HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/26/1997AUGUST 26, 1991
6:00 P.M.
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Auditorium
21865 East Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, California
Chairman
Vice Chairman
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Toe Ruzicka
Don Schad
Franklin Fong
Mike Goldenberg
Toe McManus
Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Community
Development Office, located at 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190, and are available for public inspection.
If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please call (909) 396-5676 during regular business hours.
In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the
City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or
accomodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting must inform the Community
Development Department at (909) 396 5676 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.
Please refrain from smoking, eating or drinking
in the Auditorium
The City o f Diamond Bar uses recycled paper
and encourages you to do the same.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Tuesday, August 26, 1997
Next Resolution No. 9742
CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
1. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Joe Ruzicka, Vice Chairman
Don Schad, Mike Goldenberg, Franklin Fong, and Joe
McManus
2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS:
This is the time and place for the general public to address the members of the Planning
Commission on any item that is within their jurisdiction, allowing the public an opportunity to
speak on non-public hearing and non -agenda items. Please complete a Speaker's Card for the
&ecording Secre Completion of this form is volunt=). There is a five minute maximum
time limit when addressing the Planning Commission,
3. CONSENT CALENDAR:
The following items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine and are
approved by a single motion. Consent calendar items may be removed from the agenda
by request of the Commission only:
3.1 Minutes of August 12, 1997
4. OLD BUSINESS: None
5. NEW BUSIlVESS: None
6. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
6.1 Draft Development Code (Zoning Code Amendment ZCA 97-1) Continuation of
review of Article III -Site Planning and General Development Regulations; Review
of Article II - Zoning Districts and Allowable Land Uses, and Article V -
Subdivisions and the Zoning Map.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission review
Articles II, III and V of the Development Code and the Zoning Map and make
an informal recommendation. A formal recommendation will be made at the
conclusion of the review process.
1
6.2 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50314, Conditional Use Permit No. 964, Oak
Tree Permit No. 96-1 and Zone Change 964 (pursuant to Code Sections Title
21, and Title 22.56.215, 22.26 Part 16 and 22.16 Part 2) are requests to approve
a 15 lot subdivision on approximately 44 acres. The average lot size will be 2.92
acres. Six of the proposed lots are part of two approved tracts. Therefore,
VTTM 50314's development will result in a net increase of 13 residential lots.
The project site is within Los Angeles County Significant Ecological Area No. 15.
The Zone Change will convert the current zoning of R-1,200 and A-2-2 to R-1-
40,000. (Continued from August 12, 1997)
Project Address: Southeast of the most southerly intersection of
Steeplechase Lane and Wagon Train Lane,
Project Owner/Applicant: Kurt Nelson, Windmill Development, 3480 Torrance
Blvd., Suite 300, Torrance, CA 90503
Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined that an Environmental
Impact Report is required for this project. An Environmental Impact Report No.
97-1 (SCH No. 96071104) has been prepared and is available for public review.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the
public hearing, receive testimony and continue the public hearing to September 23,
1997,
6.3 Development Review No. 97-4 is a request (pursuant to Section 22.72.020.A) to
construct a 35,461 square foot, two story industrial building to be utilized for
warehousing, assembly and associated office uses on a 78,442 square foot (1.8
acre) vacant site. (Continued from August 12, 1997)
Property Location: Northeast corner of Lemon Avenue and Lycoming Street
Property Owner: Lan Plus, An Teng, 17088 E. Green Drive, City of
Industry, CA 91745
Applicant: Kent Wu Architects, 1274 E. Center Court Drive, Suite 211,
Covina, CA 91724
Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined that this project
requires a Negative Declaration.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
Development Review No. 97-4, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as
listed within the attached resolution.
7. PUBLIC HEARING: None
8. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS:
9. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
2
10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
CONCERTS
IN THE
PARK
-August 27, 1997, 6:30
p.m. Sycamore Canyon Park,
22930 Golden
Springs
Drive -Future
America -Variety
Show
PARKS &RECREATION COMMISSION -August 28, 1997 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Board
Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive.
CITY COUNCIL -September 2 and 16, 1997 - 6:30 p.m. -AQMD Auditorium, 21865
E. Copley Drive
PLANNING COMMISSION -Tuesday, September 2 and 9, 1997 - 6:00 p.m. and
Saturday, September 6, 1997 - 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 2186 E.
Copley Drive
TRAFFIC &TRANSPORTATION - September 11, 1997 - 7:00 p.m. -AQMD Board
Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive.
11. ADJOURNMENT: Tuesday, September 2, 1997 - 6:00 p.m.
�3
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DR--- •`
EGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Ruzicka called the meeting to order at 6:07 P.M. in the
South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley
Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Ron Pflugrath of The Planning
and Zoning Alliance.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Ruzicka, Vice Chairman Schad,
Commissioners Fong, Goldenberg and McManus
Also Present: Deputy City Manager James Destefano, Senior
Planner Catherine Johnson, and Associate
Planner Ann Lungu.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Don Gravdahl asked what the current code allows with respect to
concrete and brick work within residential front yard setbacks and
whether the Diamond Point Homeowners Association CC&R's allow
homeowners to concrete and brick their entire front yards. He said
it is his understanding that the City's Property Maintenance
ordinance allows only 40 percent of residential frontage to be used
for parking. He spoke about his concerns regarding circular
driveways.
Mr. Pflugrath stated the "Offstreet Parking and Loading Standards"
require that driveways that provide access to garages having a
setback of less than 24 feet from the property line shall not
exceed the width of the garage door opening plus two feet. The
Development Code does not address circular driveways. Generally,
circular driveways are determined by the width of the lot and what
curb cuts are allowed by the City's Engineer. He suggested this
matter could be added to the Residential Parking section of the
code.
Mr. Gravdahl responded to VC/Schad that the homes in question
include two car garages.
CONSENT CALENDAR - None
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS - None
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Draft Development Code (Zoning Code Amendment ZCA 97-1)
Article III - Site Planning and General Development
Regulations.
Mr. Pflugrath presented Chapter 3, Fences, Hedges and
Walls, of Article III.
C/McManus asked for clarification of the third section of
Table 3, Page III-20 and whether a maximum height limit
of 30 inches would be imposed for open fencing.
Mr. Pflugrath responded that grill work and wrought iron
fencing is not limited to a height of 30 inches. He
indicated the information will be added to the chart.
Mr. Pflugrath responded to VC/Schad that swimming pool
fencing is addressed in the Uniform Building Code. He
referred VC/Schad to Special Wall and Fencing
Requirements, A. on Page III-22.
C/Goldenberg suggested that "Building" be inserted in A.
Swimming pools, spas and similar features under Special
Wall and Fencing Requirements on Page III-22 to designate
the applicable City Code.
Mr. Pflugrath indicated he will check to determine
whether it is contained within the city code or specific
building code section.
Chair/Ruzicka asked that an example be sited under
Authority to Waive or Modify Requirements on Page III-23.
C/Goldenberg again asked for consistency regarding
references to Hearing Officer and Director throughout the
document.
Mr. Pflugrath stated the Director and Hearing Officer are
not necessarily the same person.
C/Goldenberg asked that both terms be included in the
glossary.
Chair/Ruzicka asked that a statement be included to
indicate that although the Hearing Officer and Director
are currently the same person, in the future these
positions may be held by two individuals.
Mr. Gravdahl spoke about a six foot block wall in the
front yard setback of a home in his neighborhood.
C/Goldenberg requested that Mr. Gravdahl provide him with
a property address so that he may inspect the property in
question.
Bob Zirbes reiterated his concern that a definition of
"view" be contained in the document. He asked that
"temporary lighting and holiday lighting" be addressed in
Article III.
Mr. Pflugrath indicated the code does not address
residential lightinga other temporary uses such as
Christmas tree lots and pumpkin lots are required to
obtain temporary use permits. Residential holiday
lighting could be addressed under the Property
Maintenance section.
Mr. Zirbes asked if areas for affordable housing are
defined within the City's General Plan.
SP/Johnson stated that the General Plan addresses
density. The State requires that affordable housing be
disbursed throughout the City and not concentrated in any
one area.
HILLSIDE MANAGEMENT
C/McManus asked that "elide" be corrected to "slide" in
the fourth line of Paragraph I. under Purpose on Page
III-25.
VC/Schad asked that "streams" be added to Paragraph E.
under Purpose on Page III-24.
C/Goldenberg asked if a project site slope five (5)
percent or greater requires a handicap ramp.
Mr. Pflugrath responded that he will check the UBC.
VC/Schad asked that "with native or indigenous
vegetation" be added to the end of the paragraph entitled
natural slope on Page III-26.
Mr. Pflugrath indicated this requirement is stated
further into this section of the document.
Chair/Ruzicka asked that "to" be deleted from the third
line of Paragraph 1 under B. Exceptions on Page III-31.
He requested rewording of the first sentence in Paragraph
2 under B. Exceptions. Suggested wording: "The
Commission may approval a Variance from the standards of
this Chapter in compliance with 22.xx(Variances) for
parcels that are too small in size or of a configuration
that would...etc."
Chair/Ruzicka asked that subparagraphs D. and E. of the
Landform Grading and Revegetation Standards be re -
lettered to subparagraphs C. and D. respectively.
C/Goldenberg stated his concerns
within Table 3 on Page III-33
standards be identified.
�� ►. TN.
�
about Slope Category 4.
He asked that the
DCM/DeStefano indicated the City's current code outlines
the provisions contained within Table 3 on Page III-33.
The Commission may wish to modify the conditions. He
cautioned the Commission not to restrict the property
owner's ability to develop his/her property. The current
categories allow the City to look at each case on its own
merits.
C/Goldenberg
indicated
he would prefer
tighter language
which would
still allow
for freedom of
development.
DCM/DeStefano explained to VC/Schad that the City's
Public Works Division regularly monitors the bench drains
in the City in accordance with current codes and
ordinances. Notices are routinely sent to property
owners that the drains must be cleaned and maintained.
C/Fong asked for definition of "certify" under 4. Use of
variable slope ratios b. 1).
DCM/DeStefano responded that the developer's geotechnical
engineer submits a certified soils and geotechnical
report and project design for the City's geotechnical
review.
C/Goldenberg asked the consultant to provide a graphic
for Item 5. under 8. Grading standards on Page III-35.
C/Goldenberg asked for clarification of the seemingly
conflicting height requirements contained in Item 7. a.
and b. under B. Grading standards on Page III-35.
Mr. Pflugrath responded that he believes the statements
are correct. He will check for accuracy.
C/Goldenberg asked that a graphic be added for Item 4
under C. Grading guidelines at the top of Page III-36.
VC/Schad asked that "the use of pumps or other systems"
be added to Items 3. and 4. under A. Drainage Standards
on Page III-37.
DCM/DeStefano stated the developer's technical
consultants certify the type of mitigation measures
utilized todispose of drainage which is approved by the
City.
C/Goldenberg stated that with respect to the chapter
entitled Access, Trails, and Roadways A. Access, trails
and roadway standards. 1. and 2. on Page III-38r he
believes the fire department requires a maximum of 15
percent is allowed for driveway grades. He asked that
"and turnarounds" be inserted in the last sentence of
subparagraph 1. so that it reads: "Parking landings and
turnarounds shall be utilized on all drives over 10
percent grade.
DCM/DeStefano stated the City has been operating under a
code that allows up to 15 percent of a limited stretch of
a street and up to 20 percent within a drive. This is a
policy issue the Planning Commission may wish to
reconsider.
C/Goldenberg stated he is concerned about the ability of
emergency vehicles to traverse certain areas.
The Commission asked Mr. Pflugrath to present his
recommendation.
VC/Schad asked that "Wildlife Migration Corridors" be
inserted in Item 4. under B. Access, trails, and roadway
guidelines on Page III-39.
C/Goldenberg asked for an explanation of Item 5 under A.
Architecture standards on Page III-40. He asked that the
second sentence be changed to read: "Decorative shielded
lighting to highlight a structure is allowed."
C/Goldenberg recommended that Item 3. under A. Fences and
landscaping standards refer to Page III-43 Item C.
C/Goldenberg recommended that Item 4. under A. Fences and
landscaping standards refer to Page III - 44 Item D.
Chair/Ruzicka expressed concerns regarding the use of
wood shake roofing materials.
DCM/DeStefano responded that strict standards are set
forth by the City's Building Official regarding the
percentage of roof that can be replaced with certain
types of materials. He advocated avoiding disallowance
of certain types of materials.
VC/Schad asked that "historical plant materials" be
included in D. under Evaluation of Development Review
Application on Page III-44.
DCM/DeStefano stated that before the term "historic" is
inserted into the document, a definition should be
determined.
The Commission concurred to determine a definition for
"historic" in the Tree Ordinance with reference to Item
D. on Page III-44.
AUGUST 12, 1997 PAGE 6 PLANNING URMTO
Craig Clute asked if the Development Code calls out an
architectural review committee.
Mr. Pflugrath stated the Development Code does not refer
to a special architectural review committee. Staff would
continue this process.
