HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/28/1998PLANNING
COMMISSION
AGENDA
April 28, 1998
7:00 P.M.
South Coast Air Quality District
Management Di '
Auditorium g ct
21865 East Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, California
Chairman
Vice Chairman
Comm&ioner
Comm&ioner
Conwi& oner
Toe McA anus
Steven Tye
Joe Ruzicka
George Kuo
Steve Nelson
Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items ark on file in the Planning
Dand are available
of the Dept. of Community 6c Development Services, located at 11660 ,� Copley Drive, Suie 190
able for public inspection. If you have questions t
regarding an agenda item, please call
(909) 396-5676 during regular business houm
In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title u of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the
City of Diamond Bar requites that any person in need of an t
accomodation(s) in order to communicate ata Ci Y type of special equing mu nfpment, assistance or
Development Services at (909) 396 5676 a min u1m of 7t hoursstorm the Dept. of Community &
_ prior to the scheduled meeting.
rrrcAcmmnc,W
Pfease refrain frons smoking, eating cr drinking
in the Auditorium
The City of Diamond gar uses recycfed paper
and encourages you to do tke same.
City of Diamond Bar
Planning Commission
MEETING RULES
PiTB i IMM
The meetings of the Diamond Bar Planning
Commission are open to the Public. A member of the public may address
the Commission on the subject of one or moreagendaiteA��t to addr� Co�ssl n should are be submitted. in the subject matter
jurisdiction of the Diamond Bar Planning Co
g, to flee Secretary of the Commission.
writing at the public hearin
for public comments will take Place at the discretion of the Chair. However, in order
As a general rule the opportunityarties for an item may be requested to give their presentation at the
to facilitate the meeting, persons who are interested p item; or the
time the item is called on the calendar. The Chair may limit individual public input to five minutes n any
Chair may limit the total amount of time allocated for public testimony based on the number of people requesting to
speak and the business of the Commission.
ti ns
er' Comments and
Individuals are requested to conduct themselves in a professionalthe Commission on makinslike grecommendations to the Pstaff and
are welcome so that all points of view are considered prior
City Council.
In accordance with Government Code Section 54954.3(x) the Chair may from time to time dispense with public
comment on items previously considered by the Commission.
In accordance with State Law (Brown Act), all matters to be acted on by the Commission must b posted at least s
hours prior to the Commission meeting. In case of emergent or when a subject matter arises subsequent to the posting
of the agenda, upon making certain findings, the Commission may act on item that is not ori the posted agenda.
Commission meetings are prepared by the Planning Division of the Community
Agendas for Diamond Bar Planning riot to the meeting at City Hall and the
and Development Services Department. Agendas are available 72 hours p
and may be accessed by personal computer at the number below.
public library,
ailable for a nominal
meeting of the Planning Commission is recorded on cassette tapes and duplicate tapes are av
Every m g
charge.
anA RF.oulREMEM
A cordless microphone is available for those persons with mobility impairments who cannot access the public speaking
area. The service of the cordless microphone and sign language interpreter services are available by giving notice at
of the meeting. Please telephone one (909)396-5676 between 8:00a.m. and S:OOp.m.
least three business days in advance
Monday through Friday.
Copies of Agenda,
Rules of the Commission, Cassette Tapes of Meetings (909) 396-5676
Computer Access to Agendas (909) 860 -LINE
General Agendas (909) 396-5676
email: info@ci.diarnond-bar.ca.us
PLANNING COVAUSSION
. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
Tuesday, April 28, 1998
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. Next Resolution No. 98-8
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
1. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Joe McManus, Vice Chairman
Steve Tye, Joe Ruzicka, George Kuo, and Steve Nelson.
2.
3.
4.
5.
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 o
agenda items. PleacP �mm�let a S pPo ty to speak on non-public hearing and non -
maker s ('ard for hP r rordinn S
yo1 "'� )• ThPrP ,c � � . rrunute max,mum hm fie-rp,��`�mrneri
hmlt w]7 .n annrPe 1i om_ rr„_ 'ss`on
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chairman
CONSENT CALENDAR:
The following items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine and are approved
by a single motion. Consent calendar items may be removed from the agenda by request
of the Commission only:
4.1 Minutes of April 14, 1998
OLD BUSINESS:
5.1 Planning Commission Policies & Procedures Manual
Transmittal of revised manual including all comments and recommendations received
at the April 14, 1998 Planning Commission meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive and
file the adopted Planning Commission Policies & Procedures Manual.
NEW BUSINESS:
1998 - PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
1
7.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 52267, Conditional Use Permit No. 98-3 and
Oak Tree Permit No. 98-1 (pursuant to Code Sections Title 21 -Subdivision,
22.56.215 -Part 1 -Hillside Management Area,
Hillside Management Ordinance No. 7
ily
(1990) and 22.26 -Part 16- Oak Tree Permit) ioxie
mately65 request for 3
acres of a 339.3 acre
detached residential dwelling units clustered rivate prgated community. Lots will range
site. The development is proposed as a p
in size from 6,000 square feet to 26,000 square feet with an average lot size of
10,900 square feet The gross proposed density is 0.4 dwelling units per acre with a
net density of approximately 3.16 dwelling units per acre
Property Address: Generally located east of Diamond Bar Boulevard and north of
Grand AvenueSte.D,
Property
Owner: Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership, .5190 E.La Palma Ave.,
Anaheim, CA 92807 Anaheim,
Applicant: SunCal Companies, 5190 E. La Palma Ave., Ste.D,
CA 92807
7.1
Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California
Quality Act (CEQA), the City determined that an Environmental Impact
Environmental
Report was required for this project. Environmental
forpreviewpf from Ju1y710, (1997
No. 97031005) was prepared and was avails public
to August 25, 1997.
n the
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that project;
close the public hearing and Planning Commission: ebeg'in
public hearing; receive comments on the p
deliberations on VTTM No: 52267 and its entitlements; working toward a to conclusion
with recommendations for City Council's
con
PlannngsideratCommission'srecomfinendafons.
appropriate documentation m suppo
Staff is in support of the 130 unit project subject to the following: approximately
273 acres of the project area (excluding the manufactured slopes and including the
parks1 and
remaining natural portions of Lots 4, 5' and a contribution to the City's
& 7 and all of Lot 9 of Tracts 3
dedicated to the City as public open space;
acquisitions fund.
w 97-7 (pursuant to Code Section 22.72.020 and 22.56.990)
7.2 Development Revie
proposal
a request for a family restaurann in exit g vacant commeunits ntorcial eone 2,700 square
involves combining and remodeling
foot restaurant.
Project Address: 1126 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard (northeast corner of Diamond
Bar Blvd. and Grand Ave.)
CA
Applicant: Johnny Chan, 123 S. Lincoln Ave., Monterey Park,
917854
Owner: Nikko Capital Corporation 3961 MacArthur Blvd., Suite
Property 105, Newport Beach, CA 92660
April 28 1998 - pLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
8.
Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined
pursuant to Section 15301. that this project is Categorically Exempt
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
Development Review No. 97-7 subject to the Findings of Fact and Conditions of
Approval listed in the attached resolution.
7.3 General Plan Amendment No. 96-1, Tentative Parcel Ma
p No. 24646, Use Permit No. 96-14 and Oak Tree Permit No. 96-4 (pursuant to C�e Sections
Title 21 -Subdivision, Hillside Management Ordinance No. 7 (1991) 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". Thee land use desi
Space to Rural Residentialnwill
snmppnng6.12 acres willcontinue aOpeSi
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. Continued from January 27, 1998
Property Address: Easterly side of Blaze Trail across from the intersection of
Timbertop Lane.
Property Owner: Diamond Bar Country Estates Association, 22615
Applicant: Drive, Diamond Bar CA 91765' Meadow
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 Sep
2, 1997. tember 12, 1997 to October
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 June 23, 1998.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1 8.1 Conditional Use Permit No. 98-2 & Development Review No. 98-2 (pursuant to
Code Section 22.28.210 and 22.72.020.A.1), is a request for the construction of a
38,000 square foot L.A. Fitness health club/gymnasium on a 4.6 acre vacant site.
Project Location: North side of Golden Springs Drive, south of the 60 Freeway
between Lemon Avenue and Brea Canyon Road.
Applicant: L.A. Fitness, 100 Bayview #4000, New
60
Project Owners: Lawrence R. Michaels, 20709 Golden Springs Drt r. CSte.9208,
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
The Warren Companies, 3218 E. Holt Avenue #200 West Covina,
CA 92660
APS 28, 1998 - PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
3
Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the terms of California Environmental
City has determined that there will be no significant
on the environment and a Negativeffect
Quality Act (CEQA), the e Declaration (ND 98-1) has been prepared.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
Conditional Use Permit. No. 98-2 and Development valfisted Review No. the attached -2 subject resolution. to the
o
Findings of Fact and Conditions A pp
g,2 Development Review No. 98-5 is a request (pursuant to Code Section 22.72.020.A.)
for the construction of a 20,500 square foot, one storybuilding to be utilized as
medical offices/urgent care center.
Project Location: 1514 Valley Vis Drive, (Lot 11, Tract No. 39679), Diamond
Bar, CA 91765.
Applicant: St. Jude Medical Center, 101 E. Valencia Mesa Drive,
Fullerton, CA 92634
Business ?ssociates, 707 Wilshire Blvd., #3030,
Property Owners: Diamond Bar
Los Angeles, CA
Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined that this project is
consistent with the previously reviousl certified Environmental Impact Report SCH No.80121218
for Tract Map No. 39679, pursuant to CEQA section 15162 (a). The referenced EIR
considered the type of proposed project; therefore no further environmental review is
required.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
No. 98-5, Findings of Fact and conditions . of approval as listed
Development Review
within the attached resolution.
9, PLANNING COM USSION COMMENTS:
10. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
CITY COUNCIL -Tuesday, May 5, 1998 - 6:30 p.m. - AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E.
Copley Drive
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION - Thursday, May 7, 1998 - 7:00 P.M. - AQMD
Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive.
SOLID WASTE TASK FORCE - Monday,
May 11, 1998 - 6:30 p.m. - AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive. (room CC -3 & 5)
PLANNING CON51ISSION - Tuesday, May 12, 1998 - 7:00 P.M. - AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive
4
April 28, 199g - pL,ANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
OFF-SITE PARKING TASK FORCE - Wednesday, May 13, 1998 - 6:30 p.m. - AQMDMDAuditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive. (room CC -3 & 5)
COMPOST'NG WORKSHOP - Saturday, May 16 - 9:00 a.m. - Sycamore Park, 22930
Golden Springs Drive
CITY COUNCIL - Tuesday, May 19, 1998 - 6:30 p.m. - AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E.
Copley Drive
PLANNING COMNIISSION - Tuesday, May 26, 1998 - 7:00 P.M. _ AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - Thursday, May 28; 1998 - 7:00 p.m. _
AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive.
11. ADJOURNMENT: May 12, 1998
April 28. 1998 - PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA S
MINUTES F
OF DI
BAR
HE
ND
REGULAR MEETINGTOF THEYPLLANNINGOCOMMISSION
APRIL 14, 1998,.
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman McManus called the meeting to order at 7:06
South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley
Drive,, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Ruzicka.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman McManus
Vice rman
Commissioners Ruo, Nelson and1Ruzicka e' and
Also Present: Deputy City Manager James DeStefano, Assistant
City Attorney Amanda Susskind,
Lungu. Senior Planner
Catherine Johnson, and Associate Planner Ann
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As submitted.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1• Minutes of March 24, 1998.
C/Ruzicka asked that the first sentence on Page 7 be
corrected to read' DCM/DeStefano indicated that earlier
this evening he approved construction of a 4800 _q ara
foot single family home, etc.
C/Ruzicka moved, VC/Tye seconded, to approve the minutes
as amended. The motion was approved 5-0.
OLD BUSINESS:
1• Planning Commissioners Policies & Procedures Manual.
AstP/Lungu reviewed the Planning Commissioner's Policies
and Procedures Manual with the Commissioners.
ACA/Susskind presented a Brown Act and Conflict of
Interest overview of items that pertain to the Planning
Commission and responded to Commissioners concerns and
questions. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
adopt the revised Planning Commissioners Policies and
Procedures Manual, findings of fact and Conditions as
listed within the resolution.
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 2
Following discussion, C/Ruzicka moved, C/Kuo seconded, to
adopt the revised Planning Commissioner's Policies and
Procedures Manual. The motion was carried 5-0.
C/Ruzicka moved, C/Nelson seconded, to incorporate the
City Council's list of meeting rules and informational
guide with each Planning Meeting agenda. The motion was
carried 5-0.
NEW BUSINESS:
�• • Planned Sign Program No. 98-1 is a request to install
seven illuminated wall signs and to eventually bring all
existing signage into conformance with the proposed
Planned Sign Program.
Property Location: 303-315
S. Boulevard, Diamond Diamond CA Bar
Property owner: Wohl/Diamond Bar, LLC; 2402
Michelson Drive
CA 92612 01701, Irvine,
Applicant: Wohl/Diamond Bar, LLC; 2402
Michelson Drive #170, Irvine,
CA 92612
AstP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission approve Planned Sign Program
No. 98-1, Findings of Fact and conditions as listed
within the attached resolution.
The applicant was not present. AstP/Lungu stated she
spoke with Steve DeForge, a partner of Wohl/Diamond Bar
who indicated he read staffs report and concurs with the
conditions of approval as listed in the resolution.
VC/Tye asked how the proposed signs differ from the signs
that currently exist.
AstP/Lungu stated the applicant is proposing channel
letters to replace letters in the can.
VC/Tye moved, C/Ruzicka seconded, to approve Planned Sign
Program No. 98-11 Findings of Fact and conditions as
listed within the resolution. The motion was carried 5-
0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1• Conditional Use Permit No. 98-1 and Development Review
No. 98-1 (pursuant to Code Section 22.56 -Part 1 and
22.72.020.A) is a request to construct and operate an
unmanned Bank of America Automated Teller Machine Kiosk
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 3
in the Country Hills Towne Center within an area between
the existing The Wherehouse music and video store and the
Diamond Bar Boulevard entrance to the center. (Continued
from March 24, 1998)
Project Address: Country Hills Towne Center, Diamond
Bar Boulevard, Diamond Bar
Applicant: Bank of
America, 600 Wilshire
Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90017
Property Owner: M & H
Realty Partners, 1721 W.
Imperial Highway #G, LaHabra, CA
90361
DCM/DeStefano presented staff's report. Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission continue Conditional Use
Permit No. 98-1 and Development Review No. 98-1 to the
meeting of Tuesday, May 12, 1998 to allow the applicant
time to resolve issues related to the proposed location
of the project.
Chair/McManus opened the public hearing
There was no one present who wished to speak on this
item.
C/Nelson moved, continue the
C/Ruzicka seconded, to
Public hearing for Conditional Use Permit
Development Review No. 98-1 to May No. 98e and
was carried 5-0. 12, 1998. The motion
2. Development Review 97-7 and Parking Permit 98-1, pursuant
to Code Section 22.72.020 and 22.56.990),
for a family restaurant is a request
in an existing commercial center.
The proposal involves combining
existing vacant units into one 2 7 00 remodeling two
uare
restaurant. This proposal also includes a request foroa
Parking Permit for the shared use of the existing parking
within the commercial center.
Project Address:
1126 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard
(northeast corner of Diamond Bar
Boulevard and Grand Avenue)
Applicant: Johnny Chan, 123 S.
Monterey Park, CA 91754co1n Avenue,
Property Owner: Nikko Capital Corporation, 3961
MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 105,
Newport Beach, CA 92660
DCM/DeStefano presented staff's report. Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission continue Development Review
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 4
No. 97-7 and Parking Permit No. 98-1 to the meeting of
Tuesday, April 28, 1998 to allow the a
time to revise a required parking analysis plicant additional
Chair/McManus opened the public hearing.
There was no one present who wished to speak on this
item.
C/Kuo moved, C/Nelson seconded, to continue Development
Review No. 97-7 and Parking Permit No.
meeting of Tuesday, April 28 98-1 to the
carried 5-0. 199.8• The motion was
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS:
DCM/DeStefano explained the Cityls, current sign an inquiry from VC/Tye. 9n code in response to
DCM/DeStefano explained the City,s Preliminary
which there is a $500 fee is for services tReview process for
owner guidance during the to assist a business
contemplating relocation into Diamond Barprwhen he/she is
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
DCM/DeStefano stated that on Tuesday,
Will hold its fourth Development Code PublicHearing on211 the
ArticleIII
and the proposed y Council
ro osed Citywide Design Guidelines. Adoption date is
scheduled for the May 5, 1998 meeting.
DCM/DeStefano reported that earlier this evening
Officer,, he approved one g acting as Hearing
application for a 8800 square foot 1 home within ative DtheeJCCmDevelo me
nt
Off of Wagon Train Lane within "The CountEstates" P Review
two projiects: A 6800 square foot home at 825Dian►ond KnollLane
continued to Thur sdaAprilHe continued
at 2595 'Wagon Train Lane within 1998' and a 3600 square foot home
1998. "The Country Estates" to April 281
SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS as listed in the agenda.
APRII, 14, 1998
PAGE 5
ADJOURNMENT:
C/Ruz:icka moved, VC/Tye seconded to
28, 1998• There being adjourn the meeting to April
Planning Commission g nO further business to come before the
P.m. Chair/McManus adjourned the meeting at 8:22
Respectfully Submitted,
James DeStefano
Attest: Secretary to the Planning Commission
Yo -mc Manus
Chairman
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners
FROM: James De Stefano, Deputy City Manager (�°�r�-✓
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Policies & Proceedures Manual
DATE: April 23, 1998
At the April 14th, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission took action
to approve the Planning Commission Policies & Proceedures Manual. Attached hereto is the.
approved Policies & Proceedures Manual for your use and information, incorporating changes
requested by the Commission.
City of Diamond Bar
PLANNING COMMSSION
Staff Report
AGENDA ITE( NUMBER: 7.1
REPORT DATE: April 21, 1998
MEETING DATE: April 28, 1998
CASE/FILE NUMBER: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
52267 (VTTM No. 52267), Conditional
Use Permit No. 98-03, Oak Tree
Permit No. 98-01 and Environmental
Impact Report No. 97-2, Volume I and
II.
APPLICATION REQUEST:
PROPERTY LOCATION:
Proposes to: subdivide 65 acres of a
339.3 acre site into 141 lots for
the development of 130 detached
single family residences; remove and
replace oak and walnut trees; and
remove map and deed restrictions on
a portion of the 65 acres. The
balance of the 339.3 acre site
(274.3 acres) and a portion of Lot 9
of Tract No. 31479 will be dedicated
to the City of Diamond Bar as public
open space.
VTTM No. 52267 is_generally located
east of Diamond Bar Boulevard and
north of Grand Avenue, at the
extension of Highcrest Drive.
PROPERTY OWNER: Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership
5109 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite D,
Anaheim, CA 92807
APPLICANT: Todd Kurtin
SunCal Companies
5109 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite D,
Anaheim, CA 92807
01
BACKGROUND:
The proposed project was first presented to the Planning Commission
on February 10, 1998. At that time, the Commission continued the
public hearing to February 24, 1998 to allow the applicant and
staff time to respond to comments presented at the public hearing
and any Commission concerns. The applicant, in a correspondence
dated February 19, 1998, requested a continuance to March 10, 1998.
However, at the February 24, 1998 hearing, the applicant verbally
requested another continuance to March 24, 1998. At the March 24,
1998, the applicant again requested a continuance in order to
provide required information to respond to public comments.
The responses to comments are addressed in "Response to Comments"
documents for the Planning Commission public hearings dated
February 10, 1998, February 24, 1998 and March 24, 1998. From the
February 24, 1998 public hearing comments, the applicant was asked
to prepare a "Response to Comments" Alternative.
The "Response to Comments" Alternative is presented as a 120 lot
subdivision for the eventual development of single family homes
within a gated community. The "Response to Comments" Alternative
is similar to the "Refined Design Alternative" evaluated in the
draft EIR for VTTM No. 52267 and presented on Figure 5-1 of the
draft EIR. Its location is generally on the ridgeline, extending
from the terminus of Highcrest Drive to Diamond Bar Boulevard at
Tin Drive, as anticipated by the City's General Plan. With this.
Alternative, all residential lots are confined to Lot 6 of Tract
No. 31479 which is without map and deed restrictions. However,
remedial grading will occur outside of Lot 6. Additionally, the
subdivision design of this Alternative varies from the applicant's
proposal of VTTM No. 52267.
The following is a comparison of the "Response to Comments"
Alternative and the applicant's proposal of VTTM No. 52267.
PROPOSED VTTN NO. 52267 RESPONSE TO COIO(ENTS ALTERNATIVE
Location/Description:
Location/Description:
Along the proposed extension of
Same;
Highcrest Dr. to an intersection with
Diamond Bar Blvd. at Tin Dr.;
Proposed as a gated community;
Same;
130 single-family detached residences
clustered
120 single-family detached residences
on approximately 65 acres
(inclusive of streets, manufactured
clustered on approximately 50 acres
(inclusive
slopes, and a water tank site);
of streets and
manufactured slopes and a water tank
site);
Some residences will be located
Residences confined to Lot 6;
within Lots 6, 5 and 7;
Approximately 273.9 acres (80.7%)
will remain in
Approximately 279.9 acres (82.4%)
natural open space.
will remain in natural open space.
Product Type:
Product Type:
Home size - 2,800 to 3,300 sq. ft.
Home size - Unknown
Min. pad size - 6,000 sq. ft.
Min. pad size - 5,000 sq. ft.
Min. lot size - 6,000 sq. ft.
Same;
Max. lot size - 26,000 sq. ft.
Unknown;
Average'lot size - 10,900 sq. ft.
Unknown;
Gross density - 0.4 units per acre
Same;
Net density - 3.16 units per acre
3.65 units per acre;
Max. building height - 2 stories/35
Same;
ft.
Minimum setbacks:
Ste;
Front yard - 20 ft.
Rear yard - 20 ft.
Side yard - 5 and 10 ft.
Grading:
Grading:
Balanced on site;
Same;
Approximately 1.8 million cubic yards
Approximately 1.4 million cubic yards
of cut;
of cut;
Approximately 1.8 million cubic yards
of fill.
Approximately 1.4 million cubic yards
of fill.
Open Space•
Consists of manufactured slopes and
natural open space;
Approximately 24.2 acres, landscaped
and maintained by the HOA;
Remainder - approximately 273.9 acres
will be dedicated to the City as
public open space.
Open Space•
Same;
Approximately 26.8 acres, landscaped
and maintained by the HOA;
Remainder - Approximately 279.6 acres
will be dedicated to the City as
public open space.
Water Reservoir:
Water Reservoir:
Walnut Valley Water District has 2
Same;
planned water reservoir sites;
Same;
Not needed to serve this project but
to meet District's long-term needs;
One reservoir to be located on Lot
Does not identify a water reservoir
131; other to be located within the
on-site; to accommodate the
project site but outside the
District's needs, approximately 9 of
development area.
the 120 proposed dwelling units could
not be constructed.
Circulation•
Circulation•
Points of access proposed - 2;
Same;
East - Highcrest Dr. extension;
West - Diamond Bar Blvd./Tin
Dr.;
Left hand turn pocket will be
Same;
provided at Diamond Bar Blvd. for
southbound traffic turning left into
the project site;
Traffic signal will be installed on
Same;
Diamond Bar Blvd. at Tin Dr.;
Circulation is circuitous.
Circulation is less circuitous with a
circulation pattern that will provide
a straight run from top to bottom,
similar to Gold Rush Drive.
InfrastructureImprovements•
Infrastructure Improvements•
All utilities will be underground;
Same;
Extend an 8 -inch sewer across Diamond
Same;
Bar Blvd. into Tin Dr. and down
Bridle Dr. for a total distance of
approximately 330 feet and connect to
existing sewer line;
Extend a 14 -inch water service line
same;
from site to Diamond Bar Blvd., and
connect to existing water line;
Extend a 48 -inch storm drain line
Same;
approximately 450 ft. to south of Tin
Dr. along Diamond Bar Blvd. to
connect with existing drainage basin.
Anticipated Pr000sed Proiect Phasinv•
Anticipated Pro22sed ProjectPhasing;
Tentative Map Approval - 9/98
Same or similar;
Final Map Approval - 3/99
Initiate Grading - 4/99 (duration:
approximately 4 months)
Models Open - 4/00
Complete Home Sales - 9/02.
Discretionary Action:
Discretionary Action:
EIR certification;
Same;
Conditional Use Permit - hillside
development;
Vesting Tentative Tract Map;
Map and Deed restriction removal (due
Dwelling units confined to Lot 6, but
to dwelling units and remedial
remedial grading outside of Lot 6;
grading outside of Lot 6);
therefore, map and deed restriction
Subsequent City Actions;
removal is required;
Grading permit;
Oak tree permit;
Same;
Building permit;
State of California:
NPDES permit;
Dept. of Fish and Game -
Same;
Sections 1601 and 1603 permits
(possibly required);
Federal:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -
Same.
Section 404 permit (possibly
required).
,
The Response to Comments Alternative requires additional technical
assessments regarding grading, hydrology and biology. Due to the
similarities between VTTM No. 52267 and the Response to Comments
Alternative and the draft EIR evaluation of an altenative tha is
also similar, it was determined that technical assessments beyond
those mentioned are not required.
As delineated in the comparison chart, a grading reduction of 0.4
million cubic yards of cut and fill will occur with the Response to
Comments Alternative. Grading will still occur outside of Lot 6,
but covering a smaller area. A variable width keyway, to stabilize
the northerly facing natural slope will be located on the north
side of Lot 6. It will vary from 100 to 160 feet in width,
tapering to 50 feet in width to the east. The easterly facing
slope, adjacent to Lots 55 through 65 will require stabilization
through the use of buttress and shear keys. The buttress will be
50 feet wide and the shear key will be 50 feet wide. Less
contour/landform grading will be utilized. Therefore, compliance
to the Hillside Management Ordinance will be to a lesser degree.
Additionally, the City has determined that blasting will not be
permitted with the proposed VTTM No. 52267 or the Response to
Comments Alternative. No new significant impacts are anticipated
with the Response to Comments Alternative. Therefore, all
recommended mitigation measures for VTTM No. 52267 will be
applicable to the Alternative.
HYDROLOGY•
A revised hydrology study was prepared for the Response to Comments
Alternative. Pre- and post- conditions of VTTM No. 52267 and the
Alternative were compared. It is determined that existing storm
drain facilities are adequate to accommodate the post -development
flows for both projects. New impacts are not anticipated. All
recommended mitigation proposed for VTTM No. 52267 will be
applicable to the Alternative. However, the following additional
improvements will be required for the Alternative:
1. Catch basins at the project entrance to pick up all storm
runoff before it enters Diamond Bar Boulevard;
2. Catch basins at the north side of the four-way
intersection on the main street through the site; and
3. Main storm drain pipe to be installed at the
development's upstream end shall be 24 inches in
accordance with Los Angeles County standards.
BIOLOGY:
As previously mentioned, the Response to Comments Alternative's
grading limits are different than proposed VTTM No. 52267. As a
result, a supplemental oak and walnut tree survey was conducted by
6
BonTerra Consulting (City's Consultant) in March 1998. The survey
indicated that within the grading limits of the Alternative, 35
coast live oak trees will be impacted that would not be impacted by
proposed VTTM No. 52267. The majority of these trees are located
along the site's western boundary (adjacent to Diamond Bar
Boulevard). As a result of the new grading limits, approximately
25 coast live oak trees will be preserved that would be impacted
with VTTM No. 52267's proposed grading. The majority of the
preserved trees are located along the northern boundary of the
project's development area. Therefore, there will be a net
increase of ten impacted coast live oak trees. The impacts to
coast live oak woodland and oak trees can be mitigated to a level
considered less than significant through the mitigation monitoring
program set forth in the draft EIR for proposed VTTM No, 52267.
Overall, the the Response to Comments Alternative will result in
similar biological impacts as proposed VTTM No. 52267.
With regards to grading, hydrology and biology, Response to
Comments Alternative's impacts can be reduced to a level that is
considered less than significant. Utilizing the mitigation
measures recommended for proposed VTTM No. 52267 will cause this to
occur.
LAND USE•
As presented in the General Plan's land use designation of Planning
Area 2, a maximum 130 single-family detached dwelling units may be
developed, concentrated along the anticipated extension of
Highcrest Drive, with a minimum of 75 percent to the total acreage
set aside as dedicated open space. In order to minimize
environmental impacts and maximize clustering, residential lots
shall range from 6,000 to 10,000 square feet. Both projects, the
proposed VTTM No. 52267 and the Response to Comments Alternative,
are consistent with the number and type of development identified
within the General Plan. However, both projects are not consistent
with some goals, objectives, and strategies within the General
Plan. These inconsistencies are identified and discussed in the
draft EIR. The inconsistencies will be addressed in the Statement
Of Overriding Considerations.
VISUAL/AESTHETICS•
Visual/Aesthetic impacts of proposed VTTM No. 52267 and the
Response to Comments Alternative are the same in that both projects
require the cutting of ridges and filling of some canyon areas on
the site to create building pads and roadways. Proposed VTTM No.
52267 incorporates contour/landform grading that generally complies
with the City's Hillside Management Ordinance. The proposed
entrance road to the site, at Tin Drive from Diamond Bar Boulevard,
will require cutting through the existing slope bank which will
create cut slopes on both sides of the new road. The slopes will
be approximately 40 to 60 feet in height. Additionally, two large
7
engineered fill slopes, one located along the southern edge
(adjacent to Lots 112 to 125) of the development and the other
along Diamond Bar Boulevard downslope of Lots 8 to 20, will be
visible after development. Both fill slopes will be approximately
150 feet high. A smaller fill slope, 110 feet high, will also be
visible along Diamond Bar Boulevard, downslope of Lots 2 to 5.
With the Response to Comments Alternative, the residences will
shift closer to and contiguous to Diamond Bar Boulevard and the on-
site access road. The proposed entrance road to the site, at Tin
Drive and Diamond Bar Boulevard, will require cutting through the
existing slope bank similar to proposed VTTM No. 52267. A large
cut slope, approximately 105 feet higher than the Diamond Bar
Boulevard's existing elevation, on the.north side of the on-site
access road will be visible from Diamond Bar Boulevard. On the
entrance road's south side, six residences are proposed paralleling
and approximately 50 feet east of and 20 to 30 feet above Diamond
Bar Boulevard. Three large engineered fill slopes will be visible
after development of the Alternative. One will be located along
the southern edge of the development area in the same location
identified for the proposed map; howerver, it extends further to
the east than the proposed map. The manufactured slope height will
be approximately 80 feet (compared to 150 feet for the proposed
map). The second engineered slope is along Diamond Bar Boulevard
adjacent to the on-site access road with a height of approximately
105 feet; this slope is higher and wider than the slope in this
part of the proposed map. The third manufactured slope will occur
in the north -central portion of the development area to accommocate
the remedial grading (buttress/keyway emplacement) needed for the
Alternative. This manufactured slope condition will cover less
area and be somewhat less visible then the remedial grading for the
proposed map. More residential development and manufactured slope
area will be visible from Diamond Bar Boulevard than with the
proposed map.
TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION:
Traffic study was prepared and incorporated into the draft EIR for
VTTM Nos. 52267 and 52308 by O'Rouke Engineering in April 1997.
Due to the applicant's withdrawal of VTTM No. 52208 and the
resubmittal of VTTM No. 52267, an updated traffic study was
prepared (February 1998) addressing potential traffic impact of
VTTM No. 52267 by itself. The updated study indicated that VTTM
No. 52267 will generate 1,242 daily trips. Ninety-six will occur
in the a.m. peak hours and 131 trips in the p.m. peak hours based
on 9.55 vehicle trips per day, per dwelling unit. Also a queuing
analysis was conducted at the project's entry from Diamond Bar
Boulevard at Tin Drive. It was concluded that the project's design
provided adequate "stacking" distance.on-site, thereby preventing
queuing on Diamond Bar Boulevard. However, turning movements will
require a traffic signal at the Diamond Bar Boulevard project
8
entrance, thereby mitigating traffic impacts to a level considered
less than significant.
The Response to Comments Alternative will generate 1,146 daily
trips based on a trip generation factor of 9.55 trips per dwelling
units. This is a reduction of 96 trips per day. Therefore, the
Alternative will not result in any new significant traffic impacts.
The Alternative will also require a traffic signal at the Diamond
Bar Boulevard project entrance, thereby mitigating traffic impacts
to a :level considered less than significant.
AIR QUALITY•
The draft EIR indicates the proposed VTTM No. 52267 will result in
construction -related nitrogen oxides (Nox) and particulate matter
(PM10) impacts. The draft EIR identifies measures as conditions of
approval to minimize the impacts. However, the impact will not be
reduced to a level of less than significant. Therefore, a
Statement of Overriding Considerations is required.
The Response to Comments Alternative proposes reduced grading
quantities. Even with reduced grading quantities and the
implementation of mitigation measures, impacts will not be reduced
to a level of less than significant. Therefore, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations is also required.
VEHICUMAR NOISE/CONSTRUCTION NOISE:
Noise studies were conducted for the draft EIR assessing potential
vehicular noise associated with the implementation of proposed VTTM
No. 52267 (also included VTTM No. 52308 not longer part of this
project). The projected noise increases at Diamond Bar Boulevard/
Tin Drive and Diamond Bar Boulevard/Gold Rush Drive generally range
from 0.3 to 1.3 dbA (1 to 3 dbA is difficult to detect). At
Diamond Bar Boulevard/Tin Drive, in the eastward direction into the
site, the increase over existing noise levels will be 3.8 dbA for
the a. m. peak hour and 9.1 dbA for the p.m. peak hour. The
increase is large because there is no existing roadway in this
location. In all locations, the resulting noise levels will range
from 46.8 to 52.1 Leq which is less than the criteria for
determination of a significant impact.
The Response to Comments Alternative will result in noise increases
at the intersections of Diamond Bar Boulevard/Tin Drive and Diamond
Bar Boulevard/Gold Rush Drive. These noise levels will not be
greater than those associated with the proposed VTTM No. 52267.
However, the Alternative proposes residences adjacent to Diamond
Bar Boulevard that are not part of the proposed map. The proposed
residences along Diamond Bar Boulevard may experience noise levels
that exceed the City's noise standards. Therefore, the following
mitigation measure is suggested to reduce vehicular noise level to
9
less than significant in addition to mitigation measures identified
in the draft EIR for the proposed map:
Prior to the approval of the vesting tentative tract map,
residential units shall be located outside of the 45 dbA
exterior nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) and the 50 dbA exterior
daytime (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) noise levels, or noise attenuation
shall be provided, as recommended in a noise study prepared by
a licensed acoustical engineer. Said determination shall be
made prior to the insurance of the first building permit.
Proposed VTTM No. 52267's development is expected to take two to
three years. Grading activities which generate the most noise will
take approximately four to six months. Existing residences will
probably experience noise levels exceeding the City's noise
standards, depending on the distance from operating construction
equipment. However, mitigation measures/ conditions of approval
within the draft EIR will reduce the noise levels. Furthermore,
construction noise is considered a short-term significant impact
that cannot be avoided. This impact remains significant and
unavoidable and will be addressed in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
The Response to Comments Alternative's development is expect to
take two to three years with grading activities lasting
approximately four to six months. With grading activities
occurring further from residences along Gold Rush Drive, these
residences may experience fewer construction noise related impacts.
Residences along Highcrest Drive and adjacent to Steep Canyon Road
could be impacted. As with the proposed map, the construction
noise impacts associated with the Alternative is considered
significant and unavoidable and will be addressed in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations.
CULTURAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
An archaeological records search and a walk -over survey of the VTTM
No. 52267 site was conducted and is referenced in the draft EIR.
Based on the archaeological assessment, there are no known
prehistoric or historic resources on-site. Because buried
resources cannot be detected and only 10 to 15 percent of the area
could be viewed during the walk -over survey and vegetative cover,
it is possible that buried artifacts or sites could be found during
construction activities and accidental damage could occur.
Therefore, mitigation measures, recommended in the draft EIR as
conditions of approval, will safeguard any artifacts undetected by
the walk -over survey. Additionally, the site is underlain by
middle to upper Miocene aged rock of the Soquel Member of the
Puente Formation. Grading, trenching and other earth moving
activities could significantly impact vertebrate, invertebrate, and
plant fossil remains. Therefore, mitigation measures recommended
10
in the draft EIR as condition of approval will safeguard the
possible referenced remains.
The Response to Comments Alternative site was reviewed with the
cultural and paleontology survey conducted for VTTM No. 52267.
Under the Alternative, impacts, mitigation measures and conditions
of approval will be similar or the same as with the proposed map,
thereby reducing the potential significant impacts to a level that
is considered less than significant.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), the City has determined that an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) is required for this project. Environmental Impact
Report NO. 97-2 (SCH No. 97031005), Volume I and II has been
prepared. The DEIR review period began July 1o, 1997 and ended
August 25, 1997.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
Continued public hearing notices for April 28, 1998 were mailed to
approximately 1,055 property owners within a 500 foot radius of the
project site on March 27, 1998.
CONCLUSION:
VTTM No. 52267 and the Response to Comments Alternative are
consistent with the location, number and type of development
identified in the General Plan for Planning Area 2. However, there
are several issues for the Planning Commission to -consider when
reviewing both proposals. The issues are as follows:
1. The appropriateness of each proposals design when
considering configuration and lot and pad size and lot
shape;
2. Each proposals' compliance with the standards and
guidelines of the City's Hillside Management Ordinance;
3. Each proposal's development with respect to aesthetics
and views from off-site and on-site; the increase of rear
yard setbacks for residential units of perimeter lots to
reduce view and aesthetic impacts; and perimeter fencing
with maximum three feet high block walls with wrought
iron, glass or open work fencing on top of block wall to
reduce view and aesthetic impacts;
4. The project area is not a major wildlife corridor to
11
Tonner Canyon. However, the perimeter fencing should
allow for the movement of on-site wildlife;
5. The appropriateness of tree removal, mitigation measures
within the draft EIR and the transplanting of on-site
trees to other locations, on-site and/or off-site;
6. The removal of map and deed restrictions and in exchange
for their removal, what will be the significant benefit
to the City, as required by the General Plan. The
dedication of approximately 274 acres as public open
space (which does not include the manufactured slope) may
be considered a minimum significant benefit at a minimum.
The non-binding Memorandum of Understanding attached to
the project site and Lot 9 of Tract No. 31479 dedicates
all of Lot 9 as public open space. The contribution to
the City"s parks and acquisition fund could be considered
as part of -a significant benefit to the City.
The Planning Commission's conclusions to these issues will assist
staff in crafting the final documents for this project.
The Planning Commission has serval available options:
1. Direct staff to prepare resolutions of approval;
2. Direct staff to prepare resolutions of denial; and
3. Continue the project to provide the applicant and staff
the opportunity to respond to any Planning Commission
issues.
TION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: open the public
hearing; receive comments on the project; close the public hearing
and begin deliberations on VTTM No. 52267 and its entitlements;
working toward a conclusion with recommendations for City Council's
consideration; and direct staff to prepare appropriate docu-
mentation in support of the Planning Commission's recommendations.
Staff is in support of the 130 unit project subject to the
following: approximately 273 acres of the project area (excluding
the manufactured slopes and including the remaining natural
portions of Lots 4, 5 and 7 and all of Lot 9 of Tract No. 31479 be
dedicated to the City as public open space; and a contribution to
the City'.s parks and acquisition fund.
Prepared by: lzqotc�,
Ann J. gu sociate Planner
12
Attachments:
1. VTTM No. 52267 Comparative Environmental Evaluation: Proposed
Project and EIR Project Alternative;
2. Memorandum dated April 21, 1998 from BonTerra Consulting
regarding Results of Supplemental Tree Survey for EIR Project
Alternative;
3. Response to Comments documents dated September 23, 1997,
February 10, 1998 and March 24, 1998;
4. EIR Grading Alternative for development confined to Lot 6
(Exhibit);
5. Memorandum to Planning Commission dated April 23, 1998 with
correspondences received from residences regarding VTTM No.
52267; and
6. Planning Commission Staff Report for the February 10, 1998
meeting.
13
#'#e1P
TJ Cons
ultang
An Environmental Planning/Resource Management Corporation
April 21, 1998
MEMORANDUM
To: Ann Lungu
City of Diamond Bar
From: Tom Smith
Subject: Results of Supplemental Tree Survey for VTTM No. 52267 EIR Grading Alternative
This memo describes the results of a supplemental tree survey conducted by BonTerra Consulting
in March 1998 for the VTTM No. 52267 site. The purpose of the survey was to determine the
differences in the number of oak and walnut trees potentially impacted by development of the
proposed VTTM No. 52267 grading design for 130 single-family residential lots and an alternative
grading design for 120 lots contained largely within the boundaries of Lot 6 of VTTM No. 52267.
The supplemental tree survey was necessary because the a
for the
EIR grading alternative extended into some areas of the p oje t site rrhat wereits ofurbance not previously
surveyed for oak trees by Sweetwater Environmental Biologists, Inc. (Sweetwater). Surveyors were
Ann Johnston, Christina Andersen,and Ron Menguita of BonTerra Consulting.
METHODS
The limits of grading for the EIR grading alternative provided by Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc.
(Pacific) in its February 27, 1998 report were overlayed onto the 1" = 200' topography map
prepared by Sweetwater in December 1996 that documented the locations of oak and walnut trees
on the VTTM No. 52267 site. All trees were mapped and marked with aluminum tags that were
numbered sequentially starting with Number 501. All trees in proximity to previously tagged trees
were inspected thoroughly to insure that trees were not tagged twice. After each tree was mapped
and tagged, its trunk(s) and canopy diameter(s) were measured and recorded. Trees that were
growing on cliff edges or were in other ways not accessible were not physically tagged but
given a tag number, mapped, and measured by estimation. were
The trunk diameter(s) of each tree were measured individually and added together when multiple
trunks were present; the total number of trunks for each tree was noted. The canopy diameter of
each tree was estimated by measuring the distance between dripline edges. The survey results are
described in Table A. Tree measurement data is provided in Appendix A.
RESULTS
In summary, a total of 10 additional coast live oak trees would be impacted from development of
the EIR grading alternative. Within the limits of grading specified for the EIR grading alternative,
a total of 35 additional coast live oak trees were tagged and would be impacted if this alternative
were developed. The majority of these impacted trees are located along the western boundary of
20321 Birch Street. Nude 201 Newport Beach, (A 92660 (949) 475-9520 (949) 475-9511 FAX
Ann Lungu
MEMORANDUM
April 21, 1998
Page 2
the proposed project site adjacent to Diamond Bar Boulevard. The limits of grading for the EIR
grading alternative would also avoid 25 coast live oak trees that would have been impacted by the
130 lot development proposed in VTTM No. 52267. The majority of the avoided trees are located
along the northern boundary of the proposed limits of grading for VTTM No. 52267.
R:\P rojeas\D BarW 0020akMemo42198
Table A
Tree Survey Data
EIR Grading Alternative
VTTM No. 52267
OAK TREES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF EIR GRADING ALTERNATIVE
QA=OAK TREE JC=WALNUT TREE
Appendix A
Tree Survey Trunk Data
EIR Grading Alternative
VTTM No. 52267
Tag No.12
501
12
14
12
14 7 7 3 11 2 15
502
11
503
504
16
11
12
16
8.5 12 113 13 6.5
505
506
6
11
8.5
11
14.5 12.5
507
8
8
8
9 8
508
8
9
11
509
2
2
2
1
510
5.5
3
2
1 1
511
8
9
9.5
13
512
13
513
6
9
514
13
515
14
516
16.5
517
16
518
24
519
12
2
520
19
17
16
521
22
522
7
523
14
12
524
33
12
525
23
16
526
14
9.5
6
527
23
528
24
27
6
529
20
530
14
45
531
11.5
28
18
532
20
3
4
533
534
20
14
5
9
3
535
25
3
4
3 45
536
9
8
3
537
14
14
538
7
8
8
3
539
26
15
9
6
540
10
10
10
2
541
542
25
18
3
1
6 1 12 2
543
25
23
8
32
544
22
545
546
16
18
18
15
16
30
18 11 10 8 7 12
547
15
15
7
16
548
14
15
13
549
44
550
14
15
20
551
552
8
13
19
15
19 5
553
19
8
18
18 12
554
10
555
19
17
14
556
2
3
9
16
557
1
4
4
2 1
558
50
559
560
26
6
7
6
2
2 2
Total
Trunk
Diameter
in Inches
9 tt8
11
16
192
6
57.5
41
28
7
12.5
39.5
13
15
13
14
16.5
15
24
14
52
22
7
26
45
39
29.5
23
57
20
59
57.5
27
20
31
80
20
28
26
56
32
25
43
88
22
50
129
53
42
44
49
8
71
75
10
50
30
12
50
33
18
Diamond Bar Planning Commission
Public Hearing of September 23, 1997
Responses to Comments
A public hearing on Vesting Tentative Tract Maps Numbers 52267 and 52308 (VTTM Nos. 52267
and 52308) was held on September 23, 1997. Approximately 150 members of the community were
present during the hearing; a total of 21 individuals provided testimony to the Planning
Commission.
Generally, those who spoke addressed the following issues (listed in order of number of
commentors speaking to the issue):
- Traffic and circulation
- Biological resources impacts
- Appropriateness of gated communities
- Loss of open space
- Hillside grading/visual impacts
- School capacity
Responses to each of these subjects are provided below
Traffic and Circulation
Overview: The commentors conveyed a concern that the traffic from the proposed projects would
adversely affect circulation conditions along Diamond Bar Boulevard and Gold Rush Drive (VTTM
No. 52267) and Pantera Drive (VTTM No. 52308).
Response: Traffic impacts from the proposed projects were evaluated in a technical traffic study
completed by O'Rourke Engineering, the traffic consultant retained by the City's EIR consultant.
O'Rourke Engineering is one of the traffic engineering companies on the City's approved list of
traffic engineers. The approach used by O'Rourke was approved in advance by the City's Public
Works Department and the results of the traffic study were independently reviewed by another
traffic consultant retained by the City specifically for this project prior to release of the Draft EIR.
These reviews determined that the traffic study followed applicable traffic engineering methods and
complied with the City's earlier direction.
The technical traffic impact analysis is Appendix E of the Draft EIR; results of the analysis are
summarized in Section 3.6 of the Draft EIR. Implementation of the VTTM No. 52267 project would
generate 1,242 average daily trips (ADT), with 96 trips occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 131
trips during the p.m. peak hour. The VTTM No. 52308 site would generate 573 average daily trips,
with 44 trips occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 62 trips during the p.m. peak hour.
Combined, the two sites would generate 1,815 average daily trips, with 140 a.m. peak hour trips
and 192 p.m. peak hour trips. Based on the City of Diamond Bar's criteria for determining
significance, the increase in vehicular traffic associated with both project sites is not significant and
does not require mitigation.
Page 1
In addition, a queuing analysis was also conducted at the project entry from Diamond Bar
Boulevard at Tin Drive to insure that the project entry design would provide adequate space for
vehicle "stacking" onsite during peak periods when vehicles could be waiting to pass through the
private gate. This analysis concluded that the design provided adequate "stacking" distance onsite
thereby preventing queuing onto Diamond Bar Boulevard. However, turning movement
considerations at this location resulted in a requirement for the VTTM No. 52267 project to pay
for the provision of a traffic signal at this location.
In further response to the questions raised by commentors at the hearing, the City directed
O'Rourke Engineering to clarify its earlier report to address the questions raised, as well as to
investigate the potential additional traffic impacts from relocating the private access gate to the
VTTM No. 52267 site eastward to a location near the existing Highcrest Drive/Goldrush Drive
intersection, thereby incorporating the existing homes on Highcrest into the gated community. This
suggestion had been raised by commentors at the hearing. Additionally, the City directed the traffic
consultant to consider the traffic impacts of replacing the gate at the eastern tract boundary at
Highcrest Drive with an access that would be for emergency use only.
