs to the Commission that showed a large two -foot base black walnut tagged to be removed as well as other views,. Mr. Shockley asked if all trees were supposed to be tagged. Most of the trees in the canopy are not tagged and wondered if they had been counted. The view from across the street shows the 18 -foot retaining wall, the six- foot fence, the tree canopy that would be gone, etc. He said he was not opposed to development of the property and would like to see the applicant do a good job. He felt that a 15 to 18 foot retaining wall was not in the best interest of the residents and Diamond Bar. He referred to his letter addressed to the Commission. C[Wei recommended that the applicant plant more mature boxed trees than the proposed 15 -gallon at the onset of the project to provide a more mature canopy. CDD/Fong responded to C/Nolan that some of the oak trees could be relocated under the direction of an Arborist. C/Nolan wanted to know if the project could consider shelved walls rather than 18 -foot retaining walls. CDD/Fong responded that the applicant could use a similartype of block with landscaping cells. However, it would change the design because those types of blocks are placed at an angle and more of the slope would be lost. Mr. Shockley explained his statements about the failure of the retaining wall as a result of potential earthquakes. Unless the epicenter of an earthquake is close to the area and there is an unreasonably high water table it is unlikely the walls will fail. However, most walls of this magnitude are on state land or on land that is controlled by a large corporation that can afford to inspect the walls on a regular basis and make appropriate repairs, and are not usually installed in areas where the slope flows down to other properties. If the retaining wall were to fail it would most likely come down onto Brea Canyon Road. He said he spoke with three engineers and one nh r - DECEMBER 12, 2006 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION geotechnician and none said they would use this system. He may not agree with the civil engineer on all points but in many aspects he did a good job. For the most part the pads are on cut and the soil is as good as it is going to get. In his estimation, the primary reason for the retaining wall is to increase the usable rear yard. The retaining wall could be eliminated and the back yards would be on a slope as they are in "The Country, Estates" which, in his opinion, would solve a lot of the problems. He said he did not agree with changing the density. He agreed with the applicant that looking from the elevation of the proposed dwellings residents would not be able to see the freeway. It is possible that the rooftops would be seen from the freeway. However, the block wall will not. He believed there were alternatives to the design plan and was disappointed that Mr. Singh felt compelled to build a retaining wall. If the retaining wall were six-foot high he believed no one would object. CDD/Fong responded to C/Lee that the distance between each of the three six-foot high retaining walls is about five feet in accordance with the Hillside Management Ordinance. AssocP/Lungu explained that the walls would have a much less massive appearance with plantings between each wall. CDD/Fong explained to C/Lee that the applicant presents his design to the City and the City determines whether the design meets the development standards. ACA/Kovacevich explained that the Commission's job is to apply the code and make its recommendation to the City Council. Peter Lewandowski stated that a Certified Arborist conducted the tree survey in 2004 on behalf of the applicant and the City retained Mitch Beecham, a reputable biologist to review the accuracy of the survey. Based on Mr. Beecham's review there is no evidence to suggest that the tree survey was not conducted in full compliance with City standards. Mr. Beecham had recommendations that were subsequently incorporated. The tree survey was conducted based upon the applicant's original 26 -lot subdivision and the grading plan has since been modified. Therefore, the tree survey should not be necessarily indicative of a precise count but a close approximation. Prior to grading, another tree survey will be conducted to reflect the precise grading plan necessary to accommodate plans that Council ultimately approves. Tree tagging protocol includes tagging trees that are in compliance with the City's standards of diameter at a specified (breast) height. The tree survey is an approximation and accurately reflects what was on-site at the time of the survey. The edge of grading has been reduced and the affected number of trees is therefore likely less than the number represented in the environmental documentation. 2D _ArT kECEMBER 12,2006 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Lee said he felt that the applicant had not made an effort to design his project in accordance with the wishes and concerns of the residents. Mr. Singh explained that this project had been on the drawing board for four years and that there had been community meetings. C/Lee wanted to know how many meetings the applicant held. Mr. Singh responded. Mr. Singh responded to concerns about the retaining walls that a geotechnical engineer reviewed the plan and provided recommendations that were incorporated into the project. The City's consultant reviewed the soils report on a number of occasions. Both consultants recommended approval based upon the recommended mitigation. With regard to the trees the applicant is replacing trees at a 3:1 ratio and 1:1 ratio for dead trees. He said he would consider larger trees limited to the retaining wall area to help screen the walls. He reminded the Commission that this was not a large development. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. RECESS: Chair/Nelson recessed the meeting at 8:15 p.m. RECONVENE: Chair/Nelson reconvened the meeting at 8:25 p.m. C/Nolan felt the applicant did not properly respond to the Commission's request for simulation photos. She asked for an answer regarding the retaining walls. CDD/Fong responded that it was. the applicant's decision as to what type of wall they would use. There is a condition requiring landscaping and irrigation. Mr. Singh stated that the system is called a "lock and load" system with a fagade that allows for vegetation cells. The reason this type of system is used is to accommodate the concerns regarding massing and keep the development envelope as small as possible. VC/Torng commended the builder for his time and effort toward a good project. However, he believed that comments were important for the applicant to consider. He felt that in researching all of the previous material that the applicant had not properly responded to the request for viewpoint simulations. He asked the applicant to tell the Commission what size trees he intended to install, give the Commission more information about the retaining wall and respond to the request for gateway view simulations. f TI UD RA F T DECEMBER 12, 2006 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Lee agreed with VC/Torng that the applicant had not fully responded to the Commission's requests for certain information. He asked the applicant for his sincere cooperation based on the Commission's requests. C/Wei echoed other Commissioner's comments regarding trees, preservation of oak trees, increase in the size of replacement trees and how to soften the retaining walls with more vegetation. He suggested that the applicant come back with plans to show the Commission. It seemed to him that the applicant had not complied with the Commission's request to have the pictures from the northbound SR57 without the vegetation at the side of the freeway. Chair/Nelson suggested the applicant speak with restoration ecologist Dr. Quinn at CalPoly to address concerns about what size trees should be installed as replacement of the native trees and replace other trees with larger boxed trees. He wanted a condition added to require that the slopes being graded above residences be planted immediately and that the applicant would use the native planting for erosion control. He believed the project could be made to look like it appears today although it would take a long restoration period. Chair/Nelson said he would like to move the project up the line but he was not convinced the applicant had provided what the Commission asked and he wants the City Council to see it as well. C/Lee said he was not comfortable with the project and wanted the applicant to prove that the proposed project was the best for the residents. C/Nolan wanted to know if C/Lee was asking the applicant to provide a new plan without a retaining wall. C/Lee said he wanted to see different plan options to accommodate other opinions put forth by the residents because he believed that individual views of the plan were completely opposite. C/Nolan said it was not clear to her what C/Lee was requesting. C/Lee said he wanted a different plan that included the resident's comments and concerns. ACA/Kovacevich cautioned the Commission that there might be a fundamental misunderstanding about the process. The idea was not to get to the point of necessarily finding a project that everyone liked but to come to agreement that the project complied with the findings of fact. The applicant has submitted a project that has gone through several iterations and been pared down to 16 homes and, the applicant is seeking an up or down vote on the proposed project. If C/Lee is uncomfortable with the project and feels he cannot make the findings he could recommend denial. 11."ECEIVIBER 12,2006PAGE 8 PLANNING COFTAM—%- MV, However, it is not proper for the Commission to attempt to redesign the Project. C/Wei recommended the following: 1) revise the plan to increase the size of trees and vegetation and a include a plan to transplant or preserve the oak trees, 2) find a way to soften the wall and, 3) provide view photos taken from northbound SR57 without the vegetation for photos 2, 3 & 4. Mr. Singh stated that each of the visuals cost the applicant about $1500 each. He wants to cooperate and has presented seven or eight views and asked the Commission to limit their expectations as 'much as possible. C[Wei believed the vegetation could be added and removed using a computer software program. C/Nolan stated that this request was made at the last meeting and the request was not a new request to the applicant and it would therefore not be unreasonable for the Commission to request compliance. If the applicant had provided one northbound rendering as previously requested this issue might have been resolved this evening. Mr. Singh reiterated that the Commission was requesting views without vegetation (photos 2, 3 & 4) along the northbound SR57 and response to recommendations regarding tree replacement, relocation and vegetation as called out by C[Wei. CDD/Fong said that staff would provide the requests in writing to Mr. Singh. CDD/Fong reiterated the Commission's requests and included Chair/Nelson's concern about planting trees that were too large. Mr. Singh asked the Commission to reconsider their recommendation regarding replanting due to the low success rate of a very costly effort. He stated that he was willing to comply with all of the other requests. VC/Torng moved to continue the Public Hearing to January 9, 2007, to allow the applicant time to comply. Chair/Nelson agreed with Mr. Singh about native trees that 15 gallon and 24 box trees would be appropriate and asked for a friendly amendment to VC/Torng's motion. VC/Torng amended his motion. C/Lee. seconded the amended motion. W,ECEMBER 12,2006 PAGE 9 15 BRA"T PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Fong restated the motion as follows: To continue the item to January 9, 2007, and to bring back the aforementioned items: 1) revised photos #2, 3 and 4; percentage of tree species for softening the look of the retaining walls minus relocation of native species. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: VC/Torng; Lee, Nolan, Wei, Chair/Nelson None None 8.1 Development Review DR 2006-19 — In accordance with Chapter 22.48 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code the applicant requested approval of plans to construct a new three-story 3,668 square foot single- family residence with an attached 440 square foot garage. The site is an undeveloped vacant lot; the subject property is zoned R-1 (8,000) and contains 33,327 square feet of land area. PROJECT ADDRESS Nwl.�Agl 1200 Chisholm Trail Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Anna Lee 6111 Glenwood Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647 APPLICANT: Yun Roe 533 S. Saint Andrew Place, Suite 320 Los Angeles, CA 90020 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review DR 2006-19, Findings of Fact, and Conditions of Approval as listed within the Resolution. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. JRXQATZ�U munmr i PLANNING COMMISSION C/Wei moved, C/Lee seconded to approve Development Review 2006-19, Findings of Fact, and Conditions of Approval as listed within the Resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Wei, Lee, Nolan, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: None ClWei recused himself from -deliberation of Items 8.2 and 8.3 under the "Commonlaw" conflict and left the dais. 8.2 Development Review No. 2006-13 — In accordance with Chapter 22.48 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code, the applicant requested approval of plans to demolish the existing dwelling unit and construction of a new three-story 13,730 square foot single-family residence with an attached 1,375 square foot garage. The subject property is zoned R-1 (40,000) and contains 51,836 gross square feet of land area. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: 2366 Clear Creek Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Lawrence and Heneretta Ogbechie 2366 Clear Creek Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2006-13, Findings of fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Applicant George Medley, 20746 Missionary Ridge Road said he was present to answer Commission questions and concerns. Mr. Medley responded to VC/Torng that the conditions of approval were acceptable. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Lee moved, C/Nolan seconded to approve Development Review No. 2006-13, Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval as listed within the Resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: DECEMBER 12, 2006 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Wei ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 8.3 Development Review No. 2006-22 — In accordance with Chapter 22.48 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code, the applicant requested approval of plans to construct a new three-story 11,534 square foot single- family residence with an attached 1,236 square foot garage. The subject property is zoned R-1 (40,000) and contains 45,119 square feet of land area. PROPERTY OWNER: 2112 Rocky View Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Chacko Jacob 1801 E. Edinger Avenue, Suite 235 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Pete Volbeda, Architect 615 N. Benson Avenue, Unit C Upland, CA 91786 CDD/Fong presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2006-22, Findings of Fact, and Conditions of Approval as listed within the Resolution. Pete Volbeda, architect, explained the project and explained how there would be varying contours for a better overall appearance. For the past 15 years he has simultaneously submitted projects to the City and "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association for approval. With respect to this project he would request that he be allowed to proceed to approval and then obtain association approval in accordance with the conditions. He said he had no problem providing landscaping as required by staff. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Steve Solis, 22615 Lazy Meadow Road, said it was his job as the General Manager of "The Country Estates" to make certain that the CC&R's were enforced. Mr. Volbeda is well aware that the CC&R's clearly state that the aA DRAFT I -a W-111,111 I ON 111,14 RX61911i I kvi 16*4 us] ki I architectural committee must approve the plans prior to submission to the Planning Commission. As such, he respectfully requested that the Planning Commission take no action on this project until it has been presented to and approved by "The Country Estates" architectural committee. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Nolan asked for clarification about the CC&R's. CDD/Fong stated that the CC&R's are a private matter and are not enforced by the City. ACA/Kovacevich explained that the Commission's only role is to determine whether the proposed development is consistent with the City's General Plan and Development Code. He also advised removal of Condition 5. a. (2) on page 3 of the resolution because it was an illegal condition. C/Nolan moved, VC/Torng seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2006-22, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution with the deletion of Condition 5. a. (2) of the Resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, VC/Torng, Lee, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Wei ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None C/Wei returned to the dais. 9. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Lee cautioned staff to make certain applicants were prepared to respond to Commissioner's request and not waste everyone's time. VC/Torng thanked staff for their responsible efforts. He said it was an honorto work with his colleagues and wished everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Chair/Nelson concurred. 10. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS. 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. DECEMBER 12, 2006 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Nelson adjourned the regular meeting at 9:42 p.m. to January 9, 2007. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Nancy Fong Community Development Director Steve Nelson, Chairman CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - 21825 COPLEY DRIVE - DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 - TEL. (909) 839-7030 - FAX (909) 861-3117 AG*N=^k��^� �K���H� 7'1 -FUbUCha@hng continued from December 12' 2006 MEETING DATE: January 9, 2007 1. K8�o8hedNeg@t�eOeC�[etmnNo. 2OU0-O3 ^~^~~^~�~~�^- NUMBER: --'----- 2. Zone Change No. 2006-02 and Planned Development Overlay District No. 2006-01 5 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 54081 4. Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-18 5. Variance No. 2002-02 O. Tree Permit No. 2002-13 LOCATION: Southern Terminus ofCrooked Creek Orkxa . �"°"��""~~�~�^~~~~~�~^`^ Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (APN#8714-O28-O03) APPLICATION REQUEST: TO adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program; to subdivide g 12.9 acre site into 16 residential lots ranging in Size from 5,705 to 10.506 GqU8n9 feet for the eventual development Of ' single-family homes; to change the zoning from R-i- 1O.0OOtoRL-PD;tograde and develop in@hillside area; toallow retaining walls with an exposed height 0f10feet which exceed the allowed exposed height adjacent toa street; and to [ennove, nap|eoe and protect oak and walnut trees. / Mr. Daniel Singh PROPERTY- ` Jewel R�ge.LLC APPLICANT:1O3U5VV.Jefferson Boulevard Culver City, CA 90232 staff naconln�ando the Planning ��rnrD�SkJn' Open the �� RECOMMENDATION: . ~�^��� ~~~�-^~^'~^'�----------� continued public hearing; receive comments on the project; close the public hearing and begin deliberations on VTTK4 No. 54001 and its aObUeDleOta; and recommend approval ofZone Change No. 2006-03 and Planned Development Overlay District 2006-01. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03 and Mitigation Monitoring PnDg[8rD' \7TTM No. 54081. Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-18, Variance NO 2002- 02 and Tree Permit NO. 2002-12. VTTM 54081 VTTM No. 54081 was presented to the Planning Commission at a October 10, 2006. The Commission continued the public hearing 2006 and to December 12, 2006 to allow the applicant time Commission's concerns related to retaining wall .heights, vegetation views after the project's development. public hearing on to November 28, to address the and replacement At each continued public hearing the applicant provided views from the SR 57 freeway of the project site before and after construction of the project at five and 10 year intervals. The applicant also provided a preliminary landscape plan and photographic simulation 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 and simulations did not accurately reflect the current view or the results from grading the project site and constructing homes. Therefore, the Commission continued the public hearing to January 9, 2007 to allow the applicant additional time to provide the photographic views and accurate simulations. ANALYSIS: At the December 12, 2006 continued public hearing, the Planning Commission directed the applicant to re -address the following concerns. 1. Photographic simulations from the SR 57 freeway north bound without the existing vegetation located adjacent to the freeway. Provide views from freeway locations 2, 3 and 4 as shown on photographs presented to the Commission November 28, 2006. Photographic simulations must show the project site immediately after construction — zero year and five and ten year intervals. Additionally, the photographic simulations must include the slopes above the houses. The applicant has provided additional photographic views and simulation from the north bound SR 57 freeway at locations 2, 3, and 4 to the project site. The current photographic views at zero year and simulations after grading, and at five and ten year intervals show that the views from locations 3 and 4, which are closer to the project site, reveal more of the graded slopes, proposed retaining walls and future homes. Additionally, the photo simulations show that the more mature the vegetation is on the slopes and planter areas adjacent to the retaining walls, the more effectively the proposed project is screened from the SR 57 freeway. However, the project will still be seen from the freeway. The applicant has also provided photo simulations at the 10 year interval showing the existing vegetation located adjacent to the freeway right-of-way. This vegetation also assists in screening the proposed project more effectively. 2 VTTM 54081 2. A revised landscape plan showing trees, shrubs and vines in the planter areas between the retaining walls which are adjacent to the property lines of the homes on Crooked Creek Drive and Brea Canyon Flood Control Channel. The landscape plan must show the following: ornamental evergreen trees at 24, 36 and 48 inch box sizes, planted 12 feet on center with 50 percent at 24 inch box, 25 percent at 36 inch box and 25 percent at 48 inch box; shrubs in 5 and 10 gallon sizes, planted 3 feet on center with 75 percent at 5 gallon size and 25 percent at 10 gallon size; and vines in 5 gallon size planted 5 feet on center. The revised landscape plan reflects the above referenced plant sizes and percentages for planter areas between the retaining walls which are adjacent to the property lines of the homes on Crooked Creek Drive and Brea Canyon Flood Control Channel. Additionally, a condition has been added to the resolution reflecting these plant sizes, percentages and location. 3. Provide photographic and informational system. Explain the construction of irrigation are integrated into a wall. material on the geo-grid retaining wall the wall and how plant materials and The applicant has provided structural details and information for a geo-grid lock and load retaining wall for another project in the City of Thousand Oaks, California and a typical section of this type of wall for the City of Diamond Bar. Also provided are photographs of this type of wall with landscape areas between a series of retaining walls. Options: The Planning Commission has the following options when considering this project. The options are as follows: 1 Recommend approval to City Council of this project as presented to the Planning Commission; 2. Recommend approval to City Council with additional conditions; 3. Recommend approval to City Council with the elimination of lots; 4. Direct the applicant to redesign the project; or 5. Recommend denial of the project to City Council. 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 VTTM 54081 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. 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. Planning Commission Minutes dated December 12, 2006; 5. Planning Commission Staff Reports dated October 10, 2006 and November 28, 2006 and December 12, 2006; 6. SR 57 Freeway northbound view of VTTM 54081 from locations #2, #3 and #4 with present view, view after grading and after construction at 5 and 10 years; 7. Photos of geo-grid walls; 8. Structural details for geo-grid wall; and 9. Preliminary landscape plans with larger size plant materials. 4 VTTM 54081 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2006 Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Nolan led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Kathleen Nolan, Osman Wei, Vice Chairman Tony Torng and Chairman Steve Nelson. Also present: Nancy Fong, Community Development Director; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; Gregg Kovacevich, Assistant City Attorney 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 Workshop of November 14, 2006. C/Lee moved, C/Wei seconded to approve the Minutes of November 28, 2006 Workshop as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 5. OLD BUSINESS: 6. NEW BUSINESS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: None None 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: Lee, Nolan, Wei, Chair/Nelson None VC/Torng None 7.1 Vesting Change No. 2006- i Tentative Tract Map No. 54081, Zone Chang 02/Planned Development, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03, December 12, 2006 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 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 Perm -it 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) PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: At the southern terminus of Crooked Creek Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Daniel Singh Jewel Ridge, LLC 10365 W. Jefferson Boulevard Culver City, CA 90232 AssocP/Lungu presented staffs 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. AssocP/Lungu referenced a letter staff received today regarding the author's concerns about the project and Why he believed it should not be approved. Daniel Singh stated that this was the third Planning Commission hearing on this matter in spite of the fact that staff recommended approval. The Commission was concerned about visual impacts even though the City's attorney has made it clear that the City has no view ordinance. Nevertheless, the applicant has cooperated and provided responses to Commissioner's concerns. During the second hearing the Commission was presented before and after views from three lots that back up to the proposed project, five and 10 -year simulations of what the project appearance would be and a series of photos from the northbound SR57 that December 12, 2006 PAGE 3 PLANNING GOMM1551UN confirm the site would not be visible due to the vegetation along the freeway. Also provided at the second hearing was a revised landscape plan that utilized more indigenous vegetation and landscape plan that showed the complete on-site mitigation for oak tree and oak woodland replacement. The mitigation also included dead trees. Present during the November 28 meeting was the biologist that has assisted the applicant throughout the entire process. The applicant also provided a landscape plan that illustrated the modified areas. At the last hearing the Commission requested additional visual simulation of the project from the second story as well as a before and after view from the southbound SR57 and the applicant has complied. The vegetation along the freeway is the same in the depictions of the five, 10 and existing views. He reviewed the proposed project, well under the allowable maximum number of units and the project now before the Commission is a compromise based on discussions with staff and consultants. The initial project was reduced from 26 houses to 16 houses based on staffs input. The zone change request is consistent with the General Plan and is not being requested to allow an increase in density; rather, to allow a. small development that preserves more open space than would not have been made available under the existing zoning. Mr. Singh stated that the applicant has made every effort to cooperate with staff and the