HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/14/1997S
PLANNING
COMMISSION
AGENDA
OCTOBER 14, 1997
7:00 P.M.
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Auditorium
21865 East Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, California
Chairman
Vice Chairman
Commissioner
Commissioner
Conzmi over
.Toe Ruzicka
Don Schad
FrankEn Fong
Mike Goldenberg
Joe McManus
Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Planning
Division of the Dept. of Community & Development Services, located at 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190,
and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please call
(909) 396-5676 during regular business hours.
In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title 11 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the
City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or
accomodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting must inform the Dept. of Community &
Development Services at (909) 396-5676 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.
Please ref rain from smoking, eating or drinking
in the Auditorium
The City of Diamond Bar uses acycled PaM
and encoumges you to do the same.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAIL
PLANNING COMNIISSION AGENDA
t Tuesday, October 14, 1997
Next Resolution No. 97-13
CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE, OF ALLEGIANCE:
1. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Joe Ruzicka, Vice Chairman Don
Schad, Mike Goldenberg, Franklin Fong, and Joe McManus
2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS:
This is the time and place for the general public to address the members of the Planning
Commission on any item that is within their jurisdiction, allowing the public an opportunity to
speak on non-public hearing and non -agenda items.. Please coml2lete a 19= no Card for the
recording Scactaa (,CgMDkf= of -this form is volunlary.)_ There is a five min"Ic rn time
limit when addressing the Planning (`+.
3. 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:
3.1 Minutes of September 23, 1997
3.2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-3, A REQUEST
TO ALLOW THE SALE OF BEER AND WINE IN AN EXISTING MINI -MART
AT THE CHEVRON GAS STATION AT 21324 PATHFINDER ROAD, DIAMOND
BAR, CALIFORNIA.
4. OLD BUSINESS: None
5. NEW BUSINESS: None
6. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
6.1 General Plan Amendment No. %-2, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 52267,
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 52308, Conditional Use Permit No. 96-13,
Conditional Use Permit No. 96-16, Oak Tree Permit No. 96-3 and Oak Tree
Permit No. 96-5.
Pursuant to Code Sections Title 21 -Subdivision, 22.56.215 -Part 1 -Hillside Management
Area, Hillside Management Ordinance No. 7 (1990) and 22.26 -Part 16 -Oak Tree
Permit, the project request consists of the following:
OCTOBER 14, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 1
6.1 a) VTTM NO. 52267, Conditional Use Permit No. 96-13 and Oak Tree
Permit No. 96-3 is proposed for 130 single-family detached residential dwelling units
clustered on approximately 65 acres of a 339.3 -acre site. The development is
proposed as a private, gated community. Lots will range in size from 6,000 square
feet to 26,000 square feet. The gross proposed density is 0.4 dwelling units per acre
with a net density of approximately 2.06 dwelling units per acre; and
6.1 b) VTTM NO. 52308, General Plan Amendment No. 96-2, Conditional Use
Permit No. 96-16 and Oak Tree Permit No. 96-5 is proposed for 60 single-family
detached residential dwelling units clustered on approximately 36.7 acres of the 86.3 -
acre site. The development is proposed as a private, gated community. Lots will
range in size from 8,000 square feet to 41,750 square feet. The gross proposed
density is 0.7 dwelling units per acre with a net density of approximately 1.63
dwelling units per acre.
Additionally, the project includes a General Plan Amendment to allow additional
residential development in excess of 130 dwelling units within General Plan Planning
Area 2, the removal of deed and map restrictions, and the potential for the
acquisition of publicly owned property adjacent to Pantera park and .
Property Address: VTTM NO.52267 - generally located east of Diamond Bar
Boulevard and north of Grand Avenue;
VTFM NO. 52308 - generally located northeast of Pantera Drive
and South of Bowcreek Drive.
Property Owner: Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership, 550 W. Orangethorpe Avenue,
Placentia, CA 92870
Applicant: SunCal Companies, 550 W. Orangethorpe Avenue, Placentia, CA
92806
Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City determined that an Environmental Impact
Report was required for this project.
RECOMMENDATION: The Developer has requested that the project be withdrawn.
Staff recommends that the matter be tabled.
6.2 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50314, Conditional Use Permit No. 96-1, Oak
Tree Permit No. 96-1 and Zone Change 96-1 (pursuant to Code Sections Title 21,
and Title 22.56.215, 22.26 Part 16 and 22.16 Part 2) are requests to approve a 15
lot subdivision on approximately 44 acres. The average lot size will be 2.92 acres.
Six of the proposed lots are part of two approved tracts. Therefore, VTTM 50314's
development will result in a net increase of 13 residential lots. The project site is
within Los Angeles County Significant Ecological Area No. 15. The Zone Change
will convert the current zoning of R-1,200 and A-2-2 to R-1-40,000. (Continued from
September 23, 1997.)
Project Address: Southeast of the most southerly intersection of
Steeplechase Lane and Wagon Train Lane.
Project Owner/Applicant: Kurt Nelson, Windmill Development, 3480 Torrance
Blvd., Suite 300, Torrance, CA 90503
OCTOBER 14, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 2
Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined that an Environmental
Impact Report is required for this project. An Environmental Impact Report No. 97-1
(SCH No. 96071104) has been prepared and is available for public review.
RECOMMENDATION: Due to the applicant's request for a continuance to October
28, 1997, staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing
to October 28, 1997
6.3 General Plan Amendment No. 96-1, Tentative Parcel Map No. 24646, Conditional
Use Permit No. 96-14 and Oak Tree Permit No. 96-4 (pursuant to Code Sections
Title 21 -Subdivision, Hillside Management Ordinance No. 7 (1992) and Part 16-22.26
Oak Tree Permit) The subject request proposes to change the General Plan land use
designation for 5.88 acres within a 132 acre parcel located in a gated community
identified as "The Country Estates". The land use designation will change from Open
Space to Rural Residential. The remaining 126.12 acres will continue as Open Space.
The proposal includes: subdividing the 5.88 acres into four lots, each a minimum of
one acre, for the eventual development of four single family custom homes; the
removal and replacement of oak and walnut trees; and the removal of a map
restriction.
Property Address: Easterly side of Blaze Trail across from the intersection of
Timbertop Lane.
Property Owner/ Diamond Bar Country Estates Association, 22615 Lazy Meadow
Applicant: Drive, Diamond Bar CA 91765
Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined that a Negative
Declaration is required for this project. Negative Declaration No. 97-04 has been
prepared and was available for public review from September 12, 1997 to October
2, 1997.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the
public hearing on General Plan Amendment No. 96-1, Tentative Parcel Map No.
24646, Hillside Management Conditional Use Permit No. 96-14 and Oak Tree Permit
No. 96-4 to January 27, 1998.
6.4 Draft Development Code (Zoning Code Amendment ZCA 97-1 and Negative
Declaration No. 97-3) Review of all Articles of the Draft Development Code, Draft
Subdivision Code, and Draft Design Guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the
Draft Development Code, Draft Citywide Design Guidelines, and Negative Declaration
No. 97-3, and, if appropriate, adopt the Resolutions recommending City Council
approval, and continue the Hearing Subdivision Code to October 28, 1997.
OCTOBER 14. 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 3
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
8. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS:
9. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
CITY COUNCIL - Tuesday, October 21, 1997 - 6:30 p.m. - AQMD Auditorium, 21865
E. Copley Drive
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - Thursday, October 23, 1997 - 7:00 p.m. -
AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive.
TOWN HALL MEETING - Economic Revitalization Plan - October 25, 1997 - 9:00 a.m. -
12:00 p.m. - Golden Springs Elementary School Multi -Purpose Room - 245 Ballena Dr.
PLANNING COMMISSION - Tuesday, October 28, 1997 - 7:00 p.m. - AQMD Auditorium,
2186 E. Copley Drive
CITY COUNCIL - Tuesday, November 4, 1997 - 6:30 p.m. - AQMD Auditorium, 21865
E. Copley Drive
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION - November 13, 1997 - 7:00 - AQMD Board Hearing
Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive.
11. ADJOURNMENT: Tuesday, October 28, 1997 - 7:00 p.m.
OCTOBER 14, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
4
r
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 23, 1997
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Ruzicka called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. in the
South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley
Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by City Engineer George Wentz.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Ruzicka, Vice Chairman Schad, and
Commissioners Goldenberg and McManus
Commissioner Fong arrived at 7:15 p.m.
Also Present: Deputy City Manager James DeStefano, City
Engineer George Wentz, Senior Planner
Catherine Johnson, Associate Planner Ann Lungu
and Planning Technician Susan Cole.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes of September 2, 6 and 9, 1997.
C/Goldenberg moved, C/McManus seconded, to approve the
September 2, 6 and 9 minutes as presented. The motion was
carried 4-0, with C/Fong being absent.
OLD BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS: - None
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Draft Development Code (Zoning Code Amendment SCA 97-1)
Review of all Articles of the Draft Development Code and
Draft Design Guidelines.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue
this item to its October 14, 1997 meeting.
Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing.
There was no one present who wished to speak on this
item.
Without objections, the Commission concurred with staff's
recommendation to continue Draft Development Code review
to its October 14, 1997 meeting.
SEPTEMBER 23, 1997,
PAGE 2
PLANNING CQLSMISSION
2. vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50314, Conditional Use
Permit No. 96-1, Oak Tree Permit No. 96-1 and Sone Change
96-1 (pursuant to Code Sections Title 21, and Title
22.56.215, 22.26 Part 16 and 22.16 Part 2) are requests
to approve a 15 lot subdivision on approximately 44
acres. The average lot size will be 2.92 acres. Six of
the proposed lots are part of two approved tracts.
Therefore, VTTM 50314's development will result in a net
increase of 13 residential lots. The project site is
within Los Angeles County Significant Ecological Area No.
15. The Zone Change will convert the current zoning of
R-1,200 and A-2-2 to R-1-40,000. Continued from August
26, 1997.
Project Address: Southeast of the most southerly
intersection of Steeplechase
Lane and Wagon Train Lane.
Project Owner/Applicant: Kurt Nelson, Windmill
Development, 3480 Torrance
Boulevard, Suite 300, Torrance,
CA 90503
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission reopen the
public hearing, receive testimony and continue the public
hearing to October 14, 1997.
Chair/Ruzicka reopened the public hearing.
Martha Bruske, 600 South Great Bend Drive stated her
concerns about project monitoring. She said she is
opposed to any development within the Significant
Ecological Area (SEA) No. 15.
DCM/DeStefano responded to Mrs. Bruske that this project
requires a Conditional Use Permit which if approved,
mandates specific oversight and conditions of the
development with reference to such items as hillside
slope construction, landscaping and environmental
mitigation. Conditional Use Permits are monitored
through a Mitigation Monitoring Plan (regular site visits
and reporting by staff and City consultants) that
generally lasts for five years after the project has been
approved and developed.
Kurt Nelson, project manager, confirmed his request to
have this item continued- to October 14, 1997. He
explained that with respect to this project, native oak
trees that are contract grown from acorns gathered from
the project site's graded areas are reintroduced on-site
at a 2:1 replacement ratio.
