Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/11/2000FILE COPY PLANNINi. COMMISSION 1 .1 April 2000 7:00 P.M. South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA Chairman Vice Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Steve Nelson Bob Zirbes George Kuo Joe Ruzicka Steve Tye' 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 // 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 The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper drinking in the Auditorium and encourages you to do the same City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission PUBLIC INPUT The meetings of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission are open to the public. A member of the public may address the Commission on the subject of one or more -agenda items and/or other items of which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Diamond Bar Planning .Commission. A request to address 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 making recommendations to the staff and City Council. In accordance with State Law (Brown Act), all matters to be acted on by the Commission must be posted at least 72 hours prior to the Commission meeting. In case -of emergency or when a subject matter arises subsequent to the posting of the agenda, upon making certain findings, the Commission may act on item that is not on the posted agenda. INFORMATION RELATING TO AGENDAS AND ACTIONS OF THE COMMISSION Agendas for Diamond Bar Planning Commission meetings are prepared by the Planning Division of the Community and Development Services Department. Agendas are available 72 hours prior to the meeting at City Hall and the public library, and may be accessed by personal computer at the number below. Every meeting of the Planning Commission is recorded on cassette tapes and duplicate tapes are available for a nominal charge. ADA REOUIREMENTS 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. HELPFUL PHONE NUMBERS Copies of Agenda, Rules of the Commission, Cassette Tapes of Meetings (909) 396-5676 Computer Access to Agendas (909) 860 -LINE General Agendas (909) 396-5676 email: info@ci.diamond-bar.ca.us PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Tuesday, April 11, 2000 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Next Resolution No. 2000-5 1. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Steve Nelson, Vice Chairman Bob Zirbes, George Kuo, Joe Ruzicka, and Steve Tye., 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is the time and place for the general public to address the members of the Planning Commission on any item that is within their jurisdiction, allowing the public an opportunity to speak on non-public hearing and non -agenda items. Please complete a Speaker's Card for the recording; Secretary (Completion of this form is voluntary). There is a five-minute maximum time limit when addressing; the Planning Commission. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chairman 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine and are approved by a single motion. Consent calendar items may be removed from the agenda by request of the Commission only: 4.1 Minutes: March 28, 2000 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: 6.1 General Plan Conformity Report for Vacation of Right -of -Way (Highcrest Drive) Pursuant to Government Code Section 64502 PROJECT LOCATION: Highcrest Drive from Gold Rush Drive southerly approximately 1.100 feet to its terminous. PROJECT OWNER: City of Diamond Bar APPLICANT: Highcrest Homeowners Alliance ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This matter is categorically exempted from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines. April 11, 2000 7. 8. 9. 10. Page 2 RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution finding and reporting that the vacation is in conformance with the General Plan and that the street is not useful as a non -motorized transportation facility. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 7.1 Development Review No. 99-09, TP 2000-02 (pursuant to Code Section 22.48 and 22.38) is a request to construct a two-story, single-family residence, of approximately 16,795 square feet, with a basement, balconies, porch, patios, indoor swimming pool, and five -car garage. Additionally, the request includes accessory structures: tennis court, rose garden with gazebo, and trellis. A tree permit is required for the removal/replacement of preserved/protected trees. Continued from March 28, 2000. Project Address: 23622 Ridgeline Road (Lot 88, Tract 30091) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Property Owner: David Deng 2668 Highridge Drive Chino Hills, CA 91709 Applicant: S & W Development 20547 Walnut Drive, #D Walnut, CA 91709 Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined that, this project is categorically exempt pursuant Section 15303(a) of Article 19 of Chapter 3 of Title 14 the California Code of Regulations. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development review No. 9-9, Tree Permit No.2000-02, Findings of Fact, and condition of approval, as listed within the attached resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING: COMPOST WORKSHOP: Thursday, April 13, 2000 — 7:00 P.M. AQMD Room CC -2, 21865 E. Copley Drive Saturday, April 15, 2000 — 10:00 A.M. — 12 Noon Sycamore Canyon, 22930 Golden Springs Drive CITY COUNCIL MEETING: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 — 6:30 P.M. April 11, 2000 Page 3 AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive SPRING CLEAN-UP Saturday, April 22, 2000 BULKY ITEM PICKUP: Curbside EASTER EGG HUNT: Saturday, April 22, 2000 — 10 A.M. Summitridge Park, 1425 Surnmitridge Drive Hosted by City of Diamond Bar and the Diamond Bar Lions Club ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW MEETING: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE MEETING: 12. ADJOURNMENT: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 — 6:00 P.M. AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive Tuesday, April 25, 2000 — 7:00 P.M. AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive Thursday, April 27, 2000 — 7:00 P.M. AQMD Hearing Board Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2000 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management Headquarters Building Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Ruzicka. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Steve Nelson, Vice Chairman Bob Zirbes, and Commissioners George Kuo, Joe Ruzicka and Steve Tye. Also Present: Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; Sonya Joe, Development Services Assistant; Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Secretary. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None offered. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 7.1 Minutes of the March 14, 2000 meeting. C/Ruzicka moved, VC/Zirbes seconded, to approve the minutes of the meeting of March 14, 2000 as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMNIISSIONERS: 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None CONTINUED7. C BEARING: • Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes, Chair/Nelson None None MARCH 28, 2000 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 8.2 Development Review No. 99-09 (pursuant to. Code Section 22.48) iss-a request to construct a two-story, single-family residence of approximately 16,795 square feet, with a basement, balconies, porch, patios, indoor swimming pool, and five -car garage. Additionally, the request includes accessory structures: tennis court, rose garden with gazebo, and trellis. Project Address: 23622 Ridgeline Road . (Lot 88, Tract 30091) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Property Owners: David Deng 2668 Highridge Drive Chino Hills, CA 91709 Applicant: S & W Development 20547 Walnut Drive #D Walnut, CA 91709 DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue Development Review No. 99-09 to April 11, 2000, to allow the applicant time to revise the drawings, to submit details for the proposed accessory structures, and to submit a Tree Permit application to be considered concurrently by the Planning Commission. Chair/Nelson asked that the applicant provide a landscape plan on April 11. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Ash Mathur, Lot 89, Tract 30091, said that most of his view is to the southeast and southwest, and he is concerned about the blockage of his view. He said he is also concerned that the placement of the garage with cars moving in and out will provide a potential blinding of the rooms in which he and his family sit. He believes that shrubs would help to mitigate the situation. He is also concerned that if the house is used for business activities that there will be additional noise in the area. Mr. Mathur indicated the location of his house relative to the proposed project. He believes that 30 to 40 percent of his view will be obstructed by the project. Simon Shum, Architect, said that the house has been designed in accordance with the terrain of MARCH 28, 2000 PAGE 3. PLANNING COMMISSION the property. The hill will be carved out to accommodate the basement which will support the second and third story. The hill will be taken down almost 10 feet and the dirt will be exported. The project has gone through several alterations and is almost master planned with respect to the landscape. This will be a quality home that will add to the neighborhood. He does not believe that the house will impede the neighbor's view. The mass of the house will be less than the mound of dirt currently sitting on the lot. Mr. Shum responded to C/Ruzicka regarding Mr. Mathur's concern for loss of his view by indicating on the overhead that the height of the structure will exceed the height of the existing dirt mound by about 10 feet. He does not believe that Mr. Mathur will be negatively impacted. DSA/Smith explained to C/Tye that site coverage is proposed to be 28 percent. Mr. Mathur indicated.to Chair/Nelson that a small portion of his view on the southwest side will be affected. C/Kuo pointed out to Mr. Mathur that the City has an Ordinance regarding home-based. businesses and such matters as traffic and noise levels are taken into consideration. VC/Zirbes asked about the applicant's profession and why he has so many offices. Mr. Shum responded that the applicant is an international jet -setter. The library was mislabeled as an office. He explained the plan and what the design includes. The applicant has approximately 200 employees overseas and no employees in the United States. He needs an office in his home for his personal use. C/Tye moved, C/Ruzicka seconded, to continue Development Review No. 99-09 to April 11, 2000. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMIVIISSIONERS: None Chair/Nelson continued the public hearing to April 11, 2000. 8.1 Development Review No. 99-08, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-02 (pursuant to Code Section 22.48.020 and 22.56.020) is a request to construct an addition of approximately 8,776 square feet to an existing legal non -conforming single family residence of approximately 15,921 square feet. The request includes a series of low retaining walls, indoor pool, and indoor sauna/steam room. MARCH 28, 2000 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION Project Address: 22128 Steeplechase Lane (Lot 20, Tract No. 30578) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Property Owner: Samuel Liu. 22128 Steeplechase Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Applicant: Chary Dagam VCD Group 1000 North Regal Canyon Drive Walnut, CA 91789 DSA/Joe presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 99-08, and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-02, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the Resolution. VC/Zirbes asked for clarification of the depth of the tunnels attaching the addition*to the main structure. He said he does not see Items 1 and 3 on Page 5 included in the Draft Resolution. He asked if there is a provision for re -inspecting the addition a year or two after its completion. The previous approval contained a condition for the replacement of trees which was not done. He asked if a condition could be imposed upon the applicant to post a bond to insure that the trees are replaced. AssocP/Lungu stated that with respect to the landscape irrigation plan, the six, twenty-four inch box treessize, will be replaced prior to final inspection. The original six trees that were planted by the developer as a condition of approval have subsequently been removed. C/Ruzicka said he believes that regardless of who owns the property, there should be some mechanism available to the City to insure that in the event of the sale of this property that the six trees will remain on site. C/Kuo asked if the City has previously initiated a monitoring mechanism for other developments. AssocP/Lungu responded that the City has used monitoring mechanisms in the past and the Commission may wish to consider adding the trees to the covenant and agreement. C/Tye asked for clarification on the total number of bedrooms. DSA/Joe indicated that the pians indicate nine bedrooms. She visited the site and noted a total of 10 bedrooms. She determined that some rooms shown on the plan to be used as gym or office MARCH 28, 2000 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION are being used as bedrooms. The original approved plans show a total of nine bedrooms. AssocP/Lungu indicated to Chair/Nelson that in the past, the trees were located at the edge of the pad and down the slope below the property as it goes to the bottom of the canyon. The trees would likely be placed in the same location. The applicant is required to submit a landscape plan for staff's review. AssocP/Lungu stated to VC/Tye. that at this time, the Ordinance requires a 3:1 replacement for Walnut trees. This is a discretionary review and the Planning Commission may chose to asl< for replacement of the six trees on a 3:1 basis. Chary Dagam, Architect, said that after about a year's negotiation with "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association, an agreement was reached for approval on the height of the structure. The project has met all of the City's concerns and requirements including the preliminary soils report, the retaining walls, the height and the colors, materials and style. The owner intends to occupy the structure as a single family residence. He explained the' design. The tunnel is only nine feet high, six feet wide and 30 feet long. The tunnel does not affect any structure. C/Kuo asked Mr. Dagam to respond to a March 20 letter of complaint from Mr. And Mrs. Liu Mr. Dagam stated that the letter addresses the originally proposed height of 20 feet above the ground which is the reason that the Association reduced the height to 10 feet. He said he spoke with Mr. And Mrs. Liu two days ago. They told him they have no problem with the height, only with the allergy producing dust from the construction. He advised them that he will build a 20 foot high screen barrier between their house and the construction site to keep the dust from their site. VC/Zirbes congratulated Mr. Dagam on his design. He asked about the construction of the underground tunnels. Mr. Dagam stated that the tunnels will connect the existing basement with the new basement. The wails will be constructed of reinforced concrete block walls with a concrete slab above and below. The entire structure is designed to comply with the current seismic requirement code. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. There being no one who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Ruzicka moved, C/Kuo seconded, to approve Development Review No. 99-08 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-02 Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution with the addition of a condition that any subsequent sale of this property be MARCH 28, 2000 PAGE 6. PLANNING COMMISSION. contingent upon an inspection by the City to insure,compliance with the original conditions of approval and the replacement of Walnut trees at a 3:1 ratio. C/Tye pointed out'that according to the City's General Plan, a Rural Residential designation requires one dwelling unit per acre. He. said he is greatly disturbed that it appears that the dwelling units are taking up the entire acre. He is encouraged that staff has required a maximum 40% coverage. However, he does understand how the conditions are enforceable. VC/Zirbes said he believes that it is enforceable to impose conditions from one owner to the next owner and he would not be able to support the motion as presented. He respects the 3:1 ratio, however, he would like to have the motion include the posting of a cash bond to insure that the trees are planted and remain on the site for no less than five years. He stated that conditions 1 and 3 listed on page 5 of staff's report were not included in the Resolution and he would like to have them included in Section (p). DSA/Joe pointed out that condition 3 in the staff report is condition 2 on Page 11 of the Resolution. Chair/Nelson said he shares VC/Zirbes' concern regarding the trees. C/Ruzicka withdrew his motion. VC/Zirbes moved, C/Ruzicka seconded, to approve Development Review No. 99-08, Minor Conditional Use pernut No. 200-02, Findings of Fact and conditions as listed within the Resolution subject to the following changes: Add the following to Section (p) on Page 11: "No kitchen facility to be placed in addition." and re -letter the conditions; add the following after the word "record" to Section (q) with the Los Angeles County Recorders Office against the property."; include a statement to indicate a 3:1 replacement ratio of twenty four box size for the Walnut trees (a total of 18 trees), and require the applicant to provide a financial bond (the value of the trees plus installation costs) on the property for five years to insure that the trees are planted and maintained, and add the trees to the covenant and agreement for ongoing maintenance. AssocP/Lungu stated that the applicant is concerned that 18-24" box trees may not fit on the property. She recommended that in case the trees cannot be accommodate on-site, that they be placed off-site in a public park, or that the property owner contribute to the City's Tree Replacement Fund, the cost of the trees that can not be placed on-site, their• installation and maintence cost for five years. Mr. Dagam said that he believes that although six trees is an excessive number, they will fit in the location. The landscape architect said that Walnut trees need a great deal of growing space. MARCH 28,2000 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMIVIISSION C/Ruzicka suggested that the applicant place whatever number of the 18 trees he can accommodate at the site and that the remaining trees be placed at the staff's discretion. Mr. Dagam agreed to have the City's arborist look at the site and make his recommendation to staff regarding the number of trees that the site is likely to accommodate. VC/Zirbes amended the motion to state that the value of the trees that cannot be placed on the property be placed in the City's Tree Fund. C/Ruzicka seconded the amendment. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nelson ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: C/Kuo presented Chair/Nelson with his completed Planners Institute score card. He asked about the letter of complaint regarding the Platinum Restaurant. AssocP/Lungu acknowledged that the City received a complaint from the Falls Creek Homeowners Association at the end of Gentle Springs regarding the nuisance the restaurant was creating. As a result, staff wrote a letter to the business owners reminded them about the conditions of approval. Staff asked that the business submit a plan to the City indicating how they will remedy these nuisances. Staff and the Walnut/Diamond Bar Sheriff's Department are working toward a resolve of this matter. 10. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: AssocP/Lungu reported that during tonight's Administrative Review process, reconstruction of a home at 163 Cottonwood Cove which was badly damaged by a fire was approved. The Commission will be considering a proposed Farmer Boys Restaurant at the corner of Lycoming Avenue and Brea Canyon Road in April. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: . As listed in the agenda. MARCH 28, 2000 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Ruzicka moved, VC/Zirbes seconded, to adjourn the meeting. There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chair/Nelson adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Ann Lungu Associate Planner/ Acting Secretary Attest: Steve Nelson Chairman Agenda Item Number: Report Date:. Meeting Date: Case/File Number:. 6.1 April 5, 2000 April 11, 2000 Staff Report Application Request: General Plan Conformity Report for Vacation of Right -of - Way (Highcrest Drive) Pursuant to Government Code §65402 Property Vocation: Highcrest Drive from Gold Rush Drive southerly approximately 1,100 feet to its terminus. Applicant: Highcrest Homeowners Alliance Property Owner: City of Diamond Bar Background: The City of Diamond Bar has received a request from the Highcrest Homeowners Alliance to vacate a portion of Highcrest Drive. The City Council has approved the initiation of vacation proceedings with its adoption of Resolution No. 2000-17 on March 7, 2000. The adoption of the Resolution did not approve the requested street vacation. Adoption of the resolution established the intent of the City Council to study the matter further, in coordination with utility companies, Planning Commission review and set a subsequent City Council public hearing for April 18,2000. In accordance with Section 65402 of the Government Code, no real property shall be disposed of, or street vacated until the Planning Commission reports on the conformity of the location, purpose and extent with the General Plan. The property was dedicated to public use with the recording of Tract No. 31941 and is fully improved. The width of the street right-of-way is 64 feet. There exist public utility, sanitary sewer and storm drain facilities within the property. Should the street vacation request be ultimately approved by the City Council it will be necessary to reserve an easement as necessary for these facilities. City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COWISION Staff Report (April 11, 2000) Page 2 of 3 HighcreSt Drive is not shown in the General -Plan as a primary or secondary highway or as a collector street.. The design and dedication of this street for circulation purposes is for specific service to the adjacent 20 properties which have all, by means of petition signature requested the proposed street vacation. The proposed street vacation would be for the sole purpose of privatizing the 20 unit single family residential street. Access to the City owned open space property is not presently available from Highcrest Drive. The addition of a future private gated entry at the northerly terminus of Highcrest Drive, while prohibiting public access to the street, will not remove access the public enjoys to the open space property. The General Plan does not specifically address the issue of proposed street vacation requests. Upon examination, the request does not appear, to conflict with the General Plan or its policy statements. Additionally Section 892 of the Streets and Highways Code requires that the City Council to find that the right-of-way is not useful as a non -motorized transportation facility (bicycle, pedestrian or equestrian way.) Highcrest Drive is not shown in the General Plan to be planned nor required for bicycle, pedestrian or equestrian use. Therefore, in the opinion of the staff, the property is found: • Not to be required for general public access or circulation; and • Not to be needed for the present or for the prospective use of general public use, which cannot be served by the reservation of a public utility and public service easement. • Not to be useful as a non -motorized transportation facility. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: This matter is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of the state CEQA Guidelines. City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISION Staff Report (April 11, 2000) Page 3 of 3 ]RECONWENDATION: It is the recommended that the Planning, Commission approve the attached resolution finding and reporting to the City Council that: Pursuant to Section 65402 of the Government Code, the location, purpose and extent of the vacation of this property is in conformance with the Draft General Plan; and further recommending that, 2) As required by Section 892 of the Streets and Highways Code, the City Council find that Highcrest Drive is not useful as a non -motorized transportation facility. ATTACHMENTS: 1., City Council Report dated March 7, 2000 with attachments 2. Correspondences from Pulte Homes dated April 5, 2000 regarding Gate Access Change and Highcrest Homeowners Proposed St.rieet Vacation. 3. Draft Planning Commission Resolution , I It W."C"010 111's 914 DI WC IN AGENDA NO. 9.1 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council MEETING DATE: March 7, 2000 REPORT DATE: February. 29, 2000 FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager TITLE: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE A PORTION OF I-IIGHCREST DRIVE IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. SUMMARY: The City has received, a request from the Highcrest Homeowners Alliance to vacate the portion of Highcrest Drive located southerly of Gold Rush Drive. This matter asks the City Council to consider the vacation request, to initiate the vacation proceedings in accordance with the Streets and Highways Code, and to set a public hearing for April 18, 2000. RECOMMENDATION: It is. recommended that the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar approve Resolution No. 2000 -XX "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, California, declaring its intention to vacate a portion of Highcrest Drive in the City of Diamond Bar." LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report — Public Hearing Notification X Resolution(s) — Bid Specification Ordinances Other EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: Highcrest Homeowners Alliance SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority vote? 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? REVIEWED BY: Terrence L. Belang/r) City Manager V lgaur6E De&e-fano Deputy City Manager X Yes No X Yes No N/A Yes No _ Yes X No X Yes No CITY COUNCIL REPORT Agenda No. MEETING DATE: March 7, 2000 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terence L. Belanger, City -Manager SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE A PORTION OF HIGHCREST DRIVE IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. ISSUE STATEMENT Shall the City Council approve the initiation of vacation proceedings for a portion of Highcrest Drive located southerly of Gold Rush Drive? FINANCIAL SUMMARY Approval of the Resolution of Intention has no impact upon the City budget. The applicant shall remunerate costs associated with the processing of the vacation request. A vacation proceeding is undertaken in accordance with Division 9, Part 3 (Public Streets, Highways, and Service Easements Vacation Law, of the State Streets and Highways Code.) The Code prescribes the procedure and requirements for vacating streets. Section 8309 of the Streets and Highways Code defines a "vacation" as ". . . the complete or partial abandonment of termination of the public right to use a street, highway, or public service easement." The City has received a request from the Highcrest Homeowners Alliance to vacate the portion of Highcrest Drive located southerly of Gold Rush Drive. This matter asks the City Council to consider the vacation request, to initiate the vacation proceedings in accordance with the Streets and Highways Code, and to set a public hearing for April 1.8, 2000. DISCUSSION The property in interest was dedicated to the public for use as a street with the recordation of Tract No. 31941. There exists public sewer, storm drain and utilities within the fully improved street. The portion Highcrest Drive proposed to be vacated is approximately 1,100 feet in length. The adoption of a resolution of intention does not result in the vacation of Highcrest Drive. The Resolution, if adopted, establishes the intent of the City Council to cause further study by staff, coordination.,with utility companies, Planning Commission review of the vacation request for conformity with the General Plan (Government Code Section 65402), and notification of the City Council public hearing. Upon the receipt of testimony at the public hearing, the City Council may approve the vacation request subject to certain findings and necessary