HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/23/2001Next Resolution No. 2001-34
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, October 23, �2001
AGENDA
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
1. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Bob Zirbes, Vice Chairman
Joe Ruzicka, George Kuo, Steve Nelson, and Steve Tye.
2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS:
This is the time and place for the general public to address the members of the
Planning Commission on any item that is within their jurisdiction, allowing the public an
opportunity to speak on non-public hearing and non -agenda items. Please complete a
Speaker's Card for the recording Secreta!y (Completion of this form is voluntary.)
There is a five-minute maximum time limit when addressing the Planning Commission.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chairman.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
The following items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine and are
approved by a single motion. Consent calendar items may be removed from the
agenda by request of the Commission only:
4.1 Minutes of Regular Meeting: October 9, 2001.
5. OLD BUSINESS: None.
6. NEW BUSINESS: None.
7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: None.
8. PUBLIC HEARING:
8.1 Conditional Use Permit No. 99-3/Development Review No. 99-6 (pursuant to
Code Section 22.66.050.C.) is a request for a one-year extension of time for a
project approved by the Planning Commission on November 23, 1999. The
Planning Commission approval allows the construction of an office building of
approximately 13,325 square feet to be utilized as a research laboratory facility
October 23, 2001
Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
for automobile emissions testing. The extension of time, if approved, will allow
the continuation of this entitlement until November 23, 2002.
Project Address: 1575 S. Valley Vista Drive (Lot 13 of Tract No. 39679)
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
PropertyOwner/ Specialty Equipment Marketing Association (SEMA)
Applicant: 1575 S. Valley Vista Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15070, the City has determined that
a Negative Declaration was required for this project. The City prepared and
adopted Negative Declaration No. 99-7 on November 23, 1999. Pursuant to
CEQA section 15162 (a), the City has determined that the proposed extension
of time does not substantially changed the project, thereby causing significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously
identified significant effects.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
a one year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 99-3 and
Development, Review No. 99-6, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as
listed within the resolution.
8.2 Development Code Amendment No. 2001-03 (pursuant to Code
Section 22.44) is a request to amend the following Articles of the Development
Code:
Article 11
Section 22.08.240, Table 2 -4 -Residential District General Development
Standards: amendment relates to increasing lot coverage;
Article III
Section 22.34.030.D.—Single-family Standards: amendment relates to
landscape maintenance standards;
Section 22.34.040.E.—Multi-family Standards: amendment relates to
landscape maintenance standards;
Section 22.34.050.D.—Commercial Standards: amendment relates to
landscape maintenance standards;
October 23, 2001 Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
Section 22.34.060.D.—Industrial Standards: amendment relates to landscape
maintenance standards; I
Section 22.42.060.B.10.—Parcel coverage: amendment relates to lot coverage;
Article V
Section 22.68.030.B.1. -Changes to, or expansion of, a structure:
amendment relates to increasing lot coverage;
Article VI
Section 22.80.020, Definitions- "S": to amendment relates to the definition for
site coverage;
Project Address: Citywide
Applicant: City of Diamond Bar
21825 E. Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15070, the City has determined that
a Negative Declaration is required for this project. Negative Declaration
No. 2001-03 has been prepared. The Negative Declaration's review period
ends October 23, 2001.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a
resolution recommending City Council approval of Development Code
Amendment No. 2001-03 and Negative Declaration No. 2001-03.
9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS:
10. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
10.1 Public Hearing dates for future proiects.
11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
PARKS AND RECREATION Thursday, October 25, 2001 — 7:00 p.m.
COMMISSION MEETING: AQMD Hearing Board Room
21865 E. Copley Drive
October 23, 2001
Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE LANTERMAN Thursday, October 25, 2001 — 7:00 p.m.
COMMUNITY ADVISORY Research Conference Room
COMMITTEE MEETING: Lanterman Development Center
3530 W. Pomona Blvd., Pomona
CITY LANTERMAN Monday, October 29, 2001 — 7:00 p.m.
MONITORING COMMITTEE AQMD — Room CC8
MEETING: 21865 E. Copley Drive
CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 30, 2001
CANDIDATE FORUM: 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
AQMD Auditorium
21865 E. Copley Drive
HALL OF HORRORS Tuesday, October 30 &
HAUNTED HOUSE: Wednesday, October 31, 2001
6:00 — 9:00 p.m., Heritage Park
Community Center, 2900 S. Brea Cyn. Rd.
FALL FUN FESTIVAL: Wednesday, October 31, 2001
4:30 — 8:30 p.m., Heritage Park
2900 S. Brea Cyn. Rd.
CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, November 6, 2001
MUNICIPAL ELECTION: Polls open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING: Tuesday, November 6, 2001 — 6:30 p.m.
AQMD Auditorium
21865 E. Copley Drive
TRAFFIC AND Thursday, November 8, 2001 — 7:00 p.m.
TRANSPORTATION AQMD Hearing Board Room
COMMISSION MEETING: 21865 E. Copley Drive -
VETERAN'S DAY Sunday, November 11, 2001
CELEBRATION: 3:00 — 5:00 p.m.
Sycamore Canyon Park
22930 Golden Springs Drive
October 23, 2001 Page 5
PLANNING COMMISSION
VETERAN'S DAY City Offices will be closed Monday
HOLIDAY: November 12, 2001, in observance of
Veteran's Day -- City Offices will re -open
Tuesday, November 13, 2001
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 — 6:00 p.m.
AQMD Auditorium
21865 E. Copley Drive
PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, November 13, 2001 — 7:00 p.m.
MEETING: AQMD Auditorium
21865 E. Copley Drive
12. ADJOURNMENT:
at
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
-- - ------- - - ----------------
OCTOBER 9, 2001
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Zirbes called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality
Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Vice Chairman Ruzicka led in the Pledge of Allegiance.
1. ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Bob Zirbes, Vice Chairman Joe Ruzicka, and
Commissioners George Kuo, Steve Nelson and Steve Tye.
Also Present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager, Ann Lungu, Associate
Planner, Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant, and Stella
Marquez, Administrative Secretary.
2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None offered.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 25, 2001.
VC/Ruzicka moved, C/Tye seconded, to approve the minutes for the regular
September 25, 2001, meeting as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll
Call vote:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
5. OLD BUSINESS: None
Kuo, Nelson, Tye, VC/Ruzicka,
Chair/Zirbes
None
None
OCTOBER 9, 2001
PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
6. NEW BUSINESS:
6.1 Discussion regarding the City's current 30 percent lot coverage requirement.
7.
91
AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report.
The Commission engaged in a lengthy discussion.
Richard Malooly said that one of his clients engaged a contractor to draw out a 192
square foot addition off of his family room only to find out that it could not be built
because of the 30 percent lot coverage restriction. He asked the Commission to come
up with a formula that would allow staff to determine the feasibility of additions. For
instance, the square footage of the driveway could be eliminated as part of the
footprint.
Expanding upon Mr. Malooly's statement, Chair/Zirbes suggested that staff devise
a formula that allows for additions not to exceed more than 10 percent of the current
building structure.
C/Tye asked staff to provide a matrix that includes information regarding total square
footage of requests for additions. In some cases, elimination of the driveway square
footage would provide allowance for structural additions. He believes the formula
should be fair and balanced, not punitive, and does not burden staff.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
8.1 Development Code Amendment No. 2001-02, Conditional Use Permit
No. 2001-06 and Comprehensive Sign Program 2000-02 (pursuant to Code
Sections 22.36.120.C. and 22.36.080 is a request to permit freeway -oriented signs
that feature an electronic reader board with a maximum 65 foot height a maximum
total sign face area of 1,000 square feet for freeway oriented development complexes
within the C-3 zone. Additionally, the proposed Development Code Amendment
will allow freeway -oriented wall signs with a maximum sign face area of 300 square
feet and monument signs with a maximum 12 foot height and a maximum sign face
area of 55 square feet for the freeway -oriented development complexes within the
C-3 zone. The Planning Commission is charged with making a recommendation to
the City Council for the proposed request.
PROJECT ADDRESS: Commercial development complexes within
C-3 zone adjacent to the freeway
APPLICANT: City of Diamond Bar
:- �•� ��-z-. •spa
OCTOBER 9, 2001 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission adopt a resolution recommending City Council approval of
Development Code Amendment No. 2001-02 and Negative Declaration No. 2001-03.
C/Tye spoke against changing the City's Development Code to include electronic
reader boards.
Chair/Zirbes talked about the possibility of eliminating signs within 1000 feet of
residential property.
Chair/Zirbes opened the public hearing.
Rod Wilson, Owner, Electric -Media, Inc., explained how other cities have handled
this type of ordinance.
Mr. Wilson responded to C/Nelson that the distance of the reader board placed in
Huntington Beach was 1000 feet from residential property. The 1000 foot limitation
prevented other reader boards in that city. He could not recall the total number of
acres for which the sign was approved.
Chair/Zirbes closed the public hearing.
Chair/Zirbes suggested approving the ordinance provided that no reader board be
placed within 1000 feet of a residential property.
C/Tye was adamantly opposed to reader boards in the City of Diamond Bar.
VC/Ruzicka said he could live with reader boards as long as the City could control
their look and content.
C/Nelson agreed with Chair/Zirbes that a provision to allow no reader boards within
1000 feet of residential property.
DCM/DeStefano responded to C/Nelson that the proposed height of the reader board
is related to the speed at which vehicles travel and the ability of the driver to digest
the contents of the sign in time to exit the freeway at the location specified on the
sign.
Mr. Wilson said that if the sign height was dropped below 65 feet vehicles traversing
Grand Avenue would block the bottom tenant panels from motorists'. views.
Addressing VC/Ruzicka, Mr. Wilson said he would prefer to drop the sign a few feet
rather than make the tenant panels smaller.
PAGE 4
PLANNING COMMISSION
C/Tye said that even if the sign is located 1;000 feet or more from residential
property, it will be visible to homes and condominiums across the freeway.
VC/Ruzicka believed that Mr. Wilson addressed the fact that the light of the reader
board is reflected downward and no light is reflected upward. Therefore, it seems
that the City would have a lot of control over how the sign is designed.
C/Tye pointed out that the signs are visible from the air and would be visible from
the ridgeline even though the light is reflected downward.
Following discussion, C/Tye moved, C/Nelson seconded to adopt a resolution
recommending City Council denial of Development Code Amendment No. 2001-02
and Negative Declaration No. 2001-03. Motion carried by the following Roll Call
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Nelson, Tye, Chair/Zirbes
NOES: COM IISSIONER& VC/Ruzicka,
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
C/Nelson said this has been a difficult issue to consider and he asked staff to rethink
the proposed Development Code Amendment.
8.2 Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-06 and Comprehensive Sign Program
No. 2000-01 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.58 and 22.36.060) is a request to install
signs for the Diamond Bar Honda dealership and recently approved dealer
expansion/car wash/lube facility. Proposed signs are as follows: a 65 foot tall
electronic reader board; three monument signs; two canopy signs; and one dealership
identification sign. The Conditional Use Permit will be utilized to review the
proposed electronic reader board sign with regard to location, design and potential
impacts. The Comprehensive Sign Program provides a process for sign integration
with the design of structures on site in order to achieve a unified architectural
statement.
PROJECT ADDRESS:
19Wo] 90CTIWKSM?/\121.14
515-525 S. Grand Avenue
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Matthew Tachdjian
Col -Am Properties, LLC
P.O. Box 4655
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
OCTOBER 9, 2001 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION
APPLICANT: Rod Wilson
Electric -Media, Inc.
4737 W. 156`h Street
Lawndale, CA 90260
Chair/Zirbes opened the public hearing.
Rod Wilson, Owner, Electric -Media, Inc., speaking on behalf of the property owner,
stressed the importance of a sign program to the expansion of his dealership. The
reader board is the reason for this application. Not only did Huntington Beach
approve the code amendment, the city paid $500,000 for the sign because they
understood the value of helping the Huntington Beach businesses to maintain and
possibly increase their sales. Other cities have wrestled with this issue. Escondido,
for instance, has had a reader board installation for two plus years and as a result, has
successfully increased the tax revenue for the city. Escondido effectively uses the
sign to advertise their civic and theater events. Matt needs help to sell cars and this
sign will help Matt sell cars. Newspaper advertising for dealerships averages about
$50,000 per month. The sign will cost $400,000 to install, equal to approximately
eight months of newspaper advertising. It is a fact that sales from reader board signs
is more effective than newspaper advertising. A reader board will be visible to
approximately 250,000 vehicle occupants who pass by this location. Static signs
when first put up has a readership value of about 50 to 70 percent and decreases
down to 15 percent. A reader board sign stays in the 72 to 82 percent readership area.
That is why the reader board is necessary for this application. Following installation
of # reader board, sales increase 16 to 22 percent. Studies concluded by CalTrans
indicate that there have never been any accident recorded in the history of electronic
reader boards along the CalTrans system throughout Southern California.
Chair/Zirbes moved, C/Tye seconded, to continue the public hearing to
November 27, 2001. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
Chair/Zirbes continued the public hearing to November 27, 2001.
9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: None Offered.
r
OCTOBER 9, 2001 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION
10. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects.
As agendized.
11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
As listed in the Agenda.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman Zirbes
adjourned the meeting at 9:28 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
James DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
Attest:
Chairman Bob Zirbes
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
REPORT DATE:
MEETING DATE:
CASE/FILE NUMBERi.
