Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/11/1991AGENDA CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD MEETING ROOM 880 SOUTH LEMON STREET DIAMOND BAR, CA 91789 March 11, 1991 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, MacBride, Lin, Vice Chair- man Harmony, Chairman Schey 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. Generally, items to be discussed are those which do not appear on this agenda. 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: 1. Minutes of the February 25, 1991, Meeting OLD BUSINESS: (No Items) NEW BUSINESS: 2. Review of Draft Development tive, and 1.11 Definitions I PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 8:00 p.m. Code Chapters 1.1 Administra- 3. Conditional Use Permit No. 1634-(1) A request for an extension of time to finish the third phase building of the sanctuary fqF Evangelical Free Church. This request will require modification of CUP 1634-(1). This is located generally, on Diamond Bar Boulevard, approximately 100 feet west of Brea Canyon Road. Applicant: Evangelical Free Church Location: 3255 Diamond Bar Boulevard (Continued from February 25, 1991) PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA March 11, 1991 Page Two PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: (Continued) 4. Conditional Use Permit No. 90-0127 A request to complete in two phases, the addition of twenty- nine pads for the placement of mobile homes. The 19.5 acre site is currently developed with 118 pads and is known com- monly as Diamond Bar Estates. The site is surrounded by in- dustrial uses and multiple family residences. Applicant: McDermott Engineering Location: 21217 East Washington (Continued from February 11, 1991) 5. Conditional Use Permit No. 90-0130 A request to construct a two story structure totaling 8,352 square feet to provide additional classrooms for a parochial school (grades K-8). The request also seeks approval for expansion and improvements to the playground area. Applicant: Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church Location: 23300 Golden Springs (Continued from February 25, 1991) 6. Conditional Use Permit No. 90-0125 A request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a two floor office building, approximately 6,400 square feet in size, with fifteen subterranean parking stalls. The subject site is located east of Diamond Bar Boulevard and westerly of Sunset Crossing Road at Navajo Spring Road. The subject site is in a Commercial Manufacturing (CM) zone and is sur- rounded by commercial/office and residential development. Applicant: Ed and Shirley Jaworsky Location: 23475 Sunset Crossing (Continued from February 11, 1991)'' 7. Zoning Code Amendment No. ZCA 91-1 A City -initiated request to amend certain provisions to Ti- tle 22 of the Los Angeles County Code, as heretofore adopted by the City of Diamond Bar, pertaining to signs. (Continued from February 25, 1991) ANNOUNCEMENTS: 8. Staff 9. Planning Commissioners ADJOURNMENT: 6:30 p.m. March 25, 1991 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 25, 1991 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Schey called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. in the Walnut Valley School District Board Meeting Room, 880 South Lemon Street, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Grothe. ROLL CALL: Commissioner Grothe, Commissioner Lin, Commissioner MacBride, and Chairman Schey. Vice Chairman Harmony was absent (excused). Also present were Planning Director James DeStefano, City Planner Irwin Kaplan, Assoc. Planner Robert Searcy, Deputy City Attorney Bill Curley, City Engineer Sid Mousavi, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. CONSENT CALENDAR: Motion was made by C/MacBride, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Consent Calendar and the Minutes of February 11, 1991. OLD BUSINESS: Irwin Kaplan, City Planner, reported that the Zoning Code Amendment NO. ZCA 91-1, presented in ZCA 91-1 the packets, represents the concerns of the Sign Ordinance Planning Commission reflected at the February 11, 1991 meeting. Chair/Schey inquired if it would be legitimate to remove an existing wall sign in lieu of requesting a pole sign. CP/Irwin Kaplan clarified that the wall sign would become non -conforming and would have to be removed unless the Planning Commission determines that such existing signage can continue. I C/MacBride stated the proposal is consistent with the ideas suggested at the last meeting. Chair/Schey directed staff to prepare a resolution of approval regarding ZCA 91-1 for. the Planning Commission's consideration at the meeting of March 11, 1991. NEW BUSINESS: James DeStefano, Planning Director, reported that the applicant was not in attendance to make the Illumination presentation. Staff recommended postponing the Presentation item, or receive and file the information without the presentation. February 25, 1991 Page 2 Chair/Schey stated that street signs are not appropriate vehicles for advertising. The Commissioners concurred. Motion was made by Chair/Schey, seconded by C/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to receive and file the matter. Review of Draft Upon the consensus of the Commission, discussion of Development Code the matter was postponed until later in the Chapters 1.1 evening. & 1.11 PUBLIC HEARING Robert Searcy, Assoc. Planner, reported the request ITEMS: is to construct a two (2) story structure totaling 8,352 square feet to provide additional classrooms CUP 90-0130 for a parochial school grades K-8. The request includes approval for the expansion of the playground area. Chair/Schey inquired if the school would still be within the permitted student capacity. AP/Searcy explained the new building would allow housing for the students currently enrolled. He pointed out that there will be a slight addition to the northern elevation on the playground area. C/MacBride inquired if the expansion would preclude the use of the trailers. AP/Searcy responded that the trailers would be removed once the building is completed. The Public Hearing was declared open. Gary Stuve, member of Mount Calvary, explained the existing trailers will be removed and that the school will be operating with the same number of students as presently. The expansion will allow for some area of growth and permit applicants on the waiting list to attend the school. C/Grothe commented that the site on Golden Springs needs improved landscaping and maintenance. He requested the church make some form of change in regards to curb appeal. C/Lin inquired if there will be additional traffic problems with the expansion. Gary Stuve stated there is no problem with the traffic to his understanding. The entrance will be made one way to make it less confusing. February 25, 1991 Page 3 Chair/Schey asked if the categorical exemptions will still apply to the expansion of the school population. Bill Curley, Deputy City Attorney, replied that both elements have been considered and still follow within the parameters. Pastor Dennis Stuve, of Mount Calvary, stated the landscaping plans in process will include curb appeal landscaping as well. William McNeal, residing adjacent to the proposed building, concurred that the existing church grounds are in need of additional landscaping. He stated the planned expansion will block the view of the existing residents. He inquired where the air conditioning units will be placed and on which side of the building will the parking be located. He commented that the school is presently big enough. Paul Lowd, residing at 23309 E. Gold Rush, is also concerned with the height of the proposed building., and the location of the air conditioning. He stated that the school presently operates on Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 12:00. He is concerned the additional students will create more disturbing noises. He stated it was his impression that the school was limited to operate only Monday through Friday. Chair/Schey asked staff to respond to the concerns. AP/Searcy replied there is no additional parking provided in the plans because there is already available parking. He explained the proposed building will be further away from the residents than the existing building. The mechanical equipment will be located on the exterior of the main structure. The school function is prohibited from operating 10:00 p.m. through 8:00 a.m., and the athletic field should not be utilized between dusk and 8:30 a.m. Monday through Friday, and dusk to 10:00 a.m., Saturday and Sunday. Chair/Schey inquired if the building is the same height as the gymnasium. AP/Searcy replied that the gymnasium is two (2) feet higher with the grade sloping towards Golden Springs. Mr. McNeal indicated on the site plan where the existing homes are located in respect to the church. He reiterated that the new homes will be February 25, 1991 Page 4 higher than the existing homes. Chair/Schey stated he would like further information before making a decision on the matter. The points of concern are the potential impact of the elevation difference, and the general maintenance condition of the site. He directed staff to visit the residents homes and take pictures of the site, obtain more information in regards to grading, and verify that the existing landscaping condition is being observed. - Motion was made by C/MacBride, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to the next meeting of March 11, 1991 to include the outlined information directed to staff. DA 91-2 Ann Lundu, Planning Technician, reported that the Car Wash request is for a development agreement to develop the property for the following uses: self-service gasoline sale, automated car wash, automotive detail facility with offices, and a restaurant. Staff recommended approval of the negative declaration with the listed conditions. Chair/Schey noted it was indicated by the applicant that the cumulative traffic is expected to result in an unacceptable level of service at Golden Springs and Grand Avenue. He inquired what are the improvements proposed by the traffic study, Sid Mousavi, City Engineer, stated the information provided by the applicant was not acceptable. Staff has requested additional reports and studies. There is not adequate traffic impact information. Chair/Schey asked if the main entrance lines up with anything on the other side. CE/Mousavi stated the main entrance lines up with the left turn pocket already in existence. There is also a median break in existence. Staff is questioning the right turn coming out of the center because it may not be designed with an adequate turning radius for trucks. C/Lin inquired why there is only one entrance. CE/Mousavi stated the egress and ingress should be limited to one access to the site to reduce the possibility of hazards of the street. The Public Hearing was declared closed. Gary Clapp, 2344 Golden Springs, displayed the map February 25, 1991 Page 5 and indicated the location of the proposed project. He stated the location of the driveway is adequate for visibility and speed. The traffic will be slowed because the signals are set to trigger more frequently with the onset of more traffic. Jay Nelson, Traffic Engineer, stated the increment of the project has been identified before the intersection and was found to be insignificant. He concurred that the driveways need to provide a larger radius than proposed to provide adequate ingress and egress. He stated there is a stopping distance of 700 feet which is adequate for the posted speed limit. The improvements done at Grand and Golden Springs were previously identified by L.A. County, in a traffic study done approximately a year ago, as feasible improvements. If the City feels otherwise, there are a few alternatives. The Public Hearing was declared open. Rita Shaw, resident of the area, stated she in favor of the project because it will bring revenue and the City needs a local car wash. Mike Citel, President of Champion Restaurant, stated he plans on building a restaurant in the general area and a car wash would be beneficial. MaryLou Street, a business owner in Diamond Bar, stated the vacant land is an eyesore. The additional revenue for the City is beneficial. Frank Schabarum, realtor on the project, stated the pad is expansive and would be hard to utilize by restaurant owners, unless done so by the stated proposal. The project will be a good sales generator. Joe McManus stated the area is best suited for a car wash. Ben Reiling, with Zellman Development Co, 1661 Hanover, City of Industry, was concerned about controlling the traffic for the five (5) different uses on the 106 square foot site. Jack Leaso, Director of Administrative Services for South Coast Air Quality Management, was concerned the project would obstruct the view and recommended reducing the stated height. He suggested moving the car wash building up against and parallel to Golden Springs, which would solve the circulation problem. There needs to be internal circulation. He stated the style of architecture is not keeping February 