HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/26/2000Vi7i^' „5. �= r ,w^N.- SouthI I E 1 �61 w I Quality Management Auditorium 21865 East Copley Diamond Bar,A Division of the Dept. of Community & Development Services, located at 21660 E Copley Drive, Suite 190, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please call .0396-5676 during regular • 1 , _ In an ellort to comply wan Me requireti ON -1 1=7 c(I-1 L -717-17e Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodation(s) in e..• communicate at a City public meeting must informthe I'1` of Community l& Development Services at (909) 396-5676 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 I_. the same City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission PUBLICINPUT 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 questions are welcome so that all points of recommendations to the staff and City Council. in a professional and businesslike manner. Comments and view are considered prior to the Commission making 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. 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. 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) 396-5676 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Copies of Agenda, Rules of the Commission, Cassette Tapes of Meetings (909) 396-5676 Computer Access to Agendas (909) 860 -LM General Agendas (909) 396-5676 email: info@ci.diamond-bar.ca.us 1. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Steve Nelson, Vice Chairman Bob Zirbes, George Kuo, Joe Ruzicka, and Steve Tye. This is the time and place for the general public to address the members of the Planning Commission on any item that is within their jurisdiction, allowing the public an opportunity to speak on non-public hearing and non -agenda items. Please complete a Speaker's Card for the recording Secretary (Completion of this form is voluntarv.) There is a five-minute maximum time limit when addressing the Planning Commission. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chairman 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: September 12, 2000. 4.2 Minutes: August 15, 2000 - City Council Study Session Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission. 5.1 Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04 and Development Review leo. 2000-10 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.55 and 22.48) is a request to install two (2) additional 25 foot high camouflaged monopoles with a total of six (6) antennas, equipment cabinets, and block equipment enclosure on an approximately seven acre site that EM 91 Page 2 currently contains co -located, unmanned, wireless telecommunication facilities. (Public hearing closed and continued from September 12, 2000.) Project Address: 24401 Darrin Drive (Lot 51, 'Tract No. 42554) Diamond Ear, CA 91765 Property Owner Eric Stone 24401 Darrin Drive Diamond Ear, CA 91765 Applicant: Nextel Communications 310 Commerce Irvine, CA 92602 Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15303(e), the City has determined that this project is Categorically Exempt.. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial. 6.1 Parks/Trails Master Plan - Verbal Status Report. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: None. PUBLIC HEARING: 5.1 Develop ant Review No. 2000-1 (pursuant to Code Section 22.45.020) is a request to construct a two-story single family residence with a three -car garage, balconies, deck and patio cover for a total of approximately 11,729 square feet. Additionally, this request includes a side yard retaining wall not to exceed six feet in height. Project Address: 2: ; Water CourseDt 7, Tract 4 " ; 1 '..91765 P�IC �'111 In Page 3 Property Owner Diamond Bar West, LLC Applicant: 3480 Torrance Boulevard, Suite 300 Torrance, CA 90503 Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined that this project is consistent with the previously certified Environmental Impact Report No. 91-2 for Tract Map No. 47850. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2000-13, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future p PARKS AND RECREATION Thursday, September 28, 2000 — 6:00 p.m. COMMITTEE MEETING: AQMD Hearing Board Room 21865 E. Copley Drive JOINT COMMISSION MEETING Thursday, September 28, 2000 — 7:00 p.m. PARKS AND RECREATION AND AQM1D Room CC -8 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION: 21865 E. Copley Drive CITY COUNCIL MEETING: W911k1W 1 _T91 'ff#JJ0AW1WAVk _ _I VV W1STE ROUNDUP: Tuesday, October 3, 2000 — 6:30 p.m. AQMD Auditorium 21865 E. Copley Drive Saturday, October 7, 2000 9:00 a.m. — 3:00 p.m. Mt. Sac Parking Lot B 1110 N. Grand Ave, Walnut ',M 1, 1 1 11 11 11 11 11 1 ' NXIMUMNIR am Tuesday, October 10, 2000 — 6:00 p.m. AQ MD Auditorium 21865 E. Copley Drive Tuesday, October 10, 2000 — 7:00 p.m. AQMD Auditorium 21865 E. Copley Drive Wednesday, October 11, 2000 — 6:00 p.m. AQN4D Room CC -8 21865 E. Copley Drive Thursday, October 12, 2000 — 7:00 p.m. AQMD Board Hearing Room 21865 E. Copley Drive MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF SEPTEMBER 12,2000 Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management Headquarters Building Auditorium, 21565 East Copley Drive, Diamond Par, California. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by trice Chairman Zirbes. Present: Chairman Nelson, Mice Chairman Bob Zirbes, and Commissioners George Kuo, and Joe Ruzicka. Commissioner Steve Tye was excused. Also Present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager, Ann Lungu, Associate Planner, Sonya Joe, Development Services Assistant, Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant, and Stella Marquez, Administrative Secretary. �; ,.. • ;� 3. APPROVAL. OF AGENDA: As presented. Without objection, the Commission concurred to approve the minutes of the meeting of August S, 2000, as presented. 6.1 Review of Discussion on Joint Study Session of City Council and Planning Commission on August 15, 2000. DCM/DeStefano asked Commissioners to comment on the joint meeting. In particular, the Commission expressed a desire to conduct a site visit of projects that have been approved within the last two years, and periodic review of Conditional Use Permits. As a staff SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION policy, the Commission will see a periodic review condition within all future Conditional Use Permits. Staff has schedule the one-year anniversary review of the Platinum Restaurant on October 10, 2000, at which, time the Planning Commission will review its operation and conditions set forth in the approval. VC/Zirbes stated he found the joint session to be very helpful and informative and believes that periodic joint sessions would be useful, once or twice a year. C/Ruzicka concurred with VC/Zirbes. Certain items that were raised with staff were matters of concern from constituents and he has not yet received a response on those matters. He expects responses will be forthcoming. DCM/DeStefano responded to Chair/Nelson that minutes of the joint session were produced by the City Clerk's office and they will be forwarded to the Commissioners in advance of the September 26, 2000, Planning Commission meeting. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 8.1 Development Review No. 2000-14 (pursuant to Code Section 22.48.020) is a request to construct a two story, single family residence of approximately 10,349 square feet with a four -car garage. The request also includes a five-foot high retaining wall. 2813 Watercourse Drive (Lot 48, Tract 47850) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar West, LLC 3480 Torrance Boulevard, Suite 3 • CA 90503 1 APPLICANT: Richard Gould 3480 Torrance Boulevard, Suite 300 Torrance, CA 90503 DSA/Joe presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2000-14, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. C/Ruzicka asked why there is a difference between the garage parking bay sizes. Kurt Nelson responded to C/Ruzicka that the code is written to accommodate two car garages containing 10 foot side by side bays. Once you get beyond two vehicles to three, four and five, the same amount of width is not needed between each vehicle. The slight differential in this design has to do with the particulars of the garage design. VC/Zirbes asked if there are accessory structures (swimming pool, gazebo, etc) planned for the rear yard. Kurt Nelson said that almost certainly the buyer will contract with the landscape architect and landscape contractor for accessory structures. The plans must be submitted to the city as well as, the Crystal Ridge Estates Homeowners Association architectural committee of which he is one of the five board members. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. There being no one who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Ruzicka moved, VC/Zirbes seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2000-14, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: Ruzicka, VC/Zirbes, Kuo, Chair/Nelson None Tye 8.2 Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04 and Development Review No. 2000-10 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.58 and 22.48) is a request to install two (2) additional 25 foot high camouflaged monopoles with a total of six (6) antennas, equipment cabinets, and block equipment enclosure on an approximately seven acre site that currently contains co -located, unmanned, wireless telecommunication facilities. W , •91765 • • 1 [ • .� ' • . 1 [ M .. Ruzicka, VC/Zirbes, Kuo, Chair/Nelson None Tye 8.2 Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04 and Development Review No. 2000-10 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.58 and 22.48) is a request to install two (2) additional 25 foot high camouflaged monopoles with a total of six (6) antennas, equipment cabinets, and block equipment enclosure on an approximately seven acre site that currently contains co -located, unmanned, wireless telecommunication facilities. W , •91765 PLANNINGSEPTEMBER 12,2000 PAGE 4 COMMISSION StoneEric 24401 Darrin Dar - Drive &Wynofft• Nextel Communications 310 Commerce Irvine, CA 92602 DC eStefano presented staffs report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04 and Development Review No. 2000-10, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. In response to Commission questions, DCM/DeStefano indicated that the project was originally approved in mid 1997. Due to the concerns regarding the potential effects of this type of project, it was, at the time, a very controversial project because it was the proposed to be located close to single family residential properties. This was the 18`" such project in the City of Diamond Bar and it generated more concern than all other projects combined. Due to the issues involved, the City Council deemed it appropriate to condition the project for a one-year termination. In mid 1998, the Planning Commission determined that the applicants had complied with all of the conditions set forth in the original approval and approved a one-year extension with a sunset clause to August 2001. The grant did not prohibit future applications'on the site. The Telecommunications Ordinance identifies this site as an opportunity for providers of these types of services. However, it does not identify how many sites are available at any one location. On the heels of the Planning Commissions concerns regarding periodic review, staff has added a condition that specifically talks about periodic review (see Condition 5 (e), page 5). Should there not be compliance, the Planning Commission has the ability to either modify or revoke the permit. While this project is immediately adjacent to the previously approved project, it is a separate and free-standing application. If one provider were not in compliance it should not have an effect upon a second provider in obtaining compliance. If the Commission wishes, it may also provide for a sunset clause. DC eStefano noted that staff received one letter of objection from an anonymous individual. Lynn Van Aken, Nextel Communications, stated that whether or not the approval contains a sunset clause, in the case of non-compliance, anyone in the city may petition that the matter come back to the Commission for review. The more sites that are on the property, the more likely that they are to be in compliance. Except for the maintenance of the monopole itself and their equipment and equipment area, all users are responsible to assure that the vegetation hides the project and remains approved. This site is provided for the SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSI®N freeway and dropped calls in the area. This site provides service to individuals as well as, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and. the City of Diamond Par as an emergency backup system. VC/Zirbes asked the applicant to address the height difference in their proposed monopole and the existing monopoles. Lynn Van Aken responded that heights are determined by the RF Engineers, and the proposal is site specific due to the coverage that is necessary. In lowering the height, Nextel would be reducing the amount of coverage to the public, which would likely necessitate another cell site in the future. The monopoles are approximately 20 to 23 feet tall. Jim McBride, Nextel, responded to VC/Zirbes that there is about an eight foot difference in height from the other carriers' antennas. In response to VC/Zirbes, Lynn Van Aken indicated that the proposed monopoles should not be visible to residents living on Armitos Place. There will be landscaping behind and to the sides of the monopole. The monopole will not be visible from Armitos Place. The only area that would remain landscape trim would be in the line of site of the actual signal. Nextel has worked with staff to mitigate any possible impacts that the installation would have upon the community. C/Kuo asked if the increased number of cell sites would affect the health and safety of the surrounding residents. Lynn Van Aken responded that Federal regulations require the site to comply with emission standards from their antennas. Prior to the site being on air and receiving its FCC license, it must comply with total emissions for the sites, which includes all cell sites in the area. Chair/Nelson suggested that it would help the Commission to have a cross-section showing the streets, different pole heights, freeway and height of the vegetation. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Noland Morris, 24317 Darrin Drive, asked if the neighborhood CC&R's were rewritten to allow for multiple use. He feels that there is a big difference between residential property in commercial areas and back yards. He believes this project warrants an Environmental Impact Report. Numerous sites are available such as Diamond Bar high School, fire station, etc. He believes the Commission needs to be prepared to receive requests from residents for a similar type of setup. He does not disagree that the proposed facility is well Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Ruzicka asked if staff would respond to Roland Morris. He asked his fellow Commissioners to consider a sunset clause for this project. DCM/DeStefano responded to statements by Roland Morris that there are private Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) for this property and several hundred surrounding properties. This use is in compliance with those CC&R's. The City does not review nor enforce private CC&R's. Therefore, it is incumbent upon that homeowner's association to ensure that its members are in compliance with their CC&R's. The issue that Mr. Stone required an amendment to a couple of years ago is not an issue for this project. With respect to environmental impact, staff looked at this specific c application for the criteria that is generally required for an Environmental Impact Report and Negative Declaration and the variety of exempt projects for which a categorical exemption would be appropriate. Staff felt that this project fell into one of the many categories of categorical exempt projects like the adjacent project. Further, staff feels that this project has followed the requirements of the Telecommunications Ordinance including the site that has been chosen. Chair/Nelson encouraged the Commission to focus its discussion on land use and physical structure. C/Ruzicka felt that in order to be consistent, it would not be unreasonable to place the same date on this project so that this and the prior projects could be reviewed at the same time. At the request of Chair/Nelson, Roland Morris returned to the podium to express his concern that there are a number of places in the City where this type of development could occur and he is opposed to the fact that city residents can put any type of development in their yard because of this precedent. Perhaps the property in question should be re -zoned. VC/Zirbes said that while the project is well laid out, he is not comfortable in looking at the conceptual plan where the antennas are proposed to be placed and he would like a document that clearly indicates where the antennas will be placed and what the heights will be in relationship to the site line from Armitos Place and in relationship to the monopoles that currently exist. He would also like to see a better landscape plan. If the Commission requested that the monopoles be no higher than the current monopoles, could the monopoles be moved or replaced and how would it impact that structure. He would like to have a more definitive description of where the equipment will be placed. He would like SEPTEMBER r 0 .',0 PAGE 7 PCOMMISSION to have an answer from staff prior to the Commission's next meeting as to the possibility of some of Roland Morris's concerns. Ey increasing the number of cell sites in residential neighborhoods, is the City opening up a Pandora's Box? Should the Commission consider limiting the number of cell sites on a particular piece of property? He understands the ideal location of the property. How many more sites could exist in that location and how will it affect the neighborhood. If 2 to 3 sites exist on this property, how many visits of service trucks are coming in and out of the neighborhood. Specifically, he would like to have more definite information on the heights and locations of antennas in relationship to the existing monopoles and how those effect the view scape off of Armitos Place. C/Ruzicka reiterated his request to have the Commissioners consider adding a sunset clause to the conditions for this project. Chair/Nelson said he is okay with the project as presented with or without the sunset clause. As long as this remains a discretionary action in the future and as long as the Commission continues to focus on the issues of land use and structure, there is a myriad of reasons why the use of these facilities would not be appropriate in 99 percent of the residential lots in this City. He believes this is a unique site and a unique opportunity. C/Ruzicka moved, VC/Zirbes seconded, to continue Development Review No. 2000-04 and Development Review No. 2000-10 to the September 26, 2000, meeting in order to grant staff and the applicant an opportunity to prepare answers to VC/Zirbes's questions and concerns and to give the Commission the opportunity to consider a sunset clause. VC/Zirbes said he feels about the project as does Chair/Nelson. However, he would like to have the facts before him in order to make an informed decision. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSION ERS: Ruzicka, VC/Zirbes, Kuo, Chair/Nelson NOES: • 1 ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Tye C/Kuo thanked the Commission for their concerns regarding his daughter's recovery. He apologized for not being able to attend the joint session with the City Council due to his family emergency. Everything is going well. SEPTEMBER 12,2000 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. DCM/DeStefano indicated the matrix identifies the Platinum Restaurant review as September 26, 2000, which should be October 10, 2000. Additionally, a review of a proposed 128,000 square foot office building within the Gateway Corporate Center on Bridge Gate Drive is scheduled to take place in October. As listed in the agenda. There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman Nelson adjourned the meeting at 8-40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James DeStefano Deputy City Manager Attest: Chairman Steve Nelson CITY OF DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION JOINT MEETING VWTH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER: Mayor O'Connor called the Study Session to order at 4:40 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District Room CC -8, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. 2. ROLL CALL: Council Members Chang, Herrera, Huff, and Mayor O'Connor. Mayor.Pro Tem Ansari was excused. PLANNING COMMISSION: Commissioners Ruzicka and Tye, and Vice -Chairman and Acting Chairman Zirbes. Commissioner Kuo ank Chairman Nelson were excused. 3. GENERAL DISCUSSION (Matters of concern): CA/Jenkins reported that the City received very disappointing news rega i rding the Redevelopment Plan. It is especially disappointing because the City thought that it had a very strong case. However, the courts are continuing to take a very hostile attitude toward redevelopmen . t. It is unfortunate because of the benefits that it 41;wl !zre in communities like D.B. 2. Grocery Store Vacancies: C/Ruzicka inquired about the status of the Ralph's and Top Value sites. DCM/DeStefano reported that Top Value has left the area. They are still making lease payments as a sub -lessee to Albertsons, who controls the lease, which has about 10 more years to run. The City heard that when Top Value was leaving, an ethnic -oriented grocer AUGUST 15, 2000 PAGE 2 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/ PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION M/O'Connor reported that a resident of the Heritage Park homes, Andrew Merkel, has circulated a petition aimed toward Ralph's anV M&H Properties, Inc. which he plans to present to Council thip.- evening. ?©. believed citizen involvement is good. F"WCAT-7 " "Syst the rent in the Ralph's location could have been an option with redevelopment funds. C/Chang reported that the Council's Legislative Subcommittee (C/Herrera and C/Chang) proposed to the State Legislature that they !.,uthor a bill to disallow control of the marketplace by mainstream supermarkets by anti -competition measures. a chance to succeed with the constant union intervention. Albertsons was very successful because of its location. • 011"W_ wouldWO'Connor said she like Planning Commissi to have the review Platinum Restaurant's AC/Zirbes believed that it would be in order for the Plannini,f Commission ...,_.,. to review Platinum's _ Vii; ,-.:-. .. • 1. ` ;.-... , - •� • : • �. WILIV Is idfllt� EM -1-1 AWr. development it performance • • they = to !. with operational and management standards, which Platinum was laden with due to the nature of their request. WO'Connor said that if Platinum did not meet the conditions they perhapsthe City knows that AUGUST 15,2000 PAGE 4 JOINT I CIL/ PLANNINGCOMMISSION STUDY SESSION asked who is legally responsible in the eventthere is an accident on the premises. C/Huff said that part of the problem _. because _ keep raisingthe standard. amountof t ime. As a practical matter and to - wbecome County uncommon • allow them opportunityo work their way through the County bureaucracy while they are operating. 'W • e one-year anniversary may be regarded as a suitable milestone for reviewing the operation from rr...m point of vie'w, the City is not precluded creatingfrom looking at it sooner if you believe that the business is a nuisance. C/Chang asked if they are operating according to their CUP. He stated that the owners of adjacent businesses complain Friday,that Saturday and Sunday • _ �- People • w clothes view of the public. DCM/DeStefano responded to C/Ruzicka that the one -yea( anniversary of the approval is August. Their operation began in late September, October. ,os 3 32m, 32m- •.! AUGUST 15, 2000 PAGE 5 JOINT CITY COUNCIU PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION C/Chang suggested that staff review the CUP compliance procedur,�t for possible improvement. AC/Zirbes asked about the likelihood of Grand Avenue being of D,.B. Blvd. as a result of project traffic impacts. The owner of D.B. -lira AUGUST 15,20 E 6 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/ PLANNING| | STUDY SESSION + #f«<# , k #: d #t± ?+U+y>?«rfvs#23 CEO/Flores >«d that, »4 »# 21 7 2� #£ +«.°«,#*� 1© ± v i- ,2 y yt>± officer was -t,a+:¥# about the +y2?#rs and had already notified people that they sho?k<# S#»±{?# S. AUGUST 1, 2000 PAGE 7 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/ PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION that the next time they appear on the street, the business will be issued a citation. rMi"T'Urg"170 17WUF=1-13 J111,35-063 owner. She asked how many citations have been issued since January. CEO/Flores responded that he has written five or six citations fof property maintenance standards. During the same time frame, approximately 50 vehicles were towed. He is concentrating on singir family residences and CEO/Soriano is working with commercial properties. . AC/Zirbes asked if the Code Enforcement Officers find citati authority helpful to their jobs. CEO/Flores responded ."absolutely." Fines are paid directly to t City. CEO/Soriano responded to M/O'Connor that he has issued r if, citatiols. ffFK007V-(T UFFLoges(EIMUR 6onano DIOR Tor sanawicn Doards at Torito Plaza. C/Tye suggested CEO/Soriano check the banner that hangs on t beam at the new cleaners, the surgery sign at the Vineyard Ba corner'and Hollywood Video's banner. banner for up to 90 days per year. Businesses are supposed to obtain a permit from the City at a cost of $25 and post a $100 refundabl ' e deposit, which is meant to insure that they remove the banner in a timely manner. Some comply and some do not. AC/Zirbes stated that the Planning Commission is asking the Council' to indicate their wishes and direction for the Housing Element. C/Ruzicka asked if the world ends if D.B.'s.Housing Element is not approved by the State. DCWDeStefano responded to WO'Connor that in 1995, the State objected to one provision in the Element, which was an "in -lieu housing fund." The strategy indicated that developers shall create low to moderate income housing within their existing projects or provide an "in -lieu" contribution which would be pooled to create housing programs subsidized by redevelopment monies, to which the State strongly objected. The State felt that this strategy would increase the price of housing for everybody else. Staff thought it was a workable solution for D.B. because the City's homes are medium to 11�,Jpl11;1111 I I I I Him -1-6110l Mal, -1777MVIT-777F MZIOIA�F WIRMF, C/Tye believed that C/Kuo is concerned about the number of variances that are presented to the Planning Commission and is like input from the Council. AUGUST 15,2000 PAGE 9 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/ PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION a bypass road through Tonner Canyon. Implementation is projected for the next five years and funding is an issue. This would be a costly project because of the associated environmental issues. He pointed out the items within the report that directly affect D.B. One ofthe Grand Ave. from Chino Hills to the freeway. Included in the strategy is bus service from the Chino Hills area to L.A. County to the Metrolink Station. Tas tem, Tea ine rea curbing.on Brea Canyon Rd. in front of the Metrolink Station to provide an additional 65 parking spaces to relieve the overflow parking on Washington St. When the Industry East Project is approved, 400 additional parking spaces will be provided at the station in the first grading. C/Huff responded to AC/Zirbes that frequent stops are generally provided by light rail. Metrolink is a heavy'rail facility. An HOV lane is planned from D.B. to the 605 freeway. No progress. C/Huff reported that when Mr. Redinger was on the Walnut School District Board, they worked out a deal and then he was unelected and there was no deal. C/Herrera said there has been conversation to the effect that Larkstone Park will be part of a component of the development of other properties. The redevelopment issue may ha . ve interrupted this i Open Space Sphere of Influence Area/Boy Scout Property/Tr Hermanos, annexation of properties to the southwest. 