Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/05/1997'20- IWA 6:00 P.M. South Coast Air Quality Management District Hearing Board Room 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, California Chairman Vice Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Toe Ruzicka Don Schad Franklin Fong Mike Goldenberg Joe McManus Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the. Community Development Office, located at 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please call (909) 396 5676 during regular business hours. 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 accomodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting must inform the Community Development Department at (909) 396 5676 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. LPdA&L\PCAGBNDA.GBD Please refrain from smoking, eating or drinking in the Auditorium The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper and encourages you to do the same. r CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Tuesday, August 5, 1997 ' Next Resolution No. 97-11 CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 1. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Joe Ruzicka, Vice Chairman Don Schad, Mike Goldenberg, Franklin Fong, and Joe McManus 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS:. This is the time and place for the general public to address the members of the Planning Commission on any item that is within their jurisdiction, allowing the public an opportunity to speak on non-public hearing and non -agenda items. Please complete a Speaker's Card for the recording Secretary(Completion of this form is voluntaU) There is a five minute maximum time limit when addressing the Planning Commission, 3. 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: 3.1 Minutes of July 29, 1997 4. OLD BUSINESS: None 5. NEW BUSINESS: None 6. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 6.1 Draft Development Code (Zoning Code Amendment ZCA 97-1) Article III - Site Planning and General Development Regulations' & IV - Land Use and Development Permit Procedures RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission receive a presentation from the staff, receive public testimony, review Articles III and IV of the Development Code and make an informal recommendation. A formal recommendation will be made at the conclusion of the review process. 7. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: 8. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 1 9. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: CONCERTS IN THE PARK - August 6, 1997, 6:30 p.m. Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Drive - Bobby Cochran and the Rock around the Clock Show PLANNING COMMISSION - August 12, 1997 - 6:00 p.m., AQMD Board Hearing Room, 2186 E. Copley Drive - Special Development Code Meeting & Regular Planning Commission Meeting. CONCERTS IN THE PARK - August 13, 1997, 6:30 p.m. Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Drive - Upstream - Calypso TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION - August 14, 1997 - 7:00 p.m. - AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive. CITY COUNCIL - August 19, 1997 - 6:30 p.m. - AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive. PLANNING COMMISSION - August 19, 1997 - 6:00 p.m., AQMD Board Hearing Room, 2186 E. Copley Drive - Special Development Code Meeting CONCERTS IN THE PARK - August 20, 1997, 6:30 p.m. Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Drive - Tyrone, Anthony Band - Jazz PLANNING COMMISSION - August 26, 1997 - 6:00 p.m., AQMD Board Hearing Room, 2186 E. Copley Drive - Special Development Code Meeting & Regular Planning Commission Meeting. CONCERTS IN THE PARK - August 27, 1997, 6:30 p.m. Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Drive - Future America - Variety Show PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - August 28, 1997 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive. 10. ADJOURNMENT: 6:00 - Tuesday, August 12, 1997 K CITY OF DIAMOND BAR INTEROFFICE MBMORANDUM Chairman and Planning commissioners To: City Man Destefano, Deputy James of Art cles III and IV From: CODE - Review Subject: DRAFT DEVELOPMENT Date: July 33-1 1997 our review and information is an additional copy of the review of Articles Attached for Y repared regarding Please bring your the staff reports p Development Code. ou to the meeting and IV of the Draft Articles with y ly distributed Draft the previous 1.997 . of August 5 ts, or need further ou have any questions, commenor any member of the Should Y lease feel free to contact me information p staff. attachment jds AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: APPLICATION REQUEST: PROPERTY LOCATION: City PLANNING 6.1 July 29, 1997 August 5, 1997 of Diamond Bar COMMISSION Staff Report A request for review cle of the of the following City of Diamond Bar, Comprehensive Development Code:. Article III - Site PI-anninq and General Development Standards Citywide City of Diamond Bar. APPLICANT: SUMMARY: tanning and development standards for new Article III establishes site p The purpose of this and modified development within l the Cit is compatible with existing Article is to ensure that this ,s goals for future land uses and consistent with the community g Article III, in development as envisioned by the General Plan. conjunction with Article II - Zoning Districts and ser development presents the most significant revisions to the City regulations. to implementing the General Plan, creating a opportunity In addition iven the City the comprehensive Development Code has 9 in the L.A. County to address many of the areas that were lacking such as home Subdivision Code and Planning and Zoning Code, ations, day care centers and telecommunications facilities. occu p ndards in the first Chapter of Article tall newe al opmerty The sta lied to Development and Use Standards, are app and for in combination with the standards e permitted developments features hsu h' ag district. This Chapter addresses general access, exterior lighting and fencing and describes how standards such as height limitations and setbacks will be implemented. Several Chapters in this Article establish \standardsNlandscaping e anld development features such as fences signs. The final chapter contains standards for specific land uses, such as child daycare facilities, home based businesses, recycling facilities and secondary housing units. An entire chapter has been devoted to tree preservation and protection implementing the General Plan strategy calling for the creation of an ordinance for the preservation of native trees including oak and walnut and the retention of mature sycamore, pepper, arroyo willow and significant trees of cultural or historical