Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/11/2000NO i - n u ""f3""" li% r y 11, 2000 South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium 21865 East Copley Diamond Bar,r, Vice Chairman Commission e' Commissioner Commissioner Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Planning Division of the Dept. of Community & Development Services, located at 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please call (909) 396-5676 during regular business hours. In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title 11 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting must inform the Dept. of Community & Development Services at (909) 396-5676 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Please refrain from smoking, eating or drinking in the Auditorium The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper and encourages you to do the same F" i=' l I�� l' The meetings of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission are open to the public. A member of the public may address the Commission on the subject of one or more agenda items and/or other items of which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission. A request to address Commission should be submitted in writing at the public hearing, to the Secretary of the Commission As a general rule of the opportunity for public comments will take place at the discretion of the Chair. However, in order to facilitate the meeting, persons who are interested parties for an item may be requested to give their presentation at the time the item is called on the calendar. The Chair may limit individual public input to five minutes on any item; or the Chair may limit the total amount of time allocated for public testimony based on the number of people requesting to speak and the business of the Commission. Individuals are requested to conduct themselves in a professional and businesslike manner. Comments and questions are welcome so that all points of view are considered prior to the Commission malting recommendations to the staff and City Council. In accordance with State Law (Brown Act), all matters to be acted on by the Commission must be posted at least 72 hours prior to the Commission meeting. In case of emergency or when a subject matter arises subsequent to the posting of the agenda, upon making certain findings, the Commission may act on item that is not on the posted agenda. INFORMATION RELATING TO AGENDAS AND ACTI®NS OF THE COMMISSION Agendas for Diamond Bar Planning Commission meetings are prepared by the Planning Division of the Community and Development Services Department. Agendas are available 72 hours prior to the meeting at City Hall and the public library, and may be accessed by personal computer at the number below. Every meeting of the Planning Commission is recorded on cassette tapes and duplicate tapes are available for a nominal charge. ADA REQIJIREMENTS A cordless microphone is available for those persons with mobility impairments who cannot access the public speaking area. The service of the cordless microphone and sign language interpreter services are available by giving notice at least three business days in advance of the meeting. Please telephone (909) 396-5676 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. 17, —19 ' 'N Copies of Agenda, Rules of the Commission, Cassette Tapes of Meetings (909) 396-5676 Computer Access to Agendas 9909) 860 -LINE General Agendas (909) 396-5676 email: info aci.diamond-bar.ca.us 911 1 �, . CITY OF DIAMOND January 0 0SIF Next Resolution No. 00-1 1. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Steve Tye, Vice Chairman Steve Nelson, George Kuo, Joe McManus and Joe Ruzicka. This is the time and place for the general public to address the members of the Planning Commission on any item that is within their jurisdiction, allowing the public an opportunity to speak on non-public hearing and non -agenda items. Please complete a Speaker's Card for the recording Secretary (Completion of this form is voluntary). There is a five-minute maximum time limit when addressing the Planning Commission. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chairman 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: December 14, 1999 6. NEW BUSINESS: •. f 7.1 Development Code Amendment No. 99-1 and Subdivision Ordinance Amendment No. 99-1 Continued from December 14, 1999. Development Code Amendment No. 99-1 (pursuant to Code Section 22.44) is a request to amend the following Articles of the Development Code: January 11, 2000 Article II Page 2 ® Zoning Consistency Matrix, Section 22.06.040, Table 2-2, amend to read as follows: RPD -20,000, R-1-20,000 and R-1-15,000 — Low Density Residential RL); and PA-2/SP — RL. ® Residential Zoning District General Development Standards, Section 22.08.240, Table 2-4, modify the rear yard setback from 20 to 25 feet in the RR Zone; modify the rear yard setback from 15 to 20 feet in the RL and RLM Zones; and add Lot Coverage, maximum 30 percent within the RR, RL and RLM Zones. ® Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements for Office Zoning Districts, Section 22.10.030, Table 2-5, amend to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages (off site consumption) in conjunction with the sale of motor fuel with a Conditional Use Permit in the OP and CO Zones. ® Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements for Commercial/Industrial Zoning Districts, Section 22.10.030, Table 2-6, amend to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages (off site consumption) in conjunction with the sale of motor fuel with a Conditional Use Permit in the C-1, C-2 and C-3 Zones. Article III ® Required Setbacks -Accessory Uses and Structures, Section 22.42.110, Table 3-15, amend the three-foot rear and side yard setback to five feet for swimming pools and similar accessory structures. ® Guest Houses, Section 22.42.060, amend to allow guest houses up to 25 percent of the main residence, not to exceed 1,200 square feet with a Minor Conditional Use Permit; and to amend overall parcel coverage to 30 percent. ® Significant Ecological Area, add Section 22.22.160, to discuss development within a Significant Ecological Area. Article IV ® Review Authority, Section 22.44.020, Table 4-1, amend Planned Sign Program to Comprehensive Sign Program. Article V ® Restrictions on Nonconforming Structures, Section 22.68.030, amend to allow additions not exceeding 500 square feet if the exterior limits of the new construction do not exceed the applicable height or encroach further into the setbacks than the comparable portions of the existing structure. ® Administrative Responsibility, add Section 22.64.070, to discuss administrative responsibilities of the Significant Ecological Area Technical Advisory Committee. Article VI ® Definitions, Section 22.80.020, add Significant Ecological Area Technical Advisory Committee. Subdivision Ordinance Amendment No. 99-1 (pursuant to Code Sections 21.02) is a request to amend the following Articles of the Subdivision Ordinance: Article I ® Applicability, Section 21.01.040, amend to add that all subdivisions within the City shall follow the same process as a Development Code Amendment. January 11, 2000 R1 Article II Page 3 ® Changes to Approved Tentative Map or Conditions, Section 21.20.110, amend the process to allow proposed changes to a Tentative Map or conditions of approval to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, except as otherwise provided by this Section. PROPERTY ADDRESS: - APPLICANT: City of Diamond Bar 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 ENVIRONMENTAL DETE ATI®N: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15070, the City has determined that a Negative Declaration is required for this project. Negative Declaration No. 99-9 has been prepared. The Negative Declaration's review period begins November 23, 1999, and ends December 12, 1999. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive public comments, discuss the recommended amendments and direct staff to prepare a resolution recommending approval of the amendments to the City Council to be forwarded to the Commission on January 25, 2000. Additionally, staff recommends that the discussion on the Significant Ecological Area be continued to January 25, 2000. 8.1 Development Review No. 99-12 (pursuant to Code Section 22.48) is a request to demolish an existing 3,944 square foot two-story single-family residence with garage and pool/spa, and construct an 11,389 square foot two-story with basement single-family residence including a six -car garage, motor court, pool/spa, and a second gazebo. PROJECT DRESS: 2501 Crowfoot Lane (Tract No. 30577, Lot 61) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Charles Chin 2501 Crowfoot Lane, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Simon Shum 20545 Walnut Drive, #D, Walnut, CA 91789 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15303(a). RE COMMENDATI®N: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 99-12, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. January 11, 2000 Page 4 10. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Planners Institute — March 1®3, 2000, Monterey Conference Center 10.2 Compensation Increase for Planning Commission. 10.3 Public Hearing Dates For Future Projects. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: HOLIDAY TREE RECYCLING: December 27, 1999, through and including January 15, 2000 — Recycling of Holiday trees through your disposal company TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION CITY COUNCIL MEETING: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW MEETING: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE: 1 ' • 1. ►1 I �11Y11~ Thursday, January 13, 2000 — 7:00 P.M. AQMD Room CC2, 21865 E. Copley Drive Tuesday, January 18, 2000 — 6:30 P.M. AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive Tuesday, January 25, 2000 — 6:00 P.M. AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive Tuesday, January 25, 2000 — 7:00 P.M. AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive Thursday, January 27, 2000 — 7:00 P.M. AQMD Hearing Board Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR PLANNING DECEMBER Chairman Tye called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. in the Auditorium of the South Coast Air Quality Management Headquarters Building, 21 865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OFF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Kuo. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Steve Tye, Vice Chairman Steve Nelson, and Commissioners George Kuo, Joe McManus and Joe Ruzicka. Also Present: Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; Sonya Joe, Development Services Assistant, and Stella Marquez, Administrative Secretary. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None offered. 3. APPROVAL, OF AGENDA: As presented. 4.1 Minutes of the November 23, 1999, meeting. C/Ruzicka moved, C/Kuo seconded, to approve the minutes of the meeting of November 23, 1999, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, McManus, Ruzicka, VC/Nelson, Chair/Tye NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 5.1 Exterior Lighting Fundamentals. Presentation by Joe Nolan of Dream Engineering, Inc. 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: None DECEMBER 14, 1999 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSI®N 8.1 Development Code Amendment No. 99-1 and Subdivision Ordinance Amendment No. 99-1 (pursuant to Code Section 22.44) is a request to amend the following Articles of the Development Code: Presentation by AssocP/Lungu. Article II Zoning Consistency Matrix, Section 22.6.040, Table 2-2, amend to read as follows: RPD - 20,000, R-1-20,000 and R-1-15,000 - Low Density Residential ); and PA-2/SP - RL. Chair/Tye asked if the intent is to drop RPD -20,000, R-1-20,000 and R-1-15,000 down from the current location of Rural Residential to Low Density Residential RL. AssocP/Lungu responded that RPD -20,000 and R-1-15,000 will drop down to Low Density Residential instead of Rural Residential for consistency with the General Plan. R-1-20,000 zones exist currently. DCM/DeStefano explained that a large portion of the area around South Point Middle School area is zoned R-1-15,000. The area along Longview Drive, Summitridge Drive, some portions of Goldrush Drive and those general areas surrounding the Ralphs Shopping Center is zoned RPD - 20,000. However, those lots are clearly not 20,000 square foot lots. The RPD was a category of zoning that the County permitted which allowed for smaller lot sizes and changes in street configurations in turn for open space being granted to the homeowners association, the City, etc. These two areas have been encumbered with a development code that says you shall use the Rural Residential Development Code standards. And those standards were primarily designed for "The Country Estates" properties that are already at '/z or one acre or greater in size. Rural Residential requires greater setbacks. This matrix requires greater development setbacks than what is seemingly achievable within these currently developed areas. Therefore, staff is suggesting that this Zoning Consistency Matrix Table 2-2 be revised which will eliminate the need for variances and other development permits that would seemingly be unnecessary with this proposed change. Residential Zoning District (general Development Standards, Section 22.08.240, Table 2-4, modify the rear yard setback from 20 to 25 feet in the RR Zone, modify the rear yard setback from 15 to 20 feet in the RL and RLMZones; and add Lot Coverage, maximum 30 percent within the RR, RL and RLMZones. C/McManus asked if the 30 percent is calculated strictly on the buildable pad. AssocP/Lungu responded that the 30 percent is calculated on the entire lot area. Lot coverage would include the main structure and any accessory structures including sheds, guest houses, patio covers, balconies, etc. as well as, access to the site (driveway). DECEMBER 149 1999 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSI®N Chair/Tye asked if 30 percent coverage is reasonable in the case of a site that has unusable slope. AssocP/Lungu indicated that buildable pad areas that have been approved in the past seem to be large enough to accommodate larger homes. These houses may have a footprint of 5,000 but may have a total square footage of 10,000 square feet because of a second floor. Allowed Uses and .Permit Requirements for Office Zoning Districts, Section 22.10.030, Table 2-5, amend to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages (off site consumption) in conjunction with the sale of motor fuel with a Conditional Use .Permit in the ®P and CO Zones. C/Ruzicka asked if this amendment would address the problem with respect to the gas station at Pathfinder Road adjacent to Diamond Bar High School. AssocP/Lungu stated that the old code under which the project was processed addressed the issue and allowed the use in the zone with a discretionary use permit. The current code does not address that issue at all. DCM/DeStefano stated that the code addresses the issue in the sense that no alcohol sales for off site consumption are permitted within 150 feet of any school. Therefore, that particular location will not be able to receive a permit for the sale of alcohol unless the Development Code is amended accordingly. The project came before the Planning Commission because of the combination of uses proposed under the old development code. The project was ultimately denied. As a result of the denial, the Planning Commission and the City Council began to consider numerical distances from schools and certain other land uses. Staff conducted a detail study on the matter and ultimately, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the 150 feet. Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements for Conimercial/Industrial Zoning Districts, Section 22.10.030, Table 2-6, amend to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages (off site consumption) in conjunction with the sale of motor fuel with a Conditional Use Permit in the C-1, C-2 and C-3 Zones. Article III Required Setbacks -Accessory Uses and Structures, Section 22.42.110, Table 3-I5, amend the three-foot rear and side yard setback tofive feet for swimming pools and similar accessory structures. Guest houses, Section 22.42.060, amend to allow guest houses up to 25 percent of the main residence, not to exceed 1,200 square feet with a Minor Conditional Use Permit, and to amend overall parcel coverage to 30 percent. C/McManus asked if the amendment should say "whichever is the lesser of the two." DECEMBER 14, 1999 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Tye agreed that the wording should encompass the City's objective. AssocP/Lungu said she believes the City's objective is to preserve the integrity of a single family residential zone and not be creating another house on a lot. Chair/Tye stated that the way the amendment reads, a home of 22,000 square feet could add a guest home of 5,000 square feet. Therefore, the wording should be changed to reflect the intent. DCM/DeStefano stated that if the Commission feels that a guest house of 2500 square feet for a home of 10,000 is too large, staff can study this matter further to determine what other jurisdictions are doing for the larger estate properties as well as, other large properties in this community. There may be different answers for different zones. The Commission asked staff to consider this matter further in order to restrict the potential size of the structure. Significant Ecological Area, acts' Section 22.22.160, to discuss development within a Significant Ecological Area. AssocP/Lungu suggested that this matter be discussed at the January 11, 2000 meeting. Article ITS Review Authority, Section 22.44.020, Table 4®1, amend Planned Sign Program to Comprehensive Sign Program. Article V Restrictions on Nonconforming Structures, Section 22.68.030, amend to allow additions not to exceed .500 square feet if the exterior limits of the new construction do not exceed the applicable height or encroach further into the setbacks than the comparable portions of the existing structure. C/Ruzicka voiced concern that these smaller encroachments could be injurious to the neighbors. AssocP/Lungu stated that if there is a concern about the proposed project, the Hearing Officer can refer the project to the Planning Commission for public hearing.' DCM/DeStefano indicated that the Planning Commission may wish to further define staffs guidelines and/or limit its discretion. VC/Nelson asked if a provision exists to notify neighbors prior to the Administrative Review process. AssocP/Lungu explained that if the proposed project is within the parameters of staff s approval, the neighbors are not notified. DECEMBER 149 1999 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Nelson suggested the Commission consider requiring public notification for all projects. DCM/DeStefano pointed out that such notification creates opportunities for further confusion and personal vendettas. In addition, the City's legal counsel has found such notification to not be supportable. VC/Nelson said he sees little difference in public notification for the neighbors adjacent to the Evangelical Free Church who may be bothered by light and other conditions, for instance, and for neighbors adjacent to single family residences who may encounter the same conditions. AssocP/Lungu pointed out that the code now contains guideline regarding lighting which the code did not previously contain. Chair/Tye said that as a resident, he would want to know about possible construction of a lighted basketball court or tennis court next door to his property. DCM/DeStefano reiterated that if the Commission would like to include a provision that under certain circumstances, that notice is given or that a hearing be conducted, that can be accomplished. C/Ruzicka said that the current staff has a sense of judgement about these issues. However, in future years, that may not hold true and he believes that there ought to be language within the Development Code that will assist not only current staff, but future staff as to what is appropriate for the situation in order to safeguard the City's neighborhoods. He stated that when residents improve their own family's style of living it is possible to infringe upon neighbors. There ought to be safeguards built into the code to insure that these kinds of things do not occur. He cited examples of projects that have occurred in his neighborhood: 20 houses down from his a neighbor wanted to nearly double the size of his house; 10 doors down on the opposite site of the street a health facility was established and his next door neighbor built an addition onto his house that infringed upon the privacy of his backyard. Staff needs to have questions directed toward the applicant that asks if the applicant has considered how their project will affect their neighbors. C/McManus asked whether verbiage is included that guarantees the peaceful enjoyment of ones home to the extent that neighbors will not impinge upon that enjoyment with view, air, light, and noise pollution. DCM/DeStefano responded that there is language to that effect indifferent parts of the code. The language may not be specific enough because it winds up being a judgement call on the part of the person reviewing the project. VC/Nelson proposed that staff conduct a defined compatibility analysis. If the project is determined to exceed the threshold, then notification is appropriate. DECEMBER 14, 1999 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION DCM/DeStefano stated that "the threshold" is the part that is missing. In lieu of a defined threshold, the threshold becomes the judgement of the staff which will change from time to time as people change and philosophies change. C/Ruzicka said he believes that as long as the code is being amended, language should be inserted to further assist staff. AssocP/Lungu confirmed that the intent of the proposed amendment is to eliminate the Minor Conditional Use Permit for residential areas under certain circumstances. The amendment may need to be reworded in order to make it clearer. Subdivision Ordinance Amendment No. 99-1 (pursuant to Code Sections 21.02) is a request to amend the following Articles of the Subdivision Ordinance: Article I Applicability, Section 21.01.040, amend to acid that all subdivisions within the City shall follow the same process as a Development Code Amendment. Article II Changes to Approved Tentative Map or Conditions, Section 21.20.110, amend the process to allow proposed changes to a Tentative Map or conditions of approval to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, except as otherwise provided by this Section. PROPERTY ADDRESS: Citywide APPLICANT: City of Diamond Bar 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Chair/Tye opened the public hearing. There was no one present who wished to speak on this matter. C/Ruzicka moved, C/McManus seconded, to continue the public hearing for Development Code Amendment No. 99-1 and Subdivision Ordinance Amendment No. 99-1 to January 11, 2000. Motion carried 5-0 by Roll Call vote. Chair/Tye continued the public hearing to January 11, 2000. C/Ruzicka voiced concern about the appearance of Hollywood Video. DECEMBER 14, 1999 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSI®N DCM/DeStefano responded that staff has looked at the Hollywood Video situation and believes that they are missing a golden opportunity to adequately market themselves. Therefore, staff has developed a plan that suggests rotating the video display cases. PLANNING COMMISSI®N COMMENTS: C/Ruzicka thanked Nancy Whitehouse and other staff members for the wonderful Christmas party. VC/Nelson wished everyone a happy holiday. Chair/Tye asked why Togo's has a sign but there is no facility. He stated that at that Starbucks/Hollywood Video location at Grand Avenue and Diamond Bar Boulevard, it is a challenge to get an average sized vehicle into a parking spot. DCM/DeStefano responded that Togo's shares the same sign contractor with other merchants in the center. Hollywood Video has a separate sign vendor. Togo's is still faced with the challenge of obtaining rights to additional parking spaces. With respect to parking, this was one of the last projects approved under the old code which permitted up to 30 or 40 percent compact parking. The old code had a standard sized parking space at 8 feet by 18 feet. The new code does not permit compact parking except within the Gateway Corporate Center and the standard sized spaces have grown to 9 feet by 19 feet. DCM/DeStefano explained to Chair/Tye how staff is responsible for monitoring projects with respect to conditions imposed by the Planning Commission. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS, 10.1 Public Bearing Dates for Future Projects - as listed within the packet. DCM/DeStefano stated that the City has hired a second compliance officer who will be introduced to the Planning Commission in the early part of 2000. He is an experienced code enforcement officer who will work for the City on a part time basis. McDonald's and Chevron on Golden Springs Drive are now open for business. DCM/DeStefano thanked DSA/Joe and other staff members for their work on this project. He called attention to a report given to the City Council on December 7, 1999, regarding the potential for annexing a number of areas on the west side of Diamond Bar. VC/Nelson asked about pending offers to purchase the Boy Scout property. DCM/DeStefano indicated that he is not personally aware of facts surrounding potential pending offers from the City of Industry or the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy to purchase the Boy Scout's property. DCM/DeStefano reported that the Four Comers Transportation Group's Executive Board approved the overall strategy that was recently presented to the Planning Commission. An executive of the Boy Scouts organization who was in attendance at that meeting indicated that the Boy Scouts organization is looking to relocate the camp facility from the valley floor to an area that is in the southeast comer of the vacant property. ItECEMBERCOMMISSION SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in the agenda. ADJOURNMENT: C/Ruzicka moved, C/McManus seconded, to adjourn the meeting. There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chair/Tye adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. to Tuesday, January 11, 2000. Respectfully Submitted, James DeStefano Deputy City Manager Attest Steve Tye Chairman PROJECT• APPLICANT: City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION .Staff Report 7.1 January 4, 2000 January 11, 2000 Development Code Amendment No. 99-1 and Subdivision Ordinance Amendment No. 99-1. To amend Articles II, III, IV, V, and VI of the City's Development Code and Articles I and II of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. Citywide City of Diamond Bar 21660 E. Copley Drive, #190 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 BACKGROUND: At the December 14, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, staff presented amendments to the following Articles and Sections of the Development Code. DEVELOPMENT CODE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE Article II Article I ® Section 22.06.040, Table 2-2 ® Section 2101.040 ® Section 22.06.240, Table 2-4 l a Section 22.10.030, Table 2-5 and Table 2-6 Article III Article II ® Section 22.42.110, Table 3-15 ® Section 21.20.110 ® Section 22.42.060 ® Section 22.22.160 Article IV ® Section 22.44.020, Table 4-1 Article V ® Section 22.68.030 ® Section 22.64.070 Article VI ®. Section 22.80.020 The public hearing was opened and continued to January 11, 2000. The public hearing discussion lead the Planning Commission to direct staff to investigate further the recommended amendments to. Article III, Section 22.42.060, Guest Houses; and Article V, Section 22.68.030, Restrictions on Nonconforming Structures. Additionally, staff requested that the discussion regarding development within a Significant Ecological Area be continued to January 11, 2000. Staff is requesting that the discussion regarding development within a Significant Ecological Area be continued to January 25, 2000. ANALYSIS: At the December 14, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, specific direction was not given to staff. However, general suggestions were. The following analysis relates to the Planning Commission suggestions. The staff report discussion will delineate each section with current standards, the recommended amendment in shadedtZ Planning Commission suggestions in Italics and the issue/reason for the amendment. 