HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/26/1990 (4)AGENDA
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION
WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
BOARD MEETING ROOM
880 SOUTH LEMON STREET
WALNUT, CA
November 26, 1990
7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
I. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS:
�- -
This is the time and place for the general public to
address the members of the Planning Commission on any
item that is within their jurisdiction. Generally,
items to be discussed are those which do not appear on
this agenda.
II. CONSENT CALENDAR:
The following items listed on the consent calendar are
considered routine and are approved by a single motion.
Consent calendar items may be removed from the agenda
by request of the Commission only:
1. Minutes of the October 22, 1990 Meeting
III. OLD BUSINESS:
1. Consideration of a Resolution of Denial for a
Variance 90-0101:
A request for approval of a three story single
family residence in excess of 35 feet above aver-
age finished grade and environmental determina-
tion, Lot 5 is located at 1741 Derringer Lane.
Applicant
Pete Volbeda
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Page Two
November 26, 1990
IV. NEW BUSINESS:
1. Development Code Status Report
Verbal presentation to be made by the Director of
Planning
2. Sign Ordinance Status Report
Additional input from staff and the City Attorney
is required. Verbal presentation to be made by
the Director of Planning.
3. Status Report on the Significant Ecological Area
Technical Advisory Committee (SEATAC)
V. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
1. Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Per-
mit 90-0109
This application is requested to locate a mobile
telephone repeater station in a public station
facility and a sixty foot monopole on site.
Applicant: L. A. Cellular
Location: 275 South Prospector's Road
2. Extension for an Extension of Time on CUP 1634-
(1), as th2 current permit expires on 11/26/90.
Applicant: Evangelical Free Church
Location: 3255 South Diamond Bar Boulevard
VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS:
1. Planning Commissioners
2. Staff
VII. ADJOURNMENT:
CALL TO ORDER:
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE:
ROLL CALL:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
OLD BUSINESS:
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 22, 1990
Chairman Schey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
in the Walnut Valley School District Board Meeting Room,
880 South Lemon Street, Walnut, California.
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
Vice Chairman Harmony.
Commissioner Grothe, Commissioner Lin, Commissioner Mac -
Bride, Vice Chairman Harmony, and Chairman Schey.
Also present were Planning Director James Destefano,
Associate Planning Director Robert Searcy, City Attorney
Bill Curley, Interim City Planner Irwin Kaplan, Assis-
tant City Engineer Jack Istik, and Secretary (contract)
Liz Myers.
Motion made
by
VC/Harmony, and
seconded by
C/Grothe and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve
the Consent
Calendar and
the minutes
of
October 8, 1990.
Consideration Staff reported the Resolution for Denial, before the
Resolution of Commission, had been prepared, by staff and the City
Denial for Attorney's office, in compliance with the conclusion of
47722 & CUP/OT the October 8, 1990 Public Hearing. The Resolution
89-338. had been faxed to the developer, and the developer's
environmental consultant, and is presented for adoption
tonight.
Motion made by VC/Harmony, seconded by C/MacBride to
adopt the Resolution for Denial. Motion CARRIED with
C/Grothe abstaining.
NEW BUSINESS:
Request for
Staff reported the property is located along the north
Extension of
side of Clear Creek Canyon Drive generally between
Tentative Tract
Cleghorn Drive and Monument Drive. The project consists
45678 & CUP/OT
of ten (10) lots located on two (2) acres, nine (9)
87-373
lots proposed for single family residential development,
and lot ten (10) proposed as open space. The project
received a conditional approval from Los Angeles County
on March 22, 1988. The tentative tract map, conditional
use permit and Oak tree permits expired on March 22,
1990. The final tract map was presented for approval by
the City Council on February 20, 1990, in which the ap-
plicant had responded to a variety of project condi-
tions, but failed to clear the CC&Rs with the City At-
torney. As a result, the map was denied by the City
Council. Subsequently, the applicant had requested an
extension of time on February 26, 1990, but, as of this
date, the map has not gone before the City Council for a
final review because the CC&Rs remain an issue. Staff
October 22, 1990
Page 2
recommended the Planning Commission deny the request for
an extension.
Chair/Schey asked staff to clarify if the primary issue
before the Commission is the failure of the applicant to
comply with the CC&Rs over the years.
Bill Curley, City Attorney, stated the CC&Rs have been
received by the office but not reviewed because of the
assumption the map had terminated on its own accord. He
stated if the Commission should decide to extend the
map, then the documents will be given a full review.
Chair/Schey inquired how the subdivision conforms with
the present criteria.
James DeStefano, Planning Director, stated a lot averag-
ing process was used to obtain the 8,000 sq* ft. minimum
requirement of the County, which the City no longer ad-
vocates. He stated, other than this major issue, the
map would probably meet all current standards within the
zone.
C/MacBride asked if there are unique features to the
CC&Rs in the area.
Bill Curley responded the primary issue is the slope
maintenance of the undevelopable areas of each of the
lots, and the maintenance of the common areas.
VC/Harmony asked if there is access to the open space.
Jack Istik, Assistant City Engineer, responded there is
an easement, showing, across a portion of lot nine (9).
Chair/Schey asked the applicant to respond.
Mr. Prescott, clerk to Dr. Omar's attorney, stated, in
July of 1990, staff requested the applicant change three
(3) words on the map and draw one line representing the
slope crest. The applicant complied and received verbal
approval from staff. He stated the CC&Rs were prepared
and submitted mid -March, but the dates for the City
Council review were never honored due to various circum-
stances. The CC&Rs do provide care of the slopes by the
homeowners. He stated the applicant will do modifica-
tions, at the Commissions request, but believed the doc-
uments, as presented, should satisfy the City require-
ments. He asserted the delays were not due to the ap-
plicant's failure, but the organizational process of the
City.
Chair/Schey inquired as to why the tentative tract map
had never been recorded since the subdivision had con-
ditions of approval since 1987.
October 22, 1990 Page 3
Mr. Prescott noted his inability to speak for that peri-
od of time, but stated it was his understanding the map
was recorded since the grant of title to the homeowners
association was submitted March 15, 1990 and the tract
reference was accepted.
Bill Curley explained, when the CC&Rs were submitted
March 15, 1990, staff made a full inquiry into the sta-
tus of the map because the tentative map had not been
approved nor recorded. Staff researched dates and tim-
ing. There was no indication by the City Clerk's office
that the Council had granted an extension but showed the
request was denied for final approval because of non-
compliance. In referencing back to the records of the
Council, it indicated the map, for all intent and pur-
poses, expired on its own accord. However, staff s fol-
low up inquiry identified there had an assertion and a
request for extension submitted by the applicant.
Mrs. Omar stated the project was approved by the County
except for the CC&Rs. They have tried to comply, and
had provided staff with the CC&Rs in March of 1990. She
stated they have put in a lot of time, money, and effort
and requested an extension.
VC/Harmony asked if the changes in the CC&Rs have met
with Council's criteria.
