HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/24/2011i
'South Coast Air Quality Management District
Government Center Building Auditorium
2186.5 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Chairman Jack shah
Vice Chairman Kwang Ho Lee
Commissioner. Jimmy Lin
Commissioner Steve Nelson
Commissioner Tony Torng
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 of
21825 CopleyDrive, 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 Il 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 iat a
City public meeting must inform the Community Development Department at
(909) 839-7030 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.
Please refrain from smoking, eating or The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper
drinking in the Auditorium and encourages you to do the same
City of Diamond Bar
Planning Commission
MEETING RULES
PUBLIC INPUT
The meetings of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission are open to the public. A member of the
public may address the Commission on the'subject of one or more agenda items and/or other items of
which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission. A request
to address the Commission should be submitted in writingat 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 Development 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) 539-7030 between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., ;Monday through Thursday, and 7:30 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m., Friday.
HELPFUL PHONE NUMBERS
- Copies of Agenda, Rules of the Commission, Cassette -Tapes of Meetings (909) 839-7030
General Agendas (909) 839-7030
email: info a�ci.diamond-bar.ca.us
CALL TO.ORDER: 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
1. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Jack Shah, Vice Chairman
Kwang Ho Lee, Jimmy Lin; Steve Nelson, :Tony Torng
- 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS:
This is the time and place for the general public. to address themembers 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: May 10, 2011.
5. OLD BUSINESS: None:
6. NEW BUSINESS: None.'
7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING(S):
7.1 Conditional Use - Permit No. ' PL2011-058 Under' the authority of
Development. Code Section' 22:58, the applicant is requesting approval to
operate a 3,835 square -foot tutoring center.. The proposed hours of. operation
are. from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The lot is zoned Light .
Industrial (1)%with a consistent underlying General Plan-landuse designation of
Light Industrial, (Continued from May. 10, 2011)
MAY 24, 2011 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Project Address: 782-784 Pinefalls Ave.
Property Owner: Ronald E. Albrecht
Sterling Capital Inc.
8502 E. Chapman, #184
Orange, CA 92369
Applicant: Manikku Malraj
Ranmal Educational Services
801 Brea Canyon Road
Diamond Bar, CA 91789
Environmental Determination: The project has been reviewed for compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): Bused on that
assessment, the City has determined the project to be Categorically Exempt
from the provisions of CEQA pursuant ;to Article 19 under Section 15301
(existing facility) of the CEQA Guidelines.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
a 3,835 square foot tutoring center based on the Findings of Fact, and subject
to the conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution.
8. PUBLIC HEARING(S):
8.1 Tentative Parcel Map No. 71362 — The applicant is requesting approval of a
Tentative ParcelMap to subdivide an existing vacant 133,697 square-foot
(3.07) acre) gross lot into two lots for the development _ of single -family
residences. on each lot. Proposed Parcel 1 is 73,283 square-feet (1,68 acres)
and Parcel 2 is 60,414 square-feet (1.34.acres). The property is zoned Rural
Residential (RR) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use
designation.
Project Address: 2127 Derringer Lane
Property Owner: Sumermal Vardhan
320 Woodruff Dr:
Walnut, CA 91789 -
Applicant: Tritech Associates, Inc.
135 N. San Gabriel Blvd.
San Gabriel, CA 91775
Environmental Determination: This project has been reviewed for
compliance., with. the California Environmental Quality :_Act (CEQA). Staff
prepared and ' filed an Initial Study and Notice. of Intent to Adopt Negative
MAY 24,2011 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Declaration for the project on April 28, 2011, with the Los Angeles County
Clerk. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15105, the public review period for the
Negative Declaration began April 29, 2011, and ended May 18, 2011.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
the subdivision of an existing vacant lot into two separate lots, based on the
Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed. within the
draft resolution.
9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 1 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
10. STAFF COMMENTS / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects:
11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
PARKS AND RECREATION Thursday, May 26, 2010-7:00 p.m.
COMMISSION MEETING: Government Center/SCAQMD
Hearing Board Room, 21865 Copley Drive
MEMORIAL DAY HOLIDAY: Monday, May 30, 2011
City offices will be closed in observance
of the holiday. City offices will re -open on
Tuesday, May 31, 2011, at 7:30 a.m.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING: Tuesday, June 7, 2011 - 6:30 p.m.
Government Center/SCAQMD Auditorium
21865 Copley Drive
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION Thursday, June 9, 2011 - 7:00 p.m.
COMMISSION MEETING: Government Center/SCAQMD
Hearing Board Room, 21865 Copley Drive
PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,. June 14, 2011— 7:00 p.m.
MEETING: Government Center/SCAQMD Auditorium
21865 Copley Drive
12. ADJOURNMENT:
A FT
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 10, 2011
Chairman Shah called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality
Management District/Govemm.ent Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar,
CA 91765.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chairman Lee led the Pledge of Allegiance.
1 ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioner Jimmy Lin, Vice Chairman Kwang Ho Lee
and Chairman Jack Shah.
3.
Cl
Absent: Commissioners Steve Nelson, Tony Torng
Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Brad
Wohlenberg; Assistant City Attorney; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; David Alvarez,
Assistant Planner; Natalie Tobon, Planning Technician; and Stella Marquez, Senior
Administrative Assistant.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 26, 2011.
VC/Lee moved, C/Lin seconded, to approve the April 26, 2011, Regular
Meeting minutes as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
5. OLD BUSINESS: None
Lin, VC/Lee, Chair/Shah
None
Nelson, Torng
MAY 10, 2011
N. 10 0 9►NW, I A I & i I - Z, I
6.1
HE
F�
F7 -T
6
J
PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
Review of Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) —
Conformity with the City's General Plan.
SP/Lee presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission
adoption of a resolution finding the proposed Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Capital
Improvement Program in conformance with the City's General Plan.
C/Lin asked if there was an increase or decrease over last year's budget and
SP/Lee responded that there was a decrease.
There was no one present who wished to speak on this item.
C/Lin moved, VC/Lee seconded to adopt a resolution finding the proposed
Fiscal year 2011-2012 Capital Improvement Program in conformance with
the City's General Plan. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lin, VC/Lee, Chair/Shah
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Torng
Review of Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2011 — Conformity
with the City's General Plan.
SP/Lee presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission
adoption of a resolution finding the Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan
2011 in conformance with the City's General Plan.
C/Lin expressed that this was a very well-prepared document. He asked why
the projections for 2010 show 'a population of 55,000 when the City's
population is 59,000. CDD/Gubman said he appreciated that C/Lin pointed
this out and would have the discrepancy corrected and include an errata in
the final document for the correction.
There was no one present who wished to speak on this item.
VC/Lee moved, C/Lin seconded, to adopt a resolution finding the Draft Parks
and Recreation Master Plan 2011 in conformance with the City's General
Plan. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
MAY 10, 2011
PAGE 3
PLANNING COMMISSION
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lin, VC/Lee; Chair/Shah
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Torng
7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7.1 Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2010-355 — Under the authority of Diamond
Bar Municipal Code Section 22.58, the applicant requested approval to
remove an existing Edison streetlight pole located on Diamond Bar
Boulevard's public right-of-way, north Tin Drive and replace it with a similar
light pole equipped with cellular telecommunications antennas and
associated ground -mounted equipment (Continued from April 26, 2011)
PROJECT ADDRESS:
Public Rights -of -Way on
Diamond Bar Boulevard and
760 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard
City of Diamond Bar
21825 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
APPLICANT: Sequoia Deployment Services
On behalf of T -Mobile
Monica Moretta
One Venture, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92616
AP/Alvarez presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission
approval of Conditional Use Permit No. PL2010-355, based on the Findings
of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the
resolution.
C/Lin commended T -Mobile for taking extra steps to enhance the aesthetics
and the quality of life in Diamond Bar.
Monica Moretta, applicant, concurs with the conditions of approval as
amended with the proper screening.
C/Lin asked if the City would maintain the shrubs and Ms. Moretta responded
that T -Mobile was responsible for the maintenance.
Chair/Shah asked if T -Mobile was responsible for paying the water bill on a
regular basis and Ms. Moretta responded affirmatively and that is why
MAY 10, 2011
PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
Walnut Valley Water District is installing a separate meter. VC/Lin asked if
T -Mobile would- visit the site --on a -regular basis to make certain the
maintenance was taken care of and Ms. Moretta responded that typically,
T -Mobile will visit the site
ite on a monthly basis for maintenance of the facility
and issues having to do with maintenance of the facility and the site.
VC/Lee moved, C/Lin seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit
No. PL 2010-355, 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: Lin, VC/Lee, Chair/Shah
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Torng
7.2 Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2011-058 — Under the authority of Diamond
Bar Municipal Code Section 22.58, the applicant Manikku Malraj and
property owner Ronald E. Albrecht, requested approval to operate a 3,835
square foot tutoring center. The proposed hours of operation are from
8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through ' Friday. The lot is zoned Light
Industrial (1) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation
of Light Industrial.
PROJECT ADDRESS:
782-784 Pinefalls Avenue
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Ronald E. Albrecht
Sterling Capital, Inc.
8502 E. Chapman #184
Orange, CA 92369
APPLICANT: Manikku Malraj
Ranmal Educational Services
801 Brea Canyon Road
Diamond bar, CA 91789
AP/Alvarez presented staff's report and recommended that the Planning
Commission continue the matter to May 24 to allow staff to prepare a
resolution of denial of Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2011-058.
VC/Lee asked if staff had any possible resolution they could propose for
allowing this use. AP/Alvarez stated that the basis for denial was that the
site would supportonly20 parking spaces during business peak hours and
MAY 10, 2011 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION
the use requires 25 parking spaces per the Development Code. VC/Lee
asked if staff had any communication with the applicant about this matter
and offered the applicant to provide a different number for each session.
AP/Alvarez responded that the applicant was contacted and wants to pursue
the 30 -student maximum limit—three sessions with 10 students per session
with a maximum of 30 -students during each block. VC/Lee said then there
was no agreement of compromise and AP/Alvarez responded "no."
CDD/Gubman stated that staffs support for this project is based on the
availability of parking and staff finds nothing objectionable about the use
except now that the proposed number of students will generate a parking
demand that exceeds what the site is capable of accommodating, a
compromise is to reduce the enrollment so that the parking demand can be
fulfilled by the 17 available spaces to handle the pickup and drop off between
sessions. The compromise in order for staff to recommend approval would
require a drop in the proposed enrollment.
Ron Albrecht, building owner, said that the parking demand was not
understated by the, applicant. In fact, he and the applicant pointed out the
misunderstanding at the last meeting. He does not know how that number
made it into the document but he was quick to point out the error at the last
meeting. Based on the application, the applicant was offered a permit and
certainly he wants to be in compliance. As the owner of the building, he is
very concerned about liability and he and the applicant were very quick to
point out that staff's report was not correct. It was not an understatement of
the facts, it was an error in the report. Secondly, when the parking study was
conducted and in one slot there were 10 cars out of a one week period and
most of the time there were seven or fewer cars in the parking lot when the
study was done. It is possible that someone across the street used the
parking on his side one day. The parking space calculation required is not
accurate. The requirement is, as he understands it, for every 200 square feet
the building is required to have a parking spot. The building has 3,800
square feet which .equates to the need for 19 parking spots and 3 for the
instructors because there is never more than 3 instructors in the building at
any given time -19 and 3 is 22. The available parking is 30. There are 9
spaces allocated — 2 for one unit, 2 for another unit, and 5 for a third unit,
which leaves 21 available parking spots and according to the code they need
22 so according to the code there is a 1 parking spot deficit.
Mr. Albrecht read from a prepared statement. At the previous meeting there
was a mistaken belief that 30 students are picked up and dropped off every
90 minutes. This is absolutely not the case and is totally inaccurate. This
would require a student body of 30 students multiplied by six sessions per
day which would be a 180 person student body. There, is not, nor will there
MAY 10, 2011 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSIM
ever be, a student body of -this size. Most students take multiple sessions so
the actual turnover; -pickup -and -drop off of students, is zero to five between
sessions, far less turnover than two similar businesses that are currently
operating across the street in the same business park. The code, as he
understands, does not define or specify how many cars can drop off or
pickup. However, the number needed is minimal and far less than the 21
spaces that are available. He knows this to be a fact. About 16 months ago
Raj opened this business and operated it for nine months. At that time, Raj
went to the City's Planning Department on several occasions and was told
that they could occupy the premises. As the owner of the building, he is very
concerned about litigation and protecting his assets in this litigious state.
When Raj assured him that he had gone in to the Planning Department
several times and could open his business they (building owner and
applicant) signed the lease and Raj occupied the building., As it turned out,
there was an error, a misunderstanding by the person or persons at the
Building Department who gave the go ahead. During the nine months the
applicant occupied the building there was absolutely no parking stress and in
fact, there was abundant parking and plenty of open spaces during the nine
month period when he visited the building. several times a week. On those
many occasions when he went to the site to use his warehouse space, he
never witnessed a full parking lot nor even close to a full parking lot, nor did
he receive any complaints from any existing tenants. Perhaps the Planning
Commission could define the parking allowed and we could seek
compromises with the number of students in the student body. Dellos Dance
in the same size building across the street (3800 square feet) has 150
students in their student body. The Music Store at 1900 square feet (one
half the size) wrote on their application for permit that they had 155 students.
Again, the concern is parking for pickup and drop off. As previously stated,
most students take multiple sessions so pickup and drop off is minimal.
Perhaps the City could issue the permit with not 150 or 155 student body like
the two neighbors-, but as discussed with the applicant, an accepted limit of
45-60 total students in the total student body, thus limiting the number of
drop off and pickup between sessions to the number that could possibly be
required. Also, if there is a parking issue, the City could revoke the permit
because he and the applicant know it will not be an issue. As the owner of
the building he does not want to rent to,a business that would cause him to
lose his other tenants or to not be able to rent out the remaining unit because
of stress on the parking. He is positive that this tenant will not put stress on
the parking. The country is in a very difficult recession and this building has
sat empty for most of the last three years. There is no parking problem.
There are similar bu ' sifiesses across the street requiring more parking and
one was recently approved for a permit. Since there will be no stress on the
parking he and the applicant are asking the Commission and the City to help
r� -n n, 1- -7
MAY 10, 2011 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION
those in the private sector put tenants in this building, create jobs and allow
this business to operate.
Manikku Malraj said he never intended to misrepresent his business to the
City or the Planning Department. He was very up front and very clear about
his intentions. He has a business about 150 yards away that is a pre-school
and his intention was to provide further education to the children who leave
the pre-school after graduation after kindergarten, to elementary, to the 5th
grade. There are so many parents who come to them. All students are not
the same. There are some students who have learning difficulties which is
the reason for providing this service. This is a family owned business and
the family is involved in the day to day operation. He is only concerned with
helping the children and does not want that to be in jeopardy in any fashion.
So please consider the proposal and we will be thankful to the Commission
and the City.
Chair/Shah asked for clarification about Mr. Malraj having gone to the City's
Building Department where someone told him it was okay to continue with
the business. Mr. Malraj said the understanding was that they were
expanding the existing business as repeated to him by the staff member and
as such, he did not have to go for a Conditional Use Permit. He said
because we are "expanding the current business." That was his
understanding. However, for some reason, that was apparently incorrect and
we were requested to get out and we did so. As a result, three teachers lost
their jobs and several children had to be relocated to other schools and he
lost business.
Mr. Albrecht said he wanted to point out that the existing business is 151 feet
from his building. At this location there are two businesses across the street
in the identical park with the identical building — Dellos Dance which caters to
children and within 200 feet, the Music Store which also caters to children.
Raj's business is 151 feet away and as he previously stated that as he had
discussed with Raj he was sure that he could occupy this business site. He
wants to be in compliance as he has been since he has-been in Diamond
Bar for over 20 years and Raj pointed out, there is a register at the Building
Department where he signed in when he was at the City discussing this
matter with the Building Department.
Chair/Shah said he understood that students could go from one class to
another but there could be 30 new students in each class. Mr. Malraj said
that it would not happen like that. The reason he is saying multiple sessions
is so that the parents have an opportunity to register their kids in multiple
sessions for a discount. If there are only five students he loses on the
r
MAY 10, 2011 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION
business. So to encourage the parents to enroll' their kids in multiple
sessions I gave them a discounted -rate. And he guarantees that the
maximum number of students Will be 30 and he will not go beyond that.
Chair/Shah asked if Mr. Albrecht was stating that the businesses across the
street were not in compliance with the parking regulations and Mr. Albrecht
said he was not suggesting that. What he was saying is that they were
granted a CUP and they state in their application that they have 155 students
and they are in a building half the size Raj is occupying. And it looks like the
demands for that business -model would require more drop off and pickup
than Raj's business model. So Mr. Albrecht actually has more parking
available than the business across the street because he has a 3800 square
foot building and more available parking but yet the demand for Raj's
business model is far less than the business model across the street which
was approved by the City.
Chair/Shah understands Raj's desire to teach the children is a very noble
idea. He asked if Mr. Malraj had considered any alternative to looking at
what the Planning Department is facing with respect to what they have
described as the parking problem and wondered if there could be a solution.
Mr. Malraj said he received staff's report a couple of days ago and it never
happens that 30 student drop in and then 30 students leave which is how
staff has written the report and that is completely wrong. What he is saying
is that any one time there will be a maximum of 30 students taking
advantage of.multiple sessions and there may be 2 or 5 come in and he has
only 12 students at this time and there would always be a maximum of 30
students. Because the students are getting a discount for multiple sessions
there will be very minimal drop off and pickup between the sessions.
Chair/Shah asked Mr. Malraj if he had discussed with staff what he is
describing today. He said he discussed this with staff over the phone. He
did not go to the City because to be honest, he was very unhappy. He works
in another county and he is very sad, about the way these reports have been
written.
Mr. Albrecht again offered his compromise that if the City and Commission
defined the number of students it would assure that there would never be 30
students being dropped off and picked up at one time. Across the street the
student body is 150, and 155. If you define Raj's student body at 60 or 45
then as Raj has explained his business model to me it is his goal to get the
parents to sign up for as many classes
ses as possible so that his revenue is
stable, he does not have to recruit as many parents and it does not stress to
the parking which makes Raj a good applicaht for him (Mr. Albrecht) for this
building. He has other tenants and he has a vacant unit and he does not
MAY 10, 2011 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION
want stress on the parking. So the idea of perhaps limiting the size of the
student to far less than they have across the street would assure the City
that mathematically it would be impossible to drop off and pick up 30
students if he has limited students. So if the student body is 60 or 45 it
forced Mr. Malraj to sell more sessions to each student which eliminates any
stress on the parking.
C/Lin reminded the applicant that the reason the applicant is before the
Planning Commission is because the owner's building is not intended to be
used for children's services. If this application were within the allowable land
use the applicant would not be before the Commission today. If someone
wanted 'to use this location' as a warehouse, the applicant and property
owner would not be here. The only reason is that the property is not
intended to be used for children's services and those parking spaces that
such a use requires are based on the building owner's permitted land use. A
tutoring facility is an unusual use and the Commission has to rely on their
experts to tell the Commission that based on the City's experience with
tutoring facilities what kind of parking and traffic problems a certain location
might
ight be facing. The Commission relies on staff to tell the Commission that
a particular use — in, this case a tutoring facility, may not work. If the
applicant could guarantee there would never be 30 students coming and
going, even with 30 cars there would be congestion. Mr. Albrecht said that if
there were a maximum student body if during the course of the day Raj might
get to 30 students in a class but it does not mean that when that session
ends there are 30 students coming or going. They are gradually being
added and picked up during the day. That is why he suggested that if there
were a limit on the student body it would certainly determine that there would
not be a lot of coming and going of cars. And with respect to the comment
about this kind of business, there is ai music store and a dance facility directly
across the street in an identical building. A dance class is 20 students or
more and the music store's application is that the parents actually stay during
the class and it is required parking. The parents stay outside while the music
lesson is given. That is not what Raj is asking. The parents will drop the
kids off, sign the kids in to class and they will leave in their vehicle. And it will
not happen multiple times per day because of the student body limitation.
So this business actually has less required parking and needed parking than
the existing music store and dance studio which are permitted through the
CUP process.
C/Lin asked Mr. Albrecht if parking was permitted on both sides of Pinefalls
and Mr. Albrecht said yes, but the building is on a cul-de-sac and during that
nine month period he would never foresee there would ever be a need to
MAY 10, 2011 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION
park on the street. PT/Alvarez responded to C/Lin that there is street parking
available on the cul-de-sac.
VC/Lee said he believes the building owner has credibility, has studied the
issue and knows his building. He thinks the parking study is a purely
calculated estimation. He understands that the parking study should be used
as a reference and based on the study staff determines how many parking
spaces are available. Based on the study, how many spaces are available?
CDD/Gubman stated that the property owner and the applicant raised some
points that maybe staff needs to communicate more and staff will meet with
the applicant and the property owner at City Hall to establish a better
dialogue and not seem to have these disconnects where the areas of tension
come -to surface during the Commission meeting or there are some nuances
that were not understood on staff's part before and perhaps there is a
solution wherein if the entire student body enrollment is capped, then clearly,
there will be some spread of parking demand that will be less intensive than
what staff considered because yes, based on staffs understanding and a
careful review of the business plan that was presented to the City, there
would be a potential student body of 180 or so. Perhaps at this point the
Commission should continue the matter to May 24 to allow staff to meet with
the applicant and get the specifications for the number of students, what the
actual scenario would be throughout the day and perhaps there is a solution
that would enable staff to come forward with a recommendation for approval.
He is hearing comments from the applicant and the owner that he does not
believe were communicated to staff or perhaps staff did not have enough
base information to ask the right questions to get to some of the answers
staff is getting closer to this evening. He believes something can be worked
out but to do so staff, the applicant, and business owner need to have that
dialogue to make sure that all parties are on the same page and then staff
can present the Commission with a resolution where it is negotiated between
the applicant and the City to where it makes sense intuitively and analytically
so that there is no problem.
Chair/Shah asked CDD/Gubman to consider giving the applicant a trial for a
few months to make sure the borderline intent is to get the space rented and
get the children educated so that it becomes a win-win situation.
C/Lin asked if the applicant has a permit and has been operating the
business for nine months. 8P/Lee explained that Mr. Malraj does not have a
permit. When staff discovered that he was occupying the space it was via a
phone call from the LA County Fire Department informing the City that there
was a business operating at this location. When staff went out to do a site
inspection staff realized that there was a tutoring business at the site. Staff
MAY 10, 2011.
I a =i. I I z Lejueelyi I m I L
then notified the applicant that he is not allowed to occupy the space without
a business license and further informed the applicant that in order to occupy
the space it would require a Conditional Use Permit for this particular
location. Staff gave' them a week or two weeks to vacate the space. The
applicant did vacate the space and staff verified that vacation. She spoke
with the property owner this morning and he indicated to her that this
business had been operating at that location for about nine or 10 months.
Staff
taff was not aware that the business was operating at this location and the
business did not have permits to conduct business.
Mr. Albrecht said that he and Mr. Malraj have been in Diamond Bar for quite
a while and he wanted to assure the Commission that there was nothing
underhanded on their part. He has owned this building for a lot of years. We
are dealing with children that live in California. After Raj moved in, he signed
a lease and Raj put flooring in and painted. We know that if we did not feel
comfortable that Raj had been in compliance, all of that would not have
happened. One does not sneak into a building and believe that someday
you won't be found out. He wants to make it very clear that there was some
misunderstanding because he would never have allowed Raj in the building
and Raj would never have spent the money to do the fix up.
C/Lin said he understood but unfortunately, the City has to deal within the
law. In terms of the parking demand, if you consult with the Institute of
Traffic Engineers the parking manual provides clear guidelines for centers on
a pbr-student basis. If there is an undisputable number to discuss for the
document that Mr. Albrecht alludes to, he is sure that PWD/Liu would guide
staff through that manual. CDD/Gubman said the City purchased the 8th
edition of that manual and he made sure that his department had the latest
edition about a year and one-half ago.
Chair/Shah opened the public hearing.
There was no one present who wished to speak on this item.
Chair/Shah closed the public hearing.
VC/Lee moved, C/Lin seconded, to continue Conditional Use Permit
No. PL2011-058 to May 24, 2011. Motion carried by the following Roll Call
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lin, VC/Lee, Chair/Shah
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ,
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; Nelson, Torng
is 7
MAY 10, 2011 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION
S.- PUBLIC-HEARING(S)
8.1 Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2011-67 -
Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Sections 22.48 and
22.56, the applicant, Danny Tseng, and property owners Zhi Zhuang Liu and
Meng Zhu requested approval for a-1428 square foot addition to an existing
4,080 square foot single family residence on a 0.69 net acre (30,060 square
foot)lot. Minor Conditional Use Permit is requested to allow the continuation
of an existing non -conforming 15 10" front yard setback (30 feet is required).
