HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/25/1991KT -0 4 z 101
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION
WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
BOARD MEETING ROOM
880 SOUTH LEMON STREET
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91789
March 25, 1991
CALL TO ORDER: 6:30 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 meeting of March 11, 1991
2. Resolution of Denial regarding a request for an extension of
time for Evangelical Free Church.
OLD BUSINESS:
3. Review of Draft Development Code Chapters 1.1 Administra-
tive, and 1.11 Definitions (Continued from March 11, 1991)
NEW BUSINESS: (No Items)
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 8:00 p.m.
4. Conditional Use Permit No. 91-2
A request to establish a dry cleaners which will have a dry
cleaning and laundry plant on the premises. The site is
located at 1155 Diamond Bar Boulevard.
Applicant: Samuel Ommen
Location: 1155 Diamond Bar Boulevard
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Page Two
March 25, 1991
5. Development Agreement No. 91-2
A request for a Development Agreement to construct a self-
service gasoline station, automated car wash, automotive
detail facility, offices, and a restaurant. (Continued from
February 25, 1991).
Applicant: Gary Clapp
Location: 22000 Golden Springs Drive
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
6. Staff
7. Planning Commissioners:
A. Discussion pertaining to the Planning Commission Policy
Manual.
B. General discussion pertaining to current parking stan-
dards.
ADJOURNMENT:
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 11, 1991
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Schey called the meeting to order at 7:07
p.m. in the Walnut Valley School District Board
Meeting Room, 880 South Lemon Street, Diamond Bar,
California.
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE:
ROLL CALL:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
NEW BUSINESS:
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
Vice Chairman Harmony.
Commissioner Grothe, Commissioner MacBride, Vice
Chairman Harmony, and Chairman Schey. Commissioner
Lin was absent (excused).
Also present were City Planner Irwin Kaplan, Assoc.
Planner Robert Searcy, Deputy City Attorney Bill
Curley, City Engineer Sid Mousavi, Planning
Technician Ann Lungu, Intern Steven Koffroth, and
Contract Secretary Liz Myers. Planning Director
James DeStefano arrived at 10:30 p.m.
VC/Harmony requested the Minutes of February 25,
1991 be pulled from the Consent Calendar.
Motion was made by C/MacBride, seconded by C/Grothe
and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of February 25,
1991.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, MacBride, and
Chair/Schey.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Harmony.
Review of Draft Irwin Kaplan, City Planner, reviewed the
Development Code Development Code proposal to establish a Design
Chapters 1.1 & Review Board, which had been submitted to the
1.11 Commission. In response, a series of issues were
raised for discussion.
I
Chair/Schey inquired how narrow the scope of review
should be in regards to single homes.
CP/Kaplan suggested that the scope be limited to
height, bulk, basic materials, and landscaping to
maintain the established or prevailing community or
neighborhood character.
Chair/Schey indicated that the level of detail of
design review needs to be defined for the overall
architectural theme of a master plan development.
He also questioned how the design review will be
dealt with in regards to custom homes in the
March 11, 1991 Page 2
Country or other subdivisions that have their own
design review process. The concept of maintaining
consistency within given neighborhoods is important
beyond the scope of size, bulk, etc.
C/Grothe stated guidelines should be tough and
complete to assure development is of top quality.
Dan Dunham, a principal with the Planning Network,
stated the policy issues for Design Review are:
1. The level the design review appropriate for
Diamond Bar.
2. The kind of .committee that will handle design
review.
Chair/Schey inquired if the purpose of design
review is architectural design or is it intended to
also encompass the broader functions of a
development review committee.
CP/Kaplan stated that design review could encompass
all types of residential and commercial uses or
could be limited to certain uses, but that a
fundamental policy choice would be a determination
of the types of uses and kinds of structures and
projects to be subject to design review.
VC/Harmony suggested, with the consensus of the
Commission, that commercial and tract developments
should be subjected to design review.
CP/Kaplan asked for a discussion of the scope of
review appropriate for commercial structures. He
inquired if for larger projects the Commission
prefers a freestanding review board or a function
of staff level review.
VC/Harmony stated the review board should consist
of professionals and should meet occasionally
rather than at regular intervals, at the request of
the Planning Commission, when additional help is
needed.
Chair/Schey stated that a particular case will
either meet a set of criteria that triggers the use
of the board, or the case will go directly to the
Commission. His concern was the potential delay of
projects while being reviewed by staff.
CP/Kaplan, recapping the Commissions statements,
stated the desire appears to be that all projects
going to the Commission be accompanied by a staff
level design review and if the Commission requires
March 11, 1991
Page 3
further design review advice, it can request the
assistance of the professional design review board.
C/MacBride questioned if staff has the necessary
skills to perform the design review function
without ongoing reliance upon the design review
board.
CP/Kaplan stated staff will develop a proposal to
reflect the Planning Commissions desire for the use
of a committee, when needed, to review projects,
otherwise it will be part of the normal staff
review process.
C/MacBride added to underscore the Commission's
concern that the Commission is not enthusiastic
about creating an additional level of bureaucratic
supervision.
Chair/Schey announced the next discussion of the
development code will be at 6:30 p.m., March 25,
1991. A recess was called at 8:06 p.m. The
meeting was called to order at 8:16 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Intern Steven Koffroth presented the request for an
extension of five (5) years to finish the third
CUP 1634-(1)
phase building of the sanctuary for the Evangelical
Evangelical Free
Free Church. The request will require modification
Church
of condition #18 of CUP 1634 -(1).
Chair/Schey inquired if there are plans to change
the scope of the original phase three plan.
I/Koffroth, stated that no plans to change phase
III have been submitted but that the applicant has
indicated a desire to eliminate one of the
classrooms, relocate one of the classrooms to the
rear, increase the size of the sanctuary and move
it back towards the center, increase the parking
area, and gain an additional access on to Diamond
Bar Boulevard.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Bob Huff, representative of the Diamond Bar
Evangelical Free Church, requested extra time for
the project. He stated that nothing changed in
regards to the original purpose.
Christine Pry, residing at 3155 Cherrydale,
inquired if, upon the increase in size of the.
sanctuary, more grading will occur on the hill that
will destroy the present trees.
marcn 11, 1991 Page 4
I/Koffroth, stated that it is anticipated that the
knoll will be graded to provide for additional
parking. The trees will be eliminated, but will be
replaced on the site.
VC/Harmony noted that the trees are not scheduled
to be taken out on the current plan and therefore
would be required to be returned to the Planning
Commission as part of another Public Hearing
process.
I/Koffroth, in response to a question, indicated
that, as approved, the parking to be provided under
the CUP is less than would be required under
current codes.
C/Grothe stated he would prefer letting the CUP
expire with the intent of making any returning
project conform to the current codes and
regulations of the community.
VC/Harmony inquired if there are significant
changes from the original approval in comparison
with some of the new ordinances and concepts
currently being considered.
CP/Kaplan stated the request was evaluated as an
extension of a CUP and was not analyzed in terms of
the applicant's verbal request for a new project.
Staff cannot give an informed recommendation.
Mark Harper, pastor, residing at 1125 Grubstake,
stated the reason for the extension is to maintain
a permit to develop the property. He stated that
parking is a valid concern. but landmarked trees
will be preserved during grading. He would like
the plan to remain until it can be refined to the
Commissions satisfaction.
Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by
Chair/Schey to deny the extension.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe and Chair/Schey.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MacBride and Harmony.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
The motion fails.
Motion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded by
C/MacBride to continue the matter until the next
regular meeting and direct staff to review reports
of the existing plans and diagrams.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Harmony and MacBride.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe and Chair/Schey.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
The motion fails.
The request for extension is denied.
March 11, 1991 Page 5
CUP 90-0127 Associate Planner, Robert Searcy, presented the
report for a request to complete in two phases, the
addition of twenty nine pads for the placement of
mobile homes.
VC/Harmony inquired if the hydrology report was
received and studied.
City Engineer Sid Mousavi replied that the report
was just recently received and there has not been
adequate opportunity to review it.
VC/Harmony requested a characterization of the
issues involved in the study.
CE/Mousavi stated that it basically refers to the
mitigation of the drainage situation. The area to
be subdivided is presently the sump for the balance
of the site. The backside is to work as a
retention basin.
Chair/Schey asked if there is any standard for
guest parking at mobile home property.
PA/Searcy stated the standard for a multiple family
dwelling type development is used for guest
parking, which is currently a 1:4 ratio.
Chair/Schey inquired if, when the original CUP was
approved, these areas were contemplated as being
part of a future phase.
