Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/28/2010FILE COPY PLANNING ��1111q� pg�1� q1111111 South Coast Air Quality Management District Government Center Building Auditorium 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Chairman Vice Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Tony Tomg Kathleen Nolan Kwang Ho Lee Steve Nelson Jack Shah Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Planning Division of the Community Development Department, located at 21625 Copley Drive, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please call (909) 839-7030 during regular business hours. Written materials distributed to the Planning Commission within 72 hours of the Planning Commission meeting are available for public 'inspection immediately upon distribution in the City Clerk's office at 21825 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California, during normal business hours. In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title /I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting must inform the Community Development Department at (909) 839-7030 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Please refrain from smoking, eating or drinking in the Auditorium The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper and encourages you to do the same City of Diamond Bar pLaDD'Og C«D0Ol'SS'OO MEETING RULES The meetings of the Diamond Bar P|GODiDg CoDl[niSeiDO are open to the public. A member 0fthe public may address the Commission oDthe subject Ofone O[more agenda items and/or other items of which are within the SUhieCt matter 'jurisdiction of the Di8OlODd Bar Planning CVnuOliosiOD. A request to address the Commission should be submitted in writing at the public heg[iDg, to the Secretary of the As a general rule, the opportunity for public comments will take place at the discretion Ofthe Chair. However, in order to facilitate the meeting, persons who are i I nterested 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 rOeODe[ CoD1018DtS and questions are welcome SO that all points Of view are considered prior to the Commission making recommendations to the staff and City Council. |naccordance with State Law 0��A�.@�0;������OD��eC�0�OD0U�� posted at least 72 hours prior to ' the Commission iSsiOD 0eetiDQ. In case Of eDle[Q8OcV or when a subject matter ehG8S subsequent to the posting of the agenda, UpOD making certain findings, the COOl0iooioD may act oDitem that iSnot VDthe posted agenda. INFORMATION RELATING TO AGENDAS AND ACTIONS OF THE COMMISSION are prepared hv�oPlOj Division of Agendas \�Development D - �� Ao�Od�o@n� 'i8��72���pOo[tnUl�0��Og�C�v the Community8p�nnn ,, available '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 /\ cordless nliC[0ohOO� iSavailable for those persons VV�hO0obiUh/i� p8iOn8DtsVVhocannot access the public speaking ' area. The service of the Vond\eug microphone and GiQD language interpreter services are available by giving notice at |B8ot three bUSiD8Ss days in,advance Of the meeting. PiSaS8 telephone (909) 839-7030 between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and 7:30 a.m. and 4:8Op.[n, Friday. ' HELPFUL PHONE NUMBERS T3 of (909) 839-7030 Copiee of Agenda, Rules of the CoDlmiSaion. Cassette Tapes |DgS ` _ General Agendas (g0A)O30-7O3O iL e�)a ` ` Next Resolution No. 2010-25 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 28, 2010 AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 1. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Tony Torng, Vice -Chairman Kathleen Nolan, Kwang Ho Lee, Steve Nelson, Jack Shah 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is the time and place for the general public to address the members of the Planning Commission on any item that is within. their jurisdiction, allowing the public an opportunity to speak on non-public hearing and non -agenda items. Please complete a Speaker's.. Card for the recording Secretary (completion of this form is voluntary). There is a five-minute maximum time limit when addressing the Planning Commission. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chairman 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine and are approved by a single motion. Consent calendar items may be removed from the agenda by request of the Commission only: 4.1 Minutes of Regular Meeting: August 10, 2010. 4.2 Minutes of Study Session: August 24, 2010. 5. OLD BUSINESS: None. 6. NEW BUSINESS: None. 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2010-202 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.58, the applicant is requesting approval to operate a new 1,895 square -foot, foot and body massage establishment located at Diamond Bar Village, a 76,386 square -foot shopping center located on a 4.2 -acre property. It is a Community Commercial (C-2) zoned parcel with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use Designation of General Commercial (C). S I EPTEMBER 28, 2010 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Project Address: 23499 Golden Springs Dr. Property Owner: H -B Diamond Bar, LLC 10877 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1105 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Applicant: HongweiZhang 9122 Ardendale Ave. San Gabriel, CA 91775 Environmental Determination: This project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on that assessment, the City has determined the project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to the provisions of Article 19 Section 15301(a) (interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing and electrical conveyances) of CEQA Guidelines. No further environmental review is required. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue this matter to October 12, 2010, to allow staff additional time to complete the parking analysis for the proposed use. 7.2 Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2010-307 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.58, the applicant is requesting approval to establish a dance and instruction studio within a 2,000 square -foot lease space located Diamond Bar Village, a 30,281 square -foot shopping center located on a 2.45 -acre property. The subject property is zoned C-2 (Community Commercial) with an underlying General Plan designation of General Commercial. Project Address: 23355 Golden Springs Dr. Property Owner: Chang Chih International Investments, LLC 23341 Golden Springs Dr. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Applicant: Jin Chen Jin's Dance Studio 20260 Evening Breeze Dr. Walnut, CA 91789 Environmental Determination: This project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on that assessment, the City has determined the project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to the provisions of Article 19 SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 a W11 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines. No further environmental review is required. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2010-307 based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: STAFF COMMENTS/ INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects: SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: CITY COUNCIL MEETING: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING: 11. ADJOURNMENT: Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 6:30 p.m. Government Center/SCAQMD Auditorium 21865 Copley Drive Tuesday, October 12, 2010 — 7:00 p.m. Government Center/SCAQMD Auditorium 21865 Copley Drive Thursday, October 14, 2010 - 7:00 p.m Government Center/ SCAQMD Hearing Board Room, 21865 Copley Drive Thursday, October 28, 2010 — 7:00 p.m. Government Center/ SCAQMD Hearing Board Room, 21865 Copley Drive A@ DRAFT MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 2010 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Torng called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: C/Lee led the Pledge of Allegiance. I ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Steve Nelson, Jack Shah, and Chairman Tony Torng. Absent: Vice Chairman Kathy Nolan was absent. Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; David Alvarez, Assistant Planner; Natalie Tobon, Planning Technician; and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None E, nomm[qLol117-11 :4 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 27, 2010. C/Shah moved, C/Nelson seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 27, 2010, as corrected. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Lee, Nelson, Shah, Chair/Torng None VC/Nolan 7.1 Development Review and Minor Variance No. PL 2009-96 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48 and 22.52, the R A�j� -- T AUGUST 10, 2010 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION applicant requested approval to construct a new 15,061 square foot single family residence and 900 square foot second unit, and a Minor Variance for eight foot high retaining walls on a 57,935 square foot (1.3 acre), Rural Residential (RR) zoned parcel with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential (RR) PROJECT ADDRESS: 2488 Alamo Heights Dive (APN 8713-028-003) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Syed Madad & Meher Tabatabai 2452 Alamo Heights Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Bill Hanson Distinguished Homes 160 S. Old Springs Road, Suite 170 Anaheim Hills, CA 92808 AP/Alvarez presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review and Minor Variance No. PL 2009-96 based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Lee asked if the north and south sides of the dwelling had a retaining wall and AP/Alvarez responded that the north side is on an upper pad and does have a retaining wall. The south side. does not have a retaining wall, it slopes straight down. They will not be able to see the retaining wall from the north side because the north side is on a higher elevation. C/Lee asked if adjacent houses had retaining walls and AP/Alvarez said he was aware of properties in "The Country Estates" that were approved for eight -foot retaining walls. C/Shah noticed that the proposed project would require 5,439 cubic yards of cut to create the pad and 83 cubic yards would be used for fill while 12,617 cubic yards would be exported, which is about 185-330 truckloads. He asked if the applicant was able to balance the site because that number of trucks moving dirt out of that neighborhood would be too many and would definitely disrupt the neighborhood. AP/Alvarez responded that it would be difficult to balance the site when there is a 40 -foot elevation difference within the site. AP/Alvarez stated that the applicant could provide more detail. 