25, 1991 Page 6 with the neighbors. Chair/Schey inquired as to the status of the approved car wash at the Honda location. PD/DeStefano stated there has been no permits issued, nor plans for a plan check submitted. Chair/Schey inquired which zones are capable of accommodating a car wash through either right or Conditional Use Permit (CUP). AP/Searcy stated zone C-1 and C-2 allow coin operated car washes, and C-3 allow automated car washes. Chair/Schey stated,he is bothered by the use of a development agreement to provide a use not permitted in the zone. DCA/Curley explained the development agreement does provide a vehicle by which uses otherwise prohibited can be allowed it. It is a legitimate, permissible use as established here. C/MacBride stated he visited the parcel and noted the key question is that of traffic and safety. It was difficult to pull off and park, as well as getting back into the traffic stream. He would like to see the necessary data imperative to make a decision. He had not considered the aspect of view impairment from the project and is sensitive to the concern. He noted the tudor architecture design is confusing with the existing neighbors. C/Lin affirmed the need for a more detailed traffic report. She inquiredif the future restaurants egress and ingress will tie with the driveways. Mr. Clapp responded that the restaurants egress and ingress will primarily be at the main driveway. C/Grothe stated the proposal has too many large holes at the current time, the architectural designs of the different projects needs to match one another, need a submittal of a sign program, and the traffic issues need to be reviewed further. Chair/Schey reiterated his concern that a development agreement is more of an ancillary or accessory use to a project to permit uses otherwise not permitted. He recommended denial and suggested the applicant go through a proper process of a zone change, and then the appropriate development processes. February 25, 1991 Page 7 DCA/Curley stated that if a zone change is permitted, then other uses that would otherwise not be permitted, would be allowed in. The method proposed gives moderate control. Chair/Schey contended the existing zoning designation states the uses, and those uses should be the ones that govern the development of the site, unless the zone is changed. C/Grothe recommended giving the applicant guidance as to the process to follow for an avenue to receive acceptability of the project. CP/Kaplan suggested keeping the discussion narrowly focused and separate it from the policy question as to the use of a development agreement. Mr. Clapp emphasized that the development agreement process suggested by staff seems a just and fair way to proceed with the project. Mr. Williams requested guidance from the Commission as to the direction to proceed. Many of the concerns stated are answered within the packet submitted. Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/MacBride and CARRIED to continue the matter to the meeting of March 25, 1991 pending the resolution of the mitigation measures that would be required as part of the mitigated negative declaration for the approval of the development agreement. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, MacBride, and Lin NOES: COMMISSIONERS: C/Schey ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None CUP 1634-1 PD/DeSt�efano suggested the matter be continued to the meeting of March 11, 1991. The Public Hearing was declared open and upon receiving no comment, was declared closed. Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to the March 11, 1991 meeting. Review Draft PD/DeStefano requested postponement of the Development Code discussion of the Administration Chapter 1.1 until Chapt. 1.1 & 1.11 the next meeting. Dan Dunham, a principal with the Planning Network, outlined some of the significant components of the code. He stated the Planning Network was asked specifically to: 1. Prepare a document that organizes the various February 25, 1991 Page 8 sections into a logical format. 2. Eliminate the non -relevant portions of the code. 3. Establish criteria applicable to Diamond Bar. 4. Incorporate the informal ongoing decision making process. 5. Incorporate the sign ordinance. 6. Prepare a development code which reflects the policies and the goals of the general plan and establish a balance between the two documents. Mr. Dunham stated five (5) documents were reviewed from different cities, which included Moreno Valley, Pasadena, Santa Monica, Irvine, and Buena Park, to establish a basis for the development code. CP/Kaplan suggested staff give a presentation to the Commission to report on the implications of each section of the document. Chair/Schey stated definitions could be best handled by the staff and any item out of the ordinary can be pointed out. Items like the Design Review would need a more detailed review. The zoning chapters would have to be looked at anecdotedly to get a grasp of the implications. PD/DeStefano suggested continuing the discussion at a time when the Commissioners have the document before them. To help staff prepare for the next meeting, it would be helpful if the Commission describes more fully the type of process they wish to go through on a chapter by chapter basis. CE/Mousavi suggested the Commission mark off individual sectidns that cause concern. During the meeting, the document can be reviewed page by page at those points of concern. a Chair/Schey requested staff also flag any issues the Commission should be particularly cognizant of, in advance to the discussion scheduled. PD/DeStefano clarified that the evaluation will be done in the form of a verbal presentation. Chair/Schey requested a table of contents for the entire document be given at the next meeting. Chair/Schey, with the consensus of the Commission, directed staff that the meeting of March 11, 1991 will convene at 7:00 p.m., to include discussion of chapters 1.1 and 1.11., and the meeting of March 25, 1991 will convene 6:30 p.m., to be properly February 25, 1991 Page 9 notified. PD/DeStefano announced there will be a public meeting held by the Walnut Unified School District on March 4, 1991 and March 11, 1991 at Castle Rock Elementary School in regards to the development of Site "D" (Brea Canyon and Diamond Bar Blvd.). The purpose of the meeting is to gather public input on the housing project proposed by the District, and the desirability of developing the site into a community park. The meetings will begin at 7:00 p.m. PD/DeStefano announced that the City Council will receive a presentation by Lloyd Zola, from the Planning Network, on the current status of the general plan at the regular Council meeting of March 5, 1991. All Commissions and committees are invited to attend. Chair/Schey inquired as to the proper process to be able to attend the conference of the Annual League of California Cities. PD/DeStefano recommended notifying staff within the next few working days to assure a reservation with the hotel. The conference is scheduled for Wednesday, March 20, 1991 through Friday, March 22, 1991. C/Grothe inquired if there has been any news in regards to the Pomona School district. PD/DeStefano stated the Pomona School District is undergoing an evaluation process to determine the location of a new Diamond Bar High School. The State ils insisting the funds allocated for a study be used quickly to determine a site, as well as the development of the site. They are seeking community input. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 10:45 p.m. David Schey Chairman Attest: James DeStefano Secretary/Planning Commission Item 2 - Staff will be making a presentation. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: CASE/FILE NUMBER: APPLICATION REQUEST: PROPERTY LOCATION: APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: BACKGROUND: City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report 3 March 4, 1991 March 11, 1991 CUP 1634-(1) Extension of time to complete the de- velopment of church facilities. 3255 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard approximately 100 feet west of Brea Canyon Road. Diamond Bar Evangelical Free Church The First Evangelical Free Church was granted a Conditional Use Permit in 1980 to develop a church facility. The facility was to be developed in a three phase development, the third phase of which was to be start- ed within ten years. The first phase included the multi-purpose room, classrooms and offices (existing). The second phase included the nurs- ery and additional classrooms (under construction). The third phase included the main sanctuary and classrooms. Zoning: R-1-7500 General Plan Designation: Urban 2 - Low density residential Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: North and East: R-1-7500 - Single Family Residential South: R-1-10000 - Vacant School Site West: I C-1, CPD - Commercial and Orange Freeway (57) The property is an irregularly shaped 2.6 acre lot. The site is level except for a large natural knoll at the northeast corner. The applicant has proposed significant changes to the site plan that will require modifications to the existing project. The use and opera- tions of the site will remain substantially the same. Any changes to the original CUP would require that the applicant submit the proposal to the Planning Commission for approval. These changes include reloca- tion of two buildings, elimination of one classroom building, increase in sanctuary and parking lot size, significant grading of the knoll, and an additional street access on Diamond Bar Blvd. Staff has met with the applicant to discuss this proposal, but at this time their plans are mostly conceptual in nature. The applicant has requested a five year time extension to further develop these plans. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Categorical Exemption Section 15061.b.3 Staff recommends granting a five that any changes new CUP approval. ATTACHMENTS: that the commission adopt the attached resolution year time extension to the original CUP and require on the project come back before the Commission for a A: Resolution 91 -XX B: Original findings and conditions C: Letter of request for extension of time D: Site Plan i-- B I 4 RESOLUTION NO. 91 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA AMENDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1634-(1) FOR THE TIME EXTENSION ON DEVELOPMENT OF CHURCH FACILITIES WITH A MULTI- PURPOSE ROOM, CLASSROOMS, OFFICES, AND SANCTUARY ON A SITE LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD AND BREA CANYON ROAD AT 3255 SOUTH DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, DIAMOND BAR AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. (i) Robert S. Huff, on behalf of Diamond Bar Evangelical Free Church, 3255 South ,Diamond Bar Boulevard, Diamond Bar, California, has heretofore requested an amendment for approval of Conditional Use Permit 1634-(1) as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution referred to as "the application". (ii) On November 14, 1990, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said public hearing on March 11, 1991. (iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The City Planning Commission hereby finds that Categorical Exemption #2 has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and further, this Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information in reference to the application. 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, based upon 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, no significant adverse environmental effects will oc- cur. 4. Based on the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above -referenced public hearing on November 14, 1990, and concluded on March 11, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and in conformance with the terms and provisions of California Government Code Sections 65360, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: 1. The subject property is located at 3255 South Diamond Bar Boulevard, Diamond Bar, California. 2. The applicant's request is for an amendment to a conditional use permit to authorize the revision of condition #18 to read as follows: 18. The proposed development may be developed in no more than 3 phases within a fifteen year period. Any plans for alterations or new construction must be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval; 3. The surrounding properties are developed with single family residences to the north and east, with a vacant school site to the south and with a commercial center and the Orange Freeway to the west. 4. The subject property is zoned R-1 and the use is conditionally allowed within this zone. 5. The site is designated within the U2 zone of the Diamond Bar Community Plan. 6. The subject property is currently developed with a church; multi-purpose room, classrooms and offices. Additionally, a nursery and additional classrooms are being constructed. 7. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt under CEQA Section 15061.b.3. 