41-114-9)(VOK7701,7767"= 47M777-1,01MLY _71 IF UJI property. «:.« _y understood that the City of Industry and WCCA are in ctrompeonopuchase the property. AC/Zirbes asked about the probability of the it of Industry acquiring the Boy Scout property and flooding the Tres Hermanos area for building Lake D.B. Sgt. Bill Flannery indicated that the SheriWs Department has issued 25-30 citations that.carry a fine of $100. Subsequent citations carry fines of $200 and $500. R WO'Connor thanked the Planning Commissioners for theif participation. WO'Connor moved, C/Huff seconded, to add the matter of Barbara Beach-Courches .be, at al vs. City of Diamond Bar to the -Closed Session agenda. Without objection, the motion was so ordered. 5-Fro"Ir FROM Mayor LY DATBURGESS, C - ity Clark Vice Chairman Bob Zi T S 0 REPORT DATE: September000 MEETING DATE: September.26, 2000 CASE/FILE ER: Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04 and Development Review No. 2000-10 APPLICATION A request, pursuant to Code Sections 22.58 and 22.48, to install two 25 foot high camouflaged monopoles with six antennas, equipment cabinets and a block wall equipment enclosure, to be located adjacent to an existing unmanned co -located wireless telecommunication facility on a portion of a 10.05 acre site. (Continued from September 12, 2000) �IROJECT LOCATION: 24401 Darrin Drive, (Tract No. 42584, Lot 5 1) Diamond - PROPERTY OWNERS: 24401 I A...._ Drive Diamond 1 CA 9171 APPLICANT: Nextel Communications 310 Commerce Irvine, CA 92602 Nextel Communications has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to construct an unmanned wireless telecommunication facility to be placed below the street level within the sloped area of a residentially zoned site. Facing toward the Pomona (60) Freeway, the facility will consist of two 25 -foot high monopoles incorporating six antennas, equipment cabinet, and block wall enclosure. The facility is designed to blend into the hillside site similar to the adjacent existing telecommunications facility constructed for Pac Bell and Cox Communications in 1998. The proposal is permitted subject to the approval of a Development Review and Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. On September 12, 2000, the Planning Commission considered an application by Nextel Communications to install two 25 -foot high camouflaged monopoles with six antennas, equipment cabinets, and a block wall equipment enclosure, located adjacent to an existing unmanned co -located telecommunications facility on a portion of a 10.05 acre site. The Planning Commission concluded the public hearing and continued the matter to September 26, 2000, to allow time for the applicant to respond to the Planning Commission's request for further information. The following excerpts from the Planning Commission meeting Minutes of September 12, 2000, summarizes the information requested of the applicant: The Planning Commission " ...would like a document that clearly indicates where the antennas will be placed and what the heights will be in relationship to the site line from Armitos Place, and in relationship to the monopoles that currently exist and how those affect the use off of Armitos Place. The Commission requests a better landscape plan. Should the Commission request that the monopoles be no higher than the current monopoles, could the monopoles be moved or replaced and how would it impact that structure. The Commission would like to have a definitive description of where 'the equipment will be placed." On Thursday, September 21, 2000, Nextel submitted to the City its response to the Planning Commission's request. Staff has reviewed the submittal and has identified significant differences from the previously submitted drawings and statements provided at the September 12, 2000, public hearing. Specifically, the revised plans show the proposed monopoles as rising above the Armitos Place pad elevation by 13 to 15 feet. The plans submitted at the September 12, 2000, public hearing indicate clearly that the monopoles were proposed to be located below the Armitos Place pad elevation. Consequently, staff cannot find support for findings necessary to recommend Planning Commission approval of the project. 1. The proposed use is allowed within the subject zoning district with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Development Code and the Municipal Code. 2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. 3. The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. 4. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed including access, provisions of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and the absence of physical constraints. 19 5. Granting the Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to person, property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning districts in which the property is located. 6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). REQUIRED DEVELOPM[ENT REVIEW FINDINGS: 1. The design and layout of the proposed development are consistent with the General Plan, development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for special areas (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards or planned developments); 2. The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards; 3. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain and enhance the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this Chapter, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan; 4. The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture and color, and will remain aesthetically appealing; 5. 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; and 6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It is recommended that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial. Prepared by: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 7, 2000 2. Conditional Use Pen -nit Narrative 3. Facilities Master Plan 4. Photographic Simulation 5. Development Plans previously submitted September 12, 2000 6. Revised Development Plans, dated September 26, 2000 Kt5, 717 "FT a REPORT DATE: September 7, 2000 Pal MEM ��� CASE/FILE NUMBER: Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04 and . Development Review No. 2000-10 APPLICATION REQUEST: A request, pursuant to Code Sections 22.58 and 22.48, to install two 25 foot high camouflaged monopoles with six antennas, equipment cabinets and a block wall equipment enclosure4 to be located adjacent to an existing unmanned co -located wireless telecommunication facility on a portion of a 10.05 acre site. PROJECT LOCATION: 24401 Darrin Drive, (Tract No. 42584, Lot 5 1) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 [�ROPERTY OWNERS: Eric and Robin Stone 24401 Darrin Drive Diamond B. CA 91765 APPLICANT: Nextel Communications 310 Commerce Irvine, CA 92602 Nextel Communications has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to construct an unmanned wireless telecommunication facility to be placed below the street level within the sloped area of a residentially zoned site. Facing toward the Pomona (60) Freeway the facility will consist of two, 25 foot high monopoles incorporating six antennas, equipment cabinet, and block wall enclosure. The facility is designed to blend into the hillside site similar to the adjacent existing telecommunications facility constructed for Pac Bell and Cox Corm-nunications in 1998. The proposal is pen-nitted subject to the approval of a Development Review and Conditional Use Permit by. the Planning Commission. Site Characteristics The project is proposed to be located at 24401 Darrin Drive (Tract 42584, Lot 51). The property consists of a single 10.05 acre site. The property has been assigned two Los Angeles County Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN). APN 8281-29-24 consists of 6.87 acres and contains the existing 1400 square foot residence constructed in 1985 and located at the northwest comer of Darrin Drive at Armitos Place. The site also contains a co -located wireless telecommunications facility cell site approved by City Council action in 1997, located adjacent to Armitos Place near the Los Angeles County Fire Station. APN 8281-29-23 contains 3.18 acres and is fully encumbered by a storm drain easement.. A map restriction exists on the property restricting vehicular ingress and egress to Armitos Place. The subject property is an irregularly shaped lot located at the northwest comer of An-nitos Place and Darrin Drive, south of the 60 Freeway. The site is approximately 10.05 gross acres, surrounding a 25,270 square foot parcel owned by the Los Angeles County and occupied by a fire station. The development site is adjacent .to the flat portion of the property along Arn-dtos Place. The site trends downward at an approximately 2:1 slope northerly property boundary adjacent to the freeway. There is the existing 1,400 square foot single family residence on the site with frontage and access on Darrin Drive and telecommunications facility. With the exception of the residence and cell site, the property is undeveloped. Vegetation consists primarily of sage scrub plants typically found on the lower slopes of the City. The site contains scattered trees believed to be oak and walnut. All trees will be retained. The site's General Plan designation is Low Density Residential (RL) and it is zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-10,000.) The proposed use is conditionally permitted within this zone pursuant to the provisions of Development Code Section 22.58, and 22.48. The land uses surrounding the subject site include the Pomona Freeway (SR 60) to the north, and single family residential development to the south, east and west. Since the City's incorporation in 1989, twenty-four (24) cell sites have been constructed within the City. Generally, these sites are located adjacent to or near the freeways or heavily roadways in order to capture the maximum number of users. This cell site is located within a residential neighborhood, although there are facilities located at Diamond Bar High School, which has a residential zoning designation. N Existina Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Entitlement On April 22, 1997, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 97-6 approving an application (Conditional Use Permit No. 96-10 and Development Review No. 96-9) for the construction of a co -located wireless telecommunication facilities cell site (Pac Bell Mobile Services and Cox Communications) project on a portion of the 10.05 acre site located adjacent to Armitos Drive. The Planning Commission's decision, was subsequently "called for review" by the City Council. In August 1997, the City Council concluded its public hearing review and adopted Resolution No.. 97-58 approving the proposed project for a one-year period. The adopted Resolution set forth an opportunity to extend the grant subject to the review and approval by the Planning Commission at the conclusion of a duly noticed public hearing. In June 1998, Pac Bell Mobile Services and Cox Communications,, the applicants, applied for said extension. On August 25, 1998, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 98-18 extending the grant to August 5, 2001. No further extension of the pen -nit shall be granted unless the applicants submit an application and receive approval from the Planning Commission following a duly noticed public hearing. Conditional Use Permit No. 96-10 and Development Review No. 96-9 contain specific conditions as approved by the City Council and as contained within the extension approved by the Planning Commission. The project was conditioned to conform to the approved development plans. The approval is specific to the development plans proposed by the two carriers, Cox and Pac Bell. Nextel has applied for an additional telecommunications facility on the Stone property. As such the proposed application would add a third facility (antennas, structures and equipment building) to a site approved for a total of two carriers). As the Development Code states in Section 22.66.060, an expansion of the existing use, will require a new Conditional Use Permit and Development Review or a Modification to the existing Conditional Use Permit and Development Review. Ordinance No. 4 (1999), the Radio and Television Antennas and Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance adopted on March 2, 1999, establishes procedures for the placement of wireless telecommunications facilities and modifications to existing facilities. Section 22.42.130.J.I.of the Ordinance states that certain modifications to wireless telecommunications antenna facilities may be authorized by an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit. The application process for a new or amended permit requires a noticed public hearing before the Planning Commission. The applicant is proposing that a third carrier, antenna and equipment enclosure be located upon the site. Staff has concluded that the proposed additional telecommunication facility for Nextel incorporating two additional monopoles, six directional antennas and an equipment enclosure will require a new discretionary 91 conditional use permit and development review incorporating a public hearing before the Planning Commission. C� �-� 111111� 1-1 111.1 . 