HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/24/2006PLANNING
COMMISSION
AGENDA FILE COPY
January 24, 2006
7:00 P.M.
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Government Center Building - Auditorium
21865 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA
Chairman
Vice Chairman
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Joe McManus
Ruth M. Low
Kwang Ho Lee
Dan Nolan
Tony Torng
Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on
file in the Planning Division of the Dept. of Community & Development Services, located at
21825 Copley Drive, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding
an agenda item, please call (909) 839-7030 during regular business hours.
In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title 11 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 Department of Community & Development Services at
(909) 839-7030 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.
Please refrain from smoking, eating or The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper
drinking in the Auditorium and encourages you to do the same
City of Diamond Bar
Planning Commission
MEETING RULES
PUBLIC INPUT
The meetings of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission are open to the public. A member of the
public may address the Commission on the subject of one or more agenda items and/or other items of
which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission. A request
to address the Commission should be submitted in writing at the public hearing, to the Secretary of the
Commission.
As a general rule, the opportunity for public comments will take place at the discretion of the Chair.
However, in order to facilitate the meeting, persons who are interested parties for an item may be
requested to give their presentation at the time the item is called on the calendar. The Chair may limit
individual public input to five minutes on any item; or the Chair may limit the total amount of time
allocated for public testimony based on the number of people requesting to speak and the business of
the Commission.
Individuals are requested to conduct themselves in a professional and businesslike manner.
Comments and questions are welcome so that all points of view are considered prior to the
Commission making recommendations to the staff and City Council.
In accordance with State Law (Brown Act), all matters to be acted on by the Commission must be
posted at least 72 hours prior to the Commission meeting. In case of emergency or when a subject
matter arises subsequent to the posting of the agenda, upon making certain findings, the Commission
may act on item that is not on the posted agenda.
INFORMATION RELATING TO AGENDAS AND ACTIONS OF THE COMMISSION
Agendas for Diamond Bar Planning Commission meetings are prepared by the Planning Division of
the Community and Development Services Department. Agendas are available 72 hours prior to the
meeting at City Hall and the public library, and may be accessed by personal computer at the number
below.
Every meeting of the Planning Commission is recorded on cassette tapes and duplicate tapes are
available for a nominal charge.
ADA REQUIREMENTS
A cordless microphone is available for those persons with mobility impairments who cannot access the
public speaking area. The service of the cordless microphone and sign language interpreter services
are available by giving notice at least three business days in advance of the meeting. Please
telephone (909) 839-7030 between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and 7:30 a.m.
and 4.30 p.m., Friday.
HELPFUL PHONE NUMBERS
Copies of Agenda, Rules of the Commission, Cassette Tapes of Meetings (909) 839-7030
General Agendas (909) 839-7030
email: info(cDci.diamond-bar.ca.us
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m.
Next Resolution No. 2006-06
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
1. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Joe McManus, Vice -
Chairman Ruth M. Low, Kwang Ho Lee, Dan Nolan, Tony Torng
2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS:
This is the time and place for the general public to address the members of the
Planning Commission on any item that is within their jurisdiction, allowing the public an
opportunity to speak on non-public hearing and non -agenda items. Please complete a
Sneaker's Card for the recording Secretary (Completion of this form is voluntary.)
There is a five-minute maximum time limit when addressing the Planning Commission.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chairman
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
The following items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine and are
approved by a single motion. Consent calendar items may be removed from the
agenda by request of the Commission only.
4.1 Minutes of Regular Meeting: January 10, 2006.
5. OLD BUSINESS: None
6. NEW BUSINESS: None
7. PUBLIC HEARING(S):
7.1 Conditional Use Permit 2005-02/Development Review No. 2005-15/Minor
Variance No. 2005-03 - In accordance to Code Sections 22.42, 22.58, 22.48,
and 22.54, this is a request to install a wireless telecommunications facility with
antenna mounted on a monopole camouflaged as a broad leaf tree and the
equipment cabinets. The Development Review relates to architectural/design
review. The Minor Variance relates to the height of the broad leaf tree
monopole which exceeds the maximum allowable 35 -feet height.
JANUARY 24, 2006
1.1
1-1
PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
Project Address: Eastgate Water Reservoir
24995 Eastgate Drive
Property Owner: Walnut Valley Water District
271 S. Brea Canyon Road
Walnut, CA 91789
Applicant: Cingular Wireless, Mark Johns
129005 th Floor - Park Plaza Drive
Cerritos, CA 90703
Applicant's Infranext, Inc., Jim Fitzsimmons
Agent: 2200 Orangewood Ave., #228
Orange, CA 92868
Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15303(d), the City has determined
that this project is Categorically Exempt.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
Conditional Use Permit 2005-02/Development Review No. 2005-15/Minor
Variance No. 2005-03, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed
within the draft resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
STAFF COMMENTS / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects.
9.2 Form Based Codes.
9.3 Art in Public Places.
SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
PARKS AND RECREATION Thursday, January 26, 2006
COMMISSION MEETING: SCAQMD/Government Center Hearing
Board Room — 21865 Copley Drive
JANUARY 24, 2006
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PUBLIC WORKS
COMMISSION MEETING:
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING:
11. ADJOURNMENT:
PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 6:30 p.m.
SCAQMD/Government Center Auditorium
21865 Copley Drive
Thursday, February 9, 2006 — 7:00 p.m.
SCAQMD/Government Center Hearing
Board Room — 21865 Copley Drive
Tuesday, - February 14, 2006 — 7:00 p.m.
SCAQMD/Government Center Auditorium
21865 Copley Drive
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 10, 2006
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman McManus 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,
California 91765.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Torng led the Pledge of Allegiance.
1. ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Joe McManus, Vice Chairperson Ruth Low
and Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee and Tony Torng.
Commissioner Dan Nolan was excused.
Also present: Nancy Fong, Interim Community Development Director;
John C. Cotti, Assistant City Attorney; Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner, Linda K.
Smith, Development Services Associate, Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative
Assistant and Tom Smith, BonTerra Consulting.
2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
4.1 Minutes of the Study Session of December 13, 2005.
VC/Low asked that on Page 2, last paragraph, that the end of the first sentence be
corrected to read:..." ... to mitigate the traffic outside of "The Country Estates."
VC/Low moved, C/Lee seconded, to approve the minutes of the December 13,
2005, study session as corrected.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Low, Lee, Torng, Chair/McManus
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan
4.2 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 13, 2005.
C/Torng moved, C/Lee seconded to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
December 13, 2005, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
JANUARY 10, 2006
PAGE 2
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
5. OLD BUSINESS: None
6. NEW BUSINESS: None
7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING(S):
v:..l"4....i
PLANNING COMMISSION
Torng, Lee, VC/Low, Chair/McManus
None
Nolan
7.1 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 53430. ZONE CHANGE NO. 2005-03
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-01, VARIANCE 2005-03 AND
TREE PERMIT NO. 2005-10 - In accordance with the Subdivision Map Act,
City's Subdivision Ordinance — Title 21 and Development Code — Title 22,
Sections 22.70, 22.58, 22.22, 22.54 and 22.38) this was a request to
subdivide approximately 80 acres into 48 single-family residential lots forthe
eventual development of single-family custom homes. The Zone Change
was related to changing the existing zoning from R-1-20000 to Rural
Residential (RR); the Conditional Use Permit was related to grading and
development within a hillside area; the Variance was related to retaining
walls that were proposed at a height greater than six feet, and the Tree
Permit was related to the removal/replacement/protection of oak and walnut
trees. (Continued from December 13, 2005)
PROJECT ADDRESS: Directly south of Rocky Trail Road and
Alamo Heights Drive, and west of
Horizon Lane, Diamond Bar, CA 91765
PROPERTY OWNER/ John Bostick
APPLICANT: Millennium Enterprises
3731 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90010
AssocP/Lungu presented staffs report and commented on responses made
during public comments placed in evidence during the December 13, 2005,
meeting. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend the
following to the City Council: Certification of the Draft Environmental Impact
Report (SCH#2003052202) and Mitigation Monitoring Program; approval of
Tentative Tract Map No. 53430; Zone Change No. 2005-03; Conditional Use
Permit No. 2002-01; Variance No. 2005-03; Tree Permit No. 2005-10,
JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
Statement of Overriding Consideration, Findings of Fact, and conditions of
approval as listed within the Resolutions.
John Bostick, applicant, stated that he has continued to meet with the
adjacent landowners and respond to their concerns. In the spirit of taking
public input very seriously Millennium Enterprises spent considerable time
and effort to come up with a design to lower Alamo Heights Road and
respectthe approval forthe JerryYeh property. He said he believed Dr. Wu's
proposal was not the best solution and that Millennium had been able to
show that the lowering of Alamo Heights would most likely create more and
not less of an impact. In short, the applicant has responded to the direction
of the Planning Commission by responding to the adjacent landowners and
lowered the wall height to a maximum height of 15 feet. Mr. Bostick assured
the Commissioners that the applicant would continue to work with the
adjacent landowners and staff to arrive at the best solution for the
construction of Alamo Heights Road.
VC/Low said she appreciated Mr. Bostick's consideration for the project and
his attention to the concern of the adjacent landowners. She asked for
clarification of Mr. Bostick's comments regarding the increased impact to
lowering the road. Mr. Bostick said that because of the conditions of approval
for Mr. Yeh's property, lowering the road puts a 10 -foot retaining wall
adjacent to the street. Tonight's request for approval is for no walls over 15 -
feet high. In the area there is only eight feet to mitigate the wall with tree
plantings. As he explained to the landowners, he believed the better plan
was to have the wall on the property owners' side, that he would be able to
provide better mitigation and that the end result would be a better product
that was less visible and properly mitigated.
VC/Low asked if Mr. Bostick had addressed the cost of building and
maintaining the walls and the matter of liability with the landowners.
Mr. Bostick stated that he explained to the landowners that the project
included conditions requiring the creation of a homeowner's association with
CC&Rs and a budget. The budget would have to cover the maintenance of
on-site and off-site landscaping as well as walls built on and off-site. City
staff and the DRE (State Department of Real Estate) review the budget.
VC/Low asked if the applicant had offered financial incentives to the
landowners in exchange for the grading easement. Mr. Bostick responded
affirmatively and explained that during the January 5 meeting the residents
were told that they would be compensated for providing easements in the
form of a wall and landscaping. VC/Low asked what remedy Mr. Bostick
JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
would pursue in the event some landowners failed to grant the easement?
Mr. Bostick explained that the road would not change. If a landowner refused
to grant the easement the applicant would work with staff to accommodate
that scenario. The ultimate goal was to minimize the number of walls. He
said he felt certain that he could work with the individual homeowners to
coordinate the plan.
C/Torng asked how many homeowners had agreed to the easement and
Mr. Bostick responded that one landowner had indicated full agreement and
others were in limbo. C/Torng asked staff to respond as to the City's position.
ICDD/Fong stated that with respect to Jerry Yeh's concern the condition was
intended to seek the cooperation of adjacent residents. She offered that staff
could meet with Mr. Yeh and discuss Condition 2 that intends to provide
flexibility for the applicant to work with the residents to complete the
extension of Alamo Heights. Mr. Bostick responded that Mr. Yeh was not
opposed to the project until the applicant proposed to work through the
concept of lowering Alamo Heights Road. Again, by attempting to lower
Alamo Heights Road it calls for a wall that is difficult to mitigate and that was
Mr. Yeh's concern as well as the applicant's concern. Mr. Yeh's letter was in
response to his concern'about the possibility of another wall being placed on
his property. Mr. Bostick appealed to the Planning Commission to
acknowledge staffs support of the project and stated that although he is at
Tract approval and does not have the exact solution for Alamo Heights Road
he has a set of conditions that staff has indicated would create a good
project for the City of Diamond Bar. He asked for Commission approval that
included a substantially reduced variance.
C/Lee believed that Dr. Wu's concern about the possibility of the wall
collapsing due to water retention was legitimate and asked Mr. Bostick to
respond. Mr. Bostick explained that there was always a possibility and that
the engineers had done everything possible to make this project as safe as
possible. The technology for real estate land development has dramatically
improved in recent years. He stated that retaining walls will be designed to
meet the criteria set forth by the City. C/Lee felt Dr. Wu's concerns should be
given credibility because Dr. Wu worked in this field. ICDD/Fong explained
that retaining walls must meet the City's Code. The Building Department
intends to plan check the construction thoroughly to assure that it meets
code and is safe. Mr. Bostick explained that his opinion of Dr. Wu's concern
was that all of the walls were signed and stamped by a state certified civil
engineer who does the math and calculations to say that those walls will
stand up and meet the criteria of the City. He said he could not testify as to
Dr. Wu's credentials and did not know if he was a state certified civil
JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION
engineer. If Dr. Wu is a state certified civil engineer the applicant would be
pleased to provide him with the calculations. He assured C/Lee that staffs
approval was for a structurally sound wall and believed that in, accordance
with code the applicant must rely on a state certified civil engineer to approve
the project.
C/Lee reiterated that Dr. Wu said that it was possible water could smear into
the landfill and C/Lee said he wanted to know if that statement was accurate.
Mr. Bostick explained that a drain channel is installed behind the retaining
wall to relieve hydrostatic pressure. When retaining walls are built in today's
marketplace a drainage channel must be provided. C/Lee said that Dr. Wu
was concerned because he felt the retaining wall was too high.
Charlie Liu, project engineer for applicant, said that it was true that in the
past retaining walls had failed due to water build up behind and under the
wall. He said he had been in business for 35 years and during that time
engineers had learned from past problems. This project has a major fill and
he and the soils engineer have worked together to provide a project that
would meet the requirements set forth by the Code. Mr. Liu proceeded to
described in detail as to how the retaining wall would be built.
Chair/McManus explained that the Commission was charged with approving
projects that were approved to code and that if C/Lee wanted to meet with
the engineer on his own to get lessons on how to build retaining walls he
could do so.
ICDD/Fong explained staff's procedure for assuring the proper design of
facilities to ensure safety. She further explained to C/Lee that if Dr. Wu was
seeking assurance that the project was safe he should discuss the matter
with staff and to date; Mr. Wu had not made any such inquiries.
VC/Low felt C/Lee wanted to know how safe the wall would be and the
engineer responded that based on industry standards and 35 years of
experience the wall would be 99.99 percent safe because no one could
guarantee ata level of 100 percent. In addition, he built a 35 -foot wall in San
Francisco where there is more rainfall and there have been no incidents with
the retaining wall in San Francisco. In addition, his license is on the line to
make certain that the wall is built in a sound manner.
VC/Low felt C/Lee wanted to know if staff had determined how underground
water would affect massive earth movement in the project area. Tom Smith
responded yes. Contained in the Environmental Report and backup studies
JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION
the City required the applicant's civil engineer to conduct a hydrology study
to determine the existing runoff conditions from the site prior to development
as well as runoff conditions post development. Generally speaking, ground
water is not near the surface in hillside areas. The EIR speaks to regional
water basins and the nearest major ground water basin with an aquifer is
near the SR605 and SR60. Generally, local areas of perched ground water
and local aquifers exist in the canyon bottoms. The on-site subsurface
borings did not detect any ground water. The geologist did note that in the
canyon bottom, because of all of the vegetation, there was no opportunity to
do borings and was unable to determine whether there would be a perched
groundwater condition. When the time comes to do the detailed grading
design and during grading the City inspectors will be on-site daily to inspect
the grading and related conditions. If perched water conditions arise the City
will require engineering solutions as the fill is placed. VC/Low asked if these
procedures were set forth in the draft resolution. ICDD/Fong responded that
that procedure was part of the environmental mitigation referred to as part of
the environmental condition.
Chair/McManus asked if staff was working with Mr. Yeh to resolve his
concerns. TCDD/Fong said she believed so and whether the wall was located
on Mr. Yeh's side of the street would be determined during the final design
phase for Alamo Heights.
Chair/McManus reopened the public hearing.
