HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/08/1990AGENDA
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION
WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
BOARD MEETING ROOM
880 SOUTH LEMON STREET
WALNUT, CA
October 8, 1990
7:00 P.M.
......_--.a.v..................lf;:'..,::::�s2::;::'}.., '::>:'>u .. uo.,S.'^.,,;:Soww��;n✓.�:-:42;; Uxdc-$cc:.ccaxwaaa.�S:T:c:Sv'c'w'<:�:-.f
CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, Lin, MacBride,
Vice Chairman Harmony,
Chairman Schey
_ _ _ _.:4-h v x�r .}-::{xIX-v.}:i<-ti ti -Y }[�u:$::$:::%:Y ::_`h*. :yM:X_� _}:}v:•}:n.' :1i.4}:tl :-}}44 }}y}}_.. _ _ } _t:�:.:-}:-}}}i}ii }i:•:i-\::_-a_.}%-:-}
J• r}y-�: $:'j -i vhnY.. }. iv wiAJ!C-$}Y-0ivih ee }h N.iRC$: .v vwve..\vvmYeCv.}iwWa-. }..-v ::�-vwm.r..
I. CONSENT CALENDAR:
The following items listed on the consent calendar are
considered routine and are approved by a single motion.
Consent calendar items may be removed from the agenda
by request of the Commission only:
Approval of Planning Commission minutes of August 27,
1990, and September 10, 1990, and September 24, 1990
II. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS:
This is the time and place for the general public to
address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are
those which do not already appear on this agenda.
III. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
1. Tentative Tract 47722 & CUP/OT 89-338:
(Continued public hearing from September 24, 1990)
A request for approval of a Tract Map and Conditional
Use Permit for Hillside Management Review to allow a
subdivision of an existing 19 acre parcel into 16 resi-
dential lots, and an Oak Tree Permit to remove 10 Oak
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
Page Two
trees. The property is zoned R-1-10,000 and is located
northwest of the intersection of Derringer Lane/Ridge-
line Road.
Applicant: Piermarini Enterprises, Inc.
2. Draft Sian Ordinance:
(Continued public hearing from September 10, 1990)
A revised proposal for an updated Sign Ordinance. Dis-
cussion to focus on proposed sign groups and standards
including Basic Sign Program, Planned Sign Program, Ex-
empt Signs, Prohibited Signs, General Regulations and
Variances.
Applicant: City of Diamond Bar
IV. NEW BUSINESS:
1. Interim Development Control Ordinance Draft
V. ANNOUNCEMENTS:
This time is set aside for any Planning Commissioner to
direct staff regarding any matters to be discussed at
the next regular meeting.
VI. ADJOURNMENT:
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 27. 1990
The Planning Commission
regular session at 7:05
Board Meeting Room, 880
of the City of Diamond Bar convened in a
p.m. in the Walnut Valley School District
South Lemon Street, Walnut, California.
PRESENT: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, Lin,
Harmony and
MacBride,
Chairman
Vice Chairman
Schey
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ALSO PRESENT: Bill Curley, City Attorney
Ron Kranzer, City Engineer
Jack Istik, Assistant City Engineer
Irwin Kaplan, Interim Planning Director
Robert Searcy, Assistant Planning Director
Dawn Anderson, Planning Technician
Steve Koffroth, Planning Intern
MINUTES•
Chairman
Schey
asked the
Commission to
consider
the Minutes
of
the
Special
Study
Session and
the regular
session on
August 13,
1990.
Motion was made by Vice Chairman Harmony and seconded by Commissioner
Grothe to approve the minutes of the Special Study Session on August
13, 1990 and to require the minutes of the regular session be brought
back before the Commission at the next meeting for action.
Motion Carried unanimously.
MATTERS FROM THE PUBLIC:
There were none.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Resolution for CUP 90-P087: Chevron soil remediation.
2. Resolution for Zone Change 89-440: Hotel, restaurant and three
retail structures under a Development Agreement.
Chairman Schey asked that Resolution for 90-0087 be pulled from the
Consent Calendar.
Motion was made by Vice Chairman Harmony and seconded by Chairman
Schey to approve Resolution for 89-440.
Ayes: Commissioner Lin, MacBride, Vice Chairman Harmony and.
Chairman Schey
1
Mays: 0
Abstentions: Commissioner Grothe
Discussion was opened on Resolution for 90-0087.
Vice Chairman Harmony stated that since the August 13th meeting, he
has spoken with the Air Pollution Control District and has additional
information on the different processes available to clean-up the
contaminated soil. There are four (4) different ways of doing this,
none of these is the removal of the soil.
1. Abstraction Unit where the vapors are abstracted through carbon
filters, which the applicant is applying for.
2. Combustion method which is similar to the absorption unit except
for the vapors are burned.
3. Absorption method where the vapors pass through a liquid which
absorbs the hydro carbons.
4. Vapor Condenser where a compressor condenses the vapors into a
liquid form.
All of these methods involve units with motors.
Mr. Gana, corner of Fountain Springs and Rising Star, Diamond Bar, was
concerned with the possible noise created by remediation equipment.
Most of the noise in the area is created by the transient traffic. He
wanted to know why the applicants could not enclose the remediation
equipment in a brick building.
Chairman Schey stated that the applicant is required to construct a
wall around the remediation equipment.
Mr. Searcy stated that it was not specified as to what extend the wall
will be constructed.
Commissioner Grothe stated that Chevron has
submitted
an application
to the Planning
Department and is making an
attempt to
clean up the
problem. Part
of the Conditions of Approval
was that,
at a future
date the noise
emitted fromythe remediation
equipment
was found to be
excessive, the
applicant will take measures
to additionally
mitigate
the noise.
Motion was made by Vice Chairman Harmony and seconded by Commissioner
Grothe to approve the Resolution for CUP 90-0087. MOTION CARRIED
unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING•
1. Subdivision 90-0052 (Vesting Parcel Map 22178), (continued from
August 13th meeting) a subdivision to create 12 lots on 13.35
acres in the CM-BE-UC (Commercial Manufacturing -Billboard
2
Exclusion -Unilateral Contract) zone located at 21600 East Gateway
Center Drive.
2. Subdivision 90-0041 (Vesting Parcel Map 22102), a minor
subdivision to create 2 parcels on 4.39 acres in the CM-BE-UC
(Commercial Manufacturing -Billboard Exclusion -Unilateral
Contract) zone located at 1575 South Valley Vista.
Chairman Schey proposed to open both hearings at the same time
and take testimony on them simultaneously, but take separate
motions.
Mr. Kaplan stated that there were two concerns raised at the
previous meeting which are as follows:
1. Determination of the scope of the Commission's authority
over development within the Gateway Center in light of the
City Council Resolution adopted October 17th.
2. Adequacy of traffic mitigation measures for the Gateway
Center Project.
Staff met with Representatives for the Gateway Center and
indicated to them what staff felt was necessary to update the
traffic mitigation measures to report on the impact of traffic on
two aspects:
1. Pedestrian Program for the center addressing pedestrian
traffic crossing the site rather than walking along the
outside of the center.
2. Update of the entire traffic program which recognizes the
external impacts that come from outside the side as well as
impacts created from changing to the program from within the
site. Staff has recommended that they establish a trip
budget which will allocate a certain number of trips to the
whole development and will identify improvements which need
to be in place. A monitoring program to keep track of what
is happening to the trip budget as development progresses.
The applicant indicated that they would be willing to do this but
felt that they could not provide this information in time for
this meeting and would'be willing to commit to providing this
information at a later date if the approval
is granted at this time. This has been submitted to the City
Attorney.
Bill Curley, City Attorney, stated that in respect to traffic
related impacts the CEQA process allows environmental issues to
be resolved prior to action on the subdivision request. He feels
that it is not wise to condition the approval on impacts not yet
identified nor in place.
In
respect to
the
scope of the
Commission's
authority pertaining
to
reviewing
projects
developed
within the
Gateway Center, the
3
Design Guidelines is the document which has been used to control
development within the Gateway Center. This document is the
document considered by the Council in their Resolution as amended
July 1988 and is the copy that the Commission has been reviewing.
This document does not contemplate a small lot subdivision for
Lot 2. These applications are outside the apparent scope of the
Council's resolution. On this basis, it may be considered that
the Commission and staff are bound by the Council's resolution
which does not provide for this type of development which is now
being proposed.
Alternately, the document does address in the appendix section
various levels of review. The Council's resolution is not clear
as to what the Commission's role is in the review process due to
the fact that it was passed prior to the Commission's existence.
Commissioner MacBride asked Mr. Curley if the Commission could
take action and pass it on to the Council so that they might act
upon it thereby using it to change their resolution in certain
aspects if they wish to.
Bill Curley stated that the only procedure that they can follow
is the one stated in the resolution which states that the Design
Guidelines must be followed and that any changes are to be
submitted to the City for Council's consideration. The
Commission could deny the applications because they do not
conform to the Design Guidelines. This would give the
opportunity to appeal to Council which could serve as the avenue
of Council considering the new proposal and agreeing to amending
the resolution or amending the Guidelines to incorporate this new
subdivision. Alternatively, they could consider a waiver of the
Design Guidelines if they voluntarily chose not to use the
Guidelines and submit themselves to the general Planning process
which the Council should be informed.
The Public Hearing was opened to the applicant.
Mr. Reiling, of Zelman Development, stated that it was his
understanding that they would bring any changes to the project
back before the Commission for additional review.
Mr. Wilkinson, Traffic Engineer, stated that one of the issues
raised at the last meeting was the changing character of the
project and where does the cumulative traffic generation
potential for the project stand now with what was estimated for
the original project. He feels that the peak hour trips of a
project are the most important component. The study shows that
the cumulative trip generation represented in the document for
the a.m. peak hour were 2,450 trips. AQMD is expected to reduce
this number. The p.m peak hour was 2,525 trips. They took all
parcels which have been developed or development has been
committed to and the current cumulative trips for those parcels
are 2,264 to the p.m. peak hour and 2,300 for the a.m. peak hour.
The applicants are willing to complete any additional studies the
Commission might desire because these will only confirm that the
current studies are accurate.
Vice Chairman Harmony asked what was the estimated daily trips
for the center.
The applicant stated the budget established 18,290 trips and
current trips for those parcels known are about 17,359.
Vice Chairman Harmony asked the applicant if the Kaiser facili-
ties proposed for the center will be a typical medical care
facility.
The applicant indicated that this site will only be used for day
care medical needs. There will be facilities developed in
Ontario to accommodate more serious matters.
Commissioner Grothe asked if the study addressed the layout of
this project. He feels that the traffic in this center typically
drive too fast. He was concerned with the traffic safety in this
area.
The speed limit for the center is posted for 40 MPx and with this
project it will be posted for 35 MPH subject to further
modifications.
Commissioner Lin asked what was the approximate percentage of
useable land that has been developed.
The applicant stated that about one half of the land has been
developed and another 2/3 has been committed to.
Twenty-five percent of the parcels are undeveloped with no future
plans for development at this time.
Vice Chairman Harmony asked if, with smaller parcels, there will
be underground parking.
The applicant stated this will be up to the tenants but he does
not anticipate there will be structured parking.
Byron Pinchart, Hill-Pinchart,. presented design guidelines for
the site. He stated they have discussed providing pedestrian
accesses and the applicants want to provide sidewalk accesses for
each site. In addition, they will provide places to cross the
street and.will be bringing the court yards of the buildings
together. This site was designed to become the center of the
park.
Vice Chairman Harmony asked for definition of 50 percent
coverage.
The
applicant stated
.5 FAR means having
a 1/2 acre of buildable
area.
Vice Chairman Harmony asked if this would limit the size of the
buildings.
5
Mr. Pinchart stated that economics would regulate small buildings
in order to provide setbacks and parking. Normally it is not
economical to building parking structures.
Vice Chairman Harmony asked if floor area adds to total coverage
of the site.
Mr. Pinkart indicated yes. Most will not be .5 FAR.
Mr. Keener stated the slope will be flattened and a 25 foot
landscape easement will be included.
Those in favor of the project.
Darrel Snyder, resident of Diamond Bar, is in escrow on Lots 3
and 4. He likes the small lot concept. His architect drew up a
concept of what he could build on the lots. Due to the required
setbacks and the lot size, only small buildings would be
feasible.
Those in opposition of the project.
There were none.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Commissioner Grothe wants to insure the project meets all the
requirements. He feels the small buildings will mandate side
walks along the buildings and the Design Guidelines are too
general and do not have high standards. He would like to see the
Design Guidelines amended to be consistent with the buildings
currently in existence. He does not object to
small lots and asked if landscape will be a common area.
Applicant
stated Zelman
Development
can assess tenants if they do
not keep
the landscaping
up.
Bill Curley asked Mr. Reiling a few questions. He stated that
the appendix talks about the planning review board. The
preliminary plan section talks of submitting the preliminary
plans which include building elevation, colors, finishes etc. to
the Architectural Committee, Supervisory Schabarum, Diamond Bar
Municipal Advisory Committee and Trans America. He asked, with
the incorporation of the City of Diamond Bar and the Council's
ratification of the Guidelines through a resolution, would the
other entities which were part of the review process be
eliminated to only the Architectural Committee?
Mr. Reiling stated up until now, including the building
currently under construction, it went through all of these
reviews, except MAC, which was no longer in existence.
Mr. Curley stated that if there was a switch of
player to player
from the County
to the City
it would seem like MAC would be
replaced by the
Commission.
This would clarify
the Commission's
3
role in reviewing projects and is something that should be
discussed with Council.
Commissioner Lin asked as to the placement of the utility
easement.
Mr. Reiling stated that the utilities will be placed in the
street and parcels will be separately served. Each site has
utility stubs.
Vice Chairman Harmony asked Mr. Reiling what happened to the
large lot concept.
Mr. Reiling stated that the market has indicated that the smaller
lots are more viable. Many people ask for smaller lots.
Vice Chairman Harmony asked if this will change Diamond Bar's
Development Standards.
Mr. Reiling stated it would not.
Vice Chairman Harmony stated the large lot concept was approved
by City Council and MAC. If the center transforms from an
industrial park to an office complex, what are the impacts on
sale tax revenues, property values, and income earnings for the
City and is there documentation.
Vice Chairman Harmony does not want to approve the project
without the impacts identified for infrastructure.
The building next to City Hall has obtained permits and was
approved by the County, prior to City's incorporation.
Mr. Kaplan feels there have been enough changes to require a new
traffic study. This is the first time the applicant has
indicated the traffic study is current. The applicant is willing
to provide and conduct studies to prove this is current
information. Mr. Kaplan would like to see the effects of the
growth levels in the area of Chino Hills to include the site
changes. (update instead of new plan).
Commissioner MacBride is glad that concept has changed and is in
favor of smaller lots ,and the pedestrian walk ways.
i
Commissioner Grothe stated that before the final map is approved
the grading must be approved.
Chairman Schey wants to see the center developed as it has begun.
He is uncertain about what has to go before the City and what
does not. He feels that the Guidelines need to be amended before
the subdivision is approved. He is in favor of denying the
negative declaration due to the inability to mitigate unknown
impacts and deny the subdivision.
7
Ron Kranzer said the Commission can, if not too specific,input a
condition to get a modified design guidelines to be approved by
Council.
Vice Chairman Harmony wants to address the Commissions concerns
of the applicant to the Council, and wants to ask the applicant
to revise their plans to be approved by the Council. This action
will have Council define what they want the Commission to do.
Chairman Schey wants the key project of the community, developed
in a correct manner and is concerned about the overall process.
By approving the map, the guidelines are amended, suggesting from
a process stand point, the map needs to be amended into the plan
first, and then returned to the Commission to do a subdivision
map in conformance with the general plan. He would like a motion
denying the mitigating negative data due to the inability to flag
conditions to mitigate impacts not readily anticipated. Deny the
tentative tract for the reason it is not in compliance with the
design guidelines. In the resolution, recommend to the City
Council they reconsider their resolution, approving the new
guidelines due to non compliance of the Design Guidelines
applications as was approved. It is further recommended the City
work with the developer, to establish guidelines in a more
common, understandable form, taking out the ambiguities and
setting it up in such a way both the City and the developer are
comfortable in the development of the project. Add to the
resolution, the reaffirmation the City is desirous in working
with the developer within a reasonable time line.
Mr. Reiling has no problem working with the City Council revising
guidelines and asks if the resolution be designed in such a way
that both Council and Commission are working on the same tract so
the map is not stopped.
Ron Kranzer states it is policy for all final maps to go to the
Council. In this particular case it would have to go before the
Council because offering dedication of right of way.
Chairman Schey is uncomfortable amending the general plan by
subdivision. He has no problem with the physical layout but a
problem with the process of approving a tentative map and then
the guidelines rather than amending the guidelines and then doing
the tentative map.
Bill Curley adds generally you don't vary from the plan without
having thought out that plan and make the modifications.
Motion was made by Chairman Schey and seconded by Commissioner
MacBride to deny the mitigating negative declaration based upon
the inability to apply conditions to mitigate impact not fully
understand at this time.