The lot is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with a consistent underlying General
Plan land use desig-nation of Rural Residential.
PROJECT, ADDRESS:
APPLICANT:
2160 Indian Creek
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Zhi,Zhuang Liu and Meng Zhu
2033 Quail Run Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91789
Danny Tseng
460'Castlehill Drive
Walnut, CA 91789
AP/Alvarez presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission
approval of Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit
No. PL2011-67, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions
of approval as listed within the resolution.
C/Lin said it looks like a nice project. Wherever there is a non -conforming
setback and the owner decides he wants a major renovation, does the City
Code require them to comply with the setback requirement at that time.
AP/Alvarez responded that when an applicant proposes an application and
they have existing non -conforming setbacks staff does not allow them to
further encroach into those non -conforming setbacks so they are required to
maintain the non -conforming setback. Staff requires conformance if it is a
new single family home. In this case, if the applicant were to tear down the
existing structure to 'build a new structure staff would require, that the
proposed project meet all development standards.
Danny Tseng, applicant, speaking on behalf of the property owner, said they
were present to answer Commissioners questions.
MAY 10, 2011
PAGE 13
Chair/Shah opened the public hearing.
M"1 17% A
Ld 6"a h'". � J
PLANNING COMMISSION
With no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Shah closed
the public hearing.
C/Lin moved, VC/Lee seconded to approve.Development Review and Minor
Conditional Use Permit No. PL2011-67; 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: Lin, VC/Lee, Chair/Shah
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Torng
8.2 Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2010-325
Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Sections 22.48 and
22.56, the applicant ' requested approval for a 494 square foot second floor
. addition to the front of the residence, and a Minor Conditional Use Permit for
the continuation of a non -conforming front yard setback of 13' 6" (20 feet is
required). The property is *zoned Low Density Residential (RL) with a
consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Low Density
Residential.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 23959 Cougas Creek Road
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
PROPERTY OWNER/ Jorge and Martha Diaz
APPLICANT: 23959 Cougas Creek Road
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
PT/Tobon presented staff's report and recommended that the Planning
Commission direct the applicantto submit revised architectural elevations to
address the design issues outlined in staffs report and continue the matterto
May 24, 2011.
VC/Lee asked why staff is- recommending this matter be continued and
PT/Tobon responded that the reason for requesting a continuation is to allow
the applicant and property owner time to discuss revisions to the proposed
project to minimize the massing and conform to the streetscape due to its
close proximity to the street. She provided drawings for the applicant to
consider incorporating into -the design.
MAY 10, 2011 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION
VC/Lee asked if the Commission could approve the project and the applicant
could submit revised plans later-. Is that really a big matter to staff?
CDD/Gubman responded to the Commission that VC/Lee's suggestion is
another option. The Planning Commission could approve it with a condition
that the front elevation be modified at plan check subject to staff's approval.
That would be a judgment call for the Commission because that potentially
places the applicant under the discretion of what CDD/Gubman would deem
to be appropriate and whether or not the applicant would be able to get a
building permit or not, so what staff is suggesting is to provide a more
transparent process for the Commission to decide whether it is appropriate
or not and that is why staff recommends the plans be revised and brought
back to the Commission for approval as opposed to approving with a
condition for CDD/Gubman's judgment call.
C/Lin asked if with respect to the suggested elevation the existing garage
door was in line with the existing front ,line of the house. PT/Tobon
responded that the suggested elevation shows a section that is popped out
farther than the garage but the area is not floor area, it is just an architectural
projection. CDD/Gubman stated that the small gable area is pushed out 10
inches forward. C/Lin said so in other words, the existing house is already
not in compliance with the setback and, the applicant is pushing it 10 inches
further toward the street. CDD/Gubman said yes, C/Lin was correct. And
what the Commission should understand is that there are allowances for
architectural, features to project into the setbacks. If this was not allowed and
individuals wanted to build right up to the setback there would be no room for
any kind of architectural treatment, not even a window sill and especially not
even the roof eaves. And so by allowing these non-structural decorative
projections into the setback it is an, encouragement to ' allow them to build
structurally right up to the setback line, but then still have the flexibility to add
some ornamentation or some visual relief to enhance the building's
appearance. C/Lin said that the applicant's proposal looks very similar to the
house to the north (of the proposed project) in terms of appearance. That
residence also has a flat wall.
Chair/Shah said he agreed with VC/Lin and saw no reason not to approve
this project looking at the other two neighboring houses. He understands
staffs concern.about the massing but in his opinion, it is pretty close to the
neighbors' houses.
Jorge Diaz explained that the changes proposed by staff do not have the
same style as the present home. The right side is like a ranch style home
with the brick fagade and the new proposed protrusion or furred wall looks
more like the tract homes that are in Fontana and other places. It is too
MAY 10, 2011 PAGE 15 PLANNING COMMISSION
modern and does not look like his home and his neighborhood. His home
looks like it belongs in his neighborhood. Unfortunately, they outgrew their
home'and they want to add on while keeping the same feel. The applicant
had photos of other homes in the neighborhood and referred to those photos
as he was speaking. Staff's
s proposal does not show the true feeling of what
his home is. His proposal looks better and the brick shows better than in the
drawing and does not look as "cold." Staff's proposed change just does not
blend in with the feel of their home. He found one home that had the type of
construction proposed by staff (picture #10). The picture is of a residence
about one block away from their home and the architecture is completely
different than their home and, it is the only home in the neighborhood that
has that type of protrusion. In his opinion, it does little to affect the massive
look of the home to the street. And, if he has to comply with staff's proposal
it may change the entire look of the interior with one window having a deeper
opening than the other window because that wall is bigger. Also, it protrudes
out 10 inches but also the roof gables stick out even more beyond the
setback and his original intention was to have the addition protrude 24 inches
but that was not allowed because of the setback. But this is definitely
encroaching into the setback. Also, there is additional cost for something
they really do not like and it will be a burden and something they come home
to every day and do not really like at the completion of the project. He asked
the Commission to approve the project as proposed. He showed
photographs of additional homes in his neighborhood with similar
construction.
Martha Diaz said she likes the project as proposed by their architect. It took
awhile to get it just the way they want it. She appreciates staff's hard work to
propose the change but she does not like it and she does not want it and she
does not want to pay for something she does not want. Please think about
that and hopefully the Commission will approve their idea.
Chair/Shah thanked the applicant and said he believed they had a really nice
home.
Chair/Shah opened the public hearing.
With no one else present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Shah
closed the public hearing.
VC/Lee said he believed it was a beautiful project and that the applicant was
spending considerable money on a design that is beautiful. He takes staff's
recommendation as well.
MAY 10, 2011
a "n LnP't,7 -i
PLANNING COMMISSION
VC/Lee moved, C/Lin seconded, to approve Development Review and Minor
Conditional Use Permit No. PL -2010 325 as proposed by the applicant with
staff's recommendation for the front elevation.
Chair/Shah said he believed the applicant had provided the proper elevation
and his recommendation would be to approve the project as proposed by the
applicant without changes.
VC/Lee said he liked it that way better than his motion. He amended his
motion to approve Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit
No. PL2010-325 as presented.
C/Lin asked that the motion be amended to read "as submitted by the
applicant."
CDD/Gubman suggested that VC/Lee wanted the project approved "as
submitted by the applicant." VC/Lee agreed and C/Lin seconded the motion.
Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lin, VC/Lee, Chair/Shah
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Torng
8.3 Development Code Amendment No. PL2011-146 — An Ordinance of the
City of Diamond Bar regarding recovery of attorney fees in nuisance
abatement proceedings and amending Diamond Bar Municipal Code
Sections 22.78060(2)(b) and 22.78.070(1). The Ordinance serves to clarify
existing provisions of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code relative to recovery of
attorney's fees incurred in abatement of nuisances by clarifying that all
references to legal. "costs" were intended to and do include the City
Attorney's fees.
PROJECT ADDRESS
Citywide
City of Diamond Bar
Community Development Department
MAY 10, 2011 PAGE 17 PLANNING COMMISSION
CDD/Gubman introduced MA/Santos and explained the proposed
Development Code Amendment. CDD/Gubman recommended that the
Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of Development
Code Amendment No. PI -201.1-146.
C/Lin asked what the City would do if all remedies had been exhausted and
the property owner refused to cooperate under the current code. Does the
City put a lien against the property or what does the City do? CDD/Gubman
said the City places a "special assessment" on the property. It is not exactly
a lien but it is an encumbrance on the property that shows up on their
property tax bill so it becomes due the next time their property tax has to be
paid to the County Assessor. C/Lin asked if the revision would enable the
City, to then include attorney's fees into the special assessment and
CDD/Gubman stated that C/Lin was exactly right.
ACA/Wohlenberg further explained that this is only in relation to public
nuisances and not any of the prosecutorial functions of the City Attorney's
office or of the City Prosecutor. The reason for all of this is when the court
sees the word "costs" that does not include attorney's fees. When there is
an award made under a contract and the award states "payment of costs" the
Court, is talking about the costs related to the filing fees of the action, jury
fees, etc., but does not include attorney's fees unless it specifically so states.
In an attempt to clarify what we believe the code reads, we want to add the
attorney's fees language to be explicit So that if a Court looks at that the
Court has the option of awarding that. The judge is not bound by it either.
He or she could decline to award those fees.
Chair/Shah asked if, in the event of defending the City there is a counter-
claim by the property owner and there. is a cost associated with defending
the City, is the cost of defending the City recoverable and is there something
included which ,protects the City by not having to front the money for
litigation? ACA/Wohlenberg said that if someone brought an additional
action against the City in response to the City's efforts to abate a public
nuisance and there are a variety of actions they could bring that under, in
most cases, that money will not be recovered. If someone sought a writ or
sought a civil rights violation the City Attorney would defend that litigation and
the cost of doing so would generally be a cost to the City and not something
that would be recovered from the Plaintiff. Generally, in those situations the
City is stepping away from the nuisance abatement. At that point, when the
City defends itself, unless there is an explicit provision in a contract or some
statute that allows recovery of attorney's fees, there will be no recovery of
attorney's fees:
MAY 10, 2011 PAGE 18 PLANNING COMMISSION
Chair/Shah opened the public hearing.
With no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Shah closed
the public hearing.
ACA/Wohlenberg further explained that the City is a member of the Joint
Powers Insurance Authority. If there is a tort claim against the City often
times those are subject to or handed over to the JPIA for the defense of that
lawsuit. So the City's cost in that is essentially the cost of maintaining its
version of insurance.
C/Lin moved, VC/Lee seconded, to recommend City .Council approval of
Development- Code Amendment No. PL2011-146. Motion carried by the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lin, VC/Lee, Chair/Shah
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Torng
9. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
None Offered.
k&11JI ki IMM VIU-111101 L, F-11 0 1111#11!,Fel
10.1 Public Hearing dates for future proiects.
I
CDD/Gubman explained that tonight's agenda contained more items than
any Planning Commission agenda since he came on board with the City.
The items did not quite add up to one Site D but certainly required a lot of
different and diverse material for the Commissioners to pass judgment on.
Hopefully, the next meeting will even things out a little bit for the
Commission. In addition to the continuation of the tutoring center on
Pinefalls where staff hopes to bring some closure to that,matter, there is a
two -lot subdivision on Derringer Lane.
As listed in tonight's agenda.
MAY 10, 2011.PAGE 19 PLANNING COMMISSION
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission,
Chairman Shah adjourned the regular meeting at 9:01 p.m.
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 24th day of May, 2011.,
Attest:
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Gubman
Community Development Director
Jack Shah, Chairman
w. P.LANNING COMMISSION
.`���:"xM�h�"" AGENDA REPORT
?38
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR --21825 COPLEY DRIVE - DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 - TEL. (909) .839-7030 - FAX (909) 861-3117
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.1
MEETING DATE: May 24, 2011
CASE/FILE NUMBER: Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2011-058
PROJECT LOCATION: 782-784 Pinefalls Avenue (Los Angeles County
Assessor's Parcel Number 8760-027-003)
PROPERTY OWNER: Ronald E. Albrecht
Sterling Capital ;
8502 E. Chapman, #184
Orange, CA 92369
APPLICANT., Manikku Malraj
Ranmal Educational Services `
801 Brea Canyon Road
Diamond Bar, CA 91789
The ' Planning Commission initially" reviewed this matter at the April 26, 2011, meeting
and continued the item after it was found that there were inconsistencies between the
enrollment numbers provided in the project application and information provided by the
-applicant during'the hearing. <At the May. 10, 2011, meeting, additional questions arose
,regarding proposed class scheduling and: the; number of available parking spaces. The
matter was again continued to, ,May 24, 2011, to allow staff and the applicant to resolve
these issues.
Staff consulted with the Public Works Department and City's. traffic engineering
consultant, and reviewed the 8th Edition of Trip Generation published by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers '(ITE), and found that there are no, published rates for a
tutoring center. It was concluded that staff should review the trip generation potential
based on the proposed hours of operation, project characteristics such as number of
classrooms and capacity, and schedule of lessons. From this discussion, it was
suggested that the starting time of each class be staggered in 15 minute intervals.
Staff prepared a chart (see .Attachment #7), which shows the overlap in parking
between each class. Review of the In and Out columns indicated that the forecasted
trip generation potential was 20 parked spaces at one time under a worst case scenario.
The .applicant stated that many students, take more than oneday,
`session during the
therefore, the trip generation will actually result in less than 20 spaces.
Staff held a meeting with the applicant and was able to work out a solution .to stagger
the starting time of each class, as suggested by the City's traffic consultant. Therefore,
with the 15 -minute staggered class start times, the existing parking supply can
accommodate the, proposed tutoring center. All students are minors and would be
dropped -off and picked -up by a parent. Therefore, under a worst case scenario, it is
likely that more than 23 parking spaces would be occupied at any one time, and would
accommodate three classes with staggered `start and end times and three instructors.
Although there is a deficiency of three spaces, the applicant has agreed to the condition
of approval to limit the student enrollment to 60 students throughout the day. In
addition, with short turnover in drop-off and pick-up times, it is not likely to create ' a
burden on other businesses on-site. By breaking up the start times of each class into
15 minute intervals; the overlap of 60 trips at the same time is avoided.
Parking Demand Analysis
Staff reviewed two methods to determine the parking demand. One method was to
review the City's development code parking requirements (which typically treats each
use as a stand alone use at maximum demand). The second method was to conduct a
field survey of the site for a one week` period to count the number of utilized spaces
throughout the day to determine the current parking demand for all of the existing uses
on-site.
The property has four tenant spaces and is currently occupied by North Point Print Shop
and Wayne's Auto which require seven parking spaces per the ,Development Code.
Furthermore, there is. one additional vacant unit available for lease, which will require an
additional two spaces for a warehouse type of, use. With the proposed 3,835 square
foot tutoring center requiring 22 spaces, there is a mathematical deficiency of 1 "space
since the property has a parking supply of 30 spaces.
City's Development Code Parking Requirement
•
e e
m • e - s
780 Pinefalls Wa ne's Auto 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 m. 2
782 Pinefalls Proposed 8'00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 19+3=22
784 Pinefalls Tutoring (1 space for every
Center 200 sq. ft. of gross
floor area plus 1
space for each
em to ee
786 Pinefalls Warehouse Vacant 2
788 Pinefalls North Point 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. 5
Printing Shop
Total 31 .30.
Page 2 of 4
CD: Staff Reports PC/Pinefalls 782-784 CUP PC Staff Report 05/24/2011.docx
In addition, staff conducted a field survey of the site for a one week period in order to.
determine the current parking demand from the existing uses on-site.As shown in the
table below, the highest number of spaces' occupied was ten spaces for the current
uses on-site. Daily fluctuation and parking demand for the existing tenants are fairly
low.
: Number of Spaces Utilized (Out of 30 Available)
11,14 A
-..-
Based on the field study and parking requirements, per the Development Code, it is
estimated that at least 20 spaces would be available during business hours at all times
o accommodate staff parking and student pick-up/drop-offs.
Given the expected pattern of trip generation throughout the day, it is'highly unlikely for
parking to be deficient during the brief periods.of turnover for the pick-up and drop-off of
students. Furthermore; the likelihood in overlap of 20 trips .is avoided with a student
enrollment capped at 60. With a student enrollment capped at 60, any clustering of 30
students per session would inevitably be offset by sessions with far fewer students.
Therefore, under the worst case scenario, the impact would be negligible. Based on the
analysis, it is .unlikely that there will be parking congestion of patrons looking for spaces
during pick-up and drop-off times. Moreover, staff is recommending a condition. of
approval to review the application in six months, to assess the operations of the use and
parking impacts. This. is a prudent solution because there is no way to foresee parking
problems at this time.
A condition is added to the project requiring the applicant to stagger the starting time of
I student enrollment Capped at 60
each class ' m 15 minute intervals, with the tots pp
students. Staff is also recommending. a condition to require the Conditional. Use Permit
to be reviewed` six months after' approval to allow the Commission to assess the
j adequacy of the parking and operations of the use (Recommended Condition of
Approval #4-5`in Attachment 1: Draft Resolution). This would allow the Commission to
further condition the project if actual operating experience within the six months showed
Page 3 of 4
it
CD: Staff Reports PC/Pinefalls 782-784 CUP PC Staff Report 05/24/2011.docx
it was necessary, by changing the hours of operation, class times, and/or reducing
enrollment: The applicant has agreed to these conditions and stated that he anticipates
a maximumenrollment of 45 students.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning, Commission adopt the attached Resolution
(Attachment #1) approving Conditional Use Permit for Planning Case No. PL2011-058,
to operate a 3,835 square-foot tutoring center, based on the findings, subject to
conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution.
Prepared by: Reviewed by:
file b ?l�
Grace S. Lee Greg bman, AICP
Senior Planner Community Development Director
Attachments:
Attachment 1
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTIONNO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONALUSE PERMIT
NO. PL 2011-058, A REQUEST TO OPERATE A 3,835 SQUARE -FOOT
TUTORING CENTER, LOCATED AT 782-784 PINEFALLS ''AVENUE,
DIAMOND BAR, CA (ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 8760-027-003).
A. RECITALS
1. Property owner; Ronald E. Albrecht, Sterling Capital, and applicant, Manikku;
Malraj, Ranmal Educational Services, have filed an application for. Conditional
Use Permit No. PL 2011-058 to operate a tutoring °center, located at 782-
784 Pinefalls' Avenue, 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 Light Industrial (I) zone and is consistent with
the General Commercial land use category of the General Plan.
3. The legal 'description of the subject property 'is identified as Assessor's Parcel
Number is 8760-027-003.
4. On April 15, ` 2011; 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 Sitesand 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 April 26, 2011, the Planning Commission continued the item to the May 10,
2011 meeting
6. On May 10, 2011, the Planning Commission continued the item to the May 24,
2011 meeting:
7. On May, 24,_ 2011, 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; PartA, of.this Resolution are true and correct;
2. The Planning Commission hereby determinesthe Project to be Categorically
1� Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to the provisions of Article 19, Section 15.3.01 (existing facility) 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 Industrial zoning district with approval of a
conditional use permit.
2. The proposed use is consistent with the general plan and any applicable
specific plan;
The proposed use is consistent with General Plan Strategy 1.3.3: ("Encourage
neighborhood serving retail and service commercial uses') in that the proposed
tutoring center meets Strategy 1.3.3 because the proposed tutoring center
provides services to Diamond Bar residents.
The site is not subject to the provisions of any 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;
The proposed use is located within, a multi -tenant industrial park occupied by
various warehouses and service uses including a reproduction/copy center.
The proposed. tutoring center will be compatible with uses in close proximity
such as the music school and the. dance school located within the same
industrial park across the street of the proposed site. Discovery World
Montessori preschool/elementary school is also located in close proximity to the
proposed tutoring center.' As such, the operational characteristics of. the
proposed tutoring center are compatible with the existing land uses. in the.
vicinity. 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 industrial park.
2 _
Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2011-58.
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 an existing industrial park that has other
educational uses. The proposed use is compatible with other uses in the
surrounding areas such as a music and dance school to the west and a
preschool and elementary school to the southeast. Based on staff's fieldstudy
and parking requirements per the Development Code, it is estimated that at
least 20` spaces would be available during business hours at all times to
accommodate staff parking and student pick-up/drop-offs. A condition is added
to the project requiring the applicant to stagger the starting time of each class in
15 minute intervals, with the total student enrollment capped at 60 students.
Given the expected pattern of trip generation throughout the day, it is highly
unlikely for parking, to be deficient during the brief periods of turnover for the
pick-up and drop=off of students. Based on the analysis, it is unlikely that there
will be parking congestion of patrons looking for spaces during pick-up and
drop-off times. Moreover, staff is recommending a condition of approval to
review the application in six' months, to assess the operations of the use and
parking impacts.
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 all conditions: of approval within the attached resolution, and the
Building and Safety Division.
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 of the
California Environmental Quality .Act (CEQA) as set .forth under Article 19
Section:15301(existing facility) 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. The establishment is approved as a tutoring center, as described in the
application on file with the Planning Division, the Planning Commission staff
".` report for Conditional Use Permit PL 2011-058 dated April 26 and. May 24, .
2011' and the Planning Commission minutes pertaining thereto, hereafter.
referred to as the "Use". The use shall be limited to a tutoring center.
3
Conditional Use Permit No. P.L2011 58'
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 782-784 Pinefalls Avenue, as
depicted on the approved plans on file with the Planning Division. If the
proposed ,use moves to a .different location or expands 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. This approval specifies, limitations on class sizes and business hours based on
the presumption that the proposed 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:
a. Business hours - Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 6:15 p.m.;
Lei
Staggered start times of each class in 15 minute intervals, with a total of
six sessions per day;
Thirty or fewer students and three. instructors at any one time; and,
d. Total student enrollment of 60 students.
If, at any time, the City finds that the proposed use is the: cause of a parking
deficiency of 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.
5. The Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed six months after approval to allow
the Commission to assess the adequacy of the parking and operations of the
use. This would give the Commission the ability to further condition the project
if actual operating experience within the six months showed it necessary, by
changing the hours of operation, class times, and/or reducing enrollment.
6. No changes to the approved scope of services comprising the use shall .be
permitted unless the applicant first appliesfor an amendment to this Conditional
Use Permit, pays all application processing fees and receives approval from the
Planning Commission and/or City Council.
_ 4 _
Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2011-58
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:
Ronald E. Albrecht, Sterling Capital, 8502 E. Chapman # 184, Orange,
CA 92369; and Manikku Malraj, Ranmal Educational Services, 801 Brea
Canyon Road; Diamond Bar, CA 91789.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24th DAY OF MAY 2011, BY` THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.'
By:
Jack Shah, Chairman
COMMUNITY DEV.ELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
PROJECT #: Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2011-058
SUBJECT: Tutoring Center
APPLICANT: Nlanikku Malrai
LOCATION: 782-784 Pinefalls Avenue, Diamond Bar, CA 91789
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 2011-058 brought within the time period provided by Government
Code Section 66499.37. In the event the city and/or its officers, agents
and employees are made a party of any such action:
_(a) Applicant shall provide a defense to the City defendants or at the
City's option reimburse the City its costs of defense, including
reasonable attorneys fees, incurred in defense of such claims;
(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
6
Planning Commission Resolution No: 2011 -XX
approval of this Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2011-058 at the City of
Diamond Bar Community Development Department, their affidavit stating
that they are aware of and agree toaccept 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
contractorsassociated' 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: ,
request shall not*waive com
Approval of this req liance.with all sections of the p
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:
. 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, prion: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
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
7
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011-XX
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
DBMC 22.66.050 (b)(1). The applicant may request in writing a one year
time extension subject to DBMC Section 22.60,050(c) for Planning
Commission approval.
APPLICANT SHALL.CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 839
7020, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Plans shall conform to State and Local Building Code (i.e.., 2007 California
Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code,
and the California Electrical Code unless submitted after January 1, 2010,
which will be covered under the 2010 code series) requirements and all
other applicable construction codes, ordinances and regulations in effect
at the time of plan check submittal.
2. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such, time as all
California Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been
met. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy.
3. This project shall comply with the energy conservation requirements.of the
State ,of California Energy Commission. All lighting shall be high efficacy
or equivalent per the current California Energy Code.