conditions to be satisfied prior to recordation of the action. The Resolution of Vacation may provide for the reservation and exception of easements for sewers, storm drains, water lines, and utilities such as electricity, gas, cable TV, and telephone. The Highcrest Homeowners Alliance petition describes a proposal to relocate the previously approved gate for the Pulte Home Corporation project, a private gated community, (Tract No. 52267) from the southerly terminus of Highcrest Drive to location near Gold Rush Drive. The potential for relocation of the Pulte gate should be an important component of the street vacation analysis, although, if applied for, it would require a separate approval process. The City has previously approved an access gate from the private Pulte residential development to Highcrest Drive, presently a public street. Should the vacation of Highcrest Drive be approved, . access for the future Pulte residents to a public street, through the southerly terminus of Highcrest Drive or through a gate relocated to an area near the intersection of Highcrest Drive at Gold Rush Drive must be assured. Diamond Bar has several single family and multi -family residential projects developed with private street access. These neighborhoods are located within the Country Estates and at several other locations within the City. The private communities may or may not have incorporated access through gates. Four separate homeowners associations reside within the Country Estates and utilize the two access points to the residential community. None of the private developments in the City require passage through multiple gates to access dwelling units. Consideration of a gate on Highcrest Drive in the area of Gold Rush Drive should be carefully examined. There must be confidence through the design and City review process that the gate area is properly designed for pedestrian and vehicle access, gate setbacks, vehicle queuing, vehicular turnaround area, emergency services access, key system, and adherence to Fire and Sheriff Department standards. Highcrest Drive serves a well-defined neighborhood. The street currently provides the. point of ingress and egress for the twenty (20) families residing on.the cul-de-sac. The proposal has the support of the property owners. There are no current or planned bicycle, pedestrian, or equestrian facilities on the street. The publicly owned open space (360 acres) acquired as a result of the Pulte project is not accessible from Highcrest Drive, therefore, vacation' of the street 0) would not inhibit access to any public open space. The vacation would not appear to require the relocation of any utilities. CONCLUSION The requested street vacation is submitted to the City Council for consideration. The City Council is not compelled to act either to approve or deny the request. The action of the City Council does not approve the vacation request. Approval of the resolution of intention sets the matter fora future public hearing where evidence and testimony is provided. Upon conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council may approve, with conditions, and continue for further study or deny the request. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar approve Resolution No. 2000 -XX "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, California, Declaring its Intention to Vacate a Portion of Highcrest Drive in the City of Diamond Bar." Prepared by: James DeStefano Deputy City Manager Attachments: A: Draft Resolution No. 2000 -XX and Map of proposed area to be vacated B: Letter and Petition from the Highcrest Homeowners Alliance C: Letter to Highcrest Drive residents K RESOLUTION NO. 2000-17 RESOLUTIONOF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND TO VACATE A PORTION OF HIGHCREST DRIVE IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. A. RECITALS (i) WHEREAS, the vacation• of a portion of Highcrest Drive in the vicinity of the cul-de-sac of Highcrest Drive southerly of Gold Rush Drive is requested for the purpose of development of a private street in the vicinity of the cul-de-sac, and; WHEREAS, the City has received the request of interested person or persons to vacate a portion of Highcrest Drive, and; WHEREAS, it is appropriate, therefor, to now consider the vacation of a portion of Highcrest Drive,.the location and extent of which is generally shown as the "Area to be Vacated" on Exhibit."A", attached. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BARHEREBY RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 That the public interest, convenience and necessity so requiring, it is the intention of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar to vacate a portion of Highcrest Drive southerly of Gold Rush Drive, the general location and extent of which is shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2 That the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar hereby initiates this proceeding to vacate a portion of Highcrest Drive at the request of interested person or persons and elects to proceed with said vacation pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3, General. Vacation Procedure of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. Section 3 That the Planning Commission review the proposed vacation for conformance with the Diamond Bar General Plan as required by Section 65402 of the Government Code of the State of California. Section 4 That on the 18th day of April, 2000, at 6:30 p.m., in the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium at 21865 East Copley Drive in the City of Diamond Bar, California, 91765, is hereby fixed as the time and place at which a public hearing will be held before the City Council at which time all persons interested in the proposed vacation may appear and be he 2000-17 Section 5 That the City Engineer is authorized and directed to post notices of said vacation conspicuously along the line of said street to be vacated at least two (2) weeks before the date of said hearing. Such notices shall be prepared and posted pursuant to Section 8323 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. Section 6 That the City Clerk shall publish or post this resolution of intention.in the manner prescribed for the publication and. posting of resolutions of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar as such publication or posting is required pursuant to Section 8322. (c) of. the Streets and. Highways Code of the State of California. Section 7 That the City Clerk shall give notice of the date, hour and place of the public hearing on the resolution of intention, as herein above fixed, by publication for at least two (2) successive weeks prior to the hearing in a weekly newspaper published and circulated in the City of Diamond Bar. Such notices shall be prepared and published pursuant to Section 8322 (a) of the Streets and Highways of the State of California. Section 8 That the City Clerk shall, within 10 days of the adoption of this resolution of intention, give written notice to those public bodies or public utilities which are contained on the City of Diamond Bar's index of requests for notice of vacation proceedings. Such notices shall be given pursuant to Sections 8346 and 8347 of the Streets and Highways Code of the.State of California. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 7th DAY OF MARCH, 2000. BY:.�J7t7F,�.�- Mayor, City of Diamond Bar I, Lynda Burgess, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed, approved, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, held on the 7th day of March. 2000, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:' Chang, Huff, MPT/Ansari NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS M/0'Connor ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Herrera ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ATTEST: i' - City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar 2 2000-17 Los Angeles, CA, 1996-97.- 8701-017-003, Sheet: 1 of 1 HIGRICREST HOMEOWNERS AIAA ANCE 24008 Highcrest Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 November 8, I999 City of Diamond Bar C/O Mr. Jim DiStefano 21660 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 RE: Petition to Vacate Highcrest Drive Dear W. DiStefano: Attached please find a petition signed by 100% of the residents whose homes are located on the portion of Highcrest Drive positioned above the juncture of Goldrush and extending to the end of the cul -d -sac requesting the approval 'of the City of Diamond Bar to vacate this portion of Highcrest Drive. This section of Highcrest Drive abuts the proposed SunCal development project. The vacating of this portion of Highcrest Drive is necessary in order to allow the 'repositioning of the secondary exit gate proposed by SunCal to the end of Highcrest Drive at the Goldrush juncture, as agreed to by SunCal. The homeowners represented on this petition are extremely concerned with the negative impact the SunCal development will have on their property values, as well as the safety of their families, both during and after the construction phases of this massive development. In an effort to mitigate the negative impact on our street, the homeowners are hereby petitioning the City of Diamond Bar to approve the privatization of our street. Since this portion of. Highcrest ends at a cul -d -sac, approval of this request would not. in anyway. hamper or restrict public traffic, and the positioning of the secondary gate would significantly reduce unwarranted and excess traffic on this portion of Iiighcrest Drive. The residents of this portion of Highcrest Drive understand and accept that street and light maintenance would become their responsibility. Representatives of this portion of Highcrest Drive have met with SunCal on two occasions and with a representative of the proposed developer, Poulte. SunCal has provided Poulte with preliminary plans drawn by SunCal illustrating the positioning of the secondary exit gate at the juncture of Highcrest and Goldrush. SunCal, Poulte and the Higberest residents have. agreed that the secondary gate is to be restricted to egress, or emergency exit, only. We would appreciate approval of our request as expeditiously as possible. It is our understanding that there is precedence already established regarding the vacating of City streets, and that this request would not establish any new precedence. Thank you for your prompt consideration. Sincerely, Highcrest Homeowners Alliance The following residences hereby request the City to vacate a portion of Highcrest Drive in Diamond Bar. 24008 Highcrest Drive ;- Diamond Bar, CA Diamond Bar, CA Diamond Bar, CA 24011 Highcrest Drive Diamond Bar, CA – �, ' Diamond Bar, CA 10 ( 0 L 42 E' -c Diamond Bar, CA 24022 Highcrest Drive �J�,tG�VVI - h' v� Diamond Bar, CA Damond Bar, CA 24033 Highcrest Drive ! ;- Diamond Bar, CA 24032 Highcrest Drive Diamond Bar, CA ( 24038 HighcrQst Drive Diamond Bar, CA – �, ' 24046 Highcrest Drive 10 ( 0 L 42 E' -c Diamond Bar, CA 240$1-Highcrest Drive I .1 Damond Bar, CA 1-2405 ;iahcrest Drive 1 Diamond Bar, CAyLy� 24059 Highcrest Drive Diamond Bar, CA i 24069 Highcrest Drive Diamond Bar, CA ' Th : following residences hereby request the City to vacate a portion of Highcrest Drive in Diamond Bar.. 24008 Highcrest Drive Diamond Bar, CA 24011 Highcrest Drive Diamond Bar; CA 24022 Highcrest Drive Diamond Bar, CA 24033 Highcrest Drive Diamond Bar, CA 24032 Highcrest Drive Diamond Bar, CA 24038 Highcrest Drive Diamond Bar, CA 24046 Highcrest Drive Diamond Bar, CA 24049 Highcrest Drive i Diamond Bar, CA r" 24054 Highcrest Drive Diamond Bar, CA 24059 Highcrest Drive ,+ Diamond Bar, CA 24069 Highcrest Drive Diamond Bar, CA Ile following residences hereby request the City to vacate a portion of Highcrest Drive in Diamond Bar. 24066 Highcrest Drive Diamond Bar, CA ; 24075 Highcrest Drive i Diamond Bar, CA 24081 Highcrest Drive Diamond Bar, CA 24087 Highcrest Drive Diamond Bar, CA 24076 Highcrest Drive Diamond Bar, CA 24082 Highcrest Drive Diamond Bar, CA 24088 Highcrest Drive Diamond Bar, CA 24089 Highcrest Drive Diamond Bar, CA , V Highcrest Drive �- Diamond Bar, CA The following residences hereby request the City to vacate a portion of Highcrest Drive in Diamond Bar. 240 6 Highcrest Drive Diamond Bar, CA j 24075 Highcrest Drive Diamond Bar, CA 24081 Highcrest Drive z . �lC&-rri l �J�\,f"c J-S Diamond Bar, CA 24087 Highcrest Drive Diamond Bar, CA f 24076 Highcrest Drive -H"-I yi-:` u,��, ,1 Diamond Bar, CA --� 24082 Highcrest Drive Diamond Bar, CA 24088 Highcrest Drive Diamond Bar, CA 24089 Highcrest Drive Diamond Bar, CA Highcrest Drive Diamond Bar, CA 11 List of Highcrest Residences 24008 Highcrest Drive I Erickson 24011 Highcrest Drive Price 24022 Highcrest Drive I Harrinaton 24033 Highcrest Drive 24032 Highcrest Drive Torres 24038 Highcrest Drive 24046 Highcrest Drive IDuran 24066 Highcrest Drive lAcendez 24064 Higherest Drive IMcBride 24059 Highcrest Drive lNaydu 24069 Highcrest Drive !Tadros 24075 Highcrest Drive Saftri 24081 Highcrest Drive ;Sethia 24087 Highcrest Drive 2kuu 24076 Highcrest Drive :Song 24082 Highcrest Drive !Gueth 24088 Highcrest Drive -1 Cook 24089 Highcrest DriveI'Hwang ,240?? Higherest Drive - lKing Deborah H. O'Connor Mayor Eileen R. Ansari Mayor Pro Tem Wen Chang Council Member Carol Herrera Council Member Robert S. Huff Council Member Recycled paper February 29, 2000 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100 - Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177 (909) 860-2489 - Fax (909) 861-3117 www.CityofDiamondBar.com SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO VACATE A PORTION OF HIGHCREST DRIVE SOUTHERLY OF GOLD RUSH DRIVE Dear Highcrest Drive Residents: On behalf of the City of Diamond Bar, I would Iike to inform you that the City Council will be discussing and considering a request from the Highcrest Homeowners Alliance to vacate Highcrest Drive southerly of Gold Rush Drive, on Tuesday, March 7, 2000, at 6:30 P.M., at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar. According to the California Streets and Highways Code, the City Council must first declare its intent to vacate the street. Should the City Council approve a Resolution declaring its intent to vacate, the Planning Commission will then conduct a General Plan conformity review. The City Council subsequently will conduct a public hearing on the proposed street vacation. You are invited to attend the City Council meeting to discuss and express