The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/23/2020A PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA June 23, 2020 6:30 PM CONSISTENT WITH THE GOVERNOR’S LATEST EXECUTIVE ORDER TO STAY AT HOME, AVOID GATHERINGS AND MAINTAIN SOCIAL DISTANCING, THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED TELEPHONICALLY. MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISION AND CITY STAFF WILL BE PARTICIPATING VIA TELECONFERENCE, WHICH IS BEING RECORDED. YOU CAN PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING BY VISITING: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/regi ster/607533358497783819 Audio +1 (415) 655 -0060 - Attendee Access Code: 662-282-237 Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Planning Division of the Community Development Department, located at 21810 Copley Drive, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please call (909) 839-7030 during regular business hours. Written materials distributed to the Planning Commission within 72 hours of the Planning Commission meeting are available for public inspection online at: http://diamondbarca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Default.aspx Chairperson Kenneth Mok Vice Chairperson William Rawlings Commissioner Naila Barlas Commissioner Mahendra Garg Commissioner Raymond Wolfe In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting must inform the Community Development Department at (909) 839-7030 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper and encourages you to do the same City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission MEETING RULES PUBLIC INPUT The meetings of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission are open to the public. A member of the public may address the Commission on the subject of one or more agenda items and/or other items of which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission. At this time, the teleconference moderator will ask callers one at a time to give their name and if there is an agenda item number they wish to speak on before providing their comment. If you wish to speak on a public hearing item or commission consideration item, you will then be called upon to speak at that point in the agenda. As a general rule, the opportunity for public comments will take place at the discretion of the Chairperson. However, in order to facilitate the meeting, persons who are interested parties for an item may be requested to give their presentation at the time the item is called on the calendar. The Chairperson may limit individual public input to five minutes on any item; or the Chairperson may limit the total amount of time allocated for public testimony based on the number of people requesting to speak and the business of the Commission. Individuals are requested to conduct themselves in a professional and businesslike manner. Comments and questions are welcome so that all points of view are considered prior to the Commission making recommendations to the staff and City Council. When speaking, please direct your questions and comments to the Commission, not to staff or other members of the public. In accordance with State Law (Brown Act), all matters to be acted on by the Commission must be posted at least 72 hours prior to the Commission meeting. In case of emergency or when a subject matter arises subsequent to the posting of the agenda, upon making certain findings, the Commission may act on item that is not on the posted agenda. INFORMATION RELATING TO AGENDAS AND ACTIONS OF THE COMMISSION Agendas for Diamond Bar Planning Commission meetings are prepared by the Planning Division of the Community Development Department. Every meeting of the Planning Commission is recorded and duplicate recordings are available for a nominal charge. HELPFUL CONTACT INFORMATION Copies of Agenda, Rules of the Commission, CDs of Meetings (909) 839-7030 Email: info@diamondbarca.gov Website: www.diamondbarca.gov Consistent with the Governor’s latest Executive Order to stay at home, avoid gatherings and maintain social distancing, this meeting will be conducted telephonically and Members of the Planning Commission and City staff will be participating via Teleconference. There will be no physical meeting location. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION June 23, 2020 AGENDA Next Resolution No. 2020-14 CALL TO ORDER: 6:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 1. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Naila Barlas, Mahendra Garg, Raymond Wolfe, Vice Chairperson William Rawlings, Chairperson Kenneth Mok 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is the time and place for the general public to address the members of the Planning Commission on any item that is within its jurisdiction, allowing the public an opportunity to speak on non-public hearing and non-agenda items. At this time, the teleconference moderator will ask callers one at a time to give their name and if there is an agenda item number they wish to speak on before providing their comment. If you wish to speak on a public hearing item or commission consideration item, you will then be called upon to speak at that point in the agenda 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chairperson 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine and are approved by a single motion. Consent calendar items may be removed from the agenda by request of the Commission only: 4.1. Minutes of Planning Commission – May 26, 2020 5. OLD BUSINESS: None. JUNE 23, 2020 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 6. NEW BUSINESS: None. 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 Zone Change and Development Review No. PL2015-253 –. Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Sections 22.48 and 22.70, the property owner and applicant are requesting a Zone Change to modify the existing zoning district from Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Low Density Residential (RL) to be consistent with the General Plan land use designation; and approval of Development Review application to construct a new 4,333 square-foot, two story single family residence measuring 28’- 8” high on an 11,225 square-foot (0.26 acre) undeveloped, vacant lot. PROJECT ADDRESS: 1111 N. Diamond Bar Blvd. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ James Chin Chou 1359 Bentley Court West Covina, CA 91791 APPLICANT: Creative Design Associates 17528 Rowland Street, 2nd Floor City of Industry, CA 91748 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This Project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on that assessment, the City has determined the Project to be exempt from the CEQA under the CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303(a) (construction of a new single-family residence) and 15061(b)(3) in that “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that t he activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” Section 15061(b)(3) is often referred to as the “common sense exemption.” Therefore no further environmental review is required RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) recommending approval of the Zone Change, and adopt a Resolution (Attachment B) recommending approval of Development Review Planning Case No. PL2015-253 to allow the construction of a new 4,333 square -foot, two- story single family residence, based on the findings of DBMC Section 22.48.040, subject to conditions of approval as listed therein, and forward the matter to the City Council for final consideration 8. NEW PUBLIC HEARING(S): None. 9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10. STAFF COMMENTS / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: JUNE 23, 2020 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 12. ADJOURNMENT: *Until further notice and consistent with the Governor’s latest Executive Order to stay at home, all City meetings will be conducted telephonically. 4th OF JULY HOLIDAY: Friday, July 3, 2020 In observance of the holiday, city offices will be closed. City offices will re-open on Monday, July 6, 2020 CITY COUNCIL MEETING: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 – 6:30 pm CITY COUNCIL MEETING: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 – 6:30 pm TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING: Thursday, July 10, 2020 – 6:30 pm PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 – 6:30 pm CITY COUNCIL MEETING: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 – 6:30 pm PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING: Thursday, July 23, 2020 – 6:30 pm PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 – 6:30 pm MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 26, 2020 CONSISTENT WITH THE GOVERNOR’S LATEST EXECUTIVE ORDER TO STAY AT HOME, AVOID GATHERINGS AND MAINTAIN SOCIAL DISTANCING, THIS MEETING WAS CONDUCTED TELEPHONICALLY AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, CITY STAFF AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATED VIA TELECONFERENCE. CALL TO ORDER: Chair/Mok called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: VC/Rawlings led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Naila Barlas, Mahendra Garg, Raymond Wolfe, Vice Chairperson William Rawlings, and Chairperson Kevin Mok Staff Members Participating: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; James Eggart, Assistant City Attorney; Hal Ghafari, Public Works Manager/Assistant City Engineer; Grace Lee, Senior Planner, May Nakajima, Associate Planner; Natalie T. Espinoza, Associate Planner; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. Consultants Participating: Paul Herrmann, P.E., Transportation Engineer with Fehr & Peers. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes – Regular Meeting – May 12, 2020 C/Wolfe moved, C/Barlas seconded, to approve the May 12, 2020, Meeting Minutes as submitted. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Barlas, Garg, Wolfe, VC/Rawlings, Chair/Mok NOES COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 5. OLD BUSINESS: None. 6. NEW BUSINESS: 6.1 Review Of Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Conformity with the General Plan. SP/Lee presented staff’s report and recommended Planning Commission adoption of a Resolution finding the proposed Fiscal Year 2020 -2021 Capital Improvement Program in conformance with the City’s General Plan. 4.1 Packet Pg. 6 ______________________________________________________________________ MAY 26, 2020 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION ______________________________________________________________________ C/Garg asked when the deferred projects would move forward and PWM/Ghafari said he understands that if the revenue estimates improve and funding becomes available, there will be amendments to the CIP presented to the City Council for consideration. Due to COVID-19, the budget is fluid and subject to amendments/changes moving forward. To date, there is no particular timeframe for completion, however, staff hopes these projects will move forward in the near future. Chair/Mok asked if Item 6.1, the Grand Avenue/Golden Springs Drive enhancements was an 18 month or 8-month construction schedule and SP/Lee responded that it proposed to be an 18 -month schedule. VC/Rawlings said that the Commission should be looking at all items including the items that are deferred for conformity. If funding bec omes available, that will be a matter for Council’s consideration and these items will not come back to the Commission to determine conformity. SP/Lee confirmed that VC/Rawlings was correct. C/Garg moved, C/Barlas seconded, to adopt a Resolution finding the proposed Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Capital Improvement Program in conformance with the City’s General Plan. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Barlas, Garg, Wolfe, VC/Rawlings, Chair/Mok NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None 6.2 New CEQA Vehicle Miles Traveled “VMT” Transportation Thresholds Paul Herrmann presented staff’s report and requested the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending City Council adoption of the new CEQA VMT parameters and thresholds. C/Garg asked how the VMT will be monitored. Mr. He rrmann responded that projects subject to the VMT will be new development projects that are subject to CEQA. They will have to perform an analysis that will show whether or not that project, on a per-capita basis, is going to be higher or lower than the adopted threshold of significance. Typically, the SCAG model is used which is a travel demand forecasting model which is sensitive to land use projects and the VMT can be measured per city per traffic analysis zone. The simplest way to think about VMT is that it is the number of trips multiplied by the length of those trips. The City of Diamond Bar is 4.1 Packet Pg. 7 ______________________________________________________________________ MAY 26, 2020 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION ______________________________________________________________________ adopting a threshold of where they are comparing their new projects against the City average and these projects will have to show that their VMT per person will be less than the City average which is calculated within the travel demand model. Chair/Mok asked if this new approach to traffic would necessarily take longer for completion of a project as opposed to the current method. Mr. Herrmann said that in lots of ways it would not. For example, the new analysis and methodology does not require the collection of existing traffic data so new counts do not have to be collected, which can typically delay projects. In addition, as previously mentioned, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) is in the process of producing a screening tool which will be available to all cities included in the project and many of the projects that are entered will be able to use the screening tool, enter characteristics of the project and could get screened out from any assessment in which the traffic analysis could be done within a day or a week. Projects that will have to perform the analysis will take three to four weeks to do so. SP/Lee referred Chair/Mok to page 3 of the staff report which lists the types of projects that would be exempt from VMT analysis under CEQA. Mr. Herrmann further explained that Diamond Bar just went through a General Plan Update in which it maintained a Level of Service policy which means that the City will still require applicants to conduct a traditional Level of Service Analysis in the Traffic Study in order to maintain the desired Level of Service standard within the City. This will be enforced through measures that are not subject to CEQA and that document will not end up in the EIR. C/Wolfe asked if within the City there was any transit that was operating at 15 minute service intervals. Mr. Herrmann responded to C/Wolfe that the Metrolink station would qualify as a TPA so a ½ mile buffer around that station qualifies as a Transit Priority Area. He does not believe that Diamond Bar has any bus services that have 15-minute headways which is what is needed to qualify for a Transit Priority Area. C/Wolfe felt it was critical for the City, as it looks for certain types of development, to engage in dialogue with Foothill Transit and LA Metro. At his day job, they work very closely with the Office of Planning and Research to try and limit the application of this new set of guidelines to transit -rich areas throughout the state and not have uniform application throughout the state. Unfortunately, that is not the direction this has gone, and it is something Diamond Bar needs to be aware of. He would agree that generally speaking, these types of developments that one might expect to 4.1 Packet Pg. 8 ______________________________________________________________________ MAY 26, 2020 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION ______________________________________________________________________ see in this City will not prove problematic, but this marks a significant departure from how Diamond Bar has conducted business in the past. VC/Rawlings moved, C/Garg seconded, to adopt a Resolution recommending the City Council adopt the new CEQA Vehicle Miles Traveled parameters and thresholds. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Barlas, Garg, Wolfe, VC/Rawlings, Chair/Mok NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): None. 8. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: Chair/Mok stated that as restrictions are being lifted, residents need to remain vigilant, and be safe. Be careful and remember to mask up and keep distancing when out in public. 9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: CDD/Gubman stated that the next Planning Commission meeting date is June 9th and because there are no items on that agenda, the meeting will be canceled. The June 23rd meeting is to be determined and staff will keep the Commissioners apprised thereof. While there are no other items to update Commissioners on, he noted there is a lot of interest in what the City will be doing to provide regulatory relief and financial assistance to businesses and individuals affected by the COVID-19 crisis. Over the next couple of City Council meetings, staff will be bringing forward policies and programs to ease restrictions on restaurants that need to establish temporary outdoor dining areas to compensate for the reduced occupancy limits within their restaurants. And, the City will also be temporarily lifting temporary signage restrictions for a period of 90 days. The City has received about $144,000 in CBDG funds which must be used for COVID-19 relief efforts, and staff will be presenting the City Council with options for grants/forgivable loans to businesses that can demonstrate that they have been impacted by the forced closures. In addition, the City Council will consider a rental assistance program for households that are low and moderate income for the area median income for this portion of LA County. C/Garg asked if people could visit restaurants to pick up food and eat their food at the establishment’s location. CDD/Gubman responded to C/Garg that once the County gives the clearance, restaurants will be able to open indoor dining areas at substantially reduced occupancy so for that reason, there will be some criteria to 4.1 Packet Pg. 9 ______________________________________________________________________ MAY 26, 2020 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION ______________________________________________________________________ allow restaurants to have outdoor dining opportunities which could include taking up parking spaces with proper protective measures so that restaurants can recoup, to the extent possible, the amount of seating they would normally have under normal circumstances. As of this time, restaurants can offer take -out only. Chair/Mok asked if allowing patrons to eat in parking area s would cause a conflict with the health department. CDD/Gubman said the establishment would have to comply with health department requirements, as well as any requirements set forth by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control which will be a condition of their approval. Chair/Mok asked if these changes would involve additional costs to the establishment and if so, who would absorb those costs. CDD/Gubman responded that staff will be recommending that the City waive all planning application fees and any associated building permit fees. However, the City has no control over inspection or permit fees issued by the County, but the hope is that they will also provide some relief to affected businesses. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in the agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Mok adjourned the regular meeting at 7:11 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 23rd of June, 2020. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, __________________________________ Greg Gubman Community Development Director _______________________________ Kenneth Mok, Chairperson 4.1 Packet Pg. 10 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 7.1 MEETING DATE: June 23, 2020 CASE/FILE NUMBER: Zone Change and Development Review (Planning Case No. PL2015-253) PROJECT LOCATION: 1111 N. Diamond Bar Blvd. (APN 8706-008-013) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential (RL) ZONING DISTRICT: Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) PROPERTY OWNER: James Chin Chou, Trustee, 1359 Bentley Court, West Covina, CA 91791 APPLICANT: Creative Design Associates, 17528 Rowland St., 2nd Floor, City of Industry, CA 91748 SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing to construct a new 4,333 square-foot, two-story, single family residence, approximately 29 feet in height, with a 748 square-foot three-car garage, on a vacant and undeveloped 11,225 square -foot (0.26 acre) parcel located on the north side of N. Diamond Bar Boulevard, between Soltaire Street and Highland Valley Road. The following entitlements are requested: 1. Zone Change (ZC) to modify the existing zoning designation from Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Low Density Residential (RL), to be consistent with the underlying Low Density Residential General Plan land use designation; and 2. Development Review (DR) to construct a new 4,333 square -foot, two-story single-family residence. RECOMMENDATION: CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ~ 21810 COPLEY DRIVE ~ DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 ~ TEL. (909) 839-7030 ~ FAX (909) 861-3117 7.1 Packet Pg. 11 Zone Change and Development Review (Planning Case No. PL2015-253) Page 2 of 15 Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) recommending approval of the ZC, and adopt a Resolution (Attachment 2) recommending approval of DR No. PL2015 -253 to allow the construction of a new 4,333 square-foot, two-story single family residence, based on the findings of Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Section 22.48.040, subject to conditions of approval as listed therein, and forward the matter to the City Council for final consideration. BACKGROUND: On April 11, 2013, the previous designer/applicant, JWL Associa tes Inc., held a community meeting to solicit neighborhood feedback for a proposed three -story commercial office building on the subject property. Approximately 20 residents attended the meeting and raised a number of issues ranging from the project’s imp act on overall site and neighborhood compatibility, adequacy of onsite parking for both employees and patrons, and the impacts on public and private viewsheds from the street and nearby residences. Based on the feedback from the community, the applicant withdrew the application for a commercial office building and submitted a new project for a single-family residence on May 28, 2015. On July 25, 2017, a proposal to construct a new 3,932 square -foot, three-story single- family residence measuring approximately 31 feet high with a 438 square-foot two-car garage was presented to the Planning Commission. There were eleven residents who spoke, mostly voicing concerns about the effect the proposed structure would have on existing viewsheds. The Commission continued the matter to a date uncertain in order for the applicant to perform a focused traffic study that: 1) analyzes reaction times and distances needed for motorists to safely exit the subject property, as well as for southbound motorists to react to vehicles entering and exiting the site; and 2) evaluates on-site maneuverability for a variety of vehicle types to enter and exit the subject property in a safe manner. The property owner subsequently shelved these plans and hired a new architect to pursue a fresh design approach. Previously Submitted Three-Story Residence (Facing Diamond Bar Blvd.) 7.1 Packet Pg. 12 Zone Change and Development Review (Planning Case No. PL2015-253) Page 3 of 15 On November 18, 2019, the new architect submitted plans for a two -story single-family residence, designed in a contemporary modern style of architecture. This project was noticed for a public hearing on March 24, 2020, but had to be postponed due to the state and county COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders. The applicant provided written consent to delay the hearing for up to 90 days, which is th e maximum extension allowable under the Permit Streamlining Act (Gov. Code §65957). The matter was continued to the June 23, 2020, meeting. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Characteristics The project site is on an 11,225 square-foot (0.26 acre) vacant and unimproved parcel located along the north side of N. Diamond Bar Boulevard, between Soltaire Street and Highland Valley Road, and adjacent to the State Route 57 (SR 57) freeway . The subject property is a trapezoidal parcel, within non-parallel front and rear property lines. The angled rear property line results in a lot depth that tapers along the westerly portion of the site. Furthermore, the topography of the site slopes from its highest point along the northeasterly boundary to the southwesterly boundary, resulting in a grade differential of approximately 10 feet, with the low point sitting slightly below the adjacent grade of north Diamond Bar Boulevard. Currently, the project site contains wild brush. There are no protected trees on site. 7.1 Packet Pg. 13 Zone Change and Development Review (Planning Case No. PL2015-253) Page 4 of 15 Site and Surrounding General Plan, Zoning and Land Uses Site Aerial Project Site – Facing Southwest on N. Diamond Bar Blvd. 7.1 Packet Pg. 14 Zone Change and Development Review (Planning Case No. PL2015-253) Page 5 of 15 The following table provides the surrounding land uses located adjacent to the subject property. General Plan Designation Zoning District Land Use Site Low Density Residential (RL) C-1 Vacant/Undeveloped North N/A N/A SR-57 (Freeway) South Low Density Residential (RL) RL Single-Family Residential (Across Diamond Bar Blvd.) East N/A N/A Drainage Easement Within Caltrans Right-of-Way West N/A N/A Caltrans Right-of-Way Project Design As mentioned, the site has been redesigned with a new two -story, 4,333 square-foot, single-family residence, measuring approximately 29 feet high. Site entry will be located towards the middle of the property along N. Diamond Bar Boulevard by a new driveway entrance that will only be accessible to westbound traffic due to a landscaped road median that prevents direct access for eastbound traffic (i.e., right turns in and out only). Front Elevation 7.1 Packet Pg. 15 Zone Change and Development Review (Planning Case No. PL2015-253) Page 6 of 15 The floor plan is comprised of the following components: PROJECT SUMMARY (square footage) Livable Area First Story 2,116 Second Story 2,217 Total Living Area 4,333 Non-Livable Area Three-Car Garage 748 Second Floor Balconies 321 Total Non-Livable Area 1,069 TOTAL FLOOR AREA 5,402 • The first level consists of an entry foyer area, living room, kitchen, wok kitchen, powder room, bedroom with bathroom, study room, and an attached three-car garage. • The second level consists of a master bedroom and two bedrooms each with a bathroom, family room, laundry room, and balconies. The two-story residence is accessed by one internal staircase. The height of the building is 28’-8”, measured from the finished grade to the highest point of the roofline. The north elevation features balconies on the second floor of the building, facing the SR 57 freeway. The building’s architectural design is a contemporary modern style of architecture. The floor plan was designed in a linear fashion to fit the trapezoidal parcel with windows facing the hills to the north. The architectural features utilize a variety of building materials such as stucco, ledgestone and wood siding to complement the surrounding neighborhood; variations in wall massing; variable roof heights with metal roofing and elongated eaves; and the incorporation of canopies and metal cable railing. The architectural design theme will be expressed on all sides of the building to provide a pleasing visual appearance from multiple vantage points. ANALYSIS: Review Authority (Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Sections 22.48, 22.54, 22.70) The proposed project requires two entitlement applicatio ns for review. The proposed Zone Change requires City Council approval. The Development Review for the site plan and architectural components of the project requires Planning Commission approval. DBMC Section 22.48.030 of the Development Code requires a ll applications to be processed simultaneously by the highest review authority. Therefore, the 7.1 Packet Pg. 16 Zone Change and Development Review (Planning Case No. PL2015-253) Page 7 of 15 Planning Commission’s role in this matter is to forward a recommendation to the City Council for the two entitlements described below. Zone Change (DBMC Section 22.70) Existing Proposed Zoning Designation Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) Low Density Residential (RL) As stated, the site is a vacant and unimproved lot. The ZC will allow the site to be developed with a new two-story single family residence and be consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential. The modification will rectify an inconsistency between the General Plan and Zoning Maps. The proposed ZC lowers the potential intensity of the land use on the site from neighborhood commercial uses to allow for a viable development of a single family residential use on an underutilized parcel that is most compatible with the surrounding area. Development Review (DBMC Section 22.48) The purpose of Development Review (DR) is to establish consistency with the General Plan through the promotion of high aesthetic and functional standards to complement and add to the economic, physical, and social character of the City. The process ensures that new development and intensification of existing development yields a pleasant living environment, and attracts the interest of residents and visitors as the result of consistent exemplary design. 