Responding to Kerry Garza, SunCal Companies, 550 West
Orangethorpe, Placentia, C/ McManus asked that "Where
feasible" be added to the beginning of the third sentence
o£ Item 2. under B. Grading standards on Page III-34 so
that the sentence reads: "Where feasible top soil shall
be stockpiled during rough grading and used on cut and
fill slopes."
Mr. Garza stated his concerns regarding the term
"prominent" ridge as called out in the first sentence of
Item 5. under B. Grading standards since he believes he
is positioned to construct residences which conflict with
the proposed code.
DCM/DeStefano suggested the paragraph refer to the
definition of Ridge as stated on Page III-26.
Chair/Ruzicka asked for further discussion of Mr. Garza's
concern by the consultant and the Commission.
Mr. Garza stated he is concerned about the maximum of 30
dwelling units allowed for a cul-de-sac (see Item 7.
under A. Access, trails and roadway standards on Page
III-38.
DCM/DeStefano stated he believes 30 dwelling units was
specified in the Fire Code and Planning and Zoning Code
at the time the document was crafted.
C/McManus asked that "single family" be inserted prior to
dwelling units in Item 7. under A. Access, trails, and
roadway standards.
Chair/Ruzicka asked that 1130" refer to the code as
applicable.
Responding to Mr. Garza's concerns, Chair/Ruzicka asked
that Item 1 under A. Fences and landscaping standards
provide reference to the Noise Control chapter.
Mr. Garza pointed out that "ion" should be eliminated
from Item D. under Fire protection standards on Page III-
43.
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS
R&AX
AUGUST 12, 1997 PAGE 7 PLANNING I
VC/Schad recommended that "fire sensing devices" be
considered under g. Drip irrigation on Page III-50.
Mr. Pflugrath suggested that fire sensing devices are
recommended by the City's Building Official and may not
be appropriate for the Development Code.
C/Goldenberg asked for explanation of the last sentence
under paragraph Be Final Landscape Plan on Page III-46.
C/Goldenberg asked if the requirement (E. Statement of
surety on Page III-46) for posting of a performance bond,
letter of credit or certificate of deposit for a two year
period is useful.
C/Goldenberg recommended improving the language of
Paragraph 2. Unused areas under Landscape Area
Requirements on Page III-46. He stated he believes the
current language may present development problems where
landscaping is required in the event that trees covered
under the Tree Ordinance were planted and then had to be
removed or replaced.
DCM/DeStefano responded that the intent of this item is
to not create a dirt pad area but to provide some sort of
landscaping to eliminate appearance, to deal with dust
control and the like such as the Gateway Corporate pad
previously used by the Ranch Festival.
Mr. Pflugrath responded to Chair/Ruzicka that he will
attempt to improve the language of the item for improved
understanding.
C/Goldenberg asked that "unless a bond is posted" be
added to the end of the last sentence of Paragraph Be
Specific zone landscaping requirements on Page III-47.
Mr. Pflugrath responded that the inclusion of such
language would be appropriate.
C/Goldenberg, referring to the last sentence of Paragraph
C. New single-family residences on Page III-47, asked how
the 50 percent figure was determined.
C/Goldenberg said that some of the percentages indicated
on Table 3 on Page III-47 do not work.
C/Goldenberg stated that Item 6 and 9 on Page III-48
contain arbitrary figures.
DCM/DeStefano stated that with respect to Item 6, a five
foot wide landscape area is generally accepted as the
minimum width that can survive within an area that is
incorporated by curbing or, some type of barrier that may
prohibit root growth. He suggested that wording could be
incorporated to explain the different circumstances for
creating growth area.
Mr. Pflugrath stated the five foot wide minimum is a
standard that is incorporated primarily to aid tree
growth. If no trees are involved, a smaller planter area
could be specified.
Mr. Pflugrath commented that the three foot berms
discussed in Item 9 is typical.
C/Fong suggested that Item 9 include a statement that
when an earthen berm is required to screen parking, it
would not need to be a minimum of three feet in height as
long as it accomplished the desired aesthetic effect.
Mr. Pflugrath recommended Item 9 state that where earthen
berms are proposed without landscaping that they should
be a minimum of three feet in height. If the berm is
proposed in connection with other landscaping features it
could be less than three feet in height.
C/Goldenberg requested that "may" be used in place of
"shall" in the second line of Paragraph 5 on Page III-49.
C/Goldenberg suggested that in the event a 48 inch tree
was to be replaced, there could be difficulty with the
statement "in kind" near the end of the third line in
Paragraph 6 on Page III-49.
DCM/DeStefano suggested adding words that incorporate a
determination by the Director. The reason for the
current language is to prevent a developer from removing
a tree without reason or penalty.
C/Goldenberg asked for reconsideration of the language in
Item 3 under section A. Director to approve on Page III-
50. He indicated that this may be the proper place to
look for circumstances or requirements in that area.
DCM/DeStefano explained the language and suggested the
statement may be further clarified.
RECESS: Chair/Ruzicka recessed the meeting at 8:05
p.m.
RECONVENE:. Chair/Ruzicka reconvened the meeting
at
8:25
p.m.
2. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50314, Conditional Use
Permit No. 96-1, Oak Tree Permit No. 96-1 and Zone Change
96-1 (pursuant to Code Sections Title 21, and Title
22.56.215, 22.26, Part 16 and 22.16 Part 2) are requests
to approve a 15 lot subdivision on approximately 44
acres. .The average lot size will be 2.92 acres. Six of
the proposed lots are part of two approved tracts.
Therefore, VTTM 50314's development will result in a net
increase of 13 residential lots. The project site is
within Los Angeles County's Significant Ecological Area
No. 15. The Zone Change will convert the current zoning
of R-1,200 and A-2-2 to R-1-40,000.
Project Address: Southeast of the most southerly
intersection of Steeplechase
Lane and Wagon Train Lane.
Project Owner/Applicant: Kurt Nelson, Windmill
Development, 3480 Torrance
Boulevard, Suite 300, Torrance,
CA 90503
AP/Lungu stated the referenced project was presented to
the Planning Commission on July 22, 1997. At that time,
the public hearing was opened, comments were received on
the Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 97-1 (SCH 96-
071104) and the project entitlement. The public hearing
was continued to August 12, 1997.
The purpose of the continuance is to allow staff, City
consultants and the applicant the opportunity to address
the Commissioners' concerns and respond to public
comments. The responses are presented in a
correspondence from the City's environmental consultant,
Michael Brandman Associates, dated August 5, 1997.
Additionally, a colored landscape exhibit has been
forwarded which delineates the landscaping on Lots 14 and
15, approved with Tracts 47851 and 48487 respectively.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend
approval for VTTM 50314, Zone Change No. 96-1,
Conditional Use Permit No. 96-1, Oak Tree Permit No. 96-1
and Mitigation Monitoring Program, and recommend
certification of EIR No. 97-1 (SCH 96-0711104), Findings
of Fact and conditions as listed within the draft
resolution.
Mike Houllihan and Tom Leslie, Michael Brandman and
Associates, stated they are present to respond to
Commissioners' questions on their written responses.
C/McManus asked if, with respect to comment number 5. in
a letter directed to DCM/ DeStefano on August 6, 1997,
the consultants specifically looked for species and
specific signs.
Mr. Leslie responded that the survey encompasses an array
of items that are specifically sought. He concurred with
C/McManus that the statement should be extended to
indicate the items were looked for and not observed.
Referring to Page 2, C/McManus asked why there is a
conflict with the U.S. Department of Interior Fish and
Wildlife Service regarding possible impacts of this
project on the Coastal Gnatcatcher and other items.
Mr. Leslie responded that one of the field biologists who
conducted the survey is a Permitted Gnatcatcher Biologist
and the other field biologist has had over 200 hours of
supervised gnatcatcher survey work. The biologists
determined, based upon the field survey, that this tract
is potential gnatcatcher habitat. Therefore, they did
not recommend nor did they conduct, protocol gnatcatcher
surveys.
C/McManus asked for comment on the statement in Paragraph
1, Page 3 which reads: "We agree that the impacts to
these habitats resulting from the proposed projects are
adverse and not mitigatible. However, the adverse
impacts to these natural habitats likely will be far
higher than noted in the DEIR due to indirect effects."
Mr. Leslie indicated the Fish and Wildlife Service is
looking at the region generally. He supposed that agency
personnel had not actually visited the property. If they
had visited the property and read the biological
assessment prepared by Michael Brandman Associates, he
believes they would concur with the report.
C/McManus pointed out that Paragraph 2 on Page 3
indicates that "These habitats also likely serve as
movement corridors for wildlife in this area. The
mitigation that has been prepared for the loss of these
habitats is inadequate". He pointed out that there is no
equivocation in this statement.
Mr. Leslie pointed out that the statement indicates
"likely". He indicated his firm conducted a movement
corridor assessment on the property which is discussed in
the two documents which indicates that the parcel is not
a part of the primary movement corridor, nor is it part
of the secondary movement corridor which would connect to
adjacent primary corridors.
C/McManus read from Paragraph 3, Page 3, which states:
The measures that will be taken to manage and protect
the areas that would be left undeveloped are inadequate
and vague." He pointed out that there is no equivocation
in this statement.
Mr. Leslie stated that without having the author of the
letter present it is difficult to determine intent.
These are standard phrases used by the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Responding to additional passages from the letter, Mr.
Leslie stated the mitigation measures have been designed
to minimize as much as possible the introduction of non-
native species into the adjacent natural open space
areas. In addition, the mitigation measures replace the
walnut woodland and the coastal sage scrub at a
reasonable replacement rate in accordance with the City's
guidelines.
C/McManus suggested the consultant and the Fish and
Wildlife Service meet to reach a conclusion regarding
apparent items of disagreement.
Mr. Leslie responded to VC/Schad that as a result o£
Michael Brandman and Associates' concerns about impacts
to various species, numerous mitigation measures have
been employed.
Chair/Ruzicka reiterated his understanding that this
project will fix a piece of land that is currently
subject to landslide activity.
Mr. Nelson responded to C/McManus that the Urban
Pollution Basin maintenance is provided for as part of
the Crystal Ridge Estates Homeowners Association budget.
Michael Brandman and Associates performs a five year
mitigation monitoring program for the removal of
construction debris. Subsequently, an easement is
granted in favor of the homeowners association for
collection on all slope areas after that period of time.
The five year monitoring program includes preservation of
the understory. Certain invasive species may not be
introduced into the level pad yard areas so that seeds do
not become windblown.
C/McManus asked who is responsible for what period of
time for maintenance of signs discouraging human
intrusion in natural open spaces of Tonner Canyon SEA No.
15.
Mr. Nelson responded that he will include funding for
sign maintenance in the CC&R's, if necessary. Certain
sections of the CC&R's cannot be amended by the
homeowners without the City's consent. He offered that
any areas of concern could be covered within the
annexation document.
C/McManus introduced a photograph of an oak tree on the
proposed site which indicates the street slope is cut
underneath the drip line and as a result, the tree is
dying.
Mr. Nelson responded that the photograph depicts a
transplanted tree and is not one of the protected trees.
AUGUST 121 1997 PAGE 12 PLANNING DR"I
Lex Williman stated a total of 136 walnut and 68 oak
trees will be removed by the project. The developer can
select and relocate certain trees that appear to be of
value. Mitigation measures call for compensation of the
removed trees.
Mr. Nelson explained that when the developer removes a
tree, he is required to replace it at a 2:1 ratio or 4:1
ratio. A survival rate of 2:1 must be assured. The
developer has every motivation to be certain the tree
survives. However, the tree depicted in the photograph
is not subject to the revegetation plan.
Chair/Ruzicka reopened the public hearing.
Doreen Ferguson, Park Plan, Department of Parks and
Recreation, State of California, said her department
represents the natural resource and the people of
California. She indicated that this project is adjacent
to Tonner Canyon and SEA No. 15 which her department
feels is important to the preservation and future of the
bio-diversity in the State of California. She stated
that in her department's opinion, the DEIR survey was not
adequate. She further stated that a major concern to her
department is the major loss of any more native walnut
woodlands. This development seeks to eliminate 23.2
acres of the approximate 1,000 acres left in Southern
California which greatly diminishes the chances of
survival of the wildlife that this habitat sustains. She
stated "we view this loss as unmitigatible". At the rate
the State is losing its native plants places the wildlife
of Southern California in serious jeopardy. She said her
department agrees with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
in the areas of mitigation concerns and further study.
In particular, she stated her department would like to
see specific areas revegetated such as the southern part
of Tonner Canyon.
S. Ferguson stated she is speaking in place of the
department's Resource Ecologist who was unable to attend
tonight's meeting due to illness.
Ms. Ferguson continued that her department is concerned
that there is no mitigation proposed for the loss of the
coastal sage scrub understory which supports the coastal
gnatcatcher. The department is concerned that this area
was not adequately surveyed. She further stated that her
department feels the DEIR downplayed the impacts to
wildlife resources and lacked specificity for evaluating
the status of plant and animal species that may be
present on -site. The DEIR does not prove that surveyors
were present for the appropriate number of hours. DEIR
responses should be related to the fact that this project
is in a significant ecological area that has been set
aside to be protected. Her department asks that
additional surveys be conducted to determine the presence
of the gnatcatcher, cactus wren, loggerhead shrike,
burrowing owl, grey fox and the San Bernardino mattenking
snake as well as the plant species previously discussed.
