Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/12/2013 PC AgendaPLANNING FILE COPY COMMISSION AGENDA November 12, 2013 7:00 P.M. City Hall, Windmill Community Room - .21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Chairman Vice Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Tony Torng Frank Farago Ashok Dhingra Jimmy Lin Jack Shah Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Planning Division of the Community Development Department, located at 21810 Copley Drive, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please call (909) 839-7030 during regular business hours. Written materials distributed to the Planning Commission within 72 hours of the Planning Commission meeting are available for public inspection immediately upon distribution in the City Clerk's office at 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California, during normal business hours. In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title 11 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or 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. MDMIWHE h`D'36AR B Please refrain from smoking, eating or The City of Diamond ear uses recycled paper drinking in the Auditorium and encourages you todo 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 contact information below. Every meeting of the Planning Commission is recorded and duplicate recordings 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 CONTACT INFORMATION Copies of Agenda, Rules of the Commission, CDs of Meetings (909) 839-7030 Email: info(a)diamondbarca.gov Website: www.diamondbarca.gov CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, November 12, 2013 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 1 2. 3. 9 Next Resolution No. 2013-25 ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Tony Torng, Vice Chairman Frank Farago, Ashok Dhingra, Jimmy Lin, Jack Shah 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 the Regular Meeting 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None October 22, 2013 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 Development Review No. PL 2012-475 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Sections 22.48 and 22.56, the applicant, Jack Wu, and property owner, Justin Chien, are requesting Development Review approval to construct a 573 square -foot second -floor addition to an existing single-family residence on a 1.6 gross acre (69,696 square -foot) lot. The subject property is zoned rural Residential (RR) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential. On August 27, 2013, the matter was NOVEMBER 12, 2013 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA continued by the Planning Commission to give the property owner the opportunity to consider removing the proposed rear pad. Project Address: 23223 Ridge Line Road Property Owner: Justin Chien 2880 Wood Bridge Ct. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Applicant: Jack Wu 10410 Lower Azusa Rd., 3203 EI Monte, CA 91731 Environmental Determination: The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on that assessment, the City has determined the project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Article 19 under Section 15301(e) (additions to existing structures) of the CEQA Guidelines. No further environmental review is required. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. PL2012-475, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. 8. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 8.1 Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2013-147 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Sections 22.48 and 22.56, the applicant and property owner, Dr. Umesh Shah, is requesting Development Review approval to construct a 2,828 square -foot, two-story addition to an existing two-story single-family residence on a 0.47 gross acre (20,607 square - foot) lot. A Minor Conditional Use Permit is requested for the continuance of a non -conforming distance of 13'-6" to the structure on the adjacent lot to the west. The subject property is zoned Low Medium Density Residential. Project Address: 21955 Birds Eye Dr. Property Owner/ Dr. Umesh Shah Applicant: 21955 Birds Eye Dr. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Environmental Determination: The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on that assessment, the City has determined the project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Article 19 under Section 15301(e) NOVEMBER 12, 2013 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 0 10 11 (additions to existing structures) of the CEQA Guidelines. No further environmental review is required. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2013-147, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS I INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: STAFF COMMENTS / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future proiects: SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING: CITY COUNCIL MEETING: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING: THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY: 12. ADJOURNMENT: Thursday, November 14, 2013 - 7:00 p.m. Diamond Bar City Hall Windmill Community Room 21810 Copley Drive Tuesday, November 19, 2013, 6:30 p.m. Diamond Bar City Hall Windmill Community Room 21810 Copley Drive (temporary location) Tuesday, November 26, 2013, 7:00 p.m. Diamond Bar City Hall Windmill Community Room 21810 Copley Drive Thursday, November 28, 2013, 7:00 p.m. Diamond Bar City Hall Windmill Community Room 21810 Copley Drive Thursday, November 28, 2013, and Friday, November 29, 2013. In observance of the holiday, City offices will be closed. City Offices will reopen on Monday, December 2, 2013. tt�Gkffi'��is � MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 22, 2013 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Torng called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Windmill Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Dhingra led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Ashok Dhingra, Jimmy Lin, Jack Shah, Vice Chairman Frank Farago, ChairmanTony Torng Also present: Grace Lee, Senior Planner; James Eggart, Assistant City Attorney; Natalie Tobon, Assistant Planner, and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None offered. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the October 8, 2013, Regular Meeting. C/Dhingra moved, Chair/Torng seconded, to approve the October 8, 2013, regular meeting minutes as amended and corrected. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5. OLD BUSINESS: 6. NEW BUSINESS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: None None Dhingra, Lin, Shah, VC/ Farago, Chair/Torng None None OCTOBER 22, 2013 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 Development Review No. PL2013-77 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, applicant Steven Phillips and property owner Mei Deng, requested Development Review approval to construct a new single-family residence consisting of 13,360 square feet of livable area; a 2,207 square foot garage, and 2,471 square feet of patio areas on a 1.21 gross acre (52,707 square foot) lot. The subject property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential. (Continued from October 8, 2013) PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER: 24074 Falcons View Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Mei Deng 500-999 West Broadway Vancouver, BC VSZIKS APPLICANT: Steven Phillips 23177 La Cadena Drive #101 Laguna Hills, CA 92677 AP/Tobon presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. PL2013-77, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Shah suggested that staff's response to public comment number 3 should include a statement that the retaining wall is strong enough to protect the neighbor's swimming pool from possible discharge of additional load impacts. AP/Tobon responded that staff's response includes the statement that "structural plans for all proposed structures including retaining walls will be submitted to the Building and Safety Division during building plan check for compliance with the California Building Code which will include specifications for the retaining walls to ensure that it will not impact the neighbors property. SP/Lee also added that any grading and foundation design methods will follow the requirements contained in the geotechnical report. C/Dhingra said that the square footage shown in item 1 of the resolution does not match Sheet A-1 of the plans (13,360). SP/Lee responded that staff will make the appropriate changes to the resolution. OCTOBER 22, 2013 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Lin asked for clarification of the landscape plans and AP/Tobon pointed out that C/Lin's concern involved a change that the architect wanted to show on the plan. SP/Lee reiterated that landscape plans will be reviewed during landscape plan check for the final design and irrigation. C/Lin asked if the lot was connected to sewer or septic. AP/Tobon responded that that this home is on septic. C/Lin said he did not see the septic tank on the plans and AP/Tobon explained that this is not submitted during the planning phase of the project, it is submitted during the grading plan and building plan check process when the construction drawings are submitted to staff. C/Lin said that in the past the Commission has been provided drawings that identified the location of the septic tank. SP/Lee reiterated it is a condition of approval that the homeowner submits a plan showing the location of the septic tank system. C/Lin again stated that because the lot slopes down at the rear of the property the homeowner has to identify an appropriate place for location of the septic tank. AP/Tobon referred C/Lin to the applicant's civil engineer. Chair/Torng opened the public hearing. Steven Phillips, architect, said it has been a long journey to get to this point. He first worked with The Country Estates homeowners association and was surprised to learn they had three licensed architects who volunteer their time to the board. One is the Dean of Architecture at Cal Poly Pomona. The Board advised him that there was an illegal fill that was placed from the neighboring site to the north of the project site and he was asked to solve the design problem in a manner consistent with the natural grades that were there prior to the illegal fill. The project's civil engineer who will answer the questions on the location of the septic system was able to locate the original topographic maps which were used to design the home. When the house was designed the first floor was placed in relationship to the southern portion of the property so that when looking at the front elevation there was a jog in it so the front door is more or less even with or a little below the street level at the southern side of the property which makes it approximately six feet lower than the neighboring property to the north. Currently, the site is flat, even with the property to the north on at least six feet of illegal fill. The Country Estates homeowners association wanted to be sure that the project designed a solution to keep the first floor of the house six feet below the northerly property. In addition, another 14 feet was cut out for a daylight basement to lower the house and balance the site with the grading. The site will be buttressed for stability. The homeowners association approved the site plan and in working with staff, various elements of the house were adjusted to bring everything into conformance including the in and out 0 OCTOBER 22, 2013 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION driveway. Once the site plan was adjusted, the landscaping was revised to eliminate the in and out driveway because there is a question as to ownership of the roadway and the 12 -foot parkway. He spoke with the board members who believe they control the road parkway; however, the applicant agreed to the City's condition. He thanked staff and especially AP/Tobon for their work on this project. Hank Jong, EGL Civil Engineers, said that with respect to the Commission's question regarding the location of the septic tank, typically, the system is not shown on the conceptual grading plan because at this stage, no percolation tests have been done and the number of seepage pits needed for this house is not yet known. However, he believes the pits can be placed at the front of the house under the driveway so the maintenance vehicle will have access. He said he did not foresee a problem providing a septic system sufficient to serve the house. With respect to geotechnical issues, he will recommend that the house be supported by caissons which are placed firmly into bedrock to make sure nothing will move in the future. C/Shah asked if the house has been designed using caissons or is it just a recommendation. Mr. Jong said he had done many houses on hillsides within The Country Estates and he always recommends that these types of houses built on hillsides be supported by caissons, placed firmly into bedrock. The applicant has to follow his recommendations. C/Lin said he differed with the civil engineer on the septic tank issue. If the pit is going to be at the front of the house and there is a basement floor more than 12 feet below the front, the pit would have to be 20 feet into the ground. Mr. Jong said that typically, a 50 foot ground water hole is drilled to make sure the ground water is at least 10 feet below the pit, after which 40 foot test holes are drilled to ensure the 40 foot seepage pit. The pipe will be directed from the rear of the house to the front of the house for service accessibility and the pit will be serviced every six months or so. C/Dhingra asked Mr. Phillips which condition of approval he was referring to regarding The Country Estates jurisdiction over the roadway and parkway. Mr. Phillips responded that The Country Estates has an easement that is owned by the homeowners association that states that roadways and parkways are for the enjoyment of all and they believe they are responsible. There is no space between a portion of the subject property and the private street easement at the front of the property. C/Dhingra said from Mr. Phillips testimony that he thought there was a conflict with respect to a specific condition. Mr. Phillips further explained OCTOBER 22, 2013 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION that the condition was that since there was a potential conflict regarding jurisdiction and responsibility for the private street easement between the HOA and the City, staff recommended that the project abandon the in and out driveway at this time. Mr. Phillips said he agreed with staff and proceeded to remove the in and out driveway. Michael Liu, 2160 Indian Creek, said he submitted a letter to staff and the Commission to express his concerns about the design of the house including the amount of fill done by previous owners. He is concerned about the foundation of his house and the safety of his property including his swimming pool and was concerned that trees might fall on his property. He was also concerned about the location of the septic tank being too close to his house. He asked the City for assurance that his property would be protected. Carol Gass, 23830 Falcons View Drive, said she was surprised that someone would be allowed to build such a large house on a small property and wanted to know how many bedrooms and bathrooms would be included in the house and how many individuals would reside in the home. She asked when construction would start and how long it would take to complete the house. Mr. Phillips responded to the speaker that a house of this nature would likely take 24 months to construct and it is not likely that once started construction would stop. The house will be highly engineered on caissons and will not move. The house has four bedrooms on the upper floor, one on the main floor and one in the basement for a total of six bedrooms. He would be happy to go over the plans with the neighbors. SP/Lee reiterated that with respect to the first speaker's concerns, grading, foundation design, retaining walls and landscape installation such as tree species and root barriers will all be reviewed during plan check and if there are any problems encountered at that time, they will be addressed. The plan check process will ensure that the project is designed to not cause structural or slope instability on the subject and/or neighboring properties. VC/Farago asked Mr. Phillips to point out the distance between the existing house to the north and the proposed house which appears to him to be about 48 or 49 feet and about 33 or 34 feet to the property line. Mr. Phillips said that the retaining wall will be about 10 feet away from the property line. VC/Farrago assured the neighbor.that there is considerable distance between the two homes and asked Mr. Phillips to show the neighbor where the retaining wall is proposed in proximity to the OCTOBER 22, 2013 113 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION neighbor's pool. Mr. Phillips said the distance between the proposed house and the house to the south is approximately 50 feet. AP/Tobon said the aerial photograph does not show the neighbor's swimming pool because the pool was built this year, after the photos were taken. SP/Lee stated that the Code requires swimming pools to be located a minimum of five feet from the property line. The property owner pointed out the location of his swimming pool. C/Dhingra said he believed the neighbor's concerns would be addressed during plan check. Chair/Torng closed the public hearing. C/Shah moved, VC/Farago seconded, approve Development Review No. PL2013-77, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the. following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Dhingra, Lin, Shah, VC/ Farago, Chair/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None PUBLIC HEARING(S): 8.1 Development Review No. PL2013-147 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, the applicant/property owner Dr. Umesh Shah requested Development Review approval to construct a 2,828 square foot two-story addition to an existing two-story single family residence on a 0.47 gross acre (20,607 square foot) lot. The subject property is zoned Low Medium Density Residential (RLM) with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential. PROJECT ADDRESS: 21955 Birds Eye Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: Dr. Umesh Shah 21955 Birds Eye Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 SP/Lee stated that due to staff's error, the public hearing notice published for this item was defective, therefore, a revised public hearing notice will need to be published and mailed to surrounding property owners before the Commission can hear this matter. Due to staff's error, the City and not l 1 I OCTOBER 22, 2013 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION the applicant will incur costs associated with re -noticing the item as well as, future planning reviews. Staff recommends that the Commission continue this matter to November 12, 2013. 9. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. SP/Lee stated that the November 12 agenda will consist of two projects, both of which are continued projects. One is an addition to a single family home in The Country Estates located at 23223 Ridgeline Road, which was continued from the September 24, 2013, meeting in order to allow the property owner to consider removing the rear pad from the rear yard in order to save the protected trees; and the other is the Birds Eye project which was scheduled for tonight's meeting. The Willow Heights project on Site D is scheduled for the November 19, 2013, City Council meeting. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Torng adjourned the regular meeting at 7:46 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 12th day of November, 2013. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director Tony Torng, Chairman CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - 21810 COPLEY DRIVE -DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 -TEL. (909) 839-7030 -FAX (909) 861-3117 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: MEETING DATE: CASE/FILE NUMBER: PROJECT LOCATION: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION ZONING DISTRICT: PROPERTY OWNER: tW November 12, 2013 Development Review No. PL2012-475 23223 Ridge Line Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (APN 8713-005-016) Rural Residential (RR) Rural Residential (RR) Justin Chien 2880 Wood Bridge Court Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Jack Wu 10410 Lower Azusa Road #203 EI Monte, CA 91731 The applicant is requesting approval of a Development Review application to construct a 573 square -foot addition to an existing two-story 3,641 square -foot single family residence with an attached 613 square -foot three -car garage on a 1.60 gross acre (69,696 square -foot) lot. The proposed addition does not further encroach into the front and rear setbacks. Adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment 1) approving Development Review No. PL2012- 475, based on the findings of Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Section 22.48, subject to conditions. g�_ The project was presented to the Planning Commission at the August 27, 2013, meeting. During the meeting, the Planning Commission raised a concern about the removal of protected trees on site. Staff explained that the applicant is proposing to remove the protected trees to create a 25 -foot buildable pad in order to comply with the rear setback requirements in the Rural Residential zone. The applicant stated that he was advised to design the project to include a 25 -foot buildable pad at the rear of the existing home, resulting in the removal of protected trees. The Planning Commission asked staff why a 25 -foot building pad is required when the proposed addition does not further encroach into the setback than the existing structure. Staff confirmed that the 25 -foot buildable pad would not be required because the addition would not further encroach into the rear setback. After some discussion, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing and continued the matter, to give the property owner the opportunity to consider removing the rear pad. On September 16, 2013, the applicant requested additional time to revise and finalize the plans, resulting in this item being continued to the November 12, 2013, meeting. The property is legally described as Lot 40 of Tract No. 30091, and the Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) is 8713-005-016. The proposed addition consists of the following site plan and architectural components: Existing Site Characteristics The site is located in the Diamond Bar Country Estates (The Country) on the north side of Ridgeline Road, east of Rusty Spur Road. The property was developed in 1979 with a 2,907 square -foot two-story home and 566 square -foot garage on a 69,696 gross square -foot (1.60 acre) lot. A pad area behind the northwest side of the house is improved with a barbeque area and other private rear yard amenities. Site Plan The applicant revised the project to retain all existing 20 protected trees on site. The existing non -conforming front and rear setbacks will also be maintained since the addition does not further encroach into the front and rear setbacks. Development Review No. PL 2012-475 Page 2 of 8 — Legend 38' rear <ss it — Outline of existing footprint - Pad ® Existing rear pad Proposed addition SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 3 -LEVEL (4,983 SF) 7y� NEW W.LC, (]O Sf1 f ✓4 Architecture The proposed addition consists of the following components: 0 ® 70 square -foot addition for a walk-in closet in the basement floor (lower level); ® Conversion of an existing 232 square -foot sun deck into a family room and living room expansion on the main floor (first level); and ® 271 square -foot addition for a loft and storage area in the upper floor (second floor) The height of the proposed addition is 35', measured from the finished grade to the highest point of the roofline. The proposed addition is designed to blend into the existing house by using the same architectural elements as the existing residence. The proposed roof will be integrated into the existing roof by using the same roof pitch and materials as the existing structure. The applicant has obtained approval from The Diamond Bar Country Estates Association. Development Review No. PL 2012-475 _ _ Nage 3 or 6 . E. Site Aerial UNTINTIFR IMMOM-MIM10=1_311IN... Additions that substantially change the appearance of an existing residence require Planning Commission approval of a Development Review (DR) application. Development Review Development Review No. PL 2012-475 - Page 4 of 8 Site Rural Residential RR Single -Family Residential North Low Medium Density RLM Single -Family Residential Residential South Rural Residential JE RR Single -Family Residential East Rural Residential RR Single -Family Residential West Rural Residential RR Vacant Site Aerial UNTINTIFR IMMOM-MIM10=1_311IN... Additions that substantially change the appearance of an existing residence require Planning Commission approval of a Development Review (DR) application. Development Review Development Review No. PL 2012-475 - Page 4 of 8 approval is required to ensure compliance with the City's General Plan policies, development standards, and design guidelines, and to minimize adverse effects of the proposed project upon the surrounding properties and the City in general. This project does not require a Minor Conditional Use Permit because the addition is 1) less than 50 percent of the existing square -footage of the structures on site; and 2) the addition does not further encroach into the nonconforming front and rear setbacks. As stated in Section 22.48.010 of the Development Code, the Development Review process was established to ensure that new development and additions to existing development are consistent with the General Plan "through the promotion of high functional and aesthetic standards to complement and add to the economic, physical, and social character" of Diamond Bar. Development Standards: The following table compares the proposed project with the City's development standards for residential development in the RR zone: **The rear setback is measured from the rear of the building to the edge of the graded pad when the pad abuts a aescenaing slope. *A portion of the rear yard includes an approximately 38 -foot pad behind the building. Site and Grading Configuration: Although the applicant is proposing to add to the existing home, the addition is within the existing building footprint and does not further encroach into the non -conforming rear setback. Therefore, no grading is proposed onsite. The aerial below illustrates the severe topographical constraints of the site and the numerous trees—including protected species—that will remain by not constructing a buildable pad in the rear yard. Development Review No. PL 2012-475 ,. Page 5 of 8 Aerial Showing the Rear of the Property Architectural Features, Colors, and Materials: The existing architectural style is contemporary with a Mediterranean theme, and the proposed addition maintains consistency in design. The addition incorporates stone veneer to match the existing stone veneer on the existing house; and adds decorative wrought iron window details, balconies with decorative columns, and a spiral staircase to the building. The proposed loft area will maintain architectural integrity by matching existing building materials. This addition will consist of smooth cement stucco and stone veneer. The two different wall materials create a sense of depth and accentuate features from the first floor to the second floor. The roof of the proposed addition will be integrated with the existing roof by matching the existing gable roof. Landscaping: Landscaping is used to soften the look of the paved surfaces, enhance the architecture, and create an overall site design that blends in with neighboring homes and the natural environment of the site. In the front yard, the existing landscape will remain, which includes eucalyptus trees, hedges, and sod. Five -gallon shrubs, such as Bougainvillea, Osmanthus fragrans (Sweet Olive), and Westringia fruticosa (Coast Rosemary) are proposed in the rear yard as screening along the ( Lige of the buildable pad and as screening for the existing barbeque and seating area. All plant types will be drought tolerant and non-invasive species. Development Review No. PL 2012-475 Page 6 of 8 Landscape plans are not required during plan check because the site is already developed, is exempt from the City's Water Conservation Landscaping Ordinance. The ordinance would only apply if 5,000 square feet or more of the existing landscaped area was being altered. However, landscaping that is damaged during construction will need to be restored upon project completion. This requirement is included as a condition of approval. .: - =9.,, The proposed project complies with the goals and objectives as set forth in the adopted General Plan in terms of land use and density. The project is designed to be compatible with and enhance the character of the existing homes in the neighborhood. The project incorporates the principles of the City's Residential Design Guidelines as follows: ® The proposed building addition is visually integrated with the primary structure by using similar forms, colors, and materials; ® The proposed roof type, pitch, and materials match those of the primary structure; ® Window type and dimensions, and other architectural features, such as decorative bands, trims and columns, match those of the primary structure; and ® Large wall expanses without windows or doors are avoided. Vacant Adjacent Property to Southwest Project Site Adjacent Property to Northeast The Public Works Department and Building and Safety Division reviewed this project, and their comments are included in the attached resolution as conditions of approval. On August 16, 2013, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the project site and the notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. A notice display board was posted at the site, and a copy of the notice was posted at the City's three designated community Development Review No. PL 2012-475 Page 7 of 8 posting sites. The project was continued from the August 27, 2013, Planning Commission meeting to give the property owner the opportunity to consider removing the proposed rear pad. On November 1, 2013, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the project site and the notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. A notice display board was posted at the site, and a copy of the notice was posted at the City's three designated community posting sites. No comments have been received as of the publication date of this report. IA LU/ I707 -01I Ifil�\w9?rT�?`i This project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on that assessment, the City has determined the project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to the provisions of Article 19 Section 15301 (e) (additions to existing structures) of the CEQA Guidelines. No further environmental review is required. :7 [filla Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 1) approving Development Review No. PL 2012-475, to construct a 573 square - foot addition to an existing two-story residence based on the findings of DBMC Section 22.48, subject to conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. Prepared by: lie Tobo L) �Assista it Plait lter Attachments: Reviewed by: Gr66e,Le'&__) Senior Planner 1. Draft Resolution No. 2013 -XX and Standard Conditions of Approval 2. Minutes from the August 27, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting 3. Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations, and Landscape Plans. Development Review No. PL 2012-475 - Page 8 of 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2013 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. PL 2012-475 TO CONSTRUCT A 573 SQUARE -FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING TWO-STORY, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A 1.60 GROSS ACRE (69,696 SQUARE -FOOT) LOT LOCATED AT 23223 RIDGE LINE ROAD, DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 (APN 8713 005-016). A. RECITALS 1. The property owner, Justin Chien, and applicant, Jack Wu, filed an application for Development Review No. PL2012-475 to construct a 573 square -foot addition to an existing 4,254 square -foot single-family residence located at 23223 Ridge Line Road, City of Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, California. Hereinafter in this resolution, the subject Development Review shall collectively be referred to as the "Project." 2. The subject property is made up of one parcel totaling 69,696 square feet (1.60 gross acres). It is located in the Rural Residential (RR) zone with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential. 3. The legal description of the subject property is Lot 40 of Tract 30091. The Assessor's Parcel Number is 8713-005-016. 4. On August 16, 2013, notification of the public hearing for this project was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the Project site and public notices were posted at the City's designated community posting sites on August 16, 2013. In addition to the published and mailed notices, the project site was posted with a display board and the notice was posted at three other locations within the project vicinity. 5. On August 27, 2013, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar opened the public hearing to accept testimony from the public. The item was then continued to give the property owner the opportunity to consider removing the rear pad. 6. On November 1, 2013, notification of the public hearing for this project was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the Project site and public notices were posted at the City's designated community posting sites on November 1, 2013. 7. On November 12, 2013, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing, solicited testimony from all interested individuals, and concluded said hearing on that date. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct; and 2. The Planning Commission hereby determines the Project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the provisions of Article 19, Section 15301(e) (additions to existing structures) of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. B. FINDINGS OF FACT Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein and as prescribed under Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Sections 22.48, this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: Development Review Findings (DBMC Section 22.48.040) 1. The design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the applicable elements of the City's General Plan, City Design Guidelines, and development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for special areas (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards or planned developments): The design and layout of the proposed 573 square -foot addition to the existing single family residence is consistent with the City's General Plan, City Design Guidelines and development standards by complying with all of the setbacks and requirements of the City's development code. The proposed addition does not further encroach into the front and rear setbacks. 2 DR No. PL 2012-475 The project site is not part of any theme area, specific plan, community plan, boulevard or planned development. 2. The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards: The proposed addition will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments because the use of the project site is designed for a single-family home and the surrounding uses are also single-family homes. In addition, numerous trees—including protected species—will remain by not constructing a buildable pad in the rear yard. The proposed addition will not interfere with vehicular or pedestrian movements, such as access or other functional requirements of a single- family home because it complies with the requirements for driveway widths and is a continuation of an existing use. 3. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain and enhance the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48: Development Review Standards, the City's Design Guidelines, the City's General Plan, or any applicable specific plan: The existing architectural style of the home is modern with Mediterranean influences. The applicant is proposing to add to the existing basement and first story of an existing home and a loft and storage area on the second story while maintaining consistency with the current design. The project is designed to be compatible and complementary to the neighborhood by keeping similar architectural details of the existing home. There is no specific plan for this area. 4. 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, color, and will remain aesthetically appealing: The design of the existing single-family home is modern with Mediterranean influences. Consistent building elements have been achieved through the utilization of similar architectural features and building materials. 3 DR No. PL 2012-475 5. The proposed development will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative effect on property values or resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity: Before the issuance of any City permits, the proposed project is required to comply with all conditions within the approved resolution, and the Building and Safety Division and Public Works Departments requirements. Through the permit and inspection process, the referenced agencies will ensure that the proposed project is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. 6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set forth under Article 19 Section 15301(e) (additions to existing structures) of the CEQA guidelines. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves this Application, subject to the following conditions: 1. Development shall substantially comply with the plans and documents presented to the Planning Commission at the public hearing. 2. Standard Conditions. The applicant shall comply with the standard development conditions attached hereto. 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 the property owner, Justin Chien, 2880 Woodbridge Court, Diamond Bar, CA 91765; and applicant, Jack Wu, 10410 Lower Azusa Road, #203, EI Monte, CA 91731. 4 DR No. PL 2012-475 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. Tony Torng, Chairman I, Greg Gubman, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of November, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ATTEST: Greg Gubman, Secretary 5 DR No. PL 2012-475 _I I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS USE PERMITS, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL NEW AND REMODELED STRUCTURES PROJECT #: Development Review No. PL 2012-475 SUBJECT: To construct an 573 square -foot addition to an existing single family residence. PROPERTY Justin Chien OWNER(S): 2880 Woodbridge Court Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Jack Wu 10410 Lower Azusa Road, #203 EI Monte, CA 91731 LOCATION: 23223 Ridge Line Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION AT (909) 839-7030, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. 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. PL 2012-475 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. 6 DR No. PL 2012-475 (b) Applicant shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the City defendants. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action of proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof. 2. This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant and owner of the property involved has filed, within twenty-one (21) days of approval of this Development Review No. PL2012-475, at the City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department, an affidavit stating that the applicant/owner is 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, 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 License, and a zoning approval for those businesses located in Diamond Bar. 4. Signed copies of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -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 the plan check, revised site, grading and architectural plans incorporating all Conditions of Approval — if applicable — 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. All site, grading, landscape/irrigation, and roof plans, and elevation plans 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 property owner/applicant shall remove the public hearing notice board within three days of this project's approval. 7 DR No. PL 2012-475 C 11. The applicant shall comply Building and Safety Divisions Department. FEES/DEPOSITS with the requirements of City Planning, , Public Works Department, and the Fire 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 comes first. 2. Prior to any plan check, all deposit accounts for the processing of this project shall have no deficits. TIME LIMITS 1. The approval of Development Review No. PL2012-475 expires within two years from the date of approval if the use has not been exercised as defined pursuant to Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section (DBMC) 22.66.050 (b)(1). In accordance with DBMC Section 22.60.050 (c), the applicant may request, in writing, a one-year time extension for Planning Commission consideration. Such a request must be submitted to the Planning Division prior to the expiration date and be accompanied by the review fee in accordance with the Fee Schedule in effect at the time of submittal. D. SITE DEVELOPMENT 1. This approval is for the site plan, elevations, and exterior materials for the construction of a 573 square -foot addition at 23223 Ridge Line Road, as described in the staff report and depicted on the approved plans on file with the Planning Division, subject to the conditions listed below. 2. The construction documents submitted for plan check shall be in substantial compliance with the architectural plans approved by the Planning Commission, as modified pursuant to the conditions below. If the plan check submittal is not in substantial compliance with the approved Development Review submittal, the plans may require further staff review and re -notification of the surrounding property owners, which may delay the project and entail additional fees. L DR No. PL 2012-475 3. To ensure compliance with the provisions of the Planning Commission approval, a final inspection is required from the Planning Division when work for any phase of the project has been completed. The applicant shall inform the Planning Division and schedule an appointment for such an inspection. 4. The above conditions shall run with the land and shall be binding upon all future owners, operators, or successors thereto of the property. Non- compliance with any condition of approval or mitigation measure imposed as a condition of the approval shall constitute a violation of the City's Development Code. Violations may be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Development Code. 5. Failure to comply with any of the conditions set forth above or as subsequently amended in writing by the City, may result in failure to obtain a building final and/or a certificate of occupancy until full compliance is reached. The City's requirement for full compliance may require minor corrections and/or complete demolition of a non-compliant improvement, regardless of costs incurred where the project does not comply with design requirements and approvals that the applicant agreed to when permits were pulled to construct the project. 6. 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, on file with the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code regulations. 7. 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. 8. All roof -mounted equipment shall be screened from public view. 9. All structures, including walls, trash enclosures, canopies, etc., shall be maintained in a structurally sound, safe manner with a clean, orderly appearance. All graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours by .the property owners/occupant. 10. All landscaping, structures, architectural features and public improvements damaged during construction shall be repaired or replaced upon project completion. 9 DR No. PL 2012-475 E. SOLID WASTE 1. 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. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, (909) 839-7040, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL 1. Prior to Building Permit issuance, an Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted concurrently with the drainage plan clearly detailing erosion control measures for review and approval. These measures shall be implemented during construction. The erosion control plan shall conform to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards and incorporate the appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's) as specified in the Storm Water BMP Certification. 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 7:00 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. B. DRAINAGE 1. Detailed drainage system information of the lot 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. 10 DR No. PL 2012-475 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., 2010 if submitted prior to 2014 or 2013 if submitted on or after 2014 - California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and the California Electrical Code) requirements and all other applicable construction codes, ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of plan check submittal. 2. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all California Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been met. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 3. If submitted after January 1, 2014, the California Green Building Code shall apply and green building measure shall be implemented onto plans. 4. Every permit issued by the Building and Safety Division shall expire if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of such permit or work has discontinued and not been signed -off on the job card by the building inspector. 5. Construction activities causing the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work shall be conducted Monday — Saturday between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. 6. The project shall be protected by a construction fence to the satisfaction of the Building Official. All fencing shall be view obstructing with opaque surfaces. 7. All structures and property shall be maintained in a safe and clean manner during construction. The property shall be free of debris, trash, and weeds. 8. All equipment staging areas shall be maintained in an orderly manner and screened behind a minimum 6' high fence. 9. Solid waste management of construction material shall incorporate recycling material collection per Diamond Bar Municipal Code 8.16 of Title 8. 10. The minimum design load for wind in this area is 85 M.P.H. exposures "C" and the site is within seismic zone D or E. The applicant shall submit drawings and calculations prepared by a California State licensed Architect/Engineer with wet stamp and signature. 11. This project shall comply with the energy conservation requirements of the State of California Energy Commission. All lighting shall be high efficacy or equivalent per the current California Energy Code 119 and 150(k). 11 DR No. PL 2012-475 12. Indoor air quality shall be provided consistent with ASHRAE 62.2 as required per California Energy Code 150(o). 13. All site areas that have a drop of over 30" shall be provided with a guardrail per CBC 1013 and a handrail is required at all steps/stairs with 4 or more risers and shall meet CBC 1012. 14. Submit Public Works Department approved grading plans showing clearly all finish elevations, drainage, and retaining walls locations. 15. No retaining walls are proposed under this scope of work and other detached . structures such as the BBQ area shall be by separate permit. 16. A height and setback survey may be required at completion of framing and foundations respectively. 17. Prior to Building permit issuance, all school district fees must be paid. Please obtain a form from the Building and Safety Division to take directly to the school district. 18. All balconies shall be designed for 601b. live load. 19. Guardrails shall be designed for 20 load applied laterally at the top of the rail. 20. Indicate all easements on the site plan. 21. All retaining walls shall be submitted to the Building and Safety and Public Work Departments for review and approval. 22. Submit grading plans showing clearly all finish elevations, drainage, and retaining wall locations. No building permits shall be issued prior to submitting a pad certification. 23. The project shall be protected by a construction fence and shall comply with the NPDES & BMP requirements (sand bags, etc.) 24. Check drainage patterns with Engineering Department. Surface water shall drain away from building at a 2% minimum slope. 25. Specify location of tempered glass as required by code. 26. Specify 1/4"/ft slope for all flat surfaces/ decks with approved water proofing material. Also, provide guardrail connection detail (height, spacing, etc.). 27. Special inspections and structural observation will be required in conformance to CBC 1704 to 1709. 12 DR No. PL 2012-475 28. A soils report is required and all recommendations of the soils report shall be adhered to. 29. Slope setbacks consistent with California Building Code Figure 1805.3.1 and California Residential Code R403.1.7. Foundations shall provide a minimum distance to daylight. 30. The applicant shall contact Dig Alert and have underground utility locations marked by the utility companies prior to any excavation. Contact Dig Alert by dialing 811 or their website at www.digalert.org. 31. The location of property lines and building pad may require a survey. 32. AQMD notification is required at least 10 days prior to any demolition. 33. All workers on the job shall be covered by workman's compensation insurance under a licensed general contractor. 34. Any changes to approved plans during the course of construction shall be approved by the City prior to proceeding with any work. 35. Carbon monoxide detectors are required in halls leading to sleeping rooms per CRC R315. 36. The existing electrical service shall be justified to the capacity if a new panel upgrade is required. 37. The use of this structure shall be for single family use only and only one kitchen is allowed. The lower level and first floor bar shall not be used as a kitchen. Only one kitchen is allowed on the upper/first level. 38. The area at the lower level "vanity" in front of the exercise room (near line W.5) shall be defined as non-habitable/non-usable crawlspace. 39. An analysis of the improved area beyond the original building permit shall be provided to the Building Official. Any discrepancy with the square footage shall be legalized by providing evidence to the Community Development Department that provides a clarification of the discrepancy. The discrepancy between the original building permit, that listed as existing, and addition area shall be resolved prior to permit issuance. 40. The door between the existing garage and house shall be a self-closing one-hour rated door. END 13 DR No. PL 2012-475 Attachmept l MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 27, 2013 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Torng called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. in the City Hall Windmill Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Farago led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Frank Farago, Jimmy Lin, Jack Shah, Vice Chairman Tony Torng Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Natalie Tobon, Assistant Planner; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the August 13, 2013, Regular Meeting. C/Farago moved, C/Lin seconded, to approve the August 13, 2013, regular meeting minutes as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Lin, Shah; VC/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 5. OLD BUSINESS: _ None 6. NEW BUSINESS: 6.1 General Plan Status Report for 2013 Review - Received and filed. SP/Lee presented staff's report and recommended that the Planning Commission approve the report and forward to the City Council to receive and file. AUGUST 27, 2013 7 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Lin said he thought that the City of Industry bought the Diamond Bar Honda property and CDD/Gubman responded that staff believes the property is still owned by Denley Investment & Management Company in West Hollywood. VC/Torng asked the status of Larkstone Park. SP/Lee responded that the Tentative Tract Map has been approved and Lewis is developing the public park designs. However, Lewis recently discovered that there was a landslide on the site that will have to be remediated and they are working with staff to resolve the issue and design a future park as required as part of the Tentative Map approval. There was no one present who wished to speak on this matter. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 Conditional Use Permit No. PL2013-22 — The applicant requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit to upgrade an existing Alcoholic Beverage Control license from Type 20 (Beer and Wine) to Type 21 (General) for offsite consumption in conjunction with the sale of motor fuel at an existing ARCO/ampm service station and convenience store. The subject property is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of General Commercial (C). PROJECT ADDRESS: 3302 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Farsai and Farsai, Inc. 23276 S. Pointe Drive #100 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 APPLICANT: Ryan Farsai 23276 S. Pointe Drive #100 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 SP/Lee presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. PL2013-22, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. AUGUST 27, 2013 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Lin asked if the Lennar proposed. park was on the east side of this project and SP/Lee responded that C/Lin was correct. It is on the southeast corner of Diamond Bar' Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road. C/Lin asked if this was part of the property that used to be owned by the school and SP/Lee responded that C/Lin was again correct and the property is also known as Site D. C/Lin asked if one day a school was built at that location, what would happen. SP/Lee responded that the property is currently zoned for residential uses so a school would not be allowed to be built on that property. CDD/Gubman said that hypothetically, if a school were built on Site D, the ARCO/ampm would become a legal non -conforming use and it would be grandfathered because it was there first. VC/Torng opened the public hearing. Ryan Farsai, applicant, said his family has owned the business since 1992 and his mother purchased the property in 2003. He thanked the Commission for its continued support of the small local business owner. His family was lucky to have won the Type 21 license in an ABC lottery and get to this hearing today. BP sold the ARCO brand to Tesoro, an oil refinery out of Texas, which is now the master franchiser and is a public trading company. Unfortunately, they are no longer the low -price gas leader. Today Costco, Sam's Club, Albertsons and those types of establishments are offering gasoline at wholesale prices which are better than any other establishment within a five mile radius of their businesses. They accept credit cards and American Express and offer cash -back rewards, options that he cannot offer to his customers.. At one point his establishment was offering the customer the low price option because credit cards were not accepted. Times are changing and he must conform to Tesoro's guidelines which has 240 sites branded gas lines._ They accept credit cards and price gas just a couple of cents more, so over a span of time he has seen the volume of his station decline. In order to adapt and attract more customers to increase the business, his family has decided to include this change to improve his customer base. VC/Torng asked Mr. Farsai if he reviewed staff's report and concurred with the Conditions of Approval and Mr. Farsai responded that he did review staff's report and concurred with the Conditions of Approval. VC/Torng closed the public hearing AUGUST 27, 2013 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Lin moved, C/Farago seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. PL2013-22, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Lin, Shah, VC/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7.2 Development Review and Tree Permit No. PL2012-475 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, the applicant, Jack Wu and property owner, Justin Chien requested Development Review approval to construct a 573 square -foot addition including a new third level to an existing single family residence on a 1.6 gross acre (69,696 square foot) lot. A Tree Permit was requested to remove three Coast Live Oak trees and one Black Walnut tree to be replaced at a 3:1 ratio. The subject property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential. PROJECT ADDRESS: 23223 Ridge Line Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Justin Chien 2880 Woodbridge Court Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Jack Wu 10410 Lower Azusa Road #203 EI Monte, CA 91731 AP/Tobon presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review and Tree Permit No. PL2012-475, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval listed within the draft resolution. C/Shah asked the condition of the trees that were proposed to be removed. AP/Tobon responded that photographs of the trees were provided to the Commission in staff's report and stated that the condition of the trees is "fair." She did not know the age of the trees. C/Shah asked AUGUST 27, 2013 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION why the trees needed to be removed. He could see that they conflicted with the retaining wall but said they did not appear to conflict With the construction area. AP/Tobon responded that the trees need to be removed to create the buildable pad for the rear setback. VC/Torng said that staff's report mentions the current condition of zero feet in the rear yard so this pad is to build up the retaining walls and build up the pad in the back. AP/Tobon said that VC/Torng was correct and currently, the property is sloped with no buildable pad in the back. C/Shah said that according to his read of the plans, ail trees are outside the buildable area. AP/Tobon said that while the trees that are going to be removed are not where the addition is, it is where the retaining walls are. C/Shah asked why the retaining walls could not go around the trees. CDD/Gubman responded that Oak trees in particular are very sensitive to the grade on which they are located. Any change to the grade up against the tree will affect their physical and biological health and they would not be able to withstand the soil being raised at their base. In order for those trees to be retained, the grade that exists below their drip line would have to be preserved. Theoretically, the applicant could reconfigure the retaining Walls to preserve the grade at those trees at the drip line. It would require a special design to accommodate the Oak tree preservation. C/Shah said he was still not convinced that the grade would have to be raised where there is a retaining wall. Where the trees are located, the grade would not need to be raised. It can be maintained at varying heights. How many feet will the grade be raised? James Hu, project manager said that the difference in the slope from the first row to the last row is about 20 feet and the trees are about 30 feet or so, so in order to retain the trees at their current location and create a 10 percent buildable pad in the same location to have a 25 foot slope it would mean that the first grade would go up the trunk of the tree about 10 or 15 feet which would not work. The applicant and owner explored going further to the outside boundary of the tree and still maintain a 10 percent slope for the buildable pad in order to meet the City's code requirement for a 25 foot setback. Unless the 25 foot setback can be reduced to preserve the trees, there is no other way to do this in order to meet the City's requirement. This project has very little changes in the footprint of the building. All of the work is done within the interior partition and this is actually an update of the house which requires the project to meet the AUGUST 27, 2013 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION City's requirement. He actually inquired about a variance for this project and the answer he received was no. He would like to save the trees but he has no other choice. In order to change the surface from 40 percent to 10 percent it will require 800 cubic yards of fill and if the project were required to increase it further out, it would mean double the fill which is not very practical. He showed the photo of the area behind the house and the retaining wall which will become the buildable pad that is required to be 10 percent. The photo also shows how deep the slope is at the retaining wall in its current configuration. He has to do a stepped retaining wall and the code requires a four -foot high maximum retaining wall and that is why it is configured the way it is. C/Shah said he did not believe that there would need to be 10 or 15 feet additional dirt at the tree base of tree #14. Mr. Hu said it would definitely require 10 or 15 feet. It is difficult to get an exact view but the trees are in between the different levels of the retaining walls. He showed C/Shah where the tree and the natural slope are located and said that in order to build a retaining, wall the slope would have to be maintained and the soil would cover at least half of the tree trunk. The issue is the 10 percent slope and unfortunately, if it cannot be changed there is no other way to save the trees. C/Lin said he presumed the 3:1 replacement ratio was in line with the City's ordinance for tree replacement and that the applicant would follow the ordinance. CDD/Gubman responded that C/Lin was correct that the requirement is a 3:1 replacement with another protected variety of tree. C/Farago said it appeared to him that there was no change to the footprint of the house and AP/Tobon responded affirmatively. C/Farago said he was curious why the setback requirement if there is no addition to the footprint of the house because it seems like a great deal of expense to the owner in order to meet that setback requirement when there is no apparent infringement on the setback. CDD/Gubman responded that it is not a requirement because the structure currently does not have the minimum rear setback so to create a rear yard is really the choice of the property owner. It is not a code requirement because the property already has a non -conforming rear setback situation and the property owner is allowed to continue that non -conformity, they are just not allowed to 'Worsen" the condition. C/Farago said that his understanding was that AUGUST 27, 2013 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION when the property owner requested a Variance so that they would not have to remove the trees it was denied and C/Farago asked if that was correct. CDD/Gubman said he was not aware of that. VC/Torng opened the public hearing. James Hu, project manager responded to C/Farago that during the design process the answer he received while working with the Planning Department about adding third floor square footage was that as long as he was adding square footage he would have to meet current code which meant that the owner would need to have the 25 foot conforming setback on the rear yard. He asked over the counter if a Variance was possible and in this case, the answer he received was "no." He wished there was a way around this issue because it will cost the property owner a lot of money for this project and he has discussed this with the civil engineer to minimize the amount of fill. Perhaps there is another way to complete the project but this is the current design. He did not realize he might have another option. C/Farago said he was curious because it seemed like the City was forcing the owner to remove the trees and put in the retaining walls and wanted clarification on that issue. He thanked the speaker. C/Lin asked the width and size of the footing of the retaining wall. Mr. Hu said those were not yet designed but the maximum retaining wall height is four feet and there should be a three foot separation between the walls. He will submit the plan with the grading plan when he applies for the retaining wall permit. C/Lin asked if it was customary to not show the full design specifications on the drawings when asking the Commission to approve a project. CDD/Gubman responded that size of the footing and retaining walls are structural requirements. They are building code requirements for review at the construction document phase. VC/Torng asked why the pad was needed if the 35 foot height requirement was being met. CDD/Gubman said that no staff member present this evening is aware of any conversation that insisted that the applicant create this pad to establish a 25 foot rear setback. If there was another member of staff that told that to the applicant CDD/Gubman would have to look into that. Because this is an existing grandfathered situation, there is not a requirement to create that 25 foot rear setback when they are not proposing to encroach further into that direction. VC/Torng asked if the AUGUST 27, 2013 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION height requirement of 35 feet was being met since this is being built on the third floor of the rear side. CDD/Gubman said he did not believe there was any change to the surface grade at the base of the structure. Mr. Hu said that the pad would not change the height level at the base of the wall. It is just that the slope would be flatter and the height would not change from the previous maximum height approved. VC/Torng asked if the applicant was willing to go back and discuss the proposal with the Planning Department to avoid having to build retaining walls and conform to the 25 foot setbacks and Mr. Hu responded "of course." CDD/Gubman said that the Planning Commission could keep the public hearing open and continue the matter to September 24 to address any revisions that might be proposed. VC/Torng asked Mr. Hu if he agreed to a continuation and Mr. Hu said he would have to speak with the owner first. Obviously, they have invested a lot of time already. VC/Torng said that tonight the Commission has to make a decision to either continue the matter or base an approval or denial on the proposed project. CDD/Gubman said that another option would be for the Commission to approve the project as proposed and give the applicant the opportunity to revise the application so that the Planning Department can bring the matter back to the Commission with a new site design that did not include retaining walls and a built up pad. Mr. Hu said he liked that option better than continuing the matter. C/Shah said he was still not convinced that two, if not all four trees could be saved and in his opinion, all four can be saved. He recommended that the applicant take another look at the design of the retaining walls to look at the possibility of saving the trees. Mr. Hu asked the Commission to vote on the project as proposed and he would work with the Planning Department to save the trees. He has discussed saving the trees with the architect but has not discussed any other options with the property owner because he was not aware he had any other option but to comply with current code when he came to the meeting this evening. He was working with a planner who is no longer with the city who told him that when adding square footage, the property had to be brought to code. If he has to revise the site plan and put in another application he could do so. AUGUST 27, 2013 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Gubman suggested that if the Planning Commission is satisfied with the architectural design of the house and the addition as submitted, it could be approved with the inclusion of a condition that would allow CDD/Gubman, as the delegated authority, to approve a revision to the plan that would involve the removal of the pad provided that the other architectural elements being 'proposed for the house are not changed. This would require a decision on the Tree Permit -with the approval, but with that added condition, staff could work with them administratively to - eliminate the issue with the retaining walls and take the debate about the trees completely off of the table. VC/Torng closed the public hearing and brought the matter back to the Commission for deliberation. C/Shah reiterated that he wanted the trees saved and wanted staff to work with the applicant on this matter. If there is no alternative, so be it. CDD/Gubman said that if elevation of the pad grades is eliminated and the retaining walls are not required, the trees will no longer be in jeopardy. C/Lin said his understanding of the grandfather clause was that if the footprint was not touched it would continue to exist with the non- conformance clause. However, the applicant is actually adding two areas, one of which is 88.2 square feet and the other 70.62 square feet to the back which in essence encroaches into the back of the property which would violate the non-conformance grandfather clause. CDD/Gubman said that would not be the case because it is not the footprint that is being pushed out, the discussion has to do with where the setbacks are established by existing building footprint. 