Commission and has expended more than $15,000 attempting to respond to the Commissioner's requests. He hoped the Commission would approve the project at this time. Chair/Nelson re -opened the Public Hearing. Jeff Layton, 3703 Crooked Creek Drive, stated that at the last meeting he was disappointed about the applicant's presentation and was disappointed that he was not allowed to speak after the presentations were made because he understood it was to be an open hearing. He also felt the engineer was being evasive. The so-called credible biologist was not knowledgeable about basic requirements and did not make a good presentation. He felt that in general the presentation was far below expectations. He also believed that the photos presented this evening were not indicative of what would occur even within the first five years. Mr. Layton said he was concerned about the steepness of the hillside and what the project would look like from both sides of the street. Gregory Shockley, 3711 Crooked Creek Drive, said he wanted to salvage the firewood from the project. He provided photographs to the Commission that showed a large two -foot base black walnut tagged to be removed as well as other views. Mr. Shockley asked if all trees were supposed to be tagged. Most of the trees in the canopy are not tagged and wondered if they had been counted. The view from across the street shows the 18 -foot retaining wall, the six- foot fence, the tree canopy that would be gone, etc. He said he was not opposed to development of the property and would like to see the applicant do a good job. He felt that a 15 to 18 foot retaining wall was not in the best interest of the residents and D.B. He referred to his letter addressed to the Commission. C[Wei recommended that the applicant plant more mature boxed trees than December 12, 2006 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION the proposed 15 -gallon at the onset of the project to provide a more mature canopy. CDD/Fong responded to C/Nolan that some of the oak trees could be relocated under the direction of an Arborist. C/Nolan wanted to know if the project could consider shelved walls rather than 18 -foot retaining walls. CDD/Fong responded that the applicant could use a similar type of block with landscaping cells. However, it would change the design because those types of blocks are placed at an angle and more of the slope would be lost. Mr. Shockley explained his statements about the failure of the retaining wall as a result of potential earthquakes. Unless the epicenter of an earthquake is close to the area and there is an unreasonably high water table it is unlikely the walls will fail. However, most walls of this magnitude are on state land or on land that is controlled by a large corporation that can afford to inspect the walls on a regular basis and make appropriate repairs, and are not usually installed in areas where the slope flows down to other properties. If the retaining wall were to fail it would most likely come down onto Brea Canyon Road. He said he spoke with three engineers and one geotechnician and none said they would use this system. He may not agree with the civil engineer on all points but in many aspects he did a good job. For the most part the pads are on cut and the soil is as good as it is going to get. In his estimation, the primary reason for the retaining wall is to increase the usable rear yard. The retaining wall could be eliminated and the back yards would be on a slope as they are in "The Country Estates" which, in his opinion, would solve a lot of the problems. He said he did not agree with changing the density. He agreed with the applicant that looking from the elevation of the proposed dwellings residents would not be able to see the freeway. It is possible that the rooftops would be seen from the freeway. However, the block wall will not. He believed there were alternatives to the design plan and was disappointed that Mr. Singh felt compelled to build a retaining wall. If the retaining wall were six-foot high he believed no one would object. CDD/Fong responded to C/Lee that the distance between each of the three six-foot high retaining walls is about five feet in accordance with the Hillside Management Ordinance. AssocP/Lungu explained that the walls would have a much less massive appearance with plantings between each wall. CDD/Fong explained to C/Lee that the applicant presents his design to the City and the City determines whether the design meets the development standards. ACA/Kovacevich explained that the Commission's job is to apply the code and make its recommendation to the City Council. Peter Lewandowski stated that a Certified Arborist conducted the tree survey in 2004 on behalf of the applicant and the City retained Mitch Beecham, a reputable biologist to review the accuracy of the survey. Based on Mr. Beecham's review there is no evidence to suggest that the tree survey was not conducted in full compliance with City standards. Mr. Beecham had recommendations that were subsequently incorporated. The tree survey was conducted based upon the applicant's original 26 -lot subdivision and the December 12, 2006 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION grading plan has since been modified. Therefore, the tree survey should not be necessarily indicative of a precise count but a close approximation. Prior to grading, another tree survey will be conducted to reflect the precise grading plan necessary to accommodate plans that Council ultimately approves. Tree tagging protocol includes tagging trees that are in compliance with the City's standards of diameter at a specified (breast) height. The tree survey is an approximation and accurately reflects what was on-site at the time of the survey. The edge of grading has been reduced and the affected number of trees is therefore likely less than the number represented in the environmental documentation. C/Lee said he felt that the applicant had not made an effort to design his project in accordance with the wishes and concerns of the residents. Mr. Singh explained that this project had been on the drawing board for four years and that there had been community meetings. C/Lee wanted to know how many meetings the applicant held. Mr. Singh responded. Mr. Singh responded to concerns about the retaining walls that a geotechnical engineer reviewed the plan and provided recommendations that were incorporated into the project. The City's consultant reviewed the soils report on a number of occasions. Both consultants recommended approval based upon the recommended mitigation. With regard to the trees the applicant is replacing trees at a 3:1 ratio and 1:1 ratio for dead trees. He said he would consider larger trees limited to the retaining wall area to help screen the walls. He reminded the Commission that this was not a large development. Chair/Nelson closed the Public Hearing. RECESS: Chair/Nelson recessed the meeting at 8:15 p.m. RECONVENE: Chair/Nelson reconvened the meeting at 8:25 p.m. C/Nolan felt the applicant did not properly respond to the Commission's request for simulation photos. She asked for an, answer regarding the retaining walls. CDD/Fong responded that it was the applicant's decision as to what type of wall they would use. There is a condition requiring landscaping and irrigation. Mr. Singh stated that the system is called a "lock and load" system with a fagade that allows for vegetation cells. The reason this type of system is used is to accommodate the concerns regarding massing and keep the development envelope as small as possible. VC/Torng commended the builder for his time and effort toward a good project. However, he believed that comments were important for the applicant to consider. He felt that in researching all of the previous material that the applicant had not properly responded to the request for viewpoint simulations. He asked the applicant to tell the Commission what size trees he intended to install, give the Commission more information about the retaining wall and respond to the request for gateway view simulations. December 12, 2006 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Lee agreed with VC/Torng that the applicant had not fully responded to the Commission's requests for certain information. He asked the applicant for his sincere cooperation based on the Commission's requests. CNVei echoed other Commissioner's comments regarding trees, preservation of oak trees, increase in the size of replacement trees and how to soften the retaining walls with more vegetation. He suggested that the applicant come backwith plans to show the Commission. It seemed to him that the applicant had not complied with the Commission's request to have the pictures from the northbound SR57 without the vegetation at the side of the freeway. Chair/Nelson suggested the applicant speak with restoration ecologist Dr. Quinn at CalPoly to address concerns about what size trees should be installed as replacement of the native trees and replace other trees with larger boxed trees. He wanted a condition added to require that the slopes being graded above residences be planted immediately and that the applicant would use the native planting for erosion control. He believed the project could be made to look like it appears today although it would take a long restoration period. Chair/Nelson said he would like to move the project up the line but he was not convinced the applicant had provided what the Commission asked and he wants the City Council to see it as well. C/Lee said he was not comfortable with the project and wanted the applicant to prove that the proposed project was the best for the residents. C/Nolan wanted to know if C/Lee was asking the applicant to provide a new plan without a retaining wall. C/Lee said he wanted to see different plan options to accommodate other opinions put forth by the residents because he believed that individual views of the plan were completely opposite. C/Nolan said it was not clear to her what C/Lee was requesting. C/Lee said he wanted a different plan that included the resident's comments and concerns. ACA/Kovacevich cautioned the Commission that there might be a fundamental misunderstanding about the process. The idea was not to get to the point of necessarily finding a project that everyone liked but to come to agreement that the project complied with the findings of fact. The applicant has submitted a project that has gone through several iterations and been pared down to 16 homes and, the applicant is seeking an up or down vote on the proposed project. If C/Lee is uncomfortable with the project and feels he cannot make the findings he could recommend denial. However, it is not proper for the Commission to attempt to redesign the project. C/Wei recommended the following: 1) revise the plan to increase the size of trees and vegetation and a include a plan to transplant or preserve the oak trees, 2) find a way to soften the wall and, 3) provide view photos taken from northbound SR57 without the vegetation for photos 2, 3 & 4. Mr. Singh stated that each of the visuals cost the applicant about $1500 December 12, 2006 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION each. He wants to cooperate and has presented seven or eight views and asked the Commission to limit their expectations as much as possible. C[Wei believed the vegetation could be added and removed using a computer software program. C/Nolan stated that this request was made at the last meeting and the request was not a new request to the applicant and it would therefore not be unreasonable for the Commission to request compliance. If the applicant had provided one northbound rendering as previously requested this issue might have been resolved this evening. Mr. Singh reiterated that the Commission was requesting views without vegetation (photos 2, 3 & 4) along the northbound SR57 and response to recommendations regarding tree replacement, relocation and vegetation as called out by C[Wei. CDD/Fong said that staff would provide the requests in writing to Mr. Singh. CDD/Fong reiterated the Commission's requests and included Chair/Nelson's concern about planting trees that were too large. Mr. Singh asked the Commission to reconsider their recommendation regarding replanting due to the low success rate of a very costly effort. He stated that he was willing to comply with all of the other requests. . VC/Torng moved seconded to continue the Public Hearing to January 9, 2007 to allow the applicant time to comply. Chair/Nelson agreed with Mr. Singh about native trees that 15 gallon 24 box trees would be appropriate and asked for a friendly amendment to VC/Torng's motion. VC/Torng amended his motion. C/Lee seconded the amended motion. CDD/Fong restated the motion as follows: To continue the item to January 9, 2007 and to bring back the aforementioned items: 1) revised photos #2,3 and 4; percentage of tree species for softening the look of the retaining walls minus relocation of native species. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Fre-T3 Lee, Nolan, Wei, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson None None 8.1 Development Review DR"8,006-19 — In_aeo6rdance with Chapter 22.48 of the City of Diamond Bar DelGpr:6_6nt Code the applicant requested approval of plans to constructRew three-story 3,668 square foot single- family residence with an4kached�440 square foot garage. The site is an undeveloped vacant lot; the subject roperty is zoned R-1 (8,000) and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2007 -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. 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 of the City of Diamond Bar conducted the continued public hearing. At that time, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to January 9, 2007 to allow the applicant additionally time to address the Commission's concerns. 6. On January 9, 2007, the Planning Commission concluded the public hearing. 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. Based on substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above referenced meetings on October 10, November 28, and December 12, 2006 and January 9, 2007; 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. 2 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX (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. (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. 4. 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). 