C/Goldenberg moved, C/McManus seconded, to continue
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50314, Conditional Use
SEPTEMBER 23, 1997, PAGE 3 PLANNING COSBION
w
Permit No. 96-1, Oak Tree Permit No. 96-1 and Zone Change
96-1 to October 14, 1997. The motion was carried 5-0
with the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Goldenberg, McManus,
VC/Schad, Chair/Ruzicka
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
7. PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 97-3 is a request (pursuant to
Code Section 22.56.010) to allow the sale of beer and
wine in an existing mini -mart at the Chevron Gas Station.
Property Address: 21324 Pathfinder Road, Diamond Bar,
CA 91765
Applicant: Mohamad Salimnia, 21324 Pathfinder
Road, Diamond Bar, CA
Property Owner: Chevron U.S.A., Inc., P.O. Box 285,
Houston, Texas 77001
PT/Cole presented staff's report. Staff recommends that
the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit
No. 97-3, Findings of Fact and conditions as listed
within the Resolution.
Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing.
Bob Zirbes said he is concerned about the proximity of
the proposed site to Diamond Bar High School and that he
is opposed to approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 97-
3. He said he is surprised that the Walnut Valley School
District and Sheriff's Department have signed off on this
item.
Martha Bruske urged the Commission not to support
Conditional Use Permit No. 97-3 because the site is too
close to the Diamond Bar High School.
Rivers Mcintoush said he is opposed to having beer and
wine sold in close proximity to Diamond Bar High School.
Marco Brambilla, 1021 S. Brand Boulevard, Glendale,
speaking on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favor of
the application.
Chair/Ruzicka closed the public hearing.
Following discussion, C/Goldenberg moved, VC/Schad
seconded, to direct staff to prepare a Resolution of
Denial for consideration at the Planning Commission's
SEPTEMBER 23, 1997, PAGE 4 PLANNING C612%ffSrO*,,
October 14, 1997 meeting. The motion was carried 5-0
with the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Goldenberg, McManus,
VC/Schad, Chair/Ruzicka
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
2. General Plan Amendment No. 96-1, Tentative Parcel Map No.
24646, conditional Use Permit No. 96-14 and Oak Tres Permit
No. 96-4 (pursuant to Code Sections Title 21 -Subdivision,
Hillside Management Ordinance No. 7 (1992) and Part 16-22.26
Oak Tree Permit). The subject request proposes to change the
General Plan land use designation for 5.88 acres within a 132
acre parcel located in a gated community identified as "The
Country Estates". The land use designation will change from
Open Space to Rural Residential. The remaining 126.12 acres
will continue as Open Space. The proposal includes:
subdividing the 5.88 acres into four lots, each a minimum of
one acre, for the eventual development of four single family
custom homes; the removal and replacement of oak and walnut
trees; and the removal of a map restriction.
Property Address: Easterly side of Blaze Trail across from
the intersection of timbertop Lane.
Property Owner/ Diamond Bar Country Estates Association,
Applicant: 22615 Lazy- Meadow Drive, Diamond Bar,
California 91765
AP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive comments
on the Negative Declaration and project entitlements, and
continue the public hearing to October 14, 1997.
Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing.
Loren Phillips, project applicant's representative, explained
the proposed project to the Commission.
DCM/DeStefano stated the City received two letters of
oposition to the project from residents living on Indian Creek
Road, Diamond Bar.
Jan Dabney, Claremont, stated he is present representing
Assemblyman and resident Gary Miller's views. He said Mr.
Miller is not against the development of property that has map
restriction. However, he is against the development of this
specific parcel. It is Mr. Miller's opinion that all property
owners within "The Country Estates" would need to be in
agreement in order for the project to proceed.
SEPTEMBER 23, 1997, PAGE 5
Gary Neeley, Diamond Bar Caucus Executive Director, said he
was also asked by Assemblyman Miller to speak in opposition to
this project. He indicated that a key element of the City's
General Plan is that the lifting of deed and map restrictions
would result in a significant benefit to the community. He
said he believes this project does not significantly benefit
the community.
Art O'Daley, Falcons View Drive, said he believes many
residents of "The Country Estates" are not aware of the
proposed project and because they are opposed to the lifting
of restrictions on Lots 60 and 61, would not agree to lifting
restrictions on the proposed site.
Dr. Peter Chung, Falcons View Drive, Vice President of "The
Country Estates" Board of Directors, said that due to the
recent CC&R changes, an overwhelming 90 percent of the
property owners voted for new facilities including the
proposed subdivision.
Chair/Ruzicka stated the Commission concensus is to request
"The Country Estates" Homeowners Association provide data to
substantiate Mr. Chung's claim.
Vargas Zeropian, Falcons View Drive, spoke in favor of the
project.
Donald Sizemore said he believes that if "The Country Estates"
wants to fix the road, they should pay for it and not invite
a developer to participate in trade-offs.
Mr. Phillips stated this project has been periodically
summarized in "The Country Estates" monthly newsletter.
Dr. Chung responded to C/Goldenberg that all homeowners of
"The Country Estates" will participate in a final vote with
respect to approval of this project.
Following discussion, VC/Schad moved, C/McManus seconded, to
continue the public hearing to October 14, 1997. The motion
was carried 5-0 with the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Goldenberg, McManus, VC/Schad,
Chair/Ruzicka
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
3. General Plan Amendment No. 96-2, Vestinq Tentative Tract Map
No. 52267, Vestinq Tentative Tract Map No. 52308, Conditional
IIse Permit No. 96-13, Conditional ose Permit No. 96-16, Oak
Tree Permit No. 96-3 and Oak Tree Permit No. 96-5.
Pursuant to Code Sections Title 21 -Subdivision, 22.56.215 -Park
1 -Hillside Management Area, Hillside Management Ordinance No.
SEPTEMBER 23, 1997, PAGE 6 PLANNING gSION
f..
7 (1990 and 22.26 -Park 16 -Oak Tree Permit, the project request
consists of the following:
3. a) VTTM No. 52267, Conditional use Permit No. 96-13 and
Oak Tree Permit No. 96-3 is proposed for 130 single family
detached residentila dwelling units clustered on approximately
65 acres of a 339.3 acre site. The development is proposed as
a private, gated community. Lots will range in size from
6,000 square feet to 26,000 square feet. The gross proposed
density is 0.4 dwelling units per acre with a net density of
approximately 2.06 dwelling units per acre; and
3. b) VTTX No. 52308, General Plan Amendment No. 96-2,
Conditional use permit No. 96-16 and Oak Tree Permit No. 96-5
is proposed for 60 single-family detached residential dwelling
units clustered on approximately 36.7 acres of the 86.3 acre
site. The development is proposed as a private, gated
community. Lots will range in size from 8,000 square feet to
41,750 square feet. The gross proposed density is 0.7
dwelling units per acre with a net density of approximately
1.63 dwelling units per acre.
Additionally, the project includes a General Plan Amendment to
allow additional residential development in excess of 130
dwelling units within General Plan Planning Area 2, and the
removal of deed and map restricts and the potential for
acquisition of publicly owned property adjacent to Pantera
Park.
Property Address: VTTM No. 52267 is generally located east
of Diamond Bar Boulevard and north of
Grand Avenue. VTTM No. 52308 is
generally located northeast of Pantera
Drive and south of Bowcreek Drive. City
of Diamond Bar, California.
Applicant: SunCal Companies, 550 W. Orangethorpe
Avenue, Placentia, California 92806
DCM/DeStefano presented staff's report. He indicated that the
City received letters from John and Patricia McCaughin and
from the Munandar family stating their oposition to the
proposed project.
Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing.
Martha Bruske said she is opposed to a General Plan amendment.
She questionned whether the removal of a deed and map
restriction is ever in the best interest of the residents.
Hugh Clary, 24411 Deepsprings Drive, said he is concerned
about the effect of hillside view loss on his property value.
He asked whether replacement of the storm drain, if required,
may impact completion of Pantera Park. He further stated he
SEPTEMBER 23, 1997, PAGE 7 PLANNING C1TpSION
is concerned about the grading activity, increased traffic and
the effect of a gated community on the surrounding property
values.
John Clemons, 667 Boxcove Place, concurred with Mr. Clary's
comments.
Michelle Hickey, 775 Leyland Drive, said she did not received
notice of the public hearing. She requested notices be sent
to residents in tracts that will be significantly effected by
this project especially in light of the fact that the project
proposes to change the City's General Plan. She indicated
that Bramalea promised the land would remain open space. At
this time, traffic on her street is unnaceptable.
Kwang Ho Lee, 23746 Goldrush Drive, said that traffic is
currently too heavy on Goldrush Drive and Diamond Bar
Boulevard. He wants the natural setting around Summitridge
Park preserved. He spoke about the disadvantages of a gated
community and asked the developer to find a more appropriate
location.
Al Perez, 703 Pantera Drive, said he and his neighbors did not
receive notice of this public hearing. Residents do not want
this development. He indicated he is opposed to amending the
City's General Plan and does not want this project approved.
Sam Saffari, 24075 Highcrest Drive, spoke about the adverse
effects of the proposed project with respect to traffic,
noise, pollution and aesthetics. He cited inconsistencies
between the project and the City's General Plan and Hillside
Management Ordinance. He stated the EIR does not provide for
mitigation of the biological losses. He referred to species
of animals he has seen in the proposed project area. He
indicated the reason that the traffic study for this project
states there is no significant impact is that the City's major
intersections are currently over capacity. He stated that
although gnatcatchers were not found to be present in the area
by the City's consultants, their food source is present. He
asked the Commissioners to fight for the citizens and deny the
proposal to build on one of the City's last natural hillsides.
Donald Sizemore spoke in support of a street connecting the
project to a regional bypass highway from Leyland Drive to
remove the traffic from the City's streets. He said a benefit
to the City would be to make the project an open (not gated)
community.
Bob Schwartz, 24038 Highcrest Drive, spoke about the
biological diversity in the area which he does not want
destroyed. He does not believe the proposed project is
consistent with the area and he is opposed to the development.
SEPTEMBER 23, 1997, PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION
Ron Tehron, 745 View Lane, spoke in opposition to the project.
He said the City should initiate a plan to purchase the
property, maintain it as open space for the citizens and
insure an uninterrupted connection between Sycamore Canyon and
Summitridge Park.
Lydia Plunk said she does not support or oppose the project,
she favors the process. She encouraged the City to pursue a
regional bypass road.
Doug Heideman, 656 Benfield Place, said when he purchased his
property he was told there would be no development in the area
of the proposed project. He spoke about water problems he and
his neighbors experience from the project site.
Henry Barela, 661 Benfield Place, spoke about the loss of the
natural open space and his opposition to changing the City's
General Plan.
Ken Martinez, 772 South Farben Drive, stated that some years
ago, Los Angeles County Municipal Advisory Committee agreed
that development should be kept away from the proposed area
and that the open space should be preserved for Diamond Bar
residents. He said he believes prior promises should be
honored.
Jan Freeze -Martinez, (the hawk lady of Diamond Bar), said she
moved here to enjoy the natural open spaces. She is very
concerned about the present level of traffic on the City's
streets and the additional impact the proposed project will
have on the community.
Andrew Wang, 23505 Goldrush Drive, stated his concerns about
traffic on City streets. He asked the Commission to honor the
City's General Plan.
Rivers Mcintoush, 23515 E. Grand Rim Court, said he was told
by -Transamerica when he bought his home that the proposed
project site would be kept as open space. He spoke about
traffic on City streets.