any concerns you may have. If you have any questions, please contact Rose 'Manela, Associate Engineer, at (909) 396-5671. Sincerely, James DeStefano Deputy City Manager cc: Rafik Tadros, Highcrest Homeowners Alliance Rose Manela, Associate Engineer JDS:sm Deborah H. O'Connor Mayor Eileen R. Ansari Mayor Pro Tem Wen Chang Council Member Carol Herrera Council Member Robert S. Huff Council Member Recycled paper 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100 - Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177 (909) 860-2489 • Fax (909) 861-3117 www.CityofDiamondRar.com February 000 SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION T011 VACATE A PORTION OF 1SOUTHERL OF • 1 R1QSH DRIVE Dear Highcrest Drive Residents: On behalf of the City of Diamond Bar, I would like to inform you that the City Council will be discussing and considering a request from the Highcrest Homeowners Alliance to vacate Highcrest Drive southerly of Gold Rush Drive, on Tuesday, March 7, 2000, at 6:30 P.M., at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar. According to the California Streets and Highways Code, the City Council must fust declare its intent to vacate the street. Should the City Council approve a Resolution declaring its intent to vacate, the Planning Commission will then conduct a General Plan conformity review.. The City Council subsequently will conduct a public hearing on the proposed street vacation. You are invited to attend the City Council meeting to discuss and express any concerns you may have. ff you have any"questions, please contact Rose Manela, Associate Engineer, at (909) 396-5671. Sincerely, James DeStefano Deputy City Manager cc: Rafik Tadros, Highcrest Homeowners Alliance Rose Manela, Associate Engineer JDS:sm Pull 'P,aff Ccsrporation, �, :�,: '00 APR -6 P 3 :29 April 5, 2000 Ms. Sandra Erickson Highcrest Homeowners Association 1149 S. Broadway, Suite 1030 Los Angeles, CA -90015 RE: Highcrest Homeowners Proposed Gate Dear Sandra: As discussed in our meeting, Pulte Home Corporation does not object to the Highcrest Homeowners proposal to vacate the street and gate the seventeen homes located on Highcrest from Goldrush. However, if the Highcrest Homeowners Association were successful in vacating Highcrest, Pulte's Homeowners Association would require an emergency access easement over the street. This is to ensure we are not in violation of any municipal code. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (949) 797-4419. Sincerely, Pulte Home Corporation Southern California Division Paul Onufer Director of Land Acquisition and Development cc: Jim DeStefano, City of Diamond Bar Southern California Division - 18401 Von Karman Avenue - Suite 200 - Irvine,* CA 92612 - (949) 797-4400 e Fax (949) 797-4401 CO r� me rporation '00 APR -6 P 3 '29 April 5,'2000 NCr. Tim DeStefane City of Diamond Bar 21660 East Copley Drive Suite 190 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 RE: Highcrest Gate Access Change Dear Jim: Pulte Home Corporation respectfully requests that the gate located at the terminus of Highcrest be designated as emergency use only. I will forward to you by separate cover the proposed gate design as soon as it is prepared. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (949) 797-4419. Sincerely, Pulte Home Corporation Southern California Division Paul Onufer Director of Land Acquisition and Development cc: Sandra Erickson, Highcrest Homeowners Association Southern California Division • 18401 Von Karman Avenue * Suite 200 • Irvine, CA 92612 a (949) 797-4400 * Fax (949) 797-4401 RESOULTION NO. PC A RESOULTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA FINDING THAT THE VACATION Of A PORTION OF HIGHCREST DRIVE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND'BAR. WHERAS, the Highcrest Homeowners Alliance has requested the vacation of a portion of Highcrest Drive, a public street, for the purpose of establishing a private gated street. . WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar on March 7, 2000 adopted Resolution No. 2000-17 declaring its intent to vacate a portion of Highcrest Drive and set forth a public hearing on the matter for April 18, 2000. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar has considered the matter of vacating a portion of Highcrest Drive, the location and extent of which is generally shown as the "area to be vacated" on Exhibit "A", attached hereto, and, WHERAS, Section 64502 of the Government Code of the State of California requires that no street shall be vacated until the location, purpose and extent has been' reported upon by the planning agency of the city to conformity with the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COM1VIISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: Section 1 The Planning Commission hereby finds that the vacation of the portion of Highcrest Drive as generally shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto as the "area to be vacated", along with the reservation and exception of an easement for public utilities and public services purposes over that portion of Highcrest Drive to be vacated is in conformance with the General Plan of the City of Diamond Bar. Section 2 The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that that portion of Highcrest Drive to be vacated, as generally shown on Exhibit "A", attached hereto, as the "area to be vacated", is found to not be useful as a non -motorized transportation facility required by Section 892 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF , 2000. CHAIRMAN ATTEST: Attachments: Exhibit "A" STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) do hereby certify that I am the Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, California and that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting thereof held on by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: ATTEST: 6 d SCALE PI ' - 2001 'M OFFICE OF ASSESSOR (n 8 701 1. 17 1 40 PA 82nD -30 - COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES -. cool -o a to-_ 0 0 r; 0 1994 r CO r rn to rn rn r fV N a yY� l., —, 0.106 rutso p�.� y.,f 1,". , i /f�`. No .Rx,.r x`.Arrs qr� 13 ti 39941 IOy,F4 I •_ a/N�ar.. n NN 17� iiui-tv u:? Lt1so Y' Jfjj 'to.. .pj 7 1� �a ;• 1` 19 6 a 5M 4 2 O O® S T ;ns« wop-,,., 4 O tl�; J A'rrfni4l 1033 1- t 27 Area To Be Vacated PROPOSED HIGHCREST STREET VACATION MARCH 7, 2000 . , V-1XT77- `:9 " § 65400 Notes of Ordinances 1 \ 1. Ordinances Zoning ordinanc authorizing a planning commission to gran or deny an exception and providing for appeal o legislative body which created commission t valid, and granting of variance rests largely i discretion of body des- ignated by zoning ordi ance for that purpose. Steiger v. Board of Sup' of Los Angeles Coun- tv (App. 1956) 143 Cal. p.2d 352, 300 P.2d 210. A zoning ordinance aut rizing a planning commission of county to grknt or deny special § 65401. PLANNING ANTI ZONING Title 7 us�permit and providing for an appeal o legis- lati e body which created commission i valid. Mev s v. Board of Sup'rs of Los Angeles oun- tv (A 1952) 110 Cal.App.2d 623. 243 P. 38. For\iin vision of State Planning Act, S ts. 1929, p. 1811, § 9 (repealed, 1947) thoriznty legislative body to determi reasond practical means for putting mas ter pleffect authorized county board osupervo provide in county zoning ordi- nance for reasonable and practical means for putting the miter plan into effect. Johnston v. Board of Sup -Ts of Marin County (1947) 31 Ca1.2d 66, 187 A2d 686. of proposed public world coordination of pro- gram If a general plan or part hereof has been adopted, wit *nuch time as may be fixed by the legislative bo y, each county or city officepartment, board, or commission, and each goy rimental body, commissioboard, including the governing body of any spelcial district or school distrose jurisdiction lies wholly or partially withiA the county or city, whu etions include recommending, preparing plans�£or, or constructing, majb works, shall submit to the official agency, as designated by the respeco ty board of supervisors or city council, a list`p£ the proposed publicks re ommended or planning, initiation or constru ttion during the ensfiscal ear. The ficial agency receiving the list o£ proposed public workl list a d classia such recommendations and shalf\prepare a coordinprogra of pro- pdpublic works for the ensuing fiscal year. Such dinated ogramsha be submitted to the county or city planning agencyeview and eport to sat official agency as to conformity with the adopted general plan or part thereo . i (Added b Stats. 1965, c. 1880, p. 4341, § 5. Amended by Stats.1970, c.. 1590, p. 3312, .ti Historical and Statutory Notes Former § 65 0 added by Stats.1953, c. -Derivat n: Former § 65136, added by Stats. 1355, p. 2916, § 2, 9 fated to meetings of plan- 1951, c. 3 § L ning commission.. -It • vas derived from former Former 65549, added by Stats.1953, c. § 65171, added by Stats.1951, c. 334, p. 681, .1355, pp. 21, 2922, § 2, amended by Stats.. § 1; Stats.1947, c. 807,'0- 1916, § 55. and was 1963, c. 140 , p. 2943, § 1. 7654102!. c..1880, p. 4350. § 8.. Stats.194 , c. 807, § 60. cquisition or disposition of property; construction of buildings; requirements before action (a) If a general plan or part thereof has been adopted, no real property shall be acquired by dedication or otherwise for street, square, park or other public purposes, and no real property shall be disposed of, no street shall be vacated or abandoned, and no public building or structure shall be constructed or 496 LOCAL PLANNING § 65402 Div. I authorized, if the adopted general plan or part thereof applies thereto, until the location, purpose and extent of such acquisition or disposition, such street vacation or abandonment, or such public building or structure have been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency as to conformity with said adopted general.plan or part thereof. The planning agency shall render its report as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof within forty (40) days after the matter was submitted to it, or such longer period of time as may be designated by the legislative body. If the legislative body so provides, by ordinance or resolution, 'the provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to: (1) the disposition of the. remainder of a larger parcel which was acquired and used in part for street purposes; (2) acquisitions, dispositions, or abandonments for street widening; or (3) align- ment projects., provided such dispositions for street purposes, acquisitions, dispositions, or. abandonments for street widening, or alignment projects are of a minor nature. (b) A county shall not acquire real property for any of the purposes specified in paragraph (a), nor dispose of any real property, nor construct or authorize a public building or structure, in 'another county or within the corporate limits of a city, if such city or other county has adopted a general plan or part thereof and such general plan or part thereof is applicable thereto, and a city shall not acquire real property for any of the purposes specified in paragraph (a), nor dispose of any real property, nor construct or authorize a public building or structure, in another city or in unincorporated territory, if such other city or the county in which such unincorporated territory is situated has adopted a general plan or part thereof and such general plan or part thereof is applicable thereto, until the location, purpose and extent of such acquisition, disposition, or such public building or structure have been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency having jurisdiction, as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof. Failure of the planning agency to report within forty (40) days after the matter has been submitted to it shall be conclusively deemed a finding that the proposed acquisition, disposition, or public building or struc- ture is in conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof. The provisions of this paragraph (b) shall not apply to acquisition or abandonment for street widening or alignment projects of a minor nature if the legislative body having the real property within its boundaries so provides by ordinance or resolution. (c) A local agency shall not acquire real property for any of the purposes specified in paragraph (a) nor dispose of any real property, nor construct or authorize a public building or structure, in any county or city, if such county or city has adopted a general plan or part thereof and such general plan or part thereof is applicable thereto, until the location, purpose and extent of such acquisition, disposition, or such public building or structure have been submit- ted ed to and reported upon by the planning agency having jurisdiction, as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof. Failure of the planning agency to report within forty (40) days after the matter has been submitted to it shall be conclusively deemed a finding that the proposed acquisition, disposition, or public building or structure is in conformity with 497 § 65402 PLANNING AND ZONING Title 7 said adopted general plan or part thereof. If the planning agency disapproves the location, purpose or extent of such acquisition, disposition, or the public building or .structure, the disapproval may be overruled by the local agency. Local agency as used in this paragraph (c) means an agency of the state for the local performance of governmental or proprietary function -s within limited boundaries. Local agency does not include the state, or county, or. a city. (Added by Stats.1965, c. 1880, p. 4341, § 5. Amended by Stats.1967, c. 1165, p. 2850, § 1; Stats.1974, c. 700, p. 1570, § 3.) Historical and Statutory Notes Former § 65402, added by Stats.1953, c. Stats.1947, c. 807, §§ 10 to 17. §§- 35 to 78, 1355, p. 2916, § 2, related to commission rules amended by Stats.1947, c. 869, §§ 3 to 5. Stats. and records. It was derived from former 1929, c. 838, amended by Stats.1937, c. 665: § 65172 added by Stats. 195 1, c. 334, p. 681', Stats.1941, c. 1177; Stats.1945, c. 80; Stats. § 1; Stats.1947, c". 807, p. 1916, § 55, and was1945. c. 715: Stats.1945, c. 1331; Stats.1945, c. repealed by Stats.1965, c. 1880, p. 4350, § 8. See, now, 5 65550. 1441; Stats.1927, c. 874; Stats.1917, c. 735; Derivation: Former §§ 65360 to 65363, add- Stats.1915, c. 428, amended by Stats.1921, c. ed by Stats. 1951, c. 334, § 1. 503. Former §§ 65551, 65552, added by Stats. 