The motion is opened to discussion.
Jack Istik, Assistant City Engineer, points out the time and
money wasted by delaying action.
Mr. Reiling asks again to keep the map and have, if possible,
both areas working concurrently.
Commissioner MacBride asks how to talk to the Council if there is
a concern. An agreement was entered into in a time warranting a
change. He wants to facilitate the efforts of people making an
honest effort to develop property properly.
Bill Curley indicates the clearest approach would be to direct a
high standing staff member to add to the agenda at the next
available Council meeting whatever the Commissions pleasure may
be. City Council has put the Commission into a situation the
current documents don't provide for. It's unclear whether to
amend the general plan using the language "by Development Plan"
first, or whether it can be done concurrently.
Commissioner MacBride suggests detailing to the Council, the
concerns and recommendations on how to improve what seems to be
an impossible situation. He wants to see this facilitated and
done properly.
Commissioner Grothe recommends denying the resolution with a
recommendation to Council, without prejudice. The applicant can
come back immediately after talking to the Council and resubmit.
This would accomplish the task Commissioner MacBride suggested
and detail our concerns without prejudice, so Council would know
it wasn't approved.
Chairman Schey notes the denial would show urgency in the matter
Motion made for the denial of the Resolution. Motion fails.
Commissioner Grothe motions to approve the tenant parcel map with
the conditions being a review of the Design Guidelines and
modifications approved by the Council, a preparation of the
development agreement limiting the floor area ratio to .5 to 1
parcels, and a pedestrian plan with some access across the
parcel, to be worked out with staff. The Commission and Council
should have a site plan to review and the Design Guidelines in
place prior to any final map, cover all parcel lots. Another
condition being the project doesn't exceed budget and proper
documentation be presented to our engineering department to
justify it doesn't exceed the budget.
Vice Chairman Harmony states the Intent of Motion agreement would
make all City Ordinances and Planning Commission review all
developments on each and every parcel. These parcels, as the
become developed, would come back before this Commission. They
would have to comply with all signing and other normal,and
nominal zoning ordinances.
Chairman Schey states the architectural structures should exceed
at least three stories.
Mr. Reiling states affirms three stories to be economically
feasible.
The Public. Hearing is open for discussion.
There is no comment.
The Public Hearing is now declared closed.
Motion was made by Chairman and seconded by Commissioner MacBride
to approve mitigated negative declaration.
Ayes: Commissioner Lin, Commissioner MacBride, Commissioner
Grothe, Vice Chairman Harmony
Nays: Chairman Schey
Motion Carried.
Chairman Schey reminds the Commission of the motion made by
Commissioner Grothe and Commissioner MacBride seconded.
The motion is open to discussion.
Bill Curley stated the resolution is becoming very complex, and
wording to accommodate the Commissions thoughts must be carefully
put together and not something done after the fact. He
alternatively suggests continuing one last time with
understanding the purpose of the following meeting would be to
pick apart the resolution and to make sure it says what you want
it to say as a Commission. Interpretation by staff could result
in surprises and direct staff to draft resolutions within the
guidelines and brought back to the Commission for further
discussion.
Public Hearing declared closed for Subdivision 90-0041.
Motion made by Commissioner Grothe to include his amendment.
Ayes: CommissionerMacBride, Commissioner Grothe,
Commissioner Lin, Vice Chairman Harmony
Nays: Chairman Schey
Motion Carried.
3. PP 90-0070: (continued hearing) AR Investments, Inc. - Family
Dining Restaurant designed with maximum occupancy of 285 persons
on a 104,700 square foot lot located in Gateway Corporate Center
at 21671 East Gateway Center Drive.
Vice Chairman Harmony summarizes issues chiefly surrounds
possible future subdivision of the lot. Beyond that it was a
provision of additional parking spaces for any future plan use
that would maximize the available areas within the restaurant,
and also the architectural materials and features as would be
used.
Ding Velasquez, representing AR Investments for Dr. Omar's
Restaurant, said two issues were a problem at the last hearing:
1. Not enough material was presented.
2. Felt the Commission was hung up on the use of the mezzanine
level.
The owners agree to provide 8 additional parking spaces. O£ the
95 required parking spaces,we have now 104 total, to include
standard spaces with 26 compact spaces.
Chairman Schey asks Rob Searcy how the determination of 8
additional parking spaces were computed relative to the available
mezzanine space area.
Rob Searcy, Assistant Planning Director, says the computation is
based upon an approximation of the capacity or occupancy of the
430 sq. feet on the upper level of the mezzanine. Based upon
that, additional parking spaces are required.
Ding Velasquez describes the restaurant through a demonstrated
model so Commissioners can visualize the plan.
Chairman Schey understands the Commission has before them, an
Environmental Assessment Conditional Use Permit in Developmental
Review. The Developmental Review primarily being associated with
the architectural designs the renderings, the color boards, the
models and so on. The use itself is consistent with the design
guidelines we so rigorously reviewed.
Bill Curley states this is the only lot explicitly oriented to be
a restaurant and that use is not to be changed. It's in the CCR
that,in perpetuity, this will only be a restaurant sign.
Chairman Schey has staff review the Planting Plans for
consistency with their design guidelines.
The Public Hearing is ,ppen.
No comment.
The Public Hearing is declared closed.
Chairman Schey asks for further comment or question from the
Commission.
Commissioner Grothe asks if the metallic tile on top of the
gazebo represent any kind of visual impact to the freeway or to
residents of other buildings as a reflective surface.
11
Ron Kranzer, City Engineer, doesn't think so because of the
orientation of the facility.
Commissioner Grothe asks if the canopies are of sufficient fabric
fire retardant.
Ron Kranzer has not reviewed them but the Building Department
would review this type of facility and would also be under the
Fire Department scrutiny.
Chairman Schey says the canopy material was initially presented
to the Fire Department during the One Star Meeting and it had an
acceptable rating.
Ding Velasquez didn't bring sample of material. He explains it
is a tedlan clad vinyl coated polyester. The tedlan melts on
fire but does not fuel fire, and is non toxic.
Irwin Kaplan, Interim Planning Director, states there's a
substantial amount of unused parcel that is relatively level.
The CUP should retain it as open space or for parking in sometime
in the future if it seems adequate. Would like this as a
condition of approval.
Jack Istik reiterated his aversion to compact parking spaces. If
there is additional flat lot as indicated, it can be easily
solved in parking around. The applicant has done a unique job
in breaking up the large wall along freeway, with designs.
Commissioner MacBride asks how the walkway integrates with the
adjoining parcel,and if there is a difference in elevation.
Ding Velasquez says the restaurant is higher than the hotel and
the owners are negotiating with Days Hotel to build a pedestrian
bridge from the Hotel to the Restaurant, for decorative purposes.
At this point, it is just an idea but there will be pedestrian
access.
Motion is made by Chairman Schey and seconded by Commissioner
MacBride to approve the mitigate negative deck declaration.
Motion is carried unanimously.
Motion is made by Chairman Schey and seconded by Commissioner
MacBride to approve the Conditional Use Permit and designer view
as submitted with the condition that the CUP retain additional
flat lot for parking in future use.
Motion is Carried unanimously.
4. Conditional Use Permit 90-00710 A request to install additional
seating and enclose an open patio adjacent to the Jojos
Restaurant, property is zoned CPD (Commercial Planned
Development), located at 20955 Colima Road.
12
Vice Chairman Harmony states the application is for the enclosure
of an exterior patio. The added addition is about a 17% increase
overall in the seating and provides additional 226 sq. ft. of
interior dining area. Currently the approval for the permit of
this site was approved subject to 57 parking spaces being
provided. The 226 additional sq. ft. will not increase their
parking requirement to exceed what they presently have. It is a
small addition and planning staff feels the configuration of the
site and location is adequate. The space is not currently used
for dining.
Commissioner Grothe questions the 17% increase in seating area
and asked if it is the same as the floor area. He noticed
parking is tight and people are parked along the wall.
Vice Chairman Harmony describes the area as sort of an atrium and
was not included in the calculation for the 10% minimum required
in landscaping.
The Public Hearing is now open to the applicant.
Scott Gregor, Project Manager for the Jojos Restaurant, states
basically their plan is to go in and excavate out the existing
planting area, and put in a flat roof on the unit, and not to
take away from the way the building looks as it sits right now.
They are adding 18 seats, removing a booth to cut through into
the atrium area, and installing a circular window in the existing
circular opening.
Chairman Schey
asked Mr. Gregor
if he had
any feeling on how
parking works
for the restaurant
now.
Scott Gregor knows it is tight at times and thought they could go
through and scale down some to compacting to pick up a few more
additional spots.
Chairman
Schey asks staff if there
are compact
stalls figured
into the
parking scheme right now.
Staff would imagine so and wonders if the parking lot could be
redesigned to get more parking.
h
Those in favor of the project.
There were none.
Those in opposition of the project.
There were none.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Commissioner Grothe points out there doesn't appear to be enough
parking and wonders if parking along the wall is prohibited for a
fire lane.
13
Vice Chairman Harmony notes the compact stalls may be an
appropriate way of solving the parking problem.
Chairman Schey states the project does seem to meet parking
standards but the Commission has the option, through the CUP
process in requiring other than the standard.
Commissioner MacBride asks if calculations, on the 10%
requirements, for landscaping was verified.
Chairman Schey replies the County approved them but he hasn't
verified the landscaping was still intact.
Rob Searcy notes the parking out on the street has been
eliminated just recently.
Motion made by Commissioner MacBride and seconded by Vice
Chairman Harmony to approve the negative declaration.
Ayes: Commissioner Lin, Commissioner MacBride, Vice Chairman
Harmony, Chairman Schey
Nays: Commissioner Grothe
Motion Carried.
Motion made by Vice Chairman Harmony and seconded by Commissioner
MacBride to approve the CUP and subject to signing fire lane in
accordance with the fire department regulations staff review of
the landscape standard and the projects adherence to the
requirements.
The Motion is open to discussion.
Commissioner Grothe concerned with the elimination of parking by
the wall, the elimination of parking on street and the added
seating, where people will park.
Vice Chairman Harmony points out if there is no parking space,
one doesn't stay, thereby not creating any problem.
Ayes: Commissioner,Lin, Commissioner. MacBride, Vice Chair-
man Harmony, Chairman Schey
Nays: Commissioner Grothe
Motion Carried.
5. Tentative Tract 47722 & CUP/OT 89-338: A request to allow a
subdivision of existing 19 acre parcel into 16 residential lots,
a Conditional Use Permit for hillside management review and an
Oak Tree Permit to remove 10 oak trees to be replaced with twenty
(20) 15 gallon trees, property is zoned R-1-10,000 (residential
10,000 square foot minimum lot size) and located on the northwest
corner of the intersection of Derringer Lane and Ridgeline Road.
Chair/Schey asks for the staff report.
Ron Kranzer, states for the record, as such the environmental
consultant, Don King, has not had a chance to respond as talked
about earlier and wants to have an opportunity to compare
responses. He further commented, Don King pointed out, only
deficiencies of the EIR were mentioned. It was not staffs intent
to discredit the EIR.
The summarization of the project is given:
The project is a 16 unit, 19 acre single family hillside
subdivision which is zoned R-1-10,000 sq. feet per dwelling unit.
The CUP requires the Commission to make certain findings relative
to the project, will not have an adverse effect on the healthkey
comfort, it will not be materially detrimental to the use
enjoyment valuation of property of other persons, it will not
jeopardize or endanger and so on... The proposed site is adequate
in size and shape to accommodate yard walled fences. The
proposed site is adequately served by highway streets and by
other public, private service facilities. This is the general
framework for the CUP evaluation. The project itself will
require grading on the site, which is estimated at 204,000 cubic
yards which is to be balanced on the site and be filled up to 95
feet in height, 80 feet in depth. The 80,000 cubic yards is
included as remedial work to stabilize the road. The proposed
project road would enter from Derringer Lane, private and site
plan indicates slope of 15% on the road. It is not possible to
determine the horizontal and vertical sight distances along the
road relative to individual driveways.
There are a series of comments on the EIR:
1.
The driveways access as opposed to main road access to some
of the parcels.
2.
Crib walls proposed to retain slope, some of which are high,
appear to be in excess of 35 feet at one high point behind
the Coyote Springs properties.
3.
The relocation of a 30" gas line and questions about how
that will be handled.
4.
There is an intermittent blue line stream is on the USGS
map, state identified, and significant because of the
contribution to the ecosystem. The impacts are not clear on
the EIR and not eqxactly sure what the relocation or
alteration of that stream would be.
5:
Not sure from the EIR how much of slope is above the 25%
which identifies the amount over 50%. The balancing of the
grading on site may or may not have offside effects.
6.
There wasn't a visual analysis which identifies the impact
of the project of the changes might be seen from a distance
or from adjoining properties.
7.
There could have been more discussion on the use of
landscaping using water efficient plants.
8.
No response from the Fire Department relative to the
property on the cul-de-sacs and deep slopes on the property.
9.
There are issues relative to cumulative impacts that could
be expanded in the EIR.
10. There is a lacking of mitigation monitoring program as
required under AB 31-80. The law states it is not enough to
identify the impact and mitigation measures but also need a
program to make sure the mitigation measures will be
instituted and a monitoring program to make sure it happens.
11. Talked about the conformance to the community plan -
maintain the rural setting, and minimize the alteration of
the natural terrain.
12. In conclusion, under the CUP, the Commission may approve it,
approve it with conditions or under CUP fields. If the
Commission feels it is inconsistent with the community plan
and CUP requirement, the Commission can deny CUP. The
Commission can continue the hearing or it can take action on
it.
There are 2 issues on the table:
1. The specific project before the Commission.
2. The larger issue of policy relative to the development of
the hillside properties.
The Public Hearing is now open to the applicant.
Don King, Environmental Consultant, states his office prepared
the environmental report. He requests a continuance until the
next meeting. The staff report did not get to his office on
time. He was unable to respond to everything in the report and
would like to work with staff to have adequate information
available. They are trying hard to do the project the right way,
and states he can begin the presentation but would prefer to wait
until all information is available first.
Chairman Schey has no problem granting continuance but would like
to open the Public Hearing for comments so that those comments
could also be addressed at a later date.
The Public Hearing is open to the audience.
Those in favor for the project.
Lorraine Repucci, resident of Diamond bar, employed for 5 years
at the YMCA and member of the Community Club at school, would
like to give a favorab;e character reference for Frank Piermarini
and commend him for all his support within the community and the
quality of his architectural structures.
Those in opposition of the project.
Claudia Huff, teacher in Diamond Bar, residing on lot 86 on plan
at 1641 S. Fire Hallow Drive, appreciates the lovely architect
she also asks for information of the blue line stream referred
to.
Don King comments the intermittent blue line stream means it only
gets wet when it rains. Blue line stream identifies the natural
drainage course,.and the potential for Riparian Habitat, where
16
plants and animals congregate and may be worth preserving. King
apologizes his staff misread the blue line stream and the project
would not affect it in any way.
Claudia Huff is concerned the retaining wall seems high. Perhaps
by redoing the lot line and building less homes, some of the
retaining walls could stay lower for appearance sake. She would
also like to know what mitigation measure was the AB 31-80.
Ron Kranzer states anytime there is an impact needed to be
mitigated, there needs to be a mitigating monitoring program.
The City identifies the mitigation measures as a condition of
approval and then the monitoring program would be attached to
that.
Bob Huff, resides with Claudia Huff, would like to see Diamond
Bar preserve some of their hills and would like to see the
Commission, if not at this particular case, in the future, show
prudence in allowing too many hills developed.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Motion made by Chairman Schey and seconded by Vice Chairman
Harmony to continue the matter to the next regular meeting.
The motion is open to discussion.
There were none.
Motion is Carried unanimously.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
1. Distribution Draft Master EIR for Tentative Tracts 47850 47851
and 48487. Comprehensive environmental report for three
tentative tract applications for 120 lots located in The Country.
Technical reports are available for Commission review at City
Hall. Applicant recommends that the hearing be scheduled for
September 24, 1990.
Chairman Schey states each Commissioner received the
environmental impact report for 3 tentative tracts. The
applicant recommends the hearing to be September 24, 1990. He
asks Irwin Kaplan if the date mentioned is a reasonable time
frame for him.
Irwin Kaplan states at this point, he refers not to make a
recommendation at this date.
Chairman Schey asks if there are any other questions on this
Information Item.
There were no comments.
17
,ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Commissioner MacBride asks staff if the Commission was on cable
television.
Staff responds yes.
Jack Istik reiterates his proposal to eliminate compact parking.
ADJOURNMENT•
There being no further business to come before the Commission, Motion
was made by Chairman Schey and seconded by Commissioner MacBride and
carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 12:20 p.m. to the next
regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on September
10, 1990 to be held at the Walnut Valley Unified School District Board
Room, 880 N. Lemon Avenue, Walnut, California at 7:00 p.m.