Ms. Ferguson responded to VC/Schad that she is not
involved with the Whittier/Chino Hills Wildlife Migration
Authority Research. However, her partner is involved.
C/Fong asked
what amount of
time Ms.
Ferguson feels would
be adequate
to survey the
site.
Ms. Ferguson responded that she will refer Mr. Fong to
the department's biologist. She stated her department
agrees with the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife
Service that because of the project site's importance to
the area (adjacent to Tonner Canyon and the SEA No. 15)
it increases the level of concern.
C/McManus
asked
Ms. Ferguson
if her department can
establish
survey
standards and
parameters.
Ms. Ferguson suggested that the City's Planning
Department work with her department to coordinate
development efforts.
C/Goldenberg asked the applicant to reach agreement with
the State of California in order for the Planning
Commission to reach a decision based on fact.
DCM/DeStefano responded to Chair/Ruzicka that there has
been ample opportunity for agencies to speak with the
City of Diamond Bar regarding their issues of concern
throughout the tenure of this project. The project is
the last piece of development in a series of approved
projects. The same level of cooperation has existed
between the City and its environmental consultant
throughout the project. The City believes the project
meets the requirements of the General Plan as well as,
the standards employed by the Zoning Ordinance,
Subdivision Ordinance, and good environmental practices
proposed as a result of the mitigation measures outlined
for the project.
Ms. Ferguson indicated to C/McManus that her department
recently went on-line with the State Clearing House and
learned of this project. In addition, there was no State
Planning Department staff for some period of time.
There was no further public testimony offered.
• � '21
C/Fong stated he believes the geology report should
reference potential impact to the east side of Windmill
Drive.
Mr. Williman said that Tract No. 48487 is a previously
approved tract. It was not ignored as part of the
evaluation of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50314. He
referred C/Fong to a letter included within the report
that indicates that VTTM No. 50314 does not have an
adverse impact and does not change the proposed
mitigation for VIM No. 48487. VTM No. 48487 has out -of -
slope bedding and shear keys proposed along the entire
edge. The project has a City approved geological report,
approved grading plans which are addressed in a letter
included within this project packet.
Chair/Ruzicka moved to approve VTTM 50314, Zone Change
No. 96-1, Conditional Use Permit N. 96-1, Oak Tree
Permit No. 96-1 and Mitigation Monitoring Program, and
recommend certification of EIR No. 97-1 (SCH 96-0711104),
Findings of Fact and conditions as listed within the
attached draft resolutions. The motion died for lack of
a second.
C/Goldenberg moved, C/McManus seconded, to continue
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50314, Conditional Use
Permit No. 96-1, Oak Tree Permit No. 96-1 and Zone Change
96-1 to August 26, 1997 and request the applicant to meet
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State of
California Parks and Recreation Department
representatives to reach agreement. The motion was
carried 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 97-2 and Development Review
No. 97-6 is a request (pursuant to Section 22.40.430) to
locate and operate an unmanned cellular
telecommunications facility at Peterson Park. The
proposal is to attached two microcell antennas to an
existing light pole and construct a freestanding
equipment cabinet, covered by a screening mesh enclosure,
adjacent to the pole. The project will be located at the
southern perimeter of Peterson Park, adjacent to the SR
60.
Property Address: Peterson Park, 24142 Sylvan Glen
Road, Diamond Bar
Property owner: City of Diamond Bar, 21660 E. Copley
Drive, Diamond Bar
Applicant: L.A. Cellular, 17785 Center Court
Drive North, Cerritos, CA
SP/Johnson presented staff s report. Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use
Permit 97-2 and Development Review 97-6, Findings of Fact
and conditions as listed within the resolution.
DCM/DeStefano stated 336 surrounding property owners were
noticed with one letter of dissent received by the City.
DCM/DeStefano responded to VC/Schad that utility
connections will be provided to the site from Golden
Springs Road for telephone service and from Sylvan Glen
Road for electrical service. A lease agreement is
proposed by L.A. Cellular to lease the facility from the
City at a rate of $1,000 per month for a period of five
years, and up to 20 years if L.A. Cellular exercises its
options.
Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing.
Rob Searcy, Terra Firma Services, 4617 Willits Avenue,
Sherman Oaks, representing L.A. Cellular, stated the site
is proposed to complete a transmission gap along the SR
60. The site proposes to co -locate with existing
structures to minimize visual impacts. The eight foot
single directional antenna points down the SR 60 corridor
and will provide some service to adjacent residential
areas. He indicated the applicant's willingness to
consider modifications proposed by the Commission to
limit aesthetic impacts.
VC/Schad asked how power will be brought to the antenna.
Mr. Searcy responded that power is run underground up
through the conduit contained in the light standard.
Bob Zirbes said he has not seen the proposed plans. He
remarked that he feels children will be closer to the
site in a park than they would be with an installation on
the Stone's Darrin Drive property.
Craig Clute asked if the Darrin Drive applicants and this
applicant could co -locate at one of the two proposed
sites. He supports screening for the proposed chain link
fencing. He indicated he is concerned about the time
allowed for project completion.
VC/Schad asked what effect the proposed antenna will have
on wind drag.
Mr. Searcy responded that the engineering calculations
were completed and turned over to the City's Building
Official in order for the applicant to pull a permit.
C/McManus asked if L.A. Cellular and the Darrin Drive
applicants discussed the possibility of co -locating at
either the Darrin Drive or the Peterson Park site.
DCM/DeStefano responded to C/McManus that the Darrin
Drive applicants dismissed the Peterson Park site as an
inappropriate location for their system.
Mr. Searcy responded to C/McManus that L.A. Cellular
generally does not consider locating a free-standing
monopole structure in a single-family residential
neighborhood and therefore did not consider co -locating
at the Darrin Drive site.
Chair/Ruzicka closed the public hearing.
C/Goldenberg asked for indication of a realistic
installation time for this project.
DCM/DeStefano suggested that a minimum 10 month time
period be granted for the CUP.
AP/Searcy requested the 10 month time period be granted
from date of lease or issuance of permits, whichever is
later.
C/Fong moved, C/Goldenberg seconded, to approve
Conditional Use Permit 97-2 and Development Review 97-6,
Findings of Fact and conditions as listed within the
resolution, amend Condition D. on page 7, completion of
the antenna and related equipment shall occur no later
than 10 months from date the lease is signed or City
Building and Safety permits are issued, and with the
condition that the applicant provide chain link fencing
with screening material and landscaping to obscure the
fencing. The motion was approved 5-0 with the following
Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Goldenberg, McManus,
VC/Schad, Chair/Ruzicka
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
2. Development Review No. 97-4 is a request (pursuant to
Section 22.72.020.A) to construct a 36,761 square foot,
two story industrial building to be utilized for
warehousing, assembly an associated office uses on a
78,442 square foot (1.8 acre) vacant site.
Property Location: Northeast corner of'Lemon Avenue and
Lycoming Street
Property Owner: Lan Plus, Andy Teng, 17088 E. Green
Drive, City of Industry, CA 91745
RRAE
AUGUST 12, 1997 PAGE 17 PLANNING 1
Applicant: Kent Wu Architects, 1274 E. Center
Court Drive, Suite 211, Covina, CA
91724
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the
public hearing, receive comments, and continue this item
to the meeting of August 26, 1997.
Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing.
There was no one present who wished to speak on this
item.
VC/Schad moved, C/McManus seconded, to continue
Development Review No. 97-4 to August 26, 1997. The
motion was carried unanimously.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Cont.
1. Draft Development Code.
Chair/Ruzicka
asked
for public comment
on the Landscape
Standards
Chapter of
Article III - Site
Planning.
Bob Zirbes asked
if
single family
detached residences
could be included
in
Applicability
A. on Page III-45.
Mr. Pflugrath suggested "tract development" be eliminated
from Item C. on Page III-47 and that the requirement be
limited to the front yard area. The "exception to
single-family detached residences will be eliminated from
Paragraph A. under Applicability on Page 45.
WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE STANDARDS.
Mr. Pflugrath presented the Water Efficient Landscape
Standards chapter beginning on Page III-51.
C/Goldenberg asked if Diamond Bar is exploring the use of
Wind -sensing devices under Definitions on Page III-52.
C/McManus asked what triggers the "documentation package"
referred to in Item A. Submittal required under
Applicability on Page III-53.
Mr. Pflugrath responded that the Buyer's Awareness
Package for the homeowner or information provided by the
property owner for renters.
VC/Schad asked that "k invasive plants to be removed."
be added following j. under 3. Landscape design plan
requirements on Page III-54.
Mr. Pflugrath stated a list of invasive plants would need
to be provided.
DCM/Destefano suggested that this request be studied by
staff for proper placement such as the Landscape section.
With respect to the list of invasive plants, it may be
more appropriate to list a source of invasive plants be
cited.
Craig Clute concurred with VC/Schad regarding invasive
plants. He suggested recycled water be considered for
use on a wider basis throughout the City.
Bob Zirbes asked for a better definition of "A.
Homeowner -provided landscaping at single-family and
residential projects;' under Applicability on Page III-
52.
Mr. Pflugrath responded that this statement is proposed
to separate it from the contract/developer provided
landscaping which is required under the Landscape
section.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS:
C/Fong asked staff for an update with respect to Mr. Clute's
request concerning the cellular antenna site at the SR 57/SR 60
interchange.
DCM/Destefano responded that the Walnut Pools cellular site is
being pursued by the second applicant. The applicant has not
submitted plans nor received building permits and therefore,
improvements required by the Planning Commission have not occurred.
There is approximately six to eight months left on the two year
Planning Commission approval.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
DCM/Destefano stated he and AP/Lungu will be absent from the August
19, 1997 Development Code meeting. SP/Johnson will participate in
portions of the City Council meeting being held on the same
evening.
SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
As presented in the agenda.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the Planning
Commission, Chair/Ruzicka adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m. to
6:00 p.m. August 19, 1997 in the South Coast Air Quality Management
Board Room,
Respectfully Submitted,
James DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
Attest:
Joe Ruzicka
Chairman
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
REPORT DATE:
MEETING DATE:
APPLICATION REQUEST:
PROPERTY LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
BACKGROUND
City of Diamond Bar
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
August 18, 1997
August 26, 1997
A request for review
of the following Article of the
City of Diamond Bar,
Comprehensive Development Code:
Article V-Subdivisions
Citywide
City of Diamond Bar.
A subdivision is defined as "the division, by any subdivider, of any
unit or units of improved or unimproved land, or any portion thereof,
shown on the latest equalized county assessment roll as a unit or as
contiguous units, for the purpose of sale, lease or financing, whether
immediate or future" (Govt. Code Sec, 66424).
Subdivision regulation is an extremely important aspect of development
regulation. The way that land is subdivided, streets are laid out and
lots designed establishes the pattern of a community's development
for many years.
Subdivision regulations are the City's opportunity to ensure that new
tracts and other subdivisions are properly designed and compatible
with the existing pattern of development and that new streets are
integrated into the existing circulation system.
i
These regulations ensure that new subdivisions have necessary
infrastructure, including adequate street widths, curbs, gutters
sidewalks, storm drains, and sewers. Subdivision regulations further
require that infrastructure is adequately sized and designed to meet
the needs of the increased population that may be directly or
indirectly generated by a new development.
Further, the requirement for mapping of lots, streets, easements and
open space help to ensure the creation of adequate land records.
This assists the City, the developer and the property owner in all
aspects of the development process, from determining where a
property line is for the purposes of constructing a fence, to making
sure that streets are properly aligned.
SUBDIVISION MAP ACT
The Subdivision Map
Act
is the State law which gives the
City the
authority to regulate
the
design and improvement of subdivisions
within its boundaries.
The
Map Act establishes specific regulations
which must be followed
for subdivision processing. A
City can
impose conditions on
the
subdivision process which the
Map Act
doesn't address, but
it
can't regulate contrary to the
specific
provisions of the Map
Act
According to Curtin's California
Land
Use
and Planning Law
(1997
Edition) the primary goals of the
Map
Act
are:
• To encourage orderly community development by providing
for the regulation and control of the design and improvement
of the subdivision, with proper consideration of its relation to
adjoining areas.
• To ensure that the areas within the subdivision that are
dedicated for public purposes will be properly improved by
the subdivider so that they will not become an undue burden
on the community.
• To protect the public and individual .transferees from fraud
and exploitation
The Map
Act requires
cities to adopt an ordinance
regulating and
controlling
subdivisions
which require a tentative and
final or parcel
map. A
tentative map
is a map which is created for
the purpose of
showing the design and
improvement of a proposed
subdivision and
�a
the existing conditions in and around the subdivision. A tentative
map doesn't have to be based on an accurate or detailed field survey
of the property. A final map must be prepared by or under the
direction of a registered civil engineer, be based on a survey and
conform to specific requirements outlined in the Map Act.
A tentative and final map are generally required, although there are
specific exceptions, for a subdivision consisting of five or more
parcels. A subdivision consisting of four or fewer parcels. requires
only a parcel map.
The City may also regulate other subdivisions by ordinance, provided
that these regulations are not more restrictive than the regulations for
tentative and final maps.