0 1 31M The current proposal consists of two (2) antennas, 25 foot high camouflaged monopoles with six antennas, equipment cabinets and a block wall equipment enclosure. The facility is proposed on the subject site's northerly slope, facing the freeway below the undeveloped area between the fire station and the dwelling unit. Each antenna sector consists of three (3) panel antennas measuring four feet high, six inches wide and the overall width of the antenna array is eight feet. The antennas will be mounted on two separate vertical poles placed in the slope. Both monopoles will be placed on the slope. Both monopoles will be placed approximately 100 feet from the southerly property line adjacent to Armitos Place. The highest point of all the antennas will be approximately located at or below the flat, street level portion of the site. As proposed, the antennas will be approximately 120 feet from the nearest residence and will not be visible from the street level along Armitos Place. The antennas;will be visible (although screened) from the Pomona (60) Freeway. The facility will also involve the placement of an equipment cabinet on a 230 square foot concrete slab located south and perpendicular to the antennas. The slab will be placed into an area cut into the side of the hill immediately adjacent to the existing cell site and oriented parallel to the existing contours. Retaining walls not to exceed 6 feet in height will be used to accommodate the necessary cut. The equipment cabinets will be enclosed with a six foot block wall with chain link top. The antennas, equipment cabinets and other support hardware will be painted in camouflage colors to match the existing vegetation. The antennas and equipment cabinet will not be lighted nor generate any discernable noise to residents. The applicant is proposing access to the site via a 15 foot wide easement extending from Armitos Place. No vehicular ingress or egress is proposed nor will be permitted from Armitos Place. Radio Frequency Emissions/Health Impacts The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires that all cellular and PCS providers comply with safety standards for radio frequency electromagnetic fields. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) have established standards for safe human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. rH The Telecommunication Reform Act of 1996 prohibits local governments from regulating facilities because of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions as long as facilities comply with FCC regulations. However, that does not preclude cities from requiring that telecommunication providers submit documentation showing safety standard compliance. The City has previously required that an applicant submit radio frequency radiation (RFR) field measurement study to the Planning Division to verify compliance with FCC emission standards. Location Criteria The design and location of teleconununication facility sites is determined by several factors. Sites must be close enough to the caller to receive the signal generated. Sites must be far enough from one another to eliminate cross -talk and sites must be located away from sources of interference, which will cause signal distortion and poor communication quality. Height is one of the most important considerations when locating a site because telecommunications facilities function on a line -of -sight transmission. Antennas must be placed at precise heights in relation to one another in order to transmit and receive signals. Therefore, topography plays a major role when determining antenna heights. Other considerations include availability of road access, electric power, land based telephone lines and/or microwave link capability, structural capacity for equipment and maximum coverage in the desired area with minimal sites. According to Nextel, the proposed project fills a gap in coverage along the Pomona (60) Freeway. Land Use Compatibility Telecommunications facilities, including antennas are conditionally permitted within the Single Family residential zone. According to Development Code Section 22.58, a conditionally permitted use is a use which, because of specific characteristics such as size, technological processes, or location, requires "special consideration" to "ensure proper integration with other existing or permitted uses in the same zone . . .." Conditional uses are generally approved with conditions ensuring that this integration is achieved. Vehicular access to the project site would be utilized a few times a year for maintenance of the telecommunication facility. Since the equipment cabinets and antennas are located on the slope, access by foot would be necessary. On -street parking is not restricted in this area, therefore, the maintenance crews could park their trucks on the street for the limited time that service visits require. 0 Environmental Assessment In accordance with the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined that this project will not have a significant impact on the environment and has been determined to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA, pursuant to Section 15303(e). On August 24, 2111 public hearing noticeswere•. ` • approximately 164 property owners of record, 700 -foot ,d _: of the projectOn August111 notification of the public heating for this project was provided in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, and the project site was posted with a display board for at least 10 days. Further, the public notice was posted at three public places. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04 and Development Review No. 2000-10, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. In the alternative, the Planning Commission may direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial or continue the project to a date certain for further information and discussion. 1. The proposed use is allowed within the subject zoning district with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Development Code and the Municipal Code. 2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. 3. The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. 4. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed including access, provisions of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and the absence of physical constraints. 5. Granting the Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to person, property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning districts in which the property is located. 6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). R 1. The design and layout of the proposed development are consistent with the General Plan, development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for special areas (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards or planned developments); 2. The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards; 3. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain and enhance the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this Chapter, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan; 4. The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture and color, and will remain aesthetically appealing; 5. 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; and 6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). I Prepared by: James DeStefano, DeputpCity Manager Attachments: 1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution 2. -Project Site Map 3. Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04, and Development Review No. 2000-10 4. Conditional Use Permit Narrative 5. FacilitieCiTfaster Plan 6. Photographic Simulation 7. Public Hearing Notice 8. Proposed Development Plan MERI 0 0 MTM C 0 R F 0 R A -r 1 0 N At the direction of the Planning Department for the City of Diamond Bar, Nextel is filing for a Conditional Use Permit for a telecommunication facility. The pr'o*perty is located at 24401 Darrin Drive, Diamond Bar. The application is for co -location on an existing telecommunication site. Nextel's representatives have been informed by city staff that the location does not qualify for administrative approval. The site is located in a residential zone, with single-family homes in close proximity to the proposed facility. Lynn Van Aken Project Manager 20472 CRESCENT BAY DRIVE, SUITE 104, LAKE FOREST, CA 92630, U.S.A. TELEPHONE: (949) 470-7990 1 FAX: (949) 470-7989 Introduction Nextel Communications is the world's leading provider of fully integrated, all digital wireless services. Nextel's goal is to provide the highest quality wireless services available throughout its coverage area. Coverage Nextel's wireless network is defined by three basic characteristics: coverage, quality and capacity. Effective radio frequency (RF,) coverage is realized by transmitting RF energy over existing terrain, including foliage and man-made structures to provide enough downlink (from the cell site to the mobile,) to allow uninterrupted two-way communication. A correctly designed and balanced system will never be uplink limited; that is, limited by the transmission power of the mobile unit to the cell site antenna. Nextel's philosophy is to design the RF network so if sufficient downlink signal is present, the mobile subscriber will always be able to establish communication. Therefore, when discussing coverage, we will be referring to the downlink signal. Within the category of RF coverage, Nextel applies two additional standards to qualify coverage: In Car Portable (ICP) coverage, and In Building Portable (IBP) coverage. A Portable is a typical handheld, one half watt capable phone. ICP coverage requires that sufficient downlink signal be present inside the passenger cabin of a motor vehicle to enable communication. Extensive testing by Motorola has shown that effective ICP coverage requires in general, an increase in signal available versus an unobstructed line of sight to compensate for vehicle penetration losses. IBP coverage has been shown to require even greater signal levels be present than that required for ICP coverage, depending on building size, construction materials and location inside the building. Nextel's goal in proposing to construct the site at 15627 Arrow Highway is to provide ICP coverage east and west along Arrow Highway, and to the areas immediately north and south of that roadway. This includes the Trammell Crowe Business Park in Irwindale, located immediately to the south of the proposed Nextel facility, and the Irwindale Civic Center area, located to the southeast. Because today's wireless customers are modifying their usage, especially with the introduction of wireless data services, Nextel's goal is to provide IBP coverage in these major commercial sectors of Irwindale. The proposed 65 -foot -high facility at 15627 Arrow Highway will allow Nextel to meet this service level goal. uali The quality of the RF network is defined by having sufficient signal quality to provide voice and data traffic free of unwanted degradations, warbling, noise or other interference to enable uninterrupted communications and seamless handovers at cell site RF boundaries. The minimum signal-to-noise ratio (SNR,) for an iDEN technology, interconnect call has been established to be 20 dB; that is, the downlink (limiting) signal needs to be 100 times greater than the sum of all other signals present. The presence of various extraneous in and near band RF sources, and the relatively increased noise floor of the 800 — 900 MHz band makes it increasingly difficult to ensure a 20 dB SNR is attainable. The FCC limitation for a Metropolitan Service Area of .100 Watts Effective Radiated Power (ERP) per transmit channel then means that to attain the required SNR, Nextel's cell sites need to be more closely spaced together. If this is done, a sufficient quality signal is made available for establishing, sustaining and handing over wireless phone calls. Ca�acit°� The final method by which Nextel's RF network is characterized is capacity. Network capacity is a measure of how much