APPLICATION REQUEST:
PROJECT LOCATION:
PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT:
BACKGROUND:
City of Diamond Bar
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
8.1
October 5, 2001
October 23, 2001
Conditional Use Permit No.
99-03(1) and Of
Development Review No.
99-06 (1)
One-year extension of time
of the Planning
commission grant
1575 S. Valley Vista Drive
(Tract 39679, Lot 13)
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Specialty Equipment Market-
ing Association (SEMA)
1575 S. Valley Vista
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
The property owner/applicant, Specialty Equipment Marketing
Association (SEMA), is requesting an extension of time. The time
extension request is for Conditional Use Permit No. 99-03 and
Development Review No. 99-06, (pursuant to Code Section
22.66.050.C.) that the Planning Commission approved on November
23, 1999 by Resolution No. 99-28. The Planning Commission
approval allows the construction of a two-story office building
of approximately 13,325 square feet with a research laboratory
facility for automobile emissions testing. The first story,
approximately 8,695 square feet, will contain the research
laboratory facility.. The second -story, approximately 4,630
square feet, will contain the administrative office.
1
The project site is located within Gateway Corporate Center at
1575 S. Valley Vista Drive (Tract 39679, Lot 13) It has a General
Plan land use designation of Professional Office (OP) and zoning
designation of Commercial Manufacturing -Billboard Exclusion -
Unilateral Contract(C-M-BE-U/C). Generally, the following zone
and use surround the
e project site: to the north and east is the
C-M-BE-U/C Zone; and to the west is the Orange Freeway (SR 57)
Freeway; and to the south is the R-1-10,000 Zone.
ANALYSIS:
EXTENSION OF TIME
Pursuant to Development Code Section 22.66.050.C., an approved
permit or entitlement shall be exercised before its expiration
(i.e., obtain a building permit and continuous on-site
construction activity; obtain a grading permit and complete a
significant amount of on-site grading; or actually implement the
land use in its entirety). If the permit or entitlement is not
exercised, the applicant shall file a written request for an
extension of time with the appropriate review authority. In this
case, the appropriate review authority is the Planning
Commission. If the Planning Commission determines that the
permittee has proceeded in good faith and has exercised due
diligence in seeking to establish the permit, the Planning
Commission shall grant an extension of time up to two consecutive
periods not to exceed six months each or a total of one year.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2000-03, Condition (t), for
the project states "this grant is valid for two years and shall
be exercised within that period or this grant shall expire. A
one-year extension of time may be approved when submitted to the
City in writing at least 60 days prior to the expiration date.
The Planning Commission may consider the extension request at a
duly noticed public hearing in accordance with Chapter 22.72 of
the City of Diamond Bar Development Code."
The applicant submitted a request in writing dated September 13,
2001 for a one-year extension of time. Contractual negotiations
were not in order to meet the first deadline. Therefore, the
extension of time is needed. The extension of time request does
not modify the project's original approval in any way.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15070, City determined that a
011
Negative Declaration was required for this project. The City
prepared--and--adopted---Nega-t-i--ve--Dec-1--a-r-a-t-i-on—No.---99---0-7—on.--Noveirber----.—--- ------
23, 1999. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15162 (a), the City has
determined that the proposed extension of time does not
substantially change the project, thereby causing significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity
of the previously identified significant effects. Therefore,
further environmental review is not required.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
Notice for this project was published in the Inland Valley
Bulletin and the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on October 11, 2001.
Public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 15 property
owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site on October 9,
2001. Furthermore, the project site was posted with a display
board and the public notice was posted in three public places on
October 10, 2001.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a one-year
extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 99-03(1),
Development Review No. 99-06(1), Findings of Fact and conditions
of approval as listed within the attached resolution.
REQUIRED EXTENSION OF TIME,FINDINGS:
1. The permittee has established, with substantial evidence
beyond the control of the permittee (e.g., demonstration of
financial hardship, legal problems with the closure of the
sale of, the parcel, poor weather conditions in which to
complete construction activities, etc.), why the permit
should be extended.
t_1
2. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with
the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
Prepared by:
An J. LunV,' Ass-i�la Planner c �
Attachments:
1. Extension of time draft resolution;
2. Extension of time correspondence dated September 13, 2001;
3. Staff reports dated November 10, 1999;
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-28; and
5. Exhibit "A" - site plan, floor plan, elevations, sections,
grading plan, landscape/irrigation plan and colors/materials
board dated November 23, 1999.
DI
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF
TIME OF THE NOVEMBER 23, 1999 PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 99-03 (1) AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO
99-06 (1), WHICH ALLOWS THE CONSTRUCT OF A TWO-
STORY OFFICE BUILDING OF APPROXIMATELY 13,325
SQUARE FEET WITH A RESEARCH LABORATORY
FACILITY FOR AUTOMOBILE EMISSIONS TESTING AND
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE. THE PROJECT SITE IS
LOCATED AT 1575 S. VALLEY VISTA DRIVE (TRACT NO.
39679, LOT 13), DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA.
A. RECITALS.
1. The property owner/applicant, Specialty Equipment Marketing Association
(SEMA), has filed an extension of time application for Conditional Use Permit
No. 99-03 and Development Review No. 99-06 approved by the Planning
Commission on November 23, 1999 for a property located at 1575 S. Valley
Vista Drive, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject extension of time for the Conditional Use Permit and
Development Review shall be referred to as the "Application".
2. Notification of the public hearing for this project was provided in the Inland
Valley Bulletin and the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on October 11, 2001. Public
hearing notices were mailed to approximately 15 property owners within a 500 -
foot radius of the project site on October 9, 2001. Furthermore, the project site
was posted with a display board and the public notice was posted in three
public places on October 10, 2001.
3. On October 23, 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar
conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing on the Application.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows:
This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth
in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
11
2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the project identifiea
d$ve
C�
pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (C
Section 15070, required a Negative Declaration. The City prepared a
adopted Negative Declaration No. 99-07 on November 23, 1999. Pursuant
CEQA Section 15162 (a), the City has determined that the proposed extension
of time does not substantially change the project, thereby causing significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously
identified significant effects. Therefore, further environmental review is not
required.
3. Th , e Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having
considered the record as a whole including the findings set forth below, and
changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned
upon the proposed project set forth in the application, there is no evidence
before this Planning Commission that the project proposed herein will have the
potential of an adverse effect on wild life resources or the habitat upon which
the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this Planning
Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in
Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning
Commission hereby finds as follows:
(a) The project relates to a vacant lot of approximately 37,759 square feet
located within Gateway Corporate Center. On November 23, 1999, the
Planning Commission approved the construction of a two-story office
building of approximately 13,325 square feet with a research laboratory
facility for automobile emissions testing. The first story, approximately
8,695 square feet, will contain the research laboratory facility. The
second -story, approximately 4,630 square feet, will contain the
administrative office.
(b) The Application request is for an extension of time of the Planning
Commission's November 23, 1999 approval.
(c) The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Professional
Office (OP).
(d) The project site is within the Commercial Manufacturing -Billboard
Exclusion -Unilateral Contract (C-M-BE-U/C) Zone.
(e) Generally, the following zone and use surround the project site: to the
north and east is the C-M-BE-U/C Zone; and to the west is the Orange
Freeway (SR 57) Freeway; and to the south is the R-1-10,000 Zone.
Extension of Time Finding
(f) The permittee has established, with substantial evidence beyond the
control of the permittee (e.g., demonstration of financial hardship, legal
problems with the closure of the sale of the parcel, poor
conditions in which to complete construction activities, etc.)
should --be-extended;--- ---- --
the
The applicant submitted a request in writing dated September 13,
2001 for a one-year extension of time. Contractual negotiations were
not in order to meet the first deadline. Therefore, the extension of
time is needed. The extension of time request does not modify the
project's original approval in any way.
(g) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), Section 15070, City determined that a Negative Declaration
was required for this project. The City prepared and adopted Negative
Declaration No. 99-07 on November 23, 1999. Pursuant to CEQA
Section 15162 (a), the City has determined that the proposed extension
of time does not substantially change the project, thereby causing
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity
of the previously identified significant effects. Therefore, further
environmental review is not required.
5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the Application subject to the following
conditions:
(a) The project shall substantially conform to site plan, grading plan, floor
plan, elevations, sections, final landscape/irrigation plan, and
colors/materials board collectively labeled as Exhibit "A" dated
November 23, 1999, as submitted and approved by the Planning
Commission on November.23,1999.
(b) Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-28 approved on November 23,
1999 shall remain in full force and effect except as amended herein.
(c) This extension of time grant is valid for one year and shall be exercised
(i.e., construction started) within that period or this grant shall expire on
November 23, 2002 and no further extension of time shall be granted.
(d) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and
owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed,
within fifteen (15) days of approval of this grant, at the City of Diamond
Bar Community and Development Services Department, their affidavit
stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of
this grant. Further, this grant shall not be effective until the permittee
pays remaining City processing fees, school fees and fees for the review
of submitted reports.
(e) If the Department of Fish and Game determines that Fish a$me
Code Section 711.4 applies to the approval of this project, t e
t
applicant shall remit to the City, within five days of this grant's app
a cashier's check of $25.00 for a documentary handling fWe
connection with Fish and Game Code requirements. Furthermore, if thoX
project is not exempt from a filing fee imposed because the project has
more than a - derninimis - impact -on fish and -wildlife, the applicant shall
also pay to the Department of Fish and Game any such fee and any fine
which the Department determines to be owed.
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:
Specialty Equipment Marketing Association (SEMA), 1575 S. Valley
Vista Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD OF ON OCTOBER 2001, BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
L"."V
Bob Zirbes, Chairman
1, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of
October 2001, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
James DeStefano, Secretary
N
Ll�q-7 -ASSN
0I
Chairman of the Board
* Nate Shelton
Chairman Elect
* Corky Coker
Secretary -Treasurer
* Doug Mergenthaler
Board of Directors
Joel Ayres
Gerry Ballard
• Steve Bollo
Tom Brooks
Paul "Scooter" Brothers
Jim Cozzle
Richard Deney
• Todd Gartshore
• Lori A. Gosselin
Wade Kawasaki
Butch Lahmann
Dennis Overholser
Mark Pettersen
Rick Rollins
• Carl Schlefer
David Stutts
Anne Thomas
Bob West
• Mitch Williams
Van Woodell
Jeep Worthan
Immediate Past Chairman
* Charlie Van Cleve
President
Charles R. Blum, CAE
ceneral counsel
John Russell Deane III
Executive Committee
Mailing Address.
P.O. Box 4910
Diamond Bar, Calif. 91765-0910
Shipping Address.
1575 S. Valley Vista Dr.
Diamond Bar, Calif. 91765-3914
Telephone: 909/396-0289
Fax, general Offices. 909/860-0184
E-mail: sema@sema.org
Web Sites: www.sema.org
www.enjoythedrive.com
is
September 13, 2001
/ r//f ie
City of Diamond Bar
Planning Department NNII
21825 E. Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Re: Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-28
Dear Sirs:
Please find enclosed our check #59457 in the amount of
$500.00.
This letter and the enclosed check complete our request for a
one-year extension of Planning Commission Resolution
No.99-28.
Also enclosed is a copy of page 12 of the resolution, which
allows for a one-year extension under item "T".
If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Sincerely,
Linda A. Czarkow
Vice President, Administration.
/LAC
Proud of dedicated service to the industry since 1963
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION No. 99-28
A RESOLUTION OF - THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 99-3, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW No.
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION -No. 99-7, A REQUEST TO
CONSTRUCT A 13,325 SQUARE FOOT, TWO STORY OFFICE
BUILDING WITH A RESEARCH LABORATORY FACILITY FOR
AUTOMOBILE EMISSIONS TESTING.`THE PROJECT SITE
IS LOCATED AT 1575 SOUTH VALLEY VISTA DRIVE (LOT
13, TRACT No. 39679) WITHIN THE GATEWAY
CORPORATE CENTER, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA.
A. RECITALS
B.
1. The property owner, Specialty Equipment Market
Association, and applicant, The Withee Malcolm
Partnership, Architects, have filed an application for
Conditional Use Permit No. 99-3, Development Review No.
99-6 and Negative Declaration No. 99-7 for a property
located at 1575 South Valley Vista Drive (Lot 13 of Tract
No. 39679), Diamond Bar, California. Hereinafter, in
this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit,
Development Review and Negative Declaration shall be
referred to as the "Application".
2. Notification of the public hearing for this project was
provided in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland
Valley Daily Bulletin
etin newspapers on November 3, 1999.
Public hearing notice's were mailed, to approximately 17
property owners of record within a Soo foot radius of the
project on November 2, 1999. Furthermore, the project
site was posted with a display board on November 4, 1999.
Three other sites were Posted within the vicinity of this
application on November 3, 1999.
3. The Planning Commission of the I City of Diamond Bar on
November 23, 1999 conducted a duly noticed public hearing
on the Application.
RESOLUTION
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by
the Planning commission of the City of Diamond Bar as
follows:
1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that
----a - -- -of-- -the-facts—set-
this Resolution are true and correct.
2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the Initial
Study review and Negative Declaration No. 99-7 have been
prepared by the City of Diamond Bar in compliance with
the requirements of "the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder,
pursuant to Section 15070. Furthermore,' Negative
Declaration No. 99-7 reflects the independent judgment of
the City of Diamond Bar. The Negative Declaration review
period began November 3, 1999 and ends November 23, 1999.