0V AUGUST 10, 2010 PAGE 3 . PLANNING COMMISSION C/Shah said he knows the applicant on a social basis and said he did not believe it would impact his decision. CDD/Gubman said that based on what C/Shah stated about his level of interaction with those individuals and that he feels he can still make an impartial decision, he believed that it would not affect the impartial nature of his decision following deliberation. Chair/Torng opened the public hearing. Bill Hanson, Distinguished Homes, intends to build Mr. Madad's home as Mr. Madad intends. With respect to the amount of exported dirt because of the grade differential of 40 feet from front to back, in order to fit a house into that slope it would require quite a bit of cut. Within "The Country Estates" there are grading restrictions and within the 10 foot side yard, a property owner is not allowed to cut or fill more than two feet. This is directly related to the eight foot retaining wall. To build a house of that size on that pad, there is no other way to accomplish it. If there was another way, the applicant would not be exporting any more dirt than necessary. C/Shah asked about the back of the property and why there was such a large drop and wondered if the applicant tried to use the dirt in that area. Mr. Hanson said he left the back one-third of the lot undisturbed where an orchard will be planted. There is a drainage easement and a flood hazard in the back portion behind the guesthouse. C/Shah felt a lot of the area could be used for fill. Mr. Hanson said he was trying to stay away from that particular area due to volume, hydrology and not disturbing the flood hazard area. He had a soils engineer conduct an extensive analysis of the area and this is the only way that the house can sit on the lot and still maintain the flood hazard area as well as, stay within "The Country Estates" limits. The. limit of two foot fill/cut is within the side yard setbacks which drives the eight foot retaining wall on the north side. C/Nelson said he did not have a problem with the project but philosophically he is struggling with the fact that this is a 15,000 square foot "dream home" with an eight foot retaining wall. He asked Mr. Hanson if when he approached this project, did he approach it believing he would keep the six foot maximum in mind and design a home that was the size that would fit within that or did he think to himself that he would build as big a house as he could and disregard the ordinance and put an eight foot retaining wall in. At what point does this Commission decide that somebody's "dream home" cannot be a certain size because the retaining walls are so high. He AUGUST 10, 2010 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION understands the topography of the site but philosophically, he was trying to understand, what was the applicant thinking going into this project? Do they need the inline pool? This is quite a project and while it is a beautiful home, at some point is this anarchy and is the Commission basically approving things that do not adhere 'to the ordinance or should it expect people to adhere to the ordinance and the rules. If the applicant was restricted to a six foot wall on the side where he has an eight foot wall, what would that do to the design? Mr. Hanson said they would have to reduce the size of the home by narrowing it. C/Nelson said that as he understands the diagram the eight foot wall does not really parallel or fall near the house. It really has to do with the cabana and the pool and the pool equipment room. Mr. Hanson said there is a section of wall toward the back of the house that approaches the eight foot level. C/Nelson said it was a very short section. Mr. Hanson said that the way he approached this project was that his client bought this lot with the intention of building his "ultimate home" that he could live the rest of his days in and his requirement was a minimum of 14,000 square feet. So as he developed through the planning stage and with the architecture it ended up being 15,000 square feet plus and in order to fit that on the lot that is where the project ended up. Mr. Hanson said he was trying to fulfill his client's wishes and dreams on the lot that he purchased in order to build his home and he was trying to reach the client's requirements which he did and in order to do that, that is what drove the retaining walls, grading, etc. C/Nelson thanked Mr. Hanson and reiterated that he was not opposed to the project but the Commission is constantly faced with property owners pushing the bubble and he wants to understand where they are coming from and whether it is a requirement for a dream home to be this size. If the retaining wall were 20 feet, would the Commission be expected to approve it just because it is the property owner's "dream home?" Eight feet is not that big of a difference. The Commission has approved eight feet in the past and he is prepared to approve the project but wanted to understand the thinking that goes behind this type of proposal. Mr. Hanson reiterated his comments and concluded by stating that the vast majority of the 60 foot linear eight foot wall is in the back behind the house where it is not visible and does not impact the neighbors. C/Lee felt the foundation of the variance was not too harsh or impractical. He understood this was a great project but there should be more screening in the future to adhere to the ordinance. CDD/Gubman explained that there is a 10 foot distance between the property line and the retaining wall. It would be possible to terrace the RAr7.0 AUGUST 10, 2010 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION retaining walls along that side property line to reduce the overall height of each retaining wall and still be able to drop the grade down to that pad level. There is a solution to eliminate the need for an eight foot retaining wall if the Commission wishes to go in that -direction, Staff believes there are findings that justify granting of the variance based on the fact that houses of this massive size have been a precedent that has been in place and set years ago. So the context now that new construction is being developed to relate to is within that realm of supersized houses, and what happens when staff has a request for such a large home to sit on a lot like this lot that has very narrow dimensions that do not allow the horizontal span to pick up some of that grade difference and slope, then it becomes a question of how many retaining walls should be used to build up or drop down to that pad elevation. The number of retaining walls and the height of each retaining wall are related to each other. There is an alternative that the Commission can pursue which is to require an additional retaining wall parallel to the side property line and the existing retaining wall of two feet, three feet or whatever, but the introduction of another retaining wall to step down the grades would reduce the overall height of the two separate retaining walls. C/Lee said he does not want to talk about something other than the design presented because those things should be done before the report is submitted to the Commission. If there is a hardship or impracticality, the Commission may review that, but this design should be reviewed by staff before it comes to the Commission. In the future staff should apply the ordinance more strictly. CDID/Gubman said he agreed that he wished this had been identified during the project review. For example, the next item on the agenda staff spent quite a lot of time struggling with how to get retaining walls down to the code requirement. On this one, the discussion provoked some critical analysis of the site plan and he sees that it is feasible to solve this problem and eliminate the need for a variance. He volunteered to draw what the change would look like. C/Nelson supported C/Lee's comments and said he did not believe that he or C/Lee was making an issue out of this project. The precedent has been set that the Commission has approved eight -foot retaining walls in the past. He felt the point was that if a variance for an eight foot retaining wall was a given,, what the heck good is the six feet ordinance? So what C/Lee is asking is that when staff reviews these plans the assumption should not be made that the Commission is just going to continue to ignore the fact that there is an ordinance requiring a six foot maximum. The Commission would like for staff to work with the applicant to try to get it down to six feet to comply with the ordinance. The Commission is not planning to oppose this project but just simply bringing this up at this time because the Commission continues to set a precedent wherein it is AUGUST 10, 2010 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION completely subverting the City's ordinance and the Commission does not want that to happen. CDID/Gubman said he appreciated the Commissioner's input. C/Nelson said that CDD/Gubman is correct that the Commission is faced with another agenda item wherein the variance is pushed more than eight feet. CIDID/Gubman said he appreciated the Commissioner's input and said that staff would bring future projects to the Commission for consideration with a more detailed analysis so that the Commission's confidence in their decision is.higher. C/Shah said he supported his colleagues in their comments and suggested that if the retaining walls could be stepped down in order to stay with the six- foot retaining walls there would be nothing wrong with that and he highly recommends the Commission should consider that. Mr. Hanson said he could have his engineer look at the possibility of a six- foot stepped down retaining wall. He said that part of the reason behind the eight foot retaining wall was that he made every effort to stay within the six foot limit by moving the house front to back while trying to remain within the driveway grade limitation so that the driveway is not so steep. Sliding the house back had an impact on how high the retaining walls would be at any given point. It was not just the size of the house, it was the placement of the house on the lot and the lot has a 40 -foot elevation difference from front to back which requires the grading as