ARTICLE V -SUBDIVISIONS
Article V is "intended to supplement, implement and work with the
Subdivision Map Act. This Article is not intended to replace the Map
Act and must be used in conjunction with the Map Act in
preparation of applications, and the review, approval, and construction
of proposed subdivisions."
The chapters contained within this article establish the regulations for
tentative, parcel map and final map processing, subdivision design and
improvement requirements, and other aspects of subdivisions which
must be addressed in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act.
COMPARISON WITH EXISTING CODE
The current Subdivision Code, was established by L.A. County as a
freestanding document, with its own table of contents and definitions .
section. The proposed Code has integrated subdivision regulations as
part of the comprehensive Development Code, with the intent of
addressing all the aspects of development in a single document,
allowing cross-reference to other applicable portions of the Code.
In addition to reformatting, the proposed Code deletes some of the
extraneous portions of the current Code, (such as the chapter on the
subdivision committee). Provisions for lot line adjustments have beer!
included and park dedication requirements have been updated for
consistency with the General Plan.
3
GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
Article V implements numerous objectives and
strategies of the
General Plan. Land
Use Element, Objective 2.2
states "Maintain an
organized pattern of
land use which minimizes
conflicts between
adjacent land uses."
The review of subdivisions
ensures that a new
tract or subdivision
is designed with appropriate
street widths and
lots of a compatible
size and configuration for proper integration with
established patterns
of development and circulation.
This is
particularly important
in a predominantly developed
community such as
Diamond Bar, where
the seamless integration of
new land uses is
critical.
Subdivision processing also involves the review of street design and
access. Therefore, Article V also implements the Circulation Element,
specifically, Strategies 1.3.1: "Prevent the creation of new roadway
connections which adversely impact existing neighborhoods," 1.3.3:
"Design new development and their access points in such a way that
the capacity of local residential streets is not exceeded." and 2.2.1:
"Work to ensure that new development is provided with adequate
access from within the City of Diamond Bar.
Through requirements for improvements and dedications, Article V
implements the Public Service and Facilities Element: Strategy 1.1.2
"Protect existing residents and businesses from the cost of financing
infrastructure aimed at supporting new development or the
intensification of development," and Strategy 1.1.3: "Require the
construction of water, sewer, drainage and other necessary public
facilities prior to or concurrent with each new development."
Article V also implements Strategy 1.3.3. of the Resource
Management Element, which calls for the provision of City park .
facilities at 'a rate of 5 acres per 1,000 residents through its
provisions for parkland dedication.
SUMMARY
Subdivision regulations are a very important part of any City's
development regulations. Because of the complexity of the
Subdivision Map Act, local regulations which are clear and
understandable are critical. The subdivision regulations presented in
Article V represent an updated, reorganized and reformatted version of
the City's current Subdivision Code. As with the rest of the
proposed Development Code, these revised regulations are designed
0
with an emphasis on clarity and "user friendliness" for both staff and
the developer.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission review Article V of
the Development Code and make an informal recommendation. A
formal recommendation on the entire Development Code will be made
at the conclusion of the review process.
Prepared By: 1
�JSo�J
Catherine Johnson, Senior Planner
5
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners
FROM: Catherine Johnson, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Continuation of Public Hearing for VTM 50314
DATE: August 21, 1997
Attached is a letter from Kurt Nelson, Windmill Development
Company, Inc. dated August 19, 1997, requesting that the public
hearing for VTM 50314 be continued to September 23, 1997.
Staff recommends that the Planning commission open the public
hearing, receive comments and continue the public hearing to
September 23, 1997
CGJ\mco
LLC Windmill, Inc.
3480 Torrance BJvd.,
Torrance, CA 90;503
August 19,1997
Ste. 300
c�: Ct:IVc�J
; t i'Lf;1 f0P;0 BP,R
97 AUG 21 A 8 k?2
City of Diamond Bitr
Mr. James DeStefano, Community Development Director
21660 East Copley Drive, Ste, 190
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
RE: VT'M 50314 - Planning Commission hearings
Dear Mr. DeStefano,
telephone (310) 640-3990
jacahtille (310) 3164133
You will recall that at the 8/12/97 Diamond Bar Planning Commission hearing,
consideration of than above referenced tract map (and its Environmental Impact
Report) was continued to the meeting of 8/26/97. This continuance was primarily
in order that we ar.,d the City's environmental consultant, Michael brandman &
Associates, might try to meet with the representatives of State Parks & Recreation
(and perhaps U.S. fish & Wildlife) in order to discws their concerns regarding the
development.
It A:as proven impo!isible to coordinate all schedules and effect a meeting in time for
the 8/26'Planning Commission hearing. Therefore, twe respectfully request that our
project be taken off that agenda, to be rescheduled for September 23, 1997 hearing.
Sincerely,
Kwit Nelson
Windmill Development Company
City of Diamond Bar
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 6.3
REPORT DATE: August 4, 1997
MEETING DATE: August 26, 1997
CASE/FILE NUMBER: Development Review 97-4
APPLICATION REQUEST: A request to construct a 35,461
square foot, two story industrial
building to be utilized for
warehousing, assembly and
associated office uses on a 78,442
square foot (1.8 acre) vacant site.
PROPERTY LOCATION: Northeast corner of Lemon Avenue
and Lycoming Street.
APPLICANT: Kent Wu Architects
1274 E. Center Court Drive,
Suite 211
Covina, CA 91724
PROPERTY OWNER: Lan Plus, Andy Teng
17088 E. Green Drive
City of Industry, CA 91745
SUMMARY
The proposed industrial building is a permitted use within the M-1.5 zone.
It is consistent with the General Plan designation of Light Industrial (1) and
within the permitted range for the floor area ratio (FAR). It is in
compliance with the development standards for the M-1.5 zone, including .
height, setbacks, parking and loading requirements. The loss of pepper trees
on the site will be adequately mitigated by the replacement of the trees at
a three to one ratio.
The size, scale and architectural style of the building is compatible with the
light industrial uses in the area. The proposed building has varying
setbacks, and variety in its colors and texture. The building's appearance
will be further enhanced by the proposed landscaping.
The result will be a well designed building and an aesthetically pleasing site
which will enhance the appearance of the area as well as provide a new
business and employment opportunities. Staff therefore recommends approval
of this project as conditioned.
BACKGROUND
The property owner, Andy Teng and his representative, Kent Wu, are
requesting approval of Development Review for a 35,461 square foot
industrial building at the northeast corner of Lemon Avenue and Lycoming
Street,
The General Plan designation for this site is Light Industrial (II which
establishes areas for "light industrial, research and development and office
based industrial firms...." The site is located in the Restricted Heavy
Manufacturing zone (M-1.5). Pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Code
Section 22,32,100 warehouse/assembly uses are permitted by right within
this zone.
The land uses and zones surrounding the subject site include: railroad tracts
and the City boundary to the north; a school site zoned Residential
Agricultural (R-A 8,000) to the south; an industrial building within the
Commercial Manufacturing (CM) zone to the east; and an industrial building
within the M-1.5 zone to the west. The General Plan land use designation
is Light Industrial (1) in all directions surrounding the property.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed building will be utilized for warehousing, distribution and
assembly of personal computers, consisting of 28,369 square feet of
warehouse area, 1,094 square feet of assembly area and 5,998 square feet
of office area. The building will be two stories (office only) and 29'6" in
height. Fifty-one parking spaces are provided, and one ramped loading dock.
2
Access to the site will be from a 26,' two-way drive aisle, located at the
southeastern corner of the site. Approximately twelve percent of the site
will be landscaped. The current proposal also includes a request for the
removal of 8 mature trees (six California peppers, and two eucalyptus trees).
SITE DESCRIPTION
The project site is an irregularly shaped, relatively flat, vacant parcel. The
easterly side of the parcel is approximately 328,' narrowing to 145' at the
northeast corner of Lemon Avenue and Lycoming Street. The telephone
equipment at the northeast corner of the site is on a separate legal parcel.
The site is covered with numerous mature trees, brush and weeds and
appears to have been previously undeveloped.
APPLICATION ANALYSIS
Pursuant to the Development Review Ordinance Section 22.72.020.A.1. an
application for Development Review is required for new construction on
vacant property. Therefore, the proposed project, an industrial building on
vacant land, requires Development review by the Planning Commission.
The building has been sited in consideration of its irregular shape, with the
front of the building placed towards the narrowest end of the parcel on the
corner of Lemon Avenue and Lycoming Street and the rear of the building
angled parallel to the rear property line. The building is proposed to be
setback 10' from the property line along Lemon Avenue and 10' from the
ultimate property line (including a 10' dedication) at the corner of Lycoming,
increasing to 18' towards the middle of the property. The building is
setback 2' from the northerly rear property line, parallel to the railroad
tracts, 35' from the railroad tracks, and approximately 75' from the easterly
property line. In accordance with Code Section 22.32.140 there are no
setback requirements for structures located within the M-1.5 zone.
The General Plan allows a maximum floor area ratio if 0.25 to 1.00, A
floor area ratio of .45 is proposed, well within this range.
A trash enclosure has been proposed at the rear of the site adjacent to the
existing telephone equipment.
According to the floor plans the interior of the building will include single
story areas for warehousing, loading and assembly, and a two story office
area which will include a reception area, conference room, restrooms,
lunchrooms and other offices on the first floor and offices and restrooms on
the second floor.
Hours of operation for the proposed use will be 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday. There will be 42 employees on the single shift.
3
Access and Parking
Access to the site is proposed from one, 26' wide two-way drive -aisle,
located at the southeast corner of the site. The driveway width is in
compliance with Code requirements. Further, the driveway's location,
approximately 280' from the intersection of Lemon Avenue and Lycoming
Street is an adequate distance to minimize traffic conflicts resulting from
turning movements and cross -traffic.
Parking is proposed along the side and the rear of the building. In
compliance with Code Section 22.52.1060.D the parking has been setback
5' from the ultimate property line adjacent to the street. A condition of
approval has been included in compliance with this section, requiring the
construction of a solid masonry wall between 30" and 42" parallel to the
front lot line for the purpose of screening the parking from the street view.
A total of 51 parking spaces are proposed on site including 39 standard
spaces (8.5'x 18'), 10 compact spaces (8'x 15') and two handicapped
spaces.
Code Section 22.52.1 140 requires one parking space for every 1,000 square
feet of floor area devoted to warehousing if the building meets the Code
definition of a warehouse. Code Section 22.08.220 defines a warehouse as
any building located in an industrial zone that is utilized at least 80% for
warehousing. It is proposed that 28,369 square feet (80%) of the building
be utilized for warehousing. The parking requirements for industrial buildings
other than warehouses are 1 /500' and 1 /400' for office uses.
Parking requirements have been calculated based on a ratio of
28,369'/1000' for the warehouse area, 1.094'/500for the assembly area
and 5,998'/400' for the office area. The required parking is 47 spaces.
Therefore, the applicant has exceeded the required parking requirements.
Ten compact parking spaces are proposed. Code Section 22.MO) .1082 allows
40% of the required parking and any parking in excess of the required
parking to be compact, permitting 23 compact spaces (47 x 40% = 18.8
+ 4 in excess of 47).
Code Section 22.52.1084 requires that non-residential use provide sufficient
on -site loading and unloading areas or that loading operations are conducted
in a manner and time which avoids traffic congestion within the parking lot
or on adjacent streets. A loading area is proposed at the rear of the site.
It consists of one truck loading dock with a ramp, connected to a 10'x10'
roll up door. Two at -grade 10'x14' roll up doors are also proposed, which
open onto a 20' x 25' internal loading area. It is estimated that there will
be two or three daily truck trips to and from this site. The loading area
will not be visible from the street and won't interfere with on -site
circulation.
c)
Architecture
The proposed structure is a concrete "tilt up" type building. Although its
basic design is simple, its inherent box -like appearance is relieved by
rounded corners, a varied front building setback on Lycoming Street,
stairways, and a ground level walkway enclosed with columns. Reveals,
placed all around the building and painted a deep turquoise will provide an
accent color. The lower ten feet of the building will be scored with 3/4"
lines on all sides, providing texture and interest. The upper and lower
portions of the building will be painted a contrasting color adding further
interest. The building's facade will be further enhanced by landscaping in
the setbacks and planters.
The proposed structure is typical
the area and is compatible i
surrounding light industrial uses,
ISSUES
Tree Removal and Landscaping
of the
n
concrete "tilt
up"
type
buildings
in
its
architecture,
and
scale
with
the
The project site currently contains nine mature trees, including six California
pepper trees, one black walnut tree and two eucalyptus trees. The
applicant has proposed the removal of all but the existing walnut tree, to
accommodate the building and proposed site improvements.
The General Plan Resource Management Element Strategy 1.1.11 calls for
the preparation of a tree preservation ordinance which emphasizes the
preservation and retention of native . trees such as oak and walnut and
mature sycamore, pepper, arroyo willow and "significant trees of cultural or
historical value." All planning decisions must be consistent with the General
Plan and therefore the proposed removal of the California pepper trees must
be addressed in this manner.