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX 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 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2007, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. Steve Nelson, Chairman 1, 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 9th day of January 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner: NOES: Commissioner: ABSENT: Commissioner: ABSTAIN: Commissioner: Nancy Fong, Secretary 4 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2007 -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 FOR A 16 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF CROOKED CREEK DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA. A. RECITALS 1. 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. 5. On December 12, 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 January 9, 2007 to allow the applicant additionally time to address the Commission's concerns. 6. On January 9, 2007, -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: I 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 forthe 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. 2 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX 6. 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 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 -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: 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 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX 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 "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 revegetation. 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. 4 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX 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 point for on-site residential units will conform to specific specification that will reduce volatile organic compounds (VOC). 3. 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. 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 5 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX 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 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. 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 N' 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 for this 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. 6 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX 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 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 complia . nce 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. 7. 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 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. 7 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX 2. 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, 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. 6. 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 8 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX 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. 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 final map, the applicant shall provide a revised landscape plan for the Planning Division review and approval that shows trees, shrubs and vines in the planter areas between the retaining walls which are adjacent to the property lines of the homes on Crooked Creek Drive and Brea Canyon Flood Control Channel shall . The landscape plan shall show the following: ornamental evergreen trees at 24, 36 and 48 inch box sizes, planted 12 feet on center with 50 percent at 24 inch box, 25 percent at 36 inch box and 25 percent at 48 inch box; shrubs in 5 and 10 gallon sizes, planted 3 feet on center with 75 percent at 5 gallon size and 25 percent at 10 gallon size; and vines in 5 gallon size planted 5 feet on center. 13. 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 9 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX 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. d. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION I 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 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. 10 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX 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 21/2" 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 11 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2007, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. WA Steve Nelson, Chairman 1, 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 9th day of January 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner: NOES: Commissioner: ABSENT: Commissioner: ABSTAIN: Commissioner: ATTEST: Nancy Fong, Secretary 12 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX anug 0: 11 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 City's option reimburse the City reasonable attorneys fees, incurred 13 to the City defendants or at the its costs of defense, including in defense of such claims. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -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. 14 Planning Commission Resolufion No. 2007 -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. Priorto any Public Hearing orfinal map approval, all deposit accounts forthe processing of this project shall haveno 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 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 1. 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 ned 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 15 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -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. 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; 16 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -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. 8. 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. 9. 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 land scape/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. 2. 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. 3. 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 17 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-)(X 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. 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. F. SOLID WASTE 1 The site shall be maintained in a condition, which is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement 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. 18 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, (909) 839-7040, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL 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 report/guarantee 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 by the 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 agreement with 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 19 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -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 orfire . 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. 20 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -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 VTTIVI 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. 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 dtjring 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 a ' ccess 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 prior to issuance of building permits. (This may be on an incremental or composite basis). 21 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX 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. 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. 9. 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. 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. 22 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX 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. 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. 23 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -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. M 1. 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. 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. 24 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX 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. 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 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. 25 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -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 by the City Engineer, WVW D 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 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. 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 26 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -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. 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 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: 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. 27 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX 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. 3. Prior to recordation, the final map shall comply with all Fire Department requirements. 28 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2007 -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. 2002-185 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. 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. 5. On December 12, 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 January 9, 2007 to allow the applicant additionally time to address the Commission's concerns. 6. On January 9, 2007, 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. 2 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX (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. 2006-43 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 -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 3 Planning commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX 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 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 or 69 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. 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 4 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX oaks and 1 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. Therefore, the environmental effect will be reduced to "less than significant". 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. 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. 5 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX (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. 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), (j), (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. 6 Planning Commission Resolubon No. 2007 -XX 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. (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. 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 # 2006071129) 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. 7 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX 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 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 necessary in order to 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 8 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX 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 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. 2. 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, 9 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -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. 6. 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. 7. Prior to final map approval, applicant shall submit a deta'il 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. 2007 -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 final map, the applicant shall provide a revised landscape plan for the Planning Division review and approval that shows trees, shrubs and vines in the planter areas between the retaining walls which are adjacent to the property lines of the homes on Crooked Creek Drive and Brea Canyon Flood Control Channel shall . The landscape plan shall show the following: ornamental evergreen trees at 24, 36 and 48 inch box sizes, planted 12 feet on center with 50 percent at 24 inch box, 25 percent at 36 inch box and 25 percent at 48 inch box; shrubs in 5 and 10 gallon sizes, planted 3 feet on center with 75 percent at 5 gallon size and 25 percent at 10 gallon size; and vines in 5 gallon size planted 5 feet on center. 13. 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. forthe City's review and approval. C. PUBLIC WORK/ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. 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 11 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX M e 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. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION 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 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 overl 50 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.) 12 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX 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 21/2" 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 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2007, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. M Steve Nelson, Chairman 1, 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 9th day of January 2007, by the following vote: 13 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX AYES: Commissioner: NOES: Commissioner: ABSENT: Commissioner: ABSTAIN: Commissioner: ATTEST: Nancy Fong, Secretary 14 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX I PROJECT #: VTTM No. 54081, MND No, 2006-03, ZC 20.06-02/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. 15 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -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 16 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -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. 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 forthe 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 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 17 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -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; 18 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX d. Rear yard setback 20 feet from the edge of the buildable pad or rear property line, whichever is applicable; and e edge of e. Accessory structures shall utilize setback distances from th pad or property line whichever is applicable and be consistent with the RL/PD zoning district at the time of permit issuance. 