3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and
determines that, having considered the record as a whole
including the findings set forth below, and changes and
alterations which have been incorporated into and
conditioned upon the proposed project set forth in the
application, there is no evidence before the Planning
Commission that the project proposed herein will have the
potential of. an adverse effect on wild life resources or
the habitat upon which the wild life depends. Based upon
substantial evidence, this Planning. Commission hereby
rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in
Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth herein,
this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows:
(a) The project relates, to vacant lot, approximately
0.80 acres (37,759 square feet).
(b) The project site has a General Plan land use
designation of Office Professional (OP). Pursuant
to the General Plan, this land use designation
provides the establishment Of office -based working
environments for general,
professional, and
.administrative office uses, as well as support uses.
Additionally, development within the OP designation
,will maintain a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of
1.00.
(c) The project site is within the Commercial -
Manufacturing -Billboard Exclusion -Unilateral
Contract (C-M-BE-U/C) Zone. This zoning designation
pe ' rmits general office uses and laboratories for
research and testing.
2
(d) Generally, the following zones and uses surround the
project site: to the north and east are the C-M-BE-
U/C Zones, to the west is the SR 57 freeway, and to
the *south is- the R-1-10,000 Zone. The - project site
is also located within the City's Redevelopment
Agency's Economic Revitalization Area.
(e) The application request is to construct a 13,325
square foot, two story, Office building with a
research laboratory facility for automobile
emissions testing.
Conditional Use Permit:
(f) The Proposed use is allowed within the subject
zoning district with the approval of a Conditional
Use Permit and complies with all other applicable
provisions of this Development Code and the
Municipal Code;
The Proposed project is within the Commercial -
Manufacturing -Billboard Exclusion -Unilateral
,Contract (C-M-BE-U/C) Zone, which permits the
Proposed general office use. The Project site is
within the established Gateway Corporate Center,,
which permits general office uses and laboratories
for research and testing. The proposed uses were
reviewed and approved with the original approval of
the center processed by Los Angeles County.
Although the proposed research laboratory facility
is a permitted, use by right under the Unilateral
Contract for the Gateway Corporate Center, the City
Director believes a discretionary review by
Conditional Use Permit is needed. Pursuant to
Development Code Section 22.04(h)l the Director may
determine that a proposed use not listed in Article
II may be allowed as a permitted or conditional use,
or is not allowed. In this case, the Director has
determined a Conditional Use Permit should be
required to ensure proper development and
compatibility of this unique project within the
surrounding area.
(9) , The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan
and any applicable specific plan;
�J
The proposed project provides for the establishment
,—.----o-f----a-n----of-f--i-ce---ba-sed---work-i-ng---envi:ronment-----f-or----5erieFral------------------
offices within the General Plan's OP land use
designation. Pursuant to the General Plan, the
proposed project will yield a pleasant living,
working, or shopping environment, and attract
interest of residents, workers, shoppers, and
visitors as the- result of consistent exemplary
design. As noted in 4(h) below, the design and
layout of the .proposed development will be
consistent with other developments in the Gateway
Corporate Center.
(h) The design, location, size and operating
characteristics of the proposed use are compatible
with, the existing and future land uses in the
vicinity;
The proposed project is located within the Gateway
Corporate Center which approximately 143 acres are
subdivided into lots to accommodate a mix
development of office -based working environments for
general, professional, and administrative office
uses, as well as support uses. The center was
processed by Los Angeles County and approved in the
late 1980s. This approval was incorporated into a
Unilateral Contract imposing land restrictions and
development standards, which the City adopted on
October 17, 1989. The Gateway Corporate Center
permits general office uses and laboratories for
research and testing. Moreover, the -proposed
application was reviewed and approved by the Gateway
Corporate Center architectural committee to ensure
the proposed development is consistent with other
developments in the same area.
(i) 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.
Development on the subject site was previously
contemplated when it was reviewed and approved by
Los Angeles County. The Gateway Corporate Center
contains other developments, which are similar in
,size and design. The proposed uses are also
permitted according to the Gateway Unilateral
Contract. Therefore, the subject site is physically
4
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
(j) Granting the Conditional Use Permit will not be
detrimental to the public interest,.__health, safety,
convenience, or welfare, or injurious to persons,
property, or improvements in the vicinity and zoning
district in which the property is located.
Before the issuance of any City permits, the
proposed project is required to comply with all
conditions within the approved resolution.
Additionally, the proposed project is required to
comply with the Building and Safety Division, Public
Works Division, Fire Department, South Coast Air
Quality Management District, and State of California
requirements. The referenced agencies, involvement
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.
Development Review:
W The design and layout of the proposed development
are consistent with the General Plan, development
standards of the applicable district, design
guidelines, and architectural criteria for special
areas (e.g. theme areas, specific plans, community
plans, boulevards or planned developments).
The proposed project provides for the establishment
of an office based working environment for general
offices within the General Plan's OP land' use
designation. Pursuant to the General Plan, the
proposed project will yield a pleasant living,
working, or shopping environment, and attract
interest of residents, workers, shoppers, and
visitors as the result of consistent exemplary
design. As noted in 4(h) above, the design and
layout of the proposed development will be
consistent with other developments in the Gateway
Corporate Center.
(1) The design of the proposed development will not
interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring
5
existing or future developments, and will not create
The proposed project is within the Commercial-
Manufacturing.7Billboard Exclusion -Unilateral
Contract (C-M-BE-U/C) Zone, which permits the
proposed general office use. The project site is
within the established Gateway Corporate Center,
which permits general office uses and laboratories
for research and testing. The proposed uses were
reviewed and approved with the original approval of
the center processed by Los Angeles County.
Additionally, the Center's certified Environmental
Impact Report reviewed impacts related to traffic
and pedestrians. As a result, the following traffic
mitigation measures were required and were
installed.
1.Improve that portion of the proposed bikeway
along Golden Springs Drive fronting on Gateway
Corporate Center.
2. Golden Springs Drive shall be widened to provide
left turn pockets at both entrance streets to the
center.
3. Traffic signals shall be installed on Golden
Springs Drive, at the two entrance drives to the
center.
Additionally, a traffic analysis and site plan
evaluation prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan,
dated July 22, 1999, 'recommends the following: 1)
Widen and/or re -stripe the northbound approach on'
Golden Springs to provide dual left -turn lanes and
2) Modify the existing traffic signal phasing to
provide a northbound right -turn overlap phase.
Moreover, with respect to project specific
improvements, the applicant shall be expected to pay
a "fair share" cost associated with the improvements
identified. The project's percentage of net traffic
impact at this key intersection averages to about
0.12%. The City's traffic consultant and Public
Works Division concurs with the estimated traffic
impact. As part of this project's conditions
approval, the applicant shall be required* to pay
their "fair share" cost.
rr_
Therefore, the design and layout of the proposed
project is consistent with the applicable elements
of the City's General Plan and City Design
Guidelines.
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 this Chapter, the General Plan*, or
any applicable specific plan.
The proposed project will be consistent and
compatible with the architectural design, materials,
and colors of the other office buildings within the
Gateway Corporate Center and its Unilateral Contract
which was originally reviewed and approved by Los
Angeles County. The Unilateral Contract sets forth
land restrictions/development standards. The
development standards require an architectural style
that is Modern/ Contemporary with materials, textures
and colors that complement this style. As a result,
the City, upon incorporation adopted the specified
development standards. Furthermore, the proposed
project has received the center's architectural
committee's approval. Therefore, the proposed
revision will be compatible with the character of
the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the
harmonious, orderly, and attractive development
contemplated by the City's Conditional Use Permit
and Development Review requirements and General
Plan.
(n) The design of the proposed development will provide
a desirable environment for its occupants and
visiting public as well as its neighbors through
good aesthetic use of materials, texture and color,
and will remain aesthetically appealing.
As referenced in the above findings, the proposed
project will provide a desirable environment for its
occupants and. visiting public as well as its
neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials,
texture, and color that will remain aesthetically
appealing and will retain a reasonably adequate
level of maintenance.
(o) The proposed development will not he detrimental to
the public health, safety or welfare or materially
7
injurious (e.g., negative affect on property values
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.
Additionally, the• proposed project is required to
comply with the Building and Safety Division, Public
Works Division, Fire Department, South "Coast Air
Quality Management District, and State -of California
requirements. The referenced agencies' involvement
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.
(p) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance
with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
The Environmental Impact Report (SCH 80121218) that
reviewed the entire development of Gateway Corporate
Center and which contemplated the type of use
proposed by this project, required that the
following traffic mitigation measures be installed.
The traffic mitigation -measures required by the EIR
have been installed.
Pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15070, the
City has determined' that a Negative Declaration is
required for this project. Negative Declaration No.
99-7 has been prepared. The Negative Declaration
review period begins November 3, 1999 and ends
November 23, 1999.
(q) The proposed project will . be in substantial
compliance with the adopted Economic Revitalization
Area.
The proposed project is located within the Economic
Revitalization Area. The proposed project is
consistent with the Economic Revitalization Area
Plan in that the proposed project implements the
applicable policies as present in the City's General
Plan and complies with development limits and
standards established by the City's Development
Code; and promotes the economic development of the
8
Project Area by providing an attractive, well
serviced, well protected environment for all
residents and visitors; and promotes local job
opportunities.
5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above
the Planning Commission hereby approves the
Application subject to the following conditions:
(a) The project shall substantially conform to site
plan, floor plan, elevations, final
landscape/irrigation, final exterior and parking lot
lighting plan/study, and colors/materials board
collectively labeled as Exhibit "A" and dated
November 23, 1999, as' submitted and approved by the
Planning Commission, as amended herein.
(b) 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 granted herein. The removal of all
trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or
subsequent to construction shall be done only by the
property owner, applicant or by 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 ensure
that the waste contractor utilized has obtained
permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such
services.
(c) Before the issuance of any City permits, the
applicant shall submit a final landscape/ irrigation
plan that delineates plant species, size, quantity
and location, for the City's review and approval.
The landscape/ irrigation plan shall comply with the
City's established Water Efficient Landscape
Regulations and shall be plan checked accordingly
before the issuance of any City permits.
Additionally, non-invasive plant species shall be
utilized, thereby avoiding the degradation of the
natural open space slopes on the project site.
(d) Before the issuance of any City permits, the
applicant shall submit an exterior lighting
plan/study for the City's review and approval.
9
(e) The proposed flagpole height shall be a maximum of
------ ------
--------- - ---------3-5- -feet �f-rom -the -finished--grade and---th-e length of
th
----------
the flag shall not be more than 1/4 of the height of
the pole. Additionally, the applicant shall submit
a new site plan for the City's review and approval
if a new location for the proposed flagpole is being
proposed.
(f) Prior to the issuance of a building permit,- the
applicant shall submit a final detail of the
trash/recycle bin enclosure* for the City's review
and approval.
(g) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the
applicant shall submit a soils:i7eport, for the
City's review and approval, incorporating the scope
of the proposed development in the review and
analysis. The soils report shall give the
appropriate recommendations for the construction of
the project.
(h) Prior to the issuance of any City permits, the
applicant shall submit a complete grading plan in
accordance with the City's grading requirements for
.the City's review and approval. The grading plan
shall:
(1) Be sign/stamped by a civil engineer,
geotechnical engineer, and geologist as
required;
(2) Delineate the proposed and existing
topography;
(3) Delineate finish surface, finish grade, flow
lines;
(4) Delineate proper drainage with details and
sections;
(5) Delineate property lines and all easements;
(6) Provide details, calculations, and sections
delineating 'top of wall, top of footing,
finish surface, bottom of footing for
proposed retaining wall.
10
Before the issuance of any City permits, the
applicant shall submit an erosion control plan for
the City's review and approval. The erosion control
plan shall conform to National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) standards and incorporate
the appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's).
Additionally, the applicant shall obtain the
necessary NPDES permits.
W Plans shall conform to State and Local Building
Codes (i.e. 1997 Uniform Building Code, Uniform
Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, and the 1996
National Electrical Code) requirements and Fire
Department requirements, as well as the State Energy
Code.
(j) Pursuant -to the Building and Safety Division
requirements, the applicant shall provide
construction fencing surrounding the boundaries of
the project site.
(k) Construction plans shall be engineered to meet wind
loads of 80 m.p.h.
(1) There shall be a one hour separation between the S-3
and "B" use.. Also, the exterior walls and openings
protection shall meet Table 5-A. Per Building Code
Table 5-A, the proposed type of construction (v -n)
requires bearing wall to be of one-hour construction
within 20 feet from the property lines.
W The access doors and restrooms shall be clearly
marked with handicap symbols. Ramps shall be made
handicap accessible.
-(n) Applicant shall install handicap signage at each
entry to the parking lot.
(o) Applicant shall comply with new State Handicap
Accessibility Regulations (i.e. van parking,
shortest route to accessible entrance, shortest
pedestrian route to the closest pedestrian entrance,
restrooms, ramps, etc.) One handicap van parking
space is required.
(p) Prior to issuance of any City permits, applicant
shall submit plans to Los Angeles County Fire
Department for their review and approval.
11
(q) Applicant shall denote on a plan the path of travel
frcm--the--parking—lot---to---t-he--bu-i--l-d-i-ng---------
The path of travel from the handicap parking to the
building may not exceed cross slope of 2 percent.
Applicant shall also show path of travel from the
curb to the building.