2 Article III Current Standard: Section 22.42.060, (pg. II -176-177) Guest Houses B.6. Size and permit requirements. A guest house of 500 square feet of gross floor area may be approved by the Director. A guest house in excess of 501 square feet may be approved by a Minor Conditional Use Permit in compliance with Chapter 22.56 (Minor Conditional Use Permit; B.10. Parcel coverage. The guest house, along with the main dwelling and any other accessory structures, shall not exceed an overall parcel coverage of 40 percent. Reconunended Amendment: Section 22.42.060, (pg. II -176-177) Guest Houses P.6. Size and permit requirements. A guest house of 500 square feet of gross floor area may be approved by the Director. Guest rr zTE-h houses in excess of 501 square „feet nd�a �c�eedn�lr�C3� ti cotae may be approved by a Minor Conditional Use Permit in compliance with Chapter 22.56 (Minor Conditional Use Permit; The Planning Commission suggested that the recommended amendment include the addition of the following: whichever is the lesser of the two Therefore, the recommended amendment will be as follows: A guest house of 500 square feet of gross floor area may be approved by the Director. Guest houses in excess of 501 square feet aaaTo e`e�drag� �axex�et. Qcxf�. may be approved by a Minor Conditional Use Permit in compliance with Chapter 22.56 (Minor Conditional Use Permit; (Staff concurs with the Planning Commission's suggestion.) B.10. Parcel coverage. The guest house; along with the main dwelling and any other accessory structures, shall not exceed an overall parcel coverage of percent Issues/Reasons: B.6. For the staff report dated November 30, 1999, several cities (La Verne, Malibu, Fullerton, Rancho Palos Verdes, Claremont, Covina, Glendora, Rancho Cucamonga, Chino Hills, La Habra Heights) were contacted regarding the maximum allowed 3 square footage for guest houses. The maximum square footage varies from 300 to 900 with larger guest houses, depending on the city, requiring a discretionary permit. The cities surveyed utilized one or several of the following standards: 35 to 65 percent of the main dwelling unit's square footage with the higher percentages requiring a discretionary permit; square footage of all accessory structures, including a guest house is permitted if less than 50 percent of the main dwelling unit and lot coverage does not exceed 35 percent; maximum square footage is not utilized, guest houses of any size are permitted as long as setback and lot coverage requirements are met; and a recorded deed restriction specifying the intended use and the fact that the guest house can not be rented. Cities that permit guest houses require that adequate parking be provided. Recently, staff conducted another survey regarding the maximum allowed square footage for guest houses. For this survey, the cities of Beverly Hills, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Temecula and Calabasas were contacted. The City of Beverly Hills has three types of residential areas. In each residential area, a guest house is considered an accessory structure. The first residential area type is referred to as the flats. The flats are smaller residential lots not within a hillside area. In this area, guest houses/accessory structures must meet the required setbacks, not exceed a 14 foot height and not exceed 500 square feet. The second residential area type is referred to as hillside. The development standards in this area are complex. The maximum size of a guest house/ accessory structure is governed by the maximum cumulative floor area. The maximum cumulative floor area shall not exceed 15,000 square feet unless permitted by a Planning Commission Hillside R- 1 Permit. In the hillside area the development standards are as follows: (1) A site that does not have a level pad, or a level pad of less than 750 square feet, and the average slope is 20 percent or greater, than the maximum cumulative floor area for all structures shall be 20 percent of the site area; (2) A site area that is 15,000 square feet of less, the maximum permitted cumulative floor area for all structures shall be 40 percent of the area of the level pad plus 10 percent of the slope area; (3) A site area that is between 15,001 and 25,000 square feet, the maximum permitted cumulative floor area for all structures shall be 37 percent of the level pad plus 10 percent of the slope area; (4) A site area that is between 25,001 and 30,000 square feet, the maximum cumulative floor area shall be 34 percent plus 10 percent of the slope are; (5) A site area that is greater than 30,000 square feet, the maximum cumulative floor area for all structures shall be 31 percent of the level pad plus 10 percent of the slope area; (6) And a site area that equals or exceeds two acres, the cumulative floor area may exceed the limitations set forth in items (1) and (2) with the approval of a Hillside R-1 4 permit. The third type is referred to as the Santa Monica area. In this area, a guest house/accessory structure must meet the required setbacks, not exceed 14 feet in height and all structures must not exceed a maximum cumulative floor area of 40 percent plus 1,500 square feet. If the guest house/accessory structure meets all the required development standards, the city staff completes the review and approval. Exceptions to the development standards requires a Hillside R-1 Permit, approved by the Planning Commission. The City of Rolling Hills permits guest houses with a maximum 800 square feet on any residential lot as long as the net lot cover- age is not greater than 20 percent, to be occupied only by the property owner's guest. The review and approval process is a Conditional Use Permit. The main dwelling unit must maintain at least a three car garage and vehicle access or paved parking is not allowed within 50 feet of the guest house. Additionally, this city requires that a guest house only be occupied 30 days within a six month time period. However, the city admits this requirement is difficult to enforce. The City of Rolling Hills Estates does not have a maximum square footage for a guest house. A guest house is required to maintain the same setbacks as the main dwelling unit, an eight foot separation from the main dwelling unit and be occupied only by temporary guests of the main dwelling unit's occupants. The review and approval is completed by the city staff. In the City of Temecula, guest houses and second dwelling units utilize the same development standards with the review and approval completed by the city staff. This type of dwelling is permitted in all residential districts. In hillside areas the maximum lot coverage permitted is 10 percent. For other residential areas lot coverage varies from 25 to 35 percent depending on the density. Parking requirements relate to the number of bedrooms, with two bedrooms requiring one covered parking space and three bedrooms requiring two covered parking spaces. The City of Calabasas classifies guest houses as residential accessory structures, to be reviewed and approved by city staff. As such, this type of structure is required to meet the same setbacks as an accessory structure. Accessory structures are considered part of the lot coverage, which is 50 percent for undera third of an acre and 35 percent for over a third of an acre. (With the additional research, staff believes that the above recommended amendment is stillappropriate.) 5 B.10. The overall parcel coverage amendment of 30 percent is needed for consistency with Section 22.08.240, Residential Zonill, Wistrict General Development Standards, Table 2-4. 1 Current Standard: Section 22.65.030, (pg. V-14) Restrictions on Nonconforming Structures B. Changes to, or expansion of, a structure. The addition, enlargement, extension, reconstruction, relocation or structural alteration of a nonconforming structure, may be allowed with Minor Conditional Use Permit approval, in compliance with Chapter 22.56 (Minor Conditional Use Permit), if the additions or improvements conform to applicable provisions of this Development Code and the exterior limits of new construction do not exceed the applicable height limit or encroach further into the setbacks than the comparable portion of the existing structure. The Hearing Officer may approve a Minor Conditional Use Permit only if the following findings can be made, in addition to those contained in Section 22.56.040 (Finding and Decisions). The addition, enlargement, extension, reconstruction, relocation or structural alteration of a nonconforming structure, may be allowed with Minor Conditional Use Permit approval, in compliance with.Chapter 22.56 (Minor Conditional Use Permit). The Hearing Officer may approve a Minor Conditional Use Permit only if the following findings can be made, in addition to those contained in Section 22.56.040 (Finding and Decisions). 6 Issues/Reasons: As presented in the staff report dated November 30, 1999, the staff receives many requests for additions of less than 50 percent of the existing residential structure. These types of additions are usually done administratively. However, the issue relates to such requests when the existing setbacks are not consistent with the new Development Code. In the past, the City has allowed additions (less than 50 percent of the existing square footage, with the appropriate permits) to single-family residential structures as long as the additions followed the development line of the existing residential structure. Such projects were approved administratively. This practice is typical in many cities. Pursuant to the above referenced Development Code section, additions of less than 50 percent and improvements as minimal as a patio cover (that follow the development line of the existing residential structure) to a legal non -conforming structure can only be approved through the Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) process, which requires a public hearing by the Hearing Officer (Deputy City Manager). This process is costly, burdensome and time consuming for the resident. In most cases, this process is not necessary for a high quality evaluation for compliancewith the Development Code and City Design Guideline that are now in,place. Furthermore, the Development Code grants the Director the ability to elevate a development project to the next level of processing if necessary. On December 14, 1999, the Commission considered requiring public notification of surrounding properties for this type of project. Staff does not support this procedure. Staff believes that the development standards and thresholds within the Development Code and the City's Design Guidelines provide the essential criteria for a high quality staff evaluation. Additionally, this type of notification does not alleviate the current costly, burdensome and time consuming processing for the residents. It may create the opportunity for further confusion and personal vendettas. Furthermore, as discussed at the December 14, 1999 hearing, the City's legal counsel has found such notifications not support- able ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15070, the City has determined that a Negative Declaration is required for this project. Negative 7 Declaration No. 99-9 has been prepared. The Negative Declaration Review period began November 23, 1999 and ended December 12, 1999. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Notice for this project was published in the Inland Valley Bulletin and the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on November 23, 1999. Pursuant to Planning and Zoning Law Government Code Section 65091 (a)(3), if the number of property owners to whom a public hearing notice would be mailed is greater than 1,000, a local agency may provide notice by placing a display advertisement of at least one -eight page in at least one newspaper of general circulation. The City placed a one -eight page display advertisement in the above mentioned newspapers of general circulation. Furthermore, public notices were posted in five public places (City Hall, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar Library, Country Hills Town Center Community Board, and Vons/Savors Community Board) on November 22, 1999. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission opening the public hearing, receive public comments, discuss the recommended amendments and direct staff to prepare a resolution recommending approval of the amendments to the City Council to be forwarded to the Commission on January 25, 2000. Additionally, staff recommends that the discussion on the Significant Ecological Area be continued to January 25, 2000. Prepared by: Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner 8 Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 30, 1999; and 2. Correspondence from Samuel C. Tricoli, dated January 3, 2000. CASE/FILE BER: APPLICATION REQUEST: City of D` Bar PLANNING COMMISSION November 30, 1999 December 14, 1999 Development Code Amendment No. 99-1 and Subdivision Ordinance Amendment No. 99-1. To amend Articles II, III, IV, V, and VI of the City's Development Code and Articles I and II of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. Citywide City of Diamond Bar 21660 E. Copley Drive, #190 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 After many workshops and public hearings by Planning Commission and City Council, the City's Development Code was adopted on November 3, 1998 and became effective on December 3, 1998; and the Subdivision Ordinance was adopted on February 2, 1999 and became effective on March 3, 1999. The purpose of the Development Code is to implement the policies of the City's General Plan by classifying and regulating the uses of land and structures within the City. In addition, the Development Code protects and promotes the public health, safety, and general welfare of the residents, and preserves and enhances the aesthetic quality of the City. The Development Code provides standards for orderly growth and development and promotes`a 1 stable pattern of land uses. It is a tool utilized to implement the land uses designated by the General Plan, thereby avoiding conflict between land uses. The Development Code assists in protecting and maintaining property values, and conserving and protecting the City's natural resources. Furthermore, the Development Code facilitates in protecting the City's character, and social and economic stability, as well as assisting in maintaining a high quality of life without unduly high public or private costs for development or unduly restricting private enterprise, initiative, or innovative design. The purpose of the Subdivision Ordinance is to supplement, implement and work with the Subdivision Map Act of the California Government Code. The Subdivision Ordinance is not intended to replace the Map Act. It is utilized in conjunction with the Map Act in the preparation of applications, the review and approval, and construction of proposed subdivisions. The City staff has been utilizing the. Development Code for one year and the Subdivision Ordinance for nine months. The implementation of both codes during this time period indicates that several amendments are needed in order to continue to implement the purpose of both Codes, better serve the residents and development community while safeguarding the best interest of the City. As a result, the City of Diamond Dar (pursuant to Code Sections 22.44 and 21.02) is requesting approval to amend the following Articles and Sections of City's Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance. DEVELOPMENT CODE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE Article II Article I ® Section 22.06.040, Table 2-2 ® Section 2101.040 ® Section 22.08.240, Table 2-4 ® Section 22.10.030, Table 2-5 and Table 2-6 Article III Article II ® Section 22.42.110, Table 3-15 ® Section 21.20.110 ® Section 22.42.060 ® Section 22.22.160 Article IV ® Section 22.44.020, Table 4-1 2 Article V EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT ® section 22.68.030 Rural Residential (RR) ® Section 22.64.070 Rural Residential (RR) Article VI RPD 20,000 ® Section 22..80.020 °Wx - Development Code Section 22.44.020 and Subdivision Ordinance Section 21.02.030 identifies the City official or body responsible for reviewing and making decisions on each type of application, land use permit and other entitlements. Pursuant to the referenced sections, the Planning Commission is the advisory body to the City Council for Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance amendments. The following analysis will delineate each section with current standards, the recommended amendment inaddx3I and the issue/reason for the amendment. Article II Current Standard. Section 22.06.040, (pg. II -7) Zoning Consistency Matrix, Table 2-2 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARD Rural Residential (RR) R-1 40,000 Rural Residential (RR) Max 1 DU/AC RPD 20,000 R-1 20,000 R-1 15,000 Low Density Residential R-1 10,000 Low Density Residential (RL) Max 3 DU/AC RPD 10,000 R -A 10,000 R-1 9,000 R-1 8,500 Reconunended Amendment: Section 22.06.040, Zoning Consistency Matrix, Table 2-2 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARD Rural Residential (RR) R-1 40,000 Rural Residential (RR) Max 1 DU/AC R-1 20,000 Low Density ResidentialP.