ATTEST:
Elizabeth Myers
(Data Forms Management)
-David Schey
Chairman
F�:3
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 10� 1990
CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Harmony called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m. in the Walnut Valley School District Board Meeting
Room, 880 South Lemon Street, Walnut, California.
PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance
ALLEGIANCE: by Vice Chairman Harmony.
ROLL CALL: Commissioner Grothe, Commissioner Lin, Commissioner
MacBride, and Vice Chairman Harmony.
Chairman Schey absent (excused).
Also present were Planning Director James DeStefano,
Interim City Planner Director Irwin Kaplan, Planning
Technician Ann Lungu, City Engineer Ron Kranzer,
Assistant City Engineer Jack Istik, and Secretary Peggy
Sartin.
MATTERS FROM THE There were none.
AUDIENCE:
CONSENT CALENDAR: VC/Harmony
presented
the Consent
Calendar and requested
Item No's 3
and 4 be
removed.
C/Grothe moved and VC/Harmony seconded to approve the
Consent Calendar with the exclusion of Item No's 3 and 4.
Motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MINUTES: VC/Harmony asked minutes of August 13, 1990 page 32, be
amended to read, "VC/Harmony stated that the Planning
Commission should follow City Councilman Kims lead and
have Commission policies, like Council policies, be
numbered and recorded."
C/Lin stated, page 1 of the minutes, should show herself
as absent.
VC/Harmony moved and C/Grothe seconded to adopt, as
corrected, the minutes of August 13, 1990. Motion
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Subdivision VC/Harmony requested the report from Staff.
90-0041 (Vesting
Parcel Map 22102) Interim City Planner Irwin Kaplan, noted the
Subdivision changes the Planning Commission requested in
90-0052 (Vesting the resolution:
Parcel Map 22175) 1. A 3 story height limit for the Gateway Corporate
Center.
2. A floor ratio of 500.
3. A restriction in uses on site limited to commercial
related uses not industrial uses.
4. The signage to be governed by the sign regulation
of the community.
5. A pedestrian walkway to facilitate pedestrian
movement around and across the site.
6. A Trip Allocation Monitoring to assure the center
remains in the existing Trip Budget.
September 10, 1990 Page 2
7. A review of each project by the City of Diamond Bar
for conformance to the revised regulations
including site plan reviews.
Irwin Kaplan stated the staff has met with the
representative of the Zellman Development Company and
related to the Commission the recommendations made:
1. There would be a 3 story height limit, throughout
the entire Gateway Center,with the exception of:
a. Parcels 1 and lA - AQMD facility already
there and one under construction to be
an approximate 5 story structure.
b. Parcel 3 - the Days Hotel already built.
c. Parcel 23 - a vacant parcel opposite the
AQMD fronting Golden Springs.
d. Parcel 4 - Dr. Omars Restaurant, at
staffs recommendation, because the
Commission approved at 2 stories.
2. The applicant suggested a corollary increase, in
density to 65%, for these parcels for which 5
stories would be permitted. (a 65% floor area
referring to density and not to lot coverage)
3. The project will conform to whatever sign
regulations the City adopts.
4. No pedestrian walkway system was recommended
because the applicant felt the grade differentials,
the differences between destinations, and the
handicap access requirements limited the usefulness
of a pedestrian circulation system which would
traverse the parcel rather than run along the
perimeters.
5. The applicant felt it may be appropriate to allow
the 5 story height limit to be exceeded for certain
parcels, only if approved by the City. By allowing
the option, the City could decide at a later date,
a 9 story building was in the best interest of the
City.
6. The applicant agreed each project would be reviewed
by the City.
7. The applicant recommended, whatever is formalized,
should be embodied in the Development Agreement.
8. Staff felt it would be in the applicants and the
Citys long term best interest if the appropriate
uses would be office, retail, restaurant, hotel and
related uses, which states the intent and
encompasses the intent.
Irwin Kaplan stated other considerations include the
parking requirements, a meeting with the City Engineer to
review original conditions in respect to roads and
sidewalks, and the applicants revised set back program
for the proposed parcels.
September 10, 1990
Page 3
VC/Harmony asked the Commission if they would like to
proceed and advised, in this case, it is acceptable to
proceed and the changes didn't represent much of a
divergence.
VC/Harmony asked the Interim City Planner what the new
map represented.
Irwin Kaplan reminded the Commission it is appropriate to
ask the applicant for specific information.
VC/Harmony, with the consensus of the Commissioners to
continue, asked the applicant to come forward and explain
the changes.
Byron Pinkart, of Hill/Pinkart Architects. is the master
plan architect on the project for the Zellman Development
Company. He explained there was no original map of Lot
2, therefore, the setbacks shown are setbacks taken from
some of the other lots on the property and, in fact, did
not relate to the setbacks being established by Zellman
Development on the smaller lots. He stated, the setbacks
which are different because the lots are so small, now
have double sided lots with streets on each side but are
only accessible on one side. He explained the difference
between the two maps are; Lots 2a and 21 building setback
remain the same but the parking setback is reduced from
25 feet to 15 feet; on smaller Lot 2, 2b, 2c,etc., the
building setback has been reduced from 45 feet to 25 feet
and the parking setback down to 15 feet; and on the
internal drive, the parking setback remains at 15 feet
and the building setback enlarges to 25 feet with the
setback identified between lots to remain the same.
VC/Harmony asked if the City Engineer has been able to
review these setbacks.
Irwin Kaplan advised the Commission it is not appropriate
to review the setbacks now. He stated it is for the
Commissions information only and not an action which is
part of the barcel map approval.
VC/Harmony contended the setbacks come under the
Development Agreement which the resolution only alludes
to or recommends.
VC/Harmony felt, Item VI on through the document, were
essentially boiler plate type of issues, with the
exceptions of Items XVIII and Items XXIV. He wanted to
deal individually with Items I through V, starting at
paragraph 7, Subsection I.
Irwin Kaplan specified Items 2 and 4, under the
Planning Commissions Recommended Actions, are
September 10, 1990
Page 4
inappropriate and should be stricken from the resolution.
As requested from the Commission, each Item is reviewed
for the Resolution:
I. The AQMD , Days Hotels, and the vacant parcels on
Golden Springs will have a floor ratio of 65% and
all other parcels have a maximum of 50%, and should
also include the aggregate development for Gateway
Center should not exceed a floor ratio of 50%.
II. Height limit of aforementioned parcels could go as
high as nine (9) stories or 150 feet with the Citys
approval.
VC/Harmony clarified the proposed addition to the
resolution provides a mechanism for the applicant to come
back and ask for larger buildings.
Irwin Kaplan explained the addition allows for
flexibility and if deleted, future sites would call for
a change in the Developmental Agreement.
C/Grothe had no problem not deleting the addition to the
resolution but did ascertain it leaves the community of
Diamond Bar with a possibility of a nine (9) story
building without real work, from the developers, of
getting one through.
C/Lin pointed out the loop hole in that eventually the
issue will have to be resolved in order to obtain City
approval.
VC/Harmony emphasized, the importance of the discussions,
was to avoid extraordinarily tall buildings and to
establish the appearance of the property for the future.
He asked the Commission to delete the addition.
C/MacBride concurred with VC/Harmonys thoughts and added
the addition implies a willingness to consider it, and
suggests deleting it.
III. Trip Budget and Trip Monitoring Mechanism means the
square feet of every building currently on site,
must be known, and there must be a trip generation
character assigned to determine how many trip
search are generating, to determine how much of the
Trip Budget is being utilized.
IV. All development in the Gateway Corporate Center
shall be subject to the Citys review and approval
process.
V. All buildings, except duly noted parcels, will be
three (3) stories. Story is defined to mean the
September 10, 1990
Page 5
floor plate of the first occupiable floor to the
major roofline. (excluding subterranean basement,
or a retaining wall)
VI. - XVII. These are all Items requested by other agencies
routinely incorporated into the resolution.
XVIII. This should be deleted because it is residual from
the original draft.
XVIV. This is deleted because there is no proposed public
dedication.
XX. This is deleted because there is no public street
which intersects the Gateway Center Drive,
Assistant City Engineer Jack Istik stated, on Item 19 on
the resolution for a 12 unit subdivision, the staff is
comfortable with the street right of way width as
proposed by the applicant shown on the tentative map. It
also provided for 2 lanes of traffic and parking. He
continued to inform the Commission to strike Item 20, as
mentioned, because of the intent to post a 30 mph design
speed a Gateway Center Drive and Copley. He also wanted
a provision for flexibility if the building is set back.
XXI. The generic uses of the property is to be left to
the drafting of the Development Agreement with the
attorney. It is accepted by the Commission for the
resolution.
XXII. The signage conform to the Citys code requirement.
XXIII. Prepare a Development Agreement.
XXIV. Set backs should be deleted and the whole paragraph
is is for the parcel map.
C/Grothe wanted the pedestrian walkway addressed and
staff directed to work with the applicant to solve the
problem.
Ben Reiling, of the Zellman Development Company of Los
Angeles, stated the problem of a pedestrian walkway is
the stairways with the handicap ramps would be too steep
for comfortable usage. He added that both sides of the
cul de sac have sidewalks on the inside slope of each the
streets.
Mr. Pinkart specified for every 20 foot slope, a 250 foot
handicap ramp is needed, according to the State of
California, and to try and set stairs down the existing
slope is unsafe. He stated the existing plan is not
achievable and as an architect would not be willing to
design it.
C/MacBride asked staff for suggested language to put in
the resolution concerning the pedestrian walkway.
Irwin Kaplan suggested the components of the
resolution read: somebody would develop a pedestrian
September 10, 1990
Page 6
linkage plan which is consistent to the State handicap
requirements. The objective of which is for minimum
distances between destinations, to review at such time
when grading plans are submitted.
C/Grothe was satisfied with the components and the motion
was made, seconded by C/MacBride to approve the
resolution with the deletion of Items 2 and 4 of the
Planning Commission Recommends Condition, and of Items
XVIII, XX, and XXIV with the addition of the aforesaid
walkway recommendation. Resolution #PC 90-0052 as
modified and includes the mitigated negative declaration.
Motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
VC/Harmony entertained the motion to adopt Resolution #PC
90-0041 according to all the same modifications, as
previously stated, with the additional deletion of Item
19. Motion made by C/Grothe and seconded by C/MacBride
AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
Tentative Tract VC/Harmony stated the request from Don King,
47722 and CUP/ representative of Frank Piermarini, for a continuance Oak
Tree 89-338 of the Public Hearing till September 24, 1990.
(cont. hearing) Motion made by VC/Harmony and seconded by C/Grothe to
allow the continuance until September 24, 1990 and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Draft Sign
VC/Harmony stated, the updated sign ordinance, calls
ordinance
for a discussion to focus on the proposed sign routes.
(cont. hearing)
The standards are to include basic sign programs,
general regulations and their variances. He reminded the
Commission, of the synopsis of the sign ordinance, mailed
out by the Mayor to various Civic Organizations. He also
apologized to the various Civic Organizations, for the
failure of the Commission, to mail out to them the
Memorandum and the Draft Ordinance as was requested the
last meeting: He directed staff to make sure every group
present receives a copy of the Draft with all the
revisions as well. He further requested staff a
Legislative Digest Approach be used, with tonights draft
being the standard.
Mr. Kaplan reminded the Commission the ordinance before
them is not yet an Draft Ordinance but a discussion
document. He stipulated it is a conservative document
cutting back on many types of signs now permitted and
prohibits some entirely. He stressed the importance of
the Commission, to understand the concerns of the
different interests in the Community.
Larry Weisman presented the Commission with the four
September 10, 1990
Page 7
Larry Weisman presented the Commission with the four
groups of signs that have been proposed:
1. The Basic Sign Program - this group can be
approved at staff level. They consist essentially of
wall signs up to a maximum of 100 sq. ft. per use; a
variety of temporary signs that can exceed a 100 sq. ft.,
including political, grand openings, subdivision, and
model homes; these signs are limited to the number
allowed on the site and the must be non illuminated or
lighted.
2. The Plan Sign - this group has to come before the
Planning Commission for review and approval, and
require a higher level of discretion in their
review. They consist of wall and window signs for
multi -use buildings or commercial centers; free
standing monument signs some of which can exceed
100 sq. ft. limitation per use; name plate signs up
to a limit of 30 sq. ft. in height
3. The Exempt Signs we, this group does not require a
permit to be issued as long as it is consistent
with the limitations set forth in the Ordinance.
They consist of traffic and directional signs;
warning signs; small building identifications; real
estate; official city entrances signs; and
incidental signs. There are limitations on the
number of flags and trespassing signs.
4. The Prohibited Signs - this group needs to be
discussed to determine exactly what will be
prohibited. As of now, the signs that are
prohibited are:
ae off premise or outdoor advertising signs or
billboards.
be signs without constant lighting prohibited
such as flashing, moving or rotating signs.
c6 any signs that interfere with the traffic
control devices.
do the use of animals or humans to detract
attention away from the activity.
e. loud speaker or signs emitting sound, odor or
visible matter other than the menu board.
fe signs with mechanical movement.
go roof signs.
he projecting signs extending more than 12"
perpendicular to the wall.
io permanent pole signs.
Weisman summarized each Commercial Center will probably
have at least one sign that will not comply to the
policy.
VC/Harmony asked if noncomplying signs would have to be
removed.
September 10, 1990
ME
Mr. Weisman stated the issue would become a policy
decision and suggested developing an amortization program
whereby signs must be replaced within a specified time
frame. VC/Harmony stated the policy issue, of sign
removal, has not been identified in the draft proposal
nor has the concept of amortization.
The Public Hearing is open to the audience to hear their
concerns and recommendations.
Dan Buffington of 2605 Indian Creek, concluded many
signs will be nonconforming according to the draft, and
suggested listing all possible businesses and notifying
them.
Brian Styrat, President of Brian A. Styrat and Associate,
stated he is a potential new tenant in the City and is
confused as to which sign limitations he should follow;
the Basic Sign Ordinance, or the Interim Ordinance. Mr.
Styrat agreed to call the Planning Commission Office in
the morning to receive better information as to the route
to be taken.
Ben Reiling, of Zellman Development, asked if the
entrance into the Gateway Center is within the limit
proposed in the draft. He was assured the specified
development plan allows an over ride to the draft.
Jack Williamson, 259 Gentle Springs Lane, the Ramada and
Classics Restaurant, hoped there would be some
considerations for site disadvantage businesses to
advertise their business with signs about 15 ft. above
the freeway.
Tom Taylor, with the Sealy Company, the commercial
leasing agent for the Gateway Corporate Center, wanted to
comment that a 16 sq. ft. commercial real estate sign is
inadequate and most firms wouldn't have anything less
than a 24 sq. ft. sign. He stated most firms would work
with an So sq. ft. sign and a pole sign of 5 ft. by 7 ft.
Don Nardella, representative liaison for the City and the
Council from the Chamber of Commerce, 23444 Coyote
Springs, listed draft problems he noted:
1. no definition of a political sign
2. not allowing for individuality such as twinkling
lights at Christmas and may allow a 30 day
exception without the permit process.
3. confused by site and off site signs
4. many small businesses couldn't afford new signs for
conformity
5. requiring street addresses for public safety
purposes
60 is it 25% of one window or all windows totalled
September 10, 1990
EM
79 special considerations such as the Ramada.
Bob Velcar, 2839 S. Diamond Blvd., stated 3 concerns:
1. if he follows the guidelines, he would have 9" high
letters for a frontage of only 22 feet.
2. Store location has an overhang and he wondered if
he would be allowed to hang a sign.
3. wants a back of building sign as well as a front
sign because of the poor visibility to the street
He felt the draft will be inundated with variances.
Ms. Marshall, representing
stores poor visibility and
looked at individually.
the Wherehouse, notes the
stated each site should be
VC/Harmony asked the Commission if there are to be any
changes and expects the draft to be modified.
Mr. Kaplan suggested the Staff take each one of the
considerations stated by the audience, bring it back to
the Commission with an adenum statement.
Irwin Kaplan stated the staff will analyze the particular
illustrations, and come back to the Commission with a
revised and improved ordinance for consideration. He
further stated the intention of notifying all appropriate
people a document is available ahead of time for their
review. The Commission will then receive a staff report
with specific recommendations, hopefully adequate to
accommodate the business people and the Commissioners
trends of signage.
C/Grothe emphasized the need to establish a minimum as
well as a maximum signage; was uncomfortable with the 100
sq. ft. maximum sign limit, especially for larger
buildings; questioned the 12" by 12" sign policy; would
like to see a clearer definition of a wall or a roof
sign; stated this ordinance outlaws all banners; and
suggested taking pictures of signs around town and write
down the dimensions to get a clearer picture of what the
Commission will be approving.
VC/Harmony directed staff to develop an adenum, taking
into account the public comments and the Commissioners
comments, to be continued on October 8, 1990.
