Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11/14/2000
November 149 2000, 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 11 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting must inform the Dept. of Community & Development Services at (909) 396-5676 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Please refrain -from smoking, eating or drinking in the Auditorium The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper and encourages you to do the same City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission MEETING RULES PUBLIC INPUT The meefings-of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission are open to the public. A member of the public may address the Commission on the subject of one or more agenda items and/or other items of which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission. A request to address the Commission should be submitted in writing at the public hearing, to the Secretary of the Commission. As a general rule, the opportunity for public comments will take place at the discretion of the Chair. However, in order to facilitate the meeting, persons who are interested parties for an item may be requested to give their presentation at the time the item is called on the calendar. The Chair may limit individual public input to five minutes on any item; or the Chair may limit the total amount of time allocated for public testimony based on the number of people requesting to speak and the business of the Commission. Individuals are requested to conduct themselves in a professional and businesslike manner. Comments and questions are welcome so that all points of view are considered prior to the Commission making recommendations to the staff and City Council. In accordance with State Law (Brown Act), all matters to be acted on by the Commission must be posted at least 72 hours prior to the Commission meeting. In case.of emergency or when a subject matter arises subsequent to the posting of the agenda; upon making certain findings, the Commission may act on item that is not on the posted agenda. INFORMATION RELATING TO AGENDAS AND ACTIONS OF THE COMMISSION Agendas for Diamond Bar Planning Commission meetings are prepared by the Planning Division of the Community and Development Services Department. Agendas are available 72 hours prior to the meeting at City Hall and the public library, and may be accessed by personal computer at the number below. Every meeting of the Planning Commission is recorded on cassette tapes and duplicate tapes are available for a nominal charge. ADA REQUIREMENTS A cordless microphone is available for those persons with mobility impairments who cannot access the public speaking area. The service of the cordless microphone and sign language interpreter services are available by giving notice at least three business days in advance of the meeting. Please telephone (909) 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 Next Resolution No. 2000-23 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Tuesday, November 14, 2000 AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 1. ROLL CALL: CONMssIONERS: 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 recordin>; Secretary (Completion of this form is voluntary) There is a five-minute maximum time limit when addressing the Plannin '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: October 24, 2000. 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None. gAzste11a\agenda\nov14 2000.doc November 14, 2000 Page 2 Planning Commission 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 7.1 Conditional Use Permit No. 1998-09(l), Development Review No 1998-11(l), and Minor Variance No. 2000-19 (Pursuant to Code Sections 22.58.010, 22.48.020(A)(2), and 22.52.020 (D)) A request to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 1998-09, Development Review No. 1998-11, and to approve 'a Minor Variance for a decrease of 20% in the number of required off-street parking spaces to accommodate on-site seating for twelve at Togo's. (Continued from. October 10, 2000.) Project Address: 1193 Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Property Owner: J. Coleman Travis Trust C/O: Glacier Peak Management Services, Inc. 7955 Dunbrook Road, Suite A San Diego, CA 92126 Applicant: Parker Holt -Doyle, LLC 1193 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 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 15301(e) of Article 19 of Chapter 3 of Title 14 the California Code of Regulations. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct staff as appropriate. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: 8.1 Development Review No 2000-18/Minor Variance No 2000 13/Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-12(pursuant to Code Sections 22.48.020(A)(1), 22.52.020, 22.30.080(E) and 22.56.020) is a request to construct a two-story, single-family residence, of approximately 10,498 square feet, with a basement, balconies, porch, and five -car garage. Additionally, the request includes a swimming pool and retaining walls in the rear and side yards with a maximum six feet exposed height. The Minor Variance request is to construct chimneys that extend 2.5 feet above the maximum 35 -foot height permitted for a residence and a minor variance of two feet for the front setback. A Minor Conditional Use Permit is required for the proposed driveway width greater then permitted by code. Project Address: 2250 Indian Creek Road November 14, 2000 Page 3 Planning Commission Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Property Owner: Basant Sachdeva & Rajinder Joneja 1738 E. Meats Avenue Orange, CA 92865 Applicant Basant Sachdeva & Rajinder Joneja 1738 E. Meats Avenue Orange, CA 92865 Environmental Determination: The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15303(a). Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2000-18/Minor Variance No. 2000-13/Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-12, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. 8.2 Development Review No. 99-5 1 Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-16 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48 and 22.42.060 and 22.56.020) is a request to modify the tennis court location and grading of the previously approved Development Review No. 99-5, and to construct a second story guest house with decks and portico of approximately 1,055 gross square feet. Project Address: Property Owner: Applicant: 2856 Wagon Train Lane (Tract No. 30578, Lot 71) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Peichin Cheng 17800 Castleton St., #106 City of Industry, CA 91748 Anchi Lee 3740 Campus Drive, #B Newport Beach, CA 92660 Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15162, the City has determined that this project is consistent with the previously adopted Negative Declaration No. 99-7. No further review is required. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 99-5(1), Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-16, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. November 14, 2000 Page 4 Planning Commission 8.3 Draft 2000-2005 Housing Element (under the authority of Government Code Sections 65091(a)(3) and 65588(b)(5)) for the periodic review and revision to the City of Diamond Bar General Plan. Six elements comprise the City's General Plan, which was adopted in July of 1995 (pursuant to Governmental Code 65300). The General Plan is a comprehensive document establishing goals and strategies to fulfill the community's vision for its future. The Draft 2000-2005 Housing Element proposes goals and'programs to meet the City's anticipated housing needs through planning period 2000-2005 for the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region and as required to be completed not less than at five-year intervals. Project: Draft 2000-2005 Housing Element (GPA No. 2000-01) Address: Citywide Applicant: City of Diamond Bar, 21660 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined that this project is consistent with the previously certified General Plan Environmental Impact Report and Addendum certified July 25, 1995 according to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15168(b)(2) of Article 11 of the California Code of Regulation. Therefore, no further review is required. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive public testimony, discuss the proposed amendment, and adopt a resolution recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA No. 00-01) for the draft 2000-2005 Housing Element. 9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: 10. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Public Hearine dates for future nroiects. Planning Commission November 14, 2000 Page 5 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: COMMUNITY MEETING REGARDING THE COMMUNITY/SENIOR CENTER: PARKS AND RECREATION CON jNflTTEE MEETING: 10 0 it 0. - 1, 9 1 COMMUNITY COORDINATING CONRvIITTEE: LANTERMAN ADVISORY CONDETTEE: CITY COUNCIL MEETING: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW: MEETING: PLANNING COM1vflSSION MEETING: TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION CONMSSION MEETING: 11. ADJOURNMENT: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 — 7:00 p.m. AQMD Auditorium 21865 E. Copley Drive Thursday, November 167 2000 — 6:00 p.m. AQMD Hearing Board Room 21865 E. Copley Drive Thursday, November 16, 2000 — 7:00 p.m. AQMD Room CC -8 21865 E.. Copley Drive Monday, November 20, 2000 — 7:00 p.m. AQMD Room CC -2 21865 E. Copley Drive Monday, November 20, 2000 — 7:00 p.m. AQMD Room CC -8 21865 E. Copley Drive Tuesday, November 21, 2000 — 6:30 p.m. AQMD Auditorium 21865 E. Copley Drive Tuesday, November 28, 2000 — 6:00 p.m. AQMD Auditorium 21865 E. Copley Drive Tuesday, November 28, 2000 — 7:00 p.m. AQMD Auditorium 21865 E. Copley Drive Thursday, December 14,2000 — 7:00 p.m. AQMD Board Hearing Room 21865 E. Copley Drive - MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMT'IISSION OCTOBER 24, 2000 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:08 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 Nelson, Vice Chairman Bob Zirbes, and Commissioners George Kuo, Steve Tye, and Joe Ruzicka. Also Present: James DeStefano, Interim City Manager, Ann Lungu, Associate Planner, Sonya Joe, Development Services Assistant, Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant, and Stella Marquez, Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None offered. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the October 10, 2000, meeting. C/Ruzicka moved, VC/Zirbes seconded, to approve the minutes of October 10, 2000, as submitted. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES. COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 5.OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None Chair/Nelson None None OCTOBER 24, 2000 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: r' 1 i 1 7.1 Development Review No. 2000-11, Tree Permit No 2000-03 Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-06, and Minor Variance No 2000-06 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48.020, 22.38.020, 22.56.020, 22.30.080 and 22.52.020) are requests to construct a three story (two stories and a basement) single family residence with a five car garage, decks and balconies totaling to approximately 10,460 square feet. The request also includes a swimming pool, two spas, and rear retaining walls with a maximum six-foot. exposed height. Development Review requires site design and architectural review. Tree Permit is required for the removal and replacements of oak and walnut trees. Minor Variance is required for the requested 20 percent reduction in the required front yard setback. Minor Conditional Use Permit is required for a greater driveway width than permitted by code. PROJECT ADDRESS: 23415 Pleasant Meadow Road (Lot 22 of Tract No. 23483) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROJECT OWNER: Surinder Bhogal 9866 Houghton Avenue Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 APPLICANT: Basant Sachdeva 1738 East Meats Avenue Orange, CA 92865 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2000-11, Tree Permit No. 2000-03, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-06, and Minor Variance No. 2000-06, Findings of Fact, and _conditions of approval, as -listed within -the -resolution: - - - C/Tye asked if it would present a burden to the applicant to keep the front yard setback at 30 feet. He reiterated his concern about the massive appearance of structures that are set close to city streets. AssocP/Lungu explained that staff believes a 24 foot front yard setback would help to preserve more of the walnut and oak trees. In addition, Pleasant Meadow is a cul-de-sac and does not present the same effect on passing motorists as Ridgeline Drive presents and: the front of the house is one story only. AssocP/Lungu explained to the Commission that she is comfortable with the Applicant's Arborist's report because he tagged the trees. OCTOBER 24, 2000 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION Surinder Bhogal, property owner, said that when he purchased the property. it had not been cleaned up for some period of time. Los Angeles County gave notice to clean the lot because it was a fire hazard. He engaged maintenance workers to clear the land and through a misunderstanding, the workers cut.five trees without the required permit. In addition, he had to move at least 20 trees before he could begin construction of the house. His intention was not to cut the trees without pulling a permit. He said he is concerned about the potential donation cost of $22,000- as a result of the lost trees and asked the Planning Commission to consider a reduction in the dollar amount and number of tree of the donation and allow him to plant additional trees on his property. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Cassandra McGinnis, 23427 Pleasant Meadow Road, said that workers were on the applicant's property attempting to cut down a very large oak tree when they were stopped. After a time, they returned and leveled the tree. On October 10, 2000, with no grading. permit in place, a bulldozer began moving earth on the applicant's lot. She presented photographic evidence to the Planning Commission which to her, indicated more activity than merely weed abatement. If the grading and building continue with the same disregard for regulations the safety of her adjoining lot and home may be in question. She is concerned about the stability of the hill on which she resides and about improper water runoff and the blockage of the ravine below her home. She asked what measures are in place to insure compliance with the authorized variances. She is particularly concerned that her property is not compromised during construction of the proposed project. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. AssocP/Lungu explained to Ms. McGinnis that the hydrology report indicates that the runoff from the proposed -project would be insignificant.- During the construction process inspectors, engineers and staff members are present to insure compliance. ICM/DeStefano stated that if the Planning Commission approves this project it will set the location for the house's foundation. When the foundation set, the City's Building and Safety staff conducts a foundation inspection before the pouring of concrete can take place. During this inspection, staff measures the setbacks to make certain that the applicant is in conformity with the project's approval. AssocP/Lungu responded to Chair/Nelson that according to Leighton & Assoc., the applicant has gone about discing in a very unusual way by cutting himself a path. ICM/DeStefano indicated to C/Tye that he has not visited the site. The photographs presented by Ms. McGinnis indicate that "unusual" grubbing may have been a kind term. The photographs indicate an aggressive clearing and rubbing may have occurred. The OCTOBER 24, 2000 ' PAGE 4 PLANNING CONIMISSI®N landscape has been disturbed and cannot be replaced and in reality, the City is forced to move forward with this consideration. The applicant may believe that it was done appropriately but the applicant needs to understand that if the project is to proceed they will have to comply with the City's Codes and environmental laws. Chair/Nelson re -opened the public hearing. Surinder Bhogal, property owner, explained that in order to complete his project he needed fill which was offered to him free of charge by a third party. He felt that he needed to take advantage of the situation and pulled permits from the City. The photographs presented by Ms. McGinnis depict a cut at the front of the property which allowed trucks access to the property for purposes of stockpiling the dirt. No grading operations have begun. Ms. McGinnis stated that when she spoke with the gentleman who was doing the bulldozing he indicated to her that he was under the impression that the applicant had a grading permit. She believes that if the project proceeds according to the City's Codes, it should work. However, the property owner is taking short cuts. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. VC/Zirbes said that while he shares Ms. McGinnis' concerns about how projects are completed, he is very confident that the City's staff will monitor the situation and make certain that the applicant complies. He proposed that Condition (h) on page 11 be modified to the following: That the five trees that were removed prior to the applicant obtaining a permit be replaced with 24 inch box trees at a 6:1 ratio; and 24 inch box size at a 3:1 ratio for the remaining trees for a total amount of 48 trees; and the replacement mitigation shall be in the form of a donation to the City's Tree Replacement Fund — the donation shall include the cost of the replacement trees in a 24 inch box size at $145 each, planting cost at $290 each, and tree maintenance costs _at. $120 -per -tree per year for -five -years. Placement of trees on the applicant's property will be done under the supervision of the Arborist and will be subject to the City's monitoring program for five (5) years. VC/Zirbes moved, C/Ruzicka seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2000-11, Tree Permit No. 2000-03, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-06, and Minor Variance N6.2000-06. C/Kuo asked that the motion be amended to direct staff to verify the 40 pound balcony live load indicated in Condition (u) on Page 13. The maker of the motion and the seconder agreed to the amendment. Motion approved by the following Roll Call vote: OCTOBER 24, 2000 7.2 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes, Chair/Nelson None None Development Review No. 2000-16 Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-15 Minor Variance No. 2000-1 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48.020 (A)(1), 22.56.020 and 22.52.020'(B)) is a request to construct an approximately 12,340 square foot two-story single-family residence with two garages for five cars, pool/spa, gazebo, and tennis court. A Minor Conditional use Permit is required to process the circular driveway. The Minor Variance is a request to decrease the rear yard setback by 20 percent. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2521 Braided Mane Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNERS: Ton -Dei Chiu 1432 E. Peppertree Drive La Habra Heights, CA 90631 APPLICANT: Tein Wang 801 S. Garfield Avenue Alhambra, CA 91801 DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recomnwnds that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2000-19, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. Tein Wang, project architect, explained how the project plans were drawn under the previous. City Code and why the applicant is requesting a minor variance. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. There being no one who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. VC/Zirbes moved, C/Ruzicka seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2000-16, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-15, Minor Variance No. 2000-17, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: 8. OCTOBER 24, 2000 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: C/Tye left the meeting at 8:30 p.m. I PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes, Chair/Nelson None None 7.3 Development Review No. 2000-19 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48.020) is a request to remodel and add approximately 4,607 square feet to an existing 3,110 square foot, two story single family residence with a three car garage located within "The Country Estates." The request includes a new deck. FTIWWMFGW%5�� 23634 Ridgeline Road (Lot 87, Tract No. 30091) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Sunil Kohli 23634 Ridgeline Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 DSA/Joe presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2000-19, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. 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, VC/Zirbes seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2000-19, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. Motion approved by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 1W - I I I I I INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. Kuo, Ruzicka, VC/Zirbes, Chair/Nelson None Tye None offered. 3 OCTOBER 24, 2000 9.2 • Announcements. PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION ICM/DeStefano reported that City Manager Terrence Belanger resigned his position in Diamond Bar to accept the City Manager position with the City of Yorba Linda. ICM/DeStefano has been appointed Interim City Manager by the City Council. The City is currently undergoing recruitment to fill the position which will take about five or six months. During this time ICM/DeStefano will continue to direct the City's Planning Division. The City will consider hiring a planning consultant(s) to take up the slack with staff positions that will be temporarily vacated. ICM/DeStefano stated that JCC's Project for Tracts 48487 and 50314 off of Windmill Drive located within "The Country Estates" that was approved about five years ago by the Planning Commission and two years ago by the City Council is now entering its construction phase. ICM/DeStefano reported that the City of Industry's Industry East 425 acre project has entered its grading phase. The project is visible from Grand Avenue between Valley Boulevard and the SR 60 and the Honda Dealership. The project has received approval for nine of the 33 proposed buildings. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in the agenda. ADJOURNMENT: There being'no further business to come before the Planning Commission,. Chairman Nelson adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James DeStefano Interim City Manager Attest: Chairman Steve Nelson 1 � INTEROFFICEoI MEMORANDUM COMMUNITY &DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners FROM: Linda Kay Smith, Development Services Assistant DATE: November 9, 2000 SUBJECT: Continued Public Hearing 7.1, Conditional Use Permit No. 1998-09(1), Development Review No. 1998-11(1), and Minor Variance No. 200-19 The subject applications were brought before the Planning Commission on October 10, 2000. At that time the Applicant requested a continuance so that they might prepare more information on the shared parking analysis to support their request for seating at the Togo's at 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard. Warren To date Staff has not received the approvals necessary rom the ttached City's Staff hast had conversations Siecke. The reports provided to staff and Mr. Sieckeare with the Applicant's engineer and faxed the previous staff report for clarification as to the City's requirements. As stated in the previous staff report (attached), in order to approve a Minor Variance and for the subject legal nonconforming site to add to the uses, the 19998 Development Code states that if the new use will be underparked by 25 percent or more a parking study must be prepared to determine the required number of parking spaces. A parking study looks at the all the businesses on site, the hours of operation, the site's parking requirements and design, and makes a determination based on the data. A professional engineer performs the study. Staff spoke with the City's Traffic Engineer, Warren Siecke, today. He has not approved the traffic studies to date. In order to do this, the data from the January study included in the previous report should be compared with the data obtained by studying the subject site to make the determination of the parking for Togo's with seating vs. the Togo's current use. Therefore, staff offers these options to the Planning Commission: 1. Open the public hearing, received public testimony and direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval; or 2. Direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct staff as appropriate. 