The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/13/2007PLANNING "7-y COUNCIL COMMISSION AGENDA 437 March 13, 2007 7:00 P.M. South Coast Air Quality Management District Government Center Building - Auditorium 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA Chairman Vice Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Steve Nelson Tony Torng Kwang Ho Lee Kathleen Nolan Osman Wei Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on Bile in the Planning Division of the Community Development Department, located at 29825 Copley Drive, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please call (909) 839-7030 during regular business hours. In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title I/ of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting must inform the Community Development Department at (909) 839-7030 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. - - y• ^'y i ne wly or ofamond Bar uses recycled paper i-ir;nWnn in the A+iditorium and encourages you to do the same City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission MEETING RULES PUBLIC INPUT of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission are open to the public. A member of the The meetingsagenda items and/or other items of public may address the Commission on the subject of one or more ning Commission. A request which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Diamond 1h B ublicaheariing, to he Secre Secretary of the to address the Commission should be submitted in writing Commission. era/ rule, the opportunity for public comments will take place at the discretion of the Chair. As a gen persons who are interested parties for an item may b However, in order to facilitate the meeting, y limit item; m the Chair may limit the total amount oof requested to give their presentation at the time the item is called on the calendar. The Chair a q speak and the business individual public input to five minutes the any uestin to allocated for public testimony based on the number of people requesting the Commission. sted to conduct themselves in a professional and businesslike manner. Individuals are reque rior to the Comments and questions are we lcome sost that ff a d City Council.of 1ew are considered p Commission making recommendations to the dance with State Law (Brown Act), ail matterig be ase of emergency ored on by the nission must be when a subject In accord prior to the Commission meeting.the Commission posted at least 72 hours p posting of the agenda, upon making certain findings, matter arises subsequent to the p 9 may act on item that is not on the posted agenda. INFORMATION RELATING TO AGENDAS AND ACTIONS OF THE COMMISSION Agendas for Diamond Bar Planning Commission meetings are prepared b the Planning lable 72 hours prior to the meeting at City the Community Development Department. Agendas are avail computer at the number below. Hall and the public library, and may be accessed by personal Every meeting of the Planning Commission is recorded on cassette tapes and duplicate tapes are available for a nominal charge. ADA REQUIREMENTS persons with mobility impairments who cannot access. the A cordless microphone is available for those p language interpreter servces public speaking area. The service of threelebu business days indadvance of he meeting. ne the Please are available by giving notice m., Monday through Thursday, and 7:30 a.m. telephone (909) 839-7030 between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p. and 4:30 p.m., Friday. HELPFUL PHONE NUMBERS 839.7030 Copies of Agenda, Rules of the Commission, Cassette Tapes of Meetings (909) General Agendas (909) 839-7030 email: info ci.diamond-bar.ca.us CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 13, 2007 AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. Next Resolution No. 2007-13 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 1. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Steve Nelson, Vice Chairman Tony Torng, Kwang Ho Lee, Kathleen Nolan, Osman Wei fa 3 4 5 7 MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is the time and place for the general public to address the members of the Planning Commission on any item that is within their jurisdiction, allowing the public an opportunity to speak on non-public hearing and non -agenda items. Please complete a Speaker's Card for the recording Secretary (Completion of this form is voluntary.) There is a five-minute maximum time limit when addressing the Planning Commission. 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 Regular Meeting: February 27, 2007. 4.2 Minutes of Study Session: February 27, 2007. OI_D BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS: None. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 Development Review No. 2006-41 — In accordance to Code Sections 22.48, this is a request to construct a second story addition and deck totaling to approximately 1,665 square feet to an existing one-story single-family residence of approximately 1,951 square feet with a two -car garage. Project Address: 23845 Chinook Place PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 13, 2007 Property Owner: Mr. and Mrs. Donald Mahlke 23845 Chinook Place Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Lar Brown Applicant: 2366 E. Glassell Street Orange, CA 92865 ' nmental Determination: In accordance to the provisions of the Environmental CEQA), Section 15301(e), the City has California Environmental Quality categorically exempt. determined that this project rove S Commiss Recommendation: ion app 2006-41, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval Staff recommends that the Planning Development Review as listed within the draft resolution. the 7.2 owner and Develo ment Review No. 2007-04 Per DBMC Section 22. 48, t plan approval to construct a 1,720 square feet two story applicant requessquare feet single addition with an exterior remodeltodtee existing 2,268 livable family residences front and n Project Address: 1700 Shadehill Place Property Owner: Llihong He 1700 Shadehill Place Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Applicant: Kingston Engineering, Inc. 21015 Commerce Pointe Drive Walnut, CA 91789 Environmental Determination: The City determined this project is to orically exempt per the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA), ca g Section 15301(e). rove Comof approval mission app Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Development Review No. 2007-04, Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the draft resolution. 8. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 1 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: MARCH 13, 2007 Q 10. PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF COMMENTS / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: City Council Meeting: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 6:30 p.m. SCAQMD/Government Center Auditorium 21865 Copley Drive State of the City: Thursday, March 22, 2007 6:30 — 8:00 p.m., Diamond Bar Center 1600 S. Grand Ave. Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting: Planning Commission Meeting: 11. ADJOURNMENT: Thursday, March 22, 2007 — 7:00 p.m. SCAQMD/Government Center Hearing Board Room — 21865 Copley Drive Tuesday, March 27, 2007 — 7:00 p.m. SCAQMD/Government Center Auditorium 21865 Copley Drive (III 111111 IIIII (IIIIIa,,EXPRESSCustLabel IIIIIIIIIIIillllllllllll omer Copy _ Iillllllllllillillllll___ I 11 -F, April EV 876469419 US IIL • - I PO ZIP UN1TED5T4TE5P0STdLSERV/CE® Post Office7b Addressee Code Day of Delivery Postage • • • 0 Next $ ❑ 2nd ❑2nd Cel. Day Delivery Attempt lime � Employee Signature Date Accepted I Scheduled Date of Delivery Return Receipt Fee Mo' Da PM Month Day Delivery Attempt time AM Employee Signature Mo, Day Year Scheduled Time of Delivery COD Fee Insurance Fee Mo Da ❑ PM Time Accepted 1-1 AM dd.. ❑ Noon El 3 PM .p $ Delivery Date Time AM Employee Signature I El PM Military T Total Postage & Fees Day Mo',- ❑PM Flat Rate ❑ or Weight ❑ 2nd Day ❑ am Da y AIyER OPSIOgATURE (Domast7c Me/t bn - " void Hriaiveryr altl�bwa4n9�sMClwbh /y}Arltl� nalMandisi'�n�urenq `^I .iJrl Int'( Alpha Coun[ Code rY Acceptance Emp. Initials li of atldrasaee wadtlrasaee'a agent In dal very amf �m�e rt°bfein C" 'Y Iocation).antll authorize that i f �9 e lb..NO -s.METMJD dielWery employee's eig heleft In DELPI"Y wsrerentl f r9 P dellveryx ehYi7„? OF PAYMENT: ..- !.. Custunar Fl J d'TI;�Wi' `V— mad Corporate A^.,CI. No. cro is ^i1'�« ..bC:f,# )!9 Federal Postal �vjce�� No . a ' FRIOM:(PLE/sE PRINT) r .. , PHONE( TO: •PLEASE PRINT) r _ f PHONE (— 1 IMIYmMII�INIV�uNYNmwun�wnuuiM�� Customer P_. ��uuWwVu�uu4mNp96iUllm'I.'WIhiINNNV� Label 11-F, April 00 EXPRESS AC- Md/L i I I j LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII EV VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII 876469405 US PO ZIP Code Day of Delivery Posta 9e dd.. ❑ Next ❑ 2nd El 2,d Del. Day $ Date Accepted Scheduled Date of Delivery Return Receipt Fee Month Day $ Mo. Day Year Scheduled Time of Delivery COD Fee Insurance Fee Time Accepted ❑ AM❑ Ndan ❑ 3 pM $ $ ED PM Military Total Postage & Fees _ Flat Rate ❑ or Weight ❑ 2nd Day ❑ 3rd Day $ IM -1 Alpha Country Code Acceptance Emp. Initials lbs. ozs. aEIHOD OF PAYMENT: -fI r xPres:: Mal Comaate Acct. No. FROM: (PLEASE PRI" r PHONEf -� 7 Customer Copy EXPRESS 04 Label 11-F, April MAIL UNITED STOTESPOSTAL SERVICE® Post OfficeTo Addressee • • • • Delivery Attempt Time AM Employee Signature Mo. Da ❑ PM Delivery Attempt Time AM Employee Signature Mo. Day ❑ PM Delivery Date Time ❑ AM Employee Signature vad n-1-rof signature b requested I wlah �'� addrttanW mo ehs dlsa Iriaunncs Is 1' of add or addressee s agentddeliv a gjo m . Ixatien) and t auth.rl_ that delNery em s- �� tha<� P � iefi In= ploy'eg atgref esvaRg,�ragofdellvery ,'. C.1 NO DELIVERYw••Ir•nd Cu•lomer Sl•nehsa '� s t; Post al Aunion gency Acct N Service Acct. IJo. TO: (PLEASE PRIM) r PHONE ( 1 �= �;;.v;['. J L J Customer Copy Label 11-F, April 200, � 1111111 II 111111 VIII (IIII VIII Iilll ILII VIII VIII (IIII IIII �� VIIIIIIIII p EXPRESS MA IL EV 876469422 US Post OfficeTOAddressef UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE® • •• PO ZIP Code • Day of Delivery Postage t(POSTAL Delivery Attempt ONLY) Time ❑ AM Employee Signature (] Next ❑ 2nd ❑ 2od Del bay $ Mo. Day PM Scheduled Date of Delivery Return Receipt Fee Delivery Attempt Time ❑ AM Employee Signature Date Accepted Month , Day $ Mo. Da ❑ PM Mo. Day Year Scheduled Time of Delivery COD Fee Insurance Fee Delivery Dale Tme ❑ AM Employee Signature Time Accepted � AM ❑ Noon ❑ 3PM $ $ o. % Day, ❑ PM Military Total Postage&Fees ,.,. wg1VERUFSIGNATURE(Domeafie Mallon/y)Adddgpnal merchinUldla Insurance le, ] PM ❑ ❑ $ d alesoi dgnetraa.6 requeatad. I wish dalMerY.tp (a4 ado without obtaining slgraWM of addressee «. addras• 's agent (H delNery amPl�a 7}19 that artkla can he bR N secure Flat Rate O or Weight 2nd Day 3rtl Day 'locetlw) arM euthorizetlYat dalrvery empbyee plgnatula cpnetdtute9 valldp oof of delivery Int'I Alpha Country Code Acceptance Emp. Initials NO DELRIERYOWeakand. �Holday. _r✓ .'�•'� lbs. ozs. Custarrrer s [ METHOD OF PAYMENT: -. Federal Agency At. No. of Postal Service Acct. No. Express Mad Corpeate Acct. No. ,. FROM: (PLEASE PRi" PHONE ( ... ) TO: (PLEASE PRINT) PHONE I I r r / t FOR PICKUP OR TRACKING: Visit WVVW-USPS-COM Or Call 1-800-222-1811 i I �1IIIIIIIIIIII(IIII(IIIIIIII Customer Co IIIIIillllillllil Iillllllllllllllllillllllli-- EXPRESS Label 11-F, April: �M'AIL EV 876469436 US UN/TEDSTATES POSTALSERVICE. Post Office7b Address, aDelivery f Delivery• Postage � 2ntl Q 2nd DeL Day $❑ Attempt Time AMEmployee Signature duled Date of Delivery Return Receipt Fee ed Mo. ❑PM Delivery AttemptTime Day $ Employee Sih qM 9nature TScheduI0dT1meufDeIIvey Yuled Time of Delivery COD Fee 7ACcepted Insurance Fe¢ Mo DayPM Delivery Date d d• $ $ TimeOon ❑ AM EmployeeSignature❑3PM ., Total Postage ❑ & Fees'10o Day ❑ PM Weigd Day ❑nrd Day $ VERr vold Vwalvoralaig stun locMa70/y)gdditlonal merehanry�s insuranchof ad dre�seeweddre's 'Rdated.lyMSh geliv@ryto ba made `rlth«dot»alni1pha Country Code Acceptance EmpInitials Ideation) and l'autnorize that tl�iv�deti�'6.pl sludges }hat ertlele can Delolgt nos-eY emplo9e'cunstHutes.vgildproofofdNive OF NO. DELIVERY �wa.lund Hol i PAYMENT: E(prea9 Mail CorPo2te ACd. No..,'? f i '_• .. PostAgency Acct. No. or Se'vic Acct No. FROM: MLEASEPRINT) ,,. .. .) _ , I_ PHONE TO: PLEASE PRIM) PHONE ( 1 _ rirf p� j _ � r L J L CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF DIAMOND BAR On March 13, 2007, the Diamond Bar Planning Commission will hold a regular session at 7:00 p.m., at the South Coast Quality Management District/Government Center - Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. Items for consideration are listed on the attached agenda. I, Stella Marquez, declare as follows: I am employed by the City of Diamond Bar. On March 9, 2007, a copy of the Notice for the Regular Meeting of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission, to be held on March 13, 2007, was posted at the following locations: South Coast Quality Management District Auditorium 2'1865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar Library 1061 Grand Ave. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Heritage Park 2900 Brea Canyon Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 9, 2007, at Diamond Bar, California. Stella Marquez Community Development D artment g:\\affidavitposting.doe Dec 08 06 09:30p Salgado 909-860-0056 p.l March 12, 2007 City of Diamond Bar Community Development Dept./Planning Division Attn: Planner for Notice of Public Hearing for 23845 Chinook Place (Tract 26126, Lot 15) Diamond Bar Subject: Opposition of Development Review No. 2006-41 I am in receipt of your Notice o Public Hearing for the above-mentioned property Since I will be unable to attend the meeting on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 I am notifying You of my opposition to Mr" & Mrs. Donald Mahlke's request to construct a second story addition to their existing one-story home. My opposition is that is will obstruct a beautiful view and may set precedence for other homes to build second story homes on the same side of the street. Additionally, it may create more of a traffic jam in the small quiet cul-de-sac because on at least one occasion they had another family residing with them with more vehicles. The original developers had a well-planned lay -out of single story and two-story homes in the cul-de-sac. It allowed views for the majority of residence in this area. As a resident for 15 years residing directly across the street from the above address, one of my decisions for the selection of a home in Diamond Bar was because of the existing view. Respectfully, r REBECCA SALGADO 231348 Chinook Place Diamond Bar, CA (909)860-0056 iNN ORIGIN (POSTAL SERVICE USE ONLY) ^ Ne# — 2nd ^ aM Oel COD Fee Scheduled Date of Delivery Month Day 3PM 1'— EXPRESS MdIL -- ------ ------ Customer Copy Label 11-F, Apri12004 UNITEDSTeTESPOSTdLSERVICE® PostOfficeToAddressee DELIVERY (POSTAL USE ONLY) Delivery Attempt Time ^ AM ^ PM Mo. Delivery Date DaY Time Time ^ AM ^ PM Employee Signature 'AIYER OF 310NATURE,(Domesac Mai! Onty) AddFtlonal6i—rch@ndiaeinaurenu le void H waiver oT algnalurc k ragriested: f wLS7i delivar— to be made wlthart of»akring algnatur9 of addressee or eddra9sae'98geM (Ft delivery Bmpwyve3Udgee Nat Can t>e Jett nsecure locafbn).and Ieutlwdu MaT delNary emPloyea's sigfi9Nrq constitu— proytofdetivery: Federal Agency acct, No. a Postal Service Acct. No. FOR PICKUP OR TRACKING: Visit WwW.ucJp$.C.Om or Call 1-800-222-1811 -5 J ORIGIN (POSTAL SERVICE USE ONLY) PO ZIP Code Date Accepted Mo. Day Year Time Accepted Flat Rate — or Weight lbs. ozs. METHOD OF PAYMENT: Emress Mail Corporate Acct. No FROM: (PLEASE PRINT) { L FOR PICKUP OR TRACKING: Visit WWW.u3—ps.CiOm or Call 1-8Q0-222-1811 ^ AM ^ PM EV 87646945 US Day of Delivery (] Nezt (] 2ntl ^ 2nd Del. Day Scheduled Date of Delivery Month Day Scheduled lime of Delivery ^ 3PM Military ^ 2nd Day ^ 3rd Day Int'I Alpha Country Code Postage Return Receipt Fee COO Fee Total Postage 8 Fees Acceptance Emp. Initials PHONE( I 1 A Insurance Fee ill r UNITED STATES POSTi—L SERVICE DELIVERY (POSTAL USE ONLY) )IYER OF SIGNATURE (Oomasdc Ma/I Onry} Additional merchandise inauranck h void H waiver of algneture la regdeatad I vAsh,deUverytdtie madewtttmut d6falning skjnatuni ofaddressee or addressee's agent (M del veryem fudges that article can oe IeH in secure Iocatlon)andl authorize that delivery employes; s, of re consthutes—valid oof of delivery. W.. Federal Agency Acct. NO. or Postal Servke Acct. No. TO: (PLEASE PRINTi r L EXPRESS M/1/L NO DELIVERY —Waekad — NoWday,,;;;,_, LYalaner 9k —, EXPRESS M/—IL r' Post OfficeTo Addressee Employee Signature Employee Signature Employee Signature PHONE i1 -I r--, ., I7—ri UNITEDST4TESPOSTi]LSERVICE® PostOfficeToAddressee ORIGIN (POSTAL SERVICE USE ONLY) PO ZIP Code Date Accepted Mo. Day Year Time Accepted ^ AM ^ PM Flat Rate — or Weight lbs. ozs. CUS UME7— RUSE ONLY METHOD OF PAYMENT: �.. Mad Corporate Acct No. FROM: (PLEASE PRtNt) r —i Scheduled Time of Delivery I COD Fee ^ Nocn ^ 3PM Day of Delivery Postage ^ NexC (] 2n0 (] 2ntl Del. Day Scheduled Date of Delivery — Return Receipt Fee Month Day I $ Military —T+otal Postage & Fees ^ 2nd Day ^ 3rd Day ' — Int'I Alpha Country Code — Acceptance Emp. Initials —/ru PHONEI 1 Insurance Fee DELIVERY (POSTAL USE ONLY) Delivery Attempt Mo. Day Delivery Attempt Mo. Day Delivery Date Day Federal Agency Acct. No, or Postal Semce Acct. No. TO: (PLEASE PRIM} =1 r L Vt. — Time C t. ^ AM ^ PM Time ^ AM ^ PM Time ^ AM ^ PM Employee Signature Employee Signature W(XIVER /1F SIGNATURE (OcmastiG Meif Only) Addlttonal taerchandlsa Insurance la votd M vnhrer of algnelure b requested. I wish de_INary 9o'tie mirde without obte ning signature of addressee aaddressee's agent [! delivery ernpbyee IudgQS that article cpn [xj Ten In secure location):endl:authodze that delivery amploylx's slgnatUre.corrsUtutes vallr},.prOnLof delivery. NO DELfVERY—}wa.lrend — Honday --.% Cust—merswneaaa PHONE (_ - _— FOR PICKUP OR TRACKING: Visit lA/VI/VI/.U$p$eCUil l or Call 1-$00-222-1811 Employee Signature Customer Copy Label II -F, Apri1200- 3 Delivery Attempt Time ^ AM Mo. Day ^ PM Delivery Attempt Time ^ AM Mo. Day ^ PM Delivery Date ^ AM II Time ^ PM tiMa. DaY 1 EV 876469422 US i i i 1' i c ORIGIN (POSTAL SERVICE USE ONLY) PO ZIP Code Date Accepted Mo. Day Year Time Accepted ^ AM ^ PM Flat Rate — or Weight lbs. ozs. FROM: (PLEASE PRINiI r Scheduled Time of Delivery ^ Noon ^ 3PM COD Fee Day of Delivery ^ Next — 2ntl ^ 2ntl DeL Dayl Y +, j 'I PHONE( 1 Postage Scheduled Date of Delivery — Return Receipt Fee Month , Day Military ^ 2nd Day ^ 3rtl Day Total Postage & Fees Int'I Alpha Country Code Acceptance Emp. Initials A METHOD OF PAYMFM: F—rass Mail Corporate Acct. No. Insurance Fee DELIVERY (POSTAL USE ONLY) WAIVER OF SIGNATURE (Domestic Mail Only) Add{Upnal merchandise Insurance le -_.d Awelver of algneluro k requested. I wish delNerytP pb made wlttwut of>telnkfg algnaWts rn addressee a addressee's agent M delivery emple9ee lyklgea that article can be bn In seeura locetlon).and I authodze tnati delivery emPloyee'stsignetuda ccnstltutee valtd— dfdellvery. ../.-r,,.— NO DELNERY—Weakww — Hotlday — " ..1 Customer SI Federal Agency ACCt. No. a Postal Service Acct. No. TO: IPt csu PRIM) r L —'r— r , .—,v'W ;f Call 1-800-222-1811 urvr r to yTATE3 POSTAL SERVICE PO ZIP Code -Day of Delivery EXI—RESS —M411 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE® Post OfficeTo AddresseF Customer Copy Label II -F, Apri1200— Customer Co Label II -F, April: Scheduled Date of Delivery Month Day Scheduled Time of Delivery ^ Noon ^ 3PM Int'I Alpha Country Code Postage Return Receipt fee Total Postage 8 Fees Acceptance Emp. Initials FOR PICKUP OR TRACKING: Visit WWWau$p$.—+ mo call 1-800-222-1$11 Date Accepted Time Accepted Day Year ^ PM Flat Rate — or Weight Mo --pa ,L Delivery Attempt Mo. Day Delivery Date —'J—rAIVER OF SIGNATURE (Domestic. Malt On/y)Atldhlonal nrArchantllse Inwrancs le void H waiver of slcnaene Ia requested. I vASh delivery to be medewifhadabtalnirg signature of addresses or addressee's agent (tt delivery,em Ioyde judges chat ertkle can Ne len Inseam location) end I authorize that del very employ90 p f—ghhee NO DELfVERYI—I weekend f—I 'I--OOtot delivery, I I I ' Hd i .—`/ Employee Signature Employee g7gnatu—e Employee Signature Post OfficeTo Address) Delivery Attempt Time ^ AM Employee Signature Mo. ^ PM Delivery Attempt Time AAM— Employee Signature Mo. Day ^ PM Delivery Date Time ^ AM Employee Signature o. f Day ^ PM L r; c. J FOR PICKUP OR TRACKING: Visit V1/V1/V1/.U$p$^_i®111 or CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF DIAMOND BAR On March 13, 2007, the Diamond Bar Planning Commission will hold a regular session at 7:00 p.m., at the South Coast Quality Management District/Government Center - Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. Items for consideration are listed on the attached agenda. I, Stella Marquez, declare as follows: I am employed by the City of Diamond Bar. On March 9, 2007, a copy of the Notice for the Regular Meeting of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission, to be held on March 13, 2007, was posted at the following locations: South Coast Quality Management Heritage Park District Auditorium 2900 Brea Canyon Road 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar Library 1061 Grand Ave. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Stella Ma rquez Development D art Community ment I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 9, 2007, at Diamond Bar, California. g:\\affidavitposting.doc Dec 08 06 09:30p Salgado 909-860-0056 p.1 March 12, 2007 City of Diamond Bar Community Development Dept./Planning Division Attn: Planner for Notice of Public Hearing for 23845 Chinook Place (Tract 26126, Lot 15) Diamond Bar Subject: Opposition of Development Review No. 2006-41 I am in receipt of your Notice o Public Hearing for the above-mentioned property. Since I will be unable to attend the meeting on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 I am notifying you of my opposition to Mr. & Mrs. Donald Mahlke's request to construct a second story addition to their existing one-story home. My opposition is that is will obstruct a beautiful view and may set precedence for other homes to build second story homes on the same side of the street. Additionally, it may create more of a traffic jam in the small quiet cul-de-sac because on at least one occasion they had another family residing with them with more vehicles. The original developers had a well-planned lay -out of single story and two-story homes in the cul-de-sac. It allowed views for the majority of residence in this area. As a resident for 15 years residing directly across the street from the above address, one of my decisions for the selection of a home in Diamond Bar was because of the existing view. Respectfully, REBECCA SALGXDO 23848 Chinook Place Diamond Bar, CA (909)860-0056 re� I i. IF,�II r RESIDENCE C wk 1700 SHADEHILL PL, DIAMOND BAR,CA 9176 r VId U001: 091&S VO'V8 £&6lOWVIO "fiat I-OIFNIUVRS ooll �1 R Y, I 13 r III a I I r y C e tix (i �iiuvl{7'y x. Ir I if( tl'b(at',ti�1fi14'^"Nwii_ tal X11 � � wA ��y.. I I I ,� liI'G'JWI:[�Gdl�u�b iJ�v"t'p/i .1 .. III b� o µp f rrt D 'Ir �Tr�/(R(•.�i`1HLL _ IIYB !I(t7,1iWG l"i�IPY/�pii 41L and! �k0 n,—) I,� p�.r>rpiIDSSL ;='II./11el aYd6u1�A,'„�Ni:..: .._LklMa..v.� Y ! I Y 0 rII! ..�ImYrn�PDlIIJGJN1rit u II i III i I '9 11,71 -I' iM i � �� ,�✓wktvmfffltl r f I , ,I 11 1 �I rl 1'I I N u I I r H V7 '4'OLM VO'UVR UNOWVIG'ld IIMIU�V�Hg 004� 30N343193H G.RN ....... IJ A II 0 a-1 LL Lu N I h. Ill fJ 11 IJ A II 0 a-1 LL Lu 9 t, FIE'S RESIDENCE 1700 SHADEHILL PL, DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 1 t Y r f" P tiv 9 t, FIE'S RESIDENCE 1700 SHADEHILL PL, DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 1 �,CY Mw't Of �1 �1 F _ F r ° r f" r F : w n1 * r M1� t r F° �QJ , ._.. I ..� �,........ .4_ _.p ...r_,. .._,,W,�•••' W pRESIDENCE -H"-M6kGL„�N�V7_W.