��,CJ�l7 Low Density Residential (RL) Max 3 DU/AC R-1 10,000 RPD 10,000 R -A 10,000 R-1 9,000 R-1 8,500 The current Zoning Consistency Matrix, Table 2-2 is not consistent with the General Plan. According to the General Plan Land Use Map, the RPD 20,000 Zone is within Low Density Residential- (RL) land use designation. PA-2/SP will be developed with approximately 130 single-family residences (Tract No. 52267/ SunCal project). The average lot size is approximately 10,900 square feet. As such, it is consistent with the General Plan Low Density Residential land use designation. Hence the recommended amendments. Current Standard Section 22.08.240, (pg. II -12) Residential Zoning District General Development Standards, Table 2-4 RemArements bar zonina District Development RR RL RLL Feature Setbacks Rewired Rear 20 ft. 15 ft 15 ft. Lot Coverage No Standard No Standard No Standard 4 Reconunended Amendment: Section 22.08.240, Residential Zoning District General Develop - met Standards, Table 2-4 _mow U. v. 4 __ T1i at-ri rpt' Development Feature RR g� RL RLP2 Setbacks Required Rear fj qw y TIOe pig _,pop ®"d,y����- "GYcC'- Lot Coverage :.;. Originally, the City's intent was to increase the rear yard setback within the RR, RL and RLM Zones by five feet. The increased setback will provide better livability area and will be more reflective of the existing setbacks in the referenced zones. Lot Coverage Staff has contacted several cities (La Verne, Malibu, Rancho Palos Verdes, Claremont, Covina, Fullerton, Rancho Cucamonga, Glendora, La Habra Heights) regarding the maximum allowable lot coverage. Lot coverage varies from city to city. Maximum lot coverage ranges from 25 to percent. For example, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has a maximum lot coverage of 25 percent for half -acre lots or larger, 40 percent for 8,000 square foot lots and 60 percent for 5,000 square foot or smaller lots. In the City of Glendora lot coverage is based on the average slope for hillside areas as follows: 10 to 25 percent average slope -25 percent maximum lot coverage; 25 to 35 percent average slope -20 percent maximum lot coverage; 35 to 40 percent average slope -15 percent maximum lot coverage; 40 to 45 percent average slope- 10 percent maximum lot coverage; and 45 percent or greater average slope -5 percent maximum lot coverage; in non -hillside areas maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 35 percent is utilized. La Habra Heights does not utilize lot coverage. In this city, lot coverage is determined by the required setbacks. For the City of Fullerton varies, lot coverage varies depending on lot size; lots from 6,000 to 40,000 square, the lot coverage ranges from 60 to 45 percent. 5 Current Standard: Section 22.10.030, (pg. II -17) Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements For Office Zoning Districts, Table 2-5 LAND USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT BY DISTRICT ®P OE Co RETAIL TRADE USES Alcohol beverage sales - off-site P P P Alcohol beverage sales - on-site MCUP MCUP MCUP Recommended Amendment: Section 22.10.030, Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements For Office Zoning Districts, Table 2-5 LAND USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT BY DISTRICT OP ®E Co RETAIL TRADE USES P P P Alcohol beverage sales - off-site MCUP C��,G�.1,� 9pp y �y Alcohol beverage sales - on-site MCUP MCUP MCUP The Development Code permits motor fuel sales within the OP and CO Zones. However, alcohol beverage sales for off-site consumption in conjunction with the sale of motor fuel is not addressed except as indicated in the current Table 2-5. The recommended amendment will permit this use within the OP and CO Zones with a Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit process is intended to allow for specified uses whose effect on the surrounding area can not be determined before being proposed for a particular location. The Conditional Use Permit is a discretionary process that allows the City to ensure that potential impacts of the proposed use will protection the public health, safety, and welfare as well as review the location and design of the project. Additionally, alcohol beverage sales for off-site consumption in conjunction with the sale of motor fuel exists in these zones. Current Standard: Section 22.10.030, (pg. II -21) Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements For Office Zoning Districts, Table 2-6 LAND USE PENT REQUIREMENT BY DISTRICT C-1 C-2 C-3 RETAIL TRADE USES Alcohol beverage sales - off-site P P P Alcohol beverage sales - on-site MCUP MCUP MCUP 6 Recormuended Amendment: Section 22.10.030, Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements for Office Zoning Districts, Table 2-6 LAND USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT BY DISTRICT C-1 C-2 C-3 RETAIL, TRADE USES P P P Alcohol beverage sales off-site 'g" MCUP Alcohol beverage sales - on-site MCUP MCUP MCUP Issue/Reason: The Development Code permits motor fuel sales within the C-1, C-2 and C-3 Zones. However, alcohol beverage sales for off-site consumption in conjunction with the sale of motor fuel is not addressed except as indicated in the current Table 2-6. The recommended amendment will permit this use within the C-1, C-2 and C-3 Zones with a Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit process is intended to allow for specified uses whose effect on the surrounding area can not be determined before being proposed for a particular location. The Conditional Use Permit is a discretionary process that allows the City to ensure that potential impacts of the proposed use will protection the public health, safety, and welfare as well as review the location and design of the project. Additionally, alcohol beverage sales for off-site consumption in conjunction with the sale of motor fuel exists in these zones. Article III Current Standard: Section 22.42.110, (pg. 189) Required Setbacks -Accessory Uses and Structures, Table 3-15 Single -Family Detached homes Accessory structure Type of setback Required Setback Swimming pool, spa, fish pond, Sides, rear 3 ft. outdoor play equipment Street side As .required by the main structure 7 Recommended Amendment: Section 22.42.110, Required Setbacks -Accessory Uses and Structures, Table 3-15 Accessory Structure Type of Setback Required Setback Swimming pool, spa, fish pond, Sides, rear outdoor play equipment Street side As required by the main structure Section 22.16.090.C.4.c. (page III®16) - Setback Regulations and Exceptions read as follows: "c. Swimming pools and spas. Swimming pools and spas are allowed in side and rear setbacks provided they are not closer than five feet to any property line." The current table is not consistent with the text. The intent was and still is to require that said accessory structures have a five-foot side and rear yard setback from the property line. To attain the intent and be consistent with the text, an amendment is recommended. Current Standard: Section 22.42.060, (pg. II -176-177) Guest Houses B.6. Size and permit requirements. A guest house of 500 square feet of gross floor area may be approved by the Director. Guest house in excess of 501 square feet may be approved by a Minor Conditional Use Permit in compliance with Chapter 22.56 (Minor Conditional Use Permit; B.10. Parcel coverage. The guest house, along with the main dwelling and any other accessory structures, shall not exceed an overall parcel coverage of 40 percent. Recommended Amendment: Section 22.42.060, (pg. II -176-177) Guest Houses B.6 Size and permit requirements. A guest house of 500 square feet of gross floor area may be approved by the Director. Guest house in excess of 501 square feet may be approved by a Minor Conditional Use Permit in compliance with Chapter 22.56 (Minor Conditional Use. Permit; B.10. Parcel coverage. The guest house, along with the main dwelling and any other accessory, structures, shall not exceed an overall parcel coverage of SCJ percent. Issues/Reasons: B.6. For the City of Diamond Bar, the issue relates to requests for guest houses that are almost as large as the main dwelling. As a result, it is possible to conclude that a second dwelling unit is the actual request. With a maximum guest house square footage, two dwelling units on a single-family residential lot will not occur, thereby protecting the integrity of single-family residential areas. However, if an applicant has a need for a guest house larger than 1,200 square feet or 25 percent of the main dwelling, the Conditional Use Permit reviewed by the Planning Commission can be utilized. Also, when considering the appropriate square footage for a guest house, bear in mind that State law allows a second unit or "Granny Flat" of 1,200 square feet. The staff has contacted several cities (La Verne, Malibu, Fullerton, Rancho Palos Verdes, Claremont, Covina, Glendora, Rancho Cucamonga, Chino Hills, La Habra Heights) regarding the maximum allowed square footage for guest houses. The maximum square footage varies from 300 to 900 with larger guest houses requiring a discretionary permit. In the City of Glendora, all guest houses require a Conditional Use Permit; maximum size 900 square feet. Some cities utilized 35 to 65 percent of the main dwelling unit's square footage with the higher percentages requiring a discretionary permit. The City of Covina allows guest houses when the square footage of all accessory structures is less than 50 percent of the main dwelling unit and lot coverage does not exceed 35 percent. The City of Chino Hills does not have a maximum allowed square footage for guest house. This city believes that the lack of kitchen facilities tends to limit the request in general for guest houses; additionally a guest house does not require a discretionary permit. The City of Rancho Cucamonga permits guest houses with a maximum 640 square feet, approved administratively. The City of Fullerton will permit guest houses of any size as long as setback and lot coverage requirements are met; however, it is required that a deed restriction be recorded specifying the intended use and the fact that the guest house can not be rented. The City of La Habra Heights does not allow guest houses. Cities that permit guest houses require adequate parking be provided. B.10. The overall parcel coverage amendment of 30 percent is needed for consistency with Section 22.08.240, Residential Zoning District General Development Standards, Table 2-4. Current Standard: A code section does not exist which discusses development within Diamond Bar's Significant Ecological Area. 9 Recommended ' rd' - - d ! Section Staff recommends that the discussion on this matter occur at the January 11, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. Article IV Current Standard: Section 22.44.020, (pg. IV -4) Authority for Land Use and Zoning Decisions, Table 4-1 Type of Permit or Decision Director Bearing Officer Planning Commission City Council Planned Sign Program Final Appeal Recommended Amendment: Section 22.44.020, Authority for Land Use and Zoning Decisions, Table 4-1 pe of Permit or 'I®, -Hearing Officer Planning Commission Sign Program W..-. Issue/Reason: The Development Code refers to this process as a Comprehensive Sign Program. Therefore, the Table needs to be amended to reflect the proper name of the process. Article V Current Standard: Section 22.68.030, (pg. V-14) Restrictions on Nonconforming Structures S. Changes to, or expansion of, a structure® The addition, enlargement, extension, reconstruction, relocation or structural alteration of a nonconforming structure, may be allowed with Minor Conditional Use Permit approval, in compliance with Chapter 22.56 (Minor Conditional Use Permit), if the additions or improvements conform to applicable provisions of this Development Code and the exterior limits of new construction do not exceed the applicable height limit or encroach further into the setbacks 10 than the comparable portion of the existing structure. The Hearing Officer may approve a Minor Conditional Use Permit only if the following findings can be made, in addition to those contained in Section 22.56.040 (Finding and Decisions). Recommended Amendment: The addition, enlargement, extension, reconstruction, relocation or structural alteration of a nonconforming structure, may be allowed with Minor Conditional Use Permit approval, in compliance with Chapter 22.56 (Minor Conditional Use Permit). The Hearing Officer may approve a Minor Conditional Use Permit only if the following findings can be made, in addition to those contained in Section 22.56.040 (Finding and Decisions). so In Issues/Reasons: The staff receives many requests for additions of less than 50 percent of the existing residential structure. These types of additions are usually done administratively. However, the issue relates to such requests when the existing setbacks are not consistent with the new Development Code. In the past, the City has allowed additions (less than 50 percent of the existing square footage, with the appropriate permits) to single-family residential structures as long as the additions followed the development line.of the existing residential structure. Such projects were approved administratively. This practice is also typical in other cities. Pursuant to the above referenced Development Code, additions of less than 50 percent and improvements as minimal as a patio cover (that following the 11 development line of the existing residential structure) to a legal non -conforming structure can only be approved through the Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) process. The MCUP process requires a public hearing by the Hearing Officer (Deputy City Manager). It is a costly, burdensome and time consuming process for the resident. In most cases, this process is not necessary for a high quality evaluation for compliance with the Development Code and City Design Guideline that are now in place. Furthermore, the Development Code grants the Director the ability to elevate a development project to the next level of processing if necessary. Current Standard: A code section does not exist which discusses administrative responsibilities of the Significant Ecological Area Technical Advisory Committee (SEATAC). Recommended Amendment: Add Section 22.64.070. Staff recommends that the discussion on this matter occur at the January 11, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. Article STI Current Standard: A definition does not exist for Significant Ecological Area Technical Advisory Committee (SEATAC) Recommended Amendment: Add the definition. Staff recommends that the discussion on this matter occur at the January 11, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE Article I Current Standard: Section 21.01040, (pg.I-3) Applicability A. . Subdivision approval required. .All subdivisions within the City shall be authorized through the approval of a map or other entitlement in compliance with Chapter 21.03 (Subdivision Map 12 Approval Requirements), and all other applicable provisions of this Title. Recommended Amendment: Section 21.01040, (pg.I-3) Applicability A. Subdivision approval required. All subdivisions within the City shall be authorized through the approval of a map or other entitlement in compliance with Chapter 21.03 (Subdivision Map Approval Requirements), and all other applicable provisions of this Title, The appropriate process is not discussed within the Subdivision Ordinance. Article II Current Standard.: Section 22.20.110 (pg. II -10) Changes to Approved Tentative Map or Conditions A. Limitation on allowed changes. Changes to a Tentative Map that may be requested by a subdivider in compliance with this Section include major adjustments to the location of proposed lot lines and improvements, and reductions in the number of approved lots (but no increase in the number of approved lots), and any changes to the conditions of approval, consistent with the findings required by Subsection D. of this Section. Other changes shall require the filing and processing of a new Tentative Map. Recommended Amendment: Section 22.20.110 (pg. II -10) Changes to Approved Tentative Map or Conditions A. Limitation on allowed changes. Changes to a Tentative Map that may be requested by a subdivider in compliance with this Section include major adjustments to the location of proposed lot lines and improvements, and reductions in the number of approved. lots (but no increase in the number of approved lots), and any changes to the conditions of approval, consistent with the findings required by Subsection D of this Section s'aiIt y �7 ...