PA/Searcy stated the CUP originally approved 147
units to be completed within three phases over a
ten year period. This was not done and the
applicant is now applying for a CUP to complete
phase one and two.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Richard Simonian, general partner of the mobile
home park, stated the retention basin will be in a
smaller area, to hold the same amount of water, so
that the additional spaces could be used to bring
in additional revenue. The back of the park is
presently a nuisance area. The sound wall will be
moved back to incorporate the retention basin to
the interior of the park so that it will be
maintained by the park.
VC/Harmony inquired if phase three proposes the
water will naturally go elsewhere because cities or
counties may have developed some additional storm
drains in the future.
March 11, 1991 Page 6
Mr. Simonian stated that the City of Industry has
plans to develop major storm drains. However, the
City of Industry has not presently granted
permission to drain on the property.
Tom Pepper, residing at 21217 E. Washington,
president of the homeowners association, stated 92
of the 118 residents responded to the site survey.
All issues have been resolved. The majority
indicated that a designated play area was not
imperative.
Mr. Simonian stated the existing recreational area
is large enough to accommodate the residents.
Chair/Schey inquired if there is an on going flow
of water in the area presently acting as a
retention basin.
Mr. Simonian asserted that there is a very
negligible flow of water. The water that does
drain in the area is percolated through the ground.
Chair/Schey inquired of the approximate size of the
proposed revised sump area.
Mr. Simonian stated that it is approximately an
acre and a half, and the depth is geared for a 50
year "Q11.
CE/Mousavi asserted that if the area designated for
a sump is reduced and the depth increased, the time
for the water to leave would be longer.
Mr. Simonian stated that he will comply to the
requirements stated by the engineer.
I
C/Grothe requested evidence be given to staff, at a
later date, indicating that the conditions of
agreement have been addressed and resolved.
Kathleen Rose, 21259 Cottonwood Lane, inquired if
there will be provisions to maintain the property
on a regular basis.
Chair/Schey explained that this issue would need to
be part of an abatement procedure to be dealt with
through the staff.
VC/Harmony asserted that the sump area needs to be
cleaned up. He requested the project return to the
Commission with proof of adequate abatement of the
water going into the City of Industry. A sump hole
is not a proper living condition.
March 11, 1991 Page 7
C/Grothe stated his desire for the project to go
forward, with the condition that all problems
regarding the homeowners association are resolved,
and the area is maintained.
Mr. Simonian explained that the entire retention
basin would be on the inside of the park and will
be landscaped.
Chair/Schey maintained that retention basins are
frequently used as recreational areas. It will be
part of the park with a requirement to keep it
cleaned.
CE/Mousavi stated that the idea of retention basins
as recreational areas have been used in numerous
projects in the past. However, the type of soil
needs to be considered. Some soils do not absorb
quickly, creating a pool of water, and a nuisance.
C/Grothe stated the approval would be subjected to
the engineers approval that the area will be safe.
He recommended a four or five feet easement between
two properties, to include a sidewalk with
landscaping, in order to facilitate getting across
the park without having to walk all the way around
the park, thereby making the recreational
facilities more accessible.
CP/Kaplan suggested staff prepare a list of
proposed conditions for the Commission.
Chair/Schey requested staff to check if permits
(EPA, DFG, or corps of engineers) are necessary
since the existing sump has been receiving water
and will no longer be serving in the current
capacity.
C/MacBride stipulated a reference to the
satisfaction of the request by the homeowners that
the sound barrier meets with the code requirements
of the City.
Mr. Simonian stated the sound barrier was designed
to eliminate the sound by bouncing it back to the
other direction. He indicated that he has the
acoustical reports.
Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/MacBride
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to
the meeting of April 8, 1991 to include a staff
report on the engineering requirements, an easement
walkway, the sound barrier, and the recommendation
of the necessity of a recreational area and guest
parking.
March 11, 1991 Page 8
Chair/Schey called a recess at 10:06 p.m. The
meeting was called to order at 10:12 p.m.
CUP 90-0130 PA/Searcy presented the request to construct a two
story structure totaling 8,352 square feet to
Mt. Calvary provide additional classrooms for a parochial
Lutheran Church school (grades K-8). Staff recommended approval of
the attached Resolution of Approval as presented.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Dennis Stueve, pastor at Mt. Calvary, reiterated
the need for the expansion of the building.
William McNeal, residing at 23315 E. Gold Rush,
objected to the project because the neighbors below
him will be looking into the project. He suggested
that the parking plans be reversed.
PA/Searcy read a letter, submitted by C. Baldwin
Lowe of 23309 Gold Rush, objecting to the project
if it does not comply to the County code. PT/Searcy
noted that the ridgeline would not exceed the
existing grade of most of the residential
surrounding properties. It meets the standards of
the Conditional Use Permit conditions.
C/Grothe inquired if there is a way to eliminate a
couple of feet off the structure.
Jerry Busse, architect, residing at 704 S.
Primrose, indicated that it would not be feasible.
Chair/Schey stated that `he does not believe that
the building will have undue impact on the
neighbors. He suggested a condition that would
mandate a submittal of a landscape plan for the
street frontages of the property, that would be
approved by the City, to be included in the overall
development plan, and maintained as such. The
drainage area should be maintained as well.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
Motion was made by Chair/Schey, seconded by
C/Grothe and CARRIED to approve the Resolution of
Approval as submitted with the inclusion of an
additional condition mandating submittal of
landscape plan on the frontage and it's
maintenance, modification of item #9 whereas the
shrub does not exceed 20 feet, and amendment of
item #12 to include the categorical exemption
number 15314.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, MacBride,
Chair/Schey.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Harmony.
March 11, 1991 Page 9
CUP 90-0125 C/MacBride requested to be removed from the
proceeding because of his proximity to the project.
Upon the advice by the City attorney, he
disqualified himself from the hearing. He directed
staff to ensure that proper notification was given
to the surrounding neighborhood.
PA/Searcy stated that the public notice was mailed
February 13, 1991. He presented the request for a
CUP to construct a two floor office building
located east of Diamond Bar Boulevard and westerly
of Sunset Crossing Road at Navajo Spring Road.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Fred Janz, applicant, residing at 2683 Shady Ridge,
requested the CUP to build the other building, and
specified that it would not affect the existing
building.
VC/Harmony noted that the area is very congested.
Mr. Janz explained that the County mandated the two
parcels be used as one to provide and ensure
maintaining adequate parking. He would like a CUP
to build an office building on the remaining
portion site.
C/Grothe requested drawings of the building to be
set into photographs to get a better idea of the
proposed project. He stated he is concerned with
the increase of traffic and the availability of
parking. He would like the traffic issue addressed
by the Traffic Commission, a traffic study, if
necessary, and assurance that there is adequate
parking.
VC/Harmony stated his concerns that parking and
traffic are a problem, and sees no reason to
approve further construction. He asserted that the
building itself is in violation of the goals and
intent of the Hillside Ordinance.
David Ayala, designer, stated that the reason for
the siting was to preserve the forest like setting.
He stated upgrading parking would widen the
building, more trees will be planted in the rear,
it does not block the view of existing homes, and
there are plans for further landscaping.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
March 11, 1991
Page 10
Chair/Schey requested further review by staff in
regards to the traffic increase. He inquired if
the applicant would concur if the Commission is
inclined to continue the project.
Mr. Janz gave his concurrence.
VC/Harmony asked the City Attorney to advise the
Commission, when the project is returned, as to
whether there is a mandate to allow further
development of the property, or if the denial of
development constitutes some sort of a taking.
Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by
Chair/Schey and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the
matter to the second meeting in April pending
submittal by the applicant of a traffic analysis
specifically oriented towards the traffic safety
issues relating to the project as prepared under
the scope of the direction of the Traffic
Commission.
ZCA 91-1 CP/Kaplan reported that all amendments were
included in the sign code ordinance. He brought to
Sign Code the attention of the Commission that the
Ordinance requirements for menu boards and attraction boards
seems excessive.
The Commission decided to limit attraction board to
theaters only.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Jake Williamson, residing at 259 Gentle Springs
Lane, offered his approval of the draft sign
ordinance.
I
VC/Harmony inquired why the abatement of signs is
after 15 years.
Bill Curley, City Attorney, explained that it is
better to implement discretionary actions as
opposed to mandatory action, from an ordinance
structure standpoint. The abatement can therefore
be structured in whatever manner is suitable to the
City in the future.
Motion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded by
C/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to recommend to
the Council to approve the ordinance with the
revision restricting menu boards to theaters only.
.ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/MacBride shared a story found in the Harmony
Report of a store owner who, upon feeling badly
Commissioners because of a sign ordinance, painted a mural in the
March 11, 1991 Page 11
cafe.
VC/Harmony discussed the issue of parking
standards. He would like to eventually vote on the
issue to create a policy confirming the Commissions
request.