5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to the following restrictions as to use: 1. The applicant shall file an affidavit of approval stating that they are aware of, and accept, all the conditions of this permit before this permit is deemed effective; 2. All conditions in effect as imposed by conditional use permit 1634-(1) shall remain in effect except as amended by this grant; 6. This Commission hereby provides notice to Diamond Bar Evangelical Free Church and Robert S. Huff that the time within which judicial review of the decision represented by this Resolution must be sought is governed by the provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 The Planning Commission Secretary shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, to ROBERT S. HUFF AND DIAMOND BAR EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH at their addresses as set forth on the application. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 1991 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. BY: David Schey, Chairman ATTEST James DeStefano, Secretary I, James DeStefano, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, 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 11th day of March, 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: NOES: [COMMISSIONERS:] [COMMISSIONERS:] ABSENT: [COMMISSIONERS:]! CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 1634-(1) ZONING BOARD HEARING DATE: May 6, 1980 PROCEDURE BEFORE THE BOARD: One (1) person gave testimony in favor of the proposal to construct a church with accessory facilities including Sunday school classrooms. and a day nursery facility. The applicant's representative informed Zoning Board that the day nursery facility would be used solely for the children of the parents attending church functions. The proposed development will be built in three phases over a seven year period. Each phase will have adequate parking facilities. FINDINGS: 1. The subject property is located or. the northerly side of Diamond Bar Blvd. and is approximately 200 ft. easterly of Brea Canyon Rd 2. The site is an irregularly shaped vacant lot that contains 2.6 acres. 3. The property is characterized by level terrain with the exception of a large natural knoll at the northeast corner. 4. The subject property has been zoned R-1-7,500 since Sept. 8, 1961. 5. Section 208 permits churches including customary educational and social activities in Zone R-1 with a valid conditional use permit. 6. Section 207.3 permits in Zones R-1 day nursery facilities for church related functions as an accessory use. 7. The area surrounding the subject property is developed as follows: North - Single family residences; East - Single family residences; South - Single family residences and vacant land; West - Commercial shopping centers and the Orange Freeway. Ii 8. The proposed project is compatible with both the Environmental Development Guide and the 1973 General Plan. 9. Vehicular access to the subject property is taken from South Diamond Bar Blvd., a 100 foot wide County Major Highway. 10. The Road Dept. indicated that no additonal right-of-way nor improvements would be required at this time. 11. Based on the nature of the proposed project, South Diamond -Bar Blvd. is of sufficient width to carry the kind and quantity of traffic the church facilities would generate. 12. The attachedcondition that _requires _the installatio-nof three.. fire hydrants and the labeling of the private driveway as a fire lane would adequately provide reasonable fire protection and would comply with Fire Department regulations. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 1634-(1) Page 2 13. Proposed night lighting will be directed away from the residential areas. 14. The proposed project will not disrupt nor adversely affect the character of the established community. 15. The proposed project site is of sufficient size to accommodate design features necessary to assure compatibility with surrounding uses. 16. The attached conditions will serve to assure that the proposed project will operate in a manner consistent with the best interests of the community and with good planning. 17. The Negative Declaration prepared for this case complies with the California Environmental Quality Act and if the request is granted, there would not be a significant effect on the environment. BASED UPON THE FOREGOING, THE ZONING BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: A. Granting the proposed conditional use permit with the condi- tions and restrictions hereinafter mentioned will not be in substantial conflict with any general plan adopted for the area. B. The requested use at the location proposed will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons re- siding or working in the surrounding area, and will not be materially detrimental to the.use, enjoyment, or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity- of the site, and will not jeopardize, endanger, or otherwise consti- tute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare. C. The proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, land- scaping and other development features prescribed in the Ordinance, and as islptherwise required in order to integrate said use with the uses in the surrounding area. D. The proposed site has adequate traffic access and said site is adequately served by other public or private service facilities which it requires. THE ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDS: That the RPC ADOPT the Negative Declaration. That, in view of the findings of fact presented above, this CUP be GRANTED. ZONING BOARD MEMBERS CONCURRING: Chairman: Mrs. Clark Commissioner: Mrs. Llewellyn Senior Staff Member: Mr. Owen County Counsel: Mr. Ross _GONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 1634-(1) CONDITIONS 1. This permit shall not be effective for any purpose until a duly authorized representative of the owner of the property involved has filed at the office of said Regional Planning Commission his affidavit stating that he is aware of, and accepts all the condi- tions of this permit; 2. It is hereby declared to be the intent that if any provision of this permit is held or declared to be invalid, the permit shall be void and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; 3. It is further declared and made a condition of this permit that if any condition hereof is violated, or if any law, statute, or ordinance is violated, the permit shall be suspended and the privi- leges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given a written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of thirty (30) days; 4. That all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and of the specific zoning of subject property must be complied with unless set forth in the permit or shown on the approved plot plan; 5. That the property shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the plot plan on file marked Exhibits "A", A-111, and "B"; 6. That three copies of a landscape pian which may be incorporated into a revised plot plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. The landscape plan shall show size, type, and location of all plants-, trees,,.and water facilities; • 7. That all structures conform with the, requirements of the Division of Building and Safety of the Department of County Engineer; 8. That provisions be made for all natural drainage to the satisfac- tion of the County Engineer. Drainage plans and two signed grad- ing plans shall be submitted to the County Engineer, Environmental Development Division, forllapproval prior to grading or construction; 9. That subject facility be developed and maintained in compliance with requirements of the Los Angeles.County Health Department. Adequate water and sewage facilities shall be provided to the satisfaction of said Health Department; 10. That upon receipt of this letter, applicant shall contact the Fire Prevention Bureau of the Los Angeles County Forester and Fire Warden to determine facilities that may be necessary to pro- tect the property from fire hazard. Water mains, fire hydrants, and fire flow shall be provided as may be required by said depart- ment; 11. The applicant shall install fire hydrants in accordance with Fire Department regulations. All installations must meet Fire Depart- ment specifications; CONDITIONS Page 2 12. All private driveways shall be labeled "fire lane"; 13. That except for the accessway, a masonry wall 30 to 42 inches in height shall be constructed along the frontage of subject property next to the parking areas not nearer than 5 feet from the property line; 14. That unless this grant is used within a year from the date of Regional Planning Commission approval, the grant will expire. (A one-year time extension may be requested prior to such expiration date.); • 15. Parking on the subject property shall be provided at a ratio of one (1) parking space for each five (5) fixed seats of the largest assembly area; if the property is developed in phases, the multi- purpose room of Phase I shall constitute the largest assembly area, and when all three (3) phases are completed, the sanctuary shall constitute the largest assembly area; 16. Parking on the subject property shall be developed in accordance with Sections 703.21 and 703.23; 17. This grant permits a freestanding sign as depicted on the plot plan marked Exhibit "A"; 18. The proposed development may be developed in no more than three phases within a seven year period; 19. If developed in phases, the proposed development shall adhere to the following completion dates: Phase I shall be completed within 18 months; Phase II shall completed within 3 years; and, Phase III shall be comyleted within 7 years; 20. Upon successful completion of each phase, the remaining undeveloped land shall be maintained in a neat and orderly condition at all times; 21. Each phase shall be fully completed before the start of the next phase; 22. This grant does not permit a day nursery facility as a principal use; 23. This grant permits a day nursery facility as an accessory use incidental to church functions; 24. This grant does not permit a spire or tower; 25. Adequate parking for each phase shall be provided as enumerated in Condition No. 15; CbNDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 1634-(1) CONDITIONS Page 3 26. No construction shallbepermitted after the seven year period indicated in Conditions No. l8 and 19; 27. Night activities may be permitted to not more than twice a week and to not later than 10:00 p.m.; 28. Night lighting, if used, shall be shielded or so arranged to pre- vent glare or direct illumination in any residential or agriculture zone; 29. During construction, the applicant and/or developer shall excercise all means available to prevent the emission of dust onto neighboring property; In the event that the construction of any part of this facility should result in substantial complaints to the Department of Regional Planning, or the Regional Planning Commission, the applicant shall cease all operations until the Planning Director determines that all dust control measures have been met with. �hiZj� crr SUPt5`RU604ZS-HE&R11J Dc- o6t-R q, M10 NoUc�il�L-� iZ� �9�10 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL•USE PERMIT CASE NO. 1634-1 The conditions adopted by the Regional Planning Commission in conjunction with its approval of Conditional Use Permit Case Number 1634-1 are adopted by this reference, except for the following conditions, which are modified to read: Condition No. 18 The proposal may be constructed in phases; but it shall consist of no more than three such construction phases and all construction must be completed within ten years of the date of this grant. Condition No. 19 Delete completely. Condition No. 26 Delete completely. Condition No. 27 Activities unrelated to the church are permitted on site during the evening twice each week, but they must conclude by 11:00 p.m. 1 A 0 I!