The results of the traffic consultant's work is provided as Attachment A to this responses to
comments document from the September 23, 1997 Planning Commission hearing.
Biological Resources Impacts
Overview: The majority of comments focused on the loss of natural habitat from development of
the VTTM No. 52267 site. Loss of oak trees, California gnatcatcher habitat (represented by coastal
sage scrub vegetation), and deer seen in the vicinity of the VTTM No. 52267 site were mentioned
by several commentors.
Response: The biological resources of both project sites were evaluated by two biological
consulting companies using staff with extensive experience with the habitats and wildlife species
present on the sites. One company was retained by the applicant and the other was the City's EIR
consultant. Separate focused surveys for gnatcatchers were conducted for both sites in 1996 and
1997 by permitted biologists at each consulting company. The February 1997 survey protocol
specified by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service was used for the 1997 focused survey that was
conducted by the City's EIR consultant. Gnatcatchers were not detected at either site in either of
the surveys, although coastal sage scrub habitat was present. This situation is not unusual,
especially in the inland regions of Los Angeles County, where temperatures and elevations are not
optimal for the gnatcatcher.
The Biological Resources Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR states that a total of 410 oak trees and 30
walnuts would be lost from development of the VTTM No. 52267 project and 10 oaks and 10
walnuts would be lost from development of the VTTM No. 52308 site. The Draft EIR specifies that
implementation the following mitigation measures would reduce these biological resources impacts
to a less than significant level:
— Development and implementation of a Biological Resources Management Program (BRMP)
to mitigate for loss of oak and walnut woodlands; the City of Diamond Bar must approve the
BRMP prior to issuance of a grading permit for either project site. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will
also review the BRMP prior to approval by the City;
Page 2
- Compliance with the City's Oak Tree Ordinance that requires replacing at least 2 oak trees
for each oak tree lost to development;
- Replacement of lost walnuts at a ratio of at least 2 walnut trees for each tree lost to
development;
- Mitigation locations are to be sited in suitable areas, as determined by the City's project
biologist, generally in appropriate locations in permanent open space areas and outside of
fuel modification areas. The mitigation further indicates that "planting of native trees and
shrubs within the fuel modification areas or within the interior of the developed project site
(i.e., project landscaping) will not be credited towards any tree replacement requirements of
the City of Diamond Bar or the California Department of Fish and Game" (page 3.3-28 of the
Draft EIR); and
- The applicable requirements of the California Department of Fish & Game and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers will be followed in development of the BRMP, and may result in additional
biological mitigation beyond that specified in the Draft EIR.
While site specific surveys were not conducted for bobcats, coyotes, or deer, the biological report
(Appendix D of the Draft EIR) does indicate that these species were observed on the \/TTM No.
52267 site; these species were not observed on the VTTM No. 52308 site.
Appropriateness of Gated Communities
Overview: Several commentors voiced the concern that the proposed gated communities would
be out of place in their respective adjacent neighborhoods, and might adversely affect property
values in the existing areas that are not gated. Although this concern is not an environmental issue
per se, it is a land use policy that the decision makers will need to consider for the proposed
projects.
Response: The gated community concept was developed after the City informed the applicant that
the open space lots within the boundaries of each tentative map, as well as other common
landscaping and mitigation areas, would have to be owned and maintained by a homeowners'
association to insure proper care of these areas in perpetuity without placing any financial burden
on the City. Since the costs of such maintenance was considered to be substantial, a gated
community concept was suggested as a means of providing an additional benefit to future residents
of these projects to offset the homeowners' association monthly fees. It should be noted that the
proposed projects include streets and curbs that meet public street standards, even though they
will be privately owned and maintained by the homeowners' associations.
While there is no data that the City has seen in this regard, homes in gated communities are often
sold at premiums over comparable homes in adjacent neighborhoods. This condition generally
leads to increases in the values of homes adjacent to the gated communities rather than
decreases. Also, it should be noted that for the VTTM No. 52267 project site, the gated
community concept would also stop through traffic that might otherwise try to use the primary
project roadway as an alternate to Gold Rush Drive.
Page 3
Loss of Open Space
Overview: Comments generally related to the loss of hillside areas and views of these open spaces
from adjacent areas.
Response' The City's General Plan designates the VTTM No. 52267 site for development of up
to 130 dwelling units. Development of this area was considered in the General Plan and General
Plan EIR and found to be acceptable. While the current vacant status of this site would be
changed by development, the proposed development is compatible with the City's General Plan.
The proposed development also conforms to the City's hillside management requirements and
incorporates landform/contour grading techniques. The remainder of the VTTM No. 52267 site
consisting of 273.9 acres would remain in permanent open space as it exists today.
The VTTM No. 52308 site is designated in the City's General Plan as Open Space. The loss of
this open space area was not anticipated in the City's planning process and would require an
amendment to the General Plan to allow for development of the proposed project. The Draft EIR
acknowledges that this loss is a significant and unavoidable impact.
Hillside Grading/Visual Impacts
Overview• Comments related to the hillside grading that would be required for the proposed
developments and the related visual impacts to adjacent areas in the City.
Response The proposed grading for both project sites incorporates landform/contour grading
concepts that conform to the City's hillside grading ordinance. These requirements generally allow
ridge lines in the City to be graded for development of residential uses, a practice that is evident
in existing projects throughout the City. The Draft EIR includes computer generated simulations
of the developed areas of the project sites from key viewpoints in areas adjacent to each
development. The Draft EIR indicates that residential units in the proposed projects would be
visible along the ridge lines from adjacent areas. The Draft EIR proposes mitigation measures that
would reduce, but not eliminate, the visual impacts from the proposed developments by requiring
adjustment to the grading programs to reduce the visibility of the hilltop homes.
School Capacity
Overview: Comments addressed the potential impact of the proposed developments on available
and future school capacities, especially the proposed but unbuilt Pantera Elementary School,
located across Pantera Drive from the VTTM No. 52308 site.
Response• The students to be generated by the VTTM No. 52267 site were anticipated in the
City's General Plan and EIR. The students from the 60 dwelling units proposed for the VTTM No.
52308 site were not anticipated, since as noted above, the General Plan designates the site as
Open Space. Development projects are required by state law to pay school fees to offset the
impacts from new students. Any additional fees needed by the school district to fund the
construction of the new Pantera School will be determined through discussions between the
developer and the school district.
Page 4
Diamond Bar Planning Commission
Public Hearing of February 10, 1998
Responses to Comments
A public hearing on Vesting Tentative Tract Map Number 52267 (VTTM No. 52267) was held on
February 10, 1997 to receive public input concerning the proposed development of 130 single-
family detached residential dwelling units clustered on approximately 65 acres of a 339.3 acre site.
A draft EIR addressing VTTM No. 52267 (SCH No. 97-031005) was prepared and available for
public review from July 10, 1997 to August 25, 1997.
Approximately 50 members of the community were present during the hearing; a total of 14
individuals provided testimony to the Planning Commission.
The following issues were raised in the testimony of individuals:
-Traffic and circulation
-biological resources impacts
-visual impacts
-dust from grading
-deed restrictions
-fiscal impacts
Responses to each of these subjects are provided below.
Traffic and Circulation
Overview: Commentors raised the concern that the addition of traffic from the 130 dwelling units
would further worsen traffic congestion on Diamond Bar Boulevard during evening peak hours.
Also, commentors requested clarification of the EIR traffic analysis with respect to the number of
trips generated during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour periods, since the numbers provided in the
Draft EIR seemed low.
Response See responses written for comments raised at the September 23, 1997 public hearing
on VTTM No. 52267 project. As noted in the responses to the comments from the September
hearing (included as part of the Planning Commission's agenda packet for the February 10, 1998
meeting), comments regarding traffic and circulation from the September hearing were directed
to the City's EIR traffic consultant for clarification and response. The results of this work are
provided as Attachment A to this responses to comments document.
One commentor at the February hearing requested clarification of the EIR traffic study's reference
to the proposed development of 130 homes generating 96 a.m. peak hour trips and 131 p.m. peak
hour trips. As noted in the EIR Traffic Study prepared in June 1997 and summarized in Section
3.6 of the Draft EIR, possible traffic trips generated by the proposed 130 dwelling units were
developed using traffic generation rates developed by theInstitute of Transportation Engineers
5"
(ITE), Trip Generation Manual, ' Edition. This document is recognized by transportation
engineers and planners as the definitive reference on this subject.
Using the ITE generation rates for single family detached land uses, the EIR traffic consultant
calculated that each dwelling unit would generate 9.55 vehicle trips per day; of these 9.55 daily
trips, ITE rates indicate that 0.74 trips and 1.01 trips per dwelling unit would occur in the a.m. peak
and p.m. peak hour periods, respectively. For the 130 dwelling units, these rates correspond to
1,242 daily trips, of which 96 trips would occur in the a.m. peak hours and 131 trips would occur
in the p.m. peak hours. These calculations are provided in Table 3.6B of the Draft EIR (page 3.6-
6). The use of the ITE rates was validated by the City's traffic engineer and also by another traffic
consultant hired by the City to evaluate the O'Rourke Engineering Traffic Study.
Using the City of Diamond Bar's criteria for determining significance, as well as the Los Angeles
County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) criteria, the increase in traffic from the proposed
project would not result in a significant impact and therefore not require mitigation. Additionally,
the EIR for the City's General Plan addressed the environmental impacts (including traffic) from
developing the General Plan land uses. As indicated in the Draft EIR, the VTTM No. 52267 site
is designated in the General Plan for construction of up to 130 dwelling units. Therefore, the traffic
impacts of the proposed project (as well as others described in the General Plan) were considered
in the City Council's approval of General Plan and the accompanying EIR.
Biological Resources Impacts
Overview: Most commentors focused on the anticipated loss of biological resources from
development of the proposed VTTM No. 52267 project. Several commentors were concerned that
animals and habitat in Steep Canyon, located just south of the VTTM No. 52267 development area
would be destroyed by the proposed project.
Re onset The potential impacts from development of the VTTM No. 52267 site were evaluated
by two consulting companies using staff with extensive experience with the habitats and wildlife
species present on the site. The entire 339 acre site was surveyed to document existing habitats
and biological resources and the proposed development area (consisting of 65 acres of the 339
acre site) was intensively surveyed to document its existing resources and to determine the
potential impacts of developing the proposed project. Focused spring surveys were also conducted
in March and April 1997 for endangered plants, and the endangered California gnatcatcher,
respectively.
As noted in the Draft EIR, no sensitive or endangered plants were observed during these surveys
and no gnatcatchers were found onsite. The results of the gnatcatcher surveys were reported to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as required by the survey protocol and the provisions of the
special permit held by the biologist who conducted the survey. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
did not comment upon the results of the surveys. The California Department of Fish and Game
was provided a copy of the Draft EIR and did not provide comments to the City.
The specific characteristics of the proposed VTTM No. 52267 project are described in pages 2-1
through 2-5 of the Draft EIR and were used in conducting the biological impact analysis. As noted
in Figure 3.3-1 (VTTM No. 52267 Biological Resources) of the Draft EIR, the development area
inclusive of residential lots, manufactured slopes, and fuel modification areas, would not directly
impact the Steep Canyon drainage (also referred to as upper Sycamore Canyon by some
commentors). This drainage and its biological resources would be left in its existing natural
condition. The draft EIR does acknowledge that adverse indirect impacts would occur from
development of the VTTM No. 52267 site, and notes that these were not considered significant and
therefore did not require mitigation. The indirect effects would result from noise and dust
generated by construction, potential urban runoff from the project site, and future residents.
Since plant and wildlife resources in Steep Canyon (as well as other resources in the 273 acres of
the 339 acre site that would be preserved in its existing natural state) would not be removed by
development, the animals that currently inhabit the area would most likely continue to do so. It is
likely that animal use of the Steep Canyon drainage will be reduced during construction of VTTM
No. 52267; however, animal use after such activities are completed would be expected to return
to pre -development levels.
One commentor questioned the adequacy of the EIR by reading from the executive summary
(Table 1.1 on pages 1-9 through 1-19). Using this approach, the commentor suggested that the
listing of sensitive species in the Executive Summary table was incomplete, and other impact topics
(e.g., night lighting, cultural/historic resources) were inadequately addressed. None of these
comments made any reference to the separate sections in the Draft EIR addressing these issues.
The commentor is referred to the main sections of the EIR for answers to his questions.
Visual Impacts
Overview: Commentors noted that the Draft EIR's visual simulations portrayed the VTTM No.
52267 development as being visible from homes west of Diamond Bar Boulevard, as well as to
viewers traveling northbound and southbound on Diamond Bar Boulevard. One commentor
requested that wider angle visual simulations be provided to depict the proposed development from
a point further south along Diamond Bar Boulevard and from the residential area west of the site.
RQ—sponse- The viewpoints provided in the Draft EIR were selected by the City's environmental
consultant and were approved in advance by City staff. These viewpoints were selected as being
representative of the view impacts that would result after completion of the proposed project.
Producing additional viewpoint exhibits from the areas requested by the commentors, would not
show any additional impact areas, and would replicate the same impact analysis albeit from longer
range views. The Draft EIR notes on page 3.5-6 that the visual impacts from development of
VTTM No. 52267 are significant. Further analysis would not alter this finding and is not considered
necessary.
Dust from Grading
Overview: Commentors noted that the Draft EIR states that development of the VTTM No. 52267
project would create fugitive dust emissions during grading and during the "limited blasting" that
may be required for site development. Commentors referred to the Draft EIR's statements that 1.8
million cubic yards of earth movement would occur to complete the VTTM No. 52267 development
and that grading operations would occur over a four month period.
Resoonsg The air quality analysis in the Draft EIR, Section3.7-1, was prepared by an air quality
expert who worked for the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for over 10
years and who is considered one of the most qualified air quality analysts in Southern California.
The requirements of the most current version (November 1993) of the SCAQMD's CEQA Air
Quality Handbook were followed in conducting the air quality analysis in the Draft EIR.
As indicated in Table 3.7D of the Draft EIR, a total of 4,224 pounds per day of fugitive dust (also
called PM10) emissions would occur from grading operations attributable to both the proposed
VTTM No. 52267 project and the previously proposed VTTM No. 52308 development. Since these
proposed projects were to have been developed concurrently, the Draft EIR analyzed them
together using a conservative assumption that a maximum of 85 acres would be disturbed during
grading of VTTM No. 52267 and a maximum of 75 acres would be disturbed during grading of
VTTM No. 52308. On a percentage basis, 53.13% of the total emissions would therefore be
generated from grading of the VTTM No. 52267 site, corresponding to a total of 2,242 pounds per
day of fugitive dust emissions.
As noted in the Draft EIR, the SCAQMD's threshold of significance for fugitive dust (PM10) of 150
pounds per day would be exceeded by project development, resulting in a significant impact before
mitigation. After incorporation of SCAQMD recommended dust -suppression measures, a 60%
reduction of PM10 emissions is possible, as indicated in Table 3.7F of the Draft EIR. Applying this
reduction would result in the generation of 898 pounds per day of fugitive dust emissions after
mitigation for the VTTM No. 52267 development, and therefore remain a significant impact as
noted on page 3.7-15 of the Draft EIR.
The Draft EIR analysis of air quality impacts from construction and operation of the proposed VTTM
No. 52:267 site is considered to adequately address the potential impacts of project development.
Deed Restrictions
Overview: Commentors noted that the Draft EIR indicates that deed restrictions on the VTTM No.
52267 site restrict development of residences to Lot 6, which is a smaller area than the area
currently included in the proposed development. Commentors requested that the development be
limited to the boundaries of Lot 6.
ReSOonse: The Draft EIR indicates that the proposed VTTM No. 52267 development extends
beyond the boundaries of Lot 6 for remedial grading activities in support of the proposed 130 single
family residences (page 3.4-23). The Draft EIR also notes that the Diamond Bar General Plan
Land Use Element designates Planning Area Sub -Area A, which includes the VTTM No. 52267
site, for development of a maximum of 130 single-family detached dwelling units. The proposed
development is therefore consistent with this provision of the General Plan and would not be
considered incompatible with existing land uses.
While the deed restriction itself is not an environmental issue, it is a factor that the Planning
Commission and City Council will consider during their deliberations on the proposed VTTM No.
52267 project. The necessity of developing outside the boundaries of Lot 6 will be reviewed as part
of these deliberations. The Draft EIR analyzed the potential environmental impacts from the
proposed project which the City can use in its decision making for the VTTM No. 52267 site.
Fiscal Impacts
Overview_: Commentors indicated that there appeared to be little economic benefit to the City from
development of the VTTM No. 52267 site, because the property tax and sales tax revenues to the
City from residential projects do not typically cover the costs of providing services.
Response This is not an environmental issue. However, it should be noted that projects do pay
various fees to school districts, water and sewer agencies, and other utility providers to insure that
these services provided. In addition, the City's General Plan designates this area for development
of residential uses and thereby acknowledges that some costs to the City will occur. The Planning
Commission and City Council deliberations on the VTTM No. 52267 site will consider this factor.
RAProjectsMaITC.RX21098
Diamond Bar Planning Commission
Public Hearing of March 24, 1998
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 52267
Responses to Comments
A continued public hearing from February 24, 1998 on Vesting Tentative Tract Map Number 52267
(VTTM No. 52267) was held on March 24, 1998. Approximately 50 members of the community
were present during the hearing; six individuals provided testimony to the Planning Commission.
Testimony addressed the following issues (listed in order of number of commentors speaking to
the issue):
Public noticing by the City of Diamond Bar for the project
Need for recirculation of the draft EIR to address revised project design
Responses to each of these issues are provided below.
Noticing
Overview:
Commentors requested that more advance notice be provided when the applicant requests a
continuance of discussion of the project.
Response:
Staff provides as much notice as possible to the community for public hearings. In this case, the
applicant requested the continuance only five days prior to the scheduled March 24, 1998 Planning
Commission meeting. Notices were immediately mailed (on March 27, 1998) to the community to
notify them of this request. Under these circumstances, additional notice time to the community
was impossible.
Recirculation of Draft EIR for Public and Agency Comment
Overview:
Commentors requested that the draft EIR be recirculated for public review in light of the new project
design under consideration.
Response
The City of Diamond Bar does not need to recirculate the draft EIR to public agencies and the
public unless significant new information is provided that identifies environmental impacts that
cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant or the applicant does not agree to the
mitigation necessary to fully mitigate these new significant impacts. Please refer to the responses
to comments of the February 24, 1998 Planning Commission hearing which addressed this issue
in greater detail. This alternative can be considered by the City as a part of the existing EIR
process. An alternative that is very similar to the one now being analyzed was included and
evaluated in the draft EIR; it was referred to as the "Refined Design" alternative to VTTM No.
522667 (see pages 5-4 through 5-8 of the draft EIR) . The "Refined Design" included 107 single-
family dwelling units within the boundary of Lot 6. A general comparison of the refined design to
the 130 dwelling units in the originally proposed project was provided in the draft EIR. A more
detailed evaluation of an alternative is not required by CEQA.
In response to comments raised in public testimony, the applicant was requested by the City to
provide more information concerning how this alternative could actually be developed, including
the remedial geotechnical measures that might be necessary to implement it. The applicant
responded with the 120 dwelling unit alternative concept that is currently being evaluated by the
City and its environmental consultant. The results of this evaluation will be incorporated into a
responses to comments document as part of the EIR process.
The City will need to determine if the potential environmental effects associated with this alternative
as presently portrayed would require recirculation of the draft EIR. The CEQA Guidelines, Section
15088.5, addresses requirements for recirculation of EIRs prior to certification. The section reads
as follows:
"(a) A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is
added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for
public review under Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this section,
the term 'information' can include changes in the project or environmental setting
as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR
is not 'significant' unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a
meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect
of a project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible
project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to implement.
'Significant new information' requiring recirculation include, for example, a
disclosure showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a
new mitigation proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result
unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of
insignificance.
(3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from
others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental
impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it.
(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory
in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
(Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043).
(b) Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely
clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.
(c) If the revision is limited to a few chapters or portions of the EIR, the lead agency
need only recirculate the chapters or portions that have been modified.
(d) Recirculation of an EIR requires notice pursuant to Section 15087, and consultation
pursuant to Section 15086.
(e) A decision not to recirculate an EIR must be supported by substantial evidence in
the administrative record."
The environmental evaluation of the alternative is still in process. If the results of the evaluation
recirculation indicated that recirculation of the draft EIR is warranted, the City will proceed
accordingly. At this time, such a determination has not been made.
R: \ProjectslC8ar1J002 PC R2C32498
April 23, 1998
Prepared by:
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 52267
COMPARATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION:
PROPOSED PROJECT AND EIR PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
(949) 475-9520
1
Contact:
Thomas E. Smith, Jr., AICP
Prepared for:
City of Diamond Bar
21660 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Contact:
James DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
April 23, 1998
Prepared by:
BonTerra Consulting
20321 Birch Street, Suite 201
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949) 475-9520
1
Contact:
Thomas E. Smith, Jr., AICP
April 23, 1998
VTTM No. 52267
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction.................................................. 1
II. Organization of Analysis ........................................ 1
III. VTTM No. 52267 Location and Site Characteristics ................... 1
IV. Proposed Project Development ................................... 2
V. El Project Alternative Development ............................... 5
VI. Environmental Issues Focused Out of the VTTM No. 52267 Project
Through the Initial Study ........................................ 8
VII. Comparative Environmental Analysis ...................... . .. . .... 9
R: TrcjectskMar\CompEnvEval42298 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 52267
COMPARATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION:
PROPOSED PROJECT AND EIR PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
1 I. INTRODUCTION
This evaluation compares the potential impacts from development of the proposed Vesting
Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) No. 52267 project to the potential impacts that would result from
development of an alternative project grading design in the same general area of the VTTM No.
52267 site proposed for development. This alternative project design was previously evaluated
in the Draft EIR in Section 5.2, Project Design Refinement Alternative. Comments provided at
public hearings before the Planning Commission, as well as further City staff review of the
proposed VTTM No. 52267 project design, indicated that such an alternative could potentially
conform more closely to the map and deed restrictions for the site that limit development to the
boundaries of Lot 6.
The applicant submitted a revision of the Refined Design Alternative depicted on Figure 5-1 of
the Draft EIR to the City in February 1998 (hereafter referred to as the EIR Project Alternative).
Additional hydrology and geotechnical studies were also performed by the applicant's
consultants and were provided to the City in late March and early April. Review of these studies
by the City's environmental consultant responsible for preparation of the VTTM No. 52267 Draft
EIR, indicated that changes in potential impacts to oak and walnut trees onsite could occur from
revisions in the limits of grading for the EIR Project Alternative. A focused tree survey was
completed in March 1998 for the additional areas impacted by this alternative.
These studies were used in this analysis to determine the potential changes in impacts that
would occur if the EIR Project Alternative were developed instead of the proposed project for
the VTTM No. 52267 site. Copies of the above referenced studies are available for review at
the City.
II. ORGANIZATION OF ANALYSIS
This evaluation is organized as follows: the first section of each impact category (e.g.,
Hydrology) summarizes the potential impacts that were described in the Draft EIR for the
proposed project and the mitigation measures that were proposed; the second section
summarizes the potential impacts that would result from the EIR Project Alternative, compares
the potential impacts to those that would occur if the project were developed as originally
proposed, and indicates if any adjustments to mitigation measures proposed in the Draft EIR
would be necessary for development of the EIR Project Alternative.
III. VTTM NO. 52267 LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
VTTM No. 52267 is a 339.3 -acre site generally located east of Diamond Bar Boulevard and
north of Grand Avenue. The site is surrounded by predominately single-family residential
development, open space, and vacant land. Land uses adjacent to the VTTM No. 52267 site
Iinclude:
IR:1PrcjectslDBar\CompEnvEval42298 1 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
• North—Gold Rush Drive and existing single-family residences.
• Northeast—Existing single-family residences along Highcrest Drive and Leyland
Drive.
• South—Existing single-family residences along Steep Canyon Drive and Grand
Avenue, and open space. The vacant open space is a part of VTTM Nos. 52267
and 31479.
• East—Open space within VTTM No. 52267 and existing single-family residences.
• West—Diamond Bar Boulevard and existing single-family residences further to the -
west.
The VTTM No. 52267 site is located in Planning Area 2 of the City of Diamond Bar General Plan
and is designated Planning Area 2/Specific Plan (PA-2/SP); PA-2/SP permits residential
development. The General Plan notes that "Appropriate land uses for ... (Planning Area 2)
include a maximum of 130 single-family detached residential dwelling units concentrated along
the anticipated extension of Highcrest Drive, with a minimum of 75 percent of the total 400 acre
area set aside as dedicated open space."
Onsite elevations range from approximately 810 feet above mean sea level (msl) to 1,150 feet
msl. The site is traversed by northerly tending ridges that bisect the site. The site contains a
large northeasterly -westerly trending canyon which dominates the southern portion of the area
of VTTM No. 52267 where development is proposed.
IV. PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
The VTTM No. 52267 site is proposed as a gated community of 130 single-family detached
residences clustered on approximately 65 acres of the site (inclusive of streets, manufactured
slopes, and a water tank site). This proposed development was evaluated in the Draft EIR for
the VTTM No. 52267 site prepared in July 1997. Approximately 273.9 acres (80.7 percent) of
the site would remain in natural open space (see Figure 2-5). Table 1 identifies the proposed
land uses for the site.
Residential Development
The 130 single-family detached residential dwelling units would be clustered on approximately
41.2 acres (inclusive of streets and manufactured slopes) of the 339.3 -acre site. Residences
would be located along the proposed extension of Highcrest Drive to an intersection with
Diamond Bar Boulevard at Tin Drive. No residences would front onto the primary road through
the site.
R:1Projects\DBar\CompEnvEval42298 2 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
t
F1
t
►�.0
0
Z
NI,
1
a
i
J
r
i
TABLE 1
PROPOSED LAND USES
VTTM NO. 52267
Lot Number
Use
Acres
1-130
Single-family Residential
30.1
131
Walnut Valley Water District
2.4
A, B, C
Natural Open Space
273.9
D.1
Manufactured Slopes
24.2
n/a
Streets
8.7
Total
339.3
Source: VTTM Nos. 52267 and 52308 Draft EIR, 1997
Product Type Information:
Home Size:
Minimum Pad and Lot Size
Maximum Lot Size:
Average Lot Size:
Gross Density:
Net Density:
Maximum Building Height:
Minimum Yards (setbacks):
VTTM N0.52267
Ranging from 2,800 to 3,300 square feet
6,000 square feet
26,000 square feet
10,900 square feet
0.4 units per acre
3.16 units per acre
Two stories, not to exceed 35 feet
Front yard: 20 feet
Back yard: 20 feet
Side yard: 5 feet and 10 feet
Grading for the residential development will be balanced on the site. Proposed grading would
involve approximately 1.8 million cubic yards of cut and 1.8 million cubic yards of fill and would
extend outside of the boundaries of Lot 6.
Open Space
Proposed open space would consist of manufactured slopes associated with grading for the
residential development and natural open space. Lots D through J on the vesting map, total
approximately 24.2 acres, and would be landscaped in the residential project and maintained
by a homeowners' association.
The remainder of the open space (approximately 273.9 acres) would be dedicated to the City
of Diamond Bar and set aside as public open space as set forth in the City's General Plan for
Planning Area 2.
Other Land Uses: Water Reservoirs
The Walnut Valley Water District has two planned water reservoir sites within the proposed
development area for VTTM No. 52267. These water reservoirs (tanks) have been designated
for locations at elevations 1,050 feet msl and 1,200 feet msl. Although the reservoirs are not
needed to serve the project, they are needed to meet the District's long-term water service
R:\Projects\DBar\CompEnvEval42298 3 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
requirements. The water reservoir located at elevation 1,050 feet is proposed for a site within
the proposed residential development area. The project applicant has indicated a desire for the
elevation 1,200 feet reservoir to be sited in a different location to accommodate the maximum
number of dwelling units (130 units) proposed for the site. This alternative location for the
elevation 1,200 feet reservoir is within the boundaries of VTTM No. 52267, but outside of the
limits of grading for the project and in an area identified in the General Plan to be set aside for
dedicated open space.
Circulation and Other Infrastructure Improvements
Two points of access are proposed for the residential development. From the east, access
would be provided from an extension of Highcrest Drive and from the west, access would be
provided from Diamond Bar Boulevard at Tin Drive. A left -turn pocket would be provided in
Diamond Bar Boulevard for southbound traffic turning left into the project site.
All utilities will be underground. The following improvements would be required and
implemented as a part of the project:
Extend an 8 -inch sewer across Diamond Bar Boulevard into Tin Drive and down
Bridle Drive for a total distance of approximately 330 feet and connect to an existing
sewer line.
Extend a 14 -inch water service line from the site into Diamond Bar Boulevard and
connect to an existing water line.
Extend a 48 -inch storm drain line approximately 450 feet to the south of Tin Drive
along Diamond Bar Boulevard to connect with an existing drainage basin.
Proposed Project Phasing
The following phasing is anticipated:
Tentative Map Approval
Final Map Approval
Initiate Grading
Models Open
Complete Home Sales
Proposed Project Discretionary Actions
September 1998
March 1999
April 1999 (duration: approximately 4 months)
March 2000
September 2002
• Certification of a final Environmental Impact Report
• Conditional Use Permit: The VTTM No. 52267 site is zoned RPD 20,000 2U and
would require a Conditional Use permit (Hillside Management).
• Vesting Tentative Tract Map
• Map and Deed Restrictions: The VTTM No. 52267 site is comprised of several lots.
Existing map and deed restrictions on the VTTM No. 52267 site require that all
development be confined to Lot 6. The majority of the proposed development would
R:\Projects\DBar\CompEnvEval42298 4 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
V7TM No. 52267
• Section 404 Permit. The project may require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) Section 404 permit if any portion of an area proposed for development is
determined by the USACE to be "waters of the U.S."
V. EIR PROJECT ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT
As with the proposed project, the VTTM No. 52267 site would be developed as a gated
community under the EIR Project Alternative. The number of single-family detached residences
would be 120 (exclusive of a water reservoir site), a reduction of 10 units when compared to the
proposed project. Locating the elevation 1,050 water reservoir in the development area would
result in a loss of approximately nine of the 120 proposed dwelling units. Residences would be
clustered on approximately 59.7 acres of the site (inclusive of streets and manufactured slopes).
Approximately 279.6 acres (82.4 percent) of the site would remain in natural open space. Table
2 compares the proposed project's land uses to the project alternative's land uses. Exhibit A
depicts the configuration of the proposed development.
When compared to the site plan for the proposed project, the EIR project alternative's site plan
is elongated in an east -west direction and is narrowed in a north -south direction. More
residences are shifted to the west and closer to Diamond Bar Boulevard under this alternative.
The proposed project would require grading along Diamond Bar Boulevard at Tin Drive to create
an access road into the site; no residences would be located closer than approximately 700 feet
from Diamond Bar Boulevard. Residences associated with the EIR Project Alternative would
be sited approximately 50 feet from Diamond Bar Boulevard. Under this alternative, additional
IR:\Pro)ectslDBar\CompEnvEaai42298 5 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
occur within Lot 6. However, rem development -
grading would result in development related
related
activities occurring outside of the boundaries of Lot 6 and onto adjacent lots. These
adjacent lots have map and deed restrictions prohibiting all development activities.
The applicant is requesting that a portion of the development be constructed on
those lots. If an applicant wants map and deed restrictions to be lifted or modified,
the applicant must go through the CEQA process which requires review and action
by the Planning Commission and City Council. To receive approval for modification
of map and deed restrictions, the applicant must show that there is "significant
benefit" to the City. "Significant benefit" is not defined by the City, and is
determined on a project -by -project basis based on applicant proposals.
Subsequent City Actions
• Grading permit
• Building permit
• Oak tree permit
State of California
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
• Department of Fish and Game. The project may require a California Department
of Fish and Game permit pursuant to Sections 1601 and 1603 of the Fish and
Game Code.
Federal
• Section 404 Permit. The project may require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) Section 404 permit if any portion of an area proposed for development is
determined by the USACE to be "waters of the U.S."
V. EIR PROJECT ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT
As with the proposed project, the VTTM No. 52267 site would be developed as a gated
community under the EIR Project Alternative. The number of single-family detached residences
would be 120 (exclusive of a water reservoir site), a reduction of 10 units when compared to the
proposed project. Locating the elevation 1,050 water reservoir in the development area would
result in a loss of approximately nine of the 120 proposed dwelling units. Residences would be
clustered on approximately 59.7 acres of the site (inclusive of streets and manufactured slopes).
Approximately 279.6 acres (82.4 percent) of the site would remain in natural open space. Table
2 compares the proposed project's land uses to the project alternative's land uses. Exhibit A
depicts the configuration of the proposed development.
When compared to the site plan for the proposed project, the EIR project alternative's site plan
is elongated in an east -west direction and is narrowed in a north -south direction. More
residences are shifted to the west and closer to Diamond Bar Boulevard under this alternative.
The proposed project would require grading along Diamond Bar Boulevard at Tin Drive to create
an access road into the site; no residences would be located closer than approximately 700 feet
from Diamond Bar Boulevard. Residences associated with the EIR Project Alternative would
be sited approximately 50 feet from Diamond Bar Boulevard. Under this alternative, additional
IR:\Pro)ectslDBar\CompEnvEaai42298 5 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
grading not associated with the originally proposed grading plan would occur along Diamond
Bar Boulevard, primarily to locate residential lots along the project entrance road.
TABLE 2
LAND USE COMPARISON
PROPOSED PROJECT AND EIR PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Proposed project
EIR project Alternative
Lot Number
Use
Acres
Lot plumber
Use
Acres`
1-120
Single-family Residential
25.5
1-130
Single-family Residential
30.1
or 1-111
Single-family Residential
(23.8)-
131
Water Tank
2.4
Water Tank
(1.7)-
A, B, C
Natural Open Space
273.9
Natural Open Space
279.6
D -J
Manufactured Slopes
24.2
Manufactured Slopes
26.8**
n/a
Streets
8.7
n/a
Streets
7.4
Total
339.3
Total
339.3
" If tank is located onsite under this alternative, it would replace lots 28-36, encompassing 1.7 acres.
water
*" Manufactured slopes in open space within Lot 6 comprise 11.7 acres; remedial/manufactured slopes outside
of Lot 6 encompass 15.1 acres.
Source: VTTM Nos. 52267 and 52308 Draft EIR 1997; Hunsaker & Associates 1998
Residential Development
The proposed 120 single-family detached residential dwelling units would be clustered on
approximately 32.9 acres (inclusive of streets) of the 339.3 -acre site. Residences would be
located along the proposed extension of Highcrest Drive to an intersection with Diamond Bar
Boulevard at Tin Drive_ Differing from the proposed project, six residences would be located
adjacent to Diamond Bar Boulevard approximately 50 feet from its right of way.
Product Type Information:
Home Size:
Minimum Pad Size:
Minimum Lot Size:
Maximum Lot Size
Average Lot Size:
Gross Density:
Net Density:
Maximum Building Height:
Minimum Yards (setbacks)
Ranging from 2,800 to 3,300 square feet
5,000 square feet
6,000 square feet
26,000 square feet
10,900 square feet
0.4 units per acre
3.65 units per acre
Two stories, not to exceed 35 feet
Front yard: 20 feet
Back yard: 20 feet
Side yard: 5 feet and 10 feet
Grading for the residential development under this alternative will be balanced on the site.
Proposed grading would involve approximately 1.4 million cubic yards of cut and 1.4 million
cubic yards of fill, a reduction of approximately 0.4 million cubic yards of cut and 0.4 million
cubic yards of fill when compared to the proposed project. As with the proposed project, some
R�\Projects\DBar\CompEnvEval42298 6 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
cit
Z a
cc
W Q v
F -
z m
Z Oz z
a i
m
Q Q o
cc
� �LL
00
�
0
W
, rdl,
y
a ,
{
a-1
m
x
w
N
N
LO
z
G
V
VTTM No. 52267
grading would occur outside of Lot 6. However, under this alternative, grading outside of Lot
6 would be reduced in area compared to the proposed project, and would be limited to buttress
fills to stabilize out -of -slope bedding in the north and eastern portions of the development area
(see Exhibit B).
012en Space
The EIR Project Alternative would also provide open space, including manufactured slopes
associated with grading for the residential development and natural open space. Approximately
26.8 acres would be landscaped, incorporated into the residential project, and maintained by
a homeowners' association.
Under this alternative, the remainder of the open space (approximately 279.6 acres) would be
dedicated to the City of Diamond Bar and set aside as public open space as set forth in the
City's General Plan for Planning Area 2. Approximately 5.7 acres of additional natural open
space would result from this alternative as compared to the proposed VTTM No. 52267 project.
1 Other Land Uses: Water Reservoirs
As noted above, the site plan for the EIR Project Alternative does not identify a water reservoir
(tank) on the site. Although reservoirs are not needed to serve the project or this alternative,
they are needed to meet the Walnut Valley Water District's long-term water service
requirements. To accommodate the water district's needs for a reservoir at the 1,050 elevation,
approximately nine of the 120 proposed dwelling units could not be constructed. The applicant
has indicated that the reservoir would replace residential lots 28-36.
Circulation and Other Infrastructure Improvements
As with the proposed project, two points of access would be provided into the residential
development. From the east, access would be provided from an extension of Highcrest Drive
and from the west, access would be provided from Diamond Bar Boulevard at Tin Drive. While
the proposed project's onsite circulation is more circuitous, the EIR Project Alternative's onsite
circulation pattern would run directly from top to bottom, similar to Gold Rush Drive.
For both the proposed project and EIR Project Alternative, a left -turn pocket would be provided
in Diamond Bar Boulevard for southbound traffic turning left into the project site.
As with the proposed project, all utilities will be underground in the EIR Project Alternative. The
following improvements would be required and implemented as a part of this alternative:
• Extend an 8 -inch sewer across Diamond Bar Boulevard into Tin Drive and down
Bridle Drive for a total distance of approximately 330 feet and connect to an existing
sewer line.
• Extend a 14 -inch water service line from the site into Diamond Bar Boulevard and
connect to an existing water line.
• Extend a 48 -inch storm drain line approximately 450 feet to the south of Tin Drive
along Diamond Bar Boulevard to connect with an existing drainage basin.
IR:%Proje,Ks\DBaACompEnvEval42298 7 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
Project Alternative Phasing
It is expected that the phasing plan for the EIR Project Alternative would be the same as or
similar to the phasing plan for the proposed project.
Project Alternative Discretionary Actions
Discretionary actions for this alternative would be same as for the proposed project. —
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES FOCUSED OUT OF THE VTTM NO. 52267 PROJECT
THROUGH THE INITIAL STUDY _
In an initial environmental evaluation prepared by the City of Diamond Bar in February 1997
prior to the preparation of the Draft EIR, the following issues were deemed to have no potential
impact on the site or surrounding areas and were not discussed in the EIR for Vesting Tentative
Tract Maps 52267 (see Volume II of the Draft EIR). These issues are as follows:
• Land Use:
— impacts on agricultural activities
— disruption/division of established communities
• Population and Housing:
— cumulative exceedance of official regional or local population projections
— substantial growth inducement
— displacement of existing houses
• Geologic Problems: seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard
• Water:
— exposure of persons to flooding
— changes in the amount of surface water in any water body
— changes in currents or course/direction of water movement
— change in the quantity of groundwater
— alter direction or flow of groundwater
— impacts to groundwater quality
— reduction in groundwater for public water supplies
Air Quality:
- alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature; changes in climate
— creation of objectionable odors —
Transportation/Circulation:
— insufficient parking _.
— hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists
— conflicts with policies supporting alternative forms of transportation
— rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts —
Energy and Mineral Resources:
— conflict with adopted energy conservation plans
— use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner
— loss of known mineral resources
R:\Projects\DBar\CompEnvEval42298 8 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
a
z
U)
ti
N
N
LO
z
H
z�
D
Q
vz
w�
O
F
�
F >
� O
a
z
U)
ti
N
N
LO
z
H
• Public Services: impacts to fire, police, schools, public facilities, or other
governmental services
• Utilities and Service Systems: power or natural gas, communication systems,
— VTTM No. 52267
treatment and disposal, storm water drainage, solid waste, or local/regional water
• Hazards:
— risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances
r
— possible interference in an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan
— creation of health hazard
— exposure of persons to existing sources of health hazards
— increased fire hazards
• Public Services: impacts to fire, police, schools, public facilities, or other
governmental services
• Utilities and Service Systems: power or natural gas, communication systems,
local/regional water treatment or distribution facilities, sewer/septic/wastewater
treatment and disposal, storm water drainage, solid waste, or local/regional water
supplies.
• Recreation:
— increased demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational
facilities
— affects on existing recreational opportunities
VII. COMPARATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The following provides a summary analysis of the environmental impacts identified in the Draft
EIR. for the proposed VTTM No. 52267 project. A comparison of the identified impacts for the
proposed 130 -unit residential project to the potential impacts associated with the 120 -unit EIR
Project Alternative is provided.
As
part of the analysis for the EIR project alternative, additional technical assessments were
prepared:
• Grading Study, Pacific
Soils Engineering, March 1998
• Hydrology Study, Hunsaker & Associates, April 1998
• Oak and Walnut Tree Report, BonTerra Consulting, March 1998
Due to the substantial similarities in the projects, it was determined by the City that additional
technical studies beyond those noted above were not required to assess the project alternative.
Earth Resources
Proposed Project
There are no known active faults along or crossing the project site. The site has the potential
to be impacted
by earthquakes and earthquake -related hazards, mainly the effects of
groundshaking. The site would be subject to moderate to strong ground motion during an
earthquake. Seismic activity could result in potentially significant impacts to the project.
Approximately 1.8
million cubic yards of cut and fill (balanced on the site) would be required to
develop the proposed project_ Grading is required to create flat building pads and to remediate
for slope stability and would require grading outside of Lot 6. Buttress and stabilization fills will
be required. Maximum depth of cut is approximately 80 feet and maximum fill depth is
R'\Projectsl06ar\CompEnvEval42298 9 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
approximately 180 feet. A buttress fill will be required in the northfacing slope adjacent to
residential lots 18 through 20, 31, 32, and 37 through 51. Daylighted bedding in the natural
slope area adjacent to lots 55 through 65 will require a buttress fill in this location. Due to the
presence of oversteepened natural slopes and a possible landslide, a sheer key may be
required at the southwesterly facing slope adjacent to lots 101 through 104.
The grading design conforms to the City's Hillside Grading Ordinance with respect to the use
of landform grading in areas of cut and fill slopes to create varying lot shapes and pad
configurations. To the extent practicable, the proposed grading has followed the natural
topography of the site in making the connection between Highcrest Drive and Diamond Bar
Boulevard.
The following measures were recommended in the Draft EIR as conditions of approval on the
proposed project:
1. For all tract/parcel maps requiring the placement of fill in canyon areas, the
geotechnical engineer shall ensure that partial to complete removal and
recompaction of the alluvial deposits to geotechnically competent materials are
performed. Additional compressible materials that will require removal include
topsoil, colluvium, debris flows, landslide debris, and uncontrolled fills. The grading
plan shall be approved by the City Engineer.
2. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, areas that could result in debris flows shall
be avoided, treated where they originated, or directed away from areas of proposed
development. Engineered solutions could include debris basins and deflection walls
for directing debris flows into natural or man-made channels. Final
recommendations shall be provided by the geotechnical engineer for each potential
debris flow location.
3. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit to the City
Engineer for review and approval a report that demonstrates that cut and fill slopes
have been designed in accordance with recommendations of a certified
geotechnical engineer.
4. Prior to grading, all slopes shall be analyzed by a geotechnical engineer and
engineering geologist as part of the grading plan review, with stabilization
alternatives presented.
5. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, cut slopes shall be designed to include
buttress widths based upon recommendations of a certified geotechnical engineer.
6. During project design and construction, an erosion control plan shall be developed
as part of the grading plan. The erosion plan is typically prepared by a civil
engineer for the purpose of controlling surface runoff during grading of the site.
7. During all grading activities within development areas, soils that may be susceptible
to ground lurching shall be removed and recompacted based on investigation by a
geologist and approved by the City Engineer.
8. During all grading activities within development areas, soils that may be susceptible
to ground lurching shall be removed and recompacted based on investigation by a
geologist and approved by the City Engineer.
R:\Projects\DBar\CompEnvEval42298 10 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
As a part of the project, a 48 -inch storm drain would be extended from the site approximately
450 feet to the south of Tin Drive along Diamond Bar Boulevard to connect with an existing
drainage basin. The existing receiving storm drain system is adequately sized and has
adequate available capacity to accommodate flows from the project site.
The following measures were recommended in the Draft EIR as conditions of approval on the
proposed project:
IR'\ProjectST8ar\CompEnvEva142298 11 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
— VTTM No. 52267
9. Concurrent with the submittal of the master tentative map, the project developer
shall submit a detailed geologic and soils engineering report meeting the
requirements of the City of Diamond Bar Subdivision
Ordinance.
Implementation of these measures would reduce potential impacts to a level that is considered
less than significant.
EIR Project Alternative
This alternative would require approximately 1.4 million cubic yards of cut and fill balanced on
the site, a reduction of approximately 0.4 million cubic yards of cut and fill when compared to
the proposed project. Under this alternative, grading will also occur outside of the boundaries
of Lot 6, although covering a smaller area than the grading required for the proposed project
(see Exhibit B).
A variable width keyway will be required to stabilize the northerly facing natural slope located
along the north side of Lot 6. This keyway will vary from 100 feet to 160 feet in width, tapering
to 50 feet in width to the east. The easterly facing natural slope adjacent to residential lots 55
through 65 (near Highcrest Drive) will
require stabilization with buttress and shear keys. The
buttress portion of the keyway would be 50 feet wide; the shear key portion would be 50 feet
wide.
The Draft EIR notes that there are some areas on the site that are considered marginally
rippable and may require some limited blasting to prepare the site for development. The City
of Diamond Bar has determined that blasting
■
no will be permitted during project development.
The grading design for the EIR Project Alternative provides less contour grading than the
proposed project, although major slopes are somewhat contoured. This grading design
conforms with the City's Hillside Grading Ordinance to a lesser extent than the proposed project.
No new significant impacts are anticipated from the EIR Project Alternative. Therefore, all
recommended mitigation for the proposed project would be applicable to the EIR Project
Alternative. All impacts can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.
Hydrology
Proposed Project
Proposed development would alter the existing natural drainage patterns on the site. Building
pads would drain to the street system. Drainage would then be conveyed by onsite storm drain
systems to existing natural drainage courses, which then drain to existing culverts in Diamond
Bar Boulevard.
As a part of the project, a 48 -inch storm drain would be extended from the site approximately
450 feet to the south of Tin Drive along Diamond Bar Boulevard to connect with an existing
drainage basin. The existing receiving storm drain system is adequately sized and has
adequate available capacity to accommodate flows from the project site.
The following measures were recommended in the Draft EIR as conditions of approval on the
proposed project:
IR'\ProjectST8ar\CompEnvEva142298 11 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
Energy dissipators shall be installed at all offsite discharge locations to eliminate
erosion in natural offsite drainage courses.
2. "Urban depollutant basins" shall be included to reduce contaminants in runoff from
developed areas of the site prior to discharge into natural areas. Such facilities
shall be indicated on all improvement plans submitted to the City of Diamond Bar
for approval.
3. All cut and fill slopes shall be landscaped as soon as practicable after completion
of grading to reduce potential erosion and increased runoff from these areas.
4. Prior to the initiation of grading, the applicant shall obtain an National Pollutant --
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region. A copy of the NPDES permit and
accompanying Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and related engineering plans
for control of runoff during construction shall be submitted to the City of Diamond
Bar prior to issuance of the grading permit.
5. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the City of
Diamond Bar an erosion control program for approval which indicates that proper
control of siltation, sedimentation, and other pollutants will be implemented. The
use of filter fences, filter dikes, and other construction Best Management Practices
(BMPs) near stormwater system outlets shall be included in the program.