David Leong, 22372 Kicking Horse Drive, said he and his wife appreciated
the Millennium representatives meeting with the homeowners. However,
contrary to Mr. Bostick's statement, Mr. Leong said his understanding was
that there was no agreement with the project. He said that on January 7'
2006, Charlie Lui stated that the modified plan provided that no walls would
be greater than 10 -feet tall. And yet tonight he heard Mr. Bostick asked for
approval of a variance for walls to a maximum of 15 feet. Another example of
conflicting information was when VC/Low asked Mr. Bostick whether the
developer had offered incentive or compensation to make it more palatable
for homeowners to cooperate with this project and Mr. Bostick responded
affirmatively. Mr. Leong said that he took from the December 5, 2005,
meeting that Mr. Bostick categorically stated "no compensation." At the same
time during a simultaneous meeting in a language that was not English those
homeowners were given the impression that there would be financial
compensation. Until the December 13, 2005, Planning Commission meeting
neither the City nor the consultants acknowledged the existence of a creek
running along his property. He said he had questioned Mr. Bostick about the
JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION
responsibility of maintaining the slope along the wall and the liability issues to
the homeowners since the structures would lie on the homeowners'
properties. To date he had not received any assurance to his satisfaction. It
was presented to him that "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association
would assume responsibility and liability for maintaining the structures. Yet,
the homeowners association has indicated there has been no such
agreement. Mr. Bostick indicated that it could be a separate homeowners
association and how could Kicking Horse homeowners and Millennium enter
into a binding agreement for a homeowners' association that was not yet in
existence. He said he appreciated C/Lee's questions because the
homeowners' have safety concerns and because there are so many
unanswered questions, the homeowners have not been able to reach an
agreement with Millennium.
Paul Akin, 22505 Lazy Meadow Drive, said he was concerned about
annexation of this property into "The Country Estates." He recommended
that the developer meet with "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association
and move forward with annexation as a single owner rather than wait until 48
homeowners were involved.
ICDD/Fong said that a Condition of Approval requires the applicant to
negotiate with "The Country Estates" for annexation of the property.
Hofu Wu, 22368 Kicking Horse Drive, felt the design detail of the retaining
wall was correct. The City ordinance requires a maximum height of six feet
and felt that the engineering for a six-foot wall would be fairly easy to attain.
In his opinion, when a wall exceeded a certain height no one could
guarantee its success rate. He said he was also concerned about water in
the canyon and how the water would affect the proposed fill. He wanted to
know why the homeowners were being asked to favor the easement when
there were no concessions provided by the developer. He felt his
recommendations were much better for the project because the retaining
wall would be set on solid existing ground instead of fill. Using the drawings
he commented the red lines indicated that the pad sizes for the 48 proposed
homes exceeded the 33 percent lot coverage. He said he was not against
the development but he was against the way the developer was proposing to
fill the canyon that in his opinion was against the flow of nature's forces. He
also favored an agreement between "The Country Estates" Homeowners'
Association and the developer.
JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION
Chair/McManus asked if Mr. Wu met with staff to discuss his concerns.
Mr. Wu said that he had not because he felt that Millennium would address
his concerns this evening.
Kyoung Yi, 22376 Kicking Horse Drive, said she shared the concerns about
the negative impacts that would be generated by this development as
presented by Professor Wu on December 13 and this evening. She does not
like the construction of a high wall, the cutting of old oak trees and loss of the
creek on her property not to mention the noise, dust and loss of privacy in
her backyard during construction. The homeowners met with Millennium and
no agreement was reached and further negotiations are necessary to reach
an agreement that is mutually satisfactory.
Mr. Bostick agreed that there was no formal agreement with Mr. Leong and
was merely expressing that current conditions on the Tentative Map were
more restrictive than those contained within the original project based on
public input. The other language spoken during the meeting was Korean.
Millennium's President is fluent in Korean and a couple of the homeowners
indicated they were more comfortable discussing the matter in Korean. With
respect to the wall height Millennium proposed a 10 -foot high wall plan for
study only and Mr. Bostick again stated that he did not believe it was a good
plan. Mr. Bostick clarified that he did not believe there would be any
compensation for existing easements but that there was a possibility of
compensation for additional easements. With respect to acknowledging a
creek along the property, the flow line of the creek is shown on all of the
Tentative Map submittals. The water and drainage concerns are covered in
the Drainage and Hydrology report and the creek is also discussed in the
EIR. Mr. Bostick clarified that the developer's intent was to annex into "The
Country Estates" Homeowners' Association. Annexation requires a vote of
the HOA members and that has not yet been done nor could he guarantee
the vote outcome. As earlier stated by ICDD/Fong, the project approval
contains a condition requiring that the developer negotiate with "The Country
Estates" for annexation into their HOA. Millennium has met with HOA
President Steve Solis and committed to meet with the Crystal Ridge
Homeowners Association on January 23. Homeowners are bound by an
HOA and its CC&R's to maintain landscaping and retaining walls and he
must have a plan and approved project before he can put together a budget
and assemble a HOA.
Mr. Bostick assured the Commission that if he received their approval for the
project he would continue to work with Mr. Leong on the issues he raised.
JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION
With respect to Mr. Akin's concern about annexation staff had conditioned
the project accordingly.
Mr. Bostick responded to Dr. Wu's comment that walls higher than six feet
are not safe and that there are many walls that exceed six feet. For example,
walls at the Target location exceed six feet in height and whether these types
of walls are located behind a commercial project or a residential project they
must be rendered safe. The project has limitations on how much drilling and
exploratory research can be done without a Tentative Map approval such as
the one being sought from the Commission this evening. Once an approval is
achieved Millennium would be able to go into the areas to determine the
feasibility of the proposal. Diamond Bar has an excellent soils engineer that
would oversee the drilling and he believed that the project area boasted no
unique features that had not already been developed in other ridgelines
within "The Country Estates." With respect to pad heights, they remain the
same but the proposal previously set forth lowered the road. The slope
easement was not recommended for the development side because all of
the area of the project with the exception of the pad areas has slope. He was
mystified by Dr. Wu's assertion that the pad areas did not meet the required
percentage. In fact, the pad areas meet the requirements and design of the
City and its codes. If not, there would have been no hearing in December.
Mr. Wu mentioned that he was opposed to filling the canyon and Mr. Bostick
said he understood and appreciated Mr. Wu's concerns but in fact, the
highest and best use of the property as called out in the City's approved
General Plan was "one unit per acre development" and this project was
actually at .6 units per acre which is a 40 -percent reduction below the
General Plan requirement. This requires a fill of the canyon similar to
projects adjacent to and in the area of this project.
VC/Low asked for further explanation of the existing road easement from the
Kicking Horse properties. Mr. Bostick stated that at the maximum an
additional 50 feet would be required to eliminate all retaining walls. If
Millennium could acquire an additional 15 feet for example, it would reduce
the height of the retaining walls. The reason Millennium would not place
retaining walls on the project side of Alamo Heights Road is because they
would be more difficult to mitigate with only eight feet between the right-of-
way and the asphalt. On the Kicking Horse side there is 50 feet within which
to mitigate a wall. He explained the options and what he felt was the best
solution. Mr. Bostick confirmed to VC/Low that if Millennium were
unsuccessful in obtaining the additional easement from the Kicking Horse
Drive homeowners the project would require a maximum 15 foot height for
the retaining walls.
I
JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION
Mr. Bostick responded to Chair/McManus that he was comfortable with the
conditions of approval at this stage of the process. Mr. Bostick reiterated that
the applicant has worked diligently with staff to provide a good project and he
asked the Commission to believe that staff has presented the best possible
project for approval.
VC/Low asked what input the City had to the conditions of the CC&R's.
ICDD/Fong responded that the City Attorney would respond to the proposed
CC&R's and the CC&R's would reflect the conditions imposed upon the tract.
Ultimately, the CC&R's are approved by the City Council. VC/Low asked if
the developer's statements were binding to the project. ICDD/Fong stated
that there was no condition binding the developer to pay compensation for
the easement and in fact that matter was outside of the City's purview.
ICDD/Fong said she believed that the wall would vary from seven feet to 15
feet at its highest point if walls were needed within the existing 40 -foot
easement. The variance is required to meet the maximum height needed.
There is a condition requiring the applicant to negotiate with "The Country
Estates" Homeowners' Association for annexation. In addition, the project
must form another association so that ultimately the 48 homes would have
two associations as reflected in the CC&R's.
ICDD/Fong agreed with Chair/McManus that the 48 homeowners would have
their own association for purposes of liability and maintenance of common
areas whether or not they were annexed into "The Country Estates"
Homeowners' Association.
Bill Liu, President, Crystal Ridge Association, disagreed with ICDD/Fong.
Crystal Ridge is a separate association even though it pays money to "The
Country Estates" Homeowners' Association for limited security and gate
enforcement. ICDD/Fong responded that in fact, Crystal Ridge was not
annexed into "The Country Estates." The Millennium project requires that
Millennium negotiate with "The Country Estates" for annexation. In addition,
Millennium must form its separate association for maintenance of common
areas.
ACA/Cotti explained that the project was conditioned that it form its own
association as well as conditioned to require Millennium to negotiate in good
faith to annex into "The Country Estates" Homeowners' Association. Should
that not occur, there would be an association in place that was fully funded
as per the state DRE requirements to assure the ongoing maintenance of
common areas.
JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION
Mr. Aiken agreed to a certain point. He said that if the project were annexed
into "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association there would be no need
for them to have a separate association.
Chair/McManus explained that the City could not require the project to be
annexed into "The Country Estates."
ACA/Cotti responded to VC/Low that to the extent that the conditions were
negotiated in good faith toward annexation it would not further bind the
developer. All that the developer was required to do was to make a good
faith attempt to negotiate and there was no requirement that those conditions
be finalized.
ICCD/Fong responded to Chair/McManus that staff had imposed a
considerable number of conditions on the project for the good of the City.
Mr. Leong said that it was incorrectly implied that the homeowners had
accepted the 10 -foot wall. If the Commissioners approve the proposed plan it
would put the homeowners in a difficult situation of having to choose
between a 15 -foot high wall and an easement.
Chair/McManus said that negotiations were still open.
Mr. Leong felt that there should be a memorandum of understanding of
annexation before the homeowners could make a decision because the
homeowners might be in a position of having to maintain the wall.
Chair/McManus asked if Mr. Leong understood that if there was no
successful negotiation a separate and binding homeowners association
would be established that would be responsible for maintaining the wall.
Mr. Leong asked if that was binding and TCDD/Fong responded that it was.
ACA/Cotti responded to Mr. Leong that he could not respond to Mr Leong's
statement that he could state there would be no possibility that the
homeowners could be left "holding the bag" and in all likelihood the
homeowners would have to take that into consideration during the
negotiations for granting of the easement.
C/Torng asked Mr. Leong if the residents could come together to reach a
decision. Mr. Leong said that the real process of the developer explaining
and disclosing took place after the December 13 Commission meeting and
JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION
he felt it was necessary for the homeowners and Millennium to continue
negotiating so that the homeowners would not be left "holding the bag."
ICDD/Fong responded to C/Torng that staff held a meeting in August for the
homeowners. C/Leong reiterated that during the meetings prior to
December 13, there was no advice to the homeowners as to their rights and
there was no full disclosure of possible problems such as liability, etc.
C/Torng said he participated in a hearing for South Point West and the
detailed plan was submitted at that time. He believed that about 30
homeowners participated in that meeting. According to the City's code of
procedure it must invite residents to participate in such hearings prior to the
matter coming before the Planning Commission. C/Leong said that in his
opinion, much more information came to light after the December 13
Planning Commission meeting. Some homeowners may have believed they
agreed and might have done so because of a misunderstanding of the facts
presented. He said that some of his neighbors believed they had no choice
but to agree to a 26 -foot wall or an easement with no alternative. He felt it
was incumbent upon Millennium to continue talking with the homeowners
before they were stuck in an adverse situation.
ICDD/Fong stated that a 40 -foot easement already exists and Millennium
could grade and build the walls within the 40 -foot easement. The only
question before the Planning Commission was how high Millennium could
build the walls. The first time, Millennium proposed walls up to 26 feet high.
Since the Commission's recommendation for the applicant to work with the
adjacent property owners Mr. Bostick decided that if he had to work within
the 40 foot easement he would be able to build two walls with the wall on one
side of the street being five feet and the wall on other side being 10 to 15
feet.
C/Leong asked if it was correct that if Millennium wanted an additional 50 -
foot easement they would have to negotiate with the homeowners and
ICDD/Fong responded "correct." C/Leong said the homeowners were told
that the applicant would not have to negotiate because they already had a
total of 90 feet for the easement. ICDD/Fong said she did not believe Mr.
Leong was correct. Mr. Leong felt that staff needed to provide the
homeowners with accurate information because Millennium told the
homeowners they had no choice but to grant the 90 -foot easement.
ICDD/Fong recalled that at the last neighborhood meeting staff attended it
was made clear that there was an existing 40 -foot easement and that
Millennium was asking for a 50 -foot easement.
JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION
Chair/McManus advised Mr. Leong that this was a request for a tentative
approval, not a final approval and in order for Millennium to move forward
they needed a tentative approval to proceed with certain items that they had
to complete. Staff has repeatedly and categorically stated that there is room
for negotiation between the homeowners, Mr. Yeh and Millennium.
Mr. Leong believed the homeowners were asking that because the
homeowners were not provided accurate information and he felt that the
Commission should grant additional time for Millennium to talk with the
homeowners because once approved, the homeowners would be between a
rock and a hard place.
Chair/McManus asked Mr. Leong if he understood that this was not a final
approval and that there were a lot of additional hoops that Millennium had to
jump through before receiving final approval and that the project has already
been continued for one month.
Mr. Bostick said that at the very first meeting in May at the HOA, the HOA's
legal counsel was present and explained that the easements were existing
on all of these properties according to the current recorded tract map for the
lots on Kicking Horse Drive. From the centerline of the street there is 40 feet
for the street and a 50 -foot slope easement resulting in a total of 90 feet of
easement on all of the heights to build Alamo Heights Road, a fact that has
never been in dispute. He felt he had made every good effort to explain the
situation and work with the homeowners in good faith for several months.
Mr. Bostick further stated that the developer has another 9 to 12 months of
preliminary engineering and design work before one scoop of dirt could be
moved and during that time the applicant will continue to work with staff and
the homeowners in good faith. The easements are in place and are not in
dispute.
Chair/McManus invited Mr. Wu to contact the City with his concerns and
assured Mr. Wu that the City would not be contacting him for his expertise.
Chair/McManus closed the public hearing.
VC/Low detailed the review process and said that it seemed to her that
Millennium had made considerable effort and progress toward discussing
and resolving various issues with concerned citizens as directed by the
Planning Commission on December 13. Therefore, it appeared there would
be no benefit to further continuance of this matter as suggested by some of
the comments. The applicant has a right to the use and development of his
land according to code and the City cannot deny that right. The easement
JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION
currently exists and the applicant is entitled to build in the easement area.
The question is whether the Commission wants to grant a variance allowing
a wall to be constructed up to a maximum height of 15 feet and the City has
allowed construction of such walls in the past.
VC/Low moved, C/Lee seconded, to recommend the following to City
Council: Certification of the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(SCH#2003052202) and Mitigation Monitoring Program; approval of
Tentative Tract Map No. 53430, Zone Change No. 2005-03, Conditional Use
Permit No. 2002-01, Variance 2005-03 and Tree Permit No. 2005-10,
Statement of overriding Consideration, Findings of Fact, and conditions of
approval as listed within the Resolutions including additional conditions
provided by staff today. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Low, Lee, Torng,
Chair/McManus
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
8.1 Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-04 and Development Review
No. 2005-23 — In accordance with Code Sections 22.42, 22.58 and 22.48,
this was a request to install a wireless telecommunications facility with
antennas mounted on the roof -top concealed by the fagade and mansard
roof and equipment cabinets in a retail suite. The Development Review
related to architectural/design review for the replacement of faux stucco and
roofing materials.
PROJECT ADDRESS:
PROPERTY OWNER/
APPLICANT:
1155 Diamond Bar Boulevard
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Diamond Bar Town Center, LLC
Pacific West Asset Management
3191-D Airport Loop Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Chair/McManus recused himself and left the dais.
JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 15 PLANNING COMMISSION
DSA/Smith presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission
approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-04 and Development Review
No. 2005-23, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the
Resolution.