James DeStefano, Planning Director, stated staff
utilizes a running list of Commission policies.
The list would be brought back to the Planning
Commission for the purpose of adopting a code
amendment. This is also done for policy pertaining
to the development code.
VC/Harmony requested that standardized parking be
brought to the Commission for discussion and
consideration of a vote at the next regular
meeting.
Chair/Schey directed staff to come up with a
recommendation on how best to deal with the issue,
with the intent to eliminate compact spaces, to be
brought back at the next regular meeting.
C/MacBride requested staff to pursue data regarding
oak tree preservation and replacement.
Chair/Schey noted the follow up letter from
"Illumination" wanting to be rescheduled for
presentation before the Commission. He directed
staff to indicate the Commission is not interested
in rescheduling.
Staff PD/DeStefano stated staff has not received the
traffic report requested by the Commission in
regards to the car wash issue.
I
Chair/Schey directed staff to put in a
recommendation for continuance or denial if data is
not received within the appropriate timeline.
PD/DeStefano stated that earlier this evening he
was before a subcommittee of the board of trustees
to determine the use of surplus school property.
There were two public meetings concerning the
surplus land known as site "D". Staff presented a
recommendation for a community park. The Walnut
School District proposed a housing development.
There was substantial support for the community
park. PD/DeStefano presented the Commission with a
copy of the park schematic plan.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/MacBride
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at
12:18 a.m.
march ii, 1991 Page 12
David Schey
Chairman
Attest:
James DeStefano
Secretary/Planning Commission
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA DENYING THE REQUEST FOR TIME
EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1634-(1) FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF CHURCH FACILITIES WITH A MULTI-PURPOSE
ROOM, CLASSROOMS, OFFICES, AND SANCTUARY ON A SITE LO-
CATED 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 a time extension for 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 ap-
plication, continued the public hearing until February 11, 1991 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. Based on the substantial evidence presented to this
Commission during the above -referenced public hearing
on November 14, 1990, continued said hearing until
February 11, 1991 and concluded said hearing on March
11, 1991, including written and oral staff reports,
together with public testimony, and in conformance
with the terms and provisions of California Govern-
ment Code Sections 65360, this Commission hereby spe-
cifically finds as follows:
A. The subject property is located at 3255
South Diamond Bar Boulevard, Diamond Bar,
California.
B. 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.
C. The subject property is zoned R-1 and the
use is conditionally allowed within this
zone.
D.
The site is designated within the U2 zone
of the Diamond Bar Community Plan..
E.
The subject property is currently devel-
oped with a church consisting of a multi-
purpose room, classrooms and offices.
Additionally, a nursery and additional
classrooms are being constructed.
F.
That -the -proposed site is not adequate in
size and shape to accommodate the yards,
walls, fences, parking and loading facili-
ties, and other development features in
order to integrate said use with the uses
in the surrounding area.
G.
That the requested use at the proposed
location may:
1. Adversely effect the health, peace,
comfort, or welfare of persons resid-
ing or working in the surrounding
area,
2. Be materially detrimental to the use,
enjoyment, or valuation of property
of other persons located in the vi-
cinity of the site, or
3. Jeopardize, endanger, or otherwise
constitute a menace to public health,
safety or general welfare.
H. That the proposed site may not be ade-
quately served by highways or streets of
sufficient width and improved as necessary
to carry the kind and quantity of traffic
such use would generate.
5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in
paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission her-
eby denies the application.
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 gov-
erned 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 Resolu-
tion, 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: [COMMISSIONERS:]
NOES: [COMMISSIONERS:]
ABSENT: [COMMISSIONERS:]
Item 3: Staff will be making a presentation.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 22, 1991
TO:�Planning Commission
FROM: (L
►Q / Irwin Kaplan, City Planner
SUBJECT: �i'� Development Code; Design Review (Continued from
March 11, 1991)
At its March 11, 1991 meeting, the Planning Commission considered
the establishment of a separate design review board to advise the
City on the design aspects of a variety of projects.
The following memorandum attempts to draw upon the Commission's
comments and to organize them into a format which can be reviewed
and modified, hopefully into a policy statement. If there is
agreement, an ordinance will be prepared for Commission
consideration.
1. DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
Although the Commission believed that solid design guidance
would be valuable to them in their deliberations, the
Commission also felt that it did not wish to create another
level of "bureaucratic intervention" and did not wish to
create a process which would add further delays to the
approval process.
To accomplish their objectives, the Commission suggested that
the primary design review function be handled by staff as part
of the normal review process and that a citizen's board of
design professionals be assembled, which would be called upon
"as needed" to review projects when design guidance is
required beyond that which staff can provide.
2. SCOPE OF ACTIVITY
A. Although there was no clear consensus, the Commission
seemed to feel that individual homes, colors, and small
additions to commercial and industrial properties need
not be subject to design review. The primary concern
appeared to be with the design review of commercial and
industrial structures and residential tracts. (For the
purpose of design review, a "tract" may be considered
four or more homes. Similarly, design review of four or
more multiple family units may be appropriate).
B. The Commission discussed whether or not it was
appropriate or necessary to have design review for tracts
which maintained Architectural Review Boards in
conjunction with the CC&R's. In these instances, the
Commission may wish to defer design responsibility to the
Homeowners Association's Architectural Review Board,
provided that:
1. The Architectural Review Board has a track record
as an effective and ongoing function, and
2. The scope of their authority and/or the results of
previous efforts indicate a high probability that
they will maintain the level of quality of design
intended by the Commission.
3. SCOPE OF REVIEW
A. The Commission seemed to embrace the idea of limiting
design review to the building exterior and the site. If
interior room layouts are requested as part of an
application for design review, it would only be used to
determine the impact of changes to the building exterior
on the interior functions.
Review of interiors would be specifically excluded from
the design review process.
B. The Commission's primary concern with respect to review
of residential tracts seems to be compatibility with the
surrounding area. Assuming this to be the case, design
review might break into three review areas for
residential tracts.
1. Architectural style, materials and palette, which
would proscribe the design limits for the
development as a whole, rather than for individual
homes. As part of the process, it may be
appropriate Ito review the elevations of "typical"
exteriors, so as to see the relationship among the
architectural style, the use of materials and the
range of colors which will be used.
2. Site plan review, including landscaping, to
determine the relationship among the homes as well
as to the street and to enhance the sense of
neighborhood. In this review, there would be
consideration of landscape materials (presumably
with attention to drought resistant and low water
consumption materials), setbacks, retaining walls,
etc.
3. Silhouette of key structures near ridgelines, at
major entries to the tract or along vistas of
particular significance, to assure that structures
harmonize with their setting.
C. There appears to be consensus within the Commission that
all commercial and industrial buildings would be subject
to design review. Presumably, the review would extend
to public, quasi -public and institutional uses as well,
(although the review of public buildings would be more of
a "courtesy" review). Review of these buildings would
also be limited to exteriors, including such aspects as
elevations on all sides, orientation of the buildings to
the street and to adjacent structures, landscaping,
architectural style, materials and palette.
D. The review of signs have been addressed separately, in an
ordinance which the Planning Commission has recently
forwarded to the City Council for approval. The
procedures contained in the proposed sign code goal are
consistent with the design review procedures in this
memo.
E. Additions to existing buildings and/or renovations.
Although not discussed by the Commission, it would appear
to be consistent with the Commission's direction if
design review were required for additions which were
substantial (such as a 50% increase in floor area or
2,500 square feet, whichever is less) and (possibly) for
renovations which substantially alter the architectural
style of the main elevation.
F. Although not discussed by the Commission, the ordinance
may also make provision for the subsequent preparation of
design guidelines for such recurring amenities as parking
lot design and landscaping, lighting, etc. which would be
distributed as a guide to applicants, so that they would
have a clearer understanding of what the City's
expectations might be in evaluating a particular project
application.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
REPORT DATE:
MEETING DATE:
CASE/FILE NUMBER:
APPLICATION REQUEST:
PROPERTY LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNER:
BACKGROUND:
5
March 18, 1991
March 25, 1991
Development Agreement 91-2
A request for a Development Agreement
to allow the sale of gasoline, in-
cluding self-service; automated car
wash; six bay automotive detail fa-
cility, corporate offices for the
developer and a restaurant, not to
include take-out.
22000 Golden Springs Drive
Gary Clapp
Toran Development and Construction
23441 Golden Springs
Diamond Bar, California 91765
Arciero & Sons, Inc.
