Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/20/2007C,"Ity CouncilAgendc7 Tuesday, November 20, 2007 5:00 p.m. — Study Session CC -8 6:30 p.m. — Regular Meeting The Government Center South Coast Air Quality Management District/ Main Auditorium 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Mayor Steve Tye Mayor Pro Tem Jack Tanaka Council Member Wen Chang Council Member Ron Everett Council Member Carol Herrera City Manager James DeSte/ano City Attorney Michael Jenkins City Clerk Tommye Cribbins Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please contact the City Clerk at (909) 839-7010 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 accommodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting, must inform the City Clerk a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled mnp.tinn rtease refrain from smoking, eating or drinking in the Council Chambers. The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper and encourages you to do the same. DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING RULES Welcome to the meeting of the Diamond Bar City Council. Meetings of the Diamond Bar City Council are open to the public and are cablecast live on Channel 3. You are invited to attend and participate. PUBLIC INPUT Members of the public may address the Council on any item of business on the agenda during the time the item is taken up by the Council. In addition, members of the public may, during the Public Comment period, address the Council on any consent calendar item or any matter not on the agenda and within the Council's subject matter jurisdiction. Persons wishing to speak should submit a speaker slip to the City Clerk. Any material to be submitted to the City Council at the meeting should be submitted through the City Clerk. Speakers are limited to five minutes per agenda item, unless the Mayor determines otherwise. The Mayor may adjust this time limit depending on the number of people wishing to speak, the complexity of the matter, the length of the agenda, the hour and any other relevant consideration. Speakers may address the Council only once on an agenda item, except during public hearings, when the applicant/appellant may be afforded a rebuttal. Public cornments must be directed to the City Council. Behavior that disrupts the orderly conduct of the meeting may result in the speaker being removed from the Council chambers. INFORMATION RELATING TO AGENDAS AND ACTIONS OF THE COUNCIL Agendas for regular City Council meetings are available 72 hours prior to the meeting and are posted in the City's regular posting locations, on DBTV Channel 3, and on the City's website at www.ci.diamond-bar.ca.us. A full agenda packet is available for review during the meeting, in the foyer just outside the Council chambers. The City Council may take action on any item listed on the agenda. ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THE DISABLED A cordless microphone is available for those persons with mobility impairments who cannot access the podium in order to make a public comment. Sign language interpretation is available by providing the City Clerk three business days' notice in advance of a meeting. Please telephone (909) 839-7000 between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday and 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Fridays. HELPFUL PHONE NUMBERS Copies of agendas, rules of the Council, Cassette/Video tapes of meetings: (909) 839-7010 Computer access to agendas: www.ci.diamond-bar.ca.us General information: (909) 839-7000 THIS MEETING IS BEING BROADCAST LIVE BY TIME -WARNER FOR AIRING ON CHANNEL 3, AS WELL AS BY STREAMING VIDEO OVER THE INTERNET AND BY REMAINING IN THE ROOM YOU ARE GIVING YOUR PERMISSION TO BE TELEVISED. THIS MEETING WILL BE RE -BROADCAST EVERY SATURDAY AT 9:00 A.M. AND EVERY TUESDAY AT 8:00 P.M. ON CHANNEL 3, AND IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON THE CITY WEB SITE AT WWW CITYOFDIAMONDBAR.COM CITY OF DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA November 20, 2007 Next Resolution No. 2007-60 Next Ordinance No. 08(2007) STUDY SESSION: 5:00 p.m., Room CC -8 ► City Council Goals and Objectives — Discussion and Action. ► WiFi Presentation — IS Department — Wireless Interest Access Status Report — Discussion and Action. Public Comments CALL TO ORDER: 6:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: INVOCATION: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor Monsignor James Loughnane, St. Denis Catholic Church Council Members Chang, Everett, Herrera, Mayor Pro Tem Tanaka, Mayor Tye Mayor SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS: 1.1 Presentation of City Tile to former Planning Commissioner Osman Wei. 1.2 Presentation of Certificates of Recognition Los Angeles County Fire Stations 119, 120 and 121 for their participation during the recent Fire Storms. Presentation by the Diamond Bar High School Leo's Club to the Los Angeles County Fire Department of oxygen masks for Dogs and Cats. BUSINESS OF THE MONTH: 1.3 Presentation of City Tile to KMart, 249 S. Diamond Bar Blvd., as Business of the Month, November, 2007. 2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: November 20, 2007 PAGE 2 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: "Public Comments" is the time reserved on each regular meeting agenda to provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the Council on Consent Calendar items or matters of interest to the public that are not already scheduled for consideration on this agenda. Although the City Council values your comments, pursuant to the Brown Act, the Council generally cannot take any action on items not listed on the posted agenda. Please complete a Speaker's Card and -give it to the City Clerk (completion of this form is voluntary). There is a five-minute maximum time limit _when addressing the City Council 4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT: Under the Brown Act, members City Council may briefly respond to public comments but no extended discussion and no action on such matters may take place. 5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1 Thanksgiving Holiday — City Offices will be closed Thursday, November 22 and Friday, November 23, 2007 in observance of the Thanksgiving Holiday. City Offices will reopen on Monday, November 26, 2007. 5.2 Planning Commission Meeting — November 27, 2007 — 7:00 p.m., AQMD/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr. 5.3 City Council Meeting — December 4, 2007- 6:30 p.m., AQMD/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr. 5.4 Winter Snow Fest — December 8, 2007 — 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Pantera Park, 738 Pantera Dr. 5.5 Candy Cane Craft Fair — December 8, 2007 — 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., Diamond Bar Center, 1600 S. Grand Ave. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: 6.1 City Council Minutes — Regular Meeting of November 6, 2007 — Approve as submitted. 6.2 Planning Commission Minutes: (a) Regular Meeting of October 9, 2007 - Receive and file. (b) Regular Meeting of October 23, 2007 — Receive and file. 6.3 Traffic and Transportation Commission Minutes — October 11, 2007 - Receive and file. Novernber 20, 2007 PAGE 3 6.4 Ratification of Check Register — Ratification of Check Register dated November 1 to November 14, 2007 totaling $951,292.83. Requested by: Finance Department (3.5 Adopt Resolution No. 2007 -XX: Designating the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health (DPH), Environmental Health Division, Sold Waste Management Program (SWMP), as the Local Agency (LEA) Responsible for the City's Solid Waste Management Program. Recommended Action: Adopt. Requested by: Public Works Department 6.6 Adopt Resolution No. 2007 -XX: Approving the Youth Employment Plan for At -Risk Youth in the City of Diamond Bar as Required by Proposition A: Safe Parks Act to Secure $233,975.50 in Funding from the Regional Park and Open Space District Through the 2018/2019 FY to Implement this Plan. Recommended Action: Adopt. Requested by: Community Services Department 6.7 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 07 (2007) Amending Title 15 of D.B. Municipal Code Adopting by Reference, the "California Building Code", 2007 Edition, Volumes 1 and 2, Including all Appendices thereto, Appendix Chapter 1 of the 2007 California Building Code as the Administration Code, the "California Mechanical Code" 2007 Edition and the Appendices thereto, the "California Plumbing Code" 2007 Edition and the Appendices thereto the "California Electrical Code", 2007 Edition and the Appendices thereto, the "Uniform Housing Code", 1997 Edition and the Appendices thereto and the "Uniform Swimming Pool, Spa and Hot Tub Code", 2000 Edition, Together with Certain Amendments, Additions, Deletions and Exceptions Including Fees and Penalties. Recommended Action: Approve for Second Reading by Title Only, Waive full Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 07 (2007). Requested by: Building and Safety Department November 20, 2007 PAGE 4 6.8 Approve Appropriation of $30,000 from the Traffic Improvement Fund to the Capital Improvement Program Budget and Approve Contract Amendment with Katz, Okitsu & Associates (KOA) for Landscape Design and Engineering Survey Services Related to the Development of Traffic Calming Measures Along Sunset Crossing Rd. Between Diamond Bar Blvd. and Prospectors Rd. and on Prospectors Rd. Between Sunset Crossing Rd. and Golden Springs Dr. in the Amount of $26,660 Plus a Contingency of $3,340. Recommended Action: Appropriate and Approve Requested by: Public Works Department 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as matters may be heard. 7'.1 Public Hearing - Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Conditional Use Permit 2007-09, Development Review 2007-22 and Variance 2007-05— A Request to Install and Operate a Telecommunications Facility at Ronald Reagan Park at 2201 Peaceful Hills Rd. — APN: 8765-015-900. Recommended Action: Open the Public Hearing, Receive Testimony, Close the Public Hearing and Direct staff to prepare the appropriate Resolution; and continue the matter to December 4, for adoption of such Resolution. Requested by: Planning Department 7.2 Public Hearing — Negative Declaration No. 2007-03, Zone Change No. 2006-01 and Planned Development Overlay District, Tentative Tract Map No. 64881, Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-10, and Development Review No. 2006-11 — a Nine Unit Residential Condominium Project at 23671 Golden Springs Dr. (Diamond Jim's Dairy) Recommended Action: Open the Public Hearing, Receive Testimony, Close the Public hearing and Approve for First Reading by Title Only, Waiving Full Reading of (1) Ordinance No. 0X(2007) Zone Change No. 2006-01 and Planned Overlay District; (2) Adopt Resolution No. 2007 -XX Approving Tentative Tract Map No. 64881 and Adopting Negative Declaration No. 2007-03; and (3) Adopt Resolution No. 2007 -XX Approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-10 and Development Review No. 2006-11. Requested by: Planning Department November 20, 2007 PAGE 5 7.3 (a) Public Hearing — Ordinance 0X(2007): An Ordinance Amending the Diamond Bar Municipal Code by Repealing Title 5 of in its Entirety and Replacing it with a New Title 5 Establishing a Business License Program. Recommended Action: Open Public Hearing, Receive Testimony, Close the Public Hearing and Approve for First Reading by Title Only, Waiving full Reading of Ordinance No. OX (2007). (b) Adopt Resolution No. 2007 -XX: Rescinding the Business Registration Fee and Establishing Fees for Business License and Business License Renewal and Amending the Existing Fee Schedule to Include Business License Fees. Recommended Action: Adopt. Requested by: Planning Department 8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: None. 9. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: 10. ADJOURNMENT: Study Session #1 City of Diamond Bar Memo To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Ryan McLean, Assistant to the City Manager Date: November 14, 2007 Re: Goals & Objectives Update At the October 16, 2007 City Council meeting, Council Member Hererra requested the Council consider a change to the Goals & Objectives adopted with the 2007-2008 municipal budget. At this time, the Mayor instructed staff to place the item on a future agenda for discussion. To provide a complete picture to the Council, please find attached the latest progress report for the complete 2007-2008 City Council Goals & Objectives. Based on these updates or other factors, tonight's meeting provides the Council with the opportunity to direct staff to retain, remove, or add items as necessary. City of Diamond Bar City Council FY 2007-2008 Goals & Objectives (REVISED) November 20, 2007 1. TRAFFIC MITIGATION • Continue to pursue the 57/60 Freeway Interchange corridor long-term "final fix". The first draft of the 57/60 Feasibility Study was completed in July 2007. Staff evaluated and analyzed all ten (10) concepts identified in the Technical Memorandum. MTA Technical Advisory Committee is expected to meet by early January 2008 to short-list 3 preferred alternatives that will be further studied. • Maintain opposition to the SR -60 Freeway truck only lane (unless appropriate as part of the 57/60 "final fix") Monitoring MTA's Multi -County Goods Movement Action Plan. The Plan's recommendations need to reflect a balance approach in goods movement strategies and not just focused on a single corridor. Separately, SCAG is in the process of refining a scope of work to study the impact of trucking and truck traffic throughout the cities in the San Gabriel Valley. SGVCOG is recommending the formation of a sub- committee to assist SCAG in this effort, and monitoring the ongoing work of this Truck Study. • Develop the Four Corners Transportation Coalition and Four Corners Association of Governments to support and address transportation improvements for Diamond Bar and member agencies within the four corners area A consultant has been hired to create a specific plan for the organization to move forward with implementing the priorities (four initial major projects). • Monitor and participate in the completion of the Lemon Avenue interchange project The environmental document is anticipated to be circulated in Early 2008. The opportunity to select a preferred alternative is expected by Spring 2008. • Complete the Traffic Management System and associated traffic signal interconnect project Installation of Phase I of the traffic signal interconnect is expected to begin by February 2008. Assessments of existing traffic signal interconnect are complete; currently, overall system planning is in progress and development of acceptance testing protocol is underway. U Review LA County and area Cities parking ordinances (including oversized commercial vehicles, RV parking, and vehicles exceeding 8000 pounds) and develop a consistent and compatible ordinance to promote safety and maintain property values 2. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT • Create and implement a Strategic Plan for use of economic development resources to secure long term revenue sources for the City. Identify the implementation plan in 1, 5, and 10 year increments, and market the plan to the community The City has hired Cal Hollis to complete an Economic Development Strategy for the future of Diamond Bar. The study is currently in the initial stages. • Create a high quality and dynamic center at the Diamond Bar Golf Course, to include entertainment, dining, retail shopping, and recreational opportunities in an outdoor environment (similar to Birch Street, Irvine Spectrum, etc.) to meet community needs and create long term revenue sources • Work with LA County Supervisor Knabe to locate a regional library within the City as part of the redevelopment of the Golf Course Evaluate and develop a Specific Plan for the future use of the 28 acre parcel at Diamond Bar Blvd. and Brea Canyon Road (Site D) to incorporate a minimum of 50% of the site for retail commercial uses residential development Partnership with WVUSD to create a Specific Plan for the site. WVUSD signed a MOU to reimbursement the City for the cost of hiring a team of consultants to develop a Specific plan. Consultants are preparing the land use plan and technical studies such as traffic, biological, geotechnical, drainage studies for the environmental information. Staff anticipates a screen check of the draft environmental information next spring. • Evaluate and develop a strategy to revitalize the Kmart and related retail area located at the SR -60 Freeway/Diamond Bar Blvd On September 11, 2007, Arman Gamay of The Charles Company presented an intensive development concept similar to developments in 'Nest Los Angeles or Beverly Hills. However, they have not showed an action program and the steps to achieve the development concept such as a proforma analysis and the mechanisms for acquisition of adjacent properties. O Create and implement a business to business marketing program. This program is in the contract terms that the City has proposed to the Regional Chamber. 3. COMMUNICATIONS • Continue periodic Envision Diamond Bar events for citizens to discuss issues and opportunities and include a goal setting forum On April 21, 2007, City held a Envision Diamond Bar, a town forum for residents to participate and share their ideas that will help shape the future of the City Develop and implement a citizen satisfaction survey seeking opinions regarding new retailers/restaurants/commercial uses and services residents seek within the City of Diamond Bar Modify the City's website to include all retail centers with a list of each business/retailer located there so residents know what businesses are located in Diamond Bar Full implementation of a City business license program should provide the information necessary to create a database of businesses in town for viewing on the City website. • Enhance the City's website to provide additional information and access to City services A website redesign/enhancement project is currently underway, with the second phase of implementation beginning soon. Develop a plan to provide wireless internet access to the community Staff is scheduled to provide an update to the Council at the November 20 meeting. Verizon has also indicated an interest in bringing fiber-optic video, telephone, and internet service to the community next year, but has made no solid commitment. 4. OTHER ITEMS • Expand the Sphere Of Influence and City boundary to incorporate properties west and southwest of the city (Crestline/ Diamond Canyon property) and evaluate a potential SOI and boundary modification as part of the proposed Aera Energy property development Annexation application for Crestline /Diamond Canyon area was filed with LA LAFCO on June 26, 2007. LAFCO is awaiting comments from LA County. According to LA County review, the Impact Analysis report has been completed and will be forwarded to LAFCO. Staff will set up a meeting with County Regional Planning to negotiate the property tax transfer and a Draft Tax Transfer Resolution for City Council review. Monitor and evaluate proposals for development in surrounding areas such as Tres Hermanos, Tonner Canyon., and the Aera Energy/Shell Oil property Staff continued to monitor and review the proposed Aera Master Plan/Specific Plan. Staff reviewed the first draft and the Specific Plan and returned comments to Aera. Staff told Aera that the Specific Plan must be accepted by the City before the draft EIR will be ready for public review. • Explore improvements to streets serving as City entry points (Pathfinder Boulevard between Evergreen Springs and Diamond Bar Blvd) • Support the current library through the preparation of a plan and fund for enhancements Explore acquisition of properties near Washington Street and City of Industry property located near Calbourne Drive for neighborhood park(s) and City maintenance yard uses Staff currently reviewing several opportunities in the areas identified in the goal. • Pursue and promote joint development/use of facilities, parks, and open space with PUSD & WVUSD Lorbeer football field, track and slope improvement project completed in Fall, 2007. • Implement recommendations from the Youth Master Plan 1. Completed third summer of conflict resolution program in summer day camp. 2. In process of developing Prop A funded Youth at risk employment program in partnership with California Conservation Corps. 3. Completed 4th Middle School Dance on November 2, 2007. 4. Provided numerous leadership opportunities for youth through DB4Youth "In Action" committee. • Implement Trails Master Plan focusing on areas around the Diamond Bar Center. 1. Design of Trail access points at Steep Canyon and at DBC almost complete. 2. Design of Sycamore Canyon Park trail Phase III started; grant funding for construction costs of this phase committed. 3. Grant request for Summit Ridge Park trail, southern route, submitted in October, 2007. 4. Two more grant requests for trail improvements to be submitted in Nov, 2007. 41, Preserve Windmill structure located at the Ralph's Shopping Center via maintenance and/or ownership of structure and property. The property owner is interested in signing an agreement with the City to preserve the windmill in place. Staff is working with City Attorney to revise and simplify the preservation agreement. Once it is done staff will forward the agreement to the property owner for review. • Create a master sign program for major shopping centers To: Honorable Mayor and Member ,,I- he City Council From: James DeStefano, City Man a e Ryan McLean, Assistant to the City anager Date: November 1, 2007 Re: Goals & Objectives Update At the October 16, 2007 City Council meeting, Council Member Hererra requested the Council consider a change to the Goals & Objectives adopted with the 2007-2008 municipal budget. To fully consider this and other changes, as well as the proposed addition of items such as city-wide "sustainability" efforts to the Goals & Objectives list, it is appropriate to conduct the discussion in a study session format. Doing so ensures all revisions or adjustments to the Goals & Objectives are fully considered and included going forward. Staff will schedule this study session for the November 20, 2007 meeting. Should the Council have other specific items related to the Goals & Objectives, please provide them to me in advance so they may be compiled and prepared for discussion at the study session. 1 w I m w I V O \ \ ƒ > 7 o c O e.� 070 q y 0 ® 0 °° § & ° m. CD »\ .� ® k./ 5 CL CD ® / / ® § CD / m _ o $ E o— < 3 2 2 2� � d\ % 00 0 ] m 8 Cl) c C 0 � 20 0 0 k w� w 0 � � = 6= o » �o y / ®/' w ƒ/ / /k W� � m . m � . . } 0 e / 2 \ / ( / a .. (§ 0 / & 2 0 m CD %< /q. g m_ E§ 6 m ƒ \ 3 U) 0 (D (D k 0 - m (D =3 T �g oft 2 o a ® < w ®� a j o k 0 � s f R 9 e ƒ o % R k J ) �2 0 © \ �0 m m a �m . m �] 0 0 c J � 0 2 / ƒ ƒ 0 / % 2. / \ » s. g (D J @ « g . (D CD §0 J 5 0 q m 2 0:30 (C)0 CL 0 $ J w 9 W / y ƒ ƒ 2 - § ƒ e m \ � I �A I m � I $ $ & I F v + + + CD > 0 03 k Q K CD cc� 2)2 R 0 _ §§ CD q 2 $ m cm g Q gCD C o C. 0 0 CD 0 0 n o \ =r m 16 7 to � 2 ( $ m ( ■ E . r4l � � I w 1 H 9 91 ►I go -0 E19 I I I I (D I® h CnD in t7 (DDRI O (D (D �' 0mum • ® N � n. (D (D -` D ®. -z O SU < (n try * K (D 0-mn m0 O� O� m■ _ TI * -z fl) ;j y 0- (D tJ < (n cn (D OO (D CD cr -0 n -� (n ^F (p O (D v (Q y (D (n ®. ® ;-3 w (D (D (D -" (n Q 00 G) O rr h (Q g :3O .+ O --1 0) ® co (Q (DD C/) 0 (D O Q (D 0. ® D O N CD O 3 p :3 Q roe (gyp o. --r O O'O I Q Q _) � CD ® 3 N O 00 (D :2. : (D (Q (n CD tq `<(D 3 -nc C37 !11 O'1 Q o ® (D rML FD CD \/ 4 =r \ \ # D \ 4 \ ; « 2 2 d CD • } /r 0 /to .0. D : 4 : • : \ ^ \ rMt.w CL . :=rjw v \ \ , Cr CD . w / \ \r. .CD . « • 0 ® \ £ « \ w «` ` ¥ CD vim vim 0 2) \ ) 4 \ \^ \ ® D 4 l . : 0 w D ; . CD CD 77 5 # CL 0° D . .' h MI j\^ D a \ « 2 2 / \ / + D \. • / + .° ij ®9 m "r ®9 m 1 ml . k H —4 � p s � rocs' k H —4 � p s � rocs' x PC I 1 I L )# # « w .. < «.. ? crm # d j y . �\ . . � y w � : . « 0 0 � C -� Zr. # .« 3D :D (10 3 � < «. < ,# 0 ? # \ . <CD : . ■w..2y : 0 <4 .. t ; C:)-- } « « . �� � . . � d . m « m # 0. - 2 � CD « < D m. w ? D <. D . . w � + \ « . —0 « . Q. « « \ # y ?. . » • � m �con )# .. < «.. « « D : (n # :y cn • � (n Z ^\ ® (D y •.W :D (10 3 «: cn «. •. « : . ■w..2y 0 ,. s #? t ; C:)-- « n .° ■ d wd • / # # - 2 � : < « 00 Q. 0 # � � cn � 3 � O-5.CD 0 CDr-+- 0 .-t- ® . _ O M ®. CD 0- O �� CD (D (D cn CD cb CD cn O O cn ®3 CD C7 C CD cn Y) CD 0. Z r+ ®.. CD CD 9 3 Cr CD —, C� cn G CD o 0 ® CD � C7 `< CD (n CD O O CD Q CD °®"CD = W Cn CD I � CD w® CD = CD 3 0 w CD = ,-+ N O "l O O n CD O -0 (D Cal —W — CDS CD 3(nCS(QM. WCD CDL CD ® O O Cn CD r" -h Cv CD `C ® _ O �_0 n O � O CD '0 CD � Cn v •-" zr CL (n Q � =-.0 l< CD ®O —V O D (Cn C CD n v W Cn O CD O Q n C Cl) 0C) env -m:2.c 0c) v rth� �.�o:E o o �0-n0 30 ro3 (D LU 3m 3 (D (1 O :3 v D N Q 0- W (n 3 iU O v v a- (D Q O 0zr. cn �O O O o � -S 3� (D o cnro (Do(n (. � cn ((D (D Q of 0-0 �( rn ((DD O N n (D (D h (A O c m. in O O Q ZT (DQ (D _ 0 O (D Q �mC� ®moo (D (D CD (D Cw Q C7 � h C)- N)� cD 0 w.0 � c ("0 O (D rt O (OD cn w ,-+. (D O 1- (U O _Q = O (D O c � 3 cn `� � c�n� C7 � Qrn hhro -0 C: 5 rn-o Q<v Q(n —0 -" (0" U zr< �'Qo. c 3 (D N < NNO (D O 00 �W> (D =M. O O Q cDCD n ®. n c m. in O O Q ZT (DQ (D _ 0 O (D Q �mC� ®moo (D (D CD (D Cw Q C7 � h C)- N)� cD 0 w.0 � c ("0 O (D rt O (OD cn w ,-+. (D O 1- (U O _Q = O (D O c � 3 cn `� � c�n� C7 � Qrn hhro -0 C: 5 rn-o Q<v Q(n —0 -" (0" U zr< �'Qo. c 3 (D N < NNO (D O 00 �W> (D =M. O O Q I n F-1 M (n ch o � oo 1.0 _ Iv 3 N Fn--w SCD �N (D0-30 � >(D (D@0 CD CD O n n C =7-0 0 h cD C m® Qn 0 CD =3 0 � CD C �- � fn C Q0- CD CC) (D fD (" I Q 3 � W � (D 0 �(D (D y � � )n n 70 CD U) Q r -F — rQ-i- 0 Q r -F UT O 2 n 0- (o VJ -h O W \ J cn (n Q Z7) rF� rah 0 ■ W� 0 0McD �Q.rn (D (n Q. D n:3 n O 0 Q 0 _. O (D Q 3 e i zr cD 3 Q rF O Q--0 CD O rf Q- p� VJ Q rt C (Q Z3 --I o =T v r" (D (DSO =t (D N Q CD CDm Q r F i _. SU in -'(D OCD n U) <\ ® O Q O 3 PM 1 4 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 cn 1 > 1 > rR i ' • -1 • / 1 • ♦ • A. i • 1 • i ,. 1 ,., CD • • • i • 1 1 1 1. CD 1 CD • • ' 1 • • 2 '•7 7 J F in C- hS r -r 1- n O ui n n 73 1n r -F 3 n w 0- 0 ♦. r Agenda No. 6.1 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NOVEMBER 6, 2007 DRAFT CLOSED SESSION: 6:00 p.m., Room CC -8 I► Government Code Section 54956.9(a) — Pending Litigation — (1 Case) People of the State of California v. Ratan Hospitality, LLS (Scribbles) Case No. BC351925 CALL 1-0 ORDER: Mayor Tye called the regular City Council meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. in The Government Center/SCAQMD Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA. CM/DeStefano reported that tonight's Closed Session was canceled due to a postponement in the legal proceedings that were scheduled earlier in the week. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: INVOCATION: gave the invocation. ROLL CALL: Tem Tanaka and Mayor Tye. Keith Vorndran led the Pledge of Allegiance. Pastor Bob Stebe, Northminster Presbyterian Church Council Members Chang, Everett, Herrera, Mayor Pro Staff Present: James DeStefano, City Manager; Mike Jenkins, City Attorney; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; David Liu, Public Works Director; Nancy Fong, Community Development Director; Greg Gubman, Planning Manager; Ken Desforges, IS Director; Ryan McLean, Asst. to City Manager; Linda Magnuson, Finance Director; Rick Yee, Senior Engineer; Kimberly Molina, Assistant Engineer; Dennis Tarango, Building Official, and Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS 1.1 C/Herrera presented a City Tile, and Assemblyman Bob Huff presented a Certificate to outgoing Traffic and Transportation Commissioner Jack Shah. NEW BUSINESS OF THE MONTH: 1.2 MPT/Tanaka presented a City Tile to Anthony Marquez and Reno Pignotti, owners of Dante's Italian Deli as New Business of the Month for November 2007. 1.3 Assemblyman Bob Huff gave an update on what is happening in Sacramento with an emphasis on healthcare, prison reform, transit issues and the water budget. NOVEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL 1.4 Presentation by Dr. John Nixon, President, Mt. San Antonio College spoke regarding the progress on the campus construction and the commitment to the students attending the college. He also introduced Board Trustee Dr. Baca and student Ms. Pargani who also spoke about the opportunities offered and progress being made. 2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: None Offered. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Roger Myer asked the City Council to consider implementing a policy that would prohibit political signs on the public right-of-way. Bridget Del Rio Cortes invited residents to participate in the Third Annual Relay for Life at Lorbeer Middle School. For additional information, call 626-966-9994, Option B. Sherman Griffone, 6 Mountain Shadows PI. announced that the Diamond Bar Friends of the Library would be hosting the next Inland Valley Scripps Regional ��pelling Bee on March 1, 2008 in the SCAQMD/Government Center Auditorium. Lydia Plunk hoped that D.B. would take an audit of its irrigation system to reduce its water usage and encouraged everyone to read the Sunday LA Times article on Succulents, the "water balloons" of plants. Mangal Gulshan spoke about traffic concerns. Mary Matson spoke about comments made by the Mayor during the last Council meeting and concurred with Mr. Myer that the placing of political signs in the public right-of-way should be prohibited. 4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS: M/Tye responding to Mrs. Matson stated that comments he made regarding the Tribune Editorial was not directed toward MPT/Tanaka. He publicly apologized to MPT/Tanaka and said that he had telephoned MPT/Tanaka to apologize following the last Council Meeting. CIVI/DeStefano stated that with respect to the political sign portion of the City's Municipal Code, signs were properly placed. Based on the past 10 or 12 elections this year presented the fewest problems. The signs are within the rules and subject to the City Council changing the rules political signs are permitted within the public - right -of -way. PkVD/Liu responding to Mr. Gulshan's traffic concerns stated that the City uses video detection cameras. During the past few weeks, however, the City has experienced fog that impedes the left -turn cycles during morning peak driving hours. NOVEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL 'The City is responsive to these concerns and during heavy fog the systems go to a recall mode to cycle vehicles. 5 C* C/Herrera felt that Mary Matson was misinformed about certain political signs being placed by her. She stated that they were actually provided by a resident. The resident exercised his right to free speech. C/Herrera failed to see how signs that said re-elect Carol Herrera and Jack Tanaka, proven D.B. leaders would be a problem. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1 Veteran's Day Recognition — November 7, 2007 — 9:00 a.m., Diamond Bar Community Center, 1600 S. Grand Avenue. 5.2 Traffic and Transportation Commission Meeting — November 8, 2007 — 7:00 P.m., AQMD/Government Center Hearing Board Room, 21865 Copley Drive. 5.3 Veterans' Holiday — November 12, 2007 — City offices closed in observance of Veterans' Day. Offices reopen on Tuesday, November 13, 2007. 5.4 Planning Commission Meeting — November 13, 2007 — 7:00 p.m., AQMD/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive. 5.5 Sunday at the Center "Art Show and Sale" — November 18, 2007 — 10:00 a.m. — 4:00 p.m., Diamond Bar Center, 1500 S. Grand Avenue. 5.6 City Council Meeting — November 20, 2007 — 6:30 p.m., AQMD/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Chang moved, C/Herrera seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS A13SENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS 6.1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Chang, Everett, Herrera, MPT/Tanaka, M/Tye None None (a) Study Session Minutes of October 16, 2007 — as submitted (b) Regular Meeting of October 16, 2007 — as submitted. 6.2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (a) Regular Meeting of September 11, 2007 — Received and filed. (b) Regular Meeting of September 25, 2007 — Received and filed. NOVEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL 6.3 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES — Regular Meeting of September 27, 2007 — Received and filed. 6.4 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORATION COMMISSION MINUTES — Regular Meeting of September 13, 2007 — Received and filed. 6.5 RATIFIED CHECK REGISTER — dated October 11, 2007 to October 31, 2007 totaling $1,667,758.62. 6.6 APPROVED PRELIMINARY TREASURER'S STATEMENT—SEPTEMBER 2007. 6.7 ADJOURNED THE JANUARY 1, 2008 MEETING TO JANUARY 15, 2008. 6.8 RENEWED FOR ONE YEAR THE LETTER OF CREDIT FOR THE CITY'S PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY VARIABLE RATE LEASE REVENUE BONDS, 2002 SERIES A. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7'.1 (a) FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE N0.07 (200 7) AMENDING TITLE 15 OF D.B. MUNICIPAL CODE ADOPTING BY REFERENCE, THE "CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE" 2007 EDITION, VOLUMES 1 AND 2, INCLUDING ALL APPENDICIES THERETO, APPENDIX CHAPTER 1 OF THE 2007 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE AS THE ADMINISTRATION CODE, THE "CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE" 2007 EDITION AND THE APPENDICES THERETO, THE "CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE" 2007 EDITION AND THE APPENDICES THERETO THE "CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE" 2007 EDITION AND THE APPENDICES THERETO, THE "UNIFORM HOUSING CODE" 1997 EDITION AND THE APPENDICES THERETO AND THE "UNIFORM SWIMMING POOL, SPA AND HOT TUB CODE" 2000 EDITION, TOGETHER WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS, ADDITIONS, DELETIONS AND EXCEPTIONS INCLUDING FEES AND PENALTIES. (b) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2007-59: MAKING EXPRESS FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS THAT MODIFICATIONS TO THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE AND CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE, AS ADOOPTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 07 (2007) ARE REASONABLY NECESSARY BECAUSE OF THE LOCAL CLIMATIC, GEOLOGICAL OR TOPOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS. BO/Tarango gave a brief background regarding certain Building Codes indicating that typically, the State of California reviews codes every three years. The United States adopted a uniform code applicable through the country and the State of California adopted the new code in July 2007 mandating local cities to adopt and amend the code within six months of the NOVEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL State's adoption. He explained the amendments and asked that the City Council approve the amendments. C/Herrera asked what the City would do about existing items under pools, spas and ponds that would not fall under the new guideline. BO/Tarango responded that existing items built prior to the current code (seven years) would be "grandfathered" in. C/Everett referred staff to Section105.8 on Page 6 regarding qualifications for receiving a permit, and asked if D.B. added the item ratherthan the State. BO/Tarango responded that the State of California mandates that a permit shall be issued to a licensed contractor or to a homeowner builder and what staff attempted to do is to make it clear that if a homeowner took out a permit the resident would be responsible for the permit including providing Workers' Compensation insurance. C/Everett asked how the City would receive notification and stop work in the event the required insurance was canceled. BO/Tarango said he would obtain a response for the Council C/Everett said he had three concerns: 1) the exemption to have Class C or better if less than 25% of the roof is in need of repair. It seemed to him that the Code should say that homes must have Class C or better if repaired. He said he would like to have the matter of economic consideration investigated but would prefer to have Class C or better materials required. 2) Section 105.1.1. C/Everett thought that if there were electrical or plumbing involved in buildings under120 sq. ft. it should require a permit. 3) Fences and walls. C/Everett said he would prefer an exemption for a six-foot high or shorter wood fence. BO/Tarango said that a permit would be required by the amendment and that such structures can be owner built. M/Tye said he tended to agree with C/Everett about wood fences. BO/Tarango responded that the City has experienced difficulty with damaged fencing in the case of wind bursts and earthquakes and staff felt there should be minimum design criteria to protect neighborhoods. M/Tye opened the Public Hearing. Lydia Plunk was concerned that the amendments would put onerous demands on homeowners and that they would not be able to afford to make necessary repairs. NOVEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL Kevin House, 2536 Harmony Hill, said he appreciated what the Planning Commission needed to do but was opposed to the fencing and roofing amendments. C/Herrera said that in accordance with comments by C/Everett and public speakers and the fact that in the past micro bursts have taken down trees, it would follow that fences might also come down under such conditions. She asked that the matter be continued for further analysis of the input. CM/DeStefano pointed out that there was an urgency to adopt this document prior to January 1, 2008. The option would be to adopt this by urgency and forego the curing period that typically takes place for an ordinance. CA/Jenkins said that if the Council is not prepared to adopt this ordinance tonight it could consider the ordinance for first reading by the next City Council meeting on an emergency basis. C/Everett moved to approve for first reading by title only and waive full Reading of Ordinance No. OX (2007) with the exception of Section 105.2.5 and Section 1505.1.1. BO/Tarango said he was prepared to change the percentage requirement under Section 1505.1.1 from 25 to 10%. C/Everett concurred and revised his motion accordingly C/Herrera asked that the motion be amended to delete Sections 105.2.5 and 1505.1.1 for further staff analysis. C/Everett said he wanted a stricter permit process for re -roofing and would recommend 10% instead of 25%. C/Chang felt there would not be concurrence for the 10%. CA/Jenkins said he felt there was confusion. For example, high fire zones, Fire Zone 4, requires Class A roofing. He was not sure it would make sense to have a higher percentage on a Class C roof. Perhaps staff could invite the Fire Department to a Council Meeting next year for discussion. One option would be to adopt the Code tonight in order to provide an ordinance for staff to enforce and engage in conversation about changes at a later date. C/Everett withdrew his motion. C/Herrera moved and MPT/Tanaka seconded to delete Section 105.2.5 and introduce Ordinance 07 (2007) for First Reading and Adopt Resolution No. 2007-59: Making Express Findings and Determinations that Modifications to the California Building Code, California Plumbing Code and California Electrical Code, as Adopted by Ordinance 07 (2007) are Reasonably NOVEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL Necessary Because of Local Climatic, Geological or Topographical Conditions. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Everett, Herrera, MPT/Tanaka, M/Tye NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: None 9. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: C/Chang said he was honored to accompany his wife to Taiwan to witness her receiving an award as one of the top ten women entrepreneurs. He congratulated all who win this evening's election and for those who do not win they should not be disappointed but continue to serve the community. C/Everett thanked his colleagues for appointing him to fill the remainder of Council Member Zirbes' term. He said he was very concerned about elections being referred to as "silly season." He hoped the community had grown tired of the infighting and mudslinging. He noticed that not one campaign sign was on the grounds of D.B.H.S. and agreed with speakers that political sign rules should be reviewed in order to bring respect and consideration to the election process. He said he too was affected by the L.A, Times article entitled "Portraits Etched by Disaster" in the Sunday, October 28 edition. He thanked the D.B. firefighters who participated. He displayed a PUSD Internet article that discussed the exciting milestone ribbon cutting ceremonies for the Cortez Mathematics and Science Magnet School, pre -K through 8. C/Herrera hoped that everyone took advantage of the right to vote. This is a critical election. She thanked her friends who worked hard on her behalf. During this election cycle there was a lot of misinformation and one comment was that members of the public were not allowed to speak in front of the Council, something that is not true. Members of the public are allowed to speak for five minutes on any item not on the agenda. In addition, members of the public may ask to have an item removed from the Consent Calendar in order to offer their input and public input is sought during public hearing items and matters before the Council for consideration. People talked about the City's reserves and said it was shameful that the City was not spending its money. D.B. is surrounded by 8000 acres of undeveloped land and is very fortunate that it has not suffered a major disaster. However, it could happen and the City remains prepared by maintaining a reserve should such an event occur. At the last meeting she asked that the matter of the golf course be placed on the next agenda because there had been tremendous adverse public opinion about the Council's goal to consider developing the golf course. When the draft agenda for tonight's meeting was prepared that item was included. However, she was very disappointed that the item had been removed from the final agenda. It is too bad that politics enter into the public's ability to speak their desires. However, it will be NOVEMBER 6, 2007 PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL discussed on November 20 during the Council's study session. In the meantime, she believes it should be removed from the list of Council Goals because it is what the people want. She thanked everyone for participating tonight. She agreed that the City should adopt an ordinance that prohibits political signs. This year was the worst. She personally lost $2000 worth of signs, which amounted to all of her signs. MPT/Tanaka announced that he had attended the Three Valleys Water Leadership Breakfast with his Council colleagues and honored the teachers of the Year from the Walnut Valley School District. He attended the celebration of Red Ribbon Week at Pantera Elementary and attended the PUSD School Board meeting. He was present at the Cortez Math and Science Magnet School Ribbon Cutting Ceremonies. He attended the D.B. Senior Citizens Halloween Dance; COG Leadership Breakfast Meeting; Pomona Valley and D.B/Walnut YMCA Celebrity Waiter Luncheon; Fall Fun Festival and D.B. Haunted House at Heritage Park. He also attended the D.B. 4 -Youth Middle School Dance. This Thursday through Saturday he will represent the Mayor at the Mayor's Summit in Madison, Mississippi. He thanked everyone for taking the time to vote and thanked his mother-in-law Evelyn Chang for bringing him a lei from Hawaii. MITye said that MPT/Tanaka won for best costume at the Fall Festival. Relative to political signs he feels that people have the right to express themselves. He said he was fascinated by the process because it was incredible to him that anyone would fund fault with a sign encouraging re-election of those who were serving well. No mention is made of the despicable signs that went up after the last Council Meeting. His pastor indicated that the signs were "gutless" and as far as he was concerned, those signs were put up under the cover of night and that no one should be proud of participating in that type of despicable behavior. He further stated that there are two things we have to be very, very clear about — we live in a desert and we have to be very, very careful about water. He said he was not big on mandatory imposition of measures but if everyone is diligent this City can conserve water. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, M/Tye adjoumed the regular City Council meeting at 9:00 p.m. in honor of the brave firefighters from Ventura to San Diego Counties that kept everyone safe. God bless them and the work that they do. TOMMYE CRIBBINS, CITY CLERK The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this day of 12007. STEVE TYE, MAYOR Agenda No. 6 . 2 (a ) MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 9, 2007 CALL l"O ORDER: Vice Chairman Torng called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: C/Nolan led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Kathleen Nolan, Jack Shah, Vice Chairman Tony Torng. Absent: Chairman Steve Nelson was excused. Also present: Nancy Fong, Community Development Director; Greg Gubman, Planning Manager; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; David Alvarez, Planning Technician; Gregg Kovacevich, Assistant City Attorney, Kimberly Molina, Associate Engineer, Erwin Ching, Jr. Engineer; and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: VC/Torng requested that Item 7.1 be moved to after Item 8.4. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4..1 Minutes of Regular Meeting of September 25, 2007 C/Lee moved, C/Nolan seconded to approve the Minutes of September 25, 2007, as corrected. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, VC/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None A13STAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Shah A13SENT COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nelson OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 4.2 Conditional Use Permit No 2007-09 Development Review No. 2007-22 and Variance No. 2007-05. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: Ronald Reagan Park 2201 Peaceful Hills Drive City of Diamond Bar Sprint/Nextel 310 Commerce Irvine, CA 92602 CDD/Fong presented staff's report. Ed Gala, Sprint/Nextel, asked that the letter from his firm's attorney be entered into the record. CDD/Fong responded that Mr. Gala"s request was so noted. A resident requested to speak in opposition of the project and VC/Torng reminded the speaker and audience that comments were to address the Resolution of Denial, which was the subject of this matter. C/Lee moved, VC/Torng seconded, to approve the Resolution of Denial for Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22 and Variance No. 2007-05 to establish a wireless facility. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, VC/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Shah ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nelson 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 8.1 Development Review No. 2007-29 — In accordance with Development Code Section 22.48, the applicant requested approval of plans to construct a two- story addition of 1,151 square feet and to remodel the existing dwelling to OCT013ER 9, 2007 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION create a 7 -bedroom, 4-b2throom, single-family dwelling unit. The subject property is zoned R-1 (8,000) and contains 14,466 gross square feet (33 acres) of land area. PROJECT ADDRESS: 1510 Kiowa Crest Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ Martha and Paul Gonzales 1510 Kiowa Crest Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Roofing Plus Construction 18 N. Central Avenue Upland, CA 91786 CDD/Fong presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review 2007-29, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. There were no exparte disclosures. VC/Torng opened the public hearing. Paul Gonzales said the remodel was to accommodate his handicapped son. The home has a driveway that accommodates all vehicles. During construction the personal items are being stored in the garage and once construction is completed the vehicles can be parked inside of the garage. CDD/Fong asked the applicant if he understood he would have to provide one additional parking covered garage to accommodate the room addition. The condition of approval requires an additional garage. The intended use of the garage is for parking cars and the City's code requires one additional space for the additional bedrooms. Mrs. Gonzales stated that there are additional cars parked in the driveway because nurses come to her home to care for her son. Cleaning ladies also come to her home and park on the street. CDD/Fong explained that a typical single family home with up to five bedrooms has a two car garage. We assume two cars are parked inside the garage with two cars parked on the driveway, which accommodates four cars. However, this family needs additional living space and is proposing to add three more bedrooms for a total of seven bedrooms. OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Nolan asked if there was sufficient space on the lot to add a garage and CDD/Fong responded that the applicant could add another garage space next to the existing two -car garage in the side yard area or the applicant could use the side yard area as a driveway to get to the rear yard and add a car two -car garage in the back yard area. VC/Torng asked Mrs. Gonzales if she understood the condition regarding the garage space and she responded that she did but that this was the first notice she and her husband had received about the requirement. CDD/Fong recommended that this matter be continued to allow staff to work with the applicant to revise the plans. C/Nolan moved, C/Lee seconded to continue Development Review 2007-29 to October 23, 2007. Motion approved by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, Lee, Shah, VC/Torng, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nelson 8.2 Development Review No. 2007-23 — In accordance with Development Code Section 22.48, the applicant requested approval of site and architectural plans for a first and second story addition of approximately 1,985 square feet, a new three -car garage of approximately 704 square feet with a roof deck of 460 square feet. The request also included a second unit of 1200 square feet in the rear yard. PROJECT ADDRESS: 24303 Northview Place Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Ming K. Lan APPLICANT: 24303 Northview Place Diamond Bar, CA 91765 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report and recommended that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2007-23, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution C/Shah asked if this home was handicapped accessible and CDD/Fong said she believed it was not and that it was not required. There were no expartb disclosures OCT013ER 9, 2007 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Torng opened the public hearing. Mr. Lan stated that the house is sitting on top of a hill and uses a single driveway from the end of the cul-de-sac up hill to the house. The addition will be at the back of the house and most of the neighbors will be unaware of the addition. Also, the existing pad will be used and there will be no change in the drainage pattern. Mr. Lan responded to VC/Torng that he reviewed the conditions of approval and concurred with all of the conditions. VC/Torng closed the public hearing. C/Nolan moved, C/Shah seconded to approve Development Review No. 2007-23, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Shah, VC/Torng, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nelson 8.3 Development Review No. 2007-30 Minor Variance No 2007-08, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-16 — In accordance with Development Code Sections 22.48, 22.52, 22.58 and 22.68, the applicant requested approval of site and architectural plan for a first and second story addition of approximately 2,768 square feet. The addition includes habitable space, decks and enlarging the garage and front entry. A Development Review application was for evaluating the architecture and site design of the project. A Minor Variance approval was required to decrease the front setback by not more than 20 percent. A Minor Conditional Use Permit approval was required to maintain a non -conforming front setback. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2656 Indian Creek Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Mr. and Mrs. Siobo Batricevich 2656 Indian Creek Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANT: Bob Larivee Award Winning Design 17 Rue Du Chanteau Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2007-30, Minor Variance No. 2007-06, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-16, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. There were no exparte disclosures. VC/Torng asked why this was not in compliance with the Hillside Ordinance and AssocP/Lungu explained that because the house exists it was difficult to work with the ordinance. The applicant is splitting the deck in varying levels and creating it in proportion to the home, which will result in a significant overall improvement to the design. VC/Torng opened the public hearing. Branca Batricevich thanked the Commission for its time and for AssocP/Lungu's thorough presentation. She and her husband believed It was necessary to update the home to today's construction standards and felt that the architectural style would make a significant improvement to the existing home. The front will be better and the back of the house will create a significant improvement in aesthetics and safety. VC/Torng closed the public hearing. C/Shah moved, C/Lee seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2007-30, Minor Variance No. 2007-08, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-16, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Shah, Lee, Nolan, VC/Torng, None Chair/Nelson 8.4 Develo m mt Review No. 2007-18 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-15 — In accordance with Development Code Sections 22.48 and 22.56, the applicant requested approval to add 495 square feet of livable area, 20 OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION net additional square feet of garage and storage space, and a 118 square foot covered patio to an existing 1,749 square foot single-family residence on an existing 11,168 square -foot, Low Medium Residential (RLM) zoned lot with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Low Medium Residential (RLM); and a Minor Conditional Use Permit for the continuation of a non -conforming front yard setback. PROJECT ADDRESS: 24331 Sentry Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Reyn and Kristie Shimokawa 24331 Sentry Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Pro Builder 449 W. Allen Avenue, Suite 109 San Dimas, CA 91773 PM/Gubman presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review NO. 2007-18 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-15, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. There were no expart6 disclosures. VC/Torng opened the public hearing. Ken Klobel, Pro Builder, complimented CDD/Fong and PM/Grubman fortheir good effort on behalf of a higher design standard for the City. Home improvement to these high standards prevents properties from turning into rental properties. C/Lee moved, C/Nolan seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2007-18 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-15, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: Lee, Nolan, Shah, VC/Torng, None Chair/Nelson COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Shah recused himself from deliberating on Item 7.1 and left the dais. 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 Negative Declaration No. 2007-05 Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-08 and Development Review No. 2007-14— In accordance with Development Code Sections 22.58 and 22.48, the proposed project was a request to demolish an existing residence and develop a private school (kindergarten to eighth grade). The proposed three-story school building is approximately 13,760 square feet in area with 16,977 square feet of subterranean parking. A Conditional Use Permit was required to establish a school. The Development Review application was required to evaluate the architecture and site design of the project. (Continued from September 25, 2007) PROJECT ADDRESS: 1009 Via Sorella Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Daar-Ul-Ilm of Muslim Youth, Inc. 733 Summerwood Avenue Diamond Bar, CA 91789 APPLICANT: Nomaan Baig, President and CEO Daaar-Ullm of Muslim Youth, Inc. 733 Summerwood Avenue Diamond Bar, CA 91789 PM/Gubman presented staff's report and addressed the four items of concern called out by the Commission that included a request for visual simulation from three vantage points; consideration of traffic safety issues with regard to the possible need for streetlights, and parameters for acceptable level of playground area for private schools. PM/Gubman recommended Planning Commission approval of Negative Declaration No. 2007-05, Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-08 and Development Review No. 2007-14, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution and as amended by staff. C/Lee believed that this was more of a cultural center and believed that the applicant should be granted more autonomy with regard to school hours. PM/Gubman explained that a change in school hours was subject to Planning Division review and approval, which would eliminate some of the bureaucratic steps of coming back before the Commission for a fully noticed OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION hearing. He said that in his opinion, it was important for the Public Works Director to review and approve the change of hours and whether the study contemplated such traffic impacts. He felt it was not an onerous requirement and that the condition provided for flexibility in modifying the hours of operation without being open-ended. C/Lee asked if staff talked with the applicant about Condition No. 7 and PM/Gubman responded affirmatively and explained that the applicant was not initially comfortable with the condition. He reiterated that this does not lock the applicant into those hours in perpetuity and staff would be happy to consider a change to the hours but needs to have discussion between the applicant and staff to ensure no additional impacts. Once the project is up and running it could be determined that the impacts were overly conservative, for example, and staff would be more amenable to expanding the hours. C/Nolan said she felt that staff was not completely comfortable with the accuracy of the photo simulations. PM/Gubman said that it was difficult to identify all vantage points and potentials for impacts. This project is on a hill with different site elevations and staff did not reach a complete level of comfort given the height of the building plus the projections above. He felt that what was presented was not comprehensive enough for a true view of the project. C/Nolan asked if the changes of 42 and 45 -foot maximum heights would satisfy staff without requiring additional photo simulations. PM/Gubman responded that staff would be comfortable with a 45 -foot maximum height. CDD/Fong clarified that the 45 -foot height was not the maximum building height it was the maximum for the additional projections. The building height maximum requirement is 35 feet. VC/Torng opened the public hearing. Nomaan Baig, 7337 Summerwood Avenue, said that with respect to Condition No. 7, the weekday classes with its limitation from 6:00 a.m. to 3:30 P.M. was a constraint upon the traditional functioning hours of the school, which is from 6:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. He again requested that the hours be as noted in the Planning Commission Agenda, page 5, Section (d). He asked the Commission to add the after-school program hours and weekend operational hours to Item 7 of the resolution. C/Nolan said the OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION after-school program hours and weekend operational hours are included within the table. PM/Gubman said he crafted the language to be less constraining than the programming activity shown on page 5 of staff's report. He said he would not have a problem moving the schedule information into Condition 7. However, he was attempting to not tie the applicant down to those specific time intervals. Mr. Baig said that with that understanding he would have no problem with the resolution as written. Mr. Baig said that only about one-half of the 135 students would be playing on the playground area tof 1,300 qualay Area A eeet and the would 1, 1,800 square feet, Play Area B would consist Open Area C would consist of 2,160 square feet. Mr. Baig thanked the Planning Department for its understanding of this project. What makes this structure an Islamic structure is the dome and minaret. If those two items were stripped from the building it would remove the Islamic identity. It is important to the Muslim community that the proposed structure be enhanced with these two exclusive architectural uce the height of the e to productions. If asked for a compromise to c ease the minaret by three or six feet t about 50 or 511 42.9 feet and feet m to achieve a height differential. C/Lee asked if there was a profound meaning to the applicant's concept and Mr. Baig responded that it was the equivalent of a church steeple, serves as a beacon of light and is part of the Islamic heritage. Muslims who live in Diamond Bar are representative of many other countries and are multi- generational. He showed a photo of an Islamic structure located in Anaheim with a minaret at a height of 75 feet high and a dome that is 50 feet high. C/Lee asked if staff and the applicant discussed this matter sufficiently. The rendering should be relative based on the distance and height from different angles so that it can be properly viewed. If the height of the dome was reduced to 42 feet and the height of the minaret were increased it would appear awkward to him. Has staff thoroughly discussed this matter with the applicant and what is the better of the four options according to staff. CDD/Fong responded that staff was concerned about the height of the building design. The maximum building height in accordance with the City's Code is 35 feet. The applicant requested projects in the form of a dome and a minaret. The applicant has to abide by the Code. Staff brought up the issue that the height of the projection is a concern. Staff is not referring to the significance of the religious symbol, rather that the project conforms to the City's Code and whether the projections create a dominant feature. OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Lee said that if the minaret is like a cross it could be scaled back. However, when he looks at scenario #4 the structure has been cut down and the minaret is proportionately higher and he was not comfortable with the design. CDD/Fong explained that the building height was not cut down because it meets the Code at 35 feet. The bigger dome was reduced in height to 42 feet as suggested and the applicant is requesting that the minaret be increased to a height of 45 feet to comply with the symbolism. Staff agrees with this scenario and that is what staff has presented to the Commission for consideration. C/Lee said the applicant requested that the minaret height be increased to 48 or 51 feet. PM/Gubman reminded C/Lee that the Planning Commission is the decision-making body and staff merely provides its recommendation. C/Nolan asked if there had been any discussion of reducing the size of the dome to emphasize the height of the minaret. CDD/Fong said that staff would prefer not to see the domes at all so that the building meets the 35 - foot height requirement. Staff is trying to work with the applicant and while staff understands the significance of the appendages staff is also concerned with the projections being exposed to view. Staff would prefer that the applicant have a projection that would not project such a dominant view. Mr. Baig said he was asking for Commission consideration. He felt that a three-foot differential would not be sufficient and if it could be pushed to 48 feet with the dome at 42 feet it would be an acceptable compromise. However, he would accept what was proposed by staff. C/Nolan asked Mr. Baig if he would consider lowering the height of the dome. Mr. Baig said that if it were lowered more than 42 feet there would be no point in having the dome. VC/Torng confirmed with Mr. Baig that he would compromise to 42 feet for the dome and 48 feet for the minaret. Omar Rangoonwala, 20739 Lycoming #88, asked for Commission approval. Dr. Ari Frezee said the dome and minaret should not be cut down because it would kill the project. Mohammed Jibaje, 23385 Golden Springs Drive, said the length of the minaret is very essential and had he thought about it he could have provided OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION many pictures of Islamic structures that shows that the minaret should stick up much higher than the domes. Waseem Majmi, Walnut, felt that the applicant's request to work with the Commission on the height of the dome and extend the height of the minerette was a legitimate request. Mustafa Farooqi agreed with C/Lee that the proportion of the building to the minaret was important and 48 feet for the minaret and 42 forthe dome would look better than reducing both down to 45 feet. Mr. Baig reiterated that he has worked diligently and cooperatively to move this project forward in a respectful and thoughtful manner. He understood that the Commission has its duty. Everyone has done his part and it is now time for the Commission to approve this project. He thanked staff and the Commissioners for their time and said he looked forward to greater involvement within the community. VC/Torng asked for confirmation of the applicant's request and agreement for 42 feet for the dome and 48 feet for the minaret. Mr. Baig said VC/Torng was correct and that the applicant agreed with the remainder of the conditions within the resolution. C/Lee likened the project to a community center and said to him safety was an important issue with the respect to the children. Mr. Baig responded that the applicant would employ every type of method possible to deter crime including a surveillance system. If there is an open house, presentation or workshop at night the facility will include security. Mr. Baig responded to C/Nolan that the feature on top of the minaret is a crescent that would extend the minaret to one to two feet above the 48 feet. C/Nolan asked g the crrescent.he appcantwMr. Ba gould bessaidatisf'with tha the extra two feetheight 48 feet including the take away from the proportion. VC/Torng closed the public hearing. C/Lee felt the request was reasonable for the type of facility being proposed. He wanted to cooperate with the applicant's request. However, the applicant must also comply with the City's codes and believed in this instance that 48 feet was very suitable for the Commission's decision. OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Nolan said she believed there had been good cooperation on this project between the applicant and staff. She was satisfied with the safety issue regarding the streetlights, as well as the issues of the drop-off, and supervision of the students. She said she would like to see a designated area for hard court use. She empathized with the sentiment and religious implications of the dome and the height but as home is where the heart is, so is a church and a building is important but a building is not the most important aspect. C/Nolan moved, C/Lee seconded, to approve Negative Declaration No. 2007-05, Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-08 and Development Review No. 2007-14, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as amended and listed within staff's report, including a change in height to 42.9 feet for the dome and 48 feet for the minaret. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: C/Shah returned to the dais. Nolan, Lee, VC/Torng None Shah Chair/Nelson 9. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Nolan said she received a call this afternoon from a teacher at Golden Springs Ellementary School who asked why the school had not previously been able to apply for the Blue Ribbon School Recognition and wanted to know what had occurred to affect the school's criteria to allow it to be able to apply. The builder under Item 8.4 made a valid point about the high standards of homes and amount of rentals. C/Nolan wondered if the condos near Jims Dairy with a high percentage of rentals fell under Section 8 and wanted to know if the income status allowed the school to reach proper status to apply for the recognition. The teacher was concerned about the standard of living and low income housing in communities and how it affects schools within the community. CDD/Fong responded that the federal government regulates Section 8 housing and cities have no control as far as the number of rental units that can qualify for Section 8. In accordance with state law the City is required to offer a certain number of affordable units. OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Shah thanked the Commissioners for receiving him with open arms and felt the Commission handled Item 7.1 very well. VC/Torng welcomed C/Shah to the Commission and thanked staff for their assistance with this evening's meeting. He hoped that the Sprint/Nextel matter would not cause any problems and that the matter would soon be resolved. 10. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS. 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future proiects. CDD/Fong said that earlier this evening the Commission discussed a project with seven bedrooms and the ratio of garage spaces to the number of bedrooms. She believed the City's Code needed to be modified to address this type of future request and she wanted to research the matter further and bring a report before the Commission for consideration ofcriteria for staff to implement as these types of situations come to the City. Another issue of concern related to the number of bedrooms is the matter of rooming and boarding within these houses that is difficult for cities to control. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, VC/Torng adjourned the regular meeting at 9:32 p.m. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Nancy Tony Torng, Vice 66airman ment Director Agenda No. 6.2(b) MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 23, 2007 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: VC/Torng led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Kathleen Nolan, Jack Shah, Vice Chairman Tony Torng and Chairman Steve Nelson. Also present: Greg Gubman, Planning Manager; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; David Alvarez, Planning Technician; Brad Wohlenberg, Assistant City Attorney and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 9, 2007. VC/Torng moved, C/Lee seconded to approve the October 9, 2007, Minutes as presented Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: A13SENT: COMMISSIONERS: 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: Lee, Nolan, Shah, VC/Torng None Chair/Nelson None 7.1 Development Review No 2007-29 — In accordance with Development Code Section 22.48, the applicant requested approval of plans to construct a two- OCTOBER 23, 2007 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION story addition of 1,151 square feet and to remodel the existing dwelling to create a 7 -bedroom, 4 -bathroom, single-family dwelling unit. The subject property is zoned R-1 (8,000) and contains 14,466 gross square feet (.33 acres) of land area. PROJECT ADDRESS: 1510 Kiowa Crest Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ Martha and Paul Gonzales 1510 Kiowa Crest Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Roofing Plus Construction 18 N. Central Avenue Upland, CA 91786 PM/Gubman stated that at the request of the applicant, staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue Development Review 2007-29 to November 13, 2007. Chair/Nelson re -opened the public hearing. John Hoffner, 1504 Kiowa Crest, adjacent and upslope from the project, was concerned about this proposed addition severely impacting his view. Mr. Hoffner said he had no personal problems with his neighbor. However, he was concerned with his neighbor's landscaping and was also concerned about placement of windows, grading and parking and cars in the back yard area. The proposed project is larger than homes in his area and if approved for living quarters above the garage it would be the only such project in his block. C/Lee asked if the Commission would be able to consider matters relating to views. ACA/Wohlenberg responded that there are view -related guidelines within the Development Code and as part of the upcoming staff report those guidelines will be considered and reviewed. VC/Torng moved, C/Nolan seconded to continue Development Review No. 2007-29 to November 13, 2007, and direct staff to address the concerns of Mr. Hoffner. Motion approved by the following Roll Call vote: f OCTOBER 23, 2007 AYES: NOES: ABSENT 8. PULIC HEARINGS: PAGE 3 COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Torng, Nolan, Lee, Shah, Chair/Nelson None None 6.1 Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-14 — In accordance with Development Code Section 22.58, the applicant requested to establish a tutoring school, Power Main Mental Arithmetic, in a leased space of 900 square feet within an existing commercial center in the Community Commercial District (C-2). PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER 3209-E South Brea Canyon Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Amon Raphael 12400 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 238 Studio City, CA APPLICANT: Carolyn An Power Math Mental Arithmetic 20578 Oak Meadow Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PT/Alvarez presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-14, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. There were no ex parte disclosures. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Chen Chu, applicant, thanked the Planning Commission for its consideration. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Nolan moved, C/Shah seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-14, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: OCTOBER 23, 2007 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NolaLee, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: None g. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: Chair/Nelson asked if the City had rules and regulations pertaining tools placement the nature of political signage and ACA/Wohlenberg responded that the code con only. What the sign says falls under free speech and is not subject to regulation. erg said he C/Shah asked if signage had to indicate reorship ulations�n th�gardnbn addition, f was not aware of the City enforcing poli 9 signs are legally placed their removal may be considered an illegal act. 10. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS. 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Nelson adjourned the regular meeting at 7:32 p.m. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman, Planning Manager S e Nelson, Chairman Aaenda No. 6.3 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 11, 2007 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Shay called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management/Government Center Hearing Board Room, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Pincher led the Pledge of Allegiance ROLL CALL: Commissioners Jimmy Lin, Liana Pincher, Vice Chairman Kenneth Mok and Chairman Michael Shay Also Present: Rick Yee, Senior Engineer; Kimberly Molina, Associate Engineer, Marcy Hilario, Senior Administrative Assistant. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A. Minutes of the September 13, 2007 meeting C/Lin moved, C/Pincher seconded to approve the minutes of the September 13, 2007 meeting as corrected. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lin, Pincher, VC/Mok, Chair/Shay NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None II PUBLIC COMMENTS: Kevin House, 2536 Harmony Hill Drive, requested a copy of the September 13, 2007 minutes. SE/Yee asked the speaker to provide his contact information and staff would make certain he received a copy. III. ITEMS FROM STAFF: A_ Traffic Enforcement Update: 1. Citations: July, August & September 2007 2. Collisions: July, August & September 2007 3. Street Sweeping: July, August & September 2007 OCTOBER 11, 2007 PAGE 2 T&T COMMISSION ing the Chair/Shay said he wanted to know the bacground Diamond Bar Blvd. Gold Rush.information sfatal accident that occurred onsaid he would report back at the next meeting. IV. STATUS OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS A. Truck Route Sign on Golden Springs Drive SE/Yee reported that in response to a concerned citizen's inquiry last month, staff verified the inventory of truck signage along Golden Springs Drive and found four (4) signs; ooll co lat the sprobit u hend he truck tCi y. A portion of traffic the City, as well as t ()ations Golden Springs Drive is designated as a truck route. B. SE/Yee, responding to C/Pincher's concern about line of sight for a vehicle being able to view the status of the signal when making a right -turn movement onto southbound Grand Avenue, staff looked into the northbound SR57 off ramp at Grand Avenue and is currently in communication with Caltrans who is investigating the matter for possible mitigation. SE/Yee said that he would report back to the Commission at its next meeting. V. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS — None Offered. VI. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. ACE Grade Separation on Brea Canyon Road — SE/Yee reported that significant roadway reconstruction has taken place on Windwood Avenue. In addition, ACE completed re -striping of Brea Canyon Road to allow for a truck turnaround. B. Various Traffic Signal Improvements on Golden Springs Drive — SE/Yee stated that staff forward 1th project. video cameras were installed at Brea Canyon Road/GoldenSprings Drive as well as Golden Springs Drive/Diamond Bar Boulevard. This project should be completed by the end of November 2007. C. NTMP — Sunset Crossing Road and Prospectors Road — SE/Yee reported that a conceptual plan was approved by the City Council. D. Industry's Grand Avenue Bridge Widening/Interchange Project — SE/Yee stated that staff continues to work with the City's consultant team preparing transportation simulation models for different alternatives for the Grand Avenue Interchange Project. SE/Yee invited the Commissioners to attend the City Council Study Session regarding this matter on Tuesday, October 16tH during which the City's traffic consultant will present the initial findings and recommendations on a short list of preferred alternatives for the SR57/60 "big fix" solution, including a proposal for Grand Avenue interchange. OCTOBER 11, 2007 PAGE 3 T&T COMMISSION E. Lemon Avenue On/Off Ramps Project — SE/Yee reported that a progress report would be presented at the October 16th City Council Study Session. 1=. SR57/60 Feasibility Study — see above. G. Annual Slurry Seal Program — AE/Molina stated that staff is working on a punch list of items for the striper to install striping where it was missed and fix substandard striping. In particular, the thermal plastic signal head legend on the southbound lanes of Diamond Bar Boulevard between Kmart and Golden Springs Drive is substandard and must meet City standards. Today, staff met with the designers for the design of Residential Area 4 and Arterial Zone 2 with work planned for next summer. NTMP Pilot Project — AE/Molina explained that the consultant was still working on interpreting the final traffic counts taken in June and staff is planning to present a final report to the City Council in November. NTMP — Palomino Drive — AE/Molina reported that, in accordance with staff's recommendation, additional traffic counts were taken during a four-day period Thursday through Sunday. When staff receives the information, it will be forwarded to the consultant to prepare for a neighborhood meeting prior to the Thanksgiving holiday. Prospectors Road Rehab Project — AE/Molina stated that at its October 2nd meeting, the City Council awarded the contracts for this work. Staff decided to postpone the project until after the first of the year, so as not to disrupt residents during the holiday season. SE/Yee responded to C/Pincher that the study session was scheduled to commence at 5:00 p.m. with anotheragenda item preceding the Industry's Grand Avenue Bridge Widening/Interchange Project item. VC/Mok stated that a resident approached him and asked if the phasing of the signal at the intersection of Golden Springs Drive/Diamond Bar Boulevard was permanently sett or if staff would study the traffic flow for possible adjustments (Item B). SE/Yee responded that there have been calls about the timing at Brea Canyon Road/Golden Springs Drive and at Golden Springs Drive/Diamond Bar Boulevard intersections. During the switchover from in -pavement loop detection to video detection, the signal had to be put on recall. In about a week this will be corrected. VII. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE CITY EVENTS: As listed in the Agenda. OCTOBER 11, 2007 PAGE 4 T&T COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Traffic and Transportation Commission, Chair/Shay adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully, David G. Liu, Secretary CITY COUNCIL Agenda # h _ 4 Meeting Date: November 20, 2007 AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James DeStefano, City M nr TITLE: Ratification of Check Register d ted November 1, 2007 through November 14, 2007 totaling $951,292.83. RECOMMENDATION: Ratify. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Expenditure of $951,292.83 in City funds. BACKGROUND: The City has established the policy of issuing accounts payable checks on a weekly basis with City Council ratification at the next scheduled City Council meeting. DISCUSSION: The attached check register containing checks dated November 1, 2007 through November 14, 2007 for $951,292.83 is being presented for ratification. All payments have been made in compliance with the City's purchasing policies and procedures. Payments have been reviewed and approved by the appropriate departmental staff and the attached Affidavit affirms that the check register has been audited and deemed accurate by the Finance Director. PREPARED BY: Linda G. Magnuson Finance Director REVIEWED BY: tm � %J t e3 .,�_ a.� d— Finance ector Assistant ity pager Attachments: Affidavit and Check Register — 11/01/07 through 11/14/07. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR CHECK REGISTER AFFIDAVIT The attached listings of demands, invoices, and claims in the form of a check register including checks dated November 1, 2007 through November 14, 2007 has been audited and is certified as accurate. Payments have been allowed from the following funds in these amounts: Description Amount General Fund $884,671.68 Prop A - Transit Fund 8,366.22 Int, Waste Mgt Fund 6,627.00 AB2766 - AQMD Fund 1,456.61 CDBG Fund 11,936.26 LLAD #38 Fund 408.09 LLAD #39 Fund 299.26 LLAD #41 Fund 137.22 Capital Improvement Project Fund 37,390.49 $951,292.83 Lirida G. Margryu: Finance Director Page 1 Check Register 11/01/07 thru 11/14/07 City of Diamond Bar - Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total C�$50 Transaction Description Check Date Check Number Vendor Name o'nrn 50.00 11/1/2007 77861 AZRA AHMEDI PK REFUND-PANTERA 001 � ­ SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS 0015350 41200 27.91 $27.91 11/1/2007 77862 ALBERTSONS MEMBERSHIP DUES-FONG 0015210 42315 48.00 $48.00 11/1/2007 77863 AMERICAN PLANNING ASN SUPPLIES -CITY MUG 0014090 41400 12.11 $12.11 11/1/2007 77854 AMERICANA ART CHINA CO SUPPLIES -TONERS 0014070 45000 139.64 $139.64 11!1/2007 77865 AMERICOMP GROUP INC CELL CHARGES -POOL VEH 0014090 42125 12.11 $36.33 11/1/2007 77866 AT&T MOBILITY CELL CHARGES -POOL VEH 0014090 42125 12.11 11/1/2007 AT&T MOBILITY CELL CHARGES -POOL VEH 0014090 42125 12.11 11/1/2007 AT&T MOBILITY COMP EQ -HARDWARE 0014070 R46230 3,599.50 $3,599.50 11/1!2007 j 77867 A -NIDD MAINT-DBC 0015333 45300 773.00 $773.00 CONDITIONING SVCS IN 11/1/2007 77868 BEAR STATE AIR 11 1/02/07 -PIR DEDUCTIONS 001 21105 335.76 $335.76 11/1/2007 77869 BENESYST MAINT-LORBEER SCH 0015340 42210 2,237.13 $3,720.17 11/1/2007 77870 BEST LIGHTING PRODUCTS 0015340 42210 156.60 11/1/2007 BEST LIGHTING PRODUCTS MAINT-DIST 38 0015340 42210 117.76 11/112007 BEST LIGHTING PRODUCTS MAINT-SYC CYN PK 0015340 42210 697.18 11/1/2007 BEST LIGHTING PRODUCTS MAINT-STARSHINE PK 0015340 42210 511.50 PRODUCTS MAINT-PETERSON PK 11/1/2007 BEST LIGHTING PK REFUND-SYC CYN PK 001 23002 50.001 $50.00 1111/2007 77871 MYRA BUSTAMANTE CEQA SEMINAR-FONG/GUBMAN 0015210 42340 80.00 $80.00 11/1/2007 77872 CHAMBERS GROUP CONTRACT CLASS -FALL 0015350 45320 504.00 $504.00 11/1/2007 77873 TINA CHANG FORENSIC SVCS-JUL-SEPT 07 0014411 45401 6,820.00 $6,820.00 11/1/2007 77874 CITY OF WEST COVINA TRNG-N FONG 0015210 42340 105.00 $105.00 11/1/2007 77875 CLE INTERNATIONAL SUPPLIES PARKS 0015340 42210 329.72 $329.72 11/1/2007 77876 COMMERCIAL SECURITY GROUP Page 1 City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 11/01/07 thru 11/14/07 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount 11/1/2007 77877 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION HIP PROJ-335 N ROCK RIVER I 1255215 I 44000 I 8,y//.UUI ao,zlr f .v EDAW INC 11/1/2007 EXPRESS MAIL CORPORATE ACCOUNT 11/1/2007 0014090 EXPRESS MAIL CORPORATE ACCOUNT SUPPLIES-PLNG 0015210 41200 10.83 $10.83 11/1/2007 77878 CROWN GRAPHICS EXPRESS MAIL CORPORATE ACCOUNT EXPRESS MAIL -FPL 2007-246 001 23010 16.25 FEDEX SVCS -HOLIDAY CELEB 0014090 -'I40.00 42325$340.00 32.50 11/1/2007 77879 D & E CASINO SERVICES LLC 23010 32.50 THE HEARTH CATERING EXPRESS MAIL -FPL 2006-197 001 23010 PROF.SVCS-CC/SS 0014030 44000 300.00 $300.00 11/1/2007 77880 DENNIS CAROL 11/1/2007 11/1/2007 �77881�DIAMOND BAR INTERNATIONAL DELI MOND BAR INTERNATIONAL DELI R44000 MTG SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS MTG SUPPLIES -GENERAL $3,000.00 0015350 0014090 41200 42325 75.00 150.00 $225.00 GRAFFITI REMOVAL SEPT 07 0015230 45520 5 580.00 $5,580.00 CONSTRCTWWASHINGTON ST 2505510 R46411 11,571.35 $11,571.35 11/1/2007 77882 DREAMBUILDER INC 1 915 08 010639.33 11/1/2007 77883 EDAW INC 11/1/2007 EXPRESS MAIL -GENERAL O EDAW INC 11/1/2007 001 EDAW INC ADMIN FEE -FPL 2007-263 001 23010 D. U0 FEE-FPL 2007-263 001 34430 -1,915.08 PROF.SVCS-FPL 2007-263 001 23010 10,639.33 11/1/2007 77884 DOLORES ESPINOZA JPK REFUND -HERITAGE 001 23002 200.00 $200.00 16 25 $21165 11!1/2007 77885 EXPRESS MAIL CORPORATE ACCOUNT 1111/2007 EXPRESS MAIL -GENERAL O EXPRESS MAIL CORPORATE ACCOUNT 1111/2007 001 EXPRESS MAIL CORPORATE ACCOUNT 11/1/2007 EXPRESS MAIL CORPORATE ACCOUNT 11/1/2007 0014090 EXPRESS MAIL CORPORATE ACCOUNT 11/1/2007 EXPRESS MAIL CORPORATE ACCOUNT 11/1/2007 001 EXPRESS MAIL CORPORATE ACCOUNT 11/1/2007 63.4 3 EXPRESS MAIL CORPORATE ACCOUNT EXPRESS MAIL -FPL 2006-245 001 23010 EXPRESS MAIL -GENERAL O EXPRESS MAIL -FPL 2007-270 001 23010 16.25 $121.69 EXPRESS MAIL -GENERAL 0014090 42120 45.90 EXPRESS MAIL -GENERAL EXPRESS MAIL -FPL 2007-269 001 23010 32.50 63.4 3 EXPRESS MAIL -FPL 2007-246 001 23010 16.25 FEDEX EXPRESS MAIL -FPL 2007-278 001 23010 32.50 EXPRESS MAIL -FPL 2007-253 001 23010 32.50 THE HEARTH CATERING EXPRESS MAIL -FPL 2006-197 001 23010 19.50 $1,278.45 11/1/2007 77887 Page 2 EXPRESS MAIL -GENERAL O 0014090 42120 58.26 $121.69 11/1/2007 77886 FEDEX EXPRESS MAIL -GENERAL 0014090 42120 63.4 3 11/1/2007 FEDEX THE HEARTH CATERING SUPPLIES -SR HLWN DANCE 0015350 45300 1,278.45 $1,278.45 11/1/2007 77887 FOOD FROM CONSULTANT SVCS -WK 10/26 0014070 R44000 3,000.00 $3,000.00 11/1/2007 77888 GO LIVE TECHNOLOGY INC GRAFFITI REMOVAL SEPT 07 0015230 45520 5 580.00 $5,580.00 11/1/2007 77889 GRAFFITI CONTROL SYSTEMS Page 2 City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 11/01/07 thru 11/14/07 heck Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount Check Date 11! 11/1/2007 77896 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN JEQ MAINT-COMM VEH I 0015310 I 42200 I 93.32 a�'•" 11/1/2007 77890 GRAND MOBIL INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 11/1!2007 001 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 11/1/2007 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 11/1/2007 SVCS -NEWSLETTER 0014095 44000 3,066.08 $3,066.08 11/1/2007 77891 GRAPHICS UNITED IPRINT 11/1/2007 LEGAL AD -FPL 2007-281 001 23010 221.25 SUPPLIES -13. 0014070 1 41200 22.121 $22.12 11/1/2007 77892 GRAYBAR CITY OF LA VERNE SUPPLIES -DBC 0015333 1 41200 24.921 $24.92 PIPE AND SUPPLY INC 11!112007 77893 HIRSCH $65.00 11/1/2007 77899 KWANG HO LEE EXCURSION -SAN DIEGO 0015350 45310 719.20 23002 $1,108.0011/1/2007 $50.00 11/1/2007 77894 INLAND E�MPIRESTAGES EXCURSN-TRANSPORTATION 1125350 45310 388.80 ENGRAVING SVCS -BADGE INLAND STAGES 42113 13.81 $118.75 11/112007 77901 LEWIS ENGRAVING INC. ENGRAVING SVCS -BADGE OFFICIAL SVCS -OCT 0015350 45300 720.00 $720.00 ROUNDBALL OFFICIALS 11/1/2007 77895 INLAND LEWIS ENGRAVING INC. ENGRAVING SVCS -CITY TILE 0014090 42113 29.50 175 00 $1 440 00 11/1/2007 77896 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 11/1/2007 1 001 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 11/1/2007 001 001 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 11/1/2007 CYNTHIA KAMIMURA INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 11/1!2007 001 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 11/1/2007 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 11/1/2007 001 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN LEGAL AD -FPL 2007-289 001 23010 RECREATION REFUND 1 001 347!2__I_30.00 LEGAL AD -FPL 2007-269 LEGAL AD -FPL 2006-245 001 001 23010 23010 203.75 207.50 CYNTHIA KAMIMURA LEGAL AD -FPL 2007-283 001 23010 230.00 LEGAL AD -FPL 2007-268 001 23010 203.75 0014411 45405 LEGAL AD -FPL 2007-272 001 23010 198.75 11/1/2007 LEGAL AD -FPL 2007-281 001 23010 221.25 0014411 45405 Page 3 RECREATION REFUND 1 001 347!2__I_30.00 $30.00 11/1/2007 77897 CYNTHIA KAMIMURA PRKG CITE HRG3-JUN 07 0014411 45405 130.00 =$260.00 11/1/2007 77898 CITY OF LA VERNE PRKG CITE 3 -MAR 07 0014411 45405 130.00 11/1/2007 CITY OF LA VERNE PLNG COMM -AUG 07 0015210 44100 65.00 $65.00 11/1/2007 77899 KWANG HO LEE PK REFUND-SYC CYN PK 001 23002 50.00 $50.00 11/1/2007 77900 KIM LESSING ENGRAVING SVCS -BADGE 0014090 42113 13.81 $118.75 11/112007 77901 LEWIS ENGRAVING INC. ENGRAVING SVCS -BADGE 0014090 42113 13.81 11/1/2007 LEWIS ENGRAVING INC. ENGRAVING SVCS -CITY TILE 0014090 42113 29.50 11/1/2007 LEWIS ENGRAVING INC. ENGRAVING SVCS -BADGE 0014090 42113 13.81 11/1/2007 LEWIS ENGRAVING INC. ENGRAVING SVCS -BADGE 0014090 42113 13.81 11/1/2007 LEWIS ENGRAVING INC. SVCS -BADGES 0014090 42113 34.01 11/1/2007 LEWIS ENGRAVING INC. JENGRAVING Page 3 City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 11/01/07 thru 11/14/07 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount Page 4 PK REFUND -DBC 001 23002 500.00 $387.50 11/1!2007 77902 JOEL LEYVA FACILITY RENTAL -DBC 001 36615 112.50 11/1,2007 JOEL LEYVA COMMISSION IMEMBERSHIP DUES-FONG 0015210 42315 75.00 $75.00 11/1/2007 77903 LOCAL GOVERNMENT LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. CALVARY CHAPEL -SEPT 07 0014411 45402 6,753.54 $353,472.70 1111/2007 77904 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. CONTRACT SVCS -SEPT 07 0014411 45401 342,120.62 11/1/2007 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. BACKFILL TRNG-SEPT 07 0014411 45402 4,107.43 11!1/2007 ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. HELICOPTER SVCS -SEPT 07 0014411 45401 491.11 11/1/2007 LOS 1111/2007 77905 BUSINESS ACCOUNT SUPPLIES -DBC 0015333 41200 16.11 30.29 $46.40 11/1/2007 JLOWE'7S LOWE'S BUSINESS ACCOUNT SUPPLIES -GENERAL 0014090 41200 HEALTH NETWORK NOV 07 -EAP PREMIUMS 001 1 21115 152.90 $152.90 11/1/2007 77906 MANAGED SOLUTIONS INC CONSULTANT SVCS -SEPT 0014060 44000 1 2,340.00 $2,340.00 11/1/2007 77907 MANAGEMENT REIMB-SUPPLIES 0014440 41200 1253.60 $253.60 11/1/2007 77908 RYAN MCLEAN COMM -AUG 07 0015210 44100 130.001 $130.00 11/1/2007 77909 STEVE G NELSON JPLNG ERIN NOLAN PLNG COMM -AUG 07 0015210 44100 130.00 $130.00 11/1/2007 77910 KATHLEEN ANNEXATION-CRESTLINE 0015210 R44220 52,315.95 $52,315.95 11/1/2007 77911 P & D CONSULTANTS INC INC. ILONG DIST SVCS-OCT/NOV 0014090 42125 799.43 $799.43 11/1/2007 77912 PAETEC COMMUNICATIONS MAINT-DBC 0015333 42210 255.00 $255.00 11/1/2007 77913 PASCO MARY OKWANDU PK REFUND-REAGAN 001 23002 50.00 $50.00 11/1/2007 77914 PATRICK NOV 07-HELATH INS PREMS 001 21105 25,441.35 $25,763.74 11/1/2007 77915 PERS HEALTH 0014090 40086 242.40 11/1/2007 PERS HEALTH ADMIN FEE 0014060 40093 7999 11/1/2007 PERS HEALTH ADMIN FEE RETIRE IRE LUN I I(IB ER 001 21109 14.263.29 $23,460.38 11/1/2007 77916 PERS RETIREMENT FUND Page 4 City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 11/01/07 thru 11/14/07 I Total Check Amo unt Check Date Check Number Vendor Name 11/1/2007 11/1/2007 77916... PERS RETIREMENT FUND PERS RETIREMENT FUND Transaction Description Fund/ Dep t Acct # Amoun k:: RETIRE CONTRIB-EE 001 21109 a,151.59 $23460.38 ... SURVIVOR BENEFIT 001 21109 45.57 3 Page 5 IPRINT SUPPLIES -LETTERHEAD 0014090 42110 72.53 $72.5 11!1/2007 77917 REINBERGER PRINTWERKS MAINT-HERITAGE PK 0015340 42210 352.50 $352.50 11/1/2007 77918 ROTO ROOTER PLUMBERS CONTRACT CLASS -FALL 0015350 45320 1,044.00 $1,044.00 11/1/2007 77919 FRANCIS SABADO PK REFUND- SYC CYN PK 001 23002 50.00 $50.00 11/1/2007 77920 RAJESH SAWHNEY SCMAF MTG-MCKITRICK 0015350 1 42325 60.00 $60.00 11/1/2007 77921 JSCMAF PK REFUND-PANTERA 001 23002 200.00 $200.00 11/1/2007 77922 BEBIANA SIZEMORE SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS 0015350 41200 128.41 $128.41 11/1/2007 77923 ISMART & FINAL LEASE -CITY HALL NOV 0014090 42140 21,810.601 $21,810.60 QUALITY MGT DISTRICT 11/1/2007 77924 SO COAST AIR WATER SUPPLIES -CITY HALL 0014090 41200 136.54 F_7$146.79 11/1/2007 77925 SPARKLETTS EQ RENTAL -OCT 07 0014090 42130 10.25 11/1/2007 SPARKLETTS SLRY ATTCHMNT-BY0426064 001 21114 100.00 $100.00 11/112007 77926 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT ENTERTAINMENT-SCH DANCE 0015350 45300 250.00 $250.00 11/112007 77927 ALVIN E E STINGLEY CONSULTANT SVCS WK 10/12 0014070 44000 450.00F=985 1111/2007 Fl1/1/2007 77928 THE COMDY�GRP �IN��� CONSULTANT SVCS -WK 10/1 0014070 44000 2,535.16 THE COMDY INTERNET SVCS -HERITAGE PK 0015340 42126 39.95 $39.95 11!1/2007 77929 TIME WARNER VALLEY CREST LANDSCAPE MAINT INC ADDL MAINT-SYC CYN PK 0015340 42210 1,500.00 $3,325.00 1111/2007 77930 VALLEY CREST LANDSCAPE MAINT INC ADDL MAINT-SYC CYN PK 0015340 42210 840.00 11/1/2007 CREST LANDSCAPE MAINT INC ADDL MAINT-SYC CYN PK 0015340 42210 985.00 11/1/2007 VALLEY 11/02/07 PIR DEDUCTIONS 001 21108 28132.02 $28,132.02 TRNSFR AGNTS 303248 11/1/2007 77931 VANTAGEPOINT Page 5 Page 6 Check Register 11/01/07 thru 11/14/07 City of Diamond Bar - Acct # Amount Total Check Amount Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Check Date Check Number Vendor Name "vv 42125 2R,5R $526.53 11/1/2007 77932 VERIZON CALIFORNIA PH.SVCS-DATA MODEM 1409^u 0014090 42125 74.78 11/1/2007 VERIZON CALIFORNIA PH.SVCS-DIAL ACCESS MODEM 244.17 11/1/2007 VERIZON CALIFORNIA PH. SVCS -DBC 0015333 42125 89.50 VERIZON CALIFORNIA PH.SVCS-MAPLE HILL 0015340 42125 11/1/2007 PH.SVCS-REAGAN 0015340 42125 89.50 11/1/2007 VERIZON CALIFORNIA CELL CHRGS-DESFORGES 0014070 42125 50.43 $249.39 11/1/2007 77933 VERIZON WIRELESS -LA 0014070 42125 54.43 11/1/2007 VERIZON WIRELESS LA CELL CHRGS-AZIZ 42125 99. 61 11/1/2007 VERIZON WIRELESS -LA CELL CRHGS CMGR 0014030 44.61 11/1/2007 VERIZON WIRELESS -LA CELL CHRGS-EOC 0014440 42125 0.08 WIRELESS -LA CELL CHRGS-GENERAL 0014090 42125 11/1/2007 VERIZON NOV 07 -VISION PREMIUMS 001 21107 1,127.60 $1,127.60 11/1/2007 77934 IVISION SERVICE PLAN PLNG COMM -AUG 07 0015210 44100 130.00 $130.00 11/1/2007 77935 OSMAN WEI MAYOR'S SUMMIT -COUNCIL 0014010 42330 400.10 $400.10 11/112007 77936 WELLS FARGO BANK ICSC CONF-CMGR 0014030 42330 346.53 $871.53 11/112007 77937 WELLS FARGO BANK LEAGUE CONF-CMGR 0014030 42330 525.00 1 1 /112 007 WELLS FARGO BANK LEAGUE CONF-DOYLE 0014030 42325 140.00 $787.22 11/1/2007 77938 WELLS FARGO BANK LEAGUE CONF-DOYLE 0014030 42330 525.00 11/1/2007 WELLS FARGO BANK SCAG MTG-DOYLE 0014030 42325 27.22 11/1/2007 WELLS FARGO BANK PARMA & PRIMA CONF-DOYLE 0014030 42325 95.00 11/1/2007 WELLS FARGO BANK PLNG COMM -AUG 07 0015210 44100 130.00 $130.00 11/1/2007 77939 YI TONY TORNG CONTRACT CLASS -FALL 0015350 45320 363.00 $363.00 11/8/2007 77940 ABRAKADOODLE CORP PK REFUND -DBC 001 23002 500.00 $500.00 11/8/2007 77941 NOMAAN BAIL IRECREATION REFUND 001 34780 1 $60.00 11/8/2007 77942 JIN AH BANG MTG SUPPLIES P/WKS 0015510 42325 12.99 $12.99 DINING SERVICE 11/8/2007 77943 CALIFORNIA JPK REFUND DBC 001 23002 1 500.00 $466.00 11/8/2007 1 77944 DANIEL CASTELLANOS Page 6 Page 7 Check Register 11/01/07 thru 11/14/07 City of Diamond Bar - Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount Check Date TCI Vendor Name ���,� sa nn $466.00 ... 11/8/2007 77944... DANIEL CASTELLANOS PROPERTY DAMAGEv"u i ��� - - SUPPLIES DBC 0015333 41200 193.66 $193.66 11/8/2007 77945 CATALINA BALLAST BULB COMPANY CONTRACT CLASS-FALL 0015350 45320 72.00 $72.00 11/8/2007 77946 CENTER ICE SKATING ARENA MTG-D DOYLE 0014030 42325 40.00 $40.00 11/8/2007 77947 CHAMBERS GROUP CONTRACT CLASS-FALL 0015350 45320 363.00 $363.00 11!8!2007 77948 CHARTER OAK GYMNASTICS, INC. PK REFUND-DBC 001 23002 100.00 $100.00 11!8/2007 77949 OLIVE CHEN CDBG-CURB INSTALL 2505310 R46420 16,115.88 $16,115.88 11/8/2007 77950 CJ CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION INC CONTRACT CLASS-FALL 0015350 45320 60.00 $60 00 11/8/2007 77951 CIG COFFMAN RA PROCESSING FEE-CRESTLINE 0015210 44220 1,500.00 $1,500.00 11/8/2007 77952 COUNTY OF LOS AN ecru cvCS-SEPT 07 ..G o BLD 0015220 45000 22,635.53 $22,635.53 11/8/2007 77953 D & J MUNICIPAL SERVICES INC. u LEGAL SVCS-SEPT 07 0014020 44023 2,795.15 $2,795.15 11/8/2007 77954 DAPEER ROSENBLIT & LITVAK LLP NOV 07-DENTAL PREM 001 21104 322.64 $322.64 11/8/2007 77955 DELTA CARE USA NOV 07-DENTAL PREM 001 21104 2,501.87 $2,501.87 11/8/2007 77956 DELTA DENTAL & R COMM0015350100$200.00 11/8/2007 77957 DENNIS CAROL0015510 rPROF.SVCS-P & T COMM 411/8/2007 DENNISCAROLOF.SVCS-T DIAMOND BAR COMMUNITY FOUNDATION Al COMM FNDTN GALA 0014030 42115 350.00 $350.00 1118/2007 77958 DIAMOND BAR IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION NOV Al 0014095 42115 450.00 $450.00 11/8/2007 77959 SUPPLIES-RECYCLING 1155516 41200=25.10 1118/2007 77960 DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH 0015510 42325 11/8/2007 DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH MTG-P/WORKS 0015333 4120011/8/2007 DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH SUPPLIES-DBC11/8/2007 0015210 42330 BAR PETTY CASHMTG-COMM DEV DIAMOND Page 7 City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 11/01/07 thru 11/14/07 t Total Check Amount Check Date Check Number Vendor Name 11/8/2007 77960... DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH 11/8/2007 0u152 i0 DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH 11/8/2007 IDOG DEALERS INC DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH 11/812007 0015210 0015210 DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH 11/8/2007 001 DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH Transaction Description = Acct # Amoun 0015350 45320 MTG-COMM DEV 0u152 i0 42325 77961 IDOG DEALERS INC HALL & FOREMAN, INC. SUPPLIES -COM DEV TRNG-COMM DEV 0015210 0015210 41200 42340 19.96 10.00 001 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. MTG-CMGR 0014030 42325 69.00 100.00 $100.00 SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS 0015350 41200 10.51 -7-20 11/8/2007 77967 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. CONTRACT CLASS -FALL 0015350 45320 160.80 $160.80 11/8/2007 77961 IDOG DEALERS INC HALL & FOREMAN, INC. 11/8/2007 -69.75 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. 11/8/2007 001 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. 40.00 PK REFUND -DBC 001 23002 100.00 $100.00 11/8/2007 77962 JOANNE ESCALANTE 1 34430 -7-20 SUPPLIES -RECREATION SUPPLIES -RECREATION 0015350 0015350 41200 41200 PLANT SVCS -DBC OCT 0015333 45300 171.60 $171.60 11/8/2007 77963 EVERGREEN INTERIORS FXCURSION-TRANSPORTATION 1125350 45310 EXPRESS MAIL -GENERAL $1,223.00 0014090 42120 207.71 $431.46 11/8/2007 77964 FEDEX EXPRESS MAIL -GENERAL 0014090 42120 192.94 11!8/2007 FEDEX EXPRESS MAIL -TRANSIT 0014090 42120 30.81 1118/2007 FEDEX RECREATION REFUND 001 34780 125.00 $125.00 11/8/2007 77965 JOSE FLORES ENTERTAINMENT -SR DANCE 0015350 45300 150.001 $350.00 11/8/2007 77966 RICHARD FLORES 387 50 $42750 11/8/2007 77967 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. 11/8/2007 44100 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. 11/8/2007 23010 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. 11/8/2007 ADMIN FEE -FPL 2007-273 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. 11/8/2007 -69.75 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. 11/8/2007 001 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. PROF.SVCS-FPL 2007-273 001 23010 1 0015350 44100 ADMIN FEE -FPL 2007-273 001 23010 69.75 ADMIN FEE -FPL 2007-273 001 34430 -69.75 PROF.SVCS-FPL 2007-273 001 23010 40.00 900.00 8,022.28 ADMIN FEE -FPL 2007-273 001 23010 7.20 ADMIN FEE -FPL 2007-273 001 1 34430 -7-20 11/8/2007 77968 LEW HERNDON P & R COMM -11108 1 0015350 44100 45.00 445.00 11/8!2007 77969 JH�NDERLITER, DE LLAMAS &ASSOCIATES HNDERLITER, DE LLAMAS &ASSOCIATES CONTRACT SVCS -4TH QTR AUDIT SVCS-S/TAX 2ND QTR 0014090 0014090 44010 44010 900.00 8,022.28 $8,922.28 SUPPLIES -RECREATION SUPPLIES -RECREATION 0015350 0015350 41200 41200 157.53 124.92 $282.45 11/8/2007 11/8/2007 77970 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES FXCURSION-TRANSPORTATION 1125350 45310 1,223.00 $1,223.00 Page 8 11!8/2007 77977 jLDM ASSOCIATES INC. CONSULTANT SVCS -HIP AUG 1255215 44000 1,652.50 $1,652.50 11/8/2007 1 HTING RESOURCES LLC RECYCLING SVCS -BATTERIES 1155515 44000 106.70 $106.70 Page 9 City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 11/01/07 thru 11/14/07 Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct #Amount Total Check Amount Check Date Check Number Vendor Name ^ 20300T a a87 5n $9;487.50 11/8/2007 77972 JDC INC ADA RE I KUH I -P GROW PK 25v - LEGAL SVCS-SCRIBBLES OCT 0014020 44021 22,021.90 $31,344.30 11/8/2007 77973 JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP LEGAL SVCS-FINANCE OCT 0014020 44020 34.40 11/8/2007 JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP GEN LEGAL SVCS-OCT 07 0014020 44020 5,177.20 11/8/2007 JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP LEGAL SVCS-COM DEV OCT 0014020 44020 2,820.80 11/8/2007 JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP LEGAL SVCS-P/WORKS OCT 0014020 44020 1,290.00 11/8/2007 IJENKINS & HOGIN, LLP SUPPLIES-COMM SVCS 0015310 42200 92.16 $1,052.31 11/8/2007 77974 KENS HARDWARE SUPPLIES-ROAD MAINT 0015554 41250 25.12 11/8/2007 KENS HARDWARE SUPPLIES-DBC 0015333 41200 138.28 11/8/2007 KENS HARDWARE 0014090 41200 40.30 11/8/2007 KENS HARDWARE SUPPLIES-C/HALL 11/8!2007 KENS HARDWARE SUPPLIES-RECREATION 0015350 41200 756.45 IRECREATION REFUND 001 34780 30.001$30.00 11/8/2007 77975 CINDY KIGHT ADMIN FEE-FPL 2007-263 001 23010 2,513.70 $13,965.00 11/8/2007 77976 LAND MATTERS ADMIN FEE-FPL 2007-263 001 34430 -2,513.70 11/8/2007 LAND MATTERS PROF.SVCS-FPL 2007-263 001 23010 13,965.00 11/8/2007 LAND MATTERS 11!8/2007 77977 jLDM ASSOCIATES INC. CONSULTANT SVCS -HIP AUG 1255215 44000 1,652.50 $1,652.50 11/8/2007 1 HTING RESOURCES LLC RECYCLING SVCS -BATTERIES 1155515 44000 106.70 $106.70 Page 9 11/8/2007 77998 City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 11/01/07 thru 11/14/07 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 11/8/2007 1395539 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount Check Date Check Number Vendor Name 11/8/2007 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS -DIST 41 1415541 42126 137.22 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MTG-COUNCIL 001400/0 42325 10An $10.00 11/8/2007 77985 REGIONAL 1385538 1 42126 376.06 PK REFUND -DBC 001 23002 500.00 $500.00 11/8/2007 77986 HUMBERTO RUBAL P & R COMM -11/08 0015350 44100 45.00 $45.00 11/8/2007 77987 RUTH M. LOW & SUPPLIES LLC SUPPLIES -ROAD MAINT 0015554 41250 1 560.30 $560.30 11/8/2007 77988 IS C SIGNS JPK REFUND -DBC 001 23002 100.00 $100.00 11/8/2007 77989 CARMELA SALAZAR RECREATION REFUND 001 34780 125.00 $125.00 11/8/2007 77990 SILVA SANDOVAL REIMB-CPRS CONF 0015310 42330 150.58 $150.58 11/8/2007 77991 ISARA SOMOGYI SUPPLIES -PARKS 0015340 42210 66.38 $66.38 11/8/2007 77992 SCHORR METALS INC NOTARY RENEWAL -M HILARIO 1 0015510 42340 1 40.00 $40.00 11/8/2007 77993 SECRETARY OF STATE PK REFUND -DBC 001 23002 500.00 $500.00 11/8/2007 77994 EVELIA SERRANO MAINT DBC SEPT 0015333 45300 160.00 $160.00 11/8/2007 77995 LANI SHAW EXCURSION -TRANSPORTATION 1125350 45310 843.04 $843.04 11/8/2007 77996 SILVER STATE COACH INC -RECREATION 0015350 41200 6.30 $199.7611/8/2007 11/8/2007 77997 SMART &FINAL =SUPPLIES 0015350 41200 193.46 SMART &FINALNGO 214 68 0623860 11/8/2007 77998 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 11/8/2007 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 11/8/2007 1395539 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 11/8/2007 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 11/8/2007 0015510 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 11/8/2007 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS -PARKS 0015340 42126 5, ELECT SVCS -DIST 39 1395539 42126 299.26 ELECT SVCS-P/WORKS 0015510 42126 179.35 ELECT SVCS -DIST 41 1415541 42126 137.22 ELECT SVCS -DIST 38 1385538 42126 32.03 ELECT SVCS -DIST 38 1385538 1 42126 376.06 11/8/2007 77999 THE COMDYN GROUP INC CONSULTANT SVCS -WK 9/28 0014070 44000 2,500.00 $3,034.09 11/8/2007 THE COMDYN GROUP INC CONSULTANT SVCS -WK 9/26 0014070 44000 159.09 11/8/2007 THE COMDYN GROUP INC CONSULTANT SVCS -WK 9/21 0014070 44000 375.00 Page 10 City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 11/01/07 thru 11/14/07 Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount Check DateCheck Number Page 11 P/R TRANSFER-07/PP 22 118 10200 1,4bb.b1 11/1/2007 77 -PP 22 PAYROLL TRANSFER 125 10200 1,306.76 11/1/2007 PAYROLL TRANSFER P/RTRANSFER-07JPP 22 001 10200 143,448.88 11/1/2007 PAYROLL TRANSFER Il TRANSFER-07/PP 22 112 10200 5,911.38 11/1/2007 PAYROLL TRANSFER P/R TRANSFER-071PP 22 115 10200 4,091.66 11/1/2007 PAYROLL TRANSFER P/R TRANSFER-071PP 22 AD -BIDS PETERSON PK 2505310 46415 215.76 $613.80 THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY NEWSPAPER GR 11/8!2007 78000 GABRIEL VALLEY NEWSPAPER GR LEGAL AD -NOT OF P/HEARING 0014030 42115 398.04 11/8/2007 THE SAN PROF.SVCS-DATA CONVERSION 0014070 44000 2,750.00$2,750,00 11/8/2007 78001 THE STORRS GROUP MODEM SVCS -COUNCIL 0014010 42130 44.95 $44.95 11/8/2007 78002 TIME WARNER EQ RENTAL -ROAD MAINT 0015554 42130 22.00 $102.00 11/8/2007 78003 TRENCH PLATE RENTAL CO SUPPLIES -ROAD MAINT 0015554 42130 80.00 11/8/2007 TRENCH PLATE RENTAL CO RECREATION REFUND 1001 34780 30.00 $30.00 1118/2007 78004 SUSAN TUPPER REIMB-OTS GRAND 001 31856 297.40 $297.40 TRAFFIC SAFETY CENTER 11/8/2007 78005 UC BERKELEY STANDBY LOC FEES-JUL-OCT 0014090 1 42129 3,750.00 $3,750.00 11/8/2007 78006 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA SERVICES SUPPLY SUPPLIES -ROAD MAINT 0015554 41250 13 7.37 $137.37 11/8/2007 78007 UNITED TRAFFIC PK REFUND -DBC 001 23002 100.0011 $100.00 11/8/2007 78008 TRACEY VERDUZCO PH.SVCS-HERITAGE PK FAX 0015340 42125 24.54 $183.85 11/8/2007 78009 VERIZON CALIFORNIA PH.SVCS-PETERSON PK 0015340 42125 30.81 11/8/2007 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 0015333 42125 89.75 11/8/2007 VERIZON CALIFORNIA PH.SVCS-DBC 0015340 42125 38.75 11/8/2007 VERIZON CALIFORNIA PH.SVCS-HERITAGE PK RECREATION REFUND 001 34780 95.00 $95.00 11/8!2007 78010 THOMAS WATTS SUPPLIES -DBC 0015333 41200 880.10 $880.10 11/812007 78011 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY PROF SVCS SHARPS PROG 1155515 44000 271.24 $1,346.56 11/8/2007 78012 JWELLDYNERX Page 11 Page 12 Check Register 11/01/07 thru 11/14/07 City of Diamond Bar - Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount Check Date Check Number Vendor Name PROF.SVCS-SHARPS PROG 1155515 44000 13u• 11/8/2007 78012... WELLDYNERX PROF.SVCS-SHARPS PROG 1155515 44000 232.76 1102007 WELLDYNERX PROF.SVCS-SHARPS PROG 1155515 44000 507.84 11/8/2007 WELLDYNERX PROF.SVCS-SHARPS PROG 1155515 44000 196.60 11/8/2007 WELLDYNERX SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS 0015350 41200 549.09 $581.26 11/8/2007 �78013]WELLS FARGO BANK SUPPLIES DB4 YOUTH 0015350 41200 32.17 11/8/2007 LLS FARGO BANK ILEAGUE MTG-COUNCIL 0014010 42330 54.30 $54.30 11/8/2007 78014 WELLS FARGO BANK MTGS-COUNCIL 0014010 42325 21.38 $21.38 11/8/2007 78015 WELLS FARGO BANK SUPPLIES ROAD MAINT 0015554 41250 229.15 $460.44 11/8/200777T8061�6WHITE�INDUS���� SUPPLIES -ROAD MAINT 0015554 41300 231.29 11/8/2007 jPK REFUND -DBC 001 36615 400.00 $400.00 11/8/2007 78017 EDNA YAMBAO ILEASE PMT -DBC NOV 07 0014090 42140 60,909.61 $60,909.61 BANK OF CALIFORNIA, NA 11/1/2007 W(F 33 JUNION $951,292.83 Page 12 Agenda # 6.5 Meeting Date: November 20, 2007 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 75 IN TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: James DeStefano, City Man ?G� 'Vg TITLE: A RESOLUTION TO DESIGN kTE THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH (DPH), ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION, SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (SWMP), AS THE LOCAL ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (LEA) RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR'S SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION: Approve. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact. BACKGROUND/ DISCUSSION: In 1989, the California Integrated Solid Waste Management Act was created by the State legislature. This act requires that all cities designate a Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) to enforce various state laws and regulations pertaining to solid waste management. The LEA is charged with enforcement of minimum standards for solid waste handling and disposal that pertains to solid waste collection firms and processing/disposal facilities. On January 16, 1990 the City Council adopted resolution No. 90-8, designating the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (DHS) as the City's solid waste management LEA. In July of 2006, the DHS, reorganized and the Department of Public Health (DPH) was formed. Within DPH is the Solid Waste Management Program (SWMP) which is a part of the Los Angeles County Department of Environmental Health Division under DPH. The LEA is currently authorized and designated under DHS in Diamond Bar to enforce all laws and regulations relating to solid waste disposal, handling, and transport. By approving the attached resolution, the City will be designating/approving the SWMP under DPH to act as the LEA within Diamond Bar. PREPARED BY: Joyce Lee, Management Analyst REVIEWED BY: -�7A David . Li , P. . Director of Public Works Attachments: Resolution No. 2007-xx Resolution No. 90-8 Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2007- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL TO DESIGNATE THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION, SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, AS THE LOCAL ENFORCEMENT AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CITY'S SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT WHEREAS, California Public Resources Code Section 43202 provides that there may be designated in each city an enforcement agency to carry out the provisions of the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (Act), commencing with Section 40000 of the Public Resources Code, Division 30, as it may be amended from time to time; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Public Resources Code Section 43202 (c), the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar may designate a local enforcement agency (LEA) to carry out the provisions of the Act in the City of Diamond Bar; and WHEREAS, the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health possess the required technical expertise, staff resources, budge resources, and training to carry out the enforcement program mandated by the Act. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does hereby resolve that pursuant to Public Resources Code 43203, the Solid Waste Management Program under the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health is designated as the Local Enforcement Agency to carry out the provisions of the Act in the City of Diamond Bar. Passed, Approved, and Adopted on this 201h day of November 2007. Steve Tye, Mayor I, Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed, adopted and approved at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on 20`h day of November, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST: Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk City of Diamond Bar RESOLUTION No. go - 9 AECEIVED JAN 2 2 MO A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE SOUDWAM CITY OP DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, OF HEALTH SERVICES LOS ANGBLES COUNTY DEPARTMENTDESIGNATING TBMWMMENT PROGRAM A$ THE CITY IS SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ENFORCEMENT AGENCy WHEREAS the County of Los Angeles and its incorporated cities are required bY Section 66796 Of the Government Code to designate an enforcement agency to carry out the provisions f the Zlberg--Kapiloff Solid Waste Control Act of 1976; and, WHEREAS the County and each city within the County of Los J, .,''Ange-les has designated Or will designate its own enforcement agencl- and, WHEREAS, the LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES possesses the required capabilities in environmental health and solid waste management to implement the Z'berg- Kapilof f Solid Waste Control Act of 1976 and the regulations and ordina:nces that have been and Will be adopted pursuant thereto: NOW THERSPORE, BE IT RESOT4VZD by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar that it hereby designates the LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES as the enforcement agency -for the City Of Diamond Bar pursuant to subsection (3) of ection 66796 of the Government Code. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this -2,.G-th day of 1990. km4n �V' Mayor Pro Tem W' I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar at regular meeting thereof, a {,��,;�;;, :•^�'; held on the ],6th day of Januar 1990, by the following vote: �•�:y p/.`,^`✓+14`,!x`; � • COUNCIL MEMBERS - Forbing, Miller and Mayer Pro Tem Horcher COUNCIL MEMBERS - None COUNCIL MEMBERS Werner and Mayor Papen COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ATTEST!AC11erk of th City of Diamond Bar AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: i �•�:y p/.`,^`✓+14`,!x`; � • COUNCIL MEMBERS - Forbing, Miller and Mayer Pro Tem Horcher COUNCIL MEMBERS - None COUNCIL MEMBERS Werner and Mayor Papen COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ATTEST!AC11erk of th City of Diamond Bar Agenda Meeting Date: 11/20/07 CITY COUNCIL n �� % AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: .James DeStefano, City Mana e C� TITLE: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2007 -XX OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PLAN FOR AT -RISK YOUTH IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AS REQUIRED BY PROPOSITION A "SAFE PARKS ACT" TO SECURE $233,975.50 IN FUNDING FROM THE REGIONAL PARK AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT THROUGH THE 2018/2019 FISCAL YEAR TO IMPLEMENT THIS PLAN. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The City of Diamond Bar is eligible to receive $233,975 in funding for this program between now and the 2018/19 fiscal year. Eligible expenses are reimbursed by the Regional Park and Open Space District after required documentation is submitted by the City. BACKGROUND: On August 17, 1997, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors directed the Regional Park and Open Space District to require a Youth Employment Plan from all cities that received Proposition A "Safe Parks Act" funds. Over the past 10 years, the City of Diamond Bar has received about $3 million of these funds for park projects, including the original construction of Pantera Park, installation of ball field lights at Peterson Park, and the recent ADA improvements completed at Sycamore Canyon Park. The Youth Employment Plan is required to ensure cities are complying with the youth employment goals, which is essentially the employment of at -risk youth, as stated in Proposition A "Safe Parks Act". The City of Diamond Bar is scheduled to receive $233,975.50 in funding for this program between now and the 2018/19 fiscal year. DISCUSSION: The Youth Employment Plan recommended by staff is to contract with the California Conservation Corp to complete a variety of maintenance projects, including: 1. Clearing of brush, shrubs and overgrowth along developed trails and hiking paths. 2. Removal of trash and debris on developed trails and hiking paths.. 3. Removal of graffiti from trailheads and waterfall deck in Sycamore Canyon Park as necessary. 4. General maintenance and servicing of all developed trails and hiking paths. The plan recommended by staff meets all the requirements set forth by Proposition A "Safe Parks Act" for costs incurred by the City operating the Youth Employment Plan to be reimbursed by the Regional Park and Open Space District. Attachment: (Resolution 2007 -XX Prepared by: Alison Meyers, Recreation Specialist REVIEWP!Y*ND APPROVED BY: Director of Community Services RESOLUTION NO. 2007 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PLAN FOR AT -RISK YOUTH IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AS REQUIRED BY PROPOSITION A `SAFE PARKS ACT" TO SECURE $233,975.50 IN FUNDING FROM THE REGIONAL PARK AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT THROUGH THE 2018/2019 FISCAL YEAR TO IMPLEMENT THIS PLAN WHEREAS, the voters of Los Angeles County passed Proposition A "Safe Parks Act" in both the 1992 and 1996 elections; and WHEREAS, the City of Diamond Bar is entitled to the allocation of $233,975.50 in funds from the Regional Park and Open Space District, an amount that will accrue incrementally through the 2018/2019 Fiscal Year, to implement the Diamond Bar Youth Employment Plan for at -risk youth; and WHEREAS, procedures adopted by the Regional Park and Open Space District require the approval of the Youth Employment Plan for Diamond Bar to be eligible to receive said funding; and WHEREAS, the definition of at -risk youth must also be approved for Diamond Bar to be eligible to receive said funding. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar hereby: 1. Approves the Diamond Bar Youth Employment Plan presented in Exhibit A; and 2. Approves the following definition for Diamond Bar At -Risk Youth as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission at their October 25, 2007 meeting: "Any individual 14 to 24 years of age who is involved in or is at risk of involvement in any of the following: drug and/or alcohol abuse, adolescent pregnancy, single parenthood, physical and/or emotional abuse, gang activity, violence and vandalism, poverty, family unemployment, truancy, and academic performance below grade level or failing to complete high school."; and 3. Certifies that these actions are consistent with the City of Diamond Bar Youth Master Plan, adopted in June 200_1). The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of November, 2007. STEVE TYE Mayor I, Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed, approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on 20th day of November, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk City of Diamond Bar Exhibit "A" November 20, 2007 City of Diamond Bar Youth Employment Plan Trail Maintenance and Servicing Program Background: The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors requires 1992 and 1996 Proposition A "Safe Parks Act" fund recipients to submit a Youth Employment Plan that will benefit area youth. To assist communities in establishing a plan, the District developed Youth Employment Goals that amount to 10% of the project allocations from the two bond acts. Estimated Cost of Youth Employment: Just under $19,500 per year or $233,975.50 total for the twelve year period of 2007/08FY through 2018/19FY. This cost is originally to be paid from the City of Diamond Bar General Fund and then reimbursed to the City from the Regional Park and Open Space District with Proposition A "Safe Parks Act" funds. Method of Youth Employment: The City of Diamond Bar will contract with the California Conservation Corp in conformance with the approved definition of "at -risk youth" and methodology approved by the Regional Park and Open Space District. "At -Risk Youth" Statement: An individual is considered to be an at -risk youth for purposes of Proposition A "Safe Parks Act" per the following definition: "Any individual 14 to 24 years of age who is involved in or is at risk of involvement in any of the following: drug and/or alcohol abuse, adolescent pregnancy, single parenthood, physical and/or emotional abuse, gang activity, violence and vandalism, poverty, family unemployment, truancy, and academic performance below grade level or failing to complete high school." Youth Emplovment Goal (Equal to the Estmated Cost of Youth Employment): Under the provisions of the Regional Park and Open Space District policy of the employment of at -risk youth, the Youth Employment Goal (YEG) of the City of Diamond Bar through the term of the bond act in 2019 is $233,975.50 (equal to 10% of the total city Maintenance and Servicing Fund by Proposition A "Safe Parks Act" of 1992 and 1996). Tasks to be performed by at -risk youth per the City of Diamond Bar Youth Employment Plan through contract with the California Conservation Corps: 1. Clearing of brush, shrubs and overgrowth along developed trails and hiking paths. 2. Removal of trash and debris on developed trails and hiking paths. 3. Removal of graffiti from trailheads and waterfall deck in Sycamore Canyon Park as necessary. 4. General maintenance and servicing of all developed trails and hiking paths. Changes to the City of Diamond Bar Youth Employment Plan can be made by resolution of the Diamond Bar City Council. Agenda # 6.7 Meeting Date: November 20 2007 CITY COUNCIL ,rN 4� AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Member of the City Council VIA: James DeStefano, City Man g TITLE: SECOND READING OF ORDINAN E NO. X (2007) AMENDING TITLE 15 OF THE DIAMOND BAR MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2007 -XX DETERMINING THAT MODIFICATIONS TO THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING, PLUMBING, AND ELECTRICAL CODES ARE REASONABLY NECESSARY. RECOMMENDATION: Approved second reading by title only and adopt Ordinance No. 2007 -XX and adopt Resolution No. 2007 -XX. BACKGROUND: On November 6, 2007 City Council conducted a public hearing for a first reading of the 2007 California Building Codes in order to meet the state mandates. The Council deliberated on the proposed amendments and instructed staff not to omit section 105.2(2). As a result of council direction, fences 6 feet and under in height, will be exempted from building permit requirements. During the ordinance discussion the Council also directed staff to conduct a survey with surrounding cities to determine what percentage of a non conforming roof material may be replaced without having to replace the non conforming roof material with a class "C" roof material on any re -roof permit application. Survey revealed the following: 1. Walnut 25% 2. Chino 20% 3. LA County Fire 25% 4. Pomona 25% 5. Yorba Linda 25% After reviewing the percentages of the Cities above, it is staff's recommendation that section 1505.1.1 remain in the ordinance to read as follows: "A Class "C" roof material for all new buildings and existing buildings throughout the City of Diamond Bar when twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the roofed area is re -roofed within a one ,year period. The class "C" rated roof is effective against light fires and may consist of wood shakes, which have been treated with fire retardant materials." The City's amendments to the building codes shall take effect thirty (30) day from it's adoption.( Dec. 20th ,2007). Dennis Tarango, Chief Building Official Attachments: 1. Ordinance No. X (2007) 2. Resolution No. 2007 -XX 3. November 6, 2007, Council Staff Report 2 Reviewed By Dave Doyle, Assistant City Manager ORDINANCE NO. X (2007) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING TITLE 15 OF THE DIAMOND BAR CODE ADOPTING, BY REFERENCE, THE "CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE", 2007 EDITION, VOLUMES 1 AND 2, INCLUDING ALL APPENDICES THERETO, APPENDIX CHAPTER 1 OF THE 2007 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE AS THE ADMINISTRATION CODE, THE "CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE", 2007 EDITION AND THE APPENDICES THERETO, THE "CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE", 2007 EDITION AND THE APPENDICES THERETO, THE "CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE", 2007 EDITION AND THE APPENDICES THERETO, "THE UNIFORM HOUSING CODE", 1997 EDITION AND THE APPENDICES THERETO AND THE "UNIFORM SWIMMING POOL, SPA AND HOT TUB CODE", 2000 EDITION, TOGETHER WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS, ADDITIONS, DELETIONS AND EXCEPTIONS INCLUDING FEES AND PENALTIES. A. Recitals. (i) Section 17922 of the California Health & Safety Code mandates the adoption, by reference, of the International Code Council (ICC) codes. (ii) At least one copy of each of the codes and standards identified in this Ordinance and certified as full, true and correct copies thereof by the City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar have been filed in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code § 50022.6. (iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does hereby find, determine and ordain as follows: 1 Section 1 "Division 2 of Chapterl5.00 of the Diamond Bar City Code is amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: DIVISION 2. Appendix Chapter 1 ADMMSTRATION CODE "'Sections: "15.00.110 Administration Code - Adopted "15.00.120 Amendments Section 104.1 - Amended. Section 104.6 - Amended. Section 104.8 - Deleted. Section 105.1 - Amended. Section 105.1.1 - Amended. Section 105.1.2 - Deleted. Section 105.2.4 - Amended. Section 105.2.9 - Amended. Section 105.3 - Amended. Section 105.3.2 - Amended. Section 105.5 - Amended. Section 105.8 - Added. Section 108.3 - Amended. Section 108.4 - Amended. Section 108.6 - Amended. Section 108.7 - Added Section 112 - Amended. Section 112.1 - Amended. Section 112.2 - Amended. Section 116 - Added Section 117 - Added Section 118 - Added "15.00.130 Penalties - Added "15.00.110 Administration Code - Adopted "The Administration Code", Appendix Chapter 1 of the 2007 California Building Code, hereby is adopted, in its entirety, except as hereinafter provided, as the Administration Code of the City of Diamond Bar pertaining to building and construction regulations within the City, together with the amendments, additions, deletions and exceptions set forth in this Division. "15.00.120 Amendments 2 Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 15.00.110, the Administration Code is amended as follows: Section 104.1 - Amended. "Section 104.1 of the Uniform Administration Code hereby is amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: "Section 104.1. General. The Building Official shall enforce the provisions of this Chapter and shall have the responsibility for making interpretations of the Uniform Codes, for deciding upon the approval of equipment and materials, and for granting the special permission contemplated in a number of code sections hereof. Section 104.6 - Amended. "Section 104.6. of the Administration Code hereby is amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: Section 104.6. Right of Entry. The Building Official, or his/her duly authorized representative, shall have the authority to enter any building or premises for the purpose of investigation of the existence of suspected or reported damage or defects which constitute an immediate danger to human life or an immediate hazard to public safety or health. Except in emergency situations, the Building Official, or his/her authorized representative, shall not enter any building or premises without the consent of the owner or occupant thereof, unless he/she possesses a warrant authorizing entry and search of the premises. No person shall hinder or prevent the Building Official, or his/her authorized representative, while in the performance ofthe duties herein described as emergency situations or while in possession of a warrant, from entering upon and into any and all premises under his/her jurisdiction, at all reasonable hours, for the purpose of inspecting the same to determine whether or not the provisions of the Chapter and all other applicable laws or ordinances pertaining to the protection of persons or property are observed therein. Section 104.8 - Deleted. "Section 104.8. of the Administration Code hereby is deleted, in its entirety. Section 105.1. - Amended. "Section 105.1. of the Administration Code hereby is amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: "Section 105.1. Permits Required. Except as specified in Section 105.2 of this section, no building or structure regulated by this Code shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, moved, improved, removed, converted or demolished unless a separate permit for each building or structure has first been obtained from the Building Official. All signs affixed to any building or structure and not otherwise requiring a permit hereunder shall require a building permit. Section 105.1.1. - Amended. "Section 105.1.1. of the Administration Code hereby is amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: "Section 105.1.1. Detached accessory buildings used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses, and similar uses provided that: a. The building is accessory to a dwelling unit. b. The building neither exceeds 120 square feet in roof area nor exceeds 6 feet in overall height. C. The building has no plumbing or electrical installations or fixtures. d. The building is separated from any similar accessory structures by a minimum distance of 6 feet. Section 105.2(4). - Amended. "Section 105.2(4). of the Administration Code hereby is amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: "Section 105.2(4). Retaining walls which are not over 3 feet in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, unless supporting a surcharge or impounding flammable liquids. Section 105.2.(9). - Amended "Section 105.2.9. of the Administration Code hereby is amended to read in words and figures, as follows: "Section 105.2.9. Prefabricated swimming pools, spas, or hot tubs accessory to Group R, Division 3 Occupancy in which the pool walls are embedded no more than 12 inches below the adjacent grade and if the capacity thereof does not exceed 5,000 gallons. Section 105.3 - Amended. Section 105.3 of the Administration Code hereby is amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: 4 "Section 105.3 Application. Application for a permit to perform the work shall be made in writing to the Building Official and shall fully describe said work. Plans, engineering calculations, diagrams, and other data, including specifications and schedules, may be required to determine whether the installation as described will be in conformance with the requirements of this Title. If it is found that the installation as described will conform to all legal requirements, and if the applicant has complied with the provisions of this Title, a permit for such installation shall be issued. No deviation may be made from the installation described in the permit and plan without the prior written approval of the Building Official. Section 105.3.2 - Amended. "Section 105.3.2 of the Administration Code hereby is amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: "Section 105.3.2 Expiration of Plan Review. Applications for which no permit is issued within 180 days following the date of submitted application shall expire by limitation, and plans and other data submitted for review may thereafter be returned to the applicant or destroyed by the Building Official. The Building Official may extend the time for action by the applicant for a period not exceeding 180 days upon request by the applicant showing that circumstances beyond the control of the applicant have prevented action from being taken. No application shall be extended more than once. In order to renew action on an application after expiration, the applicant shall resubmit plans and pay a new plan review fee. Section 105.5 - Amended "Section 105.5 of the Administration Code hereby is amended by the addition of the following exception to read, in words and figures, as follows: "EXCEPTION: Demolition permits shall expire by limitation and shall become null and void if the work authorized by such permits is not substantially commenced within 45 days of the date such permit was issued or as otherwise specified by the Building Official. Section 105.8 - Added. "Section 105 of the Administration Code hereby is amended by the addition of a new subsection 105.8 to read, in words and figures, as follows: "Section 105.8 Qualifications of Permittee. No person shall be issued a permit under this Chapter until evidence of a valid California Contractor's License and Workers Compensation Insurance is presented to the Building Official. "EXCEPTION: Owner -builder permit may be issued for specified occupancies in 5 accordance with California law. Section 108.3 - Amended. "Section 108.3 of the Administration Code hereby is amended to read, in word and figures, as follows: "Section 108.3 Permit Fees. The fees required in this Chapter shall be paid to the Building Official for all work for which a permit is required by this Title. Section 108.4 - Amended. "Section 108.4 of the Administration Code hereby is amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: "Section 108.4 Failure to obtain a permit and to pay fees therefore before commencing work shall be deemed evidence of violation of the provisions of this Chapter. A penalty, as established by resolution of the City Council, shall be assessed for work commenced before a permit is issued. Whenever any work for which a permit is required under the provisions of this Chapter has been commenced without the authorization such permit, a special investigation may be required before a permit will be issued for any such work. In addition to any regular permit fee and/or any penalty fee, the said investigation fee shall be collected as established by resolution of the City Council. Section 108.6 - Amended. "Section 108.6 of the Administration Code hereby is amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: "108.6 Fee Refunds. The Building Official shall collect such fees as are required to be paid by this Chapter and shall make no refund of fees paid except in accordance the provisions of this section and in no event after one hundred eighty (180) days have elapsed from the date of the issuance of the permit. All requests for refund of fees paid shall be made in writing to the Building Official and shall be made in accordance with the procedures and refund schedule established by resolution of the City Council. Section 108.7 - Added "Section 108.7.is added to the Administration Code to read, in words and figures, as follows: "Section 108.7 Plan Review Fees. When a plan or other data is required to be submitted for review and approval by the Building Official pursuant to this Chapter, a plan review fee shall be paid at the time of submittal of such plan or other data. Said plan review and recheck fees shall be established, and maybe amended from time to time, by resolution of the City Council. Section 112 - Amended. "Section 112 of the Administration Code hereby is amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: "Section 112.1. Appeals. A decision of the Building Official regarding the interpretation or implementation of any provision ofthis Chapter or the Code adopted hereby shall be final and shall become effective forthwith upon the service of the decision by the Building Official, in writing, upon the permittee. For the purposes of this section, service upon the permittee shall mean either personal delivery or placement in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to the permittee at his last known business address; provided, however, that the permittee may, within ten (10) days after the effective date ofthe decision of the Building Official, file an appeal with the City Clerk, in writing, specifying the reason or reasons for the appeal and requesting that the Board of Appeals review the decision of the Building Official. "Section 112.2. The City Council shall act as the Board of Appeals in making a final determination of any appeal filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 112 of this Code. The City Clerk shall schedule a hearing on the appeal at reasonable times at the convenience of the Board of Appeals, but not later than thirty (30) days after receipt of the written appeal. The permittee may appear in person before the Board or be represented by an attorney and may introduce evidence to support his claim. The Building Official shall transmit to the Board all records, papers, documents, and other materials in support of his decision and shall provide a copy thereof to the permittee appealing the decision of the Building Official. The permittee appealing the decision of the Building Official shall cause, at his own expense any tests or research required by the Board to substantiate his claim to be performed or otherwise carried out. The Board may continue such appeal hearing from time to time as deemed necessary by the Board. The Board may, by resolution, affirm, reverse or modify in whole or in part, any appealed decision, determination, or interpretation of the Building Official. A copy of the resolution adopted by the Board shall be mailed to the permittee and the Board's decision shall be final upon the mailing, by United States Mail, postage prepaid, to the permittee's last known address of record. "The determination of value or valuation under any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be made by the Building Official whose determination shall be final. The value is to be utilized in computing the permit and plan review fees established pursuant to this Chapter shall be the total value of all work for which the permit is issued including, by way of illustration and not by limitation, construction and finish work, painting, roofing, electrical, plumbing, heating, air-conditioning, elevators, fire -extinguishing systems, and all other permanent equipment. Section 116 - Added "Section 116 is hereby added to Administration Code to read, in words and figures, as follows: "Section 116. Prohibited Uses of Building Sites. "116.1 Flood Hazard. Buildings are not permitted in an area determined by the City Engineer to be subject to flood hazard by reason of inundation, overflow or erosion. "The placement of the building and other structures (including walls and fences) on the building site shall be such that water or mud flow will not be a hazard to the building or adjacent property. 'EXCEPTION: This prohibition shall not apply when provision is made to eliminate such flood hazard to the satisfaction of the City Engineer by providing adequate drainage facilities, by protective walls, suitable fill, raising the floor level of the building, a combination of these methods, or by other means. "116.2 Geologic Hazards. "116.2.1. No building or grading permit shall be issued under the provisions of this section when the City Engineer finds that property outside the site of the proposed work could be damaged by activation or acceleration of a geologically hazardous condition and such activation or acceleration could be attributed to the proposed work on, or, change in use of, the site for which the permit is requested. For the purpose of this section, geologically hazardous condition does not include surface displacement due to earthquake faults. "116.2.2. Work requiring a building or grading permit by this code is not permitted in an area determined by the City Engineer to be subject to hazard from landslide, settlement, or slippage. These hazards include those from loose debris, slope wash and the potential for mud flows from natural slopes or graded slopes. For the purposes of this section, landslide, settlement, or slippage does not include surface displacement due to earthquake faults. "116.2.3. Subject to the conditions of subsection 116.2.1 ofthis section, permits may be issued in the following cases: 0 a. When the applicant has submitted an engineering geology and/or geotechnical engineering report or reports complying with the policies and provisions of City Engineer which report or reports show that the hazard will be eliminated prior to the use or occupancy of the land or structures by modification of topography, reduction of subsurface water, buttressing, a combination of these methods, or by other means. b. When the applicant has submitted an engineering geology and/ geotechnical engineering report or reports complying with the policies and provisions of the City Engineer which report or reports contain sufficient data to show that the site appears to be in no danger for the intended use. Section 117 - Added "Section 117 hereby is added to Administration Code to read in words and figures, as f3llows: "Section 117. Geology and Engineering Reports. The City Engineer in the case of an application for a grading permit, may require an engineering geology or geotechnical engineering report, or both, where in his opinion such reports are essential for the evaluation of the safety of the site. The engineering geology or geotechnical engineering report or both shall contain a finding regarding the safety of the building site for the proposed structure against hazard from landslide, settlement or slippage and a finding regarding the effect that the proposed building or grading construction will have on the geologic stability of property outside of the building site. Any engineering geology report shall be prepared by a certified engineering geologist licensed by the State of California. Any geotechnical engineering report shall be prepared by a civil engineer qualified to perform this work, such as a geotechnical engineer experienced in soil mechanics. When both an engineering geology and geotechnical engineering report are required for the evaluation of the safety of a building site, the two reports shall be coordinated before submission to the City Engineer. Any finding regarding the safety of the building site and the effect that the proposed building or grading construction will have on the geologic stability of property outside of the building site must be: substantiated with sufficient data and analyzed in a manner consistent with the current industry standard of care and must be concurred with by the City Engineer who may rely on the opinion of independent geotechnical reviewers. Section 118 - Added "Section 118 hereby is added to Administration Code to read, in words and figures, as follows: "Section 118 Seismic Hazard Zone Maps. Special studies zones maps within the City of Diamond Bar prepared under sections 2622 and 2623 of the California Public Resources Code which show traces of earthquake faults are hereby declared to be, on the date of official issue, a part of this code, and may be referred elsewhere in this code. Special pi studies zones maps revised under the above sections of the California Public Resources Code shall, on the date of their official issue, supersede previously issued maps which they replace. Copies of each of the above maps shall be available for examination by the public at the Department of Public Works, Department of Community Development and the Office of the City Clerk. 