Danielle Brandenburg, representing Cingular Wireless, MMI Titan,
responded to C/Torng that this project would improve the wireless phone
reception in Diamond Bar. She responded to VC/Low that she concurred
with staffs recommendations and conditions of approval.
VC/Low opened the public hearing.
There was no one present who wished to speak on this matter.
C/Torng moved, C/Lee seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit
No. 2005-04 and Development Review No. 2005-23, Findings of Fact, and
conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. Motion carried by the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
Chair/McManus returned to the dais.
Torng, Lee, VC/Low
None
Chair/McManus
Nolan
9. PLANNING COMMSSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
C/Torng felt that concerned residents should participate more fully in the projects
that come before the City. He believed that the applicant would work with the
residents to come to a satisfactory resolution of their concerns and wished
Millennium a good project.
C/Lee said he expected Millennium to follow through with their promises to the
residents and thanked them for their patience.
VC/Low echoed C/Lee's comments and thanked staff for working hard with the
applicant to bring together a good project. She thanked Millennium for their last
minute improvements and wished them good luck in winning over the homeowners
and moving forward with a good project.
JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 16 PLANNING COMMISSION
Chair/McManus wished everyone a Happy New Year and congratulated Millennium
on moving their project through the Planning Commission. He asked
Commissioners to get a copy of Roberts Rules of Order to refresh themselves on
meeting conduct. Before coming on the Planning Commission he spent the better
part of a day going through orientation and reviewing the responsibilities of Planning
Commissioners and recommended that for those that had not done so it would be
especially useful for them to take the time to review Planning Commission and
Commissioner's procedures and responsibilities.
10. STAFF COMMENTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects.
ICDD/Fong said she had not forgotten about Form Based Code and Art in
Public Places. Staff intends to present information in the near future so that
the Commission can discuss the matter and forward its recommendation to
the City Council.
11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
As listed in tonight's agenda.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission,
Chair/McManus adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Nancy Fong
Interim Community Development Director
Attest:
Joe McManus, Chairman
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
21825 COPLEY DRIVE—DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765—TEL (909) 839-7030—FAX (909) 861-3117—www.Cityofdiamondbar.com
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: -1. 1
MEETING DATE: January 24, 2006
REPORT DATE: January 17, 2006
CASE/FILE NUMBER: Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-02/Development
Review No. 2005-15/Minor Variance No. 2005-03
PROJECT LOCATION: Walnut Valley Water District -Eastgate Reservoir,
24995 Eastgate Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765
(APN: 8701-006-900)
APPLICATION REQUEST: A request to install a wireless telecommunications
facility with antennae mounted on a monopole
camouflaged as a broad leaf tree and the equipment
cabinet. The Development Review and Minor Variance
relate to architectural/design review and the height of
the broad leaf tree monopole which exceeds the
maximum allowable 35 feet.
PROPERTY OWNER: Walnut Valley Water District, P. O. Box 508, Walnut,
CA 91789-3002
APPLICANT: Cingular Wireless, 12900 5th Floor- Park Plaza
Drive, Cerritos, CA 90703
APPLICANT'S AGENT: Infranext, Inc., Jim Fitzsimmons, 2200 Orangewood
Avenue, #225, Orange, CA 92868
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: Approve
CUP 05-02/DR 05-15/MV 05-03 PAGE 1
BACKGROUND:
The property owner, Walnut Valley Water District, applicant, Cingular Wireless, and
applicant's agent, Infranext, Inc., Jim Fitzimmons, request Conditional Use Permit No.
2005-02, Development Review No. 2005-15 and Minor Variance No. 2005-03 to install a
wireless telecommunications facility with antennae mounted on a monopole camouflaged
as a broad leaf tree and the equipment cabinet.
The project site is a water reservoir facility located off Eastgate Drive which is surrounded
by City Open Space and identified as a preferred site on Diamond Bar's
Telecommunications Facilities Map. The project site, Assessor's Parcel Number 8701-006-
900, is an irregularly shaped hillside lot, approximately 3.7 gross acres. The tank and
telecommunications site are surrounded by dense foliage and chain link fencing. There are
two water tanks that are approximately 32 feet tall. There are two carriers'
telecommunications antennae: one on the water tank, and a Sprint faux broad leaf tree
approved in 2003.
The site's access road is owned by the City. The City Council has approved a Utility and
Access agreement to be executed by the City Manager, when the project is approved by
the Planning Commission. The annual fee is $5,000.
The Cingular wireless communication equipment installation will provide voice, e-mail and
Internet access capabilities for Cingular Wireless customers. Cingular Wireless, formally
know as Pacific Bell Mobile Services and Pacific Bell Wireless, was established in 1994 as
the wireless subsidiary of Pacific Bell, now currently SBC. The new Cingular Wireless
includes ATT Wireless and is currently expanding its network for needed coverage since
the previous Cingular network was transferred to T -Mobile.
ANALYSIS:
A. Applications and Review Authority
Monopole telecommunication installations require Planning Commission Conditional
Use Permit approval per Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Sections 22.42.130
and 22.58. The Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit also require
Planning Commission approval for the architectural/design review and height that
exceeds the maximum allowable 35 feet per DBMC 22.48 and 22.52.
The City's development standards for wireless telecommunication antennae facilities
were adopted in 1999 and insure that the design and location of telecommunications
antennae and related facilities are consistent with adopted policies and that the use's
aesthetic appearance is unobtrusive and unsightly to protect property values.
CUP 05-02/DR 05-15/MV 05-03 PAGE 2
These processes establish consistency with the General Plan through the promotion
of high aesthetic and functional standards to complement and add to the City's
economic, physical, and social character. The process ensures that the proposed
project's development yields a pleasant living environment for the residents and
visitors as the result of consistent exemplary design.
B. Site and Surrounding Uses
General Plan designation - Water Facility (W)
Zoning - Residential Planned Development (RPD 20,000 2U) Zone
Surrounding Zones and Uses — Open Space surrounds the subject site
C. Conditional Use Permit/Development Review/Minor Variance
While general land use categories can be geographically designated through the
General Plan and other applicable land use plans, telecommunication facilities are
location dependent. The location is based on technical requirements based on terrain
and line -of -sight interaction with surrounding existing public utilities. As a mobile 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. According
to the applicant, the chosen site provides the maximum coverage and efficient
operation of the system based on their gird and surrounding land uses.
The applicant proposes to locate all unmanned telecommunications antennae on a
monopole at 35 feet height with leafy branches to 38.5 feet. The appearance of the
monopole will be camouflaged by faux RF transparent branches and trunk to look like
a broad leafy tree. The antennae are also bagged in camouflaged RF transparent
fiber.
1. Specifications: The proposed telecommunication facility lease area is
approximately 765 square feet. A retaining wall with fencing will be built around
the following equipment: three sectors of antennae, four per sector (each
antenna is 74.5 inches high x 12.5 inches wide x 7.5 inches deep); one 4 feet
microwave dish; the 10 feet x 16 feet equipment cabinet with service light; two
13 inch x 2 inch GPS antenna for the 911 upgrade, transformer, and Telco box
breaker panels.
The proposed telecommunication facility will be located at the front of the
reservoir property (southwesterly portion). The equipment, cabinet, and pole are
hidden behind the dense shrub foliage, and pine, cottonwood, elm, and birch
trees. An adjacent pine tree is approximately 28 feet tall and the existing faux
tree is 38.5 feet tall. Some of the dense foliage is noted for removal, but the
plans as required by the City reflect three new California Pepper trees to be
CUP 05-02/DR 05-15/MV 05-03 PAGE 3
planted outside the existing bush row. The planting shall be completed prior to
the final inspection.
The maximum height of a structure within the Residential Planned Development
(RPD 20,000 2U) Zone is 35 feet. The Minor Variance process allows
adjustment of development standards for height up to 3.5 feet or 10 percent.
Although, the applicant has five feet of branches, their application is for a Minor
Variance at 3.5 feet for a total of 38.5 feet. The previous faux tree approval is a
stealth unit within the 3.5 feet of faux branches; and therefore, the maximum
height of the faux tree shall be revised. A Minor Variance may be granted
because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including location,
shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other conditions; and when
unreasonable regulations make it obviously impractical to require compliance
with development standards. Due to the hillside topography, existing structures
and dense trees surrounding the project site, the height of the proposed
monopole camouflaged as a broadleaf tree is necessary in order to obtain an
appropriate/clear line of site for transmitting and receiving signals.
The applicant's proposed unmanned development and use will be in operation
twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days a week, with routine maintenance
scheduled once a month.
2. Architectural Features and Colors: Aesthetics are a major issue of locating
the facilities within our municipality. The owner and applicant worked to mitigate
unsightly visual impacts with this wireless facility by screening methods that
would not undermine the intent of the General Plan and the implementing
ordinances. Each antenna of the camouflaged broad leaf tree is bagged to hide
the antennae from downhill properties and the tree blends into the dense foliage.
The proposed project's faux leaves and branches blend into the terrain similar to
the natural foliage and the existing camouflaged tree approved in 2003. The
faux tree is compatible with the surrounding area, consistent with the City's
General Plan, Municipal Code, and Design Guidelines.
3. Site Work: A retaining wall and support are required for the monopole, but is
hidden behind the dense brush on-site.
4. Landscape: Three California Peppers will be installed per plan.
5. Co -location: The pole is available for co -location.
6. FCC Guidelines: The FCC documentation indicates this project is categorically
excluded and highly unlikely to cause exposure in excess of the FCC's
guidelines or detrimental to the public health, safety orwelfare of the community.
CUP 05-02/DR 05-15/MV 05-03 PAGE 4
D. Additional Review
The Public Works Division and the Building and Safety Division reviewed this project.
Their comments are included in both the report and the approval conditions.
E. General Plan/Design Guidelines/Compatibility with Neighborhood
Strategy 2.2.1, New developments shall be compatible with surrounding land
uses.
Staff's review finds the application is consistent with the General Plan, Municipal
Code Standards, the City's Design Guidelines and the project is compatible with the
neighborhood.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
On January 10, 2005, 31 property owners and interested parties within the project's 500 -
foot radius were mailed a public hearing notice and three other locations within the
application's vicinity were posted. On January 10, 2006, the project's public hearing
notification was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
newspapers and on January 14, 2006 a public hearing notice display board was posted at
the site.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The City has determined that the Application is categorically exempt per the 1970
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15303(d).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No.
2005-02/Development Review No. 2005-15/Minor Variance No. 2005-03, Findings of Fact,
and conditions of approval as listed within the attached resolution.
Prepared by: Linda Kay Smith, Development Services Associate
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution of Approval;
2. Exhibit "A" - Title Sheet, Site Plan, Antenna and Equipment Layout Plan, Elevations,
Landscape Plan, and Details dated January 24, 2006.
CUP 05-02/DR 05-15/MV 05-03 PAGE 5
A.
B
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-xx
A RESOLUTION OF THE DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005-02/DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW NO. 2005-15/MINOR VARIANCE NO. 2005-03 AND
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION 15303(d), A REQUEST TO INSTALL A
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY WITH ANTENNAE
MOUNTED ON A MONOPOLE CAMOUFLAGED AS A BROAD LEAF
TREE AND THE EQUIPMENT CABINET. THE PROJECT IS AT THE
WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT-EASTGATE RESERVOIR, (APN:
8701-006-900) 24995 EASTGATE DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA.
RECITALS
1. The property owner, Walnut Valley Water District, applicant, Cingular
Wireless, and applicant's agent Infranext, Inc., Jim Fitzimmons, filed
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-02/Development Review No. 2005-
15/Minor Variance No. 2005-03 applications for a property at Walnut Valley
Water District -Eastgate Reservoir, 24995 Eastgate Drive (APN: 8701-006-
900), Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California, as described in the title
of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use
Permit, Development Review, Minor Variance, and Categorical Exemption
shall be referred to as the "Application."
2. On January 10, 2005, 31 property owners and interested parties within the
project's 500 -foot radius were mailed a public hearing notice and three other
locations within the application's vicinity were posted. On January 10, 2006,
the project's public hearing notification was published in the San Gabriel
Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers and on January
14, 2006 a public hearing notice display board was posted at the site.
3. On January 24, 2006, 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 Application is
categorically exempt per the 1970 California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), Section 15303(d).
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 wild life 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 upon the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning
Commission hereby finds as follows:
(a) The project site is at the Walnut Valley Water District -Eastgate
Reservoir, 24995 Eastgate Drive (Assessor Parcel Number 8701-006-
900), Diamond Bar, California. The lot is an irregularly shaped hillside
lot, approximately 3.7 gross acres. The tank and telecommunications
site is surrounded by dense foliage and chain link fencing. There are
two water tanks that are approximately 32 feet tall. There are two
existing carriers at the site: one on the tank (2001); and another
monopole camouflaged as a leafy tree (2003).
(b) The General Plan Land Use designation is Water Facility (W). The
project site is zoned Residential Planned Development (RPD 20,000
2U).
(c) Open Space surrounds the subject site.
(d) The Application requests installation of a wireless telecommunications
facility with antennae mounted on a monopole camouflaged as a
broad leaf tree and the equipment cabinet. The Development Review
and Minor Variance relate to architectural/design review and the
height of the broad leaf tree monopole which exceeds the maximum
allowable 35 feet.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
(e) The proposed use is allowed within the subject zoning district with the
approval of a Conditional Use Permit complies with all other
applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Municipal
Code.
The purpose of the Conditional Use Permit is to provide a process for
reviewing specified activities and uses identified in a zoning district
whose effect on the surrounding area cannot be determined before
being proposed for a particular location. The proposed unmanned
wireless telecommunications facility is permitted in the Residential
2
Planned Development (RPD 20,000 2U) Zone with a Conditional Use
Permit and as amended herein will comply with all other applicable
provisions of the Municipal Code.
(g) The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any
applicable specific plan.
The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Water
Facility (W). Objectives and Strategies of the General Plan encourage
the establishment of new technology that is deemed environmentally
safe and compatible with development. The proposed project is
required to comply with Federal regulations regarding radio frequency
emissions, thereby considered environmentally safe. The
telecommunications facility is compatible with the General Plan in that
it will only generate a very minimal amount of additional traffic to the
neighborhood by infrequent maintenance visits. It will not create a
new source of light and noise. It will not be recognizable from
surrounding downhill properties because the antennae will be
concealed within a monopole camouflaged as a broad leaf tree that
will be 38.5 feet tall. The equipment cabinets will be concealed behind
the dense foliage. The monopole camouflaged as a broad leaf tree
will blend in with the dense shrub foliage and pine, cottonwood, elm,
and birch trees on-site. An adjacent pine tree is approximately 28 feet
tall and an existing monopole camouflaged as a broad leaf tree is on
site. The installation of antenna sectors and transmission equipment
will not result in significant material changes to the character of the
project site. As a result, the proposed telecommunication facility's
visibility will have a less than significant impact as proposed.
(h) The design, location, size and operation characteristics of the
proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in
the vicinity.
The project site is an irregularly shaped hillside lot, sloping up from
Eastgate Drive and Pantera Drive and is approximately 3.7 acres. Itis
developed with a reservoir facility identified as Walnut Valley Water
District -Eastgate Reservoir. The proposed telecommunication facility
lease area is approximately 765 square feet. A retaining wall with
fencing will be built around the following equipment: three sectors of
antennae, four per sector (each antenna is 74.5 inches high x 12.5
inches wide x 7.5 inches deep); one 4 feet microwave dish; the 10
feet x 16 feet equipment cabinet with service light, two 13 inch x 2
inch GPS antenna for the 911 upgrade, transformer, and Telco box
breaker panels. The equipment cabinets will be hidden behind the
dense foliage and bush row.
The monopole camouflaged as a broad leaf tree will blend in with the
existing foliage and trees. The installation of antennae sectors and
3
transmission equipment will not result in significant material changes
to the character of the project site. It will be barely recognizable as a
telecommunications site from Eastgate Drive and Pantera Drive. As a
result, the proposed telecommunication facility's visibility will have a
less than significant impact as proposed. The telecommunication
facility will generate a minimal amount of additional traffic to the
neighborhood by infrequent maintenance visits. It does not create a
new source of light and noise. The facility will comply with all FCC
regulations. Therefore, it is unlikely that the facility will have a
negative impact on the single-family residential neighborhood
adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the project's design, location,
size and operational characteristics, as conditioned, 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 referenced above in Item (h), the proposed telecommunications
facility still meets the required development standards for the
Residential Planned Development (RPD 20,000 2U) Zone except for
height which a Minor Variance application is being processed.