7.1 Packet Pg. 17 Zone Change and Development Review (Planning Case No. PL2015-253) Page 8 of 15 Development Standards: The following table compares the proposed project with the City’s development standards for residential development in the proposed RL zone. * The rear setback is measured from the rear of the building to the edge of the graded pad when the pad abuts a descending slope. • Site and Grading Configuration: The site is an irregular, triangular shaped lot with a tapering lot depth that results from an angled rear property line. The existing site topography descends approximately 10 feet from the northeasterly to southwesterly property lines requiring approximately 28 cubic yards of cut, 181 cubic yards of fill, and 153 cubic yards of import to accommodate a leveled building pad. • Architectural Features, Colors, and Materials: The City’s Design Guidelines have been established to encourage a better compatible building and site design that improves the vital quality of the surrounding area through aesthetically pleasing site planning, building design, and architecture. In addition, a primary objective is to promote compatibility with adjacent uses to minimize any potential negative impacts. The project incorporates the principles of the City’s Residential Design Guidelines as follows: Development Feature Development Standards Proposed Meets Requirements Minimum Lot Size 10,000 sq. ft. 11,225 sq. ft. Yes Building Front Setback 20 ft. 20 ft. Yes Side Setbacks 15 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other side 5’-4”– east side 84’-8”– west side Yes Side Yard Minimum Between Adjoining Structures 15 feet 323’-10”– east side N/A – west side Yes Rear Setback* 20 feet 20 feet Yes Lot Coverage Maximum of 40% 35% Yes Maximum Building Height 35’-0” 28’-8” Yes Parking 2-car garage 3-car garage Yes 7.1 Packet Pg. 18 Zone Change and Development Review (Planning Case No. PL2015-253) Page 9 of 15 ➢ The architectural design accentuates simplicity of line and form as opposed to overly ornate or monumental features; ➢ All elevations are architecturally treated and dwelling entries are articulated through proper massing and detailed design elements; ➢ Fence and wall designs integrate with structures and setting, utilizing complementary styles, materials and colors; ➢ Landscaping is utilized to soften building lines and blend the structure with its environment, creating a transition between the hard vertical edges of the structure and the softer horizontal lines of the site; and ➢ Plant materials and arrangements emphasize the positive features of a site. Plant groupings are designed to highlight significant site features or man - made focal points such as gardens, patios and walkways. The scale and proportions of the proposed home are well balanced and appropriate for the site. The project is redesigned into a more linear building, reduced to a two-story home, and incorporates variable roof heights, movement along the street facing elevation, and elongated eaves. View from Diamond Bar Boulevard 7.1 Packet Pg. 19 Zone Change and Development Review (Planning Case No. PL2015-253) Page 10 of 15 Landscaping: Effective landscape design should serve the dual purpose of intrinsically enhancing a project setting, as well as integrating the landscaping into the overall architectural design. A conceptual landscape plan was submitted with the project plans. Enhanced landscaping will be installed throughout the site with trees, shrubs, and ground cover around the north, south, east, and west edges of the property. To soften the building’s edges, two 24 -inch box Desert Museum palo verde trees, three 24-inch box crape myrtle trees, and five 36-gallon Emerald Wave sweet bay trees will be planted along N. Diamond Bar Boulevard, and two 24-inch box crape myrtle trees, three 36-gallon Emerald Wave sweet bay trees, and one 48-inch box olive tree will be planted along the north (SR57 freeway side) rear property line. The site will be enclosed with a combination block wall and wood slat fencing above a retaining wall, measuring up to six feet along the north (rear), east and west (side), and a portion of the south (front) property lines. Ornamental landscaping such as ground cover, shrubs, and trees will be installed along the periphery of the project site. The proposed plant palette is diverse, and the plant selections are compatible with the Southern California native landscapes. Overall, landscaping will be composed of drought tolerant and non - invasive species to minimize irrigation and reduce the area of turf and sod ground cover planting. The project is required to comply with the City’s Water Rendering of Rear Elevation 7.1 Packet Pg. 20 Zone Change and Development Review (Planning Case No. PL2015-253) Page 11 of 15 Efficient Landscaping Ordinance, and compliance will be verified during building plan check and final inspections. Compliance with Hillside Management Ordinance (DBMC Section 22.22) The proposed project was reviewed for compliance with the City’s Hillside Management Design Guidelines and regulations. The project complies with all of the regulations and guidelines to ensure that development will complement the character and topography of hillside areas set forth in the Development Code, and incorporates the following features: • Width of the building is oriented in the direction of the slope; • All proposed retaining walls are lower than the maximum exposed height of four feet; • Retaining wall heights will be visually mitigated with proposed landscaping and decorative block; • Architectural treatment is provided on all sides of the building with varying setbacks; • The maximum building height is approximately 29 feet, where 35 feet is allowed; and Conceptual Landscape Plan N 7.1 Packet Pg. 21 Zone Change and Development Review (Planning Case No. PL2015-253) Page 12 of 15 • Earth tone building materials and color schemes are used that blend in with the natural landscape. The project complies with all of the regulations and guidelines to ensure that development will complement the character and topography of hillside areas set forth in the Development Code. Compatibility With Neighborhood The proposed home sits on a lot that is isolated and not surrounded by other residences. The project has been redesigned to a co ntemporary modern style of architecture with a more horizontal, low profile building form to fit the setting and to minimize any view obstructions. The architecture and massing do not interfere with the cohesiveness of the nearby neighborhoods, and the design incorporates building materials and a color palette that are harmonious with the surroundings. The proposed structure will not have a negative impact to neighboring residents’ viewsheds since the property is located on a much lower pad level than nearby properties. Below are section plan exhibits depicting the distances and lower pad level of the proposed building in comparison to nearby residences. Section Plan – Facing West Building Elevation The existing single-family residences to the southeast are approximately 190 feet away and located on a higher building pad than the proposed building. The existing residences located on the north side of Flintlock Road sit on a much higher grade elevation, approximately 36 to 40 feet higher than the Project site . Therefore, the building will not significantly impact any private viewsheds enjoyed by these properties. Existing Single- Family Homes 7.1 Packet Pg. 22 Zone Change and Development Review (Planning Case No. PL2015-253) Page 13 of 15 Section Plan – Facing North Building Elevation The existing multi-family residences to the northeast are more than 320 feet away and located on a higher grade elevation than the proposed building. The building pad of these residences sit slightly lower than the rooftop of the proposed building, but factoring the proposed building’s setback and lower pad elevation, the building is not anticipated to compromise the viewsheds enjoyed by nearby properties. Overall the proposed single family residence is anticipated to be a compatible addition to the surrounding area. The proposed project will not negatively affect the existing surrounding land uses, and the design and appearance of the proposed single -family residence is compatible with the surrounding community. Access and On-Site Circulation The Commission asked the applicant to perform a focused traffic study that : 1) analyzes reaction times and distances needed for motorists to safely exit the subject property, as well as for southbound motorists to react to vehicles en tering and exiting the site; and 2) evaluates on-site maneuverability for a variety of vehicle types to enter and exit the subject property in a safe manner. A traffic access study was submitted and approved by the City’s consultant traffic engineer. There is adequate stopping sight distances from the project driveway as well as for southbound motorists to react to vehicles accessing the site. The applicant also redesigned the site with a circular driveway to allow vehicles to enter and exit the property in a more efficient manner. This design allows a variety of vehicle types such as waste haulers and delivery trucks to access the property with greater ease by entering and exiting the site in a continuous forward maneuver, instead of reversing or making multiple point turns. Existing Multi- Family Homes 7.1 Packet Pg. 23 Zone Change and Development Review (Planning Case No. PL2015-253) Page 14 of 15 Additional Review The Public Works/Engineering Department and Building and Safety Division reviewed this project and included their comments in the attached resolution as conditions of approval. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 1,000-foot radius of the project site on June 12, 2020, and the notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune newspaper on June 12, 2020. The project site was posted with a notice display board, and a copy of the public notice was posted at the City’s four designated community posting sites. Public Comments Received On April 17, 2020, staff received a letter from a resident stating opposition to the proposed project (Attachment E). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: This Project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on that assessment, the City has determined the Project to be exempt from the CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303(a) (construction of a new single- family residence) and 15061(b)(3) in that “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” Section 15061(b)(3) is often referred to as the “common sense exemption.” Therefore, no further environmental review is required. PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: Attachments: A. Draft Resolution No. 2020-XX (Recommending City Council Approval of ZC) 7.1 Packet Pg. 24 Zone Change and Development Review (Planning Case No. PL2015-253) Page 15 of 15 B. Draft Resolution No. 2020-XX (Recommending City Council Approval of DR) C. Traffic Access Study Dated January 3, 2020 D. Architectural, Conceptual Grading, and Landscape Plans Received January 28, 2020 E. Letter from Barcon Submitted April 17, 2020 7.1 Packet Pg. 25 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2020-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE TO CHANGE THE EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (C-1) TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) FOR THE 0.26-ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1111 N. DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA (ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO. 8706-008-013). A. RECITALS 1. The property owner, James Chin Chou (Trustee), and applicant, Creative Design Associates, filed an application for the following entitlements: (1) Zone Change to modify the existing zoning district from Commercial (C-1) to Low Density Residential (RL); and (2) Development Review to construct a new 4,333 square-foot, two-story, new single family residence located at 1111 N. Diamond Bar Boulevard, City of Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California (“Project Site”). 2. California Government Code Section 65860 requires the City’s ordinance to be consistent with the General Plan. The Zone Change results in the General Plan land use designation and zoning district on the subject property to be in conformance with each other. 3. The proposed Zone Change on the Subject Property is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as prescribed under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303(a) (construction of a new single-family residence) and 15061(b)(3) in that “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” The modification will rectify an existing inconsistency between the General Plan and Zoning Maps, and allow for development of an underutilized parcel. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. 4. On March 13, 2020, notification of the public hearing for this project was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune newspaper. Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 1,000-foot radius of the project site and public notices were posted at the City’s four designated community posting sites on March 6, 2020. In addition to the posted and mailed notices, the project site was posted with a display board. 7.1.a Packet Pg. 26 2 Zone Change No. PL2015-253 5. On March 24, 2020, the Planning Commission hearing was cancelled due to the State and County COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders. On April 28, 2020, the project was postponed to the June 23, 2020 hea ring. The applicant provided written consent to delay the hearing for up to 90 days, which is the maximum extensions allowable under the Permit Streamlining Act (Gov. Code §65957). 6. On June 12, 2020, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 1,000-foot radius of the Project site. On June 12, 2020, notification of the public hearing for this project was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune newspaper. A notice display board was posted at the site, and a copy of the notice was posted at the City's four designated community posting sites. 7. On June 23, 2020, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing, solicited testimony from all interested individuals, and concluded said hearing on that date. 8. The documents and materials constituting the administrative record of the proceedings upon which the City’s decision is based are located at the City of Diamond Bar, Community Development Department, Planning Division, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct; 2. The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed Zone Change represent a consistent logical, appropriate and rational zoning designation that furthers the goals and objectives of the General Plan; and 3. The Planning Commission hereby recommends City Council approval of Zone Change for the Project (Planning Case No. PL2015-253) based on the following findings, as required by Section 22.70.050 of the Municipal Code and in conformance with California Government Code Section 65853 and 65860: Finding: The Approvals are internally consistent with the General Plan and other adopted goals and policies of the City. 7.1.a Packet Pg. 27 3 Zone Change No. PL2015-253 Facts in Support of Finding: a. The Zoning Map does not currently reflect the Gener al Plan designation for the property. The Zone Change will place the City’s Zoning Map in conformance with the General Plan by designating the Property at Low Density Residential (RL). The Planning Commission shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23rd DAY OF JUNE, 2020, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. By: ______________________________ Kenneth Mok, Chairman I, Greg Gubman, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of June, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ATTEST: ______________________________ Greg Gubman, Secretary ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Amended Zoning Map 7.1.a Packet Pg. 28 4 Zone Change No. PL2015-253 Exhibit A 7.1.a Packet Pg. 29 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2020-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. PL2015-253 TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 4,333 SQUARE-FOOT, TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED 748 SQUARE-FOOT THREE-CAR GARAGE ON A 0.26 ACRE LOT LOCATED AT 1111 N. DIAMOND BAR BLVD., DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 (APN 8706-008-013). A. RECITALS 1. The property owner, James Chin Chou (Trustee), and applicant, Creative Design Associates, have filed an application for the following entitlements: (1) Zone Change to modify the existing zoning district from Commercial (C-1) to Low Density Residential (RL); and (2) Development Review to construct a new 4,333 square-foot, two-story single-family residence with an attached 748 square-foot three-car garage located at 1111 N. Diamond Bar Boulevard, Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, California (“Project Site”). 2. On March 13, 2020, notification of the public hearing for this project was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune newspaper. Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 1,000-foot radius of the project site and were posted at the City’s four designated community posting sites on March 6, 2020. In addition to the posted and mailed notices, the project site was posted with a display board. 3. On March 24, 2020, the Planning Commission hearing was canc elled due to the State and County COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders. On April 28, 2020, the project was postponed to the June 23, 2020 , hearing. The applicant provided written consent to delay the hearing for up to 90 days, which is the maximum extensions allowable under the Permit Streamlining Act (Gov. Code §65957). 4. On June 12, 2020, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 1,000-foot radius of the Project site. On June 12, 2020, notification of the public hearing for this project was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune newspaper. A notice display board was posted at the site, and a copy of the notice was posted at the City's designated community posting sites. 7.1.b Packet Pg. 30 2 DR PL2015-253 5. On June 23, 2020, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing, solicited testimony from all interested individuals, and concluded said hearing on that date. 6. The documents and materials constituting the administrative record of the proceedings upon which the City’s decision is based are located at the City of Diamond Bar, Community Development Department, Planning Division, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct; and 2. The proposed Development Review on the Subject Property is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as prescribed under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a) (construction of a new single-family residence). Therefore, no further environmental review is required. 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole including the findings set forth below, there is no evidence before this Planning Commission that the Proposed Project herein will have the potential of an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. C. FINDINGS OF FACT Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein and as prescribed under Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Section 22.48, this Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council make the following findings: Development Review Findings (DBMC Section 22.48.040) 1. The design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the applicable elements of the City's General Plan, City Design Guidelines, and development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for special areas (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards or planned developments): With the approval of the Zone Change, the design and layout of the proposed single-family residence consisting of 4,333 square feet of floor 7.1.b Packet Pg. 31 3 DR PL2015-253 area and 748 square-foot, three-car garage area is consistent with the City’s General Plan, City Design Guidelines and development standards. The City’s General Plan Policy LU-P-56 requires that development on privately- owned, residentially designated land in hillside areas shall be compatible with the surrounding natural areas promoting design principles such as minimizing grading, preserving existing vistas, and incorporate site and architectural design that is sensitive to the hillsides. The design and layout of the building will be integrated within the existing topography of the site and will not visually impact the views of nearby properties. The proposed home will not have a negative impact to neighboring residences viewsheds since the property is located on a much lower pad level than nearby properties. The building’s architectural design accentuates simplicity of line and form, articulated through massing treatment and incorporates detailed design elements that complies with the City’s Design Guidelines where architectural design should accentuate simplicity of line and form, restrained and understated elegance, as opposed to the overly ornate or monumental [City’s Design Guidelines A. Site Planning (2) and B. Architecture (2)]. All elevations are architecturally treated and strongly articulated along the visible façade [City’s Design Guidelines B. Architecture (3)]. In addition, appropriate screening and integration of the home to the natural environment is accomplished by providing a variety of groundcover, shrubs, and trees throughout the site. The Project complies with all development standards of the Low Density Residential zoning district by meeting all development standards such as required setbacks, building height, and lot coverage. The project site is not part of any theme area, specific plan, community plan, boulevard or planned development. 2. The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development s, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards: The proposed single-family house will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments because the use will not significantly generate any traffic, parking, noise, lighting, view or other impacts onto surrounding residences an d adjacent right-of-ways. In addition, no protected trees exist on site. The proposed single-family house will not interfere with vehicular or pedestrian movements, such as access or other functional requirements of a single-family home because it complies with the requirements for driveway widths and grades, exceeds the minimum number of off-street parking spaces, and the circular driveway design allows vehicles to enter and exit the property in a more efficient manner. 7.1.b Packet Pg. 32 4 DR PL2015-253 3. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain and enhance the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48: Development Review Standards, the City’s Design Guidelines, the City's General Plan, or any applicable specific plan: The proposed single family residence was redesigned with a two-story structure in a contemporary style of architecture to be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The use of a single -family home fits more appropriately with the fabric of the surrounding area in comparison to other potential land use options such as multi-family residential or commercial. The City’s General Plan Policy LU-P-56 requires that residential development be compatible with the prevailing character of the surrounding neighborhood in terms of building scale, density, massing, and design. The City’s General Plan Goal CC-G-4 also requires the preservation of the scale and character of existing residential neighborhoods and ensure sensitive transitions between densities and uses. The City’s Design Guidelines Architecture (1) requires compatibility with the surrounding character including harmonious building style, form, size, color, material and roofline. The proposed two story single family residence is comparable in mass and scale to the surrounding neighborhood. The building’s design theme is simple with incorporation of variable roof heights, movement along the street facing elevation, and utilization of large vertical and horizontal window surfaces. The architectural design theme will be duplicated on all of the building’s elevations to provide a pleasing visual appearance form multiple vantage points. The Project minimizes negative impacts on nearby uses since the house will not block existing viewsheds from nearby properties. In sum, the Project fits the character of the neighborhood on which it is proposed. 4. The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, color, and will remain aesthetically appealing: The design of the new single-family home is a contemporary style of architecture. Variation in the building elements are achieved through the utilization of varying enhanced architectural features and building materials as discussed in the previous findings. The architectural features utilize a variety of building materials such as stucco, ledgestone and wood siding, metal roof, and cable railing. Also, landscaping is integrated into the site to complement the massing of the house and blend in with neighboring homes 7.1.b Packet Pg. 33 5 DR PL2015-253 and the natural environment of the site in order to maintain a desirable environment. The scale and proportions of the proposed home are well balances and appropriate for the site. 5. The proposed development will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative effect on property values or resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity: Before the issuance of any City permits, the proposed project is required to comply with all conditions within the approved resolution, and the Building and Safety Division and Public Works Departments requirements. Through the permit and inspection process, the referenced agencies will ensure that the proposed project is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. 6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The proposed single family residence is categorially exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as prescribed under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a) (construction of a new single-family residence). Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission here by recommends that the City Council approve Development Review, subject to the following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions of Approval: 1. This Development Review approval shall be null and void unless the Zone Change is approved. 2. Development shall substantially comply with the plans and documents presented to the Planning Commission at the public hearing. 3. Prior to building permit issuance, landscape and irrigation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Consulting Landscape Architect and shall comply with the updated Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. 4. Standard Conditions. The applicant shall comply with the standard development conditions attached hereto. The Planning Commission shall: a. Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and 7.1.b Packet Pg. 34 6 DR PL2015-253 b. Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23rd DAY OF JUNE 2020, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. By: ______________________________________ Kenneth Mok, Chairman I, Greg Gubman, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of June 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ATTEST: ___________________________ Greg Gubman, Secretary 7.1.b Packet Pg. 35 7 DR PL2015-253 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS RESIDENTIAL NEW AND REMODELED STRUCTURES PROJECT #: Development Review No. PL2015-253 SUBJECT: To construct a new 4,333 square-foot, two-story single-family residence with an attached 748 square-foot three-car garage PROPERTY James Chin Chou (Trustee) OWNER: 1359 Bentley Court West Covina, CA 91791 APPLICANT: Creative Design Associates 17528 Rowland Street, 2nd Floor City of Industry, CA 91748 LOCATION: 1111 N. Diamond Bar Blvd., Diamond Bar, CA 91765 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION AT (909) 839-7030, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its officers, agents and employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding to attack, set-aside, void or annul, the approval of Development Review No. PL2015-253 brought within the time period provided by Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the city and/or its officers, agents and employees are made a party of any such action: (a) Applicant shall provide a defense to the City defendants or at the City's option reimburse the City its costs of defense, including reasonable attorneys fees, incurred in defense of such claims. 7.1.b Packet Pg. 36 8 DR PL2015-253 (b) Applicant shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the City defendants. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action of proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof. 2. This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant and owner of the property involved have filed, within twenty-one (21) days of approval of this Development Review No. PL2015-253, at the City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this approval. Further, this approval shall not be effective until the applicants pay remaining City processing fees, school fees and fees for the review of submitted reports. 3. All designers, architects, engineers, and contractors associated with this project shall obtain a Diamond Bar Business License; and a zoning approval for those businesses located in Diamond Bar. 4. Signed copies of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2020-XX, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 5. Prior to the plan check, revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval. 6. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all conditions of approval shall be com pleted. 7. The project site shall be maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of approval and all laws, or other applicable regulations. 8. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and any applicable Specific Plan in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 9. All site, grading, landscape/irrigation, and roof plans, and elevation plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of City permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.,) or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 10. The property owner/applicant shall remove the public hearing notice board within three days of this project's approval. 7.1.b Packet Pg. 37 9 DR PL2015-253 11. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of City Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works Department, and the Fire Department. 12. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall record, and provide the City with a conformed recorded copy of, a Covenant and Agreement or similar document in a form approved by the City Attorney, which restricts the rental of rooms or other portions of the property under two or more separate agreements and prohibits use of the property as a boarding or rooming house, except to the extent otherwise permitted by the Diamond Bar Municipal Code or applicable state or federal law. B. FEES/DEPOSITS 1. Applicant shall pay development fees (including but not limited to Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works Department and Mitigation Monitoring) at the established rates, prior to issuance of building or grading permit (whichever comes first), as required by the City. School fees as required shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permit. In addition, the applicant shall pay all remaining prorated City project review and processing fees prior to issuance of grading or building permit, whichever comes first. 2. Prior to any plan check, all deposit accounts for the processing of this project shall have no deficits. C. TIME LIMITS 1. The approval of Development Review No. PL2015-253 expires within two years from the date of approval if the use has not been exercised as def ined per Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Section 22.66.050 (b)(1). In accordance with DBMC Section 22.60.050(c), the applicant may request, in writing, a one-year time extension for Planning Commission consideration. Such a request must be submitted to the Planning Divisio n prior to the expiration date and be accompanied by the review fee in accordance with the fee schedule in effect at the time of submittal. D. SITE DEVELOPMENT 1. This approval is to construct a new 4,333 square-foot, two-story single-family residence with an attached 748 square-foot three-car garage at 1111 N. Diamond Bar Blvd., as described in the staff report and depicted on the approved plans on file with the Planning Division, subject to the conditions listed herein, and the development code regulations. 2. The construction documents submitted for plan check shall be in substantial compliance with the architectural plans approved by the Planning Commission, as modified pursuant to the conditions below. If the plan check 7.1.b Packet Pg. 38 10 DR PL2015-253 submittal is not in substantial compliance with the approved Development Review submittal, the plans may require further staff review and re-notification of the surrounding property owners, which may delay the project and entail additional fees. 3. To ensure compliance with the provisions of the Planning Commission approval, a final inspection is required from the Planning Division when work for any phase of the project has been completed. The applicant shall inform the Planning Division and schedule an appointment for such an inspection. 