1953, c. 1355, p. 2922, § 2, amended Gy Stats. 1955, c. 1644, p. 2972, § 38. Forms See West's California Code Forms, Government. Cross References Eminent domain, see Government Code § 15850; Const. Art. 1, § 19; Code of Civil Procedure § 1230.010 et seq. 'Local agencies, environmental impact reports, submission as part of general plan report, see Public Resources Code § 21151. Procedure for approval of electrical transmission or distribution lines, see Public utilities Code § 12808.5. Redevelopment agencies, reports, see Health and Safety Code § 33352. Regulation of local agencies by counties and cities,_ provisions prevailing over this section, see Government Code § 53045. Law Review and Journal Conintentaries Duty of private parties to file environmental Friends of Mammoth: Vox populi or judicial statement. 61 Cal.L.Rev. 559 (1973). social engineering. I Pepp.L.Rev. 137 (1973). Expanding scope of environmental law. Kev- Land use planning in the Bay area;55 Cal. inP. Kane, 48 -Los Angeles B.Bull. 81 (1973). L.Rev. 836 (1967). Eminent Domain e-18. WESTLAW Topic No. 148. C.J.S. Eminent Domain §§ 51, 54. Construction with other laws Housing project 5 Impact report 6 Notice and nd hearing 3 Permits 4 Public buildings 7 Library References Notes of Decisions Zoning 2 L Construction with other laws Planning agency has no power under the vironmental Quality Act, in case of a local agen- cy such as water district, to make a decision 498 LOCAL PLANNING Div. I that is binding on anyone as to adequacy of an environmental impact report. Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Coastside County Water Dist. (App. 1 Dist. 1972) 104 Cal.Rptr. 197, 27 Cal.App.3d 695, supplemented 104 Cal.Rptr. 714, 28 Cal.App.3d 512. 2. Zoning County board of supervisors can override de- cisions of municipality with respect to zoning of county -owned property and county cannot be prohibited from taking land fora use in conflict with existing zoning ordinances of municipality where land is situated. San Mateo County v. Bartole (App. I Dist. 1960) 7 Cal.Rptr. 569, 184 Cal.App.2d 422. The state has occupied the field in matter of location of school sites. Town of Atherton y. Superior Court In and For San Mateo County (App. 1958) 159 Cal.App.2d 417, 324 P.2d 328. A provision in zoning ordinance, that plan- ning commission finding that detriment or inju- re• to neighborhood would not result from issu- ance of permit, could approve and transmit permit, together with complete report of com- mission's findings and recommendations to city council for approval and indorsement, was not a delegation of power or authority of city conn-' cil to planning commission. Hopkins v. Mac- Culloch (App. _4 Dist. 1939) 35 Cal.App.2d 442, 95 P.2d 950. California highway commission is not re- quired to present a set of highway plans to the county planning commission or city planning commission when the county or city has adopted a master or general plan for the con- struction of streets, buildings, etc., pursuant to this section: but it is the practice of the com- mission to advise local bodies of its plans and to hold public hearings. 43 Ops.Atty.Gen. 222, 5-19-64. An irrigation district, in constructing canals and pipelines, must submit plans for construc- tion of such canals and pipelines to county and city planning commissions for approval, but dis- approval of district's proposals for canals and pipelines is merely advisory in nature and may be overruled by governing body of district.. 3'7 Ops.Atty.Gen. 89 (1961). § 65402 Note 5 to consideration of applications for permits and to recommendations for or against allowance of permits, and commission could hold public hearings on any such application after publica- tion of ublica-tion.of notice of hearing to the end that property owners might have an opportunity to object to granting of permit on ground that detriment or injury might result to neighborhood. Hopkins v. MacCulloch (App. 4 Dist. 1939) 35 Cal.App.2d 442, 95 P.2d 950. 4. Permits Former provision of State Planning Act. Stats. 1929, c. 838, p. 1811, § 9, relating to procedure to be followed in certain matters when final authority thereon is within the jurisdiction of some body other than the planning commission, did not require county board of supervisors creating planning commission to reserve to it- self final authority over granting permit for con- struction of fish reduction plant in heavy mdus- try zone, where no provision of state, or local law gave final authority over such use permits to board when commission has decided against their issuance. Johnston v. Board of Sup'rs of Marin County (1947) 31 Cal.2d 66, . 187 P.2d 686. Former provision of State Planning Act, Stats. 1929, c. 838, p. 1811, § 9, relating to procedure to be followed in certain matters when final authoritv thereon was within jurisdiction of some body other than the planning commission applied to action taken by any local public body or officer and to board of supervisors only if board had final authoritv over the matter in- volved, and was not applicable to a provision for use permits adopted as a method of adminis- tering the zoning plan when there was no provi- sion giving final authority over such permits to some local body or officer. Johnston v. Board of Sup'rs of Marin County (1947) 31 Cal.2d 66, 187 P.2d 686. If a county adopts a building code the board of supervisors cannot give the power of control- ling the building code to a .planning board set up under Planning -Act, St. 1929, c. 838, p. 1805, as amended, if control means granting permits not in conformity with the code. 4 Ops.Atty. Gen. 346 (1944). 3. Notice and hearing 5. Housing project Ordinance of the city of Los Angeles which Property owners who had actual notice of approved low -rent housing, project and autho- hearing on application for permit to remodel rized execution of co-operation agreement with nonconforming building could not complain the housing authority whereupon the latter ap- that they did not receive notice of hearing by plied to federal agency for preliminary loans publication, as required by zoning ordinance. and annual contributions was not invalidated by Hopkins v. MacCulloch (App. 4 Dist. 193 9) 35 fact that it was not first submitted to the city Cal.App.2d 442, 95 P.2d 950, planning commission for report and recommen- The planning commission created by zoning dation in relation to the established master plan ordinance of city of Newport Beach was an of the city because the statute creating the advisory body onh_ •, and its powers were limited Housing Authorities Law superseded the local 499 Note 5 law governing acts and authoritv of the city council as to slum -clearance and low -rent hous- ing project. Drake v. City of Los Angeles (1952 ) 38 Cal.2d 872, 243 P.2d 525. 6. Impact report Broad purpose of the Environmental Quality Act, which is to compel local governments to studv and record the environmental implica- tions of proposed activities before thev are acied upon cannot be frustrated by procedural details surrounding the filing of reports, and those pri- vate projects for which no report is required under this section must still be proceeded by the environmental impact report. Friends of Mam- moth v. Board of Sup'rs of Mono County (1972) 104 Cal.Rptr. 761, 8 Ca1.3d 247, 502 P.2d 1049. 7. .Public buildings If statute dealing with application of countv's general plan to municipal building is construed as mandating city compliance with general plans, it is inconsistent with intergovernmental immunity and the inconsistency would be re- solved in favor of the immunity provisions. Lawler v. Citv of Redding (App. 3 Dist. 1992) 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 392, 7 Cal.App.4th 778, modified. PLANNING AND ZONING Title 7 Municipal corporations are • categorically ex- empt from compliance with county's general plan. Lawler y. City of Redding (App. 3 Dist. 1992) 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 392, 7 Cal.App.4th 778. modified. Any inconsistency between city's sports com- plex project and county general plan did not vitiate citv's approval of the project. Lawler y. City of Redding (App. 3 Dist. 1992) 9 Cal. Rptr.2d 392, 7 Cal.App.4th 778, modified. Necessity for and location of a branch libran to be used by the city's inhabitants and as a part of its library system is a "municipal affair", and therefore, city which had brought itself within the condition of the "municipal affairs" sections of the constitution, Const. Art. 11, §§ 6, 8 was not required to submit the matter to the tiny planning commission. City of Pasadena V. Paine (App. I Dist. 1954) 126 Cal.App.2d 93. 271 P.2d 577. The procedure prescribed by state Conserva- tion and Planning Act, Stats.1947, c. 807, P. 1909 was required to be followed by county board of supervisors when it was proposed to change the site of a public building. Simpson v. Hite (1950) 36 Cal.2d 125, 222 P.2d 225. s'\Aaanz ir; . .--- , _:+ -___A_.__ — 1 .. 16 1 .. ­ § 892. Ri t4f way abandonment; development of nonmotorized transportation facilities (a) Rights-of-way established for other purposes by cities, counties, or local agencies shall not be abandoned unless the governing body determines that the rights-of-way or parts thereof are not useful as a nonmotorized transportation facility. (b) No state highway right-of-way shall be abandoned until the department first consults with the local agencies having jurisdiction over the areas concerned to determine whether the right-of-way or part thereof could be developed as a nomnotorized transportation facility. If an affirmative determination is made, before abandoning the right-of-way, the department shall first make the property available to' local agencies for development as nonmotorized transportation facilities in accordance with Sections 104.15 and 887.6 of this code and Section 14012 of the Government Code. (Added by Stats.1993, c. 517 (S.B.1095), § 2.) Historical and Statutory Notes Derivation: Former § 2381, added by Stats.1975, c. 1235, § 6, amended by Stats.1977, c. 674, § 3. 05 I -DR Tl ' I DATE: April 6, 2000 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Linda Kay Smith, Development Services Assistant SUBJECT: Development Review No. 99-9, Tree Permit 2000-02 On March 28, 2000, a duly noticed public hearing was conducted on the above referenced project. It was recommended that this project be continued to allow the applicant additional time to: 1. Revise the plans to reflect the 10 -foot side setback on the northwest side. 2. Revise the tennis court to minimize the effect of walls and to provide details for fencing, lighting, and elevations. Also, to provide details for the rose garden with gazebo and seating and its impact to surrounding properties. 3. Submit a Tree Permit application for the removal and replacement of one Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) 8" oak tree. 4. Provide the plant palette for the Landscape Plan. DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: Following is the discussion regarding the above items. Staff has attached the previous report for the Commission's reference (Attachment "1"). The applicant has revised the plans to reflect the 10 -foot minimum side setback as required. With this change the project meets the setback requirements of the Development Code. (See pages 2 and 3 of the previous staff report Development Standards). 2. Accessory Structures: a. The applicant has revised the plan of the tennis court. The maximum height of the wall supporting the structure is 6 feet. The lighting is noted at a maximum height of 18 feet per Development Code standards. Staff has added conditions to the resolution about the usage of lighting, hours of operation, and the type of court surface required (See condition 5(e)). Staff is also recommending that the applicant work with staff to provide trees and shrubs to be planted around thewallsof the tennis court to mask the structure (See condition 5(f)). b. The applicant has shown the detail of the gazebo at the rose garden. This is a precast concrete item. The height is approximately 14 feet. This height will not impact the surrounding properties and is an added amenity to the landscape/hardscape features. c. The other areas shown on the. Landscape Plan (L-1) are concrete walks and stairs. The trellis area is conditioned to match the existing paint palette (See Condition 5(h)). 3. The applicant has submitted a Tree Permit No. 2000-02. Per the Landscape Plan the Applicant proposes to remove one 8" DBH oak tree on the northwest side of the property to allow for the motor court and garage access. The common replacement of these trees is a 3:1 ratio (See condition 5(d)). A second oak tree with a 6" DBH does not fall within the protected criteria of the Development Code. The applicant is planting many trees on this site per the landscape plan. Staff has visited the site and confirmed the trees. The larger trees noted on the plan are to remain. There is a condition of approval that these trees be protected during the construction process (See condition 5(d)). The preservation of the 8 oak tree would compromise the property owner's reasonable use and enjoyment of the property. The Applicant has designed the project according to Development Code Standard and the City Design Guidelines with relationship to heights and use of grades by building into the slope. The six - car garage and driveway is also . a requirement of the Country Estates Homeowner's Association. Diamond Bar's Development Code requires only a two -car garage. Appropriate mitigation measures, replacement and protection, will be implemented in compliance with Section 22.38.130 (Tree Replacement/Relocation Standards). 4. The plant palette has been provided for the landscape plan as requested by the Planning Commission. , Please note the plans indicate a total of six 24" box replacement oak trees for the 8" DBH and the 6" DBH the applicant wishes to remove (See conditions 5(d), 5(f) and 5(g). 