Ed MacDonald, 23417 Wagon Trail Road, said he believes enough
information has been presented to stop this project. He spoke
about his concerns regarding potential slope failure as a
result of this project.
Paul Diebold, 23346 Wagon Trail Road, said he believes the
proposed gated community is inappropriate at this location
because it will prevent connection between areas of the City.
He suggested that as a part of the proposed project the City
consider improvements to the intersection of Tin Drive and
Diamond Bar Boulevard to mitigate site safety concerns. He
expressed his enthusiasm for the City's potential opportunity
to obtain permanent open space and a connection between
SEPTEMBER 23, 1997, PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION
yi
Summitridge Park. and Sycamore Park. Although he has
reservations about the proposed project, he is open to
consideration of trade-off's and consistency with the General
Plan.
David Kersey, 23403 E. Wagon Trail Road, said he believes that
the EIR contains misstatements, inaccurate information and
lack of information with respect to impacts to schools,
traffic counts, demographics and tree replacement mitigation.
Who will reimburse residents for loss of views for which they
paid a premium when they purchased their homes? What
guarantees do residents have that as a result of this project
they will not be subjected to landslides, traffic congestion
and noise?
Danielle Torres, 23411 Wagon Trail Road, spoke about
overcrowding of school classrooms and related impact to the
children of the community. She recommended the proposed site
be used as a park setting for nature classes.
Katherine Box, 927 Pantera, said she was appalled that she did
not receive notice of public hearing for this proposed
project. She is opposed to gated communities because it will
adversely effect surrounding property values and traffic in
the area. She stated she bought in Diamond Bar to enjoy its
tranquility. Pantera Park construction is adversely effecting
her environment and she cannot imagine living through the
construction of the proposed project. She requested that the
Planning Commission act to protect the interests and concerns
of the residents of Diamond Bar.
Mr. Saffari announced that over 100 signatures were collected
this evening.
VC/Schad moved, C/McManus seconded, to continue the public
hearing to October 14,. 1997. The motion was carried 5-0 with
the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Goldenberg, McManus, VC/Schad,
Chair/Ruzicka
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
The Commission concurred to direct staff to send notices of
the October 14, 1997 public hearing to property owners within
a 2,000 foot radius of the proposed project.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: VC/Schad thanked the audience
participants.
C/Fong thanked staff and the Commissioners for their expressions of
concern for his well being.
SEPTEMBER 23, 1997, PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION
Chair/Ruzicka thanked the audience members for their participation
in tonight's meeting.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - None
SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
As scheduled.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the Planning
Commission, Chair/Ruzicka adjourned the meeting at 11:13 p.m. to
Tuesday, October 14, 1997 at 7:OD p.m. in the South Coast Air
Quality Management District Auditorium.
Respectfully Submitted,
Deputy City Manager James DeStefano
Attest:
Joe Ruzicka
Chairman
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: CHAIRMAN AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
FROM: SUSAN COLE, PLANNING TECHNICIAN
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-3, RESOLUTIONOFDENIAL
DATE: OCTOBER 10, 1997
At the Planning Commission Meeting of September 23, 1997 staff
was directed to craft a resolution of denial for Conditional Use
Permit 97-3. Attached is the referenced Resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 97 -XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-3, A REQUEST
TO ALLOW THE SALE OF BEER AND WINE IN AN EXISTING MINI-MkRT AT
THE CHEVRON GAS STATION AT 21324 PATHFINDER ROAD, DIAMOND BAR,
CALIFORNIA.
A. RECITALS.
1. The applicant, Mohamad Salimnia, has filed an
application for Conditional Use Permit No. 97-3 as
described in the above title of this Resolution.
Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional
Use Permit shall be referred to as the "Application."
2. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was
established as a duly organized municipal organization
of the State of California. On said date, pursuant to
the requirements of the California Government Code
Section 57376, Title 21 and 22, the City Council of the
City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 14
(1989), thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as
the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21
and 22 of the Los Angeles County Code contains the
Development Code of the County of Los Angeles now
currently applicable to development applications,
including the subject Application, within the City of
Diamond Bar.
3. Action was taken on the subject application as to its
consistency with the General Plan. It has been
determined that the proposed project is not consistent
with the General Plan.
4. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar on
September 23, 1997 conducted a duly noticed public
hearing on the application and closed the public
hearing. At that time, the Commission requested a
Resolution of Denial be prepared for consideration at the
October 14, 1997 Planning Commission meeting.
5. Notice of the public hearing for this project has been
made in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland
Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on September 2, 1997.
Thirty three property owners within a 500 foot radius
1
"R YF LY
of the project site were notified by mail on September
2, 1997
B, Resol lit i on.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by
the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as
follows:
1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds
that all of the facts set forth in the. Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth
herein, this Planning Commission hereby finds as
follows:
(a) The project relates to a developed parcel
approximately .52 acres in size located at
21324 Pathfinder Road.
(b) The project site is within a Commercial Planned
Development Zone (CPD) and has a General Plan
land use designation of Commercial Office (CO).
However, policies set forth in.the General Plan
(Land Use Element, Strategy 2.2.2) prohibits
the development of land uses which have
operating characteristics that could create
nuisances along boundaries. The subject site
is adjacent to single family homes and Diamond
Bar High School.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
3. An application has been file pursuant to Planning
and Zoning Code section 22.56.040 for Conditional
Use Permit 97-3. It has been determined that the
proposed project will:
(a) Adversely affect the health, peace, comfort
or welfare of persons
oea in residing or
otheorking in
sale of
the surrounding
alcoholic beverages within 100 feet of the
Diamond Bar High School could prove an
attractive nuisance to the teenage students
attending the .school and may contribute to
juvenile loitering and other illegal
activities. According to public testimony at
2
DMUT
the public hearing for this proposal, the gas
station mini -mart is a gathering place for
students from the adjacent High School as well
as from elementary schools in the neighborhood.
The availability of beer and wine at this
location could increase the possibilities of
disorderly conduct by adults and interaction
with juveniles.
(b) In addition it has been determined that the
project will jeopardize, endanger or otherwise
constitute a menace to public health, safety or
general welfare in that the increased
availability of beer and wine in close
proximity to a residential neighborhood and to
a high school increases the opportunities for
drinking and alcohol related criminal
activities such as loitering, petty crimes,
drunk driving, sale to a minor and armed
robbery.
(c) The project site is not adequately served:
(1) By highways or streets of sufficient
width or improved as necessary to carry
the kind and quantity of traffic such
use would generate; or
(2) By other public or private service
facilities as are required.
According to the Diamond Bar General
Plan, the corner of Brea Canyon Road and
Pathfinder Road is classified as a major
intersection of a major arterial road
and a secondary arterial .road. During
a.m. peak hours this area experiences a
Level of Service "F" (on a scale of
A=good to F=very poor). Any increase of
traffic entering into or exiting from
the proposed site would negatively
impact this area and thus the existing
streets may not be sufficient to safely
absorb the quantity of traffic the use
could generate.
4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth
above, the Planning Commission hereby denies the
Application.
The Planning Commission shall:
3
BY:
(a) Certify'to the adoption of this Resolution;
and
,(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this
Resolution, by certified mail to: Mohamad
Salimnia, Chevron Gas Station, 21324
Pathfinder Road, Diamond Bar, CA 91765
F OCTOBER,
APPROVED AND THE PLANNING PTED THIS 1YO9
BY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
Joe Ruzicka, Chairman
I, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereed
certify that the forgoing Resolution was duly introduced, p
ass
and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar,
at a regular meeting of the
Planning g vote commission held on the 14th
day of October, 1997, by the follow
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
James DeStefano, Secretary
4
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners
FROM: Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner(
4�
SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 52267 and 5238
DATE: October 6, 1997
The above referenced. project was present to the Planning
Commission on September 23, 1997. At that time, the Planning
Commission continued the project's public hearing to October 14,
1997.
Attached is a correspondence dated October 3, 1997 from the
project's applicant. The: correspondence states that the applicant
is withdrawing the project.
Attached:
1. Correspondence dated October 3, 1997 from SunCal Companies.
October 3, 1997 (*VIA FACSIMILE: 909 / 861-3117*)
Mr. James DeStefano
Director of Community Development
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190
Diamond Bar, CA 917654177
Re: Diamond Nulls Ranch
Dear Jim_
Diamond Hills Ranch Partners, L.I..P. requests that Tract 52267 and 52308 be withdrawn from
consideration by the Planning Commission. We will reapply at a future date.
If you should have any questions, please feel free to call me.
Very truly y ouru
.J
Todd Kurtin
President
TF Jkek
550 W. Orangcthorpo , Placentia, CA 92870 - (714) 996-6700 - Fax (714) 996-1455
z00 'd SSfit966Fi 131 WUS OS S1 (lU J SO- 100
7D ,OZC
(!�W(p -2�2 S2Z(o 7
Dear Developing and Plan Division of the City of Diamond Bar,
After hearing news of your plan to develop the area above Parttera Parknd the jir@a
north of Grand Ave., I was appalled.'[ was ashamed to be apart on city that has the
audacity to have a slogan that is country living, but refuses to take the actions to back it
up. When I moved to Diamond Bar in1984 I took pride in a city that was small and
"seemed" to cherish its lush wilderness. Obviously, I was wrong. I can not believe that the
members of this city's government are willing to lay down and let the one asset this city
has be destroyed without a fight. The things that draws people to our city is the fact that it
is not crowded and that is a little piece of country living that's not to far from the big city.
People did not move here because they wanted homes everywhere. They moved here to
erjcy she n1easlire s of a small suburban town.
Another aspect I would like to bring to your attention is the issue of education. I am a
sophomore that attends Diamond Bar High School. I go to a school where forty students
is a normal number of students in a classroom. I attend a school where there are two -
thousand, eight hundred plus students. If you ask me that is too many. You may object
saying that Diamond Ranch High school should relieve this problem. My question to you
is what about elementary and middle school students? I am pretty sure that quail summit
can not withstand the new load of students that this housing plan is sure to bring in. The
newly built South Pointe is already filled to capacity and I am sure that Chaparral is in the
same condition. Where is the proposal for the schools necessary to accommodate this
plan? Or was this something that was just over looked in your planning? Or is education in
this city just going to compromised so the city can make a couple of extra bucks? Is this
the price that our city is willing to pay? If this is so, I dont want to be apart of our city.
Another point I would like to bring to your attention is the creation of more traffic.
When I try to get through my own town everyday there is one obstacle that I must face.
This obstacle is Grand Ave. This monstrous road divides our town in half and at times is
almost impossible to cross. Trying to fathom the idea of throwing three to four hundred
more cars into the mix is to hard for me. Has any plan been made on relieving the traffic
created by such a development as tract no. 522567? I believe not. Believe it or not there is
one more thing I would like to bring to the attention.
I as a concerned citizen believe that this information on the development plan was
distributed on September 20th, 19997 on purpose. This action was done to ensure low
citizen turn out and low awareness on the issue of the development. Also I believe it was
also intentional that this announcement was not released in The Highlander due to the fact
that it would stir large protest in the residence of Diamond Bar. This issue was also left
out of the most recent version of The IVindmill. This instances were by no means an
accident. This behavior is lowdown and deceitful. Once again developers are trying to
sneak into our town and turn it into one big housing tract. Once again, they are trying to
develop our town without public knowledge. They may have gotten away with the new
Diamond Ridge and with the land off of Brea canyon road, but they are not getting away
without a fight this time.