(r) Prior to the issuance -of any City Permits, applicant
shall pay their "fair share" cost for traffic
improvements as a result of the project's traffic
impacts as determined in the traffic analysis dated
July 23, 1999.
(s) Applicant shall follow regulations for the storage
of hazardous materials pursuant to the Uniform
Building Code Section 307 for Group H Occupancy.
(t) This grant is valid for two years and shall be
exercised within that period or this grant shall
expire. A one-year extension of time may be
approved when submitted to the City in writing at
least 60 days prior to the expiration date. The
Deputy City Manager may consider the extension
request at duly noticed public hearing in accordance
with Chapter 22.72 of the City of Diamond Bar
Development Code.
(u) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose
until the permittee and owner of the property
involved (if other than the permittee) have filed
within fifteen (15) days of approval of this grant,
at the City of Diamond Bar Community and Development
Services Department, their affidavit stating that
they are aware of and agree to accept all the
conditions of this grant. Furthermore, this grant
shall not be effective until the permittee pays the
remaining City processing fees.
(v) If the Department of Fish and Game determines that
Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 applies to the
approval of this project, then the applicant shall
remit to the City, within five, days of this grant's
approval, a cashier's check of $25.00 for a
documentary handling fee in connection with Fish and
Game Code requirements. Furthermore, if this
project is not exempt from a filing fee imposed
because the project has more than a deminimus impact
on . fish and wildlife, the applicant shall also pay
12
to the Department of Fish and Game any such fee and
any fine -which the Department
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: Dale Malcolm
and Shaw -Bing Chen, The Withee Malcolm
Partnership, Architects, 1983 West 190th Street,
Suite 200, Torrance, CA 90504 and Linda
Czarkowski, Specialty Equipment Market
Association, 1575 South Valley Vista Drive,
Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23rd DAY OF NOVEMBER 1999, BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
BY: At -e LL_ t U 4 -
SEL-ve Tye, Chairman
I, James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed and adopted
by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, at a
regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd day
of November 1999, by the following vote:
AYES: Chairman Tye, Vice -Chair Nelson,
Kuo, McManus, Ruzicka.
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN -
BY:
Jam t_9 DeStefano, ecretary
13
City of Diamond Bar
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 8.1
REPORT DATE:
MEETING DATE:
CASE/FILE NUMBER:
APPLICATION REQUEST:
November 10, 1999
November 23, 1999
Conditional Use Permit No. 99-3.
Development Review No. 99-6
To construct a 13,325 square
foot, two story, office building
with a research laboratory
facility for automobile emissions ssions
testing.,
PROJECT LOCATION: 1575 South Valley Vista Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
(Lot 13 of Tract No. 39679)
PROPERTY OWNER: Specialty Equipment Market
Association (SEMA)
1575 South Valley Vista Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
APPLICANT: Dale Malcolm
The Whithee Malcolm Partnership,
Architects
1983 West 190t" Street, Suite 200
Torrance, CA 90504
BACKGROUND:
The property owner, SEMA, and Dale Malcolm, are. requesting approval
of Conditional Use Permit No. 99-3 and Development Review No. 99-6
(pursuant to Code Section 22.48-020 and 22.58.020) . The request is
for approval to construct a 13,325 square foot, two story office
building with a research laboratory facility for automobile
emissions testing. The proposed two-story building will contain a
first floor, of approximately 8,695 square feet for operation of a
research laboratory facility and a second floor, of approximately
4,630 square feet for administrative office use.
1
The project site is located at 1575 South Valley Vista Drive within
a commercial business center identified as Gateway Corporate Center.
Adjacent to the project site is a 23,692 square foot office building
for SEMA Corporate Headquarters. The project site consists of
approximately 0.80 acres (37,759 square feet)and is located on a
portion of the SEMA property (Lot 13 of Tract No. 39679).
Gateway Corporate Center is approximately 233 acres of which
approximately 143 acres are subdivided into lots to accommodate a
mix development of office -professional, light manufacturing,
restaurant, and retail. The center was processed by Los Angeles
County and approved in the late 1980s. This approval was
incorporated into a Unilateral Contract imposing land restrictions
and development standards, which the City adopted on October 17,
1989.
The project site has a General Plan landuse designation of
Professional Office (OP) . Pursuant to the General Plan, this land
use designation provides for the establishment of office -based
working environments for general, professional, and administrative
offices, as well as support uses. Additionally, development within
the OP designation will maintain a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of
1.00.
The zoning designation for the project site is Commercial
Manufacturing -Billboard Exclusion -Unilateral Contract (C-M-.BE-U/C).
This zoning designation permits general office uses. Pursuant to
Development Code Section 22. 04 (h) , the Director has determined that
the proposed use may be allowed with a conditional use. The
Unilateral Contract permits both general office uses and
laboratories for research and testing. Generally, the following
zones and uses surround the project site: to the north and east are
the C-M-BE-U/C Zones, to the west is the SR 57 freeway and to the
south is the R-1-10,000 Zone.
The project site is also located within the City's Redevelopment
Agency's Economic Revitalization Area. The proposed project is
consistent with the Economic Revitalization Area Plan in that it
implements the General Plan's policies, goals, objectives, and
strategies. Additionally, the proposed project provides an
opportunity for an office and research laboratory facility uses;
promotes economic development of the Project Area by providing an
attractive, well -serviced, well -protected environment for all
residents and visitors; promotes local job opportunities; and
implements design and use standards that assure high aesthetic and
environmental quality, and provide unity and integrity to
developments within the Project Area.
2
ANALYSIS:
CONDITONAL USE PERMIT
Pursuant to Chapter 22.10 of the City's Development Code - Table 2-5
of the City's Development Code, research and development is
permitted in the Office Business (OB) Zone with a Conditional Use
Permit approval. . Therefore, the proposed research laboratory
facility requires a Conditional Use Permit approval. Per the City's
Development Code, Table 2-7 of Article I -I, projects located within
the Gateway Corporation Center are subject to any additional
development standards contained with the Gateway Corporate Center
Design Guidelines although a research laboratory facility is a
permitted use by right under the Unilateral Contract for the Gateway
Corporate Center.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
The City's Development Code also establishes a Development Review
process. The purpose of this process is to establish consistency
with the General Plan through the promotion of high aesthetic and
functional standards to compliment and add to the economic,
physical, and social character of the City. The process will also
ensure that new development and intensification of existing
development yields a pleasant living, working, or shopping
environment and attracts the interest of residents, workers,
shoppers and visitors as the result of consistent exemplary design.
'Pursuant to the Development Code Section 22.48.020(a), an
application for Development Review i ' s required for commercial,
industrial, and institutional development, which involves the
issuance of a building permit for construction or reconstruction of
a structure. Therefore, the proposed project, a building for office
use and a research laboratory facility, which involves the issuance
of a building permit requires Development Review. Development
Review is also within the Planning Commission's review authority.
In addition to complying with the City's Development Code, the
proposed project must comply with the land use restrictions imposed
upon Gateway Corporate Center by the adoption of the Unilateral
Contract. The development standards are included in the following
comparison matrix of the Unilateral Contract standards and the
proposed project's development standards.
3
UNILATERAL CONTRACT'S
PROPOSED PROJECT'S
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
SETBACKS:
SETBACKS:
Front - 25 feet building and
Front -.20 feet parking, 63 feet
parking.
building.
At side yards, 10 feet minimum
At side-yards, 10 feet minimum
building setback and minimum 5'
building setback and minimum
parking setback.
5 feet parking setback.
At rear yards, 5 feet unless
At rear yards, 5 feet parking,
adjacent to a street, 15 feet
46 feet building.
when adjacent to a street for
parking and building.
Building overhangs, cornices and
No projections are proposed into
projections are not permitted
the setback areas.
within setback area unless
approved by the Gateway
Association Architectural
Committee.
BUILDING HEIGHT:
BUILDING HEIGHT:,
Three stories or 45 feet,
Two stories/38 feet.
whichever is less.
RETAINING WALL:
RETAINING WALL:
No wall can exceed a height of 8
Proposed retaining wall will be a
feet unless otherwise approved in
maximum of S feet in height.
writing by the Gateway Center
architectural committee.
SITE COVERAGE:
SITE COVERAGE:
No site coverage is allowed to be
Proposed site coverage is
higher than stated on the site
approximately 38,500 square feet,
diagram for Lot 13 (Net buildable
including paved parking lot area.
pad area is 102,951.85 square
feet) within the Gateway Design
Site coverage does not exceed 50
Guidelines and in no case can it
percent.
exceed 50 percent.
F.A.R.:
F.A.R.:
Floor area ratio - .50
Floor Area Ratio - .35
PARKING:
minimum one space for each 250
square feet of net floor area;
Parking arranged in a geometric
pattern;
3 ft. wide by 4 ft. long curbed
tree planter bet ' ween stalls at 4
to 6 stall intervals; and
Standard parking stall
dimensions: 8 ft. by 18 ft.
(including 2 ft. bumper overhang)
with 27 ft. wide drive aisles;
Compact parking stalls: Maximum
30%;
LANDSCAPING:
15% of the gross usable lot area
(including front setback area but
excluding all natural and.graded
.1side and rear yard slopes);
All buildings must have a minimum
width of 6 feet of landscaping at
face of building except at
entrances and service areas.
ARCHITECTURE:
Contemporary with simple building
masses and of strong geometry;
BUILDING MATERIALS:
Contemporary, utilizing glass,
brick, non -pattern tile, metal
panels, "tilt -up", "poured -in-
place" or "pre -cast" .concrete
with a natural finish
(sandblasted or textured), and
uniform in color, concrete block
(textured, split face, or
R
PARKING:
divided by 250 sq. ft. requires
48 parking spaces; 48 parking
spaces will be provided;
Parking arranged in a geometric
pattern;
Limited number of planters are
proposed due to the limited lot
size.
Standard parking stall
dimensions: 8 ft. by 18 ft.
(including 2 ft. bumper overhang)
with 25 ft. wide drive aisles;
Compact parking- stalls: 12.5%
proposed (6 spaces total)
LANDSCAPING:
21% (7,436 sq. ft.) of the gross
usuable lot area (including front
setback area but excluding all
natural graded sides and rear
yard slopes);
Wall areas between loading doors
at south elevation have been
reviewed and approved by the
Gateway Corporate Center
architectural committee.
ARCHITECTURE:
Contemporary with simple building
masses and strong geometric
features;
BUILDING MATERIALS:
Versalux 1-4" green glass for
windows, building paint - Dryvit-
Grey-Benjamin Moore #1614,
Dryvit-Rust-Benjamin, Moore
#1677, Dryvit-Blue-Benjamin Moore
#1677, Dryvit-White- Benjamin
Moore #1514, Metal Accents
(Mullions, Doors, Louvers) -Dark
As shown in the matrix above 'the proposed Project standards
conflict with the Unilateral Contract's development standards.
Pursuant to the City's Development Code Section 22.04.020(f), in the
event of any conflict between the requirements of this Development
Code and standards adopted as part of any Development Agreement or
Specific Plan, the requirements of the Development Agreement or
Specific Plan shall control. In this case, the Unilateral Contract
agreement is the applied development standard. Moreover, according,
to the Gateway Design Guidelines, any exceptions, special requests,
reviews and/or approvals as required by these guidelines will be
performed by the Architectural Committee, as set forth in the
Gateway Corporate Center's Master Declaration ' of Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions. The proposed project was reviewed and
approved by Gateway Corporate Center's architectural committee.
(See Attachment #1) Consideration for exceptions to the Unilateral
Contract was given for the project site since it is one of the
6
sandblasted), and/or glass block;
and
Grey-Benjamin Moore #1673, Metal
Accents (Canopies, Flagpole)-Dark
Green -Benjamin Moore #686,
Material Finish - Dryvit-
Sandpebble Fine.
SERVICE AREAS:
SERVICE-AREAS:
Loading docks, service delivery
Service area not screened,
areas, where provided are
recessed and/or enclosed so as
required to be screened, recessed
not. to be visible from adjacent
and/or enclosed so as not to be
streets and properties as per
visible from adjacent streets and
Gateway Corporate Center's
properties.
architectural committee review
approval.
ROOFS:
ROOFS:
Generally flat, with minimum
Generally flat;
slope for adequate drainage; may
include simple gable or shed
forms; and
Roof mounted equipment - hidden
Roof mounted equipment - hidden
behind roof parapet, not to be
by screen; it will be required
visible from surrounding streets,
that all mechanical equipment be
driveways, or adjacent buildings
screened pursuant to Gateway
on a horizontal sight line; or
Center Design Guidelines.
screen, constructed using
materials complimentary to
building, integrated to
architectural design.
As shown in the matrix above 'the proposed Project standards
conflict with the Unilateral Contract's development standards.
Pursuant to the City's Development Code Section 22.04.020(f), in the
event of any conflict between the requirements of this Development
Code and standards adopted as part of any Development Agreement or
Specific Plan, the requirements of the Development Agreement or
Specific Plan shall control. In this case, the Unilateral Contract
agreement is the applied development standard. Moreover, according,
to the Gateway Design Guidelines, any exceptions, special requests,
reviews and/or approvals as required by these guidelines will be
performed by the Architectural Committee, as set forth in the
Gateway Corporate Center's Master Declaration ' of Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions. The proposed project was reviewed and
approved by Gateway Corporate Center's architectural committee.