Provisions for utilities exist at the project site.
(j) Granting the Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the
public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or injurious to
persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district
in which the property is located.
As referenced above in Items (t) through (i), the proposed
telecommunications facility with the Minor Variance approval and as
amended herein will meet the City's minimum development standards.
Traffic is minimal. As discussed in Item (h) above, the existing
telecommunications facility meets the FCC requirements regarding
radio frequency emissions safety and has been installed with the
appropriate City permits. Therefore, granting the Conditional Use
Permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience, or welfare, or injurious to persons, property, or
improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property
is located.
(k) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The City has determined that the Application is categorically exempt
per the 1970 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section
15303(d).
4
MINOR VARIANCE
(1) There are special circumstances applicable to the property (e.g.,
location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other conditions),
so that the strict application of the City's Development Code denies
the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the
vicinity and under identical zoning districts or creates an unnecessary
and non -self created, hardship or unreasonable regulation which
makes it obviously impractical to require compliance with the
development standards.
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 antennae that require an appropriate%lear
line of sight. In order to have a clear line of sight, antennae must be
mounted high enough to overcome challenges proposed by local
topography and development. The required height is usually
proportional to a combination of distance antennae can cover and the
demand for the PCS service within their sphere of influence.
The applicant proposes to install a monopole camouflaged as a
broadleaf tree at a height of 38.5 feet that will house three sectors of
antenna, four per sectorand a 4 feet microwave dish at the watertank
facility's southwest area. The Diamond Bar Telecommunications
Facilities Map indicates that a water tank site is a preferred building
site. Due to the hillside topography, existing structures and dense
trees surrounding the project site, the height of the proposed
monopole camouflaged as a broadleaf tree is necessary in order to
obtain an appropriate%lear line of site for transmitting and receiving
signals. The installation of antenna sectors and transmission
equipment will not result in significant material changes to the
character of the project site. As a result, the proposed
telecommunication facility's visibility will have a less than significant
impact as proposed. Furthermore, the reservoirs are approximately 32
feet in height. The proposed telecommunications facility is taller than
the permitted height of structures in the Residential Planned
Development (RPD 20,000 2U) Zone, the monopole camouflaged as
a broad leaf tree and the equipment cabinet will blend in with the
existing foliage and trees on-site.
(m) Granting the Minor Variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other property
5
owners in the same vicinity and zoning districts and denied to the
property owner for which the Minor Variance is sought.
Granting of the Minor Variance allows the proposed
telecommunications facility to address the demand of the local
network in order to provide seamless service to the 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.
(n) Granting the Minor Variance is consistent with the General Plan and
any applicable specific plan; and
As referenced in Item (g) above, granting the Minor Variance is
consistent with the General Plan. There is no applicable specific plan
for this area.
(o) The proposed entitlement would not be detrimental to the public
interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.
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.
(p) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The City has determined that the Application is categorically exempt
per the 1970 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section
15303(d).
C.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
(q) The design and layout of the proposed development are consistent
with the General Plan, City Design Guidelines, development
standards of the applicable district, and architectural criteria for
special areas, (e.g. theme areas, specific plans, community plans,
boulevards, or planned developments);
As referenced above in Items (g), (h), (i) and Q), the existing
telecommunications facility as amended herein and with the Minor
Variance approval is consistent with the City's Design Guidelines,
development standards of the applicable district, and architectural
criteria for special areas. Additionally, a specified architectural
criterion for the area does not exist.
(r) 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;
As referenced in Items (h) above, the design and layout of the
proposed telecommunications facility does not interfere with the use
and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and
does not create traffic or pedestrian hazards.
(s) The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible
with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and will
maintain and enhance the harmonious, orderly and attractive
development contemplated by Chapter 22.48 of the City's
Development Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan;
As referenced in Item (h) above, the architectural design of the
proposed telecommunications facilitate with the Minor Variance
approval will be compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding
neighborhood and maintains and enhances the harmonious, orderly
and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48 of the
City's Development Code, the General Plan, oranyapplicable specific
plan.
(t) 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;
As referenced above in Item (h) and (I), the design of the existing
telecommunications facility provides a desirable environment for a
occupants of surrounding residences and visiting public as well as its
neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color
that will remain aesthetically appealing.
7
(u) The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare or materially injurious (e.g. negative affect on
property values or resale(s) of property) to the properties or
improvements in the vicinity;
As referenced in Items (h), (I), and (o) above, the telecommunications
facility is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or
materially injurious (e.g. negative affect on property values or
resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity.
(v) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The City has determined that the Application is categorically exempt
per the 1970 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section
15303(d).
5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the Application subject to the following
conditions:
GENERAL
(a) The project shall substantially conform to Title Sheet, Site Plan,
Antenna and Equipment Layout Plan, Elevations, Landscape Plan,
and Details collectively labeled as Exhibit "A" dated January 24, 2006,
as submitted to, amended herein, and approved by the Planning
Commission.
(b) Construction Plans shall be revised for a maximum 38.5 feet height
including the leafy branches.
(c) Property owner/applicant shall remove the public hearing notice board
within three days of this project's approval.
(d) The site shall be maintained in a condition that 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 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.
T
(e) Applicant shall comply with all Federal, State and City regulations.
(f) 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.
(g) The applicant shall submit plans for review and approval, and obtain
an encroachment permit from the Public Works Division for the
trenching and standard replacement for the City's access road as
described in the Grant of Easement.
BUILDING AND SAFETY
(h) Construction Plans shall conform to State and Local Building Codes.
(i) This structure shall meet the State Energy Conservation Standards.
Q) The minimum design wind pressure shall be 80 miles per hour and
"C" exposure. The City is in seismic zone four (4). Applicant shall
submit drawings and calculations prepared by a licensed
architect/engineer with wet stamp and signature.
(k) All cables shall be installed underground.
(1) New construction shall not change hill drainage flow.
(m) The applicant shall maintain the RF transparent materials such that
the materials maintain a consistent appearance with the surrounding
materials. The tree shall be reviewed by the applicant every five years
or as requested in writing to avoid any deterioration.
(n) This approval is valid for two (2) years and shall be exercised (i.e.
construction) within that period or this approval shall expire. A one- (1)
year extension may be approved when submitted to the City in writing
at least 60 days prior to the expiration date. The Planning
Commission will consider the extension request at a duly noticed
public hearing in accordance with Chapter 22.72 of the City of
Diamond Bar Municipal Code.
(o) This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee
and owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have
filed, within fifteen (15) days of approval, at the City of Diamond Bar
Community and Development Services Department, their affidavit
stating that they are aware and agree to accept all the conditions of
I7
this approval. Further, this approval shall not be effective until the
permittee pays remaining City processing fees.
(p) If the Department of Fish and Game determines that Fish and Game
Code Section 711.4 applies to the approval of this project, then the
applicant shall remit to the City, within five days of this approval, a
cashier's check of $25.00 for a documentary handling fee in
connection with Fish and Game Code requirements. Furthermore, if
this project is not exempt from a filing fee imposed because the
project has more than a 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.
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 Walnut Valley Water District, P. O. Box 508, Walnut, CA 91789-
3002; Applicant, Cingular Wireless, 12900 5th Floor- Park Plaza
Drive, Cerritos, CA 90703; and applicant's agent, Infranext, Inc., Jim
Fitzimmons, 2200 Orangewood Avenue, #225, Orange, CA 92868.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24th DAY OF JANUARY 2006, BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
Joe McManus, 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 January 2006, by the following vote:
AYES:
Commissioners:
NOES:
Commissioner:
ABSENT:
Commissioner:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioner:
ATTEST:
Nancy Fong, Interim Community Development Director
Word: comdev/linda smith/plancomm/projects/conditional use permits/CUP 05-02.../Resp...
10
MEMORANDUM
D AMONDBAR
COMMUNITY & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Nancy Fong, Interim Community Development Director
BY: Sandra Campbell, Contract Senior Planner
MEETING January 24, 2006
DATE:
SUBJECT: Art in Public Places Issue Paper
Background
The Planning Commission has expressed an interest in establishing an art in public places
program. This type of program involves the incorporation of artworks into new
development projects in publicly accessible places within the City. This report discusses
issues associated with preparing an art in public places program for the City.
Review of Programs in Other Cities
To understand how these programs work, staff reviewed a number of art in public
places ordinances and programs in various cities within the Los Angeles area. Some of
the most well-known programs include those in the cities of Brea, Claremont, Rancho
Cucamonga, Laguna Beach and Pasadena. All of these programs were included in the
background research. The attached table presents a comparison of the various
components of each city's art in public places program.
Most programs are generally very similar in that they apply to all new commercial and
industrial projects that exceed a certain valuation and to new residential projects that
exceed a certain number of units. The fee requirements are also similar in that most
cities require a fee of 1% of the project valuation be applied towards public artwork.
Claremont reduces the fee to 1/2% for residential projects. These types of programs are
often referred to as "percent for art" programs.
Page 1 of 3
A notable exception to the norm is the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The city has a
program that applies only in the Haven Avenue Specific Plan area which is a major
gateway into the city. In this area, the specific plan allows an applicant to reduce the
landscape requirement by five percent if public art is provided in a publicly accessible
area on the project site.
Discussion:
An art in public places program would provide a benefit to the City by providing more
interesting public places and fostering community appreciation of art. Although most
programs are generally very similar, the details of the program allow the City to tailor it
to meet community goals and needs. Some of the various program options are
discussed below.
1. Applicability:
One of the important aspects of a program is what type of projects will be subject
to the requirements of the program. Most cities reviewed required all new
development projects over a certain value be required to provide a public artwork
piece. The City may also opt to apply the program citywide or only in specific
project areas, e.g., gateways to the City, parks, or highly visible areas such as
median islands of arterial boulevards.
2. Fee Requirements:
Fee requirements are an important aspect of an art in public places program. As
mentioned previously, most cities require that a developer devote 1% of the
value of a project to public artwork. These types of ordinances are often referred
to as "percent for art' programs. However, other options are available such as
the case with Rancho Cucamonga which allows a developer to provide public
artwork in exchange for a reduction in the amount of required landscaping.
3. Funds in Trust:
Provisions for In -lieu contributions are also included in many city ordinances.
These allow a developer to pay into a fund maintained by the City if the
developer chooses not to provide artwork on the project site.
4. Types of Artwork:
Another component of an art in public places program is the type of art that is
permitted. Often cities allow only permanent artwork such as sculpture to be
provided by the developer. Some ordinances are more liberal in the types of
artwork and can include a variety of types of artwork such as sculpture; paintings,
drawings and prints; and other types of media such as photography and
cinematography exhibits.
Page 2 of 3
5. Arts Commission:
When a proposed project is subject to the requirements of an art in public places
program, some cities establish a process that allows the City to review the
artwork before it is installed. The review requires a developer to submit an
application for the desired type of artwork to the City for review and approval.
Most public art ordinances designate a commission with expertise in art to review
and make decisions on applications for artwork. Developing guidelines on
selection of artists and artwork will assist the commission or board in reviewing
artwork applications.
Fiscal Impact:
With a "percent for art" program, the developer assumes the cost involved in hiring an
artist, and construction and installation of the artwork. The City would incur costs mostly
for staff time spent on reviewing applications and preparing reports for the board or
commission that reviews the artwork.
A percent for art program may have some negative impacts on developers in that it
would be an additional cost of development in the City. Developers may view that cost
as a deterrent to doing business in the City.
However, an art in public places program could also be a way of improving the visual
quality of public areas within the City and result in an improvement in the City's overall
image. This may have the indirect effect of leading to more high quality development
within the City.
Recommendations:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the merits of implementing an
art in public places program and the various options for the program. After discussion,
the Planning Commission should then decide on a recommendation as follows:
1. Direct staff to amend the Design Guidelines to include criteria for
placement of art and continue to extract art through the entitlement
process for Commission review and forward to City Council for approval
through a resolution; or
2. Recommend that the City Council direct staff to further study the
implementation of an Art in Public Places Program.
Attachment: Table Summarizing City Art in Public Places Programs
Page 3 of 3
LO 0
m o
yo Q) _� CD c c
m
y Ea�i?� asE �.c'mc
Q _CL a
O7Uca o U -a -
Nv °".0
On_
vaQE E m - Co
a3UE O_ E a E
U O p7 •V13 cu o a) m e Aj Q .
O .-
LU mEa- a: 0 o=0 Q(D m
QQC
a3Uw000Q N com:sFL i a)
Q N Q O
c co O(DcN
p ECuO=m�
V N U N
in = :
o' co0coi_
ai a> ; :3 a)
E
O ' c U)
o — a)
N o T >
= r O N O
cu
d. a) C 3 w Q
.1 a) E
i-�"- cow._ - -- -
a
C
C C co
c co
C O 'in a)
d
— N `
C C O C
c°��' aa) E E@
S E 0
`l
a)
m
co
(� L
O
co
3 Q -a O
o0QE
T N O O
m CL ,& U
EO:3-
a) > �: -�
a) a)
LL -0 m.5
o
CD O C
O C
X "C CO c N a
U O
a3 O C� 2 O O� O N O oa
c --
L L a3 (Q tm
O U F--
O M 2 2 E E y
ai
m
L a
d w
d O
N Q
0 0
a
o '7 a) co
r Q O>
w
a
CO Q
a)
G
@ O U
O p
L U
N- C O �' C N
c O
V 3
N
U > OQ-ra
U co
J R
J Q�CIL >
d N CCD
LO 0
m o
yo Q) _� CD c c
m
y Ea�i?� asE �.c'mc
Q _CL a
O7Uca o U -a -
Nv °".0
On_
vaQE E m - Co
a3UE O_ E a E
U O p7 •V13 cu o a) m e Aj Q .
O .-
LU mEa- a: 0 o=0 Q(D m
QQC
a3Uw000Q N com:sFL i a)
Q N Q O
c co O(DcN
p ECuO=m�
V N U N
in = :
o' co0coi_
ai a> ; :3 a)
E
O ' c U)
o — a)
N o T >
= r O N O
cu
d. a) C 3 w Q
.1 a) E
i-�"- cow._ - -- -
a
C
C C co
c co
C O 'in a)
d
— N `
C C O C
c°��' aa) E E@
S E 0
`l
a)
m
co
(� L
O
co
3 Q -a O
o0QE
T N O O
m CL ,& U
EO:3-
a) > �: -�
a) a)
LL -0 m.5
o
CD O C
O C
X "C CO c N a
U O
a3 O C� 2 O O� O N O oa
c --
L L a3 (Q tm
O U F--
O M 2 2 E E y
ai
m
L a
d w
d O
C
O
o� `� a
7 O cu
.0 U>
0 0
a
o '7 a) co
r Q O>
a
o f
o f aao
o O N a)
•
V C C O O
O
@ O U
p 0- CO E
L U
N- C O �' C N
c O
C QO' u-
`p N O
__
C a) a
co O> L
O
>
E N O 62 o o E - O
E 7 m 0
y
cd cc 7 C
M—�6.o
y N(n
a). agoo�
y 0 0 ca ca —
=��'mCO �aa)--
mu
E a)Q)co E
E��a'o a(D
aaicoN �c>X.coX m
Qom,
E�-a> a)
oa• o Oz0O_�COM0
L
�Fo2w0
Q�
OaN��O�
U.�EMNUcl
Qa
Q-69
• • •
o
a
to
r
cu
y
L
a
U
m - ---- — --
alu
--
--
1-0
QO O cn
Tv-
G
v
JlyC
O L V1
Q C y C Q C N
N
U Q o
C3CD O o O O N C
(6 fn O U "O
d
V
Q
O
U 0 a) D- c0 0. O 0
O
O T E— O O U
E� o d� N V) u!