'The site plan shows an existing module at the rear of the building that is in line with what is being proposed to be pushed out so that existing building wall would be the point from which the grandfather situation exists. C/Lin moved approval of Development Review and Tree Permit No. PL2012-475. VC/Torng asked if C/Lin wanted to add the condition and C/Lin asked what condition. VC/Torng said "the condition for granting the Community Development Director, as the delegated authority, to approve a revision to the plan that would involve the removal of the pad provided that the other architectural elements being proposed for the house are not changed. AUGUST 27, 2013 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Lin said that if the applicant does not have a problem with the approval and staff does not have a problem with the application why would it be a concern to the Commission. C/Farago said that it sounded to him, based on the conversation with the project manager, that they prefer to eliminate the retaining walls and removal of the trees but were directed by City staff that it was a requirement that they put it in. So the City wants to give the applicant an opportunity to address that issue and to save costs and eliminate the need for removing those trees. C/Lin said he asked the applicant if he had a problem with that and Mr. Hu responded that he supported the last option suggested by CDD/Gubman to approve as is and because he cannot make that decision, he speaks for himself only and not the owner who is not present tonight. He would prefer that the Commission approve the matter and allow him to work with the Planning Department to modify the site plan having demonstrated staff's approval to eliminate the retaining wall and save the trees. C/Lin said he did not believe the Commission could approve partial drawings. Mr. Hu said it was not a partial drawing. He has to meet with the owner and his desire would-be to eliminate the retaining wall because it costs a.lot of money and they would have to take out trees, which was not necessary from what he now understood. SP/Lee stated that typically, applicants request to build a buildable pad for usable space in their rear yards. She recommended that the applicant check with the property owner whether they would indeed not like to build up this buildable pad. Mr. Hu said he asked the property owner and the answer was that they did not believe they actually needed the space; however, that answer was in response to what he thought the requirements were at the time. Mr. Hu said he asked the applicant and they told him they did not really believe they needed the space but that was before he thought it was a City requirement and the owner responded that if it is a requirement they would have to follow the law. C/Shah said he does not like the fact that the property owner is not present tonight and that the applicant does not have the authority to make the decision on behalf of the owner. The property owner should be present and the Commission may then authorize the Community Development Director to work with them for an outcome that can be presented to the Commission on September 24 and the Commission can approve the project at that time. He did not believe the Commission was AUGUST 27, 2013 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION in a position to approve anything at this time. .0/Shah recommended that the Commission either allow the Community Development Director to proceed or continue the matter to September 24. C/Farago asked CDD/Gubman to restate his recommendation. CDD/Gubman stated that the addition to the house is as presented on the plans before the Commission. The question being raised at this time is whether to have the tiered retaining walls to create the "back yard" or not and keep the main slope as it currently exists. In either scenario, the architecture does not change. The question before the Commissioners is whether they are comfortable or can reasonably, foresee the difference between a project with terraced retaining walls and a pad versus the project with the existing slope left as is. Architecturally, the house will not change and only topographically will the site look different. If the Commissioners can visualize that to a level of confidence where they feel they can defer the modification of the project from terraced retaining walls to leaving the slope in its natural condition, he would suggest that the Commission approve the project as submitted this evening and add a condition that states that "should the applicant elect to eliminate the terraced retaining walls that can be approved administratively." C/Shah said that more and more it looks to him like the architecture of the building is one thing and the overall landscape of the property is another part of the project which is extremely important for a residential back yard and he would rather give the architect and property owner an opportunity to re-examine that possibility so that if they want a pad and back yard they can redesign the retaining walls and save the trees. If the property owner decides he does not want retaining walls and a pad that would be his choice. C/Farago said that if the Commission entertains a motion to approve as submitted with a condition that they could resubmit the matter of the terraced retaining wall and leave it to the Community Development Director's discretion, would that be acceptable to the City and staff and CDD/Gubman responded yes. CDD/Gubman said that he was asking the Commissioners if they had the comfort level to defer that decision on that component of the project. C/Farago asked for clarification that an approval would mean an option to do either or to which CDD/Gubman responded that the Commission's option is for the owner and applicant to bring a revised plan without the retaining walls back to the full Commission to approve or to defer that authority to CDD/Gubman to approve. AUGUST 27, 2013 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Farago moved, C/Shah seconded, to approve Development Review and Tree Permit No. PL2012-475 with the addition of the Condition that the Community Development Director work with the property owner and applicant to modify the project and bring back the revised landscape plan to the Commission for the retaining walls. C/Shah reiterated his desire to .save the trees. The issue is that the property owner is not present to speak on this matter as to whether they wish to have the elevated pad or not. In lieu of hearing firsthand rather than via hearsay, it places the Commission in a bind to approve the project without the retaining walls because if the property owner decided he wanted the pad, staff would have to come back to the Commission. Alternatively, the Commission can approve the project as presented and should the owner elect to no longer have the retaining walls as part of this plan, they would not have to come back to the Commission if the Commissioners allowed CDD/Gubman to work with the applicant to modify the plan. C/Shah said that such an approval would give the property owner the authority to build the project as proposed. And that is not C/Shah's intent this evening. His intent is to have. them try to eliminate any obstacles in terms of saving the trees. If CDD/Gubman is given the authority, the Commission should approve only the building and let the Community Development Director render his best judgment. C/Farago said his motion was made because Mr. Hu's understanding with the property owner is that their intent was not to build the setback. and to not remove the trees and not have the added expense of building the retaining walls and it seems to him that if the Commission gives the applicant the opportunity to eliminate the retaining walls he would take advantage of it. He restated his motion as follows: C/Farago moved to approve Development Review and Tree Permit No. PL2012-475 as presented with the condition that should the applicant chose to do so, eliminate the retaining walls at the discretion of the Community Development Director. C/Shah again stated that once approved, the Commission loses its decision power because the project manager has said that he needs to check with the property owner. So rather than approving as is, approve only the building portion with the remaining portion subject to the AUGUST 27, 2013 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION Community Development Director working with the property owner to see if he can save the trees. As a property owner, he would love to have the pad in the back yard area and he would love to save the trees, too. C/Lin said that no one seconded the motion and VC/Torng announced that the motion died (for lack of a second). C/Lin said that the owner agreed to the 3:1. tree replacement ratio and did not feel that saving the trees was the issue. C/Lin moved to approve Development Review and Tree Permit No. PL2012-475 with two alternatives as follows: Approve the project as submitted or eliminate the pad, retaining walls and tree removal at the discretion of the Community Development Director. C/Farago seconded the motion. C/Shah said again that the motion was an either or and he felt the owner needed to make a decision. He believed the motion should give very clear division. VC/Torng said he believed the motion made it very clear that there were two alternatives, one the current project in which the trees may not be saved but C/Lin's first alternative should perhaps contain a condition that provided the owners make a best effort to save the trees to every extent possible and asked C/Lin to add the condition. C/Lin said he did not believe that kind of statement had any enforcement power. He would rather empower staff to work with the property owner to save the trees, if necessary. C/Shah reiterated his statement that the matter should be continued. VC/Torng said that the Commission would like a full report on the final outcome. CDD/Gubman said that C/Shah raises a good point. It is difficult to craft language approving two choices. Typically, an approval is subject to a condition that the project is approved in accordance with the plans submitted to the Planning Commission which is the default position. He suggested that the Commission make that the default approval and add a condition that "should the applicant elect to eliminate the retaining walls, AUGUST 27, 2013 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION that the Community Development Director has the discretion to approve the revised grading plan administratively. C/Farago said that was his original motion. What C/Lin says is essentially correct. CDD/Gubman said it is more complicated to craft an approval that contains multiple choices. C/Lin withdrew his motion and asked that C/Farago's original motion be considered. C/Farago withdrew his second of C/Lin's motion. VC/Torng said that since the motion was off of the table he wanted to make a motion because he thought the matter should really be continued to September 24. He is no longer comfortable with the issue because there is no agreement and Commissioners want to see the final plan. VC/Torng moved, C/Shah seconded, to. continue this matter to September 24, 2013. C/Farago asked how a postponement would affect the owner since he could not move forward with construction of the addition. VC/Torng said it was only one month and it was the owner's fault because he should be here this evening. C/Shah said this is a concept plan and the engineering plans are not done so time is not that critical. They are not under construction and plans are yet to be prepared. C/Lin called for the question and vote on the motion on the floor. Motion on Call for Question carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Lin, Shah, VC/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None C/Lin said that parliamentary procedure dictates that once a Commissioner calls for the question it stops discussion and a vote needs to be taken on the motion. VC/Torng said that question was voted on and now it comes back to his motion. AUGUST 27, 2013 PAGE 15 PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Gubman said there was a motion by C/Farago and a second by C/Lin. VC/Torng said that one was already withdrawn. CDD/Gubman said okay. VC/Torng said that is why his motion that was seconded by C/Shah and C/Lin came out with a new motion saying call for the question. C/Lin attempted to explain that when the discussion seems to continue on to no conclusion, a Commissioner can call for the question and if everyone agrees, there is a vote on the motion. VC/Torng said now it was time to vote on his motion which was seconded by C/Shah. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Lin, Shah, VC/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7.3 Development Review and Tree Permit No. PL2013-45 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, the applicant and property owner, Henry and Jeanne Yue requested Development Review approval to construct a new single family residence consisting of a 9,720 square foot single family residence on a 2.22 gross acre (96,703 square foot) lot. A Tree Permit was requested to remove three Coast Live Oak trees and one California Walnut tree to be replaced at a 3:1 ratio. The subject property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2208 Rusty Pump Road (APN 8713-034-019) . Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ Henry and Jeanne Yue APPLICANT: 3913 S. Hackley Avenue .West Covina, CA 91792 AP/Tobon presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review and Tree Permit No. PL2013-45, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. VC/Torng opened the public hearing. Jeanne Yue, property owner, said she was excited to present the project to the Planning Commission. AUGUST 27, 2013 PAGE 16 PLANNING COMMISSION f✓' 91 C/Lin stated that while it is not criteria for approval he would like to see something better than a box structure. Mrs. Yue said she has an architectural background. C/Lin said other than his comment, the structure looked pretty nice. C/Shah complimented Mrs. Yue on her design. VC/Torng asked Mrs. Yue if she agreed with the conditions of approval and she responded affirmatively. VC/Torng closed the public hearing. C/Lin moved, C/Shah seconded, to approve Development Review and Tree Permit No. PL2013-45, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Lin, Shah, VC/Torng None None PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Shah said he attended the Council Meeting during which Steve Nelson was awarded a plaque for his 13 plus years of service to the City. The Planning Commission lost a mentor and very good Commissioner and all of the Council Members expressed their gratitude. C/Lin asked if there was any new development on the Ralphs property and CDD/Gubman said that there would most likely be an opening day in 2014 for a major grocery retailer. VC/Torng thanked staff for their reports. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Gubman reported that the City Council will be considering the Tres Hermanos zone change at next Tuesday's meeting. The September 10 Planning Commission meeting will be canceled due to lack of quorum and the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for September 24 during which the review of the Ridgeline addition will continue. In addition, there is a small office building on North Diamond Bar Boulevard that is slated for that agenda. AUGUST 27, 2013 PAGE 17 PLANNING COMMISSION 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Vice Chairman Torng adjourned the regular meeting at 8:35 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 24th day of September, 2013. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director airman T Torng -----(1135)-------- 1 TREES 20 ME � ME N/ME I Ifi0 (11 CON(. (E) WOOD FENCE 1/ i IN Wo a wnLx SINGLE FAMILY F HCLdGnI ADDITII Il" �1 000°°° Cz O I CONVERTED FROM EXISTING SUN DECK (232 SF) �G TO BE REMOVED I LOWER LEVEL (98 SF) CONVERTED I TO NEW BALCONY #1 __ Ex. Grdund Contour --(�L�/EC(61SFF NVE TEDTO Jl� NEW SUN DECK (41827 SF) -(0911) TREES / —� .. Try~ f .amu.... TREE 7 36'S eee O r'� 2lI 1 COLtiti) _ QTREE \\i O = 1 i TREES N o ......... EE 10 CT - IE If If -(117 =r NE Z es 4 \ 1M TREE 11 RE (1180),, ago 0 (E1E 14'- VACANT LOT, _---7� \ i NO BLDG. ON LOT)- I (E) SIDE S a i — 1 R=461,10' J PERI-E1(EL (2ND) (�ADDLOFT,STORAGE_t- (271 SF), STAIRWAY) I I 11 9Q('=VEL j II 3 NEW PORCH (211 16'-iIj" CONVERTED -FROM EXISTING LANDINU\�_ 10�-D" 1 ME � ME N/ME I Ifi0 (11 CON(. (E) WOOD FENCE 1/ i IN Wo a wnLx SINGLE FAMILY F HCLdGnI ADDITII UPPER LEVEL (1ST) J NEW LIVING ROOM Cz O Conc. Block j(I] all CONVERTED FROM EXISTING SUN DECK (232 SF) (1150.25).......... Existin� Elevation SINGLE FAMILY e RESIDENTIAL Ex. Grdund Contour 3 -LEVEL Jl� 10410 LOWER AZUSA RD. /203 (41827 SF) \ --. SINGLE FAMILY F HCLdGnI ADDITII LEGEND: Cz O Conc. Block j(I] all CONC. .. (1150.25).......... Existin� Elevation PROJECT OWNER: JURN MEN LINE RD. OWAOND &R. e --{1150}-- Ex. Grdund Contour NRanch Jl� 10410 LOWER AZUSA RD. /203 Lias Top of retaining wall 75.00' .. 0oOI f .amu.... Edge of/Aspholt 36'S eee \ ILU n r'� ` 65.390 S0. 1.50 ACRES) NU LOT AREA ZONE: RR ry DCGUPANY GROUP: R-3 �.. �Exist .. Fire gydront NE SITE PLAN o ......... -. 52°70'56, CALE: 1/8"=1'.0" If If EXISTING (REMAIN) Z es 4 \ 1M 9 GRADING DRAINAGE SEE CIVIL DWGS. \ i RIDGE LIN -952°10'561- 1 O 4, / IVICINIT$`A AP N.,.S SINGLE FAMILY F HCLdGnI ADDITII LEGEND: Cz O Conc. Block j(I] all CONC. .. (1150.25).......... Existin� Elevation PROJECT OWNER: JURN MEN LINE RD. OWAOND &R. e --{1150}-- Ex. Grdund Contour NRanch Jl� 10410 LOWER AZUSA RD. /203 Lias Top of retaining wall 75.00' .. Exx. C�-Biock Wall f .amu.... Edge of/Aspholt •y ! \ ILU n g Bldg.® ` 65.390 S0. 1.50 ACRES) NU LOT AREA ZONE: RR ry DCGUPANY GROUP: R-3 �.. �Exist .. Fire gydront NE SITE PLAN o ......... Ex. Tree, Diameter CALE: 1/8"=1'.0" (E)= EXISTING (REMAIN) RIDGE LIN -952°10'561- 1 O 4, / IVICINIT$`A AP N.,.S SINGLE FAMILY F HCLdGnI ADDITII \' Cz O Conc. Block j(I] all CONC. .. UTR��TREE2 i-061 EX. ............ PROJECT OWNER: JURN MEN LINE RD. OWAOND &R. e 0{`� P PRDIECT ADDRESS: 21223 RIME CA 9066 MCHHECN SHIN RAW WG RIDGE LIN -952°10'561- 1 O 4, / IVICINIT$`A AP N.,.S SINGLE FAMILY F HCLdGnI ADDITII \' \ Conc. Block j(I] all CONC. .. PROJECT SUMMARY EX. ............ PROJECT OWNER: JURN MEN LINE RD. OWAOND &R. e 0{`� P PRDIECT ADDRESS: 21223 RIME CA 9066 MCHHECN SHIN RAW WG Sewer Mcnhole Jl� 10410 LOWER AZUSA RD. /203 CXX.XX TW ...... Top of retaining wall EL NOME, CA 91731 U TET: 626-215-8370 / COMACR JACK WV LOT AREA:69.595 50. R. (1.60 ACRES) GROSS LOT AREA \ ILU n Oe ` 65.390 S0. 1.50 ACRES) NU LOT AREA ZONE: RR ry DCGUPANY GROUP: R-3 r ME OF CONSIRUGNOR V-8 41 \ ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 8713 -ME -015 NDE WFOiNATRW: COPE a OESGY. 2010 CBF 2010 ON, 2010 RC, CK, CYC \ 1M 15 EVEL NEW �f O�` TREE is O I LOWER LEVEL NEW EXTERIOR STAIR#D ` - �TR OPERN LINE 0 E1. \ TRE 17 C p �- 28,_1„ 4� y 32'-9" (E) SIDE SEII AC11--' I a Q 49'-2'`1(E)SLOG TO BLDG �- -C11 LOWER LEVEL NEW W.I.C. (70 SF) TREE 1 1 G_ (�` ABBREVIATIONS: CBW ......... Conc. Block j(I] all CONC. .. Concrete EX. ............ Existing FF ............. GM .. ......... Finish Floor Elevation Gas MaV, SMH .......... Sewer Mcnhole WM ............ Water Meter CXX.XX TW ...... Top of retaining wall NOTE: VERIFY ALL EIEAIENr AND JWENSON a"SNE, .GT IS. ]416 N V/ .1 AN's". CA e. ThL (no ]59 AY V. WRAC]: PAMG9 ➢KK:0 "WHER MPE OYSF(AW GMN/9N0 RWiAI AM. A12111If1 e'WIE, CA 91111, RL 626 19891&CWTACI: WFNN MIM & MWN @ A91}ARSAG 20345 M T M KVAUL CNL4FA% 91769 DO 911596 -Gan 3NEETINDEX iStlOECT., LANDSCAPING. .A "91L KAR / a. DATA I O'WON, GGNRHCCCN RGcW L -R) Wim'0 VOXon, NAN 2 ENGN OMWUUVI NOTES/ WIFdOaA Ge. W% RE0. NNR Mac wu wLrc oMsm nG,Es .02 F)19,IM091E RAN '.9141EH LOX= RAY ]-.. . '.0E nxw 1rvLR(ANWRL fVJ1 L :01.wm(Aa)L rtW 9411 SIGNED VIES 'AI EW ACCF HIH SW£1G 6a!➢N06WMA(E %Au '.OSO]SOiC ROX 9W5 /RNi RAN /&OG M'Alltl15 82RJ SLCMM ]iR RMN / mWo ACM6tr 5N➢ S7000 WALL 51.0 LONER M RWl woo RAI no UP UM 1100I HUANG RAR Sl.e alo M1WR & EWSRYO R" IRAYWO PIAN 54A HIGH ROOF FRALONO RAN �9ad iVm LP.LavP.�re o-cem or 1 M' M M 1 M all! nent 3 IvnLp 'T 2 9 2013 0DRESS 1�g'�Q E2�iIAb8p, i? RIS.` IIAMOND BAR, A 91765 architect Ass AAW'^'- 09/12 (Il 0 1/17/13 RGG G-4]Sk°m' 1/17/13 Q3 Rms_an "' �6r \\S \� • W • n•s 12.00' R=493.00`\ O+ n 9 cAMc) • \ ILU n Oe 1 o \ 1M GRADING DRAINAGE SEE CIVIL DWGS. \ i LANDSCAPING&IRRIGATION SEE LANDSCAPING EMS. a — 1 R=461,10' NOTE: VERIFY ALL EIEAIENr AND JWENSON a"SNE, .GT IS. ]416 N V/ .1 AN's". CA e. ThL (no ]59 AY V. WRAC]: PAMG9 ➢KK:0 "WHER MPE OYSF(AW GMN/9N0 RWiAI AM. A12111If1 e'WIE, CA 91111, RL 626 19891&CWTACI: WFNN MIM & MWN @ A91}ARSAG 20345 M T M KVAUL CNL4FA% 91769 DO 911596 -Gan 3NEETINDEX iStlOECT., LANDSCAPING. .A "91L KAR / a. DATA I O'WON, GGNRHCCCN RGcW L -R) Wim'0 VOXon, NAN 2 ENGN OMWUUVI NOTES/ WIFdOaA Ge. W% RE0. NNR Mac wu wLrc oMsm nG,Es .02 F)19,IM091E RAN '.9141EH LOX= RAY ]-.. . '.0E nxw 1rvLR(ANWRL fVJ1 L :01.wm(Aa)L rtW 9411 SIGNED VIES 'AI EW ACCF HIH SW£1G 6a!➢N06WMA(E %Au '.OSO]SOiC ROX 9W5 /RNi RAN /&OG M'Alltl15 82RJ SLCMM ]iR RMN / mWo ACM6tr 5N➢ S7000 WALL 51.0 LONER M RWl woo RAI no UP UM 1100I HUANG RAR Sl.e alo M1WR & EWSRYO R" IRAYWO PIAN 54A HIGH ROOF FRALONO RAN �9ad iVm LP.LavP.�re o-cem or 1 M' M M 1 M all! nent 3 IvnLp 'T 2 9 2013 0DRESS 1�g'�Q E2�iIAb8p, i? RIS.` IIAMOND BAR, A 91765 architect Ass AAW'^'- 09/12 (Il 0 1/17/13 RGG G-4]Sk°m' 1/17/13 Q3 Rms_an "' �6r 3 ~ 3 17 1315 I ,,, IREX1. O+ n ,LAN CHECK SET (evislons IDS No. Description 3/08/11 [N Ass AAW'^'- 09/12 (Il NA - T 1/17/13 RGG G-4]Sk°m' 1/17/13 Q3 Rms_an "' 1/08/13141 lams 3 17 1315 I ,,, IREX1. (/29/13 © AEA �9erzo Irawing Title JEW SITE PLAN SROJECT DATA awn By: Jack Wu ale: 1/8'-=1L0'- ate: /8"=1'-0"ate: 09/18/2013 rawing No. 111.01 o1111111131 I RGE EXISTING SITE PLAN 1/8"=1'-0" —(1185 00 O I N I -I I30 z Y IN �i Descdptlon LEGEND: 0 10/19/12 Ill Caen its 01/17/13Q nme-ns 1 ABBREVIATIDNS: (1150.25). .. Existing Cont AC .. .... Asphalt Concrete — X1150} ..- ground Ex. Ground Contour Line CAN .......... Cable N Box a+ ... Ranch Fence _ CBW ........,. Conc. Block Y/ali �-! CONS...... Concrete ...... Ex. Conc. Block Wall EX............. Existing.,._.. Edge of Asphalt ............ Finish Floor Elevation GM ............ Gas Meter NOTE: Mail Be. MB Bldg. i / VEwrY Al M.EMERr AND ............. DIMERE-IXVe1aa91E. SMH .......... Sewer Manhole Fire Hydrant ............ Water WM Water Meter SITE PLAN PLAN ......._ ......._ Ex. Tree. DiomataSITE Ex. Tree. om.neter ww:ale.roa strE SCALE: 1132"=V-0SCALE: 1132" 10� Project SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ADDITION 23223 RIDGE LINE P.D. DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 Architect Descdptlon 09/06/71 0 10/19/12 Ill Caen its 01/17/13Q nme-ns 05/17/13131 pQriJ" n m z -os 07 OB 73 091713 U5 sA'w' a+ � z c M PLAN CHECK SET Revisions Date No. Descdptlon 09/06/71 A�aAnrn 10/19/12 Ill Caen its 01/17/13Q nme-ns 05/17/13131 pQriJ" n m z -os 07 OB 73 091713 U5 sA'w' Drawing Title EXISTING SITE PIAN ENLARGED EXISTING SITE PLAN Drawn By: lack wu Scale: 1/8.=1'-0" Date: 09/18/2013 Drawing No. A1.02 1 IH)F kLA2 X3nb• (EiLNSE )` yiPORi ®48' OL. MAX (2E1'OND) :p I0.X N2°X SAS 'STEEL TP Wr.R 10 Y n OUI V2'X 2-X DAV STEe. ROBEW..R UNS (N) BALCONY #2 O9 COLT. - AU MEE�Y.!?c'EO ((NNJJ OE%-0-RXSVEAIF@WC-A2'LGA ES2-n5l hU )AIEAS YIATPRF/aP_LEVELLEbLBEIti:.iAtC EXR:NO 6' w LOM1REIAL- _(fJLOI✓=R _ - y.Off _ MIST / LOK'R YIAL 5. 6TRULN.'W. "''S. M) BEAM SEE SiP:ONRA1 x/165. 5R A5`-ENH-r ON m. SKATN x6 DVBR', v'arjI 5`E STRWTA2N. O/L-S. CSECTION J aa�o) ai m SCALE: 112"=1'-0" N.1 NA 11'_G• N.3 N-$ 11'-0' ]'-9' 6'-6° ]'-9' 11'-+' Y-6' N•2 U' -6 - LEGEND IBINNO STAR J2 TO BE REMOVE, N) H=w NEIAL GI RDRNL i ui E%GM WALL TO BEG WALL AR N) ADD STAIR #D (39 SF) ,- MGM CAIPo SKS.HEAR( IM N ADD BALCONY #2 PER TING OPENING G TO BE SEALED 98 BALCONY #1 79SF(m MSES a s.(wmfNrR0 SNE) EXISTING OPENING TO BE SEATED 9$ SF NEW ADDITION WALL N S'-6. T_y Ut (E) EXISTING i0 BE REMAIN .$' NEW ® W 2'-8' 6'-G' Y-2M7'-B' (E) WBED RM(E) M -BATH RM CEa ui clD(N) DEN B-O'XS'-OW 6' -IG- s -s' a-+- (E) BED RM #3 m'-4' EE C. 3 x suGlxc n'NGD x wnxc x L(N) . I. C. (E) 5 P (N) HALLWAY M D Y-iP III (E) EXERCISE ROOM (N) ARCH ABOVE I (E) EL -4-1'(E) PORC H (E) COLUMN (N) BATH RM UP 6 9 (N) WIH, UTILITY (I (N) LAU DR (N BAR E BED RM #2 ® W £ (N) OPENif --c-, 5 N� f ( ) e� g tt (N) STO GE N) w c w (N) 3 IF A m' Nt: q VANITY x SUD c Tnxw (x)nEG EREPUCE Y-D'X4 D' m' N 2ffla` Ld 3 GRAN TO NEW (E) STEP sugxc RDOW y._T. 5a• 7 -OW 0' S' -`P la' -J- J. 15-2' E -V =4s -0• ID•_6• S.2 >a-6• 8.3 S.6 9.1 S.$ N W , E S nNEW LOWER LEVEL PLAN N NVERVE wn NT AND USCALE: 1I4°=T-0" 0 1111MON a a SITE Project SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ADDITION ADDRESS 23223 RIDGE LINE RDS DIAMOND BAR CA 91765 Architect M O � >R � m �} tp N N C O CS2: 2: N CS PLAN CHECK SET Revisions Date No. Description 0�08/it AmoAmT Drawing Title NEW LOWER LEVEL PLAN Dram By: Jack WIN Scale: AS SHOWN Date: 2013/05/22 Drawing No. A2.01 rv.o F6-6' 0 N LEGEND 3 _ v==o TO BE REMOVED IN. N. 0.) y� EXISTING WALL TO BE REMAIN i IN LOWER ROOF, BELOW 1Cp VNN M ...59FYs& EXISTRO INTERIM BFARNC WALL PER STRUCTURAL ON& (VERIFY) ®.® EXISTING OPENING TO BE SEAI£D CONVERTED FROM EXISTING ® NEW AOOITION WALL I UNDECK E EXISTING 10 BE REMAIN 3 IT] IF- (N) NEW (E) 3 -CARS GARAGE 613 SF F o (E) (N) STAIR #C WOW MR& STAIR, 14 MMS B 9.07' (,,,,y 0 " STE) 161 1 A4.01 0 N (N) BALM dl BELOW 4Y (N) W.L MANTRA W. _ (N BALfANY 02 BELOW y� i IN LOWER ROOF, BELOW 1Cp VNN M E) SUN DECK f—LIVING I FAMILY ROOM (232 SF) ®.® ®,® ®,®,©,®,®,®, CONVERTED FROM EXISTING I UNDECK IB' -4' Itl-4 4- IT] IF- N b W X X --------------- (E) KITCHEN a _ ®® is (N) FAMILY RM O�° ®® (E) LIVING RM O On - E) FLRFPIA RVEF ABOVE O� UP 14R O (E) NlplE b 1Q M ...... e6. " E) ftIOCE AB04EW D W (E) DAWN n. II9Jg8=D'-0' mn7 ;4=0 rD NANORNVV77 ri ._ e -D' 0 ANN EL -1191.4 51 ENTRY (E) BRIDGE 8'-4' -O a-4 •-2 Y-6' 6' 6-0' B' S-1- Y-0 2'-2' 2T Oe T-9' J'-11 4'-1' 8 6'-0' B' 6-6' [8-1. Y -Z 2'-r C 4'-P J. Y-7' ISA 'N'-9' 2J'-2 I6-0 1, IP -6' w N e� W E S NOTE: VERIFY Al EIEMENT AND DIMENSION on BE. Project SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ADDITION ADDRESS 23223 RIDGE LINE RD. DIAMOND BAR CA 91765 Architect 0 N y� 2� / 1Cp VNN M } U) �pOy � r ED N v PLAN CHECK SET Revisions Date No. Description Drawing Title NEW UPPER (1ST) LEVEL PLAN Drawn By: lack Wu Scale: AS SHOWN Date: 2013/05/22 Drawing No. A2.02 Eo-ZV .ON 6ulMea(3 zzlso/£TOZ :aqua NMOHS SV :OXS nMv or :Ag umel0 NV -Id 13A31 WNZ) 213dcln M3N a)Tj.L 6ulmeaO vim°- m£3/u/so uopduasa0 'ON aae0 SUOISIAMd 13S )IDAHO NVId T�eT14�aV S9LT6 vo VS ONOWtllO 'GdMn 39OR1 £ZZ£Z SSM00V NOLISOOtl 3S(l0H AIIWtld 3lONIS InfOJd An"a RonN31ll0 „0',L=„41L :3"1VOS °" IMAM 'Tyao H® NVId 13A31 aNZ H3ddnM3N 6 S 3 M N E's Z'S tlL'S L'S M0138 3008 (N) A .6 LJ ---------- ------ — ---, i N M013g 1lYM 801831X3 I I I GIS LV) 30"OlS (N) Us YZZ) _ J I 1301 (N) r------ — 30083(3) �� Mo13s "H (N) � \(N) .9-,1 .01-,I ,94 .1-,Z .1 .9 "0, M113N (N) rJ MAIN 39 Of ON1SN3 (3) INM NONIOOV M3N Molm 3008 (N) (IN3031 L— --- — 40'4tl l � I I I I I I I z J Z W CY1 c a C m E ul M` I I [N) ADD 3 (N) ADD ROOF ° R I Oa} I OF WALL BELOW ROOF NOTES: (N) ADD ROOF NEW ROOF TILE EGALE: SCC8830 ICC NO: ER -4660 NAME: ALBUQUERQUE DESCRIPTION: DARK BROWN, TERRACOTTA, MAROON CATEGORY: BLEND SME: CAPISTRANO ENCLOSED ATTIC VENTS CALCULATION ENCLOSED ATTIC AREA 126 SF REWIRED NET VENT AREA®° 126 SF X1/150=121 S1 PROVIDED NET VENT AREA: LAW VENT (16' X B`, 56 SI) AREA = 3 X 58 \121 1, PROTIDE A VAPOR RETARDER INSTALLATION WTH A TRANSMISSION RATE NOT EXCEEDING 1 PERM IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM E96 (INSTALL ON THE WARM SIDE OF THE ATTIC INSULATION) CBC 1203.2 2. RASH AND COUNTER FLASH AROUND ROOF PENETRATIONS AS REQUIRED. 3. INSTALL ROOFED MATERIALS IN ACCORDANCE VAIN ALL MANUFACTURER'S WRITTEN SPECIFICAEONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. nNEW ROOF PLAN ®N SCALE: 914"=9'-0" (N) CRICKET RIDGE -EAVE VENT 16' X B° TIP. ENCLOSED ATTIC VENTS CALCULATION: ENCLOSED ATBC AREA 232 SF REWIRED NET VENT AREA 232 SF X 1 / 150 = 223 SI PROVIDED NET VENT AREA: EAVE VENT (16' X 8', 56 SI) AREA = 5 X 58 = 280 N > 223 SI -.®°®.®.®°® .®°®.o. ®.o.®.®. �.®.®.®.®.®z o, .®.®.® ®.®.®.®.®.®.®.®.®.... N) H=42" GUARDRAIL, BELOW I-� (N) ROOF BELOW -1/a4N12—ST (E) SUN DECK Y-V(BELOW) zaw° N) ROOF N) EXTERIOR WALL BELOWo LJ L N) RIDGE �N) SLOPE 2 1/2:12 (N) SLOP yJ w HA ®o .®.e.®-----®. ®.®.®.®.®.®.®.®. o -(E) RIDGE IF 2 1/212 (11 ROPE 21 S 1 (E) CHIMNEY 9 I E) SLOPE 5:1 (E) SLOPE 4:1 I � N) RIDGE a (E) RIDGE .- W I CANFO A ROOF EXISTING E DOE BELOW REMOVE EXI RNG ROOF ELE CHANGE TO NEW ROOF HE � 1 L, E SLOPE 5;12 (E) SLOPE 4:1 ENCLOSED ATTIC VENTS CALCULATION: ENCLOSED AT11C AREA 219 SF REQUIRED NET VENT AREA 219 SF X i / 150 = 210 SI PROVIDED NET VENT AREA: EAVE VENT (W X B', 56 SI) AREA = 4 X 56 = 224 SI>210B FACE OF WALL BELOW L 26'-i N WE s NOTE VERIFY Al EuxuH AND 001404 0"SITE Project SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ADDITION ADDRESS 23223 RIDGE LINE RD. DIAMOND BAR CA 91765 Architect PLAN CHECK SET Revisions Date No. Description 05/17/13 Fil n nT,-'ns ' Drawing Title NEW ROOF PLAN Drawn By: lack Wu Scale: ASSHOWN Date: 2013/05/22 Drawing No, A2.04 NN T® R.v i�u � EXISTING ROOF PLAN LEIS I INU 51UC iKiW111) tLCVAI JON EXISTING UPPER LEVEL PLAN EXISTING FRONTZLEVATION EXISTING LOWER LEVEL PLAN Project SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ADDITION ADDRESS 23223 RIDGE LINE RD. DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 Architect M O N �p b M FMLYRR EXISTING UPPER LEVEL PLAN EXISTING FRONTZLEVATION EXISTING LOWER LEVEL PLAN Project SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ADDITION ADDRESS 23223 RIDGE LINE RD. DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 Architect PLAN CHECK SET Revisions Date No. Description Drawing Title EXISTING BLDG. ELEVATIONS EXISTING LOWER & UPPER LEVEL PLANS EXISTING ROOF PLAN Drawn By: lack Wu Scale: Date: 2011/05/28 Drawing No. A2.05 M O N �p b M O •Y F N 1C PLAN CHECK SET Revisions Date No. Description Drawing Title EXISTING BLDG. ELEVATIONS EXISTING LOWER & UPPER LEVEL PLANS EXISTING ROOF PLAN Drawn By: lack Wu Scale: Date: 2011/05/28 Drawing No. A2.05 VV ----7 S nNEW W / DEMO LOWER LEVEL PLAN ®ro SCALE:1/4'.FE NOTE: WKY Ail EL" MD umm9DN 0 a 9E. Project INGLE FAMILY HOUSI ADDRESS 23223 RIDGE LINE D DIAMOND BAR, CA 9: Architect PLAN CHECK SET Revisions Date No. Dexription Drawing Title NEW WITH DEMOLIT LOWER LEVEL PLAN Drawn By: lack Wu Scale: Date: 2013/05/22 Drawing No. A2.06 BRIDGE ' p V-4' '-] Y-6' B' 6'-0' irl,1 -0' Y -Y 3'- 11' 4'-I' 0' S-0' 6' 6'-0' B' Y - Y-0' 8' 1'-P IY-10' '-, ]' 3.4 '1B-� 9-4 I6-0' 10'-Y fO-fi nNEW W / DEMOLITION UPPER (1ST) LEVEL PLAN ®N �1SCALE. 114"=1T Project [NGLE FAMILY HOUSI ADDRESS 23223 RIDGE LINE D DIAMOND BAR, CA 9: Architect n.p 29t6' p6_0' LEGEND ¢ (N) BALMY i1 mom, 42° (H) WL WARDRAL M. Drawing Title NEW WITH DEMOLII UPPER (1ST) LEVEL F CONVERTED FROM EXISTING S c SUN DECKul TO BE REMWEO (0. N. 0.) fn ul Z � IN BALMY pE BROW EMSTNG WALL TO BE REMAIN N$DID LOWER ROOF, BROW g;6;e;>g6 EKSMO INTERIOR BEARWG WALL I /—(R) PER STRUMUL DWOS. (VERIFY) E) SUN DECK a� ERISHNG OPENING TO BE SEALED ®®e®� N ® NEW ADOIDON WALL LY-4'IV-4 �+ E E%ISNNG TO BE RETRAIN (x) NEW M Q 3 x ., x,' 0� ------®7(N); --— - — - — - — R� (E) KITCHEN 0 (N) STAIR #C Q (N) FAMILY RM (E) LIVING RM WOOU RMS 14 S 0 9.07'pP 0 JOB SIZE) Q (E) FlREPLACp a (VERIFY 4 asQ m up 14 Q (E) NICHE e),,••<•. >RIDGE (E)u.=41'-B° B A80VE DAMEL=11 (E) DA 40=p' -D' 42' (N) HAND HAL (E) 3 -CARS GARAGE � ® (E) DANU EL=1101.48 ® -p 613 SF +'-o' E ENTRY i5.4 a z B -ZERO REf. � G TAIR#A Q . z„ r IN)DINING RM STONE WIEER PANTR SEE SHEET A3.01 r 6 BRIDGE ' p V-4' '-] Y-6' B' 6'-0' irl,1 -0' Y -Y 3'- 11' 4'-I' 0' S-0' 6' 6'-0' B' Y - Y-0' 8' 1'-P IY-10' '-, ]' 3.4 '1B-� 9-4 I6-0' 10'-Y fO-fi nNEW W / DEMOLITION UPPER (1ST) LEVEL PLAN ®N �1SCALE. 114"=1T Project [NGLE FAMILY HOUSI ADDRESS 23223 RIDGE LINE D DIAMOND BAR, CA 9: Architect PLAN CHECK SET M IL w ROOF ABOVE w N 0� WE M 0 N ¢ a LIVING I FAMILY ROOM (232 SF) Drawing Title NEW WITH DEMOLII UPPER (1ST) LEVEL F CONVERTED FROM EXISTING S c SUN DECKul = fn ul Z � N$DID PLAN CHECK SET M IL w ROOF ABOVE w N 0� WE Revisions Date No. Descriptlon Drawing Title NEW WITH DEMOLII UPPER (1ST) LEVEL F Drawn By: Jack Wu S Scale: Date: 2013/05/22 Drawing No. Nm a ElfMfidi AND A2.07 Ummm 0 JOB SITE d M (N) 5 WERE A l' -o nBLDG. NEW FRONT (NORTH) ELEVATION BflIDGE BEYOND (DNMWg1) =1183.00 (E) =-W-6' 12 Q (E) 4 -W 1=4-Y=1191.25 URIE NOTE: UP ALL REMOT AND mmmZN o ma srz. Project SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ADDITION ADDRESS 23223 RIDGE LINE RD. DIAMOND BAR CA 91765 Architect 12 N i 1 'T� 1 BflIDGE BEYOND (DNMWg1) =1183.00 (E) =-W-6' 12 Q (E) 4 -W 1=4-Y=1191.25 URIE NOTE: UP ALL REMOT AND mmmZN o ma srz. Project SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ADDITION ADDRESS 23223 RIDGE LINE RD. DIAMOND BAR CA 91765 Architect N .y N PLAN CHECK SET Revisions Date No. Description 05/17/1311 ap'ais"° Drawing Title BLDG. NEW FRONT (NORTH) ELEVATION Drawn By: )ark Wu Scale: AS SHOWN Date: 2013/05/22 Drawing No. A3.01 9 Q(I SiME YBLFR H4ttV1 Ep91BSILAGURJ H.Y£TtPD6E/6FEY tlMRiNGI%R (42. MNLY15TdE fFAY.fl nu nunwnrmmaYeam.6Aee ePer9incbc wr.9Aeoauenw W �=taaAmE www,caac a.PxEr ecgba rae � b + 611 &NBd PATOD00R nU caxw+ B FX151955ReE0GHAWiE 10 h9T S1V(F/), LWAaPFAaK-TIB 1R/3k0(&lf :%) Etl511N8 WND6fY ttl Cc YN£D, F4W OF(FFAi1V2 REfW`A(CtlLR 1 PAil�N Fc CMUR W EtlSII.YS CFLUt4iNE Pbl4kEftELCY.A11IX1 p EtlSNK RCCF TLE CIW"r. i01EW FAWE R?'F IIIE(ffOGWilbv GllG BW391YtE940FSiRA`b) e I%1 BaRYawft 19 (EI6AGEE LIYR. H (e MWJIY 90i5pWPAX WAeD,44l6W W.GX VAllH FGF94RDF6R Belt b MJ Li04CdLR. HhkI VPllMK4-0q-; W5R 62F NOTE: nBLDG. NEW SIDE (WEST) ELEVATION �6nau�TM6 OwmN ma"9m USCALE: 714"=1'-0" ITTIV, Project SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ADDITION ADDRESS 23223 RIDGE LINE RD. DIAMOND BAR CA 91765 Architect M 0 N �Kp VI M df r o N m Ef=4150.00 Project SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ADDITION ADDRESS 23223 RIDGE LINE RD. DIAMOND BAR CA 91765 Architect PLAN CHECK SET Revisions Date No. Dwalption 05/17/13[D 09/17/13 Drawing Title BLDG. NEW SIDE (WEST) ELEVATION Drawn By: Jack Wu Scale: AS SHOWN Date: 2013/05/22 Drawing No. A3.02 M 0 N �Kp VI M df r o N m PLAN CHECK SET Revisions Date No. Dwalption 05/17/13[D 09/17/13 Drawing Title BLDG. NEW SIDE (WEST) ELEVATION Drawn By: Jack Wu Scale: AS SHOWN Date: 2013/05/22 Drawing No. A3.02 LEGEND I meMLaF r FFOW:r Wb FAY.fi .5me5.6 51 ,wb E6 m moo SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE LIIINb>M EYRFID.2 [iM81r fLA51FR 5nWI,LOLO.0 %.]1B 1R49K0 (BA:£ 5.V1, li6W lA N4PEG 6=0 T I1LI6ip`£yflE@.IMiG1E%151P5.lNPIXWWIWCT IEWe/G.Li'D6P¢TLDEMdC(VAL STLK£PmX.Ti 4 DUNW8LM Y9tC0'i Vh9R, vAIXKOi1'4 NFbC FB1.bA¢D PIMANH WNUW 6 Dillk(4�'A1fYc PNLW,UAO�OEflF(K4449FP6.CR BEIR 6 OLI wppf5 PAno M i O 6 sr�rco uuuz ro taR srSco,L,eLa sw+wne TxtxealeAssxo) W5mnxs 5 W5nN61NA1!(1'N To Ec 5FAl5D.IEH GYUJMTM IA.E fW5{ (NLOi { PAilE31lF�M�E a �6snla DrcoRAmSPwnve RaaAncx u zuzigs wwP n�uaKSE roR»r ewsLE scar Tae 0vaawr w, s�cB4w,5rns5 cAPrstRAw) � @7 ertRr cCGR 19 R (e 6APA5E 0.roR (JPo1�Y M1W.W iAVAA POAeD,C0.gL VPJ!I YNIEY EGL-44-].6F6W 6JR I6 IyJ ipJF(NI, ppu N9G4 VNL%K44F; NF6C BEL& SSFAWWAYk�uelamry .—.-- r12 .d� --------- 12 --12 (N) 21/2 L-- _ -� NI 2 1/2 p (E) RIDGE 11 5 �-� — — (N7 Hf1GHT OF PLATE (N) E1.=+I E-8' 12 (E) 4F--- NEY]LM10IOIFmyam1U93F) 12 E � CONVERIEDFRONE)ISUNGSUNDECK () 5 12 `� m H 2I2 12 (E)4� ®° \ (N)UPPER LEVEL (ND) (NJ F1=H0']' NEIINt OF PLAR °® ECK°®. ®v®.®. \ AtE'L1EdENi �'l 12. TO BE COVERIINSF)008twoom- -- I gNLNgCN ®.pB 9 Qq Y_0• s' -o' o f W k4� 1([)4pp E UPPER LCMASn ft -1190.00(E) UPPER 1£VEL `p}� ® ® ® ® ® E UDAMN EL=O-0'=1EE119I.48 Fm 9 E LONER LEVEL . ® (E) M R LEVEL (E) EL=-Y_e' (E) n= -9-I° I WSRNO PIANOINOiOBECWER(269i1 2 R— If_6• EL= -12'-D' =1100.00 NflY ADDELLCONY32(r93Ff S 9TAIppp99F) A2.01 i 2 �\1\ Et1-A�1f d= -2Z'-6' =1169.96 EL= -23'-6'=116&00 =1169.00 a= -2s -2,.®s®.®.®.0. m. 1166.3 9nN08TAq FETD BfipENOYE . ®. ®. ®. m. e. m. m. ®. m. coxvEmEDTDNEwaucoxvn 1e36F1 N0TE: KRR ALL ELELIENT AND W NRON 0 Jua qy. nBLDG. NEW REAR (SOUTH) ELEVATION 'SCALE: 1/4 -='P -0 - Project SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ADDITION 05/17/13[D ADDRESS 23223 RIDGE LINE RD. DIAMOND BAR CA 91765 Architect O al m � n Q � M oBl J & N = O � `2 spF f N Ln W PLAN CHECK SET Revisions Date No. Description 05/17/13[D n m M,4)5 09/17/13 pulTDVED Fpou asvv Drawing Title BLDG. NEW REAR (SOUTH) ELEVATION Drawn By: lack Wu Scale: AS SHOWN Date: 2013/05/22 Drawing No. A3.03 0 AL1 PAYE Fd'F ia.E. F.�MAY.TIea 550.8103 aT1EA LMKT,t4b. KG ES ESR 1900 AU S�roMF%MA�OR CEt£M'nlvT45RY.L0.(d.ORi%TIBlW3W PoA£k101. lFYL LAFl4e6.G 5lWC0 a M15igE VAwtMAi[N Eks111K. CP.TL7N� N%EY LEDSE /GREY QIPARTF.FFUL LOPpNAN Sitl,€ PMA.iS pO ALLW1i14H�A tOLRF OA¢C¢R4%it lFbPo M191bM0 H1R9NM YdID✓/K s / LEGEND (IU 5JWK PAnO WGR + AUCgthY e Eusnxs smco uv4�ErG �sneco�u�l+eaeA+x-na ivAe::o PoA�aro/ 9 ewsMs lmxwn io�sEum,lsv eEca¢amE nlE FdL4LLq(R. 4PAi1@NFER anva o_ i n E%IanNS RdY mEcxaysE In tsi FAK1E ROOF mERxOW:i lu: svt B4w,emra uaKMl4n) u (q @11FYp00R ie IEI b/F4Ef WJR n R1 WIG(N7 D ADYVX9 FA`FN �ARO[gLw YOT.IVP11EY dLM.1,W6W EIXR u i i i / .e.®. __.�.�:® / NEW LOEilmmoE(2ilalj B SIAIPWAY$G HOdp Cf PIAR i ® Q(N)9 EYJ9TN¢SUNOEEN TO EE CWERIIWSv®.®vcav® _ (III UPffR(£YEL (110.1) (N)EL=+IO'-]' _ (EELHDMT U PLATE (n EL=+B-1' IP Q (N) 4 CZ3_ ® Q E) UPPfR l[KL f15t) �E) E =+1'-6' EL=1198.94=+ - _ e E UPPER tEWL . — — — _ UPPER LEVEtLSt DAMN EL=O'-0'=(ELIi91. B —DAM-EL-0--0-TE—)11914B Ev178AY _ _ — — — EE)� LO'AER LEKL •®•®• ()EL_s I — — EXIS144¢L1NdNGTG9EC04ER501t68n EYlBiMGB1Ad42i0SE W.WE I . EL= CONYERIFO iO NEW 0NY811ASSN =1119. =11]8.0 =11)5.0 L=-21 6' =117 NAMRAL AWE fin=1165.09 / R=1150.09 / d / n=1155.00 EU1150.00 NL MEM ANO WOWRFEN SE dNENSIGY B JOB SITE. nBLDG. NEW SIDE (EAST) ELEVATION USCALE: 11 =V r 0 AL1 PAYE Fd'F ia.E. F.�MAY.TIea 550.8103 aT1EA LMKT,t4b. KG ES ESR 1900 AU S�roMF%MA�OR CEt£M'nlvT45RY.L0.(d.ORi%TIBlW3W PoA£k101. lFYL LAFl4e6.G 5lWC0 a M15igE VAwtMAi[N Eks111K. CP.TL7N� N%EY LEDSE /GREY QIPARTF.FFUL LOPpNAN Sitl,€ PMA.iS pO ALLW1i14H�A tOLRF OA¢C¢R4%it lFbPo M191bM0 H1R9NM YdID✓/K s AU EREOFAMc RA4da,CGdA OEfwEY EC4-0H, KG2 ETJR (IU 5JWK PAnO WGR + AUCgthY e Eusnxs smco uv4�ErG �sneco�u�l+eaeA+x-na ivAe::o PoA�aro/ 9 ewsMs lmxwn io�sEum,lsv eEca¢amE nlE FdL4LLq(R. 4PAi1@NFER anva o_ Ewsnlu ¢EwRanvElwnrE Rdccnna+ n E%IanNS RdY mEcxaysE In tsi FAK1E ROOF mERxOW:i lu: svt B4w,emra uaKMl4n) u (q @11FYp00R ie IEI b/F4Ef WJR n R1 WIG(N7 D ADYVX9 FA`FN �ARO[gLw YOT.IVP11EY dLM.1,W6W EIXR u MI IRIN, [C4DW N00N VPllEY EC449-1, 16G¢a8ft Project SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ADDITION ADDRESS 23223 RIDGE LINE RD. DIAMOND BAR CA 91765 Architect PLAN CHECK SET Revisions Date No. Description R NR -4M 09/17/13 nvovED nmu Drawing Title BLDG, NEW SIDE (EAST) ELEVATION Drawn By: lack WN Scale: AS SHOWN Date: 2013/05/22 Drawing No, 0.3.04 UN) HUNT Of PLATE (E) (N) STWE WENER (N) UPPEP LEVEL (2ND) (E) EL=+10'-7' (E) E%IERIW WALL (E) SNNEjWERM (E) UPPER LEVEL (GARAGE) (E)EL=ii'-6' — - (E) UPPER LEVET. DATUM EL=0'-D'=(E) 1191.18 - — — EL=1191.25--O'-J' _III— (N) STIN) AU (E)LOWER LEVEL (EI (HE ROOM) (E)EL=-2-8 — EL 11B (n LEM LEVLL (E) EL= 9 1— WA-- Wb-- 8.1 5.2 $A N KEY PLAN (NEW LOWER LEVEL) ® NOTE: VEBOY ALL ELEMENT AND DIMENvau 0 M mM nBLDG. SECTION SCALE: 1/4"=1'4" 0 8 EA EamNG ;7�5 I2 Q (E) 4 Eamo 1 MKING 4 drAIR h {N)gTGHEN mmo IN) (N1 W.I.C. (N) NOWT ENSTNC WSTNG NANIUL LINE (E) rOUNDARON IOUL (N) M OR JOFELT RWTDF O1/2'PLYWOOD SHEATHING ErSg HNEAsTmHIlNx O ON NOM R MS15/RiRS (BE SIRUCTNRAn lal OIVGJ SNGCO I *VE EMSRUG ROOF RLE NCE 10 NEW ROq RLE WSNNG 12 —I N STUDS (16' O.C. TYPE T 5/8' GYP. BO BOTH BEES (E)M•BATH RM BISTRO EASNIC ROOF TLE TO NEW RODE THE fE1 HEIGHT OF PLATE (E) EL=+8'j' _ -(N) MVUN -(N) METAL MMORa (E) UPPER LEVEL DATUM EL=D-0'=(E) 1191.48 r(N) COLUMN - (E) TONERLEVEL (E) EL=4-1' 'it mum E�-x6RoD \ EP-ML5n.nn Project SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ADDITION ADDRESS 23223 RIDGE LINE RD. DIAMOND BAR CA 91765 Architect PLAN CHECK SET Revisions Date No. Descriptlon 05/17/13m =2-4-75- 09/17/13 uilaiu°Fvw ocvx Drawing Title BLDG, SECTION Drawn By: lack Wu Scale: AS SHOWN Date: 2013/05/22 Drawing No. A4.01 I _cost" A a -- --- ------ —-------� \``-�I1 i D i ---kl A• L----------- �- • C ❑ ❑ SINGLE FAMILY �) RESIDENTIAL I ,r C . • (� \ —�� sod __ —__ L -62W' 62'10'66"W • \ a-103.00' ��-- O sod D 0, S0-1 ❑ sod i 862.1056-W O s Lv6I.06' — RA5�00' r — �' 1 Conc.Driveway wil paver band to refrlian PLANTING LEGEND TREE SYM. OTY BOTANICAL NAME SIZE COMMON NAME Remark Eucalyptus citriodora .A Lemon Eucalyptus Remain Eucalyptus polyanthemos .B Silver Dollar gum Remain Pinus halepenus ° Aliepo Pine Remain Quercus ogrifolio ° Coast Live Oak Remain Jugians nigra a Black Walnut Remain ® Existing Planting Hedge Remain Q 11 Bougainvillea 'Rosenka 5Gal Bougainvillea * 9 Westringgia f.'Morning Light' 5Gal Coast Kosmary 4 Osmonthus frogrons 5Gal Sweet Olive EEEL) Festuco orundinacea Tall Fescue Medallion sod Existing hedge to remain on the site typ. Existing water fountain to remain Existing stone paver on the entry way to remain Existing Standard Country fence to remian TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA :311 SF. e JK Design & Associates,inc. address; 20945 Delphine Drive walnut, califonda 91789 tel: 908598-2877 fex: 1.886-880-9412 email: jkd82oD2@gmalLCom project name CUSTOM HOUSE 23223 Ridge Line Rd Diamond Bar California, 91765 propertyawnar drawing content Conceptual Landscape Plan revisions date Remove Retelning Well. 9127/13 dewing: JK specked; date: 09/30/2013 job no: 11012 scale: V=10'-0' nom arrow L -pd sheet left DIf1JI��JlP 1. ARpaNngahali comply Wlhaepwvlsionsoe03 ma Appendix mrNae rromineuuaing Cale (2 W I) and ell ementlmen6 adapted by IM1e eCiV. Ciry. 2. All hilAdegmdingwlN slopz inuussof l0%abill comphreiihim Hillside MwvgemeNOrdinanw sulA lrypieillyroterseed2:1. 