Bill Curley replied staff has not scrutinized the map
because it appeared to have expired. He stated it would
not take long to review the status of the CC&Rs, if the
Commission decides to grant an extension of the map.
James Destefano stated, generally speaking, it meets all
of the requirements because the requirements are prin-
cipally the same as they were with the County. The phi-
losophy is different concerning Oak trees and lot aver-
aging. The Oak tree setback has not been determined
because homes are not placed on the site.
Jack Istik stated, even though the map meets the
County's conditions of approval, he is concerned with
the buildability of lots 7, 8, and 9 because of the
small pad area by a large downhill slope.
Chair/Schey asked if grading plans had been submitted by
the applicant.
Staff responded that only the tract map had been submit-
ted.
Chair/Schey
asked
if the applicant
is permitted to modi-
fy the
canyon.
October 22, 1990
ESL'
Mr. Prescott stated, in the CC&Rs, the applicant agreed
it will maintain the slope in the low land, in the orig-
inal condition. He stated contemplation of grading will
be minimal and the applicant will build on the flat
land.
Jack Istik asked the applicant if the developer would be
willing to place a note on the final map indicating a
restrictive use area, not permitting grading.
Mr. Prescott indicated he is reasonably sure the appli-
cant would be agreeable to such an action.
VC/Harmony asked what the CC&Rs requirements are, for
the changing of their own CC&Rs.
Mr. Prescott stated with two thirds (2/3) vote, the
CC&Rs can be modified but the applicant has covenanted
not to and would have to obtain the Commission's approv-
al.
C/MacBride
stated he would remain
uncomfortable
until
the CC&Rs
are carefully reviewed.
The matter of
open
space, and covenants, is very important in view of fu-
ture maintenance, proposed transfers and other transfers
that may occur. He is uncomfortable with the lot aver-
aging and would prefer further information to be pre-
sented.
Bill Curley reiterated the reason the final map had been
denied was because of nonconformance. Should an exten-
sion be granted, the map would not come back to the Com-
mission. He expressed, if the intent is to receive more
information to assure the map conforms with the current
design standards, an extension would not give the Com-
mission an opportunity to place new conditions upon it,
but rather allow the applicant more time to gather in-
complete items to present to the Council. He stated the
matter is out of the Commission's hands to put any new
conditions or requirements on this issue.
C/Lin inquired if the frontage of the homes would be
narrow because the pads are small.
Staff, without viewing the area, speculated the frontage
would be consistent to the rest of the neighborhood.
Ernie Delray, manager of the property across the street
from the site, stated the neighborhood consists of con-
dominiums with homes above the site.
C/Grothe inquired if the Commission's action would go
before the Council.
Bill Curley stated if the Commission does not grant an
extension, the applicant could appeal before the Coun-
cil. If the Commission approves the extension, the ap-
October 22, 1990 Page 5
plicant could make the appropriate changes before going
before the Council. The merits of the project are as
described in the resolutions originally issued by the
County. The question before the Commission is whether
or not to grant an extension of time.
Chair/Schey stated the project is a simple subdivision
that should have been recorded before Diamond Bar became
a City. Since it was not recorded, and is now subjected
to expiration, the Commission has the obligation to re-
view the map. He does not believe the map meets the
current City standards, and would make a motion to deny
the request for extension.
VC/Harmony stated he is not convinced the lots are
buildable. He contended there is an element of dual
diligence, on staff and the applicant, to assure the
process is administered appropriately.
Motion was made by Chair/Schey and seconded by Vice-
C/Harmony and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to deny the request
£or extension.
Review and Staff reported the City Council has scheduled a joint
Comment on study session for Tuesday, November 13, 1990, at 6:00
Draft CIP p.m. to review the initial draft of the Capital Improve-
ment Program (CIP) and explain the roles and responsi-
bilities of each Commission. The Planning Commission's
comments, relative to specific projects, will be forwar-
ded, to the City Council, for their consideration and
prioritizing of the projects. Staff explained the CIP
is a master plan, for the next five (5) years, to plan
the allocation of the City's financial and land resourc-
es. The CIP would deal with plans for constructing,
repairing and maintaining the city's parks, buildings,
streets, and other assets, and is funded through a vari-
ety of mechanisms. Staff requested comments from the
Commissioners, relative to the CIP.
I
C/MacBride had concerns with three (3) items:
1. Street Improvements
Project: Modification of western terminus of
Sunset Crossing Road including possible extension
into City of Industry.
He was concerned the language, "possible extension
into City of Industry", extends verbal leverage to
outside bodies, and would like to have the wording
eliminated. He would rather have the language in-
serted, "... we make plans to develop a connector
link between the two (2) recreational parcels so
they can be more advantageously used for the bene-
fit of the community."
October 22, 1990 Page 6
2. Municipal Buildings and Facilities
Project: City Hall/Community Center
He encouraged describing the center to indicate
the possibility of a multi -faceted Civic Center.
3. Traffic Control
A new project to be included: Diamond Bar Blvd.
Sunset Crossing North to Freeway 57 on -ramp (dis-
tance approximately 750 feet), to include medians
for traffic control and aesthetics.
He explained this section of Diamond Bar Blvd.
is
a part of the state freeway 57 system, and is
tem-
porarily signed to connect the 57 and 60.
He
stated the on -ramp has (5) traffic movements.
The
painted median safeguards (8) commercial drive-
ways, (3) fast food centers, (3) street exits
and
entrances, (3) fire plugs and (2) bus stops.
He
requested the project be included in the CIP
and
requested research as to the occurrence of
the
situation.
C/Grothe was concerned with items:
1. He advocated separating the project City Hall/Com-
munity Center and recommended expending money to-
wards City improvements first and continue leasing
office space for City Hall.
2. Landscaping and Irrigation
Project: Correct widespread deficiencies of
sidewalks, curbs, and gutters.
He recommended adding street lighting to the pro-
ject. He stressed avoiding capital improvements
that would leave "holes" of unimproved areas with-
in thei City.
3. He stated additional areas in need of capital im-
provement are on Golden Springs, Diamond Bar Blvd.
at Lorbeer, and Diamond Bar Blvd. in front of the
triplexes. He explained there have been center
median improvements, but the smaller asphalt medi-
ans, separating Diamond Bar Blvd. from frontage
streets, have been neglected.
Chair/Schey referred to the items:
1. Street Improvements
Project: Resurface Golden Springs Road from Grand
Avenue to Brea Canyon Road.
He requested adding the insulation of proper curb,
gutter, and sidewalk along the north side of Gold-
en Springs.
October 22, 1990
Page 7
Traffic Control
Project: Construction of bus turnouts along regu-
larly traveled bus routes.
He questioned the necessity of the project. He
stated the County recently did substantial con-
creting of pads at bus stops, and, in most cases,
there is no room to widen roads, nor a need to.