'h. ATTACHMENTS: I. October 10, 2000 staff report; 2. November 8, Warren Siecke comments to the November 8, 2000 correction; 3. November 8, 2000, Linscott, Law & Greenspan fax letter and correction; 4. November 6, 2000, Warren Siecke response to November 2, 2000 Traffic Study; 5. November 2, 2000, Linscott, Law, & Greenspan fax and traffic study. ATTACHMENT "1" CUP 98-09(1), DR 98-11(1),MV 2000-19 NOVEMBER 14, 2000 City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 7.2 REPORT DATE: October 5, 2000 MEETING DATE: October 109 2000 CASE/FILE NUMBER: Conditional Use Permit No. 1998-09(1), Development Review No. 1998-11(1) and Minor Variance No. 2000-19 APPLICATION REQUEST: A request to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 1998-09 and Development Review No. 1998-11 and to review and approve a Minor Variance for a decrease of 20% in the number of required off- street parking spaces to accommodate ' on-site seating for twelve at Togo's. PROPERTY LOCATION: 1193 Diamond Bar Boulevard (Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 12738), Diamond Bar, CA PROPERTY OWNER: J. Coleman Travis Trust 7955 Dunbrook Road, #A San Diego, CA 92126 APPLICANT• Parker Holt -Doyle, LLC D,b.a. Togo's 1193 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 SUMMARY: Pursuant to Development Code Sections 22.58.0109 2248.020(A)(2), and 22.52.020(D), the property owner, J. Coleman Travis Trust, and applicant, Parker Holt -Doyle, LLC, request to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 1998-09 and. Development Review No. 1998-11, and to review and approve a Minor Variance No. 2000- 19 for a decrease of 20% in the number of required off-street parking spaces to accommodate on-site seating for twelve at Togo's. Since the 1998 approval for 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard project, each suite has been assigned an individual address, hence the 1193 address for Togo's. 1 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: CASEXILE NUMBER: APPLICATION REQUEST: PROPERTY LOCATION: - PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: SUMMARY: ATTACHMENT -1" CUP 98-09(1), DR 98-11(i),MV 2000-19 NOVEMBER 14, 2000 City of Diamond Bar PLANNINGCOMMISSION Staff Report 7.2 October 5, 2000 October 10, 2000 Conditional Use Permit No. 1998-09(1), Development Review No. 1998-11(1) and Minor Variance No. 2000-19 A request to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 1998-09 and Development Review No. 1998-11 and to review and approve a Minor Variance for a decrease of 20% in the number of required off- street parking spaces to accommodate on-site seating for twelve at Togo's. 1193 Diamond Bar Boulevard (Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 12738), Diamond Bar, CA J. Coleman Travis Trust . 7955 Dunbrook Road, #A San Diego, CA 92126 Parker Holt -Doyle, LLC D.b.a. Togo's - 1193 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Pursuant to Development Code Sections 22.58.010, 2248.020(A)(2), and 22.52.020(D), the property owner, J. Coleman Travis Trust, and applicant, Parker Holt -Doyle, LLC, request to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 1998-09 and Development Review No. 1998-11, and to review and approve a Minor Variance No. 2000- 19 for a decrease of 20% in the number of required off-street parking spaces to accommodate on-site seating for twelve at Togo's. Since the 1998 approval for 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard project, each suite has been assigned an individual address, hence the 1193 address for Togo's: 1 Additionally, this application requests a Minor Variance for a decrease of 20% in the number of required off-street parking spaces to accommodate on-site seating at the Togo's restaurant. Pursuant to Development Code Section 22.48.030, permits shall be acted upon concurrently and the highest n. in this case, the Planning Commission is the.highest authority. authority shall make final determinatio CONDITIONAL USE PERMI'T/DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Applications for Conditional Use Permits and Development Reviews are discretionary reviews. Conditional Use Permits are reviewed for the location, design, configuration and potential impacts to ensure that the proposed use will protect the public health, safety and welfare. The Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit No. 1998-09 on October 13, 1998 per Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-21. A conditional of approval, 5(d), requires any additional uses based on occupancy shall not be permitted without a revision to the approved Conditional Use Permit -The applicant is requesting to change the use from a delicatessen to a restaurant and therefore is subject to amending both the Conditional Use Permit and the Development Review. ® Legal Nonconforming Uses and Structures New construction projects take into account the revised Development Code Standards. However, for those products that were developed legally before the adoption of the 1998 Code, yet do not comply with the current standards, their status becomes legal nonconforming. Per Development Code Section 22.68.030(D) a nonconforming structure, rendered nonconforming due to lack of compliance, with current standards regarding off-street parking, may undergo changes in compliance with Section 22.68.030(B) for changes, expansion, or structural alterations. In this case there are no changes, expansion or structuralalterationsto the shopping center or the suite within the shopping center. Therefore the shopping center structure maintains its legal nonconforming status with a conforming use. Furthermore; Section 22.68.030(1))(2)(c.) states that the approval of a Conditional Use Permit is not required if the new use will be underparked by 25 percent or more and a parking study has been prepared to determine the required number of parking spaces. As stated previously, the amendment of the Conditional Use Permit is a condition of the previous approval required. The parking for this additional use will be discussed with for the shopping center and is therefore the Minor Variance and Parking Study analysis. o Development Standards The parking for the original Conditional Use Permit and Development Review approval was based on the Los Angeles County Code using occupancy and square footage (see tables below). The approved site plan allowed for 37 spaces of both compact and standard sizes ranging from a width of 7.5 feet to 8 feet and a length of 15 to 18 feet respectively. Per the Los Angeles County Code requirement and the plans submitted a total of 49 spaces were required to support the uses as described. The staff report describes that theoretically the parking for the site at 37 spaces could support the uses based on the staggering of hours of operation for the various business and uses in the center. However, per the Resolution's condition of 3 Additionally, this application requests a Minor Variance for a decrease of 20% in the number of required off-street parking spaces to accommodate on-site seating at the Togo's restaurant. 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. • •El a 3 1 v Fj DWi 5 ME• Applications for Conditional Use Permits and Development Reviews are discretionary reviews. Conditional Use Permits are reviewed for the location, design, configuration and potential impacts to ensure that the proposed use will protect the public health, safety and welfare. The Planning Commission approved. a Conditional Use Permit No. 1998-09 on October 13, 1999 per Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-21. A conditional of approval, 5(d), requires any additional uses based on occupancy shall not be permitted without a revision to the approved Conditional Use Permit., The applicant is requesting to change the use from a delicatessen to a restaurant and therefore is subject to amending both the Conditional Use Permit and the Development Review. ® Legal Nonconforming Uses and Structures New construction projects take into account the revised Development Code Standards. However, for those products that were developed legally before the adoption of the 1998 Code, yet do not comply with the current standards, their status becomes legal nonconforming. Per Development Code Section 22.68.030(D) a nonconforming structure, rendered nonconforming due to lack of compliance with current standards regarding off-street parking, may undergo changes in compliance with Section 22.68.030(B) for changes, expansion, or structural alterations. In this case there are no changes, expansion or structural alterations to the shopping'' center or the suite within the shopping center. Therefore the shopping center structure maintains its legal nonconforming status with a conforming use. Furthermore, Section 22.68.030(D)(2)(c.) states that the approval of a Conditional .Use Permit is not required if the new use will be underparked by 25 percent or more and a parking study has been prepared to determine the required number of parking spaces. As stated previously, the amendment of the Conditional Use Permit is a condition of the previous approval for the shopping center and is therefore required. The parking for this additional use will be discussed with the Minor Variance and Parking Study analysis. ® Development Standards The parking for the original Conditional Use Permit and Development Review approval was based on the Los Angeles County Code using occupancy and square footage (see tables below). The approved site plan allowed for 37 spaces of both compact and standard sizes ranging from a width of 7.5 feet to 8 feet and a length of 15 to 18 feet respectively. Per the Los Angeles County Code requirement and the plans submitted a total of 49 spaces were required to support the uses as described. The staff report describes that theoretically the parking for the site at 37 spaces could support the uses based on the staggering of hours of operation for the various business and uses in the center. However, per the Resolution's condition of 3 . The parking The City of Diamond Bar adopted today's DevelopmeneCode ns for Parkin- stalls for commercialquses are 9 for today's code do not allow compact spaces and dim P feet wide by 19 feet in length with driving aisles larger than currently on site. Therefore, the current Also, the actual reconfiguration shopping center parking lot is considered legal nonconforming. guration of the permits require the parking spaces as shown in the table interior tenant improvements from the building below: Diamond Retail Banks l space/ Fast Food Restaurant & Delicatessens 1 parking space/ P g P Bar's Development 1 parking space/ 250 sq. ft. of gross parking 300 sq. ft. of gross Outdoor Dining 1 parking space/ 250ross floor f g Carea ode adopted sales area floor area 100 sq. ft. of gross December floor area 1998 Hollywood5000 total square feet Video14209 square feet of gross sales area 17 s aces 2500 square feet =Cathayk rReuirac Requires 8 spaces 1400 square feet Starbucks Requires 14 spaces 200 square feet Starbucks outdoor dining Requires 2 s aces 1119 square. feet Togo's Requires 4 spaces 8 spaces 16 spaces 4 spaces Total 45 17 spaces Spaces Re wired With regard to the proposed restaurant use within the current shopping center, staff has reviewed the project for the land use to its relationship with surrounding uses and zones. As stated in the background, the project site is consistent with the General. Plan land use designation of General Commercial (C), for .regional, freeway oriented, and/or community service commercial use. Additionally, the use is permitted in the Unlimited Commercial -Billboard Exclusion (C -3 -BE) zone. The Building and Safety Division has reviewed the subject plans for occupancy. The tables.as proposed by Togo's conform to occupancy and placement. There are no deficiencies in the seating arrangements. The following agencies are required to review, approve and/or license this application. The list includes but is not limited to the Los Angeles County Fire Department and the Los Angeles County Business License Department. Review; approval and licensing is a conditional of approval before seating is allowed. The City of Diamond Bar adopted today's Development Code in December 1998. The parking requirements for today's code'do not allow compact spaces and dimensions for parking stalls for commercial. uses are 9 feet wide by 19 feet in length with driving aisles larger than currently on site.. Therefore, the current shopping center parking lot is considered legal nonconforming. Also, the actual reconfiguration of the interior tenant improvements from the building permits require the parking spaces as shown in the table below: Diamond Retail Banks Fast Food Delicatessens Bar's 1 parking space/ 1 parking space/ Restaurant & 1 parking space/ Development 250 sq. ft. of gross 300 sq. ft. of gross Outdoor Dining 250 sq. ft. of Code adopted sales area floor area 1 parking space/ gross floor area December 100 sq. ft. of gross 1998 floor area Hollywood 5000 total square feet Video 4209 square feet of gross sales area Requires 17 spaces Cathay Bank 2500 square feet Requires 8 spaces Starbucks 1400 square feet Requires 14 spaces 200 square feet Starbucks outdoor dining Requires 2 spaces Togo's 1119 square feet Requires 4 spaces Total 45 17 spaces' 8 spaces 16 spaces 4 spaces Spaces Required With regard to the proposed restaurant use within the current shopping center, staff has reviewed the project for the land use to its relationship with surrounding uses and zones. As stated in the background, the project -site-is-consistent with the General. Plan land use designation of General Commercial (C) for regional, freeway'oriented, and/or community service commercial use. Additionally, the use is permitted in the Unlimited Commercial -Billboard Exclusion (C -3 -BE) zone. The Building and Safety Division has reviewed the subject plans for occupancy. The tables as proposed by Togo's conform to occupancy and placement. There are no deficiencies in the seating arrangements. The following agencies are required to review, approve and/or license this application. The list includes but is not limited to the Los Angeles County Fire Department and the Los Angeles County Business License Department. Review, approval and licensing is a conditional of approval before seating is allowed. 5 • Hours of Operation Retail 1 parking space/ Banks o ace/ 1 parking space/ Fast Food Restaurant & Outdoor Dining Diamond Bar's Development Code adopted 250 sq. ft. of gross sales 300a °f doss o=gaTeparkina I parking space/ 100 sq ft. of gross floor December 1998 area am .m. 5:30 am -12 am10:00 area Hollywood Video 5000 total square feet m-12:00 am 6.00 am -12 am 10:00 am -10:00 .m. 4209 square feet of gross c,,,,�ta� - 1D:OOam-12:00 am 6:00 am -11 m. sales area Closed Re vires 17 spaces Cathay Bank 2500 square feet Requires 8 spaces 1400 square feet Starbucks Requires 14 spaces 200 square feet outdoor dining Re vires 2 s aces 1119 square feet To o's g :spaces Requires 11 spaces 17 spaces 8 27 spaces Tota152 Spaces • Hours of Operation Das ood Video Starbucks 5:30 -11 To o's 10.00 am -9:00 .m. Catha Bank 9:00 am -5:00 .m. Monda -Thursda m-12:00 am m-12:00 am P am .m. 5:30 am -12 am10:00 am -10:00 .m. 9:00 am -6:00 .m. Frida m-12:00 am 6.00 am -12 am 10:00 am -10:00 .m. 10:00 am -2:00 c,,,,�ta� - 1D:OOam-12:00 am 6:00 am -11 m. 10:00 am -8:00 .m. Closed • Parking Study As required by today's Development Code, the applicant's have had prepared a Shared Parking Analysis. The conclusion is based on a typical Friday. The peak shared demand for parking is.expected to be 32 spaces upon full occupancy of the building which according to the report allows 11, spaces open on the existing site that has 43 spaces. This study was performed in January 2000 on similar sites in other cities. As stated in the correspondence, this choice of studying off-site locations was because on-site business uses arking ratio pattern would be different than for a mature business.. were relatively new and the hourly p I However, the City's Traffic Engineer, Warren Siecke, has reviewed the project information and data and has not approved the said report. His October 2, 2000 memo is attached. Basically, he notes that the spaces marked specifically for the Cathay Bank are confusing to customers of the subject center. These markings VA Diamond Bar's Retail Banks Fast Food Restaurant & Development 1 parking space/ 1 parking space/ Outdoor Dining Code adopted 250 sq. ft. of gross sales 300 sq. ft. of gross l parking space/ j December 1998 area floor area 100 sq. ft. of gross floor 10:00am-12:00 am 6:00 am -12 am 10:00 am -10:00 p.m. area Hollywood Video 5000 total square feet 6:00 am -11 p.m. 10:00 am -8:00 .m. Closed 4209 square feet of gross sales area Requires 17 -spaces Cathay Bank 2500 square feet Requires 8 spaces Starbucks 1400 square feet Requires 14 spaces 200 square feet outdoor dining Requires 2 spaces Togo's 1119 square feet Requires 11 spaces Total 52 Spaces 17 spaces 8 spaces 27 spaces Required ® Hours of Operation Das I Hollywood Video Starbucks Togo's Cath a Bank Monday -Thursday 10:00am-12:00 am 5:30 am -11 p.m. 10:00 am -9:00 p.m. 9:00 am -5:00 p.m. Friday 10:00am-12:00 am 5:30 am -12 am 10:00 am -10:00 p.m. 9:00 am -6:00 p.m. Saturday 10:00am-12:00 am 6:00 am -12 am 10:00 am -10:00 p.m. 10:00 am -2:00 p.m. Sunda 10:00am-12:00 am 6:00 am -11 p.m. 10:00 am -8:00 .m. Closed Parking Study As required by today's Development Code, the applicant's have had prepared a Shared Parking Analysis. The conclusion is based on a typical Friday. The peak shared demand for parking is expected to be 32 spaces upon fulloccupancy of the building which according to the report allows 11 spaces open on the existing site that has 43 spaces. This study was performed in January 2000 on similar sites in other cities. As stated in the correspondence, this choice of studying off-site locations was because on-site business uses were relatively new and the hourly parking ratio pattern would be different than for a mature business: However, the City's Traffic Engineer, Warren Siecke, has reviewed the project information and data and has not approved the said report. His October 2, 2000 memo is attached. Basically, he notes that the spaces marked specifically for the Cathay Bank are confusing to customers of the subject center. These markings 7 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct staff as appropriate. REQUIRED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS: 1. The proposed use is allowed within the subject -zoning district with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Development Code and the Municipal Code. 2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. 3. The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. 4. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed including access, provisions of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and the absence of physical constraints. 5. Granting the Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to person, property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning districts in which the property is located. 6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). REQUIRED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS: 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). Z • �, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct staff as appropriate. 11,40011 1 f Ilkli 02W 01 IINFJ0 L The proposed use is allowed within the subject -zoning district with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Development Code and the Municipal Code. 2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.. 3. The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. 4. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed including access, provisions of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and the absence of physical constraints. 5. Granting the Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to person, property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning districts in which the property is located. 6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). I. 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). GI TOOO'S 1183 S. Dwunond Bar Blvd Diamond Bar`• CA. 81765-2204 October 3, 2000 CITY OF DUMOND BAR ComnwrAy & DwmbPm d 96rvioars Dept. 2166 East Copley Drive, Suft 190 Dle"wW ger, GA. 91785-4177 ATTENTION: Undo Smith Request appika" for Indoor "a*V be continued uni in order that we may subfNt addWnW data to support i_J J .`.I�! : r O C..?f•' TOWS 1193 S. Diamond Bar Blvd Diwmrtd Bur` CA. 91765-2204 October 3. 2000 MY OF OLAMOND BAR Comfmnfty & Dwv*bPmwd Sanksm D*pL 216W East Copley Od", Sulls 190 DWnmW SK CA. 917854177 ATTOMON: Lh*da Sffft RequW aPPM8" fOf WftW "8** be cwftued un 01 wftr that we may sub nVI adddbW dab to suppwt T77,q-e AJ jeP ca uu cittl of fliamorid Bar CnVOFDUMOr(D1k&X t?L DUARTMENT OF COMMUMTY & DEVXW?XV`lT SEILVICXS Rmmip II. pLa"ifts D"i" Fly -- - j C -c Sj.190, Dommidlim.r-APIUS Dam &med 21 "0 & Copley DRivs ("396.5676 FcK (909)$61-3117 CDNOMQM USE PERMIT APPUCAT)ON 41, vr- beyit 444 (Laa 'atom-7vG-0 ts JLA a= 0 0 AA- rxw LLA. D, 2.ri 5 6.4.0 COV DtAr!&gqj3 JA42 CA. d Far-.-m--Q8-qs 62.1 FW c?" JAIL -AL& f Tim (.9)OP: 0 -0 7' 9 Id NOTE: It it die mudify6s QW is wdtics *hWdkW or*gwpgW P-=tsins ddLis CAM am Rom" Of A6 hada Amar"PO 0 JOA IC L A r mom best of asr ia..tatEe f Gerd wwoffopi.- I, dwwiAwjtxt4 AV* W40" hint Nfimc R o S64i,- fA 4 1 Z's (Appkm or 9- .N� sip -d D�w (ApplirAm A CO Zembs Previlmu CAM; Prmw use offsite IA61b uj JC N14S sAtAyr so' use "PW for L 413 uu 11:128+ City of Diamond Bar 9 86I-311? 0 cTrIVOYDE'AIRAX INS lop P14I 21 "O&CwP6I Sl-iI (949)396-5676 F=(90-9)961-3117 CMWWU USE PEWff APPWATICW 6-0 ts An"wh Afa "we A6I flZ COY Aon C.. NOTEtb®®ypW®ats7,;LF,3 (Aftch s9mm SbM jfMMMI tA"PGMtjSL)Brad Sips aa�r 4 7-J. CCWA-*n. 1, , A * — --- —:.— Aw.& prist NAM :RO siped Loeaoe,� l9• 5LA Alo'lb Oin" "INI Of kw% md lot C&I Uw of sift SA.4J uj C W4W f or -S."C'Ad-VI If A A6 _ CITY A DIA JOND BAR COMMM17Y DEVELOPhW-NT DEPARTJ►IENT 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 (909)396-5676 Fax (909)gC-1-3117 c VARIANCE APPLICATION U Record Owner Name (Last name first) Address City Phone( ) FPL # Deposit $ Receipt# By------------- Date Recd Applicant Applicant's Agent (IAst name Cost) P0--rrt�"z�41% Ce -fit$--batt—C4 1 2g 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 cen* that I am the owner of the herein described property and permit the applicant to frk this request. Signed (Ali record owners) Date Certification: 1, the undersigned, herby sen* under penalty of perjury that the ir(lormadion herein provided is correct to the best of my knowledge.. - Print Name (Applicant or Agent) Signed Date (Applicant or Agent) Location (Street address or Una and lot number) , between and (Street) Zoning JIM Project Size(grassaates) Project Density I0 _^ 'Present Use of Site Use applied for (Street) CITY DIARfOND BARCORM DEVELOPAMNT DEP 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 DEPARTMENT (909)396-S676 Fax (90g)gF1-3117 VAR.LANCE APPLICATION Record Owner Name (Last name first) Address City Phone( ) Casco FPL x Deposit S Reccipt# By Date Recd oo Applicant Applicant's Agent pnamm�1 sJj_ k Ir, IT i („ (Last name lust) ------------- Phone( ) NOTE: It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Co nunun of the principals involved during the prn8 of this rY Detreloptnent Director in writing of any change (Attach separate Sheet, if necessary. including names, addresses, and signatures of members of partneahi ditectocs of corpot•Stions.) ps, joint ventures, and � Consent: I ce 'r4l' that I am the owner of the herein deseribed propen), and permit the applaeant to request. ,%rle that Signed (All record owners) Date Cerrificatiar: I, the undersigned, hereb}+ eertfj► under penalty Of ecorrect to the best of my knowledge.. - P �' Jr that the ir(%rmation herein provided >s Print Name (Applicant or Agent) Signed (APpLcant or Agent) Date Location _.. (Street address or eras and lot number) between • And (Street) Zoning (Str1e=) HNM Project size(grossacrea) Project Density Previtws Cases . Present Use of Site Use VPGod for h To: Unda Smith From: Warren Sieclw Fax: Pages: r Phone: 02ft: October Z 2000 Re: Togo's Restaurant CC: • comments: Based on our discussion this morning and the 925 letter from Jack Greenspan at Linscott, Law & Greenspan, I have a better understanding of the issues involved with this project. The rationale presented by Mr. Greenspan for studying other sites is understandable given that it was done in December, 1999 when Starbucks and Hollywood Video were newly opened and Cathay Bank was undergoing tenant improvements. The data LLG obtained probably was the "best available' at that time. However, nearly a year has passed and the current occupants have an established clientele. At this time, it is possible to obtain data that reflects actual conditions at the site. My observations during the noon hour today revealed that several customers of Togo's parked off-site in the spaces along the south and east sides of Jack In The Box Even though spaces were available on the project site, several Togo's customers chose to park on the Jack In The Box site. A possible explanation for this is that the Jack In The Box parking spaces appear to be wider than some of the Togo's spaces. Another factor is that sic of the spaces on the north side of the bank are marked as 'Cathay Bank' Project customers and employees who are parking on adjacent properties. • The added impact of longer term occupancy of the parting spaces for customers to eat in the restaurant in addition to the present take-out operation. Possibly the "Pasadena data' can be factored to the current `Diamond Bar' data to forecast this impact. • An evaluation of the sire of the parting spaces as they relate to current code requirements and to the propensity for customers to park elsewhere. u 7--.t*,G rr' fti�t E "J ' �a- To: Linda Smith From: Warren Siechs Fax: Pages: Phone: tom: Ocher 2, 2000 Re. Togds Restaurant CC: ® Comments: .Based on our discussion this morning and the W5 tetter from Jack Greenspan at Linscott, Law & Greenspan, I have a better understanding of the issues involved with this project The rationale presented by Mr. Greenspan for studying other sites is understandable given that it was done in December, 1999 when Starbucks and Hollywood Video were newly opened and Cathay Bank was undergoing tenant improvements. The data LLG obtained probably was the "best available" at that time. However, nearly a year has passed and the current occupants have an established clientele. At this time, it is possible to obtain data that reflects actual conditions at the site. My observations during the noon hour today revealed that several customers of Togo's parked off-site in the spaces along the south and east sides of Jack in The Box; Even though spaces were available on the project site, several Togo's customers chose to park on the Jack In The Box site. A possible explanation for this is that the Jack In The Box parking spaces appear to be, wider than some of the Togo's spaces. Another factor is that six of the spaces on the north side of the bank are marked as "Cathay Banks' With this additional information, I now believe 9 would be appropriate to conduct a Shared Parking Analysis on the Diamond Bar site. The following considerations should be included in the analysis: Project customers -and employees who are-parki on -ad' cent - r'r9 la properties: . _ ... - ®; The added impact of longer term occupancy of the parking spaces for customers to eat in the restaurant in addition to the present take-out operation. Possibly the "Pasadena data" can be factored to the current 'Diamond Bar" data to forecast this impact ® An evaluation of the size of the parking spaces as they relate to current code requirements and to the propensity for customers to park elsewhere. r Ms. Linda Smith E N G I N E E R S City of Diamond Bar September 25,-2000 Page Two We welcome the oppommity to submit this letter. Should there be any fiuther questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, Linscott, Law do Greenspan, Engineers .YM. pan, P.E. c: Mr. Bob Parka, TOGO'S Mr. W=W Scid P.E. avoe RLeW MWa IM.rw'o Ms. Linda Smith City of Diamond Bar September 25, 2000 Page Two hicome the opportunity to submit this l not hesitate to call. etter. Should there be any further questions, Please do t Very truly yours, LinscotU Lair & Gmenspan, Engineers c: Mr: Bob Pantry, T GO -S W. Warrea Sriicim, P-p- -♦ •.VA 1 .rev J. ..