Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/25/2020A PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA August 25, 2020 6:30 PM FOR THE SAFETY OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND CITY STAFF DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC, A TEMPERATURE TEST AND SYMPTOM SCREENING WILL BE REQUIRED TO ENTER A CITY FACILITY. ANYONE WITH A TEMPERATURE TEST RESULT OF 100.4 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT OR HIGHER, AND/OR DISPLAYING A SYMPTOM OF COVID-19 OR EXPERIENCED A SYMPTOM ASSOCIATED WITH COVID-19 WITHIN THE 72 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING, WILL BE DENIED ACCESS TO A CITY FACILITY. FACE COVERINGS AND SOCIAL DISTANCING PROTOCOLS ARE MANDATORY UPON ENTRY TO THE CITY FACILITY. 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. 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. For the safety of all attendees, speaker cards will not be provided. At this time the Chair will ask if there is anyone wishing to speak on non-public hearings and non-agenda items. 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 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION August 25, 2020 AGENDA Next Resolution No. 2020-15 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-agenda items. At this time, the Planning Commission Chair will request that those who wish to speak raise their hands. The Chair will then ask those attendees 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 it em or other agenda 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 – June 23, 2020 5. OLD BUSINESS: None. AUGUST 25, 2020 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 6. NEW BUSINESS: None. 7. 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 determ ined 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 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 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. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9. STAFF COMMENTS / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: AUGUST 25, 2020 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 11. ADJOURNMENT: *Until further notice and consistent with the Governor’s latest Executive Order to stay at home, all City meetings listed below will be conducted telephonically. CITY COUNCIL MEETING: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 – 6:30 pm LABOR DAY HOLIDAY Monday, September 7, 2020 In observance of the holiday, city offices will be closed. City offices will re-open on Tuesday, September 8, 2020. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 – 6:30 pm TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING: Thursday, September 10, 2020 – 6:30 pm CITY COUNCIL MEETING: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 – 6:30 pm PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 – 6:30 pm PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING: Thursday, September 24, 2020 – 6:30 pm MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 23, 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 6:45 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Garg 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; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; May Nakajima, Associate Planner; Natalie T. Espinoza, Associate Planner; and, Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes – Regular Meeting – May 26, 2020. C/Wolfe moved, C/Barlas seconded, to approve the May 26, 2020, Meeting Minutes as corrected. 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: None 4.1 Packet Pg. 6 ________________________________________________________________________ JUNE 23, 2020 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION ________________________________________________________________________ 7. (CONTINUED) PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 ZONE CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. PL2015-253 – Under the authority of DBMC Sections 22.48 and 22.70, the property owners and applicant requested 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. (Continued from March 24, 2020) PROJECT ADDRESS: 1111 Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNERS: James Chin Chou 1359 Bentley Court West Covina, CA 91791 APPLICANT: Creative Design Associates 17528 Rowland Street, 2nd Floor City of Industry, CA 91748 SP/Lee presented staff’s report and requested that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve Zone Change and Development Review No. PL2015-253. C/Garg asked if it was true that the proposed residence would be the only residence to have access from Diamond Bar Boulevard. He also wanted to know what kind of facility is suitable for this site since both residential and commercial projects were denied and/or withdrawn. He also commented that if the project was approved, there is no entry from Diamond Bar Boulevard proceeding north and if true, that would be a restriction on the proposal. When he visited the site, he was unable to find parking for his vehicle and parked along the side of Diamond Bar Boulevard and turned on his hazard light. In about five minutes, a Sheriff’s car approached with red lights flashing and stopped behind his car to tell him that stopping along the street at that location was not allowed. SP/Lee responded to C/Garg that at the northern end of Diamond Bar Boulevard this would be the only single family home with direct access from Diamond Bar Boulevard. There is a condominium project just north of the project site that takes access from Diamond Bar Boulevard . With respect to the question about the best use for this parcel, staff is recommending the 4.1 Packet Pg. 7 ________________________________________________________________________ JUNE 23, 2020 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION ________________________________________________________________________ single family residential use because it is the least intense in terms of parking and traffic impacts. Parking is not allowed on Diamond Bar Boulevard and residents and guests would have to park on the private property. A three -car garage and a circular driveway are proposed and there are no proposals for on-street parking. The site is accessible to westbound traffic only, because the landscaped median prevents access for eastbound traffic. Chair/Mok commented regarding access that traffic proceeding northbound toward Temple Avenue seeking access to the project site would have to make a U-turn at the condominium development on Soltaire Street, where U-turns are permissible. . However, there is no U-turn allowed at Temple Avenue. Chair/Mok opened the public hearing. Ken Lee, owner’s representative and land use consultant; Kenneth Pang, Project Architect, Creative Design Associates; Eric Freeman, ML Design; Jack Lee, Cal Land Engineering; and Tom Huang, Senior Traffic Engineer, Ganddini Group, the firm that conducted the original traffic study and January update. The project team provided a PowerPoint presentation and discussed the project and its history. Mr. Lee stated that Mr. Chou purchased the property about 10 years ago and the project has evolved from a three -story office building—which, while consistent with the current C-1 zoning, but determined to not be an appropriate use for this location and from a traffic generation standpoint—to a three-story single family proposal. The current proposal is for a two-story project which is appropriate to the configuration and location of the site with a contemporary modern style of architecture, which is more consistent with the surrounding uses, as well as with the General Plan Update land use designation of Low Density Residential. Mr. Lee thanked SP/Lee for her commitment and time over the past 10 years in walking everyone through the evolution and process of this project. C/Barlas asked for clarification on the number of vehicles the horseshoe- shaped driveway would accommodate and how many cars can be parked at the side of the house. Mr. Pang responded to C/Barlas that the driveway will accommodate up to eight cars plus an additional three cars on the inside of the garage for a total of 11 vehicles on the site at any one time. Chair/Mok said he understood the driveway was not wide enough to accommodate a full-sized waste hauler. Mr. Pang responded that the driveway is 36 feet wide, the width of a three-car garage. In addition, they coordinated with Waste Management, which is able to service the area using a “valet” service which is a smaller dump truck that will come up into the horseshoe driveway and pick up the trash cans from the property. Trash receptacles will not be put on the street. 4.1 Packet Pg. 8 ________________________________________________________________________ JUNE 23, 2020 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION ________________________________________________________________________ Douglas Barcon, in reference to the viewshed line-of-sight diagrams prepared by the applicant, felt the angle could have gone much lower and encompass the structure instead of being cut off above the line and wanted to know if a line of sight was from one property and one area. Based on the information that possibly eight cars could be parked on the driveway, unless each of those cars were to enter and exit sequentially, he does not see how they could switch places in line. And, it appears to him that the three cars in front of the garage would have to back out onto Diamond Bar Boulevard unless the driveway is large enough for cars to pass each other. With cars traveling down Diamond Bar Boulevard from Temple Avenue at potentially 45 mph, if someone decided to make a U-turn at Soltaire, it might be difficult to accelerate sufficiently for the short distance to the driveway of the property. Also, in terms of safety, there is a bike lane along the west side of Diamond Bar Boulevard that was not mentioned in the plans, but instead shows bicycles using the sidewalk excluding use of the bike lane. As he previously commented, he looks at this as a project that jumps out and into one’s face to people entering Diamond Bar from Temple Avenue and he would prefer to see the property used for a cell phone tower camouflaged as a windmill that could provide income. Robin Smith said her comments were related to health and her concerns about the risks that have been proven by evaluating the sensitive receptors region, which is any housing located within 500 to 1,000 feet of a heavily trafficked roadway and wonders why this project is categorically exempt from environmental evaluation. Also, she is under the impression that this parcel is still zoned Office Professional. Felino Bautista wanted to know if the project, as presented this evening, speaks to the possibility of afternoon glare onto the freeway and whether the site line was representative of the new proposed design. He questioned vehicle parking. Chair/Mok closed the public hearing. C/Wolfe said he was on the Planning Commission in 2017 and a sked for the analysis looking at driver expectations/site distance compared to stopping distance and that question was answered in the traffic report that is attached to staff’s report. They have also redesigned the house to make access easier and, as staff stated, this is the best use for this particular property. There really is not another use unless the property was rezoned to force it into something 4.1 Packet Pg. 9 ________________________________________________________________________ JUNE 23, 2020 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION ________________________________________________________________________ that was proposed during public comments. And, a light industrial or commercial use is more intrusive to the driving patterns on the southbound lanes of Diamond Bar Boulevard. C/Wolfe moved to recommend City Council approval of Zone Change and Development Review No. PL2015-253 as proposed by staff. Motion died for lack of a second. C/Barlas said she served on the Planning Commission when the design was completely different and the applicant was asked to redo the traffic study because of concerns about possible afternoon sun glare and because the trash truck could not stop on Diamond Bar Boulevard and these issues have been satisfactorily resolved through the redesign. VC/Rawlings said he does not have the advantage of having been on the Commission when this item was first presented. He has reviewed records and can definitely appreciate the work that has gone into the current project for the space provided. He has concerns about the future of providin g overflow parking because it would be across Soltaire or on Flintlock. He has a lot of respect and admiration for staff, but one area he disagrees with is the impact this project would have on the character of surrounding neighborhoods and he for that reason, is not sure he can support this project at this time. C/Garg said he believes that the Planning staff should look at this project again because there has not been sufficient time for review of the comments the Commission received today. Chair/Mok asked for staff’s response. CDD/Gubman responded to Mr. Barcon’s comments regarding representation of views and how the project would affect certain vantage points that it would depend on whether the Commission wished to have those line of site view angles revisited from different vantage points. In terms of concerns about the left turn pocket at Soltaire and potential conflicts with U-turns and vehicles coming down Temple Avenue, one thing to keep in mind is that this proposal is for a single-family residence and traffic engineering studies for decades have compiled trip generation statistics on different types of land uses. A single family residence typically generates 10 trip ends per day and while there might be some valid concern about speeds on Diamond Bar Boulevard , it is an unrestricted U-turn pocket and he would put potential concerns in that perspective and context. Bike lanes are common features on all of the City’s roadways and motorists must drive defensively and be aware of their surroundings before executing a turning movement. With respect to comments about whether a cell tower might be a better use for this site, staff 4.1 Packet Pg. 10 ________________________________________________________________________ JUNE 23, 2020 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION ________________________________________________________________________ cannot prescribe what a property owner can do. If a proposal was received for such a use, it would be something that would be considered; however, staff’s recommendation is ultimately based on finding the lowest intensity of use that can be accommodated on this property before the issue of a taking of a property is considered. The City cannot prevent some one who owns property from using it within the restrictions that are established, and zoning for a single-family residence is basically the lowest intensity zoning designation the City has in its menu of land uses. There was a concern raised by Ms. Smith about particulate matter and air quality in that particular area. That may be the case, but to answer the question about CEQA, it is a tool that is used to identify and disclose the impacts of the development proposal on the environment, it is not something that is to be used to assess the impacts of the environment on a use. So the applicability of CEQA is really not to consider whether that surrounding environment is going to be deleterious to the users of that land. It is certainly appropriate if the Commission would like to recommend a condition and it might even be incumbent upon the property owner to include a disclosure on the property title so that future occupants are aware of potential air quality issues that may be associated with its proximity to the freeway and to Diamond Bar Boulevard. The question about whether staff looked into the potential glare onto the freeway, this was a question that was originally raised with the office project and it had to do with larger panes of curtain glass and whether, at certain times of the day, they would reflect sunlight and cause glare onto the freeway. As far as he knows, that issue was not looked at with respect to the current plan, and in looking at the rear elevation of the proposed residence and the fenestration of it, there are relatively small bedroom windows facing that area rather than large panes of storefront sized glass that might warrant further analysis. In this case, he would suggest that the Commission look at the rear elevation and determine whether Commissioners feel that is a concern that warrants additional study. CDD/Gubman further stated that whether this motion to recommend City Council approval should be delayed because of emails and comments received today, that too is at the pleasure of the Commission, but since this item has to go to the City Council anyway for final determination, these correspondences will be entered into the record and additional information will be provided on these comments if called for. If the Commission would prefer to receive more information on these comments before passing on the recommendation, that can be done. However, the alternative is to make the 4.1 Packet Pg. 11 ________________________________________________________________________ JUNE 23, 2020 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION ________________________________________________________________________ recommendation based on tonight’s Public Hearing and when staff prepares the record for the City Council meeting all letters, emails and related comments will be made a part of the City Council’s packet. C/Barlas said she was satisfied with CDD/Gubman’s responses and comments and believes his comment for the applicant to record the potential environmental impacts is a good idea and should be included in the motion. She said she is not so concerned about the parking issue because the City has been very proactive regarding potential parking violations. C/Barlas stated that with the addition of a condition that the applicant record the potential environmental impacts due to the proximity of the project to the freeway for future potential buyers, she would recommend City Council approval of Zone Change and Development Review No. PL2015-253 as proposed by staff. Chair/Mok seconded the motion. Chair/Mok said he believes staff has worked hard on this project for the past seven years. Kudos to SP/Lee and Planning staff as well as the efforts of the applicant and project team to address public concerns. The new plans address the front elevation with an additional six feet of softening landscape. The horseshoe driveway addresses ingress/egress concerns and driver’s exiting the property will be able to see southbound traffic on Diamond Bar Boulevard. C/Garg said that he would be in favor of the motion as long as he could be assured that staff would include comments on all correspondence in the City Council presentation. C/Wolfe said that there is a motion that has been seconded and what he just heard from C/Garg was additional add-ins and the vote needs to proceed before another motion is presented. ACA/Eggart responded to C/Wolfe that C/Garg’s comment did not const itute another motion and posed the question to CDD/Gubman. CDD/Gubman reiterated that staff would address all comments received in the City Council report. Chair/Mok called for the vote on C/Wolfe’s motion. As a point of order, C/Wolfe stated that C/Barlas made a substitute motion by adding the condition and Chair/Mok seconded motion, which would therefore be the motion the Commission would vote on instead of his motion because he was not asked if he would agree to insert the condition in his motion . 4.1 Packet Pg. 12 ________________________________________________________________________ JUNE 23, 2020 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION ________________________________________________________________________ ACA/Eggart said that C/Wolfe was correct and Chair/Mok called for the vote on C/Barlas’ motion. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Barlas, Garg, Wolfe, and Chair/Mok NOES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Rawlings ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 8. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: VC/Rawlings said that in spite of his opposition to tonight’s public hearing project, he wanted to thank everyone who has worked on this for these many years. These types of projects are difficult, especially after attempts that have seemed very circuitous, and he thanked the property own er for being so flexible and to the project team that this is and will be a beautiful project. Chair/Mok said he noticed a lot of work being done on the Big Lots building and wondered if there was full occupancy at that site. CDD/Gubman said he has heard through the owner’s representation that they have full occupancy but he does not have a roster of potential tenants. The project was stalled for a time and considering the rate of buildout, it appears they are motivated to get tenants moved in soon. C/Garg asked if the Big Lots building would have multiple tenants or one only and CDD/Gubman responded that there are five tenant spaces in the remodeled building. 9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: CDD/Gubman said it appears there will be no business for the July 14 th Planning Commission agenda and tentatively, that meeting will be cancelled. In addition, there is nothing pending for the July 28th meeting and staff will keep Commissioners apprised of any changes. CDD/Gubman said that the City received CARES Act money and the City Council supplemented that money with some of the City’s CDBG funds in order to execute a Business Recovery Grant Program to give out $5,000 small grants to 64 businesses in Diamond Bar. At this time he is going through the screening process and the window for applications closes at noon tomorrow. To date, 160 applications have been received and after the application window closes, there will be a lottery . For those businesses that were not selected for the initial round of funding , their lottery numbers will be kept on file for potential future rounds of CARES Act money. 4.1 Packet Pg. 13 ________________________________________________________________________ JUNE 23, 2020 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION ________________________________________________________________________ 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 8:31 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this ____________________________, 2020. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, __________________________________ Greg Gubman Community Development Director _______________________________ Kevin Mok, Chairperson 4.1 Packet Pg. 14 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 7.1 MEETING DATE: August 25, 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 Street, 2nd Floor, City of Industry, CA 91748 BACKGROUND: On July 21, 2020, the City Council voted 3-2 to remand the matter back to the Planning Commission for a physical public hearing in order to enable the public to attend and provide testimony on the proposed project in person. Concerns were expressed to the Council that the GoToWebinar platform was not working properly for some members of the public wishing to speak during the public hearing. The meeting minutes are included in Attachment E. As directed by the City Council, this item has been scheduled for a reopened public hearing on the August 25, 2020, at 6:30 p.m. in the Windmill Community Room at City Hall. PROJECT 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 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ~ 21810 COPLEY DRIVE ~ DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 ~ TEL. (909) 839-7030 ~ FAX (909) 861-3117 7.1 Packet Pg. 15 Zone Change and Development Review (Planning Case No. PL2015-253) Page 2 of 3 a vacant and undeveloped 11,225 square -foot (0.26 acre) parcel located on the north side of N. Diamond Bar Blvd., between Soltaire Street and Highland Valley Road. The following entitlements are being requested: • 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 • Development Review (DR) to approve the site and architectural design of a new 4,333 square-foot, two-story single family residence to ensure consistency with the General Plan, Development Code, and compliance with all applicable desig n guidelines and standards. On June 23, 2020, the Commission voted 4 -1 to recommend that the City Council approve the Project (the meeting minutes are included in Attachment F). NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 1,000-foot radius of the Project site on August 7, 2020. The notice was also published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune newspaper on August 14, 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 At the time that this report was published, staff received written correspondences from 11 residents stating opposition to the proposed project, which are includ ed in Attachment G. Comments include those previously published in the June 23, 2020 , Planning Commission agenda packet, and in the July 21, 2020 , City Council agenda packet. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open the public hearing to take testimony from the public rega rding all land use entitlements. 2. Close the public hearing. 3. Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) recommending approval of the Zone Change to modify the existing zoning from Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Low Density Residential (RL). 4. Adopt Resolution (Attachment 2) recommending approval of Development Review No. PL2015-253 to allow the construction of a new 4,333 square-foot, two-story 7.1 Packet Pg. 16 Zone Change and Development Review (Planning Case No. PL2015-253) Page 3 of 3 single family residence, based on the findings of Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Section 22.48.040, subject to the Conditions of Approval contained therein, and forward the matter to the City Council for final consideration. PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: Attachments: A. Draft Resolution No. 2020-XX (Recommending City Council Approval of ZC) 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. Minutes of the July 21, 2020 City Council Meeting F. Draft Minutes of the June 23, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting G. Written Comments Received 7.1 Packet Pg. 17 CITY COUNCIL 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. 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. On March 13, 2020, notification of the public hearing for this project was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune newspaper. In addition to the posted and mailed notices, the project site was posted with a display board. 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, 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). 7.1.a Packet Pg. 18 2 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2020-XX 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. On June 23, 2020, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar voted 4- 1 recommending that the City Council approve the Project. 9. On July 21, 2020, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar voted 3 -2 to remand the matter back to the Planning Commission for a physical public hearing in order to enable the public to attend and provide testimony on the proposed project in person. 10. On August 7, 2020, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 1,000-foot radius of the Project site. On August 14, 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. 11. On August 25, 2020, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing, solic ited testimony from all interested individuals, and concluded said hearing on that date. 12. 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, 218 10 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: 7.1.a Packet Pg. 19 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2020-XX Finding: The Approvals are internally consistent with the General Plan and other adopted goals and policies of the City. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The Zoning Map does not currently reflect the General 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 25th DAY OF AUGUST, 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 25th day of August, 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. 20 4 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2020-XX Exhibit A 7.1.a Packet Pg. 21 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. 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. On March 13, 2020, notification of the public hearing for this project was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune newspaper. 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 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, 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 four designated community posting sites. 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. 7.1.b Packet Pg. 22 2 PC Resolution No. 2020-XX 6. On June 23, 2020, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar voted 4-1 recommending that the City Council approve the Project. 7. On July 21, 2020, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar voted 3 -2 to remand the matter back to the Planning Commission for a physical public hearing in order to enable the public to attend and provide testimony on the proposed project in person. 8. On August 7, 2020, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 1,000-foot radius of the Project site. On August 14, 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. 9. On August 25, 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. 10. 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: 7.1.b Packet Pg. 23 3 PC Resolution No. 2020-XX 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 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 and adjacent right-of-ways. In addition, no protected trees exist on site. 7.1.b Packet Pg. 24 4 PC Resolution No. 2020-XX 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. 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, 7.1.b Packet Pg. 25 5 PC Resolution No. 2020-XX landscaping is integrated into the site to complement the massing of the house and blend in with neighboring homes 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 hereby 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. The property owner shall record a deed disclosure with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office informing future purchasers that the subject property is potentially located within an air quality sensitive receptor area due to its proximity to the SR 57 Freeway. The property owner shall submit a conformed copy of the recorded deed disclosure to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. Standard Conditions. The applicant shall comply with the standard development conditions attached hereto. 7.1.b Packet Pg. 26 6 PC Resolution No. 2020-XX 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 25th DAY OF AUGUST 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 25th day of August 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ATTEST: ___________________________ Greg Gubman, Secretary 7.1.b Packet Pg. 27 7 PC Resolution No. 2020-XX 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. 28 8 PC Resolution No. 2020-XX (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 completed. 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. 29 9 PC Resolution No. 2020-XX 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 Division 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. 30 10 PC Resolution No. 2020-XX 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 buildin g 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. 31 11 PC Resolution No. 2020-XX 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 involved 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 both 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 ensure 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. 32 12 PC Resolution No. 2020-XX 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 limite d 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. 33 13 PC Resolution No. 2020-XX 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. 3. Finished slopes shall conform to City Code Section 22.22.080-Grading. 4. All easements and flood hazard areas shall be clearly identified on the grading plan. 5. 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. 6. All equipment staging areas shall be located on the project site. Staging area, including material stockpile and equipment storage area, 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. 7. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, City Grading Ordinance, Hillside Management Ordinance and acceptable grading practices. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 34 14 PC Resolution No. 2020-XX 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. 35 15 PC Resolution No. 2020-XX 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. 36 16 PC Resolution No. 2020-XX 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 provided 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. 37 17 PC Resolution No. 2020-XX 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 the 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. 38 18 PC Resolution No. 2020-XX 10. The applicant shall contact Dig Alert and have underground utility loca tions 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 safety 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 lineal 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. 39 19 PC Resolution No. 2020-XX 2. The applicant is required to have the Information of 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. 40 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. 41 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. 42 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. 43 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. 44 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. 45 6 7.1.c Packet Pg. 46 77.1.cPacket Pg. 47 87.1.cPacket Pg. 48 97.1.cPacket Pg. 49 107.1.cPacket Pg. 50 117.1.cPacket Pg. 51 127.1.cPacket Pg. 52 APPENDIX A TRIP GENERATION TABLE FROM THE PREVIOUSLY PREPARED 2011 TRAFFIC STUDY Apx - 1 7.1.c Packet Pg. 53 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. 54 APPENDIX B SIGHT DISTANCE STANDARDS Apx - 3 7.1.c Packet Pg. 55 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. 56 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. 57 Chapter 3—Elements 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. 58 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. 59 Chapter 3—Elements 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. 60 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. 61 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. 62 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. 63 (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. 64 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. 65 • 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. 66 APPENDIX C SITE PLAN Apx - 15 7.1.c Packet Pg. 67 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. 68 +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. 69 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. 70 7.1.dPacket Pg. 71 7.1.dPacket Pg. 72 7.1.dPacket Pg. 73 7.1.dPacket Pg. 74 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. 75 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. 76 +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. 77 +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. 78 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. 79 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. 80 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. 81 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. 82 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. 83 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING I JULY 21, 2020 STUDY SESSION: 5:30 p.m. Public Comments:None Offered. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): California's New Metric for Evaluating Traffic Impacts Study Session Adjourned: 6:19 p.m. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Tye called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Mayor Tye stated that consistent with C VID-19 regulations, all Council Members and staff are participating via teleconference and there is no physical location for public attendance. The Public has been invited to join the meeting online or by phone at the numbers printed on the agenda. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Tye led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Council Members Andrew Chou, Ruth Low, Jennifer Fred" Mahlke, Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Lyons, and Mayor Steve Tye Staff participating telephonically: Dan Fox, City Manager; Ryan McLean, Assistant City Manager; David DeBerry, City Attorney; Ryan Wright, Parks and Recreation Manager; Anthony Santos, Assistant to the City Manager; David Liu, Public Works Director; Hal Ghafari, Public Works Manager/Assistant City Engineer; Christian Malpica, Associate Engineer; Fabian Aoun, Assistant Engineer; Dianna Honeywell, Director of Finance, Greg Gubman, Director of Community Development; Ken Desforges, Director of Information Services; Marsha Roa, Public Information Manager; Cecilia Arellano, Public Information Coordinator; J.R. Ybarra, Media Specialist; Kristina Santana, City Clerk APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As submitted. 1. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: CM/Fox announced that as part of the City's COVID-19 response efforts, the Parks and Recreation Department is implementing two new programs: 1) Rec to-go Bags for kids that can be purchased for $30 ($20 for each additional bag to the same household) and will be delivered free of charge to the child's residence; and 2) Free Senior Resource Bags for 55 and older available for curbside pickup at the Diamond Bar Center. A limited number of home deliveries will be available on request for seniors who have no means of transportation. 7.1.e Packet Pg. 84 JULY 21, 2020 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS: CC/Santana stated the following comments were submitted by email and forwarded to each Councilmember: Raphael H. Plunkett thanked Councilmembers Chow and Low for responding to emails commenting on Item 5.2 and asked that tonight's meeting be adjourned in honor of Representative John Lewis. Bobby Roberts asked about the City's plans for creating a park on the City owned property at the end of Sunset Crossing Road. The following comments were offered during the meeting: Jennifer Vidal concurred with the Plunkett's request to have the City Council meeting adjourned in honor of Congressman John Lewis. Joe and Raphael Plunkett thanked ACM/McLean and staff for the comprehensive and informative budget presentation. Aliya Simjee concurred with the Plunkett's request to have tonight's meeting closed in honor of Representative John Lewis. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR: MPT/Lyons moved, C/Low seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar as presented with the exception of Item 3.5 pulled by C/Chou and 3.6 pulled by MPT/Lyons. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chou, Low, Mahlke, MPT/Lyons, M/Tye NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 3.1 APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: 3.1a JULY 7, 2020 REGULAR MEETING 3.2 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2020-30 ESTABLISHING VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR PURPOSES OF ANALYSING TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). 3.3 APPROVED SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SIMPSON ADVERTISING, INC. FOR SPECIALITY GRAPHIC DESIGN SERVICES THROUGH JUNE 30, 2021. 3.4 APPROVED PURCHASE ORDER WITH SOUTHERN CALIFRONIA NEWSPAPER GROUPS FOR PRINTING AND MAILING SERVICES FOR THE CITY NEWSLETTER, RECREATION BROCHURE AND 7.1.e Packet Pg. 85 JULY 21, 2020 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL CALENDAR, AND SERVICES GUIDE THROUGH JUNE 30, 2021. ITEMS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSENT CALENDAR: 3.5 APPROVE CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KOA CORPORATION FOR PREPARATION OF LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN. C/Chou asked for clarification of the selection process and PWD/Liu referred C/Chou to staff's report page 54 for the specific criteria spelled out in the RFP. During the selection process, staff focused on the firm's specific approach for working together on the local roadway safety plan with the Sheriff's Department and Fire Department. In addition, staff conducted a more in-depth analysis to make sure the City is getting the best value for dollars spent and it became clear to staff that when analyzing the number of hours and relative cost of those hours, that KOA's proposal was one of the better and more comprehensive technical proposals. C/Chou wanted to know what Diamond Bar projects KOA had worked on previously and PWD/Liu responded that a few years ago they were on call and completed various projects including plan tech development projects and a few CIP projects. In addition, KOA is currently working on the Thousand Oaks and Azusa Local Roadway Safety Plan. C/Chou expressed concerns about former Council Member Jimmy Lin's involvement as a member of KOA and MPT/Lyons asked for CA/D erry's input. CA/DeBerry responded that state law states that certain elected officials and high ranking officials of a public agency such as the City Manager and other high ranking officials, cannot lobby their former employer for 12 months. Since 18 months has passed since Mr. Lin served on the City Council and there has been no personal appearance or lobby by email by the former Council Member, there is no prohibition on the former Council Member having a contract with the City. The law's intent is to disallow lobbying activities and appearances before the City Council. MPT/Lyons moved, C/Low seconded, to approve Consent Calendar Item I 3.5. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: I AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Low, Mahlke, MPT/Lyons, I M/Tye NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS Chou ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 7.1.e Packet Pg. 86 JULY 21, 2020 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL 3.6 APPROVE MEASURE W SAFE, CLEAN WATER PROGRAM- MUNICIPAL PROGRAM TRANSFER AGREEMENT WITH THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT. MPT/Lyons asked whether the City would be able to use these funds for the water issues at Flapjack and other similar neighborhoods or in the Diamond Canyon Park water filtering system or at Sycamore Canyon Creek. PWD/Liu responded that staff believes all of those project are eligible under the specific criteria of Measure W. AE/Aoun explained that while those projects are identified, staff is awaiting word from Los Angeles County's Public Works Department and Flood Control District to make certain how these projects can be funded by Measure W allocations. MPT/Lyons moved, C/Low seconded, to approve Consent Calendar Item 3.6. AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chou, Low, Mahlke, MPT/Lyons, M/Tye NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 4. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 4.1 ZONE CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 1111 N. DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD (PLANNING CASE NO. PL2015-253). SP/Lee presented the staff report and recommended that the City Council open the Public Hearing to receive public testimony; close the Public Hearing and Introduce for First Reading by Title Only, waive full reading of Ordinance No. 01(2020) adopting Zone Change to change the existing zoning from Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Low Density Residential RL), and schedule second reading and adoption at the August 4, 2020 City Council meeting; and, Adopt Resolution No. 2020-31 approving Development Review based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the Conditions of Approval contained therein. Ken Lee, applicant's representative, thanked staff and particularly SP/Lee for her professional assistance through the process over the past several years, introduced the new design team members who briefly explained the project evolution and spoke to concerns addressed at the Planning Commission level. The design team responded to C/Chou's questions and concerns about traffic and architecture. C/Low asked if the property line ends at the fence or where the drop begins and Mr. Lee said that the fencing delineates the property line and 7.1.e Packet Pg. 87 JULY 21, 2020 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL what is not fenced is owned by Caltrans. C/Low asked for confirmation from the traffic engineer that she understood someone traveling at a rate of 70 mph down Diamond Bar Boulevard could see a car exiting the property in time to stop. The traffic engineer explained that it would take about 900 feet to stop a vehicle traveling at 70 mph. MPT/Lyons asked SP/Lee about a complaint from a resident who felt the project would decrease her property value and SP/Lee stated that real estate values are not reviewed or analyzed by the Planning staff for development projects. MPT/Lyons asked SP/Lee to address view concerns and SP/Lee responded that staff believes the project will not present any significant impacts to private residences that are on a much higher grade than the proposed project. M/Tye asked if Mr. Chou would live in the home and Mr. Lee responded that Mr. Chou's intention is to build this as a spec home that will be sold. M/Tye opened the Public Hearing. CC/Santana stated that the following comments were submitted by email I, and forwarded to each Council Member: Susan Mullins submitted two separate email comments, one on July 15th asking the Council to nullify the decision of the Planning Commission and a second email dated July 20t" wherein she expressed her opposition to i the project and asked the City Council to postpone the item scheduled for the Council meeting of July 21St. Eric and Yolanda Norwood commented on the speeding and traffic I accidents on Diamond Bar Boulevard and asked for plans to avoid further i accidents if this property is developed. I Beverly Sacia asked if the project will hurt the existing property values, destroy the current view and if it will be used as a birthing home. I Salino Batista asked if the two trees that are ten feet apart on the green ovals on the drawings is an entryway. If so, he believed it should be i blocked off to prevent cars from stopping at that location. M/Tye closed the Public Hearing. I C/Chou said he visited the site and reviewed Planning Commission minutes and understands the project and while he may not agree with the project, it appears to comply with the zone change request. C/Low and MPT/Lyons commented that with this third iteration, the applicant, in their opinion, designed a project that is much improved, appears to be the highest and best use of the property and complies with 7.1.e Packet Pg. 88 JULY 21, 2020 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL the General Plan. M/Tye believed this item should be remanded to the Planning Commission for a public meeting because of the difficulties they had hearing from the public similar to the problems that have been encountered this evening. He is troubled that the land use designation was changed during the General Plan update and this matter is a request for a zone change approval so that it agrees with the land use that was changed. CM/Fox surmised that it would likely be four to six weeks out when an actual in-person meeting could be scheduled, if that is the pleasure of the Council. C/Low said she believes the public should be heard and the property owner and design team deserve an answer as well. C/Low moved, M/Tye seconded, to remand the matter to the Planning Commission with the caveat that it be re-noticed for an in-person Public Hearing in accordance with COVID-19 rules within the next eight weeks. Motion by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Low, Mahlke, M/Tye NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chou, MPT/Lyons ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 4.2 RESOLUTIONS LEVYING ASSESSMENTS ON LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NOS. 38, 39 AND 41 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020-21. PWD/Liu presented the staff report. M/Tye opened the Public Hearing. With no one wishing to speak on this item, M/Tye closed the Public Hearing. C/Chou and C/Low said they would abstain from voting on Item B because they each reside within LLAD No. 39. MPT/Lyons moved, C/Chou seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2020-32 LLAD No. 38) to levy and collect assessments for Landscape Assessment District No. 38 for Fiscal Year 2020-21. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chou, Low, Mahlke, MPT/Lyons, M/Tye NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 7.1.e Packet Pg. 89 JULY 21, 2020 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL C/Mahlke moved, MPT/Lyons seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 2020-33 LLAD No. 39) to levy and collect assessment for Landscape Assessment District No. 39 for Fiscal Year 2020-21. AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mahlke, MPT/Lyons, M/Tye NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chou, Low ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None C/Chou moved, C/Mahlke seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 2020-34 LLAD No. 41) to levy and collect assessments for Landscape I Assessment District No. 41 for Fiscal Year 2020-21. Motion carried by the I following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chou, Low, Mahlke, MPT/Lyons, II M/Tye NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 5. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: 5.1 RESOLUTIONS FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE VOTERS A QUESTION RELATING TO TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX AND SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING OF WRITTEN ARGUMENT REGARDING A CITY COUNCIL-INITIATED TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX MEASURE, AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIRL ANALYSIS. ACM/McLean presented the staff report. C/Chou asked when the City might expect to begin seeing revenue and how much is anticipated should the measure pass. ACM/McLean responded that if the measure passed in November the City would expect to begin seeing revenue about April of the following year. For the coming fiscal year, sales tax is expected to be down about 20 percent and depending on COVID-19 and the economy, it may result in another 10-20 percent reduction to the estimate. C/Chou asked if the City was entitled to keep the entire .75 percent of the use tax. ACM/McLean responded the City would keep the 3/4 of one percent. CA/DeBerry further explained that the use tax would only be imposed in the jurisdiction where the item was purchased that has a sales tax lower than Diamond Bar. C/Mahlke asked if upon passage of the .75 percent increase would Diamond Bar be able avoid further tax increases. ACM/McLean responded that state law sets the cap at 10.25 percent and if the county 7.1.e Packet Pg. 90 JULY 21, 2020 PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL put forth a countywide (tax increase) measure that was approved by the voters countywide, Diamond Bar would not be subject to any further tax increase. MPT/Lyons asked ACM/McLean what response he received from his presentation to three community organizations. ACM/McLean said the information was well received and it was approached as an opportunity to engage and educate the public. M/Tye asked if anyone wished to speak on this item. With no one wishing to comment, M/Tye closed public comments. Following comments from the Council, MPT/Lyons moved, C/Chou seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 2020-35 for the submission to the voters a question relating to transactions and use tax. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chou, Mahlke, MPT/Lyons, M/Tye NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Low ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None C/Chou moved, C/Mahlke seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 2020-36 setting deadlines and priorities for filing written arguments regarding the City Council-initiated Transactions and Use Tax Measure, and directing the city attorney to prepare an impartial analysis. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chou, Mahlke, MPT/Lyons, M/Tye NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Low ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 5.2 SUPPORT LETTER REGARDING RESPONSIBLE USE OF FORCE POLICY REFORM. CM/Fox asked that the Council discuss the revised letter of support to Los Angeles Sheriff Villanueva and provide direction to staff as deemed appropriate. Captain Reyes responded to C/Mahlke's questions and concerns, stating that the "Eight Can't Wait" went into effect following the Ferguson incident and in 2016 the LA County Sheriff's Department updated its Use of Force policies. With respect to carotid restraint, the force policies and training are taught in line with the Commission on Peace Officer Standards in Training. 7.1.e Packet Pg. 91 JULY 21, 2020 PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL C/Mahlke asked if the LA County Sheriff's Department was the largest sheriff's department in the US and Captain Reyes responded that his understanding is that they are the second largest police agency in the country and the largest sheriff's department in the nation. C/Chou moved, C/Low seconded, to approve the letter as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chou, Low, Mahlke, MPT/Lyons, M/Tye NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 6. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: C/Mahlke helped swear in the new governing board for the Regional San Gabriel Valley Chamber of Commerce, attended a Zoom meet with Miss Diamond Bar and her Court. She congratulated winners of the Diamond Bar Women's Club 5,000 scholarship in Academic and Arts scholarships to students from Diamond Bar and Diamond Ranch High Schools and thanked the club for supporting youth excellence in the City. C/Mahlke invited participation in the first Councilwomen Learning and Sharing session on Wednesday, July 22nd at 7:00 p.m. and spoke with admiration about Congressman John Lewis. ClLow thanked staff for their work under the stress of COVID-19, talked about her participation in the Zoom meeting with Miss Diamond Bar and her Court, and hoped everyone would attend the first Councilwomen's Zoom meeting "Safety First". Because COVID-19 hospitalization is on the increase, C/Low asked everyone to wear masks, wash hands and staying out of other people's airspace and beware of COVID-19 contact tracing scammers. C/Low spoke of Council's unified pledge to eradicate racism and discrimination and support of the City's law enforcement officers, and acknowledged the passing of Congressman John Lewis. C/Chou said he was honored to be appointed to the executive board of the League of California Cities, LA Division, shared a quote from Congressman John Lewis, and thanked his colleagues for their professionalism and grace. MPT/Lyons gave a shout out to M/Tye and CC/Santana for their patience and sunny attitudes during meetings. She asked CM/Fox if he would ask PRR/Wright to agree that Councilmembers could help distribute senior P&R bags. She hopes the Friends of the Library can help the library fund books and materials during the library's budget shortfall, asked residents to continue supporting local businesses and restaurants, and agreed that tonight's meeting should be closed in honor of Congressman John Lewis. M/Tye said the Council heard from a number of owners how important it was for 7.1.e Packet Pg. 92 JULY 21, 2020 PAGE 10 CITY COUNCIL their businesses to receive grant funds from the City. He thanked Raphael Plunkett for asking that tonight's meeting be adjourned in memory of Congressman John Lewis, a lion of the legislature. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, M/Tye adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting at 9:16 p.m. in honor and memory of Congressman John Lewis. Respectfully submitted: Kristina Santana, City Clerk The ore,going min re hereby approved this 4t" day of August, 2020. r Steve Tye, May r i i I I I , i I I 7.1.e Packet Pg. 93 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 23, 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 6:45 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Garg 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; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; May Nakajima, Associate Planner; Natalie T. Espinoza, Associate Planner; and, Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes – Regular Meeting – May 26, 2020. C/Wolfe moved, C/Barlas seconded, to approve the May 26, 2020, Meeting Minutes as corrected. 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: None 7.1.f Packet Pg. 94 ________________________________________________________________________ JUNE 23, 2020 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION ________________________________________________________________________ 7. (CONTINUED) PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 ZONE CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. PL2015-253 – Under the authority of DBMC Sections 22.48 and 22.70, the property owners and applicant requested 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. (Continued from March 24, 2020) PROJECT ADDRESS: 1111 Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNERS: James Chin Chou 1359 Bentley Court West Covina, CA 91791 APPLICANT: Creative Design Associates 17528 Rowland Street, 2nd Floor City of Industry, CA 91748 SP/Lee presented staff’s report and requested that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve Zone Change and Development Review No. PL2015-253. C/Garg asked if it was true that the proposed residence would be the only residence to have access from Diamond Bar Boulevard. He also wanted to know what kind of facility is suitable for this site since both residential and commercial projects were denied and/or withdrawn. He also commented that if the project was approved, there is no entry from Diamond Bar Boulevard proceeding north and if true, that would be a restriction on the proposal. When he visited the site, he was unable to find parking for his vehicle and parked along the side of Diamond Bar Boulevard and turned on his hazard light. In about five minutes, a Sheriff’s car approached with red lights flashing and stopped behind his car to tell him that stopping along the street at that location was not allowed. SP/Lee responded to C/Garg that at the northern end of Diamond Bar Boulevard this would be the only single family home with direct access from Diamond Bar Boulevard. There is a condominium project just north of the project site that takes access from Diamond Bar Boulevard . With respect to the question about the best use for this parcel, staff is recommending the 7.1.f Packet Pg. 95 ________________________________________________________________________ JUNE 23, 2020 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION ________________________________________________________________________ single family residential use because it is the least intense in terms of parking and traffic impacts. Parking is not allowed on Diamond Bar Boulevard and residents and guests would have to park on the private property. A three -car garage and a circular driveway are proposed and there are no proposals for on-street parking. The site is accessible to westbound traffic only, because the landscaped median prevents access for eastbound traffic. Chair/Mok commented regarding access that traffic proceeding northbound toward Temple Avenue seeking access to the project site would have to make a U-turn at the condominium development on Soltaire Street, where U-turns are permissible. . However, there is no U-turn allowed at Temple Avenue. Chair/Mok opened the public hearing. Ken Lee, owner’s representative and land use consultant; Kenneth Pang, Project Architect, Creative Design Associates; Eric Freeman, ML Design; Jack Lee, Cal Land Engineering; and Tom Huang, Senior Traffic Engineer, Ganddini Group, the firm that conducted the original traffic study and January update. The project team provided a PowerPoint presentation and discussed the project and its history. Mr. Lee stated that Mr. Chou purchased the property about 10 years ago and the project has evolved from a three -story office building—which, while consistent with the current C-1 zoning, but determined to not be an appropriate use for this location and from a traffic generation standpoint—to a three-story single family proposal. The current proposal is for a two-story project which is appropriate to the configuration and location of the site with a contemporary modern style of architecture, which is more consistent with the surrounding uses, as well as with the General Plan Update land use designation of Low Density Residential. Mr. Lee thanked SP/Lee for her commitment and time over the past 10 years in walking everyone through the evolution and process of this project. C/Barlas asked for clarification on the number of vehicles the horseshoe- shaped driveway would accommodate and how many cars can be parked at the side of the house. Mr. Pang responded to C/Barlas that the driveway will accommodate up to eight cars plus an additional three cars on the inside of the garage for a total of 11 vehicles on the site at any one time. Chair/Mok said he understood the driveway was not wide enough to accommodate a full-sized waste hauler. Mr. Pang responded that the driveway is 36 feet wide, the width of a three-car garage. In addition, they coordinated with Waste Management, which is able to service the area using a “valet” service which is a smaller dump truck that will come up into the horseshoe driveway and pick up the trash cans from the property. Trash receptacles will not be put on the street. 7.1.f Packet Pg. 96 ________________________________________________________________________ JUNE 23, 2020 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION ________________________________________________________________________ Douglas Barcon, in reference to the viewshed line-of-sight diagrams prepared by the applicant, felt the angle could have gone much lower and encompass the structure instead of being cut off above the line and wanted to know if a line of sight was from one property and one area. Based on the information that possibly eight cars could be parked on the driveway, unless each of those cars were to enter and exit sequentially, he does not see how they could switch places in line. And, it appears to him that the three cars in front of the garage would have to back out onto Diamond Bar Boulevard unless the driveway is large enough for cars to pass each other. With cars traveling down Diamond Bar Boulevard from Temple Avenue at potentially 45 mph, if someone decided to make a U-turn at Soltaire, it might be difficult to accelerate sufficiently for the short distance to the driveway of the property. Also, in terms of safety, there is a bike lane along the west side of Diamond Bar Boulevard that was not mentioned in the plans, but instead shows bicycles using the sidewalk excluding use of the bike lane. As he previously commented, he looks at this as a project that jumps out and into one’s face to people entering Diamond Bar from Temple Avenue and he would prefer to see the property used for a cell phone tower camouflaged as a windmill that could provide income. Robin Smith said her comments were related to health and her concerns about the risks that have been proven by evaluating the sensitive receptors region, which is any housing located within 500 to 1,000 feet of a heavily trafficked roadway and wonders why this project is categorically exempt from environmental evaluation. Also, she is under the impression that this parcel is still zoned Office Professional. Felino Bautista wanted to know if the project, as presented this evening, speaks to the possibility of afternoon glare onto the freeway and whether the site line was representative of the new proposed design. He questioned vehicle parking. Chair/Mok closed the public hearing. C/Wolfe said he was on the Planning Commission in 2017 and a sked for the analysis looking at driver expectations/site distance compared to stopping distance and that question was answered in the traffic report that is attached to staff’s report. They have also redesigned the house to make access easier and, as staff stated, this is the best use for this particular property. There really is not another use unless the property was rezoned to force it into something 7.1.f Packet Pg. 97 ________________________________________________________________________ JUNE 23, 2020 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION ________________________________________________________________________ that was proposed during public comments. And, a light industrial or commercial use is more intrusive to the driving patterns on the southbound lanes of Diamond Bar Boulevard. C/Wolfe moved to recommend City Council approval of Zone Change and Development Review No. PL2015-253 as proposed by staff. Motion died for lack of a second. C/Barlas said she served on the Planning Commission when the design was completely different and the applicant was asked to redo the traffic study because of concerns about possible afternoon sun glare and because the trash truck could not stop on Diamond Bar Boulevard and these issues have been satisfactorily resolved through the redesign. VC/Rawlings said he does not have the advantage of having been on the Commission when this item was first presented. He has reviewed records and can definitely appreciate the work that has gone into the current project for the space provided. He has concerns about the future of providin g overflow parking because it would be across Soltaire or on Flintlock. He has a lot of respect and admiration for staff, but one area he disagrees with is the impact this project would have on the character of surrounding neighborhoods and he for that reason, is not sure he can support this project at this time. C/Garg said he believes that the Planning staff should look at this project again because there has not been sufficient time for review of the comments the Commission received today. Chair/Mok asked for staff’s response. CDD/Gubman responded to Mr. Barcon’s comments regarding representation of views and how the project would affect certain vantage points that it would depend on whether the Commission wished to have those line of site view angles revisited from different vantage points. In terms of concerns about the left turn pocket at Soltaire and potential conflicts with U-turns and vehicles coming down Temple Avenue, one thing to keep in mind is that this proposal is for a single-family residence and traffic engineering studies for decades have compiled trip generation statistics on different types of land uses. A single family residence typically generates 10 trip ends per day and while there might be some valid concern about speeds on Diamond Bar Boulevard , it