Traffic Control
Project: Construction of circulation barrier to
deter traffic using Quail Summit Drive and Rolling
Drive as an alternate access between Diamond Bar
Blvd. and Grand Avenue.
He realized the area
is
of concern
to the resi-
dents but questioned
the
action as an appropriate
method of controlling
an
undetermined
problem.
Electrical Systems
Project: Underground installation of electrical
components along Diamond Bar Boulevard, removing
unsightly overhead wires.
He urged the inclusion of underground wires beyond
Sunset Crossing to extend toward the City limits.
5. Parks and Recreation
Project: Replacement of obsolete and/or damaged
playground equipment at Heritage and Sycamore Can-
yon Parks.
He requested the project be expanded to all City
parks. He noted (4) small parks he felt should be
recognized, located at Softwind and Stardust,
Longview east of Brookwood, Longview near Summit
Ridge, and Longview near Cold Springs Court.
6. He concurred with C/Grothe on the necessity of
including street lighting when correcting side-
walk, curbs, and gutters.
C/Harmony discussed the items:
He concurred with C/MacBride that extending Sunset
Crossing into the City of Industry would be unde-
sirable. He emphasized the City of Industry is a
light industrial center to be wedged between two
(2) major residential cities, creating undesirable
environmental impacts, too close to Diamond Bar's
recreational facilities.
2. He cautioned the improvement of public facilities,
as they relate to our boundaries, can facilitate
or complicate development outside the City of Dia-
mond Bar, within our well-defined sphere of influ-
ence. He advised waiting on improvements until
October 22, 1990 Page 8
future developers offer assurance of annexing with
the City, allowing the capability to regulate the
kind of developments to occur in the area.
3. He stated, in reference to a Community Center, it
should be encouraged to obtain centralized land to
house all community needs. He stated rent for the
Commission and the consultants, at City Hall, to-
tals $120,000 a year, and he would prefer to up-
grade the old Post Office site, on a temporary
lease basis for five to ten (5-10) years, before
buying another parcel of land strictly for City
governmental use.
4. He requested from staff a report on the sources
available to obtain additional grants and funding,
other than taxes, and staff's opinion as to the
best possibilities of capturing these dollars.
C/Lin was concerned with the item:
1. Sewer and Storm Drain Systems
Project: Upgrading of existing sewer pump sta-
tions throughout the City.
She inquired as to the amount of stations current-
ly servicing the City, and the urgency of the pro-
ject.
Jack Istik responded there are five (5) sewer pump
stations
the County is in the process of
redesign-
ing because
of breaking mains.
There is
a chance,
due to
the Health Department
requirements,
the
City is
bound to repair them.
However,
the Los
Angeles
County of Public Works
has not
yet ap-
proached
the City with costs.
PUBLICIHEARING ITEMS:
Variance 90-101. Staff reported the environmental assessment and
variance is an application for the construction of
an approximately 6,300 sq. ft., three story, sin-
gle family residence, in excess of 35' above aver-
age finished grade, on a .9 acre lot, and located
at 1741 Derringer Road, in a zone R-1-40,000, of
the Country Estates.
Robert Searcy, Associate Planning Director, re-
ported the rectangular site is one (1) acre in
size, but the buildable area is limited due to the
topography of the lot. The design of the resi-
dence is a typical pad type design, being proposed
for a parcel with slopes in excess of 50 percent.
The lot possesses 151 feet of frontage and the
average lot depth is 468 feet. The lot slopes
from south to north and a ravine traverses the
October 22, 1990 Page 9
rear portion of the property sloping to the east.
The property is covered by natural grasses and a
stand of trees is located to the rear of the site.
A retaining wall and stilts must be constructed in
order for the pad and structure to be completed as
designed. The structure will reach in excess of
40 feet above the average finished grade, and an
additional 15 feet of the structure will be visi-
ble from the western elevation. From the eastern
elevation, the residence will have the appearance
of a one floor structure. The initial application
was submitted to the Los Angeles County Regional
Planning, at which time it was denied. The appli-
cant waited, until the City took over the planning
functions, to file a plot plan. The application
was denied by staff because the design did not
conform to the height limits. The applicant is
now appealing the denial in the form of this vari-
ance application. Staff recommended denial of the
environmental assessment and variance.
Chair/Schey declared the Public Hearing open.
Pete Volbeda, architect for the project, residing
at 630 Brea Canyon Road, Walnut, stated the lot is
one of few, along Derringer, that has no pad, and
in which the site drops straight down from the
asphalt pavement. The home cannot be designed
like the adjacent residents. To design the house
more closely to the natural terrain, in which a
road is taken down at 150, would be an expensive
alternative to the applicant. The applicant is
asking for a six foot, two inch (6' 211) variance
above the allowable height, and stated there are
other homes in the Country, meeting the exact
height the applicant is now proposing. He main-
tained the Country is running out of flat lots and
the Commission will be seeing more requests for
variances in the future. He urged the Commission
to view the variance as a hardship claim.
VC/Harmony acknowledged the Country is running out
of developable lots, many at the edge of cliffs
requiring inventiveness in development. He does
not perceive this to be enough reason to justify a
hardship claim.
Pete Volbeda stressed, at the time the applicant
submitted the plan, the County standards allowed
measuring from the average finished grade to the
mid point of the highest gable, and now the City
determines the height to the top of the ridge.
VC/Harmony pointed out the City adopted County
standards after the County had made the modifica-
tions.
October 22, 1990 Page 10
Chair/Schey noted the applicant's design had not
conformed to County standards, and was thereby
denied.
Vigal Vakil, owner of the house, stated several
homes are being built in the Country the same size
or higher. He stated the plan is the only afford-
able design he can build, and asked for relief,
from the Commission, to allow the height differ-
ence.
Chair/Schey declared the Public Hearing closed.
C/Grothe suggested adopting standards, specifical-
ly for the Country, to fit desired ridge home de-
velopments, as opposed to encouraging more grad-
ing, to achieve flat lands, to meet present City
standards. He would like to allow for some imagi-
nation, and asserted if 90% of homes would not
comply to the standards, then the Commission
should reevaluate those standards.
Chair/Schey commented it was typical of the County
to grant very lenient interpretations of the
codes, as is evident in the Country. He asserted
the standards are not wrong, but rather there has
been a lack of consistency, giving the idea any
design will be approved. He stated there must be
a minimum standard, at some point, and he did not
feel the standards pose any undue restrictions.
VC/Harmony asked what would result, if the appli-
cation was made to comply to City standards.
Staff believed
it
possible to redesign the
house
to utilize more of
the slope by changing the
ele-
vation of the
floors. Another alternative
would
be to redesign
the
roof, to lower the height.
I
C/Grothe concurred
there should be a minimum
stan-
dard. However,
he
felt the standard was written
for flat land
development,
and did not make
rea-
sonable provisions
for hilltop development.
He
directed staff
to
survey the amount of homes
not
complying with
the
current standards.