1115.00.130 Penalties for Violation of Division "It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership, or corporation to violate any provision, or to fail to comply with any of the requirements, of this Division. Any person, firm, partnership, or corporation violating any provision of this Division or failing to comply with their requirements shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each such person, firm, partnership, or corporation shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or any portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this Division or the Codes adopted hereby is committed, continued or permitted by such person, firm, partnership, or corporation, and shall be deemed punishable therefor as provided in this Division. Section 2• Division 3 of Chapterl5.00 of the Diamond Bar City Code is amending to read, in words and figures, as follows: DIVISION 3. BUILDING CODE "Sections: 15.00.310 California Building Code - Adopted 15.00.320 Code Amendments Chapter 1 - Deleted. Section 1805.10 -Added. Section 1505.1.1 -Amended. Section 1505.8 -Amended. Table No. 1505.1 -Amended. Section J101 -Amended Section J101.3 -Added Section J 101.4 -Added Section J101.5 -Added Section J102 -Amended Section J103 -Amended Section J103.3 -Added Section J103.4 -Added 10 Section J 104 -Amended Section J104.5 -Added Section J104.6 -Added Section J104.7 -Added Section J105 -Amended Section J105.3 -Added Section J109 -Amended Section J109.5 -Added Section J110 -Amended Section J110.3 -Added Section J110.4 -Added Section J112 - Added "15.00.330 Penalties - Added. "15.00.310 California Building Code - Adopted "Except as hereinafter provided, the California Building Code, 2007 Edition (Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations), and the appendices thereto, which incorporates and amends the International Building Code, 2006 Edition, published by the International Code Council, is hereby adopted by reference and incorporated herein as though fully set forth herein and shall constitute the Building Code of the City. A copy of such Code has been deposited in the office of the City Clerk and shall be, at all times, maintained by the City Clerk for use and examination by the public. "15.00.320 Code Amendments Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 15.00.320, the California Building Code is amended as follows: Chapter 1 - Deleted. "Chapter 1 of the California Building Code hereby is deleted, in its entirety. All administrative, permitting and related requirements of said Chapter 1 of the California Building Code shall be governed by Division 2 of this Chapter. Section 1805.10 - Added. "Section 1805.10 is hereby added to the California Building Code to read, in words and figures, as follows: "Section 1805.10. Foundations on Expansive Soil. Foundation systems on expansive soil shall be constructed in a manner that will minimize damage to the structure from movement of the soil. Slab -on -grad and mat -type footings for buildings located on 11 expansive soils may be designed in accordance with the provisions of Division III or such other engineering design based upon geotechnical recommendation as approved by the building official. For residential -type buildings, where such an approved method of construction is not provided, foundations and floor slabs shall comply with the following requirements: "1. Depth of foundations below the natural and finish grades shall be not less than 24 inches for exterior and 18 inches for interior foundations. "2. Exterior walls and interior bearing walls shall be supported on continuous foundation. "I Foundations shall be reinforced with at least two continuous one -half-inch diameter deformed reinforcing bars. One bar shall be placed within four inches of the bottom of the foundation and one within four inches of the top of the foundation. "4. Concrete floor slabs on grade shall be cast on a four -inch fill of coarse aggregate or on a moisture barrier membrane. The slabs shall be at least three and one-half inches thick and shall be reinforced with welded wire mesh or deformed reinforcing bars. Welded wire mesh shall have a cross-sectional area of not less than five -hundredths square inch per foot each way. Reinforcing bars shall have a diameter of not less that three -eight inch and be spaced at intervals not exceeding 24 inches each way. "5. The soil below an interior concrete slab shall be saturated with moisture to a depth of 18 inches prior to casting the concrete. Section 1505.1.1 - Amended "Section 1505. 1.1 of the California Building Code as heretofore adopted, hereby is amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: "Roof Covering Requirements. "Section 1505.1.1. The roof covering or roofing assembly on any structure regulated by this code shall as specified in Table 1505.1 and as classified in Section 1504. Noncombustible roof covering as defined in Section 1504.2 may be applied in accordance with the manufacturer's requirements in lieu of a fire -retardant roofing assembly. Roofing shall be secured or fastened to the supporting roof construction and shall provide weather protection for the building at the roof. "Roof Coverings Within Fire Zones. "Unless governed by more stringent requirements of this law, roofs on all buildings within all areas designated as a very high Fire Hazard Zone 4 by the Los Angeles County Fire Protection District, and approved by the City Council, shall have at least a Class A roof 12 covering. "1. Section 1505. 1.1 is applicable to new buildings and to existing buildings when twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the roof area is re -roofed within a one-yearperiod after issuance of a building permit. "2. Section 1505.1.1 is not applicable to existing buildings under the operation of a license or which owners have made applicable for licensure issued by the California ]Department of Social Services or the California Department of Health Service. "EXCEPTION: Existing buildings that have twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the roof area reroofed within a one-year period after the issuance of the building permit or after commencing construction, are required to be fire retardant by other provisions of this code. "3. The installer of the roof covering shall provide certification of the roof covering classification to the building owner and, when requested, to the inspection authority having jurisdiction." Section 1505.8 - Amended. "Section 1505.8 of the California Building Code, hereby is amended by the addition of subparagraph 1505.8 to read, in words and figures, as follows: "1505.8 EXCEPTION: Except as required within Section 1505.1.1 of the California Building Code, as adopted by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, and notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, any existing roof covering not in conformity with this Section may be repaired by the use of similar non -conforming roof covering materials where the repair thereof does not exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the existing gross roof area; provided, however, that the twenty-five percent (25%) exception provided hereunder may be utilized only once in any twelve (12) month period time." Table No. 1505.1 - Amended. "Table No. 1505.1 - Minimum Roof Classes of the California Building Code, as heretofore adopted by this Council, hereby is amended by deleting therefrom any and all references to "NR - Non -rated roof coverings" and substituting therefor "C - Class C roofing." Section J101 - Amended "Section J 101 of Appendix J ofthe 2007 California Building Code hereby is amended by adding subsection J101.3, J101.4 and J101.5 to read, in words and figures, as follows: 13 Section J101.3 - Added "Section J101.3. Hazardous Conditions. Whenever the City Engineer determines that any existing excavation, embankment or fill has become a hazard to life and limb, or endangers property, structures, or adversely affects the safety, use or stability of a public way or drainage channel, the owner of the property upon which the excavation, embankment or fill is located, or other person or agent in control of said property, upon receipt of notice in writing from the City Engineer shall within the period specified therein repair, reconstruct or remove such excavation, embankment or fill so as to eliminate the hazard. Section J101.4 -Added "Section J101.4. Maintenance of Protective Devices and Rodent Control. The owner of any property on which grading has been performed pursuant to a permit issued under the provisions of this code, or any other person or agent in control of such property, shall maintain in good condition and repair all drainage structures and other protective devices and burrowing rodent control when shown on the grading plans filed with the application for grading permit and approved as a condition precedent to issuance of such permit. Section J101.5 - Added "Section J101.5. Correlation With Other Sections. The provisions of this section are independent of the provisions of Division 9, Building and Property Rehabilitation Code of Title 15 of the Diamond Bar City Code. Section J102 - Amended "Section J1 02.1 Appendix J of the 2007 California Building Code hereby is amended by addition to and modification of definitions therein to read, in words and figures, as follows: "BUILDING OFFICIAL. Whenever in Appendix J the term "building official" is used, said term shall mean, and all powers and duties to be exercised by the building official shall be vested in, the City Engineer of the City of Diamond Bar. "CIVIL ENGINEER shall mean a professional engineer registered in the State of California to practice in the field of civil works. "CIVIL ENGINEERING shall mean the application ofthe knowledge of the forces of nature, principles of mechanics and the properties of materials to the evaluation, design and construction of civil engineering works. 14 "ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST shall mean a person experienced and knowledgeable in engineering geology and holding a valid certificate of registration as a geologist issued by the State of California. "'LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT shall mean a person holding a valid certificate of registration as a landscape architect issued by the State of California. "'SLOPE shall mean an inclined ground surface the inclination of which is expressed as a ratio of horizontal distance to vertical distance. "SOE S ENGINEER (GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER) shall mean a civil engineer experienced and knowledgeable in the practice of soils (geotechnical) engineering and holding a valid certificate of registration as a soil (geotechnical) engineer issued by the State of California. Section J103 - Amended "Section J103.1 of Appendix J of the 2007 California Building Code hereby is amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: "Section J103.1. Permits Required. Except as exempted in Section J103 of Appendix J, no person shall do any grading without first obtaining a grading permit from the City Engineer. A separate permit shall be required for each site, and may cover both excavations and fills, except that a grading permit may be issued for a site to include incidental minor work outside the site on contiguous property, provided that the owner of such contiguous property has filed with the City Engineer written consent to the work. Such consent shall include a statement that the owner will irrigate and maintain planted slopes and maintain drains located within his property and the owner will hold the City of Diamond Bar free and clear of any liability for damages to the proposed work. Section J103.3 - Added "Section J103 hereby is amended by adding subsections J103.3, J1 03.3a and J103.3b of Appendix J of the 2007 California Building Code to read, in words and figures, as follows: "Section J103.3 Other Permits Required and Jurisdiction of Other Agencies. "Section J103.3.a Other Permits Required. Permits issued under provisions of Appendix J convey no right to erect any foundation, structure or building, or construct any swimming pool, spa or hot tub, or do any plumbing work, or do any electrical work. Regular foundation, structure or building; swimming pool, spa or hot tub; plumbing; electrical or other permits shall be secured for all such work. 15 "Section J1 03.3.b Jurisdiction of Other Agencies. Permits issued under provisions of Appendix J shall not relieve the owner of the responsibility for securing permits, licenses or approvals that may be required from other departments or divisions of the governing agencies. Section J103.4 - Added "Section J103.4 of Appendix J ofthe 2007 California Building Code hereby is added to read, in words and figures, as follows: "Section J103.4. Grading Designation. Grading involving any fill intended to ;>upport structures, or grading for the development of more than one lot or parcel, or grading in excess of 50 cubic yards, or grading which includes excavation or fill in excess of 5 feet in depth or height shall be performed in accordance with the approved grading plan prepared by a civil engineer, and shall be designated as "engineered grading". All other grading shall be designated as "regular grading" unless the permittee chooses to have the grading performed as "engineered grading" or unless the City Engineer determines that special conditions or unusual hazards exist, in which case grading shall be designated as and conform to the requirements of "engineered grading". Section J104 - Amended "Section J104 hereby is amended by adding subsection J104.5, J104.6, J104.6a, J 104.6b, J104.7, J 104.7a, and J 104.7b of Appendix J of the 2007 California Building Code to read, in words and figures, as follows: Section J104.5 - Added "Section J104.5. Issuance. The provisions of Section 105.3 of the Appendix Chapter 1, of the 2007 California Building Code as duly adopted, are applicable to grading permits. The City Engineer may require that grading operations and project designs be modified if delays occur which incur weather -generated problems not considered at the time the permit was issued. The City Engineer may require professional inspection and testing by the soils engineer. When the City Engineer has cause to believe that geologic factors may be involved, the grading will be required to conform to engineered grading. The City Engineer may require bonds in such form and amounts as may be deemed necessary to ensure that the work, if not completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, will be corrected to eliminate hazardous conditions. In lieu of a surety bond, the applicant may file a cash bond or instrument of credit with the City Engineer in an amount equal to that which would be required in the surety bond. 16 Section J104.6 - Added "Section J104.6 Denial of Permit. "Section J104.6.a. Flood and Geologic Hazards. The City Engineer shall not issue a grading permit in any case where he finds that the work, as proposed by the applicant, is likely to adversely affect the stability of adjoining property or result in the deposition of debris on any public way or interfere with any existing drainage course or be in any area determined to be subject to flood or geologic hazard under provisions of Section 116 of the Appendix Chapter I of the 2007 California Building Code, as duly adopted and amended. EXCEPTION 1: This prohibition shall not apply when provision is made to eliminate such flood or geologic hazard to the satisfaction of the City Engineer under the provisions of Section 116 of the Appendix Chapter 1 of the 2007 California Building Code, as duly adopted and amended. EXCEPTION 2: This prohibition shall not apply when grading work in an existing drainage course is designed to meet all requirements for grading in drainage courses under the City's Hillside Management Ordinance and provision is made to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to adequately collect, convey and discharge flows through the project without increasing erosion or deposition of debris or adversely affecting upstream or downstream properties. "Section 104.6.b. Land Use. The City Engineer shall not issue a grading permit for any work on the site unless the proposed uses shown on the grading plan for the site will comply with the provisions of the Zoning Code Ordinance of the City of Diamond Bar. Section J104.7 - Added "Section J104.7. Import and Export of Earth Materials in Excess of 10, 000 Cubic Yards. "Section J104.7.a. Transport Over Public Maintained Streets. In addition to other provisions of this code, the following requirements shall apply when earth materials in excess of 10,000 cubic yards are to be exported from or imported to a grading site by transporting such materials over a publicly maintained street. The point of access to the public street shall be located as approved by the City Engineer. 2. Special safety precautions, including, but not limited to, the access road approach grade and alignment to the public street, sight distance at the intersection with the public street and traffic control devices may be required by the City Engineer. 17 "Section J104 -7.b Zoning Ordinance Compliance. No grading permit shall be issued for the import or export of more than 10,000 cubic yards of earth material to or from a grading site where such work would be classified as an "off-site transport grading project" as defined in Title 22, entitled "Zoning Ordinance", of the County of Los Angeles, as duly adopted by the City of Diamond Bar, unless the project is in conformance with Title 22. Section J105 — Amended Section J105.3 -Added "Section J105 hereby is amended by adding subsection J105.3 to Appendix J of the 2007 California Building Code to read, in words and figures, as follows: "Section J105.3 Transfer of Responsibility. If the civil engineer, the soils engineer, r the engineering geologist of record is changed during grading, the work shall be stopped until the replacement has agreed in writing to accept their responsibility in the area of technical competence for approval upon completion of the work. It shall be the duty of the permittee to notify the City Engineer in writing of such change prior to the recommencement of such grading. Section J109 - Amended Section J109.5 - Added "Section J109 hereby is amended by adding subsection J109.5 of Appendix J of the 2007 California Building Code to read, in words and figures, as follows: "Section J109.5. Overflow Protection. Berms, swales or other devices shall be provided at the top of cut or fill slopes steeper than five horizontal to one vertical to prevent surface waters from overflowing onto and damaging the face of the slope. Gutters or other special drainage controls shall be provided where the proximity of runoff from buildings or other structures is such as to pose a potential hazard to slope integrity. Section J110 - Amended Section J110.3 - Added "Section J110 hereby is amended by adding subsection J110.3, J110.3a, J110.3b, JI 10.3c J110.4, JI 10.4a, J1 10.4b, J1 10.4c and J1 10.4d of Appendix J of the 2007 California :Building Code to read, in words and figures, as follows: "Jl 10.3. Temporary Erosion Control Precautions. Grading operations shall be planned to avoid the rainy season, October 15 and April 15. Grading permits shall only be issued when a plan for erosion control and silt retention has been approved by the city WJ engineer. 11J110.3.a. The City Engineer shall not issue a grading permit for any work to be commenced between October 1 of any year and April 15 of the following calendar year, unless detail plans for such work include the details of protective measures, including distilling basins or other temporary drainage control measures, or both, as may be necessary to protect the adjoining public and private property from damage by erosion, flooding or deposition of debris which may originate from the site or result from such grading operations. If grading is begun prior to October 15, all protective measures shall be installed prior to October 15. If grading is begun on or after October 15, all protective measures shall be installed before grading is begun. All protective measures shall be maintained in good working order until April 15 of the succeeding year, where grading is done between October 15 and December 31, or until April 15 of the same year when grading is done between January 1 and April 15, unless their removal at an earlier date is agreed to by the City Engineer. All erosion control measures shall comply with any adopted National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) policies and standards of the City. "JI 10.3.b. Where a grading permit is issued and grading work commenced after April 15 and before October 1 of any year and the plans for such work do not include details of the protective measures described in section J1 10.3a, and it appears that the grading and installation of the permanent drainage devices as authorized by the permit will not be completed by October 15, then, on or before October 1 the owner of the site on which the grading is being performed shall file or cause to be filed with the City Engineer revised detail plans which include details of the protective measures described in, and in all other respects 11ollow, the provisions of section JI 10.3a. ".11 10.3.c. Effect of Noncompliance. Should the owner fail to submit detail plans or to provide the protective measures required by sections JI 10.3a and JI 10.3b by the date specified therein, it shall be deemed that a default has occurred under the conditions of the grading permit security. Thereupon the City Engineer may enter the property for the purpose of installing, by city forces or other means, the drainage and erosion control devices shown on the approved detail plans, or if there are no approved detail plans, as may be deemed necessary to protect adjoining property from storm damage, or the City Engineer may cause the owner of the site to be prosecuted as a violator of this code, or he may take both actions. Section J110.4 - Added "Section J110.4 Permanent Erosion Control. "Section J1 10.4a. Planting and Irrigation. The surface of all manufactured slopes shall be protected against damage by erosion by the installation of a permanent irrigation 19 system and planting with ground cover, shrubs and/or trees which provide satisfactory long term erosion control. Planting and plant materials shall be specified and installed in accordance with the Hillside Management Ordinance of the City of Diamond Bar. The irrigation system shall provide adequate coverage and the proper application rate to maintain the appropriate moisture for the establishment and proper growth of the plantings installed, but the irrigation shall not saturate the slopes or cause erosion. "Section J110.4b. Planting and Irrigation Plans and Specifications. For grading which includes cut slopes more than 5 feet in height; or fill slopes supporting structures of more than 3 feet in height; or natural slopes disturbed more than 10 feet in superficial extent by the grading operations planting and irrigation plans and specifications shall be submitted for approval of the City Engineer and/or the Community Development Director. For all manufactured slopes more than 20 feet in height or natural slopes disturbed more than 20 feet in superficial extent by grading operations plans shall be prepared and signed by a civil engineer or landscape architect. "Section J110.4.c. Rodent Control. All manufactured slopes steeper than four horizontal to one vertical within a grading project adjacent to undeveloped or unoccupied land shall be protected from potential slope damage by a preventative program of burrowing rodent control. "Section J110.4.d. Release of Security. The planting and irrigation systems required by this section shall be installed as soon as practical after rough grading. Prior to final approval of grading and before the release of grading security, the planting shall be well established and growing on the slopes and, where required by subsection J 110.4.c, there shall be evidence of an effective rodent control program. Section J112 - Added "Section J 112 hereby is added to Appendix J of the 2007 California Building Code to read in words and figures, as follows: "Section J112 Completion of Work. "Section J112.1 Final Reports. Upon completion of the rough grading work and at the final completion of the work, the following reports and drawings and supplements thereto are required for engineering grading or when professional inspection is performed for regular ;grading, as applicable. 1. An as -built grading plan prepared by the civil engineer retained to provide such services showing original ground surface elevations, as -graded ground surface elevations, lot drainage patterns, and the locations and elevations of surface drainage facilities and of the outlets of subsurface drains. As -constructed locations, elevations and details of subsurface drains shall be shown as reported by the soils engineer. 20 Civil engineers shall state that to the best of their knowledge work within their area of responsibility was done in accordance with the final approved grading plan. 2. A report prepared by the soils engineer retained to provide such services including locations and elevations of field density tests, summaries of field and laboratory tests, other substantiating data, and comments on any changes made during grading and their effect on the recommendations made in the approved soils engineering investigation report. Soils engineers shall submit a statement that, to the best of their knowledge, the work within their area of responsibilities is in accordance with the approved soils engineering report and applicable provisions of this chapter. 3. A report prepared by the engineering geologist retained to provide such services including a final description of the geology of the site and any new information disclosed during the grading and the effect of same on recommendations incorporated in the approved grading plan. Engineering geologists shall submit a statement that, to the best of their knowledge, the work within their area of responsibility is in accordance with the approved engineering geologist report and applicable provisions if this chapter. "Section J112.2 Notification of Completion. The permittee shall notify the City Engineer when the grading operation is ready for final inspection. Final approval shall not be given until all work including installation of all drainage facilities and their protective devices, and all erosion -control measures have been completed in accordance with the final approved grading plan, and the required reports have been submitted. 1115.00.330 Penalties for Violation of Division "It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership, or corporation to violate any provision, or to fail to comply with any of the requirements, of this Division. Any person, firm, partnership, or corporation violating any provision of this Division or failing to comply with their requirements shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each such person, firm, partnership, or corporation shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or any portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this Division or the Codes adopted hereby is committed, continued or permitted by such person, firm, partnership, or corporation, and shall be deemed punishable therefor as provided in this Division. Section 3• "Division 4 of Chapter15.00 of the Diamond Bar City Code is amending to read, in words and figures, as follows: 21 DIVISION 4. MECHANICAL CODE "Sections: "15.00.510 California Mechanical Code - Adopted. "15.00.520 Amendments "15.00.530 Penalties - Added. "15.00.510 Mechanical Code - Adopted. 'Except as hereinafter provided, the 2007 Edition of California Mechanical Code (Part 4 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) and the Appendices thereto, which incorporates and amends the Uniform Mechanical Code, 2006 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, is hereby adopted by reference and incorporated herein as though fully set forth herein and shall constitute the Mechanical Code of the City. A copy of such Code has been deposited in the office of the City Clerk and shall be, at all times, maintained by the Clerk for use and examination by the public. 1115.00.520 Amendments Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 15.00.520, the California Mechanical Code is amended as follows: Chapter 1 - Deleted. "Chapter 1 of the California Mechanical Code hereby is deleted, in its entirety. All administrative, permitting and related requirements of said Chapter 1 of the California Mechanical Code shall be governed by Division 2 of this Chapter. 1115.00.530 Penalties for Violation of Division It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership, or corporation to violate any provision, or to fail to comply with any of the requirements, of this Division. Any person, firm, partnership, or corporation violating any provision of this Division or failing to comply with their requirements shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each such person, firm, partnership, or corporation shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or any portion thereof during which any violation of any ofthe provisions of this Division or the Codes adopted hereby is committed, continued or permitted by such person, firm, partnership, or corporation, and shall be deemed punishable therefor as provided in this Division. 22 Section 4• "Division 5 of Chapterl5.00 of the Diamond Bar City Code is amending to read, in words and figures, as follows: DIVISION 5. PLUMBING CODE "Sections: "15.00.710 California Plumbing Code - Adopted "15.00.720 Amendments Section 10, 20 and 30 - Deleted. Section 321.0 - Added. Section 722.6 - Added. "15.00.730 Penalties - Added. "15.00.710 California Plumbing Code - Adopted. "Except as hereinafter provided, the 2007 Edition of the California Plumbing Code (Part 5 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) and the appendices thereto, which incorporates and amends the Uniform Plumbing Code, 2006 Edition, published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, is hereby adopted by reference and incorporated herein as though fully set forth herein and shall constitute the Plumbing Code of the City. A copy of such Code has been deposited in the office of the City Clerk and shall be, at all times maintained by the City Clerk for use and examination by the public. 1115.00.720 Amendments Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 15.00.720, the California Plumbing Code is amended as follows: Chapter 1 - Deleted Chapter 1 of the California Plumbing Code hereby is deleted, in its entirety. All administrative, permitting and related requirements of said Chapter 1 of the California Plumbing Code shall be governed by Division 2 of this Chapter. Section 321.0 - Added. "Section 321.0 is hereby added to the California Plumbing Code to read, in words, and figures, as follows: 23 "Section 321.0 All new structures shall be equipped with an additional main for firture use of reclaimed water for landscape irrigation systems". Section 722.6 - Added. "A new subsection 722.6 hereby is added to Section 722 of the California Plumbing Code to read, in words and figures, as follows: Subsection "722.6 No such excavation shall be left unattended at any time unless the permittee shall have first provided a suitable and adequate barricade to assure public safety". 1115.00.730 Penalties for Violation of Division It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership, or corporation to violate any provision, or to fail to comply with any of the requirements, of this Division. Any person, firm, partnership, or corporation violating any provision of this Division or failing to comply with their requirements shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each such person, firm, partnership, or corporation shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or any portion thereof during which any violation of any ofthe provisions of this Division or the Codes adopted hereby is committed, continued or permitted by such person, firm, partnership, or corporation, and shall be deemed punishable therefor as provided in this Division. Section 5• "Division 6 of Chapterl5.00 of the Diamond Bar City Code is amending to read, in words and figures, as follows: DIVISION 6. ELECTRICAL CODE "Sections : "15.00.910 California Electrical Code - Adopted. "15.00.920 Amendments Articles 089 and 90 - Deleted. Section 110.14 - Amended. Section 334.10 (A&B) - Amended. Section 334.12(A) - Amended. Section 590.3 (B) - Amended. Table No.300.5 - Amended. "15.00.930 Penalties - Added. 24 1115.00.910 California Electrical Code - Adopted. "Except as hereinafter provided, the 2007 Edition of the California Electrical Code (Part 3 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations), including the appendices thereto, which incorporates the National Electrical Code, 2005 Edition, published by the National Fire Protection Association, is hereby adopted by reference with the same force and effect as though set forth herein in full and shall constitute the Electrical Code of the City. A copy of such Code has been deposited in the office of the City Clerk and shall be, at all times, maintained by the Clerk for use and examination by the public. 1115.00.920 Amendments Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 15.00.920, the California Electrical Code is amended as follows: 1115.00.920 Articles 089 and 90 - Deleted. "Articles 089 and 90 of the California Electrical Code hereby are deleted, in their entirety. All administrative, permitting and related requirements of said Articles of the California Electrical Code shall be governed by Division 2 of this Chapter. Section 110.14 - Amended. "Section 110.14 of the California Electrical Code, 2007 Edition, allowing the use of aluminum conductors shall be amended to read that no aluminum conductor smaller than No. 4AWG shall be used. Whenever any aluminum is utilized as herein permitted, the applicant shall be required to obtain, at applicant's expense, a separate Certificate of Inspection from a special inspector authorized by law to provide such inspections; no certificate of inspection shall be issued until after the on-site inspection. Section 334.10 (A &B) - Amended. "Section 334.10 of the California Electrical Code, 2007 Edition, is hereby amended to read, in words and figures as follows: "Section 334.10(a) Type NM. Type NM Cable shall be permitted for concealed work iin normally dry location. It shall be permissible to install or fish type NM cable in air voids in masonry block or tile walls where such walls are not exposed or subject to excessive moisture or dampness. "Section 334.10(b) Type MNC. Type NMC cable shall be permitted: (1) for concealed work in dry, moist, damp, or corrosive locations; (2) in outside and inside walls of masonry block or tile; (3) in a shallow chase in masonry, concrete, or adobe protected against nails or screws by a steel plate at lease 1116 inch (1.59 mm) thick and covered with plaster, adobe, or similar finish. 25 Section 334.12(A) - Amended. "Section 334.12(a) of the California Electrical Code, 2007 Edition, is hereby amended to read, in words and figures as follows: "Section 334.12 (a) Type NM or NMC. Types NM and NMC cables shall not be used: (1) in any dwelling or structure exceeding three floors above grade; (2) as service -entrance cable; (3) in commercial and industrial buildings. For the purpose of this article, the first floor of a building shall be that floor that has fifty percent or more of the exterior wall surface area level with or above finished grade. One additional level that is the first level and not designed for human habitation and used only for vehicle parking, storage, or similar use shall be permitted. Section 590.3(B) - Amended. "Section 590.3(B) of the California Electrical Code, 2007 Edition, is hereby amended to read : 30days. Temporary electrical power and lighting installations shall be permitted for a period not to exceed 30 days for holiday decorative lighting and similar purposes. Section Table No. 300-5 - Amended. "Table No. 300-5 of said California Electrical Code, 2007 Edition is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: 1115.00.930 Penalties for Violation of Division It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership, or corporation to violate any provision, or to fail to comply with any of the requirements, of this Division. Any person, firm, partnership, or corporation violating any provision of this Division or failing to comply with their requirements shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each such person, firm, partnership, or corporation shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or any portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this Division or the Codes adopted hereby is committed, continued or permitted by such person, firm, partnership, or corporation, and shall be deemed punishable therefore as provided in this Division. Section 6• "'Division 7 of Chapter15.00 of the Diamond Bar City Code is amending to read, in words and figures, as follows: 26 DIVISION 7. UNIFORM HOUSING CODE "Sections: "15.00.1110 Uniform Housing Code -Adopted "15.00.1120 Amendments Chapter 1 - Deleted "15.00.1130 Penalties - Added "15.00.1110 Uniform Housing Code -Adopted. "The "Uniform Housing Code", 1997 Edition, hereby is adopted in its entirety as the Housing Code of the City of Diamond Bar, together with the amendments, additions, deletions and exceptions set forth in this Division. 1115.00.1120 Amendments. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 15.00.110, the Uniform Housing Code is amended as follows: Chapter 1 - Deleted. "Chapters 1 of the Uniform Housing Code hereby is deleted, in its entirety. All administrative, permitting and related requirements of said Chapters 1 of the Uniform Housing Code shall be governed by Division 2 of this Chapter. 1115.00.1130 Penalties for Violation of Division It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership, or corporation to violate any provision, or to fail to comply with any of the requirements, of this Division. Any person, Firm, partnership, or corporation violating any provision of this Division or failing to comply with their requirements shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or by iimprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each such person, firm, partnership, or corporation shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or any portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this Division or the Codes adopted hereby is committed, continued or permitted by such person, firm, partnership, or corporation, and shall be deemed punishable therefor as ;provided in this Division. Section 7• "Division 8 of Chapterl 5.00 of the Diamond Bar City Code is amending to read, in 27 words and figures, as follows: DIVISION 8. UNIFORM SWIMMING POOL, SPA AND HOT TUB CODE "Sections: "15.00.1310 Uniform Swimming Pool Spa and Hot Tub Code - Adopted. "15.00.1320 Part 1 -Deleted. 1115.00.1330 Penalties - Added. "15.00.1310 Uniform Swimming Pool, Spa and Hot Tub Code - Adopted. "The "Uniform Swimming Pool, Spa and Hot Tub Code", 2000 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, hereby is adopted in its entirety as the Swimming Pool, Spa and Hot Tub Code of the City of Diamond Bar, together with the amendments, additions, deletions and exceptions set forth in this Division. "15.00.1320 Amendments Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 15.00.1320, the California Plumbing Code is amended as follows: 1115.00.1320 Part 1 - Deleted. "Part 1 of the Uniform Swimming Pool, Spa and Hot Tub Code hereby is deleted, in its entirety. All administrative, permitting and related requirements of said Part 1 of the Uniform Swimming Pool, Spa and Hot Tub Code shall be governed by Division 2. 1115.00.1330 Penalties for Violation of Division It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership, or corporation to violate any provision, or to fail to comply with any of the requirements, of this Division. Any person, firm, partnership, or corporation violating any provision of this Division or failing to comply with their requirements shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or by iimprisonrnent not exceeding six (6) months or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each such person, firm, partnership, or corporation shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or any portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this Division or the Codes adopted hereby is committed, continued or permitted by such person, firm, partnership, or corporation, and shall be deemed punishable therefor as provided in this Division. Section 8. All inconsistencies between the Building Code, Electrical Code, Mechanical Code, and Plumbing Code, as adopted by this Ordinance, and the 2007 edition of the M- 3 California Building Code, Electrical Code, Mechanical Code, and Plumbing Code, as set forth in Parts 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively, of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, are changes, modifications, amendments, additions or deletions thereto authorized by California Health and Safety Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7. Section 9. To the extent the provisions of this Ordinance are substantially the same as previous provisions of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code, these provisions shall be construed as continuations of those provisions and not as new enactments. Section 10. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or any part hereof or exhibit hereto is for any reason held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof or exhibit thereto. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 11. This ordinance shall be effective upon adoption and shall become operative on the 20th day of December, 2007. PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 20th day of November, 2007. Mayor I, TOMMYE CRIBBINS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the 6th day of November, 2007, and was finally passed at a regular meeting; of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the 20thday of November 2007, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST: 29 City Clerk City of Diamond Bar RESOLUTION NO. 2007 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MAKING EXPRESS FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS THAT MODIFICATIONS TO THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, AND CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE, AS ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NO. X (2007) ARE REASONABLY NECESSARY BECAUSE OF LOCAL CLIMATIC, GEOLOGICAL OR TOPOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS. A. RECITALS (i) California Health and Safety Code Section 17922 requires all cities to adopt, as the City Building Standards Code, the State Building Standards Code adopted pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 4 of Part 2.5 of Division 13 of the California Health and Safety Code. (ii) Section 17958.5 of the California Health and Safety Code provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "...a city or county may make such changes or modifications in the requirements contained in the provisions published in the State Building Standards Code and the other regulations adopted pursuant to Section 17922 as it determines, pursuant to the provisions of Section 17958.7, are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions." (iii) Prior to making the modification permitted under Section 17958.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, this Council is required to make an express finding that such modifications or changes are reasonably necessary. (iv) This Council desires to amend the provisions of sections 1805.10,1505. 1.1, 1508, Table No. 1505.1, and appendix J of the "California Building Code", 2007 Edition. (v)This Council desires to amend the provisions of Sections 321.1 and 722.6 of the "California Plumbing Code", 2007 Edition. (vi)This Council desires to amend the provisions of Section 110.14, 334.10 (A&B), Section 334.12 Section 590.3 (B) and Table No. 300.5 of the "California Electrical Code", 2007 Edition. (vii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, be it found, determined and resolved as follows: 1. In all respects as set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution. 2. This Council does hereby expressly find and determine that the amendments set forth in this Ordinance XX (2007) amending Section 1805.10 and appendix J of the "California Building Code", 2007 Edition, and adding subsection 722.6 of the "California Plumbing Code", 2007 Edition, are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographic conditions. This express finding is supported and based upon the following more specific findings and determinations: a. The hillsides in Diamond Bar are composed of Puente Formation, and similar weak geological materials, while neighboring flatland areas are composed of more stable fill and alluvial materials. These materials may be naturally unstable or weak in terms of physical support. These highly expansive soil conditions are vulnerable to earth movement. b. The City of Diamond Bar experiences diverse temperatures, which promotes expansion and contraction of the soil. This condition is very damaging to expansive type soil. G. Because of the above-described climatic and geological conditions, the City of Diamond Bar requires special engineering to support habitable structures within the unstable soil areas and requires additional measures to be taken in connection with excavation and grading on private properties. This will decrease possible damage due to natural earth expansion and seismic activity. .3. This Council does hereby expressly find and determine thatthe amendments set forth in Ordinance No. XX (2007), amending Sections 1505.1.1.,1505.8, and Table No. 1505.1 of the "California Building Code", 2007 Edition, are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographic conditions. This express finding is supported and based upon the following more specific findings and determinations: a. Located throughout the City of Diamond Bar, as well as in the surrounding cities, are numerous concentrations of structures which have roofs constructed of thinly cut pieces of wood, otherwise known as untreated shakes, as well as untreated wood shingles. These untreated wood shakes and shingles are extremely combustible in nature.. b. The City of Diamond Bar, as well as the surrounding cities, is located in an area climatically classified as "arid" and prone to winds of high velocity. Moreover, due to the and nature of the area, the weather during the windy periods tends to be very warm and dry. The dry weather conditions are very hazardous to the surrounding undeveloped hillsides and wild lands which neighbor highly populated areas. 1►• C. Because of the above-described climatic and meteorological conditions, the City of Diamond Bar and the surrounding cities have historically suffered from occasional structural and brush fires. These have often been difficult to control due to the high velocity, dry winds carrying sparks and cinders to surrounding structures with roofs constructed as described in paragraph 3.a. above. 4. This Council does hereby expressly find and determine that the amendments set forth in Ordinance No XX (2007), amending Appendix J of the "California Building Code", 2007 Edition, are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographic conditions. This express finding is supported and based upon the following more specific findings and determinations: a. The City of Diamond Bar is located in a seismically active area and is in close proximity to earthquake fault zones (Whittier fault, just south of Tonner Canyon; Chino fault passes within a mile of the city's eastern boundary), and it is reasonably foreseeable that an earthquake would render the City of Diamond Bar particularly vulnerable to devastation. Further, the City of Diamond Bar is bisected by major freeways, located primarily in a north -south direction. Substantial numbers of flood control facilities additionally exist, as well as freeway overpasses and major railroad right-of-ways. b. Because of the above-described geological conditions within the city, and the substantial amount of freeway, railroad, and flood control facilities throughoutthe community, the City of Diamond Bar, in the event of an earthquake, may be unable to dispatch an adequate number of fire personnel and apparatus to suppress fires and conduct rescue operations. Moreover, the conditions within Diamond Bar likewise occur in surrounding communities, hereby rendering mutual aid assistance problematic, at best. C. Furthermore, climatic conditions within the community render it extremely likely that, in the event of seasonal high winds and earthquake occurring, the County Fire Department would be unable to suppress numerous fires occurring throughout the community. 5. This Council does hereby expressly find and determine that the amendments set forth in Ordinance No. 07 (2007), amending Section 321.0 of the "California Plumbing Code", 2007 Edition, are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions. This express finding is supported and based upon the following more specific findings and determinations a. The City of Diamond Bar is subject to drought conditions. Its water provider, the Metropolitan Water District, may restrict local water supplies in such cases and impose surcharges on water supplied in excess of these levels. As water supplies are restricted further and the price of water rises, the City of Diamond Bar will find it difficult to maintain hillside erosion control and the general quality of life in our community will suffer. 3 b. Because of the above-described climatic condition affecting the City of Diamond Bar, the need for alternative methods of providing landscape irrigation is enormous. The use of reclaimed water will help to meet this demand, now and in the future. 6. This Council does hereby expressly find and determine that the amendments set forth in Ordinance No. XX (2007), amending Sections 110. 14, 334.10 (A&B) 334.12, 590.3 (13), and Table No. 300.5 of the "California Electrical Code", 2007 Edition, are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions. This express finding is supported and based upon the following more specific findings and determinations: a. As found in paragraph 4.b., the City of Diamond Bar is located in a seismically active area and is in close proximity to earthquake fault zones (Whittier fault, just south of Tonner Canyon; Chino fault passes within a mile of the city's eastern boundary), and it is reasonably foreseeable that an earthquake would render the City of Diamond Bar particularly vulnerable to devastation. Further, the City of Diamond Bar is bisected by major freeways, located primarily in a north -south direction. Substantial numbers of flood control facilities additionally exist, as well as freeway overpasses and major railroad right-of-ways. b. Because of the above-described geological conditions within the city, and the substantial amount of freeway, railroad, and flood control facilities throughout the community, the City of Diamond Bar, in the event of an earthquake, may be unable to dispatch an inadequate number of fire personnel and apparatus to suppress fires and conduct rescue operations. Moreover, the conditions within Diamond Bar likewise occur in surrounding communities, hereby rendering mutual aid assistance problematic, at best. C. Furthermore, as found in paragraph, 2.b., of this Resolution, climatic conditions within the community render it extremely likely that in the event of seasonal high winds and earthquake occurring, the County Fire Department would be unable to suppress numerous fires occurring throughout the community. Therefore protection of electrical wiring is essential in the above described events and this protection is magnified in high occupancy buildings. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 20th day of November 2007. Mayor 12 I, TOMMYE CRIBBINS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed, adopted and approved at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the 20th day of November 2007, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar 5 CITY COUNCIL Agenda # 6 - 8 Meeting Date :November 20, 2007 AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Membe s of the City Council VIA: James DeStefano, City Ma a TITLE: APPROPRIATE $30,000 FROM THE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT FUND TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET AND APPROVE A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH KATZ, OKITSU & ASSOCIATES (KOA) FOR LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SURVEY SERVICES RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES ALONG SUNSET CROSSING ROAD BETWEEN DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD AND PROSPECTORS ROAD AND ON PROSPECTORS ROAD BETWEEN SUNSET CROSSING ROAD AND GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE IN THE AMOUNT OF $26,660 PLUS A CONTINGENCY OF $3,340. RECOMMENDATION: Appropriate and approve contract amendment. FINANCIAL IMPACT: For Fiscal Year 2007-2008, a budget amount of $250,000 was allocated and approved by the City Council for the design and construction of the subject improvements. In January 2007, the City Council awarded a contract to Katz, Okitsu & Associates (KOA) for implementation of the traffic calming effort in the Sunset Crossing and Prospectors Road Neighborhood in the amount of $57,600 with a contingency amount of $10,000. The additional scope of work is required in the amount of $26,660 and can be funded with the Traffic Improvement Fund. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The traffic calming concept plan for the Sunset Crossing and Prospectors Road Neighborhood evolved using input from the residents and technical guidance from KOA. In March and April 2007, staff presented traffic calming concept plans and solicited feedback from area residents. During that same time period, baseline speed and volume data was collected for comparative purposes. A final concept was then presented to the Traffic and Transportation Commission in May 2007 and subsequently to the City Council in June 2007. However, after hearing public testimony from several residents in opposition to the final concept plan, the Council directed staff to gather more input from residents via a survey. Upon completion of the survey effort, results were evaluated and incorporated into a revised final conceptual plan that was presented to the Traffic and Transportation Commission in September 2007 and subsequently to the City Council in October 2007. Council approved the final concept plan at the October 2007 City Council meeting. Since the traffic calming concept plan has been a dynamic element that changed with each neighborhood meeting, the original scope of work with KOA could not anticipate the scope changes resulting from the traffic calming plan development process. After reviewing the final concept plan, KOA and City Staff revised the scope of work to incorporate an expanded scope which includes engineering survey and landscape design. The engineering survey is needed to address drainage concerns that will result from the newly proposed medians and curb extensions. The landscape and irrigation plan design is necessary to create the landscape effect desired by the neighborhood. The expanded scope of work will enable KOA to meet the expectations of the residents that were expressed with the approval of the final traffic calming concept at the October 2007 City Council meeting. Once the design is complete (anticipated for February 2008), all neighborhood residents will be notified via mail of the final design and the opportunity to view the design prior to City Council award of the construction contract. After the traffic calming devices are installed (anticipated for April/May 2008) and operational for a six (6) month period, traffic data will be collected and compared with baseline traffic conditions to determine the effectiveness of the devices. PREPARED BY: Rick Yee, Senior Engineer Date Prepared: November 9, 2007 REVIEWED David G. Lid, Director of Public Works AttachMents: Contract Amendment 2 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT This Amendment No. 1 is made and entered into this 20th day of November 2007, between the the CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, a Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and Katz, Okitsu & Associates. (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT"). A. RECITALS: (1) The CITY has heretofore entered into an Agreement, with CONSULTANT to provide professional engineering services, which the Agreement was dated January 16, 2007. (ii.) The CONSULTANT submitted a proposal, a full, true and correct COPY of which is attached hereto to provide professional engineering services. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between CITY and CONSULTANT: Section 1: Section 1. A. Scope of Services of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: "A. Scope of Services. The nature and scope of the specific services to be performed by Consultant are as described in the Consultant's Proposal, dated January 10, 2007, submitted in response to the City's Request for Proposals, and in Exhibit "A" the proposal for additional services dated November 14, 2007. Section 2: Each party to this Amendment No. 1 acknowledges that no representation by any party which is not embodied herein nor any other agreement, statement, or promise not contained in this Amendment No. 1 shall be valid and binding. Any modification of this Amendment No. 1 shall be effective only if it is in writing signed by the parties. I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 1 as of the day and year first set forth above: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONSULTANT: Rock Miller, PE By: City Attorney ATTEST: CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk DATE: Rock Miller, P.E. Principal James DeStefano, City Manager Agenda # 7 Meeting Date: November 20 2007 sAGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: James DeStefano, City Mana e TITLE: APPEAL OF PLANNING COM SSION DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-09, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2007-22 AND VARIANCE NO. 2007-05 — A REQUEST TO INSTALL AND OPERATE A TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT RONALD REAGAN PARK AT 2201 PEACEFUL HILLS ROAD — APN: 8765-015-900. RECOMMENDATION: Consider the evidence and testimony presented before the Planning Commission together with any additional evidence and testimony to be presented before the City Council, apply the Diamond Bar Development Code standards to the proposed request, and decide whether or not to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22 and Variance No. 2007-05; direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution; and continue the matter to December 4, 2007 for adoption of such resolution. Alternative Actions Staff has identified the following actions that the City Council may take in accordance with the above recommendation: Reject the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission decision to deny the proposed project; 2. Uphold the appeal, thereby reversing the Planning Commission decision to deny the proposed project; 3. Continue the matter to a date certain for additional information; or 4. Direct the applicant to redesign the project and remand the project to the Planning Commission. SUMMARY Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Sections 22.42, 22.48, 22.54 and 22.58, Sprint Nextel submitted a request to establish a wireless telecommunications facility ("cell site") at Ronald Reagan Park ("Project Site"). The purpose of the proposed cell site is to receive and transmit wireless communication data via the Sprint Nextel communications network. Improvements associated with the proposed cell site include: construction of a 40 -foot tall, artificial tree ("monoelm") to support a panel antenna array; and construction of an unmanned, 200 square -foot, 12 -foot tall equipment building to match existing park structures. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required to establish a cell site, Development Review approval is required for the architectural design of the proposed improvements, and approval of a Variance is required to allow the antenna support pole to exceed the 35 -foot height limit for the underlying zoning district. After three public hearings, the Planning Commission denied Sprint Nextel's request, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate that co -locating the facility with other existing cell sites operated by other wireless providers would not be feasible, given the fact that the other wireless providers are able to provide adequate coverage to the identified area from those vantage points. A copy of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-50 denying the proposed project is provided as Attachment 1. On October 15, 2007, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission decision. A copy of the appeal and supporting documentation is provided as Attachment 2. BACKGROUND: On May 16, 2007, the City Council approved a lease agreement with Sprint Nextel for the operation of a cell site at Ronald Reagan Park, subject to Sprint Nextel obtaining the necessary land use entitlements for the establishment of such a facility. On July 24, 2007, with a recommendation from staff for approval, the Planning Commission conducted the first public hearing to consider the proposed project. After receiving the staff report, input from the applicant and testimony from the public, the Commission continued the matter to August 14, 2007 with direction to the applicant to provide an analysis of alternative locations, including co -location opportunities. Copies of the July 24, 2007 Planning Commission staff report and minutes are provided as Attachments 3 and 4, respectively. At the August 14, 2007 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the information provided by the applicant and heard additional public testimony. The Commission directed the applicant to provide further information pertaining to alternative locations, including other locations within the park which would avoid obstructing usable recreational space, and continued the matter to September 25, 2007. Copies of the August 14, 2007 Planning Commission staff report and minutes are provided as Attachments 5 and 6, respectively. At the September 25, 2007 meeting, after reviewing the additional information provided by the applicant and receiving public input, the Commission closed the public hearing. After a motion to approve the item failed by a split 2-2 vote (former Commissioner Wei was not present), the Commission passed a motion directing staff to prepare a resolution for denial, and continued the matter to the October 9, 2007 meeting. Copies of the September 25, 2007 staff report and minutes are provided as Attachments 7 and 8, respectively. On October 9, 2007, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution to deny the proposed project by a 2-1-1 vote (Commissioner Shah abstained; Chair Nelson was absent). Copies of 2 the October 9, 2007 staff report and minutes are provided in Attachments 9 and 10, respectively. ANALYSIS: A. Basis for Planning Commission Decision As stated, the Commission based its denial on two grounds: the applicant's failure to demonstrate, to the Commission's satisfaction, that co -location sites would not provide adequate coverage to the service area in question; and the applicant's failure to explain why other wireless carriers are purportedly able to provide coverage in the service area without the need for a cell site in the immediate vicinity of Ronald Reagan Park. Although the applicant investigated sites suggested by staff and the Commission, the applicant did not actively seek out other potential locations. B. Basis for Appeal In the appeal (Attachment 2), the applicant contends that the findings to deny the application are in error, and cites by reference the information previously provided during the Planning Commission hearings. The appeal includes a letter from Sprint Nextel's attorneys, which was previously distributed to the Planning Commission on October 9, 2007. The letter, for the most part, restates information already provided to the Planning Commission regarding federal law which prohibits local agencies from considering radiofrequency emissions when making decisions whether to approve or deny wireless telecommunications facilities. The letter also states that the proposed cell site complies with the City's Development Code; and argues Sprint Nextel has identified a "significant gap" in its service coverage that can be remedied in a minimally intrusive way by establishing a cell site at Ronald Reagan Park. 0 Co -Location Alternatives Sprint Nextel has identified a "coverage objective area"—also referred to as a "search ring"—in which a gap in coverage for its wireless network exists. A cell site at Ronald Reagan Park would significantly fill that gap, as shown in propagation maps presented to the Planning Commission. The applicant was asked to consider several other sites for co -location: most, however, were in fact Sprint Nextel sites, or too close to existing Sprint Nextel sites to be feasible alternatives. Two other potential alternative locations that were studied are described below. o Verizon Cell Tower at Fairway Drive and Colima Road – Sprint Nextel's RF engineers generated digital propagation map for this location, which showed "marginal" coverage for about a quarter of the defined search ring area, with "good" coverage at the northeast fringe. o Water Tank at Brea Can on Cutoff near Noble Canyon Way – A propagation map was also prepared for this site. Although the water tanks are located roughly in the center of the search ring, the surrounding topography substantially limits the coverage that could be achieved from this site. 3 Possible Reasons for Superior Coverage by Verizon Several members of the public stated that they have good coverage in the vicinity of Ronald Reagan Park with their existing wireless providers, and many indicated that they were Verizon customers. According to the applicant, the FCC has assigned Verizon a lower frequency within the radiofrequency (RF) spectrum, which gives that carrier's signal a wider range. Further, the applicant has explained that the selection of new sites is dependent on existing sites within the cellular network, and Verizon may already have a sufficient number and placement of cell sites to provide superior coverage within the area in question. C. Public Comments Several issues were raised by the public to oppose the proposed cell site in addition to the need to consider alternative sites. Foremost among them were concerns about perceived health risks associated with RF emissions that radiate from cellular antennas. Other issues raised include the reduction in usable park area to accommodate the facilities comprising the cell site; effects on property values; and the need to consider alternative locations. RF Emissions — During the Planning Commission hearings, Assistant City Attorneys Brad Wohlenberg and Gregg Kovacevich explained that the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 forbids local governments from denying or regulating wireless telecommunications facilities on the basis of health concerns. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licenses and regulates wireless communications facilities, and establishes safety thresholds for RF emissions. Because wireless telecommunications facilities are regulated by the FCC, local agencies are preempted considering perceived health effects in land use decisions for such facilities. Reduction in Usable Parkland — Concerns were expressed that the proposed cell site would affect the amount of usable recreational area, particularly given the small size of the park. To ameliorate these concerns, the applicant agreed to relocate the monoelm into the slope that runs parallel to Pathfinder Road, and to eliminate the service road leading to the proposed 10' x 20' equipment building on the easterly side of the tennis courts. Property Values — In response to public comments about potential negative effects on property values, the applicant provided a copy of a market study which concluded that wireless telecommunications facilities have no effect on residential property values. Sprint Nextel also contends that arguments regarding the effects of cell sites on property values are speculative and are made without any supporting evidence. On November 13, 2007, staff received a letter from Valerie Geddes, 2211 S. Meadow Lane, opposing the proposed cell site (Attachment 11). The letter cites several court decisions upholding denials of cell sites. Ms. Geddes' letter supports the Planning Commission finding that the applicant failed to adequately substantiate claims that alternative sites would not provide adequate coverage. The letter further contends that a localized gap in coverage does not necessarily constitute a "significant gap" in coverage under the Telecommunications Act; does not compel the City to allow that gap to be filled; and that a single denial does not constitute a prohibition of wireless 4 services within the community. The City Attorney will prepare a separate analysis of the issues raised in Ms. Geddes' letter, and submit the analysis to the Council prior to the appeal hearing. Additional correspondence and petitions objecting to the proposed cell site are included in Attachment 12. CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS: The City Council may: 1. Reject the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission denial of the proposed project; 2. Uphold the appeal, thereby reversing the Planning Commission decision to deny the proposed project; 3. Continue the matter to a date certain for additional information; or 4. Direct the applicant to redesign the project and remand the project to the Planning Commission NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 700 -foot radius of the Project Site and the notice was published in the Inland Valley Bulletin and the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on November 9, 2007. A notice display board was posted at the site, and a copy of the legal notice was posted at the City's designated community posting sites. PREPARED BY: �— Greg Gubman, AICP Planning Manager Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 11 12 REVIEWED BY: Nancy o , AICP Commu it Devef6 pment Director Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-50 Denying Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22 and Variance No. 2007-05 Appeal and Supporting Documentation July ;?4, 2007 Planning Commission Staff Report July 24, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2007 Planning Commission Staff Report August 14, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 2007 Planning Commission Staff Report September 25, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2007 Planning Commission Staff Report October 9, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes Correspondence from Valerie Geddes Additlional Petitions and Correspondence Objecting to the Proposed Wireless Telecommunications Facility at Ronald Reagan Park 5 ATTACHMENT 1 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-50 Denying Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22 and Variance No. 2007-05 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2007-50 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-09, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2007-22 AND VARIANCE NO. 2007-05, A REQUEST TO INSTALL A TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY AT RONALD REAGAN PARK LOCATED AT 2201 PEACEFUL HILLS ROAD (APN: 8765-015-900), DIAMOND BAR, CA A. RECITALS The property owner, City of Diamond Bar, and applicant, Sprint Nextel Corporation, have filed applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22, and Variance No. 2007-05 for a wireless telecommunications facility to be located at Ronald Regan Park, 2201 Peaceful Hills Road, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California ("Project Site"). 2. The proposed telecommunications facility consists of a 35 -foot tall monopole, a 200 square -foot equipment building and related improvements, and is also referred to in this Resolution as the "Proposed Use." 3. Notification of the public hearing for the Proposed Use was provided in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and _Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. Public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 188 property owners within a 700 -foot radius of the Project Site and public notice was posted at the City's designated community posting sites. Furthermore, the Project Site was posted with a display board. 4. On July 24, 2007, and August 14, 2007, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted duly noticed public hearings and continued the matter to September 25, 2007. The continuances were provided to allow the applicant time to provide additional information regarding the service area for the Proposed Use, and to consider alternate locations, including co -location opportunities. 5. On September 25, 2007, after receiving additional public input, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar concluded said hearing. B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS (DBC X22.58.040 (a) Granting the Conditional Use Permit will be detrimental to the public interest in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located in that the Proposed Use does not, and without good cause, conform to the following locational preferences as set forth in Development Code Section 22.42.130 (item i. being the most preferred): i. Co -located with an existing facility or located at a pre -approved location. ii. Attached to an existing structure, such as a building, communication tower, church steeple, or utility pole or tower. iii. Located in an industrial/business park zoning district. iv. Located in a commercial zoning district. The applicant has not provided evidence that co -location sites would not provide adequate coverage, and has not provided an explanation as to why other wireless communications providers are able to provide adequate coverage in the same area proposed to be served by the Proposed Use from the Project Site. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (DBC X22.48.040 (b) Because the necessary findings for granting a Conditional Use Permit for the Proposed Use cannot be made, consideration of development review findings pertaining to the site and architectural design components of the Proposed Use are immaterial. VARIANCE (DBC §22.54.040) (c) Because all of the necessary findings for granting a Conditional Use Permit for the underlying Proposed Use cannot be made, consideration of variance findings to increase the height of the proposed antenna support structure are immaterial. 2 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-50 Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby denies this Application. 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: Ed, Gala, Sprint Nextel Corporation, 310 Commerce, Irvine, CA 92602. (c) APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9th DAY OF OCTOBER 2007, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. By: �_--z_- ]- orng, Vice Ohaifmian I, Nancy Fong, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of October 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Lee, VC/Torng NOES: Commissioners: Nolan ABSENT: Commissioners: Chair/Nelson ABSTAIN: Commissioners: shah ATTEST: ancy 3 Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09 ATTACHMENT 2 Appeal and Supporting Documentation Sprint -> Tcgether with NExTEL October 15, 2007 City Clerk 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Sprint Nextel 310 Commerce, 2nd Floor Irvine, CA 92602 Office: (714) 368-3500 RECEIVED OCT 1--1W Re: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit 2007-09, Development Review 2007-22 and Variance 2007-05, a request to allow the installation of a Sprint Nextel wireless telecommunication facility located at 2201 Peaceful Hills Road within Ronald Regan Park. Ladies and Gentlemen: At their October 9, 2007 meeting the Planning Commission adopted a resolution denying the above referenced applications. Sprint Nextel is appealing this denial to the City Council. It is Sprint Nextel's opinion that the findings cited by the Planning Commission that "The applicant has not provided evidence that co -location sites would not provide adequate coverage and has not provided an explanation as to why other wireless cormnunication providers are able to provide adequate coverage in the same area proposed to be served by the proposed use from the project site." is in error. As indicated by the Planning Commission meeting minutes and information entered into the public record, Sprint Nextel has in fact provided a detailed explanation of co -location opportunities and the reason they will not work in this instance to fill the gap in Sprint Nextel's wireless network. In addition, the Planning Commission has made a number of errors with regard to the provisions of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 as outlined and explained in the attached letter from the law offices Nossaman, Guthner, Knox, Elliott, LLP dated October 8, 2007. Please call me at 714-368-3930 with any questions or if you need any other information to process this appeal application. LAW O=FILES NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP SAN FRANCISCO THIRTY-FOURTH FLOOR 50 CALIFORNIA STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-4799 (4 15 ) 398-3600 LOS ANGELES THIRTY-FIRST FLOOR 445 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET LOS ANGELES, CA 90071-1602 (2 13) 612-7800 SACRAMENTO SUITE 100(, 915 L STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 9.5814-3705 IS 16) 442-8888 VIA MESSENGER SUITE 1800 18101 VON KARMAN AVENUE IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 926`12-0177 TELEPHONE (949) 833-7600 FACSIMILE (949)833-7873 GREGORY W. SANDERS EMAIL glanders@nossaman.com October 8, 2007 WASHINGTON. D.C./VIRGINIA SUITE 600 2111 WILSON BOULEVARD ARLINGTON, VA 22201-3052 (70 3) 3 51-5 010 AUSTIN. TEXAS SUITE 1050 919 CONGRESS AVENUE AUSTIN. TEXAS 78701-2745 (51 2) 651-0660 SEATTLE SUITE 100 1100 DEXTER AVENUE N. SEATTLE, WA 98109 (20 6) 288-5695 REFER TO FILE NUMBER 030769-0001 Steve Nelson, Chair ;<; I C E I V F p 0 C T -- n LT 07 and Members of the Planning Commission City of Diamond Bar 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Re: Sprint Nextel: Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09; Development Review No. 2007-22• and Variance 2007-05 Dear Chair Nelson and Members of the Planning Commission: We represent Sprint Nextel ("Sprint") with respect to all matters pertaining to the permitting of Sprint's wireless telecommunications facilities in the City of Diamond Bar ("City"). This letter addresses Sprint's proposed facility at 2201 Peaceful Hills Road, in the City. 1. INTRODUCTION. Sprint's radio frequency ("RF") engineer has identified a significant gap in coverage in the area of the proposed facility. Sprint proposed a facility to be located on City park property at the above address to fill the gap in coverage. A lease for the area encompassed by the proposed project was previously approved by the Diamond Bar City Council. The proposed project consists of a 45 foot tall "monoelm" designed to blend with surrounding landscaping and a small adjacent equipment building that will match existing park buildings ("Project"). The Planning Commission should approve the Project for the following reasons, among others: (a) The Federal Telecommunicotions Act of 1996 ("Telecom Act ") Expressly Prohibits Regulation of the Placement of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities on the Basis of RF Emissions: Sprint has demonstrated that RF emissions from the Project will fall below Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") safety thresholds. Federal law expressly 278976 1. DOC NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP Steve Nelson, Chair and Members of the Planning Commission October 8, 2007 Page 2 precludes any local regulation of wireless telecommunications facilities on such grounds. A local governmental agency therefore may not consider testimony regarding concerns about RF emissions. (b) The Telecom Act Precludes Local Regulations That Prohibit, or Have the Effect of Prohibiting, Wireless Services: Sprint has demonstrated that the Project is the least intrusive means of closing a significant gap in its wireless telecommunications service in the area. Sprint has demonstrated alternatives do not close the coverage gap. A denial of Sprint's permit application under such circumstances constitutes a prohibition of services, in violation of section 332(c)(7)(13)(1)(II) of the Telecom Act. (c) The Telecom Act Requires Local Governments to Base Permit Application Denials on Substantial Evidence: Denials of permit applications must be'based on substantial evidence -- denials based on "empty records" consisting of vague concerns about the facility will not suffice under the substantial evidence test. Wireless Income Props. v. McDonald (6th Cir. 2005) 403 F.3d 392. (d) The Project complies with Development Code Section 22.42.130(g)(6)(a) in that it will be installed at a pre -approved location. 2. THE TELECOM ACT FORBIDS REGULATION OF THE PLACEMENT OF M71RELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES ON THE BASIS OF PERCEIVED ENVIRONMENTAL AFFECTS OF RF EMISSIONS. TI -ie Telecom Act expressly forbids regulation of "the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions." 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). The courts have made clear that "Congress intended federal regulation of [RF] issues to be so pervasive as to occupy the field." Southwestern Bell v. Johnson County B.D. (10th Cir. 1999) 199 F.3d 1185 at p. 1193; Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Mills (S.D.N.Y. 2000) 124 F.Supp.2d 211, 218. This means that the FCC's regulation over RF emissions is exclusive and therefore results in a total preemption of any state and local law which purports to regulate in this area. Ibid.; see also Southwestern Bell v. Johnson County B.D., supra, 199 F.3d at pp. 1190-1193 (discussing preemptive effect of FCC regulation of RF emissions). Accordingly, local jurisdictions may not: (a) require compliance with RF emission standards; (b) enact more stringent RF emission standards; (c) regulate modification of wireless facilities on the basis of RF emissions; (d) regulate construction of wireless facilities on the basis of RF emissions; or (e) regulate the siting of wireless facilities on the basis of perceived environmental effects of RF emissions. Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Mills, supra, 124 F.Supp.2d at pp. 217-218; 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(13)(1v). 2789761 .DOC NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP Steve Nelson, Chair and Members of the Planning Commission October 8, 2007 Page 3 The Project will comply with FCC RF safety standards, as Sprint has demonstrated. As such, Sprint is covered by the preemptive effects of section 332 of the Telecom Act and any aspect of the City's regulation of Sprint's facility on the basis of RF emissions is wholly preempted and unenforceable. Ibid. Accordingly, the Planning Commission may not consider concerns voiced by project opponents over the perceived environmental effects of RF emissions. 3. THE TELECOM ACT BARS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FROM PROHIBITING THE PROVISION OF PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICES. Section 332(c)(7) bars state and local governments from prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). The Ninth Circuit recently determined that a prohibition of service under section 332(c)(7)(13)(1)(II) of the Telecom Act exists where (a) a provider has a significant gap in its service coverage; and (b) the provider has proposed the "least intrusive" means to fill the significant gap. See MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 2005) 400 F.3d 715, 731-734. In this case, Sprint has demonstrated both the existence of a "significant gap" in coverage and that it has proposed the "least intrusive" means to fill that significant gap. Selection of sites for the installation of PCS and other wireless facilities is "locationally dependent," meaning that the location of sites is driven not by local planning concerns, but by the location of existing sites in the network chain. This is because the distance over which the low-power signals emitted by such facilities extend is limited to a geographically small area or "cell." An overlapping patchwork of such cells is needed to provide consistent coverage over a larger geographical area. As the caller moves through cells, one cell relays its signal to the next. Where there is a "gap" in this pattern, a call is either "dropped" (disconnected) or "blocked" (never connected), resulting in a failure of the network. See Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Jefferson County (N.D. Ala. 1997) 968 F.Supp. 1457 [describing wireless telecommunications coverage in the context of the Telecom Act]. Consequently, the lack of one site can lead to significant gaps in service Currently, coverage within the area to be covered by the Project is below industry standards, as demonstrated by the Diamond Bar/Walnut Current Coverage map included in the Planning Commission record. Once the proposed facility is in place, however, the lack of service coverage will be resolved as demonstrated by the Diamond Bar/Walnut With LA73XCO17 map included in the Planning Commission record. Once a wireless service provider demonstrates a significant gap, it must make a showing that it has selected the least intrusive means of filling that gap. MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 400 F.3d at p. 734. A carrier need not demonstrate that its proposed ifacility is the only viable option. Ibid. The carrier need only show that "the manner in which it proposes to fill the significant gap in service is the least intrusive on the values the denial sought to serve." Ibid., emphasis in original. 278976 LDOC NOSSADAAN, GUTFINER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP Steve Nelson, Chair and Members of the Planning Commission October 3, 2007 Page 4 Sprint explored, and ruled out, potentially viable alternative sites and equipment configurations within the "service ring" determined by the existing elements in its system, as demonstrated by the Diamond Bar/Walnut with LA73XCO17 at Verizon Location map and the LA73XC017 at Water Tank Location map included in the Planning Commission record. Neither of these alternative sites will adequately fill the existing gap in service coverage. Sprint finally settled on the Project site, located on City park property. The site is well situated to meet Sprint's coverage objectives, and met with approval of the City Council, which executed a lease for Sprint's facility. With respect to any visual impacts, the proposed facility incorporates a state-of-the-art "stealth" design, with equipment designed to blend with the surroundings. In short, the Project is the least obtrusive means of filling Sprint's demonstrated gap in service. 4. THE CITY IS REQUIRED TO BASE DENIALS OF PERMIT APPLICATIONS ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. Section 332 of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("Telecom Act") states, in relevant part: Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(13)(11). The courts have interpreted this to mean that any denial of "a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities" must: (a) be separate from the written record; (b) describe the reasons for the denial; and (c) contain a sufficient explanation of the reasons for the denial to allow a reviewing court to evaluate the evidence in the record that supports those reasons. New Par v. City of Saginaw, 301 F.3d 390, 395-396 (6th Cir. 2002). Each reason for denial must be supported by substantial evidence in a written record. Along these lines, denials based on "hollow generalities and empty records" are prohibited by the Telecom Act. Amherst; N.K. v. Omnipoint Communications, 173 F.3d 9, 16 (1 st Cir. 1999). With regard to such generalized and unsupported concerns, one court wrote: It would completely frustrate the purpose of the [Telecom Act] if the voicing of negative opinions by a small number of citizens, without more, could serve as a basis of denial. Any municipality could defeat the request for a permit by simply making a very limited record that in the opinion of three or four citizens, the tower would blight the landscape. Congress did not intend that rejection of a license application could be accomplished on such a sparse record. 278970 EDOC NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP Steve Nelson, Chair and Members of the Planning Commission October 8, 2007 Page 5 Iowa Wireless Servs. L.P. v. City of Moline, Ill., 29 F. Supp, 2d 915, 922 (C.D. Ill. 1998) (emphasis added); see also Omnipoint Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 181 F.3d 403, 409 (3rd Cir. 1999) (same principle cited). In light of the Telecom Act's goals and prohibitions, the courts have looked critically on denials of applications based upon purported decreases in property values —and have summarily rejected denials based solely on generalized property value and aesthetic concerns. See, e.g., Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d at 496; Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Town of North Stonington, 12 F. Supp. 2d 247 (D. Conn. 1998). Courts have done so, in part, because the consideration of purported decreases in property values and aesthetics can too easily serve as a. "proxy for the impermissible ground of environmental effects." Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d at 496. In line with the substantial evidence requirement, the courts have repeatedly rejected attempts by local jurisdictions to regulate placement of wireless telecommunications facilities based on generalized or speculative concerns. Instead, they uniformly require hard evidence beyond "unsupported and hypothetical potential" for such impacts. See OPM-USA-Inc. v. Bd. of County Com'rs, 7 F.Supp.2d 1316, 1324 (M.D.Fla. 1997); see also Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d at 496; Town of North Stonington, 12 F.Supp.2d at 254. Here, residents voiced opposition about (a) health effects; (b) property values; and (c) placement of the facility in a park. Each concern was general in nature. Not one of those concerns rises to the level of substantial evidence. Indeed, Sprint demonstrated that the facility was within FCC RF frequency standards. With respect to concerns the site would pose a safety risk to children who may be inclined to climb the "monoelm" because it will be located in a park, Sprint has agreed to measures to protect against such risk. The property values argument was made without any supporting evidence whatsoever. Accordingly, it amounts to mere speculation. THE PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT CODE The Project complies with the City's Development Code Section 22.42.130(g)(6)(a) which prioritizes proposed wireless telecommunications sites within the City in that Ronald Reagan Park, in which the Project is sited, is a pre -approved location for such facilities. Further, the Project site was pre -approved by the City Council when a lease for the site was approved. 278976 _1 DOC NOSSAMAN, GUTIMER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP Steve Neilson, Chair and Members of the Planning Commission October 8, 2007 Page 6 6. CONCLUSION. For all of the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission approve `,)print's applications for the Project. A Sprint representative will be present at the October 9, 2007 Planning Commission meeting to respond to any questions you may have. Very truly yours, Gregory W. Sanders of NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP GWS/cjm Enclosures 278976_1.noC AIL WORK ANO MATERIALS SHALL BE PERFORMED ANp INSTALLED IN ACCOROwCE IniH THE NRRENi EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CODES AIS ADOPTED By THE LOCK GOVERNING AUTHORITIES. NOTHING IN THESE PIANS 15 TO BE CONSTRUED TO PER IT WORK NOT CONFORMING TO THESE CODES. - GlfdNu EAAIpIG L011 CBC -21D1 5. CNFOWa 11111RD4. CODE EEE -1(01 1. CAUFORxN 1RSlR,CxE R 6. D"` AC"'" NO[ CIC-}LIOI -LES 2Z1 k 2 15) 5) 2001 ). CA O,N, R,u [OCE CPC -2001 M19 1.1 9IdF y1[h GOOF S. LOCH W.NG O_O S fP5-101-1991 ) 9. C,rt Av0/ON CDUxiT ORpWNCES Sprint / Together with NEXTEL RONALD REAGAN PARK LA73XCO17 2201 PEACEFUL HILLS ROAD DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 FTECT CON95T5 OF THE .1. I.,OH ANO OPE—ON OF ANO ASSOCYTED EWIPYENT FOR THE ' SPRINT-NEXTEL'iEL(COYWNICJ,T "' NETx itx THIS SRE WILL CONSiSI CF:' CUSTOM BULT TELECOYMIT."WH Buo,,C NIGH IOMOBRO - ANEL ARIENNBS. 5 ALREN 'S PER SECTOR (} 5ECt0R5 TOTµ) TELCO k cwx CABLE RUNS OJECT DESCRIPTION APPLICANT/LESSEE: xExTEL COYYUNItiTXINS PHONE: ()IS) SGB -}500 ,110 COMMERCE FAx: (115) }6p-3501 WNE. G 9202 CONTACT: W 6UCELLO. LDISINO 00010 TOR PHONE: (919) 913-5151 AX: (TIS) 360-]501 CONTACT: BRRRI OORS, CONSTRUCTION MNHAGER PNOHE: - FAx: (1151 ]68-3501 GONIAL': ;ISA BERGSIOW, RF ENGINEER PH.E: - FAX: (1111 366-3501 COH1ACf. ED EESIA ZOIRNG PHCHE: (711) )09-151} FAX: O11) 368-3501 PROPERTY INFORMATION OWNER: CITY OF Du IOND WADORE55 11825 COPLET ORK UAYOIID BIR, CA 9 176 CONTACT: CU110N0 BAR On HILL PHONE: (909) 6]9-100 AP.N_ 6165-015-9x PROJECT INFORMATION! ARG OF CONSTRITCOON: EWP. LEASE AREA 200 S0. xCUPANCT GROUP: jE) ON, (OPEN SPELL) (IELECONLRINICATON IA LII) CORSTRICTIO i E (E) - N/A (P) - V -NP (uW1uVY) CURRENT ZONING: ZOMNC APPLICATION 10E59941 FICNTY 15 UNuuIHEO MHC HOT FCR FEWIREYEN15: H,IWN HABRARON. HANO,CSPPEO _ ACCESS NOT RECV,RFO ARCHITECT: xl PACv1D 24W D POHI OR R,6NE, G 92612 CONTACT: O.K. DO E- U DX90CIPACfX:.COM PHONE: (959) 5]5 -IOW FAX: (9A9) 515-1001 SURVEYOR BERT WE PND A65LY , LINO SURrFITNC k MPPINC 130 MtCORMICX AVENUE. STE 102 COSTA MESA. G 92626 PHONE: (111) 55]-156) PACIFIC JEERING CONSULTING E. FVINE. CA 92611 1 A%: 19491 d1S100t Sprint Together With NEXTEL 310 COMMERCE,RViNE, CA 9250] PH ONE. FAX -------------- FRONALD [FREAGANX PARK LA73XC017 PP_ E, A1M0N0 I 1 05/29/07 11 ZONING APPROVALS: I 0�15,.c ---NGS (IF NOT 24X35) I. z.a1 nnc POWER: COUPANr: M: TITLE SHEET DCNi!C1 E-Y.uL. TELCO: PHN_ COUPUR: SAX. - CONTILL _ E_ L:[[r x.1uazW UTILITY PROVIDERS GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOTES 6S GC` xWiESUGfOIOGI SURdv IrvuTr ouspauacLC unP. ax bu is ux1�EN 9i G /ELEVviro.IN �a E150RBxrA E ( u ry � L. IuvDaE) /Z LCGo MCHP-NmcE REv L (nFu 11, 01 TZ oRiJ NDR 0� FLESp Si c oR RaOucr� Su s iNry rx000f CE Qr IHE Rf[ORDCR OE s�nlp Gourvrv. / PROPOSED -S,RINTNEX,,L ¢P� 6Hy53s oMO.ROAOEEE / ENEET AJ JIAN ANTENNA —01T our PUNNR L Te ECOMMOEPICATIONSRINT-NF%TEL ACI \ N FLITY; SEE _E, 0.2 P00. /� �. '/ ENLAROEO EITE PLAN `\ CS ,B0 Al", Q ,' / v a (E) TENNIS COURTS o [DMA �[Ex / Ip\Oo �RH2 (E) GRASS AREA WASE" 2 xzly r/ .'!� � Ci/ CEJ TdlEl FA[IUiY / PROP ANA.FORMERlROPOEEO0.NV1: NT NEM / R P.O.C.— / TRACT N0. 43162 j/ L; M.R 1046/5-14 LOT 117 L / � - APN: 8765-015-900 �o So PACIFIC IITCCTURE ENGINEERING CONEUI 2!450 DUPONT DRIVE, IRVINE,CA 92612 NE. (9rv9=9x9161y10 L- Sprint �� TogetTer w th NEXTEL ]IO COMMERCE gVINf, CA 92602 NE'. I)III E6E IEWr fAY (]161 Jfi0-15D1 RONALOEREAGAN PARK LA73XC017 6NI s Rac dwON�Bw G T ]6E puucW Brva 05/29/07 ZONING APPROVALS: m J 1 I t �D ry L N.ISSU STA O I I G nMAr v ,N) 1� o I mrn>P rRaE (E) SAND PLAYGROUND ) L I All E765 -D22 -012L AEN: E>65-022 Olt B]ti5A022-010 18]fi5 All 022-009 I E)E5 4022-0.]8 I / cRN. APry_ V 1 I (T� I e16s-o2T-oc> 1 a]55-022-006 eJ5= Tc22 9)65All U[(-00aAA" \ I I I I I I 6>65-02e-pOl 9165-022-002 OVERALL 9TE PLAN l OVERALL SITE PLAN EIMI: Al PROPOSED'EPRINTHERTEL' • WAC FROM (E) --DE'SAC CT)D TP PRR OPOSED 40 \ RP y1 \\ \ .� PROPGR.O C.R. DN °� �(•: \\ EXISTING CULS DEAC; }}YYI T f \ 6ENOE ITY BOLLAppE{ND\ 4 COPE EARgII✓R � \ \f \ EI Cut -DE -SAC � So PACIFIC IITCCTURE ENGINEERING CONEUI 2!450 DUPONT DRIVE, IRVINE,CA 92612 NE. (9rv9=9x9161y10 L- Sprint �� TogetTer w th NEXTEL ]IO COMMERCE gVINf, CA 92602 NE'. I)III E6E IEWr fAY (]161 Jfi0-15D1 RONALOEREAGAN PARK LA73XC017 6NI s Rac dwON�Bw G T ]6E puucW Brva 05/29/07 ZONING APPROVALS: m J 1 I t �D ry L N.ISSU STA O I I G nMAr v ,N) 1� o I mrn>P rRaE (E) SAND PLAYGROUND ) L I All E765 -D22 -012L AEN: E>65-022 Olt B]ti5A022-010 18]fi5 All 022-009 I E)E5 4022-0.]8 I / cRN. APry_ V 1 I (T� I e16s-o2T-oc> 1 a]55-022-006 eJ5= Tc22 9)65All U[(-00aAA" \ I I I I I I 6>65-02e-pOl 9165-022-002 OVERALL 9TE PLAN l OVERALL SITE PLAN EIMI: Al PROPOSED 'SPRINT-NEXTEL' �E 9'%IB' SERVICE PMRKI3 \\ ARFA (SHOWN pASHEO PROPOSED 'GP2'NT-NE%TEL' \ GOA% CABLE iRENC" riOTAL \ LENGTH FROM EP's' NI TO POLE 3320•-P" �H E` PROPOSED 'SPRINT-NEKTEL' EQUIPMENT BUILDING: EXTERIOR FINISH op TO IAiCH (E) CN -SITE RESTROON (,'1 BLDCK WALL W/ CEMENT TLE / -'FINE)', SEE SHEET A3 FOR "I WENT LAYOUT PUN 4 PO PROPOSED'SPRINT-NEKTEL' ELECTRICAL/POWER TRENCH (TOTAL LENGTH PROM EQUIPMENT TO (E) TRANSFORMER 32)0'-0-) (E) LIGHT OTAIDAi05, - (E) TENNIS COJRTS TRACT N0. 43162 M. B- 10465-14 LOT 117 APN: 8765-015-900 0 1 2 2 =IV LARGED SITE PLAN IEi TRET BLEESS PROTECT PL � TA PICNIC / O i 'o\ / /pe50. / PROPOSED VEHICULAR TURN_AROUNO AREA \ �\ RryP-0• o� f\ " Q\ X\ \ 2 (E) PICNIC TgBLE �\ PROPOSED 6"A%K H SECURII \ ROLIARDS O a 0' O.C. QO (REMOVABLE) 5 TOTAL ( /—(N)PTR111, PROTECT J •.'3r+ /� '005ED ISSUE. STATUS• \--PROPOSED 'SPRINT-NEKTEL' 12 WIDE AC `AN., // O �RBPNBARRIER IM Ixs<Rn CRNEWgY FROM (E) CUL -Of -SAC TO / \ P ---9 �/ LOCATION \ \ RVArror nxnrv.un ro PkOPOSED LEASE AREA I(E)PSTTREET UUP PROTECT PES TREES ftOTECT IN lel r CE TYP PROPOSEDCU \ I \ CU6BiuGUT AT - CUL -OE -SAC / DILI \ f —(E) CUL -OE SAC ENLARGED SITE PLAN \ TRANSFORMER: I `EE SHEET At % `E) TOILET TRANSFORMER /^rl \\ ACI!IIV-\,- OCATION `n PACIFIC IRECTURE ENGINEERING CONSULTING 50 CUPONT DRIVE R E CA 92512 uE: (-)9 "I— F .,I ""D" Sprint \> Together with NE%TEL COMMERCE,310 R NE CA 92502 PHONE:( ) pK ()td�]65J501 RY[CI oExMr�ripx: RONALD REAGAN PARK LA73XCO17 5 p WxwT M.R. RaG 9I T65 CTP 0E OMxOxO WR IIS 05/29/07 ZONING APPROVALS: A2 /,J< /Sn O4 o. qZ �ORR)I. O4 �O / So (E) TREES. •ROTECT /= 1N PLACE, ttP.� P 2 N �H 11 I ti no _—_—__ I /50 / of / l 1_7 I O1 0 TO POWER P.O.C. -(C) TREES, PROTECT IN PLA -E lYp PROPOSED 'SPRINT-NEXTEL' }S'H UONOBRGOLEAF; SEE SPECS TO EO'JIPMCNT BUTTON PROPOSED' SP RMT-NEXTEL' ANTENNAS; 5 ANTErvNAS PER SECTOR, ! SECTORS OTµ j F )TE: MONOBROADLEAF PUCE—T TO I ., IN-LINE WITH Ex15TINI TREES J MONO -BROADLEAF SPECIFICATIONS: NOTE: MONOTREE DRAWINGS ARE SCHEMATIC ONLY. PETER ?O PHOTOSIMS AND VENDOR DRAW NGS FOR FNA1. REVEW ANO FABRICATION PCRPOSGS. DRAWINGS PRJUR[� DICTIONIAN'O, TO FABC� ToRICATION. AND APPROVE VENDOR MONOTRGE SHOP PROPOSED STYL IOM PROPOSED HEIGHT: MAX. (TOP OF dHAN_HES) (MEASURED FROM AVERAGC AD,IACENI GRADE LEVEL AT G1SSOu FOOTING TO TOP OF BkAN-NES.) NUMBER OF ANTENNAS; 5 ANTENNAS PER 5ECT11; 15 TOTAL 4 ANTENNAS PER SE2TOR, 12 TOTAL (FUTURE) TOP Or ANTE,NAS. 35' HEIGHT OF ANTENNAS. 4'-]- G ANTENNA RAD CENTER: !! ANTENNA 20LOR. PANT TO B -EN. WITH L—ES NUMBEF OF RRANCHES. BC BRANCH DENSI1 i DRANCHES PEI, .INCA FOOT —OF BRANCH DAMETER. 20'-0" LOWEST BRANCF HEIGHT 15 (MEAS TO FROM AVERAGE ADJACENT GRADE LEVEL AT CAIssON Fo0'ING To LOWEST BRANCH.) BRANCH EXTENSION (AEV), 5' S.MULATED LEAVES `ES (SCCKs) ADHERED TO ANTENNAS: POLE _LE. ` SICEC PotYCON (DA NI7 STEEL) TAPERED: NO COATNG DR BARS COATING COLOR: DIc EID-1 BELE M - T.TONE. HEG. T CT _o CR _ 3ARK. MICROWAVC C'SH ANTENNA'.. ,D MICROWAVE RAC .ENTEF; KEYNOTES 'SPRINT-NEXTEL' OPROPOSED PRIMARY MODCELL V4 06 CABINET, WEIGHT: 15 ]8 LBS. I PACIFIC OPROPOSED 'SPRINT- 2 NEXTEL' BATTERY CABINET, WEIGHT: 2171 LBS. ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING -CONSULTING —01TORNE,I NE,. S2f1i OPROPOSE05J8PRINT NEXTEL FUTURE CABINET, NE.1-1411tro0 FAx:ISaSI XTSlo01 O5 -TON HVAC UNITS (WALL_MOCHTEDI, 2 TOTAL O1'XB'X3/4'1'HK. TELCO BACKBOARD B TELCO PULL -BOX, AS REQUIRED. TO BE DETERMINED BY 'SPRINT-NEXTEL' MTERCONNECT ENGINEER Oj 200A 120/208-2b I• POWER PANEL w/ SURGE SUPPRESSOR ANp INTERLOCKING BREAKER O9 2104 uETER/MUN MOUNTED, ON EXTERIOR WALL Sprint �� O20M EMERGENCY GENERATOR RECEPTACLE MOUNTEO ON EXTERIOR WALL TO9etheT with NEXTEL D LOCATION FOR STEP-DOWN TRANSFORMER, IF REOUIRM; PENDING UTILITY COORDINATION REPORT Io cOUMEHCE IRt'INE. CA 92f02 11 CONDUIT STUB -.UPS FOR COAX CABLES O FINISH FLOOR LEVEL NE RM)]68-]Sw FAX: (71415683501 O5'X5' CONCRETE STOOP PRpltcr loTxrurir�ox: 4'W K 7'H ACCESS DOOR RONALD REAGAN PARK LA73XCO17 FINISHING SCHEDULE PFAcwL —AAE NMP�MR FLOOR HOMOGENEOUS FLOORDARDS TILE PER 'SPRINT- EXTE ' STA NEXTEL' CEILING l GYPSUM BOARD w/ BEMI-GLOSS FlrvSH / SEMI -GLOSS WALLS—DAMP-PROOFED CMU WALL W/ SEMIGLOSS cuaa xr ns o.rc OS�ZS/D,7 EXTERIOR FINISH E%iER10R WgLL$— DAMP -PROOFED CMU WALL TO MATCH EXISTING J 1 ZONING MONO -BROADLEAF SPECIFICATIONS: NOTE: MONOTREE DRAWINGS ARE SCHEMATIC ONLY. PETER ?O PHOTOSIMS AND VENDOR DRAW NGS FOR FNA1. REVEW ANO FABRICATION PCRPOSGS. DRAWINGS PRJUR[� DICTIONIAN'O, TO FABC� ToRICATION. AND APPROVE VENDOR MONOTRGE SHOP PROPOSED STYL IOM PROPOSED HEIGHT: MAX. (TOP OF dHAN_HES) (MEASURED FROM AVERAGC AD,IACENI GRADE LEVEL AT G1SSOu FOOTING TO TOP OF BkAN-NES.) NUMBER OF ANTENNAS; 5 ANTENNAS PER 5ECT11; 15 TOTAL 4 ANTENNAS PER SE2TOR, 12 TOTAL (FUTURE) TOP Or ANTE,NAS. 35' HEIGHT OF ANTENNAS. 4'-]- G ANTENNA RAD CENTER: !! ANTENNA 20LOR. PANT TO B -EN. WITH L—ES NUMBEF OF RRANCHES. BC BRANCH DENSI1 i DRANCHES PEI, .INCA FOOT —OF BRANCH DAMETER. 20'-0" LOWEST BRANCF HEIGHT 15 (MEAS TO FROM AVERAGE ADJACENT GRADE LEVEL AT CAIssON Fo0'ING To LOWEST BRANCH.) BRANCH EXTENSION (AEV), 5' S.MULATED LEAVES `ES (SCCKs) ADHERED TO ANTENNAS: POLE _LE. ` SICEC PotYCON (DA NI7 STEEL) TAPERED: NO COATNG DR BARS COATING COLOR: DIc EID-1 BELE M - T.TONE. HEG. T CT _o CR _ 3ARK. MICROWAVC C'SH ANTENNA'.. ,D MICROWAVE RAC .ENTEF; (E) TREE (OUTLINE) B BACKGROI:NO PROPOSED 'SPRINT-NE%TEL' MONOBRDAC SEE SHEET M FOR SPECIEICATiONS— PROPOSED 'SPRINT-NE%LEL ♦'-�' PANEL ANTENNAS; SPRINT; ANTENNAS PER SECTOR, 3 SECTORS TOTAL -- FUTURE (CO-LDCATION) ANTENNAS (SHOWN T-3 ANTENNA DASHEDI—' CEMENT TILE ROOFING. COLOR TO MATCH EXISTING 5-iON HVAC UNITS (WALL -MOUNTED), 2 TOTAL / PROPOSED 'SPRINT-NEXTEI Mnunoon....... CMU ER ANDTEXTTC -TOL NAiOCHR Ez15TIN0 POwEE/TELCO PANELS au S011I}AVYgT ElEVATgN T.O. EQUIPMENT BLOC. T w000 �, SIOINC/TRIM �/ WTfH EXISTING T LOWERED VENT POWER/TELCO PANELS v � AND ECR E%ISTING PROPOSED CPI C— TOP OF 10'X20' CUSTOM-BUILT EXTERIOR FINISHES TO MOUNTED TO CMU BLOCK WALL, COLOR AND TEXTURE TO MATCH TIN EXISTING 43nAVESj ElE/ATION APMENT BLDG. ELEVATION J 1 PACIFIC :HRECTURE ENGINEERING t" ""T DRIVE IRVINE, C NE.IO491 aTS1000 FAX'. 1949 �ISprint �� Together with NEXT -L COMMERCE, IRVINE,CA 92602 PHONE. 1111368 -]SOC FA%. 1114)]68.3501 v6n�ECT maT�,-,M,RR. RONALD REAGAN PARK LA73XCO17 ual —E.UL -S Ro.o OPMONO &R. U pIT65 -X BM 05/29/07 IE::z7 APPROVALS: ELE—VATIONSS 1$w A4 COORD-TESP, ASSESSDR'S 'DENTIFl[ lIO.N : tatmR.Q lint -awl. 1a1 Mmp m)dt1' AAx eTeyme•�oo RAD tb tmEm1G EmRuum tell e1TAV� 1M AREA' ��etntwc� d�Orosr�Wn[��'wrtui anlar sty � of .u(s ea (�,w�a �R � �ua>Atas (� ®� szDioeEvt Etr_clep - tElee E¢r eeucw uARR: ut¢a ca ssRe[ U Imr BASIS Or BEARINGS: mem xwm Etm�' . � y fid [ ti ttrm• y _ ✓• "m M 1BM Up• )a WRC QBmdNill WI. p mt t � atA tis OIIE— AllOrlm DOMIY. `rte TITEE REPORT tOENT111U16N. EEDAE DESCRIPTION: o—III R—r w IR1I I,.M WmW Awker OF TRIE W7 xc la'1J _lig OlIM11 Iq ip UEK M M dt1' T WIbO twt. a •:•• ND. FASEUEM NOTES: eW[ 6 dle�\ ettEws / - fM IW V tO IIICI, I®OFD M N 1 �tv �dM O IIIP� M M DtBS d M e r� tt ar' sour 0+(>oeo Icr:r d Tltl[ mr7 catun. _ - �° �M a a sEroE _ / e'•a e a ecuaex Pµ GATE OF SOfivEY: / w° B1i0i'� ma ssa+ a ss a `dy. 1; d eAIX IflPx PILAF rREWu Ia. etm 1 ni �wcxE va / ror<Ea 6� lICLiM"LAI+Bcl�G aETR[.Ra P[u dox �. .. E ED4 tt [°NCA[F nPB w� E4 �w , R � IEv FRna EWIPtt WOK w50E cExT<A MF FEn SM G aZ FM DETALS . � ¢� S`W oKM no r° °a b Ca uttNNFxr w.0 / ss rt m �+w ' � SL SIRE(1 UatasxF DaF xrprWri rE gA9I ExctasmE c[a°[rr[ I � •c<+'cpc ® ,l s , ca.ss. � `Y ]20P Ww j��� - —1�. _ YM�},q} _._ C -TS, - C -0< 7R.4G7' LA0, 43182 w FW I MA 1048/ 8.14 LOT iti APK Vo&0600o voi cour DFL ° - RM�E Wit, i� LOT 12 LOT fl JLOT 718 APPL I L%Kos LOT U7 LOT OB L07 08 LOT 04 LOT O8 M% m LOT 10 I LO7 00 ,6,jamlM � ux ,yx LOT �g Sapp• mmoo. �r owift.om ; 02 TOPOGRAPHIC tiURVEY le print �•/ / �'"dw \Y hefwlh NEX TEL Tt CE IR -1. CA sl6 [PH.:VEI,��Z,ER bB.35W F (114)]68-JSOt e=RONALDREAGA,PARK / .a'u�E �� , �/ w•� .>.f� w R,ss, c 9 %r Lae_-_� Lrs 04/24/07 at LR REVIEW w..� e -0a �J a cx"ss a r4L \ PACIFIC LZ O � I t No' IIpi��,T ��3caJ+J"• AND AsSOC rAT[; IN —Bxre[� iro TTP rm m ca[ rN / .cn / " g% VrN7V51NVEYNG & AIAPPNG BI a�MC" — C 6 9 C�cxCBCR r�cM ryaCW�x cxn[5. ®e �1 xf x ( [HC[ W x xuAy an � vs ai. s5, i5etl r x [& c�B " � w�ICR UE2F `a"55. r � c^•.�—.rv.:= row is Xn iarcRRE .,'6 •= uarcR Yuu Box 6t � \ L xsC nasC mR"xr Dla� azon wu \ a cissa iuw xsmE i°x c� w.x vu ear.Ro \.xo �c"rcaoc�xo .w." ' aowr ,..n w. Is oxp11BE —x—cww Ewxr[xa ' �cxawo o axrzxurx sax 1 1, �x �ri`oexw,vxx „ ro cissa j uoe-n.m i[ (M RNB ]M[[Iil"G R IR"Sv [N4MURf 1:1 v,Rc [Cir LCR rrtL[. agib e TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY OGRAPHIC SURVEY — 2 Ifl 2 1' t Project site stealth tower location looking southeast. 3 p � Project site stealth tower location looking north. Site Photographs Project site equipment building location looking southwest. 1tiF- Project site equipment building location looking northwest. Proposed Sprint / Together with Nextel. Ronald Reagan Park LA73XCO17 2201 Peaceful Hills Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 t� 3v Existing t=N Sprint / Together with Nextel. Ronald Reagan Park LA73XCO17 2201 Peaceful Hills Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Existing 018190183" /� � -F PON(A-1,b Scale 1:7240 K 01 t P:k ATTACHMENT 3 July 24, 2007 Planning Commission Staff Report PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - 21825 COPLEY DRIVE - DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 - TEL. (909) B39-7030 - FAX (909) 861-3117 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 7.1 MEETING DATE: July 24, 2007 CASE/FILE NUMBER: CUP 2007-09 DR 2007-22 VAR 2007-05 PROJECT LOCATION: Ronald Regan Park 2201 Peaceful Hills Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICATION REQUEST: To install and operate a telecommunication facility in a 40 foot tall faux elm tree and an equipment building. PROPE=RTY OWNERS: City of Diamond Bar 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Sprint Nextel 310 Commerce Irvine, CA 92602 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conditionally Approve BACKGROUND: On May 16, 2006 City Council approved a lease agreement for Sprint Nextel to have a wireless facility with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Applicant, Sprint Nextel Corporation proposes to construct, operate and maintain an unmanned wireless telecornmunications facility with an equipment building at Ronald Regan Park, located at the intersection of Pathfinder Road and Peaceful Hills Road. ANALYSIS: A. Review Authority (Section 22.48 22.54, and 22.58) The proposed project involves three applications as followed: 1. Development Review to review the projects design and ensure compliance with the city's design guidelines and standards to minimize adverse effects on the surrounding properties and environment; 2. Variance to consider a height increase from the allowed 35 feet to 40 feet for the proposed mono elm. 3. A Conditional Use Permit approval is required for a telecommunication facility with multiple antennas and co -location on the same site. The proposed project meets this criterion; hence a Conditional Use permit is required. B. Site and Surrounding General Plan Zoning and Uses Page 2 Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09 Development Review No. 2007-22 Variance No. 2007-05 General Plan Zone Uses Site RL RPD -10,000 Single Family Residential North RL RPD -10,000 Single Family Residential South RL RPD -10,000 Single Family Residential East RL RPD -10,000 Single Family Residential West Out of City Rowland Heights Single Family i Residential Page 2 Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09 Development Review No. 2007-22 Variance No. 2007-05 C. Development Review (Section 22.48) The City's development standards for wireless telecommunication antenna facilities were adopted in 1999 to insure the design and location of telecommunication and equipment are consistent with the General Plan, other Municipal Code Sections, and that the use's aesthetic appearance be unobtrusive and unsightly to protect property values. Development Standards Development Feature DBMC-Standards Proposed Meets 22.42.130 Requirements Setbacks: Antenna: 202'-7" Yes Distance equal to height of antenna plus 20% from nearest residential lot line; Equipment 109'-10" from Yes Building: property line at Not addressed. Pathfinder and 188'-1 " from property line at Peaceful Hills_ Height: Antennas/Structure: 35 feet. 40'-0" No (Variance) Equipment 12'-2" Yes Building: 13 feet Screening: Screen or camouflage to Antenna/mono elm and Yes mitigate visual equipment building impacts. Architectural Integrate with Equipment building: Yes Integration: design and color Slump Stone to match existing structures in Park Underground All utilities and All cables to be Yes Utilities: connection cables underground must be places underground Page 3 Conditional Use Permit Nc 2007-09 Development Review No. 2007-22 Variance No. 2007-05 Lighting: Artificial lighting None proposed Yes shall be limited to mandatory safety and security Co -location Applicant and Structurally Yes Property owner designed for future must consent to co -location future co-location(s) Landscape: Landscaping may Landscape around See be required for equipment building Conditions of screening purposes to minimize Approval structure 3. Architectural Features The wireless telecommunication antenna will be a camouflage mono elm that is approximately 40 feet high with 3 panel antennas. Each panel shall contain 5 antennas, which vary in size. The proposed equipment building will house the ground equipment that is needed to operate the facility. The building materials will include Slump Stone block and cement the roofing to match existing structures in the Park. 4. Landscape A final landscape plan must be submitted and approved by the Community Development Department and Community Services Department prior to the issuance of any city permits. 5. Facility Operational Characteristics The proposed telecommunication facility is unmanned and operates twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, with routine monthly maintenance. A portable generator hook-up is being installed in case of a power outage. If a power outage occurs, a generator will be brought on site and used until the power outage is resolved. The noise level of this generator is a condition of approval. 0. FCC Guidelines FCC documentation is required for this project and is a condition of approval. These types of telecommunication projects are generally categorically excluded due to the unlikeness to cause exposure in excess of the FCC's guidelines or detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare of the community. Page 4 Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09 Development Review No. 2007-22 Variance No. 2007-05 D. Conditional Use Permit (Section 22.42) A Conditional Use Permit approval is required for a telecommunication facility with multiple antennas. The proposed project meets this criterion; hence a Conditional Use permit is required. E. Variance (Section 22.54) The maximum height of a structure in the RPD -10,000 zoning district is 35 feet. However, the proposed mono elm is 40 feet in height. According to the applicant the proposed mono elm will have a height of 35 feet; however, the stealth branches will extend 40 feet in height to create a more realistic appearance to this faux mono elm. Additionally, the City's Telecommunications facilities Map specifies public parks as a location where telecommunications facilities may be located. F. Additional Review The Public Works Department, Community Services Department, and the Building and Safety Division reviewed this project. Their comments are included in the resolutions as conditions of approval. G. General Plan, Design Guidelines and Compatibility with Neighborhood The proposed projects, which consist of the installation of a telecommunications facility, is consistent with the surround neighborhood in that the materials and colors used and design of the equipment buildings are consistent with homes in the neighborhood and the existing structures in the Park. The antennas camouflage as faux elm trees and will blend with the park vegetation. As a result, staff finds the proposed projects are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, consistent with the General Plan Strategy 2.2.1 -new developments shall be compatible with surrounding land uses, meets Municipal Code Standards and the City's Design Guidelines. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 700 foot radius of the project site and the notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. A notice display board was posted at the site, and a copy of the legal notice was posted at the City's designated community posting sites. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The City has determined that this project is categorically exempt in accordance to the 1970 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA.), Section 15303 (d). Page 5 Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09 Development Review No. 2007-22 Variance No. 2007-05 RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22, and Variance No. 2007-05, Findings of Fact, conditions of approval and Standard Conditions, as listed within the attached resolution. A Prepared by: David Alvarez Planning Technician Attachments: ROrewed by: Nancy Fong, Al Community Dei 1. Draft Resolution of Approval with required findings 2. Photo Simulation 3. Aerial 4. Exhibit "A" — Dated July 18, 2007_-? Page 6 Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09 Development Review No. 2007-22 Vadance No. 2007-05 /0 0 PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 2007 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-09, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2007-22 AND VARIANCE NO. 2007-05, A REQUEST TO INSTALL A TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY AT RONALD REGAN PARK LOCATED AT 2201 PEACEFUL HILLS ROAD (APN: 8765-015-900), DIAMOND BAR, CA RECITALS The property owner; City of Diamond Bar and applicant, Sprint Nextel Corporation have filed an application for Conditional Use Permit No. 2007- 09, Development Review No. 2007-22, and Variance No. 2007-05 and categorical exemption for a telecommunication facility to be located at Ronald Regan Park, 2201 Peaceful Hills Road, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit, Development Review, Variance and categorical exemption shall be referred to as the "Application." 2 On July 13, 2007, notification of the public hearing for this project was provided in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. On July 13, 2007, public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 188 property owners within a 700 -foot radius of the project site and public notice at the City's designated community posting sites. Furthermore, on July 13, 2007, the project site was posted with a display board. 3 On July 24, 2007, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The Planning Commission hereby determines that the proposed project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) in accordance to Section 15303 (d) of the CEQA Guidelines. 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 orthe 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: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (a) Wireless telecommunication facilities may be allowed in the RPD - 10,000 zoning district in public parks. A Conditional Use Permit approval is required for a wireless telecommunication facility with multiple antennas and co -location on same site. The proposed project meets this criterion; hence a Conditional Use Permit approval. Additionally, the proposed project complies with other applicable provisions of the Development Code and Municipal Code with the exception of the height, which is discussed in the Variance section of this resolution. (b) The proposed project consist of the installation of a wireless telecommunication facility consistent with the surround neighborhood in that the materials and colors used and design of the equipment buildings are consistent with homes in the neighborhood and the existing structures in Ronald Regan Park. The antennas camouflage as a faux elm tree will blend with the park vegetation. As a result, staff finds the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, consistent with the General Plan Strategy 2.2.1 -new developments shall be compatible with surrounding land uses, meets Municipal Code Standards and the City's Design Guidelines. (c) The proposed wireless telecommunication facility's location is consistent with the City' Telecommunication Facility Map which identifies public parks as a location for this type of use. The antenna is camouflaged in a mono elm. The one building will house the ground equipment needed to operate the facilities. The building's colors and materials will compliment the existing structures in Ronald Regan Park and is consistent with homes in the neighborhood. The park is a total of 6.47 acres and can accommodate the proposed use. The proposed facility is unmanned and operates twenty-four hours a day, 2 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX seven days a week, with monthly routine maintenance. As such, the operational characteristics are compatible with the existing and future lands use in the vicinity. (d) As referenced above in items (a) through (c), the project site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed including access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and the absence of physical constraints. (e) Before the issuance of any City permits, the proposed project is required to comply with all conditions within the approved resolution and the Building and Safety Division, Public Works Division, and Parks and Recreation Department requirements. The referenced agencies through the permit and inspection process 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. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (f) As discussed above in items (b) and (c), the design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for specialized areas (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards, or planned developments.) (g) As discussed above in items (a) through (d), the design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards (h) As discussed above in items (a) through (d), the architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48 DBDC, the General Plan, City Design Guidelines, or any applicable specific plan. (i) As discussed above in Items (a) through (d), the design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-)X occupants and visiting public, as well as its neighbors, through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing. Q) As discussed above in items (a) through (d) and prior to the issuance of any City permits, the proposed project is required to comply with all conditions within the approved resolution and the Building and Safety Division, Public Works Division, and Community Services Department requirements. The referenced agencies through the permit and inspection process 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. Additionally and because of the factors discussed above in Items (a) through (c), and (d) the proposed project will not have a negative affect on property values or in the vicinity. VARIANCE (k) Wireless telecommunications are accomplished by linking a wireless network of radio wave transmitting devices such as portable and car phones to the conventional telephone system through series of short- range, contiguous cells. Similar to a honeycomb pattern, a cellular system is composed of many neighboring and inter -connecting "cell site" or geographical areas. Each cell site within the system contains transmitting and receiving antenna that require an appropriate/clear line of sight. The maximum height of a structure in the RPD -10,000 zoning district is 35 feet. However, the proposed mono elm is 40 feet in height. According to the applicant the proposed mono elm will have a height of 35 feet; however, the stealth branches will extend 40 feet in height to create a more realistic appearance to the faux mono elm. Additionally, the City Telecommunication Facilities Map specifies public parks as a location where telecommunications facilities may be located. (1) Granting the Variance allows the proposed telecommunication facility to increasing number of subscribers. This wireless telecommunications systems will be an invaluable communications tool in the event of emergencies and natural disasters were normal land line communications are often disrupted or inaccessible during and after an event has occurred. Such facilities are a valuable tool in business communication and everyday personal use. Additionally, within the City of Diamond Bar there are other such facilities located within a residential zone. Futhermore, the City Telecommunication Facilities Map specifies public parks as a location where telecommunication facilities may be located. 4 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX (m) As referenced in item (b) above, granting the Variance is consistent with the General Plan. There is no applicable specific plan for this area. (n) Before the issuance of any City permits, the proposed project is required to comply with: all conditions set forth in the approving resolution; and the Building and Safety Division; Public Works Division; Fire Department requirements; and FCC approval. The referenced agencies through the permit and inspection process 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. (o) In accordance to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15303 (d), the City has determined that the project identified above in this Resolution is categorically exempt. Furthermore, the categorical exemption reflects the independent judgment of the City of Diamond Bar. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves this Application subject to the following conditions: a. General (1) The project shall substantially conform to Title Sheet, Site Plan, Antenna and Equipment Layout Plan, Elevations, Landscape Plan, and Details collectively labeled and referenced herein as Exhibit "A" dated July 24, 2007, as submitted to, amended herein, and approved by the Planning Commission. (2) Applicant shall comply with all Federal, State and City regulations (3) To ensure compliance with all conditions of approval and applicable codes, the Conditional Use Permit/Development Review shall be subject to period review. If non-compliance with conditions of approval occurs, the Planning Commission may review the Conditional Use Permit. The Commission may revoke or modify the Conditional Use Permit. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX (4) When an emergency generator is used on site, the dBA shall comply with the City's noise standards in Development Code Chapter 22.28. (5) Applicant shall comply with all lease terms executed. b. Planning Division (1) Applicant shall insure that the property is properly secured to prevent unauthorized access to the communication facilities. (2) Signs and advertising shall be prohibited on the screened wireless antenna. (3) No additional lighting shall be installed on the screened wireless antennas or associated equipment. (4) The site shall be ' maintained in a condition free of trash, debris, refuse, and undesirable vegetation. All graffiti must be removed within 24 hours. In the event that the applicant does not remove all graffiti from the said structure, the city will remove all graffiti and shall be reimbursed for all expenses. (5) If the Department of Fish and Game determines that Fish and Game the City, within five days of this grant's approval, a cashier's check of $50.00 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 deminimis 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. (6) The applicant must consent to the future co -location of facilities on the monoelm and in the equipment building unless technical considerations preclude that co -location. (7) In the event that the antenna becomes inoperable or ceases to be used for a period of six consecutive months the applicant shall remove the telecommunications facility within 90 -days of notification by the City. (8) The applicant shall post a $5,000 cash bond with the City of Diamond Bar to guarantee the removal of the antenna in the event that it ceases to be operational for a period of six consecutive months (9) Prior to the issuance of any City Permits, a final landscape plan shall be submitted for City's review and approval. (10) To ensure minimal visibility and reduce the chances of graffiti of the equipment building, 5 gallon size shrubs at 3 feet on center is subject 6 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX to Community Development Department and Community Services Department review and approval. (11) All cables and wiring for the telecommunication facility shall be underground. (12) All material and colors used for the equipment building shall match the existing structures located in Ronald Regan Park. (13) Damaged or broken fronds or leaves shall be replaced with 30 days from the date of damage. (14) Exposed tree trunk shall not be higher than 10 feet. (15) Prior to plan check submittal, the applicant shall provide for Planning Division review and approval a detailed cross section at two foot intervals for the tree and 2.6 branches per lineal whirl to ensure foliage density. C. Building and Safety Division (1) Fire Department approval may be required. Prior to the issuance of any City permits, applicant shall contact the Fire Department for review and approval. (2) Applicant shall provide temporary sanitation facilities while under construction. 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: Sprint Nextel Corporation, 310 Commerce, Irvine, CA 92602 7 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24th DAY OF JULY 2007, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. Steve Nelson, Chairman I, Nancy Fong, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of July 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner: VC/Torng; Nolan, Lee; Wei; Chair/Nelson NOES: Commissioner: None ,ABSENT: Commissioner: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner: None ,ici luy Tong, becretary Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS USE PERMITS, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL NEW AND REMODELED STRUCTURES PROJECT #: Conditional Use Permit No.2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22, and Variance No 2007-05 SUBJECT: Telecommunications Facility APPLICANT: Sprint/Nextel Corporation LOCATION: Ronald Reaan Park, 2201 Peaceful Hills Road, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION AT (909) 839-7030, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS In accordance with Government Code Section 66474.9(b) (1), the applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its officers, agents and employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding to attack, set-aside, void or annul, the approval of Conditional Use Permit No.2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22, and Variance No. 2007-05 brought within the time period provided by Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the city and/or its officers, agents and employees are made a party of any such action: (a) Applicant shall provide a defense to the City defendants or at the City's option reimburse the City its costs of defense, including reasonable attorneys fees, incurred in defense of such claims. Planning Commission Resolution Nc. 2007 -XX (b) Applicant shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the City descendents. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action of proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof. 2. This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant and owner of the property involved have filed, within twenty-one (21) days of approval of this Conditional Use Permit No.2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22 and Variance No. 2007-05, at the City of Diamond Bar Community and Development Services Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this approval. Further, this approval shall not be effective until the applicants pay remaining City processing fees, school fees and fees for the review of submitted reports. 3. All designers, architects, engineers, and contractors associated with this project shall obtain a Diamond Bar Business Registration and zoning approval for those businesses located in Diamond Bar. 14. Signed copies of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 5. Prior to the plan check, revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval. 6. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all conditions of approval shall be completed. 7. The project site shall be maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of approval and all laws, or other applicable regulations. 8. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and any applicable Specific Plan in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 9. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and elevation plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of City permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.,) or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 10. Applicant shall remove the public hearing notice board within three days of this project's approval. 11. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of City Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works Department, and the Fire Department. 10 Planning Commission Resolution No. 20D7 -XX B. FEES/DEPOSITS Applicant shall pay development fees (including but not limited to Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works Department and Mitigation Monitoring) at the established rates, prior to issuance of building or grading permit (whichever comes first), as required by the City. School fees as required shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permit. In addition, the applicant shall pay all remaining prorated City project review and processing fees prior to issuance of grading or building permit, whichever come first. 2. Prior to any plan check, all deposit accounts for the processing of this project shall have no deficits. C. TIME LIMITS The approval of Conditional Use Permit No.2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22 and Variance No. 2007-05 shall expire within two years from the date of approval if the use has not been exercised as defined in accordance to Municipal Code Section 22.66.050 (b)(1). The applicant may request in writing a one year time extension subject to Municipal Code Section 22.60.050(c) for Planning Commission approval. D. SITE DEVELOPMENT The project site shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the approved plans submitted to, approved, and amended herein by the Planning Commission, collectively labeled and referenced herein as Exhibit "A" including: site plans, floor plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations. 2. All ground -mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, air conditioning condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berms, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 3. All structures, including walls, shall be maintained in a structurally sound, safe manner with a clean, orderly appearance. All graffiti shall be removed within 24 hours by the property owner/occupant. F. SOLID WASTE The site shall be maintained in a condition, which is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement approved herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction shall be done only by the property 11 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX owner, applicant or by a duly permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas within the City. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor used has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, (909) 839-7040, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL An Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted concurrently with the grading plan clearly detailing erosion control measures. These measures shall be implemented during construction between October 1st and April 15th. The erosion control plan shall conform to national Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards and incorporate the appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's). 2. Grading and/or construction activities and the transportation of equipment and materials and operation of heavy grading equipment shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Dust generated by grading and construction activities shall be reduced by watering the soil prior to and during the activities and in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 402 and Rule 403. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. Additionally, all construction equipment shall be properly muffled to reduce noise levels. B. ,SOILS REPORT/GRADING/RETAINING WALLS The Owner shall execute and record a covenant agreement to maintain and hold the City harmless for all existing improvements in the public right-of- way. 2_. All equipment staging areas shall be located on the project site. Staging area, including material stockpile and equipment storage area, shall be enclosed within a 6 foot -high chain link fence. All access points in the defense shall be locked whenever the construction site is not supervised. 3. The maximum grade of driveways serving building pad areas shall be 15 percent. In hillside areas driveway grades exceeding 15 percent shall have parking landings with a minimum 16 feet deep and shall not exceed five (5) percent grade or as required by the City Engineer. Driveways with a slope of 15 percent shall incorporate grooves for traction into the construction as required by the City Engineer. 4. All slopes shall be seeded per landscape plan and/or fuel modification plan with native grasses or planted with ground cover, shrubs, and trees for 12 Planning Commission Resolution Nio. 2DD7-XX erosion control upon completion of grading or some other alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5. Submit a stockpile plan showing the proposed location for stockpile for grading export materials, and the route of transport. C. DRAINAGE Detailed drainage system information of the lot with careful attention to any flood hazard area shall be submitted. All drainage/runoff from the development shall be conveyed from the site to the natural drainage course. No on-site drainage shall be conveyed to adjacent parcels; unless that is the natural drainage course. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 839-7020, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Plans shall conform to State and Local Building Code (i.e., 2001 California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and the 2001 National Electrical Code) requirements and all other applicable construction codes, ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of plan check submittal. 2. Occupancy of the facilities shah not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been met. The antennas/monoelm and equipment building shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 3. The minimum design load for wind in this area is 80 M.P.H. exposures "C" and the site is within seismic zone four. The applicant shall submit drawings and calculations prepared by a California State licensed Architect/Engineer with wet stamp and signature. 4. All retaining walls shall be submitted to the Building & Safety and Public Work Departments for review and approval. The applicant shall submit drawings and calculations prepared by a California State licensed Architect/Engineer with wet stamp and signature. 5. The project shall be protected by a construction fence to the satisfaction of the Building Official. 6. Check drainage patterns with Engineering Department. Surface water shall drain away from building at a 2% minimum slope. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE PREVENTION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 13 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX 1. Emergency access shall be provided, maintaining free and clear, a minimum 28 foot at all times during construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire Department that temporary water supply for fire protection is available pending completion of the required fire protection system. END 14 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX ATTACHMENT 4 July 24, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes JULY 24, 2007 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22 and Variance No. 2007-05 — In accordance with Code Sections 22.58, 2248, 2254 and 22.42, the applicant requested to install a telecommunications facility #LA73XCO17. The installation consists of antenna attached to a faux elm tree commonly referred to as a "monoelm" and an equipment building to match the existing park structures. A Conditional Use Permit approval was required in order to operate a cell site; Development Review approval was required for the design/architectural review, and the Variance approval was required for the 45 foot tall "monoelm," which exceed the 35 -foot maximum height allowed for a structure. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT: Ronald Reagan Park 2201 Peaceful Hills Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 City of Diamond Bar Sprint Nextel 310 Commerce Irvine, CA 92602 CDD/Fong stated for the record that staff received a petition signed by residents and four letters in opposition to the project. PT/Alvarez presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22 and Variance No. 2007-05, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. In response to VC/Torng, CDD/Fong confirmed that the distance of the antenna was 60 feet to the basketball court, 100 feet to the tennis court and more than 200 feet to the neighboring residential property. PT/Alvarez read the FCC guideline requirements. ACA/Wohlenberg presented an overview of the FCC health issues as follows: The Telecommunications Act forbids local governments from disapproving a wireless facility based on health concerns. Federal law mandates cities to follow only the FCC health guidelines. The FCC health guidelines are based on surface heating and the amount of energy generated by a facility. The maximum power facility with the maximum number of antennas is considered to be safe under the FCC JULY 24, 2007 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION guidelines 10 meters away. Therefore, once 33 feet is reached, the most powerful cell tower possible is considered to be safe within the FCC guidelines. Generally, public protest centers on health effects and that is something that cities are not allowed to address in consideration of these types of applications. VC/Torng asked if there were cell sites in other city parks and CDD/Fong responded that other wireless antennas were approved in Pantera Park, Peterson Park and Summitridge Park. Two monoelms were approved for Summitridge Park but have not yet been constructed. C/Nolan and VC/Torng drove by the site and did not speak with anyone regarding this issue. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Ed Gala, Sprint Nextel, explained the project and potential coverage area that would extend into residential areas. Mr. Gala said that it was common practice to place these facilities in city parks. He showed an example of an installation that blended with the surrounding landscape. C/Lee asked if there was a functional or technical difference between a 35 - foot and 40 -foot antenna except for the appearance. Mr. Gala responded yes, that originally the RF Engineer was seeking a height of 55 feet. Staff informed Sprint Nextel that the height limit was 35 feet and after testing the 35 -foot antenna, the RF Engineer discovered that 35 feet was the minimum height for operation and the variance requesting an additional five feet was to provide a more realistic appearance for the monoelm. C. Stephen Davis, 20763 East Rim Lane, said his house lies directly across the street from the park's picnic structure. He reviewed staff's report and found that it did not include a copy of the lease stipulating the amount of income this installation would provide to the City. He questioned that CEQA standards would not apply to this project. Since Diamond Bar is short of parkland the idea of converting a portion of a park to commercial use should be troubling. There is no discussion about alternate locations that are available for placement of this site that would possibly have less impact on residential property and there is no discussion about the impact of the project on property values. He said it was also troubling to him that this would JULY 24, 2007 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION provide service not for Diamond Bar residents but for residents of other cities and areas and felt staff's report was somewhat superficial and did not consider other impacts that affect the adjacent neighborhood. Chun Kong Chen, 20718 E. Mill Lane, felt the City should maintain the characteristics of the park and not use parkland for commercial ventures. He felt the fake tree would be a danger to kids using the park because they would be inclined to climb it. Tony Lee, 20836 Quail Run Drive, said he understood the need to provide wireless service but felt the Commission might want to consider alternatives because other cell service providers have been able to provide quality service without the need for this tower. Rejay Butah, 20793 East Rim Lane, hoped the Commission would consider all of the points made by Mr. Davis and other residents. He said the tower would be in his line of site and wondered if anyone had considered what would happen to the property values in the adjacent neighborhoods if this project were constructed. Mr. Gala responded to speakers that in terms of alternative sites, his company typically explores at least six sites before making a selection. The reason for locating the site in the proposed spot is to connect other sites and eliminate dead spots. Co -location is preferred. However, in this case that option was not available for a site that would provide the necessary coverage. Second, this site was chosen because it lies at the crest of the hill and better coverage will be provided toward the northwest and southerly areas. With respect to park space, the building is 10x20 (200 square feet) and the monoelm has a 1 0x1 0 footprint for a total of 300 square feet in a two -acre park. The antenna generates no noise and the only noise would be from the building air conditioners. If there were no roof the air conditioner would not be necessary and there would be no noise generated. However, the City's parks department asked that the building mimic the restroom structure. Residents will have the benefit of increased service. In addition, this antenna provides in-home Wi-Fi coverage. Mr. Gala referred to articles indicating cell sites have no effect on property values and entered the article into the public record. VC/Torng asked Mr. Gala to elaborate on the necessity of this tower since Verizon provides coverage in the area. Mr. Gala responded that the data indicates the particular area of the park has marginal coverage at best and JULY 24, 2007 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION the RF Engineers identify areas lacking coverage and direct Sprint Nextel to find a location within the coverage gap. It is very expensive for Sprint to build cell sites and if it was not needed it would not be built. VC/Torng asked if kids could climb the monoelm. Mr. Gala responded that it could be fenced with security fencing. I n addition, there is nothing for kids to grab onto to facilitate climbing. CDD/Fong said she believed no one would visit the area because the trees were very close to the edge of the slope. VC/Torng agreed with speakers that there would be kids in the area because it was only 60 feet to the basketball court. He felt the site would be too close to people in a park with heavy use. Mr. Gala indicated to VC/Torng that Sprint Nextel could provide a security fence. VC/Torng wanted to make certain that this was the optimal site and that residents and park users would be fully protected. CDD/Fong indicated to VC/Torng that staff looked at the site to make certain it was away from the residential area and would have a minimal impact to users of the park. CSD/Rose, CM/DeStefano and CDD/Fong personally walked the site to determine the best location for the monoelm and staff believes the selected location provides the least impact upon usage of the park. As far as preventing children or adults from climbing the tree there could be fencing around the base. However, staff would prefer to see more decorative material such as wrought iron rather than chain-link fencing with green mesh. In addition, the equipment building area is not a heavily used area of the park. VC/Torng referred to a picture showing the basketball court and picnic area close to the tower. He felt the tower should be another 20 feet from that area in accordance with the 68 feet required distance from residences and if there is some other possible location it should be considered. Mr. Gala said the tower could be moved closer to the residences and away from the basketball court. The equipment building was placed in an area to provide a shorter run to the transformer so that the trenching would be on the backside of the tennis courts. CDD/Fong reiterated that the location is away from the residential area; it is not impeding on any picnic structures, and is within a growth of trees to render it nearly invisible. Staff believes the area selected is the least intrusive on the adjacent residential and park areas. VC/Torng asked if the antenna could be moved furtherwest into the trees to make it more invisible and further away from the residences. Mr. Gala said JULY 24, 2007 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION that one reason for choosing the particular location was because there was a gap in the trees and the trees would not have to be trimmed to provide line of site. Building, trees and other structures degrade the signal. C/Nolan asked if there was a difference in safety concerns with kids trying to climb on monoelms as opposed to regular trees and what percentage of use would be available to Diamond Bar as opposed to surrounding communities. She also asked if additional growth of the natural trees would provide more cover for the monoelm. CDD/Fong said that the surrounding pine trees would grow to 50 or 60 feet at maturity and the monoelm would be shielded and shaded by the pine trees. Mr. Gala said that the tree growth could minimize and degrade the service. The reason this particular spot was selected because there was a gap allowing for direct line of site west and east and due south. He said he did not know the percentage of use by D.B. as opposed to other areas. CDD/Fong stated that in accordance with the coverage map the majority of the service area would be in Diamond Bar. CDD/Fong said the attraction of the monoelm to climbers would be no different from any other trees. Mr. Gala responded to Chair/Nelson that typically these projects take about three months to construct including about a week of heavy construction. C/Wei said he did not believe anyone would be able to climb a tree with a three-foot diameter unless they had climbing equipment. Also, the center of the post is 16 feet away from the top of the slope so there would be plenty of room to move the post seven or eight feet further from the basketball court and picnic tables. Ye Jung, 20777 Missionary Ridge felt the majority of the coverage would benefit Rowland Heights and not Diamond Bar. Mr. Lee said he did not believe Sprint had adequately addressed the Verizon partnership and asked the Commission to focus on that issue as it deliberated. He asked if the distance between the equipment building and the tower would preclude the City from redesign of the park in the future and if the City had conducted decibel studies on the air conditioning system and were there considerations for micro towers for the areas left uncovered. And would the increase in power mean that other carriers could use the site as constructed or would the power output have to be increased with additional usage. JULY 24, 2007 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Nelson asked why Sprint Nextel did not consider co -location with Verizon to which Mr. Gala said he was not sure about the location of the Verizon facility to which speakers referred. Mr. Gala offered to bring the RF Engineer to meet with the Commission at its next meeting. A speaker suggested two other possible locations that involved water tanks and not parks. A speaker took exception to placement of the antenna in the proposed location because there was no benefit to the City. C/Lee asked what consequences the City could expect if this project were approved. ACA/Wohlenberg responded that the Telecommunications Act requires denial of a wireless facility to be in writing and it must be based on substantial evidence in the public record. Therefore, the evidence would need to be reviewed to see if the project had reached that level of substantial evidence. Reaching that level can be difficult when a facility meets the code and does not appear to violate any of the City's requirements for development projects. Sprint would have to bring court action and seek to have the Commission and Council's decision overturned. A number of cities have been involved in such litigation and it tends to be long and difficult. If there is evidence in the record to support the denial it can be supported. At the request of Chair/Nelson, ACA/Wohlenberg stated that the project was brought forward to the Commission based on the recommendation that the project falls within one of the categorical exemptions within CEQA. When companies go before the California Public Utilities Commission to get permission to begin offering telecommunications services, they go through the CEQA process at that time. Therefore, permission to offer the services and build the system has undergone a CEQA review at the state level and when individual projects come forward to cities such as Diamond Bar the City is required to review the project to determine whether there are substantial impacts that would require additional CEQA review. In this case, staff felt that this project fit within the categorical exemption for minor new construction Section 15303(d). ACA/Wohlenberg responded to Chair/Nelson that he was comfortable that the City was on solid ground with its findings. There are a number of uses that could be considered commercial use. However, these types of uses are public utility uses such as cable television use within parks and residential areas, electrical systems and other various telecommunication companies, telephone companies and so forth. JULY 24, 2007 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Nolan asked about the question of AC noise. CDD/Fong stated that AC units in residential zones are required to be five feet away from the property line. This facility has a residential type of air conditioning unit because it is a small structure. It is climate controlled inside and the noise generated would be very minimal and at considerable distance from the residential area. A speaker spoke about noise generating from the basketball and tennis court areas, which does not relate to this application. Those considerations relate to park use only and would be appropriately discussed in front of the Parks and Recreation Commission. VC/Torng moved, C/Wei seconded, to continue this matter to August 14, 2007, to allow the applicant an opportunity to consider other locations including co -location sites; direct staff to consider mitigation measures such as moving the picnic tables further from the facility and/or moving the facility further from the basketball and tennis courts, and receive a report from the applicant and/or staff regarding other sites that were considered and eliminated; direct staff or the applicant to provide a picture from the park side, and direct staff to make reference to the CEQA exemption. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: VC/Torng, Wei, Lee, Nolan Chair/Nelson None None RECESS: Chair/Nelson recessed the Planning Commission meeting at 8:34 p.m. RECONVENE: Chair/Nelson reconvened the Planning Commission meeting at 8:41 p.m. t.'� J-'1�! JP;,J-iJf�t-'Jl�'�'JilU.'�J�"!-l"!—In:i!, �r�1un, �i�il���'�-:(cpfrj,ni ifi :ippli,;• Ani d :Ippru,i:il ut plim:; iu J ,rnu(i ;il :If1 :14Xi iirig rig u r i i i iAfid ,orib!f!i,C:i ri''i!!fir=:.- ii!;f f 'I'l,%f l%f �!I��f 3 ki0! 'i7iih EArl :Iii:iL'fi 'J 3,1' O a!I'J fig r!iUi gar ig rtis' yah} i!li prep= -'rid i ,uri ;a R -'I (-10,000) -And ! orliairi is -:i of !arid :ir:::i. PFJUJ=r'f ADDREHiS: Alwriu H{ ,;ghiz; Ro_id Diwriwid D,=r, CA 7 17 ;5 ATTACH ENT 5 Commission PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - 21825 COPLEY DRIVE - DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 - TEL. (909) 839-7030 - FAX (909) 861-3117 ITEM NO. DATE: August 14, 2007 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Nancy Fong, AICP, Community Development Director BY: David Alvarez, Planning Technician SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22 and Variance No. 2007-05 — A request to install and operate a telecommunication facility in a 40 foot tall faux elm tree and equipment building located at the Ronald Regan Park at 2201 Peaceful Hills Road — APN: 8765-015-900. BACKGROUND: On July 24, 2007, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the Proposed project. After receiving staff report, input from the applicant and public testimony, the Planning Commission continued the hearing to August 14, 2007. The Planning Commission directed the applicant to provide additional information as follows: consider alternate locations including co -location sites, possibly move the antenna within the park to further distance from the basketball and tennis courts and picnic tables, provide a photo simulation of the "monoelm" from the park side and address the issue of CEQA exemption. ANALYSIS: A. Concerns from surrounding residents Residents that reside in proximity to Ronald Regan Park raised concerns with locating the proposed faux "monoelm" telecommunications facility and equipment building in the park. The following summarizes their concerns with staff response: 1. A resident questioned whether telecommunication facility should be exempt from California Environmental Quality ACT (CEQA) review. Staff comments: According to City Attorney, companies have to go before California Public Utilities Commission for permission to offer telecommunication services and at that time the companies would have to go through CEQA process. He re -iterated that the CEQA exemption section 15303(d) for minor new construction applies and is legally sound. Further, he stated that telecommunication service is no different from other public utilities such as cable television, telephone, electrical systems and so forth that are within parks and residential areas. 2. Sprint/Nextel has not considered alternate locations including co -location sites Staff comments: According to Sprint/Nextel representative, they have considered the water tank off Brea Canyon Cutoff. Because of the topography and the heavy tree lines, that location would not provide the needed coverage. They have considered South Pointe Middle School and Ronald Regan Park and determined that the park site was preferred because it is at the crest of the hills and would provide the needed coverage. A representative from Sprint/Nextel will be at the hearing to provide additional information and answer questions concerning alternative locations and co - locations. 3. The park should not "monoelm" may pose inclined to climb it. L, be considered for commercial purpose and the faux danger to young children because they would be Staff comments: There are telecommunication facilities (cell towers) in Peterson and Pantera Parks and the City has approved two new stealth cell towers at Summitridge Park. Cities in the surrounding area have allowed telecommunication facilities within their public parks. To prevent children from climbing the tree, decorative fencing could be provided at the base of the "monoelm," Telecommunication facility would affect the property values of the residential neighborhoods. Staff comments: At the July 24 public hearing, Mr. Ed Gala, a representative of Sprint/Nextel, stated that there have been studies conducted, which indicated cell towers have no effect on property value. He entered such studies into public record. Copies of the studies are attached to staff report. 5. Noise from the equipment. Staff comments: The equipment for the telecommunication facility is within an enclosed structure, which is similar in design and material to the existing structures in the park. There is a small air conditioning unit for climate control which would not generate significant noise that impact the residential district that are more than 200 feet away. B. Additional Information from Sprint/Nextel At the July 24 public hearing, the Planning Commission directed the applicant to provide the following additional information: Consider alternate locations including co -location site. As discussed in the above section, the application has provided information on other locations that they have considered. They determined that the site at Ronald Regan Park would provide the needed coverage. A representative from Sprint/Nextel will be at the hearing to provide additional information and answer questions concerning alternative locations and co -locations. 2. Possibly move the antenna within the park to further distance from the basketball and tennis courts and picnic tables. The applicant stated that there is room for them to consider moving the "monoelm" six to eight feet away from the basketball and tennis courts. A condition of approval is added in the attached draft resolution requiring the "monoelm" to move six to eight feet as approved by the Community Development Director. 3. Provide a photo simulation of the "monoelm" from the park side. The applicant has provided a photo simulation of the "monoelm" as shown in Attachment No. 3. 4. Address the issue of CEQA exemption. City attorney has addressed the reason for not requiring additional environmental review as discussed in the above section of the report. C. Facts to Support the Findings (Section 22.42.130 f4 through 6) In determining whether to issue a conditional use permit for a telecommunication facility, the Planning Commission must consider the following factors: 1. Environmental integration. The extent to which the proposed facility blends into the surrounding environment and is architecturally integrated into a concealing structure, taking into consideration alternative sites that are available. The proposed project conceals the cell tower with a faux elm tree and blend in well with the existing trees in the park. The applicant has considered other locations and determined that the site is the best location for providing the needed service. 2. Screening. The extent to which. the proposed facility is screened or camouflaged by existing or proposed topography, vegetation, buildings or other structures. The proposed telecommunication facility is camouflaged by a faux elm tree. The equipment is enclosed by a structure similar in design and material to the existing structures in the park. 3. Size. The total size of the proposed facility, particularly in relation to surrounding and supporting structures. The proposed telecommunication facility (monoelm) is similar in size to existing trees in the park. The equipment structure is similar in size to existing structures in the park. 4. Residential proximity. Proximity of the proposed facility to residential structures and to the boundaries of residential districts. The proposed telecommunication facility (monoelm) is more than 200 feet away from a residential districts. 5. Access. Proposed ingress to and egress from the site of the proposed facility. The proposed project will have access from the park. 6. Location. The location of the proposed facility and the extent to which it conforms to the following in order of preferences — co -location or located at a pre -approved location, attached to existing structure such as biding, communication tower, church steeple or utility pole or tower, and located in industrial, business park or commercial zoning districts. The proposed telecommunication facility is located at a pre -approved location as identified in the city approved Telecommunication Facility Opportunities Map. Based on the above identified facts, staff concluded that the proposed project has met all the factors to consider approval by the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct the continued public hearing and receive additional public input. After closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission should deliberate on the merits of the proposed project. Staff recommends that Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22 and Variance No. 2007-05 for the telecommunication facility. Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution of Approval with Required Findings 2,.---"ly 24, 2007, -port and -Draft -Minutes 3. Photo Simulations 4. Aerial photo for the site 5. Development Plans 6. Property Values Reports from Sprint/Nextel 7. Approved Telecommunication Facility opportunities Map PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2007 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-09, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2007-22 AND VARIANCE NO. 2007-05, A REQUEST TO INSTALL A TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY AT RONALD REGAN PARK LOCATED AT 2201 PEACEFUL HILLS ROAD (APN: 8765-015-900), DIAMOND BAR, CA A. RECITALS 1. The property owner, City of Diamond Bar and applicant, Sprint Nextel Corporation have filed an application for Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22, and Variance No. 2007-05 and categorical exemption for a telecommunication facility to be located at Ronald Regan Park, 2201 Peaceful Hills Road, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit, Development Review, Variance and categorical exemption shall be referred to as the "Application." 2 Notification of the public hearing for this project was provided in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. Public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 188 property owners within a 700 -foot radius of the project site and public notice at the City's designated community posting sites. Furthermore, the project site was posted with a display board. 3 On July 24, 2007, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing and continued it to August 14, 2007. The continuation was to allow the applicant time in providing additional information regarding alternate locations, moving the antenna further away from the basketball courts and picnic tables, providing a photo simulation of the "monoelm" from the park side and addressing the issue of CEQA exemption. 4 On August 14, 2007, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar after receiving additional public input, concluded said hearing on the Application on that date. B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The Planning Commission hereby determines that the proposed project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) in accordance to Section 15303 (d) of the CEQA Guidelines. 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: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (a) Wireless telecommunication facilities may be allowed in the RPD - 10,000 zoning district in public parks. A Conditional Use Permit approval is required for a wireless telecommunication facility with multiple antennas and co -location on same site. The proposed project meets this criterion; hence a Conditional Use Permit approval. Additionally, the proposed project complies with other applicable provisions of the Development Code and Municipal Code with the exception of the height, which is discussed in the Variance section of this resolution. (b) The proposed project consist of the installation of a wireless telecommunication facility consistentwith the surround neighborhood in that the materials and colors used and design of the equipment buildings are consistent with homes in the neighborhood and the existing structures in Ronald Regan Park. The antennas camouflage as a faux elm tree will blend with the park vegetation. As a result, staff finds the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding 4 neighborhood, consistent with the General Plan Strategy 2.2.1 -new developments shall be compatible with surrounding land uses, meets Municipal Code Standards and the City's Design Guidelines. (c) The proposed wireless telecommunication facility's location is consistent with the City' Telecommunication Facility Opportunities Map, which identifies public parks as a location for this type of use. The antenna is camouflaged in a monoelm. The ground equipment will be housed in a structure and the building's colors and materials will compliment the existing structures in Ronald Regan Park and is consistent with homes in the neighborhood. The park is a total of 6.47 acres and can accommodate the proposed use. The proposed facility is unmanned and operates twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, with monthly routine maintenance. As such, the operational characteristics are compatible with the existing and future lands use in the vicinity. (d) As referenced above in items (a) through (c), the project site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed including access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and the absence of physical constraints. (e) Before the issuance of any City permits, the proposed project is required to comply with all conditions within the approved resolution and the Building and Safety Division, Public Works Division, and Parks and Recreation Department requirements. The referenced agencies through the permit and inspection process 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. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (f) As discussed above in items (b) and (c), the design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for specialized areas (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards, or planned developments.) (g) As discussed above in items (a) through (d), the design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards 3 (h) As discussed above in items (a) through (d), the architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48 DBDC, the General Plan, City Design Guidelines, or any applicable specific plan. (i) As discussed above in Items (a) through (d), 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. Q) As discussed above in Items (a) through (d) and prior to the issuance of any City permits, the proposed project is required to complywith all conditions within the approved resolution and the Building and Safety Division, Public Works Division, and Community Services Department requirements. The referenced agencies through the permit and inspection process 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. Additionally and because of the factors discussed above in Items (a) through (c), and (d) the proposed project will not have a negative affect on property values or in the vicinity. VARIANCE (k) Wireless telecommunications are accomplished by linking a wireless network of radio wave transmitting devices such as portable and car phones to the conventional telephone system through series of short- range, contiguous cells. Similar to a honeycomb pattern, a cellular system is composed of many neighboring and inter -connecting "cell site" or geographical areas. Each cell site within the system contains transmitting and receiving antenna that require an appropriate/clear line of sight. The maximum height of a structure in the RPD -10,000 zoning district is 35 feet. However, the proposed mono elm is 40 feet in height. According to the applicant the proposed mono elm will have a height of 35 feet; however, the stealth branches will extend 40 feet in height to create a more realistic appearance to the faux mono elm. Additionally, the City Telecommunication Facilities Map specifies public parks as a location where telecommunications facilities may be located. Sl (I) Granting the Variance allows the proposed telecommunication facility to increasing number of subscribers. This wireless telecommunications systems will be an invaluable communications tool in the event of emergencies and natural disasters were normal land line communications are often disrupted or inaccessible during and after an event has occurred. Such facilities are a valuable tool in business communication and everyday personal use. Additionally, within the City of Diamond Bar there are other such facilities located within a residential zone. Futhermore, the City Telecommunication Facilities Map specifies public parks as a location where telecommunication facilities may be located. (m) As referenced in item (b) above, granting the Variance is consistent with the General Plan. There is no applicable specific plan for this area. (n) Before the issuance of any City permits, the proposed project is required to comply with: all conditions set forth in the approving resolution; and the Building and Safety Division; Public Works Division; Fire Department requirements; and FCC approval. The referenced agencies through the permit and inspection process 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. (o) In accordance to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15303 (d), the City has determined that the project identified above in this Resolution is categorically exempt. Furthermore, the categorical exemption reflects the independent judgment of the City of Diamond Bar. WIRELESS FACILITIES Environmental integration. The extent to which the proposed facility blends into the surrounding environment and is architecturally integrated into a concealing structure, taking into consideration alternative sites that are available. The proposed project conceals the cell tower with a faux elm tree and blend in well with the existing trees in the park. The applicant has considered other locations and determined that the site is the best location for providing the needed service. 5 2. Screening. The extent to which the proposed facility is screened or camouflaged by existing or proposed topography, vegetation, buildings or other structures. The proposed telecommunication facility is camouflaged by a faux elm tree. The equipment is enclosed by a structure similar in design and material to the existing structures in the park. 3. Size. The total size of the proposed facility, particularly in relation to surrounding and supporting structures. The proposed telecommunication facility (monoelm) is similar in size to existing trees in the park. The equipment structure is similar in size to existing structures in the park. 4. Residential proximity. Proximity of the proposed facility to residential structures and to the boundaries of residential districts. The proposed telecommunication facility (monoelm) is more than 200 feet away from a residential districts. 5. Access. Proposed ingress to and egress from the site of the proposed facility. The proposed project will have access from the park. 6. Location. The location of the proposed facility and the extent to which it conforms to the following in order of preferences — co -location or located at a pre -approved location, attached to existing structure such as biding, communication tower, church steeple or utility pole or tower, and located in industrial, business park or commercial zoning districts. The proposed telecommunication facility is located at a pre -approved location as identified in the city approved Telecommunication Facility Opportunities Map. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves this Application subject to the following conditions: a. General (1) The project shall substantially conform to Title Sheet, Site Plan, Antenna and Equipment Layout Plan, Elevations, Landscape Plan, and Details collectively labeled and referenced herein as Exhibit "A" dated July 24, 2007, as submitted to, amended herein, and approved by the Planning Commission. C (2) Applicant shall comply with all Federal, State and City regulations. (3) To ensure compliance with all conditions of approval and applicable codes, the Conditional Use Permit/Development Review shall be subject to period review. If non-compliance with conditions of approval occurs, the Planning Commission may review the Conditional Use Permit. The Commission may revoke or modify the Conditional Use Permit. (4) When an emergency generator is used on site, the dBA shall comply with the City's noise standards in Development Code Chapter 22.28. (5) Applicant shall comply with all lease terms executed. (6) The monoelm shall move 6 to 8 feet away from the basketball/tennis court, subject to Community dDvelopment Director review and approval. b. Planning Division (1) Applicant shall insure that the property is properly secured to prevent unauthorized access to the communication facilities. (2) Signs and advertising shall be prohibited on the screened wireless antenna. (3) No additional lighting shall be installed on the screened wireless antennas or associated equipment. (4) The site shall be maintained in a condition free of trash, debris, refuse, and undesirable vegetation. All graffiti must be removed within 24 hours. In the event that the applicant does not remove all graffiti from the said structure, the city will remove all graffiti and shall be reimbursed for all expenses. (5) If the Department of Fish and Game determines that Fish and Game the City, within five days of this grant's approval, a cashier's check of $50.00 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 deminimis 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. 7 (6) The applicant must consent to the future co-location of facilities on the monoelm and in the equipment building unless technical considerations preclude that co-location. (7) In the event that the antenna becomes inoperable or ceases to be used for a period of six consecutive months the applicant shall remove the telecommunications facility within 90-days of notification by the City. (8) The applicant shall post a $5,000 cash bond with the City of Diamond Bar to guarantee the removal of the antenna in the event that it ceases to be operational for a period of six consecutive months (9) Prior to the issuance of any City Permits, a final landscape plan shall be submitted for City's review and approval. (10) To ensure minimal visibility and reduce the chances of graffiti of the equipment building, 5 gallon size shrubs at 3 feet on center is subject to Community Development Department and Community Services Department review and approval. (11) All cables and wiring for the telecommunication facility shall be underground. (12) All material and colors used for the equipment building shall match the existing structures located in Ronald Regan Park. (13) Damaged or broken fronds or leaves shall be replaced with 30 days from the date of damage. (14) Exposed tree trunk shall not be higher than 10 feet. (15) Prior to plan check submittal, the applicant shall provide for Planning Division review and approval a detailed cross section at two foot intervals for the tree and 2.6 branches per lineal whirl to ensure foliage density. C. Building and Safety Division (1) Fire Department approval may be required. Prior to the issuance of any City permits, applicant shall contact the Fire Department for review and approval. (2) Applicant shall provide temporary sanitation facilities while under construction. 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: Sprint Nextel Corporation, 310 Commerce, Irvine, CA 92602. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14th DAY OF AUGUST 2007, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. Steve Nelson, Chairman I, Nancy Fong, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of August 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ATTEST: Nancy Fong, Secretary 9 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS USE PERMITS, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL NEW AND REMODELED STRUCTURES PROJECT M Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22 and Variance No. 2007-05 SUBJECT: Telecommunications Facility APPLICANT: Sprint/Nextel Corporation LOCATION: Ronald Regan Park, 2201 Peaceful Hills Road, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION AT (909) 839-7030, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS In accordance with Government Code Section 66474.9(b) (1), the applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its officers, agents and employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding to attack, set-aside, void or annul, the approval of Conditional Use Permit No.2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22, and Variance No. 2007-05 brought within the time period provided by Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the city and/or its officers, agents and employees are made a party of any such action: (a) Applicant shall provide a defense to the City defendants or at the City's option reimburse the City its costs of defense, including reasonable attorneys fees, incurred in defense of such claims. 10 (b) Applicant shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the City descendents. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action of proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof. 2. This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant and owner of the property involved have filed, within twenty-one (21) days of approval of this Conditional Use Permit No.2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22 and Variance No. 2007-05, at the City of Diamond Bar Community and Development Services Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this approval. Further, this approval shall not be effective until the applicants pay remaining City processing fees, school fees and fees for the review of submitted reports. 3. All designers, architects, engineers, and contractors associated with this project shall obtain a Diamond Bar Business Registration and zoning approval for those businesses located in Diamond Bar. 4. Signed copies of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 5. Prior to the plan check, revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval. 6. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all conditions of approval shall be completed. 7. The project site shall be maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of approval and all laws, or other applicable regulations. 8. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and any applicable Specific Plan in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 9. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and elevation plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of City permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.,) or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 11 10. Applicant shall remove the public hearing notice board within three days of this project's approval. 11. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of City Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works Department, and the Fire Department. B. FEES/DEPOSITS Applicant shall pay development fees (including but not limited to Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works Department and Mitigation Monitoring) at the established rates, prior to issuance of building or grading permit (whichever comes first), as required by the City. School fees as required shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permit. In addition, the applicant shall pay all remaining prorated City project review and processing fees prior to issuance of grading or building permit, whichever come first. 2. Prior to any plan check, all deposit accounts for the processing of this project shall have no deficits. C. TIME LIMITS 1. The approval of Conditional Use Permit No.2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22 and Variance No. 2007-05 shall expire within two years from the date of approval if the use has not been exercised as defined in accordance to Municipal Code Section 22.66.050 (b)(1). The applicant may request in writing a one year time extension subject to Municipal Code Section 22.60.050(c) for Planning Commission approval. D. SITE DEVELOPMENT The project site shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the approved plans submitted to, approved, and amended herein by the Planning Commission, collectively labeled and referenced herein as Exhibit "A" including: site plans, floor plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations. 2. All ground -mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, air conditioning condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berms, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 3. All structures, including walls, shall be maintained in a structurally sound, safe manner with a clean, orderly appearance. All graffiti shall be removed within 24 hours by the property owner/occupant. 12 F. SOLID WASTE 1. The site shall be maintained in a condition, which is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement approved herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction shall be done only by the property owner, applicant or by a duly permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas within the City. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor used has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, (909) 839-7040, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL 1. An Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted concurrently with the grading plan clearly detailing erosion control measures. These measures shall be implemented during construction between October Vt and April 15th. The erosion control plan shall conform to national Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards and incorporate the appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's). 2. Grading and/or construction activities and the transportation of equipment and materials and operation of heavy grading equipment shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Dust generated by grading and construction activities shall be reduced by watering the soil prior to and during the activities and in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 402 and Rule 403. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. Additionally, all construction equipment shall be properly muffled to reduce noise levels. B. SOILS REPORT/GRADING/RETAINING WALLS The Owner shall execute and record a covenant agreement to maintain and hold the City harmless for all existing improvements in the public right-of- way. 2. All equipment staging areas shall be located on the project site. Staging area, including material stockpile and equipment storage area, shall be enclosed within a 6 foot -high chain link fence. All access points in the defense shall be locked whenever the construction site is not supervised. 13 3. The maximum grade of driveways serving building pad areas shall be 15 percent. In hillside areas driveway grades exceeding 15 percent shall have parking landings with a minimum 16 feet deep and shall not exceed five (5) percent grade or as required by the City Engineer. Driveways with a slope of 15 percent shall incorporate grooves for traction into the construction as required by the City Engineer. 4. All slopes shall be seeded per landscape plan and/or fuel modification plan with native grasses or planted with ground cover, shrubs, and trees for erosion control upon completion of grading or some other alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5. Submit a stockpile plan showing the proposed location for stockpile for grading export materials, and the route of transport. C. DRAINAGE Detailed drainage system information of the lot with careful attention to any flood hazard area shall be submitted. All drainage/runoff from the development shall be conveyed from the site to the natural drainage course. No on-site drainage shall be conveyed to adjacent parcels, unless that is the natural drainage course. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 839-7020, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Plans shall conform to State and Local Building Code (i.e., 2001 California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and the 2001 National Electrical Code) requirements and all other applicable construction codes, ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of plan check submittal. 2. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been met. The antennas/monoelm and equipment building shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 3. The minimum design load for wind in this area is 80 M.P.H. exposures "C" and the site is within seismic zone four. The applicant shall submit drawings and calculations prepared by a California State licensed Architect/Engineer with wet stamp and signature. 4. All retaining walls shall be submitted to the Building & Safety and Public Work Departments for review and approval. The applicant shall submit drawings and calculations prepared by a California State licensed Architect/Engineer with wet stamp and signature. 14 5. The project shall be protected by a construction fence to the satisfaction of the Building Official. 6. Check drainage patterns with Engineering Department. Surface water shall drain away from building at a 2% minimum slope. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE PREVENTION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Emergency access shall be provided, maintaining free and clear, a minimum 28 foot at all times during construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire Department that temporary water supply for fire protection is available pending completion of the required fire protection system. END 15 Sprint Together with Nextel. RonaldReagan y Proposed , ExIsdug ExhNt 3B PO MA -2-15 R06,rA=) Af Exhibit 4 Exhibit 7 PS LEGEND D,'tSTBNGTE6ECOMMUNiICAT6ON SCTES PUBDC PARRS PURLOC SCHOOLS oOTHER PUBLRC PROPERTY ® WMD WATER RESERVOIR CHURCH PROPERTY TeBecoumcmmn"tioms / FlubBde Property, (Vater Reservoirs & Churches FACLMES MAF City Diamond S., ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE PERFORMED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT ECUloHS OF THE FOLLOWING CODES AS ADOPTED BY THE LOGE COVERXINO AUTHORI ITS. NOTHING IN THESE PL41S 5 TO BE CONSTRUED TO PERMIT NOTHING NOT CONFORYINO TO THESE CODES. I. UFODIW eunF COTE E_m. S. C FOWRA ELECWUL m[( QC -MN 2. CAUORNW ""'STRUNE LYRE 6. WFDON 1f(WMN OAA[ OIC -1101 (WCL ITT -24 E }5) 2001 ), "'0"" RUT9W con[ CPC -21111 3. MIT/EW-122-9 SNOY CODE 11. OCA BNLONC CODE S 4. NPA -101 UE -199) L ( ) 9. um AxD/oR caNly wDPavcEs Sprint / Together with NEXTEL RONALD REAGAN PARK LA73XCO17 2201 PEACEFUL HILLS ROAD DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 ROS RROIECT CONSSTS OF THE WSTAU-- ANO OPCRnnON OF ANTENNAS AND ASSOCIATED EOUFHiENT FOR THE SPRINT KXTEL• WIRELESS TFLECONYUxM OOn NETWORK, THIS SHE WW. CONSIST OF: 1) 10'120' CUSTOM STILT TEIECOuu..-.x W.—O Z) f5'-0• HMN uONOBRNDIEV PANEL ARTUNAS; 5 AHTENHAS PER SECTOR (3 SECTORS NT&) 4) POWER, TELCO t COASAI CAME RUNS PROJECT DESCRIPTION APPLICANT/LESSEE: NEAIEI COYYIINCATMHS PHONE: (114) Sfi11-J500 310 COUHERCE FAx: (114J 368-]501 HONER:. CA 92602 CONTACT: LOU S;1 L.0. —INC CQ]RONAIOR HON PE: (949) 913-5)51 FAA: (114) J.-]501 CONTACT: 9RWN ROTAS. CONSTRUCROV YANAG[R PHONE - TO: (714) 368-3501 CONTACT: USA BERGSHOM, RE ENDNEER P. - FAL (714) 368-1501 COMAM ED GALA ZOMNG PNOHE: (714) 709-1523 fA1: OR 4) 3611-3501 PROPERTY INFORMATION: OWNER: COY OF QAUOND BAR AO()F`M: 211125 CORLEY OPNE 01AYdID WR. G 91765 CONTACT: ""MBAR CITYHALL PHONE. (909) 1139 -POO A.P.N.: 6765-015-900 PROJECT INFORMATION: AREA OF CONSTRUCNUN: EQ)IP, LEASE AREA • 200 S0. R. OCCUPANCY OTOUP. P- NONE (OPEN SPACE) - R VELE—R Y TION FAW TY) COHSTRUCION TYPE, (C) - N/A. (v) - v -NR (un9uuu) CURRENT ZONNG: _ 2ONN0 .'PLICATION F: ACEESSIMY FACKRY IS UNUAVN(D AND NOT FOR REOUREAE.S: HULLAN HABTATIDN OMAPoFR ARCHITECT: OCT RALKK 2N50 DOPONT OR. RMAIC G 92612 CONTACT: ).K. W E -WNL DKOOQPAWFMCW _E (SUIT) 4)5-IpOO FAX: (949) U75-1DUI SURVEYOR BERT RAZE AND ASSOCIATES LAND SIFMYING k UATH1Aa 13D YcroRYICC AVO+UE. STE 102 COSTA MESA G 92626 PHOHE. (114) 55)-ISfi) fA%: )I4 551-1559 POWER: FHR COMPANY: . FAA CONTACT: E -WNL TELCO: aN CONANT: fAn EOATACT: E_LLVL ' UTILITY PROVIDERS Exhibit 5 EEEII- nUl sHERL SHE R --- ED SITE PVN __NENT ANO ANTENNA IAYWf PLANS IOH$ URVEY (FOP REFERENCE OµY)URVEY (FOR REFERENCE ONLY) 0) SHEET INDEX zomNG DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS (IF NOT 2036) GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOTES T­TWu N. RONALD REAGAN PARK LA73XCO17 plG 05/29/07 ZONING TITLE SHEET M 'E `` o.»B ON ELE°'M P 'EES 111,. Iwwae) C 2 LCCo1 DfSCRIPRO4: I` <xrv9r.w RccnP, er ,RLI REFUND i N ]162, E- THE [IttRN 0 MwSRt(wu R. ZT RECORN— Oi Su Ps, ru 1nf D:nc[ Dr 1rE s D [Ourvtt. ERS \`1D. T/PSN >BSh�` BRO"AN I SEE I SHEET A] FOANTENNA LAYOUT PLAN al.. i (E) R KETFI1L CDIIRR PROP05ED'SPRI NT-NE,CTFL' TELECOMMUNICATION. FACILITY, SEE SHEET A2 FOR ENLARGED SITE PLAN— (E) TENNIS COURTS 7t-- TRAOT NO- 43162 M.B. 1046/5-14 LOT 117 APN: 8765-015-900 L�� / e,tt - (.)TRANSFORMER (tlrse5elea.NVR PROPOSED SPRINT�NE%TEL' \ \ POWER P.O.G—� / nRu: 61e5-021-011 u=N. OT65-O22->II 6165 AD22-D10 8165-022-009 6165-022-D09 I MN: / PYN: •RN: AFH. 6165 22O -D1 I 8165-022-006 BT65-032-005 8965-022-00< /1 8765-D22-003 9165-021-11 � ; �I, OVERALL SITE PLAN j PND = PACIFIC AROHITECTURECNGINEERING C0N6ULTING 2-DUPONT DRIVE, IRVINE. CA 12112 NE:(w911151DOD Fax: 19a911Ts19O1 11 Sprint Together with NEXTEL ],UCOMMERLE, IRVINE, CA 926D2 PMONE: IT'9)]6 — Fu (—)1661501 R0NA7D"ZZAW PARK LA73XCO17 GCCM'Nus ROAD 10� �eIA, G 01166 D.ww0 eLv OS/29/07 ZONING .........T-JIEIREL' Tx c Ow vswAT PROM " y, \ L -1. -SAC TO PROPOSED ..} \ \ X 9u Ino CUURe{YT D EL-DE3A I. c SOLUEME _ T LAND6CAP. DA NNE i\ G f E) CUL -DE -SM 6 \1 In \ zl 1 (E) SAND Pt,STCROUND 1 1 —AC Ess TO SITE I nRu: 61e5-021-011 u=N. OT65-O22->II 6165 AD22-D10 8165-022-009 6165-022-D09 I MN: / PYN: •RN: AFH. 6165 22O -D1 I 8165-022-006 BT65-032-005 8965-022-00< /1 8765-D22-003 9165-021-11 � ; �I, OVERALL SITE PLAN j PND = PACIFIC AROHITECTURECNGINEERING C0N6ULTING 2-DUPONT DRIVE, IRVINE. CA 12112 NE:(w911151DOD Fax: 19a911Ts19O1 11 Sprint Together with NEXTEL ],UCOMMERLE, IRVINE, CA 926D2 PMONE: IT'9)]6 — Fu (—)1661501 R0NA7D"ZZAW PARK LA73XCO17 GCCM'Nus ROAD 10� �eIA, G 01166 D.ww0 eLv OS/29/07 ZONING (E) TREES, PROTECT 11\ / (E) Ptcmc ' PROPOSED 'SPRINT-NEXTEI' 9X18' SERVICE PARKING /r AREA (SHOWN CASHED) �— PROPOSED 'SPRINT-NEXTELo, CGNCTH�FROMEllT CPME Tll DUINOTTTO POLE 020'-0-) a' {l PROPOSED 'SPRINT-NEXTFL' \� �/ EOUIPNENT BOLDING; EXTERIOR FINISH PROPOSED VEHICULAR A\ / TO WTCH (E) ON-SRE RESTROOM \ (CMU BLOCX WALL w/ CEMENT TILE TURN -AROUND AREA o,f(u ROOFING); SEE SHEET AD FOR - RT \ EOUWMENT LAYOUT PIN ]°yp 0• c^ \ PROPOSED'SPNIN EH' ELECTRICAL/POWER T TRENCNCH (TOTAL O\ LENGTH FROM EQUIPMENT TO (E) - TRANSFORMER 4270'-0') / (E) PICNIC TABLE \ (E) LIGHT SinNDnRDS, 1YP. � /\ �, { -. \ / � (E) TENNIS CDURiS PROPOSED 6'aN4'X SECV41tt \ //J BOLLARDS O A 0' D.C. \ p (REMOVABLC), 5 TOTAL IN jPTiAEES.TPp OTECT TRACT NO. 43162 M.B. 1046/5-14 f.OT 117 APN: 8765-015-900 _ \ PRO ED E� �• -� 0 cUR BMRIER L CURB Ztli \ PROPOSED 'SPRI(EARCU TEL' 12' DE AC \ LOCATION \ DRIVEWAY FLEA (E) CUL -OE -$AC TO PROPOSED LEASE ARG fC�f, Oj' (u)PucERE Er weP. PROTECT RIB - (E) TO „ REES. FROTEET OSP t PUCE, hP.Y 14.1 PROPOSED C%RB-CVT AT 0.O EXISTING CVL -DE -SAC R /CUL DE -SAC IN TRArvSf'ORM ER; ( �p fAdC OR 'HE A 1 NSFORMER FACILITY OCATIOv % ` •�� ENLARGED SRE PLAN ) PACIFIC ARCHRECTURE- ENGINEERING CONSULTING 2450 OVPONT DRIVE. IRVINE. CA 93612 PHONE.(919)r15-10D0 F-(.9)1]S1M1 05/29/07 ZONING APPROVALS: [/r A�{i1irG�0 ENLARGED SITE PLAN A2 _ -MI.-HI. I•-5• KEYNOTES ttP, 6 2,-7•. B 31 b }'_0• PROPOSED *SPRINT-NEXTEL' PRIMARY MODCELL V4.013 CABINET. WEIGHT: 1538 LBS. PROPOSED 'SPRINY-NEXTFI' BATTERY CABINET, r 6' V-0 2 WEIGHT: 2174 LBS. Oj PROPOSED 'SPRINY-NEXBINET• TEL' FUTURE CA - WEIGHT: 1530 LBS. 5 -TON RVAC UNITS (MALL -MOUNTED). 2 TOTAL S 4'X8'%3/4-THK. TELCO BACKBOARD O n C <6> TELCO PULL -BO%. AS REQUIRED. TO RE DETERMINED BT •SPRIN'Y-NEXTEL• INTERCONNECT ENGINEER �R O OO O O O 200A 110/208-240v 11 POWER PANEL W/ SURGE II II SUPPRESSOR AND INTERLOCKING BREAKER S. O 20G METER/ AIN MOUNTED ON EXTERIOR WALL 4 / /R 20G EMERGENCY GENERATOR RECEPTACLE MOUNTED ON EXTERIOR WALL LOCATION FOR ST 10 / --� 5 � O O COORDINATION REPORDOWN TRquSFORMER, IF REQUIRED: PENDING UTILITY J11 CONDUIT STUB -UPS FOR COAX CABLES O FINISH FLOOR LEVEL 5'X5• CONCRETE STOOP Q4'W X 7'H ACCESS DOOR B t FINISHING SCHEDULE: 9 I FLDOR HOMOGENEOUS V3NVL FLOOR TILE PER 'SPRINT-NpREL' STANDARDS B. LT_E CEIUNG GYPSUM BOARD W/ SEMI -GLOSS FINISH —E-�TO POWER P.D.C. INTERIOR WALLS — SNIP -PROOFED CMU WALL W/ SEMI -GLOSS FINISH EXTERIOR WALLS— DVNP-PROOFED CMU WALL TO MATCH EXISTING EOUIPMENT LAYOUT PLAN f i MONO•BROAOLEAF SPECIFICATIONS: NOTE: MONOTREE DRAWINGS ARE SCHEMATIC ONLY. RE%ER TO PHOTOSIMS AND VENDOR DRAWINGS FOR FINAL KEVIEW AND FABRICATION PURPOSES f JURSDICTION AND CM TO REVIEW AND APPROVE VENDOR MONOTREE SHOP %t0 0 DRAWINGS PR OR 70 FABR CaTOrv. / O //• PROPOSED STYLE: ELM PROPOSED HEIGHT: 4O' (TOP OF BRANCHES) / (MEASURED FROM ANERAGE AO3ACENT GRADE LEVEL AT CAISSON FOOTING TO TOP OF BRANCHES.) / NUMBER OF ANTENNAS: 5ANTENNAS PER SECTOR; 15 TOTAL / (E) TREES, PROTECT IN PI -ACE, TTP. 4 ANTENNAS PER SECTOR: 12 IOTAL (FUTURE) / TDP, OF ANTE -AS: 35' / 'ORA PROPOSED 'SPRINT-NEXTEL' 35'H HEIGHT OF ANTENNA,. 4'-3' YONOBROAOLEAF: SEE SPECS TO EOUIPMENT SOLOING ANTENNA RAD CENTER'. ]}' PROPOSED 0 S _ T4'-3'WL /R ANTENNA COLOR: PAINT TO BLEND WITH LEAVES / ANTENNAS: SANTENUAS PER SECTOR,3 i / SECTORS TOTAL �R NUMBER OF BRANCROS: 60 / �CDMg 5CCi0 /R BRANCY DENSIl ] BRANCHES PER LINEAR FOOT M OR BRANCH DIAMETER. 20'-0" / ONS LOWEST BRANCH HEIGHT: IS- A SA✓ / R (MEASURED FROM AVERAGE ADJACENT GRADE LEVEL IT /qOC�5FCT0 CAISSON FOOTING TO LOWEST BRANCH.) / IIS A BRANCH EXTENSION (AHD): 5' SM—TED LEAV'ES TES ('.CRS) I) TREES. PROTECT ADHERED Ta NAE N Z RI -AGE. NP.—� POLE SMF- t9 SIDED POLTGOu C TTp(GaLVANZE0 STEfL) TAPERED: NO M m-\ t0ttP0 W - connlRc OR eARK. cognrvc (PAwTEo) 42 WQ COLOR. DIC[DUCUS BEIGE MULTI -TONE. < BAIG T OF CAA., OR J, -EIGHT 2 x20' -0'P NOTE: MONOBRDADLEAF PLACEMENT TO BE 'IN -UNE' WITH EZ1511NG TREES MCROwAVE CSH ANTENNA nD MICROWAVE RAJ CENTER. N/A ANTENNA LAYOUT ©I I PACIrIC ARCHTTECTURE ENGINEERING CONSULTING 2450 DUPOIIT DRNE. IRVINE. CA 92612 PHONE: SkIE19619D9 FAK 1949)1>51Wi Sprint Together with NEX I EL 31000MMERCEIRA G92902 PHONE I7PH-350U FAX(V4)3W3501 RONALDLGREAGAN PARK LA73XCO17 05/29/07 ZONING APPROVALS: L/r ih iE STATUS: 4 -I I ___ P1M7yr r EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNA LAYOUT PLANS �j A3 I MCIFIC ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING- CONSULTING 2150 DUPONTO E. IRVINE CA 92512 PHONE. 1919)4) TXO FAY.(919117S1O71 (E� TREE (OUTLINE) ® BACKGROUND (E) TREE (OUTLINE) O SACKOROUNO----------- PROPOSED 'SPRINT-HEXIEL' uON0BROADLEAF: SEE SHEET AT FOR SPECIFICATIONS— / PROPOSED 'SPRINT-NExTEt- '-3- i-3-PANEL PANELANTENNAS: 5 ANTENNAS PER SECTOR, 3 SECTORS TOTAL FUTURE (CO-LOCATION) ANTENNAS (SHOW T.0 E A DASHED) C 'SPPINi-N %TE I'D CENTER \� Sprint y Together with NEXTEL A i F 9 ; jA L PROPOSED GPS ANTENNA 2 TOT _ CLEAR TOP OF EOUIPMENT(BV A) MOUNTED i0 fa `v'4'C1yt-h } iL01NL 110 C0 N R E 'E _A 92602 ...HE: IT 1) -11. p1e11sN 1501 TO ndI RONALD REAGAN PARK T z •t 4-r t ., I,�� - `IN TRCES, PROTECT LA73XCO17 Ili IN PLACE, ttR, 05/29/07 PROPOSED SPRINT NEXTEL 10%IO CUSTOM-BUILT TELECOMMUNICATION BUR.DiNC: EXTERIOR FINISHES TO MATCH EXISTING PARK'S RESIROOY ZONING SOUTHEAST ELEVATION APPROVALS: CEMENT TILE ROOFING. 5 -TON HVAC UNITS COLOR i0 WATCH EXISTING (WALL -MOUNTED). 2 TOTAL PROPOSED 'SPRINT NE%TEl MONOBFWOLEAF; SEE SHEET A} FOR SPECIFICATIONSf� (E) TRCES, PROTECT } �IN PLACE, ttP. PROPOSEO'SPRNT NEXTEL 4'-3' #'+ *����- 1 PANEL ANTENNAS 5 ANTENNAS PER 2 x r r/s PM _ 'r lel 1 " I:_ j-. r SECTOR, ] SECTORS TDsµ l- ry n FUTURE (CO-LOCATIDN)Ay/ } ( 1 as OSP ANTENNAS (SHOWN .F '� 4 Wa DASHED. A (1 F�yLI.u,y `4-,4 ' �W_.`y - ( �y Wl ..} 2 ,� ... i `R^i o. ISSUE STATUS: CMU BLOCK WAG. COLOR Arvp IEXFURE i0 MATCH / POWER/TELCO PANELS. EXISTING AND EGR IRMA, 11c,­iR NEST 90VT NEST ELEVATION T.O. fOVIPMENi 9LOG WOOD SIDING/TRIM i0 �I MATCH EXISTING _ ,A h - VENT POWER/TELCO PANELS ! - FLDMRED AND ECR - - PROPOSED 'SPRINT-NL%TEL' 10'X20' CUSTOM-BUILT TELECOMMUNICATIDN BUILDING EXTERIOR FINISNES TO MATCH EXISTING PARKS RESTROOM ELEVATIONS AHO BLOCK WALL, COLOR / AND BLOTEXCKS AL MCOLO ExlSiluG NOHiF(Y/BT HEyATgN I (f) STREET LEVEL— — sxcrl EQUIPMENT BLDG. ELEVATION `"" ® 3 NORTHEAST ELEVATION c¢DaolwTEs: 0 NOX1M 11M. w M ICIIanQ itTN'tlTC � XAX tto Naam mawAm a mAssD ININ aaXA N11ME •Aanmf aax I®1w ATa ANNrfM YS[Y aNQ IN®aW NaFTM1N NI PwFlIN®N CLWCM (a N1glC mODm[ Low.. •IOC IRf BA515 OE BEARINGS: M maCXIC V IIW mWNr R oN rN11N RmY Wf NC11NM d INOI ML 1)14 N6 FIN. 1611Nt O W Arleta mNN: TITLE REPORT IOENTIEIGTION: (PE1CXa N—f M 1111E N1 . EASEMENT NOTES V— IOS1rC ASSESSDR'S IDENTIPIGTION: In Avma many Asx mm-ovstioo ARu M NOD PCI ION NtlCa CpMT ASI BFNCN uARK: IIlJ1 �`I YYaI ti11 lala' IXNfa NNa NCItaGL a.NSv NNW 11NN 711 1fa' N awl W ll[ �NNL LXNr• )a TNUI[ NNDIaNac Ias. CaNOX 1C1D IQT AxaL. QNCNJ LEWL DESCRIPTION: PCNW tE3Pf W Tull 1� la 11) O! 11XI. Ily qt4 N M OO Ci W Wp yrL mYCY 6 W NIrY, /IIN1a. Ret) OF CXICIN4 M NDN W TIM tr NO 1Naf, TDO. !CW t01L PKp 0 iNWIW 1{, N]IINr[ P L1PL M M gi1Z d M NLOCCT 0 Xxa Ia GATE OF SURIEY: Av1a. TL 1 a LEGEND, NP D• 9.DPE I BBC L IP i� ¢ SdK easnTDC U nNNNuc IBM mwssm ' BVCBACN AC', PV{ RCE r+ Ee iricn c�xPaox¢ ,"wPN .N,�'>EmnA�crrr�a Ba 9` EDC EDGE a' cd+a¢rt M raxD ' /' N )� ,�� civ aymx coma 4N>• X�DO( kl C lY ti 1050E �� K vulva � � � a ., .,,. __ DR.SB. ,• m. `vBUxxµDODUxD —�— °�aN�: rrH� a �iEI uar�`N raxD uD.vuEM 8� 9fET CY2 F OR CIET/LL8 . / 1— q/ i 1 sP 11 x c OP mUr CURB vuro -T �� :a w� / - • aNNs cwnrs, tEcnxss, w" x TRACT NO. 43in M8 1046/ LOT iii AM 4766-054M e � At 1 ;+I ivC �p'ISS,°-rRJ0110' / NAa _ _, ww OR Sprint �� ToOether with NEXTEL D comNE .l_NE Eru.1sa¢5cI PNWEci uu0matnDx: RONALD REAGAN PARK LA73XCO17 ^cuNNFM 5AK Mier[ [Dorm 04/24/07 REVIEW �.� NnD.NrrD i PACIFIC NxviINnK.� Puc s...,>�Pe� 4Mn Aaan —T.1% ATL4 IXC TMD SIAVEY &�MAPPM .s 114 ra r u.c 's Eq f -ll 1nll TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY ml I V-. LOT 12i/mar,..w A. � Oel L L07 08 LOT O6 ' LOT �� LD OB 1 i LOT X07 04 LOT D3 I I I LOT 2 I� ArKDeeo�roe ArK Am I APK L r i0 L07 00? oa o aos vams- t vlt eTOe-OC-0Ot I� I Sprint �� ToOether with NEXTEL D comNE .l_NE Eru.1sa¢5cI PNWEci uu0matnDx: RONALD REAGAN PARK LA73XCO17 ^cuNNFM 5AK Mier[ [Dorm 04/24/07 REVIEW �.� NnD.NrrD i PACIFIC NxviINnK.� Puc s...,>�Pe� 4Mn Aaan —T.1% ATL4 IXC TMD SIAVEY &�MAPPM .s 114 ra r u.c 's Eq f -ll 1nll TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY ml LEGEND. �0 ;LM Bl[RCX r.REfRIK/1 BOARUPR wARR ucrzR Put: ROA Lou a coxaFrz n YARD ­ ID r��roewl cvL -T. Cwma I'M o ewuo� ��w wovu rA�a or wuL —o— uuw u. rtxcE E. sM Sq4 .Utivioe [[xrtRL Ww[ui X "a -1 In xvORAw1 e"I e l M Sprint � Together with N EXTEL P ONE'(Il�lls ]Soo FnY: (I1Et leb]�f RONALD REAGAN PARK LA73XCO17 04/24/07 a..R ENQx. n. _ I PACIFIC m1aLnR.xT: BERT 11AXE AFM Af FMCIATF; IMC uw stnve»Ic s k4_,P7 C 5wR xA 557-8f ,ARRu iuR lJi� a TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY C2 Exhibit 6 T'"I COO 0 . n- �f. SIS c ..Vf V nar4r V Overview w;Mi(major cellular phone provider recently hired our firm ilk' it f�# conduct a study of the impact on residential property li�ZE li 1!�:Eti. t(s,ft Lii:iL'til values due to proximity or view of communication towers. A sufficient amount of empirical data was available to develop a comparative analysis model to demonstrate the findings of this study. By Allen G. Darin, Jr., MAI, SRA and mseph W, smirlh, l/l The methodology employed indicated that the presence of communication towers resulted in essentially no impact on residential values in the price range of $70,000 to $150,000 in those areas investigated. The upper part of this range is above the average sales price of a single-family dwelling in the Richmond MSA. Introduction The crux of the market study was to inform the client of the economic impact that communication towers may have on nearby improved residential housing values within the Richmond Metropolitan Statistical Area. The client specifically wanted to use the findings of the study to determine whether there was sufficient market evidence to conclude that the presence of communication towers does in fact, negatively influence the market value of improved residential dwellings by reason of proximity or view In turn, the client intends to use the findings and conclusions of the report to assist in the acquisition of new tower sites. Background The subject study area is in the Richmond -Petersburg Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which consists of the cities of Richmond, Petersburg, Colonial Heights, and Hopewell; and the counties of Chesterfield, Henrico, Hanover, Goochland, Powhatan, New Kent, Charles City, Dinwiddie, and Prince George in central Virginia. The following snap provides a brief overview of the Richmond MSA market study area. At the request of the client, the market study was restricted to the counties of Chesterfield, Goochland, Hanover, Henrico, and New Kent and the city of Richmond. A thorough search for adequate market data on which to base the findings of the study required a great. deal of research and analysis from the counties previously mentioned. By process of elimination, the study parameters were reduced to the counties of Chesterfield and Henrico. The counties of Goochland, Hanover, New Kent, and city of Richmond were excluded, due to the lack of sufficient market evidence available to prove the existence, if any, of any adverse effects upon residential values because of an individual tower location. The individual test sites were eliminated for reasons such as location in remote undeveloped areas, industrial neighborhoods, commercial corridors, or along interstate highways. From the research available, six test sites were located. These tower sites were selected based on their proximity to or visibility from residential properties that were deemed to have the possibility of potential negative impact upon property values. location of Test Sites The county of Chesterfield, located in the south and southwest quadrants of the MSA had one test site located just east of a townhouse project. This county was traditionally a bedroom community of the city of Richmond until the 1970s during a period when a building boom occurred. It has become a heavily populated suburban county with a full complement of residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. The county of Henrico, located in the western, northern, and eastern quadrants of the MSA had the remaining COMMUNICATION TOWERS Study Area Location Map Doubletree Subdivision Section 2 (1995) ti Doubletree Tower Subdivision i Tower .� T. - a " .Section 1 (19 94) � - --•-'fi Af3THY.IR z _ five test sites used in this study. The county was the original bedroom community of the city of Richmond. Because of proximity to major linkages with the city of Richmond, its establish- ment as a significant suburban entity preceded that of Chesterfield County. Tower Research The client was particularly interested in identifying and locating communica- tion towers in excess of 150 feet in height that may have potential negative impact on nearby residential property values. Only six existing tower sites were deemed applicable to this study out of the 77 sites inspected. The struc- ture of the towers varied from steel lattice type to steel columnar type with guy -wire supports. Three of the tower sites were located within close proximi- ty of single family detached residential subdivisions ranging in price from $70,000 to $150,000. This price range is typical of most first time homebuyers in the areas investigated. Of the three remaining tower sites, one was located near a multi -family residential apart- ment complex and the other two within view of a single family townhouse development. To clarify the methodology and analysis used to arrive at a conclusion, only one of the three q� residential subdivisions studied will be discussed. Explanation of Research Methodology Research was conducted at each of the respective localities previously mentioned in order to locate existing communication tower sites. This task was primarily accomplished by inter- viewing planning department officials familiar with this type improvement, obtaining copies of meeting minutes of the governing boards or council authorizing the construction of the towers, and familiarity with the gen- eral vicinity of the Richmond MSA. Based on the data obtained from re- search, the tower sites were plotted on maps showing their relative prox- imity to residential development_ Primary attention was focused upon residential properties adjacent to or surrounding each of the tower sites investigated. Those properties deemed to be located in sparsely de- veloped areas, industrial neighbor- hoods, or commercial corridors were eliminated from further study. After selecting the six test sites, fur- ther information was gathered including physical information on the respective towers, correspondence regarding the permitting process, specific public data on the residential sites deemed to be within the potential impact area of the tower, and sales/physical data on similarly improved properties in the general vicinity but not considered impacted by the lower. If possible, inter- views were conducted with property owners and real estate agents who had current listings of properties included in the analysis. After assimilating the gathered data, a summary of each test site neighborhood was prepared by means of quantitative and qualitative adjustment techniques for a comparative analysis. Brief Overview of Analysis According to the Eleventh Edition of The Appraisal of Real Estate, published by the Appraisal Institute (Chicago: 1996, page 414), "A comparative analysis includes the consideration of both quantitative and qualitative factors. Quantitative adjustments are developed as either dollar or percentage amounts - Factors that cannot be quantified are dealt with in qualitative analysis." In essence, the quantitative method is a mathematical procedure that is typically accomplished through a paired sales or cost comparison analysis. The qualitative analysis is much more subjective in its approach, and is commonly used when no basis for a quantitative adjustment can be concluded. The sales of the properties included in the analysis were sorted according to price paid per square foot of dwelling area after adjusting each property to a common denominator (quantitative). The potential impact of the respective tower sites was rated for each property based upon observation. The impact rating was then compared to the adjusted prices paid per square foot as an indication of any definitive correlation (qualitative) - Analysis Doubletree Subdivision, one of the three subdivisions studied, will be examined in order to explain the methodology and thought process used throughout the study analysis. Doubletree is a 67 -lot subdivision located �-'WE ARE PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE FORMER CHIEF COUNSELTO CALTRANS AND MAYOR OFTHE CITY OF DEL MAR HAS JOINED MH&A RICHARD WILL PROVIDE COUNSEL IN: • EMINENT DOMAIN • INVERSE CONDEMNATION ■ NEPA[aQA UTIGATION FOR PUBLIC AGENCIES RICHARD RYPINSKI CAN BE REACHED AT OUR OAKLAND OFFICE. McDoNoucH HOLLAND & ALLEN AJI—O "I Ln. SACRAMENTO OAKLAND YUBA CITY (916) 4M-3900 (510) 273-8700 (530) 674-9761 www.mhalawxom Choose the Right Way to your Career. Caltrans is hiring Right of Way Agents. 4 -year college degree (Bachelors) OR registration as a senior in a 4 -year college. Must pass civil service exam available on line at hllp.-//exams.spb.ce.gov/ssoexem. Visit our webpage far mare info: 13 COMMUNICATION TOWERS in a developing area in Henrico County on the east line of Francistown Road between Hungary and Springfield Roads (See Exhibit 1, page ll). Section 1 was approveYl in 1994 and Section 2 in 1995. Construction of the dwellings began in 1995. The majority of the lots sold over a two-year period, a rate considered average for this price range. The average lot size is .204 acre (8,903 square feet) with a minimum width of 63 feet. Improved properties sold mostly in the $135,000 to $145,000 price range. All of the dwellings are two story and most have front -loading garages. There are two communication towers visible to properties in this subdivision. One is located on the west side of Francistown Road at the west end of Wildtree Drive. It is a 168 -foot high steel lattice structure, which was built in 1964_ It is visible from all of the front to have only minor or no impact at all were also researched. The recorded sales price for each of the 25 properties was broken down to a unit price per square foot For the purposes of comparison. The unit prices, before adjustments, range from $64.54 to $93.75 per square foot, with a median unit price of $77.47 per square foot. For the comparative analysis model, a hypothetical base dwelling was created to represent the typical improved dwelling in Doubletree Subdivision. The hypothetical dwelling was a 1,800 square foot two story, colonial style having central air and heat, 2 12 baths, no Fireplace, attached one car garage, no frontage on Francistown Road, and sold in 1997. All of the 25 improved sales were then compared to the base dwelling with adjustments being made relative to time of sale and major yards of the lots fronting on Wildtree Drive and the rear yards of those lots backing to Francistown Road. The other tower is also located on the west side of Francistown Road but south of the subdivision. It is a 305 -foot high steel lattice tower, which was constructed in 1982. Because of the wooded area between it and the subject subdivision, its visual impact is less dra- matic; however, it is within noticeable sight of the lots in Section 1 backing to Francistown Road. Out of 67 lots, 25 improved properties were studied within the subdivision. In analyzing the properties, all those adjacent and nearby lots deemed to be impacted by their proximity to and/or view of the two towers in question were researched. In addition, several other physical and location differences. A 5 percent annual appreciation rate for time was used in the model. In an effort to achieve total sellout, the lots abutting Francistown Road were given a $4,000 discount, according to the developer/builder. Thus, an upward adjustment of $4,000 was made to the improved lots that abut Francistown Road for inferior location on a busy thoroughfare. The remaining adjustments were based on differences in the costs of the various building components. After application of the adjustments, the prop- erties were then sorted in ascending order by the indicated adjusted sale price per square Foot. The spreadsheet in (See Exhibit 2.) provides a descriptive summary of the comparative analysis model. Primary arrPnrinn was focused upon seven improved lots that were deemed to have major impact potential, due to their proximity to the tower located on the west side of Francistown Road directly across from the entrance of the subdivision via Wildtree Drive. Two out of the eight lots are situated at the northeast entrance of Doubletree Subdivision fronting the intersection of Wildtree and Kimberwick Drives. The remaining six contiguous lots are located along the northeast line of the subdivi- sion fronting Kimberwick Drive. Each of these lots has direct rear exposure to Francistown Road and the 168 -Foot high tower. A total of seven improved lots were classified as having significant impact potential due to their exposure to the two towers. Five of the lots are located along the northeastern line of the subdi- vision facing Kimberwick Drive and abutting Francistown Road to the rear. The two remaining lots in this classifica- tion are located along the northern line of the subdivision facing the intersection of Kimberwick Drive. The classifications of minor and no impact were given to properties that were considered to have little or no impact at all due to a buffered view or sufficient proximity away from the two towers. Eleven of the lots studied in this subdivision, located along the north- western and southwestern lines of the subdivision via Singletree Lane, Singletree Court, and Wildtree Court fell under these two classifications. Summary ofAnaNsis The adjustment process used was an attempt to equalize the properties. Overall, the range in unit prices paid per square foot was narrower after adjust- ments, were made in the comparative analysis model. After making adjust- ments for the major items categorized in the adjustment grid (See Exhibit 2.), a range of $66.29 to $92.31 in indicated price per square foot was reflected. Even after making adjustments for these items, a significant range in unit prize per square foot remained evident. However, the fluctuation in these adjusted unit prices per square foot can be attributed to a -variety of amenity packages that the individual homeowner may have purchased in an attempt to customize their homes, such as upgrades in appliances or finish features. Although, no adjustments for the vary- ing degree of amenities or custom work were made, the range of adjusted unit prices per square foot is deemed to be supportive of showing the effect, if any, of the two towers on property values within the subdivision. From on site observations, each property was rated relative to the impact of the tower due to proximity or view in one of four categories: major, significant, minor, or none. Those properties in which the tower was deemed to have a "major" impact were mostly adjacent to and/or having full view of the tower. "Significant" impact was assigned to those properties having full or obvious view of the tower. "Minor" impact was assigned to those having a "winter view" or noticeable presence of the tower. Those rated as "none" had little or no view of the tower. The rationale behind this rating system is that if there were a noticeable trend where those properties rated as having a major or significant impact were at the lower end of the range of unit prices paid per square foot, further research would then be warranted as to the cause of this tendency. In an effort to further substantiate the findings of the comparative model, personal inter- views were held with' property owners whose property was ranked in the major to significant categories. All of the respondents stated the towers had no impact on their purchase decisions. However, those properly owners adjacent to Francistown Road did state that the seller discounted the lots for exposure to that road. Summary of Study The chart on page 16 is a summary categorizing the results of the investiga- tion of the six existing communications towers in each of the localities included in this study: THE RIGHT OF WAY EDUCATION FOUNDATIONS 1999 ROADRUMER CLASSIC friends of the Right of Way International Eel ucation Foundation and Canadian Right of Way Education Foundation are hosting a golf tounianient on Jute Z 3rd in Albuquerque, New Mexico In conjunction with the 1999 Annual International Education Seminar. The tournament proceeds will benefit the Foundations for use in developing educational materials and promoting professional development for the right of way profession. We are seeking companies, agencies, and individuals that would like to help make this tournament a bigsuccess by signing up for one of the seven levels ofeponsorship or donating prize items. Sponsor names will be displayed at the rounnarent as well as the Seminar site so we may recoquize and show our appreciation to those who contributed. We are expecting 144 golfers. Sponsorship is a great way to get name recognition in the right of way field and benefit a very worthwhile organization at the same tire. Special recognition will be given to the Diamond. Gold and Silver contributors at the Serinar Site and at the Golf Course. 1999 ROADRUNNER CLASSIC Sponsorship Form Company Name and Address Level of Sponsorship ❑ Diamond $1,500 ❑ Gold $1,000 to$1,499 ❑ Silver $500to$999 O Scoreboard Sponsor $750 ❑ Hors d'oeuvre Party Sponsor $600 ❑ Hole in One Sponsor $ 500 ❑ Hole sponsor $300 Thank you in advance for your generous support Ifyou have any questions, please call Dennis W erkmeister at 612-8 8 7-173 5. Pie" indicateyowresponse byWednesday,June9,19 99. Make checks payable to RWIEF, and detach and return this form to RWIEF c/o Dennis Werkmeister, Enron Corp, I boo West 8 Zth Street; #210, Minneapolis, MN 5 5431 MARCH/APRIL 1999 • RIGHT OF WAY 15 COMMUNICATION TOWERS * Allocation of the percentage of properties considered as being impacted in a major or significant category; range in comparison units based on adjusted sale price per square foot of finished living area. The graph below represents the results of the investigation of the six existing communication towers. Graphical repre- sentation is a useful technique that provides the reader with an overall picture of the empirical data previously mentioned_ In each of the study areas, approxi- mately half the properties were deemed as being impacted in a Major or Significant category. The remaining properties were in the Minor or None category. The allocation of the percentages was based upon the number of properties impact- ed in the Significant or Major categories in the lower and upper quartiles and -�&tee:"€Ti�<"C u �s La �r 5 -y ��3"g_�E zL iFT �t sa- 1A, summary oi I I significantMajor and ICategories 1'. 9 Lower Quarlile II0 lower tlHigher Hall Quartile: lower and upper halves divided by the total number of properties impacted as such_ For -example, in the Doubletree subdivision, 25 properties were included in the study. Of those 25 properties, 17 were considered as being in the Significant or Major impact category (68 percent). Five of those 17 properties impacted as such, (representing 29.4 percent of the total number of properties in those categories) were in the lower quartile (bottom 25 percent) of the range in adjusted unit prices paid_ Eight properties (47.1 percent) were in the lower half of the range_ However, nine (52.9 percent) were in the upper half and four (23-5 percent) in the upper quartile of the range in unit prices paid. Because of the diversity of represen- tation in each of the allocated segments of the range in adjusted unit prices, it is concluded that there is insufficient evidence to suggest there was any mea- surable impact on value_ This is Further supported by the responses from personal interviews with the property suit No./Percentage ' of Properties Considered as tower Higher Higher Being Impacted Lower Quartile Hall Hall Quartile No. of In Either a Major Major or Malar or Major or Major or Properties or significant significant Significant Significant Significant Locality Subdirfstoo Studied Category Impact* Impact* Impact* Impact* fill Rolling Hills 23 10/44% 20.0% 50.0%. 50.0% 20.0% Chesterfield at8ulord 121 Ouubletree 25 17/68% 29.4% 47.1Y, 52.9% 23.5% Henries 131 Eagles Ridge 1R 9150% 222% 66.7% 33.3% 11.1% Henrico 141 Edenherry 21 11/52% 21.3% 59.1% 40.9% 16.2% Henrico 151 fie limbers 22 10/46% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 30.0% Henrico 161 Wilkinson 31 14/45% 14.3% 64.3% 35.1% 1.1% Henrico Estates * Allocation of the percentage of properties considered as being impacted in a major or significant category; range in comparison units based on adjusted sale price per square foot of finished living area. The graph below represents the results of the investigation of the six existing communication towers. Graphical repre- sentation is a useful technique that provides the reader with an overall picture of the empirical data previously mentioned_ In each of the study areas, approxi- mately half the properties were deemed as being impacted in a Major or Significant category. The remaining properties were in the Minor or None category. The allocation of the percentages was based upon the number of properties impact- ed in the Significant or Major categories in the lower and upper quartiles and -�&tee:"€Ti�<"C u �s La �r 5 -y ��3"g_�E zL iFT �t sa- 1A, summary oi I I significantMajor and ICategories 1'. 9 Lower Quarlile II0 lower tlHigher Hall Quartile: lower and upper halves divided by the total number of properties impacted as such_ For -example, in the Doubletree subdivision, 25 properties were included in the study. Of those 25 properties, 17 were considered as being in the Significant or Major impact category (68 percent). Five of those 17 properties impacted as such, (representing 29.4 percent of the total number of properties in those categories) were in the lower quartile (bottom 25 percent) of the range in adjusted unit prices paid_ Eight properties (47.1 percent) were in the lower half of the range_ However, nine (52.9 percent) were in the upper half and four (23-5 percent) in the upper quartile of the range in unit prices paid. Because of the diversity of represen- tation in each of the allocated segments of the range in adjusted unit prices, it is concluded that there is insufficient evidence to suggest there was any mea- surable impact on value_ This is Further supported by the responses from personal interviews with the property owners who stated that the towers had no detrimental impact on their decision to purchase their homes. Several listing agents and the builder stated that the two towers were never an issue. The impact of Francistown Road was the only concern that came from potential purchasers and a discount of $4,000 was made for this reason. Statistical analysis can provide back- ground information to enhance the understanding of a given environment and directly assist in making specific decisions_ It can range from simple summaries of data to the identification Of patterns of data that can form the basis for a conclusion of central tenden- cies. For the purpose of this study, measures of relative standing for charac- terizing the distribution of empirical data were used. This technique served as a useful alternative to frequency distribution and was indicative of particular data values relative to the entire data set for each test site. Similar findings occurred with the other study areas where properties in the Significant and Major impact cate- gories were found at both ends of the range in adjusted unit prices paid. Again, interviews with the affected property owners revealed no impact upon purchase decisions. On site man- agers were interviewed in regards the potential tower impact upon individual units for both the apartment complex and town house development in an effort to establish a basis for any potential rent loss. Not one negative impact response could be attributed to the towers. Overall, there were 52 interviews conducted with individual property owners. None of the interviews resulted in a negative response. In fact, several of the interviewees said that they paid a premium for their homes in order to be within close proximity to the towers. When asked the reasoning behind this I decision, the most common reply was that the tower was perceived as being a potential asset because it served as a buffer against further development. The only adversities noted throughout the entire interviewing process were towards busy thoroughfares running adjacent the residential developments and clo! proximity to shopping/retail centers. Conclusion Based upon the comparative analysi methodology used in this study, as we as interviews with purchasers of propel ties located adjacent to and/or in ful view of communication tower structures it was concluded that there was nc consistent market evidence suggestinf any negative impact upon improves residential properties exposed to sucl facilities in the areas included in the study. The model used in this study could be applied to any type of perceived adverse influence such as a water tower, overhead transmission line or sariit ary landfill. The validity of the study is enhanced where the comparative analy- sis includes similar type properties that require minimal and well supported adjustments as well as interviews with market participants potentially affected by the respective adverse influence. The statistical measure of central tendency not only validates a typical variate but also the lack thereof. ■ Allen Dorin, Jr. is President of Knight, Dorin & Rountrey Real Estate Services, Richmond, Virginia He earned a bachelor's degree in Commence from the University of Virginia and a master's in Real Estate and Urban Land Economics from Virginia Commonwealth University. His appraisal practice has most recently focused on property acquisition for public and semi-public rights of way. Joseph Smith is an MAI candidate in the Appraisal Institute's Graduate Valuation Program at Virginia Commonwealth University located in Richmond, Virginia_ He is currently work- ing as intern for the appraisal firm of Knight, Dovin & Rountrey gaining experience credit hours to apply toward ris MAI designation. Mr Smith earned his bachelor's degree in history from Hampden -Sydney College, Hampden - Sydney, Virginia- MARCH/APRIL 1999 • RIGHT OF WAY 17 Exhibit 6 Q.F.-E—EiMF-ECT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANITENNAV: ONN IRESMEENTMI- PROPER-Pf A -LIMES P- ar r, f Sepotei-in4war 23, 2OG-0 h -i Carina A RaUm-&, Appralsera 169 Lower Via casitas #10 Greenbrae, Ck 949D4 pp- GRh;.E�.i."Biia. . 'F�r'i. °+'9Eyd"v.� ! _4- Y_., yaw . tRarris6n std Lef, suite 1550 02 iclaand, 'U"ZKOM41-A -9461 --35M Tr7ccn ..�e; �a t'> a��',.i''�,��'�P`g s,- beam NJ$, Mud=t Q� S iac iii £? zer ana3sa ttacht�a��ia ed l redoor a prye Sgn > el aa�ai� one Novato. Themeare referrae. taa in to r #ia 25 11aen$n Awerme araidy Area a hd the 1-,;s Syn w1arin Drivc The purpose of tFa* M�r $t tiziy W;ls de determine if *5 presen-ce of ca~jIuj% aaa?ae 'eie�am naai�a taaa � Aa4ennae In these wry a pBs h;;s iim�aaeted th-S saaark. s ^f?3n, of r &.9iiteatial p$'xope egg 4aa %'ia5¢ PT-Oi $M84" to the f33igc+:i��aw�. awed saw aye da s teff i;s the a2-taa ha"d Steady, ewe could find as 1 uD&rt from ��� prtsvnyc Df the R12t9�g2e �� market v$lnps of regl,dantinl propeytiews in �i#baa r locg iol. if Fall have ; Uy gUegLia-ung after revie"winc, chis 6'-pu f" pleRve rea=l Lrew to c tic � at your eaiesn v. t sia el�ti l atE�X- CerfiXicauunTr AR00218.7 `1 Wilda S. Va ur,fthn, SRA CA Resideaatiaj Ce �ROG�ait2Z. -�, L -p jmpaLt� of trY c�f t�r,;s study TD J'Oxim city gg fi�-s that an; i, -q cicq" am,cat v�.U- 'me , s ant --mac, T` T116 Gliewt !8 palmar &fltt; 1 S5,0, Oakjan:� CA 94612-3501. s c B, pe -01 - th am a moceliao from dy i,,,- d: le *L Thb�� �gco'Pz-� lfluktT U:l ,s c3f t:-�� in -that: se _It tW L)in 1-0,; a h2L S an. Ihn I'm tie Astir For e�-,C-h s -ale. W, If lia ageats W--r-w All parii=- .1taLl uted were the n-2iggb7UO!hOOd c;or�tact--d, T �-d -% iii ding -bat iiut limit --d tO, '-IrO PVcQ-AVL-'tY C!, u --a affec' Ic L-lflu --es -nt f the tciccom W.u:njr-atio--,,, a ennae, -ware zslced b qut-,StjQus asr--d ou infiu-'QSCURO c o m th, Ors as b"intr prese-n! is viciniry f!��aclh i Ctht� ;dmalfiod by thcsr- aPPr;mr, buildia-s, d Dara fi-om th; intcr"-sws Was 'L"" --n d i'41 t id,�,.ntLf--ied as b�hig Cf aoucBm by each EEC: -43r. aaHtafinv- sb;L�f amah=s 2111 Of ' T a ql-'-All--aH-vn, -'10t mti��at�ve gtu q, OM H'i pl2atiam quantitetiv-a study ---tqulTn -a rund da.ta in fp--, ift-ntifitd PO wt�,-c of a number,- that could be I th--- dam dales wli-bLn, th-� sb-IdY Rit2-- samprunz-, (),r jr DD m cm m , 7 -e an !" vv -�, L -p jmpaLt� of trY c�f t�r,;s study TD J'Oxim city gg fi�-s that an; i, -q cicq" am,cat v�.U- 'me , s ant --mac, T` T116 Gliewt !8 palmar &fltt; 1 S5,0, Oakjan:� CA 94612-3501. s c B, pe -01 - th am a moceliao from dy i,,,- d: le *L Thb�� �gco'Pz-� lfluktT U:l ,s c3f t:-�� in -that: se _It tW L)in 1-0,; a h2L S an. Ihn I'm tie Astir For e�-,C-h s -ale. W, If lia ageats W--r-w All parii=- .1taLl uted were the n-2iggb7UO!hOOd c;or�tact--d, T �-d -% iii ding -bat iiut limit --d tO, '-IrO PVcQ-AVL-'tY C!, u --a affec' Ic L-lflu --es -nt f the tciccom W.u:njr-atio--,,, a ennae, -ware zslced b qut-,StjQus asr--d ou infiu-'QSCURO c o m th, Ors as b"intr prese-n! is viciniry f!��aclh i Ctht� ;dmalfiod by thcsr- aPPr;mr, buildia-s, d Dara fi-om th; intcr"-sws Was 'L"" --n d i'41 t id,�,.ntLf--ied as b�hig Cf aoucBm by each EEC: -43r. aaHtafinv- sb;L�f amah=s 2111 Of ' T a ql-'-All--aH-vn, -'10t mti��at�ve gtu q, OM H'i pl2atiam quantitetiv-a study ---tqulTn -a rund da.ta in fp--, ift-ntifitd PO wt�,-c of a number,- that could be I th--- dam dales wli-bLn, th-� sb-IdY Rit2-- samprunz-, (),r ..ir _ 1 ' -A zk i:,,C d (. �:5l�Y_�. i...a�, :,..? 1� :::;..kms"'!.+. ✓ d+:v. `"' 9 wtv '� ��l']`' rl is h) rt?za-, ii: 7.'1'� �i� : V:'-? a' -S, t l+... 7iL 9 n`YM Yn431 SY 'Jw 6 I 1F ��l'. 4iS A_ E l; b. Vii., .in ± rd= c N.L V, ' aMI9.., '9c 1z aF Iv;f-5 sld :'u 'iY�f:4" .� i� iivini:``I Cr� ��x-t: l cif' r . zx, i r i�hmg—, 01-18 we %f)iirtf?�a u :SL ?. ����;i.i�.i,.. �: r+:s�� �Y.�7�..1D.�u ,a:.1� ila.� y, Y 4 ha„ � zhar nv* a.:1 iti 2-'.k.C�,.- vaftlu�'a .Sof . 3-'itW "Y.rlhn 3Y13d.L.+i� ti�'ii:.i-S iJi L,i_ Squd'`tis STxr ioiZl to t! Ll CL' 3 iiZL'1S�Lwe;j �!� SJty iiiUii�^da.7L1� C�ik tl?M =;s7iaos fh� tulcsm!z:;� antFs.+e. .�y+y��(-�� j�q�t o�i�J used �4 �-f� p� jilx �Lo�lo W i ti ki.fiz-94 01717 , used in Lrdg' +�l11. e; ts� rimst probable price vthi h a pVspe-Ity sb.nnld bt a �n Pvii t s and open inarkct =- da al? ,:,prdatict qu:ait4 to a fir sale, 1. lo buyc and serer; :.ac's-: acting prudently, kuaWleslgeably .and ss min, the Pr3�5e is not af3:6oted by Q-idue stimzalus. i plicit m � deflnitiun is tjj- cam_U oas-�.jon oa a sale as of a specified da+e and Thw p'Msing t itlo from Sellar to buyer hider conditions wherelay: _) the bi-1yor and :,e1er are typically motivated; 2) both, parties are wall informed or -wall advised, and cad's a --ting in what h!;- canbsiders his o -%u gest interest; 3) a maaonable tirze iz allowed far exposuz-o in tate op -en market; 4) pa-ym=t is made in t=s of :ash in U.S, dollars or in ttirm5 of fi a noial amanggem, ems comparable thordo; and 5) the Price represents the normal co lids dation far the, rYrspei-ty s614 lunBHecfted ",'Y W06--I'Dr 070414iuy fmaacinq Or s les y neessio g�nte by anyone associate, th the sale.- �'r:2): a. " syswfait Whegs _ i? gs f�sr ; aa► ate a.�e mane er avAUdDj�- by real estate bracers (listing agent&) to oto.;; agents Who relay have bIlYers sooldrsg for :pal paope-rsy. By using an MS service, brA—ars !?Xe able to iuc'* e —3 trod axpo3Lira-oft real prop at lid S. ST -Ater n'Im' cF of pG tC'�tczf bllyir3i. irY plg o ' MLS' the IIS671- ls.ssl�er G ees to pay a commasicn to any a_E who bangs n. aceeptabli a wr upon compl_uiion of the contrmot. 'Thi; smmnd agent is Coir—Manly ref: rrad to as the buyer's agent. eleg,; it : avcragc of a set. of n�.�-ube � d.arivcd by adding ail of an iden4lie� swries of, or popnlat on. o' ; numbq-,z-s togethcr and. cUvji Sing by tee tottal nummLt r of ind vid a1 number's in tie sa. The rueis syronorrous with the vgge. l r the 2.Tddale figU7 0 in a set of yiLITF hers detc=. i .ed. by couEl`ls-n- foo. 'i'11t1SlLtc^l W t3 11.L _ numbers in a set and finding the mi ldin Point vjh:er: th:;ry is as eq",d v_uhber of nuir_bers both higher a,_ld iov! tin t1w.. middle figuure- Telecamnun,:gatirn_ Y; an, tra�smission, emissioa or hasp-- los of moi ,suis, vvr_t' may] mages, sounds or intelh+ ,ence nt any Mtljr�5 b- Ire, r?anio, cpoca,l or vitae; e.ectromagnet C Syst.-joaA, 2 44.. .. .. ... .. 5"" �t ryY.�L tF`K Y:�• :l {� -{ ._�..�r �i� .�`� 'S ., ..- <. 'S � {. -1f. y� �{y i �o��,. 4f !"As �:� SZ! .cHy •��� S� LF'.�-Y5?2:s '.i .i i% f' a�'v -'.�.v 1:j yin �'-i6'��. J,3 Nd�J ;.ate `. 52:., Gi-:.[.+. wi��•�r-Ii� any 4A'�u7ss:=-lm GAS NJ • q� L +� 9 _ �1jY7�(-_� �: ���N? 9yiH "7�iC7i!�M_ lYi3i 1�! _ F_d�r'i35ii.518 ���f !ul? is a high. cam lby land r -10,01,f Vs- ,�.L r�'V 3'v 2� �'i.+ i-'. �,��a .r.3 f11.E' ��t cm 4 rolzp an s tvzr -, Is asa'Igned �stw_� y A '6' 11mlaz System i8 ''-"aapzbla of rw" psi.° i�� =�-1 Ih �k�1-nb a e;S I fflffd dtti. cells _4fi� ;amu service ares_ .5 �?� of ;malty smalt „� his a F" 3io firs `�':�+i �-'i;3 a� hits-.%.-sh-7v 1a✓ .S-' 17i h5r!A3'y iTic=15ii7g the sygLe capavIlY. 'i'<1ryrhR°!i79it T%ii�S C�i'1� •' 'fTt'eTira E�: .�...'SvG.ris r�2v� 3i �i.^: �. k�11bTa�T, .gya - to rete?YF, i y y� yy 1j':1�41smit iti#for.ui+gn wIEjLi a a.@med -�L,U" and to ".a, l°' d o s i eJ lw pia, s`aU S tM "calls' CSl+^.?r ?i3 -S L"aei has ws'Sed L%i3`oT.i ' - •�y+ y �,{� eft •f�r�(`'{+y� y q?ip.•y4 " z:!fcz Vd to aa �S N511UIr�_i S MO r h �; _.�,na (e3: an :riga k -:at is ap m 4:iratclj aid to r—M in. --ha' Wid and ii�ae !0 sL ; Yet tall used for ceLular � � � co ot;rivaiiom. } f.ha two provorti . "i3th thy j}n y Sanrafapj, CA. This is a-muuj -Tesida.`}fial .Tined paycel o ,n Avaput 1325 1.41 aems -MfA aft 5� 111t�'<it st-rl-e y1jjdj,.jgiombsist!-,-)-� of J4 r.—adefi'fizl units basad '_�ft Fr5i A=erir'm Rem :Bratav^dl:va d]it t� �� 'sL'?r`7 sl��lC V3 2-+Tv'^cG and On COU-niy ;aessor's _:e-. ands prodded by dD Data S,stTras, Tice Legal'Desoriptian of In-- Site it its enfirety ig p -m %%dad in the addends, f;3 this t eport, iiia 3�aSi3i s P3TCr1 tq�C bcris 2) i55 S:,_ -i i is n ride, 3�o'rs t❑, Com. '. nis is UJZd �` pieMarket" b i1_rii �+mat i� located near the renter of a. shopping enter 'which is a- single Barrel of --ou=crriat1-y uciltd laird ioriunanl 'il as i99 $aai _Marro- Draw, Novato, CA. Ihz =.tire parool consiis of 7 ages u` ed— aaily as s sh,orlping ranter and its attendant pzrlona lot based on, pits` Americm Re__, Estate Setviees Win_7.Data 2000 infbrmation smile and on �'ois-�rjr . asw8sts 's �P,Mco is Drib idedb v' sic yatc:tla, i he Legal DeYcripiirn of the 9-ite gri is enT _�iy is-providad a"tho n.d�^d=tom :n?s report. 7 S _ -� ? /z yzj '!Y �a '`"til_ -1 �." C'-_ d.i S✓vt'�l. `.1 .t E`dL' =r 'r,.',r Y.::` lid 3m?L�` I Alimoi:?. t. Jaw9�JC-'i`ily��ii .•a. -...ate.« trai n , o f the t C 11a�ii'Y+� ?. +• z o the �aA- Of it i��r iris to 4€�i? 'lsay �f�t: +�i L3�P.E.].�p f9 •p ?r t`- s '4 1� `a L ��' t c%CS penitis sr, � � +J la eloi u j'il s A Tl Fk f^:� •.� .N°m-1 axe i" s.. � ,,' 1 d W a.; :-lig lilt, �?si Nide DIF -the ' �e 'J�Vyx 1di. T':t�'g:) or to I M. -4 "L.�li' paFatl, S -- w Th.- tot. ST. Opt; -.xp Wads to ttic NAyest from. tole Told- froTARErc %-b U is 147.3 twit w`tne at too Facu� the su,.e$, tla � Ia ;ae�ay inthe Ief and the from I;o�y,d of tt�� ,..y, '� "'T3,Tn�' i$ '3i£'Ei'.i} l:13 u.:', left _3i�'`ytgyrr�`b; P u y 3 J")331d1TE I5 i% Vii, I�Fa fp4- 'x� Wboreitle��el off bo'c� t ado Iai'gePeY' '- 'fid' �c;�, From Lbncoln N=—uc tiaera a a r�il3le inst�i-iio�s on the roof. `S+mt--ai :P o9pect Dd. e, ry ,�Ihirh is above Rnd, behind the 187-5 incol2a •rettue -oropexty, a ,f'.� lz�r raof c ins;allah 3n :is isile_ The teleci�mmuaieatla,x autz mac rn tE"5 bvl l.c�ing face Tov'ruds Lincoln �rc•�°=tee and are aisProxxiu�a7ely fl�ve to ox feet high ani. are' s.� is tai inches aside, being -padoea Share are for=t' panel antennae and w -I are visible frc-In Lincoln Ave'nut_ To the ncrtix side of the apattimp-at buiidiug are traatsnlission poles, --ch appear to be dirYctly �:ljac,nt to the building The gTeli�a� tale report issued for t;}is p=ap�'�3 ' 2oo () by Cal Land 'Title of Marin rdfere�as under item 4CL) dated 5eptcoer ?, °CLtS:G�36i 2u ;SS�:u�6�2t for jointU1, ,he j' }��D1 5 �n'J Z -ay PPtcb- �Iu^ g the n�I 31:�� �L�.Li} oflives"si fi 113i �r+'ipvTl ,d lil5h may i e refere-ice ti9 ,heS3a��iI3�Ssai�?i���Eb note -d. The i_rd Ilenc L s notod by these apprzaiscrs that affect this site include the pao -hDi of CJS l Lit and attendant trailic notsa, the trat:sl�issirrn pples adj�ee'it to tile 'building, and E NTO held~ associated. witj high power tension giros, the telecommunications a12terariae on ih- roof of the building, oornmaelal properties close to the prape_rtY, and the bugy traffic of Liricein AWnuo au.d the US 101 freeway interchange. Finally, also of concern- is the perssitiility of US 101 being wid5ned and/or a ;fight rlil v--hicle be�z -added thg would run adjacent to US It)i ali the old Pauifte P-61:-nad 'fight of NVay. could rases+ in eadiiant domai vroccnZI—Ings and eondcrnnaiion fcrrproperties that are directly aloq- field CJS 10; corridn=. This wood. indirectly, 2 fe t the 1825 i;ccoln �4renue pro�aTt?�. 3'hY i� p t would 'be the Tesvlt of t?�e *ail tine in close pzo�m:'- ar, a� triad rail ?line is not added, the freeway itself beu-ib in closer Proximity because of'aiden;nQ the =sad. nor T e �� w�ni i► i 55 Sar iriri„ iv� i'�+Ty€ � is locate bur s Zrom Mt, co Mfz of Asn Ivla_27in Drive and Sara �dreas Drier to the cast to lb -0 --Omer Of San R��c�n �4�r°a; to #h� e�L Tat& 2`o sp`z9 e-XiMstal 1.200 '.LT); ar f r3i L a�1�IliSQw ^c ��J11� � J� �Z i ills'., A z y. ,! �' ._! _i el �3s r =. i,"�f• �� �.-� { ��+-'i+ i._.... .0 i.Lw:^t?v ; �:. a_ rt .. 1 ... N.^;Wiz-':-1 A-; 1 iii- .`.�..:: [� �.� .). TA.tlrar _,? '7 L is th' � I vla aill vraay. Z. M 1-J- ...-'d- N _ ' Erea �"i-k 'e_':. ..i"•L�2aY t=-t';:�,[', j .E !'. Stony a Eexv4oa :�ew� .'runt 4a � ah -ops, 3rr<v u' ^:Tw y -ti ?-loiig KO'w,�zs�Tti?ll� }innop 1Jf l.iz pa: ;1 mpp-=irs to ba i.ai +! d, ;rr load -bag und uemadLri�ii3 ti �3'� �}Fil G v'i _ uK it1T3� �'.tiit Lila. a , ' ��t.rar3=:tai' C f L: e�:3`a i� ?�...a':+w �: Lo—,_e tY. = s i djacce,:, to fhM anti -r-- subj=t r'1_a7cel 31�7*unp- its iix1��.0tth-P-E im— titer. f .a�., lv C) lH roof Apple { it--; t -vi -Able •�•t- t ,- �at' tBLL��t) but Visible la'i,S. i LL:t' $1 L-i;+� F.�.� .tFa-.�.'y-� .^+5���-.xYGYe:�iialt �A�++}t•l7SS�E-{i� R !?/�y 3�1�. L..` vim+ �♦[�-� ;p�-1��y�h��+: n t and re an'0. - roof ins.bW"jjati[+n , VisV c)jr, -fte 6 the aavrw-t and .I.14.tm fhcM s11dj..�i-� and rias- an(i mar k_epi in ztm Wre, 'Tbma, W-�� fto iirg immadi Sly isi' v fr�av appeared tc bw Jz,a_ �-s appra;5are have 1;e� l�iimrd Chetther:, ar, cight Ja"1101 s` a' toI'zllae, a st7}.;Toxuii.`stal.{ ;iii LM L-ec %-ids. Ru" v 7i7 vi .,, i t 1 tx�t ": 1LifialEi! $J . 51 p�•CSross San Ste'- a Un 7y'ca3+, to the Wegi, of the sb-upping ria:ntg" r,?ry a'�"i?'r : n—,mi1: catc i�lajic�tl i ccs_ Ch's -t-e =Gulf of ttie biLlidiLs,; .facing the god of San Haan Drive San i`sIISmon "Way fie vaa'iovi5 inst3-11Etions }hat appira s to b j yadio. ??jTi 2 �art�Li17-t�x infliiwncea an is,ai.�, entizl propoerfl-es iii CEO viCEIty oZ e�l� � 55 �'y' 7�.3�tIl �n! 1'.� iryn lr :itylude ii?� inlific ajojq Ian Maria? Drivca, h-, p�wtimlty of lac sbotS i izr -.enter 1kY9 eluial USS prop-crtics), , ois0 from 'tibc, garthp plel np, a -ad daliiv- —fry sat viu-' G, :w telecoTrmurnoations ntezzma= on this tipple DuLldiuzg, `hr- l 4tanaiions on and thh, P!3OJ ; Ity of the K_zlisvv Buildings, -and th!� pr-5—,ace of 4 tarxds and `•'v-t!_'.iri cll;h that i -C to -ehe. 7.b.[u adiarc T7itii Gftilb sifThin thi-, sh_•pping i --nt-, t,3 iemnis snd slw?tb club -_ffatty iii subdivision ntza1e53 th—mc; aza flood fig +iia iwtai 5 -.bo -v-- IhG tci'u!5 P.Ou is fOT .H -,ht Shue Use Te tin' in 90 a AOiBr IiO—�' t11s ^I b i1- t" 1;� the days and evenings, and considara.ble light ;-ztr sion it fDo 'I"rii. liliii?er.� wa; uAieritioned by V some ms the agmts, buyors, and edllars spoken Nuiih during to cov-m� of our iria.rkat s ally b -it was not inoltid=-d in 011-r olid al quesdoTir-aira_ Rfter i ve i?A$e of fl-ve Market Stud The affec4ivo data of this iyarkut Study is September 2�, 2000 Ntltuiaah is fae dais. th:, app;aise<s did a complete exterior inspection of tha two propem2s ::tint are tba 3ubj8ot �ut this report and inspncte l fe exterior of all free. Ovmp4Ta.b1g: sale's studi-A hn this repLlt. Row5wr, the date of t`sa entire Market stlad� 6u� peribi" lhac way s nrva3::d, i 1992 to tsie Drpseat. :L i wi: i�[?i :a �S the two a �xr:�iia :u„�.as✓}3s ",Wi3U t9.. ,T P �7 *�¢to17A�L"i1" �: 2.iT32r�',&is3:iw u1a" tom. �� 't3 S' -T- Te .rev w� loading; iso t T! t � A i uTF.=� aA1. 1 3T i17 L e� c m L £S�a" r %d . a 'troy �1 Y. i�i1f t3��3i pgei� 5 a'Y iYldaCl Zai fig. Lr. ` n A ofael 4` th- ese iu v 013.'fht;. ��yy � x7� g ��+ 9 y � hL3i? %c -� ," tt �'.'e�b ade-1 wprp, horn— o the M31 of 4J.7i 1�1 _ t �.a �spp�ss; e s:d sof use srew� �-oaa {hs a I��ri�al�ieri�a pipc9 �a= neif�horhood inRUMOLS on f side of the �caeWay sre carisidera�lj dir t �s�?� .i W meat of lte fze a; is rlu�zYcer. pec^,fica?1y, tlwe is IYs [sc, tic road tai s Lnts � :; 17�i1a 1123 ---VT 5, 11:1, T,11 9 ��i�lria c�nd w1t�liiiziy�ii�iv��I��7iaL PfOp�ili= 9 iil3. i3 ii 4 -raffia nia ��iiSA �t'�:.�r��'s D�,��'w "jf:rii+ a1�:1:3 e al�3deaasby t ttc d e Ofcpezzjr � i-,, "'Into"'tc: cu, two sicyy single family residea�:i, dLtace3 h7x1M�• Ha -vin-, idonued propene, tjj4t $t these parav':eTS, agents ?M.d/or buycrs and s4'ars ,Far' r< Influc-aces as vvexe eas�it�.cted in., fltdvr io �; te3e theim�act of .�.e ori g ;Ysent iu ttse immediate locations of tho iu1.1COMMUUacatin� autenn� on hese soli. prt�perci�, 111t��ab;� tis dti,� Npeciftz;aiiy to igiiyy i?act o vain::; ai±�ival�ie to �e f e teiecomrrzttni�ation 4ennae, in ardor to idantifY the i- pact it 4s uecessa ' to ntlw out fihei i e:�e� that 3g$y a?sa affect e?e s�rv, the ar!a;1.ot der caud�:cte� far itis repo in -valved a quastio;�% that-RAW-ess-4all eqtai �e iIi l3d�riC��u i��- if 1� 4' �BCtin T each O �� t�iraptrdi—IS 11, !Ile st-ad :3i�Kj utF iw wPr,a+ i ��3[XI sP"i1i°� Of beavi" , ii�jL noise 3; lai� power tension -Mkas �lvL' s elds,� 4) C-elluinr pliant-- ant s S} emissions from cars dere to traffic 6) Radio tmpsmitter on the Kaiser suldin5� i) proximity of LUmmdreial LISOpaop 'vs szir�r_s mere co:zducr¢d as pnarr ��fe y; s_ u�stic� a d fat reg to these l) At thv fines of sale, (did tls�c 5e1d1e*srlbuyer enp:ess concerns or indicate that they w --Tc aware of ET,Y c3 1 � 9 Lry��T }M1 !) `iiL}J. 4 d�iW it Ut uOi•S�liJ i'J si {ii,, the ~ Jf of e11iV`'u. �-%uSl� � :1-r•+7J.+�v �J� S- Hood's Disclosure StetP-mlen'� • M q. t C i Ll -.� „�';J3;..�..i% �� � It l f ?:.1 :: I J. �. 3 ±.:�. ,.., s:.. "i.,, Ote r �� a � .W L"7 It ap :'-1T T' ! iL :I _tC. ih ?i C! 3s3 xE Tec JfTC�;;e a'sa.ii�i±,S'j 3_i�%;::i??`di> c� riL La.r+'1•a1.D�Yr, i Y - 'y1 w Xidt cG j5. ��-�E.L7�. {9..��L - �1 i�:ng-3� �'.�e�y k:�l. i1V .,.. iYd 1V 3�-...�§ � . i tha 3rnm, -21d i,mtiD -rj yt .?t, f 7�5 �, :dll T_�1;� i �i!1 •ii;°s;� �' ]�i3L?�i�` ?'.� �. � '�:al of 1.. a.e `mma r 's?llr1 Lir Iwii?pdT3i. � .. ._ - S^ Lt ?. iu� :. ,e fa '3:1y rev �CuS i.« 'vt:rt �iG's+7`�Illli°.e t:ect ;x 1. u`i..i bWt' ' ;.9�.� .. 1: 17. _ preE � t ioeatvd a �ra�� ate 3.�A l4fy of -ha_,S� ,yfadu Driv prop a, :-7- :vee as f r'3 vl�: l } i'"% L, ,7uS£..� I ,z ....-a1 vp,�im] flute b5c a was Prior t o 'Y � e J LL L �' i ih milt 1Mv4�1�! �N fl.t� L: '..iiWyL �Y S:J1i�1 Le 1.�aV 4�:e S�,.+ 1n> Laron of tl�e t4w-,Tmmlmioati-M, antam.ae, It was afk!_ z period vf rapid appreciauo4 thr :zaz-kotplare is Tviarin C -,D try arici of ere, a more �w blw mark, t. i} dste of the ^final Lrsneci?or_ for +ham t n°z i &tallation at thu Lipoola vemu prope%y �� yavaz J, 19'36. ` u' reforc, sales b6m �a�7 Y 1996 vd;re p1�or to the; c ivyt:rb;1 f ti<; tnlivar �litxai�alio: 1�+r. �e #�l:i? a?es P:t:t� would hia o bean after it sans in full aper -liar f T he i3#a &fir tll� _` `�l7�$til�ri o.i i�1U ivlEC{liiL�z'i llCcL'CiL'3 'antei3iJ E' 3` w s�irY l l ic?�P, prc�pw L .vias : lover ben i, 199'x, refore, sal- s bofory No ,,mbzr 7, 1994 would ha ei been prior lhL, acii' 4on of ant.` m= �md sales t?1-'p-siter waw—ld i avla 't� 5 ItyT it waa in. tip atiCm, As prev"iausly t1ot , is was condmted as a qualitafhre stiady, mot a q :fiafiime shy, ,,i1 identified prop:des were included; true ww not a, ando?n sampling- properties - :•ere excluded, ordy i; there was insliffi, ieat data to cunfirSL� s'tey w� mat4 Ea dzscribed by the definition of l->fiaaket `v alua cited hereir, ,kggenis�caflr buy and sellLonbo side of Bchanstir, IE ii alp iistin and buyingg) werc int.`s' vvv--whe. r v= P0z3ib $- Qf the 49 residential properties included jai fae Lincoln !--nue StUCA,Y area, responses were obta- fined fi-arra a 36 Esting agonts and �� wiling agents. as 2No11 a; Z ,rf e a iudis�icual (buyer;. Of tl?e �•9 properties included, 9 had no responses; m =9 niithe� li3hng rarer scltiva agents; sella nor tuyar,'respouded to the sltrvey. Therefore, `hose 9, althoitEffi T #` cr el; ;�P, �7 i" A' +s yn f 7 del T79 ineledi� .statisfimidly at to me'r artd;n_�ia__ i ..s Sa ?Ejy Area av , c.Ld�a -o the taLy of responses 4o the sur;! ,Y Tucstions..k total of 62 T-esponk ds W:? T -e included. N rv[..,+ 'yl5Ula y as 4 7 lw� 91�{ .uLa .,.r a•. f� .; i� .1 _ri:.sf�rl c, ay ` mar ?i r HCllam: r0 ?s 211 .3zY+=iii i= �?} aTi _ .�.s7.i -. 1 7 i[ i `.5.� i i�.;z. }ilr1.'�+.::v ','I -I �; "[4j�!,:n`.a, J' I`,! av ai?` r,? 3v. ..y- 'ii;:. r crr6 • Cijatei.� An � .e, .i^.4.a.:. I3 P'I �. Y�d O-' 775"15:� ; 7:� J �t1 YOU �' i0r .�;f�aS. 1CaaiLflai'o ���ay !,�-- v'.5 ;�T,Ld. �' rcs W _ s -[ d i[,r ='-ax'vAplscer L{, 6 media p*ica's i. t'ati br>aade? Rafael s t . L _ 4 7 ]:' ,r�.t%>a'4 l"i market0'7 tho .Ey- Y Rr=' t'- tc gr7;:,-ir ua�yiia'.'r��. '�:a i�'i 1`P -Ir J.?$ fiber !'�''L'r5i.`'! G'C:Sd ;31t4ie,3. ..,,tt ��,,,, i. t .ice$ an, Ll �i.Liv C' r'ii lccadom in Shi— $'CP.it!Y _f3Ti7's�.Cl� .xl%-1 .�S�J.wes Ty Lls'.'rvS Lr LLS-. �wLat,+r �,,,,12[�.ts r �,,y-� •y�- w� 5 _,�y�y, }y �(� J- m at1-r 7 t y, i3 with ''" •r :i z i�l'. 11u1LS `t'Jdi.'s ,riC��.��G �� i'Lrally} x C S ami f�It:`7i�'� and su�L mariz d 1-0 irsdicM- VQ LL"ar L3.i it ' X736 i8�^isl1� X77 f i3� 9i�T�J, y # 1 not the �"JPd�ii::uc-0 iii LfA5-0�il^iu'1�m, ic.'atian. �ivI�17-.�i�i `v�i�i � C.dinG� t[+r �U�� iia[' gr1U/�i �f''w'I�,�F'rT1 and if thry influenced the gala pAces of hoes in the StIdy areas. as Specific eomna--ois on iho indi ldml. vHgh'bofhoods arM izjcluded h,srRil : f37a�5y a' , ooria�t U) an dent d g of I� ,,re to :-oax�et arca. wit�a Vnier� 'hese rAo twluco lmiaatioa vanes are locbted, ¢y� 7� J S LCA }tlfv Tv 101'{ �.S 'o1%�Q�L'� 1N1�J�1� {3 1.j` a�-p�sp av l..b.�t U--' pklia{1 .5. �,ritl u L �1 T!ur�b of ri}i:�8S1�57i , 6f thC; popUlstion %a7 -i + adv c d eGt��S. P�fedisn year, oircon i the �e h;ghcst in the USA, jv 'Bacause of this, The Lse of cell phouas, and the need for towers to s}ppoTt that use, is increasing. ih Rat�el n�iglrho:o iEirhich thM 1 f i3atiaL-i Avc��uc pxopr i� lcaovi,d �G bc�anded by US iii i�ray 101 to the ea..5 N53sion Avenue to th'— eon*h, a Tide laD AIob.g Rnh� Dollar SCanic give and Chula �list� to 1hd Wiest, a�� � irt�rae�t�r� o{ US 101 with Los R3nchitos and Linc, .8 to th-- rscarth. Within these neig�barhaocs s oenr„efor nz:.r th-3 crest 0-_" a b hfF��ndari�s, X825 Lin;em Avon ae i at it.v uss r knovtr; as the " uertu SueIA Hili". .j. u Fi�deLLsM "�i?CL h� -Cc Lo1 G>3LL dr but <I4 u 7 c;,ghborb3od terrain is 1avel done i.iLyt� , steeply tothe 'vest. Ha ,.es ira the level aromas =a sunjact trinorasiderable tx�e a� = er a as Luyoin AVB-nUr is out of only t<uo altemativa ;o pies t,o YIS i01 het n offmtxal Sn WA iz" ajo'kd U� �x- fill bv i3= s;--VA�Y- o .d _naq jj ge D ZA with M-41 VD, p OF ,j_faniffly dvjzJHnL_­;�, SYSAwtaut, Qft_b2I-Sz iftflu��We!- ", o Anow es irL tho nt 4 r V�'_ -R-11 aT aes of homo.s in th'- grcBler S, prii Z ngn a son, e,%Ajai. Dcogen, home for -a *a is Lower tiL�- -4 C-01nn-i-4-41,1v q ghborhood. sized home WoUld IM42; i-- al-_I5 Mixed np�' SFJ. ia�ighbo zlyj ad in fluericed by ill E' pTlQxa'aatp� R7Q-_t-jL- O. j,) 101 pcaitiva ly z i is 'F�t' as rated, is the trade noiEe While faa as uzgatively. n2gati� TjS 101 is v, aria Caunty'g oni 517=way, -',DU ='V Ow Y -_ximity of th-- free my V-- Gold'e'a Grate B!idgp- to 6a IS, Ononja County bord=- wherz it to tilc a ram this lacighbo-i hood RMd' bllsf!s -ragau border. A�-_cessn to VS 101 is cmeelient f Lip- -1 .1 TIM"I r--gujarly along 'die frBM aY P.O—Lfidtir Ls well 9-7, -;JO 2g COIR A"cn7a-' 15 gCod -pXulic tzzawpEjr­t—n#2 1L 'boua&L-tizi, sc'hools and shapping, althoug*h wasi-A-a the idem ifed 10: ighbarhwd 54-ill flv,� Tlqin.Llw drive ji0m jocatjor.s within the =igFborho 6d witbi,dcs F ovf,tall then, this neig+tbeihood --d to be ,onlowhat lmsi i:r 6, -P Pfhe' with fewur influences khan Calapaling Sa - P,_ n gatiV6 c7aernal Wlumc�-s. ta qxl Bel as whole, bctw-M 'chif!ad csr 159,-,i the Dres5n% th a t. NITS gt�atiStics (nOtc tbat h,�O- p-,.I= of a honne hap- vaTied as joilowz, accordimg to \ 'separate' no L;OndOTnlwvns and PUD Statistics do of Out individual neighbor.1-4-ods., a-Od nre j, in rp -d and U wtpoxat��d San Rafael dtw-Jopments, jaii.1give of boffi cm oratr- locations); y va,�� d - Ir QI S;jj T)A al --<: % 2000 as tculb.—, 21, 2 0 0 0 based on 552 do:5--d saki 2,24, 1999 as of December 31, 1999 9456,95-7 basod OZI 31 a Cloged, sales +120A 199'a a� of December 3i, 199 -4-39,17B based oa- 823 alustil 92T 59 —11% 19977 as of Decomber 31, 1-997 5362,91)" based on $54 :lased sales + 7% 1 1996 as of D ccamb ty -5 1, 1996 55344,709 basad on 642 closed salts +D% 1995 as of D-_wmbe:r 31, 1995 $335,215 bas>d rmi 529 :lased sales -2% 1994 as of Deceizbe_r 31, 1994 $3412,848 ba----a on 746 elos­_6 salts +3-,/, ''+•' •':ts �:° �.. '?r'..'i �' i=+;i. �.,iwi, r.-.. . K: _. j. -•n '. 4+.. �: .. .. b tp.;a�' ="if t1i,1 also �wa $u`:'#i'_r , >d ri'..LzS�. 'iJ.s°.".a^�. sd ,13'�'•T- `c�:.S' c�-�� S s�' x� 3Zg'.. � s do TUC c alms L �11 a '� IP «£'.'� y 31c z 7<5 a in late (� w {�sr5•rh "'.7yvl{� {�" ."i'�},2� ,3 .tir �?% 7J".� '3,.';':�TF]. T� *•f }M PfIce ?n Sn t !"'•,=afap'! t tXlti �NA�i, 2 i >' ?tf , 131 e "5' ids th':` ­$; ,..."UPY' C')17x'°'.3 8 Pe Pi]L-g' .`� 'y:�F; r�?l34.c�ft 1 G Lli.fl.. Ar:ir.1 O 1�'.�7 �: '•?a`�u A.-��1�1 .L.L.��r:ci:�i3.'S�% � e 't!Id of 19--19. Thy a'ia`�' orag� sz-Ae ��, of a �i� .mak inS Il -I fa'T-I �.t told. zad, o i �?' it W43 ? Ss 4.a6 of 1,` i, Wad .430 ;"OTth. � sAIX. Pl Y N -' a,..0" Z' 'aal at file?, �'j Of, 1>9M was AIX.• t, �"�s3.j {�> ti;e a: �'���T+ ��.�.� : �iss~� t,.�� .£Y��.e..� 3e7 :xu�€ S+}�.,a;. than at to � az', 'oda,1991 (t ae ,- erase sal® price at l,. --ad of 1991 �'�; �3�3.7�1�. Publish iedi1���;, o!bs nut these figwe-s ase Q.i1 ccznpijed. at tie en.d o.} eaclt year ��ld aniy die �3a� k to 1994, lls. fa�1, "`�Y r .e s f'oliD S. A 6 lfu] C1� t`� i?$w , edlail fiajo pr,'aGa. %r1T •'- Cb year1a �`�ilvlft-biht median mil, r jl aL for.tht p=ceding year to derive a gescentaoa c;_ cl=Ze -3wer the id--�:tfi!:r p'ar?lact- `�Iiat pere6iitage change is shown. in th-- r h� as `3°,b �3L3nge"- The changing values'ind.%cated by 'both the mean 3nd median, valnes avor ihasw time periods ?nust be considcred be Mszket Study ?s this is thY underlying m rketplac-. t1�'r. yraidh grvge ies Frere sci4 and p�atahased, Yids is the "haol�ground raise" su t sp:, which does net relate to rimy riug1Y item but to +he mueb 1a79er Ms.eketp?ace. Ou3y by iden�ying theso mzrk�ct �Ajde trzads can trends Vrith n dic im mediate Iacaf -M €ae adequately difftrcntiated. The Saa Mf3-ren nei bb9ghacd ru tNe rato, ill'Mi ' h f ' 155 Son f "in �vv P L 'aT" i loc tad, is bounded by Simrn.cns L=-- to the east, Novato Creek to 2nV s©ulh to Pt crosses 'r!o ato BcuieV aTd, Uj limits to the wesL and the ivfw;ni Burdell Prese, ;'e to tht ID 1999 as of December 31, 1999 $400,000 -4-11% 1999 as of Decamber 31, 1998 $359,000 + 9?'0 1997 as of December 3,1997 S329,25c, -' 5 1996 as of+Dcccwbn� 31, 1996 $315,U00 1995 as ofDecember 31, 1995 5315,000 1% 1994 as of Dvicemher 31, .1994 S3i2;QDD Uaw A 6 lfu] C1� t`� i?$w , edlail fiajo pr,'aGa. %r1T •'- Cb year1a �`�ilvlft-biht median mil, r jl aL for.tht p=ceding year to derive a gescentaoa c;_ cl=Ze -3wer the id--�:tfi!:r p'ar?lact- `�Iiat pere6iitage change is shown. in th-- r h� as `3°,b �3L3nge"- The changing values'ind.%cated by 'both the mean 3nd median, valnes avor ihasw time periods ?nust be considcred be Mszket Study ?s this is thY underlying m rketplac-. t1�'r. yraidh grvge ies Frere sci4 and p�atahased, Yids is the "haol�ground raise" su t sp:, which does net relate to rimy riug1Y item but to +he mueb 1a79er Ms.eketp?ace. Ou3y by iden�ying theso mzrk�ct �Ajde trzads can trends Vrith n dic im mediate Iacaf -M €ae adequately difftrcntiated. The Saa Mf3-ren nei bb9ghacd ru tNe rato, ill'Mi ' h f ' 155 Son f "in �vv P L 'aT" i loc tad, is bounded by Simrn.cns L=-- to the east, Novato Creek to 2nV s©ulh to Pt crosses 'r!o ato BcuieV aTd, Uj limits to the wesL and the ivfw;ni Burdell Prese, ;'e to tht ID M�u— lul M�T, to ao M .1Z i0b. aho O'd, b!Z-m-Ldary t" ch-- rifn z F Dn-V--, the 'Y el, araas., q�s tin carry V-1 De 6--l-MIza z iin 6 1 - - and jand tzft for is -sex -a Z�OntiiiuEA thz- pro on latt� Tlaic-Aybor."hood is almQs" I arl - Or, ;,3 ar. Majihi: Driv� wl fu A Y--si4mtial hounkg h;Tp. a:- P 'Mon "'he! *ts -' QCTV -t; an -A -alar"ekes (silot by side UM w � I � n zwl plannr� 1 -wit &Valap- � I covap! w ,Ed so jiL CTSSzL Dri:�rc but zurc KMAC�,d Cl 5 �s-,, 9 t�.�tend tu both the norath a compl-=53 in - Cair--imer-cia.'I propa—,lacs :art: ciaiimly limited SFA -1 Nfiff Ln. rn Ive. Thiria a 7ie moev-!!rp, Marbl an - S"nrpj-nff --- wb,,-h n9s, d th Oj5ic- Complex snnrBuRdlk Dri7vi. is ad rA- I d -P. it i--:1 On,- of 'Lha W. idcr --f-ad np-landscap- , a four -lane wiir 1; �Ln Miarir. Dri VO jr UMtg- in U-& r4OV-tn--W- F--Ct'O-" Ofl"i-OVai' o. th-- Lntursoction of the neighborhDod, at th -C northst comer of L t�r, far wf--Sturq cr.d of d Xlw,�ELtO Boultward, SOL within, h San Mafin Drive M, WS 'le 5, Sal! MialiM DliV�� a5 is t:rl= loca" *4an fta,4n 15- r clibc,31hood ba7mclades a an -whieh i-- alsO ithiA jh­ �ajz� gchOOL I 1--loVr.5 dowa -&MM &ILI j,,5t -5 U pi-nally; the local 17ix-- st-ation ;.7. loca'LA -R!, +hc 5ou-thwe5t cc�at�.- Of sari Ryunon Y lthatwaSpTcv jgjy,=-�nfiio�ned- San h4arin Dnvc. a block north of Tul-= gad-- sc7aOO' –1 p Maris Drive- aro afl tod by traffiz amd tral:1r, 31oi3c- fuses rLx,.t rbr Homes feat are ap,ng ar, -riyl� TL glona E;ovc�at oltha- sido streets, particAL119,11Y a' .lsD Huiric pnocs on San MariTi tMd tO be slig�ltly lowc-1 thm.intho. 51LIT-c-UP-d - 419 tr--2,cts 'a5iWDOFP'OOd, 10�gely •beciiise n� tb5 4.. {J of the gan lyfsri-n that POEtiar' -L C-n�Lc�,- and High School; both --T -thu-pTaximity of ac Snopping jowovcT,� *b c a nd foot traffic. incremsp ajAomo. of ffiis location afe fna epse OT, -ancess Th6 ObtifiVo "PeeU bikint, and In -01 -se ba -CR spac!E! for – ewt do -Aim San - TO .- - jocnj sbapping. Furth��: Burdr,11 -Preserva, anell al .ri._... j...��„1 .:j 'J 1... .�k,.� ... ...,.'�� � S_„t.... .. E 'A;_, "}�..�?.moi=s'.:(.i. +�>=.”. j t;.z.{L": ;. A? „'.;r?,,• xs �e+e,'9J v':' ?."� ? y� 4c•.� " � "iTi '�� {.'., e�` `"4,ii �:�. '7,.''`'� �c -L. ?ate �ir".JL'� '�i,w�`A {.:i�,V'e.:.t +�� �.r.,: tas ho -into- lip= y ou, Sm 3ari, D:v r7_midJ2v"" dasg%r appeal, flim La Si'J3ncum - L hica zs ?'?i? ism `s rl i?dai± ga` ,as . -in Novato -.15 a ib:;tweti the g;jya wf i99;2 and- f, ,o'present, ,hr;:'�5�.�n (avc-rage) wice Of q. hatne hzs Vari -4 as follows, according do NMS ,St*istics (note'ths.$TALS Statistics do not s parav CSS.]? indi-vidL'p noighbo-6-^,a:ldg mor condo-midium, .d PUD d5vOopmunia a,F d ?xre i Ysiimlexp of both ncoY�1Wated and 1...:�1.corperate:d INWrato 1t�caro 6j: 2000 as of September 25; 20O0 $440,444 based an 519 dosed s,21 -as +23% 1999 as of Dccembj -31,1999 $363,664. baso -d on. 976 closed s4z-s + 5°fu 1998 as of Defernber 31, 1998 $345,6?9 based on 806 elosed saleo +149rJ 19-47 as of December 31., 1997 5303,576 based on 738 closed sales -t- 40E-10 1996 as of December 31, 1996 . •$292,330 based on 591 closed salog +3% 1995 .as ofDec-mbeb 31, 1995 $283,799 baser] on 521 clesud sales +6% !994 as cif December 31, 1994 $267,690 based on 612 closed aal.es - 95� 1993 as or` gogmibar 31, 1993 $?93,604 based on 629 closed saltis +6% 1992 as of D!�embar 31, 1992 $277.436 based on 672 closed. sate - -hose rigares c. m allso he cfprczsed as a percentage ofth-_ avorageavle pace of homes 6inpared to preceding ars. Thal, the current avterage sale price of homes Lri `V_ oVata in late Supt-m-nbcr, 2001) is 23% highor than the ave -age Salo price in Novato at lbe en€i of 999. In the ;mid,., tha, "O/Chan-go" column is this pa-=Zt?ge, ag it was in thn grid for S 7i Raafa eL IvES Statistics also publish the Median Sale Price of homes but hese Y g-lics are only compiled at the cad. of Bch year and rarity daim back to 1994, as almady> noW in 1111 : 1�arket T rrrt of m1 commmts. Ln Nova}c*, thay Isere as follows. Yvaa Dge_ Tfed3a -al - , 1999 as of December 31, 1597 5328,000 +10% 1998 aA of December 31, 1998 $2997000 b 81A, 1997 as ©fDeccmber31, 1997 $276,99[} +3% 1996 as of December 31, 1996 $268,000 +2% 1995 as of DecambeT 31, 1995 5262,500 + 2% 11094 as of Deca-mber 31, 1994 x258,000 uhkrwMT, i2 5 Al 13 3 ;N;J JL I I k. f3" �"a T, 5 -7 L -.Y.- 1� ip fzlz ��i7 �M-U, S TO jar A •. lr,,Z te- � -0:1, to, h IM -1 o ri 1 n m V mo.' -V Sln- , �,E Tlx r cm. r- vA - -v- h. a. co a). I 3711. OaD, Rafatl, cxurnNd Lim bot -h 199 TV to 1� tr, 1 to 1994 wid in 1992 Wql-rt L tll-, do occur -.-5d in 199A wht�n &-ozrp2rg)d to 199 1. Th�:r ,c- are 3'm co.TnTyar-�d ►'m 1993 Mid iu -1-99,I v��.Loe- 1�rzuu&. to to -19,91 Mph other to Sug-gast, -- waik;et &r both citlzs in tho =x1jr n id 7T -r, p�n;,-o jmycase4l st*affifly wiftb lffiz g-raa'x--- LLCZA tl---- last fnre,� ' T OCCIUM-P4, U11 ham a, S J 99B to t:-15 v Now -thalt faiz maker t-r1eha& it botba SpmtRAm-! m-dl. a ".1100 hwv'z-bz1f i P11ovatorgas I Tv-Atsof , c studyc-onducod by bDDP-dOc3M hov dM ih5— broad Mark gi TWinds in tfte i -e Table - of Property Mi—Resses, Tab' lc� #r., Rats th�, sales, a1pb ind it a -,b -nc!LL I:q ;I Sanp-afacl-S-tudyAroa. el C' DD In=m common h-Tere-St Developm=t (a- or pllzmmtid unit d---VelcjPm--,qt). A d4 Ch�m thu disttm�-.; anet d:-m,-"tionL'Tom the ata 5j oJE, -6- 4m PrEPA. talacomm,iLmeatims mn-Lennae located On rla 1925 oln Avenun bui Idi .. Icen 0 an -.10 51 i tb hying a dj—.e ot 1j a-, b ctw - I c, -A io a3, d i st an c e s --- iv en ere as 4�4-o -j;r at I Via surface 5t!-�CZS 2S tM i22-flUenCe 0 tt,-- anta�jmaa would tat. b-- gwa-crd 0Y tho ad-4-ress, and wduld bc: jnsto,� pm—m-;tvad, by the markzt, -?.2 a bziea: gffecl, T =a listed tbu kpprop-ziaia ytu a' zel-, Th�� --he Halo prj;�'-: 16k c i proptrf�' 11 --en R d under & - a4tmmae were insteRad, as -p-otod, La hnuaxy, 1996 zo that tho pxices; for 1992, 1-99-3, "before' the- ft-w-ka 1996 1994, 1995, mp-teftvvnt the value trends while p -rice -a onwalds repmsent LEw "afte, Yalu-- Trmdg. e Finally, of t-� all rrnpcatka ITe Usted and idenAJficd ag to plir-' W, 31-af: &F t!" awaragra amlD price per year for the study area is calculatcd --adth th-� avcxEgg Ealy wrice, py,-r MLS far all of San pafaca given immediately brIow. nt�s is f6lia-w-and by the ca,11rulated mcdizu sal-- pric5 arta ora Y1e1z---[7Y im-asig, foliowedby tha iw,-diam smal--pr-70a -.P-M NffS f5r -aE-' --f 9 tL-Raf IOU ay V b a�j 13 ._.� -,It u Si.r ti j.� 4 K _r i•.. - .t $ y^.�,f�9 ^f a' c%':Y.i» :.e. a'.L s.�y w� �.�i'�'..>., u. moi; GF K are -a ice_'.a'�'3v1i�'nj a Sam a .r �.. Th:�er�aG sold pyre ' fo vc M "[ T,=_q-gas C.+v�.l �+iof i?� -'Ly"f PAfa.. '..-se}as�, a�.sl 1993, time .avamgi s el- tam be in s'c �:..�.- 3ri 'mrly 2r--SNJn*; �6'fc f b of n'�'�^'�oa• Irj 1994. tho 09. TaEFP $?ir3 PrG ce, tti+� �? ' � s• � `a a, oI�;x i'if�k+c"''..T~�+Il. �%�.IB'1 :i3%"t'iI�c �— ilia 19?�5; th, a �: Y3, : sales r ce il' !h�. sic z ar ThM tGvl se sirnr racso s Antennae we':e instilled, � .5�+n8!Y C"f 19- '* ' arm 'SH 669/- o i.�". Tffa.'.; emn average, a ���'3�:: Shin+ Dyic�' j3f I, ajom31 in z-�i.. - .� s;�era c sz.e prze in Sacs 11-a.fa.el as a�atoio -ker the four y Dazs pree g Se ir! al a; i� �F� tl�e #elRcnu'�it�.t-xica.���, a�.fet�rl�- rn 1996, war :rade sal_ pried o`f 8 e :n try stady mea reproseat l a sale PI-1--c!the way 66"A of the avers,—P sail- pricy iu all of Sar afaet for that year. Tri 1997, the average sa}a pILGv IY3@ s dy arGaV.as 57% of.ne baaHfBel r�Y�s9g. - 7 T'` the ��.y area. was j6% of the San P.,.$ a- _v'Er3g . 1r ,998, the mrarage s3i� pricy _s .s afa.el averagm -_ 199 ttie age sale pricl- i l'' st,dy area w 6a /�fthe Sari cc^^ i r in fha gh,,dy zika 35 �Pr ! }3.�: SIM. i Fw »'L� it _3] 2001), Yna-T to date, the ay. eray. e yeiskaa of thelTh_refr=eirtime btdteaa�rilul.irst;c�s anxe�aae, ��= average 531. price in fh$ Stud;! [lre 3 ?3 Y1�°f° Qi the a�1u�13 ;e X81_ prYCt3 L9I $ b�; .e � S'LCS F�afael a rh�lb, a ►3if"feTmca tbat is, statistca�ly, identicat to the stp : fab tine f'. iu yep+ -3 p1 --ceding the jns anon ifthe antmna:r. n�ediars figi es algia support this same patter with virtually ac char'ige in the ThelTens:�ig� of hUIr ptices in the study area to Sm P.afa.ei R9 a whale'anon comparir+g ratios before and. after the irstalla�or Df the teleco u3-licffiians ant��lae, Ir_ 199 ,ilio me�iaz3 sal.- prise of a hams in tho study arra -was 6fM of t1�x me$ian for man ;2a�aal as a whole% In 1995 it rase to �o. ijLe mean of these twwo is 76°.1b. ffsns, the t�vo �eais preyo4i-qg tae installation ei tt` a me,diaa p --ice in the shady area was 761/6 ror vP telecommunications antennae, i �^, jrj, Erie madim ins the sm. dy aua-W 1 �¢ s Li?y lile�i??1 is- ,`` au --a fu�! ?� £ 3hL^t�, 14 !!FF,- T alhlo of Pmpeifty Addr2c-,5,-,5, Td-ble 02, -As fEa sales, alphab--dC141- .f, "RWdy �,rna, In VIS tabl�, "Sr TV rLica-as Si�glt Fz--auily Residential =-d "CID" - ;;ang comm Tom Intemest Davalopmtmt ,a ccnjdamipslzn or -plawl--d Mr, avvelopmim�?. Ih dato(ts- rcetlen the —s) of Sak = pro then the dis nc-:� and -H in locato-d on rue 155 San Mub.dld in Driv =-I 11 dH;St2m=S pmun arc ";is the Crow fli-- 'I', that be:iacr a direct Ene b--tuv=n locaAars, and mot a j�r 'T -w Id ma a gaaxjgcd by flae, Stre4a, Ufaca ett d t b address, azul would be paceivtdd, bytha maiket, mg a Hineaz affik.t. The silo prize -1561- -.a,--h property is then Ested imcler the ap rnpriat-- year of sale, Thf-, autennac were igs-accl their final permit in Novembvx, 1995 so that the prices for 11092', 1993, 1994, 1,995, yepmsont the lbefbra7' value trends while the prites fmm 1996 onwayd-- rameeg--pa the "aft-te' v-Jlzc trend Finally, after aU prikaerdes arc 113ted gm -d ii—c-tiflead as in price: and yEa of sale, the avcza,m sale Prim nqrr year for ih-- study =a is cak:ulattd twitth -&-, avera�p- sp-Ir, pnc-3zr lrfLs --i-or all af.Novatct T! vera immCcliatulybe-low- Jbis i� fol.110-wad by tbo c-alculaTed raudian Y&Iff; pi-ke For 6e studir ayea an a ye -arty basi.i, TallowudIrDy thm mtdizx, sale price pyr N-;T'LS for all of Navairo na a; earby b a -an. Tht: 'Novem aver-aga and medim sale prices !iz- vc alicady been -pTo-4d--4 aaTjj--T in da -'s report bat, on Table 42, they are contrasted with thw average and median saIL- priceLq from the Survey clata- A -ratio caa, biD betwe.m. the average and median- sal-- pries i -n the abulddy cies a3 RjlIr,wz;; LT, 1992, the avo-mge sale pries in the study arta rspr---q6a a sale w' -c5 that Wr- 115% of tho average sale price in Novato for fbe, yea;.. In 1993, the average sale mice in the study area vas 98% of the Novato average. In !-1)5)4, tilt avcragt-, saie'prlcm in the study area wa-. 116% of the Novato a-vc-r-a-p-, in 1995, the average sale study ar5ax!a-Z IOD/.of t4c:xovato i5 •isU.: ',¢« � ,'a : .i � r .tri:;}!.-�i�.ti ..,.-I 3'.�...�=�.S urL�l-'?: '~•'.`-r1ii+�, T ' rY� r%' V 42 y} ]:f?b•u P,ii lit,.- study ari�4 .z'�tr ydNa 69L 1RR t the- a er � l� rV la e stud] ,mss; a wag 3Csrs% a;' - -n ��Ova�O �il�laV-- hi r �-n q M ' �-�dy area was 1�3% ofi4 i�oVato rsdi�ie9'.. .!j7 f.!-iaG.. h.Y .�..r�•v' S$3,"..°i'a S iii tL� o9R, ihM ,, .Px Ra ga price in Lh tl:dY sr -,a RR4� c: � � t c� sig yi r� w. i / . ~...1 0lei, tl r to da,� ~y iiu �i7ei"ti e SzIg s".tii d 171 t1le 4waudmy arca was ID 12 VL valInp6 Th-nrcfib.e- L'f7.br ,.1.;;" '�al'C at�.tG'T t'Llb l tt.? .3'�t�lll 171 ih.�. y.- nir�3i .liilia`�--Yr,`la °i�J '! i .uii�:r3�a-.+-i3., "--h '' ^' `3 u 5ifl @ Yliv 3fi i $gids' area �'�� 107.5% tai th-, avm.,P seP t rice O a hr3m. 0 lar �r NO-Vato as a �`d ola, 8 dlffe--$Cnccc that 15, St3tlSltca71Y, icle'nt'c2C Ii7 the .�1�iiF� Ibr L�w %l t e�Ts prPced rig th, it stallasiaTi. az the ante .e. Tine naedia-n fires pro'dzJe a solrlewhat different pic4u=' 1 tt �. a� a .16 1.?2% �x the'add sale In 199•x', .he rll...._iat3 =10 Pflc.. OI $ d36zFia 'a� Tose a aY.�$'iY�� price for xovato as - whol-- l -q 1995, it dropped tc 97%- 'i"Ue r,�ldian of thase t is 105%: This means that the median prof in the Study aria Was 105'1' -OF tl�e lqrYaaa_. mr,di�sn sal-- pace far thr= f -WO Yr --ars prfcading the i-!5taUatzon..0f t kc tdf-,'-�MMLmy a'�c�n T 7 R � tn�dia sg e pri^. ir1 th,shidy% �;,n; page to l2lgla of the median in too Yate Qs a wInole. Ir, 1847, it WaS 113%. LA 1998, it was 125%c. in 1499, it was 1075".. 'The r.>;eadian for `sz g 5asm at' r the isi:�lMon wag, tiler fore, 1170/6, This ig r tlwh:: er the in the rxo ytsrs Fr5neding `she installation. This M=W drat tha ?nediau prices ire c as ir-,mr,diate shady area have actually ns.n137 relationship to the mP n Pres ?Qva�� a whole see the i-nstallation of the telecum,*'unicatlatl:, antarme. a o ion- o Mari,-ludg- in r T'he marka; values in the Sail Paf2el Stud -y Area did nat ai`er Signfficeat!j ager thL- in-staliatior- of th-a teieQou�-ni�icatiflns =ternae an Uno 1025 Lincaln Avenue bt s i g ct1zTQ U 11131 th-re Itao been, T either on an average; price or median prier basis. Th tg U� date, no idtifiabie impacct, of tk�e tel=0n, rn,:r7iea'ci+3rs �anie=ae oa residential real eEI pte T�iiCee across thc. hrcad�r nLa- e ft - ;v I,a 7- 10- -.1 1 P- k z1a b a -V NtZ BO t j:ih' pro :,LI7- 06-0 z'. -..j: -z; a f- I n -q a a V UT -1 v, Ing a--g—q-5ian= in• hzz I rj mty 10 ii-s-r-tal latior, Its e1f, NO'Ve'�r ;-4 S' luca-- � L, 1. "lox eg 1-1. OFA Sout, Oa 97110'vkd�:az for Bach Propcxt-y in utz� am. REIT'a-e! S'71--'dy A-CknL" aD an a "S "7 of -Z , - -!�- nL,es to &B qj, a�-Ked Ln The Nftevzot S-mb and: 'L It anrlllmarj7i-e flpa esii OIAY ;hog Op . Y . ajr�g ?W� ap respon-dents. -'sc3 �d P -Ism ft= the c0irClat-1011 Of -2 yesPOL Thug, there 'WeD3 a Intal of 62 V-' tae in wHch casl-, the rQSPOndent 'S ":'V' is t1 a5llmj- ap--nt vu raise 'rs 1.�- ajy� .Bleated i t:qc list- agmit (L.A) am "Notes" 011 t116 Tally SlIV--t, iNe5;!5 RDP r 1) "1 samo. Tnls O-c=r, ulhe.a 6e same agmt 3:c,�c-soDtod I Oft seMr.g agent (SA) wrrc th-, 0 responded as bD-Lh the listugar.d selrmg azent(s). sider. of the transa--tiOal Rad r-, I For Borne prop ernes, shat: were tWO, or even three, sales du4ng the yem inum&-d in t -ho cnts (or three a�CTAG two listing and two selling ag hag in these =Gndcnts ale, as shovira- For instanem-, lor 7 and enrc-0 stilin=- agents) were C-Otltacte(L Ray rc�tpa-.adcd- Thtrafcy�---, GIP-twood Mivt�, them wrre th-tee sales btlilta 1 uld. thras sepmt-- Ustin'psu fcr Lv. cn�jy 0-�n- recpo-nso is imolude bel oT"fr passib!a. 118 individual In Iao% Wt wum abl-. its cunta'c-'t of thesc�posai. 161B Lntervlav( only 6 _ TDig is pL-,-,Sponst; rafio. of 53%. (2--tually ov-� agmt with nine vamactions Thi.-ro were MOth= nim 153PO-Dses hr condan, inium COM-Plex P -t 1579 Lincoln Avenue) but his assis=t x-m=bcr L , Tupeltl,es Of sift1ply LRds;jjtv v Withoirt auminz, the ittetvil5w, ar to tra, d --no- o ew-tyfbir., p oja&4 ir f -h-, 62 rzSpopadzrats thmugh all the qu-sbous. Therefore, thoar, -at-;I Bat onsa rata of over2SO/a is corsidereed acceptO31a, 90 Ihal, fADI a dy'f survre;y, a rc -sD rcilcs on a sl)-YzY, a 53% respow- ratio is consl&rcd nary ugh amcl well wig. the retjuircd fOT statistical ac unity. La the San F-ajNpl Study Area, the influence that caused gmematt conecm was '14affir, noise with 32tA of the respondents indicating this &d concern the seller andlor buyer. Tlae proxiT if ,.'bca Bzk- jalluence that -,Las second most in conn -M was tht- n.. _y 0 1 . vily traf -d s,` els -- gam; . -ad 27'," - . Ldents vidicatine thiF, U'le seller aridja-. blxyor- ..hic:11 D of ihe, r -spm Z? '.si llifj'f?i , rit ii '14 "ai _4 nit �Fa . N 3`_ .t'F� -L'l iti.�i4`.�iv��• �4�'. 1 oI i:. !:.iR,A,iw ad;,�Zewf. bo 7:'i �i L, i i£z rasp ng nc we z ifln L l ic, `"Dors ,nnia tot '� -41, 'O' of ft`"..i. r'ewa.9'ijen-xi, "ii's� 966% Csi 1 L' r--sp nden?s said -aoV.z at, i a e ai a17 `�f3. ,?s : y %psi .blued. t a�:w 9CU r8 andl a iYUY z , None of thw respondents mien `hied 1jo Ceil3slar:hare�; ��e asa';C aceto and r_CiT"r- idandfiz cd ENT Fiplds, 'Poth itz;M!; 4het havvthad co-il31deMsbIn 0XPOSSM0 iri thO pra?9 s- v,?hjcj'?, tb,� for , wouidbe eypected ao be a reletr i 3teYr_._f seler and bnv aide. T'abte 4AX.Md fixe "Tally of Respoa&nts for Each Property in the 33-m Tarlatan StudY Art2" saa�samari.ze Thu va:fious responses to the questions asked L the .c�arkat Study and the number of r:sponses receivrd. Maly thos__ Te3ponding arcs inrItadtd in the study ratios rt:sUlting L=oan the Ce--alation 0,10 O',e r2sponges Emd resp andents• Thus, tiler: ever: a *oftal*ot 35 respundants (hu victuals) excePtiszg whcre the listing and seL'ing agent rsra the see zz �rlaic'h case tb3 ; r:apordent is caun'xi Trice. in the "Nates" on ihw Uly Sher" these appraisers faave iodiea_ied if the i:;ting agent (LA) and 8 s t ? Bre ttl.� same. II115 Q��}1a�+ Wil � the u` � � avl1: r�`p��$('wTitvi� vo h m�,g age -.it (SA" ; Fide€ a f the traction anUl responded as bofA the lis'tiug and s-11ina ag n (-�- ;'"ter 6G p?ap itiP,S, t�:r_ `_eie ISid gales duji-na th,, 4'ezr8 included Irl Itho SiUt3y p�iatZ�. ,I thow cribs, two Bating acid two scMng age{s were cantacted, P=pczadents aae as shown_ For instance, for 37 Andreas Mole, there -Aiero two sales but ouly 006 listing agent responded.. Todrefore, for tthe tally, only or -.6 response is included de-saito fur two senaratt Ealo dat,.s. Them were a total of 64 possible indiividual Ter -pa sscs. In fart, we, WerE able t® cOnfact and intcpJiew only 35 of these possible iespoucleam This is a =sense aa -HO Of 55%. In a. su bey, fi response rate of over 250j"o ig considered aecepta'el , so t=at, for 4 st'ady that relies on a svrVey, a 5S% resp011,5e ratio is rer!sidered very nigh well Wii'ah'i the parameters rewired for staiisficai ajzumm y. 7n th; San Marin Study Ama, the infia.-CCc that roused e eai-st yoncrrri Was the crG unity of the heavily t�-zcked streets � itb 31% of the Pesp#ndent3 indicatir;g that this did cone= the Aile4 and/or buyer, .The secord motet eited influence bras 1be r0? itt?lty af7Si r'aiv2a'L E?Se prf]pQ q-_,, with 2 rzspur�sL-- ;alio �f 21%, Mcardl$- 23% of i9 ID V j f D 4 2� Uri r 4z b,; b zx' - -1 h �24 "_!.Etr'.;zcjt-q Q San In-fazul 'y a Dts and v Lz fluodh& ';w nc ra -rz sel u�m- ameJcr 10,XYat- Md u16% -n, the t C:- M �P-as cl` !L-ns -rom c"' Vin'::''to -d jh-. C'dltular -Phoze5 Ant-cim-dc Or EI'dr-F F'_Nids Z-'5 111,5 fj . PT03110 0-C 51-00,111d _,r�. cor,i-CM, boa bei-ag items that liav-_ had a-'_ ns cxPosuye in th5 Prt!Sq sad, I ';w0W_d be (-'N-Dcctf_-d to be a rcicvant itlD-n for aau�-'r a par.-Icularly, i'or buyum. wn BP M iv any' of t_'15 As -statc�d, PU-IPOse Of this Study was to date' a *e impa&'., talecorarnunications- auimman an Lho mz&et v-41,M of rfsidaratio Prupertics ira cIDSC Proxilaity to the antemind. In both Study AIE29, San Gael and SM. no ja -co dice identi led.bc Ms -Gc noise Qf Uas, the inhwant lacatiomall fact-ors - y szj�tt, comir ,=c;4 properti-s wd traf nccs VU property - Cellular phos- ,quierinae wrry 'ni-'Yst WcTo the ain iinfluencesvajuaq W- TEMort-ed -z ai_ a;--fl by my ofthe a_pmts aad/,tr Jj,,yz:'-S anil se'r=-s Contacwd. The lyiaarkat itse-If sUPPlarl-5 7.111 with the, Saba of Z-00 priccs in eazh Of t111-- Study Pizeas, On u vig tho s,for no years boih before and afta 0-e OL C3L the ayL_,ragt, -F,,ITtb--. x_-�ndence_ is -provided by the ratio of;reds ars pexic-tz is tmch of the Study Areas }.hat indicate no ChRac-z;'� San pafaell Study Area, br-An before and aftc!r the in th.- ins-talledon of the antennae. For the San Marin Study Ama, the -ratio of themadian price of liomat inc'rzas=d suggesting that -rizbt onhy was thMN TIQ=-Pa--t bUt the MP_rl_-F_t, in f2Z� iMprOV--d. U1 it is C.,,-opinion of these appraiocT.-.' ej, in th aA� two, s-tudy . -s, the presansc, -3f cellular pbon, aracnna-I had no i-mpact on th-_ aaadr.et vabit-, of Msidrnfial PTQP=16es III close Proxim-ity to the cellular Phone ante"mae- ID rr r r v; Y` est t- .yL : ,1.. '.Ja?.t <tn AP s i.>�3�> td" -'' api ons, and s'^L7alclusion-� axa lia6tcd QrI ; Y 'i -,,,_e 33S1i`73pt1 3a3�l� G3'L?a col "� ? ; ?>$y li:?_:'res R mus 1.ns Ui:z ' profAssicr.al Qrcalyilt:s, pninims, and comInsic uS. vle have lio-Srcgen" oz PrDsp: cfi 4•M sr+.. '° T�}..k�iLa 7�,.az. 'f� I� lr P �775t_ 31,-''ath+Y=4 7Y 'v11 G•yT a 15l Jt51'��ii, r wv have Rlo � tag with Tess t tO 2n.-' Prop. L�=� 1� L't°�.a ��.I���C� :�s �a1�E 2'�awt or to t'u� l3 e4•?n lulved with this assigra nePA, 1)iii C9ffie`38PS3t1�7Ii is n.nt cal tiagal-t oii ac on Sal' y'+ out r4:,. iT._'!ta� f1o�S 31b• �,aly,y,, opl- tum. � � , oY acisiatls ice, or thi'- Use DE t�iv i art_ sir analyses, pp:o:t, Ane ecn3eh1sil3 wcm il:�velcpw 'tds rwps)rF has been prepares, in cDn.fb+ritlr xith the Bio iforin SkC?t�rd, t:, ����a�s��=>t�e e #lame made a personal, e exte„, �sPvzlicu 0i fm P-P—r?i's that a_'rr� Ll.e subject ofthis report, Ila cne provided s1�fica� prefessiQrIal asslsl-mr-a to the ptrsc�s signing ti�lis r part e,1cegi for Mic-b.el:, Gee vita acted as rz5ea=h assistant far ti�las -arl� t study. Her paztici-aafion included cMUC&-l-) agfuts, brofers, and Sellers, desip Sng ,and omtc ing responses -tato Bread .sheets, and prodwink .e graphical illusLations ir: ids 3�nea: Omn D. Rollins, CF+,PAJ"R CA residential Cerii rlc-atiQv> ; X2!121 Pg f%ildr, S. Vaughn, BRA `� CA Residt,-ntiai Camt;rcatiQU4 AR005022 20 ATTACHMENT 6 August 14, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes AUGUST 14, 2007 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION `JCfForrlq zi ; Xi; J if lir:; r .,rrl ainiflg caraiiicrr �,r Ferlrl ;r &--d !rlat !rr:.,' Clfllf r.Urll=.'fn -.,,,f j-�:JrIJIIiUrI 'i i`i Ca! ;!I. iC lrf r`Jr:��1 lit -ll lir::-Ipplic• ani cou{J conlinu op:,r<alifrg uninLerrlip l :d lir IliI :SII 1-WIailicrI C,'ll`lalln rrw,J, �'/'�`/-;i ;;carrJ;,J, to jpprgi Can�Jiliorr 11 Jac, 'r-:rrrlil Ho. 2007-(8, Findings of F act, :and candiliarl�; of EApprovLil :a ihill fes' U{'�llJfl."JIlii lrrc.,':.'Ilrfiirr.Ii;Url Uf r:Url-.liliorlby!fl'.; IClli�1'�IN4if \'( r_; C)I`jII`'jIIJ.JI0I I=F»: Hc;[ -Ari, w,i, `/C /Torrrg C;O1'jII'IIE;i;IC)HE: PIS: I`lorr AB-E;.I`1 r,C)r`jII'jIIJJIUIICfili: { r.f{ 11r�11=�1 Jf1 F�=C; E E;:;. `'/C,/Torrrg lir-, rrr-:aing i1i7:20 p.m. F'-(-';O1`I`jE1 I-: .iloirll`1-;E on �Irri'jt';d .rnd r;con ,'rr J lir:: rrl:,'ling al7:::;0 p.m. 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-09, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2007-22 AND VARIANCE NO. 2007-05 — In accordance with Development Code Section s 22.58, 2248, 2254 and 22.42, the applicant requested to install a telecommunications facility #LA73XCO17. The installation consists of antenna attached to a faux elm tree commonly referred to as a "monoelm" and an equipment building to match the existing park structures. A Conditional Use Permit approval was required in order to operate a cell site; Development Review approval was required for the design/architectural review, and the Variance approval was required for the 45 foot tall "monoelm," which exceed the 35 -foot maximum height allowed for a structure. (Continued from July 24, 2007) PROJECT ADDRESS Ronald Reagan Park 2201 Peaceful Hills Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: City of Diamond Bar AUGUST 14, 2007 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANT: Sprint Nextel 310 Commerce Irvine, CA 92602 PT/Alvarez presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22 and Variance No. 2007-05, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. VC/Torng asked if the applicant considered moving the picnic tables. CDD/Fong reiterated that moving the picnic tables would be a matter for the Parks and Recreation Commission to consider, not the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is considering only the installation of a telecommunications facility and the project would be conditioned accordingly, that is, to move the Monoelm as far away from the basketball court, tennis court and picnic tables as possible. VC/Torng asked if the distance considered to be safe were 33 feet would it be measured on the ground or from the top of the tower. ACAIWohlenberg responded that the 33 feet is measured linearly from the antenna array to the average breast height, which is four feet. He reiterated that the FCC was concerned with surface heating so that no one would be unintentionally burned by the energy being emitted from the array. He again stated that the Telecommunications Act forbids local agencies from denying a wireless facility on the basis of the perceived health effects. CDD/Fong indicated to VC/Torng that the distance from the picnic tables to the Monoelm is more than 33 feet. ACA/Wohlenberg further stated that the 33 -foot requirement pertains to a maximum power facility, which he believed this facility was not. VC/Torng found some of the packet attachments confusing because they are not consecutively numbered. When he asked for a photo simulation last meeting he was concerned about the picnic table appearing to be so close to the antenna. CDD/Fong stated that attachment 2 is missing from the July 24 staff report but as stated in the minutes, was provided to the Commission during the meeting. Attachment 5 is the development plan. Therefore, all necessary attachments were provided. AUGUST 14, 2007 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION There were no additional ex parte disclosures offered. Ed Gala, Sprint Nextel, responded to issues brought up by Commissioners and residents at the July 24, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. He elaborated on the evaluation of five sites provided by staff by Sprint Nextel. Two locations that were considered to be appropriate were Ronald Reagan Park and South Pointe Middle School. Both were approached and since the City encourages wireless facilities to locate in parks the City was very amenable to the proposed location and encouraged Sprint Nextel to proceed. Mr. Gala said that Sprint Nextel would move the location six to eight feet further away from the picnic tables and would relocate the picnic tables at their expense should the Parks and Recreation Commission deem it necessary. This facility will be broadcasting at 50 watts of power, an incredibly minimal amount of energy. In his experience when several facilities co -locate on rooftops the energy never exceeds to two to three percent of the allowable FCC limit. In short, every wireless company available could locate on this Monoelm and the total energy output would not approach what the FCC allows. Wireless is a marriage of two old technologies — computers and radios. The radio has been in common use since the 1920's and computers have been in common use since the 1960's. Someone expressed a concern about the benefits to Diamond Bar and the benefit of course is that this installation will provide coverage in an otherwise uncovered area. While it is true that the coverage will extend into Rowland Heights, Diamond Bar residents will benefit from this installation as well. The other benefit is the rental income to the City of approximately $18,000 per year. Mr. Gala confirmed to Chair/Nelson that the five sites considered were all existing sites for co -location. However, none would provide coverage to the non -coverage area. Chair/Nelson asked if Mr. Gala would show the map indicating the new coverage area as a result of this installation. Mr. Gala complied. Chair/Nelson asked for an example of a household 50 -watt transmission. Lisa Bartome, RSF Representative for Sprint Nextel responded that it would be less than a microwave oven in a kitchen. This is not a maximum power facility. A maximum power facility would produce about 100 watts. C/Nolan asked if Sprint Nextel had considered placing the facility on the light standard next to the basketball court comparable to Peterson Park. CDD/Fong said she believed the cell site at Peterson Park was on an AUGUST 14, 2007 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION existing light pole. The light standards at Ronald Reagan Park are within the parking lot only and are about 20 to 25 feet high and may not be high enough or appropriate to the installation. Mr. Gala said the City did not want the facility placed on the light standard in the parks. The City Manager and Community Development Director signed off on design presented to the Commission this evening. The project is in conformance with all City standards. CDD/Fong pointed out that if the facility were located on a 20 - foot light standard next to a tennis court it would be quite visible and not provide adequate service. Chair/Nelson reopened the public hearing. Eric Lin, 20777 Missionary Ridge, said he did not understand the coverage gap on the map because he had no problem getting coverage inside of his home. Reggie Buhta, 20795 E. Mill Lane, said he did not understand the 10 meter issue and wondered if the fencing would have to be about 33 square feet around the Monoelm. Leegay Buhta, 20793 Rim Lane, felt that water tanks in Rowland Heights would be a better site for the antenna. He said he could not justify taking 1500 square feet out of the park area for the $1500 per month rent. He asked that the Commission postpone this hearing because a lot of his neighbors who wished to speak on this matter were on vacation. He again stated that the map indicates the coverage will benefit Rowland Heights and not Diamond Bar. He and his neighbors have no issue with cell phone coverage. He recommended that Sprint Nextel contact Walnut Valley Water District and ask about using Hill Rise Reservoir. Ronald Reagan is one of the smallest parks in the City with a flat usable area. Chuen G. Chen, 20718 E. Mill Lane, felt the park was already too small to accommodate this project and he wanted to preserve the natural beauty of the park. Michael Park, 20787 E. Mill Lane, said she moved to the area six years ago and at that time, his carrier was Cingular. As soon as he left the Rowland Heights area and drove up Fairway to Pathfinder he lost reception. He changed his service to T -Mobile and then to Verizon and has had no reception problem for the past five years. If Verizon can provide an adequate signal why cannot Sprint use the existing Verizon towers? When AUGUST 14, 2007 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION he saw a mockup of the proposed project he laughed aloud because it did not seem aesthetically pleasing and natural to him. Ching Chou Young, 20872 E. Rim Lane, felt mental anguish about having to look at a Monoelm in the park because it does not fit with the beauty of the City. Andy M, 20826 High Country Drive, said he could not believe the City wanted to put a facility in such a small park when there is concern about unproven health threats. He hoped the Commission would not approve this project because he and his neighbors were against the project. Stella Chen, 20718 E. Rim Lane, felt the park should be preserved for the public because she believed that if this cell site were approved visiting the park would pose a threat to children and pets. It is also an eyesore. Teresa, 20919 High Country Drive, said she was worried about health problems were this project to be installed. She said she had no problem with her cell phone service. Fay Ho, 20832 High Country Drive, said he understood the benefit to Sprint and the City but could not think of one benefit to the residents. Mr. Butah asked the Planning Commissioners to visit the park on Saturday afternoon and see how much use the park gets and decide whether the Commissioners would want this kind of installation in a very small community park. He also suggested that $18,000 per year for prime real estate was very low rent. Mr. Gala said that the coverage map is for Sprint only and FCC requires that the gap be filled. FCC's goal in doing so was to guarantee competition among providers. Mr. Gala said he was not sure where the 10 -meter standard came from. When Sprint puts cell sites on buildings they have to be six feet above where people walk and three feet away from where people walk. Nevertheless, the antenna's RAD center is at 33 feet. Sprints standard and FCC's standard is 6 feet tall and 3 feet away. There was a lot of concern about health impacts. As the Commission knows, local jurisdictions are pre-empted from consideration of health-related impacts with respect to this type of facility. The fact that individuals were allowed to speak about health issues is somewhat problematic in that the Commission may not consider the issue so it is difficult to say whether the speakers are AUGUST 14, 2007 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION influencing the Commissioners. This is a "radio" and the public is bathed in radio waves. It is an old technology and low power facility. This cell site is insignificant with respect to radio waves. This site is the first choice. Co - location saves the company a lot of time because there is a landlord willing to lease to cell carrier, the facility is existing, and therefore, saves a great deal of construction money, and the jurisdiction has already approved the facility. Why would Sprint Nextel go to the expense of building a new facility if it could co -locate. Sprint Nextel evaluated all sites that were proposed by staff and none worked. Three of the five sites were existing sites. Sprint Nextel already has a site between the proposed location and the water tank in Rowland Heights. The water tank location is miles away and would not fulfill the coverage requirements. The Monoelm is a stealth installation designed to blend with the existing tree lines and Sprint Nextel has indicated it is more than willing to plant additional trees between the facility and residences to further screen the site. This type of installation is fairly common in Diamond Bar with two or three in various parks throughout the City that are very similar in design. As staff indicated, this project complies with all City standards and staff is recommending approval. He said he believed there was no compelling reason to deny this project. C/Nolan asked for a response about the economic value in exchange for service to the residents; about the perimeter of the fence in relationship to the size of the park; whether or not a light standard could be used — Mr. Gala responded that the antenna is a 12x12x12 foot triangle and therefore the stealth tree is a preferred choice to hide the antenna. Mr. Gala further responded that Sprint Nextel is not building a fence and no fence is required. Currently, the park generates zero income for the City and this installation would provide $18,000 to the City that it was not currently receiving. C/Nolan wanted to know if it was beneficial to the City and to the residents and she wanted to know what diameter of fence the City would require. CDD/Fong said that during the last Commission meeting someone recommended a fence. However, as C/Wei stated, the Monoelm trunk is wide and the likelihood of children climbing the tree would be negligible. If the Planning Commission decided to fence off the tree trunk it would be around the truck of the tree (about five or six feet). As mentioned in staff's report, the applicant will move the tree as close to the edge of the slope as possible and she did not believe children would be playing that close to the edge of the slope. With respect to fees, she does not have a copy of the lease agreement and she believed it was more than $2000 per month with a CPI increase each year. AUGUST 14, 2007 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Torng asked if Sprint was a partner with Verizon. Mr. Gala responded that Sprint is in competition with Verizon and others. VC/Torng asked why Sprint Nextel could not co -locate with Verizon, which had very good reception. Mr. Gala asked for the location of the facility that VC/Torng was referring to because staff provided five sites, none of which were acceptable. Also, all carriers have certain grid patterns with sites spaced certain distances apart. The Verizon site may be one of the sites provided by staff and is already located near an existing Sprint Nextel site. He reiterated that co -location would be the company's first choice to save construction time and money. Apparently, in this case it is not possible. VC/Torng asked Mr. Gala to work with staff to find a co -location. VC/Torng asked staff to provide the information. CDD/Fong displayed a telecommunications map of Diamond Bar. The yellow dots represent existing telecommunications facilities. Close to Diamond Bar High School existing telecommunications facilities could be Sprint Nextel, AT&T, Verizon or Cingular. The green and purple dots represent existing park areas that are available locations if carriers need to use those sites for installation of antenna facilities. In the project area there are no existing telecommunications facilities. There are co -location sites at City Hall, at the confluence of the SR57/60 and Diamond Bar Boulevard and Grand Avenue. It is up to the carrier to determine whether a co -location facility would serve its needs. VC/Torng believed the Verizon location was at Pathfinder Road and Brea Canyon Road. He asked if there was a possibility that staff could help the applicant identify the location of the Verizon installation. CDD/Fong said she believed the only Verizon installation was at Diamond Bar High School and the applicant considered that site. VC/Torng asked if the applicant was willing to look into this matter again. Mr. Gala again explained that the Diamond Bar High School site was an existing Sprint Nextel site and did not provide coverage at the proposed location. ACA/Wohlenberg explained that the coverage area could change depending on the carrier and type of equipment. Carriers operate on slightly different frequencies to avoid interference and use different technologies to encrypt and compress the signals. Tony Lee, 20836 Quail Run, talked about the technology of carriers and said that if the City was required to accommodate the federal mandate, one tree is better than three trees. AUGUST 14, 2007 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION Shawn Colmb, 20764 E. Mill Lane concurred with Mr. Lee. A speaker said as a young boy he would make every effort to climb the tree and felt a fence was important. Lisa Brookstone, Nextel/Spring, 310 Commerce, Irvine said that Sprint Nextel operates on 1900 megahertz. VC/Torng asked if there was a possibility that Sprint Nextel could co -locate with Verizon and Ms. Brookstone said that as her colleague explained Sprint Nextel would need to know the location of the existing Verizon towers. The Diamond Bar High School location was the only location provided to the applicant. Already there is co -location at that site and it will not provide coverage on Pathfinder. Mr. Gala explained to VC/Torng that Verizon is able to transmit further distances because it operates at a lower frequency. Sprint Nextel explored co -locating on the Verizon site and it does not work for Sprint Nextel. Cal, 2211 South Meadow Lane, disagreed that a tower should be located in a small park and that alternative locations should be considered. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Nolan said she would appreciate a site visit for the Commissioners with details about the location, perimeter fencing, if proposed, and view samples of the material. VC/Torng said he agreed with C/Nolan that the Commissioners should visit the site to see how small and crowded the park can be. He believes that technology has improved and does not understand why Sprint Nextel cannot provide service like Verizon. If the Commission approves the project the residents will hate Sprint Nextel and no one will switch their service to Sprint so it would not be a good public action. Co -location would be a better option and if he is to approve the project he needs one more effort by the applicant to guarantee there is no technology to match Verizon and that there is no other co -location that could be used in place of the proposed site. C/Wei said he shared his colleague's feelings and thoughts. He felt it was possible that Verizon had the necessary site for Sprint Nextel to co -locate in AUGUST 14, 2007 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION a neighboring city such as Rowland Heights instead of Diamond Bar because a co -location site would be his preference. Chair/Nelson said it was difficult to separate fact, current technology and emotions. He is not a fan of technology because one of the greatest threats to the American family and quality of life is technology. However, his beliefs do not enter into his decision. He said he believed there was a lot of emotion involved in this discussion and that some of it was unfounded given what is known about the technology of the telecommunications industry. He does not believe that if a child gets within 10 feet of an antenna his head would explode. He does not believe a fence is necessary and that it would be an eyesore. He does not believe a child will be more inclined to climb a concrete pole than they would a real tree. However, he heard what the speakers said. He does not like that fact that money was suggested as a way to overcome the emotions of the community and he believed that the Commission's job was to do what was best for the community. These types of projects come before the Commission regularly and more often than not the only people in attendance are the applicants or their representatives. What he is struggling with most is that he believed emotions were riding high in the face of what is known and what is truly the case about the health risks and the benefits. It boils down to what is best for the community and who better than the community to tell the Commission what is best. He does not want to dictate what is best for the residents. He would also like to point out that the public has brought this issue on because 99 percent of the public uses cell phones. The people's demand for technology results in these types of projects. He agreed with his colleagues that staff should not have to provide information about where the most likely co -location sites exist. The applicant should establish the co -location sites, the carriers should be able to communicate with their competitors and find out where the co -location sites existed. It is not up to staff to tell the applicant where the most likely co - locations are it is up to the applicant to communicate with its competitors. At this point, Chair/Nelson said he was not 100 percent confident that the applicant looked at all of the potential co -location sites. CDD/Fong asked if the Commission was seeking additional information regarding the application. VC/Torng felt the most important issue was whether the applicant had conducted a thorough investigation of the potential locations. He wants to hear from Sprint that they have done their best and maybe the second best location would solve the problem. The first thing is to find a co -location, change the technology to match Verizon or determine the second best location that would not infringe on a small neighborhood park. AUGUST 14, 2007 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION J. 19. CDD/Fong said the Commission could ask the applicant if he wished to continue the item to allow Sprint an opportunity to investigate whether it could determine a co -location with a competitor. C/Nolan moved, VC/Torng seconded, to reopen the public hearing. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, Wei, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Lee C/Nelson asked the applicant if he was willing to investigate co -location possibilities and alternative site options. Mr. Gala responded that the applicant agrees to investigate alternative locations and co -locations, discuss options with other carriers and return to the Commission with a complete report including coverage area and effectiveness. Chair/Nelson declared the public hearing reopened. C/Nolan moved, VC/Torng seconded, to continue the matter to September 25, 2007, and to direct the applicant to investigate alternative locations and co -locations and provide a full report to the Commission that would include site rankings in order of effectiveness. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, Wei, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Lee ;J! �1iliJlilO CJ;�1,�11��1JilEi3 CJ;�1;�1Ei1'JIlilrJii;�!�1f1Ji 1A! 1�.1 �a�lic il::aiiij�i �J�i�� icr ia�:�r=.: aici��•�J. rJ'fJi�E E'JEi!'f�: A\; li i ;J in Dg-.: ATTACHMENT 7 September 25, 2007 Planning Commission Staff Report PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - 21825 COPLEY DRIVE - DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 - TEL. (909) 839-7030 - FAX (909) 861-3117 ITEM NO. 7.1 DATE: September 25, 2007 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Nancy Fong, AICP, Community Development Director BY: David Alvarez, Planning Technician SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22 and Variance No. 2007-05 — A request to install and operate a telecommunication facility at the Ronald Regan Park at 2201 Peaceful Hills Road — APN: 8765-015-900. BACKGROUND: On July 24, 2007, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the proposed project. After receiving staff report, input from the applicant and public testimony, the Planning Commission continued the hearing to August 14, 2007. On August 14, 2007, the Planning Commission continued the hearing to September 25, 2007, to allow the applicant more time to provide the requested additional information. The Planning Commission directed the applicant to provide additional information as follows: consider alternate locations including co -location sites and/or possibly moving the antenna within the park to further distance from the basketball and tennis courts and picnic tables. ANALYSIS: A. Additional Information from Sprint/Nextel At the August 14, 2007 public hearing, the Planning Commission directed the applicant to provide the following additional information: Consider alternate locations including co -location site. The application has provided information on other locations that they have considered. They determined that the site at Ronald Regan Park would provide the needed coverage. Attached are propagation maps that show the coverage objective area with other locations and the proposed Ronald Regan Location. A representative from Sprint/Nextel will be at the hearing to provide additional information and answer questions concerning alternative locations and co -locations. 2. Possibly move the antenna within the park to further distance from the basketball and tennis courts and picnic tables. The applicant stated that Sprint/Nextel is willing to move the "monoelm" away from the basketball and tennis courts five feet into the slope. A condition of approval is added in the attached draft resolution requiring the "monoelm" to move five feet into the slope as approved by the Community Development Director. A representative from Sprint/Nextel will be at the hearing to provide a detailed site plan of the new location. C. Facts to Support the Findings (Section 22.42.130 M through 6) In determining whether to issue a conditional use permit for a telecommunication facility, the Planning Commission must consider the following factors: 1. Screening. The extent to which the proposed facility is screened or camouflaged by existing or proposed topography, vegetation, buildings or other structures. The proposed telecommunication facility is camouflaged by a faux elm tree. The equipment is enclosed by a structure similar in design and material to the existing structures in the park. 2. Size. The total size of the proposed facility, particularly in relation to surrounding and supporting structures. The proposed telecommunication facility (monoelm) is similar in size to existing trees in the park. The equipment structure is similar in size to existing structures in the park. 3. Residential proximity. Proximity of the proposed facility to residential structures and to the boundaries of residential districts. The proposed telecommunication facility (monoelm) is more than 200 feet away from the nearest residential home. 4. Access. Proposed ingress to and egress from the site of the proposed facility. The proposed project will have access from inside the park. 5. Location. The location of the proposed facility and the extent to which it conforms to the following in order of preferences — co -location or located at a pre -approved location, attached to existing structure such as biding, communication tower, church steeple or utility pole or tower, and located in industrial, business park or commercial zoning districts. The proposed telecommunication facility is located at a pre -approved location as identified in the city approved Telecommunication Facility Opportunities Map. Based on the above identified facts, staff concluded that the proposed project has met all the factors to consider approval by the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct the continued public hearing and receive additional public input. After closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission should deliberate on the merits of the proposed project. Staff recommends that Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22 and Variance No. 2007-05 for the telecommunication facility. Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution of Approval with Required Findings 2. - July -24 2-2E3@7--and-AAugust-t4266-97--StRff-Repeats---j =: � Cr - 3. L3. Aerial photo for the site 4. Exhibit "A" - Development Plans PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2007 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-09, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2007-22 AND VARIANCE NO. 2007-05, A REQUEST TO INSTALL A TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY AT RONALD REGAN PARK LOCATED AT 2201 PEACEFUL HILLS ROAD (APN: 8765-015-900), DIAMOND BAR, CA A. RECITALS The property owner, City of Diamond Bar and applicant, Sprint Nextel Corporation have filed an application for Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22, and Variance No. 2007-05 and categorical exemption for a telecommunication facility to be located at Ronald Regan Park, 2201 Peaceful Hills Road, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit, Development Review, Variance and categorical exemption shall be referred to as the "Application." Notification of the public hearing for this project was provided in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. Public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 188 property owners within a 700 -foot radius of the project site and public notice at the City's designated community posting sites. Furthermore, the project site was posted with a display board. On July 24, 2007 and August 14, 2007, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing and continued it to September 25, 2007. The continuation was to allow the applicant time in providing additional information regarding alternate locations and/or possibly moving the antenna further away from the basketball courts and picnic tables. 4 On September 25, 2007, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar after receiving additional public input, concluded said hearing on the Application on that date. Arf*"7- I B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The Planning Commission hereby determines that the proposed project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) in accordance to Section 15303 (d) of the CEQA Guidelines. 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: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (a) Wireless telecommunication facilities may be allowed in the RPD - 10,000 zoning district in public parks_ A Conditional Use Permit approval is required for a wireless telecommunication facility with multiple antennas and co -location on same site. The proposed project meets this criterion; hence a Conditional Use Permit approval. Additionally, the proposed project complies with other applicable provisions of the Development Code and Municipal Code with the exception of the height, which is discussed in the Variance section of this resolution. (b) The proposed project consist of the installation of a wireless telecommunication facility consistent with the surround neighborhood in that the materials and colors used and design of the equipment buildings are consistent with homes in the neighborhood and the existing structures in Ronald Regan Park. The antennas camouflage as a faux elm tree will blend with the park vegetation. As a result, staff finds the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding 2 neighborhood, consistent with the General Plan Strategy 2.2.1 -new developments shall be compatible with surrounding land uses, meets Municipal Code Standards and the City's Design Guidelines. (c) The proposed wireless telecommunication facility's location is consistent with the City' Telecommunication Facility Opportunities Map, which identifies public parks as a location for this type of use. The antenna is camouflaged in a monoelm. The ground equipment will be housed in a structure and the building's colors and materials will compliment the existing structures in Ronald Regan Park and is consistent with homes in the neighborhood. The park is a total of 6.47 acres and can accommodate the proposed use. The proposed facility is unmanned and operates twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, with monthly routine maintenance. As such, the operational characteristics are compatible with the existing and future lands use in the vicinity. (d) As referenced above in items (a) through (c), the project site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed including access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and the absence of physical constraints. (e) Before the issuance of any City permits, the proposed project is required to comply with all conditions within the approved resolution and the Building and Safety Division, Public Works Division, and Parks and Recreation Department requirements. The referenced agencies through the permit and inspection process 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. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (f) As discussed above in items (b) and (c), the design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for specialized areas (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards, or planned developments.) (g) As discussed above in items (a) through (d), the design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards 3 (h) As discussed above in items (a) through (d), the architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48 DBDC, the General Plan, City Design Guidelines, or any applicable specific plan. (i) As discussed above in Items (a) through (d), 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. (j) As discussed above in Items (a) through (d) and prior to the issuance of any City permits, the proposed project is required to comply with all conditions within the approved resolution and the Building and Safety Division, Public Works Division, and Community Services Department requirements. The referenced agencies through the permit and inspection process 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. Additionally and because of the factors discussed above in Items (a) through (c), and (d) the proposed project will not have a negative affect on property values or in the vicinity. VARIANCE (k) Wireless telecommunications are accomplished by linking a wireless network of radio wave transmitting devices such as portable and car phones to the conventional telephone system through series of short- range, contiguous cells. Similar to a honeycomb pattern, a cellular system is composed of many neighboring and inter -connecting "cell site" or geographical areas. Each cell site within the system contains transmitting and receiving antenna that require an appropriate/clear line of sight. The maximum height of a structure in the RPD -10,000 zoning district is 35 feet. However, the proposed mono elm is 45 feet in height. According to the applicant the proposed mono elm will have a height of 40 feet due to topographic constraints; however, the stealth branches will extend 45 feet in height to create a more realistic appearance to the faux mono elm. Additionally, the City Telecommunication Facilities Map specifies public parks as a location where telecommunications facilities may be located. 11 (I) Granting the Variance allows the proposed telecommunication facility to increasing number of subscribers. This wireless telecommunications systems will be an invaluable communications tool in the event of emergencies and natural disasters were normal Land line communications are often disrupted or inaccessible during and after an event has occurred. Such facilities are a valuable tool in business communication and everyday personal use. Additionally, within the City of Diamond Bar there are other such facilities located within a residential zone. Futhermore, the City Telecommunication Facilities Map specifies public parks as a location where telecommunication facilities may be located, (m) As referenced in item (b) above, granting the Variance is consistent with the General Plan. There is no applicable specific plan for this area. (n) Before the issuance of any City permits, the proposed project is required to comply with: all conditions set forth in the approving resolution; and the Building and Safety Division; Public Works Division; Fire Department requirements; and FCC approval. The referenced agencies through the permit and inspection process 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. (o) In accordance to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15303 (d), the City has determined that the project identified above in this Resolution is categorically exempt. Furthermore, the categorical exemption reflects the independent judgment of the City of Diamond Bar. WIRELESS FACILITIES 1. Environmental integration. The extent to which the proposed facility blends into the surrounding environment and is architecturally integrated into a concealing structure, taking into consideration alternative sites that are available. The proposed project conceals the cell tower with a faux elm tree and blend in well with the existing trees in the park. The applicant has considered other locations and determined that the site is the best location for providing the needed service. 5 2. Screening. The extent to which the proposed facility is screened or camouflaged by existing or proposed topography, vegetation, buildings or other structures. The proposed telecommunication facility is camouflaged by a faux elm tree. The equipment is enclosed by a structure similar in design and material to the existing structures in the park. 3. Size. The total size of the proposed facility, particularly in relation to surrounding and supporting structures. The proposed telecommunication facility (monoelm) is similar in size to existing trees in the park. The equipment structure is similar in size to existing structures in the park. 4. Residential proximity. Proximity of the proposed facility to residential structures and to the boundaries of residential districts. The proposed telecommunication facility (monoelm) is more than 200 feet away from residential districts. 5. Access. Proposed ingress to and egress from the site of the proposed facility. The proposed project will have access from the park. 6. Location. The location of the proposed facility and the extent to which it conforms to the following in order of preferences — co -location or located at a pre -approved location, attached to existing structure such as biding, communication tower, church steeple or utility pole or tower, and located in industrial, business park or commercial zoning districts. The proposed telecommunication facility is located at a pre -approved location as identified in the city approved Telecommunication Facility Opportunities Map. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves this Application subject to the following conditions: a. General (1) The project shall substantially conform to Title Sheet, Site Plan, Antenna and Equipment Layout Plan, Elevations, Landscape Plan, and Details collectively Labeled and referenced herein as Exhibit "A" dated September 17, 2007, as submitted to, amended herein, and approved by the Planning Commission. III (2) Applicant shall comply with all Federal, State and City regulations. (3) To ensure compliance with all conditions of approval and applicable codes, the Conditional Use Permit/Development Review shall be subject to period review. If non-compliance with conditions of approval occurs, the Planning Commission may review the Conditional Use Permit. The Commission may revoke or modify the Conditional Use Permit. (4) When an emergency generator is used on site, the dBA shall comply with the City's noise standards in Development Code Chapter 22.25. (5) Applicant shall comply with all lease terms executed. (6) The monoelm shall move 5 feet into the slopes. Detailed design shall be subject to Community Development and Community Services Directors review and approval prior to plan check. b. Planning Division (1) Applicant shall insure that the property is properly secured to prevent unauthorized access to the communication facilities. (2) Signs and advertising shall be prohibited on the screened wireless antenna. (3) No additional lighting shall be installed on the screened wireless antennas or associated equipment. (4) The site shall be maintained in a condition free of trash, debris, refuse, and undesirable vegetation. All graffiti must be removed within 24 hours. In the event that the applicant does not remove all graffiti from the said structure, the city will remove all graffiti and shall be reimbursed for all expenses. (5) If the Department of Fish and Game determines that Fish and Game the City, within five days of this grant's approval, a cashier's check of $50.00 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 deminimis 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. ll►1A (6) The applicant must consent to the future co -location of facilities on the monoelm and in the equipment building unless technical considerations preclude that co -location. (7) In the event that the antenna becomes inoperable or ceases to be used for a period of six consecutive months the applicant shall remove the telecommunications facility within 90 -days of notification by the City. (8) The applicant shall post a $5,000 cash bond with the City of Diamond Bar to guarantee the removal of the antenna in the event that it ceases to be operational for a period of six consecutive months (9) Prior to the issuance of any City Permits, a final landscape plan shall be submitted for City's review and approval. (10) To ensure minimal visibility and reduce the chances of graffiti of the equipment building, 5 gallon size shrubs at 3 feet on center is subject to Community Development Department and Community Services Department review and approval. (11) All cables and wiring for the telecommunication facility shall be underground. (12) All material and colors used for the equipment building shall match the existing structures located in Ronald Regan Park. (13) Damaged or broken fronds or leaves shall be replaced with 30 days from the date of damage. (14) Exposed tree trunk shall not be higher than 10 feet. (15) Prior to plan check submittal, the applicant shall provide for Planning Division review and approval a detailed cross section at two foot intervals for the tree and 2.6 branches per lineal whirl to ensure foliage density. C. Building and Safety Division (1) Fire Department approval may be required. Prior to the issuance of any City permits, applicant shall contact the Fire Department for review and approval. (2) Applicant shall provide temporary sanitation facilities while under construction. 11 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: Sprint Nextel Corporation, 310 Commerce, Irvine, CA 92602. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2007, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. IN Steve Nelson, Chairman I, Nancy Fong, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 25th day of September 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ATTEST: Nancy Fong, Secretary 9 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS USE PERMITS, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL NEW AND REMODELED STRUCTURES PROJECT #: Conditional Use Permit No 2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22 and Variance No. 2007-05 SUBJECT: Telecommunications Facility APPLICANT: Sprint/Nextel Corporation LOCATION: Ronald Regan Park 2201 Peaceful Hills Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION AT (909) 839-7030, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS In accordance with Government Code Section 66474.9(b) (1), the applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its officers, agents and employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding to attack, set-aside, void or annul, the approval of Conditional Use Permit No.2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22, and Variance No. 2007-05 brought within the time period provided by Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the city and/or its officers, agents and employees are made a party of any such action: (a) Applicant shall provide a defense to the City defendants or at the City's option reimburse the City its costs of defense, including reasonable attorneys fees, incurred in defense of such claims. 10 (b) Applicant shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the City descendents. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action of proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof. 2. This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant and owner of the property involved have filed, within twenty-one (21) days of approval of this Conditional Use Permit No.2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22 and Variance No. 2007-05, at the City of Diamond Bar Community and Development Services Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this approval. Further, this approval shall not be effective until the applicants pay remaining City processing fees, school fees and fees for the review of submitted reports. 3. All designers, architects, engineers, and contractors associated with this project shall obtain a Diamond Bar Business Registration and zoning approval for those businesses located in Diamond Bar. 4. Signed copies of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007 -XX, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 5. Prior to the plan check, revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval. 6. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all conditions of approval shall be completed. 7. The project site shall be maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of approval and all laws, or other applicable regulations. 8. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and any applicable Specific Plan in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 9. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and elevation plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of City permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.,) or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 11 10. Applicant shall remove the public hearing notice board within three days of this project's approval. 11. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of City Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works Department, and the Fire Department. B. FEES/DEPOSITS Applicant shall pay development fees (including but not limited to Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works Department and Mitigation Monitoring) at the established rates, prior to issuance of building or grading permit (whichever comes first), as required by the City. School fees as required shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permit. In addition, the applicant shall pay all remaining prorated City project review and processing fees prior to issuance of grading or building permit, whichever come first. 2. Prior to any plan check, all deposit accounts for the processing of this project shall have no deficits. C. TIME LIMITS The approval of Conditional Use Permit No.2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22 and Variance No. 2007-05 shall expire within two years from the date of approval if the use has not been exercised as defined in accordance to Municipal Code Section 22.66.050 (b)(1). The applicant may request in writing a one year time extension subject to Municipal Code Section 22.60.050(c) for Planning Commission approval. D. SITE DEVELOPMENT The project site shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the approved plans submitted to, approved, and amended herein by the Planning Commission, collectively labeled and referenced herein as Exhibit "A" including: site plans, floor plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations. 2. All ground -mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, air conditioning condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berms, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 3. All structures, including walls, shall be maintained in a structurally sound, safe manner with a clean, orderly appearance. All graffiti shall be removed within 24 hours by the property owner/occupant. 12 F. SOLID WASTE The site shall be maintained in a condition, which is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement approved herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction shall be done only by the property owner, applicant or by a duly permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas within the City. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor used has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, (909) 839-7040, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL 1. An Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted concurrently with the grading plan clearly detailing erosion control measures. These measures shall be implemented during construction between October 1st and April 15th. The erosion control plan shall conform to national Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards and incorporate the appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's). 2. Grading and/or construction activities and the transportation of equipment and materials and operation of heavy grading equipment shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Dust generated by grading and construction activities shall be reduced by watering the soil prior to and during the activities and in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 402 and Rule 403. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. Additionally, all construction equipment shall be properly muffled to reduce noise levels. B. SOILS REPORT/GRADING/RETAINING WALLS The Owner shall execute and record a covenant agreement to maintain and hold the City harmless for all existing improvements in the public right-of- way. 2. All equipment staging areas shall be located on the project site. Staging area, including material stockpile and equipment storage area, shall be enclosed within a 6 foot -high chain link fence. All access points in the defense shall be locked whenever the construction site is not supervised. 13 3. The maximum grade of driveways serving building pad areas shall be 15 percent. In hillside areas driveway grades exceeding 15 percent shall have parking landings with a minimum 16 feet deep and shall not exceed five (5) percent grade or as required by the City Engineer. Driveways with a slope of 15 percent shall incorporate grooves for traction into the construction as required by the City Engineer. 4. All slopes shall be seeded per landscape plan and/or fuel modification plan with native grasses or planted with ground cover, shrubs, and trees for erosion control upon completion of grading or some other alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5. Submit a stockpile plan showing the proposed location for stockpile for grading export materials, and the route of transport. C. DRAINAGE Detailed drainage system information of the lot with careful attention to any flood hazard area shall be submitted. All drainage/runoff from the development shall be conveyed from the site to the natural drainage course. No on-site drainage shall be conveyed to adjacent parcels, unless that is the natural drainage course. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 839-7020, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Plans shall conform to State and Local Building Code (i.e., 2001 California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and the 2001 National Electrical Code) requirements and all other applicable construction codes, ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of plan check submittal. 2. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been met. The antennas/monoelm and equipment building shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 3. The minimum design load for wind in this area is 80 M.P.H. exposures "C" and the site is within seismic zone four. The applicant shall submit drawings and calculations prepared by a California State licensed Architect/Engineer with wet stamp and signature. 4. All retaining walls shall be submitted to the Building & Safety andhall Public bt Work Departments for review and approval. The applicant drawings and calculations prepared by a California State licensed Architect/Engineer with wet stamp and signature. 14 5. The project shall be protected by a construction fence to the satisfaction of the Building Official. 6. Check drainage patterns with Engineering Department. Surface water shall drain away from building at a 2% minimum slope. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE PREVENTION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Emergency access shall be provided, maintaining free and clear, a minimum 28 foot at all times during construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire Department that temporary water supply for fire protection is available pending completion of the required fire protection system. END 15 0 Ronald Regan Park CUP 2007-09, DR 2007-22, VAR 2007-05 4 ALL WORK ANO WTERIUS SHALL BE PE6FORMm AND INSTALLED IN ACCARDANCE WRH THE CVRRENT E-85 OF THESE7HE FOLLOWING CEDES AS ADOPTN BY THE LOCAL CONSTRUED TONP RERYD WORK IHOF ICONFORMINPEAINS is O THESE BE CODES. 1. MINSIR BRDW COCE (6C-2Ot 5. CVFVIN O67BCl GOE RC -20D1 L CUYOIR9A IDKNSTRATAt EDGE 6 CURENI6141 A IE3fWA da 0 (NCL TIDES 244 6 75) XOt 7. C"DW lkl 0 C EIDE "mol 1 N6EA11-2lt-F ITE SVEtt ODE L LOG'L BLEryD.pW CXQS) 4. MPA -101-1997 9. CITY AID/oR CWXR mRWHCE9 sri ntp�j Together with NEXTEL RONALD REAGAN PARK LA73XCO17 2201 PEACEFUL HILLS ROAD DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 r CT OMMIS OF THE 9OTNUIDN MDND ASSOCIATED FAUYED!ON THEIFLOYYUNCATIONS NEIW9C THIS Hat W111 "N"'TW. CUSIpI BULT 7F2ECpry04G1DNB10DING NfRI YOf10BtYD1EFIISECftli (] SECTORS TOOL) REO ! CUAriU GHE ROILS PROJECT DESCRIPTION APPLICANTILE55EE: NEXTEL COMBIIKK'AIDNS PHONE (714) 366-3XD 310 COM ERCE FAIL (7144) 361-1501 9WRIE CA 92602 CONTAGf: LOU %XC=. 1EASINO COOPON N) P(q(949) 97 -5711 qR (7N) 361 f; -3601 CONTACT, BRIAN 10715. CDNSiRULTpT�W�,R�-1501 R10E - OMMCI: IRA BAOSHIXL. W EHANEER PHONE.'=(71 {) 3418-350t CONTACT: ED CUA Ip6NC Rae (711) 709-1523 FAR (714) 366-3501 PROPERTY INFORMATION: OME)E CITY Oi CNIOND EAR ADIXfF55: 21125 COREY ODIE OVMo14 bA G 91761 SACT: (OLW' N " CCM HAI APA: 6765-015-900 PROJECT INFORMATION: APG OF C4606DCRCN: -- IELSE HVA - 200 S0. R. oCCUPA Map.. (E) - NONE (OPEN SPACE (P) - 9 (TEEEC01Y1NCAl10N FIERM) mmsn UOTDN T6PD (E) - N/A (P) - V -NR (WWAA) CURRENT 201— Z04M APR10 a l: . /LSY131KW FACIIM 6 UNWNHED AXD NOT Fp1 PIDUMIUENS: NU WN MOTION.—no.nswNOC1➢Pm ARCHITECT: DCI PACIFIC 2450 DUPONT DRIVE IRVINE, CA 92612 CONTACT: D.K. DO E -UAL: DKOOCIPACOC.CON PHONE: (949) 475-1000 (919) I75-1001 SURVEYOR: 3165 AIRWAY 4D ASSOESURE KATESNC. COSTA MESA, CA 92625 �SUR -E E WA, l �O55RT ll.COM PHONE:1567 F PROJECT TEAM ARL ==��TECT flCHG'COuSULTINGe,a sxslxt:19+911Ns-IWI Sprint Together with NEXTEL ,oCOMMERCE.IPVI11 'A 92602 PHONE. (]'at1665500 FA%'17 rl RONALD REAGAN PARK LA73XCO17 DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS (IF NOT 24X361 L INw: FNL[-WK: P4 FAR E-WTI:PROVIDERS GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOTES BENCH YANK: Y.s.G s. eMCx YMt eu 1075 YIAN 9Y 10 ' sx0wx oY TICCYOAaz IriYa��i 5 YMRE GUlN.NCIF uW.� w 800-227-2600 w227.260 I[it ING�CDNfiNLTiNCrin6, c• Yis+2Ax: lsas���ls+oo= Sprint Together wllh NEXTEL 9f[ (714) XRCE.IflVF. CA 92602 PHOn6 f}f1716B-]500 FPIt: (111)65&75D1 N+ol¢i lo�,a+a RONALD REAGAN PARK LA73XCO17 a„ow .Y6 u r,]u wawa o,c ow 09/17/07 ZONING II APPROVALS: PFN: APN' AP•N. APN, I APN: 9765-022-012 1 APN: 6765-022-011 $765-022-010 8765-022-009 6]65-022-009 APN MN: I APN: 11 lil I I ' II � I i B]65 X22-OU1 i 6765-022-006 I 8765-022-005 9765-022-004 � 8165-022-00} � I 6]65-022-002 i 1 \ I PLAN PACK ICMITEOMU E ENOINEENN0-10NSJL-0 BaSp IXIPUNI UNrvE.iRNNf, Ca 9243 PHONE:�BI �ISBUCO Fuc l'�^BI aBi10Ci MIICT IBOII�IGIILB! RONALD REAGAN PARK LA73XCO17 ssoB rcmB� Bw ro.o B+.Bwe w u BBw w9emrt mLE Iwu 09/17/07 m rart ZONING Ell __ I 4 ENT LAYOUT PLAN (E) TREES, PROTECT IN PLACE L / / &EM=M=I O O Fo ----4-4---_.--__—_'v— PROPOSED 'SPRINT -N 35'-0- NIGH MONO -BROAD SEE SPECS CAISSON 1 CDMq SECTOR 'I• 25p AZIMUTH 435• MAX. PROPOSED 'SPRINT-NIXTFL' 4'-J• / 5 TENFbAR PANEL ANTENMS: A PER SECTOR, 3 SECTORS IGT / / 5 / TIP. :SON/ p0 TYP. / GJ 320,-0• 3 / n a �a ANTENNA LAYOUT PLAN I OI I I �II D I I y — — — J E -JI, TO POWER P.O.C. KEY 40M OPROPOSED 'SPRINT-NEX W PRIMARY MODCELL V4.00 CABINET, WEIGHT: 1538 LBS. OPROPOSED 'SPPoNT-NCrEL' BATTERY CABINET. WEIGHT: 2174 LBS. OPROPOSED 'SPRINT-NDaM' FUTURE CABINET, WEIGHT: 1538 LBS. O5 -TON HVAC UNITS (WALL -MOUNTED), 2 TOTAL O5 4'XS'X3/4-TNE. TELCO BACKBOARD OB TELCO PULL -BOX. AS REQUIRED, TO BE DETERMINED BY 'SPRINT-NOOEL' INTERCONNECT ENGINEER O200A720/208 -240V IP POWER PANEL W/ SURGE 7 SUPPFQSOR AND INTERLOCKING BREAKER OB 200A METER/MAIN MOUNTED ON EXTERIOR WNL O200A EMERGENCY GENERATOR RECEPTACLE MOUNTED ON EXIEPIOR WNL OLOCATION FOR STEP-DOWN TRANSFORMER, IF REOUWER PENDING UTILITY COORDINATION REPORT OCONDUIT SNB -UPS FOR COAX CABLES 0 FINISH FLOOR LEVEL 5'X5' CONCRETE STOOP Q 4w X 7'H ACCESS DOOR FNSHINQ 8CHEDULE FLOOD HOMOGENEOUS VINTL FLOOR TLE PER 'SPRINT-NEXTEL' STANDARDS CEILING GYPSUM BOARD W/ SEMI-GL055 FINISH INTERIOR WALLS—DAMP-PROOFED CMU WALL W/ SEM -GLOSS FINISH EXTERIOR WALLS—DAMP-PROOFED CMV WALL TO MATCH DUSTING MOND-BROADLEAF SPECIFICATIONS: / MONOTREE DRAWINGS ME SCHE"TIC ONLY. REFER TO PHOTOSIMS AND / VENDOR —INCS FOR FINAL REVIEW ANO FABRICATION PURPOSES. / JURISDICTION AND CM TO REVIEW AND APPROVE VENDOR MONOTREE SHOP / DRAWINGS PRIOR TO FABRIGTION. / PROPOSED STYLE: ELM /- /L PROPOSED HEIGHT: 40'MAK. (TOP BRANCHES) OV / (MEASURED FROM AVERAGE ADJACENT GRACE LEVEL AT OAS / CAISSON FOOTING TO TOP OFF BRANCHES.) AOQ/ / NUMBER OF ANTENNAS: 5 ANTENNAS PER SECTOR: 15 TOTAL 4 ANTENNAS PER SECTOR: 12 TOTAL (FUTURE) TOP OF ANTENNAS: 35' �O HEIGHT OF ANTENNAS: 4'-3- ANTENNA RAD CENTER. ]3 ANTENNA COLOR PANT TO BLEND WITH LEAVES (App• OR —, (E) TREES, PROTEC� \ AZIMUTH) S � NUMBER OF BRANCHES: 50 �Y•JI 4 BWWCn DErv51tt: 3 BRWCHES PER LINEAR F'JOT 5 \A---,1 LWCR BRANCH DIAMETER: 2D'-0' 4�4� LOWEST (MEA BRANCH HEIGHT', A1�4 (MEASURED FROM AVERAGE ADJACENT GRADE LEVEL AT � CAISSON TOOTING TO LOWEST BRANCH) 4\ a BRANCH EXTENSON (ABJ): 5' TO EQUIPMENT BUILDING SIMULATED LEAVES YES (SOCKS) ADHERED TO ANTENNAS: POLE SME: 19 SIDED POLYGON (GALVANIZED STEEL) TAPERED:. NO COATING OR BARK: COATING (PANTED) COLOR: DICEIDUOUS BEIGE MU -TI -701E. HEIGHT OF COATING OR FULL HEIGHT DARK. MICROWAVE DISH ANTENNA: NO MICROWAVE RAD CENTER: N/A PNSFIC ARCHITECTUREENGINEERING CONSULTING 215000EOH1 uWVE,IRWNE. CA 92e,2 PHONE 191911]st0]0 FAK I9e9)1]St001 Sprint �o Together with NEXTEL 2'.0 COMMERCE.IRSINE. CA 32602 PMOME I]tal 11.1 FAX: 17111 MI I'll NgJDT MgR1GaR]A RONALD REAGAN PARK LA75XCO17 AHP .1A 1,e aNIDTT me onn 09/17/07 mU0 TOR ZONING APPROVALS: �•m IA.tu uxolan m. lFASING OSAXN ER 040 '/PV: 10K Mm ISSUE STATUS RGD PEwrRyA RED ID __ fro] Fuu1 zo __ 18/2 eaw-wwMA+ Rmurzo EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNA LAYOUT PLANS m11[ lhB: A3 CEMENT TLE ROOFING, 5 -TON WAG UNITS COLOR TO MATCH EX15DN0� (WALL -MOUNTED), 1 (E) TREE (OUTLINE) 0 BACKGROUND ® PACIFIC 'HRELNREFNOINEERINCLDNSULT 1,SU DBPONT DRIYE.IRYINC.On 9P6,3 RMONt: I9d91 a1}IOOA FAT.'(B9Bi d16-1001 Sprint TOgelhe/ ANth NE%TEL 11 LCOMMERCE.IWINE.CA 91602 CLEARED OF EO pMENI(BURD X� MOUNTED TO GNONE. (]td1 )69J500 FA%:(11d)166)501 =REAGAJ.i EN PROPOSED 'SPRINT-NDM 10'X10' CUSTOM-BUILTTELECOMMUNICATION BUILDING: EXTERIOR TINISHES 10 MATCHEXISTING PARK'S RESTROOM 1 APPROVALS: '.MU BLOCK WALL. COLOR '--POWER/IECO PANELS q ANTENNA] _J ND TDNNRE TO MATCH AND ECR (SHOWN GASHED) --- B3Helb1 uwq-6luvttFu x"No 9DIFITiNE6E BtVMTCH n r T.O. EOUIPHENT SLOG. WOOD SID NO TOO 31O MATCH EXISfINC (E) CONC. CURB •I POWER/IELGo PANELS LOl/,EREO VENT AND EGR - O .. PROPOSED 'SPRINT-NEXTEL' 10'X10' LONG. C11550N cusTOM-BUNT TELEGOMMVNUnOH ELEVATIONS BUILDWC: EXTERIOR FINISHES TO q MATCH EXISTING PARK'S RESTROOM i b � TO EDGE OE CURB NO SLOPE IT UNrtS HOR., 1 UNIT VERT.) GNU BLOCK WALL. ATCH AL. AND TE%R1RE TO MATCH �(E) STREET LEVEL — — — EXIS'RNG mom"AIWEi1YAT10N ------------------- M+ ® 2 COORDIRMS: Q� UOIRK ARIW N LD,wm 11791'1170' Y, =,.r �ll=0mp1A10 Q OTANMm 0110 ILIW N LM OINAIIL m pm -F OmMP Nllxl7 aA/Q ow" 9Ei0G,1 �� 0�� 0001PM1E 1aDV,ND • 1000 ,� 0-0 BASS OF BEARMM M ILROOK ar xN, 0011,1R7 IN. NNN ,cNRI OrmtYT w W1 Pa YM OP TYA.l M6 pteL Y1 0-14 IQWDO 100 A,Reu mrN. TIRE REPORT IDEN11RG7gN: Q'9CON pjs V RN: — EASENEM NMS: "—N LE 911E R -M TO ASSESSOR'S IDENNNGITION: M MMM DOUR? ALAE 4'015-E00 AREk O.Q AUY m Id 1110En Od111Y Amom BENLN W. U1 IDM WMan iY f07Y IBM .1m law m low W M 1n910Mcl."1gJ 1NML YINYWYL W. 9srO1NY M. — — P -M LEGAL DESDRFrON: pNN.,i :Imvr W— NOIR) mein v'Lanmu"10 mL Ille SOK M N'°," a —W INO T1NLA Nm01ONt M 0001( 101{. RAOO 5 X11. OIL 0I•NV4 N M 0111C[ 00 M 8ff SHEET 0-2 F_oRR DETALS - /_ n U - µ��/ u5 uq 7m roaP oar sa�P1 TM eaoa NMuxo � a mix pW 1iPx RN: IAET WraixwY� �� / ' \ Dmj I�W(IfaR� W [9xtMF Pb [Bi FN019CAL BOM Ynic W 'ALFA YE1ER RML BO% R P / �� x rum IANI L.iM' Y w � rroa iX RGE NIORRIi Ia BICOt AAl n MSOC 0\ Itvk xNP.TYN WY1ROL vu1i—o issr xsDF .ux a rut BW/AO —aux urx so,tt + ATXULPlADMO : q,p� IHUNM+G F.. rWIL YMW[NL � Sj :ry 9'6 No NIA A 51+61 um1 Rs xro,.x, e—o saF[1 olio W�c x0ir. 1 R 1PLW F MLR y Ym LaT LOT 72 \ LOT -12 �tLCYT a J ' I I I I LDT 08 LOT 07 L M ' LOT 04 Aflt 1 APR M4M' s LOT 70 ' Lou _AJIL� I 1 ! 1 .iL,I9.ce - `X m M QP ��a6 Ile- 0-0 sem " K w .B0°�O9 n '" / °t rz s couRBs �r m •cxAss. �"� n 'p� � OCY�WCIIA p Y..�� � � WA�rzO �BRA55, BASxEieALL BWRrs. love. p LPA \cR xAA1c. R TM X £aF �^ �a+ �0 BARB[WE IBP BOP [f AOPf � .. Baia � � XewR �wAss, ww � ]PPN RNC iP6 Bw m�upf6lEwRM � By vNA]�iAl � ❑f aAW Rx[[ Iry vAtp v[Bw [Po BaO[l P. 1B8 RR Rll BOC CBM (]EOXRAL BOY xLPe YARp IIBNI [BL [BG( [f CaCRCR ]\ a RRE XYMAVI (� BLOa vALL N4 NWSE ILY RBB,111ON [aWd vAL.S • roIllRB �BRA55, DPM XS•f i�At[ OP w.LLL —e— aNN WN iDK[ PANRAL dtivp E W[&AVC Id1N0 YDIIAEIR S/w yXE PAB wAY[I �, [ x1DP.W1 BBXLT 11ai 5PR SPYF �p 51REEi L6N1 CLNB �! YIAD T[ eai mAa aQO9JR( OW �"�' •BRAS). j �Q �1 �— ji •yY p -y— y w- Y11A39, �y •BRABB, •GRAi9. - � �/ Y a � `SANG PIAYGPWNB MEM �] Sprint �' Topethe• with N.I TOEL )]O COYMEPCE -11 1. CA 9]603 L PHONE: I>>.I M&]5[0 FAY:Ii11736B)5B1 F..�A,MFR \ RONALD REAGAN PARK LA73XC017 � , PwAm]A xXLA a m f4•Rv 04/24/07 r - REVIEW n/xs nvxl0 fA PACIFIC �x f� `EYl51W0 AVNUT PAR1.1 L071CgNUITANF NAME \ AND AXtOO1AT9% I— J� L0.H1 S1AJklTG k APM .11 O' \ uc9,l c.,Lroxxu c3e)B OFi9CE `4 ��1 351-1588 FAx eu I 1 i I Cl ECO TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY C2 ATTACHMENT 8 September 25, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-09, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2007-22 AND VARIANCE NO. 2007-05 — In accordance with Code Sections 22.58, 2248, 2254 AND 22.42, the applicant requested to install a telecommunications facility #LA73XCO17. The installation consists of antenna attached to a faux elm tree commonly referred to as a "monoelm" and an equipment building to match the existing park structures. A Conditional Use Permit approval was required in order to operate a cell site; Development Review approval was required for the design/architectural review, and the Variance approval was required for the 45 foot tall "monoelm," which exceed the 35 -foot maximum height allowed for a structure. (Continued from August 14, 2007) PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT: Ronald Reagan Park 2201 Peaceful Hills Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 City of Diamond Bar Sprint Nextel 310 Commerce Irvine, CA 92602 PT/Alvarez presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22 and Variance No. 2007-05, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. VC/Torng said that what PT/Alvarez presented in his staff report was not in the Commissioner's packets. He hoped the project would be easier to understand for everyone involved and if the Commissioners are not able to review the information ahead of time it is difficult to render a decision. He remembered that he asked the applicant to make an effort to co -locate and he wanted to know what kind of effort the applicant had made. In addition, the second choice was to propose an alternate location. He questioned how far the applicant intended to move the antenna back from the original location. He concluded that a lot of the information was not available. He hoped the applicant could provide the information the Commission requested SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION but would have preferred that the applicant provide the information ahead of time so that the public and the Commissioners could read and understand the applicant's effort ahead of time. VC/Torng asked if his statement was correct and CDD/Fong responded that staff's report did include the plan that showed the relocated pole but for further clarification staff added tonight's information on the current plan only to better illustrate the proposal so that the Commission and audience would be very clear on the new location of the pole. The applicant could have provided additional illustrations to make it clearer to the Planning Commissioners. Chair/Nelson asked PT/Alvarez to summarize the benefits of relocating the monoelm on the property. PT/Alvarez responded that the applicant submitted propagation maps to show the Commission alternate sites and co - location sites. He suggested the applicant be asked to address that issue. The current site was moved away from the flat pad to the slope because the applicant was unable to find other locations and co -locations for the necessary coverage. CDD/Fong stated that by relocating the monoelm into the slope area it does not take away from any usable park space and no one would play within a 2:1 slope. The height of the pole is about the same, it looks like a tree and is camouflaged by the tree and screened by other large trees in the area. Therefore, the applicant has attempted to address the many concerns of the Commissioners and the residents that the tree would take away usable park space. With respect to coverage, according to the applicant, moving the tree would meet the applicant's needs in providing the needed coverage. The applicant looked at locations outside of Diamond Bar and found the coverage to be inadequate. The applicant has colored illustrations that show that were the antenna to be located in other communities it would not provide the same level of coverage as it would if the pole were located within Ronald Reagan park. Therefore, the applicant believes that the proposed site at Ronald Reagan park would still be the best location for providing the best coverage. In response to C/Nolan CDD/Fong indicated that the highlighted yellow items are the current location of the picnic tables and staff is not planning to relocate any park equipment. If the monoelm were placed within the 2:1 slope as indicated the height would be lowered to some degree. SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Fong responded to Chair/Nelson that if the monoelm were relocated as proposed it would be further away from the picnic tables and park equipment in general. Chair/Nelson reopened the public hearing. Ed Gala, Sprint/Nextel, explained the potential coverage areas using an overhead map and pointed out that the proposed antenna site was moved out of the park area into the slope area to avoid any possible perception of impact to usable park space. This project as modified and designed is in compliance with the City's wireless regulations and requirements. The monoelm is similar in size and structure to other trees in the area. With respect to distances from residential uses, the code indicates the height of the pole plus 20 percent or a distance of about 54 feet with this facility being more than 200 feet from the nearest residential use (four times the City's standard). Ronald Reagan Park is a City pre -approved wireless site, which indicates to Sprint/Nextel that wireless sites are expected and encouraged to locate there. In fact, there are no homes in front of the antenna and this appears to be the best spot to locate an antenna within the park. He reiterated that if the Commission offered a preferred spot within the park, Sprint/Nextel would certainly be open to exploring that possibility as well. VC/Torng said he appreciated Mr. Gala's effort and asked if he had discussed this project with any of the residents. VC/Torng further stated that the alternate locations were the same locations discussed in the past. VC/Torng asked again if there is not really a new location that Sprint/Nextel can consider? Mr. Gala responded that the Commission asked the applicant to explore the Verizon site on Golden Springs Drive. Sprint/Nextel explored that site and ran the coverage plots and it did not fulfill the need of the search ring. Also, the water tank was a site that the applicant was asked to explore and Sprint/Nextel provided the coverage plots and that worked to some degree but did not fulfill the requirements. VC/Torng asked if there was a big difference from the water tank and Mr. Gala responded yes — the two sites do not cover Pathfinder Road, which is the primary objective of this proposed cell site. Sprints coverage ends at the park and this would commence at the park to provide coverage to the gap west, north and south. VC/Torng said that is why the Commission wanted to know that up front. And so the applicant considered only those two locations — Brea Canyon Cutoff and the water tank. What about Rowland Heights? Did the applicant consider any Rowland Heights sites? Mr. Gala explained that the Verizon and water tank sites are in Rowland Heights off of Brea Canyon Cutoff. SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Torng asked if Brea Canyon Cuttoff was the Rowland Heights side? VC/Torng asked what about Pathfinder Road and Brea Canyon water tank because that location is on the City map. Mr. Gala again showed the coverage plot from Pathfinder Road and Brea Canyon. Due to the terrain constraints it would be shielded from providing coverage on Pathfinder Road. Mr. Gala reminded the Commission that at previous Commission meetings he spoke about other alternative locations including the elementary school to the south and co -location off of the SR57, which is already a Sprint/Nextel site. VC/Torng remembered that at the last meeting Mr. Gala promised to call Verizon. Mr. Gala responded that the applicant called Verizon which is how they obtained the address of the Verizon site. VC/Torng said how come Verizon can provide such a service — good reception. Mr. Gala said he could not answer that question. When Sprint/Nextel ran the coverage plots the results were as previously indicated and there was no coverage on Pathfinder Road. Mr. Gala said he could not speak for how Verizon was covering Pathfinder Road. From his personal experience his coverage dropped as he rounded the bend at the park and he did not have coverage again until he got down near Golden Springs. VC/Torng asked if there was old technology that needed to be matched up with Verizon because with Verizon there is very good reception in Diamond Bar. So Sprint/Nextel has already considered that and there is no way to do it? Mr. Gala said VC/Torng was correct. VC/Torng said then he had nothing to say. Chair/Nelson said that last time the Commission asked Sprint/Nextel to explore all possible co -location facilities in the area. He said that he understood that the sites with no possibility to provide coverage would not be pursued. He asked if the co -location with Verizon on the overhead was the only one available and Mr. Gala responded "yes." C/Nolan asked Mr. Gala to comment on the future of satellite coverage and whether that would allow for the future removal of cell sites. Mr. Gala said he did not believe that Sprint or Nextel would be using satellites because of the low power and radius. In order to provide transmission the provider would need a much larger transmission source (cell radio) to reach a satellite. He said he believed that all carriers would continue to use multiple cell sites on the ground for the foreseeable future. Chair/Nelson reopened the public hearing. Valerie Geddes Curnihan, 2211 S. Meadow Lane, asked that Sprint try to look for a neighborhood that does not already have existing homes so that SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION families moving in can decide if they want a cell phone tower near their homes. She knew there was already a cell phone tower at Diamond Bar High School which is about three blocks from where she resides and if another cell tower is located at Ronald Reagan Park it would be about two blocks west of her home with possible radiation from both sides. She is a bladder cancer survivor and she has two small children and knows that the health risk has not yet been proven and asked that the cell tower not be placed at a park where young children play because their bodies are growing. She felt that if Verizon could cover Pathfinder Sprint/Nextel be able to do so as well. She felt that the health of herself and her neighbors was not worth one street that may dip in cell phone coverage and she was willing to live without coverage if she could have peace of mind and, if she and her family could have a healthy place to live. She asked that the Commission to stand behind the residents and ask Sprint to keep looking. She felt there were sites in Rowland Heights including a park site with hills that might be beneficial to Sprint. Theresa, 20919 High Country Drive, wanted to know why she got such good reception from Verizon and their coverage was so big and the applicant's coverage was so small? Stephen Davis, 20763 Rim Lane, asked for the map to be displayed. He said that according to the map, about 85 percent of the benefit would be outside of Diamond Bar so this project is proposed for a park in Diamond Bar to support Rowland Heights. In order to construct the tower the access road will run behind the tennis court and trees will have to be cut down along the walking path and the entire area would be converted to asphalt. He felt there might be better technology to handle this situation. He said he spoke with a friend of his who is the mayor of Westlake Village. The mayor told him that they use technology that is mounted on light poles just above street level and he did not understand why that type of coverage would not be available for Pathfinder Road. Also, he has not heard any discussion about the impact to property values. Whether there is a health concern as well as a concern about the equity in their homes. It seemed to him there might be better and less intrusive ways to get the cell coverage. Frank Chen, 20803 Quail Run Drive, said his 10 -year old son has been complaining about headaches and Mr. Chen was concerned about the radiation. He has lived close to the water tank and he does not like to have any towers in his area because he spent a lot of money on his home and he SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION was concerned about loss of equity and health as well. He and his neighbors do not want any towers in the park. Dolores Gunjave, 20745 E. Rim Lane, said this tower would be in back of her home and she wanted the Commission to know that today she looked out her window and saw at least 100 five to six year-old kids practicing soccer. Her husband is an electrical engineer. She has read studies that state that magnetic fields should be at least 500 feet away from homes and this tower is going to be 200 feet away and there is a health risk to these small children that play in the park. She felt there should be a safer site for this tower. She wished the Commission would consider a different location because she did not think it was fair for the residents of Diamond Bar. Angie, 2080 Peaceful Hills Road, said she was not concerned about the price of the real estate but she was concerned about the health of the people. Radiation is a major concern in her opinion. She knows that there is high voltage for any tower and it is bad for the people's health. People are sad there will be a tower in their area and their feelings and health is most important and more important than technology. Patrick Wen, 20799 East Rim Lane, said this installation would greatly affect his house. Nobody likes to live near a high voltage tower because of the radiation unless you cannot afford a high priced house. Of course there is no direct scientific proof indicating that radiation causes cancer and leukemia but studies indicate that people living near high voltage towers have a higher rate of leukemia and of course that makes him concerned about this cell pole. Most of the residents in this area do not really need that pole. If people have Verizon they can receive the signal. Some people do not care if they have good reception in this area. If the City approves the project he would suggest that the pole be put next to the Verizon site and put a smaller antenna on the water tank to cover a larger area. VJ Butah, 20793 East Rim Lane, wanted to show pictures he took about 10 days ago showing hundreds of kids playing in the park. The water tank is 4,635 feet away from the park and is at a higher location than Ronald Reagan Park. Sprint's map shows that if they drew a circle from the water tank they would get a lot better coverage from that location than from Ronald Reagan Park. The last time Sprint did not look at this location and this time they have refused to look at this particular tower and his feeling is that it is because it is located in the County of Los Angeles where the process of getting a cell tower approved is much more stringent than it is in Diamond SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION Bar. He lives in a neighborhood where people are concerned with location and direction of their homes and staircases. When he bought his home it was on the market for six months because it was oriented poorly for some people and he was able to pick it up more cheaply than if it had a better design. He felt that if a cell tower were built in the park the sale prices of the homes would decrease dramatically. People will not buy these houses because there is a cell tower in close proximity and he felt the Commission should look into this matter before making its decision. There are 15 homes that will go down in value by 10 to 20 percent. He does not understand why the tower cannot be put at the south hill where there is open land. He felt $18,000 a year was a small amount to collect for all of the negative issues that would result from this installation. Chin Chow Yun said that everyone he asked about the cell tower in Ronald Reagan Park was against the installation. In addition, he obtained over 100 signatures on a petition in opposition to the project, which he delivered to City Hall. Today it is very clear to him and to the community that it will impact the environment and safety. The applicant also emphasized that it would increase the value of the homes. He believed that no telecommunication antenna would increase the value. His community is different. Put the antenna in your backyard, please. According to their statement everything is legal and follows state law and it is good for the community. He said he knew that his community had no recourse but it does not mean that the project should move forward. It is more about the relationship of a community, property deflation, public safety and public interest. Residents pay taxes and he also pays association fees. This is not fair to the community. Ronald Reagan Park is a busy place and many children play here. Who will be responsible when the winds or earthquake cause the structure to collapse? He wanted the applicant to find another remote location and not build the antenna in a busy area. Tony Lee, 20836 Quail Run said he had attended about three of these meetings and he appreciated the time invested. Technology and cell phones are important in today's world. There have been eloquent speakers today who have pointed out that there is another location with a water tower that is already destined for a utility use in a nearby city, which certainly should be considered. If the intent were to mitigate the coverage on Pathfinder he would prefer to take a lower dosage on a smaller transmitter than to have one large transmitter. If the technology is available it should be used. He was hoping to hear consideration of smaller towers on street light poles rather than one larger tower similar to what has been done in Westlake. In SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION fact, there is a micro tower on Fairway that covers Fairway to Brea Canyon. He said he was not looking to stop technology but felt there was a better fix than a large fake tree in a park. Chun Chang, 20718 E. Mill Lane, said there were more questions than answers and he would like for the Commission to make a good decision. Many people visit the park. People need the park and the park needs the people. Don't let the people be mentally tortured over this matter. Sandi, 20921 Quail Run Drive, believed that a fair proposal should be good for both parties. However, she feels there will be a negative impact on the residents with respect to health, safety and decrease in property values. The residents understand that Sprint wants to increase its coverage area and she believed there were other better alternatives. Ronald Reagan may be the best solution for the applicant but it is really bad for the residents and that is why she is strongly opposed to this project. Chair/Nelson said there were a number of folks who spoke about potential health risk and he asked ACA/Kovacevich to address how the Commission is restricted from such consideration. Chair/Nelson asked Mr. Gala to respond to a question about the space in the park that would be impacted and unavailable for turf grass due to the access road construction; the question about the water tank coverage and why that site at a higher elevation does not provide better coverage; and comments with respect to better technology as appropriate. Mr. Gala stated with respect to the access there would be a paved access road from the parking lot to the equipment shelter. There is no access road proposed to the cell tower. Once these towers are in operation they are rarely visited by techs. The equipment shelter is typically visited on a monthly basis to make sure the equipment was properly operating and change out some basic radio stations. There are no other impacts to the park. In fact, the road would not be necessary for Sprint if the Commission wanted it eliminated. The Parks Department asked forthe paved road. With respect to property values, he presented a number of reports prepared by independent sources that indicated there was no impact. In fact, the homes closest to the cell tower increased in value more than those further away. Sprint customers looking to buy a home would be pleased to have the coverage. With wireless Internet coming, everyone will want coverage and what this does is allow residents in the area to have a choice among carriers. With respect to micro cells on Pathfinder, Sprint/Nextel has installed this type SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION of technology in certain locations such as windy hillside locations. The micro cells would actually be closer to home sites. This site is a pre -approved site for wireless, which encourages Sprint/Nextel to go to this park following the City's regulations. Supposedly in designating this as a pre -approved site the City Planning Commission and City Council evaluated the same impacts that are being discussed during this public hearing and deemed the installation acceptable. The project complies with all standards and warrants approval. Mr. Gala stated that his company provided information on the propagation map from the water tank on the Brea Canyon Cutoff that it did not propagate to Pathfinder Road because the signal was blocked by the hills. Different technologies and frequencies propagate at different ranges. Conceivably, that is why Verizon can cover the site from a greater distance than can Sprint. Also, the grid patterns differ so they may be covering it from an area that Sprint/Nextel is not aware of somewhere higher up or further away. Sprint technology is very site specific and very low range. With regard to co - location it would be the applicant's first choice. If co -location were possible it would save Sprint lots of time, lots of money and lots of grief because the applicant would not have to go through the public hearing process again. In short, if there were a co -location opportunity Sprint would have taken it. There is none. The site as designed meets the standards and should be approved. C/Lee said that a speaker claimed that a low -frequency tower output is akin to a microwave and he believed that it was more fiction than truth and is it true? Also, what is the typical wattage and voltage of the facility? Mr. Gala explained that during the last Commission meeting the RF Engineer went into detail about those issues, which is in the public record. Basically, these are very low power facility — typically less than 200 watts per sector. Radio stations broadcasts radio waves at 10,000, 20,000 and 50,000 watts of power. These facilities are radio wave. Radios have been in common use since the 1920's. This is not a new technology. The tower is made usable through the use of computers —the blending of computers with radio waves that allow the handoff of phone calls to different cell sites. No one is afraid of radios in their homes. People are bathed in radio waves now from countless sources much more powerful than the proposed facility and no one is afraid of those types of radio waves. And that is why the federal government preempted local jurisdictions from considering health impacts because the technology is not new and it has been deemed safe and is in common usage throughout the world. SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION Edeese Yung, 20777 Missionary Ridge, said she heard twice that this installation would increase home values. It depends on when appraisals are done and maybe values will increase only five percent instead of 10 percent because of the tower. If the applicant insists the tower will increase the property value appraisals could be done today before the tower is installed. After the tower is installed another appraisal could be done and the applicant should compensate everyone for the difference in the property value. C/Nolan said that with respect to allowing speakers to return to the podium, the Commissioners job is to make land use decisions. Is income to the City and property value an issue that is to be considered? CDD/Fong responded that the job of the Planning Commission is to consider the land use and whether the land use is compatible with surrounding uses. Economics is not part of the discussion and should not be considered. Everyone has an opportunity to speak and if someone has something new to add to the discussion they should be allowed to speak. Property value and economics is not within the purview of the Planning Commission. A speaker said the applicant stated the property values would not drop and he believed the applicant was wrong because a real estate agent would point out that there is a pole about 200 yards away and a potential buyer would discount the property value. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. Chair/Nelson asked ACA/Kovacevich to discuss what the Commission is allowed to consider when deliberating on this matter with respect to health issues. ACA/Kovacevich responded that quite simply, federal law prevents the Commission from considering perceived health effects. The only issue is whether the equipment proposed complies with FCC requirements and this does. There is broad preemption generally in the area of telecommuni- cations regulation. Local zoning authority is preserved except when strict application of the zoning laws would result in a significant gap in coverage. "A significant gap in coverage" could be considered if there were a considerable number of people that utilized this technology using this road that would make it inconvenient for the user. This matter is for the Commission to decide. One of the issues that came up tonight is the issue of co -location, which as the Commission is aware, the City's ordinance prefers as the number one preferred alternative. Many speakers expressed bewilderment over other carriers being able to serve this area from certain areas and Sprint not being able to co -locate in those areas and obtain the SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION same coverage. There are differences between technologies. The Commission can decide whether it believes there is enough evidence in the record to demonstrate that co -location is truly not feasible in this instance. VC/Torng said he thought he heard the attorney say what has concerned him. There have been three meetings about this issue and the Commission is still trying to find the best co -location. He felt this was an "arrangement" issue and he strongly believed in the technology also. Up to today he was not provided clear maps to study ahead of time and he still did not understand where the circle is and he still did not understand the coverage issue. The residents are against it and if tonight's meeting represents 80 or 90 percent of the residents the business case is really bad. He heard the applicant mention that this is a City pre -approved location and he indicated to CDD/Fong that he felt this matter should be pushed back to the City Council because when the City Council made the decision that this was a pre - approved location they probably did not hear the voice of the residents. Weighing all of the factors he respectfully submitted that in his mind this was not a good project. He would like for the applicant to have the opportunity to talk to the City Council because when the City Council pre -approved this location they did not hear the voice of the people and he believed the voices should be heard by the City Council. And if the Commission makes the decision it is approved and it will not go to the City Council. The Commission's decision is final, right? CDD/Fong said the Commission's decision would be final unless it was appealed to the City Council. VC/Torng said for this project the applicant should have one more chance to talk to the City Council because based on all of the facts it really is not a good project and he thought that that even though it was a pre -approved location the City Council should have a chance to understand and listen to the people's voice and let them know why this is a good location. When they do the planning and everybody who does the plan will do their job. Sometimes it is not a good plan so the Commission has to let the City Council know this is not a good plan but he would like for the applicant to have an opportunity to present his plan to the City Council. VC/Torng asked for comments from the Council. C/Lee said the City Council members are elected officials and they are elected to represent the people. Their decision should be respected. We are all citizens and this is a public common benefit and the Commission should decide tonight. SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 15 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Nolan believed that this was the nature of the beast. This is the age of technology and time of change. She has children that are starting their own families and none have a landline. She is not saying landlines are obsolete. However, cell phones and wireless Internet is something to consider. With respect to property values, it is not for the Commission to debate. The idea that the service is either for people in Diamond Bar or in Rowland Heights is immaterial. It is "mobile" service. There are many people who live in Diamond Bar and travel outside Diamond Bar who would benefit using this service. She believed the applicant had a right as a business owner to provide service to Sprint customers in the area. She believed there had been significant research done to determine that possible co -locations would not provide the necessary service. She believed the Commission needed to make a decision and not refer the matter to the City Council. The Commission has been provided adequate information to make its decision. C/Nolan offered a motion of approval. CDD/Fong said she would like to poll the Commissioners and give the applicant an opportunity to accept the action of denial or return to the Commission with additional information. C/Lee said he would like to hear C/Nolan's motion and make his decision. C/Nolan said she understood staff's concern and withdrew her motion in favor of a straw poll. Straw Poll: C/Nolan — approve VC/Torng — deny CDD/Fong clarified the City's ordinance that indicated the site was pre - approved for consideration of a cell tower. The location is not pre -approved for a tower and that is why the applicant must proceed through this review process. Chair/Nelson asked for clarification. CDD/Fong stated that the City has established an opportunities map to designate locations for carrier in order to prevent antenna farms. Where a location might have five or six different poles. The City wants to make certain that poles are within certain designated areas, but not every site is appropriate for a pole, monoelm or SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 16 PLANNING COMMISSION other types of cell towers. The locations designated and what the applicant referred as "pre -approved" were simply locations that offer opportunities for cell towers. The City limits the number of cell towers and each cell tower is subject to a land use entitlement approval. Most of public facilities including schools, water tanks, public parks, etc., are listed an opportunities map. C/Lee — approve Chair/Nelson said that what bothered him was that there was no scientific evidence that would cause him to deny the project. If approved, he would have suggested that the access road to the maintenance shed be eliminated. Moving the tree away from the play area to the slope is a good thing. He said he did not view his role as having the authority to deny the project per se, it is really to make projects as good as they can be. The clarification about the park being a "pre -approved location" makes him feel as if the Commission is empowered with a bit more discretionary authority. The compelling reason why he is not in favor of this project is because of what the Commission is hearing from the community. If the Commission's job is to do what is good for the community the community has stated it is not in favor of this project. Even if the City were to spend the next 30 years convincing the residents that there is no health risk associated with these facilities there remains the stigma that they will feel and live under; whether or not it will affect property values is an unknown. However, since residents have come out three times in a row he would have to say this project is not good for the community. Straw poll — 2-2; CDD/Fong said that a two to two vote would be considered a denial. CDD/Fong recommended that the Commission continue this item to October 9, 2007, and direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial for consideration. ACA/Kovacevich said that some Commissioners commented earlier that they would like to have the City Council address this matter. Obviously, a vote to deny would be appealed by the applicant, which would move the matter to the City Council for consideration. Chair/Nelson said he did not agree with VC/Torng's commentthatthis matter should be considered by the City Council rather than the Commission because Chair/Nelson believes that the Commission is charged with taking care of the business brought before it. SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PAGE 17 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Nolan stated that her decision was based on having visited the site, having sat in the exact spot where the antenna was originally proposed to be located, having stood on the slope looking down the unusable slope and with that she would vote to approve the project. C/Nolan moved, C/Lee seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22 and Variance No. 2007-05, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution as amended to remove the asphalt pathway. Motion failed by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan NOES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Wei VC/Torng moved, Chair/Nelson seconded, to direct staff to bring back a Resolution of Denial. Motion passed by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, VC/Tomg, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Wei CESS: Chair/Nelson recessed the Planning Commission meeting at 8:56 p. RECON Chair/Nelson reconvened the Planning Commissi eeting at 9:00 p.m. 8. PUBLIC>HEARING8.3 Nration No. 7-05 ditional Use Permit No. 2007-08 and Development Review No. -14 — In accordance with Development Code Sections 22.58 and , t oposed project was a request to demolish an existing res' Ice and deve rivate school (kindergarten to eighth grade). The posed three-story sch uilding is approximately 13,760 square in area with 16,977 square feet bterranean parking. A Conditi Use Permit was required to establis school. The Devel ent Review application was required to evaluate t rchitecture a ite design of the project. PROJECT ADDRESS: 1009 Via Sorella Diamond Bar, CA 91765 ATTACHMENT 9 October 9, 2007 Planning Commission Staff Report �� DItll►IOND B�RI� PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORA CITY OF DIAMOND BAR -- 21825 COPLEY DRIVE - DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 - TEL. (909) 839-7030 - FAX (909) 861-3117 ITEM NO. C4 ;t' DATE: October 9, 2007 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Nancy Fong, AICP, Community Development Director BY: David Alvarez, Planning Technician SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22 and Variance No. 2007-05 — A request to install and operate a telecommunications facility at Ronald Reagan Park at 2201 Peaceful Hills Road — APN: 8765-015-900. BACKGROUND: On July 24, 2007, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the proposed project. After receiving the staff report, input from the applicant and testimony from the public, the Commission continued the matter to August 14, 2007 with direction to the applicant to provide an analysis of alternative locations, including co -location opportunities. At the August 14, 2007 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the information provided by the applicant and heard additional public testimony. The Commission directed the applicant to provide further information pertaining to alternative locations, including other locations within the park which would avoid obstructing usable recreational space. At the September 25, 2007 meeting, the after reviewing the additional information provided by the applicant and receiving public input, the Commission closed the public hearing, directed staff to prepare a resolution for denial, and continued the matter to the October 9, 2007 meeting. Copies of the staff report and minutes from the previous commission meetings are attached. H:\Staff Reports-PC\PeacefulHills-ReganPark CUP 07-09 PC Denial Rpt-Oct9 07.doc RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Draft Resolution of Denying Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22 and Variance No. 2007-05. Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution of Denial with Required Findings 2. July 24, 2007 Staff Report and Minutes 3. August 14, 2007 Staff Report and Minutes 4. September 25, 2007 Staff Report and Draft Minutes H:\Staff Reports-PC\P eacefulHills-ReganPark CUP 07-09 PC Denial Rpt-Oct9 07.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2007 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-09, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2007-22 AND VARIANCE NO. 2007-05, A REQUEST TO INSTALL A TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY AT RONALD REAGAN PARK LOCATED AT 2201 PEACEFUL HILLS ROAD (APN: 8765-015-900), DIAMOND BAR, CA A. RECITALS 1. The property owner, City of Diamond Bar and applicant, Sprint Nextel Corporation have filed applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22, and Variance No. 2007-05 for a wireless telecommunications facility to -be located at Ronald Regan Park, 2201 Peaceful Hills Road, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California ("Project Site"). 2. The proposed telecommunications facility consists of a 35 -foot tall monopole, a 200 square -foot equipment building and related improvements, and is also referred to in this Resolution as the "Proposed Use." 3. Notification of the public hearing for the Proposed Use was provided in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. Public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 188 property owners within a 700 - foot radius of the Project Site and public notice at the City's designated community posting sites. Furthermore, the Project Site was posted with a display board. 4. On July 24, 2007 and August 14, 2007, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted duly noticed public hearings and continued the matter to September 25, 2007. The continuances were provided to allow the applicant time to provide additional information regarding the service area for the Proposed Use, and to consider alternate locations, including co -location opportunities. 5. On September 25, 2007, after receiving additional public input, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar concluded said hearing_ B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS (DBC X22.58.040 (a) Granting the Conditional Use Permit will be detrimental to the public interest in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located in that the Proposed Use does not, and without good cause, conform to the following locational preferences as set forth in Development Code Section 22.42.130 (item i. being the most preferred): Co -located with an existing facility or located at a pre -approved location. Attached to an existing structure, such as a building, communication tower, church steeple, or utility pole or tower. iii_ Located in an industrial/business park zoning district. iv. Located in a commercial zoning district. The applicant has not provided evidence that co -location sites would not provide adequate coverage, and has not provided an explanation as to why other wireless communications providers are able to provide adequate coverage in the same area proposed to be served by the Proposed Use from the Project Site. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (DBC §22-48.040 (b) Because the necessary findings for granting a Conditional Use Permit for the Proposed Use cannot be made, consideration of development review findings pertaining to the site and architectural design components of the Proposed Use are immaterial. VARIANCE (DBC §22.54.040) (c) Because all of the necessary findings for granting a Conditional Use Permit for the underlying Proposed Use cannot be made, consideration of variance findings to increase the height of the proposed antenna support structure are immaterial. 2 Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09 5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby denies this Application. 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: Sprint Nextel Corporation, 310 Commerce, Irvine, CA 92602. (c) APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9th DAY OF OCTOBER 2007, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. Steve Nelson, Chairman I, Nancy Fong, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of October 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ATTEST: Nancy Fong, Secretary END 3 Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09 ATTACHMENT 10 October 9, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 4.2 Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22 and Variance No. 2007-05. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: Ronald Reagan Park 2201 Peaceful Hills Drive City of Diamond Bar Sprint/Nextel 310 Commerce Irvine, CA 92602 CDD/Fong presented staff's report. Ed Gala, Sprint/Nextel, asked that the letter from his firm's attorney be entered into the record. CDD/Fong responded that Mr. Gala"s request was so noted. A resident requested to speak in opposition of the project and VC/Torng reminded the speaker and audience that comments were to address the Resolution of Denial, which was the subject of this matter. C/Lee moved, VC/Torng seconded, to approve the Resolution of Denial for Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22 and Variance No. 2007-05 to establish a wireless facility. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT 5. OLD BUSINESS: 6. NEW BUSINESS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None None Lee, VC/Torng Nolan Shah Chair/Nelson 8.1 Development Review No. 2007-29 — In accordance with Development Code Section 22.48, the applicant requested approval of plans to construct a two- story addition of 1,151 square feet and to remodel the existing dwelling to ATTACHMENT 11 Correspondence from Valerie Geddes L` u/1 (-1C_ 6q P_D -C=1 ED f�inC, 11/12/07 t Dear City Council Members: It is requested that the City Council deny the monoelm cell tower project at Ronald Reagan Park for the following reasons: (Please refer to the October 8, 2007 correspondence from Gregory Sanders of Sprint.) Sprint Nextel indicates that the Ronald Reagan project is the least intrusive means of closing its gap in wireless telecommunication service area on Pathfinder Road. "Intrusive" is defined as an "unwelcome or inappropriate addition." The installation of an artificial tree among natural beauty within a small park, enjoyed by thousands annually is most inappropriate. An access road plus another building on the premise will negatively impact the only bit of wilderness on the slope. As a resident of 20 years, I have watched my children and other kids enjoy exploring this area. This project is highly unwelcome as evidenced by numerous residents who have signed a petition and/or attended three planning commission meetings in opposition of the project. Not one individual has come forth in favor of the project. We believe installation of the tower at Ronald Reagan Park is most intrusive and considered to be one of the least desirable choices possible. The least intrusive locations in order of preference are: (Site Planning and General Development Standards) 1. To co -locate with an existing facility 2. Attach to an existing structure, such as a building, communication tower, church steeple, or utility pole or tower. 3. Locate in an industrial/business park zoning district. 4. Locate in a commercial zoning district. True, the Ronald Reagan site was pre -approved by the Planning Commission. However, this decision was made prior to hearing from residents who are unanimous in their opposition of the tower. It is permissible for the Planning Commission and City Counsel to be responsive to Diamond Bar citizens. This is our park, paid for by our taxes, for our enjoyment. The park was not built for the purpose of commercial enterprise. Mr. Sanders further writes, "Sprint has demonstrated that alternatives do not close the coverage gap. Sprint was requested by the Planning Commission at both meetings (7127/07 and 8/14/07) to do one of two things. 1. To explore new additional alternatives or even a second best alternative to close the coverage gap. 2. Or, co -locate on a Verizon tower or other competitors' tower. Sprint representative, Mr. Gala, was expected to return to the 9/25/07 meeting with a complete report to the Commission that would include site ranking in order of effectiveness. Sprint failed to follow the Commission's instructions. Other feasible locations exist as demonstrated by Verizon. Ronald Reagan Park is not the only location that can close their purported gap. Instead of taking the time and energy to propose another location, it is easier for Sprint to "strong arm" this tower upon us. Sprint's effort at finding a new location was to move the proposed tower 36 feet — still within Ronald Reagan Park. Sprint's lack of interest, effort and motivation in accommodating the Commission and residents is apparent. In fact, Mr. Gala requested that the Planning Commission staff find new location sites for Sprint. This was denied by the Commission as it is Sprint's responsibility to propose new alternative locations. Additionally, Mr. Gala was asked if he had discussed this project with any of the residents. He did not. What little information that was provided by Sprint/Nextell was not submitted in a timely manner and was vague, sketchy and confusing. At the last meeting, Commissioners were still unsure where the "service ring" was located. The Commission preferred that the applicant provide the information ahead of time so that the public and the Commissioners could read and understand the applicants "efforts" in advance. It was concluded that a lot of information was not available- - "The burden is on the provider to develop a record showing that it made a "full" or "good faith" effort to identify and evaluate less intrusive alternatives and that the alternatives are not feasible to serve its customers." Voicestream Minneapolis, 212 F. Supp. 2d at 927-28. The court in Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 1999 WL 494120, agreed with the court's reasoning in Willoth 176F.3d at 639 and read it as distinguishing between "regulation that produce gaps in an individual provider's service area from those that result in an absence of coverage by any provider, finding that the latter and not the former prohibit the provision of wireless services." As you know, Verizon is currently covering the gap on Pathfinder successfully. "In order to show a violation of subsection 332 (c)(7)(13)(i)(II) (prohibition of wireless services) under Willoth, an unsuccessful provider applicant must show two things. First, the provider must show that its facility will fill an existing significant gap in the availability of remote users to access the national telephone network. In this context, the relevant gap, if any, is a gap in the service to remote users. Not all gaps in a particular provider's service will involve a gap in the service available to remote users. The provider's showing on this issue will thus have to include evidence that the area the new facility will serve is not already served by another provider." Penn Township, 196 F.3d at 480. "Second, the provider applicant must show that the manner in which it proposes to fill the significant gap in service is the least intrusive on the values that the denial sought to serve. This will require a showing that a good faith effort had been made to identify and evaluate less intrusive alternatives e.g. that the provider has considered less sensitive sites, alternative system designs, alternative tower designs, placement of antennae on existing structures, etc." Penn Township, 196 F 3d at 480. "The Third Circuit, applying the two -prong analysis developed in Penn Township, defined the "significant gap" prong as "requiring a gap from a user's perspective, rather than a particular provider's perspective. Thus, this prong focuses on whether any provider is covering the gap, instead of whether the gap exists only in, for example, Nextel's service." Nextel West V. Unity Township, No. 01-2030, 282 F.3d 257. Most residents agree reception is very good on Pathfinder Road. Furthermore, the Telecommunication Act does not require that there be 100% Coverage. The federal regulation acknowledges that dead spots in service will exist. ... "Areas enjoying adequate coverage will still include spots without reliable service." 360 Degrees Communications Co. 211 F.3d at 87,47 C FR.22.911 (b) (2001). What constitutes a gap in service on Pathfinder for Sprint? What is the percentage of dropped calls? We are not provided with this information. Mr. Gala provided a personal account of how he "rounds the bend west of Ronald Reagan Park and does not have coverage until he reaches Golden Springs Drive." "A gap is significant only if the area in question is not served by any carrier." Second Generation Props., L.P.V. Town of Pelham No. Civ. 00-90-B 2002 WL 1018923 at *3 Verizon has demonstrated that this coverage gap at Pathfinder can be filled without a tower at Ronald Reagan Park. Sprint representative Ed Gala did not refute this, and when asked how Verizon can provide coverage to this very same gap he responded, "I don't know". In Ho-Ho-Kus, 197 F.3d at 70 notes "We think it matters a great deal... whether the "gap" in service merely covers a small residential cul-de-sac or where it straddles a significant commuter highway or commuter railway." Furthermore, Albemarle County, the Fourth Circuit expanded on Virginia Beach (AT@T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. City Council of Virginia Beach 15 F. 3d 423 4th Cir. 1998) addressed the issue whether a "single denial of a site permit could ever amount in effect to the prohibition of wireless services." The Court agreed with the conclusion reached in Virginia Beach that a single denial for a permit for a particular site cannot, standing alone, be considered an effective prohibition. Instead, the court reasoned "there must be something more, taken from the circumstance of the particular application or from the procedure for processing the application, that produces the "effect" of prohibiting wireless services." Albemarle County, 211 F.3d at 86. In Penn Township, the Third Circuit agreed with the Second Circuit's interpretation of (B)(i)(II), stating "a provider must bring additional proof to the court to demonstrate that the denial is representative of a broader policy or circumstance that precludes the provision of wireless service. In Sprint Spectrum, LP v. Willoth, 176 F.3d at 639 (2nd Cir. 1999) also held that "Once an area is sufficiently serviced by a wireless service provider, the right to deny applications becomes broader: State and local governments may deny subsequent application without thereby violating subsection B (Telecommunications Act) ... "It is not unreasonably discriminatory to deny a subsequent application of a cell site that is substantially more intrusive than existing cell sites by virtue of its structure, placement or cumulative impact." Spectrum LP v. Willoth, 176 F.3d at 639 (2"d Cir. 1999) Verizon covers the gap on Pathfinder without an intrusive tower at Ronald Reagan park. "In Willoth, the Second Circuit rejected a carriers all -or nothing interpretation of Section (B) (i) (II): The essence of Sprint's argument is that it has the right under this provision of the Telecommunication Act to construct any and all towers that, in its business judgment, it deems necessary to compete effectively with other telecommunications provider, wireless or not." Willoth, 176 R.3d at 639 "Although circuit courts have formulated slightly different variations of what additional proof a provider must bring to demonstrate that a governmental entity has effectively prohibited wireless service by denying a single request to construct a telecommunications tower at a particular location, all agree that the availability of other, less intrusive feasible alternatives to close a gap in the provider's service to its customers will defeat a 332(c)(7)(13)(i)(II claim." See Penn Township, 196F.3d at 480, Sprint Spectrum, L.P.v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 639, 360 Communication, 211 F.3d at 87-88 Town of Amherst, N.H., 173 F.3d at 14 "Cities can prohibit cellular towers in certain zoning districts such as residential zones, so long as there are other technologically feasible areas where the facilities could be installed." (E.g. City of Sonoma Ordinance 96-23 section 5.32.060.) A technologically feasible area has been found by Verizon. Should we be forced to accept a cell tower at Ronald Reagan Park because of Sprint's technological inability to do the same? I think not. Installing a cell tower at Ronald Reagan Park is unwarranted and unnecessary. "In order to reduce the number of places where cellular towers and antennae are installed, cities can also encourage facilities from many providers to be co - located at a few technologically acceptable locations in the community." (E.g, City of Sonoma Ordinance 96-23, section 5.32.100.) If Sprint/Nextel's current technology continues to be incompatible with Verizon and other providers, must we be forced to accept a cell tower on every corner? It is ours and the Commission's request that Sprint make a genuine effort to update, improve or revise their technology to match Verizon's in order to co - locate. The Verizon site (and Sprint cannot state specifically where this is) is "technologically acceptable". Sprint technology is admittedly "very site specific and very low range." Mr. Gala explained that Verizon is able to transmit further distances because it operates at a lower frequency. VC/Torng asked if there was old technology that needed to be matched up with Verizon because Verizon has good reception in Diamond Bar. Mr_ Gala could not offer an explanation. He did state that Verizon's grid patterns differ so they may be covering the gap "from an area that Sprint/Nextel is not aware, or somewhere higher up or further away." Although Sprint did not so much as make an attempt to determine the location of a possible second Verizon tower, Sprint claims that co -location is not possible. In summary, 2) There are other feasible ways to fill the gap besides the Ronald Reagan Park tower as demonstrated by Verizon. 3) If the gap in coverage cannot be filled by Sprint without a tower at Ronald Reagan Park, then this is a technical problem for Sprint to remedy. Diamond Bar residents should not be burdened with an unnecessary tower in their residential park. 4) Sprint did not demonstrate that they made genuine efforts at finding new sites for collocating or relocating. 5) A single denial of a permit site does not constitute a prohibition of services. The city of Diamond Bar has not denied Sprint any other proposed sites. Sprint already has existing sites in Diamond Bar. 6) The coverage gap has already been filled by Verizon. A gap is significant only if the area in question is not served by any carrier. 7) It is not unreasonably discriminatory to deny subsequent application of a cell site that is substantially more intrusive than existing cell sites by virtue of its placement. The site at Ronald Reagan Park is most intrusive. 8) The City Council has a right to deny their pre -approved location based on response of Diamond Bar citizens. It is our park, not Sprint's. Finally, "Local zoning boards are lay citizen boards and while their decisions must be in writing, the boards need not make extensive factual finds in support of their ultimate decision." SW Bell Mobile Sys_, Inc., 244 F. 3d at 59-60. Cell phones and cell towers are a way of life in our current society. Cooperation among Diamond Bar officials, residents and the wireless industry is a better solution than litigation. It is hoped that some compromise can be reached without litigation. Sincerely, X9__c�_ Valerie Geddes ATTACHMENT 12 Additional Petitions and Correspondence Objecting to the Proposed Wireless Telecommunications Facility at Ronald Reagan Park Petition to DENY Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09/Devel© ent Review No. 2007-22IVariance No. 2007-05 Petition We are AGAINST the Request: Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09/Development Review No. 2007- Address 22/Variance No. 2007-05. We do not want the installations in our neighborhood. Please vote against Conditional Date Use Permit No, 2007-09/Development Review No. 2007-22/Variance No. 2007-05. Action petitioned for We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens of our community who urge The City of Diamond Bar to act now to DENY the Request: Conditional Use Permit No 2007-09/Development Review No. 2007-22/Variance No. 2007-05 Printed Name Signatpre, Address Comment Date him d 'USC' A f� CGCiVh6lhp��Y � Gu 63 �. �e c(- 1^ m L" 6"1", C'e'91WI N Ul2 sA�,�� /K '/ 70, z 0'16A ---� _ V144 �. ]1 zo z.,�� . 7/ -�R- A.4 LLA-hJv) c�.�,r/��,,� Petition t0 DENY Conditional Use Permit N0. 2007-O Develoinnent Review N0. 2007-2VVariance N0. 2007-05 Petition Action petitioned for We are AGAINST the Request: Conditional Use Permit No 2007-09/Development Review No. 2007- 22/Variance No. 2007-05. We do not want the installations in our neighborhood. Please vote against Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09/Develooment Review No. 2007-22/Variance No. 2007-05. - We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens of our community who urge The City of Diamond Bar to act now to DENY the Request: Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09/13evelopment Review No 2007-22/Variance No. 2007_05 Printed Name Signature Address Comment Date / a 61 7/3�- L 7 { r' ', r , -P_ Lir �i<5� ( j l �� fy\ I'A z (au%it R�"� fir• b,Jnond I 7Call-01i� °l'` ��t ✓r 2 ? le - &i f A n -c— /fig �, S Z4c fl Petition to DENY Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-0Q./Development Review No. 2007-22/Variance No. 2007-05 Petition We are AGAINST the Request: Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09/Development Review No. 2007- 22 Variance No. 2007-05. We do not want the installations in our neighborhood. Please vote against Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09/13evelopment Review No. 2007-22/Variance No. 2007-05. Action petitioned for We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens of our community who urge The City of Diamond Bar to act now to DENY the Request: Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09/11evelopment Review No. 2007-22/Variance No. 2007-05 --------- — l Printed Name - -- Signature Address Comment Date l?U �'_ l�/em N75 - �-� o CYaa,l /C�Cih LJ--� / rn�rrw� 8- r O -f ll 7J?? C1L'ilts J i� �l r ms- / 7l °� 5* - ----------- -�i�- V, .o (d a 01 GV Gtr Kul, ZQ 0-9 ca -- tet• ` `Z�����( �J `O -'(f j 07 Petition to DENY Conditional Use (permit No. 2007-09/Development Review No. 2007-22/Variance No. 2007-05 Petition We are AGAINST the Request: Conditional Use Permit No 2007-09/Development Review No. 2007- 22/Variance No. 2007-05. We do not want the installations in our neighborhood. Please vote against Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09/Development Review. No 2007-22/Variance No. 2007-05. _ Action, petitioned for We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens of our community who urge The City of Diamond Liar to act now to DENY the Request: Conditional Use Permit No 2007-09/Development Review No 2007-22/Variance No. 2007-05 Printed Name signature " Address - Comment-- ' Date 77 / - - �cl fi E F �'! 76C"jc l ��,.-- .• - ��;�� C7> �� �,'� ��. 1 13�„ C"i4 C, f -)&s / 7 " 7 5 f— 7 VC V r 7� —/ V°1 7Kar( . Conditional Use Permit N0. 2007-091Develooment Review N0. 2007-22/Variance No. .2007-05 Printed Name Signature Address Comment nate VL 17 226 T 6 �(A(J_,(_ rw - - --------- -- Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09/DevelOpnnent Review No. 2007-22/variance No. 2007-05 vve are AGAINST the Request: Conditional Use Permit No 2007-09/Development Review No 2007- 22/Variance No 2007-05. We do not want the installations in our neighborhood. Please vote against Co. Use Permit No. 2007-09/13evelopment Review No. 2007-22 Variance No. 2007-05. undersigned, are concerned citizens of our community who urge The City of Diamond Bar to act now to DENY L: Conditional Use Permit No 2007-09/13evelopment Review No. 2007-22/Variance No. 20 07-0 5 Printed Name n --- _ -- --- Signature --- Address Comment Dale V _ 51;Tay (LA : C(w 1 �_ ter✓, �%b� i %Er c0. nY � - .'SSC, �/ VvZ �fZo% —� � � l .ci-L-s� Zn. #� �� �S � c' gest � -- V aur V z �f w6 G _ ci .: 1 �/ �� . (� 7 1-73 j 11 ICrii Coo,\)7p? t4q— a - Petition to DENY Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-00/®eveloL)Lner�t Review No. 2007-22/Variance No. 2007-05 Petition We are AGAINST the Request: Condition l Use Permit No. 2007-09/Development Review No 2007- 22/Variance No._2007-05. We do not want the installations in our neighborhood. Please vote against Conditional Use Permit No, 2007-09/Development Review No. 2007-22/Variance No. 2007-05. Action petitioned for We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens of our community who urge The City of Diamond Bar to act now to DENY the Request: Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09/Development Review No. 2007-22/Variance No 2007-05 Printed Name Signature mo) LrA Address Comment 14z- e -A A 9 MC; J-( > 1 P Kn'r3'q l3i4q �7 Date 3 v 74zaz 71 -1�43/D Petition to DENY Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09/Development Review No. 2007-22/variance No. 2007-05 Petition We are AGAINST the Request: Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09/Development Review No. 2007- 22/Variance No. 2007-05. We do not want the installations in our neighborhood. Please vote against Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09/Develop►nent Review No 2007-22/Variance No 2007-05. Action petitioned for We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens of our community who urge The City of Diamond Bar to act now to DENY the Request: Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09/13evelomnent Review No 2007-22/Variance No. 2007-05 Printed Name Signature Address Comment Date Petition to DENY Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-091 Development Review No. 2007-22/Variance No. 2007-05 Petition I We are AGAINST the Request: Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09/Development Review No 2007- 22/Variance No. 2007-05. We do not want the installations in our neighborhood. Please vote against Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09/Development Review No 2007-22/Variance No 2007-05. Action petitioned for We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens of our community who urge The City of Diamond Bar to act now to DENY the Request: Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09/Development Review No 2007-22/Variance No 2007-05 Printed Name -- — Signature - Address — – — Comment _ _ -- -"-__.-- Date — 4 - _ P/,4 o Uh -- I. > _.k--���r�mr� -[..J� �l/ !-1 lil✓(r- [' g1 7,,yw, irur^�a� Dom, ('�I )O i Ac/n/------- �� _(_Z-- CA - — --- Q - �- Petition to DENY Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09/Develonnnent Review No. 200 "-22/Variance No. 2007-05 Petition Action petitioned for We are AGAINST the Request: Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09/Development Review No 2007- 22/Variance No. 2007-05 We do not want the installations in our neighborhood. Please vote against Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-091Development Review No 2007-22/Variance No 2007-05 We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens of our community who urge The City of Diamond Bar to act now to DENY the Request: Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09/Development Review No 2007-22/Variance No 2007-05 Printed Name Signature' Address Comment ��fr Date e/11Ztel l 6A.Q t� r �CJ (J k? % Lo brcl tjl a(q PCtItIOII to DENY Conclitionai Use Permit NO. ZUU/-U9/M _pevewliment Review No. 2007 -2Z/ -Variance No. 2007-05 Petition Action I)etitiOned for Printed Name WE! are AGAINST the Requp4.: L_o—% Litional Use Permit No. 2007 Q9A2tY_9_10VQ!9!!t_R9yiew N( MOT 22L%�a!iance o--2007- installatiol-, in our_11-c-ighbothood. Please Vote against conditiona A -I __ _.____05 - --We do not want the S jLse. eanit No, AO_Q7-_09/[)eve-lo No. 2007-05. i We, the cindersigned, are Concerned citizens of otir coninuinity who urge The City of Dianiond Oat to act now Lo DENY th Request: _Conditional U it o. 2007-09IQtVt-!QjLILIti -2 jance No. 2007-()5 _�_Reyiew_No. 2007_ZLV�Ii­____ Signature Address Comment Date '7/ To: City of Diamond Bar Community Development From: Dolores Khajavi Subject: Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09/Developmen Review No. 2007- 22/Variance No. 2007-05 As a 20 -year residence of the area, my family and I, Dolores Khajavi strongly oppose to the subject structure. I have discussed this matter with my neighbors and determined that practically all the residents resent building such a structure in our beloved Ronald Reagan Park. We oppose the building of such an unsightly structure and are aware of the studies in regard to health risks associated with Electro -Magnetic Radiation a cell tower can introduce in a community. We the residents of the area, look our elected officials to reject building such a structure in our backyard. Sincerely, Dolores Khajavi 20745 East Rim Lane, Diamond Bar, CA 91789 Phone No. 909-595-3921 City of Diamond'Bar, Community Development Dept. 27925 Copley Drive- , lei ltd Diamond Dar, CA 9'i -7f5 August 9, 2007 Dear Community Development Department: << a2 ( CA We are concerned about the possible health risks regarding the proposed installation of a cell phone tower (faux monoelm tree) at Ronald Reagan Park. The safety of cell phone towers is the subject of extensive scientific debate. There is a growing body of scientific evidence that electromagnetic radiation they emit, even at low levels, is dangerous to human health. The cell phone Industry has set what they say are "safe levels" of radiation exposure, but there Is a growing number of doctors, physicists, and health officials who strongly disagree. Long term and cumulative exposure to cell tower radiation has no precedent in history. Citizens should not be forced to act as guinea pigs in a bioeffects experiment for the next 20 years. We are in effect "the experiment." Federal government also once told us that asbestos, cigarettes, and the blood supply were safe. Studies have shown that even at low levels of this radiation, there is evidence of damage to cell tissue and DNA and it has been linked to brain tumors, cancer including leukemia, suppressed immune function, depression, miscarriage, Alzheimer's disease and numerous other serious illnesses. Once the towers are erected it is difficult to monitor radiation level. Children are at the greatest risk, due to their thinner skulls, and rapid rate of growth. This proposed site is at a park where, of course, our children play. Also at greater risk are the elderly, the frail„ and pregnant women. Furthermore, property values have been known to drop once a cell towers is erected, due to the perceived risk of negative health effects. The cell phone industry lobbied Congress with a $39 million in 19916 to ensure passage of a law which essentially gives them the right to place these towers in our neighborhoods, and makes it next to impossible to oppose them based on health reasons. It is no coincidence that Environment Protection funding was also cut lin 1995 for electromagnetic radiation health studies. The constitutionality of this Act has been challenged in the Supreme Court. This will take years however, while the public continues to be exposed to chronic cumulative radiation. There are :still rights we and Diamond Bar officials maintain, that allow us local control of the number, size and placement of cell towers, while still providing for adequate cell phone coverage. It is our request that the proposed cell phone tower site be moved to an uninhabited area where future home owners can choose If they wish to live next to a cell phone tower. Numerous communities have called for moratoriums on tower construction, allowing them needed time to study the issue, and enact strict ordinances that require the industry to respect community desires, such as building the towers in appropriate locations (especially not at a park or near schools.) Siting of cellular towers is an important function of Diamond Bar's elected officials. Protection of citizen's health and property rights should be foremost in the responsibility of Diamond Bar. We urge you to protect the health and welfare of your citizens who live here, rather than big -money interest with profit as your bottom line. Thank you in advance for supporting the defeat of the proposed tower at Ronald Reagan Park. -- V City of Diamond Bar, Community Development Dept. 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 94 -765` - August 9, 2007 Dear Community Development Department: c�� We are concerned about the possible health risks regarding the proposed installation of a cell phone tower (faux monoelm tree) at Ronald Reagan Park. Tho -safety of cell phone towers is the subject of extensive scientific debate. There is a growing body of scientific evidence that electromagnetic radiation they emit, even at low levels, is dangerous to human health. The cell phone Industry has set what they say are "safe levels" of radiation exposure, but there Is a growing number of doctors, physicists, and health officials who strongly disagree. Long term and cumulative exposure to cell tower radiation has no precedent in history. Citizens should not be forced to act as guinea pigs in a bloeffects experiment for the next 20 years. We are in effect "the experiment." Federal government also once told us that asbestos, cigarettes, and the blood supply were safe. Studies have shown that,even at low levels of this radiation, there is evidence of damage to cell tissue and DNA and it has been linked to brain tumors, cancer including leukemia, suppressed immune function, depression, miscarriage, Alzheimer's disease and numerous other serious illnesses. Once the towers are erected it is difficult to monitor radiation level. Children are at the greatest risk, due to their thinner skulls, and rapid rate of growth. This proposed site is at a park where, of course, our children play. Also at greater risk are the elderly, the frail„ and pregnant women. Furthermore, property values have been known to drop once a cell towers is erected, due to the perceived risk of negative health effects. The! cell phone industry lobbied Congress with a $39 million in 1996 to ensure passage of a law which essentially gives them the right to place these towers in our neighborhoods, and makes it next to impossible to oppose them based on health reasons. It Is no coincidence that Environment Protection funding was also cut in 1996 for electromagnetic radiation health studies. The constitutionality of this Act has been challenged in the Supreme Court. This will take years however, while the public continues to be exposed to chronic cumulative radiation. There are still rights we and Diamond Bar officials maintain, that allow us local control of the number, size and placement of cell towers, while stili providing for adequate cell phone coverage. It is our request that the proposed cell phone tower site be moved to an uninhabited area where future home owners can choose if they wish to live next- to a cell phone tower. Numerous communities have called for moratoriums on tower construction, allowing them needed time to study the issue, and enact strict ordinances that require the industry to respect community desires, such as building the towers in appropriate locations (especially not at a park or near schools.) Siting of cellular towers is an important function of Diamond Baas elected officials. Protection of citizen's health and property rights should be foremost in the responsibility of Diamond Bar. We urge you to protect the health and welfare of your citizens who live here, rather than big -money interest with profit as your bottom line. Thank you in advance for supporting the defeat of the proposed tower at Ronald Reagan Park. Diamond Bar Planning Commission City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department 218;25 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 July 24; 2007 Subj. Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09/Development Review No. 2007-22/Variance No. 2007-05 Location: 2201 Peaceful Hills Road (Ronald Reagan Park), Diamond Bar, CA 91765 We strongly oppose to building a new cellular tower at Ronald Reagan Park. Ronald Reagan Park, a public park where residents come to relax and participate all kinds of recreation activities is definitely not the proper place for a technology which could endanger health and well being. No one is saying not to have cell phones and towers but to snake thein safer. We do not have to let these cell towers go anywhere and everywhere the industry wants them. We simply do not know at this time what the possible health consequences of long; term; low level exposure to RF of the type used by cellular tower antenna will be. Also, once a cell tower is erected, it has proved very difficult to verify the radiation is within legal limits. There are no safety measures in place to ensure that the towers are not emitting; higher radiation levels than legally allo,,ved. Property values have also been known to drop once a cell tower is erected, due to the perceived risk of negative health effects. Protection of citizens' health and property rights should be foremost in the responsibilities of local government. We urge our elected officials to protect the health and welfare of the citizens who live here. Sincerely, Fei Ho & Hsiaoling Tsao 20832 High Country Drive Walnut, CA 91789-4054 APN: 8765-016-025 7/23/07 `1'o : The City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department Subject: Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09/Development Review No. 2007-22/Variance No.2007-05 Comments: Disagree with Subject. 44. APN:8765-015-003 Sang K FFim 20815 Quail Run Dr. Diamond Bar CA 91789-4033 Date; 7/23/07 Page 1 of 1 Stella Marquez From: Michael D. Park [mdp2156@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 9:14 PM To: Stella Marquez Subject: Fwd: public hearing re: Ronald Reagan Park ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Michael D. Park <mdy2156 mail.com> Date: Jul 23, 2007 9:12 PM Subject: public hearing re: Ronald Reagan Park To: stella.marquez.(a-),ci.diainond-bar.ca.us To Whom It May Concern, July 23, 2007 Since I will be unable to attend the public hearing on Tuesday, July 24th due to a prior engagement, I would like to go on record as being opposed to the potential placement of a communications tower in Ronald Reagan Park. I have signed a petition which some of my neighbors have been circulating and will present at the hearing. ').Air)nn Michael D. Park 20787 E. Rim Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91789 (909) 839-0965 To: Diamond Bar Planning Commission From: Emerson Chen 20502 E. Ri-m Lane, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Re: Strong against the request conditional use pern-.it no. 2007- 09/development review no. 2007-22/variance no. 2007-05 1. The teleconununitions facility just right in the center of residence area. 2. 'The telecommunitions facility, just right in the Ronald Reagan Park. This is one opular park in our Diamond Bar Communi In the � _o 9 , 22, 2007, there were about 150 people/75 cars in the park. Please see the attached 18 print photos and. 56 digital photos in CD, Emerson Chen NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Cly of Dlamvntl Bal, tins ceplvy Drive, Dbpnend Bar, CA x1765 T9. PrupT Umar."hm a 1 UDC_afylladue al Wbjrl Yle FROM Damon] Bm PWmmN Lpmmeslpn NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pemeam Is SWI ipw ene Damana Bnre Manmlwi Cpee (DBMCI. a pubbc hvm m,.11 pe bele by me D s,1613M PWan ,,g Lommunvnm Gehmninewnefw� rn npl N¢ WgalmqueYeM1aAaa W..d OATENIOIMEO SWING: TYeaday, JUIV 24 2007.7:0D P.M ... �,..,..W .........�, PUDE OF NEARNO'. S..IhC., ,,85v0^I11MDnve Dompne Bm LA 51166 C -IM wiau Conditional Use Pamdt No. 2067-091Dwelopmenl Review Nb, 2007-22Narianoa No. 207-05 PROKMfi DREE6. 2201 Peaceful HIIIs Road (Ronald Reapan Pak), Diamond Ba, CA 91765 A!I&VZOP PAPLEL NO.: APN V5 -d 153 PROPERTY CWNER: ON, til D2mond Ba AppYp,Rt; Spnnl Nadel. 310 CO pmme¢ Nd 07A5- F=Ew.. tl U 1 Ipunwm uCWeSeclbne }2.5B.22AB. U,U ane 22 e2 -hese open Vons eq 1 gybes e'monoelm eM a1A73YCOR. mshhalAn mnWdinpelvntennv avecvedtvafiur blm lma rmm�wntyma _Me IF, en Ag .'sa'IepYllae 1pl llletl aNNa�eFMam al evieWOreE Ne V�eyoim aPTpvN la mn ane Da,2mpme^ quvae IPS Np a61re{IaA'mpncalm'wlike e¢eetle 112 )5 kel m.n, beynl pllpwed IwaeWcturt. Seo1Ni^nN15]Ol U O �ERI"T IPmnll^be NY IM1I pfoMl6edMRpn:'allYexenlp�rlmnmenW OuaIRy M11LE0N1, Ncm Sw _ 1 '41 �Mm L2 �;l Nt Il ILL I *sem t "till r' a aad�o � .r. { r i ' r 'yam,. �.I _-'%✓ T J'. JAM 0 tow 9. �� ��`� � � �y;., saik�-;1'. - W _ 9 x'., x� a ]� � ly _ Fj�N ,. __ ��, L Ley Y�� 1� tM1. �,.� ��'�y Slp - •h Pa.. �.,6 NF � s' i �� y. saik�-;1'. - W _ 9 x'., x� a ]� � ly _ Fj�N ,. __ ��, L Ley Y�� 1� +... `� .. s' i �� ii d.i saik�-;1'. - W _ 9 x'., x� a ]� � ly _ Fj�N ,. __ ��, L ni �,� .may. SFU 3 $ bb va r y �� i� � �� � 6 4 _� ::.�� �, � , .Ixt .':. ii d.. d<` ti �,:. �� :-a YFS L y� ba � yyy! :� � 'Y� ��'T 4��{' e'4 �. 'Y ,� , �� A eTM� a. �: •���: ® �~ d _ ,� ,-- «� ; �„_ e��aa �, r ���; �-�' ., '��_ . aux ,i 4 , ail JOWw -'..,. •.. _.'syr. 414 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED, A TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY INSTALLATION CONSISTING OF ANTENNA ATTACHED TO FAUX ELM TREE COMMONLY REFERRED TO ASA "MONOELM" AND AN EQUIPMENT BUILDING TO MATCH EXISTING PARK STRUCTURES FOR: SPRINT NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS ED GALA (714)368.3930 FOR MOR INFORMATION CONTACT THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR (909)839.7035 DWI r '�IlK _ � y r M1 Y !! 1 _ iv n r:r try a ; 1 . T4+ I�, `r Y •yt • A ���o 4p sT, '. �^p!�" l/", pts • y'�`A1� ` J C f '*fit 1 r.' � .� � •�'�� .�.. �3 Views r�.�,:..:. �:`%",;_ " _ - -- r- •7�i .: 'f4 'Aa... a a' �.-, v : ri �. aye. F. ♦ au � . � � � Ci r• ��.T� ��o. its _ 3 ,�� U.. 4 ■I��I �# ate° �Aj --.- r�.�,:..:. �:`%",;_ " _ - -- r- •7�i .: 'f4 'Aa... a a' �.-, v : ri �. aye. F. ♦ au � . � � � Ci r• r services within the community. The City Attorney will prepare a separate analysis of the issues raised in Ms. Geddes' letter, and submit the analysis to the Council prior to the appeal hearing. Additional correspondence and petitions objecting to the proposed cell site are included in Attachment 12. CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS: The City Council may: 1. Reject the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission denial of the proposed project; 2. Uphold the appeal, thereby reversing the Planning Commission decision to deny the proposed project; 3. Continue the matter to a date certain for additional information; or 4. Direct the applicant to redesign the project and remand the project to the Planning Commission NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 700 -foot radius of the Project Site and the notice was published in the Inland Valley Bulletin and the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on November 9, 2007. A notice display board was posted at the site, and a copy of the legal notice was posted at the City's designated community posting sites. 1Z!:719A:»bi0-Ya REVIEWED BY: Greg Gubman, AICP David Doyle Planning Manager Assistant City Manager Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-50 Denying Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22 and Variance No. 2007-05 2. Appeal and Supporting Documentation 3. July 24, 2007 Planning Commission Staff Report 4. July 24, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes 5. August 14, 2007 Planning Commission Staff Report 6. August 14, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes 7. September 25, 2007 Planning Commission Staff Report 8. September 25, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes 9. October 9, 2007 Planning Commission Staff Report 10. October 9, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes 11. Correspondence from Valerie Geddes 12. Additional Petitions and Correspondence Objecting to the Proposed Wireless Telecommunications Facility at Ronald Reagan Park 5 ■. .1 11/19/2007 16:21 FAX 949 933 7679 N G K & E / GC LhW OMCES NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP SUITE 1800 18101 VON KARMAN AVENUE IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612-0177 (949)833-7800 (949)833-7878 Date: 11/19/07 Time! 3:35 pm Pages (including cover page) To: Mayor Steve Tye and Members of the City Connell Firm: City of Diamond Bar Fax: (909) 861-3117 Main No.: (909) 839-7000 2001/003 File No: 03079-0001 From: John J. Flynn III e-mail: jflynnCu,nosseman.coin Comments: Re: Sprint Nextel: Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09; Development Review No. 2007-22; and Variance 2007-05 Please see correspondence transmitted herewith - ORIGINAL WILL Nor $E SENT If YOU DO NOT RECEIVE THE NUMBER OF PAC-tFSTIVDIC.ATEL) ABOVE, P I .RASE CALL Robin Goldcr AT (949) 833-7800 AIT,ENTION. This n�rsSa,P,e is iirlf+rded only for the. ttse ojtha iulividuu( nr- enfitf+ to which i1 is addressed and may contain w1ormation that is' privileged, cw{fid8n[iul, urtd exempt frons disclosure under uppfirable law If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby nnlified t>nt an y use, diesenaination, drstriburion, or euprring of this rornmtmicafiort is strictly pruhihired. Ifyou hove recerved this communicattmr in error, prose notify us immediately ky eelephone, and return this original message to us at the above address via the US. Postal bervine. Thank yov. 11/19/2007 16:21 FAX 943 833 7878 N G K & E / OC LAW OFFIC.FS NOSSAINIAN, GUTUNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, 1A,P 16101 VON KARMAN AVFNLIF. SHITE 9F00 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612-0177 )9uyj 69J-7 s',IUO TEL (J49) 633.7876 FAX rrww.n os sa m:+n.cnm JOHN J FLYNN III (R40) 477.7535 Direct ,ri,,®nOgydmOn DOM November 19, 2007 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL (909) 867-3777 Mayor Steve Tye and Members of the City Council City of Diamond Bar 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Re: Sprint Nextel: Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09; Development Review No. 200722; and Variance 2007-05 Dear Mayor Tye and Members of the City Council: R 062/003 REhtR FG FILES 6t;at66-nno1 We continue to represent Sprint Nextel ("Sprint") with respect to all matters pertaining to the permitting of Sprint's wireless telecommurtications facilities in the City of Diamond Bar. This letter addresses Sprint's proposed facility at 2201 Peaceful Hills Road. I am writing in support of Sprint's appeal from the Planning Commission denial of Sprint's Application, and to reaffirm the positions stated in our previous letter of October 8, 2007, authored by Gregory W- Sanders of this law firm. It is our sincere hope that the City Council will reverse the decision of the Planting Commission, and grant the requested CUP. A representative of Sprint will be present at the November 20, 2007 hearing, in order to make a presentation, to the Council, and to answer questions the Council might have about the application. In addition, I plan to attend the meeting, and will be happy to answer any questiolis that members of the Council might have about Sprint's view orthe applicable law. We would also like to express our disagreement with the view of the law taken by an opponent of Sprint's application, Valerie Geddes. Ms. Geddes has cited a number of cases in support of the argument that the denial of one application does not constitute a prohibition under the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, and that there is no prohibition if at least one other company provides service in the area of Sprint's gap. The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, whose decisions govern federal law in California, has rejected the approach Laken in decisions relied upon by Ms. Geddes. See MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and County of Sara Francisco, 400 F.3d 715, 730-33 (9th Cir. 2005)- 280093 ).doc LO$ ANGELES SAN FRANCISCO ORANGE OOUNTY SAGRAMENTO WASHINGI ON. 0.C.7VIRGINIA AUSTIN SEATTLE 11/19/2007 16:21 FAX 949 93.3 7978 N G K & E / GC (009/0-09 NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & E,1JAOTT, LLP Mayor Steve Tye and Members of the City C011I1c1I of the City of Diamond Bar November 19, 1-007 Pabe 2 We look forward to the opportunity of addressing the Council tomorrow night, and reserve the right to present further arguments and evidence. Finally, in response to the October 24, 2007 request of Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant to David Alvarez, Planning Technician, that Ed Gala of Sprint sign and have notarized a copy of the Planning Commission's Resolution, Sprint Nextel declines to do so. It appears to us that the request for signing the affidavit was communicated in error. Signatures of that kind are sometimes requested where a project has been approved, but not where it has been denied. Thank you for your considrxation of eur letter. of NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LI.P I .Parr 280093 i,doc LOS ANC�ELLS SAN FRANCISCO QRANGP QOUNT SACRAMENTO WASHINGTON, ❑.CJYIRCINIA AUSTIN SEATTLE RECEIVED NOV 12 2091 November 18, 2007 ,QJ �� { Dear City Council Members: I believe that a 45 -foot cell tower infringes on our small residential park and destroys the% character of Ronald Reagan Park. The mono -elm might suffice in a business/commercial area or next to a freeway, but it is not acceptable to me and my neighbors. This tower, a poorly disguised "stealth" fake tree with blue-green metal leaves, would look ridiculous in a small park meant to be a natural setting. Furthermore, this eyesore would disrupt my peace of mind as I visit the park in attempt to "get back to nature." Sprint/Nextel boasts that the tower will be placed on the slope at the park; freeing up the "usable pad" of grass on top_ In my opinion, Sprint either forgot what it was like to be a child or they don't care. The woodsy slope at Ronald Reagan Park is often used and is a great place for kids to slide, play hide and go seek, jump through the tangled ground cover, and search for tennis balls. They feel they are hiking and exploring uncharted territory. I should know because I have supervised my children and their friends on this slope for over two decades. For most young children, this part of the park is more interesting than the grass above. There is very little accessible wilderness area in Diamond Bar for children to roam. The undeveloped areas in Diamond Bar usually are private property or contain poison ivy. (Pictures of my child's swollen face due to an encounter with the plant can be provided upon request). While natural areas help make Diamond Bar a beautiful city, they are primarily not child friendly places as is our "wilderness" slope at Ronald Reagan Park. We feel that this tower, with access road and additional building is intrusive and will damage the setting of Ronald Reagan Park. The wireless services industry is very aggressive and it is hoped that the City of Diamond Bar will stand up on behalf of our concerns and deny the Sprint/Nextel project at Ronald Reagan Park. We are certain that other solutions to cell phone coverage can be found without compromising the integrity of our park. mcerely, ! F q s e'Bruce Kerno an, Resident near Ronald Reagan Park Cell (that works fine by the way) (909) 450-4556 7.12 prn From: Emerson Chen November 20, 2007 20802 E. Rim Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91789 To: Diamond Bar City Council Members Re: Reject the Appeal and Deny the Telecommunications Facility at Ronald Reagan Park 1. Ronald Reagan Park is small but one of the most popular community parks in the City of Diamond Bar. There are many seniors, adults, young and children exercise, play or do some activities in the park every day and in the every weekend. 2. Any small square inch of property in the Park belong to the City of Diamond Bar and belong to the residents of Diamond Bar, but not belong to the private business company. The request to install and operate a telecommunications facility not only need follow the basic State, County or City codes but also need consider the public policy, public interest and listen to the voices of the local residents. If only follow the basic codes, there are many locations/sites to choose from, but not in the public park area and not in the residential area. 3. All dear City Council Members, we listened to your statements during your election campaign and we voted for you. Now it is the time you need listen to the voices of local residents: refect the appeal and deny the telecommunications facility at Ronald Reagan Park. 4. Please vote NO, NO, NO, NO, NO and reject the appeal. Thanks! God Bless America! God Bless Diamond Bar! Emerson Chen ,-�i W--�p Sprint Nextel Corpo, ration (Site: LA73XCO17 Ronald Reagan Park) 2201 Peaceful Hills Road Conditional Use Permit Application City of Diamond Bar Project Description Sprint Nextel Corporation proposes to construct, operate and maintain an unmanned wireless telecommunication facility located at 2201 Peaceful Hills Road (APN 8765-015- 900) in the City of Diamond Bar. This site is designed to increase radio capacity near the intersection of Pathfinder and Peaceful Hills Roads, provide in building radio coverage in the surrounding vicinity and to off load radio traffic from surrounding sites (please refer to the attached map for surrounding site locations). Proposed is the construction of fifteen (15) 1' x 4' directional panel antennas on top of a thirty five foot (35) high broad leaf stealth antenna structure located northwest of the basketball courts in Ronald Reagan Park. Overall, maximum height of the antennas is proposed at 35 feet due to radio coverage requirements and a need to "handoff' radio traffic between nearby antenna facilities sono the project site. Stealth tree branches will extend to a height of approximat y 40 feet')'to create a more realistic appearance to this stealth antenna structure. In a ition, the proposed stealth tree is being structurally designed for co - location of one additional wireless carrier, which can be mounted below Sprint Nextel's antenna array. Radio equipment necessary to operate the proposed facility will be installed in an equipment building designed to match the park restroom and will be located near the northeast comer of the tennis courts. Connection from the radio equipment to the stealth antenna structure will be provided by underground conduit. Any disruption to park landscaping or grounds will be restored to its original condition at the end of project construction. The facility will be unmanned requiring only periodic routine maintenance visits, approximately once per month. The proposed facility will not have any significant impact to on site parking, circulation, noise, or views from adjacent properties. General Zoning Requested is approval of a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a wireless telecommunication facility in the Park zone. Surrounding land use consists of single family residential land uses. Light standards of a similar height to the proposed stealth antenna structure are located along Pathfinder and Peaceful Hills Roads and within the surrounding residential neighborhoods. 05/15/2007 Conditional Use Permit Planning Commission Findings The project site is located in Ronald Reagan Park bordered by both Pathfinder and Peaceful Hills Roads to the northeast, north and east. Both the stealth broad leaf antenna structure and equipment building will be located more then 200 feet from the nearest residential land uses. The proposed stealth antenna structure is designed to blend with existing mature trees on site and no significant visual impact to the surrounding community or park users is anticipated with project approval. The proposed equipment building is designed to match existing on site park buildings and should be indistinguishable as a wireless installation to most observers. Sprint Nextel's proposed wireless telecommunication facility will not have any adverse impact to the health, safety, welfare, valuation or enjoyment of surrounding land uses. It will, however, benefit surrounding land use by providing enhanced wireless communication coverage in an area currently experiencing radio coverage interference. The proposed facility will be unmanned requiring approximately one maintenance visit per month and will not have any significant impact to existing roadways and on and off site circulation nor have any impact on the character or use of the park or existing development in the neighborhood. Sprint Nextel is authorized and regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to operate their ESMR and PCS systems in the Southern California market area. Transmit power is typically between 100 to 500 watts per antenna sector, transmitting and receiving at a frequency of 806-866 MHz and 1850-1990 MHz. These levels are well below the safety standards established by the FCC and no health impacts are anticipated with this project in conformance with city goals for telecommunication uses. In addition, Sprint Nextel's proposed stealth antenna structure is being designed to support up to one additional wireless carrier mounted below Sprint Nextel's antenna array. This project design will provide mitigation of future wireless development in the area by allowing for the concentration of additional facilities at one location, thereby minimizing the spread of these facilities throughout the community. System Description Sprint Nextel has been authorized by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to construct and operate the first dual-purpose digital mobile radio system in the United States. The system provides superior service to the public by upgrading older analog technology to state of the art digital technology. This service is offered to local public safety entities as well as to the general public. In the event of an emergency, Sprint Nextel has the ability to provide emergency communications within the surrounding area, as was done for the American Red Cross during recent natural and man made disasters. 05/15/2007 The new combined (ESMR) and (PCS) systems offers two-way radio service, including a dispatch function for fleet vehicle users, while also providing telephone, data transmission, paging, short message functions, and voice mail services. The system provides the ability to create user "talk groups" within specific geographic areas, wherein a dispatcher can contact only the closest units to a given location rather than the entire fleet. This streamlines the dispatching process while allowing faster response to customer demand. The service area is divided into a grid of theoretically hexagonal geographic areas. At the center of each area is a low power; unmanned radio repeater station, which handles the calls to and from mobile customers within the area. As amobile unit moves from one area to another with a call in progress, the call is automatically "handed off' to the next repeater station without interruption. Telephone line connections between repeater sites and the switching office, and from the switching office to the telephone company central office, permit mobile customers within the service area to utilize their phones, with direct dialing, no operator, and with superior audio quality. Transmit and Receive Transmit power is adjusted to provide adequate. coverage and typically is within the range of 100-500 watts ERP (effective radiated power) per sector. Mobile units and antenna installations transmit and receive at a radio frequency of 806-866 MHz and 1850-1990 MHz. Regulating Agencies Sprint Nextel is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and is authorized to operate in the frequencies established for Specialized Mobile Radio operators. Sprint Nextel's wireless telecommunication facilities operate at the lowest possible power levels and are well below established standards used by the FCC for safe human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. These standards have been tested and proved safe by the American National standards Institute (ANSI) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). 05/15/2007 O (�D < i 3 m a, o (D o Q O o C Q N CD rt G _ (D �a C N (D CD f v+ n n 0 M ro << (, < " -I cn fl Z ni K to 6 0) O m iD x. 10 Q lD p n n = N O CD (D O Lon o CD < < ° h v CD v `" z � of O 3 G') Cj rt CSD (DD O m tp to o- p n v n CT rt v O v n `m rD v o rt fl! s < < (D m CD v CD R o _0 a� 3 0 Q fS"F G r D v w X n 0 O O CD O CD -a CD < < rr rt CD ro al (D 3 CO CD rt r w O O �. CD rt C a' zi O CD rnt 7 U n n < a CD 0..r .. ° v ( C oD D (D Lo C W a _ - si N v� LEH�i e Z T I r LA -amu �n V a O o < �p I�. � lV m iL O � 3 "- < CD m m rt ! * y (D e+ Icfl u O - rt Z 7 m v I, s Lo m— 0 - mo fD O -ho rt 0 12 O 6 rt N aj a::3 0 Cr zT =1r n (D 7 O (D r* O Vi 0) 0 n < rt (f) rt < OD < (D O C) 0 0 CL w V W l J O N l - rt I, s 0 0 i 3 0- 44 44 ;=p w X n O rt rt (D o (D O O d < < 2 rt Z w O m o ro flJ Un — 7 rr w o (f) cD 0 o v fl. m rt O rr [D v r n� n n (DO O (D r* o no O C7 < r" L < (D O .. l0 CD i 3 0- 44 44 ;=p w X n O rt rt (D Sprint Together with Nextel. Ronald Reagan PaQk, LA73XCO1 e 2201 Peaceful HJUs Road, Diamond Bar, CA 91766 Existing Proposed N))�t Sprint Together with Nextel. Ronald Reagan Park LA73XCO17 2201 Peaceful Hills Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Existing f�^ r r. 4H �n: ,�' df l - j%j%11 � �i ��a LR}a �.�rt��r �% i _ .- � ' f� -y. _rl �. - z� '� .. } v r �.+ � _ �I. i - P � _ ` A � L — ,••� f _ �'µ' -(�... ' r � ss � 1- f\ - ._�` 1 4 it ft��o�T � _ ' �.. � ? j _ i .� fi�i� j "���SSS —_. 7 j3• %" J tr 9/. p r�%Igr� yi ��F �r. � �. �, 'Tt ('i. � es' �'T" '� aa� j�Y. i i r' Site Photographs Project site equipment building location looking southwest. Project site equipment building location looking northwest. Site Photographs Project site stealth tower location looking southeast. Project site stealth tower location looking north. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE PERFORMED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CODES AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITIES. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS IS TO BE CONSTRUED TO PERMIT WORK NOT CONFORMING TO THESE CODES. 1. CAFRA BNJMtG CODE CK -211111 5. CAFORNA 110W d ODDE CED -2W8 2 QklF0fflK ADMINbTRATIVE CODE 6. G&mm m>KWA oDDE Cuo-mi (INCL RILES 24 4 25) 2D01 7. CALIFORNIA RMINE CODE CPC­2DD1 3. WE15-2224 LEE SAFETY WE B. LlTJL-6Ud1N11G CCOE($) &. PoFPA-901-1497 9. CITY AND/OR COUNTY ORDINANCES 1 1 r �. I OUI It y 3 PROJECT GONSISIS OF THE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF TNNAS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT FOR THE ' SPRINT-NEXTE' R TELECOMMUNICATIONS N-LKMIJ. THIS SITE WILL CONSIST OR 90'X20' CUSTOM BUILT TELEMIMMUNICATION BUILDING 35-0° HIGH MONOBR047LEAF 4'-3' PANEL ANTENNAE; 5 ANTENNA'S PER SECTOR (3 SECTOR; TOTAL) POWEER, TECO 4 COAXIAL BLUE RUNS APPLICANT/LESSEE: CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NDm COMMUNICATIONS PHONE (714) 368-3507 310 COMMERCE FAX (714) 363-3501 IRVINE; CA 92602 DIAMOND BAR CITY HA_L CONTACT- LOU BUCELLO, LEASING COORDINATOR PHONE (949) 973-5751 FAY: (714) 383-3501 CONTACT: BRIAN SDT1S, CONSIRUCIDN MANAGER PHONE - FAX (714) 366-3501 - ODNTACT: USA BERGSHDUH. RF ENGINEER PHONE - FAX (714) 368-3501 CONTACT: ED GAA ZONING PHONE (714) 709-1523 FAX (714) 366-3501 PROPERTY INFORMATION OWNER CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADDRESS 21525 COPLEY DRIVE COMPANY: DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 CONTACT: DIAMOND BAR CITY HA_L PHONE (909) 839-700 A.P.N.: 8765-015-900 PROJECT INFORMATION: AREA OF CONSTRUCTION: EQUIP. LEASE AREA - 20D SO. FT. OCCUPANCY GROUP. (E) - NONE (OPEN SPMA (P) - B (TETECOMMUNI A110N FACU Y) CONSTRUCTION TYPE (E) - N/A. (P) - V -NR (MINIMUM) CURRENT ZONING: ZONING APPLICATION /: ACCESSIBILITY FACILITY IS UNMANNED AND NOT FOR REQUIREMEN - HUMAN HABITATION. HANDICAPPED ACCESS NOT REWIRED. PROJECT SUMMARY ARCHITECT: DCI PACIFIC 2450 DUPONT DRIVE IRVINE, CA 92512 CONTACT: D.K. DO PHONE: (949) 475-IDOD E-MAIL DKODCIPACIRCCDM FAX: (949) 475-IOD1 SURVEYOR: BERT HAZE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 3188 AIRWAY AVENUE, SUITE K7 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 CONTACT. BERT HAZE E-MAIL: BERT®BERTHAZE.COM PHONE: (714) 557-1567 FAX: (714) 557-1568 POWER: - PHN: COMPANY: FAY- AXCONTACT: CONTACT. E -MAL TELCO: PHN: COMPANY: FAX- AXCONTACT: CONTACT. E -MM_• UTILITY PROVIDERS DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS (IF NOT 24X36) W-RIFIC ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING -CONSULTING 2450 DUPONT DRIVE, IRVINE, CA 92612 PHONE: (949)475-1000 TAX',(949)475IWI Sprint `� Together with NEXTEL 310 COMMERCE, IRVINE, CA 92602 PHONE: (714) 36G-3500 FAX (914) 360-3501 • 3 IMENEWNIT-7�-M LANDLBRD LEASING ZONING RF cu d2AY2N e(: CHK p y: JIT' BDK DKQ [� 645E I R%RIPINif: 61: --- a/Bz/m RREUMINur z0 aor I--IM/29/r7I9NALZD I HD I I--IR+`/29/WI MON�BROADL RE➢G D IHQNI BENCH MARK: DIW LLS.GS. BENCH NARK 'BM l OJS' UNITED GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BENCH MURK "BM AS - - / \ - ARCHITECTURE 'ENGINEERING CONSULTiNG 2450 DUPONT DRIVE, IRVINE, CA 92612 PHONE:(949)47i1000 FAX:(949)475-1001 ON THE SHOWN ON THE YpRBA LINDA' J.5 MIN -TE QOApRANGLE A+AP, E MA ELEVAROW 1077.5 FEET AMS.L (NAVDSB) / \ I / o LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 800-227-2600 /.- V (PENDING RECEIPT OF 7= REPORT) \ Cell 2 FAI Working Days In Advance ♦� LOT 117 OF TRACT NO. 43152. IN THE CNY OF DMOND BAR. UR \ OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF ON 10 AS SHOWN / `eS ON AP OF ,I THROUGH 14,INCLUUS E OFID TRACT. CNAPS. INORDED N N SIDTHE OFFICE 6OFATHE GES Scv 0 \ T RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, Sprint ` Together '0V / 0 r' m 0 with NEXTEL 310 COMMERCE IRVINE, CA 92602 PHONE (714) 36835DO FAX: (]14)368-3901 PA'1Rsr DENMEC TON: RONALD REAGAN PARK - / LA73XCO17 =1 PEACEFUL HE'S ROND DIAMOND EW; G 01785 "s I \ WRREM 641E DATE / -- PROPOSED °SRR[NT-PIEXTEC N. ZONING PROPOSED'SPRINT-NEXTEL' / p./ ig, SEE / ,` PROPOSED'SPRINT-NEXTEL' f SHEET A3 FOR ANTENNA // \ O p�� TELECOMMUNICATIONS SHEETS LAYOUT PLAN E! FACILITY; SEE SHEET 0.2 FOR D I AC DRIVEWAY FROM (E) 1,NONOBROADLEAFI LUL-OESAL TSO' PROPOSED -0 LEABE ARE � \ fe S _ \ n \P / s\ ENLARGED SITE PLAN 1 PROPOSED CORE'CUT ON EXISTING CUt DESACI S�NNI p ASA SECURITY BOLLARDS AND CDMq SECTOR / t' �'� 7 P� 4 \ LANDSCAPE BARRIER (280' AZIMUTN)1 (E) TENNIS COURTS'D, APPROVALS: A�ROA'Dr 8r: 11MTE P • A C � ,? O uuDLDRD Lsswe " S'2` /� �P C��< E) CUL-DE-SAC i ✓ ^ \ RF �O t[ cM CDMA SEC'..; (700' AZIMUTH) qP ® \ / V - (E) GRASS AREA afN l DReMa ar. cNK: an: Couffm / _ 3 fo 3 a� (E) TOILET FACILITY 0- o I(' �\ O (E) TRANSFORMER MER -FiV)I �' m 11t \ oA 1 ISSUE STATUS: DAIS �tiP110It ET FXS N PROPOSED p \ ,1 -- OS/a2/07 PRELIMINARY 2O JM RNA_ ZD HN 'SPRINTPOWERP.O.LTEL' �1,/1a/nJ O / vs1 -- DS/]B/DJ NONO—BROApLEAF RELOCATED HON G: / E TRACT NO. 43162 (17 SAND PLAYGROUND 1 _ — h Q M.B. 1046/5-14 / / LOT 117 SAL ESSTO SITE SiE£f TIRE: 'an APN: 8765-015-900 / y I ! I N68'00'23"W (849.33') I OVERALL SfPE PLAN APN: APN: APN: APN: 8765-022-012 , APN: 8765-022-011 18765-022-010 18765-022-009 8765-022-OOB / / -- SHM N MER: rm1E LEVa: 11 F-�—I APN: APN; APN: APN: / APN: / APN: \\ I I 1 1 I � I I I 8755-022-007 i 8765-022-006 'I 8765-022-005 8765-022-004 / 8765-022-003 // 8765-022-002 ®PLME '�Al I DA pFP,, \;_, / / / 0 / / E, / / ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING CONSULTING 2450 DUPONT PHONE: (9 9)4TS1IRVINE, 000 FAX:I949)475-1001 iti / j � � /// Q�PGc�P{ (E) TREES, PROTECT IN PLACE. TYP. / s / TABLECNIC 'SPRINT-NEXTE \� t / PROPOSED 9'X18' SERVICE PARKING \ / Sprint AREA D \ / - (SHOWN DASHED) \ _ \ / Together with NEXTEL t \ GF' — PROPOSED'SPRINT-NEXTEL' - o. COAX CABLE TRENCHOTAL > �o, (T \ / Cl LENGTH FROM EQUIPMENT ENT TO POLE 1320'-07 COMMERCE, IRVINE, CN 92602 369-3501 PHONE (714) 368-3500 FAX: (]14)) 368- VA� \� PROPOSED 'SPRINT-NEXTE12 1A - �`] mENTI EQUIPMENT BUILDING; EXTERIOR FINISH PROPOSED VEHICULAR ) T \ : TO MATCH (E) ON-SITE RESTROOM TURN -AROUND AREARONALD REAGAN PARK ROOFING); SEE(CMU BLOCK SHEET ASEMENT FOR RLE RTO - SOA\ LA73XCO' I EQUIPMENT LAYOUT PIAN ' F`\ np 0. \ =1 RE !