value. Article III also codifies, reformats and revises City Ordinances es adoptedto address development issues spmaintenance e Ordinances that were illside management, signs, and property adopted in response to the mandates sof and State Transportat on as sDemand Water Efficient Landscape Standards, Management, are also included in this Article. The following report briefly describers ArticleoCloll�spcontents, Comparisons are presented hting issues that may need further discus e proposed between the current Planning and Zoning Code and the p p Development Code Article. This is to illustrate ato clarify twill b s hiebeied ng through the adoption of a new Code and changed and what is being retained. ARTICLE III Affordable Housing Incentives/Density Bonus Provisions Under existing State law, cities are required to grant density bonuses or other incentives such as a reduction in the dev nloexchangeafoaran for lot coverage, setbacks or parking requirements, i agreement to construct housing that is affordable for person of very low income or low to moderate income. UnderState Iaw a City is for providing required to adopt an ordinance outlining the developer incentives. K The standards , set forth in this Chapter require the approval of Conditional Use Permit by the City Council and also includes specific findings for approval of bonus requests. Hillside Management The City's Hillside Management Ordinance was adopted in 1993. Its purpose is to insure that residential uses in hillside areas are developed in a manner which respects and preserves the existing This is achieved through guidelines topography as much as possible. and standards including landform grading and revegetation of the existing slopes. This ordinance has been reform eted thatand graphr9aareestillfor toclarity added)a chapter in Article Ill. (Please not Generally, the contents of this ordinance remains unchanged. The most significant revision has been the addition of a1 g slope density which calls formula. This implements General Plan gY for the creation of a slope density formula which shall "reduce the number of dwelling units otherwise designated for the property in question in excess of 25%" The purpose of the slope densityt�ormulaa is to further minimize the adverse effects of grading in the hillside areas. The section entitled "Density" on page III-30 includes a chart with average slope ranges and the density reduction factor. Tree Preservation Ordinance The General Plan Resource Management Element, Strategy 1.1.11 tree ordinance for species directs the City to prepare a preservation including oak, walnut, sycamore, California Pepper, of trees Willow and significant trees of cultural or historical value. A is also replacement and relocation mechanism for tree removal required. The proposed regulations are designed to be applicable to the entire developments to tracts. City, from single family lots, to commercial insure that the is able t retainand The primary goal is to the number within These of native tree hopefully increase created by ithdithe assistance the consultantswith regulations were Staff reviewed other cities s,contacted City staff. certified arborists with local experience and educatoran i is field who have all reviewed the proposed regulations and provided M The City is currently using the standards contained within the L.A. County Code which only address oak trees. The current regulations include a 2:1 replacement ratio and a minimum 15 gallon replacement tree size. The draft regulations propose a replacement ratio of 2:1 for residential lots under 20,000 square all feet with commercial 1 and ratio industfor ori I ts 20,000 square feet and larger and properties. y's goal Requiring a 2:1 ratio for smaller lots would achieve 2 1e re'tlacement and is typical of other cities surveyed. Further, a P ratio would not be overly burdensome to the home owner whose lot area and resources may be limited. Requiring a 3:1 ratio for lots over 20,000 square feet is proposed because larger lots can accommodate more trees and there tends to be more open space and scenic views in these areas whichcapture benefit from t of thgreater number of native trees. This would also ll p the Country, where much of our natural areas are located. The proposed minimum replacement tree size is 24" box for 6 trees or less. The replacement size for a greater amount of trees shall be 24" is small determined by the Director. small According enough (8af10rj research, enough 1.5" in enough to take well an diameter) to discourage vandalism. The proposed regulations also include tree replacement and monitoring cation standards, tree protection requirements, and provisions for the on going health and maintenanceof replaced or replacement rfundatedor re�hse This Chapter also establishes aree disposition of funds collected as "in lieu" fees for replacement trees as well as moneys collected for civil pbe aused aby athesult C ty ofsolelyviolatifor on of this chapter. These funds are to the planting of trees or other vegetation on publicly owned property. Off Street Parking and Loading Standards Article III proposes revised Off -Street Parking and Loading StaeXd rdsg which are significantly more comprehensive than standards. In order to insure that these regulations areone ofstate of the art" this chapter has also been reviewedby consultants, a transportation engineering firm, with expertise in this area. s has The list of parking requirements for specific useex andedeen I ste inpcludes and replaced by a chart for readability. This p 4 updated uses such as day care centers, convenience stores, and senior housing projects. as aurants is Currently, the parking required for certain uses ulationschincludest standards based on occupancy. The proposed reg based on the square footage of gross floor area. Based on the st as experience of the consultants and staff , these f standards otheructies, accurate, easier to implement and areyp which provides familiarity for the development community. within parking lots has been The requirements for landscaping toss area. Standards are also increased from 2% to 5% of the and buffering for parking areas included for perimeter landscaping, adjacent to residential uses. A significant difference between the current and the proposed standards, is the elimination of provisions for compact spaces, which are replaced with a standard size for all parking spaces (except This is proposed because compact spaces for the handicapped) used and provide no real parking spaces are not appropriately eloper, who will achieve only minimal advantage for users or the dev gains in the number of on -site parking spaces. The provision of adequate parking arkin is an important City issue. Many acted by existing sites (particularly smaller commercial