VC/Harmony believed more than 70% of homes, in the
Country, comply with the current standard. The
lots remaining are the most difficult to develop,
and the homes are becoming more massive. To pro-
tect the specialized zoning of the Country, the
standard must be maintained.
Chair/Schey stated surveying homes, would only de-
monstrate the amount of variances permitted. It
would not demonstrate if complying to the stan-
dards was achievable. He asserted, in some cases,
October 22, 1990 Page 11
a variance would be appropriate, but he was not
convinced there are extenuating circumstances in
this particular variance. He is not convinced the
current standard is unreasonable.
C/Lin concurred with the necessity of maintaining
a minimum standard, but agreed with C/Grothe to
allow changes to height requirement to accommodate
some of the more difficult to develop lots remain-
ing in the Country. She would consider a variance
in the present case, since the house was designed
years ago, but in the future, she proposed revis-
ing the current standards to allow for the unique
circumstances of the remaining lots.
VC/Harmony asserted the revised standards the
County effected, were developed with the Country
in mind, to prevent the massive structures being
developed.
Motion was made by C/Grothe, and seconded by C/
MacBride, to deny the application for an environ-
mental assessment and variance. MOTION CARRIED.
4 AYES - C/Grothe, C/MacBride, VC/Harmony, and
Chair/Schey.
1 NAY - C/Lin
Chair/Schey stated surveying homes, to determine
the need of creating a new ordinance to accommo-
date the development in the Country, would require
a lot of work for a small remaining portion of
undeveloped lots.
C/MacBride concurred the existing regulation is
reasonable, and regardless of the requirements
determined, there will always be applications for
variances to the rule.
I
C/Grothe mentioned, besides the issue of height,
he is concerned with sideyard setbacks in relation
to the size of homes.
Chair/Schey stated crafting an ordinance to meet
all contingencies and potential issues would be
impossible. The only way to mediate these issues
would be through a design review.
James DeStefano suggested an alternative, to look-
ing at a large variety of houses, to determine
average height, would be for the Commissioners to
pin point homes appealing in bulk and mass. Staff
can do a comparative research on the homes to help
establish standards.
October 22, 1990 Page 12
ANNOUNCEMENTS: VC/Harmony announced that on Saturday, he has an
appointment with the Fire Chief of Los Angeles
County to determine if fire trucks can climb a 15%
grade, after turning around on a cul-de-sac, at
the Gold Rush development. He stated if the meet-
ing becomes something of interest, perhaps it
could be arranged for the Commission to ride on
the fire truck.
C/Grothe declared Gold Rush is impossible to exit
since the new home development.
C/MacBride stated he will be unable to attend the
November 13, 1990 study session.
Staff explained the study session of November 13,
1990 will commence at 3:00 p.m. to review the In-
terim Ordinance for Hillside Regulations and the
Interim ordinance for Commercial Manufacturing
Land Uses. The Council has arranged to meet with
the other Commissions, at 6:00 p.m., to discuss,
specifically, the CIP.
Staff, in response to the inquiry from C/MacBride,
stated the Sign Ordinance will be presented for
the Commission's review on the meeting of November
261 1990 and will be delivered in the Commission's
packets on November 16, 1990.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded by C/
MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the
meeting at 9:42 p.m.
David Schey
Chairman
Attest:
James DeStefano
Secretary/Planning Commission
STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 18, 1990
i
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: James DeStefano, Planning Director
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL
An application
ASSESSMENT
for the construction
AND
VARIANCE
of
90-0101:
an
approximately
single
family
6,300 square
residence
(SFR)
foot,
in
three
excess
story,
of
35'
above average
finished
grade
(AFG),
on
a .9
acre
lot located
40.000
at
of The
1741 Derringer
Country Estates.
Road,
In
a Zone
R-1-
APPLICANT:
Pete Volbeda
630 Brea Canyon Rd.
Walnut, Ca. 91789
I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. REQUESTED
Issuance
ACTION:
ofi a
Negative
Declaration
and approval of
a Variance
to
allow
the
construction
of a SFR in
excess
of
35'
above
AFG
and
to exceed the two floor
structural
height
restriction.
B. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
NORTH - Zone R-1-40,000 Vacant land, steep slope in
excess of a 2:1 incline.
SOUTH - Zone R-1-4b,000 Single family residences
EAST - Zone R-1-40,000 Single family residence.
WEST - Zone R-1-40,000 Single family residence.
C. COMMUNITY PLAN DESIGNATION:
Project Site: Nonurban
North - Nonurban
South - Nonurban
East- Nonurban
West - Nonurban
D. SITE
CHARACTERISTICS:
The
rectangular
site
is
approximately
one (1)
acre
in
to
size.
the
topography
The
net
buildable
of
the
area
lot.
is
The lot
very
limited
drops
due
from
the
street
at
an
average
2:1
ratio
and
ranges
from
1.5:1 to 2.5:1. The lot possess 151 feet of
frontage and the average lot depth is 468 feet. The
at slopes from south to north and a ravine
traverses the rear portion of the property sloping
to the east. The'property is covered by natural
grasses and a stand of trees are located to the
rear of the site and are not designated for any
type of disturbance during proposed construction.
Ii. ANALYSIS:
A. General:
The application
Is
to construct
a 6,300
square
foot SFR
on
a lot
that
requires
considerable
grading
in order
to
create
a pad for
a
residence
of
this
size.
Use
of
retaining
walls will
be
necessary
at
each
elevation
in order
for the
pad
to
be
created
and stabilized.
The design of the residence is a typical pad type
design that is being proposed for a parcel with
slopes in excess of 50 percent. A retaining wail
and stilts must be constructed In order for the pad
and structure to be completed as designed. The
structure will reach in excess of 40 feet above the
average finished grade and an additional 15 feet of
the structure will be visible from the western
elevation. From the eastern elevation, the
residence will have the appearance of a one floor
structure.
The
initial
plot
plan
review
for
this
site
was
performed
by
Los
Angeles
County
Regional
Planning.
The
application
wap
submitted
with
a
letter
acknowledging
that
the
project
would
be
denied
because
the designed
height
exceeded
code
allowances.
The
applicant
was
notified
that
the
submitted
design
was
denied
and
that
the
variance
was
the
appropriate
appeal
mechanism.
The
applicant
failed
to
appeal
the
County's
denial
and
filed
a
plot
plan
with
the
City
subsequent
the
City
taking
over planning
services.
This
new
application
was
denied
by
staff
because
the
design
once
again
did
not
conform
to the
height
limits.
The
applicant
is now
appealing
that
denial
in
the
form
of
this
variance
application.
B. Concerns: Compliance with development standards and
goals of the proposed General Plan, esthetics and
compatibility with surrounding land uses.
Compliance to development standards/General Plan:
The current code does not allow for the
construction of a residence in Zone R-1 to exceed
two (2) floors and a cellar or one floor above a
basement. The standards which are currently being
drafted in the City's new development code would
allow for a two floor residence with the height
limited to 30 feet. The residence, with the current
design, would not conform to this height standard
either.