�.., x�� I 91-7-65--- 1-17-00 S,HADE s .�,.«.......,.. � .-.«.�.....�•,,,umngm�.!.,.«..,.,....wp.�.p,,..py......./w�.y..�.y.�±,,......r ppm....,.a.,......M«.�..................w, 'I CIE r�� II P.'r ��,.�k`i& RM ��roeFL6�W" ��..�M•tl P �..._ Y + h � �� I t6 �f iY�l "�.. If/p/ �� 1.. �. I. �� II i �i Ol gy 0 !^ C'r 01 tt I iI �I i - I I I I I I I I I I I " � 1 f i I I II .k '- F R" I P "k I k fn I t�Y7 1'17 I'itl .c.. G7 t"I Cf 171 47 ... P97 27 T, I`00 _ 0 ��fit 07 OT .�..... I-17. z 0 .T. .F' X I .Z' -x .0 4 - i "t7 171 b i1 �Y7 7L C� "G mmy T -0 I7Y Gi c;� IPI C7 G) C� 7 .�. :k* � G7 n r G1 I x; z..1 Y1y�} rn 0.1 n 00 Col � ^^"I 0 CO 0 (7i VX �'J WY7 dr. ¢.,9 +.^3 ._. ,.x, pF t�7� 4:�I £n} (^,➢ -,u ~,7_„, ,,,1 i I m to t{X ^J Y75 i+ ilk U7 Ui ('fY F/Y f!a ""1 II I �. .....:' 111 { I I;u I I �I II �� I�l r I w � ��i I �d'I wl l 3 J^ (nU nq fJY y.. '^ n Ivyl r7w 15 I iN IJ III ' I .M {b �� I 11 "U i I I .. I -I I =n I Y Y 1` I 1 I yI P d i I I I " u I I I I _ n r I � I I I m N II I I l I r I — I 2 r y' I i w kI FY J I I � , I I Ai I W i I I m ' I I I I I ..6 I I CI I 4n ..a, " 3� I w l l " x � a "r C71C real w 0 r� r�'` Y ITT p Ul �y II I 5 IPI iol Til I / V N. 41�1� 11, T" 1; l, l; SA* WI g; "jag t R E q V ENV. .11 K K TO sly Pm�l, 0 34IF j" q P A 4 9" Awl gg s 1 y nl WIN. a 3 W DL 1 T, p I � f P p! A I a K F 1 z 9 v 11 Y61 And. ON, lot "Mot A SAW 1A in is I i I�� wig° i I "-ilw1vwiQl�p T'l,' , r . Ali Im"Aumv OHMS I ry jI^ 1 IV NNW Im fCr Ply ply lid CYC twoAN(/ R44W for All 2, fly oN kg, m. N NJ MMM . ................... IIIA . .. . .. I Ply ro lid CYC Ply I 1 !I I ' I I i I I II ISI I I I' i I II C.Yt I I �I 1 � p I I _ �I _ II I y T I I I F I I II I hi W � R .III I 1 I m .. .o H M r G rtt .X� rn 7 I. II D; I r" 01 F 4'k ...... . ... IT) Ti ITT 7 0. CD naiz fY T) 0 PLANNING Crry coUNCIC COMMISSION AGENDA March 13, 2007 7:00 P.M. " 2037 South Coast Air Quality Management District Government Center Building - Auditorium 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA Chairman Steve Nelson Vice Chairman Tony Torng Commissioner Kwang Ho Lee Commissioner Kathleen Nolan Commissioner Osman Wei Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Planning Division of the Community Development Department, located at 21825 Copley Drive, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please call (909) 839-7030 during regular business hours. In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodation (s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting must inform the Community Development Department at (909) 839-7030 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Please refrain from smoking, eating or The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper -+rmnLinn in tha Auditorium and encourages you to do the same City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission MEETING RULES PUBLIC INPUT The meetings of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission are open to the public. A member of the public may address the Commission on the subject of one or more agenda items and/or other items of which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission. A request to address the Commission should be submitted in writing at the public hearing, to the Secretary of the Commission. As a general rule, the opportunity for public comments will take place, at the discretion of the Chair. However, in order to facilitate the meeting, persons who are interested parties for an item may be requested to give their presentation at the time the item is called on the calendar. The Chair may limit individual public input to five minutes on any item; or the Chair may limit the total amount of time allocated for public testimony based on the number of people requesting to speak and the business of the Commission. Individuals are requested to conduct themselves in a professional and businesslike manner. Comments and questions are welcome so that all points of view are considered prior to the Commission making recommendations to the staff and City Council. In accordance with State Law (Brown Act), all matters to be acted on by the Commission must be posted at least 72 hours prior to the Commission meeting. In case of emergency or when a subject matter arises subsequent to the posting of the agenda, upon making certain findings, the Commission may act on item that is not on the posted agenda. INFORMATION RELATING TO AGENDAS AND ACTIONS OF THE COMMISSION Agendas for Diamond Bar Planning Commission meetings are prepared by the Planning Division of the Community Development Department. Agendas are available 72 hours prior to the meeting at City Hall and the public library, and may be accessed by personal computer at the number below. Every meeting of the Planning Commission is recorded on cassette tapes and duplicate tapes are available for a nominal charge. ADA REQUIREMENTS A cordless microphone is available for those persons with mobility impairments who cannot access the public speaking area. The service of the cordless microphone and sign language interpreter services are available by giving notice at least three business days in advance of the meeting. Please telephone (909) 839-7030 between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Friday. HELPFUL PHONE NUMBERS Copies of Agenda, Rules of the Commission, Cassette Tapes of Meetings (909) 839-7030 General Agendas (909) 839-7030 email: info(a)-ci.diamond-bar.ca.us CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 13, 2007 AGENDA Next Resolution No. 2007-13 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 1. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Steve Nelson, Vice Chairman Tony Torng, Kwang Ho Lee, Kathleen Nolan, Osman Wei 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is the time and place for the general public to address the members of the Planning Commission on any item that is within their jurisdiction, allowing the public an opportunity to speak on non-public hearing and non -agenda items. Please complete a Speaker's Card for the recording Secretary (Completion of this form is voluntary.) There is a five-minute maximum time limit when addressing the Planning Commission. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chairman 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine and are approved by a single motion. Consent calendar items may be removed from the agenda by request of the Commission only. 4.1 Minutes of Regular Meeting: February 27, 2007. 4.2 Minutes of Study Session: February 27, 2007. 5. OLD BUSINESS: None. 6. NEW BUSINESS: None. 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 Development Review No. 2006-41 - In accordance to Code Sections 22.48, this is a request to construct a second story addition and deck totaling to approximately 1,665 square feet to an existing one-story single-family residence of approximately 1,951 square feet with a two -car garage. Project Address: 23845 Chinook Place MARCH 13, 2007 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION Property Owner: Mr. and Mrs. Donald Mahike 23845 Chinook Place Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Applicant: Larry Brown 2366 E. Glassell Street Orange, CA 92865 Environmental Determination: In accordance to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15301(e), the City has determined that this project is categorically exempt. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2006-41, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. 7.2 Development Review No. 2007-04 Per DBMC Section 22.48, the owner and applicant request plan approval to construct a 1,720 square feet two story addition with an exterior remodel to the existing 2,268 livable square feet single family residence's front and north side. Project Address: 1700 Shadehill Place Property Owner: Llihong He 1700 Shadehill Place Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Applicant: Kingston Engineering, Inc. 21015 Commerce Pointe Drive Walnut, CA 91789 Environmental Determination: The City determined this project is categorically exempt per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15301(e). Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2007-04, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. 8. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 1 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: MARCH 13, 2007 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION 9. STAFF COMMENTS / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: City Council Meeting: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 6:30 p.m. SCAQMD/Government Center Auditorium 21865 Copley Drive State of the City: Thursday, March 22, 2007 6:30 - 8:00 p.m., Diamond Bar Center 1600 S. Grand Ave. Parks and Recreation Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 7:00 p.m. Commission Meeting: SCAQMD/Government Center Hearing Board Room - 21865 Copley Drive Planning. Commission Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 7:00 p.m. Meeting: SCAQMD/Government Center Auditorium 21865 Copley Drive 11. ADJOURNMENT: MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27, 2007 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Nelson called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. in the Auditorium of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chairman Torng led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Kathleen Nolan, Osman Wei, Vice Chairman Tony Torng, and Chairman Steve Nelson Also present: Nancy Fong, Community Development Director; Sandra Campbell; Contract Senior Planner; Gregg Kovacevich Assistant City Attorney; and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 3 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Submitted 4 CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 13, 2007. C/Wei moved, C/Nolan seconded to approve the Minutes of February 13, 2007, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 5. OLD BUSINESS: 6. NEW BUSINESS COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS None None Lee, Nolan, Wei None VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson None FEBRUARY 27, 2007 7. PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 Conditional Use Permit No. Cod Sections 22006-11 anD58 a1�22 48 of the City No. 2006-31 — in accordance w of Diamond Bar Development Code, the applicant requested approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-11 and Development Review 000 square 6-32 for a proposed project involving an approximately foot addition to an existing church and conceptual approval of future phases to include a 60,000 square foot parking structure and 17,000 square foot bookstore/sanctuary building. PROJECT ADDRESS: 22324 Golden Springs Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Hidden Manna 22324 Golden Springs Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Dale Goddard Calvary Golden Springs 22324 Golden Springs Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 CSP/Campbell presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-11 and Development Review No. 2006,Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. VC/Torng asked if there were any time limits on the CUP. CSP/Campbell explained that this was a review o' conceptual cant has final plans they will blans for a e equore aed parking structure and when the app to come back to the Planning Commission for a Development Review. She confirmed that the project was conditioned to provide a walkway from church site to the commercial development. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. David Nicks, Crow Architects, said he was available for answer Commissioner's question. FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Fong offered a change to the resolution. On page 4, item 5 add "....and the attached standard conditions" at the end of the last sentence. The applicant responded that he was in agreement with the conditions proposed by staff. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Lee moved, C/Wei seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-11 and Development Review No. 2006-32, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution as amended. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT COMMISSIONERS Lee, Nolan, Wei, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson None None 7.2 Development Review No. 2006-43 — In accordance with Code Section 22.48 of the Diamond Bar Development Code, the applicant requested Development Review for an existing learning center for kindergarten to eighth grade. The learning center is considered an intensification of use. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: AP Learning Center 1019 Via Sorella Street Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Ying Akkos 1019 Via Sorella Street Diamond Bar, CA 91765 CDD/Fong presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2006-43, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. VC/Torng asked if there was a standard for the map format. CDD/Fong responded that in cases where the applicant has limited resources and cannot hire a high-end architect to provide plans staff assisted the applicant. In fact, the applicant provided a better map today. CDD/Fong showed the new map on the overhead. VC/Torng asked if there was a second floor and FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Fong responded that there was a second floor proposed and it would be used only for one-on-one tutoring. accommodated cThe buing is olassesf oTherefore, rming and does not meet the ADA requirements all classes will be conducted on the ground level. VC/Torng said he visited the site today and said he was concerned because he could not find a parking site. He found it difficult to traverse the area. CDD/Fong agreed that there wtheresite no� exusinto provide physical an improvements are being done so opportunity to require that the applicant tlafety iss� r overhaul of the es because theresare VC/Torng said he was concerned a mother was bringing her kids children involved. When he backed up outside and the area sloped downthe area. TCDD/Fodifficult ng said that staff was not slope and maintain full visual of parcels and there are concerned because the entire street serves only two p no other businesses or residences on the street. VC/Torng asked who submitted the complaint and CDD/Fong respon Staff as it was the adjacent property owner who since sold the pert.. t they meeting with the group that purchased the adjacent property are interested in demolising the existing single taff conditioned family t oned the project Ifor ng a new private school. In the meantime parking re -striping. The facility provides one-on-one tutoring and some classes from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. Parents drop sa d hetheir was Iaot concs and terned about aff does not see a problem with parking. VC/Torng parking but about safety because tedltolcult back off site � He askedtraverse af thend view would be blocked when cars attempted guarantee the safety of the was any condition that could be imposed to g students. C/Nelson asked if the new property owners were related to the facility and whether there was potential for further development s are interested DnCD/Fong bu ding anded new that the new adjacent property ow school separate from this proposed pr that might work would be to widen driveway to-oJect. Athis imp ovetime,teecoulation whconditiich would require a retaining wall abl promote the projectfwith da copdigon t wide. said he would look more favorably o the driveway. C/Nolan asked if the parking spaces could be reconfigured to accommodate a wider entry without requiring a widening of the street. CDD/Fong said that a FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION short of demolishing the building it would be difficult to retrofit. CDD/Fong said she would look at the area to see if the parking area could be improved and the Commission could condition the project to require the design approval to be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. CDD/Fong responded to C/Wei that the applicant owns the property. C/Wei asked if there were restrictions on the office use designation. CDD/Fong responded that the office use designation allowed private school use. C/Wei agreed with the Commissioners about the parking spaces. However, in the case of private schools kids are normally dropped off and picked up by their parents and did not feel that untoward restrictions and conditions should be placed on such facilities. C/Lee asked what kind of complaints were lodged against the applicant and CDD/Fong responded that the complaint was that the applicant was operating a business without a permit. The complaint indicated the applicant was running a daycare business, which they are not. C/Lee believed that there were two separate businesses. CDD/Fong responded that the applicant made changes based on staff's input and the changes indicate that there are separate classrooms and a separate office and they are not separate businesses. C/Lee was concerned that there was one ingress/egress. CDD/Fong said the applicant would have to meet code and there are two exits for each room via the sliding doors. C/Wei suggested the applicant could put in a door to connect the office and Classroom #2 and, at the lower left corner of room 1 the applicant could put in another wall or window to create another exit. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Ying Akkos, principal of the AP Learning Center and owner of 1019 Via Sorella Street, offered to answer Commissioners questions. C/Wei asked Ms. Akkos if she would agree to accept conditions to add more exits and reconfigure the parking area and Ms. Akkos responded affirmatively. She said she would agree to anything that would make it safer for her students. CDD/Fong responded to VC/Torng that the area outside the white lines is public property and staff is considering vacating the entire block because the FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION street is a fully improved cul-de-sac there � If the City vacates the reason for the City to own the street because it serves only two Poperties street the land reverts to the two property ubl c street forthe theCity two Properties. a reciprocal/common access to th p Before Caltrans took the land for the ists treewapedapark nlg spaces within the extended into the City of Industry. Currently, there public right-of-way and it has been used as such since area using the overhead. the 1980s. CDD/Fong pointed out the playground Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Wei moved, C/Lee seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2006-43, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution with the addition of a conditioeVo ons toh the pat sfa t onl of tlhe ify the parking area and complete the risCommunity Development Director" and a condition to wit: Motion pr red ect requires a compliance review within six months of app by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Wei, VC/Torng Chair/Nelson None None g. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Nolan congratulated Ron Everett on his appointment to the City Council. s a VC/Torng said it was sad to lose Council tr the City. BobHewas expited abouZirbes. Rn tt'the good person and will be a good advocate fo study session and said he looked forward to it. e parking C/Lee said he visited after-school learning safety hazy d when kids n most were running lots were very crowded and presented a safety around in the dark. Of C/Wei commented that he was excited to leaand tbhe role the Planning Comout m sfuture potential for the sion Diamond Bar during tonight's study session will play in the City's future. E AFT FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Nelson expressed his condolences to the family of Bob Zirbes. Bob was much more than an advocate and a friend because he took pride in this City like most people take pride in their homes. He was a dear and close friend of this City. Chair/Nelson said he had the opportunity to work with Bob on the Planning Commission for a couple of years and he was not only very human he was quite brilliant in his resolution of City issues. He will be sorely missed. Chair/Nelson suggested that Commissioners keep to asking questions of the applicant during the public hearing portion of the meeting. If Commissioners launch into expressing their opinions during the public hearing it could lead to inciting debate. Public hearings are an opportunity for Commissioners to receive testimony in an objective manner and then to deliberate after the public hearing is closed and the Commission enters deliberation. 9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS. 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Fong reminded Commissioners about the Planners Institute in San Diego March 21, 22 and 23 and said she would contact participants to arrange and coordinate transportation to the event. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Nelson adjourned the regular meeting at 8:08 p.m. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Nancy Fong Community Development Director Steve Nelson, Chairman ODRAFT MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27, 2007 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Nelson called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. in the Auditorium of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chairman Torng led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Kathleen Nolan, Osman Wei, Vice Chairman Tony Torng, and Chairman Steve Nelson Also present: Nancy Fong, Community Development Director; Sandra Campbell; Contract Senior Planner; Gregg Kovacevich Assistant City Attorney; and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 3 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Submitted 4 CONSENT CALENDAR: Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 13, 2007. 4.1 C/Wei moved, C/Nolan seconded to approve the Minutes of February 13, 2007, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Wei NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None a CRAFT FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS: PLANNING COMMISSION 7.1 Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-11 and Development Review No. 2006-31 - in accordance with Code Sections 22.58 an 22.48 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code, the applicant requested approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-11 and Development Review no. 2006-32 for a proposed project involving an approximately 19,000 square foot addition to an existing church and conceptual approval of future phases to include a 60,000 square foot parking structure and 17,000 square foot bookstore/sanctuary building. PROJECT ADDRESS: 22324 Golden Springs Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Hidden Manna 22324 Golden Springs Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Dale Goddard Calvary Golden Springs 22324 Golden Springs Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 CSP/Campbell presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-11 and Development Review No. 2006-32, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. VC/Torng asked if there were any time limits on the CUP. CSP/Campbell explained that this was a review of conceptual plans for a bookstore and parking structure and when the applicant has final plans they will be required to come back to the Planning Commission for a Development Review. She confirmed that the project was conditioned to provide a walkway from church site to the commercial development. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. David Nicks, Crow Architects, said he was available for answer Commissioner's question. D DRAFT FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Fong offered a change to the resolution. On page 4, item 5 add and the attached standard conditions" at the end of the last sentence. The applicant responded that he was in agreement with the conditions proposed by staff. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Lee moved, C/Wei seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-11 and Development Review No. 2006-32, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution as amended. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Wei, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: None 7.2 Development Review No. 2006-43 - In accordance with Code Section 22.48 of the Diamond Bar Development Code, the applicant requested Development Review for an existing learning center for kindergarten to eighth grade. The learning center is considered an intensification of use. PROJECT ADDRESS: AP Learning Center 1019 Via Sorella Street Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ Ying Akkos APPLICANT: 1019 Via Sorella Street Diamond Bar, CA 91765 CDD/Fong presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2006-43, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. VC/Torng asked if there was a standard for the map format. CDD/Fong responded that in cases where the applicant has limited resources and cannot hire a high-end architect to provide plans staff assisted the applicant. In fact, the applicant provided a better map today. CDD/Fong showed the new map on the overhead. VC/Torng asked if there was a second floor and LD DRAFT FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Fong responded that there was a second floor proposed and it would be used only for one-on-one tutoring. The building is non -conforming and does not meet the ADA requirements to accommodated classes. Therefore, all classes will be conducted on the ground level. VC/Torng said he visited the site today and said he was concerned because he could not find a parking site. He found it difficult to traverse the area. CDD/Fong agreed that there were site constraints. No physical improvements are being done so there is no nexus to provide staff an opportunity to require that the applicant do a major overhaul of the site. VC/Torng said he was concerned about safety issues because there are children involved. When he backed up a mother was bringing her kids outside and the area sloped down making it difficult for him to back down the slope and maintain full visual of the area. CDD/Fong said that staff was not concerned because the entire street serves only two parcels and there are no other businesses or residences on the street. VC/Torng asked who submitted the complaint and CDD/Fong responded that it was the adjacent property owner who since sold the property. Staff is meeting with the group that purchased the adjacent property because they are interested in demolising the existing single family home and constructing a new private school. In the meantime staff conditioned the project for parking re -striping. The facility provides one-on-one tutoring and some classes from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. Parents drop of their kids and staff does not see a problem with parking. VC/Torng said he was not concerned about parking but about safety because it was a difficult site to traverse and the view would be blocked when cars attempted to back off. He asked if there was any condition that could be imposed to guarantee the safety of the students. C/Nelson asked if the new property owners were related to the facility and whether there was potential for further development. CDD/Fong responded that the new adjacent property owners are interested in building a new school separate from this proposed project. At this time, the only condition that might work would be to widen the driveway to improve circulation, which would require a retaining wall and promote loss of landscaping. VC/Torng said he would look more favorably on the project with a condition to widen the driveway. C/Nolan asked if the parking spaces could be reconfigured to accommodate a wider entry without requiring a widening of the street. CDD/Fong said that D DRAFT FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION short of demolishing the building it would be difficult to retrofit. CDD/Fong said she would look at the area to see if the parking area could be improved and the Commission could condition the project to require the design approval to be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. CDD/Fong responded to C/Wei that the applicant owns the property. C/Wei asked if there were restrictions on the office use designation. CDD/Fong responded that the office use designation allowed private school use. C/Wei agreed with the Commissioners about the parking spaces. However, in the case of private schools kids are normally dropped off and picked up by their parents and did not feel that untoward restrictions and conditions should be placed on such facilities. C/Lee asked what kind of complaints were lodged against the applicant and CDD/Fong responded that the complaint was that the applicant was operating a business without a permit. The complaint indicated the applicant was running a daycare business, which they are not. C/Lee believed that there were two separate businesses. CDD/Fong responded that the applicant made changes based on staffs input and the changes indicate that there are separate classrooms and a separate office and they are not separate businesses. C/Lee was concerned that there was one ingress/egress. CDD/Fong said the applicant would have to meet code and there are two exits for each room via the sliding doors. C/Wei suggested the applicant could put in a door to connect the office and Classroom #2 and, at the lower left corner of room 1 the applicant could put in another wall or window to create another exit. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Ying Akkos, principal of the AP Learning Center and owner of 1019 Via Sorella Street, offered to answer Commissioners questions. C/Wei asked Ms. Akkos if she would agree to accept conditions to add more exits and reconfigure the parking area and Ms. Akkos responded affirmatively. She said she would agree to anything that would make it safer for her students. CDD/Fong responded to VC/Torng that the area outside the white lines is public property and staff is considering vacating the entire block because the FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION street is a fully improved cul-de-sac and there is no reason for the City to own the street because it serves only two properties. If the City vacates the street the land reverts to the two property owners and the City would require a reciprocal/common access to the public street for the two properties. Before Caltrans took the land for the freeway Via Sorella extended into the City of Industry. Currently, there exists striped parking spaces within the public right-of-way and it has been used as such since the 1980s. CDD/Fong pointed out the playground area using the overhead. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Wei moved, C/Lee seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2006-43, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution with the addition of a condition to wit: "The applicant shall modify the parking area and complete the revisions to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director" and a condition to wit: "the project requires a compliance review within six months of approval." Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Wei, VC/Torng Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: None 8. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Nolan congratulated Ron Everett on his appointment to the City Council. VC/Torng said it was sad to lose Council Member Bob Zirbes. Ron Everett is a good person and will be a good advocate for the City. He was excited about the study session and said he looked forward to it. C/Lee said he visited after-school learning centers and in most evenings the parking lots were very crowded and presented a safety hazard when kids were running around in the dark. C/Wei commented that he was excited to learn about future potential for the City of Diamond Bar during tonight's study session and the role the Planning Commission will play in the City's future. EU'2F FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Nelson expressed his condolences to the family of Bob Zirbes. Bob was much more than an advocate and a friend because he took pride in this City like most people take pride in their homes. He was a dear and close friend of this City. Chair/Nelson said he had the opportunity to work with Bob on the Planning Commission for a couple of years and he was not only very human he was quite brilliant in his resolution of City issues. He will be sorely missed. Chair/Nelson suggested that Commissioners keep to asking questions of the applicant during the public hearing portion of the meeting. If Commissioners launch into expressing their opinions during the public hearing it could lead to inciting debate. Public hearings are an opportunity for Commissioners to receive testimony in an objective manner and then to deliberate after the public hearing is closed and the Commission enters deliberation. 9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS. 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Fong reminded Commissioners about the Planners Institute in San Diego March 21, 22 and 23 and said she would contact participants to arrange and coordinate transportation to the event. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/IVelson adjourned the regular meeting at 8:08 p.m. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Nancy Fong Community Development Director Steve Nelson, Chairman MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR GAFr STUDY SESSION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27, 2007 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Nelson called the Study Session to order at 6:02 p.m. in Conference Room CC -8, South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee; Kathleen Nolan; Osman Wei; Vice Chairman Tony Torng; and Chairman Steve Nelson Also present: James DeStefano, City Manager; Nancy Fong, Community Development Director; Gregg Kovacevich, Assistant City Attorney; and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 1. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 2. POWER POINT PRESENTATION BY CITY MANAGER DESTEFANO REGARDING FUTURE ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS. CM/DeStefano talked about property acquisitions, possible annexation of some of those properties and Diamond Bar's receipt of an application to develop the acreage between Diamond Bar and Brea on property known as the Aera Energy property. CM/DeStefano referred to the large vacant acreage between the southerly portion of Diamond Bar and the northerly portion of the City of Brea. On the map the graphic in yellow is the entirety of the Aera Energy property holdings, about 3,000 acres. The yellow line on the east side of the SR57 is about 300 acres owned by Aera and lies within the City of Diamond Bar's sphere of influence. The yellow area on the west side of the SR57 is about 2700 acres with the greater portion lying within Los Angeles County. About 300-400 acres lies within Orange County and is intended to become a part of the future jurisdiction of the City of Brea. CM/DeStefano stated that Diamond Bar has some involvement in Areas 1, 2 and 3 shown on the graphic. Area 1 is the Crestline 150 acre area is currently in the City of Walnut and the homeowners are interested in incorporating into the City of Diamond Bar and the City is pursuing annexation. Area 2 is property currently owned by the City of Industry, is comprised of about 110 vacant acres and Diamond Bar is in escrow for the purchase of the property. Area 3 is known as the Reed property - it is outside of the City limits of Diamond Bar and includes about 170 acres. Diamond Bar entered into escrow to purchase Area 3 in May 2006. The interest in the Reed and Industry property is a direct result of the City's interest in relocating the Diamond Bar (Los Angeles County owned) Golf Course to another location as a tie-in to the Aera Energy development. i FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION CM/DeStefano explained that the reason the City is interested in the Aera Energy property, Reed property and City of Industry property is for a potential site to relocate the existing Diamond Bar Golf Course that sits at the confluence of the SR57/60 and experiences 350,000 vehicle trips per day. The current site has the potential to serve as a much better amenity to Diamond Bar than it does as an open space recreational use and the City Council has authorized staff to look at possibilities including retail, restaurants, housing, office use, etc. For example, a comparison would be the Irvine Spectrum and Victoria Gardens in Rancho Cucamonga, which include these types of amenities. In short, the current golf course site could be converted to a more intensive use with amenities that would meet the community needs and provide long-term revenue and jobs. In order to develop the property Diamond Bar would need to structure a deal with the property owner to relocate the golf course within its current jurisdiction. The Diamond Bar golf course is 170 acres. The Reed property is 170 acres. However, the difference is that the Diamond Bar golf course is flat and the Reed property includes steep undulating hills and a 170- acre flat golf course would require at least 250 acres of hillside property. The Reed property would not accommodate a comparable golf course. The City of Industry property came to the City's attention for use in creating a golf course so the City pursued its purchase. The missing link is the property shown below the line on Aera Energy, which would supply the link to meet the requirement of Los Angeles County. Access to the golf course would be via Brea Canyon Road and there would be no access point to Pathfinder Road and there is no housing proposed around the golf course. The communities adjacent to the site in Rowland Heights do not want to see any more housing in their area and respecting their wishes the City of Diamond Bar does not propose any housing surrounding the golf course holes along with no access via Pathfinder Road. Aera proposes a project within their 3,000 acres that would be comprised of a variety of amenities. Aera recently brought an application to the City's attention to annex and develop a portion of its property within the future jurisdiction of Diamond Bar. Generally, everything east and west of the SR57 north of the blue line is the area Aera is interested in developing in Diamond Bar. This acreage is not currently a part of Diamond Bar's sphere of influence. In order for Diamond Bar to incorporate this acreage let alone give serious consideration to a development proposal, several things would have to happen. Much like the Crestline property but on a larger scale with the Aera Energy property, Diamond Bar needs to make formal application to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), the entity that determines locations of municipal boundaries, in order to take this area under consideration. In 2005 LAFCO thought that the future of this acreage should be a part of Diamond Bar and made preliminary findings along that line well before Aera Energy applied to do anything. The Planning Commission would take part in the application process and would be a part of future General Plan applications, zoning applications, specific plans for development, considering land uses, roadway nR A FT so an 0 FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION networks, etc., and Diamond Bar is being asked to do all of these things as a result of Aera's application. Aera is looking at all of its acreage for future potential usage. The developer has shown Diamond Bar "bubble" maps that identify their interest in a residential community, a commercial development in Diamond Bar (red near Brea Canyon Road), a mixed-use area in Brea/Orange County (pink), and open spaces, some of which are proposed to remain unused native virgin land, some reconstituted acreage from cleaning up oil fields, some manmade and so forth. The idea is for the open space to retain an environmental corridor that is believed to exist between the 605 Freeway in Whittier and the Cleveland National Forest. Environmentalists believe that this piece is important to maintaining the wildlife corridor so the developer is looking to preserve about 50 percent in open space to allow animals to traverse the corridor. The developer is proposing that within Diamond Bar that there be 2800 homes, about a 20 -acre retail oriented commercial and open spaces. Also within the Diamond Bar portion would be the complimentary public facilities (schools, fire stations, water and sewer facilities, etc.) Aera proposes primarily open spaces in the Orange County portion with some residential (close to Berry Street in the City of Brea) and mixed-use higher density residential and offices. On the Harbor Boulevard side the developer is proposing a couple pockets of residential with the brighter green area proposed for athletic facilities for the La Habra and La Habra Heights side of the project. The road network creates one gigantic loop on Brea Canyon Road and no connection whatsoever to Harbor Boulevard. An earlier discussion proposed a direct link between Harbor Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road and that has since been dismissed by the developer because there was a great deal of surrounding community concerns about the traffic impacts and primarily the traffic impacts on Harbor Boulevard that would affect Rowland Heights, La Habra and communities on the west side of the project. The majority of the traffic impacts of this project would be on Brea Canyon Road and affect the cities of Diamond Bar and Brea. The result is a substantial number of trips per day that would be added to the immediately adjacent roadway networks — predominately Brea Canyon Road, for which the details of the impacts to Diamond Bar are not known. Based on typical data for these kinds of roadways it would likely result in an additional 25,000 to 30,000 trips per day. These impacts would likely require widening of Brea Canyon Road south of Diamond Bar's current City limits and extending it at least to the Orange County line and possibly into Brea to connect to the widened Brea Canyon Road at Central Avenue in Brea. CM/DeStefano showed a rough drawing that indicated the proposed boundary line of the area for the Diamond Bar portion. The area is not proposed to have any connection to Pathfinder Road and does not have any physical association with the future community of Rowland Heights and it is therefore proposed to become a part of the City of Diamond Bar at some point in the future in conjunction with the LAFCO proposal and the developer's current proposal. FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION Aera Energy has asked Diamond Bar to annex the property and entitle the property within the jurisdiction of Diamond Bar. December 19, 2006, the City Council made one decision of many that will have to be made over the next couple of years. The decision the City Council made on December 19 was to enter into a Pre -Annexation Agreement with Aera Energy that is simply a foundational document that says Diamond Bar will take a look at the project, give it due consideration and make decisions over time. There are EIR's that need to be completed, fiscal impact studies that need to be undertaken and completed and a wide variety of things that have to be done before Diamond Bar gives any consideration toward this project. The City will be considering this project just as it does other projects that come to the City by presenting it to the Planning Commission and City Council for final decision-making. This is a large effort. The developer is looking at roughly 1900 acres of the 3,000 acres coming into Diamond Bar. The developer has been working with the Rowland Unified School District and their boundaries are mapped by LAFCO. The vacant acreage is within that school district and if the project proceeds, RUSD may be interested in building one K through 8 School. This acreage is also within the jurisdiction of the Rowland Water District and not the Walnut Valley Municipal Water District that serves Diamond Bar. Sewer, etc., would either come from Los Angeles County District No. 21 or from Brea. Fire would be Los Angeles County. The project is of sufficient size that it would require its own fire station. The County of Los Angeles would provide sheriff s services, even though the area is technically within the Industry station jurisdiction. If Diamond Bar pursues the effort it would have the jurisdictional boundary change from the Industry station for reporting purposes to the Walnut/Diamond Bar station. There does not appear to be a need for a sheriff's substation. The project would be required to uld meet all of Diamond Bar's standards at a bare minimum, which means sent whatever the developer proposed t set asit ide. have parks and open spaces ab This acreage is within Ecological Area #15 that except for Chair/Nelson, the Commissioners are unfamiliar with. In the late 70's and early 80's the County of Los Angeles mapped out 62 areas throughout the County setting those areas aside as having some varying levels of environmental significance, and this was one f the such area (Area #15). The area fundamentally stretches from the boundary orange bubble up into Diamond Bar's jurisdiction close to where JCC built homes during the past 10 to 15 years at the backside of "The Country Estates." Diamond Bar used to have an advisory committee that looked at projects within the SEA and advised the Planning Commission. Chair/Nelson was involved in the original mapping of the 62 areas and was an original member of Diamond Bar's Significant Ecological Area Technical Advisory Committee. Diamond Bar ended the service of SEATAC about 1999-2000 because there were no more properties that required the committee's oversight within Diamond Bar. This property is within the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County and still within SEA#15. The reason the SEA was created for this area was due to the extensive existing oak and walnut P. A i-T I-IL-0113"W FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION woodlands, the resource deemed to be of significance. It does not mean that development is not permitted in these areas, only that entities must pay much closer attention to the environmental quality that exists and work in ways to protect those qualities. Los Angeles County has a SEATAC and looked at the property while it was being pursued under the jurisdiction of LA County. LA County's SEATAC disapproved the project because they were not convinced that it faithfully responded to the issues within the area. SEATAC is an environmentally oriented body that often recommends denial of project, often shapes projects to the County Planning Commission and in the old days to the City's Planning Commission, and their interests are carefully considered because they look at the environmental quality and how the project would ultimately affect the environmental quality. CM/DeStefano said that the City has not gotten very far into any of this proposal. Staff is looking at hiring an environmental consultant to oversee the creation of an EIR. The developer has prepared environmental studies, traffic reports, etc., which the City has not yet received. The City needs all of those documents so that they can be reviewed by its environmental consultant to determine whether or not they meet the test for flora and fauna studies, accurate studies, respond to the City's issues (acceptable traffic standards) and the consultant working through the Citywill cause the environmental documentation to be revised, corrected and put into a form acceptable to Diamond Bar for distribution to the general public and public agencies. At some point Diamond Bar will look at General Plan amendments, zone changes and the development of a specific plan for the entire area. CM/DeStefano said that while the developer has spent several years working on this project it is still a bubble map and he expects that Diamond Bar will want changes to what the developer has proposed, not unlike other projects the Commission has seen over the years and will