C/Lin warned the Commission they will hear a lot of
complaints from people against the Draft ordinance
C/MacBride stated he was interested in business addresses
for the public safety; felt it was important to note
special considerations; wanted specified, the appropriate
above the freeway grade that adequately serve
September 10, 1990
Page 10
INFORMATION ITEMS:
the business and diminish the visual blight; and felt it
important to incorporate monumental ization or ID for
commercial parks and residential tracts. Mr. Kaplan
emphasized the Commission is after community aesthetics,
without running people out of business, from the small
businessman to the huge business person who has a special
interest only to the traveling public. He stressed the
need to have a premise of an Anticipatory Sign
Movement(such as food, lodging gas sign).
Motion made by C/MacBride, and seconded by C/Grothe and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the hearing on October 8,
1990.
Focus Draft EIR VC/Harmony stated it to be a comprehensive
For Tentative environmental report for tentative tract application
Tract 45290 and for 29 lots on 20.67 acres located north of Autumn Glow
Oak Tree Permit and Fern Hallow Drives. He informed the Commission
87-549. the technical reports are available at City Hall.
James DeStefano requested a date be set for review of the
EIR and the Oak Tree Permit for the various tracts
identified. He asked the Commission to allow staff to
determine the next Planning Commission Hearing date, in
order to allow them to review and reevaluate the work
load and individual assignments.
VC/Harmony directed staff, with the consensus of the
Commission, to establish the Public Hearing date.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/Grothe suggested, to the Commission, to develop a
master list of issues, define a standard for our
community, with the help of input from the engineering
department, fire and police department, etc., and follow
those standards. He suggested Study Sessions dealing
with individual departments to develop standards, before
issues come before the Commission.
f
James DeStefano proposed forming a memorandum, outlining
the staffs thoughts on these issues, and possibly
suggesting categories for the Study Sessions. He
requested the Commission give him their list, on the
types of topics, that interest them, to help formulate a
master list of prioritized issues.
VC/Harmony noted the City Council hired a consultant firm
to create a Development Code. He would like a good
definition of the Development Code and what it entails,
to help the Commission establish policy.
The Commission is
reminded of
the General
Planning
Committee Meeting on
September 22,
1990 at the
Ramada.
September 10, 1990 Page it
Chair/Schey is concerned about not having the present
minutes available to confer with and is willing to allow
staff to condense the minutes and develop a new style to
assure the minutes are presented on time.
C/Grothe asked if the Commission is through with
processing projects originally filed with the county.
James DeStefano replied that some sub divisions, approved
under the County, may have received extensions.
C/Grothe would like a standard staff report package
developed with the necessary information.
James DeStefano will be developing a new package composed
of staff reports and information, hopefully to the liking
of the Commission.
VC/Harmony commended Irwin Kaplan for his talented,
skilled, and wonderful job as Planning Director and
requested the commendation be recorded in the minutes.
Irwin Kaplan appreciated the commendations from the
Commission and stated they are left in good hands.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded by Commissioner
Grothe, and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at
10:15 p.m.
Elizabeth Myers
Attest: Data Forms Management
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 24, 1990
CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Harmony called the meeting to order
at 7:00 p.m. in the Walnut Valley School District
Board Meeting Room, 880 South Lemon Street,
Walnut, California.
PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance
ALLEGIANCE: by Vice Chairman Harmony.
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Grothe, Lin, MacBride, Vice Chairman
Harmony, and Chairman Schey.
Also present were Assistant City Engineer Jack
Istek, Interim City Planner Irwin Kaplan, Planning
Director James DeStefano, Associate Planning
Director Robert Searcy, and Secretary (contract)
Liz Myers.
MATTERS FROM THE There were none.
AUDIENCE:
CONSENT CALENDAR: No items appear.
PUBLIC HEARING
ITEMS:
(cont. from Sept.
Chair/Schey asks for a staff report.
10) Tentative
tract 47722 and
James DeStefano, Planning Director, provides the
Conditional Use
Commission with a request for continuance until an
Permit/Oak Tree
appropriate meeting date. Staff has met twice
89-338
with the Consultant since the last hearing. They
are in the process of preparing additional
material for the continued hearing. In antici-
pation of a continuance, the staff has deferred
mailing out notices to the neighbors, as requested
by the Commission, until notification of the next
hearing date. It is recommended the Commission
take advantage of the continued hearing to discuss
concerns to be addressed in the EIR arising from
the Hillside Symposium. The applicants request
for a continuance was not in writing.
Don King, representative of Frank Piermarini,
residing at 1254 Berrying St., Claremont,
requested a continuance, to give both staff and
applicant more time to prepare.
Chair/Schey asked staff to outline the items to be
discussed.
James DeStefano responded with the concerns to be
discussed. They include ways to reduce grading,
September 24, 1990
Page 2
the length of time the earth movers will be
required, the absence of response from important
agencies to needed documents, and the questioning
of a record of the change in site, in reference to
the Blue Line Stream.
Don King stated one item staff felt to be
important was the visual analysis identifying the
characteristics of the site when viewed from a
distances. This will require, from the applicant,
an additional photo survey and a verbal analysis
of what the changes would be subsequent to the
development. In answer to the concern of records
kept, in an event of a change, Don King responds
their intent to replace the page completely, date
it, and copy it on different colored paper when-
ever there is an addition or text change in the
EIR.
Irwin Kaplan, Interim City Planner, states one of
the issues implied was to come up with a plan with
minimal grading and some visual protection of the
ridgeline.
C/Grothe wants the whole project to fall into
conformity with The Country. The general feeling,
received from the General Plan Committee, was to
develop separate design guidelines and general
plans for residential and rural residential.
Chair/Schey stated the Hillside Seminar, on
September 21, addressed methods of minimizing
grading:
1. Land form grading - recreate more natural
forms on manufactured slopes.
2. Construction methods - minimize size of path.
3. Architectural designs - minimizes the visual
impact of the home against the hillside.
Chair/Schey would like the applicant to Follow the
aforementioned guidelines.
C/Grothe pointed out the Commission unofficially
adopted oak tree replacement standards, and would
like to verify the requirements.
James DeStefano states the requirement is a 2 to 1
ratio with 15 gallon or 24" box replacement. The
applicant has offered a 3 to 1 ratio with 24"
boxes. In replacing the trees, it is proposed to
use a variety of trees in both sizes and types.
September 24, 1990
Page 3
VC/Harmony is concerned about the elevation
differentials, the notification of the gas
company, the size of the grading, and the visual
impact of the project. He also wanted to know
what steps the applicant will take to prevent the
negative effects of the earthmovers. VC/Harmony
noticed the Piermarini development at the front
gate at Grand Ave. appears dense, and is concerned
if the slope will hold up during construction of
tennis courts, swimming pools, etc. He also
indicated the need for clear readable maps.
Irwin Kaplan concurred the present maps are
indistinguishable and requested applicant for
easier to read maps. He suggested to the
Commission to consider a single standard for all
public and private streets, allowing for future
developments.
Chair/Schey felt it shows prudence in keeping the
good faith with the maintenance of the street in
the future. He agreed the single street standards
are an appropriate condition of approval.
C/Lin requested a report from the applicant on
which trees will be replaced in order to project
future appearance.
C/Grothe stated, in his opinion, the Grand
entrance development to The Country, is detri-
mental to the Community because of its' density.
He felt the City may need separate codes for
individual tract homes.
Chair/Schey questioned how to reconcile the review
for creation of similar projects in the future.
He stated the City is operating under old County
codes no longer appropriate, and uncomfortable
preceding with the project on the Hillside without
standards to develop continuity.
Chair/Schey asked staff how the Commission can
proceed with the creation of the developmental
code.
Irwin Kaplan, in response to Chair/Schey, stated
there are several ways to proceed:
1. Condition Use Permit
2. Deny the applicant
3. Develop an Interim Ordinance
40 Develop a Permanent Ordinance
September 24, 1990
Page 4
Irwin Kaplan suggested to the Commission to
institute a code under an interim basis thereby
giving the needed time to later tailor a Permanent
Ordinance to Diamond Bars' needs.
C/MacBride
wanted to
pursue
the Interim Ordinance
because it
creates a
sense
of discipline.
VC/Harmony felt the Interim ordinance was more
restricting and wants to know what it will do with
individual discretion to analyze specific
projects.
Chair/Schey understands the Interim Ordinance
deals with the hillside development, in this case
The Country, and wouldn't impact the City in
general.
C/Grothe thought the people working on the General
Plan Committee were very distinctive on having a
separation of residential and rural areas. He
felt The Country is nice but out of the price
level for most people, and he is not sure, very
large estate homes, is totally Diamond Bar. He
recommended building to the varying levels of
economics and suggests two (2) distinctive plans
in the Interim Ordinances.
Irwin Kaplan reminded the Commission the objective
of the Interim Ordinance is to do it quickly and
buy time for the Commissioners to tailor the
Ordinance at a future date to various projects.
Chair/Schey asked staff the length of time needed
to draft an Interim Ordinance.
Irwin Kaplan responded any tailoring of the
ordinance is more difficult, therefore longer, but
will bring something for consideration quickly.
Irwin Kaplan then informed the Commission that
though we have a task policy not to issue permits
without a plan reviewed by the Commission, it is
not an explicit policy. He stated grading permits
could be issued without having any plans for
development and suggested the policy be written
explicitly.
There being no one wishing to speak further, the
Chairman closed the public hearing.
September 24, 1990 Page 5
Motion was made by Chair Schey, seconded by
VC/Harmony and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue,
with the concurrence of the applicant, until the
next regular Planning Commission hearing on
October 8, 1990.
Chair/Schey noted the issues, the Commissioners
seem
to concur on, for the Interim Ordinance:
1.
minimize grading
2.
minimize pad sizes
3.
utilize grading techniques
4.
utilize construction methods
5.
utilize architectural designs compatible with
the hillside
6.
utilize landscape plans that approximate
nature
7.
no grading permit issued without an
accompanying development permit properly
approved
8.
single street standards without regard to
9. erosion control methods will be made a part
of the plan approval
public or private status
100 the plan be subject to an aesthetic review to
include any man made structures
110 to include any item staff may include
Motion was made by Chair/Schey, seconded by
C/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to make a
recommendation to the City Council that the City
adopt an Interim Ordinance controlling the
development of the Hillside areas and
incorporating the certain issues identified
earlier.
INFORMATION
ITEMS:
Tentative Public
Chair/Schey asked for the
staff report.
Hearing Dates for
Tentative Tracts
James DeStefano reported
the staff has tentatively
47850,47851,48487,
outlined the schedule of
events leading up to
and 45290 for
a public hearing review.
These include the
Proposed
creation of the SEATAC to
review significant
Subdivisions.
ecological concerns existing
where the projects
are proposed; the change
in the November 19, 1990
hearing date to November
26, 1990; and a companion
memo from Mr. Kaplan to discuss
the components of
the SEATAC.
September 24, 1990
Page 6
Rob Searcy, Associate Planning Director, in
response to Chair/Schey, identifies the tracts:
47850, 47851,and 48487 to be a total of 120 units
adjacent to The Country including a remnant tract
located in the same EIR; and 45290 to be a total
of 28 units, to include the Arciero, Marlborough,
Fern Hallow, and Autumn Glow projects.
Significant
Irwin Kaplan summarized the SEATAC. He stated the
Ecological Area
SEA (Significant Ecological Area) existing in
Technical Advisory
Diamond Bar, is the City's responsibility and
Committee (SEATAC).
requires a SEATAC review in conjunction with a
development application. The recommendations
delivered by the SEATAC, serve as advisory
elements to the Planning Commission. There is no
formula for the composition of a SEATAC, therefore
we need to develop our own mechanism. The County
has designated the Tonner Canyon/Chino Hills an
SEA area. As of now, there is a proposal for the
development of 120 dwelling units on 160 acres in
Tonner Canyon. Mr. Kaplan has been assembling
names of technical experts in various disciplines
which relate to the ecology of Tonner Canyon. He
asked, of the Commission, suggestions of people
who might serve on SEATAC, and felt a 5 person
committee would provide an appropriate range of
talent.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: There were none.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by Vice Chairman Harmony, seconded
bI Commissioner MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 p.m.
James DeStefano
Planning Commission Secretary
Attest:
Chairman
AGENDA NO.
-------------------------------------------------------------
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: October 4, 1990 MEETING DATE: October 8 1990
TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission,
FROM: James DeStefano, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Application Request - Piermarini Enterprises, Inc.
Application Request: To permit a subdivision of an existing 19 acre parcel
into 16 residential lots, a Conditional Use Permit for
Hillside Management Review, an Oak Tree Permit to
remove ten Oak trees (TTM 47722 and CUP/OT 89-338) and
the review of the Environmental Impact Report.
Property Location: Generally located on the Northwest corner of Derringer
Land and Ridge Line Road.
Public Hearing Notice:
A notice of public hearing was mailed to property owners of record prior to
the August 27, 1990, Planning Commission hearing on the proposal. On October
4, 1990, new notices were mailed to approximately 130 property owners of re-
cord surrounding the proposed development site. The new notices were mailed
at the request of the Planning Commission.
PROJECT BACKGROUND:
This application is for the approval of a tentative tract map to develop 16
single family custom homes on 19 acres. Additionally, conditional use
permits for Hillside Management and Oak Tree removal are required. The
Hillside Management Permits is intended to restrict development which may
result in or have the potential to degrade the existing environmental
integrity and/or result in destruction of life and property. The permit
seeks to dictate environmental protection of sensitive areas and provides the
process within which potential impacts and conflicts can be reconciled. The
purpose is not to preclude or prohibit development, rather it seeks to impose
directives that aim to enhance and protect the remaining biotic resources,
the natural topography, and amenities and natural resources of the hillside
management areas.
LOT SIZE
Zoning for the project is R-1-10,000 and the Community Plan designation is
for non -urban residential (one unit or less per acre). There are 16 lots on
19 acres which translates to 1.18 acres per lot. The lots range in actual
size from .42 acres to 2.51 acres. As a result of this distribution of lot
sizes, all lots comply with the Community Plan when lot averages are
calculated. This practice of lot averaging is not a favorable method of
F7
achieving the intent of the non -urban designation in the opinion of staff.
If the intent of the standard is to achieve uniform development with a non-
urban character, this is not achieved when lot averaging is used to
circumvent the intent of the Community Plan. Conformity is not achieved
within the development when gross and net parcel sizes vary from smallest to
largest by over five times. Also, there are very few if any lots in "The
Country" that have lots smaller than one acre.
DENSITY/GRADING
Density and grading are two very prominent issues that are of paramount
importance. The density of hillside development has a direct impact on the
quantity of grading that is required. The current ordinance requires a low-
density threshold calculation for the development in non -urban hillside
management areas and the Community Plan establishes the maximum permitted
density. The low density threshold calculation is a function of slope
categories and per acre densities and although the DEIR makes no reference to
this calculation, staff determines the low-density threshold to be .12 units
per acre. For this project, that translates into approximately 2.35 units on
19 acres. The current proposal projects densities of approximately .84 units
per acre.
To complete the project under the current design, 205,000 cubic yards of
earth will be disturbed as a result of on-site grading. This quantity of
grading is necessary in order to achieve fills of up to 95 feet in height and
80 feet in depth, stabilize slopes, to create pads, and to access pads with
standard roadways and private driveways. With a density approving the low-
density threshold, the quantity of required grading can be projected to
decrease accordingly.
ROADWAYS
The cul-de-sac, Road "A", which serves this project extends approximately
1620 feet from the intersection with Derringer Lane to the terminus of Lane
"B" (excluding the primary access service road serving lots 5 and 6). The
site plan indicates slopes of up to 15%. The DEIR indicates that both of the
cul-de-sac length and the street grades are acceptable and meet "the County's
standards for private access roads" (Response to Staff and Commission
Comments, Date: October 1, 1990, pg. 1, Issue #1 paragraph #3).
In fact, the road grade does comply with the L.A. County Fire Dept's
requirements. However, these grades do not conform to the City/County street
grade requirements that limit street grades to 6 percent and in no event
shall the grade exceed 10 percent except where evidence is given that a lower
grade is not possible." (Title 21 Part 2 0 Chapter 21.25.100, pg. 33)
Additionally, the ordinance states that cul-de-sacs are limited to a length
not to exceed 700 feet when serving land zoned to serve residential
developments with a density of four units per acre and a 1000 foot
restriction for residential zones allowing densities greater than four units
per acre. (21.24.190, pg. 34) The L.A. County Dept, of Public Works also
expressed the sentiment that Lane "C" and lots 1, 2, and 3 which are served
by one long driveway is not acceptable. Access by these lots to Lane "C"
would require additional mass grading in order to provide an acceptable
driveway grade. It appears that up to six parcels will have access from a
E
driveway with a pavement width which varies from 16' to 201. The parcels
with driveway access have the required frontage on the main road, but the
driveway access appears necessary because of grade differences between the
road and the building pad.
OAK TREES
The Planning Commission has established an oak tree replacement policy that
exceeds the minimum requirements established by the existing ordinance.