Implementation of these measures would reduce potential impacts to a level that is considered -
less than significant.
EIR Project Alternative
A revised hydrology study was prepared for the EIR Project Alternative to determine if the
alternative would result in any new significant impacts not associated with the proposed project.
Table 3 compares the pre- and post -development conditions of the project site for the proposed
project and EIR Project Alternative.
TABLE 3
STORMWATER RUNOFF: EXISTING AND DEVELOPED CONDITIONS
PROPOSED PROJECT V. EIR PROJECT ALTERNATIVE —
Area
Existing
Runoff (cfs)
Proposed Project Project Albemative
Developed
(cfs)
Developed
Net Change (cfs) Net Change
Northerly Canyon
97.4
66.2
-31.2 66.4 -31.0
Southerly Canyon
246.2
359.0
112.8 307.0 60.8
Totals
343.6
425.2
81.6 373.4 29.8
cfs: cubic feet per second
Source: Hunsaker & Associates 1997 and 1998
R:\Projects\DBar\CompErvEva142298 12 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
i
i
Impacts to Venturan-Diegan transitional coastal sage scrub and coast live oak woodland
(including loss of 410 coast live oak trees and 30 walnut trees) are considered significant. In
addition, the loss of any active raptor nests would be considered significant. No sensitive bird
species were identified.
TABLE 4
PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
Plant Community
Existing
Area*
Impact
Area*
VTTM No. 52267
Venturan-Diegan Transitional Coastal Sage Scrub
125.2
18.7
As with the proposed project, existing storm drain facilities are adequate to accommodate the
'
post -development flows associated with the EIR Project Alternative. No new impacts are
anticipated. All recommended mitigation for the proposed project would be applicable to this
8.5
alternative. In addition, the following improvements would be required for this project
Poison Oak Chaparral
alternative:
0.0
0.9
Annual Grassland
• Catch basins at the project entrance to pick up all storm runoff before it enters
27.7
Diamond Bar Boulevard.
Ruderal
4.2
0.0
• Catch basins at the north side of the four-way intersection on the main street
Mulefat Scrub
through the site.
0.0
• The main storm drain pipe to be installed at the upstream end of the development
Southern Willow Scrub
shall be 24 inches in accordance with Los Angeles County standards.
'
All impacts can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.
Southern Sycamore Riparian Woodland
Biological Resources
0.0
Proposed Project
The proposed project would allow for the development of approximately 65 acres of the 339.3 -
acre site; the remainder of the site would be dedicated to the City of Diamond Bar as permanent
open space. The following biological resources identified on the site and the amount of loss
associated with project implementation were described in the Draft EIR and are noted below in
Table 4.
i
i
Impacts to Venturan-Diegan transitional coastal sage scrub and coast live oak woodland
(including loss of 410 coast live oak trees and 30 walnut trees) are considered significant. In
addition, the loss of any active raptor nests would be considered significant. No sensitive bird
species were identified.
TABLE 4
PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
Plant Community
Existing
Area*
Impact
Area*
Preserved
Area*
Venturan-Diegan Transitional Coastal Sage Scrub
125.2
18.7
106.6
Scrub Oak Chaparral
37.7
8.5
29.2
Poison Oak Chaparral
0.9
0.0
0.9
Annual Grassland
67.7
27.7
40.0
Ruderal
4.2
0.0
4.2
Mulefat Scrub
1.3
0.0
1.3
Southern Willow Scrub
0.9
0.0
0.9
Southern Sycamore Riparian Woodland
1.7
0.0
1.7
R:\ProjectsOBar\CompEnvEv3142298 13 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
TABLE 4 (continued)
PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
The following measures were recommended in the Draft EIR for adoption as conditions of
approval for the proposed project:
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Biological Resource Management Plan
(BRMP) will be submitted to the City of Diamond Bar for approval. This BRMP will
specify design and implementation of biotic mitigation measures, including habitat
replacement and revegetation (in temporary impact areas), protective measures
during construction, performance (growth) standards for replacement habitat,
maintenance criteria, and monitoring requirements. The Draft BRMP will also be
reviewed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) as applicable to their jurisdictions.
The primary goal of the BRMP will be to ensure the long-term perpetuation of the
existing diversity of habitats in the preserved areas and adjacent development
transitional areas. The BRMP shall contain at a minimum the following:
a. Identification of habitats (including individual oak and walnut woodlands) to be
removed, and the locations where these habitats are proposed to be restored or
relocated.
b. Procedures for vegetation analyses of adjacent protected habitats to
approximate their relative composition, and site preparation activities (clearing,
grading, weed eradication, soil amendment, topsoil storage), irrigation, planting
(container plantings, seeding), and maintenance (weed control, irrigation system
checks, replanting). This information will be used to determine the mitigation
requirements in the revegetation areas.
c. Sources of plant materials for mitigation areas and methods of propagation.
d. Specifications for maintenance and monitoring of re-established habitats,
including weed control measures, frequency of field checks, and monitoring
reports for temporary disturbance areas.
R:\Projects\DBar\CompEnvEva142298 14 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
Existing
Impact
Preserved,
Plant Community
Area"'
Area'
Arm"
Coast Live Oak Woodland
48.3
9.6
38.7
Coast Live Oak Trees
Unknown
410 trees
Walnut Trees
Unknown
20 trees
Mexican Elderberry Woodland
4.5
1.1
3.4
Walnut Woodland
40.1
0.0
40.1
Disturbed/Developed Areas
6.7
0.1
6.6
Total
339.3
65.7
273.6
acres
Source: Sweetwater Environmental 1996
The following measures were recommended in the Draft EIR for adoption as conditions of
approval for the proposed project:
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Biological Resource Management Plan
(BRMP) will be submitted to the City of Diamond Bar for approval. This BRMP will
specify design and implementation of biotic mitigation measures, including habitat
replacement and revegetation (in temporary impact areas), protective measures
during construction, performance (growth) standards for replacement habitat,
maintenance criteria, and monitoring requirements. The Draft BRMP will also be
reviewed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) as applicable to their jurisdictions.
The primary goal of the BRMP will be to ensure the long-term perpetuation of the
existing diversity of habitats in the preserved areas and adjacent development
transitional areas. The BRMP shall contain at a minimum the following:
a. Identification of habitats (including individual oak and walnut woodlands) to be
removed, and the locations where these habitats are proposed to be restored or
relocated.
b. Procedures for vegetation analyses of adjacent protected habitats to
approximate their relative composition, and site preparation activities (clearing,
grading, weed eradication, soil amendment, topsoil storage), irrigation, planting
(container plantings, seeding), and maintenance (weed control, irrigation system
checks, replanting). This information will be used to determine the mitigation
requirements in the revegetation areas.
c. Sources of plant materials for mitigation areas and methods of propagation.
d. Specifications for maintenance and monitoring of re-established habitats,
including weed control measures, frequency of field checks, and monitoring
reports for temporary disturbance areas.
R:\Projects\DBar\CompEnvEva142298 14 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
5. Prior to commencement of grading activities or other activities involving significant
soil disturbances, the project biologist shall attend preconstruction meetings with the
applicant's construction managers, to confirm grading and construction procedures
as they relate to the protection of preserved habitat areas.
6. During grading activities or construction operations, the project biologist shall
conduct monitoring of adjacent sensitive habitats to document adherence to habitat
protection and avoidance measures addressed herein and as listed in applicable
R\Prgeots\DBar\CompEnvEval42298 15 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
i
VTTM No. 52267
e. Specifications and performance standards forgrowth of re-established plant
communities.
f. Remedial measures to be implemented if performance standards are not met.
g. Methods and requirements for monitoring of the restoration/replacement areas.
h. Measures for topsoil preservation and erosion control.
i. Location fencing
of protective around environmentally sensitive areas and
construction staging areas.
j. Specification of the purpose, type, frequency and extent of chemical use for
insect and disease control operations as part of vegetative maintenance within
'
sensitive habitat areas.
k. Specific measures for the protection of sensitive habitats to be preserved. These
measures will include, but are not limited to, erosion and siltation control
measures, protective fencing guidelines, dust control measures,
grading
techniques, construction area limits, and biological monitoring requirements.
2. In conjunction with construction activity, the grading contractor shall control dust
accumulation on natural vegetation at the source of disturbance by standard wetting
techniques. Under the guidance of the project biologist, natural vegetation shall be
periodically sprayed with water to reduce dust accumulation on leaves.
3. The City of Diamond Bar will designate a project biologist responsible for
overseeing biological monitoring, regulatory issues and compliance, and restoration
activities during construction and after project completion.
4. In conjunction with development of final plans and specifications for construction,
or other activities involving significant
soil disturbance, the project biologist shall
map all sensitive habitats within 100 feet of the grading limits and/or fuel
modification boundaries on the grading plans. Sensitive habitats include but are not
limited to: scrub, woodland, and riparian habitats. Within the sensitive habitats, the
following limitations shall be observed: (1) no construction access, parking, or
storage of equipment or materials will be permitted within such marked areas; (2)
to the maximum extent practicable, construction access points shall be limited
where they are adjacent to protected habitat; (3) waste dirt or rubble will not be
deposited on protected habitat; and (4) vehicle transportation routes will be confined
to the narrowest practicable width in areas adjacent to marked, protected habitat
during construction activities.
5. Prior to commencement of grading activities or other activities involving significant
soil disturbances, the project biologist shall attend preconstruction meetings with the
applicant's construction managers, to confirm grading and construction procedures
as they relate to the protection of preserved habitat areas.
6. During grading activities or construction operations, the project biologist shall
conduct monitoring of adjacent sensitive habitats to document adherence to habitat
protection and avoidance measures addressed herein and as listed in applicable
R\Prgeots\DBar\CompEnvEval42298 15 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
i
VTTM No. 52267
California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
permits.
7. During grading activities and construction operations, the project biologist shall
submit a monthly letter report to the City of Diamond Bar summarizing site visits,
documenting adherence or violations of required habitat protection measures, and
listing any necessary remedial measures.
8. During construction operations, the project biologist shall monitor the installation
and/or removal of creek crossing fill, access road fill, and protective devices (silt
fencing, sandbags, fencing, etc.) to facilitate the restoration of pre-existing ground
elevations and to ensure that protected natural resources are not damaged.
9. During all construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that construction
equipment or vehicles are not stored within drainage areas and that there shall be
no fueling, lubrication, or maintenance of construction equipment within 150 feet of
applicable California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers jurisdictional areas.
10. During all construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that no waste material
is discharged to any drainage areas, channels, or streams. Spoil sites shall not be
located within any streams, or in areas where spoils could be washed into any
surface water body.
11. Prior to initiation of construction, the applicant shall locate silt settling basins away
from streams to prevent discolored, silt -bearing water from reaching the stream.
12. If silt catchment basins are used during project construction, the basins shall be
placed across the stream immediately downstream of the project site prior to
initiation of project grading. Catchment basins shall be constructed of materials
which are free from mud and silt. Upon completion of the project, all basin materials
along with the trapped sediments shall be removed from the stream, in such a
manner that said removal shall not introduce sediment to the stream. Prior to
catchment basin removal, basins will be surveyed for the presence of sensitive
wildlife. Any sensitive wildlife present will be relocated prior to removal of basin.
13. If the project biologist determines that turbidity/siltation levels from project -related
activities constitute a threat to downstream biological resources, activities
associated with the turbidity/siltation shall be halted until effective control devices
are installed, or abatement procedures are initiated. An erosion control plan shall
be approved by the City of Diamond Bar and the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board prior to initiation of grading to insure protection of downstream water
quality and prevent extensive siltation. This plan shall stabilize sediment and
reduce erosion hazard, decreasing impacts to downstream aquatic resources.
14. Prior to initiation of any construction activity, the project biologist shall survey the
construction limits for the presence of occupied raptor nests and nest burrows (for
burrowing owls). Occupied raptor nests/burrows shall be mapped on the
construction plans by the project biologist. The project biologist will visit the
nest/burrow site at the beginning of the nesting season to verify the use of the
nests/burrows for that particular year.
R:\Projects\DBar\CompEnvEval42298 16 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
Crushed plant material and soil to be stockpiled will be obtained from various
— VTTM No. 52267
If nesting activity begins at any nest site, then the active nest/burrow(s) shall be
protected until nesting activity has ended to ensure compliance with Section 3503.5
'
of the California Fish and Game Code. To protect any active nest/burrow sites, the
following restrictions on construction are required between February 1 and June 30
(or until nests are no longer active as determined by the project biologist): (1)
clearing limits will be established a minimum of 300 feet in any direction from raptor
nests/burrows; and (2) access and surveying will be allowed within 200 feet of
nests/burrows.
15. The following side slope revegetation program will apply to all areas impacted but
not replanted with coast live oak and/or walnut woodland species or required for fuel
'
modification:
Revegetation shall be implemented in stages. The initial stage will begin during site
grubbing and will consist of crushing/mulching scrub, within areas to be graded, with
a dozer. The crushed/mulched material along with the top 4 to 6 inches of topsoil
will then be removed in one operation with a loader or dozer and stockpiled nearby
as directed by the project biologist. Soil stockpiles should be stored at depths no
greater than 7 feet until revegetation sites are prepared and should be maintained
free of contamination (storage depths may require adjustment based
upon length
of storage). Stockpiles should be stored no longer than six months. Once a
restoration site is prepared (roughened by sheep's foot or similar equipment), the
stockpiled soil will be spread to a depth of approximately 1 foot. Appropriate scrub
container stock will be incorporated into the revegetation areas as outlined in the
detailed
mitigation/restoration plan to be developed by the project biologist. In
addition, container stock consisting of native bunchgrasses will be incorporated into
the planting. The redistributed material, along with the container stock, will be
by
watered a temporary irrigation system until established, as determined by the
project biologist.
Crushed plant material and soil to be stockpiled will be obtained from various
locations onsite. Areas to be revegetated will be determined by the project biologist
based upon such factors as the configuration of the cut and/or fill slopes and
proximity to areas of intact scrub communities.
The timing of the stockpiling of plant material and topsoil will be dictated by the
grading/construction schedule. Reintroduction of stockpiled material to revegetation
sites will be conducted between September 1 and November 30. Container stock
will be planted during the same time period.
The following performance standards shall apply for the revegetation of coastal
sage scrub communities:
• First Year: Coverage/30 percent coverage by redistributed vegetative materials,
seeded species, and container stock (whichever of the three or combination is
used). Survival Rate: 90 percent survival of any container stock originally
planted. If 90
percent survival has not been achieved, replanting with
appropriate size container stock necessary to achieve this standard will be
performed.
• Second Year: Coverage/45 percent coverage by redistributed vegetative
materials, seeded species, and container stock (whichever of the three or
R..\ProjedADBarlCompEnvEva142298 17 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
combination is used). Survival Rate/50 percent survival of any container stock
originally planted. If 50 percent survival has not been achieved, replanting with _..
appropriate size container stock necessary to achieve this standard will be
performed.
• Third Year: Coverage/60 percent coverage by redistributed vegetative materials,
seeded species, and container stock (whichever of the three or combination is
used). Survival Rate/50 percent survival of any container stock originally planted.
If 50 percent survival has not been achieved, replanting with appropriate size
container stock necessary to achieve this standard will be performed.
Fourth Year: Coverage/75 percent coverage by redistributed vegetative
materials, seeded species, and container stock (whichever of the three or
combination is used). Survival Rate/50 percent survival of any container stock
originally planted. If 50 percent survival has not been achieved, replanting with
appropriate size container stock necessary to achieve this standard will be
performed.
Fifth Year: Coverage/90 percent coverage by redistributed vegetative materials,
seeded species, and container stock (whichever of the three or combination is
used). Survival Rate/50 percent survival of any container stock originally planted.
If 50 percent survival has not been achieved, replanting with appropriate size
container stock necessary to achieve this standard will be performed.
Coastal sage scrub revegetation will be considered successful at five years if the
percent cover and species diversity of the restored and/or created habitat areas are
similar to percent cover and species diversity of adjacent existing habitats, as
determined by quantitative testing of existing and restored and/or created habitat
areas by the project biologist.
Monitoring of the revegetation areas shall be conducted for a minimum of 5 years
to ensure successful colonization of the restored areas by scrub species. If success
standards are not met, remedial measures, including hand seeding, hydroseeding,
or introduction of additional container stock will be implemented as directed by the
project biologist.
16. In conjunction with final design, the project biologist will work closely with the project
landscape architect to develop native plant palettes for revegetation areas adjacent
to development areas that abut natural open space. Final landscape design plans
shall be acceptable to the County Fire Marshal and shall reflect the following:
• The landscaping along the open space areas (non -urban) will be a mix of native,
non-invasive, drought tolerant plant species from the scrub community. The
scrub community species selected will be the same as those that are appropriate
for support of the coastal orange -throated whiptail and cactus wren.
• Seeds, cuttings, and potted plants will be collected from local plant material
where feasible, supplemented by material from native plant nurseries.
• Species native to California but not found in the project area shall not be used,
unless the species selected is considered to be appropriate for use by the project
biologist. Invasive, weedy, or non-native species will not be used in landscaping
R:\Projects\DBar\CompEnvEval42296 18 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
alongo s
open space areas. Examples of invasive plants include, but are not limited
to, pampas grass, periwinkle, English ivy, and giant reed.
• Low-volume irrigation systems, using reclaimed water (where feasible), will be
included in the final design.
17. Prior to determining the full extent of mitigation required for coast live oak woodland
impacts, a formal United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) jurisdictional delineation shall be conducted
on VTTM No. 52267 site.
' 18. Impacts shall be mitigated by the planting of coast live oaks and California walnuts
trees and associated understory herbaceous plant species within areas determined
to be suitable by the project biologist. Suitable areas include those areas located
within the permanent open space areas and outside of the fuel modification areas
of the VTTM No. 52267 site. Revegetation areas must contain the appropriate
hydrology, soil composition, and slope aspect to be considered for mitigation sites.
The precise mitigation locations shall be selected by a restoration ecologist, with
expertise in native plant community restoration. Any planting of native trees and
shrubs within the fuel modification areas or within the interior of the developed
project site (i.e., project landscaping) will not be credited towards any tree
replacement requirements of the City of Diamond Bar or the California Department
of Fish and Game.
19. Mitigation shall consist of planting oak and walnuts at a replacement ratio of no less
than 2:1 (2 trees replaced for every 1 tree removed) or as otherwise deemed
appropriate by the California Department of Fish and Game. Oak and walnut trees
removed by project construction shall be replaced with a mixture of container
plantings, as specified in the Biological Resource Management Plan. Prior to
planting, the revegetation sites will be cleared of weed species as specified by a
1
restoration ecologist. An appropriate irrigation system shall be required for oaks
and walnuts to establish the container plantings. Advance notice of 9 to 12 months
should be given to the supplier/grower to ensure that the required oaks and walnuts
are ready at the time of proposed planting. Planting shall be conducted during the
'
late fall through early spring following a rainfall of at least 0.50 inch.
Performance standards for coast live oak woodland and walnut woodland are as
follows:
• First Year: Coverage/35 percent. Survival Rate/90 percent survival of all trees,
including container stock or cuttings. If 90 percent survival has not been
achieved, replanting with appropriate size container stock or cuttings necessary
to achieve this standard will be performed.
• Second
Year: Coverage/50 percent coverage by tree and shrub plantings.
Survival Rate/90 percent survival of all trees, including container stock or
cuttings. If 90
percent survival has not been achieved, replanting with
appropriate size container stock or cuttings necessary to achieve this standard
will be performed.
• Third Year: Coverage/70 percent coverage by tree and shrub plantings.
Survival Rate/90
percent survival of all trees, including container stock or
R TrojectsOBar\CompEnv&a142298 19 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267.
cuttings. If 90 percent survival has not been achieved, replanting with
appropriate size container stock or cuttings necessary to achieve this standard
will be performed.
• Fourth Year: Coverage/80 percent coverage by tree and shrub plantings. _
Survival Rate/90 percent survival of all trees, including container stock or
cuttings. If 90 percent survival has not been achieved, replanting with
appropriate size container stock or cuttings necessary to achieve this standard
will be performed.
• Fifth Year: Coverage/90 percent coverage by tree and shrub plantings. Survival _
Rate/90 percent survival of all trees, including container stock or cuttings. If 90
percent survival has not been achieved, replanting with appropriate size
container stock or cuttings necessary to achieve this standard will be performed.
Revegetation will be considered successful at five years if the percent cover and
species diversity of the restored and/or created habitat areas are similar to percent
cover and species diversity of adjacent existing habitats or impacted habitats, as
determined by quantitative testing of existing and restored and/or created habitat
areas.
The site will be monitored and maintained for five years to ensure successful _.
establishment of coast live oak and walnut woodland within the restored and
created areas. If success standards are not met, remedial measures including
introduction of additional container stock, weed removal, adjusting of irrigation,
and/or extension of the monitoring program will be implemented as directed by the
restoration ecologist.
Quino Checkerspot Butterfly
Subsequent to the preparation of biological surveys for the proposed project, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed the Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydras editha quino) as
endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. The historic range of the habitat for
this species includes southern and eastern Los Angles County, a small area of southwestern
San Bernardino County, western Riverside County, Orange County, and coastal San Diego
County. Official guidelines for determining the presence/absence of the Quino checkerspot
butterfly within the species' historic range were published by the USFWS on November 4, 1997.
Since the Quino checkerspot was not listed as endangered at the time surveys were conducted,
directed surveys for the butterfly's host plants were not necessary. Further, because the
biological surveys were conducted in summer, it was not possible to observe the butterfly in
flight (its active flight period is between February and late April).
BonTerra Consulting conducted Phase 1 focused surveys of potential habitat for the Quino
checkerspot butterfly in March 1998. Suitable habitat for the butterfly includes rock outcrops,
ridgetops, and native vegetation with areas of sparse vegetation along ridgetops. The presence
of the two host plants—dwarf plantain (Plantago erecta) and owl's clover (Castifleja exserta)—is
also required. The densest colonies of the Quino checkerspot butterfly are typically associated
with clay or cryptogramic soils. The VTTM No. 52267 site is dominated by hills that form
ridgelines with steep slopes. No extensive flat areas occur. The site supports a mixture of plant
communities; no dwarf plantain or owl's clover were observed. Large areas of cryptogramic
soils are not present.
R:lProjects\DBar\CompEnvEval42298 20 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
The VTTM No. 52267 site does nota ear
pp to support suitable habitat for the Quino checkerspot
butterfly due to the absence of large areas of cryptogramic soils, if any, and the apparent
' absence of the dwarf plantain host plant. The general lack of sparsely vegetated areas and the
high density of non-native grasses on the site further reduce the potential for the butterfly. Owl's
clover may occur in limited amounts and the site provides some suitable topography for hill -
topping adults. Nectar plants such as the popcorn flower and common fiddleneck are present
on the site_ Because these nectar plants and the owl's clover are widespread and common in
this part of the butterfly's historic range, such as the Chino Hills, it would appear that these
habitat characteristics alone are not sufficient to sustain populations of this butterfly. No impacts
are therefore anticipated.
EIR Project Alternative
Tree Survey
As previously discussed, the limits of grading for the EIR Project Alternative are different and
somewhat smaller than the limits of grading for the proposed project (see Exhibit B). Because
of this difference, a supplemental tree survey of oak and walnut trees was conducted by
BonTerra Consulting in March 1998 to determine if the EIR Project Alternative would result in
any new significant impacts to oak and walnut trees.
' To assess potential changes, the limits of grading for the EIR Project Alternative were overlaid
on the oak tree map prepared for the proposed project. All trees were mapped and marked with
aluminum tags that were numbered sequentially starting with Number 501. All trees in proximity
of previously tagged trees were inspected to ensure a tree was not tagged twice. After each
tree was mapped and tagged, its trunk(s) and canopy diameter(s) were measured and recorded.
Trees that were not accessible were not physically tagged but were given a tag number,
mapped, and measured by estimation. Each tree's trunk diameters were measured individually,
added up, and the number of trunks noted. The canopy diameter of each tree was estimated.
A copy of the tree survey is available for review at the City.
Within the limits of grading for the EIR Project Alternative, 35 coast live oak trees would be
impacted that would not be impacted by the proposed project. The majority of these trees are
' located along the western boundary of the site (along Diamond Bar Boulevard). Conversely,
limits of grading for this alternative would avoid approximately 25 coast live oak trees that would
be impacted by the proposed project. The majority of the trees that would be avoided are
located along the northern boundary of the project development area. Therefore, the net
difference is an increase of ten impacted coast live oak trees under the EIR Project Alternative.
Impacts to coast live oak woodland and oak trees can be mitigated to a level that is considered
less than significant through the implementation of the mitigation program set forth above for
the proposed project.
Overall, the EIR Project Alternative would result in similar biological impacts as the proposed
project. Impacts to Venturan-Diegan transitional coastal sage scrub and coast live oak
woodland (including coast live oak and walnut trees) are considered significant under either the
proposed or the EIR Project Alternative. In addition, the loss of any active raptor nests would
be considered significant for any proposed development.
Implementation of the mitigation measures recommended for the proposed project would
mitigate biological impacts of the EIR Project Alternative to a level that is considered less than
significant.
77ojects\DBar\C0mPEnvEva142298 21 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
Land Use
Proposed Project
The City of Diamond Bar General Plan designates the VTTM No. 52267 site for development
of up to 130 single-family detached dwelling units. In accordance with map and deed
restrictions, development is to be confined to Lot 6. While the current vacant condition of the
site would be changed by the proposed development, the number of units and type of
development proposed is consistent with the General Plan designation for the site. The
development also conforms to the City's hillside management requirements and incorporates
landform/contour grading techniques. _
Implementation of the proposed project would be inconsistent with some goals, objectives, and
strategies of the City's General Plan. This is considered a significant and unavoidable adverse
impact.
Measures to mitigate potential effects of the proposed project are presented in the Draft EIR,
Sections 3.1 through 3.3 and Sections 3.5 through 3.9.
Should
ldh regulations of the ed project
be
approved, the development will be subject to all app
al
Plan, zoning ordinance, and all requirements and enactments of federal, state, county, and City
authorities, and any other governmental entities, and all such requirements and enactments will,
by reference, become conditions of project implementation.
EIR Project Alternative
As noted above, the City's General Plan designates the VTTM No. 52267 site for up to 130
single-family detached dwelling units. In accordance with map and deed restrictions,
development is to be confined to Lot 6. The EIR Project Alternative would develop up to 120
single-family detached units. As with the proposed project, some grading would occur outside
of Lot 6. The number of units and type of development identified for the EIR Project Alternative
is consistent with the General Plan designation for the site.
Less landform/contour grading would occur with the EIR Project Alternative. Therefore, this
alternative does not comply with the City's hillside management requirements to the same
extent as the proposed project.
As with the proposed project, implementation of the EIR Project Alternative would be
inconsistent with some goals, objectives, and strategies of the City's General Plan. This is
considered a significant and unavoidable adverse impact.
Aesthetics/Visual Resources
Proposed Project
Implementation of the proposed 130 -unit project would require the cutting of ridgelines and filling
of some canyon areas on the site to create building pads and roadways. Approximately 1.8
million cubic years of cut and fill, balanced onsite, would be required. The grading for the site
incorporates landform/contour grading concepts that generally conform to the City's hillside
grading requirements. These requirements generally allow ridgelines in the City to be graded
for the development of residential uses, a practice that is evident in existing projects throughout
the City.
R:1Project5\DBar\CompEnvEval42298
22 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
Constructing the entrance road to the site at Tin Drive from Diamond Bar Boulevard will require
cutting through the existing slope bank. Extending Tin Drive into the site will create cut slopes
on the site on either side of the new road; these slopes will be approximately 40 to 60 feet in
height. In addition, two large engineered fill slopes will be visible after development. One will
be located along the southern edge of the development area adjacent to lots 112 to 125; this
' slope will have a height of approximately 150 feet. The other is along Diamond Bar Boulevard
downslope of lots 8 to 20 with a height of approximately 150 feet. A smaller fill slope will also
be visible along Diamond Bar Boulevard downslope of lots 2 to 5, with an approximate height
of 110 feet.
The Draft EIR included computer generated simulations of the developed areas of the site from
key viewpoints. The Draft EIR noted that proposed residences would be visible along the
ridgelines from adjacent areas. Significant impacts would occur at the following viewpoints:
• View 1, near the intersection of Steep Canyon Road and Clear Creek Canyon Drive.
The development would be visible along the top of the prominent ridge in the
southern portion of the development area. A large engineered fill slope and fuel
modification areas would also be visible.
• View 2, near Kidd Drive and Diamond Bar Boulevard. Residences would be visible
along the northern ridge; the engineered fill slope would also be visible.
• View 3, from the top of Gold Rush Drive near its intersection with High Crest Drive.
Proposed residences would the extension of High Crest Drive would be visible along
' the top of the northern ridge in this area. Residents on the south side of Gold Rush
Drive would have view from their backyards across the unnamed canyon to the
development.
The project is inconsistent with the General Plan Resources Element strategies
protection of ridges and associated views from development. 9 for the
The Draft EIR proposes measures intended to provide concepts to the City and applicant to
reduce aesthetic impacts associated with the proposed project as follows:
1. It is recommended that the grading plans for the VTTM No. 52267 site be revised
to incorporate techniques that would lessen the visibility of the proposed residential
units along the prominent ridges. Visual simulations or cross sections of the revised
plan shall be required prior to issuance of grading permits.
2. Landscaping plans shall use native vegetation (e.g., oaks, walnuts, coastal sage
scrub) on manufactured slopes that are adjacent to naturally vegetated areas to
minimize the potential visual impact caused by urban landscaping in these areas.
The plant materials, placement, and maintenance of the native revegetation shall
' be approved by the Fire Department and by the project biologist. This measure is
intended to reduce aesthetic impacts and should be coordinated with mitigation for
biological impacts to ensure consistency.
3. Street lights shall use fixtures that direct light downward to the maximum extent
practicable. The intensity of the lighting shall conform to current City requirements.
It is unknown whether these measures would reduce aesthetic impacts to a level considered
less than significant. Further, it is speculative whether these recommended changes could be
RiProjeas\138arlCompEnvEval42298 23
Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
feasibly implemented by the project applicant or if they are desirable to the City's decision
makers. Therefore, aesthetic impacts are considered significant and unavoidable.
EIR Project Alternative
Implementation of the 120 -unit EIR Project Alternative would also require the cutting of —
ridgelines and filling of some canyon areas on the site to create building pads and roadways.
A reduction of 0.4 million cubic yards of cut and fill (balanced) from 1.8 million cubic years of
cut and fill, balanced onsite, to 1.4 million cubic yards of cut and fill, balanced onsite, would be
required for the EIR Project Alternative. The grading for the site under this alternative,
incorporates limited landform/contour grading concepts resulting in less conformance to the
City's hillside grading requirements than grading associated with the proposed project.
As previously discussed, the EIR Project Alternative would shift residences closer to and
contiguous to Diamond Bar Boulevard and the onsite access road. Constructing the entrance
road to the site at Tin Drive from Diamond Bar Boulevard will require cutting through the existing
slope bank. A large cut slope on the north side of the onsite access road will be visible from
Diamond Bar Boulevard; this slope will be approximately 105 feet higher than the existing
elevation of Diamond Bar Boulevard. On the south side of the entrance road, six residences
are proposed paralleling Diamond Bar Boulevard; no residences are sited in this location as a
part of the proposed project. The proposed residences under this alternative are approximately
50 feet east of and 20 to 30 feet above Diamond Bar Boulevard.
Similar to the proposed project, three large engineered fill slopes will be visible after
development of the EIR Project Altemative. One will be located along the southern edge of the
development area in the same location identified for the proposed project; however, it extends
further to the east than the proposed project. The manufactured slope height would be Y
approximately 80 feet (compared to 150 feet for the proposed project). The second engineered
slope is along Diamond Bar Boulevard adjacent to the onsite access road with a height of
approximately 105 feet; this slope is higher and wider than the slope in this part of the proposed
project. The third manufactured slope will occur in the north -central portion of the development
area to accommodate the remedial grading (buttress/keyway emplacement) needed for the EIR
Project Alternative. This manufactured slope condition will cover less area and be somewhat
less visible then the remedial grading for the proposed project.
Development of the site under this alternative would also be visible from viewpoints in the
community. Similar to the proposed project, the EIR Project Alternative would be visible from
View 1 (near the intersection of Steep Canyon Road and Clear Creek Canyon Drive), View 2
(near Kidd Drive and Diamond Bar Boulevard), and View 3 (from the top of Gold Rush Drive
near its intersection with High Crest Drive). More residential development and manufactured
slope area would be visible from Diamond Bar Boulevard in the vicinity of Tin Drive under this
alternative than would be visible under the proposed project. As with the proposed project, post -
development views of the site are considered significant impacts.
The EIR Project Alternative is inconsistent with the General Plan Resources Element strategies
for the protection of ridges and associated views from development.
Measures identified for the proposed project are also applicable for the EIR Project Alternative.
Aesthetic impacts are considered significant and unavoidable.
R:\Projects\DBarlCompEnvEval42298 24 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
Traffic and Circulation VTTM No. 52267
' Proposed Project
A traffic study was prepared and incorporated into the Draft EIR for \(TTM No. 52267 by
O'Rourke Engineering in April 1997. Upon the applicant's withdrawal of the VTTM No. 52308
for consideration as a part of the project, O'Rourke Engineering updated the traffic analysis to
address the potential traffic impacts of the VTTM No. 52267 project by itself; this subsequent
' analysis was prepared in February 1998.
The VTTM No. 52267 project proposes the development of 130 single-family dwelling units.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 6" Edition was used
to develop traffic generation rates associated with the project. These rates were validated by
the City's traffic engineer and another traffic consultant hired by the City to evaluate the
O'Rourke Engineering traffic study.
The traffic study included the following roadways and intersections:
' Roadways
• Diamond Bar Boulevard
• Grand Avenue
• Golden Springs Drive
Intersections
• Diamond Bar Boulevard/SR-60 eastbound
• Diamond Bar Boulevard/SR-60 westbound
• Diamond Bar Boulevard/Gold Rush
• Diamond Bar Boulevard/Grand Avenue
• Diamond Bar Boulevard/Sunset Crossing
• Diamond Bar Boulevard/Golden Springs
• Grand Avenue/Golden Springs
• Summitridge/Grand Avenue
• Tin Drive/Diamond Bar Boulevard
The proposed project would generate 1,242 daily trips, of which 96 trips would occur in the a.m.
peak hour and 131 trips in the p.m. peak hour based on 9.55 vehicle trips per day per dwelling
unit. Using the City of Diamond Bar criteria for determining significance and the Los Angeles
County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) criteria, the increase in vehicular traffic associated
with the project is not significant and does not require mitigation.
As a part of the original Draft EIR traffic analysis, a queuing analysis was also conducted at the
' project entry from Diamond Bar Boulevard at Tin Drive to determine whether the project entry
design would provide adequate space for vehicle "stacking" onsite during peak periods when
vehicles would be waiting to pass through the private entry gate. The traffic analysis concluded
that the project design provided adequate "stacking" distance onsite thereby preventing queuing
onto Diamond Bar Boulevard. However, turning movements at this location would require a
traffic signal at the project entrance from Diamond Bar Boulevard. Therefore, as a part of the
project, the project applicant will be required to provide a traffic signal on Diamond Bar
Boulevard at Tin Drive.
I R:\Projects\DBar\COMPEnvEvaIG2298 25
Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
The following mitigation measure was proposed in the Draft EIR as a condition of approval of
the project:
1. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first dwelling unit at the
VTTM No. 52267 site, a traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Tin
Drive at Diamond Bar Boulevard. The project applicant will be responsible for 100
percent of the costs associated with this traffic signal.
Traffic impacts can be fully mitigated with the implementation of the traffic signal.
EIR Project Alternative
The EIR Project Alternative would allow for the development of 120 single-family residences,
a reduction of 10 units from the proposed project. Based on a trip generation factor of 9.55 trips
per dwelling unit, the project alternative would generate 1,146 daily trips, a reduction of 96 trips
per day when compared to the proposed project. As noted above, the proposed project would
not result in any significant traffic -related impacts, with the exception of the need for a traffic
signal on Diamond Bar Boulevard at Tin Drive. The EIR Project Alternative would not result in
any new significant traffic impacts not previously identified for the project; the project applicant
would also be required to provide the traffic signal for this alternative. Implementation of this
measure would mitigate traffic impacts to a level that is considered less than significant.
Air Quality
Proposed Project
The Draft EIR identifies that the project will result in construction -related nitrogen oxides (NoJ _
and particulate matter (PM,o) impacts. It should be noted that these findings are based on the
development of both the VTTM Nos. 52267 and 52308 sites. No ozone impacts would occur
with the proposed project.
The following measures were identified in the Draft EIR as conditions of approval for the
proposed project:
1. The City shall require that all construction comply with the South Coast Air Quality
Management District's (SCAQMD) regulations, including Rule 402 which specifies
that there be no dust impacts offsite sufficient to cause a nuisance, and SCAQMD
Rule 403, which restricts visible emissions from construction. Specific measures
to reduce fugitive dust shall include the following:
a. Moisten soil prior to grading.
b. Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions and as often
as needed on windy days when winds are less than 25 miles per day or during
very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and prevent the release of
visible emissions from the construction site.
c. Treat any area that will be exposed for extended periods with a soil conditioner
to stabilize soil or temporarily plant with vegetation.
26 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
R'.\Projects\DBarlCompEnvEva 142298
VTTM No. 52267
d. Wash mud -covered tires and under -carriages of trucks leaving construction
'
sites.
e. Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt
dropped by construction vehicles
'
or mud which would otherwise be carried off
by trucks departing project sites.
f. Securely cover loads of dirt with a tight fitting tarp on any truck leaving the
construction
'
sites to dispose of excavated soil, if required.
g. Cease grading during periods when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
'
h. Provide for permanent sealing of all graded areas, as applicable, at the earliest
practicable time after soil disturbance.
2. All contractors shall:
a. Maintain construction equipment in peak operating condition so as to reduce
operation emissions.
b. Use low -sulfur diesel fuel in all equipment.
c. Use electric equipment wheneverracticabl
P e.
'
d. Shut off engines when not in use.
Although mitigation is required as a part of the proposed project, construction -related emissions
of nitrogen oxides and PM,o would remain significant after
'
mitigation.
EIR Project Alternative
The EIR Project Alternative would result in less grading activities than the proposed project 1.4
million cubic yards compared to 1.8
million cubic yards of cut and fill balanced on the site).
While the reduction in grading and the implementation of the
'
mitigation measures would result
in the reduction of the project's air emissions, total emissions after
mitigation would remain
above the threshold limits for No, and PM,,, and would be considered significant and
unavoidable.
'
Noise
Proposed Project
Vehicular Noise
rThe
noise study conducted for the Draft EIR assessed potential vehicular not se associated with
the implementation of the VTTM Nos.
'
52267 and 52308 project site; the VTTM No. 52308 is no
longer proposed for development as a part of the project or EIR Project
Alternative. The
projected noise increases at Diamond Bar Boulevard/Tin Drive and Diamond Bar
Boulevard/Gold Rush Drive generally range from
0.3 to 1.3 dbA (1 to 3 dbA is difficult to detect).
At Diamond Bar Boulevard and Tin Drive in the eastward direction into the
site, the increase
over existing noise levels would be approximately 3.8 dbA for the a.m. peak hour and 9.1 dbA
R:1Project OUBanCompEnvEval42298 27 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
for the p.m_ peak hour. These increases are large because there is no existing roadway in this
location. In all locations, the resulting noise levels would range from 46.8 to 52.1 Leq which are _.
less than the criteria for determination of a significant impact.
Construction Noise
Development of the site is expected to take two to three years. However, the grading activities
that generate the most noise would occur over an approximate four to six month period.
Existing residences could experience noise levels exceeding the City's noise standards
depending on their distance from operating construction equipment. Residences along
Highcrest Drive, as well as those along Gold Rush Drive and adjacent to Steep Canyon Road,
could be impacted.
As noted in the discussion of Earth Resources above, the City of Diamond Bar has determined
that no blasting will be permitted as a part of project implementation. Therefore, Mitigation -
Measure 3 in the Draft EIR related to blasting activities is no longer needed.
The following mitigation measures were proposed in the Draft EIR as conditions of approval of
the proposed project:
1. Construction activities shall be limited to Monday to Saturday between the hours of
7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
2. Prior to issuance of grading permits, a construction traffic plan, equipment staging
area, and construction employee parking area program shall be submitted by the
applicant to the City for approval to ensure that construction noise impacts from
these sources are kept to a minimum.
Construction noise is considered to be a short-term significant impact that cannot be avoided;
this impact remains significant and unavoidable.
EIR Project Alternative
Construction Noise
Development of the project alternative is expected to take two to three years; as noted above,
grading activities would occur over an approximate four to six month period. Existing residences
could experience noise levels exceeding the City's noise standards, depending on their distance
from operating equipment. However, under this alternative, development -related activities would
be more distant from residences along Gold Rush Drive and therefore may experience fewer
construction noise -related impacts. Residences along Highcrest Drive and adjacent to Steep
Canyon Road could be impacted similar to the proposed project. This impact is considered
significant and unavoidable.
Vehicular Noise
As with the proposed project, implementation of the EIR Project Alternative would result in noise
increases at the intersections of Diamond Bar Boulevard/Tin Drive and Diamond Bar
Boulevard/Gold Rush Drive. However, these noise levels will not be greater than those
associated with the proposed project. The EIR Project Alternative proposes residences in a -
development area adjacent to Diamond Bar Boulevard that were not part of the proposed
project. Proposed onsite residences along Diamond Bar Boulevard may experience vehicular
R'\Projects\DBar\CompEnvEval42298
28 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
noise levels that exceed the City's noise standards. This is a potential impact that would not
occur with the proposed project.
The following mitigation measure is proposed for the EIR Project Alternative in addition to the
measures identified in the Draft EIR for the proposed project:
3. Prior to the approval of the vesting tentative tract
l be
located outside of the 45 dBA exterior nighttime (10 p.m. t 7la.m) and the 50 units Id A
' exterior daytime (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) noise levels, or noise attenuation shall be
provided, as recommended in a noise study prepared by a licensed acoustical
engineer. Said determination shall be made prior to the issuance of the first
building permit.
The above -state measure would reduce vehicular noise to a level that is considered less than
significant.
Cultural Resources
' Proposed Project
Prehistoric and Historic Archaeoloc
gicalResources
An archaeological records search and a walk -over survey of the site was conducted by Petra
Resources in 1997. Based on the archaeological assessment, there are no known prehistoric
' or historic resources on the project site. Because buried resources cannot be detected and only
10 to 15 percent of the area could be viewed during the walkover survey because of vegetative
cover, it is possible that buried artifacts or sites could be found during construction activities.
' Accidental damage to these resources could occur. Resources may also be buried beneath the
accumulation of erosional sediments in this area that has occurred in the past. Based upon the
known type of regional prehistoric occupation, it is likely that camp sites, single activity sites,
' rock features, and/or isolated tools could be found.
Mitigation measures recommended in the Draft EIR as conditions of approval for the proposed
' project are as follows:
1. Prior to rough grading activities, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to
monitor the clearing and grubbing of the southern slope of the VTTM No. 52267
site. The archaeologist would carefully inspect these areas to assess the potential
for significant prehistoric or historic remains. If a site is uncovered, then a
subsurface evaluation may be needed to assess the resource. Further subsurface
investigation may be needed if the site is determined unique/important for its
prehistoric information.
' 2. Following the intensive survey, the archaeologist shall file a survey report with the
South Central Coastal Information Center at University of California, Los Angeles.
Any subsequent archaeological testing and data recovery reports would also be
' filed with the Information Center.
3. A qualified archaeologist shall be retained to attend pre -grade meetings and to
' monitor grading activities. During grading activities, the archaeologist shall conduct
R:\Projeus\DBar\CompEnvEval42298 29
Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
limited monitoring to observe and retrieve any buried artifacts that may be
uncovered.
4. The archaeological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert or direct
grading to allow time to evaluate any exposed prehistoric or historic material.
5. A final monitoring report, including an itemized inventory and pertinent field data,
shall be sent to the property owner and to the South Central Coastal Information
Center at the University of California, Los Angeles.
6. Any recovered prehistoric and historic artifacts shall be offered, on a first '
right -of -refusal basis, to a repository with a retrievable collection system and an
educational and research interest in the materials such as the Fowler Museum of
Cultural History (UCLA) and California State University, Fullerton, or alternatively T
to the Pomona Valley Historical Society, La Puente Valley Historical Society, or
Pacific Coast Archaeological Society where collections are held locally.
Paleontological Resources
The site is underlain by middle to upper Miocene aged rock of the Soquel Member of the Puente
Formation; the Soquel Member is known to be highly fossiliferous. Grading, trenching, and
other earth moving activities in the Soquel Member could significantly impact vertebrate,
invertebrate, and plant fossil remains.
Mitigation measures recommended in the Draft EIR as conditions of approval for the proposed
project are as follows:
7. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to produce a mitigation plan for the
VTTM No. 52267 site. This paleontologist shall attend pre -grade meetings to
discuss the monitoring, collecting, and safety procedures for the project and shall
supervise the paleontologic monitoring during earth moving activities in the area.
8. Full-time monitoring shall be conducted by a paleontological monitor during earth
moving activities within the high sensitivity Soquel Member. The recent alluvium and
colluvium do not require monitoring. The paleontologist shall tailor the monitoring
schedule to the lithologies present, the rate of fossil recovery, the numbers of
spreads working simultaneously, and the cubic foot amounts of rock being
excavated or disturbed.
9. Screening of sediments shall routinely be conducted during monitoring under the
supervision of the paleontologist to sample significant small vertebrate remains.
10. The paleontological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert or redirect
grading to allow time to evaluate any exposed fossil material.
11. During monitoring, any scientifically significant specimens shall be properly
salvaged after evaluation by, and under the supervision of, the paleontologist.
During fossil salvage, contextual stratigraphic data shall also be collected. This will
include Rhologic descriptions, localities plotted on a USGS 7.5' Series topographic
quadrangle, photographs, and field notes.
R:\Projects\DBar\CompEnvEva142298
30 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
12. Specimens p mens shall be prepared to the point of identification, identified, and curated on
' a long-term loan basis in a suitable repository that has a retrievable storage system,
such as the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History.
13. A final report shall be prepared at the end of earth moving activities, and shall
' include an itemized inventory of recovered fossils and appropriate stratigraphic and
locality data. This report shall be sent to the City of Diamond Bar to signify the end
of mitigation. Another copy shall accompany any recovered fossils, along with field
logs and photographs, to the designated repository.
With implementation of the above mitigation measures, the Draft EIR indicated that all potential
' significant impacts to archaeological and paleontological impacts could be reduced to a level
that is considered less than significant.
' EIR Project Alternative
As a part of the literature review and walkover survey of the VTTM No. 52267 site, the entire site
was reviewed. Under this alternative, impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources
would be similar or the same as for the proposed project. All mitigation measures for the
proposed project are therefore applicable to the EIR Project Alternative. No new mitigation
' measures or revisions to the existing measures are required. Compliance with these measures
would reduce the potentially significant impact to a level that is considered less than significant.
1
IR11.1-1 s1,08aACompEnvEval42298 31 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners
FROM: Ann Lungu, Associate Planne
SUBJECT: Correspondences Received From Residents Regarding Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 52267
DATE:. April 23, 1998
Attached are correspondences received from residents in regards to VTI'M. No. 52267.