4. The above conditions shall run with the land and shall be binding upon all future owners, operators, or successors thereto of the property. Non - compliance with any condition of approval or mitigation measure imposed as a condition of the approval shall constitute a violation of the City’s Development Code. Violations may be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Development Code. 5. Failure to comply with any of the conditions set forth above or as subsequently amended in writing by the City, may result in failure to obtain a building final and/or a certificate of occupancy until full compliance is reached. The City’s requirement for full compliance may require minor corrections and/or complete demolition of a non-compliant improvement, regardless of costs incurred where the project does not comply with design requirements and approvals that the applicant agreed to when permits were pulled to construct the project. 6. The project site shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the approved plans submitted to, approved, and amended herein by the Planning Commission, on file with the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code regulations. 7. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, air conditioning condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berms, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 8. All roof-mounted equipment shall be screened from public view. 9. All structures, including walls, trash enclosures, canopies, etc., shall be maintained in a structurally sound, safe manner with a clean, orderly appearance. All graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours by the property owners/occupant. 10. No occupancy permit shall be granted until all improvements required by this approval have been properly constructed, inspected, and approved. 7.1.b Packet Pg. 39 11 DR PL2015-253 11. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the location, size and screening of all building utility service connections, including water, gas, and electric service, fire service, and irrigation connections shall be approved by the Community Development Director. All changes to building utility connections shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to construction. Building utility connections shall be located, sized and screened in such a manner that they have the least possible impact on the design of the building and site. The architect of record shall be directly i nvolved in the design and placement of all site and building service connections and shall sign all plans submitted to the City which located, size and/or screen utility connections. 12. Additional plant materials may be required by the Community Development Director and shall be planted proper to final occupancy in order to screen utility connections, valves, backflow devices, and all above ground appurtenances, etc., to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. This determination shall be made in the field after all screen utility connections, valves, backflow devices, and all above ground appurtenances, etc. have been installed and inspected. E. SOLID WASTE 1. The site shall be maintained in a condition, which is free of debris b oth during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement approved herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction shall be done only by the property owner, applicant or by a duly permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas within the City. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor used has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. 2. Mandatory solid waste disposal services shall be provided by the City franchised waste hauler to all parcels/lots or uses affected by approval of this project. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, (909) 839-7040, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL 1. The mailbox shall be installed on the property so that daily mail trucks must enter the driveway to deliver mail. 2. The driveway shall be kept clear to allow daily mail delivery and any other scheduled delivery to access the property and maneuver appropriately to exit the property front-end first onto Diamond Bar Blvd. 7.1.b Packet Pg. 40 12 DR PL2015-253 3. An Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted concurrently with the grading plan clearly detailing erosion control measures. These measures shall be implemented during construction. The erosion control plan shall conform to national Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards and incorporate the appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP’s) as specified in the Storm Water BMP Certification. For construction activity which disturbs one acre or greater, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be needed. 4. Pursuant to NPDES Permit (CAS004001) for MS4 Discharges within the Coastal Watershed of Los Angeles County (Order No. R4-2012-0175), a new single-family hillside home development project shall include mitigation measures to: (i) Conserve natural areas; (ii) Protect slopes and channels; (iii) Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage; (iv) Divert roof runoff to vegetated areas before discharge unless the diversion would result in slope instability; and (v) Direct surface flow to vegetated areas before discharge, unless the diversion would result in slope instability. These mitigation measures shall be shown on the grading plan and implemented during construction. 5. Grading and construction activities and the transportation of equipment and materials and operation of heavy grading equipment shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Dust generated by grading and construction activities shall be reduced by watering the soil prior to and during the activities and in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 402 and Rule 403. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. Additionally, all construction equipment shall be properly muffled to reduce noise levels. B. SOILS REPORT/GRADING/RETAINING WALLS 1. Prior to or concurrent with grading plan submittal, a geotechnical report prepared by a Geotechnical Engineer, licensed by the State of California, shall be submitted by the applicant for approval by the City. 2. The applicant shall submit grading plans prepared by a Civil Engineer, licensed by the State of California, prepared in accordance with the City’s requirements for the City’s review and approval. A list of requirements for 7.1.b Packet Pg. 41 13 DR PL2015-253 3. grading plan check is available from the Public Works Department. All grading (cut and fill) calculations shall be submitted to the City concurrently with the grading plan. 4. Finished slopes shall conform to City Code Section 22.22.080-Grading. 5. All easements and flood hazard areas shall be clearly identified on the grading plan. 6. The grading plan shall show the location of any retaining walls and the elevations of the top of wall/footing/retaining and the finished grade on both sides of the retaining wall. Construction details for retaining walls shall be shown on the grading plan. Calculations and details of retaining walls shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for review and approval. 7. All equipment staging areas shall be located on the project site. Staging area, including material stockpile and equipment storage are a, shall be enclosed within a six foot-high chain link fence. All access points in the defense shall be locked whenever the construction site is not supervised. 8. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, City Grading Ordinance, Hillside Management Ordinance and acceptable grading practices. 9. The maximum grade of driveways serving building pad areas shall be 15 percent. Driveways with a slope of 15 percent shall incorporate grooves for traction into the construction as required by the City Engineer. 10. All slopes shall be seeded per landscape plan and/or fuel modification plan with native grasses or planted with ground cover, shrubs, and trees for erosion control upon completion of grading or some other alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and a permanent irrigation system shall be installed. 11. A pre-construction meeting shall be held at the project site with the grading contractor, applicant, and city grading inspector at least 48 hours prior to commencing grading operations. 12. Rough grade certification by project soils and civil engineers and the as - graded geotechnical report shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits for the foundation of the residential structure. Retaining wall permits may be issued without a rough grade certificate. 13. Final grade certifications by project soils and civil engineers shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of any project final inspections/certificate of occupancy, respectively. 7.1.b Packet Pg. 42 14 DR PL2015-253 C. DRAINAGE 1. Detailed drainage system information of the lot with careful attention to any flood hazard area shall be submitted. All drainage/runoff from the development shall be conveyed from the site to the natural drainage course. No on-site drainage shall be conveyed to adjacent parcels, unless that is the natural drainage course. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a complete hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Los Angeles Public Works Department. D. OFF-SITE STREET IMPROVEMENTS 1. All public improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer, constructed with an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department, and completed prior to final inspection/certificate of occupancy issuance. 2. All driveway approaches shall be constructed in accordance with current American Public Works Association (APWA) standard plan 110-2 Type C. 3. All public drive approaches and sidewalks shall be constructed with a minimum of 2500 PSI concrete. 4. The applicant shall replace and record any centerline ties and monuments that are removed as part of this construction with the Los Angeles County Public Works Survey Division. 5. The applicant shall replace and record any centerline ties and monuments that are removed as part of this construction with the Los Angeles County Public Works Survey Division. E. UTILITIES 1. Easements, satisfactory to the City Engineer and the utility companies, for public utility and public service purposes shall be offered and shown on the detailed site plan for dedication to the City or affected utility company. 2. Will Serve Letters from all utilities such as, but not limited to, phone, gas, water, electric, and cable, shall be submitted to the City stating that adequate facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project. 3. Applicant shall relocate and underground any existing onsite utilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the respective utility owner. 7.1.b Packet Pg. 43 15 DR PL2015-253 4. Underground utilities shall not be constructed within the drop line of any mature tree except as approved by a registered arborist. F. SEWERS/SEPTIC TANK 1. Applicant shall obtain connection permit(s) from the City and County Sanitation District prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Applicant, at applicant’s sole cost and expense, shall construct the sewer system in accordance with the City, Los Angeles County Public Works Division. Sewer plans shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for review and approval by the City. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 839-7020, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. At the time of plan check submittal, plans and construction shall conform to current State and Local Building Code requirements and all other applicable construction codes, ordinances and regulations in effect. 2. Provisions for CAL Green shall be implemented onto plans and certification shall be provided by a third party as required by the Building Division. Specific water, waste, low VOC, and related conservation measures shall be shown on plans. Construction shall conform to the current CAL Green Code. B. PLAN CHECK – ITEMS TO BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO PLAN APPROVAL 1. The minimum design load for wind in this area is 110 M.P.H. exposures “C” and the site is within seismic zone D or E. The applicant shall submit drawings and calculations prepared by a California State licensed Architect/Engineer with wet stamp and signature. 2. This project shall comply with the energy conservation requirements of the State of California Energy Commission. All lighting shall be high efficacy or equivalent per the current California Energy Code 119 and 150(k). 3. Indoor air quality shall be provided consistent with ASHRAE 62.2 as required per California Energy Code 150(o). 4. Public Works/Engineering Department is required to review and approve grading plans that clearly show all finish elevations, drainage, and retaining wall(s) locations. These plans shall be consistent with the site plan submitted to the Building and Safety Division. 7.1.b Packet Pg. 44 16 DR PL2015-253 5. “Separate permits are required for retaining walls” and shall be noted on plans. 6. All balconies shall be designed for 60lb/ft live load. 7. All easements shall be shown on the site plan. 8. All retaining walls shall be separately submitted to the Building and Safety and Public Works/Engineering Departments for review and approval. 9. A soils report is required per CBC 1803 and all recommendations of the soils report shall be adhered to. 10. Light and ventilation shall comply with CBC 1203 and 1205. 11. A soils report is required per CBC 1803 and all recommendations of the soils report shall be adhered to. 12. Light and ventilation shall comply with CBC 1203 and 1205. 13. An occupancy separation shall be provide d between the dwelling unit and garage. 14. The wood deck shall be clarified whether it is on-grade or raised. C. PERMIT – ITEMS REQUIRED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE 1. Solid waste management of construction material shall incorporate recycling material collection per Diamond Bar Municipal Code 8.16 of Title 8. The contractor shall complete all required forms and pay applicable deposits prior to permit. 2. Prior to building permit issuance, all school district fees shall be paid. Please obtain a form from the Building and Safety Division to take directly to the school district. 3. Submit grading plans clearly showing all finish elevations, drainage, and retaining wall locations. No building permits shall be issued prior to submitting a pad certification. 4. Los Angeles County Fire Department approval is required prior to permit issuance. 5. Approval from the County Sanitation District is required for the new sewer hook-up. 7.1.b Packet Pg. 45 17 DR PL2015-253 6. SCAQMD notification is required at least 10 days prior to any demolition. Proof of notification is required at permit issuance. 7. All workers on the job shall be covered by workman’s compensation insurance under a licensed general contractor. Any changes to the contractor shall be updated on the building permit. D. CONSTRUCTION – CONDITIONS REQUIRED DURING CONSTRUCTION 1. Fire sprinklers are required for new single family dwellings (CRC R313.2). Sprinklers shall be approved by LA County Fire Department prior to installation and shall be inspected at framing stage and finalization of construction. 2. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until all California Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been met. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 3. Every permit issued by the building official under th e provisions of this Code shall expire and become null and void unless the work authorized by such permit is commenced within one-hundred-eighty (180) days after permit issuance, and if a successful inspection has not been obtained from the building official within one-hundred-eighty (180) days from the date of permit issuance or the last successful inspection. A successful inspection shall mean a documented passed inspection by the city building inspector as outlined in Section 110.6. 4. The project shall be protected by a construction fence to the satisfaction of the Building Official. All fencing shall be view obstructing with opaque surfaces. 5. All structures and property shall be maintained in a safe and clean manner during construction. The property shall be free of debris, trash, and weeds. 6. All equipment staging areas shall be maintained in an orderly manner and screened behind a minimum 6-foot high fence. 7. A height and setback survey may be required at completion of framing and foundation construction phases respectively. 8. The project shall be protected by a construction fence and shall comply with the NPDES & BMP requirements (sand bags, etc.). 9. The location of property lines and building pad may require a surety to be determined by the building inspection during foundation and/or frame inspection. 7.1.b Packet Pg. 46 18 DR PL2015-253 10. The applicant shall contact Dig Alert and have underground utility locations marked by the utility companies prior to any excavation. Contact Dig Alert by dialing 811 or their website at www.digalert.org. 11. Any changes or deviation from approved plans during the course of construction shall be approved by the City prior to proceeding with any work. 12. All glazing in hazardous locations shall be labeled as safet y glass. The labeling shall be visible for inspection. 13. Carbon monoxide detectors are required in halls leading to sleeping rooms per CRC R315. 14. Drainage patterns shall match the approved grading/drainage plan from the Public Works/Engineering Department. Surface water shall drain away from the building at a 2% minimum slope. The final as -built conditions shall match the grading/drainage plan or otherwise approved as -built grading/drainage plan. 15. Decks, roofs, and other flat surfaces shall slope at least 1/4”/ft with approved and listed water proofing material. Guardrails shall be provided for these surfaces at least 42” minimum in height, 4” maximum spacing between rails, and capable of resisting at least 20 pounds per linea l foot of lateral load. 16. Special inspections and structural observation will be required in conformance with CBC 1704 to 1709. 17. Eaves shall be at least 2 feet from the property line and shall be fully enclosed and protected/fire rated. County of Los Angeles Fire Department (909) 620-2402 – 1. Submit two sets of Architectural Drawings when ready for plan check with the following information: • Show all existing public fire hydrants on the site plan. Include the location of all public fire hydrants within 600 feet of the lot frontage on both sides of the street. Specify size of fire hydrant(s) and dimension(s) to property lines. Additional fire hydrant requirements may be necessary after this information is provided. • A minimum five-foot wide approved firefighter access walkway leading from the fire department access road to all required openings in the building’s exterior walls shall be provided for firefighting and rescue purposes. Fire Code 504.1. 7.1.b Packet Pg. 47 19 DR PL2015-253 2. The applicant is required to have the Information o f Fire Flow Availability for Building Permit (Form 195) completed by the Water Purveyor. 3. All development shall be constructed with adequate water supply and pressure for all proposed development in compliance with standards established by the fire marshal. END 7.1.b Packet Pg. 48 11801 Pierce Street, 2nd Floor, Riverside, CA 92505 | (951) 710-3212 | www.ganddini.com ORANGE COUNTY  RIVERSIDE  PALO ALTO January 3, 2020 Mr. Ken Lee, Vice President – Development PACIFIC PLAZA PREMIER DEVELOPMENT GROUP 9661 East Las Tunas Drive, Suite A Temple City, CA 91780 RE: Diamond Bar Custom Residence Traffic Access Study 19-0189 Dear Mr. Lee: INTRODUCTION Ganddini Group, Inc. is pleased to provide this traffic access study for the Diamond Bar Custom Residence project located at 1149 North Diamond Bar Boulevard in the City of Diamond Bar. The project site is located north of Diamond Bar Boulevard between State Street and Soltaire Street. The purpose of this traffic access study is to compare the trip difference between the currently proposed land use and the previously planned land use. This traffic access study also includes a sight distance analysis and a vehicular maneuvering analysis at the project entry. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is located at 1149 North Diamond Bar Boulevard in the City of Diamond. The vacant project site is currently proposed to be developed with a single-family housing dwelling unit. Figure 1 shows the project location map and Figure 2 illustrates the proposed site plan for a custom residence. Appendix C also contains a larger copy of the site plan. As shown on the site plan, the proposed configuration of the project driveway is depicted as an upside down “U” shape loop that has two curb openings to Diamond Bar Boulevard that may accommodate vehicles to enter the site from the easterly driveway and then exit the site at the westerly driveway in a continuous forward maneuver without the need for reverse movements or a 3-point turn. The project site was previously planned for a development of a 4,400 square foot office building based on the 1149 North Diamond Bar Boulevard Project Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc. (May 24, 2011). PREVIOUSLY PLANNED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION The project site was previously planned for a 4,400 square foot office building in the previously prepared 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis. Trip generation rates published in the previous Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition, 2008, were used to estimate the trip generation for the previously planned project. Appendix A includes the project trip generation table from the previously prepared 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis that depicts the previously planned project as consisting of a 4,400 square foot office building. As shown in Table 1 and Appendix A, the previously planned land use was projected to generate approximately 48 daily vehicle trips with 7 of which occurring during the morning peak hour and with 6 of which occurring during the evening peak hour. 7.1.c Packet Pg. 49 Mr. Ken Lee, Vice President – Development PACIFIC PLAZA PREMIER DEVELOPMENT GROUP January 3, 2020 Diamond Bar Custom Residence Traffic Access Study 2 19-0189 Table 1 also shows trips generated by the previously planned office land use based on the most current Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017. The previously planned office land use is projected to generate approximately 43 daily vehicle trips with 5 AM peak hour trips and with 5 PM peak hour trips, based on the current ITE 10th Edition trip generation rates. As shown in Table 1, the current ITE 10th Edition trip generation rates are lower than the previous ITE 8th Edition trip generation rates. CURRENTLY PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION The currently proposed land use consists a single-family housing dwelling unit as shown on Figure 2. Trip generation rates published in the current ITE 10th Edition are used to estimate the number of trips that are projected to be generated by the proposed project. Table 1 shows the trip generation summary for the proposed project. As shown in Table 1, the currently proposed project is projected to generate approximately 10 daily vehicle trips with 1 AM peak hour trip and with 1 PM peak hour trip. TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON Table 1 compares the trip difference between the currently proposed land use (single-family detached housing unit) and the previously planned land use (office) from the 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis based on the previous ITE 8th Edition trip generation rates. As shown in Table 1, the currently proposed land use is projected to generate fewer trips than the previously planned land use from the 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis. The currently proposed land use compared to the previously planned land use is projected to generate approximately 38 fewer daily vehicle trips with 6 fewer inbound trips during the AM peak hour and 5 fewer outbound trips during the PM peak hour. Table 1 also compares the trip difference between the currently proposed land use (single-family detached housing unit) and the previously planned land use (office) using the latest ITE 10th Edition trip generation rates. As shown in Table 1, the currently proposed land use is projected to generate fewer trips than the previously planned land use based on the current ITE 10th Edition trip generation rates. The currently proposed land use compared to the previously planned land use is projected to generate approximately 33 fewer daily vehicle trips with 4 fewer inbound trips during the AM peak hour and 4 fewer outbound trips during the PM peak hour. The conclusion within the previously prepared 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis states that the project has no significant traffic impacts to the surrounding intersections on Diamond Bar Boulevard at Soltaire Street and Highland Valley Road. All the analysis intersections including the proposed project driveway on Diamond Bar Boulevard were projected to operate at Level of Service C or better during the peak hours. Since the currently proposed land use will generate fewer trips than the previously planned land use from the 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis, no significant impacts are anticipated. DRIVEWAY SIGHT DISTANCE ANALYSIS As shown on the site plan, the proposed configuration of the project driveway is depicted as an upside down “U” shape loop that has two curb openings to Diamond Bar Boulevard that may accommodate vehicles to enter the site from the easterly driveway and then exit the site at the westerly driveway in a continuous forward maneuver without the need for reverse movements or a 3-point turn. Both project driveways exit onto Diamond Bar Boulevard where it has a roadway downgrade of approximately between 3% and 6% in the direction of travel. Based on the Highway Design Manual, the minimum corner sight distance standard is 550 feet for a driveway on a roadway with a design speed of 50 mile per hour (mph). Based on the American 7.1.c Packet Pg. 50 Mr. Ken Lee, Vice President – Development PACIFIC PLAZA PREMIER DEVELOPMENT GROUP January 3, 2020 Diamond Bar Custom Residence Traffic Access Study 3 19-0189 Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (AASHTO Green Book, 6th Edition, 2011), the stopping sight distance is 474 feet on a 50 mph roadway with a 6% downgrade (AASHOTO Table 3-2). Appendix B includes the Highway Design Manual and AASHTO sight distance standards. Figure 3 shows the sight distance analysis for the easterly project driveway at Diamond Bar Boulevard. As shown on Figure 3, the project driveway has adequate sight distances when the yellow highlighted triangular areas are clear of visual obstructions that are more than 2 feet tall. Figure 4 shows the line of sight restricted use area. VEHICULAR MANEUVERING ANALYSIS The proposed configuration of the project driveway is depicted as an upside down “U” shape loop that has two curb openings to Diamond Bar Boulevard that may accommodate vehicles to enter the site from the easterly driveway and then exit the site at the westerly driveway in a continuous forward maneuver without the need for reverse movements or a 3-point turn. The vehicular maneuvering analysis is performed at the project driveways on Diamond Bar Boulevard using vehicular turning templates for a passenger car and a waste management full-size pickup truck. It is our understanding that the City of Diamond Bar requires the waste management truck to enter the site to pick up the waste rather than stopping on Diamond Bar Boulevard to pick-up the waste on the curb side. The waste management has indicated to the applicant that services could be provided to the project site with a special “valet service” plan that uses a full-size pickup truck similar in size to a typical full-size passenger car. Figure 5 and Figure 6 show the inbound and outbound passenger car/waste management full-size pickup truck turning template at the project driveway, and the currently proposed driveway design is adequate for the maneuvering movements of a passenger car or a waste management full-size pickup truck. The proposed driveway configuration can accommodate vehicles to enter the site from the easterly driveway and then exit the site at the westerly driveway in a continuous forward maneuver. Figure 7 shows the inbound and outbound vehicular turning template at the project driveway for a FedEx and UPS standard parcel delivery van/truck. As shown in Figure 7, the currently proposed driveway design is also adequate for the maneuvering movements of a standard parcel delivery van/truck. CONCLUSION The currently proposed land use is projected to generate fewer trips than the previously planned land use from the 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis. The currently proposed land use compared to the previously planned land use is projected to generate approximately 38 fewer daily vehicle trips with 6 fewer inbound trips during the AM peak hour and 5 fewer outbound trips during the PM peak hour. The currently proposed land use is projected to generate fewer trips than the previously planned office land use using the latest ITE 10th Edition trip generation rates. The currently proposed land use compared to the previously planned office land use is projected to generate approximately 33 fewer daily vehicle trips with 4 fewer inbound trips during the AM peak hour and 4 fewer outbound trips during the PM peak hour. The conclusion within the previously prepared 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis states that the project has no significant traffic impacts to the surrounding intersections on Diamond Bar Boulevard at Soltaire Street and Highland Valley Road. All the analysis intersections including the proposed project driveway on Diamond Bar Boulevard were projected to operate at Level of Service C or better during the peak hours. Since the currently proposed land use will generate fewer trips than the previously planned land use from the 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis, no significant impacts are anticipated. 7.1.c Packet Pg. 51 Mr. Ken Lee, Vice President – Development PACIFIC PLAZA PREMIER DEVELOPMENT GROUP January 3, 2020 Diamond Bar Custom Residence Traffic Access Study 4 19-0189 As shown on Figure 3, the project driveway has adequate sight distances when the yellow highlighted triangular areas are clear of visual obstructions that are more than 2 feet tall. Figure 4 shows the line of sight restricted use area. The currently proposed driveway design is adequate for the maneuvering movements of a passenger car or a waste management full-size pickup truck. The waste management has indicated to the applicant that services could be provided to the project site with a special “valet service” plan that uses a full-size pickup truck similar in size to a typical full-size passenger car. The proposed driveway configuration can accommodate vehicles to enter the site from the easterly driveway and then exit the site at the westerly driveway in a continuous forward maneuver. The currently proposed driveway design is also adequate for the maneuvering movements of a FedEx and UPS standard parcel delivery van/truck. It has been a pleasure to service your needs on the Diamond Bar Custom Residence project at 1149 North Diamond Bar Boulevard. Should you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call at (714) 795-3100. Sincerely, GANDDINI GROUP, INC. Tom Huang, TE Senior Traffic Engineer 7.1.c Packet Pg. 52 No.Land Use Code¹ Units² In% Out% Total In% Out% Total 1 Single-Family Detached Housing (ITE 10th Edition) ITE 210 DU 25% 75% 0.750 63% 37% 1.000 9.52 2 General Office Building (ITE 8th Edition) ITE 710 TSF 88% 12% 1.550 17% 83% 1.490 11.01 3 General Office Building (ITE 10th Edition) ITE 710 TSF 86% 14% 1.160 16% 84% 1.150 9.74 No.Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Previously Planned Land Use³ 2 General Office Building (ITE 8th Edition) 4.400 TSF 6 1 7 1 5 6 48 Proposed Land Use 1 Single-Family Detached Housing (ITE 10th Edition) 1 DU 0 1 1 1 0 1 10 -6 - -6 - -5 -5 -38 Previously Planned Land Use³ 3 General Office Building (ITE 10th Edition) 4.400 TSF 4 1 5 1 4 5 43 Proposed Land Use 1 Single-Family Detached Housing (ITE 10th Edition) 1 DU 0 1 1 1 0 1 10 -4 - -4 - -4 -4 -33 (1) (2) (3) Previously prepared traffic study: 1149 North Diamond Bar Boulevard Project Traffic Impact Analysis, Kunzman Associates, Inc. (May 24, 2011). Trip Difference Comparing to the 2011 Traffic Study Trip Difference Comparing to the Latest ITE Trip Rates ITE = Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017; XXX = Land Use Code DU = Dwelling Units; TSF = Thousand Square Feet Quantity² Project Notes: AM Peak PM Peak Daily Trips Generated Project Table 1 Project Trip Generation Trip Generation Rates AM Peak PM Peak Daily Diamond Bar Custom Residence Traffic Access Study 19-01895 7.1.c Packet Pg. 53 6 7.1.c Packet Pg. 54 77.1.cPacket Pg. 55 87.1.cPacket Pg. 56 97.1.cPacket Pg. 57 107.1.cPacket Pg. 58 117.1.cPacket Pg. 59 127.1.cPacket Pg. 60 APPENDIX A TRIP GENERATION TABLE FROM THE PREVIOUSLY PREPARED 2011 TRAFFIC STUDY Apx - 1 7.1.c Packet Pg. 61 Land Use Quantity Units2 Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Daily Trip Generation Rates Office 4.4 TSF 1.36 0.19 1.55 0.25 1.24 1.49 11.01 Trips Generated Office 4.4 TSF 6 1 7 1 5 6 48 1 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 8th Edition, 2008, Land Use Category 710. 2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet Table 2 Project Traffic Generation 1 Peak Hour Morning Evening 18 Apx - 2 7.1.c Packet Pg. 62 APPENDIX B SIGHT DISTANCE STANDARDS Apx - 3 7.1.c Packet Pg. 63 3-1 3.1 INTRODUCTION The alignment of a highway or street produces a great impact on the environment, the fabric of the community, and the highway user. The alignment consists of a variety of design elements that combine to create a facility that serves traffi c safely and effi ciently, consistent with the facility’s intended function. Each alignment element should complement others to achieve a consistent, safe, and effi cient design. The design of highways and streets within particular functional classes is treated separately in later chapters. Common to all classes of highways and streets are several principal elements of design. These include sight distance, superelevation, traveled way widening, grades, horizontal and vertical alignments, and other elements of geometric design. These alignment elements are discussed in this chapter, and, as appropriate, in the later chapters pertaining to specifi c highway functional classes. 3.2 SIGHT DISTANCE 3.2.1 General Considera ons A driver’s ability to see ahead is needed for safe and effi cient operation of a vehicle on a high- way. For example, on a railroad, trains are confi ned to a fi xed path, yet a block signal system and trained operators are needed for safe operation. In contrast, the path and speed of motor vehicles on highways and streets are subject to the control of drivers whose ability, training, and experi- ence are quite varied. The designer should provide sight distance of suffi cient length that drivers can control the operation of their vehicles to avoid striking an unexpected object in the traveled way. Certain two-lane highways should also have suffi cient sight distance to enable drivers to use the opposing traffi c lane for passing other vehicles without interfering with oncoming ve- hicles. Two-lane rural highways should generally provide such passing sight distance at frequent intervals and for substantial portions of their length. On the other hand, it is normally of little practical value to provide passing sight distance on two-lane urban streets or arterials. The pro- portion of a highway’s length with suffi cient sight distance to pass another vehicle and interval between passing opportunities should be compatible with the intended function of the highway 3 Elements of Design © 2011 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Apx - 4 7.1.c Packet Pg. 64 3-2 A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets and the desired level of service. Design criteria and guidance applicable to specifi c functional classifi ca- tions of highways and streets are presented in Chapters 5 through 8. Four aspects of sight distance are discussed below: (1) the sight distances needed for stopping, which are applicable on all highways; (2) the sight distances needed for the passing of overtaken vehicles, applicable only on two-lane highways; (3) the sight distances needed for decisions at complex locations; and (4) the criteria for measuring these sight distances for use in design. The design of alignment and profi le to pro- vide sight distances and to satisfy the applicable design criteria are described later in this chapter. The special conditions related to sight distances at intersections are discussed in Section 9.5. 3.2.2 Stopping Sight Distance Sight distance is the length of the roadway ahead that is visible to the driver. The available sight distance on a roadway should be suffi ciently long to enable a vehicle traveling at or near the design speed to stop before reaching a stationary object in its path. Although greater lengths of visible roadway are desirable, the sight distance at every point along a roadway should be at least that needed for a below-average driver or vehicle to stop. Stopping sight distance is the sum of two distances: (1) the distance traversed by the vehicle from the instant the driver sights an object necessitating a stop to the instant the brakes are applied, and (2) the dis- tance needed to stop the vehicle from the instant brake application begins. These are referred to as brake reaction distance and braking distance, respectively. Brake Reac on Time Brake reaction time is the interval from the instant that the driver recognizes the existence of an obstacle on the roadway ahead that necessitates braking until the instant that the driver actually applies the brakes. Under certain conditions, such as emergency situations denoted by fl ares or fl ashing lights, drivers ac- complish these tasks almost instantly. Under most other conditions, the driver needs not only to see the object but also to recognize it as a stationary or slowly moving object against the background of the roadway and other objects, such as walls, fences, trees, poles, or bridges. Such determinations take time, and the amount of time needed varies considerably with the distance to the object, the visual acuity of the driver, the natural rapidity with which the driver reacts, the atmospheric visibility, the type and the condition of the roadway, and nature of the obstacle. Vehicle speed and roadway environment probably also infl uence reaction time. Normally, a driver traveling at or near the design speed is more alert than one traveling at a lesser speed. A driver on an urban street confronted by innumerable potential confl icts with parked vehicles, driveways, and cross streets is also likely to be more alert than the same driver on a limited-access facility where such conditions should be almost nonexistent. The study of reaction times by Johansson and Rumar (39) referred to in Section 2.2.6 was based on data from 321 drivers who expected to apply their brakes. The median reaction-time value for these drivers was 0.66 s, with 10 percent using 1.5 s or longer. These fi ndings correlate with those of earlier studies in which alerted drivers were also evaluated. Another study (44) found 0.64 s as the average reaction time, while 5 percent of the drivers needed over 1 s. In a third study (48), the values of brake reaction time ranged from 0.4 to 1.7 s. In the Johansson and Rumar study (39), when the event that prompted application of the brakes was unexpected, the drivers’ response times were found to increase by approximately 1 s or more; some reaction times were greater than 1.5 s. This increase in reaction time substantiated earlier © 2011 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Apx - 5 7.1.c Packet Pg. 65 Chapter 3Elements of Design 3-3 laboratory and road tests in which the conclusion was drawn that a driver who needed 0.2 to 0.3 s of reac- tion time under alerted conditions would need 1.5 s of reaction time under normal conditions. Minimum brake reaction times for drivers could thus be at least 1.64 s, 0.64 s for alerted drivers plus 1 s for the unexpected event. Because the studies discussed above used simple prearranged signals, they represent the least complex of roadway conditions. Even under these simple conditions, it was found that some drivers took over 3.5 s to respond. Because actual conditions on the highway are generally more complex than those of the studies, and because there is wide variation in driver reaction times, it is evident that the criterion adopted for use should be greater than 1.64 s. The brake reaction time used in design should be long enough to include the reaction times needed by nearly all drivers under most highway conditions. Both recent research (17 ) and the studies documented in the literature (39,44,48) show that a 2.5-s brake reaction time for stopping sight situations encompasses the capabilities of most drivers, in- cluding those of older drivers. The recommended design criterion of 2.5 s for brake reaction time exceeds the 90th percentile of reaction time for all drivers and was used in the development of Table 3-1. A brake reaction time of 2.5 s is considered adequate for conditions that are more complex than the simple conditions used in laboratory and road tests, but it is not adequate for the most complex conditions encountered in actual driving. The need for greater reaction time in the most complex conditions encoun- tered on the roadway, such as those found at multiphase at-grade intersections and at ramp terminals on through roadways, can be found in Section 3.2.3 on “Decision Sight Distance.” Braking Distance The approximate braking distance of a vehicle on a level roadway traveling at the design speed of the roadway may be determined from the following equation: Metric U.S. Customary (3-1) where: dB = braking distance, m V = design speed, km/h a = deceleration rate, m/s2 where: dB = braking distance, ft V = design speed, mph a = deceleration rate, ft/s2 Studies documented in the literature (17 ) show that most drivers decelerate at a rate greater than 4.5 m/s2 [14.8 ft/s2] when confronted with the need to stop for an unexpected object in the roadway. Approximately 90 percent of all drivers decelerate at rates greater than 3.4 m/s2 [11.2 ft/s2]. Such decelerations are within the driver’s capability to stay within his or her lane and maintain steering control during the braking maneuver on wet surfaces. Therefore, 3.4 m/s2 [11.2 ft/s2] (a comfortable deceleration for most drivers) is recommended as the deceleration threshold for determining stopping sight distance. Implicit in the choice of this deceleration threshold is the assessment that most vehicle braking systems and the tire-pavement friction levels of most roadways are capable of providing a deceleration rate of at least 3.4 m/s2 [11.2 ft/s2]. The friction available on most wet pavement surfaces and the capabilities of most vehicle braking systems can provide braking friction that exceeds this deceleration rate. © 2011 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Apx - 6 7.1.c Packet Pg. 66 3-4 A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets Table 3-1. Stopping Sight Distance on Level Roadways Metric U.S. Customary Design Speed (km/h) Brake Reac on Distance (m) Braking Distance on Level (m) Stopping Sight Distance Design Speed (mph) Brake Reac on Distance ( ) Braking Distance on Level ( ) Stopping Sight Distance Calculat- ed (m) Design (m) Calculat- ed ( ) Design ( ) 20 13.9 4.6 18.5 20 15 55.1 21.6 76.7 80 30 20.9 10.3 31.2 35 20 73.5 38.4 111.9 115 40 27.8 18.4 46.2 50 25 91.9 60.0 151.9 155 50 34.8 28.7 63.5 65 30 110.3 86.4 196.7 200 60 41.7 41.3 83.0 85 35 128.6 117.6 246.2 250 70 48.7 56.2 104.9 105 40 147.0 153.6 300.6 305 80 55.6 73.4 129.0 130 45 165.4 194.4 359.8 360 90 62.6 92.9 155.5 160 50 183.8 240.0 423.8 425 100 69.5 114.7 184.2 185 55 202.1 290.3 492.4 495 110 76.5 138.8 215.3 220 60 220.5 345.5 566.0 570 120 83.4 165.2 248.6 250 65 238.9 405.5 644.4 645 130 90.4 193.8 284.2 285 70 257.3 470.3 727.6 730 75 275.6 539.9 815.5 820 80 294.0 614.3 908.3 910 Note: Brake reac on distance predicated on a me of 2.5 s; decelera on rate of 3.4 m/s2 [11.2 /s2] used to determine calculated sight distance. Design Values The stopping sight distance is the sum of the distance traversed during the brake reaction time and the distance to brake the vehicle to a stop. The computed distances for various speeds at the assumed condi- tions on level roadways are shown in Table 3-1 and were developed from the following equation: Metric U.S. Customary (3-2) where: SSD = stopping sight distance, m V = design speed, km/h t = brake reaction time, 2.5 s a = deceleration rate, m/s2 where: SSD = stopping sight distance, ft V = design speed, mph t = brake reaction time, 2.5 s a = deceleration rate, ft/s2 Stopping sight distances exceeding those shown in Table 3-1 should be used as the basis for design wher- ever practical. Use of longer stopping sight distances increases the margin for error for all drivers and, in particular, for those who operate at or near the design speed during wet pavement conditions. New pave- ments should have initially, and should retain, friction coeffi cients consistent with the deceleration rates used to develop Table 3-1. © 2011 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Apx - 7 7.1.c Packet Pg. 67 Chapter 3Elements of Design 3-5 E ect of Grade on Stopping When a highway is on a grade, Equation 3-1 for braking distance is modifi ed as follows: Metric U.S. Customary (3-3) where: dB = braking distance on grade, m V = design speed, km/h a = deceleration, m/s2 G = grade, rise/run, m/m where: dB = braking distance on grade, ft V = design speed, mph a = deceleration, ft/s2 G = grade, rise/run, ft/ft In this equation, G is the rise in elevation divided by the distance of the run and the percent of grade di- vided by 100, and the other terms are as previously stated. The stopping distances needed on upgrades are shorter than on level roadways; those on downgrades are longer. The stopping sight distances for various grades shown in Table 3-2 are the values determined by using Equation 3-3 in place of the second term in Equation 3-2. These adjusted sight distance values are computed for wet-pavement conditions using the same design speeds and brake reaction times used for level roadways in Table 3-1. Table 3-2. Stopping Sight Distance on Grades Metric U.S. Customary Design Speed (km/h) Stopping Sight Distance (m)Design Speed (mph) Stopping Sight Distance ( ) Downgrades Upgrades Downgrades Upgrades 3 % 6 % 9 % 3 % 6 % 9 %3 % 6 % 9 % 3 % 6 % 9 % 20 20 20 20 19 18 18 15 80 82 85 75 74 73 30 32 35 35 31 30 29 20 116 120 126 109 107 104 40 50 50 53 45 44 43 25 158 165 173 147 143 140 50 66 70 74 61 59 58 30 205 215 227 200 184 179 60 87 92 97 80 77 75 35 257 271 287 237 229 222 70 110 116 124 100 97 93 40 315 333 354 289 278 269 80 136 144 154 123 118 114 45 378 400 427 344 331 320 90 164 174 187 148 141 136 50 446 474 507 405 388 375 100 194 207 223 174 167 160 55 520 553 593 469 450 433 110 227 243 262 203 194 186 60 598 638 686 538 515 495 120 263 281 304 234 223 214 65 682 728 785 612 584 561 130 302 323 350 267 254 243 70 771 825 891 690 658 631 75 866 927 1003 772 736 704 80 965 1035 1121 859 817 782 © 2011 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Apx - 8 7.1.c Packet Pg. 68 CHAPTER 200 GEOMETRIC DESIGN AND STRUCTURE STANDARDS Topic 201 - Sight Distance Index 201.1 - General Sight distance is the continuous length of highway ahead, visible to the highway user. Four types of sight distance are considered herein: passing, stopping, decision, and corner. Passing sight distance is used where use of an opposing lane can provide passing opportunities (see Index 201.2). Stopping sight distance is the minimum sight distance for a given design speed to be provided on multilane highways and on 2-lane roads when passing sight distance is not economically obtainable. Stopping sight distance also is to be provided for all users, including motorists and bicyclists, at all elements of interchanges and intersections at grade, including private road connections (see Topic 504, Index 405.1, & Figure 405.7). Decision sight distance is used at major decision points (see Indexes 201.7 and 504.2). Corner sight distance is used at intersections (see Index 405.1, Figure 405.7, and Figure 504.3I). Table 201.1 shows the minimum standards for stopping sight distance related to design speed for motorists. Stopping sight distances given in the table are suitable for Class II and Class III bikeways. The stopping sight distances are also applicable to roundabout design on the approach roadway, within the circulatory roadway, and on the exits prior to the pedestrian crossings. Also shown in Table 201.1 are the values for use in providing passing sight distance. See Chapter 1000 for Class I bikeway sight distance guidance. Chapter 3 of "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets," AASHTO, contains a thorough discussion of the derivation of stopping sight distance. 201.2 Passing Sight Distance Passing sight distance is the minimum sight distance required for the driver of one vehicle to pass another vehicle safely and comfortably. Passing must be accomplished assuming an oncoming vehicle comes into view and maintains the design speed, without reduction, after the overtaking maneuver is started. Table 201.1 Sight Distance Standards Design Speed(1) (mph) Stopping(2) (ft) Passing (ft) 10 50 --- 15 100 --- 20 125 800 25 150 950 30 200 1,100 35 250 1,300 40 300 1,500 45 360 1,650 50 430 1,800 55 500 1,950 60 580 2,100 65 660 2,300 70 750 2,500 75 840 2,600 80 930 2,700 (1) See Topic 101 for selection of design speed. (2) For sustained downgrades, refer to advisory standard in Index 201.3 The sight distance available for passing at any place is the longest distance at which a driver whose eyes are 3 ½ feet above the pavement surface can see the top of an object 4 ¼ feet high on the road. See Table 201.1 for the calculated values that are associated with various design speeds. In general, 2-lane highways should be designed to provide for passing where possible, especially those routes with high volumes of trucks or recreational vehicles. Passing should be done on tangent horizontal alignments with constant grades or a slight sag vertical curve. Not only are drivers reluctant to pass on a long crest vertical curve, but it is impracticable to design crest vertical curves to provide for passing sight distance because of high cost where crest cuts are involved. Passing sight Apx - 9 7.1.c Packet Pg. 69 distance for crest vertical curves is 7 to 17 times longer than the stopping sight distance. Ordinarily, passing sight distance is provided at locations where combinations of alignment and profile do not require the use of crest vertical curves. Passing sight distance is considered only on 2-lane roads. At critical locations, a stretch of 3- or 4-lane passing section with stopping sight distance is sometimes more economical than two lanes with passing sight distance. Passing on sag vertical curves can be accomplished both day and night because headlights can be seen through the entire curve. See Part 3 of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (California MUTCD) for criteria relating to the placement of barrier striping for no-passing zones. Note, that the passing sight distances shown in the California MUTCD are based on traffic operational criteria. Traffic operational criteria are different from the design characteristics used to develop the values provided in Table 201.1 and Chapter 3 of AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. The aforementioned table and AASHTO reference are also used to design the vertical profile and horizontal alignment of the highway. Consult the Headquarters (HQ) Traffic Liaison when using the California MUTCD criteria for traffic operating-control needs. Other means for providing passing opportunities, such as climbing lanes or turnouts, are discussed in Index 204.5. Chapter 3 of AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, contains a thorough discussion of the derivation of passing sight distance. 201.3 Stopping Sight Distance The minimum stopping sight distance is the distance required by the user, traveling at a given speed, to bring the vehicle or bicycle to a stop after an object ½-foot high on the road becomes visible. Stopping sight distance for motorists is measured from the driver's eyes, which are assumed to be 3 ½ feet above the pavement surface, to an object ½- foot high on the road. See Index 1003.1(10) for Class I bikeway stopping sight distance guidance. The stopping sight distances in Table 201.1 should be increased by 20 percent on sustained downgrades steeper than 3 percent and longer than one mile. 201.4 Stopping Sight Distance at Grade Crests Figure 201.4 shows graphically the relationships between length of highway crest vertical curve, design speed, and algebraic difference in grades. Any one factor can be determined when the other two are known. 201.5 Stopping Sight Distance at Grade Sags From the curves in Figure 201.5, the minimum length of vertical curve which provides headlight sight distance in grade sags for a given design speed can be obtained. If headlight sight distance is not obtainable at grade sags, lighting may be considered. The District approval authority or Project Delivery Coordinator, depending upon the current District Design Delegation Agreement, and the HQ Traffic Liaison shall be contacted to review proposed grade sag lighting to determine if such use is appropriate. 201.6 Stopping Sight Distance on Horizontal Curves Where an object off the pavement such as a bridge pier, building, cut slope, or natural growth restricts sight distance, the minimum radius of curvature is determined by the stopping sight distance. Available stopping sight distance on horizontal curves is obtained from Figure 201.6. It is assumed that the driver's eye is 3 ½ feet above the center of the inside lane (inside with respect to curve) and the object is ½-foot high. The line of sight is assumed to intercept the view obstruction at the midpoint of the sight line and 2 feet above the center of the inside lane when the road profile is flat (i.e. no vertical curve). Crest vertical curves can cause additional reductions in sight distance. The clear distance (m) is measured from the center of the inside lane to the obstruction. The design objective is to determine the required clear distance from centerline of inside lane to a retaining wall, bridge pier, abutment, cut slope, or other obstruction for a given design speed. Using Apx - 10 7.1.c Packet Pg. 70 radius of curvature and minimum sight distance for that design speed, Figure 201.6 gives the clear distance (m) from centerline of inside lane to the obstruction. See Index 1003.1(12) for bikeway stopping sight distance on horizontal curve guidance. When the radius of curvature and the clear distance to a fixed obstruction are known, Figure 201.6 also gives the sight distance for these conditions. See Index 101.1 for technical reductions in design speed caused by partial or momentary horizontal sight distance restrictions. See Index 203.2 for additional comments on glare screens. Cuts may be widened where vegetation restricting horizontal sight distance is expected to grow on finished slopes. Widening is an economic trade-off that must be evaluated along with other options. See Index 902.2 for sight distance requirements on landscape projects. 201.7 Decision Sight Distance At certain locations, sight distance greater than stopping sight distance is desirable to allow drivers time for decisions without making last minute erratic maneuvers (see Chapter III of AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, for a thorough discussion of the derivation of decision sight distance.) On freeways and expressways the decision sight distance values in Table 201.7 should be used at lane drops and at off-ramp noses to interchanges, branch connections, roadside rests, vista points, and inspection stations. When determining decision sight distance on horizontal and vertical curves, Figures 201.4, 201.5, and 201.6 can be used. Figure 201.7 is an expanded version of Figure 201.4 and gives the relationship among length of crest vertical curve, design speed, and algebraic difference in grades for much longer vertical curves than Figure 201.4. Decision sight distance is measured using the 3 ½-foot eye height and ½-foot object height. See Index 504.2 for sight distance at secondary exits on a collector-distributor road. Table 201.7 Decision Sight Distance Design Speed (mph) Decision Sight Distance (ft) 30 450 35 525 40 600 45 675 50 750 55 865 60 990 65 1,050 70 1,105 75 1,180 80 1,260 Topic 202 - Superelevation 202.1 Basic Criteria When a vehicle moves in a circular path, it undergoes a centripetal acceleration that acts toward the center of curvature. This force is countered by the perceived centrifugal force experienced by the motorist. On a superelevated highway, this force is resisted by the vehicle weight component parallel to the superelevated surface and by the side friction developed between the tires and pavement. It is impractical to balance centrifugal force by superelevation alone, because for any given curve radius a certain superelevation rate is exactly correct for only one driving speed. At all other speeds there will be a side thrust either outward or inward, relative to the curve center, which must be offset by side friction. If the vehicle is not skidding, these forces are in equilibrium as represented by the following simplified curve equation, which is used to design a curve for a comfortable operation at a particular speed: Apx - 11 7.1.c Packet Pg. 71 (4) Trailer Track – Semitrailer axle width, measured from outside face of tires. (5) Lock To Lock Time - The time in seconds that an average driver would take under normal driving conditions to turn the steering wheel of a vehicle from the lock position on one side to the lock position on the other side. The default in AutoTurn software is 6 seconds. (6) Steering Lock Angle - The maximum angle that the steering wheels can be turned. It is further defined as the average of the maximum angles made by the left and right steering wheels with the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. (7) Articulating Angle - The maximum angle between the tractor and semitrailer. Topic 405 - Intersection Design Standards 405.1 Sight Distance (1) Stopping Sight Distance. See Index 201.1 for minimum stopping sight distance requirements. (2) Corner Sight Distance. (a) General--At unsignalized intersections a substantially clear line of sight should be maintained between the driver of a vehicle, bicyclist or pedestrian waiting at the crossroad and the driver of an approaching vehicle. Line of sight for all users should be included in right of way, in order to preserve sight lines. Adequate time must be provided for the waiting user to either cross all lanes of through traffic, cross the near lanes and turn left, or turn right, without requiring through traffic to radically alter their speed. The values given in Table 405.1A provide 7-1/2 seconds for the driver on the crossroad to complete the necessary maneuver while the approaching vehicle travels at the assumed design speed of the main highway. The 7-1/2 second criterion is normally applied to all lanes of through traffic in order to cover all possible maneuvers by the vehicle at the crossroad. However, by providing the standard corner sight distance to the lane nearest to and farthest from the waiting vehicle, adequate time should be obtained to make the necessary movement. On multilane highways a 7-1/2 second criterion for the outside lane, in both directions of travel, normally will provide increased sight distance to the inside lanes. Consideration should be given to increasing these values on downgrades steeper than 3 percent and longer than 1 mile (see Index 201.3), where there are high truck volumes on the crossroad, or where the skew of the intersection substantially increases the distance traveled by the crossing vehicle. In determining corner sight distance, a set back distance for the vehicle waiting at the crossroad must be assumed. Set back for the driver of the vehicle on the crossroad shall be a minimum of 10 feet plus the shoulder width of the major road but not less than 15 feet. Line of sight for corner sight distance is to be determined from a 3 and 1/2-foot height at the location of the driver of the vehicle on the minor road to a 4 and 1/4-foot object height in the center of the approaching lane of the major road as illustrated in Figure 504.3I. If the major road has a median barrier, a 2-foot object height should be used to determine the median barrier set back. In some cases the cost to obtain 7-1/2 seconds of corner sight distances may be excessive. High costs may be attributable to right of way acquisition, building removal, extensive excavation, or immitigable environmental impacts. In such cases a lesser value of corner sight distance, as described under the following headings, may be used. (b) Public Road Intersections (Refer to Topic 205)--At unsignalized public road intersections (see Index 405.7) corner sight distance values given in Table 405.1A should be provided. Apx - 12 7.1.c Packet Pg. 72 At signalized intersections the values for corner sight distances given in Table 405.1A should also be applied whenever possible. Even though traffic flows are designed to move at separate times, unanticipated conflicts can occur due to violation of signal, right turns on red, malfunction of the signal, or use of flashing red/yellow mode. Table 405.1A Corner Sight Distance (7-1/2 Second Criteria) Design Speed (mph) Corner Sight Distance (ft) 25 275 30 330 35 385 40 440 45 495 50 550 55 605 60 660 65 715 70 770 Where restrictive conditions exist, similar to those listed in Index 405.1(2)(a), the minimum value for corner sight distance at both signalized and unsignalized intersections shall be equal to the stopping sight distance as given in Table 201.1, measured as previously described. (c) Private Road Intersections (Refer to Index 205.2) and Rural Driveways (Refer to Index 205.4)--The minimum corner sight distance shall be equal to the stopping sight distance as given in Table 201.1, measured as previously described. (d) Urban Driveways (Refer to Index 205.3)-- Corner sight distance requirements as described above are not applied to urban driveways. (3) Decision Sight Distance. At intersections where the State route turns or crosses another State route, the decision sight distance values given in Table 201.7 should be used. In computing and measuring decision sight distance, the 3.5-foot eye height and the 0.5-foot object height should be used, the object being located on the side of the intersection nearest the approaching driver. The application of the various sight distance requirements for the different types of intersections is summarized in Table 405.1B. Table 405.1B Application of Sight Distance Requirements Intersection Sight Distance Types Stopping Corner Decision Private Roads X X(1) Public Streets and Roads X X Signalized Intersections X (2) State Route Inter- sections & Route Direction Changes, with or without Signals X X X NOTES: (1) Per Index 405.1(2)(c), the minimum corner sight distance shall be equal to the stopping sight distance as given in Table 201.1. See Index 405.1(2)(a) for setback requirements. (2) Apply corner sight distance requirements at signalized intersections whenever possible due to unanticipated violations of the signals or malfunctions of the signals. See Index 405.1(2)(b). (4) Acceleration Lanes for Turning Moves onto State Highways. At rural intersections, with “STOP” control on the local cross road, acceleration lanes for left and right turns onto the State facility should be considered. At a minimum, the following features should be evaluated for both the major highway and the cross road: • divided versus undivided Apx - 13 7.1.c Packet Pg. 73 • number of lanes • design speed • gradient • lane, shoulder and median width • traffic volume and composition of highway users, including trucks and transit vehicles • turning volumes • horizontal curve radii • sight distance • proximity of adjacent intersections • types of adjacent intersections For additional information and guidance, refer to AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, the Headquarters Traffic Liaison, the District Design Liaison, and the Project Delivery Coordinator. 