see in future years. He expected that a project of this magnitude would be molded and shaped by the Planning staff as it is brought forward. CM/DeStefano said the environmental review would take at least the rest of 2007 and would probably not come before the Planning Commission for at least a year. There are a variety of decisions that need to be made that are not likely to be made for at least a year and possibly over the next couple of years. The LAFCO decisions are good for 18 months to two years and they take a long time to complete. Because this is a large area not currently within the City's sphere of influence, Diamond Bar needs to negotiate with Los Angeles County to bring this property into the City. There are dozens of things that need to be done, some of which can run concurrently, some of which will run consecutively. The decisions Diamond Bar needs to make are not months away, they are a year or more away and the Planning Commission will be hearing a lot about this matter as the City responds to a developer's inquiry. This project overlaps with the golf course development because there is an opportunity to capture a portion of the property for the golf course development interests. And that is part of the negotiation that has started with the Aera Energy developer. This developer is proposing 2800 homes, FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION etc., and in exchange Diamond Bar would expect to receive something in return for entitling this type of project. The City has started an inquiry about what might be appropriate for Diamond Bar to receive in exchange for granting entitlement. And Diamond Bar has done that before. Diamond Bar approved 129 homes for the Diamond Crest project built by Pulte Homes and received in exchange through negotiations, 360 acres of public open space and $1.5 million to use toward public purposes as well as a variety of other things. In exchange for the JCC 99 homes project on 12 acres, 18 acres or so will be set aside as open space and there will be a new public park. JCC will likely contribute in excess of $1.5 million to the community of Diamond Bar. What is this developer granting far, Citym f Diaanmdoad Bar in exchange for Diamond Bar entitling the property? the City's Manager, he is compiling a list of things that he believes should be considered within this project. The City Council and the Planning Commission have not yet weighed in on that premise but he believed that the City should be looking at amenities that would benefit the entirety of Diamond Bar, not just the new group of homes and the 10-12,000 people that might live in the area in the future. As an example, he has been discussing a community sports park with this developer for many months. A sports task force Chaired by Council Member Zirbes identified a need for soccer fields, ball fields and other amenities in a sports park. There are a variety of youth and sports organizations that talk about the need for more facilities and staff has looked at a couple of tiny pieces of property to accommodate such this project. From the City Manager's perspective there is an opportunity f developer to provide that amenity for the entirety of Diamond Bar and it is an item that is on his list. He said he believed the open spaces should be expanded and that they should be publicly held or owned by some form of a conservancy so that they are not privately held open spaces but publicly held open spaces for their permanent protection. He believed the commercial center should be bigger to promote more of an economic incentive for Diamond Bar to consider such a project as opposed to just considering up to 2800 homes. It could be five, seven or 10 years before any homes are built should the project be approve dand pons tiered to robably 15 to 20 years before the project is completed. This property shouembrace what the area believes it will be technologically 10-15-20 years from now. Why should this project not be a completely wireless community? Whywould it not embrace a sustainable living environment, why would it not embrace green technologies? What will the community of Diamond Bar receive for benefit of a developer of such a project? This process is not unlike what is done for other projects in the City— however, this project has a long way to go and it most certainly will not be completed in a couple of months and it is most certainly not a "done a at this point. The developer has been looking at this project for many years. Diamond Bar has been talking about this project for only the past couple of months and there is a long way to go. CM/DeStefano responded to VC/Torng that the golf course design at the proposed new location was developed as a result of the availability of land that provided a FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION somewhat more favorable area for such a development. The property on both sides of the SR57 is very hilly and contains sensitive environmental areas that would require aggressive grading. Therefore, the belief that the somewhat U-shaped design is better at the proposed location has not been verified. A new golf course, if pursued may not be at that location. VC/Torng felt it could be located closer to the SR57. CM/DeStefano said that the proposed golf course would have access from Brea Canyon Road, not from Pathfinder and the idea is that Brea Canyon Road feeds into Diamond Bar. The developer is concerned about maintaining the hills. When drivers traverse the SR57 they can view both sides of the hills that contain much of the beauty of the canyon and the developer's proposal is to stay out of those areas and he believed the City would embrace that concept. And would never been interested in developing a golf course in that area. CM/DeStefano responded to C/Lee that it would take at least 18 months and possibly two and one-half years to get through the annexation process. The small Crestline annexation will take a couple of years. It is not dependent on Diamond Bar's decision; it is a decision for LAFCO and Los Angeles County. The Aera Energy discussion is a much, much bigger issue and he would not see the annexation process happening quickly. Is Diamond Bar interested? He said he was not interested in pursuing anything that would be financially or physically detrimental to the community. If this happens it should be self-sustaining and result in a positive cash flow to the City. There are lots of unanswered questions because the detail work has not been completed. Chair/Nelson asked if he should recuse himself from discussions about this potential project due to his SEATAC involvement and ACA/Kovacevich responded that his office would need more information to make a determination. Chair/Nelson said he would hold his questions until a determination was made. CM/DeStefano reiterated that one of the first things the City has to do is to look at all of the environmental work the developer collected and the City will not take the information it receives from the developer and assume it to be accurate. There will be a thorough review of the material as was done with the Daniel Singh and JCC projects. C/Wei said his immediate reaction to the presentation was that there would be unavoidable impacts to the City. The negative impact would be from traffic on Brea Canyon Road because the cars will cut through the City of Diamond Bar and the City will become even more congested. If the annexation failed the golf course project would not work because the available acreage is too small and there would be no connectivity to Diamond Bar and Diamond Bar would lose its ability to develop a golf course that would fulfill the requirements for an exchange with the current golf course. CM/DeStefano responded that the City does not know whether the Aera annexation and its project will ultimately have merit and whether it will be FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION approved by the City Council. However, there is a desire to build a golf course, which requires some of the Aera Energy property and Diamond Bar would still want to pursue that effort because the potential for doing something on the current golf course site is substantial and that issue is an entirely separate discussion and will involve many years of consideration. Diamond Bar would be interested in acquiring the necessary acreage from Aera even if their project does not move forward. Finding a location in Diamond Bar for a new golf course is the most critical piece in building on the existing golf course and whether it winds up being at the proposed location or at some other location is yet to be decided. But it needs to be a location that is favorable to Los Angeles County in order for it to work. C/Wei asked if Rowland Heights was competing to annex the property. CM/DeStefano. Almost every jurisdiction surrounding the Diamond Bar is very worried about the project and most have stated they are not in favor of the project. Brea, La Habra, La Habra Heights and Whittier are very concerned. Rowland Heights is worried about it potentially going to the community of Diamond Bar and not becoming part of the future community of Rowland Heights. Rowland Heights still has an interest in incorporating and if they do incorporate they want this property to be part of their future jurisdiction. However, Rowland Heights is not necessarily embracing the project, it is just very concerned. CM/DeStefano responded to C/Nolan that with respect to the project being offered to other jurisdictions, the developer has only a couple of choices one being Los Angeles County and the other being Diamond Bar. It does not make any sense to do the project anywhere else.Rowland back to Los Angeles Coug ty orrD Diamond Bartfor ed communities so it would revert entitlement. 3, PUBLIC COMMENTS: Carolyn Buhart, La Habra Heights suggested that Diamond Bar consider an alternative that would benefit the City. There are environmental groups that have a lot of money and are trying to purchase this property to make it permanent open space. La Habra Heights had 300 acres that was purchased and is managed by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and is preserved as open space. The area provides hiking, access for nature study groups, deer, etc., and is very beneficial to the community as open space. There is grant money available to purchase and enhance this property and she opined that it would be very beneficial to the residents of Diamond Bar to have a large open space available for natural events. She felt that if the project were approved traffic would be a problem because the SR57 would be flooded with traffic and Diamond Bar would have to provide sheriff, fire, paramedic, road maintenance, HOSAC would be coned tacting ngtDiamo�d gBar approach HOSAC andssure FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Nelson adjourned the study session at 6:58 p.m. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Nancy Fong Community Development Director Steve Nelson, Chairman MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR STUDY SESSION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27, 2007 CALL TO ORDER: AFT Chairman Nelson called the Study Session to order at 6:02 p.m. in Conference Room CC -8, South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee; Kathleen Nolan; Osman Wei; Vice Chairman Tony Torng; and Chairman Steve Nelson Also present: James DeStefano, City Manager; Nancy Fong, Community Development Director; Gregg Kovacevich, Assistant City Attorney; and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 1. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 2. POWER POINT PRESENTATION BY CITY MANAGER DESTEFANO REGARDING FUTURE ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS. CM/DeStefano talked about property acquisitions, possible annexation of some of those properties and Diamond Bar's receipt of an application to develop the acreage between Diamond Bar and Brea on property known as the Aera Energy property. CM/DeStefano referred to the large vacant acreage between the southerly portion of Diamond Bar and the northerly portion of the City of Brea. On the map the graphic in yellow is the entirety of the Aera Energy property holdings, about 3,000 acres. The yellow line on the east side of the SR57 is about 300 acres owned by Aera and lies within the City of Diamond Bar's sphere of influence. The yellow area on the west side of the SR57 is about 2700 acres with the greater portion lying within Los Angeles County. About 300-400 acres lies within Orange County and is intended to become a part of the future jurisdiction of the City of Brea. CM/DeStefano stated that Diamond Bar has some involvement in Areas 1, 2 and 3 shown on the graphic. Area 1 is the Crestline 150 acre area is currently in the City of Walnut and the homeowners are interested in incorporating into the City of Diamond Bar and the City is pursuing annexation. Area 2 is property currently owned by the City of Industry, is comprised of about 110 vacant acres and Diamond Bar is in escrow for the purchase of the property. Area 3 is known as the Reed property - it is outside of the City limits of Diamond Bar and includes about 170 acres. Diamond Bar entered into escrow to purchase Area 3 in May 2006. The interest in the Reed and Industry property is a direct result of the City's interest in relocating the Diamond Bar (Los Angeles County owned) Golf Course to another location as a tie-in to the Aera Energy development. FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION CM/DeStefano explained that the reason the City is interested in the Aera Energy property, Reed property and City of Industry property is for a potential site to relocate the existing Diamond Bar Golf Course that sits at the confluence of the SR57/60 and experiences 350,000 vehicle trips per day. The current site has the potential to serve as a much better amenity to Diamond Bar than it does as an open space recreational use and the City Council has authorized staff to look at possibilities including retail, restaurants, housing, office use, etc. For example, a comparison would be the Irvine Spectrum and Victoria Gardens in Rancho Cucamonga, which include these types of amenities. In short, the current golf course site could be converted to a more intensive use with amenities that would meet the community needs and provide long-term revenue and jobs. In order to develop the property Diamond Bar would need to structure a deal with the property owner to relocate the golf course within its current jurisdiction. The Diamond Bar golf course is 170 acres. The Reed property is 170 acres. However, the difference is that the Diamond Bar golf course is flat and the Reed property includes steep undulating hills and a 170- acre flat golf course would require at least 250 acres of hillside property. The Reed property would not accommodate a comparable golf course. The City of Industry property came to the City's attention for use in creating a golf course so the City pursued its purchase. The missing link is the property shown below the line on Aera Energy, which would supply the link to meet the requirement of Los Angeles County. Access to the golf course would be via Brea Canyon Road and there would be no access point to Pathfinder Road and there is no housing proposed around the golf course. The communities adjacent to the site in Rowland Heights do not want to see any more housing in their area and respecting their wishes the City of Diamond Bar does not propose any housing surrounding the golf course holes along with no access via Pathfinder Road. Aera proposes a project within their 3,000 acres that would be comprised of a variety of amenities. Aera recently brought an application to the City's attention to annex and develop a portion of its property within the future jurisdiction of Diamond Bar. Generally, everything east and west of the SR57 north of the blue line is the area Aera is interested in developing in Diamond Bar. This acreage is not currently a part of Diamond Bar's sphere of influence. In order for Diamond Bar to incorporate this acreage let alone give serious consideration to a development proposal, several things would have to happen. Much like the Crestline property but on a larger scale with the Aera Energy property, Diamond Bar needs to make formal application to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), the entity that determines locations of municipal boundaries, in order to take this area under consideration. In 2005 LAFCO thought that the future of this acreage should be a part of Diamond Bar and made preliminary findings along that line well before Aera Energy applied to do anything. The Planning Commission would take part in the application process and would be a part of future General Plan applications, zoning applications, specific plans for development, considering land uses, roadway FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION networks, etc., and Diamond Bar is being asked to do all of these things as a result of Aera's application. Aera is looking at all of its acreage for future potential usage. The developer has shown Diamond Bar "bubble" maps that identify their interest in a residential community, a commercial development in Diamond Bar (red near Brea Canyon Road), a mixed-use area in Brea/Orange County (pink), and open spaces, some of which are proposed to remain unused native virgin land, some reconstituted acreage from cleaning up oil fields, some manmade and so forth. The idea is for the open space to retain an environmental corridor that is believed to exist between the 605 Freeway in Whittier and the Cleveland National Forest. Environmentalists believe that this piece is important to maintaining the wildlife corridor so the developer is looking to preserve about 50 percent in open space to allow animals to traverse the corridor. The developer is proposing that within Diamond Bar that there be 2800 homes, about a 20 -acre retail oriented commercial and open spaces. Also within the Diamond Bar portion would be the complimentary public facilities (schools, fire stations, water and sewer facilities, etc.) Aera proposes primarily open spaces in the Orange County portion with some residential (close to Berry Street in the City of Brea) and mixed-use higher density residential and offices. On the Harbor Boulevard side the developer is proposing a couple pockets of residential with the brighter green area proposed for athletic facilities for the La Habra and La Habra Heights side of the project. The road network creates one gigantic loop on Brea Canyon Road and no connection whatsoever to Harbor Boulevard. An earlier discussion proposed a direct link between Harbor Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road and that has since been dismissed by the developer because there was a great deal of surrounding community concerns about the traffic impacts and primarily the traffic impacts on Harbor Boulevard that would affect Rowland Heights, La Habra and communities on the west side of the project. The majority of the traffic impacts of this project would be on Brea Canyon Road and affect the cities of Diamond Bar and Brea. The result is a substantial number of trips per day that would be added to the immediately adjacent roadway networks - predominately Brea Canyon Road, for which the details of the impacts to Diamond Bar are not known. Based on typical data for these kinds of roadways it would likely result in an additional 25,000 to 30,000 trips per day. These impacts would likely require widening of Brea Canyon Road south of Diamond Bar's current City limits and extending it at least to the Orange County line and possibly into Brea to connect to the widened Brea Canyon Road at Central Avenue in Brea. CM/DeStefano showed a rough drawing that indicated the proposed boundary line of the area for the Diamond Bar portion. The area is not proposed to have any connection to Pathfinder Road and does not have any physical association with the future community of Rowland Heights and it is therefore proposed to become a part of the City of Diamond Bar at some point in the future in conjunction with the LAFCO proposal and the developer's current proposal. FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION Aera Energy has asked Diamond Bar to annex the property and entitle the property within the jurisdiction of Diamond Bar. December 19, 2006, the City Council made one decision of many that will have to be made over the next couple of years. The decision the City Council made on December 19 was to enter into a Pre-Annexation Agreement with Aera Energy that is simply a foundational document that says Diamond Bar will take a look at the project, give it due consideration and make decisions over time. There are EIR's that need to be completed, fiscal impact studies that need to be undertaken and completed and a wide variety of things that have to be done before Diamond Bar gives any consideration toward this project. The City will be considering this project just as it does other projects that come to the City by presenting it to the Planning Commission and City Council for final decision-making. This is a large effort. The developer is looking at roughly 1900 acres of the 3,000 acres coming into Diamond Bar. The developer has been working with the Rowland Unified School District and their boundaries are mapped by LAFCO. The vacant acreage is within that school district and if the project proceeds, RUSD may be interested in building one K through 8 School. This acreage is also within the jurisdiction of the Rowland Water District and not the Walnut Valley Municipal Water District that serves Diamond Bar. Sewer, etc., would either come from Los Angeles County District No. 21 or from Brea. Fire would be Los Angeles County. The project is of sufficient size that it would require its own fire station. The County of Los Angeles would provide sheriffs services, even though the area is technically within the Industry station jurisdiction. If Diamond Bar pursues the effort it would have the jurisdictional boundary change from the Industry station for reporting purposes to the Walnut/Diamond Bar station. There does not appear to be a need for a sheriffs substation. The project would be required to meet all of Diamond Bar's standards at a bare minimum, which means that it would have parks and open spaces absent whatever the developer proposed to set aside. This acreage is within Ecological Area #15 that except for Chair/Nelson, the Commissioners are unfamiliar with. In the late 70's and early 80's the County of Los Angeles mapped out 62 areas throughout the County setting those areas aside as having some varying levels of environmental significance, and this was one such area (Area #15). The area fundamentally stretches from the boundary of the orange bubble up into Diamond Bar's jurisdiction close to where JCC built homes during the past 10 to 15 years at the backside of "The Country Estates." Diamond Bar used to have an advisory committee that looked at projects within the SEA and advised the Planning Commission. Chair/Nelson was involved in the original mapping of the 62 areas and was an original member of Diamond Bar's Significant Ecological Area Technical Advisory Committee. Diamond Bar ended the service of SEATAC about 1999-2000 because there were no more properties that required the committee's oversight within Diamond Bar. This property is within the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County and still within SEA#1 5. The reason the SEA was created for this area was due to the extensive existing oak and walnut FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION woodlands, the resource deemed to be of significance. It does not mean that development is not permitted in these areas, only that entities must pay much closer attention to the environmental quality that exists and work in ways to protect those qualities. Los Angeles County has a SEATAC and looked at the property while it was being pursued under the jurisdiction of LA County. LA County's SEATAC disapproved the project because they were not convinced that it faithfully responded to the issues