950 North Tustin Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92807
The public hearing for this application was continued from February 25,
1991. Following the direction of the Planning Commission, Toran Devel-
opment and Construction was asked to address the following issues con-
cerning the proposed project:
1. Traffic and Safety:
The key issue related to this project is traffic and safety. More
information is needed concerning internal traffic problems, i.e.
truck turning radius. All conditions related to traffic are to be
addressed in a revised traffic study report.
2. Architectural Style:
The applicant refers to the architectural style of the structures
as English Carriage House. The concerns are that the architectural
style will differ radically from structures at Gateway Corporate
Center, what style of architecture will the proposed restaurant be,
and the appropriateness of the clock tower.
AGENDA ITEM
March 25, 1991
Page Two
3. Convenience Store or Snack Shop:
The applicant would like to maintain a small snack concession in
conjunction with the car wash. A condition of approval is that no
portion of this facility shall be converted or added to, for the
express purpose of providing a convenience store or snack shop.
4. Development Agreement:
A development agreement is the method of approval requested for
this project to allow the use of an automatic car wash in a zone
where it would otherwise not be permitted. A zone change could be
the other method to considered to allow the specific use of an au-
tomatic car wash on this site.
APPLICATION ANALYSIS:
As requested by the City Engineer, in addition to mitigation measures
outlined in the Revised Traffic Study Report prepared by Linscott, Law
and Greenspan Engineers, dated March 1991, the following requirements
need to be added to the approved conditions:
1. The calculation for the determination of the length of the right
turn lane (deceleration lane) must be provided. In the absence of
calculations from the developer, it is recommended that the length
be one hundred and fifty (150) feet to the first driveway.
2. The auxiliary lane must be extended beyond the driveways to provide
acceleration capabilities to cars and trucks. In the absence of
calculations available from the developer, it is recommended to be
one hundred (100) feet.
3. An eleven (11) foot street dedication in the areas of auxiliary
lane must be provided. i
4. Full width street improvements along the project site within the
City's right-of-way must be constructed (i.e. street, paving, curb
gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, signing, striping, marking, and
etc.) in accordance with the City standards to the satisfaction of
the City.
5. The fair share cost of mitigation measures was determined only for
the intersection of Grand Avenue and Golden Springs Drive and that
was based on the estimates for 1989. This cost estimate must be
updated and fair share costs also must be developed for the left
turn lane addition to the traffic signal on Brea Canyon Road at
Golden Springs Drive/Colima Road. In the absence of these calcula-
tions, the fair share cost to the developer is recommended to be
$50,000.
AGENDA ITEM
March 25, 1991
Page Three
The architectural styles in the City of Diamond Bar are eclectic. The
architectural style of Gateway Corporate Center is a strong contempo-
rary theme. The back drop for this proposed project is South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) which has a very contemporary
theme. The architectural style of all structures for this proposed
project should be redesigned to be compatible with each other, the con-
temporary design of the Gateway Corporate Center, and particularly with
SCAQMD.
The clock tower is another architectural aspect of this project that
needs to be taken into consideration. The maximum height of a struc-
ture in the City of Diamond Bar is thirty-five (35) feet. According to
Ordinance No. 90-A (1990), the maximum height of a monument sign is six
feet with a maximum area of thirty-five (35) square feet. The height
of the clock tower is thirty-five feet. Staff questions the necessity
of its height as it is not required for the function of the buildings
on site. Staff feels that the function of the clock tower as presented
on the site plan is a pole sign.
Due to the necessity o? the eleven (11) foot dedication, the Applicant
will not.be able to meet the fifteen (15) foot setback along Golden
Springs Drive. The fifteen (15) foot is required by staff as a condi-
tion of the Development Agreement for all proposed structures on this
site. Because of the fifteen (15) foot setback requirement, it will be
necessary to change the configuration of the corporate office/detail
bay footprint.
The applicant has expressed an interest in maintaining a small snack
shop in connection with the car wash and the self service gasoline
sales. This service is to accommodate the clientele.
In this zone, which is defined as C-2 Neighborhood Commercial, a coin-
operated hand car wash is permitted by right, as it is considered a
less intense use than an automatic car wash, requiring less on-site
stacking of vehicles and generating less traffic. Also, this type of
car wash will require a smaller buildable pad and building.
An automatic car wash is permitted by right in a C-3 zone (Unlimited
Commercial) which is intended to accommodate uses which are character-
istically of greater intensity than in neighborhood commercial zones.
By virtue of its assembly line characteristics, an automatic car wash
will generate more traffic and will require a large buildable pad,
along with a stacking area for cars.
The proposed project will conform to the requirements of the C-2 zone
in which it is located in all respects except the automatic car wash,
for which a Development Agreement has been requested.
AGENDA ITEM
March 25, 1991
Page Four
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Development Agreement 91-2 with the above men-
tioned concerns mitigated and with the conditions listed.
Attachments:
Staff Report Dated February 25, 1991
Initial Study
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Letter to Chairman David Schey from SCAQMD, dated March 12, 1991
Letter to Mr. Gary D. Clapp from UNOCAL, dated March 12, 1991
Letter to Chairman David Schey from Gary D. Clapp, dated March 12, 1991
Letter to James DeStefano, from Gary D. Clapp, dated March 18, 1991
Exhibit "B5" Revised Site Plan
Exhibit "F" Revised Traffic Study Report
•
Support Documents from February 25, 1991 Planning Commission:
"A"
Application
"Bill
Site Plan
"Bz"
Elevations
"B3"
Landscape Plan
"B4"
Study of Clock
Tower and Fencing
RESOLUTION NO. DA 91-2
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE APPROVAL OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91-2 ,
AN APPLICATION TO ALLOW AN AUTOMATED CAR
WASH, WITH THE SALE OF GASOLINE, SIX BAY AU-
TOMOTIVE DETAIL FACILITY, CORPORATE OFFICES
AND A RESTAURANT AT 22000 GOLDEN SPRINGS
DRIVE - ASSESSOR'S PARCEL #8717-001-006.
A. Recitals
Gary Clapp, on behalf of Toran Development and Construction has
filed an application for a Development Agreement (D.A.) located
at 22000 Golden Springs Dr., Diamond Bar, California, as de-
scribed in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject Development Agreement application is
referred to as "application".
On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a
duly organized municipal corporation of the State of Califor-
nia: On said date, pursuant to the requirements of the Calif-
ornia Government Code Section 57376, Title 21 and 22, the City
Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 1,
thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances
of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and 22 of the Los Angeles
County Code contains the Development Code of the County of Los
Angeles now currently applicable to development applications,
including the subject Application, within the City of Diamond
Bar.
3. Because of its recent incorporation, the City of Diamond Bar
lacks an operative General Plan. Accordingly, action was taken
on the subject Application, as to consistency to the General
Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of California Gov-
ernment S 65360.
The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, on February
25, 1991 conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said Appli-
cation and concluded said public hearing on that date.
All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
B. Resolution
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found,, determined and resolved by the Plan-
ning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows:
This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of
the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution
are true and correct.
2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the Mitigated Nega-
tive Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the CEQA
of 1970, as amended, and guidelines promulgated thereunder,
and, further this Planning Commission has reviewed and consid-
ered the information contained in the said Mitigated Negative
Declaration with respect to the application.
3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above -referenced February 25, 1991, public hearing
and oral testimony provided at the hearing, this Commission
hereby specifically finds as follows.
(a) The project relates to a site which is comprised of 4.70
acres of vacant land within the C -2 -BE zone on the North
side or Golden Springs Drive, City of Diamond Bar, Cali-
fornia.
(b) Generally, to the north is the Pomona Freeway, to the
south is C-M-BE-U/C zone, to the east is Os (open space)
which consists of a golf course.
(c) This property is designated by the Community Plan for Com-
mercial development.
(d) The nature, condition, and size of the site has been con-
sidered. The site is adequate in size to accommodate the
type of development being proposed as depicted within Ex-
hibits Bz, B3, B4 and B5.
(e) The Development Agreement will not have an adverse impact
on adjacent or adjoining residential commercial uses. It
will not be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment,
or valuation of property of other persons located in the
vicinity and the Development Agreement will not adversely
affect the health or welfare of persons residing or work-
ing in the surrounding area.
(f) The subject property shall be maintained and operated in
full compliance with the conditions of this grant and any
law, statute, ordinance or other regulations applicable to
any development or activity of the subject property. Fail-
ure of the permittee to cease any development shall be a
violation of these conditions.
4. Based upon the substantial evidence and conclusion set
forth herein above, and conditions set forth below in this
Resolution, presented to the Planning Commission on March
25, 1991, public hearing as set forth above, this commis-
sion in conformance with the terms and provisions of Cali-
fornia Government Code § 65360, hereby finds and concludes
as follows:
(a) The development shall conform to all plans as submit-
ted to and approved by the Planning Commission la-
beled Exhibits BZ, B3, B4 and B5.