4. This project shall upgrade items that are "readily achievable" with all
Accessibility Code requirements including accessible parking, path of
travel, elevators, restrooms, drinking fountains, etc. Provide compliance
with van accessible parking, path of travel; etc. Reception counter shall
comply with the Title 24 accessibility requirements.
5. "Separate permit shall be required for all wall and monument signs", and
shall be noted on plans:
6. Provide exit analysis showing occupant load for each space, exit width,
exit signs, etc. The exiting design shall include clarification of exiting
through adjoining rooms per CBC 1014.2, exit signage per CBC 1011, and
doors meeting CBC 1008.1.2 & 1008.1.9.
7. Indicate the proposed addition and existing building on the plans. Submit
code analysis' and justification showing the following:
a. Each building square foot;
b. Type of construction;:
C. Sprinkler system;.
d. Each group occupancy;
e. Occupancy separation per, CBC 508.3.3.;
f. Exit analysis for each building (occupant load/corridor rating/exit
:
width/exit signs; etc.); and
Planning Commission Resolution No. N11-XX-
Attachment 2
t �
('.
r M , _ COMMISSION
-PLANNING
AG Eft DA REPORT
��tvga
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - 21825 COPLEY DRIVE- DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 TEL. (909) 839-7030 - FAX (909) 861-3117
AGENDA ITEM NO.
8.2
MEETING DATE:
April 26,.,2011
CASE/FILE NUMBER:
Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2011-058
PROJECT LOCATION:'
_ 782-784 Pinefalls Avenue (Los Angeles County
Assessor's' Parcel-Number.8760-027-003)
PROPERTY OWNER:
Ronald E. Albrecht
Sterling Capital
8502 E. Chapman; #184
Grange, CA 92369
APPLICANT;
Manikku Malraj
Ranmal Educational Services
801 Brea Canyon, Road;
Diamond Bar, CA 91789:..
Summary
The applicant, Manikku
Malraj, is .requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP):to. operate a 3,835
square -foot tutoring centerat 7827784 Pinefalls Avenue. The
proposed tutoring center
will serve children in grade .levels between kindergarten. and
sixth grade.
After evaluating the application,'staff finds that -the Conditional.Use Permit.c6mplieswith
the City's;. development
standards...and`, meets the findings required of the project.
Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve CUP
No. PL 2011-058, subject to the conditions' of approval contained in the attached
resolution..
Background
The project site is located
at 782-784 Pinefalls Avenue, in an industrial park at the
corner ,of Pinefalls' Ave
and Lycom'ing 'Drive. The industrial park is comprised, of 15
buildings and 18.parcels,
and each building occupies its own lot.
On October 7, 2010, staff was contacted by the Los Angeles County Fire Department
regarding the. operation of a school at the subject site. Staff conducted a site visit on
October 18, 2010, and observed a business operating at 782 Pinefalls'.Avenue. Staff
informed the business owner to close the business until a CUP approval was obtained,
and the business ceased operation on October 25, 2010;
Project Description
The proposed tutoring center will provide instruction in math, reading,: writing,
communication, and test preparation for children between the kindergarten and sixth
grade levels. Six subjects will be available each day, as described in the.attached
business description (Attachment 3).
The proposed hours of operation are Monday through Friday from 8:00 a. m. to
6.00 p.m. Sessions for each category are 90 -minutes in length and offered for groups
of three to nine students, and one-on-one tutoring. There will be three instructors in the
morning and three in the afternoon, totaling six. The tutoring center expects to have a
maximum of ten students and three instructors during any subject slot.
The proposed floor plan includes three individual tutoring rooms, three offices, two
restrooms, and a lobby. The proposed space is 3,835 square feet.
Site and Surrounding General Plan, Zoning and Land Uses
The project site located in an industrial park on Lycoming Street between Brea Canyon
Road and Lemon Avenue.
ANALYSIS:
Review Authoritv (Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Section 22.58
Planning: Commission approval of a. Conditional Use Permit is required; for the
establishment of a new.tutoring center.
Conditional Use` Permit.:.
A Conditional Use Permit (CIDP) is required for uses whose effect on the surrounding
area cannot bei determined before being analyzed for suitability at a particular location.,
The 1, (Light._Industrial) 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'et 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
Conditional Use. Permit No. PL 2011-058
tutoring center were to close after, it has begun operating, a new tenant could locate in
the space and operate the same ,type of tutoring center. The new tenant would be
required to comply with;the same conditions as the previous tenant .arid would not be
permitted to expand the tutoring business without full review and approval by the
Planning Commission..
Compatibility- with_ Neighborhood
The proposed project complies with the goals and objectives as set forth in the adopted
General Plan in terms of land. use. The. project will not negatively affect the existing
surrounding land uses,":and the proposed business :is compatible with;` various types of
businesses in the area',* such as The Music Store and ' Dello's. Dance Studio located in
the industrial park,,.and Discovery World Montessori elementary. school: located at the
southwest corner of Brea Canyon Road and Lycoming Drive.
The operational characteristics of the proposed tutoring center will not be incompatible
with Wayne's Automotive located next door: Wayne's Automotive. -is a`warehouse that
stores antique vehicles for recreational use by the tenant. There is no retail, car repair,
or services provided to the public that would impact any existing businesses on the
property. Wayne's Automotive and North Point. Printing Shop are'not incompatible uses
with the proposed tutoring center because the children will be situated indoors within the
building. Children will not be allowed to leave the premises until a parent or guardian
arrives to pick them up from their class.
Given the proposed hours of operation, the availability of parking, and the types of
adjoining uses, it is expected that the tutoring. center would be a compatible use at this
location:
required for the proposed tutoring, business. The total number of spaces required has a
mathematical deficiency of 4. spaces.
Number of Spaces Required .
780 Pinefalls Wayne's Auto 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. 2
782 Pinefalls Proposed 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 25
784 Pinefalls Tutoring Center
786 Pinefalls Warehouse Vacant 2
788 Pinefalls North Point Printing 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. 5
Shop
Total 34
The proposed business hours are 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and
closed Saturdays and Sundays: The business hours forithe other two businesses.are
from 8:00a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday. through Sunday: The. business hours' of the
tutoring' center and the other businesses overlap on Monday through Friday between
8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
One of the purposes of the Conditional Use Permit process is to consider potential
impacts the proposed use may have .on parking on the property. When reviewing
parking impacts on properties with shared uses, the various uses and: business hours
for those uses are taken into consideration. Diamond Bar Municipal Code
Section 22.30.050, states that when "two or more nonresidential. uses. are developed as
a recognized shopping or professional center and two or more uses have distinct and
different peak parking usage periods, (e.g. a theater and a bank), parking paces may
be allowed through the approval of a parking ,permit, provided -that the most remote
spaces. is ,located within 300 feet of the use it is intended to serve... A shared parking
analysis may be required by the directorto support a. request for a parking reduction:"
Staff surveyed the site during various hours of the day that the proposed tutoring center
and the other two .tenants would be in use. This . is a conservative approach to
analyzing the parking impacts because it is not clear whether there is reciprocal parking
among the parcels in the industrial park. Staff has not been able to verify this because
the industrial park was developed prior to the incorporation of the City, under Los
Angeles County standards.
011-058
Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2 .
8:00 AM 5 2 2 1 2
9:00.AM 8 4 4 3 3-
10:00 AM 1.0 7, 6' S 5 ;.
_ 11 -00 -AM: -7 _ 6 8 __:".. 7 .
12:00 PM 7 6 5 8 7
1:00 PM 8 8 6 4. 6
2:00 PM 7 7 6 4 5
3:00 PM 7 .6 5 55
4:00 PM 5 4 3 4 4
5:00 PM 6 4 1 4. 0
The parking "study revealed that there is a substantial number of unused parking spaces
throughout the day, so staff does not foresee any parking issues resulting from the
proposed use. The existing parking supply is adequate and can accommodate the
proposed tutoring center. The proposed tutoring center would offer a maximum of one
session with .up to nine students, one-on-one tutoring, and three instructors during any
single time slot, thus it, is not likely that more than 13 parking spaces would be occupied
at any one time to accommodate 10 students and three instructors. All students are
minors and would be dropped off by a parent, so parking demand for drop-off and pick-
up activities would be for very short durations.
Additional Review
The Public Works Department and Building and Safety Division reviewed this project
and included their comments in the attached resolution as conditions, of approval
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAPING:
On April 15, 2011, 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. A. notice displayboard was
posted at the site,- and ,a copy of the notice was posted at the City's three designated
.: community posting. sites. -
Public
Public Comments Received
At t( e.time the staff report was published, staff had not received any comments from the
public:
-ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
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.... .
Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2011-058
Conditional Use Permit No., PL 2011-058
Attachment 3
PLAN MNG COMMISSION
k..,,
AG
E`NDA REPORT
4if3q .
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - 21825 COPLEY DRIVE -- DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 - TEL. (909) 839-7030- FAX (909) 861-3117
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.2
MEETING DATE: May 10,2011
CASE/FILE NUMBER: Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2011-058
PROJECT LOCATION: 782-784 Pinefalls Avenue (Los Angeles County
Assessor's Parcel Number 8760-027-003)
PROPERTY OWNER:' Ronald E. Albrecht
Sterling Capital
8502 E' Chapman,#184
Orange, CA 92369
APPLICANT: Manikku Malraj
Ranmal Educational Services
801 Brea Canyon Road
Diamond Bar, CA 91789
The Commissioncontinued this matter from the April 26, 2011, meeting after : it
discovered that the applicant understated the proposed enrollment in the business plan
submitted to staff. Stafrs parking demand analysis, determined that the proposed facility
cannot accommodate more than 10 students at any one time, due to the limited amount`
of available ,off-street parking. Despite this information, the applicant stated that. he.
would still like to have three sessions with ten students in each session, totaling, 30
students with three instructors at any one time.
During the staff survey of the site,.the highest number of spaces occupied during a one
week period was ten spaces for the current. uses on-site.. With 1 30 parking spaces
provided on-site, there are 20 vacant parking. spaces available during peak business
hours. Therefore, the existing parking .supply, cannot accommodate the applicant's
proposal. With 30 students and three instructors, 63 spaces are required to
accommodate the parking for three instructors, pick-up of 30 students and drop-off of 30
students during the start and end of each session:
The site is currently occupied by North Point Print Shop and Wayne's Auto which
require seven parking spaces per the Development Code. Furthermore, thereis one
additional vacant unit available for lease,. which will further increase parking demand.
Due to the high demand for parking that the proposed tutoring center would generafie,
and lack of available spaces on-site, staff cannot support the intensity of the operational
characteristics of the proposed tutoring center at this location. The proposed tutoring
center would create a negative impact to the parking and circulation in the area.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the item to the May 24, 2011.
meeting to allow staff to prepare a Resolution denying Conditional Use Permit No. PL
2011-058 for a 3,835 sq.. ft. tutoring center, based on the findings of DBMC Section
22.58.
Prepared by: Reviewed by:
bgvi8 Ivar z Grace S. Lee '
Assistant Pla ner Senior Planner
1 Planning Commission Staff Report Dated April 26, 2011
2; Site Plan and Floor Plan
3 Business Description
4 Letter, from Business Owner Dated May 6, 2011
Conditional Use Permit No. PL 201.1-058
Attachment 4
New Tutoring Business Description
Our business is to tutor the minds of tomorrow's future. Statistics show that test scores and grades have
been at an all time low. Our business is to tutor children between kindergarten and sixth grade to excel in
math skills, algebra, geometry, communication skills, reading comprehension, writing skills, creative,
writing, and test preparatory. Our tutors use specialized equipment and methods to improve academic
performance and STAR scores and develop better studying and test taking skills. Specialized teaching
methods include "sentence technique'', "grammar symbols" and "dynamic link method" to teach
language. Specialized equipment includes the "geometric cabinet" used in math and geometry.
Our business focuses on specialized tutoring five major components, which include Test Preparation,
Math, Communication, Reading and Writing.We offer these subjects Monday through Friday at different
time slots between 8:00 am and 6:00 pm. Our sessions are 90 minutes in length for each category. There
are 3 groups of up to 10 children per session for a total of up to 30 children per 90 minute session. There
would be 3 instructors in the morning and, 3 instructors in the afternoon. A maj ority of clients enroll in
more than one session during the, day throughout the week. Therefore, there is minimal drop off and pick
up throughout the day. The average length of time needed for parking is 3-4 minutes per child for parents
to sign children in and out.. Therefore there would be no more than 10 parking spaces needed at any one
time.
Our business anticipates no more than 30 students during each tutoring session (3 `groups of up to 10
children per session). The majority of the students may take more than one subject session per day. Below
is a. chart of subjects available throughout the week to get a better understanding of how our program
offers different subject at different times Monday through Friday. We will not be open on the weekend.
Currently, there. are similar. business that cater to children in this same age group (Kindergarten - 5th
grade) including The Music Store (teach music to children) and Dellos Dance (teach dance to children). `
Both are in the same business park located across the street.
Time
Monday -Friday
C-).
8:00 am — 9:30 am
Test Preparation
J Communication .
Math
9:30 am. -11:00 am
Reading
Writing
Test Preparation
11:00 am -12:30 pm,
Communication
Math
Reading
1:00 pm- 1:30 m
CLOSED FOR LUNCH,
1:30 m — 3:00 pm
Test Preparation
Communication
Math
3:00 pm. — 4:30 pm
Reading
Writing
Test Preparation
4:30 pm— 6:00 pm
Communication
Math
Reading
*Each tutoring session block accommodates 3 groups of up to 10 students each.
C-).
a
a.
Q�
� .
Attachment 5
RECEIVED BY THE
CITY CF DIAMOND BAR
Ranmal Educational Services
801 Brea Canyon Road 2011 MAY 16 PH 12 18
Diamond Bar, CA 91789
(909) 598-5540
5/15/11
Grace Lee
Senior Planner
City of Diamond Bar
Dear Ms. Grace,
Please make the following revisions to the Tutoring Business Description that was previously submitted:
Further to our discussion held on Thursday, May 12, 2011. at your office we hereby agree to the chart you
provided to us that staggered each session block by 15 minute intervals.
Paragraph 2 should read:
Our business focuses on specialized tutoring five major components, which included Test
Preparation, Math; Communication, Reading and Writing. We offer these subjects -
Monday through Friday at different time slots between 8am and 6pm. Our sessions
are 90 minutes in length for each category. There are 3 groups of up to 10 children per session for
a total of up to 30 children per 90 minute session. Each session will start with 15 minutes
staggered intervals. There would be 3 teachers in the morning and 3 teachers in the afternoon. A
majority of clients enroll in more than one session during the day throughout the week. Therefore,
there is minimal drop off and pick up throughout the day. The average length of time needed for
parking is 3-4 minutes per child for parents to sign children in and out.
Paragraph 3 should read:
Our business anticipates no more than 30 students during each tutoring session (3 groups of up to
10 children per session). The majority of the students may take more than one subject session per
day. We have attached.a chart of subjects and start /finish times of each session along with staff
arrival. schedule throughout the week to get a better understanding of how our program offers
different subject at different times Monday through Friday. We will are not open on the
weekend. .
Paragraph 4 should read:.
Currently, there are similar business that cater to children in this same age group (Kindergarten -
5t" grade) including The Music Store (teach music to children) and Dellos Dance (teach dance to
children). Both are in the same business park located across the street.
Also. please add the following statement on the Tutoring Schedule Chart:'
Each Tutoring session block accommodates 3 groups of up to 10 students each.
ease e- il a co of corrected business statement to me. Thank you for your assistance.
Manniku Malraj
Secretary
Ranmal Educational Services Inc:;
PROPERTYOWNER: STERLING CAPITAL INC.
ADDRESS: 780-788 P|NEF4LLS AVE.. DIAMOND BAR, CA 91783
ZONING: INDUSTRIAL |)
APN: 8760-027-003i TRACT 32554, LOT 2
LOT SIZE: 21.466 S.F.
BUILDING SQUARE FEET: 3.588 E.F.
BUSINESS OWNER(S): RANWAL'EDUCATI0NAL SERVICES INC.
eUs|N[Ss OWNER'S ADDRESS: 801 BRE4 CANYON ROAD. DIAMOND BAR, CA 91789
BUSINESS AREA: 3.e35 S.F.
it�6.33'—_______ �
~
(E) PARKING �
pnnposED rmonwo �
'
AREA: 3,835 S.F.
w o 12 n ,n , o / n s * o c 1 -
| � � n /`
(E) mmNc'S AUTO vxcxwr (E) PRINT SHOP
`.mass 1.897sF. ,
(WAREHOUSE) (WAREHOUSE) U.I MANUFACTURING)
SITE PLAN
NOT TOSCALE
�
�
�
OFFICE
r778iOl. 78
784 r786]
r788
(E) PLANTER
OFFICE
TER
3
14
PARKIN
(E) PARKING
15
15
2
It 81.37'
(E) DRIVEWAY
. P|N[FALLS AVENUE
`
SITE PLAN
NOT TOSCALE
�
�
�
)PERTY OWNER: STERLING CAPITAL INC.
)RESS: 780-788 PINEFALLS AVE., DIAMOND BAR, CA 91789
DING: INDUSTRIAL (1)
A: 8760-027-003, TRACT 32554, LOT 2
SIZE: 21,466 S.F.
LDING SQUARE FEET: 9,586 S.F.
51NESS OWNER(S): RANMAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICES INC.
31NESS OWNEWS ADDRESS: 801 BREA CANYON ROAD, DIAMOND BAR, CA 91789
3INESS AREA: 3,835 S.F. f -/I
y
----------------- Ft —126.33' ----
_- -- i
(E) PARKING
(. AREA: 3,835 S.F.
14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Math
Classroom Communlcetlon/
Reading/Wrlting
Classroom
Test Prep / Lli
Classroom L i
(E) WAYNE'S AUTO / VACANT (E) PRINT SHOP Elf
AdminIstrallon
1,957 S.F. Room 1,697 S.F. 1,897 S.F. (n
(WAREHOUSE) j / (WAREHOUSE) (WAREHOUSE/
OFfl3 MANUFACTURING) z
Office `/
N (f Ca V O
w Restroc / s
Restroo J
OFFICE
Lobby
780 782 784 786 OFFICE 788
co
(E) PLANTER (E) PLANTER
m
(E) LAWN e 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1Z 13 gg
�7
� o
3 14
(E) PARKING 15
2 —
I y,
t 1 16
o"
(E) DRIVEWAY
PINEFALLS .AVENUE
SITE PLAN N
1021"'AW1025 �tl 00—K 0, 1'9.--s.•,
, 1 0-0, ii T", AN 11, 10",
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - 21825 COPLEY DRIVE - DIAMOND BAR, CA. 91765 - TEL. (909) 839-7030 - FAX (909) 861-3117
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 8.1
MEETING DATE: May 24, 2011
CASE/FILE NUMBER: Tentative Parcel Map No. 71362
(Planning Case No. PL 2010-128)
PROJECT LOCATION: 2127 Derringer Lane, Diamond Bar, CA 91765
(Assessor's Parcel No. 8713-034-030)
PROPERTY OWNERS: Sumermal Vardhan
320 Woodruff
Walnut, CA 91789
APPLICANT: Tritech Associates, Inc.
135 N. San Gabriel Blvd.
San Gabriel, CA 91775
The applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide an existing
vacant 133,697 square -foot (3.07 acres) gross lot into two separate lots for the
development of a single-family residence on each lot. Proposed Parcel 1 is 73,283
square -feet (1.68 acres) and Parcel 2 is 60,414 square -feet (1.34 acres). The property
is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use
designation.
In compliance with the City's development standards, the proposed location of the
building pads are identified, and the retaining walls associated with the lots pads are
designed to be four feet high.
After evaluating the application, staff finds that the proposed Tentative Parcel Map
complies with the City's. Subdivision Ordinance and that the subdivision findings
required pursuant to Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 21.20.080 can be made.
Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
Tentative Parcel Map No. 71362 (Planning Case No. PL 2010-438) to the City Council,
subject to the conditions of approval contained in the attached Resolution.
�Ull. I �11 I �Vll P101
The site is located in The Diamond Bar Country Estates (The Country), a gated
residential community served by fully improved private streets. It is located on the west
side of Derringer Lane, between Ridgeline and Indian Creek Road. The property is
surrounded by single-family homes to the north and east, a vacant lot approved for the
development of a single-family residence to the south, and open space area to the west.
The existing vacant lot is 133,697 gross square -feet (3.07 gross acres). There is
minimal vegetation with no protected trees on-site.
The site is legally described as Lot 56 of Tract No. 23483, and the Assessor's Parcel
Number (APN) is 8713-034-030.
Page 2 of 8
CD: Staff Reports PC/Derringer Lane 2127 TPM PL2010-128 PC Staff Report 05-24-201 Mou
am
Site Aerial
M
M
HE
The application request is to subdivide the existing lot into two separate lots for the
development of a single-family residence on each lot. The gross and net size (after the
dedication of the private street easement) of each lot is provided in the table below.
— - - -1,2- �, �.,%tg , 4 �
zi e�i, 4�� mmmrgv,
"ar
s ce., u7 gqg , g w, 45,H up, N
`5 1 5 "', P
P
Ot
OT 60,414 sq. ft. (1.39 acres) - Gross
IMeNEMUMAIMMMIM, M- 54,804 sq. ft. (1.26 acres) - Net
The Development Review application of the single-family home on Parcel 1 will be
scheduled for review by the Planning Commission at the next meeting, and the
application for Parcel 2 will be submitted for processing in the future.
Page 3 of 8
CD: Staff Reports PC/Derringer Lane 2127 TPM PL2010-128 PC Staff Report 05-24-201 Mocx
ii " 1 1 , 1 --,
w , " ! � 1 1 ::: , � 11, AV 11 SRI
I - 1 -1 � I , �. , �1210111 =4 6,11
Section 21.02.040 of the City's Municipal Code requires all subdivision applications to
be reviewed and approved by the City Council. Therefore, the Planning Commission
will be forwarding a recommendation to the City Council for this request.
Tentative Map: A tentative map is a map approving the division of land for the purpose
of sale, lease, or financing, and is governed by the Subdivision Map Act. It approves
how the land is to be subdivided. The City of Diamond Bar's Subdivision Ordinance
establishes the minimum standards for the design of the lots, and the public
improvements which serve them. A subdivision of four or fewer parcels requires a
parcel map, and a subdivision of five or more parcels requires a tract map. When a
Planning Commission or City Council considers a tentative parcel or tract map, it must
be reviewed in light of the required findings mandated by state law for approval or denial
of the map.
Once the tentative map is approved, the more refined final map is approved by the City
Council if deemed by the City Engineer to be in substantial conformance with the
tentative map. The final map is then recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder's
Office, and is deemed valid.
The maximum allowed density for the Rural Residential general plan land use
designation and zoning district is one dwelling unit per gross acre (1 DU/AC).
Therefore, with a 3.07 acre lot, the proposed project is in compliance with the City's
General Plan with regards to density.
The -table on -the following page compares the proposed project with the City's
Subdivision and Development Code standards:
Page 4 of 8
CD: Staff Reports PC/Derringer Lane 2127 TPM PL2010-128 PC Staff Report 05-24-201 I.docx
t
Is
250'— Parcel 1
ifi0ywplidfffig?�i!��
Minimum 60'
360'
Yes
U 1
110'— Parcel 2
5 Parcel0bot
Average 375'— Parcel I
js,t4i, I ,.K
Minimum 80'
375'
Average 360'— Parcel 2
Yes
h—al . -
Maximum 4'
m
None
4' for Both Parcels
Yes
V
. ... . . . . .
Page 4 of 8
CD: Staff Reports PC/Derringer Lane 2127 TPM PL2010-128 PC Staff Report 05-24-201 I.docx
The City's subdivision standards require proposed building pad locations to be identified
for parcels with a slope of 20 percent or greater. The average slope of the site is
approximately 21 percent. The building pad of the proposed single-family residences
complies with the Development Code. Also, the retaining walls associated with the lots
pads are designed to be four feet high.
As pail of the subdivision review, staff sent notices to all public utility companies and
service agencies regarding the proposed subdivision request. All agencies will be
expected to provide service to each lot, including providers of gas, electrical, water,
sewer, and cable television services.
The detailed site planning, building footprints, floor plan, exterior design, landscaping
and grading will be submitted for review during the Development Review application
process for the development of each lot.
Therefore, the proposed subdivision is in conformance with the City's General Plan and
zoning, and all applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. The project
complies with the minimum lot area and density. No variances or exceptions are
required, and all public utilities and services are available to service the project.