E@ a7 CD O G
is
V1 C N O
ca -
C) -co E—o 0' o `° E°Uo om
E
w c) -a
'
Q
Q m N U Q ca Q. LL w - U -0 U m U N C
Q
Ir
N M
0
C@ C O 2
Co
cu
2D
Q O VJ O
p
V
X — a) p U
a) C a :. c0
O
a) 0 � 0-
CO -aU .L. U
0 0- �
c
C
d
C
-O m 0 0 7
C O D U O-
2
LL Y O o .S
N
�+
N C
=
d
Y V) V) Q O
a) V) O Y Co N@ O
F
c O 2i O s U 6:2N
y -
D O L N O
O=
3 'C: p p p 0
L) mo��a) -:E
3aj
<n2Cl- L)wwEED-
L
_
R f
0 4)O
U fd
r +
to
d
7
c CL W
O
O D
O O L
L
d
a) >
O
a) U co N
157 O U
N
a) ccn
O V O
N .'u � p '� O a) a) O
E in U p L C E 17 N O U O a
V V
Q Op
0
E 7 -O E (6 O N E O Q O E
0-D o 0 aU a o 0 0
CL
a�U�a���aXiovcam�aoU
Q.,_
Q Qcc
• • • •
7 U
D) (a
. ,
U',
-jm
MEMORANDUM
rff"oNn~RAR
COMMUNITY & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Nancy Fong, Interim Community Development Director
BY: Sandra Campbell, Contract Senior Planner
MEETING January 24, 2006
DATE:
SUBJECT: Form Based Code Discussion
Background:
The Planning Commission recently expressed an interest in implementing a "form -
based code" in the City. The purposes of this report are to provide a brief background
on "form -based codes", to clarify the definition of form -based code, to make an
assessment of its potential use in the City, and to make recommendations to the
Planning Commission on the potential sites for implementing form -based code within
the City.
Description of Form Based Code:
The City's current Development Code is an example of traditional zoning regulations
that place an emphasis on the separation of uses. With traditional zoning, a City is
divided into different use zones and placement of buildings on a site is regulated by
general setback, height, and density standards. Form -based code (FBC) is somewhat
the opposite of conventional zoning in that the code places less emphasis on
prescribing the location of uses and more on building form and the relationship of
buildings to their surroundings. The form of the building determines the type of use. The
ultimate goal of a FBC is to create a sense of place as envisioned by the community
which it serves.
FBC was conceived as a way of implementing New Urbanism principles of walkable
neighborhoods, mixed use, enhanced streetscapes, and mixed residential densities.
The concept of form based code was originally developed in the early 1980s for the
town of Seaside, Florida by Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk. The property
owner of the 80 -acre site on Florida's panhandle sought to create a new town that
Page 1 of 6
would recreate the character and architecture of small southern town that occurred
throughout the Florida coastal areas. Towards that end, Duany and Plater-Zyberk
created a code that prescribed building form where buildings are placed close to the
street, front porches are mandated, street types are clearly defined and eight specific
building types (examples include commercial, residential, office and workshop, and
combinations of those) are allowed.
Since that time FBC has been further developed and refined in many other cities and
towns across the United States. Some of the most well-known examples of the use of
FBC are in Seaside and Celebration, Florida; the Columbia Pike Corridor plan in
Arlington Virginia and the South Miami plan. Form -based codes in Celebration and
Seaside, Florida were implemented as new towns from undeveloped land. In contrast,
the cities of South Miami and Arlington, Virginia implemented FBCs in existing
developed areas as a way of counteracting urban sprawl and creating traditional main
street environments. Use of FBC has also been associated with transit -oriented
development.
FBCs commonly include some form of the following five components:
1. Regulating plan is a plan or map that shows the locations of the various
building types and street types and how they relate to the lot, block, and
larger surrounding area.
2. Building Envelope Standards show the height, building types, building
orientation and build -to lines.
3. Architectural Standards are often very specific and can show allowed
building styles and materials, wall configuration, window style and door
placement and configuration, roof material and types.
4. Streetscape Standards include the various street types, lighting and
landscaping along public areas.
5. Administration Procedures explain the process by which a development
project gets approved and who the approving body is.
For more extensive information, several examples of FBC that have been adopted by
other cities are attached to this report.
Developing a FBC begins with a visioning process that involves a significant amount of
community input and support to determine the vision for an area. As the case with
South Miami plan and others, the New Urbanism concepts such as pedestrian -oriented
character, mixed residential uses, and mixed residential and commercial use were
implemented to help achieve the ultimate goal of creating a vibrant downtown area,
preservation of historic buildings, and pedestrian -oriented streets.
The broad overall concepts of New Urbanism may be incorporated into the General
Plan as a way of providing goals and principles that would encourage the use of the
form -based code. The State of California recently endorsed FBC by adopting legislation
that authorizes its use
Page 2 of 6
FBCs contain many graphics to clearly illustrate the building, architectural and
streetscape standards. Some FBCs use the transect, which is a system that classifies
land into six forms that vary in intensity from rural to highly urban. Graphics and tables
make it easier for the public to understand the code and saves time when working with
developers because there is less left to interpretation.
Issues:
Form based code is more easily implemented in undeveloped areas that have one
property owner as is the case with the cities of Seaside and Celebration where it had
significant success in defining the town. FBC may be less effective in developed
communities because of conflicts with the existing code and potential for creating
nonconformities. For example, the City of South Miami Plan has seen only a moderate
amount of development pursuant to the South Miami Plan, a FBC developed to
preserve their downtown area. However, newer more developed forms of FBC have
been created as overlay zones or as complements to existing zoning may be more
successful in developed areas because they work with existing zoning.
FBCs have been criticized because they seek to develop areas with traditional main
streets that never really existed and overly prescribe form. FBC is often seen as a way
to provide solutions to failures of traditional zoning such as areas where there is a lot of
strip commercial and cities with older declining downtowns. However, these types of
areas have also been improved with the use of traditional zoning regulations, Specific
Plans, and design guidelines.
Application:
Because Diamond Bar is mostly built -out, form -based code would be difficult to
implement by completely replacing the existing Development Code throughout the
entire City. Use of a FBC may be most effectively implemented in smaller areas of the
City that are either mostly vacant or where there are large underutilized parcels or areas
that have the potential for redevelopment. In this way, a FBC can be implemented as a
type of Specific Plan where regulations are tailored for a specific area of the City.
Towards this effect, the City of Diamond Bar may desire to create policies for creating a
FBC and indicate potential sites for implementation by amending the General Plan Land
Use Element.
To establish a FBC within specific areas of the City, there are several options that
include the following;
• Replacement of existing zoning with a FBC in one specific area or site;
• Development of a FBC as an overlay zoning;
• Use of FBC as an option with incentives that favor use of the FBC; or
• Use of a combination of FBC and traditional zoning regulations.
Page 3 of 6
Potential Sites:
Potential sites for implementation of a FBC overlay zone or FBC Specific Plan in the
City of Diamond Bar include those that may be a good option because they are either
large underutilized sites or had redevelopment potential. Potential sites for where there
is potential for implementation of a FBC include the following:
1. K -Mart site:
Location: Southwest corner of the 1-60 freeway and Diamond Bar Blvd.
Boundaries:
Area: Approximately 100 acres
Property owners: Multiple
Existing conditions: Older buildings, large parking lots along main street
frontages, buildings set well back from street frontages, high
traffic volume, close to freeway exits and commuter parking
lot on the north side of the 60 Freeway
Potential for FBC: This area/site appears to be in decline and, therefore, is
particularly appropriate for redevelopment. Development of a
FBC overlay or Specific Plan could assist in redevelopment
of the site by providing an impetus for new economic growth
opportunities. Because of proximity to the freeway and a
commuter park and ride lot, the area may be especially
conducive to mixed used combining high-density residential
and commercial/office uses on the site.
2. Golf course site:
Location: East of the 57 Freeway, south of the 60 Freeway
Boundaries: 60 & 57 Freeways on the west, Prospectus Rd. on the
northeast, residential on Golden Prados Rd. and Golden
Springs Rd. on east
Area: Approximately 170 acres
Property owner: Los Angeles County
Existing conditions: Site is used as a golf course.
Potential for FBC: As a large underutilized property that is adjacent to a
freeway, the site has great potential for future development
that would provide additional commercial and high-density
residential opportunities for the City. These characteristics
also make it particularly conduce for use of a FBC. If the City
envisions the area as one which should be developed with a
special character using the New Urbanism concepts of
pedestrian -oriented and mixed use, a FBC is particularly
appropriate.
Page 4 of 6
3. Freeway corridor site:
Location: South of 60 Freeway and west of the 57 Freeway
Boundaries: 60 Freeway on north, Golden Springs Rd. on south,
commercial property on south side of Lemon Ave. on west,
Brea Canyon Rd. on east
Area: 14.27 acres
Existing conditions: Site is developed with multiple older commercial buildings.
There are multiple property owners.
Potential for FBC: This area/site appears to be in decline and, therefore, is
particularly appropriate for redevelopment. Development of a
FBC overlay or Specific Plan could assist in redevelopment
of the site by providing an impetus for new economic growth
opportunities. Because of proximity to the freeway, the area
may be particularly conducive to mixed used that would
combine high-density residential and commercial uses on
the site.
Summary:
FBC was developed as a way of implementing New Urbanism principles of mixed use,
pedestrian -oriented development, mixed residential densities, and enhanced
streetscapes. It has been used to create a sense of place or character for an entire City,
as the case with Seaside, Florida, or for revitalizing smaller nodes within a city such as
the Columbia Pike Corridor in Arlington, Virginia.
Wholesale replacement of a traditional zoning ordinance in a developed city is a difficult
and time-consuming process because of the high level of public involvement required
and the fact that it must work with existing development built under traditional zoning
regulations. For these reasons, a FBC can be more appropriate for smaller areas of the
City where implementation of New Urbanism principles are a goal. There are three
areas of the City that have potential for implementing a FBC because they are either
ripe for redevelopment or encompass large vacant or underutilized parcels: the K -Mart
site; the golf course area; and the freeway corridor site.
In addition, a pure FBC that would replace the existing zoning for smaller areas of the
City may also not be appropriate particularly because the City may want more control
over permitted uses. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the
following options: a hybrid of FBC and the existing traditional zoning; a FBC overlay
zone; or an FBC Specific Plan.
Page 5 of 6
Recommendation:
After discussion and if the Commission concurs with staff finds, forward a
recommendation to the City Council requesting a joint study session with the City
Council to discuss ways in establishing provisions that encourage form -based codes.
Attachments:
1. FBC examples
2. Aerials of three potential sites
3. September 21, 2005, Memo to City Council.
Page 6 of 6
f-: •`tin• �- � .. . '<'i
`'�
<_ n the two years since the Local Government Commission's Smart Growth
=; Zoning Codes:A Resource Guide was first published, the movement to
reform zoning codes has gained momentum. Today, form -based codes
have become an increasingly popular approach to achieve these reforms and
create communities where people want to live, work and play.
ry, v
The old adage "form follows function" describes the common approach
behind land use regulation as it has been practiced in the past. Form -based
codes turn that relationship on its head. Since the primary basis for regulation
is the buildings, not the uses, "function follows form." These codes concentrate
first on the visual aspect of development: building height and bulk, facade
treatments, the location of parking, and the relationship of the buildings to
the street and to one another. Simply put, form -based codes emphasize the
appearance and qualities of the public realm, the places created by buildings.
As with other smart growth concepts, form -based codes have been applied
in new growth areas, in existing neighborhoods, in limited situations to
special districts, and in wholesale code revisions for entire communities.
- .1 k ,tm r�ejo, r =F�ga_p_pd�c�odes?
Fornt-based:co I `place, :i piimary ctnphasis;tin,Unildiiig,fypc ;dimensioi)s,
parkinsg locatioii `arid facacle,featilree, and less:emphasis ori uses :They
stress the appearance of die streetscapc; or public reahi•a, over•.• ]ong lists
f different use types; These: codes.liaie the fo]lc vAng- cliaiactci
�;'Zoning Districts,, Forii!i-based codes arc dctincd.arouiicl districts;
ticigttb6rhoods and coriidois.'��liere conventional,'zoriitig'distric�s iitay
; liear no relationship to the'traiisportation fratitetivork of tbia larger .area-
*' Regulatory Foci ds - Fortn-based codes de--ernpliasize• density 'and use
rcgul�ition in lavor. of iules •for building form . ' f hey ici:o;nize that rises
;n1av changeover time,; but rhe building %vill'endure.
Uscs - Form -based codes emphasize inixed:use and a•niix 6f hotising tt-pes-
to britt(; destinations iitro 'close prcixittuty to hctusirfg grid provide housing
Cho -ices to meet iiianV lltdlViduals' needs at 141'6rerir- iinies.in' their lives:
Design -- Greater -attention is given to streetscsij�e �iiid'thc design of•the
;public realn-!, and the, role 'of individual buildings in shaliinn the --public rcalm.
Form -based codes re cognize•lxnv'Critical- tli'ese •puh]ic. space tis arc; to defining
atad creating a "place.".,
+ Public Participation - A design-fcicusc_ d public, participation process is
essential to assure thorough discission 6f land. ,tise issues;as,.thc rode is crcatrd.
This helps redncc conflict; misitrdersi..anditi ;'aild'the heed fbir hearin . as..
-'individual projects are reviewed.
irJ•jrnnt (3c'J!?Ni4011. �1�'•Paid 01,7111fi •i:, /1 C1 .
r. =a i:.f 46s en: r_V 'xti+
R
he focus on building and
street design in form -based
codes allows graphics and
photos — instead of lengthy, repeti-
tive text — to explain the details of
zoning requirements. In turn, these
codes are much more democratic
instruments, because they are more
readily understood by residents
who are not othel-wise involved in
land use or development professions.
® Pictures tell the story
Form -based codes can greatly
reduce discussions about the
meaning of zoning terms and
atgumerlts over the interpretation
of code language, allowing every-
body involved in a public partici-
pation process to focus their time
and energy on the essence of the
regulations, rather than on "word-
smithing" Using form -based codes,
a picture really can be worth a
thousand words.
M Easy -to -find information
Another improvement offered by
form -based codes is that they
contain all relevant information
in a concise format. By contrast,
conventional codes usually include
this information in several different
sections of the code, sometimes
even in side documents that may
not be readily apparent or available
to the inexperienced user.
By consolidating information and
using a simple pictorial style that
avoids jargon and complex, repeti-
tive language, form -based codes
offer a much more accessible format.
® Great for mixing uses
Another key characteristic of
form -based codes is the way they
treat different use types. Since
the dawn of zoning, conventional
codes were built around the
concept of separating uses. They
seldom allow uses from a different
category (retail, single-family,
multi -family, office, etc.) within
the same zoning district.
When uses from different categories
are proposed by project developers,
extra processes and additional
hearings are often required. In
contrast, form -based codes assume
a mix of uses, especially in
neighborhood or town centers.
E Better, faster, cheaper process
This clarity of format and intent
can lead to a shift in approval
processing from a hearing -heavy
process to one that is largely
administrative. Simply put, if all the
details are discussed and clarified
when the code is developed, and
if they are accurately represented
in a format that leaves no doubt as
to the requirements, then a "build -
by -right" approach is possible.
This means the review of a project
application follows procedures
similar to those for obtaining
building permits. If the proposed
project meets all of the code's
requirements, the application can
be approved administratively.
Obviously, this reduces time,
expense and uncertainty for the
developer, but it also reduces
processing and hearing costs for
the jurisdiction involved. This
can free up staff time for more
proactive plarming.
V Forrn-based codes use pictures
to roll rite story
-------- ----------------------
New state law authorizes I'
use of form -based codes
! t3 5: '
ike many unconventional ideas, form -based codes met ,%•ith
considerable skepticism in many conuilunitles, and at ties It Was
E m
argued that they ss•erc not even a legal hems of -regulating; land -
t use.To clarify that issue. the California legislature .veig hed in by adopting `
legislation specifically authorizing form -based codes. Assembly Bill 12Gs3,;�
'�Pi,U
— I c tiQ
v, -as siviled into lase in July 200.1, resulting in very clear language in the ; I , , , ;
states General Plan Guidelines and the statutes governing zoning that allow-----
---------------
-r----
RURAL URBAN DISTRICTS
L
-z-
0
MUMN
9 k
4,
CAOT
C
im
0
o, F.5
-C
C
3 b
L '
31
A.