Attachments:
Con-espondences:
1. Cecilia Frazier and Theresa Frazier, dated February 24, 1998
2. Carol J. Drighton, dated February 24, 1998
3. C. Lane & Family, dated March 25, 1998
4. Cecilia Frazier, dated February 21, 1998
.5. Mike Frazier, dated March 25, 1998
6. Frank and Romila Santini, dated March 23, 1998
7. Willie and Shirlie Douglas, dated March 25, 1998
8. Mr. & Mrs. Habib Mohammedy, dated March 31, 1998
9. Parker Drive Neighbor, dated April 3, 1998
10. Ronaldo, Belen, Joui, and Berry Cachio, dated March 24, 1998
.11. Susan Mercado, dated April 12, 1998
/i
' �` ,f �-' � �-'------'--'----'--------'
---'----------r ---- ' ' ' -=~-'`~ -- --r---- ---�- -'----------------------�--''----
'
-
'
6'
�
'a^^-^--�
'
�
'
-------'------�---------- -------�--- -----'-�'-r? `���/ -'----'---- ----'-
� ' u
CL I
~
------- --------- ---'---'
- -
Ll
'-----------�---/ - ---�'�-`
-
-.11 .- -1--
s _V.,E
25-P 2.41 ��� G
�- ai- 9?'
o it')
0
C,,h c4 �
! 6�- 6-4�
PY 1 V7 7 -/?l 6-�2,P-6 7
CJS
J
co
_-
T,�
Mzf
N
--
C;w
To: City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission ';8 110 25 ? 1 :59
City of Diamond Bar Manager
City Consul of Diamond Bar 7�@ 3
From. 1 l Date:
01
Address.
Subject: VTTM 52.267 (Plan to build houses on the hills on Diarnoud Bar Blvd. between Gold
Rush Dr. and Grand Ave.)
Dear Ci "i`.Diamond Bar Official I
We,\ l ► 1 ` s residents of Diamond Bar are against the
proposed plan to build the land on Diamond Bar Blvd. also known as VTTM 52267. The
following are some of the reasons why you should not approve this project:
1. Noise pollution during construction. '
2. Air pollution from dust and exhaust fumes.
3. Destruction of natural beauty by destroying thousands of 50 year old oak and walnut trees.
4. Destruction of animal habitats.
5. Increase of number of cars in already over congested Diamond Bar Blvd. and Grand Ave.
6. The end of "Country Living" in Diamond Bar.
We undczstand that fhe builder can not build his current plan unless you approve the removal of
"Deed Restriction" from open land where the builder is not allowed to build. I ask you not to
remove this "Decd Restriction" or allow any type of building construction on this land.
we came to live in Diamond Bar for it's open spaces and quiet living. In the past years this city
has become less attractive as more congestion has been added until it looks like down town Los
Angeles. You as my representative must not allow this to go on.
To: City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission
City of Diamond Bar Manager
City Consul of Diamond Bar
Brom: L
'
Date--3-
Address: ,
Subject: VTTM 52267 (Plan to build houses on the hills on Diamond Bar Blvd. between Gold
Rush Dr. and Grand Ave.)
Dear City of amond Bar cial
We,
proposed plan to b d the land of Diamond Bar are against the
following are a of the reasons who Bar Blvd. also known as V�-I-M 52267. Tire
y y u should not approve this project:
1. Noise pollution during constru:;tion.
2. Air pollution from dust and exhaust fumes.
3. Destruction of natural beauty by destroying thousands of 50 year old oak and walnut trees.
4. Destruction of animal habitats.
5. Increase of number of cars in already over congested Diamond Bar Blvd. and Grand Ave.
6. The end of "Country Living" in Diamond Bar.
We understand that the builder can not build his current plan unless you approve the removal of
"Deed Restriction" from open land where the builder is not allowed to build. I ask you not to
remove this "Deed Restriction" or allow any type of building construction Ons land.
"-
"We came to live in Diamond Bar for it's o
- - pen spaces and quiet living. In the past years this city
-- 7 -has become Iess attractive as more congestion has been added until it looks like down town Los
Angeles. You as my representative must not allow this io go on.
O
CO
Z �v
To: City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission '98 P,°R -2 P 1 :54
City of Diamond Bar Manager
City Consul of Diamond Bar
From: Date:
— �,� ���!ru
�mattdBar, (A91765
Address:
Subject: VTIM 52267 (Plan to build houses on the hills on Diamond Bar Blvd. between Gold
Rush Dr. and Grand Ave.)
Dear City of Diamond Bar Official
W e, JM
„ X m l2 S • PN; 16 P10) %residents of Diamond Bar are against the
proposed plan to build the land on Diamond Bar Blvd. also known as VTTM 52267. The
following are some of the reasons why you should not approve this project:
1. Noise pollution during construction -
2. Air pollution from dust and exhaust fumes.
3. Destruction of natural beauty by destroying thousands of 54 year old oak and walnut trees.
4. Destruction of animal habitats.
5. Increase of number of cars in already over congested Diamond Bar Blvd. and Grand Ave.
6. The end of "Country Living" in Diamond Bar.
we understand that the builder can not build his current plan unless you approve the rcmoval of
"Deed Restriction" from open land where the builder is not allowed to build. I ask you not to
remove this "Deed Restriction" or allow any type of building construction on this land.
We came to live in Diamond Bar for it's open spaces and quiet living. In the past years this city
has become less attractive as more congestion has been added until it looks like down town Los
Angeles. You as my representative must not allow this to go on.
Sincerely
r
City of Diamond B
a r
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100. • Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
(909) 860-2489 • Fax (9091861,-31,17,
Internet: htt 3. ; 'I I( —? ' -' 2
p://wwtiv.ci.diamond bar.ca.us City Online (Mj: (909) 860-5463
March 27, 1998
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF CONTINUED PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC
HEARING FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 52267
Dear Diamond Bar Property Owner:
The purpose of this correspondence is to inform you that the
Planning Commission has continued the public hearing for the
referenced project to Tuesday, April 28, 1998, at 7:00 p.m.
VTTM 52267 is a proposal by SunCal Companies to construct a
130 unit single family residential development on a --65 acre
portion of their -339 acre site located adjacent to Diamond
Bar Boulevard. The hearing location is the South Coast Air
Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley
Carol Herrera Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. You are welcome to attend the
Alayor public hearing and will be given the o
that time. PPortunity to speak at
Wen Chang
Mayor Pro Tem Should you have any questions or desire additional
Eileen R.Ansari information, please contact me at (909) 396-5676.
Council ,blember
Robert S. Huff Sincerely,
Council ,Member kJ
Deborah H. O'Connor �L n
i
Council �lfember Assoczat��P1 nner "
I 1
���-u-:� cC.o �,1 C �• .,������- ,CL-'ur�c� SCJ
Com', c
/7j7,��_f�/
i
5 0 moo,- I
J ,
�C�ooS�P PCO Pi.�7���
l
OPEN
��� ♦ � fi�4-G�fi 52207
G RANO
To: City of Diamond Bar P1mning Commission
City of Diamond Baf, Mmager
City Consul of Diamond Bar
From: a_c_.-n o )
Address: _ co as3 wN
'9s -9 P j :l I
Date.6/
Subject: VTTM 52267 Man to build houses on the hills onDiamond Bar Blvd. between Gold
Rush Dr - and Grand Ave.)
Dear City of Diamond Bar Official
wc,---------------
PrOPo-r-'d plan to build the land on Diamond Bar Blvd. residents
Ofalso known Diamond Bar are against the
following are some of the tas
reons why you should not approve this s VTIetM 52267 The
1. Noise pollution during cotlst<uction.
2. Air pollution from dust an,A exhaust finnes.
3. Destruction of natural bawity by destroying thousands of SO year old
4. Destruction of animal habitats. oak and walnut trees.
5. Increase of number of cars in alreadover
Y cong cstcd Diamond Baz Blvd. and
6. The end of "Country Livin " Grand Ave.
�8 in Diamond Bar.
hc t Milder can not build his current plan unless YOU
"Beed Restriction" from Open land where the builder is not allowed o build. approve y oremoval
o �o of
remove this "Deed Restriction" or allow any type of building construction on this laird.
We came to live in Diamond liar for it's has o
has become less attractive as More con estlon and genet living. In the past years this city
Angeles. You as m g been added until it looks like down own Los
Y representative must not allow this to go on.
Sincerely
SEL -„�
�op
v
10V () ,
¢i ,
eE2R,z c-,,lfo
1--p 7--t /0 5 - c a 40 7
61
C'
\
` ".4
JA I
670 S.
Shady Place
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
'98 APli 20 72 :18 April 12, 1998.
Diamond Bar City Council -�
21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Dear Sir or Madam:
About a month or so ago I happened to see signs posted up on our city
streets about a proposed building project that was to be located on a canyon
near my home. The canyon I am speaking of is located off of Diamond Bar
Blvd. between Golden Springs and Grand Avenue. I was able to read that
the canyon is to be leveled off to build new homes. I am sure that the
building of these homes are beneficial to our city but at the same time I
know that the construction may cause many inconveniences to the residents
nearby. My main concern is that in that canyon I have seen animals such as
coyotes, raccoons, snakes, squirrels, and many others roam through the
canyon, and I am wondering what will happen to all those animals if and
when the construction begins. I am aware that there was a public hearing on
this issue but unfortunately I was unable to attend. I do not know if this plan
is still to taking place or not but I would appreciate it if you could send me
more details on this topic and if the animals are being considered in this
development. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Susan Mercado
City of Diamond Bar
PLANMNG COADUSSION
Staff Report
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 7.3
REPORT DATE: February 2, 1998
MEETING DATE: February 10, 1998
CASE/FILE NUMBER: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
52267 (VTTM No. 52267), Conditional
Use Permit No. 98-03, Oak Tree
Permit No. 98-01 and Environmental
Impact Report No. 97-2, Volume I and
II for VTTM No. 52267.
APPLICATION REQUEST:
PROPERTY LOCATION:
Proposes to: subdivide 65 acres of a
339.3 acre site into 141 lots for
the development of 130 detached
single family residences; remove and
replace oak and walnut trees; and
remove the map restriction on a
portion of the 65 acres. The balance
of the 339.3 acre site, (274.3 acres)
and all or a portion of Lot 9 of
Tract No. 31479 will be dedicated to
the City of Diamond Bar.
VTTM No. 52267 is generally located
east of Diamond Bar Boulevard and
north of Grand Avenue, at the
extension of Highcrest Drive.
PROPERTY OWNER: Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership
5109 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite D,
Anaheim, CA 92807
APPLICANT: Todd Kurtin
SunCal Companies
5109 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite D,
Anaheim, CA 92807
BACKGROUND:
The property owner, Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership and applicant,
SunCal Companies are requesting approval to: subdivide 65 acres of
1
a 339.3 acre site into 141 lots (130 lots for the development of
130 detached single family residences, 10 open space lots and one
reserved for the Walnut Valley Water District); remove and replace
oak and walnut trees; remove the map restriction; and certify the
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) No. 97-2 which has been
prepared to evaluate the impacts the project may have upon the
environment and identify mitigation measures that will reduce the
effects of any negative impacts. The balance of the 339.3 acre
site (274.3 acres) and all or a portion of Lot 9 of Tract No. 31479
will be dedicated to the City of Diamond Bar.
VTTM No. 52267 consists of one contiguous property (identified as
Lots 4 through 7 of Tract 31479). It is generally located east of
Diamond Bar Boulevard and north of Grand Avenue. The General Plan
land use designation is Planning Area -2 (see attachment) which
includes Lot 9 (75 acres) of Tract No. 31479. The project site is
within the Residential Planned Development -Minimum Lot Size -20,000
Square Feet -2 Units Per Acre (RPD -20,000-2U) Zone. Generally, the
following zones surround VTTM No. 52267: to the north and east is
the RPD -20,000-2U Zone; to the south is the Single Family
Residence -Minimum Lot Size 40,000 Square Feet and the RPD -20,000-2U
Zones; and to the west is the Single Family Residence -Minimum Lot
Size 8,000 Square Feet (R-1-8,000) Zone. These zones le-famil residential development andcvacant
predominately of single-family
land.
VTTM No. 52267 along with VTTM No.52308 was presented to the
Planning Commission on September 23, 1997. The applicant withdrew
both projects on October 3, 1997. On January 8, 1998, the
applicant submitted VTTM No. 52267 as being presented in this staff
report.
ANALYSIS:
PROJECT OVERVIEW:
The project site is predominantly vacant with characteristics such
as slopes and ridges, and natural vegetation including oak and
walnut trees. It is distinguished by a northeasterly trending
ridge running through the site. An eastwest trending ridge joins
the main ridge on the north side. A large northeasterly trending
canyon dominates the project's southern side. Small canyons and
draws exist off of the ridgelines. Located on the project site are
utility easements associated with flood control, water, and
electrical services.
As previously stated, VTTM No. 52267 is part of Tract No. 31479,
Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9. Development will occur on Lot 6 and
portions of Lot 5 and 7. The proposed development plan for VTTM
No. 52267 consists of 141 lots. One hundred and thirty lots are
proposed for the development of detached single family homes within
a proposed private gated community. Lot 131 is reserved for the
Walnut Valley Water District. Lots "A" through "J" are designated
as open space (natural open space and manufactured slopes). The
2
proposed Lot and manufactured slopes are clustered on approximately
65 acres of the 339.3 acres site.ences lbelocated
along the proposed extension of Highcrest Dr il
ve to the intersection
of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Tin Drive. Two access points are
proposed. From the east, access will be provided from an extension
Of Highcrest Drive and from the west, access will be provided from
Diamond Bar Boulevard.
Residences are proposed to be constructed on lots ranging from
6,230 (Lot 15) to 26,560 (Lot 111) square feet with an average lot
size of approximately 10,900 square feet. The gross density is 0.4
dwelling units per acre (130 du/339.3 ac) with a net density of
approximately 2.06 dwelling units per acre (130 du/63 ac). Pad
areas will range in size from 5,850 (Lot 98) to 19,150 (Lot 2)
square feet. The proposed residences will range in size from 2,800
to 3,300 square feet. The proposed density and anticipated homes
are compatible with surrounding developments.
The Walnut Valley Water District has two planned water reservoir
sites within the VTTM No. 52267.'s development area. These
reservoirs are not needed to serve the project. However, the
reservoirs are needed to meet future water service requirements.
One reservoir can be accommodated within the proposed residential
development's boundaries. The project's applicant has indicated a
desire to locate the second reservoir, within the project's
boundaries but outside the grading limits for the residential
units.,
OPEN SPACE:
As stated above, VTTM No. 52267 is part of Tract No. 31479, Lots 4,
5, 6, 7 and 9. Lot 6, where the majority of development will
occur, is 49.76 acres. Lot 5 (Lot "B" of VTTM No. 52267) is 130.84
acres. Development will occur on 1.18 acres, thereby leaving
129.66 acres as public open space. Lot 7 (Lot "A" of VTTM No.
52267) is 42.63 acres. Development will occur on 4.33 acres,
thereby leaving 38.3 acres 'as public open space. Lot 4 (Lot "c" of
VTTM No. 52267) consist of 116.13 acres. The entire Lot 4 (Lot "C',
Of VTTM No. 52267) will remain public open space. The proposed
development plan with its clustering of residential units retains
the vast majority of the tract in permanent public open space. All
or a portion of Lot 9 will be dedicated to the City as permanent
public open space by the applicant.
MAP RESTRICTION REMOVAL:
Pursuant to the General Plan, VTTM No. 52267 is within Planning
Area -2. General Plan Objective 1.6 states "Consistent with the
Vision Statement, provide flexibility in the planning of new
development as a means of encouraging superior land use by means
such as open space and public amenities". Strategy 1.6.1 states 11
A master plan shall be developed for each area of the city
designated as a Planning Area". The description and contemplated
land use designation for Planning Area -2 is defined as follows:
3
t'pA-2 is comprised of approximately 400 vacant acres located
Sub -Area A consists of approxi -
in two non-contiguous areas.
mately 325 acres located east of Diamond Bart oulevard,n o of
of, Grand Avenue, south of Gold Rush Drive, approximately 75
he te
Higherest Drive. Sub -Area B consists o of
land uses for
acres located east of PanteraoP sr areapinclude a maximum 130
this 400 ± .acre non-contiguous
single family detached
extension al d ghcrest Drive,
Ling units awelleminimum
along the anticipated
of 75 percent of the total 400 acre area set aside as dedicat-
ed open space.. A two acre area located at the southeast
be
corner of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Gold Rush Drive sInuord r
developed for public facilities or commercial uses.
to minimize envirsnmllt rangep in sized from mize 6 000 1totering10, 000
residential lots
square feet."
TTM No. 52267's proposes a 130 unit development en roXpmately530
within PA -2. These units will be clustered on app
acres and concentrated a d f r the Walnutted extension of Valley Water District,eis
Drive. Lot 131, reserve
2.4 acres.
Lots "A", "B", and "C" are natural open space and no
within the proposed developmentlandscaped
ds aped oslopes Dare "included through
within
proposed as manufacturd,
development envelope.
Plan's Land Use Element, Strategy 1.5.4,
Pursuant to the General
subjected
vacant land burden with deed or map restrictionsCommssion and Citycouncil
to .public hearings with the Planninghe 'restrictions.
en to remove t
before any action can be vat must be of a significant benefit
However, the restriction the proposed map is part of
to the City. As previously stated, 5, 7 and 9 of
Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Tract No. 31479•r LotgrantstheCity the right
Tract 31479 have a map restriction that g
to prohibit the construction envelope for TTM No. 52267 uincludeshthe
lots. The development rest
following: all of Lot 6 which does not have the triation rlandono
portions of Lots 5 and 7 which has the map osed
development will occur on Lot restri tIn ier to on removal retali the
required to
development envelope, the map
with General Plan Strategy 1.5.4. Therefore, in the spirit
comply the applicant proposes to dedicate to the City
of Strategy fundeveloped 274 acres of TTM No. 52267 and all or a
the remaining und
of Tract No. 31479 (PA -2).
portion of Lot 9
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-03 GRADING:
rading activities. The project
Development of VTTM No. 52267 would result in significant opo -
graphical changes associated with g
site has 71.9 percent of its natural slopes at 35 percent or more,
percent
is in an urban hillside management area, and proposes residential
development. As such and pursuant to Code (Section 22.56.215),
approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required for this project
because slopes are in excess of 10 percent. The Conditional Use
Permit's purpose is to protect resources contained within a
4
hillside management area which may result in or have the
Potential
g
for environmental degradation and to the extent Possible
and enhance the remaining biotic resources and natural topography
while allowing for limited controlled development. � maintain
The Hillside Management Ordinance's guidelines and standards are
required to ensure that development will complement the character
and topography of the site.
of good hillside planning and the use of the landform City policy requires the application
revegetation concept. Furthading and
ermore, exceptions to these rstandards
with appropriate findings and facts re
ire a Conditional
Permit. These guidelines and standards (specified ed in Section 8Uof
the City's Hillside Management Ordinance
Proposed project due to grades in excess of 10 applicable to the
percent.
The proposed grading quantities are approximately 1.8 million cubic
Yards of cut and 1.8 million cubic yards of fill.
balanced on site. The Grading will be
gradin Proposed grading concept utilizes landform
g (series of non-linear concave and convex forms with varying
slope gradients) where feasible. Therefore, the proposed
is consistent with the Cit ,s project
However, it is inconsistent with Hillside
General Management
and rHillside
Management Ordinance in relationship to the project's visibility
along the prominent ridgelines of the site.
In general, soils materials will be cut from higher areas and used
as fill to create level area for buildings. Two large engineering
fills encompass the majority of the earthwork required for the
Proposed project. One is located along the southern edge of the
development area, below Lot 112 through 130. The other is located
along the northern portion of the development, below Lots 9 through
20. Additional smaller fills .are located
development area. Engineering features throughout the
such as shear keys and
buttress fills have been incorporated into the
will be reviewed and approved by the Cit grading design and
cut is a Y• The maximum depth of
approximately 80 feet and a maximum fill depth is
approximately 180. feet. Engineered slopes onsite do not exceed 2:1
(horizontal:vertical) and are required to meet the Cityfs
requirements for stability.
In compliance with the Hillside Management Ordinances standards
and guidelines, the proposed project,s
natural topography of the site, where feasiblelnwhere large vfollisible
cuts and fills are
proposed, landform grading will be utilized;
concave and convex forms will be utilized throughout the site;
slopes will not be linear in plan view; manufactured slope
gradients will vary from 2:1, 3:1 and 4:1•
pads will maintain irregular configurations;
lot shapes will vary;
concentz-ated in concave areas, similar as in nature; and ill be
slopes to the east will remain in their natural, undisturbed state.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OAK TREE PERMIT:
The VTTM No. 52267 site does not function as an important regional
wildlife corridor because it is entirely surrounded by development.
5
rn end
Local corridors likely occur between the northern earesidenteanimal
of the site but these are restricted to use by
species.
provides potentially suitable habitat for a
The project site p ecies. However, due to the low
variety of sensitive wildlife sp
ecies, the limited amount of anticipate
sensitivity of these sp considered adverse but not
impacts to these species are
significant. Additionally, no coastal California gnatcatchers were
observed.no
to occur within VTTM No.
Base on a several focused surveys for sensitive plant species,
plants listed as sensitive are known the site does contain the
52267's development., area. However their impact area due to
following plant communities and dland - 9.6 acres; walnut
development: coastal live oak Woo - 18.7 acres; scrub oak
res; and
woodland- 0. 0 acres, coastal sag _
chaparral - 8.5 acres; Mexican elderberry woodland410 coastalclive oak
P - 27.7 acres. Approximately
annual grassland
trees and 30 walnut trees will be removed and replaced as a result
of the proposed development.
pursuant to the General Plan, and the City's Oak Tree Permit
Pu replacement and
the developer shall provide for the
process,oak and walnut
implementation are subject to
relocation of oak and walnut ectess imp Therefore, laced at a 2•.1
trees removed during the p j
replacement. Walnut trees and oak trees will be rep
ratio. To ensure the replacement of ecies will beuincludedoin'the
of trees, native understory plan p
the
project's Mitigation Monitoring
Program. Replacement walnut an
oak trees will consist of varying
sizes. Details concern
ierated
exact quantity, sizes and off-site
loca ions wl
whichlwill be lbeoreviewed
into a Biological Resource foreManaCit permits.
and approved by the City before the issuance of any ation oncept.
The conceptual landscape exhibit suggests a reveg
This concept appears to located Management Ordinance,ithe plan
fashion. Pursuant to the Hillside
will be revised so that trees be concentrated in concave areas,
similar as in nature. orates the following:
Program (MMP) incorporates of plant
The Mitigation Monitoring 273 acres of a variety
approximately a Biological Resource Management
avoidance of PP protection
communities; protection through etation and their
replacement and reveg a scrub plant
Plan of habitat rep and restoration of coastal sag
during construction; protection
species and oak and walnut tree
replacement-
and revegetation,al p ehinclude
P
measures for habitat replacerformance standards se -measures habitat
during construction and P sneers and
replacement, maintenance and monitoring. Corps of Eng'
permits from U.S. Army g Mmp and
include appropriateated to a
California Department of Fish and Gama is can be mitigated
appropriate permits, the biological imp
red less than significant.
level that is conside
3
AIR QUALITy_
Preparation of the project site for development will produce two
types of air contaminants: exhaust emissions from construction
equipment and fugitive dust from soil movement. These construction
emissions are considered short-term and will terminate upon the
project's completion. However, the proposed project's development
will result in significant air quality impacts related to Oxides of
Nitrogen (NOx) and fugitive dust (PM 10). As a result, a Statement
of Overriding Considerations balancing the benefits of the project
against its unavoidable adverse environmental impacts
adopted by the City. must be
TRAFFIC•
A traffic study was prepared for VTTM No.52267. The project site,
With the proposed development, will generate approximately 1,242
trips on an average weekday.
A signal warrant analysis was conducted for the intersection of Tin
Drive at Diamond Bar Boulevard. The result indicated that a
traffic signal is warranted by 1999. Implementation of this signal
would be the responsibility of this project. With the imple-
mentation of the signal, the proposed project will not result in
any significant traffic impacts.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), the City has determined that an Environmental Impact
Report: (EIR) is required for this project. Environmental Impact
Report: NO. 97-2 (SCH No. 97031005), Volume I and II has
prepared. been
The purpose of an EIR is to provide objective planning and
environmental information. The information is utilized to guide
and assist the City staff, Planning Commission, City Council, and
the public in the consideration and evaluation of the potential
environmental implication that may result from the proposed
project's development.
The EIR's preparation is based on the Initial Study completed by
the City. The Initial Study Questionnaire identifies areas where
the project may produce an impact of significance. The proposed
project was deemed to have impacts which necessitated the pre-
paration of the EIR document currently before the Planning
Commission.
The procedure for the EIR's preparation includes the distribution
Of a Notice Of Preparation (NOP) to agencies who have or may have
responsibility for providing a service to the project or may be
impacted by the project's implementation. The NOP requests, within
30 days, that responsible agencies provide the lead agency with
7
the
ental
ro
specific detail about the scope and content 's areaeoflstatutory
information related to the responsible agencyThe EIR is
responsibility which must be included
Study anin th d Dcomments�received in
then prepared using the Initial articular
response to the NOP to guide the analysis in areas of p
interest, although the EIR is not limited to these areas.
As soon as the "Draft" EIR is completed, a Notice ofand completion
Reseaand
Availability is filed with the Office of Plann r cess handled by
The DEIR is reviewed through the State review
ill d stribute the DEIR
the State Clearinghouse. The lead agency
to responsible agencies requesting a copy.
The Notice of Completion and Availability
nature begins local versusD Rregional
45 day review period depending on
significance of the document. VTTM No. 52267's review period began
July 10,
1997 and ended August 25, 1997.
the comments are
At the conclusion of the public comment phase,
responded to and included in the DEIR reviewed by the decision
attained when the
makers. Certificationgives the a document a"Final" R is
cknowledgement that it
legislative body easures to mitigate those
adequately identifies potential impacts, mthe
impacts, and also impacts which may occur as a result Mitigation
project but are unable to be pa t of the "Final" it"Additionally,
requires
Monitoring Program (MMP) ro rams for the purpose of
public agencies to set up monitoring mitigation measures adopted as
ensuring compliance with those to mitigate or avoid significant
conditions of approval in order
in the EIR. The MMP is adoptedat
environmental effects identified
time of the EIR's cert if ication. For substantial or potential-
the t mitigated to
ly substantial environmental effects which can no
a level of insignificant, a Statement of overriding Considerations
is prepared. CEQA requires the decision makers to balance the
proposed project's benefits against its unavoidabloe7 e ntviro if nthe
if
in determining whether to approve the p
proposed project's benhet adversee igh environmentalo effects may rbe
environmental effects, posed VTTM No. 52267 a Statement of
considered acceptable. For prof pared for air quality,
Overriding Consideration will be pre
construction noise and aesthetic resources.
the City's residents and
The public hearing is a forum in which
surrounding communities can discuss the environmental issues
related to the proposed project's development. At the conclusion
of the public hearing, the City will respond to these issues.
hired BonTerra Consulting for the preparation of this
The City has
A resentation of the DEIR will be provided to the
project's EIR. P
Planning Commission by Tom Smith of BonTerra Consulting.
8
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
Notice for this project was published in the Inland Valle Bulletin
and the San Gabriel Valle Tribune on January 21, 1998. public
hearing notices were mailed to approximately 929 property owners
within a 500 foot radius of the project site on January 20, 1998.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff' recommends that the Planning Commission open the public
hearing, receive comments on the project and its requested
entitlements and continue the public hearing.
Prepared by:
An, J. u , A ociate Planner
Attachments:
1. Draft EIR No. 97-2 (SCH No. 97031005), Volume I and II dated
July 1997 (previously transmitted to the Planning Commission);
2. Responses to Comments dated September 1997;
3• General Plan, Land Use Element, Page I-17 (b),
2. Planning Area
4. Exhibit:
VTTM No. 52267;
Landscape Mitigation;
Slope Analysis Map;
Slope Profile Map;
Cut and Fill Map;
5. Applications; and
6• Correspondence date January 21, 1998.
9
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
Chairman and Planning Commissioners
Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner �-
Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 24646
DATE: January 21, 1998
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. Pursuant to the
applicant's request for additional time, on October 14, 1997, the
Planning Commission continued this project to January 27, 1998.
Again, per the applicant's request, the Commission continued the
project to April 28, 1998.
Attached is a correspondence from the applicant requesting a
continuance to June 23, 1998. If granted, the continuance will
allot the applicant additional time to provide the data requested
by the Commission.
Staff agrees to the continuance. However, due to the time lapse
between continued public hearing, Staff will prepare the legal
notices aaain.
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 June 23, 1998.
Attachments:
1. Correspondence date March 25, 1998.
VOREN 1PH1661P5
& Rssnciatm Inc.
VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION AND US MAIL
(909) 861-3117
March 25, 1998
Ann J. Lungu
Associate Planner
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive
Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
RE: Diamond Bar Country Estates Association
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24646
SUBJ: Continuance of Hearing Scheduled for April 28, 1998
Dear Ms. Lungu,
Due to various pressing matters, the Board of Directors of the
Association has been kept very busy and has not been able to
prepare for the hearing before the Planning Commission scheduled
for April 28, 1998.
We hereby request a continuance of the hearing before the Planning
Commission until June 23, 1998, in order to allow the Board of
Directors to conclude their activities and to prepare for the
hearing before the Planning Commission.
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.
Please contact this office with your thoughts on this matter or if
you need any further information or help on this matter.
Thank you very much in advance for your anticipated cooperation.
Yours very truly,
el 7.* /,
Loren C. Phillips
s��'I; 86
cc: Jim Gardner, DBCEA 1��: u 9Z
dba1c.1tr/ja112/3.25.98 1
SUBDIVISIONS •LAND PLANNING • CIVIL ENGINEERING •,CO ND0MINjUM.8 LAND SURVEYING
1930 S. 6REA CANYON ROAD (Suite 130) • DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 • PHONE`(909) 396-9636 •FAX (909) 396-1656
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
REPORT DATE:
MEETING DATE:
CASE/FILE NUMBER:
APPLICATION REQUEST:
PROPERTY LOCATION:
City of Diamond Bar
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
7.2
April 2, 1998
April 28, 1998
Development Review 97-7
A request to combine and remodel
two vacant units in an existing
commercial center to create a new
2,700 square foot family restaurant
1126 So. Diamond Bar Blvd.
APPLICANT: Johnny Chan
123 S. Lincoln Ave.
Monterey Park, CA 91754
PROPERTY OWNER:
Nikko Capital Corporation
3961 MacArthur Blvd. #105
Newport Beach, CA 92660
BACKGROUND
The property owners, Nikko Capital Corporation and the applicant, Johnny
Chan, are requesting Development Review approval to combine two existing
vacant units (1,200 and 1,500) into a single 2,700 square foot suite for a
family restaurant. Additionally, the request includes interior remodeling.
The project site is located within the Diamond Bar Towne Center at 1126
Diamond Bar Boulevard (parcel .2, Parcel Map 10252). The center is
approximately 9.47 acres with approximately 105,500 square feet devoted to
structures. The uses within the center include Ralph's, Blockbuster Video,
Bank of America, Great Western Bank, two restaurants, offices and general
retail.
The General Plan designation for this site is General Commercial (C) and the
zoning is Unlimited Commercial -Billboard Exclusion (C -3 -BE). Generally the
following zones and use surround the project site: to the north are single
family residential homes with a zoning designation of Single Family
Residential (R-1-8,000) to the south and west are commercial uses located
in centers in the C -3 -BE zone and to the east is the Limited Multiple
Residence zone (R-3-8,000-30 DU).
The shopping center's installation was reviewed and approved by Los
Angeles County Regional Planning and was finaled in 1982.
ANALYSIS:
Pursuant to the Development Review Ordinance, Section 22.72.020, an
application for Development Review is required for any and all commercial,
industrial, and institutional development which involves the issuance of a
building permit for construction or reconstruction of a structure. Additionally,
projects involving a substantial change or intensification of land use, such as
the conversion of any existing building to a restaurant requires Development
Review.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The property owners, Nikko Capital Corporation and the applicant, Johnny
Chan, are requesting Development Review approval to combine two existing
vacant units (1,200 and 1,500) into a single 2,700 square foot suite for a
family restaurant. Additionally, the request includes interior remodeling. The
only external changes which will be made will be the changeout of
storefront from two to one unit, which will match the existing standard
storefronts. There is an existing trash enclosure at the rear of the site and
deliveries to the restaurant will be made at the rear of the building.
2
APPLICATION ANALYSIS
Parking
The primary issue associated with this site is the provision of adequate on-
site parking. The Planning and Zoning Code (Sec. 22.52.1110) requires one
parking space for each three persons based on the occupant load for
restaurant uses. Based upon the occupant load of 76 shown on the
submitted plans, 25 parking spaces would be required. A previous staff
analysis of the Center's parking estimated that the requirements for the
existing uses and vacant units was 431 spaces. There are 434 spaces at
the Center. With the additional 25 spaces required for the proposed use,
the amount of required parking would exceed the existing parking spaces.
The Planning and Zoning Code Section 22.56.990 establishes the parking
permit procedure to provide an alternative to the parking requirements of
Chapter 22.52 in the event that a specific use does not have the need for
the amount of parking that is required by the Code. These provisions may
be applied to "uses where parking requirements are based upon the floor
area of the structure, but bear no relationship to the number of employees,
customers, etc., on the premises or the trade conducted."
It is the intent of these provisions to conserve land and promote efficient
land use by allowing among other mechanisms the dual or shared use of
parking facilities by two or more uses.
However, a Parking Permit may allow flexibility in the parking requirements
if it can be demonstrated through analysis that because of differing hours of
operation, peak business hours, or the sharing of parking spaces for different
uses, the number of spaces are adequate for the current • uses and the
proposed restaurant.
In order
to demonstrate that the. amount of parking
in the
existing center is
adequate to accommodate
the proposed use, staff
required
the applicant to
submit
a parking study (atttached). The parking
study
must provide an
analysis
and evaluation of
the parking requirements
of the
Center based on
current
Code requirements
and the actual needs of
the existing
uses based
on their
hours of operation
and peak hours of business.
A parking analysis was submitted to the City (attached) and was reviewed
by one of the City's on-call. traffic consultants. In order to determine the
existing conditions, a parking survey of the shopping center was initially
conducted on a Friday and Saturday (March .6 and 7, 1998) and a separate
parking survey was also conducted at different times on another Friday and
Saturday (April 17 and 18, 1998). The peak parking demand for the
shopping center was monitored initially during the time periods of 11:00
a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. The second analysis was
3
conducted during the time periods of 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Friday and
noon to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday.
The results of the March parking survey for peak . conditions indicated a
maximum of 271 parking spaces occupied during a fifteen minute period.
The peak demand occurred at 12:30 to 12:45 p.m. on Friday. According to
the parking analysis, the results of the April parking survey for peak demand
for the existing land uses indicated a maximum of 242 parking spaces were
occupied during a 15 minute period. The peak parking demand occurred at
5:45 to 6:00 p.m. on Friday. According to the parking analysis and based
upon both the March and April surveys considerable additional parking
capacity is currently available on the site.
The applicant has submitted all the . required applications and paperwork and
the required notification requirements for a Parking Permit have been met.
However, in compliance with the Zoning Code a Parking Permit must be
approved by the Deputy City, Manager, and therefore a condition of approval
has been included requiring a parking permit to be obtained prior to
Certificate of Occupancy.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project is Categorically
Exempt pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA, Section 15301.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice for this project was published in the Inland Valley Bulletin and the
San Gabriel Valley Tribune on April 3, 1998. Public hearing notices were
mailed to approximately 550 property owners and occupants within a 500'
radius of the project site on April 3, 1998.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development
Review 97-7 subject to the Conditions of Approval contained within Planning
Commission Resolution 97 -XX.
REQUIRED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS:
1. The design and layout of the proposed project is consistent with the
applicable elements of the City's general plan, design guideline of the
appropriate district, and any adopted architectural criteria for the
specialized area, such as designated historic districts, theme area,
specific plans, community plans, boulevards, or planned developments.,
4
2. Approval of the design and layout of the proposed project is
compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood
and will maintain the harmonious, orderly attractive development
contemplated by Chapter 22.72 of Development Review Ordinance No.
5 (1990) and the City's General Plan;
3. The architectural
design of the proposed
project will
not unreasonably
interfere with the
use and enjoyment of
neighboring
existing or future
development and
will not create traffic or
pedestrian
hazards;
4. The design of the proposed project would provide a desirable
environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its
neighbors through good aesthetic use of material texture and color
that will . remain aesthetically appealing and will retain a reasonably
adequate level* of maintenance.
5. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
PREPARED BY:
Catherine Johnson, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Application
Plans
Draft Resolution of Approval for Development Review 97-7
Diamond Bar Towne Center Parking- Analysis (Revised (April 22, 1998)
WI
cia,X U1" JJJ.AMUN.0 JiA.K
COMMUN: DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
21660 E. Copiey Drive Suite 190
(909)396-5676 Fax (909)861-3117
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
Record Owner
Name Nikko Capital Corp.
(Last name first)
Address 3961 MacArthur Blvd.
Suite #105
City_ 112221�t Beach, _ C1
Zip_ 92660
Applicant
CHAN, Johnny
(Last name first)
Jade House Seafood &
BBQ Restaurant, Inc.
123 S. LinGolri Ave.
nterey Park, CA
91754
lease# T ?7-7
FPL tt % 'G V
Deposit $ 0 v v
Receipt.#
By .1
Date Rec'd1- 11
Applicant's Agent
CHANG, Richard
(Last name first)
2124 Huntington Drive
San Marino, CA
91608
4 626 - 626
PhoneG'l i 852-0651. Phone( ) 219,9_1312 Phone( ) 792-6500
NOTE;: It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Community Development Director in writing of any change of the
principals involved during the processing of this case.
(Attach a separate sheet, if necessary, including names, addresses, and signatures of members of partnerships, joint ventures, and d'ucetors
of corporations.)
Consent: I certify tha#+erkthe owner of the herein described property and permit the applicant to JVe this request.
/�G i r
Nobuo Okumura
Vice President
Date December 18, 1997
Certification: I, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjurythat the information herein provided is correct
to the best of my knowledge.
Print Name CHANG, Richard
(Applicant or Agent)
Signed Date December 18, 1997
(Applicant 6r A cnt)
Location 1126 So. Diamond Bar Boulevard
(Street address or tract and lot nurpber)
Zoning C-3—B—E
Previous Cases
Present Use of Site Vacant
HNM 111-345
Use applied for Chinese family restauVant to occupy two existing vacant suites
0124 & 1126) for a total of 2700 square feet and to be combined into one
single suite (1126).
Legal description (all ownersh _ .omprising the proposed lot(s)/parcel(s))
Please see attached Exhibit "A-1"
Area devoted to structures Landscaping/Open space
Project Size 2700 Pquare feet Lot Coverage Proposed density.
(Units/Acres)
Style of Architecture
Number of Floors Proposed Slope of Roof
Grading' If yes, Quantity
cut Fill s
:Import _ If yes, Quantity
Export _ If yes, Quantity -
EXHIBIT "A-1 "
Legal Description of the Shopping Center
PARCELS.2, 3 AND 4 OF PARCEL MAP 10252, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 127 PAGES 97 AND 98 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
EXCEPT THEREFROM ALL OIL, GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS AND MINERALS NOW OR AT ANY TIME
HEREINAFTER SITUATED THEREIN AND THEREUNDER, TOGETHER WITH THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO
DRILL FOR, PRODUCE, EXTRACT, TAKE AND. MINE THEREFROM, SUCH OIL, GAS AND OTHER
HYDROCARBONS AND MINERALS AND TO STORE THE SAME UPON THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND OR
BELOW THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND, TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT TO STORE UPON THE SURFACE OF
SAID LAND, OIL, GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS AND MINERALS WHICH MAY BE PRODUCED FROM
OTHER LANDS, WITH THE RIGHT OF ENTRY THEREON FOR SAID PURPOSES AND WITH THE RIGHTTO
CONSTRUCT, USE, MAINTAIN, ERECT, REPAIR, REPLACE AND REMOVE THEREON AND THEREFROM ALL
PIPE LINES, TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH LINES, TANKS, MACHINERY BUILDINGS AND OTHER
STRUCTURI.S, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY AND REQUISITE TO CARRY ON OPERATIONS OF SAID LAND,
WITH THE FURTHER RIGHT TO ERECT, MAINTAIN, OPERATE AND REMOVE A PLANT, WITH ALL
NECESSARY RIGHTS NECESSARY OR CONVENIENT THERETO, AS RESERVED IN DEED FROM
TRANSAMERICA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AS
MARCH 28,.1968 IN BOOK
D3955 PAGE 185, OFFICIAL RECORDS AND RE-RECORDED JUNE 19, 1969 IN BOOK D4407 PAGE
591, OFFICIAL RECORDS AND AS MODIFIED BY DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 20, 1977 AS INSTRUMENT•
NO. 77-1165771, IN SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS WHICH RELINQUISHED ALL RIGHTS TO THE USE OF
SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE TO A DEPTH OF 500 FEET FROM THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO. 98 -XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW 98-7 A REQUEST TO COMBINE AND REMODEL
TWO VACANT UNITS IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL
CENTER TO CREATE A 2,700 SQUARE FOOT FAMILY
RESTAURANT LOCATED IN THE DIAMOND BAR TOWNE
CENTER LOCATED AT 1126 DIAMOND BAR BLVD. IN
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
A. Recitals
1. The property owner Nikko Capital Corporation and the
applicant, Johnny Chan have filed an application for
Development Review 97-7 to combine and remodel two vacant
units in an existing commercial center to create a new
2,700 square foot family restaurant in the Diamond Bar
Towne Center located at 1126 Diamond Bar Blvd., Diamond
Bar, Los Angeles County, California, as described in the
title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject Development Review is 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 consistent with
the General Plan.
4. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, on
April 28, 1998 conducted a duly noticed public hearing on
the Application.
1
5. Notification of the public hearing for this project has
been made in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland
Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on April 3, 1998. 550
property owners and occupants within a 500 foot radius of
the project site were notified by mail on April 6, 1998.
B. Resolution
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows:
1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that
all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of
this Resolution are true and correct.
2. The Planning Commission hereby determines that the
project identified above in this Resolution is
Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended,
and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to
Section 15301, Article 19 of Chapter 3, Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations.
3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth herein,
this Planning Commission, hereby finds as follows:
(a) The project relates to 2,700 square feet of an
existing 9.47 acre shopping center.'
(b) The project site has a General Commercial (C)
General Plan Land Use designation and is within the
Unlimited Commercial -Billboard Exclusion (C -3 -BE)
zoning district.
(c) Generally, the following zones and uses surround
the subject site: to the north are single family
residential homes with a zoning designation of.
Single Family Residential (R-1-8,000), to the south
and west are commercial uses located in centers in
the C -3 -BE zone and to the east is the Limited
Multiple Residence zone (R-3 8,000 DU).
(d) The project involves the installation of a 2,700
square foot family restaurant,
(e) The proposed project. is in compliance with the
General Plan.
2
The proposed project is located within the General
Commercial (C) land use designation, which provides
for a range of freeway -oriented and/or community
retail and service commercial uses. The proposed
project is therefore in compliance with the General
Plan.
(f) The design and layout of the proposed development
is consistent with the applicable elements of the
City's General Plan, design guidelines of the
appropriate district, and any adopted architectural
criteria for specialized areas, such as designated
historic districts, theme areas, specific plans,
community plans, boulevards, or planned develop-
ments.
The proposed project does not alter the shopping
center's existing architectural style or expand the
building's footprint. The design and layout of the
proposed restaurant is consistent with General Plan
in that it is a revenue generating use that will
aid in minimizing sales tax leakage out of Diamond
Bar.
(g) Approval of the design and layout of the proposed
project is compatible with the characteristics of
the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the
harmonious, orderly, attractive development
contemplated by Chapter 22.72 of Development Review
Ordinance No. 5 (1990) and the City's General Plan.
The proposed project is consistent with the land
uses contemplated within the General Commercial (C)
land use designation and is permitted by right
within the C-3 zone. The design and layout of the
project is consistent with and will not alter the
existing center.
(h) The architectural design of the proposed project
will not unreasonably interfere with the use and
enjoyment of neighboring existing or future
development, and will not create traffic or
pedestrian hazards.
The proposed restaurant is within the Unlimited
Commercial -Billboard Exclusion (C -3 -BE) zone which
permits restaurants by right. This is an
established retail shopping center which can
3.
accommodate the proposed restaurant without
expanding its originally approved square footage.
The parking lot area provides 434 parking stalls.
The parking analysis that was conducted for this
center found that with the addition of the proposed
restaurant a maximum of 277 parking stalls will be
occupied at any one time during peak hours of
operation, therefore the parking stalls provided
are adequate. Furthermore, the Public Works
Department reviewed this project and determined
that there are no traffic or pedestrian hazards.
(i) The design of the proposed project will provide a'
desirable environment for - its occupants and
visiting public as well as its neighbors through
good aesthetic use of materials, textures and
colors that will remain aesthetically appealing and.
will retain a reasonably adequate level of
maintenance.
The shopping center was originally processed and
approved through the Los Angeles County Regional
Planning Department and was final in 1982. The
proposed restaurant does not alter the shopping
center's design.
(j) The design of the proposed project will provide a
desirable environment for its occupants and
visiting public as well as its neighbors through
the use of materials, textures, and colors that
will remain aesthetically appealing and will retain
a reasonably adequate level of maintenance.
The originally approved design of the shopping
center will not be altered by the .proposed
restaurant. The only architectural change will be
the changeout of the storefront elevation to
convert it to one unit, which will match the
existing storefronts.
(k) The proposed development will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety or welfare or materially
injurious to the properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
Before the issuance of any. City permit, the
proposed project is required to comply with all
conditions within the approved resolution and the
4
Building and Safety Division, Public Works
Department, Health Department Fire Department and
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) requirements. The referenced agencies'
involvement will ensure that the proposed
restaurant is not detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to the
properties or improvements in the vicinity.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above,
the Planning Commission hereby approves this Application
subject to the following conditions:
(a) The project shall substantially conform to the site
plan and elevations collectively labeled as Exhibit
"A" dated April 28, 1998 as submitted to and
approved by the Planning Commission.
(b) The subject site shall be maintained in a condition
which is free of debris both during and after the
construction, addition, or implementation of the
entitlement granted herein. The removal of all
trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or
subsequent to construction shall be done only by
the property owner, applicant or by a duly
permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized
by the City to provide collection, transportation,
and disposal of solid waste from residential,
commercial, construction, and industrial areas
within the City. It shall be the applicant's
obligation to insure that the waste contractor
utilized has obtained permits from the City of
Diamond Bar to provide such services.
(c) The applicant shall comply with all NPDES
requirements and shall obtain the necessary
permits.
(d) The restaurant shall comply with American with
Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements as approved by
the Building Official.
(e) Allsign requests shall be submitted to the City
for review and approval.
(f) The project shall obtain the Los Angeles County
Health Department's's approval.
5
(g) The project shall obtain the Los Angeles County
Fire Department's approval.
(h) The project shall meet all A-3 occupancy
requirements.
(i) The restaurant shall meet the 1994 U.B.C., U.P.C.,
U.M.C., and the 1993 National Electric Code
requirements.
(j) The applicant shall obtain approval of a Parking
Permit prior to Certificate of Occupancy.
(k) Prior to building permit issuance plans must be
submitted showing the location of all handicapped
parking stalls in the impacted area. The impacted
area shall include one van accessible handicapped
parking space. The site plan shall indicate the
slope of the parking lot to determine if existing
parking lots allows for new handicap parking.
(1) All employees of the restaurant shall utilize
parking located to the rear of the building.
(m) The Applicant shall comply with Planning and
Zoning, Building and Safety, and Public Works
Divisions', and Fire Department requirements.
(n) This grant is valid for two (2) years and shall be
exercised (i.e. construction) within that period or
this grant shall expire. A one (1) year extension
may be requested in writing and submitted to the
City 30 days prior to this grant's expiration date.
(o) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose
until the permittee and owner of the property
involved (if other than the permittee) have filed,
within fifteen (15) days of approval of this grant,
at the City of Diamond Bar Community and Develop-
ment Services Department, their affidavit stating
that they are aware of and agree to accept all the
conditions of this grant. Further, this grant
shall not be effective until the permittee pays
remaining City processing fees.