discussed as well as, the retaining walls. There is less than sixty feet at the back portion of the lot that does occasionally step into the eight foot retaining situation. Chair/Torng asked if Mr. Hanson read and concurred with the balance of the conditions of approval and whether he intended to comply with those conditions and Mr: Hanson responded "absolutely." A speaker said he owned the property on the south side of the project. He could discern anarchy or disobedience and non-compliance with the development of the new house. His property is exactly adjacent to this project and when it rains, all of the water from the project site invades his back yard and flows into his living room. He spent $15,000 to develop garden walls and retaining walls four feet, six feet and two feet along his property because the project site is that much higher than his property. He appreciates that the property owner is building a beautiful house but he did not give any consideration how the water (from the project property) is damaging his property. He suggested that Mr. Madad please come over to his house so he can show Mr. Madad how the land should be leveled and graded and how he believes there should. be two ground water URAFT AUGUST 10, 2010 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION swales, one on his side and one on the project side to create the flow of water down to the street and not to his house. Mangal Goshan, 21401 Bella Pine Drive, said he appreciated that the City was kept neat and clean. He asked the Commission to please listen to the concerns of the., neighbors and try to make everyone happy. CDD/Gubman explained that approval of this project is approval of the project in concept. The project is not at the point of construction documents (geotechnical, grading, construction plans, building permits, drainage, onsite improvement plans, etc.) With this approval there are conditions of approval that state that prior to issuance of any permits, all of these final technical reports and construction documents need to be prepared and submitted to the City for review by the licensed civil engineers and building official ON staff to review the plans. Issues regarding drainage, slope stability, soil compaction, etc., are code requirements that need to be addressed through the plan check process. So any drainage issues will be addressed prior to the issuance of permits. This project cannot create more offsite drainage than what the natural conditions are and if warranted, drainage facilities need to be constructed to direct all of the water runoff into approved drainage facilities whether they are in drainage easements or into the roadway system. Mr. Hanson concurred with CDD/Gubman's comments and said that the drainage issue is being addressed on the grading plan. The reason the rear one third of the lot is left in its current state is Mr. Madad would like to plant an orchard of citrus fruit trees in that area. C/Nelson said the neighbor to the south is complaining that water is flowing off of the subject property across his property. Mr. Hanson said that is what he understands. C/Nelson asked if there is any plan to mitigate the discharge of water from the applicant's property across the neighbor's property? Mr. Hanson said the civil engineer is addressing the grading plan to meet all of the code requirements and to take care of the drainage. C/Nelson said that if the Commission specifies no drainage from the subject property, and will flow across the neighbor's property, does Mr. Hanson anticipate that to be a problem and even though this is conceptual and it will supposedly be handled. Mr. Hanson said he would have to consult with his civil engineer as far as the rear third of the property. CDD/Gubman said he needed to repeat that if there is cross lot drainage as a natural condition the requirement is that the project does not increase the volume of cross lot drainage. C/Nelson said he would agree with that and that is fair. AUGUST 10, 2010 F- S A PLANNING COMMISSION The speaker (neighbor to the south of the project) asked staff to send him information on what is required of the property owner so that he can have an opportunity to explain to the builder what he has in mind to mitigate the storm water problem. Chair/Torng closed the public hearing. C/Lee moved, C/Nelson seconded, to approve Development Review and Minor Variance No PL 2009-96 as proposed by staff. C/Nelson asked that the approval be amended to include a condition that during discussions of the final grading and drainage, that the neighbor to the south of the project site should be invited to participate in those discussions. C/Lee concurred with the amendment. C/Shah asked that prior to voting on the motion the Commission revisit the issue of six foot stepped down retaining walls. C/Lee was not in favor of revisiting the retaining wall issue and concurred with staff's original proposal for the eight foot retaining wall. C/Nelson concurred with C/Lee to have the motion remain as originally amended. Chair/Torng said he agreed with C/Shah with respect to the six foot stepped down retaining walls and strongly agreed with the amendmentto have the neighbor included in the discussion regarding the drainage issue. C/Shah asked staff if he was correct in assuming that stepping down a six foot wall would allow the property owner and architect to retain the design. CDD/Gubman said C/Shah was correct. The introduction of the retaining wall would allow all of the e existing grades to be preserved. The only change would be that the individual retaining wall heights would be brought down below eight feet. C/Shah said that under those circumstances he would request C/Lee to amend his motion accordingly. C/Lee said he felt the engineers knew what they were doing and if no one can see the wall it is a very minor issue and would be more cost effective to build it as proposed. C/Nelson said he would stay with the original amended motion and concurred with C/Lee that it would not be fair to require this applicant to pay more money and lose time redesigning a six foot wall in place of approving the original plan. C/Shah did not believe there was a cost or inconvenience issue. In this case, if there is no variance needed and staff says it can be done without the variance then he feels compelled to ask his colleagues to reconsider. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nelson, Chair/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Shah ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Nolan AUGUST 10, 2010 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION 7.2 Development Review No. 2009-05, Variance No. 2009-02, and Tree Permit No. 2009-02 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Sections 22.48 and 22.54, the applicant requested approval to construct an 11,073 square foot new single family residence on a 44,317 square foot (1.02 acre), Rural Residential (RR) zoned parcel with an underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Rural Residential (RR). A Variance is requested to allow wall heights to be increased from six feet to varying heights up to 12.8 feet. A tree permit was requested to allow the removal of five southern California Black Walnut trees and replacing them with 15 indigenous trees. PROPERTY OWNER APPLIICANT: 2845 Shadow Canyon Road (APN 8713-018-036) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Chengliang Tang and Xin Ji 470 Wald Irvine, CA 92618 Alex Wu 470 Wald Irvine, CA 92618 PT/Tobon presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2009-05, Variance No. 2009-02, and Tree Permit No. 2009-02 based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Shah asked if the south side wall could be stepped down or must the height be maintained. PT/Tobon said she spoke with staff's engineers and because of the topography, the walls cannot be lowered any more than they are because the grading would extend into the next property. There were no ex parte disclosures. Chair/Torng opened the public hearing. Alex Wu, applicant, thanked PT/Tobon for an excellent presentation. He has been working on this project for over one year and has conducted a lot of studies in an attempt to reduce the size of the house and step down the house as much as possible. He cares about the owner, the neighborhood and the community. DRAFT AUGUST 10, 2010 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Shah asked if the applicant intended to cut and fill or export or import. Mr. Wu said there would be cut and fill for the tennis court and he has minimized the cut and fill to every extent possible. He would have to consult his civil engineer to determine whether there will be any import or export of dirt. Chair/Torng referred the applicant to staff's report that indicated 2,143 cubic yards of fill (page 4). Mr. Wu said the fill was needed because the site is so steep and challenging. Mr. Wu responded to Chair/Torng that neighbors would not be able to see the retaining wall - 12.8 feet is the highest point and the neighbors will not be able to see the retaining wall. Chair/Torng asked PT/Tobon to show the retaining wall and the view from the south end of the house. PT/Tobon said that the street is on the right side and looking at the side, the 12.8 foot retaining wall is located behind the garage and out of view from the street. The retaining walls are inward facing walls and will not be seen from either of the adjacent properties. In addition, there is landscaping in the area to mitigate the exposed height. C/Nelson said he wanted to be convinced that the applicant could not step down the wall. Mr. Wu responded that the referenced wall was the wall for the stairs that can only be seen from the inside of the pool deck. C/Nelson asked why stairs were necessary in that area. Mr. Wu responded that they are outdoor stairs for the gardeners to access the area below. CINelson asked if Mr. Wu designed this house with the City's ordinance in mind. Mr. Wu said he followed the ordinance from the beginning of the process. C/Nelson said this was his earlier point that this speaks to doubling what the ordinance calls out. C/Nelson again asked Mr. Wu if he was stating that he could not redesign this house to not double the retaining wall height requirement because this project needs a staircase for the gardeners. PT/Tobon responded that because the site is so steep, the stairs are needed to get down to the back yard (a 29 percent slope). C/Nelson