� ' --- • ----- --- - - - - SEN t�7 � � ;.. EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH OF DIAMOND BAR P.O. BOX 4101, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA 91765 • (714) 594-7604 3255 S. DIAMOND BAR BLVD. September 21, 1990 Mr. Jim Destefano, Director Department of Planning City of Diamond Bar 21660 E. Copley Dr., Suite 190 Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177 11 RE: Request for extension, C.U.P. 1634-(1) Dear Mr. Destefano: We hereby request an extension of Conditional Use Permit #1634-(1). Our church has grown slower than originally anticipated, however, growth has surged in the last two years. Our permit calls for building four buildings in phases on 2.6 acres as needed. Since the main building left to construct will be our central and prime building, our sanctuary, it is very important to us to receive an extension of the permit. We are excited about the growth in Diamond Bar, and as one of the few permanent church locations designated in the city, our desire is to develop our site properly to best fit into our community while meeting its needs. Your consideration of this request is greatly appreciated. GEE^LssI L FREE CHURCH OF DIAMOND BAR Robe t ufH f�7 Directing Elder, Building Program frtti January 9, EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH OF DIAMOND BAR P.O. BOX 4101, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA 91765 • (714) 594-7604 3255 S. DIAMOND BAR BLVD. 1991 'ire•, . Mr. James DeStefano, Planning Director City of Diamond Bar 21660 E. Copley Dr., Suite 190 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 RE: Request for extension, C.U.P. 1634-(1) Dear Mr. DeStefano: The Evangelical Free Church of Diamond Bar would appreciate the City granting us a five-year extension on the completion deadline of our above-mentioned C.U.P. The original time schedule has proved unrealistic to attain, without incurring crippling debt by our congregation. Wanting to be fiscally prudent, we slowed our building pace to what we could afford. Our momentum has been gaining in the past couple years, and we are finishing our second building on the site. Our goals and ministries in the community remain the same. Our need is for additional time to finish our project. Your consideration of this request is greatly appreciated! If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, EV AL FREEEE/CHURCH OF DIAMOND BAR Rob t S. Huff Directing Elder, Building Program ir-AH(bl —I AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: CASE/FILE NUMBER: APPLICATION REQUEST: PROPERTY LOCATION: APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: BACKGROUND: City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report 4 March 6, 1991 March 11, 1991 Conditional Use Permit No. 90-127 Environmental Assessment and Condi- tional Use Permit to expand an exist- ing mobile home.park by 29 lots for a total of 147 lots on a 19.5 acre site. 21217 E. Washington Diamond Bar Estates 303 North Placentia, Suite F Fullerton, CA 92631 This application is a continued public hearing from the February 11, 1991, Planning Commission hearing. The Planning Commission requested that the applicant provide additional information to staff concerning issues related to drainage and to maintenance within the existing de- velopment. The City Engineer met with the applicant to discuss on and off-site impacts as a result of alterations to the existing retention basin. The requested data has been forwarded to the City Engineer since the last public hearing. i Additionally, the applicant has met with the Homeowner's Association to discuss concerns expressed by members at the public hearing. Minutes of the meeting between the property owners and residents have been for- warded to staff and included in the packet as an attachment. APPLICATION ANALYSIS: Staff is concerned with the impacts of the project concerning the drainage issues as well as the quality of life within the mobile home park. The ability of a city to provide affordable housing to the com- munity is an endeavor every city should strive to achieve. With that consideration, there are additional objectives to be met. The project site has a variety of residents within the park but the park possesses very limited open space and recreational areas. The applicant has stated that during the Phase I portion of the project AGENDA ITEM March 11, 1991 .Page Two there would be an area provided for recreation. That area would later be developed and converted into the development area designated for Phase II development. No additional area is available for conversion into open space/recreation area. As a result, the park would then re- sume the current situation of limited recreation space except that 147 units would be in competition for the space instead of the current 118 units. Staff feels that the site barely meets the standards that are in effect today and staff recommends that the applicant convert two of the re- quested 29 new pad sites into additional open space/recreation area. The addition of the two pads would contribute approximately 7,000 square feet to the existing open space. Staff recommends that two of the three lots numbered 138, 139, and 140 be converted to open space. Staff also recommends that the applicant satisfy all requirements for appropriate drainage facilitation to the satisfaction of the City Engi- neer and the Director of Planning. All property identified as part of this project shall also be maintained to the satisfaction of the Direc- tor of Planning. Additionally, the conditions of approval that are currently in effect would remain enforceable under this grant. RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve the Resolution of Approval as submitted or amended. RLS:pjs Attachments: Exhibit I. Site Plan Exhibit II. Letters dated 1/21/91 and 2/5/91 from Kathleen Pepper, Exhibit III. Photos and site plan key W1 ~, ')n n"'" V vW Kathleen Pepper, Board Member Diamond Bar Estates Homeowners Association 21217 E. Washington St., Space 113 Walnut, CA 91789 January 21, 1991 Mr. Robert Searcy City of Diamond Bar Planning Dept. 21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 190 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 RE: CUP 90-0127 Dear Mr. Searcy: Thank you for taking the time to speak with me on January 15, 1991 regarding the request for a Conditional Use Permit by McDermott Engineering for the site known as Diamond Bar Estates. As you know those of us currently residing in the park are concerned about the plan to expand the existing park by the addition of 29 more pads. A number of issues were raised at the January 14, 1991 Planning Commission meeting which are of concern to us all. The Board of Directors for the Diamond Bar Estates Homeowners Associ- ation have met and compiled a list of items of concern, which we now submit to you for your consideration before the next scheduled meeting on February 11, 1991 (see attached). This list has also been circulated among all of the park residents for any additional input they might have. We will bring any other issues raised by this input to the next meeting for discussion. We are not opposing the addition of new homes and park expansion. We are, however, extremely concerned about maintaining the quality of life in our park for everyone. Originally, Diamond Bar Estates was planned as an "Adults Only" park. Due to changes in Federal law, we are now a "Family" park with some different resident needs. It is hoped that with your help our issues of concern can be resolved in an equitable manner. We have also drafted a letter to the panic pwners, Santiago Corporation, requesting an informa- tional meeting for residents. Perhaps, with some clarification of their intent, our concerns can be put to rest. However, past experience with park owners has proven unproductive. Once again, thank you for your assistance. We know that the City of Diamond Bar is looking after the best interests of all. Respectfully, Kathleen Pepper KP/kp Attachment LIST OF RESIDENT CONCERNS Diamond Bar Estates Homeowners Association RE: CUP 90-0127 1. Original plans for park were for an "Adults Only" park We are now a "Family" park with additional resident needs. 2. Access to the park is currently restricted to one (1) entrance/exit road The gates across the two (2) fire access roads remain locked at all times. Presently, the vehicle actuated crossing type gates at the main entrance are not functioning pro- perly and provide no security to residents. 3. Adequate recreational facilities for all residents. The current pool and spa are very small. It is not known if these facilities are deemed adequate for 143 residences as planned. The existing clubhouse is badly in need of paint, and the billiards room has no pool cues, complete sets of balls or chalk. In addition, the tables are badly in need of repair. Management has communicated to residents that the clubhouse must remain unlocked during operating hours which has contributed to vandal- ism/theft by non-residents. Inquiries by residents regarding the addition of open play areas have received negative feedback from management. 4. Maintenance of a safe distance between the railroad track and additional new homes. The railroad tracks which run behind the park are well -used by many fast- moving, heavily -loaded trains each day. The vibration from these trains can be felt by the residents at the front of the park, and in the homes which are closer actual shaking takes place. There is concern that new homes, located much closer than current ones, could sustain damage on a recurring basis. 5. Effective sound/defense barrier between the railroad tracks nnrl m,rre.nt ns wAl aq proposed home sites. If the Planning Commission rules that the proximity to the tracks is indeed safe, our concern is for a barrier that blocks noise as well as pre- venting children from gaining access to the tracks. 6. Properly maintained and spaced street li hting maintained by the park manage- ment. Currently, park streets are extremely dark necessitating the carrying of flash- lights by residents needing to go out after dark. 7. Appropriate sewage and water lines which deliver adequate water pressure to all homes. The park has had a 1)istory of broken or leaking water lines and valves with resultant damage to residences either during the break or repair process. 8. Adequate waste disposal bins to accommodate the trash of park residents Cur- rently we have 5 bins in the park with 118 homes. They are emptied three times weekly, yet we still have overflowing bins before each pick up day. 9. Adequate added guest parking to accommodate the traffic from the addition of 29 more homes. 10. New homes should be similar in appearance, size and structure to existing homes Lot sizes and required masonry, landscape, porch and awning materials should conform to existing homes. Current residents want to be assured that the park will continue to present a uniform appearance which will protect their property values. 1/21/91 D.B.E.H.A William T. Pepper, President Diamond Bar Estates Homeowners Assoc. 21217 E. Washington St., Space 113 Walnut, CA 91789 (714)595-3331 January 21, 1991 Mr. Richard Simonian, President & CEO Santiago Corporation 1108 West Seventeenth Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 Dear Mr. Simonian: I am writing to request an informational meeting between a representative of Santiago Corpora- tion and the residents of Diamond Bar Estates regarding the addition to the park of 29 sites. The members of the Homeowners Association would welcome an opportunity for an open dis- cussion with the park owners and developer before the next meeting of the Diamond Bar Plan- ning Commission on February 11, 1991. There are a number of questions we would appreciate asking in an open forum in order to clearly understand your plans for the expansion. Please feel free to contact me by phone, as I know that time is limited before the Planning Com- mission meets again on this issue. The Board of Directors of the Homeowners Association will be happy to notify all residents of date and time if you so desire. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I will be looking forward to hearing from you shortly. YPurs Very Truly, William T. Pepper cc: M/NI Chancy Managers D.B.E. R. Searcy Diamond Bar Planning Dept. G" fV RC mk -�o Kathleen Pepper, Board Member Diamond Bar Estates Homeowners Assoc. 