- 2,11i��yz �'?CGE'7L G$+ 3J;wSd�L w d �G✓J vt r uave c»w' ,u�.. :rf a?rr Sc32s,.„-'x.f?� Other changes shall require the filing and processing of a new Tentative Map. 13 The Subdivision Ordinance does not clarify who can approved the allowed changes referenced above to a Tentative Map. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15070, the City has determined that a Negative Declaration is required for this project. Negative Declaration No. 99-9 has been prepared. The Negative Declaration Review period began November 23, 1999 and ended December 12, 1999. NOTICE OF PUBLIC BEARING: Notice for this project was published in the Inland Valley Bulletin and the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on November 23, 1999. Pursuant to Planning and Zoning Law Government Code Section 65091 (a)(3), if the number of property owners to whom a public hearing notice would be mailed is greater than 1,000, a local agency may provide notice by placing a display advertisement of at least one -eight page in at least one newspaper of general circulation. The City placed a one -eight page display advertisement in the above mentioned newspapers of general circulation. Furthermore, public notices were posted in five public places (City Hall, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar Library, Country Hills Town Center Community Board, and Vons/Savors Community Board) on November 22, 1999. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission opening the public hearing, receive public comments, discuss the recommended amendments and direct staff as appropriate. Prepared by: Ann J. Lungu, As olciate Planner Sent Via E -Mail City of Diamond Bar 21660 E. Copley Suite 190 Diamond Bar, California 91765 Planning Department Attention: Ann Lungu Re: Code Section 22.68.030 Restrictions on Non -Conforming Structures a= I am taking the time to write this letter to express my displeasure about Code Section 22.68.030 and how it affects my plans to add approximately 200 square feet to my residence at 1527 Strawflower Lane, Diamond Bar. With the addition of a baby girl and the need for some additional living space, my wife and I decided to add on to our home. Anyone that has ever had to go through the add-on process can understand just how important it is to keep a handle on the purse strings. Well, right from the get -go we were faced with a financial obstacle presented to us from the City of Diamond Bar in the form of Code Section 22.68.030. Imagine this... 1) You want to add some living space to your home. 2) Your room addition is well within the designated set -backs. 3) The City Planning Commission requires a variance and more than a thousand dollars because your home (an existing structure) is not within the set -backs of a new code. WHO WROTE THIS CODE? WHAT IN THE HELL WERE THEY THINKING? WHY SHOULD AN EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT WAS A PART OF A PLANNED COMMUNITY AND BUILT MORE THAN 23 YEARS AGO, BE SUBJECT TO A NEW CODE RESTRICTION? (Grandfather Provision/Clause?) When my contractor went to the Diamond Bar Planning Department he was told that my room addition required a variance because the original structure was non -conforming (i.e. did not meet the new set -back requirements dictated under Code Section 22.68.030). He was .also told that I had to pay more than a thousand dollars for such variance and that I had to put a four -foot sign in front of my property explaining that I have requested such a variance. GIVE ME A BREAK... WHAT KIND OF A SCAM IS THIS? He couldn't believe it and tried explaining it to me. I couldn't -believe it either so I called the Planning Department myself. I figured that there must have been some misunder- January 03, 2000 ®00 JAN ®4 -18 :29 a= I am taking the time to write this letter to express my displeasure about Code Section 22.68.030 and how it affects my plans to add approximately 200 square feet to my residence at 1527 Strawflower Lane, Diamond Bar. With the addition of a baby girl and the need for some additional living space, my wife and I decided to add on to our home. Anyone that has ever had to go through the add-on process can understand just how important it is to keep a handle on the purse strings. Well, right from the get -go we were faced with a financial obstacle presented to us from the City of Diamond Bar in the form of Code Section 22.68.030. Imagine this... 1) You want to add some living space to your home. 2) Your room addition is well within the designated set -backs. 3) The City Planning Commission requires a variance and more than a thousand dollars because your home (an existing structure) is not within the set -backs of a new code. WHO WROTE THIS CODE? WHAT IN THE HELL WERE THEY THINKING? WHY SHOULD AN EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT WAS A PART OF A PLANNED COMMUNITY AND BUILT MORE THAN 23 YEARS AGO, BE SUBJECT TO A NEW CODE RESTRICTION? (Grandfather Provision/Clause?) When my contractor went to the Diamond Bar Planning Department he was told that my room addition required a variance because the original structure was non -conforming (i.e. did not meet the new set -back requirements dictated under Code Section 22.68.030). He was .also told that I had to pay more than a thousand dollars for such variance and that I had to put a four -foot sign in front of my property explaining that I have requested such a variance. GIVE ME A BREAK... WHAT KIND OF A SCAM IS THIS? He couldn't believe it and tried explaining it to me. I couldn't -believe it either so I called the Planning Department myself. I figured that there must have been some misunder- Page 2 of 2 standing because no code could be that stupid! Well, to make a long story short, someone didn't think through Code Section 22.68.030 and it desperately needs to be amended. Someone please explain why I must get a variance for a room addition that is well within the current setbacks. Why should a structure built and approved nearly 23 years ago be subject to a new law? If you think that this makes sense, consider having all of the Diamond Bar residents with non -conforming structures make four -foot signs and pay one thousand dollars to the City of Diamond Bar. What a terrific money -making scam this would be for the City of Diamond Bar. Code Section 22.68.030 should be an embarrassment to its author. Please put some sanity into your review process and fix this mistake and do so immediately for the residents of Diamond Bar. Sincerely yours, Samuel C. Tricoli Diamond Bar Resident Ann Lunge From: Samuel.Tricoli@HSC.com[SMTP:Samuel.Tricoli@y .co ®4 8.29 Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 11:42 AM J'j'� To: ann.lungu@ci.diamond-bar.ca.us Subject: Letter of Disgust Mac Word 3.0.doc Ann, Attached you will find the letter I wrote regarding Code Section 22.68.030. 1 was a little sarcastic but I think they will get the point. Please call to confirm that you got this letter. Sam Attachment drafted in Word (See attached file: DiamondBar.doc) City of Diamond ",i.lr PLANNING _ OMMIS,ION Staff Report AGENDA ITEM ER: 8.1 PORT DATE: January 5, 2000 STING DATE: January 11, 2000 CASEXILE ER: Development Review 99-12 APPLICATION RE, QUEST: A request to demolish an existing 3,944 square foot two-story single-family residence with garage and pool, and construct an 11,389 square foot two- story with basement single-family residence including a six -car garage, motor court, pooVspa, and gazebo. PROPERTY LOCATION: 2501 Crowfoot Lane (Lot 61 of Tract No. 30577) PROPERTY OWNER: Charles Chin 2501 Crowfoot Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Simon Shum 20547 Walnut Drive, #D Walnut, CA 91789 BACKGROUND: The property owner, Charles Chin, and applicant, Simon Shum, request to demolish an existing 3,944 square foot two-story single-family residence with garage and pool, and construct an 11,389 square foot two-story with basement single-family residence including a six -car garage, motor court, pool/spa, and gazebo. The project situs is 2501 Crowfoot Lane at the end of the cul-de-sac (Lot 61 of Tract No. 30577), Diamond Bar, CA, within the gated community identified as "The Country Estates." The parcel is 2.68 gross acres and 2.63 net acres. It is shaped irregularly, widening and sloping upward toward the rear (ridge of Indian Creek Road homes), northerly exposure. Per the May 13, 1970 recorded Tract Map, there is a Restricted Use Area and Flood Hazard Area on the property. The project site is zoned Rural Residential (RR) for single-family residence with a minimum lot size of one acre. Its General Plan Land Use designation is Rural Residential (RR). Generally, the following zones surround the subject site: to the north, south, east and west is the Rural Residential (RR) Zone. This application requires development review per the City's Development Code. Section 22.48.020.A(l) states that Development Review is required for projects involving a Building Permit for new construction on a vacant parcel and greater than 10,000 square feet. The proposed project is residential construction greater than 10,000 square feet; therefore, Development Review is required with the Planning Commission as the review authority. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW a Development Standards The following is a comparison of the City's approved development standards and the project's proposed A -.1- "t cYAnr1arr1C' Cit 's Develo rraent Standards Project's Deyeloppent Standards 1. Setbacks: 1. Setbacks: ® Front yard -30' from property line ® Front yard- 218' from property line ® Side yards -10' & 15' minimum from ® Side yards- 81' and 110' from property line property line ® Rear yard -20' minimum from property line ® Rear yard- 49' from property line ® Site Coverage -overall maximum 40% ® Site Coverage-A2proximately 20% 2. Building Height: 2. Building Height: ® Maximum 35' ® Maximum 35' 3. Parking: 3. Parking: ® Minimum two -car garage ® Six -car garage and motor court 4. Accessory Structures: 4. Accessory Structures: ® Pool -Minimum 5' from sides/rear property ® Pool -Minimum 5' from sides/rear property line line ® .Gazebo -As. required. for main structure ® Gazebos Existing, Front 30' closest measurement New 57' closest measurement ® Stable -As required for main structure ® Stable — Existing, 14' closest side (10' minimum) The above analysis indicates that the proposed residence complies with the City's development standards. ® Architectural Features and Colors The proposed project's architectural style as referenced in the application is Mediterranean. The proposed style and palette are compatible with the eclectic architectural style of other homes within Tract No. 30577 and "The Country Estates," and consistent with the City's Design Guidelines and Development Code. The project's architectural features include the use of two wings and motor court; the second -story entry with glass and steel stair railing with pool beneath; balconies and columns; dentil-band cornice with roof -line balustrade; layering of materials and finishes via the trimmed stucco on the lower level, and the alternate possibility of marbleized painted stucco and deco -mold trims. The applicant has received the approval of "The Country Estates" Homeowners' Association Architectural Committee. The following materials and colors will be utilized and noted additional colors will be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval: ® Painted exterior stucco — Omega, #47 Coral Base Alternate: Behr Marbleizing Tyrian Pink and Copperberry ® Exterior trims: Stucco Trim lower level - Dunn Edwards, #127 Ice Gray Eaves - " Dentil-band & cornice - 64 Roof -line balustrade band - La Habra Stucco, #X55, French Vanilla Pre -cast items - Dunn Edwards, #127 Ice Gray Steel railing - Chrome Tube Wood entry/garage - Dunn Edwards, #127 Ice Gray ® Roof the — MCA Tile, Gray C-10 ® Windows/doors - Vinyl White ® Stone veneer — Cultured Stone, Onyx Brown ® Stamped driveway concrete - Rose Color ® Trellis & Gazebos - Dunn Edwards, #SP18 Woodlawn Green The proposed single-family structure consists of two -stories and basement. The basement includes the underground six -car garage; laundry; two storage areas; wine cellar; bath; and music/theater room. The first - story includes the entry; living room with veranda; library; guest bedroom with bath; dining room; kitchen with pantry; nook; hall bath; elevator; and family room with wet bar. The second -story includes the elevator landing; master bedroom suite with walk -in -wardrobes, bath and sauna; study; and three bedrooms with adjoining bathrooms and walk -in -closets. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES The accessory structures include a pool/spa, the existing and new gazebos, and existing stable. The landscape plan indicates a location for a trellis. All meet the setback requirements. A Covenant and 3 Agreement as prescribed by the City Engineer shall be signed, notarized, and recorded by the owner before the issuance of City Permits for structures in the Restricted Use Area. SITE WORK The grading, drainage, and retaining walls necessary for the improvements will be reviewed and permitted by the Public Works Division. ® Demolition The applicant proposes to demolish the existing two-story single-family residence and pool/spa. Resolution Condition 5(e) requires a permit from the Building and Safety Division, as well as the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). a Grading and Drainage The applicant proposes to do site grading, on-site drainage, and retaining walls. Export is necessary with estimated cut/fill of approximately 2,310 cubic yards. Per Development Code Section 22.16.030 and 22.28, grading permits are issued with conditions related to air emissions and noise, thereby minimizing impacts to surrounding properties (see Resolution Conditions 5(g) and (h). The proposed design and use of on-site drains disperse runoff to the street and front of the lot. ® Retaining Walls The retaining walls will be designed to maintain a minimum exposed height. The Development Code allows 6 feet maximum. The plans indicate walls at approximately 3'/z-4 feet. The landscape plan indicates a dry staked wall. The City of Diamond Bar does not allow wooden retaining walls. Retaining walls will be required to be ornamental by using stucco or decorative block. Resolution Condition 5(g) addresses retaining wall issues. ® Septic System There is currently no public sewer system and the City has been notified that the Los Angeles County Health Department for septic system use will impose more restrictive regulations. The Applicant shall show septic tanks location, size and details on the plans. The Los Angeles County Health Department and City Geotechnical Engineer shall approve septic system plans for a new system or reconnection to the existing system prior to the issuance of any City permits. The Owner shall be required to sign and record the City's agreement for use of septic tanks. VIEW IMPACT The terrain in the vicinity of Crowfoot Lane and Falcons View Drive is hilly. The subject site slopes to lower elevations than the northerly