Under the City's tree replacement standard, the 10 oak trees identified for
removal would be replaced with 30 oaks with 24" minimum box size.
The DEIR identifies that these replacement trees would be irrigated for a
three year period to ensure that they would establish themselves. There is
however, no indication in the mitigation monitoring program that trees which
do not survive would be replaced and that all trees would be maintained to
the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Maintenance.
BLUELINE STREAM
The DEIR identified a blueline stream as being located along the southern
portion of the project site (pg. 78). Subsequent to the dispersement of the
DEIR, the applicant identified this data as erroneous. When the revised
location was described, the location was described as the "northeastern edge"
of the project site just beyond the project's boundary. In light of
contradictory data, staff requested that the Department of Fish & Game
provide written verification as to the correct location of any blueline
stream on the project site. As of this date of this report, no comments have
been received from this agency.
I ftlk,I0190a1!A0NN
In the staff report dated August 1, 1990, staff comment No. 10 requested that
a landscape program be defined in addition to any mitigation measures. The
"Responses to Staff Comments" dated 10 September provided the conceptual
landscape plan for tentative tracts 47850, 47851, and 48487 (figure No. 1.1
Schematic project map, pg. 4). Staff has yet to be provided with the
appropriate landscape plan.
i
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT:
A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), has been prepared for the
proposed project. The applicant has selected and retained the firm of DG
King Associates as its environmental consultant. The DEIR was prepared by DG
King Associates.
This Environmental Impact Report assesses the potential physical
environmental impacts associated with the proposed 16 unit residential
hillside development project. The project is proposed on a 19.08 acre site.
To initiate the environmental review process, the City staff prepared an
initial study, which is a checklist that establishes the technical focus of
the DEIR. A notice of preparation was prepared to inform selected agencies
of the project and to solicit their comments or concerns. Those comments or
concerns have been incorporated and responded to within the Environmental
3
Impact Report. A draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and
submitted to the City for review. A Notice of Completion and availability of
the DEIR was given to all organizations and individuals who had previously
requested it.
The effect upon the environment must be taken into account when considering
a specific development project such as the application presently before the
Commission. CEQA states that public agencies should not approve projects
proposed if there are feasibly alternatives or feasible mitigation measures
that would lessen the significant effects upon the environment. If the City
finds that changes or alterations in the project are not feasible, or that
the unavoidable significant environmental effects are acceptable, there must
be adequate evidence on the record to support such a finding. Government
Code Section 66474 requires the denial of a tentative map by the Planning
Commission when the design of the sub -division or its improvements are likely
to cause substantial environmental damage.
The Planning Commission's role in review of this DEIR is principally a
determination of whether or not the DEIR has been prepared adequately.
As stated within the League of California Cities Planning Commissioner's
Handbook, "The EIR must be done with a sufficient degree of analysis to allow
decision makers to intelligently take account of the environmental
consequences (Administrative Code Section 15151). An evaluation of the
environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the
sufficiency of a EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably
feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR adequate. The
Courts do not look for perfection, but for adequacy, completeness and the
good -faith effort at full disclosure."
The DEIR has been prepared to address the identified environmental impacts of
geology, topography, hydrology, biological resources, aesthetics, fire
protection and other issues.
The project is located on a vacant 19 acre irregularly shaped parcel. The
parcel is bounded by the rear property lines of existing single family homes
fronting onto the Hollow Drive, Coyote Springs Drive, Bronze Knoll Road,
Ridge Line Road and Derringer Lane.
The site consists of hilly terrain. A slope analysis indicates that 6.17
acres are located on slopes of 0 - 25%, 10.54 acres are found on slopes of
25-50%, and 2.38 acres exceed a 50% slope. A 30" Southern California Gas
Company high pressure gas line traverses the southern portion of the site.
The applicant is proposing a subdivision of 16 lots which will range in size
from 18,400+/- square feet to 109,400 +/- square feet of lot area. Pad areas
range in size from 8,300 +/- to 20,900 +/- square feet. where building pads
do not cover the entire lot the remaining areas will become replanted
manufactured slopes. Dwelling units planned for the pads consist of detached
single family residential structures varying in size from 5,000 to 10,000
square feet.
4
DISCUSSION:
Grading activities associated with the project involve the formation of
manufactured building pads and an internal street system. A 1,620 foot long
cul de sac street is proposed to access the lots. Several lots receive
access via a "private" alley of 16 to 20 feet in width. To complete grading
activities approximately 204,000 cubic yards of earth material will be moved
on the site. Grading plans indicate a "balanced" cut and fill of the site.
No import of material will be required. Export of some material is expected
to "grub" the site of natural grasses and various trees. It is expected that
grading utilizing large earthmovers will require from 11 to 42 working days
to conclude grading activities and the noise and dust associated with such
activity may be affected by conditions such as weather and hours of
operation. Grading plans indicate the maximum height for cut slopes is 80
feet, while the maximum depth of fill is 95 feet.
Slopes throughout the project site will have variable slope ratios of from
1:4 (1 foot of horizontal space is required for each 4 feet of vertical
height) to 2:1 (2 feet of horizontal space required for each 1 foot in
vertical height). Adjacent to these slopes, flat building pads will be
developed for the construction of the proposed residences. The relationship
of the pads to the slopes is shown on Exhibit 10, Page 52 of the DEIR.
Access during the grading operation will be via the ingress/egress point on
Derringer Lane. Construction workers will commute daily to and from the
site. The applicant has not identified where the construction vehicles will
remain during non -working hours. The applicant indicates that the total
project will require three years to complete dependent on market demand.
City Planning staff has reviewed the developer's DEIR including several dozen
revised pages of maps, charts, and the latest text received October 2, 1990.
As a result of our review, staff maintains a high level of concern regarding
the adequacy of the DEIR.
A significant number of supplemental and or revised pages of information have
been submitted over the past 30 days. Due to these changes the text is now
cumbersome and difficult to follow (i.e. table of contents, text,
typographical, and reference errors). The original DEIR indicated a single
blue -line stream on the site, thesetof corrected pages suggested the single
stream to be off-site, the latest revisions describe two streams off-site.
Staff has requested a response from the Department of Fish & Game to clean up
this concern.
The DEIR does not appropriately address the inconsistency between the
proposed project and the Community Plan. The following are excerpts from the
Community Plan, which was adopted by the County in 1983.
1. Maintain the rural setting of the community through the retention and
maintenance of extensive amounts of natural open space and hillside
vegetation.
2. Minimize alternation of the natural terrain.
7a. Minimize alternation of natural hillsides, drainage courses, and
vegetation. In particular, preserve significant tree clusters,
9
especially sycamore, alder, eucalyptus, pepper, pine, walnut, and oak
trees.
7b. Preserve major ridgeline form in the existing state.
7c. Minimize adverse visual impacts on neighboring residential uses.
7d. Maintain the existing or natural topographic transition between
developments. High banks shall not be created adjacent to existing
developments.
7e. Minimize grading of site and maximize retention of natural topography
as follows:
7f. Protect the visual quality of highly scenic areas.
A complete review of "reasonable" alternative to the proposed project is re-
quired by CEQA. Staff requested, from the consultant, and analysis of
alternative densities on the site with the primary focus to examine ridgeline
protection and to reduce grading. The alternatives presented do not include
a two unit option as requested. CEQA requires that a discussion of
alternatives must focus on elimination of significant impacts absent cost and
or the effect upon the proponents preferred development. The DEIR must
examine alternatives even if the proposed project can mitigate its
significant impacts. If no feasible alternatives exist then the reasons for
rejection must be clearly stated. An alternative that should be considered
is one which is based solely on environmental criteria.
In the "No Project" alternative, the DEIR states that "recreational use of
the site in the form of improved hiking and equestrian trails would not occur
and the site would remain largely inaccessible for public enjoyment."
The site plan indicates the existence of a record easement for "recreational
trails, egress, access, roadway purposes...
As such, the existence of such facilities is assured and, if improvements are
needed, they would not seem to be dependent upon the existence of the project
as proposed.
In the "No Project" alternative, the DEIR states that "existing soil
instabilities would remain, posing various degrees of landslide potential..."
This appears to be a variance with the preliminary soils report, which states
that "The slides are all considered to be ancient with no apparent movement
in historic time."
The DEIR identifies several significant impacts and reduces the environmental
effects to a level of insignificance. However, alternative project designs
have not adequately been explored in terms of further reducing impacts
associated with the project.
The DEIR does not adequately explore the growth inducing impacts of the
proposed project. As an example, the project, as proposed, removes and
reassembles approximately 204,000 cubic yards of earth. The grading
techniques and extent of earth movement proposed, if approved, establishes
new precedent and policy for hillside development within the City. An
examination of such a policy and its impacts should be explored in a
cumulative environmental setting. Such an examination may reveal that a
city-wide hillside regulation may be an appropriate mitigation and in order
2
as opposed to attaching conditions to each hillside proposz3,
Although the DEIR
feature when viewedtfros that
�� ��
visual m afar the finished Project are will be
the analysis which identifiessd refers to the contour prm
Provided.
properties, only the impacts as might be seenlI there .
hillside The DEIR concludes Y photographs of the from afz,,
area which that: t� from condition;
viewing the from will be a visual boom°re expanses of well landsca•�c>':
There is area afar More
both the occupants no evidencepants and c,
in the DEIR which supportsth°;=.
The DEIR states this conclusion.
Plants, whereverls several p that
measureParticularly
n Possible." lace "landscaping will be water -efficient
landscapepar cul should with the concluding Phrasenot , the mitigation
Program Y define
be defined. � wherever gation`
The dete Possible. �� a
rmination of whether
issue for Commission consideratioor n. Impacts are
Will ee significant adverse impacts, If the Commission
and adverse is an
Of t project to t Pacts mmission determines
Council he community then it must determine that there
that a Statement Y °utweigh the adverse that the benefits
Council before a of Overriding impacts and
approving the g Considerations recommend to
CONC-oN.
Plan. be made by the City
since the application
may (1) approve the Is for several discretionary
Project if it project and impose a permits
Communityfeels that the appropriate conditions the Commission
Mitigates
Plan, or fundamentallyproposal Is hot (2) deny the
gates the impacts too intense In conformance with
surroundings, of develo for the site the
matter g °r results in an development or is or inadequately
until the lackinginferior s' inappropriate for
information is It Plan, etc. i3 its
By requestingprovided. ) Continue the
that additional information,
the project will be acceptable however, the
a reasonable course of action if le if certain Commission is
project fails within in fact issues are clarified. implying
objectives. the overall frameworktof Commission believes This is
Commissio Once the additional the cc that that the
not n will still be confronte information Y s development
the project will d with has been pment
objectives help carr a Policy decision as gathered, the
Diamond Bar envisionthet the developmental and to whether or
Unless itself, environmental
what past trends are also to
Diamond Bar envisions become Diamond Bar's
although certain for itself destiny, the
Presumably,Policies are has not yet been full quest' of
underway .The at is. Policiesthe
functions of contained
in the adopted Y answered,
development of the neral Community Plan.
pment code which is General Plan would be Plan Process which
also currently implemented through is
The significance of Y In preparation. gh the
fact that there the issues raised b
in the are a Imilar Y this
near series of s' Project is underscored b
still future and unless the developmentrojects that Y the
rooted in the Count Policies If
be before the City
reaffirmed, there countyis development of the past
a few conditions seems to be little philosophy) are either ch (which are
and approve future projectsto do in one fog ch more than challenged
or another. Again,
7
this is a perfectly acceptable policy, if it is the City's conscious choice.
What is particularly significant about this project, is that it may be viewed
as a turning point in Diamond Bar's history. Under Economic Consideration,
the DEIR states, very accurately, that "Limiting the density of this project
to that proposed requires the construction of what will necessarily be very
expensive and luxurious custom homes which are far better suited to a
hillside development than are more modest residences. Only with the
development of this calibre is it feasible to make a low density investment
in the design work, extensive grading and other improvements required for
such challenging terrain." Further, in Section 4.5 Project Impacts, the DEIR
states that " ...the sales prices are estimated to begin at about 1.8 million
dollars per house, and go up from there." What the DEIR has correctly
observed is that the success of Diamond Bar as a desirable place to live is
creating a market with the financial capacity to overcome costly site
preparation problems. In other words, if the trend continues, there will be
no such thing as an undevelopable site, since engineering solutions are
available at a price for virtually any problem.
This is precisely why it is policy, and not feasibility, which is needed to
dictate the form of development should take.
In the opinion of staff necessary findings of fact to support the proposed
project do not exist. Staff feels the proposed project:
1. Does not conform with the Community Plan.
2. Is fundamentally too intense for the site.
3. Inadequately mitigates the impacts of development.
4. Is inappropriate for its surroundings.
5. Results in an inferior site plan.
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL (TRACT MAP)
1. The proposed map and improvements of the proposed subdivision are
inconsistent with the Community Plan;
2. The site is not physically suited for the proposed density of
development;
I
HILLSIDE MNGT. FINDINGS
1. The proposed project is not compatible with the natural, scenic and
open space resources of the area;
2. The proposed development does not demonstrate creative and imagination
design, resulting in a visual quality that will complement community
character and benefit current and future community residents;
3. That the proposed dwelling units exceeding the number permitted by the
low-density threshold for the proposed development in non -urban hillsides is
not based on the ability to mitigate problems of public safety, design and
environmental consideration, as provided in the Community Plan.
E
OAK TREE PERMIT FINDINGS
1. The removal of the Oak trees proposed is not necessary. A thorough
analysis of alternative grading techniques, amount of earthwork and density
alternatives may allow the existing oak trees to remain.
DEIR FINDINGS
The applicant's DEIR fails to address impacts associated with project. Even
with these issues addressed within the DEIR the project is not acceptable nor
is it in compliance with the Community Plan. In staff's opinion even if all
issues were all addressed certification of the DEIR would require a statement
of overriding considerations. No evidence to support such a statement has
been presented or placed upon the record to date.
RECOMMENDATION•
It is recommended that the Planning Commission direct the staff to prepare a
resolution of Denial.
W
21.24.090
"alternate" shall not apply ifthe advisory agency finds that the use of such alternate
cross-sections would not be in keeping with the design and improvement of
adjoining highways or streets.
B. That position of a street marked with an asterisk (*) in the following
diagrams may be counted as part of the net area of a lot or parcel of land. The line
between that portion of a street marked with an asterisk (*) and the portion thereof
not so marked shall be deemed to be the property line as the words "property line"
are used, in the Zoning Ordinance set out at Title 22 of this code, but this shall not
permit any encroachment within any. portion of such street by the underlying fee
owner.
C. Diagrams. (See following pages for diagrams.) (Ord. 85-0168 § 8, 1985:
Ord 10485 § 11, 1972; Ord. 9086 § 1, 1966: Ord. 7634 § 4, 19.59: Ord. 4478 Art. 4 §
54, 1945.)
21.24.100 Street grades. No highway or street shall have a grade of more
than six percent, except for short stretches where the topography makes it imprac-
ticable to keep within such grade, and in no event shall the grade exceed 10 percent,
except where evidence, which is satisfactory to the advisory agency, is given that a
lower grade is not possible. (Ord. 85-0194 § 3 (part), 1985; Ord. 4478 Art. 4 § 55,
1945.) _
21.24.110 Right-of-way radius. Intersections of road right-of-wav lines.
where one or both roads are local residential, shall be rounded with a curve having a
radius of 13 feet, unless otherwise determined by the road commissioner. Intersec-
tions of road right-of-way lines, where both roads are shown as highways on the
Highways Plan or one of the roads serves a commercial or industrial development,
shall be rounded with a curve having a radius of 27 feet, unless otherwise deter-
mined by the road commissioner. (Ord. 85-0168 § 9, 1985: Ord. 9721 § 5, 1969: Ord.
8822 § 2. 1965: Ord. 8792 § 2. 1965: Ord. 4478 Art. 4 § 57, 1945.)
21.24.120 Future streets. Wherever the advisory agency shall have deter-
mined that a street is necessary for the future division of property as shown on the
tentative map, or for adjoining property, but that the present dedication and
construction of such street is not warranted, the advisory agency may require that
the location, width and extent of such street shall be shown on the final map or
parcel map as a future street_ No improvement of such future street shall be
required of the subdivider (Ord. 85-0194 § 3 (part), 1985: Ord. 9071 § 5 (part). 1966:
Ord. 5883 § 3, 1952: Ord_ 4478 Art. 4 § 56. 1945.)
21.24.130 Centerline curve radius. On any street the centerline curve radius
shall not be less than 100 feet, unless sufficient evidence is offered to the advisory
agency by the subdivider to show that the 100 -foot radius is not practicable. (Ord.
85-0168 § 10, 1985: Ord. 85-0194 § 3 (pan), 1985; Ord. 4478 Art. 4 § 45. 1945.)
21.24.140 Street intersection angle. Except as provided in Section
21.24.060, any highway or street intersecting any other highway or street shall
intersect it at an angle as nearly a right angle as practicable. (Ord. 4478 Art. 4 § 46,
1945.)