_ Iws Rmn . \ ttaarm aw. a enBs PROPOSED 'SPRINT-NEXTEL° ELECTRICAL/POWER TRENCH (TOTAL t. \ LENGTH FROM EQUIPMENT TO (E) TRANSFORMER ±270'-00 F �/� \ axaNr ERIE GlE: (E) PICIJIC TABLE \ (E) LIGHT STANDARDS, TYP. � \ ISSIm FQL APPROVALS: eF / �(E) e u NBwRp TENNIS COURTS -----\l- i k. l zoxixo im ,/� } vim` o O<" RF f 'PROPOSED 6'OX4'H SECURITY i i BOLLARDS ® 4'—D' O.C. \ (E) TREES, PROTECT �N �^ (REMOVABLE), 5 TOTAL IN PLACE, ttP. TRACT N0. 431.62 M.B. 1046/5-14 F� � \ m Bm LOT 117 � � \ APN: 8765-015-900 4/k ,i�'r PROPOSED ISSUE STATUS: PROPOSED 'SPRINT—NEXiEL' t2'WIDE � P o LANDSCAPE BARRIER �L CURB Z`UT '. '. LOCATION \ 'Ll, GTEmrt ec -- m/nz/m RR[uMiNArsr zn am J' e 1 ]✓ rL \ AC o DRNEWAY FROM (E) CUL—DE—SAC TO / " o PROPOSED LEASE AREA P o \ ...� A\ — w/2s/m nein m Hn --- M/29/01 M0N0-BR0ADLVV` Ra0CA7D HON Ori )L II (E) STREET LAMP, PROTECT IN PLACE R10 /. (E) TREES, PROTECT IN — �/ F PLACE, TYP j Ftp' PROPOSED a _--� EXISNNGUT AT CUL-DE-SAC (E) CUE -DE -SAC ENLARGED SITE PLAN E y TRANSFORMER; p X06 AlRFOR �E: �(E) TOILET TRANSFORMER O�pNd FACILITY OCATION �E .41 ENLARGED P ' =gym OAT i UU= 20'-0' - 9'-6° ll'P ( FIC 5'-6" 6° B° G. 9'-2" 3'-0' 2'-7" 3'-0" 3'-0° O PROPOSED 'SPRINT–NEXTEL° PRIMARY MODCELL V4.08 CABINET, 1 WEIGHT: 9538 LBS. ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERINGG-CONSULTING — — — — — — — — — — O PROPOSED 'S RIINNT–NDM' BATTERY CABINET, 2450 DUPONT DRIVE, IRVINE, CA 92612 PHONE X: (949) 4751000 FA(949)47x1001 2 _p WEIGHTO PROPOSED 'SPRINT–NEXIM! FUTURE CABINET, - WEIGHT: 9538 LBS. p O5–TON HVAC UNITS (WALL–MOUNTED), 2 TOTAL OS 4'X8'X3/4- HK. TELCO BACKBOARD iv O'TELCO SSPRINTPX DETERMINED BY NDcra!INTERCONNECT ENGINEER 1 O NG PANEL SURGE SUPPRESSOR AND INTERLOCKING BREAKER < 200A METER/MAIN MOUNTED ON EXTERIOR WALL \� Sprint / II, � - Together with NEXTEL O200A EMERGENCY GENERATOR RECEPTACLE MOUNTED ON EXTERIOR WALL Ilk/r 3,6L_ m i �I 7 i O LOCATION FOR STEP-DOWN TRANSFORMER, IF REQUIRED; PENDING UTILITY - 10 COORDINATION REPORT 310 COMMERCE, IRVINE, CA 92602 PHONE (714) 36&3500 FA%:(]14)3663501 10 o 1 / i M L 5 tO CONDUIT SNB -UPS FOR COAX CABLES O FINISH FLOOR LEVEL PiNFCf DEMIAGTUN: L___J D Q 5'X5' CONCRETE STOOP RONALD REAGAN PARK ��— Q4'W X 7'H ACCESS DOOR LA73XCO17 97% —=-- -------—r m Ilk o FIN I HE °Ge,>�FLOOR HOMOGENEOUS VINYL FLOOR TILE PER 'SPRINT L' STANDARDS- BOAR CEILING GYPSUM BOARD W/ SEMI–GLOSS FINISH WALLS—DAMP–PROOFED CMU WALL --e—E—e4TO POWER P.O.C. W/ SEMI–GLOSS FINISH EXIIERIO EXTERIOR WADS—DAMP–PROOFED CMU WALL TO MATCH EXISTING � LSSUm r1M. EOUIPMENT L.AY °A E: i z®NINO MONO SPECIFICATIONS: / -BROADLEAF NOTE MONOTREE DRAWINGS ARE SCHEMATIC ONLY. REFER TO PHOTOSIMS AND APPROVALS: (E) TREES, PROTECT IN PLACE -��� i / /� / /� VENDOR DRAWINGS FOR FINAL REVIEW AND FABRICATION PURPOSES. JURISDICTION AND CM TO REVIEW AND APPROVE VENDOR MONOTREF SHOP ippppym ar: Ip,w,g pae ANDLORD _ /' _�� DRAWINGS PRIOR TO FABRICATION. taws �� /� PROPOSED STYLE: - ELM zDNixs / OPS I - i E PROPOSED HEIGHT: 40'MAX. (TOP OF BRANCHES) RF in 5�"� (MEASURED FROM AVERAGE ADJACENT GRADE LEVEL AT ' 'SPRINT / // / ! CAISSON FOOTING TO TOP OF BRANCHES.) - PROPOSED -N L' 35'-x° j HIGH MONO -BROAD ; SEE SPECS_;' '5-0°0/ j ��% - / J�yO NUMBER OF ANTENNAS: 5 ANTENNAS PER SECTOR; 15 TOTAL cu i // / CAISSON �% 0 4 ANTENNAS PER SECTOR; 12 TOTAL (FUTURE) - / /� TOP OF ANTENNAS: 35' z / CDMA , i s: p HEIGHT OF ANTENNAS: 4'-3" (�O �� 0,) / . / /// / _ ANTENNA RAD CENTER: 33' - / /ANTENNA / / CD COLOR: PAINT TO BLEND WITH LEAVES / O� MkX. (i 0' gZIMURH)Z (E) TREES, PROTECT IN PLACE ISSUE STATUS: 0 D•.2' o �nalc sc PROPOSED 'SPRINT–NIDM7 -4'-3' j i NUMBER OF BRANCHES: 60 PANEL ANTENNAS; 5 ANTENNAS z/ PER SECTOR, 3 SECNRS TO 4 BRANCH DENSITY: 3 BRANCHES PER LINEAR FOOT -- 05/=/07pReuulNARr ZD am /' /j / / �q \ MAJOR BRANCH DIAMETER 20'-0- — DS/29/rt] FINAL ZD HH -- 05/29/p7 MOND-BR0.40LEAF RE1DGlED NDN I / A\ � q�4 LOWEST BRANCH HEIGHT: ,5' (MEASURED FROM AVERAGE ADJACENT GRADE LEVEL AT CAISSON FOOTING TO LOWEST BRANCH.) 4� /QF./ 1.-3. BRANCH EXTENSION (ABV): 5' TYP• TO EQUIPMENT BUILDING SIMULATED LEAVES YES (SOCKS) - ' 5.-0. - ADHERED TO ANTENNAS: Q I / /' OJ20 TYP. POLE STYLE: 18 SIDED POLYGON (GALVANIZED STEEL) T Tom' `O tzD'—D° DA TAPERED: No EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNA COATING DR BARK: COATING (PAINTED) LAYOUT PLANS COLOR: DICEIDUOUS BEIGE MULTI-TDNE. HEIGHT OF COATING OR FULL HEIGHT BARK: o m MICROWAVE DISH ANTENNA: NO �¢f WIYmtJL�VE MICROWAVEHAD CENTER: N/A N I A V W{ SCALE pBN LL ItPACIFIC ARCHITECTURE- ENGINEERING CONSULTING 2450 DUPONT DRIVE, IRVINE, CA 92612 PHONE: (949)4T5-1 ODD FAX:(949)475-1001 (E) TREE (OUTLINE) 9 BACKGROUND (E) TREE (OUTLINE) ® BACKGROUND PROPOSED 'SPRINT-NEXTEL° MONOBROADIFAF; SEE SHEET A3 FOR SPECIFICATIONS\\ PROPOSED 'SPRINTTEL° 4°-3' . S AN PANEL ANTENNAS: 5 ANTENNAS PER SECTOR, 3 SECTORS TOTAL FUTURE (CO LOCATION) s �` ANTENNAS (SHOWN T.O. ANTENNAS V DASHED) POLE 'TSN SPRINT-NEXTEL' ENTER I print Together with NEXTEL Jif °a��.a ` 51 } P` - -PROPOSED 910 COMMERCE, IRVINE, CA 92602 �.- r E ry !J tT . ,,,y� �1,,-rte ,g- �g.� > 1, - GPS ANTENNA (2 TOTAL) MOUNTED TO CLEAR TOP OF PHONE'_(T14)36&3s00 FAX:p14)368-3sD1 -- EQUIPMENT BUILDINGle ''^' L- �j-x•..� �I ° y (E) CHAIN LINK FENCE Y _'' � Rxoaxr oXECHnOrwns,: ROA PARK � ) N (E) TREES, z PROTECT '' LA 3O17 22]1 TJG6UL In a ft9D IN PLACE, TYP.H, nom"'' y '�IJI r ouMotm SAM a 91735 Lu 'JPROPOSED I WfSiFHI 611E 611E I 09/17/07 'SPRINT-NEXTEL' 10'X20' CUSTOM-BUILT TELECOMMUNICATION BUILDING; EXTERIOR FlNISH6 l0 MATCH EXISTING PARK'S RESTROOM— L49m Bat - - ZONING �iy ELEVATION 171 E A scams: 1 APPROVALS: o�arm ar: amus aE: CEMENT TILE ROOFING, 5-TON HVAC UNITS unD'DRD COLOR TO MATCH EXISTING-\ (WALL-MOUNTED), 2 TOTAL PROPOSED 'SPRINT-NEXTFL' LE0.51ND MONOBROADLEAF: SEE SHEET A3 FOR SPECIFICATIONS (E) TREES, PROTECT PROPOSED 'SPRINT-NEKTEL' 4°-3' y- C'%K� �IN PLACE, TYP. PANEL ANTENNAS; 5 ANTENNAS SECTOR, 3 SECTORS TOTAL. -� oTI iii.. ITS-�I I Ir II I n``v zoNlrvc RIF Du' T.O. ANTENNAS POLE - G.J 7 iv I i1 �. - ! OR4YM BY: dIX FF✓: S,. 1r�( TI a r r FUTURE (CO-LOCATION) ; f ISSUE STATUS: CMU BLOCK WALL, COLOR AND BLOCKTEXTURE TO MATCH POWER/if1C0 PANElS -- 05/9/9 PreEUNINARY ZD am EXISTING AND EGR ANTENNAS - --- os/ss/9 FINa ZD nx - (SHOWN DASHED) £ S.EIA _ - o 05/29/9 NONO-BR=UDF RF1DL4iED HON T.O. EQUIPMENT BLDG. WOOD SIDING/TRIM TO i, » - �1 MATCH EXISTING- �- -- (E) GONG. CURB POWER/TELCO PANELS' LOUVERED VENT AND EGR y�✓ `0 PROPOSED 'SPRINT-ND TEL' 10'X20' CUSTOM-BUILT TELECOMMUNICATION 5'-0'® CONC. CAISSON ¢� 11nr= 1 BUILDING; EXTERIOR FINISHES TO MATCH EXISTING PARK'S RESTROOM w J, E ALIGNS :] n TO ETX;E OF CURB 44 CMU BLOCK WALL, COLOR ;' AND TEXTURE TO MATCH HOSLOPE IT ERT.)NITS - HDR., 1 UNIT VERT.) EXISTING (E) STREET LEVEL -----� EQUIPMENT BLDGL ELEVATION FEql,IB`y'L" 131 NORTHEAST ELEVATIONA4 W9®il a GEODETIC COORDINATE LOCATION ---------------------- LEGAL DESCRIPTION: "M REWT OF ME FORM a DATE OF SURVEY: APIL N42007 / fi %.Po SDR A COURTS, O_ 'GRASS, O •FcNN15 COURTS, 0 O `GRASSY Tm/p yppp�� p{�y /y�q `GRASS, oXn H81Ac No. 8®182 M.8. 1648/ &% LOT iv S2 fj w 'GRASS, H9 SP,/ry m tt e"O lT d (C I 1 k T 0 \ R RC �O zu N _ 00 DR / I 'RESIDENTIAL AREAS @ate_ I �+rw I / • g / LOT 12 LOT ii �ft T ¢ I LOT 08 I LOT 07 I LOT 00 LOT 06. % LOT 04 LOT 08 / LO7 W j LOT IS I I �WAFM ARL AM LOT i0 1 LOT 00` I ARL 1 itala. sI••r�a rrl�i�r..cr SCALE 1' = 40' DOW _ 8ker —DOW— LEGEND: APK APEX TOE TOE OF SLOPE ' BBQ BD BARBECUE BOLLARD TOP TP TOP OF SLOPE TOP 2r \ - SUCH BLEACHER TR ME / BLD BUILDING TRN TRANSFORMER /8R BW CFL BACK OF WALK CONCRETE ROW ONE TRPN TW PINE TREE TOP OF WALL y '$ CLF CHAIN LINK FENCE WK WALKWAY E CPD EB% CONCRETE PAD ELECTRICAL BOX WM RVBB WATER METER WATER METER PULL BOX w. EX EDC£ DF CONCRETE tt rnRD uGlir / wam FID FOUND PH PRE BLOCK WALL ek a ASE ICV HOUSE IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE ® BOLLARD RT R. \ ISFW INSIDE FACE OF WALL — — CHAIN ONK FENCE ME MOW STRIP `GRASS, IS NATURAL GROUND CE CENTERLINE OH OVERHANG 0 FOUND MONUMENT S/W SPIKE AND WASHER - SL STREET LIGHT 1Y FIRE HYDRANT wry ozuu "* _ \ 1CK TOP OF CURB SPIKE SiREET MGHT _ .. - 1E TRASH ENCLOSURE 1 YARD UGHT O_ 'GRASS, O •FcNN15 COURTS, 0 O `GRASSY Tm/p yppp�� p{�y /y�q `GRASS, oXn H81Ac No. 8®182 M.8. 1648/ &% LOT iv S2 fj w 'GRASS, H9 SP,/ry m tt e"O lT d (C I 1 k T 0 \ R RC �O zu N _ 00 DR / I 'RESIDENTIAL AREAS @ate_ I �+rw I / • g / LOT 12 LOT ii �ft T ¢ I LOT 08 I LOT 07 I LOT 00 LOT 06. % LOT 04 LOT 08 / LO7 W j LOT IS I I �WAFM ARL AM LOT i0 1 LOT 00` I ARL 1 itala. sI••r�a rrl�i�r..cr Sprint w Together with N EXTEL 'GRASS -] RI _ �\\m a y ,IRVINE, CA 92602 O C(714)MEB3E ,... yY� ]f -: l=Oa x Xx ] PHONE: i4 S6 -500 FAX: Q14)360-3501 @a��-� \i PRVFr:f BSOWIATOR / > e C®fl PARKC `GRASS, [` EE6 �.5z wim fu Eo,T WSm \Te0CER.415 LLD3 R0.SGAL: 1' _ 20'N® 6 EU' fa / @{P. G B1J� 6TE CGIINO' GFifEM LSIE OITE y4/ 60 WSM 1N S OO. uc uc tW-10 -.. 'GRASS, mfx Bm V"P/ZY/O / S lRM CTwi BLS / ��/ l➢t `� `GRASS, UP ASB ISSUED FOR _ � �/ � z01 0)180 O cW w�® / COPE afle 5Cfr'� N. HS\. - m MNA xSf xLm w AAAA' � Tp pelma jaP 8 [1fp R Knox: toT.tx R:vINTE: ar IOU, -\40 'GRASS,, W _ `TENNIS COURTS, G1tl wee R \e �m ' 6✓ _ .2.OP dp`,i� A lK, } pyxB am xc t.A- D -- " t max ✓.a�y/�o fa - a �.w m d A / N eaTx 'GRASS, 4 - 0 � °� �xc �- �� �m BUILDIN0. \ fl ge6r twl� &4R W]"u R.m 9M�� O RN6 Pt@PiF➢ e(: ( PACIFIC dF�d `®, � \ �/�S� �Lm X0+9` tw _ �F,fffl,W b GEODETIC COORDINATE `GRASS, _ B9,]LB LOCAMON 4 'w wtts C < � `BASKETBALL COURTS, `GRASS, m 192 ��A A/ea ` BB �� / gaeC4 -Z� �] `GRASS, ® <O �`N FRCHI1rCNRE ENGIN BRING PANNING 24a0011POGTG41VE 1RVWE L6. s]61R PHONE IMt 9)4iS1000 FM <iS10C1 ] �� BB2BB 0B2•tl l9<9 ' M � `GRASSa U.,F azm �6 `EXISTING ASPHALT PARKING LOT, d'g 9 CONSULTANT ,+,+''I�gy1 1J 'J}�AI i p9'� �iJJ J JJAJJ J tmnm y ANB ASSOCIATES, INC, m Btm- xc _ �29x W2W R& b u LAD &ryRp�VmD�]p��nn & MAPPI � 41'11C/ MIAIYCI4W ¢ IYYY(BW LEGENG: e9za'+ AIRWAY AVENUE, SUITE K1 ID xtmL'f tmaw - APX APEX TOE to- OF SLOPE RED BARBECUE ME TOP OF SLOPE 9n.0 'OVER HANG, A.3188 u5 fa 1pX1W siGf Nq <4t COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 T4 557-1567 OFFICE 714 557-1568 FAX Bp BTP TOC Wp - R BLCN BLEACHEACHE R TR T BID BUILDING SRN TRANSFORMER `GRASS, wXA n a�xm OVER HANG W 6F. Cf8(_ A1'V: CG WP MOL m PINEM BW BACK I WALX 7 PINE TREE xxfl �� `GRASS, CFL CONCRETE ROW UNE iW TDP WALL C -FMD CHAIN UEN FENCE MK WALKWAY W CPp CONCRETE PAD MIA WATER MERA FBA ELECTRICAL BOX WARS WATER WEEK POLL BOX UX g, UOEISIWE EM 11 EDGE OF CONCRETE YARD LIGHT LLS g ED FTI FIRE HYDRANT BLOCK WALL - - `SAND PLAYGROUND AREA, S Ly atw SSS MI.L ldgp LQ` `GRASS, HE HOUK ICV IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE ® BOUARD NEW INSIDE FACE OF WALL —o— CHAIN UNIX FENCE OX. a No. 7211 < MS MOW STRIP NO NATURAL GROUND fL CENTERUNE `GRASS, ✓' INT OVERHANG - ® FOUND MONUMENT S/W SPIKE AND WASHER aiu f OF SL SIREEE LIGHT 'T% FIRE HYDRANT 90Lq CALV(pP SPK SPIKE P-0 STREET UGHT TC TOP OF CURB - IE TRASH ENCLOSURE YARD LIGHT Sof ,WM. `GRASS, TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY co.cR wa L SfEEE NJNBR gsY90R =C2V TOPdGRAPHIC SURVEY =Pn 2 Dit Dear Diamond City Council, I believe that my goal and the city council's goal are to provide adequate cellular coverage for our community, but not at the expense of our few remaining open spaces. I believe that there are multiple viable solutions. I have listed them below. First let present a bit of back round information. According FCC information, both Verizon and Sprint utilize the 800MHz and the 1900MHz frequency ranges. As such current Sprint phones can operate on the Verizon network. Contrary to information presented by Sprint, both Verizon and Sprint utilize similar technologies operating in the similar frequency ranges. It is also fact that Sprint / Nextel currently operates service in the 700 and 800 MHz ranges, but according to a deal worked out between Sprint and the FCC, Sprint is swapping out this spectrum for two spectrum blocks located in the ranges of 1910-1915 MHz and 1990-1995 MHz. In essence these frequencies are being phased out. Spectrum Usage: (Reference http llwvnd cdg orph,orld« ideAnder asp) Sprint Nextel 3G - CDMA2000 1X PCS, 1900 MHz Commercial Alcatel -Lucent, Motorola, Nortel, Samsung Coverage in CA: Bakersfield, Berkeley, Blythe, Brawley, Calexico, Chula Vista, Costa Mesa, Delano, El Centro, Fresno, Handord, Hesperia, Huntington Beach, Indio, Irvine, Kettleman City, Los Angeles, Los Banos, Madera, Manteca, Merced, Modesto, Monterey, Moreno Valley, Napa, National City, Oakhurst, Oakland, Orange, Palm Springs, Palmdale, Petaluma, Poway, Redding, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, San Marcos, Santa Rosa, Selma, Solana Beach, South Lake Tahoe, Stockton, Tracy, Tulare, Tustin Vernon Wireless 3G - CDMA2000 1xEV-DO Rel. 0 PCS, 1900 MHz Commercial Nortel Coverage in CA: Anaheim, Burbank, Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Dana Point, Del Dios, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, La Mesa, Lakeside, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Norwalk, Oakland, Oceanside, Ontario, Poway, Rancho Sante Fe, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, San Marcos, Santa Ana, Santee, Solana Beach, Spring Valley, Vista Alternative 1: Roaming Coverage Since Verizon and Sprint are compatible and Verizon has good coverage in the area of interest, why not allow your current Sprint customers to roam on to the Verizon network in this area? The infrastructure is in place and can be implemented immediately. Sprint and Verizon has roam agreements in place. Why can't this area be a mutually shared area between Verizon and Sprint? Alternative 2: Co -location Since both Verizon and Sprint utilize similar and compatible technologies and frequency spectrums why not collocate and duplicate Verizon's success in this area? Is Sprint technical team not capable? Is the coverage lapse caused by inadequate / antiquated components or technologies as compared to Verizon? If so, would it not be less intrusive to the community and environment just to upgrade the equipment? The community and planning commission has requested Sprint to consider this solution. To date, Sprint has not adequately addressed this opportunity and solution. Sprint may have also presented misleading information when the representative stated that Sprint and Verizon utilized vastly different technologies. Alternative 3: Micro -Cell sites Since the build out is mainly focus on filling in the lapse of Sprint native network coverage on Pathfinder road, why not implement smaller micro cells along the path. These sites are nearly hidden and would preserve the precious park area. A good example of this is the one micro cell l /U Pathfinder road, why not implement smaller micro cells along the path. These sites are nearly hidden and would preserve the precious park area. A good example of this is the one micro cell located on Brea Canyon Cutoff between Pathfinder and the 57 freeway. Alternative 4. Locating Antenna on Water Tower in Rowland Heights This site is NOT the water towers near the old Avery office buildings near the Chuck E Cheese's (intersection of lower Brea Canyon and Pathfinder) These water towers are located south east of the intersection of Fairway and Pathfinder. The site is an existing utility site with a large water tower. This would actually be a better location as this site has a higher elevation than Ronald Regan park. I am surprised that this site was overlooked. Alternative 5: Less intrusive Systems Deploy a Distributed Antenna System (DAS). In such a system, the antennas are disbursed along light poles and existing structures and connected to a central point via fiber. Cellular carriers has successfully utilized such a system to bridge coverage in other areas of the country where large antenna arrays were disruptive to the communities. DRS is less intrusive and can provide a more directed coverage. Cost may also be minimized as this type of installation may coincide with Verizon's planned 2008 deployment of FIGS (Fiber Optic Service) in Diamond Bar. The timing would also minimize the road construction necessary to install the fiber. Points to Consider Please consider as wireless usage (data, voice, and video) increases, wireless providers will need to place intermediate site in between existing sites to accommodate increased usage. Each site can only handle a fixed number of "calls" or connections. As such the number of sites will increase and their required height and size of the cellular tower will to be reduced. These new sites need to be smaller to provide the necessary bandwidth and overlap as usage grows. Pathfinder is a well traveled high volume thoroughfare. Are we underestimating the future need for more bandwidth in the future that can only be accommodated by more but smaller cell antennas? If this is so, why not install the smaller DAS antennas now? Tony Lee Concerned Diamond Bar Homeowner and Resident RECEIVED NOV _ 2137 c 0 November 18, 2007 Dear City Council Members: C1 it r C^t I believe that a 45 -foot cell tower infringes on our small residential park and destroys the character of Ronald Reagan Park. The mono -elm might suffice in a business/commercial area or next to a freeway, but it is not acceptable to me and my neighbors. This tower, a poorly disguised "stealth" fake tree with blue-green metal leaves, would look ridiculous in a small park meant to be a natural setting. Furthermore, this eyesore would disrupt my peace of mind as I visit the park in attempt to "get back to nature." Sprint/Nextel boasts that the tower will be placed on the slope at the park; freeing up the "usable pad" of grass on top. In my opinion, Sprint either forgot what it was like to be a child or they don't care. The woodsy slope at Ronald Reagan Park is often used and is a great place for kids to slide, play hide and go seek, jump through the tangled ground cover, and search for tennis balls. They feel they are hiking and exploring uncharted territory. I should know because I have supervised my children and their friends on this slope for over two decades. For most young children, this part of the park is more interesting than the grass above. There is very little accessible wilderness area in Diamond Bar for children to roam. The undeveloped areas in Diamond Bar usually are private property or contain poison ivy. (Pictures of my child's swollen face due to an encounter with the plant can be provided upon request). While natural areas help make Diamond Bar a beautiful city, they are primarily not child friendly places as is our "wilderness" slope at Ronald Reagan Park. We feel that this tower, with access road and additional building is intrusive and will damage the setting of Ronald Reagan Park. The wireless services industry is very aggressive and it is hoped that the City of Diamond Bar will stand up on behalf of our concerns and deny the Sprint/Nextel project at Ronald Reagan Park. We are certain that other solutions to cell phone coverage can be found without compromising the integrity of our park. )Sincerely, Bruce Kernohan, Resident near Ronald Reagan Park Cell (that works fine by the way) (909) 450-4556 'EC 1GrED 11r'd - o r L r� C, Dear Diamond City Council, I believe that my goal and the city council's goal are to provide adequate cellular coverage for our community, but not at the expense of our few remaining open spaces. I believe that there are multiple viable solutions. I have listed them below. First Vet present a bit of back round information. According FCC information, both Verizon and Sprint utilize the 800MHz and the 1900MHz frequency ranges. As such current Sprint phones can operate on the Verizon network. Contrary to information presented by Sprint, both Verizon and Sprint utilize similar technologies operating in the similar frequency ranges. It is also fact that Sprint / Nextel currently operates service in the 700 and 800 MHz ranges, but according to a deal worked out between Sprint and the FCC, Sprint is swapping out this spectrum for two spectrum blocks located in the ranges of 1910-1915 MHz and 1990-1995 MHz. In essence these frequencies are being phased out. Spectrum Usage: (Reference http://vfn,,,v,1,cdg,org/worldwide/index.asp) Sprint Nextel 3G - CDMA2000 1X PCS , 1900 MHz Commercial Alcatel -Lucent, Motorola, Nortel, Samsung Coverage in CA: Bakersfield, Berkeley, Blythe, Brawley, Calexico, Chula Vista, Costa Mesa, Delano, EI Centro, Fresno, Handord, Hesperia, Huntington Beach, Indio, Irvine, Kettleman City, Los Angeles, Los Banos, Madera, Manteca, Merced, Modesto, Monterey, Moreno Valley, Napa, National City, Oakhurst, Oakland, Orange, Palm Springs, Palmdale, Petaluma, Poway, Redding, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, San Marcos, Santa Rosa, Selma, Solana Beach, South Lake Tahoe, Stockton, Tracy, Tulare, Tustin Verizon Wireless 3G - CDMA20001xEV-DO Rel. 0 PCS. 1900 MHz Commercial Nortel Coverage in CA: Anaheim, Burbank, Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Dana Point, Del Dios, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, La Mesa, Lakeside, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Norwalk, Oakland, Oceanside, Ontario, Poway, Rancho Sante Fe, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, San Marcos, Santa Ana, Santee, Solana Beach, Spring Valley, Vista Alternative 1: Roaming Coverage Since Verizon and Sprint are compatible and Verizon has good coverage in the area of interest, why not allow your current Sprint customers to roam on to the Verizon network in this area? The infrastructure is in place and can be implemented immediately. Sprint and Verizon has roam agreements in place. Why can't this area be a mutually shared area between Verizon and Sprint? Alternative 2: Co -location Since both Verizon and Sprint utilize similar and compatible technologies and frequency spectrums why not collocate and duplicate Verizon's success in this area? Is Sprint technical team not capable? is the coverage lapse caused by inadequate / antiquated components or technologies as compared to Venzon? If so, would it not be less intrusive to the community and environment just to upgrade the equipment? The community and planning commission has requested Sprint to consider this solution. To date, Sprint has not adequately addressed this opportunity and solution. Sprint may have also presented misleading information when the representative stated that Sprint and Verizon utilized vastly different technologies. Alternative 3: Micro -Cell sites Since the build out is mainly focus on filling in the lapse of Sprint native network coverage on Pathfinder road, why not implement smaller micro cells along the path. These sites are nearly hidden and would preserve the precious park area. A good example of this is the one micro cell Pathfinder road, why not implement smaller micro cells along the path. These sites are nearly hidden and would preserve the precious park area. A good example of this is the one micro cell located on Brea Canyon Cutoff between Pathfinder and the 57 freeway. Alternative 4: Locating Antenna on Water Tower in Rowland Heights This site is NOT the water towers near the old Avery office buildings near the Chuck E Cheese's (intersection of lower Brea Canyon and Pathfinder) These water towers are located south east of the intersection of Fairway and Pathfinder. The site is an existing utility site with a large water tower. This would actually be a better location as this site has a higher elevation than Ronald Regan park. I am surprised that this site was overlooked. Alternative 5: Less Intrusive Systems Deploy a Distributed Antenna System (DAS). In such a system, the antennas are disbursed along light poles and existing structures and connected to a central point via fiber. Cellular carriers has successfully utilized such a system to bridge coverage in other areas of the country where large antenna arrays were disruptive to the communities. DAS is less intrusive and can provide a more directed coverage. Cost may also be minimized as this type of installation may coincide with Verton's planned 2008 deployment of FiOS (Fiber Optic Service) in Diamond Bar. The timing would also minimize the road construction necessary to install the fiber. Points to Consider Please consider as wireless usage (data, voice, and video) increases, wireless providers will need to place intermediate site in between existing sites to accommodate increased usage. Each site can only handle a fixed number of "calls" or connections. As such the number of sites will increase and their required height and size of the cellular tower will to be reduced. These new sites need to be smaller to provide the necessary bandwidth and overlap as usage grows. Pathfinder is a well traveled high volume thoroughfare. Are we underestimating the future need for more bandwidth in the future that can only be accommodated by more but smaller cell antennas? If this is so, why not install the smaller DAS antennas now? Tony Lee Concerned Diamond Bar Homeowner and Resident GOL DEN SPR INC 5 OR/ E site plan scale i•=era PARKING six 33 beeddroom homes xp5 = 5 cars three 2-bedroarEl hones x 2.0 = curs Requ'ved parking far homes 21 cars Provided parking for hones: 21cars Guest Pinking required: req. cars/4 = 5.25 spaces Iln�—In' oars Guest Parking provided: 6 wrs TOTAL PARKING SPACES REQUIRED : cars �J TOTAL PARKING SPACES PROVIDED: 277 cars car PROJECT BREAKDOWN nine detached sing/e family homes UNIT 1 TWO BEDROOM UNIT 2 TWO BEDROOM UNIT 3 THREE BEDROOM S three Asn unisr, UNIT 4 THREE BEDROOM 3 two Set;m UNIT 5 TIRES BEDROOM efrcrca UNIT 6 THREE BEDROOM UNIT 7 THREE BEDROOM UNIT 8 THREE BEDROOM UNIT 9 TWO BEDROOM nnn I U PROJECT FfAM NES48415 LW GS8DAAi0 Ewe 675 AVMEis 9030 SOUM P�AI9 G ARC TWT-. IWISION SID M(K I9/1ENL95 2130 SAWMIE RAW 911E 300 Las ANMM CA 90028 (310) 479-5019 CPA DH - C40K ENGNEM eram 2100 PARNTL NAY ALTADENA CA 91001 (628) 790-2eM oI.YOSCIPE CARER, R ARaflFC15, 91C LSM AWNUN, 10E 1Nm010 AA91IA 901E 102 tos ON G 900Ns (310) 477-M ANC TRAFFIC FNO4D! O 5/-fEET /NDEX arch7tectura1 SHEET A 1 SITE NOTES A 2 GARAGE IE1EL PUN , A3 -a South ElOWUM, houses 5 - 9 / South ElemOm houses 1 - 4 A3 -b North DemBm houses 5 - 9 / North DewBm houses 1 - A3 -c AROOTECTURAL DETAILS A 4 HOUSE 1 - FLOOR PUNS - ROOF PLAN A 5 HOUSE 1 - MAVS A 6 HOUSE 2 - FLOOR BINS - ROOF PLAN A 7 HOUSE 2 - ELEVATIONS A 8 HOUSE 3 - FLOOR PUNS - ROSE RAN A9 -_...NOISE 3- ELEVATIONS _...-.__.. A 10 HOUSE 4 - FLOOR RAMS - ROOF PLAN A 11 HOUSE 4 - ELEVATION A 12 HOUSE 5 and 7 - FLOOR PLANS - ROOF PLAN i r A 13 HOUSE 5 and 7 - ELEVATIONS A 14 HOUSE 6 and - FLOOR PLANS -ROOF PLAN FL i A 15 HOUSE 6 a 0- OARFNS A 16 HOUSE 9 - FLOOR PLANS - ROOF RAN A 17 HOUSE 9 - ELEVATIONS L A 18 BUILDING SECTIONS nine detached fnyle family homes / Oiamond Bar, Cal1fort71a address. 2367/ golden spnogs dale diamond ba,, ca. M N 1 is?If:%'Efy' Jf" n y� "ill RM qJ. ►® MAMA /O M qb /9l. 13, p 1 4 ------------J i 1' i t N 93.2 I vaa wa wr I r i II-� �I� 1,�._ I ,fy .. '.- r i *d 9 O 28 feet clear i Ifl Fm 21 I -..__ V _ it 1 2 �.-�. �� av nn G ao rw eaoAe i I i tuanmi��wui. PAP tr- ��T i I - __ nE° I --- •�-_-��^-.=—_ 96.2 -_ � �' ti.' iPH01FYpl15 W THE mfM Kt®5 7-"" 977 s s. k�15 �p t _<ti � i 7N FSPR/� pAmman 0 r shun daa, baLn✓e N z IY B. W. parking3( bedraarn MMM x H= P m$ Pinking far homes 21 wrs Guest Parkin : 6 cars (21 req. cars/4 =5.25 spaces TOTAL RE Gi CARS: 27 wrs TOTAL REWIRED PRONGED: 27 cm GARAGE LfVfZ PLAN adelress. dia23mond b67/ gdden pangs dame ar, ca. URMSTON 5TE/N5R0CK ARCHITECTS architect 2l30sawtellebl°d. ste9'3O3 los angeles, ca. 90025 (3 /O) - 79- 5079 Wner/deve%per C59e 11VV,5TiN-17VT5 LC 625 fair oaks aue. ate #1 l5 eoutbpasadena, ca. 91030 RM /O p 1 4 ------------J i 1' i t N 93.2 I vaa wa wr I r i II-� �I� 1,�._ I ,fy .. '.- r i *d 9 O 28 feet clear i Ifl Fm 21 I -..__ V _ it 1 2 �.-�. �� av nn G ao rw eaoAe i I i tuanmi��wui. PAP tr- ��T i I - __ nE° I --- •�-_-��^-.=—_ 96.2 -_ � �' ti.' iPH01FYpl15 W THE mfM Kt®5 7-"" 977 s s. k�15 �p t _<ti � i 7N FSPR/� pAmman 0 r shun daa, baLn✓e N z IY B. W. parking3( bedraarn MMM x H= P m$ Pinking far homes 21 wrs Guest Parkin : 6 cars (21 req. cars/4 =5.25 spaces TOTAL RE Gi CARS: 27 wrs TOTAL REWIRED PRONGED: 27 cm GARAGE LfVfZ PLAN adelress. dia23mond b67/ gdden pangs dame ar, ca. URMSTON 5TE/N5R0CK ARCHITECTS architect 2l30sawtellebl°d. ste9'3O3 los angeles, ca. 90025 (3 /O) - 79- 5079 Wner/deve%per C59e 11VV,5TiN-17VT5 LC 625 fair oaks aue. ate #1 l5 eoutbpasadena, ca. 91030 �i - .:-_�:.,.:. Iii® p 1114441111111114Up1■!11111111 111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIt11111411 ■III.. '�' 1111 , 411111111111114 IIIt1111p11 I4■1111144 111111111 111111111Ei�tNl1111111111 . At11111111114-. � 1111.;::':11111111111111111 1111111111111111111111114 -e114.- ' ' 11111-=111111111111111111111 111111111111 11111111. t111111IIIIIIL,iI%IIIIj■H:1111111 tI11111II1111111111114., Illfbilllllllllllllllllll Ig111111�.y1t.!Ip1111111 .n■11141t111P. 11111 p111111111111pU111111111i;11llllll�liV itlgil!Illllll;i!1;,l11 11111111lIIIIIIIIIItllllllllll■� Illpeng11p1U411111111111l;il111nn!11t11114 1411111111111111111111., IIIIIa11pp11p11pp1414444444hU444h441■11■■4n� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIt1111E111:i1�■t144111piq.!■/1 1111111111t1111111111111111I11Aq 11114111111111111111111 11111115)IIIIPPiajylllll ...._._. _. 14q■■1■41nto1A14q■�;■y114111P1 . IIIIIIIUIIU4111111OIE1111.11,�11�1U4::ili X111 . ._ ._..o._. `� I ll .�1�■ i _ M14 lot who.". 11®9 HOME 5 HOME 6 II - IflEi' - ilmilla il'liml HOME 7 HOME 8 HOME 9 NORTH ELEIVATION OF UNITS 5 THRU 9 5G4[ P=4'-0' HUME 1 NORTH (MOTORCOURT) fLfVA PON UNITS l THRU 4 �Lf ►w1, !2 o =. =gym CL 0 co g L2 o 5� z F w ROOFRAF(ER5 ^�°'"^' ! 0 G I o 1 I g !. gutter j I I e stucco IL _t� foam — M I 1 I � I I I ;_ ¢ � I I r-0. o I •' I M EA V//7FACIA [] WALL SECTION J m detail F WJNDOW fIEAD JAMB detail F detail G EA t/EAFAC/A rwW 5 ¢ 0 N � Z f j STUCCO o� o G 4g J O P2 I P2¢ D STVccO n FLOOR J01.5T5 Q f a ¢ m BOORJO15T19 R,5n a der 5/7/ r �l 4- //2"RADIU5 OENllN BEYOND - Y COLOR COAT STUCCO VER FOAM FORM O7F COLOR COAT STUCCO OVER FOAM FORM r�.eawmu� z_ 5TUCC0 II � — e vl�sr 1 2I AT GARAGE OI/ERifAN6 S-6' H/GYl SLUMP STONE wau Mm comeerErECA rExroe+no ozv user nmo wu< wrm wn.". uema ax 2005-16 detail D WINDOW 5U DETAIL detall C DENT/NABEAM DETA/L detail B CORN/CE DtTAIL deta/l A property Lore waLLs 6AETT A3c WALL ABOVf shown dashed GARAGE PLAN 50ALE l'= 4'-0" WALL ABOVE srown 725hod --1 711, F-51 1 -s UP ii^ 1fi'_6• CW i (replace 6 > RX 1 % 16-8 17-6 17 ❑0E L I _. SWOW dde 15 7- FLOOR PLAN 63/ sq feet 5CALf.. /"= 4'-0" AREA OF HOU5E- /, 663 5q feet GARAGE LF'✓FL FOOTPP.INT OF NOU5F 873 5q feet 2ND FLOOR PLAN 632 eq feet 5CALE. l " = 4''-0" ROOF PLAN 5CALE. /'= 4'-0" HOUSE NUMBER ONE - FLOOR PLANS - ROOF PLAN 2005-16 SHEET A4 60L9EWFIV�5 96.0 --_l 5CALB /'= 4' - �PR/NGS E EAST ELfVATION 5CALf. /'= 4'O' SOUTH ELEVA RON 5CALE /'= 4'-0" NORTH ELENA TION 5CALE. P- 4'-0' HOUSE NUMBER ONE - LLL -VA RONS WALL ABOVff � shown dashed GARAGE LEVEL _-W shown ABOIiE das7�ea II s�� `F q ' TI•�'�I II II II I I _ I fl z 16-8 L IiNi��G fi{(i(Ij La # .1 016-8 X 17-6 �'IING ROW FOI U /ST FLOOR PLAN 638 sq feet 5CALe / ° = 4L O^ AREA OF HOUSE- /, 666 5q Feet FOOT PRINT OP HOUSE- 0605q feet 2ND FLOOR PLAN 830 sq feet 5CALE, / ° = 4'-O' ROOF PLAN 5CALE: / " = 4'-0" HOIJ9F AIIJAIIRF,F n111(-) - F1 nnP P/ ® A/C; I� a — II d� U-) s o z tz F I� N o II II � m II N I I I o z z J d W O_¢ W F- 2 U m U 2 U Q 4 HT PnnF pl AA/ I A GOLDS 5C4LE / I = 4'- PRING� EA,5T ,51,9E ELfVA TION 5CALE: / " = 4' 0' SOUTH ELEI/A TION SCALE- /°=4,O° NORTH fffVAT/ON SCACE-- /'- 4''-0" HOL1,5E VU11ilE2ffR TWO — fLfVA7/045 A 4 UNE OF WALLS n, IST AND 2ND Fl :-!---- ---- ----'1 I� i! 1 tj�i CAR GA GE !I 6' high peered bumper BONUS ROOM i. 9� laundry 11i _ i I UNDERFLOOR AREA � 1 1 I ii { LIVING ROOM I�I 1 1 '7i � I line of bur/ding above GARAGE PLAN 5CALf: /"= 4,0" ST FLOOR PLAN 0 E: l"SECOND FLOOR PLAN 882 sq feet SCA[= 4'-O" SCALf, l"= 4-0" AREA OF //OUSE, /, 7B7 5g feet POOi �RIIVT OF IyOUS, ; 046 sq feet ROOF PLAN SCALE: /"= 4'-0" IIOUSF NUMBFR THREE - FLOOR PLANS - ROOF PLAN TE 5TKffT -- 5w a LL MEST (DRIVEWA)J ELfVATIOIV 5CAM' P = 4'- IIIIpIp1111111111111111/�Ilplllp1111U4111111g1 _ _ — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — — _ _ azC STUCCO . ______________________ e oo STUCCO • E ' RR---------------_-- /--- --- 11--__--_--____—_—_ PATIO 6.0 wood screen EAST ELEI/A TION SCALE /'= 4'0' Tf3TRffT � c SCAce / • = 4a rn N �IL a 44� F 92.00 - NORTH (MOTORCOURT EL fVA TION 5CACB /'= 4- o• z g NOOSE NUMBER THREE - ELEI/ATONS I°r ^F WAU_S ABOVE AT 10 2ND FLOORS i DASHED 2U-10° L—_—J UNE OF WALL ABODE GARAGE PLAN SCALE 1"=4'0' b KMCHE ! ' 1r 5-D• -\ -. '__ -U L V -I -1V it 97.25 p° MIG (001m 14-6 X 21-0 a AREA OF HOU5f: /, 904 sg feet FOOTPRINT Or rl0U5f / 000 sg feet I GUEST SPACE pa ) SCALE /"= 4'-O" TY10.75 /ST FLOOR PLAN 969 sq feet SCALE: l "= 4' 0' UNE OF WALL BELOW AT GARAGE SHOWN DASHED ?FST' -R Hf r -r roof below 2ND FLOOR PLAN 935 sq feet SCALE: P=4'0' RODI /54— /-/OUSE NUMBER FOUR - FLOOR PLANS - ROOF PLAN U-) s Lug i O ^ m�e 1 A10 U SnKm IIIIIII�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�Inuun�O�n� Wf57- ELEVATION SCALE, /'= 4'-0" M ,a SCALE..- 1'=4'0' OPINION I m N09TH ELEVA 770/V SCALE /"=4LO" HOUSE NUMBER FOUR - ff EfVATIONS first R m plan V detoll of UNDERFLOOR AREA LAUNORI'--��- blrG LLWf OF WALL A501/f GARAGE PLAN 5CAL6 /' = 4'-O" LOW ROO II L NAOTEAMRATION DOOR AT UNIT 5— I OF 6ARAGET AT UNIT 5 LLWFOFWALL A50vf LST FLOOR PLAN 850 5q feet 5CALc" / ° = 4' 0" AREA OF HOUSE, /, 664 5q feet FDOT,PRLNT OF HOUSE 872 5q feet 2ND FLOOR PLAN 034 5q feet 5CAL-1 / ° = 4' O" LOW G4 ROOF PLAN HOUSE NUMBER F'Vf AND SEINEN - FLOOR PLANS - ROOF PL 4N (% t ii ,.. Fl 1. a � L �V1� II.R0Gam 1 15 t., -s-- UPJ RIS I Ia-s° n x 1s -s _ - _ P C 1vaa 1 ROOM Poym LLWFOFWALL A50vf LST FLOOR PLAN 850 5q feet 5CALc" / ° = 4' 0" AREA OF HOUSE, /, 664 5q feet FDOT,PRLNT OF HOUSE 872 5q feet 2ND FLOOR PLAN 034 5q feet 5CAL-1 / ° = 4' O" LOW G4 ROOF PLAN HOUSE NUMBER F'Vf AND SEINEN - FLOOR PLANS - ROOF PL 4N east elevation SCALE / • = 4, 0, NATURAL GRADE west elevation SCALE: / I = 4'-O" south elevation SCALE P= 4' - north elevation 5CALE-l"= 4'O HOUSE NUMBER F/vEAND 5fVfIV - ELEVATIONS see floor plan for detail at entry' UNDERFLOOR SPACE GARAGE ffVfE 5CALf., 1'=4'0' ROOF 'LACE l HI I IHi up 3 risers I I I I il I� I tg—a- rF—W,.N . wo-e i UNE OF UNG ABOVE SHORN DAM /5T FLOOR PLAN 84550FEfF 5CA[6 /"= 4'o^ AREA OF l IOUSE, /, 649 5g feet FOOTPRINT OF H0U5E, 856 5g feet ENTt',Y�Ow 2ND FLOOR PLAN 804 SQ FEET 5CAL6 / ° = 4''-0" ROOF PLAN 5CALf. 1"=4'0" I-IOUSE NUMBER 5IX AND EIGHT - FLOOR PLANS - ROOF PI AN west e1ev9t1o1-7 SCALE. /, = 4,O" iefe m'i/Nm east elevation 9CALEr /'= 4-0" ✓V(J/7/ LLL VH//CJIV SCAff /'=4-0" HOUSE NUMBP Sly AND ElG/yT tz UVIK ROOM ABOVE AT 99.0 - WIC: 1-Ie6�V Fl.-- — -- — �� see first floor plan for detail at entry' P.00F ':; , UNDMOOR AREA UNE OF WALL ABOVE (SHOWN BASHED) GARAGE PLAN 5CALE /'= 4'-0" ROOFr."V'i'i LINE OF WNL ABOVE op 7 dio s 1 w_v AIR s_z1 ' Vu 11 X 18-6 dPa UNE OF WALL ABOVE (SHOWN DASHED) 15T FLOOR PLAN B3/ 5q feet 5cALE- /"= 4'o" AREA OF HOU5E- / 59 feet FOOTPRINT OF l-1OU5E- 85E 5g feet LC 2ND FLOOR PLAN. 607 5q feet 5CAL@ L ° = 4'-0° I ROOF PLAN 5CALE. P=4' 0° Hiil 11-;F A// IA AF{FP Al/A/F Finn of A A /c o = 11 A . aCL0 Cf) N 9 � z a b Q p eCD side (east) elevation 5CALf..- /'=4=0 slde (��e�t) e.0evatlOil 5CALE /'= 4'-O' SOUTH ELEVA RON (MOTORCOURT) SCALE-- l'= 4LO" LpUCRf/p �F rna NORTH ELEVATION HOUSE NUMz9ER NINF - F1 FVATYnNS X Q W PROPERTY UNE �e,:svvHcs G section thru unit 2 JfCTION A _ A section thru unit 8 sem: ,•-4� MASTER BOOM DINNG ,o/.: 9/. e� section Mm unit 3 GOLDEear N SPRINGS SECTIO NATURAL GRAVE ' r ------------ �h 75 Y7Nl5H GRADE NA7UR4L GRADE 96.59 sc�f.,•-4-a ------------ �h 75 BENCH MARK T \ �\ J MAP P64881 HE ELEVATION DF A LEAD AND TACK FOUND AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER E V T /. \ T \V/ L \ A / I V,I/ \ OF PROPERTY WAS USED AS A RENCH MARK FOR THIS SURVEY. - / ASSUMED ELEVATION -99.84' - - LEGAL oFsCRIPTION FOR COFILUOMMUM PURPOSES THAT PORTION OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 9 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND. MERIDIAN DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: - - BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 20 IN TRACT NO. 24725, AS SAD TRACT IS RECORDED IN BOOK 555 PAGES 66, 67 AND 58 OF MAPS,RECORDS OF SAID 00bNTC SAID POINT DOUG ON THE - NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE AS SAID DRIVE IS SHOWN ON MAP OF SAID TRACT; THENCE - SOUTH 66'5(UGH WEST ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE A DISTANCE OF 0.35 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY OF ACURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 615,0) FEET, A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID POINT OF TANGENCY BEARING NORTH 2110.00' WEST; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE _ 149.65 FEET TO A POINT OF SAID CURVE, A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID POINT BEARING NORTH 35.06'30 { WEST; THENCE NORTH 35'O6'3D" WEST, RADIAL TO SAI) CURVE, A DISTANCE OF 140.00 FEET;. THENCE- - NORTH 51'30'00 AST 190.92'FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF LOT 19 IN SAID TRACT NO. 24725 Emsrwc caNuoMwlum F1 {C THENCE SOUTH 211000" EAST ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT, A. DISTANCE OF Hasa FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 0 P °z Cj'.. HT waLE • a VICINITY MAP R ORD N.T SEEE 1 WIDE EASEMENT LINES PURPOSESopl t 31 _µ Hao 1y✓s� y- e _.'8 U 0 U AS PER DOC. RED ON JULY 19, 1960 IN BOOK D-915 ` _ (ryy PAGE 239 AS INSTRUMENT NO 3336 OR 1 _Ips" cR . �+ .,rA<, LEGEND: " 1 .fir ,. d^ �In ��. •- .,..« .., _ '� ` PARCEL INFORMATION: ®••••,,,••• 'r' O F \ ice RAGGGE, IIIc A, C �B d C A a NnNI AREA AS IP EXISTINGAR mP AGFA 2R �' R A.P.N.: 6281-028-030 zD _ .g [wwVµu a RPRwaRI'rz£RkSoEfruEEECVv(TEVEW<TG.M.640-C-7 A oE✓ PMZONE LCG1 wV welExuE> rc NNIPF DENSITYTINNINFUNITS PER ACRE "All aA A,A - d EO�'EERCIA ENA I - U -- N - E SONe" 'EMSCN.17NG! U]!V ]Y ly E%1511NG u5E'. LIQUOR STORE 1 w p yyY ✓ I '� f 4 / EHEC m. k-.. ylF �'H%'-_ A LIR/• - /F mry (d`1's Cv . II - � E2Ecov MnoEv ttoEElEs"vraYe' nlAPcRNnc aANY SITE N SITE AREA: 25 666 S E /7"-q FLOOD ZONE, (MINNG) ^I �o ��COMMUNITY PANEL: 065D43 0980 8 EFFECTIVE DATE (`" POPcFNPeEEER. — ornEVn A a PROPOSED _ I ` I _C- RPJR MA.roR USE 9EO CON00 SET BACKS SHOW AS SHOWN ON PLAN DENSITY. 145 UNITS PER ACRE _�. i� > ® �I A%P 'm H.CA 6 /�I I ,Y ... " c Ar wArze uErzn :«v II .a y { , �� ° cw IN mr AsiN we Pw voce 1 OWNER: �- x c wrE VcyF _� m " �.'�e" ... gg8 le ' 1 Esse INVESTMENT,LLC e _ 25 6FAIR OAKS AVENUE p worst nrvAt vn(eox (0 LiWE S PASADENA, CA 91630 a �I 4n•a �I� 1 EnCA rE TEL 626-799-7227 l rIN 18, ' r.�_ ?: Il Ali — rENcc urvc.. S 'Z LAND SURVEYOR y, PROPERFV. () D] ry CALL AS ENGzINEERING N _ oiler ^' - A " ml'3 � a - _""`" cOM1'cREJ£Recrc wA(E : ^] IVAN CHID, LS 6762 1 N yDEwq I� y g Aid WEE F [Ej 2160 PARNELL WAY ALTADENA, CA 91001 TEL 626-798-2826 \o 1 a' a -• O ,x' i4+q. 1 =- ZI UTILITY PURVEYORS ``. G [ N \ F N Q TELEPHONE: VERRON '44800)))) "3- 63 a00o S P R/ N NATURALLEG 5'. 900 c HIA tSOT 427-2200 ELECTRICITY: SCE. 11800 655-4556- `WATERI WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (909) 595-7554 LC'.: Di - K. T. I. - 1,. 16' . SEO lANO SpA` an se p` 03 02/06 I NAN.y4x c 0 - - 1♦ e� toe 051013 Iq/. NO 616} RC 5,4 _ 08/10/07 ® 1 MR, C A G(ATER SURVEYORS STATEMENT: rv� f,`A f0Y$7AI£TNAT/ AMA PROFESSIONAL LAN05URV/ R RL Z O OFTH£$TA20FCAUPo�PN/A, SIS TOPr`GRAPH/G(MAf, n/Por "CONS/STING Of ONP5HEFTREPRESENTINGASUR✓EYMAOF et � UNDER HER5 MR RI/ ft THF 6OUNOARYINFOPMAnON SHOWN. HEREON 15 is fiJ/NFORMAT/ON OV(Y BENCH MARK: THFCYEYAT/O WO U5EV A5AT CO MARK FOR RA/5 AURHW ST CORNER f TRil v OFPROP£RTY6VArA OSFOASA BfYCH MARK FOR IH/SSURVEY AssUMEO fLE✓ATION 99 B4' G LEGEND 3 � nn Q i omiN< rre/en aLs�u ���91 �� O 'fxf of NmR Sr`c _ � pa g MPOi Srol�lj60 -' .d r - 6YeE VI Yi 9 y$ - PA[rt D'dOF AlR TP- ASPNALTPANNG Na\6'HT METRC FENCE V NVEesf f(fVA1YGN I V $ ln(AVrRd VI x� OR VAK EL,C iA. <tPPRY Mf2R C '"key A/R CONO T OPGeee R<VAmav 10'73,01, 0 —rim umfaPUArary - r ��_SPor�tVA/IJN GAT v L�� �PiPVAnovu-czrPnCN - yi h NP i % 0 5 5� �¢"z \ fl &� r� z p�9 ' P(ANTFR'AR£A � � Y6 y ]OJ �6P,rCPNWRMn/a.P' ( �' Rp6E a2VTOW$M/NCW `e'A �',^ i �i 1 Jr'rs 8510 mai \� r • u �3 n ASPnavPAurmG m 11 iNG� • ti \ _ � z_ vwnr°1n ' fT'jy1 eR S� 5ToRAGF�.. � ARRMf/FR 151HACePA✓/NG - ♦ PdSt g i uNKNovry unu pAvW� i Powfiem:P. \ RONC �P TER AxEA " {r -u6nr CARPORT rd ye � n \rvV GATE BA s: urrn e<siv rvry 99 ,.F RW I r 4u G _ �oa�p �n6Bp52Gi E - ds. )R9rfiL 5/GNA[N.[�CO _v 1 P\IN r w -. iNP g rn ✓ c X �P i aU 9V P cevr�ca wsu g,i4 - Aaev f. Pwr� n� • P. -A z 04 04 ✓ dna \� / ORI a z 0 q0 eGJ GS C7 0z N O o 0 / rvq � z doco, - �5 WS,�U ospPe, O. r, ,6E ❑ 6 d N �wA t cew E - M m ra qeN. l x 9A D Llr. \ G A5UMEO FL.=99 64' j Peec® ar num ar GRAPHIC .SCALE K.L. - fh icer) 05/03/05 050300 08/10/07 or i mrs STORM WATER POLLLMON PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP)/ WET WEATHER EROSION CONTROL (WWI GENERAL NOTES C q 'y X El X ARG DEIN v A Y , fr vN ^ F be b f/ d ! Y pF i o lenas abU M1e .1,1G LDAIn Ann en e -, e h 3 F h fh d h W Y ALINSA, ALEX, , t, pv d fM1 A-1 Ah v faw odprnf f I /Daae/om'!Av 1 h PEflIMpER I AI. S Aupss%e!mv U P BA65 NIGH Y./Irom ..r u. d nr r f l n e e n edvW AAA- .s. Au'al-d dens one ed rnm vl nPA he /renNm e/e.nep+. -.- - A s. y d M, e e ! n A. I -C ,y A / r rA ry x b d p Adan wmn r4RErq� n as /l e d L MM I re J I I� ;a I Z m b n 1 1 n d m -e Bu/ NNI M/l l r9. Sf Mf P xvDA, A111 -1m, C 1 I d UA NAIXIAI d d M / p 9 !nA 4 pfAID- .N / M sx T � eeAID,,., / h 9 P/ p f'.9 9 516 b II I Y p f m E ry/en e f/ f nDnry / f f/ "I'El E d N 1 a M l I rb "Al -I T !e vry / - n f/ tl s -, a rz r -111-61,11 ,t err p r e r f 6 1 11( l l rh f b ed 1 M h l! d (1 f fn ea el An e- IE1111 A- sN r f lIl 11 Ih, IGH,reI- 11. f r f IEGA PI r 1 Ale 5. f f /I ' Ass , B / r f p e - 1 L E C to Oe BMG 'A'..'-' Il / 9 e P r9' / f R M / P5 N e d - ' pYf /f1111 e/11 'A, All -ANY M1MfAll 'pfl G.b. I -El 11 AA IIIIS, ll un I l ern g r r(v /M v 1 11 / p v J we r a a -es' I N r -.1N, r r m r J - 11 A d m I/ I b, r ked m. r b N II B f/ N A1.11a 1 I b/ma os n I d r ee, a HI Ale' ne "Ill r AllDl-IDI 111.1 m r 11 A,I v N.ADAfely d mqv -1 be UYIMI dewy by mn � Aeon, � /6. A II, ."b" M-11 N I T d .11, d k. I� /A A. 11. -lRANU phew or newel, i nee LRLN, BMPS ePv�e f - - ,bre BNPS fo / I' 1y98M - h Nve /mpacf / U/ 1'v vvfNr f f ... rb rh a of ow d fv l aort M I fh ,m tl D- m f lkd N d d (od b _ e }AL M ws T el/sa'fArcness The BMPS -1 seleNed / pl f fian M tl t deemed f WGAAN lv Ne popased mn.frvU on oofrvlly. - P /ME / M IRAN.. BI - - GO, m LACE -V-1—.1. En fn N( led pv r r r Av we I I.,—,Y--, Y-UILHEd pe f/ rn M1 d d d r e M f l--ERI.- A-/., f l 1 ! N 1 ) l fry M1/ 11 pY ALE . f. ff -.1 tle✓e/p N - IDe M ED m. -1. Ihel ell 9MP M -/I on NIs M / b e f M non I Aepf de- and I- 9 P / M- lrlxp .,E l Me BMPS vll/ be m ."Ef end I. p xp IH g rc e/ n ma any vemee/vl m__ NA, De 111'v1 - - - STORM DRAIN /NC£r PRDAECPON AS PER SE -ID AND DETAIL IONEREON - OVST FROM BEANO CARRIED AWAY BY MIND AS HER AYE -I. .1 LIT All AD HER - Ne JDNA,vtivv nle of LA CA. .1 AIR bee "INIM rev the Ne ey Me 6Adn9 B?cb, - 2 ALL SPILLS SHOULD BE THAHANT CAN FROM sRANTRONC OR HAZARDOUS BPILLS THAT CANNOT BE CON PROCEED MAMA/AL DELMSE YINGERILE AS PER NM -1 _ Ae M NEI -11,J-1 f ! e .A 'S L.X, Mvf Mie BEG-, -1 all I N 1 Tyv 911. IN ADDITION TO NI M PIE C 1111111 PALL NOTIFY V y/ASTE CIXLESAN AREA AS HER NM -S 7,,'B, B AND WW- IO f ysl 9 f 9 dP / H Md - ANISCOANDPMENT CLEANING EVS/NG AND MAINTENANCE IAN cONSTROCBON SITE myM pe ep f Y A Y bl / M I / f f r 1-1 3 OESILPNB BASIN AND SANDRA BS .1. ON Ary 15 PLAN SHALL BE AO✓V520 o --SPUME ZED CONSTAURC N' STOWITADVT ZVONLICADEMT 9 l f 'q / TO HOLDEN ON ANO AlITECONTROL PBOTECCON _ - I < MPAll 1 1/ MAIN, p Y nd/o) vaepu ey / p n All 11-1 ISP11 mo - OWNER: GSDB INVESTMENT, L.L.C. INAI ; AlN, vnC/ oMer e m I vna'f M by /o w. - _ - S. PASADENA, CA 91030 - - - TEL: 626-79&7227 y 111-1 reeAreemmu a (PnF' o .1, - - - - DIAMOND BAR CALIFORNIA I I ATTACHMENT "A" NOTES ATTACHMENT "S" NOTES GE, /1 IEU, demef NNe Me INA, 0 nm;brmrN-X-II: -ID 11 rl-d' V11-1 r C-. -. vrvpcf if f Ml 1 Ha eee A Y 'A 1, /ao e/ Ms pro/e^f 2 E ded AlAn-1 m0 Me 'Parol-. -1 bB nlan d v m r nal he (emdw r FAA he. -J, x WE- . vpv A^ore CY eo✓nf✓ R A,X,,rN wn n A l f wma ERGSOON CONTROA 1 M 1 V d .-I be P ems,. AI a ECL- SCHEDULING /rnrl DED hwrep ate N, AE -1 e/.1 one ✓eA EC2- PRETRVATON OF EXISTING DGE ATOM- - Al el ] I d f ! f Tfh Inev EC3- HYDRALUG MULCH m' I FMN Me -1 ones v1 -Ana weAl, ECA-'LLRWEEDING NON- SrORMWA AER MANAGEMENT e -Amen we r he "I"ll . Me -V- SP. mw1 bee up mUime /nfN)' -e A,Aesee a/ lx APrge- A-- '11, me ev ee nwnv Aro Me ambo,, :prem. Eco- MIL BINDERS ECE- STRAW MULCH - AAA- WATER CONS£R VA ANN PRO DOES S E I -E-, vAA, nal be kA.- 11, f e 1AY ECJ- GEOTNTILES & MATS N52- JEWS AFRAID OPERATIONS. - Ia p IIam vva-+, s - n.< unh y n ee ,drop -1, � ECA- DOOR MULCHING NS3- PAVAN ANO GRINDING OPERATIONS ,m. / m Ae A Rem One em 1-1. 1, b AA -FA, na o oowrm le RVR, M - ECA- EARTH DIVES AND DRAINAGE REALES '- '. ED 0- VELOCITY OISSIPATON DEACES N54- N55- TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING CLEAR WATER ONERSION - Pre M / or d ' l Mnd EDV- SLOPE DRAINS - NSE- ILLICIT CONNECTION✓ DISCHARGE - - ED 2-ST6EAMBANKCRLLA RTAOIDLATION NSA- POTABLE NSA A mt m I.-, l n r m y _ e ed / h erre ey e ' _ NON POLYACRnAMIDR _ NSB- EQUIPMENT CLEANING VEHICLE ;iNO EOU/PMENT CLEAN/ND AND me 11- All-, row e f bi d za w 10 ANSI, r y n Nlo Me -CA, w X A d fd depevTbae Foal De ewepl uA NE`.RA See mq - N59- THROES AND ITHARM£NT NEL/NG Dal A. -DA., down by In' M m - 7<MPGRARY SEDIMENT GONffiG - NSrO= ✓ HADLE AND EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE - B. My vp Mfh e ar dmuded v/ wgefvfl- mruf De afe0/llied save Iv glh/bil SEI-' S/LTFENCE NO I- FILEWGS DRIVING OPERATIONS - .eero.. eY-roe and wafer SET SEDIMENT ED SIN AYNJ-CONGRESS-CURING CONCRETE NG ,,I / n, owner 111- rcea -e u,1-1 1 rn, 9egvl " - 5EJ- SEDIMENT ARNP AM A- NS A4- NN C MATER/AL ANO ECU/PMENT ARE f l' e y vxuoon rvim e,dimmh cream, - SE4- CH£CH OLL NS15- ADJACENT WATER ma T me. /, Mvf w wiM Inas, ngvf,menls / SES- ROLLS NS)6- TEMPORARY N I£MPORARV BATCH PLANE, hpr R Y HAS SEB- GRAVEL BAC BERM 01", er -A-GI e,m! e/ M, wn J - ..5EJ- STREET SWEEP/NG AND VACUUM/NG AST N N e TON CON OL - - Sqn re SEB- SANDBAG /Own,• w 1 o:ea vpml o/'Me own+) oe LF HAAR 5£9- STRAW BAR£ RANLET MASER/AL DEL I AND S]GRAGE 5£i 0 -STORM CORA/N INLET PROTECTOR 4SA- ,WMR -,NA USE UA - WMA WAR STOCKPILE MANAGEMENT STOCKPILE ' WHO EROSION CONTROL WMA- SPILL PREVENTION AND CONTROL. - WM5- SOLO WASTE MANAGEMENT WEA- HIND EROSIGN CONTROL - AAAE- HAZARDOUS WASE MANAGEMENT WM7- CONTAMINATION SOIL MANAGEMENT - INRENEEVY IDIALENG CONTROL WM6- CONCRETE WASTE MANAGEMENT TCl-. CRITICIZED CONSARUCAON ENTRANCE EXIT W/A9- SANINIFYISEPAC WASTE MANAGEME✓T TC2- STAB/L/ZED CON'STRUCAON ROADAWY WMIO- LIQUID WASE MANAGEMENT - 763- ENTRANCE/OUAET ARE WASH - I -I AGDAJI ' EXISIINC CONDOMINIUM LLQ L ---- H®a� 'A ANN A A1,1 ARTIIS( r /, L zz CA,J P- ITT WALL - i zf� 4 A 0 GAGA —'GAE-11fI e ILADI IA VAo O O O O O ss� 98 - A O 9f ` 1 SAY O p0 G \ C 9YCE i �LZ I` i A' I e I� I.!'i� aY fp Tu , (lI Hl y. k 17 AI p II qE Ea II I 2-1 JAP sxw nafry ITAWUA 11 �el— UX-, G o [-r- 99e, "SPR'"GSt AGS ONE ROWS NOTES: EROSION AND.WASfH MANAGEMENT - CONTROL PLAN REQUIREMENTS - I MET ILDNESSICN (Y/ATEREAD MTM00 SHOULD BE EMPLOYED FOB READ BEING - STORM DRAIN /NC£r PRDAECPON AS PER SE -ID AND DETAIL IONEREON - OVST FROM BEANO CARRIED AWAY BY MIND AS HER AYE -I. .1 LIT All AD HER - D--' STREET SWEEPING AND VACUUM/NO AS RAN SE -7 - 2 ALL SPILLS SHOULD BE THAHANT CAN FROM sRANTRONC OR HAZARDOUS BPILLS THAT CANNOT BE CON PROCEED MAMA/AL DELMSE YINGERILE AS PER NM -1 _ BY PERSONNEL M WE IMMEDIATE DYVILT' LOCAL EIAERBENCY ACDMNSE SHOVED 2E NOTIFIED BY DICING a-- SWL S REVSHILE MANAGEMENT ASPER NM, 911. IN ADDITION TO NI M PIE C 1111111 PALL NOTIFY V y/ASTE CIXLESAN AREA AS HER NM -S 7,,'B, B AND WW- IO AHE PROPER OSINIY LASMALS 'IT Is ME CONTRACTOR'S BETANNY LITY IN LIAR ALL EAEROENCY PHONE NVIABLEM. AT - ANISCOANDPMENT CLEANING EVS/NG AND MAINTENANCE IAN cONSTROCBON SITE AS PER NS -B, s, AND NS -10 - 3 OESILPNB BASIN AND SANDRA BS .1. ON Ary 15 PLAN SHALL BE AO✓V520 o --SPUME ZED CONSTAURC N' STOWITADVT ZVONLICADEMT AS NEEDED TO CgN NE IAN ACTUAL UNG 1015 AS GRADING PRGRESSES AND DUCANTEPTUM1ET ARE WASH AS PER TC -1 AND NC -J TO HOLDEN ON ANO AlITECONTROL PBOTECCON _ - 08/10/07 O OWNER: GSDB INVESTMENT, L.L.C. -. 825 FAIR OAKS AVENUE - S. PASADENA, CA 91030 - - - TEL: 626-79&7227 - SITE ADDRESS: - 23671 GOLDEN SPRINGS - - - DIAMOND BAR CALIFORNIA .Avm er o I, X6 ADNE: 11 E�HEMD DRAvnrvc u DATE — SEATED qa 1 DF 1 5 5 ffl lent t be'ifthe rollows AlRR A. OF. b. One Also _i6. No filt sisal s accepted =b ] Nc fill shel 8 Toe undere :the plans co '. BULdng Code'. > R gAD-d Er. 9 Approved pi rom depps -10 All orfeDe -11 Rough Gid, `prior to Dedbi 12 All cuts st recognized all 13 Any mod4i -'14 All. grpded 15 He rocker placement -.16. Gradng or geologist. E -17: Excavohonr engineer or -18 The sols'e pile, to: op =�19 the both, .e Los Angel, 20 Foundandn geologist 0 21 A Regsteri VDan-COTe '.22 the Sch, of this yl 23 Acopy o ovations; 24, Fill l: gm, -25 These Do >: with cave h, gr aee er 26.. Coll beginr'Or, 27Contralto ° Signdord 1281. Direct 'all 24 Suffclent FegWrerTis poramete. 30. R ,IAA _I ..structural 31 Type V fe the proje< PARCEI EXIST A. TC ZC Exls INC L SITE AR FLOOD ZDI COMM EFFE GENERAL NOTES LEGEND shall creel with the provisions of Charter 33 and A '.m= comply pr 0s Appendix of the C If rna Building Cade (2001) " °F"°`rv° /1'u lydd wth slopes n excess of 107, Adult comply rvth the Hllsde'Manegemeat Ortlnonce and Shall e,�A '.ex ed 2:1, A 11.1 sh II Forlorn ence a tl N .ding pempt h been issued by the City of Domand Bar, roep ocence Of, shall be compact d to not legs `than 96 pereent of the mouirrlym densty p m �'e�I.nOA 1111ses � sbe of sol properties, including soil types ana shear strengths sh`vll be made durng grad 1 ng operations top°d+¢ - - TW mr rw r 'anpa:wilk design cetera The. results. of such $e'st na. all be reoosted. in the final as-aradzd-re'oort forebared r_D• rl ! c ocl e Fuar� A 4t'1eErV�S Z;Ai ^K".:'� �' —�--r I ��i�.iNa�.l`� .�\,i'�a'I'.*. �G✓,a,`.rFt,�'.�.,�ii`�S'i,�£ INFORMATION; PROPOSED U: 8281-Q28-030 ESTIMATE EARTH WORK QUANTITY RAW CUT' 3 150 CY RAW FILL 327 CY, EXPORT= 2,823C.Y USE 9'9ETACHED. CONDO UlfY OF DIAMOND BAR. HE NVENIFORS, CBECaµTON °� n s Myroerorv. Ar -,ry As - rvcOF TEL 626-]99-]22] .i 640—C-7 SET BACKS SHOWN ON PLAN m SITEADORESSr ,AS LCC1 WES E FAl 6 V 51 "IT Or All Ill.. A NEAREAL LINE THIS PLANS HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY --. .t ,Or E Amm 0e over a onµ Of 4,51 'Aff TO TM DrDGSDB TM AID"I'll- 'n NOR THE AECDI/MENOWIl e ones 23671 GOLDEN SPRINGS OVtMER IN L.L.C.ry 111. sils di Tx c—rvcu nmsrs 11 WE stir xD-veseesVRATorvxd To THE eccaxner or PLANS REVIEWED BY 625 FAIR DAKS AVENUE S. PASADENA CA 91030 USE 9'9ETACHED. CONDO HE NVENIFORS, CBECaµTON °� n s Myroerorv. Ar TEL 626-]99-]22] .i 640—C-7 SET BACKS SHOWN ON PLAN THA Descry..' SITEADORESSr ,AS LCC1 --. .t 23671 GOLDEN SPRINGS is LIQUOR STORE / REVIEWED BY: BGE NO: DATE -: DIAMOND BAR CALIFORNIA-: --26866 ST NO DATE REVISION 71 �AI I�OADIAI/"x PLAN GRADING PLANS PREPARED BY rL IV ' C (MIN FLOODING) ITT PANEL 065043-0980-B CALCIVIC ENGINEERING GROUP (IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR) CONSULTING ENGINEERS 8 LAND SURVEYORS !VF DATE DECEMBER 2 1980 CIVIL I STRUCTURAL I LAND SURVEYING - i ELL W A IN F DDI No's er tt6 5]ta L DvpWRI� 'C.l i e'. I ) .d,m m..�l. E�rvNs[p of d. i EYIST�NG CON[JCMINIUN/ L,Gcb,� CONSTRUCTION NOTES:F T e oCAETE DP AFLOY PER AN WA 57 PLAN f/0 T TYPE B, r I LA, s\ 0 --,?-28, R- 8" ' j�, \ --PROPOSED RETAINING WALL UNDER SEPARATE PERMI; SEE WALL. VE-HALro v L SHEET CA c _ ! L j0 �oaw� o -C TRUCT CONCRETE` DRAIN BEHIND WALL PER OETA/L '"A" 4h'EE7 C7 ONS qT !' lH '' '� - o -CONSTRUCT CONCRETE CATCH BASINPERDETAIL `3" SHEET Cl rC"�-...m ffo/r° _�—l��rl a (D—CONSTRUCT 2' CONCRETE GUTTER PER DETAIL C SHEET CI I gj UI)Ala " IVI.B9 LO W�' s�T \ 19!.13 \ is:^ �:If }� ._-- n4 a / / A I e i -� izc �i y, _ ae mx �` %� aY ,� ��CONSTRUCT SUMP PUMP PER O TA/L D'" SHEfT C7 Im , 6� _ i —�. ass ,'/,�nss ` / ='v) j o ^ \ CONSTRUCT CURB DRAIN PER A P WASTD.PLAN 150-2, CASE 2 INLET L�'�i 'eo+ rt "'S'i �vv�_ 5 PER PLAN rs „° = v cE� \ r ° ,., - `���I - � ! I o-CON57RUCT GRAY/TY WALL PER DETAIL "E" SHEET Cl _ 2 1 I \' r %-rx��'�"c ' rs - �j r=1" E7 ©' �. IR 9rs L�J�I \l L ^w, !Cll�� `ter L2 "Al'cO '� �}II�` / -�/ /� CONSTRUCT TE,YTURED AND SCORED CONCREBT UPIEWAr !gp-yp,( o - PER LANDSCAPE PLAN AND DETA/LS 'if d �0 _ 10 CONSTRUCT DECK BRAIN PER DETAIL F" HEREON INDx(�I Rr /. CONSTRUCT 6" CONCRETE CURB PER DETAIL GHEREON ;_(JU212 CONSJRUCT 6 HIGH BLOCIf WALL PER DETAIL "H'" SHEET C3 `m arew'r� _ a w rs asa n, gels - ^ A rs 1 _ ./ soo rs v v,m s ger o^ !!�" B NOTE 8Ef SHEET C3 FDR CROSS SECTION - bLL M sE/ z—�° Po,q re 'SA I -eE Pt I/ -ate x, ra y/ A C) p lz Ib� n mw Pe fk $ ng "°° w�l a arz I� eo-m 2 Gl wru?- -� NA V 80 I I 2 vFr I EX 5',YF /yA y eIT I ® b \1 l f bPW ®2i� -rte 5 1 a � I P10 t/` // >r 4/ II'( I IR- T ME; / J * l I / H grz)6I, WiFT 'lc vf, Acf- sor s J sm Fs v rs 'ate, �— aT �;Q, v- m _ .A,� lO �,� j w1l�i _ - a. \ �w1'A OPV -All asGs"1o. a s!'"'p'm 10 ' R`�'�-�...; I orsa T 9 _ 2 I;Fl a. ��kc/ac T T an �v rars nnn izU^o INPj1� re �" re. n 'gin !o rx rea°c �4- P. mi I0 MISS I 1111 11, Zi _vim I �I i k ,zs ry1111, a Ill a c o yrs - Is _mn o"e° lsossorwl -9 e x c I D me is I s . exsE or VAI o a�vneso FlrL `re recn �F moi... - - - -- Ji I�l �� R 11 Le<o �'� I 17ECK DRAIN —) 1 V� CONCRETE CURB ONLY �(cc16 'y'n`I WGA I '9su �� 5 4���V 1 t� �x �qL'4 0 SCALE SC �.�OLUP' BW 0� AB W _ -- F- _ A, I_� � � I! r� - - _ /// _ I T N NO ALE —,.� r _ s 0 _ R_915_GU a - � 1/T 11 /sem W i -- -- e� a V _ _ S Fll,//Y T Ir 44 W Vol` A�: l..rr' 5bo vll �( 1� q�S�� 1 { <�!S _ A iG0G� o19%N\ ��/ 4i- �'� 1 _ GT 1I9sPt� 5� �i h / EIS , OV4 V t G nL <O/W W- , � DINNER. @25 FGRUAINVESTMENT, R OAKS AVENUEC �A d,Gelh° I�6 bs' ���; - t}��s.`_ '-� �..� no.cG `IH 0-�I.:r - rEi�szs�es2ii 91030 o ���J s \ l 61iE ADDRESS GOLDEN SPRINGS AR, DIAMOND CALIFORNIAA - h91 GRADING PLAN J NO ATE REVSION PLANS _-a_ MES CPL;IV CENGINEERING i1? GROUP CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ANO SIRVEYORS CIVIL I STRUCTURAL/ LAND SURVEYING (IN THE CTY OF DIAMOND BAR) i o m ev csa e2. a s ry rv9 ry 0 c 6IW �o W L y44 CONT E.Yls IINO CUCZR£ sECON°TLO°q 20'B(OG SETBACK " h� � EXITING GRADE a cl°N° FLOOF ,$4 ib 24 HOR/Z2 3 �4 C c01 Zti \e KITGWEN IlOAHEN G/NNG ROOM F.F= 10225 EXIS ]lN6 GRAOC=\ _ (INNG RO FF= OM EXISPNC S/OEWACK� 'PAR id `s. BDr-.10°45 .10/50 0O } F GARA CE 1 CAR GARAGE 9d B' CMO SOLID CROUT 9S _ 0 t gyp,/ I tp 96 129 ( �M ryy' rG 99 uAxszA!F I 92 P-{9 CONT �! DO F TUM O C �TYP f Y PROPOSED 0(00, WALL AND FOOTING UNDER " OPOSED 5 FEET B(OLK WALL SFE RETAIL 12" CMU, SOLID GROUT PR .. '-. � NEfT CJ SE ARA]£ PERMIT SEE STAUCNRE PLAN TF -✓ S �4 ® 2X4ySR/Z F W IT CNIM/CEXISTING ETAIN/NC WALL _ ^ ✓� 3 CCR J�' b A A _ l/EAR /(EY N -` 1 SETBALM NOT M SCALE 500 1711 ,J 15' .,,111/RCN FENCE " T 'A RAR W Y BLDG SFIBACH W W 1 $Q FOOT OF " J/4 D/9 C AUEL CONT. 05" 4' PERF �� klrzw£N - r�rc/rfi✓ 1� 'ry FF .10155Q d FF 115 LX/s PNC CRAOE-� KITCHEN AYTCHEN s9se' S50 � f -F 0155L E _2 GqO BCAFAGE _ 2 FGFARO GI3OI1FA0.G5 E IWT0W94®12 OG 90 1 GARAGE Z 2ACg2�m 91 PINALCN GRA2 CAR CARA11 ISm6 9200 fF-9200 ff=9I J0 � FF 91 J0 l� 'F.F=',30 Btl ` _ 91 "C' BAR 12 ed sINTWFC( OSTEMTWA([ PROPOSED BLDG WALL AND F009NG UNDER 6/2 8/2 - ESR= IE PERMIT SEE SIRUGNFE PLAN AR STEM WALL I _ PROPOSED 6'FETA/NINO WALL g UNDER 5£PAIN IE PERMIT Bff IYALC OETA/L SHEEJ CJ NnSRNG 5' HIGN BLOCK WALL 10 BE REMOWD "ANO RECLWSIRUCT NEW 6' NIGH BLOCK WALL " - - - - - PER LYTAIC SHEEJ CJ' RETAINING WALL SCHEDULE TYPE l WALL zI B_B m NOT TO SCACF j ¢I ti� I - ?B" ORl✓EWAI _IL p\� sELWO F[OOR SELCNO FC Poq 450WALNNAY FELONO FLOOR I - RETAINING WALL DETAIL ""-��� "� O B"°"°"°°q ONOT TO SCALE J.5" XR°VLf/T /FON FENCE L/NNC RO11 LINNC ROOM ' I 'A LIN FF 101.00 F.F= 10150 EMSANC GigDE LINNG R00M LINNG ROOM 1CY: �.j _ PAHO - FF 1970 IN p0 fF 9960 jb COMPAEIED A(C / L°MPACIN FICC J - - GOMPMC7FO fILL _ 8 ` l P/i°P°SEO GRA°E- _ 96 D✓ PR°POSN BCOG WALL ANO FOOPNG UNDER 2 I PFOP°SN BLOC 111 All AN° FO1. UNDER - 9S - SEPARATE PERMIT SEE STRUCTURE PUN JM I 5EPARA]£ PERMIT SEE SIRUCD/RE PLAN ]YP. - PROFUSED 6 CONCRETE CURB WL _ - PROPOSED fi FETA/MNG WALL TCA SEPARATE W A= OF HALL ECEV PER PLAN C i y PERMIT LEE WALL DETAIL sHEET CJ Q N 5 M9X /lam IO i...e NOT To SCALE .l'9 CONT Z ' W d XB'XI6- CONC BLOCK w BLOCK WALL UNDER GEMA.RATE PERMIT FILL ALC CELLS W Q 4 SECON° 11106 ,p 4 ®l6' D L e E EXIINVI IRRIL URE m T° REMAIN Z q I Y/ILWEN 'Or _ )[' _ (/NNC R PN FF 10125 - FAY5PN0 CRADE- ai�`b EX/BPNG 5/OEWA(N - 3-6. 0O � FF= 99 A5 )OZ m LL 6 �. ye z GAR GARAGE�a Q _ cEUEG LINE o _ lll��� m _Nr ' -a 1 94 _Ai4AN I MMS -m 92 1 SO F06 OF � LI J/f LWA CRAWL CONT \ 90 - �-' N.�-ARGP°SED 5 FEET BLOCK WALL SEE DETAIL " S, \ SNEFJ CJ - `PROPOSED. 11 WA LL AND N°PNG VIER J' CU/✓l TE OR COT f - EXISNNC RETA/NINE WALL SEPARA)E PERMIT SE£ FTR°CNRE PLAN CYR PF°POSE° RETAIN/NC WALL FINGER SEPARA)E COMPACTED 2 SEE GETA/C SHEET 1 - TO REMAIN - PERMIT TRE WACL DETAIF SHEET UT - SA CD' FILL ¢ } ] ] J7�� 4' PCRF D dl W - NOT TO SCALE f 4 . - 1� JJ CONT 2- 9J CONT 6" 6' HIGH BLOCK WALL nloT DAT- P10 SCALE �_. A2' HSBTHA'8AR9'BAR 'C8AR3382=616/4 �I6"p®I644S"J'J2J"®I6 f4® 166 4 6" 3"-6 2--6-1 1=0" $9 ®16" J4 ®I6' ,R4 ®!6" � � w /�/' ,/r� - STORM WATER NOTE: POST CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS SUSMP NOTES: {hISnN cnNOTMINIUM Final Oevela men: shall implement (3MP5 into the desi n and Construction of the project to -pollutants 1, ,Determine and' rovide the Pre and post development services and rm ervious areas Y/ ✓ ' " reduce in post construction Owner (:bat ,Nm wafer runoff to the maximum extent practicable Contractor and Owner a/.ths=propecf shv// apply the following best management creates by the. proposed development Z . proctce' recommendations to all aspects of the development -Z,/ POST DEVELOPMENT — f 1 , - All ygrd drains and catch bvs,ns droWny'tothe street or storm drain shall be stenciled Impervious area_,_G5_2 _,Acres' Preceht ar labeled with the No Dumping-Orarhs to Ocean" logo or egwvorent.—'-- [J Roof dawnspbuts must not be directed to :lash closures or mvtenv/ storage areas.Pervious Downspouts /l discharge'fa heav/y area o 08 -Acre Precept pervious f ' s _ " - ' g% y{No sh gravel or vegetated areas or a non rasrve d device.. -. \T �' p m �y R ino ge Pre DEVELOPMENT 'for [7 Tfv h bins must be,screened or walled. Runoff water shot/ be diverted around trash 0 61 I( : areas to avoid flow through Trash Enc/osVrs d mage shall be directed to vegetated areas area,. __0.40__Ar Impervious Iares-� Pecept impervious_ - - Perv[ous area ,02Q Acres Precept pervious __ 033_�cres F 1 1� `O < pry [] No hoses, hose bibs aY Abuse shall be located outside except in landscaped areas or � I` ° �` .a mRml° a ". °Y as needEd for hie proteabon49� ` w-• wR, [] sumps most dischol into a urea the dschargeam s from any dent 2 Any modihcobons to the approved SUSMP plan most be resubmitted to the City of 'Diamond Bar De menf of Public Works j -b "tom i• n" heg break vo ` v@getatrve area must be equivalent m size to the hon;onto/ area of the truck ramp. in par R ': Anywater from washan vehicles or a ui relent shall be drschar d to the sonny sewer [7 9 q p gs ry 3 A copy of the -approved SUSMP must be rn the possecran of'a responsible ibP son and avmlvb/e at the site all aim a m. system -through proper pretreatm t foci/'hes:_ _,. Ile i/, ay All outdoor storage areas most be equipped : with adequate 3econdvey containment or < Al/ structural BMP shall be occas 8/e for inspection and mgrnfennoce ' L '- other equivalent meaeores to reduce eontamirbtion of runoff iters applies to the storage `oho - 5, Pain to commencement of any work within the rood right of way and/or to County cf both hozofd'aus nod-hazdmba5 mi terlale both solids and liquids - dr int " is d storm drain, ah dm #wineconne9) palet from Pub/re-weab is egmred(permit6 V` wall ca the Lent we// w proof of acini: from the Los Angeles County Const ctron geysian Permrf Section ction _ from storm water /un on the biologic: the maximum extent proctrcoble;, irjind 6 _(626f 458-3129 ] s in biological of rbg and of nottiml.drmnage systems and water bodies c accordance with e ate requirements 'andes'GFpA, Seafian 4d4 of McClean Wafer Act loco/ ordr'nances, and other, and dschor, to 6' Prior to commencement of on), work /or g a watercours@, a permit from- � r ' ." apPl cable legal ouEhanhes. - - b th the Cdhamro Department of Ash and Game and US Army Corps of Engineers may be I /( - required [L ' M xmxe to the maximum extent Rro t able; the psrcenfvge of PermeableSvrfvices to /law m percolat0n of stofmwater Wo the ground _: 'lo o a [,J Mi maze, to the maximum extent bract icabl.- the amount oI stomwater directed to _impermeable ureas and to fhE munhaspol separate stomwoCer system C] Mm]mze, to the maximum -ol pollution through the use of practrooco 8 h.useg,lot appy pnote Y<Eotment control BMPs and good housekeeping.- Fsf b%sh reasonable limits on -cIe ng of vegetoh'on from the prolate Site i,au&ng, but [ t✓ a z t w ° ° ` not limited to. egulat of the Ye gth of time dunng which sore m X be exposed and, id .certain cases, the prohibib ition of bare-sarl. �' ° ° '""•^^* �'` yk � E° 5 [ ] Pi'oode for appro prmte permanent measure; to reduce stormwater po/lutont'loods fmm the deveent site. lopm �` I° � •moi°o- r ,G � �Ja � -nLreR earn A 9TAINLF595TEEL AD90RBENr FILLED Se r �1 `3" r i",3 SUPPORT FRAME ArtACHMENt 9NAP3 - MANUFACTURER s '`��� ' - a A KRISTAR ENTERPRISES,INC 0L_Q.. weR9uPPaer eRAcrcns SANTA ROSA, CA A/ ' Sip, R//yG (Boo) 53979919 . — S. Hien Eww -- -��_– 19 R PPUN,NE GASKET - SUSMP / BMP. NOTES 5 m+'os�oes) MesH rarevMaoov o"oO��o _Ol — INSTALL FLO-GARD CATCH BASIN FILTER INSERTAS PER MP -52 . `ty\.\\ (MODEL NO• PF -74D1 WTTH ¢-mann no ATrd CTr KIAcc . � � w /�/' ,/r� / V ` CALCIVICENGINEERING GROUP CONSULTING ENGINEERS &LAND SURVEYORS (�N THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR) CIVIL ISTRUCTURALI LAND SURVEYING _ rz ( ) ev p 21nm n n p ¢ Ash I.o1A.. +0 c e r[ -v 1 OF 1 4 0 CARTELawsaw ac A M 11110 Olb Awrm SO 102 la An0eba, CdNanb 80026 (310}477-�D 3I0j{T1-�7T '2'Rr,,u HA/)(/����� APF !91]5 I 1 i/ ! / e1 e.+ Law ua5aexr WIM Ptlmrm _ \IWe geib � ( fmn kv, .tlMJ pal MF50 �1Z4 N PO $GALE: i!B' = P-0" GOL OL SPRINGS 0 8 is 32 LL-J, »M MCWW7W POLYANTMA TRiE3 7Rff2 £UCALiPW FOLYAN7MLMOS eMALYYTW POLMAA(Ih f /4' MY Rff 1 fUCALYPT7f5 fY7CY 20' si TRff 6 ELC.ALYPTW POIMfMl " 13' TRff 7 DAC& "'fLO POLYANR115NO5 TYP/CAL fgr$TING )Rif rO of Rr�f iam GOL DEQ/ SPre/NGS OR/ VE 101 9 N! r CARTER ROMANEK o�"� rq Lademps Ardis* ir- a ? UIID Ohb Lm An" "wWa DOM Q'o TYMAI FXLST/NG 7RLf MBE REMOVED 7' FIll 4LYFw FOLYA&mbw S 0 EUCAL)PTW POLYANRiEMC5 7' FIll LW577NG Mr5UMMAKY FIL 1 Trta MWER i �e erxreme rarrHmewS, nva ow �.. nsxa�aeroxa Rmx xw auoe wr TYIK 6,14 fYwTLYYe wm Q newt ewxr aminulm ac ro w.ux awc 9 n• bELLYflln P0.TNIIItIIw Iw.RM. wR nHATw Ot/nw Ar lw• °'a Y w��carrns rarunhtl�w � wcu+ecue tarwtnem 5 ! Brt°L'Riln rpLYI.NILL91Y9 I@rNL Q 6 �� 1P11tl 14YNLwwWw PQI r Yf9W PO4YlNiwtlgT RTN�L Y IM�BYXRNl KLTNIMOI�Yf FEE] What AA1i tl Mlil1 Ap.WIIGR PA9RY. a �TA�xtl Yri.unxA Yxmu.� O A� - TYG Rll tt�V TMfGD 1�0lM�IMK. @RpM canacr nTx ewue�w rows uwa .w nna w aT0 ru�isx T nv..IYIY! NLTMIII•gL nYL1 oaw loGYYTIitl 6 T LVCK1P11R wLYlN111dC{� wLLin1 wnM CeCAlR1Yl �m.e • wun u rwm n. SCALE I/8n = 1-0' u 0 8 is 32 L-2 • I! •!� 7_ . •��%►' • 9 'dr {O Oar. 1 �+ �i 1. �l.o o�`r'I_i ? •y' ,w "so'" ,00 � alio• ^r ry�, __.�_._ .� : r 4p� /rt�.lOOe � :,a�`' � A.. �� - _ ? � `t.Qi+•' ✓' �,i Yom. :I I�/,� >r � y_ ,-,. • " �t`f�;� Iq'�[r��■ �� ��.Lr��"r'*.�0�.;�°ate 1�1, �,■I�n�° i� ■ �`':� � i� o`, ��� ll�.<Q�°c.. ,° !�C�l. \��": s'P�� 1F o,,4A •, � 1:.1 �� dii V��� �:C '° ;���a j1�':� rf�� ■C• 0°° .,;+I r0aj x jE r � fo bo��o� �•DO rJ�%I -J ■■6��, Q�t•, Fl $1 �� 4�I.O/O� ■ wiJlri�� •9 \ij�.l ntL� �_r1 ''l., ��r 4+ � ♦h 4 \V `��-� /��_ (V� / " �� •1 O , � I... -FCS .`��r�,: % e�. ►' i � _ ` 1 I i 10. I a I � rS t q �I�p� Ifr`jlr ti • l�- m,w , C _ �1i'I `-� �I �� � •� � I - -�ia�aifQlH� /i•/OI^ _ \/I�OB3<000 't. IJ+ by p•-' -O p.. V1 •O ,1-114 v� YI O!Q°�� ._f� I�'�Q��:. IiN _ O■ 1� •pal � :°t.�.'�:•°of� Gh� ��=• ;..,�a„�.� ��: Qi�e• �°.�., ,�Q ���r . �-°o°off ���:1 +a earl +�/ •!1J• • iaO \�fy 91 0 4Ir-1' 1py�'��.t, , � •�� ,4 °I'r' 1. l�uO1 � .�41 `l��%`\ O°•.ItI'I� ®'O IIV III _ �_ = ..pQ'. I.�-�� b. Qo+al•• r � �>> 1111 IIIA �y - JJ p�•'r :, a.3 • u,��lll '�I �,I';. �u ��, mil i r MAXII MAO SAAMI ML 'j spr I I L ? Together with PACIFIC ARCHITECTURE, ENGINEERING CONSULTING 2450 DUPONT DRIVE, IRVINE, CA 92612 PHONE: (949)475-1000 PAX (949)4751001 Sprint � Together with NEXTEL 310 COMMERCE, IRVINE, CA 92602 a 206201 PHONE (714)3603500 PAN: (714) 3603501 PRO.IET OEMRIC/,igtt RONALD REAGAN PARK LA73XC017 A =1 PINCFAA HIM RDNS 11111111111116 IL 0 DIAMOND wtft$AR, C"A 94""1765 0,; ,07� SITE LOCATION PATHFINDER RD. THIS PROJECT CONSISTS OF THE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF ARCHITECT: ANTENNAS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT FOR THE' SPPoNT-NDNE2 DCI PACIFIC WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK. THIS SITE WILL CONSIST OR 2450 DUPONT DRIVE. 1) 107120' CUSTOM BUILT TELECOMMUNICATION BUILDING IRVINE, CA 92612 2) 35'-0' HIGH MONOBRCADIEAF CONTACT: D.K. DO E-MAIL DKODCIPACIRC.COM 3) 4'-3' PANEL ANTENNAS; 5 ANTERNA'S PER SECTION (3 SECTORS TOW) PHDNE: (949) 475-1000 FAX: (949) 475-1001 4) POWER, TELCO 6: COAXIAL CABLE RUNS SURVEYOR: SHEET oFSLroPIpu ISSUE T1 TOTE SHEEP -- Al OVERALL SITE PUN -- A2 ENLARGED SITE PLAN -- A3 EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNA LAYOUT PLANS A4 ELBVATIORS — IssTlm Nr ZONING APPROVALS: APPROVED uD INN1.1 MRE: LANDLORD uslNc PROJECT DESCRIPTION BERT HAZE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 3188 AIRWAY AVENUE, SURE Kt COSTA MESA, CA 92626 Cl SITE SUR&Y (FOR REFERENCE ONLY) __ C2 SITE SURVEY (FOR REFERENCE ONLY) __ ZONING RF o o c 57 i CONTACT: BERT HAZE E-MAIL BERT®BERTHA2ECOM PHONE: (714) 557-1567 FAX (714) 557-156B APPLICANT/LESSEE! NDOEL COMMUNICATIONS PHONE (714) 368-3500 310 COMMERCE FAX (714) 368-3507 IRVINE, G 92602 GM W a CONTACT: LOU BUCBiD, LEASING COOflgNATOR PHONE (949) 973-5751 FAX:: (714) 368-3501 CONTACT: BRIAN BOTIs. CONSIflULTIOH MANAGER PHONE - FAL: (714) 368-3501 _ CONTACT: LSA BERGSHOUA, RF ENGINEER PHONE - FAX (714) 386-3501 CONTACT. ED GALA ZONING PHONE (714) 708-1523 FAX: (714) 3BB-3501 m �K NICO ISSUE STATUS: TUTe OCSCwPIpx m: --- m/o2/m PHRUMINAW m Jm PROPERTY INFORMATION: --- M/29/07 NNAL ZD HH THOMAS BROS. MAP REF: 679-G5 (COUNTY: AGS MGM) (YEAR 2007) OWNER GUY OF DIAMOND BAR ADDRESS 21875 COPLEY DRIVE ADDRESS DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 — M/29/ ree Duren HON VICINITY MAP AITPHONE CONTACT: DIAMOND BAR CITY HALL - (SIN) 839-70D AP.N.: 8765-015-90D PROJECT INFORMATION: 07 Sms rove mm Fox ZONING SHEET INDEX arc6uIMUM)m AREA OF CONSTRUCTION: EQUIP. LEASE AREA - 200 SO. FT. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE PERFORMED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT EDITIONS OF91ETf THE FOLLOWING CODES AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITIES. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS IS TO BE CONSTRUED TO PERMIT WORK NOT CONFORMING TO THESE CODES. 1. QgHRMA BMLOW CODE CBC -2001 5. MEOW ElB3WAI. COLE CEE-20% 2 CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 6. CWEOMA MENWA CODE CLC -2001 (INCL TRIES 24 @ 25) 2001 7. CWNMNW EL AM CODE CPC -2001 3. Mw/ETA-227-F ITE SAFETY CODE B. IGCOL moNG s 4. NFPA-101-1997 ) 9. CRY AND/OR COUNTY ORDINANCES OCCUPANCY GROUP: PROJECT TEAM (E) -NONE (OPEN SPAM (P) - B (TELECOMMUNICATION FACIUY) CONSBNUC ION TYPE: (E) - N/A POWER: (P) - V -NR (MINIMUM)PHN: COMPANY: FAX CURRENT ZONING: CONTACT: E-MAIL ZONING APPLICATION #: TELCO: AGCE5519U(Y HUMAN IS UNMANNED AND NOT FOR PHM WWDIGPPED OONTCOMPA T-. FAX REQMREMETNIS: HUMAN HABITATION. NOT ACCESS NOT REWIRED. CONTACT E-MAIL REQUIRED. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS (IF NOT 24X36) mEc TITLE SHEET SKEET HJUBpt bSVE IEVII: CODE COMPLIANCE PROJECT SUMMARY UTILITY PROVIDERS GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOTES ORI; BENCH MARK: / I T ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING CONSULTING U.S.G.S, BENCH MARK -BM 1075' 2450 DUPONT DRIVE, IRVINE, CA 92612 i \ P+'� PHONE: FAX11949)47510D1 SUNITEDHOWN STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BENCH MARK 'BM SHOWN ON THE YORBA LINDA' 7.5 MINUTE OUPDR4NGLE EIM AS j MAP. ` 1949)4751000 01DIARON: 1077.5 FELT AM.S.L F/ } LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (NAMD68) \ ®I 800-227-2600 Call Full Working Days in Advance F(PENDING RECEIPT OF IIR£ REPORT) Z\ LOT 117 OF TRACT N0. 43152. IN THE CM OF CAROM)SHO BAR, COUNTY AP OF LOSMI ANGELES, STATE D N BOOK 10 6, SHOWN ON MAP OF 5410 TRACT, RECORDED IN BOOK 1046, PAGES 5 THROUGH 14, INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE INCLUSIVE } RECORDER OF 5410 COUNT(. Sprint Together with NEXTEL m/ / 310 COMMERCE, IRVINE, CA 92602 PHONE (714)368.3500 PAX (714)368-3501 PPOJEL•f OFSlIIFMRDN: RONALD REAGAN PARK LA73XCO17 DWWD 64R CA 9170 f � � � ' / W WIENr SIE O41£ X*/ r �. ! _ / �� - �A� / a \' / PROPOSED'SPR{NT-NEXTEL' t2M1Y AC DRIVEWAY FROM (E) y ° k Bsum RTN! PROPOSED'SPRINT-NEXTEL' SHEET A3 FOR ANTENNA SHEET AS FOR ANTENNA / �� Np'�� / ��.. / PROPOSED MMUNI INT-NEXTEL' -1. � / 4. �! T, TELECOMMUNICATIONS O LEASECU"-SILO Ty'PNDPOSED LEASE AREA O�\\ ZONING LAYOUT PLAN / 2 �, FACILITY' SEE SHEET A2 FOR �m r� ENLARGED SITE PLAN PROPOSED CURBAUT ON BOOSTING CUL -OE -SACC I \m \�A C 2SECTOR as LANDSCAPE BAR l�RD APPROVALS: : DATE A(. (E) TENNIS COURTS c N uuDinRD 1 'A _... T� E) CUL—DE—SAC LEASING 2 zoNlNc RF CM COMA ECTORH'p (100- AZIMU (E) GRASS AREA IEi OSKEIBALL MVrF ` \ \ � DRNM BF. OIK COURTS C v .Dr BUN Orn DID I\ ISSUE STATUS: (0 TOILET FACILITY o 'Y OO N (E) TRANSFORMERm\ 1 DATE: BSG BM --- 03/01/0) PRELIMINARt ID d0T -- : PROPOSED PROPOSED A \ VI 1 ` --- M/1s/07 FINAL Za HH 'SPRINT-NE)(TEL' 1 VI -h j0_ POWER P.O.C. t 05/29/07 MONO—BROADLEAF RELOCATED HON TRACT N0. 43162 (E) SAND PIAYGRDUND 1 — ya M.B. 1046/5-14 rA0 SSSTO SITE / E m LOT 117 / APN: 8765-0101 5-900 I 1 sHEEr'mtc: N88.00'23"W (849,33') - OVERALL SITE PLAN APN: APN: APN: - -- APN: 8765-022-012 1 APN: 8765-022-011 18765-022-010 18765-022-009 8765-022-008 I / 1 APN: APN: APN: APN: / APN: APN: SHEET NUMBER ME LIBEL' 1 6765-022-007 8765-022-006 8765-022-005 I 8765-022-004 / 8765-022-003 8765-022-002 \ II I I I I I i / AlOVERALL SITE °ALE NORT' 1s ao' i MN D BBi BK UT9p7 ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING CONSULTING 2450 DUPONT DRIVE, IRVINE, CA 92612 / // /, 1ti \ / PHONE: (949)4701000 PAX:(949)475-1001 (E) TREES, PROTECT IN- �� / QK PLACE, TYP. / i' 2p (E) PICNIC . TABLE oA �n PROPOSED 'SPRINT-NEXTEL' 9'X16' SERVICE PARKING \ \� ✓ ? �a+, H- \ \ - / Sprint n AREA (SHOWN DASHED) 'SPRINT-NEXTEL' ' Together with NEXTEL PROPOSED COAX CABLE TRENCH (TOTAL \ / LENGTH FROM EQUIPMENT TO POLE 1320'-07 \ ' X/ - e` \ / 310 COMMERCE IRVINE, CA 92602 PHONE.(714)36&3500 FAX:(714)36&3501 \ / fin/ El C PROPOSED 'SPRINT-NEXiEL° EQUIPMENT BUILDING; EXTERIOR FINISH e PROPOSED VEHICULAR M MATCH (E) ON-SITE RESTROOM \ TURN -AROUND AREA�s\r RONALD REAGAN PARK (CMU BLOCK WALL W/ CEMENT TILE ROOFING): SEE SHEET A3 - C U73XCO17 FOR EQUIPMENT LAYOUT PUN '- 0 \ 2Z11 PFACEFHL HI.S e� 7yp RDA9 \ OWpID B'R G i9)!S PROPOSED 'SPRINT-NEXTEL' ELECTRICAL/POWER TRENCH (TOTAL - \ LENGTH FROM EQUIPMENT TO (E) gItWEM Gq�E GtE TRANSFORMER 3270'-0' �" i \ F \ 09/17/07 b (E) PICNIC TABLE \ (E) LIGHTSTANDARDS, TYP. O�Z \f O \\ ZONING APPROVALS: -. p = -- V / APfMYFD 86 INR115: GTE: uuumRD \�(E) - `!; - �wswa TENNIS COURTS = A / zowuc r I — i POAP PROPOSED 6.0X4'H � RF DH D.CURTIY BOLLARDS o <'-o• o. c.\ (REMOVABLE), 5 TOTAL �. `�, (E) TREES, PROTECT ��IN PLACE, NP. �.� _ TRACT NO. 43162 - � M.B. 1046/5-14 - LOT 117 : T \ APN: 8765-015-900 ISSUE STATUS: E—F.—E—E—E—E—E—E—E—E \ / PROPOSED LANDSCAPE BARRIER GtE ma sr: 'SPRINT-NEXTEL' 6 CURB LOCATION --- M/112/07REtrHiuARr ZD dm PRUUMI PROPOSED 12'WIDE AC __ - / /D7 7N ZD HH v4 1 DRIVEWAY FROM (E) CUL-DE-SAC TO pe "'- _ PROPOSED LEASE AREA _ p\\ , ( \ (E) STREET LAMP, PROTEC( N PLACE ° _ 0.5/]9/07 HDNO-BROADIFAF RElDGTED HON T�� L (E) TREES, PROTECT IN PLACE, TYP - _ PROPOSED CURB -CUT AT EXISRNG R � e f� A CUL-DE-SAC (E) CUL-DE-SAC _ ENLARGED SITE PLAN To/ TRANSFORMER;SEE SHEET Al FORTOILET FACILITY TRANSFORMER OCATION IF ENLARGED SITEPLAN(\ " 1 WIO RAItl RR OflT va-�,a. mlmr7 7 —6' 20'-0' —6 KEYNOTE& WowTP. 5'-8° _ 3'-0° 6' 2'-7' 6' 3'-0' 6' 3'-0' 9 -2 T. YP p PROPOSED 'SPRINT-NDaW PRIMARY MODCELL V4.OB CABINET, WEIGHT: 1538 LBS. ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING CONSULTING r — — — — — — — -- -- - -- — — — — — — — 6• — 2.p 2 PROPOSED 'SPRINT-NE)ffW BATTERY CABINET, WEIGHT: 2174 LBS. 2450 DUPONT DRIVE, IRVINE, CA 92612 PHONe (949) 47&1000 FAX: (949) 475-1001 OPROPOSED 'SPRINT-NEXTEL' FUTURE CABINET, WEIGHT: 1538 LBS. ' /� IN I /F "Poo t ` tp p r p2 'I1 � p3 p3 _ p O 5 -TON HVAC UNITS (WALL -MOUNTED), 2 TOTAL 4'X8'X3/4'D9K. TELOO BACKBOARD Ofi 'SPRINT00 PNOREL'XINTERCONNAS IECT ENGINEER TO BE DETERMINED BY TEI-�P J 200A 120/208-240V 16 POWER PANEL W/ SURGE SUPPRESSOR AND INTERLOCKING BREAKER <B>200A METER/MAIN MOUNTED ON EXTERIOR WALL e'.B) 200A EMERGENCY GENERATOR RECEPTACLE MOUNTED ON EXTERIOR WALL Sprint Together with NEXTEL o o L_ _ _ J .` 36 1O D --- V LOCATION FOR STEP-DOWN TRANSFORMER, IF REQUIRED; PENDING UTILITY 1D COORDINARON REPORT 1p CONDUR SNB—UPS FOR COAX CABLES ®FlNISH FLOOR LEVEL O 5'X5' CONCRETE STOOP 010 COMMERCE, IRVINE CA 92602 PHONE: (714)36&3509 TAX '.(714)366-3501 PROJECT MENRFla.T10N: RONALD REAGAN PARK p4'W X 7'H ACCESS DOOR LA73XCO17 L_ — — — m — ZPGt PEICFFLL M 9 RyD MG 170 q 5 FINISHING SCHEDULE: '9 B FLOOR HOMOGENEOUS VINYL FLOOR TILE PER 'SPRINT-NEXTEL' STANDARDS cuRwExr sax uA1E: B LE—E—E--)�TO POWER P.O.C. CEILING GYPSUM BOARD W/ SEMI -GLOSS FINISH INTERIOR WALLS—DAMP-PROOFED CMU WALL W/ SEMI -GLOSS FINISH EXTERIOR WALLS—DAMP-PROOFED CMU WALL TO MATCH EXISTING 09/171OJ swm Fat EQUIPMENT LAYOUT °A E: vz•n.a. o 1 ZONING (E) TREES, PROTECT IN PLACE "--- a,, — = i % MONO -BROADLEAF SPECIFICATIONS: NOTE, MONOTREE DRAWINGS ARE SCHEMATIC ONLY. REFER TO PHOTOSIMS AND VENDOR DRAWINGS FOR FINAL REVIEW AND FABRICATION PURPOSES. JURISDICTION AND CM TO REVIEW AND APPROVE VENDOR MONOTREE SHOP DRAWINGS PRIT OR 0 FABRICATION. PROPOSED STYLE ELM APPROVALS: A%SMJFD Bn INRWS: GTE uNomeo �mo ZONING PROPOSED 'SPRINT—N 35-TO';5'-0 HIGH MONO—BROAD SEE,SPECS ,. ,- ;- - 0 ,. CAISSON F f r OQF'� Q f f �� / �0 '� -"- 'y/GJ ;",�"� (T ) PROPOSED HEIGHT: 40'MAX. OP OF BRANCHES (MEASURED FROM AVERAGE ADJACENT GRADE LEVEL AT CAISSON FOOTING TO TOP OF BRANCHES) NUMBER OF ANTENNAS: 5 ANTENNAS PER SECTOR; 15 TOTAL 4 ANTENNAS PER SECTOR; 12 TOTAL (FUTURE) TOP OF ANTENNAS: 35' RF oN CDMA SEGO (280 AZIMUTH)1 ! ' " O / _ HEIGHT OF ANTENNAS 4'-3" ANTENNA RAD CENTER: 33' MAgI Bl: B�oIKc PROPOSED 'SPRINT—NEXTEL%4'-3° PANEL ANTENNAS: 5 ANTENNAS PER SECTOR, 3 SECTORS i / '' / - l CDMA SECTOR 0Do- AZNMUTH� 4\ \ (E) TREES, PROTECT IN PLACE ANTENNA COLOR: PAINT TO BLEND WITH LEAVES NUMBER OF BRANCHES: 60 BRANCH DENSITY: 3 BRANCHES PER LINEAR FOOT MAJOR BRANCH DIAMETER: 20'-0' ISSUE STATUS: --- 05/=/07 PREUNIURY ZD dor --- 05/x9/07 DNA ZD HH ---05/29/07 NDNO-BROAD: RF CKFDD HON � / '�\ ,\ LOWEST BRANCH HEIGHT: 15 4\4\4\ FROM RADE LEVEL AT CAIURED SRAGE SONJACENT BRANCH.) FOOTING TO LOWEST . OF/ Q TYP. 5,-0. TYR. TO EQUIPMENT BUILDING BRANCH EXTENSION (ABV): 5' SIMULATED LEAVES VES (SOCKS) ADHERED TO ANTENNAS: POLE STYLE: 18 SIDED POLYGON (GALVANIZED STEEL) 9aET 1 / El 320'-0' DIA. TAPERED: NO / COATING OR BARK: COATING (PAINTED) COLOR: DICEIDUOUS BEIGE MULTI—TONE. HEIGHT OF COATING OR FULL HEIGHT BARK: EQUIPMENT ANDANTENNA LAYOUT f m o^ MICROWAVE DISH ANTENNA: NO MICROWAVE RAD CENTER: N/A ANTENNA LAYOUT PLAN 0R1F vsRc-=n,i.eo: . L IW1669a M[ � � FMCIFIG ARCHITECTURE -ENGINEERING -CONSULTING 2450 DUPONT DRIVE, IRVINE, CA 92612 PHONE: (949) 475-1000 FAR:(949)475-1001 (E) TREE (OUTLINE) 0 BACKGROUND (E) TREE (OUTLINE) 0 BACKGROUND PROPOSED 'SPRINT-NEXTEL' MONOBROADLEAF; SEE SHEET A3 FOR SPECIFICATIONS PROPOSED 'SPRINT-NEXTEL' PANEL ANTENNAS; 5 ANTENNASSPER: - SECTOR, 3 SECTORS TOTAL FUTURE (CO LOCATION) 3= - ANTENNAS (SHOWN T.O. ANTENNAS/ DASHED) POLE 1 'SPRIM-NEXTEL' R D EMER \1 1 Sprint ri , - Together with NEXT EL s bF,,�s 1;m1nm ; 1�-- r �•.('"w Li/ x �Ih1 °*�`+-s PROPOSED OPS ANTENNA (2 TOTQ) MOUNTED TO 310 COMMERCE, IRVINE. CA 92602 CLEAR TOP OF EQUIPMENT BUILDING PHONE (714)368350D FAK(714)368-3501 d ' a - I D f 11 -�t;� I, ° a` ,�`' (E) CHAIN LINK FENCE pµp,Ey7 ppppKrapH; RONALD ARK ALD REAGAN P o - LA73XC017 �, I (E) TREES, PROTECTN �wLOIa - ew` CA 917W IN PLACE, TYP. - 1 WR�2T Im1E BNE 09/17/07 - PROPOSED 'SPRINT-NEXTEL' 10'X20CUSTOM-BUILT TELECOMMUNICATION BUILDING; EXTERIOR FINISHES TO 5wm WTC MATCH EXISTING PARK'S RESTROOM ZONING SOUTHEAST ELEVATION " 1 APPROVALS: �aPaoom fM: IflII,ttS: 61R uN01nR0 CEMENT TILE ROOFING, 5-TON HVAC UNITS COLOR TO MATCH EXISTING (WALL-MOUNTED), 2 TOTAL PROPOSED 'SPRINT-NEXTEL' r•=iNc MONOBROADLEAF; SEE SHEET A3 FOR SPECIFICATIONS w (E) TREES, PROTECT PROPOSED 'SPRINT-NEXTEL' 4'-3' < i r IN PLACE, ttP. zONiNc o ' a "L _[I i� i7i LI " - I _L_,c J -II"�� r, L�(T]I Lam., RF rT�'i r T a- - PANEL ANTENNAS; 5 ANTENNAS PER - SECTOR, 3 SECTORS TOTAL—,-.. cu u I — T.O. ANTENNAS/POLE m1C IY.! r ro 3' I O A43 JVI BOT( m OY ,, ! TLI' 4' >`, i0J1L V NJ> iG,,,x } - 2 �) i ISSUE STATUS A �'�` owe W.. CMU BLOCK WALL. COLOR FUTURE .; V` � 1 x "5 jl w r AND TEXTURE TO MATCH POWER/TELCO P EI-S (CO-LOCATION) ,,,fi �rPsj,,,m a ci t;�va �x 'ry _ oI ., )r �+- -- 05/U/07 PREUWNAW zo der zo os/2s/W nn.nN EXISTING AND EGR ANTENNAS k ¢ 4r 1 (SHOWN DASHED) x Ne„- �Y r*X.'i' ;y^.•(" O6/29/W MONN-BR DLEAF RELOGAE HON SOUT' AT 0 v"R6h'�: ]x.¢ r T.O. EQUIPMENT BLDG. WOOD SIDING/TRIM TO- 3 MATCH EXISTING�- ( Y S (E) CONC. CURB POWER/TELCO PANELS LOUVERED VENT AND EGR N ~ - PROPOSED 'SPRINT-NEXTEL' 10'X20' S'-0'0 CONC. CAISSON CUSTOM-BUILT TELECOMMUNICATION Ili o BUILDING; EXTERIOR FINISHES TO To MATCH EXISTING PARK'S RESTROOM `ml 4'-0° ELEVATIONS n TO EDGE OF CURB (E) SLOPE (2 UNITS -- SNET N�ueEx. CMU BLOCK WALL, COLOR AND TEXTURE TO MATCH HOR., 1 UNIT VERT.) EXISTING NORTHWESIE BFTATION (E) STREET LEVEL EOUIPMENT BLDG. ELEVATION 3NORTHEAST ELEVATION E 2^ WCL J BAIRIOE 37615N° N ummm 11TS14STY ■ HAD 1157 010011M CDNIONIIIQ VM ErrAffaM DOW WART WAOE'A111®P MPA MINIMUM= Am AWN®1 0111111:Y QAR MANIKIN OWTVARE FOR NNE-PROCEMM 0 (0 OMOM OMMUM LOWNINI . 1000 FW OWUM BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE aMMLME OF HIGH OaMM DE MM NOWM @M%r DR FD WP Q WINCE N5 0.7141. ILL 5-14, MMM OF IDM ANNI ODIROY. TIRE REPORT IDENTIFICATION: "ems; mummulP 61AE ASSESSOTYS IDENIIFICRnON: BEM ANDRES OWN APDL B -M AREA: L47 A= PA LD AM= OMIT MODERN BENCH MARK: USAL BENT WEf 7N low tum MU 0m100W. WARY !NW WMI ti FOM° N NNNI ON THE ww uar 7.6 umm mrmmx WP. mumaussI tMEN Ptm A.., LEGAL DESCRIPTION: vocam mm" OF In Room IW 117 OF WADE 1N. 018% N 1E CWY OF DVPRD WA NI YM OF WN TRIOL. RmNRm N NNN 104% PIED S THOUGH 10. NBlD1! OF WP; N ITE SIM 411E loomm OF SND ONSRT. DATE OF SURVEY: Ma 15 mall am SHIET C -2 Phi MAU . / t� 04 GEODETICDRDINAM / LOCATION 'BASKETBA-L COURTS, O `lENN15 COOKIE, O O `GRASS, a4 3u f ww XC `GRASS. A `GRASS, TRACTNO. 482 Ma 7104W 6-u LOT til Arrt / I I ARESIDENTIALIAREA, / \ LOT 12 APR LOT i1 a IN— LOT OBI LOT 07 LOT OB LOT 06 LOT 04 LOT Is I Arra AixAnt I I ARL / Arx % A� LOT 10 LOT 00 Ant Anl 1 ) - LEGEND: APA APEX TOE TOE OF SLOPE BBO BU BARBECUE BOLLARD SOLLARS TW TP TOP OF SLOPE TOE /\ A' BLCH BFACHER TR THE RD BW BURRING BACK OF WALK TRN 1RPN TRANSFORMER PINE TREE g CR CONCRETE ROW ENE TV TDP OF WALL CUPWD CPO CHAIN EE FENCE CONCRETE PAD WR WALKWAY WATER NEWER ELECTRICAL CTRICAL BC% NI WATER NEWER PULL BOX ESC LOGE OF CONCRETE YL K YARD LIGHT FO FOUND ewn �' W FIRE HYmANT ®BLOCK WALL Tc A6�9 aK HSE HS ICV HOUSE IRRIGATION CONTROL VAIV£ ® \ INSIDE FACE OF WALL —a — CHAIN UNN FENCE CHAIN YYAYG W ME N3 NO NOW STRIP NATURAL GROUND CENTERLINE 'GRASS, ON OVERHANG 0G ® FOUND MONUMENT SPINE AND WASHER Imam a Y STREET UCHi '<% FIRE HYDRANT Xnm 1mII mXrv..:.. \ TCK TOP OF CURB SPIKE STREET LIGHT Nb97t K TRASH ENCLOSURE ?.' YARD UGHT O `lENN15 COOKIE, O O `GRASS, a4 3u f ww XC `GRASS. A `GRASS, TRACTNO. 482 Ma 7104W 6-u LOT til Arrt / I I ARESIDENTIALIAREA, / \ LOT 12 APR LOT i1 a IN— LOT OBI LOT 07 LOT OB LOT 06 LOT 04 LOT Is I Arra AixAnt I I ARL / Arx % A� LOT 10 LOT 00 Ant Anl 1 ) TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY I mow' W 1 18 1 00:1 �OMWWoa �✓ C7M° it LOT 08 LW, Aax / LOT 02 I$ I ArwIN I / � I Sprint `1 Together with NEXTEL 31DCOMMERCE, IRVINE,CA 92602 PHONES (714) 368-3500 FAX (714) 366-3501 :PmEDT f FORIMMpN: RONALD REAGAN PARK LA73XC017 =1 PEACEFUL H11S m. BAMNIRB, SW, CA 11Tm SITE DDUM :wRNxr ISSUE DIME 04/24/07 :Isom FDIe REVIEW 71 :ILLY_ =DATE— IEY:: :PWS PfaPlfhD Btt � PACIFIC ARc4ET E N WEENNG PIANNNG .50 DUoNr .IRVINE CF 9x612 PHONE I9 FAX(90.9)41S1GH1 ERrTJ HFAAER AND ASSOCIATE; INL LAND 9INM & MUM 3186 AIRWAY AVENUE. SUITE K1 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 714 557-1567 OFFICE 714 557-1568 FAX TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY % S. ". ,¢Htm \ Sprint Together with NEXTEL 310 COMMERCE, IRVINE, CA 92602 A/• - 'GRASS, X PHONE: (714) 36BJ50D FAX:(714)368-3501 ,msro 9H �¢ 0, mmml \ PMIIELT BF9PoGlDlt 1 �A� , \ ..L6 Em N.p%FAR3IR Bttst MIRGA nRONALLDjN7Em XlLS AD. MIIG! SCA = 20' �2xY -, "N dW� O1 My \Wfg 9IE CgINpIYW1JB0 / mzm ,m4x/ ,94� yp/ nam BneB _cb Xuw louw `GRASS, CIRONNf E3OE 0\l2 i 1Bmw 9 mtm ,% y°�=IP m 04/24/07 / , � mm Ail / m `GRASS, Ui f RA t'P `o . 0 *- 93AY SSUBED Fall, REVIEW e OTE' es� Xuu bT50 Na �m rmuo- "N Na fimm�WW - �t A`F J$ �Du es 4^ PEV_ _GTE_ o6CKPnolt Ht: a lax%. m ma ig d�d11 C1' 9BN� ,ml.is ppiX kv /a' `Foo 4 fj �*m `cRAss, xcN9 sW� Bnm ,R ma dP� ,pshX �x Nfb eBXm ?W� 1P`9Yx` 1C 4¢.($ gi°sY �t��•d xa Wit" XG M�\R 'L� YG i`SSq FS9' `GRASSY AL ,Q 'TENNIS COURTS. G$ wsfs cmxb -. AS IA mw Nx' M'' V3e. \� -gym .g6�JY xc "@m /y � 59%W R y j ' Sam jia olm 'P Al E. 3 1TMi� t9+xM `� % � vR q PAm oES � 9�'� xe xmal Ole, ,9 n—# b . a oF� 'max n fi (�9_T/'FBS _ °'w k.At,ym � mx F / \9 >,'� i6 %99f @ d ppflm M/ $@$ ar5o W+ BAl)0 fiixs s wzpe wzR G `GRASS, , 8 f 'IL ypplo � �pp9���''ggq'fN y; Nf6aN tmia &9 ,M.w m2u 'BaM.m q4"�6 tX 6.- t' .. %a i "0 �.vc Y \Na W m GEODETICCOORD `GRASS, LOCA ON `BASKETBALL �SAUm �' 'GRASS,y1P 4 wyw Sipf S Y8 R � �a rat R m.sn TM villas Dq�, cRe WRNS PnEvumn Of,"fib% PMLIFI4 k¢' J COURTS, $a e BBL® tc �f` ACM ENCIxE[RING a:nnNINC mTffi_� rat .F `GRASS �Ok U MDRI0 IfN9A92613 11 anoN :l is lsos FM F�:1Bnetwslsm � xXM W: `GRASS m °2 `E%ISTNG ASPHALT PARKING LOT, rsA E48 CONSUISNKB 19nm: W maN-. \A m "blyB a QBE 9XB52R $Wd' y AND ����tA �gSpS��OCCpIAy T��E�yIL INC M JIx1VM R MAM xM LEGEND: r ,aam $> ARK VEX TDP TOE OF SLOPE `OAR p�W aploo emC Ns moi^ 3138 AIRWAY AVENUE, SUITE Kt COSTA MESA. CALIFORNIA 92626 W max :-1"meB Ta moxmox BEG BARBEOITE TDP TOP 6 SLOPE TP TOP HANG. eBTao �'A m k 214 557-1557 OFFICE 714 557-1568 FAX BD B -CH BW BOLLARD BALDING TR TREE BUILDING RN TRANSFORMER `GRASS. p,R'T m sszw DVER HANG Se , INVNN WP NN' BW BACK OF WALK RPN PINE TREE ,Xn.m 'GRASS, T CFL CONCRETE FlDW LINE iW TOP OF WALL m tB� CLF CPD EB% CHAIN LINK FENCE W% WALKWAY CONCRETE PAD WM WATER METER'm ELECTRICAL BOX WAS WATER METER POLL BOX - EDC FD EDGE OF CONCRETE n YARD LIGHT FDUARE xs k9 `r� b LINO HSE HYDRANT YDRANT BLOCK WALL HOU H HOU `SAND PLAYGROUND AREA, W& SSApNKt 4p ICV ISFW IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE ® BOLLARD`GRASS. INSIDE FACE OF WALL —o— CHAIN LINK FENCE m�nm No. 7P11 MS NG MOW STRIP NATURAL GROUND fL CENTEVUNE,P GRASS F»R J -31-C91 s ON OVERHANG ® FOUND MONUMENT SPIKE AND WASHER "m""s wxm D CALK A a SPK STREET LIGHT b ARE HiDRANT SPIKE TO TE o --C1 STREET UGHT TOP a CURB .+. TRASH ENCLOSURE h^ YARD LIGHT v6teB Xs SAF SIRE 1 � `GRASS, TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY ON R WA 91EEf NEIYB`StRIDMDNE uD„ I I 1 I OM RM Cl FOR TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY 2 CITY COUNCIL Agenda # 7-2 Meeting Date: November 20, 2007 AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: James DeStefano, City Man g 2006-01 AND TITLE: NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2007-03, ZONE TENTATIVE CHANGENO. TRACT MAP NO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT, 64881, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-10, AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2006-11— A NINE UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 23671 GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE. RECOMMENDATION: Upon conclusion of the public hearing adopt the following: • Ordinance No. (2007) approving first reading of Zone Change No. 2006-01 and Planned Overlay District; • Resolution No. 2007- approving Tentative Tract Map No. 64881 and adopting Negative Declaration No. 2007-03; and • Resolution No. 2007- , approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-10 and Development Review No. 2006-11. BACKGROUND: On September 11, 2007, the Planning Commission concluded a noticed public hearing on Tentative Tract Map No. 64881, the project Negative Declaration and all requested entitlements and recommended approval of the project to the City Council. Approval of this project will allow the property owners Joe Kwok and GSDB Investment Group, LLC to subdivide 0.62 acres into a nine unit, detached, residential condominium complex. The project site is located at 23671 Golden Springs Drive and is currently developed with a mini -mart drive-thru known as Diamond Jim's Dairy. ANALYSIS: On September 11, 2007, the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing for the proposed project. One person spoke and three letters from residents were submitted to the Planning Commission. The residents expressed opposition to the proposed project because of concerns related to losing a landmark and the convenience of the dairy, and because of concerns that the proposed project will generate additional traffic. The Planning Commission had concerns related to adequate guest parking, common open space and traffic. The Commission's concerns were addressed as follows: 1. Guest Parking. The Development Code does not address guest parking for detached condominium units. However, each unit provides a two -car garage as required for a single- family residence. Furthermore, one guest parking space is provided for each unit. Staff finds that the parking provided is adequate for the project and Commission concurred with staff. 2. Common Open Space. The Development Code does not have a minimum requirement for common open space and recreation areas for condominium or apartment projects. It does have a minimum landscape requirement of 15 percent of the project site. The project exceeds this minimum requirement and 24 percent of the project area will be landscaped. Additionally, each condominium unit has a private patio area. Since the proposed project complies with the Code's landscape requirement, the Commission was satisfied that the proposed project meets the landscaping and general requirement for open space. 3. Traffic. The traffic study prepared by Lin consulting, Inc. for this project indicates that the mini -mart generates 36 trip ends in the AM peak hours 69 trip ends in the PM peak hours. The proposed project will generate 7 trip ends in the AM peak hours and 8 trip ends in the PM peak hours. Since the proposed project will generate fewer trips than the mini -mart, the study concludes traffic improvement measures are not required. According to the City's traffic impact analysis guidelines, the proposed project is not large enough in size and does not generate enough daily trip ends to warrant traffic improvement measures. As a result, the Commission agreed that traffic improvement measures are not required for this project. The Commission concluded that the proposed project meets the City's Code requirements and design standards and felt that this property is a good location for much needed housing in Southern California. Therefore, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the project to the City Council. The attached Planning Commission staff report represents all the technical information related to the project along with a Negative Declaration that addresses environmental impacts. The review period for the Negative Declaration began August 16, 2007 and ended September 4, 2007. During the review period, the City did not receive any comments from the agencies notified. The City Council may approve the proposed project as recommended by the Planning Commission. The Council may add or modify conditions of approval set forth in the resolutions. If the Council concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation, then adoption of the resolution and ordinance should be in the following sequence: 1. Adopt City Council Resolution No. 2007 -XX approving Tentative Tract Map No. 64881 and adopting Negative Declaration No. 2007-03; 2 2. Approve the first reading of Zone Change Ordinance No. XX (2007); and 3. Adopt City Council Resolution No. 2007 -XX approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-10 and Development Review No. 2006-11. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Notice for this project was published in the Inland Valley Bulletin and San Gabriel Valley Tribune on November 8, 2007. On November 2, 2007, public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 210 property owners within a 500—foot radius of the project site and posted in three public places. Additional, the public notice was place on a display board at the project site on November 5, 2007. PREPARED BY: e L nn J. un , ssociate Planner REVI Nancy Fdrich, AIGN Communi Develo ent Director David Doyle, Assistant City Manager Attachment: 1. City Council Zone Change Ordinance No. XX (2007); 2. City Council Resolution No. 2007 -XX adopting Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 and approving Tentative Tract Map No. 64881; roving Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-10 and 3. City Council Resolution No. 2007 -XX, app Development Review No. 2006-11; 4. Planning Commission Minutes dated September 11, 2007; 5. Planning Commission Staff Report for September 11, 2007 meeting; 6. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2007-44, 2007-45 and 2007-46; 7. Exhibit "A" dated September 11, 2007 — Tentative Tract Map No. 64881, grading plan, site plan, elevations, sections, and landscape, hardscape and irrigation plans and colors and material board; 8. Exhibit "B" Negative Declaration No. 2007-03; 9. Three correspondences from residence; and 10. Aerial photo. 3 ATTACHMENT #1 CITY COUNCIL ZONE CHANGE ORDINANCE NO. XX (2007) ORDINANCE NO. (2007) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING ZONE CHANGE N0. 2006-01 AND PLANNED DEVELOPMNENT OVERLAY AND WHICH CHANGES THE EXISTING ZONING FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (C-1) TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL -PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (RH-PD) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23671 GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA (APN NO. 8281-028-030). A. RECITALS The property owner/applicant, Mr. Joe Kwok, GSDB Investment Group, LLC, has filed an application for Zone Change No. 2006-01 for a property identified as APN No. 8281-028-030 and located at 23671 Golden Springs Drive, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Zone Change and Negative Declaration shall be referred to as the "Application." 2. On September 11, 2007, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. At that time, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2007-44 recommending City Council approval of the application 3 On November 2, 2007, public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 210 property owners of record within a 500 -foot radius of the project site, a copy of the legal notice was posted at the City's designated community posting sites, and a public notice display board was posted at the site. On November 8, 2007 notification of the public hearing for this project was provided in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. 4. On November 20, 2007, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. 5. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does hereby approve Zone Change No. 2006-01 based on the following findings, as required by Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.70.050 and in conformance with California Government Code Section 65853 and 65860. 6. Following due consideration of public testimony, staff analysis and the Planning Commission recommendation, the City Council hereby finds that Zone Change No. 2006-01 set forth within amends the Zoning Map and is consistent with the General Plan and the adopted goals and policies of the City, and that the Zoning Map does not presently reflect the General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential -Maximum 20 Dwelling Units Per Acre (RH) for the subject property. Zone Change No. 2006-01 will change the zoning for the subject property to R -H PD in conformance with the General Plan 7. The City Council hereby finds that the zone change identified above in the Ordinance was addressed in Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 prepared for Tentative Tract Map No. 64881 according to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and guideline promulgated hereunder and determined not to have a significant effect on the environment. B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. The zoning designation for the following property identified as APN # 8281-028- 030 is hereby changed to C-1 to RH-PD and shall allow uses listed for the RH- PD zoning district in Table 2-2 of the Development Code. 2. The City Clerk is directed to amend the Zoning Map to reflect the referenced property's new zoning designation. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 2007, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. BY: _ Steve Tye, Mayor 0 I, Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of , 2007 and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of 2007 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members: NOTES: Council Members: ABSENT: Council Members: ABSTAIN: Council Members: Q Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar ATTACHMENT #2 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2007 -XX ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2007-03 AND APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 64881 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2007-. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 64881 AND ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2007-03 SET FORTH THEREIN FOR A NINE UNIT CONDOMINIUM RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 23671 GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA (APN NO. 8281-028-030). A. RECITALS The property owner/applicant, Joe Kwok, GSDB Investment Group, LLC, has filed an application for approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 64881 and adoption of Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Map and Negative Declaration shall be referred to as the "Application." 2. On September 11, 2007, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. At that time, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.2007-45 recommending City Council approval of the application 3 On November 2, 2007, public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 210 property owners of record within a 500 -foot radius of the project site, a copy of the legal notice was posted at the City's designated community posting sites, and a public notice display board was posted at the site. On November 8, 2007 notification of the public hearing for this project was provided in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. 4. On November 20, 2007, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The City Council hereby finds that the project identified above in this Resolution required a Negative Declaration (ND). ND No. 2007-03 has been prepared according to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder. The 20 day public review period for the ND began August 16, 2007, and ended September4, 2007. Furthermore, the City 1 Council has reviewed the ND and related documents in reference to the Application. 3. The City Council 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 City Council 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 City Council 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 City Council hereby finds as follows: (a) The project site is an irregularly shaped lot located on the northerly side of Golden Springs Drive west of Platina Drive. It is approximately 27,003 square feet (0.62 acres) in area. The site is elevated above the surrounding properties by retaining walls and slopes. From 1966 to 1986, the project site was occupied by a service station. In 1986, the site building was remodeled into a mini -mart with drive-thru known as Diamond Jim's Dairy. (b) The project site has a General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential (RH) Maximum 20 DU/AC which authorizes a maximum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. (c) The project site is within the Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) zone. However, Zone Change No. 2006-01 within Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-44 recommends that the City Council approve the zone change from C-1 to High Density Residential -Planned Development (RH-PD) for General Plan compliance. (d) Generally the following zones and uses surround the project site: Site General Plan Zone Uses Project High Density Residential - Neighborhood Commercial Site Maximum 20 Dwelling Unit Commercial (C-1) Per Acre RH North & RH C-1 and R-1-8,000 Residential & West Condoms South Low Density Residential R-3-8,000 Church Maximum 3 Dwelling Units Per acre RL (e) The Application request includes the following: (1) Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 to address impacts that the proposed project may have on the environment; (2) Zone Change application to change the project site's zoning from C-1 to RH-PD-20 Dwelling Units/Per Acre for General Plan compliance; (3) Subdivision application to create a tract map for condominium purposes; (4) Conditional Use Permit application to establish a Planned Development Overlay District (PD) to modify setbacks and wall heights that are appropriate for the property characteristics and the type of development proposed for the site; and (5) Development Review application to demolish the existing mini -mart with drive-thru and to review the project's overall design and site plan configuration and its effect on surrounding properties. Tentative Map Findings Pursuant to Subdivision Code Section 21.20 the City Council has made the following required findings: (f) The General Plan land use designation for the project site is High Density Residential (RH). The General Plan describes this designation as a residential land use category for town homes, condominiums, apartments, mobile homes and other multiple family residential properties. This land use category can maintain a maximum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. The proposed map is a non -gated subdivision for a nine unit detached condominium development with private entry and drive aisle. The allowed density for the High Density Residential General Plan designation and zoning district is 20 units per acre. The project is 27,003 square feet (0.62 acres) could be developed with a maximum density of 12 units. In order to meet the City's development standards and provide the appropriate access and drive isles, landscaping, and condominium units that are marketable in size, the project is proposed at 9 units which is 25 percent below the General Plan and zoning allowed density. Furthermore, the proposed land use represents an extension of the existing development pattern in the project area which is condominiums and single-family residential. As a result, TTM 64881 is consistent with the General Plan including its design and improvements. (g) The project site is approximately 0.62 gross acres (27,003 square feet) in area. TTM 64881 proposes to create a common -interest subdivision to facilitate the development of 9 detached residential condominium units with two car garages and guest parking for each unit, landscaping and private patios. In accordance to the General Plan density provisions, it is permissible to develop up to12 condominium units. However, the proposed density of 9 units is 25 percent below General Plan and zoning potential density. Additionally, the ND prepared for this project reviewed the suitability of the project site, circulation, grading, aesthetics, land use, etc. The ND concluded that the proposed map would not have a significant effect on the environment and with the incorporation of conditions of approval. Therefore, the project site is physically suitable for the proposed type of development and density, (h) The ND for this project analyzed whether or not the proposed map would cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their 3 habitat. The ND concluded that with conditions of approval as discussed in the ND, it is anticipated that the proposed map's impacts would be reduced to a level "less than significant" and the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (i) The ND analyzed impacts related to the design of the subdivision and improvements related to the project. The design of the project meets the standards set forth in Development Code and the City's Design Guidelines. The project's design maintains the quality standards specified in the Design Guidelines and Development Code. It is compatible with the existing residential neighborhood that surrounds the project site. As a result, the proposed project's design or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health or safety problems. (j) There are no easements of record for the project site. As discussed in findings above, the project site is suitable for this type of development. Therefore, the design of the subdivision orthe type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. (k) According to the ND prepared forthis project, environmental issues related to hydrology and water quality are "less than significant" and discharge sewerage would not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. (1) A geotechnical report was prepared for this project and reviewed by the City. The report was approved with conditions that are incorporated into the project design. Additionally, the ND prepared for this project indicates that with the implementation of these conditions in combination with applicable Municipal Code and UBC requirements and appropriate engineering practices will ensure impacts related to geology will be "less than significant". (m) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the applicable provisions of Title 21, the City's Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision Map Act and the Development Code as discussed in the above findings. 5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the City Council hereby adopts Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 and approves TTM 64881 subject to the following conditions and Standard Conditions attached and referenced herein: a. GENERAL This approval shall be null and void and of no effect unless the Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 is adopted and Zone Change No. 2006-01, Planned Development Overlay, Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-10 and Development Review No. 2006-11 are approved. This approval is valid for three years. Two extensions of time, one 4 year each, may be approved in accordance to Development Code Section 22.66. b. SITE DEVELOPMENT 1. Approximately 10 lineal feet of a retaining wall located at the west property line and a wall in the same area which encloses the side yard for unit one is shall not exceed an exposed height of eight feet. 2. Exterior or perimeterwalls shall be constructed from split face block with a decorative cap. Interior walls may be stucco in a color to match and/or complement the condominium units. Sample of said construction materials and colors shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to plan check submittal. 3. Uses permitted in the RH zoning district as listed in the Development Code shall be the only uses allowed in the RH-PD zoning designation for the project site. 4. Prior to final map, the applicant shall provide a final landscape and irrigation plan listing all plant species, size quantity and location for Planning Division review and approval. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to final inspection or Certificate of Occupancy 5. Prior to plan check submittal, the applicant shall submit an exterior lighting plan and photometric study for Planning Division review and approval. All lighting shall be designed to confine direct rays to the subject property. Spillage beyond the property lines shall not be permitted. Lighting shall be on a time -clock or photo -sensor system. C. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION Prior to final map approval, applicant shall submit to the Building and Safety Division the design of all retaining walls for review and approval concurrently with the grading plan check. d. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE PREVENTION Access shall comply with Section 902 of the Fire Code, which requires all weather access. All weather access my require paving. 2. Fire Department access shall be extended to within 150 feet distance of any exterior portion of all structures. 3. Where driveways extend further than 300 feet and are of single access design, turnarounds suitable for fire protection equipment use shall be provided and shown on the final map. Turnarounds shall be designed, constructed and maintained to insure their integrity for Fire Department use. Where topography dictates, 5 turnarounds shall be provided for driveways that extend over150 feet in length. 4. Private driveways shall be indicated on the final map as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" with the widths clearly depicted and shall be maintained in accordance with the Fire Code. 5. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction to all required fire hydrants. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. 6. Applicant shall provide Fire Department or City approved street signs and building access numbers prior to occupancy. 7. Applicant shall provide water mains, fire hydrants and fire flows as required by the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, for all land shown on map which shall be recorded. 8. Fire hydrant shall conform to the following requirements: (a.) Install one fire hydrant; (b.) Measure 6" x 4" x 2'/2" brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA standards C503 or approved equal; (c.) On site hydrants shall be installed a minimum of 25 feet form a structure or protected by two hour fire wall. 9. The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this location shall be 1500 gallons per minute at 20 psi for duration of two hours, over and above maximum daily domestic demand. Two hydrant flowing simultaneously, may be used to achieve the required fire flow 10. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted or bonded for prior to final map approval. The City Council shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, to: Mr. Joe Kwok, GSDB Investment Group, LLC, 625 Fair Oak Avenue, #115, South Pasadena, CA 91030 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2007, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. in Steve Tye, Mayor I, Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed, approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of , 2007 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members: NOES: Council Members: ABSENT: Council Members: ABSTAIN: Council Members: INA Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS USE PERMITS, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL NEW AND REMODELED STRUCTURES PROJECT #: TTM No 64881 ND No 2007-03 ZC No. 2006-01/Planned Development Overlay CUP No 2007-10 and DR No. 2006-11 SUBJECT: Nine unit detached residential condominium subdivision APLICANT: Joe Kwok 23671 Golden Springs Drive LOCATION: 23671 Golden Springs Drive ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION AT (909) 839-7030, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS In accordance with Government Code Section 66474.9(b) (1), the applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its officers, agents and employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding to attack, set-aside, void or annul, the approval of Tentative Tract No. 64881 brought within the time period provided by Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the city and/or its officers, agents and employees are made a party of any such action: (a) Applicant shall provide a defense to the City defendants or at the City's option reimburse the City its costs of defense, including reasonable attorneys fees, incurred in defense of such claims. (b) Applicant shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the City descendents. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action of proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof. D 2. Applicant shall include signed copies of the City Council Resolution Nos. 2007-44, 2007-45, 2007-46, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 3. Revised plans (such as but not limited to site plan, elevations, landscape/irrigation plan, grading plan, etc.,) incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval prior to the plan check. 4. Notwithstanding any previous subsection of the resolution, the Department of Fish and Game requires payment of the fee pursuant to Section 711.4 of that Fish and Game Code. Said payment shall be made by the applicant to the city within five days of this approval. 5. The project site shall be maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of approval and all laws, or other applicable regulations. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and any applicable Specific Plan in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 8. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all conditions of approval shall be completed. B. FEEWDEPOSITS Applicant shall pay development fees (including but not limited to Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works/Engineering Department and Mitigation Monitoring) at the established rates, prior to final map approval, issuance of building or grading permit (whichever comes first), as required by the City. School fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permit. In addition, the applicant shall pay all remaining prorated City project review and processing fees prior to the map's recordation or issuance of building permit, whichever come first. 2. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall pay a fee to the City in -lieu of dedication for parkland pursuant to Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 21.32. 3. Prior to any public hearing or final map approval, all deposit accounts for the processing of this project shall have no deficits. X 4. Notwithstanding any previous subsection of the resolution, the Department of Fish and Game required payment of the fee pursuant to Section 711.4 of that Fish and Game Code. Said payment shall be made by the applicant to the city within five days of this grant's approval. C. TIME LIMITS This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant and owner of the property involved have filed within 15 days of approval of this map, at the City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department/ Planning Division an Affidavit of Acceptance stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this approval. 2. In accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66463.5, TTM No. 64881 is valid for three years. An extension of time may be requested in writing and shall only be considered if submitted to the city no less than 60 days prior to the approval's expiration date. Final map approval will not be granted unless the map is in substantial compliance with TTM No. 64881 including all conditions and the applicant has entered into a subdivision improvement agreement to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. D. SITE DEVELOPMENT The project site shall be developed in substantial conformance with TTM No. 64881 except as conditions herein, and as conditioned in Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-10 and Development Review No. 2006-11 submitted to and recommended approval by the City Council to the City Council collectively referenced herein as Exhibit "A" - the subdivision map and site plan, elevations, grading plan, sections, landscape/irrigation plans, and colors and materials board, Exhibit "13% Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 dated September 11, 2007, as modified herein. 2. A Home Owner's Association (HOA) shall be formed. The HOA shall have Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) and Articles of Incorporation of the HOA are subject to the approval of Planning Division and Public Works/Engineering Department and the City Attorney. The CC&R's shall be recorded concurrently with the final map or prior to the issuance of any City permits, which ever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The HOA shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the names and addresses of the officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. 3. All ground -mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, air conditioning condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berms, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 4. Prior to final map approval or issuance of building permit, whichever come first, street names shall be submitted for City review and approval. Street names shall 10 not duplicate existing streets within the City of Diamond Bar's postal service zip code areas. 5. House numbering plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. House numbering plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. 6. All lighting fixtures adjacent to interior property lines shall be approved by the Planning Division as to type, orientation and height. 7. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. E. LANDSCAPE, PRESERVED AND PROTECTED TREES Prior to final map approval, a detailed landscape/irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits and recordation of the map, which ever occurs first. F. SOLID WASTE 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 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. 2. Mandatory solid waste disposal services shall be provided by the City franchised waste hauler to all parcels/lots or uses affected by approval of this project. 3. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-ups shall be for individual units with all receptacles shielded from public view. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, (909) 839-7040, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL A title report/guarantee showing all fee owners, interest holders, and nature of 11 interest shall be submitted for final map plan check. An updated title report/guarantee and subdivision guarantee shall be submitted ten (10) business days prior to final map approval. 2. A permit from the Los Angeles County Public Works Department shall be required for work within its right-of-way or connection to its facilities. 3. Prior to final map approval, written certification that all utility services and any other service related to the site shall be available to serve the proposed project and shall be submitted to the City. Such letters shall be issued by the district, utility and cable television company, within ninety (90) days prior to final map approval. 4. Prior to final map approval, applicant shall submit to the City Engineer the detail cost estimates for bonding purposes of all public improvements. 5. Prior to final map approval, if any public or private improvements required as part of this map have not been completed by applicant and accepted by the City, applicant shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City and shall post the appropriate security. 6. Prior to final map approval all site grading, landscaping, irrigation, street, sewer and storm drain improvement plans shall be approved by the City Engineer, surety shall be posted, and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all public and private improvements. 7. Prior to issuance of grading permits, surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all drainage facilities necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 8. Any details or notes which may be inconsistent with requirement or ordinances, general conditions or approval, or City policies shall be specifically approved in other conditions or ordinance requirements are modified to those shown on the tentative parcel map upon approval by the Advisory agency. 9. All identified geologic hazards within the vesting tentative tract map boundaries which cannot be eliminated as approved by the City Engineer shall be indicated on the final map as "Restricted Use Area" subject to geologic hazard. The applicant shall dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the erection of buildings or other structures within such restricted use areas shown on the final map. 10. Easements for disposal of drainage water onto or over adjacent parcels shall be delineated and shown on the final map, as approved by the City Engineer. 11. Prior to any work performed in the street right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department in addition to any other permits required. 12. Applicant shall label and delineate on the final map any private drives or fire lanes to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 12 13. Easements, satisfactory to the City Engineer and the utility companies, for public utility and public services purposes shall be offered and shown on the final map for dedication to the City. 14. After the final map records, applicant shall submit to the Public Works/Engineering Department, at no cost to the City, a full size reproducible copy of the recorded map. Final approval of the public improvements shall not be given until the copy of the recorded map is received by the Public Works/Engineering Department. 15. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall provide to the City as built mylars, stamped by appropriate individuals certifying the plan for all improvements at no cost to the City. 16. Applicant shall contribute funds to a separate engineering trust deposit against which charges can be made by the City or its representatives for services rendered. Charges shall be on an hourly basis and shall include any City administrative costs. 17. Applicant shall provide digitized information in a format defined by the City for all related plans, at no cost to the City. 18. All activities/improvements proposed for this TTM No. 64881 shall be wholly contained within the boundaries of the map. Should any off-site activities/improvements be required, approval shall be obtained from the affected property owner and the City as required by the City Engineer. B. GRADING No grading or any staging or construction shall be performed prior to final map approval by the City Council and map recordation. All pertinent improvement plans shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval by the City Council. 2. Retaining wall location shall be shown on the grading plan and submitted with a soils report to the Public Works/Engineering Department for review and approval concurrently with the grading plan check. 3. Exterior grading and construction activities and the transportation of equipment and materials and operation of heavy grading equipment shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Dust generated by grading and construction activities shall be reduced by watering the soil prior to and during the activities and in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 402 and Rule 403. Reclaimed water shall be utilized whenever possible. Additionally, all construction equipment shall be properly muffled to reduce noise levels. 4. All equipment staging areas shall be located on the project site. Staging area, including material stockpile and equipment storage area, shall be enclosed within a six foot -high chain link fence. All access points in the defense shall be locked whenever the construction site is not supervised. 5. Precise grading plans for each lot shall be submitted to the Community Development Department/Planning Division for approval prior to issuance of building permits. (This may be on an incremental or composite basis). 6. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, City Grading Ordinance, Hillside Management Ordinance and acceptable grading practices. 7. The maximum grade of driveways serving building pad areas shall be 15 percent. In hillside areas driveway grades exceeding 10 percent shall have parking landings with a minimum 16 feet deep and shall not exceed five (5) percent grade or as required by the City Engineer. Driveways with a slope of 15 percent shall incorporate grooves for traction into the construction as required by the City Engineer. 8. At the time of submittal of the 40 -scale grading plan for plan check, a detailed soils and geology report shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. Said report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and/or geologist licensed by the State of California. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the report shall address, but not be limited to the following: a. Stability analyses of daylight shear keys with a 1:1 projection from daylight to slide plane; a projection plane shall have a safety factor of 1.5. b. All soils and geotechnical constraints (i.e., landslides, shear key locations, etc.,) shall be delineated in detail with respect to proposed building envelopes. Restricted use areas and structural setbacks shall be considered and delineated prior to recordation of the final map. C. Soil remediation measures shall be designed for a "worst case" geologic interpretation subject to verification in the field during grading. d. The extent of any remedial grading into natural areas shall be clearly defined on the grading plans. e. Areas of potential for debris flow shall be defined and proper remedial measures implemented as approved by the City Engineer. f. Gross stability of all fill slopes shall be analyzed as part of geotechnical report, including remedial fill that replaces natural slope. g. Stability of all proposed slopes shall be confirmed by analysis as approved by the City Engineer. h. All geologic data including landslides and exploratory excavations must be shown on a consolidated geotechnical map using the 40 -scale final grading plan as a base. 14 All geotechnical and soils related findings and recommendations shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading permits and recordation of the final map. 9. Prior to issuance of grading permits, storm drain improvement plans shall be approved by the City Engineer and Los Angeles County Public Works Department and surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all drainage facilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 10. Final grading plans shall be designed in compliance with the recommendations of the final detailed soils and engineering geology reports. All remedial earthwork specified in the final report shall be incorporated into the grading plans. Final grading plans shall be signed and stamped by a California registered Civil Engineer, registered Geotechnical Engineer and registered Engineering Geologist and approved by the City Engineer. A Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP) conforming to City Ordinance is required to be incorporated into the grading plan and approved by the City Engineer. The applicant shall incorporate Structural or Treatment Control Best Management Practices for storm water runoff into the grading plans for construction and post -construction activities respectively. 12. An erosion control plan shall be approved by the City Engineer. Erosion control plans shall be made in accordance to the City's NPDES requirements. 13. Submit a stockpile plan showing the proposed location for stockpile for grading export materials, and the route of transport. 14. Prepare a horizontal control plan and submit concurrently with the grading plan for review and approval. 15. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, a pre -construction meeting must be held at the project site with the grading contractor, applicant, and city grading inspector at least 48 hours prior to commencing grading operations. 16. Rough Grade certifications by project soils engineer shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits for the foundations of structures. Retaining wall permit may be issued without a rough grade certificate. 17. Final Grade certifications by project soils engineer and civil engineers shall be submitted to the Public Works/Engineering Department prior to the issuance of any project final inspections/certificate of occupancy. C. DRAINAGE All terrace drains and drainage channels shall be constructed in muted earth tones so as not to impart adverse visual impacts. Terrace drains shall follow landform 15 slope configuration and shall not be placed in an exposed positions. All down drains shall be hidden in swales diagonally or curvilinear across a slope face. 2. All drainage improvements necessary for dewatering and protecting the subdivided properties shall be installed prior to issuance of building permits, for construction upon any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, orwithin a parcel relative to which a building permit is requested. 3. All identified flood hazard locations within the tentative map boundaries which cannot be eliminated as approved by the City Engineer shall be shown on the final map and delineated as "Flood Hazard Area." 4. Storm drainage facilities shall be constructed within the street right-of-way or in easements satisfactory to the City Engineer and the Los Angeles County Flood Control Districts. All storm drain facilities plans shall be plan checked by the City and County of Los Angeles and all fees required shall be paid by the applicant. 5. A final drainage study and final drainage/storm drain plan in a 24" x 36" sheet format shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer and Los Angeles Public Works Department prior to grading permit. All drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with County of Los Angeles Standards. Private (and future) easements for storm drain purposes shall be offered and shown on the final map for dedication to the City. 6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a complete hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Los Angeles Public Works Department. 7. A comprehensive maintenance plan/program shall be submitted concurrently with the storm drain plans to the Public Works/Engineering Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. D. STREET IMPROVEMENT The applicant shall replace and record any centerline ties and monuments that are removed as part of this construction with the Los Angeles County Public Works Survey Division. 2. Prior to the issuance of any City permits, the applicant shall provide written permission to the satisfaction of the City from any property owners which will be affected by offsite grading. 3. Prior to building occupancy, applicant shall construct base and pavement for all streets in accordance with soils report prepared by a California registered soils engineer and approved by the City Engineer or as otherwise directed by the City Engineer. 16 E. UTILITIES Easements, satisfactory to the City Engineer and the utility companies, for public utility and public services purposes shall be offered and shown on the detailed site plan for dedication to the City. 2. Prior to final map approval, a water system with appurtenant facilities to serve all lots/parcels in the land division designed to the Walnut Valley Water District (WVWD) specifications shall be provided and approved by the City Engineer. The system shall include fire hydrants of the type and location as determined by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The water mains shall be sized to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, WVWD and Fire Department. 3. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall construct or enter into an improvement agreement with the City guaranteeing construction of the necessary improvements to the existing water system according to Walnut Valley Water District (WVWD) specifications to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows as may be required by the City Engineer, WVWD and Fire Department. 4. Prior to final map approval or issuance of building permit whichever comes first, written certification that all utility services and any other service related to the site shall be available to serve the proposed project and shall be submitted to the City. Such letters shall be issued by the district, utility and cable television company, if applicable, within ninety (90) days prior issuance of grading permits. 5. Prior to recordation of final map, applicant shall provide separate underground utility services to each parcel per Section 21.30 of Title 21 of the City Code, including water, gas, electric power, telephone and cable TV, in accordance with the respective utility company standards. Easements required by the utility companies shall be approved by the City Engineer. 6. Applicant shall relocate and underground any existing on-site utilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the respective utility owner. 7. Underground utilities shall not be constructed within the drip line of any mature tree except as approved by a registered arborist. F. SEWERS Prior to final map approval, applicant shall submit a sanitary sewer area study to the City and County Engineer to verify that capacity is available in the sewerage system to be used as the outfall for the sewers in this land division. If the system is found to be of insufficient capacity, the problem shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. 2. Each dwelling unit shall be served by a separate sewer lateral which shall not cross any other lot lines. The sanitary sewer system serving the tract shall be 17 connected to the City or District sewer system. Said system shall be of the size, grade and depth approved by the City Engineer, County Sanitation District and Los Angeles County Public Works and surety shall be provided and an agreement executed prior to approval of the final map. 3. Applicant shall obtain connection permit(s) from the City and County Sanitation District prior to issuance of building permits. The area within the tentative map boundaries shall be annexed into the County Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District and appropriate easements for all sewer main and trunk lines shall be shown on the final map and offered for dedication on the final map. 4. Applicant, at applicant's sole cost and expense, shall construct the sewer system in accordance with the City, Los Angeles County Public Works Division and County Sanitation District Standards prior to occupancy. . APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 839-7020, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Plans shall conform to State and Local Building Code (i.e., 2001 California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and the 2001 National Electrical Code) requirements and all other applicable construction codes, ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of plan check submittal. 2. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been met. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 3. The minimum design load forwind in this area is 80 M.P.H. exposures "C" and the site is within seismic zone four (4). The applicant shall submit drawings and calculations prepared by a California State licensed Architect/Engineer with wet stamp and signature. 4. This project shall comply with the energy conservation requirements of the State of California Energy Commission. Kitchen and bathroom lights shall be fluorescent. 5. Submit Public Works/Engineering Department approved grading plans showing clearly all finish elevations, drainage, and retaining walls locations. 6. Number of plumbing fixtures shall be in compliance with CBC Appendix 29. 7. All balconies shall be designed for 601b. live load. 8. Guardrails shall be designed for 20 load applied laterally at the top of the rail. 9. Submit grading plans showing clearly all finish elevations, drainage, and retaining wall locations. No building permits shall be issued prior to submitting a pad certification. 0 10. All retaining walls shall be submitted to the Building & Safety and Public Work Departments for review and approval. 11. Check drainage patterns with Engineering Department. Surface water shall drain away from building at a 2% minimum slope. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE PREVENTION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Emergency access shall be provided, maintaining free and clear, a minimum 28 foot at all times during construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire Department that temporary water supply for fire protection is available pending completion of the required fire protection system. 3. Prior to recordation, the final map shall comply with all Fire Department requirements. END 19 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS USE PERMITS, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL NEW AND REMODELED STRUCTURES PROJECT #: TTM No. 64881 ND No. 2007-03 ZC No. 2006-01/Planned Development Overlay, CUP No. 2007-11 and DR No. 2006-11 SUBJECT: Nine unit detached residential condominium subdivision APLICANT: Joe Kwok 23671 Golden Springs Drive LOCATION: 23671 Golden S rin s Drive ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION AT (909) 839-7030, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS In accordance with Government Code Section 66474.9(b) (1), the applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its officers, agents and employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding to attack, set-aside, void or annul, the approval of Tentative Tract No. 64881 brought within the time period provided by Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the city and/or its officers, agents and employees are made a party of any such action: (a) Applicant shall provide a defense to the City defendants or at the City's option reimburse the City its costs of defense, including reasonable attorneys fees, incurred in defense of such claims. (b) Applicant shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the City descendents. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action of proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof. 9 2. Applicant shall include signed copies of City Council Resolution Nos. 2007- 44, 2007-45, 2007-46, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 3. Revised plans (such as but not limited to site plan, elevations, landscape/irrigation plan, grading plan, etc.,) incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval prior to the plan check. 4. Notwithstanding any previous subsection of the resolution, the Department of Fish and Game requires payment of the fee pursuant to Section 711.4 of that Fish and Game Code. Said payment shall be made by the applicant to the city within five days of this approval. 5. The project site shall be maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of approval and all laws, or other applicable regulations. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and any applicable Specific Plan in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.,) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. El. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all conditions of approval shall be completed. B. FEES/DEPOSITS Applicant shall pay development fees (including but not limited to Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works/Engineering Department and Mitigation Monitoring) at the established rates, prior to final map approval, issuance of building or grading permit (whichever comes first), as required by the City. School fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permit. In addition, the applicant shall pay all remaining prorated City project review and processing fees prior to the map's recordation or issuance of building permit, whichever come first. 2. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall pay a fee to the City in -lieu of dedication for parkland pursuant to Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 21.32. 10 3. Prior to any public hearing or final map approval, all deposit accounts for the processing of this project shall have no deficits. 4. Notwithstanding any previous subsection of the resolution, the Department of Fish and Game required payment of the fee pursuant to Section 711.4 of that Fish and Game Code. Said payment shall be made by the applicant to the city within five days of this grant's approval. C. TIME LIMITS This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant and owner of the property involved have filed within 15 days of approval of this map, at the City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department/ Planning Division an Affidavit of Acceptance stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this approval. 2. In accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66463.5, TTM No. 64881 is valid for three years. An extension of time may be requested in writing and shall only be considered if submitted to the city no less than 60 days prior to the approval's expiration date. Final map approval will not be granted unless the map is in substantial compliance with TTM No. 64881 including all conditions and the applicant has entered into a subdivision improvement agreement to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. D. SITE DEVELOPMENT 1. The project site shall be developed in substantial conformance with TTM No. 64881 except as conditions herein, and as conditioned in Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-11 and Development Review No. 2006-11 submitted to and recommended approval by the City Council to the City Council collectively referenced herein as Exhibit A - the subdivision map and site plan, elevations, grading plan, sections, landscape/irrigation plans, and colors and materials board, Exhibit "B"- Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 dated September 11, 2007, as modified herein. 2. A Home Owner's Association (HOA) shall be formed. The HOA shall have Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) and Articles of Incorporation of the HOA are subject to the approval of Planning Division and Public Works/Engineering Department and the City Attorney. The CC&R's shall be recorded concurrently with the final map or prior to the issuance of any City permits, which ever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The HOA shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the names and addresses of the officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. 3. All ground -mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, air conditioning condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and 11 adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berms, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 4. Prior to final map approval or issuance of building permit, whichever come first, street names shall be submitted for City review and approval. Street names shall not duplicate existing streets within the City of Diamond Bar's postal service zip code areas. 5. House numbering plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. House numbering plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. 6. All lighting fixtures adjacent to interior property lines shall be approved by the Planning Division as to type, orientation and height. 7. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. E. LANDSCAPE, PRESERVED AND PROTECTED TREES Prior to final map approval, a detailed landscape/irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits and recordation of the map, which ever occurs first. F. SOLID WASTE 1. The site shall be maintained in a condition, which is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement granted herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction shall be done only by the property owner, applicant or by a duly permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas within the City. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor utilized has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. 2. Mandatory solid waste disposal services shall be provided by the City franchised waste hauler to all parcels/lots or uses affected by approval of this project. 12 3. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-ups shall be for individual units with all receptacles shielded from public view. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKWENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, (909) 839-7040, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL A title report/guarantee showing all fee owners, interest holders, and nature of interest shall be submitted for final map plan check. An updated title report/guarantee and subdivision guarantee shall be submitted ten (10) business days prior to final map approval. 2. A permit from the Los Angeles County Public Works Department shall be required for work within its right-of-way or connection to its facilities. 3. Prior to final map approval, written certification that all utility services and any other service related to the site shall be available to serve the proposed project and shall be submitted to the City. Such letters shall be issued by the district, utility and cable television company, within ninety (90) days prior to final map approval. 4. Prior to final map approval, applicant shall submit to the City Engineer the detail cost estimates for bonding purposes of all public improvements. 5. Prior to final map approval, if any public or private improvements required as part of this map have not been completed by applicant and accepted by the City, applicant shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City and shall post the appropriate security. 61. Prior to final map approval all site grading, landscaping, irrigation, street, sewer and storm drain improvement plans shall be approved by the City Engineer, surety shall be posted, and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all public and private improvements. 7. Prior to issuance of grading permits, surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all drainage facilities necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 8. Any details or notes which may be inconsistent with requirement or ordinances, general conditions or approval, or City policies shall be specifically approved in other conditions or ordinance requirements are modified to those shown on the tentative parcel map upon approval by the Advisory agency. !a. All identified geologic hazards within the vesting tentative tract map boundaries which cannot be eliminated as approved by the City Engineer shall be indicated on the final map as "Restricted Use Area" subject to 13 geologic hazard. The applicant shall dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the erection of buildings or other structures within such restricted use areas shown on the final map. 10. Easements for disposal of drainage water onto or over adjacent parcels shall be delineated and shown on the final map, as approved by the City Engineer. 1 lI . Prior to any work performed in the street right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department in addition to any other permits required. 12. Applicant shall label and delineate on the final map any private drives or fire lanes to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 13. Easements, satisfactory to the City Engineer and the utility companies, for public utility and public services purposes shall be offered and shown on the final map for dedication to the City. 14. After the final map records, applicant shall submit to the Public Works/Engineering Department, at no cost to the City, a full size reproducible copy of the recorded map. Final approval of the public improvements shall not be given until the copy of the recorded map is received by the Public Works/Engineering Department. 15. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall provide to the City as built mylars, stamped by appropriate individuals certifying the plan for all improvements at no cost to the City. 16. Applicant shall contribute funds to a separate engineering trust deposit against which charges can be made by the City or its representatives for services rendered. Charges shall be on an hourly basis and shall include any City administrative costs. 17. Applicant shall provide digitized information in a format defined by the City for all related plans, at no cost to the City. 18. All activities/improvements proposed for this TTM No. 64881 shall be wholly contained within the boundaries of the map. Should any off-site activities/improvements be required, approval shall be obtained from the affected property owner and the City as required by the City Engineer. B. GRADING No grading or any staging or construction shall be performed prior to final map approval by the City Council and map recordation. All pertinent improvement plans shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval by the City Council. 14 2. Retaining wall location shall be shown on the grading plan and submitted with a soils report to the Public Works/Engineering Department for review and approval concurrently with the grading plan check. 