asked staff why the City has a six foot restriction on retaining walls and CDD/Gubman responded that that was the standard deemed appropriate for retaining walls due to the aesthetic impacts of the walls. In this instance, this application has been with the City for well over a year and staff has been working closely with the applicant to deal with the difficult topography. This project came in with higher walls proposed and staff has consulted with its engineering staff to determine how those retaining walls could be terraced to get them down to the height limits established by the code. It took a lot of time and effort in dealing with the site constraints to reach the solution staff reached. Ultimately, because of the lateral grade and the front to back grade, staff found itself painted into a corner where there was no additional solution to these three locations where the variance is proposed to increase the height. QDRAFTi AUGUST 10, 2010 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION Staff looked atways to deal with the site conditions and building configuration to reduce the retaining wall height and this is the ultimate result which is the limit to which staff could go with this project. C/Nelson concluded that the variance is justified as long as the retaining walls are not in view and CIDD/Gubman said he would venture to speculate that the issue was aesthetics from offsite. He doubted if the retaining wall faced the interior of the property that it would bean "aesthetics" issue. He speculated that the intent was to mitigate the aesthetic effects from street view and from the view of other properties. C/Nelson asked that going forward staff members please speak to why the ordinance is in place and why the variance is recommended in view of what the ordinance is intended to do. He gets the feeling tonight that people are coming in with designs that ignore the City's ordinances. He trusts staff but wants justification because he believes property owners will continue to push the envelope. C/Shah said he concurred with C/Nelson's points. He is in the business and is looking at cross sections which he understands very clearly and he is not convinced that it is not doable but he is not going to design itforthe applicant either. He is really struggling today to approve any project that is so far outside of the boundaries of the City's ordinances. Chair/Torng closed the public hearing. CDD/Gubman said that the Commission's point that staff should do a better job of explaining the intent of development standards and how the alternatives in the design address what may be the intent is well taken. When considering a variance, the Commission is supposed to be focusing on what the standard is and the intent may provide some context to help the Commission reach its decision but the technical requirement for a variance determination would be the findings that have to be made. What is unusual about the property justifies the deviation from the standard, so if the standard is six feet and the variance is requesting 12 feet, then the consideration is what is unusual about the site that necessitates that height increase. He would say that aesthetics may be one of the factors in the Commission's decision-making process to reach a wise decision but when making a variance determination, the Commission is really looking at what are the physical characteristics of the site that make compliance with that standard a hardship or unfeasible. In this case, the fundamental findings staff is proposing the Commission to make are that the site does have a very steep grade that is a compound slope that goes not only front to back but also side to side and there is very little, if any, pad area on the site to begin with. So AUGUST 10, 2010 rMl �`, rZiEfilmi PLANNING COMMISSION the whole project is an effort to create a building. pad and given the steepness and difficulty of the site, the question ultimately is, are the locations where the additional height is proposed, warranted given all of these considerations. He said he would agree that Diamond Bar will continue to see this issue come up as The Country Estates gets built out. The easier lots have been developed. And now what is left are steep and very difficult properties with very little pad. And this ultimately goes back to when The Country Estates was subdivided. A road system was designed along the ridgelines and property lines were drawn perpendicular to the street without.any design preliminarily to create building pads for future consideration. There have been subdivisions within ,The Country Estates that have been recorded in recent years where pad design was a component of the recordation. However, historically, that was not the case in The Country Estates and the consequences appear as the City deals with the few remaining custom lots. These lots are those that buyers passed on before but now that land values have appreciated, those individuals are willing to spend the money it takes to shoehorn these very large homes onto those lots. C/Lee asked if the trees could be moved to another site and C/Nelson said that the California Walnut tree is on the California Native Plant Society's list for monitoring only and it is the accumulation of these trees in a woodland composition that is considered "sensitive" and individual trees are not considered sensitive. Based on years of research it is his understanding that one will not likely have success in transplanting or relocating them because they grow at different slope angles and have different compositions under them. Therefore, one is better off starting with smaller trees. , The landscape architect for the project confirmed C/Nelson's statement. C/Nelson moved, C/Lee seconded, to approve Development Review, No. 2009-05, Variance No. 2009-02, and Tree Permit No. 2009-02 based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nelson Shah, Chair/Torng None VC/Nolan 7.3 Comprehensive Sign Program No. 2008-01 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.36.060, the applicant requested approval for a Comprehensive Sign Program for an approximately 16,000 square foot existing commercial building on a 140,263 square foot (3.2 acre), AUGUST 10, 2010 PAGE 13 n R A PLANNING COMMISSION Community Commercial (C-2) zoned parcel with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of General Commercial (C). PROJECT ADDRESS wiffffll��� 23525-23555 Palomino Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 The Abbey Company 1940 Inland Empire Boulevard #125 Ontario, CA 91764 APPLICANT: Nancy K. Parker Quiel Bros Sign Company 272 S. "I" Street San Bernardino, CA 92410 SP/Lee presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Comprehensive Sign Program No. 2008-01, based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Lee felt the color of the sign was very important and that the owner should decide on the color for better visibility. Chair/Torng opened the Public hearing. Nancy Parker, Quiel Bros Sign Company, said the building owner planned to change the building color to a more natural color and that her firm would prefer to go with Option 1 which has brown shades in it. She said that SP/Lee was unaware the building was being updated and that she was also unaware of the change until this evening. Chair/Torng asked if Ms. Parker read the resolution and concurred with the conditions of approval and Ms. Parker responded "yes." Chair/Torng closed the public hearing. C/Shah moved, C/Lee seconded, to approve Comprehensive Sign Program No. 2008-01, based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AUGUST 10, 2010 a a PAGE 14 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: QDRAFT Lee, Nelson Shah, Chair/Torng None VC/Nolan PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/IN FORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Nelson said today is his birthday and he was delighted to spend it with his colleagues. C/Shah wished C/Nelson a happy birthday. Tonight's discussion was healthy and informative. He thanked everyone. Chair/Torng wished C/Nelson a happy birthday. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future proiects. CDD/Gubman wished C/Nelson a happy birthday. The VVVUSD is in the process of coordinating neighborhood meetings to discuss the Site D Specific Plan and neighborhood issues. He recently heard that the first series of neighborhood meetings will probably be held at the end of Aug , ust, possibly on Thursday, August 28 followed by a Saturday meeting on October 2. He will keep the Commission posted as dates are finalized. CDD/Gubman stated that staff interviewed the three finalists for the architectural proposal for the library component of the new city hall and has made a provisional selection. Staff is still in discussions with the County Supervisor as to the level of commitment by the County Library. Staff believes it is moving closer to ensuring the library Will be the City's partner in this very exciting project and when staff is able to publicly announce the architect selection it will do so. CDD/Gubman announced that a Study Session is the only item scheduled for the regular meeting date of August 24 for discussion of a proposed three- story office building at the H -Mart Center. The two-story office building at the Fountain Springs end of the Center is now proposed to be a three-story office building and staff has some concerns about the height and the visual impact of a three-story building at that end of the center. The Study Session will commence at 7:00 p.m. in Conference Room CC -8. AUGUST 10, 2010 PAGE 15 PLANNING COMMISSION 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Torng adjourned the regular meeting at 8:46 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 28ty day of September, 2010. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director Tony Torng, Chairman 9 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR STUDY SESSION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 24, 2010 STUDY SESSION: Chairman Torng called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Room CC -8, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. Present: Commissioners, Steve Nelson, Jack Shah, Vice Chairman Kathy Nolan, and Chairman Tony Torng. Absent: Commissioner Kwang Ho Lee was excused. Staff Present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. PL 2010-163 — Proposed new three story professional office building at the north end of Diamond Hills Plaza located at 2705 Diamond Bar Boulevard — Staff presentation by SP/Lee. VC/Nolan asked if the difference in the setback from Fountain Springs Drive was only 11 inches from 9 ft. I inch to 10 feet. SP/Lee said that was the previous two-story project. VC/Nolan asked if the three story office building was 10 feet. The applicant responded that the setback at the center point of the building is actually 14 feet. Chair/Torng said that in other words the original two-story building was 40 feet high and 9.1 feet to 15.1 feet for the setbacks and if that was approved in the past this looks like the same building. C/Nelson said that except for the window and the view into the resident's back yards it appears to be the same. Even though the building is 40 feet high the windows might be lowered to afford the people across Fountain Springs Drive some privacy. If another story is added even though the structure is the same height there would, in his opinion, be an invasion of privacy and would want that analyzed. He said he sensed tonight's meeting was as much about hearing from the public plus what the Commission comes up with tonight. CDD/Gubman concurred. C/Nelson said another of his concerns would be the reciprocal parking agreement and how it would look with the ultimate buildout of the center. Peichin Lee, applicant, explained to the Commission that the building meets the Development Code setbacks. She explained to the audience that the project has not submitted a traffic study but are awaiting the report. The current report indicates the current shopping center has more than 913 parking stalls. With the addition of this building, the entire shopping center would need to provide only about 600 parking stalls AUGUST 24, 2010 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION so there is adequate parking available on the site and between the building and the shopping center. There will be a reciprocal agreement for shared parking. Ms. Lee said she has lived in Diamond Bar for more than 10 years and was excited that her company has an opportunity to develop a project in the City. Her home office is in the City of Industry. The company was founded 15 years ago and initially built industrial warehouses and other buildings in the City of Industry and then branched out to building medical buildings in Chino and West Covina. Part of the agreement for building this project includes no retail sales. The offices are professional offices only and would most likely bring more traffic to the existing center to help support the retail. This building is proposed to be 36,000 square feet. The windows are proposed to have color glazing 'which would offer some screening. In addition; many of the existing trees are more than 40 feet high which will offer additional screening and if they are asked to provide more trees to create better screening they would be happy to do so. Chair/Torng asked Ms. Lee to explain why the size of the building was being changed. Ms. Lee reiterated that the building needs to be of sufficient size to generate a certain return on the dollar in order for the lender to loan on the building and cover all of the costs. Projects under a certain size are not attractive to lenders. She felt the proposed project would offer a lot of opportunity to the community. C/Shah asked how much it would cost to building this project and Ms. Lee responded about $8 million. VC/Nolan asked how Ms. Lee conducted her feasibility study. Ms. Lee responded that she has lived in the area for several years. She owns the company and when they built a 72,000 square foot unit she personally marketed and sold all 45 condo units within one year. She has had a chance to meet a lot of local individual business owners in Diamond Bar, Walnut, Rowland Heights and Hacienda Heights, and what she learned was that most people want to own their own buildings. Chair/Torng asked about the number of units in an office condo and Ms. Lee said they propose to divide it into 34 condo units. Chair/Torng asked if all 34 condos would be purchases. Ms. Lee said there are a lot of buyers looking for this type of condo setup in this area. So far she has done a minimal amount of marketing because she wants to know if she will be able to obtain an approval from the Commission. Chair/Torng asked if this was proposed to be a medical building and Ms. Lee responded no, it would be a professional office condo. VC/Nolan asked for staff's opinion of the cost effectiveness of this project if it were under a certain square footage. CDD/Gubman said staff does not look at projects in that manner. - The challenge is that the applicant is taking a risk and looking at what kind of returns can be expected based on historical evidence. The Planning Division is I * ooking at the aesthetic issues and needs to look at the consequences of what the applicant is proposing. When those issues are identified staff will communicate with the applicant as AUGUST 24, 2010 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION to what those concerns are and what the applicant would need to do to respond to those concerns. Staff determined that there might be a bit of an impact at this point and decided to have a study session to get the Commissioners' input. VC/Nolan asked what the standards were for view impact with respect to this project. CDD/Gubman there are no development standards regarding views, angles and preserving existing views but there are design criteria about compatibility and privacy. For example, when a second story addition to a residence is proposed, staff looks at privacy issues and clearly issues of view into back yards might be an issue so staff would look to eliminate the window on that side or work on that part of the architecture to offset those concerns. It is in that same general principle that staff would look at privacy issues, etc. C/Shah asked about the percentage of window area compared to the wall area. The architect responded he was not sure of the percentage but windows in the back would be used to break up the massing of the building. He explained that although there is more wall area the percentage of window area would be about the same as the previous project. Current code allows building up to 35 feet and the site was previously approved for up to 40 feet. This proposal height is 32 1/2 feet at the street side. However, if the building is measured from the parking lot facing H -Mart it is another six feet higher and the reason this project comes to the Commission for approval is because this project exceeds the 35 feet height. The highest tower in the shopping center at its peak is 49 feet. All four setbacks meet the Code. CDD/Gubman responded to VC/Nolan that the building at Cold Spring end is being renovated with a new roof. There is no height change. VC/Nolan asked if the balcony was used for foot traffic and SP/Lee responded that it was. Ms. Lee said their original proposal was for 12,000 square feet three-story with each floor having the same footprint and that is the proposal she prefers. However, she wants to hear from the Commissioners and the neighbors about any concerns to see if there is a way that she can work with everyone to better define her position or reach a compromise. C/Shah asked staff to comment on reducing the first floor area. CDD/Gubman suggested staff talk about the alternatives staff considered to deal with the mass issue or take a break from that and listen to what the neighbors had to say. A speaker asked if the condos were being sold, would the City have a say in what type of business would be located in the building in order to control the health, safety and environment. CIDID/Gubman responded that every business must be licensed and conform to the zoning requirements. So there are some uses that are allowed and other uses that would require a public hearing before they are established. If this is an office 2 R A F T AUGUST 24, 2010 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION building, office uses are just allowed with a business license. There will be a requirement under the conditions of approval forthis project as a condominium office building to have CC&R's so that there needs to be centralized management of this building and individual owners of the air spaces within the building would have to abide by the property maintenance standards and criteria in addition to the additional City requirements to control the aesthetics e.g., where signs go, what kind of window coverings are allowed, etc. A speaker asked what would happen in the case of sub -leasing. Ms. Lee said it would be no different because the one who owns the whole building is subject to leasing requirements and so to would be individuals who own individual condos who rent to others. Businesses must acquire a business license from the City or from the county or state. CDD/Gubman said that if an unlawful business use was detected by the City it would become a code enforcement issue. A speaker said he was a potential buyer of one of the condo units because it is very difficult for business owners to find small offices spaces in Diamond Bar. A speaker said he did not see a problem with the height because the uses are compatible with the neighborhood. He responded to VC/Nolan that he is a resident, shops there every week and often wondered what could happen at that vacant space. He saw no problem with the proposal. C/Shah asked what the timeline would be if the applicant received approval and whether construction would begin immediately or whether the applicant intended to wait until she had tenants. Ms. Lee said that if all goes as planned they are scheduled to break ground in three months. Construction will take no more than eight months to complete and they are looking to deliver the building to owners and/or tenants within a year from this time. Ms. Lee said she is a developer and general contractor. In addition to having a strong and professional construction team they handle all of the marketing and leasing in house as well by a very strong management team. A speaker asked if construction hours could be limited to the allowed times because workers arrive at 6:45 ready to work. CDD/Gubman responded that the ordinance prohibits construction prior to 7:00 a.m. Ms. Lee said she would make sure her team followed all regulations. VC/Nolan asked residents how they felt about the design as it affects people living on Fountain Springs. A