21217 E. Washington St., Space 113 Walnut, CA 91789 February 5, 1991 Mr. Robert Searcy City of Diamond Bar Planning Dept. 21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 190 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 RE: CUP 90-0127 Dear Mr. Searcy: CIi FEB 7 1991 y�/ PLA `'KING LEPL On February 2, 1991, Mr. Simonian met with the President of our Homeowners Association to discuss the issues raised regarding the completion of additional home sites at Diamond Bar Estates. The questions raised in our survey to park residents were addressed by Mr. Simonian, and the results of the meeting were very positive. (See enclosed Board Meeting minutes). We still have one issue which concerns us, the sound barrier. Mr. Simonian said that the current barrier is not only adequate, but better than a block wall. His plan is to move the existing barrier back, not to replace it. Our only request to the Planning Department and Commission is that the sound barrier provided meets with the code requirements as interpreted by the City of Diamond Bar. The majority of residents at Diamond Bar Estates clearly expressed their desire to have their park completed as originally designed. Of the 118 residences polled, 92 responded to our survey. Of those who responded, only 2 were against the addition of the sites. The residents of Diamond Bar Estates feel that the completion of the park will enhance home values, and make some of the long awaited additional improvements possible such as R.V. park- ing and security gates. Thank you for your interest in this matter. Our Board President, Tom Pepper will be in atten- dance at the next Planning Commission meeting on February 11, 1991. Yours Very Truly, Kathleen Pepper KP/kp Enclosures MINUTES Board Meeting - February 3, 1991 Meeting was called to order at 8:30 AM by the President, Tom Pepper. Roll was called by acting secretary, Kathy Pepper. Those in attendance were: Tom Pepper, Kevin Beau- bien, Jerry Oakley, Jane Carnahan, Leah Chamberlain, Ditty Cruz, Kay Doner, Kathy Pepper, Phil Simpson, Rita Stine, Don Shorman, Earl Chaney, Ruth Cornilliac and Duane Chamberlain. Minutes of the January 20 meeting were read and approved as corrected with the addition of Rita Stine to those in attendance. The Treasurer's report was given by Jerry Oakley. Cash on hand January 31, 1991 was $891.34. Leah Chamberlain, Steering Committee Chairperson reported on the calendar of events for the year. Planned events to include: Bingo - 1 a month beginning February 23 St. Patrick's Dinner - March 16 at 5:30 PM Raffle and Potluck - April 27 at 5:30 PM Bakery Cart Sale - June 15 4th of July Celebration to include BBQ, Game Booths, Jukebox, etc. Christmas Boutique and Salad Luncheon - November 9 Christmas Tree Trimming Party - December 14 Additional suggestions were made, ie 50's Party, Octoberfest. No firm dates yet from Elinor on the Pan- cake Breakfasts, as of now they are on hold. The Board presented Don Shorman with a plaque in appreciation for his service as President in 1990. Kathy Pepper reported on the results of the "Site Survey". The majority of residents are in favor of the additions and final completion of the park. The major concern of residents was an adequate sound bar- rier and assurance that all facilities will be adequate for all residents. Other issues raised were unrelated to the issue of expansion. Tom Pepper reported on his meeting with Richard Simonian, Earl, and Shirley Chaney. Mr. Simonian asked that all requests for improvements to the park be submitted in writing to management. Improve- ments will be done as funds become available. Earl was given the go ahead by Simonian to secure the kitchen area by placing a cover over the pass through and locking the kitchen door. No date for completion was given. 'The Clubhouse will be painted in April. Eight (8) trash bins will be provided by park completion, with 3 times weekly pick up scheduled. Code only requires 6 bins. Regarding locked fire access gates, Mr. Simonian indicated he would unlock them if we wanted. It was suggested by Rita Stine that keys be issued to 2 residents living closest to the gates for use in an emer- gency. (Rita and Cliff Caldwell were suggested as key holders). It was decided that the Board would look at the gate issue again when Washington Street is completed and traffic gets heavier. Mr. Simonian said that the current sound barrier will stay and is more effective than a block wall. Earl agreed with this statement, based on his experience at another park. This will ultimately be decided by the Planning Commission. A promise was made that R.V. parking will go in when Phase II is completed. Until then access along that side of the park must remain open. Security gates will be installed at park expense when Phase H is completed if residents want them. Regarding lighting, Simonian asked "What do you want?" Ditty Cruz will work on the answer. Park rules and regulations will be enforced if notice in writing is given to management regarding the infraction. Shirley Chaney has offered to give $175 in prize money for our "Spring Clean -Up" campaign for 1st, 2nd and 3rd place prizes. An extra dumpster will also be provided during that week. Don Shorman reported that the park directory is at the printer with the first run to be completed in a week. Cost will be $250. Motion was made and seconded to ask for donations from residents to offset the cost of $2.00 each. The updated By -Laws were reviewed and changes discussed. A motion was made and seconded to adopt the new By -Laws as amended. The following Committee appointments were made by President, Tom Pepper: Jane Carnahan Leah Chamberlain Ditty Cruz Kay Doner Carol Meyer Kathy Pepper Phil Simpson Rita Stine Social, Welcome/Hospitality Steering, Ways & Means Sergeant -At -Arms Recognition Parliamentarian Historian Announcement Sign Newsletter Editor/Publisher Motion was made and seconded to accept appointments as made. Phil Simpson has ordered additional letters for the entrance sign. Approximate cost $34.00. Motion was made and seconded to reimburse Phil for the letters. Motion was made and seconded to authorize expenditure of $65.00 to install a light for the park flag- pole. Motion was made and seconded to purchase a "Yellow Ribbon" flag for the park pole at a cost of $42.00. Flag will be purchased as soon as they are available. Tom Pepper requested that all items for the newsletter be submitted to Rita Stine within 5 days of Board meetings. Meeting was adjourned at 9:45 AM. William T. Pepper, President Diamond Bar Estates Homeowners Assoc. 21217 E. Washington St., Space 113 Walnut, CA 91789 February 5, 1991 Mr. Richard Simonian, President & CEO Santiago Corporation 1108 West Seventeenth Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 Dear Mr. Simonian: Thank you for taking the time to meet with me on Saturday, February 2, 1991, regarding the completion of our park. The meeting was both informative and productive. After talking with you and management, I am looking forward to seeing the park take shape as the final phases of development are completed. Thank you for your approval to secure our kitchen facilities as this will enable us to store the supplies we need safely. The painting of the Clubhouse will greatly improve the surroundings for our social events this year. We have named a committee to study the lighting in the park and will keep management informed of the requested improvements/additions. All residents will be informed of the time table for the R.V. storage and security gates in our February newsletter, as well as the number of trash bins that will be available upon completion of the park. Our Park Improvement and Safety committee will be issuing written complaints to Earl and Shirley regarding the problem spaces in the park. The Board was encouraged to have Earl in attendance at their meeting on Sunday. The Conti- nental Breakfast afterward was well -attended and very much appreciated. As a representative of the residents of Diamond Bar Estates, I am hopeful that we can move for- ward to solve any problems which may arise in the future in a spirit of cooperation. Once again, thank you for your time. Yours Very Truly, William T. Pepper WTP/kp cc: M/M Chaney Managers D.B.E. R. Searcy Diamond Bar Planning Dept. w .. \ f! 0 N Q n 1 IA I V/ UO t t ;1t d;:.. .. �. 3�" � icy ,. _ .. ... City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 5 REPORT DATE: March 6, 1991 MEETING DATE: March 11, 1991 CASE/FILE NUMBER: Conditional Use Permit 90-130 APPLICATION REQUEST: For the expansion of the existing school facility to enlarge the capac- ity for the current K -8th grade en- rollment to expand the day care fa- cilities and to revise the total school enrollment to a capacity of 425 students. PROPERTY LOCATION: 23300 E. Golden Springs Drive Diamond Bar, California APPLICANT: Gary Stueve 1678 Storrs Place Pomona, California PROPERTY OWNER: Mount Calvary Lutheran Church 23300 Golden Springs Drive Diamond Bar, California ANALYSIS: This is a continued public hearing from February 25, 1991. The Plan- ning Commission requested that the applicant and staff provide addi- tional information in order that the visual impacts related to the height of the proposed addition can be determined. As a result, staff has photographed the site from the residential properties adjacent to and potentially the most impacted by the addition. Aerial photos of the site are also provided in order that points of reference can be identified for off-site land uses. The applicant has provided a sec- tion which shows the difference in the elevations at the pad level and the differences at the roof level. Staff has continued to review the additional data and find that the addition may have impacts but these impacts have been mitigated to a level that considers the applicant's request and the concerns of the adjacent neighbors. Staff has imposed conditions on the application that dictate the hours of operation, maintenance of the landscaping on the site, and insuring the ongoing visual amenities presently existing to the residents adjacent to the site. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval the attached Resolution of Approval as pre- sented or amended. Attachments: I. Conditions of Approval II. Resolution of Approval III. Photos of Site RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-130 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO FLOOR BUILDING CONTAINING SIX CLASSROOMS, TO EXPAND THE EXISTING RECREATION/PLAYGROUND AREA, AND TO EXPAND THE MAXIMUM ENROLLMENT TO 425 STUDENTS ON A SITE LOCATED TO THE SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF GOLDEN SPRINGS ROAD AND DIAMOND BAR BLVD AT 23300 GOLDEN SPRINGS ROAD, DIAMOND BAR AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. (i) Gary Stueve, on behalf of Mount Calvary Lutheran Church, 23300 Golden Springs, Diamond Bar, California, has heretofore filed an application for approval of Conditional Use Permit 90-130 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution referred to as "the application". (ii) On February 25, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said public hearing on March 11, 1991. (iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The City Planning Commission hereby finds that Categorical Exemption #1 has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act tof 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and further, this Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information in reference to the application. 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, based upon 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, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. 4. Based on the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above -referenced public hearing on February 25, 1991, and concluded on March 11, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and in conformance with the terms and provisions of California Government Code Sections 65360, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: The subject property is located at 23300 Gold Springs Road Diamond Bar, California. The applicant's request is for a conditional use permit to authorize the expansion of an existing parochial school -church facility and accessory uses by constructing a two story building containing in excess of 8,000 sq ft and six classrooms. Additionally the applicant requests permission to expand the student enrollment by a maximum of 53 students. 3. The surrounding properties are developed with single family residences to the south and west and with offices, a commercial center, and a junior high school to the north and east. 4. The subject property is zoned R-3 and the use is conditionally allowed within this zone 5. The site is designated within the U2 zone of the Diamond Bar Community Plan. 6. The subject property is currently developed with a church sanctuary, single family residence, gymnasium/administrative building, and an educational building with day nursery facilities and adequate off-street parking. 7. The proposed project will establish a school facility to accommodate the day nursery school on the top floor and a mixture of K -8th on the ground floor. 8. The subject property fronts on and takes access from Golden Springs Road and the existing utilities on site are sufficient to accommodate the proposed expansion. 9. Residential properties located adjacent to the southerly boundary of the subject property are located at elevations above the subject property and currently look down upon the existing church -school site. 10. The preservation of views currently enjoyed by and previously guaranteed to the residents located adjacent to the southerly boundary of the subject property is a desirable objective which will help to maintain the property values of said properties and has been addressed by the project design. 11. The design will of the project has created mitigations which preserve the visual amenities enjoyed by the adjacent residential property owners while reducing potential noise having previously relocated parking areas to the northern portion of the site and locating recreation areas to the western elevation. Additionally, the applicant is required to install inoperable (non -opening) windows on the southerly walls of the proposed classroom building. 12. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt under State Code 15323. 