The City's current regulations address only the preservation of oak trees,
although the proposed comprehensive Development Code will address the
preservation of the additional species of trees.
Staff has required the applicant to submit a report, prepared by a certified
arbonst (attached) identifying the size, type, and condition of the trees. The
report concludes that the structural viability of the pepper trees ranges from
poor, to extremely poor, due to extensive heartwood decay. This means
that the inner, dead part of the tree, which provides its structural support
has rotted away, leaving gaping holes in the trunk and making them
unstable.
E
According to the arborist, this condition makes preservation and/or relocation
of these trees infeasible, because they are too unstable to move. Further,
because of this instability, if the trees were preserved on -site there would
be a potential hazard to structures and people, from falling trees or limbs.
Please note that the report states that the over-all health of the trees is
good. According to the arborist, this means that the living part of the
trees, their vascular systems, consisting of leaves and bark, are in good
health and free from infestation.
In order to mitigate the loss of the six California pepper trees, staff is
recommending a three to one replacement ratio in a variety of sizes, ranging
from 15 gallon to 48" box. The City's current standards apply only to oak
trees and include a replacement ratio of two to one, with a minimum
replacement size of 15 gallons. As the plans show, these trees have been
integrated into the proposed landscaping scheme which will result in a
project with abundant landscaping, greatly enhancing the appearance of the
site.
Traffic Impacts
Construction of the proposed industrial building will result in an additional 42
vehicle trips during peak hours, going to and from work, and two or three
truck trips per day from routine deliveries and pick-ups. According to the
Deputy Director of Public Works, the intersection of Lemon Avenue and
Lycoming Street is an area of the City which has been identified for a
future warrant study to determine if signalization will be required. A
condition of approval has been included, requiring that the applicant
contribute a fair share amount to any costs for a warrant study or future
signalization of this intersection.
According to the General Plan, Lemon Avenue north of Golden Springs has
been designated as a secondary arterial, and Lycoming Street has been
designated as a residential collector street.
According to General Plan Table V-1 the right of way (ROW) Dedication
Standards for Lycoming Street require an ultimate ROW of 80.' The existing
ROW is 60.' In order to accommodate this width, the applicant is
dedicating an additional ROW of 10' along Lycoming Street, resulting in a
half -width of 40' as measured from the centerline of the street. However,
when the building is constructed the roadway will be improved to its current
alignment of 60" The additional 10' dedication will be for the future
widening of this street to its ultimate 80' right-of-way width. In order to
insure that the applicant/owner pays for the cost of the future improvements
of the widened roadway in front of the subject property, a condition of
approval has been included requiring the posting of surety as approved by
the City and the execution of an agreement with the City guaranteeing
payment of a fair share cost of these improvements.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
The application was advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and San
Gabriel Valley Tribune on July 18, 1997 and all property owners (8) within
a 300 foot radius were mailed notices of the public hearing on July 10,
1997,
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
the City after concluding the preparation of the Initial Study hereby
determines that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment and therefore a Negative Declaration
(ND 97-1) has been prepared for this project.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development
Review 97-1 subject to the Conditions of Approval contained within Planning
Commission Resolution 97-Xk
REQUIRED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS:
1. The design and layout of the proposed project is consistent with the
applicable elements of the City's general plan, design guideline of the
appropriate district, and any adopted architectural criteria for the
specialized area, such as designated historic districts, theme area,
specific plans, community plans, boulevards, or planned developments;
2. Approval of the design and layout of the proposed project is
compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood
and will maintain the harmonious, orderly attractive development
contemplated by Chapter 22,72 of Development Review Ordinance No.
5 (1990) and the City's General Plan;
3. The architectural design of the proposed project will not unreasonably
interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future
development and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards;
4. The design of the proposed project would provide a desirable
environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its
neighbors through good aesthetic use of material texture and color
that will remain aesthetically appealing and will retain a reasonably
adequate level of maintenance.
UI
5. The proposed project will not be
safety or welfare or materially
improvements in the vicinity.
PREPARED BY:
Catherine Johnson, Senior Planner
detrimental to the public health,
urious to the properties or
ATTACHMENTS:
Application
Plans
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study for Negative Declaration 97-2
Certified Arborist's Report Dated May 30, 1997
Draft Resolution of Approval for Development Review 974
E3
CITY OF.;'TAMOND $AR �
COMMUNI'� _.^)EVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT �.` ,
21660 E. Coy.�y Drive Suite 190 -
(909)396-5676 Faz (909)861-3117
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION .
Record Ovmer
Name TENG, ANDY
(bast name first)
Addrus LAN PLUS
City 17088 E. GREEN DR.
Zip CITY OF INDUSTRY r CA
91745
Applicant
TENG, ANDY
(Last name first)
LAN PLUS
17088 E. GREEN DRIVE
CITY OF INDUSTRY, CA91745
Casza, �2 J— `�
FPL � 7-O/ `J
Deposit$ 2y UU r7
Reczipt;' �� 9 6
Datz R d rp/c��
App.licant's A;ect
IJU,KE�dT C.K. .4RC�;I-ECT
(Last name ili_t)
KENT WU AR('HTTFf�
1274
E.
CENTER
COOT
DR.
STE.211
COVINA.CA
91'24
Phane�l � 81 0-461 6 �Rtwne�l� 810-4616 Phoned$ 966-4975
(.0 u
� �,C 6/0� 33/-6 27�
NOTE: It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Community Development Director m �ong of any c z; �z et the
principals involved during the processing of this case.
(Attach a separate shw[, if necessary, including nnmcs, addresses, and signatures ohncmbcrs of panncnhips, joim ccntures. sn,i .iia-aers
of wrporations.)
Consent: I�certify [hat I am the owner of the herein described property and permit the appticent to jle this rc;a�sr.
Data µ � Z � — (7 �
(All record owners)
Certification: 7, the undersigned, hereby certtJy under penalty of perjury that the injonnafion herein procid<•:i is rortct
to the best oJmy knowledge.
Print Name TENG, ANDY
(Applicant or Agent)
Signed ���� �"fy Date
(Applicant or Agent)
�-z���`7
Location N E r0(�.g__Of I FM(1N STREET R I Yff1MTN(' STREET f1TAMDN[1 R4q_,_fe o1�fi�
(StreU address �or tract and lot number)
Zoning M 1.5 RESTRICTED HEAVY P1ANUF. ZONE ly.;yl
Previous Cases
Present Use of Site
Use applied for AN INDUSTRIAL PARK TO RF BllIIT (1N STTF THE PRf11FfT iN('IDjtT;ir: r>>5 �� (100
S F +TILT UP CONCRETE WAREHOUSE�OFFICE BUILDING (24' CLEAR HT.) ld/5,998 S.F. 2STORY
OFFICE AREA IN IT.(2) PROVIDED 53 A.C. PAVED PARKING SPACES& 1-RAMPED L0,40INC, DOCK @
REAR YARD (3)12% OF THE TOTAL LO1' AREA TO_8F IAND4CAPFD W/AI!TnntArT� rnrl?q�l roa ,^,TION
SYSTEP1.(4) 8± MATUAL TREES ON SITE TO BE REPIOVED AND REPLACED BY OTHEP. 15GA.L. :'�'I`i.TREES
AS PER. CITY REQUIRED.
Legal description (all ownership tpnsing the proposed lot(s)/parcel(s))
LOT 1 OF THE SWAN SUB61VISIOT IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AS PER MAP RECORDED IN THE BOOK 3, PAGES 39 AND 40 OF MAPS
LUUNIY OF RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
IN THE OFFICE OF THE
Area devoted to structures 34,011 S.F. Landscaping/Open space 7.943 S F.
Project Size 365961 S.F. _Lo-rCoverage 53.2% Proposed density.
Style of Architecture _CONCRETE TILT UP TYPE BUILDING (Units/Acres),
Number of Floors Proposed WAREHOUSE/MANUF.AREA-1STORSYIope of Roof t 4.11 PER FT
OFFICE AREA-2 STORY
Grading' YES
YES
Export
If
yes, Quantity_ 5 , 000 C . V
Fill 2,800 C.Y. ±
If yes, Q!:at•tity 2 , 600 C . Y . ±
If yes, Quantity
If yes, Q!:at•tity 2 , 600 C . Y . ±
If yes, Quantity
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLET 1
INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAInE
TO THE APPLICANTS
The California Environmental Quality Act requires a review of Your proposed
project for possible environmental impacts. This Initial Study process is
intended to determine the type of environmental documentation necessary to have
City, The Initial Study consists of a completed
your project considered by the
ich you must provide, and an analysis of
questionnaire and other material wh
of tenwith the input
eees
potential prpTeisa
with speciaexpetiseThspocesscan be expeditedwith yourcooperwing fion
file must include the following exhibits, u_hich you st muq
The project
(check boxes are provided for your use).
1, Initial Study Questionnaire --In completing this goes?'.onnzire, ail
questions should be answered as completely as possible (attach antic pages
if necessary). If requesting a land division, it should be antic!;ated
t will
that future developmenradine at
and/or development should be
accordingly. Preliminary g g l
Pie if o immediate Construction is an 'ci a
submitted, n
24 Development Plan with Contours showing,
a) the location and layout of the proposed Development or possible pad
location; the location, spread, health and level) b) native vegetation --including
circumference (measured 4 1/2 feet above gary oak
.
round
treest and
C) existing and proposed landscaping.
NOT2t If your project is in the Santa Monica },taunt"" area, four
extra copies of the map ai'e requiredl
riate scale showing the subject Proit>'
Pe
34 Vicinity Map of appropi;' 'elation
other significant physical features, Street maps
tnearby streets and
areas shouldbc used, (Quad Sheetsearearavailable atp in urban ar
ma.� mmPs <_jtor sr (such as ntor
as
from the Department of the interior Geologic Survey, Sod North Lcs Angeles
Street, Room 7638t Los Angeles --this is the Federal Building in Los Angeles
civic center.)
te, pad locations and surrounding area, A
4, photographs of the sin ind-x map
phs should be provided, showing the location and
keyed to the photogra
direction of each photograph,
S, Generalized land use map of appropriate scale for the project size and
surrounding properties, with uses clearly labeled.
Be certain that the project number(s) is on all material (e.g, maps) Pho'OYTdPhs'
questionnaire). �QT*O\INAIRE
FAILURE TO SUBMIT ALL REQUESTED MATERIALS AND TO PRO CAS E.
CX?�f°L CX -
INFORMATION CAN RESULT IN DELAYS IN PRCCESSING Ya.? CAS
Project Applicant (owner),
LaN ,oGus
Staff Use
Project No,
------------------
------------------
INITIAL STUDY t'A)ESTIQNNAIRE
A. ORAL INYi�RMATION
Project Represent&tive!
NAME
�27:2 o6r/yz2t�= cou2> awr/E .
ADDRESS ,Z
c9i8 9106 - g9 7G
PHONE #
1, Action requested and project description; ,4f✓ 3��oOs�.f coyc,��t
arrCC t u�S o of ti01a�-cam-
2. Streelocatiproject:
3a.
Present use
of
site;_
ti.��.�sk�_
__
3b.
Previous use
of
site or
structures:
'v1�
4, Phase list ail previous cases
(if any) a ed to this protect; ���
5. Other related permit/approvals zequired. Fn-/-= �/�r.�K�-/=ram, �i=i`�=+'t'�
Specify type and granting agency. g i f-i2.� .�y�T
6. Are you planning future phases of this project? Y N
If yes, explain;
7. Project Areal
Covered by structures, pavin¢,3 6 7 6/ 5
Landscaping, open space:s ori1,6�1eor = s=
Total Areal s. c
8. Number of floors; 2
9. Present zoning: M /45
lq, Water and sewer service:
Does service exist at site?
Domestic public
Water Severs
N .. . O N
If yes, do puxvcyors have
rapacity to meet demand of
protect � all other approved O N O N
project67
If domestic water or public sewers are not available, how will these sorvicas
bepxovided? ,W/
Residential Protects, N/<S
11. Number and type of units.
12. 3choolet
What school districtCs) serves the propexty9_..Y.,^_._
pre existing school facilities adequate to meet project needs?
YES 2J0
Iq not, what provisions will be made for additional
Classrooms? �.._
��- Sc� L
Non-gtesidcntial protects: �v�iLNu1' E��'+"���
F_ /.� Socr�d
13. Distance to nearest restd�n�tia?�un�Npsensstiv�us���oi, h
etc.? n,�C?•z�-3�o�ti� �
S�o6 0� P��'�.�-y
A�,'l���r r<fra L� �'�p„'i'`JG7 s P
14. jdumbex and f oor area of buildinQs,�.�3�-Z S��Fr
15. Nwooex of employees anfl shifts,
42 �
16. M3Eimum employees per shift:_
q2
00 ,4 m -�- S' 30 ��'
17. Operatin¢ hourss�
End products
6/L SON.�L �'pJ1-� �/ 6Q�
t,8. Identify any,
Waste products
.� Fs{zr �—
Means of disposal � �.SN C,4N
19. Do project operations use, store or produce hazardous substances such as
oil, pesti,ci. chemicals, paints, or radioactive mstorials?