.;m P
RURAL UB. GENERA
VE 'RBA N URBAN C E NT 0 K
PRES RE URBAN
-65. ` -AE' D
'RU5AL..r RBA
-T1 f2 SER _IJ3 SPECIaI
F
and z"'ninc, m4r ,,s pciri o'a land 11se con-,fimml; m, :,dim/minal "nan-3-'Cr'" rr
lis 1'ctrer Ir? ali I Sral? illrrn ai!d 1;17cre
The',Transect:.: Seeing• land uses in contekt,., -
onmrunities-differ greatly ApphOto arf urban/`rural 'cofiti
1- Conm only regtl�lated dlrnensiohs.'.
in'-si;'�to'q%i pb' density mini, the transect helps. us better and features, building bulk, street C p &a �r,
C.
and' er6k, th rates. In sonic' understand wbdj'c differelit' uses Aighiiii,
g; si- ewalks. parki i i and
areas. the primar qPilce ns arc.' and, fit well or where
Y -j.ui i )a iidscaping to the d* fferent districts-..
ab6ut new Lv'e16prri . 6nt tlivV.'ar'e iriappropriate. Seen fi-61n '-'fi allows a :. c0iii-C.
I . I .... T... I—! � .1 , , they:are " . " ' " C le�-arn-that a T 1.�. for
lace oil Pr�xji)us.y-uri civeloped. This pi�rspectjve, w . �"� ramOX�ork all
--)
that relates.
land ot"9'reenfields-." Other corn- conmbvern.dl use or'm
developent m6ri'Llrlderstandini),
deVelopilicht char-aUCTiSLiCS to -
munities- are mostly bi3ilt out; and project is riot Inherently bad, but
, - - I 'Places within! the ' -ban fabric.
2'
�.o&S'-fliat'gui �14ce's N%lthli ul a bk'
focus illore.oly de. illil simply have been proposed
y This conllii'�n- 6'jguage all(')WS,
infill or�'rcshape �nd..r" it.flize"' for the-wrong; atioll. n 0
g 10c,
d6vclP pers', planners and residents
neglected neighborhoods, Still
Dliqliv codes all the features and tye.n.in different. Cities.-- to readily.
Others need I . %. - . - ' ..
ad flie.context'for
conc�pts tliat'&ruide communities. ..'�olilprche`i
developii-iciit,ol.)poi-tuiiities ar'Quild -. % 1 1.
,�llborl)b'ods-ind*de�,,-c.lopriicjit different'ilses'and building typ
Tiel,
lle'Vv 0-allSit SVstell]S: . : . .
into, six different disirictsalong'.
Ili P&aliiilla, California (see Tle.'Ct,
One of the Keaiuies of f6rin--based the transect (1-1: toT6),.fiom rural
p�i' ), this shared COIllj:)lehCJl9iOTI
Codes IS Lh;ir, they can be applied Preserve distriW to those ill the gel
overcame the confu,.-,ion and con-
in so lria:12V differcrft commilities urban: core' He also'inc.111des a
and situations.''' flirts that stood it' the %vay of good
special. district f6T .119C.9 Stich a i a - I . ' '
. .. .1 .. : '. . . intentions, and all too.ofteil"good..'
1.1111vel'SAY carnpijs,airp6-t 6-r sodium. -
Andres Diia", on': fth -oJects'.]"I 'pJliCal'I);lLL'-eof:
Py, U.0 C Pi I gra ti
Mv,val-'TICe Principles' authors Sabicks, for'` i list ali cc., shrink k as' the transect fits vel v well with
and afbuod& of-the C6nil-fess deve'l6pilient'pr6gre'sSe's frorn the form-based codes.
fOr N ' Gi-bafiishi, hag. pkt�ri,thi� rural t, :tll,� 1110i
New 0 more highly urban.
idea of tile '.1trarrsecC, fi-bili 'natural Likewise, there is-less area devoted' Dusliatyer-Zvl)eTk & Conipaliv,
I 5� histruniental in bringing':`,
science and'applied it to iarid'US'e'
to qpe y ill the Urban core
gr6 th��s �lassiffcatio'n methodolo6y
111,111111rig. TlIejr4i1sqct:as used ib thar� lil.'the rural districts. 131.1ildin -
:9, into real-world applicadbii, ill'."
st _ease.
Cc()1oi('a1 Udi.cs, dra*s' i cross- heights. howcvei,
Z: forniLba'%&d'c6de prqJects.across
Lig4 different habitats.
Section th"T6 ffer&i
Thii unified deyelopmeiit:o'ldi''tic,c0
-`::, lillirv.
to )Cttmunderstan(f their`i.ifter-'
"S Gode "lfnks�
fillicc,1ill0, rt
tinuttin.
r 1. ShIps along.a. coi-i
Steps for preparing a form -based code
ow does a community
go about preparing a
form -based code? What
are the steps that need to be taken
to prepare a form -based code?
According to plannrr Paul
Crawford, one of the nation's
experts on forin-based codes,
the typical steps are required to
prepare this type of code include:
1 Existing conditions
analysis and inventory
Before embarking on development
of the code it is critical to under-
stand clearly what the existing
patterns of development are in a
conununity.This record of existing
conditions - especially of areas that
the conununity identifies as special,
or significant - can help develop a
code that fits local characteristics.
Using diagrams and notes, a typical
analysis will look at:
Street types (by setback, walk-
way, roadtivay, and landscape)
A Block types (shape, size, alleys,
parcelization)
3 Building types (footprint,
profile, streetfi-ont, access by
car or pedestrian, service areas)
Open space types (front,
back and side yards, squares
and parks, undeveloped
parcels with urban zoning)
Parking types and location
(parallel, diagonal, lots)
Natural features (creeks, signif-
icant trees, views, hills, etc.)
2 Public visioning
and charrette
Input from the conununity is
gathered early in the process
through a public visioning and
charrette process.
The charrette is a collaborative
planning process that brings
together residents and design
professionals in an intensive multi -
day process that typically includes
focus group meetings, workshops,
presentations, and public engage-
ment exercises to develop a feasi-
ble plan for f Lure revitalization
and development.
-
V Step 1: Existirtll a mlirions' inrcntory from the
City cif Soaorna'q dere•h)pnrerrt code. update
---------------
------ ==
• .. r ,
A
,
' iSSi
Nr�a:
titcp 3; Aztrsa'.c rode divides the
city into nhcn space, residential
a1,07S, eonnarereietl corridor-:
and awtrnercial districts.
3 Determine appropriate
spatial basis for regulation
(districts, transect, streets
or special zones)
There are a number of different
approaches that can be taken in
determining how the form -based
code will be defined and regulated.
Although there is some overlap
between these approaches,
Crawford describes four basic
alternatives that are typically used
by different practitioners:
> Neighborhoods, districts,
corridors
Transect
Street -based regulating plan
Special purpose zones
This process entails identifying
which parts of the corntnunity are
appropriate for different types of
development. For example, if the
transect -based approach is used the
plan would identify those areas
that are suburban (T3), general
_
;t ..�
�Jti11 ;
fir.._.•
i
�
---------------
------ ==
• .. r ,
A
,
' iSSi
Nr�a:
titcp 3; Aztrsa'.c rode divides the
city into nhcn space, residential
a1,07S, eonnarereietl corridor-:
and awtrnercial districts.
3 Determine appropriate
spatial basis for regulation
(districts, transect, streets
or special zones)
There are a number of different
approaches that can be taken in
determining how the form -based
code will be defined and regulated.
Although there is some overlap
between these approaches,
Crawford describes four basic
alternatives that are typically used
by different practitioners:
> Neighborhoods, districts,
corridors
Transect
Street -based regulating plan
Special purpose zones
This process entails identifying
which parts of the corntnunity are
appropriate for different types of
development. For example, if the
transect -based approach is used the
plan would identify those areas
that are suburban (T3), general
Form -based codes: Good vintage for wine country '
i
a
m Sonoma, California0 t
s f
lie of CaHorni.A o'.dest cities and located in the Seen iC -%Vide country, the city- of Sonollla had
Seen post-\V;lr suburbia (Iroti into older neighborhoods built around its old pueblo that dates
back to Spanish colonial Lintes.This-junible of neighborhoods and building types represented a s
1 Significalit c11a11e.7cle to those deVeloping a new code.
x
Adopted in 2001, the nev,- form -based code covers the entire city. To break the daunting task of a wholesale �
t
G Code revision into 11:0re remix\' understood pieces, the city %las divided into 13 pla11 ln'g arem in OLtr Cate-
r
g �gorie,, — residential, commercial �1i,tricr, Conln7ercia] corridor cnid open space. �t4'irhiii each area, t17L L'Slihl7g
Slttlat1011 R'a5 inventoried and compared to the desired future state. 'Phis allcn s the code to recogniie t
{ r
existing development while imposing a nc%v regulatory frilnc%vork on Ititure devclopment. ,^.real of special 3
Concern such as rural roads. tl.lc urban edge and creeks are highlighted, and btll'jeCt to s}�e<:i+.'iea gI delirles. t
' Cl+��l�r,;,'i;,;rn' �;;• c:;,'. _`:.•i..l�'.ir. , ..;I:i c:�,•:t:.;.,,:,�,lll'_
t
urban (T'l)-, urban center (T3;,
1irban'core (Tt and special diStl-icts
such as schools, civic'ccrlters or
industry.
Dc;vcl(jp urbari standards-
(streets, blocks, building
placell t, height,> land
uses,' etc.)
The ncxt step'i.s to define and
code the urban staliiiiiris for the
dif e t }:'arts of ti'e colninunitV,
mapped in. Step 3. -1-hc results v,•ill
be'a set' of diagrams for each zinc
that clearly establish standa'rdc for
some of the, following kelp ingrcdi-
ti'rrfl
.`. Skv, : A S1111111i' :10i -'n ;d' i" it blc
ji7t7fl:e ]IOiI' �'121ilili�c 1-�,li,• ;-1yJiel•;rCc
hili!dirlCr tin"f;)cs.-
ents of an urban place: street and .
sidewalk �•vidths, building placement,
liuildiug' height and profile. and, if
relcvnit,locationofon -site palsk311g.
1+1 -,t -IN -41 1, ill,- - --` _"_„-------
Develop architectural
•---- .
_ standards (building or
frontage typologies, etc.)
1
Parrineonly I The inventor conducted in Ste
roarhadoflof ! .. 1 arid the public visionilig arld
1
charretttt. process ill Step 2, help to,
� '� idelirifi rhe differ . ri t, )es (f.
F.._.._.._.._. _.._.._. _.._.._.._.._.._..�._ l
I buildings. and how they: fionr the .• ,
! ! street to define`ncc''public realril.
The for -based C
m ode builds oil
1
flus inforlriatioil to dt wl>
e£nlat
i.._.._.._,._.._.. ----•--•--.._;._._.,_..i._; types ofbr!ildirlgs'f7t ilito different
1 .. •f
------------------------------ ' 1' paft5.of the con.11'1iUnIt4, The
form -based code for the City of
Ventura, California, for exalriple,
identifies the fol10NVing types'of :
buildin'rs asappropriate. for differ
crit'parts of the C01311-nullit11:,,singl(;:
' farnily, caftiagn! house., dupl7 x, .
triplex, quaciplex, mansion apart-.
merit, bungalow court, to" nllouse,
sid'eyard housing, liveivaork, court'='.` :.
yard, stacked flats, Commercial .
block, and blended developinei t.
Tlie code then lays out very clearly
which types cif buildings are .. ,
appropriate in the diff:.rcht districts
for dii fercrlt lot widths, through. a
table on the left.
6 Allocate and illustrate
• standards
Tlic final step in the process is. to .
prepare the standards-in,a f6rmat
th,it is graphic, well-ilhi§trated, jai=
+ion -free, and easy to ilndersrIncl..'
This format should 7I1Cltlde all.
All Forniatioii and•regulatioii relevant
to a particular district (strCet, ty'ei
neighborhood; etc.) in one :concise .
plcece. This avoids the�c6llfusi6h
that cross-refereminu,, scattered.''
.requirements, and obscure ternis
Cali. introduce.
it
:.t Y
iI•
II
1
,
.`. Skv, : A S1111111i' :10i -'n ;d' i" it blc
ji7t7fl:e ]IOiI' �'121ilili�c 1-�,li,• ;-1yJiel•;rCc
hili!dirlCr tin"f;)cs.-
ents of an urban place: street and .
sidewalk �•vidths, building placement,
liuildiug' height and profile. and, if
relcvnit,locationofon -site palsk311g.
1+1 -,t -IN -41 1, ill,- - --` _"_„-------
Develop architectural
•---- .
_ standards (building or
frontage typologies, etc.)
1
Parrineonly I The inventor conducted in Ste
roarhadoflof ! .. 1 arid the public visionilig arld
1
charretttt. process ill Step 2, help to,
� '� idelirifi rhe differ . ri t, )es (f.
F.._.._.._.._. _.._.._. _.._.._.._.._.._..�._ l
I buildings. and how they: fionr the .• ,
! ! street to define`ncc''public realril.
The for -based C
m ode builds oil
1
flus inforlriatioil to dt wl>
e£nlat
i.._.._.._,._.._.. ----•--•--.._;._._.,_..i._; types ofbr!ildirlgs'f7t ilito different
1 .. •f
------------------------------ ' 1' paft5.of the con.11'1iUnIt4, The
form -based code for the City of
Ventura, California, for exalriple,
identifies the fol10NVing types'of :
buildin'rs asappropriate. for differ
crit'parts of the C01311-nullit11:,,singl(;:
' farnily, caftiagn! house., dupl7 x, .
triplex, quaciplex, mansion apart-.
merit, bungalow court, to" nllouse,
sid'eyard housing, liveivaork, court'='.` :.
yard, stacked flats, Commercial .
block, and blended developinei t.
Tlie code then lays out very clearly
which types cif buildings are .. ,
appropriate in the diff:.rcht districts
for dii fercrlt lot widths, through. a
table on the left.
6 Allocate and illustrate
• standards
Tlic final step in the process is. to .
prepare the standards-in,a f6rmat
th,it is graphic, well-ilhi§trated, jai=
+ion -free, and easy to ilndersrIncl..'
This format should 7I1Cltlde all.
All Forniatioii and•regulatioii relevant
to a particular district (strCet, ty'ei
neighborhood; etc.) in one :concise .
plcece. This avoids the�c6llfusi6h
that cross-refereminu,, scattered.''
.requirements, and obscure ternis
Cali. introduce.
MEM -P
1-3
------------------------------------
Zoning for consensus
and '.revitalization
m Petaluma; California
Cant tell. ifthe SmartCodo. is a
dOCLI-
oi:a dl-�'c'loper-ffieiidly,
d 4
."ThArket base01, j ,willg one," a
Sania Rosa Press-Dcmocrat reporter
wrote in April 2003.Thd vi MV
e
i 11 -co -)pc,
jAr.s Yestli'�bi-oidaj I] of
form -Based
..Coc.es..
..The City 6FPeialwiia'strugJed for
SeVell years to' achieve 'cloiiseiisLi,,,
o --,I specific plan fora '400 -acre
reck\:el-opnie!its'i'te 1djaccrit to
ts.do,,.,,in.iown.. Dc.spiie CX,EeIl.SiV.e
public 6utreitch,:pOlId.c2l battles
continued bet-,v"e' La. residents,-
develop'pk'ai4 e -i -A ir ohni-erjmljsm.
The propqsed zolillig cq&,\-vas
Q1 of leualese and numbers and
did not assure the stake
holders that
nest de�el-
opment -,would inilillic
the existing historic: '
downt6wn..
TO move forward, the
city hired a consultant
-,x,]!o Introduced the
minsect S1II',IrLC-ode.
"I'llis code. focused less
on Separating LISCS and
inorL on describiug the
building Farlm that
would realize the Coil)-
1111.11lity's vi,,ioli of
pedestrian-oricnied,
I III Xtd-ll.Se'district.
Residents have been
reassured by the clarity
and relative simplicity
of the new q(-),`1e,:in.d .
dcvelopers appreciate its
clear rules and exipedifed
pernlitfing process.