Compatibility: The proposed residence is similar to
other residences in The Country. In the past, many
projects were approved through Los Angeles County
Regional Planning that would not be approved under
current interpretations of the zoning ordinance.
This residence exceeds the 35 feet height and two
story structural limitations. Although the site
averages 50 percent slope, the necessity for the
design of the structure is predicated on the
desire of the applicant. A residence similar to
adjacent residences could be designed for this
site. Additionally, a design that steps the
residence to follow the natural terrain more
closely is another alternative.
The design submitted for review is more massive and
seeks to implement a design that is not consistent
with the existing adjacent residences. In the
immediate vicinity of the proposed project, there
are no residences that exceed the requirements of
the zoning ordinance. All the residences in the
vicinity are two floors or two floors and a cellar.
The project is a low intensity use that will
generate heavy equipment traffic during the
construction phase of the project. The construction
equipment is limited to hours of operation between
hours of 7:00 am to 6:00 pm. The proposed project
will create sound exceeding the current levels, but
only during the construction phase of the project.
III. FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. That because of special circumstances or exceptional
characteristics applicable to the property, the strict
application of the code does not deprive the property of
the privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity
and under identical zoning classification; and
2.
That
the adjustment
authorized
will
constitute a grant
of
special
privilege
Inconsistent
with
the limitations
placed
upon other
properties
in
the
vicinity and zone in
which
the
property
is
situated;
and
3. That strict application ofi zoning regulations as they
apply to such property will not result in practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with
the general purpose oT such regulations and standards;
and '
4. That such adjustment will
the public health, safety or
use, enjoyment or valuation
located in the vicinity.
IV. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE:
be materially
detrimental
to
general
welfare,
or
to
the
of property
of
other
persons
This item has been advertised in the San Gabriel Tribune
and Progress Bulletin newspapers as a public hearing.
Notices have been sent to property owners within a 700
fioot radius of project site.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
The
planning
stafif
recommends
denial
of
the
variance
application
based
on noncompliance
with
the
nonconformity
zoning
ordinance,
to surrounding
development
residences.
standards,
and
VAR o' of o 1
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR��
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
ZONING AND SUBDIVISION APPLICATION
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING (714) 860-3195
The following information is necessary for the review of ALL applications. Failure to furnish information will delay action. Attach
extra sheets it necessary. Please read instructions carefully.
R ECORO OWNER(S) APPLICANT APPLICANT'S AGENT
(Engineer, Licensed Surveyor, Other
and please indicate if engineer is also an
agent)
Name MR R, MRC WAYTj Name PFTR {AITRMA Name
Address 928 N. BRIDALE PA7r! Address 630 RRFA CANYON RD Address
City WALNUT City WATN[1T City
Zip 91789 Phone (71 4 598-7114 Zip91789 Phone ( 71 a—S95—RSR7 Zip Phone ( 1
(Attach separate sheet if necessary, including names. addresses, and signatures of members of partnerships, joint ventures, and
directors of mrpo
CONSEN : ! co ent to the submi i pl the application accompanying [his request.
Signed Date
(All record owners)
CERTIFICATION: I h and penalty of Jury that the infgrmation herein provided is correct to the best of my
knowledge,
Signed _ Date 2 '1/
` L—
PPlicant or Applicant's Agent)
Location LOT 5 DER2TIDIGTFl F,00 E]m 'T n7P T7A(77T11TE
(Street address or distance from nearest cross sireetr
RIDGE LINE and RAND
between
(Street) (Street)
in Zone R-1 RESTINTITTATt Zoned District
(Land Use, not postal one)
�/ �� I
HNMIFS46"3.(:Z CSI TBG Assessor CT
Planning Area USES
Contract City DIAMOND BAR Supervisorial District
General Plan Category R''SID:'9TLAI,
Local Plan Category (if applicable) Local Plan
Project Size (gross acres) .96 ACRES Project Density
Previous Cases LA COJNTY REG PLANNING & DB 90 0034 —
Present Use of Site VACANT
Use applied for SINGLE F]."IL`: RESIDENCE
Domestic Water Source W�'�`I' V W rn CompanyiDnttict
MecnaA of Srs:vOa Deposal . SEWER Sanitation District WHMfER
G, ading of Lots by APPIscant? Yes _ No X Amount (Show necessary grading design on site plan or
lent. map.)
LEGAL DESCft IPTION (All ownershrts comprising the proposed lots/project) If petitioning for zone change, attach
lenal rfescripuan of exterior boundaries of area subject to the change,
u%1 S TRACT'
4.
APPROPRIATE BURDENS OF PROOF MUST ACCOMPANY EACH TYPE OF REQUEST — Gheck each request
a oplied tar and complete appropriate sections.
PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST
Counrywiderlocal Plan or Area Plan Land Use Map Change: ,
From TO Acres From .�To Acres
e
Other
Councyw�de
IGen.
Oev.,
Housing &Spec.
Mgmt.l
Mao G`sange:
Ftam
To
Acres
From
To
Acres
Idenu ty Text Changelsl to Ca un[Ywid e!Lonl or Area Plan Oesued:
Total
Pro jet;
Units
Curren[ly Allowed By:
(al C!N Plan
(bl Local Plan
Tolal
Project
Units
Permitted If:
(a) CW Plan Amended
(b) Local Plan Amended
7o[al Acres Involved:
SE RVICES* Existing and Proposed:
Gas & E.ec.ric
Fire
Sheriff
ZONE CHANGE REQUEST
fat , (h)
Education
Access
Zone: From Acres To Acres
CON 017IONALOSE PERMIT, VARIANCE, NONCONFORMING REVIEW, AND 07HEA PERMITS
Permit Type Ord. No.
Project Site: • 9 AC 1 Area devoted TO: structures In open space QN
Gross Area No. of Lots
6300 and 01 Proposed density
Residential Project Grass Area No at floors Units/Acres
-.
Number
and [gees at Units
Resitlemial Park ina: TY Pe fleauired
2
Provided Total Required 2
3 _ 7pta: Provided �
i..
i`
I
r:;
.1
I
_
;i
VARIANCE CASE:BURDEN Of• PROOF SEC.22.56�2DD
In addi:ior, to the information recprired In the application, the applicant shall substantiate to the
satisfaction of the Zuniny Board and/ur Connuissiou, the lullowiny facts:
A. That the jretpresled use at the location proposed will no L•
1. Adversely afrect the health, peace, comfort ur welfare of persons residiny ur
wod:iny iu the surruundiny area, ur
2. Be materially delrin>ental to the use, enjoyment yr valuation of property of
other persons located in the vicinity of the site, or
3. Jeopardize, endanyar or other wise conuitute a,roenace to the public health,
safely or general welfare.