✓1. _ -�- '.�.' - MEMORANDUM IIhSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 234 fast Colorado Boulevard, Suite 400 Pasadena, California 91101-2201 Tel 626.796.2322 Fax 626.792.0941 E•mall gteenspanQligengineemcom Date: January 31, 2000 To: (1) Bob Parker (2) Jacob Khakshouri From: Jack Greenspan Subject: 'TOGO's Shared Parking Analysis Fax No.: (1) ` 909.305.0599 No. Pages: 13 Hard Copy: Yes in mail (2) 310.526.9626 Deal Bob and Jacob: Atta ,hed is the completed TOGO's Shared Parking Analysis. The results of the analysis show that 32 parking spaces are required, which is 11 spaces less than provided. if there are any questions regarding the Shared Parking Analysis please feel free to call me. Best Regards.... Jack Greenspan. t1:VOd 14.l11ilB�t9IUr(1.WPD E N G I N E E R S ENGINEERS & PLANNERS a TRAPnc, TRANSPORTAT04 PAr2gNG 234 East Colorado Blvd, Sure 4(4 a Pasadera, California 911 of Phone: 626796-23,22 a Fax: 626 792-0941 Jant.ary 31, 2000 Mr. Bob.Parker Parker Family Franchises 251 South San Dimas Canyon Road San Dimas, California 91733 _ Subject: Shared Parking Analysis - TOGO'S at 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard Dea: Mr. Parker. Pursuant to your request, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, has prepared the following shard Parking analysis to determine if the proposed TOGO's can be added to the three uses that have been approved for the 10,200 square foot building located at 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard, in the City of Diamond Bar, California. Shared Parking Conclusions It has been determined that the existing parking associated with the building located at 1195 Diamond Har Boulevard will satisfy the project peak parking demand for TOGO's as well as the peak parking demand for the three existing uses. This conclusion is based on a shared parking analysis for a typical Friday. The peak shared demand for parking on a typical Friday is expected to be 32 spaces upon full occupancy of the building. Thus, the existing parking supply of 43 spaces exceeds the peak shared demand for parking. Project Description The site; located at 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard, in the City of Diamond Bar, is proposed to contain four commercial tenants within a total combined floor arca of approximately 10,200 square feet ;SF). There are currently three tenants located within this building. The City of Diamond Har will permit the proposed TOGO'S to be the fourth tenant, based on the results of a shared parking an4ysis which shows that the existing on-site supply of43 parking spaces will meet the projected shared parking requirement. The existing building tenants include a Starbucks Coffee with approximately 1,400 SF of building floor area, a Hollywood Video with approximately 5,000 SF of builciing floor area, and a Cathay Bank with approximately 2,530 Sr- of building floor area. The proposed TOGO's will contain approximately 1,270 SF of building floor area. P"iPM. L:n'COt; F.E.IRet.► lack M. k;reenrpaq P.E IAil:kam taw, P E (Ret` Paul W. *A61kinxr, RE John P A09fit P.E. David S. Shendar, PE. Costa mesa - 714 641.1587 0 San Oiego - 619 299-3090 - Las Vegas - 702 451-1920 a M LG2W8 Cornpamy Mr. Bob Parkec Parker Family Franchises January 31 2000 E I N E E R S Page Two City Code Parking Requirement The existing City of Diamond Bar Development Code parking requirements were utilized to determine the number of parking spaces required to be provided. The City Code parking regLirements are displayed in Table 1 at the rear of this letter. As shown in Table 1, based on the ON Code parking requirements, a total of 55 parking spaces are required when the TOGO's is added to the three existing uses in the building. Shared Parking Analysis Methodology The shared parking analysis is based on information contained in Shared Parking which was published by ULI-The Urban Land Institute in 1983. The shared parking analysis methodology is used to determine peak parking demand for a combination of uses that can share the same parking .spaces. The shared parking analysis accounts for hourly variations in parking demand, while the City Code parking requirements sum the peak: parking demand for each use to determine the required nun-ber of parking spaces. The shared parking analysis methodology reflects actual experience, sines it recognizes the fluctuations in parking demand over time for different types of uses. The parking demand hourly variation factors found in Shared Parking are not applicable to the proposed project since the data is for a larger mix of general retail uses and thus does not reflect the specific combination of uses that are located at this small single building site. Therefore, new counts to d:termine hourly variations in parking demand, were performed for each use that exists or is planned for the building. The counts were performed on a Friday as shown in Ta le 2. The results of the parking counts are summarized in Table 3. The data was recorded continuously and then summarized intol5 minute segments. The physical count data was then converted into a percent of the maximum number of parked vehicles. As highlighted in Table 3, peak parking at Starbucks Coffee is at 1:15 PM. Peak parking at Hollywood -Video is at 7:45 PM, and the peak at Cathay Bank is at 3:00 PM. The peak at the TOGO'S is atl2:15 PM. Additionally, the percent of parked vehicles is charted against the time ofday on Exhibits 1. 2, 3. and 4 for the Starbucks Coffee, Hol: ywood Video, Cathay Bank, and TOGO's, respectively. TOGO'S Shared Parking Analysis The shared parking analysis for the proposed TOGO's addition was prepared for a typical Friday. The hourly variations from able 3 were incorporated into the shared parking analysis. The results are displayed in Table 4 and shown graphically on EXNbit 5. As shown in Table 4 and on Exhibit 5, the peak parking demand for the building with the TOGO's added, on a typical Friday, occurs at both 12:45 PM and at 1:00 PM when 32 parking spaces are shown to be required. The existing parking supply for the site is 43 parking spaces. Therefore, based on the shared parking analysis, the existing parking supply is sufficient to meet the peak park ing requirement with a surplus of 11 parking spaces. Mr. Bob Parker Parker Family Franchises January 31, 2000 E N C1 N E E R S Page Three We welcome the opportunity to prepare this shared parking analysis. Should there be any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 626.796.2322 or to e-mail meat greenspan@llgengineers.com. Ver., truly yours, LinscoM Law & Greenspan, Engineers J M. Grtpan, P.E. P cipal MSH Md A Mhmwlts ovoe Fu.L%zslOMPONIw-siovxwrc E N 61 N E E R 5 Table 1 CITY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENTS [1J TOGO's, Diamond Bar 31-jan-cwv MERCHANT SIZE PARKING' NUMBER OF RATE REQUIRED (SPACE PER SF) SPACES Starbucks Coffee 1,400 SF 11100 14 Hollywood Video 5,000 SF 11250 1/300 20 8 Cathay Bank 2,530 SF TOGO's 11270 SF 11100 _13 TOTAL 10,200 SF 55 111 Source: City of Diamond Bar Development Code, Section, 22.30.040 l E N c; I N E E R S Table 2 DATA COLLECTION CHARACTERISTICS TOGO°s, Diamond Bar 31 -Jan -2000 [1 j Hollywood Video opens at 10:00 AM. [2] Cathay Bank doses at 6:00 PM. 13] TOGUs opens at 10:00 AM. 2 Table 3 E N 0 I N E E R S SUMMARY OF PARKING UTIuzAnoN (1] TOGO'S, Diamond Bar 31-J0n•2000 ENDING AT STARBUCKS COFFEE NU PERCENT OF TOTAL BER OF PARKED VEHICLESP H.WOOD PERCENT VIDEO i OF TOTAL R TIME PERIOD CATHAY' PERCENT BANK ! OF TOTAL TOGO'S I PER'CE'NT OF TOTAL 8:C0 AM 23 1 5a.97% - ! - 5 8.06% 8:15 AM 24 61.54% 5 8.064• _ - - 01D APA 29 T4.38% 13 20.97% - 8:45 AM 30 1 76.927E 22 35.48% - 9:00 AM 28 71.79% 0 • 0.00% 31 1 50.00% 7 _ 21.88% 8:15 AM 24 61.54% 0 0.00%' 36 58.06% 7 21.e84'• ' 9:30 AM 24 61.54% 0 0.00% 40 64.52410 6 25.00% 9:45AM 26 66.87% 2 4.44% 42 67.74% 6 18.75% 10:00 AM 25 64.10% 2 4.44% 45 72.58% 7 21.88% 10:15 AM 29 • 74.36% 2 4.44% 50 80.65% 8 25.00% 10:30 AM1 28 66.67% 4 8.89% 51 8226% 7 21.88% 10:45 AM 1 26 66.57% 4 8.89% 60 96.77% 9 26.13% 11:00 AM I 28 71.79% 4 8.89% 59 95.16% 11 34.38% 11:15 AM 31 79.49% 5 11.11% 49 79.03% 10 3125% 11:30 AM 30 76.92% 5 11.11% 53 85.48% 131 40.63% 11A5AM 29 7426% 4 8.89% 48 77.42%1- 9 T 59.35% 12:00'PM 12:15 PM 28 . 28 71.79% 71.79% 3 2 6.67% 4.44% 47 48 75.81% 77.427b 29 32 90.63% 100.00% 12:3D PM 28 71.79% 4 8.69% 1 53 85.4895 26 78.'.396 12:45 PM 33 84.62% 5 11.11% 56 90.32°A 27 84.38% 1:03 Phi 1 35 j 89.74% 4 8.69% 51 82.26°,e 24 75.009E 1:15 PM 1 39 : 100.007. 3 6.67% 54 87.10% 15 1-48.85% 4e.88% 1:30 hi 1 36 92.31% Ur 20.0045 58 93.55% 15 1A5 PM 1 35 89.74% 7 15.580A 51 82.26% 13 40.63% 2b0 PM 1 33 i 84.624'• 6 13.33% 45 7258°.1, 11 34.39% 2:15 PM 1 33 1 84.62% 6 1 13.33% _ SS 88.71% 12 37.50% 2:30 PM 1 31 79.49% 7, 1 15.55% 53 85.48% 9 28.13% 2:45 PM 1 37 94.87% 8 17.78% - 56 90.32°.6 7 21.88% 3:00 M 26 66.6746 6 13.33% /0 12 37.50% 3:15 PM 25 1 65.67% 8 17.78% 61 ° 7 21.88% 3:30 PM 25 F-64 10% 10 22.22% 54 87.10% 9 28.13% 3:45 Phi 25 64.10% 11 24.4499 58 93.55% 11 34.38% 4:00 PM 22 1 56.41% 15 1 33.33% 1 5182.269b 10 31.25% 4:15 PM 21 53.8591* 15 33.33% 53 85.48% 7 21.88% 4:30 PM 25 64.10% 14 31.11% 50 80.65% 2 6.25% 4:45 PM 21 53.85% 12 i • 28.679'0 50 i 80.65% 2 6.25%: 5:00 PM 15 38.46% 18 35.56% 43 09.3596 2 6.25% 5:15 PM 11 28.21% 16 35.569'o 34 54.84% 2 625% 5:30 PM 6 15.36% 15 33.3396 30 1 48.39%0 4 12.50% 5:45 PM 10 1 26.64% 3D 66.67% 28 45.169'• 3 9.38% 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6 6 15.38% _ 15.38% 22 20 i 46.89% 44.44% 19 4 3D.65% 6.4554 1.4 3 12.50% 9.38% 6:30 PIA 5 12.82% 27 7 65.00% 3 484% 3 9.38% 6:45 PM 5 12.82% 29 64.449'0 3 4.84% 3 _ 9.38% . 7:00 PM 5 12.82% 33 73.33% 3 4.B4% 5 15.63% 7:15 PPA 5 12.82% 27 60.009'1 i 4 12.50Y� 7:30 PM 7 _ 17.95% 32 71.11% 2 6.25% 7:45 P 7 17.95% 45 100.00 • __ 3 9 �B% 8:00 PM 7 172 34 75. 5 15.63% (113tudies conducted on 1/14(2000 at Starbu«ks Coffee and Hollywood Video on the comer of Fair Oaks Ave. and California 81vd. !n Pasadena, and 1!21!2000 at Cathay Bank on the comer of Newmark Ave. and AUm*Jc Blvd. In Monterey Park and Togo's on Halstead St. north of FoothIll Blvd. in Pasadena. Tabu 4 E N e E R7 FRIDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS (11 TOGO's, Diamond Bar, (2] eased on wee .,,..e v—"aKa m g,• -snared ParkinUU•The Urban Land Insotute.1903. (3; Saeed as the "h o u rly Par" aceumulatiar Pensentagea from studtea by LLG. (9)Basad on 8 �Y o/OO70nd Bar MvekWmnt Code Pandng FOVremorKa. Patktrt SUP* of 43 spinas. 0 Exhibit 1 PERCENT OF PARKING UTILIZATION BY TIME OF DAY Starbucks Coffee ® Fair Oaks Ave. and California Blvd.. Paaodsns 100.00%- 90.00%. 00.00% 90.0096 - -- - - - --- - --- - 00.00°h - - -- -- - -- ----- - -- 70.00% _ - - — ----_. ---- -- u 60.00% -- --- -- --... a 50.009'0 - ---- -- --- --- d o 40.009b — ---- - -- - - � 30.0096 _ -___ • . --- _._._------... -----. -- - - 20.009'° —.-----.—.—._.- --- ---- - _ 10.009. - -- - - - - ---- - - --- 0.00% 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM' 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 m 7:001'M ©:00 PM Time of Day lJNSCOTT :e-.; R F-. F tN\' S PA 1131100 Exhibit 2 PERCENT OF PARKING UTILIZATION By TIME OF DAY Hollywood Video Fair Oaks Ave. and C,1110mla Blvd., Pasadena 100.00% 90.00% 80.0096 70.00% 60.00% 50-00% 0 c 40.00% J! 30.00% 20.00% ------------- 10.00% 0.00% 8:00AM 9:00 AM 10.00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 rm 5:00 pm6:()o Pm 7:00 Tkne of nay Pm 8:00 Pm ......._. _ _.._....... .. ` i�wawiww�w . k N G 1 P/ E E B S - - Exhibit 3 PERCENT OF PARKING UTILIZATION BY TIME OF DAY Cathay Bank Q Newmark Ave. and Atlantic Blvd., Monterey Pack 100.0096 — 90.0096 -- - -- 80.00%.--- - - - -- --- -- - 70.00°/. -- — - - — u fi0A09e — _.�- --- - _-- - 50.00%- . 0.0096 - --- a. 0 c 40.0096 — -- -- --- - - -- • 0 o. 30.0096 - --- _ ------....---- 20.00%--- -- -- - - ...— 10.00% -. 0.00% --,--T 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM Time of Day 1/11/00 I I I i I 1.-\'SCOTT t RFVNISP-• N 100.0^°' 80.01 80.0c „ 70.00 d 0 60.00' Y 50.009 d. Q ® 40.009 4 30.9094 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% 0:01 Exhibit 4 PERCENT OF P ARMNG UTILIZATION BY TIME OF DAY TOO&& ® "StM ad St. north of Foothln Blvd. Pasadena 't•uu r -nn 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8.00 PM Time of D,y . 1/31/00 E N G I N t t K s Exhibit 5 SHARED PARKING DEMAND BY TIME OF DAY MGM, Dlamond Bar 1/31/00 45 ExistU®*Parkin® Supply ■ 43 Spaces 40 — - --.�.---- - - 35 - - - - ---- -- .- --- --- ® 30- IL 0 o. o 20-- E 0 E x' 15 --- ---.._ 0 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10..00 AM 11:00 AM NOON 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5.00 I'M 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8.00 PM Theo of Day I ATTACHMENT 'T' CUP 98-090), DR 98-110), MV 2000-19 NOVEMBER 14, 2000 -r— 1;-, - Q—M, From: Warren Siecke Fax: Pages: 1 Phone: Date: November 8, 2000 Re: Togo's Parking Study . CC: • Comments: I talked to Jack Greenspan of Linscott, Law & Greenspan today regarding my 11/6/00 comments on their parking study report. We discussed my comment on Page 2, par. 5. He explained that the 11 vehicles parked at Jack-in-the-Box included both their customers and Togo's. I suggested he may wish to change the 13.2% which represents the parking distribution over the entire study period to 17% which represents the distribution in the peak hour (12:30 to 1:30). This would result in a forecast demand of 33 spaces and still less than the 35 available. He said he would be prepared to discuss that if it comes up in the hearing. I also pointed out an error in the last paragraph on page 2. The denominator of the formula should be "1.000 -0.132." Lastly, we discu ed tth6 ue of "sit down" usage. He told me his client told him "this is not an issue." Based on my discussion with So .tae, Id him II aim sure it is. y3 Ober@ogo pkg std _ ATTACHMENT"Y CUP 98-09(1), DR 98-11(1). MV 2000-19 NOVEMBER 14, 2000 I 'PVT FAX C OVER PAGE E N G I N E E R S ENGINEERS & P 'RS _ TRAFFIC, TRANSPORTATION, PARKING 234 :East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 400 Costa Mesa 714.641.1587 Pasadena, California 91101 San Diego 619.299.3090 Phone: 626.796.2322 Fax: 626.792.0941 Err.;3Lil:pasadena@Ugengineers.com FAX MULTIPLE MESSAGE COVER SHEET Date: Time: From: JIM4 &MeN'5PPrq Plrcject: Job No. PRas,,es: 11J lIIL' �'V�/Vr/.urv. W S x -one: W A T"1zG'N 51 t'Z/ t5 Company: FaxN6. '1 ��}' '" -l'? _ Z (o `�"` " Recipient No: f Xwne: L.I" A Company: figs U�b4+ki►/WlD C!A'n` Fox No. 10q-SG1--111-1 Recipient No. 7. N, -.ane: 134-D pA'6C►1 M Company: �I Recipient No: 25 Faw No. 4f i - 5 V3 -11,0 40 Name: `-D A ONLY Company: 060"S Recipient No: Fay: No. q.0j_ &60-19 53 Name: _ Company. Flax No. Recipient No: MESSAGE: tI l A4 /WAD �svta� i p z,� n ► o � S, TU,9 WAO mitis uPo+e $rk"v*4 . Qtti� 0?" V*vttAT � E�-' �vx 6")wrs g/& 1M P A -61f L%/q W t-1rjSj -r IS :kw o f.0Vttig. )TS a f- ? D &V hD n. j N p1t V�% fmMult cAjLq.A'1NW Nr*e 5Uit M 0V VVM VA-Vrry IS VM) _�� may^, pg ��rNr���r �u n►w 4. , U 31w%�t� prut G �r LN&NIIIIIJIM Mr. Bob Parker ® Parker Family Franchises November 2, 2000 E N„ I N E E R 5 Page Two Parking Survey Results Table A (at the rear of this letter) presents the parking l during the seven hour survey period, ocations of the TOGO's customers observed and Table B the number of vehicles parked in each survey area everyl5 minutes over that same period. In the key lunch hour, the TOGO's customer peak was observed to be between 12:30 PM and 1:30 PM (time ending 12:45 PM to time ending 1:30 PM), during which a total of 54 TOGO's customers were observed. Of that number, 41(75.9 percent) were parked on-site (39 in the shared spaces and 2 in the spaces marked for Cathay Bank). A total of 9 TOGO'S customers (16.7 percent)were observed to park in the adjacent Jack-in-the-Box parking on the opposite side of the drive aisle. However, from examination of Table B it can be determined that during a number of vacant spaces available onre -site. On-site parking utilization ssemdefmm fr38 om occupancy (26 vaunt spaces) to 57 percent occupancy (18 vacant spaces) during the same period when 9 TOGO's customers were observed to park across the aisle in spaces which to the general public appear to be shared between the 1195 Building (TOGO's) and lack -in -the -Box. Affect of Parking Dimensions In response to staff comments regarding parking dimensions, we have measured the width of the existing onsite parking spaces. The marked compact spaces are 7-7- wide on average and the other spaces (with the exception of the 2 handicapped spaces) are 8'-1" on average. The current City of Diamond Bar Code calls for 9'-0" parking space width and does not provide for comp act Re- striping the on-site parking to meet the current Code will result in a total of 35 Par estimated loss of 7 spaces). PaB spaces (an On -Site Shaved Parking Supply versus Demand It has been noted by staff that the width ofthe existing Pam spaces may be a factor in the amount of parking that occurs at Jack-in-the-Box. From Table A, it can be seen that 23 TOGO's customers (13.2 percent) parked in the Jack-in-the-Box parking on the o lrxauiinatiosofTable Bshowsthe t 5 minute PPoshe side of the drive aisle. Peak utilization of parking on-site at the 1195 Building (shown as "TOGO's On -Site" in Table B) to be at 2:00 PM (time ending 2:00 PM) with 27 vehicles Parked on-site. At that same time a total of 11 vehicles (both project and Jack-in-the-Box customers) are shown parked in the Jack-in-the-Box parking on the opposite side of the drive aisle. Assuming that the percent of Jack-in-the-Box parking generated by the other on-site uses is similar to the Percent of TOGO's parkers in the Jack-in-the-Box parking, the total existing on-site peak demand can be projected. On this basis, we project a total on-site demand (TOGO's, Hollywood Video, Starbucks, and Cathay Bank) of 31 spaces [27/(1.000- 0.132) = 27/0:868 = 31]. With anon surplus'for contingencies. -site Code dimensioned parting supply of 35 spaces, there will be sufficient on-site parking to meet projected demand with a 4 space ATTACHMENT "4" . Cup 98-09(1), DR 9i3-11(1), MV 2000-19 NOVEMBER 14, 2000 To: Linda Smith From: Warren Siedce Fax: pages: Phone: oate: November S, 2000 Re: Togo's Paridng SWdy CC: ®Comments: I have reviewed the parking study prepared by LLG and faxed to me on November 2, 2000. I have the following cornMents: Page 2, par. 4 — The widths of the parking spaces are noted as 'on average-* This implies that some of the spaces must be smaller an the measured substandard widths. This would provide further justification for restripirtg to current cod the requirements. t concur with their suggestion that the narrow spaces may contribute to the amount of off-site parking that occurs. Page 2, par. 5 — K is noted that at 2:00 P.M., there were 27 vehicles parked on-site and 11 parked at the Jack in the -Bax site. This indicates to me that the peak demand forthe sije is S and that the calcination in the ne)d paragraph that results in a ptojecteg demand_001 is root meaningful. Si ogo s does not have a right to use the Jack- in -the -Box parking, it should not be assumed that those f"ities canes used to meet their demand. The study provides data on the e)osting uses, however, it does not address the effect on parking availability that the proposed. "sit down' restaurant -use .will -rave. Presumably, there win be more customers. in addition, the sit-down customers will stay longerthan the curTent'iake-out" customers. This will contribute to the need for more parking because the turnover rate of parking space occupancy will decrease. In summary, I am not comfortable with the conclusion that 31 spaces are adequate. 1 do concur with the need to restripe the parking areas to current code requirements. Ob~ ft SWY NOV 7 200 ATTACHMENT "5" CUP 98-090), DR 98-11(1), MV 2000-19 NOVEMBER 14, 2000 ��� PAGE FAX CCJVER n[in E 1 ENGINEERS & PLANNERS TRAFFIC, TRANSPORTATION, PARKING 1` G 1 4 E E R Costa Mesa 714.641.1587 23z- East Colorado ulevard, Suite 400 San Diego 619.299.309 Pas.0 adena, Califomi 91101 5 - Phoce: 626.796-23iFax- 626.792.0941 EmdJ:pasadena@llgcngineers-c0M FAX MULTIPLE MESSAGE COVER SHEET, D. ze: I I' Qa Time: From: Pro 10 13 AM Job No. L*) Mq 1 P, To Im Fu"UrrhyLy. ame: WITMICW F, a - No. 4L - 4 - 4, rNarne:NPA 5 M I " Fax -No. ','001- 50-311-7 -------- Company.. WAjvp�tw ASS U"r/ Recipient NO: Company. Ct r%b-F 1)1 h P-WIJO RA Recipient No: Name: E-013 potrzV_2 - company: Fi?.x. No. C, 0 of - 5 5'5 - 2.0 +o Recipient NO: Nome: L_ -Y o A Company: Recipient No: 4 Fax No. 9 OR - 060 -'1 OVV - Name: Company: - Fax No. Recipient -No: MESSAGE —1 E N G I N E E R S ENGINEERS 6c PWNNERS - 7RAWC, TRANSPORTATION, PARKING 234 East Colorado Blvd, Suite 400 a Pasadena, California 91101 Phone: 626 796-2322 a Fax: 626 792-0947 November 2, 2000 Mr. Bob Parker Parker Family Franchises 251 South San Dimas Canyon Road San Dimas, California 91733 Subject: Shared Parking Survey - TOGO's at 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard Dear Mr. Parker. In response to questions posed by City of Diamond Bar staff, we have conducted a survey of actual parking operations at the TOGO'S located at 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard. The parking survey was conducted on Friday, October 27, 2000, over a seven hour period between the hours of 11:00 AM and 6:00 PM. Ezisting Conditions The TOGO's is located in the northwest corner ofthe 1195 Building, with doors on both the north side and west side of the building (See Exhibit I at the rear of this letter). On-site parking totaling 42 parking spaces is provided along the north side ofthe 1195 Building (14 spaces), and in a parking bay on the west side of the 1195 Building (28 spaces), The 14 spaces on the north side of the building consists of 6 spaces marked for Cathay Bank, 6 shared spaces for all tenants in the 1195 Building, and 2 handicapped spaces. These on-site spaces are ,separated from 14 Jack-in-the-Box parking spaces by a drive aisle, and appear to the general public to be a single parking area shared between the 1195 Building and Jack-in-the-Box On the west side of the 1 195 Building, the 28 spaces consist of 14 shared spaces adjacent to the building on the east side ofthe drive aisle and 14 shared marked compact spaces on the west side of the drive aisle. Survey Methodology The parking survey was conducted on a Friday, a recognized day of peak activity and the same day of the week on which the off-site parking surveys contained in our January 31, 2000 letter report were made. A total of seven parking areas were surveyed, three on-site, three at Jack-in-the-Box, and one "other". Customers exiting the TOGO'S doors on the north side ofthe 1195 Building, and on the west side ofthe 1195 Building during the seven hour survey period were observed and their parking location noted. Walk-ins were noted as "other" The observations were totaled every 15 minutes. At that same time the number of vehicles parked in each survey area was also noted. PhiliPM. Linscau, P.E. (Ret.) lack M. Greenspan, P.E. William A Law, P.E. (Ret.) Paul K. Wilkinson, P.E. lohn P. Keating P.E. David 5. Spender, P.E. Costa Mesa - 774 641-1.587 - San Diego - 619 299-3090 a Las Vegas - 702 451-1920 8 An LG2WB Company Mr. Bob Parker Parker Family Franchises. November 2, 2000 Page Two E N G I N E E R S Parking Survey Results Table A (at the rear of this letter) presents the parking locations ofthe TOGO's customers observed during the seven hour survey period, and Table B the number of vehicles parked in each survey area everyl5 minutes over that same period_ In the key lunch hour, the TOGO's customer peak was observed to be between 12:30 PM and 1:30 PM (time ending 12:45 PM to time ending 1:30 PM), during which a total of 54 TOGO's customers were observed Of that number, 41(75.9 percent) were parked on-site (39 in the shared spaces and 2 in the spaces marked for Cathay Bank). A total of 9 TOGO's customers (16.7 percent)were observed to park in the adjacent Jack-in-the-Box parking on the opposite side of the drive aisle. However, from examination of Table B it can be determined that during that same hour there were a number of vacant spaces available on-site. On-site parking utilization varied from 38 percent occupancy (26 vacant spaces) to 57 percent occupancy (18 vacant spaces) during the same period when 9 TOGO's customers were observed to park across the aisle in spaces which to the general public appear to be shared between the 1195 Building (TOGO's) and Jack-in-the-Box. Affect of Parking Dimensions In response to staff comments regarding parking dimensions, we have measured the width of the existing on-site parking spaces. The marked compact spaces are T-7" wide on average and the other spaces (with the exception of the 2 handicapped spaces) are 8'-1" on average. The current City of Diamond Bar Code calls for 9'-0" parking space width and does not provide for compact parking. Re - striping the on-site parking to meet the current Code will result in a total of 35 parking spaces (an estimated loss of 7 spaces). On -Site Shared Parking Supply versus Demand It has been noted by staff that the width of the existing parking spaces may be a factor in the amount of parking that occurs at Jack-in-the-Box. From Table A, it can be seen that 23 TOGO's customers (13.2 percent) parked in the Jack-in-the-Box parking on the opposite side of the drive aisle. Examination of Table B shows the 15 minute peak utilization of parking on-site at the 1195 Building (shown as "TOGO's On -Site" in Table B) to beat 2:00 PM (time ending 2:00 PM) with 27 vehicles parked on-site. At that same time a total of 11 vehicles are shown parked in the Jackie the -Box parking onthe opposite side ofthe drive aisle. Assuming that the percent of Jack -in the -Box parking generated by the other on-site uses is similar to the percent of TOGO's parkers in the Jack-in-the-Box parking, the total existing on-site peak demand can be projected. On this basis, we project a total on-site demand (TOGO's, Hollywood Video, Starbucks, and Cathay Bank) of 31 spaces [27/(100.00-13.2) = 31]. With an on-site Code dimensioned parking supply of 35 spaces, there will be sufficient on-site parking to meet projected demand with a 4 space surplus for contingencies. E N G I N E E R S Wn Bob Parker Parker Family Franchises November 2 2000 Page Three Conclusions . ® Observations of TOGO's customers over a seven hour ' period on a Friday show that 23 TOGOs customers (13.2 percent) parked on the opposite side ofthe drive aisle on the north side of the 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard building. Parking space dimensions not withstanding, to the general public the parking on the opposite side of the drive aisle appears to be part of a single parking area shared between the 1195 Building (TOGO's) and Jack-in-the-Box: • During the peak lunch hour, 9 TOGO's customers were observed to park in the Jack -in -the Box parking, while at the same time 18 to 26 existing on-site parking spaces were vacant. • Re -striping existing on-site parking to meet the existing City of Diamond Bar Code'would reduce the number of parking spaces from 42 parking spaces to a total of 3 5 standard spaces (no compact spaces allowed by Code). Assuming that the percent of Jack in -the -Box parking generated by other on-site use is similar to the percent of TOGO's Parkers observed at Jack-in-the-Box, total on-site parking demand is projected to be 31 parking spaces. This is consistent with the shared parking demand of32 parking spaces projected in our January 31, 2000 letter report. With a supply of 35 parking spaces after re -striping to Code, there will be sufficient on-site parking to meet the projected 31 parking space demand with 4 surplus spaces. We welcome the opportunity to be of service. Should there be any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to call me at 626.796.2322 or to e-mail me at greenspan@Ugengineers.com. Very truly.yours,__ . Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Tric cipal B:UOE_fl1E�2978\REPORnPKG�1I V�R+p m JACK-IN-THE-BOX GRAND AVENUE o Ito LINSCOTT TOTAL NARBER OF PAWJNQ SPACES LAW SITE LOCATION G LAW EeN AN s T000s, DWAOM BAR E N G 8 N E E R 5 K01 u 0 JACK4-THE 4WX u JAWN-PSM a ao0 — -- — -- — -- — -- rl a r- T 8 SAW CATHAY, TOGO'S BANK C/I 1195 DIAMOND BAR BLVD. HOLLYWOOD VIDEO STARBUCKS" GRAND AVENUE o Ito LINSCOTT TOTAL NARBER OF PAWJNQ SPACES LAW SITE LOCATION G LAW EeN AN s T000s, DWAOM BAR E N G 8 N E E R 5 K01 E N G I N E E R 5 Table A OBSERVED PARKING LOCATIONS TOGO's, Diamond Bar Friday, October 27, 2000 (1) Designated bank parking spaces (6) at 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard. [2) Includes Hollywood Video and Starbucks Coffee at 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard LINSCOTT LAVV GREENSPAN Table B SUMMARY OF PARKING UTILIZATION TOGO's, Diamond Bar Friday, October 27, 2000 III Cathay Bank parking (Northside o 195 Diamond Bar Boulevard). 121 Shared parking (NoMside of 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard). 131 Shared parking (Westside of 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard). City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 8.1 REPORT DATE: November 8, 2000 MEETING DATE: November 14, 2000 CASEXILE NUMBER: Development Review No. 2000-18, Minor Variance No. 2000-13 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-12 APPLICATION REQUEST: A request to construct a three-story (two-story with basement), single-family residence of approximately 10,498 square feet with balconies, porch, and five -car garage, swimming pool/spa, and retaining walls in the rear and side yard with a maximum exposed height of six -feet. PROPERTY LOCATION• 2250 Indian Creek Road (Lot 66 of Tract No. 23483) PROPERTY OWNERS: Basant Sachdeva and Andrajinder Joneja 1738 E. Meats Avenue Orange, CA 92865 APPLICANT: Basant Sachdeva 1738 E. Meats Avenue Orange, CA 92865 BACKGROUND: The property owners, Basant Sachdeva and Andrajinder Joneja are requesting approval to construct a three- story (two-story with basement), single-family residence of approximately 10,498 square feet with balconies, porch, and five -car garage, swimming pool/spa and retaining walls in the rear and side yard with a maximum exposed height of six -feet. The project situs is 2250 Indian Creek Road (Lot 66 of Tract No. 23483) Diamond Bar, CA, within the gated community identified as "The Country Estates." The parcel is 1.32 gross acres and 1.25 net acres. It is 1 shaped irregularly, wide at the rear and sloping downward from Indian Creek Road to the rear of the property and the neighboring Flag -lot No. 65. The project site is zoned R-1-40,000 for single-family residence. Its General Plan Land Use designation is Rural Residential (RR) 1/du/acre. Generally, the following zones surround the subject site: to the north, south, east and west is the R-1-40,000 Zone. REVIEW AUTHORITY/APPLICATIONS This application requires Development Review by the Planning Commission per the City's Development Code, Section 22.48.020.A(1), which states 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. The proposed 10,498 square feet single-family residence on a vacant lot requires Development Review. The purpose of this review process is to establish consistency with the General Plan through the promotion of high aesthetic and functional standards to complement and add to the economic, physical, and social character of the City. The process will also ensure that new development and intensification of existing development yields a pleasant living, working, or shopping environment and attracts the interest of residents, workers, shoppers and visitors as the result of consistent exemplary design. Approval of a Minor Variance allows minimal increases in structure height, projections, and other standards, as well as decreases in building site area, setbacks, distances between structures, and off-street parking. The Minor Variance application, pursuant to Development Code Section 22.52.020, is a request to construct chimneys that extend approximately two and one-half feet above the maximum 35 -feet height permitted for a residence, as well as a request for a front yard setback reduction for the main structure of two feet. The purpose of a Minor Variance is to allow for adjustment from the development standards of the Development Code. The adjustment may be granted when special circumstances are applicable to the property (i.e. location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, unreasonable regulations, other conditions, or the strict application of the Development Code) denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zoning districts. The special circumstance must create an unnecessary, and non -self created hardship that makes it obviously impractical to require compliance with the development standards. Also, this application requires Minor Conditional Use Permit approval by the Hearing Officer, in this case the Planning Commission is the review authority, pursuant to Development Code Section 22.30.080(E) to create a driveway with a width greater than prescribed by the code. Pursuant to Development Code Section 22.48.030, applications shall be acted upon concurrently and the highest review authority shall make final determination. In this case, the Planning Commission is the highest review authority for all applications. 2 ANALYSIS: • ' ' • • -Development Standards The following is a comparison of the City's development standards and the project's proposed development standards: City's Develo ment Standards Pro'ect's Development Standards 1. Setbacks (main structure): 1. Setbacks (main structure): • Front yard -30' from property line • Front .yard- 28' from property line* • Side yards -10' & 15' minimum from • Side yards- 10' and 15' from property line property line • Rear yard -20' minimum from property line • Rear yard -Approximately 228' from property line • Site Coverage -overall maximum 30% • Site Covera ;e -A proximately 12% 2. Building Height: 2. Building Height: • Maximum 35' • Maximum 35' • Chimney projections* 2.5' above 35' 3. Parking: • Minimum two -car garage with each bay 3. Parking: • Five -car garage and motor court* minimum 10'x20' (Each bay dimension- minimum 10'x20') 4. Accessory Structures: 4. Accessory Structures: • Pool -Minimum 5' from sides/rear property • Pool -26' from closest side, approximately line 224' from rear nrnrert line *The above analysis indicates that the proposed residence requires a Minor Variance and Minor Conditional Use Permit application as stated in the section, Review Authority/Application and description of standards. The detailed analysis for the specifics and requested adjustments is discussed further in the report in the sections: MINOR VARIANCE and MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT • Architectural Features and Colors The proposed project's architectural design and palette are compatible with the eclectic architectural style of other homes within "The Country Estates," and are consistent with the City's General Plan, Development Code, and Design Guidelines. The proposed project's architectural style is Mediterranean. The project's architectural features include the use balconies with precast balustrades; porch and two-story entry/foyer with glass and columns; and layering of materials and finishes via the trimmed stucco details: crown molding, quatrefoils, and window treatments and multi-levels of roof lines of `Espana" Mission Sunrise by 9 Life Tile to add texture and contrast. The applicant has received the approval of "The Country Estates" Homeowners' Association Architectural Committee. The color board is attached. Additionally, there is no notation of the handrail for the exterior steps on the east side of the structure. The decorative nature of this handrail is a concern to the property owner of Lot 64. Though the landscape plan indicates trees and plants in this area, staff has added a condition of approval that the handrail detail be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval. Suggestions include balustrades or wrought iron for architectural continuity. ® Floor Plans The proposed single-family structure consists of two -stories and basement. The basement includes shower, sauna and storage with entry from the pool area; large recreation room; and maid's bedroom with bath. The first -story includes the two-story open entry/foyer and living room; office; dining room; kitchen with pantry; breakfast nook; family room with fireplace; powder bath; office; laundry; and five -car garage, two spaces as tandem. The first lower level includes the master bedroom with walk -in -wardrobes and bath; and three additional bedrooms with adjoining baths and two with walk -in -closets•, playroom; hall bath; and large storage room or possible den/bedroom. There are five designated bedrooms and a maid's bedroom. There is covered parking for five cars plus the motor court. A large office is 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. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES The pool/spa is the accessory structure. Per the above table, the pool/spa meets the Development Code standards for setbacks. The Building and Safety Division requires a separate permit for this structure. ® Front Setback Reduction Pursuant to the Diamond Bar Development Code adopted December 1998; a residential strudtiife in the R 1-40,000 Zone is required to maintain a 30 feet front setback. The main structure requires a Minor Variance because, as proposed, it does not comply with development standards, The subject site has grading constraints due to topographical differences. The project site's grade drops approximately 100 feet from the street to the ravine at rear property line. Due to the site's steepness, moving the buidable pad two feet toward the rear will cause additional fill work and the rear retaining wall to increase in height to approximately eight feet. Pursuant to the City's Design Guidelines and General Plan that encourage minimizing wall heights and minimizing grading to leave a site in its natural contours and retain the natural vegetation, it is favorable to reduce the front yard setback. M The granting of the Minor Variance for setback reduction can be based on three favorable conclusions: 1) the use is consistent with the surrounding homes in the vicinity, 2) the subject site is irregularly shaped with varying topography and the request minimizes the need for additional grading 3) the front setback reduction minimizes the need for higher retaining walls in the rear and side yards due to the fall of the topography. It is anticipated that the setback reduction impact will be insignificant since many homes have been built with a reduced setback prior to the 1998 Development Code adopted by the City of Diamond Bar that increased the setback from 20 to 30 feet. The Development Code allows for a maximum 20 percent setback reduction with the approval of a Minor Variance. The request is for 2 feet or approximately six percent reduction. • Chimney Height/Projection for Architectural Features Additionally, approval of the Minor Variance would allow the chimneys to project a maximum of two and one-half (2.5) feet above the maximum allowed height of 35 feet for a residential structure. The Development Code standard for the maximum height for a residential structure is 35 feet as measured from the natural or finished grade adjacent to any point at each exterior wall of the structure to the highest point of the roofline, above and parallel to the natural or finished grade. The proposed project meets this requirement except for two chimneys (architectural feature) projecting above the roofline. The Development Code allows for a 10 percent height increase with the Minor Variance application approval or a maximum of 3.5 feet. The height of chimneys above the roofline is also determined by the California Building Code that states chimneys must extend two feet higher than roof within a 10 feet radius. It is anticipated that the projection will minimally affect the overall height of the structure. Additionally, many homes within "The Country Estates" are similar and enjoy the reduced front setback and fireplaces requiring projected chimneys as required by the California Building Code and as proposed by this Application. As a result granting the Minor Variance, is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zoning districts and denied to property owners for which the Minor Variance is sought. VIEW IMPACT The terrain in the vicinity of Indian Creek Road and Falcons View Drive is hilly. The parcels on Indian Creek Road generally follow the ridgeline and slope from the street downward to the rear of the lots. The subject site is higher at street level, sloping to lower elevations toward the rear of the. property basically forming a valley in the middle of the property that continues into Lot 65 behind the subject site. Lot 65 has a map restriction as a Flood Hazard Area, however this restriction is not on the proposed project site. The adjoining property on the west is a single-family residence at a higher elevation than the subject property. The vacant parcels, Lot 65, Lot 64, and Lot 63 to the east (see vicinity map) and the sites to the southwest on Falcons View Drive are at lower elevations than the subject site. A single-family residence- was approved by Administrative Review Resolution No. 2000-03 for Lot 64. This property is located east of the project site and has a pad elevation of 1,180 feet while the project site's pad elevation is approximately .1,216 feet. Lot 64's first floor is approximately 36 feet lower than the project site's and due to the Lot 64's flag -lot configuration will view the project's site's east and south elevations. By maintaining the allowed height of 35 feet and Minor Variance for chimney height of 2.5 feet, the proposed residential structure allows view corridors to its neighbors. Therefore, the proposed residence will not have significant detrimental view blockage impact. SITE WORK The grading, drainage, and retaining walls necessary for the improvements will be reviewed, approved, 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. ® Soil Report The Applicant will submit a soils report for the proposed improvements to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Division prior to.issuance of grading permits. The soils report will reference the suitability of the retaining walls to withstand pressure of the retained soils and proposed development. ® Grading and Drainage Import is necessary with estimated cut of 1,000 cubic yards and fill of 4,000 cubic yards as indicted per the attached letter. The grading plan will be required to note the plan for the import of 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 rear'of the property. The project proposes to leave much of the lot in its natural state with the drainage devices placed with the original tract's grading, minimizing the grading necessary per the General Plan and the City's Development Code. ® Retaining Walls/Planter Walls The plans call for retaining and planter walls in the rear and side yards with a maximum exposed height of six feet. The Development Code allows six feet maximum exposed height for retaining walls and up to 7 feet with areas of varying topographical features. The project's retaining and planter walls do not exceed the 6 feet maximum. Retaining walls will be required to be ornamental by using stucco or decorative block in the -conditions -of approval: However; the wall plans include a notation of another six feet of wrought iron atop some of the proposed walls. The Development Code allows a total of 42 inches of wrought iron on walls of this type (holding a fill). Therefore, it is a condition of approval that the wrought iron proposed atop the six feet walls shall not exceed a maximum height of 42 inches under this approval process. ® 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 submit 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 0 MINOR CONDITIONAL USE -PE RNIIT The application requires Minor Conditional Use Permit approval, per the Development Code Section 22.30.080(E)(1) for the driveway that has a greater width than the garage. • Circular Driveway and Motor Court The Development Code requirement for driveways is generally garage door width plus two feet. Driveways may be allowed with greater widths with the approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit. Many homes in "The Country Estates" have this design feature, and the applicant has received the approval of "The Country Estates" Homeowners' Association Architectural Committee. The Development Code requires a lot frontage of 70 feet, and the subject lot has a frontage of approximately 115 feet. The landscape plans have a decorative block style drawn, however there has been no color or detail provided. A subsequent submittal will be required and will be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. LANDSCAPING A landscape plan was submitted for review and approval with this project's application delineating the type of planting materials, color, size, quantity and location. 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 setback shall not encroach into the streets' dedicated easement; nor, shall any such structure or plant material proposed within the front setback exceed a maximum height of 42 inches. Additional landscaping trees and shrubs will be required to soften the height of the rear and sides retaining walls. The revised final landscape plan will be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. The applicant's signed tree preservation statement indicates no oak, walnut, sycamore, willow, or naturalized California Pepper Trees are on site and staff verified this with a site visit. No further review is required. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: On November 3, 2000, notification of the public hearing for this project was made in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and newspapers. Further, thirty-six property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site were notified by mail on October 31, 2000. On November 3, 2000, a notice of public hearing on a display board was posted at the site and displayed for at least 10 days before the public hearing. Three other sites were posted within the vicinity of the application. r7 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). Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2000-18, Minor Variance No. 2000-13, Minor Conditional Permit No. 2000-12, and 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). 1. There are special circumstances applicable to the property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, . topography, or other conditions), so that the strict application of this Development Code denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zoning districts or creates an unnecessary and non -self created, hardship or unreasonable regulation which make it obviously impractical to require compliance with the development standards; r1 2. Granting the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights icinity and zoning district and denied to the property possessed by other property owners in the same v owner for which the Variance is sought; 3. Granting the Variance is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; 4. The proposed entitlement would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City; and 5. The proposed entitlement has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). REQUIRED MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS: 1. The proposed use is allowed within the subject zoning district with the approval of a Minor conditional Use Permit and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Development Code and the Municipal Code; 2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; 3. The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity; 4. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed including access, provisions of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and the absence of physical constraints; 5. Granting the Minor Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning districts in which the property is located, 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 E ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution of Approval; 2. Applications; 3. Oak Tree Statement dated September 1, 2000; 4. Letter from Applicant regarding grading quantities; 5. Vicinity map of Lots 63, 64, 65, and 66 on Indian Creek Road; 6. Exhibit "A" - site plan, floor plan, elevations, landscape plan, grading plan, site photos, and materials/color's board, dated November 14, 2000. D: WORD-LINDA/PLANCOMM/PROJECTS/DR2000-18 2250 INDIAN CREEKIREP DR2000-18... 10 A. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2000-18, MINOR VARIANCE NO. 2000-13, MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-12, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION 15303(a), A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A THREE-STORY (TWO-STORY WITH BASEMENT), SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE OF APPROXIMATELY 10,498 SQUARE FEET WITH BALCONIES, PORCH, FIVE -CAR GARAGE, SWIMMING POOL/SPA AND RETAINING WALLS IN THE REAR AND SIDE YARDS WITH A MAXIMUM EXPOSED HEIGHT OF SIX FEET. THE PROJECT SITE IS 2250 INDIAN CREEK ROAD (LOT 66 OF TRACT NO. 23483) DIAMOND BAR CA. Recitals 1. The property owners, Basant Sachdeva and Rajinder Joneja have filed an application to approve Development Review No. 2000-18 Minor Variance No. 2000-13, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-12 for a property located at 2250 Indian Creek Road, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California and part of the gated development identified as "The Country Estates", as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review, Minor Variance, Minor Conditional Use Permit and Categorical Exemption shall be referred to as the "Application". 2. On October 31, thirty-six property owners within a 500 - foot radius of the project site were notified by mail. On November 3, 2000, notification of the public hearing for this project was provided in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley -Daily Bulletin newspapers and a notice of public hearing on a display board was posted at the -site and displayed for at least 10 days before the public hearing. Additionally, three other public places were posted within the vicinity of the application. 3. On November 14, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. B. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1 r 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 2250 Indian Creek Road (Lot 66 of Tract No. 23483) Diamond Bar, CA, within the gated community identified as, "The Country Estates." The project site is approximately 1.32 gross acres and 1.25 net acres. It is shaped wide at.the--rear and -s -loping downward from Indian Creek Road to the rear of the property, the neighboring Flag -lot No. 65, and properties on Falcons View Drive. (b) The General Plan Land Use designation is Rural Residential (RR), 1 du/acre. The project site is zoned Single -Family Residence, R-1-40,000. (c) Generally, the following zones surround the subject site: to the north, south, east and west is the R- 1-40,000 Zone. (d) The application is a request to construct a three- story (two-story with basement), single-family residence of approximately 10,498 square feet with F, balconies, porch, and five -car garage, swimming pool/spa and retaining walls in the rear and side yards with a maximum exposed height of six feet. 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 vacant 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. I 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 with approved applications for the Minor Conditional Use Permit and Minor Variance. 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 designed for single-family homes. The proposed new construction does, not change the use intended for the site as 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 Indian Creek Road. This private street is designed to 01 handle 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 design and palette are compatible with the eclectic architectural style of other homes within "The Country Estates," and are consistent with the City's General Plan, Development Code, and Design Guidelines. The proposed project's architectural style is Mediterranean. The project's architectural features include balconies with precast balustrades; porch with two-story entry/foyer with glass and columns; layering of materials and finishes via the trimmed stucco details: crown molding, quatrefoils, and window treatments and multi-levels of roof lines of "Espana" Mission Sunrise by Life Tile to add texture and contrast. The applicant has received the approval of "The Country Estates" Homeowners' Association Architectural Committee. With the added condition of approval for more landscaping to screen the retaining walls, the accessory structure, Pool/spa, and retaining walls in the rear and side yards with a maximum height of six feet, 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 its neighbors, through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing. A project colors /materials board is provided as Exhibit "A". The colors, materials, and textures proposed are complimentary to the existing homes within the area while offering variety. (i) The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative affect on property values 0 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 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 Indian Creek Road and Falcons View Drive is hilly. The parcels on Indian Creek Road generally follow the ridgeline and slope from the street downward to the rear of the lots. The subject site is higher at street level, sloping to lower elevations toward the rear of the property basically forming a valley in the middle of the property that continues into Lot 65 behind the subject site. The adjoining property on the west is a single-family residence at a higher elevation than the subject property. The vacant parcels, Lot 65, Lot 64, and Lot 63 to the east and the sites to the southwest on Falcons View Drive are at lower elevations than the subject site. By maintaining the allowed height of 35 feet and Minor Variance approval for chimney height of 2.5 feet on the west and south elevations of the structure, the proposed residential structure allows view corridors to its neighbors. Therefore, the proposed residence will not have significant detrimental 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). MINOR VARIANCE - (k) There are special circumstances applicable to the property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other conditions), so that the strict application of this Development Code denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zoning districts or creates an unnecessary and non -self created, hardship or unreasonable regulation impractical to require development standards. which make it obviously compliance with the Pursuant to the Diamond Bar Development Code adopted December 1998, a residential structure in the R-1-40,000 Zone is required to maintain a 30 feet front setback. The main structure requires a Minor Variance because, as proposed, it does not comply with development standards specified in the Development Code. The subject site has grading constraints due to topographical differences. The project site's grade drops approximately 100 feet from the street to the ravine at rear property line. Due to the site's steepness, moving the buidable pad two feet toward the rear will cause additional fill work and the rear retaining wall to increase in height to approximately eight feet. Pursuant to the City's Design Guidelines and General Plan that encourage minimizing wall heights and minimizing grading to leave a site in its natural contours and retain the natural vegetation, it is conducive to reduce the front yard setback. Approval of the Minor Variance would allow the chimneys to project a maximum -of two and one-half (2.5) feet above the maximum allowed height of 35 feet for a residential structure. The Development Code standard for the maximum height for a residential structure is 35 feet as measured from the natural or finished -grade adjacent to any point at each exterior wall of the structure to the highest point of the roofline, above and parallel to the natural or finished grade. The proposed project meets this requirement except for two chimneys projecting above the roofline. The Development Code allows for a 10 percent height increase with the. Minor Variance application approval or a maximum of 3.5 feet. The height of chimneys above the roofline is also determined by the California Building Code that states chimneys must extend two feet higher than roof within a 10 feet radius. It is anticipated that the projection will minimally affect the overall height of the structure. Granting the Minor Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights Possessed by other property owners in the 0 same vicinity and zoning district and denied to the property owner for which the Minor Variance is sought. The granting of the Minor Variance for setback reduction can be based on three favorable conclusions:, 1) the use is consistent with the surrounding homes in the vicinity, 2) the subject site is irregularly shaped with varying topography and the request minimizes the need for additional grading 3) the front setback reduction minimizes the need for higher retaining walls in the rear and side yards due to the fall of the topography. It is anticipated that the setback reduction impact will be insignificant since many homes have been built with a reduced setback prior to the 1998 Development Code adopted by the City of Diamond Bar that increased the setback from 20 to 30 feet. The Development Code allows for a maximum 20 percent setback reduction with the approval of a Minor Variance. The request is for 2 feet or approximately six percent. Additionally, many homes within "The Country Estates" are similar and enjoy the reduced front setback and fireplaces requiring height projections of the chimneys as required by the California Building Code and as proposed by this Application. As a result granting the Minor Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zoning districts and denied to property owners for which the Minor Variance is sought. Granting the Minor Variance is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. As stated above in I Items (e) and (k), granting the Minor Variance is consistent with the General Plan and there is no applicable specific plan. (n) The proposed entitlement would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. As stated above in Items (f); (g), (h) , (i) , (k) , (1) and (m), the proposed entitlement would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. 7 (0) The proposed entitlement has compliance with the provisions Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) —1 - -- -- L been reviewed in of the California 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). (p) The proposed use is allowed within the subject - zoning district with the approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Development Code and the Municipal Code. The Application requests Minor Conditional Use Permit approval for the circular driveway. The Development Code requirement for driveways is generally garage door' width plus two feet. Driveways may be allowed with greater widths with the approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit. Many homes in "The Country Estates" have this design feature, and the applicant has received the approval of "The Country Estates" Homeowners' Association Architectural Committee. The Development Code requires a lot frontage of 70 feet, and the subject lot has a frontage of approximately, 115 feet. The proposed application complies with all other applicable provisions of this Development Code and Municipal Code. (q) The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan .--and any applicable specific- plan-.-* ------ - As stated in Item (e), the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan objectives and strategies, the Development Code and City Design Guidelines, and there is no applicable specific plan. (r) The design, location, size and. operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. As stated in Items (e) and (f),' the proposed new construction with circular driveway and accessory structures is consistent with the surrounding 9 single-family homes. Therefore, the project design, location, size and operating characteristics are compatible. (s) The subject site is physically suitable for the typd e and density/intensity of use being propose including access, provisions of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and the absence of physical constraints. As stated in Items (e), (f), (g), (h), (i) and (k), the proposed single-family with circular driveway and accessory structures is suitable for the type and density/ intensity of use, access, utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses and the absence of physical constraints. (t) Granting the Minor Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to person, property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning districts in which the property is located. As stated above in Items (f) , (g), (h) , (i) , (k) , (1) and (m), the'proposed entitlement would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. (u) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), Section 15303(a). 5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves this Application subject to the following conditions: (a) The project -shall substantially conform to site plan, floor plans, elevations and materials/colors board collectively labeled as Exhibit "All dated November 14, 2000, as submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission. (b) The subject site shall be maintained in a condition that is free of debris both during and after the 9 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 provide temporary sanitation facilities while under construction. (e) A final revised plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. The plans shall include trees and shrubs, in addition to those shown on the preliminary landscape plan, to soften the retaining walls at the rear and side yards of the pad. (f) The landscaping/irrigation shall be installed prior to the Planning Division's final inspection or Certificate Of Occupancy issuance. Any walls, gates,-fountainsi--etc- -that- may be -pr - oposed within the front setback shall not encroach into street's dedicated easement or exceed a maximum 42 inches in height. (9) The design of the exterior handrail on the east side of the structure shall be submitted to the Planning division for review and approval for architectural continuity. (h) 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 W issuance of a grading permit. On a grading plan the following shall be delineated: l.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 (APWA Standard is not applicable) ; IO.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 (e) Retaining walls exposed height shall not exceed six feet; 11.All grading shall be subject to Development Code Sections 22.16.030 (Air Emissions) and Section 22.28 (Noise) ; 12. Erosion Control plan shall be submitted for permits issued October I to April 15; 13. Hydrology calculations showing capacity of proposed drainage devices as well as existing drainage structures on site shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works Division; 14. Wrought iron atop retaining walls holding a fill shall not exceed a maximum height of 42 inches. Applicant shall submit a soils report for the proposed improvements to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Division prior to issuance of grading permits. The soils report shall also reference the suitability of the retaining walls to withstand pressure of the retained. soils and proposed development. (j) Applicant shall verify that the project site is currently connected to the public sewer system and IMM impacts on the sewage capacity as a result of the proposed addition shall be approved. (k) Applicant shall submit 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. (1) Drainage pattern shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Division; surface water shall drain away from the building at a 2% minimum slope. (m) Site, driveway grade, and house design shall be approved by the Fire Department. The maximum slope is 15% per the Public Works Division. (n) The single-family structure shall meet the 1998 California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and California Electrical Code requirements. (o) The minimum design wind pressure shall be 80 miles per hour and "CII exposure. (p) The single-family structure requires Fire Department approval and is located in "Fire Zone 41, and shall meet the following requirements of that fire zone: 1. All roof covering shall be "Fire Retardant, Class All; tile roofs shall be fire stopped at the eaves to preclude entry of the flame or members under the fire; 2. All enclosed under -floor areas shall be constructed as exterior walls; 3. All openings into the attic, floor, and/or other-enc-losed areas shall be covered with corrosion -resistant wire mesh not less than 2/4 inch nor more than 11/2 inch in any dimension except where such openings are equipped with sash or door; 4. Chimneys shall have spark arresters of maximum 1/2 inch screen. (q) This single-family structure shall meet the State Energy Conservation Standards. (r) 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 and may require a height survey at completion of framing. The Minor variance approval shall allow 12 the chimneys to project a maximum of 2.5 feet above the 35 feet. (s) Due to the site's topography, applicant shall,comPlY with special design requirements as specified in the California Building Code, Section 18.4.3, building setback, top and toe of slopes. (t) pool/Spa and retaining walls shall require separate building permits. (u) All sleeping rooms shall have windows that comply with egress requirements. (v) All balconies shall be designed for 40 pound per square foot live load. (w) Hand rails and gued rails shall -be designed for 20- pound load applied laterally at the top of the rail. (x) Smoke detectors shall be provided in conformance with the 1998 California Building Code. (y) Application shall provide window and door schedule for Building and Safety plan check. (z) Driveway design and color shall be submitted to the 'Planning Division for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. (aa) The single-family residence shall not be utilized in a manner that creates adverse effects upon the neighborhood and environmental -setting of the residential site to levels of dust, glare/light, noise, odor, traffic, or other disturbances to the existing residential neighborhood and shall not result in significantly adverse effects on public services and resources. The single-family residence shall not be used for commercial/institutional purposes, or otherwise used as a separate dwelling. The property shall not be used for regular gatherings which result in a nuisance or which create traffic and parking problems in the neighborhood. (bb) The applicant shall complete and record a "Covenant and Agreement to Maintain a Single Family Residence" on a form to be provided by the City. The covenant must be completed and recorded with 13 the Los Angeles County's Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of a building permit. (cc) 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. (dd) The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Department and City Planning, Building and Safety, and Public Works Divisions. (ee) This grant is valid for two (2) years and shall be exercised (i.e. construction) within that period or this grant shall expire. A one -(1) year extension may be approved when submitted to the City in writing at least 60 days prior to the expiration date. The Planning Commission will consider the extension request at a duly noticed public hearing in accordance with Chapter 22.72 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code. (f f) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed, within fifteen (15) days of approval of this grant, at the City of Diamond Bar Community and Development Services Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware and agree to accept all the conditions of this grant. Further, this grant shall not be effective until the permittee pays remaining City processing fees. (gg) If the Department of Fish and Game determines that Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 applies to the approval of this project, then the applicant shall remit to the -City -,-,within five days ---of this grant's approval, a cashier's check of $25.00 for a documentary handling fee in connection with Fish and Game Code requirements. Furthermore, if this project is not exempt from a filing fee imposed because the project has more than a deminimis impact on fish and wildlife, the applicant shall also pay to the Department of Fish and Game any such fee and any fine which the Department determines to be owed. M 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 Basant Sachdeva and Andrajinder Joneja, 1738 E. Meats Avenue, Orange, CA 92865. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2000, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. By: 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 he Planning commission held. on the 14TH day of November 2000, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: James DeStefano, Secretary D:WORD-LINDA/PLANCOMM/PROJECTS/DR2000-18 2250 INDIAN CREEK/RESO DR2000-18 15 cII x of I worm six DR 0e)~, S CONIMND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 (909)396-5676 Fax (909)861-3117 A7? TDEVELOPMENT YTACH SE M \ �� ATTACMENT "2" APPLICATIONS DR 00-18, MCUP 00-12, MV 00-13 NOVEMBER 14, 2000 Record Owner -pp —L Name 5A,',�1/ r-A-9h4y r 56 gig54"4r (Last name first) (Last name first) 1h Z ;0-4J"lN-b6zle, Address / 7 St- AM }}-V. 5 A-<� City 6 rye. Phone(? Phone( ) Cas FPL •zr -J ,` Deposit 5 J S� n •"� Receipt# By ,4, Date Rec'd —/- - -rr---wt's Agent (Last name first) 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 certify that I am the owner of the herein described property and permit the applicant to file this request. Signed Date 1 (� (All record owners Jt Certification: I, the undersigned, eireby certify under penalty of perjury that the information herein provided is correct to the best of my knowledge. �, M Print Name �S A wr S A v n (Applicant or Agent) ,� q� signed__6 '."� " — Date 1 (Applicant or gent) Location (Stdress or reet a tract and lot number) -` Zoning l� ' �_�7 n��� HNM J : Previous Ca % ' rJ ses ' - Present Use of Site .:a Use applied for G Legal Oescnption (ail ownersftil) compnsing the proposed lot(spparcei(s)) Area devoted to structures 4,4 7,7 s'a ar I.Andscaping/Open space Project Size�16� Lot Coverage Proposed density 9/w C' Z& rbrAf— Aag-Al 7-7� Style of Architecture (Units/Acres) Number of Floors Proposed Slope of Roof T Gradin. If('yes,'tity RL'L-4 Mn cut '0 FM UM Cu V Import mm r.,s .y D5 ryes Quantity <7 Export If yes, Quantity �r>> TD [BAR � r CITY O: IAMOND BAR C011 MUNTTY DEVELOPDMNT DEPART11tENT 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 (909)396-5676 Fax (909)861-3117 VARIANCE APPLICATION Record Owner Applicant Name 'fp (�1A- Address A -Address QQ Phone() () " " t l 4 -` 4 D� .(7i q 7 � -p�(v� NOTE: It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Community Development Director m writing of any change of the principals involved during the processing of this case. casza /yl ✓ � � -L- -FPL tl Deposit $ ' S• �" Receipt## i'_ " ` By Date Recd Applicant's Agent (Last name fust) Phone( ) (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. Date I —/ —op (All record owners) the undersii ne7 hereby under penalty of perjury that the information herein provided is Certification: 1, g � y .l)' correct to the best of my knowledge.. Print Name R;r�-T- (Applicant (Applicant or�n ) Signed Date, (Applicant or 6gc" Location % G tv (Street address or tract and lot number). 'DJv1iPVV-V4L-7T33'-> WAS 71�-A -` between (Z 1) �. � ! �'�1� yJ and b � V24Z-1 ?`1 �R.. - - (Street) (street) :3 r HNM Project Size (gross acres) I . Z5 AC iNProject Density 1 G L 1 e L t 1---4 ��; ;> Previous Lasses iJ' • '' - P•tesent Use of Site EMP '�'�1LOT Use applied Domestic Water Source Company/District Method of Sewage Disposal Sanitation District Grading of Lots by Applicant? YES V.1 -Z NO Amount t✓ l¢'T = corn G .` 1j y (Show necessary grading design on site plan or tent. map) 17—I L'— _- Com, o7D v c LEGAL DESCRIPTION (All ownership comprising the proposed lots/project). If petitioning for zone change, attach legal descaiption of exterior boundaries of area subject to the change.) Project Site: -L" 2:5- A -CA -!s - 1 Gross Area No. of Lots Arca devoted to : Structures*5-� - Space,4-01 DOv S�,Q' Residential project: q, , 9-> 4- and " a Gros Area No. of floors Proposed Density 1;1 (- • f {-7%-I) Units/Acres -r- Number and types of Units — Kkej-T- A-r>-P"Z, z Residential Parking: Type Required ---5.Provided Total Required _ S Total Provided �J VARIANCE CASE -BURDEN OF PROOF In addition to the information required in the application, the applicant shall substantiate to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission, the following facts: A. That the requested use at the location proposed will not: ace, comfort or welfare or persons residing or working in the Adversely affect the health, Pe surrounding area, or h-2 Be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the site, or 3. Jeopardize, endanger or other wise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare. 'TW vv1 L t, N�'t- � �'iEL-T T' ' "-,5v'res-v �7 i�i� 6'If� C -I 1 !-1 A -t,3 B. mist the proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this Ordinance, or as is otherwise required in order to integrate said use with the uses in the surrounding area. C. That the proposed site is adequately served: By highways or streets of sufficient width and improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such use would generate, and 2. By other public or private service facilities as are required. T*-UP0 l � F 1G1S7 !/).M SEP D. That there are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the property involved, such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which are not generally applicable to other properties in the same vicinity and under identical zoning classification. T"15 1S k 4r Aorp Doll -W Wj/l.A, i--OT- hi \/ A- \J LIp- Ef-K-R - VARIANCE CASE -BURDEN OF PROOF In addition to the information required in the application, the applicant shall substantiate to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission, the following facts: A. That the requested use at the location proposed will not: Adversly affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare or persons residing or working in the surrounding area, or z• Be materially detrimental to the use, enJoYMWt or valuation ofto' other of oth in the vicinity of the site, or PPersons located 3 Jeopardize, endanger or other wise constitute a menace to theublic health safety welfare. P ety or general A — -fi- W-1 L L NTiT A f-- F. E7e' TT -. B. That the proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate theyards,walls,fences loading facilities, landscaping and other developnMt features prescribed in this ordinance or parking otherwise required in order to integrate said use with the uses in the surrounding area. C. That the proposed site is adequately served: By highways or streets of sufficient width and improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such use would generate, and 2. By other public or private service facilities as am required...