(See Attachment #1) Consideration for exceptions to the Unilateral
Contract was given for the project site since it is one of the
6
smaller lots developed within the Gateway Corporate .Center. The
items--cons-i-dered—a-r-e----l-i-s-t-ed---i-n—A-t-t-a-chme-n-t—#-l—.
The proposed development's exterior is also referenced in the above
comparison matrix. The proposed architectural style, colors, and
materials are compatible with the requirements of Gateway Corporate
Center and existing structures within the center.
GRADING/RETAINING WALL
Although a flat pad exists on the site, some grading is necessary.
Approximately 70 cubic yards will be used for fill and 1500 cubic
yards will be used for cut. Approximately 1430 cubic yards will be
exported. A retaining wall is being proposed near the toe of the
slope near the south property line and also near the east property
line. The proposed retaining wall will be a maximum of 8 feet in
height.
Orm•
The research laboratory facility will be used to conduct three types
of automobile emissions tests; smog checks, electronic
diagnosis/inspection, and automobile research. All three ,test
services 'will be limited to primarily Southern California Automobile
Club (AAA) members. The proposed research laboratory facility is a
certified official State testing facility in which automobile repair
services are prohibited. The research.laboratory facility estimates
a maximum of ten cars per day for smog check testing, four cars per
day for electronic diagnosis/ inspection, and four cars per day for
automobile research. Said estimates reflect the optimal maximum
capacity of automobiles that may be tested and, therefore are much
higher than the actual number of cars that will be tested. As noted
in Negative Declaration No. 99-7, it is anticipated the proposed
project will not result in a cumulatively considerablei'net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard.
The automobile emissions testis conducted by running the automobile
as it is hooked up to a computer analyzer. A hose connects the
automobiles exhaust pipe to the computer analyzer, which is
connected to mechanical equipment that serves as a filtration
device. The emissions are then released through a pipe system,
which opens through the building roof top. It is anticipated that
the amount of emissions is low. The filtration device helps filter
heavy particles and moisture from the exhausted emissions. Also,
the emissions are further diluted with more air. As a result, the
level of emissions is much less than automobiles that travel on the
7
road. Again, the number of emissions test will be limited to mostly
Southern California Automobile (AAA) members and the proposed
research laboratory facility will not be open for regular automobile
repair services.
As indicated on the floor plan, the -research laboratory contains
mechanical lift equipment to hoist the cautoni6biles I dy-nome-ters- - for
running the vehicles in place, computer automated smog analyzer for
emissions testing, water cooling system, and electrical vehicle
charging station. The applicant proposes to also store gasoline
fuel and tanks containing Per the Building Safety Division, Fire
Department, and OSHA requirements, the applicant will need to follow
guidelines for the storage of any hazardous materials.
The emissions testing is an effort to improve air quality.
Nonetheless, the operation of the research laboratory is supported
by the State of California and the South Coast Air Quality District.
The operation of the research laboratory facility must follow State
regulations and the SCAQMD. As part of this project's conditions of
app - roval, the applicant shall be required to obtain all necessary
permits and meet outside agency requirements.
HOURS OF OPERATION/EMPLOYEES
The proposed office use will have 9 employees. Hours of operation
will be from'8:30 a.m. to 5:15 p.m., Monday through Friday.
TRAFFIC
On July 23, 1999, the applicant submitted a traffic impact analysis
and site plan evaluation for the City's review and approval. The
analysis, dated July 22, 1999 was prepared by Linscott, Law, and
Greenspan. The study indicates that the proposed project, at
completion and full occupancy, is expected to generate approximately
100 weekday, two-way trips, with 16 trips (13 inbound, 3 outbound)
anticipated during the AM peak commute hour and 14 trips (2 inbound,
12 outbound) produced during the PM peak commute hour. The analysis
also considers the projects for Lot 2, 5, 12, 15, 16, 22, and 23
within the Gateway Corporate Center, approved by the Planning
Commission. With this information, the potential impact of the
proposed project was evaluated within the context of cumulative
impact of all on-going development.
With respect to area traffic improvements, the results of the level
of service (LOS) analysis indicate that existing traffic, . in
combination with future background traffic, will significantly
impact Golden Springs Drive and Grand Avenue during the Am and PM
peak hour in Year 2001. However, with the implementation of the
8
following recommended improvements, the proposed project's impact
...--..".--,------can—b-e--impr-oKed-.-to- an__ acceptable level.-- 1)Widen _and/Qr -re=st-ripe__
the northbound approach on Golden Springs to provide dual left -turn
lanes and 2) Modify the existing traffic signal phasing to provide a
northbound right -turn overlap phase. Moreover, with respect to
project specific improvements, the applicant shall be expected to
pay a "fair share" cost associated with the improvements identified.
The project's percentage ofnet traffic impact at this key
intersection averages to about 0.120. The City's traffic consultant
and Public Works Division concurs with the estimated traffic impact.
As part of this project's conditions approval, the applicant shall•
be required to pay their "fair share" cost.
PARKING/PARKING LOT LIGHTING
Parking lot lighting and exterior site lighting was not submitted.
Prior to the issuance of a* building permit, the applicant is
required to submit an exterior lighting plan and a parking lot
lighting plan/study complying with the standards in the Development
Code for the City's review and approval.
The City's Development Code requires one parking space for every 250
square feet of gross floor area. However, adoption of the
Unilateral Contract imposes land restrictions and development
standards within Gateway Corporate Center that requires a general
office use to provide one parking for every 250 square feet of net
floor area. Therefore, the proposed project is required to provide
and does provide 48 parking spaces based on the net floor area. The
applicant proposes to provide 40 standard parking stalls, 6 compact
parking stalls, and 2 handicap accessible parking stalls.
LANDSCAPING
Landscaping/irrigation is proposed. The City's current Code
requires that 20 percent of the site area be landscaped. As
referenced in the comparison matrix, Gateway Corporate Center
requires that 15 percent of the gross usuable lot area (including
front setback area but excluding all natural and graded side and
rear slopes) be landscaped. The City's new Development Code
(Section 22.04.020 F. 4., Private Agreements.) infers that if the
City is a party to an agreement (i.e. Unilateral Contract) then that
agreement shall be enforced in the event of a conflict between the
Development Code and the agreement. Approximately 21% of the gross
usable will be landscaped. The applicant is required to submit a
final landscape /irrigation plan for the City's review and approval
prior to the issuance of a building permit. The landscape plan
shallinclude plant species, size, quantity, and location.
Additionally, the proposed project is required to comply with the
VI
City's established Water Efficient Landscape Regulations and will be
plan checked accordingly.
FLAr.PnT.'P.
A flagpole is proposed to be attached to the side of the newly
proposed building, - which.- stands at- 50--feet--high- as- measured from the
finished grade. Pursuant to the City's Development Code Section
22.36.050, the pole height of official -flags of the nation, the
State of California, other states of the Nation, and municipalities
shall not exceed 35 feet in non-residential zoning districts. The
length of the flag shall not be more than 1-4 of the height of the
pole. Therefore, as a part of this project's conditions of
approval, the proposed flagpole height shall be a,maximum of 35 feet
from the finished grade and the length of the flag shall not be more
than 1/4 of the height of the pole. Additionally, the applicant
shall submit a new site plan for the City's review and approval if a
new location for the proposed flagpole is being proposed.
TPASH/RECYCLE BIN ENCLOSURE
A trash/recycle bin enclosure is provided within the parking lot.
The applicant is required to submit a detail of the enclosure for
the City's review and approval. It is required that the enclosure
comply with the Development Code standard and the City's Design
Guidelines.
SIGNAGE
Signage is not a part of this application. Proposed signage will be
reviewed at a later date.
OTHER CITY DIVISIONS' REVIEW
The City's Public Works Division and Building and Safety Division
reviewed this project. Their recommendations are included in the
attached draft resolution.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), Section 15070, the City has determined that a Negative
Declaration is required for this project. Negative Declaration No.
99-7 has been prepared. The Negative Declaration review period
begins November 3, 1999 and ends November 23, 1999.
10
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
On November 2, 1999, public hearing notices were mailed to
approximately 17 property owners within a 500 foot radius of the
project site. On November 3, 1999, notice for this project was
published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and the San Gabriel
Valley Tribune. Furthermore, on November 4, 1999, the project site
was posted with a display" board. In addition, three other sites
were posted within the vicinity of this application.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development
Review No. 99-6 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-3, Findings of
Fact and conditions of approval as listed within the attached
resolution.
REQUIRED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS:
1. The proposed use is allowed within the subject zoning district
with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and complies with
allotherapplicable provisions of this Development Code and the
Municipal Code;
2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any
applicable 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;,
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;
5.Grantingthe Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the
public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or
injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity
and'zoning district in which the property is located; and
6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
REQUIRED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS:
1. The design and layout ayout of the proposed development are consistent
with the General Plan, development standards of the applicable
11
district,_ design guidelines, and architectural criteria for
special areas (e.g. theme areas, specific plans, community plans,
boulevards or planned developments);
2. The design 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;
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 this Chapter, the General Plan, or any
applicable specific plan;
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 and
.color, and will remain aesthetically appealing;
S. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative
affect on property values or resale(s) of property) to the
properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Prepared by:
Sonya I'Joe
Development Services Assistant
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution;
2 Exhibit "A" - site plan, floor plan, elevations, preliminary
grading plan, preliminary landscape plan and colors/materials
board dated November 23, 1999;
3. attachments; and
4. Application.
12
Agenda Item 8.1 — CUP No. 99-3/DR No. 99-6 —1757 S. Valley Vista Dr. (SEMA)
Site/floor/elevations plans, grading/landscape plans found in file.
-City—of-Diamond-Bar
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 8.2
REPORT DATE: October 8, 2001
MEETING DATE: October 23, 2001
CASE/FILE NUMBER: Development Code Amendment No. 2001-03
APPLICATION REQUEST: To amend Articles 11, Section 22.08.240, Table
2-4; Article 111, Sections 22.34.030.D.,
22.34.040.E., 2.42.060.B.10.; Article V,
Section 22.68.030.B.1; Article V1, Section
22.80.020.
PROJECT LOCATION: City Wide
APPLICANT: City of Diamond Bar
21825 E. Copley Drive,
Diamond Bar, CA 91789
7Y_'T*Y1kff"6 Hill]:
The applicant, City of Diamond Bar, is requesting Development Code Amendment No. 2001-03 in
order to amend the following Articles and Sections of the Development Code that relates to the
landscape maintenance and lot coverage:
Article 11
• Section 22.08.240, Table 2 -4, Residential District General Development Standards;
Article III
• Section 22.34.030.D., Single-family Standards;
• Section 22.34.040.E., Multi -family Standards;
• Section 22.42.060.8.10., Parcel coverage;
1-1
Article V
Section 22.68.030.B.1., Changes to, or expansion of, a structure; and
Article V1
Section 22.80.020. Definitions — "S" definition of site coverage.
ANALYSIS:
The purpose of the Development Code is to implement the policies of the City's General Plan by
classifying and regulating the uses of land and structures within the City. In addition, the
Development Code protects and promotes the public health, safety, and general welfare of the
residents, and preserves and enhances the aesthetic quality of the City. The Development Code
provides standards for orderly growth and development and promotes a stable pattern of land
uses. It is a tool utilized to implement land uses designated by the General Plan, thereby avoiding
conflict between land uses. The Development Code assists in protecting and maintaining property
values, and conserving and protecting the City's natural resources. Furthermore, the
Development Code facilitates in protecting the City's character, and social and economic stability,
as well as assisting in maintaining a high quality of life without unduly high public or private costs
for development or unduly restricting private enterprise, initiative, or innovative design.
Pursuant to the Planning Commission's direction at the August 14, 2001 Planning Commission
meeting, the staff has prepared the following amendments related to requiring the maintenance of
landscaping within the front and front side yard of residential properties. Additionally, after
discussing issues related to not exceeding 30 percent lot coverage within certain residential zones
at the October 9, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, the amendments also address this
standard.
Landscape Maintenance
The purpose of addressing landscape maintenance for residential properties is to permanently
maintain such properties in a neat and orderly manner so is not to detract from the appearance of
the immediate neighborhood and protect the public health, safety and welfare of the occupant and
general public. The following describes the current standard and recommended amendment.
Section 22.34.030.D., Property Maintenance Standards, Single-family Standards, Landscape
maintenance (page 111-118)
Current Standard:
D. Landscape maintenance. All landscape areas within the front or side yard abutting
a street shall be kept in a neat and clean condition, substantially free of debris and
dead, diseased or dying vegetation, and broken or defective decorative elements of
the landscaped area. Foliage in landscaped areas shall be mowed, groomed,
2
trimmed,_
condition
hazards.
and pruned adequately watered so as to maintain healthy growing
Irrigation systems shall be maintained to prevent public-health or
Recommended Amendment:
D. Landscape maintenance. Yards and setback areas shall be landscaped with lawn,
trees, shrubs, or other plant material, and shall be permanently maintain in a neat
and orderly manner and substantially free of debris and dead, diseased or dying
vegetation, and broken or defective decorative elements of the landscaped area.
Foliage in landscaped areas shall be mowed, groomed, trimmed, and pruned
adequately watered so as to maintain healthy growing condition so as not to detract
from the appearance of the immediate neighborhood. Irrigation systems shall be
maintained to prevent public health or safety hazards.