within the area. SEATAC is an environmentally oriented body that often recommends denial of project, often shapes projects to the County Planning Commission and in the old days to the City's Planning Commission, and their interests are carefully considered because they look at the environmental quality and how the project would ultimately affect the environmental quality. CM/DeStefano said that the City has not gotten very far into any of this proposal. Staff is looking at hiring an environmental consultant to oversee the creation of an EIR. The developer has prepared environmental studies, traffic reports, etc., which the City has not yet received. The City needs all of those documents so that they can be reviewed by its environmental consultant to determine whether or not they meet the test for flora and fauna studies, accurate studies, respond to the City's issues (acceptable traffic standards) and the consultant working through the City will cause the environmental documentation to be revised, corrected and put into a form acceptable to Diamond Bar for distribution to the general public and public agencies. At some point Diamond Bar will look at General Plan amendments, zone changes and the development of a specific plan for the entire area. CM/DeStefano said that while the developer has spent several years working on this project it is still a bubble map and he expects that Diamond Bar will want changes to what the developer has proposed, not unlike other projects the Commission has seen over the years and will see in future years. He expected that a project of this magnitude would be molded and shaped by the Planning staff as it is brought forward. CM/DeStefano said the environmental review would take at least the rest of 2007 and would probably not come before the Planning Commission for at least a year. There are a variety of decisions that need to be made that are not likely to be made for at least a year and possibly over the next couple of years. The LAFCO decisions are good for 18 months to two years and they take a long time to complete. Because this is a large area not currently within the City's sphere of influence, Diamond Bar needs to negotiate with Los Angeles County to bring this property into the City. There are dozens of things that need to be done, some of which can run concurrently, some of which will run consecutively. The decisions Diamond Bar needs to make are not months away, they are a year or more away and the Planning Commission will be hearing a lot about this matter as the City responds to a developer's inquiry. This project overlaps with the golf course development because there is an opportunity to capture a portion of the property for the golf course development interests. And that is part of the negotiation that has started with the Aera Energy developer. This developer is proposing 2800 homes, a PLANNING COMMISSION etc., and in exchange Diamond Bar would expect to receive something in return for entitling this type of project. The City has started an inquiry about what might be appropriate for Diamond Bar to receive in exchange for granting entitlement. And Diamond Bar has done that before. Diamond Bar approved 129 homes for the Diamond Crest project built by Pulte Homes and received in exchange through negotiations, 360 acres of public open space and $1.5 million to use toward public purposes as well as a variety of other things. In exchange for the JCC 99 homes project on 12 acres, 18 acres or so will be set aside as open space and there will be a new public park. JCC will likely contribute in excess of $1.5 million to the community of Diamond Bar. What is this developer granting the City of Diamond Bar in exchange for Diamond Bar entitling the property? So far, not much and as the City's Manager, he is compiling a list of things that he believes should be considered within this project. The City Council and the Planning Commission have not yet weighed in on that premise but he believed that the City should be looking at amenities that would benefit the entirety of Diamond Bar, not just the new group of homes and the 10-12,000 people that might live in the area in the future. As an example, he has been discussing a community sports park with this developer for many months. A sports task force Chaired by Council Member Zirbes identified a need for soccer fields, ball fields and other amenities in a sports park. There are a variety of youth and sports organizations that talk about the need for more facilities and staff has looked at a couple of tiny pieces of property to accommodate such a project. From the City Manager's perspective there is an opportunity for this developer to provide that amenity for the entirety of Diamond Bar and it is an item that is on his list. He said he believed the open spaces should be expanded and that they should be publicly held or owned by some form of a conservancy so that they are not privately held open spaces but publicly held open spaces for their permanent protection. He believed the commercial center should be bigger to promote more of an economic incentive for Diamond Bar to consider such a project as opposed to just considering up to 2800 homes. It could be five, seven or 10 years before any homes are built should the project be approved and probably 15 to 20 years before the project is completed. This property should be considered to embrace what the area believes it will be technologically 10-15-20 years from now. Why should this project not be a completely wireless community? Why would it not embrace a sustainable living environment, why would it not embrace green technologies? What will the community of Diamond Bar receive for benefit of a developer of such a project? This process is not unlike what is done for other projects in the City - however, this project has a long way to go and it most certainly will not be completed in a couple of months and it is most certainly not a "done deal" at this point. The developer has been looking at this project for many years. Diamond Bar has been talking about this project for only the past couple of months and there is a long way to go. CM/DeStefano responded to VC/Torng that the golf course design at the proposed new location was developed as a result of the availability of land that provided a DRAFT FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION somewhat more favorable area for such a development. The property on both sides of the SR57 is very hilly and contains sensitive environmental areas that would require aggressive grading. Therefore, the belief that the somewhat U-shaped design is better at the proposed location has not been verified. A new golf course, if pursued may not be at that location. VC/Torng felt it could be located closer to the SR57. CM/DeStefano said that the proposed golf course would have access from Brea Canyon Road, not from Pathfinder and the idea is that Brea Canyon Road feeds into Diamond Bar. The developer is concerned about maintaining the hills. When drivers traverse the SR57 they can view both sides of the hills that contain much of the beauty of the canyon and the developer's proposal is to stay out of those areas and he believed the City would embrace that concept. And would never been interested in developing a golf course in that area. CM/DeStefano responded to C/Lee that it would take at least 18 months and possibly two and one-half years to get through the annexation process. The small Crestline annexation will take a couple of years. It is not dependent on Diamond Bar's decision; it is a decision for LAFCO and Los Angeles County. The Aera Energy discussion is a much, much bigger issue and he would not see the annexation process happening quickly. Is Diamond Bar interested? He said he was not interested in pursuing anything that would be financially or physically detrimental to the community. If this happens it should be self-sustaining and result in a positive cash flow to the City. There are lots of unanswered questions because the detail work has not been completed. Chair/Nelson asked if he should recuse himself from discussions about this potential project due to his SEATAC involvement and ACA/Kovacevich responded that his office would need more information to make a determination. Chair/Nelson said he would hold his questions until a determination was made. CM/DeStefano reiterated that one of the first things the City has to do is to look at all of the environmental work the developer collected and the City will not take the information it receives from the developer and assume it to be accurate. There will be a thorough review of the material as was done with the Daniel Singh and JCC projects. C/Wei said his immediate reaction to the presentation was that there would be unavoidable impacts to the City. The negative impact would be from traffic on Brea Canyon Road because the cars will cut through the City of Diamond Bar and the City will become even more congested. If the annexation failed the golf course project would not work because the available acreage is too small and there would be no connectivity to Diamond Bar and Diamond Bar would lose its ability to develop a golf course that would fulfill the requirements for an exchange with the current golf course. CM/DeStefano responded that the City does not know whether the Aera annexation and its project will ultimately have merit and whether it will be i — tC" r,: r FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION approved by the City Council. However, there is a desire to build a golf course, which requires some of the Aera Energy property and Diamond Bar would still want to pursue that effort because the potential for doing something on the current golf course site is substantial and that issue is an entirely separate discussion and will involve many years of consideration. Diamond Bar would be interested in acquiring the necessary acreage from Aera even if their project does not move forward. Finding a location in Diamond Bar for a new golf course is the most critical piece in building on the existing golf course and whether it winds up being at the proposed location or at some other location is yet to be decided. But it needs to be a location that is favorable to Los Angeles County in order for it to work. C/Wei asked if Rowland Heights was competing to annex the property. CM/DeStefano. Almost every jurisdiction surrounding the Diamond Bar is very worried about the project and most have stated they are not in favor of the project. Brea, La Habra, La Habra Heights and Whittier are very concerned. Rowland Heights is worried about it potentially going to the community of Diamond Bar and not becoming part of the future community of Rowland Heights. Rowland Heights still has an interest in incorporating and if they do incorporate they want this property to be part of their future jurisdiction. However, Rowland Heights is not necessarily embracing the project, it is just very concerned. CM/DeStefano responded to C/Nolan that with respect to the project being offered to other jurisdictions, the developer has only a couple of choices one being Los Angeles County and the other being Diamond Bar. It does not make any sense to do the project anywhere else. Rowland and Hacienda Heights are unincorporated communities so it would revert back to Los Angeles County or Diamond Bar for entitlement. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Carolyn Buhart, La Habra Heights suggested that Diamond Bar consider an alternative that would benefit the City. There are environmental groups that have a lot of money and are trying to purchase this property to make it permanent open space. La Habra Heights had 300 acres that was purchased and is managed by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and is preserved as open space. The area provides hiking, access for nature study groups, deer, etc., and is very beneficial to the community as open space. There is grant money available to purchase and enhance this property and she opined that it would be very beneficial to the residents of Diamond Bar to have a large open space available for natural events. She felt that if the project were approved traffic would be a problem because the SR57 would be flooded with traffic and Diamond Bar would have to provide sheriff, fire, paramedic, road maintenance, etc. She recommended that Diamond Bar approach HOSAC and was sure that HOSAC would be contacting Diamond Bar. FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Nelson adjourned the study session at 6:58 p.m. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Nancy Fong Community Development Director Steve Nelson, Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - 21825 COPLEY DRIVE - DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 - TEL (909) 839-7030 - FAX (909) 861-3117 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: MEETING DATE: March 13, 2007 CASE./FILENUMBER Development Review 2006-41 PROJECT LOCATION: 23845 Chinook Place (Lot 15, Tract 26126) (APN: 8281-012-047) APPLICATION REQUEST: Approval to construct a second story addition and deck totaling 1,665 square feet to an existing one-story residence of approximately 1,951 square feet with a two -car garage. PROPERTYOWNER Mr. and Mrs. Donald Mahlke 23845 Chinook Place Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Mr. Larry Brown 2366 E. Glassell Street Orange, CA 92865 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conditionally approve. DR 2006-41 Page 1 BACKGROUND - A. Site Description The project site is approximately 11,050 square feet an is generally re square feet in shape. It is developed with a one-story residence of approximately and a two -car garage. There are no restricted use or flood hazard areas or easements on the project site. B. Site and Surroundina General Plan, Zonina and Use General Plan Zone Uses Project Site RL (Low Density R-1-10,000 Residential Residential - Max. 3 DUTAcre RL R-1-10,000 Residential North RL R--1-10,000 Residential South RL R-1-10,000 East R-1-10,000 & R-3- Residential R esidential &church RL West 8,000 ANALYSIS - Applications and Review Authority (Code Sections 22.E A. The proposed project requires Development Review approve becausea a substantial addition is more than 50 percent of the existing As a result, the aroval and Planning Commission is change to the existing one-story residence. the review authority for the Development Review application. B. Development Review (Code Sections 22.48 The purpose of Development Review is to establish consistency with the General Plan through the promotion of high aesthetic i charactefunctional the City The procendards to ss ensu es ment and add to the economic, physical, and soc a that new development and intensification existing d psitoeseasP henresu rment esult cons stent living, and attracts the interests of residents anv exemplary design. Development Standards The comparison matrix below shows that the proposed project has met the development standards for the R-1-10000 (RL) zoning district. DR2006-41 Page 2 Development Feature R-1-10,000 (RL) Zoning District Requirements proposed Meet Requirement Minimum Lot Area 10,000 square feet. 11,050 sq are feet Yes Residential Density 1 single-family unit 1 single-family unit Yes Front yard setback 20 feet 28 feet Yes Side yard setbacks 5 & 10 feet 9 & 11.5 feet Yes Rear setback 20 feet 46 feet Yes Building height 35 feet from natural/finished rade 25 feet from finished grade Yes Separation between adjacent residences 15 feet 15 & 23 feet Yes Lot coverage 40% (maximum) 25 % Yes Parking Two -car garage (minimum) Two -car garage Yes 2. Architectural Features, Colors. Material and Floor Plan The City's Design Guidelines have been established to encourage a better compatible building and site design that improves the visual quality of the surrounding area through aesthetically pleasing site planning, building design, and landscape architecture. Additionally, a primary objective is to promote compatibility with adjacent uses in order to minimize any potential negative impacts. The proposed addition will not change the existing architectural style of the residence. The new roofline and style with be consistent with the existing roof. The front elevation will be changed by removing all the existing siding and replacing it with stucco as is typical within the surrounding neighborhood. Since, all the siding will be removed, the applicant agrees to add a wainscoting of river rock to that front elevation. The existing post that supports the front entry roof will be widened to look consistent with the scale of the residence with the addition. Exterior walls will be stucco with Behr "Nature Retreat" (medium gray) and white (730F-5) will be used for trim. Composite shingle, architectural butt style in blended shades of gray will be used for the roof. With the architectural style remaining the same and the proposed colors and material, the subject residence with the proposed addition is compatible with other residences in the neighborhood. DR 2006-41 Page 3 The project neighborhood is a combination of one and two-story homes ranging in size from 1,589 to 2,192 habitable square feet. The subject residence will be 3,140 habitable square feet (excluding proposed deck). The project site is 11,050 square feet and large enough to accommodate the proposed addition that meets all the required development standards for the R-1-10,000 zoning district. Furthermore, many other lots within the neighborhood exceed 10,000 square feet and could also accommodate an addition of this size. 3. Floor Plan Layout The proposed addition does not change the first floor plan except for the addition of stairs to the proposed second floor. The proposed second floor will consist of a bonus room with wet bar, closet and bathroom. The wet bar area shall not include a kitchen or other cooking facilities. 4. Landscaping A landscape plan was not submitted with this project's application. The applicant is required to replace any landscaping and/or irrigation damaged or destroy within the front yard during construction. Said landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to final inspection or Certificate of Occupancy. C. Additional Review The City's Public Works Department and Building and Safety Division reviewed this project. Their recommendations are within the attached draft resolution. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15301(e) (addition to an existing one single-family residence), the City has determined that this project is Categorically Exempt. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Notice for this project was published in the Inland Valley Bulletin and the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on March 2, 2007. Public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 91 property owners within a 500 -foot radius07h Furthermoproject lrete , the projectand the bsite wasces posted with awas posted ldisplay three public places on February 28, 20 board by March 2, 2007. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2006- 41, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as listed within the attached resolution. DR2006-41 Page 4 Prepared by: '/L& '�J. 4,'� An J. Lung , A ocia Planner Attachments: Revi Navfcyfong��JCP,- Communit velopmen Director 1. Draft Resolution; 2. Exhibit "A" - site plan, floor plan, roof plan and elevations dated March 13, 2007; 3. Covenant and Agreement to Maintain a Single -Family Residence; and 4. Aerial. DR 2006_41 Page 5 A. D PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2007 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2006-41 AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND STORY ADDITION OF APPROXIMATELY 1,665 SQUARE FEET TO AN EXISTING ONE- STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A TWO -CAR GARAGE. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 23845 CHINOOK PLACE (LOT 15, TRACT NO. 26126; APN: 8281-012- 07), DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA. RECITALS. The property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Donald Mahlke and applicant, Mr. Larry Brown have filed an application for Development Review No. 2006-41and categorical exemption for a property located at 23845 Chinook Place, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review and categorical exemption shall be referred to as the "Application." 2. On February 28, 2007, public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 91 property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site and the public notice was posted in three public places. On March 2, 2007, notification of the public hearing for this project was provided in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers and the project site was posted with a display board. 3. On March 13, 2007, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the project identified above in this Resolution is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301 (e) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder. Furthermore, the categorical exemption reflects the independent judgement of the City of Diamond Bar. 1 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole including the findings set forth below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed project set forth in the application, there is no evidence before this Planning Commission that the project proposed herein will have the potential of an adverse effect on wild life resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: (a) The project site is approximately 11,050 square feet and Ts an residence ulof rectangular shape. It is developed with a one-story t and a two -car ere are no restricted use or,flood hazard a70 square reas or easementgsaonge. the projectsite. restricted u (b) The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (RL) Maximum 3 (c) The project site is within the Single -Family Residence -Minimum Lot Size 10,000 square feet (R-1-10,000). (d) Generally, the following zones and uses surround the project site: to the north, south and east is the R-1-10,000 zones and homes; and to the west is the R-1-10,000 and R-3-8,000 zoning districts with homes and a church, respectively. (e) The Application request is for Development Review approval to construct a second story addition and deck totaling to approximately 1,665 square feet to an existing one-story residence of approximately 1,951 square feet with a two -car garage. Development Review (f) On July 25, 1995, the City adopted its General Plan. Lot 15 (project site) of Tract No. 26126 was established and homes were built prior to the City's incorporation, General Plan's adoption and under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County. The General Plan land use designation for the project site is RL Maximum 3 DU/AC. This designation allow for lot varying in size from 8,500 to 20,000 square feet. The project site is 11,050 square feet. The County used lot averaging; therefore some lots within a tract will be smaller and others larger. However, the project site is in compliance with the adopted General Plan. The project site is within the R-1-10,000 zoning district. Pursuant to the Development Code, the development standards of the RL zoning district 2 apply to the project site. The proposed project meets all the development standards of this zoning district as illustrated in the comparison matrix within the staff report The proposed addition does not change the existing architectural. The new roofline and style with be consistent with the existing roof. The front elevation will be changed by removing all the existing siding and replacing it with stucco as is typical within the surrounding neighborhood. Since, all the siding will be removed, the applicant agrees to add a wainscoting of river rock to that front elevation. The existing post that supports the front entry roof will be widened to look consistent with the scale of the residence with the addition. Exterior walls will be stucco with Behr "Nature Retreat" (medium gray) and white (730F-5) will be used for trim. Composite shingle, architectural butt style in blended shades of gray will be used for the roof. With the architectural style remaining the same and the proposed colors and material, the subject residence with the proposed addition will be compatible with other residences in the neighborhood. The project neighborhood is a combination of one and two-story homes ranging in size from 1,589 to 2,192 habitable square feet. The subject residence will be 3,140 habitable square feet (excluding proposed deck). The project site is 11,050 square feet and large enough to accommodate the proposed addition that meets all the required development standards for the R-1-10,000 zoning district. Furthermore, many other lots within the neighborhood exceed 10,000 square feet and could also accommodate an addition of this size (g) With the approval and construction of the proposed project, the current use (single-family residence) of the project site will be maintained. As referenced above in finding (f), the proposed project can be accommodated at the project site. Additionally, the architectural style, which does not change, color and materials proposed will be compatible with other homes in the neighborhood. As such, the proposed project is not expected to interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development. The proposed project is not expected to intensify the existing use to an extent that will create traffic or pedestrian hazards (h) As referenced in Finding (f) above, the proposed project is consistent with the development standards of the RL zoning district and the City's Design Guidelines. There is not a specific plan for the project area. (i) As referenced in the above findings (f), (g), and (h), 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, texture and color that will remain aesthetically appealing while offering variety in color and texture and a low level of maintenance. (j) Before the issuance of any City permits, the proposed project is required to comply with all conditions within the approved resolution and the Building and Safety Division, Public Works Department, and Fire Department requirements. The referenced agencies through the permit and inspection process will ensure that the proposed project is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. (k) Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15301(e), the City has determined that the project identified above in this Resolution is categorically exempt. Furthermore, the categorical exemption reflects the independent judgement of the City of Diamond Bar of Diamond Bar. 5. Based on the findings and conclusions iabove, owing conditions the A Commission hereby approves pplcation subject t the fol and Standard Conditions attached hereto and incorporated by reference. A. Planning Division 1. Prior to final inspection and Certificate of Occupancy issuance, the applicant shall repair or replace landscaping and irrigation destroyed in the front yard. be 2. The existing extethat tallows for a stur heater osure and vent cco finish enclosurellannd frames in a mannnr chase painted to match the house. 