traffic an individual cell site can carry. Capacity is limited by three separate constraints:. ® Landline infrastructure ® Antenna -air interface ® Motorola's Fixed Network Equipment design limitations. Landline infrastructure refers -to the local telephone service provider's network connecting a cell site back to its controlling switch. A fixed bandwidth pipeline is provided to carry the voice and data traffic between the two facilities. The finite nature of this pipeline effectively limits the number of subscriber calls an individual cell site can process through the switch. The antenna -air interface is a limit to how much power a single antenna can transmit without adversely raising the RF noise floor at the site or creating intermodulation products that could interfere with that cell site's operation or, in violation of FCC requirements, another carrier's operation. A single sector of a cell can only have a finite number of antennas due to RF spacing requirements for optimum receiver operation. Since the forward power per antenna or sector is limited, then the number of transmitting carriers and therefore sector capacity will also be limited. Motorola design limitations are related to the physical equipment racks themselves. Transmitter size, RF combining requirements, heat dissipation and other requirements - limit the number of transmitting carvers available per antenna, sector and the entire site. Once any of these limits is reached, depending on individual site configuration, a subscriber attempting to establish communication will be "blocked" from doing so unless there is sufficient RF signal available from a neighboring site or sector to enable call setup to occur and a high quality call to ensue. Therein lies the solution to capacity issues: Build cells in close proximity such that neighboring sites or sectors can offload heavily trafficked sites. Proposed Solutions The three RF network characteristics all require that as subscriber numbers increase and methods of cell phone usage change, in order to maintain adequate coverage with a high quality signal to ensure acceptable calls and smooth handovers, and to ensure minimal blocking to satisfy subscriber demand, Nextel will engage in an aggressive buildout program where subscriber use mandates. Figure 1 shows the Total Minutes of Use per week, from February to July 2000, for an area which includes the Eastern San Gabriel Valley and the city of Diamond Bar. 4. 25000 20000 15000 U) D 0 10000 5000 0 \'\'Peeee? 0 eee eeeee 0 eee T T 11\� f 41 IS IbV 41 14V W 0 0 0 1:1 IS 4' 4�' bV '- b\" zv 4� , '�' 1� 1� Figure I 120 100 80 60 E 40 20 0 As shown, subscriber use is on a sustained increase. Future projections using this trend indicate local network saturation sometime late in 2000 or early in 2001 if no new sites are built in the area. The Los Angeles Market as a whole is experiencing similar growth, so construction dollars to this area are limited. To determine the most effective use of available capital in this cluster, RF Engineering has studied the existing coverage and traffic statistics per site. One particular coverage problem we have is in the Diamond Bar area on the 60 Freeway between Diamond Bar Blvd. and Phillips Ranch Rd. in Pomona. This area is difficult due to the terrain around the freeway and the turns in the road. The best solution for this area is a site located around the freeway in the vicinity of the currently proposed site 6710 - Phillips Ranch. This site has been tested and verified to provide sufficient coverage levels to connect the currently existing sites in Diamond Bar with sites in Pomona and Chino. i I, h'i Vii; ,i ID NEX11" ®� f,UG 23 i _32 August 16, 2000 Jim DeStefano Deputy City Manager Diamond Bar, CA Dear Mr. DeStefano, Nextel Communications 310 Commerce Irvine, California 92602-1300 (714) 368-3500 Fax: (714) 368-3501 I am the RF Engineer for the current and proposed sites in the Diamond Bar and eastern San Gabriel Valley area. As is required by federal law, all sites in this area comply with all FCC rules and regulations. I can also ensure you that the proposed site, CA6710 — Phillips Ranch, will be in compliance with all regulations regarding RF emissions. If you have any questions regarding current FCC regulations please feel free to contact me at 760-250-4465. Sincerely, Steven A. McDougall RF Engineer September 19, 2000 Mr. Jim DeStefano, Deputy City Manager, City of Diamond Bar, CA °00 SCP 21 71' �n Nextel Communications 310 Commerce Irvine, CA 92602 (714) 368-3500 Fax: (714) 368-3501 Re: Antenna Height Requirements for Site CA6710, Phillips Ranch Dear Mr. DeStefano, Nextel Communications is planning to build site, CA6710 — Phillips Ranch, to improve coverage along a mile stretch of the 60 Freeway within the City of Diamond Bar. To meet this coverage objective an optimal height of 25 feet was requested. The request for this height considered: - Meeting the desired coverage objectives required by Nextel Communications. - Mitigating any impairment in performance to the existing carriers through either normal or abnormal operation of Nextel Communications equipment. - Minimizing any visual impact to the residents of the City of Diamond Bar. - Being of sufficient height to be above existing plants and trees at this location. In balancing these contradictory demands, the appropriate height for the proposed Nextel facility was determined to be 25 feet. If this height is not allowed, the level of service -will be compromised due to blockage by the extensive site vegetation and topography that is characterized by hilly terrain. Sincerely, Gordon Graham, RF Engineer Go@ hitectc. OU AEbmwAN AM AEMWAM MAW AF IE7 A California Corporation 1 91 6 2 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 120 Irvine, Colifornia 92612 tel. 949-399-0880 fax 949-399-0681 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANT CA6710B SITE NAME PHILLIPS RANCH PHILLIPS RANCH- DUE BY PROJECT NUMBE S CMM. DATE LAND USE DRAWINGS 04/11/00 TAMP LEGAL DESCRIPTION7�F VICINITY MAP SHEET INDEX REVISIONS INNER-CMCE APN NUMBER: 8281-029-024 01 COVER SHEET LOT 51 OF TRACT N0. 42564, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BO TO 14 INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE DF THE COUNTY 7 P R ®JE C T N0. DATE ISSUED BY: DESCRIPTION 0-� OVERALL SITE PLAN PRELIMINARY RENE ;PRM,IEI COUNTY. O1 4/t 1/00 NEXTEL SITE PLAN & NORTH ELEVATION EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL Olt, CAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS AND MINERALS, SITE 02 6/19/00 NEXTEL DIMENSIONS ADDED ISSUE DATENOW OR AT ANY TIME HEREAFTER SITUATED THEREIN AND THEREUNDER, TOGETHER , SITE SURVEY WITH THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO DRILL FOR, PRODUCT. EXTRACT, TAKE AND MINE OIL GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS AND MINERALS AND TOSTORE a3 5/30/aD NEXTEL DIMENSIONS ADDED20/00THEREFROM,SUCH ED FOR:SAID THE SAME UPONTHE SURFACE OF SAID LAND, OR BELOW THE SURFACE OF LAND. TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT TO STORE UPON THE SURFACE OF SAID PROJECTTEAM 04 B/15/00 NEXTEL CITY CDMMEMS USEPRODUCED LAND, OIL,GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS ANO MINERALS WHICH MAY BE®, FROMOTHER LANDS, WITH THE RIGHT OF ENTRY THEREON FOR SAID 60 05 9/20/00 NEXTEL CRY COMMENTSWINGS PURPOSE. ANO WITH THE RIGHT TO CONSTRUCT, USE. MAINTAIN. ERECT. REPAIR, TELEPHONE AND PROPERTY ADDRESS: APPLICANT. REPLACE AND REMOVE THEREON AND THEREFROM, ALL PIPE ONES, TELEGRAPH UNES. TANKS, MACHINERY. BUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES, WHICH x 24401 OARRIN DRIVE NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MAY BE NECESSARY AND REOUEStTE TO CARRY ON OPERATIONS ON SAID LINOS. FARRIER RIGHT TO ERECT. MAINTAIN, OPERATE AND REMOVE A PLANT. � �' $ g .p�� DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 310 COMMERCE IRVINE, CA 92602 COMMENTS WITH THE WITH P11 NECESSARY APPURTENNJCE FOR THE IGM0ON OF GASOUNE FROM GAS, a '? Y 9`� JAMES MCBRYDE-CONST. MGR. ®m _ —= INCLUDING ALL RIGHTS NECESSARY OR CONVENIENT THERETO, AS EXCEPTED AND RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM MANSAMERICA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA k �e4 (949)-279-0901 LYNN VAN AKEN-ZONING MGR. (949)-279-2575 ? ®m® CORPORATION, RECORDED MARCH 29, 1968, IN BOOK D-3955, PAGE 185, 4�MGf PROPERTYOWNER: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS INSTRUMENT N0. 2456. OFFlGIAL RECORDS. AND RE-RECORDED JUNE 19, 1969. IN INSTRUMENT NO. 1776, OFFICIAL RECORDS. ANO AS y ERIC & ROBYN STONE MUNICIPALITY: 310 COMMERCE IRVINE. CALIFORNIq 92602-1300 BOOK 0-4407, PAGE 591, MODIFIED BY A OURCUIM DEED, WHICH RELINQUISHED ALL RIGHT TO THE USE OF �� �° 24�A1 OARRIN DRIVE DWMOND BAR. CA 91765 Cltt OF DIAMOND BAR PH 714 368 3500 FAX 714 368 3501 THE SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE TO A DEPTH OF FIVE HUMORED (500) FEET FROM (909)- 860-2474 THE SURFACE OF SAID VMD. RECORDED DECEMBER 23, 1981, AS INSTRUMENT NO. PARCEL 91-1263D75, OFFICIAL RECORDS. PROJECT DATA APPROVALS THIS DEED IS MADE AND ACCEPTED UPON ME COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, APPROVAL AGENCY APPROVALS INITIALS DATE RESTRICTIONS, EASEMENTS AND OTHER MATTERS SET FORM IN THAT CERTAIN RECOROED FEBRUARY 24, 1984, AS INSTRUMENT LATITUDE LANDLORD DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS, N0. 84-233763, OFFICIAL RECORDS. LOS ANGELES COUNTY, ALL OF WHICH 34' O1. 32- THIS IS AN UNMANNED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY FOR NEXTEL N0. DATE ISSUED BY: DESCRIPTION LEASING PROVISIONS ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE THERETO WITH THE SAME MI5 SRE CONSISTS OF AN EQUIPMENT CABINET AND SIX (a) ZONING FORCE AND EFFECT AS THOUGH FULLY SET FORM HEREIN AT LENGTH, AND ORANTENNAS ON 25 FOOT MONOPOLES. RF GRANTEES, BY ACCEPTANCE OF THIS DEED APPROVE, ADOPT. RATIFY AND AGREE TO IT DE LONGITUDE E/P BE BOUND BY THE PROVISIONS OF SAID DECLINATION, AND AGREE TO PAY PROMPTLY, WHEN DUE ANYAND ALL MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENTS AS REQUIRED LOT C.P.M. UNDER SAID DECLARATION. SITE NUMBER CURRENT ZONING: R -I-10.000 J ('� U• L LZ d�S Q0. EXISTING NSE: 0100 CA6710B �. U TELECOMMUNICATIONS SITE CXISTING/PROPOSEO USE: TELECOMMNNICATIQNS SITE SITE ADDRESS NET LEASE AREA: 23'X23' (529 S.F.) 24401 DARRIN DRIVE LI `,4I "3 [I)�I./I I I( DIAMOND BAR, CA 91755-1849 1 J'�I�LTi'iV C jY! "J ZI Lr'.1 COMMENTS APN:B2B1-029-024 t7�IT.1317ID .n R aµ'T7 �ULSt -64i. SHEET NUMBER I 1-1T 2cx, 0 —�(01 PROPOSED NEXTEL DIRECTIONAL ANTENNAS ON CAMOUFLAGEDNEXTEL PAINTED POLES TO MATCH EXISTING TELECOMMUNICATION B-SUR&0 cs. PROPOSED MATCH WOOD STEPS TO MATCH EXISTING. NEW NEXTEL CMU WALL TO ABUT EXISTING WALL EXISTING TELECOMMUNICATION CARRIERS K( p -,ANTENNAS ON CAMOUFLAGED PAINTED PDLES. cl'YFt \\ PROPOSED L DIRECTIONAL ANTENNAS ON CAMOUFLAGED POLES TO MATCHH EXISTING URROU INGS. TION CARRIERS AND SURROUNDINGS. \ Y� EXISTING TREES AND SHRUBS " 70 -REIN TYPICAL) r PROPOSED HOTEL DIRECTIONAL ANTENNAS PROPOSED NEXTEI. CMU BLOCK RETAINING EXISTING TREES AND SHRUBS ON CAMOUFLAGE PAIWED POLES TO WALL FOR EQUIPMENT CABINET ENCLOSURE TO REMAIN. (TYPICAL) MATCH IXISTNG TELECOMMUNICATION WRH CHAIN LINK TOP. PAINTED CAMOUFLAGE CARRIERS AND SURROUNDINGS. TO MATCH EXISTING SURROUNDINGS. robinson hill 2rchi Lecture, inc. A Californie Cotparation PROPOSED EXISTING TREES TO BE REtOCATEO AS REQUIRED RELOCATION TO BE MINIMIZED ,TT}� 11117777 EXISTING TELECOMMUNICATIONS BLOCK PROPOSED NEXTEL DIRECTIONAL ANTENNAS EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE WITH CAMOUFLAGE ON CAMOUFLAGE PAINTED POLES TO PAINT TO MATCH EXISTING SURROUNDINGS. MATCH EXISTING TELECOMMUNICATION CARRIERS SURROUNDINGS. II7 6 2 M.Gvlhu, Boulevard, $Vile 120 Irvine, Coli{afni0 92612 � u� �M——+ AND fel. 949-399-0880 fax 949-399-O6B1 o '-9' ------3-4'- _ .'\ CONSULTANT J ,� '... . i .•. � '-^r - . -+' •.. ��_ -: ? EXISTING WOOD STEPS. , SITE NAME PHILLIPS RANCH PROJECT NUMBER DRAWN BY: y 0 TC081.C1 S.C.M. EXISTING TREES AND SHRUBS TO REMAIN. (TYPICAL) ANY TREES AND LANDSCAPING TO BE RELOCATED IS DEPENDANT UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. TRIMMING OF EXISTING LANDSCAPING FOR RF ANTENNAS TO BE KEPT TO A MINIMUM. •"'� PROPOSED (4) FOUR NEXTEL RADIO., _r EOUIPMEW CABINETS (40"%40'X60" EACH) WITH (1) ONE TWO TON A/C UNIT MOUNTED AT EACH END. PROPOSED NEXTEL BLOCK EQUIPMENT CABINET ENCLOSURE WITH CHAIN UNK TOP. PAINTED CAMOUFLAGE EXISTNG TELECOMMUNICATION CARRIERS R TREE ANTENNAS ON CAMOUFLAGE PAINTED POLES. TO TO REMAIN. (TYPICAL -3) CHECKED BY: DATE 04/11lDO SITE NUMBER CA67106 STAMP ALL CABLES AND UTILITIES TO TO MATCH EXISTING SURROUNDINGS. BE TRENCHED UNDERGROUND. EXISTING TELECOMMUNICATIONS BLOCK EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE WIN CAMOUFLAGE PAINT TO MATCH SURROUNDINGS 1 EXISTING TREES AND SHRUBS \ TO REMAIN. (TYPICAL) ENLARGED SITE PLAN 1A, - r -o' NORTH ELEVATION s/v *-o' CURRENT ISSUE DATE A 9%20/00 ISSUED FOR: LAND USE DRAWINGS EXISTING PRE STATION. PROPOSED NEXTEL ANTENNAS\ ON CAMOUFLAGE PAWED POLE. / \- \ / \ \ '\ NEWIQNS 310 COMMERCE IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92602-1300 PH 714 368 3500 FAX 7f4 358 3501 �MTOS P 14Cp II C3---] \ ` \ \`' 7 ;,9 \�\\ .. \ \� \ 1 \ ;/ \ '� \ ` \•..\ \`\ j \\\\•, \\ PROPOSED NEXTEL BLOCK ``\ .