21.24.150 Service roads or alleys required when. A. Whenever it is proposed
to divide property abutting a major or secondary highway, a service road or other
21-20
21.24.150
•� I
j local street shall be provided unless the circumstances of such property or of
adjoining property render it inadvisable or undesirable to provide access by such
l service road or other local street. - 1
B. Where a service road or local street is not required, the subdivider shall
provide an alley at the rear of such lots unless the advisory agency finds such alley
1
. .� inadvisable, undesirable detrimental to adjoining property, or contrary to the best
community design. (Ord. 9071 § 5 (part), 1966: Ord. 5345 § 2,1949: Ord. 4478 Art. 4
.. I § 50,1945.) I
21:14.160 Alleys in congested districts. The advisory agency may require
that an alley be provided at the rear of all lots where property is to be used for
multiple residential use (not including two-family use) or commercial or other less -
restrictive uses. (Ord, 9721 § 4, 1969: Ord. 9204 § 3, 1966: Ord. 4478 Art_ 4 § 48,
1945_)
21.24.170 Alley intersections. Where two alleys intersect, a cutoff of not less
than 10 feet along each alley shall be provided. (Ord. 4478 Art. 4 § 49, 1945.)
21.24.180 Turnarounds. A. A turning area shall be provided at the end of
cul-de-sac streets and dead-end alleys. The advisory agency may require turn-
arounds:
1. Upon the recommendation of the subdivision committee, at inter-
mediate points on cul-de-sacs of more than 700 feet in length, and on other local
streets where the distance between intersections exceeds 2,000 feet: and
I At the end of stub or dead-end streets or more than 300 feet in
length where the future extension of the street is remote.
B. All such turnarounds shall conform to the specifications of the road
commissioner. (Ord. 10485 § 6, 1972: Ord. 4478 Art. 4 § 47, 1945.)
• 21.24.190 Cul-de-sacs — Length restrictions. A. Cul-de-sacs shall be not
more than:
1. 500 feet in length, when serving land zoned for industrial or
commercial use:
2. 700 feet in length. when serving land zoned for residential uses
having a density of more than four dwelling units per net acre:
3. 1,000 feet in length. when serving land zoned for residential uses
having a density of four or less dwelling units per net acre,
E This section shall not be construed to prohibit the approval of a division
of land utilizing frontage on an existing cul-de-sac of more than the maximum
permitted length nor shall it be construed to prohibit the advisory agenc,,from
reducing the length of a proposed cul-de-sac to less than the maximum length
permitted by this section or requiring the elimination of a proposed cul-de-sac in
order to provide for the efficient circulation of traffic, the future development of the
neighborhood street system or the deployment of emergency services. (Ord. 10435 §
7, 1972: Ord. 7634 § 3 (part), 1959: Ord. 4478 Art. 4 § 47.1, 1945,)
21 24.200 Nlobilehome divisions of land — Street and driveway standards.
Those streets, existing or proposed within or contiguous to a mobilehome division
of land which are to be dedicated or offered to be dedicated for public use shall meet
the standards outlined in Section 21.24.090. Driveways in such division shall have
21-27
W DATE:TRACT:
Fn ED: 217
CM-RA.L PLAN: COUhTNIDE'.
CPA:
(DPending Q Pon re-tVs2ustloa C) Consistent 0 Not co"Istent
0 To be determined with the -CUP / Zone change
ENVIROKIEN'TAL: OPending
first evaluatlon OPendLng re-eval.mtiom OVIth CUP/ZC
M-1: Existing 0 0 0
Proposed
creup: 3 L2
0 mmm mom
FYH: //o
OWMIAIASL ZE 242-2 ;F&15C-)D' 1pylAe
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Chairman & Planning Commissioner
FROM: James DeStefano, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Draft Sign Ordinance
DATE: October 3, 1990
The continued public hearing on the Draft Sign Ordinance will
be held on October 8, 1990, 7:00 p.m. at the Walnut Unified School
District. Public participation has been solicited, with copies of
the attached materials distributed to approximately sixty
individuals and organizations.
The Planning Commission has been reviewing the Draft Sign
Ordinance as an alternative to current sign regulations. Several
groups of signs have been considered, along with standards for each
group. Enclosed is a preliminary listing of these signs and their
requirements, as well as a list of definitions relevant to the
Draft.
In order to more fully appreciate the implications of the
Draft Ordinance, it is suggested that:
1. The differences between the Chamber's proposal and the
Draft Ordinance be carefully reviewed.
2. The list of prohibited signs (P. 16, 17) be carefully
reviewed to see which types of signs will have to be
abated if the Ordinance is adopted.
Also included is a summary comparison of the Draft Ordinance
with the proposal submitted by the Chamber of Commerce.
Once the Planning Commission has completed its review, a
recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for a public
hearing and ordinance adoption.
JD:kna
AGENDA NO.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE: October 2, 1990 MEETING DATE: October 8, 1990
TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
VIA: James DeStefano, Planning Director
FROM: Larry Weissman, Contract Planner
SUBJECT: Draft Sign Ordinance/Diamond Bar Chamber of Commerce Survey
BACKGROUND
This memorandum discusses the recommendations made by the Diamond Bar Chamber of
Commerce following its survey on the new sign ordinance. Attached is a chart
which shows the sign groups mentioned in the Chamber's recommendations, and the
standards suggested by the Chamber. The chart compares those recommendations to
the Draft Sign Ordinance. (See Attachment "B") The following analysis provides
an overview of the survey results.
It is recommended that the Commission incorporate the Chamber's recommendations
into the hearing record to be considered when making its recommendations for a
sign ordinance to the City Council.
ANALYSIS•
The Chamber's recommendations and the Draft are in general agreement in the fol-
lowing areas:
i) Freestanding monument sign area
ii) Use of Sign Programs to regulate
iii) Prohibition of moving, blinking,
ting advertising devices
Areas of disagreement are as follows:
signs
animated, projecting, or sound emit -
i) Use of the following signs and devices:
a) Banners, flags and pennants
b) Off site garage sale and open house signs
C) Pylon signs
d) Portable signs
e) Balloons
f) Freestanding directory signs
ii) Freestanding sign height
iii) Window sign area
iv) Foreign language signs
x
Page Two
Draft Sign Ordinance/Diamond Bar Chamber of Commerce Survey
October 8, 1990
In addition, the Chamber's recommendations do not include maximum areas for the
following signs:
i) Wall signs
ii) Commercial real estate signs
iii) Subdivision/Model home signs
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Diamond Bar Chamber of Commerce Letter - September 14, 1989
B. Summary Chart
ATTACHMENT F
i
- Diamond Bar
Chamber of Comm.e
September 14, 1989
Hon. Phyllis Papen, Mayor
Council Members
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 330
Diamond Bar, California 91765
Re: Sign Ordinance Membership Survey
Dear Ms. Papen and Council Members:
The Diamond Bar Chamber of Commerce has conducted a survey of its membership
and other interested parties in order to assist the Diamond Bar City Council
in the drafting of sign ordinanc
e guidelines for the City of Diamond Bar.
In addition to the survey, two noticed meetings were held.
In creating the survey, conducting the meetings and drafting this document
the sign ordinances of seven (7) other entities (including Los Angeles County
and the cities of San Dimas, m, Alhambra,land Irvine
managementdBre e)and ompanies wehe re
criteria for several real property
utilized as reference material.
For purposes of discussion the Chamber's survey and hearing were diviaed
into two main cateacries (Temporary and Permanent) with several subcategories
each.
I�
TEMPORARY SIGNS -- On Site
a) Banners and Portable Signs -- (grand opening, 1/2 off, Sunday Brunch,
etc.) --.permitted upon application -- one per tenant lease space.
Banners -- (including flags, pennants, streamers) -- upon application
-- a maximum of four (4) periods per calendar year, each period to be
no longer than thirty (30) days, a maximum of one hundred twenty (120)
days per year. Size of banners (ie. 1 square foot of signage per linear
foot of frontage), freestanding pad tenants to be allowed a maximum of
two frontages. Numbers of flags and pennants should also be regulated.
Portable Signs -- upon application -- Time limitations as stated above.
Size limitation of 36 square feet.
)
sl Bu
(Commrciailding - One sign per street
b) Leasing/Coming Soon -- regulate size
frontage, maximum of two per building if Freestanding, g
1081 Grand Avenue • Diamond Sar, California 91765 • (714) 861-2121
.� :..t.yY..: �.
j, .4,:ka:
.'
and colors, with no time limitations so long as a portion of the space
remains unrented.
;W Rooftop Signs -- Advertising Balloon -- permitted upon application j --
.:
_ '. duration limited to a total of 60 days per year. No other temporary
signs would be permitted above the roof line.
.a) Window Signs -- (Retail Tenants) -- limit to no more than thirty five
-percent (35%) of window area.
e) Real Estate Signs -- (1) For Sale or Rent -- one sign per lot or parcel
-- not to exceed six square feet in size. (2) subdivision or
Development -- size and number of on-site signs should be based upon
size of development (ie. one (1) two hundred square foot sign per each
ten acres).
f) Special consideration should be given to signs of a temporary nature
belonging to charitable or educational groups.
TEMPORARY SIGNS -- Off Site
a) No off site banners would be permitted.
b) No off site leasing signs would be permitted.
C) Signs directing persons to garage sales ana reside_ ial ooen houses may
be permitted provided that they are removed within Yt_ (these signs
8 he
should therefor contain the dates and times of the advertised activity
as well as the property address). Standards may be established for
carage sale signs to rewire uniformity in size and appearance.
Reasonable use of open house flags, streamers, pennants, etc. may also
be permitted.
d) Placement -- No sign, poster or advertisement shall be pasted, fastened,
painted, marked or in any manner affixed to or on any curb, street,
sidewalk, street sign post, traffic sign, telephone, telegraph or
electric light pole, or any tree or shrub it any street, park, public
street, alley, parkway or sidewalk. All permitted signs should be so
located as to assure that sight distance shall not be impaired for
pedestrian and vehicular traffic and that traffic control devices shall
not be obstructed.
e) Political Signs -- may be permitted within public property subject to
the issuance of a permit and provided that the persons desiring to erect
such sign post a cash bond in order to guarantee the removal of each
such sign within five (5) days following the election to which it
relates. Such signs should not b� pe -pitted for loncer than thirty (30)
days prior to the election (or as required by law).
PERMANENT SIGNS
Submission of sign programs should be required of each commercial center
2
._ -.
$howang color pallet, material specifications,
locations, square footage,
,aa_j,j ment details, addressing, suite identification and circulation signing
t6t-- sure a well designed and pleasing appearance while at the same time
p,arlding latitude for variety and design. All signs should relate to the
g�'�-�+,tectural style of the main buildings on the site.
,a .-Prohibited signs -- no moving, blinking (other than time and temperature
signs), flashing, sound making, animated or projecting signs should be
permitted.
b) Monument signs -- (1) Project ID (free standing, low silhouette) --
one sign per street frontage for identification of project entry. No
individual tenant may be identified on this sign and the lettering area
may not exceed 24 square feet. (2) Tenant ID -- Freestanding pad
tenants or major tenants (determined by minimum square foot
requirements) to be allowed a monument sign provided they do not have
a wall sign parallel to the street (minimum 125 foot separation). A
maximum of two major tenant panels may be included on such sign plus
center identification. (3) Height -- determin2d by project size -- 1
to 3 acres = 5 feet, 3 to 5 acres = 7 feet, 5+ acres = 9 feet.
C) Directory Signs -- projects without a major tenant and larger than 3
acres may have a center identification signs with a maximum of six (6)
tenant Danels. Total sign area should be limited to 24 scuare feet.
Signs should be no more than 6 feet in height and should also
incorporate the project identification and street address.
d) Pylon Signs -- A pylon sign should be allowed provided: (1) that the
property is a freeway oriented commercial project; or (2) the center
consists of at least 3-5 acres. Pylon signs should not exceed 20 feet
in height with a minimum setback of 5 feet. Height may be increased 1
foot for each additional foot of setback up to a maximum of 25 feet.
However, due to special circumstances based on visibility, the height
of a free-standing sign for integrated freeway oriented properties or
properties of at least 3-5 acres may be increased to no more than 50
feet. One pylon sign per lot or combination of lots should be
permitted.
The total lettering area of pylon signs (not inclusive cf support
structure should not exceed fifty (50) square feet.
All pylon poles should be covered with material and colors consistent
with the project and to a minimum of 25€ of sign width. All pylons
should be located in landscaped setback areas of at least equal size to
the sign area.
e) Sign Copy -- The name of the use or business should be the dominant
message of the sign. Telephone num]uers, lists of products, pict_=
and other messages should not be allowed. For purposes of public safety
the predominant language characters in the sign should identify the
tenants use or business and should be Greco-Roman.
3 -
ATTACHMENT B
SUMMARY OF CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SURVEY RECOMMENDATIONS
WALL SIGNS
Draft Ordinance Chamber Survey
1 sq. ft. per 1 lineal foot of
frontage to a 100 sq. ft. maximum,
with certain specified exceptions.
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
Draft Ordinance Chamber Survey
24 sq. ft.
6 ft. height
1 per site 1 per frontage
Permit valid 1 year No time limit
SUBDIVISION/MODEL HOME SALES
24 sq. ft.
6 ft. height
1 per entrance
Permit valid 6 months
POLITICAL SIGNS
Draft Ordinance Chamber Survey
24 sq. ft.
6 ft. height
Removed 10 days after election. Posted no more than 30 days
May be posted in right of way prior to election, removed 5
with permission. days after election. May be post-
ed in right of way with permis-
sion. Sign may be posted on util-
ity poles or traffic devices.
WINDOW SIGNS
Draft Ordinance
25% of contiguous window area
ON SITE REAL ESTATE SIGNS
Draft Ordinance
6 sq. ft.
8 ft. height
1 per lot
*Not Specified
Chamber Survey
35% of window area
Chamber Survey
6 sq. ft.
1 per lot
GAkAGE 'SALE/OPEN HOUSE - OFF SITE
Draft Ordinance
Not Allowed
FREESTANDING SIGNS
Draft Ordinance
Center Sian
72 sq. ft.
6 ft. height
area of project)
2 per entrance
Tenant I.D. (equivalent to freestanding
business sign)
24 sq. ft.
4 ft. height
1 per frontage in excess of 991.
Directory Signs
Not Allowed
Pylon
Not Allowed
SPECIAL EVENT SIGNS
Draft Ordinance
Banner Flags
Not Allowed
Chamber Survey
Allowed, must be removed within 48
hours after sale or open house.
Flags, banners may be used.
Chamber Survey
24 sq. ft.
5-9 ft. height (based on floor
1 per frontage
24 sq. ft.
5-9 ft. height
1 per site.
Maximum 2 tenants per sign. To be
used only in lieu of wall sign
parallel to street.
24 sq. ft.
6 ft. height
1 per site
Project must be 3 acres or great-
er.
Maximum 6 tenants per sign.
50 sq. ft.
20-25 ft. height
(based on set back)
1 sign per lot
Sign must be located on free -way
oriented properly, at least 3
acres in size.
Chamber Survey
1 sq. ft. per 1 linear foot of
frontage.
Allowed 4 times per year, 30 days
at a time.
Portable Signs
Not Allowed
Balloons
Not Allowed
FOREIGN LANGUAGE SIGNS
No Restrictions
36 sq. ft.
Allowed 4 times per year, 30 days
at a time.
Allowed, rooftop only.
Removed after 60 days.
Greco-Roman lettering must predom-
inate sign copy.
AGENDA NO.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: October 2, 1990 MEETING DATE: October 8, 1990
TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
VIA: James DeSte£ano, Planning Director
FROM: Larry Weissman, Contract Planner
SUBJECT: Draft Sign Ordinance
BACKGROUND:
This memo summarizes comments made on the draft sign ordinance during the Com-
mission's meeting of September 10, 1990.
These comments covered the following issues:
1. Expansion of the maximum size and heights for signs.
2. Provision for a minimum sign size.
3. Standards for political signs.
4. A program for sign amortization and the abatement of non -conforming
signs.
5. Special provision for Christmas lights.
ISSUE: Sign Size, Height and Location:
It was suggested at the hearing that a formula be developed which would allow some
properties to have more than the 100 square feet maximum sign area than is
permitted in the Draft Ordinance. It was suggested that building frontage and
height be used as criteria in any such formula.
The rationale behind this suggestion is that in some cases where building frontage
exceeds 100 linear feet, the 100 square feet maximum area may not be appropriate.
Increased sign area may be necessary for adequate identification of such
businesses, or separate uses located along the same building frontage may require
more than the 100 square feet maximum allowed for a single building. Thus some
buildings may be at a relative disadvantage.
Buildings containing a single use which have particularly large frontages may
benefit from having signage near both ends of the building, so that the business
would be readily identifiable by approaching traffic coming from either direction.