(b) This grant allows for the development of a commercial
project with structures equaling approximately 19,950
square feet on a 4.70 acre site.
(c) Perimeter slopes of this project shall be landscaped.
(d) Revised lighting, landscaping, irrigation, and fenc-
ing plan (which is to surround the site) shall be
submitted to the City Planning Department and the
Director of Parks and Maintenance for review and ap-
proval within sixty (60) days of the project's final
approval from the City Council.
(e) The subject site and landscaping shall be maintained
in good condition.
(f) Maximum height of all structures on this site is
thirty-five (35) feet.
(g) The materials used for the exterior of the structures
of this proposed project are Sierra tile, Vermont
blend for the roof, La Habra stucco and Belgian Cas-
tle Rock for the walls, wood facia painted the color
of limestone and Del Piso Endicott Brick for the chi-
mneys.
(h) Front setbacks for the restaurant and detail bays/of-
fice structure shall be a minimum of fifteen (15)
feet.
(i) The hours of operation for the car wash and detail
bay shall be between the hours of 8 am and 6 pm. The
hours of operation for self-service gasoline sales
shall be 24 hours a day.
(j) Delivery of gasoline fuel to this site shall be lim-
ited to between the hours of 10 pm and 6 am.
(k) A sign program shall be submitted to the City for
review and approval by the Planning Commission.
(1) The custom polish detail shop shall not include auto
body and fender work or auto paint work.
(m) All detailing functions shall take place within the
confines of the detail bays.
(n) No portion of this facility shall be converted or
added to, for the express purpose of providing a con-
venience store.
(o) There shall be no outdoor displays of merchandise of
any kind on this site.
(p) Outside speaker volumes shall be modulated so as to
not exceed ten decibels over ambient noise levels at
property line.
(q) All mechanical equipment on this site shall be en-
closed within the appropriate building.
(r) Water reclamation and conservation devices shall be
incorporated into the design of the car wash and ir-
rigation system for landscaping.
(s) The chemicals and detergents used for cleaning of the
vehicles shall be composed of biodegradable com-
pounds.
(t) Petroleum waste products shall be disposed of by ap-
propriate methods and shall not be discharged into
the public sewer system except as allowed by law.
c (u) The proposed restaurant for this site shall be of the
size and caliber of a Marie Callender's, Hof's Bar &
Grill, or Tony Roma's.
(v) All on-site utility services shall be installed under
ground.
(w) Any work to be done within the City right-of-way re-
quires prior approval from the Engineering Department
of the City of Diamond Bar. The appropriate permits
are to be obtained and all construction is to be per
City specifications.
(x) Grading plans and drainage plans shall be submitted
to the Planning Department and Engineering Department
for review and approval.
(y) Any broken or damaged curbs, gutters, sidewalks and
pavement on streets within or abutting this project
shall be repaired by the applicant.
(z) The project must be developed to the satisfaction of
the Planning and the City Engineering Department in-
cluding traffic mitigation conditions stipulated in
the Revised Traffic Report March, 1991.
(aa) The calculation for the determination of the length
of the right turn lane (deceleration lane) must be
provided. In the absence of the calculations, it is
recommended the length be one hundred and fifty (150)
feet to the first driveway.
(ab) The auxiliary lane must be extended beyond the drive-
ways to provide acceleration capabilities to cars and
trucks. In the absence of calculations available
from the developer, it is recommended to be one hun-
dred (100) feet.
(ac) Eleven (11) foot street dedication in the areas of
auxiliary lane must be provided.
(ad) Full width street improvements along the project site
within the City's right-of-way must be constructed
(i.e. street, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk,
landscaping, signing, striping, marking, and etc.) in
accordance with the City standards to the satisfac-
tion of the City.
(ae) Mitigation measures' fair share cost is only deter-
mined for the intersection of Grand Avenue and Golden
Springs Drive and that is based on estimates of 1989.
This cost estimate must be updated and fair share
costs must also be developed for the left turn lane
addition to the traffic signal on Brea Canyon Road at
Golden Springs Drive/Colima Road. In the absence of
these calculations, the fair share cost of the devel-
oper is recommended to be $50,000.
(af) Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until
such time as all Uniform Building Codes, State Fire
Marshall's regulations, and Planning requirements
have been complied with.
(ag) All special assessments, utilities, sewers or storm
drain connection fees are to be paid prior to recor-
dation.
(ah) The applicant shall pay for all costs associated with
plan check, review of documents, permits and inspec-
tions required by the City of Diamond Bar.
(ai) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose
until the permittee and the owner of the property
involved (if other than the permittee) have filed, at
the City of Diamond Bar Planning Department, their
affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to
accept all the conditions of this grant.
This Commission hereby provides notice to Gary Clapp for
Toran Development that the time within which judicial re-
view 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 copy of this Resolution, by mail, to Gary
Clapp at the address as set forth on the application.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 1991.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
M
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 25th day of March, 1991, by the following vote -to -wit:
AYES:
[COMMISSIONERS:]
NOES:
[COMMISSIONERS:]
ABSENT:
[COMMISSIONERS:]
AJL:pjs
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Case Number: DA 91-2
Applicant: Gary Clapp
Toran Development & Construction
23441 Golden Springs Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Proposal: A request to allow the sale of gasoline, including
self-service; automated car wash; automotive detail
facility; corporate offices for the developer; and a
restaurant, not to include take-out, through the De-
velopment Agreement.
Location: 22000 Golden Springs Drive
Environmental
Findings: The proposed project, as determined in the City of
Diamond Bar, could have a significant effect on the
environment. There will not be a significant effect
in this case because the mitigation measures describ-
ed on the attached sheet have been incorporated into
the proposed project.
II. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation:
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Explanation to supplement "ves" and "possible"'answers given in
initial study.
Environmental Impacts:
1. Earth
b. Disruption, displacements, compaction or overcovering
of the soil? ves.
Explanation
There will be the displacement of approximately fifty (50)
cubic yards of soil.
Mitigation:
The fifty (50) cubic yards of soil will be balanced on the
site.
7. Light and Glare
a. Will the proposal result in significant new light and
glare or contribute significantly to existing levels
of light and glare. Possibly
Explanation:
The proposed uses for this site will introduce lighting to
this site which could possibly create glare.
D
9.
mitigation:
Lighting plan shall
ment showing the
such a manner as to
to surrounding uses.
Land Use
be submitted to the Planning Depart -
lighting arranged and shielded in
prevent glare or direct illumination
a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned
land use in an area. Possibly
Explanation:
The proposed use of an automated car wash is not permitted
in this zone by right or by CUP.
Mitigation:
A Development Agreement with appropriate conditions shall
be drawn up to allow the use in this zone.
Natural Resources
a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resour-
ces. Possibly
Explanation`
The proposed use of an automated car wash can possibly
cause an increase in the usage of water. The irrigation
of landscaping could possibly cause an increase in water
usage.
Mitigation:
Ninety percent (90%) of the water to be used for the pro-
posed car wash will be recyclable. According to the Wal-
nut Valley Water District, the irrigation for the land-
scaping can come from reclaimed water.
10. Risk of Upset
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to oil, pesti-
cides, chemicals, or radiation) in the event of an
accident or upset condition. Possibly
Explanation:
When flammable chemicals, solvents, and gasoline are used,
there is always the possibility of explosion and release
of hazardous substances.
Mitigation:
The only chemical to be used would be paint thinner ap-
plied to a cloth for cleaning at the detail facility.
All cloths used would be laundered. There are four gas-
oline storage tanks to be installed for this proposed pro-
ject. Gasoline tanks will be double walled, fiberglass
and totally rust -proof. For each tank, there will be a
"built-in" monitoring system and a continuous precision
tank tester. The hydrostatic monitor continuously moni-
tors and tests the tanks every day of the year against
potential leaks. This monitoring system can detect leaks
in either the inner or outer walls of the gasoline tanks.
B. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement?
Yes
b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new
parking? Yes
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement
of people and goods? Possibly
Explanation•
a. This project is proposed on a vacant parcel. The uses -
car wash, gasoline sales, restaurant and detail bays and
corporate offices will add more vehicular movement in this
area.
b. The new uses to the vacant parcel will require new parking
facilities.
d. The proposed uses of this site will create more and new
patterns of circulation and movement of people and goods.
Mitigation•
a. According to the traffic study report, a significant por-
tion of the project traffic is expected to be "passer-by"
traffic that is already on Golden Springs Drive.
b. Applicant shall 'provide adequate parking for the uses on
this site.
d. Implement conditions contained within the Development
Agreement.