WE ARE ONLY BUII,DING 1 HOUSE ON THE IL7I' AS ON
CJI'F3ER LOTS. THIS WILL NOT HE DETRIMENTAL TO __
ANYONE'S USE SINCE THE VIE;J WILL NCIP BE BLOC'�D
_ t^ARE_TH&LS_AN.L�73E:Z_�S_IBENGE-Gdi--'45��'. -----
ONE HOUSE WILL NOT BE'F1 MENPNCE TO THE PUBLIC
B. That the proposed site is adequate in size and shape lu accommodate the yards,
walls fences, parking and loading facilities, landsc:apiny and other development
features prescribed in this Ordinance, or as is otherwise required in order to integrate
said use witlilllhe uses in the surruundiny area.
T�[�T,7, LiSF. A RFTATNTN(; WAiT �jpNC: THE FRr1N'r' YARn '�_
PROVIDE PROPER ACCESS OF DRIVEWAY TO GARAGE & TO II�T'RY.
C. Thal the propusetl rile is adequately served:
1. By highways ur sU'eels of sifficient width and improved as necessary tc
carry the IcinJ acid quantity of traffic such use would generate, and
2, By other publir, or private service facilities as are required.
DERRINGER PROVIDES VEHICULAR TRAFFIC AND [TPILITY ____
SERVICE OF GAS, WATERr ELEC_ &SEWER. _
U. That there are special circnmslances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the
propet ly involved, such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, whirh
are not generally applicable to other properties in the same vicinity and under
identical zoning classification.
.UZ_TUI PfIY- IS—IILQi STEEa _R_TJLRN S7iI > �SI4SfIE_
AREAM
---------------
E. That such variance is
necessary for the preservation of a
substantial property
right of
the applicant such as
that possessed by owners or other
property in the saute
vicinity
and zone.
IT WOULD VIRTUALLY.RE A F _USE WIT:i A
ROOF BELOW
S _
LEVEL ORr
REQUIRE EXCESSIVE GRADING.
f-. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or be injurious to other property or improvements in the saute vicinity and
zone.
WE WILL ONLY BUSLD ONE HOUSE. IT WILL NOT BE
HI= ABOVE STREET LMM THAN HOUSES ACROSS STREET.
(STAFF USE)
project Applicant (Owner):
MR & MRS VAKIL
INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGE FS
A, ORAL INFORMATION
Project Representative:
PEPS VOLBEDA
PROJECT NUMBER(s):
�— Name 630 BREA CANYON RD
928 N. BRIDALE PATH Address
Address WALNUT, .CA,'91789
t4ALNUT, CA 91789 — —_---- ---- ---
7714-595-8587
14-598-7114 ----- —_ —
Phone Number
----- --- Phone Humber
1. Action raquested and project description: CONSTRUCT 3-STORY RESIDENCE OVER —_
THE HEIGHT LIMIT OF 35 FT.
2. Strut location of project: LCYI'S, DERRINGER LANE --- _
VACANT
3a. Present use of site:_ -
3b. Previous use of site or structures: VACANT_ --
4. Please list all orevious cases 90-0034
(if any) related to this project: _— — --
5. Omer related cermit,raporovals required. BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Scecify tyre and granting agency. —_ -- —
6, A,re you planning future NO
phases of this project? /Y/ /N/ IIIf yes explain:
I
7. project area:
8. Nunnioer of floors: _s_____—
Covered 'oy structures, paving:-
90 present zoning:
Landscaping, open space: 37,400 -
Total area: 40,000_
Danestic Public
1G. iaater and sewer service: Water. Sewers
/Y/
Does service exist 3t site?
If yes, do purveyors Ina capacity to aeet
�N/
of project and all other approved projects?
If darlestic water or public sewers are not
available, now will these services be provid�3? ---- --
esidential projects:
1. Nur.-jer and ty;ra of units: 1 SFR
2. Schools:
What school district(s) serves the Of operty? DIAMOND BAR
Are existing school facilities adequate to meet,project needs? i% /N/
If not, what provisions will be made for additional classrooms?
proj�ts:
L3. Distance to�arest residential use or
sensitive use 'S
c�hoo1, hospital, etc.)
14. Nurber and floor _r=a of buildings:
15. Num"Der of emmployees an\hi fts:
16. Maximum employees per shif\
18. Identify any: End products
Waste products _
Means of disoosal
ft
li. Operating hours:
19. Do project operations use, store or pr x3uce iiaz�j
checicals, paints, or radioactive materials? _
ICI
substances such as oil, pesticides,
If yes, explain: _.
20. Do your operations require any pressurized tanks? /Y% /N/ If ye \ explain:
2i. Identify a mfla.�ma�1�, reactive or explosive mat=rials to be located on= � te.
22. Wi11 delivery or sii?�ent trucks travel through
rc-sidential areas to reach the nearest highway? � /N/ If yes, explain:
- 2
-
g. ENVZRotz ENTAL INFORMAT1oN
1. Environmental Setting -- Project Site
Existing use,'structures VAST ----- - -- - — - '" --- -"
2:1 DOWNHILL--- --- -------------- ---- -- — ---
b. Topugrapay,/slopes _-------__----
1..
*C. Vegetation GRASSES --- -
NONE ---------- ------
*d. Animals - ---- -- ----------------
*e. Watercourses------N------- -----
- ---- - - -- - -
f. Cultural/historical resources NONE----- — ----- -------- -- ----"- --
g. other ---- -- ---- -----
2. Environmental Setting -- Surrounding Area
a. Existing uses/structures (tvoes, densities): SFR__1 PER ACRE
b. T000graphy,�sioc�s _ VARIES FROM 2 % � 50% SLOPE
*c.
Ve3etation GRASSES --
*d.
Animals --
*e.
-----�_—
watercourses —
f.
Cultural/hi storl Cal resources
g.
Other-------
3. Are there any major trees on � Zf cis, t and nu^�uer:—_--_----
the site, including oa'r, trees. /Y/ /� Y- 1[�
q• will any natural watercourses, surface flow patternlfescex i�in• __— ___.-- — -
be ganged tnrough project development-: j% � Y p - ---
*Answers are not rc-quired if the area does not contain natural, undevelope:i land.
3 -
B. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION (cont.)
5. Grading:
Will the project Zf yes,„ --how many idill it be
require grading? � /N% cub.i� yards? ___ _______ balanced do site? /Y/
If not balanced, where will dirt be oUtained or deposited'? AL�7ACENT SITES_ _ _ __ _
Are there any identifiable landslides or oti�er major geologic hazards on t;ze property
(including unccrmpacted fill)? /Y/ /�% If yes, explain: __ ____ ____ ___
7. Is the property locatad wiuiin a high fire hazard area (hillsides with cnoderat_ly dense
vege*ation? /� /N/ Distance to nearast Lire station: 3 MILES
8. Noise:
Existirry noise sources at site: RESIDENTIAL __ - --
Noise to be generate3 by project:
9. Fumes
moors generate'.? by project: ----------
Could toxic fumes be generated?