� '\ \ `\ ! EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE. EXISTING TELELOMMUNICARONS \ \ \`. BLOCK EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE. (�\ynT��; ( �\ \� \ \ \ \ `\\ \\, ` APPROVALS APPROVALS INITIALS GATE LANDLORD LENSING ZONING RF ESP C.P.M. SITE NUMBER CA671 OB SITE ADDRESS 24401 CARRIN DRIVE DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765-1049 PH : 8281-029-024 SHEET NUMBER 02 \.\ \ •"'. OVERALL SITE PLAN PROJECT SITE N robinson hill architecture. inc. N.T.S. y,v C'ee, oP'Hpyo yabH.P. F P� A CD11f9T,i. Caryomtion 1 9 7 6 2 MOGAdhMT Boulevard, Suite 120 Irvine, COliforni0 92512 tel. 949-399-0880 fax 949-399-0881 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR A.P.N. 8281-02 9-024 'SBA 1 AHACAH os s"ITE SSD (PRDNDED BT NExi) 714-560-8510 FAX 711 -56D -e513 LOT 51 OF TRACT NO. 42504, IN INE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ED IN BOOK 10 4 PAGES 6 TO 14 OF MAPS. IN THE OFFICE OF INE .CMAP FR2 RECORDER OF IIDCOUNtt. ATFR NCI -11 A ;111 BENCH MAM, SITE NAME ELEVATIONVERTCAl 88 ORTIOMETRIC OATH. ACCURACY IS O MEENEANgFTIOx—DA PHILLIPS RANCH A.P. NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER DRAWN BY: 8281-029-024 DD -664 DAB LATAONG. OF PROPOSED MONOPOLE, CHECKED 8Y: DATE UTIUOE: ]a71'J3" LONGITUDE: -HT+7'33" E 938' LMG 07/06/00 SITE NUMBER SITE DRESS: 24401 DARRIN DRIVE CA6710B DIAMOND BAR. CA 91765-1849 STAMP LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LEASE PARCEL: THAT PORTON OF LOT 51 OF TRACT NO. IDEM. IN THE CDUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. OF CALIFORNIA PER MAP FILED IN BOOK +024, PAGES 6 TO 14 OF MAPS. IN F STATE E OFFICE OF TIE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY y DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS COMMENCING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 66 OF SAID TRACT ND. 42554, ND POINT BEING ON THE 10—EASIEALY RIGHT-OF-WAY UNE OF ARMITOS PLACE 60 "'TMDE' AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP,,, THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHWESIERLY UNE OF SAID LOT 51 AND SAID NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY UNE SOUTH 7740'40" EAST. 26.07 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, HAVING A SAID SOUTHWESTERLY UNE CURRENT ISSUE DATE RADIUS OF 37E.00 FEET: THENCE —EASTERLY ALONG OF LOT 51 AND SAID NORTEASIERLY FKM1OF-WAY LINE AND SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF —WIC' AN ARC UMBM OF 73.58 FEET. A RADIAL UNE TMR,UGN SAID PONT DEARS NORTH 2325'30" EAST: THENCE IEAVINO SAID SONMWESTERLY LINE OF LOT 51 AND SAID NOR'MEASIFRLY RIGHT -OF -WAV LINE NORTH 2328'30EAST, 97.]0 FEET TO ME TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE NORTH 15EAST, IGDD FEET; THENCE SOUTH 4559'45" EAST, 2100 FEET: THENCE SOUTH4a 015" WEST. 1O.DG FEET TO A LINE THAT BEARS SOUTH 4559'x5' EAST THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG SAID UNE uOR' x559'45" WEST. 2]AO FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ACCESS EASEMENT: ISSUED FOR: MAT PORTON OF LOT 51 OF TRACT NO. 42554, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. STATE OF CALIFORNIA PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 1024, PAGES 6 TO 14 OF MAPS. IN E OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, BEING MORE PARTCUTARLY ®® �� DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS a D. -DC FEET WIDE, LUNG NORTHWESTERLY AND NORTHEASTERLY of NEXTECOMMUNICATIONS L METFwOF OLI.OWTNG DESCRIBED LINE: 17275 DERIAN AVENUE COMMENCING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 66 OF SAID TRACT YOSNO. 4258x, 60I FEETxNBE NAS 1"1-G OWNS CM SAID MAP, TTHEEINCE AILING MENSOUT AEE OF MI51ERLY UNE PLACE SOF IRVINE. CAUFORNIA 92614 PH 949 862 2300 FpX 949 862 2313 III LOT 51 AN NDRMEADERLY RIGNT-OF-WAY UNE SOUTH 7740'40" EAST, 26.07 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE. CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, HANNG A HAGUE OF 378.00 FEET. THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUMWESTERLY UNE OF LOT 51 AND SAID NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT -DF -WAY UNE AND SAID CURVE THROUGH APPROVALS A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1179'10" Ax ARC LENGTH OF 73.50 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF 8EMINING. A RADIAL UNE THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS NORM -WED' EAST: APPROVALS INITIALS DATE HENCE LEA11G SND SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF LOT St AND SAID NOTtM TERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY UNE NORM 2]2E]0" EAST. HIM FEET: MENCE NORTH 4470'15' EAST, 10.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 4559'0.5 EAST, 2100 FEET. (ANOLORD LEASING SOEUNEE OF SAID STRIP SH LL BE LENGTHENED OR SHORTENED TO TERMINATE 51. ZONING RF m -I- ON SAID WESTIALY UHE OF LOT E/P LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF UTILITY EASEMENT: C.P.M. THAT PORTON OF LOT 51 OF TRACT ND. 4255,, IN ME COUNTY OF LDS ANGELES. - STATE OF CALIFORNIA PER MAP FILED IN 800K 1024, PAGES 6 TO 14 OF MAPS. IN ME OFFICE OF THE COUNTY FECCPOER OF SAID COUNTY. BEING MORE PARTCULARLY SITE NUMBER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS A $TRIP OF LAND. S.00 FEET IDE.OE. LING NORMWESTERLY AND NORMEASTERLY OF (+ CA67 �p 1 OB ME FOLLOWSDESCRIBED UNE: SITE ADDRESS M COMMENCING AT ME MOST SOUERLY CORNER OF LOT 66 OF SAID TRACT NO. 42554, SAID POINT BEING ON ME NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-CF-WAT LINE OF ARMITOS PUCE 60 FEET KCE AS SHOM ON SND MAP: THENCE ALONG THE SOUMWESTERLY UNE OF SAIDLOT 51 AN 0 NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY UNE SOUM 7740'40" EAST. 24401 DARRIN DRIVE DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765-1849 25.07 FEET TO ME BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY. HAV,NG A RADIUS OF 370.00 FEET: MENCE GGJMEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUMWESTERLT LINE 8281-029-024 F LOT 51 AND SAID NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE AND SAID CURVE MROUGH SHEET NUMBER A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 11'09'10" AN APC LENGM OF 73.58 FEET TO ME TRUE POINT EAST. OF BEGINNING, A RADIAL UNE THROUGH SAID POINT BEARD NORM 23'25'30" MINCE LEAV,NG SAID SOUMWESTTLY UNE OF LOT 51 AND SAID NORMEASTERLT RILHL-OF-WAY UNE NORM EAST 97.10 FEET. MENCE NORM 447015 EAST, IGOG FEET: MENCE SOUTH 4559'45" EAST, 2].00 FEET. SIDEUMES OF SOUTHWESTERLY I01SSAID SOUTH.- LY UNI O1 LOT $RTENED TO TERMINATE GRAPHIC SCALE (wrml A Colilornia Carporalion 1 9 76 2 MccArlhur Boulevard, Suile 120 Irvine, C.111 E, 92612 lel. 949-799-0880 lar 949-399-0881 1820 C. FIRST STREET. SUITE 550 71a-5fi018510 FAr I-580-11 AREA SITE NAME 4ETS. - PHILLIPS RANCH JTENHAS TALL 1 00-664 DJB AOUNTEO LMG 07/06/00 PIPE SITE NUMBER CA6710B STAMP gg0.0 9350 930.0 +. 925 0 CURRENT ISSUE DATE 9200 9150 "D 0 ISSUED FOR: 90,5.0 9000 NISM&E NEXTELCOMMUNICATIONS 17275 DERIAN AVENUE IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614 PH 949 862 2300 FAX 949 B62 2313 I CA6710B 9 24401 DARRIN DRIVE DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765-1849 8281-029-024 1' City of Diamond Bar V�LANNING COMMISSION 11M September 26, 2000 Development Review No. 2000-13 To construct a two-story single family residence with a three car garage, balconies, deck and patio cover for a total of approximately 11,729 square feet. Additional- ly, this request includes a sideretaining wall not to exceed a six foot exposed height. 2818 Water Course DrivC_ (Lot 7, Tract No. 4,7850) wiamond Bar, CA 91765 Miamond Bar West, LLC 3480 Torrance Boulevard, Suite # 300, Torrance, CA 90503 The property owner, Diamond Bar West, LLC is requesting approval of Development Review No. 2000-13 (pursuant to Code Section 22.48.020) in order to construct a two-story single-family residence with a three car garage, balconies, deck and patio cover for a total of approximately 11,729 square feet. Additionally, this request includes a side yard retaining wall not to exceed a six foot exposed height. The project site is part of i •t subdivision approved by CouncilCity on - • 1995. It is located at 2818 Water Course IM(Lot 7 of Tract• + i adjacent • a gated community identified - Country utility/servicesThe project site is a vacant lot sloping down toward the rear into the canyon. It is approximately 89,169 square feet with a pad area of approximately 19,150 square feet. The project site contains easements as follows: for access, public and • portion adjacent to the street; for slope and drainage maintenance purposes within the rear of the lot; for restricted use area immediately adjacent to the buildable pad; for open space purposes within the rear of The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential (RR) Maximum I DU/AC and zoning designation of Singl't Family Residence -Minimum • 1 111 Square Feet(R-1- 20,000). Ili Generally, • • • zones surround the project site: to • - • north1 111 • to the south `• • to the east is the 1 111 • ^ and to the west is the Single Family Residence -Minimum - 9,000 Square • 111Zone. The City's Development Code sets forth a Development Review process. The purpose of this process is to establish consistency with the General Plan through the promotion of high aesthetic and functional standards to complement and add to the economic, physical, and social character of the City. The process will also ensure that new development and intensification of existing development yields a pleasant living, working, or shopping environment and attracts the interest of residents, workers, shoppers and visitors as the result of consistent exemplary design. Pursuant involvefor Development Review is required for residential projects, which • • on parcel additions to structures, and reconstruction projects which are equal to 50 percent or greater of the floor area of existing structures on - or . a minimum 10,000 square feet of combined gross floor area. The proposed residential project is on . - lot with a gross floor. of approximately • square feet. As such, this project requires Development Review and ^ Planning Commission is the review authority. 9 In addition to complying with the City's Development Review process, the proposed project must comply with the conditions of approval for Tract Map No. ?A tract map condition of approval requires that residential dwelling units be submitted for the City's review pursuant to the requirements of the Development Review Ordinance. The Development Review Ordinance is incorporated into the City's Development Code. Development Standards The following is a comparison of the development standards set forth by the City through the map approval process and the project's proposed development standards. CITY/NAP DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PROPOSED PROJECT'S DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS E Lot 7 Lot 7 Setbacks: Minimum Setbacks-., • Front yard - min. 25 ft. from Front yard - 40 ft. from property property line & varying; line; varying from the two adjacent lots; • Side yard - 10 & 15 ft. from pad's 0 Side yard - 18 & 53 ft. from pad's edge with 40 ft. between dwelling edge with 40 & 81 ft. between units; dwelling units; • Rear yard - 25 ft. from pad's edge; 0 Rear yard - 60 ft. from pad's edge/property line; Building Height: Building Height: • Two stories - maximum 35 ft.; • Two stories - 35 ft.; Lot Coverage: Lot Coverage: Maximum lot coverage - 30%; and Maximum lot coverage 11%; and Parking:- Parking: • Two car garage - minimum; • Three car garage; (2 -bays - 201x201). (3 -bays - 101x201 each & 1 -bay 7'x20'; or 2 -bays -101x201 each & 81x201 & 8.5'x 201). The proposed project complies with all the required City/Map development standards. Architectural Features and Colors of The proposed residence's architectural style is Mediterranean. This style is compatible with previously approved residences within Tract No. 47850 and "The Country Estates" due.to the in eclectic architectural style that is existing in this area. 97 A materials/colors board has been submitted which delineates the following: ® Exterior and stucco walls ® Merlex P-124, Ivory Powder (beige) 0 Roof tile 0 Eagle, Alhambra 3555, (terra cotta/cream streaks) ® Fascia and window trims ® Dunn Edwards SP 2750, Phoenix Villa (white) ® Columns and balusters ® Dunn Edwards SP 1., White (off white) ® Accent stone ® Colorado, Belgian Castle -Sunset Blend (beige/tan) The proposed materials/colors board was compared to boards pre- viously approved for homes on Water Course Drive. The comparison indicates that each lot's color scheme is somewhat similar due to the fact that earth tones are being utilized. However, considering the variation in earth tone colors, differences in roof materials/stone accents and variations in architectural styles between the proposed residence and existing residences located on Water Course Drive, the project will provide a desirable environment with good aesthetic use of materials, textures and colors that will remain aesthetically appealing while offering variety. Proposed prominent architectural features/focal points are the residence's front entry with Tuscan/Roman Doric type columns supporting the gable roof, stone accent, balconies and dormers. Furthermore, architectural treatment extends to all sides of the proposed residential structure. Floor Plan A floor plan is included as part of Exhibit "A". The proposed single-family structure's first floor contains an entry with exterior porch, living room, dining room, kitchen with an adjacent dirty kitchen, butler's pantry, second pantry and morning room, exterior patio, service area with linen closet, family room, rumpus room, one