Ahmad White
0
0C?. 0'7 97 (7U21 10 49 _TCC-riCVF3 74C"77
r
LLC Windmill, Inc. .-
3480 Torrance Bled., Ste. 3 C00 0 : `; IV ODNC f�:,>
� r �;; GlaM.,1,
Torrance, CA 90503 PLIiG_, BLDG. - ENGR.
October 7,1997
'97 OCT -7 All :24
City of Diamond Bar
Mr. James DeStefan.o, Community Development Director
21660 East Copley Drive, Ste. 190
Diamond Bar, CA 51765
RE: VTM 50314 - Planning Commission hearings
Deiir Mr. DeStefano,
telephone (310) 540-3990
facsinnitc (310) 316-7133
We, along with the City's environmental consultant, Michael Brandman Associates,
have now met with both U.S. Fish & Wildlife and State Parks & Recreation
regarding their concerns with the project. Unfortunately, I will be out of town all
next week and cannot be present for the October 14th agenda.
Please continue this item to October 28th, or as soon thereafter as practical.
Sin :erel
Kurt Nelson
Windmill Development Company
cc Ann Lungu
r :
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners
FROM: Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner 6?.�
SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 2464
DATE: October 9, 1997
The referenced project was presented to the Planning Commission on
September 23, 1997. At that -time, the Commission continued the
project's public hearing to October 14, 1997. This continuance
was to allow the applicant time to provide data concerning the
"The Country Estates" homeowners' votes on whether or not 5.88
acres of 132 acre open space area should be subdivided into four
lots; developed with four custom homes, for the purpose of raising
revenue for new recreational facilities.
In a correspondence dated October 9, 1997, the applicant, Diamond
Bar Estates Association is requesting a continuance of the public
hearing to January 1998. The purpose of the continuance is to
allow the applicant additional time to present all relevant
information in regards to the Commission's request.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the public
hearing on General Plan Amendment No. 96-1, Tentative Parcel Map
No. 24646, Hillside Management Conditional Use Permit No. 96-14
and Oak Tree Permit No. 96-4 to January 27, 1998.
Attachments:
1. Correspondence date October 9, 1997
h11REN4 PHIhhIP5 & fissociates, Inc.
October 9, 1997
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
Planning Commission
21660 E. Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Re: Tentative Parcel Map No. 24646
Subj: Continuance of Public Hearing
Dear Planning Commission Members,
On behalf of the Diamond Bar Country Estates Association, the
applicant for the referenced Tentative Parcel Map, as its agent, I
hereby request that you continue the Public Hearing for the
Tentative Parcel Map, General Plan Amendment, and Negative
Declaration scheduled for October 14, 1997, to a meeting of the
Planning Commission in or about January 1998.
The Association wishes to present all relevant information
regarding the project to the Planning Commission and feels that the
extra time is necessary to accomplish this purpose.
The Association hereby waives any rights it may have in connection
with this project related to any applicable deadlines under CEQA,
the Subdivision Map Act, the Permit Streamlining Act or any other
applicable law.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Yours .very truly,
�Loen' C. Philli s�
LCP:ks
dbcea.ltr/10.9.97/ks -.
SUBDIVISIONS • LAND PLANNING ! CIVIL ENGINEERING • CONDOMINIUMS • LAND SURVEYING
1930 S. BREA CANYON ROAD (Suite 130) • DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 • PHONE (909) 396-9636 • FAX (909) 396-1656
C_
C I -: r C i;' 1 lfk C, G r
LN DG:
'97 OCT -9 P 3 :31
CITE' OF DIAMOND BAR
PLANNING COMMISSION
Dear Commission Members:
This letter is to indicate my strong support for the Diamond Bar Country
Estates' Board of Directors' plan to develop four (4) lots at the entrance to
the part: road also known as Tract 24646.
I strongly urge the Planning Commission to approve the change in the City of
Diamond Bar's General Plan to allow the use of 5.88 acres within the
Country's 132 acre park for the development of four residential lots.
The funds realized from the sale of these lots will be used for the
improvement of the park road and the development of the very much needed
clubhouse and swimming pool.
Name:C'f'4'U Address:
(please prin
Signature: — --
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: CHAIRMAN AND PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CATHERINE JOHNSON, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: HEARING DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE, HEARING DRAFT
SUBDIVISION CODE, CITYWIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES
DATE: OCTOBER 10, 1997
At the meeting of September 23, 1997, the Planning Commission
continued review of the hearing drafts of the Development Code,
Subdivision Code and Citywide Design Guidelines to the meeting of
October 14, 1997.
Included within the packet for the September 23rd meeting were the
draft resolutions recommending approval of the Hearing Draft -
Development Code (Zoning Code Amendment (ZCA) 97-1, and the
Draft Citywide Design Guidelines. and the initial study for Negative
Declaration (ND) 97-3
Since, the meeting of the 23rd, the consultants have continued to
work on the City Attorney's recommended changes to the Subdivision
Code. These changes are anticipated to be completed by 21st of
October and will be transmitted as soon as they are available.
Further, since the last meeting, staff has received comments from the
City Attorney on the Hearing Draft Development Code, which are
listed below. Amended replacement pages are included within the
attached packet and should be inserted in the Hearing Draft
Development Code. Additionally, further revisions have been made in
response to Planning Commission comments, and are also included as
insert pages. Where items have not been changed, an explanation is
given as to why a recommended change has not been included.
Article 1, Pg. 5, Sec. 22:.01.040. F. Minimum Requirements.
Article 1, Pg. 13, Sec. 22.04.020.D. Private Agreements.
The City Attorney has provided revised language in these sections for
clarity.
L1
Article III, Pg. 32, Hillside Management, Section 22.22.020
Applicability C. The original Hillside Management Ordinance required for
the processing of hillside development applications through the
conditional use permit process. It was recommended that this be
changed to the development review process. However this issue was
given further research and consideration. Based on the fact that in
the processing of hillside development applications, conditions generally
must be applied to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses, it
is recommended that the Conditional Use Permit process be retained.
Article III, Pg. 39, Hillside Management, Table 3 -XX, Slope Categories
Planning Commission requested that more restrictive language be
added.
Article III, Pg. 98, Reduction of Off -Street Parking Requirements for
Shared Use. The Planning Commission requested consideration of an
in -lieu fee for the acquisition of public parking areas. This issue was
discussed with the Public Works Department. Acquisition of a public
parking area would require the establishment of a "parking district,"
which must be established by the City Council. Currently, there are _
no parking districts in place and no plans to create any in the
immediate future. Therefore this provision has not been included
within the Code..
Article 111, Pg. 117, Section 22.34.040 F. Fence and wall
maintenance. Second to last sentence, the words le.g. broken
windows/doors, leaking roof, etc.)" have been deleted.
Article III, Pg. 143, Table 3-X Sign Standards by Zoning District. A.
Signs Permitted in Residential Zoning Districts 1. Single -Family and
duplex identification. The Planning Commission raised the issue of
including minimum provisions for letter height. These requirements
are included within the Municipal Code, and have been noted under
additional requirements in this section.
Article IV, Pg. 7, Sec. 22.44.080 Procedural Requirements. The City
Attorney is recommending that this section be deleted, because this
issue is addressed by state law and therefore it is unnecessary to
include within the Development Code. For your information, the
applicable government code section is provided below:
Sec. 65945.7 Error in procedures. No action, inaction or
recommendation regarding any ordinance, rule,...by any legislative
2
body, administrative body, or the officials of any state or local
agency shall be held void or invalid or be set aside by any court on
the grounds of any error, irregularity, informality, neglect or omission
...as to any matter pertaining to notices, records, determinations,
publications or any matters of procedure whatever, unless after an
examination of the entire case, including evidence, the court shall be
of the opinion that the error complained of was prejudicial, and that
by reason of such error the party complaining or appealing sustained
and suffered substantial injury, and that a different result would have
been probable if such error had not occurred or existed. There shall
be 'no presumption that error is prejudicial or that injury was done if
error is shown.
Article IV, Pg. 9, Section 22.46.010, Zoning Clearances, Purpose.
The City Attorney has requested that it be noted for clarity that a
zoning clearance is an administrative process.
Article IV, Pg. 27 Section 22.54.010 Variances, Purpose. "The power
to grant Variances does not extend to land use regulations.
Flexibility in use regulations is provided in 22.58 (Conditional Use
Permits). The City Attorney stated that these sentences, are
ambiguous and sound as if the Code is stating that a variance
cannot be obtained from any regulations in the Code, which is
incorrect. Therefore these sentences are being deleted.
Finally, please note that the Permitted Use Table in Article II with
reference to the Office Business Park (OB) zone, is in the process of
being amended to include an expanded list of uses, consistent with
the Unilateral Contract adopted for the Gateway Corporate Center.
These amended tables will be provided to you at Tuesday night's
meeting.
Please also note that most of references to the subdivision article
(now the Subdivision Code) have been taken out. Any additional
references will be deleted.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission
recommend that the City Council approve the Hearing Draft
Development Code (ZCA. 97-1) and Draft Citywide Design Guidelines
and Negative Declaration (ND 97-1) subject to the findings contained
within Planning Commission Resolutions, 97 -XX and 97 -XX and
continue the Hearing Draft Subdivision Code to October 28, 1997.
3
ATTACHMENTS:
Revised pages of Hearing Draft Development Code
Draft Planning Commission Resolution 97 -XX Recommending Approval
of the Hearing Draft Development Code
Draft Planning Commission Resolution 97 -XX Recommending Approval
of the Hearing Draft Citywide Design Guidelines
Initial Study for Negative Declaration (ND) 97-3
Enactment and Applicability
22.01
E. Effect of Development Code changes on projects in progress. A land use permit
application that has been accepted by the Department as complete prior to the effective
date of this Development: Code or any amendment shall be processed according to the
requirements in effect when the application was accepted as complete.
F. Minimum requirements. The provisions of this Title shall be held to be the minimum
requirements for the promotion of the public health, safety, and general welfare.
Whenever in this Title discretion is vested in a City official or body, that discretion may
be exercised so as to impose more stringent requirements as may be necessary to promote
orderly land use development and the purposes of this Title.
G. Other requirements may still apply. Nothing in this Development Code eliminates the
need for obtaining any permit, approval or entitlement required by other provisions of the
Municipal Code or complying with the regulations of any City department, or any
County, regional, State, or Federal agency.
H. Conflicting requirements. Any conflicts between different requirements of this
Development Code, or between this Development Code and other regulations, shall be
resolved in compliance with Section 22.03.020.D (Conflicting Requirements).
22.01.050 - Responsibility for Administration
This Development Code shall be administered by the Diamond Bar City Council, Planning
Commission, Community Development Director, Hearing Officer and the Community and
Development Services Department, in compliance with Chapter xx of the Municipal Code and
Chapter 22.22.64 (Administrative Responsibility).
Diamond Bar Development Code Article I - Purpose and Applicability
Hearing Draft - September 1997 I -g
REVISED OCTOBER 14, 1997
Interpretations
22.03
2. Development Agreements or Specific Plans. In the event of any conflict between
the requirements of this Development Code and standards adopted as part of any
Development Agreement or Specific Plan, the requirements of the Development
Agreement or Specific Plan shall control.