405.2 Left-turn Channelization (1) General. The purpose of a left-turn lane is to expedite the movement of through traffic by, controlling the movement of turning traffic, increasing the capacity of the intersection, and improving safety characteristics. The District Traffic Branch normally establishes the need for left-turn lanes. (2) Design Elements. (a) Lane Width – The lane width for both single and double left-turn lanes on State highways shall be 12 feet. For conventional State highways with posted speeds less than or equal to 40 miles per hour and AADTT (truck volume) less than 250 per lane that are in urban, city or town centers (rural main streets), the minimum lane width shall be 11 feet. When considering lane width reductions adjacent to curbed medians, refer to Index 303.5 for guidance on effective roadway width, which may vary depending on drivers’ lateral positioning and shy distance from raised curbs. (b) Approach Taper -- On conventional highways without a median, an approach taper provides space for a left-turn lane by moving traffic laterally to the right. The approach taper is unnecessary where a median is available for the full width of the left-turn lane. Length of the approach taper is given by the formula on Figures 405.2A, B and C. Figure 405.2A shows a standard left-turn channelization design in which all widening is to the right of approaching traffic and the deceleration lane (see below) begins at the end of the approach taper. This design should be used in all situations where space is available, usually in rural and semi-rural areas or in urban areas with high traffic speeds and/or volumes. Figures 405.2B and 405.2C show alternate designs foreshortened with the deceleration lane beginning at the 2/3 point of the approach taper so that part of the deceleration takes place in the through traffic lane. Figure 405.2C is shortened further by widening half (or other appropriate fraction) on each side. These designs may be used in urban areas where constraints exist, speeds are moderate and traffic volumes are relatively low. (c) Bay Taper -- A reversing curve along the left edge of the traveled way directs traffic into the left-turn lane. The length of this bay taper should be short to clearly delin- eate the left-turn move and to discourage through traffic from drifting into the left- turn lane. Table 405.2A gives offset data for design of bay tapers. In urban areas, lengths of 60 feet and 90 feet are normally used. Where space is restricted and speeds are low, a 60-foot bay taper is appropriate. On rural high-speed highways, a 120-foot length is considered appropriate. (d) Deceleration Lane Length -- Design speed of the roadway approaching the intersection should be the basis for determining deceleration lane length. It is desirable that deceleration take place entirely off the through traffic lanes. Apx - 14 7.1.c Packet Pg. 74 APPENDIX C SITE PLAN Apx - 15 7.1.c Packet Pg. 75 Copyright ® By Creative Design Associates, Inc. C h e c k e d B y D a t e : R e f e r e n c e : C D A P r o j e c t N o. S t a m p : R e v i s i o n s : C l i e n t : P r o j e c t : D r a w i n g T i t l e : D r a w i n g N o. : P r o j e c t N o. : No. C-25837 P h a s e : D r a w n B y : AS-101 CHOU HOUSE SITE PLAN & PROJECT DATA Checker Author 1907 SD James Chou 1111 N. Diamond Bar Blvd, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Apx - 16 7.1.c Packet Pg. 76 +838 FF +837 FF +838.5 FF +837 FF FOYER STUDY 13.5' X 11.75' +836.5 FF +837.5 FF+837 FF Copyright ® By Creative Design Associates, Inc. C h e c k e d B y D a t e : R e f e r e n c e : C D A P r o j e c t N o. S t a m p : R e v i s i o n s : C l i e n t : P r o j e c t : D r a w i n g T i t l e : D r a w i n g N o. : P r o j e c t N o. : No. C-25837 P h a s e : D r a w n B y : A101 CHOU HOUSE 1ST FLOOR KP KP 1907 SD James Chou 1111 N. Diamond Bar Blvd, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Apx - 17 7.1.c Packet Pg. 77 A2011A201A20123A2014SIDE SETBACK5' - 4"SIDE SETBACK84' - 7 3/4"R E A R S E T B A C K T O B L D G .2 0 ' - 0 "FRONT SETBACK20' - 0"POOLWOOD DECK 3'-0" MAX RETAINING WALL PLUS FENCE WALLCMU FOR A TOTAL 6'-0" MAX HIGH BLOCK WALL FINISHED WITH STUCCO WITH INTERVALS OF WOOD SLATS SEE FENCE WALL (SEE CIVIL)3'-0" MAX RETAINING WALL PLUS FENCE WALLCMU FOR A TOTAL 6'-0" MAX HIGH BLOCK WALL FINISHED WITH STUCCO (SEE CIVIL)3'-0" MAX RETAINING WALL PLUS FENCE WALLCMU FOR A TOTAL 6'-0" MAX HIGH BLOCK WALL FINISHED WITH STUCCO(SEE CIVIL)3'-0" MAX RETAINING WALL PLUS FENCE WALLCMU FOR A TOTAL 6'-0" MAX HIGH BLOCK WALL FINISHED WITH STUCCO (SEE CIVIL)CONC. STEPPING STONE2'-0" RAISED PLANTERDRIVEWAYWOOD GATEAS-1013RAISED GAS BURNING FIREPLACEWOOD DECK POOLSPACONCRETE DECK S E T B A C K T O R O O F E A V E17' - 0 "BUILDING WALL BELOWROOF EAVE (PROJECTS 3'-0" INTO REAR SETBACK)S E T B A C K T O B A L C O N Y B E L O W15' - 0 3 /4 "BALCONY BELOWON 2ND FLOORBBQ & COUNTER TOP1 0 ' - 1 0 1 /2 " 1 0 ' - 8 1/4 "13' - 2 1/4"836' - 10"839' - 3"843' - 0"835' - 10 3/4"844' - 0"1 0 ' - 0 1 /4 "36' - 7 1/2"11' - 0"D IS T A N C E T O 5 7 F R E E W A Y 1 8 5 ' - 0 "57 FREEWAYTYP. MAX6' - 0"TYP.3' - 4"TYP.2' - 8"WOOD SLATS OR SIMILAR TYP.TYP.0' - 3 1/2"TYP.0' - 0 1/2"BLOCK WALL FINISHED MERLEX STUCCO -P-100 GLACIER WHITE (A BASE) -SEMI-SMOOTH SANTA BARBARA FINISH OR APPROVED EQUAL TO MATCH BLDGPrinted Date:Copyright ® By Creative Design Associates, Inc.C h e c k e d B y D a t e :R e f e r e n c e :C D A P r o j e c t N o.S t a m p :R e v i s i o n s :C l i e n t :P r o j e c t :D r a w i n g T i t l e :D r a w i n g N o. :P r o j e c t N o. :YU-WUCH E NNo. C-25837REN .07-31-21S TATE OFCALIFORNIALICENSEDARCHITE C T P h a s e :D r a w n B y :1/28/2020 10:35:00 AMAS-1011111 RESIDENCESITE PLAN &PROJECT DATACheckerAuthor1907SDJames Chou1111 N. Diamond Bar Blvd, Diamond Bar, CA 91765PROJECT DATAOWNER: JAMES CHOU1359 BENTLEY CT.WEST COVINA, CA 91791626-863-6660ARCHITECT:CREATIVE DESIGN ASSOCIATES17528 ROWLAND ST.CITY OF INDUSTRY, CA 91748626-913-8101CIVIL ENGINEER:CAL LAND ENGINEERING, INC.DBA QUARTECH CONSULTANTS576 E. LAMBERT ROADBREA, CA 92821714-671-1050 Ex.118LANDSCAPE: EMERALD DESIGNARCHITECT305 N HARBOR #222FULLERTON, CA 92832714-680-0417SOIL ENGINEER:QUARTECH CONSULTANTS 576 E. LAMBERT ROAD,BREA, CA 92821 714-671-1050TRAFFIC ENGINEER: GANDDINI GROUP INC550 PARKCENTER DR., #202SANTA ANA, CA 92705 714-795-3100PROJECT TEAMAPPLICABLE CODES:2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CODE2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDINGCODE2019 CALIFORNIA TITLE 24 ENERGY CODE2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODESITE VICINITY SHEET INDEXSheetNumberSheet NameAS-101 SITE PLAN & PROJECT DATAT-1 TOPO SURVEYC-1 PRECISE GRADING PLANC-2 PRECISE GRADING PLANC-3 EROSION CONTROL PLANL1 LANDSCAPE CONCEPTUAL PLANL2 LANDSCAPE CONCEPTUAL PLANA101 1ST FLOORA102 2ND FLOORA103 ROOF PLANA201 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA202 3D VIEWSA203 3D VIEWS WITH CONTEXTA204 3D VIEWS WITH CONTEXT1" = 10'-0"1SiteNo. Description Date1" = 60'-0"2Site Distance to Freeway1/2" = 1'-0"3FENCE WALL ELEVATION DETAIL7.1.dPacket Pg. 78 7.1.dPacket Pg. 79 7.1.dPacket Pg. 80 7.1.dPacket Pg. 81 7.1.dPacket Pg. 82 20' RE A R S E T B A C K 10' FRONT SETBACK REAR P R O P E R T Y L I N E 11'-0"11'-0"1'-0" 10'-0"10'-0" 30'-0" 6'-0"10'-0" 6'-0" 10'-0"3'-0" 6'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0"27'-0"10'-0" 12'-0" NOTE: DISTANCE TO 57 FWY ±160'. PER GOOGLE EARTH 14'-9"15'-3"13'-2" 3'-2"6'-7"41'-0" 5'-8" 10'-0" 17 16 11 18 19 2 1 22 7 15 11 3 1 20 2 21 10 5 9 8 5 13 12 2 14 1 7 4 6 21 3 6 4 23 24 11 25 26 25 26 26 JUNIPERUS SCOPULORUM 'SKYROCKET' SKYROCKET JUNIPER BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME TREE LEGEND CERCIDIUM 'DESERT MUSEUM' STANDARD TRUNK DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE LAGERSTROEMIA 'NATCHEZ' MULTI TRUNK NATCHEZ WHITE CRAPE MYRTLE LAURUS NOBILIS 'MONEM' STANDARD TRUNK EMERALD WAVE SWEET BAY NOLINA RECURVATA BOTTLE PALM OLEA 'WILSONII' LOW BRANCHING WILSONS FRUITLESS OLIVE 1524" BOX LOW WATER USESIZEQUANTITYSYMBOL 224" BOX LOW 524" BOX LOW 836" BOX LOW 336" BOX LOW 248" BOX LOW ALOE FEROX CAPE ALOE ZOYSIA TENUIFOLIA ZOYSIA GRASS BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER LEGEND AEONIUM ARBOREUM 'ATROPURPUREUM' PURPLE AEONIUM AGAVE AMERICANA CENTURY PLANT ALOE ARBORESCENS TORCH ALOE AGAVE ATTENUATA FOXTAIL AGAVE CALISTEMON 'LITTLE JOHN' DWARF BOTTLE BRUSH DASYLIRION WHEELERI SPOON YUCCA ECHIUM CANDICANS PRIDE OF MADERA MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS DEER GRASS NANDINA 'COMPACTA' COMPACT HEAVENLY BAMBOO SENECIO SERPENS BLUE CHALKSTICKS EUPHORBIA 'STICKS ON FIRE' FIRESTICK PLANT ARBUTUS UNEDO SHRUB FORM STRAWBERRY SHRUB *IN POT *IN POT VITIS 'ROGERS RED' ROGERS CALIFORNIA GRAPE 324" BOX LOW 524 SFSOD MOD WATER USESIZEQUANTITYSYMBOL 275 GAL LOW 815 GAL LOW 295 GAL LOW 405 GAL LOW 325 GAL LOW 75 GAL LOW 145 GAL LOW 2325 GAL LOW 205 GAL LOW @ 18" OC1 GAL LOW 215 GAL LOW 115 GAL LOW 115 GAL LOW CALLOUT LEGEND PERIMITER WALL PERIMETER WALL WITH PANEL FENCING SOLID GLASS OR METAL GATE CONCRETE PAVING ENHANCED CONCRETE PAVING CONCRETE DRIVEWAY CONCRETE MOW STRIP EXPOSED AGGREGATE PAVING LOOSE AGGREGATE STEPS WOOD OR WOOD TYPE TILE PATIO DECK ON GRADE, STEPS DOWN SLOPE GARDEN WALL POOL EQUIPMENT BARBECUE AND COUNTER TOP RAISED POOL BOND BEAM. TO BE FLUSH WITH SPA AND DECK RAISED SPA, TO BE FLUSH WITH DECK POOL, TO BE LOWER THAN SPA AND FLUSH WITH LOWER CONCRETE DECK POOL INFINITY EDGE INFINITY EDGE SPILL BASIN RAISED GAS BURNING FIREPLACE, TO BE HIGHER THAN DECK RAISED PLANTER LARGE BOULDER FOR SEATING CONCRETE LOWER DECK AND POOL COPING. TO BE LOWER THAN DECK , SPA, AND FIREPLACE FLAGSTONE STEPPERS BALCONY ROOF LINE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 LANDSCAPE NOTES ALL IRRIGATED LANDSCAPE WILL COMPLY WITH THE WATER CONSERVATION LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE. MAXIMUM WATER ALLOWANCE FOR THE SITE IS NO GREATER THAN IS 69957 GALLONS PER YEAR (4319 SF LANDSACAPE AREA) SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR RETAINING WALLS, POOLS/SPA, BBQ, OUTDOOR FIREPLACE, AND FENCES OVER 6' IN HEIGHT. QUANTITY % PLANT SIZE PERCENTAGES 2 5% 11 29% 25 66% 37 12 3% 401 97% 413 100%COVER IN 2 YEARS TYPE SIZE TREES 48" BOX 36" BOX 24" BOX TOTAL SHRUBS 15 GAL 5 GAL TOTAL GROUNDCOVER 1/06/20 Prepared by: 1"=10'-0" EMERALD D E S I G N 305 N. Harbor Blvd, Suite 222 Fullerton, California 92832 Tel: (714) 680-0417 California License #3098 Email: charles@emeraldladesign.com CD/A Creative Design Associates 17528 E Rowland St. City of Industry, CA 91748 DIAMOND BAR SINGLE FAMILY 1111 N DIAMOND BAR BLVD DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA 91765 Landscape Conceptual Plan SITE REFERENCE PLAN 60 FW Y57 FWYSITE * 7.1.d Packet Pg. 83 1/06/20 Prepared by: 1"=10'-0" EMERALD D E S I G N 305 N. Harbor Blvd, Suite 222 Fullerton, California 92832 Tel: (714) 680-0417 California License #3098 Email: charles@emeraldladesign.com CD/A Creative Design Associates 17528 E Rowland St. City of Industry, CA 91748 DIAMOND BAR SINGLE FAMILY 1111 N DIAMOND BAR BLVD DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA 91765 Landscape Conceptual Plan JUNIPERUS SCOPULORUM 'SKYROCKET' CERCIDIUM 'DESERT MUSEUM' LAGERSTROEMIA 'NATCHEZ' LAURUS NOBILIS 'MONEM' NOLINA RECURVATA OLEA 'WILSONII' ALOE FEROX ZOYSIA TENUIFOLIA AEONIUM ARBOREUM 'ATROPURPUREUM' AGAVE AMERICANA ALOE ARBORESCENS AGAVE ATTENUATA VITIS 'ROGERS RED' DASYLIRION WHEELERI ECHIUM CANDICANS MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS NANDINA 'COMPACTA' SENECIO SERPENS EUPHORBIA 'STICKS ON FIRE' ARBUTUS UNEDOCALISTEMON 'LITTLE JOHN' 7.1.d Packet Pg. 84 +838 FF+837 FF+838.5 FF+837 FFPANTRYPANTRYLINEN70' - 5 1/2"89' - 7"1 8 ' - 1 1 1 /4 "23' - 0 1/2"13' - 11 1/4"22' - 0"11' - 5 3/4"10' - 6 3/4"8' - 8 1/2"11' - 9 3/4"17' - 5 3/4"15' - 11"5' - 11 3/4"7' - 9 3/4"20' - 5 3/4"4' - 0 1/4"32' - 3 3/4"16' - 2 3/4"8' - 3 1/4"1 8 ' - 1 1 1 /4 "1 3 ' - 0 3 /4 "1 3 ' - 4 1 /2 " 5 ' - 6 3 /4 "4' - 2"1' - 6"89' - 7"6' - 8"21' - 7"13' - 4 1/2"6' - 0"12' - 5 1/2"18' - 11 1/2"10' - 6 3/4"FOYER1LIVING ROOM2STUDY3KITCHEN4BEDROOM 183 CAR GARAGE6POWDER RM7WOK RM5Printed Date:Copyright ® By Creative Design Associates, Inc.C h e c k e d B y D a t e :R e f e r e n c e :C D A P r o j e c t N o.S t a m p :R e v i s i o n s :C l i e n t :P r o j e c t :D r a w i n g T i t l e :D r a w i n g N o. :P r o j e c t N o. :YU-WUCH E NNo. C-25837REN .07-31-21S TATE OFCALIFORNIALICENSEDARCHITE C T P h a s e :D r a w n B y :1/28/2020 10:33:51 AMA1011111 RESIDENCE1ST FLOORKPKP1907SDJames Chou1111 N. Diamond Bar Blvd, Diamond Bar, CA 91765No. Description Date1/4" = 1'-0"1Level 17.1.dPacket Pg. 85 +851 FF+849 FF89' - 7"1 8 ' - 1 1 3 /4 "1 8 ' - 1 1 3 /4 "33' - 11 3/4"33' - 11 3/4"4' - 5 3/4"22' - 10"6' - 8"24' - 5 3/4"5' - 9 1/2"9' - 11 3/4"8' - 8 1/2"5 ' - 1 0 3 /4 "1 3 ' - 1 "24' - 0 1/4"25' - 4 1/4"49' - 4 1/2"7' - 6"35' - 0"4' - 2"2' - 8 1/2"9 ' - 9 1 /2 " 5 ' - 8 1 /4 "89' - 7"6' - 6"23' - 5"8' - 4 1/2"14' - 6 1/2"17' - 9"11' - 2 1/2"7' - 9 1/2"1 8 ' - 1 1 3 /4 "FAMILY/GAME RM9LAUNDRY10BEDROOM 211BEDROOM 312MASTERBEDROOM13Printed Date:Copyright ® By Creative Design Associates, Inc.C h e c k e d B y D a t e :R e f e r e n c e :C D A P r o j e c t N o.S t a m p :R e v i s i o n s :C l i e n t :P r o j e c t :D r a w i n g T i t l e :D r a w i n g N o. :P r o j e c t N o. :YU-WUCH E NNo. C-25837REN .07-31-21S TATE OFCALIFORNIALICENSEDARCHITE C T P h a s e :D r a w n B y :1/28/2020 10:34:23 AMA1021111 RESIDENCE2ND FLOORCheckerAuthor1907SDJames Chou1111 N. Diamond Bar Blvd, Diamond Bar, CA 91765No. Description Date1/4" = 1'-0"1Level 27.1.dPacket Pg. 86 2 :1 2 2%2%2%2%2 %2%2 % 2 %2%2%2%2%2 2 ' - 0 1 /4 "92' - 7"Printed Date:Copyright ® By Creative Design Associates, Inc.C h e c k e d B y D a t e :R e f e r e n c e :C D A P r o j e c t N o.S t a m p :R e v i s i o n s :C l i e n t :P r o j e c t :D r a w i n g T i t l e :D r a w i n g N o. :P r o j e c t N o. :YU-WUCH E NNo. C-25837REN .07-31-21S TATE OFCALIFORNIALICENSEDARCHITE C T P h a s e :D r a w n B y :1/28/2020 10:34:32 AMA1031111 RESIDENCEROOF PLANCheckerAuthor1907SDJames Chou1111 N. Diamond Bar Blvd, Diamond Bar, CA 91765No. Description Date1/4" = 1'-0"1Roof Plan7.1.dPacket Pg. 87 Level 1837' -0"Level 2851' -0"FAMILY GAME RMLEVEL849' -0"T.O. FLAT ROOF862' -0"T.O. LOWER ROOF860' -0"GARAGE LEVEL838' -0"T.O. PITCHEDROOF865' -8"3' - 8"2' - 0"9' - 0"2' - 0"11' - 0"1' - 0"28' - 8"EL005EL001EL009EL012EL007WOOD DECKLEVEL 1836' -6"WOOD DECKLEVEL 2835' -6"CONCRETELOWER DECK834' -6"Level 1837' -0"Level 2851' -0"FAMILY GAME RMLEVEL849' -0"T.O. FLAT ROOF862' -0"T.O. LOWER ROOF860' -0"GARAGE LEVEL838' -0"T.O. PITCHEDROOF865' -8"3' - 8"2' - 0"9' - 0"2' - 0"11' - 0"1' - 0"28' - 8"EL010EL001EL009EL006EL012EL007EL005EL004WOOD DECKLEVEL 1836' -6"WOOD DECKLEVEL 2835' -6"CONCRETELOWER DECK834' -6"Level 1837' -0"Level 2851' -0"FAMILY GAME RMLEVEL849' -0"T.O. FLAT ROOF862' -0"T.O. LOWER ROOF860' -0"GARAGE LEVEL838' -0"3' - 8"2' - 0"11' - 0"1' - 0"10' - 0"1' - 0"T.O. PITCHEDROOF865' -8"28' - 8"EL009EL001EL002EL005EL008EL012EL007EL003EL011WOOD DECKLEVEL 1836' -6"WOOD DECKLEVEL 2835' -6"CONCRETELOWER DECK834' -6"Level 1837' -0"Level 2851' -0"FAMILY GAME RMLEVEL849' -0"T.O. FLAT ROOF862' -0"T.O. LOWER ROOF860' -0"GARAGE LEVEL838' -0"T.O. PITCHEDROOF865' -8"3' - 8"2' - 0"9' - 0"2' - 0"11' - 0"1' - 0"27' - 8"EL010EL005EL007EL012EL001EL009EL004EL006WOOD DECKLEVEL 1836' -6"WOOD DECKLEVEL 2835' -6"CONCRETELOWER DECK834' -6"Printed Date:Copyright ® By Creative Design Associates, Inc.C h e c k e d B y D a t e :R e f e r e n c e :C D A P r o j e c t N o.S t a m p :R e v i s i o n s :C l i e n t :P r o j e c t :D r a w i n g T i t l e :D r a w i n g N o. :P r o j e c t N o. :YU-WUCH E NNo. C-25837REN .07-31-21S TATE OFCALIFORNIALICENSEDARCHITE C T P h a s e :D r a w n B y :1/28/2020 10:37:11 AMA2011111 RESIDENCEEXTERIORELEVATIONSCheckerAuthor1907SDJames Chou1111 N. Diamond Bar Blvd, Diamond Bar, CA 917651/8" = 1'-0"1East1/8" = 1'-0"2West1/8" = 1'-0"3South1/8" = 1'-0"4NorthEXTERIOR KEYNOTESKey Value Keynote TextEL001 WALL FINISH - MERLEX STUCCO - P-100 GLACIER WHITE (A BASE) - SEMI-SMOOTH SANTA BARBARAFINISH OR APPROVED EQUALEL002 STONE VENEER - CULTURED STONE - GRAY SOUTHERN LEDGESTONE OR APPROVED EQUALEL003 DOOR - PIVOT DOOR COMPANY - SYDNEY PRE-BUILT DOOR - 49 1/2" X 97 3/4" - WALNUT FINISH ORAPPROVED EQUALEL004 DOOR - NANAWALL CLIMA CLEAR - FOLDING - CLEAR ANODIZED FINISH OR APPROVED EQUALEL005 WINDOW: MILGARD: QUIETLINE SERIES SLIDING WINDOW WITH MIN. STC 40, WHITE FRAME, LOW-ECLEAR GLASS OR APPROVED EQUALEL006 PATIO DOOR: JELD-WEN: PREMIUM ATLANTIC VINYL SWINGING PATIO DOOR, WHITE FRAME, LOW-ECLEAR GLASS, NO GRILLES, OR APPROVED EQUALEL007 METAL CABLE RAILING: FEENEY DESIGNRAIL: STANDARD POSTS, SURFACE MOUNT, SILVER FRAMECOLORS W/ RECTAGULAR TOP RAIL, HORIZONTAL CABLES INFILL OR APPROVED EQUALEL008 GARAGE DOOR - OVERHEAD DOOR MODERN ALUMINUM - MODEL 511 - IMPACT FROSTEDPOLYCARBONATE - CLEAR ANODIZED FINISH OR APPROVED EQUALEL009 FIBER CEMENT SIDING - NICHIHA VINTAGEWOOD WOOD SERIES S OR APPROVED EQUALEL010 METAL WALL/ROOF PANEL: AEP SPAN SUPERSPANFINISH: DURA TECH MX COOL METALLIC SILVER OR APPROVED EQUALEL011 CONCRETE LOOK FINISH: WESTCOAT TEXTURE CRETETOPCOAT COLOR: LIQUID COLORANT TC40 SMOKE308 OR APPROVED EQUALEL012 LIGHTING - VISA LIGHTING - OW1464 -WRAP L30K-L - HTHR - OR APPROVED EQUALNo. Description Date7.1.dPacket Pg. 88 Printed Date:Copyright ® By Creative Design Associates, Inc.C h e c k e d B y D a t e :R e f e r e n c e :C D A P r o j e c t N o.S t a m p :R e v i s i o n s :C l i e n t :P r o j e c t :D r a w i n g T i t l e :D r a w i n g N o. :P r o j e c t N o. :YU-WUCH E NNo. C-25837REN .07-31-21S TATE OFCALIFORNIALICENSEDARCHITE C T P h a s e :D r a w n B y :1/28/2020 10:46:17 AMA2021111 RESIDENCE3D VIEWSCheckerAuthor1907SDJames Chou1111 N. Diamond Bar Blvd, Diamond Bar, CA 917651Street View2North ElevationNo. Description Date7.1.dPacket Pg. 89 Printed Date:Copyright ® By Creative Design Associates, Inc.C h e c k e d B y D a t e :R e f e r e n c e :C D A P r o j e c t N o.S t a m p :R e v i s i o n s :C l i e n t :P r o j e c t :D r a w i n g T i t l e :D r a w i n g N o. :P r o j e c t N o. :YU-WUCH E NNo. C-25837REN .07-31-21S TATE OFCALIFORNIALICENSEDARCHITE C T P h a s e :D r a w n B y :1/28/2020 10:41:57 AMA2031111 RESIDENCE3D VIEWS WITHCONTEXTCheckerAuthor1907SDJames Chou1111 N. Diamond Bar Blvd, Diamond Bar, CA 91765No. Description DateNTS1VIEW FROM DIAMOND BAR BLVD7.1.dPacket Pg. 90 Printed Date:Copyright ® By Creative Design Associates, Inc.C h e c k e d B y D a t e :R e f e r e n c e :C D A P r o j e c t N o.S t a m p :R e v i s i o n s :C l i e n t :P r o j e c t :D r a w i n g T i t l e :D r a w i n g N o. :P r o j e c t N o. :YU-WUCH E NNo. C-25837REN .07-31-21S TATE OFCALIFORNIALICENSEDARCHITE C T P h a s e :D r a w n B y :1/28/2020 10:42:13 AMA2041111 RESIDENCE3D VIEWS WITHCONTEXTCheckerAuthor1907SDJames Chou1111 N. Diamond Bar Blvd, Diamond Bar, CA 91765No. Description DateN.T.S1BIRDSEYE VIEW OF SITEN.T.S.2BIRDSEYE VIEW OF SITE ZOOMED IN7.1.dPacket Pg. 91 Dr. Douglas Barcon 23535 Palomino Dr., Unit 545 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Grace Lee Senior Planner City of Diamond Bar 21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 April 17, 2020 RE: Zone Change and Development Review Planning Case No. PL2015-253 1111 N. Diamond Bar Blvd., Diamond Bar, CA 91789 (APN: 8706-008-013) Dear Ms. Lee, I am writing in opposition to Diamond Bar Planning Commission case number PL2015-253 and rezoning as proposed. As I recall, this property was last up for review by the Planning Commission in 2017, which is before the passage of the 2040 General Plan and proposed changes on North Diamond Bar Blvd. During the prior Planning Commission meeting, I presented artwork based on the story poles on the property and how the proposed property was going to impact the area and traffic on Diamond Bar Blvd. The 2020 plans for this property shows a complete redesign of the building structure and landscaping. In my opinion, the property should be rezoned as open space. It is also a prime example of mansionization in one of the worst possible places in the city; it just doesn’t fit in the location. Please refer to Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.048.040. What are the actual plans for this property? Could it be a birthing center or airbnb? This proposed residence does impact the aesthetics of the northern entry into Diamond Bar on Diamond Bar Blvd south of Temple Avenue and is just south of the artistic and expensive Diamond Bar entry monument. It will be the first structure visible upon entering Diamond Bar. It jumps out of the surrounding hills and says, “look at me!” It blocks and detracts from the view of the hills to the west across SR 57. It also will detract from the west and northwest view from vehicles traveling northbound on Diamond Bar Blvd north of Highland Valley. In Figure 1, I have placed the proposed residence over a photo that I shot of the site in 2017. I may be off on the exact placement and height as proposed in the plan, but it is reasonably close. This proposed residence will also impact the views of homes on the hill on the east side of Diamond Bar Blvd, and without some type of mitigation the east-facing windows will generate reflections from the sun directly into the windows of those homes. It also may generate similar reflections from the west-facing windows onto the SB SR 57 in late afternoon. Moreover, this proposed development is the only residence that would have entry directly from Diamond Bar Blvd in the city. Other than these issues are the concerns regarding the safety of vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles on Diamond Bar Blvd under traffic and transportation. The horseshoe driveway in the new plan may negate the issue of vehicles backing out of the driveway and into traffic traveling at 45-50 mph, but not necessarily. There is still no resolution of entry into the residence from northbound Diamond Bar Blvd, and placing a left-turn pocket or break in the 7.1.e Packet Pg. 92 median to accommodate vehicles entering or leaving the property is not safe. Either of these could lead to traffic collisions and injury. Regardless of how the property is developed, vehicles can only enter and exit in the southbound direction and that would require a U-Turn at Temple. In order to drive to Temple from the residence, the vehicle must make a U-Turn at Highland Valley. If a party is held at the residence, Diamond Bar Blvd has no parking, which would require vehicles to park at Oak Tree Center if authorized. In my opinion, building any type of residence or office in that location is inappropriate, and the Planning Commission should oppose it. The property is a leftover from the construction of SR 57 and has been vacant for years. As I said previously, place a windmill on it or perhaps a cell phone tower disguised as a windmill to generate some revenue for the owner but not a commercial or residential building. For whatever reason, the property was zoned commercial instead of open space, and I believe the best solution is to rezone it as open space. Figure 1. Southwest view of proposed residence from North Diamond Bar Blvd. Respectfully, Dr. Douglas Barcon 7.1.e Packet Pg. 93 Project Status Report CITY OF DIAMOND BAR June 23, 2020 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LEGEND PH = PUBLIC HEARING X = NON PUBLIC HEARING AP = ASSIGNED PLANNER PC = PLANNING COMMISSION AR = ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW CC = CITY COUNCIL PROPERTY LOCATION PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW File # AP Applicant PC 6/23/20 CC 7/7/20 PC 7/14/20 CC 7/21/20 PC 7/28/20 CC 8/4/20 1111 N. Diamond Bar Blvd. (New Single family residence) ZC/DR PL2015-253 GL Creative Design Associates PH PH PH ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW Property Location AP Applicant None PENDING ITEMS Property Location File # AP Applicant Status 2523 Blaze Trail (New single family residence) DR PL2020-49 MN Pete Volbeda Incomplete letter sent 4/17/20 - waiting for additional information 2366 Clear Creek (Addition to single family residence) DR PL2020-70 NTE Pete Volbeda Under review Crooked Creek (11-unit subdivision) TTM, DR, CUP, TP PL2017-203 MN Rob Meserve Incomplete letter sent 1/10/20 – waiting for additional information 800 N. Diamond Bar Blvd. (Sign program) CSP PL2019-164 MN Raj Panchal Under Review 24011 Falcons View Dr. (Addition and remodel to single family residence) DR PL2020-25 MN William Edwards Second incomplete letter sent 6/12/20 – waiting for additional information 20657 Golden Springs (Sign program amendment) CUP PL2019-172 MN Sign Express Under Review 2360 Indian Creek (Addition and remodel to single family residence) DR PL2019-185 MN Pete Volbeda Second incomplete letter sent 2/26/20 – waiting for additional information 22589 Pacific Ln. (New single family residence) DR PL2020-17 NTE Jason Baumgartner Under Review 22938 ½ Ridge Line Rd. (Wireless facility) CUP PL2020-42 NTE Jill Cleveland Incomplete letter sent 3/30/20 – waiting for additional information 23121 Ridge Line Rd. (New single family residence) DR PL2020-31 NTE Pete Volbeda Incomplete letter sent 3/26/20 – waiting for additional information 10.1 Packet Pg. 94 Project Status Report CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Page 2 June 23, 2020 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PENDING ITEMS (continued) Property Location File # AP Applicant Status 23135 Ridge Line Rd. (New single family residence) DR PL2018-233 MN Faiz Ennabe Second incomplete letter sent 2/6/20 – waiting for additional information 2775 Shadow Canyon (New single family residence) DR PL2019-188 NTE Edwin Agabao Incomplete letter sent 3/10/20 - waiting for additional information 10.1 Packet Pg. 95 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ) I, Stella Marquez, declare as follows: I am employed by the City of Diamond Bar, Community Development Department. On June 19, 2020, a copy of the June 23, 2020, Planning Commission Agenda, was posted at the following locations: SCAQMD/Government Center, 21865 Copley Drive Heritage Park, 2900 Brea Canyon Road City website: www,diamondbarca.gov Due to COVID-19 closures, the Planning Commission Agenda could not be posted at the following regular posting locations: Diamond Bar City Hall Diamond Bar Library I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 19, 2020, at Diamond Bar, California. Stella Marquez Community Development Department 7.1.e Dr. Douglas Barcon 23535 Palomino Dr., Unit 545 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Grace Lee Senior Planner City of Diamond Bar 21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Apri1172 2020 RE: Zone Change and Development Review Planning Case No. PL2015-253 1111 N. Diamond Bar Blvd., Diamond Bar, CA 91789 (APN: 8706-008-013) Dear Ms. Lee, I am writing in opposition to Diamond Baz Planning Commission case number PL2015-253 and rezoning as proposed. As I recall, this property was last up for review by the Planning Commission in 2017, which is before the passage of the 2040 General Plan and proposed changes on North Diamond Bar Blvd. During the prior Planning Commission meeting, I presented artwork based on the story poles on the property and how the proposed property was going to impact the area and traffic on Diamond Bar Blvd. The 2020 plans for this properly shows a complete redesign of the building structure and landscaping. In my opinion, the property should be rezoned as open space. It is also a prime example of mansionization in one of the worst possible places in the city; it just doesn't fit in the location. Please refer to Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.048.040. What are the actual plans for this property? Could it be a birthing center or airbnb? This proposed residence does impact the aesthetics of the northern entry into Diamond Bar on Diamond Bar Blvd south of Temple Avenue and is just south of the artistic and expensive Diamond Bar entry monument. It will be the first structure visible upon entering Diamond Bar. It jumps out of the surrounding hills and says, "look at me!" It blocks and detracts from the view of the hills to the west across SR 57. It also will detract from the west and northwest view from vehicles traveling northbound on Diamond Bar Blvd north of Highland Valley. In Figure 1, I have placed the proposed residence over a photo that I shot of the site in 2017. I may be off on the exact placement and height as proposed in the plan, but it is reasonably close. This proposed residence will also impact the views of homes on the hill on the east side of Diamond Bar Blvd, and without some type of mitigation the east -facing windows will generate reflections from the sun directly into the windows of those homes. It also may generate similar reflections from the west -facing windows onto the SB SR 57 in late afternoon. Moreover, this proposed development is the only residence that would have entry directly from Diamond Bar Blvd in the city. Other than these issues are the concerns regarding the safety of vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles on Diamond Bar Blvd under traffic and transportation. The horseshoe driveway in the new plan may negate the issue of vehicles backing out of the driveway and into traffic traveling at 45-50 mph, but not necessarily. There is still no resolution of entry into the residence from northbound Diamond Bar Blvd, and placing a left -turn pocket or break in the PacketPg.92 7.1.e median to accommodate vehicles entering or leaving the property is not safe. Either of these could lead to traffic collisions and injury. Regardless of how the property is developed, vehicles can only enter and exit in the southbound direction and that would require a U-Tum at Temple. In order to drive to Temple from the residence, the vehicle must make a U-Tum at Highland Valley. If a party is held at the residence, Diamond Bar Blvd has no parking, which would require vehicles to park at Oak Tree Center if authorized. In my opinion, building any type of residence or office in that location is inappropriate, and the Planning Commission should oppose it. The property is a leftover from the construction of SR 57 and has been vacant for years. As I said previously, place a windmill on it or perhaps a cell phone tower disguised as a windmill to generate some revenue for the owner but not a commercial or residential building. For whatever reason, the property was zoned commercial instead of open space, and I believe the best solution is to rezone it as open space. Figure 1. Southwest view of proposed residence from North Diamond Bar Blvd. Respectfullyyy�� Dr. Douglas Barcon Packet Pg. 93 Stella Marquez From: Grace Lee Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 4:07 PM Cc: Greg Gubman; James H. Eggart; Stella Marquez Subject: FW: Zoning for home in north Diamond Bar June 23 Chairman Mok and Commissioners, Below is another email regarding the proposed project tonight. Grace S. Lee � Senior Planner City of Diamond Bar I Planning Division 909.0..39.7032 From: neeners121 <neeners121@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 3:59 PM To: Grace Lee <G Lee@ DiamondBarCA.Gov> Subject: Zoning for home in north Diamond Bar June 23 CAUTION: This message originated outside of our City of Diamond Bar network. Wow! Why would anyone allow just ONE home to be built in Diamond Bar that would absolutely negatively impact not hundreds, but thousands, of lives! Let me explain: 1. There are only 2 spectacular panoramas in Diamond Bar and this will effectively destroy the one in North Diamond Bar. Lost forever. It begins at the EXACT point of this property and if traveling by car south on DB Blvd it will no longer be captured. The house will block it. It has been there forever and for over 50 years our families, friends, and visitors to Diamond Bar have marveled at it. GO SEE! 2. MOST SERIOUSLY, the traffic coming south onto Diamond Bar Blvd from Mission in Pomona are traveling at approx 50 MPH. They are moving FROM, and down, a hill and for hundreds of teen drivers, and inexperienced drivers, they will not be prepared for the sudden stopping for large vehicles like UPS, POSTAL, FEDEX, CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT, FOOD DELIVERY, VISITORS AND MORE! For ONE house. This site is only about 100 feet from this hill. It will definitely create car accidents, injury, and even death. GO SEE! 3. 