Recorded At
Of And When
Mail To:
the Request
Recorded
Lynda Burgess
City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, California 91765
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 91-2 CONCERNING PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 22000 GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE,
DIAMOND BAR,'CALIFORNIA
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the
"Effective Date" set forth herein by and between ARCIERO & SONS,
INC., and GARY CLAPP, a sole proprietor, ("Developer") and the
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, a municipal corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of California ("City").
W I T N E S S E T H•
A. Recitals.
(i) California Government Code Sections 65864, et seq.
authorize cities to enter into binding development agreements
with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property
for the development of such property.
(ii) Developer owns all interest in and to that real
property located entirely within City, the common and legal
description of which is set forth in Exhibit "A," attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference and hereinafter is
referred to as "the Site."
I
(iii) The Site is now zoned C -2 -B-E (Neighborhood
Business, Billboard Exclusion Zone) pursuant to the provisions of
City's Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map, as amended to date
hereof. Developer and City desire to provide through this
Development Agreement more specific development controls on the
Site which will provide for maximum efficient utilization of the
Site in accordance with sound planning principles.
(iv) On , 1991, City adopted its
Ordinance No. thereby approving this Development
Agreement with Developer and said Ordinance was effective on
1991.
1
B. Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Definitions. In this Agreement, unless the context
otherwise requires, the following terms shall have the following
meaning:
a. "City" is the City of Diamond Bar.
b. "Developer" is ARCIERO & SONS, INC. and GARY CLAPP or
any assignee thereof.
C. "Development Plan" are those plans and specifications
attached hereto, marked as Exhibit "B" and
incorporated herein by this reference, and comprised
of the documents including, but not limited to,
landscape plan, a site plan, design elevations),
and site utilization map, stamped "Received,
" The Development Plan attached
Hereto includes various conditions of approval set
forth in Exhibit "C" hereto which are not changed,
altered or modified by this Development Agreement
unless specifically set forth herein. The project
also includes the records of applications by Developer,
the proceedings before the Planning Commission and City
Council, and all such records and files in these
matters are incorporated herein by this reference as
though set forth in full.
d. "Project" is that development approved for the Site as
provided in this Development Agreement comprised of a
automated car wash, six bay automotive detail facility,
corporate offices for the developer and restaurant,
all as reflected in the Development Plans attached
hereto as Exhibit "B" and the conditions set forth in
Exhibit
e. "Effective Date" shall mean the 31st calendar day
following adoption of the ordinance approving this
Agreement by City's City Council.
2. Recitals. The recitals are part of the agreement between
the parties and shall be enforced and enforceable as any other
provision of this Agreement.
3. Interest of Property Owner. Developer warrants and
represents that it has full legal title to the Site, that it has
full legal right to enter into this Agreement and that the
persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Developer have been
duly authorized to do so.
E
4. Binding Effect of Agreement. Developer hereby subjects the
Project and the land described in Exhibit "A" hereto to the
covenants, reservations and restrictions as set forth in this
Agreement. The City and the Developer hereby declare their
specific intent that the covenants, reservations and restrictions
as set forth herein shall be deemed covenants running with the
land and shall pass to and be binding upon Developer's successors
and assigns in title or interest to the Project. Each and every
contract, deed or other instrument hereinafter executed, covering
or conveying the Project or any portion thereof shall
conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered and
accepted subject to the covenants, reservations and restrictions
expressed in this Agreement, regardless of whether such
covenants, reservations and restrictions are set forth in such
contract, deed or other instrument.
City and Developer hereby declare their understanding
and intent that the burden of the covenants, reservations and
restrictions set forth herein touch and concern the land in that
the Developer's legal interest in the Project is rendered less
valuable thereby. The City and Developer hereby further declare
their understanding and intent that the benefit of such covenants
touch and concern the land by enhancing and increasing the
enjoyment and use of the Development by Developer and the future
occupants of the Project, the intended beneficiaries of such
covenants, reservations and restrictions, and by furthering the
public purposes for which this Agreement is adopted. Further,
the parties hereto agree that such covenants, reservations and
restrictions benefit all other real property located in the City
of Diamond Bar, provided, however, that only City shall be
entitled to enforce the provisions hereof pursuant to paragraph
16, below.
5. Relationship of Parties. It is understood that the
contractual relationship between City and Developer is such that
Developer is an independent party and is not the agent of City
for any purpose whatsoever and shall not be considered to be the
agent of City for any purpose whatsoever.
6. Term of Agreement. The term of the Agreement shall commence
on -the effective date and shall expire on December 31, 2016, so
long as Developer remains in material compliance with this
Agreement, as from time to time amended.
7. Construction. Developer shall complete construction work
for the Project on the Site, and all phases thereof, including,
but not limited to, landscaping and all off-site improvements,
pursuant to a building permit or permits issued by City within
three (3) years following the effective date. Notwithstanding
any other term or provision of this Agreement, Developer shall
complete rough grading of the site, in accordance with approved
3
grading plans, within eighteen (18) months of the effective date.
Failure to construct the Project shall cause this Agreement to be
void and of no further force and effect; provided, however, that
completion of the car wash portion of the Project, together with
all required off-site improvements and perimeter landscaping
requirements, and compliance with the terms of this Agreement
pertaining to the car wash portion shall not render this
Agreement void as to the car wash portion.
8. Assignment. Developer shall have the right to sell, lease,
ground lease, mortgage, hypothecate, assign or transfer all or
any portion of this Site (as may be subsequently subdivided), to
any person or entity at any time during the term of this
Development Agreement. Any such transfer shall be deemed to
include an assignment of all rights, duties and obligations
created by this Development Agreement with respect to all or any
portion of the Site. The assumption of any or all of the
obligations of Developer under this Agreement pursuant to any
such transfer shall relieve Developer, without any act or
concurrence by the City, of its legal duty to perform those
obligations except to the extent that Developer is in default
with respect to any and all obligations at the time of the
proposed transfer.
9. General Standards and Restrictions Pertaining to Development
of the Site. The following specific restrictions shall apply to
the use of the Site pursuant to this Development Agreement:
a. Developer shall have the right to develop the Project
on the Site in accordance with the terms and conditions
of this Agreement and City shall have the right to
control development of the Site in accordance with
the provisions of this Agreement.
b. The density and intensity of use, the uses allowed, the
size of proposed buildings, provisions for the
reservation or dedication of land for public purposes,
the maximum height of proposed buildings and location
of public improvements, together with other terms and
conditions of development applicable to the Site, shall
be as set forth in this Development Agreement and the
attached Development Plan.
10. Effect of City Regulations on Development of Project.
Except as expressly provided in this Development Agreement, all
substantive and procedural requirements and provisions contained
in City's ordinances, specific plans, rules and regulations,
including, but not limited to, the Zoning ordinance, in effect as
of the effective date of this Development Agreement, shall apply
to the construction and development of the Site.
4
a. The provisions of this paragraph 10 shall not preclude
the application to the development of the Site those
changes in City ordinances, regulations, plans or
specifications which are specifically mandated and
required by changes in state or federal laws or
regulations as provided in California Government Code
Section 65869.5 or any successor provision or
provisions.
b. The payment of fees associated with the construction
of the Project, including land use approvals,
development fees, building permits, etc., shall be
pursuant to those fees in effect at the time
application is made for such approvals or permits.
C. City may apply any and all new ordinances, rules,
regulations, plans and specifications to the
development of the Site after the effective date
provided such new rules and regulations do not
conflict with the terms of this Development
Agreement as of the effective date.
d. Nothing herein shall prevent the application of
health and safety regulations (i.e., fire,
building, seismic, plumbing and electric codes)
that become applicable to the City as a whole.
11. Permitted Uses. Those uses allowed on the Site shall be as
follows:
a. Permitted Uses.
1. Sales.
Art Galleries.
Art supply stores.
Automobile service stations, limited to automobile
accessories and facilities necessary to
dispensing petroleum products only.
Automobile supply stores.
Automobile washing, waxing and polishing, car
` washes.
Bakery Shops, including baking only when
incidental to retail sales from the premises.
Bookstores.
Confectionery or candy stores, including making
only when incidental to retail sales from
the premises.
Delicatessens.
Florist shops.
Gift shops.
Hobby supply stores.
11
Ice cream shops.
Jewelry stores.
Leather goods stores.
Notions or novelty stores.
Photographic equipment and supply stores.
Silver shops.
Sporting goods stores.
Stationery stores.
Tobacco shops.
Toy stores.
Services.
Barber shops.
Beauty shops.
Bicycle rentals.
Locksmith shops
Lodge halls.
Offices, business or professional.
Photography studios.
Shoe repair shops.
Tailor shops.
Watch repair shops.
b. Uses Requiring Conditional Use Permit.