3. Municipal Code provisions. In the event of any conflict between requirements of
this Development Code and other regulations of the City, the most restrictive shall
control.
4. Private agreements. The requirements of this Development Code shall not be
interpreted as repealing, abrogating, or annulling any easement, covenant, or deed
restriction imposed on private property. All land use and development shall comply
with the requirements of this Development Code, regardless of the provisions of any
private covenant or deed restriction. The City shall not enforce any private covenant,
restriction, or agreement unless it is a party thereto.
E. Zoning Map boundaries. If there is uncertainty about the location of any zoning district
boundary shown on the official Zoning Map, the following rules are to be used in
resolving the uncertainty. i,See also Section 22.06.040, Zoning District Regulations.)
1. Where the Zoning Map shows any lot or area within a particular zoning district, the
zoning district shall extend to the centerline of any adjacent road, street, parkway,
or highway.
2. If a district boundary divides a parcel and the boundary line location is not specified
by distances printed on the Zoning Map, the Director shall determine the location of
the boundary by using the scale appearing on the Zoning Map.
3. Where a public street, a:ley, railroad, or other public right-of-way is officially vacated
or abandoned, property that was within the former right-of-way shall be deemed to
be included within the zoning district applicable to the property to which the
abandoned right-of-way is being attached.
F. Allowable uses of land. If a proposed use of land is not specifically listed in Article II
(Zoning Districts and Allowable Land Uses) the use shall not be allowed, except as
follows.
I. Similar uses allowed. The Director may determine that a proposed use not listed
in Article II may be allowed as a permitted or conditional use, or is not allowed. In
making such a determination, the Director shall first find that:
a. The characteristics of, and activities associated with the proposed use are
equivalent to those of one or more of the uses listed in the zoning district as
allowable, and will not involve a greater level of activity, population density,
traffic generation, parking, dust, noise or intensity than the uses listed in the
district;
Diamond Bar Development Code Article I -Purpose and Applicability
Hearing Draft - September 1997
I-13
REVISED OCTOBER 14, 1997
Hillside Management 22.22
G. Correlate intensity of development with the steepness of terrain in order to minimize the
impact of grading, unnecessary removal of vegetation, land instability, and fire hazards;
H. Provide in hillsides, alternative approaches to conventional flat land development practices
by achieving land use patterns and intensities that are consistent with the natural
characteristics of hill areas such as slopes, land form, vegetation and scenic quality; and
I. Encourage the planning, desifp and development of sites that provide maximum safety with
respect to fire hazards, exposure to geological and geotechnic hazards, drainage, erosion and
siltation, and materials of construction; provide the best use of natural terrain; and to
prohibit development that will create or increase fire, flood, slide, or other safety hazards
to public health, welfare, and safety.
It is the intent of this Chapter to establish regulations and guidelines to ensure that
development will complement the character and topography of hillside areas. Specifically,
the City desires the application of good hillside planning techniques and the use of landform
grading and revegetation in the implementation of hillside projects.
22.22.020 - Applicability
A. Hillside area. The standards contained in this Chapter apply to all uses and structures
within areas having a slope of 10 percent or greater.
B. Basis for slope determinations. For the purpose of this Chapter, slope shall be computed
on the natural slope of thE! land before grading is commenced, as determined from a
topographic map having a scale of not less than one inch equals 100 feet and a contour
interval of not more than five feet.
C. Conditional Use Permits. Hillside developments shall be subject to the approval of a Conditional
Use Permit in compliance with Chapter 22.58.
22.22.030 - Required Plans and Reports
A subdivision or land use entitlement application for a site within a hillside area shall include
the following documents, reports, and maps as determined appropriate by the Director and City
Engineer. Exceptions to the filing requirements shall require a written justification supported
by factual information submittecl to the Director and City Engineer for consideration.
A. Natural features map. A natural features map, which shall identify all existing slope banks,
ridgelines, canyons, natural drainage courses, federally recognized blue line streams, rock
outcroppings, and existing vegetation. Also depicted shall be landslides and other existing
geologic hazards.
B. Grading plan. A conceptual grading plan that shall include the following items:
1. A legend with appropriate symbols which shall include the following items: top of wall,
top of curb, high point, low point, elevation of significant trees, spot elevations, pad and
finished floor elevations, and change in direction of drainage;
Diamond Bar Development Code Article III - Site Planning
Hearing Draft - September 1997 111-32
REVISED OCTOBER 14, 1997
Hillside Management
TABLE 3 -XX
SLOPE CATEGORIES
22.22
Slope Natural Slope
Site Standards
Cate o (Percents e)
1. 10% to 24.9%
Special hillside architectural and design techniques that
minimize grading are required in this slope category.
2. 25% to 39.9%
Structures shall conform to the natural topographyand
natural grade by using appropriate techniques, including
split-level foundations, stem walls, stacking, and clustering.
Conventional grading may be considered for limited
portions of a project when its plan includes special design
features, extensive open space, or significant use of
greenbelts.
3. 40% to 49.9%
Development within this category shall be restricted to those
sites where it can be demonstrated that safety will be
maximized while environmental and aesthetic impacts will
be minimized. Use of large lots, variable setbacks and
variable building structural techniques (e.g., stepped
foundations) are expected. Structures shall be designed to
minimize the visual impact of their bulk and height. The
shape, materials, and colors of structures shall blend with the
natural environment. The visual and physical impact of
driveways and roadways shall be minimized by eliminating
sidewalks, and reducing their widths to the minimum
required for emergency access and following natural
contours, using grade separations where necessary and
otherwise minimizing the need for grading.
4. 50% and over
This is an excessive slope condition and it is anticipated that
residential subdivisions will not be developed in these areas. If
residential development is pursued in these areas, lot sizes may
be considerably larger than the minimum allowed by the
underlying zoning district in order to comply with the standards
and guidelines of this Chapter. Actual lot size shall be
determined through the Conditional Use Permit process..
Diamond Bar Development Code
Hearing Draft - September 1997 Article III - Site Plan 'n9
II1-3
Property Maintenance Standards
C. Motor vehicle parking.
22.34
1. All parking of motor vehicles shall occur only within a garage, carport, or upon a
driveway or other paved parking area that is in compliance with the parking
requirements of this Development Code.
2. No person shall park or store a commercial vehicle, trailer or related equipment for a
period in excess of 72 hours. No more than two commercial vehicles shall be parked on
a parcel at any one time.
D. Building Structure maintenance. All buildings, ..}....etuFe Rel a -meas shall L
maintained
ChapteF when -they 'i` eiwe of exterief dilapidated eeiid-"---. All structures shall
be maintained in a structurally sound, safe manner with a clean, orderly appearance. Any physical
damage or deterioration (e.g., broken windows/doors, leaking roof, etc.) peeling paint, graffiti, or
other types of damage or deterioration shall be repaired as soon as possible. Graffiti shall be removed
within 72 hours by the owner/occupant of the structure.
E. Landscape maintenance. All landscaped areas within the front yard or side yard abutting
a street shall be kept in a nE!at and clean condition, substantially free of debris and dead,
diseased or dying vegetation, (e.g., dead branches, palm fronds, lawns,
etc.) and broken or defective decorative elements of the landscaped area. Foliage in
landscaped areas shall be mowed, groomed, trimmed, pruned, and adequately watered so
as to maintain a healthy growing condition. Irrigation systems shall be maintained to
prevent public health or safely hazards.
F. Fence and wall maintenance.
Fenees and walls r-eq+gr-eEI4-- O C reses shall be maintained
knplements, the t- All structures shall be maintained in a structurally sound,
safe manner with a clean, orderly appearance. Any physical damage or deterioration peeling paint,
loose boards, graffiti, or other types of damage or deterioration shall be repaired as soon as possible.
Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours by the owner/occupant of the structure.
G. Maintenance of parking and similar areas. Parking, loading, storage, driveway and vehicle
maneuvering areas shall be kept and maintained so as not to detract from the appearance
of adjacent properties and to protect the health, safety and welfare of the user, occupant and
general public. Areas shall be kept in a neat and clean condition, free of trash, debris or
rubbish, and free of potholes, sinkholes, standing water, cracks and/or broken areas.
Parking space and pavement striping and signs shall be repainted, refurbished and/or
replaced when they become faded, damaged or destroyed to an extent that they are no
longer effective. Parking areas shall be periodically resurfaced or sealed to minimize
seepage of water into the ground below.
Diamond Bar Development Code Article III - Site Planning
Hearing Draft - September 1997 III -117
M
E-
u U
FSI
vJ
z
Xp
M N
W }.
CG Ch
H �
Q
Q
z
d
Fy
W
.fb
REVISED OCTOBER 14. 1997
rd
cu
Qx
C 2 d N
R N d
•O
�L... U {A
O
O
Of
(OU
O N H C U
.�.C'.0
cu2
yI�CO
y L
y N
2 N
y
JTD
cc
T
Q-2 'C l7
�9 O
a4 O
N
E ?.
C .c a E�y
—a
E is
E
ccvi ui
Q
N 7 lC
Z o CLI '�_ 3
is L
En
4Y L
Ztn
lE
Z
L N
CD
to
N
U
N
9 U
S a
o y
o
w
o
�•�
se
0
� d
s=
�
o d
O
U
O d
p d
E
01
j
'p01
'p01
E
m g
m gco
a3
co
»- m
� E
m
E cu
E
toRM
c
�N
r
N
EID`L
M
ID
CL
d
K.0
w
CL a
Z
61
h
C:
Qi
C
O
d
O
7
�
CL
CD
M y
CECS
Ci
Ei
O
E
O
E
m m
p
p
c
y
to
c: o
ai ;-
0
E f
m
`
o
ci m
40O
-
m .52a
c
CL
v :?
ac,
'E d
?� E
_ c
O
IEC L
a
"O
7 E
o
h
ECA_
7 O
-=i-�U
FC
to
E
m
CC CI
N
REVISED OCTOBER 14. 1997
rd
cu
Qx
Application, Processing, and Fees 22.44
22.44.070 - Staff Report and Recommendations
A. -Staff evalva-Evaluation and report
The Director shall evaluate -review all discretionary applications filed in compliance with
this Development Code to determine whether they comply and are consistent with the
provisions of this Development Code, other applicable provisions of the Municipal
Code, the General Plan, any applicable specific plan, neighborhood or area plans, and
environmental review. a
2• . A staff report shall be prepared by the Director that describes
the onclusions/findings about the proposed land use and
development ---a —te-
Plan. The report shall include recommendations on the approval, approval with
conditions, or disapproval of the application, based on the evaluation and consideration
of information provided by an initial study or environmental impact report.
BC. Report distribution. Staff reports shall be furnished to applicants at the same time as
they are provided to the Hearing Officer, or members of the Commission and/or
Council, before a hearing on the application. -
Diamond Bar Development Code Article 1V - Permit Procedures
Hearing Draft - September 1997 W-7
REVISED OCTOBER 14, 1997
CHAPTER 22.46- ZO]VING CLEARANCES
Sections:
22.46.010 - Purpose
22.46.020 - Applicability
22.46.010 - Purpose
A Zoning Clearance is a ministerial process used by the Department to determine that the
proposed use is allowed in the subject zoning district and complies with the applicable
development standards.