(p) If the Department of Fish and Game determines that
Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 applies to the
approval of this project, then the applicant shall
remit to the City, within five days of this grant's
approval, a cashier's check of $25.00 for a
documentary handling fee in connection with Fish
9
and Game Code requirements. Furthermore, if this
project is not exempt from a filing fee imposed
because the project has more than a de minimis
impact on fish and wildlife, the applicant shall
also pay to the Department of Fish and Game any
such fees and any fines which the Department
determines to be owed.
The Planning Commission shall:
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
(b) Forthwith transmit certified copies of this
Resolution, by certified mail to Nikko Capital
Corporation, 3961 MacArthur Blvd. #105, Newport
Beach, CA 92660 and Johnny Chan, 123 S. Lincoln
Ave., Monterey Park, CA 91754.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL 1998 BY
THE Planning Commission OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
By:
Joe McManus, Chairman
I, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed,
and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 28TH day of April 1998, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
James DeStefano, Secretary
7
MONUMENT SIGN"
r a 11
e n . . . .....
ti
m
im
ho
�l
NO
I
IV is
s
\\
d vz edv 85.
v8 Ox;O�t
C aA;:�_
City of Diamond Bar
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
8.1
REPORT DATE:
April 20, 1998
MEETING DATE:
April 28, 1998
CASE/FILE NUMBER:
Conditional Use Permit No. 98-2,
Development Review No. 98-2
APPLICATION REQUEST:
A request for the construction of
38,000 square foot L.A. Fitness
health club/gymnasium on a 4.6
acre vacant site.
PROPERTY LOCATION:
North side of Golden Springs
Drive, south of the 60 Freeway
between Lemon Avenue and Brea
Canyon Road.
APPLICANT:
L.A. Fitness, 100 Bayview #4000
Newport Beach, CA 92660
PROPERTY OWNERS: The Warren Companies
3218 E. Holt Avenue #200
West Covina, CA 92660
Lawrence R. Michaels
20709 Golden Springs Dr. #208
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
1
SUMMARY:
The project is a 38,000 square foot health club/gym located on a 4.6
acre portion of a 5.4 acre site. The building is proposed as one
story with a mezzanine and will have a maximum height of 48'.
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation
of General Commercial (C) and is a conditionally permitted use within
the C-3 zone. The project complies with the development standards
of the current Code, in terms of height, parking, setbacks and
landscaping. The project is well designed, aesthetically pleasing and
will provide a convenient service for the surrounding community and
region. Staff therefore recommends approval of the proposed project
as conditioned.
BACKGROUND/HISTORY:
The applicant, L.A. Fitness and the applicant's agent Terrell Nemnich,
are requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit #98-2 and
Development Review #98-2.
The project is located within the General Commercial (C) Land Use
Designation (maximum floor area ratio of 0.25 to 1.25) and is within
the Unlimited Commercial -Billboard Exclusion (C -3 -BE) zoning district.
The project proposes a floor area ratio of .19 and is cgnsistent with
the General Commercial land use designation which provides for a
range of freeway -oriented and/or community retail and service
commercial uses. Further, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Code
Section 22.28.210 the proposed use is conditionally permitted within
the C-3 zone.
The surrounding zones and land uses include: the 60 Fwy to the
north, offices within the C-3 zone and a nursery/greenhouse within
the Light Agriculture (A-1 15,000) zone to the west; residential
development within the R-1 a 1Cstrip
ommercial Planned Development0,o0o zone to the south and s (CPD)
commercial center within th
zone to the east.
APPLICATION ANALYSIS:
Subject Site
The subject site is relatively flat, with the rear portion sloping
downwards towards the freeway to the north. The site contains
2
scrub and grasses and there are no oak or other significant trees
Ionated on the site.
According to the Los Angeles County Assessors map book, the
subject property consists of three legal lots: APN 8763-007-005 is
35,549 square feet and is located at the northwesterly end of the
site; APN 8763-007-006 is located on the westerly side of the site
and is comprised of 2.5 acres; APN 8763-007-007 is located on the
easterly side of the site and is 2.15 acres. The total acreage for
the project site is 5.4 acres. The applicant is proposing to utilize
4.6 acres of this area for the proposed
Project, leaving approximately
35,000 square feet
proposed as a separate lot through a future lot
line adjustment. Further, 3.9 acres of the site will be developed
under the current proposal with the remaining area to be utilized
future parking lot expansion if required. A condition of approval
included requiring the undeveloped area be landscaped and maintained
until it is developed.
Lot line adjustments will be required prior to final occupancy to insure
that the project site becomes one legal lot and that the portion of
the site to be developed separately is a legal lot. Additionally, a
condition of approval has been included requiring that a mutual
access agreement be recorded between the separate lot and the
adjacent property at the time of development to minimize additional
access to Golden Springs Drive.
An approximately 100' Caltrans right-of-way easement is located
directly adjacent to the project's westerly boundary. This right-of-way
was designated as a future freeway ramp, although according to
Caltrans there are no current plans for future ramp at this location.
However, Caltrans is not ready to decertify this parcel because of
other projects in the Route 60/57 interchange area.
Project plans were transmitted to Caltrans for review and comment.
According to Jim Fowler, Associate Permit Engineer for Caltrans, the
project will not have any permanent impact on the Caltrans right-of-
way. Their comments regarding temporary fencing of the right-of-way
and setbacks have been included as conditions of approval.
Traffic Impacts, Access and Improvements
The project site is located on the north side of Golden Springs Drive,
between Brea Canyon Road and Lemon Avenue. The property is loilg
and rectangular with a frontage of approximately 880' along Golden
3
Springs Drive. Golden Springs Drive, s of Brea
eas Ca nyonmajRoad is
designated by the General Plan CirculationThe
with a right-of-way width and dedication standard of 100'.
applicant will be required to construct new curb, ttencludingtr and 'ewhealot
along the full length of the project s'ite's frontage
proposed to be created. Additionally, there is a landscape median
rive in front of the
proposed to be constructed on Golden hSprings en included requiring the
project site. A condition of approval
applicant's payment of a fair share contribution to the construction of
the median.
The proposed site plans shows two drive ai fet°n either end of warrant studies for
°n
project site. However, the City has ped
the intersection of Golden Springs and ad iew rives and this iBtersect on. h In
determined that a traffic signal is needed s
order to minimize traffic conflicts resulningDiv'sionsthe
are development
that
this project, the Planning and Engineering
that a drive aisle be created which l g e requiring R thatw Drive. revised plans A
condition of approval has been include q applicant pay a fair
submitted reflecting this change and that the app
share contribution to the traffic signal at this intersection.
on
In order to evaluate the impact of trafficproposeproject on i pacta analysis ,was raequired.
the surrounding street system, a objective of the was
to be prepared and submitted to the City. The ob j
the documentation of existing traffic conditions affic conditions and
of the
site; calculation of the opening year
without the project; the calculation of buildout (2008) traffic
conditions and a determination of needed° ton-site
achieve Cityrolevetenof
ts
and system management actions
service requirements. The development is pr levee lected o pe
r ra e
approximately 1,520 trip -ends Per Y
withduring the AM peak hour (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and 164 vehicles per
hour during the PM ; peak hour (4:00 to 6:00 PM).
City staff, has reviewed these reports, which were
b mined that the
ased on the
applicant's proposal for two drive aisles, and as
dettraffic impacts associated with this 'cprojectcan best be iemitigate ,
through the a driveway entrance w aligns
and the installation of a traffic signal provided this intersection.
the applicant's
mitigation of traffic impacts will be p
fair share contribution to intersection
improvements o the
i requirement
mp
intersections identified in the traffic impact royal.
will be reflected in the conditions of app
2
Development Standards
Both the current Planning and Zoning Code and the proposed
Development Code and
draft Citywide Design Guidelines were
considered in the review of this project. While the applicant is
legally required to comply with the standards contained within the
current Code, staff encouraged compliance with the proposed
Development Code and Citywide Design Guidelines where feasible.
The chart below compares the existing Planning and Zoning Code, the
proposed Development Code and the project's development standards.
DEVELOPMENT
CURRENT
1 space for each
226 spaces
STANDARD
CODE -C-3 ZONE
PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
occupancy: 3/666
area: 38,000/150=
STANDARDS
Minimum lot sizeCODE-C-3
No requirements in
ZONE
C-3
Setbacks:
commercial zones
zone - 10,000
square feet
4.6 acres
Front:
Side:
Front: - 0'
Side: - 0'
Front: 10 minimum
Front: 55', 51
Rear
ear; - 0'
landscaped setback
Side: 0'
minimum 5,
Parking:
Parking: 5'
Rear: 0'
landscape setback
to prevent traffic
Parking: 7'
Side: (west) 95'
congestion
clearance
Side: (east) >500'.
Landscaping
10%
Rear: 15'
15%
Parking: 10'
Height'
13 times buildable
35'
11'
area
may approve V
48'
Parking
Requirements
One for each 3
1 space for each
226 spaces
persons based on
150' of gross floor
occupancy: 3/666
area: 38,000/150=
= 222
253
Parking Design
8.5' x 18'
9'
40% compact
x 19'
compact prohibited
9' x 19'
no compact
Loading:
Sufficient
15' x 25'
to prevent traffic
14' vertical
18' x 20'
congestion
clearance
Landscaping
10%
15%
15%
Walls
6' max.
6' max, director
11'
may approve V
max. as
modified by CUP
additional
5
The proposed
project meets or
exceeds
the current development
exceet
standards and
or
in many instances a eePlease
Cod
note hath thequirements occupancy
of the proposed
Development
the ste
plans,the butcorrestactlynoted
was incorrectly
noted as 650 on
Also
note t hat
parking has
as 666 on the
floor plans.
9' x
19' that
has been provided on the
been corrected
to reflect the
site plans.
Site Planning and Architectural Desi n
will be setback 55' from the front property line on
The building
Golden Springs Drive. Parking is proposed along the front and on
h the site will not appear to be
either side of the building, although
parking because of landscaped setbacks ranging in.
dominated by p g
depth from five feet to 651 in fur ant Code regnt of the luiregmentsal a 42"ah'gh
Additionally, in compliance with c will
plaster covered block wall painted to match the
nebuilding,
wall be
and
installed five feet from the front property
combination with the landscaping will enhance the st
of stamped, d
screen the cars from view. The provision decorative
concrete at each of the drive -aisle entrances will further enhance the
site.
with the draft Citywide
The project was reviewed for consistency laments many of these
Design Guidelines and as proposed, imp
guidelines as described below. The first guideline within the category
of commercial site planning states:
e sited to be cohara toble while surrounding
Buildings should bsuggesting
development and reflect community
uniqueness and quality.
The following guidelines under the commercial architecture category
are evident in the design of this project:
The architectural treatment of the building should extend to all
visible sides;
Monotony of building design should beavoided;
on the other wall placement, ano,
busyness also should be avoided. Variation
be used to prevent a
line, detailing materials, and sitting
monotonous appearance in buildings...; .
6
• Windows, doors, wall vents, stairways and other architectural
features should be highlighted and treated in a decorative manner
to break up flat surfaces. that create monotony. Building cut-outs,
overhangs and building staggering is encouraged.
The architectural style of the building is contemporary. The building
is one story with a mezzanine. The overall height of the main
Portion of the building is 36' and the enhanced entrance rises to 48.'
The exterior walls will be constructed of concrete block which will be
plastered and painted in contrasting colors. Dunn Edwards "Tumble
Weed" (deep tan) will be applied to the lower walls and Dunn
Edwards "Visby" (light tan) on the upper walls.
A portion of the building's frontage projects two feet from the main
building, creating articulation and depth. This
portion
will be painted with Dunn Edwards "Medieval Mauve" of the building
(s hich
will also be applied to the building's cornice. The bank) of six
windows in the front feature multi -paned tinted glass, with "Buff" and
window trim a cantilevered awning painted Dunn Edwards "Midnight"
(dark blue).
Circular light features painted Dunn Edwards "Ashes of Hope-
(gray/tan) will be placed at regular intervals around the building.
Vertical reveals will break-up the building's mass. Plaster shaped
Plant -ons with the accents are proposed on the building's exterior.
The front entrance provides the structure's architectural focal point.
Rising to a height of 48' the entrance
and a decorative roof feature extends,eCout 4' from
additional building
2 .
Contrasting colors, tinted glass and tile accents are utilized to create
variety and interest in the building's facade.
The back of the building is approximately 15' from the rear property
line and 50 feet from the freeway and will be visible from the
freeway. As depicted in the north elevation, the architectural theme
is continued to the building's rear which features a raised center
section replicating the front entrance and accented with glass block
and contrasting colors. The architectural theme is also applied
through the decorative lighting fixtures, reveals,
tile contrasting cornice. The building's rear elevation swill ntbe and frthee
enhanced and softened by trees planted along the property line,
required as a condition of approval.
7
r
Health Club Services
`
The health club will consist of a reception,
85
sies n lounge
pecesof ca cardiovascular
P
juice bar, a main floor area containing
strength equipment, free
weights,and
exercise equipment, racquetball courts,
25 lap pool,
volleyball court, a yard
kid's club, juice bar, men's
and woman's lockers,
a
aerobics room,
offices', and
equipment
in
steam and sauna rooms,
An elevated ca o
s shown
chiropractic services.
dashed line onlasses fl
plans.00r Accordingto the
detail and as a
applicant, approximately . 60 c per
w II be offered,
and aerobic boxing.
providing instruction in aerobics, spinning, yoga
proposed to be a maximum of
60-70 employees on two
There are
shifts, with a maximum of 20 full-time be
employees
5 00 a.m. to 11:00 phm I
The hours of operation are proposed to
expand to 24 hours if there is a demand.
with the potential to
Landsca in
ans have been submitted with this project. A
Conceptual landscape pl
included requiring .final landscape and
condition of approval has been
irrigation plans.
The current Code requires a minimum landscape a 1s0etback adjacent to the
landscaped and a mte to be
inimum of 5 lanwall and a minimum of 2% of
streets with a 30 to 42" masonry
gross area of /the parking lot to be landscaped where 20 or more
the g landscaping on 15% of the
spaces exist. The applicant is proposing
site.
Additionally, the proposed Development Cede, requires condition ore to e
provided for every 8 parking spaces, the
has been included requiring trees to be installed in every landscape
finger shown on the site plans.
Additionally, the proposed Development Code states requires unnecessary bunused
the
areas to be landscaped ofnvacan determinedless areas is imprtant for aesthetics
Director. The landscaping
and for erosion and , dust control.
roval has been included requiring additional
A condition of aPP os'.te the building entrance
landscaping in the front setback area opp
8
and requiring appropriate landscaping and erosion control for the
unused portion of the site.
Retaining Walls
According to the applicant the use of retaining walls has been
minimized as much as possible on this site. A retaining wall is
proposed to extend approximately 335' along the rear property line,
generally behind the building. The top of the wall will be level with
building's finish floor elevation and therefore won't screen any portion
the building's rear elevation. The retaining wall will range in height
from 3' to 11'. The retaining walls will be constructed of cast -in-
place concrete.
The Planning and Zoning Code, Section 22.48.150, permits retaining
walls, not to exceed six feet in height, in all yards. Typically, for
walls exceeding this height, a yard modification would be required to
be processed, subject to the applicant demonstrating an unnecessary
hardship created by topographic features, subdivision plans or other
conditions that make it unreasonable or impractical to require
compliance with the Code's regulations.
However, a Conditional Use Permit is being processed for this project.
Code Section 22.56.110, states that unless specifically modified by a
conditional use permit, all regulations prescribed in the zone is which
such conditional use permit is granted shall apply. The modification
of the limitation of a maximum six foot wall is proposed
increase in height necessary to for the safe co struct on allow of the
project.
Redevelopment Project Area
The proposed project is located within the boundaries of the City's
Economic Revitalization area adopted as part of Redevelopment Plan
on ,July 15, 1997. Numerous goals were set forth _ for this plan
including: the implementation of the General Plan; the provision of
opportunities for retail and other commercial and office uses; the
promotion of local job opportunities within the community; the
promotion of economic development through the provision of an
attractive and well serviced environment for residents and visitors, and
the implementation of design and use standards which assure high
aesthetic and environmental quality.
0
The proposed project will provide a convenient service for local
residents as well as expand recreational opportunities. The building is
of a superior architectural design and the site will be extensively
landscaped enhancing and upgrading this vacant, underutilized portion
of Golden Springs Drive. Further, the project will provide an
estimated 70 jobs for local residents. Therefore, the proposed project
is consistent with and . implements numerous goals of the City's
Redevelopment Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
The application was advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and
San Gabriel Valley Tribune on April 7, 1998. One hundred and
ninety one (191) property owners within a 500 foot radius were
mailed notices of the public hearing on April 6, 1998.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) #98-2 and Development Review (DR) #98-2 subject
to the Conditions of Approval contained within Planning Commission
Resolution 98 -XX.
REQUIRED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS:
1. The proposed project is in compliance with the General Plan;
2. The requested use at the location proposed will not:
(a) Adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of
persons residing or working in the surrounding area or,
(b) Be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or
valuation of property of other persons located in the
vicinity of the of site, or
10
of the California Environmental Quality
Act
Pursuant
to the terms
he eparation of the Initial
concludiI. ng tno
(CEQA),
hereby
the City, after
determines that
there is substantial evidence thatStudy,
he
and
project
may have a
significant effect on the environment
98-1) has been prepared for
this
therefore a Negative Declaration
(ND
project.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
The application was advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and
San Gabriel Valley Tribune on April 7, 1998. One hundred and
ninety one (191) property owners within a 500 foot radius were
mailed notices of the public hearing on April 6, 1998.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) #98-2 and Development Review (DR) #98-2 subject
to the Conditions of Approval contained within Planning Commission
Resolution 98 -XX.
REQUIRED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS:
1. The proposed project is in compliance with the General Plan;
2. The requested use at the location proposed will not:
(a) Adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of
persons residing or working in the surrounding area or,
(b) Be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or
valuation of property of other persons located in the
vicinity of the of site, or
10
(c) Jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to
the public health, safety or general welfare; and
3. The proposed site is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate 1 the yards, walls, fences,
facilities, landscaping and other developments era uresng ,ldorl as is
ins
otherwise required in order to integrate said use in the
surrounding area;
4. The proposed site is adequately served:
(a) By highways or streets of sufficient width and improved
as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic
such use would generate; and
(b) By other public or private service facilities as are required.
REQUIRED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS:
1. The design and layout of the
proposed project is consistent
with the applicable elements of theCity'sgeneral plan, design
guideline of the appropriate district, and any adopted
architectural criteria for the specialized area, such as designated
historic districts, theme area, specific plans, community plans,
boulevards, or planned developments;
2. Approval of the design and layout of the proposed
compatible with the characteristics of
project is
the
neighborhood and will maintain the harmonious,
development
surrounding
orderly
contemplated by Chapter 22.72
Review Ordinance
attractive
of Development
No. 5 (1990) and the City's
General Plan;
3. The architectural design of the proposed
unreasonably interfere
project will not
with the use and enjoyment of
neighboring existing or future development
and
traffic or pedestrian hazards;
will not create
4. The design of the proposed project would provide a desirable
environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its
neighbors through good aesthetic use of material texture and
color that will remain aesthetically appealing and will retain a
reasonably adequate level of maintenance.
11
5, The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to the properties
or improvements in the vicinity.
PREPARED BY:
J
Catherine Johnson, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Application
Plans
Initial Study Questionairre
Draft Resolution of Approval for Conditional Use Permit 98-2, and
Development Review 98-2
L.A. Fitness Traffic Impact Analysis, RKJK and Associates, March 12,
1998
12
(..lJll-lira tJi1111J :1LLV11VkL111
21660 E. Cople) Drive Suite 190
(909)396-5676 Fax (909)861-3117
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
lit Recon eAW puvGs
Namc)�-
(Last name first)
first)
Address —3:z
Ci ty W b CaVItjR r..
zip 91'79
Phone( ) '44-A Q) 3312251
Applicant
t PC
P(Last name first)
ER TOA0 VCW SP164::e'r4
il�-
Deposits
Receipt#
By
Date Recd
Applicant's Agent
IVEMN T
(Last name first)
C✓1 !
012Q4ID AMIE
-0lcA- 06L ,G1q�,,-
q�S
Phone( ) of i Ll , Z if z-
Phone(
NOTE: It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Community eve opIDent Directo�',"ritln.
I
Principals involved during the processing of this case. • of any change of the
(Attach a scpar_tc sheet, if neces ary, including names, addresses, and signatures of members ofpartnerships, joint ventures, and directors
of corporations.)
�7� �Ta2�'j-�2,�Ila�
Consent: I certify that I am the oKner of the herein described property and permit the applicant to file this request.
Signed
(All record owners)
Date
Certification: I, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the inforrnction herein provided is correct
to the best of my knowledge.
Print Name
(Applicant or Agent)
Signed_
(Applicant or Agent)
Location _ 208^79
Street address or tract and lot number)
Zoning Cr -
Previous Cases
Present Use of Site
Use applied for
I-NTI'f
lots)1parcel(s)) --
ipris'�ng the proposed;.. _
_,,gal descriptioa (all ownership
LAV
. �o _ 23.Srx7 SF
-andscapinglOpea space
to structures Proposed density
Area devoted (Units/Acres)
L°t Coverag
Project Size 4
Style of A�hitecture ZZP��NE Slope of Roof
ILN
ProposeE S
Number of Floors If yes, QuaatitY
�
, � j48�J
Grading Fill
Gid e, Dzi Do GJ
Cut t) If yes, entity
Import If yes, Quintity
Export
D
21660 E. co, , 1Jnve Jutta iyu
(909)3516-5676 Fax (909)861-3117
CGND:[TIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
Record Owner
wAP&%9-1 CoMAN#u-5-
Name %J%_�tj�
(Last name first)
Address��2
City kA'rCOl/! k -q-
4 '3 119
Phone( )_ �j?j' 2251
Applicant
l,A Fi7rEsS
(Last name fust)
loo P"I
Phone( ) �li�{ 512563
Receipt{/`�—
By c �-
Date
Applicant's Agent
(Last name fust)
SII oRc+�10 NF -
C'�4cv. OPL. 1AAJA-
12o2
Phone( ) ti �t0 i�alo3
NOTE: It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Community Develo me
principals involved during the processing of this case. P n[ Director in writing of any change of the
(Attach separate sheet, if necessary, including names, addresses, and signatures o
irecto.of corpor--tions.) f member of partnerships, 'oint venturV(d J es, and
Consent: 7 certify that I am the owner of the herein described property and permit the applicant to file this request.
Sie ed
(All record owners)
Date
Certf cai ott: I, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty ofperjury that the information herein provided it correct to
the best of my knoWedge.
Print Name _ ���1�(Applicant or or Agent)
Signed C Date-9e)t (Applicant or Agent)
Location __-2-0215 4QQMP,,-✓
(Street address or tract and lot number)
G,3
Previous
HNu
Present Use of Site
Use applied for
1 LIPN) 2
Project Size (gross acres)_ (/ Project density —
Domestic Water Source. k}AMyA Company/District
�1�,► cjL Sanitation District
Method of Sewage disposal
Yes No_--
Grading of Lots by Applicant?
{/
design on site plan or tent map) <
(Show necessary S m S t
COP, fIONAL USE PERINUl 8()IW ,N L)Y Ih ,r
In addition to the information required in theapplication, the applicant shall substantiate to the satisfaction of the
Planning Commission, the following facts:
A. That the requested use at the location ProPosed will not:
1• Adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing or working in
the surrounding area, or
2. Be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons
located in the vicinity of the site, or
3. Jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute
general welfare. a menace to the public health, safety or
(.
-TAPH94TA "Ua FKa u?Y K rte„ . -%---% .. _ .
B.
2.
3.
Jhat the proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
Parking and loading facilities, landscaping and other development features yam, walls, fences,
22, or as is otherwise required in order to integrate said use with the uses in
in this Title
n the surrounding area.
C. That the proposed site is adequately served:
1. By highways or streets of sufficient width and improved as necessary toy, the kind
and quantity of traffic such use would generate, and
2. By other public or private service facilities as are required
• W ��'
2. To �tr
LEGAL DESCRJTgION (all ow.
•hip Comprising the proposed lotwiparcel(s)
tj00 -% andscapingl�u space ISuo S .i�AG�
Area devoted to structures 3— 2 35
r� and
Residential Project: (No. of lots)
. (gross arra)
Proposed density (Units/Acres)
Required. Provided
Parking Z Q
Standard Z
ti� IJb
-Handicapped
C7-
Total
INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAME
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
Project Applicant (Owner):
Action requested and project description:
Project Representative:
� EMNlc+�
5l1 op
CAV ADDRESS
(DL100Io�
raonE r
2. Street location of project:_ 6OuMA-
3a. Present use of site:s
�&sr UlU DEU Q,op�
3b. Previous use of site or structures:_ W)N5
4. Please list all previous cases
(if any) related to this project:
5. Other related permit/approvals required. j
Specify type and granting agency._
6. Are you planning future phases of this project? Y O
If yes, ezp
7. Project Area:
Covered by structures, paving: Z?j —"50-5 F
SP
Total Area:----�c��
8. Number of floors:%F (kJF.p >ES
9. Present zoning: G^�%
Water - Sewers
10. Water and sewer service• Domestic---
N� Public
Cv-r To SATE OY 0
Y N
Does service exist at site?
If yes, do purveyors have
capacity to meet demand of Y N
project and all other approved Y N
projects?
services e provided?
If domestic water or public'-
ers� pn `vailab howWill �k%l —
Resid 0 ts:
Number and type of units:
Schools:
What
school districts) serves the propeerty?
Q scbool f:ilities adequate to meet project needs?
Are ezist� NO
If not, what provisions will be made for additional classrooms?
Iron -Residential projects:
t residential use or sensitive use (school, hospital, etc.) l
Distance to neares 4jU
13. � •
14. Number and floor area of buildings:fI �5
dumber of employees and shifts:
15.
15. m,
maximuemployees per shift:_
PM
17. pperattng hours:
End products
18. Identify any. �
Waste proaucts IVIIP(L/
(10 AM u
Means of disposal chemicals, Pal
Dcents,
19 o project operations use,
store or produce hazardous substances such as oil, pesticides,
or radioactive Vdaffos
NO
YES
If yes, eXPlam
• 20. Do your operations requi Any pressurized tanks'l
YES NO
If yes, explain
21. . Identify any flammable, reactive or explosive materials to be located on-site.
22. Will delivery or shipment trucks travel through residential areas to reach the nearest highway?
YES
If yes, explain �/
. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
1, Environmental Setting—Project Site
R- Existing use/structures01
-
SR6
FA
b.
*c.
*e. Watercourses
• ��
f. • •
g. Other
PTAI1V%
(oWr5S
Environmental Setting — Surrounding Area
a. Existing uses structures (types, densities): 11 SINlGtEI�� �`
T�s�•
b. Topography/slopespet3jiDcl�
*c. Vegetation i 1I�►� `��E ��� '�u'
*d. Animals Il�
*e. Watercourses
f, Cultural/historical resources
g. Other
3, Are there any major trees on the site, including oak trees?
YES NO
If yes, type and number:
J NO
If yes, explain: J1�(iDAN��� �O 1' %Zj
EEL of C-- f .5, OeTak-
�JUS
* An_swers-are not required if the area does not contain natural, undeveloped land.
5. Grading:
Will the project require grading YES NO
aow -4
If yes, how many cubic yards? [,y �{(,(,� b oCO CEJ i
CERTIFICATION: I herei -,rtify that the statements furnished above an the attached exhibits present
the data and information required for this initial evaluatL„a to the best of my ability, and
that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.
_11111'
Date Signature
For. 1 1�'`+✓J�
r-NVIRONNIENTAL CHECKLIST FORTNI
I. Background
1. Name of Applicant:
2. Address rr Phone Number of rror-i
100. I
aI
Oaju�r giy�w (A 92,G(;,o
3. Name, Address and Phone of Project C� tact:
�DO VOM 5
4. Date of Environmental Information Submittal:
1. 11. 9b
5. Date of Environmental Checklist Submittal:
_ 4• t1. 98
6. Lead Agency (Agency Required Checklist):
�J
7. Name of Proposal if applicable (Tract No. if Subdiv �pon)``:
S. Related Applications (under the authority of this environmental determination):
M..M. Ja r
YES NO
Variance:
�-- Conditional Use Permit: _
Zone Change:
General Plan Amendment:
�- Development Review
(Attach Completed Environmental Information Form)
II. Environmentallmpacts:
(Explanations and additional information to supplement all 'yes' and 'possibly' answers are required to be
submitted on attached sheets)
YES NO POSSIBLY
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil?
C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features?
d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or
physical feature?
e.
Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the
site?
f.
Changes in deposition, erosion of stream bank's or land adjacent to
standing water, changes in siltation, deposition or other processes
which may modify the channel of constant or intermittently flowing
water as well as the areas surrounding permanent or intermittent
standing water?
g.
Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as
earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar
hazards?
2.
Air. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality?
b.
The creation of objectionable odors?
C.
Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any
changes in climate, either locally or regionally?
3.
Water. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Changes in currents or the course or direction of water movements?
b.
changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface run-off?
C.
Alterations of the course or flow of flood waters?
. /
d.
Changes in the amount of surface water in any body of water? .
Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water
quality including but not limited to dissolved oxygen and turbidity?
f.
Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters?
g.
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by
cuts or excavations?
C
YES NO POSSIBLY
•
h.
Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as
flooding?
-4.
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of
plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
b.
Reduction in the numbers of any unique rare of endangered species
of plants?
C.
Reduction in the size of sensitive habitat areas or plant communities
which are recognized as sensitive?
_
d.
Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to
the normal replenishment of existing species?
e.
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
5.
Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of
animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish, and shellfish,
benthic organisms and insects)?
b.
Reduction in the numbers of nay unique rare or endangered species
c.
of animals?
Introduction of new species into in
of animals an area, or a barrier
to the normal migration or movement of resident species?
d.
Reduction in size or deterioration in quality of existing fish or'
wildlife habitat?
6.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Siccant increases in existing noise levels?
b.
Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
7.
Light and Glare. Will the proposal result in:
Ya.
Significant new light and glare or contribute significantly to existing
levels of light and glare?
8.
Land Use. Will the proposal result in:
(/
a.
A substantial alteration of the present orTanned and use in an area?
9.
Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a.
An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?
YES NO POSSIBLY
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances
(including but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)
in the event of an accident or upset condition?
b. Probable interference with an emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan?
11. Population. Will the proposal:
a. Alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area?
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect:
a. Existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing?
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
V a. Generation of Substantial ditional vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking?
C. Substantial impact on existincr
g transportation systems?
T
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people
and goods.
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic cis to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
E-- pedestrians? �-5
14. Public Services. Will the proposal:
R. Have an effect upon, or result in the'need for new or altered
governmental services in any of the following areas:
1. Fire Protection?
V .2. Police Protection?
—� 3, Schools?
4, Parks or other recreational facilities?
5. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
6. Other governmental services?
YES NO POSSIBLY
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
S
A. .Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? 1*L-
FWIV�s B(IlOID16 rye
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing energy sources or
require the development of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in:
a. A need for new systems, or Substantial alterations to public utilities?
17. Hurnan Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards?
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vist�or view open to the public, or
will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive
site open to the public view?
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in:
a. An impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational
opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. The alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure or object?
C. A physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
d. Restrictions on existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area.
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance?
a. Does the proposed 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 or significantly reduce 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 prehistory?
YES NO POSSIBLY
b. Does the proposed project have the potential to achieve short-term,
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c. Does the proposed project pose impacts which are individually
limited but cumulatively considerable?
d. Does the project pose environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
warrelt eompaft<cs
3218 E. Hatt AYenua, Suleg 200 • Wast Covinn, t7211fomfa 91791 • (81 B) 331.2251 • Fax: (818) 332-2832
January 8, 1998
r■.r� City of Diamond Har
Community Dvvolopmcgt D•partrnont
21660 Past Copley Dr.. Sts. 190
Dtarnpnd Sar, CA 91765.6177
Re; Proposed L.A. Fltnass Dovclopmont
20875 Goldon Sptings Ar,
Diamond Bar, CA
t■■,m�►oI■T To Whom It May Concarn:
• Ceni■rc
t, Arthur A. Warren, owls the above rohfonccd roal property. Thia latter shill
scrvo as approval for L.A. Fitnesa, Ina and Tarry Narnuloh,
AIA to submit as'tha
Applicant for the propod L.A. Fitneu development. If there are any questions, pJcaao
contact the undse•raigned.
bilk"
aulicifts
AWwi4;W
1✓ncl,
• A■rlaenurr
'I�oTe
_ STATE'QF CALIFORNIA - )
COUNTY OF Tj.LL
On00 before me, i
Sincerely,
Ae
e
Artk�u�A%rmn
personally epees;red, �
personally known to my (or proved to me on the Dacia of satstlaato evidence) to be the
aubecrlt»d to the within I mesh and acknowledged to me that0 shelthey axecut" t eamee,nW I 6 ornhq(�(� are
cap aclty(teo), and that D Qr/thelr atpnatum(6) on the Instrument the pamon(s), or the entity uppry "hall of which the
ad
pe►aon(r) acted, executed nq Instrument.
WITNESS my hand and Cflicial real.
t+a ►r+�w C�o�y
AIGTAPIY P11t34fC SfflNq�q (SEAL) f
I
OPTIONAL INFORMATJ-
TITLE:pR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
DATE OF DOCUMENT NUM9i:R OF PAGES
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
t:
r•
:SZ•'L••lit 'ATB• •� �1 'o... .
•9.3IKY2YT0�' AI.''.Yi'Yi,,,'>rl,���•:5 •_•CrJ •! _ =n• F•Idfi4 r' .
Vaff,eY ftofessionaCCentre
Match 31, 1998
City 6FDiaraond Bar
Community. Development Center
21660 Fast Copley Drive; Suite 190
Diamond_ Bar, CA 91763-4177
Re: Proposed L.A. Fitness Development
Assessor's Parcel #8763-7-5
To Whom It May Concern:
As Power of Attorney, I represent the interests of the Michaels Family Trust t owns
:he above referenced property. This letter shall servc as approval for L.A. Fi ness, Inc.
arsd Terry Nemnich, AIA to submit as the applicant for the proposed LA. Fitness
development.
If you have questions or concerns, I can be reached at (714) 632-5288.
Sincerely,
Lawrence R. Michaels,
For the Michaels Living Trust, Owner
20709
901&n .Springs OdK $U*# 209, migX09dS06 C4 91789 Doric (`i14) 632-S288
>14) 6324286
RF . TP )4HI.I
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO. 98 -XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 98-2, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-2 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND) 98-1, A REQUEST FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 38,000 SQUARE FOOT L.A.
FITNESS HEALTH CLUB/GYMNASIUM LOCATED ON A 4.6
ACRE SITE LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF GOLDEN
SPRINGS DRIVE, BETWEEN BREA CANYON ROAD AND
LEMON AVENUE IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
A. Recitals
1. The applicant, L.A. Fitness and the applicant's agent,
Terrell Nemnich have filed an application for Conditional
Use Permit 98-2 and Development Review 98-2 to construct
a 38,000 square foot health club/gymnasium on a 4.6 acre
vacant site located on the north side of Golden Springs
Drive, between Brea Canyon Road and Lemon Avenue, Dia-
mond Bar, Los Angeles County, California, as described in
the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit and
Development Review is 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 consistent with
the General Plan.
1
4. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, on
April 28, 1998 conducted a duly noticed public hearing on
the Application.
5. Notification of the public hearing for this project has
been'made in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland
Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on April 7, 1998. One
hundred and ninety one property owners within a 500 foot
radius of the project site were notified by mail on April
6, 1998.
B. Resolution
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows:
1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that
all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of
this Resolution are true and correct.
2. The Planning Commission hereby determines that there is
no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment and therefore
Negative Declaration (ND) 98-1 has been prepared and
presented for review and approval by this Commission in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated
thereunder, pursuant to Article 19 of Chapter 3, Title 14
of the California Code of Regulations.
3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth herein,
this Planning Commission, hereby finds as follows:
(a) The project relates to a 4.6 acre portion of 5.4
acre site.
(b) The project site has a General Commercial (C)
General Plan Land Use designation and is within the
Unlimited Commercial -Billboard Exclusion (C -3 -BE)
zoning district.
(c) Generally, the following zones and uses surround
the subject site: to the north is the 60 Freeway;
to the south are residential uses within the R-1-
10,000 zone; to the east are commercial uses within
the Commercial Planned Development (CPD) zone and
to the west is a nursery greenhouse within the
Light Agriculture A-1-15,000 zone and office
development within the C-3 zone.
2
(d) The project involves the construction of a 38,000•
square foot L.A. Fitness health club/gymnasium, and
retaining walls.
(e) The proposed project is in compliance with the
General Plan.
The proposed project is located within the General
Commercial (C) land use designation, which provides
for a range- of freeway -oriented and/or community
retail and service commercial uses. A floor area
ratio of between 0.25 and 1.25 is allowed within
this designation. The proposed health club will
provide a convenient service for the community and
is proposing a floor area ratio of .19. The
proposed project is therefore in compliance with
the General Plan.
(f) The proposed project will not:
(1) Adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or
welfare of persons residing or working in the
surrounding area or;
(2) Be materially detrimental to the use,
enjoyment or valuation of property of other
persons residing or working in the surrounding
area or;
(3) Jeopardize, endanger, or otherwise constitute
a menace to the public health, safety or
general welfare
City permits, inspections and a soils report are
required prior to construction which will ensure
that the finished project will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety, or welfare, or
materially injurious to the ' properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
(q) The proposed project is adequate in size and shape
to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking
and loading facilities, landscaping and other
development features, or as is otherwise required
in order to integrate said use in the surrounding
area.
The project site is a 4.6 acre portion of an
approximately 5.4 acre site. The site is vacant
land, the bulk of which is relatively flat,
3
sloping downwards towards the freeway, which is to
the north. The site is adequate in size and depth
to accommodate the proposed project and any
required site improvements.
(h) The proposed site is adequately served:
(1)By highways or streets of sufficient width and
improved as necessary to carry the kind and
quantity of traffic such use would generate;
and
(2) By other public or private facilities as are
required.
The project site is adequately served by Golden
Springs Drive. This street has been designated as a
major arterial by the General Plan and has a right-
of-way width of 1.00 feet. The Engineering Division
has reviewed the traffic study and has confirmed
that with the recommended improvements, the street
will be adequate to handle the amount of traffic
that will be generated
(i) The design and layout of the proposed development
is consistent with the applicable elements of the
City's General Plan, design guidelines of the
appropriate district, and any adopted architectural
criteria for specialized areas, such as designated
historic districts, theme areas, specific plans,
community plans, boulevards, or planned develop-
ments.
The proposed project is a health club/gymnasium on
a 4.6 acre site. It is consistent with the General
Plan land use designation of General Commercial
which provides for a range of freeway -oriented
and/or community retail and service commercial
uses. Further, the proposed use is .conditionally
permitted within the C-3 zoning designation and is
further consistent with the draft Citywide Design
Guidelines.
(j) Approval of the design and layout of the proposed
project is compatible with the characteristics of
the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the
harmonious, orderly, attractive development
contemplated by Chapter 22.72 of Development Review
Ordinance No. 5 (1990) and the City's General Plan.
The proposed project is consistent with the land
uses contemplated within the General Commercial (C)
land use designation and is a conditionally
permitted use within the C-3 zone. The design and
layout of the project is consistent with the
generally eclectic architecture of the surrounding
development. The proposed project is contemporary
in design and is of a quality that will enhance the
appearance of the surrounding neighborhood.
(k) The architectural design of the proposed
ect
will not unreasonably interfere with the useandenjoyment of neighboring existing or future
development, and will not create traffic or
pedestrian hazards.
As part of the application submittal, a traffic
study was required to be submitted and accepted by
the City. The study has found that with the
recommended project improvements the project will
not create traffic hazards. Further, the applicant
will be required to install curbs, gutters and
sidewalks along the properties entire frontage,
ensuring that the development will not result in
pedestrian hazards.
(1) The design of the proposed project will provide a
desirable environment for its occupants and
visiting public as well as its neighbors through
good aesthetic use of materials, textures and
colors that will remain aesthetically appealing and
will retain a reasonably adequate level of
maintenance.
The proposed project's architectural design is
contemporary in style and provides a high quality
of architectural design which will enhance the
appearance of the surrounding area, upgrading the
appearance of the streetscape. A variety of
colors, materials and textures are proposed to be
utilized on the building, including glass, tile and
metal, which add interest and vitality to the
building's design.
(j) The design of the proposed project will provide a
desirable environment for its occupants and
visiting public as well as its neighbors through
the use of materials, textures, and colors that
5
will remain aesthetically appealing and will retain
a reasonably adequate level of maintenance.
A project colors/materials board is provided as
Exhibit "A". The colors, materials, and textures
proposed provide variety and interest- to the
buildings exterior, while offering variety and a
low level of maintenance.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above,
the Planning Commission hereby approves this Application
subject to the following conditions:
(a) The project shall substantially conform to the site
plan, floor plan, elevations, and materials/colors
board collectively labeled as Exhibit "A" dated
April 28, 1998 as submitted to and approved by the
Planning Commission. These plans shall be revised
to reflect a driveway entrance which aligns with
Rapidview Drive. Any secondary access proposed
shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering
Division.
(b) The subject site shall be maintained in a condition
which is free of debris both during and after the
construction, addition, or implementation of the
entitlement granted herein. The removal of all
trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or
subsequent to construction shall be done only by
the property owner, applicant or by a duly
permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized
by the City to provide collection, transportation,
and disposal of solid waste from residential,
commercial, construction, and industrial areas
within the City. It shall be the applicant's
obligation to insure that the waste contractor
utilized has obtained permits from the City of
Diamond Bar to provide such services.
(c) Before construction begins, the applicant shall
install temporary construction fencing pursuant to
the Building and Safety Division's requirements
along the project site's perimeter. This fencing
shall remain until the Building Official approves
its removal.
(d) Within 60 days of this project's final approval,
the applicant shall submit a final
6
landscape/ irrigation plan delineating the type of
Planting materials, color, size, quantity and
location, for review and approval by the City. The
plans shall be revised to provide a minimum of 24
trees (20% 24 inch box and 80% fifteen gallon) and
shrubs and groundcover along the northerly (rear)
property line, opposite the rear of the building.
Tree and plant materials shall be arranged in
natural plant grouping to avoid a symmetrical and
unnatural appearance. The tree species selected
shall at maturity, be adequate in height to screen
and soften the rear of the building. Additional
landscaping shall also be provided in the planter
area along the front property line and each
landscape finger within the parking lot shall
contain a. minimum 24" box_ tree. Further, the
landscaping along the property's frontage shall be
compatible with the existing landscaping along
Golden Springs Drive. The landscaping/ irrigation
shall be installed prior to the Planning Division's
final inspection or Certificate of Occupancy's
issuance.
Landscaping in the form of turf or other
landscaping as approved by the Planning Division
shall be installed on the area of the parcel that
is to remain undeveloped.
(e) Any roof mounted equipment will be hidden behind
building parapets or otherwise screened from view
through screening materials and colors designed to
be integrated into the overall architectural design
of the building.
(f) Prior to Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant
shall demonstrate compliance with Ordinance No. 1
Trip Reduction and Travel Demand). to the
satisfaction of the Deputy City Manager and City
Engineering.
(g) Prior to building permit issuance a parking lot
lighting plan shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Planning and Building and Safety
Divisions. All lighting shall be adequately
shielded to prevent spillover on to adjacent
properties.
7
(h) Lot line adjustments shall be processed for the
additional lot proposed on the site plan and in
order to create a single lot underlying the
proposed project. .The lot line adjustments shall
be completed prior to the issuance of grading
permits.
(i) At the time of development of the separate lot to
the east, the property owner will be required to
enter into a mutual access agreement with the
property owner of the commercial center to the
east, in order to limit additional access to
Golden Springs Drive.
(j) A revision to the Conditional Use Permit shall be
required for any new construction or expansion of
the parking area on the undeveloped portion of the
site. A revision to the CUP will also be required
if the hours of operation are to be expanded, in
order to allow the Planning Commission the
opportunity to evaluate any additional impacts.
(k) Caltrans shall be contacted prior to the
commencement of any construction activities
conducted adjacent to the right-of-way. In the
event that the Caltrans right-of-way fence is
required to be removed, the applicant shall obtain
a Caltrans permit prior to the removal of the fence
and the installation of any temporary fencing.
(1) The toe of the slope for any new grading adjacent
to the Caltrans right-of-way should be a minimum of
two feet from the right-of-way line.
(m) Grading plan review and approval is required prior
to permit issuance. A grading plan shall be
submitted delineating the following:
(1) Cut and fill quantities and calculations
attached to plans;
(2) Existing grade topography and proposed grades.
(3) Proper drainage with detailed sketches;
(4) All flow lines, finished surfaces, and
finished grades;
(5) All easements and restricted areas shall be
clearly identified;
(6) The location of the retaining walls shall be
shown on the grading plan;
8
(7) Erosion control plans shall be required to be
submitted in conjunction with the grading
plan.
(n) Details of the retaining walls shall be shown on
retaining wall plans. All F.S., T.W. 'and B.F.
dimensions shall be shown. Calculations for the
retaining walls shall be submitted prior to
retaining wall and grading permit issuance.
(o) The applicant is responsible for sewer and storm
drain connection. Any improvements required such
as extension of sewer or storm drain lines shall be
submitted to the City and L.A.. County for review
and approval. Hydraulic and hydrology calculations
shall be required for review and approval prior to
grading permit issuance. The applicant shall bear
all costs associated with the improvement, review
and approval for the addition of sewer or storm
drains.
(p) The applicant shall comply with all NPDES
requirements and shall obtain the necessary
permits.
(q) The applicant is responsible for all improvements
and the installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk
along the total property frontage, including any
necessary landscape median and pavement to
accommodate the full roadway width.
(r) An updated, revised Traffic Impact Analysis shall
be submitted prior to building permit issuance,
evaluating and addressing the transportation and
circulation impacts of the affected intersections
including the intersection of Rapidview Drive and
Golden Springs Drive.
(s) The applicant shall pay a fair share amount to the
City for the cost of a traffic signal at the
intersection of Rapidview Drive and Golden Springs
Drive. The fair share. amount shall range from a
minimum cost of $60,000 to a maximum of $120,000.
(t) The applicant shall pay a fair share amount for
improvements to the impacted intersections based on
the PM peak hour project fair share percentages
identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared
9
by RKJK and Associates, dated March 12, 1998, in an
amount not to exceed $50,000.
(u) The applicant shall construct street lights along
the total property frontage, as required per City
standards and as approved by the City Engineer. The
street lights shall be annexed into the appropriate
street lighting districts, as determined by the
City Engineer. Those improvements shall be shown
on the grading plans with the appropriate notes and
details provided. All a permits for work
within the public right-of-way shall be obtained
prior to construction.
(v) The street address shall be assigned by the Public
Works Division. The required application shall be
completed and submitted to the City prior to final
inspection or Certificate of Occupancy.
(w) All activities/ improvements proposed for this
development shall be wholly contained within the
boundaries of the subject property. Should any
off-site activities/improvements be required,
approval shall be obtained from the affected
property owner as required by the City Engineer.
(x) The structure shall meet the 1994 U.B.C., U.P.C.,
U.M.C., and the 1993 National Electric Code
requirements.
(y) The minimum design wind pressure shall be 80 miles
per hour and "CO exposure.
(z) All new handicapped parking shall comply with new
State Handicapped Accessibility Regulations. A
'total of seven handicapped parking spaces are
required. Prior to issuance of Building Permits,
the construction plans shall:
(1) Show compliance for van parking.