8. 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. 9. 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 1 Prior to final map approval, a detailed land scape/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.. 2. 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. 3. 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 19 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -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. 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 d 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. 20 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -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 report/guarantee 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. Priorto 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 by the 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 agreement with 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. 21 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -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 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 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. 22 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -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. 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 prior to 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. 23 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX 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. 9. 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. 24 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -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. G. 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 25 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -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. 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. 26 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -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 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. 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 by the 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 27 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX 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 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 1. 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 28 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -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: 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. 3. Prior to recordation, the final map shall comply with all Fire Department requirements. WED 29 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT i -goa— 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 Jewel Ridge, LLC APPLICANT: 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 VTTM No. 54081 was presented to t October 10, 2006. The Commission 2006 to give the applicant time to retaining wall -heights, vegetation development. he Planning Commission at a public hearing on continued the public hearing to November 28, address the Commission's concerns related to replacement and views after the project's 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 SIR 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 SIR 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. 3. 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, 7.b.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. 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. Pre' Pre ared by. A �1 lt�. AnnnJ. Lungu, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Nancy Fong, AICP, Community Development Director VTTM 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; 28, 2006; 4. Planning Commission Minutes dated NovemberNovember 28, 5. Planning commission Staff Reports dated October 10, 2006 and 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 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 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 .3 7. NEW BUSINESS: None CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 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 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) 26-0, �0�011 �r � PROPERTY OWNER] APPLICANT: At the southern terminus of Crooked Creek Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Daniel Singh Jewel Ridge, LLC 10365 W. Jefferson Boulevard Culver City, CA 90232 November 28, 2006 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION AssocP/Lungu presented staffs 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 andfound 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 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 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 Sheriffs 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/Nelso'n 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: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Wei, Chair/Nelson None 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. PLANNING COMMI-S ION AGENDA REPO CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - 21825 COPLEY DRIVE - DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 - TEL. (909) 839-7030 - FAX (009) 861-3117 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 7.1— Public hearing continued from October 10, 2006 MEETING DATE: November 28, 2006 CASE/FILE 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 the c recommends the Planning Commission: Open :)ntinued public hearing; receive comments on the project; close the public -nearing 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 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. 1 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 13 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 differentlaneof 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. 3. 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 /eve/. 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. 4. Provide documentation that the oak and walnut trees removed by this project's development will be mitigated to less than significant. 2 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. Thereforb, it is not required that the Negative Declaration be recirculated. VTTM 54081 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. 1-4411� - IAt�Qw �repareA by6,' Reviewed by: nv n J. Lungu, Nancy Fong, Al, Associate Planner Community Devfkelo niejirector 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 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 PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: Southern Terminus of Crooked Creek Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Daniel Singh 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. 2002-13. 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. AsSOGP/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 forfuture 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 applicant to 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 neighbors 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 wildlifein 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 10, 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 I0 -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 are a 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 t . rade 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. Agate 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 1600 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 PLANNIN&COMMISSION 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 fundion 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. #CTOBER 10, 2006 PAGE20 PLANNING COMMISSIOK, 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: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Nelson, Lee, Nolan, Torng None Wei 8. 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 9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS. 9.1 Proiect 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 tothe absence of C/Weithe 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: Resr)e6tfuRv S Nancy Fong V Community Dvel u Ament Director �§f;ve Nelson, vice Chalrman PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT 21825 COPLEY DRIVE - DIAMOND BAR, CA 91.765 - 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. Darnel 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. Proiect 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; an Development Code Sections 22.1422.58, 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 Site Project Site RUMaximurn 3 DU R-1-10,0 Vacant North E F RUMaximurn 3 R-1- . 9,000 Residential South 't AG/SP (Sphere of Influence) A-2-1 Vacant East RUMaximurn 3 DU/AC R-1-9,000 Residential West RL/Maximum 3 DU R-1-7,500 Residential/flood I control channel/ SR -57 ANALYSIS: A. Applications and Review Authority (Subdivision Ordinance, Title 21; an Development Code Sections 22.1422.58, 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; 5. 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 a * nd provide a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will be the final decision maker for the project. B. Proiect 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. F. 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 incroase 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. d. 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 Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Hydrology and Water Quality Public Services Population/Housing Recreation Cultural Resources Noise 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 �(I.) 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 streei 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. f. 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. 9- 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 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. 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: Reviewed by: tr, i rnJ Ld 9 u ssoc t ssociate Planner Nancy Fong, AICP, Community Development Director 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. Exhibit "A" —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 91 a ME nx , Z P! m r m n C'b m O m ..pd¢e;vv7,np 2 m &�o o o Z O � yy z z-1 2�wO fi.km -rri O O D m C 0 pit �•� - Sr o= Cil 6;x°4' ,y. '•amu<�:t+t� t! oaf, a•a�q o � "vr�:.:�'v;'4 a1 1���1y�pP eY4,YI,� ��Ye r PP ��:pp°ca��� It• rYV p`�: p�� r � `� a-o� a� Sao ajo � •� _ ;;;�4"�' A- ��@4 . � MA ��° ��•" Yl•'r a"'.•iF� .. -� PPL .PP ® ��a•` `�^ N. �.. P� °°:1;° (. ter"•_' M` WON.{nrl!�'�;'?p� (/a v+�'�Gy�n air o fip e' 6 � o � e4 PP �;• psi •• .�{� o� �' IyNM. tt0 - ff: TRDIAACT H 4 1 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAF! 3 ., k pww um6meW%. - ' � .V 01177 GG I' '"tl(tioi"P` lo o��po 00 oo0'O age c's; CIS,. `•, ate` V`','1'/.,: i �. n4 d POP o MUSCM �►o oaf c s 1 • � a Q „��. o u o Oi)I�Gw wwn.� 1S`•.a`�i:P (Alm ' apo A ISM go Wo ' 00°� qe► .ate. �a QOQ�T,yx 4e� � �� .� i MIM - c-�,p•08i0��iLflTa�..,, a' L:1 f �o'*�-. "rsi uc;S+:' JJJ o■■e■■e■® TYPICAL LOCK AND City of Diamond Bar LOAD SECTION Proposal, Example Only. 250 psf TRAFFIC SURCHARGE HORIZONTAL FINISHED GRADE GUARD RAIL BY OTHERS 24" LANDSCAPE PLANTING SHELVES AS SHOWN LOCATED BY CONTRACTOR REINFORCED ZONE AS APPROVED BY GEOTECH. RETAINED SOIL "J INTERNAL ANGLE OF FRICTION 1UN 32 DEGREES co STD. I OVII H BATTER FEN GEOGRID 12" OF WELL SEE ASSEMBLY WALL HEIGHT COMPACTED DETAIL FOR LENGTHS 3/4" MINUS ROCK -- ---- OR ROAD BASE 2.5 f t HORIZONTAL SLOPE 6" OF 3j' MINUS CLEAN GRAVEL BASE TO BE VERIFIED BY GEOTECH 4" DIA, ADS PERF. PIPE WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC FINISHEDGRADE AT WALL FACE FOUNDATION DEPTH DETAIL "A" 1. Wall Height (H) is the total height from top including embedment 2. Minimum embedment at toe of wall is 12" for a horizontal front slope. 3. Reinforced Soil - Internal Angle of Friction = 32 degrees; Unit Weight = 120 #/FtA3 Retained Soil - Internal Angle of Friction = 32 degrees; Unit Weight = 120 #/FtA3 Foundation Soil - Internal Angle of Friction = 32 degrees; Unit Weight = 120 #/FtA3; c = 250 psf 4. Finished grade to provide for positive drainage away from wall. 5. Foundation Row set on graded and compact soil or granular pad to be confirmed By Geotech 6. All Backfill to be compacted to 95% max. Density (Standard Proctor) 7. Grading at top of wall and Embedment as specified 8. A Global Analysis or Settlement Study is not, part of this Design. Project Profile Owner: George Tillery Engineer: Charles Chen P.E. Contractor: MSE Systems, Santa Clarita, CA Details: Maximum Height 14 ft. Total sq. ft. 2000 Description: Colored concrete used for a fourteen foot high wall with three plant able terraces. July 18, 2006 STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS AND DETAILS FOR THE MODIFICATION TO THE LOCK AND LOAD GRAVITY RETAINING WALL 1631 EL CERRITO THOUSAND OAKS CALIFORNIA PACIFIC LOCK AND LOAD P.O. BOX 781 WILSONVILLE, OR 97070 (503)-682-8400 DAVID A. HALL/STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING P.O. BOX 82228 PORTLAND, OR 97282-0228 (503)-231-8727 JOB #PACX0065 TYPICAL LOCK AND LOAD SECTION AT TIERED WALLS 12" HORIZONTAL— FINISHED GRADE GUARD RAIL OR F BY OTHERS 3 PANELS STD.1 (3.9') MAX BP 1631 EL CERRITO THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA 12" OF WELL I 171-1 COMPACTED 3/4" MINUS ROCK OR ROAD BASE TYPE "B" x 7'-0" GEOGRID TYPE "C" x 8'-0" GEOGRIDS 3 MAX H:1 V SLOPE IN FRONT OF WALL THE GEOTECH SHALL VERIFY THE SOIL 3 PANELS .... REINFORCED ZONE AS APPROVED BY GEOTECH. RETAINED STABILITY IN FRONT INTERNAL ANGLE OF FRICTION = 30 DEGREES OF THE WALL. (3.9) MAX FINISHED GRADE AT WALL FACE ;;Si?i•_ EQUIVALENT GEOGRID TABLE GEOGRID ALTERNATIVES GEOGRID TYPE LIDS SYNTEEN MACCAFERRI FORTRAC TENSAR I MIRAGRID TYPE "A" 850 # SF 20 WG04 20/13-20 UX 800HS 2XT TYPE "B" 1550 # SF 35 WG05 35/20-20 UX1100HS 3XT TYPE "C" 2250 # SF 55 WG09 55/30-20 UX1500HS 5XT TYPE "D" 3500# SF 80 WG12 110/30-20 UX1600HS 10XT TYPE "E" 4500 # SF 90 WG15 150/ UX1700HS 18XT TYPE "F" 5500 # I SF 110 WG20 150 UX1700HS 20XT 1. Wall Height (H) is the total height from top including embedment 2. Minimum embedment at toe of wall is 16" or as required by the Geotechnical Engineer 3. Reinforced Soil - Internal Angle of Friction = 34 degrees; Unit Weight = 120 #/Ft^3 Retained Soil - Internal Angle of Friction = 32 degrees; Unit Weight = 110 #/Ft^3 Foundation Soil - Internal Angle of Friction = 30 degrees; Unit Weight = 110 #/Ft^3; 4. Finished grade to provide for positive drainage away from wall. 5. Foundation Row set on graded and compact soil or granular pad to be confirmed By Geotech 6. All Backfill to be compacted to 95% max. Density (Modified Proctor) 7. Grading at top of wall and Embedment as specified 8. A Global Analysis or Settlement Study is not part of this Design. 