T
--------------------------------------------
-- -------------
A,
did not assure the stake
holders that
nest de�el-
opment -,would inilillic
the existing historic: '
downt6wn..
TO move forward, the
city hired a consultant
-,x,]!o Introduced the
minsect S1II',IrLC-ode.
"I'llis code. focused less
on Separating LISCS and
inorL on describiug the
building Farlm that
would realize the Coil)-
1111.11lity's vi,,ioli of
pedestrian-oricnied,
I III Xtd-ll.Se'district.
Residents have been
reassured by the clarity
and relative simplicity
of the new q(-),`1e,:in.d .
dcvelopers appreciate its
clear rules and exipedifed
pernlitfing process.
T
--------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
After only- nine months oFcon-i-
munitv visioning and Consellmg- 1 -he C"'Iltral Pvtallill:,L Spek-ilic
buildin-' i-Oriner adversaries ag=reed Plan, adopwd in June 2003, has
on the new fiorn-, bwsed'code, JUIllp-Aarted the comtruction of
bi-eaklug a long-, le 10& aill. -,-, mix"'ki-Ilse theater district.
till �l I)C%
® Hercules, California
he' Regulating Code;'
adopted for the small city
of Hercules across the bay
firnn San Francisco in the summer
of 2001, is similar to another pre-
pared by the same firm for the
City of Winter Sprin`s, in Florida.
Intended to foster smart growth
development in newly created
town centers, both codes have
been extremely successful,
immediately triggering develop-
ment projects conforming to the
principles and details embodied
in the code.
The Hercules code covers four
districts in the central part of
town. It includes eight street
types, though not all vti7111 appear
m each zone. The use table is a
mercifully short three pages, with
a half -page of footnotes. Four
times that number of pages are
devoted to facade details and
architectural standards.
i.'�3,i :'`f,rr, ^;>i,`. :fat. '.:: -:. `, •'7.
I
A Attractive iiew hoiiic: in 11(inlles look otit (,nro rife an Fraticisco Ba)?
This architectural material features
photographs and drawings of
desired and unwelcome features,
signs, porches, trim and so on.
These details precede the use
tables in the code, consistent with
form -based codes' emphasis on
building form and the public
realm.
One page is devoted to each street
type, detailing streetscape features
such as pavement width, curbs, on -
street parking, landscaping, corner
radii, sidewalks, building setbacks,
eaves, .1\\'11!nwS aJtd l).l Cl)f]li'ti.
This format ailovo, thy iiwr to
quickly wces5 ,Jll thc: nn)st relc%ant
r,quircinents anti tit,l:).jaril; k)r a
Piece of propertv..iim by relrrow-
ing "PC street pr that 1 ; on-,th-,
property.
1-I01ct:leS' nr•,\ ltes�n'.arn Cocle
has clearly been a \ucctfm Suicc
its adoption, deve! rnlellt has
flourished Jrl dlL area :t tovcrs.
Sereral tr,lditlonal ,;pp arinti
residential projects have been built,
with a total of 300 units, and
construction is under way on the
first phase of the main street area
of the Watetfi"ont District.
That main street building includes
fifteen 2,700 -square -foot owner-
ship units with commercial space
on the ground floor and two-story
townhouse units above. The single-
family projects include a number
of creatively designed duplex,
triplex, and fourplex units that
blend in very well with the sur-
rounding hotl;Ing. Building StvleS
The "trut tui ci, landscapin:, sn-cet
cirsi0), and e\en the street lamps
have design det,Jils specified in the
code. Thi; thorough approach u)
the details can make ,ill the ilii•icr-
rncC Al thr Finished appearance
And appeal of a project.
TILT,,,1
its"st'rnplE�, illi%stratElrl ptz�re fir,
v-1aa�eil'ii'v;:'tra¢cs'.,(rlhThr� irr -
-rover_ -pertinent: - a
�ei�lrrtails ras: uetl;�as ..:'
.:. •. moi. .. .
riiass: dr2c� t}�lircc��nerrt, • ,
:��� is � �. ;�i• •
)1T1QN'AL:
OrURCES•��t •.� •
x'
anis] n;:
1.• -4 l'EL.•1A4'tUWtg"* t""q%
'V'."]
'� a{:• i}M :1.'R ;.Stff •Ltl'Pl;C[G S iiL•.:4
_v
: <Ca,rn rc?a,;,c asliy wolf satsc44 to
� '•'•-" i
it�,i;• T4K`.`iiiGW.3
�' ss.ci,;,,t:[�b:'a�cr::1cC 41 ;tas
e
i
4
nub !�4-�-et4, e�•,t rs.�,:,,4m p
r' z ?rte:_.-t;t' Zvv.-imr=iMM r
d v;mrs fnxxam�Fcr:
� tui?3 dw;,w•la:s:i:,r_ blo Suit &can
The �i?3: C•�z-S9u•.C: i�3
� t4t.4,'. Mpe ii t: xt setatk^ct
w4CY4 ::,}=yntiacS
i A}+t ;o: t-nc:v-.~& •v..:r r-xtm:ci kryr,.rf,4 tid: he2a.Rc i,;.•r,:i
T.tdS}'-9ii:�Fs^:mc4x_•r+ty'rscd dx jsrU•riiE,+6lacaSC'C Eas l3.r •.rx., WSi }n r,.,'xr„ �
�
:+F at k>.i cau-� dd�fcd&,«ung.,,a.(a ccbrnx:n �a:rccr. Rm.,✓.5; •. �
S 21y� ats^nrssn4E to fxwa.ix*rix'r trcl,S+3iCA s� Ek'4:xttFF�; bu.._f3nLc :�,
�
i'.+w:insTs•FC.i tR. Ad;Cr;.` lr`A' Siwtcif R'.iC+� CdICt'O:C,TY
t �
�
i g
el
fill
n.
4 my — — — — m — — — a — — m v — — — — — — em® — — s e — — — — — — d
Other Points to Consider
arge-scale revisions of zoning codes always have the potential for
unanticipated problems, whether a form -based approach, or a
more conventionally structured code built around smart growth
principles, is used. The need to monitor and revise these new codes after
they are adopted must not be overlooked with any format. With form -
based codes, these problems will likely surface when the underlying basis
for regulation is changed fiom a focus on uses within and around buildings
to a focus on the structures first.
Form -based codes require re-educating everyone in the conununity —
elected and appointed officials, plaruners, engineers, developers and residents.
This begins with a broad public participation effort as the code is developed,
of course, but it must also continue after the code is adopted. Code modi-
fications should be expected over time, and must be explained to everyone
involved. Some cities have hired an architect or urban designer to work
with builders and developers to help implement the code's objectives.
This education — particularly of staff'— will help reassure developers and
the public that application approvals will meet the code's intent. If code
reform streamlines the process in a way that eliminates hearing check-
points, people must be confident that staff are trained to properly assess
whether proposed projects comply with detail requirements in the code.
edinnU design: lave davis
K -Mart Site
Golf Course Site
60/57 Freeways -
00
N LT...:
f
Gra6d Ave.
Freeway Corridor Site
,1
---
I; i Freeway .
------
Golden
t, 57•FreewayRd : .
.;,'
+.� ;�,
�,';�
�
+� .) 7, ! J�'� �i1`'• it :f
�-�
'��
r��� 11 •1�r, `'`I �. y�
,� il�
f':.r`�:;41:. '
•��,i
y-]
=1/'!; '' (i�, Stti
='�.'
jCl CJ28
or
i
INTEROFFICE
MEMORANDUM
MAMoNW>R
COMMUNITY & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PLANNING DIVISION
DATE: September 21, 2005
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Linda Lowry, City Manager
BY: Nancy Fong, Planning Manager
TITLE: Form -Based Code Information from the Planning Commission
As a result of attending the Planners Institute last April 2005, the Planning
Commission was introduced to "Form -Based Code" and believes that the
concept can be utilized in Diamond Bar.
Form -based code is one of the "New Urbanism" ideas and its concept is to
regulate the physical form or the built environment in a three dimensional way.
The form -based code establishes the street types (boulevard, neighborhood
streets street sections) and building types (urban core, urban center, special
district, suburban, rural preserve). It has a set of building envelope standards
that govern height, the building siting, building elements such as entries,
windows etc. It uses graphics to demonstrate the desired built environment.
Typically it encourages mixed uses and works well in denser communities. It
creates compact walkable neighborhoods that enhance streetscape and civic life.
It is served by public transit. Attached are examples of form -based codes from
cities that have adopted the concept.
Although the city is mostly built out, the Planning Commission saw opportunities
to use the concept in several areas such as Tres Hermanos site, redevelopment
of K -mart area, the golf course, and Site D. Specifically, the Planning
Commission recommended that the form -based code techniques be used in the
specific plan or master plan for these opportunity areas. Also, The Planning
Commission recommended that the land use element of the General Plan be
modified to include language regarding the form -based code.
CC: Planning Commission
attachments
1 'o
IU n
IU
U'7
0
N
N
(D
C) C)
N
I
(D
Uo
IL �'
N
I
co
O o
Z N
W
Q a
w N
W
m W I
of
Z
H
z LU
QWs1Q
❑ EL i) Q
V -OJ d I co
o W
a a
a w
HW LO
Up 0)
06
}
N
I -
Z U)
D a J
0
a
Om
06
I z
o I Q
W m J 0 I U
�J V I I W p Y
Q 0 a ❑W c� 0 z Q
W m O' Q I W Q ZO p Q tN�
❑ LL } I ❑ I- _ R Q
O Y C7 Y m cn Ln
I- I z U0 I I I~ Q cocpo o Urn
W a' I U I J N N I N
J J .l U- J !
Q Q fl. all Q Q I Z I Q J Q I Q
U
OO
NmC')I
O
-
N
I LO O
*k
O
O
Ln Vr6NLn
0 M O 00
0co
�#
CD
to
N O O
N c V
U) O O O
0
N
N
I
U
a
I
I
I
I N D
z
O
i
U
�z
O
Z
zQ
OJ
I
O
I
W
l
I
U
U �
0
j uJ
U
I ❑ I--
❑
❑
I
W
a
I
d
a z
_U
J
a.
LU
~ <
W0
w d
W0
LU
uJ0
20
M
a
O
OUz
0 LL
Z J
UO
Z J
UOZ�
z J Q
UZ
Z-
oZ
oz
ozw
"_z
O
_o
o_
_0 >
❑W
0
W �
W
H ❑
LU L:
F-❑
oQ
U)
(n
p ❑
oQ
F ❑ OD
oQo
~ ❑
oQ
ZX
(7
V
Z�
Z�W
Z�
(�
ZO
zi5
O
ZO
ZOO-
zO
N
Q C)
Q
v)a
W
Q CD
0
Q C7 2
0 z m
Q O
UZI
m
W
I
aQwa�-
0
¢�
a
w
Q�
¢ ml
a
06
I z
o I Q
W m J 0 I U
�J V I I W p Y
Q 0 a ❑W c� 0 z Q
W m O' Q I W Q ZO p Q tN�
❑ LL } I ❑ I- _ R Q
O Y C7 Y m cn Ln
I- I z U0 I I I~ Q cocpo o Urn
W a' I U I J N N I N
J J .l U- J !
Q Q fl. all Q Q I Z I Q J Q I Q
U
OO
NmC')I
O
i I i
Mr CMO
N
I LO O
*k
O
LoLb6
D O O
Ln Vr6NLn
0 M O 00
0co
�#
CD
to
N O O
N c V
U) O O O
0
N
N
U-)
U
a
Q d w
�-NU>�
N
U
N
I N D
Ups
i
U
Q)
N it .v I - z I W Ni .v I W c I y
N� ❑ "r ❑ W
U J rn
�U E UE L Ec Q c -
Un O� U W� lna� 1- (D O c0)U Z aE U� �� O ED cu
N UD UO OC W a�O : 3 w O ui _ L 0 >' U� 0LL
m o z@ j U) > co - a: a� "Co� z I- u" w w '- i m
°' N Za' rn = Zp�� o N O w a a� O a� 2O �►co C- � w c
- N Z _ U E Z a, m y Z Un c O❑ c co W-
ZW U O W E JW y c z N 8 (� dJ O wZ �u) W v a y > 3
a> > Q Z- z 0 J H_ L c Z z` E > W U N QU d z� c E O
a` `6 I -J WZIY U� ONU �w=� Q Z. a. U-❑ 0Q �� Qg Y� J� JZ
z
LU
CD
W
J
OO
p
N
I LO O
CD
Ln
in
U -j Lf)
LO
U-)
CU
CIA
C\l
N
N
I N D
O
O
U
a.
❑
Q
U
a
W
l
i
U
0
j uJ
❑
I ❑ I--
❑
❑
I
L
4-1
1
Q)
N it .v I - z I W Ni .v I W c I y
N� ❑ "r ❑ W
U J rn
�U E UE L Ec Q c -
Un O� U W� lna� 1- (D O c0)U Z aE U� �� O ED cu
N UD UO OC W a�O : 3 w O ui _ L 0 >' U� 0LL
m o z@ j U) > co - a: a� "Co� z I- u" w w '- i m
°' N Za' rn = Zp�� o N O w a a� O a� 2O �►co C- � w c
- N Z _ U E Z a, m y Z Un c O❑ c co W-
ZW U O W E JW y c z N 8 (� dJ O wZ �u) W v a y > 3
a> > Q Z- z 0 J H_ L c Z z` E > W U N QU d z� c E O
a` `6 I -J WZIY U� ONU �w=� Q Z. a. U-❑ 0Q �� Qg Y� J� JZ
z
LU
CD
W
J
U)
w
U
m W
D Cl)
z
Q w
D d
LL O
OLLJ
!-}- Uj
U O
3
L
U
rn
c
N
.o
CL
O
O
�(Q
O
O
a
Uw
O
UW
a
Uj
O
U
O
U
O
U
O
U
O
U
O
U
az
IL0
O
Cz
IL
CL
CL
a
a
a
QZ
aw
Qz
Qz
Qz
IL
Qz
Qz
Qz
W0
~
w>
F- Lu
w0
�- �-
w0
�-
w0
�-
w0
F-
w0
F-
w�
F--
w0
I -
LU
w0
wQ
wQ
wQ
wQ
wQ
wQ
wQ
aj)�
am
n.Er
aW
aX
a
as
0-
0 �
OC�
2O
2O
20
2O
20
20
0LL- W
Ow
0LLw
Ow
Oa
Oa
0 L
0 LL
0 L
UZa
z J 0
U F
z
UZa
z J 0
UZ
z J
UZ
z J
Uz
Z J
UZ
z J
UZ
z J
Uz
z J
LL Q � J
w
LL Q W
LL Q
LL Q
LL Q
LL Q
LL Q
LL Q
In9W
0p ca
09W
o0
ow
02
0
0O
0O
00
W L 0
W m
w�0
PE
Lu
Li
w�
Lu
W�
[L
u"m
IOm
w0
LLD
w0
w0
w0
m0
z<o
00
0 a
oQ
oQ
oQ
oQ
o¢
oQ
�0
�U)
�0
U
z
Z0�
�O
Z
�O
Z
�O
ZD�
�O
zOf
F -O
0
z
z�
O
C7
z
zLL
Q (.7
z
Q <
ZLL~
Q
U
zLL
zU-
z"-
zLL
zLL
m
zLL-
U)
UZm
Uw
(9
2 K
U)
W
Q 0
2.) z—
Q 0
UZ
Q C9
Uz
Q Q
UZ
Q 0
UZ
U)
w
Q ()
UZ
U)
w
aa-
a�
a- co
U
O
J�-
a-
J�
n -
J�
a -
JF
a-
J�
a-
U
O
Zi
a-
U
O
m
¢z
Qpm
a
¢�
Q�
¢�
Q�
Q�
a
Q�
J
w
QU
LU
O
Q
p
w
w
Q
w
C•
_
C)
_
=
w
0
Q
m
=
w
O
J
U
Q
Z
Z
U
z
m
U
W
D
C7
O.