The project site is located. within The Country Estates, a gated residential community
served by fully improved private streets. The driveway access to both properties is 14
feet wide, in compliance with the Development Code. The circulation on-site will be
reviewed during the Development Review application process.
mu"m MF al, gggm; =-ug
The proposed subdivision is consistent with the City's General Plan whereby it complies
with the allowable density. The site is surrounded by single-family residential
development and therefore will be compatible with the surrounding uses. To ensure
that the architectural and site plan design complies with the City's Development Code
and Design Guidelines, the design of the buildings and landscaping on each lot will be
reviewed during the Development Review application process.
Page 5 of 8
CD: Staff Reports PC/Derringer Lane 2127 TPM PL2010128 PC Staff Report 05-24-201 l.docx
Adjacent Vacant Lot to the South
Existing Vacant Site
Adjacent Single Family Residence to the North
Pursuant to the Subdivision Ordinance, the City requires the dedication of land or
payment of fees for park or recreational purposes. The land or fees are to be used only
for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing park or recreational facilities
to serve the subdivision, and the amount and location of land to be dedicated or amount
of fees paid shall bear a reasonable relationship to the use of the park and recreational
facilities by the future inhabitants of the subdivision.
The amount of acreage required to be dedicated by the applicant is based upon the
number of dwelling units from the subdivision. The proposed subdivision will result in
two dwelling units. The required dedicated acreage is computed using the following
formula:
Page 6 of 8
I CD: Staff Reports.PC/Derringer Lane 2127 TPM PL2010-128 PC Staff Report 05-24-2011; docx
X =.005(UP)
Where X = Amount of parkland required, in acres.
U = Total number of approved dwelling units in the subdivision.
P = 3.4 for single-family dwellings.
The in -lieu fee equals the parkland obligation derived from the formula above, multiplied
by the fair market value of the land for the appropriate park planning area. The
assessment is a fair market value of the land for the amount of acreage calculated to be
dedicated. The in lieu fee for this project is determined to be $26,138 and shall be paid
to the City prior to final map approval (Condition #7 under Tentative Parcel Map
Conditions). The fees collected shall be committed within five years after payment of
the fees or the issuance of building permits on one-half of the lots created by the
subdivision, whichever occurs later. If the fees are not committed, they are distributed
and paid to each record owner of the subdivision in the same proportion that the size of
each lot bears to the total area of all lots in the subdivision.
The Public Works Department and Building and Safety Division reviewed this project
and included their comments in the attached resolution as conditions of approval.
Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the
project site on May 9, 2011, and the notice was published in the Inland Valley Dail
Tribune and San Gabriel Valley Tribune newspapers on May 13, 2011. 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.
Public Comments Received
At the time the staff report was published, staff had not received any comments from the
public.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
This project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). Staff prepared and filed an Initial Study/Environmental Checklist and
Notice of Intent to Adopt Negative Declaration for the project on April 28, 2011, with the
Los Angeles County- Clerk and it is part of this report (Attachment 2). Pursuant to
CEQA Section 15105, the public review period for the Negative Declaration began,on
April 29, 2011 and ended on May 18, 2011. This project would have been exempt
under Article 19, Section 15315, Class 15 (Minor Land Divisions) except that the
Page 7 of 8
CD: Staff Reports PC/Derringer Lane 2127 TPM PL2010-128 PC Staff Report 05-24-201 I.docx
average slope of the property is greater than 20 percent. The average slope of the
property is 21 percent.
The Initial Study is a preliminary analysis to determine whether or not a Negative
Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is
needed for a project. If the Initial Study concludes that the proposed project will not
significantly affect the environment or may have the potential to effect the environment
but can be mitigated to a level of less than significant, a Negative Declaration or a
Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared, respectively.
A Negative Declaration is a written document that briefly describes the reasons that a
proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. It is used to
guide and assist the City staff, Planning Commission, City Council, and the public in the
consideration and evaluation of potential environmental impacts that may result from the
proposed project's development.
Once the Initial Study and Negative Declaration are prepared, a Notice of Intent to
Adopt a Negative Declaration is posted at the Los Angeles County Clerk and published
in the Inland Valley Daily Tribune and San Gabriel Valley Tribune newspapers. The
public review period must be no less than 20 days.
Staff prepared the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist for the proposed project, which
documents reasons to support the findings that the proposed project would not have
any potentially significant impacts on the environment.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution
(Attachment #1) recommending the approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 71362 for
Planning Case No. PL2010-128 to the City Council, to allow a subdivision of an existing
vacant lot into two separate lots, based on the findings, subject to conditions of approval
as listed within the draft resolution.
Prepared by:
Grace S. Lee
Senior Planner
Reviewed by:
---,T\ A,02���
Greg Gu L(0- an, AIC I
Community Development Director
1. Draft Resolution No. 2011 -XX and Conditions of Approval
2. Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
3. Tentative Parcel Map No. 71392
Page 8 of 8
CD: Staff Reports PC/Derringer Lane 2127 TPM PL2010-128 PC Staff Report 05-24-201 1.doc.-
a,
0, ffli 0"
110110M011W!1 A
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
NO. 71362 FOR SUBDIVISION OF AN EXISTING VACANT 3.07 ACRE LOT INTO
TWO LOTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON EACH
LOT LOCATED AT 2127 DERRINGER LANE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA
(APN 8713-034-030).
The property owner, Surnermal Vardhan, and applicant, Tritech Associates,
Inc., have filed an application for Tentative Parcel Map No. PL2010-128 to
subdivide an existing vacant lot into two separate lots for the development of a
single -family -residence on each lot located at 2127 Derringer Lane. Hereinafter
in this resolution, the subject Tentative Parcel Map *shall be collectively referred
to as the "Project."
2. The subject property is made up of one parcel totaling 133,697 gross square
feet (3.07 acres). It is located in the. Rural Residential (RR) zone with an
underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential.
3. The legal description of the subject property is Lot 56 of Tract No. 23483. The
Assessor's Parcel Number is 87137019-004.-
4. Notification of the public hearing for this project was published in the San
Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on
May 13, 2011. Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a
1,000 -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 and the notice was
posted at three other locations within the project vicinity;
5. On May 24, 2011, 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; and
6. The documents and materials constituting the administrative record of the
proceedings upon which the City's decision is based are located at the City of
Diamond Bar, Community Development Department, Planning Division,
21825,Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
55§�•''
NOW, THEREFORE, it is 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; and
2. In accordance to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), Section 15070, the City prepared and filed an Initial Study and Notice
of Intent to Adopt Negative Declaration for the project on April 28, 2011, with
the Los Angeles County Clerk. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15105, the public
review period for the Negative Declaration began April 29, 2011, and ended
May 18, 2011.
G. FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein and as prescribed under
Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Section 21.20, this Planning Commission
hereby recommends that the City Council make the following findings:
1. 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;
Tentative Map Findings: Pursuant to Subdivision Code Section 21.20.080 of
the City's Subdivision Ordinance, the Planning Commission recommends that
the City Council make the following findings:
a. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and
improvement, is consistent with the general plan and any applicable
specific plan;
The proposed project involves 'the subdivision of an existing vacant
133,697 square -foot (3.07 acres) gross lot into two separate lots for the
development of a single-family residence on each lot. Proposed Parcel I
is 73,283 square -feet (1.68 acres) and Parcel 2 is 60,414 square -feet.
(1.34 acres). The property is zoned Rural Residential with a consistent
underlying General Plan land use designation. The development of a
single-family residence an each lot will be processed through a
Development Review application for compliance with the City's General
Plan, City Design Guidelines and development standards. The project
will provide additional homeownership opportunities of single-family
housing that will be compatible with the surrounding development.
The project site is not part of any theme area, specific plan, community
plan, boulevard or planned development.
2
TPM No. 71362 PL 2010-128
b. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of
development;
The proposed subdivision will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of
neighboring existing or future developments because the use of each lot
is for a single-family home and the surrounding uses are also single-
family homes. The maximum allowed density for the Rural Residential
general plan land use designation and zoning district is one dwelling unit
per gross acre (I DU/Acre). Therefore, with a 3.07 acre lot, the
proposed project is in compliance with the City's General Plan with
regards to density. Also, the proposed location of the building pads and
footprints are in compliance with the development standards and the
retaining walls associated with the lot pads are designed to be four feet
high.
C. The design of the subdivision
cause substantial environmental
habitat;
or the proposed improvements will not
damage or injure fish or wildlife or their
Pursuant to the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.
(CEQA) Section 15168 et seq., an Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
and Negative Declaration has been prepared for the application and
found that the proposed project would not have any potentially significant
impacts on the environment.
d. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause
serious public health or safety problems;
The grading will be constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance
with the recommendations contained in the preliminary ,geotechnical
investigation to assure that geotechnical stability is maintained or
increased. Detailed drainage and hydrology studies will be 'completed,
including the potential for debris flows, and the proposed conditions of
approval will likely prevent any significant increases in erosion and flood
hazards.
Before the issuance of any City permits, the proposed project is required
to comply with all conditions within the approved resolution, and the
Building and Safety Division and Public Works Departments, and Los
Angeles County Fire Department requirements. Through the permit and
inspection process, the referenced agencies will ensure that the
proposed project is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare
or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity.
e. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements w ' ill not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large for access through or
use of, property within the proposed subdivision.
3
TPM No. 71362 PL 2010-128
The site does not have any access easements on-site. However, the
proposed project is conditioned to dedicate an easement in. front of the
property as part of the private street.
The proposed subdivision will not interfere with vehicular or pedestrian
movements, such as access or other functional requirements of a single-
family home because it complies with the requirements for driveway
widths.
The discharge of sewage from the proposed s * ubdivision into the
community sewer system would not result in violation of existing
requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board;
The proposed subdivision will not violate any requirement of the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board. To reduce water
quality impacts to a level less than significant, the proposed subdivision
is required to comply with the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Federal Clean Water Act, and the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)r program, implementing construction -
related Best Management Practices, (BMPs) and Standard Urban
Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) criteria. With project design
features related to the storm drain system and conditions of approval,
potentially significant water quality impacts would be reduced to a levels
less than significant.
9. A preliminary soils report or geologic hazard report does not indicate
adverse soil or geologic conditions; and
The grading will be constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance
with the recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical
investigation to assure that geotechnical stability is maintained or
increased.
h. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable 'provisions of
the City's subdivision ordinance, the development code, and the
subdivision map act.
The proposed subdivision is consistent with the City's subdivision
ordinance, subdivision map act, and applicable development code. In
addition, the development'of a single-family residence on each lot will be
processed through a Development Review application for compliance
with the City's development standards.
2. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, the Planning
Commission hereby recommends * that the City Council approve Tentative
Parcel Map No. 71362, subject to the following conditions and the attached
Standard Conditions of Approval:
4
TPM No. 71362 PL 2010-128
a.
b
The approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. PL2010-128 expires
within three years from the date of approval if the use has not
been exercised as defined per Diamond Bar Municipal Code
Section (DBMC) 21.20.140. The applicant may request in writing
for a three year time extension if submitted to the City no less than
60 days prior to the approval's expiration date, subject to
DBMC 21.20.150 for City Council approval;
2. Within five days of this approval, the subdivider/applicant shall pay
to the City, the Department of Fish and Game fee pursuant to
Section 711.4 of theFish and Game Code;
3. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of City Planning,
Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works Department, and the
Los Angeles County Fire Department;
4. 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 Tentative Parcel Map
No. PL2010-128, at the City of Diamond Bar Comniunity
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 applicant pay
the remaining City processing fees, school fees and fees for the
review of submitted reports.
5. The development of the single-family residence on each lot shall
be submitted for revieiw=:and approval of a Development Review
application and shall comply with the City's Development Code;
6. Prior to any use 'of the project site or business activity being
commenced thereon, all conditions of approval shall be
completed;
7. The project site shall be maintained and operated in full
compliance with the conditions of approval and all laws, or other
applicable regulations; and
8. Standard Conditions. The applicant shall comply with the standard
development conditions attached hereto.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CONDITIONS
Approval of the Tentative Parcel Map is for subdivision of land
only. No land use, or development entitlements are expressed or
implied.
5
TPM No. 71362 PL 2010-128
K
3.
The development shall provide
way for private streets, water
sewage disposal systems, stor
disposal and public utilities
telecommunications services;
parcels, e
supply and
-n drainage
providing
asements or rights -of -
distribution systems,
facilities, solid waste
electric, gas, and
All utilities shall be installed underground in compliance with
DBMC Section 21.30.110;
4. The development shall carry out the specific requirements of
Chapter 21.30 (Subdivision Design and Improvement
Requirements) and Chapter .21.34 (improvement Plans and
Agreements) of the Subdivision Ordinance;
5. The development shall secure, compliance with the requirements
of the Subdivision Ordinance and the General Plan;
6. The design of the . subdivision shall provide, to the extent feasible,
for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the
subdivisions, in compliance with Subdivision Map Act
Section 66473.1;
7. Prior to final parcel map approva
parkland- dedication in lieu fee for p
in the amount of $26,138, which E
derived from the formula in DBMC'%'
average per -acre fair market val
planning area. For the purposes o -
the term "fair market value" shall i
land as determined by the City
Commission or Council, prior to or
the subdivider objects to the valua
exDense, may obtain an appraisal
, the subdivider shall pay a
ark and recreational purposes
quals the parkland obligation
ection 21.32.040(C) times the
je for the appropriate park
determining the required fee,
iean the market value of the
staff, and approved by the
at tentative map approval. If
ion, the subdivider, at his/her
of the property by a qualified
real estate appraiser approved by the City whose appraisal may
be accepted by the City if found reasonable. Fair market value
may be determined by mutual agreement of the City and
subdivider; however, decisions of the City as to fair market value
shall be final and conclusive. Any fees collected shall be
committed within five years after payment, or issuance of building
permits on one-half of the lots created by the subdivision,
whichever occurs later. If the fees are not committed, they shall
be distributed and ' paid to the then record owners of the
subdivision in the same proportion that the size of their lot bears
to the total area of all lots'within the subdivision; and
8. The subdivider shall install any improvements necessary to fulfill
the conditions of approval. Improvement shall be defined as any
infrastructure including streets, storm drains, sewers and the like
in accordance to DBMC Section 21.34.020 thru 21.34.030.
6
TPM No. 71362 PL 2010-128
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:
Sumermal Vardhan, 320 Woodruff, Walnut, CA 91789, and Tritech Associates,
Inc, 135 N. San Gabriel Blvd., San Gabriel, CA 91775.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24" DAY OF MAY 2011,.BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
Jack Shah, Chairman
1, Greg Gubman, 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 24th day of May, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners:
NOES: Commissioners:
ABSENT: � Commissioners:
ABSTAIN: Commissioners:
ATTEST:
Greg Gubman, AICP, Secretary
7
TPM No. 71362 PL 2010-128
PROJECT #: Tentative Tract Map No. PL 2010-128
SUBJECT: To subdivide an existing vacant 133,697 square -foot (3.07 acres)
gross lot -into -two. separate lots for .the development. of a single-
family residence on each lot.
PROPERTY Surnermal Vardhan
W N E R (S) 320 Woodruff
Walnut, CA 91789
APPLICANT: Tritech Associates, Inc.
136 N. San Gabriel Blvd.
San Gabriel, CA 91775
I I IM=11111!11111 IT . I .
TOTOWNTE!, I a ., did
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION AT (909) 839-7030, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
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 Tentative Parcel Map No. PL 2010-128 brought within the
time period provided by Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the
city and/or its officers, agents and employees are made a party of any such
action:
(a) Applicant shall provide a defense to the City defendants or at the City's
option reimburse the City its costs of defense, including reasonable
attorneys fees, incurred in defense of such claims.
8
TPM No. 71362 PL 2010-128
(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. The subdivider/applicant shall remove the public hearing notice board within
three days of this project's approval.
3. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the
Development Code, all applicable City Ordinances, and any applicable Specific
Plan in effect at the time of grading and building permit issuance.
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 or grading permit (whichever comes first), as
required by the City. * In addition, the applicant shall pay all remaining prorated
City project review and processing fees prior to issuance of grading or building
permit, whichever comes first.
[WIRIVIC14,21 M& 101*9 ej 10
014 -IM10
If applicable, a detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical
conditions, fencing, and weed control, in accordance with City Master Trail
drawings, shall be submitted for review and approval prior to approval and
recordation of the Final Parcel Map and prior to,approval of the grading plan.
Developer shall upgrade and construct all trails, including fencing and drainage
devices.
2. A title report/guarantee showing all fee owners, interest holders, and nature of
interest shall be submitted for final parcel map plan check. An updated title
report/guarantee and subdivision guarantee shall be submitted ten (10)
business days prior to final parcel map approval.
3. A permit from the Los Angeles County Public Works Department shall be
required for work within its right-of-way or connection to its facilities,
4. Any existing easement for open space, utilities, riding and hiking trails shall be
relocated and/or grading performed, as necessary, to provide, for the portion
within the project site, practical access for the intended use.
5. Prior to final parcel map approval, written certification that all utility services and
any other service related to the site shall be available to serve the proposed
project and shall be submitted' to the City. Such letters shall be issued by the
district, utility and cable television company, within ninety (90) days prior to
parcel map approval.
9
TPM No. 71362 PL 2010-128
6-. Prior to final parcel map approval, applicant shall submit to the City Engineer
the detail cost estimates for bonding purposes of all grading and site
improvements.
7. Prior to final parcel map approval, if any public or private improvements
required as part of this map have not been completed by applicant and
accepted by the City, applicant shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the
City and shall post the appropriate security.
8. Prior to final parcel map approval all site grading, landscaping, irrigation, and
sewer improvement plans shall be approved by the City Engineer, surety shall
be posted, and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all public
and private improvements.
9. Prior to issuance of grading permits, surety shall be posted and an agreement
executed guaranteeing completion of all drainage facilities necessary for
dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
10. Any details or notes which may be inconsistent with requirement or ordinances,
general conditions or approval, or City policies shall be specifically approved in
other conditions or ordinance requirements and modified to those shown on the
tentative parcel map upon approval by the Advisory agency.
11. Easements for disposal of drainage water onto or over adjacent parcels shall be
delineated and shown on the final parcel map, as approved by the City
Engineer.
12. Easements, satisfactory to the City Engineer and the utility companies, for
public utility and public services purposes shall be offered and shown on the
final parcel map for dedication to the City.
13. After the final parcel map records, applicant shall submit to the Public
Works/Engineering Department, at 'no cost to the City, a full size- reproducible
copy of the recorded map. Final approval of the public improvements shall not
be given until the copy of the recorded map is received by the Public
Works/Engineering Department.
14. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall provide to the City as built mylars,
stamped by appropriate individuals certifying the plan for all improvements at no
cost to the City.
15. Applicant shall pay the deposits req ' uired for plan check, review, and inspection
to a separate engineering trust deposit where charges can be drawn by the City
or its representatives for services rendered.. Charges shall be on an hourly
basis and shall include any City administrative costs.
16. Applicant shall provide digitized information in a format defined by the City for
all related plans, at no cost to the City.
10
TPM No. 71362 PL 2010-128
17. All activities/improvements for the proposed Tentative Parcel Map shall be
wholly contained within the boundaries of the map. Should any off-site
activities/improvements be required, approval shall be obtained from the
affected property owner and the City as required by the City E ngineer.
18. Applicant shall submit recorded document(s) from the Diamond Bar Country
Estates Association indicating the . project will have proper/adequate right -of -
entry to the subject site.
1. No grading or any staging orconstructionshall be performed prior to final parcel
map approval by the City Council and map recordation or grading permit
issuance, whichever comes first. All pertinent improvement plans shall be
approved by the City Engineer prior to final parcel map approval by the City
Council.
2. Prior to beginning any grading activities, appropriate rodent barriers shall be
installed around the perimeter of the project site to prevent the migration of
rodents to existing residential and commercial sites. A plan detailing the
proposed rodent barriers to be' used by the developer/contractor shall be
submitted to the Public Works/Engineering Department for review.
3. Retaining wall location shall be shown on the grading plan and submitted with a
soils report to the Public Works/Engineering Department for review and
approval concurrently with the grading plan check.
4. Exterior grading and construction activities and the transportation of equipment
and materials and operation of heavy grading equipment shall be limited to
between the hours 'of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Dust
generated by grading and construction activities shall be reduced by watering
the soil prior to and during the activities and in accordance with South Coast Air
Quality Management District Rule 402 and Rule 403. Reclaimed water shall .be
utilized whenever possible. Additionally, all construction equipment shall be
properly muffled to reduce noise levels.
5. All equipment staging areas shall be located on the project site. Staging .area,
including material stockpile and equipment storage area, shall be enclosed
within* a six foot -high chain link fence. All access points in the defense shall be
locked whenever the construction site is not supervised.
6. Precise grading plans for each lot shall be submitted to the Community and
Development Services Department/Planning, Division for approval prior to
issuance of building permits. (This may be on an incremental or composite
basis).
11
TPM No. 71362 PL 2010-128
7. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California
Building Code, City Grading Ordinance, Hillside Management Ordinance and
acceptable grading practices.
8. The maximum grade of driveways - serving building pad areas shall be
15 percent. In hillside areas driveway grades exceeding 10 percent shall have
parking landings with a minimum 16 feet deep and shall not exceed five (5)
percent grade or as required by the City Engineer. Driveways with a slope of
15 percent shall incorporate grooves for traction into the, construction as
required by the City Engineer.
9. At the time of submittal of the 40 -scale grading plan for plan check, a detailed
soils and geology report shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval.
Said report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and/or geologist licensed
by the State of California. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the report
shall address, but not be limited to the following: I
a. Stability analyses of daylight shear keys with a 1:1 projection from
daylight to slide plane; a projection plane shall have a safety factor of
1.5.
b. All soils and geotechnical constraints (i.e., landslides, shear key
locations, etc.,) shall be delineated in detail with respect to proposed
building envelopes. Restricted use areas and structural setbacks shall
be considered and delineated prior to recordation of the final parcel map.
C. Soil remediation measures shall be designed for a "worst case" geologic
interpretation subject to verification in the field during grading.
d.' The extent of any remedial grading into natural areas shall be clearly
defined on the grading plans.
e. Areas of potential for debris flow shall be defined and proper remedial
measures implemented as approved by the City Engineer.
f. Gross stability of all fill slopes shall be analyzed as part of geotechnical
report, including remedial fill that replaces natural slope. ,
9. Stability of all proposed slopes shall be confirmed by analysis as
approved by the'City Engineer.
h. All geologic data including landslides and exploratory excavations must
be shown on a consolidated geotechnical map using the 40 -scale final
grading plan as a base.
i. All geotechnical and soils related findings and recommendations shall be
reviewed and approved by -the City Engineer prior to issuance of any
grading permits and recordation of the final parcel map.
10. Final grading plans shall be designed in compliance with the recommendations
of the final detailed soils and engineering geology reports. All remedial
earthwork specified in the final report shall be incorporated into the grading
12
TPM No. 71362 PL 2010-128
. plans. Final grading plans- shall be signed and stamped 'by a California
registered Civil Engineer, registered Geotechnical Engineer and registered
Engineering Geologist and approved by the City Engineer.
11. The applicant shall comply with Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan
(SUSMP) requirements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Please refer to
City handouts. The applicant shall incorporate Structural or Treatment Control
Best Management Practices for storm water runoff into the grading plans for
construction and post -construction activities respectively.
12. All slopes shall be seeded per landscape plan and/or fuel modification plan with
native grasses or planted with ground cover, shrubs, and trees for erosion
control upon completion of grading or some other alternative method of erosion
control shall be completed to the -satisfaction of the City Engineer and a
permanent irrigation system shall be installed.
13. An Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted concurrently with the grading plan
clearly detailing erosion control measures. These measures shall be
implemented during construction and maintained by the contractor all year
round. The erosion control plan shall conform t ' o national Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) standards and incorporate. the appropriate Best
Management Practices (BMP's) as specified in the Storm Water BMP
Certification.
14. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be submitted- to the
State and City for approval prior to issuance of any permits.
15. Submit a stockpile plan showing the proposed location for stockpile for grading
export materials, and the route of transport.
16. Prepare a horizontal control plan and submit concurrently with the grading plan
for review and approval.
17. Prior to the issuance of Grading Permits, a pre -construction meeting must be
held at the project site with the grading contractor, -applicant, and city grading
inspector at least 48 hours prior to commencing grading operations.