22.46.020 - Applicability
A. Required. A Zoning Clearance shall be requiredat the time of r -tment r-e,4e prior to
the issuance of a building, grading, or other construction permit, or other authorization
required by the Municipal Code or this Development Code for the proposed use. Where no
other authorization is required, a request for Zoning Clearance shall be approved by the
Department before the commencement of any business or land use activity.
B. Development Code compliance. The Department shall issue the Zoning Clearance after
determining that the request complies with all of the applicable standards and provisions
for the category of use in the zoning district of the subject parcel, in full compliance with this
Development Code.
Diamond Bar Development Code_ Article N - Permit Procedures
Hearing Draft - September 1997 IV -9
REVISED OCTOBER 14, 1997
CHAPTER 22,54 -VARIANCES
Sections:
22.54.010 - Purpose
22.54.020 - Applicability
22.54.030 - Application Filing, Processing, and Review
22.54.040 - Findings and Decision
22.54.050 - Conditions of Approval
22.54.060 - Post Approval Procedures
22.54.010 - Purpose
The purpose of this Chapter is to allow for adjustment from the development standards
of Development Code. The adjustment may
circumstances applicable to theproperty,y only be granted when, because of special
s
e, size, surr
topography, or other conditions, fie strict application of thisoDev Ioincluding locati, pment Cod oundings,
Property owner Privileges enjoyed by other Property owners in the v lop a denies the
zoning districts or creates an unnecessary, and non -self created, hardsh
regulation which make it obviously cal to require com impracti� and ander identical or unreasonable
standards. compliance with the development
Approved Variances shall be subject to conditions that will ensure that the
Variances do
constitute a granting of special privilege(s) inconsistent with the limitations on other propeerties
not
in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is situated.
pr
•.• .•.31 Tio
22.54-020 - Applicability
An application for a Variance may be filed with the Department in compliance with
(Applications, Processing, and Fees). A public hearing is required for all Variances, whic1i22 44
be considered by the Commission.- shall
The Commission may grant a variance fro,
governing only the following development
Development Code:
i . the requirements of this Development Code
standards, unless otherwise specified in this
A. Dimensional standards. Dimensional standards including distance -separation
requirements, parcel area, building site area/coverage, fence and wall requirements,
landscape and paving requirements, lighting, parcel dimensions, off-street parking areas
loading spaces, open space, setbacks, structure heights, etc:;
B. Off-street parking and loading. Number of off-street parking spaces, loading landscaping, etc-; g spaces,
— "" "" Lieve,opment Code
Hearing Draft - September 1997
REVISED OCTOBER 1d 1997
--� iJJI
Article N - Permit Procedures
N-27
RESOLUTION NO. 97 -XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING
DETAILED ZONING AND LAND USE REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS (CASE NO. ZCA 97-1) AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(ND) 97-3
A. RECITALS.
1. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was
established as a duly organized municipal corporation of
the State of California. Thereafter, the City Council of
the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 14
(1990), thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as
the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 22 of
the Los Angeles County Code contains the Planning and
Zoning Code of the County of Los Angeles now currently
applicable to development applications within the City of
Diamond Bar.
2. On July .25, 1995, the City of Diamond Bar adopted its
General Plan. The General Plan establishes goals,
objectives and strategies to implement the community's
vision for its future.
3. The City of Diamond Bar has determined that the existing
zoning and development standards contained within the
County of Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Code are
outdated and ill-suited to meet the City's needs in terms
of the type and quality of development envisioned by the
General Plan.
4. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar
conducted duly noticed public hearings with regard to the
Draft Diamond Bar Development Code. The public hearings
were held on July 22, July 29, August 5, August 12,
August 19, August 26,,September 2, September 6, and
September 9, 1997.
5. The Planning Commission considered, individually and
collectively, the six draft articles comprising the City
of Diamond Bar's Draft Development Code. The Draft
Development Code established under the authority of
Government Code Section 65850 includes six articles,
specifically:
1
I. Purpose and Applicability of the Development Code;
II. Zoning Districts and Allowable Land Uses;
III. Site Planning and General Development Standards;
IV. Land Use and Development Permit Procedures;
V. Devlopment Code Administration;
VI. Definitions.
The Draft Development Code shall also incorporate by
reference the County of Los Angeles Zoning Map and City
of Diamond Zoning Consistency Matrix which shall be in
effect during the interim period between the adoption of
the Development Code and adoption of a revised Diamond
Bar Zoning Map. The Zoning Consistency Matrix
establishes equivalencies between the City's existing
zoning designations and the applicable zoning standards
within the Development Code.
6. The Planning Commission, after due consideration of
public testimony, staff analysis and the Commission's
deliberations has determined that the Draft Development
Code attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by
reference into this Resolution implements the goals,
objectives and strategies of the General Plan. The
Planning Commission has duly considered these issues so
as to meet the City's needs in terms of the type of
development envisioned by the General Plan.
7. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this
resolution have occured.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by
the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as
follows:
1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds
that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the
City Council adopt the Draft Development Code for
the City of Diamond Bar and the Zoning Consistency
Matrix attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
incorporated herein by reference.
3. The Planning Commission hereby determines that there
is no substantial evidence that the Draft
Development Code will have a significant effect on
the environment and therefore a Negative Declaration
2
(ND 97-3) has been prepared, pursuant to the
requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the guidelines
promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15070 of
Article 113 of Chapter 3 of Division 13 of Title' 14
of the California Code of Regulations.
4. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds
and determines that, having considered the record as
a whole including the findings set forth below,
there is no evidence before this Planning Commission
that the Development Code proposed herein will have
the potential of an adverse effect on wildlife
resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife
depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this
Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of
adverse effects contained in Section 753.5 (d) of
Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
5. The Planning Commission finds and determines that
the Development Code is consistent with and
implements the goals, objectives and strategies of
the City of Diamond Bar General Plan.
The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall:
a. Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
b. Transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the City
Council forthwith.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
1997, BY THE PLANNING CO%II!MISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
BY:
Joe Ruzicka, Chairman
I, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed,
and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar,
at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23RD
day of September 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
James DeStefano, Secretary
3
ZONING CONSISTENCY MATRIX
The following matrix: establishes equivalent Development Code
standards for the City's existing zoning districts. This matrix will be
in effect until a revised zoning map is adopted. Please note that all
land uses and development proposals must be consistent with the
property's general Plan land use designation.
GENERAL PLAN
EXISTING ZONING
APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT
DESIGNATION
DISTRICT
CODE STANDARDS
AGRICULTURE (AG)
L63HT AGRICULTURE A-1
AGRICULTURE (AG)
(MAX 1/DU AC)
HEAVY AGRICULTURE
A.2
RURAL RESIDENTIAL IRR) (MAX
R-1 40,0000
RURAL RESIDENTIAL MR)
1 DU AC)
RI'D 20,000
R-1 20,000
R-1 15,000
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
R-1 10,000
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(MAX 3 OU/AC)
RPD 10,000
(RL)
R -A 10,00
R-1 9,000
R-1 8,500
LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL
R-1 8,000
LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL
(RLM)
RPD 8,000
(RLM)
(MAX 5 DU/AC)
R -A 8,000
R-1 7,5000
R-1 6,000
R-2
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
R-3 UP TO 12 U
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(RM)
(RM)
12 DU/AC
MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY
R-3 UP TO 16 U
MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL (RMH)
(RMH) 16 DU/AC
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
R 3, R-3 TO 20 U
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(RH)
(RH)
20 DU/AC
GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C)
COMMERCIAL PLANNED
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
(MAX 1.0 FAR)
DEVELOPMENT (CPD)
(C-1)
RESTRICTED BUSINESS ZONE (C-1)
COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY ZONE (C -H)
COMMERCIAL RECREATION ZONE
(C-R)
GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C)
NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
(MAX 1.0 FAR)
BUSINESS ZONE
(C-2)
(C-2)
GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C)
UNLIMITED
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL
(MAX 1.0 FAR)
COMMERCIAL ZONE
(C-3)
(C:-3)
OFFICE PROFESSIONAL (OP)
COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURING ZONE
OFFICE PROFESSIONAL
(MAX 1.0 FAR)
(CM)
(OP)
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (1)
MANUFACTURING -INDUSTRIAL
LIGHT INDUSTRY
(MAX 1.0 FAR)
PLANNED ZONE (MPD)
(q
LIGHT MANUFACTURING ZONE (M-1)
RESTRICTED HEAVY MANUFACTURING
ZONE (M-1)
OPEN SPACE
OPEN SPACE
OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION
(OS)
CITY OF DIAMOND BAIL
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
FOR INITIAL STUDY
Pursuant to Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act §15063 (f), this form, along with the
Environmental Information Form completed by the applicant, meets the requirements for an Initial Study.
This form is comprised of six parts:
Part 1 Background
Pan 2 Summary of Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
Part 3 Determination
Part 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Part 5 Discussion of Environmental Impacts
Part 6 Sources
PART1-BACKGROUND
1. City Project Title:
2. Project Address/Location:
3. Date of Form Submittal:
4. Applicant:
Firm Name:
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Phone:
Fax:
5. Lead Agency:
Contact:
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Phone:
Fax:
6. General Plan Designation:
7. Zoning:
Development Code
Entire City of Diamond Bar
June 25, 1997
City of Diamond Bar
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190
Diamond Bar, California 91765
(909) 860-2489
(909) 861-3117
Community Development Department
James De Stefano, Director, and Catherine Johnson, Senior
Planner
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Variable
Variable
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 project involves the adoption and codification of the City of Diamond Bar's first new
comprehensive Development Code. (See Administrative Draft copy of the Development Code,
dated June 1997, attached)
A. The Development Code embodies the zoning and subdivision regulations and the
procedures and requirements for development applications while implementing the goals,
policies, and strategies of the Diamond Bar General Plan.
B. The zoning regulations clearly describe the following:
1. Authority for the City to regulate zoning and related development activity in the
City;
2. Zoning District provisions which include identification of the individual zoning
categories (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial, special purpose, and overlay
zones), and allowable land use activities, consistent with the land use designations
of the 1995 General Plan;
3. Identification of the following:
a. Individual zoning district development standards (e.g., height limits,
minimum parcel dimensions, parcel coverage, setbacks, etc.);
b. Permits and entitlements necessary to secure City authorization to
implement development projects; and
C. Administrative procedures for the filing, review, noticing, and conducting
of public hearings, if required, appeals of City actions, and the
amendment of the General Plan, the zoning map and the Development
Code.
C. The subdivision regulations clearly describe the following:
1. Administrative procedures for the filing, review, and processing of tentative parcel
and tract maps, and related functions (e.g., certificates of compliance, mergers,
and lot line adjustments) in compliance with State law (Government Code Section
66410, et seq, — Subdivision Map Act); and
2. The improvement requirements that ensure that the subdivision approvals will
carry out the purpose and intent of the General Plan and Articles II (Zoning
Districts and Allowable Land Uses) and V (Subdivisions) of the Development
Code.
D. The new Development Code will be known as Title 22 of the Diamond Bar Municipal
Code.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
The Development Code will apply on a City-wide basis.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.).
2
No other public agency approvals are required.
11. List City of Diamond Bar related applications for this project that must be processed
simultaneously. No other City of Diamond Bar related applications are required.
12. List prior projects for this parcel.
Not applicable.
PART 2 - SUNINIARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
1. Land Use and Planning
9.
Hazards
2. Population and Housing
10.