is an unrestricted U-turn pocket and he would put potential concerns in that perspective and context. Bike lanes are common features on all of the City’s roadways and motorists must drive defensively and be aware of their surroundings before executing a turning movement. With respect to comments about whether a cell tower might be a better use for this site, staff 7.1.f Packet Pg. 98 ________________________________________________________________________ JUNE 23, 2020 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION ________________________________________________________________________ cannot prescribe what a property owner can do. If a proposal was received for such a use, it would be something that would be considered; however, staff’s recommendation is ultimately based on finding the lowest intensity of use that can be accommodated on this property before the issue of a taking of a property is considered. The City cannot prevent some one who owns property from using it within the restrictions that are established, and zoning for a single-family residence is basically the lowest intensity zoning designation the City has in its menu of land uses. There was a concern raised by Ms. Smith about particulate matter and air quality in that particular area. That may be the case, but to answer the question about CEQA, it is a tool that is used to identify and disclose the impacts of the development proposal on the environment, it is not something that is to be used to assess the impacts of the environment on a use. So the applicability of CEQA is really not to consider whether that surrounding environment is going to be deleterious to the users of that land. It is certainly appropriate if the Commission would like to recommend a condition and it might even be incumbent upon the property owner to include a disclosure on the property title so that future occupants are aware of potential air quality issues that may be associated with its proximity to the freeway and to Diamond Bar Boulevard. The question about whether staff looked into the potential glare onto the freeway, this was a question that was originally raised with the office project and it had to do with larger panes of curtain glass and whether, at certain times of the day, they would reflect sunlight and cause glare onto the freeway. As far as he knows, that issue was not looked at with respect to the current plan, and in looking at the rear elevation of the proposed residence and the fenestration of it, there are relatively small bedroom windows facing that area rather than large panes of storefront sized glass that might warrant further analysis. In this case, he would suggest that the Commission look at the rear elevation and determine whether Commissioners feel that is a concern that warrants additional study. CDD/Gubman further stated that whether this motion to recommend City Council approval should be delayed because of emails and comments received today, that too is at the pleasure of the Commission, but since this item has to go to the City Council anyway for final determination, these correspondences will be entered into the record and additional information will be provided on these comments if called for. If the Commission would prefer to receive more information on these comments before passing on the recommendation, that can be done. However, the alternative is to make the 7.1.f Packet Pg. 99 ________________________________________________________________________ JUNE 23, 2020 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION ________________________________________________________________________ recommendation based on tonight’s Public Hearing and when staff prepares the record for the City Council meeting all letters, emails and related comments will be made a part of the City Council’s packet. C/Barlas said she was satisfied with CDD/Gubman’s responses and comments and believes his comment for the applicant to record the potential environmental impacts is a good idea and should be included in the motion. She said she is not so concerned about the parking issue because the City has been very proactive regarding potential parking violations. C/Barlas stated that with the addition of a condition that the applicant record the potential environmental impacts due to the proximity of the project to the freeway for future potential buyers, she would recommend City Council approval of Zone Change and Development Review No. PL2015-253 as proposed by staff. Chair/Mok seconded the motion. Chair/Mok said he believes staff has worked hard on this project for the past seven years. Kudos to SP/Lee and Planning staff as well as the efforts of the applicant and project team to address public concerns. The new plans address the front elevation with an additional six feet of softening landscape. The horseshoe driveway addresses ingress/egress concerns and driver’s exiting the property will be able to see southbound traffic on Diamond Bar Boulevard. C/Garg said that he would be in favor of the motion as long as he could be assured that staff would include comments on all correspondence in the City Council presentation. C/Wolfe said that there is a motion that has been seconded and what he just heard from C/Garg was additional add-ins and the vote needs to proceed before another motion is presented. ACA/Eggart responded to C/Wolfe that C/Garg’s comment did not const itute another motion and posed the question to CDD/Gubman. CDD/Gubman reiterated that staff would address all comments received in the City Council report. Chair/Mok called for the vote on C/Wolfe’s motion. As a point of order, C/Wolfe stated that C/Barlas made a substitute motion by adding the condition and Chair/Mok seconded motion, which would therefore be the motion the Commission would vote on instead of his motion because he was not asked if he would agree to insert the condition in his motion . 7.1.f Packet Pg. 100 ________________________________________________________________________ JUNE 23, 2020 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION ________________________________________________________________________ ACA/Eggart said that C/Wolfe was correct and Chair/Mok called for the vote on C/Barlas’ motion. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Barlas, Garg, Wolfe, and Chair/Mok NOES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Rawlings ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 8. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: VC/Rawlings said that in spite of his opposition to tonight’s public hearing project, he wanted to thank everyone who has worked on this for these many years. These types of projects are difficult, especially after attempts that have seemed very circuitous, and he thanked the property own er for being so flexible and to the project team that this is and will be a beautiful project. Chair/Mok said he noticed a lot of work being done on the Big Lots building and wondered if there was full occupancy at that site. CDD/Gubman said he has heard through the owner’s representation that they have full occupancy but he does not have a roster of potential tenants. The project was stalled for a time and considering the rate of buildout, it appears they are motivated to get tenants moved in soon. C/Garg asked if the Big Lots building would have multiple tenants or one only and CDD/Gubman responded that there are five tenant spaces in the remodeled building. 9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: CDD/Gubman said it appears there will be no business for the July 14 th Planning Commission agenda and tentatively, that meeting will be cancelled. In addition, there is nothing pending for the July 28th meeting and staff will keep Commissioners apprised of any changes. CDD/Gubman said that the City received CARES Act money and the City Council supplemented that money with some of the City’s CDBG funds in order to execute a Business Recovery Grant Program to give out $5,000 small grants to 64 businesses in Diamond Bar. At this time he is going through the screening process and the window for applications closes at noon tomorrow. To date, 160 applications have been received and after the application window closes, there will be a lottery . For those businesses that were not selected for the initial round of funding , their lottery numbers will be kept on file for potential future rounds of CARES Act money. 7.1.f Packet Pg. 101 ________________________________________________________________________ JUNE 23, 2020 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION ________________________________________________________________________ 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 8:31 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this ____________________________, 2020. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, __________________________________ Greg Gubman Community Development Director _______________________________ Kevin Mok, Chairperson 7.1.f Packet Pg. 102 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.g Packet Pg. 103 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.g Packet Pg. 104 From: Doug Barcon <dougbarcon@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 3:56 PM To: Grace Lee 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, 7.1.g Packet Pg. 105 Dr. Douglas Barcon 7.1.g Packet Pg. 106 From: Nina Holmquist <ninaholmquist@verizon.net> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 6:50 PM To: Grace Lee 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 7.1.g Packet Pg. 107 From: Lee Paulson <tm@silverlightpress.com> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 9:50 PM To: Grace Lee 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 7.1.g Packet Pg. 108 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 7.1.g Packet Pg. 109 June 23, 2020 TO: Diamond Bar Senior Planner, Grace Lee via email: GLee@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, on Diamond 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. 7.1.g Packet Pg. 110 Thomas & Carol Balderama, Diamond Bar Residents email: trfic@roadrunner.com 909-378-0670 cc: Planning Commissioners 7.1.g Packet Pg. 111 From: Cynthia Robin Smith <diamondbarbeautiful@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 3:27 PM To: Grace Lee Cc: Greg Gubman Subject: Planning Hearing Item 7.1 Comments Attachments: MSATsensitiveReceptors.png; L.A. keeps building near freeways, even though living there makes people sick - Los Angeles Times.pdf; References Living Near Busy Roads or Traffic Pollution – USC Environmental Health Centers.pdf; Land-Use-101-Webinar-Paper-highlighted.pdf; General Plan 2040 Part 1- 44.pdf; DBExistingConditionsVol1-28CurrentZoningDistricts.pdf CAUTION: This message originated outside of our City of Diamond Bar network. TO: City of Diamond Bar, Sr. Planner, Grace Lee, Community Development Director, Greg Gubman City of Diamond Bar Planning Commissioners RE: 1111 N. Diamond Bar Blvd. Proposed Project/Zone Change Dear Grace, Greg and Commissioners, Thank you for the opportunity to speak about this very important project proposal. As chairman of the local Sierra Club conservation task force, a public benefit non-profit group, devoted to environmental integrity, and quality of life in our local area, and as a 32 year resident of Diamond Bar, I express grave concerns about allowing a new family residence to be built within a mapped, state Air Quality, "sensitive receptor" zone. Especially one located in one of the highest, diesel-pollutant, Trade Corridors in the United States. (57/60 Confluence area.). [See (1) attached MSAT png map] Serious Health Risks Science proves significant risk of death and a long list of diseases occur in humans who inhabit areas with high diesel pollutant zones, for extended periods of time (schools, residences, hospitals, Etc.). [Exhibit: (2) attached references: "L.A. Keeps Building . . ." L.A. Times article, and USC Reference: "Living Near Busy Roads" documents.] Scientists and Air Quality Regulators say homes, schools and day care centers ought not to be built within 500-1,000 feet of busy roads and freeways. [Southern Cal Assoc. Governments] What are "Sensitive Receptors?" Sensitive receptors include, but are not limited to, hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, housing and convalescent facilities - areas where the occupants are more susceptible to the adverse effects of exposure to toxic chemicals, pesticides, and other pollutants. [Refer to attached MSAT png map] 7.1.g Packet Pg. 112 CEQA Categorical Exemption? The plan report deems this project "categorically exempt" to CEQA. Surely, this is an oversight? With what scientific measurement was this assignment made? Especially considering the absolute health risks posed to the project's future occupants? Please explain how occupant health safety may be understood without evaluating roadway pollution in a mapped sensitive receptor zone? Vegetation and even walls are inadequate to mitigate intense pollution exposure at this site. If you counter this assertion, please present the science to prove, efficient mitigation measure. The new, adopted 2040 General Plan considers community health. Please explain how new, residential construction within 500-1,000 feet of a Trade Corridor comports with the goals and principles of the general plan? What manner of information or notification has the City planning department extended to the property owner/investor? Is the land owner aware of the poor inhabitability based on official Air Quality reports? In view of the negative health impacts, this project poses, how may the city be assured the project will be successful? An informed Public's growing concern for air quality and health may impact the success of the project. Seriously: "who wants to raise a family, merely 84 feet from the pavement of a freeway where noise and pollution abound?" Literally, the entire. parcel is "choked" by busy traffic roadways, between Diamond Bar Blvd., and the 57 Freeway. General Plan Land Use Designation + Zoning Question Finally, an important zoning concern. The plan report asserts the project is "consistent with the general plan." Actually, the project is not consistent with the 2040 General Plan Land Use Designation. Please refer to these pages in the Plan Report: Item A: June 23, 2020, Plan Report Packet Page 27, RESOLUTION B. #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 on page 28, Item B: FACTS IN SUPPORT of FINDINGS: a. "The Zoning Map does not currently reflect the General 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)." These statements are inaccurate and false. Here is why: 1. 2017 General Plan, Existing Conditions Report Vol. 1, pg. 28, Fig. 2.4 Current Zoning Districts indicates the parcel is zoned "OP" Office/Professional. [attached] 7.1.g Packet Pg. 113 2. The final, adopted 2019, 2040 General Plan, pg. 44 Fig. 2.2 Land Use diagram does not indicate a specific use for this property at all. [attached] Therefore, because no official city action was taken to change the former, 2017 Office Professional designation, the Office/Professional designation must stand. Planning Law requires, zoning must flow FROM the General Plan Land Use designations. General Plans Land Use designations are not to be changed to accommodate individual zoning requests. Please refer to the legal explanation of this feature in the attached, highlighted quote, page 8 in the document: "Land Use 101 - A Field Guide" by Christine Dietrick, City Attorney, Jon Ansolabehere, Asst. City Attorney, City San Luis Obispo I appreciate the thoughtful consideration of this information, especially by the planning commissioners. City decisions contribute to the health, wellbeing of all residents. I request the zoning change be denied based on the inappropriate, confused manner it appears to be proposed. It would be deemed "invalid" according to Planning Law policy. I also request that CEQA, Air Quality health assessment be required for this project. Finally, I request written answers to the questions named in this comments submission, and am grateful to follow updates on this project. For the People of Diamond Bar, Respectfully Submitted, C. Robin Smith References Attached Please disseminate this information packet to the Diamond Bar Planning Commission cc: Sierra Club Angeles Chapter, Exec Director Morgan Goodwin Diamond Bar Is Beautiful Blog: www.diamondbarisbeautiful.com California Native Trees, Landscapes; Wildlife Habitat Conservation Diamond Bar - Pomona Valley Sierra Club Task Force, Chair A Public Benefit, Non-Profit Organization 324 S. Diamond Bar Blvd., #230 Diamond Bar CA 91765 909-861-9920 Desk 951-675-6760 Cell 7.1.g Packet Pg. 114 7.1.g Packet Pg. 115 L.A. keeps building nearfreeways, even though living there makes people sick Are you one of the 2.5 million Southern Californians already living in the pollution zone? By TONY BARBOZA AND JON SCHLEUSS MARCH 2, 2017, 3 A.M. 1 dot = 1 person living within 1,000 feet of a freeway in 2010 F Orsini 1,072-unit apartment complex Opened in three phases between 2004 and 2010 1-bedroom apartment rents for $2,000 to $2,500 a month Developer Geoffrey H. Palmer has built thousands of units near downtown L.A. freeways and plans more Have you ever lived near a freeway? c Tell us your story ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT Il Villaggio Toscano Planned 325-unit apartment complex Approved in 2013 by the L.A. City Council over the objections of air quality officials Developer M. David Paul pledged to use enhanced air filters c Tell us your freeway story Motorists travel along the 101 Freeway in Hollywood. (Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times) View more photos ü Everett Smith, a renter at the Orsini apartments, looks out from his balcony at rush hour traffic on the 101 and 110 freeway interchange in downtown Los Angeles. (Don Bartletti / Los Angeles Times) or more than a decade, California air quality officials have warned against building homes within 500 feet of freeways. And with good reason: People there suffer higher rates of asthma, heart attacks, strokes, lung cancer and pre-term births. Recent research has added more health risks to the list, including childhood obesity, autism and dementia. Yet Southern California civic officials have flouted those warnings, allowing a surge in home building near traffic pollution, according to a Los Angeles Times analysis of U.S. Census data, building permits and other government records. In Los Angeles alone officials have approved thousands of new homes within 1,000 feet of a freeway — even as they advised developers that this distance poses health concerns. The city issued building permits for 4,300 homes near freeways in 2015 — more than in any year over the last decade — and signed off on an additional 3,000 units last year. Public funds, including millions of dollars from California’s cap-and-trade program to cut greenhouse gas emissions, are going to developers to build new homes in freeway pollution hot spots. The population near Los Angeles freeways is growing faster than elsewhere in the city as planners push developers to concentrate new housing near transportation hubs, convinced that increasing urban density will help meet state targets for greenhouse gas reductions. More than 1.2 million people already live in high-pollution zones within 500 feet of a Southern California freeway, with more moving in every day. Between 2000 and 2010 — the most recent period available — the population within 500 feet of a Los Angeles freeway grew 3.9%, compared with a rate of 2.6% citywide. Los Angeles City Councilman José Huizar, who lives several hundred feet from Interstate 5, said freeway pollution is such an urgent and complex problem that he wants the city to establish buffer zones. He called for a “comprehensive, citywide study of development near freeways that would analyze all impacts of limiting development around freeways.” Other elected officials and business groups argue that Los Angeles is so thoroughly crisscrossed by freeways that restricting growth near them is impractical and would hamper efforts to ease a severe housing shortage. In some cases, city officials are paving the way by re-zoning industrial land along freeways and other transportation corridors. In an interview at a recent groundbreaking for a freeway-adjacent apartment project, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said that he grew up near the 101 and 405 freeways and that many in his family had cancer. Mayor Eric Garcetti attends a groundbreaking ceremony for a 160-unit affordable apartment project next to the 110 Freeway in South Los Angeles. View more photos ü But he said he opposes any restrictions on how many homes can be built near freeways and thinks that improving air-filtration, building design and tailpipe emissions are a better way to reduce risks to residents. “I take this stuff very seriously, but I also know that in looking for housing we have a very constricted city,” he said. Garcetti spokesman Carl Marziali noted that a prohibition on building within 1,000 feet of freeways, for example, would cover more than 10% of land currently zoned for residential construction in the city, from Westwood to Boyle Heights and San Pedro to Sherman Oaks. But proponents of stricter planning, including supporters of Measure S, a proposal on the March 7 ballot that would place new restrictions on development, have criticized city officials for approving what they term “black lung lofts.” How close to the freeway are you? Low rent and a location near shops and restaurants are what brought Jeremiah Caleb to an apartment on Beloit Avenue, where a sound wall is all that separates the 405 freeway from sleek new apartments and lofts advertising “good living.” But life got worse for Jeremiah and his wife Angel soon after moving into that one-bedroom on the Westside of Los Angeles. The couple began to struggle with bouts of coughing, sneezing and headaches. They kept the windows shut, yet a grimy, black film settled regularly over the furniture, counters and even their skin — a never-ending reminder of the vehicle exhaust and soot they were breathing just 100 feet from 14 lanes of traffic. “We were constantly sick,” said Caleb, an actor in his 30s. The couple worried enough about dirty air that they put off having children. “We were desperate to leave, but we felt stuck. We just couldn't afford it.” Business groups have consistently opposed any suggestion of restricting development near heavy traffic. “Freeways are part of Los Angeles' fabric and prohibiting housing by them is unrealistic,” said Carol Schatz, president of the Downtown Center Business Improvement District. She argues that such restrictions would worsen the housing crisis and severely limit the ability to build housing near mass transit. The Southern California Assn. of Governments, the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Ventura, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Imperial counties, has projected that the population within 500 feet of a freeway will increase by a quarter million people by 2035. Rob McConnell, a professor of preventive medicine at USC who studies roadway pollution, is one of a number of health researchers who has advised city officials not to allow new housing that close to freeways. “I tell them you’re going to make a lot of people sick,” McConnell said. Scientists have long known that polluted air cuts lives short. But pinpointing the harmful agents in traffic pollution is difficult because it’s a stew of ingredients including toxic combustion gases, microscopic soot particles, compounds from worn tires and dust from vehicle brake pads. Recent research has narrowed in on one component of special concern: ultra-fine particles, pollutants in freshly emitted vehicle exhaust that can be five to 10 times higher near traffic. The invisible, chemical-laden specks are less than one-thousandth the width of a human hair — so tiny they are hard to capture with pollution controls or filters. Scientists suspect ultra-fine particles are able to pass through the lungs and into the bloodstream, where they may harm the heart, brain and other organs. Yet they remain unregulated by state and federal authorities. That emerging science has raised concerns that decades of government regulations, aimed at curbing smog that builds up across vast urban areas, are not sufficiently tailored to the more localized problem of roadway pollution. Two years ago, state environmental officials concluded that diesel soot and other carcinogens in vehicle exhaust pose nearly three times the cancer risk previously thought. In a long-term study, USC researchers have for more than two decades measured the lung capacity of thousands of school children across Southern California. They found that children growing up near major roadways have higher rates of asthma and other respiratory illnesses, including deficits in lung function that can be permanent and lead to a lifetime of health problems. Even in communities with cleaner air, such as Santa Maria near the Santa Barbara County coast, children living near traffic had the same lung function loss as those in Riverside and other smoggy inland areas, the scientists found. Anthony Moretti, chairman of pediatrics at White Memorial Medical Center in Boyle Heights, said children who live close to freeways are among those who most frequently land in the emergency room struggling to breathe and in need of treatment for asthma and other respiratory diseases. “These kids will come in four, five, six times over a six-month period, and clearly their environment is a factor,” he said. "I feel for these families because they suffer an undue burden of illness simply because of where they live.