18. Rough Grade certifications by project civil and soils engineer and an as -graded
geotechnical report shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits for
the foundations of structures. Retaining wall permit may be issued concurrently
with the grading permit.
19. Final Grade certifications by project civil engineer shall be submitted to the
Public Works/Engineering Department prior to the issuance of any project final
inspections/certificate of occupancy.
13
TPM No. 71362 PL 2010-128
C
All terrace drains and drainage channels shall be constructed in muted earth
tones so as not to impart adverse visual impacts. Terrace drains shall follow
landform slope configuration and shall not be placed in an exposed positions.
All down drains shall be, hidden in swales diagonally. or curvilinear across a
slope face.
2. All drainage improvements necessary for dewatering and protecting the
subdivided properties shall be in ' stalled prior to issuance of building permits, for
construction upon any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering,
leaving, or within a parcel relative to which a building permit is requested.
3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a complete hydrology and hydraulic
study shall be prepared by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Los Angeles Public Works
Department.
F-11
E. UTILITIES
11' 111111 J
1 Easements, satisfactory to the City Engineer and the utility companies, for
public utility and public services purposes shall be offered and shown on the
detailed site plan for dedication to the City.
2. Prior to final parcel map approval or issuance of building permit whichever
comes first, written
ritten certification that all utility services and any other service
related to the site shall be available to serve the proposed project and shall be
submitted to the City. Such letters shall be issued by the district, utility and
cable television company, if applicable, within ninety (90) days prior issuance of
grading permits.
3. Prior to recordation of final parcel map, applicant shall provide separate
underground utility services to each parcel per Section 21.30 of Title 21 of the
City Code, including sewer, water, gas, electric power, telephone and cable TV,
in accordance with the respective utility company standards. Easements
required by the utility companies shall be approved by the City Engineer.
4. Easements E5, E8, Ell, and E13 as shown on the approved Tentative Parcel
Map no. 71362 shall be abandoned or relocated to a location satisfactory to the
City Engineer and easement documents for the aforesaid, abandonment and
relocation shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded in the Los
Angeles County Recorder's Office prior to final parcel map approval or permit
issuance whichever comes first.
5. Applicant shall relocate and underground any existing on-site utilities to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and the respective utility owner.
14
TPM No. 71362 PL 2010-128 -
a
A
6. Underground utilities shall not. be constructed Within five feet of the drip line of
any mature tree except as approved by a registered arborist.
SEWERS
1. The applicant shall execute and record a Waiver and Agreement releasing Los
Angeles County from any costs or damages incurred fforn removal of all
obstructions to clear the easement and make way for authorized personnel to
enter said right of way to install, maintain, repair, or reconstruct a sewer prior to
final parcel map approval or permit issuance whichever comes first.
2. The sanitary sewer system serving the parcels shall be connected to the City or
District sewer system. Said system shall be of the size, grade and depth
approved by the City Engineer, County Sanitation District and Los Angeles
County Public Works and surety shall be provided and an -agreement executed
prior to approval of the final parcel map.
3. A 6' wide easement for sanitary sewer purposes shall be reserved for Parcel 1
to allow for a sewer lateral connection to the main sewer trunk line located on
Parcel 2. An easement document and plat map of the aforesaid easement
document shall be reviewed by the City and upon approval recorded with the
Los Angeles County recorder's office. prior to final parcel map approval
or
permit issuance whichever comes
4. - The 6' wide easement for sanitary sewer purposes dedicated to the County on
Recorded Map of Tract No. 23483 and noted as Easement- E2 on TPM
No. 71362 shall be extended to Derringer Lane and dedicated to the City of
Diamond Bar. This .easement document shall be submitted to the City for
review and upon approval recorded with the Los Angeles County recorder's
-office prior to final parcel map approval or permit issuance whichever comes
first.
5. Applicant shall obtain connection permit(s) from the City and County Sanitation
District prior to issuance of building permits.
6. Applicant, at applicant's sole cost and expense, shall construct the sewer
system in accordance with the City, Los Angeles County Public Works Division
and County Sanitation District Standards prior to occupancy.
15
NED]
TPM No. 71362 PL 2010-128
Attachment 2
�L�' , Lr U
ffioililw4im
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY AN
INTENT TO ADOPT NEGATIVE DECLA%s0ffi COUNTYCLERK
City of Diamond Bar, 21825 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91766 (909) 839-7030
NOTICE: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA —
Public Resources Code, Section 21100 et. Seq.), the City of Diamond Bar has determined that
the project referenced hereinafter will not have a significant effect on the environment. A
draft Negative Declaration has been prepared for review and approval in connection with
project approvals and conditions of approval that the City proposes to impose on the project.
PROJECT TITLE: Tentative Parcel Map No. 71362 (Planning Case No: PL2010-128)
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2127 Derringer Lane, Diamond Bar, CA 91765
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project site is located within The Country Estates, a gated
residential community served by private streets in the City of Diamond Bar. The applicant is
requesting approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide an existing vacant 133,697 square -foot
(3,07 acre) gross lot into two lots for the development of single-family residences on each lot.
Proposed Parcel 1 is 73,283 square -feet (1.68 acres) and Parcel. 2 is 60,414 square -feet (1.34
acres). The property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with a consistent underlying General Plan land
use designation.
PROPERTY OWNER: Sumermal Vardhan, 320 Woodruff Drive, Walnut, CA 91765
APPLICANT: Tritech Associates. Inc., 135 N. San Gabriel Blvd., San Gabriel, CA 91775
A copy of the Initial Study, documenting reasons to support the findings that said project would not
have a significant effect and does not contain any mitigation measures in the project to avoid
potentially significant effects, is attached hereto for public review and available at the Planning
Division. An Environmental Impact Report is not required for this project.
Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), Section 15070, the City prepared an Initial Study and Negative Declaration for this
project. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15105, the public review period for the Negative Declaration
begins April 29, 2011 and ends May 18, 2011.
TIME OF HEARING: 7:00 p.m. (or as soon thereafter that the matter can be heard)
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Tuesday, May 24, 2011
LOCATION: South Coast Air Quality Management District/
Government Center Auditorium
21865 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, California 91765.
CASE MATERIALS are available for review between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Monday
through Thursday and 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Friday, at the City of Diamond Bar, Community
Development Department/Planning Division, 21825 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
0ATentative M2ps\2127 Derringer Lane, TPM PL2010-128\Notice of Intent.doc
cl W-11
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR- 21825 COPLEY DRIVE -DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 - TEL. (909) 839-7030-
1. Project title: Tentative Parcel Map No. 71362. (Planning Case No. PL2010-128)
2. Lead agency name. and address: City of Diamond Bar, 21825 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA
91765
3. Contact person and phone number: . Grace S. Lee, Senior Planner, 909-839-7081
4. Project location: 2127 Derringer Lane, Diamond Bar, CA 91765
5. Project sponsor's name and address: Surnermal Vardhan, 320 Woodruff Drive, Walnut, CA
91765
6. General Plan Designation: Rural Residential
7. Zoning: Rural Residentail (RR)
8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary)
The applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide an existing
vacant 133,697 square-f6ot (3.07 acre) gross lot into two lots for the development of
single-family residences on each lot. Proposed Parcel 1 is 73,283 square -feet (1.68 acres)
and Parcel 2 is 60,414 square feet (1.34 acres). The property is zoned Rural Residential
(RR) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation..
The average slope of the property is 21 'percent. This project would have been exempt
under Article 19, Section 15315, Class 15 (Minor Land Divisions) except that the average.
slope of the property is greater than 20 percent. The proposed subdivision is in
conformance. with the General Plan and zoning, no variances or exceptions are required,
and all public services and utilities including water supply are ,available to service the
project. The project site is Iodated within The Country Estates, a gated residential
community served by fully improved private streets and surrounded by residential
development. There are no agricultural activities on or near the proposed project, and the
property does not have any protected trees on-site. In addition, the proposed project
does not involve long-term changes to land use or other growth -inducing actions that
could impact compliance with or implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan.
Also, the proposed project is not expected to generate potentially significant greenhouse
gases since it is subdividing an existing lot for the construction of two single-family
residences. Upon the completion of the environmental analysis; , it was determined that,
as' conditioned, the proposed project would have less than a significant effect on the
environment.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings)
North: Single -Family Residence in RR (Rural Residential) zone.
South: Vacant Lot in RR (Rural Residential) zone.
West: Open Space in RR (Rural Residential) zone.
East: Single -Family Residence in RR (Rural Residential) zone.
1O.Other public agencies whose approval iGrequired (en, permits,financing approval, O[
participation agreement): None.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The SOviPOD[O8ntB( f8CtO[S checked b8iOVV VVOUld be potentially affected by this project, iOVOViRg at
least one impact that is @ "Pote.ntially Significant Impact" GS indicated by the oh8d(|iSt OD the fO\lOVYOg
pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
LendUoe/P|anning
Population/Housing
Trans pnrtation/Freffic
Agricultural Resources
Cultural Resources
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Mineral Resources
,Public Services
UdUtieo/GmrvicoSyotemo
DETERMINATION: (To becompleted hvthe Lead Agency)
On the basis Ofthis initial evaluation:
`
Air Quality
Hydrology/Water Quality
Noise
Recreation �
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
X
I find . that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed pr oject could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have.bben ' made by or,agreed to by the
project proponent. XMITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and, 2) has been. addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis . as described on attached. sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL 1. MPACT REPORT
is req i.red, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
Ffind that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed. adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that'
earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions. or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project, nothing further i.s.required.
Page
Signature: Date: 04/18/2011
Printed
Name: Grace S. Lee, Senior Planner For: City of Diamond Bar
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.
A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., 'the project falls outside a fault
rupture zone). A" No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors
as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based
on a project specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as. well as operational
impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with
mitigation, or less than significant.. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial
evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries
when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain haw .they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section
XVII, "Earlier Analyses,'! may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or, other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR Ior negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a.) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b,) Impacts Adequately Addressed.. Identify which effects from the .above checklist were
within the scope. of and adequately analyzed. in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis.
c.) Mitigation Measures. ` For effectsthat are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe' the mitigation. measures which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier'document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the
project.,'
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist *references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g.', general plans, zoning ordinances).. Reference to previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, including
ding a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
Page 3
7\ SupportingInformation 8���: AS�[�|�S�U�����.B���F�U��US��
individuals contacted should be cited in the diSQJSS|OD.
O\ This is oDk/ a suggested form', and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
8'eD[i8S should OOrmG\k/ 8dd[gSS the questions from this checklist that are relevant to 8 project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
^
g\ The h8n@tk]DOfeach �SWeshould idGnhfv:
-' �\The significance criteria O[threshold, ifany, used b}evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
°,,Co'r/r^m~
\. AESTHETICS. kNoukdthm
substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
\[0poCt DiSCUSSi0l: The project Site is located within BD existing gated residential COOln0UDUu
surrounded by [BG|deDUOl
8� development. The proposed project Yi|l have 8]aSa than aignUimsntinhp8CtoO
the SCBDiC vistas- that 8X(St in The Country Estates such as Cif« lights, fOOthUlG. and canyons. GDDlB, if
not r0OSt. hOD-sS were built SO the occupants could enjoy the views, but the deY8lDpOl8Ot itself will not
affect any undisturbed vistas.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trebs, rock. outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
impact Discussion: No officially designated State scenic routes O[highways OccU[DH8r the project site. 'ectSit8.
,c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of X
the site and its surroundings?
Impact Discussion: The project site is located. within an,. existing gated residential community,
surrounded by residential development and therefore will b.*e- compatible with the surrounding. uses. The
r6ject proposes- to subdivide an existing lot into two lots for the development of a single-family
residence on each lot. The development of single-family homes 011 be, consistent. with the City's
O8veVpnneot code and design guidelines. '~
�s ~~~'. the r~r---- ,r= --`-ill' '�---=--' �- existing.'-
VksUaAChBra[te[o[quality Vfthe site and its surrounding.
d) Cr eate a new source of substantial light or glare which wo6fd__�������
'
'Impact Discussion- '^~^g''----- '—� ' - ' single-family id will be
compatible the -� D�aduses that surround.the p'e��s�8- As d0fUl development
of the single-family residences, lighting included a[OUOd the building and hlhe[/o[ Of the
he bU\N|Og
.
To [educe the impact on adjacent properties, any new exterior lighting will be directed away or shielded
from adjacent pope
andconfined within the boundarie's of the property pursuant to the development
Page 4
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less than
No
Signiflcant
Unless
Significan
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
t Impact
ISSUES
Incorporated
\. AESTHETICS. kNoukdthm
substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
\[0poCt DiSCUSSi0l: The project Site is located within BD existing gated residential COOln0UDUu
surrounded by [BG|deDUOl
8� development. The proposed project Yi|l have 8]aSa than aignUimsntinhp8CtoO
the SCBDiC vistas- that 8X(St in The Country Estates such as Cif« lights, fOOthUlG. and canyons. GDDlB, if
not r0OSt. hOD-sS were built SO the occupants could enjoy the views, but the deY8lDpOl8Ot itself will not
affect any undisturbed vistas.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trebs, rock. outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
impact Discussion: No officially designated State scenic routes O[highways OccU[DH8r the project site. 'ectSit8.
,c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of X
the site and its surroundings?
Impact Discussion: The project site is located. within an,. existing gated residential community,
surrounded by residential development and therefore will b.*e- compatible with the surrounding. uses. The
r6ject proposes- to subdivide an existing lot into two lots for the development of a single-family
residence on each lot. The development of single-family homes 011 be, consistent. with the City's
O8veVpnneot code and design guidelines. '~
�s ~~~'. the r~r---- ,r= --`-ill' '�---=--' �- existing.'-
VksUaAChBra[te[o[quality Vfthe site and its surrounding.
d) Cr eate a new source of substantial light or glare which wo6fd__�������
'
'Impact Discussion- '^~^g''----- '—� ' - ' single-family id will be
compatible the -� D�aduses that surround.the p'e��s�8- As d0fUl development
of the single-family residences, lighting included a[OUOd the building and hlhe[/o[ Of the
he bU\N|Og
.
To [educe the impact on adjacent properties, any new exterior lighting will be directed away or shielded
from adjacent pope
andconfined within the boundarie's of the property pursuant to the development
Page 4
code. With compliance with the development code, any significant impact of light and glare will be
.reduced to a level of insignificance.
11. AGRK;IJL I UKt KtbUUKU1=11)- In UtWzfll11111111Y VVIDZUlt-51 1111i.ICILAO LkJ CAU11%UILU1c1
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation
and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to
forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Range Assessment project and the
Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest
Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project.
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Potentially
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
Potentially
Significant
Less than,
No
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Significant
unless
Significan
Impact
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
Impact
Mitigation
t Impact
ISSUES
. . .....
Incorporated
11. AGRK;IJL I UKt KtbUUKU1=11)- In UtWzfll11111111Y VVIDZUlt-51 1111i.ICILAO LkJ CAU11%UILU1c1
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation
and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to
forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Range Assessment project and the
Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest
Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project.
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
X
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
X
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
. . .....
Impact Discussion: The project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide Importance. There areno agricultural activities on or near the proposed project
site, Project implementation would not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use.
Therefore the proposed project would have no impacts to farmlands.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X
Williamson Act contract?
Impact Discussion: Impl . ementation of the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, ora Williamson Act contract. Therefore no impacts would result from the construction
or operation of the proposed project.
C) Conflict with'existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest
land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section
X
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined
by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
. . .....
I . mpact Discussion: There are no'forestland; timberland or timberland zoned Timberland Production
uses that are occurring on-site* or in the immediate vicinity.* Thus, the proposed project does not involve
changes I in the existing environment that. could..co,nfl ict with existing zoning or c I ause of, rezoning of
forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned. Timberland Production.
Page 5
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to
Potentially
X
non -forest use?
Potentially
Significant
Less than
No
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Significant
Unless
Signiflcan
Impact
existing or projected air quality violation?
Impact
Mitigation
I Impact
ISSUES
Incorporated
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to
Potentially
X
non -forest use?
Potentially
Signiflcant
Less than
X
Impact Discussion: There are noforest land uses that are oCcUniOg on-site o[inthe immediate vicinity.
There isminimal amount Ofvegetation within the area, and DOprotected trees are located OO-Git8. ThUS,
the proposed project does OOtiOYOlVe changes in the 8XSt|Og environment that could result in /oss of
forest land O[conversion Offorest land tOnon-forest use.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due
Potentially
X
to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Potentially
Signiflcant
Less than
X
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Impact
Impact DiSCUSSiOO' There are DO f8O0l@mj USon that ���OCCUOiOg on-site or in the immediate vicinity.
Thus, the proposed project dO8S not involve changes in the.existing environment that could result in
conversion OfFarmland tOnon-agricultural uses.
|U. AIR QUALITY. VVhGPe available,the significant' njt8ri8eGt8blish8d h»the applicable air quality
management nrair poUu�oncontnz diothCt[D8yberelied upon tD[O@k8the fOUOVVOQdeterOlD@�OD8.
N/oU�/theproject., '
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the a'pplica.ble air
Potentially
X
quality plan?
Potentially
Signiflcant
Less than
No
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantiall y to an
Impact
existing or projected air quality violation?
Impact
Mitigation
t Irnpact
ISSUES
Incorporated
|U. AIR QUALITY. VVhGPe available,the significant' njt8ri8eGt8blish8d h»the applicable air quality
management nrair poUu�oncontnz diothCt[D8yberelied upon tD[O@k8the fOUOVVOQdeterOlD@�OD8.
N/oU�/theproject., '
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the a'pplica.ble air
X
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantiall y to an
X
existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in'a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment,
under an applicable federal or state, ambient air quality standard
X
(including releasing . emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
0) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
X
Impact. Discussion for 8-d: The proposed project does not involve changes to land use Or
'other growth -inducing actions that could impact compliance with or implementation of the Air Quality
`
Management Plan. The cOOstnJCUoD of the two SiOglm-fa0ik/ [eSideDceswi|l not occur at the same
time, and therefore thresholds for maximumdaily construction eOliSsiODS for pollutants. will not. be
`
exceeded and no mitigation is required. After. the completion of the construction� activities, it is not
anticipated that there will be an. increase in 8OliSSiOOS frOOloperational activities of two �
x] SiD�|�aOlily
residences.
Also, o two -lot subdivision falls well below. the South* Coast Air Quality M8O8g8[neO[
� .
District Air [}uGUtv Handbook Threshold for miteh8 pOUUtoDts' Therefore, inlp8CtS from operational
The following measures will be implemented during demolition and construction activities, consistent
with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 in order to reduce PM10 and PM 2.5
emissions:
Water exposed surfaces frequently (as necessary) to prevent fugitive dust;
Cover all stockpile of soil/fill with tarps; and
Securely cover loads of soil/fill on trucks hauling dirt with tarps before traveling on streets and
highways.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
Potentially
I
X
I
people? -
Potentially
Significant
Less than
No
sensitive, or special status species; in local or regional plans,
Significant
Unless
Significan
Impact
ISSUES
Impact
Mitigation
t Impact
I .
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Incorporated
.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
Potentially .
I
X
I
people? -
Potentially
Significant.
Less than
No
Impact Discussion: The proposed project will result in the development of two -single family
residences. The proposed project is therefore not expected to generate objectionable odors affecting
a substantial number of people. Construction activity associated with the proposed project may
generate detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust. However this impact would be short-
term in nature (only during construction activities) and cease upon project completion.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Woulcitne project.
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
Potentially .
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
Potentially
Significant.
Less than
No
sensitive, or special status species; in local or regional plans,
Significant
Unless
Significan
I m pact
ISSUES
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
I .
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Incorporated
.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Woulcitne project.
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
X
sensitive, or special status species; in local or regional plans,
X
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Impact Discussion: The project site is in an urbanized area, located within an existing gated residential
community, surrounded by residential development. There is minimal amount of vegetation within the
area, and no species that are candidate, sensitive or. special status species "are known to exist 'in the
local vicinity. The proposed project would not result .in' significant adverse impact to Federal or. State
listed or other designated species.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
.other sensitive natural community identified in localor regional
X
plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game. or U.&. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Impact Discussion: As previously stated, the project site is located within an existing gated residential
community. No riparian' habitat or sensitive natural communities exist on-site. According to the
Resource Management Element of the, City's General Plan,- the project site isnot identified as having
environmental vironmental resources.'
Page 7
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
Potentially
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Potentially
Significant
Less than
No
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
Significant
Unless
Significan
Impact
.through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
Impact
Mitigation
t Impact
ISSUES
Incorporated
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
Potentially
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Potentially
Significant
Less than
x
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
Significant
Unless
Significan
x
.through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
Impact
Mitigation
t Impact
other means?
Incorporated
X
Impact Discussion: No - federally protected wetlands occur on-site. Therefore implementation of the
proposed project would not result in any impacts in this regard.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
Potentially
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established.
Potentially
Significant
Less than
x
native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the
Significant
Unless
Significan
Impact
use -of native wildlife nursery sites?
Impact
Mitigation
t Impact
Impact Discussion: There may be native resident or migratory wildlife species in the canyons within The
Country . Estates, but there are no, nesting opportunities or rapter/\MId life foraging opportunities on the
project site. Therefore implementation of the proposed project would not result in any impacts in this
regard.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or x
ordinance?
Impact Discussion: The project site does not include protected habitat and has minimal. amount of
vegetaion within the area. The proposed project does not conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protect - Ing biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other' . x
approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation I plan?.
Impact
pact Discussion:. There are. no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plans or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans applicable to the project area.
'Therefore the proposed project would not result in impacts in this regard.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project.
a).-, Cause a substantial adverse ' e change in the significance of a.
Potentially
historical resource as defined in Section 15064.57
Potentially
Significant
Less than
No
[ISSUES
Significant
Unless
Significan
Impact
archaeological resource pursua-6t to Section. 15064.5?
Impact
Mitigation
t Impact
.c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource.
Incorporated
X
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project.
a).-, Cause a substantial adverse ' e change in the significance of a.
historical resource as defined in Section 15064.57
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
X
archaeological resource pursua-6t to Section. 15064.5?
.c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource.
X
or siteorunique geologic feature?
Page
Impact Discussion: The project site is located within an existing gated residential community. It is not
located in an area likely to have historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources. The proposed
project may have a significant adverse impact if it would cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA *Guidelines. This section
of the CEQA Guidelines defines a historical resource as one listed in or eligible for listing in the
California Register. of Historical Places (per state law), included in a local register of historical resources
(as defined by state law) or identified as significant in an historical resource survey (meeting the
requirements of state law) or determined by the lead agency (City of Diamond Bar) to be historically
significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational,
social, political, military, or cultural annals of California, provided the determination is supported by
substantial evidence in* light of the whole record. Generally, a resourceshall be considered by the lead
agency to be "historibally significant" if the resource meets - the - criteria for listing on the California
Register of Historical Places. In this case, the existing site is not listed in nor eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical Places, not listed in a local registrar of historical resources or identified
as significant in an historical resource survey, nor has it been determined, to be historically significant by
the City b.ec.aus ' 6 it does not meet the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Places.
Therefore, it does not meet the definition of a historical resource contained in Section 15064.5 of the
CEQA Guidelines and is therefore less than significant impact.
d) Disturb any human remains,'including those interred outside of
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
Potentially
X
F
formal cemeteries?
Potentially
Significant
Lessthan
No
Significant
Unless
Significan
Impact
ISSUES
Impact
Mitigation
t Impact
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Incorporated
d) Disturb any human remains,'including those interred outside of
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
Potentially
X
F
formal cemeteries?
Potentially
Significant
Less than
No
Impact Discussion: It is not anticipated that human remains exist within the project site. However,
should any human remains be encountered during any earth removal or disturbance activities, all activity
shall cease immediately and the Los Angeles County Coroner must' be notified within 24 hours of the
discovery, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.94. If the coroner determines that
the remains are not recent,the corner 'Shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission fb.r
consultation in accordance with PRC Section 500.98.
VI.. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project.
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
affects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving -
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less than
No
Significant
Unless
Significan
Impact
ISSUES
Impact
Mitigation'
t Impact
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Incorporated
VI.. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project.
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
affects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving -
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State'Geologist for the area or based on other,
X
substantial evidence of a known fault? R e*fer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Impact Discuss ion: No active faults'are known to traverse the project site and the project site is not
located. within,. or immediate adjacent to an Alquist-PriolD Earthquake. Fault Zone. Therefor.ei rupture of
a known earthquake fault would not occur within the.project area. Adherence to standard engineering
practices and design criteria: relative to seismic and geologic. hazards in a,ccord.ance with the Uniform
Building Code (UB) is required.