__ D• That there are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the property involved, such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which are not generally applicable to other pes in the same vicinity and under identical zoning classification. roperti T141 ri `QST L IOXD BAI Record Owner CTTY OF DIAMOND BAR DEPARTMENT OF COMMuNTTY & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Planning Division 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190, Diamond Har, CA 91765 (909)396-5676 Fax (909)861-3117 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION Namc S �" name Address 17 32- -E -- M 6 7; City 15YZA 'Zip Phone % j - 6 a Fax 7( /t b �i 6 case a nt d"- 'F FPL r n-4 0 -4_/__ _— Dcposit— Rempt _ By ��---- Date FOR CM USE Applicant's Agent Phone( ) (Last name first) NOTE: It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the City 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 partnership's, joint ventures, and directors o corporations.) Consent certify that I am the owner of the herein described property and per the applicant to frle this request Signed (All record Date Cerh; ftcadon: I, the undersigned, hereby certify underpenatty ofperjury that the information herein provided is correct m the best of my knowledge. >Iprs SA (54-} DFV)C Print Name o (Applicant or,i 8=0 .' . S�M..tZ Date �. Signed -0 n (Applicant or i > rn Location LDT 2 �'3 2 2 Kb 19'1�l C . r�-o 11?rn •' (Street j0dress or tract and lot number) t , Zoning House Numbering Map Previous Cases Present Use of Site A �1 Use applied for �f:'1 % f ti•.�' les �� 7� -1 City of Diamond Bar _ CONDMONAL USE PERMIT Page Two Project Size (gross acres) Project Density _sING15 �xtmlb.y Ay✓L LL/� Previous Cases Present Use of Site t�IV! {dry Ly for _ G 12GUL -*1 Domestic Water Source aLT 4 VA t tL Company/District?' Method of Sewage Disposal P AL,[ C, Sanitation District Grading of Lots by Applicant? YES NO Amount__ �1 LL ; (, C . y IDS (Show necessary grading design on site plan or tent. map) C - U r =- 0 0 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BURDEN OF P),_OF In addition to the information required in the application, the applicant shall substantiate to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission, the following facts: (answers must be full &. complete) A. That the requested use at the location proposed will. not: - Adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area, or 2 Be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the site, or �constitute a menace to the public health. safety or general welfare 3. Jeopardize, endanger or otherwise. /v —VVI - r 111 VIv . — B. That the proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate Elie vaids, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this Title 22, or as is otherwise required in order to integrate said use with the uses in the surrounding area., ES C. That the proposed site is adequately served: By highways or streets of sufficient width and improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such use would generate, and 2. By oilier public or private service facilities as are required. S P 6 .c lj Residential: & 'Total Units Bachelor 1 Bedroom 2 BdrnL larger. Total Pkg. Cot'. Pkg. Uncov. Pk& Project Size: � 25 AG..r-E IIVT' Lot Coverage: Density: • F=- (Z-- ' Maximum Height: No. of floors: 2�, Sq. Footage g � Non-residential: Sq. fl. area No. of Bldgs. Occupant Local* CUP Burden of Proof - Page 1 Parking: z=j Total Standard Compact Handicap Landscaping: Sq. feet Grading: Y NIf yes, Quantity: Cut: Fill: % OVZ-) Import: Y ZN _ If yes, Quantity:. Export: Y — N ✓^ Ifyes, Quantity; * Occupant Load as calculated by the Building & Safety Division is required for all dining, take-out or assembiv use, churches, health clubs, theaters, etc. LEGAL DESCRIPTION (all ownership comprising the proposed lot(syparcel(s) Area devoted to structures 4 2 - Landscapmg/Open spacec Residential Project: C? I I A��rg- I and (tib am) (No. of lots) Proposed density �- F -A-7" , P.-e'�arX-� t-r-� Parking (Units/Acres) Reqs Provided Standard Compact Handicapped Total j _ C Conditional Use Permit Burden of Proof - Page 2 ATTACHMENT -3- OAK 3"OAK TREE STATEMENT DR 00-18. MCUP 00-1?. MV 00-13 NOVEMBER 14. ?000 TREE PRESERVATION STATEMENT [ The subject property contains no oak, walnut, sycamore, willow, or naturalized California Pepper trees. [ ] The subject property contains one or more oak, walnut, sycamore, willow, or naturalized California Pepper trees. The applicant anticipates that no activity (grading and/or construction) will take place within five (5) feet of the outer dripline of any oak, walnut, sycamore, willow, or naturalized. California Pepper tree. [ ] The subject property contains one or more oak, walnut, sycamore, willow, or naturalized California Pepper trees. The applicant states that activity (grading and/or construction) will take place within five (5) feet of the outer dripline of any oak, walnut, sycamore, willow, or naturalized California Pepper tree. A Tree Permit has been or will be applied for prior to any activity taking place on the property. (Applicant's Signa re) D:WORD-LiNDA\FORMS\TREE STATEMENT t tw. ((bate) ATTACHMENT -4- LETTER 4"LETTER REGARDING GRADING QTY. DR 00-18, MCUP 00-12, MV 00-13 NOVEMBER 14, 2000 %�•�'�� T.05o�-L�61-31t� r O "Jim I Basant Sachdeva, Al Architect A R C H I T E C T U R E U P L A N N I N G 17.4A MI'Al- AVE.® CALANGE. CA 97HGh o (711) 914613M) o FLr.(714) `lM ULLG o [•Mae ha•«un l(��rearVNink, nr* October 29, 2000 City of Diamond Bar 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100 Diamond Bar, Ca. 91765-4177 Attn: Linda Kay Smith, Development Service Assistant Subject: 2250 Indian Crfek Road, Diamond Bar, Calif. B&A proj# 10d=179 Dear Linda: This letter is written to inform you that the quantity of fill required in the above mentioned project is 4000 cubic yards. The quantity of the fill mentioned in the civil drawing is incorrect as this was never revised after adding the retaining wall in the back, The quantity of cut remains unchanged. Thank You, Sincerely, Basant Sachd� Basant & Assbc lett#2 AIA, Architect N U) rp t NP\ I� 'Pat Zp �F IW IJ -4 /p ps9 / W X00 ipp SJ II A Los Angeies. CA . 1996-97-6713-040-03— OD 996-97-6713-0.10-03•M ATTACHMENT "5" W VICINTY MAP u DR 00-18, MCUP 00-12, MV 00-13 ri 0 NOVEMBER 14, 2000 O O • 7- z `Vw I.tY rTY !U4 ��l." w A m Z .p :W N rAw �T ii^ Q� •..i a �\,�:=!y Q ,y 4y';, O W tDW R ,� + QGtif .�, :w . W '� : ♦ i � .� ••;. "'s'o. � its . • � � � W �' 4 ;� � vF ty . . uD W tp 0 ::..,,��'�*y 0 •web `�.♦ `fir.,' ro :N i s � pu e7 ' � ,.a R � ♦� z z It Nrn t i+ Oy to O r Ab � N oyiN OVOCVC frit 'a v o'r+ � w pA yOyn N D r_ Agenda Item 8.1 — Development Review No. 2000-18/Minor Variance No. 2000- 13/Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-12 — 2250 Indian Creek Road Plans found in project file. City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 8.2 REPORT DATE: November 8, 2000 MEETING DATE: November 14, 2000 CASE/FILE NUMBER: Development Review No. 99-5(1.), and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000- 16 APPLICATION REQUEST: A,request to modify the tennis court location and grading of the previously approved Development Review No. 99-5, and to construct a second story guest house with decks and portico of approximately 1,055 gross square feet. PROPERTY ;LOCATION: 2856 Wagon Train Lane (Lot 71 of Tract No. 30578) PROPERTY OWNER: Peichin Cheng 17800 Castleton St., #106 City of Industry, CA 91748 APPLICANT: Anchi Lee 3740 Campus Drive, #B, Newport Beach, CA 92660 BACKGROUND: The property owner, Peichin Cheng, and applicant, Anchi Lee, have previously received Development Review and Tree Permit approval pursuant to Code Sections 22..48 and 22.38 and approved Planning Commission 24,, 1999. The approval included Resolution No. 99-20 on August constructing an 11,429 square foot two-story and basement, single-family residence with 2,572 square foot six -car garage and storage space, motor court, pool/spa, barbecue, tennis court and gazebo. The Tree Permit allowed replacement trees for the removal of nine existing native California Walnut trees. on-site. Originally the project required, grading,. drainage and retaining wall improvements to facilitate construction on the project site. 1' This request is to modify the tennis court location and grading of the previously approved Development Review No. 99-5. Also, pursuant to Code Sections 22.42.060 and 22.56.020 this is a request to construct a second story guest house with decks and portico of approximately 1,055 gross square feet with the review and approval of Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-16. The project site is located at 2856 Wagon Train Lane (Lot 71 of Tract No. 30578), Diamond Bar, CA, within the gated community identified as "The Country Estates." It is a parcel approximately 1.38 gross acres and 1.31 net acres, that is shaped irregularly, widening and sloping downward toward the rear, southeasterly exposure. The rear of the parcel abuts the mitigation monitoring area for Tract 47851. The project site is zoned R-1-40,000, single-family residence. The General Plan Land Use designation is Rural Residential (RR), 1 du/acre. Generally, R-1 40,000 zone surrounds the subject site to the north, south, east and west. ANALYSIS: REVIEW AUTHORITY This application requires development review revision per the City's Development Code, Section 22.60.060(B), which states that major changes to an approved project shall only be approved by the review authority through a new entitlement application or modification, processed in compliance with the Development Code. The request for the tennis court location and grading modification from the previously approved Development Review No. 99-5 applies. Also, this application for guest house requires Minor Conditional Use Permit approval by the Hearing Officer,in this case the Planning Commission, because pursuant to Development Code Section . 22.48.030, permits shall be acted upon concurrently and the highest authority shall make final determination. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW The following is a comparison of the City's . approved development standards and the project's proposed development standards: City's Development Standards Project's Development Standards Accessory struct Accessory structures: - ® Tennis. court same as main® rear 25 feet sides 10,'/15' court - rear 251, sides 141/20, • Guesthouse same as rear 25 feet sides main 10'/151 Guesthouse - rear 451, sides L 22'/351 K The above analysis indicates that the proposed revisions and guesthouse complies with the City's development standards. TENNIS COURT LOCATION/GRADING MODIFICATION • Tennis Court The location of the tennis court has.rotated, though it still maintains; the required'setbacks prescribed by the Development Code and is at the same elevation as the previous approval. No protected/preserved species of trees were removed in this area. The Development Code, Section 22.16.050, requires standards for tennis court lighting. These include standards for maximum pole height, illumination, hours of operation, and court surfaces. This modification is for placement and grading. The setbacks for the modification meet the Development Code and Design Guidelines. ® Site Work/Grading/Retaining Walls/Drainage The applicant proposes to revise the site grading, on-site drainage, and retaining walls. The export requirement was estimated at approximately 3,200 cubic yards. Approximately one-half of the export can be reduce with this revision. Per Development Code Sections 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 retaining walls will be designed to maintain a minimum exposed height. The Development Code allows 6 feet maximum with up to 7 feet in areas of varying topographical features. The revised plans for the tennis court indicate walls at approximately 31A feet to 612". The proposed design and use of on-site drains disperse runoff to the rear of the lot. The grading, drainage, and retaining walls necessary for the improvements will be reviewed and permitted by the Public Works Division. MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The application requires Minor Conditional Use Permit app In add per tion he Development Code Section 22.42.060(B), for the gu setbacks, the application meets the development standards as set forth in Section 22.42.060(B) including access, utilities, plumbing and electrical installations, design, parcel coverage, kitchen facilities, and size. Any guesthouse in excess of 501 square feet requires Minor Conditional Use Permit approval. Per the Development Code, the proposed structures do not exceed an overall parcel coverage of 30 percent. The proposed guesthouse is on the ,second story of thepethe � oennis 55 oss courgtuare The feetstructure has to deck and portico overlooking 3 N complete bathroom, sitting room and what appears to be a kitchen facility. A guesthouse is not allowed to have kitchen facilities, however, a wet bar sink, bar refrigerator and cabinets with counter top limited to 48 inches to accommodate the sink and refrigerator are allowed. Therefore, a condition of approval has been added to redesign the kitchen area of the plans. The proposed project's architectural style for the guesthouse is Mediterranean and consistent with the main structure in style. It is a condition of approval that the materials and colors are the same as the main structure. The proposed style and palette are compatible with the eclectic architectural style of other homes within Tract No. 305 . 78 and "The Country Estates." The applicant has submitted for the approval of "The Country Estates" Homeowners' Association architectural committee. VIEW IMPACT By maintaining the height of the pad as approved by the original submittal, the tennis court structure is consistent with the original approval except for the pivoting of its location. The terrain in the vicinity of Steeplechase Lane and Wagon Train Lane is hilly. The subject site slopes to lower elevations than the northerly neighbors following the -southerly -declining slope of Wagon Train Lane. The project site slopes to the lowest point at the southeast corner of the lot, so the southerly neighbor is still afforded a view corridor. The adjoining properties on both sides of the project site are single-family two-story residences. By maintaining the allowed height the proposed residential structures allow view corridors to the neighbors. LANDSCAPING Arevised landscape/ irrigation plan will be required for submittal to the Planning Division for review and approval. The plan shall delineate the type of planting materials, color, size, quantity and location of trees to screen the tennis court structure. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Fofty-two property owners within a 500 -feet radius of the project site were notified by mail on October 31, 2000. This item was advertised in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on November 3, 2000. A notice of public hearing on a display board was posted at the site on November 3, 2000 and displayed for at least 20 days before the public hearing. Three other sites were posted within the vicinity of the application. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , Section 15162, the City has determined that this project is consistent with the previously adopted Negative Declaration No. 99-7. No further review is required. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 99-5(l), and Minor Conditional -Use Permit No. 2000-16, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within. the attached resolution. REQUIRED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS: 1. The design and layout of the proposed development is consistnt 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). -M REQUIRED MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS: 1. The proposed use is allowed within the subject zoning district with the approval of a Minor conditional Use Permit and complies with all other applicable provisions, of this Development Code and the Municipal Code; 2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; 3. The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity; 4. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and de'nsity/intensity of use being proposed including access, provisions of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and the absence of physical constraints; 5. Granting the Minor Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public -interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning districts in which the property is located, 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. Applications; 3. Previously approved grading plan with tennis court location; 4. Exhibit "All - site plan, floor plan, elevations, grading plan dated November 14, 20006 D:WORD-LINDA/PLANCOMM/PROJECTS/DR99-5(1)-./REPORT DR99-05(1) 0 PLANNING COMMISSION1r 7t .. "� RESOLUTION NO. 00 -XX L 17 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COM14ISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW No. 99-5(1) AND MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. 2000-16, A REQUEST TO MODIFY THE TENNIS COURT LOCATION AND GRADING. OF THE PREVIOUSLY I . APPROVED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 99- 5, AND TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND STORY GUEST HOUSE WITH DECKS AND PORTICO OF APPROXIMATELY 1,055 GROSS SQUARE FEET. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 2856 WAGON TRAIN LANE (LOT 71 OF TRACT MAP NO. 30578), DIAMOND BAR CA- A. Recitals 1. The property owner, Peichin Cheng, and applicant, Anchi Lee, have filed an application to revise Development Review No. 99-5, herein referred to as Development Review No. 99-5(l), andMinor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000- 16, 1 for a property located at 2856 Wagon Train Lane, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California and part of the gated development identified. as "The. Country Estates", as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review Revision, and Minor Conditional Use Permit shall be referred to as the "Revised Application." 2. on August 24, 1999; the Planning commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on Development- Review No. 99-5i Tree Permit No.. 99-1 and Negative Declaration No. 99-1 . and -approved such per Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-20, the findings and conditions of approval of which shall be retained in their entirety., .3. On October 31, 2000, forty-two property owners within a 500 -foot radius of. the project site were notified by mail. Notification of the public hearing for this project was made in the San Gabriel Va-l-lev Tribune and Inland Valley newspapers on November 3, 2000. A .notice of public hearing on a display board was posted at the site on November 3,..2000 and -displayed for at least 20 days before the public hearing. Three other sites were posted within the vicinity of the ,application. 4. on November 14 2000, the Planning commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Revised Application. 11 B. Resolution NOW., THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set . forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The Planning Commission herebv finds that the Revised Application is consistent with the previously adopted Negative Declaration No. 99-7 per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and guideline promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15162. No further review is required. 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole includin ' g 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 revised application relates to a previously approved Development Review No. 99-5 and Tree Permit No. 99-1: This approval was for an undeveloped parcel at 2856 Wagon Train Lane (Lot 71 of Tract No. 30578), Diamond Bar, CA, within the gate * d community identified as --The Country Estates." The project site is approximately 1.38 gross acres and 1.31 net acres. Itis shaped irregularly, widening and sloping downward toward the rear, southeasterly exposure. The rear of the parcel abuts a mitigation monitoring area designed with the improvement. of Tract 47851. Grading, drainage and retaining wall improvements were required to facilitate construction on the site. M L The previous approval per Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-20 included constructing an 11,429 square foot two-story and basement, single- family residence with 2,572 square foot six -car garage and storage space, motor court, pool/spa, barbecue, tennis court and gazebo. The Tree Permit allowed replacement trees for the removal of nine existing native California Walnut trees on-site. It also approved grading, drainage and retaining wall improvements to facilitate construction on the project site. (b) The project site is zoned R-1-40,000, single-family residence. The General Plan Land Use designation is Rural Residential (RR.), 1 du/acre. (c) Generally, the following zones surround the subject site: to the north, south, east.,and west is the R- 1-40,000 Zone. (d) The revised application is a request to modify the tennis court location and grading of the previously approved Development Review No. 99-5, and to construct a second story guest house with decks and portico of approximately 1,055 gross square feet per Minor Conditional Use ?ermit No. 2000-16. 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 a specialized are(e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards, or .planned developments). P The project site and the proposed use is zoned for single-family residence at 1 du/acre. The adopted General Plan of July 25, 1995 has a land use designation of Rural Residential (1 du/acre). The proposed structure and accessory structures comply with the City's General Plan objectives and strategies related to maintaining the integrity of residential neighborhoods and open space. The structures and placement on the parcel conform to the site coverage criteria of the Diamond Bar Development Code. The guesthouse requires the approval of the Minor conditional Use Permit. Furthermore, the applicant has submitted for the approval of "The Country Estates" Homeowners' 3 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 was previously approved for a single-family residence on an undeveloped parcel within an existing tract designed for 'single-family homes. The proposed new construction and accessory structures do 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 Wagon Train Lane. This private street is designed to handle min ' imum. 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 design is compatible with the eclectic architectural style of other homes within "The Country Estates," and is consistent with the City's Design Guidelines and Development Code, as well as matching the previously approved single-family residence. Additionally, the colors and materials utilized as conditioned herein are compatible with the homes within the surrounding area. The applicant has submitted for the approval of the architectural committee of "The Country Estates." (h) The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public, as well as its neighbors, through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing. rd As a condition of approval the project/materials Of the Revised Application is required to 'match the main structure as provided in Exhibit "A", dated November 14, 2000. The materials, and textures proposed are complimentary to the existing homes within the area while offering variety and low levels of maintenance. (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 and will ensure that the finished project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially* injurious to the properties, or improvements in the vicinity. (j) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15162, the city has determined that' this project is consistent with the previously adopted Negative Declaration No. 99-7. No further review is required. MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (k) The proposed use is allowed within the subject - zoning district with the approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Development Code and the Municipal Code. The project . site zoned R-1-40,000, single-family residential that allows the use of a guesthouse. The application for a guesthouse in excess of 501 square feet requires approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit. The Revised Application meets the development standards as set forth in Section 22.42.060(B), including access, utilities, plumbing and electrical installations, design, 'parcel coverage, and as amended kitchen facilities, and size. The proposed structures do not exceed an. overall parcel coverage of 3Q percent. The k, L application requests the construction of an 1,055 detached gross square feet guesthouse consisting of sitting room, full bath, wet bar area and deck and portico overlooking the tennis court. The granting of the Permit will allow the applicant expansion for recreational and guest uses. Approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit includes conditions to prohibit kitchen facilities, a separately rented unit from the main dwelling, and subsequent subdivision of the parcel that would divide the main dwelling from the guesthouse. As amended, the proposed applicationcomplies with all other applicable provisions of this Development Code and Municipal Code. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. As stated in Item (e) , the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan objectives and strategies, the Development Code and City Design Guidelines, and any applicable specific plan. The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. As stated in Items (e) and (f), the proposed new construction of guesthouse isconsistentwith the surrounding single-family homes. Therefore, the project design, location,' size and operating characteristics are compatible. (n) The subject site is Physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed including access, provisions of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and the absence of physical constraints. As stated in Items (e), (f),*(g), (h) and (i),' the guesthouse is suitable for the type and density/ intensity of use, access, utilities, and compatibility with adjoining land uses and the absence of physical constraints. (0) Granting the Minor Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,. convenience, or welfare, or materially 1.1 injurious to person, property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning districts in . which the property is located. City permits, structural plan check, inspections and soils reports are required for construction. These will ensure that the finished project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. (p) The proposed project has been reviewed -in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15162, the City has determined that this project is consistent with the previously adopted Negative Declaration No. 99-7. No further review is required. Based upon the findings and conclusion s- et 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 'collectively labeled as Exhibit "A" dated November 14, 2000, as .submitted to, approved, and amended herein by the Planning Commission for modification of the tennis court -location and grading of the previously approved 'Development 'Review No. 99-5, and to .,construct a second story guest house with decks and portico of approximately 1,055 gross square feet. (b) A. revised landscape/ irrigation plan with native planting materials shall be submitted for the area at the' rear of the parcel, (c) A grading, retaining wall plan, and updated soils report review and approval is required for .the modifications of the tennis court location and the previously approvedgrading revised from Development Review No. 99-5, and to construct a second story guest house with decks and portico. In accordance with the City's grading and retaining wall requirements, the grading plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits.. 7 (d) Retaining wall and shall be structures. shall not exceed a height of six feet decorative block or stucco to match (e) Drainage pattern shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Division; surface water shall drain away from the building at a 2% minimum slope. (f) 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: 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 5 feet from a support pole. 6. Light fixtures shall be designed, constructed, mounted and maintained so that, with appropriate shi ' elding, 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. (g) The guesthouse shall not be provided with kitchen facilities other than the proposed wet bar sink and bar refrigerator. The cabinet shall not exceed a 9 measurement of 48 inches to accommodate the bar sink and refrigerator. (h) The building materials, roof, stucco, wrought iron, etc., and the colors of the guesthouse shall match the main structure. Theguest house structure shall meet the 1998 California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and California Electrical Code requirements. (j) The minimum design wind pressure shall be 80 miles per hour and 11CII exposure for the guesthouse structure. (k) The guest house structure is located in "Fire Zone 411 and shall meet the following requirements of that fire zone: (1) All roof covering shall be "Fire Retardant, Class A"; the roofs shall be fire stopped at the eaves to preclude entry of the flame or members under the fire; shall be (2) All enclosed under -floor areas 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 1/2 inch screen. (1) This guest house structure shall meet the State Energy Conservation Standards. (m) Handrails and guardrails shall be designed for 20- pound load applied laterally at the top of the rail. (n) Windows at walking surface and at walking deck level shall be tempered or laminated. (o) Window and door.schedules shall be submitted for Building and Safety plan check. (p) Due to the site's topography, applicant shall comply with special, design requirements as specified in Oj the 1998 California Building Code, Section 18.4.3, building setback, top and toe of slopes. (q) The Applicant shall comply with Planning and Zoning; Building and Safety; and, Public Works Divisions and Fire Department requirements. (r) The single-family residence shall not be utilized in a manner that creates adverse effects upon the neighborhood and environmental, setting of the residential site to level s of dust, glare/light, noise, odor, traffic, or other disturbances to the existing residential neighborhood and shall not result in significantly adverse effects on public services and resources. The single-family residence shall not be used for commercial/institutional purposes, or otherwise used as a separate dwelling. The property shall not. be used for regular gatherings which result in a nuisance or which create traffic and parking problems in the neighborhood. (s) 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. (t) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed, within fifteen (15) days -.of -approval of this grant, at the City of Diamond. Bar Community and Development Services Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware and.agree to accept all the conditions of this grant. Further, this grant shall not be effective until the permittee pays remaining City processing fees. (u) If the Department of Fish and Game determines that Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 applies to the approval of this project, then the applicant shall remit to the City, within five days of this grant's approval, a cashier's check of $25.00 for a documentary handling fee in connection with Fish and Game -Code requirements. Furthermore, if this project is not exempt from a filing fee imposed Me 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 Peichin Cheng, 17800 Castleton St., #106, city of Industry, CA, 91748 and Anchi Lee, 3740 Campus Drive, #B, Newport Beach, CA.92660. . APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14t' OF NOVEMBER 2000, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. M 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 14th day of November, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST., . James DeStefano, Secretary 11 w. • ,. yam" �,... _ .._ CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DEPARTMENT OF COMMur4MY & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Planning Division 21660 E. Copley Dore State 190. , Diamand Sar, CA 91765 (909)396-5676 Fax (909)961.311.7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPIIGATION Record Owner Applicant Name -� &t .E'tC%tir� Lee tINN-GH I (Lost nsa first) (Lm name 5rsU Arles r� C�Sd an f #f p6 374d rang► W5 2R* I city 777 &d Gam_ N WPORT BEACH �cm66o zip Aherne ') f i 3 - 3 +1- ILGD- 66" 01 Fax --1� Fax (74q-ioion-?25-5 carr IFF L iacpost S Rc=pt e B> _ Date hero ` _' ^ FOR CM L'st phone( ) Fax ( ) Apph=fs Arent (Last name Cust) NOTE: It is the applicaufs ,responsibility to notify the City in writing of say t haage of *the principals involved during the- processing heprocessing of this case.. • (Attach szpatato shea% if accosury. iucludasg nines, sddzusas, and signatum of members of pwWashUn joint vmtu =s. and di wA= of ccrporstions.) _ Caner Si2IlCd h described property and permit the applicant to file is quott ' I� t (An -mora owners) CeMfrcadon: I, the underskne4 hereby certify underpenalty of perjury that the infomadon herein provided is carred to the best of my. knowledge.. Print Name L057A"'Ki — GH� (Applicant or ) Signed Date (Apph or agent) Location (Street address or tract and lot number) Zoning RR House Numbering Map prevtotts Cases D&VS-"L-0 -c— w N o Present Use of Site5►NGI �•.� ' f - r sr 111.. /Y I DC—NCE� Use applied for ADD GABA J*t TD •EYI 571M 4 V O5r. ii&.00ATB T�—" NN 15 Co . - •: CITY OF DIRT ND BAR COM[MUNI Y DE,,:;LOPMENT DEPARTMENT 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 (909)396-5676 Fax (909)861-3117 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Record Owner Name (Last name first) Address / An �104zl�ln -shy #11Y city___C I Lit iGIG C/9 zip .jam Phon,J,V ) \ Applicant (Last name fust) Phoncp. case* FPL # Deposit S? Receipt# _ t.9,L> By Date Rec'd Applicant's Agent (Last name first) 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 rtify that I am the owner of th erein d_ese erty and permit the applicant to file this request. Si gaed ,, _ Date / S (All record own ) , Cern, fication: I, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information herein provided is correct to the best of my knowledge. Print Name A) C A , (Ap,P ant or Agent) / Signed (��_ Date Olf (Applicant or Agent) Location Lc • 111f 7 C�� C►) 1 i G �'� % t'�r" �rr n -� (Street address or tract and lot number) Zoning 1` P, HNM 7 Previous Cases Present Use of Site V_`A C a, 4 Use applied for 4�rl )'t a n LEFT ELi_VATION am-nr n REAR ELEVATION RCCF DECK �� Ll (1 ROOF PLAN 1 GENERAL NOTES: � mrx mm� wx miux .mu SITE PLAN NOTES: BUILDING SUMMARY: Ei --maw—•,.m..au...'w-maim— xm.�as+aatam...v p a — ,w.-,= mrnud mrw wavvn°'i.ae Q�imm ,e r-.• a owu am /aL nam war ©arvav ay.aa.a..t Haut ru, r -o• a "' <au. a mmam Riau, a�w�o�' rasa wn Qc*ou lmm' b Pana t6 Blt] 025 003 IQi me azva uwL 1N,Y a2 caon�G W Mlll' 9�uwtam) �Mm m wW w.sm, v/ um a.s cv, r -r w um Imrn FLOOR & ROOF PLAN NOTES: ELEVATION NOTES: E oaa .Eaxaa. (;1 RIGHT ELEVATION `\J .V. Vv rl FRONT ELEVATION u,ra r 4 � FIRST FLOOR PLAN Irl SITE PLAN zz J ra B3-4 o� �CnC U2 o d 0 � �ra V W irl 0,10::l f 0 A.0. MFA ORAX1•_•• F0. Nlmi GRAOEA�� F.F.Him F. t'IOattU SRFME F.L IM. Fl INVERFWIELEVAOOH T.0 R. TOP OF CAR I am. T.W. TF. TO aF WNL TOP OF MaaNC OF . mm,OF EXWWG COWMRSOMO PROPCUR laE llaN KOF ORAW paVR4 SPROIR Wanati EaRTHwoRg IL_IN RR RR0E1YAW1 A Y'lLPM� ON A6IR , I�QiY V� f - Q ::=rl .mIVCR PA - Q mlAmuR W IF - —. — tuTAc Imam �EfJAL NaIE Q ONSYmR iµ• PVO EOL m 0— 1— ID PEQ mHmvR �• PK cI1rFM puM EALi Q E9xlp61R 44FSP A001-XNT ECMII YAY fRA ♦• Y�I CmSEfE V WYW Q 01XVE1R IY YAC Y � {til IaY Acro xt eLL 98E FfA pReli IiACM IRIXd1R t• 49Au1 FK. IY SB[ YpoVI.V. Fal vflel tumni Q IXM K R liR ® mE1dR IR! TfIML POI pRN. 11[aml Q NISIPVR t G (a[ff Rdi Ptl£T 6l1]INiCF lfNa[A YM3, tlif TIMI Y IiNt tN Qf! YfMmMN ® mlimUR 1¢iN®iG YMIE PG MVx Eta Elp-t TPE A Q NIXWICf 1-r PtC Sol �i pWN PPF. Oez SBE ...-.. . (i smmr r X r AP RAn ed xTMu name SAtET tV dulCaD EY. Ip1P(EOI A Imi k ASpOAiLS pAld WT IOpR Viv[vAmctaTVA AWPPo1EEf ptlRA. t� IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR a a--r- (_xt am �@114Q4N411 Aa Ab:faOmi ti -2 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: CASEXILE NUMBER: APPLICATION REQUEST: PROPERTY LOCATION: APPLICANT: BACKGROUND: City of Diamond Bar Staff Report 8.3 November 2, 2000 November 14, 2000 Draft 2000-2005 Housing Element (GPA No. 00-01) A request to recommend approval of the updated Draft General Plan Housing Element for 2000-2005, (General Plan Amendment -GPA No. 00-01) Citywide City of Diamond Bar 21660 E. Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 The housing element is a comprehensive assessment of current and projected housing needs for all segments of the community and all economic groups. In addition, it embodies policy for providing adequate housing and includes action programs for this purpose. State Government Code Section 65588 (b)(5) requires that the Housing Element of the General Plan be updated every five years. Over the last several years, however, time extensions have been granted by the State to local governments for completion of updates. The most recent deadline was extended to December 31, 2000 (Assembly Bill 1744). Diamond Bar is proposing to amend the current General Plan Housing Element for the 2000-2005 time period. This proposal would bring the 1995 Housing Element into conformance with State of California requirements. California Government Code Sections 65353 and 65354 require that prior to the adoption of any proposed amendment to the General Plan, the Planning Commission needs to first review, approve, and recommend to the City Council the adoption of any such proposed amendment. Development Services staff has worked 1 closely with our consultant at CottonBeland/Associates, Inc. in the preparation of the attached Draft 2000- 2005 Housing Element for consideration by the Planning Commission. Housing Goals per the State Legislature Government Code Section 65580. The Legislature finds and declares as follows: 1. The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, including farmworkers, is a priority of the highest order; 2. The early attainment of this goal requires the cooperative participation of government and the private sector in an effort to expand housing opportunities and accommodate the housing needs of Californians. of all economic levels; 3. The provision of housing affordable to low- and moderate -income households requires the cooperation of all levels of government; 4. Local and state governments have a responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and development of housing to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community; and 5. The Legislature recognizes that in carrying out this responsibility, each local government also has the responsibility to consider economic, environmental, and fiscal factors and community goals set forth in the general plan and to cooperate with other local governments and the state in addressing regional housing needs. Government Code Section 65581. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this article: 1. To assure that counties and cities recognize their responsibilities in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goal; 2. To assure that counties and cities will prepare and implement housing elements which, along with federal and state programs, will move toward attainment of the state housing goal; 3. To recognize that each locality is best capable of determining what efforts are required by it to contribute to the attainment of the state housing goal, provided such a determination is compatible with the state housing goal and regional housing needs; and 4. To ensure that each local government cooperates with other local governments in order to address regional housing needs. Reguirements for the Housing Element Update The components of a comprehensive Housing Element update include an update of population, household, and housing market information, meetings for public input, and the formation of a Housing Element for the period 2000-2005. The comprised Draft 2000-2005 Housing Element was forwarded to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for their review and approval. The process of preparing the Draft 2000-2005 Housing Element took existing data (the housing element) and included new data and public input to determine the City's housing needs and strategies to address those needs. 2 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the agency responsible for assigning the fair share target to each jurisdiction in the 300 -cities southern California region of the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) for the construction needs or RHNA. The RHNA identifies the number of dwelling units that would have to be added in each jurisdiction to accommodate the State forecasted growth between January 1998 and June 2005. These housing units should be comprised of all income groups. According to SCAG, Diamond Bar has a regional housing growth need of 144 new units. Housing units built in Diamond Bar since 1998 can be subtracted from the City's RHNA. Since January 1998, a total of 153 housing units have been developed in the City. All of these have been custom homes selling for $500,000 or more and would therefore count only as "above moderate income" units. The 1998- 2005 RHNA had called for 23 very low income units, 17 low income units, 27 moderate income units and 76 units for household above moderate income. Thus, Diamond Bar has a remaining need of 67 units within very low, low and moderate income categories. The Draft Housing Element -Section 4, Housing Resources, page 4-3, discusses the zoning and available land resources for the target number of homes. Data Research Data research included the 1990 Census, information provided from Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Department of Finance, and the Employment Development Department for demographic and household information such as: • Current population and population growth trends; ® Characteristics of the population including age distribution, race/ethnicity, and gender; • Household characteristics including number of households, household size, overcrowding, family and female -headed households, and level of payment compared to ability to pay; ® Household income for the City in comparison to the region, income differences by census tract, persons living in poverty by subgroup, i.e., female -headed households, elderly, children. Interviews were conducted with service providers for information to gain insight on particular unmet needs of Diamond Bar populations on special housing needs groups: the disabled, elderly, large families, female headed households and the homeless. Current market data was complied from a variety of sources, including: Department of Finance, Construction Industry Research Board, Data Quick Real Estate Market Information Services, local Board of Realtors and Apartment Owners Association, and advertised rentals listed in local newspapers and the Los Angeles County Times. Additional information on the location and extent of housing deterioration in the City was derived from City code enforcement staff. 3 The inventory of the location and potential development capacity of vacant land in the City suitable for new residential development during this 2000-2005 planning period was evaluated for residential growth potential. The Table II -4 and the Housing Opportunities Areas IW exhibit were replaced with updated data. Public Input On July 11, 2000, the Planning Commission held a study session: City of Diamond Bar, 2000-2005 Housing Element. Additionally, the Draft 2000-2005 Housing Element was distributed to sites within Diamond Bar for review and comment. These included the two mobile home parks, Season's Apartments, the Diamond Bar Library and City Hall. In addition to the required legal advertisements, display ads were published in the November Wh issue of the Windmill, and in the November 11 issue of the Diamond Bar weekly. A copy of the flyer/display ad is attached. Housing Plan The Goals and Policies of the Draft 2000-2005 Housing Element, page 5-3, are based on the culmination of data research, housing resources, RHNA and public input as noted above. The five goals are: 1. Consistent with the Vision Statement, preserve and conserve the existing housing stock and maintain property values and residents' Quality of Life; 2. Consistent with the Vision Statement, provide opportunities for development of suitable housing to meet the diverse needs of existing and future residents; 3. Provide adequate sites through appropriate land use and zoning designations to accommodate future housing growth; 4. Mitigate potential governmental constraints which may hinder or discourage housing development in Diamond Bar; 5. Consistent with the Vision Statement, encourage equal and fair housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community. The goals and policies are the basis for the five areas of the Housing Programs (page 5-6) and include such programs as discussed on subsequent pages. These include: Conserving the existing supply of affordable housing; 1. Residential Code Enforcement Program 2. Minor Home Repair Program ("Paint the Town") 3. Single Family Rehabilitation Program 4. Section 8 Rental Assistance Program ME 5. Preservation of Assisted Housing 6. Mobilehome Park Preservation • Assisting in the provision of housing; 7. First -Time Homebuyer Assistance Programs 8. Senior Housing Development • Providing'adequate sites to achieve a variety and diversity of housing 9. Land Use Element (RHNA and Inventory) 10. Mixed Use Development 11. Second Units • Removing governmental constraints as necessary; and 12. Affordable Housing Incentives/Density Bonus 13. Efficient Project Processing • Promoting equal housing opportunity. 14. Fair Housing Program NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: On October 26, notification of the public hearing for this project was provided in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers with a one-eighth page legal advertisement. Also, three other public places were posted. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined that this project is consistent with the previously certified General Plan Environmental Impact Report and Addendum certified July 25, 1995 according to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15168(b)(2) of Article 11 of the California Code of Regulation. Therefore, no further review is required. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive public testimony, discuss the proposed amendment, and adopt a resolution recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA No. 00-01) of the Draft 2000-2005 Housing Element. Prepared by: Linda Kay Smitfi Development Services Assistant 5 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution of Approval; 2. Draft 2000-2005 Housing Element (please bring copy provided to you earlier); 3. Letter from Department of Housing and Community Development dated November 3, 2000; 4. Flyer distributed with Draft 2000-2005 Housing Element to public sites. D: WORD-LINDA/HOUSING ELEMENT/REP HOUSING ELEMENT PC 111400 N. PLANNING COMIVIISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2000-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMIVIISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPT AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN (GPA NO. 2000-01) A. RECITALS. 1. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal corporation of the State of California. Thereafter, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 14 (1990), thereby adopting the Los Angles County Code as the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 of the Los Angeles County Code contains the Subdivision Code of the County of Los Angeles applicable to development applications within the City of Diamond Bar. 2. On July 25, 1995, the City of Diamond Bar adopted its General Plan. The General Plan establishes goals, objectives and strategies to implement the community's vision for its future. 3. On March 2, 1999, the City of Diamond Bar adopted General Plan Amendment No. 98-1 amending Land Use Element, Objective 1.5, Strategy 1.5.3 relating to Open Space contained within the City of Diamond Bar General Plan to meet the City's goals and objectives in terms of the type of development envisioned by the General Plan. 4. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing with regard to the General Plan Amendment No. 00-1, draft 2000- 2005 Housing Element. The public hearing was opened on November 14, 2000 and concluded on November 14, 2000. 5. The Planning Commission considered, individually and collectively, the General Plan Amendment No. 00-1, draft 2000-2005 Housing Element. 6. On November 14, 2000 the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 00-1 attached hereto as Exhibit «A„ 7. The Planning Commission, after due consideration of public testimony, staff analysis and the Commission's deliberations has determined that the General Plan Amendment No. 00-1 attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference into this Resolution, implements the goals of the City. The Planning Commission has duly considered these issues so as to meet the City's needs in terms of the type of development envisioned by the General Plan. E" 8. The 1995 General Plan remains properly integrated and internally consistent as required by California Government Code Section 65300.5. 9. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65090 and 65353, notification of the public hearing for this project was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on October 26, 2000 in a one eighth page legal advertisement. Also, three other public places were posted. 11. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, as follows: 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 recommends that the City Council adopt the General Plan Amendment No. 00-1 for the City of Diamond Bar attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. 