(2) Show the shortest accessible route to
accessible entrances and the short pedestrian
route to closest pedestrian entrance.
(aa) All restrooms designated for men and women as well
as employees shall meet current handicap
requirements.
(bb) The restrooms shall be clearly marked with symbols.
10
(cc) The ramps shall comply with new State Handicapped
Accessibility Regulations.
(dd) All proposed signs and the pool and spas shall
require separate building permits.
(ee) The Fire Department shall approve the plans, prior
to building permit issuance.
(ff) Fire Department access shall be provided to within
150' of the exterior walls.
(gg) The required fire flow shall be a maximum of 5,000
G.P.M. @20 P.S.I. for five (5) hours.
(hh) The Applicant shall comply with Planning and
Zoning, Building and Safety, and Public Works
Divisions', and Fire Department requirements.
(ii) This grant is valid for two (2) years and shall be
exercised (i.e. construction) within that period or
this grant shall expire. A one (1) year extension
may be requested in writing and submitted to the
City 30 days prior to this grant's expiration date.
(ii) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose
until the permittee and owner of the
involved (if other than the property
Permittee) h
within fifteen (15) days of approval of
filed,
s rant
at the City of Diamond Bar Community fand 1Deve op-
ment Services Department, their affidavit stating
that they are aware of and agree to accept all the
conditions of this grant. Further, this grant
shall not be effective until the permittee pays
remaining City processing fees.
(kk) If the Department of Fish and Game determines that
Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 applies to the
approval of this project, then the applicant shall
remit- to the City, within five days of this grant s
approval, a cashier's check of $25.00 for a
documentary handling fee in connection with Fish
and Game Code requirements. Furthermore, if this
project is not exempt from a filing fee imposed
because the project has more than a de minimis
impact on fish and wildlife, the applicant shall
also pay to the Department of Fish and Game any
such fees and any fines which the Department
determines to be owed.
11
(11) Any proposed stockpile location for grading export
materials as well as the route of transport shall
be provided, prior to issuance of grading permits.
All trucks hauling dirt, sand or other loose
materials shall maintain at least two feet of
freeboard (i.e. minimum vertical distance between
the top of the load and the top of the trailer).
The Planning Commission shall:
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
(b) Forthwith transmit certified copies of this
Resolution, by certified mail to Toad Von Sprecken,
L.A. Fitness, 100 Bayview #4000, Newport Beach, CA
92660 and Terrell Nemnich 511 Orchid Avenue, Corona
Del Mar, CA 92625.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL 1998 BY
THE Planning Commission OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
By:
Joe McManus, Chairman
I, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby
certify• that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed,
and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 28TH day of April 1998, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
James DeStefano, Secretary
12
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
FOR WITIAL 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
Part 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
PART 1- BACKGROUND
Project Title: C• 11 • • 1 Permit `: • 111 1 Review `'
2. Project AddrmdI-=fiw: North Side Of Golden Sximys Drive, south of 60 --Fn between
Lemon • 1 1 11 Rrea Cany= goad,
3. Date 1EnvironmentalForm submittal:150
• •
Fitness4. Applicant: Todd Von Sprecken
Finn Name: L.A.
• 1• 1.1 Ba3ojew #4000
• \= Beach, CA 92660
Phone:1.. • •
Contact:Fax: NIA
5. Lead Agency: f Diamond Rnr
Catherine •11 .•1 Senior Planner
Address:66.1 R- ropley Drive. Suite 190
.11.1• RaL CA 91765
Phone:
Fax:
17
• General Designation: G•1111- • (:
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 is a 38,000 square foot, health club/gym located on a 4.6 acre site. The
building is proposed as one-story with a mezzanine and will have a maximum height of
48'. The project site is vacant land which is relatively flat, sloping down towards the
freeway which is directly to the north. The project site contains generally either brush or
grass and there are no oak or other significant trees located on the site. A total of 226
parking spaces will be provided for the project, including seven handicapped spaces.
Fifteen percent of the site will be landscaped. Access to the project is proposed to be from
2 drive -aisles at either end of the project site. The health club will consist of a reception,
sales and lounge area at the front of the building, a main floor area which contains exercise
equipment for cardiovascular, circuit and weight training and individual rooms containing
a basketball and volleyball court, a 25 yard lap pool, four racquetball courts, an aerobics
room and kid's club, juice bar, men's and woman's lockers, steam and sauna rooms,
offices and equipment rooms.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
The project site is located on the north side of Golden Springs Drive directly to the south
of the 60 Freeway between Lemon Avenue and Brea Canyon Road. The surrounding land
uses include offices and a nursery/greenhouse to the west, residential uses to the south and
a strip commercial center to the east.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.): Fire Department
The Fire Department has reviewed the site plans and approval of the detailed construction
plans will be required prior to the issuance of building permits.
11. List City of Diamond Bar related applications for this project that must be processed
simultaneously:
Lot line adjustments
12. List prior projects for this parcel: None
PART 2 - SUMMARY 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 16.
_
Mandatory Findings
Resources _
of Significance _
3
PART 3 - DETERMINATION
to be completed by Lead Agency
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Project Number:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant 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 EMPACT 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
(a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Signature
Printed Name
Date
For
PART 2 - SUMMARY 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 16.
_
Mandatory Findings
Resources —
of Significance _
3
PART 4 - EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer
should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general
standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a
project -specific screening analysis.)
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as
on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as
well as operational impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect
is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "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).
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section VII at the end of the
checklist.
6. 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.
5
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
a. Conflict with General Plan
designation or zoning?
Source #s: 1, p. I-27; 2
b. Conflict with applicable
environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with
jurisdiction over the project?
Source #s: 4, p. IV -6, et seq.
C. Be incompatible with existing land
uses in the vicinity?
Source #s: 16
d. Affect agricultural resources or
operations (e.g. impacts to soils or
farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
Source #s: 1, p 1-27
e. Disrupt or divide the physical
arrangement of an established
community (including a low-income
or minority community)?
Source #s: 15, 16
a. Cumulatively exceed official
regional or local population
projection?
Source #s: 3, 5, p. II -I-19
Potentially
sipffWant
Potentially unless Less Than
significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact IncoiPonuW Impact Impact
Environmental Issues - continued
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: 3, 1, p. I-II, 20
C. Displace existing housing, especially
affordable housing?
Source #s: 16, 1 p. I-27
a. Fault rupture?
Source #s: 1, p. IV -3, 5, p. II -B-7
b. Seismic ground shaking?
Source #s: 5, p. II -B-7
C. Seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Source #s: 1, p. IV -3, 5, p. II -B-15
d. Seiche (water tanks, reservoirs),
tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
Source #s: 17
e. Landslides or mudflows?
Source #s: 5, p. II -B-15
f. Erosion, changes in topography or
unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading, or fill?
Source #s: 1, P. IV -3
g. Subsidence of the land?
Source #s: 5, II -B-16
Potentially
signmearnt
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
. -X-
7
Environmental Issues - continued
a. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface runoff?
Source #s: 20
b. Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as
flooding?
Source #s: 1, P. IV -4 -�
C. Discharge into surface water or
other alteration of surface water
quality (e.g, temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)?
Source #s: 5, p. II -C-1
d. Changes in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Source #s: 5, p. II -C-1, 6 _X
e. Changes in currents, or the course
or direction of water movements?
Source #s: 6 X
0
Potentially
Significant
Potentially unless
I.es, Than
Significant Mitigation
sit No
Impact Incorporated
Imps Impact
h. Expansive soils?
Source #s: 5, p II -11-16
i. Unique geologic or physical
features?
Source #s: 5, p. II -A-1
a. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface runoff?
Source #s: 20
b. Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as
flooding?
Source #s: 1, P. IV -4 -�
C. Discharge into surface water or
other alteration of surface water
quality (e.g, temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)?
Source #s: 5, p. II -C-1
d. Changes in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Source #s: 5, p. II -C-1, 6 _X
e. Changes in currents, or the course
or direction of water movements?
Source #s: 6 X
0
Environmental Issues - continued
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: 5, p. II -P-3 .
g. Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater?
Source #s: 6
h. Impacts to groundwater quality?
Source #s: 5 p. II -P-3
i. Substantial reduction in the amount
of groundwater otherwise available
for public water supplies?
Source #s: 5 p. II -P-3 et seq.
a. Violate any air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected
air quality violation?
Source #s: 7
b. Expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants?
Source #s: 5, P. II -F-8
C. Alter air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or cause any change in
climate?
Source #s: 5, p. II -F-1
d. Create objectionable odors?
Source #s: 7
Potentially
significant
Potentially unless Less Than
Significant Muga wn Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
-.2L_ I
W�
W -W
O
O
W
9
Environmental Issues - continued
a. Increased vehicle trips or traffic
congestion?
Source #s: 8, p. 21, 9, p. 746
b. Hazards to safety from design
features (e.g. sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm
equipment)?
Source #s: 20
C. Inadequate emergency access or
access to nearby uses?
Source #s: 14
d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site
or off-site?
Source #s: 20, 11 p. 335 et seq.
e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians
or bicyclists?
Source #s: 20, 14
f. Conflicts with adopted policies
supporting transportation (e.g. bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Source #s: 1, p. V-22
g.- Rail, waterborne or air traffic
impacts?
Source #s: 5, p. H -T-38
Potentially
significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact I-O'Porated Impact Irrtpaot
x-44
0
0
10
Environmental Issues - continued
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorpomtod Impact Impact
a. Endangered, threatened or rare
species or their habitats (including
but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds)?
Source #s: 5, p. II -D-14
-�
b. Locally designated species (e.g.
heritage trees)?
Source #s: 1, p. III -1, 12
C. Locally designated natural
communities (e.g., oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)?
Source #s: 5, p. II -D-2, et seq.
d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh,
riparian and vernal pool)?
Source #s: 5, p. II -D-2
-�—
e. Wildlife dispersal or migration
corridors?
Source #s: 5, p. II -D-23
—�—
a. Conflict with adopted energy
conservation plans?
Source #s: 1, p. III -14 et seq. �-
b. Use non-renewable resources in a
wasteful and inefficient manner?
Source #s: 5, p. II -S-1 et seq.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: 5,'p. II -B-17
11
Environmental Issues - continued
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a.
A risk of accidental explosion or
release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to: oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
Source #s: 5, p. II -M-1
b.
Possible interference with an
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Source #s: 13
C.
The creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard?
Source #s: 1, P. IV -1, 8,
d.
Exposure of people to existing
sources of potential health hazards?
Source #s: 1, p. IV -1 et seq.
e.
Increased fire hazard in areas with
flammable brush, grass, or trees?
Source #s: 5, p. H -K-1
— AL
a.
Increases in existing noise levels?
Source #s: 1, IV -15; 5, p. H -G et
seq'
b.
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Source #s: 1, IV -15; 5, p. H -G et
seq.
�-
12
Environmental Issues - continued
a. Fire Protection?
Source #s: 1, p. VI -3
b. Police Protection?
Source #s: 1, p.. VI -3
C. Schools?
Source #s: 1, p. VI -3
d. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
Source #s: 1, p. V-6, 14
e. other governmental services?
Source #s:
a. Power or natural gas?
Source #s: 1, p. VI -2
b. Communication systems?
Source #s: 1, p. VI -2
C. Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities?
Source #s: 1, p V1-2
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
Source #s: 1, p. V1-2
e. Storm water drainage?
Source #s: 1, p. V1-2
L Solid waste disposal?
Source #s: 1, p. VI -2
Potentially
significant
Potentially unless Leas Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
��
13
Environmental Issues - continued
g. Local or regional water supplies?
Source #s: 1, p. V1-2
a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic
highway?
Source #s: 1, P. III -10 et seq.
b. Have a demonstrable negative
aesthetic effect?
Source #s: 1, p. 1-19
C. Create light or glare?
Source #s: 20
a. Disturb paleontological resources?
Source #s: 5, H -H-1
b. Disturb archaeological resources?
Source #s: 5, H -H-2 et seq.
C. Affect historical resources?
Source #s: 5, 11-H-5 et seq.
d. Have the potential to cause a
physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values?
Source #s: 5, II -H-1
e. Restrict existing religious or sacred
uses within the potential impact
area?
Source #s: 5, H -H-1
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unlcas Len Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Inoorporaw MPS Impact
WA
-G
_
D
14
Environmental Issues - continued
a.
b.
a.
b.
Potentially
significant
Potentially unlew Les. Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact h—rporated Impact
Increase the demand for
neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities?
Source #s: 5, II -N-3, 3
Affect existing recreational
opportunities?
Source #s: 19, fig. 2-1
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?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? —�
No
Impact
��'
0
15
Environmental Issues - continued
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 directiv or indiri!n lv?
17. EARLIER ANALYSES
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation significant No
Impact lcorponted MPS Impact
—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
for review. state where they are available
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.
110
PART 5 - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL. IMPACTS
Discussions within each section may be grouped.
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a The project is located within the General Commercial (C) Land Use Designation
(maximum floor area ratio of .025 to 1.25) and is within the C -3 -BE zoning district. The
project proposes a floor area ratio of .19 and therefore is consistent with the General Plan
which provides for a range of freeway -oriented and/or community retail and service
commercial uses. Further, the proposed use is conditionally permitted within the C-3
zoning designation.
b. The project does not conflict with the General Plan EIR because it is consistent
within the General Commercial Land Use Designation and has been reviewed subject to
CEQA requirements and found that there will be no significant effect on the environment.
c. The project is surrounded by commercial, office and residential land uses. The
proposed health club will be compatible with the surrounding commercial and office
uses and will provide a convenient service for the surrounding residential neighborhood
and employees in the vicinity.
d. There are no agricultural resources or operations in the vicinity of the project.
e. There are existing residential neighborhoods to the site of the proposed project.
These neighborhoods are located to the south of the subject site on the other side of
Golden Drive, which is currently a four lane divided roadway with an 100 foot ROW.
Golden Springs serves as the physical boundary for these neighborhoods, separating
and buffering them from surrounding commercial development. Because the proposed
development is located on the other side of Golden Springs it will not impact these
residential neighborhoods.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a. The project is a health club, with an estimated 60 to 70 employees and a occupancy
for a maximum of 650. It is assumed that this project will provide a convenient
service for local residents and surrounding communities but will not cause any regional
or local population projection to be exceeded either directly or indirectly.
b. The project is a health club, which is designed to serve the needs of a local community
and surrounding area that is already predominantly built out. It is not anticipated that this
project will induce substantial growth either directly or indirectly.
c. The existing site is vacant, therefore the project will not displace existing housing.
17
3. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
a. No portion of the City has been identified as in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies
zone. The closest fault is the Diamond Bar fault, which is described as a "small
inactive fault."
b. The City is located in two of the three seismic shaking zones (zones 1 and 2) as
determined by the County of Los Angeles. Zone 2 represents areas that would be exposed
to a moderate level of seismic shaking, and Zone 1 which would be exposed to a relatively
low intensity of ground shaking.
d. The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of any reservoirs. The Colima
pump station is located on the south side of Golden Springs and the west side of Brea
Canyon Road and the Rapid View pump station is located south of Golden Springs Drive.
If a seiche occurs it will not affect this property.
e. The project site is generally flat, sloping downwards towards the northerly property
line. According to the Master Environmental Assessment, most of the hillsides in Diamond
Bar have a moderate to high potential for landslides. The stability of a slope is attributed
to such factors as the soil type, gradient of the slope (greater than 25 % particularly),
underlying geologic structure and local drainage patterns. The site is located in an area
where there is no current available data on the local geology.
However, this project as been reviewed by the Engineering Division and conditions of
approval will be applied to this project requiring the submittal of a complete grading plans,
a soils report and erosion control plans which will insure the safe development of the site.
f. There will be grading proposed for this site involving 15,000 cubic yards of cut,
5,000 cubic yards of fill and 10,000 cubic yards of export. As described in item e.
above, the Engineering Division has reviewed this project and conditions will be applied
requiring the submittal of required plans and reports to ensure that the proposed grading
will not result in unstable soil or geologic conditions or erosion. .
g. There is no evidence that subsidence producing activities have occurred'at or near
this site.
h. Almost all soils in Diamond Bar have the capacity to be expansive, and should be
reviewed on a project specific basis. Therefore, this site must be evaluated for expansive
soils. A condition of approval has been included requiring the submittal of a soils report.
i. The project does not contain any unique geologic or physical features.
18
4. WATER
a. The project proposes that 3.9 acres of the 4.6 acre site will be covered by a structures
or other impervious surfaces. This will increase the amount of impervious surface and
therefore the amount of surface runoff. This is expected to be less than significant in an
area that is predominantly built out and with its storm drain system in place.
b. The project is not located within Areas of Potential Flooding, nor will its development
or use expose people or property to water -related hazards.
c.,d.,e. No surface water body exists within the vicinity of the project.
f. The project will incrementally deplete the amount of groundwater to the extent that
impermeable surfaces are added and the rate of absorption is effected by the increase in
impermeable surfaces. This amount is unknown, but for a project of this small size may
be considered to be insignificant.
g. The project will not effect the direction or rate of flow of groundwater.
h. Groundwater quality may be impacted by the development, but its extent is likely to be
small, given the small size of the site. Further, groundwater is not presently utilized for
domestic supply by the Walnut Valley Water Districts because the present quality of
groundwater is poor due to contamination by nitrates from previous dairy farming
activities, manganese, and high levels of total dissolved solids.
i. The development of a 38,000 square foot health club in an urbanized area is not
considered likely to cause a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater for public
water supply, Additionally, groundwater is not utilized for domestic supply, but only for
reclaimed water supply.
5. AIR QUALITY
a. Air quality will be expected to be .effected during construction operations and to a an
extent with the addition of 1,520 daily trip ends. However, the development of this
site in an urbanized area is not expected to significantly contribute to the violation of
any air quality standards.
b. There are no sensitive receptors within the vicinity of the proposed project
c. Minor changes to the local microclimate in this area may result with the loss of the
removal of the existing vegetation and addition of impermeable surfaces. This changes are
not expected to be significant. Further, the site currently generally contains brush and
grasses and a minimum of 15% of the proposed project site will be landscaped with trees
and other plant materials which will partially mitigate this loss.
19
d. The health club will not generate any odor. Fuel odor will be added by the addition of
car and truck traffic but will not be significant in an urbanized area.
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
a. The traffic study that has been prepared for this project estimates that there will be
an additional 1,520 trip end per day. In order to mitigate the impacts of this proposed
increase, the traffic study recommends several intersection improvements and traffic
signal/striping be implemented in conjunction with the construction plans for this
project.
b. The on-site to off-site circulation has been reviewed and has been found not to result
in hazards to safety from design features or incompatible uses.
c. Vehicular access is provided from Golden Springs Drive. Therefore the project will
not result in inadequate emergency access or inadequate access to nearby uses.
d. The development proposes 226 on-site parking spaces as well as well as a loading
area. The amount of parking provided exceeds that required by the current zoning
regulations. Therefore the therefore, the proposal will not result in insufficient
parking.
e. As part of the project approval extension of the existing sidewalk in this area will be
required. Therefore there will be not additional hazards created for pedestrians or
bicyclists.
f. The development of this project does not conflict with any of the City's goals, objectives
or strategies supporting transportation.
g. No waterborne, rail or air traffic are in the vicinity of this project.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a. The project will not result in impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species or .
their habitats because none exist on the project site.
d. The Project will not result in an impact to wetland habitat because none exist in the area.
e. The proposal will not result in an impact to wildlife dispersal or mitigation corridors
because none exist on the site.
8. ENERGY
a. The City of Diamond Bar has no adopted energy conservation plan, therefore, the
proposal will not be in conflict.
20
b. The development of the project will require the use of non-renewable resources,
specifically fossil fuel as a result of additional traffic generated by this projects. However
this may be considered less than significant in the context of like developments in the
vicinity of this project.
c. No mineral resources will be impacted by this site.
9. HAZARDS
a. The project will likely use hazardous materials, such as oil, chemical, etc., during its
construction phase. Their relatively small amounts results in a less than significant impact.
b. The project will not interfere with the City's emergency response plan or evacuation
plan.
c. The development or use of this building will not create any health hazard or potential
health hazard.
d. No potential health hazards currently exist at the project site, therefore, people will not
be exposed to existing sources of potential health hazards.
e. The development of the site will not result in an increased fire hazard in the area
with flammable brush, grass or trees. Because the site is to be landscaped and irrigation
and will primarily be occupied by impermeable surfaces the development will likely result
in a decrease in fire hazards from brush grass or trees.
10. NOISE
a., b. The development of the industrial building will increase existing noise with the
addition of traffic. However, given the proximity of other similar developments this is not
considered significant. During construction, noise will increase temporarily, but in an
urbanized area, this is not considered significant.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES
a. To the extent that this project will specifically require the use of fire protection
However, as one industrial building constructed to current building and fire codes, the
impact is expected to be less than significant.
b. To the extent that this project will specifically require the use of police protection,
the project will effect police services. However, as -one commercial/recreation
building, this impact is considered to be less than significant
c. This project lies within Walnut Valley Unified school district, which currently has a
need for permanent school facilities. However, the impact of one building is considered
to be less than significant.
21
d. The development and use of the industrial building will affect the maintenance of public
roads, but to an extent that is considered to be less than significant.
e. No other specific governmental services have been identified which may be impacted
by this proposal.
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a -g. The project is one building which, would not result in the need for new systems,
supplies, or substantial alterations to the following: power or natural gas, communications
systems, local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities, sewer or septic tanks,
storm water drainage, solid waste disposal, or local or regional water supplies.
13. AESTHETICS
a. The proposal would not effect a designated scenic vista or highway.
b. The proposedproject will be developed in a manner consistent with other developments
within the surrounding area. It utilizes good architectural design and features, and a
Pleasing combination of colors and materials.
c. The only source of light and glare may come from sunlight reflected on windows and
on-site lighting. However, given the areas, urbanized location any light or glare generate
will not be significant.
14. CULTURAL, RESOURCES
a. The proposal will not disturb paleontological resources because no site exist within
the City.
b. The project site is not in an area identified to have archaeological contains no
archaeological by the General Plan.
C. The project will not effect historical resources because none exist at the site.
d., e. No unique ethnic cultural values or religious or sacred uses have been identified
in the City, therefore, the proposal could not cause a physical change that would effect
or restrict these values.
15. RECREATION
a, b. The City's parks provision is .98 acres per thousand residents. This is below any
of the industry standards (3 acres per thousand Quimby; 5 acres per thousand for
National Parks and Recreation Association.) The addition of the health club, which
Provide opportunities for additional recreational activities for the community will not
increase and may partially satisfy the demand for recreational uses within the City.
22
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. While, the project proposal does not explicitly degrade, the quality of the environment,
it will effect a previously undisturbed, undeveloped site. Its impact to the environment will
be limited to removing a small area of plant and wildlife habitats, commonly occurring
throughout the .City. The project site doe not support fish, therefore no -fish will be
threatened. Additionally, no rare or endangered species occur on the site or use it for
habitat, and no examples of California history or pre -history occur on site.
b. The development in this area, to some degree, will achieve to the disadvantage of
long term environmental goals. However, this may be considered less than significant
due to its expectation of development and con"stenr'y with other developments in the
project area.
C. This project 1� impacts that are individually limited, but not cumulatively considerable.
The project site is located in an area planned for commercial uses and the project is similar
to others in the vicinity.
d. The project will not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The project site is located in an area
planned for commercial development like others in the vicinity.
PART 6 - SOURCES
Environmental Checklist- CUP 98-2 DR 98-2
List of Sources
1. General Plan, City of Diamond Bar; Cotton/Beland Associates, Inc. and Charles Abbot
Associates; July 25, 1995
2. Zoning Map, Cit ,
of Diamond Bar, FORMA n.d. l 1997, California State
3. City/CountPopulation and Housing Estimated, January
Department of Finance
4. General Plan Environmental Impact Report and Addendum, City of Diamond Bar, July
25, 1995 Network, June 8,
5. Master Environmental Assessment, City of Diamond Bar, Planning
1992
6. San Dimas Quadrangle; United States, Department of the Interior; 1966 revised 1981
7. CEQA, Air Quality Handbook; South California Air Quality Management District;
April 1993
8. L.A. Fitness, Diamond Bar CA, Traffic Impact Analysis, RKJK and Associates Inc.
March 12, 1998
9. Trip Generation, 5th Addition, Institute of Traffic Engineer; 1991.
10. Reserved
11. Planning and Zoning Code, County of Los Angeles, BNI Books, 1986
12. Reserved
13. Multihazard Functional Plan; City of Diamond Bar, September 22, 1992
23
14. Reserved
15. Tract No. 29353, Los Angeles County Map No. 111-11-329, Dept of Public Works
16. 700' Land Use Radius Map, CUP 98-2, DR 98-2 Terrell Nemnich Architect, January 14,
1998.
17. Walnut Valley Water District Street Map, Walnut Valley Water District; 1996
18. Conditional Use Permit 98-2 and Development Review Application 98-2 1/14/98
19. City-Wide Comprehensive Parks Master Plan (draft) Purkiss-Rose, RSI, June 12, 1997
20. Site Plans, Elevations, Terrell Nemnich Architect, 3/15/98
24
LA FITNESS
TRAFFICAM PACT ANALYSIS
DlitiOnd Bar, California
�7
RKJK
r
ROBERT KAHN • JO!,NKA9NK
& ASSOCIATES INC.
March 12, 1998
Mr. Todd Von Sprecken
L.A. FITNESS, INC.
100 Bayview, Suite 4000
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Subject: L.A. Fitness Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
Dear Mr. Von Sprecken:
The firm of RKJK & ASSOCIATES, INC. (RKJK) is pleased to submit the L.A. Fitness
Traffic Impact Analysis for the project site located north of Golden Springs Drive
between Banning Way and State Route 60 (SR -60) eastbound ramps in the City of
Diamond Bar. This report provides a summary of the findings, analysis procedures
and evaluation of the proposed project with respect to on-site and off-site traffic
impacts pursuant to City of Diamond Bar requirements.
Based upon this study, the proposed project can be accommodated within the planned
circulation system, if the recommended improvements are implemented. These
recommendations are included in the "Recommendations" section of this report.
If you have any questions regarding this study, please do not hesitate to call us at
(714) 474-0809.
Sincerely,
RKJK & ASSOCIA
JX -*
Robert Kahn,
Principal
RK:TH:kgd/7851
JN: 1027-98-01
Attachments
T
NO 0555
EXP 12/31/01
sl rRAFF�G ��
Tom Huang, EIT
Transportation Engineer
L.A. FITNESS
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
L.A. FITNESS, INC.
100 Bayview, Suite 4000
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Prepared by:
RKJK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
1601 Dove Street, Suite 290
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Robert Kahn, P.E.
Tom Huang, EIT
March 12, 1998
RK:TH:kgd/7851
JN: 1027-98-01
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IV
A. Purpose of Report and Study Objectives
B. Site Location
C. Study Area and Methodology
D. Project Description
E. Principal Findings
F. Project Recommendations
SETTING ...........................
A. Land Use
1. Existing Land Uses
2. Existing Zoning
3. Approved Future Development
B. Study Area Roadway System
1. Area of Significant Traffic Impact
2. Master Plan of Arterial Highways
PROJECTED TRAFFIC ....................
A. Site Traffic
1.
Trip Generation
2.
Trip Distribution
3.
Modal Split
4.
Trip Assignment
B. Future
Traffic
1.
Opening Year (1999) Traffic
2.
Buildout (Year 2008) Traffic
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
A. level of Service at Existing Conditions
1. ICU
2. V/C Ratio
B. Level of Service at Opening Year (1999) Without Project
1. ICU
2. V/C Ratio
C. Level of Service at Opening Year (1999) With Project
1. ICU
2. V/C Ratio
14
20
W1
D. Level of Service at Buildout (Year 2008) With Project
1. ICU
2. V/C Ratio
E. Project Traffic Contribution
V. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ 48
A. Site Access
B. Roadway Improvements
1. Off -Site
2. On -Site
3. Cost Estimates
LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION ............................ A
TRAFFIC COUNT WORKSHEETS ............................. B
ICU CALCULATIONS - EXISTING ............................. C
ICU CALCULATIONS - OPENING YEAR (1999) WITHOUT PROJECT ..... D
ICU CALCULATIONS - OPENING YEAR (1999) WITH PROJECT ......... E
ICU CALCULATIONS - BUILDOUT (YEAR 2008) WITH PROJECT ........ F
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS .............................. G
LUST OF EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT
PAGE
A
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
........... . . . .. . . . . ..
2
B
SITE PLAN ..................................
7
C
OPENING YEAR CIRCULATION RECOMMENDATIONS
.....
11
D
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING
..................
15
E
EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND
INTERSECTION CONTROLS
..................... . .
18
F
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR GENERAL PLAN
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
..........................
19
G
PROJECT OUTBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION
24
.............
H
PROJECT INBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION
...............
25
I
PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
... , ... ,
J
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
......................
28
K
OPENING YEAR (1999) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC
VOLUMES ....................................
30
L
OPENING YEAR (1999) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
31
M
BUILDOUT (YEAR 2008) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
32
N
RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION LANE CONFIGURATION FOR
BUILDOUT (YEAR 2008) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ...........
50
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES ................. 21
2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ....................... 22
3
EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH
EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATIONS ..................
34
4
EXISTING ROADWAY VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO .....
35
5
OPENING YEAR (1999) WITHOUT PROJECT
INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH EXISTING
LANE CONFIGURATIONS ..........................
37
6
OPENING YEAR (1999) WITHOUT PROJECT
ROADWAY VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO .............
38
7
OPENING YEAR (1999) WITH PROJECT
INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH EXISTING
LANE CONFIGURATIONS ..........................
39
8
OPENING YEAR (1999) WITH PROJECT
ROADWAY VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO .............
41
9
BUILDOUT (YEAR 2008) WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION
LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH EXISTING LANE
CONFIGURATIONS .............................
43
10
BUILDOUT (YEAR 2008) WITH PROJECT
INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH IMPROVED
LANE CONFIGURATIONS ..........................
44
11
BUILDOUT (YEAR 2008) WITH PROJECT
ROADWAY VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO .............
45
12
PROJECT TRAFFIC CONTRIBUTION ..................
47
13
PRELIMINARY ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATES
53
L.A. FITNESS
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA
The purpose of this traffic impact analysis is to evaluate the development of the
L.A. Fitness health club from a traffic circulation standpoint. Study objectives
include (1) documentation of existing traffic conditions in the vicinity of the
site; (2) calculation of the Opening Year (1999) traffic conditions without and
with the project; (3) calculation of the buildout (2008) traffic conditions with
the project; and (4) determination of on-site and off-site improvements and
system management actions needed to achieve City of Diamond Bar level of
service requirements.
B. Site Lo ation
The project site is located on the north side of Golden Springs Drive between
Banning Way and State Route 60 eastbound ramps in the City of Diamond Bar.
Exhibit A illustrates the traffic analysis study area which was established in
discussions with City of Diamond Bar staff.
The study area includes the following intersections:
1
EXHIBIT A
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
LEGENDo
0 = PROJECT SITE
= STUDY INTERSECTION
1027-98-01:01 A
L—k FTTNESS. Diamond
!LKJK-
W-
Lemon Avenue (NS) at:
• Golden Springs Drive (EW)
SR -60 Eastbound Ramps (NS) at:
• Golden Springs Drive (EW)
Brea Canyon Road (NS) at:
• SR -60 Westbound Ramps (EW)
• Golden Springs Drive (EW)
The technique used to assess the operation of an intersection is known as
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). To calculate an ICU the volume of
traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of the intersection.
ICU is usually expressed as a percent. The percent represents that portion of
the hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection
traffic if all approaches operate at capacity. An explanation of Level of Service
is included in Appendix "A".
Calculation Method:
a. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) for study area intersections;
b. Saturation Flow Rate:
Saturation flow value of 1,600 vehicles per lane per hour for
through lanes, 1,600 vehicles per hour for single turn lanes and
2,880 for dual. turn lanes; no adjustments are used for protected
movements with dedicated lanes (including both right and left
turns).
3
C. Lost Time:
A lost time factor of 5% (0.05) is applied to the ICU calculations.
d. Clearance Internal:
A clearance interval factor of 10% (0.10) is applied to the ICU
calculations.
e. Level of Service Ranges:
The following thresholds are used in assigning a letter value to the
resulting LOS:
CRITICAL VOLUME TO
Lu CAPACITY RATIO
A 0.00-0.60
B 0.61
-0.70
C 0.71
-0.80
D 0.81
-0.90
E 0.91
-1.00
F
> 1.00
f. Peak -Periods:
Weekday peak -hour analysis periods are defined as follows:
ii
7:00to9:00AM
4:00 to 6:00 PM
9• Peak -Hour:
The highest one-hour period in both the AM and PM peak periods,
as determined by four consecutive 15 -minute count periods are
used in the ICU calculations. Both AM and PM peak hours are
studied.
h. Peak -Hour Data Consistency:
Variations in peak -hour volumes can affect LOS calculations
because they vary from day-to-day. To minimize these variations,
no counts are taken on Mondays, Fridays, holidays or weekends.
The traffic count worksheets for this study is included in Appendix
"B".
L Right Turn Movements:
If the distance from the edge of the outside through lane is at
least 19 feet and parking is prohibited during the peak period,
right turning vehicles may be assumed to utilize this "unofficial"
right turn lane. Otherwise, all right turn traffic is assigned to the
through lane. If a right turn lane exists, right turn activity is
checked for conflicts with other critical movements. Itis assumed
that right turn movements are accommodated during non -
conflicting left turn phases (e.g., northbound right turns during
A
westbound left turn phase), as well as non -conflicting through
flows (e.g., northbound right turn movements and north/south
through flows). Right turn movements become critical when
conflicting movements (e.g., northbound right turns, southbound
left turns, and eastbound through flows) represent a sum of V/C
ratios which are greater than the normal through/left turn critical
movements. Right turn volumes have been reduced by 15% to
account for right turns on red.
In addition to intersection analysis, the roadways in the vicinity of the
project site have been analyzed by volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio. The
City of Diamond Bar requires Level of Service "C" (V/C = 0.80) as its
evaluation criteria for roadway segment analysis. The following
summarizes the daily traffic capacities for different types roadways:
TYPE OF ROADWAY
6 Lanes Divided
4 Lanes Divided
4 Lanes Undivided
2 Lanes Undivided
Local Road
Proiect Description
MAXIMUM DAILY CAPACITY
56,300 vehicles per day
37,500 vehicles per day
25,000 vehicles per day
12,500 vehicles per day
3,100 vehicles per day
The proposed health club consists of 38,000 square feet of building area. The
site plan for the project is illustrated on Exhibit B.
0
EXHIBIT 8
SITE PLAN
i -
N
1027-98-01:021
_.A. "NESS—. Diamond gar, Calitorni
E. Principal Findings
1. The proposed development is projected to generate approximately 1,520
trip -ends per day with 11 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and
164 vehicles per hour during the, PM peak hour.
2. For existing traffic conditions, the study area intersections are operating
at Level of Service "D" or better during the peak hours. All the roadway
links currently have V/C ratios better than 0.80 except Brea Canyon
Road north of SR -60 westbound ramps.
3. For Opening Year (1999) without project traffic conditions, the study
area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "D" or
better during the peak hours with existing lane configurations. All the
roadway links are projected to have V/C ratios better than 0.80 except
Brea Canyon Road north of SR -60 westbound ramps.
4. For Opening Year (1999) with project traffic conditions, the study area
intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "D" or better
during the peak hours with existing lane configurations. All the roadway
links are projected to have V/C ratios better than 0.80 except the
following roadway segments:
• Brea Canyon Road north of SR -60 westbound ramps.
• Golden Springs Drive between SR -60 eastbound ramps and
Brea Canyon Road.
8
1 5. Based on the intersection analysis, the addition of the nrnipet rr=ff,,. 4___
not produce an increase of more than 0.02 in the ICU value for Opening
Year (1999) without project vs. Opening Year (1999) with project traffic
conditions. Therefore, the project does not create any significant traffic
impacts to study area intersections.
6. Based on the roadway segment analysis, the addition of thero'
p sect
traffic does not produce an increase of more than 0.02 in the V/C ratio
value for Opening Year (1999) without project vs. OpeningYear
( 19
99)
with project traffic conditions. Therefore, the project does not create
any significant traffic impact to study area roadway segments.
7. For Buildout (Year 2008) with project traffic conditions, the study area
intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable level of service
during the peak hours with existing lane configurations. However, with
j the recommended street improvements, all the study area intersections
are projected to operate at Level of Service "D" or better. Most the
roadway links are projected to have V/C ratios worst than 0.80 except
the following roadway segments, in which they are projected to be over-
capacity:
• Brea Canyon Road north of SR -60 westbound ramps.
• Golden Springs Drive between SR -60 eastbound ramps and
Brea Canyon Road.
D
8. No traffic signal is projected to be warranted at any of the two project
driveways for Opening Year (1999) and Buildout (Year 2008) with
project traffic conditions (see Appendix "G").
F. ProJect Recommendations
The Opening Year circulation recommendations are summarized in Exhibit C.
1. The proposed project will have two access driveways on Golden Springs
Drive. All two project driveways should be stop -controlled with
minimum widths of 30 feet.
2. The westerly project driveway is proposed to be a right-in/right-out only
access, and it is located approximately 280 feet west of Rapidview Drive
on Golden Springs Drive.
3. The easterly project driveway is proposed to be a full access, and it is
located approximately 450 feet east of Rapidview Drive. It is
recommended that a 150 foot eastbound left turn pocket be provided on
Golden Springs Drive for the inbound traffic. The City of Diamond Bar
is currently preparing the roadway improvement plans for Golden Springs
Drive adjacent to the project site. The improvements include raised
median along Golden Springs Drive. The applicant should negotiate with
the City of Diamond Bar to incorporate the appropriate median break and
left turn pocket design into the City's roadway improvement plans.
10
OPENING YEAR CIRCULATION REC EXHIBIT C
OMMENDATIONS
w
Q
z
0
J
SR 60
SITE
� I pR • �2 �ZL
z I SPRY G�
CDA o
'-urv-"l l l<UC i GOLDEN SPRINGS E
ADJACENT TO PROJECT SITE
TO ITS ULTIMATE HALF -SECTION
WIDTH AS A SECONDARY
ARTERIAL HIGHWAY (80' ROW)
PROVIDE A 150' EASTBOUND
LEFT TURN POCKET IN THE
MEDIAN ALONG GOLDEN
SPRINGS DRIVE. THE APPLICANT
SHOULD NEGOTIATE WITH THE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR TO
INCORPORATE MEDIAN BREAK
AND LEFT TURN POCKET DESIGN INTO
THE CITY'S ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT
PLANC
LEGEND,
= RIGi-T-;N/RIGHT-OUT ONLY ACCESS
= FULL ACCESS
i = STOP SIGN
N
'C27-98—O':03A
—A. F17—N-- J�amand
ItK
ASSOdATES INC.
4. No traffic signal is needed at any of the two project driveways since
none has been warranted.
5. The following intersection improvements are recommended for the
buildout conditions (see Exhibit N):
a. For the intersection of Lemon Avenue at Golden Springs Drive:
• Provide an additional southbound left turn lane.
• Provide an additional eastbound left turn lane.
b. For the intersection of State Route 60 (SR -60) eastbound ramps
at Golden Springs Drive:
• Provide an additional eastbound left turn lane.
C. For the intersection of Brea Canyon Road at SR -60 westbound
ramps:
• Widen the SR -60 westbound off -ramp to provide one
left turn lane and dual right turn lanes.
d. For the intersection of Brea Canyon Road at Golden Springs Drive:
• Provide an additional southbound left turn lane.
12
e. The City of Diamond Bar may consider widening the following
roadway segments due to high volume -to -capacity ratio on
roadways:
• Improve Golden Springs Drive between SR -60
eastbound ramps and Brea Canyon Road from
existing four lane roadway to six lanes.
• Improve Brea Canyon Road north of SR -60
westbound ramps from existing four lane roadway to
six lanes.
6. Traffic signing/striping should be implemented in conjunction with
detailed construction plans for the project.
7• Sight distance at the project access driveway should be reviewed with
respect to City of Diamond Bar sight distance standards in conjunction
with the preparation of precise grading and landscape plans.
8. The approximate cost for the recommended intersection improvements
for buildout traffic conditions have been calculated. The total cost of the
intersection improvements is approximately $309,000.•. The project fair
share cost is approximately $20,300.
13
A. Land Use
The site is currently vacant. Adjacent uses include the following:
North - Not applicable (SR -60)
South - Residential development
East - Commercial development
West - Office development
Exhibit D shows the existing land uses in the vicinity of the project site.
1• • M.
The project site is currently zoned for commercial uses.
Adjacent parcels are currently zoned for the following:
North - Not applicable (SR -60)
South Residential
East - Commercial
West - Office
14
COMMERCIAL
(DEVELOPED)
Lj
a OFFICE
zo (DEVELOPED)
w /
EXISTING LAND USE AND EXHIBIT p
ZONING
COMMERCIAL
(VACANT)
SERVICE
STATI ON
SERVICE (DEVELOPED)
STATION
(DEVELOPED)
RESIDENTIAL
\ (DEVELOPED)
C 1:04A
5- D amend 8a,,
15
0
RK
t 1S50CIAiFS INC.
r" it
ITE it
1
_
i
i (VACANT)
if
1
+ y
++
��
Q
y COMMERCIAL
yy
L
(DEVELOPED)
y
RESIDENTIAL
\ (DEVELOPED)
C 1:04A
5- D amend 8a,,
15
0
RK
t 1S50CIAiFS INC.
Pursuant to conversations with City of Diamond Bar staff, there are no
other approved future developments in the vicinity of the project site.
Existing roadways in the study area include Lemon Avenue, Brea Canyon
Road and Golden Springs Drive.
Lemon Avenue is currently a four lane divided roadway, and it is
classified as a Secondary arterial (80 foot right-of-way) north of Golden -
Springs Drive. It is also currently a two lane undivided roadway and
classified as a Collector roadway (64 foot right-of-way) south of Golden
Springs Drive.
Brea Canyon Road is currently a four lane divided roadway, and it is -
classified as a Major arterial (100 foot right-of-way) north of Golden -
Springs Drive and a Secondary arterial (80 foot right-of-way) south of
Golden Springs Drive.
Golden Springs Drive is currently a four lane divided roadway, and it is
classified as a Secondary arterial (80 foot right-of-way) in the vicinity of
the project site.
16
The following intersections within the study area have been identified for
analysis through discussions with City of Diamond Bar staff:
Lemon Avenue (NS) at:
• Golden Springs Road (EW)
SR -60 Eastbound Ramps (NS) at:
• Golden Springs Drive (EW)
Brea Canyon Road (NS) at:
• SR -60 Westbound Ramps (EW)
• Golden Springs Drive (EW)
Exhibit E identifies the existing roadway conditions for study area
roadways. The number of through travel lanes for existing roadways
and the existing intersection controls are identified.
2. r P Arterial Highways
Existing and future roadways are included in the City of Diamond Bar
Circulation Element and are shown on Exhibit F.
17
EXHIBIT E
EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES
AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS
LEOENDi
- TRAFFIC SIGNAL
T STOP SIGN
4 . NUMBER OF LANES
D DMDED
U UNDIVIDED
1027-913-01:05A 27-98-0t:O5A
18
;t!5jK-
W-
EXHIBIT F
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT
:� DIAMOND BAR CITY LU*M
an DIAMOND BAR SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
FREEWAY
MAJOR ARTERIAL,
•' j SECONDARY AR'T'ERIAL
is
itit KJIC-_
III PROJECTED TRAFFIC
A. Site Traffic
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is attracted and
produced by a development. Trip generation for this project has been
based upon the specific land use which is planned for the development.
The proposed health club consists of 38,000 square feet of building
area.
Trip generation rates for this project are shown in Table 1. The trip
generation rates are based upon data developed by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE).
Both daily and peak -hour trip generation for the proposed project are
shown in Table 2. The proposed development is projected to generate
approximately 1,520 trip -ends per day with 11 vehicles per hour during
the AM peak hour and 164 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour.
2: Trio Distribution
Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and
from the project site. Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the
geographical location of the site, the proximity to the regional freeway
system, employment; 'commercial and community facilities. The
directional orientation of traffic was determined by evaluating existing
20
2
3
TABLE 1
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES
PEAK -HOUR'
AM PM
LAND USE UNITS2 IN
OUT IN OUT DAlLY3
Health Club TSF 0.14 0.161 2.821
1.68 40.00
------------
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trio Generation
1997, Land Use Category 493. Sixth Edition,
TSF = thousand square feet
Source: San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAL T
1995. )� --rio eneration Rates May
21
TABLE 2
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
PEAK HOUR
AM PM
LHosiMth
ND USE OUANTITY UNITS' IN OUT IN OUT DAILY
38.0 TSF 5 6 100 64 1, 520
' TSF = thousand square feet
W
It,
l
1
1
11
and proposed land uses within the community and existing traffic
volumes.
Trip distributions for this study have been based upon near-term
conditions, based upon those highway facilities which are in place. The
outbound and inbound trip distribution patterns for the project are
graphically depicted on Exhibits G and H, respectively.
The traffic reducing potential of public transit has not been considered
in this report. Essentially the traffic projections are "conservative" in
that public transit might be able to reduce the traffic volumes. Currently,
Golden Springs Road is served by the Foothill Transit route 482 buses.
4. Trip Assign_=
The assignment of traffic from the site to the adjoining roadway system
has been based upon the site's trip generation, trip distributions,
proposed arterial highway and local street systems. Project related daily
traffic volumes and the project AM and PM peak hour intersection
turning movements are shown on Exhibit I.
23
EXHIBIT G
PROJECT OUTBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Nv-ea-D,.C7A
--.A. FirNE55, Dia
3 z
or, Coitfornia
10 = PERCENT FROM PROJECT
Ps!LS K
5
1
1
24 �r...............
1
'0z7-
-.A. n
XHIBIT
PROJECT INBOUND TRIP DISTRI BUTIUTIW
ON
LEGEND,
10 = PERCENT TO PROJECT
25
RK
tCM1E3INC.
EXHIBIT
PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
N2
1:09A
I, Diamand Bar.
LEGENDS _
10/20 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENTS
10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S)
26
Ps!5jK-
&AMINC.
B. Future Traffic
To account for areawide growth on roadways, Opening Year traffic
volumes have been calculated based on a 3 percent annual growth rate
of existing traffic volumes over a one year period (1999). Areawide
growth has been derived from the comparison of the 1994 traffic
volumes provided by the City of Diamond Bar and the 1998 traffic
counts conducted for RKJK:
Location: Golden Springs Drive, east of Lemon Avenue.
1994 ADT: 20,431 vehicles per day
1998 ADT: 22,900 vehicles per day
Approximate Annual Growth Rate: 2.9% say 3%
Areawide growth has been added to daily and peak hour traffic volumes
on surrounding roadways, in IdAllign to traffic generated by the project.
Existing traffic volumes are shown on Exhibit J, and they are based on
manual AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts conducted for
RKJK in February, 1998 (see Exhibit J). Traffic count worksheets are
included in Appendix "B". The roadway average daily traffic (ADT)
volumes have been estimated by RKJK using the following formula for
each intersection leg:
PM Peak Hour (Approach + Exit Volumes) • 12 = Daily Leg Volume
27
EXHIBIT J
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
1027-96-01 10A
..A ITNESS, 3,0
10/20 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENTS
10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S)
28
rt
k ASSOC ATES i W-
The formula is based on the assumption that 8% of the daily traffic
occur during PM peak hour.
Exhibit K shows the traffic volumes which can be expected for Opening
Year (1999) without project traffic conditions.
Exhibit L shows the traffic volumes which can be expected for Opening
Year (1999) with project traffic conditions.
To account for the areawide growth on roadways, buildout traffic
volumes have been calculated based on a 3 percent annual growth rate
of existing traffic volumes over a ten year period (Year 2008), which is
a total of 34 percent.