3. All exterior wires and titshall tebe flashed and flashing shall be painted to match the exterior 4. Prior to plan check � a sets) of the applicant sed front elevation o that the Planning Division shows natural river rock wainscoting for the approval of the Community Development Director. 5. The shingles used for the roof shall be architectural thick -butt style with a minimum 30 year warrantee. Eaves and ridges shall be caped. 6. All colors and material used shall be called -out on the plans. 7. Kitchen facilities shall not be permitted in the second story addition. 4 B. Building and Safety Division 1. Plans for plan check submittal shall clearly and adequately provide the exact living area square footage per floor and deck. 2. Smoke detectors shall be in conformance with the 2001 California Building Code 3. All bedrooms shall comply with all rescue window requirements. 4. Check drainage patterns with Engineering Department. Surface water shall drain away from building at a 2% minimum slope. 8. Specify location of tempered glass as required by code. 9 Prior to construction commencing, the applicant shall install construction protective fencing to the satisfaction of the Building Official. The Planning Commission shall. (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, to: Mr. and Mrs. Donald Mahlke, 23845 Chinook Place, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 and Mr. Larry Brown, 2366 E. Glassell Street, Orange, CA 92865. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH OF MARCH 2007, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. MN Steve Nelson, Chairman 5 I, Nancy Fong, Acting Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted 'ssion of the City of 13th day of March Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 2007, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: Nancy Fong, Secretary COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS USE PERMITS, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL NEW AND REMODELED STRUCTURES PROJECT #: Development Review No. 2006-41 SUBJECT: Second Addition to Existinq Single -Family Residence PROPERTY OWNER: Mr. and Mrs. Donald Mahike APPLICANT: Mr. Larry Brown LOCATIION: 23845 Chinook Place ALL OF -THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION AT (909) 839-7030, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements In accordance with Government Code Section 66474.9(b) (1), the applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its officers, agents and employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding to attack, set-aside, void or annul, the approval of Development Review No. 2006-41 brought within the time period provided by Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the city and/or its officers, agents and employees are made a party of any such action: (a) Applicant shall provide a defense to the City defendants or at the City's option reimburse the City its costs of defense, including reasonable attorneys fees, incurred in defense of such claims. (b) Applicant shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the City descendents. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action of proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof. 2. This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant and owner of the property involved have filed, within twenty-one (21) days of approval of this Development Review No. 2006-41, at the City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this approval. Further, this approval shall not be effective until the applicants pay remaining City processing fees, school fees and fees for the review of submitted reports. 3. All designers, architects, engineers, and contractors associated with this project shall obtain a Diamond Bar Business Registration and zoning approval for those businesses located in Diamond Bar. 4. Signed copies of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 5. Prior to plan check, revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval. 6. Prior to any use of the oproject site shall business completed being commenced thereon, all condition pp ance 7. The project site shall rl and all lawsn o other applicable reguaintained ad operated in full llat ons. nth the conditions of approval g. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and any applicable Specific Plan in effect at the time of building permit issuance. g. Site, grading, landscape/irrigation and driveway plans, elevations and sections shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of City permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 10. The single family residence shall not be used in a manner that creates adverse effects upon the neighborhood and environmental setting of the residential site to levels of dust, glare/light, noise, odor, traffic, or other disturbances to the existing residential neighborhood and shall not result in significantly adverse effects on public services and resources. The single family residence shall not be used for commercial/institutional purposes, or otherwise used as aepa fete Idtvinlangu cancer or whicherty all not be used for create traffic and regular gatheringswhich parking problems in the neighborhood. 11. Property owner/applicant shall remove the public hearing notice board within three days of this project's approval. 12. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of City Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works Department, and Fire Department. B. Fees/Deposits Applicant shall pay development fees (including but not limited to Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works Department and Mitigation Monitoring) at the established rates, prior to issuance of building or grading permit (whichever comes first), as required by the City. School fees as required shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permit. In addition, the applicant shall pay all remaining prorated City project review and processing fees prior to issuance of grading or building permit, whichever come first. 2. Prior to any plan check, all deposit accounts for the processing of this project shall have no deficits. C. Time Limits The approval of Development Review No. 2006-21 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-11 shall expire within two years from the date of approval if the use has not been exercised as defined per Municipal Code Section 22,66.050 (b)(1). The applicant may request in writing a one year time extension subject to Municipal Code Section 22.60.050(c) for Planning Commission approval. D. Site Development 1. The project site shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the approved plans submitted to, approved, and amended herein by the Planning Commission, collectively attached hereto as Exhibit "A" dated January 23, 2007 including: site plan, floor plan, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors and landscaping/irrigation plan on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein and Development Code regulations. 2. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the Applicant shall complete and record a "Covenant and Agreement to Maintain a Single -Family Residence" on a form to be provided by the City. The covenant shall be completed and recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorders Office. E. Solid Waste The site shall be maintained in a condition, which is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement approved 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 9 and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial,co's tructoblio , to industrial areas within the City. It shall be the app licantinsure that the waste contractor used has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PUBLIC CONDITIONS:WORKS DEPARTMENT, (909) 839-7040, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING A. General � . An Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted prior during construction re issuance of any City permits. These measures shall be implemented between October 1 st and April 15th. The erosion control plan shall conform to national Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards and incorporate the appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's). 2. Grading and construction activities and the transportation of equipment and materials and operation of heavy grading equipment shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Dust generated by grading and construction activities shall be reduced by watering the soil prior to and during the activities and in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 402 and Rule 403. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. Additionally, all construction equipment shall be properly muffled to reduce noise levels. 3. All equipment staging areas shall be located on the project site. Shalging area, including material stockpile and equipment storage area, be enclosed within a 6 foot -high chain link fence. All access points in the defense shall be locked whenever the construction site is not supervised. B. Drainage 1. Detailed drainage system information bmitt dhe All drai age/runoffe lot with careful tlfrom the on to any flood hazard area shall development shall be conveyed from the site to the natural drainage course. No on-site drainage shall be conveyed to adjacent parcels, unless that is the natural drainage course. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 839- 7020, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Plans shall conform to State and Local Building Code (i.e., 2001 California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and 2001 National Electrical Code) requirements and all other applicable construction codes, ordinances and regulations in effect at plan check submittal. 10 2. 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. The Applicant shall provide temporary sanitation facilities while under construction. 3. Fire Department approval may be required. Contact the Fire Department to check the fire zone for the location of your property. If this project is located in High Hazard Fire Zone it shall meet of requirements of the fire zone. a. All unenclosed under -floor areas shall be constructed as exteriorwall. b. All openings into the attic, floor and/or other enclosed areas shall be covered with corrosion -resistant wire mesh not less than 1/4 inch or more than 1/2 inch in any dimension except where such openings are equipped with sash or door. 4. The minimum design load for wind in this area is 80 M.P.H. exposures "C" and the site is within seismic zone four (4). The applicant shall submit drawings and calculations prepared by a California State licensed Architect/Engineer with wet stamp and signature. 5. Project shall comply with energy conservation requirements of the State of California Energy Commission. Kitchen and bathroom lights shall be fluorescent. 6. Guardrails shall be designed for 20 load applied laterally at the top of the rail. 7. Check drainage patterns with Engineering Department. Surface water shall drain away from building at a 2% minimum slope. 8. Specify location of tempered glass as required by code. 9. Specify 1/4"M slope for all flat surfaces/ decks with approved water proofing material. Also, provide guardrail connection detail (height, spacing, etc.). 10. Private property sewer/septic system shall be approved by the Los Angeles County Health Department and the California Water Control Board. 11. Number of plumbing fixtures shall be in compliance with CBC Appendix 29. 11 RECORDING REQUEST BY: City of Diamond Bar WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Diamond Bar 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Space Above Line For Recorder's Use Only COVENANT AND AGREEMENT TO MAINTAIN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Development Review No. 2006-41 The undersigned hereby certify that Donald and Jennifer Mahlke are the owner(s) of the hereinafter described real property located at 23845 Chinook Place in the City of Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, State of California, commonly known as: Legally described as Lot 15, Tract Map No. 26126 Assessor's Book and Parcel Number 8281-012-047 And, I/we do hereby covenant and agree for ourselves, heirs, assigns, transferees and successors, with the City of Diamond Bar (hereinafter "City") that the above described property shall be used for single family residential purposes only. This covenant and agreement shall run with the land and shall be binding upon ourselves, future owners, their heirs, and successors and assignees and shall continue in effect until and unless approved otherwise by the City of Diamond Bar is specifically intended that the benefits and burdens of this covenant run with the land. If the City is required to bring legal action to enforce this covenant, then the city shall be entitled to its attorney fees and court costs. go DATED: NOTE: THE COVENANT AND AGREEMENT SHALL BE NOTARIZED AND RECORDED. NOTARY SHALL USE UPDATED FORM AS DESCRIBED IN CIVIL CODE SECTION 1189. WORD: COMDEV/FORMS/BLANK COVENANT- �JsSq% PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA2EPORT CITY OF DIAMOND BAR- 21825 COPLEY DRIVE - DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 - TEL (909) 839-7030 - FAX (909) 861-3117 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER MEETING DATE: CASE/FILE NUMBER PROJECT LOCATION: APPLICATION REQUEST: PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: March 13, 2007 Development Review 2006-41 23845 Chinook Place (Lot 15, Tract 26126) (APN:8281-012-047) Approval to construct a second story addition and deck totaling 1,665 square feet to an existing one-story residence of approximately 1,951 square feet with a two -car garage. Mr. and Mrs. Donald Mahlke 23845 Chinook Place Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Mr. Larry Brown 2366 E. Glassell Street Orange, CA 92865 Conditionally approve. DR 2006-41 Page 1 BACKGROUND: A. Site Description The project site is approximately 11,050 square feet and is generally rectangular in shape. It is developed with a one-story residence of approximately 1,970 square feet and a two -car garage. There are no restricted use or flood hazard areas or easements on the project site. B. Site and Surrounding General Plan, Zoning and Use General Plan Zone Uses RL (Low Density Project Site Residential - Max. 3 R-1-10,000 Residential DU/Acre North RL R-1-10,000 Residential South RL R-1-10,000 Residential East RL R-1-10,000 Residential West RL R-1-10,000 & R -3 - Residential & church 8,000 ANALYSIS: A. Applications and Review Authority (Code Sections 22.44) The proposed project requires Development Review approval because the proposed addition is more than 50 percent of the existing habitable area and a substantial change to the existing one-story residence. As a result, the Planning Commission is the review authority for the Development Review application. B. Development Review (Code Sections 22.48) The purpose of Development Review is to establish consistency with the General Plan through the promotion of high aesthetic and functional standards to compliment and add to the economic, physical, and social character of the City. The process ensures that new development and intensification of existing development yields a pleasant living, and attracts the interests of residents and visitors as the result of consistent exemplary design. 1. Development Standards The comparison matrix below shows that the proposed project has met the development standards for the R-1-10000 (RL) zoning district. DR2006-41 Page 2 Development Feature R-1-10,000 (RL) Zoning Proposed Meet District Requirement Requirements Minimum Lot Area 10,000 square feet. 11,050 square feet Yes Residential Density 1 single-family unit 1 single- amilunit Yes Front yard setback 20 feet 28 feet Yes Side yard setbacks 5 & 10 feet 9 & 11.5 feet Yes Rear setback 20 feet 46 feet Yes Building height 35 feet from natural/finished 25 feet from finished Yes grade grade Separation between 15 feet 15 & 23 feet Yes adjacent residences Lot coverage 40% (maximum) 25 % Yes Parking Two -car garage (minimum) Two -car garage Yes 2. Architectural Features, Colors, Material and Floor Plan The City's Design Guidelines have been established to encourage a better compatible building and site design that improves the visual quality of the surrounding area through aesthetically pleasing site planning, building design, and landscape architecture. Additionally, a primary objective is to promote compatibility with adjacent uses in order to minimize any potential negative impacts. The proposed addition will not change the existing architectural style of the residence. The new roofline and style with be consistent with the existing roof. The front elevation will be changed by removing all the existing siding and replacing it with stucco as is typical within the surrounding neighborhood. Since, all the siding will be removed, the applicant agrees to add a wainscoting of river rock to that front elevation. The existing post that supports the front entry roof will be widened to look consistent with the scale of the residence with the addition. Exterior walls will be stucco with Behr "Nature Retreat" (medium gray) and white (730F-5) will be used for trim. Composite shingle, architectural butt style in blended shades of gray will be used for the roof. With the architectural style remaining the same and the proposed colors and material, the subject residence with the proposed addition is compatible with other residences in the neighborhood. DR 2006-41 Page 3 The project neighborhood is a combination of one and two-story homes ranging in size from 1,589 to 2,192 habitable square feet. The subject residence will be 3,140 habitable square feet (excluding proposed deck). The project site is 11,050 square feet and large enough to accommodate the proposed addition that meets all the required development standards for the R-1-10,000 zoning district. Furthermore, many other lots within the neighborhood exceed 10,000 square feet and could also accommodate an addition of this size. 3. Floor Plan Layout The proposed addition does not change the first floor plan except for the addition of stairs to the proposed second floor. The proposed second floor will consist of a bonus room with wet bar, closet and bathroom. The wet bar area shall not include a kitchen or other cooking facilities. 4. Landscaping A landscape plan was not submitted with this project's application. The applicant is required to replace any landscaping and/or irrigation damaged or destroy within the front yard during construction. Said landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to final inspection or Certificate of Occupancy. C. Additional Review The City's Public Works Department and Building and Safety Division reviewed this project. Their recommendations are within the attached draft resolution. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15301(e) (addition to an existing one single-family residence), the City has determined that this project is Categorically Exempt. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Notice for this project was published in the Inland Valley Bulletin and the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on March 2, 2007. Public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 91 property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site and the public notice was posted in three public places on February 28, 2007. Furthermore, the project site was posted with a display board by March 2, 2007. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2006- 41, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as listed within the attached resolution. DR2006-41 Page 4 Prepared by: Attachments: Aocia 1. Draft Resolution; 2. Exhibit "A" - site plan, floor plan, roof plan and elevations dated March 13, 2007; 3. Covenant and Agreement to Maintain a Single -Family Residence; and 4. Aerial. DR 2006-41 Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2007 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2006-41 AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND STORY ADDITION OF APPROXIMATELY 1,665 SQUARE FEET TO AN EXISTING ONE- STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A TWO -CAR GARAGE. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 23845 CHINOOK PLACE (LOT 15, TRACT NO. 26126; APN: 8281-012- 07), DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA. A. RECITALS. 1. The property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Donald Mahlke and applicant, Mr. Larry Brown have filed an application for Development Review No. 2006-41 and categorical exemption for a property located at 23845 Chinook Place, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review and categorical exemption shall be referred to as the "Application." 2. On February 28, 2007, public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 91 property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site and the public notice was posted in three public places. On March 2, 2007, notification of the public hearing for this project was provided in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers and the project site was posted with a display board. 