3. Exterior grading and construction activities and the transportation of equipment and materials and operation of heavy grading equipment shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Dust generated by grading and construction activities shall be reduced by watering the soil prior to and during the activities and in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 402 and Rule 403. Reclaimed water shall be utilized whenever possible. Additionally, all construction equipment shall be properly muffled to reduce noise levels. 4. All equipment staging areas shall be located on the project site. Staging area, including material stockpile and equipment storage area, shall be enclosed within a 6 foot -high chain link fence. All access points in the defense shall be locked whenever the construction site is not supervised. 5. Precise grading plans for each lot shall be submitted to the Community Development Department/Planning Division for approval prior to issuance of building permits. (This may be on an incremental or composite basis). 6. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, City Grading Ordinance, Hillside Management Ordinance and acceptable grading practices. 7. The maximum grade of driveways serving building pad areas shall be 15 percent. In hillside areas driveway grades exceeding 10 percent shall have parking landings with a minimum 16 feet deep and shall not exceed five (5) percent grade or as required by the City Engineer. Driveways with a slope of 15 percent shall incorporate grooves for traction into the construction as required by the City Engineer. fS. At the time of submittal of the 40 -scale grading plan for plan check, a detailed soils and geology report shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. Said report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and/or geologist licensed by the State of California. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the report shall address, but not be limited to the following: a. Stability analyses of daylight shear keys with a 1:1 projection from daylight to slide plane; a projection plane shall have a safety factor of 1.5. b. All soils and geotechnical constraints (i.e., landslides, shear key locations, etc.,) shall be delineated in detail with respect to proposed building envelopes. Restricted use areas and structural setbacks shall be considered and delineated prior to recordation of the final map. 15 C. Soil remediation measures shall be designed for a "worst case" geologic interpretation subject to verification in the field during grading. d. The extent of any remedial grading into natural areas shall be clearly defined on the grading plans. e. Areas of potential for debris flow shall be defined and proper remedial measures implemented as approved by the City Engineer. f. Gross stability of all fill slopes shall be analyzed as part of geotechnical report, including remedial fill that replaces natural slope. g. Stability of all proposed slopes shall be confirmed by analysis as approved by the City Engineer. h. All geologic data including landslides and exploratory excavations must be shown on a consolidated geotechnical map using the 40 - scale final grading plan as a base. i. All geotechnical and soils related findings and recommendations shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading permits and recordation of the final map. 9, Prior to issuance of grading permits, storm drain improvement plans shall be approved by the City Engineer and Los Angeles County Public Works Department and surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all drainage facilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 10. Final grading plans shall be designed in compliance with the recommendations of the final detailed soils and engineering geology reports. All remedial earthwork specified in the final report shall be incorporated into the grading plans. Final grading plans shall be signed and stamped by a California registered Civil Engineer, registered Geotechnical Engineer and registered Engineering Geologist and approved by the City Engineer. 11. A Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP) conforming to City Ordinance is required to be incorporated into the grading plan and approved by the City Engineer. The applicant shall incorporate Structural or Treatment Control Best Management Practices for storm water runoff into the grading plans for construction and post -construction activities respectively. 12. An erosion control plan shall be approved by the City Engineer. Erosion control plans shall be made in accordance to the City's NPDES requirements. 13. Submit a stockpile plan showing the proposed location for stockpile for grading export materials, and the route of transport. 16 14. Prepare a horizontal control plan and submit concurrently with the grading plan for review and approval. 1 F►. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, a pre -construction meeting must be held at the project site with the grading contractor, applicant, and city grading inspector at least 48 hours prior to commencing grading operations. 1 Ei. Rough Grade certifications by project soils engineer shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits for the foundations of structures. Retaining wall permit may be issued without a rough grade certificate. 17. Final Grade certifications by project soils engineer and civil engineers shall be submitted to the Public Works/Engineering Department prior to the issuance of any project final inspections/certificate of occupancy. C. DRAINAGE All terrace drains and drainage channels shall be constructed in muted earth tones so as not to impart adverse visual impacts. Terrace drains shall follow landform slope configuration and shall not be placed in an exposed positions. All down drains shall be hidden in swales diagonally or curvilinear across a slope face. 2. All drainage improvements necessary for dewatering and protecting the subdivided properties shall be installed prior to issuance of building permits, for construction upon any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or within a parcel relative to which a building permit is requested. 3. All identified flood hazard locations within the tentative map boundaries which cannot be eliminated as approved by the City Engineer shall be shown on the final map and delineated as "Flood Hazard Area." 4. Storm drainage facilities shall be constructed within the street right-of-way or in easements satisfactory to the City Engineer and the Los Angeles County Flood Control Districts. All storm drain facilities plans shall be plan checked by the City and County of Los Angeles and all fees required shall be paid by the applicant. ;�. A final drainage study and final drainage/storm drain plan in a 24" x 36" sheet format shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer and Los Angeles Public Works Department prior to grading permit. All drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with County of Los Angeles Standards. Private (and future) easements for storm drain purposes shall be offered and shown on the final map for dedication to the City. 17 6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a complete hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Los Angeles Public Works Department. 7. A comprehensive maintenance plan/program shall be submitted concurrently with the storm drain plans to the Public Works/Engineering Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. D. STREET IMPROVEMENT 1. The applicant shall replace and record any centerline ties and monuments that are removed as part of this construction with the Los Angeles County Public Works Survey Division. 2. Prior to the issuance of any City permits, the applicant shall provide written permission to the satisfaction of the City from any property owners which will be affected by offsite grading. 3. Prior to building occupancy, applicant shall construct base and pavement for all streets in accordance with soils report prepared by a California registered soils engineer and approved by the City Engineer or as otherwise directed by the City Engineer. E. UTILITIES 1. Easements, satisfactory to the City Engineer and the utility companies, for public utility and public services purposes shall be offered and shown on the detailed site plan for dedication to the City. 2'. Prior to final map approval, a water system with appurtenant facilities to serve all lots/parcels in the land division designed to the Walnut Valley Water District (WVWD) specifications shall be provided and approved by the City Engineer. The system shall include fire hydrants of the type and location as determined by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The water mains shall be sized to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, WVWD and Fire Department. 3. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall construct or enter into an improvement agreement with the City guaranteeing construction of the necessary improvements to the existing water system according to Walnut Valley Water District (WVWD) specifications to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows as may be required by the City Engineer, WVWD and Fire Department. 4. Prior to final map approval or issuance of building permit whichever comes first, written certification that all utility services and any other service related to the site shall be available to serve the proposed project and shall be 18 submitted to the City. Such letters shall be issued by the district, utility and cable television company, if applicable, within ninety (90) days prior issuance of grading permits. 5. Prior to recordation of final map, applicant shall provide separate underground utility services to each parcel per Section 21.30 of Title 21 of the City Code, including water, gas, electric power, telephone and cable TV, in accordance with the respective utility company standards. Easements required by the utility companies shall be approved by the City Engineer. 6. Applicant shall relocate and underground any existing on-site utilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the respective utility owner. 7. Underground utilities shall not be constructed within the drip line of any mature tree except as approved by a registered arborist. F. SEWERS Prior to final map approval, applicant shall submit a sanitary sewer area study to the City and County Engineer to verify that capacity is available in the sewerage system to be used as the outfall for the sewers in this land division. If the system is found to be of insufficient capacity, the problem shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. 2. Each dwelling unit shall be served by a separate sewer lateral which shall not cross any other lot lines. The sanitary sewer system serving the tract shall be connected to the City or District sewer system. Said system shall be of the size, grade and depth approved by the City Engineer, County Sanitation District and Los Angeles County Public Works and surety shall be provided and an agreement executed prior to approval of the final map. 3, Applicant shall obtain connection permit(s) from the City and County Sanitation District prior to issuance of building permits. The area within the tentative map boundaries shall be annexed into the County Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District and appropriate easements for all sewer main and trunk lines shall be shown on the final map and offered for dedication on the final map. 4. Applicant, at applicant's sole cost and expense, shall construct the sewer system in accordance with the City, Los Angeles County Public Works Division and County Sanitation District Standards prior to occupancy. . APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 839-7020, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Plans shall conform to State and Local Building Code (i.e., 2001 California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and the 2001 National Electrical Code) requirements and all other applicable 19 construction codes, ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of plan check submittal. 2. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been met. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 3. The minimum design load for wind in this area is 80 M.P.H. exposures "C" and the site is within seismic zone four (4). The applicant shall submit drawings and calculations prepared by a California State licensed Architect/Engineer with wet stamp and signature. 4. This project shall comply with the energy conservation requirements of the State of California Energy Commission. Kitchen and bathroom lights shall be fluorescent. 5. Submit Public Works/Engineering Department approved grading plans showing clearly all finish elevations, drainage, and retaining walls locations. 6. Number of plumbing fixtures shall be in compliance with CBC Appendix 29. 7'. All balconies shall be designed for 601b. live load. 8. Guardrails shall be designed for 20 load applied laterally at the top of the rail. 9. Submit grading plans showing clearly all finish elevations, drainage, and retaining wall locations. No building permits shall be issued prior to submitting a pad certification. '10. All retaining walls shall be submitted to the Building & Safety and Public Work Departments for review and approval. 11. Check drainage patterns with Engineering Department. Surface water shall drain away from building at a 2% minimum slope. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE PREVENTION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Emergency access shall be provided, maintaining free and clear, a minimum 28 foot at all times during construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire Department that temporary water supply for fire protection is available pending completion of the required fire protection system. 20 Prior to recordation, the final map shall comply with all Fire Department requirements. END 21 ATTACHMENT #3 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2007 -XX APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2006-11 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2007- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2007-03 AND APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2006-11 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 64881, A NINE UNIT DETACHED RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 23671 GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA (APN NO. 82814-028-030) A. RECITALS The property owner/applicant, Joe Kwok, GSDB Investment Group, LLC, has filed an application for Planned Development Overlay District Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-10 and Development Review No. 2006-11 for Tentative Tract Map No. 64881 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Planned Development Overlay Conditional Use Permit and Development Review shall be referred to as the "Application." 2. On September 11, 2007, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. At that time, the City Council adopted Resolution No.2007-46 recommending City Council approval of the application 3 On November 2, 2007, public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 210 property owners of record within a 500 -foot radius of the project site, a copy of the legal notice was posted at the City's designated community posting sites, and a public notice display board was posted at the site. On November 8, 2007 notification of the public hearing for this project was provided in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Vallev Daily Bulletin newspapers. 4. On November 20, 2007, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The City Council hereby finds that the project identified above in this Resolution required a Negative Declaration (ND). ND No. 2007-03 has been prepared according to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder. The 20 day public review period for the ND began August 16, 2007, and ended September 4, 2007. Furthermore, the City Council has reviewed the ND and related documents in reference to the Application. 3. The City Council 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 City Council 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 City Council 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 City Council hereby finds as follows: (a) The project site is an irregularly shaped lot located on the northerly side of Golden Springs Drive west of Platina Drive. It is approximately 27,003 square feet (0.62 acres) in area. The site is elevated above the surrounding properties by retaining walls and slopes. From 1966 to 1986, the project site was occupied by a service station. In 1986, the site building was remodeled into a mini -mart with drive-thru known as Diamond Jim's Dairy. (b) The project site has a General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential (RH) Maximum 20 DU/AC which authorizes a maximum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. (c) The project site is within the Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) zone. However, Zone Change No. 2006-01 within City Council Resolution No. 2007-44 recommends that the City Council approve the zone change from C-1 to High Density Residential -Planned Development (RH-PD) for General Plan compliance. (d) Generally the following zones and uses surmunrl the nmiect zitA- Site General Plan Zone^ vvUses Project High Density Residential - Neighborhood Commercial Site Maximum 20 Dwelling Unit Commercial (C-1) Per Acre RH North & RH C-1 and R-1-8,000 Residential & West Condoms South Low Density Residential R-3-8,000 Church Maximum 3 Dwelling Units Per acre tPI 2 (e) The Application request includes the following: (1) Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 to address impacts that the proposed project may have on the environment; (2) Zone Change application to change the project site's zoning from C-1 to RH-PD -20 Dwelling Units/Per Acre for General Plan compliance; (3) Subdivision application to create a tract map for condominium purposes; (4) Conditional Use Permit application to establish a Planned Development Overlay District (PD) to modify setbacks and wall heights that are appropriate forthe property characteristics and the type of development proposed for the site; and (5) Development Review application to demolish the existing mini - mart with drive-thru and to review the project's overall design and site plan configuration and its effect on surrounding properties. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Development Overlay District In accordance to Municipal Code Section 22.22.150, pertaining to required findings for a Conditional Use Permit for Planned Development Overlay District, the City Council finds as follows: (f) Zone Change 2006-01 will change the existing zoning from C-1 to High Density Residential (RH) which is consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the project site. However, the Planned Development Overlay is needed because units 7 through 9 will not maintain the required 20 foot front setback. Unit 7 will maintain a varying front setback of 20 to 17.5 feet. Units 8 and 9 will maintain a setback of 17.5 feet. Because of the irregular shape of the site, the angle of the rear property line and the requirement to maintain a minimum 26 foot wide drive isle for backing out of the garages, and to have an end product that marketable in terms of livable square footage, a consistent 20 foot front setback can not be maintained. Considering the about of patio and planting areas in the front yards and common area between units 7 and 8, staff believes that the front setbacks provided for these units is appropriate for this project. For approximately 10 lineal feet a retaining wall with an exposed height of nine feet is proposed at the west property line. Another wall in the same area which encloses the side yard for unit one is proposed at the same height. These walls are needed because of the grade difference between the neighboring property and the project site. Almost all of the exposed height of the walls will be viewed from inside the project site. The applicant believes that the exposed height of the walls could be reduced to eight feet. Because of the grade 3 differences and the lineal feet of the walls is minimal and the walls will be viewed from inside the project site, staff believes that the height of the walls is appropriate for this project. Since the rear of each condominium unit faces the center of the project site and drive isle that is 26 to 30 ft. wide, there is no rear yard. However, considering that 24 percent of the project site is landscaped which exceeds the minimum 15 percent requirement and the garages are not part of the streetscape, staff believes that the placement of the units is appropriate. Additionally, the purpose of setbacks is to provide light and separation between structures. The drive isle provides this. (g) The proposed map is a non -gated subdivision fora nine unit detached condominium development with private entry and drive isle. The allowed density for the High Density Residential General Plan designation and zoning district is 20 units per acre. The project is 27,003 square feet (0.62 acres) could be developed with a maximum density of 12 units. In order to meet the City's development standards and provide the appropriate access and drive isles, landscaping, and condominium units that are marketable in size, the project is proposed at nine units which is 25 percent below the General Plan and zoning allowed density. Furthermore, the proposed land use represents an extension of the existing development pattern in the project area which is condominiums and single-family residential. As a result, TTM 64881 is consistent with the General Plan including its design and improvements. (h) As discussed in Finding (g), Q), (1) and (o) above, the design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. (i) The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed including access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and the absence of physical constraints as described in Findings (g), (j), (1) and (o) above. Q) The ND reviewed issues related to public interest, health, safety and improvement related to this project. It was found that the project will not have a significant effect on these issues. In some instances mitigation measures are incorporated into the project to ensure that the project's effect on these issues will be "less than significant". Therefore, granting the Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located. 4 (k) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project required a Negative Declaration (ND). ND No. 2007-03 has been prepared according to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder. 51. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the City Council hereby recommends that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-10 Planned Development Overlay and Development Review No. 2006-11 for TTM No. 64881 subject to the following conditions and Standard Conditions attached and referenced herein: a. GENERAL This approval shall be null and void and of no effect unless the Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 is adopted and TTM No. 64881, Zone Change No. 2006-01, Planned Development Overlay Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-10 and Development Review No. 2006-11 are approved. This approval is valid for three years. Two extensions of time, one year each, may be approved pursuant to Development Code Section 22.66. SITE DEVELOPMENT Approximately ten lineal feet of a retaining wall located at the west property line and a wall in the same area which encloses the side yard for unit one is shall not exceed an exposed height of eight feet. 2. Exterior or perimeter walls shall be constructed from split face block with a decorative cap. Interior walls may be stucco in a color to match and/or complement the condominium units. Sample of said construction materials and colors shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to plan check submittal. 3. Uses permitted in the RH zoning district as listed in the Development Code shall be the only uses allowed in the RH- PD zoning designation for the project site. 4. Prior to final map, the applicant shall provide a final landscape and irrigation plan listing all plant species, size quantity and location for Planning Division review and approval. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to final inspection or Certificate of Occupancy 5 5. Prior to plan check submittal, the applicant shall submit an exterior lighting plan and photometric study for Planning Division review and approval. All lighting shall be designed to confine direct rays to the subject property. Spillage beyond the property lines shall not be permitted. Lighting shall be on a time -clock or photo -sensor system. C. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION Prior to final map approval, applicant shall submit to the Building and Safety Division the design of all retaining walls for review and approval concurrently with the grading plan check. d. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE PREVENTION Access shall comply with Section 902 of the Fire Code, which requires all weather access. All weather access my require paving. 2. Fire Department access shall be extended to within 150 feet distance of any exterior portion of all structures. 3. Where driveways extend further than 300 feet and are of single access design, turnarounds suitable for fire protection equipment use shall be provided and shown on the final map. Turnarounds shall be designed, constructed and maintained to insure their integrity for Fire Department use. Where topography dictates, turnarounds shall be provided for driveways that extend over150 feet in length. 4. Private driveways shall be indicated on the final map as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" with the widths clearly depicted and shall be maintained in accordance with the Fire Code. 5. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction to all required fire hydrants. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. 6. Applicant shall provide Fire Department or City approved street signs and building access numbers prior to occupancy. 7. Applicant shall provide water mains, fire hydrants and fire flows as required by the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, for all land shown on map which shall be recorded. M 8. Fire hydrant shall conform to the following requirements: (a) Install one fire hydrant; (b) Measure 6" x 4" x 21/2" brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA standards C503 or approved equal; (c) On site hydrants shall be installed a minimum of 25 feet from a structure or protected by two hour fire wall. 9. The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this location shall be 1500 gallons per minute at 20 psi for duration of two hours, over and above maximum daily domestic demand. Two hydrant flowing simultaneously, may be used to achieve the required fire flow 10. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted or bonded for prior to final map approval. The City Council shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, to: Mr. Joe Kwok, GSDB Investment Group, LLC, 625 Fair Oak Avenue, #115, South Pasadena, CA 91030 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2007, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. BY: Steve Tye, Mayor 7 I, Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed, approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Coun&I of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of , 2007 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members: NOES: Council Members: ,ABSENT: Council Members: ABSTAIN: Council Members: Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS USE PERMITS, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL NEW AND REMODELED STRUCTURES PROJECT #: TTM No. 64881 ND No. 2007-03 ZC No. 2006-01/Planned Development Overlay, CUP No. 2007-11 and DR No 2006-11 SUBJECT: Nine unit detached residential condominium subdivision APLICANT: Joe Kwok, 23671 Golden Springs Drive LOCATION: 23671 Golden Sprinas Drive ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION AT (909) 839-7030, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS In accordance with Government Code Section 66474.9(b) (1), the applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its officers, agents and employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding to attack, set-aside, void or annul, the approval of Tentative Tract No. 64881 brought within the time period provided by Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the city and/or its officers, agents and employees are made a party of any such action: (a) Applicant shall provide a defense to the City defendants or at the City's option reimburse the City its costs of defense, including reasonable attorneys fees, incurred in defense of such claims. (b) Applicant shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the City descendents. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action of proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof. 9 2. Applicant shall include signed copies of City Council Resolution Nos. 2007- 44, 2007-45, 2007-46, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 3. Revised plans (such as but not limited to site plan, elevations, landscape/irrigation plan, grading plan, etc.,) incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval prior to the plan check. 4 . Notwithstanding any previous subsection of the resolution, the Department of Fish and Game requires payment of the fee pursuant to Section 711.4 of that Fish and Game Code. Said payment shall be made by the applicant to the city within five days of this approval. 5. The project site shall be maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of approval and all laws, or other applicable regulations. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and any applicable Specific Plan in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.,) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 8. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all conditions of approval shall be completed. B. FEES/DEPOSITS Applicant shall pay development fees (including but not limited to Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works/Engineering Department and Mitigation Monitoring) at the established rates, prior to final map approval, issuance of building or grading permit (whichever comes first), as required by the City. School fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permit. In addition, the applicant shall pay all remaining prorated City project review and processing fees prior to the map's recordation or issuance of building permit, whichever come first. 2. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall pay a fee to the City in -lieu of dedication for parkland pursuant to Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 21.32. 10 3. Prior to any public hearing or final map approval, all deposit accounts for the processing of this project shall have no deficits. 4. Notwithstanding any previous subsection of the resolution, the Department of Fish and Game required payment of the fee pursuant to Section 711.4 of that Fish and Game Code. Said payment shall be made by the applicant to the city within five days of this grant's approval. C. TIME LIMITS This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant and owner of the property involved have filed within 15 days of approval of this map, at the City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department/ Planning Division an Affidavit of Acceptance stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this approval. 2. In accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66463.5, TTM No. 64881 is valid for three years. An extension of time may be requested in writing and shall only be considered if submitted to the city no less than 60 days prior to the approval's expiration date. Final map approval will not be granted unless the map is in substantial compliance with TTM No. 64881 including all conditions and the applicant has entered into a subdivision improvement agreement to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. D. SITE DEVELOPMENT The project site shall be developed in substantial conformance with TTM No. 64881 except as conditions herein, and as conditioned in Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-11 and Development Review No. 2006-11 submitted to and recommended approval by the City Council to the City Council collectively referenced herein as Exhibit "A" - the subdivision map and site plan, elevations, grading plan, sections, landscape/irrigation plans, and colors and materials board, Exhibit "13% Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 dated September 11, 2007, as modified herein. 2. A Home Owner's Association (HOA) shall be formed. The HOA shall have Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) and Articles of Incorporation of the HOA are subject to the approval of Planning Division and Public Works/Engineering Department and the City Attorney. The CC&R's shall be recorded concurrently with the final map or prior to the issuance of any City permits, which ever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The HOA shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the names and addresses of the officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. 3. All ground -mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, air conditioning condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and 11 adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berms, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 14. Prior to final map approval or issuance of building permit, whichever come first, street names shall be submitted for City review and approval. Street names shall not duplicate existing streets within the City of Diamond Bar's postal service zip code areas. 5. House numbering plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. House numbering plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. 6. All lighting fixtures adjacent to interior property lines shall be approved by the Planning Division as to type, orientation and height. 7. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. E. LANDSCAPE, PRESERVED AND PROTECTED TREES Prior to final map approval, a detailed landscape/irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits and recordation of the map, which ever occurs first. F. SOLID WASTE 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 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. 2. Mandatory solid waste disposal services shall be provided by the City franchised waste hauler to all parcels/lots or uses affected by approval of this project. 12 3. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-ups shall be for individual units with all receptacles shielded from public view. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, (909) 839-7040, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL A title report/guarantee showing all fee owners, interest holders, and nature of interest shall be submitted for final map plan check. An updated title report/guarantee and subdivision guarantee shall be submitted ten (10) business days prior to final map approval. 2.. A permit from the Los Angeles County Public Works Department shall be required for work within its right-of-way or connection to its facilities. 31. Prior to final map approval, written certification that all utility services and any other service related to the site shall be available to serve the proposed project and shall be submitted to the City. Such letters shall be issued by the district, utility and cable television company, within ninety (90) days prior to final map approval. 4. Prior to final map approval, applicant shall submit to the City Engineer the detail cost estimates for bonding purposes of all public improvements. 5. Prior to final map approval, if any public or private improvements required as part of this map have not been completed by applicant and accepted by the City, applicant shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City and shall post the appropriate security. 6. Prior to final map approval all site grading, landscaping, irrigation, street, sewer and storm drain improvement plans shall be approved by the City Engineer, surety shall be posted, and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all public and private improvements. 7. Prior to issuance of grading permits, surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all drainage facilities necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 8. Any details or notes which may be inconsistent with requirement or ordinances, general conditions or approval, or City policies shall be specifically approved in other conditions or ordinance requirements are modified to those shown on the tentative parcel map upon approval by the Advisory agency. 9. All identified geologic hazards within the vesting tentative tract map boundaries which cannot be eliminated as approved by the City Engineer shall be indicated on the final map as "Restricted Use Area" subject to 13 geologic hazard. The applicant shall dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the erection of buildings or other structures within such restricted use areas shown on the final map. 10. Easements for disposal of drainage water onto or over adjacent parcels shall be delineated and shown on the final map, as approved by the City Engineer. 11. Prior to any work performed in the street right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department in addition to any other permits required. '12. Applicant shall label and delineate on the final map any private drives or fire lanes to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. '13. Easements, satisfactory to the City Engineer and the utility companies, for public utility and public services purposes shall be offered and shown on the final map for dedication to the City. 14. After the final map records, applicant shall submit to the Public Works/Engineering Department, at no cost to the City, a full size reproducible copy of the recorded map. Final approval of the public improvements shall not be given until the copy of the recorded map is received by the Public Works/Engineering Department. 15. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall provide to the City as built mylars, stamped by appropriate individuals certifying the plan for all improvements at no cost to the City. 16. Applicant shall contribute funds to a separate engineering trust deposit against which charges can be made by the City or its representatives for services rendered. Charges shall be on an hourly basis and shall include any City administrative costs. 17. Applicant shall provide digitized information in a format defined by the City for all related plans, at no cost to the City. 18. All activities/improvements proposed for this TTM No. 64881 shall be wholly contained within the boundaries of the map. Should any off-site activities/improvements be required, approval shall be obtained from the affected property owner and the City as required by the City Engineer. B. GRADING No grading or any staging or construction shall be performed prior to final map approval by the City Council and map recordation. All pertinent improvement plans shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval by the City Council. 14 2. Retaining wall location shall be shown on the grading plan and submitted with a soils report to the Public Works/Engineering Department for review and approval concurrently with the grading plan check. 3. Exterior grading and construction activities and the transportation of equipment and materials and operation of heavy grading equipment shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Dust generated by grading and construction activities shall be reduced by watering the soil prior to and during the activities and in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 402 and Rule 403. Reclaimed water shall be utilized whenever possible. Additionally, all construction equipment shall be properly muffled to reduce noise levels. 4. All equipment staging areas shall be located on the project site. Staging area, including material stockpile and equipment storage area, shall be enclosed within a 6 foot -high chain link fence. All access points in the defense shall be locked whenever the construction site is not supervised. Vii. Precise grading plans for each lot shall be submitted to the Community Development Department/Planning Division for approval prior to issuance of building permits. (This may be on an incremental or composite basis). 6. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, City Grading Ordinance, Hillside Management Ordinance and acceptable grading practices. 7. The maximum grade of driveways serving building pad areas shall be 15 percent. In hillside areas driveway grades exceeding 10 percent shall have parking landings with a minimum 16 feet deep and shall not exceed five (5) percent grade or as required by the City Engineer. Driveways with a slope of 15 percent shall incorporate grooves for traction into the construction as required by the City Engineer. 8. At the time of submittal of the 40 -scale grading plan for plan check, a detailed soils and geology report shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. Said report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and/or geologist licensed by the State of California. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the report shall address, but not be limited to the following: a. Stability analyses of daylight shear keys with a 1:1 projection from daylight to slide plane; a projection plane shall have a safety factor of 1.5. b. All soils and geotechnical constraints (i.e., landslides, shear key locations, etc.,) shall be delineated in detail with respect to proposed building envelopes. Restricted use areas and structural setbacks shall be considered and delineated prior to recordation of the final map. 15 C. Soil remediation measures shall be designed for a "worst case" geologic interpretation subject to verification in the field during grading. d. The extent of any remedial grading into natural areas shall be clearly defined on the grading plans. e. Areas of potential for debris flow shall be defined and proper remedial measures implemented as approved by the City Engineer. f. Gross stability of all fill slopes shall be analyzed as part of geotechnical report, including remedial fill that replaces natural slope. g- Stability of all proposed slopes shall be confirmed by analysis as approved by the City Engineer. h. All geologic data including landslides and exploratory excavations must be shown on a consolidated geotechnical map using the 40 - scale final grading plan as a base. All geotechnical and soils related findings and recommendations shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading permits and recordation of the final map. 9. Prior to issuance of grading permits, storm drain improvement plans shall be approved by the City Engineer and Los Angeles County Public Works Department and surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all drainage facilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 1 ID. Final grading plans shall be designed in compliance with the recommendations of the final detailed soils and engineering geology reports. All remedial earthwork specified in the final report shall be incorporated into the grading plans. Final grading plans shall be signed and stamped by a California registered Civil Engineer, registered Geotechnical Engineer and registered Engineering Geologist and approved by the City Engineer. A Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP) conforming to City Ordinance is required to be incorporated into the grading plan and approved by the City Engineer. The applicant shall incorporate Structural or Treatment Control Best Management Practices for storm water runoff into the grading plans for construction and post -construction activities respectively. 12. An erosion control plan shall be approved by the City Engineer. Erosion control plans shall be made in accordance to the City's NPDES requirements. 13. Submit a stockpile plan showing the proposed location for stockpile for grading export materials, and the route of transport. 16 14. Prepare a horizontal control plan and submit concurrently with the grading plan for review and approval. 15. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, a pre -construction meeting must be held at the project site with the grading contractor, applicant, and city grading inspector at least 48 hours prior to commencing grading operations. '16. Rough Grade certifications by project soils engineer shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits for the foundations of structures. Retaining wall permit may be issued without a rough grade certificate. 17. Final Grade certifications by project soils engineer and civil engineers shall be submitted to the Public Works/Engineering Department prior to the issuance of any project final inspections/certificate of occupancy. C. DRAINAGE All terrace drains and drainage channels shall be constructed in muted earth tones so as not to impart adverse visual impacts. Terrace drains shall follow landform slope configuration and shall not be placed in an exposed positions. All down drains shall be hidden in swales diagonally or curvilinear across a slope face. 2. All drainage improvements necessary for dewatering and protecting the subdivided properties shall be installed prior to issuance of building permits, for construction upon any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or within a parcel relative to which a building permit is requested. 3. All identified flood hazard locations within the tentative map boundaries which cannot be eliminated as approved by the City Engineer shall be shown on the final map and delineated as "Flood Hazard Area." 4. Storm drainage facilities shall be constructed within the street right-of-way or in easements satisfactory to the City Engineer and the Los Angeles County Flood Control Districts. All storm drain facilities plans shall be plan checked by the City and County of Los Angeles and all fees required shall be paid by the applicant. 5. A final drainage study and final drainage/storm drain plan in a 24" x 36" sheet format shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer and Los Angeles Public Works Department prior to grading permit. All drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with County of Los Angeles Standards. Private (and future) easements for storm drain purposes shall be offered and shown on the final map for dedication to the City. 17 6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a complete hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Los Angeles Public Works Department. 7. A comprehensive maintenance plan/program shall be submitted concurrently with the storm drain plans to the Public Works/Engineering Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. D. STREET IMPROVEMENT 11. The applicant shall replace and record any centerline ties and monuments that are removed as part of this construction with the Los Angeles County Public Works Survey Division. 2. Prior to the issuance of any City permits, the applicant shall provide written permission to the satisfaction of the City from any property owners which will be affected by offsite grading. 3. Prior to building occupancy, applicant shall construct base and pavement for all streets in accordance with soils report prepared by a California registered soils engineer and approved by the City Engineer or as otherwise directed by the City Engineer. E. UTILITIES 1. Easements, satisfactory to the City Engineer and the utility companies, for public utility and public services purposes shall be offered and shown on the detailed site plan for dedication to the City. 2. Prior to final map approval, a water system with appurtenant facilities to serve all lots/parcels in the land division designed to the Walnut Valley Water District (WVWD) specifications shall be provided and approved by the City Engineer. The system shall include fire hydrants of the type and location as determined by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The water mains shall be sized to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, WVWD and Fire Department. 3. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall construct or enter into an improvement agreement with the City guaranteeing construction of the necessary improvements to the existing water system according to Walnut Valley Water District (WVWD) specifications to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows as may be required by the City Engineer, WVWD and Fire Department. 4. Prior to final map approval or issuance of building permit whichever comes first, written certification that all utility services and any other service related to the site shall be available to serve the proposed project and shall be 18 submitted to the City. Such letters shall be issued by the district, utility and cable television company, if applicable, within ninety (90) days prior issuance of grading permits. 5. Prior to recordation of final map, applicant shall provide separate underground utility services to each parcel per Section 21.30 of Title 21 of the City Code, including water, gas, electric power, telephone and cable TV, in accordance with the respective utility company standards. Easements required by the utility companies shall be approved by the City Engineer. 6. Applicant shall relocate and underground any existing on-site utilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the respective utility owner. 7'. Underground utilities shall not be constructed within the drip line of any mature tree except as approved by a registered arborist. F. SEWERS Prior to final map approval, applicant shall submit a sanitary sewer area study to the City and County Engineer to verify that capacity is available in the sewerage system to be used as the outfall for the sewers in this land division. If the system is found to be of insufficient capacity, the problem shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. 2. Each dwelling unit shall be served by a separate sewer lateral which shall not cross any other lot lines. The sanitary sewer system serving the tract shall be connected to the City or District sewer system. Said system shall be of the size, grade and depth approved by the City Engineer, County Sanitation District and Los Angeles County Public Works and surety shall be provided and an agreement executed prior to approval of the final map. 3. Applicant shall obtain connection permit(s) from the City and County Sanitation District prior to issuance of building permits. The area within the tentative map boundaries shall be annexed into the County Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District and appropriate easements for all sewer main and trunk lines shall be shown on the final map and offered for dedication on the final map. 4. Applicant, at applicant's sole cost and expense, shall construct the sewer system in accordance with the City, Los Angeles County Public Works Division and County Sanitation District Standards prior to occupancy. . APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 839-7020, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Plans shall conform to State and Local Building Code (i.e., 2001 California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and the 2001 National Electrical Code) requirements and all other applicable 19 construction codes, ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of plan check submittal. 2. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been met. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. ;3. The minimum design load for wind in this area is 80 M.P.H. exposures "C" and the site is within seismic zone four (4). The applicant shall submit drawings and calculations prepared by a California State licensed Architect/Engineer with wet stamp and signature. 4'. This project shall comply with the energy conservation requirements of the State of California Energy Commission. Kitchen and bathroom lights shall be fluorescent. 5. Submit Public Works/Engineering Department approved grading plans showing clearly all finish elevations, drainage, and retaining walls locations. 6. Number of plumbing fixtures shall be in compliance with CBC Appendix 29. 7. All balconies shall be designed for 601b. live load. 8 Guardrails shall be designed for 20 load applied laterally at the top of the rail. 9. Submit grading plans showing clearly all finish elevations, drainage, and retaining wall locations. No building permits shall be issued prior to submitting a pad certification. 10. All retaining walls shall be submitted to the Building & Safety and Public Work Departments for review and approval. 11. Check drainage patterns with Engineering Department. Surface water shall drain away from building at a 2% minimum slope. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE PREVENTION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Emergency access shall be provided, maintaining free and clear, a minimum 28 foot at all times during construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire Department that temporary water supply for fire protection is available pending completion of the required fire protection system. all Prior to recordation, the final map shall comply with all Fire Department requirements. END 21 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2007-03 AND APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2006-11 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 64881, A NINE UNIT DETACHED RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 23671 GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA (APN NO. 82814-028-030) A. RECITALS 1. The property owner/applicant, Joe Kwok, GSDB Investment Group, LLC, has filed an application for Planned Development Overlay District Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-10 and Development Review No. 2006-11 for Tentative Tract Map No. 64881 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Planned Development Overlay Conditional Use Permit and Development Review shall be referred to as the "Application." 2. On September 11, 2007, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. At that time, the City Council adopted Resolution No.2007-46 recommending City Council approval of the application 3 On November 2, 2007, public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 210 property owners of record within a 500 -foot radius of the project site, a copy of the legal notice was posted at the City's designated community posting sites, and a public notice display board was posted at the site. On November 8, 2007 notification of the public hearing for this project was provided in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley DailV Bulletin newspapers. 4. On November 20, 2007, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The City Council hereby finds that the project identified above in this Resolution required a Negative Declaration (ND). ND No. 2007-03 has been 1 prepared according to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder. The 20 day public review period for the ND began August 16, 2007, and ended September4, 2007. Furthermore, the City Council has reviewed the ND and related documents in reference to the Application. 3. The City Council 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 City Council 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 City Council 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 City Council hereby finds as follows: (a) The project site is an irregularly shaped lot located on the northerly side of Golden Springs Drive west of Platina Drive. It is approximately 27,003 square feet (0.62 acres) in area. The site is elevated above the surrounding properties by retaining walls and slopes. From 1966 to 1986, the project site was occupied by a service station. In 1986, the site building was remodeled into a mini-martwith drive-thru known as Diamond Jim's Dairy. (b) The project site has a General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential (RH) Maximum 20 DU/AC which authorizes a maximum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. (c) The project site is within the Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) zone. However, Zone Change No. 2006-01 within City Council Resolution No. 2007-44 recommends that the City Council approve the zone change from C-1 to High Density Residential -Planned Development (RH-PD) for General Plan compliance. (d) Generally the following zones and uses surround the project site: Site General Plan Zone Uses Project High Density Residential - Neighborhood Commercial Site Maximum 20 Dwelling Unit Commercial (C-1) Per Acre RH North & RH C-1 and R-1-8,000 Residential & West Condoms South Low Density Residential R-3-8,000 Church Maximum 3 Dwelling Units Per acre RL (e) The Application request includes the following: (1) Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 to address impacts that the proposed project may have on the environment; (2) Zone Change application to change the project site's zoning from C-1 to RH-PD -20 Dwelling Units/Per Acre for General Plan compliance; (3) Subdivision application to create a tract map for condominium purposes; (4) Conditional Use Permit application to establish a Planned Development Overlay District (PD) to modify setbacks and wall heights that are appropriate forthe property characteristics and the type of development proposed for the site; and (5) Development Review application to demolish the existing mini - mart with drive-thru and to review the project's overall design and site plan configuration and its effect on surrounding properties. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Development Overlay District In accordance to Municipal Code Section 22.22.150, pertaining to required findings for a Conditional Use Permit for Planned Development Overlay District, the City Council finds as follows: (o) Zone Change 2006-01 will change the existing zoning from C-1 to High Density Residential (RH) which is consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the project site. However, the Planned Development Overlay is needed because units 7 through 9 will not maintain the required 20 foot front setback. Unit 7 will maintain a varying front setback of 20 to 17.5 feet. Units 8 and 9 will maintain a setback of 17.5 feet. Because of the irregular shape of the site, the angle of the rear property line and the requirement to maintain a minimum 26 foot wide drive isle for backing out of the garages, and to have an end product that marketable in terms of livable square footage, a consistent 20 foot front setback can not be maintained. Considering the about of patio and planting areas in the front yards and common area between units 7 and 8, staff believes that the front setbacks provided for these units is appropriate for this project. For approximately 10 lineal feet a retaining wall with an exposed height of nine feet is proposed at the west property line. Another wall in the same area which encloses the side yard for unit one is proposed at the same height. These walls are needed because of the grade difference between the neighboring property and the project site. Almost all of the exposed height of the walls will be viewed from inside the project site. The applicant believes that the exposed height of the walls could be reduced to eight feet. Because of the grade 3 differences and the lineal feet of the walls is minimal and the walls will be viewed from inside the project site, staff believes that the height of the walls is appropriate for this project. Since the rear of each condominium unit faces the center of the project site and drive isle that is 26 to 30 ft. wide, there is no rear yard. However, considering that 24 percent of the project site is landscaped which exceeds the minimum 15 percent requirement and the garages are not part of the streetscape, staff believes that the placement of the units is appropriate. Additionally, the purpose of setbacks is to provide light and separation between structures. The drive isle provides this. (p) The proposed map is a non -gated subdivision for a nine unit detached condominium development with private entry and drive isle. The allowed density for the High Density Residential General Plan designation and zoning district is 20 units per acre. The project is 27,003 square feet (0.62 acres) could be developed with a maximum density of 12 units. In order to meet the City's development standards and provide the appropriate access and drive isles, landscaping, and condominium units that are marketable in size, the project is proposed at nine units which is 25 percent below the General Plan and zoning allowed density. Furthermore, the proposed land use represents an extension of the existing development pattern in the project area which is condominiums and single-family residential. As a result, TTM 64881 is consistent with the General Plan including its design and improvements. (q) As discussed in Finding (g), 0), (1) and (o) above, the design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. (r) The subject site is physically suitable forthe type and density/intensity of use being proposed including access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and the absence of physical constraints as described in Findings (g), 0), (1) and (o) above. (s) The ND reviewed issues related to public interest, health, safety and improvement related to this project. It was found that the project will not have a significant effect on these issues. In some instances mitigation measures are incorporated into the project to ensure that the project's effect on these issues will be "less than significant". Therefore, granting the Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located. n (t) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project required a Negative Declaration (ND). ND No. 2007-03 has been prepared according to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder. 5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the City Council hereby recommends that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-10 Planned Development Overlay and Development Review No. 2006-11 for TTM No. 64881 subject to the following conditions and Standard Conditions attached and referenced herein: a. GENERAL 1. This approval shall be null and void and of no effect unless the Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 is adopted and TTM No. 64881, Zone Change No. 2006-01, Planned Development Overlay Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-10 and Development Review No. 2006-11 are approved. This approval is valid for three years. Two extensions of time, one year each, may be approved pursuant to Development Code Section 22.66. b. SITE DEVELOPMENT 1. Approximately ten lineal feet of a retaining wall located at the west property line and a wall in the same area which encloses the side yard for unit one is shall not exceed an exposed height of eight feet. 2. Exterior or perimeter walls shall be constructed from split face block with a decorative cap. Interior walls maybe stucco in a color to match and/or complement the condominium units. Sample of said construction materials and colors shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to plan check submittal. 3. Uses permitted in the RH zoning district as listed in the Development Code shall be the only uses allowed in the RH- PD zoning designation for the project site. 4. Prior to final map, the applicant shall provide a final landscape and irrigation plan listing all plant species, size quantity and location for Planning Division review and approval. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to final inspection or Certificate of Occupancy 5 e Prior to plan check submittal, the applicant shall submit an exterior lighting plan and photometric study for Planning Division review and approval. All lighting shall be designed to confine direct rays to the subject property. Spillage beyond the property lines shall not be permitted. Lighting shall be on a time -clock or photo -sensor system. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION Prior to final map approval, applicant shall submit to the Building and Safety Division the design of all retaining walls for review and approval concurrently with the grading plan check. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE PREVENTION Access shall comply with Section 902 of the Fire Code, which requires all weather access. All weather access my require paving. Fire Department access shall be extended to within 150 feet distance of any exterior portion of all structures. 3. Where driveways extend further than 300 feet and are of single access design, turnarounds suitable for fire protection equipment use shall be provided and shown on the final map. Turnarounds shall be designed, constructed and maintained to insure their integrity for Fire Department use. Where topography dictates, turnarounds shall be provided for driveways that extend over150 feet in length. 4. Private driveways shall be indicated on the final map as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" with the widths clearly depicted and shall be maintained in accordance with the Fire Code. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction to all required fire hydrants. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. 6. Applicant shall provide Fire Department or City approved street signs and building access numbers prior to occupancy. 7. Applicant shall provide water mains, fire hydrants and fire flows as required by the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, for all land shown on map which shall be recorded. 8. Fire hydrant shall conform to the following requirements: (a) Install one fire hydrant; (b) Measure 6" x 4" x 2'/2° brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA standards C503 or approved equal; (c) On site hydrants shall be installed a minimum of 25 feet from a structure or protected by two hour fire wall. 9. The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this location shall be 1500 gallons per minute at 20 psi for duration of two hours, over and above maximum daily domestic demand. Two hydrant flowing simultaneously, may be used to achieve the required fire flow 10. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted or bonded for prior to final map approval. The City Council shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, to: Mr. Joe Kwok, GSDB Investment Group, LLC, 625 Fair Oak Avenue, #115, South Pasadena, CA 91030 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2007, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. M3 Steve Tye, Mayor VA I, Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of 2007 and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of 2007 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members: NOES: Council Members: ABSENT: Council Members: ABSTAIN: Council Members: Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Wei, Nolan, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: None 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 8.1 Negative Declaration No. 2007-03, Zone Change No. 2006-01, Tentative Tract Map No. 64881, Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-10 and Development Review No. 2006-11— In accordance with Development Code Sections 22.70, 2232 and 22.48, Subdivision Map Act, and Title 21 — City's Subdivision Ordinance, the applicant requested approval to demolish an existing mini -mart with a drive-through and construct a detached nine -unit residential condominium project. The proposed condominiums would be two-story with garage parking below the first floor. The unit sizes range from approximately 1,649 to 1,904 square feet. Each unit has a two -car garage, guest parking and patio area. The project's development requires the following discretionary approvals: A Zone Change to change the existing zoning from Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Residential High Density - Planned Development (RH-PD) for General Plan compliance; Tentative Tract Map to create a common -interest subdivision on 0.62 acres for the construction of nine residential condominium units; Conditional Use Permit to use the Planned Development designation and modify the required setbacks; and, Development Review to evaluate the architecture and site design of the project. PROJECT ADDRESS: 23671 Golden Springs Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ GSDB investment Group, LLC APPLICANT: Joe Kwok 625 Fair Oaks Avenue #115 South Pasadena, CA 91030 AssocP/Lungu presented staffs report and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of Negative Declaration No. 2007-03, Zone Change No. 2006-01, and Planned Development Overlay District Tentative Tract Map No. 64881, Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-10 and Development Review No. 2006-11, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. n �I, C/Lee asked if the City had an ordinance for common open space and AssocP/Lungu responded that the minimum required landscaping required is 15 percent with 24 percent provided for this project. CDD/Fong said the City's Development Code had no requirement for common open space/recreation areas for condominium or apartment projects other than the landscaping and general open space. AssocP/Lungu responded that guest parking requirements for attached condominiums is .5 spaces per bedroom. However, these units are detached and each unit has its own guest parking and the Code does not address guest parking for detached condominium units. Staff found that one guest parking space and the two -car garage spaces for each unit were appropriate forthis project. CDD/Fong indicated to C/Lee that the project requires two parking spaces and in this case the project exceeds the City's minimum requirement. C/Lee said that a lot of green area would be eliminated and the project appeared to be too crowded. VC/Torng wondered why there was no main entrance with guest parking because there was no parking on Golden Springs Drive. Also, should the City put up a "no parking" sign on Golden Springs Drive? CDD/Fong said the City could look into the matter. However, there was no issue at this time and she did not believe residents would park on the street. VC/Torng wondered why there was no wall proposed in front of the complex to mitigate the traffic noise. CDD/Fong responded that according to the Code the construction would have to mitigate the interior noise level. VC/Torng wanted to know why there was no HOA and gate. CDD/Fong said she believed there would be CC&Rs and an HOA and whether or not the community is gated is up to the developer. AssocP/Lungu explained to VC/Torng that the HOA condition is contained in the resolution. The walls in the 20 -foot setback are lower walls. VC/Torng said he thought there would be a greater traffic impact to the major streets such as Grand Avenue and Diamond Bar Boulevard. AssocP/Lungu said the reason was that this project would create considerably fewer trips than the current use. VC/Torng said the study should indicate "no significant impact" but it is weird that there is no study. AssocP/Lungu referred VC/Torng to the Negative Declaration that stated there were insignificant traffic impacts resulting from this project. His concern is that the report relates only to the area of the condos but should take in consideration all of Diamond Bar. CDD/Fong stated that based on the applicant's traffic study the engineer determined that the threshold of significance was less than the requirement to conduct additional studies beyond the project site. VC/Torng said he understood but that it should be mentioned because this project is an impact to Diamond Bar not just to this small area. VC/Torng said if there was a major impact this project should pay some kind of fee to leverage the traffic impacts. CDD/Fong reiterated that the traffic study determined that the project did not exceed the threshold for consideration of any traffic mitigation. There are only nine dwelling units. The number of trips generated by the nine dwelling units is less than the existing dairy business and how could one make a project that has less trips contribute to traffic mitigation when the existing business produces more trips? VC/Torng said he was agreeing to that but it should be mentioned in the report —at least saying it was studied. It only says "studied the trips into the mini -mart." Chair/Nelson referred VC/Torng to page 38 of the Negative Declaration - the thresholds that discusses traffic loads and capacities on the street system — no impact. Level of Service established by County Congestion Agency on designated roads or highways — no impact. Chair/Nelson said he believed the document addressed VC/Torng's concerns by indicating no impact for all thresholds, thresholds that are provided through CEQA guidelines, which are guidelines to implement the review in compliance with that law. The fact that there is not a lot of detail is not a violation of CEQA in any way. Chair/Nelson said he drove by the site and has known of this impending project for many years. VC/Torng said he too drove by the site. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Joseph Kwok explained the proposed project was expected to serve "empty nesters." He indicated that the dairy's lease had expired and it would not make economic sense for them to continue the business in that particular location. With respect to parking on Golden Springs Drive there is no street parking allowed. Mr. Kowk felt it would not be aesthetically pleasing for the new project to have a wall blocking the view and there are other things that can be done to reduce noise inside the units. He felt it was very important for the project to have an attractive fagade and streetscape. With the amount of open space around the dairy there is a security problem. With the project abutting the neighbors it will improve the security in the area. Indeed the development will provide an overall improvement to the neighborhood. Debbie Avila -Mott, 480 Wayside Place, felt it was a shame to lose the dairy, which is a part of the City's history She would prefer that the investment company renew the dairy's lease and improve the site. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C C n I C/Nolan shared the sentiment of nostalgia about the dairy. However, the owners have decided not to renew the lease and it is their prerogative to do so. AssocP/Lungu explained to C/Nolan that all traffic studies consider only A.M. and P.M. peak hours and that turn lanes were not at issue in the traffic study. C/Lee was concerned that he saw no doors to the underground living/parking area and no venting on the submitted plans. C/Lee referred to the underfloor area which is close to the parking area. He does not see any ventilation area. He is concerned that people can live in the small area but there are no doors or ventilation. He requested that the applicant explain the reason there is no ventilation or doors. Mr. Kwok stated that there isn't sufficient room for anyone to live in that space. C/Lee stated that the area looked large enough that people can live there whether to visit, etc., but why does the plan not show it as a living space area with ventilation, doors, etc. Mr. Kwok referred C/Lee to sheet 18. The small area under the stairs does not have sufficient headroom to provide a living area. The bonus room is the utility area inside of the garage. C/Lee asked the applicant if the space was open space or living space. The applicant replied that it is not living space. C/Lee was concerned about carbon dioxide coming from the garage. Mr. Kwok said there would be a natural air vent into the garage area. Next to the garage is open space for ventilation. Only about three feet of the garage area is underground. Chair/Nelson said he too appreciated the history of the dairy. However, is there anything about this project that is not in compliance with the City's Development Code, which is what the Commission is here to enforce? CDD/Fong responded that the project complies with the City's Development Code. Chair/Nelson referred to a correspondence received by the Commission that indicated that the City was considering this project because it would receive more tax dollars. However, commercial development provides more tax revenue than residential development. CDD/Fong confirmed Chair/Nelson's assumption. Chair/Nelson reiterated the need for housing in the southern California area and this particular piece of property would offer a good placement for residential housing. In spite of the fact that C/Nolan was very sad that Jim's Dairy was going away, the project before the Commission is in full compliance with the City's Development Code. C/Nolan moved to recommend City Council approval of Negative Declaration No. 2007-03, Zone Change No. 2006-01, and Planned Development Overlay District Tentative Tract Map No. 64881, Conditional Use Permit NO. 2007-10 and Development Review No. 2006-11, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. VC/Torng seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, VC/Torng, Lee, Wei, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: None 8.2 Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-12 — In accordance with Development Code Sections 22.58 and 22.42, this was a request to operate a tutoring center within a leased space of 4,293 square feet in an existing center zoned C-2 (Neighborhood Commercial. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: 3211 Brea Canyon Road, Suite A Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Aaron Raphael 12400 Ventura Boulevard #238 Studio City, CA 91604 School -Connection 20781-5 Amar Road Walnut, CA 91789 PT/Alvarez presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-12, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. There were no ex parte disclosures. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Dani Wu, said she was present to answer Commission's questions and concerns. Judy Leon spoke highly of School -Connection and Ms. Wu and felt her school would be a good addition to the City of Diamond Bar and good news for parents. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FOR SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 MEETING CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - 21825 COPLEY DRIVE - DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 - TEL. (909) 839-7030 - FAX (909) 861-3117 G \I•� 1l \ 11_: MEETING DATE: September 11, 2007 CASE/FILE NUMBER: 1. Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 2. Zone Change No. 2006-01 and Planned Overlay District 3. Tentative Tract Map No. 64881 4. Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-10 5. Development Review No. 2006-11 PROJECT LOCATION: 23671 Golden Springs Drive APPLICATION REQUEST: To demolish the existing drive-thru market and subdivide 0.62 acres into a nine unit, detached residential condominium complex. PROPERTY OWNER/ GSD13 Investment Group, LLC APPLICANT: Mr. Joe Kwok 625 Fair Oaks Avenue, # 115, South Pasadena, CA 91030 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to City Council the following actions: adoption of Negative Declaration No. 2007-03; approval of Zone Change No. 2006-01 with Planned Development Overlay; approval of Tentative Trace Map No. 64881; approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-10; and approval of Development Review No. 2006-11. The project site is an irregularly shaped lot located on the northerly side of Golden Springs Drive west of Platina Drive. It is approximately 27,003 square feet (0.62 acres) in area. The site is elevated above the surrounding properties by retaining walls and slopes. From 1966 to 1986, the project site was occupied by a service station. In 1986, the site building was remodeled into a mini -mart with drive-thru known as Diamond Jim's Dairy. The applicant has submitted applications to the City requesting to change the project site's zoning for General Plan compliance and demolish the existing legal non- conforming mini -mart drive-thru dairy and to subdivide project site and construct nine residential condominiums. A. Review Authority (Title 21 -Subdivision Ordinance and Development Code Sections 22.70, 22.32, 22.48 and 22.58) The proposed project involves five applications as follows: 1. Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 to address impacts that the proposed project may have on the environment; 2. Zone Change application to change the project site's zoning from Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to High Density Residential -Planned Development (Maximum 20 Dwelling Units/Per Acre (RH-PD) for General Plan compliance; 3. Subdivision application to subdivide the project site into nine residential condominium units; 4. Conditional Use Permit application to establish a Planned Development Overlay District (PD) to establish setbacks and wall heights that are appropriate for the property characteristics and the type of development proposed for the site; and 5. Development Review application to review the project's overall design and site plan configuration and its effect on surrounding properties. According to the Development Code, the City Council is the review authority for zone change and planned development overlay and subdivision applications; and the Planning Commission is the review authority for Conditional Use Permit and Development Review applications. However, when more than one application is involved, all applications shall be processed simultaneously. For this project, the Commission will provide a recommendation to the Council, which is the final decision maker. Page 2 TTM No. 64881 B. Site and Surrounding General Plan, Zoning and Use Site General Plan Zone Uses Project Site High Density Residential - Neighborhood Commercial Residential density Maximum 20 Dwelling Unit Commercial (C-1) Yes Front setback Per Acre RH 17.5 to 20 ft. (See CUP discussion below. Yes North & West RH C-1 and R-1-8,000 Residential and Condominiums South Low Density Residential R-3-8,000 Church Maximum 3 Dwelling Units Per acre (RL) East Low Density Residential R-1-8,000 Single -Family Maximum 3 Dwelling Units Residential Per acre (RL) C. Zone Change/Planned Development Overlay The General Plan land use designation for the project site is High Density Residential -Maximum 20 Dwelling Units Per Acre (RH). The current zoning for the project site is Neighborhood Commercial (C-1). A zone change to High Density Residential (RH) is being processed in order to bring the zoning in conformance with the General Plan. In addition, a Planned Development Overlay District (PD) is proposed to modify the setback of four condominium units because of the angle of the rear property line and increase wall height due to grade difference of the subject property relative to the neighboring parcels. Therefore, the zoning nomenclature will be changed to RH-PD. D. Subdivision The proposed project is a non -gated residential condominium subdivision. Nine detached units are proposed. The allowed density for the High Density Residential General Plan designation and zoning district is 20 units per acre. The project is 27,003 square feet (0.62 acres) could be developed with a maximum density of 12 units. In order to meet the City's development standards and provide the appropriate access and drive isles, landscaping, and condominium units that are marketable in size, the project is proposed at 9 units which is 25 percent below the General Plan and zoning allowed density. E. Development Review 1. Development Standards Development Feature RH-PD Development Standards Proposed Meets Re mts Minimum lot area 5,000 sq. ft. 27,003 sq. ft. Yes Residential density 20 units per acre 14.5 unitsper/acre Yes Front setback 20 ft. 17.5 to 20 ft. (See CUP discussion below. Yes Page 3 TTM No. 64881 Development Feature RH-PD Development Standards Proposed Meets Reqmts Side setback 5 ft. 5 to 10 ft. Yes Rear setback 20 ft. N/A (See CUP discussion below. Yes Lot coverage 30 % 30 % Yes Height Maximum 35 ft. 35 ft. Yes Drive isle/back-up area 26 ft. 26 to 31.25 ft. Yes Landscaping 15% 24% Yes 2. Site Review The proposed nine units are detached, two story and vary in size from 1,663 to 1,904 square feet. Each has its own entrance, patio area, pirvate open space, two car garage and guest parking. Each unit is required to have two parking spaces within a garage. Additionally, each unit has its own guest parking space. The garages face into the project site, are semi - subterranean and will not dominate the streetscape. The project site is surrounded by slump stone walls. Interior walls between the units will be stucco or wrought iron. The project provides common planting and hardscape areas and a fountain between Units Seven and Eeight. 3. Architectural Features, Colors Materials, Floor Plan etc. The City's Design Guidelines have been established to encourage a better compatible building and site design that improves the visual quality of the surrounding area through aesthetically pleasing site planning, building design, and landscape architecture. Additionally, a primary objective is to promote compatibility with adjacent uses in order to minimize any potential negative impacts. The proposed architectural style is Mediterranean. The units' elevations are architecturally treated by using elements such as balconies with wrought iron railings, moldings and corbels, cantilever windows, recessed entries and varying planes. These architectural elements create interest and divide the elevations so that the units do not appear massive. Furthermore, the tuck -under parking reduces the scale of the building at the street level. Earth tone colors in shades of tan will be used for the stucco. Brown will be used for all doors and balcony railings. Tile roofs in shades of tan and terracotta reflect the stucco colors. Slate that reflects the colors use for stucco and roof will be used to pave the entry to each unit. Entrance to the site and drive isle will be scored concrete. Page 4 TTM No. 64881 4 Grading The proposed development will cause approximately 3,150 cubic yards of cut and 327 cubic yards of fill with 2,823 cubic yards of earth exported. Most of the earth work is attributed to preparing the site for the semi - subterranean garages. 5. Landscape and Preserved/Protected Trees A conceptual landscape plan was submitted for this project. It has an extensive landscape palette that will enhance the aesthetic appearance of the project and provide a positive visual experience to the public and those living within the development. Prior to plan check submittal, the applicant will be required to submit a final landscape and irrigation plan to the Planning Division for review and approval. The landscape plan shall indicate the plant species, size, quantity, planting location and distance between plants. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to final inspection or Certificate of Occupancy. The project site does not contain protected trees listed in the Development Code. The site does contain 12 Eucalyptus trees along the north and east property lines. All the Eucalyptus trees will be removed and other trees planted as shown on the project's landscape plan. 6. Traffic A traffic study was prepared by Lin Consulting, Inc. for the proposed project. The study addressed on-site and off-site traffic issues. According to the study, the primary access at Golden Springs Drive with a four foot wide pedestrian walkway is adequate for this type of project. Additionally, there will not be a sight distance problem when exiting the project site. As a result, there is not a need to specify turn restrictions. Furthermore, the on site circulation provides suitable room for vehicles to maneuver. The traffic study indicates the mini -mart generates 21 trips in and 15 trips out during the AM peak hours and 36 trips in and 33 trips our during the PM peak hours. The proposed project will generate 2 trips in and 5 trips out during the AM peak hours and 5 trips in and 3 trips out during the peak PM hours. Since, the proposed project will generate fewer trips than the mini -mart, the study concludes traffic improvement measures are not required. The traffic study has been approved by the City Page 5 TTM No. 64881 7. Neighborhood Meeting On September 1, 2007, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting at the project site. One resident who lives on Platina Drive attended the meeting. The resident's main concerns were loosing the convenience of the mini - mart and how the completed project would look. Earlier in the week, the applicant met with the property owners of 272 and 283 Platina Drive. These properties are on the west side of Platina Drive and their rear property line is the side property line of the project site. Their main concerns were losing the convenience of the mini -mart and the view from their backyards. According to the applicant, when the property owners understood the design of the project they were more accepting of the project. Furthermore, there are existing trees on the property of the two residences that will partially screen the view of the condominium. F. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Development Overlay The purposed of a planned development overlay is to promote quality design, innovative site planning with greater flexibility in design. The planned development overlay allows the transfer of development rights and mixed uses consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Additionally, the planned development overlay allows for a modification of development standards such as setback requirements, height limits, parking requirements, floor area ratio, lot coverage, and open space requirements. The application for the planned development overlay requires the approval of a Conditional Use Permit to modify the minimum development standards normally required in a specified zone. However, proposed development within a planned development overlay must comply with all other provisions of the Development Code. For this project, units 7 through 9 will not maintain the required 20 foot front setback. Unit 7 will maintain a varying front setback of 20 to 17.5 feet. Units 8 and 9 will maintain a setback of 17.5 feet. Because of the irregular shape of the site, the angle of the rear property line and the requirement to maintain a minimum 26 foot wide drive isle for backing out of the garages, and to have an end product that marketable in terms of livable square footage a consistent 20 foot front setback can not be maintained. Considering the about of patio and planting areas in the front yards and common area between units 7 and 8, staff believes that the front setbacks provided for these units is appropriate for this project. For approximately ten lineal feet a retaining wall with an exposed height of nine feet is proposed at the west property line. Another wall in the same area which encloses the side yard for unit one is proposed at the same height. These walls Page 6 TTM No. 64881 are needed because of the grade difference between the neighboring property and the project site. Almost all of the exposed height of the walls will be viewed from inside the project site. The applicant believes that the exposed height of the walls could be reduced to eight feet. Because of the grade differences and the lineal feet of the walls is minimal and the walls will be viewed from inside the project site, staff believes that the height of the walls is appropriate for this project. Since the rear of each condominium unit faces the center of the project site and drive isle that is 26 to 30 ft. wide, there is not a rear yard. However, considering that 24 percent of the project site is landscaped which exceeds the minimum 15 percent requirement and the garages are not part of the streetscape, staff believes that the placement of the units is appropriate. Additionally, the purpose of setbacks is to provide light and separation between structures. The drive isle provides this. G. Additional Review Public Works Department and the Building and Safety Division reviewed this project. Their recommendations are included in the resolution as conditions of approval. H. General Plan, Design Guidelines and Compatibility with Neighborhood The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan in that it does not exceed the allowed density and with an approved zone change the zone will be in compliance with the General Plan. The project's design maintains the quality standards specified in the Design Guideline and Development Code. It is compatible with the existing residential neighborhood that surrounds the project site and an improvement to the out -date mini -mart. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 210 property owners within a 500 foot radius of the project site and the notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on August 16, 2007. A notice display board was posted at the site, and a copy of the legal notice was posted at the City's designated community posting sites by August 15, 2007. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15070, the City prepared an Initial Study and Negative Declaration for this project. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15105, the public review period for the Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 began August 16, 2007 and ended September 4, 2007. During this review period, the City did not receive any comments from the agencies notified. Page 7 TTM No. 64881 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council the adoption of Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 and recommend approval to City Council of Zone Change No. 2006-01 and Planned Development Overlay, Tentative Tract Map No. 64881 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-10 and Development Review No. 2006-11, Findings of Fact, conditions of approval and Standard Conditions, as listed within the attached resolution. A f RAW Pr pared 4: R iewed y: A n J. Lungu Nancmunityy Fong,4Xpment Associate Planner ComDDirector Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution recommending approval of Zone Change No. 2006-01 and Planned Overlay District; 2. Draft Resolution recommending approval of TTM No. 64881 and adoption of Negative Declaration No. 2007-03; 3. Draft Resolution recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-10 and Development Review No. 2006-11; 4. Exhibit "A" dated September 11, 2007 — Tentative Tract Map No. 64881, grading plan, site plan, elevations, sections, and landscape, hardscape and irrigation plan and colors and materials board; 5. Exhibit "B" Negative Declaration No. 2007-03; and 6. Aerial Page 8 TTM No. 64881 CHNNNITM PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NOS. 2007-44,2007-45 AND 2007-46 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2007-44 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 2006-01 AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2007-03 WHICH CHANGES THE EXISTING ZONING FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (C-1) TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL -PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (RH-PD) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23671 GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA (APN NO. 8281-028-030). A. RECITALS 1. The property owner/applicant, Mr. Joe Kwok, GSDB Investment Group, LLC, has filed an application for Zone Change No. 2006-01 for a property identified as APN No. 8281-028-030 and located at 23671 Golden Springs Drive, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Zone Change and Negative Declaration shall be referred to as the "Application." 2. Public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 210 property owners of record within a 500 -foot radius of the project site. A notice display board was posted at the site, and a copy of the legal notice was posted at the City's designated community posting sites. Notification of the public hearing for this project was provided in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley DailV Bulletin newspapers. 3. On September 11, 2007, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. 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. 2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the project identified above in this Resolution required a Negative Declaration (ND). No. 2007-03 has been prepared according to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder. The 20 -day public review period for the ND began August 16, 2007, and ended September 4, 2007. Furthermore, the Planning Commission has reviewed the ND and related documents in reference to the Application. 3. Based on substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above referenced meeting on September 11, 2007, including the written and oral staff report, together with public testimony, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: Zone Change (a) The project site is an irregularly shaped lot located on the northerly side of Golden Springs Drive west of Platina Drive. It is approximately 27,003 square feet (0.62 acres) in area. The site is elevated above the surrounding properties by retaining walls and slopes. From 1966 to 1986, the project site was occupied by a service station. In 1986, the site building was remodeled into a mini -mart with drive-thru known as Diamond Jim's Dairy. (b) Generally the following zones and uses surround the project site Site General Plan Zone Uses Project High Density Residential - Neighborhood Commercial Site Maximum 20 Dwelling Unit Commercial (C-1) Per Acre (RH) North & RH C-1 and R-1-8,000 Residential & West Condoms South Low Density Residential R-3-8,000 Church Maximum 3 Dwelling Units Per acre (RL) (c) The project site has a General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential (RH) Maximum 20 DU/AC and a current zoning designation of Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) which was a Los Angeles County nomenclature adopted when the City was incorporated. (d) The Application request is for approval to change the existing zoning designation of C-1 to High Density Residential -Planned Development (RH-PD) which is a City nomenclature and in compliance with the General Plan and construct a nine unit detached residential condominium project. (e) In accordance to the General Plan, the maximum gross density for the RH land use designation is 20 dwelling units per acre.. The Commission has determined that the High Density Residential (RH) zone implements the Strategies of the General Plan. (f) The property will be able to adhere to the development standards for the RH zoning district as prescribed in the City's Development Code. (g) The Planned Development Overlay District is needed to modify the setback of four condominium units because of the angle of the rear 2 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-44 property line and increase wall height due to grade difference between the subject property and its neighboring parcels. (h) The Planned Development Overlay District is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies in that the proposed project does not exceed the allowed density and with an approved zone change, the zone will be in compliance with the General Plan. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraph 1, 2, and 3 above, the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council the zone change from Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to High Density Residential - Planned Development (RH-PD). 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 Mr. Joe Kwok, GSDB Investment Group, LLC City, 625 Fair Oaks Avenue, #115, South Pasadena, CA 91030 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2007, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. BY: Steve Nelson, Chairman I, Nancy Fong, 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 11th day of September 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ATTEST: Nancy Fo Lee, Nolan, Wei, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson None None None 3 ZC 2006-01 / TTM 64881 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2007-45 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 64881 AND ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2007-03 SET FORTH THEREIN FOR A NINE UNIT CONDOMINIUM RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT THE 23671 GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA (APN NO. 8281-028-030). A. RECITALS 1. The property owner/applicant, Joe Kwok, GSDB Investment Group, LLC, has filed an application for approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 64881 and adoption of Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Map and Negative Declaration shall be referred to as the "Application." 2. Public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 210 property owners of record within a 500 -foot radius of the project site. A notice display board was posted at the site, and a copy of the legal notice was posted at the City's designated community posting sites. Notification of the public hearing for this project was provided in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. 3. On September 11, 2007, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. . B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved bythe Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 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. 2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the project identified above in this Resolution required a Negative Declaration (ND). ND No. 2007-03 has been prepared according to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder. The 20 day public review period for the ND began August 16, 2007, and ended September 4, 2007. Furthermore, the Planning Commission has reviewed the ND and related documents in reference to the Application. 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, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that changes and alterations have been required in or incorporated into and conditioned upon the project specified in the application, which mitigate or avoid significant adverse environmental impacts identified in ND No. 2007-03. 5. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt ND No. 2007-03 referenced herein as Exhibit "B" and hereby incorporated by reference and on file with the Planning Division. 6. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: (a) The project site is an irregularly shaped lot located on the northerly side of Golden Springs Drive west of Platina Drive. It is approximately 27,003 square feet (0.62 acres) in area. The site is elevated above the surrounding properties by retaining walls and slopes. From 1966 to 1986, the project site was occupied by a service station. In 1986, the site building was remodeled into a mini -mart with drive-thru known as Diamond Jim's Dairy. (b) The project site has a General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential (RH) Maximum 20 DU/AC which authorizes a maximum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. (c) The project site is within the Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) zone. However, Zone Change No. 2006-01 within Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-44 recommends that the City Council approve the zone change from C-1 to High Density Residential -Planned Development (RH-PD) for General Plan compliance. (d) Generally the following zones and uses surround the project site: Site General Plan Zone Uses Project High Density Residential - Neighborhood Commercial Site Maximum 20 Dwelling Unit Commercial (C-1) Per Acre RH North & RH C-1 and R-1-8,000 Residential & West Condoms South Low Density Residential R-3-8,000 Church Maximum 3 Dwelling Units Per acre (RL) 2 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-45 (e) The Application request includes the following: (1) Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 to address impacts that the proposed project may have on the environment; (2) Zone Change application to change the project site's zoning from C- 1 to RH-PD-20 Dwelling Units/Per Acre for General Plan compliance; (3) Subdivision application to create a tract map for condominium purposes; (4) Conditional Use Permit application to establish a Planned Development Overlay District (PD) to modify setbacks and wall heights that are appropriate for the property characteristics and the type of development proposed for the site; and (5) Development Review application to demolish the existing mini -mart with drive-thru and to review the project's overall design and site plan configuration and its effect on surrounding properties. Tentative Map Findings Pursuant to Subdivision Code Section 21.20 the Planning Commission has made the following required findings: (f) The General Plan land use designation for the project site is High Density Residential (RH). The General Plan describes this designation as a residential land use category for town homes, condominiums, apartments, mobile homes and other multiple family residential properties. This land use category can maintain a maximum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. The proposed map is a non -gated subdivision for a nine unit detached condominium development with private entry and drive aisle. The allowed density for the High Density Residential General Plan designation and zoning district is 20 units per acre. The project is 27,003 square feet (0.62 acres) could be developed with a maximum density of 12 units. In order to meet the City's development standards and provide the appropriate access and drive isles, landscaping, and condominium units that are marketable in size, the project is proposed at 9 units which is 25 percent below the General Plan and zoning allowed density. Furthermore, the proposed land use represents an extension of the existing development pattern in the project area which is condominiums and single-family residential. As a result, TTM 64881 is consistent with the General Plan including its design and improvements. (g) The project site is approximately 0.62 gross acres (27,003 square feet) in area. TTM 64881 proposes to create a common -interest subdivision to facilitate the development of 9 detached residential condominium units with two car garages and guest parking for each unit, landscaping and private patios. In accordance to the General Plan density provisions, it is permissible to develop up to12 condominium units. However, the proposed density of 9 units is 25 percent below General Plan and zoning potential density. Additionally, the ND prepared for this project reviewed the 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-45 suitability of the project site, circulation, grading, aesthetics, land use, etc. The ND concluded that the proposed map would not have a significant effect on the environment and with the incorporation of conditions of approval. Therefore, the project site is physically suitable for the proposed type of development and density, (h) The ND for this project analyzed whether or not the proposed map would cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The ND concluded that with conditions of approval as discussed in the ND, it is anticipated that the proposed map's impacts would be reduced to a level "less than significant and the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (i) The ND analyzed impacts related to the design of the subdivision and improvements related to the project. The design of the project meets the standards set forth in Development Code and the City's Design Guidelines. The project's design maintains the quality standards specified in the Design Guidelines and Development Code. It is compatible with the existing residential neighborhood that surrounds the project site. As a result, the proposed project's design or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health or safety problems. (j) There are no easements of record for the project site. As discussed in findings above, the project site is suitable for this type of development. Therefore, the design of the subdivision orthe type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. (k) According to the ND prepared for this project, environmental issues related to hydrology and water quality are "less than significant" and discharge sewerage would not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. (1) A geotechnical report was prepared for this project and reviewed by the City. The report was approved with conditions that are incorporated into the project design. Additionally, the ND prepared forthis project indicates that with the implementation of these conditions in combination with applicable Municipal Code and UBC requirements and appropriate engineering practices will ensure impacts related to geology will be "less than significant". (m) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the applicable provisions of Title 21, the City's Subdivision Ordinance, Subdivision Map Act and the Development Code as discussed in the above findings. 4 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-45 7. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 and approve TTM 64881 subject to the following conditions and Standard Conditions attached and referenced herein: a. GENERAL This approval shall be null and void and of no effect unless the Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 is adopted and Zone Change No. 2006-01, Planned Development Overlay, Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-10 and Development Review No. 2006-11 are approved. This approval is valid for three years. Two extensions of time, one year each, may be approved in accordance to Development Code Section 22.66. b. SITE DEVELOPMENT 1. Approximately 10 lineal feet of a retaining wall located at the west property line and a wall in the same area which encloses the side yard for unit one is shall not exceed an exposed height of eight feet. 2. Exterior or perimeter walls shall be constructed from split face block with a decorative cap. Interior walls may be stucco in a color to match and/or complement the condominium units. Sample of said construction materials and colors shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to plan check submittal. 3. Uses permitted in the RH zoning district as listed in the Development Code, shall be the only uses allowed in the RH-PD zoning designation for the project site. 4. Prior to final map, the applicant shall provide a final landscape and irrigation plan listing all plant species, size quantity and location for Planning Division review and approval. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to final inspection or Certificate of Occupancy 5. Prior to plan check submittal, the applicant shall submit an exterior lighting plan and photometric study for Planning Division review and approval. All lighting shall be designed to confine direct rays to the subject property. Spillage beyond the property lines shall not be permitted. Lighting shall be on a time -clock or photo -sensor system. d. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION Priorto final map approval, applicant shall submitto the Building and Safety Division the design of all retaining walls for review and approval concurrently with the grading plan check. 5 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-45 e. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE PREVENTION Access shall comply with Section 902 of the Fire Code, which requires all weather access. All weather access my require paving. 2. Fire Department access shall be extended to within 150 feet distance of any exterior portion of all structures. 3. Where driveways extend further than 300 feet and are of single access design, turnarounds suitable for fire protection equipment use shall be provided and shown on the final map. Turnarounds shall be designed, constructed and maintained to insure their integrity for Fire Department use. Where topography dictates, turnarounds shall be provided for driveways that extend over150 feet in length. 4. Private driveways shall be indicated on the final map as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" with the widths clearly depicted and shall be maintained in accordance with the Fire Code. 5. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction to all required fire hydrants. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted priorto construction. 6. Applicant shall provide Fire Department or City approved street signs and building access numbers prior to occupancy. 7. Applicant shall provide water mains, fire hydrants and fire flows as required by the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, for all land shown on map which shall be recorded. 8. Fire hydrant shall conform to the following requirements: (a.) Install one fire hydrant; (b.) Measure 6" x 4" x 2'/z" brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA standards C503 or approved equal; (c.) On site hydrants shall be installed a minimum of 25 feet form a structure or protected by two hour fire wall. 9. The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this location shall be 1500 gallons per minute at 20 psi for duration of two hours, over and above maximum daily domestic demand. Two hydrant flowing simultaneously, may be used to achieve the required fire flow 10. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted or bonded for prior to final map approval. 6 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-45 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: Mr. Joe Kwok, GSDB Investment Group, LLC, 625 Fair Oak Avenue, #115, South Pasadena, CA 91030 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2007, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. BY: QL�A� Steve Nelson, Chairman I, Nancy Fong, 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 11th day of September 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Lee, Nolan, Wei, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None ABSTAIN: Commissioners: None ATTEST: 7 Negative Ded. 2007-03 —TTM 64881 111M Z4 4 0 Lei 9] pan, PROJECT #: TTM No. 64881, ND No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2006-01/Planned Development OverlaV, CUP No. 2007-10 and DR No. 2006-11 SUBJECT: Nine unit, detached, residential condominium subdivision APLICANT: Joe Kwok 23671 Golden Springs Drive LOCATION: 23671 Golden Springs Drive ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION AT (909) 839-7030, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. In accordance with Government Code Section 66474.9(b) (1), the applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its officers, agents and employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding to attack, set-aside, void or annul, the approval of Tentative Tract No. 64881 brought within the time period provided by Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the city and/or its officers, agents and employees are made a party of any such action: (a) Applicant shall provide a defense to the City defendants or at the City's option reimburse the City its costs of defense, including reasonable attorneys fees, incurred in defense of such claims. (b) Applicant shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the City descendents. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action of proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof. 8 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-45 2. Applicant shall include signed copies of the Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2007-44, 2007-45, 2007-46, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 3. Revised plans (such as but not limited to site plan, elevations, landscape/irrigation plan, grading plan, etc.,) incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval prior to the plan check. 4. Notwithstanding any previous subsection of the resolution, the Department of Fish and Game requires payment of the fee pursuant to Section 711.4 of that Fish and Game Code. Said payment shall be made by the applicant to the city within five days of this approval. 5. The project site shall be maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of approval and all laws, or other applicable regulations. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and any applicable Specific Plan in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency priorto issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 8. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all conditions of approval shall be completed. B. FEES/DEPOSITS 1. Applicant shall pay development fees (including but not limited to Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works/Engineering Department and Mitigation Monitoring) at the established rates, prior to final map approval, issuance of building or grading permit (whichever comes first), as required by the City. School fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permit. In addition, the applicant shall pay all remaining prorated City project review and processing fees prior to the map's recordation or issuance of building permit, whichever come first. 2. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall pay a fee to the City in -lieu of dedication for parkland pursuant to Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 21.32. 3. Prior to any public hearing or final map approval, all deposit accounts for the processing of this project shall have no deficits. 9 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-45 4. Notwithstanding any previous subsection of the resolution, the Department of Fish and Game required payment of the fee pursuant to Section 711.4 of that Fish and Game Code. Said payment shall be made by the applicant to the city within five days of this grant's approval. C. TIME LIMITS 1. This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant and owner of the property involved have filed within 15 days of approval of this map, at the City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department! Planning Division an Affidavit of Acceptance stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this approval. 2. In accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66463.5, TTM No. 64881 is valid for three years. An extension of time may be requested in writing and shall only be considered if submitted to the city no less than 60 days prior to the approval's expiration date. Final map approval will not be granted unless the map is in substantial compliance with TTM No. 64881 including all conditions and the applicant has entered into a subdivision improvement agreement to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. D. SITE DEVELOPMENT 1. The project site shall be developed in substantial conformance with TTM No. 64881 except as conditions herein, and as conditioned in Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-10 and Development Review No. 2006-11 submitted to and recommended approval by the Planning Commission to the City Council collectively referenced herein as Exhibit "A" - the subdivision map and site plan, elevations, grading plan, sections, landscape/irrigation plans, and colors and materials board, Exhibit "B"- Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 dated September 11, 2007, as modified herein. 2. A Home Owner's Association (HOA) shall be formed. The HOA shall have Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) and Articles of Incorporation of the HOA are subject to the approval of Planning Division and Public Works/Engineering Department and the City Attorney. The CC&R's shall be recorded concurrently with the final map or prior to the issuance of any City permits, which ever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The HOA shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the names and addresses of the officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. 3. All ground -mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, air conditioning condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berms, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 4. Prior to final map approval or issuance of building permit, whichever come first, street names shall be submitted for City review and approval. Street names shall 10 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-45 not duplicate existing streets within the City of Diamond Bar's postal service zip code areas. 5. House numbering plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. House numbering plans shall be submitted to and approved bythe City Engineer priorto issuance of building permits. 6. All lighting fixtures adjacent to interior property lines shall be approved by the Planning Division as to type, orientation and height. 7. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. E. LANDSCAPE, PRESERVED AND PROTECTED TREES 1. Prior to final map approval, a detailed landscape/irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits and recordation of the map, which ever occurs first. F. SOLID WASTE 1. The site shall be maintained in a condition, which is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement granted herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction shall be done only by the property owner, applicant or by a duly permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas within the City. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor utilized has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. 2. Mandatory solid waste disposal services shall be provided by the City franchised waste hauler to all parcels/lots or uses affected by approval of this project. 3. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-ups shall be for individual units with all receptacles shielded from public view. 11 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-45 APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, (909) 839-7040, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL 1. A title report/guarantee showing all fee owners, interest holders, and nature of interest shall be submitted for final map plan check. An updated title report/guarantee and subdivision guarantee shall be submitted ten (10) business days prior to final map approval. 2. A permit from the Los Angeles County Public Works Department shall be required for work within its right-of-way or connection to its facilities. 3. Prior to final map approval, written certification that all utility services and any other service related to the site shall be available to serve the proposed project and shall be submitted to the City. Such letters shall be issued by the district, utility and cable television company, within ninety (90) days prior to final map approval. 4. Prior to final map approval, applicant shall submit to the City Engineer the detail cost estimates for bonding purposes of all public improvements. 5. Prior to final map approval, if any public or private improvements required as part of this map have not been completed by applicant and accepted by the City, applicant shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City and shall post the appropriate security. 6. Prior to final reap approval all site grading, landscaping, irrigation, street, sewer and storm drain improvement plans shall be approved bythe City Engineer, surety shall be posted, and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all public and private improvements. 7. Prior to issuance of grading permits, surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all drainage facilities necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 8. Any details or notes which may be inconsistent with requirement or ordinances, general conditions or approval, or City policies shall be specifically approved in other conditions or ordinance requirements are modified to those shown on the tentative parcel map upon approval by the Advisory agency. 9. All identified geologic hazards within the vesting tentative tract- map boundaries which cannot be eliminated as approved by the City Engineer shall be indicated on the final map as 'Restricted Use Area" subject to geologic hazard. The applicant shall dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the erection of buildings or other structures within such restricted use areas shown on the final map. 10. Easements for disposal of drainage water onto or over adjacent parcels shall be delineated and shown on the final map, as approved by the City Engineer, 12 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-45 11. Prior to any work performed in the street right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department in addition to any other permits required. 12. Applicant shall label and delineate on the final map any private drives orfire lanes to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 13. Easements, satisfactory to the City Engineer and the utility companies, for public utility and public services purposes shall be offered and shown on the final map for dedication to the City. 14. After the final map records, applicant shall submitto the Public Works/Engineering Department, at no cost to the City, a full size reproducible copy of the recorded map. Final approval of the public improvements shall not be given until the copy of the recorded map is received by the Public Works/Engineering Department. 15. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall provide to the City as built mylars, stamped by appropriate individuals certifying the plan for all improvements at no cost to the City. 16. Applicant shall contribute funds to a separate engineering trust deposit against which charges can be made by the City or its representatives for services rendered. Charges shall be on an hourly basis and shall include any City administrative costs. 17. Applicant shall provide digitized information in a format defined by the City for all related plans, at no cost to the City. 18. All activities/improvements proposed for this TTM No. 64881 shall be wholly contained within the boundaries of the map. Should any off-site activities/improvements be required, approval shall be obtained from the affected property owner and the City as required by the City Engineer. B. GRADING 1. No grading or any staging or construction shall be performed prior to final map approval by the City Council and map recordation. All pertinent improvement plans shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval bythe City Council. 2. Retaining wall location shall be shown on the grading plan and submitted with a soils report to the Public Works/Engineering Department for review and approval concurrently with the grading plan check. 3. Exterior grading and construction activities and the transportation of equipment and materials and operation of heavy grading equipment shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Dust 13 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-45 generated by grading and construction activities shall be reduced by watering the soil prior to and during the activities and in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 402 and Rule 403. Reclaimed water shall be utilized whenever possible. Additionally, all construction equipment shall be properly muffled to reduce noise levels. 4. All equipment staging areas shall be located on the project site. Staging area, including material stockpile and equipment storage area, shall be enclosed within a six foot -high chain link fence. All access points in the defense shall be locked whenever the construction site is not supervised. 5. Precise grading plans for each lot shall be submitted to the Community Development Department/Planning Division for approval prior to issuance of building permits. (This may be on an incremental or composite basis). 6. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, City Grading Ordinance, Hillside Management Ordinance and acceptable grading practices. 7. The maximum grade of driveways serving building pad areas shall be 15 percent. In hillside areas driveway grades exceeding 10 percent shall have parking landings with a minimum 16 feet deep and shall not exceed five (5) percent grade or as required by the City Engineer. Driveways with a slope of 15 percent shall incorporate grooves for traction into the construction as required by the City Engineer. 8. At the time of submittal of the 40 -scale grading plan for plan check, a detailed soils and geology report shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. Said report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and/or geologist licensed by the State of California. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the report shall address, but not be limited to the following: a. Stability analyses of daylight shear keys with a 1:1 projection from daylight to slide plane; a projection plane shall have a safety factor of 1.5. b. All soils and geotechnical constraints (i.e., landslides, shear key locations, etc.,) shall be delineated in detail with respect to proposed building envelopes. Restricted use areas and structural setbacks shall be considered and delineated prior to recordation of the final map. C. Soil remediation measures shall be designed for a "worst case" geologic interpretation subject to verification in the field during grading. d. The extent of any remedial grading into natural areas shall be clearly defined on the grading plans. e. Areas of potential for debris flow shall be defined and proper remedial measures implemented as approved by the City Engineer. f. Gross stability of all fill slopes shall be analyzed as part of geotechnical report, including remedial fill that replaces natural slope. 14 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-45 Stability of all proposed slopes shall be confirmed by analysis as approved by the City Engineer. All geologic data including landslides and exploratory excavations must be shown on a consolidated geotechnical map using the 40 -scale final grading plan as a base. All geotechnical and soils related findings and recommendations shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading permits and recordation of the final map. Prior to issuance of grading permits, storm drain improvement plans shall be approved by the City Engineer and Los Angeles County Public Works Department and surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all drainage facilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 10. Final grading plans shall be designed in compliance with the recommendations of the final detailed soils and engineering geology reports. All remedial earthwork specified in the final report shall be incorporated into the grading plans. Final grading plans shall be signed and stamped by a California registered Civil Engineer, registered Geotechnical Engineer and registered Engineering Geologist and approved by the City Engineer. 11. A Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP) conforming to City Ordinance is required to be incorporated into the grading plan and approved by the City Engineer. The applicant shall incorporate Structural or Treatment Control Best Management Practices for storm water runoff into the grading plans for construction and post -construction activities respectively. 12. An erosion control plan shall be approved by the City Engineer. Erosion control plans shall be made in accordance to the City's NPDES requirements. 13. Submit a stockpile plan showing the proposed location for stockpile for grading export materials, and the route of transport. 14. Prepare a horizontal control plan and submit concurrently with the grading plan for review and approval. 15. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, a pre -construction meeting must be held at the project site with the grading contractor, applicant, and city grading inspector at least 48 hours prior to commencing grading operations. 16. Rough Grade certifications by project soils engineer shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits forthe foundations of structures. Retaining wall permit may be issued without a rough grade certificate. 17. Final Grade certifications by project soils engineer and civil engineers shall be submitted to the Public Works/Engineering Department prior to the issuance of any project final inspections/certificate of occupancy. 15 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-45 C. DRAINAGE 1. All terrace drains and drainage channels shall be constructed in muted earth tones so as not to impart adverse visual impacts. Terrace drains shall follow landform slope configuration and shall not be placed in an exposed positions. All down drains shall be hidden in swales diagonally or curvilinear across a slope face. 2. All drainage improvements necessary for dewatering and protecting the subdivided properties shall be installed prior to issuance of building permits, for construction upon any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, orwithin a parcel relative to which a building permit is requested. 3. All identified flood hazard locations within the tentative map boundaries which cannot be eliminated as approved by the City Engineer shall be shown on the final map and delineated as "Flood Hazard Area." 4. Storm drainage facilities shall be constructed within the street right-of-way or in easements satisfactory to the City Engineer and the Los Angeles County Flood Control Districts. All storm drain facilities plans shall be plan checked by the City and County of Los Angeles and all fees required shall be paid by the applicant. 5. A final drainage study and final drainage/storm drain plan in a 24" x 36" sheet format shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer and Los Angeles Public Works Department prior to grading permit. All drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with County of Los Angeles Standards. Private (and future) easements for storm drain purposes shall be offered and shown on the final map for dedication to the City. 6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a complete hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Los Angeles Public Works Department. 7. A comprehensive maintenance plan/program shall be submitted concurrently with the storm drain plans to the Public Works/Engineering Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. D. STREET IMPROVEMENT 1. The applicant shall replace and record any centerline ties and monuments that are removed as part of this construction with the Los Angeles County Public Works Survey Division. 2. Prior to the issuance of any City permits, the applicant shall provide written permission to the satisfaction of the City from any property owners which will be affected by offsite grading. 16 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-45 3. Prior to building occupancy, applicant shall construct base and pavement for all streets in accordance with soils report prepared by a California registered soils engineer and approved by the City Engineer or as otherwise directed by the City Engineer. I�lj�l�i�l�y 1. Easements, satisfactory to the City Engineer and the utility companies, for public utility and public services purposes shall be offered and shown on the detailed site plan for dedication to the City. 2. Prior to final map approval, a water system with appurtenant facilities to serve all lots/parcels in the land division designed to the Walnut Valley Water District (WVWD) specifications shall be provided and approved by the City Engineer. The system shall include fire hydrants of the type and location as determined by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The water mains shall be sized to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, WVWD and Fire Department. 3. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall construct or enter into an improvement agreement with the City guaranteeing construction of the necessary improvements to the existing water system according to Walnut Valley Water District (WVWD) specifications to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows as may be required by the City Engineer, WVWD and Fire Department. 4. Prior to final map approval or issuance of building permit whichever comes first, written certification that all utility services and any other service related to the site shall be available to serve the proposed project and shall be submitted to the City. Such letters shall be issued by the district, utility and cable television company, if applicable, within ninety (90) days prior issuance of grading permits. 5. Prior to recordation of final map, applicant shall provide separate underground utility services to each parcel per Section 21.30 of Title 21 of the City Code, including water, gas, electric power, telephone and cable TV, in accordance with the respective utility company standards. Easements required by the utility companies shall be approved by the City Engineer. 6. Applicant shall relocate and underground any existing on-site utilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the respective utility owner. 7. Underground utilities shall not be constructed within the drip line of any mature tree except as approved by a registered arborist. F. SEWERS 1. Prior to final map approval, applicant shall submit a sanitary sewer area study to the City and County Engineer to verify that capacity is available in the sewerage system to be used as the outfall for the sewers In this land division. If the system 17 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-45 is found to be of insufficient capacity, the problem shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. 2. Each dwelling unit shall be served by a separate sewer lateral which shall not cross any other lot lines. The sanitary sewer system serving the tract shall be connected to the City or District sewer system. Said system shall be of the size, grade and depth approved by the City Engineer, County Sanitation District and Los Angeles County Public Works and surety shall be provided and an agreement executed prior to approval of the final map. 3. Applicant shall obtain connection permit(s) from the City and County Sanitation District prior to issuance of building permits. The area within the tentative map boundaries shall be annexed into the County Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District and appropriate easements for all sewer main and trunk lines shall be shown on the final map and offered for dedication on the final map. 4. Applicant, at applicant's sole cost and expense, shall construct the sewer system in accordance with the City, Los Angeles County Public Works Division and County Sanitation District Standards prior to occupancy. . APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 839-7020, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Plans shall conform to State and Local Building Code (i.e., 2001 California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and the 2001 National Electrical Code) requirements and all otherapplicable construction codes, ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of plan check submittal. 2. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been met. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 3. The minimum design load forwind in this area is 80 M.P.H. exposures "C" and the site is within seismic zone four (4). The applicant shall submit drawings and calculations prepared by a California State licensed Architect/Engineer with wet stamp and signature. 4. This project shall comply with the energy conservation requirements of the State of California Energy Commission. Kitchen and bathroom lights shall be fluorescent. 5. Submit Public Works/Engineering Department approved grading plans showing clearly all finish elevations, drainage, and retaining walls locations. 6. Number of plumbing fixtures shall be in compliance with CBC Appendix 29. 7. All balconies shall be designed for 6011b. live load. 8. Guardrails shall be designed for 20 load applied laterally at the top of the rail. 18 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-45 9. Submit grading plans showing clearly all finish elevations, drainage, and retaining wall locations. No building permits shall be issued prior to submitting a pad certification. 10. All retaining walls shall be submitted to the Building & Safety and Public Work Departments for review and approval. 11. Check drainage patterns with Engineering Department. Surface water shall drain away from building at a 2% minimum slope. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE PREVENTION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Emergency access shall be provided, maintaining free and clear, a minimum 28 foot at all times during construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire Department that temporary water supply for fire protection is available pending completion of the required fire protection system. 3. Prior to recordation, the final map shall comply with all Fire Department requirements. 102111112 19 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-45 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2007-46 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2007-03 AND APPROVAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-10 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2006-11 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 64881, A NINE UNIT DETACHED RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 23671 GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA (APN NO. 82814-028-030) A. RECITALS The property owner/applicant, Joe Kwok, GSDB Investment Group, LLC, has filed an application for Planned Development Overlay District Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-10 and Development Review No. 2006-11 for Tentative Tract Map No. 64881 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Planned Development Overlay Conditional Use Permit and Development Review shall be referred to as the "Application." 2. Public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 210 property owners of record within a 500 -toot radius of the project site. A notice display board was posted at the site, and a copy of the legal notice was posted at the City's designated community posting sites. Notification of the public hearing for this projectwas provided in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Vallev Daily Bulletin newspapers. 3. On September 11, 2007, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. 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. 2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the project identified above in this Resolution required a Negative Declaration (ND). ND No. 2007-03 has been prepared according to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder. The 20 day public review period for the ND began August 16, 2007, and ended September 4, 2007. Furthermore, the Planning Commission has reviewed the ND and related documents in reference to the Application. 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 setforth 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 site is an irregularly shaped lot located on the northerly side of Golden Springs Drive west of Platina Drive. It is approximately 27,003 square feet (0.62 acres) in area. The site is elevated above the surrounding properties by retaining walls and slopes. From 1966 to 1986, the project site was occupied by a service station. In 1986, the site building was remodeled into a mini-martwith drive-thru known as Diamond Jim's Dairy. (b) The project site has a General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential (RH) Maximum 20 DU/AC which authorizes a maximum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. (c) The project site is within the Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) zone. However, Zone Change No. 2006-01 within Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-44 recommends that the City Council approve the zone change from C-1 to High Density Residential -Planned Development (RH-PD) for General Plan compliance. (d) Generally the following zones and uses surround the project site: Site General Plan Zone Uses Project High Density Residential - Neighborhood Commercial Site Maximum 20 Dwelling Unit Commercial (C-1) Per Acre (RH) North & RH C-1 and R-1-8,000 Residential & West Condoms South Low Density Residential R-3-8,000 Church Maximum 3 Dwelling Units Per acre (RL) (e) The Application request includes the following: (1) Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 to address impacts that the proposed project may have on the environment; 2 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-46 (2) Zone Change application to change the project site's zoning from C-1 to RH-PD -20 Dwelling Units/Per Acre for General Plan compliance; (3) Subdivision application to create a tract map for condominium purposes; (4) Conditional Use Permit application to establish a Planned Development Overlay District (PD) to modify setbacks and wall heights that are appropriate forthe property characteristics and the type of development proposed for the site; and (5) Development Review application to demolish the existing mini - mart with drive-thru and to review the project's overall design and site plan configuration and its effect on surrounding properties. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Development Overlay District In accordance to Municipal Code Section 22.22.150, pertaining to required findings for a Conditional Use Permit for Planned Development Overlay District, the Planning Commission finds as follows: (o) Zone Change 2006-01 will change the existing zoning from C-1 to High Density Residential (RH) which is consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the project site. However, the Planned Development Overlay is needed because units 7 through 9 will not maintain the required 20 foot front setback. Unit 7 will maintain a varying front setback of 20 to 17.5 feet. Units 8 and 9 will maintain a setback of 17.5 feet. Because of the irregular shape of the site, the angle of the rear property line and the requirement to maintain a minimum 26 foot wide drive isle for backing out of the garages, and to have an end product that marketable in terms of livable square footage, a consistent 20 foot front setback can not be maintained. Considering the about of patio and planting areas in the front yards and common area between units 7 and 8, staff believes that the front setbacks provided for these units is appropriate for this project. For approximately 10 lineal feet a retaining wall with an exposed height of nine feet is proposed at the west property line. Anotherwall in the same area which encloses the side yard for unit one is proposed at the same height. These walls are needed because of the grade difference between the neighboring property and the project site. Almost all of the exposed height of the walls will be viewed from inside the project site. The applicant believes that the exposed height of the walls could be reduced to eight feet. Because of the grade differences and the lineal feet of the walls is minimal and the walls will be viewed from inside the project site, staff believes that the height of the walls is appropriate for this project. Since the rear of each condominium unit faces the center of the 3 Planning Commission Resolutlon No, 2007-46 project site and drive isle that is 26 to 30 ft. wide, there is no rear yard. However, considering that 24 percent of the project site is landscaped which exceeds the minimum 15 percent requirement and the garages are not part of the streetscape, staff believes that the placement of the units is appropriate. Additionally, the purpose of setbacks is to provide light and separation between structures. The drive isle provides this. (p) The proposed map is a non -gated subdivision for a nine unit detached condominium development with private entry and drive isle. The allowed density for the High Density Residential General Plan designation and zoning district is 20 units per acre. The project is 27,003 square feet (0.62 acres) could be developed with a maximum density of 12 units. In order to meet the City's development standards and provide the appropriate access and drive isles, landscaping, and condominium units that are marketable in size, the project is proposed at nine units which is 25 percent below the General Plan and zoning allowed density. Furthermore, the proposed land use represents an extension of the existing development pattern in the project area which is condominiums and single-family residential. As a result, TTM 64881 is consistent with the General Plan including its design and improvements. (q) As discussed in Finding (g), Q), (1) and (o) above, the design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. (r) The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed including access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and the absence of physical constraints as described in Findings (g), (j), (1) and (o) above. (s) The ND reviewed issues related to public interest, health, safety and improvement related to this project. It was found that the project will not have a significant effect on these issues. In some instances mitigation measures are incorporated into the project to ensure that the project's effect on these issues will be "less than significant". Therefore, granting the Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located. (t) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project required a Negative Declaration (ND). ND No. 2007-03 has been prepared according to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder. 4 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-46 5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-10 Planned Development Overlay and Development Review No. 2006-11 for TTM No. 64881 subject to the following conditions and Standard Conditions attached and referenced herein: a. GENERAL 1. This approval shall be null and void and of no effect unless the Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 is adopted and TTM No. 64881, Zone Change No. 2006-01, Planned Development Overlay Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-10 and Development Review No. 2006-11 are approved. This approval is valid for three years. Two extensions of time, one year each, may be approved pursuant to Development Code Section 22.66. b. SITE DEVELOPMENT 1. Approximately ten lineal feet of a retaining wall located at the west property line and a wall in the same area which encloses the side yard for unit one is shall not exceed an exposed height of eight feet. 2. Exterior or perimeter walls shall be constructed from split face block with a decorative cap. Interior walls may be stucco in a color to match and/or complement the condominium units. Sample of said construction materials and colors shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to plan check submittal. 3. Uses permitted in the RH zoning district as listed in the Development Code shall be the only uses allowed in the RH- PD zoning designation for the project site. 4. Prior to final map, the applicant shall provide a final landscape and irrigation plan listing all plant species, size quantity and location for Planning Division review and approval. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to final inspection or Certificate of Occupancy 5. Prior to plan check submittal, the applicant shall submit an exterior lighting plan and photometric study for Planning Division review and approval. All lighting shall be designed to confine direct rays to the subject property. Spillage beyond the property lines shall not be permitted. Lighting shall be on a time -clock or photo -sensor system. 5 Planning Commission Resolu Aon No. 2007-46 d. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION Prior to final map approval, applicant shall submit to the Building and Safety Division the design of all retaining walls for review and approval concurrently with the grading plan check. e. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE PREVENTION 1. Access shall comply with Section 902 of the Fire Code, which requires all weather access. All weather access my require paving. 2. Fire Department access shall be extended to within 150 feet distance of any exterior portion of all structures. 3. Where driveways extend further than 300 feet and are of single access design, turnarounds suitable for fire protection equipment use shall be provided and shown on the final map. Turnarounds shall be designed, constructed and maintained to insure their integrity for Fire Department use. Where topography dictates, turnarounds shall be provided for driveways that extend over150 feet in length. 4. Private driveways shall be indicated on the final map as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" with the widths clearly depicted and shall be maintained in accordance with the Fire Code. 5. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction to all required fire hydrants. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. 6. Applicant shall provide Fire Department or City approved street signs and building access numbers prior to occupancy. 7. Applicant shall provide water mains, fire hydrants and fire flows as required by the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, for all land shown on map which shall be recorded. 8. Fire hydrant shall conform to the following requirements: (a) Install one fire hydrant; (b) Measure 6" x 4° x 2'/z" brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA standards C503 or approved equal; 6 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-46 (c) On site hydrants shall be installed a minimum of 25 feet from a structure or protected by two hour fire wall. 9. The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this location shall be 1500 gallons per minute at 20 psi for duration of two hours, over and above maximum daily domestic demand. Two hydrant flowing simultaneously, may be used to achieve the required fire flow 10. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted or bonded for prior to final map approval. 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: Mr. Joe Kwok, GSDB Investment Group, LLC, 625 Fair Oak Avenue, #115, South Pasadena, CA 91030 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2007, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. BY: 9—� " Ll—a�= Steve Nelson, Chairman I, Nancy Fong, 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 11 th day of September 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Lee, Nolan, Wei, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None ABSTAIN: Commissioners: None ATTEST: CUP 2007-10 /Tentative Tract Map 64881 1 •' 711 3 11111� 111 111 '79 190101; 1° _ M PROJECT #: TTM No 64881 ND No. 2007-03 ZC No. 2006-01/Planned Development Overlay CUP No 2007-11 and DR No. 2006-11 SUBJECT: Nine unit detached residential condominium subdivision APLICANT: Joe Kwok 23671 Golden Springs Drive LOCATION: 23671 Golden Springs Drive ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION AT (909) 839-7030, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. In accordance with Government Code Section 66474.9(b) (1), the applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its officers, agents and employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding to attack, set-aside, void or annul, the approval of Tentative Tract No. 64881 brought within the time period provided by Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the city and/or its officers, agents and employees are made a party of any such action: (a) Applicant shall provide a defense to the City defendants or at the City's option reimburse the City its costs of defense, including reasonable attorneys fees, incurred in defense of such claims. (b) Applicant shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the City descendents. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any clairn, action of proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof. 8 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-46 2. Applicant shall include signed copies of Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2007-44, 2007-45, 2007-46, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 3. Revised plans (such as but not limited to site plan, elevations, landscape/irrigation plan, grading plan, etc.,) incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval prior to the plan check. 4. Notwithstanding any previous subsection of the resolution, the Department of Fish and Game requires payment of the fee pursuant to Section 711.4 of that Fish and Game Code. Said payment shall be made by the applicant to the city within five days of this approval. 5. The project site shall be maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of approval and all laws, or other applicable regulations. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and any applicable Specific Plan in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.,) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 8. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all conditions of approval shall be completed. B. FEES/DEPOSITS 1. Applicant shall pay development fees (including but not limited to Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works/Engineering Department and Mitigation Monitoring) at the established rates, prior to final map approval, issuance of building or grading permit (whichever comes first), as required by the City. School fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permit. In addition, the applicant shall pay all remaining prorated City project review and processing fees prior to the map's recordation or issuance of building permit, whichever come first. 2. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall pay a fee to the City in -lieu of dedication for parkland pursuant to Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 21.32. 9 Planning Commission Resolufion No. 2007-46 3. Prior to any public hearing or final map approval, all deposit accounts for the processing of this project shall have no deficits. 4. Notwithstanding any previous subsection of the resolution, the Department of Fish and Game required payment of the fee pursuant to Section 711.4 of that Fish and Game Code. Said payment shall be made by the applicant to the city within five days of this grant's approval. C. TIME LIMITS 1. This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant and owner of the property involved have filed within 15 days of approval of this map, at the City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department/ Planning Division an Affidavit of Acceptance stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this approval. 2. In accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66463.5, TTM No. 64881 is valid for three years. An extension of time may be requested in writing and shall only be considered if submitted to the city no less than 60 days prior to the approval's expiration date. Final map approval will not be granted unless the map is in substantial compliance with TTM No. 64881 including all conditions and the applicant has entered into a subdivision improvement agreement to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. D. SITE DEVELOPMENT 1. The project site shall be developed in substantial conformance with TTM No. 64881 except as conditions herein, and as conditioned in Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-11 and Development Review No. 2006-11 submitted to and recommended approval by the Planning Commission to the City Council collectively referenced herein as Exhibit "A" - the subdivision map and site plan, elevations, grading plan, sections, landscape/irrigation plans, and colors and materials board, Exhibit "B"- Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 dated September 11, 2007, as modified herein. 2. A Home Owner's Association (HOA) shall be formed. The HOA shall have Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) and Articles of Incorporation of the HOA are subject to the approval of Planning Division and Public Works/Engineering Department and the City Attorney. The CC&R's shall be recorded concurrently with the final map or prior to the issuance of any City permits, which ever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The HOA shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the names and addresses of the officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. 3. All ground -mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, air conditioning condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and 10 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-46 adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berms, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 4. Prior to final map approval or issuance of building permit, whichever come first, street names shall be submitted for City review and approval. Street names shall not duplicate existing streets within the City of Diamond Bar's postal service zip code areas. 5. House numbering plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. House numbering plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. 6. All lighting fixtures adjacent to interior property lines shall be approved by the Planning Division as to type, orientation and height. 7. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. E. LANDSCAPE, PRESERVED AND PROTECTED TREES 1. Prior to final map approval, a detailed landscape/irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits and recordation of the map, which ever occurs first. F. SOLID WASTE 1. The site shall be maintained in a condition, which is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement granted herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction shall be done only by the property owner, applicant or by a duly permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas within the City. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor utilized has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. 2. Mandatory solid waste disposal services shall be provided by the City franchised waste haulerto all parcels/lots or uses affected by approval of this project. 11 Planning Commission Resolutlon No. 2007-46 3. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-ups shall be for individual units with all receptacles shielded from public view. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, (909) 839-7040, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL A title report/guarantee showing all fee owners, interest holders, and nature of interest shall be submitted for final map plan check. An updated title report/guarantee and subdivision guarantee shall be submitted ten (10) business days prior to final map approval. 2. A permit from the Los Angeles County Public Works Department shall be required for work within its right-of-way or connection to its facilities. 3. Prior to final map approval, written certification that all utility services and any other service related to the site shall be available to serve the proposed project and shall be submitted to the City. Such letters shall be issued by the district, utility and cable television company, within ninety (90) days prior to final map approval. 4. Prior to final map approval, applicant shall submit to the City Engineer the detail cost estimates for bonding purposes of all public improvements. 5. Priorto final map approval, if any public or private improvements required as part of this map have not been completed by applicant and accepted by the City, applicant shall enter into a subdivision agreementwith the City and shall post the appropriate security. 6. Prior to final map approval all site grading, landscaping, irrigation, street, sewer and storm drain improvement plans shall be approved by the City Engineer, surety shall be posted, and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all public and private improvements. 7. Prior to issuance of grading permits, surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all drainage facilities necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 8. Any details or notes which may be inconsistent with requirement or ordinances, general conditions or approval, or City policies shall be specifically approved in other conditions or ordinance requirements are modified to those shown on the tentative parcel map upon approval by the Advisory agency. 9. All identified geologic hazards within the vesting tentative tract map boundaries which cannot be eliminated as approved by the City Engineer 12 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-46 shall be indicated on the final map as "Restricted Use Area" subject to geologic hazard. The applicant shall dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the erection of buildings or other structures within such restricted use areas shown on the final map. 10. Easements for disposal of drainage water onto or over adjacent parcels shall be delineated and shown on the final map, as approved by the City Engineer. 11. Prior to any work performed in the street right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department in addition to any other permits required. 12. Applicant shall label and delineate on the final map any private drives or fire lanes to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 13. Easements, satisfactory to the City Engineer and the utility companies, for public utility and public services purposes shall be offered and shown on the final map for dedication to the City. 14. After the final map records, applicant shall submit to the Public Works/Engineering Department, at no costto the City, a full size reproducible copy of the recorded map. Final approval of the public improvements shall not be given until the copy of the recorded map is received by the Public Works/Engineering Department. 15. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall provide to the City as built mylars, stamped by appropriate individuals certifying the plan for all improvements at no cost to the City. 16. Applicant shall contribute funds to a separate engineering trust deposit against which charges can be made by the City or its representatives for services rendered. Charges shall be on an hourly basis and shall include any City administrative costs. ` 17. Applicant shall provide digitized information in a format defined by the City for all related plans, at no cost to the City. 18. All activities/improvements proposed for this TTM No. 64881 shall be wholly contained within the boundaries of the map. Should any off-site activities/improvements be required, approval shall be obtained from the affected property owner and the City as required by the City Engineer. B. GRADING 1. No grading or any staging or construction shall be performed prior to final map approval by the City Council and map recordation. All pertinent improvement plans shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval by the City Council. 13 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-46 2. Retaining wall location shall be shown on the grading plan and submitted with a soils report to the Public Works/Engineering Department for review and approval concurrently with the grading plan check. 3. Exterior grading and construction activities and the transportation of equipment and materials and operation of heavy grading equipment shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Dust generated by grading and construction activities shall be reduced by watering the soil prior to and during the activities and in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 402 and Rule 403. Reclaimed water shall be utilized whenever possible. Additionally, all construction equipment shall be properly muffled to reduce noise levels. 4. All equipment staging areas shall be located on the project site. Staging area, including material stockpile and equipment storage area, shall be enclosed within a 6 foot -high chain link fence. All access points in the defense shall be locked whenever the construction site is not supervised. 5. Precise grading plans for each lot shall be submitted to the Community Development Department/Planning Division for approval priorto issuance of building permits. (This may be on an incremental or composite basis). 6. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, City Grading Ordinance, Hillside Management Ordinance and acceptable grading practices. 7. The maximum grade of driveways serving building pad areas shall be 15 percent. In hillside areas driveway grades exceeding 10 percent shall have parking landings with a minimum 16 feet deep and shall not exceed five (5) percent grade or as required by the City Engineer. Driveways with a slope of 15 percent shall incorporate grooves for traction into the construction as required by the City Engineer. 8. At the time of submittal of the 40 -scale grading plan for plan check, a detailed soils and geology report shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. Said report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and/or geologist licensed by the State of California. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the report shall address, but not be limited to the following: a. Stability analyses of daylight shear keys with a 1:1 projection from daylight to slide plane; a projection plane shall have a safety factor of 1.5. b. All soils and geotechnical constraints (i.e., landslides, shear key locations, etc.,) shall be delineated in detail with respect to proposed building envelopes. Restricted use areas and structural setbacks shall be considered and delineated prior to recordation of the final map. 14 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-46 c. Soil remediation measures shall be designed for a "worst case" geologic interpretation subject to verification in the field during grading. d. The extent of any remedial grading into natural areas shall be clearly defined on the grading plans. e. Areas of potential for debris flow shall be defined and proper remedial measures implemented as approved by the City Engineer. f. Gross stability of all fill slopes shall be analyzed as part of geotechnical report, including remedial fill that replaces natural slope. g. Stability of all proposed slopes shall be confirmed by analysis as approved by the City Engineer. h. All geologic data including landslides and exploratory excavations must be shown on a consolidated geotechnical map using the 40 - scale final grading plan as a base. i. All geotechnical and soils related findings and recommendations shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading permits and recordation of the final map. 9. Prior to issuance of grading permits, storm drain improvement plans shall be approved by the City Engineer and Los Angeles County Public Works Department and surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all drainage facilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 10. Final grading plans shall be designed in compliance with the recommendations of the final detailed soils and engineering geology reports. All remedial earthwork specified in the final report shall be incorporated into the grading plans. Final grading plans shall be signed and stamped by a California registered Civil Engineer, registered Geotechnical Engineer and registered Engineering Geologist and approved by the City Engineer. 11. A Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP) conforming to City Ordinance is required to be incorporated into the grading plan and approved by the City Engineer. The applicant shall incorporate Structural or Treatment Control Best Management Practices for storm water runoff into the grading plans for construction and post -construction activities respectively. 12. An erosion control plan shall be approved by the City Engineer. Erosion control plans shall be made in accordance to the City's NPDES requirements. 13. Submit a stockpile plan showing the proposed location for stockpile for grading export materials, and the route of transport. 15 Planning commission Resolution No. 2007-46 14. Prepare a horizontal control plan and submit concurrently with the grading plan for review and approval. 15. Priorto the issuance of Building Permits, a pre -construction meeting must be held at the project site with the grading contractor, applicant, and city grading inspector at least 48 hours prior to commencing grading operations. 16. Rough Grade certifications by project soils engineer shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits for the foundations of structures. Retaining wall permit may be issued without a rough grade certificate. 17. Final Grade certifications by project soils engineer and civil engineers shall be submitted to the Public Works/Engineering Department prior to the issuance of any project final inspections/certificate of occupancy. C. DRAINAGE 1. All terrace drains and drainage channels shall be constructed in muted earth tones so as not to impart adverse visual impacts. Terrace drains shall follow landform slope configuration and shall not be placed in an exposed positions. All down drains shall be hidden in swales diagonally or curvilinear across a slope face. 2. All drainage improvements necessary for dewatering and protecting the subdivided properties shall be installed prior to issuance of building permits, for construction upon any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or within a parcel relative to which a building permit is requested. 3. All identified flood hazard locations within the tentative map boundaries which cannot be eliminated as approved by the City Engineer shall be shown on the final map and delineated as "Flood Hazard Area." 4. Storm drainage facilities shall be constructed within the street right-of-way or in easements satisfactory to the City Engineer and the Los Angeles County Flood Control Districts. All storm drain facilities plans shall be plan checked by the City and County of Los Angeles and all fees required shall be paid by the applicant. 5. A final drainage study and final drainage/storm drain plan in a 24" x 36" sheet format shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer and Los Angeles Public Works Department prior to grading permit. All drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with County of Los Angeles Standards. Private (and future) easements for storm drain purposes shall be offered and shown on the final map for dedication to the City. 16 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-46 6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a complete hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Los Angeles Public Works Department. 7. A comprehensive maintenance plan/program shall be submitted concurrently with the storm drain plans to the Public Works/Engineering Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. D. STREET IMPROVEMENT 1. The applicant shall replace and record any centerline ties and monuments that are removed as part of this construction with the Los Angeles County Public Works Survey Division. 2. Prior to the issuance of any City permits, the applicant shall provide written permission to the satisfaction of the City from any property owners which will be affected by offsite grading. 3. Prior to building occupancy, applicant shall construct base and pavementfor all streets in accordance with soils report prepared by a California registered soils engineer and approved by the City Engineer or as otherwise directed by the City Engineer. E. UTILITIES Easements, satisfactory to the City Engineer and the utility companies, for public utility and public services purposes shall be offered and shown on the detailed site plan for dedication to the City. 2. Prior to final map approval, a water system with appurtenant facilities to serve all lots/parcels in the land division designed to the Walnut Valley Water District (WVWD) specifications shall be provided and approved by the City Engineer. The system shall include fire hydrants of the type and location as determined by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The water mains shall be sized to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, WVWD and Fire Department. 3. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall construct or enter into an improvement agreement with the City guaranteeing construction of the necessary improvements to the existing water system according to Walnut Valley Water District (WVWD) specifications to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows as may be required by the City Engineer, WVWD and Fire Department. 4. Prior to final map approval or issuance of building permit whichever comes first, written certification that all utility services and any other service related to the site shall be available to serve the proposed project and shall be 17 Planning Commission Resolufion No. 2007-46 submitted to the City. Such letters shall be issued by the district, utility and cable television company, if applicable, within ninety (90) days prior issuance of grading permits. 5. Prior to recordation of final map, applicant shall provide separate underground utility services to each parcel per Section 21.30 of Title 21 of the City Code, including water, gas, electric power, telephone and cable TV, in accordance with the respective utility company standards. Easements required by the utility companies shall be approved by the City Engineer, 6. Applicant shall relocate and underground any existing on-site utilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the respective utility owner. 7. Underground utilities shall not be constructed within the drip line of any mature tree except as approved by a registered arborist. F. SEWERS 1. Prior to final map approval, applicant shall submit a sanitary sewer area study to the City and County Engineer to verify that capacity is available in the sewerage system to be used as the outfall for the sewers in this land division. If the system is found to be of insufficient capacity, the problem shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. 2. Each dwelling unit shall be served by a separate sewer lateral which shall not cross any other lot lines. The sanitary sewer system serving the tract shall be connected to the City or District sewer system. Said system shall be of the size, grade and depth approved by the City Engineer, County Sanitation District and Los Angeles County Public Works and surety shall be provided and an agreement executed prior to approval of the final map. 3. Applicant shall obtain connection permit(s) from the City and County Sanitation District prior to issuance of building permits. The area within the tentative map boundaries shall be annexed into the County Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District and appropriate easements for all sewer main and trunk lines shall be shown on the final map and offered for dedication on the final map. 4. Applicant, at applicant's sole cost and expense, shall construct the sewer system in accordance with the City, Los Angeles County Public Works Division and County Sanitation District Standards prior to occupancy. . APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 839-7020, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Plans shall conform to State and Local Building Code (i.e., 2001 California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and the 2001 National Electrical Code) requirements and all other applicable 18 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-46 construction codes, ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of plan check submittal. 2. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been met. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 3. The minimum design load for wind in this area is 80 M.P.H. exposures "C" and the site is within seismic zone four (4). The applicant shall submit drawings and calculations prepared by a California State licensed Architect/Engineer with wet stamp and signature. 4. This project shall comply with the energy conservation requirements of the State of California Energy Commission. Kitchen and bathroom lights shall be fluorescent. 5. Submit Public Works/Engineering Department approved grading plans showing clearly all finish elevations, drainage, and retaining walls locations. 6. Number of plumbing fixtures shall be in compliance with CBC Appendix 29. 7. All balconies shall be designed for 6011h. live load. 8. Guardrails shall be designed for 20 load applied laterally at the top of the rail. 9. Submit grading plans showing clearly all finish elevations, drainage, and retaining wall locations. No building permits shall be issued prior to submitting a pad certification. 10. All retaining walls shall be submitted to the Building & Safety and Public Work Departments for review and approval. 11. Check drainage patterns with Engineering Department. Surface water shall drain away from building at a 2% minimum slope. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE PREVENTION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Emergency access shall be provided, maintaining free and clear, a minimum 28 foot at all times during construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire Department that temporary water supply for fire protection is available pending completion of the required fire protection system. 19 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-46 Prior to recordation, the final map shall comply with all Fire Department requirements. MILD 20 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-46 EXHIBIT "A" DATED SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 Tentative Tract Map No. 64881 Grading Plan Site Plan Elevations Sections Landscape, Hardscape and Irrigation Plan Colors and Materials Board EXHIBIT "B" NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.2007-03 TTM64881INine Residential Condominiums Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 ZONE CHANGE NO. 2006-01 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 64881 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-10 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2006-11 Nine Unit Residential Condominiums 23671 Golden Springs Drive DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 Prepared by.- City y. City of Diamond Bar 21825 Copley Avenue Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (909)839-7030 Contact: Ann J. Lungu Associate Planner Page i of 51 Section Executive Summary ............................. • a June 20, 2007 Q ............................................................................ 3 Section1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Purpose of Initial Study...................................................................................... 4 1.2 Summary of Findings......................................................................................... 4 1.3 Project Approval................................................................................................ 5 1.4 Organization of the Initial Study......................................................................... 5 Section 2.0 Project Location and Environmental Setting ................................................. 7 2.1 Project Location................................................................................................. 7 2.2 Environmental Setting........................................................................................ 7 2.3 Project Description............................................................................................. 7 2.4 Estimate Project Schedule............................................................................... 12 2.5 Related Projects.............................................................................................. 12 Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist Form..................................................................... 12 3.1 Aesthetics..................................................................................................15 3.2 Agricultural Resources..................................................................................... 16 3.3 Air Quality.................................................................................................. 17 3.4 Biological Resources....................................................................................... 19 3.5 Cultural Resources.......................................................................................... 20 3.6 Geology and Soils.............................................................................................21 3.7 Hazards/Hazardous Materials.......................................................................... 24 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality........................................................................... 28 3.9 Land Use and Planning................................................................................... 31 3.10 Mineral Resources........................................................................................... 33 3.11 Noise..................................................................................................33 3.12 Population and Housing................................................................................... 35 3.13 Public Services................................................................................................ 36 3.14 Recreation..................................................................................................37 3.15 Transportation and Traffic................................................................................ 38 3.16 Utilities and Service Systems........................................................................... 40 3.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance................................................................. 42 Section 4.0 Report Preparers and Contributors.............................................................. 43 Section 5.0 References.................................................................................................. 43 TTM 64881, 23671 Golden Springs Drive Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 11R.] Wigh-1101 A Ill Table Pape 2.1 Construction Emissions and SCAWMD Significance Thresholds ................................. 17 2.2 Operational Emissions and SCAWMD Significance Thresholds .................................. 18 2.3 Schools within One Mile of Project Site....................................................................... 26 3.4 Trip Generation for Existing Development................................................................... 39 3.5 Trip Generation for Proposed Project.......................................................................... 39 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Pape 2-1 Regional Location.......................................................................................................... 8 2-2 Local Vicinity.................................................................................................................. 9 2-3 Existing Land Uses...................................................................................................... 10 2-4 Proposed Project Site Plan........................................................................................... 11 Page 2 of 52 TTM 64881, 23671 Golden Springs Drive Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Diamond Bar has received and deemed complete an application from GSDE Investment Group, LLC. (property owner and applicant) for subdividing 27,003 square foot (0.62 acre) site for the purpose of constructing nine residential condominium units located on a site that was used as a drive-thru mini -mart. The property owner/applicant is requesting City approval to allow the development of this project. This project's development requires the following discretionary approvals: Zone Change No. 2006-01 to change the existing C-1 zoning to RH-PD-20 Dwelling Units/Per Acre for General Plan compliance; Vesting Tentative Map No. 64881 to subdivide 0.62 acres to construct nine residential condominium units; Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-10 to allow modifications to the required setbacks; and Development Review No. 2006-11 for architectural and site design review. An Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared by the City of Diamond Bar in compliance with Sections 15063(a) and 15070 (et seq.) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Through the Initial Study process, the City has determined that there is no substantial evidence that any aspect of the proposed project may cause a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. Page 3 of 52 TTM64881/Nine Residential Condominiums Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.) and its Guidelines (California Code of Regulations §15000 et seq.), this Initial Study (IS) has been prepared as documentation for a Negative Declaration (ND) for the proposed remodel of a convenience store and addition of a drive-thru carwash in connection with an existing Shell service station located at 206 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard. This Initial Study includes a description of the proposed project, location of the project site, evaluation of the potential environmental impacts and findings from the environmental review. Included in the project are Standard Conditions of Approval which are based on local, state, or federal regulations or laws that are frequently required independent of CEQA review yet also serve to offset or prevent certain impacts. Because Standard Conditions of Approval are incorporated either in the project's design or as part of project's implementation, they do not constitute mitigation measures as defined by CEQA. Pursuant to Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, City of Diamond Bar is the lead agency for the project. The lead agency is the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The City of Diamond Bar, as the lead agency, shall have the authority for project approval and adoption of the accompanying environmental documentation. 1.2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Based on the environmental checklist form prepared for the project and supporting environmental analysis, the proposed project would have no impact or less than significant impacts in the following environmental impact areas: O Aesthetics • Public Services • Agricultural Resources • Biological Resources • Geology/Soils • Hydrology/Water Quality • Land Use/Planning • Mineral Resources • Recreation • Utilities/Service Systems • Traffic/Transportation • Air Quality • Cultural Resources • Hazards/Hazardous Materials • Population and Housing 0 Noise According to the CEQA Guidelines, it is appropriate to prepare a Negative Declaration for the proposed project because the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Page 4 of 45 The Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration have been submitted to potentially affected agencies. There will be a 20 -day public review period for the Initial Study/Negative Declaration, in accordance with Section 15073 of the CEQA Guidelines. Notices of Availability and Intent to Adopt the Initial Study/Negative Declaration have been posted on the project site and at the Los Angeles County Clerk's Office. The Initial Study/Negative Declaration and associated technical reports are available for review at the Community Development Department/Planning Division, Diamond Bar City Hall. In reviewing the Initial Study/Negative Declaration, the reviewer should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the potential impacts on the environment and ways in which the potentially significant effects of the project are avoided or mitigated through components of the project. Comments on the analysis contained herein may be sent to: Ann J. Lungu Associate Planner City of Diamond Bar 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Following receipt of and evaluation of comments from agencies, organizations, and/or individuals, the City will determine whether any substantial new environmental issues have been raised. If not, or if the new issues do not provide substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the project and environmental documentation will be presented to the Planning Commission for action September 11, 2007. 1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY The Initial Study is organized into the following sections: Section 1 — Introduction. This section provides an introduction to the Initial Study/Negative Declaration process and a brief overview of the results of the Initial Study analysis. Section 2 — Project Location and Environmental Setting. This section provides a detailed description of the proposed project's physical and operational characteristics, the project location, the project objectives, and describes the existing environmental setting of the project area. Section 3 — Environmental Checklist Form. The completed CEQA checklist form gives an overview of the potential impacts that may or may not result from project implementation. The environmental checklist form also includes "mandatory findings of significance" required by CEQA. This section also contains the analysis of environmental impacts identified in the environmental checklist and identifies mitigation measures that have been recommended to eliminate potential significant effects or reduce them to a level that is considered 5 less than significant. For this project there are not mitigation measures only the standard conditions of approval Section 4 — Report Preparers and Contributors. This section lists those individuals responsible for preparing and contributing to the Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration. Section 5 — References. This section lists those references used in preparation of the Initial Study. Page 6 of 51 f� ��d�llLX�a I reTSTIVA d EelLl The proposed project is located at 23671 Golden Springs Drive. The site is on the north side of Golden Springs Drive between Torito Lane and Platina Drive. Local access is primarily from Diamond Bar Boulevard. (Figure 2-1 Regional and Figure 2-2 Local ). 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is zoned C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and the General Plan land use designation is High Density Residential -Maximum 20 Dwelling Units Per Acre (RH- 20 du/acre). It was developed with a service station in 1966 and converted to a mini - mart selling mainly dairy products in 1976 under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County. The project site's topography is relatively flat. The only vegetation on the site is Eucalyptus Silver Dollar trees located adjacent to the rear property line. There are no native habitat or wildlife populations on the project site. Access to the project site is from Golden Springs Drive. The project site is surrounded by development, both residential and commercial. 2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project involves demolishing the mini -mart structure and parking lot area and removing five of the twelve Eucalyptus Silver Dollar trees. It also involves the construction of a nine -unit, detached, residential condominium project with an access driveway at Golden Springs Drive, internal drive isles, guest parking, pedestrian walk- ways and landscaping and irrigation. The condominiums are split level with two or three bedrooms two car garages, and patio area for each unit. The unit sizes range from 1,649 to 1,904 square feet. Regional Location Page 8 of 51 o Page 9 of 51 Page 10 of 51 FIGURE 2-4 Page 11 of 51 - qil gal L •tMm- 10 J[ MW a iris was IN j • IV Page 11 of 51 In accordance with Title 22 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code, the project requires the following applications and approval of said applications • Zone Change No. 2006-01 to change the existing C-1 zoning to RH-PD-20 Dwelling Units/Per Acre for General Plan compliance; • Vesting Tentative Map No. 64881 to subdivide 0.62 acres to construct nine residential condominium units; • Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-10 to allow modifications to the required setbacks; and Development Review No. 2006-11 for architectural and site design review. 2.4 ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE The proposed project would be developed in one phase. The construction activities will take approximately twelve month. It is estimated that construction will begin after final map approval, approximately in 2008. 2.5 RELATED PROJECTS In the vicinity of the project site, there are no other proposed residential projects. There are two remodels of a service station about one-half mile northwest of the project site. These projects will begin construction in the near future. According to the City of Diamond Bar's Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) report guidelines, a residential project of less than 20 dwelling units or generates less than 200 daily trip ends are exempt from preparing a TIA report. The proposed nine -unit residential condominium project fits this criterion. As a result, a TIA report is not required. However, the applicant at the City's request did prepare a TIA report to analyze daily trip ends, access to the site, on-site circulation and parking. SECTION 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM This section includes the completed environmental checklist form. The checklist form is used to assist in evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The checklist form identifies whether the project is expected to have potential significant impacts. Substantiation and clarification for each checklist response is provided below each environmental topic. 1. Project title: 2. Lead agency name and address: Nine -Unit Residential Condominium Project City of Diamond Bar 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 3. Contact person and phone number: Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner (909)839-7032 Page 12 of 51 4. Project Location: 5. Property Owner/Applicant: 6. General Plan designation 7. Zoning: 8. Description of Project: 23671 Golden Springs Drive. GSDB Investment Group, LLC Mr. Joe Kwok. 625 Fair Oaks Avenue, #115 South Pasadena, CA 91030 High Density Residential -Maximum 20 Units/ Acre (RH) Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) The proposed project involves subdividing 0.62 area for the purpose of constructing a nine -unit, detached, residential condominium project with an access driveway at Golden Springs Drive, internal drive isles, guest parking, pedestrian walk -ways and landscaping and irrigation. The condominiums are split level with two or three bedrooms and two car garages, guest parking and patio area for each unit. The unit sizes range from 1,649 to 1,904 square feet. According to the project application, the architectural style is California Mediterranean. The project also involves 3,150 cubic yards of cut and 327 cubic yards of fill for a total of 3,477 cubic yards of earthwork to prepare the site. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: The project site is surrounded by development. The following are specific land uses that surround the project site: to the north and west is a residential condominium development, to the south and across the street is a church; and to the east is a single-family residential development. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: • Permits required from Los Angeles County Fire Department ® South Coast Air Quality Management District clearance for asbestos. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: ❑ Aesthetic/Visual ❑ Biological Resources ® Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities/Service Systems Page 13 of 51 ❑ Agricultural Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ® HydrologyM/ater Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance r- • On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED 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 "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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. 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, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Printed name Page 14 of 51 July 20, 2007 Age y Representative Date City of Diamond Bar Agency TTM64881/Nine Residential Condominiums Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 11 1., = 11 Less Than 3.1 AESTHETICS Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Would the oroiect a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic ❑ ❑ Q121 buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or El El Q ID quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the ❑ ❑ ❑ area? 3.1.1 AESTHETICS ANALYSIS a) No Impact. The proposed project involves the demolition of a drive-thru mini - mart built in 1966. The project site is surrounded by residential development. The project site is located in a developed urban area; and there are no scenic vistas in or adjacent to the project site. b) No Impact. The project site is used as a drive-thru mini -mart. It is surrounded by residential development adjacent to the project site and commercial development adjacent to the residential. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially damage any scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. c) No impact. The proposed project would result in a substantial improvement. Currently, the project site is developed with a structure built in 1966. The structure is out dated architecturally and needs repair. The project site is surrounded by residential development. As a result, the proposed project is compatible with surrounding uses. The California Mediterranean architectural style and new construction is consistent with the quality standards of Diamond Bar. Furthermore, the proposed landscaping and hardscape is an improvement to the site which is almost all asphalt. Additionally, the mini -mart commercial use is considered legal nonconforming and not consistent with the City's General Plan or Development Code. The proposed project is in compliance with the General Plan and Development Code. With approval of the proposed zone change from C-1 to RH-PD, the project will be consistent with the development standards of the RH zoning district. d) No Impact. Since, the project site is a commercial development, the light source exist. The light source from the proposed project will be compatible with the existing residential uses that surround the project site. Additionally, the City's Development Code requires that all lighting be shielded and confined within the boundaries of a property. This standard applies to the proposed project. Page 15 of 51 TTM64881/Nine Residential Condominiums Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 3.1.2 Cumulative Impacts The proposed project is a visual and aesthetic improvement to the site and is compatible with surrounding residential uses. All construction -related visual impacts would be temporary. As a result, there would be no cumulative aesthetic impacts. 3.1.3 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL o Outdoor lighting shall comply with Development Code Section 22.16.Exterior Lighting. Less Than 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland ❑ ❑ ❑ Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a El El ElWilliamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 3.2.1 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS a) No Impact. There are no agricultural activities on or near the proposed project site. The subject site is in an urban area. Land uses in the area are residential and commercial. The proposed project does not convert land designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, according to 1997 Natural Resource Conservation Service mapping, to non- agricultural uses. b) No Impact. The project site is currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) and does not conflict with agricultural zoning. The proposed zoning RH-PD (High Density Residential -Planned Development) does not conflict with agricultural zoning. The project site is not covered by the Williamson Act contract. c) No Impact. The proposed project is in a highly urbanized area and therefore would not impact any agricultural land or farmland. 3.2.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The project would not directly or cumulatively impact agricultural resources. 3.2.3 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL None. Page 16 of 51 TTM64881/Nine Residential Condominiums Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 Less Than 3.3 AIR QUALITY Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Would the oroiect a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable El E] Elair quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality ❑ ❑ ❑ violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any Pollutant Carbon Volatile criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non - Particulate Monoxide attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient ❑ ❑ ❑ lZ air quality standard (including releasing emissions which Compounds (NOx) Sulfur (SOX) (PM10) exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (VOC) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant El El Elconcentrations? 0.01 0.00 0.00 emissions e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial 1:1 El 11number 123 of people? 100 150 150 thresholds for construction 3.3.1 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS. a) No Impact. The proposed project does not involve long-term changes to land use or other growth -inducing actions that could impact compliance with or implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan. b) Less than Significant Impact. Construction activities related to the proposed project would not impact air quality. Maximum construction emissions and the South Coast Air Quality Management District's thresholds for significance for daily emission of pollutants are presented in Table 3.1 below. As shown, the thresholds for maximum daily construction emissions for pollutants are not exceeded and no mitigation is required. TABLE 3.1 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS AND SCAQMD SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS (POUNDSIDAY) Page 17 of 51 Pollutant Carbon Volatile Oxides of Particulate Monoxide Organic Nitrogen Oxides of Matter (CO) Compounds (NOx) Sulfur (SOX) (PM10) (VOC) Maximum daily construction 0.19 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 emissions SCAQMD significance 550 75 100 150 150 thresholds for construction Significant? No No No No No Source: Sample Operational Scenarios for Projects Less Than Five Acres in Size, SCAQMD, Feb. 2005. Page 17 of 51 TTM64881/Nine Residential Condominiums Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 After the completion of the construction activities, it is not anticipated that there will be an increase in emissions from operational activities of a nine -unit residential condominium development. The proposed project's traffic analysis discussion (3.15) shows no increase in motor vehicle traffic. Therefore, impacts from operational activities would be less than significant, as shown in Table 3.2 below. The emissions estimates were calculated with the California Air Resources Board's URBEMIS 2002 model and the project design specifications. As shown, the thresholds for maximum operational daily emissions for pollutants are not exceeded and no mitigation is required. TABLE 3.2 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS AND SCAQMD SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS ON A ONE -ACRE OR LESS SITE (Pounds/day) c) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in (b) above, the pollutant load generated by the construction and operation of the proposed project is well below the threshold for significance for all pollutants. Therefore, neither the construction nor the operation of the proposed project would result in cumulatively considerable net increases of criteria pollutants. d) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. Although fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would be well below SCAQMD emission thresholds, compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403, which would reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, would protect nearby sensitive uses such as Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church School and Lorbeer Middle School from exposure to fine particulates. Rule 403 requirements include the following measures: demolition debris will be watered as frequently as necessary to prevent fugitive dust, all stockpiles will be covered with tarps, and all truckloads of soil and debris will be securely covered with tarps before traveling on streets and highways. e) Less than Significant Impact. Odors may result during construction from diesel particulate emissions from some construction equipment and trucks. However, these odors would be short-term (only during construction activities) and would only be generated during the daytime and weekday hours of operation. The long- term operation of the project would not generate objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Page 18 of 51 Pollutant Carbon Volatile Oxides of Particulate Monoxide Organic Nitrogen Ntrog(NOx Oxides of Matter (CO) Compounds Sulfur (SOx) (PMto) (VOC) Total Project Emissions 9.20 1.42 1.10 0.01 0.81 SCAQMD significance thresholds for operation 550 55 55 150 150 Significant? No No No No No Source: Sample Operational Scenarios for Projects Less Than Five Acres in Size, SCAQMD, Feb. 2005. c) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in (b) above, the pollutant load generated by the construction and operation of the proposed project is well below the threshold for significance for all pollutants. Therefore, neither the construction nor the operation of the proposed project would result in cumulatively considerable net increases of criteria pollutants. d) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. Although fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would be well below SCAQMD emission thresholds, compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403, which would reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, would protect nearby sensitive uses such as Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church School and Lorbeer Middle School from exposure to fine particulates. Rule 403 requirements include the following measures: demolition debris will be watered as frequently as necessary to prevent fugitive dust, all stockpiles will be covered with tarps, and all truckloads of soil and debris will be securely covered with tarps before traveling on streets and highways. e) Less than Significant Impact. Odors may result during construction from diesel particulate emissions from some construction equipment and trucks. However, these odors would be short-term (only during construction activities) and would only be generated during the daytime and weekday hours of operation. The long- term operation of the project would not generate objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Page 18 of 51 1TM64881/Nine Residential Condominiums Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 The project would not directly or cumulatively impact air quality. 3.3.2 Standard Conditions of Approval • Project shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 during the demolition of the existing mini -mart and construction of the proposed project in order to ensure compliance with AQMD thresholds related PM10 and PM2.5 emissions: • Before issuance of a building permit for the project, a permit from the SCAQMD, per Rules 201 and 203 shall be obtained. 3.4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS a) No Impact. The proposed project site is in an urbanized area and developed with a mini -mart with drive-thru. It is directly surrounded by residential development and commercial development adjacent to the existing residential Page 19 Less Than 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in El El Ellocal or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California ❑ ❑ ❑ Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, ❑ ❑ ❑ coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife ❑ ❑ ❑ corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy ❑ ❑ ❑ �. or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation El El ElPlan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation Ian? 3.4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS a) No Impact. The proposed project site is in an urbanized area and developed with a mini -mart with drive-thru. It is directly surrounded by residential development and commercial development adjacent to the existing residential Page 19 TTM64881/Nine Residential Condominiums Neaative Declaration No. 2007-03 development. Therefore, would be no impacts either directly or through habitat modification on any candidate, sensitive or special status species identified by the local, regional, state, orfederal government. b) No Impact. No riparian or other special status natural communities occur within or adjacent to the proposed project boundaries. c) No Impact. The project site does not contain wetlands. d) No Impact. The project site is located within a fully urbanized area approximately half -mile from a major freeway and does not serve as a migratory corridor for wildlife. e) No Impact. Tree preservation and protection are regulated by the City of Diamond Bar Municipal Code, Chapter 22.38. Under this ordinance, damage to protected trees such a native oak, walnut, sycamore and willow trees is prohibited. There are no protected trees on the site. t) No Impact. The project site does not fall within the boundaries of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. 3.4.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The proposed project would not result in cumulative impacts to biological resources. The project would be constructed on a site that is commercially developed site with no sensitive biological resources. 3.4.3 Standard Conditions of Approval None. 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the proiect a) Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impa a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance El El 1771 of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance El El El E of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological El El El N resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human resources, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Page 20 of 51 TTM64881/Nine Residential Condominiums Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 a) No Impact. The project site is developed with an existing commercial structure use as a mini -mart with a drive-thru in an urbanized area. In addition, the existing development does not display an exceptional architecture style and the site does not have any known cultural significance to the larger community. Therefore, no impact would occur. b) No Impact. The proposed project is located in an urbanized area and developed with an existing commercial structure uses as a mini -mart with a drive thru. The proposed project involves minimal grading; however, since it is already a developed site, impacts to archaeological resources are unlikely. c) No Impact. The proposed project involves minimal grading; however, since it is already a developed site, impacts to paleontological resources are unlikely. d) No Impact. As previously discussed, grading activities are minimal. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not be expected to adversely affect any human resources, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. 3.5.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS As referenced above, the proposed project would not result in cumulative impacts to any historic, archeological, or paleontological resources. 3.5.3 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL None. Less Than 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Would the Droiect a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the ❑ ❑ ❑ area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ID ❑ iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ 13 El Page 21 of 51 TTM64881/Nine Residential Condominiums Neoative Declaration No. 2007-03 Less Than 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Potentially Significant Less Than Sianificant With Sianificant No c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, E] 1:1 121 Eland potentially result in onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal El El 1:1systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 3.6.1 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ANALYSIS a) i) No Impact. According to the California Geological Survey, the City of Diamond Bar is not affected by an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (APEFZ) (CGS website, accessed August 6, 2005). No active faults are known to traverse the project site. ii) Less Than Significant Impact. The majority of the State of California, including the proposed project site, lies within Seismic Zone 4, the highest -level hazard zone designated by the current Uniform Building Code (UBC). The City of Diamond Bar Building Code incorporates UBC and the California Building Code., (CBC) for projects where each applies. Implementation of these design standards results in increased resistance to earthquakes; however, in the event of a major seismic event, no structure is completely safe from damage. Nevertheless, construction performed in accordance with the applicable standards and codes would ensure that impacts related to ground -shaking would be less than significant. iii) Less Than Significant Impact. According to the project's preliminary soils engineering investigation report, the analysis for liquefaction potential and seismically induced settlement of the on-site soils has been performed. The results indicate the on-site soils do possess an adequate safety factor against liquefaction. For seismically induced settlement, the results reveal the total settlement is approximately 0.06 inch if the ground rises up to the historically highest level of 17 feet below the surface. As a recommendation, a minimum of 0.03 inch seismically induced differential settlement shall be considered in the foundation design. iv) The proposed project area is relatively level and surrounded by previously stabilized, level terrain that already accommodates residential and commercial development. The project site is located in an area that has moderate to greater Page 22 of 51 TTM64881/Nine Residential Condominiums Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 slope stability. The preliminary soils engineering investigation report indicates that the project site is suitable for the proposed project with the recommendation in the report incorporated into the project's design and job specification Therefore, the potential for seismically -related landslides is less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The largest source of erosion, particularly in an urban environment, is uncontrolled drainage during construction. Erosion potential during construction would be managed to the maximum extent practicable with Best Management Practices (BMPs). As discussed in Section 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project is required to be covered under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction permit; therefore construction BMPs would be implemented on the project site during demolition and construction activities to minimize erosion impacts. Implementation of the construction -related BMPs would reduce potential construction -related impacts to the maximum extent feasible. The operation of the project site would not cause the loss of topsoil or erosion because the site would be landscaped and paved. Furthermore, there will be a connection of roof drainage systems to a filtering device. Then roof drain runoff is discharged to the parking lot surface where it is directed into the site grated catch basin inlets fitted with permanent BMP storm water treatment devices. c) Less Than Significant Impact. As described above, the proposed project is located on a site and area that is already developed. Soil under the project site has been analyzed in the preliminary soils engineering investigation report. The report indicates that with recommendations in the report incorporated into the project's design and job specification, the subject site is suitable for the proposed project. The potential of an on-site and off-site landslide, liquefaction, lateral spreading or collapse is not likely. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to development on an unstable soil unit. d) Less Than Significant Impact. As described above, the project site is stable. Soil under the project site was investigated and the preliminary soils engineering investigation report indicates that with the incorporation of recommendations into the project's design and job specification, the subject site is suitable for the proposed project. Therefore, potential impacts from expansive soils would be less than significant. e) No Impact. The project would be served by the public sewer system, thus there is no impact on soils inadequately capable of supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. 3.6.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACT Generally, geotechnical issues are site-specific and are usually limited to areas within the development boundaries of the project site. Any incremental contribution of the proposed project to soils and geological impacts is not considered cumulatively considerable because development of the project site would comply with the applicable requirements of the Uniform Building Code and the mitigation requirements identified Page 23 of 51 TTM64881/Nine Residential Condominiums Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 below would be implemented. These requirements would avoid any cumulative geotechnical impacts that may occur on the site. • All structures shall conform to the City of Diamond Bar's Building Code, which incorporates UBC and the California Building Code requirements. ■ Prior to the issuance of any permits for construction of the proposed project, the project applicant shall obtain coverage under the NPDES General Storm Water Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities (Water Quality Order 99-08-DWQ). The project applicant shall file a Notice of Intent, prepare a SWPPP, and submit the appropriate fees to the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality in order to obtain coverage for construction activities. Pursuant to the permit requirements, the project applicant shall minimize construction related pollutants in the site runoff through the implementation of Best Management Practices. 3.7 HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Less Than Significant Less Than With Significant No Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and El El ® El conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste El El ® 11within one -quarter -mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, ❑ ❑ ❑ 123 would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing ❑ ❑ ❑ or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency ❑ ❑ ❑ evacuation plan? Page 24 of 51 TTM64881/Nine Residential Condominiums Neoative Declaration No. 2007-03 Less Than 3.7 HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Would the project h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where El El El Z residences are intermixed with wildlands? 3.7.1 Hazards and Hazardous a) The construction of the proposed project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Demolition activities for the proposed project include the removal of the existing structure used as a mini -mart. However, demolition debris from the removal of the existing structure, which was constructed in 1966, has the potential to contain lead-based paint and/or asbestos. If these materials are present, then demolition activities on the project site would disturb these hazardous substances, and potentially detach them from the surface of the structure and expose workers and/or residents to these materials. Additionally, transporting these materials off-site to an appropriate hazardous waste handling facility could result in the dispersal of these materials. However, the risks associated with demolition activities and transport of hazardous materials is adequately addressed by existing federal and state laws. In order to minimize the potential impacts of demolition activities on the health of construction workers, the California Code of Regulations, Title 8, California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) developed safety and health management standards to minimize workplace hazards. Chapter 4 Division of Industry Standards, Subchapter 4 Construction and Safety Orders, Article 4, describes regulations relating to dust, fumes, mists, vapors, and gases. Section 1529 details the requirements for construction and demolition activities as they relate to asbestos and Section 1532.1 presents the requirements related to the handling of materials containing lead. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulates demolition and construction activities that may release asbestos into the air. Rule 1403 specifies procedures and requirements for asbestos surveying, notification, removal, handling and clean-up procedures, and storage, disposal and landfilling requirements. Compliance with these SCAQMD requirements would reduce potential exposure impacts to less than significant. The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation governs the transport of hazardous materials. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) implements the federal regulations published as the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 49, known as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. These laws regulate the handling and transport of hazardous waste materials. With the inclusion of Standard Conditions of Approval below, the potential impact associated with demolition Page 25 of 51 TTM64881/Nine Residential Condominiums Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 activities and the short-term transport of hazardous waste materials from the project site would be less than significant. Furthermore, the operational characteristics of the project site would not include activities that involve hazardous wastes or materials. Consequently, the long-term operation of the project site would not create a hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Neither demolition nor construction activities for the proposed project would create a hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The federal and state regulations discussed above and construction permits from the City would ensure that demolition activities would not expose people to hazardous substances. Operational activities for a residential condominium project are not expected to involve the use or transport of hazardous substances that are required to be in compliance with state and federal law. Therefore, there the possibility of accidentally releasing hazardous materials into the environment is less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The only hazardous emissions that would be emitted from the project site would be diesel exhaust from construction equipment and the dispensing of fuel. The dispensing of fuel is subject to all federal requirements. If asbestos or lead based paint is found in the existing structures, then the hauling of that debris could pose a hazard to nearby sensitive receptors. There are three schools located within one mile of the project site, which are summarized in Table 3.3 below. One of the schools, Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church School is located south and across the street of the project site. TABLE 2.3 SCHOOLS WITHIN ONE MILE OF PROJECT SITE However, the schools within the project vicinity would not be exposed to potentially hazardous materials because the demolition activities are short-term and must be conducted according to federal and state regulations regarding demolition activities. Compliance with applicable regulations for the hauling of hazardous waste, if required, would ensure that impacts to sensitive receptors, including neighboring single-family homes and Lorbeer Middle School, Golden Springs Elementary School and Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church School (which may Page 26 of 51 Distance from School Name Address Project Site Golden Springs Elementary 0.50 mile South and Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church 23300 Golden Springs Dr. directly across School the street from the project site- Lorbeer Middle School 501 S. Diamond Bar, Blvd. 0.78 mile Source: Map Quest 2006 However, the schools within the project vicinity would not be exposed to potentially hazardous materials because the demolition activities are short-term and must be conducted according to federal and state regulations regarding demolition activities. Compliance with applicable regulations for the hauling of hazardous waste, if required, would ensure that impacts to sensitive receptors, including neighboring single-family homes and Lorbeer Middle School, Golden Springs Elementary School and Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church School (which may Page 26 of 51 TTM64881/Nine Residential Condominiums Ne4ative Declaration No. 2007-03 be along the haul route) would ensure that potential impacts to schools would be less than significant. d) No Impact. The proposed project site is not listed as a hazardous materials site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. e) No Impact. The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan and is not in a crash hazard zone. t) No Impact. The proposed project is not located in proximity to a private airstrip. g) No Impact, The proposed project would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) No Impact. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risk involving wildland fires. The proposed project is in an urban environment and not adjacent to open space or wildland areas. 3.7.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The proposed project would not result in cumulative impacts for hazards and hazardous materials because there are no other known projects that involve demolition in the vicinity of the proposed project. 3.7.3 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL • If hazardous materials are present in construction debris, then any and all hazardous waste materials shall be transported off-site by a properly licensed hazardous waste hauler, who must be in compliance with the Department of Transportation regulations under Title 49 CFR 171-179 and under 40 CFR 263 (Subtitle C of RCRA). • If hazardous materials are present in construction debris, then demolition activities shall be performed in compliance with all applicable federal and state regulations, including Cal/OSHA and SCAQMD Rule 1403 regulations and procedures. Before issuance of a demolition permit by the Building and Safety Division, the applicant will be required to notify the SCAQMD regarding the proposed demolition and show proof that all SCAQMD requirements relating to asbestos testing and removal and lead paint removal have been met. Page 27 of 51 TTM64881/Nine Residential Condominiums Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Would the oroiect a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge El El ® 1:1requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production ❑ ❑ E ❑ rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a El❑ ® El or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or ❑ ❑ E ❑ amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding onsite or offsite? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage El El ® El or provide substantial additional sources of pollutant runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ E g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood El El ❑ Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures El ❑ Elwhich would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a ❑ ❑ ❑ E result of the failure of a levee or dam? 3.8.1 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS a) Less Than Significant Impact. Demolition and construction activities on the site have the potential to contribute sediment -laden runoff and pollutants from earth disturbance and heavy equipment leaks into the storm sewer system during rain events. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality issues NPDES stormwater permit for general construction activities. The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) enforces the NPDES program for the State of California within its jurisdiction, which includes the City of Diamond Bar. Dischargers whose projects disturb one or more acres of soil are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges Page 28 of 51 TTM64881/Nine Residential Condominiums Neqative Declaration No. 2007-03 of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit, 99-08-DWQ). Coverage under the Construction General Permit is accomplished by completing and filing a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB and by preparing and implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to grading. The primary objective of the SWPPP is to identify, construct, implement, and maintain Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce or eliminate pollutants in stormwater discharges from the construction site. The SWPPP must include BMPs the discharger would use to protect storm water runoff during construction and the placement of those BMPs. Additionally, a SWPPP must include a site map, a visual monitoring program, and a chemical monitoring program for "non-visible" pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of a BMP. BMPs most often used during construction activities include surrounding the construction site with sand bags and/or silt fencing to minimize sediment -laden runoff from entering the storm drain system, temporary desilting basins, and timing the grading activities to avoid the rainy season. Appropriate BMPs would be applied during grading and construction activities, which would ensure that short-term construction -related water quality impacts would be less than significant. Operational activities on the site would not violate water quality standards. The use of pesticides/herbicides on landscaping would be minimal. Because the project site is 0.62 acres (25,884 square feet) with 6,110 square feet in landscaping. The owner of the property is responsible for maintenance, upkeep, and record keeping of the site in general and the permanent structural Best Management Practices stormwater management system. Best management practices (BMPs) are required to be incorporated into the project plans for both construction and post -construction activities in compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations. A standard condition of approval will require the developer/applicant to submit a SUSMP report/plan for review and approval before issuance of building permits. b) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not significantly impact water supplied by the Walnut Valley Water District (WVWD). The District provides water service to the City and the project has a "Will Serve" letter from the WVWD. The District purchases imported water from the Three Valleys Municipal Water District, a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). The District is completely dependent on imported water and obtains this water almost entirely from MWD; therefore, impacts to groundwater would be less than significant. Potable groundwater is not available within the District's boundaries. This project design would have less impervious surface on the site than currently because the entire site, other than where the building is located, is paved with asphalt. Therefore, project would not create substantial amounts of impervious Page 29 TTM64881/Nine Residential Condominiums Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 surfaces that could impact the amount of groundwater recharge in the project area and potential impacts would be less than significant. c) Less than Significant Impact. Runoff from the project site will be accommodated by a roof drainage system and site grated catch basin inlets fitted with permanent BMP stormwater treatment devices. There will also be specific use guidelines for water conservation in the irrigation of planted areas. These guidelines include but are not limited to water sensors, programmable irrigation timers, differing water quantity zones, drought tolerant plants and regular inspections by the landscape maintenance company for irrigation efficiency. There are not streams or rivers in the vicinity of the project site. d) Less than Significant Impact. As previously discussed, this project does not increase the on-site impervious surface. Furthermore, the project design contains landscape areas which are not part of the current sites development. Landscaping would decrease impervious surface. Therefore, stormwater runoff amounts and rates would not be increased significantly. e) Less than Significant Impact. As mentioned in 3.8.1. (b) and (d) above, the proposed project would not significantly increase the amount of impervious cover on the project site, thus there would not be a significant change to the amount of stormwater entering the storm drain system. The capacity of the stormwater drainage system would not be impacted by the proposed project. f) Less Than Significant Impact. As previously discussed, compliance with NPDES permit requirements, including the development of a SWPPP and implementation of BMPs, would ensure that construction activities would not degrade water quality. Operational activities on the site would not violate water quality standards. However, the project is subject to SUSMP requirements for additional BMPs for water quality. Therefore, potential water quality impacts would be less than significant. g) No Impact. The project would not place housing within a 100 -year flood plain, as mapped by on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map, or other flood hazard delineation map. h) No Impact The proposed project would not place structures within a 100 -year flood hazard area or impede or redirect flows within a 100 -year floodplain. i) No Impact. The project would not expose people or buildings to any risk of flooding. j) No Impact. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The project site is not adjacent to a reservoir or lake that could experience seiche during ground -shaking events. The project site is located over 25 miles from the ocean and would not be in danger from a tsunami event. The project is located on relatively level ground and would not expose people or structures to a significant risk involving mudslides. Page 30 of 51 TTM64881/Nine Residential Condominiums Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 3.8.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to hydrology or water quality. Potential water quality impacts associated with construction activities would be mitigated through the use of BMPs, pursuant to coverage under the NPDES permits for construction and operation of the gas station. Additionally, operational water quality impacts from the proposed project would be less than significant and cumulative hydrology impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. 3.8.3 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL • Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for construction of the proposed project, the project applicant shall provide proof of obtain coverage under the NPDES General Storm Water Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities (Water Quality Order 99-08-DWQ). The project applicant shall file a Notice of Intent, prepare a SWPPP, and submit the appropriate fees to the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality in order to obtain coverage for construction activities. Pursuant to the permit requirements, the project applicant shall minimize construction related pollutants in the site runoff through the implementation of Best Management Practices. • A SUSMP report/plan is required to be submitted for review and approval to the Building and Safety Division of the City of Diamond Bar before issuance of building permits. Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). Best management practices (BMPs) are required to be incorporated into the project plans for both construction and post -construction activities in compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations. Less Than 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific El El Elplan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or El Ll 11natural community conservation Ian? 3.91 LAND USE AND PLANNING ANALYSIS a) No Impact. The project site contains an existing drive-thru mini -mart structure. It is surrounded by residential development. The proposed project is a nine -unit Page 31 of 51 TTM64881/Nine Residential Condominiums Neaative Declaration No. 2007-03 residential condominium project. Therefore, the proposed project would not divide an established community. b) Less Than Significant Impact. In accordance with Title 22, the City of Diamond Bar Development Code, the project applicant has requested the following approvals: Zone Change approval to change the existing zoning from C-1 to RH-PD 2 - Dwelling Units/Per Acre for General Plan compliance; o With the approved zone change, the proposed project will be in compliance with the General plan and the proposed use is permitted in the proposed zone (RH-PD 2 -Dwelling Units/Per Acre). Vesting Tentative Map approval to subdivide 0.62 acres in order to construct nine residential condominium units; Conditional Use Permit approval to allow modifications to the required setbacks; o Planned Development (PD) via a Conditional Use Permit approval with appropriated findings may allow for a deviation from the required setbacks. Development Review approval for the project's architectural and site design. o The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density of use being proposed including access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and the absence of physical constraints; and C, The design and layout of the proposed project are consistent with the general plan, development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines and architectural standards required by the City. After approval of the above referenced entitlements by the City of Diamond Bar, the development of the proposed project would be in compliance with all applicable City of Diamond Bar plans, policies, and regulations. Impacts to land use would be less than significant. c) No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within any habitat conservation plan or within a natural community conservation plan. 3.9.2 Cumulative Impacts The project would not directly or cumulatively impact land use or planning. 3.9.3 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL • In accordance with Title 22 of the City of Diamond Bar Municipal Code, the applicable reviewing agencies within the City of Diamond Bar will review the project's applications (Zone Change No. 2006-01, Vesting Tentative Map No. Page 32 of 51 TTM64881/Nine Residential Condominiums Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 64881, Conditional Use Permit 2007-10, Development Review No. 2006-11) and ensure that the project is in compliance with all applicable City of Diamond Bar plans, policies, and regulations. 3.10 MINERAL RESOURCES Would the a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the ❑ ❑ ❑ residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local ❑ ❑ ❑ 3.10.1 MINERAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS a) No Impact. The proposed project would not involve the development of land that could potentially result in the loss of a known mineral resource of value to the region or the state. b) No Impact. The project site is not designated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site in the General Plan. 3.10.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The project would not directly or cumulatively impact mineral resources. 3.10.3 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL None. Less Than 3.11 NOISE Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impa a) Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitiaation Impact Imoa a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the ❑ ❑ ❑ residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local ❑ ❑ ❑ 3.10.1 MINERAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS a) No Impact. The proposed project would not involve the development of land that could potentially result in the loss of a known mineral resource of value to the region or the state. b) No Impact. The project site is not designated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site in the General Plan. 3.10.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The project would not directly or cumulatively impact mineral resources. 3.10.3 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL None. Less Than 3.11 NOISE Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impa a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan 1:1 El EJor noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive El ❑ ® El vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the ❑ ❑ ❑ project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ without the project? Page 33 of 51 TTM64881/Nine Residential Condominiums Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 Less Than 3.11 NOISE Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project ❑ ❑ ❑ expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the ❑ ❑ ❑ 3.11.1 NOISE ANALYSIS a) Less Than Significant. The construction process would generate noise, primarily during demolition, material removal and construction of the nine -unit residential condominiums. The City of Diamond Bar City Municipal Code, Chapter 8.12 Division 3, Section 8.12.720 prohibits construction -related noise between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Noise from the short-term (less than ten days) operation of mobile construction equipment may not exceed a maximum of 85 dB. Additionally, all mobile or stationary internal -combustion -engine powered equipment or machinery must be equipped with suitable exhaust and air-intake silencers in proper working order. Additionally, the residential condominium may result in lower levels of ambient noise verses the noise create by the operation of a mini -mart with a drive-thru. Furthermore, the proposed residential use is compatible with the residential uses that surround the project site. The proposed use is not expected to exceed noise levels set forth in the Municipal Code for residential uses. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Demolition and/or construction activities have the potential to create groundborne vibration and/or groundborne noise levels. However, any impacts would be temporary and of minimal duration. Additionally, implementation of the construction hours would restrict these activities to daytime hours only. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The operation of the proposed project would have a lower noise level the current commercial use. The traffic count will decrease. Therefore, the proposed project will not increase the ambient noise level. d) Less Than Significant. Construction activities would require the use of trucks to haul off demolition debris and bring construction materials to the site, which would contribute to ambient noise in the project area. The truck noise would be temporary and sporadically distributed throughout the construction activities and would be limited to between the hours of 7 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. daily except Sundays and legal holidays. Operational noise from a nine -unit residential project is expected to be less than the current commercial use specifications. Page 34 of 51 TTM64881/Nine Residential Condominiums Neaative Declaration No. 2007-03 e) No Impact. The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. f) No Impact. The proposed project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. 3.11.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The proposed project would contribute construction noise to the ambient sounds of the surrounding area. However, this contribution would not be cumulatively considerable. Peak noise periods would be short-term and of minimal duration. Additionally, the project noise levels would not substantially increase by the construction activities of other projects in the area due to the distances between sites. Operational ambient noise would not be increased by the proposed project or vehicular traffic noise associated with the project because the existing use is commercial and the proposed use is residential. Cumulatively noise and traffic impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant. 3.11.2 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL • The construction contractor shall abide by all requirements of the City Code related to noise, as specified in Diamond Bar Municipal Code, Chapter 8.12. Less Than 3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Would the oroiect a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and El El Elbusinesses) or indirectly (for example, through the extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing ❑ ❑ ❑ elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the El 11 Elconstruction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3.12.1 POPULATION AND HOUSING ANALYSIS a) No Impact: The proposed project would have no impact on population or housing and would not induce population growth. b) No Impact: The proposed project would not eliminate existing housing or necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. c) No Impact: The proposed project would not displace current residential land uses or cause the development of housing elsewhere. Page 35 TTM64881/Nine Residential Condominiums Neoative Declaration No. 2007-03 tf I 11 EXTI.. The project would not directly or cumulatively impact population and housing. 3.12.3 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL None. 3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: ❑ ❑ ❑ Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Police protection? ❑ El ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? 3.13.1 PUBLIC SERVICES ANALYSIS a) Fire Protection- Less Than Significant Impact: Because the proposed project would slightly increase the number of residences in Diamond Bar, there would be an increased need for fire protection services. However, this need would be relatively small and would not result in substantial adverse impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities. Furthermore, the proposed project has been reviewed by the fire department. Police Protection- Less Than Significant Impact: Because the proposed project would slightly increase the amount of residential units in Diamond Bar. However, nine units are not expected to increase the need for police protection services. Schools- No Impact: Page 36 of 51 TTM64881/Nine Residential Condominiums Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 The proposed project would slightly increase the amount of residential units in Diamond Bar but not enough to require additional school services. Additionally, the proposed project is required to pay school fees to the Pomona Unified School District. Parks- No Impact. The proposed project as a nine -unit residential condominium is not expected to generate an additional need for park facilities. Therefore, there would be no direct impact on park services. Other Public Facilities- No Impact: No other public facilities would be impacted by the proposed project. 3.13.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The proposed project would require minor increases in fire and police protection services due to the slight increase of residential units. However, the property tax generated by the additional square footage would be available to the City of Diamond Bar to compensate for the additional services required. 3.13.3 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL None. Less Than 3.14 RECREATION Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Would/does the Droiect: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of El D El E the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the El El El E environment? 3.14.1 RECREATION ANALYSIS a) No Impact. The proposed project would not increase the use of existing park and recreational facilities. b) No Impact. The each residential unit has it own recreational area. Therefore, the proposed project does not require recreational facilities or construction or expansion of existing recreational facilities that would have an adverse environmental impact. Page 37 of 51 TTM64881/Nine Residential Condominiums Neaative Declaration No. 2007-03 KaiC�.[•�11t�i111�e��1�l�IMIJiC��` The proposed project would have no direct or cumulative impacts on neighborhood or regional recreational facilities. None. Less Than 3.15 TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No a) Cause an Increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in ❑ ❑ ❑ either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion ❑ ❑ ❑ management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or change in location that ❑ ❑ ❑ results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or ❑ ❑ ❑ incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, ❑ ❑ ❑ 3.15.1 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The analysis presented is based on the proposed project's Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Lin Consulting, Inc. dated January 25, 2007 and approved by the City of Diamond Bar. a) Less Than Significant Impact. Regional access to the project site is provided by the SR 60 Freeway via the interchanges at Diamond Bar Boulevard. Local access to the site is provided by Diamond Bar Boulevard and Golden Springs Drive. Immediate vehicular access to the project site is via Golden Springs Drive. The Traffic Impact Analysis shows that the proposed project will generate fewer trips than the existing mini -mart with a drive-thru. The following tables showing trip counts comes from the traffic impact analysis and calculations based on the "Trip Generation, 7th Edition" published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in the "Low -Rise Residential Condominium/ Townhouse" (Exhibit D). Page 38 of 51 TTM64881/Nine Residential Condominiums Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 Table3.4 Trip Generation for Existing Development Land Use Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour IN OUT IN OUT Mini -Mart with Drive-Thru 21 15 36 33 Table 3.5 Trip Generation for Proposed Project Land Use Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekda. PM Peak Hour IN` OUT IN OUT 1.50 4.52 4.07 Nine -Unit Low -Rise Residential (2) (5) (5) (3) (3) Condominium Therefore, the proposed project will not cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. b) No Impact. Because the proposed project will generate less vehicular trips than the existing commercial project, it will not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Program Monitoring System. c) No Impact. The project would not have any impact on air traffic patterns. d) No Impact. The project would not include additions or alterations to the existing streets. e) No Impact. The proposed project would be constructed according to City of Diamond Bar and County of Los Angeles requirements for emergency access. fl No Impact. According to the proposed project site plan, a total of 21 garage parking spaces are provided for the homes and 6 guest parking spaces for a total of 27 parking spaces. The City's Development Code (Section 23.30.040), a total of 27 parking spaces are required with a minimum two car garage for each unit. Therefore, on-site parking meets the City's minimum requirement. Therefore, there would not be an impact on parking. g) No Impact. The project would not have an impact on alternative transportation policies, plans, or programs. The project would not interfere with existing bus routes, bus turnouts or bicycle racks on or near the project site. Page 39 of 51 Chevron Gas Station project Screencheck Mitigated Neoative Declaration R1 fi !.1 y�t111 arr111111 A_11 N 1w1 =1111 I ITA 17_E" I &I The proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on traffic or transportation. The proposed project is expected to generate fewer vehicular trips then the existing commercial use. 3.15.3 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL None. Less Than 3.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 1:1 El Elapplicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Require or result in the construction of new water or e) wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing El E] Elfacilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the El El 11construction ZI f) of which could cause significant environmental effects? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are ❑ ❑ ❑ new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected ❑ ❑ ❑ demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal ❑ ❑ ❑ needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ❑ regulations related to solid waste? 3.16.1 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ANALYSIS Water service to the project site is provided by the Walnut Valley Water District (WVWD). a) No Impact. The 1995 General Plan designates the project site for high density residential development (20 units per acre); thereby allowing a possible 12.4 units per acre. The proposed project's density is 9 units which is less than designated in the General Plan. Therefore, the characteristics and amount of Page 40 of 51 7TM64881/Nine Residential Condominiums Neoative Declaration No. 2007-03 wastewater generated by the proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Wastewater generated from the proposed project site is discharged into a local sewer line that connects to the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County's Diamond Bar Trunk Sewer. Wastewater collected from the project site would be treated at the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) in unincorporated Los Angeles County. An increase that would require the construction of new water or waste water treatment facilities is an anticipated for this project as referenced above in Item a). Additionally, the WVWD reviewed the proposed project and in a correspondence dated January 17, 2006 states it is prepared to provide water service to this project. c) No Impact. The proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. d) Less Than Significant Impact. As previously discussed in 3.16(a) and (b) above, the proposed project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlement and resources. e) Less Than Significant Impact. As previously discussed in 3.16(a) and (b) above, the proposed project would not require the construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities. The project applicant would pay a connection fee which is required for all development projects to mitigate the impact of future incremental expansions to the existing sewage system. t) Less Than Significant Impact. Waste haulers operating within the City determine the solid waste management facility where wastes are disposed. As such, they have the ability to transport municipal solid waste to facilities with sufficient remaining capacity. The nearest County operated landfill to the project site is the Puente Hill Landfill. As indicated by the County, sufficient capacity at that facility exists to accommodate waste demand through 2013. g) No Impact. All solid waste materials generated at the project site would be disposed of in accordance with applicable state, federal, and local statutes and regulations. 3.16.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The generation of solid waste from demolition and construction activities would result in a cumulative impact to landfill resources; however, this impact would not be cumulatively considerable. As previously noted, the construction debris would be accepted at one of several solid waste disposal facilities near the City of Diamond Bar. Construction activities would be temporary and there would be no operation -related generation of solid waste. Impacts to the sewer system capacity would be less than significant and would not result in cumulative impacts. Page 41 of 51 TTM64881/Nine Residential Condominiums Negative Declaration No. 2007-03 The project contractor must pay a connection fee to the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. Although the project site is already connected to the wastewater system, the connection fee is required to construct incremental expansions to the sewerage system. 3.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Does theproject: a. Does 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 El El Ela plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a El El Elproject 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)? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, ❑ ❑ ❑ either directly or indirectly? 3.17.1 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ANALYSIS a) Less than Significant The proposed project, as conditioned, will not result in the degradation of the existing environment, result in any substantial reduction in the habitat of any fish or wildlife species, cause any existing fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, eliminate or reduce the range of any protected plant or animal species, or eliminate important examples of major periods in the State's history or prehistory. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not generate any cumulatively considerable impacts, as previously discussed within the text of each environmental analysis. c) Less than Significant With Mitigation. With the incorporation of the conditions of approval, the proposed project would not have any environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, as previously discussed within the text of each environmental analysis. Page 42 of 51 LEAD AGENCY- CITY OF DIAMOND BAR CityManager ............................................... Community Development Director ............... Associate Planner (contract) ...................... GSD13 Investment Group, LLC TTM64881/Nine Residential Condominiums Neoative Declaration No. 2007-03 .....................................James DeStefano ........................................Nancy Fong, AICP ................................................Ann J. Lungu Contact.................................................................................................................Joe Kwok SECTION 5.0 - REFERENCES 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook, South Coast Air Quality Management District, 1993. City of Diamond Bar's General Plan and Guideline for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Analysis Report (1992). Diamond Bar Municipal Code, http://www.ci.diamond-bar.ca.us/home/index.asp Rule 1403 Asbestos Emissions for Demolition/Renovation Activities, South Coast Air Quality Management District website, httl)://www.agmd.gov/rules/html/rl403.html, December 4, 2003. Los Angeles County Fire Department Los Angeles County Public Works Department State of California, Integrated Waste Management Board, "estimated Solid waste Generation Rates for Commercial Establishments", http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/WasteChar/\NasteGenRates/Commercial.htm. website accessed September 12, 2005. Traffic Impact Analysis Report—Nine-Unit Residential Condominium, Lin Consulting, Inc, January 25, 2007 Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan/Hydrology – CALCIVIC ENGINEERING, INC. February 16, 2006 Preliminary Soils Investigation Report - T.K. Engineering Corp – February 17, 2006 and January 31, 2007 F9community DeveiopmcnMnn Lungu\ajIMeg dece%eg Dec 2007-03TTM 648e1dooPage 43 of 43 0 ironmental Checklist Form THREE LETTERS FROM RESIDENCES September 5, 2007 City of Diamond Bar Department of Community Development/Planning Division 21825 Copley Dr. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Re: Public Hearing on Negative Declaration No. 2007-03, Zone Change No. 2006-01, affecting Diamond Jim's Dairy located at 23671 Golden Springs Dr. I was saddened to hear that our local drive thru dairy may be destroyed to make room for condominiums. While the addition of nine homes to our city will benefit nine families, the removal of the dairy will affect far more. The convenience of the dairy to families on the run to various recreational activities cannot be measured. Aside from the loss of convenience, our city would lose a symbol of the past. The dairy is a reminder of the small town feel we have here in a community so large in heart. Let's not lose that. Please do not approve this zoning change or this project! Diamond Bar Citizen for over 12 years, J et Notti 442 N. Prospectors Rd. Diamond Bar, Ca 91765 September 5, 2007 To: Community Development Dept, City of Diamond Bar Fr: Gilbert and Mary Rivera, 900 Leyland Dr, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Re: Negative Declaration #2007-03, zone change, COP#2007-10, Demolishing the drive-thru dairy. ........................................................................o We wish to express our strong opposition to the proposed demolition of the drive-thru dairy. It has been a staple of Northern Diamond Bar for so many years. We have lived here for 16 years and frequent the facility at least twice a week to buy milk, ice, and other products of convenience. Nick, the operator of the drive-thru dairy, has always been supportive of the community's children via sponsorships of athletic teams. He bought a home in Diamond Bar a few years ago to help establish his family's roots here. His courteous attitude and good customer service have always kept us coming back to support his business. Please do not demolish this facility in order to build condominiums. The addition of more residences would only increase already heavily congested Golden Springs and Diamond Bar Blvd and would be more a detriment than a benefit to this City. We urge you to allow the drive-thru facility to remain in place. Thank you for your consideration. Ann Lunqu From: Stella Marquez Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 7:55 AM To: Ann Lungu Cc: Nancy Fong; Sandy Clarke Subject: FW: Negative Declaration No.2007-03 Zone Change No. 2006-01, Tentative Tract Map 64881, Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-10 and Development Review No. 2006-11 Ann, please respond accordingly. I have also forward a copy to Sandy on behalf of Sheriff regarding the school traffic problem caused by purportedly illegal parking, dropping off of kids, etc. Stella Marquez Senior Administrative Assistant City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 phone: 909.839.7030 fax: 909.861.3117 e-mail: stella.marquez@ci.diamond-bar.ca.us -----Original Message ----- From: Kathy Leffingwell [mailto:klef£ingwell@mac.coml Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 6:58 PM To: Stella Marquez Cc: Tommye Cribbins Subject: Negative Declaration No.2007-03 Zone Change No. 2006-01, Tentative Tract Map 64881, Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-10 and Development Review No. 2006-11 I want to most strenuously object to this suggested plan to demolish the current Alta Dena Dairy and re -zone in order to build (more!)condominiums. The Dairy is a very valuable part of this North Diamond Bar neighborhood and provides a very much needed service to working families who use it regularly to purchase groceries quickly and conveniently on a daily basis. The proprietors maintain the area well and have, in many cases, developed personal friendly relationships with customers and neighbors. While these reasons may seem frivolous to many, there are other more basic reasons for opposing this change that appears designed to bring in additional taxes-- at any cost to the family oriented nature of this community. The two other reasons for opposing this change are traffic and safety of the neighborhood children that attend the three schools that are in the immediate vicinity-- Lorbeer Middle School and the two other elementary schools on or adjacent to Golden Springs. Everyone knows traffic in the city is a major problem that has not been sufficiently addressed in spite of the repeated assurances that steps are being taken to "mitigate" the problem. Earlier this year I missed work because I literally cold not get out of my neighborhood to reach a freeway --any freeway! I could not turn left or right onto Golden Springs off of my street - Willow Creek Road, because it was backed up off of both Temple and Diamond Bar Blvd because of freeway commuters cutting through the city. I finally gave up and worked from home. I was lucky enough to have that option. Traffic in DB is had enough every work day as it is, even without a freeway problem. I don't see how adding an additional "Residential High Density Planned Development" on Golden Springs is going to help matters. Diamond Bar needs to FIRST resolve the traffic issue before creating a situation that will result in more cars on our roads. Weekdays, Golden Springs is full of Middle and Elementary School students walking and riding bikes, skateboards and scooters to school, not to mention the numerous teenagers waiting for buses to Diamond Ranch High. We already experience problems with speeding on Golden Springs and adding additional traffic will only make matters worse. There is also fld DATE: October 16, 2007 TO: Nancy Fong, Community Development Director James DeStefano, City Manager David Doyle, sst. City Manager FROM: Tommy Cribbins, City Clerk SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial CUP 2007-09, Development Review 2007-22 and Variance 2007-05 Spring Nextel On Monday, October 15, 2007 the City received an Appeal of the Planning Commission Denial for the above -referenced item along with a check in the amount of $500. Please advise as to when to place it on the Council agenda for a public hearing. Thank you in advance for your courtesy in this matter. c: City Attorney Together with NEXTEL October 15, 2007 City Clerk 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Sprint Nextel 310 Commerce, 2nd Floor Irvine, CA 92602 Office: (714) 368-3500 RECEIVED OCT 1-5 7 Re: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit 2007-09, Development Review 2007-22 and Variance 2007-05, a request to allow the installation of a Sprint Nextel wireless telecommunication facility located at 2201 Peaceful Hills Road within Ronald Regan Park. Ladies and Gentlemen: At their October 9, 2007 meeting the Planning Commission adopted a resolution denying the above referenced applications. Sprint Nextel is appealing this denial to the City Council. It is Sprint Nextel's opinion that the findings cited by the Planning Commission that "The applicant has not provided evidence that co -location sites would not provide adequate coverage and has not provided an explanation as to why other wireless communication providers are able to provide adequate coverage in the same area proposed to be served by the proposed use from the project site." is in error. As indicated by the Planning Commission meeting minutes and information entered into the public record, Sprint Nextel has in fact provided a detailed explanation of co -location opportunities and the reason they will not work in this instance to fill the gap in Sprint Nextel's wireless network. In addition, the Planning Commission has made a number of errors with regard to the provisions of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 as outlined and explained in the attached letter from the law offices Nossaman, Guthner, Knox, Elliott, LLP dated October 8, 2007. Please call me at 714-368-3930 with any questions or if you need any other information to process this appeal application. Sincerely, Edward Gala Zoning Manager NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP Steve Nelson, Chair and Members of the Planning Commission October 8, 2007 Page 2 precludes any local regulation of wireless telecommunications facilities on such grounds. A local governmental agency therefore may not consider testimony regarding concerns about RF emissions. (b) The Telecom Act Precludes Local Regulations That Prohibit, or Have the Effect of Prohibiting, Wireless Services: Sprint has demonstrated that the Project is the least intrusive means of closing a significant gap in its wireless telecommunications service in the area. Sprint has demonstrated alternatives do not close the coverage gap. A denial of Sprint's permit application under such circumstances constitutes a prohibition of services, in violation of section 332(c)(7)(13)(i)(11) of the Telecom Act. (c) The Telecom Act Requires Local Governments to Base Permit Application Denials on Substantial Evidence: Denials of permit applications must be based on substantial evidence -- denials based on "empty records" consisting of vague concerns about the facility will not suffice under the substantial evidence test. Wireless Income Props. v. McDonald (6th Cir. 2005) 403 F.3d 392. (d) The Project complies with Development Code Section 22.42.130(g)(6)(a) in that it will be installed at a pre -approved location. 2. THE TELECOM ACT FORBIDS REGULATION OF THE PLACEMENT OF WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES ON THE BASIS OF PERCEIVED ENVIRONMENTAL AFFECTS OF RF EMISSIONS. The Telecom Act expressly forbids regulation of "the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions." 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). The courts have made clear that "Congress intended federal regulation of [RF] issues to be so pervasive as to occupy the field." Southwestern Bell v. Johnson County B.D. (10th Cir. 1999) 199 F.3d 1185 at p. 1193; Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Mills (S.D.N.Y. 2000) 124 F.Supp.2d 211, 218. This means that the FCC's regulation over RF emissions is exclusive and therefore results in a total preemption of any state and local law which purports to regulate in this area. Ibid.; see also Southwestern Bell v. Johnson County B.D., supra, 199 F.3d at pp. 1190-1193 (discussing preemptive effect of FCC regulation of RF emissions). Accordingly, local jurisdictions may not: (a) require compliance with RF emission standards; (b) enact more stringent RF emission standards; (c) regulate modification of wireless facilities on the basis of RF emissions; (d) regulate construction of wireless facilities on the basis of RF emissions; or (e) regulate the siting of wireless facilities on the basis of perceived environmental effects of RF emissions. Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Mills, supra, 124 F.Supp.2d at pp. 217-218; 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). 278976 I DOC' NOSSAMAN, GUT INER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP Steve Nelson, Chair and Members of the Planning Commission October 8, 2007 Page 4 Sprint explored, and ruled out, potentially viable alternative sites and equipment configurations within the "service ring" determined by the existing elements in its system, as demonstrated by the Diamond Bar/Walnut with LA73XC017 at Verizon Location map and the LA73XC0I 7 at Water Tank Location map included in the Planning Commission record. Neither of these alternative sites will adequately fill the existing gap in service coverage. Sprint finally settled on the Project site, located on City park property. The site is well situated to meet Sprint's coverage objectives, and met with approval of the City Council, which executed a lease for Sprint's facility. With respect to any visual impacts, the proposed facility incorporates a state-of-the-art "stealth" design, with equipment designed to blend with the surroundings. In short, the Project is the least obtrusive means of filling Sprint's demonstrated gap in service. 4. THE CITY IS REQUIRED TO BASE DENIALS OF PERMIT APPLICATIONS ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. Section 332 of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("Telecom Act") states, in relevant part: Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii). The courts have interpreted this to mean that any denial of "a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities" mast: (a) be separate fi-om the written record; (b) describe the reasons for the denial; and (c) contain a sufficient explanation of the reasons for the denial to allow a reviewing court to evaluate the evidence in the record that supports those reasons. New Par v. City of Saginaw, 301 F.3d 390, 395-396 (6th Cir. 2002). Each reason for denial must be supported by substantial evidence in a written record. Along these lines, denials based on "hollow generalities and empty records" are prohibited by the Telecom Act. Amherst, N.H. v. Omnipoint Communications, 173 F.3d 9, 16 (1 st Cir. 1999). With regard to such generalized and unsupported concerns, one court wrote: It would completely frustrate the purpose of the [Telecom Act] if the voicing of negative opinions by a small number of citizens, without more, could serve as a basis of denial. Any municipality could defeat the request for a permit by simply making a very limited record that in the opinion of three or four citizens, the tower would blight the landscape. Congress did not intend that rejection of a license application could be accomplished on such a sparse record. 278976 1 DOC NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP Steve Nelson, Chair and Members of the Planning Commission October 8, 2007 Page 6 CONCLUSION. For all of the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission approve Sprint's applications for the Project. A Sprint representative will be present at the October 9, 2007 Planning Commission meeting to respond to any questions you may have. Very truly yours, Gregory W. Sanders ofNOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP G1A YCJ m Enclosures 271176 LDOC From Stella Marquez/Ann Lungu, Diamond Bar Planning Division (909) 839-7030 NOTICE OF PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN BY THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR that the City Council will conduct a public hearing on the following item to determine whether or not to adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the subject request under the provisions of State law and the City of Diamond Bar's Development Code: Negative Declaration No. 2007-03, Zone Change No. 2006-01 Tentative Tract Map No 64881, Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-10 and Development Review No. 2006-11 Pursuant to Title 22 - Development Code Sections, 22.70, 22.32 and 22.48, Subdivision Map Act, and Title 21 — City's Subdivision Ordinance, the proposed project is a request to demolish an existing mini -mart with a drive-thru and construct a nine -unit residential condominium project. The condominiums are split level and unit sizes range from approximately 1,649 to 1,904 square feet. Each unit has a two -car garages, guest parking and patio area. The project's development requires the following discretionary approvals: a Zone Change to change the existing zoning from Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Residential High Density -Planned Development (RH-PD) for General Plan compliance; Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 0.62 acres to construct nine residential condominium units; Conditional Use Permit to use the planned development designation and modify the required setbacks; and Development Review to evaluate the architecture and site design of the project. On September 11, 2007, the Planning Commission recommended to City Council the adoption of the Negative Declaration and approval of the proposed project. PROJECT ADDRESS: 23671 Golden Springs Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: GSDB Investment Group, LLC, Mr. Joe Kwok, 625 Fair Oaks Avenue, #115, South Pasadena, CA 91030 Environmental Determination: Pursuantto the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15070, the City prepared an Initial Study and Negative Declaration for this project. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15105, the public review period for the Negative Declaration began August 16, 2007 and ended September 4, 2007. If you are unable to attend the public hearing, but wish to send written comments, please write to the Diamond Bar Community Development Department/Planning Division at the address given below. You may also obtain additional information concerning these cases by phoning (909) 839-7030. If you challenge this application and project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. TIME OF HEARING: TIME OF PUBLIC HEARING: 6:30 P.M. (or as soon thereafter that the matter can be heard) DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 LOCATION: South Coast Air Quality Management District/ Government Center Auditorium 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, California 91765 CASE MATERIALS: are available for review between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday and 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Friday, at the City of Diamond Bar Department of Community Development Department, Planning Division, 21825 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA 91765. y • �� I * '?]if DATE: October 16, 2007 TO: Nancy Fong, Community Development Director James DeStefano, City Manager David Doyle, sst. City Manager FROM: Tommy Cribbins, City Clerk SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial CUP 2007-09, Development Review 2007-22 and Variance 2007-05 Spring Nextel On Monday, October 15, 2007 the City received an Appeal of the Planning Commission Denial for the above -referenced item along with a check in the amount of $500. Please advise as to when to place it on the Council agenda for a public hearing. Thank you in advance for your courtesy in this matter. c: City Attorney October 15, 2007 City Clerk 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Re: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit 2007-09, Development Review 2007-22 and Variance 2007-05, a request to allow the installation of a Sprint Nextel wireless telecommunication facility located at 2201 Peaceful Hills Road within Ronald Regan Park. Ladies and Gentlemen: At their October 9, 2007 meeting the Planning Commission adopted a resolution denying the above referenced applications. Sprint Nextel is appealing this denial to the City Council. It is Sprint Nextel's opinion that the findings cited by the Planning Commission that "The applicant has not provided evidence that co -location sites would not provide adequate coverage and has not provided an explanation as to why other wireless communication providers are able to provide adequate coverage in the same area proposed to be served by the proposed use from the project site" is in error. As indicated by the Planning Commission meeting minutes and information entered into the public record, Sprint Nextel has in fact provided a detailed explanation of co -location opportunities and the reason they will not work in this instance to fill the gap in Sprint Nextel's wireless network. In addition, the Planning Commission has made a number of errors with regard to the provisions of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 as outlined and explained in the attached letter from the law offices Nossaman, Guthner, Knox, Elliott, LLP dated October 8, 2007. Please call me at 714-368-3930 with any questions or if you need any other information to process this appeal application. i Sincerely, ,r Edward Gala - Zoning Manager Sprint N, *POO Together with NEXTEl. October 15, 2007 City Clerk 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Sprint Nextel 310 Commerce, 2nd Floor �^!°t Irvine, CA 92602 RECEIVED GLT1-5 Office: (714)368-3500 Re: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit 2007-09, Development Review 2007-22 and Variance 2007-05, a request to allow the installation of a Sprint Nextel wireless telecommunication facility located at 2201 Peaceful Hills Road within Ronald Regan Park. Ladies and Gentlemen: At their October 9, 2007 meeting the Planning Commission adopted a resolution denying the above referenced applications. Sprint Nextel is appealing this denial to the City Council. It is Sprint Nextel's opinion that the findings cited by the Planning Commission that "The applicant has not provided evidence that co -location sites would not provide adequate coverage and has not provided an explanation as to why other wireless communication providers are able to provide adequate coverage in the same area proposed to be served by the proposed use from the project site." is in error. As indicated by the Planning Commission meeting minutes and information entered into the public record, Sprint Nextel has in fact provided a detailed explanation of co -location opportunities and the reason they will not work in this instance to fill the gap in Sprint Nextel's wireless network. In addition, the Planning Commission has made a number of errors with regard to the provisions of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 as outlined and explained in the attached letter from the law offices Nossaman, Guthner, Knox, Elliott, LLP dated October 8, 2007. LAW OFFICES NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP AN FRANCISCO THIRTY-FOURTH FLOOR 50 CALIFORNIA STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 941114199 (415) 396-3600 LOS ANGELES THIRTY -F RST FLOOR 445 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET LOS ANGELES. CA 90071-1602 (213) 6127600 SACRAMENTQ SUITE 1000 915 L STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95614-3705 (910) 4429686 VIA MESSENGER Steve Nelson, Chair SUITE 1800 18101 VON KARMAN AVENUE IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612-0177 TELEPHONE (949) 833-7800 FACSIMILE (949) 8534878 GREGORY W. SANDERS EMAIL 9sanders®nossaman,tom October 8, 2007 and Members of the Planning Commission City of Diamond Bar 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 WASHINGTON O L 1VIRGIN1A SUITE 600 2111 WILSON BOULEVARD ARLINGTON, VA 22201-3052 (703( 351.5010 AUSTIN. TEXAS SUITE 1050 910 CONGRESS AVENUE AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701-2745 (512) 65L0650 Re: Sprint Nextel: Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09; Development Review No. 2007-22; and Variance 2007-05 Dear Chair Nelson and Members of the Planning Commission: SEATTLE SUITE 100 1100 DEXTER AVENUE N. SEATTLE. WA 95109 (206) 288-5005 REFER TO FILE NUMBER 030769-0001 We represent Sprint Nextel ("Sprint") with respect to all matters pertaining to the permitting of Sprint's wireless telecommunications facilities in the City of Diamond Bar ("City"). This letter addresses Sprint's proposed facility at 2201 Peaceful Hills Road, in the City. INTRODUCTION. Sprint's radio frequency ("RF") engineer has identified a significant gap in coverage in the area of the proposed facility. Sprint proposed a facility to be located on City park property at the above address to fill the gap in coverage. A lease for the area encompassed by the proposed project was previously approved by the Diamond Bar City Council. The proposed project consists of a 45 foot tall "monoelm" designed to blend with surrounding landscaping and a small adjacent equipment building that will match existing park buildings ("Project"). The Planning Commission should approve the Project for the following reasons, among others: (a) The Federal Telecommunical ions Act of 1996 ("Telecom Act -) Expressly Prohibits Regulation of the Placement of YVireless Telecommunications Facilities on the Basis of RF Emissions: Sprint has demonstrated that RF emissions from the Project will fall below Federal Communications Commission ("FCC') safety thresholds. Federal law expressly 278976_1. f )OC NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP Steve Nelson, Chair and Members of the Planning Commission October 8, 2007 Page 2 precludes any local regulation of wireless telecommunications facilities on such grounds. A local governmental agency therefore may not consider testimony regarding concerns about RF emissions. (b) The Telecom Act Precludes Local Regulations That Prohibit, or Have the Effect of Prohibiting, Wireless Services: Sprint has demonstrated that the Project is the least intrusive means of closing a significant gap in its wireless telecommunications service in the area. Sprint has demonstrated alternatives do not close the coverage gap. A denial of Sprint's permit application under such circumstances constitutes a prohibition of services, in violation of section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) of the Telecom Act. (c) The Telecom Act Requires Local Governments to Base Permit Application Denials on Substantial Evidence: Denials of permit applications must be based on substantial evidence -- denials based on "empty records" consisting of vague concerns about the facility will not suffice under the substantial evidence test. Wireless Income Props. v. McDonald (6th Cir. 2005) 403 F.3d 392. (d) The Project complies with Development Code Section 22.42.130(g)(6)(a) in that it will be installed at a pre -approved location. 2. THE TELECOM ACT FORBIDS REGULATION OF THE PLACEMENT OF WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES ON THE BASIS OF PERCEIVED ENVIRONMENTAL AFFECTS OF RF EMISSIONS. The Telecom Act expressly forbids regulation of "the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions," 47 U.S.C. § 332(e)(7)(B)(iv). The courts have made clear that "Congress intended federal regulation of [RF] issues to be so pervasive as to occupy the field." Southwestern Bell v. Johnson County B.D. (10th Cir. 1999) 199 F.3d 1185 at p. 1193; Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Mills (S.D.N.Y. 2000) 124 F.Supp.2d 211, 218. This means that the FCC's regulation over RF emissions is exclusive and therefore results in a total preemption of any state and local law which purports to regulate in this area. Ibid.; see also Southwestern Bell v. Johnson County B.D., supra, 199 F.3d at pp. 1190-1193 (discussing preemptive effect of FCC regulation of RF emissions). Accordingly, local jurisdictions may not: (a) require compliance with RF emission standards; (b) enact more stringent RF emission standards; (c) regulate modification of wireless facilities on the basis of RF emissions; (d) regulate construction of wireless facilities on the basis of RF emissions; or (e) regulate the siting of wireless facilities on the basis of perceived environmental effects of RF emissions. Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Mills, supra, 124 F.Supp.2d at pp. 217-218; 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). 278976_I.DOC NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP Steve Nelson, Chair and Members of the Planning Commission October 8, 2007 Page 3 The Project will comply with FCC RF safety standards, as Sprint has demonstrated. As such, Sprint is covered by the preemptive effects of section 332 of the Telecom Act and any aspect of the City's regulation of Sprint's facility on the basis of RF emissions is wholly preempted and unenforceable. Ibid. Accordingly, the Planning Commission may not consider concerns voiced by project opponents over the perceived environmental effects of RF emissions. 3. THE TELECOM ACT BARS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FROM PROHIBITING THE PROVISION OF PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICES. Section 332(c)(7) bars state and local governments from prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(11)(i)(II). The Ninth Circuit recently determined that a prohibition of service under section 332(c)(7)(13)(i)(11) of the Telecom Act exists where (a) a provider has a significant gap in its service coverage; and (b) the provider has proposed the "least intrusive" means to fill the significant gap. See MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 2005) 400 F.3d 715, 731-734. In this case, Sprint has demonstrated both the existence of a "significant gap" in coverage and that it has proposed the "least intrusive" means to fill that significant gap. Selection of sites for the installation of PCS and other wireless facilities is "locationally dependent." meaning that the location of sites is driven not by local planning concerns, but by the location of existing sites in the network chain. This is because the distance over which the low-power signals emitted by such facilities extend is limited to a geographically small area or "cell." An overlapping patchwork of such cells is needed to provide consistent coverage over a larger geographical area. As the caller moves through cells, one cell relays its signal to the next. Where there is a "gap" in this pattern, a call is either "dropped" (disconnected) or "blocked" (never connected), resulting in a failure of the network. See Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Jefferson County (N.D. Ala. 1997) 968 F.Supp. 1457 [describing wireless telecommunications coverage in the context of the Telecom Act]. Consequently, the lack of one site can lead to significant gaps in service. Currently, coverage within the area to be covered by the Project is below industry standards, as demonstrated by the Diamond Bar/Walnut Current Coverage map included in the Planning Commission record. Once the proposed facility is in place, however, the lack of service coverage will be resolved as demonstrated by the Diamond Bar/Walnut With LA73XCO17 map included in the Planning Commission record. Once a wireless service provider demonstrates a significant gap, it must make a showing that it has selected the least intrusive means of filling that gap. MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 400 F.3d at p. 734. A carrier need not demonstrate that its proposed facility is the only viable option. Ibid. The carrier need only show that "the manner in which it proposes to fill the significant gap in service is the least intrusive on the values the denial sought to serve." Ibid., emphasis in original. 