Accordingly, it may be appropriate to permit additional signage for buildings with
large frontages so that adequate signage could be provided for this purpose. One
approach might be to allow 200 sq. ft. of signage for buildings which have a
frontage in excess of 200 feet. This would treat a 200 foot long (or longer)
Pa4e Two
Draft Sign Ordinance
October 8, 1990
building which contains a single use as though it was two separate buildings, each
with a frontage of 100 feet. This would allow the business to be identified in
a manner similar to smaller buildings, while maintaining the spirit of the
proposed code for modest signage. This approach would only be permitted under a
Planned Sign Program.
In addition, multiple users (which are located at grade) in a single building
would be entitled to a maximum aggregate of one square foot of signage for each
linear foot of building frontage, in proportion to the frontage of the particular
use. In this way, each busines would have the same opportunity as though it were
located in a separate building.
Building identification signs (which were the same as nameplate signs in the
earlier draft) have been separately identified for clarity. Such signs would be
limited to the name of the building or a major tenant, only for buildings which
are taller than 45 feet. Such signs should be located not less than 25 feet above
grade level and would be limited to two frontages. Should buildings be in excess
of 75 feet in height, the Commission may wish to allow such signage on 4 sides as
these buildings are likely to be seen from a distance. Building identification
signs would be allowed in addition to the 100 square foot maximum signage
otherwise permitted.
To provide for adequate visibility of such signs, the Draft should be revised to
allow building identification signs which do not exceed 20 of the area of the
vertical exterior wall upon which the sign is to be located, when attached at a
level higher than 25 feet.
It was suggested at the hearing that some properties with limited frontage will
be unduly constrained if maximum sign area is limited by the length of frontage.
Some business names,for example, may be too long to fit well aesthetically into
ten or fifteen square foot signs.
In those instances where frontage is less
Planned Sign Program may be appropriate
square feet. t
than 25 linear feet, a request under the
to allow a sign area of no less than 25
It was also stated at the hearing that properties which are below the adjacent
street or freeway elevation be allowed special sign heights. Mention was made of
the Ramada Inn and other freeway properties in similar circumstances.
One alternative to meet the needs of such properties with minimal impact may be
through provisions which allow nominal additional height above adjacent freeway
level for the advertisement of food, fuel and lodging only.
With respect to signs along street frontages, the Commission had suggested a
maximum height of six feet above the adjacent street grade for commercial centers.
With respect to freeway visibility, however, the Commission may wish to allow
signs which are higher than six feet above adjacent freeway grade for food, fuel
and lodging.
Page Three
Draft Sign Ordinance
October 8, 1990
Alternatively, if the Commission believes that such requests will be few and far
between and should not be encouraged, The Commission may not wish to adopt any
code provisions to accommodate such signs, leaving the matter to the Variance
process.
A request was made at the hearing for larger commercial real estate and
construction signs. It was suggested that a 41X 6' standard plywood sheet is
typically used for such signs.
This appears to be a reasonable request
therefore suggests that the maximum area
feet with a maximum height of 6 feet.
which would have minimal impact. Staff
for such signs be enlarged to 24 square
Although the code would not permit signage on buildings for tenants within the
buildings which do not have ground floor street frontage (except for building
identification signs), there are instances where such signage may be appropriate.
Additional signage should be permitted for retail and service uses which are not
located at the street level (such as on the second story of mini -malls) provided
that such uses have frontage and an entrance which have visual and physical access
to the public directly from the outside. Such uses would be subject to similar
separate calculations of building frontage, so as to be distinct from the
limitation on signage for grade level uses.
ISSUE: Political Signs:
Specific standards for political signs have been added to the
Draft. These standards set numerical and locational standards for such signs.
Such standards were not in the Draft Ordinance at the time of the last continued
hearing.
ISSUE: Sign Amortization:
The issue of removing non -conforming signs was discussed at the hearing. It was
suggested that a survey of all existing signs be made. Such an inventory would
be appropriate (and necessary) for all signs which would have to be abated by the
ordinance. As an initial step, therefore, the Commission should establish a
policy as to which signs should be abated. Staff suggests that an abatement
program be adopted to phase out sign types which are expressly prohibited by any
future ordinance, such as roof signs. Other signs which would no longer be
permitted (such as signs which are too large) would be legally non -conforming and
should be allowed to remain as non -conforming signs until they are replaced.
ISSUE: Christmas Lights:
In order to clarify the use of Christmas lighting, staff has added
a provision to the Draft Ordinance which allows the temporary use of such lighting
for business signs.
ATTACHMENTS: Draft Sign Ordinance sign groups and definitions.
LW:pjs
Attachment A
This attachment describes the four groups of signs which have been
proposed for inclusion in the Draft Sign Ordinance. These groups are as
follows:
(i) Basic Sign Program
(ii) Planned Sign Program
(iii) Signs Exempt from Permit Requirements
(iv) Signs Expressly Prohibited
THE REMAINDER OF THIS ATTACHMENT DESCRIBES THESE GROUPS AND THEIR
RESTRICTIONS. (NOTE: DRAFT REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN ALTERED SINCE THE
SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING. ADDITIONS ARE
UNDERLINED, DELETIONS HAVE BEEN "LINED THROUGH")
Basic Sign Program/Planned Sign Program
General Regulations:
1. No illuminated signs shall be approved as part of a Basic Sign
Program, except Temporary Holiday Lighting.
2. No freestanding sign shall be located less than 25 feet from
an adjoining property line, except that a sign may be located
no less than 10 feet from the ultimate right-of-way.
3. Signs shall be constructed of fire resistant material. Where
glass or plastic are used, these materials shall be shatter -
resistant.
4. The Director of Planning may approve minor alterations of
signs approved within a planned sign program.
5. Sign materials and colors shall be consistent with building
materials attached or adjacent to signs.
6.
Council's designee.
1
SIGN DEFINITIONS
(a) Advertising device: Any balloon, flag, pennant, banner,
propeller, oscillating, rotating, pulsating or stationary
light or other contrivance (except lawfully permitted signs)
used to attract attention.
(b) Advertising display: Any device, contrivance, statue or
structure (other than a sign) used as a display, regardless of
size and shape, for the purpose of attracting attention.
(c) Advertising structure, outdoor: A structure of any kind or
character erected or maintained for the purpose of advertising
a business, activity, service or product not sold or produced
on the premises upon which said structure is placed.
(d) Alteration: Any change of copy, sign face, color, size,
shape, illumination, position, location, construction or
supporting structure of any sign.
(e) Area of a sign: The entire area within the single continuous
perimeter of not more than eight (8) straight lines enclosing
the extreme limits of writing, representation, emblem or any
figure of similar character, together with any material or
color forming any integral part of the display or used to
differentiate such from the background against which it is
placed, provided that in the case of a sign designed with more
than one exterior surface, the area shall be computed as
including only the maximum single display surface which is
visible from any ground position at one time.
Unless otherwise specified, the supports, uprights or
structure on which any sign is supported shall not be included
in determining the sign area unless such supports, uprights or
structure are designed in such a manner as to form an integral
background of the display.
(f) Attached sign: iany sign which is permanently affixed to a
building, including wall signs.
(g) Awning sign: A sign attached to or written upon an awning.
(h) Banner sign: Any sign hung either with or without frames,
possessing written communication applied to non -rigid paper,
plastic, non -rigid material or fabric of any kind, and capable
of being viewed from any public right-of-way, parking area, or
neighboring property.
2
(i) Building frontage: The lineal extent of a building or
activity which has frontage on either a public right-of-way or
parking area. The length of the building facing the public
right-of-way or parking lot shall be used to determine the
amount of signage permitted.
(j) Building identification sign: Sign attached to a building
which designates the name and/or address of a business or
organization.
(k) Business sign: A sign displaying information pertaining to
goods or services offered or produced by the business located
on the property but not including advertising
devices/ displays. Business signs may include the identifying
name of a business. The content of business signs shall be
limited to the identification of the following: (1) the
business name of the user; (2) the name or names of the
owner(s) of the business; (3) a description of the activity of
the business; or (4) address of the premises. Freestandina
business advertised. Signs shall not be allowed to advertise
the products sold or prepared or the individual services
performed on the premises unless the products or services are
an integral part of the identifying name of the business.
(1) Canopy sign: Any sign which is not illuminated, which is
attached to the underside of a projecting canopy protruding
over a private or public sidewalk or right-of-way.
(m) Changeable copy sign: Any sign designed and intended to have
an easily and readily changeable copy, such as an attraction
board.
(n) Commercial center: Any site containing two (2) or more
commercial activities.
(o) Commercial sign: A sign intended to design, promote, or draw
attention to a commercial activity.
I
(p) Construction signs: A sign which states the name of the future
site occupant and/or the name, address and/or phone numbers of
related construction, architectural, and financial firms.
(q) Electronic message board sign: A sign with a fixed or
changing display composed of a series of lights, but not
including time and temperature displays.
(r) Flaa: An advertising device, but not including national flags
or flags of political subdivisions.
3
(s) Flashing or animated sign: A sign intermittently reflecting
light, or which has any illumination which is not maintained
in constant intensity, color or pattern, including electronic
reader boards, except time and temperature displays.
(t) Freestanding sign: Any sign permanently or temporarily
attached to the ground and which does not have a building as
its primary structural support.
(u) Grand opening sign: An on premise sign advertising the
opening of a new business.
(v) Ground level•
at the closest point
(w) Government offices and Ouasi official signs: A sign
displaying information pertaining to services offered by City,
County, State or other official governmental or quasi -official
government agencies.
(x) Height of a sign: The vertical distance measured from ground
level along the base of the sign structure, to the highest
point of the structure.
(y) Hours of Operation Sign: A wall or window sign designating
hours of opening and closing.
(z) Illuminated Sign: A sign which has characters, letters,
figures, designs or outline backlighted or internally
illuminated by electric lights or luminous tubes as a part of
the sign proper.
(aa) Incidental sign: A wall or window sign indicating type of
credit card accepted, trade affiliation, etc.
(ab) Liquidation sign: An on premise sign advertising a one time
only clearance, liquidation or going out of business sale.
(ac) Logo: A name, symbol, or trademark of a company, business, or
organization.
(ad) Monument sign: A low profile freestanding sign which may be
internally or externally illuminated, erected with its base on
the ground and which is designed to incorporate design and
building materials which complement the architectural theme of
the buildings on the premises. The base of a monument sign
shall not be counted as sign area.
(ae) Nameplate: A wall mounted
identifying building name or
of the premises.
4
sign of no more than 4 sq. ft.
address, or the name of the owner
(af) Nonconforming sign: A sign which complied with all applicable
regulations at the time it was installed, but which is now in
conflict with the provisions of this chapter.
(ag) Outdoor advertising sign: A sign, including billboards,, or
the sign structure on which it is to be placed, the purpose of
which is to advertise products or services that are not
produced, stored, or sold on the property upon which the sign
or structure is located, but not including travel direction or
bus/bench shelter signs in public rights of way.
(ah) Portable sign: A
sign not securely attached or fixed to the
ground or to a permanent structure; or
upon a
vehicle or
trailer used as a
stationary advertising
display,
the primary
purpose of which
is to serve as a base,
platform,
or support
for the sign, or
to which the sign is
otherwise
affixed or
attached.
(ai) Pole Sign: A freestanding sign supported by one or more
uprights.
(ak) Political Sign: A temporary sign conveying a message relating
to an upcoming election or ballot issue.
(al) Price sign: A sign limited to the name or identification of
items or products for sale on the premises, and the price of
said items or products.
(am) Projecting sign: A sign which projects more than twelve (12)
inches from the wall of a building and which has its display
surface not parallel to such wall.
(an) Real estate sign: A temporary sign indicating that the
premises on which the sign is located is for sale, lease or
rent.
Real estate sign, commercial: A temporary sign indicating
that the premises on which the sign is located is for.sale,
lease, or rent.I This sign is to be placed on commercial
property only.
(ao) Roof sign: An attached sign constructed upon or over a roof,
or placed so as to extend above the visible roofline; or a
freestanding sign which is greater in height than the building
it serves to identify.
(ap) Security protection sign: A wall or a low profile
freestanding sign the copy of which is limited to description
of security services provided on premises and security company
name.
5
(aq) Sian: Any device used for visual communication or attraction,
including any announcement, declaration, demonstration,
display, illustration, insignia, or symbol used to advertise
or promote the interests of any person, together with all
parts, materials, frame and background thereof.
"Sign" and "advertising device" shall not include the
following for purposes of this chapter:
(1) Official notices issued by any court or public body or
officer;
(2) Notices posted by any public officer in performance of a
public duty or by any person in giving any legal notice;
(3) Intra -community traffic directional signs, warning or
informational signs or structures required or authorized
by Federal, State, County, or City authority; and
(4) Displays of prices or other messages not less than 24
inches behind building windows.
(ar) Sign copy: Any word, letter, number, figure, design, or other
symbolic representation incorporated into or depicted upon a
sign.
(as) Sign face: The surface, or that portion of a sign that is
visible from a single point as a flat surface or a place, and
considered as such, together with the frame and the
background.
(at) Sian structure: Any structure which supports any sign.
(au) Site: One or more parcels of land identified by the
assessor's records where an integrated building development
has been approved or proposed. The site shall include all
parcels of land contained within or a part of the development
application. An integrated building development shall include
all parcels served by common access ways, driveways, parking
and landscaping.
(av) Special Event Sign: A temporary sign which conveys a message
relating to a civic, patriotic or religious event.
(aw) Subdivision / Model home sign: A sign which identifies a
subdivision for sale, and which is located on the property
being advertised.
(ax) Temporary Holiday Lighting Low intensity lighting consisting
of continuous bulbs which may flash or blink used to
commemorate a patriotic civic or religious event.
6
(ay) Temporary sign: Any sign displayed for a limited period of
time and capable of being viewed from any public right-of-way,
parking area, or neighboring property.
(az) No Trespassing sign: A sign which contains the following copy
only "No trespassing."
(ba) Wall sign: Any sign which is attached or erected on the
exterior wall of a building including the parapet, with the
display surface of the sign parallel to the building wall, and
which does not project more than twelve (12) inches from the
building, or project above the apparent roof or the height of
the wall or parapet.
(bb) Window sign: Any sign posted, placed or affixed in or on any
window visible from a public right-of-way, parking lot, or
neighboring property.
c:\wp50\signdefJw
7
I. BASIC SIGN PROGRAM. The following signs may be approved by staff.
No illuminated sign may be approved in a basic sign program, except
that special event skins may be illuminated to a maximum intensity
of 25 watts.
A. Permanent:
1. Wall signs for individual uses.
Area: 1 sq. ft. per 1 lineal foot frontage, to a
maximum 100 sq. ft. per use.
Number: 1 per outer wall
Location: Exterior of a building with the display
surface of the sign parallel to the building
wall, and not projecting more than 12 inches
from the building or project above the
apparent roof or the height of the wall or
parapet.
Special Conditions:
No permit shall be issued for a wall sign in a
multi -use building or commercial center in
which more than one sign is proposed without
Planning Commission review and approval.
Zone: Commercial
2. CanOpV and awning s
Area.: Limited to letters or numbers no
greater than 7 inches in height —.
designating business name a
address.
-Number: 1 per use.
Zone: Commercial
B. Temporary:
1. Commercial Real Estate Sign
Area: 4 Y-r—f-t-: 24 sq. ft.
Configuration: Wall or Freestanding
Number: iI 1 Per site
Freestanding Height: 4 €t. 6 ft.
Special Conditions: Permit valid for 1 year after
permit issuance, may be renewed.
Zone: Commercial
2. Construction Sign
Area: 24 sq. ft.
Configuration: Wall or Freestanding
Number: 1 per site
Freestanding Height: -4—f-e 6 Feet_
8
Special Conditions: Permit for sign issued after
construction permit is issued;
sign must be removed upon issuance
of occupancy permit.
Zone:
All
3. Subdivision/Model Home Sales Signs
Area: 16 sq. ft.
Configuration: Wall of Freestanding
Number: 1 per entrance
Freestanding Height: 4 feet
Special Conditions: Permit valid for 6
renewable.
Zone: All
4. Grand Opening Sign
Area: 16 sq. ft.
Configuration: Wall or window
Number: 2 per use.
Special Conditions: Permit valid for 30 days
Zone: Commercial
5. Liquidation Sale Sign
Area: 16 sq. ft.
Configuration: Wall or window
Number: 2 per use.
Special Conditions: Permit valid for 30 days
Zone:
6. Political Signs
Area:
Configuration:
Number:
Freestanding Height:
Special Conditions:
Zone: i
7. Special Event
Area:
Configuration:
Number:
Special Conditions
Zone • _
9
Commercial
months,
16 sq. ft. Residential zones
24 so. ft. _Commercial zones
Wall or freestanding
2 i' er property
4 feet Resid.6 feet Comm.
Must be removed 10 days followina
All
24 sq. ft.
Wall or window
1 per use.
Must be removed within 10 days
following special event. Permit
issued not more than 60 days prior
to event.