10. What energy -conserving designs or r„aterial will be used? NONE _____
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached
exhibits present the data and information required for this initial
evaluation to the best of my ability, arxi that the facts, statements,
and information presented are true arx3 correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief. �� /�
Date: ---__Z `_ ��----����'— _- (Signatuze)
For: % I )��'� �/�,` �-- -
- 4
-
�7lCi
....y we ..roars
P2ge 7
21660 EAST COPT EY DRIVE • SULTE 'W
DL &,MOND BAR. CA 91765-4177
(TO BE COMPLETED HY APPLICANT%
General tnformation: Y/ EO/9O
Date Fled:
Pertinent Perm tJApplications: ��� `-ID - 10
Project Information:
1. Name, Address and Phone Number of Project SPonsar:
2. Name, Address and Fhone Number cf Key Contact Person(s):
3. Project Address:
4_ Project Assessofs Elock and ParcehNumber(s): 8713-03-05
5. Cthe%%24C � 240 6c��. /�3. 789a76 82R NL07a 5n'
6-A. Does the project require any of the following actions by the City:
Yes No
X
Variance: X
Conditional Use Permit: �--
Zone Change: X
General Plan Amendment:
PHYL"5 E. PAP`—'t. PAUL V. HGRGHER G.�`Y H. �� ? G"GYuncmmbcA IOGucc!xabc G AOHECryL GA ...
Mayac M�r� P:o Tcs - _ -
1..Zo. P. - . _- - ....-.. a, a trc-c
&B, Lst and descnbe anyy other reu
inc:uding those requyF �()// city,
gio
AS
7. Land Use Designations:
Adopted General Plan Designation
Adopted
Plan
8. Proposed Specifiic Use of
Project Description:
9-A. Site Dimensions and
151, 3,
agency standards.
state and federal ag
Area:
t120Nl
f,
Pagc 2
and other public approvals relevant to this project,
9-$. L=gal Oes.^.ripiion of the Pro ect: (attach espy fo this tomr if necessary)
rni �, 7i?�r'7 74046
ivate utility e=_se
men;s,
11. Cescdbe public or pr
below the surface of the project sale. T rAl r
,.r .,...,.,,,..,,.. a., c,,...,....,..,....................P2ge J
10. project Detail: NA -'-
Attach a separate page of descriptive data for each housing type included in this project:
a) Number of Housing Un is by type.
b) Fioor Area by type (minimum, maximum, and avenge square footage).
c) Number of floors (stories) for each type.
d) Housing market targeted (demographic profile).
e) Estimated market sates price or estimated market rents.
f) Descnbe all amenities proposed (for example, Landscaping,
recreation equipment, common use faciRles, trails, etc.)
g) Minimum lot size. (Net Act area, not including Right -of -Way)
h) Maximum lot size. (Net lot area, not rhduding Right -of --Way)
q Average lot size. (Net lot area, not inc/udirg Fight -of- way)
} Number of lots whit`; do not meet City Standardsl
ut0
y lines, structures or other faci!fties which ?xis: on the su {ace or
12. Assecated Frcjecs: (Frejecs or potential prcje: s which are direcay relate^ ?o this project, ie: potential developments
which require completion of this project):
13. Ce=_c:i6e any aniicoated Phasing far this p
N. A.
14. Attach one copy of each of the fallowing:
(Numtrer cf Units & i tame Frme)
a) Preliminary Sails Fepart.
b) Preliminary Geologic Investigation.
c) Drainage Study.
d) Toccgraphic Mao highlighting any existing slopes of 25',a or more. £iV7I/2£ SI7£ IS OV&2 25I
e) Tract Mac, Farce! Mae, or P!ct Flan cteary showing each area of cut and each area of rill; all residential unit
p ads (if irrcwr,), and any areas with slopes of 253 or more.
t) Fhctcgr2phs shcwicg the site from di!ferent (ie: rerth, south, east, west) vantage points and phctegrphs
showing vistas (ie: rcrth, south, east* west) from the sale.
V Page 4
Are the following items applicable to the proposed project or its effects?
(Discuss below all items which apply to this project: affac, additional sheets as necessary)
15, Grading: Maximum depth of excavation: 24 a7 DRZVEG)A ,Maximum depth of fill: 1 T7 Y
Quantity of sail moved: cubic yards.
Will there be an on site balance of cut and till?: N06 NORF fTf f FOR Al2iVFd,4U
16. Vewshed:
Oescbbe any change in the appearance of the site resulting from the project as proposed.
/ VE[JAy GIIL/ REOUlRE /2E7AINING GALLS ,4ND
tIL L .
17. De_chbe how the proposed project will fit into its surroundings (Ye: will the prepcsad project blend into an existir,_a
neighborhood? Hcw will it relate to the size, scale, sryfe, and character of the existing surmunding development?)
7f[E EXIS7ING RESIDENCES ARE LARgE CUS70N 11017ES OF VAJUED S7yLES. IN 7NIS
i(SSPEC7, 711E PROPOSED RESID&VCE GILL REL4/E
70 /ffE SCALE
AND
CHAR4C7ER
UT
711E NEIGKBO12f[OOD
Ia. Oesera:e any alteration of the existing drainage patterns, or potential for changes in surface or ground water quality or
quantity. (re: will the Ocw cl any permanent cr intermittent sudaceysubsurface water charge as a result of this project.?
Hcw?: will there be any injection wells, septic systems, or ether faciities whicn may anecr surface ar subsurface water
quality?)
OP ER 711AN D124INAGE A/20UND 711E R120R0 SFD RF i' DENT F. No MAJOR CO[L2CE S
DILL BE AL7EREDo SEi7IC 7ANK ANO LF4CH FWD IJTLf 13F USFD
I
19. Describe any tong -term noise and/or vibration which may occur as a result of this project: (after construction w771 this
project direly or indirectly cause the generation of noise and or vibration greater than any that exists now?)
NO LONG 7ERn NOISE OR VIBRA7I0N WILL OCM 477ER CONS71WC7ION Of 7HIS 10R02EC7
29. Describe any residential construction proposed on filled land (le: identify the lot number of each structure proposed to
be built of filled land).
711E RESIDENCE GILL BE BUIL7 OVER COIVRAC7ED FILL RLAC£D 70 SUPi OR7 711E
SIREE7 ALL TOENDA7I01V
UORX GILL BE SURROR7ED Bu UNDERLyING
BEDROCK
...., ......_..._....
_�
_..... _....._..�.
_.._...._.._.Page
5
21. Do any significant trees exist on the proles: site now'? �escnee [ne enec, mis proles, ww nave on ureur. Ire: varc anu
Wainut trees are consic`ered Significant Describe wheher the proposed project will disturb or cause removal of any of
these trees). No SZ4NI7lC}W7 7!2£ES FXZS7 ON MIS Sr7F.