Restaurants and other eating establishments.
12. Annual Review. During the term of this Development
Agreement, City shall annually review the extent of good faith
compliance by Developer with the terms of this Development
Agreement. Developer shall file an annual report with the City
indicating information regarding compliance with the terms of
this Development Agreement no later than March 15 of each
calendar year.
13. Indemnification. DevIeloper agrees to, and shall, hold City
and its elected officials, officers, agents and employees
harmless from liability for damage or claims for damage for
personal injuries, including death, and claims for property
damage which may arise from the direct or indirect operations of
Developer or those of his contractor, subcontractor, agent,
employee or other person acting on his behalf which relate to the
construction and operation of the Project. Developer agrees to,
and shall, defend City and its elected officials, officers,
agents and employees with respect to actions for damages caused
or alleged to have been caused by reason of Developer's
activities in connection with the Project. This hold harmless
provision applies to all damages and claims for damage suffered
or alleged to have been suffered by reason of the operations
referred to in this Development Agreement regardless of whether
0
or not the City prepared, supplied or approved the plans,
specifications or other documents for the Project.
14. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended or canceled, in
whole or in part, only by mutual written consent of the parties
and then in the manner provided for in California Government Code
Sections 65868, et seq., or their successor provisions.
15. Minor Amendments to Development Plan. Upon the written
application of Developer, minor modifications and changes to the
Development Plan may be approved by the Director of Planning
pursuant to the terms of City's Zoning Ordinance.
16. Enforcement. In the event of a default under the provisions
of this Agreement by Developer, City shall give written notice to
Developer (or its successor) by registered or certified mail
addressed at the address stated in this Agreement, and if such
violation is not corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of City
within sixty (60) days after such notice is given, or if not
corrected within such reasonable time as may be required to cure
the breach or default if said breach or default cannot be cured
within sixty (60) days (provided that acts to cure the breach or
default must be commenced within said sixty (60) days and must
thereafter be diligently pursued by Developer), then City may,
without further notice, declare a default under this Agreement
and, upon any such declaration of default, City may bring any
action necessary to specifically enforce the obligations of
Developer growing out of the operation of this Development
Agreement, apply to any court, state or federal, for injunctive
relief against any violation by Developer of any provision of
this Agreement, or apply for such other relief as may be
appropriate.
17. Event of Default. Developer is in default under this
Agreement upon the happening of one or more of the following
events or conditions:
I
a. If a material warranty, representation or statement
is made or furnished by Developer to City and is
false or proved to have been false in any material
respect when it was made;
b. If a finding and determination is made by City
following an annual review pursuant to paragraph 12
hereinabove, upon the basis of substantial evidence,
that Developer has not complied in good faith with
any material terms and conditions of this Agreement,
after notice and opportunity to cure as described
in paragraph 16 hereinabove; or
7
C. A breach by Developer of any of the provisions or
terms of this Agreement, after notice and opportunity
to cure as provided in paragraph 16 hereinabove.
18. No Waiver of Remedies. City does not waive any claim of
defect in performance by Developer if on,periodic review City
does not enforce this Agreement. Nonperformance by Developer
shall not be excused because performance by Developer of the
obligations herein contained would be unprofitable, difficult or
expensive or because of a failure of any third party or entity,
other than City. All other remedies at law or in equity which
are not otherwise provided for in this Agreement are available to
the parties to pursue in the event that there is a breach of this
Development Agreement. No waiver by City of any breach or
default under this Development Agreement shall be deemed to be a
waiver of any other subsequent breach thereof or default
hereunder.
19. Rights of Lenders Under this Agreement. Should Developer
place or cause to be placed any encumbrance or lien on the
Project, or any part thereof, the beneficiary ("Lender") of said
encumbrance or lien shall have the right at any time during the
term of this Agreement and the existence of said encumbrance or
lien to:
a. Do any act or thing required of Developer under this
Agreement, and any such act or thing done or performed
by Lender shall be as effective as if done by
Developer;
b. Realize on the security afforded by the encumbrance or
lien by exercising foreclosure proceedings or power of
sale or other remedy afforded in law or in equity or by
the security document evidencing the encumbrance or
lien (hereinafter referred to as "a trust deed");
C. Transfer, conve� or assign the title of Developer to
the Project to any purchaser at any foreclosure sale,
whether the foreclosure sale be conducted pursuant to
court order or pursuant to a power of sale contained
in a trust deed; and
d. Acquire and succeed to the interest of Developer by
virtue of any foreclosure sale, whether the fore-
closure sale be conducted pursuant to a court order
or pursuant to a power of sale contained in a trust
deed.
20. Notice to Lender. City shall give written notice of any
default or breach under this Agreement by Developer to Lender (if
known by City) and afford Lender the opportunity after service of
the notice to:
E
a. Cure the breach or default within sixty (60) days
after service of said notice, where the default can
be cured by the payment of money;
b. Cure the breach or default within sixty (60) days
after service of said notice where the breach or
default can be cured by something other than the
payment of money and can be cured within that
time; or
C. Cure the breach or default in such reasonable time
as may be required where something other than
payment of money is required to cure the breach
or default and cannot be performed within sixty (60)
days after said notice, provided that acts
to cure the breach or default are commenced within
a sixty (60) day period after service of said
notice of default on Lender by City and are
thereafter diligently continued by Lender.
21. Action by Lender. Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Agreement, a Lender may forestall any action by City for a
breach or default under the terms of this Agreement by Developer
by commencing proceedings to foreclose its encumbrance or lien on
the Project. The proceedings so commenced may be for foreclosure
of the encumbrance by order of court or for foreclosure of the
encumbrance under a power of sale contained in the instrument
creating the encumbrance or lien. The proceedings shall not,
however, forestall any such action by the City for the default or
breach by Developer unless:
a. They are commenced within sixty (60) days after
service on Developer of the notice described herein-
above;
b. They are, afterlhaving been commenced, diligently
pursued in the manner required by law to completion;
and
C. Lender keeps and performs all of the terms,
covenants and conditions of this Agreement requiring
the payment or expenditure of money by Developer
until the foreclosureproceedings are complete or
are discharged by redemption, satisfaction or
payment.
22. Notice. Any notice required to be given by the terms of
this Agreement shall be provided by certified mail, return
receipt requested, at the address of the respective parties as
specified below or at any other such address as may be later
specified by the parties hereto:
E
To Developer: ARCIERO & SONS, INC.
950 North Tustin Avenue
Anaheim, California 92807
GARY CLAPP
Toran Development and Construction
23441 Golden Springs
Diamond Bar, California 91765
To City: City of Diamond Bar
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, California 91765
Attention: City Manager
23. Attorneys' Fees. In any proceedings arising from the
enforcement of this Development Agreement or because of an
alleged breach or default hereunder, the prevailing party shall
be entitled to recover its costs and reasonable attorneys' fees
incurred during the proceeding as may be fixed within the
discretion of the court.
24. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall bind, and the benefits
and burdens hereof shall inure to, the respective parties hereto
and their legal representatives, executors, administrators,
successors and assigns, wherever the context requires or admits.
25. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be construed in
accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of
California.
26. Partial Invalidity. If any provisions of this Agreement
shall be deemed to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the
validity, legality or enforceability of the remaining provisions
hereof shall not in any why be affected or impaired thereby.
27. Recordation. This Agreement shall, at the expense of
Developer, be recorded in the Official Records of the County
Recorder of the County of Los Angeles within ten (10) business
days following the Effective Date.
10
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by
the parties and shall be effective on the effective date set
forth hereinabove.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR,
a municipal corporation
Dated: By
Gary L. Werner, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lynda Burgess, City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
FRANK ARCIERO
GARY CLAPP
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
On , 1991, before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and -for said County and State, personally
appeared Gary L. Werner and Lynda Burgess proved to me on the
basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons who executed
this instrument as Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Diamond
Bar, a municipal corporation existing and organized under the
laws of the State of Calikornia, and acknowledged to me that the
City of Diamond Bar executed it.
Notary Public in and for said State
11
STATE OF
ss.
COUNTY OF
On , 1990, before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally
appeared FRANK ARCIERO and GARY CLAPP proved to me on the basis
of satisfactory evidence to be the persons who executed this
instrument.