5. Addition conditions are in the resolution for the following items: a. Condition 5(v) requires the owner to obtain a Zoning Clearance for Home Based Business per Development Code Section 22.42.070. b.. The Public Works Division and Building and Safety Division have reviewed this project. Their recommendations are conditions 5(i) through 5(u). C. Staff has reviewed the site with regard to the view concerns of Mr. Mathur, Lot 89. A site visit indicates he has one window on the southwest side that faces the subject property at the rear of his home. The others are obscure glass. The large 24" oak tree on his property obscures his home from the subject site. The subject project is designed to allow view corridors per the Development Code. The same tree, as well as the two 8" oak trees on his property adjacent to the motor court will also act as a shield for vehicle lights. Never -the -less, .staff is recommending that the Applicant work with staff to .amend the landscape pian to allow for more shrubs and/or trees in the area adjacent to the motor court to aid in r) shielding vehicle lights from Lot 89. (See condition 5(f)). The view corridor to the south is still available to Lot 89 with these shrubs/trees. d. Driveway color will be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval per condition 5(h). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: 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). RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 99- 9, Tree Permit No. 2000-02, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the attached resolution. 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). 0 mWele I ng oil I ma to1 1 11 In order to approve an application for a Tree Permit or Tree Pruning Permit, it shall be necessary that one or more of the following findings be made, otherwise the application shall be denied: 1. The tree is so poorly formed due to stunted growth that its preservation would not result in any substantial benefits to the community. 2. The tree interferes with utility services, or streets and highways, either within or outside of the subject property, and no reasonable alternative exists other than removal or pruning of the tree(s). 3. The tree is a potential public health and safety hazard due to the risk of it falling and its structural instability cannot be remediated. 4. The tree is a public nuisance by causing damage to improvements, (e.g. building foundations, retaining walls, roadways/driveways, patios, and decks). 5. The tree is host to an organism, which is parasitic to another species of tree, which is in danger of being exterminated by the parasite. 6. The tree belongs to a species which is known to be a pyrophitic or highly flammable and has been identified as a public safety hazard. 7. Preservation of the tree is not feasible and would compromise the property owner's reasonable use and enjoyment of property or surrounding land and appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented in compliance with Section 22.38.130 (Tree Rep] acement/Relocation Standards). Prepared by: /G k Linda Kay Smith ` Development Services Assistant ATTACFIIv1ENTS: 1. Attachment "1", Staff Report.dated March 22, 2000 2. Draft Resolution of Approval; 3. Applications and Tree Statement; 4. Exhibit "A" - site plan, floor plan, elevations, landscape plan, grading plan, site photos, and materials/color's board, dated April 11, 2000. D: WORD-LINDA\PLANCOMMXPROJECTS\DR99-09 23622 RIDGELINE /MEMO... In AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: CASEXILE NUMBER: APPLICATION REQUEST: PROPERTY LOCATION: PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: BACKGROUND: APRIL 11, 2000 ATTACHMENT "1" City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report 8:2 March 22, 2000 March 28, 2000 Development Review 99-09 A request to construct a two-story,, single-family residence of approximately 16,795 square feet with a basement, balconies, porch, patios, indoor swimming pool and a five -car garage on a vacant parcel. Additionally, the request includes accessory structures: tennis court, rose garden with seating, and trellis. 23622 Ridgeline Road_ (Lot 88 of Tract No. 3009 1) Diamond Bar, CA David Deng 2668 Highridge Drive Chino Hills, CA 91709 S&W Development 20547 Walnut Drive, #D Walnut, CA 91789 The property owner, David Deng, and applicant, S&W Development, request to construct a two-story, single-family residence of approximately 16,795 square feet with a basement, balconies, porch, patios, indoor swimming pool and a five -car garage on a vacant parcel. Additionally, the request includes accessory structures: tennis court, rose garden with seating, and trellis. The project situs address is 23622 Ridgeline Road (Lot 88 of Tract No. 30091), Diamond Bar, CA, within the gated community identified as "The Country Estates." The parcel is 2.68 gross acres and 2.60 net acres. It is shaped irregularly, widening and sloping downward toward the rear, southwesterly exposure. 1 The project site is zoned R-1-40,000, single-family residence. The General Plan Land Use designation is Rural Residential (RR), l du/acre. Generally, the following zones surround the subject site: to the north is R-1-8,000, to the south, east.and west is the R-1-40,000 Residential Zone. ANALYSIS: REVIEW AUTHORITY This application requires Development Review by the Planning Commission per the City's Development Code. Section 22.48.020.A(1):&tates that Development Review is required for projects involving a building permit for new construction on a vacant parcel that have a minimum 10,000 square feet of combined gross floor area. r •�l WON 8 4 ® Development Standards The following is a comparison of the City's required development standards and the project's proposed development standards: Required Proposed City's Development Standards Pro'ect's Development Standards 1. Setbacks main structure: 1. Setbacks main structure: ■ Front yard -30' from property line ■ Front yard -67' from property line ■ Side yards -10'& 15' minimum from property ■ Side yards- 8'* & 22' minimum from line ■ property line ■ Between structures on adjoining parcels -25' ■ Between Parcels: Meets minimum ■ Rear yard -20' minimum from property line ■ Rear yard- 295' from property line ■ Site Coverage -overall maximum 40% ■ Site Coverage -Approximately 28% 2. Building Height all structures: 2. Building Height all structures: ■ Maximum 35' ■ Maximum 35' 3. Parking: 3. Parking: ■ Minimum two -car garage (each bay interior ■ Five -car garage (interior dimension 21'x54) dimension 20'X10) 4. Accessory Structures: 4. Accessory Structures: ■ Tennis Court same as main structure ® Tennis court -meets setbacks, side is closest to property line at 15' ■ Trellis -same as main structure ■ Trellis -meets setbacks ■ Rose garden with seating same as main ■ Rose garden- meets setbacks structure 2 *The above analysis indicates that the proposed residence complies with the City -required development standards except for the gate entrance or Porte Cochere with balcony on the northwest side. Staff is recommending the structure be redesigned to maintain the 10 feet side yard setback. The Development Code allows a cantilevered balcony to encroach into a side setback by 30 inches. However, this part of the structure is a gate entrance or Porte Cochere with balcony. It is recommended that the gate and Porte Cochere with balcony be cut by 2 feet to comply with Development Code Standards. See Memorandum Item • 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. 30091 and "The Country Estates," and consistent with the City's Design Guidelines and as amended with the Development Code. The project's architectural features include portico entry with precast concrete columns; balconies with precast concrete balustrades; deco foam stucco details, cornice, dentil, and window treatments; dome for skylight; and multi-levels of roof lines of Brick Red Tile to add texture and contrast. The applicant has received the approval of "The Country Estates" Homeowners' Association Architectural Committee. The following materials and colors are apart of Exhibit "A". Exterior stucco — LaHabra, X-79 Villa Base for bottom i Exterior trims: Eaves/fascia/Dentil Pre -cast items Metal garage doors Stucco trims/Deco Foam > Roof tile Windows/doors :- Driveway concrete ➢ Wrought Iron • Floor.Plans LaHabra, X-53 Pure Ivory for upper - La Habra, X-53 Pure Ivory - Dunn Edwards, #70, Pearl White - Amar, White - La Habra,'X50 Crystal White — MCA, #2F43 Brick Red - Superior Vinyl, White - Design and color to be submitted - Antique Copper See Memorandum Item 5(d) The proposed single-family structure consists of two -stories and basement. The basement includes the five - car garage, mechanical room, elevator, laundry, maids room with bath, hall bath, storage areas, office, lounge area with bar and indoor swimming pool/spa. The first -story includes the foyer with atrium; living room; office; bedroom with walk -in -closet and bath; dining room; kitchen; wok kitchen; pantries; nook; family room; powder bath; music room, game room with bar•, home theater; and deck. The second -story includes the master bedroom suite with walk -in -wardrobes, bath, retreat area and balconies; four bedrooms with bath and walk -in -closet and three with balcony; and sitting/play area.. Two offices are noted on the floor plans. The City of Diamond Bar Development Code requires a Home Base Business to obtain a Zoning Clearance. This requirement will be in the conditions of approval. See Memorandum Item 5(a) 3 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES The accessory structures include a tennis court, rose garden with seating and trellis. All meet the setback requirements. The site plan identifies the tennis court location, but no structural details. The tennis court is noted on the grading plan and is supported by structural retaining walls. Tennis court review includes wall height, fixtures, fencing materials, color, elevations and plan details. Additionally, the tennis court. lighting is to comply with Development Code standards addressed in Section 22.16.050. These standards include maximum pole height, illumination, placement, hours of operation, andcourt surfaces. Staff recommends that the placement of the tennis court be moved toward the street to offset the taller retaining walls at the back of the structure. Additional landscaping will be required to mitigate the view impact of the walls height for neighbors. See Memorandum Item ^_(a` Also, no details for the rose garden have been submitted. The site plan identifies the rose garden location, and flatwork, as well as a gazebo, but gives no elevations or plans. These details also are reviewed for design and impact to neighboring properties. There are no details for the trellis. See Memorandum Item 2(b See Memorandum Item 2(c Additionally, other walks and planted garden areas are noted behind the main structure west of the tennis court. The applicant informed staff that this area does not contain pools or fountains. This area needs to have details on the plans. See Memorandum Item 2(c SITE WORK The grading, drainage, and retaining walls necessary for the improvements will be reviewed and permitted by the Public Works Division. The Public Works Division has reviewed the proposed grading plan and their comments are contained in the conditions of approval. All Site Work See Memorandum Item 5(b) ® Soil Report The Applicant will submit a soils report for the proposed improvements to be reviewed and approved by the City. The soils report will reference the suitability of the retaining walls to withstand pressure of the retained soils and proposed development. ® Grading and Drainage The applicant proposes to do site grading, on-site drainage, and retaining walls. A soils report will be required. Export may be necessary with estimated cut of 1,800c.y. and fill of 300c.y. The grading plan will be required to note the plan for the excess dirt. 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: The proposed design and use of on-site drains disperse runoff to the street and rear of the property. The Public Works Division has reviewed the proposed grading plan and their comments are contained in the conditions of approval. 4 • Retaining Walls The plan calls for retaining walls in the rear and front of the property. The Development Code allows six feet maximum exposed height for retaining walls. The project's retaining walls do not exceed this maximum. • Retaining walls will be required to be ornamental by using stucco or decorative block in the conditions of approval. The plans indicate a.7 -foot wooden retaining wall between the subject property and lot 89. It is not noted whether this is existing or proposed. The retaining wall comments from the Public Works Division will be addressed in the grading and wall conditions of approval. The stability and design of this wall may need to be mitigated with the full submittal to the Public Works Division. ® Sewer and Water System The Applicant is required to verify that the project site is currently connected to the public sewer system and impacts on the sewage capacity as a result of the proposed single-family residence will be approved. The Applicant is also required to make application to the Walnut Valley Water District as necessary, and submit their approval to the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. View Impact VIEW IMPACT See Memorandum Item 5(c The terrain in the vicinity of Ridgeline Road is hilly and like its name follows a ridgeline. The rear of the project site drops into the canyon or Country Estates open space area. The project site slopes to the lowest point at the southeast corner of the lot. By maintaining the allowed height requirements, the proposed residential structure allows view corridors for the neighboring properties. Therefore, the proposed residence will not be significantly detrimental with respect to view blockage impact. LANDSCAPING Landscaping See Memorandum Item 4 A concept landscape plan, sheet L-1, was submitted for review and approval with this project's application. 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 should not exceed a height of 42 inches. These will be conditions of approval. Tree Permit Preserved/Protected Trees See Memorandum Item 3 A Tree Permit is required per Section 22.38 to allow the removal and replacement of any preserved/protected trees with a DBH of 8 inches or greater. Preserved/protected trees include: Arroyo Willow, Sycamore, Oak, Walnut, and California Pepper. The review authority for the Tree Permit is the Director. Pursuant to Development Code Section 22.48.030, permits shall be acted upon concurrently and the highest authority shall make final determination. In this case, the Planning Commission is the highest authority. 