speaker said he lives on Castle Rock but it seemed like it shouldn't be an issue. If he lived on Fountain Springs he would not want people looking into his back yard. The only problem would be the additional traffic coming into the area. CDD/Gu.bman responded that this project, taking into account the overall reduction in intensity for the shopping center without the three-story medical office building and theater building, in the tis' V El 07A EJ a AUGUST 24, 2010 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION aggregate, the total square footage of the center would be less than what was originally approved in 2005. He does not have specific answers with respect to traffic calming devices on Fountain Springs but it is an existing condition in that neighborhood. This being an office building with office clients it may actually distribute more of the traffic to the Fountain Springs side so the traffic study would call out the trip distribution and whether there would be a need to install red curbs or signage or some other type of mitigation, if recommended. CDD/Gubman explained that the north end of the shopping center has been struggling. The end toward HMart is fairly well populated. The north end is pretty bleak and prior to the renovation the north end struggled more than the south end. Staff was initially uncomfortable with the 10,000 square foot music school recently approved at the north end of the center because it would not generate sales tax revenue. However, the reality is there may be indirect benefits with a busy music school with classes that rotate on an hourly basis because there may be more clients attracted to that end of the center that would patronize the businesses. Similarly, with a 30 plus unit office building there is a population that is constant throughout the business day. So this may be a better use given the difficulty in keeping retail established and having a workforce that should add synergy to the center. So as a use staff believes it is probably a good change in strategy as far as ranging land uses. VC/Nolan asked if all units were the same square footage and Ms. Lee said they would range from 1000 to 1500 square feet. She wondered if there were larger units on the top floor if it would require fewer windows. She said she was not comfortable with a third floor balcony facing Fountain Springs. She felt the balcony on the front side would be an attractive feature. Ms. Lee explained that the original proposal did not include the balcony design. It is a rectangular building with a hallway and the only window offices would have would be on the outside of the building. Chair/Torng referred to C/Nelson's earlier comments and asked about the impact of third story windows in relationship to the closest buildings. CDD/Gubman said staff could do some line of sight analysis. He would like to see windows because C/Nelson said it may be that the windows do not need to be reduced but the Commission would need to see an analysis between the impacts of a two and three story building and what, if any, intrusion on the people across the street. A two -scale cross section should work. Ms. Lee said she wanted it to look like a professional office building. No one will live there and most businesses are open 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. C/Nelson, said that was the other element —the light from the windows because during the winter it gets dark at 5 p.m. He did not believe that anyone across the street on Fountain Springs would like to have light coming into their back yards. It is a comparative analysis. The Commissioners just need to see it and understand it. He has no doubt that this could be compatible or even better than what was previously proposed but the Commission has approved one project and AUGUST 24, 2010 ,Q DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION now the Commission is being asked to approve another project and the basis for approval is a comparison to what was approved before. And if there are significant effects on neighbors that would be what he would have to base his decision on. Ms. Lee reminded the Commissioners that there was landscaping to mitigate the window issue and that she had volunteered to add landscaping if that were a condition of approval. CDD/Gubman said there are tall trees at the back of the building site and staff would have to study the matter further before relying too much on the mitigating effect of those trees and that will be part of what staff brings back to the Commission. CDD/Gubman said that staff's concern was that a three story building is a tall building. The architect has worked on taking the three story building and attempted to minimize the height and use other massing techniques to reduce the visual impact. He asked the Commissioners to imagine a three-story building at the corporate center in an area that is really one or two story building in scale. In looking at the project at Nogales and Valley one gets a better sense of the scale of a three-story building. Staff is not saying the applicant should not build a three-story building in this location but based on its proximity to Fountain Springs, it may be appropriate to do whatever possible to use design techniques to reduce the perceived scale of that building. And certainly, the trees that already encroach above the skyline where the top of the parapet would reach are adjacent to a two-story building on a higher pad so this building next to it will not be, any higher than that building. In fact, it will be lower than a portion of the adjacent building. VC/Nolan asked if the existing building that fronts on Diamond Bar Boulevard have any windows that face Fountain Springs and SP/Lee said she did not believe so. The architect explained that from the windows about the only thing that would be visible would be the rooftops of the houses. C/Nelson said he understood but wanted a comparison and doubted that anyone living in the area would have envisioned a three- story building, maybe a two-story building, but not a three-story building. He reiterated that he is not saying this is not compatible and cannot be made compatible but the Commissioners have to base their decision on what is best for the community. If the applicant can show. the Commissioners that there is really no significant difference between the two-story and the three-story building in terms of line of sight into the yard and/or light intrusion into the yard, that is the evidence the Commission needs on which to base its decision. VC/Nolan reminded the applicant and staff she wanted consideration of the view from the balcony as well.. A-, & F T AUGUST 24, 2010 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION A speaker said he agreed with the Commissioners that the residents' privacy needed to be respected but wanted the Commissioners to look at the big picture because he does not believe there would be an infringement issue. VC/Nolan reiterated her concern, about the rear balcony because people would tend to stand out on the balcony and visit and smoke. She said she liked the idea of the setback but not having people on a balcony so accessible to view. Ms. Lee reiterated that the balcony is part of the square footage of the building. It would be unusual not to have a balcony. VC/Nolan said that people standing outside on balconies smoking is very common. C/Nelson asked the applicant to obtain a traffic study comparison of the proposed project with the approved project and comment on how the traffic would change. He asked staff to take a look at the potential need to red stripe the curb on Fountain Springs so that people would not be parking there and up the driveway into the building. CDD/Gubman reiterated staff's concerns and the Commissioner's concerns. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Torng adjourned the Study Session at 8:36 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 28th day of September, 2010. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director Tony Torng, Chairman 11 � 119AI i 11 � I 1 0 5 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - 21825 COPLEY DRIVE - DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 - TEL. (909) 839-7030 - FAX (909) 861-3117 DATE: September 28, 2010 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Greg Gubman, AICP, Community Development Director BY: David Alvarez, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2010-202 PROJECT 23499 Golden Springs Drive LOCATION: Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APN 8717-008-185 APPLICANT: Shan Ya Massage HongweiZhang 9122 Ardendale Ave San Gabriel, CA 91775 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue this matter to October 12, 2010 to allow staff additional time to complete the parking analysis for the proposed use. The applicant has been advised and agrees to the continuance. PLANNING COMMISSION Iwo AGENDA REPORT CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - 21825 COPLEY DRIVE - DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 - TEL, (909) 839-7030 - FAX (909) 861-3117 F;�: ���ag 7.2 September 28, 2010 Conditional Use Permit No. PL2010-307 23355 Golden Springs Drive (APN 8717-008-033) To establish a dance studio providing classical Chinese folk dance and ballet lessons to children and adults. The subject property is zoned C-2 (Community Commercial) with an underlying General Plan designation of General Commercial. Chang Chih International Investments, LLC 23341 Golden Springs Dr. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Jin Chen Jin's Dance Studio 20260 Evening Breeze Dr. Walnut, CA 91789 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to conditions. NE I I I 11i, , I to, i The proposed project (Din's Dance Studio) is the relocation of a dance studio that provides Chinese folk dance and ballet lessons to children and adults. It has been located at 355 South Diamond Bar Boulevard for the past eight years. The owner is proposing to relocate to a 2,000 square foot unit located at 23355 Golden Springs Drive. The project site was built in 1977 under Los Angeles County standards. The 106,722 square foot (2.45 acre) lot consists of three buildings totaling 30,281 square feet and a parking area in the center of the lot. The applicant does not propose any interior structural alterations to the new lease space. It consists of a 1,444 square foot dance area, office, two bathrooms and a kitchenette. The proposed hours of operation are Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and Sunday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Class size ranges from 3 to 16 students. Classes are taught by age group — 6 to 8 years, 9 to 13 years, -14 to 18 years, and adults. The owner is the only dance instructor and there are no other employees. Children that have dance classes will be dropped off by their parents and picked up after the lesson. Some parents stay during their children's dance classes. Site and Surrounding General Plan, Zoning and Land Uses The project site is located in a shopping center on Golden Springs Drive between Prospectors Drive and Diamond Bar Boulevard. Page 2 of 5 6D: Staff Reports PC/Golden Springs 23355 PC Staff Report 09/2812010.docx Berrien► Authority (DBMQ Sections 22.58 and 22.10.030 -Table 2-6) A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for uses whose effect on the surrounding area cannot be determined before being analyzed for suitability at a particular location. The C-2 (Community Commercial) zone requires approval of a CUP for schools offering specialized education and training. When reviewing a CUP, consideration is given to the location, design, configuration, operational characteristics and potential impacts to determine whether or not the proposed use will pose a detriment to the public health, safety and welfare. If it can be found that the proposed use is likely to be compatible with its surroundings, the Commission may approve the proposed use subject to conditions stipulating the manner in which the use must be conducted. If the Commission finds that the proposed use is likely to be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, then it must deny the request. When a CUP is approved, it runs with the land and all conditions placed on the CUP are binding on all successors in interest. In other words, if the owners of the proposed dance studio were to close the studio after it has begun operating, a new tenant could locate in the space and operate the same type of studio. The new tenant would be required to comply with the same conditions as the previous tenant and would not be Page 3 of 5 CID: Staff Reports PC/Golden Springs 23355 PC Staff Report 09/28/2010.doc),, permitted to expand the studio without full review and approval by the Planning Commission. IAerial of Project Location i IBusiness Frontage I The proposed dance studio is located in a shopping center which has businesses with different types of uses. These businesses include restaurants, tutoring centers, a veterinary clinic, and various types of retail stores. All of these uses, including the proposed dance studio, are compatible with the existing uses in the shopping center. There are also other businesses in close proximity that are compatible with the proposed use, such as two schools and a dance school in the adjacent shopping center. According tothe applicant, volume of music during dance classes will neither be heard from outside nor from adjacent units and noise complaints were never received at the former location. Shopping centers between 20,000 and 50,000 square feet require 1 parking space for every 250 square feet of gross floor area. The gross square footage for this shopping center is 30,281 square feet, which requires 122 parking spaces. The center has 122 existing parking spaces and therefore meets the parking requirement. . The Public Works Department and Building and Safety Division reviewed this project, and did not have any comments or concerns. Page 4 of 5 CID: Staff Reports PC/Golden Springs 23355 PC Staff Report 09/28/201 O.docx M OE On September 17, 2010, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site, and the notice was published in the Inland Valley Daily Tribune and San Gabriel Valley Tribune newspapers. The project site was posted with a notice display board, and a copy of the public notice was posted at the City's three designated community posting sites. This project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on that assessment, the City has determined the project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to the provisions of Article 19 Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines. No further environmental review is required. 0F{_ F v[rMMI `911 M Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment 1) approving Conditional Use Permit PI -2010-307, to allow a dance studio, based on the findings of DBMC Section 22.58, subject to conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. Prepared by: 7 Katilie Tobon Planning Technician Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution No. 2010 -XX 2. Site Plan and Floor Plan Reviewed by: Gra'c4 S. L(;e� Senior Planner Page 5 of 5 CID: Staff Reports PC/Golden Springs 23355 PC Staff Report 09/28/2,01 O.docx IAttachment I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PI -2010-307, A REQUEST TO OPERATE A DANCE STUDIO, TEACHING CHINESE FOLK DANCE AND BALLET, LOCATED AT 23355 GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, CA (ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. APN 8717-008-033). A. - RECITALS 1. Property owner, Chang Chih International Investments and applicant, Jin Chen, have filed an application for Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2010-307 to operate a dance studio located at 23355 Golden Springs Drive, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California ("Project Site"). Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit shall be referred to as the "Proposed Use." 2. The subject site is located in the Community Commercial (C-2) zone and is consistent with the General Commercial land use category of the General Plan. 3. The legal description of the subject property is Tract 32554 Lot 8. The Assessor's Parcel Number is 8717-008-033. 4. On September 17, 2010, notification of the public hearing for this project was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the Project site and public notices were posted at the City's designated community posting sites. In addition to the published and mailed notices, the project site was posted with a display board, 5. On September 28, 2010, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing, solicited testimony from all interested individuals, and concluded said hearing on that date. B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the -facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this.Resolution are true and correct; 2. The Planning Commission hereby determines the Project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the provisions of Article 19, Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of'the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. C. FINDINGS OF FACT Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein and as prescribed under Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Section 22.58, this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: Conditional Use Permit Review Findings (DBMC Section 22.58) 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; Pursuant to DBMC Section 22.10.030, Table 2-6, a specialized education and training school is permitted in the C-2 zoning district with approval of a conditional use permit. Through compliance with the conditions of approval stipulating the manner in which the use must be conducted, the proposed use will be compatible with neighboring uses in the shopping center. 2. The proposed use is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan; The Proposed Use is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and consistent with General Plan Strategy 1.3.3: "Encourage neighborhood serving retail and service commercial uses". The subject property is not located within a specific plan area. 3. The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity; The Proposed Use is located within a multi -tenant shopping center occupied by various retail, restaurant, and service uses including two tutoring centers. As such, the operational characteristics are compatible with the existing uses in the vicinity. 2 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX 4. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed, including access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and the absence of physical constraints; The project site is located within a commercial shopping center that currently has two tutoring schools. The proposed use is compatible with other uses in the surrounding areas such as a preschool and elementary school, another dance studio, Lorbeer Middle School, and multi -family residences to the north. 5. Granting the conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity and. zoning district in which the property is located; and Prior to the issuance of any city permits, the proposed project is required to comply with a// conditions of approval within the attached resolution. 6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions ions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set forth under Article 19 Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines. D. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves this application subject to the following conditions: 1. Theestablishment is approved as a dance studio as described in the application on file with the Planning Division, the Planning Commission staff report for Conditional Use Permit PL2010-307 dated September 28, 2010, and the Planning Commission minutes pertaining thereto, hereafter referred to as the "Use". The Use shall be limited to a dance studio. 2. The Use shall substantially conform to the approved plans as submitted and approved by the Planning Commission and on file with the Community Development Department. 3. This Conditional Use Permit shall be valid only for 23355 Golden Springs Drive, as depicted on the approved plans on file with the Planning Division. If the Proposed Use moves to a different location or expands 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010•XX into additional tenant spaces, the approved Conditional Use Permit shall terminate and a new Conditional Use Permit, subject to Planning Commission and/or City Council approval shall be required for the new location. If the Use ceases to operate, the approved Conditional Use Permit shall expire without further action by the City. 4. No changes to the approved scope of services comprising the Use shall be permitted unless the applicant first applies for an amendment to this CUP, pays all application processing fees and receives approval from the Planning Commission and/or City Council. 