5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to the following restrictions as to use: 1. The applicant shall file an affidavit of approval stating that they are aware of, and accept, all the conditions of this permit before this permit is deemed effective; 2. That the subject property shall be developed in substantial compliance with the site plan marked "Exhibit All, the materials board marked "Exhibit B", and the plot plan marked "Exhibit C" which are on file. 3. The two story classroom structure shall be constructed with material identical to the materials of the existing structures where applicable and shall utilize bronze window frames and solar bronze glass as exhibited on the rendering marked "Exhibit D". The classroom structure shall not exceed a height in excess of 24 feet above finished grade; 4. All air conditioning equipment located outside the classroom building shall not be located on the roof but shall be located in an enclosure at the rear of the structure. The enclosure shall be constructed of a material compatible with the exterior of the main structure and shall be maintained in good condition; 5. The additional play area shall not have lighting which would provide for recreational activities after the approved hours of operation which have been established under CUP 1974-(1); 6. The subject site shall maintain at least 121 off-street parking spaces. This permit does not alter the current parking provisions and the existing spaces shall remain in good repair; 7. The total student population on the site shall not exceed 425 at time of maximum enrollment, no more than 76 children may be enrolled in the day care facility; 8. That the project site shall not conduct school related functions and events that will continue between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. 9. Maintain the existing landscaping in good condition and do not plant vegetation that might grow to a height in excess of 20 feet; 10. No signage other than the permitted sign at the entrance to the site off Golden Springs Road, is approved or permitted as a part of this application; 11. Comply with all conditions in effect as a result of the conditional use permit 1974-(1) and remain unrevised as a result of this grant; 12. That unless this permit is utilized within one year from the date of the Planning Commission approval, the permit shall expire. A one year extension may be requested in writing prior to such expiration date. 6. This Commission hereby provides notice to Mount Calvary Lutheran Church and Gary Stueve that the time within which judicial review of the decision represented by this Resolution must be sought is governed by the provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 The Planning Commission Secretary shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, to GARY STUEVE AND MOUNT CALVARY LUTHERAN CHURCH at their addresses as set forth on the application. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 1991 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. BY: ATTEST David Schey, Chairman James DeStefano, Secretary I, James Destefano, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, 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 lith day of March, 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: [COMMISSIONERS:] NOES: [COMMISSIONERS:] ABSENT: [COMMISSIONERS:] t f�h�15'tiT 5���� IT �> . .� :. 4 MOTTO f -4 MT, AR, I EL a I or ,� �' � �� .�,._-��,� syr.. u d � �, "" ,'� n City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 6 REPORT DATE: February 6, 1991 MEETING DATE: March 11, 1991 CASE/FILE NUMBER: Conditional Use Permit 90-125 APPLICATION REQUEST: To construct a two (2) floor office building, approximately 6,400 square feet in size, with parking on the lower level and office space on the upper level. PROPERTY LOCATION: East of Diamond Bar Blvd., westerly of Sunset Crossing Rd at Navajo Springs Rd 23475 Sunset Crossing Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Lot 8 & 9, Tract 28853 APPLICANT: Ed and Shirley Jaworsky 3349 Paloma LaVerne, CA PROPERTY OWNER: Fred and Norma Janz 2683 Shady Ridge Diamond Bar, CA 91765 BACKGROUND: The 2.76 acre site is currently developed with a three story (16,500 sq. ft.) office building with 120 parking spaces provided. As a condi- tion of approval for the project, the lots were to be included in a covenant to hold them as a single lot. This condition was instituted to guarantee that the parking, which was located on lots eight and nine, could not be reduced for the office building as a result of fu- ture development. Not withstanding this condition, the applicant is requesting to con- struct a two story office building with underground parking on what is currently the bisecting line of lots eight and nine. The City Engineer and the Director Planning do not find this to be, in any way, in con- flict with the existing conditions of approval or the recorded covenant which holds the lots as one. The location of the proposed building is situated to the southeastern portion of the site. The office building is oriented to Sunset Cross- ing Road and is proposed for a portion of the undeveloped site with a slope which varies from 1.5:1 to 1:1. The adjacent development around the site includes the Great Western Bank to the north, L.A. Fitness Center health club to the west, condominiums and a racquet and swim club directly to the south of the proposed project, and to the east a single family residence is constructed on an elevation above the sub- ject site. APPLICATION ANALYSIS: The conditional use permit request is for a two story office building with approximately 6,470 sq. ft. of interior floor area. The building height is designed at a height of approximately 35 ft. The building is designed with subterranean parking on the first floor of the structure and office space on the top floor. Sixteen parking spaces will be pro- vided per current parking standards for commercial non-medical profes- sional office buildings and will include one handicapped parking space. The site has features which create circumstances that must be dealt with in the design of the office building. Because of the dramatic change in grade that the site possesses, the use of a retaining wall is necessary in order to create an adequate foundation. The retaining wall proposed will actually be visible as a portion of the structure's overall mass on the rear and side sections of the building. The office building is designed to be constructed on top of the retaining wall with the retaining wall incorporated into the exterior aesthetics thus contributing to the overall appearance of the height of the structure. Additionally, the slope and site configuration create the unlikelihood of surface parking for the office building. The site would require massive grading and the importation of significant quantities of earth in order to be realized. Sunset Crossing Road will not be adequate to absorb the additional parking that would be generated if inadequate on- site parking is provided. The materials to be utilized in the construction of the office building include a white stucco exterior finish and spanish "s" tile on the roof. The roof will be flat and a parapet wall will be constructed along the exterior of the roof line to give the face a more angular appearance when viewed from below. The entrance to the parking struc- ture will take access to Sunset Crossing Road on the south elevation as well as the only pedestrian entrance which is on the bottom floor. The top floor is designed with walk out patios to three suites and abundant window area on all elevations. The eastern elevation features a walk- out patio/breezeway that overlooks the remaining landscaped areas. Parking for the office building has been calculated based on the cur- rent commercial office building standard which is 1 space per 400 sq. ft. of gross area. The calculation is used because of the developer's stated intent to exclude uses inconsistent with the commercial parking calculation as tenants. This excludes doctors, dentists, and health care practitioners from operating in the building. The 16 parking sp- aces provided meet the standard minimum requirements in number and per- centage by type (60 percent standard size and 40 percent compact). The ingress and egress to the parking structure does however raise a safety consideration. Due to the slope of the descending Sunset Cross- ing Rd. there is concern that the "clear sight" angle, in conjunction with the speed at which cars move past the site, may not afford the re- action time necessary for safe ingress/egress to the development. Landscaping for the site will utilize a major portion of the existing stand of trees located to the west of the proposed structure. There will be additional trees planted along the rear of the structure to reduce the massiveness of retaining wall. Shrubbery will be planted in the front of the structure as well as along the side elevations. Land- scaping and open space will extend east from the proposed office build- ing and will comprise approximately 30 percent of the site's gross square footage. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Mitigated Negative Declaration IONS: Adopt the Resolution of approval and the attached conditions. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The applicant's request is for a conditional use permit to authorize the construction of a two floor office building with underground parking. 2. The surrounding properties are developed with single family resi- dences to the east, a three story office building to the north, res- idential condominiums and a swimming and racquet club to the south, and a health club to the west. 3. The subject property is zoned C M and the use is allowed within this zone. 1 4. The site is designated within the Commercial zone of the Diamond Bar Community Plan. 5. The subject property is currently developed with a three story of- fice building, the Great Western Bank, parking and landscaped areas, and open space vacant areas. 6. The proposed project will establish a two floor office building with under ground parking, for commercial uses to exclude any medical service tenants. 7. The subject property fronts on and takes access from Sunset Crossing Road and the existing development takes access from Diamond Bar Blvd. The existing utilities on site are sufficient to accommodate the proposed expansion. 8. Residential properties located adjacent to the easterly boundary of the subject property are located at elevations above the subject property and currently look down upon the existing office building and the site for the proposed office building. 9. The preservation of views currently enjoyed by the residents located to the south and east of the subject site is a desirable objective which has been addressed by the design of the office building. 10.0n the basis of the initial study, the Diamond Bar Department of Planning has determined this project qualifies for a Mitigated Nega- tive Declaration. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-125 1. The applicant shall file an affidavit of acceptance stating that they are aware of, and accept, all the conditions of this permit before this permit is deemed effective; 2. That the subject property shall be developed in substantial compliance with the site plan marked "Exhibit All, the materials board marked "Exhibit B", and the plot plan marked "Exhibit C" which are on file. 3. The office building height shall not exceed 35 feet above average finished grade. 4. No air conditioning equipment shall be located on the office building roof and shall be ground mounted and located within an enclosure constructed of the same materials used in the exterior construction of the office building shall be maintained in good condition; 5. Landscaping shall conform to the approved landscape plan and shall use xeriscape landscaping where possible and to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. The existing landscaping shall be maintained to the same standard. 6. The subject site shall maintain at.least 16 off-street parking spaces in the parking structure. This grant does not have any impact on the existing parking provided for the office building located on lot 8. 7. The user/tenants of the approved office building shall not include medical professionals because of the limited number of on-site parking spaces which are available. 8. No signage is approved or permitted as a part of this application; I 9. Comply with all conditions in effect as a result of the plot plan 34336 as remain unrevised as a result of this grant; 10. That unless this permit is utilized within one year from the date of the Planning Commission approval, the permit shall expire. A one year extension may be requested in writing prior to such expiration date. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-125 Applicant: Ed and Shirley Jaworsky 3349 Paloma LaVerne, CA. Proposal: To construct a two floor office building, approximately 6,400 square feet in size, with parking on the lower level and office space on the upper level. Location: East of Diamond Bar Blvd, westerly of Sunset Crossing Rd at Navajo Springs Rd; 23475 Sunset Crossing Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Environmental Findings: The proposed project, as determined by the Planning Department in the City of Diamond Bar, will not have a significant effect on the environment. This conclusion is based on the attached environmental checklist. Mitigated Negative Declaration All "yes" and "possibly" answers and mitigation measures. 