278976 1 DOC NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP Steve Nelson, Chair and Members of the Planning Commission October 8, 2007 Page 4 Sprint explored, and ruled out, potentially viable alternative sites and equipment configurations within the "service ring" determined by the existing elements in its system, as demonstrated by the Diamond Bar/Walnut with LA73XC017 at Verizon Location map and the LA73XC0I7 at Water Tank Location map included in the Planning Commission record. Neither of these alternative sites will adequately fill the existing gap in service coverage. Sprint finally settled on the Project site, located on City park property. The site is well situated to meet Sprint's coverage objectives, and met with approval of the City Council, which executed a lease for Sprint's facility. With respect to any visual impacts, the proposed facility incorporates a state-of-the-art "stealth" design, with equipment designed to blend with the surroundings. In short, the Project is the least obtrusive means of filling Sprint's demonstrated gap in service. 4. THE CITY IS REQUIRED TO BASE DENIALS OF PERMIT APPLICATIONS ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. Section 332 of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("Telecom Act") states, in relevant part: Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii). The courts have interpreted this to mean that any denial of "a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities" must: (a) be separate from the written record; (b) describe the reasons for the denial; and (c) contain a sufficient explanation of the reasons for the denial to allow a reviewing court to evaluate the evidence in the record that supports those reasons. New Par v. City of Saginaw, 301 F.3d 390, 395-396 (6th Cir. 2002). Each reason for denial must be supported by substantial evidence in a written record. Along these lines, denials based on "hollow generalities and empty records" are prohibited by the Telecom Act. Amherst, N.H. v. Omnipoint Communications, 173 F.3d 9, 16 (1st Cir. 1999). With regard to such generalized and unsupported concerns, one court wrote: It would completely t castrate the purpose of the [Telecom Act] if the voicing of negative opinions by a small number of citizens, without more, could serve as a basis of denial. Any municipality could defeat the request for a permit by simply making a very limited record that in the opinion of three or four citizens, the tower would blight the landscape. Congress did not intend that rejection of a license application could be accomplished on such a sparse record. 278976 1 DOC 0 NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP Steve Nelson, Chair and Members of the Planning Commission October 8, 2007 Page 5 Iowa Wireless Servs. L.P. v. City ofMoline, Ill., 29 F. Supp. 2d 915, 922 (C.D. Ill. 1998) (emphasis added); see also Omnipoint Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 181 F.3d 403, 409 (3rd Cir. 1999) (same principle cited). In light of the Telecom Act's goals and prohibitions, the courts have looked critically on denials of applications based upon purported decreases in property values -- and have summarily rejected denials based solely on generalized property value and aesthetic concerns. See, e.g., Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d at 496; Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Town of North Stonington, 12 F. Supp. 2d 247 (D. Conn. 1998). Courts have done so, in part, because the consideration of purported decreases in property values and aesthetics can too easily serve as a "proxy for the impermissible ground of environmental effects." Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d at 496. In line with the substantial evidence requirement, the courts have repeatedly rejected attempts by local jurisdictions to regulate placement of wireless telecommunications facilities based on generalized or speculative concerns. Instead, they uniformly require hard evidence beyond "unsupported and hypothetical potential" for such impacts. See OPM-USA-Inc. v. Bd. of County C'om'rs, 7 F.Supp.2d 1316, 1324 (M.D.Fla. 1997); see also Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d at 496; Town of North Stonington, 12 F.Supp.2d at 254. Here, residents voiced opposition about (a) health effects; (b) property values; and (c) placement of the facility in a park. Each concern was general in nature. Not one of those concerns rises to the level of substantial evidence. Indeed, Sprint demonstrated that the facility was within FCC RF frequency standards. With respect to concerns the site would pose a safety risk to children who may be inclined to climb the "monoelm" because it will be located in a park, Sprint has agreed to measures to protect against such risk. The property values argument was made without any supporting evidence whatsoever. Accordingly, it amounts to mere speculation. 5. THE PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT CODE The Project complies with the City's Development Code Section 22.42.130(g)(6)(a) which prioritizes proposed wireless telecommunications sites within the City in that Ronald Reagan Park, in which the Project is sited, is a pre -approved location for such facilities. Further, the Project site was pre -approved by the City Council when a lease for the site was approved. 2789-%6 I.DOC NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP Steve Nelson, Chair and Members of the Planning Commission October 8, 2007 Page 6 CONCLUSION. For all of the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission approve Sprint's applications for the Project. A Sprint representative will be present at the October 9, 2007 Planning Commission meeting to respond to any questions you may have. Very truly yours, Gregory W. Sanders ofNOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP awsiCjm Enclosures 278976 LDDC *Diamond Bar Planning Commission denied cell phone tower at Ronald Regan Park. Sprint has appealed their decision. * CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO BE HELD AT AQMD (CITY HALL) AT ;i, .. t i "" (TUESDAY). Please come and bring others. *Neighbors, let's please ban together one more time and oppose the tower. Good attendance at the meeting will give us power. City Council must respond to our request as our elected officials. *Ronald Regan is our park, paid for by our taxes — not private enterprise. Parks are not designed to be money making ventures. Most people in our area feel their cell phone coverage is sufficient on Pathfinder (area in question.) Furthermore, the tower will primarily benefit Rowland Heights Residents. We are requesting that Sprint make effort to find another location. (Verizon covers this area fine without the tower.) If the Tower is installed at Ronald Reagan Park: *Potential long term health affects — already a tower at D.B. High School. *Lowered property values — Unable to choose if we wish to reside near tower. *The park is our refuge, play area and slice of nature for our families — Fake Tree Mono Elm Tower, with supplemental shed and air -conditioner is unattractive. *Once installed — there is little monitoring of radio frequency emissions. *Additional phone providers may co -locate and/or other towers will be installed at our park "once the door is opened." *Sprint was asked by the Planning Commission to explore other tower cites at their first meeting. Sprint did not follow through with this request and demonstrated a vast lack of effort, lack of information, and disregard for the Planning Commission's and residents' request. Sprint's idea of relocating the tower was to move the tower 36 feet at Ronald Reagan Park! *Sprint's disregard for our concerns and unwillingness to work with us is apparent in their lack of efforts. When asked how Verizon can provide coverage to ` Pathfinder without the tower Sprint representative replied " I don't know." 1 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR November 20, 2007 Business Name KMart Business Owner: Store Manager eriW Address: 249 S. Diamond Bar Blvd. Phone: 909/861-7741 Fax: Website: Please describe the type(s) of products(s)/service(s) your business offers: Retail Dent. Store How long have you been in business? When did you open your business in the City of Diamond Bar? Why did you choose to locate your business in Diamond Bar? Have you received any other special awards or recognition within the last year? If so, please describe: Additional information: Business of the Month videos are played during the special awards presentation of the City Council meeting (1 sf Tuesdays of the month). Videos are also played throughout the same month on DBTV Channel 3 on Fridays at 7 p.m. CITY COUNCIL Agenda # 7.3 Meeting Date: November 20, 2007 AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: James DeStefano, City Maa TITLE: FIRST READING OF AN ORDIN NCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING THE DIAMOND BAR MUNICIPAL CODE BY REPEALING TITLE 5 OF THE DIAMOND BAR MUNICIPAL CODE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND REPLACING IT WITH A NEW TITLE 5 ESTABLISHING A BUSINESS LICENSING PROGRAM; AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FEE SCHEDULE BY RESCINDING THE BUSINESS REGISTRATION FEES AND ESTABLISHING BUSINESS LICENSE FEES. RECOMMENDATION: Introduce first reading of the Ordinance amending the Diamond Bar Municipal Code and approve the resolution amending Diamond Bar Fee Schedule. FISCAL IMPACT: The business license program is not designed to raise revenue for the City. Its purpose is to review the management and ownership of specific types of businesses, maintain an accurate record of businesses in the City and to assist in verifying zoning compliance. Similar to the business registration program, the proposed business license program does not provide a full cost recovery to the City. Rather, the resolution before the Council retains $10 initial business license fee and a $10 annual renewal fee for most businesses within City. However, for specific business types listed in the proposed Ordinance that require background investigations, the resolution does propose full cost recovery — the initial fee will be $300 per person for each background check and $22 for the annual renewal fee. Still, this fee is considerably lower than current County business license fee. BACKGROUND: The City Council has held three study sessions (June 19, September 18, and October 16, 2007) on the proposed "in house" business license program. The City Council concluded that the Los Angeles County business license program is complex and costly, with duplication of public hearings; and that a City business license program would be more convenient, less costly and provide efficient service to our business community. At the October 16, 2007 study session, the Council directed staff to schedule the proposed business license ordinance and the fees for review and approval at the next available meeting. Attached to this report are copies of the June 19, 2007 study session staff report, the proposed business license ordinance and the proposed business license fees. PROPOSED BUSINESS LICENSE ORDINANCE: Currently, the City contracts with Los Angeles County to administer the business license program, based on a modified version of the County business license ordinance adopted just after the City incorporation. In May 2005, City Council adopted a business registration program. The proposed business license program will be a combination of the County business license function and the existing City business registration program. PROPOSED FEES: Proposed fees for Business License: At the June 19, 2007 study session, staff reported to the Council that a full cost recovery business license program that does not require a background check is $53.50. However, after three study sessions, there was not a consensus from the Council regarding the full cost recovery fee. The current business registration fee is $10 for initial business registration and $10 for a renewal; it is recommended that the City continue the $10 fee for the business license program for business that does not require a background check. Staff recommends continuation of the $10 initial business license fee and the $10 annual renewal fee. 2. Delinquent fees: The existing business registration program calls for doubling the $10 fee every 30 days of non-compliance with no cap. Staff recommends capping the delinquent fees at $500. 3. Fees for specific businesses with investigations: A regulatory business license program necessitates higher fees for businesses that require background investigations. Certain businesses require an investigation to be conducted by the Planning Division, Building and Safety Division, County Fire Department, Health Department, and/or Sheriff's Department. Field inspections may be required as well as criminal background investigations. The purpose of the investigations is to ensure that the business operator will operate in a manner that will not create nuisance or law enforcement problems. The fees will reimburse the City for the cost to investigate the proposed business operator. As presented to the Council at the June 19, 1007 study session, the estimated full cost recovery for businesses that require investigation is $300 per person for a background check. Accordingly, a business that requires a background check of two people, the licensee and the manager for example, would cost $600. Businesses that may require more than one person background check include entertainment and massage establishments, adult businesses, bars and nightclubs. 2 Staff recommends a fee of $300 per person for background check and $22 for annual renewal. IMPLEMENTATION: Staff has been implementing the business registration program the past two years. Staff believes that the various responsibilities and duties of the new business license will be absorbed by existing staff members. l Prepared B ancy ng, AICP Communityveto nt Director Attachment DO Reviewe y 15ge4oyle Assistant City Ma6ager 1. Proposed Business License Ordinance 2. Proposed Fee Resolution 3. June 19, September 18, and October 16, 2007, Study Session Report and Minutes ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PROPOSED BUSINESS LICENSE ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. XX (2007 -XX) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING THE DIAMOND BAR MUNICIPAL CODE BY REPEALING TITLE 5 OF THE DIAMOND BAR MUNICIPAL CODE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND REPLACING IT WITH A NEW TITLE 5 ESTABLISHING A BUSINESS LICENSING PROGRAM The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Title 5 of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code is repealed in its entirety and replaced with a new Title 5 to read as follows: Title 5 Business Licensing Chapter 5.00. Business Licenses Generally Section 5.00.010 Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Title, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Applicant means a person who has applied for, but not obtained, a business license or renewal required by this Title. Application means a written request made to the City by the applicant for a business license or renewal required by this Title. Business means any employment, avocation, occupation, profession, trade, calling, lawful game, show, exhibition, event, venture, fund-raising activity, commercial enterprise, company, corporation, joint enterprise, place of business, partnership or other activity or enterprise engaged in for gain, profit, benefit, advantage, or livelihood, whether or not a gain, profit, benefit, advantage or livelihood is earned by such business. Branch Establishment means a location where a business is conducted in addition to its main or fixed place of business. Business License means a license issued pursuant to this Title by which each business owner having a business or is doing business in the City is required to provide general information to the City and obtains a license prior to conducting business in the City. City means the City of Diamond Bar. Director means the Director of Community Development 1 Home Based Business means a business conducted within a residential dwelling unit or structure, employing occupants of the dwelling unit, with the business activity being subordinate to the residential use of the property. Person means and includes any business owner, individual, firm, co -partnership, joint venture, association, corporation, estate, business trust, or any other group or combination acting as a unit. Premises means all lands, structures, places and also the personal property, equipment and appurtenances connected with or used in any business. Section 5.00.020 Purpose. The purpose of this Title is to establish a regulatory mechanism whereby the City may review the management and ownership of specific types of businesses, maintain an accurate record of businesses conducting business in the City for statistical purposes and to assist in zoning compliance. The business license program is not designed to raise revenue, nor is it a substitute for land use regulations. Section 5.00.030 Business License and Fee Required. a. Business License. No person shall conduct any business in the City without first having obtained a business license, paid the applicable business license fee and complied with any and all applicable provisions of this Code. 2. A separate business license shall be obtained for each business location and for each separate type of business at the same location. 3. A home based business shall be required to obtain a business license prior to conducting business within a residential dwelling unit or on residential property. 4. Except as otherwise provided in this Title, an employee of a business that has obtained a valid Diamond Bar Business License is not required to obtain a separate business license. 5. A business license shall not be issued to a business that requires training or state licensing for the business owner, or for each technician or employee, until satisfactory proof of training or licensing is provided to the City. These businesses include without limitation, barbers, cosmetologists, estheticians and manicurists. 6. A business license shall not be issued to a business that 2 requires Workers' Compensation Insurance until satisfactory proof of having Workers' Compensation Insurance is provided to the City. b. Fee Required. Every person engaging in business in the City shall pay a business license fee as prescribed by resolution adopted by the City Council. 2. When a business license fee is imposed upon any business pursuant to this Title and such business is conducted at one or more fixed places of business and one or more branch establishments, the fee shall be computed as if each fixed place of business and branch establishment are separate and independent. 3. The business license fee is not a revenue raising device, but shall bear a reasonable relationship to the costs incurred by the City in reviewing, processing and action upon the application. 4. The City Council shall, from time to time, review the resolution fixing the business license fee and shall adjust the business license fee to reflect the City's costs. C. The following businesses are exempt from paying the business license fee upon satisfactory proof that the business meets the requirements for the exemption: 1. Non-profit and charitable organizations; 2. Businesses exempt from paying fees under the Constitution of the United States or the State of California, or under the laws of the State of California. d. Evidence of doing business. When a person by use of signs, circulars, cards, telephone book, or newspapers, advertises, holds out, or represents that such person is conducting business in the City, or when a person holds an active license or permit issued by a government agency indicating that such person is in business in the City, then these facts shall be considered prima facie evidence that such person is conducting a business in the City for purposes of this Title. Section 5.00.040 General Application Procedures. a. Applications for a business license shall be filed with the City and shall comply with the following requirements: Completion of an application on the form designated by the City and signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury; 2. Applications shall be filed a minimum of thirty days prior to the date requested for issuance of the permit; 3. Payment of the applicable filing fee; and 4. Such other information as may be required by the City. b. Except as otherwise provided in Chapters 5.04 and 5.08 of this Title, the City shall process the application and issue a business license upon receipt of a completed application and the required fee. The application may be reviewed by the Department of Finance, Community Development and other City departments or governmental agencies to determine if the business operations and premises to be occupied meet the requirements of federal, state, and/or local laws. C. Contents of General Business License Application. 1. Each business license application shall contain the following: A. Business name; B. Business address; C. Permanent Mailing address of the applicant; D. Phone number; E. Fax number; F. Employer I.D. Number (or Social Security number); G. State resale permit; H. State employer I.D. number; I. State contractors/business and profession license number (if applicable); J. Description of the business being conducted; K. Days and hours of operation: L. Start date; M. Type of ownership; N. Owners or principal officers; O. Description of all vehicles and mechanical equipment owned by or under the control of the business; P. Business license number (in the case of a renewal application); Q. Business license fee paid; Ct R. Health permit number (if applicable); S. Workers' Compensation Insurance Policy number, date and date of expiration (if applicable); T. Proof of any other required county, state or federal training and/or license or permit; and U. Such other information as may be required by the application form or requested by the City for enforcement and administration of this Title. Section 5.00.050 Contents of a Business license. Upon the payment for a business license and pursuant to any applicable provisions of Chapters 5.04 and 5.08 of this Code, the City shall issue a Business license to the applicant which shall contain the following: a. Type of business; b. Name of business; c. Business location; d. Business owner; e. Expiration date; f. Business license number; g. Amount of fee paid for business license; and h. Such other information as deemed necessary by the City. Section 5.00.060 Annual Renewal of a Business License a. Except as otherwise provided in this Title, when an applicant submits a timely business license renewal application and pays the renewal processing fee as set by resolution of the City Council, the City shall renew the license, to be effective upon the expiration of the old license. In the case of a business activity having a fixed location, application for a license for a different location is not a renewal and shall be deemed a new license application. b. Renewal Application Deadlines. Every person desiring to continue in business after the expiration of the license period shall file a renewal application and pay the required renewal fee not less than thirty days prior to the expiration of the license period. C. Late Applications - Renewal applications submitted after the application deadline are subject to the delinquent business license fees set forth in Section 5.00.070. Late renewal applications will not be processed until the applicant has paid all required fees. Section 5.00.070 Delinquent Business License Fee and Action to Collect a. Delinquency Fees. Any person engaging in business in the City who fails to pay the appropriate business license fee shall be subject to the following: 1. Applications for a business license that are not accompanied by the required business license fee or any delinquency fees that have accrued will not be processed until such fees have been paid in full. 2. For person's conducting business without having obtained a business license, the required fee shall be doubled for each consecutive 30 -day interval that the business was conducted without a license calculated from the first day the person engaged in the business provided that the total amount of fee and the late fee combined shall not exceed $500. 3. For failure to pay the annual renewal fee when due, the required fee shall be doubled on the day following the last day of each consecutive 30 -day interval following the due date while the fee remains unpaid provided that the total amount of fee and the late fee combined shall not exceed $500. b. Action to collect. Should legal action be required to collect any delinquent fee, an additional amount shall be charged equal to the cost incurred by the City in collection of the fee, including reasonable attorneys fees. Section 5.00.080 Temporary license Pending the approval of a business license following approval of a CUP for the premises pursuant to Chapter 22.58 of this Code, the Director may approve a no -fee temporary license for a period not to exceed three months if there is no record of problems caused by the business or outstanding violations of this Code or any other law related to the business. Such temporary license shall be cancelled automatically and shall be invalid when the applicant's license has been issued or the application therefore has been denied. Section 5.00.090 Business License - Operative Date. a. Generally. The operative date for a new business license shall be the date of approval of the application. b. Renewals. The operative date for a business license renewal shall be the date following the date of expiration of the previous year's license. Con Section 5.00.100 Refunds. No business license fees or delinquent fees collected shall be refundable. Section 5.00.110 Duplicate Business License Upon filing a statement indicating that a business license has been lost or destroyed, and after paying a replacement fee, a duplicate business license shall be issued by the City. Section 5.00.120 License Transfers and Changes. a. Transfers of Ownership. A new business license is required whenever there is a transfer in ownership of a business. The following transactions shall be considered transfers: 1. The addition or withdrawal of a new partner or partners; or 2. The transfer of a business from one partnership to another; or 3. The transfer of a business from a partnership to a corporation; or 4. The transfer of a business from one corporation to another; or 5. The transfer of a business from a corporation to a partnership; or 6. The transfer of a business from a corporation to an individual, or vice versa, unless the corporation and the individual are the same person; or 7. The transfer of a business from a partnership to an individual, or vice versa; or 8. The transfer of a majority share of stock in a corporation from one shareholder to another. b. Change of Name. A new business license is required whenever there is a change of name of a business. If there is no transfer of ownership or change in the nature or scope of business or in the business location and if the licensee operating under the previous name had a valid business bl license at the time of the change of name, the new license shall be issued upon filing of a complete application and payment of all required fees. C. Change of Location. A new business license is required whenever there is a change in location of a business. d. Change in Business. A new business license is required whenever there is a change in the nature or scope of the business. Section 5.00.130 Assignment of License Prohibited. The assignment of or attempt to assign any license issued pursuant to this Title is unlawful and any such assignment or attempt to assign a license shall render the license null and void. Section 5.00.140 Business License Fee Received by Mail. Whenever any payment, statement, report or other communication is received after a deadline prescribed by this Title, but is received in a sealed envelope with a postmark dated on or before such deadline, the City may regard such payment, report or other communication as having been received timely. Section 5.00.150 Posting and Keeping of Business License. a. Any person engaging in business at a fixed location or branch establishment in the City shall keep a business license posted in a conspicuous place upon the premises where the business is carried on. b. Any person engaging in business, but not operating at a fixed location or branch establishment in the City, shall be in possession of a business license at all times while engaged in such business in the City. Section 5.00.160 Authority to Enforce/Entry to Inspect. a. Authority to Enforce. The City shall have authority to enforce each of the provisions of this Title. The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department and other City departments shall render assistance in the enforcement of this Title as may be necessary. The City Attorney is authorized to file a complaint against any persons found in violation of this Title. b. Entry to Inspect. The City, deputy sheriff, fire inspector, and other City officers empowered to enforce the provision of this Title, shall have the power and authority to enter into a business, free of charge and at any reasonable time, and required to see the business license posted in a conspicuous place upon the premises. Section 5.00.170 Insurance and Bond Requirements. a. License Validity and Grounds for Suspension. Whenever the provisions of this Title require an applicant for any business license to procure, post or maintain in effect any surety or policy of insurance, any business license so issued is good only while such surety or policy of insurance is in full force and effect. The license shall automatically be suspended without notice if at any time such surety or policy of insurance is not in full force and effect. The Director of Community Development shall notify the licensee in writing of any suspension, pursuant to this section and within ten days thereafter, the licensee may request in writing a hearing before the City Council. The City Council shall hold a public hearing in a manner consistent with Chapter 5.04, and as indicated by the evidence received at the hearing, may revoke the license or terminate the suspension and restore the license. If the licensee does not request a hearing, the license is automatically revoked at the end of ten days following the notification of suspension. b. Cancellation of Insurance. Except as otherwise provided, a policy of insurance required under this Title shall not be accepted unless it is not subject to cancellation or unless it provides that it shall not be canceled until thirty days after the insurer or surety gives notice thereof to the Director. If a licensee learns that such a policy of insurance will be or has been canceled, such licensee shall notify the Director within three days of such notice. If a new policy of insurance acceptable to the Director is filed before the old one is canceled or expires, then the license will continue in full force. Any employee, officer or department informed of any change or cancellation of any insurance policy required under this Title shall immediately notify the Director of such change or cancellation. C. Contents of Insurance Policy. In every instance where an insurance policy is required for the licensing of a particular business, such insurance shall fulfill the following requirements unless the Director directs otherwise: 1. It shall be primary and not contributing to any other insurance maintained by the City; 9 2. It shall name the City of Diamond Bar, its City Council, and its officers, agents and employees as additional insureds; 3. Its liability limit shall be a minimum of one million ($1,000,000.00) dollars; 4. It shall bear a deductible in an amount satisfactory to the Director; 5. It shall be provided by an insurer satisfactory to the City of Diamond Bar; and 6. It shall provide the Director with thirty days prior notice of any cancellation or modification of the policy. d. Indemnification. Whenever this Title requires that a business license applicant or licensee indemnify the City, the applicant or licensee shall be required to sign an indemnification statement that reads substantially as follows: It shall be a condition of each license issued under this section that the licensee agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the city and its Council and each member thereof, and every officer and employee of the city, from any and all liability or financial loss resulting from any suits, claims, losses, or actions brought by any person and from costs and expenses of litigation, including attorney fees, by reason of injury to any person, including, but not limited to, officers and employees of the licensee, performed under and pursuant to such license or any and all activities, operations, and conditions in any manner connected therewith or pertaining thereto. Such indemnity shall include, but not be limited to, any and all liabilities, demands, claims, damages, losses, costs and expenses caused or alleged to have been caused by any negligent or other act of any such licensee. Section 5.00.180 Violations. Any person violating this Title shall be guilty of a misdemeanor as provided in Section 1.04.010(a). The commencing or conducting of any such business without having first procured such license, or without having complied with any and all such requirements or provisions shall constitute a separate violation of this Code for each and every day that such business is so commenced or conducted. It is a violation of this Title to knowingly make a false statement in any application for a license or permit or in any report required under this Title. 10 Section 5.00.190 Withholding a Business license. The City shall withhold a business license to engage in business from any person when there are pending violations of any City code against such person and/or business applying for a business license, or when a debt is owed to the City as a result of a violation of this Code. Section 5.00.200 Remedies Cumulative. All remedies prescribed in this Chapter shall be cumulative and the use of one or more remedies by the City shall not prohibit the use of any other remedy for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Chapter. Chapter 5.04 Supplemental Procedures Required for Specific Businesses Section 5.04.010 Investigation of Specific Businesses a. Upon receipt of an application for one of the following businesses, the Director or his or her designee shall conduct an investigation and criminal background check on the applicant(s), and managerial staff as deemed necessary by the Director, and may obtain reports from the Sheriff's Department, Building and Safety, Fire Department, County Health Department, and any such other information as he or she deems necessary to determine if the criteria for issuance of a business license have been met: 1. Acupressure and acupressure technicians 2. Adult oriented businesses (as defined in Section 22.80.020 of this Code) 3. Alarm systems 4. Alcoholic beverage sales (off-site consumption) 5. Bars and nightclubs 6. Computer services/network gaming center (as defined in Section 22.80.020) 7. Entertainment Establishments 8. Firearm Dealers 9. Indoor amusement/entertainment facilities (as defined in Section 22.80.020) 10. Massage establishments and massage technicians 11. Pawnbrokers and second hand dealers 12. Peddling -Solicitation 11 13. Psychic Reading (as defined in Section 22.80.020 of this Code) 14. Tow trucks and towing companies Section 5.04.020 Application a. In addition to the application requirements listed in Section 5.00.040(C), applications for a business license for the businesses listed in this Chapter shall include, as applicable: 1. The name and permanent address of all persons having a financial interest in the operation of the business or premises where the business is to be located; 2. A detailed description of the proposed business and services provided, including whether food, beverages or alcohol will be served on the premises, and any further information about the business, as the Director may deem necessary; 3. The name or names of the person or persons responsible for the management or supervision of applicant's business; 4. Whether or not the applicant or any person or persons responsible for the management or supervision of applicant's business have been within the previous five years, convicted of a crime, the nature of such offense, and the sentence received therefore including conditions of parole or probation, if any; 5. Whether or not the applicant has ever had any permit or license issued in conjunction with the operation of a business revoked, including the date thereof and name of the revoking agency; 6. Documentation showing that the premises is in full compliance with Title 22 Development Code; and 7. Such other reasonable information as the Director may deem necessary. b. Where the applicant is a corporation, association, partnership, or other legal entity, applicant shall mean each partner, officer, director and each shareholder owning or controlling more than 10% of such entity. Section 5.04.030 Investigation Once a completed application for one of the businesses listed in Section 5.04.010 is received and the applicant pays the prescribed application fee, the Director or his or her designee shall initiate an investigation and criminal background check of the applicant(s), and managerial staff as deemed necessary by the Director, which may 12 require the individuals to be fingerprinted and to provide a copy of a valid photo identification. The purpose of this investigation is to assist the Director in determining if the business license should be granted. Section 5.04.040 Review and Approval Business license applications for businesses listed in Section 5.04.010 shall be subject to the approval of the Director or his or her designee. Section 5.04.050 Grounds for Denial of Business License a. Except as otherwise provided in this Title, the Director may deny an application for a business license or renewal license for any of the following causes arising from the acts or omissions of the applicant or licensee: 1. Fraud, misrepresentation, or false statement in applying for a new or renewed license or in any report or record filed with the City; 2. Any relevant violation of this Code; 3. A violation of the conditions or restrictions of the previous business license in the case of a renewal; 4. Conviction of any crime within the past five years where the trait shown is inconsistent with carrying on the business, occupation, or activity for the benefit of the public; 5. Conducting the business, occupation, or activity for which the license is issued in a manner determined to constitute an immediate threat or menace to the health or safety of the public. Failure to correct objectionable conditions constituting a public nuisance within a reasonable time after lawful notice from a governmental entity shall be prima facie proof thereof; 6. Failure to abide by the disciplinary action imposed by the appropriate City officer. Section 5.04.060 Effect of Business License Denial a. Limitation on New Applications. If an applicant's business license application for a particular business activity has been denied, the City shall not process a new application by that applicant for that business activity for a twelve month period after the date of the decision to deny unless the Director determines that the reason for the denial has been cured and no longer exists. 13 b. Appealability. Any person dissatisfied by the City's decision to grant, deny or condition a business license may appeal that decision to the City Council in a manner provided Section 5.04.080. Section 5.04.070 Conditions of Approval a. Right to Condition New License. The Director, or his or her designee, may condition any new business license if he or she finds that the conditions relate to the anticipated impacts of the business and are reasonably necessary to mitigate those impacts. b. Application to Change Conditions. The City Council may change, modify or eliminate any conditions previously placed on a license upon written request if it finds that the reasons for the original imposition of such conditions have been cured or no longer exist. Applications to change conditions shall be noticed and set for public hearing in a manner consistent with this Chapter. Section 5.04.080 Appeal. a. Any person dissatisfied with a decision of the City to approve, deny or condition a business license application may appeal the decision to the City Council by filing with the City Clerk a notice of appeal within fifteen days of the date of mailing of the decision. b. A notice of appeal shall be signed by the appellant or the legal representative of the appellant and shall state that the appellant appeals from a specified decision or a particular part thereof. The notice of appeals shall be accompanied with the required appeal fee, as set by resolution of the City Council. C. If a timely appeal is filed, the effect of the decision shall be stayed pending the Council's resolution of the matter unless the Director specifically finds that the public health and safety is endangered, in which case the decision shall take effect immediately. Section 5.04.090 Appeals - Notice of Hearing. Upon receipt by the City Clerk of a timely notice of appeal, a public appeal hearing shall be noticed and set for public hearing in a manner consistent with Section 5.04.120. 14 Section 5.04.100 Appeals -Hearing Procedure. The City Council shall conduct the appeal hearing de novo and shall hear and consider evidence, argument and points and authorities of law, and may require parties before it to submit such argument and points and authorities of law prior to rendering any decision. The hearing will be held as provided in Section 5.04.130. Section 5.04.110 Modification, Suspension or Revocation Any license issued by the City may be conditioned, modified, suspended or revoked for cause by the City Council in accordance with Section 5.04.140. Section 5.04.120 Notice to Licensee. Notice of the time and place of the public hearing shall be served at least ten days prior to the hearing on the applicant and upon all owners and tenants of the properties within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the business premises in the manner specified in Section 1.00.120 of this Code. Section 5.04.130 Procedure for Hearing. a. The licensee or legal representative of the licensee shall have the right to bring witnesses to testify on his or her behalf. b. Hearings need not be conducted according to technical rules relating to evidence and witnesses. C. The City Council shall issue its decision by written decision. The decision shall contain a determination of the issues presented. d. The decision of the City Council shall be final. Section 5.04.140 Grounds for Revocation of Business License. The City Council may condition, suspend or revoke a business license if the Council finds any of the following: a. The licensee, manager or employees have failed to maintain the premises in a neat and clean condition and have allowed the business premises to deteriorate and become blighted; b. That the building, structure, or equipment used in the conduct of the business does not comply with or fails to meet any health, zoning, fire, or building and safety laws of the State of California or the Diamond Bar Municipal Code; C. That the licensee, manager or employees have violated any statute or any ordinance of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code resulting from any act performed in the exercise of any rights permitted by the issuance of the license; d. That the licensee, manager or employees have violated any provision of federal or state law or any provision of the City of Diamond Bar Business License Ordinance, the City of Diamond Bar Municipal Code or any other statute, rule, permit or regulation on the business premises or relating to the licensed activity; e. That the licensee has failed or refused to notify the City of any change in facts as required by this Title within ten days after such change; f. That the licensee, manager or employees have permitted, allowed or failed to prevent the use of the business as a base or magnet for unlawful or criminal activity, including, but not limited to, solicitation, prostitution and drug trafficking; g. The licensee, manager or employees have allowed or failed to discourage criminal or otherwise unlawful activity to occur on or immediately adjacent to the business premises; h. The licensee, manager or employees have failed to control the actions of the businesses' patrons in and immediately adjacent to the business premises; or i. That the licensee has conducted the licensed business in a manner contrary to the peace, health, safety and the general welfare of the public. Section 5.04.150 Effect of Revocation or Suspension. a. No business license fee refunds shall be issued to any licensee upon revocation or suspension of a business license. b. Upon revocation of any business license for cause under this Chapter, no business license to operate the same business activity shall be granted to the same person, corporation, association, partnership, or other legal entity within one year after such revocation. 16 C. Whenever a license is suspended or revoked, the Sheriff shall take into possession the business license for the subject business activity. The licensee shall surrender the business license, license stickers, or similar evidence of a license to the Director or Sheriff. d. Upon revocation or suspension of a business license, the licensee shall cease operation of the business activity immediately. Except as otherwise provided, in the event that the license is suspended, the licensee may resume operation once the suspension period has expired. Chapter 5.08 Operating Requirements for Specific Businesses Regulated Section 5.08.010. Acupressure Acupressure means the practice of placing physical pressure by hand, elbow, or with the aid of various devices on different acupuncture points on the surface of the body. Section 5.08.020. Adult Oriented Businesses a. Adult oriented business shall be as defined in Section 22.80.020 of this Code. b. In addition to the information required in Section 5.04.020, an application for an adult oriented business license shall include the following information: 1. In the event the applicant is not the owner of record of the real property upon which the adult business is, or is to be, located the application must be accompanied by a notarized statement from the owner of the property acknowledging that an adult business is or will be located on the property. In addition to furnishing such notarized statement, the applicant shall furnish the name and address of the owner of record of the property, as well as a copy of the lease or rental agreement pertaining to the premises in which the adult business is or will be located. 2. Proof that the applicant has complied with the requirements of Section 22.42.020 of this Code. 17 C. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Title, the Director shall approve an application for an adult oriented business unless he or she finds that one of the grounds for denial set forth in Section 5.04.050 exist. The Director shall approve or deny an application for an adult business license within 30 days of the filing of a complete application. d. The Director's decision may be appealed to the City Council as provided in Section 5.04.080. The hearing on the appeal shall be held at the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting following the timely filing of a complete appeal unless the applicant requests an extension; in no event shall the hearing on appeal take place more than thirty days after the date on which a timely and complete notice of appeal is received unless the applicant requests a further extension. e. In the case of an appeal by a person other than the applicant or permit holder, the permit holder may continue to conduct the business during the pendency of any appeal. f. Notice of the public hearing on the appeal shall be given as provided in Section 5.04. 090. g. The City Council shall announce its decision within a reasonable time, but not to exceed thirty (30) days, following the close of the public hearing, unless good cause is shown for the extension of time and the applicant or opponent or both are notified of this extension and the reasons therefore. The City Council's final action shall be taken by resolution and notice thereof shall be given by mail to the applicant/permit holder or appellant, or to both if they be different parties. h. Operating Requirements: 1. The licensee shall not permit any doors on the licensed premises to be locked during business hours and, in addition, the licensee shall be responsible for ensuring that any room, area or booth on the licensed premises shall be readily accessible at all times and shall be open to view in its entirety for inspection by any law enforcement officer. 2. The business shall employ a person on the premises to act as manager at all times during which the adult business is open. 3. The business shall comply with all requirements for an adult-oriented business set forth in Chapter 22.42 of this Code. Section 5.08.030. Alarm Systems a. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: 18 1. Alarm owner means the person that owns, operates, leases, rents, uses or makes available for use by his agents, employees, representatives or family, any alarm system. 2. Alarm system means any mechanical or electrical device, whether known as a burglary, robbery or intrusion alarm, medical assistance alarm, direct dial telephone device, audible or silent alarm or by any other name, an alarm that is used for the detection of a fire, intrusion into a building, structure or facility, or to signal the commission of an unlawful act, or the existence of any other emergency situation. It shall include those devices which emit a signal within the protected premises only, are supervised by the proprietor of the premises where located, and are otherwise known as "proprietary alarm systems." Auxiliary devices installed by a telephone company to protect telephone company systems which might be damaged or disrupted by the use of an alarm system are not included in this definition. 3. Audible alarm means an alarm system which, when activated, emits an audible sound in the vicinity of the protected premises. 4. Direct dial device means a device which is connected to a telephone line and upon activation of an alarm system, automatically dials a predetermined telephone number and transmits a message or signal. 5. False alarm means an alarm signal activated by causes other than the existence of an emergency situation or commission or attempted commission of an unlawful act, which the alarm system is designed to detect, and results in a response by the Sheriff to the alarm location. An alarm signal activated by violent conditions of nature or other extraordinary circumstances not subject to the control of the alarm owner shall not constitute a false alarm. b. Direct dial telephone devices. No person shall use any alarm system which is equipped with a direct dial device, and which when activated, automatically dials any telephone number in any office of the Sheriff. C. Audible alarms --General requirements. The alarm owner of each audible alarm shall post in a conspicuous location outside the premises where the alarm is located the names and telephone numbers of persons to be notified to render repairs or service 19 during any hour of the day or night during which the audible alarm is operated. An audible alarm shall terminate its sound, or shall automatically reset, within 30 minutes of activation. d. Prohibited sounds. No alarm system shall be installed or used which emits a sound which is similar to that of an emergency vehicle siren or a civil defense warning system. e. False alarm. A person shall not knowingly turn in a report of a false alarm. This section does not prohibit a test of an alarm system as permitted in advance by the Sheriff. E Repair. After any false alarm, the alarm owner shall, upon request by the Sheriff, submit a written report to the Sheriff, describing actions taken or to be taken to eliminate the cause of the false alarm. This report shall be submitted within ten days of the date of request by the Sheriff. g. Notification of test. An alarm owner shall notify the Sheriff prior to any service, test, repair, maintenance, alteration, or installation of an alarm system which might produce a false alarm. h. Maintaining a public nuisance alarm. 1. Any alarm system that generates three or more false alarms in any 12 -month period shall be deemed to be a public nuisance alarm. A service charge in an amount prescribed by resolution of the City Council shall be charged to an alarm owner of a public nuisance alarm system for each subsequent false alarm. 2. After each false alarm, the City shall notify the alarm owner in writing of the date and time that the Sheriff responded to the false alarm. The alarm owner shall also be notified in writing in each instance of the number of false alarms of record attributed to that alarm system within the previous 12 -month period. The alarm owner shall further be informed in writing of the provisions of this section and of any service charge or other penalties to be imposed. 3. Within ten days from the date of such notice, the alarm owner may present written evidence to the Sheriff that the alarm response in question was not in fact a false alarm as defined herein, or that there was a justifiable reason for the activation of the alarm. If no such response is made by the alarm owner within the ten-day period, the Sheriffs determination that the alarm was false shall be final. Within ten days of receipt of written evidence from an alarm go] owner, the Sheriff shall render a decision which decision shall be final. i. Exemptions. The provisions of this section are not applicable to audible alarms affixed to motor vehicles or to a public telephone utility whose only duty is to furnish telephone service pursuant to tariffs on file with the state public utilities commission. No false alarms shall be counted against an alarm owner that were the result of an act of God, natural disaster, or interruptions of electrical service not due to the alarm owner. j. Penalties. Any person violating subsections (b) through (e) shall be deemed to have committed a misdemeanor as provided in Section 1.04.010(a). k. Civil remedies available. Violation of any of the provisions of this section shall constitute a nuisance and may be abated in the name of the City in any court of competent jurisdiction through civil process by means of restraining order, preliminary or permanent injunction or in any other manner provided by law for the abatement of such nuisances. 1. Enforcement. 1. The amount of any service charge shall be deemed a debt to the city. All service charges shall be deemed delinquent 15 days after they are due and payable. 2. Pursuant to Government Code § 38773, the City may recover any and all costs incurred in abating a violation of this Section including the imposition of a lien against the property on which the nuisance is maintained. 3. Prior to the recordation of a lien against property for the recovery of abatement and other related administrative costs, the City, in accordance with Government Code § 38773.1 or 38773.5, shall provide written notification, by registered or certified mail, to the property owner that a lien will be assessed against their property and such costs will constitute a lien upon the land until paid. Section 5.08.040. Bars and Nightclubs 21 a. b. C. For purposes of this Chapter, the following words shall have the following meanings: Bars and nightclubs shall mean businesses that are not part of a larger restaurant, where alcoholic beverages are sold for on-site consumption. This definition includes bars, taverns, pubs, and similar establishments where any food service is secondary to the main purpose of alcoholic beverage sales. May include entertainment (e.g., live music and/or dancing, comedy, etc.). May also include beer brewing as part of a microbrewery, and other beverage and tasting facilities. In addition to the information prescribed by Section 5.04.020, the application for a license for a bar, or nightclub shall include: 1. The complete standard regulatory business license application including the names and addresses of all responsible operators, managers, and property owner; 2. A certified copy of all valid Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) permits, licenses, and conditions of operation: and 3. Security Plan Requirements. Applicants for businesses that serve alcohol with an occupancy load of 50 or greater are required to submit a security plan. All submitted security plans shall be reviewed and are subject to the approval of the Director or his or her designee. 4. A set of plans stamped "Approved" by the Los Angeles County Fire Department which identifies the use and the square footage of the establishment. Operating Requirements. 1. Manager Required. Any bar or nightclub shall have a responsible person on the premises to act as manager and supervise employees at all times during which the business is operating. 2. Facility Operators. Licensees shall maintain their operations pursuant to the security plan approved by the Community Development Director and within the standards required by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. 3. Display of Licenses. The business owner shall display, in a prominent and visible location, the business license, and an entertainment license and/or promoter's license is applicable. A promoter's license shall be displayed in the same location as the 22 business owner's license but need only be displayed during the promoted event(s). 4. Complaints. An employee of each business owner licensee shall be appointed to address, during hours of operation, all complaints. The name and phone number of the employee shall be posted adjacent to the business license. The business owner licensee shall make reasonable efforts to address each complaint. The licensee shall keep a log of all complaints and follow-up and shall make the information available to city staff upon request. 5. Alcoholic Beverages. All new employees of business owner licensees serving alcohol to patrons shall enroll in a certified training program for the responsible service of alcohol. The training shall be offered to new employees on no less than a quarterly basis. 6. Merchandise Sales. No business owner licensee shall sell merchandise except inside the establishment. 7. Open Doors. No door of any business may be propped open after 6:00 p.m., except for the period during which goods are being delivered to the establishment, and then only if continuously attended by an employee of the business owner. Designated Driver Signs. Signs recommending the use of a "designated driver" shall be posted at all bar areas and at the entrance and exits to the establishment. The signs shall measure at least six inches by six inches. 9. Joint Responsibility for Violations and Noise Control. Violations of this subsection (c) and violations of the Noise Control Ordinance set forth in Chapter 8.12 of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code by either the business owner promote, shall be grounds for revocation of the business owner's license and the promoter's license. 10. All security personnel must have a California Guard Card and/or must possess a certificate of completion from a Penal Code 832 course instruction within six months of employment. Section 5.08.050. Entertainment License a. Purpose and Intent 23 1. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar finds that operation of business establishments in the City providing live entertainment creates special circumstances pertaining to noise, disorderly conduct by patrons, underage drinking and similar such conditions as to warrant regulation through a business license. 2. Therefore, it is the purpose of this Section to regulate the operation of entertainment establishments and entertainment promoters to promote the public health, safety and welfare and to ensure that the operators of these establishments have the proper qualifications and operate their businesses in a safe and secure manner. 3. The issuance of a regulatory business license for the operation of entertainment establishments in the City shall not establish or convey a vested right or a property right in the licensee or the property. b. Definitions 1. Admission Charge means any charge for the right or privilege to enter any entertainment establishment including a minimum service charge, an event charge, a cover charge, a charge for the use of seats and tables, or any other similar charge. It also includes the purchase or presentation of a ticket or token directly or indirectly required as a condition of entrance. It does not include tips, gratuities, voluntary donations, or suggested donations for employees or for any person providing entertainment. 2. Entertainment means any live performance, including but not limited to all forms of music, theatrical or comedic performance, song, dance, or vocal entertainment by a disc jockey or announcer, participated in by one or more employees, guests, customers, or any other person or persons. 3. Entertainment Establishment means any business establishment or concern open to members of the public, with or without admission charge, in which entertainment is offered or performed, except as exempted in Subsection (d) of this Section. 4. Entertainment Promoter means an individual or group of individuals, entity or organization that organizes, coordinates, schedules, advertises, solicits patrons, oversees or otherwise promotes entertainment in the facilities of another. 24 c. Permit Requirement. 1. Prior to commencing operation of an entertainment establishment, the owner or operator shall obtain an entertainment license in the manner provided for in this Title and it shall be posted in a conspicuous public place on such premises at all times. Failure to post such permit shall be a violation of this Code and shall be grounds for revocation of such permit. Prior to operating or conducting business in the City, an entertainment promoter shall obtain an entertainment license in the manner provided for in this Title. 2. The failure of an entertainment promoter to obtain a business license for an event or location shall be grounds for suspension or revocation of the business license of the facility where the event took place and for denial or revocation of any license the promoter may have for any other event or location in the City. 3. The entertainment license covers only the entertainment portion of the business. A general business license is required for the general operation of the business. Neither the obtaining of an entertainment license nor compliance with the operating standards provided in this Code shall obviate the need for, or excuse any noncompliance with, the zoning code, building code, fire code, or any other or additional permit or code requirement made applicable to the entertainment or entertainment establishment under any other provision of this Code or state or federal law. d. Exemption from License Requirement. The provisions of this Section shall not be deemed to require an entertainment license for the following: 1. The use of a radio or other electronic playback device in any establishment, except when utilized by an announcer or "disc jockey" who at any time provides any form of vocal entertainment for the purpose of gaining the attention and interest of, or diverting or amusing guests or patrons, including the announcing of song titles or artists' names; Entertainment consisting of ambient or incidental music provided for guests or patrons by one (1) non -amplified musician. If there is an admission charge required to observe or attend such entertainment, the music will not be considered ambient or incidental; 3. Entertainment provided for invited guests at a private event such as a wedding reception, banquet or celebration where there is no admission charge; and 25 4. Entertainment conducted by or sponsored by any bona fide club, society, or association, organized or incorporated for benevolent, charitable, dramatic or literary purposes, having an established membership, and which holds meetings at regular intervals of not less than once per three-month period, when proceeds, if any, arising from such entertainment are used for the purpose of such club, society, or association. e. In addition to the information required in Section 5.04.020, an application for an entertainment license shall include the following information: 1. The name and permanent address of all persons having a financial interest in the operation of the entertainment, business, or premises where the entertainment is to be located; 2. A detailed description of the proposed entertainment, including type of entertainment, number of persons engaged in entertainment; 3. The date, hours, location and business license number if already issued of the establishment where the entertainment is proposed to be conducted and the admission charge, if any, to be charged; 4. The name or names of the person or persons responsible for the management or supervision of applicant's business and of any entertainment; 5. Whether or not the applicant or any person or persons responsible for the management or supervision of applicant's business have been within the previous five years, convicted of a crime, the nature of such offense, and the sentence received therefore including conditions of parole or probation, if any; 6. Whether or not the applicant has ever had any permit or license issued in conjunction with the sale of alcohol or provision of entertainment revoked, including the date thereof and name of the revoking agency; 7. The proposed security plan for control of patrons. All security personnel must have a California Guard Card and/or must possess a certificate of completion from a Penal Code 832 course instruction within six months of employment; 8. Written consent for the proposed entertainment on the premises from the owner of the property on which the entertainment is to be conducted; 9. Proof that the premises where the entertainment will take place meets the requirements set forth in Title 22 of this Code; and 10. In the case of entertainment promoters, the number of events proposed to be conducted, whether the events are recurring on a regular schedule, the location or locations of proposed events 26 and the business license number of the business where the entertainment will be provided. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Title, the Director shall approve an application for an entertainment license unless he or she finds that one of the grounds for denial set forth in Section 5.04.050 exist. The Director shall approve or deny an application for an entertainment license within 30 days of the filing of a complete application. Notice of the Director's decision shall be mailed to the applicant at the address shown on the application and to all the property owners within three -hundred (300) feet of the applicant's business. g. Emergency Suspension. An entertainment permit may be suspended immediately if the Director determines that there is an immediate and significant threat to public safety and welfare arising out of the use of the entertainment license. The permit holder shall be provided by personal service and first class mail with notice of the suspension setting forth the grounds giving rise to the suspension and ordering that the entertainment operation cease and desist during the suspension. After such notice is given, the permit holder shall have ten (10) days within which to correct the conditions giving rise to the suspension and to provide the Director with proof of the corrective action taken. During this period, the permit holder shall discontinue all entertainment on the premises. Upon timely correction of a condition giving rise to a suspension, the permit may be reinstated by the Director. Failure or refusal of the permit holder to timely correct the condition shall result in institution of revocation proceedings as set forth in Section 5.04.110. Should the permit holder fail or refuse to correct the condition within the ten (10) day period, the suspension shall remain in effect until the conclusion of the revocation proceeding. h. Appeal 1. The Director's decision may be appealed to the City Council as provided in Section 5.04.080. The hearing on the appeal shall be held at the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting following the timely filing of a complete appeal unless the applicant requests an extension; in no event shall the hearing on appeal take place more than thirty days after the date on which a timely and complete notice of appeal is received unless the applicant requests a further extension. The Council's decision thereon shall be final. 2. In the case of an appeal by a person other than the applicant or permit holder, the permit holder may continue to conduct entertainment during the pendency of any appeal. 3. Notice of the public hearing on the appeal shall be given as provided in Section 5.04.090. 27 4. The City Council shall announce its decision within a reasonable time, but not to exceed thirty (30) days, following the close of the public hearing, unless good cause is shown for the extension of time and the applicant or opponent or both are notified of this extension and the reasons therefore. The City Council's final action shall be taken by resolution and notice thereof shall be given by mail to the applicant/permit holder or appellant, or to both if they be different parties i. Operating Requirements. Entertainment Establishments shall be subject to the same operating instructions as those listed in Section 5.08.040(c) for bars and nightclubs. In addition, the following operating requirements shall apply: 1. Control of Events. The business owner licensee shall retain full control of all events on the property and ensure that any and all conditions of approval are adhered to. All events, including events organized by promoters, shall be supervised and managed by employees of the licensee. This shall include all club operations, ticket sales, parking arrangements, advertising and promotion of any event. 2. Neighborhood Clean-up. The business owner and promoter, if applicable, shall clean-up or cause to be cleaned up excessive litter and trash on the residential streets, if any, within a one - block radius of the business location at least once a week for the period during which one or more events take place. 3. All indoor areas of the entertainment establishment in which patrons are permitted and entertainment is presented, shall be arranged in such a manner that the entire interior portion of the viewing area is open and visible from aisles and public areas of the place of entertainment and shall be open to view by management at all times. Visibility shall not be blocked or obscured whatsoever; and 4. The entertainment establishment will have a manager on the premises at all times when entertainment is performed. Section 5.08.060. Firearm Dealers a. For purposes of this Chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings: 28 1. Engages in the business means the conducting of a business by selling, leasing, or otherwise transferring, for a consideration, any firearm, firearm munition or firearm ammunition component; or the holding of one's self out as engaged in the business of selling, leasing or otherwise transferring for a consideration any firearm, firearm munition, or firearm ammunition component in quantity, in series, or in individual transactions, or in any other manner indicative of trade. 2. Firearm shall include, without limitation, any revolver, pistol or any other device designed to be used as a weapon or modified to be used as a weapon, that expels a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion. 3. Firearm ammunition means any cartridge or encasement containing a bullet or projectile, propellant or explosive charge, and a primer which is used in the operation of a firearm. 4. Firearm ammunition component means any cartridge or encasement, bullet or projectile, primer or propellant or explosive material used to manufacture ammunition. 5. Firearm dealer means any person who engages in the business of selling, leasing or otherwise transferring for a consideration to members of the public any new or used firearm, as well as any firearm ammunition or any firearm munition component. b. Application Information. 1. License Form. Any license issued to operate as a gun dealer shall be on a form approved by the city. 2. Application Form. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter, every applicant for a gun dealer license shall fill out the application form prescribed by the California State Attorney General in addition to the city's application for a business license. C. Minimum Criteria for Issuance of a License. In addition to the applicant's compliance with all other requirements of this title, a background check and recommendation pertaining to the applicant, and the applicant's existing and prospective manager(s) and employee(s) will be referred to and conducted by the Director and the Sheriffs Department. In addition to compliance with all the requirements of this title and obtaining a favorable background recommendation from the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, the applicant must meet the following criteria: 29 1. The applicant, and any existing or prospective manager and employee, must be at least twenty-one years of age. 2. The applicant must be properly licensed as required by all applicable federal and California laws. 3. The applicant, or any existing or prospective manager or employee, must not have had a similar type of license previously revoked or denied for good cause within the immediately preceding two years prior to the license application. 4. The applicant, and any existing or prospective manager and employee, must not have been convicted of: A. Any offense so as to disqualify the applicant, manager or employee from owning or possessing a firearm under applicable federal and California laws; B. Any offense relating to the manufacturing, sale, possession, use or registration of any firearm or other dangerous or deadly weapon; C. Any offense involving the use of force or violence upon the person of another; D. Any offense involving theft, fraud, dishonesty or deceit; E. Any offense involving the manufacture, sale, possession or use of any drug or controlled substance itemized on any schedule pertaining to drugs and other controlled substances of the California Health and Safety Code. 5. The applicant, or any existing or prospective manager or employee, must not have been adjudicated to be mentally incompetent, or have been committed to a mental institution. 6. The applicant must demonstrate that: A. The location for which the license is sought is not located within five hundred feet of a public or private day care center or school, or a public park. B. The location for which the license is sought is not located within five hundred feet from any other premises operated by a gun dealer licensee. 7. The applicant must provide a copy of each of the following: A. Valid federal firearms license; 30 B. Valid seller's permit issued by the State Board of Equalization; and C. Valid certificate of eligibility issued by the Department of Justice. d. Issuance of License Subject to Conditions. Any and all licenses granted pursuant to this Chapter are subject to the following conditions, in addition to any conditions imposed by the Director, breach of any of which subjects the license to revocation: 1. The business activity shall be carried on only in the building designated in the license, which shall be located in a properly zoned commercial district, unless the gun dealer qualifies as a home occupation under federal and state law and is in full compliance with the home occupation provisions contained in the Diamond Bar Zoning Ordinance. In no event shall a licensee, operating as a home occupation, store or maintain firearms, ammunition, or any firearms ammunition component within the residential dwelling in which the business is being conducted. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Title, a license under this Chapter shall be required for gun dealers operating as a home occupation. Z. If the applicant is not the owner of record of the building within which, and the real property upon which, the gun dealer business is to be located and conducted, then he or she shall obtain prior written consent from the owner of record of such building and real property to operate a firearm dealer business, and such written consent from the owner of record shall be attached to the city's business license application. 3. All federal, California and city -issued licenses, permits or copies thereof, certified by the issuing authority, shall be posted in a conspicuous manner on the premises in which the business is being conducted. 4. No firearm, firearm ammunition or reproduction of either advertising the sale, lease or transfer, for a consideration of either, shall be displayed in any part of the premises where it can readily be seen from the outside. 5. The licensee shall maintain on the licensed premises accurate records of all firearm and ammunition sales, as well as a complete inventory of all firearms in stock, by classification and serial number, for a period of not less than three years. e. The records required by this Section pertaining to the recordation of firearm and ammunition sales shall indicate: 31 1. The date that the purchaser purchased the firearm(s) and/or ammunition; 2. The purchaser's name, address and date of birth; 3. The purchaser's driver's license number or other identification number and state where issued; 4. The make, brand, model and/or type of firearm(s) purchased; 5. The brand of ammunition purchased; 6. The type and amount of ammunition purchased; 7. The purchaser's thumbprint, from both the right hand and left hand; and 8. The purchaser's signature. f. This information required by this Section shall be recorded at the time of purchase and shall be maintained in a log book in a form substantially as follows: Ammunition/Firearm Sales Records Log Store: Date Name Address Date of Birth Driver's License/ID Number and State Firearm Make/Brand/Model/Type Purchased Ammunition Brand and Amount Purchaser's Signature g. The licensee's firearm and ammunition sales records and firearm and ammunition inventory records shall be open to inspection at the request of the City or the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. h. The licensee shall also provide the City with an annual report of the gross revenue received during the previous year itemized by the quantity and classification of firearms and ammunition sold on a form provided by the City signed under penalty of perjury. The licensee shall not sell, lease or otherwise transfer for any consideration any firearm: 1. Within fifteen days of the application for the purchase, or, after notice by the Department of Justice ("Department") pursuant to Section 12076 of the California Penal Code, within fifteen days of the submission to the Department of corrected copies of the register, or, within fifteen days of the submission to the 32 Department of any fee required pursuant to Section 12076 of the California Penal Code, whichever is later. 2. To any person who is forbidden by city, state or federal law from buying or possessing a firearm. 3. Whenever the dealer is notified by the Department of Justice that a purchaser is in a prohibited class described in Section 12021 or 12021.1 of the Penal Code or Sections 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. The licensee shall provide all firearm purchasers comprehensive instructions, prepared by the licensee and approved by the city, pertaining to the use, maintenance, storage and safety precautions relating to the firearm purchased. k. The licensee shall comply with all security measures imposed by the license issued pursuant to this Chapter upon recommendation of the Los Angeles County Sheriff, including but not limited to locks, lighting, alarms, storage and access to firearms. The licensee shall comply with all applicable sections of the California Penal Code, including but not limited to Sections 12071, 12072, 12073, 12076, 12077 and 12316. M. The licensee shall conduct a criminal background check on prospective manager(s) or employee(s). Section 5.08.070. Massage establishments and massage technicians a. The owner of a massage establishment and each massage technician practicing in the City must obtain a business license pursuant to this Title. b. For purposes of this Chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings: 1. Certificate shall mean a certificate, issued by a licensed school, certifying completion of the required curriculum in massage training. 2. Massage and Massage Therapy means and shall include any method of pressure on or friction against, or stroking, kneading, rubbing, tapping, pounding, or stimulating the external parts of the body with the hands or other parts of the body, with or a] without the aid of any mechanical or electrical apparatus or appliances, or with or without supplementary aids such as rubbing alcohol, liniments, antiseptics, oils, powder, creams, lotions, ointments, or other similar preparations commonly used in this practice. 3. Massage establishment shall mean any establishment having a fixed place of business which provides or attempts to provide massages, or health treatments involving massage as the principal function, including any school of massage which performs any such activity to any member of the public for any form of consideration or gratuity. The following are not considered massage establishments under this definition: (a) an establishment which has only one massage table on the premises and the massage business is secondary or ancillary to the principal business on the premises; or (b) an establishment which has on staff at least as many state licensed health care professionals as it does licensed massage technicians. 4. Massage technician shall mean any person who administers to any other person, for any form of consideration or gratuity, a massage as herein defined, including a student at a school of massage who administers a massage to any person for payment whether the payment is given to the student or to the school. A "massage technician" does not include any person who is engaged in a healing art required to be licensed pursuant to the Business and Professions Code of the state of California. 5. Off -premises massage business means a business which provides massage services at a location other than the massage establishment itself. C. Application Information - Massage Establishment and Off -Premises Massage Businesses. In addition to the information prescribed by the Director of Community Development, all applications for a license to conduct a massage parlor or off - premises massage business must contain the following information: 1. The complete address and all telephone numbers of the massage parlor or off -premises massage business; 2. A complete list of the names and residence addresses of all proposed massage technicians and employees employed by the massage establishment and the name and residence addresses of the manager or managing employee proposed to be principally in charge of the operation of the massage establishment; Kil 3. The two previous addresses of the applicant immediately prior to the present address of the applicant; 4. Written proof of the applicant's age, height, weight, color of hair and eyes and sex; 5. Two identification photographs and fingerprints of the applicant; 6. The massage or similar business history and experience of the applicant, including but not limited to, whether or not such person, in previously operating a massage establishment or similar business in this or any other city or state under license or permit, has had such license or permit denied, revoked, or suspended and the reasons therefore: 7. All criminal convictions excluding traffic or infraction violations; 8. Such other information and identification deemed necessary by the Sheriffs Department. d. Application Information — Massage Technicians. In addition to the information prescribed by the Director, an application for a massage technician license shall include the following information: 1. The last two previous addresses, if any, immediately prior to the present address of the applicant; 2. The applicant's height, weight, sex, color of eyes and hair; 3. A certificate or diploma from a state -accredited institution or an institution deemed by the Community Development Director to be of equivalent standing. 4. The business, occupation or employment of the applicant for three years immediately preceding the date of the application,- 5. pplication; 5. The license history of the applicant and whether the applicant has had a license for working as a massage technician revoked or suspended, and the reason therefore. That history shall include the business activity or occupation engaged in subsequent to such suspension or revocation; 6. All convictions except for traffic violations and infractions; 35 7. The location where the applicant intends to operate. If the applicant will not operate from a specific location, the applicant will provide the general area where it intends to operate; 8. Documentation of the applicant's experience as a practicing massage technician. e. Massage Technician License Requirements — Investigation by Community Development Department. 1. Before a license is granted or renewed and at such times as the Director deems appropriate, the technician shall be subject to a background investigation to verify that he or she has not been convicted of any crime related to the provision of massage services. 2. If at any time the investigation by the Community Development Department reveals the massage technician has been convicted of a crime related to the provision of massage services, the massage technician's license shall be revoked and of no further force or effect as of the date of the conviction. 3. An applicant whose license has been revoked as described in the preceding paragraph shall have the right to appeal the decision of the Community Development Director under this Chapter in the time and manner set forth in Section 5.04.080. f. Operation Requirements - Massage Establishments and Off -Premises Massage Businesses. 1. A licensee operator shall not hire or employ a massage technician unless such massage technician has been issued a certificate or diploma from a state -accredited institution or institution of equivalent standing. 2. Doors to Remain Unlocked. The front door of any massage parlor and the doors of the cubicles in which massages are being performed must remain unlocked during all hours of operation. No electronic locking device may be utilized on any entrance door. 3. Cleanliness Requirements. A. Adequate equipment for disinfection and sterilization of instruments used in performing the massages shall be provided; B. Hot and cold running water shall be provided at all times; C. Separate closed cabinets shall be provided for the storage of clean and soiled linen and these cabinets shall be plainly marked: "Clean Linen" and "Soiled Linen," respectively. 4. Hygiene Facilities. A. Adequate bathing, dressing, locker and toilet facilities shall be provided for patrons. A minimum of one tub or shower, one dressing room containing a separate locker for each patron to be served, which locker shall be capable of being locked, as well as a minimum of one toilet and one washbasin, shall be provided in every massage establishment; however, if male and female patrons are to be served simultaneously at the establishment, separate bathing facilities, a separate massage room or rooms, and separate dressing and separate toilet facilities shall be provided for male and for female patrons. B. Minimum of one separate washbasin shall be provided in each massage establishment for the use of employees of any such establishment, which basin shall provide soap or detergent and hot and cold running water at all times, and shall be located within or as close as practicable to the area devoted to the performing of massage services. In addition, there shall be provided at each washbasin sanitary towels placed in permanently installed dispensers. 5. Hours of Operation. The licensee operator shall not conduct or operate a massage parlor or an off -premises massage business between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of any day, and shall exclude all customers, patrons and visitors therefrom between those hours. 6. Maintenance of Premises and Equipment. A. All walls, ceilings, floors, pools, showers, bathtubs, steamrooms and all other physical facilities of the establishment shall be in good repair and maintained in a clean and sanitary condition; B. Wet and dry heat rooms, steam or vapor rooms, or steam or vapor cabinets, shower compartments and toilet rooms shall be thoroughly cleaned each day the business is in operation. Bathtubs shall be thoroughly cleaned after each use; C. Clean and sanitary towels and linens shall be provided for each patron of the establishment or each patron receiving massage services. No common use of towels or linens shall be permitted. 37 D. Standard or portable massage tables shall be used with a durable, washable plastic or other waterproof material as a covering. 7. Recording of Activities Prohibited. No building or part thereof where a massage parlor, or an off -premises massage, is being conducted shall be equipped with any electronic, mechanical or artificial device used, or capable of being used for recording or videotaping, for monitoring the activities, conversation, or other sounds in the treatment room or room used by customers. 8. Off -Premises Massage Prohibited. No massage establishment issued a license under this Chapter shall send massage technicians off the premises for the purposes of administering a massage, nor shall the massage parlor or any part thereof be used by any employee, operator, manager, or owner to receive or accept such requests for off -premises massages, except when such off -premises massage is permitted under this Chapter. 9. Dress Requirements. A. All massage technicians, attendants and employees of massage parlors or off -premises massage businesses shall wear clean garments. These garments must be of a fully opaque material and provide complete covering of the genitals, genital area, buttocks and breasts. B. No person holding a massage technician license issued under this Title, or employed by or working in a massage parlor licensed under this Chapter, may expose his or her genitals, buttocks, or breast(s), or make intentional, occasional or repetitive contact with the genitals or anus of another person. C. Each establishment shall provide to all patrons, clean, sanitary and opaque coverings capable of covering the patrons' specified anatomical areas, including the genital area, buttocks and breasts. No common use of such coverings shall be permitted and re -use of such covering is prohibited until it is washed and cleaned. D. No massage technician, while performing any task or service associated with the massage parlor, shall be present in any room with another person unless the person's specified anatomical areas (genitals, buttock, and breasts) are fully covered. E. Manager Required. All establishments licensed under this Chapter shall have a manager on duty at all times during which the establishment is open. in Section 5.08.080. Pawnbrokers and second hand dealers a. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this division, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: 1. Pawnbroker means any person engaged in the business of receiving goods in pledge as security for a loan. 2. Pawnshop means any room, store, building or other place in which the business of pawnbroker is engaged in, carried on or conducted. 3. Secondhand dealer is a person, other than a used -car dealer or dealer in secondhand books or magazines, engaged in conducting, managing or carrying on the business of buying, selling or otherwise dealing in secondhand goods, wares or merchandise, including gold, silver, platinum and mercury, but does not include a person who does not sell, or offer to sell, secondhand goods, wares or merchandise except such as is received by such person as payment or part payment for a new article sold by him. b. Hours of operation. A pawnbroker and second hand dealer shall not, and an agent or employee of a pawnbroker shall not, accept any pledge, or loan any money on personal property, or purchase or receive any goods or merchandise, or any article or thing whatsoever, or in any manner whatsoever engage in or conduct the business of pawnbroker between 7:00 p.m. of any day and 7:00 a.m. of the following day. Section 5.08.090. Peddling -Solicitation a. Definitions: 1. "Commercial' shall mean and include the sale of goods, wares or merchandise for profit, whether or not a profit is made, and not for any charitable purpose. 2. "Hawking" shall mean advertising, promoting or soliciting customers for the sale of any goods, wares or merchandise, whether or not a sale takes place. 3. "Peddle" and "peddling" shall mean: (a) hawking or selling any goods, wares or merchandise, including liquids or edibles for 39 human consumption, by traveling or going by any means of locomotion whatsoever from place to place, from house to house or business to business, or (b) hawking or selling any goods, wares or merchandise, including liquids or edibles for human consumption, from or on the street, on any public property or on any private property without the permission of the owner or other person in possession and control of the property. 4. "Solicitation" shall mean the request, directly or indirectly, of money, credit, property, financial assistance or other things of value for the commercial or retail sale of goods, wares or merchandise by taking an order for delivery and promising later delivery of such goods, wares or merchandise. Individuals engaged in commercial solicitation for future delivery solely as an incident to engaging in a business otherwise licensed under this Chapter and for which the employer has a current, valid license shall not be deemed to be engaged in the business of commercial solicitation. b. License Fee Waivers. Veterans, as defined by Sections 16001 and 16001.5 of the California Business and Professions Code, shall not be required to pay a license fee to hawk, peddle or sell goods, wares or merchandise owned by them, except alcoholic beverages. C. Identification Requirements. All licensed peddlers and solicitors licensed pursuant to this Chapter shall carry an original business license, along with picture identification, at all times when peddling. d. Operating Requirements. 1. Generally. A. No person shall peddle or solicit for commercial purposes in any area of the City which is zoned for residential use under this code, from 8:00 p.m. until 9:00 a.m. of the following day. B. No peddler or commercial solicitor shall touch, come into physical contact with, or affix any object to another person or any member of the public, without first receiving express permission therefor from such member of the public. C. No peddler or commercial solicitor shall persistently and importunately solicit any member of the public after such member of the public expresses his or her desire not to be solicited. D. No peddler or commercial solicitor shall intentionally and deliberately obstruct the free movement of any member of the M public on any street, sidewalk or other place or in any place open to the public generally. Section 5.08.100 Tow Trucks and towing companies a. For purposes of this chapter, the following term shall have the following meaning: 1. "Tow truck" shall mean a motor vehicle which has been altered or designed and equipped to tow another motor vehicle by means of a crane, hoist, tow bar, tow line or dolly. b. Exemptions. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to tow trucks or vehicles licensed pursuant to California Vehicle Code Sections 11500 et seq. and California Business and Professions Code Sections 7500 et seq. C. Application Information. In addition to the information prescribed by the Director of Community Development, an application for a tow truck service operator's license shall include the following information: 1. A map of the district, area or territory to be served by the tow truck service; 2. A schedule of rates proposed to be charged in the areas of the city where the applicant proposes to operate the service; and 3. The description and location of the operational facilities of the applicant. d. Operating Requirements. 1. Service Records to be Kept. A tow truck service operator shall maintain the following records for each order of service: Location where tow service requested; Date and time request made; 41 Description of vehicle towed; Location to where vehicle towed; Identification of dispatcher; Identification of driver; and Time of dispatch. 2. Inspection. Such records shall be available for inspection by the Director of Community Development and the Sheriff for a period of at least six months. 3. Drivers - License Preconditions. A tow truck service operator shall not permit any person to operate a tow truck authorized under his or her license unless such driver has, in his or her possession, a valid driver's license issued by the state of California Department of Motor Vehicles. 4. Insurance Requirements. The Director shall not issue a tow truck service operator's license until the applicant has filed a copy of the policy of liability insurance pursuant to Section 5.00.170 that covers every tow truck to be operated pursuant to the operator's license. 5. Indemnification. Every operator licensed pursuant to this Title shall sign an indemnification agreement as provided in Section 5.00.170 in a form approved by the City Attorney. Tow Truck Facility Security. If the tow truck service provides storage of towed vehicles, the operator shall provide security for such vehicles during all business hours. 7. Locking of Vehicles. If the tow truck service provides storage of towed vehicles, the operator shall lock each ignition, remove the key, and place the key in a safe place. 8. Sign Requirements. The operator shall install and maintain a sign on the business premises, plainly visible from the street, showing the operator's name, the address of the business, the time when the premises are closed and the towing and storage fees, if any. 42 No signs shall be posted, pursuant to this section, which would be in violation of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code. 9. Rates Charged. A copy of the rates charged for utilizing a tow truck's services shall be posted in each tow truck. 43 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 20`h DAY OF NOVEMBER 2007, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Steve Tye, Mayor I, Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the 20th day of November 2007, and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Council Members: NOES: Council Members: ABSENT: Council Members: ABSTAIN: Council Members: 44 City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PROPOSED FEE RESOLUTION CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2007 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND RESCINDING THE BUSINESS REGISTRATION FEE AND ESTABLISHING FEES FOR BUSINESS LICENSE AND BUSINESS LICENSE RENEWAL AND AMENDING THE EXISTING FEE SCHEDULE TO INCLUDE BUSINESS LICENSE FEES. A. RECITALS 1. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar has established various schedules of rates, fees and including but not limited to, rates, fees and charges for the processing of applications, issuance of permits and related public services. 2. Pursuant to the provisions of the laws of the State of California, the City of Diamond Bar is authorized to adopt and implement rates, fees, and charges for municipal services, provided that such rates, fees and charges do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing such services. 3. On November 20, 2007, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar conducted and a duly noticed public hearing with respect to the establishment of a Business License fees and a Business License annual renewal fees. 4. After the adoption of an ordinance establishing a Business License Program and following due consideration of public testimony and staff analysis, the City Council desires to amend the existing fee schedule to include the Business License fees and annual renewal fees. B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The City Council hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole adopts the following fees to be inserted into the City's fee schedule under the Planning Division Fee Schedule/Ministerial Review: a. The Business License Fee for a license that does not require a background investigation shall be $10. b. The Business License Fee for a business license that requires a background investigation shall be $300 for each individual investigated in conjunction with the application. This fee is based on the hourly rate as shown in the City's Fee Schedule adopted by the City Council and the hourly rate charged by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department/Business License Investigation Division for the background investigation. c. The Annual Business License Renewal Fee for business that does not require a background investigation shall be $10, except: If the Annual Renewal application includes substantial changes in the business (i.e., change of location, change of business, or changes of ownership), the application is deemed a new application and the fees set forth in Sections 2.a and 2.b of the Resolution apply; and If the Annual Renewal requires a background investigation, a fee of $300 for each person requiring an investigation in conjunction with the renewal application shall be collected. d. The Annual Business License renewal Fee for business that requires a background investigation shall be $22, except: If the Annual Renewal application includes substantial changes in the business (i.e., change of location, change of business, or changes of ownership), the application is deemed a new application and the fees set forth in Sections 2.a and 2.b of the Resolution apply; and If the Annual Renewal requires a background investigation, a fee of $300 for each person requiring an investigation in conjunction with the renewal application shall be collected. e. If a Business License is denied, any fees used for processing the application, including the background investigation shall not be refunded. 3. Business License Fees and Annual Renewal Fees shall be effective and shall be implemented commencing November 6, 2007. 1 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 20" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2007, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. M Steve Tye, Mayor I, Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed, approved and adcTted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on 20T day of November 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Council Members: NOES: Council Members: ABSTAIN: Council Members: ABSENT: Council Members: ATTEST: Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 JUNE 19, SEPTEMBER 18 AND OCTOBER 16, 2007 STUDY SESSION REPORT AND MINUTES Agenda # Study Session 2 Meeting Date_ September 18, 2007 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT -, .m. TO: Honorable Mayor and MembEOrdiance Council VIA: James DeStefano, City Man TITLE: Proposed Business Licenand Fees for Discussion RECOMMENDATION: Receive a presentation from staff, provide comments and direct staff as appropriate. BACKGROUND: On June 19, 2007, the City Council held a study session on the proposal to enact an "in house" business license program. The City Council agreed with staff's assessment that the Los Angeles County business license program is complex and costly, with duplication of public hearings. The Council agreed that a City run business license program would be more convenient, less costly and provide efficient service to our business community. The Council directed staff to prepare a draft business license ordinance and the appropriate full -cost recovery fees for Council review at a study session. Attached for Council reference is a copy of the June 19, 2007 Study Session report and minutes. DRAFT BUSINESS LICENSE ORDINANCE: Currently, the City has contracted with Los Angeles County to administer the business license program and adopted the County business license ordinance as part of the City's Municipal Code (Title 5). In May 2005, City Council amended Title 5 Business License to include a business registration section; the program was launched in July 2005 and implemented for two years. The new business license will be based on the existing business registration program; however, pertinent processing procedures and regulations for specific businesses will be added, tailored to the City's requirements and circumstances. Simply put, the existing Title 5 Business License will be repealed and a new one will be adopted. A. Who needs a Business License? Similar to business registration, every business with a physical location in the City and any business that does business in the city is required to obtain a business license. ® Home business: When the homeowner has an active permit or license (e.g. seller permit) issued by a governmental agency to his or her home address, then the homeowner is operating a business. Therefore, a business license and a home base business permit are required. A person taking work home does not constitute a business. ® Professionals such as real estate or insurance brokers and agents, or stockbrokers and agents, etc. If the agent or broker that does business in the City is affiliated with a company or corporation which has a business location inside or outside the City, the agent/broker will not need to obtain an individual business license, as long as the company obtains a license. If the agent or broker is independent and not affiliated with a company that possesses a business license, the agent or broker must obtain a business license. Persons who work in beauty parlors, salons and similar businesses, whether they are considered employees or independent contractors (i.e. they rent a station in the premises) need not obtain a separate license as long as the business has a license. However massage or acupressure technicians may have to obtain an individual business license. ® Craft and hobbies: According to Franchise Tax Board, if a person is engaged in selling activity for more then 3 times within a 12 -month period, then a seller's permit is required. A seller permit would indicate a business and, hence, a business license is required. Sale tax identification number, employer identification number, business locations are relevant data that show business activities. The data is broad, fair and does not give special privileges to any one business type. B. The General Components of the Draft Business License Ordinance. As mentioned above, the draft business license is based on the current business registration program. The purpose of the business license is not designed to raise revenue or to substitute for land use regulations. Rather, the purpose is to establish a regulatory mechanism whereby the City may review the management and ownership of specific types of businesses, maintain an accurate record of businesses conducting business in the city for statistical purposes, economic development, and to assist in zoning compliance. A copy of the draft business license ordinance is an attachment to the report. The following paragraphs summarize the general provisions of the business license ordinance. 1. General provisions: As compared with the existing registration ordinance, there are minor changes to the definitions, the requirement to have a business license and pay a fee, the general application procedures, the content of the business license application and the business license sections. Language is added to clarify what businesses are exempt from the license fee but still required to have a license. The section on annual renewal is expanded to clarify the time required for 2 business license renewal and that the lapse of a business license will trigger the payment for delinquent fees. Further, new provisions are added to clarify when a change or transfer of a business requires a new business license. The purpose of this section is to ensure that the City obtains the most up to date and accurate information about a business in collecting business data. 2. Delinquent fees and action to collect: At the June 19, 2007 study session, staff noted that the current business registration program requires a doubling of fees for each thirty day -period that a business operator fails to obtain a license or renewal. Staff illustrated that a year of non-compliance with the current $10 fee could mean thousands of dollars in delinquent penalty fees, which is not the intent of the program. With the draft business license, language is added to clarify that the delinquent fees for a new or required annual renewal will be capped at $500. 3. Enforcement: The various sections on enforcement, such as authority to enforce and entry to inspect, violations, withholding business license and remedies, cumulatively are the same as in the business registration program. 4. Insurance and bond requirements: As recommended by the City Attorney, a new section is added whereby a licensee that is required by law to procure, post or maintain in effect any surety bond or policy of insurance, the issued business license is good only if such surety and policy of insurance is in full force and effect. The purpose of this section is to protect the City from liability. C. Regulations for Specific Businesses. Some businesses that are required to obtain a business license also need a conditional use permit or other discretionary land use permit issued by the City. Land use permits are intended to address the suitability of the business in the proposed location, with reference to the zoning, compatibility with the neighborhood, availability of parking, signage, design considerations and similar concerns. Land use permits "run with the land" and are not personal to the applicants. Business licensing, on the other hand, focuses on the identity of the owners and managers, and their qualifications for operating a business without creating law enforcement issues. Business licenses are personal and they apply only to the applicants and may not be transferred. The purpose of a regulatory business license is to add additional controls to the proposed business use and/or business operator. The businesses may have characteristics that create special land use or law enforcement impacts (i.e., noise, traffic, criminal behavior, operational hours, or other characteristics), which require further investigation and operational conditions. These businesses generally necessitate investigation by the Building and Safety Division, Fire Department, Health Department, Planning Division and/or Sheriffs Department. Field inspections may be required as well as criminal background investigations. 1. Specific businesses that require investigation: Staff reviewed the list of specific land uses in the Development Code and determined that the following 14 types of businesses should have additional investigation before the issuance of a business 3 license (in contrast with the County Code, that Iists150 business types, most inapplicable to the City): a. Acupressure and acupressure technicians (CUP) b. Adult Businesses (adult oriented business CUP permit) G. Alcoholic Beverage sale, off-site and on-site consumption (CUP/MCUP) d. Bars and nightclubs (CUP) e. Computer services/network gaming center (CUP) f. Entertainment Establishments (CUP) g. Firearms Dealers h. Indoor amusement/entertainment facilities (CUP) i. Massage establishments (CUP) and massage technicians j. Nightclubs (CUP) k. Second hand dealers 1. Peddling -Solicitation m. Psychic reading n. Tow trucks and towing companies 2. The intent of the additional regulations for the specific businesses: As mentioned previously in the report, the City incorporated the Los Angeles County Business license ordinance as part of City's Municipal Code (Title 5), which includes existing provisions that regulate the above businesses. Specific businesses such as entertainment establishments, massage establishments, nightclubs, tow trucks and firearm dealers have extensive regulations. The regulations have been simplified and the provisions are modified to fit the needs of the City. The extensive regulations for these few businesses are needed to ensure their business activities are lawful and that the business activities would not have a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the community. If these businesses are located in Diamond Bar, they would already have complied with the provisions at the time they obtained a County business license. Therefore, the adoption of the proposed new regulations for these businesses would not affect them; rather it would have a positive effect. This is because it would be convenient for them to renew their business license with the City. Further, the proposed ordinance eliminates the requirement for a hearing for issuance of a license; hence unlike the County ordinance, an additional hearing would not be required and the cost for renewal would be cheaper. 3. Procedures for Regulating Specific Businesses: Because of new regulations for the above specific businesses, new procedures are set up to address the following areas. a. Require pertinent additional information for processing the business license application b. Require a investigation prior to issuance of a business license c. Review and approval d. Establish grounds of denial of business license. e. Effects of business license denial 4 f. Establish a right to impose conditions of approval with the Council having the authority to change, modify or eliminate conditions if the reasons for the imposition of such conditions have been cured or no longer exist. g. Establish provisions where the City Council has the authority to modify, suspend, or revoke a business license. h. Establish provisions for appeal and hearing process for City's decision to approve, deny or condition a business license. D. Proposed Fees Fees associated with a regulatory business license program do not require voter approval. Processing fees are typically based upon the philosophy of full cost recovery. At the June 19, 2007 Study Session, the consensus of the Council was for full cost recovery fees to administer the business license program. 1. Fees for business license: Initial license $53.50 Renewal fee $22 The current business registration fee is $10 initial business registration and $10 for a renewal. 2. Delinquent fees: Capped at $500. 3. Fees for specific businesses with investigations: A regulatory business license program necessitates higher fees for businesses that require investigation. These businesses generally necessitate investigation by the Planning Division, Building and Safety Division, County Fire Department, Health Department, and/or Sheriffs Department. Field inspections may be required as well as criminal background investigations. The reasons for the necessary investigations would be to ensure that the business operator does not have criminal background and that the business operation would not create nuisance problems such as increase noise or law enforcement impacts. Typically, the fees will reimburse the City for the cost to investigate the proposed business operator. As presented to the Council at the June 19, 2007 study session, the estimated full cost recovery for businesses that require investigation is $278.68. The cost is based on background check for one person. Staff has rounded it up to flat fee of $300 per person background check. By doing so, a business that requires a background check of the licensee and the manager (two persons) would cost $600. Business types that may require more than one person background check include entertainment, massage establishments, adult businesses, bars and nightclubs. The following table compares business license fees from Los Angeles County and the fees from the City for the specific businesses: I Uses LA County Fees DB Fees Initial Renewal Initial *" Renewal Adult Business $1,836 - $2,228 $1,552 - $1,712 $300 $22 Acupressure/Massage Establishment $2,254 - $2,268 $231 -$354 $300 $22 Acupressure/Massage Technician $252-$317 $208-$354 $300 $22 Alcohol Beverage Sales off-site & on-site $361-$424 $22T- $252 $300 $22 Bars (non restaurant) $424 $223 $300 $22 Entertainment Establishment $1,981 $406 $300 - $22 Firearm Dealer $739 $279 $300 $22 Nightclubs $1,981 $406 $300 $22 Secondhand Store $343 $232 $300 $22 Peddler Solicitor $168 $175 $131 $131 $300 $22 Tow Trucks $168 $131 $300 $22 ** Note: Flat fee of $300 per person background check. E. Penalties and Enforcement for not Obtaining a Business License The City's Municipal Code currently indicates any person violating any business license provision is guilty of a misdemeanor, which is punishable by fine, or imprisonment in the County jail for a period not exceeding six months, or both. F. Implementation Staff has been implementing the business registration program the past two years. Staff believes that the various responsibilities and duties of the new business license will be absorbed by existing staff members. N CONCLUSION With the implementation of the new business license program, the business community will find Diamond Bar process is easier, faster and less expensive. Nanck Fong, AICP )Pvel6oment Director Attachment 1, Draft Business License Ordinance 2, Proposed Fee Resolution 3. June 19, 2007, Study Session Report and Minutes 7 Agenda No. 6.1(a) CITY OF DIAMOND :.., COUNCILCITY r DR _ r OCTOBERit STUDY SESSION: M/Tye called the Study Session to order at 5:16 p.m. in Room CC -8 of the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA. Present: Council Members Everett, Herrera, MPT/Tanaka and Mayor Tye. Absent: Council Member Chang was excused. Staff Present: James DeStefano, City Manager; David Doyle, Assistant City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City Attorney; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; David Liu, Public Works Director; Nancy Fong, Community Development Director; Linda Magnuson, Finance Director; Ryan McLean, Senior Management Analyst; Rick Yee, Senior Engineer; Isaac Aziz, Network/GIS Engineer; Kimberly Molina, Associate Engineer and Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk. ® BUSINESS LICENSING CA/Jenkins stated that the purpose of the ordinance was to continue the City's Business Registration program with a "regulatory ordinance" and not a "revenue - raising" ordinance. The only differences are that instead of a business registration, businesses would acquire a business license and continue paying either $10 or $53 representing an amount close to cost -recovery for the City. The ordinance would replace all of the work that Los Angeles County currently provides to the City in the area of business regulation. The ordinance focuses on 14 specific types of businesses that would require a more extensive background review. The ordinance further provides for procedures by which individuals/businesses will apply for business licenses, how the City will review the application and provides procedures for granting or denying the license and the basis upon which the City may deny an application as well as, the appeal process for someone who may be aggrieved by the decision. The Community Development Director will make the initial determination on the 14 businesses and the City Council will serve as the appellate body. This ordinance is business -friendly and puts control of the approval process in the hands of the City rather than the County. The fees will be substantially less than those currently imposed by the County. C/Herrera said she has difficulty proposing an increase of the "business registration" fee from $10 to $53 for a business permit. She wondered if the renewal fee could be increased. CA/Jenkins responded that when there is a business -owner change, the new owner would have to pay the initial background check fee. The renewal presumes there has been no change in ownership or business. Staff perceives OCTOBER 16, 2007 PAGE 2 CC STUDY SESSION renewals to be an administrative action if the business is not presenting a problem and there is no code enforcement issue. A change in ownership or problems with the business would require a hearing and determination of any fee change. C/Herrera asked if staff proposes for the Council to take a single action. CDD/Fong responded yes, that the business registration would be appealed and substituted with the Business License Ordinance. Approximately 600 to 700 businesses have been registered. Staff is continuing to find other businesses to register and eventually all businesses should be licensed. CDD/Fong responded to C/Everett that the ordinance allows the City to cover the cost of enforcement. CA/Jenkins explained that the proposed fees cover only the cost of the paperwork and issuing of the permit. C/Everett reiterated his concern that the fee should pay for the process. CDD/Fong said there were two kinds of fees — 1) paper processing resulting in the issuance of a permit. Staff has been doing this process for about two years and the process takes about half an hour; and 2) for the 14 businesses that require background checks more staff time is required and the fees are set accordingly. The $300 fee is comprised of the LA County Sheriff's charge for the per -person background check plus staff time. For example, if the business requires the manager and owner to have a background check the charge is $300 per person. M/Tye asked how the City would charge for new employees. CA/Jenkins explained that the background check is required for owners and managers only. M/Tye wanted to know how to separate business registration from business licensing. CA/Jenkins said that staff intended to present the Council with two action items; 1) Introduction of an ordinance that would include the existing business registration program and business licensing into one. It would repeal the existing provisions regarding business registration and repeal the entirety of the code that referred to the County Code; 2) a resolution to adopt fees described in the chart to continue the fee for simple businesses at $10, $53.50 or any other amount including zero. When the Council adopts the ordinance it adopts the idea that business registration is appropriate and that the City should continue doing so to monitor home-based businesses. The Council can select whatever fee it wishes. The only question is the fee for basic licensing. OCTOBER . I1.. PAGE 3 CC STUDYi'. ACM/Doyle explained that with adoption of the new ordinance business licensing would replace the business registration process. ACM/Doyle explained that the $53.50 recovery cost was brought to the Council because staff thought that is what the Council wanted. CA/Jenkins said that business registration and business licensing for home- based businesses is the same thing. CM/DeStefano stated that the City is attempting to gain local control over the business licensing process that it currently contracts with LA County, in order to do away with a costly and cumbersome procedure that in some ways provides no direct benefit to businesses in D.B. This item allows the Council to approve the policy change and the ability to improve the cost recovery for the service. Staff is strongly suggesting that at a minimum the Council approve the policy change. Then Council could discuss the appropriateness of a full cost recovery fee versus any other fee level. ACM/Doyle stated that if the City were doing a full cost recovery for business registration the fee would have been set at $53.50 from the beginning. However, Council made a decision not to recover the full cost. M/Tye said he did not want home-based businesses to pay for either business registration or business licensing. He does not believe that home-based businesses should ever be subject to any kind of registration and licensing. CA/Jenkins said that if the Council does not want home-based businesses licensed at all the ordinance would have to be changed because this ordinance carries forward the current business registration program. C/Herrera agreed with M/Tye that home-based business registration should be excluded and that the City should license only the 14 businesses that have to go to Los Angeles for licensing. C/Everett stated that he felt business registration would be beneficial. CM/DeStefano reiterated the reasons Council and staff discussed business registration - to post information about the business on the City's website; to make sure that D.B. was getting its fair share of sales tax resources and for other monitoring reasons. If Council has a concern about the fee it can choose to apply the same fee that is currently being charged. The City has been subsidizing that portion of the development services for the past two years. Staff is suggesting the $53.50 because Council asked staff to look at full cost recovery, which has been the policy in other development services arenas. From staffs perspective it is important to maintain some level of business registration. Staff needs to know what businesses are in the City in order to help grow their OCTOBER ':• At.. PAGE .! CC STUDYif.. resources and make sure the City is getting its fair -share of the taxation attributable to these businesses. MPT/Tanaka felt business registration was important. C/Everett said he was in favor of the ordinance as presented without consideration to fees. CA/Jenkins said that staff would present the ordinance as written with a basic license fee of $10. If there are Council Members that would like to get rid of the "registration" component they can make a motion accordingly. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jerry Hamilton felt the City needed business licensing and that it is important that the residents know what was going on in their community. 0. ROUTE 57/60 PROJECT UPDATE Steve Brown updated Council on the proposed projects. The MTA is seeking the City's input on which alternatives should be subject to further detailed studies. He again explained the six major alternatives and their possible benefits and drawbacks and asked for the Council's support for the three preferred options and request further study. MPT/Tanaka felt the most important aspect was the missing connector. PWD/Liu responded to C/Herrera that D.B. staff, consultants, Industry staff and Caltrans were involved in the selection of the three alternatives and the request for further study. C/Herrera asked at what point the team would consider elevating the 57/60 improvements as a goods movement corridor with respect to seeking State funding? Mr. Brown responded that as soon as there is consensus for a well-defined alternative it would be the time to hit hard for the money and support. PWD/Liu stated that this is one of the clearly defined tasks that the team will embark upon once there is consensus. M/Tye asked the team to move forward and said that D.B. was not interested in a truck route through the City. ® GRAND AVENUE PROJECT Steve Brown updated Council on options the team has been working on to refine the Grand Avenue Project with the hope of not impacting properties along Grand Avenue south of Golden Springs Drive. Mr. Brown responded to Commissioner Lin that the MTA suggests between 700 and 1000 vehicles per hour want to move on Diamond Bar Blvd. between the two interchanges. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the City Council, M/Tye adjourned the Study Session at 6:31 p.m. TOMMYE CRIBBINS, City Clerk The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this day of 2007. STEVE TYE, Mayor Agenda No. 6.1(a) CITY OF DIAMOND : i, COUNCILCITY r :T SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 STUDY SESSION: M/Tye called the Study Session to order at 5:31 p.m. in Room CC -8 of the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA. Present: Council Members Chang, Everett, Herrera, MPT/Tanaka and Mayor Tye. Staff Present: James DeStefano, City Manager; David Doyle, Assistant City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City Attorney; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; David Liu, Public Works Director; Nancy Fong, Community Development Director; Greg Gubman, Planning Manager; Ken Desforges, IS Director; Linda Magnuson, Finance Director; Ryan McLean, Senior Management Analyst; Rick Yee, Senior Engineer; Marsha Roa, PIO Manager; Alfredo Estevez, Desktop Support Technician and Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk. Also Present: Aziz Amiri, President; Past -President Nef Cortez and staff with the Regional Chamber of Commerce. � REGIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PRESENTATION REGARDING CURRENT AND FUTURE ACTIVITIES. Aziz Ameri, President, Chamber of Commerce, thanked the City for its generous support of the Chamber. He said that the goal of tonight's discussion was to strengthen the relationship between the City and the Chamber. Past President, Nef Cortez briefly gave the background of the local Chamber. A PowerPoint was then presented showing that by combining the membership of the D.B. and Walnut Chambers it has strengthened the service to the businesses in both cities more effectively. Mr. Cortez stated that the Chamber has attempted to help business members throughout the five communities the Chamber serves, and to develop a greater economic vitality for the region as a whole. Mr. Ameri stated that as the region benefits, so too will individual communities. H stated that there are currently 349 business members of the San Gabriel Valley Chamber and that the Chamber's objective is to add nine additional members per month and increase the Chamber's networking capabilities to a more diverse population. M/Tye asked how the Chamber would measure its goals and how would the City know that its' money was well spent? Mr. Ameri responded that the City would know from the first customer service email survey. Members have indicated their positive responses and offered suggestions for additional meetings and further education. In addition, membership renewals have increased to an all time high. SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 PAGE 2 CC STUDYSESSION Mr. Ameri responded to MPT/Tanaka that the survey is sent to all members. MPT/Tanaka stated that he is an individual member and had not received the survey. Mr. Ameri asked for MPT/Tanaka's email address. MPT/Tanaka asked the status of the Farmers Market Mr. Ameri stated that the Farmers Market is growing and is larger than ever. It has become a very popular family event. He stated that the current site is in escrow. However, the Chamber has reached an agreement to remain at the current location until 2009. The Chamber's plan is to bring the event back to D.B. and is in the process of looking for a site. He asked for the City's help. The Chamber is also looking to expand with sites in other cities. MPT/Tanaka asked what the Chamber's thinking was behind going after cities like LaPuente and other northern cities? Mr. Ameri explained that the even though the LaPuente Chamber had closed services provided to businesses are still needed. The reason the Chambers are not contiguous is because the City of Industry's boundary line cut into it and the Industry Manufacturers Council serves the City of Industry. There is still an opportunity in the City of Industry to serve the small businesses. MPTITanaka said he does not want the City of D.B. to be the "financial backbone" for a regional chamber because in his opinion, each area needs to fairly contribute to the organization. Mr. Ameri assured MPT/Tanaka that a major portion of the Chamber's funding is derived from membership services and special events with city contributions being only a very small percentage. The Chamber counts more on the City's support for economic development purposes. Mr. Cortez explained that the $12,000 contribution from D.B. represents about six percent of the Chamber's total budget. C/Herrera thanked the Chamber for its service to the community and emphasized that the City cannot merely contribute the citizen's money to the Chamber — there must be accountability for expenditure of those funds. Mr. Ameri said the Chamber understood that it needed to do the right thing by the taxpayers. The Chamber is transparent and the City and its residents are free to review the Chamber's records. C/Chang said that the Council had always been supportive of the Chamber. One of the City's goals is to see that the Chamber become self-sufficient. In addition, the City is interested in joining with the Chamber to improve the City's economy. M/Tye said he was not interested in attending events outside of the City and would appreciate the Chamber's presence at ribbon -cutting ceremonies and other events involving businesses in D.B. ® PROPOSED BUSINESS LICENSE ORDINANCE AND FEES — Review Draft Documents and Direct Staff as Appropriate. CA/Jenkins stated that in accordance with Council's direction, staff drafted a proposed business license ordinance and fee document. The County of Los Angeles has been conducting the licensing and fee collection process on the City's behalf. The City's goal was to bring the regulatory business license component in-house and to retain the business registration component as it currently exists. This first cut is an ordinance that would replace the entirety of Title V. He explained the contents of the document. Essentially, the process will remain the same. The piece of paper the business owner receives will be called a business license rather than a business registration. Because certain businesses are allowed in the County that will never be allowed in the City of D.B. this ordinance was tailored to D.B. The core number of businesses that would undergo a background investigation/regulatory process has been reduced to 15. He explained how the process for applying has been dramatically streamlined and the cost has been dramatically reduced. Any party denied a license may appeal the decision to the City Council. Once a business is operating should a problem arise, the City would schedule a public hearing before the City Council to consider modifying or revoking the license. CA/Jenkins stated that in order to recoup the regular business license fee $53 would be charged. For the 15 businesses that require background checks the cost would be $300 per business owner/individual. The fees are strictly cost - recovery and are considerably less than what the County charges. CA/Jenkins responding to M/Tye stated that the City may not charge different rates for different businesses because it would be considered discriminatory. The City cannot charge based on whether the City wants to encourage or discourage a business from coming into town. CM/DeStefano responded to C/Everett that the County has issued about 190 business licenses and the City expects that number to be slightly less. CA/Jenkins stated that the concept was that the licensing would be done at staff level and that an appeal would go directly to the Council. Staff was not eager to add an additional layer of red tape. C/Everett stated that he was concerned that the City might start the fee too low. SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 r CC STUDY SESSION C/Chang supported the process and felt this ordinance should be implemented as quickly as possible and that the businesses should fully fund the cost. M/Tye asked how many business registrations the City had implemented. CDD/Fong felt that about 40 to 50% of the 1700 existing businesses had registered with the City. ACM/Doyle explained that if the Council wants full cost recovery the charge would be $53.50. Or, the Council could decide to keep the business registration fee at $10 for 90% of the businesses and charge $300 for background checks for business falling into that category. CM/DeStefano said this was all part of a broader policy decision the Council needed to make. In terms of attracting businesses to D.B. not having utility taxes, gross receipt taxes, etc. cause D.B. to be highly rated for business development. Indeed, the City subsidizes other programs such as senior programs. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Aziz Amen, President of the Regional Chamber felt that if the City wanted local businesses to flourish and work legitimately enforcement should be implemented. He was certain that the costs would increase and he encouraged the Council to review what other cities are doing to cover their costs. When cities acquire these types of responsibilities it presents an enormous burden to regulate businesses and non-compliance. He encouraged the City Council to thoroughly review its options. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the City Council, M/Tye adjourned the Study Session at 6:43 p.m. TOMMYE CRIBBINS, City Clerk The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this day of 2007. STEVE TYE, Mayor PCl✓--&L---� Agenda no. 6.1(a) CITY OF DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION JUNE 19, 2007 STUDY SESSION: M/Tye called the Study Session to order at 5:28 p.m. in Room CC -8 of the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA, Present: Council Members Chang, Everett, Herrera, MPT/Tanaka and Mayor Tye. Staff Present: James DeStefano, City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City Attorney; Bob Rose, Community. Services Director; David Liu, Public Works Director; Nancy Fong, Community Development Director; Ken Desforges, IS Director; Linda Magnuson, Finance Director; Susan Full, Senior Accountant; Rick Yee, Senior Engineer; Kimberly Molina, Associate Engineer; Ryan McLean, Senior Management Analyst; Lauren Hidalgo, Public Information Specialist; Alfredo Estevez, Desktop Support Technician and, Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk REVIEW OF FY 2006-07 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES/INTRODUCTION OF FISCAL YEAR 2007-08 BUDGET — DISCUSSION AND ACTION. CM/DeStefano asked for Council comment on the revised order of priorities and sub -items, especially with respect to communications. The only new goal is bullet #4 "Enhance the City's website to provide additional information and access to City services." C/Everett explained why he asked for re -prioritization with emphasis on communication. M/Tye said he appreciated a fresh set of eyes on the list. He would not, however, want anyone to misunderstand that he believed the number one issue in D.B. was communication because he believes the City does a good job of communicating at the Council and staff level in reaching out to the community. No one he spoke with during the recent election said anything about doing a better job of communicating. Their priorities were traffic and economic development, etc. He was disturbed about force ranking and felt it was important for the Council to stick with the goal for a "strategic plan for creating a high- quality dynamic center at the D.B. Golf Course." He wanted residents to understand it was an option that had been under consideration since 1991. CM/DeStefano said he reworded the goal in order to better focus on the overall strategic plan for the City that could include the D.B. Golf Course property. C/Chang agreed with M/Tye that the proper priority order would be transportation and economic development to determine the future and quality of life of the residents, followed by "communication." JUNE 19, 2007 PAGE 2 CC STUDY SESSION C/Herrera said she too would prefer the order be 1) transportation, 2) economic development and 3) communication or to eliminate the numbering altogether. C/Tanaka said he would be in favor of eliminating the numbers. Discussion ensued regarding building a dynamic center in another location and the inclusion of the library. CM/DeStefano confirmed the Council's desire to prioritize the items as follows: 1) transportation, 2) economic development, move the library and golf course to the third bullet under economic development, and 3) communication. CM/DeStefano suggested #1 be renamed "traffic mitigation." Council concurred with the inclusion of consideration of a high quality dynamic center at the D.B. Golf Course. BUDGET: FD/Magnuson explained the Budget revisions and reserves. C/Chang asked that staff prepare a PowerPoint presentation for the next budget discussion so that Council Members could more easily follow the discussion. ® DISCUSSION AND ACTION OF IN-HOUSE BUSINESS LICENSING. CDD/Fong presented a report on the possibility of bringing Business Licensing in-house instead of using L.A. County. Following her report she asked for Council direction- CA/Jenkins explained that Council has the option to decide whether it wants businesses to come to the City with new license applications. However, there are logistical reasons why the City might choose to issue renewals. If there are businesses that present the City with problems or there are defects in their licensing with the County, those can then be corrected through modification or revocation procedures. The vast majority of businesses would smoothly transition because it would reduce the logistical burden for the City taking over and without having to do 200 plus background investigations. If businesses have County licenses and the County is the City's agent, the City cannot, without some due process simply terminate a license. From both a legal and logistical standpoint the City would be better served to look at problem businesses on a case-by-case basis. CDD/Fong explained to C/Everett how the application process would be shortened if the City were to handle the licensing. She said it was virtually a duplication of effort for businesses to have to go through the public hearing process with the City and then go to the County to apply for licenses. JUNE 19, 2007 PAGE 3 CC STUDY SESSION M/Tye asked how the County came up with their renewal fees CM/DeStefano stated that staff does not know how the County calculates renewal fees; but that he felt if might be based on the cost for performing the service to generate the renewal. CM/DeStefano responded to M/Tye that there would be no additional staff required because existing staff members would absorb the various responsibilities. M/Herrera felt there would not have been problems with Scribbles if the City were in control of the licensing process. M/Tye felt the City should not be doing business registration and said he would like to have that process absorbed into the licensing process. C/Tanaka felt it would be a good service to businesses to speed up and make the entire process friendlier. C/Chang also felt that the City would have had fewer problems and avoided legal costs if it had been in control of the licensing. In his opinion, it is a must for convenience, better and more efficient government and would create an enormous bond with the business community. Bottom line is that this would help the City govern pro -actively rather than reactively. He suggested that the fee be increased to make certain the City would at least break even and not have to go back and ask for more. CA/Jenkins explained to M/Tye that there would be three tiers of licensing — 1) all businesses that are currently registered would continue to pay $10; 2) some businesses that require an additional layer of regulation, a sub -category of the businesses currently regulated by the County that would not require a hearing. Whatever the City charged for tier 2 would include the $10 business registration fee; and 3) those businesses that require a hearing, which is a very small portion of the businesses in the City. In short, the City would be doing what the County does now but in a much more simplified manner thereby streamlining the process. C/Everett agreed with C/Chang that the City should be doing the licensing and felt the renewal should be $101 or $103 because it would more likely entail about two -hours worth of work for each license on average. C/Herrera said she favored the program and increasing the charge where licensing may require background checks. CA/Jenkins stated that staff would have to come back to the City Council with a revised ordinance to make adjustments and review the matter from time to time to make sure the program was fully capitalized. JUNE 19, 2007 PAGE 4 CC STUDY SESSION Discussion ensued. Council unanimously concurred to bring business licensing in-house and directed staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance to replace the existing Title V in order to establish an in-house business license program. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Net Cortez, outgoing Chamber President, thanked staff and Council for their good work. He hoped that the Council would embrace the notion of the Regional Chamber being able to function more effectively and serve as the City's Chamber. He thanked C/Herrera for recommending funding in the amount of $24,000 because he felt the current grant was under funding the Chamber. CM/DeStefano reminded Council that it directed staff to retain the $12,000 figure in the new budget and work with the Chamber to determine the feasibility of a contribution of up to $24,000 according to a proposed scope of work. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the City Council, M/Tye adjourned the Study Session at 6:32 p.m. TQMMYE ORIBBINS, City Clerk The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this day of 2007. STEVE TYE, Mayor D TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGAN IZATI OIV: AGENDA #/SUE3JECT: VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCI y 011,14 CITY CLE K DATE: PHONE: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council name and address as written above. Minutes reflect my TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY C ICIL CITY CLERK Y1 � �-/ h ki DATE: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: Ice � E ,� PHONE:. ,v I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. r Signature