4" DIA. ADS PERF. PIPE WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION FOR MECHANICALLY STABILIZED LOCK+LOAD RETAINING WALLS PART 1:' GENERAL 1.01 A Professional Engineer, with experience in Geotechnical Engineering and the design and construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls shall review the suitability of the design for the intended use and to provide field observation during construction. This includes the review of the bearing stratum by the Geotechnical Engineer, verification of the specified soil compaction in the reinforcing zone, and the review and verification,that the geogrids were installed per plan. The Geotechnical Engineer shall evaluate all soil parameters during construction. 1.82 The design of these walls was prepared for the exclusive use ufPacific Lock and Load, Inc. The use of these plans by any others shall be approved in writing by The Engineer prior toconstruction. 1.03 The construction ufLOCK+LOADretaining walls shall be performed by either Contractor that has been approved aoknowledgeable and experienced inthe construction ofMSE retaining walls using LOCK+LOADcxaRepresentative nf LOCK+LDADshall bepresent sdthe beginning ofconstruction until ithas been determined by them that the Contractor is capable of constructing this type of wall system. 104 The design of LOCK+LOAD Mechanically Stabilized Earth Retaining Walls is based on the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration's publication No. FWHA-NHI-00-043 "Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes Design and Construction Guidelines" which has been adopted by the latest American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the National Concrete and Masonry Association (NCMA)codes. 1.05 Design compliance iemade with dated June 25.2OOG..prepared by ORA Engineering Corporation, with the assumption that the foundation soils that are capable ofsupporting abearing pressure of2260pofand the following: Internal Angle ofFriction for Reinforced Zone = 30 degrees Internal Angle ofFriction for Retained Zone = 20 degrees Internal Angle of Friction for Foundation Zone = 27 degrees; c = 420 psf The Contractor isresponsible inreviewing this report and adhering to it in it's entirety. 1.06 Design Compliance is made with the following Factors of Safety: Sliding Bearing Capacity Overturning |nbanna| Stability Seismic or Wind Stability F8x 1.5 FS~2.O FS^2.0 FG~ 1.5 FS > 75% of Static FS i.0The work described and shown involves the supply and installation of reinforced soil retaining walls. The concrete wall panel and nounterfortcreate aLOCK+LOADRetaining Module. Counterfort and Geo -grid are the types of soil reinforcement. The work includes but is not limited to: a. excavation hothe lines and grades shown onthe drawing; (or oorequired by the Geotechnical Engineer, toobtain adequate bearing capacities) excavation tobecoordinated with the General Contractor. b. supply and installation ofgeoghdreinforcement; u. supply and installation ofdrainage fill and piping; d. supply and installation ofsegmental LOCK+LOADModules e. supply and installation ofreinforced soil fill. t removal ofall deleterious materials tothe satisfaction ofthe Geotechnical Engineer. 1.08 The walls will be installed in existing, natural, undisturbed soil or placed on a %" rock base eadetermined bythe Geotechnical Engineer. 1.09 The Contractor shall confirm the locations and conditions of all man-made elements which may beaffected ordamaged bythe Work. Elements which may beaffected or damaged bythe Work must bereported tothe Engineer inadvance ofthe work beginning. The Engineer may modify the design orapprove ofchanges hoinstallation techniques proposed by the Contractor to preclude damage or conflict with existing elements. 110 The Contractor shall verify all dimensions and report discrepancies to the Engineer. 1.11 AGlobal Slope Stability cvoDifferential Settlement analysis has not been completed by the Engineer. The Geotechnical Engineer shall be consulted if such analysis is required. PART 2 - MATERIALS 2.01 Concrete Panels and Counterfortoare locked together to form o"Retaining Modu|e" The retaining walls have been designed onUhebeoioofLock+LoadnetoininQwo|"K8oduleo. Modules are tnbopurchased from alicensed LOCK+LOADmanufacturer. The LDCK+LDADtrademark oneach pallet identifies LOCK+LOADproducts. Information on the purchase of LOCK+LOAD and a complete list of components can be Obtained through: Lock & Load Retaining Walls Ltd. Tel. (877)QO1-QQ0OWebsite 2.02 Seoghd'The retaining wmUohavebeendmsignmjtobeeractadaeohownontheP|ono. Other geogrid materials may be considered suitable provided that they meet the specification and requirements of the design and are approved in advance by the 2.03 Modular Fill — The fill immediately behind the LOCK+LOAD panel and surrounding the oounterfortshall be"dense graded" select free draining material. 2.04 Drainage Fill. Drainage fill placed around and above the perforated drainage pipe shall be granular aggregate composed of inert, clean, tough, durable particles of crushed rock capable of with standing the deleterious effects of exposure to water, freeze -thaw, handling, spreading and compacting. The aggregate particles shall bouniform |nquality and free from anexcess offlat orelongated pieces. The drainage fill shall consist of round orangular rock between 3/4inch and 1inch. 2.05 Reinforced Backfill. Anshown nnthe Plans oranapproved bythe Geotechnical Engineer. The Reinforced backfill shall have anangle ofinternal friction of3D"orgreater and a moist density of 120 pcf, when compacted to the specification herein. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.01 The Contractor shall excavate to the lines and grades shown on the construction drawings. AGeotechnical Engineer shall inspect the excavation and approve the foundation prior hothe placement ofthe levelling pad orretaining modules. 3.02 Over -excavation of deleterious soil or rock as recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer shall bereplaced with Reinforced and Retained Backfill meeting the specifications of Section 2.05 above, and compacted to 90% of ASTM DI 557 (Modified Proctor Density) within 296ofthe optimum moisture content ofthe soil. 3.03 The first course of concrete Lock+Load Modules shall be placed on the level compacted foundation and the alignment and level checked. 3.04 Modules shall beplaced with the top ofthe panel level and paralleltothe wall face. The counterfort base installs horizontal and perpendicular to the face of the retaining wall. 3.06 Geogrid shall be oriented with the highest strength axis perpendicular to the wall alignment. 3.06 Geoghdreinfomement shall be placed at the elevations and to the extent shown on the Plans beginning at the back of the0CK+0AD panels and the top of the counterfort. 3.07 The geoghdshall belaid horizontally inthe direction the face ofthe retaining wall and parallel tothe alignment ofthe "K8odu|eo. The geoghdshall bapulled taut, free ofwrinkles and anchored prior hobackfill placement onthe gaoghd. 3.08 The geogrid reinforcement shall be continuous throughout their embedment lengths. Spliced connections between shorter pieces ofgeoQhdare not permitted. 3.09 The drainage pipe discharge points shall be free and clear to allow drainage from the pipes. 310 Reinforced and Retained backfill shall be placed, spread and compacted in such a manner that minimizes the development ofslack inthe gaoghd. 3.11 Connection, Reinforced and Retained backfill shall be placed and compacted in lifts not to exceed 8 inches where light compaction equipment (less than 1 0001-b vibrating plate) ioused and not more than 16inches where heavy compaction equipment iaused. First — compact over tail of counterfort then to the panel back and finally away from the retaining wall structure toward the end ofthe geoghd. 3.12 All backfill shall be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density as determined by ASTM O1557(Modified Proctor) orequivalent. The moisture content ofthe backfill material prior to and during compaction shall be uniformly distributed throughout each layer and shall bewithin 2percent ofthe optimum moisture content. 3.13 Tracked construction equipment shall not be operated directly upon the geogrid reinforcement. A minimum fill thickness of 6 inches is required prior to operation of tracked vehicles over the geoghd. Tracked vehicles should not turn while onthe geoghd to prevent tracks from displacing the fill and geogrid and damage or slack to result in the googhd. 3.14 Rubber tired equipment may pass over the geogrid reinforcement at slow speeds less than Smph. Sudden braking and sharp turning shall beavoided. 3.15 At the end of each day of operation, the Contractor shall slope the last lift of reinforced backfill away from the wall units todirect runoff away from the wall face. The Contractor shall not allow surface runoff from adjacent areas to enter the wall construction site. LOCK+LOAD - STONE - FILE 500 16" ti FRONT VIEW BACK VIEW C, -A rw -tet L❑CK+L❑AD Retaining Walls Ltd, MASTER FILE 500 - STONE WIT- TP DENOTES TRIMMED PANELS -TRIMMED PANELS USED PANEL (665MM) LONG TO ADJUST 'BOND' AT INTERFACES SIDE VIEW L,� TP = T TP t-, TP ELEVATI❑N VIEW TYPICAL "STONE" LAYOUT VERTICAL INTERFACE nts 1 inch = 25,4mm LOCK+LOAD-TOLE RAN CES -622 LOCK+LOAD Retaining Walls Ltd. INDIVIDUALITY ALLOWS VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL VARIATIONS IN PLACEMENT WITH IN EACH ROW & SECTI( A;mgm1-.1wmowaFm11 CONNECTING LOOP -FILE 605 550mm 21.5" TOP VIEW (AS PANEL INSTALLED) FRONT VIEW 150mm (AS PANEL INSTALLED) 6„ EW is MATERIAL AND DIAMETER OF LOOP CONNECTING LOOP 3/8" 9.5mm DIA HS STEEL HOT DIP GALVANIZE 1/4TO 5/16" STAINLESS STEEL 1/4 TO 3/8" DIA. FIBER REINFORCED PLASTIC LOCK+LOAD Retaining Walls Ltd. Relatively large earthquake shaking (i.e. A a 0.29) could result in significant permanent lateral and vertical wall deformations even if limit equilibrium criteria are met. In seismically active areas where such strong shaking could exist, a specialist should be retained to evaluate the anticipated deformation response of the structure. The use of the full value of Am for Kb in the Mononobe-Okabe method assumes that no wall lateral displacement is allowed. When using the Mononobe-Okabe method, this assumptions can result in excessively conservative wall designs. To provide a more economical structure, design for a small tolerable displacement rather than no displacement maybe preferred. The 1996 AASHTO Specifications for Highway Bridges (with 1998 Interims), Article 5.2.2.4, in combination with Division IA, Articles 6.4.3 and 7.4.3, allow Mononobe-Okabe earth pressure to be reduced to a residual seismic earth pressure behind the wall resulting from an outward lateral movement of the wall. This reduced seismic earth pressure is calculated through the use of reduced acceleration coefficient for Kb, which accounts for the allowance of some lateral wall displacement. This reduced Kb can be determined through a Newmark sliding block analysis, though the complexity of this type of analysis is beyond the scope of this manual!") A reduced Kh can be used for any gravity or semi -gravity wall if the following conditions are met: The wall system and any structures supported by the wall can tolerate lateral movement resulting from sliding of the structure. The wall is unrestrained regarding its ability to slide, other than soil friction along its base and minimal soil passive resistance. If the wall functions as an abutment, the top of the wall must also be unrestrained, e.g., the superstructure is supported by sliding bearings. The 1996 AASHTO Specifications for Highway Bridges (with 1998 Interims), Division IA, Articles 6.4.3 and 7.4.3, provide an approximation of this reduction to account for lateral wall displacement. The Kh used for Mononobe-Okabe analysis of gravity and semi -gravity free standing and abutment walls may be reduced to 0.5A, provided that displacements up to 250 A mm are acceptable. Kavazanjian et al.("developed an expression for Ki, (i.e., N, the peak seismic resistance coefficient sustainable by the wall before it slides), and further simplified theNewmark analysis by assuming the ground velocity in the absence information on the time history of the ground motion, to be equal to 30A. For MSE walls the maximum wall acceleration coefficient at the centroid of the wall mass, Am (eq. 30), is used with this expression, and Kb is computed as: y A 025 (37b) Kh=1.66A,„�dJ where, "d" is the lateral wall displacement in mm. It should be noted that this equation should not be used for displacements of less than 25 mm (1 inch) or greater than approximately 200 mm (8 inches). It is recommended that this reduced acceleration value only be used for external stability calculations, to be consistent with the concept of the MSE wall behaving as a rigid block. Internally, the lateral deformation response of the MSE wall -101- MSEW -- Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls 1631 El Cerrito - Tiered Wall Present Dnte/Time• Tue Aug 01 12:04:31 2006 F:Uxacific Lock and Lond11631 EI Cemto\1631 EI Cemto - Tiered Wn11.BEN AC6wVminxa Al:LL\Yt'm:n3nALLLW VminZn AC'.flVt'mYn_n ACEtt'Ymin_n ALVEU't'mimxoAuflVVm:nxaAt'�w'Vminxa Alttw','minin AL4.lVVm: Sa AIvflVVnin_OxC¢Wt'Nnin AL'iEw't'm:n$acific Mxo AnC jfm xa AOLWVm4mxo WEw VmFexo lnCW Vv.iminxu[w V.rb.ia WfwVm4nxo SOIL DATA REINFORCED SOIL Unit weight, v 120.0 lb/ft 3 Design value of internal angle of friction, 30.00 RETAINED SOIL Unit weight, v 120.0 lb/ft 3 Design value of internal angle of friction, 30.00 FOUNDATION SOIL (Considered as an equivalent uniform soil) Equivalent unit weight, v —"i„ 120.0 lb/ft 3 Equivalent internal angle of friction, f equiv. 27.00 Equivalent cohesion, cequiv. 420.0 lb/ft 2 Water table does not affect bearing capacity LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS Ka (internal stability) = 0.3333 (if batter is less than 100, ICa is calculated from eq. 15. Otherwise, eq. 38 is utilized) Inclination of internal slip plane, ur = 60.00° (see Fig. 28 in DEMO 82). ICa (external stability) = 0.3333 (if batter is less than 10°, Ka is calculated from eq. 16. Otherwise, eq. 17 is utilized) BEARING CAPACITY Bearing capacity coefficients (calculated by MSEW): Nc = 5.27 N y= 8.41 SEISMICITY Maximum ground acceleration coefficient, ct � = 0.20 ICae ((x,> 0) = 0.5183 ICae ((xt,= 0) = 0.3333 A ICae = 0.1850 (see eq. 37 in DEMO 82) Seismic soil-geogr•id friction coefficient, F* is 80.0% of its specified static value. tm.n.aumvtm.