1 am a handicapped senior with serious medical and sleeping issues. Often I am only falling asleep at 4 or 5 AM. I assure you, north Diamond Bar, and especially the housing complex directly next door to this site, has thousands of handicapped seniors within a few hundred feet of this site. I cannot even wrap my mind around the NOISE AND DUST that this construction will create starting at what, 6 or 7 AM, lasting all day and going on for months and months??? For ONE house? It will produce severe medical issues for hundreds of Diamond Bar citizens. 4. This man knew when he purchased this property the only way he could develop it would be to negatively impact thousands of lives. For ONE house. Some neighbor. We have all paid dearly for our view homes and this man doesn't want his view, he wants our view! We will lose an abundance of profit, and well being, only to be replaced with a big, fat, ugly roof for a view! 5. This man scares us. His thinking is selfish, and greedy. We can only imagine he has other motives for this house. It will be so isolated, yet a perfect high end property with a view, he could make a lot of money with a high priced, desirable BIRTHING house. We are not city planners, just citizens of Diamond Bar who expect our city to protect us, and our interests. We are quite astonished that this zoning has been on your table for over 2 years when it should NEVER have even been considered in the first place. Entirely TOO many lives impacted for ONE HOUSE. Sincerely S. Mullins Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Stella Marquez From: Grace Lee Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 4:05 PM Cc: Greg Gubman; James H. Eggart; Stella Marquez Subject: FW: Errata to Comment by Douglas Barcon Re: Planning Case No. PL2015-253 Chairman Mok and Commissioners, Below is an errata to the previously submitted comments found in Attachment E of the staff report. Grace S. lee � Senior Planner City of Diamond Bor Planning Division 009.839.7032 From: Doug Barcon <dougbarcon@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 3:56 PM To: Grace Lee <GLee@DiamondBarCA.Gov> Subject: Errata to Comment by Douglas Barcon Re: Planning Case No. PL2015-253 CAUTION: This message originated outside of our City of Diamond Bar network. Hi Ms. Lee, I am submitting an errata to my comment from April 17, 2020 as follows: Attn: Grace Lee, Senior Planner City of Diamond Bar, California Errata to April 17, 2020 Comment by Dr. Douglas Barcon June 23, 2020 Re: Zone Change and Development Review Planning Case No. PL2015-253 1111 N. Diamond Bar Blvd., Diamond Bar, CA 91789 (APN: 8706-008-013) Diamond Bar Planning Commission meeting June 23, 2020 In my comment on Page 93 of the Planning Commission Agenda Packet, I inadvertently noted that a U-turn would be necessary at Temple Avenue to enter the property from northbound Diamond Bar Blvd. The traffic signage at the intersection of Temple Ave and Diamond Bar Blvd does not permit a U-turn from northbound Diamond Bar Blvd to southbound Diamond Bar Blvd. Entry to the property from northbound Diamond Bar Blvd requires making an unprotected U-turn from the left -turn pocket at Soltaire St, which is normally used to enter the condominium development on the west side of Diamond Bar Blvd. There is little time to accelerate away from vehicles heading south on Diamond Bar Blvd from Temple Ave before having to slow to enter the driveway of the property. This could pose a safety issue and hard braking. The speed limit on southbound Diamond Bar Blvd should not be reduced because of this proposed development. There is also a bicycle lane along the west side of Diamond Bar Blvd. Respectfully, Dr. Douglas Barcon 3 Stella Marquez From: Grace Lee Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 8:53 AM Cc: Greg Gubman; James H. Eggart; Stella Marquez Subject: FW: Planning commission meeting, 7.1 comments. Good morning Commissioners, Here's another email I received regarding tonight's item. See you tonight. Grace S. Lee � Senior Planner City of Diamond Bar Planning Division 909,839,7032 -----Original From: Lee Lee Paulson <tm@silverlightpress.com> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 9:50 PM To: Grace Lee <GLee@DiamondBarCA.Gov> Subject: Planning commission meeting, 7.1 comments. CAUTION: This message originated outside of our City of Diamond Bar network. Commission Members, To my knowledge, no other housing unit in the city of Diamond Bar has a driveway which opens out onto Diamond Bar Blvd. All of the housing units that I know of along Diamond Bar Blvd have access to Diamond Bar Blvd only via a city street with a signal. The question from a city planning perspective is do we want to now begin littering Diamond Blvd, which is already over crowded with high speed traffic, especially in that location, with single family driveways? Land use along that stretch of Diamond Bar Blvd in the recently revised Diamond Bar general plan was designated non-residential for a reason. Especially, that parcel. The site is a sliver sandwiched between Diamond Bar Boulevard and the 57 freeway off ramp. As someone who spent a great deal of time on the recent general plan project, my question to the planning commission members is why did we waste our time doing a general plan when the city turns right around and begins piecemeal planning with arbitrary zoning changes? If Diamond Bar is going to change the zoning for nearly every project it wishes to develop, why did we waste our time revising our general plan at all? As planning commissioners, are you concerned at all about attempting to maintain design integrity for our city? If you approve this development, you are telling the citizens of Diamond Bar that you are not working in their best interests. You are working as the developer's agents. Because you will be creating a potential traffic bottleneck which will saddle Diamond Bar citizens into the foreseeable future with a dangerous traffic hazard. Every time there is an accident at that site, one death, one serious injury that will be on you. What will you tell the husband, wife, father, mother who has lost or is now living with a seriously injured loved one? Are you willing to live with that? Are you willing to be the ones who are responsible for notifying the next of kin? If not, then it might be wise to at least pause in your haste to rush this thing through. There is a median along Diamond Bar in that area. Which means the only way into the property is to slow down to a near stop at a curve in the southbound lane where speeds often exceed 50 mph. Cars traveling along that stretch of road, especially at night, are not expecting to find a vehicle in front of them slowing to a near stop in order to turn into a driveway. That is an accident waiting to happen. That's why we have traffic signals. But is it reasonable to install a traffic signal for one residential driveway on Diamond Boulevard? It just makes no sense. In my mind, potential traffic hazards are reason enough to deny a building permit on that site. Any driveway opening onto DB Blvd in that area is a safety hazard pure plain and simple. I understand the developer is attempting to realize a return on his/her investment. But, as far as I am aware, it is not the planning department's job to assist a developer who made an ill advised investment. Wouldn't that site be better utilized as, say, a cell phone tower location, which would have little to no traffic entrance or egress? Is this a precedent we want to set in Diamond Bar? Because a house in this location, especially with a lot that small, is not one where individuals with a family could reasonably live with any expectation of quiet enjoyment. Question, would you be willing to raise your family in a house at that location? Especially a family with small children? Once the lot is approved for residental development, there is little which can be done to ensure the property is actually built as planned, or used as indicated in the plans. What's to prevent the owners to turn the place into an Airbnb, once built? Frankly, that would make more sense than a single family dwelling at that site. Think about the potential traffic hazards caused by inebriated party -goers attempting to find the place at night, if that were to happen. One can only imagine the confusion and traffic accidents from folks pulling in or out and being hit by speeding traffic coming around the blind curve, even from a circular driveway. Bottom line, the city has dressed this pig up in all sorts of silk finery over the years, proposing general plan and zoning changes several times, etc, but the pig still won't fly. Once again, I remind you that it is not your job, nor your responsibility to assist a developer who made a bad purchase. It is your job to take care of us, the citizens you represent. If you approve this mess, you send a clear signal that you are working for others and not us. Thank you, R. Lee Paulson 20 year Diamond Bar citizen z Stella Marquez From: Grace Lee Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 8:00 PM Cc: Greg Gubman; James H. Eggart; Stella Marquez Subject: FW: Planning Case No PL2015-253 Good evening Chairman Mok and Planning Commissioners, I am forwarding you an email from a nearby resident regarding the proposed project scheduled tomorrow night. Best Regards, Grace S. Lee � Senior Planner City at Diamond 8or Planning Division 909.839.7032 From: Nina Holmquist <ninaholmquist@verizon.net> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 6:50 PM To: Grace Lee <GLee@Diamond BarCA.Gov> Cc: ninaholmquist@verizon.net Subject: Planning Case No PL2015-253 CAUTION: This message originated outside of our City of Diamond Bar network. To the City of Diamond Bar: I am opposed to the pending project and would like to see that it does not get approved for the following reasons. • A home of 4333 square feet does not blend into the area and is more than twice the size of nearby homes. • The big home would be an eyesore and would take away our view on Diamond Bar Blvd across the freeway to the open land. We have so few open areas it would be a shame to lose this view as we commute and walk on Diamond Bar Blvd. • There is also a significant safety issue if this home is built, and the potential for accidents would increase. In residential areas, the speed limit is 25 mph. On this stretch of Diamond Bar Blvd, the speed limit is 45 mph. Pulling in and out of the driveway would be hazardous, with traffic moving so fast. • Diamond Bar, except for gated communities, does not have homes built right on Diamond Bar Blvd. • On trash pick up day trash containers are set in the street by the curb. That area would have the trash cans in the bike lane on pick up day and would pose a danger to bike riders. Also it would be a blight. Please do not approve this project and keep Diamond Bar beautiful. Respectfully, Nina Holmquist 1174 Flintlock Rd June 23, 2020 TO: Diamond Bar Senior Planner, Grace Lee via email: GLee(c)diamondbarca.gov Public Comments for Item 7.1 Dear Planning Commissioners & Staff, Thank you for receiving our input for the 1111 N. Diamond Bar Blvd. project We are opposed to building a single family home located five feet from the road. No matter how attractive the home is, it simply looks out of place so close to busy roads. The position of this house does not add "social character" and disrupts the graceful, "open sight line" of the 57 freeway buffer. We have lived in Diamond Bar for 27 years. Is it true that this particular home is the only one located so close to a street? Where else does Diamond Bar have homes with doorways within ten feet of a main traffic road. Is this a new trend the city intends to continue? Are there any other homes directly on Diamond Bar boulevard? Recently, we read about a fatal traffic accident near Soltaire on Diamond Bar Blvd. Has the potential for a serious accident been considered with regards to this project? I know this area of Diamond Bar Blvd and that spot is particularly dangerous with curves north of the property. It would seem ludicrous to have ingress and egress in that area. What happens if the residents of this house have a party and there may be parking on Diamond Bar Blvd.? Especially since street racing is common place through out the city, owDiamond Bar Blvd. and Golden Springs. Has this fact been considered in the traffic study? Overall, we also are concerned about the occupancy of this house. Such a large house can be used for airbnb type rentals or a birth "hotel". We know the city has a high incidence of large houses being used for these types of businesses. How can the city assure the project is occupied by a "single family"? Will the city allow a business to be run in this home? And if a business is run there wouldn't that be against RL zoning laws? We do not think this development adds a measurable improvement to our city because it is in the wrong place. In fact, I strongly feel it adds danger to all drivers in that area especially our precious young people. A small business of some sort, is a better choice for the location — one that does not depend on customer visits for example bee keeping or horticulture. It is sad to see the city bend over backwards to accommodate an investor/developer when they made a poor investment in land. All investors invest at their own risk. Why should Diamond Bar residents have to pay for injury or death due to unsafe traffic conditions just for the sake of an investor? Will you please answer our questions in writing? Thank you very much. Thomas & Carol Balderama, Diamond Bar Residents email: trfic(d,)roadrunner.com 909-378-0670 cc: Planning Commissioners �s sands of hands approved near fressel 2605 Ced rPoi ; AMWAR MNIORAMAAMAMI AAqwAftAE l« w as Traffic PiAlution accarelamalli act _- _. ;W.._.. are asset act acrar—race AAV sari ic— are ari Tar', aceiri ri ace 11 near i at enter tactics di arrala ri rant �: :_. n .w_.__ no Use 101 A Field Guide By: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, Assistant City Attorney City of San Luis Obispo INTRODUCTION This paper provides a general overview of the fundamental principles and legal concepts of Land Use and Planning Law. This paper will cover: the foundations of city land use authority through the constitutional police power; basis for challenging public agency decisions; the requirements for and relationships between general plans, specific plans, zoning and subdivision regulations and development agreements; basic environmental review requirements under CEQA; vested rights principles; an overview of design, conservation, and historic preservation tools; the general rules governing development fees, exactions and takings analyses; state and local affordable housing requirements; and the requirements for due process proceedings and administrative findings in the land use context. We hope you find the paper helpful and that it serves as an easy to use resource for municipal land use attorneys. THE POLICE POWER Virtually every reference guide on Municipal Law begins with the premise that a city has the police power to protect the public health, safety and welfare of its residents. See Berman v. Parker, (1954) 348 U.S. 26, 32-33. This right is set forth in the California Constitution, which states "A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws." Cal. Const, at. XI, section 7. The ability to enact ordinances to protect the health, safety and welfare is important in the land use context because it confers very broad rights to adopt regulations that implement local land use vision and values, so long as laws enacted by a city are not in conflict with state general laws. This concept is critical because new practitioners often look to cite to a specific statute as the legal authority to adopt an ordinance when, in fact, a city's broad land use authority flows directly from the constitution in the absence of a statutory prohibition or preemption of the city's otherwise regulatory authority. Land use and zoning regulations are derivative of a City's general police power. See DeVita v. County of Napa, (1995) 9 CaI. 4th 763, 782; see a/so Big L7eek Lumber Co. v. City of Santa Cruz, (2006) 38 Cal. 4m 1139, 1159. This power allows cities to establish land use and zoning laws which govern the development and use of the community. In Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, (1974) 416 U.S. 1, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the scope of such power and stated: "The police power is not confined to elimination of filth, stench and unhealthy places. It is ample to lay out zones where family values, youth values, and the blessings of quiet seclusion and clean air make the area a sanctuary for people." Idat 9. One seminal land use and zoning case underscoring a city's police power was Wa/ Mart Stores Inc. v. The City of Turlock, (2006) 138 Cal. App. 411 273, 303 where, in response to concerns over the impacts of big box stores, particularly Wal-Mart, the City of Turlock adopted an ordinance prohibiting the development of discount superstores. Wal-Mart challenged the ordinance, stating the city had exceeded its police power, but the Court disagreed. The court found the police power allows cities to "control and organize development within their boundaries as a means of serving the general welfare." Id at 303. The important issue to understand in that case was the language of the ordinance itself. The ordinance did not, and legally could not, target specific tenants which were perceived as causing the certain impacts. However, the city could control the use and development standards of property within its community which, in effect, prohibited only a handful of big box retailers, including Wal-Mart. Another case that highlights the city's police power, especially at the micro -level, is Disney v. City of Concord, (2011) 194 Cal.App.4t1 1410. In that case, the City of Concord adopted an ordinance restricting the storage and parking of recreational vehicles in residential yards and driveways. Among other things, the City of Concord's ordinance limited the number of RVs on any residential property to two, required RVs to be stored in side and rear yards behind a six foot high opaque fence, prohibited RVs from being stored on front yards and driveways (with some exceptions) and established maintenance standards for RVs within the public view. James Disney filed suit. His main argument was that the ordinance exceeded Concord's police power. The Court determined that the City of Concord's Ordinance was a valid exercise of the city's police power, where the ordinance had an aesthetic purpose. Citing Metromedia, Inc. V. City of San Diego (1980) 26 Cal.3d 848, 858, the Court stated "It is within the power of the Legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well balanced as well as carefully patrolled." Again, as echoed by Village of Be/le, supra, a city's police power is not limited to regulating just stench and filth. Preemption. Although a city's police power is broad, it is not absolute, and cannot conflict with the State's general laws. A conflict exists between a local ordinance and state law if the ordinance "duplicates, contradicts or enters an area fully occupied by general law, either expressly or by legislative implication." Viacom Outdoor Inc. v. City of Arcata, (2006)140 Cal. App. 4th 2301 236, PRACTICE NOTE FOR CHARTER CITIES: Charter cities enjoy additional constitutional freedom to govern their "municipal affairs" even if a conflict with State. law may exist. See Article XI, section 5 of the California Constitution. There is no exact definition of the term "municipal affair" other than those areas expressly stated in section 5. Whether a subject area is a municipal affair (over which a charter city has sovereignty) or one of "statewide concern" (over which the Legislature has authority) is an issue for the courts that depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Land use and zoning decisions however, have been consistently classified as a municipal 2 affair and charter cities are exempt from various provisions of the Planning and Zoning Law unless the city's charter indicates otherwise. See e.g. Gov. Code sections 65803, 65860(d); City oflrvine v. Irvine Citizens Against Overdevelopment, (1994) 25 Cal, App. 4th 868, 874. PRACTICE TIP: Sometimes, the State or federal government preempts a particular area of law because of potential discrimination or disparate impact concerns. For example, California Health and Safety Code section 1566.3 preempts local zoning with respect to residential facilities serving six or fewer mentally disabled or handicapped persons. Practitioners should be cautious about land use decisions that potentially involve a protected class, not only from an equal protection basis, but from a possible preemption basis as well. WRIT OF MANDATE; HOW CITY LAND USE DECISIONS ARE ]UDGED One of the most important perspectives on Land Use and Planning Law is to understand the basis and procedures by which a city's decisions are challenged. By understanding "which hat" your agency is wearing (legislative or adjudicative/quasi-judicial), you will better navigate the contours of legally defensible decisions and how to develop the administrative record to support your agency's decision. PRACTICE TIP: One way to explain the difference between aquasi-legislative decision and a quasi-judicial decision is to state something like: "This is a legislative decision. By taking legislative action, you are being asked to formulate general policies or rules that will apply to future projects, applications or factual circumstances of a given type. In contrast, a quasi- judicial/adjudicative decision is one in which a specific project, application or set of facts is being evaluated for compliance with the policy or rule that you have already developed (the development of law (legislative) versus the application of law to facts (adjudicative)." Traditional Writ of Mandate —the Legislative or Quasi -legislative Hat. Traditional Mandamus is the form of an action to challenge a ministerial or quasi -legislative ad of a city. California Water Impact Network v Newhall County Water Dist. (2008) 161 CA4th 1464, 1483. The statutory authority for this type of action is Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 et seq. A ministerial duty is imposed on a person in public office who, because of that position, is obligated to perform in a legally prescribed manner when a given state of facts exists. County of Los Angeles v City of Los Angeles (2013) 214 CA 4"' 643, 653. A ministerial duty is one that does not involve any independent judgment or discretion. Id at 653. Traditional Mandamus is only available if the person claiming such relief has a "substantial beneficial interest" and "there is not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, in the ordinary course of law." Code of Civ. Proc. section 1086. A "substantial beneficial interest" means "a clear, present and beneficial right" to the performance of a ministerial duty. California Assn ofMed. Prods. Suppliers v. Maxwell -Jolly (2011) 199 CA4th 286, 302, This is similar to a standing requirement. Even for a discretionary decision, Traditional Mandamus is available to compel the exercise of that discretion. Daily Journal Corp. v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 172 CA 4th 1550, 1555, In other words, Traditional Mandamus may be used to require someone to make a decision. It cannot be used to shape or 3 otherwise challenge the decision unless that decision constitutes an abuse of discretion. Saleeby v. State Bar (1985) 39 C3d 547, 562. Traditional Mandamus is also available to challenge quasi -legislative acts. California Farm Bureau Fed'n v. State Water Resources Contra/ Bd. (2011) 51 C4th 421, 428. Judicial review of quasi -legislative acts is usually imited to determining whether the act was arbitrary or capricious; the act was entirely lacking in evidentiary support; or the city failed to follow the procedures required by law. SN Sands Corp, v. City and County of San Francisco (2008) 167 CA 4th 185, 191. PRACTICE TIP: The standard of review for Traditional Mandamus is lows, generally limited to a court's review of whether the city has abused its discretion in exercising its legislative authority, and a legislative body has fairly broad discretion in policy adoption subject to review. Still a record that reflects the agency's reasoning and the need and support for a given action will be a helpful defense no matter what the standard of review. Administrative Writ of Mandate —the Quasi-judicial Hat. An adjudicative or quasi-judicial administrative decision may be challenged by Administrative Mandamus when: a hearing in the underlying administrative proceeding is required by law in which evidence is taken and the decision maker is vested with the discretion to determine contested factual issues. Code of Civ. Proc. 1094.5. Review of these decisions is usually limited to the administrative record. Code of Civ. Proc. section 1094.5(a). The scope of review in Administrative Mandamus proceedings is limited to: whether the agency has proceeded without, or in excess of, jurisdiction; whether there was a fair hearing; or whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion. Code of Civ. Proc. section 1094.5(b). 'Abuse of discretion" is established when: the agency has not proceeded in the manner required by law; the order or decision is not supported by the findings; or the findings are not supported by the evidence. See Leal v. Gourley, (2002) 100 CA 4th 963, 968. The standard of review for Administrative Mandamus is usually the substantial evidence test, however, when the underlying decision substantially affects a fundamental vested right, the independent judgment test applies. Code of Civ. Proc. section CCP §1094.5(b)-(c); Goat Hill Tavern v City of Costa Mesa (1992) 6 CA4th 1519, 1525. Under the substantial evidence test, a court determines if there is substantial evidence to support the findings and if the findings support the decision. Under this test, the court accords significant deference to the administrative fact -finder. Bedoe v. County of San Diego (2013) 215 CA 4th 56, 61. Courts have consistently refused to substitute judicial judgment for the legislative judgment of the governing body of a local agency. So long as the legislative decision bears a reasonable relationship to the public welfare, it is upheld. See Assn. Home Builders, Inc. v. City of Livermore, (1976) 18 Cal. 3d 582, 604. Califomia Hotel & tel Assn v. Indust Welfare Commis, (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 200, 211-212 [judicial review is limited "out of deference to the separate of powers between the Legislature and the judiciary [and] and to the legislative delegation of administrative authority to the agency.'] Of course, there is a caveat if some sort of heightened scrutiny is involved. 0 PRACTICE TIP: To the greatest extent possible, make sure your city resolutions and ordinances relating to entitlements include all necessary findings required by statute or ordinance to support an entitlement or approval and use your findings as an opportunity to "connect the dots" between each finding and the facts in the record supporting that finding. Though not specifically required in most cases, you may also want to consider including similar f ndings to support controversial legislative actions as a way to tell the City's story. Although sometimes difficult, don't let your resolutions become purely template documents with little connection to the underlying decision. In contrast, under the Independent Judgment standard, the court affords no deference to the factual assessments of the administrative fact finder. Welch v. State Teachers' Retirement Sys, (2012) 203 CA 4ch 1, 5. In the land use context, when a development approval has been denied in the first instance, it s highly likely that the Substantial Evidence test will be applied. Even if a conditioned permit affects a "fundamental" right, the right may not be "vested" for Independent Judgment purposes. With a vested right, the substantial evidence test applies. See Break -Zone Billiards v. City of Torrance (2000) 81 CA 4n, 1205. The Independent Judgment test usually applies in cases involving classic vested rights, such as the right to continued operation of one's business. Goat Hill Tavern, supra. RELEVANT LAWS Now that we have introduced to you the overarching principles of the police power and discussed the way land use decisions are challenged, there are several statutory schemes with which every land use practitioner should be familiar. These statutes regulate, in one way or another, virtually every land use and planning issue. They include: 1. Planning and Zoning Law, Government Code sections 65000 — 66035; 2. Subdivision Map Act, Government Code sections 66410 — 66499.58; 3. Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code sections 21000 — 21189,31 14 CCR 15000 — 153872; 4. Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code sections 54950 — 54963 — although the Brown Act is not specifically a "land use law," every practitioner counseling any public agency must be intimately familiar with these open meeting laws; 5. Mitigation Fee Act, Government Code sections 66000 — 66008. PRACTICE TIP: Create a "meeting folder," including the main provisions of each statute referenced above. We typically have provisions from and/or reference guides on these provisions at every meeting involving a land use issue. American Council of Engineering Companies provides good reference guides that are compact, succinct and easy to transport to meetings. =These are also known as the CEQA Guidelines. 