neighbors do following the southerly -declining slope of Crowfoot Lane. 4 The adjoining property on the east side is a single-family residence and the adjacent property to the southwest is a vacant parcel. Other properties on Falcons View Drive to the southwest are at lower elevations. By maintaining the allowed height of 35 feet overall and with the north elevation of the structure at a height of approximately 32 feet, the proposed residential structure allows view corridorsto the northerly neighbors; is naturally higher than the south and westerly neighbors; and the easterly neighbor is at a lower elevation than the subject site. Therefore, the proposed residence will not have significant detrimental view blockage impact. LANDSCAPING A concept landscape plan, sheet L-1, was submitted for review and approval with this project's application. Further Planning Division review and approval will be necessary for materials, size, color, lighting as noted on sheets L-2 through L-5 not are part of the submittal. It will be required that the landscaping/irrigation be installed prior to the Planning Division's final inspection or the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Any walls, gates, fountains, etc. that may be proposed within the front setback shall not be in the street's dedicated easement. Any such structure or plant material proposed within this front setback shall not exceed a height of 42 inches. PRESERVED/PROTECTED TREES A site visit indicates that many preserved/protected species are on the property, including California Pepper and Walnut. The Landscape Architect has designed the project to work within the guidelines of Tree Protection measures as required per Section 22.38.140. It is a Condition of Approval that these measures are in place before the issuance of City Permits. No removal of trees is anticipated. The Owner's signed Tree Statement is attached. This item has been advertised in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Vallev Dailv Bulletin newspapers on December 30, 1999. Fifty-two property owners within a 500 -feet radius of the project site were notified by mail on December 30, 1999. A notice of public hearing on a display board was posted at the site on December 31, 1999 and displayed for at least 10 days before the public hearing. Three other sites were posted within the vicinity of the application. ENVIRONMENTAL Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), Section 15303(a). Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 99-12, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the attached resolution. 5 1. The design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for specialized area (e.g.' theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards, or planned developments); 2. The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and.enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards; 3. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain and enhance the harmonious orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48, the General Plan, City Design Guidelines, or any applicable specific plan; 4. The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public; as well as, its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing; 5. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative affect on property values or resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Prepared by: Linda Kay Sm'th Development Services Assistant ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution of Approval; 2. Application; 3. Oak Tree Statement dated October 21, 1999; 4. Exhibit "A" - site plan, floor plan, elevations, landscape plan, grading plan, renderings, site photos, and materials/color's board, dated January 11, 2000, D:WORD-LINDA\PLANCOMMU'ROJECTSkDR99-12 2501 CROWFOOT/REP DR99-12 M PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -XX A. Recitals 1. The property owner, Charles Chin, and applicant, Simon Shum, have filed an application to approve Development Review No. 99-12, for a property located at 2501 Crowfoot Lane, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California and part of the gated development identified as "The Country Estates", as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review, and Categorical Exemption shall be referred to as the "Application". 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, on January 11, 2000, conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. 3. Notification of the public hearing for this project has been made in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on December 30, 1999. Fifty-two property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the .project site were notified by mail on December 30, 1999. 1999. A notice of public hearing on a display board was posted at the site on December 31, 1999 and displayed for at least 10 days before the public hearing. Three other sites were posted within the vicinity of the application. B. Resolution _NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 1 2. The Planning Commission hereby determines that the project identified above in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder. This is pursuant to Section 15303 (a) of Article 19 of Chapter 3, Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole including the findings set forth below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed project set forth in the application, there is no evidence before this Planning commission that the project proposed herein will have the potential of an adverse effect on wild life resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this Planning commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission, hereby finds as follows: (a) The project relates to.a parcel at 2501 Crowfoot Lane (Lot 61 of Tract leo. 30577), Diamond Bar, CA, within the gated community identified as "The Country Estates." The project site is approximately 2.68 gross acres and 2.63 net acres. It is shaped irregularly, widening and sloping upward toward the rear, northerly exposure. Per the May 13, 1970 recorded Tract Map, there is a Restricted Use Area and Flood Hazard Area on the property. (b) The project site is zoned Single -Family Residence - Minimum Lot Size One Acre Rural Residential (RR) Zone. Its General Plan Land Use designation is Rural Residential (RR). (c) Generally, the following zones surround the subject site: to the north, south, east and west is the Rural Residential (RR) Zone. (d) The application is a request to demolish an existing two-story single-family residence with garage and pool, and construct an 11,389 square foot two-story with basement single-family residence including a six -car garage, motor court, pool/spa, and gazebo. 2 (e) The design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for specialized area (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards, or planned developments). The project site, currently developed with a two- story single-family residence, was established before the adoption of the City's General Plan. However, the proposed project complies with the elements of the adopted General Plan of July 25, 1995 which has a land use designation of Rural Residential (1 du/acre). The proposed use is zoned for single-family residence at 1 du/acre. The proposed structure and accessory structures comply with the City's General Plan objectives and strategies related to maintaining the integrity of residential neighborhoods and open space. The structures and placement on the parcel conform to the site coverage criteria of the Diamond. Bar Development Code. Furthermore, the applicant has obtained the approval of "The Country Estates" Homeowners' Association Architectural Committee. There is no specific or additional community planned development for the site. (f) The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. The project site is currently developed with a two- story single-family residence. The proposed new construction and accessory structures are a continued use and do not change the use of a single-family residence. Although the proposed residence is larger, it is not expected to unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. The project site is adequately served by Falcons View Drive. This private street is designed to handle minimum traffic— created by this type of development. 3 (g) The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48, the General Plan, City Design Guidelines, or any applicable specific plan. The proposed project's architectural design is compatible with the eclectic architectural style of other homes within "The Country Estates," and is consistent with the City's Design Guidelines and Development Code. The project's architectural features include the use of two wings and motor court; the second -story entry with glass and steel stair railing with pool beneath; balconies and columns; lentil -band cornice with roof -line balustrade; as well as the layering of materials and finishes via the trimmed stucco on the lower level, and the alternate marbleized painted stucco building and deco -mold trims. Additionally, the colors and materials utilized are compatible with the homes within the surrounding area. The applicant has obtained the approval of the architectural committee of "The Country Estates." (h) The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public, as well as its neighbors, through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing. A project colors/materials board ,is provided as Exhibit "A". The colors, materials, and textures proposed are complimentary to the existing homes within the area while offering variety. (i) The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative affect on property values or resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. City permits, inspections and soils reports are required for construction, as well as a South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) demolition permit. These will ensure that the finished project will, not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to the properties ,or improvements in the vicinity. 4 r (j) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), Section 15303(a). 5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves this Application subject to the following conditions: (a) The project shall substantially conform to site plan, floor plans, elevations and materials/colors board collectively labeled as Exhibit "A" dated January 11, 2000, as submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission. Additional colors for Gazebos, trellis, stamped concrete, pre -cast, steel railing, sheet metal, exterior wood trims, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division and made a part of Exhibit "A (b) The subject site shall be maintained in a condition that is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement granted herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction, shall be done only by the property owner, applicant or by duly permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas within the City. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor utilized has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. (c) Before construction begins, the applicant shall install temporary construction fencing pursuant to the Building and Safety Division's requirements along the project site's perimeter. This fencing shall remain until the Building Official approves its removal Tree Protection Requirements as required per Section 22.35.140 shall be installed for any California Pepper, Arroyo Willow, Sycamore, Oak, and Walnut trees before issuance of City permits. 5 (e) Demolition permits shall be obtained from the South Coast Air Quality. Management District and the Building and Safety Division. (f) The front landscaping shall be installed prior to the Planning Division's final inspection or Certificate of Occupancy issuance. Additionally, any walls, gates, fountains, etc. that may be proposed within the front setback shall not -exceed 42.inches in height or be constructed within the street's dedicated easement. (g) A grading and retaining wall plan review and approval is required for cut/fill quantities greater than 50 cubic yards. In accordance with the City's grading requirements, the grading plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City before the issuance of a grading permit. On a grading plan the following shall be delineated: (1) Cut and fill quantities and earthwork calculations; (2) All flow lines, finished surfaces, and finished grades; (3) Proper drainage with detailed sketches; (4) Proposed and existing grades; (5) Sign/stamped by a civil engineer, geotechnical engineer and geologist; (6) Clearly delineate all easements; (7) Retaining walls shall not be constructed of wood or wood products; (8) Retaining walls shall be required to be ornamental by using stucco or decorative block; (9) Indicate retaining wall locations on grading plan and delineate: (a) Top of wall; (b) Top of footing; (c) Finish Surface; (d) Structural calculations; and (e) Retaining walls exposed height shall not exceed six feet; (10) All grading is subject to Development Code Sections 22.16.030 (Air Emissions) and Section 22.28 (Noise). (h) Applicant shall submit a soils report for the proposed improvements to be reviewed and approved >'by the City. The soils report shall.also reference the suitability of the retaining walls to withstand 6 �� -- pressure of the retained soils and. proposed development. (i) A Covenant and Agreement as prescribed by the City Engineer shall be signed, notarized, and recorded by the owner before the issuance of City Permits for structures in the Restricted Use Area. (j) There is currently no public sewer system. The Applicant shall show septic tanks location, size and details on the plans. The Los Angeles County Health Department and City Geotechnical Engineer shall approve these plans prior to the issuance of any City permits. The property owner shall be required to sign and record the City's agreement for use of a septic system. (k) The single-family structure shall meet the 1998 California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and California Electrical Code requirements. (1) The minimum design wind pressure shall be 80 miles per hour and "C" exposure. (m) The single-family structure is located in "Fire Zone 4" and shall meet the following requirements of that fire zone: (1) All roof covering shall be "Fire Retardant, Class All; tile roofs shall be fire stopped at the eaves to preclude entry of the flame or members under the fire; (2) All enclosed under -floor areas shall be constructed as exterior walls; (3) All openings into the attic, floor, and/or other enclosed areas shall be covered with corrosion -resistant wire mesh not less than 1/a inch nor more than 1/z inch in any dimension except where such openings are equipped with sash or door; (4) Chimneys shall have spark arresters of maximum 1/2 inch screen. (n) This single-family structure shall meet the State Energy Conservation Standards (o) Drainage pattern shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works. Division; surface water shall drain away from the building at a 2 minimum slope 7 (p) Site, driveway grade, and house design shall be approved by the Fire Department. The maximum slope is 15% per the Public Works Division. (q) Maximum height of the structure shall not exceed 35 feet from the finish grade at any exterior wall of the structure to the highest point of the roofline. (r) Due to the site's topography, applicant shall comply with special design requirements as specified in the U.B.C., Section 18.4.3, building setback, top and toe of slopes. (s) The applicant shall be required to submit a landscape/irrigation and lighting plans delineating the type of planting materials color, size, quantity and location, lighting, to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division within 60 days of the project's approval. (t) The Applicant shall comply with Planning and Zoning; Building and Safety; and, Public Works and Fire Department requirements. (u) This grant is valid for two (2) years and shall be exercised (i.e. construction) within that period or this grant shall expire. A one -(1) year extension may be approved when submitted to the City in writing at least 60 days prior to the expiration date. The Planning Commission will consider the extension request at a duly noticed public hearing in accordance with Chapter 22.72 of the city of Diamond Bar Development Code. (v) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed, within fifteen (15) days of approval of this grant, at the City of Diamond Bar. Community and Development Services Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware and agree to accept all the conditions of this grants Further, this grant shall not be effective until the permittee pays remaining City processing fees. (w) 1f the Department of Fish and Game determines that Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 applies to the approval of this project, then the applicant shall remit to the City, within five days of this grant's approval, a cashier's check of $25.00 for a documentary handling fee in connection with Fish 8 and Game Code requirements. Furthermore, if this project is not exempt from a filing fee imposed because the project has more than a deminimis impact on fish and wildlife, the applicant shall also pay to the Department of Fish and Game any such fee and any fine which the Department determines to be owed. The Planning Commission shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail to Charles Chin, 2501 Crowfoot Lane, Diamond Bar, CA, 91765 and Simon Shum, 20547 Walnut Drive, #D, Walnut, CA 91789. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2000, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. Steve Tye, Chairman I, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of January, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: James DeStefano, Secretary D:WORD-LINDA\PLANCOMM\PROJECTS\DR99-12 \RESO DR99-12 2501 CROWFOOT 9 CITY OF --XAMOND BAR COMM1W.-, - DEVELOPMENT DEP FPL # 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 r „7,i Deposit (909)396-5676 Fax (909)861®3117:iG Lit A, [�"'` Re eipt# b T E LOPS 'qtr D '- w.• .,.. NL_ G.. r By Date Recd '�1? -f Name A ._1 ``. name first) Address C zip- Applicant's Agent (Fast name first) CM Phone( ) Phone( ) phone( ) NOTE: It is the applicant's respomibility to notify the Community Development Director in writing of any change of the principals involved during the processing of this case. (Attach a separate sheet, if necessary, including names, addresses, and signatures of members of partnerships, joint ventures, and directors of corporations.) Consent: I certify that I am the owner of the herein described properly and permit the applicant to fate this request. Signed Date (All record owners) Certification: 1, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information herein provided is correct to the best of my knowledge. Print Name Stoned (Applicant or Agent) (Applicant or Agent) Em - Location { l�T 1 (Street address or tract and lot number) Zoning 1 / 1- NM Previous Cases Present Use of Site Use applied for The subject 'property contains no oak, walnut, sycamore, willow, or naturalizeii California Pepper trees. , The subject property contains one or more oak, walnut, sycamore, willow, ol- naunmfized California Pepper trees. The applicant anticipates thsat no activity (grading and/or construction) will take place within five (5) feet of the outer dripline of any oak, walnut� sycamore, wfllow, or naturalized California Pepper (Applicant's Signature) (Date) C=I 110 1 CD C) A. Recitals 1. The property owner, Charles Chin, and applicant, Simon Shum, have filed an application to approve Development Review No. 99-12, for a property located at 2501 Crowfoot Lane, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California and part of the gated development identified as "The Country Estates", as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review, and Categorical Exemption shall be referred to as the "Application". 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, on January 11, 2000, conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. 3. Notification of the public hearing for this project has been made in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on December 30, 1999. Fifty-two property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site were notified by mail on December 30, 1999. 1999. A notice of public hearing on a display board was posted at the site on December 31, 1999 and displayed for at least 10 days before the public hearing. Three other sites were posted within the vicinity of the application. B. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 1 2. The Planning Commission hereby determines that the project identified above in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder. This is pursuant to Section 15303 (a) of Article 19 of Chapter 3, Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations., 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole including the findings set forth below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed project set forth in the application, there is no evidence before this Planning commission that the project proposed herein will have the potential of an adverse effect on wild life resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this Planning commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission, hereby finds as follows: (a) The project relates to a parcel at 2501 Crowfoot Lane (Lot 61 of Tract No. 30577), Diamond Bar, CA, within the gated community identified as "The Country Estates." The project site is approximately 2.68 gross acres and 2.63 net acres. It is shaped irregularly, widening and sloping upward toward the rear, northerly exposure. Per the May 13, 1970 recorded Tract Map, there is a Restricted Use Area and Flood- Hazard Area on the property. (b) The project site is zoned Single -Family Residence - Minimum Lot Size One Acre Rural Residential (RR) Zone. Its General Plan Land Use designation is Rural Residential (RR). (c) Generally, the following zones surround the subject site: to the north, south, east and west is the Rural Residential (RR) Zone. (d) The application is a request to demolish an existing two-story single-family residence with garage and pool, and construct an '11,389 square foot two-story with basement single-family residence including a six -car garage, motor court, pool/spa, and gazebo. 0 �'OPOOMMISMIFIffisn (e) The design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for specialized area (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards; or planned developments). The project site, currently developed with a two- story single-family residence, was established before the adoption of the City's General Plan. However, the proposed project complies with the elements of the adopted General Plan of July 25, 1995 which has a land use designation of Rural Residential (1 du/acre). The proposed use is zoned for single-family residence at 1 du/acre. The proposed structure and accessory structures comply with the City's General Plan objectives and strategies related to maintaining the integrity of residential neighborhoods and open space. The structures and placement on the parcel conform to the site coverage criteria of the Diamond Bar Development Code. Furthermore, the applicant has obtained the approval of "The Country Estates" Homeowners' Association Architectural Committee. There is no specific or additional- community planned development for the site. (f) The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. The project site is currently developed with a two- story single-family residence. The proposed new construction and accessory structures are a continued use and do not change the use of a single-family residence. Although the proposed residence is larger, it is not expected to unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. The project- site is adequately served by Falcons View Drive. This private street is designed to handle minimum traffic created by this type of development 3 u (g) The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48, the General Plan, City Design Guidelines, or any applicable specific plan. The proposed project's architectural design is compatible with the eclectic architectural style of other homes within "The Country Estates," and is consistent with the City's Design Guidelines and Development Code. The project's architectural features include the use of two wings and motor court; the second -story entry with glass and steel stair railing with pool beneath; balconies and columns; lentil -band cornice with roof -line balustrade; as well as the layering of materials and finishes via the trimmed stucco on the lower level, and the alternate marbleized painted stucco building and deco -mold trims. Additionally, the colors and materials utilized are compatible with the homes within the surrounding area. The applicant has obtained the approval of the architectural committee of "The Country Estates." (h) The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public, as well as its neighbors, through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing. A project colors/materials board is provided as Exhibit "A". The colors, materials, and textures proposed are complimentary to the existing homes within the area while offering variety. (i) The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative affect on property values or resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. City permits, inspections and soils reports are required for construction, as well as a South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) demolition permit. These will ensure that the finished project will not be detrimental. to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4 (j) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), .Section 15303(a). 5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves this Application subject to the following conditions: (a) The project shall substantially conform to site plan, floor plans, elevations and materials/colors board collectively labeled as Exhibit "A" dated January 11, 2000, as submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission. Additional colors for Gazebos, trellis, stamped concrete, pre -cast, steel railing, sheet metal, exterior wood trims, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division and made a part of Exhibit "A". (b) The subject site shall be maintained in a condition that is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement granted herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction, shall be done only by the property owner, applicant or by duly permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste ' from residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas within the City. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor utilized has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. (c) Before construction begins, the applicant shall install temporary construction fencing pursuant to the Building and Safety Division's requirements along the project site's perimeter. This fencing shall remain until the Building Official approves its removal. (d) Tree Protection Requirements as required per Section 22.38.140 shall be installed for any California Pepper, Arroyo Willow, Sycamore, Oak, and Walnut trees before issuance of City permits. 5 Da' + �" �1� IT (e) Demolition permits shall be obtained from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the Building and Safety Division. (f) The front landscaping shall be installed prior to the Planning Division's final inspection or Certificate of Occupancy issuance. Additionally, any walls, gates, fountains, etc. that may be proposed within the front setback shall not exceed 42 inches in height or be constructed within the street's dedicated easement. (g) A grading and retaining wall plan review and approval is required for cut/fill quantities greater than 50 cubic yards. In accordance with the City's grading requirements, the grading plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City before the issuance of a grading permit. on a grading plan the following shall be delineated: (1) Cut and fill quantities and earthwork calculations; (2) All flow lines, finished surfaces, and finished grades; (3) Proper drainage with detailed sketches; (4) Proposed and existing grades; (5) Sign/stamped by a civil engineer, geotechnical engineer and geologist; (6) Clearly delineate all easements; (7) Retaining walls shall not be constructed of wood or wood products; (8). Retaining walls shall be required to be ornamental by using stucco or decorative block; (9) Indicate retaining wall locations on grading plan and delineate: (a) Top of wall; (b) Top of footing; (c) Finish Surface; (d) Structural calculations; and (e) Retaining walls exposed height shall not exceed six feet; (10) All grading is subject to Development Code Sections 22.16.030 (Air Emissions) and Section 22.28 (Noise). (h) Applicant shall submit a soils report for the proposed improvements to be reviewed and approved by the City. The soils report shall also reference the suitability of the retaining walls to withstand 6 DRAFT pressure of the retained soils and proposed development. (i) A Covenant and Agreement as prescribed by the City Engineer shall be signed, notarized, and recorded by the owner before the issuance of City Permits for structures in the Restricted Use Area. (j) There is currently no public sewer system. The Applicant shall show septic tanks location, size and details on the plans. The Los Angeles County Health Department and City Geotechnical Engineer shall approve these plans prior to the issuance of any City permits. The property owner shall be required to sign and record the City's agreement for use of a septic system. (k) The single-family structure shall meet the 1998 California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and California Electrical Code requirements. (1) The minimum design wind pressure shall be 80 miles per hour and "C" exposure. (m) The single-family structure is located in "Fire Zone 4" and shall meet the following requirements of that fire zone: (1) All roof covering shall be "Fire Retardant, Class A"; the roofs shall be fire stopped at the eaves to preclude entry of the flame or members under the fire; (2) All enclosed under -floor areas shall be constructed as exterior walls; (3) All openings into the attic, floor, and/or other enclosed areas shall be covered with corrosion -resistant wire mesh not less than 1/4 inch nor more than 1/z inch in any dimension except where such openings are equipped with sash or door; (4) Chimneys shall have spark arresters of maximum 1/2 inch screen. (n) This single-family structure shall meet the State Energy Conservation Standards. (o) Drainage pattern shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Division; surface water shall drain away from the building at a 20 minimum slope. 