Noise
3. Geologic Problems
11.
Public Services
4, Water
12.
Utilities & Service Systems
5. Air Quality
13.
Aesthetics
6. Transportation/Circulation
14.
Cultural Resources
7. Biological Resources
15.
Recreation
8. Energy & Mineral Resources
16.
Mandatory Findings of Significance
All of the above listed environmental factors could be potentially affected in an extremely positive manner
with the adoption of the Development Code. The Development Code will embody procedures, provisions,
regulations, and standards that either preserve the status quo or clarify those in effect currently. In some
cases, the new Development Code may reduce the negative impacts that would otherwise result from the
approval and implementation of the existing laws and strategies.
Recognizing that the new Development Code is the primary implementing tool of the City's General Plan,
the answers; to the questions specified in Part 4 (Evaluation of Environmental Impacts) beginning on page
6 of this Environmental Checklist, will identify, as "Source #s," the relevant strategies from the General
Plan as well as the Land Use Map (Figure I-2) on page I-27 of the General Plan.
The "Source #s" will be identified as depicted in the following example: Strategies 1.1.1 thru 1.1.10 (I-10)
and the Land Use Map. The number in parenthesizes identifies the General Plan page on which the
particular strategy is located.
4
PART 3 - DETERMILNATION Project Number/Title: Title 22 -- Development Code
to be completed by Lead Agency
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant ADVERSE effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the MITIGATION MEASURES described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A 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 significant effect 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, if the
effect is a "potentially significant impact" OR "potentially significant unless mitigated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain
to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed
project.
Signature of Lead Agency
Catherine Johnson, Senior Planner
Printed Name
June 25, 1997
Date
James De Stefano, Director
For
PART 4 - EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
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).
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.
"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.
"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an affect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than
Significant Impact. " The lead agency must described the mitigation measures and briefly explain
how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII,
"Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
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 or negative declaration. Section
15063 (c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section VII at the end of the checklist.
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impact (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared
or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
Environmental Issues - continued
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projection?
Source #s: Strategies 1. 1.4 & 1. 1.5 (II -26) X
b. Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in
an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
Source #s: Strategy 1. 1.5 (I:I-26) X
C. Displace existing housing, especially
affordable housing?
Source #s: Strategy 2.2.1 (1:1-28) X
7
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless Less Than
Significant
Mitigation Significant No
Impact
Incorporated Impact Impact
LrI3 USE ANIS X'LA)'V,: Wr�uld the grgosal
a. Conflict with General Plan designation or
zoning? Source #s: Strategi,:s 1.1.1 thru
1.1.10 (I-10)
X
b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans
or policies adopted by agencies with
jurisdiction over the project?
Source #s: Strategy 1.2.2 (I11 -I1)
X
C. Be incompatible with existing; land uses in the
vicinity?
Source #s: Strategy 2.2.1 (I.19)
X
d. Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)?
Source #s: Strategy 1.1.10 (I-12)
X
e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community (including a low-
income or minority communi.ty)?
Source #s: Strategies 1.2.1 thru 1.2.4 (I-13)
X
a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projection?
Source #s: Strategies 1. 1.4 & 1. 1.5 (II -26) X
b. Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in
an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
Source #s: Strategy 1. 1.5 (I:I-26) X
C. Displace existing housing, especially
affordable housing?
Source #s: Strategy 2.2.1 (1:1-28) X
7
Environmental Issues - continued
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Fault rupture?
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of surface
runoff?
Source #s: Strategy 1.2.1 (IV -9)
M
8
Source #s: Strategies 1. 1.2 & 1. 1.3 (IV -9)
X
b.
Seismic ground shaking?
Source #s: Strategies 1.1.2 & 1.1.3 (IV -9)
X
c.
Seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Source #s: Strategies 1.1.2 & 1.1.3 (IV -9)
X
d.
Seiche (water tanks, reservoirs), tsunami, or
volcanic hazard?
Source #s: Strategies 1.1.1 thru 1.1.3 (IV -9)
X
e.
Landslides or mudflows?
Source #s: Strategies 1.2.1 thru 1.2.3 (IV -9
& 10)
X
f.
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable
soil conditions from excavation, grading, or
fill?
Source #s: Strategies 1.1.1 thru 1.1.3 (IV -9)
X
g.
Subsidence of the land?
Source #s: Strategies 1.1.1 thru 1. 1.3 (IV -9)
X
h.
Expansive soils?
Source #s: Strategies 1.1.1 thru 1.1.3 (IV -9)
X
i.
Unique geologic or physical features?
Source #s: Strategies 1.1.1 thru 1.1.3 (IV -9)
X
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of surface
runoff?
Source #s: Strategy 1.2.1 (IV -9)
M
8
Environmental Issues - continued
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
b. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding?
Source #s: Strategies 1.2.1 thru 1.2.3 (IV -9
& 10)
c. - Discharge into surface water or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
Source #s: Strategies 1.2.1 thru 1.2.3 (IV -9
& 10)
d. Changes in the amount of surface water in
any water body?
Source #s: Strategies 1.2.1 thru 1.2.3 (IV -9
& 10)
e. Changes in currents, or the course or
direction of water movements?
Source #s: Strategies 1.2.1 thru 1.2.3 (IV -9
& 10)
f. Change in the quantity of ground waters
either through direct additions or
withdrawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations or through
substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability?
Source #s: Strategies 1.2.1 thru 1.2.3 (IV -9
& 10)
g. Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater?
Source #s: Strategies 1.2.1 thru 1.2.3 (IV -9
& 10)
h. Impacts to groundwater quality?
Source #s: Strategies 1.2.1 thru 1.2.3 (IV -9
& 10)
i. Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public
water supplies?
Source #s: Strategies 1.2.1 thru 1.2.3 (IV -9
& 10)
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
/0
VA
E:/
X
I
Environmental Issues - continued
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute
to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
Source #s: Strategies 1.9.2 & 1.9.3 (IV -12)
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
Source #s: Strategies 1.9.1 thru 1.9.5 (IV -
12)
c. Alter air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or cause any change in climate?
Source #s: Strategies 1.9.2 & 1.9.3 (IV -12)
d. Create objectionable odors?
Source #s: Strategies 1.9.2 & 1.9.3 (IV -12)
a. Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
Source #s: Strategies 1.9.4 (IV -12), 1.1.4
(V-22), & 3.2.1 (V-27)
b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
Source #s: Strategies 1.23, 1.3.1, & 1.3.3
(V-24)
C. Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses?
Source #s: Strategies 1.2.3 & 1.3.3 (V-24)
d. Insufficient parking capacity bn-site or off-
site?
Source #s: Strategies 2.1.1, 2.1.5, & 2.1.8
(V-25), & 4.1.1 thru 4.2.4 (V-27)
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
F
a
X
X
X
X
91
X
10
Environmental Issues - continued
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists?
Source #s: Strategies 2.1.8 (V-25) & 3.1.6
(V-26) X
f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)?
Source #s: Strategies 1.2.3 (V-24), 2.1.8 &
2.2.1 (V-25), 3.1.6 (V-26), & 3.2.1 (V-27) X
g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
Source #s: Strategies 2.1.4 & 2.1.9 W-25) X
a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or
their habitats (including but riot limited to
plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)?
Source #s: Strategies 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, &
1. 2.5 (III -11 & 12)
X
b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage
trees)?
Source #s: Strategies 1.1.11, 1.1.12, & 1.2.5
(III -11 & 12)
x
C. Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
Source #s: Strategies 1.1.11, 1.1.12, & 1.2.5
(III -11 & 12)
x
d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)?
Source #s: Strategies 1.1.13 (III -11), 1.2.1,
1.2.2, 1.2.3,&1.2.5(III-11&12)
X
C. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
Source #s: Strategies 1.1.13 (III -11), 1.2.1,
1.2.2,1.2.3,&1.2.5(III-11&12)
x
11
Environmental Issues - continued
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact impact
a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans?
Source #s: Strategies 2.2.1 thru 2.2. 10 (III -
15), 2.3.1 & 2.3.2, & 2.4.1 thru 2.4.4 (III -16
& 17) X
b. Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful
and inefficient manner?
Source #s: Strategies 2.2.1 thru 2.2. 10 (III -
15), 2.3.1 & 2.3.2, & 2.4.1 thru 2.4.4 (III -16
& 17) X
C. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future
value to the region and the residents of the
State?
Source #s: Strategy — None. Issue Analysis
Number 8 (Mineral Resources) states as
follows: "There are no significant,
concentrated mineral resources in Diamond
Bar, with the possible exceptions of oil and
hydrocarbons." (III -9) X
a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)?
Source #s: Strategies 2.1.2 (I-19), 2.5.2 &
2.5.10 (III -17 & 18), 1.8.1 & 1.8.2 (IV -12),
& 2.3.3 (VI -7) X
12
Environmental Issues - continued
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
b. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Source #s: Strategies 1.6.1 thru 1.8.2 (IV -11
& 12)
C. The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard?
Source #s: Strategies 1.8.1 8c 1.8.2 (IV -12)
& 2.3.3 (VI -7)
d. Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards?
Source #s: Strategies 1.8.1 Sc 1.8.2 (IV -12)
& 2.3.3 (VI -7)
e. Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees?
Source #s: Strategies 1.4.1 & 3.3.5 (I-14 &
21), 1.1.7 (III -10), & 1.3.1 thru 1.4.2 (IV -10)
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
Source #s: Strategies 1.10.1 thru 1.10.12
(IV -13 & 14)
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
Source #s: Strategies 1.10.1 thru 1.10.12
(IV -13 & 14)
a. Fire Protection?
Source #s: Strategies 1.3.1 thru 1.4.2 (IV -
10)
b. Police Protection?
Source#s: Strategies 1.5.1 & 1.5.2 (N-11)
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
1�
9
W
M
►a
X
X
13
Environmental Issues - continued
c. Schools?
Source #s: Strategies 1.3.1 thru 1.3.4 (VI -5)
d. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
Source #s: Strategies 2.3.1 & 2.3.2 (1-19),
1.1.5 & 1.1.6 (V-23), 3.1.4 (V-26), & 2.2.1
(VI -7)
e. Other governmental services?
Source #s: Strategies 2.3.1 (I-19), 1. 1.1 (VI -
4), 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.3.3, 1.4.1, & 1.4.3 (VI -
5), & 2.2.1 thru 2.3.3 (VI -7)
a. Power or natural gas?
Source #s: Strategies 1.1.1 thru 1.1.5 (VI -4),
1.2.1 (VI -5), & 2.2.1 (VI -7)
b. Communication systems?
Source #s: Strategies 1.1.1 thru 1. 1.5 (VI -4),
1.2.1 (VI -5), & 2.2.1 (VI -7)
C. Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities?
Source #s: Strategies 1.1.1 thru 1. 1.5 (VI -4),
1.2.1 (VI -5), & 2.2.1 (VI -7)
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
Source #s: Strategies 1.1.1 thru 1. 1.6 (VI -4),
1.2.1 (VI -5), & 2.2.1 (VI -7)
e. Storm water drainage?
Source #s: Strategies 1. 2.2 (IV -10), 1.1.1
thru 1.1.5 (VI -4), 1.2.1 (VI -5), & 2.2.1 (VI -
7)
f. Solid waste disposal?