YES
If yea, explains
20. AO Your operations require any pressurized tanks?
YH$ O
If yea, explain
21. Identify
any flamtuable,
reactive
or explosive mstorials to be located on-
$ite.
_
N/d
22. Will delivoxy or shipment trucks travel through residential areas to reach
the nearest highway?
YES O
If yes, explain
1, Environmental Setting--Proiect Site
a, Etisting uselatructures
Topography/elopes 2 °!o
vegetation _ _ �Y S ( ,v47-lyjV w�
Animal s Nonl�
Wat elG olr scs /VO'u'�
O.zltural/historical resources �,_ rvON6
ether
S�4 ra s.
y, Environmental Setting - Surrounding Area
a. Existing uses structures (types, densities):
b. Topography/slopes _ 2�
*o, vegetation iYON�
•d, Animals i(1oN�
*�, Watercourses
ND/VJ!5
q, t7iltural/historical resources D.vAF
g, Other
* Answers are not required if the area does not contain natural,
undeveloped land•
i
i
3. Are there any major trees on the site, including oak tress?
ONO avo �✓> E�u�pT�„S 7�
Ifyes, typeandnumber:( %) olc� M/tu&U ✓F'-- G� rrEE/��N SSE
Tn RO6/Y/�L�-'�'� /!,/ T.�/b7,4N�A CO.UFG/zrfr m CLeL•�
140 oaFe 7yeEss
4. Will any natural watercourses, surface flow patterns, etc., be changed
through project development?,
YES O
If yes, explain:
S,. Grading:
Will the project require grading? AYl
If yes, haw many cubic
Will it be balanced on site? YES
If not balanced, where will dirt be obtained or deposited?
6. Are there any identifiable landslides or other major geologic ha=seers on
the property (including uncompacted fill)?
YES O
If yes, explain,
7, Is the property located within a high fire hazard area (hillsides with
moderately dense vegetation)1
YES O
Distance to nearest fine station:
8. Noises
8zisting noise sources at site, ��-v-� m �`!
Noise to be generated by project: N v✓v�
Fumest
Odors generated by project: � o
Could toxic fumes bn generated?
�.0. What Cnergy-conserving designs or material will be used?
c.o
C I TI � I htreby certify that the statements furnished abo��e and in
the attached exhibits present the data and information required
for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that
the facts, statements, and information presented are t:ue and
correct to the bast of my knowlcd d belici.
i
Date Signature
For : G�,�'�/t' GI/G�- ,�.- .. ,
t
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
FOR INITIAL STUDY
Pursuant to Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act §15063 (f), this form, along
with the Environmental Information Form completed by the applicant, meets the requirements
for an Initial Study.
This form is comprised of six parts:
Part 1 Background
Part 2 Summary of Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
Part 3 Determination
Part 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Part 5 Discussion of Environmental Impacts
Part 6 Sources
PART I -BACKGROUND
1. City Project Title: Development Review (DR) 97-4
2. Project Address/Location: NE Corner Lemon Avenue and Lycoming Street
3. Date of Environmental Information Form submittal: May 14 1997
4, Applicant: Andy Ten
Firm Name: Lan Plus
Address: 17088 E. Green Drive
City/State/Zip: City of Industry CA 91745
Phone: (818) 810-4616 —
Fax: N/A
5, Lead Agency: City_of Diamond Bar
Contact: Catherine Johnson Senior Planner
Address: 21660E Covlev Drive Suite 190
City/State/Zip: Diamond Bar CA 91765
Phone: (909) 396 5676
Fax: (909) 861-3117
6. General Plan Designation: tight Industrial (IL_ 7. Zoning:M-1.5
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited
to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary
for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary).
The project is a 35,461 square foot industrial building, consisting of 28,369 square feet
of warehouse area 5,998 square feet of office area (two-story) and 1,094 square feet of
manufacturing area, on a 78,442 square foot (1.8 acres) site. The project will also
include 51 parking spaces, 1 ramped loading dock. Over 12 % of the total area will be
landscaped. Additionally, the current proposal also includes the removal of 8 mature
trees on the site (six California Peppers and two Eucalyptus trees). California Peppers
trees have been designated for preservation by the City's General Plan. The applicant
proposes replacement at a 3 to 1 ratio for the California Pepper trees in sizes ranging
from 15 gallon to 48" box trees, to be integrated with the overall landscape plan for the
site.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The project site is located at the northeast corner of Lemon Avenue and Lycoming Street
near the northerly City boundary. The area surrounding the subject site is predominantly
light industrial. Railroad tracts run parallel to the northerly boundary of the project site,
to the east is an industrial building and to the south is an elementary school and to the
west are industrial buildings.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required
Fire Department approval will be required prior to the issuance of building permits.
11. List City of Diamond Bar related applications for this project that must be processed
simultaneously:
None
12. List prior projects for this parcel: None
2
PART 2 - SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
1. Land Use and Planning _ 9. Hazards —
2. Population and Housing _ 10. Noise
3, Geologic Problems _ 11. Public Services _
4. Water _ 12. Utilities & Service
Systems —
5. Air Quality _ 13. Aesthetics —
6. Transportation/
Circulation _ 14. Cultural Resources _
7. Biological Resources _ 15. Recreation —
8. Energy & Mineral 16. Mandatory Findings
Resources _ of Significance
3
PART 3 - DETERMINATION Project Number: DR 97-4
to be completed by Lead Agency
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I fmd that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X
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 an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, but at least
one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" OR "potentially
significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but
it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
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 all potentially significant effects (a) have
been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that
are imposed upon the proposed project.
0
�'ATNE/1-i�7E �Jo N nso �7
Date
Printed Name For
PART 4 - EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the
referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects
like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact"
answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as
general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based
on a project -specific screening analysis.)
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as
on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction
as well as operational impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries
when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an affect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must described the mitigation measures
and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation
measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other
CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section VII at
the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impact (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference
to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be
attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the
discussion.
5
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Conflict with General Plan
designation or zoning?
Source #s: 1, p. I-27; 2 _ X
b. Conflict with applicable
environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with
jurisdiction over the project?
Source #s: 4, p. 11 et seq. X
c. Be incompatible with existing land
uses in the vicinity?
Source #s: 16 X
d. Affect agricultural resources or
operations (e.g. impacts to soils
or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
Source#s: 1, p I-27 X
e. Disrupt or divide the physical
arrangement of an established
community (including a low-
income or minority community)?
Source #s: 15, 16 X
a. Cumulatively exceed official
regional or local population
projection?
Source #s: 3, 5, p. II-I-19 X _
Environmental Issues - continued
b. Induce substantial growth in an
area either directly or indirectly
(e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of
major infrastructure)?
Source #s: 3, 1, p. I -II, 20
c. Displace existing housing,
especially affordable housing?
Source #s: 16, 1 p. I-27
a. Fault rupture?
Source #s: 1, p. IV-31 5, p. II-B-
7
b. Seismic ground shaking?
Source #s: 5, p. II-13-7
c. Seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Source #s: 1, p. IV-3, 5, p. II-B-
15
d. Seiche (water tanks, reservoirs),
tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
Source #s: 17
e. Landslides or mudflows?
Source #s: 5, p. II-13-15
f. Erosion, changes in topography or
unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading, or fill?
Source #s: 1, p. IV-3
g. Subsidence of the land?
Source #s: 5, II-13-16
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
X
bl
Environmental Issues - continued
h. Expansive soils?
Source #s: 5, p II-B-16
i. Unique geologic or physical
features?
Source #s: 5, p. II-A-1
a. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface runoff?
Source #s: 20
b.
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as
flooding?
Source #s: 1, p. IV-4
c.
Discharge into surface water or
other alteration of surface water
quality (e.g. temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
Source #s: 5, p. II-C-1
d.
Changes in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Source #s: 5, p. H-C-1, 6
e.
Changes in currents, or the course
or direction of water movements?
Source #s: 6
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact j
X
X
X
X
0
Environmental Issues - continued
f.
i.
w
i�
d.
Change in the quantity of ground
waters either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer
by cuts or excavations or through
substantial loss of groundwater
recharge capability?
Source #s: 5, p. H-P-3
Altered direction or rate of flow
of groundwater?
Source #s: 6
Impacts to groundwater quality?
Source #s: 5 p. II-P-3
Substantial reduction in the
amount of groundwater otherwise
available for public water
supplies?
Source #s: 5 p. II-P-3 et seq.
Violate any air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
Source #s: 7
Expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants?
Source #s: 5, p. H-F-8
Alter air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or cause any change
in climate?
Source #s: 5, p. II-13-1
Create objectionable odors?
Source #s: 8
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
X
- X _
X
X
X
X
E
Environmental Issues - continued
a.
Increased vehicle trips or traffic
congestion?
Source #s: 9, p. 83, 14
b.
Hazards to safety from design
features (e.g. sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm
equipment)?
Source #s: 20
c.
Inadequate emergency access or
access to nearby uses?
Source #s: 10
d.
Insufficient parking capacity on -
site or off -site?
Source #s: 20, 11 p. 335 et seq.
e.
Hazards or barriers for
pedestrians or bicyclists?
Source #s: 20, 10
f.
Conflicts with adopted policies
supporting transportation (e.g. bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Source #s: 1, p. V-22
g.
Rail, waterborne or air traffic
impacts?
Source #s: 5, p. HI T-38
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
X
X
X
_ X _
l0
Environmental Issues - continued
a.
b.
c.
e.
b.
C•
Endangered, threatened or raze
species or their habitats (including
but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds)?
Source #s: 5, p. II-D-14
Locally designated species (e.g.
heritage trees)?
Source #s: 1, p. III4 , 12
Locally designated natural
communities (e.g., oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)?
Source #s: 5, p. II-D-2, et seq.
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh,
riparian and vernal pool)?
Source #s: 5, p. II-D-2
Wildlife dispersal or migration
corridors?
Source #s: 5, p. H-D-23
Conflict with adopted energy
conservation plans?
Source #s: 1, p. III-14 et seq.
Use non-renewable resources in a
wasteful and inefficient manner?
Source #s: 5, p. II-S4
Result in the loss of availability of
a known mineral resource that
would be of future value to the
region and the residents of the
State?
Source #s: 5, p. II-B-17
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
X
_ X _
Environmental Issues - continued
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a.
A risk of accidental explosion or
release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to:
oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)?
Source #s: 5, p. II-M-1
X
b.
Possible interference with an
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Source #s: 13
X
c.
The creation of any health hazard
or potential health hazard?
Source #s: 1, p. IV-1, 8,
X
d.
Exposure of people to existing
sources of potential health
hazards?
Source #s: 1, p. IV4 et seq.
X
e.
Increased fire hazard in areas with
flammable brush, grass, or trees?
Source #s: 5, p. H-K-1
X _
a.
Increases in existing noise levels?
Source #s: 1, IV-15; 5, p. II-G et
seq.
X —
b.
Exposure of people to severe
noise levels?
Source #s: 1, IV-15; 5, p. H-G et
seq.
X —
12
Environmental Issues - continued
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact hnpact
a.
Fire Protection?
Source #s: 1, p. VI-3
b.
Police Protection?
Source #s: l,p. VI-3
c.
Schools?
Source #s: 1, p. VI-3
d.
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
Source #s: 1, p. V-6, 14
e.
Other governmental services?
Source #s:
a.
Power qr natural gas?
Source #s: 1, p. VI-2
b.
Communication systems?
Source #s: 1, p. VI-2
c.
Local or regional water treatment
or distribution facilities?
Source #s: 1, p V 1-2
d.
Sewer or septic tanks?
Source #s: 1, p. V1-2
e.
Storm water drainage?
Source #s: 1, p. V 1-2
f.
Solid waste disposal?
Source #s: 1, p. VI-2
13
Environmental Issues - continued
g. Local or regional water supplies?
Source #s: 1, p. VI-2
a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic
highway?
Source #s: 1, p. III40 et seq.
b. Have a demonstrable negative
aesthetic effect?
Source #s: 1, P. 1-19
c. Create light or glare?
Source #s: 20
a.
Disturb paleontological resources?
Source #s: 5, H-H-1
b.
Disturb archaeological resources?
Source #s: 5, II-H-2 et seq.
c.
Affect historical resources?
Source #s: 5, II-H-5 et seq.
d.
Have the potential to cause a
physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Source #s: 5, H-H-1
e.
Restrict existing religious or
sacred uses within the potential
impact area?
Source #s: 5, II-H-1
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
14
Environmental Issues - continued
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
a. Increase the demand for
neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities?
Source #s: 5, II-N-3, 3 —
b. Affect existing recreational
opportunities?
Source #s: 19, fig. 2-1 —
a. Dces the project have the
potential to 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 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 pre -history? —
b. Does the project have the
potential to achieve short-term, to
the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? X
No
Impact
X
X
Environmental Issues - continued
17
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
9 c. Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects
of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future
projects) X
d. Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly
or indirectly? X
EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other
CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify
the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review. None.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an eazlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analyses. None.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated." describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -
specific conditions for the project. None.
16
PART 5 - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Discussions within each section may be grouped.