5 A site visit indicates that preserved/protected tree species are on the property. It. is noted on the landscape plan that one 8" DBH oak tree is to be removed, another 6" oak tree is also to be removed. The Applicant has not applied for a Tree Permit. His initial submittal noted no trees to be removed. Protection requirements would be a condition of approval. This revised plan notes many of the preserved/protected trees are very close to the limits of construction. Additionally, the preserved/protected trees will be noted on the grading plan for inspection purposes. It will be a condition that protection measures as noted in Development Code Section 22.38.140 are to be in place before the issuance of any city permits. ADDITIONALtEVIEW See Memorandum Item 5(b) The Public Works Division and the Building and Safety Division reviewed this project. Their comments are included in both the report and the conditions of approval. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: This item has been advertised in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Bulletin newspapers on March 17, 2000. Thirty property owners within a 500 -feet radius of the project site were notified by mail on March 17, 2000. A notice of public hearing on a display board was posted at the site on March 17, 2000 and displayed for at least 10 days before the public hearing. Three other public places were posted within the vicinity of the application. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: 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). SUMMARY: By continuing the public hearing, the applicant has time to revise the drawings to (1) decrease the width of the Porte Cochere with balcony to maintain the minimum 10 foot side yard setback, (2)• for the applicant to submit details *for the proposed accessory structures, and (3) for the applicant to submit a Tree Permit application to be considered concurrently by the Planning Commission. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue Development Review No. 99-09 to April 11, 2000. 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 pians, community plans, boulevards, or planned developments); N. 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 Smith Development Services Assistant ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution of Approval; 2. Application; 3. Record Tract Grading Plan and Tract Map; 4.' Exhibit "A" - site plan, floor plan, elevations, landscape plan, grading plan, site photos, and materials/color's board, dated March 28, 2000. D: WORD-LINDA\PLANCOMM\PROJECTS\DR99-09 23622 Ridgeline /REP DR99-09 ... FN its mmbmah & gin H PLANNING COMMISSION unAr 7 RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 99-09, TREE PERMIT 2000-02, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION 15303(a) I , A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A TWO- STORY, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE OF APPROXIMATELY 16,795 SQUARE "FEET WITH A. BASEMENT, -BALCONIES, PORCH, PATIOS, INDOOR SWIMMING POOL AND A FIVE - CAR GARAGE ON A VACANT PARCEL. ADDITIONALLY, THE REQUEST INCLUDES ACCESSORY STRUCTURES: TENNIS COURT, ROSE GARDEN WITH GAZEBO, AND TRELLIS. THE PROJECT SITE IS 23622 RIDGELINE ROAD (LOT 88 OF TRACT MAP No. 30289), DIAMOND BAR CA. Recitals 1. The property owner, David Deng, and applicant, S&W Development, have filed an application for Development Review No. 99-09 and Tree Permit No. 2000-02 for a property located at 23622 Ridgeline Road, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California and part of thegated development identified as "The Country Estates", as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review, Tree Permit, and Categorical Exemption shall be referred to as the "Application". 2. On March 17, 2000, notification of the public hearing for this project was provided in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. Thirty property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site were notified by mail. On March 17, 2000, a notice of public hearing on a display board was posted at the siteand displayed for at least 10 days before the public hearing. Three other public places were posted within the vicinity of the application. 3. On March 28, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Application and continued the public hearing to April 11, 2000, and concluded the public hearing on April 11, 2000. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 01 1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The Planning Commission hereby determines that the 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 23622 Ridgeline Road (Lot 88 of Tract -No. 30289), Diamond Bar, CA, within the gated community identified as "The Country Estates." The project site is approximately 2.68 gross acres and 2.60 net acres. It is shaped irregularly, widening and sloping downward toward the rear, southwesterly exposure. (b) The General Plan Land Use designation is Rural Residential (RR), 1 du/acre. The project site is zoned R-1-40,000, single-family residence. (c) Generally, the following zones surround the subject site: to the north is R-1-8,000, to the south, east and west is the R-1-40,000 Residential Zone. (d) The application is a story, single-family 16,795 square feet porch, patios, indoor garage on a vacant 2 request to construct a two - res ' idence of approximately with a basement, balconies, swimming pool and a five -car parcel. Additionally, the request includes accessory structures: tennis court, rose garden with gazebo, and trellis. A Tree Permit is requested to remove and replace one 8" DBH oak tree currently on site. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (e) The design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and . architectural criteria for specialized area (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards, or planned developments). The project site, 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 (Max. 1 du/acre) . The proposed use is zoned for single- family -residence at R-1-40,000. The proposed structure complies 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, setback, and height .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 an undeveloped lot within an existing tract de signed for single-family homes.' The proposed new construction does not change the use of a single-family residence. The developed property 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 Ridgeline Road. This private street is designed to handle 3 minimum traffic created by this type of development. (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 designis 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 portico entry with precast concrete columns; balconies with precast concrete balustrades;' deco foam stucco details, cornice, dentil, and window treatments; dome for skylight; and multi-levels of roof lines of Brick Red tile to add texture and contrast. 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." The accessory structures, tennis court, rose garden with precast concrete gazebo, and trellis are compatible with the neighborhood. Many homes in the Country Estates have similar structures. (h) The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public,as well as itg 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. These will ensure that 4 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. The terrain in the vicinity of Ridgeline Road is hilly and like its name follows a ridgeline. The subject site is generally at a higher elevation than its neighbors., Lot 87 to the east and Lot 89 to the west. The rear of the project site drops into the canyon or Country Estates open space area. The project site slopes to the lowest point at the southeast corner of the - lot. By maintaining the allowed. height , requirements,. the proposed residential structures allow view corridors for the neighboring properties. Therefore, the proposed residence will not be significantly detrimental with respect to view blockage impact. (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). (k) Preservation of the existing 8" DBH oak tree is not feasible and would compromise the property owner's reasonable use and enjoyment of property or surrounding land and appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented in compliance with Section 22.38.130 (Tree' Replacement /Relocation Standards).. The applicant has submitted that development requires the removal of the 8" DBH oak tree at the northwest side of the property to utilize a motor court and garage access. The Applicant has designed the project ac ' cording to Development Code Standards and City's Design Guidelines with relationship to heights and use of grades by building into the slope. The Country Estates requires the applicant to provide a six -car garage. Diamond Bar's Development Code requires only a two - car garage but may include more with a discretionary review. Appropriate mitigation measures, replacement and protection, will be 0 implemented in compliance with Section 22.38.130 (Tree Replacement/Relocation Standards) and are incorporated as part of the conditions of approval. The common replacement of preserved/protected trees is 3:1. Staff has visited the site and confirmed the trees. The larger trees noted on the plan are to remain and shall be protected during the construction process. Many homes within "The Country Estates" have been built and/or remodeled with Tree Permits for removal and replacement. Therefore, preservation of the tree would compromise the property owner's reasonable use and enjoyment of his property. 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, grading plan, landscape plan, site photos, and materials /colors board collectively labeled as Exhibit "A" dated April 11, 2000 as submitted and as amended herein. (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) The Applicant shall replace the 8" DBE oak tree on- site at a 3:1 ratio with a like species with minimum 24" box trees. Additionally, Tree 0 Protection Requirements as required per Section 22.38.140 shall be installed for all other California Pepper, Arroyo Willow, Sycamore, Oak, and Walnut trees with a 8" DBH or greater before issuance of any City permits per the following: 1. The existing treesto be retained shall be enclosed by chain link fencing, with a minimum height of fivefeet or by another protective barrier approved by the Director prior to the issuance of a- grading- or building permitand. prior to commencement of work. 2.'Barriers shall be placed at least five feet outside the drip line of trees to be protected. A lesser distance may be approved by the Director if appropriate to the species and the adjacent construction activity. 3.No grade changes shall be made within the protective barriers without prior approval by the Director. Where.'roots greater than one.inch in diameter are damaged or exposed, the roots shall be cleanly saw cut and covered with soil in conformance with industry standards. 4. Excavation or landscape preparation within the protective barriers shall be limited to the use of hand tools and small hand-held power tools and shall not be of a depth that could cause root damage. 5. No attachments or wires other than those of a protective or non-damagingnature shall be attached to a protected tree. 6. No equipment or debris of any kind shall be placed within the protective barriers. No fuel, paint, solvent, oil, thinner, asphalt, cement, groutor any other construction chemical shall be stored or allowed in any manner to enter within the protected barrier. ' 7. If access within the protection zone of a protected tree is required during the construction process, the route shall be.covered in a six-inch mulch bed in the drip line area and the area shall be aerated and fertilized at the conclusion of the construction. 8.'When the existing grade around a protected tree is to be raised, drain tiles'shall be laid over the soil to drain liquids away from the trunk. The number of drains shall depend upon the soil material. Lighter sandy soils and porous gravelly material require fewer drains than heavy non -porous soils like clay. Dry wells shall be large enough to allow for maximum growth of the tree trunk. Dry well walls shall be constructed W r, r. E:---= of materials that permit passage of air and water. 9. When the existing grade around a tree is to be lowered, either by terracing or a retaining wall, a combination may -be used to lower grade. With either method, the area within the drip line shall be left at the original grade. The .retaining wall shall be porous to allow for aeration. 10.Trees that have been des ' troyed or that have received majordamageduring construction shall be replaced prior to final inspection. (e) Tennis Court lighting shall be directed downward, shall only illuminate the court, and shall not illuminate adjacent property, in compliance with Section 22.16.050 (Exterior Lighting). The following standards shall apply to the lighting of tennis court: I 1. Light fixtures shall not be located closer than 10 feet to the nearest property line. 2. Fixtures shall be of a type that is'rectangular on, a horizontal plane. The outside of the fixture, arm, and supporting pole shall be coated with a dark, low reflectance material. 3 Light fixtures shall not be located more than 18 feet from the court surface. 4. Not more than one light fixture per 900 square feet of court surface is allowed, with a maximum of eight poles and fixtures per recreational court. 5. Light fixtures shall be supported by an arm extending at least 4 feet from a support pole. 6. Light fixtures shall be designed, constructed, mounted and maintained so that, with appropriate shielding, the light source is completely cut off when viewed from any point five feet or more beyond the property line. The incident light level at a property line shall not exceed one foot-candle measured from grade to a height of 12 feet, The incident light level upon any habitable building on an adjacent property shall not exceed .05 foot-candle. 7. Recreational court lighting shall not be operated between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. 8. The illuminated court surface is visible. from another parcel, therefore, the court surface shall be treated with a low reflectance, dark - colored coating. M. 