centers) are imp parking shortages or potential shortages with future occupancies. The current parking standards allow new the e at use sites that are no nonconforming due to parking as longif as more parking than the existing use. The new Code stipulates can be exceeds 25 /o a parking study ca the existing nonconformity Permits, which are required. Additionally, the requirement for Prk parking shortfalls, have another way of regulating sites with potential been retained. These requirements, in addition to the added Zoning Clearance provisions (contained in Article IV), will help the Planning Division monitor parking at existing sites when there is a change in tenancy, insuring that all sites maintain adequate parking. Sins 3.2.7 states"Ensure that commercial , General Plan Strategy recise concept for adequate developments are designed with a pacement and number, as well signage, including provisions for sign p landscaping and as sign scale in relationship to the building, 5 readability as an integral part of the signage concept. Ensure that signs are integrated into the overall site and architectural theme of commercial developments. In 1991 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 0 amending e.These the regulations contained within the Planning regulations established a maximum height of 6' for ted freestanding polessign (except freewarograms s y oriented d signs for lodging) p for planned sign established standards an amortization commercial blished schedule for centers. The ordinance also esta the eventual discontinuation of legal nonconforming signs. nance, wit Article III codifies, reformats and reorganizes thetl' clay ficationh no major changes. New definitions have been added fo neon signs are addressed and other mor changes hasv been retained. The maximum 6' height limit for freestanding s gns A change has been made to the parameters for five a or comprehensive moegns sisign program, capturing existing centers proposed. Consistent with the formatting in included edoin ea Articles, the sign standards by zoning district have been Standards for Specific Land Uses nt The final Chapter in Article III alsondards represents fandsig uses sari departure provided from the current regulations. St covered by addressing those requirements that cannot be adequately the general development standards or the development standardsUse contained within Article II (Zoning Districts and The current Code provides standards for uses such as rubbish automobile du P s dismantling yards, scrap metal processing yards ro and provides standards for The posed Code eliminates these uses, P uses which are more relevant to the needs of Diamond Bar uest shouses such as child day-care facilities, drive through facilities, g and home based businesses. Home Based Businesses ro osed in Article III The standards for home based businesses1 which states, "Residentially implements General Plan Strategy compatible home occupations, where consistent should with other allowed pment subject of the General Plan and Deoo to standards enacted to protect Code privacy and residential character of the neighborhood." 10 Home based businesses or "home occupations" are becoming more and more prevalent throughout the Nation - systems ono ical dallow sth� in computers and electronic communication y decentralization of office functions from the city's core,p u fe at allow more and more professionals to telecommute, resulting of home based businesses. ess The City's current Code does not addresshomeseun esse arebus has been the City's policy to allow these uses complaints by neighbors of excessive noise or traffic, or evidence of on -site employees. The primary issue is ensuring that home based PotentialeSimpacts adversely impact existing residential neighborhoods include excessive traffic (vehicular or pedestrian), commercialnoissee: odor, and the alteration of a residence to look like a The proposed regulations provide operational and standards additior holy ep asedt businesses, addressing the issues cited abV the storage of hazardous materials, business related signage, the sale and storage of merchandise. It also limits employeesf to family home based members. At this time a requirement for permit businesses is not proposed. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review Article III of the Development Code and make an informalre Code ndwill the made ion. A formal recommendation on the entire Development .at the conclusion of the review process. Prepared By: Catherine Johnson, Senior Planner 7 City PLANNING of Diamond'®N ar cowisS Staff Report AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 6.1 July 18, 1997 REPORT DATE' 1997 August 5, MEETING DATE: A request for review APPLICATION REQUEST: of the following Article of the City of Diamond Bar, rnent Code'. Comprehensive Develop Article Lan_ Li e it and De�elo ment Perm Procedures Citywide PROPERTY LOCATION: City of Diamond Bar, APPLICANT' SUMMARY establishes e and Develo ment Permit Procedures and review for the preparation, filing the Land Use required by Article IV requirements entitlements the the procedures and and other report briefly describes land use permits following need further of Code. The Issues that maY and Development highlighting current Planning of this Article, is presented of the This is to contents comparison ment Code Article. a new Code discussion. A Develop the proposed h the adoption Zoning Code and achieved throug being retained. what will be changed and what is illustrate what is being and to clarify report Prey 9--a (APA) should be Planning Associates „Permit procedures a The American states divisions or under Zonin Ordinance by adjoining Conventional ed together (e.g. titled "Permits and Procedures") simple and group code single article of the zoning 1 sary Permit procedures should include the minimum gs of information appt cants and .,.Per P rocess and 9 to clearly communicate the p the public." BACKGROUND ermitting procedures is The authority of the City to create land use p State enabling es of land use and bling legislation. The typ . established by rocedures, vary state by development permits, and their processing p permits state and between communities. Lane use uas judic al,development legislative.' fall into three categories: administrativ , q ro ects which Administrative or ministerial decisions re appliedoje to projects as small require little or no discretionary judgment. patio covers, fences, signs etc. are reviewed to room additions, p enumerated code standards. determine compliance with clearly staff. Administrative review is typically done over the counter by permit processes where Quasi-judicial decisions are ap y a d findings are generally required. discretionary judgment is necessary quasi-judicial s of