7 $Y (p) Site, driveway grade, and house design shall be approved by the Fire Department. The maximum slope is 15% per the Public Works Division. (q) Maximum height of the structure shall not exceed 35 feet from the finish grade at any exterior wall of the structure to the highest point of the roofline. (r) Prior to the issuance of any City Permits, the Applicant shall obtain a Minor Variance approval to allow a maximum 31/2 feet roof -line balustrade architectural feature that extends above the 35 feet roofline. (s) Due to the site's topography, applicant shall comply with special design requirements as specified in the U.B.C., Section 18.4.3, building setback, top and toe of slopes. (t) The applicant shall be required to submit a landscape/irrigation and lighting plans delineating the type of planting materials color, size, quantity and location, lighting, to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division within 60 days of the project's approval. (u) The Applicant shall comply with Planning and Zoning; Building and Safety; and, Public Works and Fire Department requirements. (v) This grant is valid for two (2) years and shall be exercised (i.e. construction) within that period or this grant shall expire. A one -(1) year extension may be approved when submitted to the City in writing at least 60 days prior to the expiration date. The Planning Commission will consider the extension request at a duly noticed public hearing in accordance with Chapter 22.72 of the city of Diamond Bar Development Code. (w) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed, within fifteen (15) days of approval of this grant, at the City of Diamond Bar Community and Development Services Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware and agree to accept all the conditions of this grant. Further, this grant shall not be effective until the permittee pays remaining City processing fees. 8 51, F' f a "'a - U (x) If the Department of Fish and Game determines that Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 applies to the approval of this project, then the applicant shall remit to the City, within five days of this grant's approval, a cashier's check of $25.00 for a documentary handling fee in connection with Fish and Game Code requirements. Furthermore, if this project is not exempt from a filing fee imposed because the project has more than a deminimis impact on fish and wildlife, the applicant shall also pay to the Department of Fish and Game any such fee and any fine which the Department determines to be owed. The Planning Commission shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail to Charles Chin, 2501 Crowfoot Lane, Diamond Bar, CA, 91765 and Simon Shum, 20547 Walnut Drive, #D, Walnut, CA 91789. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2000, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. Steve Tye, Chairman I, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of January, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: James. DeStefano, Secretary D:WORD-LINDA\PLANCOMM\PROJECTS\DR99-12 \RESO DR99-12 2501 CROWFOOT 9 \ � . «4 e�<<-<•y,«:: CWMFM ra,2 .« y y � .... > { §. r . p , x �MR. a. AND MRSz ,,. CWWFM t .... i � ? /© - .:...\ \ MR. RESIDENCE ' ~/}O\. \ ]� av >. p . � ;. rjVEF/1L.1. l._G�NLiISCKI-AU:: FL!\N � ` CULT STONE ONYX BROWN CAROLINE LEDGESTONE (CSV -7003) OMEGA OMEGA 47 CORAL BASE 2 * PROPOSED COLOR TO BE USED FOR EXTERIOR STUCCO DUNN-EDWARDS ICE GRAY 127 * PROPOSED COLOR TO BE USED FOR EAVES DENTIL & CORNICE BALUSTRADE & ALL PRECAST ITEMS 0id,gI-/p- ICE GRAY 127 DUNN-EDWARDS SP 18 WOODLAWN GREEN * PROPOSED COLOR TO BE USED FOR ALL NEW GAZEBOS AND ALL TRELLIS MCA GRAY C-10 SP 18 WOOM WN GREEN Gray C-10 OEM 3 Y $ 1 T SUMMARY: Ordinance Nos. 24 (1989), 25A (1990), as amended, and 28 (1989) provide for, among other things, the establishment of compensation payable to City Co 'ssioners/Committee Members for attendance at Commission/Committee Meetings. The said Ordinances provide that compensation for City Commissioners/Committee Members shall be established by Resolution. Specifically, City Commissioners'/Committee Members' salaries were established on September 4, 1990, with the approval of Resolution No. 90-75 "A Resolution of the City Council of. the City of Diamond Dar Establishing Compensation for City Commissioners/Committee Members." Since the incorporation of Resolution No. 90- 75, the City Commissioners'/Committee Members' compensation has not been adjusted. Resolution No. 90- 75A increases each City Commissioner's/Committee Member's compensation by $5.00 per meeting (with a maximum of $ 15.00 more per month). RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar approve Resolution No. 90-75A "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar Amending Resolution No. 90-75 Establishing Compensation for City Commissioners/Co flee Members". LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report ®Public Nearing Notification X Resolution(s) ® Bid Specification ® Ordinance(s) ® Other ® Agreement(s) NIFOINTRaw VA VK 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed ® Yes ® No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority vote? X Yes ® No 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? N/A Yes ® No 4. Has. the report been reviewed by a Commission? N/A ® Yes No 5. Are other departments affected by the report?Yes X No REVIEWED BY: e Terrenc11 e L. Belang Anne M. Haraksin City Manager Sr. Administrative Assistant TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council SUBJECT: Resolution No. 90-75A "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar Amending Resolution No. 90-75 Establishing Compensation for City Commissioners/Committee Members". ISSUE STATEMENT: That the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar approve Resolution No. 90-75A "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar Amending Resolution No. 90-75 Establishing Compensation for City Commissioners/Committee Members". CO NDAT ON: It is recommended that the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar approve Resolution No. 90-75A "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar Amending Resolution No. 90-75 Establishing Compensation for City Commissioners/Committee Members". FISCAL IMPACT: Commission/Committee Current Compensation Su mated Compensation Planning $60 per mtg./$180 max per month $65 per mtg./$195 max per month Parks & Recreation $40 per mtg./$120 max per month $45 per mtg./$135 max per month Traffic & Transportation $40 per mtg./$120 max per month $45 per mtg./$135 max per month Possible maximum increase per Fiscal Year is $2,700 ($15 per Commission/Committee Member, per month). BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Ordinance Nos. 24 (1989), 25A (1990), as amended, and 28 (1989) provide for, among other things, the establishment of compensation payable to City Commissioners/Committee Members for attendance at Commission/Committee Meetings. The said Ordinances provide that compensation for City Commissioners/Committee Members shall be established by Resolution. Specifically, City Commissioners'/Committee Members' salaries were established on September 4, 1990, with the approval of Resolution No. 90-75 "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar Establishing Compensation for City Commissioners/Committee Members." Since the incorporation of Resolution No. 90-75, the City Commissioners'/Committee Members' compensation has not been adjusted. Resolution No. 90-75A increases each City Commissioner's/Committee Member's compensation by $5.00 per meeting (with a maximum of $15.00 more per month). Resolution No. 90-75A amends Sections 2(a), 2(b), and 2(c) of Resolution No. 90-75 to read as follows: December 21, 1999 Page 2 2. Compensation for attendance at Commission/Committee Meetings for City Commissioners Committee members shall be as follows: a. Planning Commissioners — 0) Sixty Five ($65.00) dollars per meeting for each Planning Commission Meeting actually attended during any calendar month, to a maximum of 0 ` rdFe &-,,h ,fit eni One Hundred Ninety Five ($195.00) dollars per month. b. Parks and Recreation Co ssioners ® -Forty Five ($45.00) dollars per meeting for each Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting actually attended during any calendar month to a maximum of G ._._d__a T.gent d- ($420) One Hundred Thirty Five ($135.00) dollars per month. C. Traffic and Transportation Committee Members ® Forty Five ($45.00) dollars per meeting for each Traffic and Transportation Committee Meeting actually attended during any calendar month to a maximum of a a . T. ¢ r 4.3- l One Hundred Thirty Five r' t ($135.00) dollars per month. Attachment "A" — Resolution No. 90®75 Prepared by: Anne Haraksin A. Recitals. (i) This City Council has heretofore adopted its Ordinance Nos. 24(1989), 25A (1990). as amended, and 28 (1989) providing for, among other things, the establishment of compensation payable to City Commissioners/Committee Members for attendance at Commission/Committee meetings. (ii) Said Ordinance provides that compensation for City Commissioners /Committee Members shall be established by resolution. (iii) This City Council now desires to establish compensation for City Commissioners/Committee Members. (iv) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does hereby determine and resolve as follows: All aspects as set forth in the recitals, Part A of this Resolution. 2. Compensation for attendance at Commission/Committee Meetings for City Commissioners/Committee Members shall be as follows: a. Planning Commissioners — Sixty Five ($65.00) dollars per meeting for each Planning Commission Meeting actually attended during any calendar month, to a maximum of One Hundred Ninety Five ($195.00) dollars per month. C. Parks and Recreation Commissioners — Forty Five ($45.00) dollars per meeting for each Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting actually attended during any calendar month to a maximum of One Hundred Thirty Five ($135.00) dollars per month. C. Traffic and Transportation Co ttee Members — Forty Five ($45.00) dollars per meeting for each Traffic and Transportation Committee Meeting actually attended during any calendar month to a maximum of One Hundred Thirty Five ($135.00) dollars per month. 3. Commissioners/Comrnittee Members shall be considered at an official meeting and thus eligible for compensation when participating in subcommittee work, as follows: a. The subcommittee is appointed by the chair of the Commission/Committee at a regular meeting of the Commission/Committee. b. The subcommittee is charged to study a specific issue, problem or project for the purpose of returning to the entire Commission/Committee with a recommended course of action. C. A City staff member is in attendance at the subcommittee meeting. d. Reports on efforts of the subcommittee are made to the full Commission/Committee. 4. The compensation specified herein shall be effective the ® day of 1999. 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Mayor I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed, adopted and approved at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of , 1999, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL ERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Lynda Burgess, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 90 - 75 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR CITY COMMISSIONERS/ COMMITTEE MEMBERS A. Recitals. (i) This City Council has heretofore adopted its Ordinance Nos. 24 (1989), 25A (1990), as amended, and 28 (1989) providing for, among other things, the establishment of compensation payable to City Commiss i oners/ Committee Members for attendance at Commission/Committee meetings. (ii) said Ordinance provides that compensation for City Commissioners/Committee Members shall be established by resolution. (iii) This City Council now desires to establish compensation for city Commissioners/Committee Members. (iv) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Diamond I Bar does hereby determine and resolve as follows: 1. All aspects as set forth in the recitals, Part A of 2. Compensation for attendance at Commiss ion/ Committee Meetings for City Commissioners/Committee Members shall be as follows: a. Planning commissioners - Sixty ($60.00) dollars per meeting for each Planning commission Meeting actually attended during any calendar month, to a maximum of One Hundred Eighty ($180.00) dollars per month. b. Parks and Recreation Commissioners - Forty ($40.00) dollars per meeting for each Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting actually attended during any calendar month to a maximum of one Hundred Twenty ($120.00) dollars per month. C. Traffic and Transportation Committee Members - Forty ($40-00) dollars per meeting for each Traffic and Transportation Committee Meeting actually attended during any calendar month to a maximum of one Hundred Twenty ($120.00) per 3. Commissioners/Committee Members shall be considered at an official meeting and thus eligible for compensation when participating in subcommittee work, as follows: a. The subcommittee is appointed by the chair of the commission/committee at a regular meeting of the Commission/Committee. b. The subcommittee is charged to study a specific issue, problem or project for the purpose of returning to the entire Commission/Committbe with a recommended course of action. C. A City staff member is in attendance at the d. Reports on efforts of the subcommittee are made to the full Commission/Committee. 4. The compensation specified herein shall be effective the first day of September,• 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of thim p r\ ayor I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed, adopted and approved at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Ear held on the day of exa3ex 1990, by the following vote: eCOUNCIL Pap -n, Mayor Pro Tem Forbing an NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:None Mayor Wern] ATTEST: Cit Clerk of then ity of Diamond Ear x c� z z 6 w z U J q 0. w U U Q U � U � ¢ d w ca �y ,4 ® Q U U U ® U U UC w��-aaa W -0 00 00 N N N O N O C7\ 00 crs U Q a CIO r� G � U N N U cu Eye U Na a4 Q � H t /_yy x c� z z 6 w z U J q 0. w 1 d U U U ® U U z a CIO � U U W U Eye a4 Q W C) d �y N N O � H N N 00 N rn N U d - N In C� CN Z � N U W � Cd � b ® � b 3 b b' ti O Cd ca �w ti c7 �C13 ® - C/) cn � 014 W Fd �./ W Cl) x c� z z 6 w z U J q 0. w NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING AND AF'F'IDAVIT OF POSTING „• �,;: fo-y.��-f STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ) The Diamond Bar Planning Commission will hold a regular meeting at the South Coast Quality Management District"Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, at 7:00 P.M. on January II Items for consideration are listed on the attached agenda. I, John Ilasin, declare as follows: I am employed by the City of Diamond Bar, Community and Development Services Department. On January 7, 2000, I posted copies of the Notice for the Regular Meeting of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission, to be held on January 11, 2000, at the following locations: City Hall South Coast Quality Management District Auditorium 21660 E. Copley Drive 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 7, 2000, at Diamond Bar, California. C34ohn sin Community and Development Services Dept. gMaffidavitposting. doe F V11101 land is ready i,,Fi wo h.