'Lu L Landscaping trees and shrubs shall be required to soften the height of the tennis court and walls at the southerly section. Additionally, the landscape plan shall reflect trees and shrubs adjacent to the motor court to aid in shielding vehicle lights from Lot 89. The revised - landscape plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. (g)- The landscaping/irrigation 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., (h) Driveway design and colors shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval. Trellis color shall match main 'structure color palette.. (i) 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 and export location; 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 (i.e. Flood Hazard Area and Recreation 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. Engineered calculations shall be submitted with retaining walls; 10. Indicate retaining wall locations on grading plan with standard detail and delineate: (a) -Top of wall; (b) Top of footing; (c) Finish Surface; (d) Structural calculations; and 9 U7. "YU (e). Retaining walls exposed height shall not exceed six feet; 11. All grading is subject to Development Code Sections 22.16.030 (Air Emissions) and Section 22.28 (Noise); 12. Erosion Control plan shall be submitted for permits before April 15, 2000; 13.. The location of the Preserved/Protected Trees shall be shown on the grading plan. 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 pressure of the retained soils and proposed development. (k) Any grading or other construction activities over the property line shall require the adjacent property owner's written concurrence and permission. (1) Applicant shall verify that the project site is currently connected to the public sewer system and impacts on the sewage capacity as a result of the proposed addition shall be approved. (m) Applicant shall make an application to the Walnut Valley Water District as necessary, and submit their approval to the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. (n) 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. (o) Site, driveway grade, and house design shall be approved by the Fire Department. The maximum slope is 15% per the Public Works Division. (p) The single-family structure shall meet the 1998 California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code,- and California Electrical Code requirements. (q) The minimum design wind pressure shall be 80 miles per hour and IICII exposure. (r). The single-family structure is located in "Fire Zone 4" and shall meet the following requirements of that fire zone: M 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 -1/4 inch nor more than 1/2 inch in any dimension except where such openings are equipped with sash or door; 4. Chimneys shall have spark arresters of maximum % inch screen. (s) This single-family structure shall meet the State Energy Conservation Standards. (t) Maximum height of the residence shall not exceed 35 feet from the finish grade,at any exterior wall of the structure to the highest point of the roofline. (u) Due to the site's topography, applicant shall comply with special design requirements as specified in the Universal Building Code, Section 18,4.3, building setback, top and toe of slopes. (v) The owner shall obtain a Zoning Clearance subject to the standards outlined in Development Code Section 22.42.070 for any Home Base Business use. (w) The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Department and City Planning, Building and Safety, and Public Works Divisions. (x) 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 -(l) 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. (y) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed, within fifteen (15) days of approval of this grant, at the City of Diamond Bar Community and 11 Development Services Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware and agree to accept all the conditions of this grant. Further, this grant t shall not be effective until the permittee pays remaining City processing fees. (z) If the Department of Fish and Game determines that Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 applies to the approval of this project, then the applicant shall remit to the Cityy within five days of'this.grant's approval, a cashier's check of $25.00 for a documentary handling fee in connection with Fish and Game Code requirements. Furthermore, if this project is ndt- exempt from a filing fee imposed because the project has more than a deminimis impact on fish and wildlife, the applicant shall also pay to the Department of Fish and Game any such fee and any fine which the Department determines to be owed. The Planning Commission shall: (a) Certify•to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of. this Resolution, by certified mail to David Deng, 2668 Highridge Drive, Chino Hills, CA 91709 and S&W Development, 20547 Walnut Drive, #D, Walnut, CA 91789. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11th DAY,OF APRIL 2000, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. Steve Nelson, Chairman I, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of April, 2000, by the following vote: - AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: nw I ATTEST: James DeStefano, Secretary W, MY 01 LWOND BAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPAFfLA 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 T.{ OF DIAMOND BAP, (999)396-5676 Fax(909)861-3117 '"pptt--1.,G., BLDG., ENGK.• DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICti;TION Record Owner Name ` 'DFt•-46 SNA 2 . (Last name first) Address Z36'34 %Z%1rQS LAt4$. City G4• -99 SEP -8 P07 :17 Applicant 154iVtA t+1NtON (Last name first) W S�VF+I.QPHirEN"T 2G5`7 WJV►L-NVT szo. "VI Case# 11 - FPL # �o - Deposit $ Receipt# _,t 4L��L.^ Date R Dat7 Applicant's Agent (Last name first) Zip q%24. n . r=2 �, CJ tri c� /` r"t�C'�"'� Phone( ) " P._.G' ►8-•(� Phone( ) NOTE: It is the applicant's responsibility 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 cert, that I al the owner of the herein described property and permit the applicant to file this request. Signed X Date —? — �Z. X Certification: I, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information herein provided is correct to the best of my knowledge. Print Name 51.►uN. (Applicant or Agent) Signed Date (Applicant or Agent) Location Lxrr 68 oR WO. L'1s+.Wz*-JD (Street address or tract and lot number) Zoning Previous Cases Present Use of Site • 1 Use applied for "�� f Legal description (all ownershil mprising the proposed lots)/parcel(s)) �. OF ;V--� C) pi✓ N i� . Area devoted to structures �(3Z • 5 Landscaping/Open A 742 Z 2� space Project Size J 21'-1 Lot Coverage �B Proposed density. (Units/Acres) Style of Architecture t LE -42 '� t� Number of Floors Proposed 3 Slope of Roof S.12 , 4: t2 Grading If yes, Quantity Cut Fill Import N If yes, Quantity Export N . If yes, Quantity S. r, CITY OF DIAMOND BAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPA7Re AO�' - 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 R E r E I V E D 9 (909)396-5676 Fax (909)$62-3 I`i7'? L ! r^, n , <�'w.�•��" OAK TREE PERIWT APPLICATION r) ^ F:i Record Owner Name 1aNG -DWO (Last name first) Applicant SKVM siF- IJ (Last name first) Address 266$ + 6i"12%c>4k& ytz . 2054'7 11V, LJ,1kn VR."D" Ci`L,4- a C.m Zip AI -70q Coot Phone( ) AA -AD - nq e%S. Phone( ) 64tpS-E CI -M Case#,_ FPL # Deposit $ .--- Receipt# By Date Rec'd Applicant's Agent (Last name fust) Phone( ) NOTE: It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Community Development Director in writing of any change of the principals involved during the processing of this case. (Attach 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 property and permit the applicant to file this request. Signed�� �`Date,. GAS - (-34- 2cncC) (All record owners) Certification: I, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information herein provided is correct to the best of my knowledge. Print Name l Vt vv, W VA (Applicant or Agent) Signed Date 25 - 00 (Applicant or Agent) Location (i.e. address or general description of location) and legal description of property in question: (use additional sheets as necessary) 21a TshL L -%NM lzzyte+.NOWI> 'a4pr. L 2 i 56 OF -rF,,t,= Ncy�_�-tit {1�-tr4� cyy c*yiAq� L3^p1 CL -V--1 ©% LoSO4 r ` StAci5L of How many oak trees will be cut, removed, relocated or damaged? 1 O'64.iVOp`~{A. How many oak trees will remain? Will trees to be removed be replaced? If yes, indicate the proposed size, type, location (indicated on site plan) and schedule for planting. David & Christine Deng 2668 Highridge Dr., '00 APR -4 1012 53 Chino Hill CA 91709 TO: The City of Diamond Bar C/O Planning Department 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Oak Tree Statement Attn: Planning Staff, I would like to inform you of our intention to relocate one oak treeYin Diameter and protect another one during the process of construction. Our site is located at 23622 Ridgeline, Diamond Bar. The location of the affected trees are annotated on the landscape pian and please direct all your question, to our Architect Mr. Simon Shum of S&W Development whom will inform and advise us on the best course of action to take to the satisfaction of all concerned. Thank you, Christine Deng maw 7!39 Aw. JIB Mv AN, S4 ,, � PC ,.rte XV A94F ll� , Is , ilrot-ii"R BASEMENT PLAN � srwtE: vr-ra NOTE PLANT RD LANDSCAPE m.. COVERER DRNEWAYAND ®wry. COVERED 6Wi1NOFO0l DETAL 0 ARCHITECTS CONTRACTORS REVOOELERS }a5.)'/owl d,w'a'. wonu a aNai LLJ loon) aoa-aaao W U Z o W D Z W Lo 2 - SHEET SHEET TITLE BASEMENT PLAN DATE REVISIONS ue JAN. 2000 SHEET /��/��jj 9R0220 A=2 sun of a+a�s as wRTra PRECAST CONCRETE BALLASTER RAILING TYP. SKY LIGHT ABOVE COVERED SAWING POOL • v-� y- �s---� v�� OAn,lmR i xr v AtNtn -- -- RAl'0 MCA. FINGTILE eve ------------ ----------------- - ® GAYE ROW I ; J y I �' OwiNG �♦ I R00( G PRECASMONCRE-M `►. DORICCOVAINTYP. t r t I •--------------- . Alauu � ❑ ENTRY (0 R 00 E tINNG 71 ees t ® w ® 1 ♦r rn P R AN 1 A # ®O'® O e I OYItE KItOHE t+ REGROW Yb�Y.'// O Fjr W.I. ® ® ROOF ----- ---------------- ------------ bf bf R OF ABOVE GARAGE FIRST FLOOR PLAN sCA� Tm++a ARCHITECTS CONTRACTORS REYOOELERS xm.a ,emm wx. v. Av,.,A u mee lecor we-eom KEW= w U Z e w 0 a to 8 Z < L'i � o � � v � N r SHEET MIS FIRST FLOOR PLAN DATE REY looms JAn JAN. 2000 BNEET 9R0220 ecus n onTe N MOt® SECOND FLOOR PLAN SCAM va+a'.a 0 0 ARCHITECTS CONTRACTORS RE40DELERS ]R5�) v�w1 bM� b'. VewL U 1t)K (W G) !GO-ODYJ qio �e vrM v �r Gaxat W U Z W^ o " (n U af W c Z a W � � o 4 r IN SHEEP TRLE SECOND FLOOR PLAN DATE PENSIONS an .uN. z000 BHEET A-4 sRozzo ,tan N t� LA .............. ......... �L . ................. A, . . . . . . . !\. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . JJ . . . 6 A A A I . . . . . . . . . . . A . . . . . A . . . . . . . . . . \11!.111 Ali . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . foil I �,�,' 'I�IIiI Ism] nein niur��urrnrnri �• — Elm, 11 AT i� I Ile 111-1 WOW ............ A A*.' A. A A 1. inn REM Afiroft .EFS':t vw 4 ;T11 1 NMI% . Shl, 'VA . . . . . . Ow a'.. in *. - 2 �1vol?41" It 1"Mm'm m t4E �51 i On" i� !rdrifill�l Wi NIPMEIN +,1 O a M Q0 m co M co .-I CIO 14 e ARCH 1 T E c; T U R A L STO N EWORK GAZEBO PLAN 23622 RIDGELINE ROAD pie qq- 9> :7"P,�oo,, � EXHIBIT � Glass fibre domes aavaiia;)ie in a as-e[tecr finish for 1900-0 (:Cr 113A), L9100 ;.X3:i36r, 11-9251) and L9200 (X5100) •err pis. Th -.-se are supplies i_i sections or assembiv on sire. a 1316 I3073(121") ---•j, �---- 3503 (138") BALUSTRADED TEMPLE L900© (Floor not supplied, See page 100) ` 1867 r r i 34S4(136-) Wust aded Temple L9000 with Dome X510A row RAs Bench seat HD320BIC .3 µ see nape L h X5100 .�-- 3073 (12!")- -3570 (140!/W') --. URGE CILA.SSIC,AL TEMPLE L9101 (Flour not supplied. See page 100) 3190(126") Project MEETINGS April 11, 2000 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR COMMUNITY & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECTS Case # PM Location PC CC PC CC PC CC PC EXTENSION OF TIME — JERRY YEH ADR 98-6(l) Si 22818 CANYON VIEW DRIVE 4/11 4/18 4/25 5/2 5/9 5/16 5/23 HIGHCREST DRIVE VACATION JDS/ HIGHCREST DRIVE X PH 2108 LYCOMING PROCESSING (Farmer Boys Food — Restaurant) (General Plan Conformity) ADR 2000-03 RM 1044 ADEL AVENUE Si 2725 CLEAR CREEK PH (Single Family Residence) PULTE HOME CORP DR 2000-02 LKS/SJ/ TRACT 52267 515 S. GRAND AVENUE PROCESSING PH (127 Single Family Residence Development) MCUP 2000-03 AJL 1178 S. DIAMOND BAR PH SHUM, SIMON/S&W DEVELOPMENT DR 99-9 LKS 23634 RIDGELIKE PH (Single Family Residence) ADR 2000-06 LKS 2893 VISTA COURT — LOT 19 PH (Single Family Residence) CONT ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS Case # PM Location DCM PATROSKE, WALT DCM LKS DCM PROCESSING DCM EXTENSION OF TIME — JERRY YEH ADR 98-6(l) Si 22818 CANYON VIEW DRIVE YEH, JERRY MV 2000-05 PH 2688 BLAZETRAIL PROCESSING (Single Family Residence) DR 2000-05 (Approved Single Family Residence) ALVAREZ DESIGN CUP 2000-01 AJL 2108 LYCOMING PROCESSING (Farmer Boys Food — Restaurant) SKIDJEL, JOHN & NANCY ADR 2000-03 Si 1044 ADEL AVENUE Si 2725 CLEAR CREEK PH (Single Family Residence) (Single Family Residence) DIAMOND BAR HONDA/ VAR 2000-02 AJL 515 S. GRAND AVENUE PROCESSING ALEXANDER DEVELOPMENT BALLY/TAYLOR ASSOCIATES . MCUP 2000-03 Si 1178 S. DIAMOND BAR PH (Food, beer and wine in existing restaurant site) BLVD. GOULD, RICHARD ADR 2000-06 LKS 2893 VISTA COURT — LOT 19 PH (Single Family Residence) PENDING Case # PM Location PATROSKE, WALT ADR 2000-05 LKS 22454 STEEPLECHASE LANE PROCESSING (Single Farni ly Residence) YEH, JERRY MV 2000-05 AJL 2688 BLAZETRAIL PROCESSING (Single Family Residence) DR 2000-05 ALVAREZ DESIGN CUP 2000-01 AJL 2108 LYCOMING PROCESSING (Farmer Boys Food — Restaurant) ASHAI, TONY ADR 2000-01 Si 2725 CLEAR CREEK PROCESSING (Single Family Residence) DIAMOND BAR HONDA/ VAR 2000-02 AJL 515 S. GRAND AVENUE PROCESSING ALEXANDER DEVELOPMENT (Freeway Sign) g:\\project meeting\\doc PH = 13U13LIC HEARING a = NOT A PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT MEETINGS CITY OF DIAMOND BAR A--:1 >> lnnn CYIMMT TNTTV Rr DFVFT.0PMF.NT SFRVTCF.S DF.PARTMFNT PENDING Case # PM Location GOULD, RICHARD (Single Family Residence) DR 2000-03 AIL 2819 WATER COURSE DRIVE PROCESSING HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE JDS CITYWIDE PROCESSING PASCUAL, GENE (Single Family Residence) . ADR 2000-07 SJ 2001 DERRINGER LANE PROCESSING ZONE CHANGE (Zone Chane to Commercial) ZC 2000-01 AJL DIAMOND BAR BLVD PM 10208, PARCEL 2 PROCESSING ZONING MAP AMENDMENT AJL I CITYWIDE PROCESSING g:\\project meeting\\doc PH = PUBLICHEARING X =NOT A PUBLICHEARING File repwYqu 1 bY- on 2- and is ready. for scanning File reviewed by 0 '/ 7;7?j r4 and is ready for destruction by City Clerk