bedroom with a bathroom and closet, powder room, pub with bar and wine cellar and three/four car garage. The second floor contains one master bedroom suite with a sitting room, bathroom and wardrobe, three bedrooms with bathrooms and closets, theater, library, storage area, linen area, hall, mezzanine, and exterior balconies. A total of six bedrooms (one bedroom is delineated as a theater) are proposed with a •three/four car garage., The garage is large enough to accommodate three full-size parking bays (10 feet by 20 feet each) with one bay measuring seven feet by 20 feet; or two full-size parking bays measuring 10 feet by 20 feet each and two bays (measuring • 1 feet and 8 feetby 1feet) which will accommodate two compact cars. The driveway could accommodate three to four additional cars.result, believes that the number of bedrooms in relationship to the number of parking spaces that will be provided are adequate. Grading/Retaining Wall The buildable pad was created with the tract's original grading. The original pad elevation of 1006 which will remain the same. The applicant proposes a side yard retaining wall with a maximul exposed height of five feet. This retaining wall will extend A - northerly side yard by approximately 10 feet. It is expected that grading for the retaining wall's development will be minimal. If earthwork is 50 cubic yards or more, the applicant will be required to obtain a grading permit. I • • + 11 +- • On - rear downward slope which is part of - mitigation monitoring landscape plan, oak and walnut trees along with native vegetation exist. However, development of the project sit^ will not affect- to the fact that development will be confined to the existing buildable pad. A landscape/irrigation plan was not submitted with this project's application. The applicant is required to submit a landscape/ irrigation • ... within 60 days of - • • -inspection or Certificate of occupancy issuance for the City's review and approval. This plan is required to reflect the landscape guidelines set forth by Tract No. 47850, plant species, size, quantity and location., Buyers' Awareness Package A condition of approval for Tract No. 47850 requires the preparation of a "Buyers' Awareness Package". This includes but is not limited to: ® Information pertaining to geologic issues regarding the properties; • Wildlife corridors; • Oak and Walnut tree preservation; • The existence and constraints pertaining to Significant Ecological Area No. 15 and Tonner Canyon; • Explanatory information pertaining to restrictions on use of the properties as necessary; ® And, similar related matters. "Buyers' Awareness Package" prospective buyer. effectivenessprogram incorporates a signed receipt by the prospective buyer verifying receipt of the package and that the buyer read the information presented within the package. It is also required that a copy of the receipt be forwarded to the City. To ensure the of program, b. condition •_ approval that the applicant submit a copy of the signed receipt to the City prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or final inspection. In the event the property has not been purchased, the receipt is to be forwarded before approval of future improvements . • a•^ landscaping, ••i • retaining walls, The City's Public Works and Building and Safety Divisions reviewed this project. Their recommendations are within the attached •resolution. The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project is consistent with the previously certified Environmental Impact I*^•• No. " for a• Nos. 47850,- 47851 and 48287 Rccording to the California EnvironmentalQuality ` . • fuidelines promulgated - • pursuant to Section 15162(a) *f Article 11 of the California Code of Regulations. Notice for this project was published in the Inland Valley Bulletin and the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on September 13, 2000. Public hearing notices were mailed to approximately • propertyowners within a 500 -foot..• of project site on September 8, 111. Furthermore,the project sit` was posted with display ••. • on -• •^ 111 and the public noticea posted in three public places on -• •- 111 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 111 Findings of a and conditions of approval listedas within the attached resolution. 0 1. The design and layout of the proposed development is 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); 2. The design and layout of the proposed development will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards; 3. 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; 4. The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing; 5. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious (e.g. negative affect on property values ore resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Ann J. Lungu, AssociaC)e Planner IN Attachments: 1. Draft resolution; 2.- Exhibit "A" ® site plan, floor plan, elevations, sections, and colors/materials board dated September 26, 2000; 3. Tree Preservation Statement date August 23, 2000; and 4 Application. 9 KV pLANNING COMMISSION i •: r°2000 -XX filed1 T . he property owner/ applicant, Diamond Bar West, LLC, has an applicationfor Development Review • 111 for a property located at 2818 Water Course Drive, Diamond Los Angeles• •Hereinafter Resolution, the subject Development Review shall be referred • as the "++ 2. On -• •- 111 public hearin+ notices were mailed to approximately 18property owners of - •rd within a 500 - foot radiusof project. On -• - 111 notification of the public hearing for this project was provided in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bull . etin newspapers. Also on September 13, 111 the public hearing notice was posted in threepublic places within the City of Diamond Bar and the project site was posted with a display board. September , 2000, the Planning Commission of . • • Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Har as follows: 1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 10 lop - identified above in this Resolution is consistent wit previously certified Environmental Impact Report No. 9 for Tract Nos. 47850, 47851 and 48487 according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 and guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15162 (a) of Article 11 of the California Code of Regulations. 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole including the findings set forth below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed project set forth in the application, there is no evidence before this Planning Commission that the project proposed herein will have the potential of an adverse effect on 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 on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: (a) The project relates to a 50 -lot subdivision approved by the City Council on June 6, 1995. The project site is a vacant lot sloping down toward the rear into the canyon. It is approximately 89,169 square feet with a pad area of approximately 19,150 square feet and pad elevation of 1006. The project site contains easements to as follows: for access/public utility and service and sanitary sewer within the front portion of the lot adjacent to the street; for slope in drainage maintenance purposes within the rear of the lot; for restricted use area immediately adjacent to the buildable pad; for open space purposes within the rear of the lots. The downward rear slope contains oak and walnut trees with native vegetation which is part of the Tract's mitigation monitoring landscape plan. • The project site has a General designation of Rural Residential (RR). (c) The project site is within the Single Family Residence -Minimum Lot Size 20,000 Square Feet (8-1- 20,000) Zone. (d) . Generally, the following zones surround the project site: to the north is the R-1-20, 000 Zone, to the south is the Agriculture (AG) Zone; to the east is the R-1-20,000 Zone; and to the west is the Single Family OR (11-.1 A> Residence -Minimum Lot Size 9,000 Square Feet 9,000) Zone. (e) The Application request is to construct a two-story single-family with a three car garage, balconies, deck and patio cover for a total of approximately 11,729 square feet. Additionally, this request includes a side yard retaining wall not to exceed a six foot exposed height. (f) The design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the applicable elements of r Design ^• Guidelines,and development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural criteriafor •. vestingareas (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards or planned developments). Originally, Tract Map No. 47850 was submitted as a tentative tract map. At that time, the City was operating underdraft General Plan. General Plan was adopted on July 25, 1995. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47950 was approved on June 5, 1995. However, this vesting map was designed at 25 percent below the maximum allowable density and has an overall average density of 1.49 dwelling units per . cre which complies with the ' General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential (Maximum I DU/AC). Additionally, the proposed project complies with the General Plan objectives _.. • strategies . • the City's Design Guidelines related to maintaining the integrity • - residential.. • • •+.- space. Furthermore, the proposed project is compatible with the -eclectic architectural style, colors and materials of other homes within Tract No. 47850 and the adjacent "Country Estates." (g) The design and layout of the proposed development wil not interfere with the use and enjoyment o neighboring existing or future development -and wil not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. . . I Tract M No. 47850's Environmental Impact Report No. 91-2, certified by the City, addresses the design and layout of the neighborhood as well as the flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Steeplechase Lane and Water Course Drive and other access roads to the .. adequately -- the project site presented in the Environmentai Impact Report. These private streets are designed to handle minimum traffic 0 created by this gated residential deve le Therefore, the use of a contemplated single residence will not interfere with the use nd enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. (h) The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48.20. Development Review Standards, City Design Guidelines, the City's General Plan, or any applicable specific plan. Proposed prominent architectural of the residence are the front entry with Tuscan/Roman Doric type• ••• • the gable roof,stone accent, balconies an• dormers. _ • extendsarchitectural treatment * all sidesof proposed •e _ structure. The proposed materials/colors board was compared to boards previously approved for homes on Water Course Drive. The comparison indicates that each lot's color scheme is somewhat similar due to the fact that earth tones are being utilized. However, the variationin earthtonescolors, differences in roof materials/stone• styles between the proposed residence and existing residences located on Water Course Drive, the project will provide a desirable environment will provide a desirable environment with good aesthetic use of materials, textures • colors that will remain aesthetically appealing while offering variety. Therefore, the architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48.20. Development Review Standards, City Design Guidelines, the City's General Plan. Additionally, as approved the proposed project will • - compatible with Vesting Tract Map No. 47850's development stan•. • (i) 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, _. will remain aesthetically appealing and will retain a reasonably adequate ^ of ^ As referenced in the above findings and the 0 colors /materials board, the proposed pAW ill c �5 provide a desirable environment for its occupanq� A1 visiting public as well as its neighbors through g rd aesthetic use of materials, texture and color that will remain aesthetically appealing while offering variety in color, texture and a low level of maintenance. (j) The proposed development will not be detrimental to 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; and Before the issuance of any City permits, the proposed project is required to comply with all conditions within the approved resolution and the Building and Safety Division, Public Works Division, and Fire Department requirements. The referenced agencies through the permit and inspection process will ensure that the proposed project is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. (k) The proposed project has I been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); The environmental evaluation'shows that the proposed project is consistent with the previously certified Environmental Impact Report No. 91-2 for Tract Map Nos. 47850, 47851 and 48287 according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15162(a) of Article 11 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Application subject to the following conditions: (a) The project shall substantially conform to site plan, grading plan, floor plan, elevations, sections and colors/materials board collectively labeled as Exhibit "All dated September 26 to the, 2000 as submitted and approved by the Planning Commission, and as amended herein. (b) The site shall be maintained in a condition, which is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement grantei 0 40, herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and r whether during or subsequent to construction shal 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 Dar to provide such services. (c) Sixty days prior to final inspection or issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall submit a landscape/irrigation plan for the City's review ani approval. Said plan shall reflect the landscape guidelines set f•__ by • 47850 and delineate monthsplant species, size, quantity and location. Landscaping/irrigation shall be installed within six of occupancy. (d) Prior to construction, the applicant shall install temporary construction fencing pursuant to the building and Safety Division's requirements along the project perimeter. (e) Prior to final inspection or the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall submit to the City Planning Division written evidence • • the • `r's receipt of Awareness _•- the event no • ^ has purchased mannerthe property, then the receipt shall be submitted before approval of future improvements (i.e., hardscape, landscaping, pool/spa, retaining (f) The single family residence shall not be utilized in ` adverse residencesignificant levels of dust, glare/light, noise, odor, traffic, or other disturbances) upon the neighborhood and environmental setting. Additionally, the single family shall not result• adverse effects on public services or resources. No portion of the residence shall be' rented, used for commercial/institutional purposes, or otherwise utilized as a separate dwelling. The property shall not be used for regulargatherings that result nuisance or create traffic and parking problems in the neighborhood. (g) Side yard retaining wall shall not exceed an exposed height of six feet. P (h) Prior to the issuance of applicant shall submit a delineating top of wall, to surfaces and retaining wal City's review and approval. permits,any city - retaining wall .