Notary Public in and for said State
S\1012\DA91-2DB\DB 6.12D 12
South Coast
AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
9150 FLAIR DRIVE, EL MONTE, CA 91731 (818) 572-6200
March 12, 1991
Chairman Schey
Planning Commission
City of Diamond Bar
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 190
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Dear Chairman Schey:
Thank ygu- for the opportunity to address the Planning Commission at its
February 25, 1991 meeting concerning Development Agreement 91-2. That
Agreement concerned a car wash, gasoline sales, restaurant and corporate offices at
220.00 Golden Springs Drive.
At the time, I mentioned that I had no specific objection to any of the proposed
uses. In fact, the District will be a major car wash user upon its move into Diamond
Bar. However, I do have concerns with the project as proposed
I am concerned that not enough has been done to preserve the views of the South
Coast Air Quality Management District offices from the site immediately south of
the proposed development. Much could be done to protect the District views and
still not effect the proposed development. The Building heights could be reduced
from the proposed 35 feet to something closer to that actually required by the car
wash (probably less than 20 feet); then the building could be moved to the south
edge of the property to further reduce the impact on District views. As proposed,
the current building height and placement nearest the freeway are a rather obvious
attempt to create a billboard MULere none are otherwise allowed. I have no
objection to the placement of the proposed clock tower. Of course, I would hope
that, in the absence of a sign ordinance, good sign design practices be enforced to
assure compatibility with the environment and the look that is desired in the City of
Diamond Bar.
Another area of concern is the fact that no on-site traffic circulation plan has been
provided. This is particularly important because of the need to demonstrate how
large gasoline tankers are going to maneuver on the property. In my brief research,
I found that large trucks require a 100 foot diameter turning circle. With the
proposed building arrangement, that 100 foot turning circle does not appear
possible. I also noticed that a tanker would have great difficulty (if it is at all
possible) in either entering or exiting the western driveway. If my observations are
accurate, that would leave only the eastern driveway which means that a full 100 -
foot diameter turning circle would have to be provided on the property so that a
tanker could both enter and exit that driveway. As I mentioned at the meeting, this
Chairman Schey
-2- March 12, 1991
on-site traffic circulation issue must be fully addressed before the project can
proceed any further.
Another important issue to all of us is that of traffic safety. By its very nature, to be
successful, the proposed project must generate a large traffic volume. And, again, to
be successful that traffic must be able to enter and exit the property via left turns. I
am afraid that left turns onto the property from eastbound Golden Springs and
particularly left turns off the property onto Golden Springs are Poing to be a risky
affair. Considering the traffic volume and speeds on Golden Springs such left turns
must be demonstrated by the developer to be safe. So far, I have seen no evidence
to that effect. This is particularly concerning when one considers that the Gateway
Corporate Center (surely to be a major contributor to traffic volume on Golden
Springs) is no where near built -out yet.
Finally, I would question the design style chosen for the project. Again, I have no
dislike for the style, but rather question its appropriateness in light of the more
contemporary design of the major developments so nearby in Gateway Corporate
Center.
It is the District's intent to be a good corporate neighbor in Diamond Bar and to
play as active a role as possible in the community. We see ourselves doing that
through many resident District employees, present and future, who will be
contributing members of the Diamond Bar community; through the many resources
that the District will bring to the community in its facility; through its air quality
mission; and through the conscience intent of District management to be that good
neighbor. 10
JG:lg
cc: Vice Chairman Harmony 1
Commissioner Grothe
Commissioner MacBride
Commissioner Lin
James DeStefano
Irwin Kaplan
V?JDir.
y truly yours,
d
Guis
of Admin. Services
)572-6345
UNOCAU
Dear Mr. Clapp:
Unocal Refining & Marketing Division
Unocal Corporation
13707 South Broadway
Los Angeles, California 90061
Telephone (213) 977-6807
March 12, 1991
Gary D. Clapp
23441 Golden Springs Drive
Suite 198 -
Diamond Bar,.Ca, 91765
DIAMOND COUNTY CAR WASH
INGRESS / EGRESS
I have reviewed the site plans for Diamond County Car Wash. 'I
feel that our equipment can make a safe delivery.
The vehicle making the delivery will enter the Car Wash from East
bound Golden Springs Drive by making a left turn into the West
driveway of the lot, and exiting through the far East driveway.
The delivery can also be made by traveling West on Golden Springs
Drive and entering the site through the first West drivewayandexiting through the second driveway. This delivery will be made
between 6 P.M. and 6 A.M. only.
Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me at
213- 323-3300 extension 254.
Yours
Truly,
II i�
Nancy Malm
/NAM Driver Trainer
Attachment
March 12,1991 `•
Mr. David Schey
Chairman - Planning Commission
City of Diamond Bar
21660 East Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA •91765
RE: CUP 90-0129
Dear Mr. Schey:
I am writing you this letter to inform you of our progress in addressing the points of
contention that the planning commissioners aired at the Planning Commission
Hearing of February 25,1991, concerning the Diamond Country Car Wash. We
believe that we have mitigated all of the concerns of both the City planning
department and the individual commissioners. The Revised Traffic Study Report
was not delivered until this morning (it was felt we could have it completed by
Thursday, Feb. 7) both due to its incompleteness and the unavailability of the City
engineer, Sid Masouvi, on Friday of last week and Monday of this week. All revised
plans have also been submitted.
Since the minutes of the February 25 hearing were not submitted to us until this
morning, it is a result of our own note -taking that we are addressing the referenced
concerns. We strongly believe that we have covered them all completely and in a
timely manner. We now anticipate due diligence on the City's behalf so that
everyone concerned is privy to the information in a timely manner also.
We hope to meet with you and the other City planning commissioners personally
prior to the hearing so that we do not consume valuable time at the hearing in
which we are scheduled to be reconsidered on March 25,1991.
Very Truly Yours,
Gary D. Clapp
cc: City Planning Commissioners
Jim DeStefano
Ann Lungu
March 18,1991
Mr. James DeStefano
Community Development
City of Diamond Bar
21660 East Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
RE: CUP 90-0129
Dear Mr. DeStefano:
VTY OF
VA! ,l,MiC'N D 8AR
MAR 13 9991 >-
`%':
-
Uh�N Jl�
I would like to express a concern I have associated with the Development
Agreement related to the above referenced Conditional Use Permit. It lies in the
exclusion of a convenience store/snack shop in the project. I would like to point out
that it was outlined early -on that a concession would be included in the car wash
building to accommodate the clientele awaiting their cars. Also, a small concession
will be located in the area in which the self service gasoline customers will enter to
pay for their services. _
I stress the word concession here since all of the goods offered will be prepackaged
and no food preparation will take place on the site. All health codes and standards
will be observed along with the acquisition of a permit from the Health Department.
Please be advised that I wish to have this type of service integrated into the project
and will be happy to answer any further inquiries that you or the Community
Development department may have.
Very -Truly Yours,
Gary D. app
cc: Ann Lungu
f �F
els R01 MRR 22 '91 14:18
JOHN M. BREWSTER
4071 Second Street --
Yorba Linda, CA. 92686
(714) 528-4683
March 22, 1991
Ms. Ann J. Lungu
Planning Technician
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
21660 E. Copley'Drive, Suite 190
Diamond Bar, CA. 91765-4177
Re: Proposed Car Wash
Golden Springs Drive
Dear Ann:
I am writing to express deep concern as to the proposed
car wash on Golden Springs Drive. First, the site
contains five or six different entities with limited
parking. Access on-site and off --site traffic flow are
very poor with all of the appearances of inadequate
parking. Secondly, there are traffic problems on an
already over crowded Golden Springs. There will be
a minimum of 15,000 cars per monthusing the car wash
alone, not to mention the Self Service Gas which could
generate enormous amount of traffic added to the other
entities. The car wash alone denotes 30,000 movements
on Golden Springs per month with left turns being
dangerous with the present speed and all other things
considered.
I am concerned because of the closeness to the already
approved car wash on Brea Canyon Road which I am the
owner. I have expended in excess of $250,000.00 in plans
and engineering. T have been through a very long and
expensive process obtaining approval from the M.A.C.
Committee, the County of Los Angeles and then again by
the City of Diamond Bar. I have an approved project which
is by far a better location with a signal being installed
at Brea Canyon Road and Grand Avenue. I have safe ingress
and egress to the car wash. This site is conducive to
the area.
Ann S. Lungu, Planning Technician
Department of Planning
025 P02 MRR 22 191 14:19
page 2
The proposed site on Golden Springs is in the middle of
office, hotels, hi -tech future.'hospital and professional
buildings. Last of all, approval of another car wash
almost on top of the first (less than a mile away) will
only result in two units trying to survive in an area
only capable of supporting one car wash. Thus, two
eyesores because of lack of income to properly care and
operate the building and business.
zt was my understanding that the city wanted a clean,
upscale environment and not take on an appearance such
as has happened to other surrounding communities.
Successful car washes should be at least 2� - 3 miles
apart.
ly,
Brewster
Item 7A: Staff will be making a presentation.
Item 7B: Staff will be making a presentation.