Exhibit M shows the traffic volumes which can be expected for Buildout
(Year 2008) with project traffic conditions.
29
EXHIBIT X
OPENING YEAR (19991 WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
i -
C —98 -01'13A
L.A. FITNESS, Diamond
amid
LEGENDo
10/20 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENTS
10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'5)
30
IK
k ASSOCIATES IMC.
OPENING YEAR 119991 WITH PROJECT TRAF ExS
FIC EXHIBIT FIC
ES
1
LEGEND,
10/20 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENTS
10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S)
31
R K
t +ssocuits INC.
BUILDOUT [YEAR 20081 WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC
EXHIBIT M
VOLUMES
N27
L'11A
, co
LEOENDe
10/20 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENTS
10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000-S)
32
I KIATESJK-
& ,�ssoA.
A. Level ofService atKxis ing_ Conditions
1. ICU
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) for existing traffic conditions have
been calculated and are shown in Table 3. The ICU are based on manual
AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts conducted for RKJK in
February, 1998 (see Exhibit J). Traffic count worksheets are included
in Appendix "B".
Table 3 shows ICU calculations at the study area intersections with
existing lane configurations. As shown on Table 3, the study area
intersections are currently operating at Level of Service "D" or better
during the peak hours, with existing lane configurations. ICU calculation
worksheets are included in Appendix "C".
2. V/C Ratio
Table 4 summarizes the existing volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio of the
roadways in the vicinity of the project site. As shown on Table 4, all the
roadway links currently have V/C ratios better than 0.80 except Brea
Canyon Road north of SR -60 westbound ramps.
33
TABLE 3
EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
WITH EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATIONS
' When a right turn is designated, the lana can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn Ione there must be sufficient width
for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
L = Left
T Through
R Right
> _ Right Turn Overlap
' ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization
LOS 9 Level of Service
Shared through, right end left turn lane.
34
INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES'
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
ICUs
LOS'
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T R
L
T
R
AM
PM
AM
PM
ERSECTION
e. ISat:
Springs Dr. IEW)
F-�
i
1
0
1
1
1
1
2 1
1
2
1
0.78
0.78
C
C
Ramps (NS) at:
Springs Dr. IEW)
0
1
1
1.5`
0
O.5'
1
3 0
1
2
1>
0.74
0.75
C
C
Rd. 11 at:
B Ramps IEW)
2
2
0
0
2
1
O
0 0
0.5•
0
1.5'
0.67
0.85
B
D
Springs Or. IEWI
1
2
1
1
2
1>
2
2 1
1
2
1
0.87
0.75
B
C-:--Jl
' When a right turn is designated, the lana can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn Ione there must be sufficient width
for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
L = Left
T Through
R Right
> _ Right Turn Overlap
' ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization
LOS 9 Level of Service
Shared through, right end left turn lane.
34
TABLE 4
EXISTING ROADWAY VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO
STREET I
ROADWAY LINK
len Springs Dr. west of Lemon Ave.
east of Lemon Ave.
west of SR -60 ES Ramps
SR -60 EB Ramps to Brea Canyon Rd.
east of Brea Canyon Rd.
m Ave. north of Golden Springs Dr.
Canyon Rd. north of SR -60 WB Ramps
north of Golden Springs Dr.
south of Golden Springs Dr.
35
VOLUME -TO -
DAILY
CAPACITY
LEVEL OF
TRAFFIC
RATIO
SERVICE
21,600
0.58
A
22,900
0.61
B
22,100
0.59
A
28,700
0.77
C
27,400
0.73
C
15,000
0.40
A
30,500
0.81
D
23,900
0.64
B
17,900
0.48
A
B. Level of Service at OoeninaYear (1999) Without Project
1. ICU
ICU for Opening Year (1999) without project traffic conditions have been
calculated and are shown in Table 5. Table5. shows ICU calculations at
the study area intersections with existing lane configurations. Opening
Year (1999) AM and PM peak hour turning movement volumes without
the project are shown on Exhibit'K.
As shown in Table 5, the study area intersections are projected to
operate at Level of Service "D" or better during the peak hours, with
existing lane configurations. ICU calculation worksheets are included in
Appendix "D".
2. V/C Ratio
Table 6 summarizes the V/C ratio of the surrounding roadways for the
Opening Year (1999) without project traffic conditions. As shown on
Table 6, all the roadway links are projected to have V/C ratios better
than 0.80 except Brea Canyon Road north of SR -60 westbound ramps.
C. Level of Service at Ooenina Year (19991 With Project
1. ICU
ICU for Opening Year (1999) with project traffic conditions have been
calculated and are shown in Table 7. Table 7 shows ICU calculations at
36
TABLE 5
OPENING YEAR (1999) WITHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
WITH EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATIONS
INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES'
INTERSECTION
Lemon Ave. (NS) at:
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
T R
WESTBOUNO
L T R
ICU'
AM PM
LOS a
AM I PM
• Golden Springs Dr. (EW)
SR -80 EB R
Ramps (NS) at:
1 1 0
1 1 1
1 2 1
1 2 1
0.80
0.78
C C
• Golden Springs Dr. (EW)
Brea Cyn. Rd. (NS) at:
0 1 1
1.5` 0 0.54
1 3 0
1 2 1>
0.78
0.77
C C
• SR -80 WB Ramps (EW)
• Golden Springs Or. (EW)
2 2 0
1 2 1
0 2 1
1 2 1>
0 0 0
2 2 1
0.5` 0 1.5`
1 2 1
0.88
0.88
0.87
0.77
B O
B C
When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be
for right. turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. sufficient width
L = Left
T = Through
R = Right
> = Right Turn Overlap
7 ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization
LOS = Level of Service
Shared through, right and left turn lane.
37
TABLE 6
OPENING YEAR (1999) WITHOUT PROJECT
ROADWAY VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO
STREET
ROADWAY LINK
VOLUME -TO -
DAILY CAPACITY
TRAFFIC RATIO
LEVEL OF
SERVICE
Golden Springs Dr.
west of Lemon Ave.
22,247 0.59
A
east of Lemon Ave.
23,586 0.63
B
west of SR -60 EB Ramps
22,762 0.61
B
SR -60 EB Ramps to Brea Canyon Rd.
29,560 0.79
C
east of Brea Canyon Rd.
28,221 0.75
C
Lemon Ave.
north of Golden Springs Dr.
15,449 0.41
A
Brea Canyon Rd.
north of SR -60 WB Ramps
31,414 0.84
D
north of Golden Springs Dr.
24,616 0.66
B
south of Golden Springs Dr.
1 18,436 1 0.49
A
NN
TABLE 7
OPENING YEAR (1999) WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
WITH EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATIONS
INTERSECTION
Lemon Ave. INS) at:
• Golden SPringe Dr. (EM
SR -80 EB Ramps (NS) at:
• Golden Springs Dr. (EW)
Brsa Cyn. Rd. (NS) at:
• SR -80 WB Ramps (EW)
• Golden Springs Dr. (E1M
INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES'
EOREOUD SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND
�'=S7T8UND ICU= LOSS
R L TR L T R L s
1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2
0 1 1 1.5' 0 0.54 1 3
2 2 0 0 2 1 0 0
1 2 1 1 2 1> 2 2
AM PM AM PM
1 1 2 1 0.80 0.78 C C
0 1 2=1 > 0.78 0.77 C C
0 0.54 0 1.54 0.88 0.88 B D
1 1 2 1 0.89 0.78 B C
' When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width
for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
L - Left
T a Through
R - Right
> s Right Turn Overlap
3 ICU
Intersection Capacity Utilization
' LOS
Leval of Service
Shared through, right and left turn lane.
39
the study area intersections with existing lane configurations. Opening
Year (1999) AM and PM peak hour turning movement volumes with the
project are shown on Exhibit L.
As shown in Table 7, the study area intersections are projected to
operate at Level of Service "D" or better during the peak hours, with
existing lane configurations. ICU calculation worksheets are included in
Appendix "E".
The addition of the project traffic does not produce an increase of more
than 0.02 in the ICU value for Opening Year (1999) without project vs.
Opening Year (1999) with project traffic conditions. Therefore, the
project does not create any significant traffic impacts to study area
intersections.
2. V/C Ratio
Table 8 summarizes the V/C ratio of the surrounding roadways for the
Opening Year (1999) with project traffic conditions. As shown on Table
8, all the roadway links are projected to have V/C ratios better than 0.80
except the following roadway segments:
• Brea Canyon Road north of SR -60 westbound ramps.
• Golden Springs Drive between SR -60 eastbound ramps and
Brea Canyon Road.
40
TABLE 8
OPENING YEAR (1999) WITH PROJECT
ROADWAY VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO
STREET ROADWAY LINK
len Springs Dr. west of Lemon Ave.
east of Lemon Ave.
west of SR -60 EB Ramps
SR -60 EB Ramps to Brea Canyon Rd.
east of Brea Canyon Rd.
m Ave. north of Golden Springs Dr.
Canyon Rd. north of SR -60 WB Ramps
north of Golden Springs Dr.
south of Golden Springs Dr.
41
VOLUME -TO -
DAILY
CAPACITY
LEVEL OF
TRAFFIC
RATIO
SERVICE
22,551
0.60
A
24,088
0.64
B
23,750
0.63
B
30,358
0.81
D
28,677
0.76
C
15,601
0.42
A
31,490
0.84
D
24,882
0.66
B
18,512
0.49
A
Based on the roadway segment analysis, the addition of ,the project
traffic does not produce an increase of more than 0.02 in the V/C ratio
value for Opening Year (1999) without project vs. Opening Year (1999)
with project traffic conditions. Therefore, the project does not create
any significant traffic impact to study area roadway segments.
D. Level of Service at Buildout (Year 20081 With Project
1. ICU
ICU for buildout (Year 2008) with project traffic conditions have been
calculated and are shown in Table 9. Table 9 shows ICU calculations at
the study area intersections with existing lane configurations. Buildout
(Year 2008) AM and PM peak hour turning movement volumes with the
project are shown on Exhibit M.
As shown in Table 9, the study area intersections are projected to
operate at Level of Service "E" or worst during the peak hours, with
existing lane configurations. However, with the recommended street
improvements shown on Table 10, all the study area intersections are
projected to operate at Level of Service "D" or better during the peak
hours. ICU calculation worksheets are included in Appendix "F".
2. V/C Ratio
Table 11 summarizes the V/C ratio of the surrounding roadways for the
buildout (Year 2008) with project traffic conditions. As shown on Table
11, most the roadway links are projected to have V/C ratios worst than
42
TABLE 9
BUILDOUT (YEAR 2008) WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
WITH EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATIONS
INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES'
INTERSECTION
Lemon Ave. (NS) at:
NORTHBOUND
L T R
SOUTHBOUND
L T R
EASTBOUND
L T R
WESTBOUND
L T R
ICU'
AM PM
LOS'
AM I PM
• Golden Springs Or. (EW)
SR -60 EB Ramps (NS) at:
• Golden Springs or. (EW)
Brea Cyn. Rd. INS) at:
• SR -60 WS Ramps (EW)
• Golden Springs Dr. (EW)
1 1 0
0 1 1
2 2 0
1 2 1
1 1 1
1.5` 0 0.54
O 2 1
1 2 1>
1 2 1
1 3 0
0 0 O
2 2 1
1 2 1
1 2 1>
0.5` 0 1.54
1 2 1
1.01 0.99
0.95 0.97
0.88 1.13
0.86 0.98
F E
E E
D
D E
When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lone there must be suffic ent width
for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
L a Left
T Through
R Right
Right Turn Overlap
� ICU =
Intersection Capacity Utilization
3 LOS =
Level of Service
4 Shared through, right and left turn lane.
43
TABLE 10
BUILDOUT (YEAR 2008) WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
WITH IMPROVED LANE CONFIGURATIONS
' When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient —dth
for right turning vehicles to trawl outside the through lanes.
L = Left
T = Through
R Right
> = Right Turn Overlap
2 = Number of Lanes With Improvement
' ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization
7 LOS = Level of Service
' Shared through, right and left turn lane.
44
INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES'
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
ICU'
LOS'
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
L T
R
AM
PM
AM
PM
INTERSECTION
Lemon Ave. (NS) at:
• Golden Springs Dr. (EW)
1
1
0
2
1
1
2,
2
2
1 2
1
0.84
0.83
D
D
SR -80 E8 Ramps (NS) at:
• Golden Springs Dr. (EW)
0
1
1
1.5'
0
0.5'
1
3
0
1 2
1>
0.87
0.85
D
D
Bras Cyn. Rd. (NS) at:
e SR -80 WB Ramps (EW)
2
2
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
1 0
j
0.78
0.87
C
D
a Golden Springs Dr. (EW)
1
2
1
2
1>
2
2
1
1 2
1
0.88
0.89
D
D
' When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient —dth
for right turning vehicles to trawl outside the through lanes.
L = Left
T = Through
R Right
> = Right Turn Overlap
2 = Number of Lanes With Improvement
' ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization
7 LOS = Level of Service
' Shared through, right and left turn lane.
44
TABLE 11
BUILDOUT (YEAR 2008) WITH PROJECT
ROADWAY VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO
STREETROADWAY
LINK
DAILY
TRAFFIC
len Springs Dr.
west of Lemon Ave.
29,248
0.78
east of Lemon Ave.
31,188
D
west of SR -60 EB Ramps
30,602
1.05
SR -60 EB Ramps to Brea Canyon Rd.
0.99
E
0.54
39,256
1.09
east of Brea Canyon Rd.
37,172
in Ave.
north of Golden Springs Dr.
20,252
Canyon Rd.
north of SR -60 WB Ramps
40,946
north of Golden Springs Dr.
32,292
south of Golden Springs Dr.
24,062
45
VOLUME -TO -
CAPACITY
LEVEL OF
RATIO
SERVICE
0.78
C
0.83
D
0.82
D
1.05
F
0.99
E
0.54
A
1.09
F
0.86
D
0.64
g
0.80 except the following roadway segments, in which they are over-
capacity:
• Brea Canyon Road north of SR -60 westbound ramps.
• Golden Springs Drive between SR -60 eastbound ramps and
Brea Canyon Road.
The project fair share contributions have been calculated for the study area
intersections. The project share of intersection improvements has been based
on the proportion of project peak hour traffic volumes contributed to the
intersection relative to the total new peak hour buildout (Year 2008) traffic
volumes. Table 12 presents a summary of the project traffic contribution at the
study area intersections.
46
TABLE 12
PROJECT TRAFFIC CONTRIBUTION
INTERSECTION
N/S ROADWAY E/W ROADWAY
non Ave. Golden Springs Dr.
PEAK
HOUR
AM
EXISTING BUILDOUT
TRAFFIC TRAFFIC
5,140 6,884
NEW
TRAFFIC
1,744
PROJECT
TRAFFIC
6
PERCENT
PROJECT
0.3%
PM
5,308
7,210
1,902
108
5.7%
60 EB Ramps
Golden Springs Dr.
AM
5,040
6,752
1,712
12
0.7%
PM
5,882
8,080
2,198
212
9.6%
i Canyon Rd.
SR -60 WB Ramps
AM
5,630
7,540
1,910
4
0.2%
PM
6,124
8,256
2,132
58
2.7%
Canyon Rd.
Golden Springs Dr.
AM
6,994
9,370
2,376
10
0.4%
PM
8,116
.11,034
2,918
172
5.9%
47
V RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Site Access
The Opening Year circulation recommendations were previously summarized in
Exhibit C.
1. The proposed project will have two access driveways on Golden Springs
Drive. All two project driveways should be stop -controlled with
minimum widths of 30 feet.
2. The westerly project driveway is proposed to be a right-in/right-out only
access, and it is located approximately 280 feet west of Rapidview Drive
on Golden Springs Drive.
3. The easterly project driveway is proposed to be a full access, and it is
located approximately 450 feet east of Rapidview Drive. It is
recommended that a 150 foot eastbound left turn pocket be provided on
Golden Springs Drive for the inbound traffic. The City of Diamond Bar
is currently preparing the roadway improvement plans for Golden Springs
Drive adjacent to the project site. The improvements include raised
median along Golden Springs Drive. The applicant should negotiate with
the City of Diamond Bar to incorporate the appropriate median break and
left turn pocket design into the City's roadway improvement plans.
4. No traffic signal is needed at any of the two project driveways since
none has been projected to be warranted (see Appendix "G").
48
B. Roadwsv Improvements
For Opening Year (1999) traffic conditions with the project and with
existing lane configurations, the study area intersections are projected
to operate at Level of Service "D" or better during the peak hours. For
buildout (Year 2008) traffic conditions with the project and with existing
lane configurations, the study area intersections are projected to operate
at unacceptable level of service during the peak hours. However, with
the recommended street improvements shown in Table 10, all the study
area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "D" or
better during the peak hours. The following intersection improvements
are recommended for the buildout conditions (see Exhibit N):
a. For the intersection of Lemon Avenue at Golden Springs Drive:
• Provide an additional southbound left turn lane.
• Provide an additional eastbound left turn lane.
b. For the intersection of State Route 60 (SR -60) eastbound ramps
at Golden Springs Drive:
• Provide an additional eastbound left turn lane.
49
EXHIBIT N
RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION LANE CONFIGURATION
FOR BUILDOUT [YEAR 20081 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Nz�-ee-o,...,,
'_A. FITNESS. Ciomond Bar
is
LEGENDi
F- = EXISTING LANE
OB = IMPROVED LANE
OVL = RIGHT TURN OVERLAP PHASING
50
RmKJK-,
C• For the intersection of Brea Canyon Road at SR -60 westbound
ramps:
• Widen the SR -60 westbound off -ramp to provide one
left turn lane and dual right turn lanes.
d. For the intersection of Brea Canyon Road at Golden Springs Drive:
• Provide an additional southbound left turn lane.
e. The City of Diamond Bar may consider widening the following
roadway segments due to high volume -to -capacity ratio on
roadways:
• Improve Golden Springs Drive between SR -60
eastbound ramps and Brea Canyon Road from
existing four lane roadway to six lanes.
• Improve Brea Canyon Road north of SR -6C
westbound ramps from existing four lane roadway to
six lanes.
a. Traffic signing/striping should be implemented in conjunction with
detailed construction plans for the project.
b. Sight distance at the project access driveway should be reviewed
with respect to City of Diamond Bar sight distance standards in
conjunction with the preparation of precise grading and landscape
plans.
51
3. Cost Estimates
a. Table 13 shows the preliminary cost estimates for the
recommended intersection improvements for buildout traffic
conditions summarized in Exhibit N. As shown on Table 13, the
cost of the intersection improvements is approximately $309,000.
The cost estimates are based on unit cost from the Eastside
Reservoir Recreation Areas TIA previously prepared by RKJK on
September 22, 1997.
b. The project fair share cost for each intersections have also been
calculated, and they are based on PM peak hour project fair share
percentages previously calculated in Table 12. As shown in Table
13, the project fair share cost is approximately $20,300.
52
TABLE 13
PRELIMINARY ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATES
INTERSECTION
N/S ROADWAY 1 E/W ROADWAY
non Ave. Golden Springs Dr.
-60 ES Ramps Golden Springs Dr.
a Canyon Rd. SR -60 WB Ramps
I Canyon Rd. Golden Springs Dr.
i
AL
IMPROVEMENT
DESCRIPTION
SB/EB Left Turn Lane
EB Left Tum Lane
WB Right Tum Lane
SB Left Tum Lane
ESTIMATED
PROJE
COST'
SHARE COST
$148,000
$8,40(
$74,000
OC
$13,000
$400
$74,000
$4,400
$309,000
$20,300
' Unit cost based on Eastside Reservoir Recreation Area TIA prepared by RKJK, September 22
2 , 1997.
Fair share percentage based on PM peak hour project traffic.
53
APPENDIX A
LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION
Service
Level
A
C
LEVEL OF SERVICE - DEFINITIONS*
General
Definition
Free flow. Individual users are
virtually unaffected by the pres-
ence of others in the traffic
stream. Freedom to select de-
sired speeds and to maneuver
within the traffic stream is ex-
tremely high. The general level
Of comfort and convenience pro-
vided to the motorist, passenger,
or pedestrian is excellent.
C/ plc /um E T c
ilA
/
C
/ C7,
Stable flow, but the presence of
other users in the traffic stream
begins to be noticeable. Freedom
to select desired speeds Is rota-
tively unaffected, but there is a
slight decline in the freedom to
maneuver within the traffic
stream from LOS A. The level of
comfort and convenience provided
Is somewhat less than at LOS A,
because the presence of others In
the traffic stream begins to
affect individual behavior.
G " - -7 C�
Stable flow, but marks the
beginning of the range of now in
which the operation of Individual
users becomes significantly
affected by interactions with
others In the traffic stream. The
Selection of speed Is affected by
the presence of others, and
maneuvering withal the traffic
stream requires substanttel
vigilance on the part of the user.
The general level of comfort and
convenience declines noticeably
at this level.
7l - Do
Freeways
Criteria for measurement:
Density (cars per lane -mile)
Free flow operations. Average
travel speeds near 60 mph gen-
erally prevail on 70 -mph freeway
elements. Vehicles are almost
completely unimpeded in their
ability to maneuver within the
traffic stream. The average
spacing between vehicles is about
440 ft, or 22 car -lengths, with a
maximum density of 12 cars/
mi/]n. The effects of minor Inci-
dents or breakdowns are easily
absorbed at this level. Although
they may cause a deterioration In
LOS In the vicinity of the Inci-
dent, standing queues will not
form, and traffic quickly returns
to LOS A on passing the dis-
ruption.
Reasonably free-flow conditions,
and speeds of over 57 mph are
maintained on 70 -mph freeway
elements. The average spacing
between vehicles is about 260 ft,
or 13 car -lengths, with a
maximum density of 20
cars/mi/in. The ability to
maneuver within the traffic
stream IS only alightly restric-
ted. The effects of minor lnei-
dents and breakdowns are @till
easily absorbed, though local
deterioratloo In service would be
more severe than for LOS A.
Stable operations, but flows
approach the range In which small
Increases In flow will cause
substantial deterioration in
service. Average travel speeds
are still over 54 mph. Freedom to
maneuver within the traffic
stream is noticeably restricted at
LOS C, and lane changes require
additional care and vigilance by
the driver. Average spacings are
In the range of 175 ft, or 9 asr-
lengths, with a maximum density
of 30/cars/mi/in. Minor incidents
may still be absorbed, but the
local deterioration In service will
be substantial. Queues may be'
expected to form behind any
significant blockage. Additional
vigilance by driver required for
safe operation.
Arterials
Criteria Car measurement:
Average travel speed (mph)
Primarily free flow -operations at
average travel speeds usually
within 90 percent of the free flow
speed. Vehicles are completely
unimpeded In their ability to
maneuver within the traffic
stream. Stopped delay at Sig-
nalized intersections !s minimal.
Unimpeded operations at average
travel speeds usually within 70
Percent of the free flow speed.
The ability to maneuver within
the traffic stream Ia slightly
restricted and stopped delays are
not bothersome.
Stable operations. Ability to
maneuver and change la Ma in
midblock locations may be more
restricted thea in LOS a. ano
longer queues and/or adverse
slgW coordination may
contribute to lower average travel
speeds of about 60 percent of the
average free now speed.
N
Nigh -density, but stable, flow.
Speed and freedom to maneuver
are severely restricted. and the
driver or pedestrian experiences a
generally poor level of comfort
and convenience. Small Increases
In traffic flow will generally
cause operational problems at this
level.
Operating conditions at or near
the capacity level. All speeds are
reduced to a low but relatively
uniform value. Freedom to man-
euver within the traffic stream is
extremely difficult, and it Is
generally accomplished by forcing
a vehicle or pedestrian to "give
way" to accommodate such man-
euvers. Comfort and convenience
levels are extremely poor, and
driver or pedestrian frustration Is
generally high. Operations at this
level are usually unstable, because
small increases In flow or minor
perturbations within the traffic
stream will cause breakdowns.
. 171 - /. () o
Level -o( -service F. Fore" or
breakdown now. This condition
exists wherever the amount of
traffic approaching a point
exceeds the amount which can
traverse the point. Queues form
behind such locations. Arrival
flow exceeds discharge now.
Gi/E i1_1 /. U J
Borders on unstable flow. In this
range, small Increases In flow
cause substantial deterioration in
service. Average travel speeds of
46 mph or more can still be
maintained on 70 -mph freeway
elements. Freedom to maneuver
within the traffic stream Is
severely limited. Even minor
incidents can be expected to
create substantial queuing,
because the traffic stream has
little space to absorb
disruptions. Average spacings are
about 125 ft, or 6 car-lengP%
with a maximum density of 49
cars/miAn.
The boundary between LOS D and
LOS E describes operation at
capacity. Operations in this level
are extremely unstable, because
Were are virtually no usable gaps
In the traffic stream. Vehicles
are spaced at approximately 80 ft,
or 4 car -lengths, at relatively
uniform headways. This, however,
represents the minimum spacing
at which stable flow can be
accommodated. Any disruption to
the traffic stream, such as a
vehicle entering from a ramp, or a
vehicle changing lanes, causes
following vehicles to give way to
admit the vehicle. At capacity,
the traffic stream has no ability
to dissipate even the most minor
disruptions. Any incident can be
expected to produce a serious
breakdown with extensive
queuing. The range of flows
encompassed by LOS E Is
relatively small compared to
other levels, but reflects a
substantial deterioration In
service. Maneuverability within
the traffic stream Is extremely
limited Average travel speeds at
capacity are approximately 10
mph.
Level F describes forced or
breakdown flow. Such conditions
generally exist within queues
forming behind breakdown
points. Breakdown occurs when
the ratio of actual arrival flow
rate to actual capacity or the
forecasted now rate to estimated
capacity exceeds 1.00.
Operations at such a point will
generally be at or near capacity,
and downstream operations may
be better as vehicles pass the
bottleneck (assuming that there
are no additional downstream
problems). The LOS F operations
observed within a queue are the
result of a breakdown or bottle-
neck at a downstream point.
*source: "Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 40fe
Tron-trv+rtstinn Remoareh Rnare. Washinrtnn fl.C.. 1985
Borders on a range on which small
increases In flow may cause
substantial increases In approach
delay and, hence, decreases In
arterial speed. This may be due
to adverse signal progression,
Inappropriate signal timing, hign
volumes, or some combination of
these. Average travel speeds are
about 40 percent of free flow
speed.
Significant approach delays and
average travel speeds of one-third
the free flow speed or lower.
Such operations are caused by
some combination or adverse
progression, high signal density,
extensive queuing at critical
intersections, and inappropriate
signal timing.
Arterial flow at extremely I—
speeds below one-third to one-
quarter of the free Intersection congestion von islikely6
al et re withhigh ppo h delays l t ing.
Adverse pregreMellon if frequently
a contributor to this condition.
S133HSNUOM 1Nf100 ow:ival
= .0,11r�r9ki
N -S STREET:
E -W STREET:
SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS
VEHICLE AND MANUAL COUNTS
LEMON AVE:
GOLDEN SPRINGS
DATE: 2/18/98
DAY: WEDNESDAY
CITY: DIAMOND BAR
AM Peak Hr Begins at 730 AM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 90 226 116 168 153 233 313 291 53 133 523 271 2570
ADDITIONS:SIGNALIZED
----------------------------------PROJECT#
0095004A
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
-------------
WESTBOUND
LANES:
NL
1
NT
1
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL
ET
ER
WL WT
0
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
WR
TOTAL
-----------------------------------
-----------
2
0
6:00 AM
------
------------------
-------------
--------
15 AM
30 AM
45 AM
7:00 AM
15 AM
22
22
20
20
39
14
55
20
54
10
85
10
35 201
52
30 AM
31
67
43
38
37
26
79
46
54
32
58
11
37 12
39
603
469
45 AM
34
69
34
35
44
62
85
69
64
28
76 127
749
8:00 AM
18
80
31
44
26
70
83
67
19
42 115
658
4
654
15 AM
30 AM
7
10
8
52
4
47
76
73
87
3
3
8 151
88
675
45 AM
6
5
11
9
2
40
5
40
38
54
4
7 130
6 84
61
492
9:00 AM
4
43
6
44
50
72
4
12 105
54
45
344
15 AM
399
30 AM
45 AM
10:00 AM
15 AM
30 AM
45 AM
-----------------------------------
TOTAL
VOLUMES =
NL
145
NT
286
NR
175
SL
344
ST
210
SR
EL
___
ET
____________________
ER
WL WT
TOTL
417
443
560
82
223'1039
461
433885
AM Peak Hr Begins at 730 AM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 90 226 116 168 153 233 313 291 53 133 523 271 2570
ADDITIONS:SIGNALIZED
SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS
VEHICLE AND MANUAL COUNTS
N -S STREET: LEMON AVE. DATE: 2/18/98 CITY: DIAMOND BAR
E -W STREET: GOLDEN SPRINGS DAY: WEDNESDAY
PROJECT# 0095004P
---------------------------
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
ADDITIONS:SIGNALIZED
NL
NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL
ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
LANES:
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
2
0
2:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
3:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
4:00 PM
3
6
11
108
8
49
57
135
10
11
104
24
526
15 PM
9
8
16
87
3
45
70
147
13
26
89
25
538
30 PM
6
9
20
92
11
58
67
156
10
19
121
20
589
45 PM
7
11
10
85
8
44
50
136
16
24
72
25
488
5:00 PM
11
19
29
132
20
76
53
174
14
15
97
28
668
15 PM
7
14
15
110
11
69
59
194
10
15
91
42
637
30 PM
13
19
21
105
14
77
60
.178
18
21
122
41
689
45 PM
2
6
22
111
10
.80
67
203
18
11
108
22
660
6:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL
ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
TOTAL
NL
VOLUMES =
58
92
144
830
85
498
483
1323
109
147
804
227
4795
PM Peak Hr
Begins at
500
PM
PEAK
VOLUMES =
33
58
87
458
55
302
239
749
60
62
418
133
2654
ADDITIONS:SIGNALIZED
N -S STREET:
E -W STREET:
SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS
VEHICLE AND MANUAL COUNTS
SR -60 EB RAMPS
GOLDEN SPRINGS
DATE: 2/18/98
DAY: WEDNESDAY
CITY: DIAMOND BAR
PROJECT# 0095003A
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND -_-__-_
WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL EI, ER WL
--LANES_-- 0 1 0 1.5 0 0.5 WT WR TOTAL
--------- 2 1 1 2 1
6:00 AM -----------
---------------------
15 AM ------
30 AM
45 AM
7:00 AM 3 2
15 AM 2 64 1 10 47 110 2 0 215 74 530
11 4 2 90 7 12 51 111
30 AM 2 4 4 97 1 1 270 89 649
45 AM 8 2 4 128 5 11 46 161 2 1 248 77 657
8:00 AM 18 57 106 5 1 201 78
8 1 4 108 610
30 AM 15 AM 8 4 1 96 5 10 48 88 4 1 180 67 5 3 2 200 106 504
45 AM 8 3 2 113 2 7 54 57 02
8 7 4 71 4 6 3 5 124 98 476
9:00 AM 34 114 8 4 180 72 512
15 AM
30 AM
45 AM
10:00 AM
15 AM
30 AM
45 AM
TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET
JOLUMES = 56 27 20 757 ER WL WT WR TOTAL
34 81 410 823 28 15 1618 661 4540
AM Peak Hr Begins at 715 AM
?EAK
VOLUMES = 29
11 11 423 22 48 227 464 11 5 919 350 2520
kDDITIONS:SIGNALIZED
SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS
VEHICLE AND MANUAL COUNTS
N -S STREET:
SR -60
EB RAMPS
DATE:
2/18/98
CITY:
DIAMOND
BAR
E -W STREET:
GOLDEN
SPRINGS
DAY:
WEDNESDAY
PROJECT#
0095003P
------------
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
NL
NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL
ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
LANES:
0
1
0
1.5
0
0.5
1
2
1
1
2
1
2:00 PM
15 PM
•30 PM
45 PM
3:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
4:00 PM
16
7
6
84
7
10
60
171
7
4
98
111
581
15 PM
19
6
5
74
10
8
53
182
7
6
115
98
583
30 PM
21
4
10.
68
8
7
51
195
9
4
114
136
627
45 PM
15
5
13
87
8
10
49
178
13
5
66
151
600
5:00 PM
25
7
11
88
5
11
91
203
15
6
94
201
757
15 PM
16
10
9
51
7
6
67
213
9
4
112
171
675
30 PM
17
13
8
58
11
5
82
259
16
7
133
186
795
45 PM
27
11
10
69
10
8
80
197
7
4
145
146
714
6:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
---------------------------------------------
TOTAL
NL
NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL
ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
VOLUMES =.
156.
63
72
579
66
65
533
1598
83
40
877
1200
5332
PM Peak Hr
Begins at
500
PM
PEAK
VOLUMES =
85
•41
38
266
33
30
320
872
47
21
484
704
2941
ADDITIONS:SIGNALIZED
N -S STREET:
E -W STREET:
SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS
VEHICLE AND MANUAL COUNTS
BREA CANYON RD.
SR -60 WB RAMPS
DATE: 2/18/98
DAY: WEDNESDAY
CITY: DIAMOND BAR
-----
0095001A
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
------PROJECT#
__
EASTBOUND
--_
WESTBOUND
LANES:
NL
2
NT NR
2 0
SL ST
SR
EL ET ER
WL
WT
WR
0 2
1
TOTAL
--------------------------------
0
0.5
1.5
6:00 AM
-------------
15 AM
30 AM
45 AM
7:00 AM
44
126
176
43
15 AM
45
213
183
41
40
0
119
548
30 AM
56
208
174
27
56
0
194
732
45 AM
42
190
142
45
41
1
156
663
8:00 AM
54
159
167
36
51
0
233
703
15 AM
48
123
156
35
65
2
234
717
30 AM
32
133
160
39
43
0
136
541
45 AM
39
141
138
51
44
0
130
538
9:00 AM
42
1
144
556
15 AM
30 AM
45 AM
10:00 AM
15 AM
30 AM
45 AM
TOTAL
JOLUMES =
-----------------------------------
NL
360 1293
NT NR
0
SL ST
SR
EL ET ER
________________________
WLOTAL
WT
WR
0 1296
317
0 0 0
382
TOTAL
4 1346
4998
AM Peak Hr Begins at 715 AM
? EAK
VOLUMES = 197 770 0 0 666 149 0 0 0 213 3 817 2815
kDDITIONS:SIGNALIZED
SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS
VEHICLE AND MANUAL COUNTS
N -S STREET:
BREA CANYON
RD.
DATE:
2/18/98
CITY:
DIAMOND
BAR
E -W STREET:
SR -60 WB RAMPS
DAY:
WEDNESDAY
PROJECT#
0095001P
------------------------------
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
NL
NT NR
SL
ST
.R
EL ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
LANES:
2
2 0
0
2
1
0
0.5
1.5
2:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
3:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
4:00 PM
39
130
177
64
40
0
123
573
15 PM
37
113
156
69
58
0
178
611
30 PM
50
146
230
73
59
1
159
718
45 PM
41
125
240
79
63
0
161
709
5:00 PM
49
139
291
106
71
0
168
824
15 PM
48
135
214.
96
81
2
149
725
30 PM
75
122
235
119
78
0
166
795
45 PM
51
115
213
87
69
0
183
718
6:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
TOTAL
NL
NT NR
SL
ST
SR
EL ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
VOLUMES =
390
1025 0
0
1756
693
0 0
0
519*
3
1287
5673
PM Peak Hr
Begins at
500
PM
PEAK
VOLUMES =
223
511 0
0
953
408
0 0
0
299
2
666
3062
ADDITIONS:SIGNALIZED
SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS
VEHICLE AND MANUAL COUNTS
N --S STREET:
BREA
CANYON RD.
DATE:
2/18/98
E -W STREET:
GOLDEN
SPRINGS
CITY:
-DIAMOND BAR
DAY:
WEDNESDAY
PROJECT#
0095002A
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
----
WESTBOUND
LANES:
NL
1
NT
2
NR
p
SL
ST
SR
EL
ET
ER
WL
WT
------------
1
2
1
WR
TOTAL
6:00 AM
-
----------
------
-------
-----------
---------------------------
--------__--
15 AM
30 AM
45 AM
7:00 AM
15 AM
42
56
41
60
35
21
90
105
50
4
52
61
30 AM
57
66
38
39
17
18
78
81
144
78
7
142
153
78
120
791
45 AM
44
64
51
24
73
116
96
112
109
41
48
86
933
926
8:00 AM
15 AM
47
74
24
17
82
133
84
77
111
75
40
34
140
84
845
30 AM
30
31
45
48
32
30
24
72
103
74
73
45
28
29
36
128
115
793
45 AM
40
54
19
31
26
58
49
115
69
68
35
24
81
52
52
53
684
9:00 AM
105
81
78
30
18
111
45
643
15 AM
656
30 AM
45 AM
_0:00 AM
15 AM
30 AM
45 AM
TOTAL
lOLUMES =
NL
347
NT
452
NR
268
SL
178
ST
SR
EL
ET
----
WL
----
WT
-----
WR
583
917
625
667
3177
307-1030
580
AM Peak Hr
Begins
at
715 AM
62071E
'EAK
VOLUMES = 204 264 152 76 314 489 351 374 172 168 581 352 3497
ADDITIONS:SIGNALIZED
SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS
VEHICLE AND MANUAL COUNTS
N -S STREET: BREA CANYON RD. DATE: 2/18/98
CITY: DIAMOND BAR
E -W STREET:
GOLDEN
SPRINGS
DAY:
WEDNESDAY
PROJECT# 0095002P
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
NL
NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL
ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
LANES:
1
2
0
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
0
2:00
PM
15
PM
30
PM
45
PM
3:00
PM
15
PM
30
PM
45
4:00
PM
PM
37
74
66
48
71
98
54
168
39
33
68
87
41
38
797
798
15
PM
30
69
70
50
62
102
151
43
67
183
177
35
29
29
34
69
49
894
30
PM
34
80
73
66
80
52
90
86
84
129
59
186
33
35
90
34
937
45
PM
44
53
89
68
86
101
145
53
211
38
29
103
46
1022
5:00
15
PM
PM
58
83
82
71
84
140
54
190
29
35
89
46
57
961
1109
30
PM
49
84
120
79
78
156
59
241
28
24
37
31
121
114
41
966
45
PM
42
74
106
72
71
139
51
201
6:00
PM
15
PM
30
PM
45
PM
=
--------------------------
-----------------
--SR --EL
NL
= NT
= NR
= SL
ST
ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
TOTAL
626
658
548
637
1060
440
1557
255
263
741
352
74 84
VOLUMES
=
347
PM Peak Hr Begins at 500 PM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 202 330 376 308 334 580 217 843 119 132 427 190 4058
ADDITIONS:SIGNALIZED
l'ltl t.r 1111\L �.vV
•
tt y
-----------
.yaa vau .111
l � l x:,
rxtsC, : l
NUMBER
STREET
LOCATION
-------
------
--------
DATE
COUNT TOTAL
----
z
BREA CANYON CUT-OFF
W/0 FALLOWFIELD
-
BREA CANYON CUT-OFF
W/O BREA CANYON
04-28-94
12,439
001
BREA CANYON RD
N/O WASHINGTON
04-28-94
16,036
002
BREA CANYON RD
S/0 WASHINGTON
04-26-94
18,652
-003
BREA CANYON RD
SIO LYCOMING
04-26-94
20,916
004
005
BREA CANYON RD
BREA
S/0 S
` 04-26-94
28,551
CANYON RDS/O
VIA SORELLA�•
4-26-94-
11,562
-006
BREA CANYON RD
SIO PATHFINDER
04-26-94
11,382
-007
308
BREA CANYON RD
BREA CANYON RD
SIO FOUNTAIN SPRINGS
04-267-94
8,336
009
BREA CANYON RD
SIO COLD SPRING6,152
SIO DIAMOND BAR
04-27-94
4,716
-010
314
BREA CANYON RD
SIO COPPER CANYON
04-27-94
10,944
015
CHINO AVE
CHINO HILLS PKWY
E/O CHINO HILLS PKWY
04-27-94
05-02-94
8,798
-016
CHINO HILLS PKWY
N/O CHINO
SIO CHINO
05-02-94
6,594
16,644
-013
COLD SPRING LANE
E/O CASTLE ROCK
05-02-94
10,715
017,
COLIMA RD
W/O LEMON
04-27-94
3,813
-018
COLIMA RD
E/O LEMON
04-27-94
20,250
-019
COLIMA RD
E/O GONA
04-27-94
20,431
020
028
COPLEY DR
DIAMOND BAR BLVD
SIO GOLDEN SPRINGS
05-10-94
05-02-94
21,402
-029
DIAMOND BAR BLVD
N/0 BREA CANYON
N/O COLD SPRING
04-27-94
4,725
18,416
030
031
DIAMOND BAR BLVD
DIAMOND
N/O FOUNTAIN SPRING
04-27-94
04-27-94
20,595
-032
BAR BLVD
DIAMOND BAR BLVD
N/0 PATHFINDER
N/O KIOWA
04-27-94
23,215
30,473
DIAMOND BAR BLVD
CREST
N/0 MOUNTAIN LAUREL
35,298
DIAMOND BAR BLVD
N/0 GRAND
04-27-94
31,298
DIAMOND BAR BLVD
N/O TIN
04-27-94
20,108
-036
DIAMOND BAR BLVD
N/O GOLDRUSH
04-27-94
19,983
037
038
DIAMOND BAR BLVD
DIAMOND BAR
N O GOLDEN SPRINGS
/
O4-27-94
04-27-94
22,952
-039
BLVD
DIAMOND BAR BLVD
NO SR 60 EB OFF RAM
N/0 SUNSET
04-28-94
27,122
31,679
040
DIAMOND BAR BLVD
CROSSING
N/0 HIGHLAND VALLEY
04-28-94
17,704
041
FOUNTAIN SPRINGS RD
E/O CASTLE ROCK
04-28-94
--_-
15,704
-042
GATEWAY CENTER DR
SIO GOLDEN SPRINGS
__
-043
GOLDEN SPRINGS DR
E/O BREA CANYON
04-13-94
3,671
3,738
044
GOLDEN SPRINGS DR
E/O ADEL
04-12-94
18,331
-045
GOLDEN SPRINGS DR
E/O GATEWAY CENTER
04-12-94
18,428
-046
GOLDEN SPRINGS DR
E/O COPLEY.
04-12-94
15,377
047
GOLDEN SPRINGS DR
E/0 GRAND
04-12-94
19,554
048
GOLDEN SPRINGS DR
E/O GOLDEN PRADOS
04-12-94
17,917
-049
G"ILDEN SPRINGS DR
E/0 PROSPECTORS
04-12-94
14,325
050
G-LDEN SPRINGS DR
E/O DIAMOND BAR
04-12-94
14,376
051
GOLDEN SPRINGS DR
E/O PLATINi
04-12-94
14,258
-052
GOLDEN SPRINGS DR
A
04-12-94
13,026
-053
GOLDEN SPRINGS DR
N/0 SYLVAN GLEN
04-12-94
10,089
054
-021
GOLDEN SPRINGS DR
GRAND AVE
N/0 SUNSET CROSSING
04-12-94 -12-94
10,262
9,491
-022
GRAVID AVE
E/O LONGVIEW
W/0 LONGVIEW
05-10-94
23,906
023
-1404-14-94
GRAND AVE
W/O COUNTRY VIEW
05-10-94
04-14-94
24,771
AVE
W/O DIAMOND BAR
04-14-94
34,035
31,994
L}3�K
51'K�t'1'
DB -025
GRAND AVE
W/O
MONTEFINO
04-13-94
34,899
GRAND AVE
W/O
GOLDEN SPRINGS
04-13-94
37,900
DB -026
GRAND AVE
W/O
SR 60 EB OFF RAM
04-14-94
30,29
DB -027
HIGHLAND VALLEY
RD
W/O
OVERLOOK
04-2894
1,6
DB -057
KIOWA CREST DR
W/O
DIAMOND BAR
05-02-94
2,93,
DB -076
LEMON AVE
SIO
EARLGATE
04-27-94
12,241
DB -058
LYCOMING ST
E/O
LEMON
04-28-94
6,637
DB -059
LYCOMING ST
W/O
BREA CANYON
04-26-94
7,707
DB -060
PALOMINO DR
E/O
DIAMOND BAR
05-02-94
3,010
DB -077
PALOMINO DR
E/O
PLATINA
05-02-94
2,078
DB -078
PATHFINDER RD
W/O
PEACFUL HILLS
05-02-94
4,810
DB -061
PATHFINDER RD
W O
/
BR CANYON (W)
05-02-94
8,044
DB -062
PATHFINDER RD
W/O
FERN HOLLOW
05-02-94
22,303
DB -063
PATHFINDER RD
E/O
FERN HOLLOW.
05-02-94
7,248
DB -064
PATHFINDER RD
W/O
DIAMOND BAR
05-02-94
14,295
DB -065
PROSPECTORS RD
N/O
GOLDEN SPRINGS
04-28-94
5,228
DB -066
PROSPECTORS RD
SIO
BEAVERHEAD
05-10-94
4,473
DB -067
PROSPECTORS RD
SIO
SUNSET CROSSING
04-28-94
4,530
DB -068
SUNSET CROSSING
RD
E/O
PROSPECTORS
04-28-94
5,287
DB -069
SUNSET CROSSING
RD
W/O
DIAMOND BAR
04-28-94
13,457
DB -070
SUNSET CROSSING
RD
E/O
DIAMOND BAR
04-28-94
5,979
DB -071
SUNSET CROSSING
RD
W/O
DEL SOL
04-28-94
2,400
DB -072
SUNSET CROSSING
RD
E/O
DEL SOL
04-28-94
3,428
DB -073
TEMPLE AVE
E/O
DIAMOND BAR
04-12-94
15,213
DB -074
TEMPLE AVE
E/O
GOLDEN SPRINGS
04-12-94
18,544
DB -075
WALNUT DR
E/O
TUCKER LANE
04-28-94
5,660
DB -056
WASHINGTON ST
W/O
/
LINCOLN
04-27-94
1,927
DB -055
;40
r "�
ICU CALCULATIONS - EXISTING
Intersection: Lemon
Ave. (NS)
/ Golden
Springs
Dr.