(Note: The Development Code does not specify that pedestrian walkways and vehicle access ways shall not
occupy more than a certain percentage of the required (tont yard. The Code only specifies that landscaping
with an automatic irrigation system for the area of the site between the street curb in the front of the structure
from side property line to side property line shall be provided. Additionally not more than 50 percent of the total
landscaped area shall be devoted to turf.)
Section 22.34.040.E, Property Maintenance Standards, Multi -family Standards, Landscape
maintenance (page 111-119)
Current Standard:
E. Landscape maintenance. All landscape areas within the front or side yard abutting
a street shall be kept in a neat and clean condition, substantially free of debris and
dead, diseased or dying vegetation, (e.g., dead branches, palm fronds, lawns, etc.)
and broken or defective decorative elements of the landscaped area. Foliage in
landscaped areas shall be mowed, groomed, trimmed, and pruned adequately
watered so as to maintain healthy growing condition. Irrigation systems shall be
maintained to prevent public health or safety hazards.
Recommended Amendment:
E. Landscape maintenance. Yards and setback areas shall be landscaped with lawn,
trees, shrubs, or other plant material, and shall be permanently maintain in a neat
and orderly manner and substantially free of debris and dead, diseased or dying
vegetation, (e.g., dead branches, palm fronds, lawns, etc.) and broken or defective
decorative elements of the landscaped area. Foliage in landscaped areas shall be
mowed, groomed, trimmed, and pruned adequately watered so as to maintain
healthy growing condition so as not to detract from the appearance of the immediate
neighborhood. Irrigation systems shall be maintained to prevent public health or
safety hazards.
3
On April 4, 2000, the City Council approved 30 percent lot coverage for the RR, RL and RLM
zoning designations. The 30 percent lot coverage has presented some issues to the staff
regarding existing homes and the addition of patio covers, rooms, etc. At a staff meeting several
months ago, it was decided that tennis courts and pools/spas would not count toward lot coverage.
Additionally, it was decided that a maximum 400 square feet of driveway would be counted toward
the lot coverage.
In the RR zoning designation where the majority of the lots are a minimum one -acre, the 30
percent lot coverage is not an issue. However, in the RL and RLM zoning designation where lot
sizes range from 10,000 to 8,500 square feet and 8,000 to 6,000 square feet respectively, it
remains an important issue. The problem arises when the existing lot coverage ranges from the
30 to 35 percent without any amenities (i.e. patio covers, small room additions or enlargement of
existing rooms, gazebos, barbecues, etc.). Problems also arise when a resident desires to add a
first floor addition of a bedroom with bathroom for an elderly parent, or extend the dining room,
kitchen and/or family rooms, or add a family room. By doing these types of additions, Minor
Variances or Variances could be required due to exceeding the 30 percent lot coverage.
Additionally, it is difficult to make the required State law findings to permit such entitlements. Most
residents believe these types of additions are minor and do not understand or accept the fact that
it is not possible to do what they desire. It is also difficult for the resident to understand the cost,
process and the time involved. As a result, the following amendment to the 30 percent lot
coverage is being recommended.
Section 22.08.240, Table 2-4, Residential Zoning District General Development Standards,
(page 11-12)
Current Standards:
Requirements b Zoning District
-Development Feature RR RL RLM
Lot Coverage 30 percent 30 percent 30 percent
Section 22.42.060.13.10., Guest Houses, Parcel coverage (page 111-177)
10. Parcel coverage. The guest houses, along with the main dwelling and any other
accessory structures, shall not exceed an overall parcel coverage of the 30 percent.
Section 22.68.030.8.1., Restrictions on Nonconforming Structures, Changes to, or expansion of,
structure (page V-14)
1. An addition or improvement is less than 50 percent of the existing square footage of
structures on site and lot coverage does not exceed 30 percent as listed in Table to -4;
0
-----Section-22.80.020.,-Definitions-of Specialized Terms and Phrases — "S" (page VI -49)
Site coverage. The percentage of total site area occupied by structures, and paving for
vehicle use. Structures/building coverage includes the primary structure, all accessory
structures (e.g., carports, garages, patio covers, sheds, trash dumpster enclosures, etc.)
except tennis courts and pools/spas and architectural features (e.g., chimneys, balconies,
decks above the first floor, porches, stairs, etc.). Structures/building coverage is measured
from exterior wall to exterior wall. Pavement for vehicle use shall include areas necessary
for ingress, egress, outdoor parking, and circulation of motor vehicle. A maximum 400
square feet of driveway shall be counted toward the lot coverage where driveways where
larger then 400 square feet. See Figures 6-8 (Site Coverage).
Recommended Amendment:
Section 22.08-240, Table 2-4
Requirem nts by Zoning District
Development Feature RR RL RLM
Setbacks Required
Lot Coverage 40, percent 40 percent 40 percent
Section 22.42.060.8.
10. Parcel coverage. The guest houses, along with the main dwelling and any other
accessory structures, shall not exceed an overall parcel coverage of the 40 percent.
Section 22.68.030.8.
1. An addition or improvement is less than 50 percent of the existing square footage of
structures on site and lot coverage does not exceed 40 percent as listed in Table to -4;
Section 22.80.020., "S"
Site coverage. The percentage of total site area occupied by structures. and paving4of
vehicle -use. Structures/building coverage includes the primary structure, all accessory
structures (e.g., carports, garages, patio covers, sheds, trash dumpster enclosures, etc.)
except tennis courts and pools/spas and architectural features (e.g., chimneys,balconies,
i
decks above the first floor, porches, stairs, etc.). Structures/building coverage s measured
from exterior wall to exterior wall. Pavement for veh;ole use shall inGlude aFeas neGe�sary
feF inqress, egress, eutdoer arking, and GiFGU!ation of Fneter vehiGle. A maximum 4
See Figures 6-8 (Site Coverage).
R
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15070, the
City has determined that a Negative Declaration is required for this project. Negative Declaration
No. 2001-04 has been prepared. The Negative Declaration's review period began October 2,
2001 and ended October 23, 2001.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
Notice for this project was published in the Inland Valley Bulletin on October 2, 2001 and the San
Gabriel Valley Tribune on October 4, 2001. Pursuant to Planning and Zoning Law Government
Code Section 65091 (a)(3), if the number of property owners to whom a public hearing notice
would be mailed is greater than 1,000, a local agency may provide notice by placing a display
advertisement of at least one -eight page in at least one newspaper of general circulation. The City
placed a one -eight page display advertisement in the above mentioned newspapers of general
circulation. Furthermore, public notices were posted in nine public places (City Hall/South Coast
Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar Library, Country Hills Town Center Community
Board, Vons/Sav-On Community Board, Ralph's shopping center - Diamond Bar Boulevard, 21070
Golden Springs Drive - JoAnne Fabrics, 990 Diamond Bar Boulevard — Oak Tree Shopping
Center, 1235 Diamond Bar Boulevard - Albertson's and Heritage Park) on October 1, 2001.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending approval of
Development Code Amendment No. 2001-03 and Negative Declaration No. 2001-04 to City
Council.
Prepared by: W �i vow
As#§&ati!� Ilanner —
Attachments:
1 Draft Resolution;
2 Negative Declaration No. 2001-04; and
3. Matrix
0
A.
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CODE
AMENDMENT NO. 2001-03 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2001-04.
RECITALS.
1. The City of Diamond Bar has initiated an application for Development Code
Amendment No. 2001-03 and Negative Declaration No. 2001-04. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject Development Code Amendment and Negative Declaration shall
be referred to as the "Application".
2. The Community and Development Services Department has determined that the
following existing development standards within the Development Code require
modification in order to implement the General Plan:
Article 11
Section 22.08-240, Table 2-4, Residential District General Development
Standards;
Article III
Section 22.34.030.D., Single-family Standards;
Section 22.34.040.E., Multi -family Standards;
Section 22.42.060.B.10., Parcel coverage;
Article V
Section 22.68.030.13.1., Changes to, or expansion of, a structure; and
Article V1
Section 22.80.020. Definitions — "S" definition of site coverage.
3. Notice for this project was published in the Inland Valley Bulletin on October 2, 2001
and the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on October 4, 2001. Pursuant to Planning and
Zoning Law Government Code Section 65091 (a)(3), if the number of property owners
to whom a public hearing notice would be mailed is greater than 1,000, a local agency
may provide notice by placing a display advertisement of at least one -eight page in at
least one newspaper of general circulation. The City placed a one -eight page display
advertisement in the above mentioned newspapers of general circulation. Furthermore,
public notices were posted in nine public places (City Hall/South Coast Air Quality
Management District, Diamond Bar Library, Country Hills Town Center Community
Board, Vons/Sav-On Community Board, Ralph's shopping center - Diamond Bar
Boulevard, 21070 Golden Springs Drive - JoAnne Fabrics, 990 Diamond Bar
Boulevard - Oak Tree Lanes, 1235 Diamond Bar Boulevard - Albertson's and Heritage
Park) on October 1, 2001.
4. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar on October 23, 2001 conduct"
a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. The public hearing was concluded on
October 23, 2001.
6. The Planning Commission, after due consideration of public testimony, staff analysis
and the Commission's deliberations has determined that the Development Code
Amendment No. 2001-03 attached hereto as Exhibit "A" implements the Strategies of
the General Plan.
B. Resolution:
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the
City of Diamond Bar as follows:
This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the
Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the Initial Study review and Negative
Declaration No. 2001-04 have been prepared by the City of Diamond Bar in compliance
with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 and
guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15070. Furthermore, Negative
Declaration No. 2001-04 reflects the independent judgement of the City of Diamond
Bar.
3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having
considered the record as a whole including the findings set forth below, and changes
and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed
project set forth in the application, there is no evidence before this Planning
Commission that the project proposed herein will have the potential of an adverse
effect on wild life resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon
substantial evidence, this Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of
adverse effects contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations.
4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the Planning Commission
hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Development Code Amendment No.
2001-03 attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference.
The Planning Commission shall:
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to the City Council
forthwith.
2
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD OF OCTOBER 2001, BY THE
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
W
Bob Zirbes, Chairman
1, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was
duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of October 2001, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
James DeStefano, Secretary
Eli
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2001-03
EXHIBIT "A"
Section 22.34.030.D., Property Maintenance Standards, Single-family Standards,
Landscape maintenance of Article 111, Title 22 of the City of Diamond Bar
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
D. Landscape maintenance. Yards and setback areas shall be landscaped
with lawn, trees, shrubs, or other plant material, and shall be permanently
maintain in a neat and orderly manner and substantially free of debris and
dead, diseased or dying vegetation, and broken or defective decorative
elements of the landscaped area. Foliage in landscaped areas shall be
mowed, groomed, trimmed, and pruned adequately watered so as to
maintain healthy growing condition so as not to detract from the
appearance of the immediate neighborhood. Irrigation systems shall be
maintained to prevent public health or safety hazards.
Section 22.34. 040.E, Property Maintenance Standards, Multi -family Standards,
Landscape maintenance of Article III, Title 22 of the City of Diamond Bar
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
E. Landscape maintenance. Yards and setback areas shall be landscaped
with lawn, trees, shrubs, or other plant material, and shall be permanently
maintain in a neat and orderly manner and substantially free of debris and
dead, diseased or dying vegetation, (e.g., dead branches, palm fronds,
lawns, etc.) and broken or defective decorative elements of the
landscaped area. Foliage in landscaped areas shall be mowed, groomed,
trimmed, and pruned adequately watered so as to maintain healthy
growing condition so as not to detract from the appearance of the
immediate neighborhood. Irrigation systems shall be maintained to
prevent public health or safety hazards.
Section 22.08.240, Table 2-4, Residential Zoning District General Development
Standards, of Article 11, Title 22 of the City of Diamond Bar Municipal Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
.Requirements by Zoning District
Development Feature RR RL RLM
Lot Coverage 40 percent 40 percent 40 percent
4
-------------Section-22.42.060.B.,-Parcel-c.o-v.e-rag-e,-of-Article III, -Title 22 of the City of
Diamond Bar Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
10. Parcel coverage. The guest houses, along with the main dwelling
and any other accessory structures, shall not exceed an overall
parcel coverage of the 40 percent.
Section 22.68.030.B., Restrictions on Nonconforming Structures, Changes to, or
expansion of, a structure, of Article III, Title 22 of the City of Diamond Bar
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
An addition or improvement is less than 50 percent of the existing
square footage of all structures on site and lot coverage does not
exceed 40 percent as listed in Table to -4;
Section 22.80.020., Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases — "S" of Article
VI, Title 22 of the City of Diamond Bar Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
Site coverage. The percentage of total site area occupied by structures.
Structures/building coverage includes the primary structure, all accessory
structures (e.g., carports, garages, patio covers, sheds, trash dumpster
enclosures, etc.) except tennis courts and pools/spas and architectural features
(e.g., chimneys, balconies, decks above the first floor, porches, stairs, etc.).
Structures/building coverage is measured from exterior wall to exterior wall. See
Figures 6-8 (Site Coverage).
X
rr
F-
2
W
W
0
F-
0
—j
0
cn
LO
CL
W
0
0
cli
0
V)
CD
co
"2
E
CIO
.0
CD
0
a)
a)
'V
:3
0
c
U3:
c
0
0
C:
(1)
a)
75
75
L
CL
U)
c
U)
0
0
c
4—
0
=3
U)
a)
0
z
0
0
0
0
S
0
W
0
cn
LO
CV
U)
>
ce
0
"a
2
a)
0
CL
Cl)
4-
(D
Cl)
c
U)
0
C)
(1)
CD
-a
2
>Eam
—
r
L ?