- of footing ions for (i) Grading plan review and approval shall be required if cut/fill quantities are greater than 50 cubic yards of earthwork. Prior to the issuance of any City permits, the applicant shall submit a complete grading plan in accordance with the City's grading requirements for the City's review and approval. The grading plan shall delineate the following: (1) Existing and proposed topography; (2) All finish surface and finished grade elevation and flow lines; (3) Cut and fill quantities and earth work calculation; (4) Grading plan shall be signed/stamped by a civil engineer, geotechnical engineer, and geologist, as required; and (5) All easements. (j) Fine grade certification shall be required before final inspection or issuance Certificate of Occupancy. applicable prior - issuance of any City applicantpermits, the _ submit a soils report reviewthe City's and approval that incorporates scope of the proposed development and appropriate recommendations for the project's construction. (1) Prior to the issuance of any City permits, the applicant shall submit a proper drainage plan indicating details and sections for the City's review and approval. (m) Before the issuance of any City permits, the applicant shall submit an erosion control plan for the City's review and approval. The erosion control plan shall conform to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards and incorporate the appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's). Additionally, the applicant shall obtain the necessary NPDES permits. (n) The applicant shall be responsible for sewer connection and shall ensure connection with Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and the Sanitation District. M 40 'Op (o) The proposed residence shall comply with the e Energy Conservation Standards. (p) Surface water shall drain away from the proposed residence • •^. ••- (q) The proposed single-family residence is located within "Fire Zone 4" and shall meet all requirements of said zone. (1) All roof covering shall be "Fire Retardant. Tile roof shall be fire stopped at the eaves to preclude entry of the flame or members under the fire. (2) All unenclosed under -floor areas shall be constructed as exterior walls. (3) All openings into the attic, floor and/or other enclosed areas shall be covered with corrosion - resistant wire mesh not less than 1/4 inch or more than 1/2 inch in dimension except where such openings are equipped with sash or door. (4) Chimneys shall have spark arrests of maximum 1/2 inch screen. 1r) Plans shall • ' nform to State and Local Building Code Code)(i.e., 1997 Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, and the 1996 National Electrical requirements. loads(s) Construction plans -shall be engineered to meet wind of 1 exposure. (t) Prior to the issuance of any construction permits, the applicant shall submit construction plans to the Los Angeles County Fire Department for review and approval. (u) The residential structure shall maintain a 7.5 foot setback from the retaining wall proposed on the north side of the project site. (v) This grant is valid for two years and shall be exercised (i.e., construction started) within that period or this grant shall expire. A one-year extension of time 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 Par Development Code. N w This grant shall not be effective for any e until the permittee and owner of the property in ved (if other than the permittee) have filed, within fifteen (15) days of approval of this grant, at the City of Diamond Bar Community and Development Services Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this grant. Further, this grant shall not be effective until the permittee pays remaining City processing fees, school fees and fees for the review of submitted reports. - Department of • Game determines that Fish and ^ - - i Game Code Section 71-1.4 applies to the approval • project, the applicant remit to the City, within five days of grant's approval, a cashierls' check of $25.00 for a documentary . • _ _ • - e _ in connectionand Game Code requirements. Furthermore, if this project is not exempt from a filing fee imposed because the project has m• - than a deminimis impacton • 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: Diamond Bar West, LLC, 3480 Torrance Boulevard, Suite #300, Torrance, CA, 90503. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH OF SEPTEMBER 2000, BY THE Pz-'LANNING COMMISSION • OF DIAMOND Steve Nelson, Chairman I, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular 9 i; meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day Septemb , by the following vote: U.9W1i�. AYES: NOES: ABSENT:, ABSTAIN James DeStefano, Secretary M Signed the herein aescnoea properly-ana perMT-Mr-7—p Date gl n lao GREG DELGADO, President Certification: 1, the undersigned, hereby ceiWfy under penally ofpeijury -that the information herein provided is correct to the best of my knowledge. Print Name RICHARD GOULD (Applicant or Agent) Date ff gn (Applicant Agent) Location 2818 WATER COURSE DRIVE Tract (Strect address or tract and lot number) _L7 Zoning R-1-20 X00 _s 99 /95 3-7 Previous Cases Present Use of Site Use applied for Iq [a Legal description ;all ® e 'p the 1oi��)Ip (s)) Tract No. 47850 Lot No. , in the City of Diamond Bar, aunty of Los Angeles, State o a i�ornia, e1ng a su �vasUon of arca s , an an aporton o+ Parcel 5 of Parcel Map No 1528, filed in Book 26, Pages 19 to 30, inclusive, or arca Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. import If yes, Quantity Export If yes, Quantity The subject property coutdw one or more oak trm, however the app ,,a t g• fir% <3andforoe "" ;fit, wIU take p%hm °,:� ft (3) fea of the outer ddpflne of any oak trm The subject property f 1, t- s mon@ or more oak trew n the appIksmtgates I �wtivity (graft and/or constmedon) will take place within five (5) feet of the ou to mmy activity taft place on the property. I R '° a� o aim .� , m `�: „i. F a � iftha £ - '. .��. w:.a b; „, ��:. � !3 <. � � <!s .� pp Re /ao— CAPPLICAMnZIS M 2 Mat®) KIRYF & RAMA PANSUPJA 2818 WATER COURSE DR. DIAMOND BAR, CA. TRACT NO. 47850 / LOT 07 ON PLOT PLAN S�- I w in 0 i NO/ ni C� I.21 LOMER FLOOR PLAN UPPED FLOOR PLAN xua va•. r -a• u az m< p m O <a UQ aid Lu m >_ WLn W ph0 V1 p� d m < C.Q w O z V U 0 Q� CL d.. rCmp p.Y Urv� fiEr.F; ELEVi<;TIOPJ FRONT ELEVAIM SW.EN4'=t'-0' MCHT ELEVATION LEFT ELEV�TIOfJ Hm N Z O F w J W I H.H./Jv I SHEE " nrill MCHT ELEVATION LEFT ELEV�TIOfJ Hm N Z O F w J W I H.H./Jv I SHEE " Project MEETINGS September 26, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECTS Case # PM Location PC cc PC cc PC cc PC MCUP 2000-6 9/26 10/3 10/10 10/17 10/24 11/7 11/14 ASHAI & ASSOC./ SUNIL KO ADR 2000-17 si 23634 RIDGE LINE ROAD MCUP 2000-09 LKS PH ON HOLD - PER APPLICANT (Converting Storage into Game Room) (Room Additions) CHIU, TON -DEI DR 2000-16 2521 BRAIDED MANE DR. PROCESSING (Single Family Residence) VAR 2000-17 GOULD, RICHARD DR 2000-13 AIL 2818 WATER COURSE PH DAG AM,CHARY DR 2000-15 AJL 1819 Derringer Lane PROCESSING (Single Family Residence) (TRACT 47850) HOUSING ELEMENT JDS CITYWIDE x NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS — CUP 2000-04 JDS 24401 DARRIN DRIVE x (Wireless Telecommunications) DR 2000-10 PARKS/TRAILS MASTER PLAN JDS CITYWIDE X PLATINUM RESTAURANT CUP 99-4 JDS 245 GENTLE SPRINGS PH (Review Conditional Use Permit) TRENTON GROUP - DR 2000-12 SJ . 1440 BRIDGEGATE (LOT 16, PH (Three -Story Office Building) CUP 2000-07 TRACT 39679) VAR 2000-06 I ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS PENDING Case # PM Location PENDING Case # PM Location BHOGAL, SURINP4R DR 2000-11 AJL 23415 PLEASANT MEADOW PROCESSING (Single Family Residence) MCUP 2000-6 MV 2000-6 TP 2000-3 BOURNE, JOHN MCUP 2000-09 LKS 2102 ROCKY VIEW ROAD ON HOLD - PER APPLICANT (Converting Storage into Game Room) CHIU, TON -DEI DR 2000-16 2521 BRAIDED MANE DR. PROCESSING (Single Family Residence) VAR 2000-17 MCUP 2000-15 DAG AM,CHARY DR 2000-15 AJL 1819 Derringer Lane PROCESSING (Single Family Residence) gA\prcject meeting\\doc PH =PUBLIC HEARING X = NOT A PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT MEETINGS Seotemer 26.2000 PENDING Case # PM Location DIAMOND BAR HONDA/ VAR 2000-02 AJI 515 S. GRAND AVENUE ON HOLD - PER APPLICANT ALEXANDER DEVELOPMENT (Freeway Sign) LIPPICH, LESLIE DR 2000-08 AJL 1626 DERRINGER LANE PROCESSING (Single Family Residence) LUAN, JONAH ADR 2000-23 AJL 20839 QUAIL RUN DRIVE PROCESSING (Room Addition) MCUP 2000-13 JCC DEVELOPMENT ZC 2000-01 AJL DIAMOND BAR BLVD PROCESSING (Zone Change to Commercial) PM 10208, PARCEL 2 METRICOM — WVUSD CUP 2000-02 AJL 21400 PATHFINDER PROCESSING (Wireless Telecommunications) MOON, SEONG YEO CUP 2000-06 AJL 20627 GOLDEN SPRINGS DR. PROCESSING (Entertainment — Karoke) SAC HDEVA, EAS ANT ADR 2000-21 LKS 2250 INDIAN CREEK ROAD PROCESSING (Single Family Residence) MCUP 2000-12 MV 2000-13 SCIS DESIGN GROUP ADR 2000-022 Si 24339 SEAQ EN DRIVE PROCESSING (Remodel/Addition) MV 2000-14 ' TOGO'S — ROBERT PARKER CUP 2000-05 LKS 1193 S. DIAMOND BAR Bl. PROCESSING (Dine In MCUP 2000-10 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT JDS CITYWIDE 1 I PROCESSING g:\\project meetingWoc PH = PUBLIC HEARING X = NOT A PUBLIC HEARING STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF DIAMOND BAR On September 22, 2000, at 7:00 P.M., the Diamond Bar Planning Commission will hold a regular meeting at the South Coast Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 East 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, Community and Development Services Department. On September 22, 2000, I posted copies of the Notice for the Regular Meeting of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission, to be held on September 26, 2000, at the following locations: City Hall South Coast Quality Management District Auditorium 21660 E. Copley Drive 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 22, 2000, at Diamond Bar, California. Stella Marquez Community and Development S -lvices Dept. g:\\affidavitpos ting. doc 1 IIIAMOIVD BAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM COMMUNITY & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Stella Marquez, Administrative Secretary SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04 and Development Review No. 2000-10 Planning Commission Meeting — July 11, 2000 MEETING DATE: September 26, 2000 DATE: September 26, 2000 Attached for your review and consideration is the revised plan submitted by Nextel on September 26, 2000. Attachment Z-0 a30vgnN 133HS 4ZO-6ZO—L9Z9 649t—S9LL6 VO 'We ONOWVIO 3ARJ0 NIMV0 tOtrbZ £L£Z Z99 646 XVd 00£Z Z99 646 Hd 4L9Z6 VINNOAIIVO '3NIA81 3nN3AV NVI830 SLZLL SNOIIVOINf1INW00 131X3N ajl�va no3 a� i1Alo 16r N SlLS6 'oN � ��3NJlit•�� ' b/SS339� dHvls r� ®� M 2 onnN 311S 00/90/LO 9Wl 31VO :AG 03H33H3 era 499-00 :J,O NM"G d391N(1N103PONd HON '-y1—y1'H 3WVN 311S £t99-099—hU XV -4 W90-095—tQ SOLZ6 VO 'VNV ViNVS OSS 311nS 'i338is iSNIJ '3 OZ91 1990-66£-6b6 xo} 0990-66£—W 'lal Z19Z6 oluaolg00 'aulAil OZt allnS 'piDAalnog my}iVooyq Z 9 L 6 t uolloaodioo olwolgo0 V out `aanlaalli asp 11111 uosurgoa at tCgC€°9 M 1 • S `' 7T a=VII ( iaaa m ) (pDob ()-gocl O'Qi, 0'S 0 0.0,66 0•S'Z8 p q"to O. 6 'SiNnovq 3dld IIVl ,9 ONIISIX3 NO 031Nnovi SVNN31NV SNIISIX3 'S1Nnovq 3dld IlV1 ,8t M3N NO 031Nnm SVNN31NV 131X3N 03SOd08d 'S13NIOVO 1N3VIdinw V3HV 03SOdO8d ONV DQ�p c o Q 4 vp a p O o 0 'NIVW= ONIdVOSONVI ONI J� File rTvi1, by nninviewed. on— 1 -1 ) k �/ �f and is ready for tGag File re imecl by 2�, and is ready for destr6ction by City Clerk