+�_nxnea tm:n_n.umvena.cnn v�wvm�nannLvewvm:nxnneswrm:n_n:newvm:.cnAeinrvm:mxnnestvrm:nxoxertwem:nnauxLwvm.n_onemvvm:nmALVAwtm.nxoALVLwvm:nxnnLwEwvm:.can sewenamznnemvvm:n.nALutvvmm=nnnxwvm:.ennumvvn:.r_onerewva,:nxo 1631 El Cerrito - Tiered Wall Page 2 of 4 License number M -US -0447 Copyright © 1998-2002 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. m. _ MSEW -- Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls 1631 El Cerrito - Tiered Wall Present Date/rime: Tue Aug 01 12:OA'3I 2006 F:\Pacific Lock end Load\1631 EI Cerrito\1631 EI Cemto -Tiered WnILBEN \'minin AVSW'Ymier3VAtP.IVYminin AttLtV\'m{n3nAlvEW Ymin30At¢P'1'min3a AL,EW'\'minin AtvEtVVmim3n A<7EtV Ymin30ALtEW Vminin AbEtV Yminid ALttW Vm1n10 AL6.R'YerenloAl,EW t'min30AL1ElVYminin AL4W VmLm3oLLLEw VmFniotnEw Vm4mi.o W [W VmNu3o AOCw vm:nio Au[W V.r:mao3eEty vm4n3o INPUT DATA: Geometry and Surcharge loads (of SUPERIMPOSED wall) Design height, Hd 8.00 [ft] { Embedded depth is E = 1.30 ft, and height above top of finished bottom glade is H = 6.70 ft, where H1 = 4.00 and H2 = 2.70 } Batter, co 0.0 [deg] Backslope, B 0.0 [deg] Backslope rise 20.0 [ft] Broken back equivalent angle, I = 0.00° (see Fig. 25 in DEMO 82) Offset of upper segment from lower one, Offset = 1.0 ft, Blackslope2 = 0.0 deg. and Backslope rise, S2 = 0.5 ft. UNIFORM SURCHARGE Uniformly distributed dead load is 0.0 [lb/ft 2] ANALYZED REINFORCEMENT LAYOUT: SCALE: 0 2 4 6 [ft] Lm.n_n AlvCtvVminin Anity\'m:nin AFStt','mininl.ciEW,'minin AL'EW Ymin3n AL'h•v t'min3nMUW t'mim3nALVLW Vminio ALtiW Vminin Ac2W Vminio A'LL 't'aun_n AL¢W t.mn_o ALV'.W Vminin AL�N'Vm4n3oALttM1VYnoninAt'&W Vminio AeiEW VmIniOAt,[W Vm:ninAttE\Y YminlnACRWV.rdn3eAC¢W Vmtn3o 1631 El Cerrito - Tiered Wall Page 3 of 4 Copyright © 1998-2002 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. License number M -US -0447 mV C6' 1'n1.1311 ALtSW \'mim2CALVE\Vt'm:nin AL¢1t•\'minis ALtiEN!'mtn30lMEWt'minia At'mlV Vmin3nALVEW \'mimin AlvflV l'min2nALVEtVVmtn3CAC¢N VmInZn SLl1W t'minia MSEW -- Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls AL'RW \'vdn30AtVitV t'm:n2CAt'C'.W Vmin2oAL4.W SmIn2oACRW \m1m_nAHLW tm:n30ALSC1Vtmtn_o Al4W Ymtn2a AL•RtV Vmen2CAL¢v!t'nin30 1631 El Cerrito - Tiered Wall Present Datetrimr Tue Aug Ol 12:04.31 20DG nAniW\'m:nin ALV'flVlMln2nAciiWVmin2nA[ffWt'min2n ALttttNt'nin30A1N:Wt'mimZn AMflV I'm:n2nALiEtVYn:n2nALR^Nt'n:n20 AL'RW Ym ZnAL4ftV 1'min30AL`¢W P:1Pacific Lock and Load\1631 EI Cerrito\1631 EI Cerrito - Tiered WaILBEN VminznAt¢W1'mMIOWCW Vm:nio AdCwYmi.nloKlCw V.:.:.nf.o An1:WV ANALYSIS: CALCULATED FACTORS (Static conditions) Bearing capacity, Fs = 6.27, Meyerhof stress = 958 lb/ft2. Foundation Interface• Direct slidin Fs = 3.248, Fccentrici e = .0301. F - verturnin = 8,93 strength resistance sliding e2 name [ft] [ft] # strength] strength] Fs Fs Fs 1 0.65 8.00 2 2.69 4.28 4.281 9.067 2.811 0.0184 Synteen 55 2 3.25 8.00 2 2.24 5.69 5.694 6.259 4.176 -0.0296 Synteen 55 3 6.00 7.00 1 3.18 5.76 5.184 2.514 9.699 0.0045 Synteen 35 ANALYSIS: CALCULATED FACTORS (Seismic conditions) Bearing capacity, Fs = 4.57, Meyerhof stress = 1165 lb/112. Foundation Interface: Direct sl ding, Fs = 1.679, Eccentricit e/L = 0 1139 Fs -overturning= 3.70 1 0.65 8.00 2 2.02 3.53 3.529 5.452 1.467 0.0879 Synteen 55 2 3.25 8.00 2 1.66 4.64 4.638 3.701 2.371 -0.0041 Synteen 55 3 6.00 7.00 1 2.38 4.73 4.259 1.504 4.784 0.0119 Synteen 35 tm.n_n ALV'[u\m.n_nAttflttm.n_nAli<t\mm�_nALStltmin_n ALVLWtmin_nALLL:V1m.n-n 1631 EI Cerrito - Tiered Wall ALR1\\mtm-n AnEW \mcn-eAtrttttmtn_nAMW\m.n_a ALvtW\mM1n ALVEM1Y\wnlnAgEW\m.nin ALVLW Vm:.12n AL'�W YNn2nALVEWVm(m2CALveN YmIn2VACRwYmIm2uA<rtw\n.n_nAtVCtVtmn-oAL¢1VVmtn_o Page 4 of 4 Copyright © 1998-2002 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. Sml. SL'LLtl 1 1l t u➢S it \'m4 uASC(Lllil' S� !\' n34 il't -➢ rrt Llt' Y1 � �-9 tlC{l'mL' License number M -US -0447 SL'm"mt 'SC61Yt'mbu`111CR11'Ymnm]A!L'21l'1'minill� GEOGRID CONNECTION Fs -overall Fs -overall Geogrid Pullout Direct Eccentricity Product # Elevation Length Type connection (geogrid strength resistance sliding e2 name [ft] [ft] # strength] strength] Fs Fs Fs GEOGRID CONNECTION Fs -overall Fs -overall Geogrid Pullout Direct Eccentricity Product # Elevation Length Type (connection (geogrid strength resistance sliding e/L name [ft] [ft] # strength] strength] Fs Fs Fs '44 w. A :,..a:•• A Ir Ln 'p is •.�': t sT t'�'4 . � ��:`..� �• ..:�;t f r 'tea �� lam:• .. .. .',�. �•�}4 t .. wm­ if t�..L: .CiB� . _ .•��� 3• L� { r . _. _..�••.. _. _ ...%!tipw:.". _ . _ . �•et""� . •. e�J�. ". _... _. _ ...'�/r _._. �iFLe: i a �f s, i 7� M M, � . y. : . � ~}\ # . ] . . 2 _ %�? ; � : . y 2 q u0> 3«��$ {<«4� © «� ` � V � �_. f � 1 `; � i 1 -, � � is � Y f '' Y .p �r k Y� �.:.w � I .e� - ,�� r a�'''ak``�' '� S A i `Y �} Y , " �� � � ,„z; rta�'��ry ��� � �S � � �i,� �^ ����'� t^:➢F ,y.' ..�' i� y� F � � tic ' rt ', i x+ i� }vr T�. 1� � ��� - +i. �M1 r �. J ... � �P. '.S t '-y, �, r( I �4 r � N uh z1 � � J., ht 'm ��� � �� '. `.F' �<� :. � - ��_� `�=`� t t” j . `�'��i-r z� . � .�k,. . kt i. *• F ✓,^ e �� �. .y u 2u� S Fk.�°bTr � .. .� �� x w q�..« .�xr. � i S*r u, � �y{`a a --- �„�, r ,r.. .���„7 �' �w e�,k �:... 3� .e d... a #,3''�. ������ '�' ' l'ui1� G��ee�.,,� N q,,y _. .5: 7 amu. �� .� ' �»3' �� 4.�y�y�. ' x4 -a' �.F 2 y^N^, 'J,�"yYv'i �� y��� ��.bb I ISI N��6' � f'ii ,F� � � � � w r��� "t it ��s� � � � ',.�.c + -� _. 1 -. �S�, { �Z� '�,''�,';;� uk � f y r w' v a �, a '� � µ +�i � Y 1� "M � � � � �=' � � r� M�.,�"u� N � �.� ' £ 3 i t a � � � t F � t £ \ sw� EM '61 i / !r S 5 ! f r F �EX j :7 '61 PP!, {p -N c �^ • � '� t� „�� k 3�'°� � ,� tea.. .AZL.' -"w �4 wjl b i t y si F U� •� 3' v+ 3 r yF. sx r t � t s. JO {,v' EI-UIM tkm w V j^, i$ MI I a y igt�w•'+F d ;. a -V >. �h LV 1• r. ` � l !t . U) cz C I (D 0 (D (D (D O Oo < ti C -)M. z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 IL 0- IL CL a_ 0- < IL < 0- < DL < n < ()o IW w w w w N w w w LLJ w CL CL IL IL IL P,-, 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 7: 3: C.) F- o p p C.) p P: IL Z < LL z< LL < LL z < LL:E < LL 0 ry 00 0 ry 0 Of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LL W z U- w z LL Ww LL z LL Wz 0, U. U- P: IL LL p LL CD Oz Oz Oz < Oz < Oz Z 0 (D z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 (D (D p z F- z z Z Z Z ¢5 Z U) Cf) < rj) < 00 0 U) U) r-: 0 n 00 < W UO < < < w w ILS: ry 0 D- Fil n Cr - cL W n of () 0 o 0-0 of 0-0 n o o -o n o ry, Df < U- a- < U- <11 < U- < U- 0- 0- 0 m;, ca w 0 LLJ I r < rL z < z < (D z < z (D LU 0 w w z :E , 3: 0 z < Ll- < U) LLI Cf) 5 n, 0-2 0 r) 0 re w >- z -j z 0 C) 0 z z w D -i w z > w < m z uj z :D w n w (D >- 0 n < < U m U) U) -J n _j --'3 < -i --j < -i -Ili < 75; < -i U) U) co 99 co It ED -1 -4 9 C� I- N co N 9 N 9 m C� C'j CM, C? N C) 't co (D LO LD C) s c-, C) 6 C) . a) a) 0 (D CD C:) - Lo (00 CD C) to co 0 C) C) co C) CD (b (D 0 LO CD 0 C) (D (D 0 U) C" C) C N V) cu V) m 0 C 0 2 N C) N C N N N C� cq C) LU C) EL flr V) IL D� D < IL ::) C) C) ry � 0- D IL a- D U) 0- U) 0 U C) C) > oc) C) C) om 0 0 fY CL 3: ui uj w LU cu -E 0 D� C 0 o U) o r) c� W Ll .0 C: 0 L) L 0 in 0 \,'.Ln 0.> M 03 LID w m 0 cu 0 t -6 C: (1) -0 U) U) U) _C3 0 0-0 '=3 0� < ry C: W L:) 5; W C� 3 - 0 _j IIJ w m 0 - r > (D cn (D n (D EL r- 0 C) tn m LU w A b L) a) Z U) (j) L) [2 < U) z L—L > 2 w 0 UJ 0) c) E w m �7 'o 0 o ry o -�5 z W:!� z w co C) CL U) CD "0 0- �5; T :;l a) 0 :E U w a- w a. CL 0 Ups r) w LLI Z (D Q -j 'U a) 0 Z CU W 7&. 0 0 < Zp - :5; o co ry (D Y) w 0 0 CD C:- - Z ui z 0 CD 0 U) < z - Lo o (D Lo E LL oo N N > n, E (D c y W =3 N o t-- (0-0 "t z 0 z Lu CY) a) w 0 0 co a) a 't co 0 co a. co CD () N < m - Zil IL co 75 -- L6 05- m O.0 C14 - U) Z c 11 - CR4, :!� N Cl LO I 7% w U) cm IL (D (D (D 0 CD Z Z Z Z F - z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 (D z IL < w d a_ IL IL n < < < < < < LIJ F- 0 —1 w w F- w F- w w to W m w w w W w caz n 15 [if CL '5z n :E z n 2z n 2z n � z cn 00 000 00 00 00 00 OF 11 C) F- C) iz 0 i= C) C: C) p z n z z zd zd z < U- L11 L, u 7 OW, -1 :D 0 rv, 0 ry 0 Of 0 rv, 0 ry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oil 0 Oil 0 Oil LL �: w LL w z LL w z Lli z w z w z LL T- LL U- < 0 z U) < Oz < Oz < Oz < Oz < Oz z0 CD N z0 z0 z0 z0 z0 r P z w d r P: r P: F- Fz r P: r F - z C C0 >>- ¢o Z Z Ei Z Z < U) ry < < L < W < R < < L) < L < < DL It r) 0 ::) Z Z , n 0(- n r',' -i a- Ir- -i 0-w n rY 0-0 � w <CL 0 0-0 0-0 a0 m0 LL a. F- < LL < LL < LL < LL d LL w O < z < or_� (D 0 0 GL J < W W 0 w W fr- C/) w w < V5 a: R F- < CL D < Z UJ U) w z n U) w 0� < M 5 > Z LLJj D ry Z) n w0 M CD 1-0 U) 0 0 re, -i < 0 U) J -i a to J -j -i < < < < fl co C� 0) Cm') C? m I? CD C� to I? iz: C�MN 't '? QY MR: CO i C) C) ED cr) (D C) a 0 Nt 0 CI CO C) C) co C) C) co 0 0 c) �3 C) 0 (::,4 OAC U') C) 0 cu Q: N N N 04 C14 CN N C14 0 rf, Cl 04 N W 0 F- rlt (=) 0 04 0 L) Z Cl 0 W :2u) W ry :D— W a) EL W D� E m z 0 E IL — u) E (D , z ry F- E I- Co 0 Z LL z ID FE E w �u (D � "Co *0- ca z 0,0 z — a) z -j < F5 0 22 U) -j Lj- U r- _j < S, L) a) z— i 7) ry '88 U) 0 <.o 3: w 0 z Lu CO s 3: co a) '-t U) 04 , ce) CU 04 3�, O , 04 , 0 't a) 0 a) LO 9) CD Co N U) N — "t z Cj — (D N — ce) N z N U) C14 (D LLJ c) C:) 04 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF DIAMOND BAR On January 9, 2007, 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. 1, Stella Marquez, declare as follows: I am employed by the City of Diamond Bar. On January 5, 2007, a copy of the Notice for the Regular Meeting of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission, to be held on January 9, 2007, 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 Jill. -SRI •VWXY7 INIM.11 0=2 $I-, Exemmim. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 5, 2007, at Diamond Bar, California. Stella Marquez Community Development Department gA\affldavitposfing.doc 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 9 January 2007 Subj ect: 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 I realize this is being submitted in an untimely manor and I apologize in advance, however I feel that it is never too late to do the right thing and in a door to door canvassing in my neighborhood I was encouraged to submit this document and ask that it be submitted to each commission member as well as added to the public record. I am an individual who believes in individual property owner's rights, probably to a fault. However, when exercising one's individual property rights drastically changes the character of the residences around it, I have to stop and question the value and the motive. I have realized since 1978 that this parcel was available for development, but expected Trans America to control it. To begin with, I believe this project should be looked at as two separate projects - the area south of Crooked Creek Dr and that east of Crooked Creels Dr. - much the way Mr. Singh has split the street. Each has area has different characteristics: the flat area south of the Crooked Creek Dr. terminus looks like an obvious location for building, leaving the upper portion of the hill in a natural state; the area east of Crooked Creek is long and relatively narrow towards the eastern boundary of the property, with a large flattened area that appears to be suitable for building, with the use of a normal sized access road. We have to agree that Mr. Singh and his development company have the right to build a residence on this parcel, or to subdivide the parcel into a number of lots, each with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. An emphasis must be placed on minimum, as that is the current zoning and zoning at the time of purchase. That being said, I believe it is Mr. Singh's responsibility to subdivide this parcel into lots that can support a residence within the structure set forth by our Development Code. When I look at Mr. Singh's plans for this parcel it appears as though entire sections of the Diamond Bar Planning and Development Code have been disregarded. We have view protection guidelines, retaining wall guidelines, hillside development guidelines, and tree protection guidelines that all provide for ample opportunity for development of virtually every parcel in Diamond Bar, with minor variations. The following are excerpted portions of the Development Code that I hope the Planning Commission will review before they make a recommendation on this proposal: Article I, Chapter 22.01 Sec 22.01.020(5) of the Development Code states: "Protect the character, and social and economic stability of residential, commercial, and industrial area;" The proposed development with the retaining wall structure does not protect the character, social, and economic stability of the residents on the east side of Crooked Creek Dr. that will abut this structure. Sec 22.16.130 View Protection: While I realize the term does not mean an unobstructed panorama, the retaining structure planned for those residences on the east side of Crooked Creek Dr. will be afforded no view other than a landscaped retaining structure due to its close proximity. The current 150° to 1801 view of the horizon that residents have known since moving onto the street will be obliterated. This proposed plan fails to address section (b), seems to ignore section (c), and doesn't comply with citywide design guidelines. Sec. 22.16.090. Setback regulations and exceptions. 