5 THE GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLANS AND ZONING REGULATIONS The General Plan. California Planning and Zoning Law requires each city to prepare and adopt "...a comprehensive, long term general plan for the physical development of the ... city, and of any land outside its boundaries..." Gov. Code section 65300. Under Gov. Cade Section 65302, each General Plan must include the following elements: 1. Land Use Element; 2. Circulation Element; 3. Housing Element; 4. Conservation Element; 5. Open Space Element; 6. Noise Element; and 7. Safety Element, Gov. Code Section 65302 also sets forth particular requirements that must be included in each of the seven elements. One of the more scrutinized elements of a General Plan is the Housing Element which, among other things, must show that the agency's land use and zoning designations contribute to the attainment of State housing goals regarding affordable, transitional and supportive housing. PRACTICE TIP: Be cognizant of the various components that must be included in each of the elements of the General Plan and make sure that policy discussion at either the Planning Commission or City Council respects State -mandated land use requirements such as affordable housing. These requirements can encounter tension with local objectives to limit growth or constrain development. PRACTICE NOTE: For those public agencies that have an airport within or in immediate proximity to their jurisdiction, additional requirements and referrals for the review and comment YOUutside agencies are necessary to make sure that a General Plan and any updates are consistent with the jurisdiction's Airport Land Use Plan. Pub. Util. Code section 21675. Government Code section 65583(c) requires the Housing Element to establish a program setting forth a schedule of actions to implement the Housing Element's policies. Over the course of the last ten years or so, we have seen a shift towards more specific program/schedule language required by Housing and Community Development (HCW� for each Housing Element update. Adoption and amendment of a General Plan is a "project" under CEQA and therefore, environmental review must be performed. City of Santa Ana v City of Garden Grove (1979) 100 CA3d 521. Adopting or amending the General Plan must be done in accordance with Government Code section 35350 etseq. A general law city may not amend any of the seven mandatory elements of its General Plan more than four times per year. Gov. Code section 65358(b). 3 PRACTICE TIP: Most public agencies "group" General Plan amendments for various projects quarterly to comply with the amendment limitations of section 65358(b). PRACTICE TIP; The social realities of development may outpace General Plan updates. Careful consideration must be given to make sure that enough flexibility is built into the General Plan to account for planning trends. For example, many cities across California are experiencing a social desire for multi -modal transportation design and development projects are being put forward that advance this method of design. Unfortunately, certain policies and planning frameworks may not be well suited to properly account for this change. For example, traffic impact analysis has historically been analyzed based on Level of Service and trip generation. New methodologies are being put forward, and in some ways mandated, to account for bimodal or multimodal transportation. Policies that too narrowly incorporate traditional or existing methodologies risk becoming quickly outdated, driving a need for frequent revision and undermining the utility of the General Plan as a forward -looking community vision document. Because of the comprehensive nature of General Plan documents, they often take months, if not years, to adopt or significantly update and the legal issues surrounding the adequacy of a General Plan are certainly the subject of treatises beyond the scope of this paper. However, the "take away" is that the General Plan needs to be visionary, but also must give enough guidance and particularity to provide clear context for the subsequent planning decisions and approvals that will flow from and must be consistent with the General Plan (i.e., specific plans, zoning regulations, and map, project and permit approvals). General Plan Consistency. General Plan consistency is looked at in two ways — (1) internal consistency; and (2) vertical consistency. Internal Consistency. Government Cade sectlon 65300.5 requires a General Plan to be "integrated and internally consistent and compatible state of policies..." In Concerned Citizens of Calaveras County v. Board of Supervisors of Calaveras County, (1985) 166 Cal.App. 3d 90, the County's General Plan was found nternally inconsistent where one portion of the circulation element indicated that roads were sufficient for projected traffic increases, while another section of the same element described increased traffic congestion as a result of continued subdivision development. However, in Friends of Aviara v. City of Carlsbad, (2012) 210 Cal. App. 4t^ 1103 the court found that Housing Element Law's requirement that a municipality set forth the means by which it will "achieve consistency" with other elements of its general plan manifests a clear legislative preference that municipalities promptly adopt housing plans which meet their numerical housing obligations even at the cost of creating temporary Inconsistency in general plans. verwcal Consistency. As noted above, a General Plan must not only be internally consistent but vertically consistent with other land use and development approvals such as Specific Plans and the agency's zoning and development regulations. Citizens of Goleta valley v. Board of Supervisors, (1990) 52 Cal. 3d, 553, 570. Similar to the horizontal consistency requirements discussed above, the requirement to be vertically consistent has been codified in Government Code section 65860(a), which states, County or city zoning ordinances shall be consistent with the general plan of the county or city by January 1, 1974. A zoning ordinance shall be consistent with a city or county general plan only if both of the following conditions are met: (1) The city or county has officially adopted such a plan. (2) The various land uses authorized by the ordinance are compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the plan. In LesherCommunications, Inc. v. CiryofWa/nut Creek, (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 531, 540, the California Supreme Court addressed the importance of vertical consistency in the context of a land use initiative measure. In that case, a "Traffic Control Initiative" was placed on the ballot to establish a building moratorium to combat traffic congestion. The measure passed. The problem the Court faced, however, was the fact that the measure created vertical inconsistency between Walnut Creek's General Plan and Zoning Regulations. After carefully looking at the language of the measure, the Court held that: (1) the nitiative was not offered as, and could not be construed as, an amendment to the city's general plan, and (2) since the initiative was inconsistent with the general plan in effect when the initiative was adopted, the measure was invalid. In analyzing the effect of Government Code section 65860(c), the Court stated: We cannot at once accept the function of a general plan as a "constitution," or perhaps more accurately a charter for future development, and the proposition that it can be amended without notice to the electorate that such amendment is the purpose of an initiative. Implied amendments or repeals by implication are disfavored in any case, and the doctrine may not be applied here, The Planning and Zoning Law itself precludes consideration of a zoning ordinance which conflicts with a general plan as a pro tanto repeal or implied amendment of the general plan. The general plan stands. A zoning ordinance that is inconsistent with the general plan is invalid when passed and one that was originally consistent but has become inconsistent must be brought into conformity with the general plan. The Planning and Zoning Law does not contemplate that general plans will be amended to conform to zoning ordinances. The tail does not wag the dog. The general plan is the charter to which the ordinance must conform. (Citations omitted) Id at 540-41. (emphasis added) Subdivision (c) of section 65860 does not permit a court to rescue a zoning ordinance that is invalid ab initio. As its language makes clear, the subdivision applies only to zoning ordinances which were valid when enacted, but are not consistent with a subsequently enacted or amended general plan. It mandates that such ordinances be conformed to the new general plan, but does not permit adoption of ordinances which are inconsistent with the general plan. The obvious purpose of subdivision (c) is to ensure an orderly process of bringing the regulatory law into conformity with a new or amended general plan, not to permit development that is inconsistent with that plan. Id at 545 46. The Lesher Communications case Illustrates the clear hierarchy between a city's General Plan and Zoning Regulations and the ultimate supremacy of the General Plan as the guiding document. While most land use approvals are not initiative -based and do not run into the same complications as that which occurred in the Lesher case, the case underscores the importance of General Plan consistency requirements and highlights the peril of failing to understand or respect those requirements. Depending on the structure of a city's municipal code, it will most often be the Planning Director, Planning Commission and City Council that will have the responsibility to determine whether a proposed land use development is consistent with its General Plan and virtually every planning consideration should begin with this threshold consistency consideration. PRACTICE TIP: Although courts typically defer to a city's interpretation of its own general plan, you should not lean on deference alone in making sure you have a defensible record. Your land use approval records should reflect a consideration of the consistency requirements and include specific findings and evidence to support each of those findings, commensurate with the nature and scope of the approval being granted. Sometimes we see consistency findings that are more or less a regurgitation of the findings themselves, without any articulation of factual, project -specific support. Here is an example of how best to write such findings: POLICY: 2.2.8 Natural Features: Residential developments should preserve and incorporate as amenities natural site features, such as land forms, views, creeks, wetlands, wildlife habitats, and plants. AVOID WRITING FINDINGS LIKE THIS: The project is consistent with Policy Z.2.8 of the General Plan because it preserves and ncorporates natural features as amenities. WRITE FINDINGS LIKE THIS WHICH SPECIFICALLY INCLUDES SUPPORTING FACTS: The project is consistent with Policy 2.2.8 of the General Plan because it incorporates San Luis Creek into the common area and incorporates "greenbelt" designs into the project by permanently preserving open space buffers around the development site. 0 Specific Plans. Specific Plans are hybrid documents that act as a bridge between the General Plan and Zoning Regulations for future development of a particular area. Government Code section 65450 states that a city may prepare a specific plan "for the systematic implementation of the general plan..." A Specific Plan s adopted in the same manner as a General Plan (Gov. Code section 65453) and is considered a legislative act. PRACTICE TIP: Where a development application is covered by a Specific Plan, be cognizant of the continuing requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act especially for subsequent projects which are exempt from additional CEQA review, to avoid arguments that a subsequent project is deemed approved based on public review of the Specific Plan. See 81 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 166 (1998). So what is a Specific Plan and what is the point? For some, the concept of a Specific Plan is far less familiar and its purpose is not entirely clear. There are no black and white rules governing when a Specific Plan is required. Instead, a Specific Plan is a tool that public agencies and developers use to achieve better specificity on the vision and development potential of a particular tract of land without having to go through extensive site specific land use analysis and entitlement proceedings. It is "programmatic" in nature and usually deals with major infrastructure, development and conservation standards and Includes an Implementation program. See Gov. Code section 65451, Often, a specific plan will establish the "look" and "feel" of what future development on the property will be and it can provide a more clear and refined definition of the parameters in which development will be allowed and the responsibilities for major infrastructure area developers will be expected to fulfill. Specific plans can be very useful to agencies in setting realistic development expectations and signaling important big picture limitations or constraints unique to a particular area; they can be very useful to developers in helping to size the potential and costs of development. Development Agreements. Development Agreements are a unique planning tool authorized by statute pursuant to Government Code section 65864 — 65869.5. A Development Agreement is an agreement between the City and a property owner in which the parties agree to "freeze" all rules, regulation, and policies that are place as of the execution of the agreement. Gov. Code section 65866; Santa Margarita Area Residents Together v San Luis Obispo County Bd. of Supervisors (2000) 84 CA4th 221, The Development Agreement structure, because it is a voluntary, arm's length negotiation process between a developer and city, may also allow a city to negotiate developer concessions or contributions that it could not otherwise obtain from a developer through normal exactions or conditions of approval. In some circumstances, development agreements can provide both greater flexibility and greater certainty in the development of large or complex projects. However, it should be noted that Development Agreements are legislative acts and subject to referendum, so the flexibility afforded by the tool is also limited by community values. F[; PRACTICE TIP: Because a Development Agreement is a legislative act and participation is voluntary between the parties, no findings are required to grant or deny such an application, although making findings is usually well advised from a community transparency standpoint. Because these types of arrangements are time and resource intensive, they are often reserved for unique circumstances where there is a specific purpose and underlying need for such an arrangement beyond developer convenience. For example, Development Agreements may be appropriate when a city desires redevelopment of a particular area in a manner that requires up front infrastructure investments beyond a particular developer's "fair share" and a developer desires longer term vesting rights than could be achieved through standard development entitlements so that the developer can obtain financing, among other things. VESTED RIGHTS Under the doctrine of vested rights, If a property owner has received a permit from a public agency to do something, such as a building permit or use permit, and then incurs substantial costs in reliance of that permit, then the property owner has the right to rely on that permit regardless of changes in the public agency's land use regulations. See Avco Community Developers, Inc. v South Coast Regy Comm n (1976) 17 C3d 785, 793. In Autopsy/Post Service, Inc, v. City of Los Angeles, (2005) 129 Cal. App. 4"' 521, the Court of Appeal held that a property owner did not have vested rights status despite the expenditure of approximately $225,000 on the purchase of land and construction costs in reliance of the city's issuance of a building permit for an autopsy facility. Specifically, the Court found that substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding that the city's grant of a building permit and owner's reliance on it did not create a fundamental vested right to use building for performing autopsies -- a use prohibited by the zoning law. City staff were questioned and stated they had no knowledge, before the issuance of the permit, that the structure was intended for use as an autopsy facility, the plans approved made no reference to an autopsy facility, the building permit application did not reveal the corporate name as owner or tenant, instead naming an individual as the owner, and product approvals for autopsy tables were issued without reference to the applicant's name or the location where the product would be installed. Id at 527. The Subdivision Map Act has a specific provision which allows a developer to obtain vested rights status with regard to an approved tentative moo. Gov. Code section 66498.1(b). Essentially, by placing the word "vesting" on the draft tentative map, a developer obtains the vested right upon tentative map approval to proceed with development in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies, and standards in place at the time the application for the map was complete (with some exceptions related to health, safety and welfare). Given the numerous statutory extensions (i.e. SB 1185, AB 333, AB 208 and AB 116) the vested status of a tentative map can be significant. THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") is a comprehensive statutory scheme that requires cities and other public agencies to consider the environmental consequences of their actions before 11 approving plans or polices or otherwise committing to a course of action on a project. Typically, the city acts as the lead agency for CEQA environmental review for its projects or projects which fall within its jurisdiction. While CEQA has come to be used as a weapon against development in some contexts, it is fundamentally a process and tool to facilitate environmentally informed decision making. In the big picture, the CEQA process forces public agencies and decision makers to ask and evaluate the answers to the following questions: 1. What is the current environmental condition in which the subject property is situated? 2. What environmental impacts are likely to result from the public agencies' approval or decision on a proposed project? 3. Are these potential impacts significant? 4. Are there any alternatives to the proposed project or ways to lessen (mitigate) those impacts of the project so they are not significant? 5. Do those alternatives or mitigation measures render the project infeasible? 6. If so, does the public agency nonetheless want to approve a project with significant environmental impacts because its other benefits outweigh those unavoidable environmental impacts? PRACTICE TIP: Many CEQA determinations are as much art as science and CEQA analysis is very fact dependent, so there won't always be clear and unequivocal statutory language or case law to "answer" your environmental analysis question. However, try to keep in mind that CEQA is supposed to be a tool to guide good decision making and shed light on environmental impacts, not a fog laden maze with traps for the unwary. Take the time to ensure: 1) that your environmental review documents address the questions above; 2) that the questions have actually been answered; 3) that the answers are reasonable and based on the facts and realities of the proposed project; 4) that all reasonable mitigations have been explored and that those that are reasonable and feasible are required; and 5) that there are clearly understandable and supported reasons for rejecting mitigations and/or proceeding with a project despite significant impacts. The CEQA review process should be a reasoning process and the result of the analysis should, therefore, be reasonable. If you are not convinced that is the case, it is unlikely a court will be. Keep these fundamental concepts in mind during any CEQA analysis as the underlying purpose and intent of CEQA will shed good light on the situation at hand, especially if your situation does not have any good case law or other authority to fall back on. Step 1: Is this a project under CEQA? CEQA defines a project as ��an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and which is any of the following: (a) An activity directly undertaken by any public agency; (b) An activity undertaken by a person which is supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies; or (c) An activity that involves the issuance to a 12 person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies." Pub. Res. Code section 21065; CEQA Guidelines section 15378(a). A "project" under CEQA ncludes not only the more recognizable activities such as public works projects, grading, or other construction activities but the enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, annexation, the adoption or amendment of a general plan or even the approval of a contract which has the ability to cause a direct physical change in the environment. Step 2: Timing of CEQA compliance. CEQA compliance must occur before the public agency approves a project. The term "approves" however, does not mean final approval. Instead, "approval" refers to "the decision by a public agency which commits the agency to a definite course of action in regard to a project intended to be carried out by any person." Or for private projects, "approval occurs upon the earliest commitment to issue or the issuance by the public agency of a discretionary contract, grant, subsidy, loan, or other form of financial assistance, lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use of the project. CEQA Guidelines section 15352. The operative phrase in section 15352(a) is "commits the agency to a definite course of action" which can sometimes occur unexpectedly. For example, in Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (Waset, Inc) (2008) 45 Cal 4th 116, the California Supreme Court disapproved a line of cases and held that a lead agency has no discretion to define "approval" so as to make its commitment to a project before preparation of an EIR. Id at 194, Specifically, in that case, the city and two developers entered into an agreement for the development of affordable housing on city -owned land. The agreement was "subject to environmental review," among other things. The court determined that, In light of all the surrounding circumstances, the city's agreement with the developer and commitments made foreclosed potential mitigation measures or alternatives that would normally be considered part of the CEQA process. Id at 138 - 142. In other words, the city went "too far" and committed itself to a definite course of action notwithstanding the CEQA compliance condition it placed in the agreement with the property owner. PRACTICE TIP: If a project is in the design phase or if a significant amount of money is being equested (or both), make sure that your city is not committing to a definite course of action without complying with CEQA. Ask yourself: by this approval, are we foreclosing any alternatives or mitigation measures? 13 Step 3. Is the project exempt? If an action or approval is a project under CEQA, it may be statutorily or categorically exempt from CEQA review or may nevertheless fall under the "general rule" or "common sense" exemption. The list of statutory and categorical exemptions can be found under CEQA Guidelines sections 15260 — 15285 and 15300 — 15333, respectively. Some of the more commonly referenced exemptions that we see are: Statutory Exemptions 15262 —Feasibility and Planning Studies 15268 — Ministerial Projects 15269 — Emergency Projects 15280 — Lower Income Housing Projects Cateoorical Exemptions 15301—Existing Facilities 15302 — Replacement or Reconstruction 15304 — Minor Alternations to Land Use 15305 —Minor Alternations to Land Use Limitations 15306 —Information Collection 15307 — Actions to Protect Natural Resources 15308 — Actions to protect the Environment 15315 — Minor Land Divisions 15317 — Open Space Contracts or Easements 15321— Enforcement Activities 15332 — In -Fill Development Projects PRACTICE TIP: Note that even if a project is categorically exempt, it may not be exempt if the exception in section 15300.2 applies which states, among other things that "A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances" (CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(c)) or "...may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource" (CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(f)). See also (CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(a), (b), (d) and (e)). Compare with CEQA Guidelines section 15260, which states that the statutory exemptions "are complete exemptions from CEQA." CEQA Guidelines section 15260. The CEQA Guidelines provide an additional exemption which is commonly referred to as the "catch-all" or "common sense" exemption. Specifically, the CEQA Guidelines state: "[w]here it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA." PRACTICE TIP: If staff is claiming an exemption on the "catch-all" rule under CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), ask staff what evidence they have to make this determination. The safest route is to prepare an Initial Study. Also make sure that staff is not overusing this exemption especially if a project is otherwise statutorily or categorically exempt from CEQA review, which will provide a more specific and supportable action. 14 PRACTICE TIP: If a project is utilizing a statutory or categorical exemption specify the precise facts which make the project exempt. Step 4: IYs a CEQA Project. Now what do I do? Study, study, study. The Initial Study. An Initial Study is a preliminary environmental analysis for a project to determine if an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration (ND) is needed. Note that if an EIR will clearly be needed for a project, an Initial Study is not technically required. CEQA Guidelines section 15063(a). However, an Initial Study may nevertheless be a good idea to help frame the scope of the EIR (see section below regarding scoping). The Initial Study must include a description of the project, environmental setting, potential environmental impacts, and mitigation measures for any significant environmental effects. CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(d). In describing the project, the Initial Study must look at "...all phases of project planning, implementation and operation..." CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(a). PRACTICE TIP: Although there is no specific format required for an Initial Study, we recommend that public agencies use, at least as the baseline template, the Initial Study found in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. If the results of an Initial Study indicate that a project may have a potentially significant impact, an EIR must be prepared. So do I need to prepare an EIR? The "Fair Argument"Standard. CEQA's fair argument standard is the critical tipping point for many projects and is one of the areas of CEQA that generates a significant amount of litigation and controversy. EIRs are expensive (often well in excess of $100,000) and take a significant amount of time to prepare, circulate and approve. As a result, an EIR can effectively kill a project, which is why the fair argument standard is welcomed by project opponents in CEQA litigation. The fair argument standard is set forth in Public Resources Code section 21080(d): "If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report shall be prepared." Pub. Res. Code section 21080(d) "Substantial evidence" means "...fact, a reasonable assumption based upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact. Pub. Res. Code section 21080(e)(1). "Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment." The meaning of substantial evidence is probably one of the most critical aspects of any challenge to a ND of environmental impact or Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental mpact (MND). As with any controversial project, there are usually some project opponents who simply 15 voice their opposition to the project and who cite CEQA and raise various environmental concerns. However, their statements may not truly rise to the level of constituting "substantial evidence" within the meaning of CEQA. PRACTICE TIP: no verbatim the fair argument standard and be able to articulate the tests for any agency body considering an environmental determination. Inevitably, every land use practitioner will come across the situation where a Planning Commissioner asks: "Does this ND or MND violate CEQA?" We recommend that you respond by explaining the fair argument standard and what constitutes "substantial evidence," and advise the body that it must determine whether that standard has been met in light of the underlying record of information before it. Conclusory statements or speculation do not generally constitute substantial evidence. For example, just because a concerned neighbor says it will be "too noisy" and "will have a significant impact on the environment" doesn't necessarily make it so. However, the statement of several neighbors supported by a noise expert hired by the neighbors who has produced a study suggesting that the city's methodology is flawed and it has underestimated the noise impacts should warrant further consideration. The difficulty in analyzing what constitutes substantial evidence, even where "expert testimony" is nvoked, was well illustrated in Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles, (2001) 90 Cal. App. 4r1 1162. In that case, the City of Los Angeles adopted a housing code enforcement program. Opponents retained an expert who stated in the administrative record that the enforcement program would require landlords to undertake construction or repair activities "in potentially tens of thousands of apartment and other buildings...use hazardous chemicals to control pests and rodents, and potentially disturb hazardous building materials..." The court found that such expert testimony did not constitute substantial evidence because such opinion was not expert opinion supported by fact and that such statements were simply "argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative." Idat 1176. PRACTICE TIP: In reviewing whether a statement constitutes substantial evidence, be mindful of words such as "may", "could", "potentially", "might" and other similar adjectives and to what facts in the record are asserted to support the statements. Whether such statements constitute "substantial evidence" under CEQA will turn on the nexus between such language and whether the data supports the conclusion. The fair argument standard should be understood in light of CEQA's purpose (informed decision making) and preference far environmental protection, which manifests in this standard that created a "low threshold" for requiring an EIR. See Citizens Action to Serve Aii Students v. Thorniey (1990) 222 Cal. App. 3d 748, 754; Citizens of Lake Murray Area Assn. v. City Council (1982) 129 Cal. App. 3d 436, 440; Mejia v. City of Los Angeles, (2005) 130 Cal. App. 4th 322, 332. This "low threshold" is sometimes difficult to accept for both city staff and developers considering the substantial costs and delays associated with the EIR process. However, keep in mind that nowhere in CEQA does the cost or delay play into the decision as to whether to prepare an EIR. 16 The ND, MND and NOD (A game of Acronym Soup). If the Initial Study indicates that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, then the city can prepare a ND. Pub. Res. Code section 21080(c); CEQA Guidelines section 15070 at seq. If the Initial Study Indicates that there could be significant impacts, but those impacts can be mitigated to a point of insignificance, then a MND can be prepared. Most projects, especially those involving any sort of construction activity, will include conditions or mitigation measures within the negative declaration calculated to reduce any potential environmental impacts to be less than significant. However, conditions or mitigation measures in the MND will not preclude the need to prepare an EIR if nformation meeting the the fair argument standard discussed above is introduced into the record. See Pub, Res. Code section 21064.5; CEQA Guidelines section 15070(b)(2). PRACTICE TIP: One recurring problem with MNDs are "deferred" mitigation measures which are generally impermissible under CEQA. For example, in Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, the court determined that a mitigation measure that required a developer to "prepare a hydrological study evaluating the project's potential environmental effects" violated CEQA. That said, requirements for future implementation measures are allowed, provided there are adequate performance standards, timing of implementation, and contingency plans in place. CEQA Guidelines 15121.6.4(a). In short, a future requirement to study a potential environmental impact is not advisable, but a future requirement for specific mitigation of an identified impact is. PRACTICE TIP: Land use approvals are often challenged either on the fair argument standard or under administrative writ of mandate grounds. Keep in mind who the real party in interest is. Although it is the city's decision that is subject to challenge, it is the property owner's entitlement that is at stake. Be sure to include in the conditions of approval for every discretionary permit a well -drafted indemnification, hold harmless and duty to defend provision to protect the city from challenge. If a lawsuit is filed, the City will be able to utilize this condition and tender the defense costs to the real party in interest. For subdivision projects, the Subdivision Map Act provides certain limitations on a property owner's duty to indemnify — see Government Code section 66474.9. If an ND or MND is prepared, the city must provide the public and specified agencies with a notice of intention. Pub. Res. Code section 21092; CEQA Guidelines section 15072. The public review period must be no less than 20 days. Pub. Res. Code section 21092. If the State Clearinghouse is used, the review period is at least 30 days. Pub. Res. Code section 21091(b). PRACTICE TIP: Unless the project is time critical, the best practice is to use the State Clearinghouse to distribute environmental documentation. 