1. Earth. (c,d) Explanation: Due to the necessary grading which will be required as a part of the construction phase and the change in topography, there will be a changes to the existing conditions. During the construction phase there will be an increase in wind blown soil on the site. Mitigation Measures: During the construction phase the site will be required to be watered down to reduce the occurrence of blowing soil and landscaping will be required to be planted and maintained on the site at the earliest opportunity that construction will allow. 3. Water. (b) Explanation: There will be an increase in non -permeable surfaces as a result of the construction of the office building thus decreasing the absorption rates. Mitigation Measures: The project will require the placement of a drainage system and connection into the existing municipal facilities. 9. Natural Resources. (a) Explanation: There will be an increase in the use of electricity and water as a result of the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: The proposed project will be required to comply with the Building Code concerning the use of water conserving toilets equipment, the use of recycled water for landscaping and the use of xeriscape drought tolerant plants, and compliance with Building Code energy conserving calculations are required as part of this application. 13. Transportation/Circulation. (a,b) Explanation: The project will generate more trips per day than the current on- site development on Sunset Crossing Road and may create the need for more parking than is currently planned for the office building. Mitigation Measures: The office building will be restricted to low volume generating tenants that will exclude medical/professional users. To further reduce the negative impacts to on -street parking, staff will investigate imposing no parking restrictions in the vicinity of the project on Sunset Crossing Road. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-125 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO FLOOR OFFICE BUILDING WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING FOR 16 STALLS, IN A C M ZONE, LOCATED AT 23475 SUNSET CROSSING ROAD, DIAMOND BAR AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. (i) Ed and Shirley Jaworsky on behalf of Fred and Norma Janz, 2683 Shady Ridge, Diamond Bar, California, has heretofore filed an application for approval of Conditional Use Permit 90-125 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution referred to as "the application". (ii) On February 25, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said public hearing on the March 11, 1991. (iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The City Planning Commission hereby finds that Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and further, this Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information in reference to the application. 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, based upon 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, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. 4. Based on the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above -referenced public hearing on February 25, 1991 and concluding on March 11, 1991 including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and in conformance with the terms and provisions of California Government Code Sections 65360, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: 1. The subject property is located at 23475 Sunset Crossing Road, Diamond Bar, California. 2. The applicant's request is for a conditional use permit to construct a two floor office building with underground parking. 3. The surrounding properties are developed with single family residences to the east, a three story office building to the north, residential condominums and a swim and racquet club to the south, and a health club to the west. 4. The subject property is zoned C M and the use is allowed within this zone. 5. The site is designated within the Commercial zone of the Diamond Bar Community Plan. 6. The subject property is currently developed with a three story office building, the Great Western Bank, parking and landscaped areas, and open space vacant areas. 7. The proposed project will establish a two floor office building, with underground parking, for commercial uses to exclude any medical service tenants. 8. The subject property fronts on and takes access from Sunset Crossing Road and the existing development takes access from Diamond Bar Blvd. The existing utilities on site are sufficient to accommodate the proposed project. 9. Residential properties located adjacent to the easterly boundary of the subject property are located at elevations above the subject property and currently look down upon the existing office building. 10. The preservation of views currently enjoyed by and previously guaranteed to the residents located adjacent to the south and east of the subject property is a desirable objective which has been addressed by the design of the office building. 11. On the basis of the initial study, The Diamond Bar Department of Planning has determined this project qualifies for a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 12. The requested use at the location proposed will not: (a) Adversersely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing working in the surrounding area, or (b) Be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the site, or (c) Jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to public health, safety or general welfare; and 13. That the proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accomodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this title, or as is otherwise required in order to intergrate said use with the uses in the surrounding area; and 14. That the proposed site is adequately served: (a) By highways or streets of sufficent width and improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such use would generate, and (b) By other public or private facilities as required. 5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to the following restrictions as to use: 1. The applicant shall file an affidavit of acceptance stating that they are aware of, and accept, all the conditions of this permit before this permit is deemed effective; 2. That the subject property shall be developed in substantial compliance with the site plan marked "Exhibit A11, the materials board marked "Exhibit B", and the plot plan marked "Exhibit C11 which are on file. 3. The office building height shall not exceed 35 feet above average finished grade. 4. No air conditioning equipment shall be located on the office building roof and shall be ground mounted and located within an enclosure constructed of the same materials used in the esxterior construction of the office building shall be maintained in good condition; 5. Lanscaping shall conform to the approved landscape plan and shall use xeriscape landscaping where possible and to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. The existing landscaping shall be maintained to the same standard. 6. The subject site shall maintain at least 16 off-street parking spaces in the parking structure.__ This grant does not have any impact on the existing parking provided for the office building located on lot 8. 7. The user/tenants of the approved office building shall not include medical professionals because of the limited number of on-site parking spaces which are available. 8. No signage is approved or permitted as a part of this application; 9. Comply with all conditions in effect as a result of the plot plan 34336 as remain unrevised as a result of this grant; 10. That unless this permit is utilized within one year from the date of the Planning Commission approval, the permit shall expire. A one year extension may be requested in writing prior to such expiration date. 6. This Commission hereby provides notice to Ed and Shirley Jaworsky and Fred and Norma Janz that the time within which judicial review of the decision represented by this Resolution must be sought is governed by the provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 The Planning Commission Secretary shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, return receipt request, to Ed and Shirley Jaworsky and Fred and Norma Janz at their addresses as set forth on the application. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF March, 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. BY: ATTEST David Schey, Chairman James DeStefano, Secretary I, James Destefano, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, 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 11th day of March, 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: [COMMISSIONERS:] NOES: [COMMISSIONERS:] ABSENT: [COMMISSIONERS:] CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING ME IDEPART.�NT OF PLANNING (714) 860-3195 The following Information Is necessary for the reyww of ALL applications. Failure to lurnnh Information will delay adon. Attach exr,a sheets d necessary. Please read instruc:;dns carefully. RECORD OWNERS) APPLICANT APPLICANT'S AGENT (Engine -_r, Licensed Surveyor, Other and please indicate if engineer is also an agent/ Name Fred & Norma Janz N,meEd & Shirley Jawors,� ACCrest 2683 Shady Ridge Add,,,,3349 Paloma Acorea C.ty Diamond Bar C;t., LaVerne Cary Zip Phonel714 861-37�$0�5_�'+ane(% W.'. Ktaz1�111��:0 ?hone) 1 (Attach separate sneer .f necessary. mcluo.ng names. acdr6SeS. and signatures of mem..oecs of oaetoasn.cs. ;pint ventures. and C,rec:ors of m,poravont I rrmon of :he aapLotmn ac:ompanymg mn, reaves:. (Ali record owners; i ;ION.' l/gerebY cer; dY miler penalty of perjury :nae Signed Cate mlormahon eerem prov,a. :s correct to me Oesr of my y!AA1` i.L Date `' J� i iAamhr�nt or App font's Agent/ G' / I Loaavdn 23475 Sunset Crossing, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (Street acdress or distance from nearest cost :vee:: between Diamond Bar Blvd & Navajo S,pr'ings lstree:i (Street) .n Zone CM Zoned O.iv,c: (Land Use. not postal l!one) X23—�15 94-A5 HNM/FS CSI - TBG Assessor General Plan Gtego,y Local P!an Category (if applicable) Project Size (grass acres) Prey.ous Cates U, P'esent Use of C"c CT USES Suce,,W,W D¢vle: Local Plan _ ProleC Denvty Ca meabe'•Yamr $auwe Walnut Val l PV Camaanv Onn"c: ue:nao of Sec:aar 0nnasm Sammuon G, ac ... g oI Lens by Aoci¢ani? Yes X No_ Amount (Snaw necessary glaCIng ceslgn on site plan ar tent. mao I LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Ail ownersnm comonung pne Praimsed lots,prolecri II peuaonmg !or :one Cnange, at[ach ,=1 de3Ctla Uan of eaf lrral boundarms of a(ea I -M -C: ep Me USanpe, Lots 8 & 9 of tract 28853 APPRGP9IA7E SURCENS OF P90CF MUST ACCOMPANY EACH TYPE CF RECUEST — Check each recur aaplred !ar and Comolese auorop'Ote Sec - PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST _ Cauntvw-dedocal Plan or Area Plan Land Use Mao Change: F-om To Acres From To Aces Ctner Caun tysvioe !Gen Cey . Hownq 3 Sore. 'dgmt; !dap Csangc From 7. Acres F'am To Acres Id,nofy Teat Clange3si :o Caant"-Ict'Lapl act Area -,an Cesue< Taol Protect. Units C.+rren::v A!lawea 3v lal C•:I Pbn ,at PtoleQ Un -Ts Permlt:ed ,t Int C'N ?!an Amended _ atal Aces inyoived .al SEAVICE5 Emnng and P.0003m Gat 1 E'ec:nc ca�000r Fue Ac=e:s — Sherd! ZONE CHANGE REQUEST II Zone: From Acres To !bl Ldcv P -an lb, Laol P'an Amencec Acres 1' CONOITICNAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE, NONCONFORMING REVIEW, ANO OTHER PERMITS Permrt Type CUP Crc. No. 38,3000 sf 32367 Prawc: 5.1e: Area aerated to 3truc:ures 5933 oaen soacr Grass Area No of _pas Reodcnoal P-olec: Gross Area Nu.,oe• Jnd sY0.s of Urna 'n e:.a enpm aareing 7'.oe and Prooa3ed Cenuty No of doors (Jruts'ACre3 Recuoea P•pv�CeC Tote 9eeaued Too: P'o.cea CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE BURDEN OF PROOF SEC. 22.56,040 In addition to the information required in 11 application, the applicant shall substan tiz to to the , rtisfaction of the Zoning Board and/or Commission, the following facts: I A. That the requested use at the IocStion proposed will not: 1. Adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing cr working in the surrounding area, or 2. Be materially detriment) to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the site, or 3. Jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare. The property is currently zon d C`a—tg*nufartu,Lnq.