J
0-
W
w
U
LU
z
Iw-
U)
-i
a
w
LL
=
f-
z
O
Q
U)
Z
a
W
O
J a
Ew-
Z
UO
H
a
Q
ZY
Q
Cl)
2
0
U)
Q
W}
F-
LO
D
w
LLJ
0
O
N
co
N
N
I
M
M
O
d
U U
W
m
M
r
N
co
C)
NF-
W
U
N
N
N
N a
2
J
J
co
J
J
U)
:1 M
U)
U)
a
Q nJ
Q
Q
Q
Q
J
Q
Q
J
Q
J
J
N r.
N
p M
(p N
O
0)
N
O
M
CO
M
N p LO N
O MI
r
00�-
LM
N
O O
LnLn
Ln
O
co Lo
OOO
O
LO
O
LO
O
O
LO
U-)
OOOO
OO
d
LO
L6 L)
OO
6
O
6
O
6O
OO
O
N N
NM
O
N
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O N O O
N N N
2
O O
N N
O
N
OO
N
O
N N
0
0
0
NU0U)
>
02
0
0
VO
z
Q
�
y
a
w
cco
U
c
U
O
V
Lu
N
1-
O~
Z
Q N
0
LU
�Ou'
CL
�
w Q
>,
E
J Q
��
W_
aE
< p
=aEi
�
U -
o
Q
U
F- a
Q
a L°
O
O
ay
Lo
J'-
LLJ a�
HE
Lu ca
Z
a'v
C7 m
Oc
Z�
_z �
_
m2
rn
0)(D
La
=
w2
>
2c
Q
O�
Q2
4)
0
W ~
aawi
Q -
O
Z
++
_
0 o
F- <Y o
<
Q C
a' U)
7
cr
Q U)
w e
D U)
o
U
J o
2 p
J N
m G)
c
m U)
O
p
z c
w
z
Q �
W' z) E
0 m 0
Q p
2 �
< O
O
�m
J N
-< Co
w E 7
=a)
(� J
go
O N
�=
J ?�
p(D
�
W
w
It
J.Ni
zU�
O�
�'`
UZ
UO
UW—. --
cn
H
>Z
x
�-
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
,°
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
On January 24, 2006, the Diamond Bar Planning Commission will hold a regular
session at 7:00 p.m., at the South Coast Quality Management District/Government Center -
Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
Items for consideration are listed on the attached agenda.
I, Stella Marquez, declare as follows:
I am employed by the City of Diamond Bar. On January 20, 2006, a copy of the
Notice for the Regular Meeting of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission, to be held on
January 24, 2006, was posted at the following locations:
South Coast Quality Management
District Auditorium
21865 East Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Diamond Bar Center
1600 Grand Avenue
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Heritage Park
2900 Brea Canyon Road
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on January 20, 2006, at Diamond Bar, California.
'2n
Stella Marquez
Community and D velopment Services Department
g \\affidavrtpostmg.doc
Fi t>
on,AZ and is ready for
scmrklr�
°t5
at�°z
Z
rr
U
LU
O a O
0
)>
Www`fCOCOWLLJ
J
_
¢ ¢ Z � ¢ O O Q ¢ ¢
m
aQo
CO�CDZ~~tVi�tUnW
co C/3 W--� W W
-FLU
F-FLu
H 4Z ¢2!
I- !n UJ 67 W ¢ W W ¢Q
IFN
N V)
O Q
~ W
Q<
N
F -V C) ¢¢�J
in- N
2d Obi Z
wUN<
k � g
L
J W
OW r
z
U
o
° K
Z,g
4
a
-
0
12
<w
f o
w
c
o �
CL
a
3
o
_
w
�m
°t5
at�°z
Z
rr
U
LU
O a O
0
)>
Www`fCOCOWLLJ
J
_
¢ ¢ Z � ¢ O O Q ¢ ¢
m
aQo
CO�CDZ~~tVi�tUnW
co C/3 W--� W W
-FLU
F-FLu
H 4Z ¢2!
I- !n UJ 67 W ¢ W W ¢Q
IFN
N V)
O Q
~ W
Q<
N
F -V C) ¢¢�J
in- N
2d Obi Z
wUN<
LL -
w W Z
o<0
60E-
,z,
p 0E -O m c) w z
OOz m�
U) � o
2E
U
at�°z
rn
ulz
i
7
-
J
U
H
z
O
k � g
L
J W
OW r
z
U
o
° K
W
4
a
-
0
12
<w
f o
w
c
o �
CL
a
3
o
_
w
�m
U
rn
ulz
i
H
J
U
H
z
O
k � g
�=a
z
4
a
G
<w
f o
w
c
o �
3
o
_
H
rn
ulz
i
<�m
U
H
z
O
k � g
�=a
G
o
c
o �
yi -o
ulz
i
<�m
k � g
�=a
zH , I I a iiiiii o 3
o
f . �• 1 `� e� g z
/\f\ a�9O
E 4.k 8h 4°:e.
1 ' E°a <e. •s<qa. s
g as �ac
iz
A�hO �p•4�� 5 S •1, / / :g #��P <4e�Wo °<
°-•'•}} aQ i tea' 58'�i°°
'I ..;q
=ESa=«�^
s;:s'e4$ s"^;Eg4Y 3a3En:'
� a rea
a to 65 AAS .4� _frseor` s's3 :-` ;s3="eaB
s�_�fllll 8^ F4_a a5 fi38'�u �F 4s :55.y
iM £�5 �'�Oz
��k o ax -S4 �ag;8; ' ga g
�L £ $ 46 SE 4g ore 35 a35.ea a3�:T5 3P3 &epi
ae6s�ma�e 9549'a =• «8'^_°'3� ;a54 °uE
ahs S¢R 5aaa8�% iggh ,j a <•
I- Sz yafi + 4••�'se=a 6s 5_°98
�$.g'ee� � ����3• �3gi9a�;'
sada s'<s"�<s6 % eS. o�e Y$°fi
/ �Po�ly�ti R u, e8 @iaoa; � <64efrs 8. <SS;frc BX 3 <E'g�fiaaJ
\ >d z5 $^ •-y's"s ^a.a spa yf ?a.s if ss
E' 't"N �ESin �� s:?san .3�°Qna $:8e: a.€aSFt an a`e
\ C �i • ie$ 59c <„e YvSgE 55=b:,8 _Seq°�e66ei
\ a =v; €'s4Qoaa Hilj
E 6n_` Y -«Q $'v'e�Yoa� 8s°-i'3J$0Ea58i °
fc 383s�aby Bsai :: aC EsJ535�`a
osa .4a sj"iF.8�5`o
�.' d5 �� sEaei � a sy a"�y�as� 8.-5x :..a•a n�aa
y` $$; i •g iSS �Y osaE<fr5 s3 a�:soes s_va
<. a�55°s drc58�;fr �i338 S38 v35 ?�Sg
s
aha
e
$
eg
5'
n
ig
^g
f . �• 1 `� e� g z
/\f\ a�9O
E 4.k 8h 4°:e.
1 ' E°a <e. •s<qa. s
g as �ac
iz
A�hO �p•4�� 5 S •1, / / :g #��P <4e�Wo °<
°-•'•}} aQ i tea' 58'�i°°
'I ..;q
=ESa=«�^
s;:s'e4$ s"^;Eg4Y 3a3En:'
� a rea
a to 65 AAS .4� _frseor` s's3 :-` ;s3="eaB
s�_�fllll 8^ F4_a a5 fi38'�u �F 4s :55.y
iM £�5 �'�Oz
��k o ax -S4 �ag;8; ' ga g
�L £ $ 46 SE 4g ore 35 a35.ea a3�:T5 3P3 &epi
ae6s�ma�e 9549'a =• «8'^_°'3� ;a54 °uE
ahs S¢R 5aaa8�% iggh ,j a <•
I- Sz yafi + 4••�'se=a 6s 5_°98
�$.g'ee� � ����3• �3gi9a�;'
sada s'<s"�<s6 % eS. o�e Y$°fi
/ �Po�ly�ti R u, e8 @iaoa; � <64efrs 8. <SS;frc BX 3 <E'g�fiaaJ
\ >d z5 $^ •-y's"s ^a.a spa yf ?a.s if ss
E' 't"N �ESin �� s:?san .3�°Qna $:8e: a.€aSFt an a`e
\ C �i • ie$ 59c <„e YvSgE 55=b:,8 _Seq°�e66ei
\ a =v; €'s4Qoaa Hilj
E 6n_` Y -«Q $'v'e�Yoa� 8s°-i'3J$0Ea58i °
fc 383s�aby Bsai :: aC EsJ535�`a
osa .4a sj"iF.8�5`o
�.' d5 �� sEaei � a sy a"�y�as� 8.-5x :..a•a n�aa
y` $$; i •g iSS �Y osaE<fr5 s3 a�:soes s_va
<. a�55°s drc58�;fr �i338 S38 v35 ?�Sg
0 tl pg 4i? fZUn uY' d a 5i ��o �� N
ailA
v gid, z
\ Iz
Os
i rcLL j _
- O - i1vm DNI tl a 0 0 0350d0ad s O
_tt-.OZ7 ¢ wo �" O
QvV v twit c�i"tx w� - i I wU3 � � ��p Ur
2-N .S -.b .9-,91 o�2g okzo off"
o°O ¢in --o ioa ,. a NIW NIW p33 p2Z o 12
1. dd
LU
1
i a
v
o
\ b T 3 (1 33a1 (3)
\\ IF
3 a5 oso o<W j �Sm G
� * w I
W
ao; �
u
cv r
a
LL
w ws
�v �Q
z
m
ce
o�
C�
c
o
m Q
OC
0
M� =gJ z u
w « z u
Cn a3 Ga QZK L F
4
<
�
¢ Fpm
��
`
•�.�
m
°'�
LL.
al
r
(�
mom'
a�
nor
LL
3N31atl0
- oa
X05
�NUW
-
ui q
-a-,
.0-.04
woo
SVNN3INY
aViNONJ 0 ad 0
gc
�'
dtlNN Ntl 03SOdOdd do '11
3`f3lUVOdB-ONOYV 03SOdOdd O1
I
SVNNMNV dV1NONIJ 0 SOdOdd O'1
1-3101 035 30 13
g
,o -,or
I
r< �
I
.gip
li�l
Ir `nom,
ci
w3Ww w
III
N� �w
Rm
SOI
1-yLL\J
-z a
�.•. _ 3 i via iu -
I
o.�.n z3
�`
u3Z6
�,� �r III
,•���
•; S'�; iii
�
I
�
� 1
� _ �
sly �'
•` }� .
�iil
I
1
'r•. I
i
o� u I �� uz�
.N.,
} •
1 r..
o i.5 w"1 ngi3 III
'`�
o�m iii
aa4�
111br
•
$w u
ii
".
deem as a_m �a a35 iii
tr � lil
� 1•r
III
III
III
z
�
✓y III
4
f. ,I. '• ,
�fl`•
IIII
ww
w
III
77
II
-
v-iSQw
I
(i�
p i
'4al
II
III
€
a«3G
a_
�c�<
nr•�
111
,
EM 2Q
u
-Ac
iaA c1,
1_=114.1
LU
c�
L
LU
L
xvw
o-,ar
F
W
JINtll d31tlM 3 O1
0-, £�
`
O
Z
sem, 77
d-
C sF
ri�ttlU.
u
_jl--n�o
-oNovscdoud ol
.0-.04
VNN tl
NNY! 83VM 3 01
0-,zcT
r
-
StlN13111 03SOdONd
d0 -iJ
R
—
rrJJii
xm
CoQ
w
I
III
X11
I
". '•',
I
.I
it
—i
I
,a
•I
:x45,a_
jNol
jJ
Am or
�6.-ai
a ancV.t�
ai3
a3Va _tn a?�
�¢�rS.
3
I
I
Smy
S��z
z
Spj S 2
Voo
"e o�.i
Z.
VAN 3�¢
w�ti
ic" o'n V 3
�m
7
ii
Z
i
li
W
I
W
c
Cn
W
tld.Qmd JQ�L 0
2�
Ia-.Zf
=
S NNMNV MCIP I] 03 0dON "0
MNVi 1131tlM 3
01
- l d UO-ONOW Od00d 0
O
0-,04
z
75
Baa _ ,off
o E
x
S p Q gz amp N
p" - }0p°5E °E .� Sod p �a
a iia 6� z
gg$ i�zg 5y s p
S� �1
1'�0
n i 3
sF3' � L"ate
� �
td resew
"EMIRWO.-
V
�j3
3
o
Fig
llf,r
all!
p
i g
In
3g VP
gg$ i�zg 5y s p
g�g
4�
2
vi
iB
S� �1
1'�0
'713
"EMIRWO.-
5
�j3
3
o
all!
i g
In
cm3
3ma ¢
g�g
4�
2
vi
iB
S� �1
1'�0
'713
wp p -K=�o o
P8 E
=
$ a� 3 a FrGwi ra �ou� mwRFop H �N€ U Qmm
�a 3��'Y w
X ow N Na b g a p zo0¢m ON oz�0 z �¢oQN m ;nom m
am arc x N m - - z w
0 �N �'� m"a 3
aw i _ sm w mi viim o�o� mo im9� �9r u�<o & > 'z$ arc �J4 x o
1. w;8" g pwpoWyo p �3 �w� m z
zoo woo mm� x =�wm S 3�5 pcF X33`0 ¢N,wjaw am
N' dFa 5p¢ �3 O ai puca¢ go zN 6 c N had �z
z Nar rivz � m zwc - u¢w.wxF wo'^a _ z m ;� gg¢�` vi'^S awm g �a ap �"•' 13Noa aNr m'm
F p _ �50 S"< F
Sao ou sm 3 z - ow a ao�� uw?
a ni.1u da �v H -4 rco o \o - H VZ�'Na G� worm a uo vi ~z cF3 aarc3a m
w< N1pu 5 _opo (nz G a3 Ho »¢u f n n 3333 N f N ✓� f N n
mpg
�j3
In
cm3
3ma ¢
¢
a
m
2`=5
aw
a
pz
3 ai
z 5
m¢
�
w«p ¢ �'
a
moo¢F
Srwwa
z"'
s0
00
Fz
wmw 3wo
3rarc
u�
YOg
�N3
O¢�W
0m
�n
0
✓af0
30
-�
i
mwj
Q
WF3 a- rp
rvi���z�za
3Fg
Boz
Nn Wo¢a
N
rcF
OmV
mo
H;r-w�
�QUs paO
o
wo6
�o
_ z
�¢a o
o
mi
�4
mQ Nrc E
�3
n
wz_ m�i akos�i
- °
gF
��cm°¢w
m
p
i
x
o
p
so 2
ort
z
pw.
0
3ciz�3
dap miwo,t
x
Qopz�'z
awk
ug�rc�3
~
w�
_
-'~ a a
imy w
oFW
Sou
'.i` $� �3w
w
px
�z3oa
z-
&pQ
Zzzo p`
¢
No
bam
Ng
aLL�
O -
3� �mw v�i~OmNm
�3
o m
i5y �.
`�wmp
6rcmo
_ z
a���
�z
y
�nG
5 0"¢� mZ a
m vrma voi zd" vpi3v�i No
a
s�"�
¢s
i
wf2
p
~a
emc o
c0itioz
wp p -K=�o o
P8 E
=
$ a� 3 a FrGwi ra �ou� mwRFop H �N€ U Qmm
�a 3��'Y w
X ow N Na b g a p zo0¢m ON oz�0 z �¢oQN m ;nom m
am arc x N m - - z w
0 �N �'� m"a 3
aw i _ sm w mi viim o�o� mo im9� �9r u�<o & > 'z$ arc �J4 x o
1. w;8" g pwpoWyo p �3 �w� m z
zoo woo mm� x =�wm S 3�5 pcF X33`0 ¢N,wjaw am
N' dFa 5p¢ �3 O ai puca¢ go zN 6 c N had �z
z Nar rivz � m zwc - u¢w.wxF wo'^a _ z m ;� gg¢�` vi'^S awm g �a ap �"•' 13Noa aNr m'm
F p _ �50 S"< F
Sao ou sm 3 z - ow a ao�� uw?
a ni.1u da �v H -4 rco o \o - H VZ�'Na G� worm a uo vi ~z cF3 aarc3a m
w< N1pu 5 _opo (nz G a3 Ho »¢u f n n 3333 N f N ✓� f N n