7. Retaining walls. (b) Up to six feet: These structures, whether split into three sections or not, actually comprises a single unit and are designed to act as such. The wall therefore exceeds not only the allowable height, but also fails to face the subject parcels it is retaining earth for. The Code provides the opportunity to use retaining walls up to six feet high, provided they face the subject parcel, which the proposed structure does not. General Property Development and Use Standards Article III Chapter 22.16 Sec. 22.16.010(a) Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that new or modified uses and development produce an environment of stable and desirable character which is harmonious with existing and future development. It also protects the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties, consistent with the general plan. With the construction of such large retaining wall structures that are clearly circumvent Diamond Bar's Development Code, Mr. Singh's proposed development does not fit in harmoniously with the existing development, nor does it do anything to protect the enjoyment of the neighboring properties. Sec. 22.20.040. Height limitations for retaining walls: (a) Retaining walls shall not exceed a height of six feet measured from the finished grade at the base of the wall. The director may approve additional height up to one foot in consideration of varying topographical features. (b) ...Where a retaining wall contains a fill, the height of the retaining wall shall be considered as contributing to the allowable height of a fence or wall. Regardless of the height of the retaining wall, an open-work, non -view -obscuring fence may be erected at the topof the retaining wall for safety protection to a maximum height of 42 inches. CHAPTER 22.22. HILLSIDE MANAGEMENT Sec. 22.22.010. Purpose. This chapter establishes regulations for development within hillside areas to: (3) Facilitate hillside preservation through appropriate development standards and guidelines of hillside areas. The guidelines are intended to provide direction and encourage development which is sensitive to the unique characteristics common to hillside properties, which include, slopes, land form, vegetation and scenic quality.... (4) ...least environmental impact and shall be designed to fit the existing land form; (7) Correlate intensity of development with the steepness of terrain in order to minimize the impact of -grading, unnecessary removal of vegetation, land instability, and fire hazards; (8) Provide in hillsides alternative approaches to conventional flat land development practices by achieving land use patterns and intensities that are consistent with the natural characteristics of hill areas (e.g., slopes, land form, vegetation and scenic quality); and (9) Encourage the planning, design and development of sites that provide maximum safety with respect to fire hazards, exposure to geological and geotechnic hazards, drainage, erosion and siltation, and materials of construction; provide the best use of natural terrain; and toprohibi development that will create or increase fire, flood, slide, or other safety hazards to public health, welfare, and safety. Sec. 22.22.050. Hillside development standards and guidelines: /8\ Gene/3L ... The standards are F8qUi[8Dl8�development, or alteration `of ' land in hillside 8[e83. The guidelines are to be utilized to provide di[RCtOO to encourage development that is sensitive to the unique characteristics COrnOlon to the hillside areas. The guidelines shall be used by the council and commission in evaluating development proposals that propose tO deviate from the nlinirDUDl St@Od3ndS CODt8iD8d in this Ch8D[e[. (b\ Exceptions. ��xCeo�OOsh}the standards in this chapter Onaybe approved through 'h' conditional use permit process, when the commission determines that the exceptions VVOWld not Dl8t8Fi3l(V 8ff8CL the intent of the standards and guidelines. In approving @ conditional use pe[[nit, the cO[O[DiSsiOD shall make appropriate findings supporting the det8[nniDgtiOO in compliance with chapter 22.58 (Conditional Use Permits). Sec. 22.22.060. Landform grading and re -vegetation standards: /�\ All manufactured cut and fill i\ slopes exceeding nine feet in height, that will be ` ' either exposed t0permanent public view o[are adjacent to emviFOnDleDt8lk/ S8OSitiV8 @ne8S' ShGU be designed with f88tuP8S Ch@nG[t8hStiC Of O8tUc3) S|Op8S SO that their u\tinn8bs appearance will resemble m natural slope. The F8b]iOiDg StrUCtUFeS used will be in pBrDlBO8Dt Vi8VV due 8OtiPe(V to their massive size. TABLE 3-5 SLOPE CATEGORIES TABLE INSET: Natural Slope Category Slope (Percentage) Site Standards 10% to Special hillside architectural and design techniques that 1' 24.9% minimize grading are required in this slope category. Structures shall conform to the natural topography and natural grade by using appropriate techniques, including split-level 25% to foundations, stem walls, stacking, and. clustering. Conventional 2' 39.9% grading may be considered for limited portions of a project when its plan includes special design features, extensive open space, or significant use of greenbelts. Development within this category shall be restricted to those sites where it can be demonstrated that safety will. be maximized while environmental and aesthetic impacts will be minimized. Use of large lots, variable setbacks and variable building structural techniques (e.g., stepped foundations) are expected. Structures shall be designed to minimize the visual 3, 40% to irnpact of their bulk and height. The shape, materials, and o 49.9 /o colors of structures shall blend with the natural environment. The visual and physical impact of driveways and roadways shall be minimized by eliminating sidewalks, and reducing their widths to the minimum required for emergency access and following natural contours, using grade separations where necessary and otherwise minimizing the need for grading. This is an excessive slope condition and it is anticipated that residential subdivisions will not be developed. in these areas. If residential development is pursued in these areas, lot sizes may 4. 50% and be considerably larger than the minimum. allowed by the over underlying zoning district in order to comply with the standards and guidelines of this Chapter. Actual lot size shall be determined through the Conditional Use Pen -nit process. Sec. 22.22.080. /h\ Grading standards. (7) Retaining Walls.—Terraced retaining walls shall not be used as a typical solution within a developmen and shall be limited to the minimum required subject to approval of the director. (8\ Lot lines shall be placed two feet too Ofmajor slope areas within ` ' public view Co[hdV[S to help eDSUne their nlaiOt8D@O0B by the downhill owner. The owners of the houses below these retain structures will not own the land and therefore it is b8VODd their ability b] Dl8iDt8iD it. /\lSo. should Uphill OVVOe[S over - water, this generally leads to earth failures as we have seen throughout Southern V9Fvvate['thisgeD8nsi|y|e8dab]eadhtai|unesaoxvehaveae8nthrVughou[GoUthurn (c) Grading X2\ be utilized when �e'@[8tedbv8nliOi0URlOfth[e8feetaDd8ppPDpri8te|8OdSC8piDg.(Figure 3-18) BA On lots sloping with above, one retaining vva|[ side yard where necessary, Sec. 22.22.110. Site desi-qn (a) Site design standards. the street, and other CODfigU[8tODs not diGCUSS8d not to exceed 42 inches in height' may be used in a The dimensions of structure pan3||e\ to the direction of the slope shall be maximized in ORje[ to limit the amount of cutting and filling and to better fit the house to the OatUF@i terrain. (Figure 3-31) (b) Site design guidelines. (1) Design of building sites should be sensitive to the natural terrain. (2\ Views ofsignUioaOtvisual fe8tUnaS as seen from both within and outside a 'hillside dBV8|OpDl8Dt ShOU\d be p[83mn/ed. The fO\|OVVDg prOVSiOOS Sh@U be taken into consideration: b. Any significant public vista Orview corridor 8Sseen from 8secondary, collector, or major 8dBh8| ShOU|d be protected and enhanced YYhS[8 feasible. (i.8.. View from Brea C8OyOO Road) (3) Projects ShOU|d incorporate v8[\8h|e S8tbGCkG' [OU|Upl8 O[i8Ot8tiODS. ... offer views tOresidents. Sec. 22.22.150. Evaluation of conditional use permit application. The commission shall evaluate a conditional use permit application for hillside development based on the following objectives and the required findings for conditional uses in compliance with chapter 22.58 (Conditional Use Permits). (1) The preservation of natural topographic features and appearances by means of landform grading so as to blend mein -made or manufactured slopes into the natural topography; (2) The preservation of natural topographic features and appearances through restrictions on successive padding and terracing of building sites; (3) The retention of major natural ....view corridors, and scenic vistas; (4) The preservation and enhancement ... protected trees and woodlands (chapter 22.38, Tree Preservation and Protection), and other areas of special natural beauty; (6) The utilization of clustered sites and buildings on more gently sloping terrain so as to reduce grading alterations on steeper slopes; (7) The utilization of building designs, locations, and arrangements which serve to avoid a continuous intrusive skyline effect and which afford view privacy and protection; How does this apply to those residences on Crooked Creek. (9) The utilization of street designs and improvements which serve to minimize grading alterations and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillsides. CHAPTER 22.48. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Sec. 22.48.010. Purpose. (a) ...General plan objective 3.2 states, "Ensure that new development and intensification of existing development yields a pleasant living, working, or. C�- sboppino, environment and attracts the 0 interest of residents, workers, shoppers, and visitors as the result of consistent exemplary design," (A number of residents have spoken in complete opposition to the project. (5) Limit the impact of slopes on adjacent developed properties and limit construction in identified seismic or geologic hazard areas. Also, minimize the effects of grading by C, discouraging mass grading and excessive slopes to ensure that the natural character of the terrain is retained; (7) Encourage the use of a variety of housing designs, split-level grading techniques, varied C. parcel sizes and densities, maintenance of views, and arrangement and spacing of units to accomplish adopted grading policies; See. 22.48.040. Findings and decision. (2) The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards; Interference with the existing neighborhood (3) The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the surro-unding neighborhood and will maintain and enhance the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this chapter, the general plan, or any applicable specific plan; Mr. Singh has conceded the gated community idea early on, but such a large retaining structure is detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. (5) The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative effect on property values or resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity; and A short computer search revealed a number of documented cases where geo-grid retaining structures have failed or concerns of use are addressed. These are a few: (1) Dr. Chungsik Yoo, H.S.Jung and H.Y. Jung, Lessons Learned fi7oin a Failure o Goesynthetic-Reinforced Segmental Retaining Wall, Sungkyunkwan University, 300 Chun -Chun Dong, Jan -Au Gu, Suwon, Kyong-Gi Do, Korea (Rep.) (2) Case History of Geosynthetic Reinforced Segmental Retaining Wall Failure J. Geotech. and Geoenvir. Engrg., Volume 132, Issue 12, pp. 1538-1548 (December 2006) (3) Moil P.E., Jeffery E., A Guide for Road Closure and Obliteration in the Forest Service, pg 17-18, San Dimas Technology and Development Center, USDA-USFS CHAPTER 22.54. VARIANCES Sec. 22.54.010. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to allow for adjustment from the development standards of this Development Code. The adjustment may only be granted when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other conditions, the strict application of this development code denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zoning districts or creates an unnecessary, and non -self-created, hardship or unreasonable regulation which makes it obviously impractical to require compliance with the development standards. I don't believe a variance should be granted to develop this property, when it is obvious that Mr. Singh's proposal doesn't attempt to apply Sec. 22.22.050: Hillside development standards and guidelines that capitulate to variances for the retaining wall and the tree permit. A single retaining wall of 42" to 6' would be acceptable to the east of Crooked Creek Dr. Also acceptable would be a larger retaining structure, a manufactured slope of appropriate grading, to match the existing residents for those lots south of the terminus of Crooked Creek. I am not saying don't build. I am saying I believe the parcel is currently zoned responsibly and correctly, and the development Code is designed conservatively enough to provided for adequate environmentally and structurally sound development. And more importantly, Mr. Singh was familiar with the zoning, topography, and development code at the time of purchase, all of which is a mater of public record or observable upon visiting the parcel. The proposed development does significantly change the character of our neighborhood, which is supposed to be protected by the development code, primarily because of the large steep retaining wall that is in such close proximity to our backyards. If this. is the best design Mr. Singh is proposing I would urge the planning commission to reject the change of zoning, the variances and tree permit. Is this design best for Diamond Bar, the Suburban track residents, and Diamond Ridge residents, or Mr. Singh? Keep in mind this parcel could be developed without such a large retaining structure. Although Mr. Singh may not be able to build as many houses on this parcel as he would like, considering what he paid for the parcel, anything more than one house is a bonus. Respectfully Submitted, Gregory Shockley Ann Lungu__,,,, From: Stella Marquez Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 4:55 PM To: Ann Lungu Cc: Nancy Fong Subject: FW: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 54081 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No... Forwarding this to your attention. Thanks. Stella Marquez Senior Administrative Assistant City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 phone: 909.839.7030 fax: 909.861-3117 e-mail: stella.marquez@ci.diamond-bar.ca.us --Original Message ----- From: Fort Shockley [mailto:fortshockley@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 5:01 PM To: Stella Marquez Subject: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 54081 I realize this is being submitted in an untimely manor and I apologize in advance, however I feel that it is never too late to do the right, thing and in a door to door canvassing in my neighborhood I was encouraged to submit this document and ask that it be submitted to each commission member as well as added to the public record.