'0
C)
L-
CE$
0
*6
0
"0
8
0
cni
CO
C:o
2
a)
-a
a)
-a
a
0
. -
-0
L6
2
0 .6
:3
-5
:3
a)
-0
cl�
06
as
cr
co
0
0
C) ui
CV
co
t--
0
c
0
0
O
0
w
cz
co
0
00
!n
,0
LO
tn
>+
>e
co
>+
co
L-
a)
ca
0
75
C:
0
C.)
CZ5 >
ce
C\j
c
CL
CD
C:2
a)
.
0 3:
— a)
0
?
r—
0
OD
1
0
C:
4-
E
CL
t� >
CE
0u)
co
c
0
>
c CES
0
�:
M
Cl)
co
>%
co
U)
06
co
co
'a
a)
0
0
co
0-
�o
0
C)
cz
0
0
(D
CL
—
2
0
a)
ca
0)
>
0 "r:
-0
0
00
a)
EL
a)
0
0
w
It
U,
W
ol
010
(0
-0
0-
LO
ce)
06
o
w Z
CV
-00,
8-0
-0-0
0
1110,
-010
10
OR
0
0-
>
Q W
I
0,0
0
ca
LO
Cf)
0
LO
LO
co
0-0
0
(0
LO
m
0
It
LO
Cf)
0
qt
W
LO
0-01
0 CL
LO
C\l
co
0
E
0
:3
co
co
m
cu
cli
co
2
a)
co
0
E
as
W
0
U-
0
cz
c
ca
0
0
N
L-
W
C:
co
:3
cz
co
CD
F
5
:3
3:
as
>
co
0
co
W
L)
f
54 * WA 9-01 M *5 c I � ce) zVow
NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2001-04
Lim
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2001-03
City of Diamond Bar Honda
21825 E. Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, CA 91765
Environmental Finding
Initial Study
(Environmental Information and Environmental Checklist)
October 1, 2001
NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2001-04
Project Description and Location
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
ft FOR INITIAL STUDY
Pursuant to Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act § 15063 (f), this form, along with
the Environmental Information Form completed by the applicant, meets the requirements for an
Initial Study.
This form is comprised of five parts:
Part 1 Background
Part 2 Summary of Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
Part 3 Determination
Part 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Part 5 Discussion of Environmental Impacts
UNOWN1919-M I'M"
'4.1,
1. City Project Number: Development Code Amendment No. 2001-03
2. Project Address/Location: Citywide
3. Date of Environmental Information Form submittal: October 1, 2001
4. Applicant: City of Diamond Bar
Address: 21825 E. Copley Drive
City/State/Zip: Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Phone: (909) 396-5676
Fax: (909) 861-3117
5. Property Owner: N/A
Address: N/A (Citywide)
City/State/Zip: N/A
Phone: N/A
Fax: N/A
1
1
Lead Agency: City of Diamond Bar
Contact: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager and Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner
Address: 21825 E. Copley Drive
City/State/Zip: Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Phone: (909) 396-5676
Fax: (909) 861-3117
7. General Plan Designation: General Commercial(C), Rural Residential (RR), Low Density
Residential (RL), Low Medium Residential (RLM), Medium Density Residential (RM),
Medium -High Density Residential (RMH), High Density Residential (RH) and Light
Industrial (I)
8. Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial (C-1), Community Commercial (C-2), Unlimited
Commercial (C-3), R-1, R-2, R-3, Commercial -Manufacturing (C -M), MPD, M-1 and
M-1.5
9. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to
later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for
its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary).
The project involves amending the following Articles of the City's Development Code:
Article II:
Section 22. 08.24 0, Table 2-4, Residential District General Development Standards:
amendment relates to increasing lot coverage;
Article III•
Section 22.34.030.D., Single-family Standards: amendment relates to the landscape maintenance
standards;
Section 22.34.040.E., Multi -family Standards: amendment relates to landscape maintenance
standards;
Section 22.34.050.D., Commercial Standards: amendment relates to landscape maintenance
standards;
Section 22.34.060.D., Industrial Standards: amendment relates to landscape maintenance
standards;
Section 22.42.060.B.10., Parcel coverage: amendment relates to lot coverage;
Article V
Section 22.68.030.B.1., Changes to, or expansion of, a structure: amendment relates to
increasing lot coverage;
Article VI
Section 22.80.020, Definitions, "S": to amendment relates to the definition for site coverage;
2
The City's Development Code was adopted ori November -3 -1 -998 -and -became effective ----
on December 3, 1998. The Development Code embodies regulations and the procedures
and requirements for development applications while implementing the goals, policies, and
strategies of the Diamond Bar General Plan. After implementing the Development Code
since Decemberl998, the City is aware that certain areas of the Development Code require
amending to suit the development needs of Diamond Bar.
The referenced amendments relate to the following: deleting the current lot coverage of 30
percent within the R-1 zoning district; and landscape maintenance within the front yard of
all zoning districts. The amendment to lot coverage would maintain the existing required
setbacks but would permit 50 percent lot coverage of the rear yard with structures. The
amendment relating to landscape maintenance would require the front and street side yards
to have landscaping consisting predominantly of plant material (lawn, trees, shrubs, or
other plant materials) except for necessary walls, drives, and fences. It shall require that
a property permanently maintained the said landscaping in a neat and orderly manner so
as not to detract from the appearance of the immediate neighborhood and protect the
health, safety and welfare of users, occupants, and general public.
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
The Development Code's proposed amendments would apply on a Citywide basis.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.):
No other public agency approvals are required.
12. List City of Diamond Bar related applications for this project that must be processed
simultaneously:
No other City of Diamond Bar related applications are required.
13. List prior projects for this parcel:
None.
191.11 114 11:01a1 1: ".. 211 Brim V 01 r,
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentially. Significant Impact."
as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages. ------
1. Land Use and Planning 9.
Hazards —
2. Population and Housing 10.
Noise —
3. Geologic Problems 11.
Public Services —
4. Water 12.
Utilities & Service
Systems —
5. Air Quality 13.
Aesthetics —
6. Transportation/
Circulation
7. Biological Resources
8. Energy & Mineral
Resources
4
14. Cultural Resources
15. Recreation
16. Mandatory Findings
of Significance
PART 3 - DETERMINATION
To be completed by Lead Agency
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Project Number: DCA No. 2001-03
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the MITIGATION MEASURES described on
an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least
one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" OR "potentially
significant unless mitigated. " An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it
must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have
been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that
are imposed upon the proposed project.
Signature
Ann J. Lungu
Printed Name
5
October 1, 2001
Date
W.V-,A Z, 15 Am R11:� 0 [1]gI Us�i ►►i �; � ►�c, i ►M . �►, �
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact answer should
be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g.
the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific
screening analysis.)
2. All answers must take account of the whole .action involved, including off-site as well as
on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as
well as operational impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect
is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an affect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less than Significant Impact. " The lead agency must described the mitigation measures
and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation
measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section SVII at the end of the
checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impact (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference
to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached,
and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
Alp
NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2001-04
Initial Study
and
Findings
(Environmental Information and
Environmental Checklist)
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless Less Than
Significant
Mitigation Significant No
Impact
Incorporated Impact Impact
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a. Conflict with any applicable land
use policy, or regulation of an
agency jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the
General Plan, specific plan, local
coastal program or zoning
X
ordinance) adopted for the purpose —
— —
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
1.1.1 thru 1.1.10 (I-10); General
Plan, Strategy 2.2.1 (I-19);
b. Conflict with applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural
community plan? _
_ — X
Source #s: General Plan, Strategy
1. 2.2 (III -11);
C. Disrupt or divide the physical
arrangement of an established
community (including a low-income
X
or minority community)? —
— —
Source #s: General Plan, Strategy
1.2.1 thru 1.2.4 (I-13);
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a. Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the — — — x
construction of replacement housing
7
elsewhere?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
1.1.4 &1.1.5 (II -26);
b. Induce substantial growth in an area
either directly or indirectly (e.g.
through projects in an undeveloped
area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategy
1. 1.5 (II -26);
C. Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategy
2.2.1 (II -28);
X
X
3. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS. Would the project result in or expose people to .
potential impacts involving:
a. Fault rupture?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies X
1.1.2 & 1.1.3 (Fig.IV- 1 & IV -9); — - —
MEA, p.II-B-7 et seq.;
b. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies X
1.1.2 & 1.1.3 (IV -9);. MEA, p.Ii-B- — — — —
10, 14 et seq. & Fig. II -13-5;
C. Seismic -related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies _ _ _ X
1.1.2 & 1.1.3 (IV -9); MEA, p. 11-13-
14, p.II-B-10, Fig. II -B -S;
d. Landslides?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
1.2.1 thru 1.2.3 (IV -9 & 10); MEA, _ _ _ X
p.II-13-3, Fig. II -13-2;
8
e. Substantial soil erosion or the loss of
top soil? X
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies — — —
1.1.1 thru 1.1.3 (IV -9);
f. A geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or would become unstable
as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on -or off-site X
landslide, lateral spreading, — —
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
1.1.1 thru 1.1.3 (IV -9);
g. Expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial X
risks to life or property? — —
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
1.1.1 thru 1.1.3 (IV -9);
4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface runoff? _ _ — X
Source #s: General Plan, Strategy
1.2.1 (IV -9);
b. Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as
flooding? — — — X
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
1.2.1 thru 1.2.3 (IV -9 & 10);
C. Violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements? X
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies — — —
1.2.1 thru 1.2.3 (IV -9 & 10);
9
d. Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially
with ground water recharge such
that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
1.2.1 thru 1. 2.3 (IV -9 & 10);
e. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
1.2.1 thru 1.2.3 (IV -9 & 10);
f. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner, which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
1.2.1 thru 1.2.3 (IV -9 & 10);
g. Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned storm water
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
1.2.1 thru 1.2.3 (IV -9 & 10);
M
X
X
M
X
h. Otherwise substantially degrade _
water quality?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
1.2.1 thru 1.2.3 (IV -9 & 10);
i. Substantial reduction in the amount
of groundwater otherwise available
for public water supplies?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies —
1.2.1 thru 1.2.3 (IV -9 & 10);
J. Place housing within a 100 -year
flood hazard area as mapped on the
Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map or
place within a 100 -year flood hazard
area structures, which would impede
or redirect flood flows?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
1.2.1 thru 1.2.3 (IV -9 & 10);
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct the
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? —
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
1.9.1 & 1.9.3 (IV -12)
b. Expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies —
1.9.1 thru 1.9.5 (IV -12);
C. Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non -attainment —
under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions,
11
A
X
which exceed quantitative thresholds
for ozone precursors)?
Source #s: General Plan, 1.9.2 &
1.9.3 (IV -12)
d. Create objectionable odors?
Source #s: General Plan, 1.9.2 & _ _ _ x
1.9.3 (IV -12);
e. Violate any air quality standards or
contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality
violation? _ _ x
Source #s: General Plan, 1.9.2 &
1.9.3 (IV -12);
6. T1R.ANPO1tTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the project result in:
a. An increase in vehicle trips which is
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e. result in substantial
increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity _ _ _ X
ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
1.9.4 (IV -12), 1.1.4 (V-22) & 3.2.1
(V-27);
b. Substantially increase hazards due to
design feature (e.g. sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm _ _ _ X
equipment)?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
1.2.3, 1.3.1 & 1.3.3 (V-24);
C. Inadequate emergency access?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies _ _ _ X-
1.2.3 & 1.3.3 (V-24);
12
d. Inadequate parking capacity on-site?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies x
2.11, 2.1.5 & 2.1.8 (V-25), & 4.1.1 _
thru 4.2.4 (V-27);
e. Exceeding, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county
congestion management agency for X
designated roads and highways? _
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
1.2.3 (V-24), 2.1.8 & 22.1 (V-25),
3.1.6 (V-26 ) & 3.2.1 (V-27);
f. Conflict with adopted policies,
plans, or programs supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)? _ — X
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
1.2.3 (V-24), 2.1.8 & 22.1 (V-25,
3.1.6 (V-26 ) & 3.2.1 (V-27);
g. Change in rail, water, or air traffic
patterns, including either and
increase in traffic levels or a change
in location that results in substantial _ _ _ X
safety risk?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
2.1.4 & 2.1.9 (V-25);
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project result in:
a. Substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or X
regional plan, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
13
1.1.11, 1.1.12,&1.2.5(III-11&
12); MEA, p. II -D-1-8;
b. Substantial adverse effect on and
riparian habitat, federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404
Clean Water Act, or other sensitive
natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
1.1.11, 1.1.12,&1.2.5(III-11&
12); MEA, p. II -D-1-8;
C. A conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
1.1.11, 1.1.12,& 1.2.5(III-11&
12); MEA, p. II -D-1-8;
d. Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
1.2.1 & 1. 2.2 (III -11&12) & 1. 2.5
(III -12); MEA, p. II -D-1-8;
e. Substantial interference with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
1.1.13 (III -11), 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3,
& 1. 2.5 (III -11 & 12);
M1
M
RM
OM
f. Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct — — — x
removal, filling, hydrology,
interruption, or other means?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
1.1.13 (III -11), 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3,
&1.2.5(III-11&12);
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a.
Result in the loss of availability of
locally important mineral resources
recovery site delineation on a local
general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies -
None. Issue Analysis Number 8 — — — X
(Mineral Resources) states as
follows: "There are no significant,
concentrated mineral resources in
Diamond Bar, with the possible
exception of oil and hydrocarbons".