3. On March 13, 2007, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the project identified above in this Resolution is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301 (e) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder. Furthermore, the categorical exemption reflects the independent judgement of the City of Diamond Bar. 1 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole including the findings set forth below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed project set forth in the application, there is no evidence before this Planning Commission that the project proposed herein will have the potential of an adverse effect on wild life resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: (a) The project site is approximately 11,050 square feet and is an irregular rectangular shape. It is developed with a one-story residence of approximately 1,970 square feet and a two -car garage. There are no restricted use or flood hazard areas or easements on the project site. (b) The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (RL) Maximum 3 DU/AC. (c) The project site is within the Single -Family Residence -Minimum Lot Size 10,000 square feet (R-1-10,000). (d) Generally, the following zones and uses surround the project site: to the north, south and east is the R-1-10,000 zones and homes; and to the west is the R-1 -10,000 and R-3-8,000 zoning districts with homes and a church, respectively. (e) The Application request is for Development Review approval to construct a second story addition and deck totaling to approximately 1,665 square feet to an existing one-story residence of approximately 1,951 square feet with a two -car garage. Development Review M On July 25, 1995, the City adopted its General Plan. Lot 15 (project site) of Tract No. 26126 was established and homes were built prior to the City's incorporation, General Plan's adoption and under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County. The General Plan land use designation for the project site is RL Maximum 3 DU/AC. This designation allow for lot varying in size from 8,500 to 20,000 square feet. The project site is 11,050 square feet. The County used lot averaging; therefore some lots within a tract will be smaller and others larger. However, the project site is in compliance with the adopted General Plan. The project site is within the R-1-10,000 zoning district. Pursuant to the Development Code, the development standards of the RL zoning district 2 apply to the project site. The proposed project meets all the development standards of this zoning district as illustrated in the comparison matrix within the staff report (g) The proposed addition does not change the existing architectural. The new roofline and style with be consistent with the existing roof. The front elevation will be changed by removing all the existing siding and replacing it with stucco as is typical within the surrounding neighborhood. Since, all the siding will be removed, the applicant agrees to add a wainscoting of river rock to that front elevation. The existing post that supports the front entry roof will be widened to look consistent with the scale of the residence with the addition. Exterior walls will be stucco with Behr "Nature Retreat" (medium gray) and white (730F-5) will be used for trim. Composite shingle, architectural butt style in blended shades of gray will be used for the roof. With the architectural style remaining the same and the proposed colors and material, the subject residence with the proposed addition will be compatible with other residences in the neighborhood. The project neighborhood is a combination of one and two-story homes ranging in size from 1,589 to 2,192 habitable square feet. The subject residence will be 3,140 habitable square feet (excluding proposed deck). The project site is 11,050 square feet and large enough to accommodate the proposed addition that meets all the required development standards for the R-1-10,000 zoning district. Furthermore, many other lots within the neighborhood exceed 10,000 square feet and could also accommodate an addition of this size With the approval and construction of the proposed project, the current use (single-family residence) of the project site will be maintained. As referenced above in finding (f), the proposed project can be accommodated at the project site. Additionally, the architectural style, which does not change, color and materials proposed will be compatible with other homes in the neighborhood. As such, the proposed project is not expected to interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development. The proposed project is not expected to intensify the existing use to an extent that will create traffic or pedestrian hazards (h) As referenced in Finding (f) above, the proposed project is consistent with the development standards of the RL zoning district and the City's Design Guidelines. There is not a specific plan for the project area. As referenced in the above findings (f), (g), and (h), 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, texture and color that will remain aesthetically appealing while offering variety in color and texture and a low level of maintenance. 3 U) Before the issuance of any City permits, the proposed project is required to comply with all conditions within the approved resolution and the Building and Safety Division, Public Works Department, and Fire Department requirements. The referenced agencies through the permit and inspection process will ensure that the proposed project is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. (k) Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15301(e), the City has determined that the project identified above in this Resolution is categorically exempt. Furthermore, the categorical exemption reflects the independent judgement of the City of Diamond Bar of Diamond Bar. 5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Application subject to the following conditions and Standard Conditions attached hereto and incorporated by reference: A. Planning Division 1. Prior to final inspection and Certificate of Occupancy issuance, the applicant shall repair or replace landscaping and irrigation destroyed in the front yard. 2. The existing exterior water heater enclosure and vent shall be frames in a manner that allows for a stucco finish enclosure and chase painted to match the house. 3. All exterior wires and conduit shall be flashed and flashing shall be painted to match the exterior of the house. 4. Prior to plan check submittal, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Division three sets of the revised front elevation that shows natural river rock wainscoting for the approval of the Community Development Director. The shingles used for the roof shall be architectural thick-butt style with a minimum 30 year warrantee. Eaves and ridges shall be caped. 6. All colors and material used shall be called-out on the plans. 7. Kitchen facilities shall not be permitted in the second story addition. 4 B. Building and Safety Division 1. Plans for plan check submittal shall clearly and adequately provide the exact living area square footage per floor and deck. 2. Smoke detectors shall be in conformance with the 2001 California Building Code 3. All bedrooms shall comply with all rescue window requirements. 4. Check drainage patterns with Engineering Department. Surface water shall drain away from building at a 2% minimum slope. 8. Specify location of tempered glass as required by code. 9 Prior to construction commencing, the applicant shall install construction protective fencing to the satisfaction of the Building Official. The Planning Commission shall. (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, to: Mr. and Mrs. Donald Mahlke, 23845 Chinook Place, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 and Mr. Larry Brown, 2366 E. Glassell Street, Orange, CA 92865. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH OF MARCH 2007, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. BY: Steve Nelson, Chairman 5 I, Nancy Fong, Acting Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of March 2007, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: Nancy Fong, Secretary 6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS USE PERMITS, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL NEW AND REMODELED STRUCTURES PROJECT #: Development Review No. 2006-41 SUBJECT: Second Addition to Existing Single -Family Residence PROPERTY OWNER: Mr. and Mrs. Donald Mahike APPLICANT: Mr. Larry Brown LOCATIION: 23845 Chinook Place ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION AT (909) 839-7030, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements 1. In accordance with Government Code Section 66474.9(b) (1), the applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its officers, agents and employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding to attack, set-aside, void or annul, the approval of Development Review No. 2006-41 brought within the time period provided by Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the city and/or its officers, agents and employees are made a party of any such action: (a) Applicant shall provide a defense to the City defendants or at the City's option reimburse the City its costs of defense, including reasonable attorneys fees, incurred in defense of such claims. (b) Applicant shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the City descendents. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action of proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof. 2. This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant and owner of the property involved have filed, within twenty-one (21) days of 7 approval of this Development Review No. 2006-41, at the City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this approval. Further, this approval shall not be effective until the applicants pay remaining City processing fees, school fees and fees for the review of submitted reports. 3. All designers, architects, engineers, and contractors associated with this project shall obtain a Diamond Bar Business Registration and zoning approval for those businesses located in Diamond Bar. 4. Signed copies of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 5. Prior to plan check, revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval. 6. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all conditions of approval shall be completed 7. The project site shall be maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of approval and all laws, or other applicable regulations. 8. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and any applicable Specific Plan in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 9. Site, grading, landscape/irrigation and driveway plans, elevations and sections shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of City permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 10. The single family residence shall not be used in a manner that creates adverse effects upon the neighborhood and environmental setting of the residential site to levels of dust, glare/light, noise, odor, traffic, or other disturbances to the existing residential neighborhood and shall not result in significantly adverse effects on public services and resources. The single family residence shall not be used for commercial/institutional purposes, or otherwise used as a separate dwelling. The property shall not be used for regular gatherings which result in a nuisance or which create traffic and parking problems in the neighborhood. 11. Property owner/applicant shall remove the public hearing notice board within three days of this project's approval. 8 12. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of City Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works Department, and Fire Department. B. Fees/Deposits Applicant shall pay development fees (including but not limited to Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works Department and Mitigation Monitoring) at the established rates, prior to issuance of building or grading permit (whichever comes first), as required by the City. School fees as required shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permit. In addition, the applicant shall pay all remaining prorated City project review and processing fees prior to issuance of grading or building permit, whichever come first. 2. Prior to any plan check, all deposit accounts for the processing of this project shall have no deficits. C. Time Limits 1 The approval of Development Review No. 2006-21 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-11 shall expire within two years from the date of approval if the use has not been exercised as defined per Municipal Code Section 22.66.050 (b)(1). The applicant may request in writing a one year time extension subject to Municipal Code Section 22.60.050(c) for Planning Commission approval. D. Site Development The project site shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the approved plans submitted to, approved, and amended herein by the Planning Commission, collectively attached hereto as Exhibit "A" dated January 23, 2007 including: site plan, floor plan, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors and landscaping/irrigation plan on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein and Development Code regulations. 2. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the Applicant shall complete and record a "Covenant and Agreement to Maintain a Single -Family Residence" on a form to be provided by the City. The covenant shall be completed and recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorders Office. E. Solid Waste The site shall be maintained in a condition, which is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement approved 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 9 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 used has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, (909) 839-7040, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General 1. An Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any City permits. These measures shall be implemented during construction between October 1 st and April 15th. The erosion control plan shall conform to national Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards and incorporate the appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's). 2. Grading and construction activities and the transportation of equipment and materials and operation of heavy grading equipment shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Dust generated by grading and construction activities shall be reduced by watering the soil prior to and during the activities and in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 402 and Rule 403. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. Additionally, all construction equipment shall be properly muffled to reduce noise levels. 3. All equipment staging areas shall be located on the project site. Staging area, including material stockpile and equipment storage area, shall be enclosed within a 6 foot -high chain link fence. All access points in the defense shall be locked whenever the construction site is not supervised. B. Drainage 1 Detailed drainage system information of the lot with careful attention to any flood hazard area shall be submitted. All drainage/runoff from the development shall be conveyed from the site to the natural drainage course. No on-site drainage shall be conveyed to adjacent parcels, unless that is the natural drainage course. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 839- 7020, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Plans shall conform to State and Local Building Code (i.e., 2001 California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and 2001 National Electrical Code) requirements and all other applicable construction codes, ordinances and regulations in effect at plan check submittal. 10 2. 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. The Applicant shall provide temporary sanitation facilities while under construction. 3. Fire Department approval may be required. Contact the Fire Department to check the fire zone for the location of your property. If this project is located in High Hazard Fire Zone it shall meet of requirements of the fire zone. a. All unenclosed under -floor areas shall be constructed as exterior wall. b. All openings into the attic, floor and/or other enclosed areas shall be covered with corrosion -resistant wire mesh not less than 1/4 inch or more than 1/2 inch in any dimension except where such openings are equipped with sash or door. 4. The minimum design load for wind in this area is 80 M.P.H. exposures "C" and the site is within seismic zone four (4). The applicant shall submit drawings and calculations prepared by a California State licensed Architect/Engineer with wet stamp and signature. 5. Project shall comply with energy conservation requirements of the State of California Energy Commission. Kitchen and bathroom lights shall be fluorescent. 6. Guardrails shall be designed for 20 load applied laterally at the top of the rail. 7. Check drainage patterns with Engineering Department. Surface water shall drain away from building at a 2% minimum slope. 8. Specify location of tempered glass as required by code. 9. Specify 1/4"M slope for all flat surfaces/ decks with approved water proofing material. Also, provide guardrail connection detail (height, spacing, etc.). 10. Private property sewer/septic system shall be approved by the Los Angeles County Health Department and the California Water Control Board. 11. Number of plumbing fixtures shall be in compliance with CBC Appendix 29. 11 RECORDING REQUEST BY: City of Diamond Bar WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Diamond Bar 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Space Above Line For Recorder's Use Only COVENANT AND AGREEMENT TO MAINTAIN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Development Review No. 2006-41 The undersigned hereby certify that Donald and Jennifer Mahlke are the owner(s) of the hereinafter described real property located at 23845 Chinook Place in the City of Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, State of California, commonly known as: Legally described as Lot 15, Tract Map No. 26126 Assessor's Book and Parcel Number 8281-012-047 And, I/we do hereby covenant and agree for ourselves, heirs, assigns, transferees and successors, with the City of Diamond Bar (hereinafter "City") that the above described property shall be used for single family residential purposes only. This covenant and agreement shall run with the land and shall be binding upon ourselves, future owners, their heirs, and successors and assignees and shall continue in effect until and unless approved otherwise by the City of Diamond Bar is specifically intended that the benefits and burdens of this covenant run with the land. If the City is required to bring legal action to enforce this covenant, then the city shall be entitled to its attorney fees and court costs. By By DATED: NOTE: THE COVENANT AND AGREEMENT SHALL BE NOTARIZED, AND RECORDED. NOTARY SHALL USE UPDATED FORM AS DESCRIBED IN CIVIL CODE SECTION 1189. WORD: COMDEV/FORMS/BLANK COVENANT... PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT 21825 COPLEY DRIVE --DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765—TEL (909) 839-7030—FAX (909) 861-3117—www.Cityofdiamondbar.com AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: r_) MEETING DATE: March 13, 2007 CASE/FILE NUMBER: Development Review 2007-04 PROJECT LOCATION: 1700 Shadehill Place, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (APN: 8293-027-036, Lot 63, Tract 31154) APPLICATION REQUEST: To construct a 1,720 square feet two-story addition at the front and north side with exterior remodel to the existing 2,268 livable square feet single family residence PROPERTY OWNER: Lihong He APPLICANT: 1700 Shadehill Place Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Kingston Engineering 21015 Commerce Pointe Drive Walnut, CA 91789 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval 1 DR 2007-04 BACKGROUND: The pie shaped flag lot is at the end of the cul-de-sac. It is 19,440 square feet (.45 acres) and is parcel number 63 of Tract 31154. The existing two-story, single family residence was approved and completed in 1978. The property owner, Lihong He, and applicant, Kingston Engineering, Inc., filed Development Review No. 2007-04 to construct a 1,720 square feet two-story addition with exterior remodeling at the front and north side. ANALYSIS: A. Application and Review Authority per the Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Section 22.48 This addition is greater than 50 percent of the existing structure's livable floor area and requires a Development Review process for design review and approval by the Planning Commission. B. Site and Surrounding Uses C. Development Standards The comparison indicates the proposed project meets the City's Development t 1_�J....-A .. Ojai ivaius. GENERALPLAN ZONE USES SITE Low Density Residential (RL) R-1 8,000 Single Family Residential NORTH Low Density Residential (RL) R-1 8,000 Single Family Residential SOUTH Low Density Residential (RL) R-1 8,000 Single Family Residential EAST Low Density Residential (RL) R-1 8,000 Single Family Residential WEST Low Density Residential (RL) R-1 8,000Single Family Residential C. Development Standards The comparison indicates the proposed project meets the City's Development t 1_�J....-A .. Ojai ivaius. Development RL Building Proposed Meet Feature Requirements Re uirements q Yes Minimum Lot 10,000 S.F. . 45 acre 19,440 gross S.F. "LA County Lot Area Averaging" Residential 1 -Single family unit; 1 -Single family unit Yes Density 3 per gross acre Front yard 20 feet 21 feet Yes setback Rear setback 20 feet 170 feet Yes Side yards 5'-0" & 10'-0" 5'& 36' Yes Minimum 2 DR 2007-04 Side yard minimum between 15 feet Meets 15 feet Yes structures -on adjoining parcels Buil6ng Height 35 feet -0° (maximum) 25.5 feet + chimney Yes Limit As required by Hillside Chapter 22.22 Two-story on pad Not applicable Development (Hillside Management) As required by Landscaping 15% Landscaping Chapter 22.24 overall & 50% in Yes (Landscaping) front yard 2 in fully enclosed Existing enclosed 3 -car garage & Yes Parking garage (20'X20'). widened driveway 40% Staff recalculated at Yes Lot Coverage 24% Less than one-half 16,704 gross square Preserved/ acre lots - exempt feet is less than Exempt Protected Trees from Tree Permit one-half acre requirements D. The Proposed Addition 1. Architectural Features and Colors: The addition adds a second floor over the garage and fills in the first and second floor area on the north side behind the garage. The front entry area is remodeled and a portico with columns added. The stone texture is retained and the roof, trim and stucco are to match the existing materials and colors. The exterior elevation for the addition over the garage has been enhanced to include corbels as noted in Attachment 'A". The corbel design is consistent with the decorative trim and suggests support of the projecting roof. The design's multi-level roofs, windows, stone, and stucco add texture and contrast, variety, and low maintenance materials. The proposed addition's architectural style and palette are compatible with the other homes on the cul-de- sac and the neighborhood and are consistent with the General Plan, City's Design Guidelines and Municipal Code. 3 DR 2007-04 2. Floor Plans: The addition enlarges the first floor's living room and family rooms and remodels a bedroom adding a bath. A master suite is added over the garage and two existing bedrooms area enlarged. 