Source #s: Strategies 2.5.1 thru 2.5. 10 (I1I-
17), 1.1.1 thru 1.1.5 (VI -4), 1.2.1 (VI -5), &
2.2.1 (VI -7)
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
X
0
X
X
0
r:1
M
1m
14
Environmental Issues - continued
g. Local or regional water supplies?
Source #s: Strategies 1.1.1 thru 1. 1.5 (VI -4),
1.2.1 (VI -5), & 2.2.1 (VI -7)
a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
Source #s: Strategies 1. 1.6 (I-12), 1.2.3 (1-
13), 2.6.2 (III -18), & 1.1.9 (V-24)
b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect?
Source #s: Strategies 1.2.3 (I-13), 3.1.2 (1-
20), & 1.1.9 (V-24)
C. Create light or glare?
Source #s: Strategies 3.2.3 (I-20), 1.2.2 (III -
11), & 2.2.2 (III -15)
a. Disturb paleontological resources?
Source #s: Note 1.
b. Disturb archaeological resources?
Source #s: Note 1.
c. Affect historical resources?
Source #s: Note 1.
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Source #s: Note 1.
e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area?
Source #s: Note 1.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
X
X
iIM
X
X
X
X
X
15
Environmental Issues - continued
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
Note 1 This category, entitled "14. Cultural. Resources," as well as its five individual categories (a.
thru e.) are not specifically addressed in the 1995 General Plan. Therefore, Strategies
1.5.6 (I-16), 1.6.4 & 2.1.1 (1-18), 3.3.4 (1-21), & 1.1.6 (111-10) serve to provide a general
framework with which to ensure that new or modified development proposals, or the
installation/extension of public or private services, would not endanger., or have an adverse
impact on, any of the resources identified above.
a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
Source #s: Strategies 3.2.1 (I-20) & 1.3.1
thru 1.3.8 (I11-12 & 13) X
b. Affect existing recreational opportunities?
Source #s: Strategies 3.2.1 (1-20) & 1.3.1
thru 1.3.8 (11I-12 & 13) X
a. Does the project have 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 animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or pre -history? X
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? X
16
Environmental Issues - continued
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
C. Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
17. EARLIER ANALYSES
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
X
X
Earlier analyses may be used. where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on
attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses 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 analyses.
C) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
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.
17
PART 5 - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Discussions within each section may be grouped.
No discussion is required since there are no apparent adverse impacts that would result from the
implementation of the proposed project (Development Code) as evidenced by the answers to the questions
specified in Part 4 (Evaluation of Environmental Impacts) beginning on page 6 of this Environmental
Checklist, above.
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a.
b.
C.
3. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
9.
h.
i.
4. WATER
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
9.
h.
i.
5. AIR QUALITY
a.
b.
C.
d.
18
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
9-
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
8. ENERGY
a.
b.
C.
9. HAZARDS
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
10. NOISE
a.
b.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
9.
19
13. AESTHETICS
a.
b.
C.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
15. RECREATION
a.
b.
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a.
b.
C.
d.
PART 6 - SOURCES
1. General Plan, City of Diamond Bar; Cotton/Beland Associates, Inc. and Charles Abott Associates;
July 25, 1995.
2. Draft Development Code, City of Diamond Bar; Urban Design Studio, Jacobson & Wack, and
Crawford Multari and Clark Associates; November 1997.
20
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
Negative Declaration 97- 3
for
City of Diamond Bar Comprehensive Development Code
This form is comprised of three sections::
Section 1 Project Description and Location
Section 2 Environmental Findings
Section 3 Initial Study (Environmental Information and Checklist)
June 25, 1997
21
RESOLUTION NO. 97 -XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPT A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING
CITYWIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES AS PART OF THE CITY'S
DEVELOPMENT CODE.
A. RECITALS.
1. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was
established as a duly organized municipal corporation of
the State of California. Thereafter, the City Council of
the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 14
(1990), thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as
the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and
22 of the Los J�ngeles County Code contain the Development
Code of the County of Los Angeles now currently
applicable to development applications within the City of
Diamond Bar.
2. On July 25, 1995, the City of Diamond Bar adopted its
General Plan. The General Plan establishes goals,
objectives and strategies to implement the community's
vision for its future. This vision includes the
promotion of land uses which exhibit a high level of
aesthetic and functional quality which complements and
adds to the physical and social character of the City.
3. The City of Diamond Bar has determined that the existing
zoning and development standards contained within the
County of Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Code (Title 22
of the Municipal Code) fails to provide the adequate
guideance needed to achieve the quality of development
envisioned by the General Plan.
4. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar on
September 9, 1997 conducted a duly noticed public hearing
with regard to the Diamond Bar Draft Citywide Design
Guidelines.
5. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Draft Diamond
Bar CitywidE� Design Guidelines and after due
consideration of public testimony, staff analysis and the
Commission's deliberations has determined that the Draft
Citywide Design Guidelines attached hereto as Exhibit "A"
1
and incorporated by reference into this Resolution
satisfy and exemplify the aesthetic goals and needs of
the community. The Planning Commission has duly
considered the issues related to Draft Citywide Design
Guidelines so as to provide maximum benefit to the City.
6. All legal prerequisites
resolution have occurred.
to the adoption of this
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by
the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as
follows:
1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds
that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the
City Council adopt the draft Citywide Design
Guidelines for the City of Diamond Bar attached
hereto as Exhibit "A."
3. The Planning Commission hereby determines that there
is no substantial evidence that the draft Design
Guidelines as a part of the Development Code will
have a significant effect on the environment and
therefore a Negative Declaration (ND 97-3) has been
prepared, pursuant to the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as
amended, and the guidelines promulgated thereunder,
pursuant to Section 15070 of Article 19 of Chapter
3 of Division 13 of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations.
4. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds
and determines that, having considered the record as
a whole including the findings set forth below,
there is no evidence before this Planning Commission
that the Citywide Design Guidelines proposed herein
will have the potential of an adverse effect on
wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the
wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence,
this Planning Commission hereby rebuts the
presumption of adverse effects contained in Section
753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations.
5. The Planning Commission finds and determines that
the Citywide Design Guidelines are consistent with
and implements the specific goals, objectives and
strategies of the City of Diamond Bar General Plan,
addressing the aesthetic quality of development
within the City.
2
The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall:
a. Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
b. Transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the City
Council forthwith.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
1997, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
Joe Ruzicka, Chairman
I, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed,
and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar,
at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23RD
day of September 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
3
James DeStefano, Secretary
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
To: Chairman and Planning Commissio r
From: James DeStefano, Deputy City M
Subject: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULE or
November and December 1997
Date: October 23, 1997
Background:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider approval
of a meeting schedule for the balance of the calendar year.
The Agenda Packet for the adjourned regular meeting of October
27, 1997 has been transmitted under separate cover.
There are no scheduled agenda items for the regular meeting of
October 28, 1997. Due to the anticipated lack of quorum the
meeting will be adjourned to Wednesday, November 12, 1997.
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission is Tuesday,
November 11, 1997 (Veterans Day). City Hall is closed for the
holiday. In accordance with the Government Code, the regularly
scheduled meeting must be moved to Wednesday. The only business
item scheduled for discussion is the Development Code. If a
majority of the Commissioners are not able to attend the November
12, 1997 meeting, staff would recommend that a special meeting
night be selected for consideration of the Code.
As of this date the only, item envisioned for the meeting of
November 25, 1997 is the: continued public hearing for the JCC /
Tract 50314 project.
There are presently no other scheduled items for the Planning
Commission meetings of November 25, 1997, December 9, 1997 and
December 23, 1997. Several projects are in process including a 3
lot parcel map for the Best Western Hotel property, a sign
program for the Lucky Center, and a review of a wireless data
communication proposal upon City property. Although no specific
dates have been set, it is anticipated that these projects will
come before the Commission prior to the end of the year.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission discuss and
ascertain an appropriate meeting schedule for the balance of the
year.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: Chairman and Planning Commissio r
From: James DeStefano, Deputy City M
Subject: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULE or
November and December 1997
Date:. October 23, 1997
Background:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider approval
of a meeting schedule for the balance of the calendar year.
The Agenda Packet for the adjourned regular meeting of October
27, 1997 has been transmitted under separate cover.
There are no scheduled agenda items for the regular meeting of
October 28, 1997. Due to the anticipated lack of _quorum the
meeting will be adjourned to Wednesday, November 12, 1997.
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission is Tuesday,
November 11, 1997 (Veterans Day). City Hall is closed for the
holiday. In accordance with the Government Code, the regularly
scheduled meeting must be moved to Wednesday. The only business
item scheduled for discussion is the Development Code. If a
majority of the Commissioners are not able to attend the November
12, 1997 meeting, staff' would recommend that a special meeting
night be selected for consideration of the Code.
As of this date the only item envisioned for the meeting of
November 25, 1997 is the continued public hearing for the JCC /
Tract 50314 project.
There are presently no other scheduled items for the Planning
Commission meetings of November 25, 1997, December 9, 1997 and
December 23, 1997. Several projects are in process including a 3
lot parcel map for the Best Western Hotel property, a sign
program for the Lucky Center, and a review of a wireless data
communication proposal upon City property. Although no specific
dates have been set, it is anticipated that these projects will
come before the Commission prior to the end of the year.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission discuss and
ascertain an appropriate meeting schedule for the balance of the
year.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: Chairman and Planning Commissio r
From: James DeStefano, Deputy City M
Subject: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULE or
November and December 1997
Date: October 23, 7.997
Background:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider approval
of a meeting schedule for the balance of the calendar year.
The Agenda Packet for the adjourned regular meeting of October
27, 1997 has been transmitted under separate cover.
There are no scheduled agenda items for the regular meeting of
October 28, 1997. Due to the anticipated lack of quorum the
meeting will be adjourned to Wednesday, November 12, 1997.
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission is Tuesday,
November 11, 1997 (Veterans Day). City Hall is closed for the
holiday. In accordance: with the Government Code, the regularly
scheduled meeting must be moved to Wednesday. The only business
item scheduled for discussion is the Development Code. If a
majority of the Commissioners are not able to attend the November
12, 1997 meeting, staff would recommend that a special meeting
night be selected for consideration of the Code.
As of this date the only item envisioned for the meeting of
November 25, 1997 is the continued public hearing for the JCC /
Tract 50314 project.
There are presently no other scheduled items for the Planning
Commission meetings of November 25, 1997, December 9, 1997 and
December 23, 1997. Several projects are in process including a 3
lot parcel map for the Best Western Hotel property, a sign
program for the Lucky Center, and a review of a wireless data
communication proposal upon City property. Although no specific
dates have been set, it is anticipated that these projects will
come before the Commission prior to the end of the year.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission discuss and
ascertain an appropriate meeting schedule for the balance of the
year.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: CHAIRMAN AND PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CATHERINE JOHNSON, SENIOR PLANNER (5 -
SUBJECT:
S
SUBJECT: HEARING DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE
DATE: OCTOBER 27, 1997
Revised pages of
the
Development Code, reflecting the
Planning
Commissions amended
language regarding the Tree Preservation and
Protection Chapter,
the
revised parking space size and other
revisions
that were agreed
upon
by the Planning Commission will be
provided
as soon as they
are
available. These revisions will also
include
several "clean up"
revisions
that have been made by staff.