Page 9
|0u8Ct Discussion: Southern California has nU080US active and potentially active fgUU3 that could
p[0dUC8 strong gFDUmd shaking that COU|d impact the project site'
'Th8 City Of Diamond Bar is in
proximity.to the San Andreas and Sierra Madre Fault zone. The California Building Code u»qUinau
structural design and CODSt[UCtiOO Dl8thOdG that OliDirDi2e the effects Of St[ODg G8isOAiC gnDUDd shaking.
The California Building Code [GqUiPBOl8OtB YV0Uld be applied to the proposed. project as standard
conditions of project approval.
I iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? I I I ... . 1 .1 _X * I I
|Dlp8Ct Discussion: The project area is located within 8 portion of the City that is not SUb8Ct to
liquefaction. Therefore project ([Op\eDOeDt8tOO is not anticipated to [BSUlt in theeXpOSUPe Of people or
structures to potential. impacts related to seismic ground failure or liquefaction.
it) Landslides? X I
Impact' Discussion: The i proposed project required the submittal and approval. of a preliminary
geotechnical: investigation, report. This report indicated that the project * site is. suitable for the
development of.two single-family residences with the recommendations in the report incorporated into
the project's design and job specification. Therefore, thespotential for seismically -related landslides,is
less than 'significant.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss o f topsoil?
|rOD@ct ' on: The largest source Oferosion, particularly iOaOurban environment iSuncontrolled
drainage `
during construction. Erosion 'potential dU�Og CODStnJ[�\�
OOoUNmanaged to the maximumeXI�O
extent
p[@ ` CbQ3b�eVV�th Best ��8DBgoDl8Ot Pn8c�C8� (BK8PS\. .`T�� �nDposm� project iS�nmqUinyd to be
'o
covered under the National
@8t�D8| pO\lVtgRt OisCh8Fge EliRinGUOD�GYSt8O(NPDE8) General Construction
therefore COD |o�OO BNPswould. be implemented OD the projectsite during demolition and
ConStnJCUOn8Ctkjt uu to* minimize erOa\OO iUp8ctS. |OpleOBntatnO of the oOnStnUCUOO-FBl8t8d BWps
would reduce ni-relatedimpacts tOUle0oxiOm0exteDtfeosible. The operation Of
the, VVOUdDOtC@VSathek}sSOftOOGo�O[�FOSi0l�BC�U��UlGS��VVOUkjb8k]�d3msD�d�Dd
pro ' `
paved.
- `
c) Be located on a geologicunit o ' r soil that is unstable, or that
Potentially
would. become unstable as a result of the project,, and
Potentially
Significant
Less than
, No
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral. spreading,
Significant
Unless
Significan
Impact
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Impact
Mitigation
t Impact
ISSUES
Incorporated
|0u8Ct Discussion: Southern California has nU080US active and potentially active fgUU3 that could
p[0dUC8 strong gFDUmd shaking that COU|d impact the project site'
'Th8 City Of Diamond Bar is in
proximity.to the San Andreas and Sierra Madre Fault zone. The California Building Code u»qUinau
structural design and CODSt[UCtiOO Dl8thOdG that OliDirDi2e the effects Of St[ODg G8isOAiC gnDUDd shaking.
The California Building Code [GqUiPBOl8OtB YV0Uld be applied to the proposed. project as standard
conditions of project approval.
I iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? I I I ... . 1 .1 _X * I I
|Dlp8Ct Discussion: The project area is located within 8 portion of the City that is not SUb8Ct to
liquefaction. Therefore project ([Op\eDOeDt8tOO is not anticipated to [BSUlt in theeXpOSUPe Of people or
structures to potential. impacts related to seismic ground failure or liquefaction.
it) Landslides? X I
Impact' Discussion: The i proposed project required the submittal and approval. of a preliminary
geotechnical: investigation, report. This report indicated that the project * site is. suitable for the
development of.two single-family residences with the recommendations in the report incorporated into
the project's design and job specification. Therefore, thespotential for seismically -related landslides,is
less than 'significant.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss o f topsoil?
|rOD@ct ' on: The largest source Oferosion, particularly iOaOurban environment iSuncontrolled
drainage `
during construction. Erosion 'potential dU�Og CODStnJ[�\�
OOoUNmanaged to the maximumeXI�O
extent
p[@ ` CbQ3b�eVV�th Best ��8DBgoDl8Ot Pn8c�C8� (BK8PS\. .`T�� �nDposm� project iS�nmqUinyd to be
'o
covered under the National
@8t�D8| pO\lVtgRt OisCh8Fge EliRinGUOD�GYSt8O(NPDE8) General Construction
therefore COD |o�OO BNPswould. be implemented OD the projectsite during demolition and
ConStnJCUOn8Ctkjt uu to* minimize erOa\OO iUp8ctS. |OpleOBntatnO of the oOnStnUCUOO-FBl8t8d BWps
would reduce ni-relatedimpacts tOUle0oxiOm0exteDtfeosible. The operation Of
the, VVOUdDOtC@VSathek}sSOftOOGo�O[�FOSi0l�BC�U��UlGS��VVOUkjb8k]�d3msD�d�Dd
pro ' `
paved.
- `
c) Be located on a geologicunit o ' r soil that is unstable, or that
would. become unstable as a result of the project,, and
X
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral. spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
`| impact `]iScUSSiOO' GOi� �O��F the project site. has been analyzed in the preliminary geotechnical
report. The report indicates that with the recommendationsiDthe report incorporated
the project's design,and job specification,subject the r the development of two s . ingle-,
Uo
` i�r�� residences. 'potential Of an. on-site �d' landslide, liquefaction,
|
'll8-sE�is not likeky, Therefore,
the proposed, project would result in, less. tha[\`sigD�c8nt impacts
DD
nekatedbjdeVekooeDtOOaDUnotqbka-sOi)UDiL`
. `
Page 10
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1804.2 of the
Pot nt ally
California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to
Potentially
Significant
Less than
No
life or property?
SignifiC2nt
Unless
Significan
Impact
IS SUES
Impact
Mitigation
t Impact
ISSUES
Incorporated
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1804.2 of the
Pot nt ally
California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to
Potentially
Significant
X
X
life or property?
Significant
Unless.
Significan
Impact
'
{DOD8(ct Discussion: As described 8bUY8�-th8 project site is stable. Soil under the..projectSite was
investigated and the p[gU[niDory geoteohnica| investigation report indicates that the 'incorporation of
recoDl08Dd8tiOOS into the project's design and 'Ob specification, the subject site is suitable for the
dGV8|OpOl8nt of two single-family neSidaDC8S. Th8[efOrB, pOt8Db8\ iOlp8CtS from expansive soils VVOUld be
less than significant.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
Pot nt ally
septic tanks of alternative waste water disposal systems
Potentially
Significant
Lessthan
X
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
Significant
Unless.
Significan
Impact
IS SUES
Impact
Mitigation
t Impact'
'
Impact Discussion: The project would be eenxad by the public sewer system, thus there is no impact on
soils \O@deqU@tek/ capable Of supporting the Use Of septic tanks or alternative VY8St8 Vv8te[ diSpOS8|
VILGREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION. Would the
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
Pot nt ally
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
Potentially
Significant
Lessthan
No
,
Significant
Unless.
Significan
Impact
IS SUES
Impact
Mitigation
t Impact'
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse
Incorporated
X
VILGREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION. Would the
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse
X
Impact Discussion for a and b Many Ofthe world's leading Scientific experts agree that greenhouse gases
yGnGu/yeomaueuvy //umu// activities affect climate by ".`^°a^"'y the "greenhouse°'^^` The gases
concentrate in the Earth's atmosphere and[n] heat bvblocking ofthe long -wave the Earth
DO[r08|K/ [8U|8l8S D8CK|nlO Space. Human activities that produce x,n`zs are the burning of /uuuo fuels
(coal, Oi|8|dn8tU[ol�83fO[he8�Dg8nde\edTnitv.g800Une8ndd�Se|�o[f�UlS \;Dleth8D8�ODl
landfill wastes �St8S aDd ' raising livestock, deforestation activities; and some agricultural practices. These
ree
activities a' increasing fhe ge
enhouse gasesi the Earth's atmosphere and could bgaccelerating global
climate
Lon
-term environmental
ences in California could potentially include a reduction
vve�[ �| p~ ~e8ier����eV3d8SnoVV.,_—' which could result iO8. reductioniniOlpOrt8dvxnter and
'
public healthp due hDd6 [8ded8i[noa|ity8DdrOoneiDt8Dse summer he8t
'
In 2006, overnorE|ohVVaFzoDoggniSign8dAB32.the California. Climate Solutions ACt'oV2OOG. AB 32
requires that statewide GHG emissions'be reduced to 2000 levels by the year. 20101990levels by the,
year, percent'
accomplished through an enforceable G.G-ea—isS(oDsthntwU|bBphaSed iOstarting i
2012. To' effectively IDAplem0Dt the cap, AB 32 directs theCalifornia Air Resources Board (CARR) to
develop and innp|emm[d.regulations to reduce. statewide (�|�(� emissions from stationary sources.. AB 32
Pago11
specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 should be used to address GHG emissions
from vehicles. However, AB 32 also includes language stating that if the AB 1493 regulations cannot be
implemented, then CARB should develop new regulations to co * ntrol vehicle GHG emissions under the
authorization of AB 32. AB 32 requires that CARB adopt a quantified cap on GHG emissions
representing 1990 emissions levels and disclose how it arrives at the cap; institute a schedule to meet
the emissions cap; and develop tracking, reporting, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that the
state.achieves reductions in GHG emissions necessary to meet the cap. In 2007, CARB adopted the
statewide 2020 emissions cap at 427 million metric tons (MMT) equivalent carbon dioxide (CO2e)
greenhouse gas emissions. CARB estimated that 2020 'business -as -usual' emissions (meaning,
emissions of greenhouse gases without consideration of climate change) would be 596 MMTCO2e;
therefore, emissions will need to be reduced by 169 IVIIVITCO2e (28 percent) statewide to meet the 2020
threshold. AB 32 also includes guidance to institute emissions reductions in an economically efficient
manner and conditions to ensure that businesses and consumers are not unfairly affected by the
reductions. A numerical threshold to determine the significance of greenhouse gas emissions has not
been established by the City or SCAQIVID.
Global c1ii-nate change is not confined to a particular project area and is generally accepted as the
consequence of global industrialization over the last 200 years. A typical project, even a very large one,
does not generate enough. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on its own to influence global climatechange significantly; hence the issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative
environmental impact. The State of California, through its governor and: legislature, has established a
comprehensive framework for the substantial reduction of GHG emissions over the next 40 -plus years.
This will occur primarily through the implementation of AB32 and Senate Bill 375 (SB375), which will
address GHG emissions on a statewide, cumulative basis. Nevertheless, the currently proposed. project
is . not expected to generate potentially significant greenhouse 'gases by subdividing an existing lot for the
construction of two single-family residences. Therefore, no new significant impacts are anticipated and.
no mitigation measures are necessary, at. this time.
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the
project:
a), Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
Potentially
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
Potentially
Significant
Less than
No
materials?
Significant
Unless
Significan
Impact
ISSUES.
Impact
Mitigation
t Impact
Ancorporatec!
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the
project:
a), Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
X
materials?
Impa . ct Discussion: The I proposed project. would not create a significant. hazard to the public or the
environment from the routine transport, use, or disposal'bf hazardous materials. Small -amounts of
hazardous Materials may be found in solvents and chemicals used for cleaning, building maintenance, and
landscaping. The materials would be similar. to those found .in common household projects or pesticides.
Hazardous materials.. used in construction and. operation of the proposed project would be subject to City,
State, and Federal regulations, reducing impacts to a less than significant level.
b) 'Create arsignificant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonable foreseeable upset.and accident conditions
X
involving the release of hazardous materials into the -,
-environment?
Impact Discussion: The proposed 'uses are. not anticipated to' result in the creation of health hazards
following compliance with health and. Safety regulations. The proposed uses' would not use., generate or
Page 12
dispose of8z8FdOUS materials in l8q]e quantities. As stated 8b0Ve' hazardous Dlat8h8!s used in
coOSt[UCbDO and operation of the proposed project YYOUld be 6Uh18Ct to City, State, and Federal [8gU|8tiODS.
reducing impacts to a less than significant level.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
Potentially
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
Potentially
Significant
Less than
N I o
mile of an existing or proposed school?
Significant
Unless
Significan
Impact
'hazard to the public or the environment?,
Impact
Mitigation
t Impact
ISSUES
Incorporated
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
X
mile of an existing or proposed school?
|rDp_— Discussion: The proposed project would not involve the transport, use, handling, or disposal Of
OVt8b|m quantities Of hazardous OO@t8he(s' aside from normal household chemicals and landscaping
applications. Th8[efDF8' the proposed project would OO1 pose 8 health risk to nearby SdlVO|S. and no
significant iOlp8[tS to 8ChOOl3 VVOU|d result from the CODSt[UctiOR and Ope[BUOD of the deV8|Op[OpDt OftMK>
single-family residences.,
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pprsuant to Gove ' mment Code
X
Section 65962.5 and, as a' result, would it create a significant
'hazard to the public or the environment?,
Impact Discussion: TheprojectSite|s,|O within anexisting gated residential community, surrounded
by residential development. The existing uses donot use, handle, or store. hazardous materials.
Development Of t�� would not C[B@to 8 significant hazard to the public or to the
environment. Therefore no impacts would occur in this regard.
e) For a project located ' within an *airport land. use plan, or where
such a plan has notbeen adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
'
'
Impact D8otDiscussion,:, The project site is not located within an airport land use ` Pl8D or within two miles Of an
airport. The nearest airport iSBrackett Field AirpOrLwhich. iSapproximately OmikeS.00rthea3tVfthe project
site. NO impacts VV8Uld occur ipthis'[eg8Pd. `
`
`
For.a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
X
in the project area?
`
�
|nl�oCtDiSC�SSk}n� |kepngociS�8 otlocated VNth/naDair O�land use plan VV�VV�hD 0two m88sO|8D
airport. Therlm@r8Stairport isBrackett Field AJ[pO[t.which is. approximately 6miles northeast OfUlep 'eCt
site. .No irDpaCtSmould occur inthis regard.,
g) Impair.implementeition of or physically interfere with an
ado 'ted emergency response Ian or emergency'evacuation
X
Impact Discussion: Emergency vehicles would continue to have access to project related and surrounding
roadways upon completion of the single-family residences. The proposed development of two single-
family residences would . not impact access to emergency response.. In addition, the proposed
development of two single-family residences would not place temporary or permanent barriers ' on existing
roadways or reconfigure existing roadways. Therefore, no impacts would result from the construction. and
operation of the proposed development of two single-family residences.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury
Potentially
�
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
Potentially
Significant
Less than
No
adjacent to urbanized areas or where, residences are
Significant
Unless
Significan
Impact
intermixed with wildlands?
Impact,
Mitigation
t Impact*
ISSUES
Incorporated
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury
Potentially
�
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
Potbritially
Significant
Less than
X
adjacent to urbanized areas or where, residences are
Significant
Unless
Significan
Impact
intermixed with wildlands?
Impact,
Morporated itigation
t Impact
Impact Discuss . ion: The project site -an and surrounding
rrounding areas are predominantly built out and no wildlands
occur within oradjacentto the project site. Future development as a result of project implementation would
introduce ornamental landscaping, which is not anticipated to create hazardous fire tonditi6iris. In addition,.
a fuel modification plan is required and subject to the review and approval of the County of Los Angeles,
Fire Department's Prevention Bureau - Forestry Division.
IX HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.. Would the project.
Violate any water: erqu�ality sthdardor waste discharge
Potentially
�
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
Potbritially
Significant
Less than
No
be a net.defic.it in aquifer.volume or a lowering of the local
Significant
Unless
Significan
Impact
ISSUES
Impact,
Morporated itigation
t Impact
existing nearby wells Would. drop to a level which would not
Inc
IX HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.. Would the project.
Violate any water: erqu�ality sthdardor waste discharge
�
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
Impact Discussion: The proposed project will not be allowed to violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements., The• State .Water Resource Control Board (SW.RCB) has adopted .a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for storm water discharges associated
with constrLiction-attivity. Compliance with Statewide NPDES General Permit for Strom Water Discharges
associated with construction activity which would prevent storm water pgllu,tibn.frbm impacting waters of the
U.S. in the vicinity of the project area, will be required.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater suppli.es.or interfere.
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net.defic.it in aquifer.volume or a lowering of the local
g rouhdwater. tab.le level (e.g., the production �. rate of pre-
X
existing nearby wells Would. drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned Use's for which permits
have been granted)?
Impact Discussion: The level of the proposed excavation will'hot reach'the aquifer, thus the.propos.ed
dev*elo*pment of two single-family residences will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies. or
Interfere substantially with groundwater recharge'such that there would be a net deficit'in.aquif.er volume
or lowering of the local groundwater table level.
Page 14
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
Potentially
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
Potentially
Significant
Less than
No
or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
Significant
Unless
Significan
Impact
ISSUES
Impact
Mitigation
t Impact
X
site?
Incorporated
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
X
X
or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
X
or siltation on- or off-site?
X
Impact Discussion: There are no streams or rivers nearby. The Public Works/Engineering Division is
requiring that, prior to approval of a grading plan, the applicant shall prepare and submit a drainage
study, including supporting hydraulic and hydrological data to the City for review and acceptance. The
proposed development will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. There will also be specific
use guidelines for water conservation in the irrigation of planted areas. These guidelines include but not
limited to water sensors, programmable irrigation timers, differing water quantity zones, and drought
tolerant plants.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
X
X
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
X
runoff in a manner which Would result in flooding on- or off-
X
site?
Impact Discussion: There
e are no streams or rivers nearby. The Public Works/Engineering Division is
requiring that, prior to approval of a grading plan, the applicant shall prepare and submit a drainage
study, including supporting hydraulic and hydrological data to the City for review and acceptance. The
*proposed development will not substantially alter,the existing drainage pattern. of the site or area or
substantially increase the rate of amount of surface runoff in a.mannerwhich .would result in flooding on -
or off-site.
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
X
X
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Impact Discussion: See Response c and. d above.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X :1
Impact Discussion: See Response and b above.
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood. hazard area as mapped
on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance, Rate.
X
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h). Place within a .1 00 -year flood hazard area structures which
X
would.impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving, flooding., including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
Impact DiscOssionJor g"i: The project site is not located within a flood zone.. Additionally, the City of',
Diamond Bar is not subject to any major flood hazards, or -potential inundation duo to nearby .dam
failures. Furthermore, the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA.)'Flood 'Insurance Rate
Pag6 15.,
Map designated the entire City 8Swithin 8Flood Zone 'W'. Flood Zone "X"iSidentified 8saOarea OfO.2
percent annual chance of flood. The proposed project would D0t involve the p|8C8OOent of StnJ[tU[9S
within a 1 00 -year flood hazard area.
site isapproximately 40 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean
B
Impact there are OO large bodies Ofwater within the vicinity of the 'BCt site that would CoUS8 inundation
hvS8iche,tsunami, O[[OUdow. Therefore noimpacts would result from the CnDStnJCtioDand operation
of the proposed project.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
Potentially
Significant ,
Lessthan
No
Significant
Unless
Significan
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
I Impact
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
ISSUES,
Incorporated
site isapproximately 40 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean
B
Impact there are OO large bodies Ofwater within the vicinity of the 'BCt site that would CoUS8 inundation
hvS8iche,tsunami, O[[OUdow. Therefore noimpacts would result from the CnDStnJCtioDand operation
of the proposed project.
X. LAND,USE AND PLANNING. Would the project.
a) Physically divide an established community? Jv
Impact Discussion: The propose . d project site would not disrupt or physically divide an established
comm . unity. The project site is a vacant site, located within an existing gated residential community,
surrounded. by residential development.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
Potentially
Significant
Less than
No
Significant
Unless
Significan
'Impact
Impact
Mitigation
t Impact
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
ISSUES
Inn
X. LAND,USE AND PLANNING. Would the project.
a) Physically divide an established community? Jv
Impact Discussion: The propose . d project site would not disrupt or physically divide an established
comm . unity. The project site is a vacant site, located within an existing gated residential community,
surrounded. by residential development.
'
of OlDOdBa�SK8 Code,Ul project
^''r~~-'------- -�--- )Of�eT8Dt@t��P8'�K8�ptOGUb��jd�aDe-�nhDgY8 �t1�3(
app||C8DlO8S[o�Um�zeo�zn�approval `u� - __- ^� � ',9'
single-family residences cin each
l
square -foot. [)" 8�Ubdk� 'im is approved, the applicant U C�DtY�SUbOO�8 D8V8lOpDl8OtR8V8VV�8ppUCBtOO for
� / subdivision
OfthH�� Sot�'8[Ch�8ntU�d and site dWith the apDn]V8| of these .the
development.` ` -
ofthoprDpOS8dprokeCtVVoUk1.beiD compliance with all applicable City, of, Diamond. Bar's
land use p|8n.policy, and FGgUk]�oOS.
� '
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X
community conservation plan?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but to
`limited
to'the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
X
'program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitig@tirig. an.environmental effect?
'
of OlDOdBa�SK8 Code,Ul project
^''r~~-'------- -�--- )Of�eT8Dt@t��P8'�K8�ptOGUb��jd�aDe-�nhDgY8 �t1�3(
app||C8DlO8S[o�Um�zeo�zn�approval `u� - __- ^� � ',9'
single-family residences cin each
l
square -foot. [)" 8�Ubdk� 'im is approved, the applicant U C�DtY�SUbOO�8 D8V8lOpDl8OtR8V8VV�8ppUCBtOO for
� / subdivision
OfthH�� Sot�'8[Ch�8ntU�d and site dWith the apDn]V8| of these .the
development.` ` -
ofthoprDpOS8dprokeCtVVoUk1.beiD compliance with all applicable City, of, Diamond. Bar's
land use p|8n.policy, and FGgUk]�oOS.
� '
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X
community conservation plan?
X1. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
Potentially
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
Potentially
Significant
Less than
No
state?
Significant
Unless
Significan
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
t Impact
ISSUES
Incorporated
X1. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
Potentially
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
Potentially
Significant
Less than
X
state?
Significant
Unless
Significan
Impact'
Impact Discussion: The project site is not identified as a site with known mineral resources that would
be of value to the region and the residents of the'state. Therefore, the proposed project would have no
impacts to mineral resources.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral
Potentially
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
Potentially
Significant
Less than
No
specific..pIan or bther land use plan?
Significant
Unless
Significan
Impact'
Impact Discussion: The proposed project will not result in the loss of availability of a locally -important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific. plan, or other land use plan,
because the site contains no known mineral resources.
X11. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation-bf noise level ' s in excess
Potentially
of standards established in the local general plan, or noise
Potentially
Significant
Less than
No
ordinance, ora licable standards of other agencies?
Significant
Unless
Significan
Impact'
Impact
Mitigation
t Impact
ISSUES
Incorporated
X11. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation-bf noise level ' s in excess
of standards established in the local general plan, or noise
X
ordinance, ora licable standards of other agencies?
Impact Discussion: There will be a temporary increase in noise level's. during. construction of the project,
but it will not be substantial and must remain within noise limits established by the City. The City of
Diamond Bar's Municipal Code, Chapter 8.12 Division 3, Section 8.12.720 prohibitsconstruction-rblated.
noise between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Construction activity is prohibited on Sundays and
holidays. -Noise from the short-term (less than ten days) operation of Mobile construction equipment
may not I exceed a maximum of 85 dB. Additionally, the proposed subdivision for the development of two
single-family homes is compatible with the single-family residential uses that -surround the. project site.
The proposed use is not expected to exceed noise levels set'f6rth in the Municipal Code. for residential
uses.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of, excessive X
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Impact
Discussion: *Construbtion activities have the potential to create groundborne vibration and/or
groondborne noise levels However, any impacts would be temporary, and of minimal 'duration.