3. Site Work: a. Existing Patio: Two patios exist in the rear. Neither permit has a final inspection. An approval condition requires the patios to be finalized. b. Drainage Plan: The subject addition is on the existing pad and no grading or retaining walls are proposed. An Engineering/Public Works Department approval condition requires a drainage plan submittal and an erosion control plan for work starting after October 1, 2007. The swales at the rear of the property shall be indicated on the drainage plan; as well as the surveyor's notes and chain link area. at the northeast property line. 4. Landscaping: Replacement and restoration of landscaping is required prior to the Planning Division's final inspection. E. Covenant and Agreement to Maintain a Single Family Residence An approval condition requires the owner to sign, notarize, and record the City's "Covenant and Agreement to Maintain a Single Family Residence" with the Los Angeles County's Recorder's Office. The covenant must be submitted to planning staff prior to building permit issuance. F. Additional Review The Public Works Department and the Building and Safety Division reviewed this project. Their comments are included in both the report and the approval conditions. G. General Plan/Design Guidelines/Compatibility with Neighborhood Strategy 1.2.4 - Maintain residential areas which provide ownership for single family housing and require that new development be compatible with the prevailing character of the surrounding neighborhood; and 2. Strategy 2.2.1 - New developments shall be compatible with surrounding land uses. Staff's review and report indicate the application's consistency with the General Plan, Municipal Code Standards, the City's Design Guidelines and compatibility with the neighborhood. 4 DR 2007-04 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners in a 500 -foot radius of the project site. Public hearing notices were published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. A public hearing notice display board was posted at the site, and legal notices were posted at the City's designated community posting sites. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The City determined this project is categorically exempt per the 1970 California Environmental Quality k,ct (CEQA), Section 15301(e) - additions to existing structures. RECOMMEtd )1',-.T'1 ONS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2007- 04, Findings of Fact, and approval conditions listed within the attached resolution. Prepared by: Linda Kray Smith Development Services Associate Reviewed by: Nancy Fong, A& Community Develop ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution of Approval with required findings; 2. Covenant and Agreement; 3. Aerial; irecto 4. Revised from ext ericr over garage design with corbels; 5. Exhibit "A" — Title sheet, site plan -roof plan, floor plans, and elevations dated March 13, 2007. 5 DR 2007-04 DRAFT ATTACHMENT 1" PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2007 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2007-04 AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION 15301(e), A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 1,720 SQUARE FEET TWO-STORY ADDITION AT THE FRONT AND NORTH SIDE WITH EXTERIOR REMODEL TO THE EXISTING 2,268 LIVABLE SQUARE FEET SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THE PROJECT SITE IS ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 8293-027-036,1700 SHADEHILL PLACE (LOT 63, TRACT NO. 31154), DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA. A. RECITALS The property owner, Lihong He, and applicant, Kingston Engineering, Inc., filed Development Review No. 2007-04 application for the property identified as assessor parcel number 8293-027-036, located at 1700 Shadehill Place (Lot 63, Tract No. 31154), Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review and Categorical Exemption shall be referred to as the "Application." 2. Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners in a 500 -foot radius of the project site. The San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers published the public hearing notice. A public hearing notice display board was posted at the site and legal notices were posted at the City's designated community posting sites. 3. On March 13, 2007, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 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 the Application is categorically exempt per the 1970 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15301(e). 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole including the findings set forth DRAFT ATTACHMENT I" below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed project set forth in the Application, there is no evidence before this Planning Commission that the project proposed herein will have the potential of an adverse effect on wild life resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: (a) The project parcel is assessor parcel number 8293-027-036, 1700 Shadehill Place (Lot 63 Tract 31154), Diamond Bar, California. The parcel is approximately .45 acre or 16,704 gross/usable square feet. The lot's irregular shape is narrow at the cul-de-sac and wider at the rear with an existing two-story, legal nonconforming single family residence approved and completed in 1988. (b) The General Plan Land Use designation is Low Density Residential (RL), maximum 3 dwelling units per acre. The site is zoned Single family Residence, R-1-8,000. (c) The R-1-8,000 zone and single family uses surround the site. (d) The Application requests to remodel and construct to construct a 1,720 square feet two-story addition at the front and north side with exterior remodel to the existing 2,268 livable square feet single family residence. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (e) The design and layout of the proposed development are consistent with the General Plan, development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for specialized area (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards, or planned developments. The project site is currently developed with a two-story, single family residence established before the adoption of the City's General Plan and current Municipal Code. The adopted July 25, 1995 General Plan land use designation is Low Density Residential (RL) (maximum 3 dwelling units/per acre). The Application complies with the City's General Plan objectives and strategies related to maintaining the integrity of residential neighborhoods and open space, the current 2 DRAFT ATTACHMENT "1" Diamond Bar Municipal Code, and with the City's Design Guidelines. There is no specific plan. (f) The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. Diamond Bar Boulevard and Santaquin Drive adequately serve the project site. These and the neighboring streets are designed to handle minimum traffic created by residential development. The project site is currently developed with a two-story single family residence. The proposed addition does not change the existing single family use. The Application updates the style and is consistent with surrounding properties. The structure is not expected to unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development. (g) The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain and enhance the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48, the General Plan, City Design Guidelines, or any applicable specific plan. Although the existing siding and wood trim are eliminated and the structure is modernized with stucco and stucco trim, the architectural style is compatible with the surrounding area. The proposed two-story addition enlarges the house in the front and the north side of this flag lot. The design's multi-level roofs, windows, stone and stucco add texture and contrast, variety, and low maintenance materials. The application's architectural style and palette are compatible with the other homes in the neighborhood and consistent with the General Plan, City's Design Guidelines and Municipal Code. There is no specific plan. (h) The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public, as well as its neighbors, through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color that is aesthetically appealing. The proposed colors, materials, and textures are consistent with and complimentary to the existing homes within the area while offering variety and low maintenance levels. (i) The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative affect on 3 DRAFT ATTACHMENT "1" property values or resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. Structural plan check, City permits and inspections, soils analysis as needed, and Fire Department approval are required for construction. This project meets Municipal Code building standards including height. These standards and processes ensure that the finished project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. Additionally, a Recorded Covenant and Agreement is required and runs with the land to maintain a single family residence. (j) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City determined the proposed project is categorically exempt per the 1970 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15301(e). 4. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves this Application subject to the attached Standard Conditions. The Planning Commission shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, to: Lihong He, 1700 Shadehill Place, Diamond Bar, CA 91765, and Kingston Engineering, 21015 Commerce Pointe Drive, Walnut, CA 91789. rd DRAFT ATTACHMENT "1" APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13th DAY OF MARCH 2007, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. Steve Nelson, Chair I, Nancy Fong, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, ata regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of March, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioner: ABSENT: Commissioner: ABSTAIN: Commissioner: ATTEST: Nancy Fong, AICP, Community Development Director 5 DRAFT ATTACHMENT "1" COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: Development Review Number 2007-04 SUBJECT: A request to construct a 1,720 square feet two-story addition at the front and north side with exterior remodel to the existing 2,268 livable square feet single family residence OWNER: Lihong He APPLICANT: Kingston Engineering, Inc. LOCATION: 1700 Shadehill Place ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION AT (909) 839-7030, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS In accordance with Government Code Section 66474.9(b) (1), the applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its officers, agents and employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding to attack, set-aside, void or annul, the approval of Development Review Number 2007-04 brought within the time period provided by Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the city and/or its officers, agents and employees are made a party of any such action: (a) Applicant shall provide a defense to the City defendants or at the City's option reimburse the City its costs of defense, including reasonable attorneys fees, incurred in defense of such claims. 1411 DRAFT ATTACHMENT "1" (b) Applicant shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the City descendents. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action of proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof. 2. This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant and owner of the property involved have filed, within twenty-one (21) days of approval of this Development Review Number 2007-04, at the City of Diamond Bar Community and Development Services Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this approval. Further, this approval shall not be effective until the applicants pay remaining City processing fees, school fees and fees for the review of submitted reports. All designers, architects, engineers, and contractors associated with this project shall obtain a Diamond Bar Business Registration and zoning approval for those businesses located in Diamond Bar. 4. Signed copies of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-xx, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 5. The exterior elevation for the addition over the garage shall be revised from Exhibit "A" to include the corbels as noted in Attachment "4" of the staff report. 6. Prior to the plan check, revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval. i. Prior to any use of the project site, all conditions of approval shall be completed. 13. The project site shall be maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of approval and all laws, or other applicable regulations. I Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and any applicable Specific Plan in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 10. The single family residence shall not be used in a manner that creates adverse effects upon the neighborhood and environmental setting of the residential site to levels of dust, glare/light, noise, odor, traffic, or other 7 DRAFT ATTACHMENT "1" disturbances to the existing residential neighborhood and shall not result in significantly adverse effects on public services and resources. The single family residence shall not be used for commercial/institutional purposes, or otherwise used as a separate dwelling. The property shall not be used for regular gatherings which result in a nuisance or which create traffic and parking problems in the neighborhood. 11. Property owner/applicant shall remove the public hearing notice board within three days of this project's approval. 12. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of City Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works Department, and the Fire Department. B. FEES/DEPOSITS 1. Applicant shall pay development fees (including but not limited to Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works Department and Mitigation Monitoring) at the established rates, prior to issuance of building or grading permit (whichever comes first), as required by the City. School fees as required shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permit. In addition, the applicant shall pay all remaining prorated City project review and processing fees prior to issuance of grading or building permit, whichever come first. 2. Prior to any plan check, all deposit accounts for the processing of this project shall have no deficits. C. TIME LIMITS The approval of Development Review Number 2007-04 shall expire within two years from the date of approval if the use has not been exercised as defined per Municipal Code Section 22.66.050 (b)(1). The applicant may request in writing a one year time extension subject to Municipal Code Section 22.60.050(c) for Planning Commission approval. D. SITE DEVELOPMENT 1. The existing patios indicated on the site plan do not have finalized permits and shall be included with the structural permits of the new structure. 2. The project site shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the approved plans submitted to, approved, and amended herein by the Planning Commission, collectively attached hereto as Exhibit "A" including: site plans, floor plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and Development Code regulations. LV DRAFT ATTACHMENT "1" 3. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the Applicant shall complete and record a "Covenant and Agreement to Maintain a Single -Family Residence" on a form to be provided by the City. The covenant shall be completed and recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorders Office. 4. All ground -mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, air conditioning condensers, etc. shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berms, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 5. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened from public view. E. LANDSCAPE Prior to the Planning Division's final inspection and/or Certificate of Occupancy issuance, the landscaping/irrigation shall be installed or replaced. Any dense plant material proposed in the front setback shall not exceed a 42 inches maximum height. F. SOLID WASTE The site shall be maintained in a condition, which is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement approved 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 used has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. 2. Mandatory solid waste disposal services shall be provided by the City franchised waste hauler to all parcels/lots or uses affected by approval of this project. 3. Trash receptacles are required and shall meet City standards and shall be shielded from public view. 9 DRAFT ATTACHMENT "1" APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, (909) 839-7040, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL 1. An Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted concurrently with the drainage plan clearly detailing erosion control measures. These measures shall be implemented during construction between October 151 and April 15th. The erosion control plan shall conform to national Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards and incorporate the appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's). 2. Grading and construction activities and the transportation of equipment and materials and operation of heavy grading equipment shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Dust generated by grading and construction activities shall be reduced by watering the soil prior to and during the activities and in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 402 and Rule 403. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. Additionally, all construction equipment shall be properly muffled to reduce noise levels. 3. Detailed drainage system information of the lot with careful attention to any flood hazard area and swales shall be submitted. All drainage/runoff from the development shall be conveyed from the site to the natural drainage course. No on-site drainage shall be conveyed to adjacent parcels, unless that is the natural drainage course. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 839- 7020, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL Plans shall conform to State and Local Building Code (i.e., 2001 California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and the 2001 National Electrical Code) requirements and all other applicable construction codes, ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of plan check submittal. 2. The minimum design load for wind in this area is 80 M.P.H. exposures "C" and the site is within seismic zone four (4). The applicant shall submit drawings and calculations prepared by a California State licensed Architect/Engineer with wet stamp and signature. 3. This project shall comply with the energy conservation requirements of the State of California Energy Commission. Kitchen and bathroom lights shall be fluorescent. 10 DRAFT ATTACHMENT "1" 4. Submit Public Works Department approved drainage plan. 5. Indicate all easements on the site plan. 6. Fire Department approval shall be required. Contact the Fire Department to check the fire zone for the location of your property. If this project is located in High Hazard Fire Zone it shall meet of requirements of the fire zone. a. All unenclosed under -floor areas shall be constructed as exterior wall. b. All openings into the attic, floor and/or other enclosed areas shall be covered with corrosion -resistant wire mesh not less than 1/4 inch or more than 1/2 inch in any dimension except where such openings are equipped with sash or door. 7'. The project shall be protected by a construction fence and shall comply with the NPDES & BMP requirements (sand bags, etc.). 8. Specify location of tempered glass as required by code. 9. Check drainage patterns with Engineering Department. Surface water shall drain away from building at a 2% minimum slope. 10. Building setback from any slope (toe or top) shall meet Chapter 18 of the 2001 California Building Code. 11. Chimney shall extend 2' above roof line. (2'- 10' away from roof line). 12. If area below stairs is used, one layer of 5/8 type "x" shall be installed below stairs. 113. Smoke detectors shall be installed in every bedroom; and hallway leading into sleeping rooms. Hard wired smoke detectorwith battery back-up shall be installed in new bedrooms. 11 m z w 75 U Q H Q -oject Meeting Schedule arch 13, 2007 LANNING COMMISSION REVIEW PROJECTS Project Location 3845 CHINOOK addition) 700 SHADEHILL 4ddition/remodel 336 BRIDGE GATE Medical offices 13253 FORREST CANYON Fire damage — replace and addition 14449 NAN COURT Room Addition ?4408 NAN CT kDMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS Project Location \ONE PENDING PROJECTS Project Location CITYWIDE CLEAR CREEK CYN/ MONUMENT CYN 5 -lot single family residential 434 DEEPHILL RD. 1626 DERRINGER (Single Family Residence 23655 FALCONS VIEW (Demo of and construction of new single family residence 1948 FLINT ROCK New three story residence 757 GRAND CITY OF DIAMOND BAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Case,# PN1 Applicant PC CE PC CC:. PC PC, ee 3/13!07 <3/20I07 3/27/07 4/3107 4/10/07 41VIX DR 2006-41 AJL LARRY BROWN PH DR 2007-04 LKS HE/KINGSTON PH DR 2005-32 AJL KAISER MEDICAL PH DR 2006-40 AJL LEOBARDO NANEZ PH DR 2007-01 DA RAY WOLFE PH MV 2007-01 DR 2007-07 CIS ISMAIL VAID h "Case.,Ailjcant,v r Statusn: .�, DCA 2006-01 AJL DEVELOPMENT CODE PROCESSING AMENDMENT TTM 06166 AJL AKBAR OMAR APPLICANT NOTIFIED OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION — WAITING TM 2005-02 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DR 2007-03 DA STEVEN FELDER APPLICANT NOTIFIED OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION — WAITING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DR 2007-08 LDM/AJL WEN CHEN PROCESSING DR 2006-02 LDM/AJL CHIEN YEH APPLICANT NOTIFIED OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION — WAITING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DR 2006-25 LDM/AJL LEU APPLICANT NOTIFIED OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION — WAITING VAR 2006-01 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CSP 2006-02 Sc I TARGET I PROCESSING LEGEND PH = PUBLIC HEARING X = NON PUBLIC HEARING rage � CII Y UI- UTAMUNU bAK Project Meeting Schedule COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT March 13, 2007 PENDING PROJECTS (continued) 7777777777777 t 7777777777 -. ... ,Status" ileaznt A Pro'ect Location PROCESSING DR 2006-39 DA JAY WALIA 2461 INDIAN CREEK Sin le Family Residence TP 2006-09 APPLICANT NOTIFIED OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION —WAITING New DR 2006-42 DA STEVE SAMANIEGO FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 22505 LARKSPRING MCUP 2006-19 APPLICANT NOTIFIED OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION —WAITIN CUP 2007-02 LKS ROYAL STREET FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION j PANTERA PARK DR 2007-02 APPLICANT NOTIFIED OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION — WAITING i(Cell Site I DR 2004-33 LKS MOHAMAD SALIMNIA FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 21324 PATHFINDER (Gas station remodel) SC/ AWARD WINNING PROCESSING 2502 RAZAK DR 2007-06 NF DESIGN/I-ARIVEE NOTIFIED OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION —WAITING New single Tamil residence DR 2006-18 AJL HGUI APPLICANT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 23121 RIDGELINE new sin le family residence DA VISHAL KAUSHAUL PROCESSING 2026 RUSTY SPUR to single famil res. C 200 07- MCUP 2007-01 APPLICANT NOTIFIED OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION — WAITING (2-storyaddition DR 2006-26 LDM/AJL STEVEN HSIEH — GRACE COUNTRY DEV. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 2151 RUSTY SPUR le family residence APPLICANT NOTIFIED OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION — WAITING New sin DR 2003-27/ AJL LAUREN PARK FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 3015 WAGON TRAIN (Extension of time) TP 2003-08/ MCUP 2004-02 APPLICANT NOTIFIED OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION —WAITIN I DR 2005-34 AJL LAMPS PLUS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 20405 WALNUT (Warehouse/retail buildin t