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a. The project is located within the Light Industrial (I) Land Use Designation
(maximum floor area ratio of .025 to 1.25) and is within the zoning district of M-
1.5. The project's proposed a floor area ratio is .45 and therefore is consistent
with the General Plan which permit a range of light industrial uses and the project
is a permitted use within the M-1.5 zone.
b. The project does not conflict with the General Plan EIR because it is consistent
with the Light Industrial Designation and has been reviewed subject to CEQA
requirements and found that there will be no significant effect on the
environment.
c. With the exception of a school to the south of the project site the property is
surrounded by light industrial uses. Because the nature of the proposed use which
involves warehousing, office and assembly it can be considered compatible with
the existing school.
d. There are no agricultural resources or operations in the vicinity of the project.
e. Existing land uses in the vicinity of the proposed project area are generally light
industrial, except for the school. The proposed project is also light industrial and
therefore will not disrupt or divide any established community.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a. The project is a light industrial use with an estimated 42 employees. It is assumed
that the small scale of this project will not cause any regional or local population
projection to be exceeded either directly or indirectly.
b. The project is a small scale light industrial use which is not expected to induce
substantial growth either directly or indirectly.
c. The existing site is vacant, therefore the project will not displace existing
housing.
3. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
a. No portion of the City has been identified as in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies
zone. The closest fault is the Diamond Baz fault, which is described as a "small
inactive fault."
b. The City is located in two of the three seismic shaking zones as determined by
the County of Los Angeles. Zone 2 represents areas that would be exposed to a
moderate level of seismic shaking, and Zone 1 which would be exposed to a
relatively low intensity of ground shaking.
c. The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of any reservoirs. If a
seiche occurs it will not affect this property.
d. The project site is located on a flat parcel of land and is not within the vicinity
17
of any hillsides that would result in this property being subjected to landslides or
mudflows.
e. The project site is already flat and will require minimal grading which will not
result in unstable soil conditions.
f. There is no evidence that subsidence producing activities have occurred at or near
this site.
g. Almost all soils in Diamond Bar have the capacity to be expansive, and should
be reviewed on a project specific basis. Therefore, this site must be evaluated for
expansive soils.
h. The project does not contain any unique geologic or physical features.
4. WATER
a. The project proposes that 1.6 acres of the 1.8 acre of the site will be covered by
a structures or other impervious surfaces. This will increase the amount of
impervious surface and therefore the amount of surface runoff. This is expected
to be less than significant in an area that is predominantly built out and with its
storm drain system in place.
b. The project is not located within Areas of Potential Flooding, nor will its
development or use expose people or property to water -related hazards.
c.,d.e. No surface water body exists within the vicinity of the project.
f. The projects will incrementally deplete the amount of groundwater to the extent
that impermeable surfaces are added and the rate of absorption is effected by the
increase in impermeable surfaces. This amount is unknown, but for a project of
this small size may be considered to be insignificant.
g. The project will not effect the direction or rate of flow of groundwater.
h. Groundwater quality may be impacted by the development, but its extent is likely
to be small, given the small size of the site.
i. The development of one industrial building in an urbanized area is not considered
to cause a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater for public water
supply, Additionally, groundwater is not utilized for domestic supply, but only
for reclaimed water supply.
5. AIIt QUALITY
a. Air quality will be expected to be effected during construction operations and to
a minor extent with the addition of 42 cars and truck deliveries on the project
site. However, the development of this site in an urbanized area is not expected
to significantly contribute to the violation of any air quality standards.
b. There is a school located across the street from the proposed project, but it will
not be significantly impacted by the small amount of traffic that will be added to
this already urbanized area because of the existing industrial uses in the area and
c. Minor changes to the local microclimate in this area may result with the loss of
the existing vegetation and addition of impermeable surfaces. These changes are
not expected to be significant.
d. The warehousing, assembly and office uses will not generate any odor. Fuel odor
will be added by the addition of car and truck traffic but will not be significant
in an urbanized area.
m
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
a. Vehicle trips will permanently increase as a result of the development of this site.
Consistent with the General Plan, the applicant is dedicating an additional 10' of
property along the Lycoming Street frontage, for the purpose of widening the
street to a half -width of 40' in compliance with the General Plan standard of 80'
for Lycoming Street. Additionally, a condition of approval will be including
requiring the applicant to contribute a fair share amount for a traffic study for this
area.
b. The on -site to off -site circulation has been reviewed and has been found not to
result in hazards to safety from design features or incompatible uses.
c. Vehicular access is provided from Lemon Avenue and Lycoming road. Therefore
the project will not result in inadequate emergency access or inadequate access
to nearby uses.
d. The development proposes 51 on -site parking spaces as well as well as a loading
area and loading dock for trucks, in compliance with the current zoning
regulations. Therefore the therefore, the proposal will not result in insufficient
parking.
e. As part of the project approval extension of the existing sidewalk in this area will
be required. Therefore there will be not additional hazards created for
pedestrians or bicyclists.
f. The development of this project does not conflict with any of the City's goals,
objectives or strategies supporting transportation.
g. No waterborne, or air traffic are in the vicinity of this project. The project may,
along with the other industrial uses in this area utilize the existing rail facilities,
but this is not anticipated to have a negative impact.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a. The project will not result in impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species
or their habitats because none exist on the project site.
b.c. The project will result in the removal of 6 California Pepper trees which have
been cited by the General Plan for preservation. The applicant proposes
replacement of the trees at a 3:1 ratio.
d. The project will not result in an impact to wetland habitat because none exist in
the area.
e. The proposal will not result in an impact to wildlife dispersal or mitigation
corridors because none exist on the site.
8. ENERGY
a. The City of Diamond Bar has no adopted energy conservation plan, therefore, the
proposal will not be in conflict.
b. The development of the project will require the use of non-renewable resources,
specifically fossil fuel as a result of additional traffic generated by this projects.
However this may be considered less than significant in the context of like
developments in the vicinity of this project.
c. No mineral resources will be impacted by this site.
9. HAZARDS
a. The project will likely use hazardous materials, such as oil, chemical, etc., during
its construction phase. Their relatively small amounts results in a less than
significant impact.
b. The project will not interfere with the City's emergency response plan or
evacuation plan.
c. The development or use of this building will not create any health hazard or
potential health hazard.
d. No potential health hazards currently exist at, the project site, therefore, people
will not be exposed to existing sources of potential health hazards.
e. The development of the site will not result in an increased fire hazard in the area
with flammable brush, grass or trees. Because the site is to be landscaped and
irrigation and will primarily be occupied by impermeable surfaces the
development will likely result in a decrease in fire hazards from brush grass or
trees.
10. NOISE
a.b. The development of the industrial building will increase existing noise with the
addition of traffic. While the project is located adjacent to a railroad tract it is not
within the existing or future noise contours identified in the General Plan.
However, given the proximity of other similar developments this is not considered
significant. During construction, noise will increase temporarily, but in an
urbanized area, this is not considered significant.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES
a. To the extent that this project will specifically require the use of fire protection
services, the project will effect fire protection services. However, as one
industrial building constructed to current building and fire codes, the impact is
expected to be less than significant.
b. To the extent that this project will specifically require the use of police
protection, the project will effect police services. However, as one industrial
building, this impact is considered to be less than significant.
c. This project lies within Walnut Valley Unified School District, which currently
has a need for permanent school facilities. However, the impact of one industrial
building is considered to be less than significant.
d. The development and use of the industrial building will affect the maintenance of
public roads, but to an extent that is considered to be less than significant.
e. No other specific governmental services have been identified which may be
impacted by this proposal.
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a-g. The project is one industrial building which, would not result in the need for new
systems, supplies, or substantial alterations to the following: power or natural
gas, communications systems, local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities, sewer or septic tanks, storm water drainage, solid waste disposal, or
local or regional water supplies.
20
Be AESTHETICS
a. The proposal would not effect a designated scenic vista or highway.
b. The project is being developed in a manner consistent with other developments
within the surrounding area. It utilizes good architectural design and features, and
a pleasing combination of colors and materials.
c. The only source of light and glare may come from sunlight reflected on windows
and on -site lighting. However, given the areas, urbanized location any light or
glare generate will not be significant.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. The proposal will not disturb paleontological resources because no site exist
within the City.
b. The project site is not in an area identified to have archaeological contains no
archaeological by the General Plan.
c. The project will not effect historical resources because none exist at the site.
d,e. No unique ethnic cultural values or religious or sacred uses have been identified
in the City, therefore, the proposal could not cause a physical change that would
effect or restrict these values.
15. RECREATION
a, b. The City's parks provision is .98 acres per thousand residents. This is below any
of the industry standards (3 acres per thousand Quimby; 5 acres per thousand for
National Parks and Recreation Association.) The addition of 42 employees, which
may or may not already reside in the City will not increase the demand for parks
to significant degree.
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. While, the project proposal does not explicitly degrade the quality of the
environment, it will effect a previously undisturbed, undeveloped site. Its impact
to the environment will be limited to removing a small area of plant and wildlife
commonly occurring throughout the City. The project site doe not support fish,
therefore no fish will be threatened. Additionally, no rare or endangered species
occur on the site or use it for habitat, and no examples of California history or
pre -history occur on site.
b. The development in this area, to some degree, will achieve to the disadvantage
of long term environmental goals. However, this may be considered less than
significant due to its expectation of development and consistency with other
developments in the project area.
a This project has impacts that are individually limited, but not cumulatively
considerable. The project site is located in an area planned for light industrial
uses and the project is similar to others in the vicinity.
d. The project will not have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The project site
is located in an area planned for light industrial development like others in the
21
vicinity.
PART 6 - SOURCES
Environmental Checklist -DR 974
List of Sources
1.
General Plan, City of Diamond Bar; Cotton/Beland Associates, Inc. and Charles Abott
Associates; July 25, 1995
2.
Zoning Map, City of Diamond Bar, FORMA n.d.
3.
City/County Population and Housing Estimated, January 1, 1997, California State
Department of Finance
4,
General Plan Environmental Impact Report and Addendum, City of Diamond Bar, July
25, 1995
5,
Master Environmental Assessment, City of Diamond Bar, Planning Network, June 8,
1992
6.
San Dimas Quadrangle; United States, Department of the Interior; 1966 revised 1981
7,
CEQA, Air Quality Handbook; South California Air Quality Management District; April
1993
8.
Reserved
9.
Trip Generation, 5th Addition, Institute of Traffic Engineer; 1991.
10.
George Wentz, City Engineer 5/28/97
11.
Planning and Zoning Code, County of Los Angeles, BNi Books, 1986
12,
Arborists Report, John Garbo, Upland Ca, May 30, 1997.
13.
Multihazard Functional Plan; City of Diamond Bar, September 22, 1992
14.
David Liu, Assistant City Engineer 6-27-96
15.
Tract No. 29353, Los Angeles County Map No. 11141-329, Dept of Public Works
16.
500' Land Use Radius Map, DR 97-4 Kent Wu Architect n.d.
17.
Walnut Valley Water District Street Map, Walnut Valley Water District; 1996
18.
Development Review Application NE Corner Lemon and Lycoming, Kent Wu 4/28/97
19.
City -Wide Comprehensive Parks Master Plan (draft) Purkis-Rose, RSI, June 12, 1997
20,
Site Plans, Elevations, Kent Wu Architect, 4/23/97
raga
Location: Northeast corner of Lemon Avenue and Lycoming Street, City of Diamond Bar
Tree #1
Tree Type: Schinus molle -Cl"
Size: 135 inch circumference at 4.5 feet above ground, 25 to 30 foot spread
Structural Viability: Very poor
Health: Good
Remarks: Extensive heartwood decay makes this tree unstable. See photo.
Tree #2
Tree Type: Schinus molle
Size: 195 inch circumference at 4.5 feet above ground, 30 to35 foot spread
Structural Viability: Very poor
Health: Good
Remarks: Extensive heartwood decay makes this tree unstable. See photo.
Tree #3
Tree Type: Eucalyptus cladocalyx
Size: 89 inch circumference at 415 feet above ground, 20 to 25 foot spread
Structural Viability: Poor
Health: Good
Remarks: This tree has severe trunk damage. It would be best to remove. See photo.
Tree Type: Schinus molle
Size: 70 inch circumferenceat 4.5 feet above ground, 20 to 25 foot spread
Structural Viability: Poor
Health: Good
Remarks: Extensive heartwood decay makes this tree unstable. See photo.
Tree #5
Tree Type: Schinus molle
Size: 180 inch circumference at 4.5 feet above ground, 40 to 50 foot spread
Structural Viability: Very poor
Health: Good
Remarks: Extensive heartwood decay makes this tree unstable. See photo.
Tree #6
Tree Type: Eucalyptus giobulus
Size: 165 inch circumference at 4.5 feet above ground,
40 to 50 foot spread
Structural Viability: Fair
Health: Good
Remarks: This tree has many large trunks or stems originating from a central point. This
often causes included bark and a tree prone to splitting. See photo.
Arborist Report
Page 2 of 2
Tree #7
Tree Type: Schinus. molle
Size: 112 inch circumference at 4.5 feet above ground, and 90 inch circumference at
4.5 feet above ground, overall spread 40 to 50 foot
Structural Viability: Ppor
Health: Good
Remarks: This tree has two trunks at ground level. Both have extensive heartwood
decay. See photo.