“ Dr. Anthony Moretti says children who live close to freeways are among those who most frequently arrive in the emergency room struggling to breathe and in need of inhalers and treatment for asthma and other respiratory diseases. (Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times) View more photos ü Public health officials have long warned that traffic pollution can drift well over 1,000 feet from traffic — and more recent research suggests that it may waft more than a mile. Yet it took lawsuits and a nationwide mandate from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to force Southern California air quality officials to begin regularly measuring pollution near Southern California freeways in 2014. The first readings confirmed that people near freeways breathe higher levels of the exhaust gases nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide. Then, in 2015, the South Coast Air Quality Management District detected the region’s highest concentrations of fine particulate matter at a new monitoring station 30 feet from the 60 Freeway in Ontario. The findings added compelling evidence that traffic emissions are piling on top of regional smog, hitting people near freeways with a double dose of pollution. To learn more about the problem, The Times conducted air quality testing at sites where new housing is planned near Los Angeles freeways. In August and September of 2015, reporters collected air samples at several locations using portable pollution sensors that detect ultra-fine particles, the microscopic pollutants in vehicle exhaust. One set of air samples was taken next to stretches of the 110 and 5 freeways and another set was taken 1,500 to 1,800 feet from the freeways. Ultrafine particles spike near freeways Source: TSI P-Trak Ultrafine Particle Counter 8525 readings on Aug. 20, 2015 and Sept. 24, 2015. See the data ì Pollution readings near the freeways were three to four times higher than in neighborhoods at a distance from traffic. Diesel trucks produced the most noticeable pollution, coughing out foul plumes of exhaust and soot that could be seen and smelled as pollution readings jumped. Scientists at USC and the South Coast air district said the readings were consistent with their measurements near freeways. One of the locations where reporters detected high pollution levels was next to a vacant lot along the 110 Freeway in South Los Angeles where two apartment buildings for low-income residents are being built. The $55-million Meta Housing Corp. project, which will bring 160 new housing units to the busy traffic corridor, is partly funded with money from pollution permits sold under the state’s cap-and-trade program, among other state and local government subsidies. Among the most visible and controversial projects that have raised traffic pollution concerns in Los Angeles are developer Geoffrey H. Palmer’s massive Italianate apartment complexes overlooking downtown freeways. He has built thousands of units and is planning more. In interviews, current and past residents of Palmer’s Orsini development, which hulks over the interchange of the 101 and 110 freeways, said they moved to the complex for its convenient downtown location. But many spoke of keeping windows closed to block noise and pollution, deploying house plants to soak up the bad air and constantly sweeping and dusting the fine black soot that seems to find its way onto every surface. Felicia Gargani said her pet peeve was the grime that collected on her fourth-floor balcony that looked out over the freeway. “If you walk out there barefoot,” she said, “your feet turn black." Construction on the Orsini began more than a decade ago, before scientists grasped the extent of the health hazards of building so close to traffic. In the years since, the South Coast air district has sent dozens of letters to cities sounding alarms about similarly risky home building proposals near freeways in Los Angeles and other communities across its four-county jurisdiction. The air-quality agency reserved some of its strongest criticisms for developer M. David Paul’s 325-unit Il Villaggio Toscano project proposed near the 405-101 interchange in Sherman Oaks, urging Los Angeles city planners in 2011 to “reconsider placing new housing immediately adjacent to one of the busiest freeway intersections in Southern California.” The city “is ignoring the abundant health science data that has come out over the past decade that demonstrates serious health consequences for those living near a freeway,” the air district’s Ian MacMillan wrote. The City Council approved the project unanimously in August 2013, with its backers pledging to use the highest-rated air filters. Los Angeles officials now require all homes built near freeways to have air filtration systems that rate at least 13 on the industry’s 16-point effectiveness scale. California air regulators acknowledge that decades of strict vehicle emissions standards have slashed tailpipe emissions, and they say air quality along freeways will continue to improve as the state transitions to cleaner vehicles and fuels. Health officials say that those mitigating steps are good, but that the only way to solve the problem is for city and county officials to stop residential building near freeways. And that, say legal experts, is well within their authority. Planning experts cite a number of possible approaches to the public health problem. Cities could re-zone areas near heavy traffic to exclude new residential development or change their general plans to prohibit such uses, planning experts say. Officials could adopt ordinances or moratoriums on new residential development. Or they could strengthen building standards — as ++ -- Leaflet | © OpenStreetMap contributors, © CartoDB, CartoDB attribution äAddress Show me an example An estimated 2.5 million Southern Californians live in high- pollution zones within 1,000 feet of a freeway. Nearly half live within 500 feet, where health scientists and air quality regulators say homes, schools and day cares should not be built. Sources: Southern California Association of Governments, San Diego GIS, U.S. Census Bureau, Carto, Mapbox By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Policy.Close Freeway Pollution f t m X X The Video Cloud video was not found. Error Code: VIDEO_CLOUD_ERR_VIDEO_NOT_FOUND Session ID: 2020-06-23:9fc2eafe3ee1515b1d3c166d Player ID: vjs_video_3 OK ! The Video Cloud video was not found. Error Code: VIDEO_CLOUD_ERR_VIDEO_NOT_FOUND Session ID: 2020-06-23:4f6a4baffb7f9753d4798dd0 Player ID: feelings-video OK ! Risks of the freeway How close are you?Tell us your story 7.1.g Packet Pg. 116 ADVERTISEMENT Cedar Point 84 single-family homes in San Bernardino County suburb of Chino Built in 2015 along one of California’s busiest diesel truck corridors 4-bedroom houses by Frontier Communities sell for around $600,000 c Tell us your story residential development. Or they could strengthen building standards — asthey have for seismic reasons — forcing developers to design buildings in a way that reduces residents’ exposure to polluted air. “If there's a political will to protect people from this type of development then cities certainly know how to use zoning to accomplish that,” said James Kushner, an expert in land-use, development and urban planning at Southwestern Law School. Thousands of homes approved near L.A. freeways Use the slider to see where the city has issued building permits within a 1,000 feet of a freeway since 2005. 2005 Sources: Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety, L.A. County Assessor, OpenStreetMap See the data ì One of the only attempts at a ban on development occurred several years ago when the L.A. County Department of Public Health proposed language in the county’s general plan to prohibit new housing within 500 feet of freeways, citing the adverse health effects. County planners ultimately rejected the idea. The failure of such restrictions to gain traction has left some local officials wondering if the only way to keep cities from building more homes near freeways is through a state law. One precedent is a 2003 law California passed prohibiting the construction of new public schools within 500 feet of freeways out of concern for children’s health. But school districts have used exceptions in the law to keep building. Meanwhile, the residential developments that are rising next to freeways continue to spread not just through the urban core, but across the region. One of those new neighborhoods is Cedar Point, a subdivision of one and two-story houses in the San Bernardino County suburb of Chino. The development was built on land that had been re-zoned for housing in a special election paid for by a real estate company. It sits about 100 feet from the 60 Freeway. More than 220,000 vehicles motor by each day on this major freight corridor, including some 27,000 big-rig trucks whose diesel engines cough out many times more harmful pollutants than cars. In January 2015, the South Coast air district sent a letter to Chino officials warning that freeway pollutants would threaten the health of residents in the new homes. A few months later, the building site swarmed with construction workers and heavy equipment. Dennis Yates, former mayor of Chino who served more than 12 years on the region’s air quality board, said that as mayor he encouraged the developer to put in higher-rated air filters, but acknowledged he “personally wouldn’t live there.” Among those who did move into one of Cedar Point's four-bedroom houses was Mike Sanchez, his wife and two young daughters. Buying so close to traffic was a difficult decision, he said, but “one of the sacrifices we made to get into a new home.” Back on the Westside of Los Angeles, Jeremiah Caleb, who spent years battling black road dust and illness while living in an apartment next to the 405, said he and his wife were relieved when she landed a nursing job — a second income that allowed them to move to a less-polluted neighborhood about a mile from any freeway. Their health has improved, with their once-constant headaches and respiratory problems now a rarity. “I can leave my doors open and I'm breathing fresh air all the time,” he said. “We got lucky. But for most people . . . They're stuck because that's what they can afford.” How we reported the story How we measured housing growth Under the California Public Records Act, The Times obtained a database of building permits from the City of Los Angeles dating to 2005, the year state air quality regulators began warning against building near freeways. We counted the number of new housing units in the database that were within 1,000 feet of a freeway. The city began flagging developments at that distance as a concern in 2012 based on a growing body of science linking roadway pollution to health problems. Download building permit data: la-city-permits.xlsx How we counted people We analyzed U.S. Census Bureau data to count the number of people living within 500 feet and within 1,000 feet of a Southern California freeway. We used census blocks, the smallest geographical unit available, to compare the population in 2000 with 2010, the most recent years with that level of detail. The 500-foot zone was included because it is where the California Air Resources Board advises cities to avoid siting new homes, schools, child care centers, medical facilities and other “sensitive land uses.” We built a map of the high-pollution zones near freeways using data from local and regional planning agencies and satellite imagery. We added census blocks to that map, then estimated the number of people within 500 feet and within 1,000 feet of a freeway. For blocks that were partially outside those zones, we counted people in proportion with the area of the block inside the zone. For instance, a census block with 100 people that was 50% inside the freeway zone would be counted as 50 people. Download the GIS files: freeway_files.zip How we took air quality readings Using two portable air quality sensors borrowed from USC, we took measurements of tiny pollutants known as ultrafine particles that are emitted from vehicles. Over a 20-minute period, one reporter measured the air near the freeway while another took readings 1,500 to 1,800 feet downwind. We also tracked wind speed, wind direction, humidity and temperature on-site. The results were reviewed by scientists at the South Coast Air Quality Management District and USC. Download the air quality measurements: pollution-testing.xlsx Contact the reporters. Follow @tonybarboza and @gaufre on twitter. Credits: Times Staff Writer David Zahniser contributed to this report. Produced by Andrea Roberson. Satellite imagery via Google Earth More from the Los Angeles Times One solution to Southern California's housing crisis: building in tight spaces, small lots Caltrans will begin selling homes along the 710 Freeway corridor No surprise here: Los Angeles is the world's most traffic-clogged city, study finds The surprising link between air pollution and Alzheimer’s disease Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | About Our Ads | © 2020 | About This Site By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Policy.Close 7.1.g Packet Pg. 117 USC Enviro Health 4 Jun In this article, Keck Medicine of USC experts say there are steps that protesters can take to stay as safe and healthy as possible, both physically and mentally. @KeckMedUSC @KECKSchool_USC http://ow.ly/aEro50zZcvK Reply on Twitter 1268627288406528002Retweet on Twitter 1268627288406528002 1Like on Twitter 1268627288406528002 Twitter 1268627288406528002 Retweet on Twitter USC Enviro Health Retweeted Rima Habre, ScD 3 Jun We are looking for #ExposureScience courses/workshops, live or pre-recorded, for @ISES2020CA . Pls RT and reach out to sign up! @ISEE_global @isiaq @EPAresearch @CaliforniaEPA @CaliforniaDTSC @ISofExposureSci @HarvardChanSPH @harvard_data @USCEnviroHealth @UNEP Reply on Twitter 1268235167195254784 7Retweet on Twitter 1268235167195254784 12Like on Twitter 1268235167195254784 Twitter 1268235167195254784 USC Enviro Health 3 Jun We stand in solidarity with the black community. We recognize that structural racism and violence creates health disparities and environmental INJUSTICE. We believe anti-racist actions, teaching and governance are essential to achieve health equity and social justice. Reply on Twitter 1268221912435486721Retweet on Twitter 1268221912435486721 5Like on Twitter 1268221912435486721 Twitter 1268221912435486721 USC Enviro Health @USCEHC on Facebook @USC_EH_Outreach on Twitter @USCEHC on Instagram USC Environmental Health Centers Current news, events and research projects of the Environmental Health Centers based at USC USC Environmental Health Centers Proudly powered by WordPress About us Community Engagement Infographics References: Living Near Busy Roads or Traffic Pollution Please note: in the following citations, authors whose names are shown in red are/were scientists with, or are/were otherwise affiliated with, our Southern California Environmental Health Sciences Center or Children’s Environmental Health Center at USC at the time of publication. Pregnant Women Pregnant women are particularly vulnerable to air pollution, including pollution near busy roads and freeways. Studies show that women may develop high blood pressure or diabetes during pregnancy if they are close to high levels of air pollution. This type of diabetes is called “gestational” and often goes away after the baby is born. Some pregnant women develop an illness called “pre-eclampsia” that can result in high blood pressure and possible kidney damage. Below are selected health studies on these topics. Gestational diabetes Malmqvist E, Jakobsson K, Tinnerberg H, Rignell-Hydbom A, Rylander L. (2013). Gestational diabetes and preeclampsia in association with air pollution at levels below current air quality guidelines. Environmental Health Perspectives, 121(4): 488-93. High Blood Pressure or Preeclampsia Wu M, Ries JJ, Proietti E, Vogt D, Hahn S, Hoesli I. (2016). Development of Late-Onset Preeclampsia in Association with Road Densities as a Proxy for Traffic-Related Air Pollution. Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy, 39(1): 21-27. Mobasher Z, Salam MT, Goodwin TM, Lurmann F, Ingles SA, Wilson ML. (2013). Associations between ambient air pollution and Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy. Environmental Research, 123: 9-16. Pereira G, Haggar F, Shand AW, Bower C, Cook A, Nassar N. (2013). Association between pre-eclampsia and locally derived traffic-related air pollution: a retrospective cohort study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 67(2): 147-152. Wu J, Ren C, Delfino RJ, Chung J, Wilhelm M, Ritz B. (2009). Association between local traffic-generated air pollution and preeclampsia and preterm delivery in the south coast air basin of California. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(11): 1773-1779. Developing Fetus and Babies Many harmful health problems can happen to a developing fetus when a pregnant mother lives near high levels of air pollution, including pollution from traffic. There have been studies for a number of years on low-birth weight and babies being born early, and recently studies have found changes to the developing brain. This might lead to behavior or learning or other “cognitive” problems, including autism, ADHD, and schizophrenia. Below are selected health studies on these topics. Low birth weight (weigh less when born) or growth retardation (fetus is slower growing) Wilhelm M and Ritz B. (2003). Residential proximity to traffic and adverse birth outcomes in Los Angeles County, California, 1994-1996. Environmental Health Perspectives, 111(2): 207–216. Ritz B, Qiu J, Lee PC, Lurmann F, Penfold B, Erin Weiss R, McConnell R, Arora C, Hobel C, Wilhelm M. (2014). Prenatal air pollution exposure and ultrasound measures of fetal growth in Los Angeles, California. Environmental Research, 130: 7-13. Born Early (also called preterm or premature birth) Laurent O, Hu J, Li L, Cockburn M, Escobedo L, Kleeman MJ, Wu J. (2014). Sources and contents of air pollution affecting term low birth weight in Los Angeles County, California, 2001-2008. Environmental Research, 134: 488-495. Wilhelm M, Ghosh JK, Su J, Cockburn M, Jerrett M, Ritz B. (2011). Traffic-related air toxics and preterm birth: a population-based case-control study in Los Angeles County, California. Environmental Health, 10: 89. Problems with behavior, learning, autism or other disorders of the developing brain Behavior Perera FP, et al. (2014). Early-life exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and ADHD behavior problems. PLoS One, 9(11): e111670. Learning Guxens M, et al. (2014). Air pollution during pregnancy and childhood cognitive and psychomotor development: six European birth cohorts. Epidemiology, 25(5): 636-47. Autism Woodward N, Finch CE, Morgan TE. (2015). Traffic-related air pollution and brain development. AIMS Environmental Science, 2(2): 353-373. Allen JL, Oberdorster G, Morris-Schaffer K, Wong C, Klocke C, Sobolewski M, Conrad K, Mayer-Proschel M, Cory-Slechta DA. (2015). Developmental neurotoxicity of inhaled ambient ultrafine particle air pollution: Parallels with neuropathological and behavioral features of autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders. Neurotoxicology. Raz R, Roberts AL, Lyall K, Hart JE, Just AC, Laden and Weisskopf MG. (2015). Autism spectrum disorder and particulate matter air pollution before, during, and after pregnancy: a nested case–control analysis within the Nurses’ Health Study II cohort. Environmental Health Perspectives, 123: 264–270. Volk HE, Kerin T, Lurmann F, Hertz-Picciotto I, McConnell R, Campbell DB. (2014). Autism spectrum disorder: interaction of air pollution with the MET receptor tyrosine kinase gene. Epidemiology, 25(1): 44- 7. Volk HE, Lurmann F, Penfold B, Hertz-Picciotto I, McConnell R. (2013). Traffic-related air pollution, particulate matter, and autism. JAMA Psychiatry, 70(1): 71-77. Pedersen CB, Raaschou-Nielsen O, Hertel O, Mortensen PB. (2004). Air pollution from traffic and schizophrenia risk. Schizophrenia Research, 66(1): 83-85. Children For children who live or go to school near high levels of air pollution when they are young (or even before they were born), this can lead to health problems. These include lungs not working and growing as fast as they should, if exposed to pollution when they were young. Children can also develop asthma from air pollution near busy roads, are also likely to go to the hospital for asthma attacks. Studies show more ear, nose, and throat infections for children who are near this kind of air pollution from traffic. New studies may link a higher chance of obesity in children who live near busy traffic or if their mothers were regularly near traffic pollution when pregnant. Below are selected health studies on these topics. Asthma Sbihi H, Tamburic L, Koehoorn M, Brauer M. (2016). Perinatal air pollution exposure and development of asthma from birth to age 10 years. European Respiratory Journal, 47(4): 1062-1071. McConnell R, Islam T, Shankardass K, Jerrett M, Lurmann F, Gilliland F, Gauderman J, Avol E, Kunzli N, Yao L, Peters J, Berhane K. (2010). Childhood incident asthma and traffic-related air pollution at home and school. Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(7): 1021-1026. McConnell R, Berhane K, Yao L, Jerrett M, Lurmann F, Gilliland F, Kunzli N, Gauderman J, Avol E, Thomas D, Peters J. (2006). Traffic, susceptibility, and childhood asthma. Environmental Health Perspectives, 114: 766-72. Hospitalization for asthma Lin S, Munsie JP, Hwang SA, Fitzgerald E, Cayo MR. (2002). Childhood asthma hospitalization and residential exposure to state route traffic. Environmental Research, 88(2): 73-81. Ear, nose, throat infections Berhane K, Chang C-C, McConnell R, Gauderman WJ, Avol E, Rapapport E, Urman R, et al. (2016). Association of changes in air quality with bronchitic symptoms in children in California, 1993-2012. Journal of the American Medical Association, 315(14), 1491-1501. Brauer M, et al. (2007). Air pollution and development of asthma, allergy and infections in a birth cohort. European Respiratory Journal, 29(5): 879-888. Brauer M, et al. (2002). Air pollution from traffic and the development of respiratory infections and asthmatic and allergic symptoms in children. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 166(8): 1092-8. Smaller lungs for life Gauderman WJ, Urman R, Avol E, Berhane K, McConnell R, Rappaport E, Chang R, Lurmann F, Gilliland F. (2015). Association of Improved Air Quality with Lung Development in Children. The New England Journal of Medicine, 372(10): 905–913. Gauderman WJ, Vora H, McConnell R, Berhane K, Gilliland F, Thomas D, Lurmann F, Avol E, Kunzli N, Jerrett M, Peters J. (2007). Effect of exposure to traffic on lung development from 10 to 18 years of age: a cohort study. The Lancet, 369(9561): 571-7. Gauderman WJ, Avol E, Gilliland F, Vora H, Thomas D, Berhane K, McConnell R, Kunzli N, Lurmann F, Rappaport E, Margolis H, Bates D, Peters J. (2004). The effect of air pollution on lung development from 10 to 18 years of age. The New England Journal of Medicine, 351: 1057-67. Obesity McConnell R, Gilliland FD, Goran M, Allayee H, Hricko A, Mittelman S. (2016). Does near-roadway air pollution contribute to childhood obesity? Pediatric Obesity, 11(1): 1-3. McConnell R, Shen E, Gilliland FD, Jerrett M, Wolch J, Chang CC, Lurmann F, Berhane K. (2015). A longitudinal cohort study of body mass index and childhood exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke and air pollution: the Southern California Children’s Health Study. Environmental Health Perspectives, 123(4): 360-366. Teenagers Many of the health problems from air pollution (described above) for children can go into the teenage years. For teenagers, by the time they have graduated from high school or soon after, most teens’ lungs will have reached “maturity,” meaning they will not likely grow any further. So if a teen’s lungs are smaller or don’t work as well at age 18, the lungs may not grow and get healthier as they grow into and adult. Below are selected health studies on these topics. Smaller lungs for life if exposed since early childhood Gauderman WJ, Vora H, McConnell R, Berhane K, Gilliland F, Thomas D, Lurmann F, Avol E, Kunzli N, Jerrett M, Peters J. (2007). Effect of exposure to traffic on lung development from 10 to 18 years of age: a cohort study. The Lancet, 369(9561): 571-577. Gauderman WJ, Urman R, Avol E, Berhane K, McConnell R, Rappaport E, Chang R, Lurmann F, Gilliland F. (2015). Association of Improved Air Quality with Lung Development in Children. The New England Journal of Medicine, 372(10): 905–913. Adults Several recent studies show that being near air pollution for a long time over your life can give people a higher chance of having heart problems. This is for ambient pollution (regional pollution that everyone in a community breathes) and traffic pollution (near-roadway pollution). This pollution can lead to more cardiovascular (heart) disease, and being near air pollution for a long time over your life can lead to more deaths from heart disease. There are now more studies showing links between traffic pollution and stroke. One study showed that sudden cardiac deaths (including from stroke) is linked to traffic exposure in middle-aged women. Below are selected health studies on these topics. Heart Disease Gold DR and Mittleman MA. (2013). New insights into pollution and the cardiovascular system: 2010 to 2012. Circulation, 127(18): 1903-1913. Raaschou-Nielsen O, et al. (2012). Traffic air pollution and mortality from cardiovascular disease and all causes: a Danish cohort study. Environmental Health, 11: 60. Brook RD, et al. (2010). Particulate matter air pollution and cardiovascular disease: An update to the scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 121(21): 2331-2378. Newby DE, et al. (2014). Expert position paper on air pollution and cardiovascular disease. European Heart Journal, 36(2): 83-93b. Kunzli N, Jerrett M, Garcia-Esteban R, Basagana X, Beckermann B, Gilliland F, Medina M, Peters J, Hodis HN, Mack WJ. (2010). Ambient air pollution and the progression of atherosclerosis in adults. PLoS One, 5: e9096. Stroke Brook RD, et al. (2010). Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease. An Update to the Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation, 121(21): 2331-78. Seniors (middle aged adults and older) One study of women with an average age greater than 60 were more likely to die from sudden cardiac deaths (including heart disease and stroke) if they lived near traffic pollution. Some studies have linked road traffic noise to stroke, but another study found that traffic air pollution was linked to stroke even when noise was taken into account. Several studies show that traffic pollution is linked to premature death (dying younger than one might have otherwise). Below are selected health studies on these topics. Heart Attacks and Stroke Hart JE, et al. (2014). Roadway proximity and risk of sudden cardiac death in women. Circulation, 130(17): 1474-82. Hoffmann B, et al. (2015). Air quality, stroke, and coronary events: results of the Heinz Nixdorf Recall Study from the Ruhr Region. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, 112(12): 195-201. Lung Problems Lepeule J, et al. (2014). Long-term effects of traffic particles on lung function decline in the elderly. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 190(5): 542-8. Memory Problems Gatto NM, Henderson VW, Hodis HN, St John JA, Lurmann F, Chen JC, Mack WJ. (2014). Components of air pollution and cognitive function in middle-aged and older adults in Los Angeles. Neurotoxicology, 40: 1-7. Chen, H, et al. (2017). Living near major roads and the incidence of dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and multiple sclerosis: a population-based cohort study. The Lancet. Online 04 January 2017. Shorter Life Jerrett M, et al. (2013). Spatial analysis of air pollution and mortality in California. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 188(5): 593-599. Hoek G, et al. (2002). Association between mortality and indicators of traffic-related air pollution in the Netherlands: a cohort study. The Lancet, 360(9341): 1203-9. Search … Follow Load More... / 7.1.g Packet Pg. 118 Land 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 ag ency 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 lon g 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 authori ty 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 , (19 95) 9 Cal. 4 th 763, 782; see also Big Creek Lumber Co. v. City of Santa Cruz , (2006) 38 Cal. 4th 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 1 7.1.g Packet Pg. 119 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.” Id at 9. One seminal land use and zoning case under scoring a city’s police power was Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. The City of Turlock, (2006) 138 Cal. App. 4 th 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 exceed ed 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 co mmunity 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.4 th 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 Belle, 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. 4 th 230, 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 7.1.g Packet Pg. 120 affair and charter cities are exempt from various provis ions of the Planning and Zoning Law unless the city’s charter indicates otherwise. See e.g. Gov. Code sections 65803, 65860(d); City of Irvine 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 a s well. WRIT OF MANDATE; HOW CITY LAND USE DECISIONS ARE JUDGED 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 agen cy 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 differenc e between a quasi -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, a pplications 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 develo ped (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 act 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 o f 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 Lo s Angeles (2013) 214 CA 4th 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 Ass’n of Med. 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 o f 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 7.1.g Packet Pg. 121 otherwise challenge the decision unless that decision constitutes an a buse 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 Constrol Bd. (2011) 51 C4th 421, 428. Judicial review of quasi-legislative acts is usually limited 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 low1, 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; wh ether 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 cour t accords significant deference to the administrative fact -finder. Bedoe v. County of San Diego (2013) 215 CA 4th 56, 61. 1 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 Ass’n. Home Builders, Inc. v. City of Livermore, (1976) 18 Cal. 3d 582, 604. California Hotel & Motel Ass’n v. Indust Welfare Comm’n, (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. 4 7.1.g Packet Pg. 122 PRACTICE TIP: To the greatest extent possible, make sure your city’s 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 findings 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 factu al assessments of the administrative fact finder. Welch v. State Teachers’ Retirement Sys , (2012) 203 CA 4 th 1, 5. In the land use context, when a development approval has been denied in the first instance, it is 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 4 th 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 regulat e, 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 – 21189.3, 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. 2 These are also known as the CEQA Guidelines. 5 7.1.g Packet Pg. 123 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. Code Section 6 5302, 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 u se 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 de velopment. 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 by outside 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 pr ogram/schedule language required by Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) 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 Go vernment Code section 35350 et seq. 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). 6 7.1.g Packet Pg. 124 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 e xperiencing 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 th at 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 comprehens ive 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 Code s ection 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 internally 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. 4 th 1103 the court found that Housing Element Law's requirement that a municipality set forth the means b y 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 in consistency in general plans. 7 7.1.g Packet Pg. 125 Vertical 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 Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut 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 t he measure, the Court held that: (1) the initiative 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, t he 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 proposi tion 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 8 7.1.g Packet Pg. 126 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 hig hlights 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 determin e 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 e ach 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 2.2.8 of the General Plan because it preserves and incorporates 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 incorp orates San Luis Creek into the common area and incorporates “greenbelt” designs into the project by permanently preserving open space buffers around the development site. 9 7.1.g Packet Pg. 127 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 implement ation of the general plan...” A Specific Plan is 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.Ca l.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 t o 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 maj or 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 de velopment 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 Agreemen ts 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 policie s 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 struc ture, 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 condit ions 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 sub ject to referendum, so the flexibility afforded by the tool is also limited by community values. 10 7.1.g Packet Pg. 128 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 standpo int. 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 Reg'l Comm'n (1976) 17 C3d 785, 793. In Autopsy/Post Service, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles , (2005) 129 Cal. App. 4 th 521, the Court of Appeal held that a property owner did not have vested rights status despite the expenditure of approximate ly $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 o wner, 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 map. 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 7.1.g Packet Pg. 129 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 answer s 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 outwe igh 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 environm ental 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 al l 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 impa cts. 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 a nalysis 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 act ivity that involves the issuance to a 12 7.1.g Packet Pg. 130 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 include s 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 con tract 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 p hrase 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 circum stances, 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 committe d 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 requested (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 7.1.g Packet Pg. 131 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 un der 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 Categorical Exemptions 15301 – Existing Facilities 15268 – Ministerial Projects 15302 – Replacement or Reconstruction 15269 – Emergency Projects 15304 – Minor Alternations to Land Use 15280 – Lower Income Housing Projects 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 sign ificant 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 t his exemption especially if a project is otherwise statutorily or categorically exempt from CEQA review, which will provide a more specific and supportable action. 14 7.1.g Packet Pg. 132 PRACTICE TIP: If a project is utilizing a statutory or categorical exemption specify the precise facts which make the project exempt. Step 4: It’s 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 techni cally 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 am ount 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 Cod e 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 th at 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 cha llenge to a ND of environmental impact or Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact (MND). As with any controversial project, there are usually some project opponents who simply 15 7.1.g Packet Pg. 133 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: Know 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 g enerally 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 support ed 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 invoked, was well illustrated in Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles, (2001) 90 Cal. App. 4th 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 w as not expert opinion supported by fact and that such statements were simply “argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative.” Id at 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 for environmental protection, which manifests in this standard that created a “low threshold” for requiring an EIR. See Citizens Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley (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 32 2, 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 d ecision as to whether to prepare an EIR. 16 7.1.g Packet Pg. 134 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 et 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 negati ve 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 information meeting the the fair argument standard di scussed 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 env ironmental 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 prope rty 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 se ction 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 7.1.g Packet Pg. 135 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 CEQ A 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 pu blic, 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 o f 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 proces s 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 issu es 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. 18 7.1.g Packet Pg. 136 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 sectio n 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 Envir onmental 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 soc ial 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 sit uation 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. 4 th 1184. The idea 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 Wal-Mart projects less than 5 miles from each other. Economic experts warned that such land use decisions cou ld 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 Guide lines 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, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10. 19 7.1.g Packet Pg. 137 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 recir culate?” 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 necessar y 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; 2. 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), (c); CEQA Guidelines section 15075(e). 20 7.1.g Packet Pg. 138 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. 5 th Amend.; see also Cal. Const. art. I section 19. A taking can be in the form of a physic al 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 economica lly 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 (hi storic 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 us e exactions. This paper will focus on this last takings analysis. Nollan/Dolan and the Test of Reasonableness/Nexus 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 condit ion 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 i n the underlying cases. In Nollan, a property owner wanted to build a house within the Coastal Zone. The Coastal Commission imposed 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 7.1.g Packet Pg. 139 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 sup port 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 relatio n to the impact 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 conditio n 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 Nollan 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 c odified 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 imposed. 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 7.1.g Packet Pg. 140 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 requ ires 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 rest rict 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 e valuate 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. 