processes subject to quasi-jusevi ThearHeaareingl Officer opment Example Conditional Use Permits and Variance Review, or the .Planning Commission are the review authorities for these projects. uests that have broad Legislative decisions are applied to req such as general plan application and often affect multiple properties, comprehensive amendments. The proposed and zoning code and map The City Council Development Code is subjectlsdecisions. lative 1ew is the final approving body for these ARTICLE IV - LAN D USE AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCEDURES. Article IV codifies and re -formats the permit processes that Generally The types of permits, review are already in place within the City. a e 1V-3 of and appeal body are described in Table 4-1 on projects 9 that are authority royal generally refers to p j this Article. Director app the Director subject to staff review. In accordance with Article e artment Staff � responsibilities of the Director to Department may delegate the resp New" permit processes under the supervision of the Director." " Variances, Minor Conditional Use Permits and proposed are Minor Zoning Clearances. 2 Minor Variance replaces the current Yard Modific cat ons Tfor current minor he Code authorizes staff approval for Yard re ductions in setbacks or increases in fenclds fort, etc modificationsanent Code does not establish maximum thre Minor Variances are subject to staff approval. The proposed Code establishes maximum thresholds, which if exceeded, require approval of a variance. The whichlfscanenbe Of thresholds is especially eciall useful for retaining walls, concern in the hillside areas of the community. Minor Conditional Use Permits (MCUP) are also proposed. , The current Min process that is applied to Code has a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) may have an .specific activities, which unless apA MCUP would not replace adverse effect on surrounding properties. rovide a review process for the existing CUP process. It would p compatibility uses which warrant the imposition of conditions t insure sareless significant that with surrounding uses but whose imp activities requiring a CUP. es subject to a MCUP are either not col ect ons facilities) dressed in the ent or The us � machines or large Coll Code (such as bulk vending residential by another process (for example Plot accessory Plan review or are approvedaddressed through a structures are currently nding on its size). MCUP's Administrative Developmenthearingview be ore he Hearing Officer. depe are subject to a pubs Clearance is an umbrella term which will be applied to The Zoning such as small additions, patio covers minor over-the-counter approvals are either and small accessory structures. Currently, these approval ro ased, the processed as Simple Plot Plan, or Plot Plan. As proposed, ed to any new business to verify Zoning Clearance would also be applied compliance with that the request is a permitted use and is in comp applicable development standards. velopment Art icle IV also codifies and reformats the City'sfo ecla y and Review ordinance. This ordinance has been reorganized where needed, but has generally remained the same. Temporary Use Permits are addressed within the current Code, but Temp Yhich applicable to only a limited number of usee includesaranalexpandject ed to the same time frame. The proposed Cod orary uses with specific time frames for each use and list of tem P lists exempted temporary uses. 3 Current Planning and Zoning Code & Proposed Development Code Article IV has been placed after the Site Planning and General opment Standards, (Article III) with the user in mind. Devel Theoretically, a user of the Code would look in Article II - Zonin District and Allowed Land Uses to see if their proposal can be built, would proceed to Article III to find out how their project is to be built, and then proceed to Article IV to find out the permitting procedure and review authority. The proposed Code. also "cleans up" the current Code by consolidating the land use and development processes and eliminating the need for permits such as "Mobilehome Permits or "Cemetery Permits. One of the most significant differences between the current and proposed Codes is the inclusion of a single, comprehensive table (Table 4-1) at the beginning of the Article current listing each Code permit n includes d this s the applicable review authority. information in the text of each chapter,entm requiring aThesearch p proposed Code this information is required for a per also contains the general application and processing information in the introductory chapter. The current Code contains this information in each Chapter, "reinventing the wheel" each time. These are further examples of how the proposed Code is designed to be user friendly. Another important difference is the creation of the Zoning Clearance process. This process addresses a very through theeed Coulntythand pare ty Currently, business licenses are processed only required for specific types of businesses. Because the City does not administer this process, it is difficult to identify new improvement, unless an owner requests Permits he for a Plannin staff finds that a remodeling or new signage: g business - is not a permitted use, has inadequate parking or is not in compliance with other standards, actions must be taken to correct the nonconformity. When this happens, it is often after a tenant has signed a leased or commenced an activity, which can cause unanticipated and unnecessary hardships. The Zoning Clearance process is utilized to verify that any requested structure or land use activity is a permitted use and the complies to i h alll applicable development standards. This allowse that new businesses are permitted and to monitor sites that may 4 have parking problems, which is a significant concern in the City.. It also alerts prospective business owners of any problems or corrections that may be required. ISSUES The current Development Review ordinance establishes specific thresholds which determine the review authority for development projects. These thresholds relate to the size, type and intensity of proposed land uses. The issues for the Commission to consider are the following: • Projects can be processed more quickly if they are not subject to public hearing. Should the thresholds be lowered for certain projects allowing them to be reviewed by staff? What thresholds (size, square footage) would be appropriate for residential commercial and industrial projects? Should staff be responsible for the review of specific types of projects regardless of size? For example, should staff review all residential remodels or room additions? • Should the thresholds also be adjusted for projects that are subject to public hearing before the Planning Commission? Should residential, commercial or industrial project of a certain size be reviewed by the Hearing Officer? ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration (ND 97-3) has been prepared. The Negative Declaration will be adopted at the time the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on the entire Development Code document. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the attached Article of the Development Code and make an informal recommendation. A formal recommendation on the entire Development Code will be made at the conclusion of the review process. Prepared By: Catherine Johnson, Senior Planner Attachments: Article IV - Land Use and Development Permit Procedures Memorandum, July 18, 1997 - Additional staff comments on Article IV 1.1 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: CHAIRMAN AND PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CATHERINE JOHNSON, SENIOR PLANNER G SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS, ARTICLE IV DATE: JULY 18, 1997 The following are staff's additional comments on Article IV, which are not reflected in the text of the Article. Pg. IV-6: 3. Expiration of application. Add to beginning of last sentence "Upon expiration." Pg. IV-9,10: B. Add the following General Plan Strategies (as modified) to this list. 3. Prohibit the development of adjacent land uses with significantly different intensities, or that have operating characteristics which could create nuisances along a common boundary unless an effective buffer can be created. This buffer must be designed to ensure that individual site designs are managed in a manner as to avoid the creation of nuisances and hazards. 6.' Require that new developments be designed so as to respect the views of existing development; provide view corridors which are oriented toward existing or proposed community amenities, such as a park, open space, or natural features. Pg. IV-10: B.1. Change to four dwelling units. Planning Commission Memorandum July 18, 1997 Page 2. Pg. IV-10,11: B. Administrative Development Review: Add: 3 Structural additions or reconstruction projects to residences which are equal to fifty percent of the floor area of the existing on -site structures. 5. Projects of a limited size and scope which do not meet the above criteria shall be subject to Zoning Clearance identified in 22.xx.xxx. Pg. IV-15: D. Do we want to permit temporary helipads? Pg. IV-27: D. I don't understand this item. How do you expand the exterior of a use without expanding the interior floor area? Pg. IV-34: Applicability C. Change to Specific Plan Overlay District. Since the Sphere of Influence is already subject to SP overlay is it necessary to list? D. Would we want to permit specific plans on areas outside Specific Plan . Overlay district without specific criteria being established? CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL AREA TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MAY 8, 1997 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 10:08 a.m. in the City of Diamond Bar Conference Room, 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100, Diamond Bar, California. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Chuck Hewitt and Vice Chairman Dr. David Berry Also Present: Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Planning Secretary Marilyn Ortiz; Michael Houllihan, Michael Brandman Associates; Kurt Nelson, JCC Development Company, and Lex Williman, Hunsaker & Associates. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of May 8, 1997. VC/Berry moved approval of the May 8, 1997 minutes. Without objections, the motion was so ordered. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None PUBLIC HEARING: Continued Discussion and Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 97-1 for proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50314. AstP/Lungu stated the project will allow for the development of 15 custom single family residential lots. The lot sizes will vary from 1.67 acres to 8.90 acres, with an average lot size of 2.92 acres. Pad sizes will range from 20,473 square feet to 32,234 square feet. The proposed overall density is 0.34 units per gross acres. Proposed lots 12, 13 and 14, and portions of proposed lots 10 and 11 are located within approved and recorded lot 41 of Tract 47851. Proposed Lot 15 and portions of proposed lots 10 and 11 are located within approved and recorded lots 14 through 19 of Tract 47850. The proposed project is generally located southeast of the most southerly intersection of Steeplechase and Wagon Train June 5, 1997 Page 2 SEATAC Lanes abutting Tonner Canyon and the Firestone Boy Scout Reservation. The project site will have one access point from Wagon Train Lane at Windmill Drive which will end in a cul—de-sac. Additionally, the project site is located within the Los Angeles County designated Tonner Canyon Significant Ecological Area (SEA) No. 15. The project area contains California walnut woodlands, graded/disturbed habitat; and coastal live oaks. Due to the project site's geology and remediation requirements, the vegetation will be destroyed. However, mitigation measures will include walnut tree replacement at a 2:1 ratio, oak tree replacement at a 4:1 ratio, and native understory replacement. Staff recommends the committee conclude its review and forward comments to the Planning Commission. Chair/Hewitt asked for public testimony. Wilbur Smith, Diamond Bar resident, talked about concerns regarding slope stability, the presence of bentonite, and the fact that landslides have previously occurred in the area. He asked what mitigation measures will be conducted to prevent future landslides. He asked if the property owners of Lots 10 and 11 would be notified of the EIR measure which increases the building setback because of possible landslide activity. Lex Williman stated a number of slide areas along the west facing slope will be removed or stabilized. The slope facing Tonner Canyon will have a shear key similar to every other subdivision in the area. A shear key has a 1.5 safety factor. What is not a 1.5 safety factor is the slope down the hill from the shear key. If the hill below the shear key should fail, a setback line which is shown on the grading plan and will be shown on the final plans, indicates that a structure can only be built if special foundations with piers that extend into the ground below the shear plane. The person who sells these lots have a legal obligation to notify potential property owners of numerous issues including this issue. In addition, the subdivision will be monitored by the homeowners association. Mr. Williman stated some of the upper slide portion will be removed and materials will be placed in the canyon