Tree #8
Tree Type: Schinus molle
Size: 16-2 inch circumference at 4.5 feet above ground, 35 to 40 foot spread
Structural Viability: Poor
Health: GQod
Remarks: Extensive heartwood decay makes this tree unstable. See photo.
Tree #9
Tree Type: Iuglans Wgra 13 " c /` w A � n (j 7-
Size: 60 inch circumference at 4.5 feet above ground, 20 foot spread
Structural Viability: Good
Health: Fair
Remarks: The removal of large lower limbs on this tree has led to decay. See photo.
CONCLUSION: The condition of these trees makes preservation and/or relocation not feasible.
The surrounding area consists of brush and weeds. The property in its present
condition invites transient dwelling.
I�/Mountain Lane
Upland, CA 91784
(909)94&1123
P S
S �_7
u `
14
r
JnN3AV
NOW31
r °� A A A I t r
AN,
:a y� t tA,. ,�
! ,
t,
r a +
4 tT 1.
r�
A\
A Pop,
PAT of,
i; .
II ALL
1_. 1j .
k1l'
�Y
r AL1 i -
FZ
IF
r� -+ilk. OF
7 1 1
f i
MY
If ilk
6 ` - , Y i
OF,
+ i�g ulfili{�1� �I'r t r r
it p
OF
I IF
OF lk�fl
Ok
401,
IF
1i
lot
Y Y
Jt r 1 I
HOFFCI �`ks,I;IF
Ok III oil, 0
+i I 3� „_.
` `1' ►> a i
licJj Il Irk
IF a I IF
v
t .`at�� k�. �tl S> p
lye '� r ♦,��t3 T-
1Z rl' F�,yS j
k IF
list I
Ft;,"
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 97-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND) 97-2 AND
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 97-4� A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A
35�461 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF LEMON AVENUE AND LYCOMING STREET,
DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA.
A. RECITALS.
1. The applicant/owner, Andy Teng of Lan Plus, and the
applicant's agent, Kent Wu have filed an application for
Development Review No. 97-4 as described above in the
title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject Development Review shall be
referred to as the "Application."
2. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was
established as a duly organized municipal corporation of
the State of California. Thereafter, the City Council of
the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 14
(1990), thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as
the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and
22 of the Los Angeles County Code contain the Development
Code of the County of Los Angeles now currently
applicable to development applications, including the
subject Application, within the City of Diamond Bar.
3. On July 25, 1995, the City of Diamond Bar adopted its
General Plan. Zt has been determined that the proposed
project is consistent with the General Plan.
4. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar on
August 26, 1997 conducted a duly noticed public hearing
on the Application.
5. Notification of the public hearing for this project has
been made in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland
Vallev Daily Bulletin newspapers on July 18, 1997. Eight
(8) property owners within a 300 foot radius of the
project site were notified by mail on July 10, 1997.
B. Resolution.
NOW,. THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by
the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as
follows:
1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds
that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
FI
2. The Planning Commission hereby determines that the
there is no substantial evidence that the project
may have a significant effect on the environment and
therefore a Negative Declaration (ND 97-2) has been
prepared, pursuant to the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as
amended, and the guidelines promulgated thereunder,
pursuant to Section 15070 of Article 19 of Chapter
3 of Division 13 of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations.
3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds
and determines that, having considered the record as
a whole including the findings set forth below, and
changes and alterations which have been incorporated
into and conditioned upon the proposed project set
forth in the application, there is no evidence
before this Planning Commission that the project
proposed 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.
4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth
herein, this Planning Commission hereby finds as
follows:
(a) The project relates to a 78,442 square foot
vacant parcel, located at the northeast corner
of Lemon and Lycoming.
(b) The project site has a General Plan land use
designation of Light Industrial (I). It is
within the Restricted Heavy Manufacturing (M-
1.5) zone.
(c) Generally, the following zones and uses
surround the project site: to the north are
railroad tracts and the City boundary; to the
south is a school site zoned Residential
Agricultural (R-A 8,000), to the east is an
industrial building within the Commercial
Manufacturing (CM) zone and to the west is an
industrial building located within the M-1.5
zone.
(d) The proposed project is a request to construct
a 35,461 square foot, two story industrial
building, to be utilized for warehousing,
assembly and associated office uses.
(e) The design and layout of the proposed
development review is consistent with the
applicable elements of the City's General Plan,
design guidelines of the appropriate district
and any adopted architectural criteria for
2
specialized areas, such as designated historic
districts, theme areas, specific plans,
community plans, boulevards or planned
developments.
The proposed industrial building is consistent
with the General Plan Land Use Element which
provides for light industrial uses within areas
designated Light Industrial (I).
Further, the applicant is proposing replacing
the pepper trees which will be removed as a
result of development of this site, at a three
to one ratio. This is consistent with the
Resource Management Element which calls for the
retention and preservation of pepper trees, as
well as other identified species of trees as
part of a tree preservation ordinance.
(f) The design and layout of the proposed
development will not unreasonably interfere
with the use and enjoyment of the neighboring
existing or future development and will not
create traffic or pedestrian hazards.
The proposed industrial building is permitted
by right within the Restricted xeavy
Manufacturing (M-1.5) zone.
The applicant is dedicating an additional 10'
of property along the entire length of the
Lycoming Street frontage for the ultimate
widening of this side of the street to a 40'
half -width in compliance with the General Plan
requirement for an ultimate 80' right-of-way
for Lycoming Street.
On -site parking and loading facilities have
been provided for the proposed building in
compliance with Code requirements and in an
amount exceeding the minimum standards.
A sidewalk will be extended in front of the
building, and a condition of approval has been
included requiring the applicant to be
responsible for any needed repairs. All
sidewalks, walkways and parking will be
constructed in compliance with ADA
requirements.
(g) The architectural design of the proposed
development is compatible with the character of
the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain
the harmonious, orderly .and attractive
development contemplated by Chapter 22."72 of
the Development Review Ordinance No. 5 (1990)
and the City's General Plan.
The proposed industrial building is a concrete
C�3
"tilt up" type structure, which is typical of
the buildings in the surrounding area. While
simple in design, the building features design
elements such as varying setbacks, rounded
corners and accent colors, which add interest
and variety to the building's exterior
elevation.
(h) 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,. and color that will remain
aesthetically appealing and will retain a
reasonably adequate level of maintenance.
The design of the proposed industrial building
will utilize a variety of colors, textures and
shapes as well as a varied front setback to
create interest, and landscaping in an amount
that exceeds the minimum Code requirements.
This will result in a site thatis
aesthetically appealing, and enhances the
appearance of the surrounding area. Further,
the site is located at the northerly boundary
of the City, and will serve as an attractive
"entry statement" for the community .
(i) The proposed development will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare or materially injurious 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 of the approved resolution and the
Building and Safety Division, Public Works
Division and Fire Department. -The referenced
agencies' involvement 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.
5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth
above, the Planning Commission hereby approves the
Application subject to the following conditions:
(a) The project shall substantially conform to
plans collectively labeled as Exhibit "A"
dated August 26, 1997, as submitted and
approved by the Planning Commission.
(b) 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 granted herein. The removal
of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether
during or subsequent to construction shall be
0
done only by the property owner, applicant or
by a duly permitted waste contractor, who has
been authorized by the City to provide
collection, transportation, and disposal of
solid waste from residential, commercial,
construction, and industrial areas within the
City. It shall be the applicant's obligation
to insure that the waste contractor utilized
has obtained permits from the City of Diamond
Bar to provide such services.
(c) The applicant shall comply with all State, M-
1.5 zone, Public Works Department and Building
and Safety Division requirements.
(d) This grant is valid for two years and shall be
exercised (i.e. construction started) within
that period or this grant shall expire. A one
year extension may be requested in writing and
submitted to the City 30 days prior to the
expiration date.
(e) This grant shall not be effective for any
purpose until the permittee and owner of the
property involved (if other than permittee)
have filed, within fifteen (15) days of
approval of this grant, at the office of
Diamond Bar Community Development Department,
their Affidavit of Acceptance stating that the
applicant/owner is aware of and agrees to all
conditions of this grant. Further, this grant
shall not be effective until the permittee pays
any remaining City processing fees.
(f) If the Department of Fish and Game determines
that Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 applies
to the approval of this project, then the
applicant shall remit to the City, within five
days of this grant's approval, a cashier's
check, payable to the County of Los Angeles, of
$25.00 for a documentary handling fee in
connection with Fish and Game Code
requirements. Furthermore, if this project is
not exempt from a filing fee imposed because
the project has more than a de minimis impact
on fish and wildlife, the applicant shall also
pay to the Department of Fish and Game any such
fee and any fine which the Department
determines to be owed.
(g) Within 30 days of this grant's approval, the
applicant/owner shall submit revised site
plans, landscaping plans and floor plans
reflecting the additional 10' dedication along
the property's frontage on Lycoming Street.
These plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the Planning Division prior to issuance of City
permits.
(h) Within 30 days of the grant's approval the
applicant/owner shall submit final landscaping
and irrigation plans subject to approval by the
Planning and Building and Safety Divisions.
All landscaping shall be installed prior to
issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
(i) Prior to final inspection, the applicant/owner
shall install a decorative masonry wall not
less than 30" and no greater than 42" in height
parallel and adjacent to the parking lot and
not closer than five feet from the ultimate
property line (including the 10' dedication on
Lycoming street.
(j) The parking lot shall be lighted to a 1 candle
foot minimum level of illumination. All
lighting shall be adequately shielded so as to
not spill over on to adjacent surrounding
properties or roadways.
(k)
Any roof mounted equipment shall be hidden from
view by either the building parapet or behind
screening that is constructed using materials
and colors that are complimentary with the
overall architectural design of the building.
(1)
Plans shall conform to State and local building
codes (i.e. Table 10-A of the 1994 edition of
the Uniform Building Code and the 1994 editions
of Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code, and 1993
edition of the National Electrical Code) as
well as the State Energy Code.
(m)
The plans for new construction shall be
engineered to meet wind loads of 80 m.p.h. with
an exposure "C."
(n)
All ramps shall be handicapped accesible.
(o)
All exterior access doors shall be clearly
marked with handicapped symbols.
(p)
The Fire Department shall review and approve
plans for Fire Code compliance.
(q)
An elevator, constructed in compliance with ADA
requirements is required to allow the public
and staff access to the second floor.
(r)
All bathrooms and restrooms shall comply with
the new State Handicapped Accessibility
regulations.
(s)
Prior to grading permit issuance, a soils
report and final grading and drainage plans
shall be submitted and approved by the
Engineering Department.
0
4
(t) The location of the borrow site for imported
fill materials and the transport route shall be
identified on the grading plans. All trucks
hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose
materials shall be covered and maintain at
least two feet of freeboard (i.e. minimum
vertical distance between top of the load and
the top of the trailer).
(u) The building shall have roof drains to direct
water to paved surfaces or to underground
drainage facilities.
(v) The applicant/owner shall be responsible for a
proportionate share of the cost of any future
warrant study or signal modifications needed
due to the traffic impacts resulting from this
project.
(w) No access shall be permitted to the property
from the right-of-way adjacent to the railroad
tracts.
(x) The applicant/owner shall irrevocably dedicate
to the City of Diamond Bar, 10' of land along
the entire length of the subject property on
Lycoming Street. Written proof that the said
dedication has been duly recorded and accepted
by the County Recorder of the County of Los
Angeles shall be provided prior to final
Certificate of Occupancy.
(y) Prior to issuance of any City permits, the
applicant/owner shall submit a detailed cost
estimate for surety purposes for all public
improvements associated with this project,
subject to approval by the Engineering
Division.
(z) Prior to issuance of any City permits, surety
shall be posted by the applicant/owner in an
amount approved by the City. This surety
shall be in the form of a bond, letter of
credit or other instrument approved by the
City.
(aa) An agreement shall be executed between the
applicant/owner and the City, guaranteeing that
at the time Lycoming Street is widened to its
ultimate right-of-way width of 80', the
applicant/owner shall pay a fair share cost (as
determined by the City) of demolition, widening
and street improvements along the property's
frontage on Lycoming Street. These
improvements shall include all costs for
demolition, asphalt, curb, gutter, sidewalk and
all cost associated with the relocation of any
utilities or. other infrastructure.
7
(bb) The trash storage area shall be constructed on
a concrete pad.
(cc) The applicant/owner agrees to comply with any
and all NPDES mitigation requirements which may
be imposed on or related to the property.
(dd) The applicant/owner agrees to comply with
adopted Congestion Management Plan (CAMP)
regulations of the City.
The Planning Commission shall:
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this
Resolution, by certified mail, to Andy Teng,
Lan Plus 17088 E. Green Drive City of Industry
CA 91745 and Kent Wu Architects, 1274 E. Center
Court Drive, Suite 211, Covina, CA 91724.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1997,
BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
BY:
Joe Ruzicka, Cha
I, Catherine Johnson, Acting Planning Commission Secretary, do
hereby .certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced,
passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of
Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 26TH day of August 1997, by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
Catherine Johnson, Acting
Secretary
G