5. This approval does not specify limitations on class sizes or business hours based on the presumption that the Use will operate in a manner that does not deviate significantly from the operating characteristics described in the Conditional Use Permit application, as summarized below: Business hours — Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and Sunday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.; and ® Sixteen or fewer students per class. If, at any time, the City finds that the Use is the cause of a parking deficiency or other land use impact, the Community Development Director may refer the matter back to the Planning Commission to consider amending this Conditional Use Permit to address such impacts. 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: Chang Chih International Investments, 23341 Golden Springs Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765; and Jin Chen, 20260 Evening Breeze Drive, Walnut, CA 91789. M Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. WA Tony Torng, Chairman 1, Greg Gubman, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of September 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ATTEST: Greg Gubman, Secretary 5 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT i I I p I I i! I I I 19 !i liliq ill USE PERMITS, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL NEW AND REMODELED STRUCTURES PROJECT#: Condonal Use Permit No. PL 2010-307 SUBJECT: Jin's Dance Studio APPLICANT: Jin Chen LOCATION: 23355 Golden Springs Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91756 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION AT (909) 839-7030, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. In accordance with Government Code Section 66474.9(b) (1), the applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its officers, agents and employees, from any claim, action, or -proceeding to attack, set-aside, void or annul the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2010-307 brought within the time period provided by Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the city and/or its officers, agents and employees are made a party of any such action: (a) Applicant shall provide a defense to the City defendants or at the City's option reimburse the City its costs of defense, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred in defense of such claims. (b) Applicant shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the City defendants. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action of proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof. 2. This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant and owner of the property involved have filed, within twenty-one (21) days of approval of this Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2010-307 at the City of 6 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX Diamond Bar Community Development Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this approval. Further, this approval shall not be effective until the applicants pay remaining City processing fees, school fees and fees for the review of submitted reports. 3. The business owners and all designers, architects, engineers, and contractors associated with this project shall obtain a Diamond Bar Business License, and zoning approval for those businesses located in Diamond Bar. 4. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all conditions of approval shall be completed. 5. The project site shall be maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of approval and all laws, or other applicable regulations, 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and any applicable Specific Plan in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. To ensure compliance with all conditions of approval and applicable codes, the Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to periodic review. If non-compliance with conditions of approval occurs, the Planning Commission may review the Conditional Use Permit. The Commission may revoke or modify the Conditional Use Permit. 8. Property owner/applicant shall remove the public hearing notice board within three (3) days of this project's approval. 9. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of City Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works Department, and the Fire Department. 10. The applicant shall obtain separate Planning Division approval and permits from the Building and Safety Division for any wall signs in conjunction with the approved use. B. FEES/DEPOSITS 1. Applicant shall pay development fees (including but not limited to Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, and Public Works Department) at the established rates, prior to issuance of building permits, as required by the City. School fees as required shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permit. In addition, the applicant shall pay all remaining prorated 7 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX City project review and processing fees prior to issuance of grading or building permit, whichever comes first. 2. Prior to any plan check, all deposit accounts for the processing of this project shall have no deficits. C. TIME LIMITS 1. The approval of Conditional Use Permit shall expire within two (2) years from the date of approval if the use has not been exercised as defined per Municipal Code Section 22.66.050 (b)(1). The applicant may request in writing a one year time extension subject to Municipal Code Section 22.60.050(c) for Planning Commission approval. fir. Attachment 2 qcr��J-,, _1 t Np N� h+0 F-'F�' N. F4 NR OrtLn ON O• r O ON O O N� --.-t W W W V ON r h v Ffi W e Unit: 23379 I ' 1,800 s.f. t Unit: 23381 -820 s.f. Unit: 23383 P. — 1•,006 s,f. o- ' 'Unit : 23385 -2 425 s.f. ilei 7-. WIV.7 - 1 I %mv_ Unit: 23391 3,300 s.f. r ! All dimensions -size designations 2 0 2 0 This is an original design and must I given are subject to verification on I TECHNOLOGIES not be released or copied unless job site and adjustment to fit job applicable fee has been paid or job conditions. order placed. jin chen2 All Designed: 8/2012010 Printed: 8/20/2010 Scale: 0 1/8" F— m Q m z 0 > T-0 X'0 0 ZS 11 T Ii li 11 11 z 11 0 > T -u 0 -0 ;a z C 0 z C– o ZMC5 06-) — Z zXG) C-) m C-) > > > :E;u i= --j 0 Z M <:z > > MK G) �Q X cn M Z GCVO;Q G) Cl) 0 M Z Fs" oil Z cil w N C) 'a 00 1 -0 M z o > C/ CD (D N (D O -4 rQ 0 co 0 (31 0 CY) 0 a) 0 co 0 CL (D cL 0 0 E3 z :3 CD (D Cn cn (n Cn to a) -;h� (.0 co > 0— r- 0 Ij cn 0 9 co :1 (D (D = 00 .7-- 0 �o -4 z C-) w G) w G) z Z CD =3' CD :q W 0 CL 0 a) C-0 CL D w CL 03 CD =r U0 CCD(D 0 0 (D (D co :3. Co �, co CL C ;4: (0 CL �� ;q: CL D l< --o — M 0 0 CD =1 CD X CL W CD CD 0 0- 2� (D CD w In 0 =1 CD 0 :3 0 w :-:4 =3 tn. ED < 0 -u 0 < :3 =3 0 :3 Cl) 0 c CL 3 C-) — CD < 0 0 CD 03 m CD m CD U) (D 0 0 (n CD 3 CD :3 -4 0 en — Z! =3 =3 CL 6 =� =3 (D - CD (D 77 :E a l< :3 0 a cn �: CL (a (a rm (n. CL 0- CL =3 -0 x 0 0 m cn cn 0 w CD - rL 0 C-) w cn M 0 (a• 0 0 cn 0 CL m =3 =s Z 3 81 X m U) < m (D C C) CD C) C: C: m ELI (n 0 CD 0 t'i r N) r NO.}gam 0 0 CD 0 00 C) CD co 0 0 M CC m C) r1i 00 -4 NJ z z m z co w CD 0 (D CD (D CD0 cu cn cn CD 0 m > =3 CL ET (D =r 0 0 CL CD 0 CD N I > sv cn 0 w E CL cn =r (D 0 CDN to ET > to 'a Er 03 :3 C) o 0 :3 :3 M :3 =3 :3 =3 =1 =3 0 0 0 0 0 CD CD m CD CD 0 07, CD CL a CL CD CL 0- CL CD, CL CL 0 0 0 a 0 CL CL :3 =F 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 < CD < 0 0 m m m m m • FD6 CD Nn cn CD (D -0 ClY _0 -a '0 0 0 0 0 :3 =1 :3 cn co • cQ • co Z3 CL 0- w CL CL CL CL CL CL CL P:w CL EF 5 6* 0 :3 :3 =3 Fs" oil 2 2 'a �C3 -0 '53 W �O -;� N 12 N a N) -:�a w IR ro 5� N) 12 N) b — N3 X t� --4 2 " -�i - rl) -0 -0 (D 9 CD CD W (D (D 0 o 4t� 0 P, 0 00 co 0 4 D. 4 0 rQ 0 c CY) C) F 0') CD 1p� CD P, (D 0 CD 0 B. m 0 cr) u x u w1 C :F c)o E 0 C� 0 0 :1 — cD crl 0 Sn J 0 CC) COto Cli (D z cn -n co -n 0 cn — 0 B -T, 0 0 2- -n M u �� 0 0 (a w X (a < Cant :3 Cl) -0 w CD (D w m :�u Z) 6, Sn. w a: G* cn G) G) M U) =—� w 0 E3 0 C,) 3 E G7 0 —0 :3 (D W CL .-0 --. F 0- — = a 6' co — =r (D — =r 0 0 0 G :3 0 CD 0 :3 5 O 0 C) 0 CD 0 U cn *� , CL o ;r\ m M a :3 CD ap — ID CL CL X P. a - w a - -a o cn 5; (D 0 co "0 CO �o 3 M CD X 03 03 0 0 M CD CD CD :3 :3 - < w w C— m 0 m CL to cn (D (n cc CD CO 0 CL CL CL CD (D (n 0 rr CD C) C C) c 0 C) c 0 -uc C) -0 r- -u PQ -0 C) U) 0 0 CD 0 Pi 0 0 C) CD.. 0 CD 6(a -u O 0 w 0 I to Ot ccoo Cil W CD W p C, cn Cil w 0 z z z 0 0 z z 0 0 0 0 0 0 t7 o 70,; > > > > > > > > > 00 CO ;z a] ;rN m ;z 0 C/) o 0 cn 0 0 w cn 0 r_ nt w 2 2 CD =r ;r C: =3 =r CD :3 to 0 0 EL m 0 =1 CD a 0 o m M CD 0 CD (D =r w CD =3 (n 3 :3 cn. CL w CD CD m CL ro >> > > B B K 3 3' 3 3 03 03 m n) W w :3 0 0 0 0 C) 0 — C) 0 0 =1 0 0 0 =3 - 0 O . 0 0 0 a 5a E3 0 — 0 CD EN CD CD CD(D (D (D CD CD CL aCL CD CL CL CL < CD CL 0- O. CD D- CD CL rL CD CL r -L 0 0 0 o 3D 0 a 0 0 a CL CL CL CL CL rL 0 0 0 0 C') 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 =1 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 3 B (D a o @ a a CD o a CD CD CD SS S S CD co CD M CD CD 0 CD CD _0 '0 _0 a) -0 w w 0 0 0 w 0 a) 0 w 0 m 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 =1 ::3 R T). W. =3 =3 Ca CD cc to CO co cm ca m w CL 0- CL 0- CL 0- CL CL CL Ll Ll 2: CL 0- ca - 0 0 0 0 0 0 =1 0 0 0 =3 :3 _0 ID cc CD A CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NOTICE OF P660' MEETING AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 1, Stella Marquez, declare as follows: On September 28, 2010, the Diamond Bar Planning Commission will hold a regular session at 7:00 p.m., at the South Coast Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. Items for consideration are listed on the attached agenda. 1, Marcy Hilario, declare as follows: I am employed by the City of Diamond Bar. On September 24, 2010, a copy of the agenda of the Regular Meeting of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission was posted at the following locations: South Coast Quality Management District Auditorium 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar Library 1061 Grand Avenue Diamond Bar, CA Heritage Park 2900 Brea Canyon Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 24, 2010, at Diamond Bar, California. Stella Marquez Community Development Department gA\affidavitposfing.doc File reylew d y or and is ready for scan ing w