Additionally, implementation of the construction hours would restrict these activities to daytime hours
only.
q) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the X
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
{r0pGc\ [)'GQJaSiOD� The ambient noise levels will not SUbst@Oti8\k/ increase and will be compatible with
the noise levels for residential uses in the surrounding area.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
Potentially
Significant
Less than
No
airport or public use airportwould the project expose people
Significant
Unless
Significan
Impact
residing or working in the project area to.exce.s.sive noise
Impact
Mitigation
t Impact
ISSUES
Incorporated
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
Potentially
Significant
X
X
airport or public use airportwould the project expose people
Significant
Unless
Significan
X
|OOp8[t OiGCUSSibD: Construction activities would [8qUi[8 the use of trucks to bring CDDGtnJ{tioO materials
to theS�8' Vvhioh would contribute to ambient OOiS8 in the project 'The8[B�. �� truck noise OU(� be
tempo
. [yeDdSpor8diC8|\y distributed throughout the CODStnJctiOD activities and YVOU|d be limited to
between the hours of7a.00.tOOp.rD.daily except Sundays and legal holidays.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles o * f a public
Potentially
Significant
Lessthan
X
airport or public use airportwould the project expose people
Significant
Unless
Significan
X
residing or working in the project area to.exce.s.sive noise
Impact
Mitigation
t Impact
ISSUES
Incorporated
Impact Discussion: CnDetRJchnO of the 'eCt would have OD impact with regards to 8j[porte
The is not within
'15 miles Of public airport within DU�C 8][Dwithin 8O �i[ti3Dd Us.e D|8D.
Therefore, n[iimpacts VVOUld OocU|
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose- people residing or working in the project area
Potentially
Significant
Lessthan
X
to excessive noise levels?
Significant
Unless
Significan
Impact
'
SG�) Ofthe ed projectwould have OO impact VV�h regards to
private— airstrips. The project area is. not located within the vicinity of a p[k/@te@i[strip, The[Gf][G. DO
impacts would occur.
)(1111 POPI]LATION AND HOUSING. Would the prolect.,
a) Induce substantial population growth inan area, either dire�t_ly
(for example', by proposing new homes and businesses) or
Potentially
Significant
Lessthan
No q
indirectly (forexample,, through extension of roads or other..
Significant
Unless
Significan
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
t Impact
ISSUES
Incorporated
)(1111 POPI]LATION AND HOUSING. Would the prolect.,
a) Induce substantial population growth inan area, either dire�t_ly
(for example', by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (forexample,, through extension of roads or other..
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
X
c) Displace substantial numbers of peoplej necessitating the
X
con s*truction of.replacem6nt housing elsewhere?
|npaCi Discussion for a -c. The increaseOf'two single-family PeSideDDBS is not significant in the context
of the City as 8 whole or substantial for. the area. The project site is an existing vacant |nL There is no
housing and therefore will not displace housing or people as a result of this project.
' `
Page 18
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
Potentially
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
Potentially
Significant
Less than
No
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
Significant
I. Unless
Significan
Impact
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could
Impact*
iLigation
t Impact
ISSUES
Inc orporated
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
Potentially
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
Potentially
Significant
Less than
No
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
Significant
Unless -
Significan
Imact
p
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could
Impact
Mitigation
t Impact
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
Incorporated.
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
X
performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
X
ii) Police protection?
X
iii) Schools?
X
iv) Parks?
X.
v) Other public facilities?
X
Impact Discussion: The marginal increase of two residential units from the proposed project are well
within those anticipated in the City's General Plan, and would not require the provision of new or altered
governmental
mmental facilities- for fire protection, police protection, schools, park, or other public facilities'.
However, the applicant is required to. pay school fees to the Walnut Valley Unified School District
(WVUSD) as part of the building. permit process in order to help meet the potential funding. needs,
created by the proposed increase in population. In addition, the WVUSD would receive Average Daily
Attendance (ADA) funding for any children attending public schools.
XV. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood
Potentially
and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
Potentially
Significant
Less than
No
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
Significant
Unless -
Significan
Imact
p
ISSUES
Impact
Mitigation
t Impact
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the.
Incorporated.
XV. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
X
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the.
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
X
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Impact Discussion for a -b: The proposed project would not trigger the new construction or expansion of
recreational facilities. ' Due to the marginal increase* of.twb residential units from'the proposed 'project,
there may .be some increased use of existing neighborhoodrecreational facilities, but it would not be
expected to be significant or to significantly increase the 'physical deterioration of the, facilities. In
addition, the project site is located within a gated residential community that offers many amenities for
.their residents, including a swimming pool, - board. room, club hou.se, community park, and tennis courts.
The pro . perty owners would pay Homeowners Association dues, to maintain the. facilities within the
Association. Therefore no impacts would occur.
uv1 TDAMgW)PTATION /TRAFFIC. Would the Droiect.
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
Potentially
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
Potentially
Significant
Less than
No.
the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
Significant
Unless
Signican
impact
p
transportation including mass transit and non: -motorized
Impact
Mitigation
t Impact
ISSUES
Incorporated
uv1 TDAMgW)PTATION /TRAFFIC. Would the Droiect.
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
X
the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
X
transportation including mass transit and non: -motorized
X
travel and relevant components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways
and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?
Impact Discussion: The increase of two single-family residences is not significant and will not cause an
increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street
system.
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and
X
travel demand measures, or other standards established by
X
the'county congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
Impact Discussion: The increase of two single-family residences is not significant and will not exceed
existing level of service standards for surrounding roadways and intersections established by the County
Congestion Management Program Monitoring System:
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
X
substantial safety risks?
Impact Discussion: The proposed `project will not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks because there is
no airport nearby.
d) Substantially.increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
X
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Impact Discussion: The proposed project would not create any hazards. due to design features or
incompatible uses: Access to the project sitewould be required to comply with all City design standards,
which would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
e) Result. in inadequate emergency access? X
Impact Discussion: The proposed project would not significantly impact the adequacy of existing and
future emergency services. The roadways and driveways are existing and will not be relocated. The
proposed project would be constructed according to City of Diamond .Bar and County -of -Los Angeles
requirements for emergency. access. Therefore significant impacts would not result from the construction
and operation of the proposed project..
Page 20
f) Result in inadequate parking supply? -x
Impact Discussion: The proposed development of the two single-family residences will be required to
provide adequate parking with on-site parking spaces in compliance with the City's Development Code
during the Development Review application process for the approval of the projeG.t's architectural and site
design.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
Potentially
X
public transit, bicycle, -or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
Potentially
Significant
Less than
No
-decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
Significant
Unless
Significan
Impact
ISSUES
Impact
Mitigation
t Impact
facilities,.the construction of which could cause significant
Incorporated
f) Result in inadequate parking supply? -x
Impact Discussion: The proposed development of the two single-family residences will be required to
provide adequate parking with on-site parking spaces in compliance with the City's Development Code
during the Development Review application process for the approval of the projeG.t's architectural and site
design.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
Potentially
X
public transit, bicycle, -or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
Potentially
significa6t
Less than
X
-decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
Significant
�Unless
Signi ican
Imact
p
Impact Discus ' pion: The roadways and driveways are existing and will not be relocated. The proposed
project would be constructed according to City of Diamond Bar and County of Los Angeles requirements.
Therefore significant impacts would not result from the construction and development of the 'proposed
project.
XVIL Ul ILITIFS ANUSEKWUL SY5 I FMS. Would the project.
a). Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
Potentially
X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Potentially
significa6t
Less than
No
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
Significant
�Unless
Signi ican
Imact
p
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
Impact
Mitigation 'gat,,n
t Impact
facilities,.the construction of which could cause significant
Incorporated
XVIL Ul ILITIFS ANUSEKWUL SY5 I FMS. Would the project.
a). Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
X
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
X
facilities,.the construction of which could cause significant
effects?
environmental effects?
Impact Discussion for a -b: The proposed project would not result in significant impacts and would not
exceed Wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control, Board, and
would have a less than 'significant impact on the need to construct new water or'wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing * facilities. Additionally, the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles'
County reviewed project pthe proposed p and in a correspondence dated May 25, 2010 states it is. prepared
to provide wastewater service to. this project.. The Walnut Valley Water District also reviewed the
proposed project an ' d in a correspondence dated April 21, 2010 States it is prepared to provide water
service to this project.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
X
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
Potentially
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
Potentially
Significant
Less than
No
expanded entitlements needed?
Significant
Unless
Significan
Impact
ISSUES
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
t Impact
X
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
Potentially
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
Potentially
Significant
X
No
expanded entitlements needed?
Significant
Unless
X
Impact
Impact Discussion: As previously discussed in a and b above, the proposed project would have sufficient
water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
Potentially
which serves'or may serve the project that it has adequate
Potentially
Significant
X
No
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to
Significant
Unless
X
Impact
the provider's existing commitments?
Impact
Mitigation
t Impact.
X
Impact Discussion: The County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County reviewed the proposed
project and in a correspondence dated May 25, 2010 states I it is prepared to provide wastewater service
to this project.
Be served. by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
Potentially
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
Potentially
Significant
Less than
No
g) Comply with federal, state, and. local statutes and regulations
Significant
Unless
X
Impact
related to solid waste?
Impact
Mitigation
t Impact.
X
I . mpact Discussion. for. f -g: Refuse and recycling. service is provided by Waste Management, Inc. for
single-family. residential developments. The company hauls nonrecyclable. solid waste to the Puente
Hills Landfill. This :facility has enough capacity to accept solid waste until the year 2020, according to
the disposal company. All solid waste materials generated at the project site would be disposed of in
accordance with applicable state, federal, and local statutesand regulations.
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Doe's the proj6cthave the potential to degrade the quality of
Potentially
the environment, 'substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
Potentially
Significant
Less than
No
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
Significant
Unless
Signiflcan
Impact
ISSUES.
Impact
Mitigation
t Impact.
X
animal community,. reduce the number or restrict the range of
Inco orated
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Doe's the proj6cthave the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, 'substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels,: threaten to eliminate, a plant or
X
animal community,. reduce the number or restrict the range of
d rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples- of the major periods of California .history or'
prehistory?
Impact Di . scussion: The project sitedoes not contain the habitat of @Jish or wildlife species. and
therefore construction* of the proposed project would not. Cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, U
elf Is, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; or reduce or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Likewise, approval of that proposed project is not anticipated. to
eliminate examples. -of major periods of California history or prehistory.
Page 22
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but.
Potentially
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable'
Potentially
Significant
Less than
. No
means that the incremental effects of a project are
Significant
Unless
Significant
Impact
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of
Impact
gation
Impact
ISSUES
Incorporated
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but.
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable'
X
means that the incremental effects of a project are
X
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current peojects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
Impact Discussion: The cumulatively considerable impacts of the individually limited project are not
expected to be significant and are in keeping with the long-range considerations of the City's General
Plan. With the conditions of project approval, the cumulative. impact of the individually limited project
impacts will not be considerable.
c) Does the project have environmental effects'which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
X
indirectly?
Impact Discussion: With the conditions of project approval, no substantial direct. or indirect adverse
environmental effects on human. beings can be expected from this project.
Grace S. Lee 04/18/2011
Name Date
Senior Planner
Signature Title
SOURCES CITED IN THE EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Planning Case PL2010-12'8
1. General Plan of the City of Diamond Bar adopted July 25, 1995
2. General Plan of the City of Diamond Bar, Environmental Impact Report and
Addendum dated July 25, 1995
3. Municipal Code, City of Diamond Bar
4. Tentative Tract Map No. 71.362
5. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared by American Geotechnical, Inc.
Dated July 28, 2010
6 All documents cited above are available for review at the'City of Diamond Bar,
Community Development Department; 21825.Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765:
The office hours are Monday through Thursday between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., and
Friday between 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
Page 24
C
°l Ul A W N F+ Vf
� N
d '° A
VI =
°• � iF
/rn^
V' .
�
v m 3
c
m (� °• m
�
c
�• '<
m
'c'
• m
N d d W N
N
m
� �
�
m
�
�"�
N p�
Dl
❑
�
fD :� O
m m m m m
a 0vi.
CL
mwo
o
3
CD
oil
so
I
in
go
Iloilo
I
NINE
NINE
ME
I
I
IN
om
oil
ON
III
I
H■
u■
in�i
n�g
iii
i�
_m
�
■liGi
�■
■i
��oi
moi
ISE■
■1
�
n
MEMO
i■■■
C
om■■
s
0
��Ci�ng
�
OC'��
�'�C"�
on
son
onso
loss000n
i
i
imoloollooll
irsin
uin
�
�i�i
loom
,
men
■■■0
n
long
i
i
ii
�
nn
e■ii
�0
in
Igloos
no
H
MOM
I
l§11111
Iloilo
NNE
I
'i�
ii
n��
�on
oi�
iii
so
so
M
C
°l Ul A W N F+ Vf
� N
d '° A
VI =
°• � iF
/rn^
V' .
�
v m 3
c
m (� °• m
�
c
�• '<
m
'c'
• m
N d d W N
N
m
� �
�
m
�
�"�
N p�
Dl
❑
�
fD :� O
m m m m m
a 0vi.
CL
mwo
o
3
CD
z -
5
PRODUCED UY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT
S G)
----------
1 0
eqv
ii
g
us
(Wtp
M7
CD
o 0
C, n1,
5 B
FTI
saeo
G)
rp
o
C) m
Z 0
cn
[-q
m 0 -11
0
c, m70
two
C, 0
>mz
io 0 T -n cu
rn
>
p>
00
-OT, z
r a) -n
J)
8 F)
cn,
or
PIP FFTI?-Ill g
og
S G)
-loin
1 0
eqv
> -
p 0
g
us
(Wtp
M7
CD
o 0
C, n1,
5 B
-3
saeo
1>1 I.'
NOT. Z;
M
rp
o
UN
.hg
S G)
-loin
1 0
eqv
> -
p 0
g
- - all I
Id lIg 2 5 Ho Ep
C,
M7
F pm
!0
-3
saeo
rp
.hg
S G)
DO
M7
F pm
-3
saeo
.hg
cn
tj
42!1
p>
R
PIP FFTI?-Ill g
og
gm
[IR
S G)
DR 2.
M7
.hg
cn
PIP FFTI?-Ill g
gm
[IR
OW
(D
U)
C14
I
ti
ca5
"a
76
-a
-ffi
-a
-a
a
0
0
r_
0
a
0
C
0
C:
0
C:
0
c
0
r_
0
o"a
"0
�o
"0
�o
"D
-a
'0
�o
'0
'a
'a
'a
'D
-0
�o
'0
m
(a
co
co
m
ca
ca
m
m
IL 00
40-
1.0-
40-
40-
40-
1.0-
.0-
40
40 -
co
CD
CD
0)
CD
0)
V)
CD
0)
0)
0)
c
a
c
c
r_
C:
r-
c
m
m
m
m
cu
cu
M
VQ
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
(D
CL
CL
0.
CL
0-
0-
a
CL
CL
in
CL
a
CL
0-
0-
a
0.
0-
CL
r
ca
cu
m
m
cu
ca
cu
cu
cu
a)
a)
(D
CD
a)
tll
o
(D
a)
a)
0)
a)
a)
a)
(D
a)
0.
D.
0-
CL
0-
0-
a
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E �:
E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 a)
0 a)
C.)
0
0
0
C.)
0
0
0 >
>
C=
r-
C:
C:
C:
4-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O(1)
-a
"a
_0
'a
'D
'a (1)
'0
_0 "a
"0 _0
4a--
a)
a)
(D
tr_-
(1)
L=
L= Q)
(1)
0 c
LP D
E0 c
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 .
0
C C:
O
C: r_
a c
-�
a a
—.0
c a
—.0
a a
.
C C:
0
a c
0
c c
0
.0
.0
.0
CL
m M
ca M
ca cu
m co
ca m
m m
0 m
m w
cc co
CL
CL
,
M�
0
CL�
0
CL�
0
M�
M4
CL
a Zo
CL
a
0-
0- Zo
CL
CL
to
ro
<
<
<
<
ca
CL
-:CL
cc
a)
ca
ca
0
0
a)
cu
0
a)
O
"0
Lu
0
>
cn
>,
50
CL
(1)
a)
CL
a)
co
a)
Y
=3
LL
ca
a)
(D
z
p
p
z
CD
z
z
co
U")
co
m
co
v
0
C:
0- co
C)
co
6
co
1
IT
0
-0
m
0
0
0
cq
0
U)
(D
�. U)
a_ N
_j
C
N
0
N
2
0
N
CD
N
to'
-j
-1
060
rv-
0-
0-
uj
ID
(L
0.
Cp
0
a)
L)
cl)
tu
ca
0
0
0
"0
(n
Q)
'a
U)
5
F
a)
0
W
a)
CU
a)
2
C:
>
1�
2.1
0
to 5s
Z—M
in-
>
uj
>
Lu
0>1
� r_ iF=
>
c C
2 c
a) 'E
E '2
75 C:
E
E
cu
E
0
CL
a) C:
(D
cm
CL
cu 0
0.0
0
M 0
Cf) -rn
04
0)
0 LL
0)
0 M_
0)
Z
a)
-0
IL
.2
'o
C)
(D
a a)
a
z
cn
C7
c
m '0
m
M -0
a) m.
-0
a) m—
C� o
m
0
a)
0)
0)
Z
00
0 0
0]•e
0) E
C) E
C) E
0
E
2� .2
—
n U)
0 cn
I--
fl- 0
(D
:
0
CD 0
r- o
o
0) '6
V
to ':
t-
C� ca
"
N
C
oll
Z
w
. C,4
cc) o
C\l
CD 01
m
0
ce) -0
(14
LO
c\1 a)
(3)
c\l a)
—
CL
1
co
,
N
<
11
z
CL
04
CN q
Nt Qo�
00
z
cj z
I
N
a)
0)
o.
LL/
O
C
.2
a
.2
a
.0
c:
3
L
C=
.0
r_
LD
c
.2
C:
.2
a
.2
a
.0
r_
L
cu
cu
m
m
cu
m
m
m
cu
m
m
cu
10
40-
40-
40-
0
0
4-
0
4-
0
4-
0
0
4-
0
4-
0
4-
0)
cm
0)
0)
cm
tm
0)
0)
0)
0)
M
of
C:C:
cu
cu
co
m
cu
(a
m
m
A-_
m
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
a
vy
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
0.
CL
CL
CL
co
cu
co
ca
m
m
m
m
cu
m
m
m
a,
CL
rL
CL
M
Q.
CL
CL
0.
CL
a
CL
CL
E
E 3:
E
E3:
E
E
E
E 3
E
E
E
E
0
0.0
o
O.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0>
L)
0
0
0>
u
L)
0
C.)
C:
r-
r-
4-4-
0
o
6
16
'o
0
45
0
0
0
0
0
"D
'0 -o
a)
"0
a)
o a
a) c
'0
(i)
o
a)
"a'0'0
a)
(1) C
_0
(D
70
a)
'0
(1)
70
(1)
0
0
t
16
16
0
0
i5
16
0
0
16
C
c r:
a a
a a
a c
c c
a a
a a
c c
c a
c c
a a
0
r 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
mm
E
cpm
m
m
E
(u
mm
ca
E
(U cu
m
m
mm
E
.0
p
E
-
p
.2 p
E
.2
0-40
CL
CL
-a
0
CL
CL 0
COL
a, �o
CL 4
0-
CL'.o-
L
ac
R �o
0
M�
CL -
40
CL -
o
CL 4
0
CL
0
c
<
C:
<
. r-
<
. c
<
r
-
<
. -
<
<
<
a)
Cl
cm
0
2
cu
i
ca
a)
0)
C:
CL
0 a)
0
E
0
r_
-
:3
0
>
Ca
0
5
CL)
a)
co
CU
<
C:
0
CD
0)
a
x
m
-6
r
<
0
CD
U-
.0
cr-
m
CL
a)
a)
0
cu
F-
<
<
<
�l
(D
z
z
z
O
D
z
z
0
0
m
U')(D
00
C)
m
r
m
I.
N
I.
co
CD
CO
C�
m
co
co
CD
0
0
C)
C)
C
0
0
0
N
C)
N
EL
0
N
-J
-j
CL
CL
CL
a
D
D
Q
a)
(D
0)
a)
0
>
U)
:2
U)
ma)
(n
E
Z
0
0
Cf)
N
>a)
>
0
C:
a)
a)
-0
E
0.0—
cm
E
NE
CD
C: r_
X)
a)
4TO
a
FU
R >
0
:3
Erl
U) =3
a
0 a
0
E
0)
4-
0 E
-1 E
U)
M
a)
a,
-0 C:
4C-3
C 0
M
0
0
-
orm
0
0-2
-6 m
0
3- —
AM -&,
'0
0
3: —
0
d) IC3
r_
a 7&,
ca
ca
=0
a)
m I, -
z
—0
U- .0
(D N
a
G. co
o a
>' -
j =
2
— co
0 0
-J
0 w
-J . c
—
0 m
-0 cu
c
z3:
in 9
0
LD
MC)
-0
-0
.0
Lo
CO
0)
f
LUL
rz
Co S
O,
N
M <
t a)
C-4 Z
co
-Lo
00
z
Q
(D
O. z
(D
mU
IL
OZ,
M.
C14
C14
Cl) -I
N —
04 —CA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
1, Stella Marquez, declare as follows:
On May 24, 2011, the Diamond Bar Planning Commission
session at 7:00 p.m., at the South Coast Quality Management
Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
Items for consideration are listed on the attached agenda.
1, Stella Marquez, declare as follows:
will hold a regular
District/Government
I am employed by the City of Diamond Bar. On May 20, 2011, 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 May 20, 2011, at Diamond Bar, California.
Stella Marquez��
Community. Development Department
CD/zste11a\affiday itposfing.doc
131013�A �-'Mb I=
21825 COPLEY DRIVE
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765
DATE: May 24, 2011
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DEPT.
TO: Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
VIA: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director
FROM: Erwin Ching, Assistant Engineer
RE: Agenda Item 8.1: Tentative Parcel Map No. 71362
The Public Works/Engineering Department Condition A.18 on page 11 is hereby
requested to be removed from the conditions of approval.
A.18 - "Applicant shall submit recorded document(s) from the Diamond Bar Country
Estates Association indicating the project will have proper/adequate right -of -entry to the
subject site."
The aforementioned condition is a condition that is applicable for larger tract
subdivisions and does not apply to subdivision projects of this size.
cc: David Liu, Public Works Director
Greg Gubman, Community Development Director
Kimberly Young, Associate Engineer
Grace Lee, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF. THE. CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
NO. 71362 FOR SUBDIVISION OF AN EXISTING VACANT 3.07 ACRE LOT INTO
TWO LOTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A`SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON.EACH
LOT LOCATED AT 2127 DERRINGER LANE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA
(APN 8713-034-030).
A. RECITALS
1. The property owner, Sumermal Vardhan, and applicant, Tritech Associates,
Inc., have filed anapplication for Tentative .Parcel Map No. PL2010-128 to
subdivide an existing vacant lot into two .separate lots for the development of a
single-family residence om each lot located at 2127 Derringer Lane. Hereinafter
t Tentative Parcel Ma "shall be collectively referred
tion
the sub ec T
in this. resolution, 1 p Y
to as the"Project."
2. The subject property is made up of one parcel totaling 133,697 gross square
feet ;(3.07 acres). It is located in the Rural' Residential (RR) zone with an
underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential.
3. The. legal description of. the subject property is Lot 56 of Tract No. 23483. The
Assessor's Parcel Number is 8.713-019-004.
4. Notification of the public hearing for this project,.was published in the San
Gabriel Valley .Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on
May 13, 2011. Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a
1,000 -foot radius of the. project site and public notices were posted at the City's
designated community posting sites. In additione to the published and mailed
notices, the project site was posted with a display board and the notice was
posted at three other locations within the project vicinity;
5. On May 24, 2011, . 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; and
6. The documents and materials constituting the administrative record of the
proceedings upon which the City's decision is based are located at the City of
Diamond Bar, Community Development Department; Planning Division,
21825 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91.765.
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; and
2. In accordance to the provisions, of the California Environmental Quality. Act
(CEQA), Section 15070, the City prepared and filed an Initial Study, and Notice
of Intent to. Adopt Negative Declaration for the project on April 28, 2011, with
the Los Angeles County. Clerk. Pursuant to CEQA Section15105, . the public
review period for the Negative Declaration began April 29, 2011, and ended
May 18, 2011.
C. FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein and as prescribed under
Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Section 21.20, this Planning Commission
hereby recommends that the City Council make the following findings:
1. 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;
Tentative Map Findings: Pursuant.to Subdivision Code Section 21.20.080 of
the City's Subdivision Ordinance, the Planning Commission recommends that
the City Council make the following findings:
a. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and
improvement, is consistent with the general plan and any applicable
specific plan;
The proposed project`involves the subdivision of an existing vacant
133,697 square -foot (3.07 acres) gross lot into two separate lots for. the
development, of a single-family residence on each lot. Proposed Parcel 1
is 73,283 square -feet (1.68 acres) and Parcel 2 is 60;414 square -feet
(1.34 acres). The property is zoned Rural Residential with a consistent
underlying General Plan land use 'designation. The development of a
single-family residence on each lot will be processed through a
Development Review application for compliance with the City's General
Plan, City Design Guidelines and development standards. The project
will provide additional homeownership , opportunities of single-family
housing that will be compatible with the surrounding development.
The project site is not part of any theme area, specific plan, community
plan, boulevard or planned development:
2.
TPM No. 71362 PL 2010-126
b. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of
development;
The proposed subdivision will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of
neighboring existing or future developments because the use of each lot
is for a single -family home and the surrounding uses are also . single -
family homes. The maximum allowed density for the Rural Residential
general plan land use designation and zoning district is one dwelling unit
Per grossacre (1 DU/Acre). Therefore, with a 3.07 acre lot, the
proposed project is in compliance with the City's General Plan with
regards to density. Also, the proposed location of the building pads and
footprints are in compliance with. the development standards and the
retaining walls associated with the lot pads are designed to be four feet
high.
C. The .design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not
cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat;
Pursuant to, the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Section 15168 et seq., an Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
and Negative Declaration has been prepared for the application and
found that the proposed project would not have any potentially significant
impacts on the environment.
d. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause
serious public health or safety problems;
The grading will be constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance
with the ' recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical
investigation to assure that geotechnical stability is maintained or
increased. Detailed drainage. and hydrology studies will be completed,
including the potential for debris flows, and the proposed conditions of
approval will likely prevent any significant increases in erosion and flood
hazards.
Before the issuance of any City permits, the proposed project is required
to comply with all conditions within the approved resolution, and the
Building and Safety Division and Public Works Departments, and . Los
Angeles County Fire Department requirements. Through the permit and
inspection process, the referenced agencies will ensure that the
proposed project is not detrimental to the public health, 'safety or welfare
or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity.
e. The design of the subdivision or typeof improvements will not conflict
with, easements, acquired by the public at large for access through or
use of, property within the proposed subdivision:
3
TPM No. 71362 PL 2010-128
The site does not have any access easements on-site. However, the
proposed project is conditioned to dedicate an easement in front of the
property as part of the private street.
The proposed subdivision will not interfere with vehicular or pedestrian
movements, such as access or other functional requirements of a single
family home because it complieswith the requirements for driveway
widths.
f. The discharge of sewage from the proposed subdivision into the
community sewer system would not result in violation of existing
requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board;
The proposed subdivision will not violate any requirement of the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board. To reduce water
quality impacts to a level less than significant, the proposed subdivision
is required to comply with the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Federal Clean Water Act, and the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program, implementing construction -
related Best Management Practices (BMP s) and Standard Urban
Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) criteria. With project design
features related to the storm drain system and conditions of approval,
potentially significant water quality impacts would be reduced to a levels
Tess than significant.
g. A preliminary soils report or geologic hazard report does not indicate
adverse soil or geologic conditions; and
The grading will be constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance
with the recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical
investigation to assure that geotechnical stability is maintained or
increased.
h. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable provisions of
the City's subdivision ordinance, the development code, and the
subdivision map act:
The proposed subdivision is consistent with the City's subdivision
ordinance, subdivision map act, and applicable development code. In
addition, the development of a single-family residence on each lot will be
processed through a Development Review application for compliance
with the City's development standards.
2 Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, the Planning
Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Tentative
Parcel Map No. 71362 subject to the, following conditions and the attached
Standard Conditions of Approval:
4
TPM No. 71362 PL 2010-128
a: GENERAL
1.
The approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. PL2010-128 expires
within three years from the date of approval if the use has not
been exercised as defined per Diamond Bar Municipal Code
Section (DBMC) 21.20.140. The applicant may request in writing
for a three year time extension if submitted to the City no less than
60 days prior to the approval's expiration date, subject to
DBMC 21.20.150 for City Council approval;
2.
Within five days of this approval, the subdivider/applicant shall pay
to the City, the -Department of Fish and Game fee pursuant to
Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code;
3.
The applicant shall comply with the requirements of City Planning,
- Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works Department, and the
Los Angeles County Fire Department;
4.
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 Tentative Parcel -Map
No. PL2010-128, at the City of 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 applicant pay
the remaining City processing fees, school fees and fees for the
review of submitted reports.
5:`
The development of the single-family residence on each lot shall
be submitted. for review and approval of a Development Review
application and shall comply with the City's Development Code;
6.
Prior to any use of the project site or -business activity being
commenced thereon; . all conditions of approval shall be
completed;
7.
The project site, shall be maintained and operated in full
compliance with the conditions of approval and all laws, or other
applicable regulations; and
8.::
Standard Conditions. The applicant shall comply with the standard
development conditions attached hereto.
b. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CONDITIONS
1.
Approval of the Tentative Parcel, Map is for subdivision of land
only. No land use. or development entitlements are expressed or
implied..
5
TPM No. 71362 PL 2010-128
2
3.
4.
The development shall provide parcels, easements or rights-
of-way for private streets, water supply and distribution systems,
sewage disposal systems, storm drainage facilities, solid waste
disposal and public utilities providing electric, gas, and
telecommunications services;
All utilities shall be installed underground in compliance with
DBMC Section 21.30.110;
The development shall carry out the specific requirements of
Chapter 21.30 (Subdivision Design and Improvement
Requirements) and Chapter 21.34 (Improvement Plans and
Agreements) of the Subdivision Ordinance;
5. The development shall secure compliance with the requirements
of the Subdivision Ordinance and the General Plan;
6. The design of the subdivision shall provide, to the extent feasible,
for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the
subdivisions, in compliance- with Subdivision Map Act
Section 66473.1;
7. Prior to final parcel map approval, the subdivider shall pay a
parkland dedication in lieu fee for park and recreational purposes
in the amount of $26,138, which equals the parkland obligation
derived from the formula in DBMC Section 21.32.040(C) times the
average per -acre fair market value for the appropriate park
planning area. For the purposes of determining the required fee,
the term "fair market value" shall mean the market value of the
land as determined by the City staff, and approved by the :
Commission or Council, prior to or at tentative map approval. If
the subdivider objects to the valuation, the subdivider, at his/her
expense, may obtain an appraisal of the property by a qualified
real estate appraiser approved by the City whose appraisal may
be accepted by the City if found reasonable. Fair market value
may be determined by mutual agreementof. the City and
subdivider; however, decisions of the City as to fair market value
shall be final and conclusive. Any fees collected shall be
committed within five years after payment, or issuance of building
permits on one-half of the lots created by the subdivision,
whichever occurs later. If the fees are not committed; they shall
be distributed and paid to the then record. owners of the
subdivision in the same proportion that the size of their lot bears
to the total area of all lots within the subdivision; and
8. The subdivider shall install any improvements necessary to fulfill
the conditions of approval. ' Improvement shall be defined as any
infrastructure including streets, storm drains, sewers and the like
in accordance to DBMC.Section 21.34.020 thru21.34.030:
6
TPM No. 71362 PL 2010,128
,�aQj
v
STANDARD CONDITI,ONS
USE PERMITS COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. NEW AND
REMODELED STRUCTURES
PROJECT #: Tentative Tract Map No. PL 2010-128
SUBJECT: To subdivide an existing vacant 133,697 square -foot (3.07 acres)
gross lot into two separate lots for the development of a single-
family residence on each lot.
PROPERTY Sumermal Vardhan
OWNER(S): 320 Woodruff
Walnut, CA 91789
APPLICANT: Tritech Associates, Inc.
135 N. San Gabriel Blvd.
San Gabriel, CA 91775
LOCATION: 2127 Derringer Lane, Diamond Bar, CA 91765
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. GENERA. L 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 Tentative Parcel Map No. PL 2010-128 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. madea party of any such
action:
(a) Applicant shall provide a,defense to the City defendants or at the City's
option reimburse the. City its costs of defense, .including reasonable
attorneys fees, incurred in defense of such claims.
8
TPM No. 71362 PL 2010-128
I
(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. The, subdivider/applicant shall remove the public hearing notice board within
three days of this project's approval.
3. Approval of this request shall not waive "compliance with all sections of the
Development Code; all applicable City Ordinances, and any applicable Specific
Plan in effect at the time of grading and building permit issuance.
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 or grading permit (whichever comes first), as
required by the City. In addition, the applicant shall pay all, remaining prorated
City project review and processing fees prior to issuance of grading or building
permit, whichever comes first.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING. DEPARTMENT AT
(909) 839-7040, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS
A. GENERAL
1. If applicable, a detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes,. physical
conditions, fencing, and weed control, in accordance with .City Master Trail
drawings, shall be submitted for review and approval prior to approval and
recordation of the Final Parcel Map and prior to approval of the grading plan.
Developer shall upgrade and construct all trails, including fencing and drainage
devices.
2. 1 A title .report/guarantee showing all fee owners, interest holders, and nature of
interest shall be submitted for final parcel map plan check. An updated title
report/guarantee and subdivision "guarantee shall be submitted ten (10)
business days prior to final parcel map approval.
3. A permit from the Los Angeles County Public Works Department shall be
required for work within its right, of=way or connection to its facilities.
4. Any existing easement for open space, utilities, riding, and hiking trails .shall be
relocated and/or grading performed, as necessary, to provide, for the portion
within the project site, practical access for.the intended use.
i 5. Prior to final parcel map approval, written certification that all utility services and
any other service related to, the site shall be` available to serve the proposed
project and shall be submitted to the City. Such letters shall be issued by the.
district`, utility and cable television company, within ninety'(90) days' prior to
parcel map approval.
9
TPM No. 71362 PL 2010 -1 28
6. Prior to final parcel map approval, applicant shall submit to the City Engineer
the detail cost estimates for bonding purposes of all grading and site
improvements.
7. Prior to final parcel map approval, if any. public or private improvements
required as part of this map have not been completed by applicant and
accepted by the City, applicant shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the
City and shall post the appropriate security.
S. Prior to final parcel map approval all site grading, landscaping, irrigation, and
sewer improvement plans shall be approved by the City Engineer, surety shall
be posted, and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all public
and private improvements.
9. Prior to issuance of grading permits, surety shall be posted and .an agreement
executed guaranteeing completion, of all drainage facilities necessary for
dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
10. Any details or notes which may be inconsistent with requirement or ordinances,
general conditions or approval, or City policies shall. be specifically approved in
other conditions or ordinance requirements and modified to those shown on the
tentative parcel map upon approval by the Advisory agency.
11. Easements for disposal of drainage water onto or over adjacent parcels shall be
delineated and shown on the final parcel map, as approved by the City
Engineer.
12. Easements, satisfactory to the .City Engineer and the utility companies, for
public. utility .and public services purposes shall be offered and shown on the'
final parcel map for dedication to the City:
13. After the final parcel. map, records, applicant shall submit to the Public
Works/Engineering Department, at no cost to the City, a full size reproducible
copy of the recorded map. Final approval of the public improvements shall not
be given until the copy of the recorded map is. received by the Public
Works/Engineering Department.
14. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall provide, to the City as built mylars,
stamped by appropriate individuals certifying the plan for all improvements at no
cost to'the, City.
15. Applicant shall pay the deposits required for plan check, review, and inspection
to a separate engineering trust deposit where charges can be drawn by the City
or its representatives for services rendered. Charges shall be on an hourly
basis and shall include any City administrative costs.
16. Applicant shall provide digitized information in a. format defined.by the City for
all related plans, at no cost to the City.
10
TPM No. 71362 PL.2010-128
17.
All. activities/improvements for the proposed Tentative Parcel Map shall be
wholly contained within the boundaries of the map. Should _any off-site
activities/improvements be required, approval shall be obtained from the
affected property owner and the City as required by the City Engineer.
B. GRADING
1.
No grading or any staging or construction shall be performed prior to final parcel
map approval by the City Council and map recordation or grading permit
issuance, whichever, comes first. All pertinent improvement plans shall be
approved by the City Engineer prior to final parcel map approval by the City
Council
2.
Prior to beginning any grading activities, appropriate rodent barriers shall be
installed. around the perimeter of the 'project site to prevent the migration of
rodents to. existing residential and commercial sites. A plan detailing the
proposed rodent barriers to be used by the developer/contractor shall be
submitted to the Public Works/Engineering Department for review.
3.
Retaining wall location shall be shown on the grading plan and submitted with a
soils report to, the Public Works/Engineering Department for review and
approval concurrently with the grading plan check.
4.
Exterior grading and construction activities and the transportation of equipment
and materials and operation . of heavy gradingequipment shall` be limited to
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.; Monday through. Saturday. Dusfi
generated by grading and construction. activities shall be reduced by watering
the soil prior to and during the activities and in accordance with South Coast Air
Quality Management District Rule 402 and Rule 403. Reclaimed water shall be
Utilized whenever possible. Additionally, all construction equipment shall be,
properly muffled to reduce noise levels.
5.
All equipment staging areas shall be located on the project site. Staging area,
including material stockpile and equipment storage area, shall be , enclosed
within a six foot-high chain link fence. All access points in the defense shall be
locked whenever the construction site is not supervised.
6.
Precise' grading plans for each lot shall be submitted to the Community and.
Development Services Department/Planning Division for approval prior, to
issuance of building permits. (This may be,on an incremental or composite
basis).
,
11
TPM No. 71362 PL 2010-128
7. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California
Building Code, City Grading Ordinance, Hillside Management Ordinance and
acceptable grading practices.
8. The maximum grade of driveways serving building pad ureas shall be
1.5 percent. In hillside areas driveway grades exceeding 10 percent shall have
parking landings with a minimum 16 feet deep and shall not exceed five (5)
percent grade or as required by the City Engineer. Driveways with'a slope of
15 percent shall incorporate grooves for traction ,into the construction as
required by the City Engineer.
9. At the time of submittal of the 40 -scale grading plan for plan check, a detailed
soils and geology report shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval.
Said report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and/or geologist licensed
by the State of California. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the report
shall address, but not be limited to the following:
a. Stability analyses of daylight shear keys with a 1:1 projection from
daylight to slide plane; a projection plane shall have a safety factor of
1.5.
b. All soils and geotechnical constraints (i.e., landslides, shear key
locations, etc.,) shall be delineated in detail with respect to proposed
building envelopes. Restricted use areas and structural setbacks shall
be considered and delineated prior to recordation of the final parcel map.
C. Soil remediation measures shall be designed for a "worst case" geologic
interpretation subject to verification in the field during grading.
d. The extent of any remedial grading into natural areas shall be clearly
defined on the grading plans.
e. Areas of potential for debris flow shall be defined and proper remedial
measures implemented as approved by the City Engineer:
f. Gross stability of all fill slopes shall be analyzed as part of geotechnical
report, including remedial fill that replaces natural slope.
g. Stability of all proposed slopes shall be confirmed by analysis as
approved by the City Engineer.
h. All geologic data including landslides and exploratory excavations must
be shown on a consolidated geotechnical map using the 40 -scale final
grading plan as a base.
i. All geotechnical and soils related findings and recommendations shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any
grading permits and recordation of the final parcel map.
10. Final grading plans shall be designed in compliance with the recommendations
of the final detailed soils and engineering geology reports. All remedial
earthwork specified in the final report shall be incorporated into the grading
12
TPM No. 71362 PL 2010-128
plans. Final grading plans shall be signed and stamped by a California
registered Civil Engineer, registered Geotechnical Engineer and registered
Engineering Geologist and approved by the City Engineer.
11.
The applicant shall comply with Standard Urban .Storm Water Mitigation Plan
(SUSMP) requirements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Please refer to
City handouts. The applicant shall incorporate Structural or Treatment Control
Best Management Practices for storm water runoff into the grading plans for
construction and post -construction activities respectively.
12.
All slopes shall be seeded per landscape plan and/or fuel modification plan with
native ' grasses or planted with ground cover, shrubs, and trees for. erosion
control Upon completion. of grading or some other alternative method of erosion
control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and a
permanent irrigation system shall be installed.
13.
An Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted concurrently with the grading plan
clearly detailing erosion control measures. . These measures shall be
implemented during construction. and maintained by the contractor all year
round. The erosion control plan shall conform to national Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) standards and incorporate the appropriate Best
Management Practices (BMP's) as specified in the Storm Water BMP
Certification.
14.
A Storm Water Pollution Prevention. Plan (SWPPP) shall be submitted to the
State and City for approval prior to issuance of any permits:
15. '
Submit a stockpile plan showing the proposed location for stockpile for grading
export materials, and the route of transport.
16.
Prepare a horizontal control plan and submit concurrently with the grading plan
for review and approval.
17.
Prior to the issuance of Grading Permits, a pre -construction meeting must be
held at the,project site with the grading contractor, applicant, and city grading
inspector at least 48 hours prior to commencing grading operations.
18.
Rough Grade certifications by project civil and soils engineer.and an as -graded
geotechnical report shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits for
the foundations of structures. Retaining wall permit may be issued concurrently
With the grading permit.
19.
Final Grade certifications by project civil engineer shall be submitted to the
Public'Works/Engineering Department prior to the, issuance of any project final
Inspections/certificate of occupancy.
13
TPM No. 71362 PL 2010-128.
C. DRAINAGE
.D.
E.
1. All terrace drains and drainage channels shall be constructed in muted earth
tones so as not to impart adverse visual impacts. Terrace drains shall follow
landform' slope configuration and shall not be placed in an exposed positions.
All down drains shall be hidden in swales diagonally or curvilinear. across a
slope face.
2. All drainage improvements necessary for dewatering and protecting the
subdivided properties shall be installed prior to issuance of building permits, for
construction upon any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering,
leaving, or within a parcel relative to which a building permit is requested.
3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a complete hydrology and hydraulic
study shall be prepared by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Los Angeles Public Works
Department.
STREET IMPROVEMENT (Not Applicable)
UTILITIES
Easements, satisfactory to the City Engineer and the utility companies, for
public utility and public services purposes shall be offered and shown on the
detailed site plan for dedication to the City.
Prior to final parcel map approval or issuance of building permit whichever
comes first; written certification that all utility services and .any other service
related to the site shall be .available to serve the proposed project and shall be
submitted to the City. Such letters shall be issued by the district, utility and
cable television company, if applicable, within ninety (90) days prior issuance of
grading permits.
3. Prior to recordation of final parcel map, applicant shall provide. separate
underground utility services to each parcel per Section 21.30 of Title 21 of the
City Code, including sewer, water, gas, electric power, telephone and cable TV,
in accordance with the respective utility company standards. Easements
required by the utility companies shall be approved by the City Engineer.
a
2.
4. Easements E5, E8, E11; and E13 as shown on the approved Tentative Parcel
Map no. 71362 shall be abandoned or relocated to a location satisfactory to the
City Engineer and easement documents for the aforesaid abandonment and
relocation shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded in the Los
Angeles County Recorder's Office prior to final parcel map approval or permit
issuance whichever comes first.
5. Applicant shall relocate and underground any existing on-site utilities to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and the respective utility owner.
14
TPM No. 71362 PL 2010-128
I
6. Underground utilities shall not be constructed within five feet of the drip line of
any mature tree except as approved by a registered arborist.
F. SEWERS
1. The applicant shall execute and record a Waiver and (Agreement releasing Los
Angeles County from any costs or damages incurred from removal of all
obstructions to clear the easement and make way for authorized personnel to
enter said right of way to install, maintain, repair, or reconstruct a sewer prior to
final parcel map approval or permit issuance whichever comes first.
2. The sanitary sewer system serving the parcels shall be connected to the City or
District sewer system. Said system shall be of the size, grade and depth
approved by the City Engineer, County Sanitation District and Los Angeles.
County Public Works and surety shall be provided and an agreement executed
prior to approval of the final parcel map.
3. A 6' wide easement for sanitary sewer purposes shall be reserved for Parcel 1
to allow for a sewer lateral connection to the main sewer trunk line located on
Parcel 2. An easement document and plat map of the aforesaid easement
document shall be reviewed by the City and upon approval recorded with the
Los Angeles County recorder's office prior to. final parcel map approval or
permit issuance whichever comes first.
4. The 6' wide easement for sanitary sewer purposes dedicated to the County on
Recorded _ Map of Tract No. 23483 and. noted as Easement E2 on TPM
No. 71362 shall be extended to Derringer Lane and dedicated to the City of
Diamond Bar. This easement document shall be submitted to the 'City for
review and upon approval recorded with the Los Angeles County .recorder's
office prior to final parcel map approval or permit issuance whichever comes
first:
5. Applicant shall obtain connection permit(s) from the. City and County Sanitation ,
District prior to issuance of building permits
-6. Applicant, at . applicant's sole cost and expense, shall construct the sewer
system in accordance with the City, Los Angeles County Public Works Division
and County Sanitation District Standards prior to occupancy.
G. TRAFFIC (MITIGATIONS (Not Applicable)
END
15
TPM No. 71362 PL 2010-128
Planning Commission
City of Diamond Bar
We understand Mr. Vardhan is requesting a lot split for his property on
Derringer Lane in Diamond Bar. We have reviewed the plans and are in
support of this request and recommend you approve it.
We would be in support of lot split as long as 1 acre gross minimum
property area is provided for each lot. We are able to testify in this
matter if requested to do so.
C A c7174S—
Name
Signature
------------------
Address
T- Iq— /I
---------------------------
Planning Commission
City of Diamond Bar
We understand Mr. Vardhan is requesting a lot split for his property on
Derringer Lane in Diamond Bar. We have reviewed the plans and are in
support of this request and recommend you approve it.
We would be in support of lot split as long as 1 acre gross minimum
property area is provided for each lot. We are able to testify in this
matter if requested to do so.
Name
---------------
Signature
Date
ddress
c�
---------
STEPHEN W. ROGERS, P.E. CONSULTING
820 CHURCH ST. REDLANDS, CA 92374
PHONE: 909.556.1988 (CELL) EMAIL: STEVE—ROGERS@VERIZON.NET
May 24, 2011
City of Diamond Bar
21825 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178
Attn: Planning Commissioners Chairman Jagdish Shah, Vice Chairman
Kwang Ho Lee, Jimmy Lin, Steve Nelson, Tony Torng
SUBJECT: No Record of City of Diamond Bar Business Licenses for Jagdish
"Jack" Shah dba ARCHENG-PM Assoc., and Farhad Alamolhoda, dba Local
Agency Engineering (LAE)
To Whom It May Concern: '
I have been informed by the Diamond Bar City Clerk's office, upon
submission of a public records request, that the subject engineering
businesses located within the city limits have not applied for and/or
obtained approval from the City to conduct business operations, for the
following business names and locations:
1) ARCHENG-PM Assoc., Consulting Architects/ Engineers
Owner: Jagdish "Jack" Shah
22900 Estoril Drive, #5
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4490
(909)816-1424
2) Local Agency Engineering (LAE)
Owner: Farhad "Fred" Alamolhoda
20709 Golden Springs Drive, Suite 104
Diamond Bar, CA 91789
(909)374-2840
Concerning LAE, I was informed by the City Clerk that the last time there
was record of Mr. Alamolhoda obtaining a business license was in 2006-
2007 under the name Municipal Engineering Resources (MER), a firm
where I held one-half ownership interest.
I have requested to meet with the City Manager's office regarding public
contracting practices involving public officials abusing their authority
and/or receiving financial benefit due to improper influence being
exerted over private consultants, thereby misusing their official capacities
with the City of Diamond Bar and/or the Four Corners Transportation
Coalition (FCTC).
2
If there are any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact
me at cell (909) 556-1988. Thank you for your time and assistance with
these difficult matters that I would request be rectified in a timely
fashion, and that the appropriate fines be levied against the above
business entities doing business with and in the City of Diamond Bar in
order to recover this lost revenue.
C: Diamond Bar City Council
'VOLUNTARY RE+QUES-7TO ADiDRFSS TfM PLANNING COM MSION
AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT: zlee'se"'s
TO: Planning Commission Secretary DATE:
FROM:
ADDRESS: (/�✓ `S ��G /' �►�
_ ORGANIZATION: � � �i `I X v,
SUBJECT: ��� Ci. � - �ZI�Z
I would like to .address the Planning'Conmission 'on the abovestated�127sereflect my name and address aiprinted above. have the Commission Minutes
NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and addr e Pla
to assist the Chairman in ensuring that all eno address the ing ion. This form is intende,
have the opportunity and to ensure correct spelling of n es in the Minutes.
Will