= Commercial and therefore a o`f'c= building should not fall in any of the above meet; nn=d categories. ' r.: a o i v..... S. That the proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accomm0011te the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this Title 22, or as is otherwise required in order to integrate I said use with the uses in the surrounding area. 4'�93 The proposed Zbt ' ld' q i s 6 sf an,9 out' I required 18% of the total lot area. C. That the proposed site is adequately served: - - 1. By highways or streets of sufficient width and imxoved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such use would generate; and 2. By other public or pri"Ite service facilities as are required, - The proper tv is �P1_veS1'1—S t which also also services several. commerciatl - _ properties adjacent to this property. P_11 public and private facilities are available - to the property. INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE A. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Applicant (Owner): Janz-Jaworsky Investments 556 N. Diamond Bar Blvd. #301 -- Name - Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Address (714) 861-3733 Project Representative: (STAFF USE) PROJE)`TT NUMER(s) CLAP io-125 Fred Janz _ Name 556 N. Diamond Bar Blvd, 4301 Andress Diamond Bar, CA 91765 —---------- Pnone umoer --- 1. ?coonr�uest and proje t description: — — �. Suet'_ Location of )reject: 23475 Sunset Crossing — 3a. Present use of site:—Office 3b. Previous use of s:te or structures: Office 4. Please 11S all Ore':1Ous cases (1° any) relatej=o til'_s �. ')tner rolatc!: per-7it. ap OLOvals LeCL`Led. Spec _ . tyre 3 grantinc ace`7cV. --- —_— 6. -rze you planing °'utur? pnases of anis project? /Y/ /N/ I_` yes ex?Lain: _ i. Project area: Coverer by structures, laving: 6833 L3n�-sc3pim,, open space: 31477 _ Tot.;! 38310 �i-_'S Sir':: _'�• <'.X: 9L vt S:_c. 3. N1.;cber Of flcors: 2 Pnone NLznoer 9. Present zcn:nc. CM --- ---- �cr;ast i = Puo a = Sewers i. .Y}'E'ti ..... __ .._ Jl::_:J-ii?•.::_ ..d not _ .. ra Residential projects: 11_ N er snC tY6d OL Units: ___ __— ____._______-__—________.____.________ 12. Sc.'1OOI5: lvna`_ sc[lOoi district(s) =-rveS 3ithe tl'�yp%aL JtopeCt0tmeet LOJeCt nec.Yi ? /L/ /N/ sc•1001°cllresiiL? eYS if not, what provisions will be made for ddcitional classrooms? Non-Resident'_ai projects: :] ]i3t3nce to nearest res :rent:.;- :-se or sens.tiveuse (scIcoi, :Hosni tai, ecu.? Next_Door NE Side 1_, 5933SFT —---------- i5. Nia�er oP a-.01;vees 3an: Sm 9 am to 5 Pm--- ------------ Joera:'.^.c :^curs: _ 10. `1ax:an ?=OiOVeeS per is. ldent:_j any: prxUG_s__-- itiair=. pr-k'3ucts — — „eons J:socsa_ Trash Bin 9. Dc prc rut ope'at=pis use, store or produce .acarocus sacs- rces sucn as oil, pesticices, r ciJact ;e mat= >._s. v. ;Ni i_ -_s, .nr -� anv oressur._EKi -inks? /� 1 I_' yes, 2Xp13:'1: N. oo your oCE'rat10R5 ._-�.__ _ 7i 2i. :dent •`y -An t__..r re_>cti:e or explcsile .., =-_ls'_s to be 'oc3ted on-site. None . ,•i.__ .e_. ;?_ ._ 3.._^"2.^.t ___G�:S _r3':ei t,r �CCa _ ,.. iy .._ ne - t.. _ B. ENVIROR-TNTAc INFORMATION 1. Envirormental Setting -- Project Site a. z'xisrinc use 's_ructur-.�s Office b T0cxc:r3'):1y'sl':)oes Most of the subject property, except for the project area, consists of slopes at a 2 to 1 grade down and awa�from the_________ proposed.building *c. Vege�tion —_Ice -Plants. and_dair,ies_-__________-____—_______.--____ _._. *d. Ani.aals None ------------------- ------ *z_ Watercourses Wal_al l�ai-Eo.------------- - --- --- — f. Caltlral��_storical r=_sourc=s c. Otne_ ---- -- -- --------- 2. En virormentai Setting -- Surrounding Area a. .Y._Sting ::ses. sLClicrUr2s (!:ypes, . _rs:ties) : Office -------------------__--- b. Topocr3pnv slopes *C_ Atll'al *c. t`,a=er CCU CScS f. CUi tuLal,'�1! St�Cl Cal raSOUL C•'S C:. Otner _ 3. Are t: ere a nv .na or trees on the site, incluc!nc ca:: trees? If -Yes, type ami nu-l:er: _---------. Eucalyptus 8 ------- --—______--__ 4. w_l_ -n- notlral '.ic tcLCOUC3L'Sr aurf3CC flJb_:dtt2r75.r OLO]eCt .:Z`:raopment?: /ii` IC Yes, �.,es nct con -_3!n mizira_, B. ENVIRCNht^iNTAL INFORMATION (cont.) - 5. Gradin- Will the projac= I`_ ves, how -iany Will it be re-U,re grading? /Y/ ;/N/ cuut_ yaris? n/a— ------ balanced on site? /Y/ /v/ If not balance], -nere i11 d:rr 'oe OJt3:ne:.' or epos:cam?—_--_—_____—_--- 6. Are there any identifiabia Landslides -Or other aajor geologic hazards on the property (including uncOnCacted fill)? /_t/ /N/; If yes, explain: _-----------__---- 7. Is tie property v' y/ vege=brier.. / _ iocaty9 ,/N/ di in a Dist.3nce ii•?n fire naz3ri area (hillsides _`i noderateiy O --se -o nelr�st fire st.=.tion: - — S. Noise: Existing ncise scurces at S;_=. Cars------- _-- Noise to be gecer.3t__d by proiect: Cars -- — — -- 9. Fines: odors generated by project: None--------- COu:d toxic f_.�es be gene r3 ted? No --- -- 10. 4hat energy-corse_L'; nc designs or 'at__ -e used As required CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the state^.ents furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct' to the best of,my knowledge and belief( U % � `�_- Date: �� lCi �cv�turel/ -Y- City of Diamond Bar initial Study Form 21660 EAST COPLEY DRIVE • SUITE 100. ..: Fsge Y DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765-4177 714-860-2489 • FAX 714-860-3117 I. Background: 1. Nameof.Applicant: Janz-Jaworskv TTtt1P4tmP71t4 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: Fred Janz (71-4) 861-3733 3. NaTp,e d�a znd Phon/f�) P8�elCt 3733 4. Dater of Environmental Information Submittal: 5. Date of Environmental Checklist Submittal: 6. Lead Agency (Agen Requiring Checklist TiIAMo�il� k5A2 CITY WIhfr 7. Name of Proposal H applicable ( Tract No. if Subdivision): 6. Rj /Ap caCigns (unser the authority of this environmental determination): Yes No Variance: x Conditional Use Permit: x x Zone Change: General Plan Amendment: x (Attach Completed Environmental Information Form) PHYLLIS E. pppEN.•� PAUL Y HORCHER GARY H. WERNER GARY G. MILLER JOHN A. FOREING ROBERT L. VANNORT Mayor Mayor, Pro Tem Comcamember'. Counclmember.• Coundimember CityMamer ' CITY OF DIAMOND BAR USES RECYCLED PAPER - �' City of Diamond Sarinhiai Sntdy Form Page 2 Il. Environmental Impacts: (Explanatlons and additional Information to supplement al! "yes" and "posslbV answers are required to be submitted on attached sheets) yes No Possibly 1. Earth. Will the proposal result In: a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? I. Changes in deposition, erosion of stream banks or land adjacent to standing water, changes in siltation, deposition or other processes which may modify the channel of constant or intermittent y flowing water as well as the areas surrounding permanent or intermittent standing water? g._Exposureof people or property to geologic hazards such s earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result In: - r a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? / b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any changes in climate, either locally or regionally? 1 3 Water. Will the proposal result In: a. Changes in currents or the course or direction of water movements? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface run-off? c. Alterations of the course or flow of flood waters? / d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any body of water? —1-- e. Discharge into surface waters, or in anyalteration of surface water quality including but not limited to dissolved oxygen and turbidity? I. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantityof ground waters, either through direct additions orwithdrawais, / or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? �L— h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? — 1. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? 1 GryofDfamond BarinlCai StodyiTonn Page 3 Yes No Possibly 4. Plant Llfe. Will the proposal result In: I /a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique rare or endangered species of plants? c. Reduction in the size of sensitive habitat areas or plant communities which are recognized ! as sensitive? V/ d uctionf n w species of Ps?rns into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment e. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? S. Animal Llfe. Will the proposal result In: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms and insects)? — b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique rare or endangered species of animals? —1L/ c. introduction of new species of animals into an area, or in a barrier to the normal migration or movement of resident species? -- / d. Reduction in size or deterioration in quality of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Wilt the proposal re§uft in: a. Significant increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels 7. Light and Glare. Mil the proposal result in: a Significant new light and glare or contribute significantly to existing levels of light and glare? S. Land Use. WIII the proposal result In: a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use in an area? 9. Natural Resources. oil the proposal result in: a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? 10. Risk of Upset. Wlti the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset condition? b. Probable interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation pian? 1, q City of Diamond Bar Initial Stud pFo Page Yes No Possibly 11. Population. WIII the proposal: f/ a. Alter the location, dir stibution, density, or growth rate of the human population of all area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect: a. Existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? / 13. Transportation/Ctrculation. Will the proposal result In: / a. Generation of Substantial additional vehicular movement? 1/ b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact on existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and goods. / e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? I. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. WIII the proposal: a. Have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: 1. Fire protection? 2. Police protection? 3. Schools? _._ 4. Parks or other?ecrea11 tiohal facilities? 5. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 6. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Wltl the proposal result In, a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? sources or require the development b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing energy of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. WIII the proposal result in: a. A need for new systems, or Substantial alterations to public utilities? V Cry ofDramond Bar!nitial Study Form Page 5 Yes No Possibly 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result In: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. will the proposal result In: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the pdbiic, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to the public view? 19. Recreation. wilt the proposal result in: a. An impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result In: a. The alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? / b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c. A physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Restrictions on existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. cl:y of Diamond Bar lnidaiStudP g 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance? a. Does the proposed project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substanhalty reduce the habitat of a fish or wildli eveps cieire� cauto eiilminsh ate or wldifie-population to drop below self sustaining educe the number or restrict significantly reduce a plant or anima( comma iW the ranof a rare or periods of Ca int o a his�torypor prehistory? dant examples- Yes No Possibly b. Does the proposed project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c. Does the pro sed project pose impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable . d. Does the project pose environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? _L/-- 111 Discussion of Environmental Evaluation: (Attach Narrative). FIV. Detenntnation: — On the basis of this Initial evaluation: I find that the proposed pro ed COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECIRATION will be preparifi ed• I find that although the proposed project could have a signcant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this d intoe the proposed ptiO rojed.easures described / on the attached sheet have been incorporated __jG/ A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. ard I fin d that the ENVIRONnific MENTAL IMPA,I MAY have a CT REPORT is requ red effect on the env' meat, and a Signature: l lG2f Date: � Title: For the City of Diamond California 13ar,. RAS 6 I OINVMI�"'J Yuri N•Nvr lv L16 vixWdnvp'vw oneWVld Ovev sryi9rey� yg�nM P � = a p ro uini wniivvvurvpnvw Nivoiliu' p��/y, b'+2 311n5 "I9 YW aNeN'd0'N o55 - a 'N vW nNeHMla N — r p � �x��'seavnossv+sauairvvwpooa Y J 1N�Wdal�n9p ZN\1f' c�a2'd SrZ 'j 1'�SNf1S `�' � F �" p II IW Z \�pO I.. i r s.o Rnoms nnP owNcti/nrPucnN* PL/�Z P� JANZ ~ :QSUNSET FREp DEVELOPMENT cooew,�Nrvxse. S t �' L ,Ny �IPMoNp Etc BL, nun 55� W ONMaNO Mft 6L. SHITE o 4 nssocuns, iNc. _ o SYN�c} Ran51N� Reno plpMoNo fNµ�GnuFaM1Nln. 91j Gp OInn•No ¢nM1rcn4peRNln m 0.cnuiUvieiu arai