to add weight and push up against the slide areas to hold them in June 5, 1997 Page 3 SEATAC place. Dr. Berry said that if the canyon is filled properly the lots become more stable. In addition, proper fill remediates the environment. Mr. Smith asked how canyon fill will biologically effect the region and will streams and other such things be effected. Michael Houllihan responded that the primary impacts to plants and animals are removal of the oaks and walnuts. There is removal of riparian vegetation that is within the California's Department of Fish and Game jurisdiction. The applicant is required to complete a mediation process within this jurisdiction. One mitigation measure is a five year monitoring program for habitat revegetation. Mr. Williman responded to Mr. Smith that along the area where the shear keys will be installed the mitigation work will be done on -site to every extent possible. Two lots are formed from remaining property from the applicant's previous Tract No.'s 47850 and 47851. The net number of lots in the proposed area is nine which is six less than the joint venture originally contemplated. Larger lots tend to be more desirable for purchase in the area. By cooperatively grading Tract No.'s 48487 and 50314, and with the reduction in the number of buildable lots, gentler slopes are realized on both sides and the neighborhood is disturbed only once instead of twice. Mr. Houllihan responded to Mr. Smith that the standard practice in the area is to over -excavate 10 feet and put in a 10 foot blanket fill. Underground pipes will be utilized to pick up underground storm water and release it from the area to the natural streams. Mr. Smith asked if consideration has been given to structuring CC&R's to incorporate preventative measures for restricting animal movement. Chair/Hewitt responded that during the early days SEATAC established biological measures for animal movement which are currently contained in the CC&R's to insure animal movement is not restricted. This project is not located in the Mountain Lion corridor. Mr. Williman stated this property will either annex into the PSEATAC AGE 5 MAY 8, 1997 ' i Department of Fish and Game Codes. The ratio of riparian associated Oaks would be replaced at a minimum ratio of 3:1 to be negotiated with the Department of Fish and Game. The revegetation program is recommended to be a five year program (similar to the Tract No. 47850 and 47851 sites) with yearly monitoring reports. He referred the committee to some 33 or 34 mitigation measures included in the report. Chair Hewitt stated he is concerned about the timing of the Walnuts and Oaks, and the presence of acorns on -site for germination (Table II, Page 10). He asked that the developer be especially aware of the timing. Mr.Houllihan indicated that the report addressed the timing. Mr. Nelson stated he is are of the in an off -site that trees are being g g pointed out that property owners are presented a complete Buyer's Awareness Package that points out what they may and may not do with respect to the various slope areas. Chair/Hewitt stated that the addition of the fungus to inoculate the trees is positive. He reiterated that it is critical to monitor the protection of Oaks on the construction site with drip lines that are installed around the base of the trees. He said he likes the listing of plants that are allowed and the listing of plants that are not allowed. He again stated that timing is critical for moving Oak trees. The trees are dormant in the summer. Most people attempt to move Oak trees in the winter which is actually a growing season. Chair/Hewitt continued the public hearing to June 5, 1997. ADJOURNMENT: -The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 a.m. Respectfully, Lungu L Secr tary� June 5, 1997 Page 1 SEATAC CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL AREA TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE June 5, 1997 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 10:08 a.m. in the City of Diamond Bar Conference Room, 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100, Diamond Bar, California. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Chuck Hewitt and Vice Chairman Dr. David Berry Also Present: Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Planning Secretary Marilyn Ortiz; Michael Houllihan, Michael Brandman Associates; Kurt Nelson, JCC Development Company, and Lex Williman, Hunsaker & Associates. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of May 8, 1997. VC/Berry moved approval of the May 8, 1997 minutes. Without objections, the motion was so ordered. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None PUBLIC HEARING: Continued Discussion and Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 97-1 for proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50314. AstP/Lungu stated the project, if approved, will allow for the development of 15 custom single family residential lots. The lot sizes will vary from 1.67 acres to 8.90 acres, with an average lot size of 2.92 acres. The proposed project is generally located southeast of the most southerly intersection of Steeplechase and Wagon Train Lanes abutting Tonner Canyon and the Firestone Boy Scout Reservation. Additionally, the project site is located within SEA No. 15. June 5, 1997 Page 2 SEATAC AstP/Lungu stated that the purpose of this meeting is to receive and discuss the SEATAC report for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 50314. Staff recommends the committee conclude its review and forward comments to the Planning Commission. Chair/Hewitt asked for public testimony. Wilbur Smith, Diamond Bar resident, talked about concerns regarding slope stability, the presence of bentonite, and the fact that landslides have previously occurred in the area. He asked what mitigation measures will be conducted to prevent future landslides. He asked if the property owners of Lots 10 and 11 would be notified of the EIR measure which increases the building setback because of possible landslide activity. Lex Williman stated a number of slide areas along the west facing slope will be removed or stabilized. The slope facing Tonner Canyon will have a shear key similar to every other subdivision in the area. A shear key has a 1.5 safety factor. What is not a 1.5 safety factor is the slope down the hill from the shear key. If the hill below the shear key should fail, a setback line which is shown on the grading plan and will be shown on the final plans, indicates that a structure can only be built if special foundations with piers that extend into the ground below the shear plane. The person who sells these lots has a legal obligation to notify potential property owners of numerous issues including this issue. In addition, the subdivision