(EW)
Project: LA FITNESS
DIAMOND BAR
Traffic Condition:
Existing Traffic
Lane Configuration:
Existing
Geometry
AM Intersection Capacity Analysis
_Move Lanes
_____
Capacity
___
VAC
Volume Ratio
NL
NT
1.0
1.0
-
1600
160090
------
-------
0.06
NR
0.0
1600
226 116
0.21*
0.07
SL
ST
1.0
1.0
1600
1600,
168
0.11*
SR
1.0
1600
153
2.33
0.10
0.13 -
EL
ET
1.0
2.0
1600
32000.20*
313
ER
1.0
1600
291 53
0.09
0.03 -
WL
WT
1.0
2.0
1600
3200
133
0.08
WR
1.0
1600
523
271
0-16
0.14*
Clearance Interval Percentage
= 0 10
Sum of Critical Movements
= 0.78
C
PM Intersection Capacity Analysis
-Move
----
Lanes
-----
Capacity
________
volume
Rat
Ratio
NL
NT
1.0
1600
1600
---- --
33
- --
0 02
NR
1.00
1600
58
87
0.09*
0.05
SL
ST
1.0
1.0
1600
1600
458
0.29*
SR1.0
1600
55
302
0.106-
EL
ET
1.0
2.0
1600
3200
239
0.15*
ER
1.0
1600
70.23
60
0.03 -
WL
WT
1.0
2.0
1600
3200
62
0.04
WR
1.0
1600
418
133
0.13*
0.07 -
Clearance Interval Percentage =
0.10
Sum of Critical Movements =
0.76 C
* denotes critical movement
- denotes V/C ratio reduced 15
percent for right
turn
on red
Intersection: SR -60
Eastbound Ramps (NS)
/ Golden
Springs Dr. (EW)
Project: LA FITNESS
DIAMOND BAR
,
Traffic Condition: Existing
Traffic
Lane Configuration:
Existing Geometry
AM Intersection Capacity Analysis
V/C
Move
Lanes Capacity
Volume
Ratio _
-
------
NL
0.0 1600
29
0.02
NT
1.0 1600
11
0.03*
NR
1.0 1600
11
0.01-
,
SL
1.5 2400
423
0.18*
ST
0.0 1600
22
0.01
SR
0.5 800
48
0.06
EL
1.0 1600
227
0.14*
ET
3.0 4800
464
0.10
ER
0.0 1600
11
0.01
WL
1.0 1600
5
0.01
WT
2.0 3200
919
0.29*
WR
> 1.0 1600
350
0.19 -
Clearance
Interval Percentage
=
0.10
Sum of Critical Movements
=
0.74 C
PM Intersection Capacity
Analysis
Lanes Capacity
Volume
-Ratio-
-Move_
NL
0.0 1600
85
0.05
NT
1.0 1600
41
0.08*
NR
1.0 1600
38
0.02 -
SL
1.5 2400
266
0.11
ST
0.0 1600
33
0.02
SR
0.5 800
30
0.04
,
EL
1.0 1600
320
0.20*
ET
3.0 4800
872
0.19
ER
0.0 1600
47
0.03
WL
1.0 1600
21
0.01
WT
2.0 3200
484
0.15
WR
> 1.0 1600
704
0.37-*
Clearance Interval Percentage =
0.10
Sum of Critical Movements =
0.75 C
* denotes critical
movement
> do -notes protected right turn
- denotes V/C ratio reduced 15 percent
for right
turn on red
'
i
Intersection: Brea Cyn. Rd. (NS) / SR -60 westbound Ramps (EW)
Project: LA FITNESS
DIAMOND
BAR
Traffic Condition:
Existing
Traffic
Lane Configuration:
Existing
Geometry
AM Intersection
Capacity Analysis
-Move- Lanes
Capacity Volume
V/C
Ratio
NL
2.0
2880 197
0.07* -
NT
2.0
3200 770
0.24
NR
0.0
0 0
0.00
SL
0.0
0 0
0.00
ST
2.0
3200 666
0.21*
SR
1.0
1600 149
0.08 -
EL
0.0
0 0
0.00
ET
0.0
0 0
0.00
ER
0.0
0 0
0.00
WL
0.5
800 213
0.27
WT
0.0
1600 3
0.01
WR
1.5
2400 817
0.29-*
Clearance Interval Percentage =
0.10
Sum of
Critical Movements =
0.67 B
PM Intersection Capacity Analysis
Move
------
Lanes
--
Capacity Volume
--------
V/C
Ratio
NL
2.0
2880 223
-------
0.08*
NT
2.0
3200 511
0.16
NR
0.0
0 0
0.00
SL
0.0
0 0
0.00
ST
2.0
3200 953
0.30*
SR
1.0
1600 408
0.22 -
EL
0.0
0 0
0.00
ET
0.0
0 0
0.00
ER
0.0
0 0
0.00
WL
0.5
800 299
0.37*
WT
0.0
1600 2
0.01
WR
1.5
2400 666
0.24 -
Clearance Interval Percentage =
0.10
Sum of Critical Movements =
0.85 D
* denotes critical movement
- denotes V/C ratio
reduced 15 percent for right
turn on red,
Intersection: Brea
Cyn. (NS)
/ Golden Springs Dr.
(EW)
Project: LA FITNESS
DIAMOND
BAR
Traffic Condition:
Existing
Traffic
Lane Configuration:
Existing
Geometry
AM Intersection
Capacity
Analysis
V/C
Move
------
Lanes
-----
Capacity
--------
Volume
Ratio
NL
1.0
1600
------
204
-------
0.13*
NT
2.0
3200
264
0.08
NR
1.0
1600
152
0.09 -
SL
1.0
1600
76
0.05
ST
2.0
3200
314
0.10
SR
> 1.0
1600
489
0.26-*
EL
2.0
2880
351
0.12
ET
2.0
3200
374
0.12
ER
1.0
1600
172
0.09 -
WL
1.0
1600
168
0.11
WT
2.0
3200
581
0.18*
WR
1.0
1600
352
0.19 -
Clearance Interval Percentage =
0.10
Sum of
Critical Movements =
0.67 8
PM Intersection Capacity Analysis
V/C
Move Lanes Capacity
-----
Volume
Ratio
NL
1.0
1600
----
202
013
NT
2.0
3200
330
0.10
NR
1.0
1600
376
0.20-*
SL
1.0
1600
308
0.19*
ST
2.0
3200
334
0.10
SR
> 1.0
1600
580
0.31 -
EL
2.0
2880
217
0.08
ET
2.0
3200
843
0.26*
ER
1.0
1600
119
0.06 -
WL
1.0
1600
132
0.0'8
WT
2.0
3200
427
0.13
WR
1.0
1600
190
0.10 -
Clearance Interval
Percentage
=
0.10
Sum of
Critical Movements
=
0.75 C
* denotes critical movement
> denotes protected
right turn
- denotes V/C ratio
reduced
15.percent
for right
turn on red
VITHOUT PROJECT
Intersection: Lemon
Ave. (NS)
/ Golden
Springs
Dr.
'
(EW)
Project: LA FITNESS
DIAMOND BAR
Traffic Condition: Opening Year
Lane Configuration:
(1999)
Without
Project
Existing
Geometry
AM Intersection
Capacity
Analysis
-Move Lanes
___ -----
CapacityV/C
--------
Volume
Ratio
NL
NT
1.0
1.01600
1600
------
92
-------
0.06
NR
0.0
1600
232
119
0.22*
0.07
SL
ST
1.0
1.0
1600
1600
173
0.11*
SR
1.01600
239
0.10
0.1: -
EL
ET
1.0
2.0
1600
3200
322
0.20*
ER
1.0-1600
299
54
0.09
0.03 -
WL
WT
1.0
2.0
1600
3200
136
0.09
WR
1.0
1600
538
279
0.17*
0.14 -
Clearance Interval Percentage
= 0.10
Sum of Critical Movements
= 0.80 C
PM Intersection Capacity Analysis
-Move
____
Lanes
-----
Capacity
Volume
Rat
Ratio
NL
NT
1.0
1.0
1600
----
33
--2--
0 0
NR
0.0
1600
1600
59
0.09*
89
.0.06
SL
ST
1.0
1.0
1600
471
0.29*
SR
1.0
1600
1600
0.04
356
11
0.16 -
EL
ET
1.0
2.0
1600
3200
246
0.15*
ER
1.0
1600
771
61
0.24
0.03 -
WL
WT
1.0
2.0
1600
63
0.04
WR
1.0
3200
1600
4
0.13*
1336
6
0.08 -
Clearance Interval Percentage =
0.10
Sum of Critical Movements =
0.76 C
* denotes critical movement
- denotes V/C ratio reduced
15
percent for right
turn
on red
Intersection: SR-60
Eastbound
Ramps (NS)
/ Golden
Springs Dr. (EW) .
Project: LA FITNESS
DIAMOND BAR
Traffic Condition: Opening
Year
(1999) Without
Project
Lane Configuration:
Existing
Geometry
AM Intersection
Capacity
Analysis
V/C
Move
Lanes
Capacity
--------
Volume
------
Ratio
-------
------
NL
-----
0.0
1600
29
0.02
NT
1.0
1600
11
0.03*
NR
1.0
1600
11
0.01-
SL
1.5
2400
435
0.18*
ST
0.0
1600
22
0.01
SR
0.5
800
49
0.06
EL
1.0
1600
233
0.15*
ET
3.0
4800
477
0.10
ER
0.0
1600
11
0.01
WL
1.0
1600
5
0.01
WT
2.0
3200
946
0.30*
WR
> 1.0
1600
360
0.20-
Clearance
Interval
Percentage
=
0.10
Sum of
Critical Movements
=
0.76 C
PM Intersection
Capacity
Analysis
V/C
Move
Lanes
Capacity
Volume
------
Ratio
-------
------
NL
-----
0.0
--------
1600
87
0.05
NT
1.0
1600
42
0.08*
NR
1.0
1600
39
0.02-
SL
1.5
2400
273
0.11
ST
0.0
1600
33
0.02
SR
0.5
800
30
0.04
EL
1.0
1600
329
0.21*
ET
3.0
4800
898
0.20
ER
0-0
1600
48
0.03
WL
1.0
1600
21
0.01
WT
2.0
3200
498
0.16
WR
> 1.0
1600
725
0.38-*
Clearance
Interval
Percentage =
0.10
Sum of
Critical Movements =
0.77 C
* denotes critical
movement
> denotes protected
right turn
- denotes V/C ratio
reduced
15 percent
for right
turn on red
•, Intersection: Brea
Cyn. Rd. (NS) / SR -60 Westbound Ramps'(EW)
Project: LA FITNESS DIAMOND BAR
Traffic Condition:
Lane Configuration:
Opening Year (1999) Without
Existing Geometry
Project
AM Intersection Capacity Analysis
Move
Lanes Capacity P Volume
--2880
Rat
Ratio
NL
NT
-
2.0-
202
2.0 3200
0.07*-
NR
793
0.0 0
0.25
0
0.00
SL
ST
0.0 0 0
2.0 3200
0.00
SR
685
1.0 1600 153
0.21*
0.09 -
EL
ET
0.0 0 0
0.0
0.00
ER
0 0
0.0 0
0.00
0
0.00
WL
WT
0.5 800 219
0.0 1600
0.27
WR
3
1.5 2400 841
0.01
0.30-*
Clearance Interval Percentage
= 0.10
Sum of Critical Movements
= 0,68 B
PM Intersection Capacity Analysis
Move
--__
Lanes Capacity Volume
_ _ __
Rat
Ratio
NL
NT
2.0 2880 229
2.0
0.08*-
NR
3200 526
0.0 0
0.16
0
0.00
SL
ST
0.0 0 0
2.0 3200 981
0.00
SR
1.0 1600 420
0.31*
0.22 -
EL
ET
0.0 0 0
0.0 0
0.00
ER
0
0.0 0
0.00
0
0.00
WL
WT
0.5 800 307
0.0
0.38*
WR
1600 2
1.5 2400 685
0.01
0.25 -
Clearance
Interval Percentage =
0 10
Sum of Critical Movements =
0.87 D
* denotes critical movement
- denotes V/C ratio
reduced 15 percent for right
turn on red
Intersection: Brea Cyn. (NS)
/ Golden Springs Dr.
(EW) -
Project: LA FITNESS
DIAMOND BAR
Traffic Condition: Opening
Year (1999)
Without Project
Lane Configuration:
Existing
Geometry
AM Intersection Capacity
Analysis
V/C
Move
------
Lanes Capacity
-------------
Volume
Ratio
NL
1.0
1600
------
210
-------
0.13*
NT
2.0
3200
271
0.08
NR
1.0
1600
156
0.09-
SL
1.0
1600
78
0.05
ST
2.0
3200
323
0.10
SR
> 1.0
1600
503
0.26-*
EL
2.0
2880
361
0.13
ET
2.0
3200
385
0.12
ER
1.0
1600
177
0.09-
WL
1.0
1600
173
0.11
WT
2.0
3200
598
0.19*
WR
1.0
1600
362
0.20-
Clearance
Interval Percentage =
0.10
Sum of
Critical Movements =
0..68 B
PM Intersection Capacity Analysis
V/C
Move
Lanes
Capacity
Volume
Ratio
-------
------
NL
-----
1.0
--------
1600
------
208
0.13
NT
2.0
3200
339
0.11
NR
1.0
1600
387
0.20-*
SL
1.0
1600
317
0.20*
ST
2.0
3200
344
0.11
SR
> 1.0
1600
597
0.31-
EL
2.0
2880
223
0.08
ET
2.0
3200
868
0.27*
ER
1.0
1600
122
0.07-
WL
1.0
1600
135
0.08
WT
2.0
3200
439
0.14
WR
1.0
1600
195
0.10-
Clearance Interval
Percentage =
0.10
Sum of
Critical Movements =
0.77 C
* denotes critical movement
> denotes protected
right turn
- denotes V/C ratio
reduced
15 percent
for right
turn on red
APPENDIX E
ICU CALCULATIONS - OPENING YEAR (1999) WITH PROJECT
." Intersection: Lemon
Ave.NS
� ) / Golden Springs Dr.
(EW)
Project.: LA
FITNESS
DIAMOND BAR
Traffic Condition:
Lane Configuration:
Opening Year (1999) With Project
Existing Geometry
AM Intersection Capacity Analysis
V O L U M E S
-Move-
-
Lanes
Capacity Background Project Total
NL
1.0
-----92---
1600 ------- -----
Ratio
Ratio
------
NT
NR
1.0
1600 0 92
232 0
0.06
0.0
1600 232
119 0
0.22*
119
0.07
SL
ST
1.0
1.0
1600 173
1600 157 0 173
0.11*
SR
1.0
1600 239 0 '-57 0.10
EL
239
0.13 -
ET
1.0
2.0
1600 322 0 322
3200 299
0.20*
ER
.0
300
1600 54 0
0.09
WL
54
0.03-
WT
1.0
21.0
1600 136 0 136
3200 538
0.09
WR
1.0
539
1600 2790-17*
0.17*
1 280
0.15 -
Clearance Interval Percentage =
0.10
Sum of Critical Movements =
0.80 C
PM Intersection Capacity Analysis
V O L U M E S
Move
--
Lanes
Lane-
-----------------------
Capacity Background Project Total
V/C
NL
1.0
-----59--- ------ 1600
-----
1600
Ratio
-----
NT
1.0
33 0-
1600 33
0.02
NR
0.0
59
1600 89
0.09*
3 92
0.06
SL
ST
1.0
1.0
1600
1600 456 71 10 481
0.30*
SR
1.0
1600 311 0 56
0.04
0 311
0.16 -
EL
ET
1.0
2.0
1600 246
3200 0 246
761
0.15*
ER
1.0
20 791 0.25
1600
61
0.03 -
WL
WT
1.0
2.0
1600 63
3200 2 65
0.04
WR
1.0
430 13 443
1600 136
0.14*
6 142
0.08 -
Clearance Interval Percentage =
0.10
Sum of Critical Movements =
0.78 C
* denotes critical movement
- denotes V/C
ratio reduced 15 percent for right turn
on red
Intersection:
SR-60
Eastbound
Ramps (NS) / Golden
Springy
Dr. (EW)
Project: LA
FITNESS
DIAMOND BAR
Traffic Condition:
Opening
Year
(1999) With
Project
Lane Configuration:
Existing Geometry
Intersection Capacity
Analysis
AM
VO L
-----
U M
E S
Move
Lanes
Capacity
--------
Background Project
-----------------
Total,
-----
Ratio
-------
------
NL
-----
0.0
1600
29
0
29
0.02
NT
1.0
1600
11
0
11
0.03*
NR
1.0
1600
11
0
11
0.01-
SL
1.5
2400
435
0
435
0.18*
ST
0.0
1600
22
0
22
0.01
SR
0.5
800
49
0
49
0.06
EL
1.0
1600
233
1
234
0.15*
ET
3.0
4800
477
3
480
0.10
ER
0.0
1600
11
0
11
0.01
WL
1.0
1600
5
0
5
0.01
WT
2.0
3200
946
2
948
0.30*
WR >
1.0
1600
360
0
360
0.20-
Clearance Interval
Percentage =
0.10
Sum of Critical
Movements =
0.76 C
PM Intersection Capacity
Analysis
V 0 L
U M
E S
-------------------------
Move
Lanes
Capacity
Background Project
__________ _______
Total
_____
Ratio
____
V_c
j
NL
0.0
________
1600
87
0
87
0.05
NT
1.0
1600
42
0
42
0.08*
NR
1.0
1600
39
0
39
0.02-
SL
1.5
2400
273
0
273
0.11
ST
0.0
1600
33
0
33
0.02
SR
0.5
800
30
10
40
0.05
EL
ET
1.0
3.0
1600
4800
329,
898
10
31
339
929
0.21*
0.20
ER
0.0
1600
48
0
48
0.03
WL
1.0
1600
21
0
21
0.01
WT
2.0
3200
498
55
553
0.17
WR >
1.0
1600
725
0
725
0.38-*
Clearance
Interval
Percentage =
0.10
Sum of Critical
Movements =
0.77 C
* denotes
> denotes
critical
protected
movement
right turn
- denotes
V/C ratio
reduced
15 percent for
right
turn on
red
. Intersection:
Brea
Cyn. Rd.
(NS) / SR -60 Westbound
Project: LA
FITNESS DIAMOND
Ramps
BAR
(EW)
>
Traffic Condition:
Lane Configuration:
Opening Year
Existing
(1999) With Project
Geometry
AM Intersection CapacityAnalysis
lysis
t----V--0--L--U--ME
S
Move
-
Lanes
Capacity B
Background Project
V/C
NL
2.0
__
2880
Total
---------- ------- -----
Ratio
-------
NT
NR
2.0
3200
202
793 1 203
0
0.07*
0.0
0
0 793
0
0.25
SL
0.0
0
0
0.00
t ST
SR
2.0
1.0
3200
1600
0 0 0
685
685
0.00
0.21*
EL
153
153
0.09-
ET
0.0
0.0
00
0 0 0.
0.00
ER
0.0
0
0 0 0
0.00
WL
0.5
800
0
0.00
WT
WR
0.0
1600
219 1 220
0.28
1.52400
841 0 3
0.01
0 841
`
Clearance Interval Percentage =
_030=*
Sum of Critical Movements =
0.10
0.68
PM Intersection
Capacity Analysis
B
V O L U M E S
I -Move-
Lanes
Capacity
P y
-------------------------
Background Project
NL
2.0
Total
---------- ------- -----
Ratio
NR
2.0
2880
3200
229 6
526 235
-
0.08*-
1.
1
0.0
0
3
0 529
0.17
S L
0.0
0
0
0.00
T
l SR
2.0
1.0
3200
981 0
5
0.00
1600
420 9866
0
0.31*
EL
0.0
420
0.22 -
ER
0.0
0
0
0 0 0
0.00
I
0.0
0
0 0 0
0.00
WL
0.5
800
0
0.00
WT
WR
0.0
1600
307 15 322
0.40*
1.5
2400685
0 2
0.01
685
0.25 -
Clearance Interval Percentage =
*
Sum of Critical Movements
0.10
0.89
denotes critical
- denotes
movement
p
V/C
ratio reduced 15
percent for right turn
on red
* denotes critical movement
> denotes protected right turn
- denotes V/C ratio reduced 15 percent for right turn on red
f
Intersection:
Brea
Cyn. (NS)
/ Golden Springs
Dr. (EW)
Project: LA FITNESS
DIAMOND BAR
Traffic Condition:
Opening Year
(1999) With Project
Lane Configuration:
Existing
Geometry
Analysis
AM Intersection
Capacity
_---V--O--L__U--M--E-_S--
V/C
Move
------
Lanes
-----
Capacity
--------
Background Project Total
----------------- -----
Ratio
NL
1.0
1600
210
0 210
-------
0.13*
NT
2.0
3200
271
0 271
0.08
NR
1.0
1600
156
0 156
0.09 -
SL
1.0
1600
78
0 78
0.05
ST
2.0
3200
323
0 323
0.10
SR >
1.0
1600
503
1 504
0.27-*
EL
2.J
2880
361
1 362
0.13
ET
2.0
3200
385
2 387
0.12
ER
1.0
1600
177
0 177
0.09 -
WL
1.0
1600
173
0 173
0.11
WT
2.0
3200
598
1 599
0.19*
WR
1.0
1600
362
0 362
0.20 -
Clearance Interval
Percentage =
0.10
,
Sum `of Critical
Movements =
0.69 B
PM Intersection Capacity
Analysis
V O L U
M E S
Lanes
Capacity
Background Project
Total
-Move-
NL
1.0
1600
208
5 213
-Ratio-
0.13
NT
2.0
3200
339
0 339
0.11
NR
1.0
1600
387
0 387
0.20-*
SL
1.0
1600
317
0 317
0.20*
ST
2.0
3200
344
0 344
0.11
SR >
1.0
1600
597
20 617
0.33 -
EL
ET
2.0
2.0
2880
3200
223
868
9 232
19 887
0.08
0.28*
ER
1.0
1600
122
3 125
0.07 -
WL
1.0
1600
135
0 135
0.08
WT
2.0
3200
439
30 469
0.15
WR
1.0
1600
195
0 195
0.10-
Clearance Interval
Percentage =
0.10
Sum of Critical
Movements =
0.78 C
* denotes critical movement
> denotes protected right turn
- denotes V/C ratio reduced 15 percent for right turn on red
f
)08) WITH PROJECT
.• Intersection: Lemon
Ave. (NS)
/ Golden Springs Dr. (EW)
Project: LA
FITNESS
DIAMOND BAR
Traffic Condition:
Lane Configuration:
Buildout (Year
2008) With Project
Existing
Geometry
AM Intersection
Capacity Analysis
V O L U M E S
______
Lanes
-__--
Capacity
P y
--------
---------- ------- -------
Background Project Total
----302---
V/C
Ratio
NL
1.0
1600
120-----0- --120
_____
------
NT
1.0
16000.08
NR
0.0
1600
0 302
155
0.29*
0 155
0.10
SL
1.0
1600
225 0
ST
1.0
1600
225
205
0.14*
SR
1,0
1600
0 205
312
0.13
0 312
0.17-
EL
ET
1.0
2.0
1600
32000
419 419
0.26*
ER
1.0
1600
389 1 390
71
0.12
0 71
0-03-
WL
1.0
1600
178 0
WT
2.0
3200
178
700
0.11
WR
1.0
1600
1 701
363
0.22*
1 364
0.20-
Clearance
Interval Percentage =
0.10
Sum of Critical Movements =
1.01 F
PM Intersection
Capacity Analysis
V 0 L U M E S
Move
_Move_
Lanes
Lane-
Ca acit
__P-___y
--
Background Project Total
-----77---
V/C
Ratio
NL
1.0
1600
------
44 -----
0
-------
NT
1.0
1600
44
0
0.03
NR0.0
1600
77
116
0.12*
3 119
0.07
SL
ST
1.0
1.0
1600
1600
613 10 623
0.39*
SR
1.0
1600
73 0 73
404 0
0.05
404
0.21-
EL
ET
1.0
2.0
1600
3200
320 0 320
0.20*
ER
1.0
1600
1003 20 1023
80
0.32
0 80
0.04-
WL
WT
1.0
2.0
1600
3200
83 2 85
0.05
1.0
1600
560 13 573
178
0.18*
6 184
0.10-
Clearance
Interval Percentage =
0.10
Sum
of Critical Movements =
0.99 E
* denotes critical movement
- denotes V/C
ratio reduced 15
percent for right turn on
red
Intersection: SR -60 Eastbound Ramps (NS) / Golden Springs Dr. (EW)
Project: LA
FITNESS
DIAMOND BAR
Traffic Condition: Buildout (Year 2008) With
Project
Lane Configuration:
Existing Geometry
AM Intersection Capacity
Analysis
1
V 5
------O--L--U--M--E
----
V/C
Move
Lanes
Capacity Background Project Total
------------------------- -----
Ratio
------
NL
-----
0.0
1600 38
0 38
-------
0.02
NT
1.0
1600 14
0 14
0.03*
'
NR
1.0
1600 14
0 14
0.01 -
SL
1.5
2400 566
0 566
0.24*
ST
0.0
1600 29
0 29
0.02
SR
0.5
800 64
0 64
0.08
EL
1.0
1600 304
1 305
0.19*
ET
3.0
4800 621
3 624
0.13
ER
0.0
1600 14
0 14
0.01
WL
1.0
1600 6
0 6
0.01
'
WT
2.0
3200 1231
2 1233
0.39*
WR >
1.0
1600 469
0 469
0.25 -
Clearance Interval
Percentage =
0.10
'
Sum of Critical Movements =
0.95 E
PM Intersection Capacity
Analysis
,
V O L U M E S
-------------------------
V/C
Move
Lanes
Capacity Background Project Total
Ratio -
-
--
NL
0.0
1600 113
0 113
0.07
NT
1.0
1600 54
0 54
0.10*
NR
1.0
1600 50
0 50
0.03 -
SL
1.5
2400 356
0 356
0.15
ST
0.0
1600 44
0 44
0.03
SR
0.5
800 40
10 50
0.06
EL
1.0
1600 428
10 438
0.27*
ET
3.0
4800 1168
31 1199
0.26
ER
0.0
1600 62
0 62
0.04
WL
1.0
1600 28
0 28
0.02
WT
2.0
3200 648
55 703
0.22
WR >
1.0
1600 943
0 943
0.50-*
Clearance Interval
Percentage =
0.10
Sum of Critical
Movements =
0.97. E
* denotes
critical
movement
> denotes
protected right turn
- denotes
V/C ratio reduced 15 percent for
right turn on
red
i
i
'Intersection: Brea
Cyn. Rd.
(NS) / SR -60 Westbound Ramps
(EW)
' Project: LA
FITNESS DIAMOND
BAR
Traffic Condition:
Lane
Buildout
(Year 2008) With Project
Configuration:
Existing
Geometry
AM Intersection
Capacity Analysis
V O L U M E S
Lanes
Capacity Background Project Total
V/C
_Move-
_____
----263
Ratio
NL
NT
2.0
2.0
2880
3200
-----o-
263 1 264
1031
-
0.09*
NR
0.0
0
10 31
0
0.32
0 0
0.00
SL
0.0
0
0 0
ST
2.0
3200
892 0
0
0.00
SR
1.0
1600
892
19g 0
0.28*
199
0.10 -
EL
0.0
0
0 0
..
ET
0.0
0
0 0
0.00
ER
0,0
0
0 0
0
0.00
0 0
0.00
WL
WT
0.5
0,0
800
1600.
285 1 286
0.36
1.5
2400
4 0 4
1094 0
0.01
1094
0.39-*
Clearance
Interval Percentage =
0.10
Sum of Critical Movements =
0.86 D
PM Intersection Capacity Analysis
V O L U M E S
-Move_
Lanes
_____
Capacity
________
Background Project
---- ___--- 7 Total
V/C'
Ratio
NL
NT
2.0
2.0
2880
3200
298 ----- --
6 --304
-
0.11*
NR
0.0
0
684 3 687
0
0.21
0 0
0.00
SL
0.0
0
0 0
ST
2.0
3200
0
. 1277 5
0.00
SR
1.0
1600
1282
546 0
0.40*
546
0.29 -
EL
0.0
0
0 0
ET
0.0
0
0
0
0.00
ER
0.0
p
0 0
0
0.00.
0 0
0.00
WL
WT
0.5
0.0
800
1600
400 15 415
0.52*
WR
1.5
2400
2 0 2
892 0 892
0.01
0.31 -
Clearance
Interval Percentage =
0.10
Sum of Critical Movements =
1.13 F
* denotes critical movement
- denotes V/C
ratio
reduced 15 percent for right turn on red
Intersection: Brea
Cyn. (NS)
/ Golden Springs
Dr.
(EW)
4
Project: LA FITNESS
DIAMOND
BAR
Traffic Condition:
Buildout
(Year 2008) With
Project
Lane Configuration:
Existing
Geometry
AM Intersection
Capacity
Analysis
V O L U
M
E S
-------------------------
V/C
Move
------
Lanes
-----
Capacity Background Project
------------------
Total
Ratio
NL
1.0
1600
-------
273
0
-----
273
-------
0.17*
NT
2.0
3200
353
0
353
0.11
NR
1.0
1600
203
0
203
0.11 -
SL
1.0
1600
101
0
101
0.06
ST
2.0
3200
420
0
420
0.13
SR
> 1.0
1600
655
1
656
0.35-*
EL
2.0
2880
470
1
471
0.16
ET
2.0
3200
501
2
503
0.16
ER
1.0
1600
230
0
230
0.12 -
WL
1.0
1600
225
0
225
0.14
WT
2.0
3200
778
1
779
0.24*
WR
1.0
1600
471
0
471
0.25 -
Clearance Interval
Percentage =
0.10
Sum of Critical
Movements =
0.86 D
PM Intersection Capacity
Analysis
V 0 L U
M
E S
-------------------------
V/C
Move
------
Lanes
-----
Capacity Background Project
-------------------------
Total
-----
Ratio
-------
NL
1.0
1600
270
5
275
0.17
NT
2.0
3200
442
0
442
0.14
NR
1.0
1600
503
0
503
0.26-*
SL
1.0
1600
412
0
412
0.26*
ST
2.0
3200
447
0
447
0.14
SR
> 1.0
1600
777
20
797
0.43 -
EL
2.0
2880
290
9
299
0.10
ET
2.0
3200
1129
19
1148
0.36*
ER
1.0
1600
159
3
162
0.09 -
WL
1.0
1600
176
0
176
0.11
WT
2.0
3200
572
30
602
0.19
WR
1.0
1600
254
0
254
0.14 -
Clearance Interval
Percentage =
0.10
Sum of Critical
Movements =
0.98 E
* denotes
critical
movement
> denotes
protected right turn
- denotes
V/C ratio reduced
15 percent for right
turn on
red
i
s
1
f
'Intersection: Lemon
Ave. (NS) / Golden Springs Dr.
(EW)
Project: LA
FITNESS
DIAMOND
BAR
Traffic Condition: Buildout
Lane Configuration:
(Year 2008) With Project
Improved
Geometry
AM Intersection
Capacity Analysis
_ V 0 L U M E S
-Move_
Lanes
Capacity Background Project Total
--------
NL
1.0
1600
------- -----
NT
1.0
1600
302 0 120
NR
0.0
1600
155 0 302
0 155
SL
ST
2.0
1.0
2880
16000
225 .
225
SR
1.0
1600
312 0 205
0 312
EL
ET
2.0
2.0
2880
32000
419
419
ER
0.0
1600
389 1 390
71
0 71
WL
WT
1.0
2.0
1600
32000
178
178
WR
1.0
1600
700 1 701
363
1 364
Clearance Interval Percentage =
Sum of Critical Movements =
PM Intersection Capacity Analysis
V 0 L U M E S
-Move-
Lanes
Capacity
Background Project Total
-----77---
NL
NT
1.0
1.0
1600
1600
44 ------ ---- _
0 44
NR
0.01600
116 0 77
3 119
SL
ST
2.0
1.0
2880
1600
613 10 623
SR
1.01600
73
404 0 73
0 404
EL
ET
2.0
2.0
2880
32000
320
320
ER
p•0
1600
1003 20 1023
80
0 80
WL
WT
1.0
2.03200
1600
83 2 85
WR
1.0
1600
178 13 573
6 184
Clearance Interval Percentage =
Sum of Critical Movements =
V/C
Ratio
0.08
0.29*
0.10
0.08*
0.13
0.17-
0.15*
0.14
0.04
0.11
0.22*
0.20-
0.10
0.84 D
V/C
Ratio
0.03
0.12*
0.07
0.22*
0.05
0.21-
0.11
0.34*
0.05
0.05*
0.18
0.10-
01.10
0_AI
* denotes critical movement
denotes V/C ratio reduced 15 percent for right turn on red
w
Dr.
Intersection: SR -60
Eastbound
Ramps (NS) / Golden Springs
(EW)
Project: LA
FITNESS
DIAMOND BAR
Traffic Condition: Buildout
(Year
2008) With
Project
Lane Configuration:
Improved Geometry
AM Intersection Capacity
Analysis
V 0 L U M E S
Move
Lanes
Capacity
Background Project Total
----------------- -----
Ratio
-------
------
NL
-----
0.0
--------
1600
38
0 38
0.02
NT
1.0
1600
14
0 14
0.03*
NR
1.0
1600
14
0 14
0.01 -
SL
1.5
2400
566
0 566
0.24*
ST
0.0
1600
29
0 29
0.02
SR
0.5
800
64
0 64
0.08
EL
2.0
2880
304
1 305
0.11*
ET
3.0
4800
621
3 624
0.13
ER
0.0
1600
14
0 14
0.01
WL
1.0
1600
6
0 6
0..01
0.39*
WT
2.0
3200
1231
2 1233
WR >
1.0
1600
469
0 469
0.25 -
Clearance Interval
Percentage =
0.10
Sum of Critical
Movements =
0.87 D
PM Intersection Capacity
Analysis
,
V O L
U M E S
-------------------------
V/C
Move-
Lanes
Capacity
Background Project
Total
-Ratio
-
-
NL
0.0
1600
113
0 113
0.07
NT
1.0
1600
54
0 54
0.10*
NR
1.0
1600
50
0 50
0.03 -
SL
1.5
2400
356
0 356
0.15
ST
0.0
1600
44
0 44
0.03
SR
0.5
800
40
10 50
0.06
EL
2.0
2880
428
10 438
0.15*
ET
3.0
4800
1168
31 1199
0.26
ER
0.0
1600
62
0 62
0.04
WL
1.0
1600
28
648
0 28
55 703
0.02
0.22
WT
2.0
1.0
3200
1600
943
0 943
0.50-*
'
WR >
Clearance Interval Percentage
= 0.10
Sum of Critical Movements
= 0.85 D
* denotes
critical
movement
> denotes
- denotes
protected
V/C ratio
right turn
reduced 15 percent for
right turn on red
Intersection: Brea
Cyn. Rd.
(NS) / SR -60
Westbound Ramps
(EW)
Project: LA
FITNESS
DIAMOND
BAR
Traffic Condition:
Lane Configuration:
Buildout
Improved
(Year 2008) With Project
Geometry
AM Intersection
Capacity Analysis
V 0 L U M E S
_Move_
Lanes
Capacity Background Project
j ct Total
V/C
NL
2.0
2880
---------- ------- -----
Ratio
----_
NT
NR
2.0
2.0
3200
263 1 264
10301
0.09* -
0
0 1031
0.32
SL
0.0
0
0 0
0.00
ST
SR
2.0
3200
0
0 0
0 892
0.00
1.0
1600
899
0.28*
EL
199
0.10 -
ET0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0 0
0.00
E R
0.0
0
0
0 O 0
0.00
WL
1.0
1600
0
0.00
WT
0.0
1600
285 1 286
4
0.18
WR
2.0
3200
0
1094 4
0
0.01
1094
0.2929 =*
Clearance Interval Percentage =
Sum of Critical Movements =
0.10
0.76
PM Intersection Capacity Analysis
C
V 0 L U M E S
Move
Lanes -----
Capacity
P y
-------
Background Project Total
V/C
NL2.0
--------
2880
-------------- --304
Ratio
--
NT
NR
2.0
3200
298
684 3 304
___
0 11*
0.0
0
687
0
0.21
0 0
0.00
SL
0.0
0
0
ST
SR
2.0
3200
0 0
1277
0.00
1.05
1600
1282
546
0.40*
0 546
0.29 -
EL
0.0
0
ET0.0
0
00 0 0
0.00
ER
0.0
0
0
0
0.00
00
0
0.00
WL
WT
1.0
0.0
1600
1600
400 15 415
0.26*
WR
2.0
3200
892 0 2
0.01
0 892
0.24.24-
Clearance
Interval Percentage =
0.10
Sum
of Critical Movements =
0.87 D
* denotes critical movement
- denotes V/C
ratio reduced 15
percent for right turn
on red
Intersection: Brea Cyn. (NS) /
Golden Springs Dr.
(EW)
Project: LA
FITNESS
DIAMOND BAR
Traffic Condition: Buildout (Year 2008) With
Project
Lane Configuration:
Improved Geometry
AM Intersection Capacity
Analysis
V O L U M
E S
-------------------------
V/C
Move
Lanes
Capacity
Background Project
-----------------
Total
-----
Ratio
-------
------
NL
-----
1.0
--------
1600
273
0
273
0.17*
NT
2.0
3200
353
0
353
0.11
NR
1.0
1600
203
0
203
0.11 -
SL
2.0
2880
101
0
101
0.04
ST
2.0
3200
420
0
420
0.13
SR >
1.0
1600
655
1
656
0.35-*
EL
2.0
2880
470
1
471
0.16
ET
2.0
3200
501
2
503
0.16
ER
1.0
1600
230
0
230
0.12 -
WL
1.0
1600
225
0
225
0.14
WT
2.0
3200
778
1
779
0.24*
WR
1.0
1600
471
0
471
0.25 -
Clearance Interval
Percentage =
0.10
'
Sum*of Critical Movements =
0.86 D
PM Intersection Capacity
Analysis
V O L U M
E S
Move
Lanes
Capacity
Background Project
Total
Ratio
- -
NL
1.0
1600
270
5
275
0.17*
NT
2.0
3200
442
0
442
0.14
NR
1.0
1600
503
0
503
0.26 -
SL
2.0
2880
.412
0
412
0.14
ST
2.0
3200
447
0
44.7
0.14
SR >
1.0
1600
777
20
797
0.43-*
,
EL
2.0
2880
290
9
299
0.10
ET
2.0
3200
1129
19
1148
0.36
ER
1.0
1600
159
3
162
0.09 -
WL
1.0
1600
176
0
176
0.11
WT
2.0
3200
572
30
602
0.19*
WR
1.0
1600
254
0
254
0.14 -
Clearance Interval
Percentage =
0.10
Sum of Critical
Movements =
0.89 D
* denotes
critical
movement
> denotes
protected right turn
- -denotes
V/C ratio reduced
15 percent for
right
turn on
red
APPENDIX G
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
(Rural Areas)
Opening Year (1999) With Project
Major Street Name =Golden Springs Dr.
Total of Both Approaches (VPH) = 2,031
Number of Approach Lanes Major Street = 2
Minor Street Name = Westerly Proj. Dwy. High Volume Approach (VPH) = 13
a Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street = 1
SIGNAL WARR' 14T NOT SATISFIED
GM
S
CL
c
4(
0
a
a
a
a, 30
E
0
r
20(
d
a►
O 100
e
0
3
-- 1000 1100 1200 1300
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - VPH
1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor)
-�2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)
—0`2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)
—' Major Street Approaches
Minor Street Approaches
NOTE:
100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET
APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER
THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE.
RKJK
warrant (RA WARRANT)
3/12/98
PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
(Rural Areas)
Buildout (Year 2008) With Project
Major Street Name = Golden Springs Dr. Total of Both Approaches (VPH) = 2,622
Number of Approach Lanes Major Street = 2
Minor Street Name = Westerly Proj. Dwy. High Volume Approach (VPH) = 13
Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street = 1
a
z 400
0
a
CL
Q
e 300
E
0
L
200
G
0
300
SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED
400 Soo 600 700 800 900 i wu i
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - VPH
--C)--1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor)
—6-2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)
—0-2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)
—N—Major Street Approaches
- 4K - Minor Street Approaches
— NOTE:
100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET
APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER
THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE.
RKJK
warrant (RA WARRANT (2)) 3112198
i
I
400 Soo 600 700 800 900 i wu i
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - VPH
--C)--1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor)
—6-2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)
—0-2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)
—N—Major Street Approaches
- 4K - Minor Street Approaches
— NOTE:
100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET
APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER
THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE.
RKJK
warrant (RA WARRANT (2)) 3112198
PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
(Rural Areas)
Opening Year (1999) With Project
Major Street Name,.,: Golden Springs Dr. Total Of Both Approaches (VPH) = 2,061
Approach Lanes Major Street = 2
Minor Street Name = Easterly Proj. Dwy. High Volume Approach (VPH) = 50
Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street = 1
SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED
SM
r
200
0
3
Major Street -Total of Both A IUoo 1100 1200 1300
pproaches - VPH -
--0— 1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor)
' r-2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)
--*-2* Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)
—'—Major Street Approaches
'K - Minor Street Approaches
" NOTE:
100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET
APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER
THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE.
RKJK
warrant (RA WARRANT (5))
3/12/98
PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
(Rural Areas)
Buildout (Year 2008) With Project
Major Street Name = Golden Springs Dr. Total of Both Approaches (VPH) = 2,652
Number of Approach Lanes Major Street = 2
Minor Street Name = Easterly Proj. Dwy. High Volume Approach (VPH) = 50
Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street = 1
SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED
x
a
r 400
v
0
CL
CL
Q
m 300
E
r
200
0100
C
2
RKJK
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - VPH
—1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor)
—,q&-2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)
---*--2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)
--W— Street Approaches
- iK - Minor Street Approaches
— NOTE:
100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET
APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER
THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE.
warrant (RA WARRANT (6))
1200 1300
3/12/98
1
1
1
1
1
r
! .w
IN | §G|
'
LLE� k
• AL # (p.
Cd
4 -. 0.
# 0.
0.
0. O, N.
H1. CA 0. 0.
�.
N.
NX
CA PO.
•
N• 4 #
bL ax 10. # N.
.
N•
4 4 fA
0. N, 0. N. N,
K
0. 44 CK
•P..
CA
N.
N, N,
N. N,
m•
M N. N.
a
t� 4
N.
K
Lk
o,• m
#
CA #
0.
fi
m.
O.
P..
N. 4 W. Ai N. N. 4,
N.
0.
K
G4 K
N.
4
-
# +
m
M
NX
NX
' -
NL
N, N.
N,
0.
K
J.
0.
N'
CAL.
P..
h
N.
N.
-11. O.
N
0.
O.
Ut
(A
0.
0.
N. #
m• ,,,.. K (A #
N,
N,
i. e,5
L
SPECIFICATIONS
;ya LUMINAIRE HOUSING.. shall. be die forrs;ed heavy pauge.a}uminum constructiori•continuously welded for strength and weather-
s..,.
r•.'; tight performance;. 611 weli3s sl:ialt be ground:Smooth: the housing shall be hinged at one side for relamping.
4+2 < LUMINAIRE DOOR AND LENS ... shall coillst of a clear anodized extruded alumi�ALm
V,.
door completely gasketedl with an. extruded:^E' PDNI neoprene. 'lit tens shall be 3/16"
thick high impact and heat resistant Clear teiPgered glass, completely seated with siiidone
gaskets, supported bymeans of four heady.::ggatlge aluminum tubes welded to troth the
door and cast aluminum fitter.
,. OPTICAL, SYSTEM , shall be a die forrrjed`segmented. specular ALZAKO refloctor, de-
signed to produce an ANSI—IES cla'ssificaLion type V square distribution, the reflector
shall contain a 600 volt mogul base heavy rli tyipprcelain socket.
BALLAST TRAY... shall consist' df either- Mercury Vapor, Metal Halide or
Pressure Sodium ballast, mounted on a trayy; complete}
r-4 y prewired with quick disconnect
plugs for maintenance.
.a.. STANDARD FINISH . thall be medium ls; nze baked anomel,
MAINTENANCE ... the housing, reltecto.r:.bnd bellast tray shall be hinged and:leasily
removable without tuc,le:
HARDWARE .. , all mounting fasteners hinges, screws and springs shall ba stainless steel.
U.L.... shall be. U.L. listed.
��L..1 LIGMTINGSYSTEMS, ; INC. A7
E4 SERIES
RUUD
LIGHTING
I
SIDE VIEW
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
HID
PROJECTION
CUTOFF
MOUNTING -- —' --- -- SPEC. _# POSITION WATTAGE CATALOG # (a) VOLTAGE
_Wall Downlight 50W MH E4405-0 (D)
_ —
-
2=277V (For HPS)
Wall Downlight 70W MH E4407-6 M
3=208V (For HPS)
Any 35W HPS E4503-1 (a)
@ 4=240V (For HPs)
Any 50W HPS E4505-1 (a)
D'' 50D=220/240V 50 HZ
Wall Downlight 70W HPS E4507-1 (a)
-_.---__._--_---.Dl
(For 50J0W HPS)
— - ----------- --
-- 6=347V (For pow HPS)
(a) For voltage other than 120V, replace -1 with appropriate suffix.
(b) Specify Options.
SECURITY LIGHT
(6) OPTIONS (Fulory Installed)
BS= Bronze Color Shrc+ud
GS= Gold Color Shroud
H -High Power Factor Ballast
J =Tamperproof Lens
Fasteners
P=Photocell
,Aluminum die cast ballast housing features a thermal air isolation chamber separating the ballast
core and coil from the other electrical components. Completely gasketed clear lens is virtually
unbreakable polycarbonate. Combination of internal polished aluminum shroud and semi -specular
reflector directs light out and away from fixture. Supplied with a neoprene sealing gasket for
complete weatherproofing at the mounting surface. A silicone rubber seal is furnished to provide a
seal at the lens. Lens is fastened to housing with Phillips -head captive stainless steel screws. Steel
fixture mounting bar and threaded nipple provided for direct mounting to recessed junction box.
ELECTRICAL: Fixture includes clear, medium base lamp and porcelain enclosed, 4kv rated screw shell type
lampholder with spring loaded center contact. HPS ballast assemblies include a 120V normal power
factor Reactor ballast. MH ballast assemblies include a dual -tap (in U.S.: I20/277V; in Canada:
50W MH=120/277V; 70W MH=120/347V) normal power factor High Reactance ballast. When
optional 208, 240 or 277V HPS ballast is utilized, a step-down transformer is included in assembly.
(See voltage options).
FINISH: Exclusive DeltaGuardTM finish features an E -coat epoxy primer with medium bronze acrylic powder
topcoat, providing excellent resistance to corrosion, ultraviolet degradation and abrasion. The finish
is covered by our 7 year limited warranty.
LABELS: ANSI lamp wattage label supplied, visible during relamping. UL Listed for wet locations and enclo-
sure classified IP54 per IEC 529; in Canada, CSA Certified or Canadian UL Listed for wet locations.
ACCESSORIES: ES8-7 = Surface Mounting Box
PAS -7 = Pole Mounting Bracket
TPS -1 = Tamperproof Screwdriver
Mounting
Hole Line
10" (254 mm)L x 6" (152 mm)W 1
Sealing —�
I�--
Gasket
Fixture
.25" (6 mm)—
Mounting
Bar
Housing. ---�
�`��
Finish color: ti i --Ignitor
bronze.
0 0
2.25" (57 mm)*
Ballast -
Photocell
o
(Optional)
Reflector
Threaded
4.2" (107 mm)
Nipple With
Lamp
Slotted Hex
(Included)
Head Cap.
/r \
Lampholder
Polycarbonate
Lens
Aluminum
Shroud
NOTE:
* For all MH, and 100W HPS with 208V
or 240V, this dimension is 3.0" (76 mm).
,Aluminum die cast ballast housing features a thermal air isolation chamber separating the ballast
core and coil from the other electrical components. Completely gasketed clear lens is virtually
unbreakable polycarbonate. Combination of internal polished aluminum shroud and semi -specular
reflector directs light out and away from fixture. Supplied with a neoprene sealing gasket for
complete weatherproofing at the mounting surface. A silicone rubber seal is furnished to provide a
seal at the lens. Lens is fastened to housing with Phillips -head captive stainless steel screws. Steel
fixture mounting bar and threaded nipple provided for direct mounting to recessed junction box.
ELECTRICAL: Fixture includes clear, medium base lamp and porcelain enclosed, 4kv rated screw shell type
lampholder with spring loaded center contact. HPS ballast assemblies include a 120V normal power
factor Reactor ballast. MH ballast assemblies include a dual -tap (in U.S.: I20/277V; in Canada:
50W MH=120/277V; 70W MH=120/347V) normal power factor High Reactance ballast. When
optional 208, 240 or 277V HPS ballast is utilized, a step-down transformer is included in assembly.
(See voltage options).
FINISH: Exclusive DeltaGuardTM finish features an E -coat epoxy primer with medium bronze acrylic powder
topcoat, providing excellent resistance to corrosion, ultraviolet degradation and abrasion. The finish
is covered by our 7 year limited warranty.
LABELS: ANSI lamp wattage label supplied, visible during relamping. UL Listed for wet locations and enclo-
sure classified IP54 per IEC 529; in Canada, CSA Certified or Canadian UL Listed for wet locations.
ACCESSORIES: ES8-7 = Surface Mounting Box
PAS -7 = Pole Mounting Bracket
TPS -1 = Tamperproof Screwdriver