(III -9);
b. Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would
be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies -
None. Issue Analysis Number 8
(Mineral Resources) states as X
follows: "There are no significant,
concentrated mineral resources in
Diamond Bar, with the possible
exception of oil and hydrocarbons".
(III -9);
15
11 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERMLS. Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials; or
create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonable foreseeable upset and X
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
2.1.2 (1-19), 2.5.2 & 2.5. 10 (III -17
& 18), 1.8.1 & 1.8.2 (IV -12), &
2.3.3 (VI -7);
b. Impair the implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
1. 6. 1 thru 1. 8.2 (IV -11 &12);
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or actively hazardous
materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an X
existing or proposed school?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
1.8.1 & 1.8.2 (IV -12) & 2.3.3 (VI -
7);
d. Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 X
and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
M
1.8.1, 1.$.2 (IV -12) & 2.3.3 (1V-7);
e. Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
1.4.1 & 3.3.5 (I-14 & 21), 1.1.7
(III -10), & 1.3.1 thru 1.4.2 (IV -10);
10. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a. Exposure of persons to or gener-
ation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other
agencies; or exposure of persons to
or generation of excessive ground -
borne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
1.10.1 thru 1.10.12 (IV -13 &14);
b. A substantial permanent increase or
temporary or periodic in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the
project;
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
1.10.1 thru 1.10.12 (IV -13 &14);
17
X
M
X
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public -
services:
a. Fire Protection?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies _ _ _ X
1.3.1 thru 1.4.2 (IV -10);
b. Police Protection?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies _ _ _ X
1. 5.2 & 1. 5.2 (IV -11);
C. Schools?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies _ _ _ x
1.3.1 thru 1.3.4 (VI -5)
d. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies X
2.3.1 & 2.3.2 (I-19), 1.1.5 & 1.1.6 — — — —
(V-23), 3.1.4 (V-26), & 2.2.1 (VI -
7);
e. Other governmental services?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
2.3.1 (I-19), 1.1.1 (VI -4), 1.2.1, X
1.2.2, 1.3.3, 1.4.1 & 1.4.3 (VI -5), — — — —
& 2.2.1 thru 2.3.3 (VI -7);
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project result in a need for
new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
Source #s: General Plan, p. IV -2 & X
3, Strategies 1.1.1 thru 1. 1.5 (VI -4), — — —
2.1.2 & 2.3.1 (I-19);
Put
b. Communication systems?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
1.5.2 (VI -6);
C. Local or regional water treatment or
distribution?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
1.1.1 thru 1.1.5 (VI -4), 1.2.1 (VI -
5), & 2.2.1 (VI -7);
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
1.1.1 thru 1.1.6 (VI -4), 1.2.1 (VI -5)
and 2.2.1 (VI -7);
e. Storm water drainage?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
1. 2.2 (IV -10), 1.1.1 thru 1.1.5 (VI- — —
4), 1.2.1 (VI -5), & 2.2.1 (VI -7);
f. Solid waste disposal?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
2.5.1 thru 2.5. 10 (III -17), 1.1.1 thru
1.1.5 (VI -4), 1.2.1 (VI -5), & 2.2.1
(VI -7);
g. Local or regional water supplies?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
1.1.1 thru 1.1.5 (VI -4), 1.2.1 (VI-
5), & 2.2.1 (VI -7);
13. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a.
Have a substantial adverse affect on
a scenic vista or damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited — — —
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
19
®I
MI
X II
M
Y
X II
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
1.1.6 ( I-12), 1.2.3 (I-13), 2.6.2
(III -18), & 1.1.9 (V-24);
b. Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
1.2.3, 1.2.5& 1.3.4(I-13)&3.2.2
(I-20);
c. Create a new source of substantial
light or glare, which would
adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
3.2.3 (I-20), 1.2.2 (III -11), & 2.2.2
(III -5);
14. CUL'T'URAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic features? —
Source #s: Note 1;
b. Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to _
§ 15064.5
Source #s: Note 1;
C. Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of historical
resources as defined in §15064.5?
Source #s: Note l;
d. Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
Source #s: Note 1; —
Note l: This category, entitled " 14.
Rol
R
X it
X II
X 11
X II
X II
Cultural resources", as well as its
five individual categories (a. thru
e.) are not specifically addressed in
the 1995 General Plan. Therefore,
Strategies 1.5.6 (I-16), 1.6.4 &
2.1.1 (I-18), 3.3.4 (I-21), & 1.1.6
(III -10) serve to provide a general
framework with which to ensure that
new or modified development
proposals, or the installation/
extension of public or private
services, would not endanger, or
have an adverse impact on any of
the resources identified above.
15. RECREATION. Would the project:
a. Increase the demand use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial deterioration of the
facility would occur or be _ _ _ X
accelerated?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
3.2.1 (I-20) & 1.3.1 thru 1.3.8 (III -
12 & 13);
b. Include recreational facilities or
require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities,
which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment? _ _ — X
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies
3.2.1 (I-20) & 1.3.1 thru 1.3.8 (III -
12 & 13);
16. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a. Convert prime farmland, unique
farmland, or farmland of statewide
importance, as shown on the maps — — — X
prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program
21
of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies -
None. Issue Analysis Number 7
(Agriculture) states as follows:" The
City of Diamond Bar presently has
no important agricultural farmlands
according to the California
Department of Conservation,
Division of Land Resources
Protection, and the Soil
Conservation Service of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture". (III -7);
b. Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural uses, or the William Act
contract?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies -
None. Issue Analysis Number 7
(Agriculture) states as follows:" The
City of Diamond Bar presently has X
no important agricultural farmlands — — —`
according to the California
Department of Conservation,
Division of Land Resources
Protection, and the Soil
Conservation Service of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture". (III -7);
C. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of farmland, to non-
agricultural use?
Source #s: General Plan, Strategies -
None. Issue Analysis Number 7 X
(Agriculture) states as follows:" The
City of Diamond Bar presently has
no important agricultural farmlands
according to the California
Department of Conservation,
Division of Land Resources
Protection, and the Soil
Conservation Service of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture". (III -7);
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history
or pre -history?
b. Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
C. Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the
affects of probable future projects)
d. Does the project have environmental
effects, which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, —
either directly or indirectly?
23
X
X
18. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used here, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analyses. `
C) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated. " describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined
from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions for the project.
W
PART -5 =DISCUSSION-OF-ENVERONMENTkL-UvWACTS—
Discussions within each section may be grouped.
No discussion is required since there are no apparent adverse impacts that would result from the
implementation of the proposed project (revisions to the Development Code) as evidenced by the
answers to the questions specified in Part 4 (Evaluation of Environmental Impacts) beginning on
page 7 of this Environmental Checklist, above. However, there is discussion on item 13. b.
AESTHETICS.
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a.
b.
C.
d.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a.
b.
C.
3. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
9.
h.
4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALLITY
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
9.
h.
i.
25
5. AIR QUALITY
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
9.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
8. ENERGY
a.
b.
C.
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
9.
h.
m
-10. NOISE
a.
b.
C.
d.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
9.
13. AESTHETICS
a.
b. The referenced amendments relate to the following: deleting the current lot
coverage of 30 percent within the R-1 zoning districts; and landscape maintenance
within the front yard of all zoning districts. The amefidment to lot coverage would
maintain the existing required setbacks but would permit 50 percent lot coverage
of the rear yard with structures. The amendment relating to landscape maintenance
would require the front and street side yards to have landscaping consisting
predominantly of plant material (lawn, trees, shrubs, or other plant materials)
except for necessary walls, drives, and fences. It shall require that a property
permanently maintain the said landscaping in a neat and orderly manner so as not
to detract from the appearance of the immediate neighborhood and protect the
health, safety and welfare of users, occupants, and general public.
27
Maintaining landscaping within the front and street side yards would only serve to
maintain a residential or commercial property so that it is not out of harmony or
conformance with the maintenance standards adjacent properties. As a result,
properties within the City of Diamond Bar would not cause substantial diminution
of the enjoyment, use or property values of any adjacent properties. Therefore, this
amendment to the Development Code would not substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of any properties and surroundings within the City of
Diamond Bar. This proposed amendment would implement General Plan Strategies
1.2.3 (p. I-13) and 1.3.4 (p. I-14).
Deleting the required standards that lot coverage shall not exceed 30 percent
coverage could potentially have an impact within residential neighborhoods.
However, the current required setbacks would remain and no more than 50 percent
of the rear yard would be covered with structure. Issues related to lot coverage
arise when many lots in Diamond Bar have an existing lot coverage between 30 and
35 percent without any amenities (i.e. patio covers, small room additions or
enlargement of existing rooms, gazebos, barbecues, etc.). Leaving 50 percent of
the rear yard unencumbered by structure would still protects the character and
integrity of the neighborhood as well as maintain enough open space within the rear
of a property for recreational amenities and still provide a desirable living
environment. Therefore, this amendment to the Development Code would not
substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the any properties
and surroundings within the City of Diamond Bar. This proposed amendment
would implement General Plan Strategies 1.2.5 (p. I-13) and 3.2.2 (p. I-20).
C.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a.
b.
C.
d.
15. RECREATION
a.
b.
16 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
a.
b.
C.
-17. MANDATORY-FINDINGS-OF-SIGNIFICANCE
a.
b.
C.
d.
29
r�
(D tTl
c��m
��C
CD
nr
oa
d
rd
��
►v
�n
�R
RM
Zx
a
v
R
" y 0
N r
0
y rn
07J
r -G
m
r
b
r
0'a
z
z
0a
tri
CD
cob
0
� G
C.
z
w. m
�=
�R
A
O>
J
0 m
n
m
m
ao
a
r
pro
�
z
OE
°
a
b
CD7
�.
C,
v
w
A
y
C
cn
d
G
d
d
d
IV
a
a
a
n
N N
0 0
CD 0
N
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
N
O
O
`� �p
C p
y
cp
�
'P
W
�
Ot-j
6
J
O
O
00
v,
rn00
Cil 7a
nj0
oo
to
O
y
y
�r3.�
C7
n
v�
�mnm
a
d
G
G1
�
add
w
a
z><
Wzr
m
z
cn
a
N��
C/)
z0m
to
�
a
0
x
x
u�
0
C
CD
x
x
w
�n
0
on
0
'Tip
N `b
•
O
�n
�n
0
N
b
`n
O
o
'off
o O
Cn
OE3�—]
�-q
O
an
O 9
r
Y,y
w
<
Ncn
co cn
O
O
CD
a
a
do
cn
�
x�
O
00
O
p
O
' O
O
O
O
CD
O
�CD-
P O
6
N
77
N
O
�--
N
14
O
�--
LA
C,
o
cn
0
o
d
�
a
0
m
o�
r
oa
oa
C)
o
CJ y
Cl y
C7 y
�
rn
oU
o�
o�
0
0
0
o
o�
04
am
gran
�m
0�o4
z�
�
H
y
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
On October 23, 2001, at 7:00 P.M., the Diamond Bar Planning Commission will hold a
regular meeting at the South Coast Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 East Copley
Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
Items for consideration are listed on the attached agenda.
I, Stella Marquez, declare as follows:
I am employed by the City of Diamond Bar, Community and Development Services
Department. On October 19, 2001, 1 posted a copy of the Notice for the Regular Meeting of the
Diamond Bar Planning Commission, to be held on October 23, 2001, at each of the following
locations:
South Coast Quality Management Heritage Park
District Auditorium 2900 Brea Canyon Road
21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on October 19, 2001, at Diamond Bar, California.
Stella Marquez
Community and Development Services Dept.
gMaffidavitposting.doe
Z
K)
>
0
(D
; .
A G)
w
z
0
LE
co
3.m
11)
0
C/)
0 ,
u
M
Cl)
Er
D)
N
0
C6
0
\
z
m
0
3
0
.�
0 ,4
@
P)
pow
wr-
0
Ei w
m
En
0)
to
-1
0
E
>
CD
a mt
1 0 m
0 0)
.-4
zm
0
Z>
0
;-u
0
Z ;u En
x cn
m M Cf)
0
>
r- U)
00
-
m Cl)
z ;,n p
'U
0
J)
0 Z
0 �
cn
M:�
0.
cn
Cn
m
0
ID
z
Z
G) �
> >
z
X m
>
0
CD c
-.4
o m
->,
o
00
0
g 0
0
m ;u
0
0
z
0(D
(a
Ln
-I
1�0
(D
03
N)
co
W
tp
r-
-4
w M
0)
to
m z
CD
to
cc
tn
3: <
m
0
m
0
m M
0
<0<0
>
>
2
0
m
am
X
>
z M
0 Z
0 z Z M
M
M
m
z
>
z
o
m
0
m
0
m
;D 0
c
x0
c
0
>O
>
-u
;u
u
m
o0
m
0
<
a
c
m
0
m
0
m
0
m
m
C)
0
0 0
0
>
>
4�-
l:i.i� .� � ..�� > �,..,...,...3, t:1
.jrii7 �f. �'jf sFl N t
{ :y
:qtr A i,,il'.� �. ..
�, ,i� t :�, it _..„ �.
� ��' , t '1 :� � 'ii�,a'ic'kif3
��' ,
File rev- we� by -- t
destncction b Ci and is ready for
Y City Clerk