3. The Planning Commission hereby determines that there is no substantial evidence that the General Plan Amendment No. 00-1 will have a significant effect on the environment and therefore is categorically exempt pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15317 of Article 19 of Chapter 3 of Division 13 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole including the findings set forth below, there is no evidence before this Planning Commission that the General Plan Amendment No. 00-1 proposed herein will have the potential of an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. The Planning Commission finds and determines that General Plan Amendment No. 00-1 is consistent and compatible with and implements the goals, objectives and strategies of the City of Diamond Bar General Plan. 2 r, The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall: D a s ', (a) Certify as to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED TI -HS 14th DAY OF • : • 000, BY TBE1 • 1 • OF 1 OF DIAMOND :. • Steve Nelson, Chairman I, James DeStefano, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of November, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAINED: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: James DeStefano, Secretary 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA -BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING ACFN Y DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT •�0,151NG y�G Division of Housing Policy Development 1800 Third Street, Suite 430 O o o z P. O. Box 952053 3 0 `` Sacramento, CA 94252-2053 �� 3G� c; www.hcd.ca.00v ATTACHM«3ENT (916) 323-3176 FAX: (916) 327-2643 DRAFT 2000-2005 HOUSING ELEMENT, Dtvq, GPA No. 00-01 NOVEMBER 9, 2000 November 3, 2000 Mr. Jim DeStefano Acting City Manager and Community Development Director City of Diamond Bar 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100 Diamond Bar, California 91765-3117 Dear Mr. DeStefano: RE: Review of Diamond Bar's Draft Housing Element Amendment Thank you for submitting Diamond Bar's draft housing element, received September 21, 2000, for our review. As you know, we are required to review draft housing element amendments and report our findings to the locality pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(b). A telephone conversation with Karen Warner of Cotton/Beland Associates, the City's consultant, assisted our review. This letter and Appendix summarize the conclusions of that discussion and our review. The City is to be commended for facilitating the refinancing and preservation of the 149 units senior rental housing complex in 1999. Although the draft element describes some of the unique housing conditions in the City, the element requires revision to adequately address the statutory requirements of housing element law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code.) In particular, the element should include more quantified program actions with specific timelines. And expand the analysis of governmental constraints. The Appendix to this letter outlines the revisions needed to bring the draft element into compliance. For your information, we have enclosed a brief description of new and existing housing and community development programs administered by this Department along with funding levels for the current fiscal year. We are pleased to report a historic increase in housing funds available through HCD. A number of the programs such as the Jobs -Housing Balance Improvement Program, the CalHome Program and the Downtown Rebound Program are new and under current development. Please consult our homepage at www.hcd.ca.gov for program information updates. We thank Karen Warner for her cooperation during our rjeview. If you require additional assistance or have any questions, please contact Margaret Murphy, of our staff, at (916) 445- 5888. We would be glad to visit the City to provide technical assistance to facilitate the City's efforts to comply with the law. In accordance with the Public Records Act, a copy of this letter has been forwarded to the individuals and organizations listed below. Mr. Jim DeStefano Page 2 Sincerely, Cathy Xreswell Acting Deputy Director Enclosure cc: Clement Lau, Cotton/Beland/Associates Catherine Ysrael, Supervising Deputy Attorney General Terry Roberts, Governor's Office of Planning and Research Juan Acosta, California Building Industry Association Marcia Salkin, California Association of Realtors Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation Rob Weiner, California Coalition for Rural Housing Susan DeSantis, The Planning Center Dara Schur, Western Center on Law and Poverty Michael G. Colantuono, Attorney at Law Jose Rodriguez, California Rural Assistance David Booher, California Housing Council Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer, Attorney at Law Ana Maria Whitaker, California State University, Pomona Joe Carreras, South California Association of Governments Dwight Hanson, California Building Industry Association Kerry Harrington Morrison, CA Association of Realtors Marguerite Battersby, Brunick & Pyle Minh Tran, Inland Counties Legal Services iq APPENDIX City of Diamond Bar The following changes would bring Diamond Bar's housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change we cite the supporting section of the Government Code. The particular program examples or data sources provided are suggestions for your use. A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints 1. Include an analysis and documentation of housing characteristics including housing stock condition (Section 65583(a)(2)). The City's Code Enforcement Office has identified four neighborhoods targeted for rehabilitation assistance but the element should also include an estimate of the number of substandard units needing rehabilitation and replacement. 2. Include an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites (Section 65583(a)(3)). a) Table 31- Residential Development Potential under Housing Resources, Availability of Sites For Housing, describes the residential land districts, but should also identify the zoning categories, density ranges, and the availability of services and facilities (infrastructure). Regarding moderate income households, the element should demonstrate the ability to mmet the regional housing need for this group given that there is no vacant land zoned at 5, 12, or 16 DU/ac. b) The inventory identifies 13.5 acres of vacant land designated High Density for residential development at 20 DU/ac. The element should include more information about the City's methodology for determining the adequacy of the high density zone in accommodating the City's share of the regional housing need for lower-income and moderate -income households. According to Figure 11, Housing Opportunity Areas, this vacant land consists of four scattered sites with an aggregate potential of 270 units. Table 31 should identify each of these sites by acreage. A realistic assessment of the development potential of each of these sites, including mitigation of traffic congestion impacts or environmental constraints, during the current planning period should also be described. Given the limited amount of land zoned for High Density multifamily, the City should consider limiting use of this zone for single family use. c) The land inventory should more thoroughly describe the status of Tres Hen!nanos (PA -1) and the Specific Plan Overlay (page 5-10) including the current zoning, allowable densities, and intended mix of land uses. Specifically, how many multifamily units would be included within the proposed total 144 residential units on this site? Given that Tres Hermans lacks infrastructure, what is the realistic potential of its development within the planning period. 2 Analyze potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for all income levels, including land -use controls and local processing and permit procedures. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality fi-om meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584 (Section 65583(a)(4)). a) Table 27 on page 3-8 describes parking requirements of two spaces in a garage for each multifamily unit, plus .05 additional spaces for each bedroom over 2, plus guest parking at the ratio of 1 space for each 4 required parking spaces. This requirement should be analyzed as a governmental constraint on the development of multifamily housing. If necessary, based on this analysis, a program should be developed to mitigate this constraint. Additionally, the element should describe the reduced parking requirements for studio, second units, senior and congregate care facilities. b) The element should specifically explain; and analyze the impact of the minor conditional use permit process and required public hearing for second dwelling units. c) The element discusses fees pertaining to processing development applications but should also include an analysis of the costs associated with new development, specifically impact fees. d) The element should include a description of on -and -off site improvement requirements beyond "dedication and/or improvement of streets and drainage channel for new development." B. Housing Programs Include a program which sets forth a five-year schedule of actions the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element through . the administration of land -use and development controls, provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, and the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when available. Describe the amount and uses of moneys in the redevelopment agency's Low and Moderate income Housing Fund. (Section 65583(c)). Most of the housing programs require quantification and more specific information about the City's role and commitment to implementation. For example, definitive timelines for implementation of program actions is required. Examples of the programs that require revision to address the statutory requirements include but are not limited to the following: Program 10. Quantify the objective and provide a timeline for the Mixed Use program within PA -1 and PA -2. Describe the relationship between the City and the Conservation Authority. See 2 (d). Program 11: Revise this program to include the specific actions the City will take to encourage and facilitate development of second units and a timeline for achieving this objective. Regarding the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when available: The Senior Housing Program references the City of Industry set aside. The element should include the availability and the amount of these funds and explain how the set aside will be utilized to facilitate new affordable housing. We also suggest that this resource may also be appropriate to facilitate the development of non -elderly affordable rental housing and needed infrastructure in Diamond Bar. 2. Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards and with public services and facilities, including sewer collection and treatment, domestic water supply, and septic tanks and wells, needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including rental housing, factory -built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural workers, emergency shelters and transitional housing (Section 65583(c)(1)(A)). Absent a complete land inventory as required in A.2, it is not possible to evaluate the adequacy of the City's adequate sites program. 3. The housing element shall contain ,programs, which "assist ifl the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low -and moderate -income households (Section 65583(c)(2)). Although the element includes programs providing first time home buyer assistance (home ownership and mortgage credit certificate) and the senior housing development, the element should be revised to include specific program actions that address the needs of lower income and non -elderly households, including large family and renter households, especially those who are overpaying for housing. Additionally, the element should describe specific actions the City will take to help facilitate affordable housing. For example, many jurisdictions assist in the adequate development of low and moderate income housing by applying for available federal and state housing grant or loan funds or by assisting nonprofit organizations and affordable housing developers in their applications. 4. The housing element shall contain programs which "address, and where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing" (Section 65583(c)(3)). Absent a complete governmental constraint analysis as required in A.3, it is not possible to evaluate the adequacy of the City's programs to mitigate governmental constraints. 5. Include a program to promote equal housing opportunities (Section 65583(c)(5)). The element states that the City contracts with the Long Beach Fair Housing Foundation through the County Consortium for fair housing services. Program 14 should be strengthened. Specifically, greater outreach efforts to city residents should be provided about the fair housing laws, the availability of fair housing services as well as where and how to file a compliant. The City could work with the Foundation to conduct Landlord/Tenant seminars in the City. Fair housing information could also be disseminated at libraries, senior centers, recreation centers, social security and unemployment offices, and other public places to increase the program's visibility and potential usefulness. We would be glad to provide information and assistance on how to expand the Fair Housing program. El C. Q Consistency with General Plan Describe the means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements and community goals (Section 65583(c)). Although the element provides examples of inter -element consistency, the element should describe how consistency between the housing element and the general plan is to be maintained. Public Participation Local governments shall make a diligent effort segments of the community in the development describe this effort (Section 65583(c)). to achieve public participation of all economic of the housing element, and the element shall We note that the City's public outreach efforts are focused primarily around the public noticing and hearing processes. The City did conduct a public study session upon completion of the housing needs assessment but prior to formulation of the element's policies and programs. However, the housing element should specifically identify how the City made a diligent effort to solicit public input from all economic groups (especially lower-income households, their representatives, or advocates) during the development of the housing element. Other For your information, State Density Bonus Law was revised in 1989 and no longer applies to development of housing for moderate -income households. 5 DRAFT 111 11HOUSING NOVEMBERGPA No. 00-01 • 111 Does the City of Diamond Bar meet the community's housing needs? P question during , int District Copley Drive The Public Hearing represents a great opportunity for Diamond Bar residents, businesses, and interest groups to review, and comment on the City's Housing Element. Those who participate will help the Planning Commission to develop a local housing plan of the highest quality. To see a draft copy of the Housing Element before November 14th, visit the Diamond Bar Public Library or Diamond Bar City Hall. For more information, please call the City Manager's Office at (909) 396-5666. Project MEETINGS November 14, 2000 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR COMMUNITY & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECTS Case # PM Location PC CC PC CC PC CC PC 11/14 11/21 11/28 12/5 12/12 12/19 12/26 (Dark) CHENG, PEICHIN MCUP 2000-16 LKS 2856 WAGON TRAIN PH (Guest House) DAGAM, CHARY DR 2000-15 AJL 1819 DERRINGER LANE PH (Single Family Residence) DIAMOND BAR PARTNERS WEST DR 2000-17 LKS 2889 VISTA COURT PH (Single Family Residence) HOUSING ELEMENT GPA 1000-01 JDS CITYWIDE PH PH KIM, KEVIN CUP 2000-08 LKS 1403 DIAMOND BAR BL. PH (Martial Arts Studio LIPPICH, LESLIE DR 2000-08 AJL 1626 DERRINGER LANE PH (Single Family Residence) METRICOM — WVUSD CUP 2000-02 AJL 21400 PATHFINDER PC (Wireless Telecommunications) PARKS/TRAILS MASTER PLAN JDS CITYWIDE X PLATINUM RESTAURANT CUP 99-4 JDS 245 GENTLE SPRINGS Cont. (Review Conditional Use Permit) MCUP 99-9 AJL PH SACHDEVA, BASANT DR 2000-18 LKS 2250 INDIAN CREEK ROAD PH (Single Family Residence) MCUP 2000-12 MV 2000-13 TDM ARCHITECTS - POEHLMAN, NED DR 2000-21 LKS 1041 S. GRAND AVENUE PH Verizon - 7,174 Sq. Ft. Office Addition) TOGO'S — ROBERT PARKER CUP 1998-09(1) LKS 1193 S. DIAMOND BAR BL. Cont. (Amendment — Parking to Accommodate On- DR 1998-11(1) PH Site Seating)) MV 2000-19 PROJECT MEETINGS November 14, 2000 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR COMMUNITY & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS Case # PM Location DCM BOURNE, JOHN DCM LKS DCM ON HOLD - PER APPLICANT DCM 11/14/00 VAR2000-02 11/28 515 S. GRAND AVENUE 12/12 ALEXANDER DEVELOPMENT 12/26 JDS (Freeway Sign) DIAMOND BAR WEST—RICHARD GOULD DR 2000-17 (Dark) GOLDRUSH INVESTMENT ADR 2000-24 Si 24089 GOLD RUSH PH (TRACT 47850 LOTS 17 & 18) JCC DEVELOPMENT ZC 2000-01AJL DIAMOND BAR BLVD (Single Family Residence) (Zone Change to Commercial) PM 10208, PARCEL 2 GOLDRUSH INVESTMENT ADR2000-25 Si 24077 GOLD RUSH PH (Single Family Residence) GOLDRUSH INVESTMENT ADR'2000-26 Si 24069 GOLD RUSH PH (Single Family Residence) KIM, NANCY MCUP 2000-17 Si 2803 DIAMOND BAR BL PH (Beer & Wine onsite sales) KOHLI, SUNIL MCUP 2000-19 Si 23634 RIDGELINE ROAD PH (4;607 Square Feet Room Addition) LUAN, JONAH ADR12000-23 AIL 20839 QUAIL RUN DRIVE PH (Room Addition) MCUP 2000-13 MV 2000-18 SHUM, SIMON ADR'99-25(1) LKS 2665 WAGON TRAIN PH (Revision - Fireplace; Grading Plan MCUP 99-17(1) Reflecting Walls and Changed Elevations) YANG, ROGER MCUP 2000-18 LKS 2827 OAK KNOLL DR. PH PENDING PROJECTS Case # PM Location BOURNE, JOHN MCUP 2000-09 LKS 2102 ROCKY VIEW ROAD ON HOLD - PER APPLICANT (Converting Storage into Game Room) DIAMOND BAR HONDA/ VAR2000-02 AJL 515 S. GRAND AVENUE ON HOLD - PER APPLICANT ALEXANDER DEVELOPMENT JDS (Freeway Sign) DIAMOND BAR WEST—RICHARD GOULD DR 2000-17 LKS 2899 VISTA COURT PROCESSING (TRACT 47850 LOTS 17 & 18) JCC DEVELOPMENT ZC 2000-01AJL DIAMOND BAR BLVD PROCESSING — TRAFFIC STUDY UNDERWAY (Zone Change to Commercial) PM 10208, PARCEL 2 PROJECT MtETINGS November 14.2000 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ('OMMTTNTTV R. TIVVAT nDAXU?,TT QVDATTr'00 T'%rnAnmw muTm PENDING PROJECTS (cont.) Case # PM Location KIM, NANCY — (Green Garden Restaurant) MCUP 2000-17 Si 2803 DIAMOND BAR BLVD. PROCESSING (Beer & Wine Onsite Sales) KITE & PORTER ARCHITECTURE DR 2000-22 Si 1200 CHISOLM TRAIL DR. PROCESSING (Single Family Residence) MOON, SEONG YEO CUP 2000-06 AJL 20627 GOLDEN SPRINGS DR. PROCESSING (Entertainment — Karoke) NOVAK & ASSOCIATES CUP 2000-09 1155 S. DIAMOND BAR BL. PROCESSING (Co -location Wireless Telecommunications) CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF DIAMOND BAR On November 14, 2000, at 6:00 P.M., the Diamond Bar Administrative Review will hold a regular meeting at the South Coast Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. Items for consideration are listed on the attached agenda. 1, Sharon Gomez, declare as follows: I am employed by the City of Diamond Bar, Community and Development Services Department. On November 9, 2000, 1 posted copies of the Notice for the Regular Meeting of the Diamond Bar Administrative Review, to be held on November 14, 2000, at the following location: South Coast Quality Management District Auditorium 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November 13, 2000, at Diamond Bar, California. LA Sro aron Gomez Community and Development Services Dept. gA\affidavitposfing.doc November 13, 2000 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR COMMUNITY AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT/PLANNING DIVISION 21660 E. Copley Dr., Suite 190 Diamond Bar, Ca., 91765 RE: APPLICATION/DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2250 Indian Creek Road, Diamond Bar, Ca., 91765 (Tract 23483, Lot 66) Dear Honorable Planning Commission Members, 0 co I am the owner of Tract 23483, Lot 64 (2242 Indian Creek Road) which is within the 500 foot radius of the above referenced property. I have met with staff and have reviewed the case materials currently on file with the planning department regarding Lot 66 for the proposed construction of a single-family residence. Upon the completion of my review, I would like to submit for the record the following observations, comments and concerns: IN 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Due to several changes in UBC codes, geological permits, health and safety standards (related to septic) as well as fire safety issues (related to the 15% grade maximum for driveways), it is most unlikely that Lot 65 (consisting of approximately 8 acres at 500 feet below street level) will ever be developed. Therefore, the left (or east) elevation of the subject property (lot 66) becomes aesthetically important to me. As well as the south elevation, which is literally what you will be looking at out of the front door of my property, which was approved for construction in approximately February of this year. The east elevation is aesthetically plain and steps down the entire length will require a handrail. It would be appreciated if the handrail/side fencing information could be provided for review prior to the issuance of an approval. The landscape detail related to the left (east) elevation could be softened by additional greenery, perhaps more medium/higher growing trees and shrubbery. If Lot 65 should ever be developed, the grade relationship between lot 65 and 66 is going to be very tricky as the driveway for lot 65 will require a VERY large retaining wall. In this event, it becomes less important to me, but I would think challenging for the planning department. The south (or rear) elevation retaining wall material (a wall of approximately 6 -foot in height) is not included in the submittal. It would be appreciated if this information could be provided for review prior to the issuance of an approval. . L1 detail would be aesthetically improved with the addition of more medium and mature trees and bushes. 7. There are no fencing details related to the enclosure around the pool shown. It would be appreciated if this information could be provided for review prior to the issuance of an approval. 8. I encourage denial of the required for health variance related to the chimneys (35 -foot). With minimal effort this is not necessary. 9. I encourage denial of the C.U.P. request related to the driveway. Circulation and access is more than sufficient. Additional green scape is most certainly aesthetically pleasing. 10. Last but certainly not least, relates to the details shown for the ripraps (new) and the concrete swales (existing). In the Country Estates, it is now a matter of policy that all rip raps/drainage shall not be exposed. The submitted plans do not show a detail. On the subject property,, there are 2 or 3 existing concrete swales (exposed). They were originally constructed in 1976, and are very aesthetically unappealing. This could be the one (and perhaps only) opportunity to improve the drainage as well as return the hillside to a more aesthetically pleasing appearance. The approval standard enacted now will also be the president referred back to in the event that lot 65 is ever improved. I encourage the planning department to review this condition either by visiting the site, or reviewing arial photos and address this issue during the approval process. In conclusion, I would like to thank you for your consideration of the issues/matters I have submitted. I would have preferred to attend the public hearing that is scheduled for Tuesday November 14th, unfortunately I will be out of town until November 15th. I am available by cell phone and can be reached at 909-453-6198 should there be any questions. Respectfully, Brian Barr lvr /i - 1'5=106 -,t� a4 -f,, A� MEMORANDUM U LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 234 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 400 Pasadena, California 91101-2212 Tel 626.796.2322 Fax 626.792.0941 E-mail greenspan@llgengineers.com Date: November 12, 2000 To: (1) Linda Smith, City of Diamond Bar (2) Warren Siecke, Warren Siecke & Associates From: Jack Greenspan .1 �1�— . Subject: TOGO's Diamond Bar Shared Parking Analysis Fax No.: (1) 909.861.3117 No. Pages: 2 Hard Copy: No (2) 714.779.1644 -00 NOV 13 P 2 *1 This memorandum presents our conclusions relative to the questions regarding the applicability of the shared parking analysis contained in our letter report of January 31, 2000, to the TOGO's .Diamond Bar with 6 tables (12 seats), and the Friday, October 27, 2000 shared parking survey. Shared Parking Methodology The shared parking analysis contained in the letter report of January 31, 2000, was based on the City of Diamond Bar Code parking requirement. For the TOGO's, we used the fast food - restaurant & outdoor dining requirement of one parking space per 100 square feet (10 spaces per 1,000 square feet), which reflects take-out with seating. This peak requirement was then adjusted to account for the hourly variation in demand using hourly parking adjustment factors developed from study of an existing busy TOGO's with seating located in East Pasadena at 3405 Foothill Boulevard. Hourly parldng adjustment factors for the 3 other on-site uses (Cathay Bank, Starbucks, and Hollywood Video) were developed in a similar manner. TOGO's East Pasadena Seating The TOGO's shared parking analysis is based on study of the existing TOGO's in East Pasadena. This TOGO's is approximately 1,800 square feet in size and is located in a shopping center on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Sierra Madre Villa Avenue. Parking is shared with other adjacent on-site uses. There are 19 tables with 2 seats each indoors (38 seats) and 9 outdoor tables with 4 seats each (36 seats), for a total 74 seats. TOGO's Diamond Bar Shared Parking Analysis The J anuary 31, 2000, shared parking analysis did reflect the overall parking requirement with indoor seating in TOGO's, since it is based on the current City Code requirement of one space per 100 squame feet, adjusted to reflect the hourly variation in parking demand based on study of an existing TOGO's with seating that shares parking with adjacent uses. A total requirement for 32 shared parking spaces was projected at that time. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS TOGO's November 12, 2000 Page 2 Shared Parking Survey Analysis of the results of the Friday, October 27, 2000, shared parking survey of existing uses (including the existing TOGO'S) was presented in our letter report ofNovember 2, 2000. Based on observations of TOGO's customer off-site parking, and the number of vehicles observed parked on- site, existing shared parking has been projected to be 31 spaces. Actual parking usage (with no TOGO's seating) appears to be slightly greater than the January 31, 2000 projection (with TOGO'S seating). Assuming that all of the 6 proposed indoor tables are occupied at one vehicle per table, the potential shared parking demand would be 37 spaces, or 5 spaces more than previously projected. Parking Supply versus Demand Our recent survey shows that there are a total of 42 legal non -conforming parking spaces on-site. With a projected shared parking demand of 37 spaces and a supply of 42 spaces, a surplus of 5 spaces can be expected. Re -striping the existing legal non -conforming parking to conform to the existing City Code will reduce the parking supply by 7 spaces to a total of 35 parking spaces. This would result in a 2 space shortfall when compared to the projected demand based on the shared parking survey. On this basis, 4 of the 6 proposed 2 seat tables would be support by the re -striped parking. Parking Monitoring Assuming that 4- 2 seat tables are permitted instead of the proposed 6-2 seat tables, and the parking. i re -striped to Code, we recommend consideration of another parking survey to be undertaken on a Friday 90 days after the re -striping to determine if number of tables can be increased. Q Lyda Hof. 909.960.7993 0.V0 FtLEWJffin18W.WFD