will be monitored by the homeowners association. Mr. Williman stated some of the upper slide portion will be removed and materials will be placed in the canyon to add weight and push up against the slide areas to hold them in place. Dr. Berry said that if the canyon is filled properly the lots become more stable. In addition, proper fill remediates the environment. Mr. Smith asked how canyon fill will biologically effect the region and will streams and other such things be effected. Michael Houllihan responded that the primary impacts to plants and animals are removal of the oaks and walnuts. June 5, 1997 Page 3 SEATAC There is removal of riparian vegetation that is within the California's Department of Fish and Game jurisdiction. The applicant is required to complete a mediation process within this jurisdiction. One mitigation measure is a five year monitoring program for habitat revegetation. Mr. Williman responded to Mr. Smith that along the area where the shear keys will be installed the mitigation work will be done on -site to every extent possible. Two lots are formed from remaining property from the applicant's previous Tract No.'s 47850 and 47851. The net number of lots in the proposed area is nine which is six less than the joint venture originally contemplated. Larger lots tend to be more desirable for purchase in the area. By cooperatively grading Tract No.'s 48487 and 50314, and with the reduction in the number of buildable lots, gentler slopes are realized on both sides and the neighborhood is disturbed only once instead of twice. Mr. Houllihan responded to Mr. Smith that the standard practice in the area is to over -excavate 10 feet and put in a 10 foot blanket fill. Underground pipes will be utilized to pick up underground storm water and release it from the area to the natural streams. Mr. Smith asked if consideration has been given to structuring CC&R's to incorporate preventative measures for restricting animal movement. Chair/Hewitt responded that during the early days SEATAC established biological measures for animal movement which are currently contained in the CC&R's to insure animal movement is not restricted. This project is not located in the Mountain Lion corridor. Mr. Williman stated this property will either annex into the existing Crystal Ridge Association or will have virtually identical CC&R's. The CC&R's have exhibit attachments which point out which slope areas are "open space" slope habitats wherein nothing is permitted to be built. Other areas called "Homeowners Association Easements for Maintenance" where some things can be built or planting can be changed. However, there is a list of prohibited plant species where there is potential for wildlife movement in spite of the fact that there are no primary corridors in the area. Fencing that would prevent animal movement is prohibited. June 5, 1997 Page 4 SEATAC Mr. Smith offered the committee a copy of the Sierra Club's EIR review. Mr. Williman confirmed to Mr. Smith that Tract No. 48487 is part of this project. Tract No. 47851 was originally approved for 48 lots. Tract No. 47850 was originally approved for 57 lots and has been diminished to 50 lots. The lots within Tract No. 50314 are made up of not only the underlying parcel from which this tract is subdivided, but in addition, contributory land from Tract No.'s 47850 and 47851. Chair/Hewitt reopened the public hearing. VC/Berry stated that on the basis of his field examination and on the basis of the geotechnical report, he found no evidence of Bentonitic Clay or weak clay zones in the slide area or in any other area of the project. He further stated that during his site walkthrough he observed no paleontologic items that were being threatened with disturbance or destruction. Chair/Hewitt stated his report includes his concerns about timing the movement of oak planting based upon growth cycles. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 a.m. Respectfully, n Lun- Secret y CITY OF DIAMOND BAR INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: CHAIRMAN AND PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CATHERINE JOHNSON, SENIOR PLANNER 65" SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM #7.2 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (DR) 97-4 DATE: AUGUST 8, 1997 In the agenda packet that you received yesterday, a note was included advising the Commission that they would be receiving the staff report for t-he above mentioned project today. However, earlier today staff received a request (attached) from the project architect on behalf of the applicant, requesting continuation of this project until the next Commission meeting. Since this project was scheduled and advertised for the meeting of August 12, 1997, it is recommended that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive comments and continue this item to the meeting of August 19, 1997. Attachment TEL:818-331-6276 Aug 08,97 11:32 No.001 P.01_ KEN'1' C.K. "'U Architect 1274 1. Center Court Dr. Ste. #211 Covina, CA 91724 Ph. 818.966.4975 Fax 818.331,6276 August 8th, 1997 Ms. Catherine Johnson Planning Dept. City of Diamond Bar, Ca 91765-4177 RC: Public Hearing Dear Ms. Johnson As per our phone conversation this morning regarding the 10' dedication on Lycoming St. We have to have some time to solve that issue with related parties. Therefore, this is my request for you to postpone the scheduled public hearing on August 12th, 1997 of our development review #97-4 to next available public hearing agenda. Thank you very much for all the helps please contact me at 626-966-4975. Sincerely, Kent C.K. Wu -------------- Architect cc: Lan Plus Focus Engineer If you have any questions, Post -It' Fax Note 7671 TOZ F C14 cte Phone H fyfil� Fax H go I __j - 03 i 1pagos® / From xir_*�Wk Co. Aez1 M— Phone f! q - ;P66 7,t Fax 9A,?- S3/ - l0 'mil76 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 29, 1997 CALL TO ORDER: - Chairman Ruzicka called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Associate Planner Lungu. ROLL CALL: Present: Also Present: Chairman Ruzicka, Vice Chairman Schad, Commissioners Fong, Goldenberg and McManus Deputy City Manager James DeStefano, Senior Planner Catherine Johnson; and Associate Planner Ann Lungu. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of July 22, 1997. C/Fong requested the following changes: Page 6, Paragraph 4, Line 4 to read: "of antennas, people within sight of the project should be". Page 8, Paragraph 2, last sentence to read: "Referring to Sheet 2 for the Landscape Mitigation Plan, he suggested including a symbol or key on the legend to indicate Coast Live Oak and Black Walnut because it is difficult to determine on the drawings what species are included. VC/Schad requested that the spelling of Hairy Fringepod be corrected on Page 7, Paragraph 5, line four. C/McManus made a motion, seconded by C/Goldenberg to approve the minutes of July 29, 1997 as amended. The motion was approved 5-0. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS - None PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Draft Development Code (Zoning Code Amendment ZCA 97-1) continuation of Article VI - Development Code Administration, and Article VII - Definitions Bruce Jacobson, Jacobson & Wack, continued the Article VI discussion with Item B. 3, Page VI-21, to whom mail notice would be sent. JULY 29, 1997 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION C/McManus asked if renters/tenants can be distinguished from property owners in any given area of the City. He indicated it may be advisable to notify renters/tenants where a high volume exists and where the project may effect this segment of the population. Mr. Jacobson responded that the major concern is for consistency. He cautioned that in lieu of a written or verbal policy and by including more people in the notice process that an applicant may have grounds for reversal of the 'decision. Chair/Ruzicka stated he is concerned about future application of this paragraph. Mr. Jacobson stated the City may defer adoption of a policy, monitor application and establish a policy within a six month time frame. C/Goldenberg suggested language to include renters for projects that concern traffic or safety and health of the residents. Mr. Jacobson responded that the level of safety may be difficult to determine in the abstract. A trigger might be the project's inclusion of an environmental impact report (EIR). Chair/Ruzicka reiterated his concerns that any future Director or designee should, in the event that the Planning Commission is not pleased with the notification process, be aware that the Commission may suggest a change to the Development Code. Mr. Jacobson again suggested that the City's departments operate under the regulations as they are written for a prescribed period of time. If the Commission determines that inadequate notice is being given, it may then suggest a Development Code amendment. This document, once adopted, will continue to be subject to change. DCM/DeStefano suggested that the document remain as written and that staff provide a policy statement for the department to be considered by the Commission for inclusion in the notice process within the Development Code document. The City's Community Services Department and Public Works Department routinely notify residents and business owners in the immediate area of the project. DCM/DeStefano responded to C/McManus's question regarding the City's ability to determine renters/tenants as opposed to property owners that it would be difficult except for the pockets of rental units within the City. JULY 29, 1997 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION The City would be most likely to send out dual notices - one to the property owner and one to the renter/tenant. Ron Pflugrath, Urban Design Studio, presented a brief overview of Definitions Chapter VII. DCM/DeStefano responded to C/McManus that the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) section of the code implements provisions of the City's General Plan which calls out a ratio from .25 (commercial) to 1 : 0 (the Gateway Corporate Center). C/Goldenberg asked if Residential Care Facilities are included in the "Medical Services - Extended Care (land use)" category. Mr. Pflugrath responded that these facilities are considered in the Single Family Dwellings (land use) section of the code on Page VII-36. C/Goldenberg recommended the code refer directly to a Residential Care Facility use with cross reference to Single Family Dwellings (land use). DCM/DeStefano responded that staff will add a definition for Residential Care Facilities. Mr. Pflugrath responded to C/Goldenberg that the term "Granny Flats" is not contained within the code but that the type of unit is referred to under "Secondary Residential Units (land use)" on Page VII-34. C/Goldenberg requested that the code refer directly to "Granny Flat" •with cross reference to "Secondary Residential Units (land use)". Mr. Pflugrath responded that certain categories of definitions such as signs and adult business are contained within specific chapters and not within the general "Definitions" Article. C/Goldenberg asked that the term "light manufacturing" be contained within Article VII. Mr. Pflugrath offered that he would consider.the matter of "light manufacturing" when the "use tables" are presented for further discussion. C/Goldenberg said he did not find the term "computer" contained within Definition Article VII. Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing. There was no one present who wished to speak on this item. JULY 29, 1997 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION The Commission concurred to accept Articles I, VI and VII with -recommended changes and additions. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: C/Goldenberg referred to a resident's request to reschedule the August 5, 1997 Development Code meeting to avoid conflict with the City Council meetings. Following discussion, the Commission concurred to maintain the Development Code -Public Hearing Notice meeting schedule that was previously agreed upon by the Commission. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 1. Preview of Development Code Articles III and IV. Bruce Jacobson, Jacobson & Wack, previewed Article IV. He indicated Article III and IV will be presented at the August 5, 1997 meeting. C/Goldenberg asked the Commission to consider including a "garage sales" regulation within the Development Code. Mr. Jacobson responded to VC/Schad that Article III identifies the standards for dish antennae. There was no one present who wished to speak on this item. 2. DCM/DeStefano stated review of the Parks Master Plan is not scheduled for the Aug-_-,t 5, .1997 City Council Meeting. A Town Hall Meet ag will be scheduled for public review of the document. 3. DCM/DeStefano stated that on August 5, 1997, the City Council will consider the Darrin Drive wireless telecommunications facility resolution of approval for a one year term. On August 19, 1997, the City Council will consider extension of the 45 day telecommunications moratorium. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As presented in the agenda. JULY 29, 1997 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, VC/Schad moved, C/Fong seconded, to adjourn the meeting. Chair/Ruzicka adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. August 5, 1997 in the South Coast Air Quality Management Board Hearing Room. Respectfully Submitted, James DeStef ano Deputy City Manager Attest: Joe Ruzicka Chairman