17 PRACTICE NOTE: In addition to the lead agency designation, CEQA designates certain other public agencies involved in a project approval as "responsible agencies" and "trustee agencies." Although participation by each type of agency is important, it is imperative that any trustee agency (e.g., California Fish and Wildlife) be provided notice before the city (as the lead agency) takes action on the project. Otherwise, the city may face a failure to follow procedure argument or the trustee agency can even "take over" the CEQA review. Once a notice of intention is provided and the ND or MND is approved, the city needs to record a Notice of Determination (NOD). CEQA Guidelines section 15075. PRACTICE TIP: Record the NOD as soon as possible in order to trigger the 30-day statute of limitations on the approval of the ND or MND. STEP 5: The EIR. There are several types of EIRs and which type is appropriate depends on the project being approved. For example, a General Plan update would not utilize a "project EIR"; instead, a General Plan update would utilize a Master EIR. Pub. Res. Code sections 21156 — 21158.5. Scoping. One of the most important initial steps of the EIR process is determining the scope of an EIR. CEQA Guidelines section 15083. This process is essentially a consultation between the city, the developer, responsible and trustee agencies, and sometimes the public, to decide what environmental issues an EIR will focus on. The result of the scoping process is usually two -fold — it (hopefully) removes unnecessary analysis of non -issues and focuses attention on real or legitimately perceived real issues. PRACTICE NOTE: Scoping meetings are not always helpful. However, for projects where the concerns focus on specific and fairly narrow potentially significant environmental impacts, a Scoping meeting can be very helpful in tailoring the EIR process to a limited set of issues. Notice of Preparation. Once an EIR is "scoped", a City must prepare a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and send it to all responsible agencies, trustee agencies, Office of Planning and Research and any federal agencies who are providing funding or have any part of the approval process for the project. Pub. Res. Code section 21080.4; CEQA Guidelines section 15082(a). In addition, the NOP must be sent to any interested person who has requested written notice. Pub. Res. Code section 21092.2, If an agency chooses to respond, the response must contain specific details regarding how, in terms of scope and content, the EIR should treat environmental information related to the responsible or trustee agency's area of statutory responsibility and must identify the "significant environmental issues and reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures that the responsible agency or trustee agency, or [OPR] will need to have explored in the draft EIR." CEQA Guidelines section 15082(b). If you did your homework In the scoping meeting, responses to the NOP should come as no surprise. Preparing the Draft EIR. An environmental consultant will almost always prepare the EIR. Although the project applicant pays for the costs for preparation of an EIR, the EIR must "be prepared directly by, or under contract" with the lead agency. Pub. Res. Code section 21082.1(a); CEQA Guidelines section 15084(a). The EIR must include the following components: 1. Table of Contents or Index; (CEQA Guidelines section 15122) 2. Summary of the proposed actions and their consequences; (CEQA Guidelines section 15123) 3. Project description; (CEQA Guidelines section 15124) 4. Environmental Setting; (CEQA Guidelines section 15125) 5. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts; (CEQA Guidelines section 15126) 6. Water supply assessment —for certain large projects (although there may be some movement in this area of the law and more projects may become subject to this analysis; (Pub. Res. Code section 21151.9; Water Code section 10911(b)) 7. Significant Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project; (CEQA Guidelines section 15126.2) 8. Effects Not Found to Be Significant; (CEQA Guidelines section 15128) 9. Mitigation Measures; (CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4) 10. Cumulative Impacts; (CEQA Guidelines section 15130) PRACTICE NOTE: One interesting concept that has arisen is "urban decay". CEQA Guidelines section 15131 states that economic or social information may be included in an EIR or may be presented in whatever form the agency desires. Subsection (a) states "[e]conomic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment." Subsection (b) however states "[e]conomic or social effects of a project may be used to determine the significance of physical changes caused by the project." One situation where this analysis is commonly utilized is with projects involving big box retailers, most notably Wal-Mart. See Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App. 4t1 1184. The dea behind the analysis is that there will be a physical manifestation of a project's potential socioeconomic impact. In Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control, there were two proposed Val -Mart projects less than 5 miles from each other. Economic experts warned that such land use decisions could cause a chain reaction of store closures and long term vacancies, thus destroying existing neighborhoods and leaving decaying shells in their wake. 11. Project Alternatives; (CEQA Guidelines section 15130); 12. Inconsistencies with Applicable Plans; (CEQA Guidelines section 15125(d)) 13. Discussion on Growth Inducing Impacts; (CEQA Guidelines section 15126.2(d)) and 14. Organizations and Persons Consulted. (CEQA Guidelines section 15129). The most robust and time consuming discussions usually revolve around items 4, 51 71 81 9, and 10. 19 Recirculation Issues. One issue that often comes up is if an EIR needs to be recirculated because the document has been changed or new issues have arisen during the public review process. You may find yourself on the receiving end of the following question: "Do we need to recirculate?" The effect of recirculation should not be taken lightly — it costs money, delays final approval of the environmental document, and opens the document up to additional comments and criticisms. On the other hand, failure to recirculate when necessary exposes the document and CEQA process to challenge. Recirculation is required in four instances: 1, When there is new information that shows a new, substantial environmental impact; 2, When new information shows a feasible alternative or mitigation measure that clearly would lessen environmental impacts, but it is not adopted; 3. When new information shows a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact; or 4. When the draft EIR was so fundamentally inadequate and conclusory that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5(a)) PRACTICE TIP: When in doubt, recirculate the EIR. Approval of an EIR. After the final EIR is complete, the city must make certain findings before it can certify and approve the EIR. Specifically, the city must find that: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment; Z. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency; or 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR. Pub. Res. Code section 21081; CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 — 15094. Item 3 is generally referred to as a "statement of overriding conditions." As with a ND or MND, the city should file a NOD in order to trigger the 30-day statute of limitations on the certification of the EIR. Pub. Res. Code sections 21152(a), (d); CEQA Guidelines section 15075(e). 20 TAKINGS, DEVELOPMENT FEES AND EXACTIONS Takings. Takings analysis begins with the constitutional premise that no private property shall be taken for public use without the payment of just compensation. U.S. Const, Ss' Amend.; see also Cal. Const, art. I section 19, A taking can be in the form of a physical taking (i.e. physical invasion of property), Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation, (1982) 458 U.S. 419 (State law required property owners to allow cable company to install cable facilities on apartment buildings); denials of all economically beneficial use, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, (1992) 505 U.S. 1003 (regulation barring development on beachfront lots was a taking); partial regulatory takings, Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York, (1978) 438 U.S. 104 (historic preservation ordinance was not a taking because it did not have any economic impact on the station or interfere with the developer's investment backed expectations as the railroad could continue to earn a reasonable rate of return; and land use exactions, Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, (1987) 483 U.S. 825 and Dolan v. City of Tigard, (1994)512 U.S. 374, These last two cases are commonly referred to as Nollan/Dolan and were seminal in establishing the appropriate takings analysis for land use exactions. This paper will focus on this last takings analysis. Nollan/Dolan and the Test of ReasonablenesslNexus Requirement. In California, property development is considered a privilege and not a right. Associated Home Builders, Inc, c. City of Walnut Creek, (1971)4 Cal. 3d 633, 638. However, the Nollan and Dolan cases have limited the extent in which public agencies may condition development. Specifically, cities may impose conditions on development so long as the conditions are reasonable and there exists a sufficient nexus between the conditions imposed and the projected burden of the proposed development. Nollan, 483 U.S. at 834-835. Further, cities must prove that such conditions have a "rough proportionality" to the development's Impact. Dollan, 512 U.S. at 391. In order to understand what is meant by these limitations, it is helpful to know the development and conditions in the underlying cases. In Nollan, a properly owner wanted to build a house within the Coastal Zone. The Coastal Commission mposed a condition on the permit, requiring dedication of a lateral access easement along the property owner's private beach. The rational for the condition was to assist the public in viewing the beach and in overcoming a perceived `psychological barrier" to using the beach. Id. at 435, The Nollan court determined that there was no nexus between the identified impact of the project (obstruction of ocean view by the new house) and the easement condition (physical access across the beach). Similarly, in Bowman v. California Coastal Commission, (2014) 230 Cal. App. 4th 1146, the Court of Appeal found no nexus between a request for a permit to rehabilitate a house and a condition imposed by the Coastal Commission for the property owner to dedicate to the public a lateral easement for public access along the shoreline of his property. Specifically, the Court stated: "We agree with appellants that under Nollan and Dolan, the easement lacks an "essential nexus" between the exaction and the construction. The work occurs within the existing "footprint" of the property." Id at 1151. 21 In Dolan, a property owner applied for a permit to further develop his property. His plans were to increase the size of his plumbing store (by about double) and pave his 39-car parking lot. The permit was approved by the City of Tigard with the condition that the property owner dedicate a portion of his property within the 100 year flood plain for improvement of a drainage facility, and dedicate a 15- foot strip of land adjacent to the flood plain for a pedestrian/bicycle path. The city made numerous findings to support the nexus requirement. The Supreme Court held that even though a nexus between the project and the conditions existed, the degree of the takings was not roughly proportional to the development's impact. The City of Tigard asked for too much in relation to the mpact that the development presented. PRACTICE TIP: The Nollan/Dolan analysis can be difficult for city staff and the legislative bodies to understand and implement. If the question is asked if a particular condition constitutes a taking under Nollan/Dolan, we recommend that you walk the individual or individuals considering the issue through the following questions so the individual or individuals can articulate a response: 1. What is the impact that this project has on this issue? 2. Does the condition serve a legitimate public interest? 3. What is the relationship between the particular impact of the development and the condition? How do they relate to one another? 4. Are the impact and the condition on par with one another? Development Fees (AB 1600). AB 1600, otherwise known as the Mitigation Fee Act, was based on the rational articulated in No and Dolan, and sets forth certain requirements that must be followed by a California city in establishing or imposing a development impact fee. The Act is codified at Government Code section 66000 — 66025, and requires, among other things, a city to identify the purpose of the fee, identify how it will be used, demonstrate that a reasonable relationship exists between the purpose of the fee and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed, and demonstrate that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the service or public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is mposed. Gov. Code section 66001(a)-(b). PRACTICE TIP: For the most part, a city's AB 1600 fees will be established pursuant to fee study. However, it is critical that the public agency also perform the annual and five-year reporting requirements required by Gov. Code sections 66006 and 66001(d), respectively. Failure to report or make the necessary findings could render AB 1600 accounts subject to refund. Note that these fees are different than other statutorily authorized fees, such as Quimby fees. 22 AFFORDABLE HOUSING As noted above, State law requires each city to provide affordable housing to all economic segments. See e.g., Gov. Code section 65008. This paper will briefly touch on some of the various ways affordable housing programs are implemented by the State and at the local level. PRACTICE NOTE: Remember that to further the development of affordable housing within the State, CEQA statutorily exempts certain affordable housing projects from environmental review, Anti-NIMBY laws. Government Code section 65589.5 requires a city to make certain findings before it can reject or impose certain conditions on an affordable housing project, including emergency shelters, transitional housing and supportive housing. This statute effectively "flips" the development process and creates a presumption in favor of affordable housing that puts the onus on the city to find that the project would have a specific adverse impact on the health, safety and welfare and that there is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid the impact other than by disapproving the project or imposing certain conditions. Gov. Code section 65589.5(j). Second Units, AKA "Granny Units". Government Code sections 65852.1 — 65852.2 sets forth the State's second units law. The purpose of the law was to promote the development of secondary units and to make sure that any requirements imposed by cities are not so onerous as to unreasonably restrict the creation of such units. Govt. Code section 65852.150. One important component of this statutory scheme is Government Code section 65852.2(a)(b)(3), which states: This subdivision establishes the maximum standards that local agencies shall use to evaluate proposed second units on lots zoned for residential use which contain an existing single-family dwelling. No additional standards, other than those provided in this subdivision or subdivision (a), shall be utilized or imposed, except that a local agency may require an applicant for a permit issued pursuant to this subdivision to be an owner -occupant. As a result, most cities' secondary unit regulations mimic the maximum standards set forth in Government Code section 65852.2(a). Inclusionary Housing. Many public agencies have enacted inclusionary housing ordinances which either encourage or require developers to include a certain percentage of affordable housing units within projects. Many Inclusionary housing regulations include the ability to pay an "in -lieu" fee to account for fractional affordable housing requirements or as an alternative to a set -aside requirement. Although inclusionary housing programs have, for the most part, withstood judicial scrutiny (see BIA of Central California v. City of Patterson, (2009)171 Cal. App. 4th 886; Home Builders Assoc.'n of Northern California v. City of 23 Napa, (2001) 90 Cal. App. 4" 188), fairly recent case law has held that the Costa -Hawkins Act has preempted the field of rental restrictions. Palmer/Sixth Street Properties, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles, (2009) 175 Cal. App. 411 1396. In Sterling Park V. City of Pa/o A/to (2013J 57 Cal.4" 1193, the California Supreme Court held that in lieu fees were subject to challenge as exactions subject to the statute of limitations under the Mitigation Fee Act, disapproving Trinity Park, L.P. v. City of Sunnyvale, (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1014, which held the Mitigation Fee Act did not apply to a below market housing condition and that the Subdivision Map Act's 90-day statute of limitations applied. It also held that since Palo Alto required the developer to grant the city an option to purchase the units, the option was an interest in real property that could qualify as an 'exaction' as well and that the developer could use the Mitigation Fee Act's protest procedures to challenge the option as well. The Court did not reach the issue of whether a pure price control without an option would qualify as an 'exaction.' PRACTICE NOTE: The California Supreme Court, in California Bui/ding Industry Association v. City of San Jose, (2013) 307 P. 3d 878, will decide whether inclusionary housing requirements need to be justified by a nexus study or can be adopted based on the police power. Given the uncertainty of the standard of review, many practitioners in this area are advising that it seems prudent to complete a nexus study so that the program can continue in the event of an adverse uling. Density Bonus Law. Government Code sections 65915 — 65918 sets forth the State Density Bonus Law, which, among other things, provides developers with a density bonus or other development -related concessions if a developer agrees to construct certain housing developments that provide either affordable housing or other similar housing. Gov. Code section 65915(a). This law specifically applies to charter cities. Gov. Code section 65918. The amount of the density bonus and the number of concessions depends on the percentage of units set aside for affordable housing. PRACTICE NOTE: Government Code section 65915 does not set forth the type of concessions that are available under this law and instead states the applicant may submit a proposal for a specific concession and the city shall grant the concession requested unless it makes a written finding based on substantial evidence that the concession, among other things, would have a specific adverse impact (as defined in Government Code section 65589.5(d)(2)) upon public health and safety or the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate -income households. PRACTICE NOTE: It is important to understand that the State's Density Bonus Law is mandatory and that if a developer proposes a project that qualifies for a density bonus and/or concession(s), the city and reviewing bodies have little ability to otherwise modify the impacts of those bonuses or concession(s). PRACTICE NOTE: There still appear to be differing practices as to whether a developer's inclusionary housing triggers the density bonuses or concessions under Govt. Code sections 65915 et seq. If there is still any ambiguity in your city's ordinances, we recommend the city include inclusionary housing within density bonus calculations. See Latinos Unidos Del Valle De Napa y Solano v. County of Napa, (2013) 217 Cal. App. 4tn 1160 (density bonus is mandatory even if the project only includes affordable housing "involuntarily" to comply with a local ordinance). DUE PROCESS The Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is inextricably intertwined with land use law. Due process requires reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard by an impartial decision maker for administrative proceedings that affect liberty or property interests. See Gov. Code section 65905(a); Fuchs v County of Los Angeles Civil Serv. Commis (1973) 34 CAM 709. Due process issues can be fairly apparent, for example in the case of an issuance or revocation of a conditional use permit. One issue to be aware of is a due process claim arising out of the competing roles of the city attorney as advisor and advocate, for instance the attorney who advised the city on the underlying land use application also advises the body which acts as a later decision -maker in the administrative hearing on the application. See Nightlife Partners, Ltd. V. City of Beverly Hills (2003) 108 CA 4th 81 (city violated due process rights of the land use applicant when the lawyer advising the administrative hearing officer on appeal had also advised the City on the original denial of the permit being appealed); Quintero v City of Santa Ana (2003) 114 CA4th 810 (due process violated where Board's regular legal advisor appeared before the Board as an advocate, even where separate counsel to the Board was provided); see also Howitt v Superior Court (1992) 3 CA4th 1575 (county counsel's office must establish that its attorney who advised county's appeals board was completely segregated from attorney representing the department that terminated the employee, or else county counsel would be disqualified from advising county appeals board). This line of cases obviously presents some difficult logistical problems for small, in-house municipal legal offces1 which require careful thought and planning, and often the retention of outside counsel, where attorneys work closely with staff, as well as acting as advisors to planning commissions and city councils. HISTORIC PRESERVATION For many communities such as the City of San Luis Obispo, historic preservation is critical. At the federal level, there is the National Historic Preservation Act that sets forth federal authority for federal historic preservations programs. California has the California Register of Historic Resources, Pub. Res. Code sections 5020 etseq., which is an authoritative listing and guide for cities to implement their respective historic preservation ordinances. There are four different criteria for designation, which are as follows: 25 1. The resource is associated with events that have made a sign cant contribution to the broad patters of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; 2. The resource is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history; 3. The resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or 4. The resource has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. Note that the resource is not always a structure but can be something as simple as a sign, wall or trail. The typical effects of historic designation are protection of the resource from alternation, neglect or mpact, the ability to obtain building code alternatives, and potentially property tax reduction under the Mills Act. CONCLUSION The world of land use law and regulation is comprehensive and the sheer volume of legal concepts, statutes governing land use decisions, and procedural requirements can be daunting. However, land use regulation is at the heart of some of the most significant decisions local governments make and represents the single most powerful tool that communities have to define, establish, and maintain their "sense of place." If each land use decision can be evaluated starting with the constitutional foundations of the authority to regulate and the various statutes and processes can be viewed as tools to help answer the important questions and order important land use decisions, the process starts to seem less overwhelming. Fundamentally, this paper Is presented from the perspective that the law is supposed to make sense and that the objective of the law is good planning. It is our hope that the paper can be used as one of many tools to navigate the legal complexities through that lens. Attached to this paper is a brief "snapshot" of our "go -to" reference guides and websites, which we use in this important subject area. 26 "Go -To" Reference Materials These are the books, websites and other reference materials we have sitting in our office or on our "favorites" tab on our computers. We be helpful to share with you the references we use, while keeping in mind that everyone works within a limited budget. Here is what our office looks like in regards to an use materials (in no particular order): Copy of our City's General Plan, Specific Plan, Zoning Regulations, Community Design Guidelines Remy, Thomas, Moose and Manley's Guide to CEQA Bass, Bogdan and Rivasplata's CEQA Deskbook Curtin's California Land Use and Planning Law California Municipal Law Handbook, CEB ACEC Planning and Zoning Michael Durkee's Map Act Navigator CA League of Cities': Proposition 218 Implementation Guide, Providing Conflict of Interest Advice, The People's Business, Open and Public IV Abbott, Detwiler, Jacobson, Sohagi and Steiner's Exactions and Impact Fees in California CALTrans's Standard Specifications Miller & Starr, California Real Estate (All of'em) CEB California Civil Writ Practice CEB; California Land Use Practice --D CEB California Practice Under CEQA Link to the League of California Cities' City Attorney's e-Group Listsery * Link to California Code through www.leaalinfolegislature.ca.gov; Link to our City's Westlaw account. We use these reference materials on nearly a weekly basis and could not imagine operating without them. Of course, there are numerous other reference guides and materials that are tremendously helpful but the above list just happens to be the ones that we have accumulated over the years and try to keep current. r' • � � �• � < ��. n o '� Tom' ^' �.' � �� d � a q� y �� d 'RF9 Fw fs✓ 6�� '.. 5' �E 4� m��x \� � � a� �� u �yHws, „'�Yp I.___�.t d .. ....�_ � jiiPiT. Land Use Designations � High Density Residential S General Commercial Galf Course � ___J City of Diamond Bar Rural Residential ®High Density Resldenelald0 ORice - Open Space �__} Sphere of Influence Low Density Residential � ^ Neighborhood Mixed Use Water - Significant Ecological Area County Boundary Low -Medium Residential -Town Center Mixed Use School '. -Private Recreadon Medium Density Residential Transit Oriented Mlzed Use �� Public Facility PlanningArea _ _Medium High Denslry Residential Light Indusvlal � Park Specifc Plan ® Community Core Overlay e 0.25 0.5 I Saurce.•Cfty of Diamond f3ar 2019; Dyett & Bhctia, Z019 noes _`�� l � LAND USE &ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT � Diamond Bar General Plan 2040 Figure 2=4e Current Zoning Districts Rossrxgq� WH - o n RL R E� 8 aC2 RMH C RUM ' es �T� / am H q RL am a C.2 � M;a RUM MH RIM ® ca�Qe . RL RLM flu 6 sM49O. uM 3 M W4ugy RL Hum RL sµ RL T o s �tW W[q S RL M M1Hmin am RR qP}A � M ik 3 dry L RL R 4 4 Caµ .. `ir 3 i RLM oRLM OP RW y�F.RS ST �R. 05 RL J,.. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE City of Diamond Bar RL Mnd°V m� ' a.z-z A.2-t a, ITI il�FL AG Agriculture OB Office. Business Park RL Low Density Residential SUB -PA Planning Area C-I Neighborhood Commercial OP Office, Professional RLM Low Medium Density Res. County Zoning f C-2 Community Commercial - I OS Open Space/Conservation RM Medium Density Residential A-2-1 Heavy Agriculture C-3 Regional Commercial ,' REC Recreation RMH Medium High Density Res. A-2-2 Heavy Agriculture C-3-PD Regional Commercial/Hotel RH High Density Residential RR Rural Residential f CIt of Diamond Bar _ L r CO Commercial Office. -i RH-30 High Density Residential SP Specific Plan Overlay s T- _ 8 Y P Y ...[ Sphere of Influence I Light Industrial Source: City of Diamond Bar 2016; Los Angeles County GIS Data o oars ovs s D Y E T T & B H AT I A Portal, 2016; Dyett & Bhatia, 2016 Mats Urban and Regional Planners �•' aslii Sensitise Receptors y t A a �> I in IF n Inn Residences %'+, p r schools I -- Project Boundary fi LIF If III` � : F Nwy * „ 57 a.V ll / �r-ii4.,�L' f° It IF 14000 0 10000 Z000 3,000 4,000 - II " Diamond Ba feetri` Montessorl Academy OF It Ain ti JALA S it g Yy J 2 OFFkIF L FA An S FAA If At / YIn �z + 4 IF it :'afP# IF IF I I If \ ' In IF IA IF J I At d 11 in Y t r F IF v`` All�„ r If �In h ill 1 In It A Z Ed' a'�p'rvp}' It tj Fit. r nI jIAw7anAAl *: O t °t" r {' 4 Inn J IF I In Inn ppppp 571 Town &CountryPresChool 9 ¢Ll' Q In Shi B Infant Care `enter i a } ALI It 1. AF OFFUlilliLLF of Phoenix AJA Source: Caltrans 2013. Figure 2. C nlifnrnia 'titatp RniitP .57/Staff Rrntty 6n nrniPrt hnnnriarv_