3. Na grWingshall mmmmseundingndingpermilhu heenisseel6y Ne CltyofDiemondHaz. 4. All OIIalvpes shollhwmpxlW lentil ma Nen" ImmantofNemadarmadma,, I. guOeaddiasls ofsoilpwpedes, imadimwil Bpcandshartlrtnphs shall m grade Jedng®ada, oprnllonslovuifymmplimmwilhduignulldia Themsulleofmch leslingshall6ercponA In Nc alazgndea reporgprepmW by Ne AppllranlatMsexpense),orvwnrmectlafNe Cify, A OOmnombemrneoderbbytealartteat011ows: e. debt for emh lwo4rol vemwl uff'. llh b. Oneleslfortazh lWO�ubim)vdso(ma'edilplamW. u Am111aiminumbcaff ishtlapelesls bvedfymmpadiano(Ihe dopesurfese. 6. Nafll shallbepl.N mal sWppwg ofvegdatian, removalofnnwilablewils, anJinMllNmar meanies(i(needtd)isauepbl6)'Nesvilsengineuo myjneedng gmlogut. ]. No fill shall W plamet until the pLeemam ofnoslde model measure for 0o pmjM isnmmed bythe Cry g. 'IMwderdgned Civil Pngineer Fesebyslelea Nal Newplers wereprepaMbyhlm aliment M1is and fill. dvWfhevhoplenstre, mmbnllperdamlpmvniomo2007).n180J, Fimvalivq GreJNg and fill and Appendix h Grading main Cillfomla 9eliding Cale (2 W ]). Registered Englnm, RC.E Date •). ApprovMpmtuliwmeammsMmuldrerydrdmg.....kions abohlospmvld inufamectrefi ng rnoperim fiomdepotl0on ofmdmdeloMivend 0owebaM audng udsflcdlpbases ofmnsl:udidn. 10. All olRlle impwmmmrs fiell M completed w Ne sansfadion sur Ne Cily Engiva. Il. RouJ:GMing ccnlnmiemunmalgad bySolls and Civil enpjnensofrxoNvMappmvM byfbe Olyhrpanlorpdortoissuameo(Dulldingpermbs. 12. All mu shall mobservW by the mgtnwimg Confirm ordeom dudmprytling an that my assame wnddieas len bereeogtiud end demand, 13. AnYmadincalionz of yr dwngesln. Ne appmvea SmdinSPlvunmsl beapPmvW bYNe City. 14. All gmaNAsia mal base dminage-I.. bums,and afbvdminego deme. s o-rd.Uhe romb blvdingsmga 15,Nomekmsimilumabdel Wa thm:8"in JimneWrwinbepla inihenHuntms mmudmimz Ircmch placcmmtmvebeen aubmilld bYihemihmSinarmdappmvW in MvaeebYfhe CltY. 16. Gredimopeatimsmromad. aMuntla Nomnllnuoue obsmaion dlW cods engineereddonhe nlSivmr Swlogin of rtorb 17.Exmvnlomfor arability Kaye aMIDma mu:uuiivbic sells monmobserod W aorepted'mwdling bytheceilandommreemasaisrg gmloHslolrcmrdpdarfolheplaungorfill, S. The wlD engneer m W orxnginee:ing gmlogbl of ramrl mon drcumeof stl sseapl rough gratling by finile,mFularloapryovdby lm Cily. Tbo! ilrcpod must Ndudcmu-yaded gwlmmiml pep. 19. Tho soi6 engin. u W or mgineedng Swloy'sl of:aom must make o ending in ouoAeme wiN Saeliun 111 o(Il:e mz Angeles County&iildingf:edeforbegMNnilepriar-vpPmval6YMe CiiY. 20. Pvundaiion mdlmwall ezwva0on<mnnbeo65ervN aM a¢splW luwrlingby lm mi0 enginurur oginudns geol0glsf otraoApriorioplatlnsamelmwncmla 21.AMesta Ovil Englnm641submltu GTading CelNaleloN craw gineernon,.th.10 xMse to Me uponwmplelsappToal radii Engineer,Culdem, inOmpamyfiMmisrvU subjeglopm City Engioeelr approval ofaaW Pnginecr'a CuflflWa}inal pending must bo approved bylM1OCity M1eronwemanoyof6uiMings wlllbealbzeei. 21.Tbe Smiand GwbgyPs enTramredby ..a Lm EndneeAna Me a.d MIWnI 12, 2012aM dl mf<rtmtmacmlDwW r lb lav zhJlhwme epvlorlFlagodNgplen and dl rxamm.ddlomcontvinN NmercNslWldWlmzNcllyatlhe:edle. Glberaeviewei rryarle am tie fellowz: 23.Acap, oflhe pWlonminit and vppmvM gndingplvu must be in Ne possamiw ofd rtapamtble pawnaMuvailableaalheslmalilidmea N. Final grMwg must be appward bel vuupancy otmildings will he allowed- 25. llowed25. Tree 1- be. been ehukad by Mn qty ofl iamond Bar only for wnrormonm wild 01 SWderd, wmpliams,aph dorelmort wMillov and for 90=1 msommul mpovd of Me dminage and palkwg lmpwveeares shown home. No dtldled mallessaunl shank was made for Me amatory if (mams, or proposed JormionS mK orgmdre shown including all.aiding mtlilies shuwa one A-. 26. Connector shall ine fy IM1e CAD aflinear's oRw at") 83¢7040 fonyelght(48) hours In WI or heard. to begin gaps, 2]. Connector shall comply wild Me Celifomie StamWas" Best Management 4Mci res HaMbmks and IM1e proan's Standard UI glom Water Miligatim Plan MUSMPj toluiremen6 as necessmy. 2g. Dared all mflop mmfrlo pervwm mem 2A Seeder, me of fill shall be made tludog]be leading to verify deal the sells pomiiar wmply wild be design and lrtmm" or dAemiuea by ice bridesmaidsGwloglWGwecmSalEd&- halMingmile C,,shearmonth funds a and w:msreeding not melghb. 30.A -value lab slid] mwnduGW for 01 shli,sual bvkrrWwsytmpmvemo0lu idemifyfie Mnimampavemenl slmcNtd sxlensesnmensnls for ad MI, I- amarvaise sm minimal by 0w Ciry. 31, Type V eemem shall .real lora11 anasan vorkwminginwnla[twiWNogmund,anlessa0¢rnde fndimtad by they jed's sail engineer, Pim P - Bp, 3k Nun, J..... dem M, Just. Older Paga6110 Ma Juue Won AM. 1.110 Wilampri Nd:12-01HOONEG _ ANI 17 2012 QCIPjeal No.:12Af00o2EG _ August 11, 2012 6.40mundwelar GrouMwala' Was fid encoavllered dunnp WrfieM explwalbn. to ouro Mom 9rWndwakriei0 net be a problem dumq densraGlm. ..5 aebmlc(d.mIII Haaarel Sam. on our rendre of me'BGsmin Haaard Eanas, Yarm LIMA Oundmnple by CAlmon DepaNnenl N Condonable, Met .of MlmseM Deals,, AI mndudM Met Mere I, parts. of Ne III Is Iorme.1 Within Ne Polentlel mord. lMomd We are.. If re our aNdlen that areae qme to mlaMmtly Ndumd landslides art slopes WA relaWely sleep TatlleMe sued mveretl w'M Weakly IMmeled bWmcd, We. mile, or Obtain Icon Me prev-ug Ades, Based Iompaid Installation. Me site In und.dFT. by m1aWed, We Isms ciumakal are and bedwek of Fe.m. Fmmaton. Prryaeed Frei sift areas. competent instead, Nen badfi0 Wth mnpaekd Mto Ne Mood. .it., no pwpoaM ending ems nat AMM in. ran,. of commie ns Milch is mswpYde to Islamic slope Ins All 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Based an An eubsurrem modifies azgsed dudrp flee Investigation eM IeMalay testing program, n Is remrvneaded Dal Me fdloxMg rucanmerdamed be Irraryamled In Me dmdn am mea W den home ofNe poled. 7.1 Gradlnp lard, le IPPA, out, opwflma, any send, vegelaery dab b, oastdeed matelots (eredv Nan 6 enter), eM other deleterious materials bible fill awes .tache be named from sue die, 7.1.25urh3Y Rod Remnaab In .rem to reunion Til, u.utlabl. sort and onaNere t NO abmN M .moved to eAM. mmpolum unit The depth W removes may vary MN "be. Him-,, rased on our suhsWam ImmNated, normal of4 feet of Me slide, IN mass Me wwb:tcuon area in W a mNlmum depth 3 tea mime Me find pad grade, Immoral In deeper, shaNd m anfldpabsd. 516 E. Wmmnd Road, Brea, Cd earls 42821; TO 714{T1-1030: For: Tib6T1-0090 MOJu511n Chen Pape 6 d to pCi Prd¢GN0.:12016 W2EG ___ Ayatil 2012 Fan man l remwal dmM. should be ddemmM NMe peal an wnpeta ere eWe" and Me Coal dea'yn of Was mildiN. Neual Intended anNa tester may be used he define remwal mpdremmm. Z13mumsem "In Final m ebpas insider Man 5 b i Um* u[ W ver6a9 shWld be keyed am benehM Int mmpamnl malarlale. NI fill keys, rermvala and halm.. Amid be obmrved aM inched by Me pwjad geoledmkel mneumm. TWA. moonlit details are oGMed to Me Memel Waled. 71ATreamen o(Peaovdao SaId exposed MWn meas appwmd far fill Il.emmf ehouW m medial b a depth of 6 Imm, mMide e l ID near m6mum mdsWre mnfan4 Men comWGW int la. to pndem, ataMerds. 7.1.5 aWtlural Ball The mall. We mm he used as canmded fid pwWied they ere tree M mOene milted and tlabde Feb spud Me Wamd In redWely We Ila, btapht tom ..r Opemum I.Is.a content, Men mmmdad to oblaN al Inner Me penal Native mmDadon rased. labwaNry Slantlard ASTM0.16.-0g. 7.2 Foundation De619n 7.2.15hassm FnuMmlw Creditors and spread Anscis0on may be usetl M Me pwposM s ndifte s, Ad afraid, mad, mare d 25W penaft per w.m 1m1 may comae for shelf. release feelings 12 Moh. Male aM 24 .dem tlmp. Thla vase may be Ioaeased by me-thed when muWait, dead .mum Ieminorsued loads. 71.2 Fammalbn Sella e AS raNdInml fWMetlm MIAMI m antrum from Me ..rand Slope laor per mount Chile bWIJy mode go. W3 hal rut to nzmt 40 m(¢enlal feel). Atldtl.ally, all Anomalous ahWO .M.b amnlmm l.7zanMl diem. of 7 fed Whoa. be mope of Ma f -M, and Me dem farm. le pmsNe Former m endear Iw Ne pmNm of Ne mind, Whine m21nb em Men? hah.ml Net bummed Ore sign of Me Iwllg am ant Me, lam. 676 E. Lambert Road, Been, Emission Fall; Tat 714,511-105IR Fax: 714871-1NO Cnosln Mo. 12/14/12 Dab Apple Engineering Grou S.MN Mt Eoglp.ring Deep k Sort 8040 ARLISMA A9 SNR 111 SHEET I OF 3 72.2 ArWili de Serykment 01 Ne f ur bra placed as reammeMetl dual aubfeeled b on mean Nan namable Inds and Is not missend to ez«ed WK tad:. Cmereneal mulameG between adlaaenl wlumm Is not anndpdea to small IIF lash. T.21 Lamil Pressured The acYva eaM prosame to be Whose d la manpower NIAW9 wall Jordan may and wm,led I. aro ogAWeNnI Pule hawed a density of 40 pdWm peaWW failures. Me dodo of be barkN behbM Ne one In lewd. Where On elope of the badM Is 2 to 1, an e,themenl Pule demure of 50 pound. per able foot may be .ed. PamM earth pemum may be nominalist an . eWNel.l Pull pravWe of 410 pounds pee rube past tea Me pared of Ne mDson embedded In Be competent bedrock. An allowable ..Mount d frlYlm mrande aW and .1. of 0.. may Im uam AM Ne dead tmtl Aide, What wmbNMg saeard INa.. eM Irlakaul at.. Me pa.N. prassum mmpanenl should be seduced by me.Mha, It 1. ....Mail Mal a mWmum hen .IW dome N sewn feel be malnldwd between OF fa. of Ne elope In .11 Detre. No D ants. pseume Is aMrcW for Ne porion of M. fooWgs, Whkb malnleln had. Joan hMeeral (eel Instrument Ne (am of Me sides and Me edge of to, fedM1.. 7.3 Foundation Conshmallen AS 00-Imi ahWM be founded In., -it sols am (model at least 24 IMF. balms Me twresl aafamN gmuM suds. and founded on merst bsdrmk. W mnWuoud(no0npd a1wuW him a minhnum 0 me No. 4 relnfo'Wy blue pound al Me lop coif boryom of Ne (ming 7.4 Concrete slab. NI comms gabs Amid W at met fare imhm In marine.. Coment dam M roamer. M-M%dr amac should be uedtaN MM had i A. of wmhod amid or And rock In millions, a vada famed durable of a Mnimum of run mA pal)Mnyl aMMde paramount MM aY Man anile l &MAI atm be pMdad. A nalmomm of an. Not, aimed should be plered ova. Me 576E Lembert Rmq Sma, Califanls 92521: Tel: 714$71-1050; Fame714 &MIND Ma J.1m Calm Pigs a of lO OCIPjeG No_12-01641NEG August lT. N12 membrane b aid m .9. WMg of wnarem. Cowes slabs gmoN the rdnfmwd MN in mNmwn No. 3 corer at 1&Inehea in dens, bon Way or Is wuWalmL As Slab mlNwmmant Amid be sup W ded 10 encore proper p.MOme, dwlq plecemant d mnaels. 7,5 Reminln9 Wall Bwk811 The waH b.,M eM any Awar aWdurve aFMd be consmand. M gal MMMM Amid be mmmdM- obtain a mlNmum ml.g. dors'. of Warmed of Ne ASTM 0.1557.09. he .oared ander ism, Is eAmxed far the mala min Adequate dradi eya-m Should be pmdised behind Me -III In Wevanl Me WIW.up Many hyHl.tFm pmsum. Observation am -d,g a1 or eempadm amine m Poro m al untler No alredlon d Me pjml geolandical .9lneer, 0.0 CORROSION POTENTIAL ClmnAml labra-ry Mee deme manduded on Meetlg9.-He namedlem matndel. sainemled dupla OCI'a NW N.sOmlkn to god In malua0m made mrt.bn potnuel.d Me Work,. mna¢fe by aNlals smile. Tha msWg resdm are prezone In AppamPZ B. Around, t OBC WAC1318, Table 4.11, a'nmHglbte a..0 ewaumle.nbasameled (a wrcrele pact he ad wiled Her anal'. abs, Tmrefam Type II moment m Ila equivalent may be used for we dyed. Based on Me redsualrydalmsNb, it Is estimmea that Me eumudam am, are mad..- In .rely mnoalvetam. mater Woe. nlc rewmmendeand amAndergmmw d.druheg m M.le IpI gUt At be emaWg. ahaMMdibnelprolecEva meamresm wanenhtl, e mnml. avatlaNsl awuW be mnsmlt. 9.0 SEISMIC DESIGN Based . and Made$ an eesmltlty, Mere me m Mom eGWe Wide a does, Me propery. Hamed, Me eared ane m baled le sommon CauloMa, Mee Is a ismard gy ad a area Daniel on 2010 CWwNa Bugdmp CM. Eiroplw 16) Was bAmstrg aGSMa relaid vdus, bey be est: 676E.Iembart Roetl,Br., CaAlaNa 92011; Td:11b671dp50; Faz:Tld.WblwO EARTH WORK: CUT: 0 CYI FILL: 0 CYI DI RT MLL IOL f64 1-600-227-2600 2 Working Days Before You Dig GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER'S STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE THIS PIAN HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND DEEMED TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN WR REPORT(S) DATED , PROJECT NO. _ REVIEW WAS LIMITED TO THE GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE PLAN ONLY -WE MAKE NO REPRESENTATION AS TO THE ACCURACY OF DIMENSIONS, MEASURMENTS, CALCUTATONS, OR ANT FRICTION OF THE DESIGN. RENEW SY: RGE N0, DATE VICINITY MAP NO SCALE CITY OF DIAMOND BPR TRACT 0 30091 LOT 40 ORNBR: Chien Justin/Chlan9 Selena S 23223 Ridge Line Rd., TITLE DATE Diomand Be,, CA 91765 VERED BY, SITE ADDRBS3: GRADING PLAN 23223 Ridge Lina Rd., Oddernd Be , CA 91765 In the City of Dlamand Bar ¢ DATE PROM BY: DRN M. CHKD BY: SCALE DRAWING NUMBER MIKE MIKE 1'=10' DAIS: REVISED: JOB NO: P12076 `(06LL —" \ _CO _ 01_3 a gc VIL X1160) _ S•i ljl 1 ,:. z ]000) F 0.62 FF Bi FLOOR rE SN � til •;^.. ;•..,1 �d •,r•; (061. � '• :.,�: ,F l A=4g0' Ol eA 4 ttt//// , l . .. T 4-82.0x5— �' •s'�' '% .`•.; ,,'<�.(JJJ' a', i�•)� �:�5�. RIjT�'+��� _CAN' a ..•. •1 �xn.A • , J' • 1' j+ �, • •,I,... ^.I / \f�\��.� \\\�-\\ '�\\t�—\� \\\\ ��\\ I�\�� �•�\\tom ., ...4.11.'•' I : e •Rr\\< _ � \\\ , i GE L_INF iS 601066 W I O i Wm Prepared Be Bete apple Apple Engineering Grob wF•nFY 9ubNNelo4 B➢(Ipeeplp( Be.lya a 9uR Bal 0EUrra AMINO& BUBB til 6L YON18, CA 11081 iu (am)aae-vme_�aetl-Y rm.gem SHEET 2 OF 3 ABBREVIATIONS: AC ....... Asphmt Concrete pavement CB...... Cakh Gas'n Caw .......... Connote Block Wali C&G ...... Curb and Gutter CLF ....... Chain Unked Fence CONC. ... Concrete D/A.::::::::::: OEdv6woy Appron EPson Pole EX .... .. E%Isting FF ........ Finish Floor Elevation FG ........ Finish Grade Elevation R. ........... Flow Una Elevet'on FS ........... Flnish Surface El,,.U.n FH ......... Fre Hydrant Ge ........ Grade Break Elevat'on GAt ....... Gas Mater HP ....."' High Point Elevation HL ............. Hovee Latero) INV. ....., invert Elevation LA Londsaap n9 Areo '........ OH ............. arang PFO ......... Pipe now Line Pipe PROP ........... Pmpoeetl R/W .......... RaM of Wav TC ............. Top Yof Curb Eievaton TF .............. Tap of Footing Elevation TO ........ Top of Grate Elevation TW ........ Top of Wall Elevation uc .............Under Ground VCP ..........Ylrifed Cloy Pipe WF ............. Wooden Fence WM ......... Water Meta, Hv .._........ Ret. Wall Mewed Height TRW ........... Top of Retaining Wall Elevation LEGEND; 1(10 36 ..... Call, Elevation uNting Elavatlan — (99}-e—Ex. Ground Contour Una --BB---.... Sewer Line --R—...... Ridge Una . Pmp. Flow Line for Swale w/\�. ..... Prop, Sheet Flow Ex. Flow --X--X--...... Chain Link Fence ... Ex. Structure A. Ex. Strvctu,e TBR ... Fire Hydrant .- .......... Street Ught .......... Gaywire E .. .. 0 Tree, Diameter/Ddpilne .... Ex. Tme, Diameter TBR Pan ire. ®POC...... Paint of Conneotian ..... ... Prop BUY ............. EX BLW ......... EX WOODEN FENCE ........ PROPOSED BUILDING AREA : SLGLLJ _-- ......... PROPOSED RETNNINBG WALL CONSTRUCTION NOTES; (D CONST, NEW PORCH, PER ARCHITECTURAL PIkN; O CONST, NEW BALCONY, PER ARCHITECTURAL PIAN; GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER'S STATEMENT OF COMPLUNCE THIS PUNN HAS BEEN RENEWED BY AND DEEMED TO BE IN CONFORMANCE YIIRf THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN OUR REPORT(S) DATEO_ PROJECT N0. RENEW WAS UMITED TO THE GEOTECHNICAO ASPECTS OF THE PLAN ONLY -WE MAKE NO REPRESENTATION AS TO THE ACCURACY OF DIMENSIONS, MEASURMENTS, CALCULATIONS, OR ANi PROTION OF THE DESIGN. REVIEW BY: RGE NO. DATE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Chien JuaVa/Chlang Selena S 23223 Ridge Una Rd., GRADING PLAN 23223 Ridge Una Rd.. Diamond Be, CA 91763 In the City of Dlomand Be, DRN SY' CHKD BY: SCALE DRAWING NUMBER MIKE MIKE 1°=10' DATE: REVISED: 409 NO: P12076 � I I SECTION A -A r f I , 'SECTION C 'C Fled PreperM Bp Guoxin Miao 12/14 Bet. Apple Engineeering Grit BaBNrWaq %a616aerbd Deelie k 81 6010 '1'AI81iN AV69U6, BUItE Ill 4. YONTd. CI 61P61 TN em ee6-vale DBw tw6.m.0 i 1 � GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN Mike DRAW 2/14/12 Section A -F Rens SHEET 3 OF 3 JOB _ I VE �IXISi—BID0. � �— I Ii ---------- SECTION SECTION E -E - 1 TPOPFAtt O E 1 1.. .. IDN j. _-i _..1 1 .. I 1 I PROPEfltt T4 I I 1 I I _ 1 I I � I ' II L I I I T I SECTION F- GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER'S STATEMENT Chien J..Ur/Chiang Selena S •°CRY OF COMPLIANCE OF DIAMOND BAR THIS PIAN WAS BEEN RCAEWED W- AND DEEMED TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH NAME TILE DATE THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN OUR REPORT(S) Diamond Be, CA 61765 PLAN REVIEWED BY: DATED , PROJECT NO.___ DRN BY. CHKO BY: SCALE DRAWING NUMBER RENEW WAS UNITED TO THE CEOTECHNICAL MIKE 1'=10' DATE: ASPECTS OF THE PIAN ONLY -WE MARE NO REPRESENTATION AS TO THE ACCURACY OF DIMENSIONS, MFASURMENTS, CALCULATIONS, OR ANY PROTION OF ME DESIGN. NAME N DATE PIAN APPROV60 HY: REVIEW V. RGE NO. DATE NaAIE Y neri "`°M1• Chien J..Ur/Chiang Selena S 23223 Ridge tine Rd., Diamond Bar, CA 91765 TO ADDRESS: GRADING PLAN 23223 Ridge Une Rd., Diamond Be, CA 61765 N the City of Diamond Bar DRN BY. CHKO BY: SCALE DRAWING NUMBER MIKE MIKE 1'=10' DATE: REVISED: JOB NO: P12076 AGENDA REPORT CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - 21810 COPLEY DRIVE -DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 -TEL. (909) 839-7030 -FAX (909) 861-3117 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 8.1 MEETING DATE: November 12, 2013 CASE/FILE NUMBER: Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2013-147 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential (RL) ZONING DISTRICT: Low Medium Density Residential (RLM) PROJECT LOCATION: 21955 Birds Eye Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (APN 8293-042-019) PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Dr. Umesh Shah 21955 Birds Eye Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting approval of a Development Review application to construct a 2,828 gross square -foot addition to an existing two-story home consisting of an 85 square -foot addition to the front of the house; 1,970 square -foot first and second - story addition towards the rear of the home; and a patio cover and uncovered balcony totaling 773 square feet. A Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) is requested to continue a nonconforming distance of 13'-6" to the structure on the adjacent lot to the west (a building separation of 15 feet is required). The existing residence consists of 2,690 square feet of living area and a 652 square -foot three -car garage on a 0.47 gross acre (20,607 square -foot) lot. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment 1) approving Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2013-147, based on the findings of Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Sections 22.48 and 22.56, subject to conditions. The application was originally scheduled on the October 22, 2013, Planning Commission agenda. As a result of an error by staff, the public hearing notice published for this matter was defective. On November 1, 2013, a revised public hearing notice was published in the newspapers and mailed to property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius. The property is legally described as Lot 96 of Tract No. 31153, and the Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) is 8293-042-019. Project Description The proposed addition consists of the following site plan and architectural components Site Plan The project site is located on the north side of Birds Eye Drive, west of Cedardale Drive. The property was developed in 1983 with a 2,690 square -foot two-story home and 652 square -foot garage on a 20,607gross square -foot (0.47 acre) lot. There are no protected trees on site, and there are no site improvements proposed on the property. Single family residential homes in the RLM zone are required to have a separation of 15 feet from structures on adjacent parcels. The existing building is nonconforming due to the 13'-6" distance to the structure on the adjacent lot to the west. Architecture The applicant is proposing to construct a 2,828 gross square -foot addition to an existing 2,690 square -foot home consisting of the following: • 85 square -foot addition at the front of the house which includes a front porch; • 940 square -foot first floor addition to the rear of the home for a new family room, bedroom, closet, two bathrooms, laundry room and pantry; • 1,030 square -foot second floor addition for a new master suite, extension to an existing bedroom, and two new closets; and Patio cover and uncovered balcony area totaling 773 square feet. The height of the proposed addition is 26 feet, measured from the finished grade to the highest point of the roofline. The proposed addition is designed to blend into the existing house by using the same architectural elements and building materials as the existing residence. The proposed roof will be integrated into the existing roof by using the same roof pitch and materials as the existing structure. Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2013-147 Page 2 of 8 Legend Outline of existing footprint ® Proposed additions W, Proposed Site Plan Site and Surrounding General Plan. Zoning and Land Uses Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2013-147 Page 3 of 8 General Plan Designation Zoning District Land Use Site Low Density Residential RLM Single -Family Residential North Office Professional OB Vacant South Low Medium Density Residential RLM Single -Family Residential East Low Medium Density Residential RLM Single -Family Residential West Low Medium Density Residential RLM Single -Family Residential Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2013-147 Page 3 of 8 Site Aerial ANALYSIS The proposed project required two separate, but interrelated, land use approvals: Development Review (DR) and a Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP). The analysis that follows provides the basis for staff's recommendation to approve the DR and MCUP applications. Development Review (DBMC Chapter 22.48) Additions to structures that substantially change the appearance of an existing residence and are equal to or more than 50 percent of the existing habitable floor area of all existing structures require Planning Commission approval of a Development Review (DR) application. The purpose of a Development Review application is to ensure that new development and additions to existing development are consistent with the General Plan "through the promotion of high functional and aesthetic standards to complement and add to the economic, physical, and social character" of Diamond Bar. The process ensures that new development and intensification of existing development yields a pleasant living environment, and attracts the interest of residents and visitors as the result of consistent exemplary design. Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2013-147 Page 4 of 8 Development Standards: The following table compares the proposed project with the City's development standards for residential development in the RLM zone: ResidentialDevelopment Development Existing Proposed Requirements StandardsFeature 23' 16' Yes** • . • 20 feet 5 feet on one side and 6'-8" —west side 6'-8" —west side • • - 10 feet on the other 10' — east side 10' — east side Yes side .- Yard Minimum 13'-6" — west side 13'-6" — west side No*** Between 15 feet 15' — east side 15'— east side Yes Adjoining 20 feet 110 feet 103 feet Yes • Maximum of 40% 12.54% 19.73% Yes 35 feet 22'-6" 26' Yes 2 -car garage 3 -car garage 3 -car garage Yes *The rear setback is measured from the rear of the building to the edge of the graded pad when the pad abuts a descending slope. **The Development Code allows porches to encroach up to 6 feet into the required front setback [Dl3MC Section 22.16.090(3)(c)]. ***Minor Conditional Use Permit is requested to allow the continuation of a nonconforming structure because the addition is greater than 50 percent of the existing home and is not limited to the ground floor. See MCUP discussion on page 6. Site and Grading Configuration: The proposed first floor addition is located on an existing leveled pad, and the second story addition will be added above the existing first floor of the residence. Therefore, there will be no grading on the site. Architectural Features, Colors, and Materials: The architecture of the existing residence is a 1980s tract design with Tudor influences, such as decorative half-timbering on the second story contrasted with stucco and brick finishes on the first story. The applicant is proposing to retain the existing building style. The proposed design will maintain architectural integrity by incorporating similar fenestration patterns, and matching exterior colors and building materials. The roof of the proposed addition will be integrated with the existing roof by matching the existing gabled roof and 5:12 pitch. Landscaping: Landscape plans are not required because the site is already developed, and because the project is exempt from the City's Water Conservation Landscaping Ordinance. The ordinance would only apply if 5,000 square feet or more of the existing landscaped area was being altered. However, upon site visit, staff Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2013-147 Page 5 of 8 observed that the front yard was not landscaped. A condition of approval is included requiring the site to be landscaped prior to final inspection. Minor Conditional Use Permit (DBMC Chapter 22.56 A MCUP is required if a change or expansion of a nonconforming structure is greater than 50 percent of the existing square footage of all structures on site and is not limited to the ground floor. Current development standards require a separation of 15 feet between structures on adjacent parcels. The existing residence has a nonconforming distance of 13'-6" to the structure on the adjacent lot to the west. The City recognizes that homeowners should be allowed to make appropriate improvements to their properties, even if the existing improvements do not fully conform to current development standards. Therefore, the City has established the MCUP process for such additions, subject to the findings set forth in the Development Code. MCUPs are normally subject to approval of the City's Hearing Officer (typically the Community Development Director). However, because this MCUP is being reviewed as part of a DR application, both land use entitlements are subject to review and approval of the Planning Commission (DBMC Section 22.48.030). Staff believes that approving the MCUP as described above is appropriate and compatible with other residences in the neighborhood, based on the following facts and observations: • The existing dwelling was built in 1983, prior to the incorporation of the City of Diamond Bar; • The proposed addition will maintain and not further encroach into the existing nonconforming distance of 13'-6" to the structure on the adjacent property to the west; • The proposed addition is located towards the rear of the dwelling, set back 43 feet from the front property line; and • By maintaining the existing nonconforming distance, the proposed project is consistent with other homes within the neighborhood. Compatibility with Neighborhood The proposed project complies with the goals and objectives as set forth in the adopted General Plan in terms of land use and density. The project is designed to be compatible with and enhance the character of the existing homes in the neighborhood. The second story addition is proposed to be located towards the rear of the existing house which will reduce the overall mass and scale of the building as seen from the street. Because the second story addition is set back approximately 43 feet from the Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2013-147 Page 6 of 8 front property line, the proposed second story addition will not add bulk to the front of the house, as seen from the street. In addition, staff reviewed the elevations to verify proper placement of windows in relation to the adjacent home to the west. The proposed bathroom windows on the east elevation are appropriate and will not negatively impact the neighbor since there are no windows located on the second floor—facing the proposed addition—of the neighboring residence. The project incorporates the principles of the City's Residential Design Guidelines as follows: ® The proposed addition will conform to all development standards, including building height and maintain existing nonconforming distances, which is consistent with other homes in the neighborhood; ® The proposed addition is visually integrated with the existing structure by using similar forms, colors, and materials; ® The proposed addition is appropriate in mass and scale to the site; ® The proposed roof type, pitch, and materials match those of the existing structure; ® Window type and dimensions, and other architectural features, such as half timbering, trims, and brick finish, match those of the existing structure; a Large wall expanses without windows or doors are avoided; and ® There are no windows located on the second floor—facing the proposed addition—of the neighboring residence. Adjacent Property to West Project Site Adjacent Property to East Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2013-147 Page 7 of 8 Additional Review The Public Works Department and Building and Safety Division reviewed this project, and their comments are included in the attached resolution as conditions of approval. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: On October 11, 2013, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the project site and the notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. A notice display board was posted at the site, and a copy of the notice was posted at the City's three designated community posting sites. The project was continued from the October 22, 2013, Planning Commission meeting as a result of an error by staff. A corrected hearing notice was mailed and published on November 1, 2013. Public Comments Received No comments have been received as of the publication date of this report. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: This project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on that assessment, the City has determined the project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to the provisions of Article 19 Section 15301 (e) (additions to existing structures) of the CEQA Guidelines. No further environmental review is required. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 1) approving Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2013-147, to construct a 2,828 gross square -foot addition to an existing single- family residence and continue the nonconforming distance of 13'-6" to the structure on the adjacent lot to the west, based on the findings of DBMC Sections 22.48 and 22.56, subject to conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. Prepared by: Nata ie Tobo Assistant Pla er Attachments: Reviewed by: Lee Se6"ibePlanner 1. Draft Resolution No. 2013 -XX and Standard Conditions of Approval 2. Site Plan, Floor Plans, and Elevations Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2013-147 Page 8 of 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2013 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A 2,828 GROSS SQUARE - FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 2,690 SQUARE -FOOT TWO- STORY, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A 652 SQUARE -FOOT THREE -CAR GARAGE, AND A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONTINUE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING DISTANCE OF 13'- 6" TO THE STRUCTURE ON THE ADJACENT LOT TO THE WEST (15 FEET IS REQUIRED) ON A 0.47 GROSS ACRE (20,607 SQUARE - FOOT) LOT LOCATED AT 21955 BIRDS EYE DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 (APN 8293-042-019). A. RECITALS 1. The property owner and applicant, Umesh Shah, filed an application for Development Review No. PL2013-147 to construct a 2,828 gross square - foot two-story addition to an existing two-story home consisting of an 85 square -foot addition to the front of the house, which includes a front porch; 1,970 square -foot first and second story addition towards the rear of the home; and a patio cover and uncovered balcony totaling 773 square feet to an existing 2,690 square -foot single-family residence, and a Minor Conditional Use Permit to continue an existing nonconforming distance of 13'-6" to the structure on the adjacent lot to the west (15 feet is required), located at 21955 Birds Eye Drive, City of Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, California. Hereinafter in this resolution, the subject Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit shall collectively be referred to as the "Project." 2. The subject property is made up of one parcel totaling 20,607 square feet (0.47 gross acres). It is located in the Low Medium Density Residential (RLM) zone with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential. 3. The legal description of the subject property is Lot 96 of Tract 31153. The Assessor's Parcel Number is 8293-042-019. 4. On October 11, 2013, notification of the public hearing for this project was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the Project site and public notices were posted at the City's designated community posting sites on October 11, 2013. In addition to the published and mailed notices, the project site was posted with a display board and the notice was posted at three other locations within the project vicinity. 5. On October 22, 2013, the Planning Commission continued this matter to November 12, 2013, due to a defective public hearing notice. 6. On November 1, 2013, a revised public hearing notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. Notices were mailed to property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the Project site and posted at the City's designated community posting sites. In addition to the published and mailed notices, the project site was posted with a display board. 7. On November 12, 2013, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing, solicited testimony from all interested individuals, and concluded said hearing on that date. B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct; and 2. The Planning Commission hereby determines the Project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the provisions of Article 19, Section 15301 (e) (additions to existing structures) of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. C. FINDINGS OF FACT Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein and as prescribed under Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Sections 22.48 and 22.56, this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: Development Review Findings (DBMC Section 22.48.040) 1. The design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the applicable elements of the City's General Plan, City Design Guidelines, 2 Planning Commission No. 2013 -XX and development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for special areas (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards or planned developments): The design and layout of the proposed 2,828 gross square -foot two-story addition to the existing single family residence is consistent with the City's General Plan, City Design Guidelines and development standards by meeting all required setbacks except the distance to the houses on the adjacent lots due to an existing nonconforming building separation. The project site is not part of any theme area, specific plan, community plan, boulevard orplanned development. 2. The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards: The proposed addition will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments because the use of the project site is designed for a single-family home and the surrounding uses are also single-family homes. The proposed addition will not interfere with vehicular or pedestrian movements, such as access or other functional requirements of a single- family home because it complies with the requirements for driveway widths and is a continuation of an existing use. 3. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain and enhance the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48: Development Review Standards, the City's Design Guidelines, the City's General Plan, or any applicable specific plan: The existing style of the home is 1980s tract design with Tudor influences. The applicant is proposing to add to an existing two-story home while maintaining consistency with the current design. The proposed design will maintain architectural integrity by incorporating similar fenestration patterns, and matching exterior colors and building materials. The roof of the proposed addition will be integrated with the existing roof by matching the existing gabled roof and 5:12 pitch. The project is designed to be compatible and complementary to the neighborhood. 3 Planning Commission No. 2013 -XX There is no specific plan for this area. 4. 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, color, and will remain aesthetically appealing: The design of the existing single-family home is 1980s tract home with Tudor influences. Consistent building elements have been achieved through the utilization of similar architectural features and building materials. The second story addition is proposed to be located towards the rear of the existing house which will reduce the overall mass and scale of the building as seen from the street. Because the second story addition is setback approximately 43 feet from the front property line, the proposed second story addition will not add bulk to the front of the house as seen from the street. 5. The proposed development will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative effect on property values or resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity: and Before the issuance of any City permits, the proposed project is required to comply with all conditions within the approved resolution, and the Building and Safety Division and Public Works Departments requirements. Through the permit and inspection process, the referenced agencies will ensure that the proposed project is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. 6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set forth under Article 19 Section 15301 (e) (additions to existing structures) of the CEQA guidelines. Minor Conditional Use Permit Findings (DBMC Section 22.56.040) 1. The proposed use is allowed within the subject zoning district with the approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Development Code and the Municipal Code: 4 Planning Commission No. 2013 -XX The existing single-family dwelling is a permitted use in the RLM zone. A Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) is requested to continue an existing nonconforming distance of 93'-6" to the structure on the adjacent lot to the west. The substandard distance to the structure on the adjacent lot to the west renders the project nonconforming. The addition of a nonconforming structure requires approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit because the addition is greater than 50 percent of the existing square -footage of all structures on site and is not limited to the ground floor. The proposed addition of a 2,828 square -foot two-story addition to an existing two-story home complies with the development standards of the RLM zone and will not further encroach into the nonconforming distance between structures. 2. The proposed use is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan: The proposed addition to a single-family dwelling unit is consistent with the City's adopted General Plan. The site is not subject to the provisions of any specific plan: 3. The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity: The existing single-family dwelling and the proposed 2,828 square -foot two-story addition is consistent with the existing nonconforming distance and by maintaining the existing distance, the proposed project is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. The design of the existing single-family dwelling and the proposed addition are compatible with the character of the existing home in the neighborhood. 4. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed including access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and the absence of physical constraints: The subject site is physically suitable for the existing single-family residential dwelling and the proposed addition. The existing and proposed use of land is consistent with the surrounding land uses. The proposed addition of floor area is consistent with the development standards for the RLM zone and will not further encroach into the existing nonconforming distance between structures. The proposed addition is located towards the rear of the dwelling, set back 43 feet from the front property line. In addition, all proposed windows on the east elevation are appropriate and 5 Planning Commission No. 2017 -XX will not negatively impact the neighbor since there are no windows located on the second floor—facing the proposed addition—of the neighboring residence. 5. Granting the Minor Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located: and The granting of the Minor Conditional Use Permit will allow the addition of the existing single-family dwelling unit in a manner similar with existing dwelling units located in the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed expansion of the dwelling unit will not negatively impact the public interest, health, safety convenience or welfare. 6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set forth under Article 19 Section 15301 (e.2.b) (additions to existing structure provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 square feet if the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive) of the CEQA Guidelines. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves this Application, subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be landscaped prior to final inspection. 2. Standard Conditions. The applicant shall comply with the standard development conditions attached hereto. 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 the property owner/applicant, Dr. Umesh Shah, 21955 Birds Eye Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. 6 Planning Commission No. 2013 -XX APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. M1 Tony Torng, Chairman I, Greg Gubman, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of November, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ATTEST: Greg Gubman, Secretary 7 Planning Commission No. 2013 -XX COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT mr� STANDARD CONDITIONS USE PERMITS, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL NEW AND REMODELED STRUCTURES PROJECT #: Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2013-147 SUBJECT: To construct an 2,828 gross square -foot addition to an existing single family residence and continue a nonconforming distance of 13'-6" to the structure on the adjacent lot to the west PROPERTY Umesh Shah OWNER/ 21955 Birds Eye Dr. APPLICANT: Diamond Bar, CA 91765 LOCATION: 21955 Birds Eve Dr Diamond Bar, CA 91765 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION AT (909) 839-7030, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. 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 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2013-147 brought within the time period provided by Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the city and/or its officers, agents and employees are made a party of any such action: (a) Applicant shall provide a defense to the City defendants or at the City's option reimburse the City its costs of defense, including reasonable attorneys fees, incurred in defense of such claims. 8 Planning Commission No. 2013 -XX (b) Applicant shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the City defendants. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action of proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof. 2. This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant and owner of the property involved has filed, within twenty-one (21) days of approval of this Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2013-147, at the City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department, an affidavit stating that the applicant/owner is 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, 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 License, and a zoning approval for those businesses located in Diamond Bar. 4. Signed copies of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -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 the plan check, revised site, grading and architectural plans incorporating all Conditions of Approval — if applicable — 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. All site, grading, landscape/irrigation, and roof plans, and elevation plans 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 property owner/applicant shall remove the public hearing notice board within three days of this project's approval. 9 Planning Commission No. 2013 -XX 11. 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 comes first. 2. Prior to any plan check, all deposit accounts for the processing of this project shall have no deficits. C. TIME LIMITS 1. The approval of Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2013-147 expires within two years from the date of approval if the use has not been exercised as defined pursuant to Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section (DBMC) 22.66.050 (b)(1). In accordance with DBMC Section 22.60.050 (c), the applicant may request, in writing, a one- year time extension for Planning Commission consideration. Such a request must be submitted to the Planning Division prior to the expiration date and be accompanied by the review fee in accordance with the Fee Schedule in effect at the time of submittal. D. SITE DEVELOPMENT 1. This approval is for the site plan, elevations, and exterior materials for a 2,828 gross square -foot two-story addition to be constructed at 21955 Birds Eye Drive, as described in the staff report and depicted on the approved plans on file with the Planning Division, subject to the conditions listed below. 2. The construction documents submitted for plan check shall be in substantial compliance with the architectural plans approved by the Planning Commission, as modified pursuant to the conditions below. If the plan check submittal is not in substantial compliance with the approved Development Review submittal, the plans may require further staff review and re -notification of the surrounding property owners, which may delay the project and entail additional fees. 10 Planning Commission No. 2013 -XX 3. To ensure compliance with the provisions of the Planning Commission approval, a final inspection is required from the Planning Division when work for any phase of the project has been completed. The applicant shall inform the Planning Division and schedule an appointment for such an inspection. 4. The above conditions shall run with the land and shall be binding upon all future owners, operators, or successors thereto of the property. Non- compliance with any condition of approval or mitigation measure imposed as a condition of the approval shall constitute a violation of the City's Development Code. Violations may be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Development Code. 5. Failure to comply with any of the conditions set forth above or as subsequently amended in writing by the City, may result in failure to obtain a building final and/or a certificate of occupancy until full compliance is reached. The City's requirement for fullcompliance may require minor corrections and/or complete demolition of a non-compliant improvement, regardless of costs incurred where the project does not comply with design requirements and approvals that the applicant agreed to when permits were pulled to construct the project. 6. 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, on file with the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code regulations. 7. 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. 8. All roof -mounted equipment shall be screened from public view. 9. All structures, including walls, trash enclosures, canopies, etc., shall be maintained in a structurally sound, safe manner With a clean, orderly appearance. All graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours by the property owners/occupant. 10. All landscaping, structures, architectural features and public improvements damaged during construction shall be repaired or replaced upon project completion. 11 Planning Commisslon No. 2013AX E. SOLID WASTE 1. 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. 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 clearly detailing erosion control measures. These measures shall be implemented during construction. The erosion control plan shall conform to national Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards and incorporate the appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's) as specified in the Storm Water BMP Certification. Please refer to City handouts. 2. The applicant shall comply with Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) requirements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Please refer to City handouts. 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: 1. Drainage in the area of addition shall be conveyed and adjusted to drain away from building structures and property lines. 12 Planning Commission No. 2013 -XX 2. The existing pool enclosure shall remain at all times and shall not be removed at any time including during construction. 3. Where existing bearing walls are removed below existing framing, adequate temporary shoring shall be provided to the approval of Building and Safety. 4.. A soils report is required for the addition work proposed. 5. Alterations to the existing building outside of the addition area shall be included on the building permit application scope of work and appropriately permitted and inspected. 6. A separate sewer line shall be provided or an existing 4" line is required. 7. Every permit issued by the Building and Safety Division shall expire if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of such permit or work has discontinued and not been signed -off on the job card by the building inspector. 8. All structures and property shall be maintained in a safe and clean manner during construction. The property shall be free of debris, trash, and weeds. 9. Construction activities causing the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work shall be conducted Monday — Saturday between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. 10. Plans shall conform to current State and Local Building Code (i.e., Currently the 2010 California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and the California Electrical Code but the 2013 version will apply if plan check applied after January 1, 2014) requirements and all other applicable construction codes, ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of plan check submittal. 11. Existing fencing shall remain in-place during construction including pool barrier fencing. Any alteration of the fencing may result in a discontinuation of construction until the fences are returned to its original state. 12. All equipment staging areas shall be maintained in an orderly manner and screened behind a minimum 6' high fence. 13 Planning Commission No. 2013 -XX 13. Solid waste management of construction material shall incorporate recycling material collection per Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 8.16 of Title 8. 14. The minimum design load for wind in this area is 85 M.P.H. exposures "C" and the site is within seismic zone D or E. The applicant shall submit drawings and calculations prepared by a California State licensed Architect/Engineer with wet stamp and signature. 15. This project shall comply with the energy conservation requirements of the State of California Energy Commission. All lighting shall be high efficacy or equivalent per the current California Energy Code 119 and 150(k). 16. Indoor air quality shall be provided consistent with ASHRAE 62.2 as required per California Energy Code 150(o). 17. Prior to Building permit issuance, all school district fees must be paid. Please obtain a form from the Building and Safety Division to take directly to the school district. 18. The project shall be protected by a construction fence and shall comply with the NPDES & BMP requirements (sand bags, etc.) 19. Check drainage patterns with Engineering Department. Surface water shall drain away from building at a 2% minimum slope. 20. Specify location of tempered glass as required by code. 21. Special inspections and structural observation will be required in conformance to CBC 1704 to 1709. 22. A soils report is required and all recommendations of the soils report shall be adhered to. 23. The applicant shall contact Dig Alert and have underground utility locations marked by the utility companies prior to any excavation. Contact Dig Alert by dialing 811 or their website at www.digalert.org. 24. AQMD notification is required at least 10 days prior to any demolition. 25. All workers on the job shall be covered by workman's compensation insurance under a licensed general contractor. 26. Any changes to approved plans during the course of construction shall be approved by the City prior to proceeding with any work. 14 Planning Commission No. 2013 -XX 27. Carbon monoxide detectors are required in halls leading to sleeping rooms per CRC R315. END 15 Planning Commission No. 2013.XX �/'yjPw`,JQ SITE PLAN (PROPOSED) S SCALE: 3/32'=1'-O• CODE INFORMATION: LEGAL DE5ONPNON - Cahfom:a Residential Code 2010 (CRC) COUNTY: L05 ANGELE5 - DaLfornm Bmldmq Code 2010 LOT: 9G - Cahforma Electoral Code 201 O WN : 8293-042-019 - Cahforma Moahan—I Code 2010 LEGAL DE5CMPTION: TR=31 153 - Cahforma Plumbing Code 201 O - Cahforma Energy Code 2008 LOT COVERAGE LOT SIZE: 5t1EEf INDEX: MG.NO. REV.NO DE5CRIP':^N A.I A 51TE PLAN A.2 A FIRST FLOOR PLAN A.3 A SECOND FLOOR PLAN A.4 A ROOF PIAN R DETAILS A5 A EXTERIOR ELEVATION5 A.G A EXTERIOR ELEVATION5 E.1 A ELECTRICALUGHTING PLAN T A TITLE 24 (2 5HEET5) 5.1 A FOUNDATION PLAN 5.2 A FLOOR FRAMING PIAN 5.3 A ROOF FRAMING PLAN G.1 A GENERAL NOTE5, STRUCTURAL D A STRUCIW_AL, DETAIL5 1.2 A 5TRUCNRAL, DETAILS_ LOT COVERAGE LOT SIZE: 20.G07 5q.Ft. (E) NOOSE FOOT PRINT: 940 Sq.Ft. (E) RATIO: 12.547. (N) HOU5E FOOT PRIM: 4,OG5 5q.Ft. (N) RATIO: 19.73T RESIDENCE AREA5 (E) 15T. FLOOR -LIVING AREA: 1.430 59.Ft. (N) 15T. ADDITION LIVING AREA: 940 Sq.Ft. (E) 3 CAR GARAGE AREA: G52 5q.Ft. (E) PATIO AREA: (TO BE REMOVED) 495 51.Ft. (N) PATIO AREA: 41 15q.Ft. (E) 2 ND. FLOOR -LIVING AREA: 1,260 Sq.Ft. (N) 2 ND. ADDITION LIVING AREA: 1,030 5q.Ft. (N) 2 ND. ADDITION OPEN DECK AREA: 3G2 5q.Ft. (N) PORCH AREA: 85 5q.Ft. TOTAL (E) LIVING AREA: 2,690 5q Ft TOTAL (N) LIVING AREA: 4,000 5q.Ft. Attachment 2 EC_E,V. OCT 0 3 2013 IT Y OF DIAMOND VICINITY MAP TITLE SITE PLAN Nifin .ra[o w,ern: =.nen: 2012-18 A.i 0 G Q M 3Q S 4 O O W Q v 2 C .. O m 1r F O K � tV Y J U W Q RR to UYR 46'-8' PLAN NOTES 16'-31/r 6'-81/2 Ifi'-3' fi-] L THE FCLLOWNC WATER SANNG DENCES 91ALL BE INSiN1ID TO THE SATffALPIXV OF ME ADNINISIPAPVE "BTM"°" FINISH NOTES A iN1E15 OF A pE9Tf1 THAT PflON0E5 NANNUN FLU91 NOT TO E%aN 1.6 GALS fl WATER SANNG SNONFP NGBS RICH LIMIT THE FLOW ttl A YALNUV OF 25 G011QVS PEA NINUIE I, pll DENALI i0 flECE14E A fINl91 PER ONfiERT SELECTED C. WplEft SANNG 9NK ANDIAVAialT FWCEfi YMIaI LIMIT ME ROW N p NANNUY OF 22 GALLONS PER NINUIE 2 01L INIWgi EDGES 8 CIXiNFRS i0 PECEIVE RWNp EpLF2 (N) PALO 2 ALL 910NER5 ONo NB-910YhP5 HALL HAVE ANT-SCNDING VPLI£S - EIMFA A PRESSURE BALANCE q1 1 ALL DRYWNL 1° BE 5/B' mICK UNLESS MATCHING ENSPNC WNL B'-0' 7'-9 1/2' 6'-8 14'-1 A mPFNDStARC VN.VE a1 CpUNC CONg11IXl. 16'_6 6�_V ]'-8 1/2' Oj N. BAN - PRONK : {. ALL WALES MHIOI PEmV£ nlE t0 BE SCRATCHED COALED VAm ftA51ER, 0. ip L 1gIEi PAPER q�NISA - IAWNi AT+ 2S' L NEW CMPET k TIE PER OYMFA SEIECTCN. 5. ALINI / \ G MIRROR - TOP AT fi'-0' PBOIE FlNISY ROW D. i0NF1 BM - I NTN -NWNT AT+ 42' E waWR STATE wM: 1. mlwExp Lun waowAE w/ ]r ON. w#pax 2 14E RIXft - Atl'E t0 gINN ❑/ \\ a HE- WALL IG aunt {. z sloven iSPDS i YdLV£S F i ' 6. 16' WDE SEAT % HFI(Ni N NAial NB CEIX T. HA'W HEIA SPRAY W VERTtw TRACK IWIhD i0 14' WM 2 FIHONS fl FFa5A0 SNAff W 9&lF 9. HOT TOP PN1k S`AT AS PEWWW O1 F CdIDNETS I SN O +LT I. LO'M1FR WHO S1AYE NP (N) ROOM C. MEpICINE CABINET (N) BEDROOM N JAWID T9 Wm '�10 I. NB k PUMP ACCESS PANEL (24'50. ILN.) Sq#r® cmllEcnW' 2 VPLKS NIp AWi 5. NMV BRAY t NRFT DRi MU 4UW YAIEMNS W/ OWSR S Nm NCP OEC% AMo 41A41 0 OZ (N7 BAN - PflONOE A ip1ET 0 I. iatLT PAPER g9'ENSER - YWNi AT + Rfi' G IAV. O C NIRRW - TOP AT 6'-0' PBOK RNISH RCpi 0. iOXEL BDR - ROTA -NWNT AT+4r O-_-_ -- .-3r===_-___.. E 91awA SiNt WM: -_ _ -_ L 1EYPFAED CLASS ENQO9lFE W/ J2' Yw. MLE pOgi O 2 lE£ FLUOR - SLOPE i0 GRNN 8 a 11£- WNL i0 YOUNG (N) BAYR 15•_2• 1. 2 W. PFPAS 5 VAKS 6. 18' wW SEAT % N101t M MATCH LLB aq( (N) CLOSET O 2. 11/M19 NEllI 9'RAT tl1 VFATCN TRACK LPEa54D 9fAYPW 99: ® I—_� A DONYtl' PAN h SEAT AS REWWE➢ (ITO (E) KITCHEN 5.0 O O F. CPRIHEIS I. LONER wen STAVE ICP - S R ) (N) NOON G MfaaNE CAIDNEi O 111 O1 MFFYACE - PPONff: / O - InsTNRAnav um USE ww. RE w ANamAYa wen mFlft usrwc. (N) BATH 1 Iil NNE W/ RNSEp HFp41N +18' - IEWM k iL3H0%iD BE NN91 i. RR CAS- VAN Wi90E Cf HMm, Bllt NOT Nai mNV 98' 2 PAYE -UP PHt (EX1Wat WNL U'�tl15�44 a PPPftpwn sPp¢1 pHREsrWs XD. FA -5159 4 FACrg1Y WPPIIFD LIANNET CW i NEIAM WPfAa (ttE) 10 ff ff1ECIFP BY ON1ER O G ENIFNp QIWIEY 2' A&IK RBY/WNL WOpN 10'. 0 O (N) LAUNORY'i O (N) PANTRY O (E) DINING ROOM El PflOYAE IY W# YN0£ Pi aR. TI£ PACE OAPWNO FlRE BOX. , 11 Emwar (m W1scE NRI FNI - wx. I AN Nexa Ever 1x uwumz WPE i0 Ngli SWIM NHERE NATURAL 4FHALATCN (CPENABI£ w ��1 G WNDOW) Oa5 NOT OCCUR. C Or aEO1Nif£ PONT Fffl ENIWSr Nft i0 BE AT EAST 5 FEET AWAY FCRII N1Y to NNCN NLONS AN ENMY IXAI CCWRD PGflP#5 OF THE BUfiANG E COAT 1 ORM (AG ]I49I.3) __________________ O 0 OEM ax arEcrce Ai FFNOLf1ID AREA - NNN WIdA (120 V) W/ OAI IENY BAL%UP. Al F]55nNC MFAs : BATIFAY POWERED - PIIONCE WIRE MWE F}Isli ALL wU(E a1ECraIS lG BE I R.CO. 0.9H01£D . Fl1E NAR91A APPRo{Eo ��CflFLitli 91Au sawp ul AIpaY AummE w ALL sEFAxG LEGENO STEP DOWN REMOVE (E) PRE PLACE O6 EXISTING WPSNER k WiER : VFAIFY FIXLOWNG REQUIREMENT FOR ME GREYER VENT AND flFRWIE'M1HFN REQUIRED: _-----_ DEMO EXISTING WALI/DOORNNINDOW - YgSNRE EKHAUSi DUCT t0 ff ON. 4' DIA Wm BAL% WAFT EYISTING WALL REMAINS 3 -CPR GARAGE DAMPER Nlp LENGTH 6 DUCT i0 RE NOT NWE MPN 14 FFEi WIN UP IYA NROws. � NEW WALL TO FIRST FLOOR (E) L1NNG ROOM P Oj T0� NIFN CERAMIC nlE P80VE DRNN AT 910WR NB WE 91D'MR O PLAN NOTES - 3p' aEPR WOM Pm WATER aaA7 WNPAAmw+l PRD z4' a&mNl# -- O IN FRCNT OF wplQi aoffi FQ2 epmRWu.TalE15/WDEIs TO BE 1.6 gd. O DOOR V € RU91. PPONOE ANP-ECN➢ING VALVES AT 910NFRS OLAMP. aA55 EN0.05URE AT 910NFft OOa{ NO WITH 910NER. O WINDOW (E) ENTRY 59F a°9NG, nfMi FlTIN:G ,SWO MCW 1-5/B'mICK pCPi al IB 2°' MINNFE RAIFD UWR AT WfNINGS i0 pNfiLING YIJO STEP DOWN G> 4"d0. DRYER EXHAUST DUCT' TO Wi515E NR EWIP. wen A RACWWIEI DAVPfft LENGTH I II I Oi II I I N) EN O El ID I 1 I I 1 (N) PbRCH a I m 1 ® 2e4 SNS WALL 12'-6' 1U 9 EXTERIINDICAOR y EXIERIDR TO MATCH EXIiIING STUCCO L O i N W E FIRST FLOOR PLAN (PROPOSED) SCALE: TA4'=1'A' S G Q M 3Q S 4 O O W Q v 2 C .. O m 1r F O K � tV Y J U W Q RR to UYR IWIhD i0 14' WM 2 FIHONS TITLE FIRST FLOOR PLAN NitlnR S.ShoB i�MAu awn, 2012-18 A.2 � ROOF FLOOR PLAN (PROPOSED) SCALE: 1/4'=1'-0' HENfII - 3E fRAV%C HAN i/6 TpIX NN FSIW aMA xoi N.RID G4vY Efµ IAHI 9EN µ0 CAUI. Gm. m. 3Y mmw UY mEN - NSIILL RA YMU ACNId#5 RReRWAIttNS CACC K7A."P/1LY OAp3p VEIN UM SiM NNGE G RG 8Eb z x sOWs GI Y Rasdc atW aMx iRAVE RIYM119 SFM PMFL 1'nL¢ °aunt - st IdP 81➢It PA°IX ONA RA9EIIG SANLNR'V �� P-1] %9PAPd RAMIE0WN0UXf E I W w A53Y6LY NDIE: Y.W] 1RY 1. 01WAP NL HpL2W1AL AY9 MAIMY 4AV5 fiY 6 NdES 2 Y/1.VL 4AV5 N/ lYKK aNIPACIIX 5 9ffAINXG iN£ tlLW-IFI➢H2 3 Uff XAfS WM INN£ IFIOS al X.VS WM gA511G nA911E0. WINDOW HEAD scue 5 TYPICAL i HR. EXTERIOR WOOD STUD WALL q "=I'-0" C.C. TLE HOOF OVER 9UIL➢ING PAPER PLYWO'.p sHEAT1INA ROOF .%MST. 5MUCNRAL OWLS R-30 FlBERGUS WAM A. Y 2 % 10 RAIi INSUU¶ON F09iIdW1.DOW FNAYE LM &OG. PMLR C. M9WG�_ 5 -1- NIX£5 'MIH 9Ig2T M4Q CA911C tgb SC SCREEN AT BACK OF HL OF HLCES FOR KNi SNC[O i1N91 M P— eAOan vElu uiR ATIICCO 9PN AxC CAU% s/9• cW. ®. OVER MET AL LATEA 1-4.3 R%4 — OUILOING PAPFR (MATCH -E) R -IJ FlRERIXA55 R&AD R - SK FRANAG 0.1N 9ATr INSZTCN F® l M,MFIFAWI scueD FASCIADETAIL 6 WINDOW SILL I JAMB 2 3scue_N. PLYWOOD -AS REO'0 SEE OTC . XTERIOR STUCCO 91W Aro CAVI{ E]OERIOR INTERIOR YAIro mul imC&4FMM s10E SIDE SNCCO Na91 WFINISH, SEE IM. ELEV. OA VETAl 5/8' GM 60, R-13 INSULATION ttP. HEACfR - 3£ fWW 2x P.TpF SRL W/ TgCpl 2' I.IINIMUM Ai AB. 70 CONC. RC. CONOP NG k A' SEE STRVCNRAL MG& MINIMUII AT RA . CMR FlNISHED GRAZE COp1 ASYLLRIY SLOPE a —fYEEP SCREED .. R-7 PERIMETER FOOTING o wsuunax EXf-WNL-9LL w NEW, EXTERIOR WALL SILLNE: DOOR & WINDOW JAMB @ POST uc: 3 3"- V-0" 3"- I' O- WR wNc'+uTw e I¢ W¢Iv VIVA AM NN z %NNd n/!IK NEIAA-YE fPM1V%GRAN Rx pD NNtP A.. RGS OI IP M F�PIG RRfW� RWYi 2%4 4 N N% CNM INa0IIM91 IXI PAPER eAUIFo KrAt UTI 91Cfli f WTI£ CASNC BM GI. Y FIA.0 C. WUI FRAVE W` AM. PAPER OVER R4 O PAREEID]COJi 1RAVE PNF 9(AMK 4E fPYMC FlAYS W3f AS£U&Y YAD TAN ESFWNL-9LL GR�IEWt RIDGE & HIP1 & DOOR HEAD xuE: 4 3"= I' 1- 3"= Y-0" TITLE ROOF PLAN 2012-18 A.4 A ELEVATION, LOOKING EAST ELEVATION, LOOKING WEST SCALE: t/a•=1'-O' TITLE EXTERIOR ELEVATION Nifin fiSM1aF 2012-18 AX za XW", Va-_1._O' H Z W Q uj a m� z Lu 2 4. Q 0 EW W 0 LU F Y U � z O U zw O> C9K nw Z WU)a Z Q Q 2E > W Z H Q 2 2 � z S m (-) Z [-- O U� L Z Z U maOz�} aoaga� u Z o u u u 2 11 2iUo'U aXaa QU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 ate, U•m. 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 .a .Q .a .a .Q •a .Q .Y-,,, m Uro' E E E E E E E u u u $ op u op 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o o O 0-.0 O O > M- 2 mm mm nom mea - mm m Uc�i a = "'` �E .Q �E �o. �'E pE �E 0E pE 2E ux `o `p `o c c c c Q c Q c Q c U Q Q Q Q �. LR CD .� 'tr' S�: N N t6 (0 Q C9 0 I— Cl) Z z C9 C9 .w0.' ¢( C9 C7 Q Q z Z Z Q O io M V M N IL 0- J a O cC O O U w o O 4 " a LU LU W m $ v v C C, p C ik V N E W U C Q N N N U. .O U r W .O -- T U T@ (0 d U C (9 a w y aJi r Q a O K a.. t` 'y m p U m U m N .0 m E N Q m E '•- w N -O O Ol LA K 0. N O O M w •- , O N C O O N O _ N N C N O m= U a m C L C C Z - 0] C O CL C O O S fn (7 Z C m O 10.9 00 C U)" m N O U N U Z N N M 30 ? Z O Y .s-. O !w m O 2 N 'CL -: Q O'M� �Y N ¢ Z ch N< Na N >�-'. zw O> C9K nw Z WU)a Z Q Q 2E > W Z H Q 2 2 � z S m (-) Z [-- O U� L Z Z U maOz�} aoaga� u Z o u u u 2 11 2iUo'U aXaa QU 7. m a N 11 m m m m m m m m m m m m C G C G O C O C O C O G O - O O O O O O O a a a a a a a a a a a a -fit' o o 0 o 0 0 0 0 1`0 o 0 0 mm rn m m C C C G C G C C C C C G - CC C C C C C C O C C O O t: O �0�p �O�pp �Op �Op �Op �O�pp �Op �O�pp o. d d H p d 0- E E E E E E E E E E E E p op p p O a N p p U o U o U O U p U - U c U c U C U C U C U C U C C C C C C _ C - O O O O O O C O 00 000 76 C @ C pC pc C cc C C C C O c C O C C O C O C G O > > C O C O > C O C O C O O Y O N u@ 2E �E E 'o_o u E 'o, u E 'p_ov.pn �@ € 2@ E `pap �@ € E `p `m S2 uE - '�E n. `p n`p `p .nn a aap a p a c a o nw aV- a,2 p.,2 n�- v. �- o.w n�- o a�- c c aV- Q o.w Q o. .- Q C Q Q e'y- f i aY N O N @ E U c d o Q a U C I N U J L N @ N N N N a O O p a ❑ a ❑ w z z ¢ ¢ ¢ z ¢ z z z a a z Cl z z z { N f W M O N M N 1?O 1 i. M O N p N N M M M N N ❑U O :iii (� J N NM J LL O N J O NT J NM J {O J N a a a J J a a a a a a a a Ja a a a ! ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ U a. ❑ ❑ U ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ p F @ U U O M C LL of N N'. a a❑ @ m N 'N 'E w m m 'L C 'w 'EEE E. U W d w d N Cd @ LLNC @ @C wC_ woCN m m GN _O U U OO aO J.aGN O t0 aO OLNL 0 J@C .„. CL E N m oN Y N MJN go p me O off6 Z LcU C,@OCy- U— J C @ G L C C C fl C'. p—. 0 U” U'w U 2 U N ❑ (O N N Z r O LL'W N@ r@ M 'a U U y0 O Ip Z @ 0 3 co a w 3 �p 3 m o 3 m 3 m o N t v rn a o a �O O `. O N N a M N N N M w O N a m N 3 ( @ O a M a M a d' a O) -p a M LU 2I' N Z M Q r Z O Z O t L O U (O Z W Z �- N O N V Q N m Q N O Q N N Q N N@ N N Q d �- N N M ca co -6 -Fo m z W, 0 0 0-1 0 0 0 0 0 -T w LLI a_ 42 N LL > o E Ln > LLJ -0 Of EL !> 0 0 0 C) t ¥ z z z z .6 > LLJ 0 w 0 m a. m N z r < N E E E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 )E )f E -2 m z W, 0 0 0-1 am 0 -T w LLI a_ 42 N LL > o E Ln > LLJ -0 Of EL !> C) t ¥ z z z z 0 LLI 42 o 0 Ln > -0 EL !> F- .6 > LLJ 0 w 0 m a. m N z r < N CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ) I, Stella Marquez, declare as follows: On November 12, 2013, the Diamond Bar Planning Commission will hold a regular session at 7:00 p.m., at City Hall, Windmill Community Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. Items for consideration are listed on the attached agenda. I am employed by the City of Diamond Bar. On November 7, 2013, a copy of the agenda of the Regular Meeting of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission was posted at the following locations: South Coast Quality Management District Auditorium 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar Library 21800 Copley Drive 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 November 7, 2013, at Diamond Bar, California. Stella Marquez Community De CD:Vstel la\affidav itposting. doc rtment VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM:_ SUBJECT: TO: Planning Commission DATE PL Z 0 lq-- g 17 J SPEAKER NAME: (Please print clearly) ADDRESS: 2 v I P? I )z (Please print clearly) 1 would like to address the Planning Commission on the above Minutes reflect my name and address as printed above Signature d item. Please have the Commission Note: This form Is intended to assist the Chairman in ensuring that all persons wishing to address the Commission will have the opportunity to do so, and to ensure correct spelling of names in the Minutes. After completion, please submit your form to the Planning Commission Secretary. Thank you. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM: �s I SUBJECT:- b1 = g&M,d kANyzl_ (,' L9 P Nt9 e PL-2-oIS —1 -7 FO: Planning Commission DATE: Ul SPEAKER VAME: GJ©i,'Lt Ac- N print clearly) ot,S w, W - ;Please print clearly) ' would like to address the Planning Commission on the above stat d it m Pleas have the Commission Minutes reflect my name and address as printed above Signature Vote: This form is intended to assist the Chairman in ensuring that all persons wishing to address the Commission will have the opportunity to do so, and to ensure correct spelling of names in the Minutes. After completion, please submit your form to the Planning Commission Secretary. Thank you.