4 th 886; Home Builders Assoc.’n of Northern California v. City of 23 7.1.g Packet Pg. 141 Napa, (2001) 90 Cal. App. 4th 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. 4th 1396. In Sterling Park v. City of Palo Alto (2013) 57 Ca l.4th 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, wh ich 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 pur e price control without an option would qualify as an 'exaction.' PRACTICE NOTE : The California Supreme Court, in California Building 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 t hat it seems prudent to complete a nexus study so that the program can continue in the event of an adverse ruling. Density Bonus Law. Government Code sections 65915 – 65918 sets forth the State’s 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 th at 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 th e 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 (a s 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 satisfactor ily 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 24 7.1.g Packet Pg. 142 concession(s), the city and reviewing bodies have little ability to otherwise mo dify 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. 4 th 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. Comm'n (1973) 34 CA3d 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 instan ce 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 CA 4th 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 offices, 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 et seq ., 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 7.1.g Packet Pg. 143 1. The resource is associated with events that have made a significant 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 wi th 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 impact, 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 significa nt 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 th e 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 7.1.g Packet Pg. 144 "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 thought it might 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 land 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.legalinfolegislature.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. 7.1.g Packet Pg. 145 7.1.g Packet Pg. 146 7.1.g Packet Pg. 147 From: neeners121 <neeners121@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 3:59 PM To: Grace Lee 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. I 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 7.1.g Packet Pg. 148 7.1.g Packet Pg. 149 7.1.g Packet Pg. 150 1 Grace Lee From:neeners121 <neeners121@aol.com> Sent:Friday, July 17, 2020 3:40 PM To:Kristina Santana Subject:RE: FW: June 23 Planning Meeting CAUTION: This message originated outside of our City of Diamond Bar network. Hi Kristina Thank you for your reply. I will be contacting Steve Nye today with my concerns. It is unsettling that my neighbors and I had our civil rights stripped at the Planning Committee meeting and noone is taking responsibility. As indicated in my last email the following three serious, and irresponsible incidents happened and someone needs to address this incompetence head on as the consequences are staggering: 1. The planning committee did not read the letters provided timely by concerned and impacted citizens prior to voting. This is evident by Mr. Gards statement. 2. I was personally given incompetent, and irresponsible, information on how to verbally participate in the meeting by Natalie of City Hall. My concerns were not heard, or addressed, and I am inconsolable. This, too, can be verified. Noone will accept responsibility and that in itself is a crime to me and my neighbors. 3. The meeting was very difficult to hear, understand, and follow. It should not have taken place because technically it was immature and unsophisticated. I could not make out whole sentences, or even names of participants. Given these three facts alone, this meeting should be declared null and void. Me and my two direct neighbors have been citizens of Diamond Bar for over 30 years, paying taxes. I am sure there are even more. We bought our "view" property at a price and have been paying on it for many years. This alone is reason enough to deny this request. This one home will destroy our view. I am a handicapped senior with physical and mental health issues. This, too, can be verified. The construction alone with cause untold noise, dust, sawdust, traffic on Diamond Bar Blvd, and loss of all peace from morning to night. It will last for not weeks, but months, and maintenance will be noisy forever. Noise travels directly up our hill and impacts us. The building of this one home will reek havoc and cause harm physically, emotionally, financially and spiritually for all citizens of Diamond Bar. Also, the total loss of a beloved, and beautiful, rare, panorama of our valley will be lost forever. Especially all motorists and visitors going south on Diamond Bar Blvd. This, too, can be verified. Please forward this email to the City Council also, but in the meantime, is there not one leader who takes control when someone and their neighbors have had the holy snot beat out of them? I would love that name! I am trying to understand our rights when they have been so very abused. Thank you. Susan Mullins Flintlock Road. Ps yes, I will appreciate a trial run for being heard at this meeting. Can I call you Monday afternoon? Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Kristina Santana <KSantana@DiamondBarCA.Gov> Date: 7/16/20 5:11 PM (GMT-08:00) To: neeners121@aol.com Cc: Grace Lee <GLee@DiamondBarCA.Gov> Subject: FW: June 23 Planning Meeting 7.1.g Packet Pg. 151 2 Good afternoon Ms. Mullins, My name is Kristina and I’m the City Clerk for the City of Diamond Bar. I’m very sorry to hear you had trouble participating in the last Planning Commission. I have included the comments you provided below as an attachment to the agenda report for the July 21st City Council agenda. Your email has also been forwarded directly to each Council Member. In case you are planning to log on to the City Council meeting to provide a live public comment, I would be happy to run a test meeting in advance of the meeting date to make sure that you are able to log in successfully and have your voice heard by the Council. Please note, the login information for every commission and council meeting is displayed on the first page of the agenda which is posted on the City’s agenda webpage: http://diamondbarca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Default.aspx I understand your frustration and if there is anything I can do to help please let me know. Additionally, you can contact each Council Member individually through the following email addresses. Due to the unprecedented pandemic, at this time City Hall is closed to the public, with most employees and Council Members working from home, however if you would like to leave a voicemail I’ve also included phone numbers below. Mayor Steve Tye – 909-839-7006 – stye@diamondbarca.gov Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Lyons – 909-839-7005 – nlyons@diamondbarca.gov Council Member Andrew Chou – 909-839-7009 – achou@diamondbarca.gov Council Member Ruth Low – 909-839-7008 – rlow@diamondbarca.gov Council Member Jennifer “Fred” Mahlke – 909-839-7007 – jmahlke@diamondbarca.gov Best regards, 7.1.g Packet Pg. 152 3 The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. Kristina Santana | City Clerk City of Diamond Bar | City Manager Division 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 t 909.839.7010| 909.839.7000 main KSantana@diamondbarca.gov | www.DiamondBarCA.gov Connect with Us... Facebook|Twitter|YouTube|Instagram Important Notice: Until further notice, all City facilities, including City Hall, the Diamond Bar Center and Heritage Park will be closed to the public. In the meantime, staff is available to provide services and answer questions by phone and email. For more information, visit www.diamondbarca.gov/covid19 From: Grace Lee <GLee@DiamondBarCA.Gov> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 12:55 PM To: Kristina Santana <KSantana@DiamondBarCA.Gov> Subject: FW: June 23 Planning Meeting Hi Kristina, Can you help and respond to this resident about contacting the Council? Grace S. Lee | Senior Planner City of Diamond Bar | Planning Division 909.839.7032 From: neeners121 <neeners121@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 12:42 PM To: Grace Lee <GLee@DiamondBarCA.Gov> Subject: RE: June 23 Planning Meeting 7.1.g Packet Pg. 153 4 CAUTION: This message originated outside of our City of Diamond Bar network. I am not understanding why the Planning Dept is not taking responsibility for such serious, grievous errors to its citizens, after a fact. What is the person's name and all contact information I need to reach the proper official at City Council with this info? Name, phone number and email please. Thank you. Susan Mullins Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Grace Lee <GLee@DiamondBarCA.Gov> Date: 7/16/20 9:22 AM (GMT-08:00) To: neeners121 <neeners121@aol.com> Subject: RE: June 23 Planning Meeting Good morning Ms. Mullins, Thank you for your comments. They will be forwarded to the City Council. And here’s a link to the traffic access study: https://www.diamondbarca.gov/916/4904/PL2015-253-1111-N-Diamond- Bar-Blvd-Home?activeLiveTab=widgets Best Regards, Grace S. Lee | Senior Planner City of Diamond Bar | Planning Division 7.1.g Packet Pg. 154 5 909.839.7032 From: neeners121 <neeners121@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 4:51 PM To: Grace Lee <GLee@DiamondBarCA.Gov> Subject: June 23 Planning Meeting CAUTION: This message originated outside of our City of Diamond Bar network. This meeting was a fiasco and should be null and void for the following reasons: 1. I live 150 FEET north of this planned home and directly impacted. I called the day of the hearing to get info on speaking at this telephone meeting. I spoke to Natalie of City Hall and was given WRONG INFO!! She seemed confused and took awhile to get the information, apologizing for taking so long. My words "its o.k. take your time this information is IMPORTANT." She told me to be put on raise your hand to speak to hit 9* which I did. I GOT A RECORDING THAT SAID I WAS ON LISTENING MODE ONLY!!!! Can you even imagine the frustration and anger?? There was absolutely NOTHING I could do to fix it. I want my chance to speak which was taken from me. 2. The meeting was very difficult to hear properly and follow. I could not make out people's names, and had trouble understanding accents and information. I deem the telephone meetings are not sophisticated enough by today's technology. 2. Please read this twice and listen to the taped meeting: The info I heard was that five people who are impacted wrote letters that had not been read before this meeting! I am one of them. The Indian gentleman possibly named Mr. GARD initially said he did not want to vote yet until he read these letters!! Guess what? He changed his mind and voted anyway. Seriously, who answers for this error in judgment? I want to know, in writing, exactly how many OTHER members did not read these letters before voting 3. These errors are irresponsible. When you have city planning that can impact hundreds of lives for YEARS to come the people most impacted require more than 5 minutes to speak their mind ! I WANT MY FIVE MINUTES! These decisions impact us physically, emotionally, financially, spiritually and truly. That, and more. 4. To add to my previous concerns please note: The property owner hires gardeners to clear weeds from time to time. Noise travels UP and impacts everyone on our side of the street. Just these weed whackers create horrible noise for hours that will not allow a human to think, sleep, or relax. It is very serious disturbance of peace. Can you even imagine? The construction of this home, landscaping, and maintenance will destroy people's lives. 7.1.g Packet Pg. 155 6 5. The traffic report may be incorrect and I am requesting a copy herein. Anyone with common sense can travel south on Diamond Bar Blvd at 50 mph from Mission Blvd to see the dangers of automobiles and trucks constantly stopping out of nowhere, when not expected. Rear end collisions CANNOT be avoided!! Please direct this note to the appropriate person or persons. I want in WRITING why my rights and concerns have and may be violated. Sorry will not apply here. But do note I am speaking on behalf of all citizens of Diamond Bar who will have their lives very badly impacted by this one home. Sincerely Susan Mullins Flintlock Rd Diamond Bar Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone 7.1.g Packet Pg. 156 1 Grace Lee From:Steve Tye Sent:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 2:40 PM To:Kristina Santana Subject:Fwd: July 21 meeting re: Construction of home on vacant lot North Diamond Bar Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged From Mrs. Mullins - wants forwarded to ALL Council and entered into the record. More than one. Steve Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: neeners121 <neeners121@aol.com> Date: July 20, 2020 at 4:08:22 PM PDT To: Steve Tye <STye@DiamondBarCA.Gov> Subject: July 21 meeting re: Construction of home on vacant lot North Diamond Bar CAUTION: This message originated outside of our City of Diamond Bar network. Dear Mayor Tye: My name is Susan Mullins and I am a handicapped, widowed, senior citizen living within 150 of this proposed construction. I am simply heartbroken, and confused, by the possibility of this becoming a reality for the following reasons: 1. You should be in receipt of several of my emails, including recent emails. I would like to add here that of the 9 homes directly across the street from this lot, 7 of these homes have senior citizens. Of those 7, five, or more, have severe health issues including asthma, emphysema, mental illness, sleeping disorders, depression, anxiety, panic attacks, and one senior is on oxygen! One home has a small child with asthma. My recent emails outline the irresponsible and unexplainable actions my neighbors and I have endured at the hands of your Planning Committee regarding this life altering decision and I repeat them as follows: A. They did not read the important emails provided by concerned citizens regarding this construction PRIOR to voting. This is clear and can be verified. B. They personally gave me the wrong technical information for speaking at the meeting and I was denied this right, and necessity. I am inconsolable and noone will take responsibility. C. They did not investigate the quality of the telephone transmission and failed to consider many listeners are seniors with hearing difficulties. My hearing is not bad yet, but I personally had great difficulty understanding whole sentences, and people's names. I heard one name 4 different times and still could not understand it! D. June, July and August 2020 are clearly very poor months in which to pursue "business as usual". It is simply unfair and irresponsible. Every human being I know is being impacted by rampant disease and are unable to think clearly, and some can barely cope with our day to day lives! Yet you add heavy to that burden and expect us to participate in very serious, life altering decisions that can actually result in serious illness, and even death. 7.1.g Packet Pg. 157 2 I would like to make additions, and CORRECTIONS, to my previous emails, and CONCERNS as follows: 1. I am going to outline not one, but 4 very credible, verifiable, reasons why this one home should not ever have even been CONSIDERED! Each reason will STAND ALONE in its importance, and impact, on not just each citizen of Diamond Bar and the visitors to our city, but especially the homes and human beings directly across the street. 2. As a correction to a previous email, this is regarding the explicit danger of travel south on Diamond Bar Blvd (DBB) from Temple or Mission Blvd. Traffic coming south from Mission Blvd as it turns into DBB is actually not traveling at 50 mph as stated in my previous email. The traffic is very often moving at between 50 to 60 mph with a green light, and traveling from a hilltop downward will encounter countless vehicles braking to enter this property. The property is only a few hundred feet from Temple. Serious accidents will be unavoidable. Citizens across the street from this property have experienced 3 accidents near this location in just the last few years, one of them FATAL. This is all verifiable. Thousands of lives impacted. Just one life begs this consideration. 2. I would be incredulous if my City Council would not fight with all their strength and might to protect a treasured, spectacular, landmark panorama that sets our city apart from most cities. It is breathtaking, and irreplaceable. Our families, friends, and visitors have marveled at it for generations and for many it is quite sentimental. It is most viewed by car coming south on DBB from Temple and begins at the EXACT location for this proposed house! The house will destroy completely the opportunity to see it! Thousands of lives impacted. Again, this is verifiable. Mayor Tye, I am going to send this email in two parts because I am on a phone and do not know if a lengthy message will go through. Please watch for my second email which I am working on now. Thank you. Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone 7.1.g Packet Pg. 158 1 Grace Lee From:Steve Tye Sent:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 2:41 PM To:Kristina Santana Subject:Fwd: Part 3 Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged #2 from Mrs. Mullins. Think it’s too long to read into the record. Steve Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: neeners121 <neeners121@aol.com> Date: July 20, 2020 at 7:43:04 PM PDT To: Steve Tye <STye@DiamondBarCA.Gov> Subject: Part 3 CAUTION: This message originated outside of our City of Diamond Bar network. Mayor Tye, I am getting a mixed reading on the transmission of part 2 of my email. As I expressed, my phone does not allow for long emails. I got an email saying part 2 was not sent but it is showing in my mail that it WAS sent. Will you please verify for me? Thank you. In the meantime, I will be wrapping up my thoughts here: I am hopeful that my city council will understand the severity of our complaints. As stated, I believe each one stands on it's very own in importance, and consequence. Some of the issues, including traffic and existing illness, can have very harmful effects, including death, so it is impossible to calculate the damage this one single structure will and can create for hundreds of people. Lastly, I am very disturbed, and confused, and have become ill, by the irresponsible, impactful, actions of your Planning Committee. Help me understand. We are given legal notice to participate in our government if we believe we are to be impacted by a proposed development. Everything about the proposal can be critical, and life altering, for all concerned. Lots of information is needed, and let us not underestimate the emotional toll. Each view, or commentary, is just as important as the other and is critical to make the best decision possible. Errors are not an option. I have duly noted that when a persons life is critically impacted by a proposal, we deserve MORE than five minutes to defend ourselves. Even if that means a second meeting because that is only fair. So when your Planning Commission made not one or two, but 4 (four) errors that directly impacted the participation of me and my neighbors in this particular instance, I barely got a sorry from Kristina Santana and I was very 7.1.g Packet Pg. 159 2 clear that an apology was not sufficient. Our life investments, and physical health, are at stake here and I am demanding answers for these errors. Who answers to me for the loss? I need this information in writing. I am one of two homes that are closest to this lot. Only 150 FEET! The construction of this home, landscaping, and maintenance will destroy people's lives!! PLEASE NOTE: If a neighbor wanted to sell their home during this entire construction they would be unable to find a buyer because of just the noise! That is serious enough but certainly the least of the complaints and realities. I want answers. Please read my email to Grace Lee DATED July 15. It clearly outlines 3 of the 4 areas of wrongdoing. Number 4 wrongdoing by the Planning Commission was that they held this subpar meeting during one of the most troubling months in the history of the world. I am confident many people who will be impacted by this house were unable to respond or attend due to physical, emotional, and financial afflictions. I'll bet you know that, too. I have family and friends in other countries being impacted! I have family, friends and neighbors who are fighting for their lives and we are supposed to drop everything else and muster up time and effort to combat a full on attack from behind. Shame on the city of Diamond Bar. It is insidious. I am also respectfully, but confidently, requesting that with the common sense God has given mankind, including your council, you postpone your planned meeting of July 21. I also request that the Planning meeting of June 23 be deemed null and void. It is not fair to anyone, but it is certainly unfair to everyone at this time. Susan Mullins Flintlock Rd. Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone 7.1.g Packet Pg. 160 1 Grace Lee From:Eric Norwood <Norwood11@msn.com> Sent:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 1:49 PM To:Kristina Santana Subject:July 21 public hearing regarding Zone Change PL2015-253 "Project" Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged CAUTION: This message originated outside of our City of Diamond Bar network. Greetings and salutations, We are Eric and Yolanda Norwood, residence of 1183 Flintlock Rd. Or home sits at the intersection of Diamond Bar Blvd and Soltaire. We are retired and have lived in this residence about 30 years. We write in regards to the proposed development at 1111 N. Diamond Bar Blvd. Our main concern is traffic control. Being home all day everyday since 2018, it has been our observation that Diamond Bar Blvd from Temple to Highland Valley attracts auto enthusiast. Regularly are the sound of rapid acceleration and wide open throttle from north to south and rapid deceleration from south to north. Across the street from our home is the egress to and from a gated community and it is common to hear the sounds of horns and screeching tyres as drivers attempt to exist onto the boulevard from both Soltaire and the drive across the intersection. Over the years there have been a few bad accidents and speed was a factor. I imagine that an additional residential driveway could exasperate the situation. Speed up and down this street is often excessive. We imagine that the proposal to re-zone and build a residential property at 1111 will include a traffic study and recommendations for traffic control. Is suspect the speed limit will be lowered and maybe some form of additional traffic control will be installed. Our concerns at this time are simple. What is planned? Best regards, Eric and Yolanda Norwood 1183 Flintlock Rd. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 7.1.g Packet Pg. 161 1 Grace Lee From:Joeraetab <joeraetab@aol.com> Sent:Monday, July 20, 2020 8:23 PM To:Kristina Santana Subject:FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed CAUTION: This message originated outside of our City of Diamond Bar network. I’d like to thank Councilmembers Chou and Low for responding, very promptly, to emails that sent to them. I appreciate the recognition, and the time they took to respond to my questions and comments. I appreciate their consideration of my thoughts and input. I look forward to reading the “rewrite” letters regarding use of force. I appreciate all of the Council’s efforts on this enormously important issue. While I find it awkward for the need to virtually attend these meetings, I recognize the need to do so in our current pandemic. I stress that my frustration does not override my appreciation. I appreciate being able to connect with community members, even when I can’t see faces or interact personally. I recall speaking with my grandmother, who has passed on, about her childhood during the 1918 pandemic. Her family relied on word of mouth, and communication was sporadic, at best. There was no regular communication, no cellphones, no Zoom meetings, no GoTo meetings, no regular tv updates, or internet sites. We are all dealing with stressors that can be overwhelming as many of us are isolated. I still see so very many things to be grateful for. One of those being able to hear my City updates and issues from home. It lessens the feelings of isolation and uncertainty. Thank you to the Council, and Staff for all of the technical support that enables these meetings! I ask that tonight’s meeting be closed in honor of Representative John Lewis in recognition of his remarkable life, personal sacrifices, and dedicated lifetime commitment to equal justice for us all. Good night, and be well. Raphael H. Plunkett 7.1.g Packet Pg. 162 1 Grace Lee From:Bobby Roberts <bobby66444@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 3:43 AM To:Kristina Santana Subject:For public comment? Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed CAUTION: This message originated outside of our City of Diamond Bar network. What ever happened to the property owned by the city at the end of sunset crossing. Across from the ymca ? During the last city council election council member Low and others in the then council were promising a new park? The city council claimed the city had the money to buy the land and They said they had a federal grantTo build and make it into beautiful park for the adjacent community? . To this day it’s a weed infested fenced off to the public nothing But waste land! What happened to the election propaganda promised park? COVID19 can’t be the cause for this I’m sure? Where is the new park? Where did the money go? Was this just re-election propaganda? Sent from my iPhone 7.1.g Packet Pg. 163 1 Grace Lee From:Garry <gwake4@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, July 25, 2020 1:16 PM To:Grace Lee Subject:June 23 planing mtg CAUTION: This message originated outside of our City of Diamond Bar network. Hello I’ve driven by this lot proposed for rezoning many times and read the staff recommendation to approve re-zoning. I have to agree with the person (Attachment E I believe) who claims the traffic issue to be much worse, dangerous, than the study indicates. People are speeding downhill at that location and won’t be expecting cars to be slowing to turn into a driveway. It doesn’t matter if the study says there’s enough distance to slow down, people won’t expect it. Also, is there some kind of study concerning the freeway noise any buyer of this home would be subjected to? If so, please forward me a link. If there’s no study, why not? Is it in the environmental impact report? Please forward link. I would recommend not approving this zoning change as this seems to be a terrible location for a home. And considering the proposed size and associated sales price, I can’t imaging anyone would spend that kind of money on it. Terrible 24/7 freeway noise, trapped by traffic at certain times of day and a dangerous traffic situation caused by entering your property? Sounds like a loser to me. Sent from my iPhone 7.1.g Packet Pg. 164 Project Status Report CITY OF DIAMOND BAR August 25, 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 8/25/20 CC 9/1/20 PC 9/8/20/20 CC 9/15/20 PC 9/22/20 CC 10/6/20 1111 N. Diamond Bar Blvd. (New Single family residence) ZC/DR PL2015-253 GL Creative Design Associates PH PH 22589 Pacific Ln. (New single family residence) DR PL2020-17 NTE Jason Baumgartner 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 Incomplete letter sent 06/17/2020 – waiting for additional information 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 22938 ½ Ridge Line Rd. (Wireless facility) CUP PL2020-42 NTE Jill Cleveland Incomplete letter sent 04/01/2020 – 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 9.1 Packet Pg. 165 Project Status Report CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Page 2 August 25, 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 9.1 Packet Pg. 166 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, Commurity Development Department. On August 21, 2020, a copy of the August 25, 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 g is true and correct. Executed on August 21, 20 at Diamond Bar, California. Stella Marquez (� Community Development Department 6:\\S\amdxvitpossinb da Stella Marquez From: Grace Lee Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 5:20 PM To: 'Ken Mok' Cc: Greg Gubman; Stella Marquez Subject: FW: Tonight's meeting Chairman Mok and Commissioners, Forwarding another email from Ms. Mullins regarding tonight's item. Grace S. Lee � Senior Planner City of Diamond Bar I Planning Division 909.339.'032 From: neeners121 <neeners121@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 5:05 PM To: Grace Lee <GLee@DiamondBarCA.Gov> Subject: Tonight's meeting CAUTION: This message originated outside of our City of Diamond Bar network. Hello Ms Lee: The following are comments I will be making at tonight's meeting. It is ok if they do not reach the members in time for the meeting, but please pass them along to everyone including the City Council. I would just like them to be in the records. I am dismayed that I have had to bring stark realities of life threatening probabilities of this construction to your attention. As my city officials I would believe it to be your job, and experience, to already know, and allow, for the harm it will create. This home should never have been considered from the beginning. I am not quite understanding how so many members of my city government are not aware or concerned about the actual real impact this one house will induce on its citizens. I have listened to three different meetings on this site and noone has ever mentioned the harm the actual construction and aftermath can, and will, certainly produce for your citizens. You have requested environmental studies, and traffic studies, but how about the human impact studies. I was hopeful you could be able to bring these concerns to my attention. We have multitudes of children, adults, and seniors with serious health issues and this house will only make their conditions worse! This must not be allowed to happen to even one human being, much less hundreds. The physical and mental harm will be disasterous! That is a fact. I am concerned that for those thousands of Diamond Bar residents who have lived here 30 to 50 years, and oppose this hugh house, you appear to be more favored to someone who has never even lived in Diamond Bar. There are very few, if any, residents of Diamond Bar in favor of this house. How long they have been applying for this home is not a concern, and should never be considered. How it impacts the citizens certainly is. North Diamond Bar has existed for over 50 years. In that time frame not only has it not been developed in any way, its buildings, landscapes, trees, views, landmarks and homes have all developed a unique "Patina", which is a natural coating, like skin, that is familiar, comforting, attractive and again, unique. It is its very own one of a kind. The hugh size, location, and materials of this house will be quite horrible, and stick out like a big ugly boil on a pretty face. It will completely transform all of north Diamond Bar with negative impact The traffic study is a life threatening concern and I am adamant that it is faulty and that lives are at stake. Let me plant these TWO profound realities: 1. Is this study a standardized study and has it allowed for the new social phenomenon and reality of texting while driving? It is rampant, and remember, even though it is illegal, and wrong, these are our children, friends and neighbors. They are texting on that road. We are all at risk. 2. Has it considered fog and rain? There is no way an accident will be prevented in the fog, or heavy rain. Just no way. This MUST be addressed. I have been very vocal about the noise and debris this construction will produce. That alone should be enough to shut this down. It will certainly disturb all peace. The people closest to the site are in the hundreds. There are those directly across the street and those living in the condo community only feet away to the north. Many of us are handicapped seniors with serious, and life threatening, illness, and many are children or middle aged adults. Within feet of this site humans of all ages are suffering from the following: Asthma, depression, anxiety, COPD, heart disease, blood pressure, sinus, cancer, sleeping disorders, arthritis, emphysema, bronchitis, pneumonia, skin disorders, to name just a few. The construction noise, and activity, will not only cause them immediate harm, it will actually make their conditions worse. Our windy conditions will carry all the dirt, dust, debris, weeds, pollen, and sawdust directly into our homes. Please note, and remember, this will not go on for days and weeks, but months and months. Then, even the weekly garden maintenance will be very loud, disruptive, and harmful. Remember, this will affect hundreds. If someone needs to sell their home during this construction it will be almost impossible. Potential buyers will be drawn to the noise, size of the site, and loss of view and investment. We will no longer be able to claim a view home. Real facts here people. Please make the right choice for the citizens of Diamond Bar because we are acutely in need of your understanding, and assistance. Sincerely, Susan Mullins Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone t Stella Marquez From: Grace Lee Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 5:01 PM To: 'Ken Mok' Cc: Greg Gubman; Stella Marquez Subject: FW: Review Planning Case No. PL2015-253 Chairman Mok and Commissioners, Please see the email below from Mr. Barcon regarding tonight's item. Grace S. Lee � Senior Planner City of Diamond Bar I Planning Division 909.839.7032 From: Doug Barcon <dougbarcon@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 4:51 PM To: Grace Lee <GLee@DiamondBarCA.Gov> Subject: Re: Review Planning Case No. PL2015-253 CAUTION: This message originated outside of our City of Diamond Bar network. Hi Grace: I wanted to reiterate my prior comments and letters on the Zone Change and Development Review Planning Case No. PL2015-253 for property located at 1111 N. Diamond Bar Blvd,, Diamond Bar, CA 91789 (APN: 8706-008-0131 to ensure they are referenced in tonight's planning commission meeting. I am still apposed to the plans for the property. It is likely the owner is building for speculative purposes and not for his personal primary residence. Potential uses could include a birthing center or Airbnb. I suggest that the city does not entertain decreasing the posted speed limit on Diamond Bar Blvd if this property was to be approved. The roadway is downhill from Temple and drivers should not be expected to ride their brakes to maintain a slower speed than is currently permitted. Respectfully, Douglas Barcon Sent from my iPhone August 25, 2020 PUBLIC COMMENTS TO: City of Diamond Bar, Sr. Planner, Grace Lee, Community Development Director, Greg Gubman City of Diamond Bar Planning Commissioners RE: 1111 N. Diamond Bar Blvd. Proposed Project/Zone Change Dear Grace, Greg and Commissioners, Once again, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about this very important project proposal. As a resident and a community advocate, I have spoken with many neighbors and we all continue to struggle grave concerns about this proposal. This speculation project, proposed by a foreign investor with no potential community regard for the safety, aesthetics and quality of life, continues to appear to be an unworthy development, in the City of Diamond Bar. Here are reasons for my opposition and concern: 1. Speculation projects are frequently approved via "Play to Pay" unethical political practices. City of Diamond Bar staff, management and public servants are expected to be uninvolved in "Pay to Play" practices. 2. The location and nature of this speculation project defines an example of Urban Sprawl, which threatens the City of Diamond Bar, 3. Zoning changes regarding this project site are in question due to inconsistent map indications in the recent General Plan process. It is unclear if zoning changes were performed with proper Public notice. 4. The traffic study performed, does not consider or discuss the fatal, single vehicle crash, which occurred within feet of the project site. Today, there is a shrine commemorating loss of life, placed on the fencing. (See photo) This disturbing oversight begs a question: "Will city decisions approving the project be responsible for future, tragic auto crashes near this site? Aren't city decisions supposed to teach and be a vanguard to public safety?" 5. No matter how luxurious, this single-family dwelling is highly unlikely to be sold and occupied by one family - for so many negative points: heavy traffic fumes, dirt, noise, potential freeway car fires (regularly occurring on Diamond Bar freeway roadsides.). The public's general consensus is, this project will be used for short -term -rentals, maternity hotel or some other business operation. August 25, 2020 PUBLIC COMMENTS 6. The size and presence of a single mansion placed next to a freeway and a main boulevard, at a city entrance, which sets. the tone for city beauty, safety and quality of life - runs the risk of damaging city and neighborhood integrity. Again, "Urban Sprawl' is an accurate term here. This investment property is wholly unfortunate. This particular parcel ought never to have been sold. Over years of deliberation, it has proved to be unsuitable for business and now it is being considered a "desirable" residential property? If the city approves the proposal, the situation begs a question: "Does the City of Diamond Bar have obligations to assist investors in making good on a potentially "bad" investment?" I appreciate the thoughtful consideration of this information, especially by the planning commissioners. City decisions contribute to the health, wellbeing of all residents and the durable reputation of our great city. For the People of Diamond Bar, Respectfully Submitted, Attachment: Photograph, fence memorial, near the site Please disseminate this information to the Diamond Bar Planning Commission Diamond Bar Is Beautiful Blog: www.diamondbarisbeautiful.com California Native Trees, Landscapes; Wildlife Habitat Conservation Diamond Bar - Pomona Valley Sierra Club Task Force, Chair A Public Benefit, Non -Profit Organization 324 S. Diamond Bar Blvd., #230 Diamond Bar CA 91765 August 25, 2020 PUBLIC COMMENTS Pic, C. Robin Smith Traffic crash memorial, approx. 300 feet from 1111 N. Diamond Bar Blvd. December 2019, 2 a.m., single -car accident. Grace Lee From: neeners121 <neeners121@aol.com> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 5:11 AM To: Grace Lee Subject: Part 2 CAUTION: This message originated outside of our City of Diamond Bar network. I am deeply curious if the members of the Planning Committee, and City Council have gotten together as a group to visit this site. If you stood at this site at peak traffic times of morning or late afternoon, you will actually see exactly what I am trying to convey. Actual lives ARE in danger and somehow this issue has been kicked to the curb. If you visited this site you would also be more acquainted with the other serious issues this one home will pose to many people, but especially north Diamond Bar and its citizens. I am hopeful you have read the emails I have sent to Mayor Tye. North Diamond Bar is very windy. Not just breezy, but actual windy. This, too, can be verified. I have clearly noted that we have hundreds of handicapped seniors within 1000 feet of this home, especially in the condo community right next door. Where do you think all the dirt, debris, sawdust, and pollen from this location is going to land due to the wind? Most will carry to the condo community but a lot will travel up our hill. I am approx 150 feet from this site across Diamond Bar Blvd, on Flintlock. Me, and five of my direct neighbors to my north are seniors with health issues. We all face this site! My neighbor 2 doors away is on oxygen and my neighbor directly next door has a six year old child with asthma! I have physical, and mental disorders, including a sleeping disorder. Who in the world is going to protect us? We are old, tired, and need peace and quiet. Do you have any idea how much noise this site will generate? From morning till night? All of our homes have been built for living facing the site. I do not hear much noise to the front of my home but I hear ALL noise at the back of my home. Noise carries up. We will hear each nail that is driven. I also take exception with a report that this site will not affect the view of the homes on our hill. THAT IS NOT TRUE! It will not only greatly affect our view, but it will also affect our property values. We may not see the home when we are inside!, but we will ALWAYS see it when we are outside and it will basically be a very large, very modern, homely, roof attached to a glob of brick and mortar that once was greenbelt and awe. It will completely destroy the ambience of north Diamond Bar as it has remained for 50 years. Sent from my Verieon, Samsung Galaxy srnartphone Grace Lee From: neenersl21 <neeners121@ao1.com> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 6:36 AM To: Grace Lee Subject: Part 3 CAUTION: This message originated outside of our City of Diamond Bar network. Who in the world will buy this house? All this for a house that will likely spend its life vacant except for the weekly maintenance NOISE of the gardeners with their saws, weedwackers, blowers and lawnmowers! 36 trees to trim will take hours. NOISE ALERT. The house is going to be very expensive. Possibly 4 million dollars. Any new owners will be mere feet from the 57 freeway and all the dust, exhaust, fumes and noise that will provide. They won't get quite the view we enjoy because a great deal of their view will actually BE the 57 freeway. When traffic is jammed, which is a lot, the view, and exhaust, will be horrific. They will have no back yard, no front yard, no pool, and the property will be a danger to small children. They can never have a party and this nonsense about a horseshoe driveway being a good thing is just that. Nonsense. Say they are going to have a small gathering and the property can accommodate 11 cars.(I forget the actual number). When you have 11 cars arriving for a gathering and there is a horseshoe driveway just who is going to be hired to DIRECT the cars coming and going so they all fit? The horseshoe will actually create a problem. It will be mayhem and cars will end up on Diamond Bar Blvd blocking traffic or causing accidents. Remember, in theory this house could have many different owners over the years with different ways of doing things and this lack of space, and structure, is going to play hell with the traffic. I personally could never buy a property that stole so much from the neighbors. That would make me a truest form of villain. So now why would my city allow all this danger, noise, debris, and ugly to pounce upon it's long time, citizens? I am hopeful the tax money on this property is not enough to allow all this to beat the snot out of so many people. With regards to this tax money, I had lived in Diamond Bar for almost 30 years and guess what? My streets were NEVER dirty. When they started street cleaning, the streets were exactly the same except now Diamond Bar makes LOADS of money on these penalties. I have also witnessed 80 year old citizens that have to drive their extra cars to the bowling alley, or Walmart, on street cleaning days and walk up long steep hills to get home. Then walk back down in the heat, or at night. When sick they just pay the penalties. This is so sad to witness. Diamond Bar does not need the tax money on one home. I also wish to know who in Diamond Bar is going to protect one of our greatest gifts and assets? That which makes us quite unique and that we have enjoyed for 50 years. That of the beauty and grandeur of a truly awesome panorama that will be lost forever if this house is built. This is NOT a view, but an actual panorama, and provides a lovely view of greenbelt, hills, farmland and agriculture that is very rare indeed. If you have visited this site you will see exactly what I mean. Please pass this email to the Planning Commission members and City Council members. I do not know how from my phone. Thank you for your time. Sincerely. Susan Mullins As seen in the above photograph, the accident happened less that 1/8 mile from the proposed development site. Accident memorial. 11) Photo taken at the approximate location of the proposed driveway, showing typical traffic. Note that the lane closest to the curb is a bike lane and is used everyday by cyclists.