22, Is the project site located in a national, state, regional or locally designated area of historical, environmental or other
significance. If so describe. Cie: is the site an area designated as a hillside management area, significant ecological area,
s;gniBcant mineral resource area, etc.)
NO.
Environmental Setting:
23. Describe the ervironmental setting (synccss) of the project site. This narrative shail ircfude a description of the soil
s;abii ty, slopes, drainage. scenic quality, plants, and animals which may exist on the site now, and any existing structures
and the existing land use of the project site.
ME SITE DESCENDS 7WON DJ 'MZNGFl2 tME Lima crn/OF naTmc OF > 5.1 Tit J 5r7
GF7A7r(7N C01/Fl2rNG lHF crlF rnNcrrrc of [ ^°°c° 41VD bLicl C llrlH Crll7F chair
Bl1SK£S N£A2 /KE CANUUN 601L( /)8ArNAGF OF ItIF 712ONl g24DFlD 412FA.0 Lc MIVA I?
ME S7/2EE7 dl( SHFF7 LCIIL. 7HF RFMAULIER nF 7HF UV A!?4rNS OFS7Fl2u
70111ARD 79F C (ON. 7HF?F 47F NO c=G Qt_ CT(/yrf rr4A/ Fr?o,urml !HF UYL
IS VACAN7 AND HAS A Vlad 0% ZEE CANUM
24. Desc:ibe the surrounding properties (sycccs;s). This narrative shalt inc'ude a description of the sail stability, slopes.
drainage, scenic quality. plants, and anirnals which ray exist_ Indicate the type of land use commercal, etc.),
intensity of land use (singie-far"aly, multi-farmiy, density ccmimerc.'a/, prcfess'nai, etc.), and scale of development
(height, frontage, set -tack, etc_) in the adjacara surrounding area.
F C 7 r r '1Fr? '7 A ra i r c
�h A!"'lPIWX 2 9 ADVC&V7 i l2U!"'El27IES BNDE/2ING 7KF SI7F EL VACAN7ANJ Z 7K£I!2 IVA '11?47 -
S7ATS FXC£!p7 (w CUr9iAC/ED TILL lNL CEL !0 M/Prat/2/ !HF syZ9LL/ Sr VA/21/ Pl2ri4 1 5 > ran
2 5 9 All SI7ES KAVE UNDEl2LUIN4 BFr7/2U�h 7NFl2F A!F Nri crc1NS OF STCYTEMArll! L20.i"N
VEG£7A7I0N CUNSZS7S UP G/2ASSES & lJE£JS GIZIK .SOALL BlLSHF.S 01MIUS ME CMON 13011019. ry AF9rag
07 7fiE mo/17 GRADED AREA IS ZONAL) lKE 37l2EF7 RU SHFF7_tlnil- 711F l2ENArNAEl2 Uf 7KF .cr7Fc
Certification:
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and In the attached exhibits present the data and Information required for
Initial anvlronmentat evaluation of the proposed project- All Information Is to the best of my knowledge, belief and ability to
determine factual, true, correct and complete_ le/
Date- -tYi C-iL:? Signature: j //�%1"/,
`t i ^
Far �
NVv
CompletIGh of this iorm,is required to begin revievr cf a project ,?Informailon wtEhtrtA#hstor>n
and the'iequlred:attacS� ed materials W1 I assist the Cityan determining 1.whe#her a�Negat,ue;
Declaration may be granted, Whetner:2;MlTlg2led Negative Declaration eci or
whether;Envlronmentallmpact Report q
shall 6e required
CON7INU£D
24, DRAIN WESMWLY 70WARD 711E CANYON, SI7ES ALONG 711E EAST SIDE 07 D£R/2ZNGER LANE
HAVE VIEWS 70 C4NYOND ON 711E EAS7 AND WEST. SITES ON 711E WES7 SIDE OF D£R/2ZNGER
LANE HAVE A VIW OF 711E CANYON 70 ME WES7.
THE LAND USE IS SINGLE FAULY RESIDENTIAL, fl£IG117S AV£RA E 35 F7. FRON AVERAGE
FINISH GRADE 70 7HE AID400IN7 07 711E HZ911£S7 IUDGE OR GABLE. L07 FRON74GE
ALONG DERIUNGER LANE AVE/249E 150 F79 FRONT SET -BACK IS 10 77.
ii
Cly or Diamond Sar lnittal Study Form
Page 6
Yes No Possibly
21, Mandatory Findings of Significance?
a. Does the proposed project have the potential !o degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate or
significantly, reduce a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
X
b. Does the proposed project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term, environmental goals?
c. Does the proposed project pose impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively
conside rabie .
d. Does the project pose environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
X
III Discussion of Environmental Evaluation:
(Attach Narrative)
IV. Determ(nat(on:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a'sIgnificant effect on the environment, v/
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on the attached sheet have been incorporated into the proposed project.
A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED,
i find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONM/ENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Date: g ` t3/90 Signature:
Title: 5
Forthe City of Diamond Bar, Califomia
j OAK TREE STATEMENT
[ The subject property contains no oak trees.
[ ] The subject property contains one or more oak trees, however
the applicant antib.ipates that no activity (grading and/or
construction) will take place within five (5) feet of the
outer dripline of any oak tree.
[ ] The subject property contains one or more oak trees and the
applicant states that activity (grading and/or construction)
will take place within five (5) feet of the outer dripline
of any oak tree. An Oak Tree Permit has been or will be
applied for prior to any activity taking place or, the
%orooerty:,01
0
l /� ( _� / -7 Via.-6
a: .
PDp'liczhT�'s Signature Date
1
OTS89MG
i •'
AGENDA NO.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE: November 14, 1990 MEETING DATE: November 26, 1990
TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commissioners
FROM: James DeStefano, Director of Planni'
SUBJECT: Request for an Extension of Time: First Evangelical Free Church
CUP 1634-(1)
The First Evangelical Free Church was granted a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in
1980 to develop a church facility. This application request is for a time ex-
tension to finish the third phase/building of the sanctuary for Evangelical Free
Church. This request will require modification of condition #18, of CUP 1634-
(1) which required the third phase of development to begin before November 26,
1990. The applicant has additionally proposed significant changes to the site
plan that will require modifications to the conditions and will require further
staff review.
Property Location:
3255
Diamond
Bar Boulevard,
approximately 100 feet west of
Brea
Canyon
Road.
General Plan Designation:
North and East: R-1-7500
South: R-1-1000
West: C-1 CPD
Urban 2 - Low density residential
Zone: R-1-7500
- Single Family Residence
Vacant school site
Commercial and Orange Freeway (57)
The property is an irregularly shaped 2.6 acre lot. The site is level except
for a large natural knoll at the northeast corner. CUP 1634 (1) was approved to
develop the church on this site in three phases, the third to be started within
ten years.
Due to changes to the existing project and an anticipated resubmittal, staff
recommends that this matter be continued to a future hearing date to be recom-
mended by staff at the meeting.
\Pjs