Commercial
Temporary Holiday Lighting,
Area•., N/A
Configuration: N/A
Number:N A
Specza.conditions: Must be removed within 30 daya
after permit issuance. _
Zone: All
10
II. PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM. The following signs must be approved by
the Planning Commission.
A. Freestanding Monument.
Area: 24 sq. ft.
Number: 1 per frontage in excess of 99 feet for
structures less than 4 stories.
1 per frontage for structures 4 stories
or greater
Height: 4 feet
'on_: Commercial
B. Window Signs.
Area: 25 percent of contiguous window area
Number: 2 per use
Zone: -Commercial
C. Wall Signs for multi -use buildings or commercial centers
Area: 1 sq. ft. per 1 lineal foot. Frontage to
a maximum of 100 sq. ft. per street level
uses plus up to 100 sq. ft. for uses not
ocated at street level which are visual-
ly and physically accessible by the pub-
lic directly from outside the building
Number: 1 per use per outer_ wall
Location: Same as Basic Sign Program
Special Conditions: Sign on rear wall may exceed aggregate
100 sq. ft. maximum per use if necessary
to maintain consistency of sign letters
with other approved signs.
Businesses with frontages less than 25
Zone•
D. Freestanding Monuments for Commercial Centers.
Area: 72 sq. ft.
Height: 1 6 feet
Number: 1 sign per entrance.
Special Conditions: Shall not be counted toward maximum sign
area otherwise permitted.
Zone: Commercial
E. Government flags over 12 sq. ft. in area or 6 ft. in height.
Area: Determined by Planning Commission
Height: 35 feet
Number & Location: Determined by Planning Commission
Zone: All
11
F. Building ID Sign.
Area: 36 sq. ft.
Height: Must be mounted at a height no less than
25 ft.
Number: 1 per building
Special condition: 1. Signs mounted at a building level
higher that 45 feet may be no more than
2% of the vertical exterior wall upon
which the sign is located.
2. Up to 4 Building ID signs may be
approved for buildings when such signs
are mounted at a building height
greater than 75 feet, limited to one
sign per building side.
3. Up to two Building ID signs may be
approved when signs are mounted no
higher than 45 ft.
4. Building ID signs larger than
36 sq. ft. may not be used on
Properties containing freestanding
signs.
5. Building identification signs larger
than 36 sq. ft. shall not be counted
towards maximum sign area.
6. Building ID signs are allowed only on
buildings the heights of which are no
less than 45 feet.
Zone: Commercial
G. Freestandina monument signs adiacent to freewa
Area: 24 sq. ft.
.Height: To be determined by commission
Special Conditions: Used to advertise food fuel or lodging
only.
H. Sign illumination shall be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. No lighting shall interfere with traffic or regulatory
lighting in color or intensity, nor create confusion for
motorists or pedestrians in travel.
2. The intensity of lighting and the hours of operation
shall be restricted for sign lighting visible from,
directed to or reflecting upon residential properties.
3. Lighting shall be consistent with existing legally
conforming commercial and/or residential lighting in the
vicinity.
12
I.
i. No single wall sign so approved exceeds 100 sq. ft., and
no freestanding sign exceed 24 sq. ft.
ii. Any two signs placed on the same frontage which taken
together exceed 100 sa ft. shall be separated by no less
than one half the length of the building frontage.
J. No planned sign program shall be approved which allows any
combination of signs which exceed an overall maximum of 100
square feet per use, except as stated by the provisions of
this ordinance.
13
I
III. EXEMPT SIGNS.
No permit required
GOVT. REQUIRED TRAFFIC AND DIRECTIONAL SIGNS
OFFICIAL CITY MONUMENT SIGNS LOCATED AT CITY LIMITS*
MONUMENT SIGNS ON CITY PARK GROUNDS OR AT CITY FACILITIESt
* Such signs shall be submitted for an advisory Architectural review
by Planning Commission prior to sign installation.
ON PREMISE REAL ESTATE SIGNS:
Area: 6 sq. £t.
Height: 8 ft.
Number: 1 per property
Configuration: Freestanding, window (one window sign
allowed per ground level lease space)
Special conditions: Removed upon sale lease or rent of
property.
NAMEPLATE/ADDRESS SIGN:
Area:
Configuration:
Number:
Special conditions:
HOURS OF OPERATION:
Area:
Configuration:
Number:
INCIDENTAL SIGN:
Area:
Configuration:
Number:
SECURITY PROTECTION: if
Area:
Height:
Configuration:
Number:.
Special Conditions:
NO TRESPASSING SIGN:
Area:
Height:
Configuration:
Number:
Special Conditions:
4 sq. ft.
Wall
1 per building
May be illuminated with lighting no
greater than 25 watts.
1 sq. ft.
Wall or window
1 per use
1 sq. ft.
Wall or window
1 per use
1 sq. ft.
1 ft.
Wall or freestanding
1 per property
May utilize pole uprights.
2 sq. ft.
2 ft.
Wall or freestanding
1 per property
May utilize pole uprights
14
FLAGS: 12 sq. ft. per flag
Area: 6 ft.
Height: 2 per property
Number:Must represent Government Body or Unit
Special Conditions: and may be pole mounted.
WARNING SIGNS AS REQUIRED BY
AS REQUIRED BY FEDERAL, STATE
OR CITY REGULATIONS: 4 sq. ft.
Area: 4 ft.
Height: Wall or freestanding
Configuration: May use Pole uprights
Special Conditions: Y
Signs located within the interior of buildings or the
ewed inteior
Note
of malls, when such signs are incapable of being
the outside of said building or mall.
15
TV. PROHIBITED SIGNS.
Unless expressly permitted elsewhere in this chapter, the following
signs are prohibited:
A. Any off premises or outdoor advertising sign or billboard
placed on private property for the purpose of advertising a
business not on the property upon which the sign is placed.
B. Flashing,moving, pulsating, or intermittently lighted signs,
electronic reader boards, time and temperatures signs and
searchlights.
C. Signs which conflict with or imitate any traffic control
devices due to color, wording, design, location or
illumination, or which interfere with the safe and efficient
flow vehicular and/or pedestrian traffic.
D. Animals or human beings, live or simulated, designed or used
so as to attract attention to the premises.
E. Loudspeakers, or signs which emit sound, odor, or visible
matter other than menu boards.
F. Signs with mechanical movement.
G. Roof signs.
H. Projecting signs.
I. Permanent pole signs.
J. Changeable copy signs, including electronic reader boards,
except theatre marquees and attraction boards approved as part
of a Planned Sign Program.
K. Banners, non-governmental flags, kites, pennants, balloons, or
other such advertising devices or displays.
II
L Signs which constitute a nuisance or hazard due to such
factors as location, intensity of light or reflectivity.
M. Signs which no longer identify a bona fide business conducted
on the premises. Such signs shall be removed by the owner of
the business or property within sixty (60) days of the
business, closing date.
16
N. Vehicle signs, trailer signs, signs affixed to automobiles,
trucks, trailers, or other vehicles parked on any property
within the City for the principal purpose of advertising or
display. It is a prima facia violation of this section if the
advertising medium utilized on the vehicle is a sign, device,
or structure separate from the vehicle, or if the copy is
readily changeable, or if the device or structure exceeds nine
(9) square feet in area and the vehicle is parked on the
street or on the business premises to which the advertising
relates or in reasonable proximity thereto and the location of
the advertising is reasonably calculated to direct an observer
towards the business. It shall be considered that advertising
was the principal purpose of the parking of the vehicle,
notwithstanding the fact that the vehicle is driven to and
from the business premises on a daily basis.
O. Signs on any public property or projecting within the public
right-of-way, except with an encroachment permit or as
otherwise specified in this section.
P. Price signs, except as required by law as in the case of fuel
sales.
Q. Any other sign not expressly permitted by this division.
R. Any sign continuously outlined with individual light bulbs or
string of lights, except as otherwise provided by this
section.
S. Portable signs including A -frame signs.
17
VARIANCE
Variances may be approved by Planning Commission if all of the following
findings are made by the Commission.
1. That because of special circumstances or exceptional
characteristics applicable to the property, the strict application
of the code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other
property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification;
2. That the adjustment authorized will not constitute a grant of
special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other
properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is
situated;
3. That strict application of zoning regulations as they apply to such
property will result in practical difficulties or unnecessary
hardships inconsistent with the general purpose of such regulations
and standards; and
4. That such adjustment will not be materially detrimental to the
public health, safety or general welfare, or to the use, enjoyment
or valuation or property of the persons located in the vicinity.
C:\wp50\signord.Lw
18
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Chairman and Commissioners
FROM: James DeStefano, Director of Planning
SUBJECT: Draft Sign Ordinance
DATE: October 4, 1990
The attached material contains suggested additions which enhance
the Draft Sign ordinance which was distributed to the Commission
on Oct. 3. The following is a brief description of these addi-
tions:
1. Entrance/Exit Signs:
These signs are needed to designate ground level points of
access to buildings and driveways.
2. Civic Organization Sign:
This sign identifies uses not normally associated with retail
or general commercial activities which may be located in or
near residential areas.
3. Condominium, Subdivision or Rental Community Sign (Per-
manent):
This sign identifies the name of subdivisions and residential
housing projects.
4. English Translation Requirement for Sign Copy:
This is required to assure that emergency personnel may be
properly directed to the property upon which a sign is locat-
ed.
Copies of these additions have been mailed to those persons and
groups who received the Draft Sign ordinance distributed on Octo-
ber 3, 1990.
The suggested additions to the Draft should be reviewed by the
Commission at its October 8 hearing, and they may be included
thereafter in the Draft Sign Ordinance as the Commission deems
appropriate.
SUGGESTED ADDITIONS TO SIGN ORDINANCE
I. DEFINITIONS:
(1) Civic Organization Sign:
A wall or freestanding sign which has copy limited to
organization name, address, and civic patriotic or reli-
gious events conducted on the property.
(2) Entrance/Exit Sign:
A sign which has copy limited to the words "Entrance" or
"Exit" and is located at commercial driveways or mounted
at building entrances or exits.
(3) Institutional Sign:
A wall or a freestanding sign which has copy limited to
the name/address of an institution located on the prop-
erty such as a hospital, school, library or other public
facility.
(4) Permanent Condominium, Subdivision or Rental Community
Sign:
A wall or freestanding sign which has copy limited to
the name of the condominium, subdivision or rental com-
munity, including apartments, located on the property.
(5) Non-English Language Signs:
Every sign larger than four (4) square feet in area,
erected in connection with any business within the City
and which utilizes any non-English letters, symbols or
characters in fifty percent (50%) or more of its adver-
tising message and in letters large enough to be read-
able from the nearest public street, shall be considered
to be a "non-English language sign".
II. BASIC SIGN PROGRAM
(1) Entrance/Exit Signs (Freestanding):
Area: 2 square feet
Height: 18 inches
Number: 1 per entrance plus 1 per exit per frontage
Zone: Commercial
Special Conditions:
Location must be determined to be appropriate by City
Engineer. Must be consistent in color, background and
lettering of other signs on the property.
III. PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM
(1) Civic Organization Signs/Institutional Signs
Freestanding Monument:
Area: 24 square feet in commercial zones.
16 square feet in residential zones.
Height: 4 feet
Number: 1 per frontage in excess of 99 feet in
commercial zones.
1 per frontage in excess of 200 feet in
residential zones.
Zone: All
Special Conditions:
Copy may be changeable. Sign must not be located within
50 feet of any residential use.
Wall Signs•
Area:
1 square foot
sign area
per
1 linear foot
frontage, to a
maximum of
100
square feet in
commercial zones.
1 square foot
sign area
per
1 linear foot
frontage, to a
maximum of
50
square feet in
residential zones.
Number:
1 per frontage
Zone:
All
Special
Conditions: Must
not be located
within 50 feet
of any
residential use.
(2) Permanent Condominium Subdivision or Rental Community
Sign:
Area: 16 square feet
Height: 4 feet
Configuration: Wall or freestanding monument
Number: 1 p,er frontage in excess of 200 feet.
Zone: All
Special Conditions: Must not be located within 50 feet
of any adjacent residential use, which is not part of
the condominium project, subdivision or rental community
located on the property. Height is to be measured from
ground level along the base of the sign structure to the
top of the sign area.
IV. EXEMPT SIGNS
(1) Entrance/Exit Signs (Wall or Window):
Area: 1 square foot
Configuration: Wall or window
Number: 1 per entrance plus 1 per exit.
Special Conditions: Must be consistent in color, back-
ground and lettering of other signs on the property.
V. GENERAL REGULATIONS:
(1) Non-English Language Signs:
Each non-English language sign shall contain, immediate-
ly adjacent to its advertising message, a generic de-
scription written in English, of the nature of such bus-
iness. By way of example, a sign greater than four
square feet, written in a Chinese dialect and advertis-
ing a Chinese restaurant, will comply with the provi-
sions of this section if it contains, adjacent to its
Chinese dialect message, language, in English letters
readable from the nearest public street, reading "Chi-
nese restaurant".
In all cases where a sign permit is required by this
code or other law, the applicant therefor shall provide
a declaration made under penalty of perjury containing,
to the best of the applicant's ability, an English tr-
anslation of the letters, symbols or characters contai-
ned on the subject non-English language sign. An appli-
cation for any such permit shall not be deemed to be
complete unless and until the applicant has provided the
declaration required herein.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 5, 1990
TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners
FROM: James DeStefano, Planning Direct
SUBJECT: Interim Hillside Development Regula ions
On Monday, September 24, the Planning Commission discussed the
need to address several growing concerns regarding hillside
development.
The City Council had previously scheduled a Study/Workshop
session on Thursday, September 27 to review the status of a wide
variety of study projects. The opportunity to discuss hillside
regulations with the City Council was added to their agenda.
I prepared and presented a verbal report on the background issues
we learned at the hillside symposium, opportunities for Diamond
Bar, and the Commission direction to staff.
The City Council was asked to consider my verbal comments and
determine whether the interim development control measure had
merit.
The City Council considered my comments and the Commission
request, discussed the issue briefly and indicated their support
for such a measure. I indicated to the Council that the Planning
Commission would be reviewing a draft ordinance on October 8 with
their recommendation to be forwarded to the City Council for
their October 16 meeting.
JD/tn
To: Diamond Bar Planning Commission
From: Irwin M. Kaplan, Interim City Planner
Subject: Interim Control Ordinance Proposal: Hillside Development
October 8, 1990
Introduction
Attached is a composite ordinance drawn from various sources. As such, there may
be some inconsistencies.
As was discussed at the last meeting, the object is to come up with an interim
ordinance as quickly as possible which:
a. Has reasonably clear standards and guidelines with which to evaluate projects
b. Errs on the side of conservatism, until a permanent ordinance can be adopted
c. Is relatively easy to administer
To accomplish these objectives, the ordinance relies heavily upon graphics to
illustrate what is intended.
The proposal does not address the issue of affordability. It is suggested that this
issue be addressed as part of the General Plan and the permanent hillside ordinance. The
question of affordability will require much more study, since the objectives of hillside
management may conflict with the objective of affordable housing.
In accordance with the Commission's direction, Mr. DeStefano made a presentation of the
concept of an interim ordinance to the City Council and was instructed to proceed with the
preparation of an ordinance. After the Commission discussion, staff would refine the
proposal and bring it to Council for consideration.
1. Background
a. The County code (which has been adopted by the City) requires a Conditional
Use Permit on hillside sites which contain slopes in excess of 25%. The code also contains
a general statement of purpose, calling for protection and enhancement of "the natural
topography, resources and amenities of the hillside management areas, while allowing for
limited controlled development therein," (Although a blanket statement was made to the
Commission, with respect to the issuance of grading permits, there is a provision in the
Hillside Management section of the code which states that "prior to the issuance of any
building or grading permits ......... a conditional use permit shall be applied for and
approved ..... I
Although the existing ordinance provides wide latitude for decisionmaking
(including grounds for reducing project densities and/or denial of a project), the slope
threshold of 25% may be too high for the City of Diamond Bar and the "Statement of
Purpose" too general to provide adequate guidance for decisionmaldng. (copy attached)
b. The hillside development controls suggested by the City's General Plan
consultant would establish a slope of 15% as the threshold for projects subject to hillside
regulation. As currently proposed, it contains specific standards for development with
respect to building heights (so as to minimize the intrusion of man-made development,
view obstruction and ridgeline development), wall heights (so as to adhere more closely to
the natural terrain), grading (so as to maintain the natural character of landforms) and street
standards (for safety and esthetics). It also contains generalized guidelines for drainage and
protection of animal and plant life. (copy attached)
The consultant's proposal is clearly an improvement over the existing code and
should be considered as a possible interim ordinance. If so, it is suggested that:
i). it be further reinforced with qualitative or quantitative standards so that the
generalized guidelines could be administered more objectively with less reliance on
subjective judgment, and
ii). the range of the Commission's discretionary authority to modify or reject a
project be defined.
2 Statement of Objectives
The following lists a series of objectives which summarizes the problems the
ordinance attempts to solve.
a. Public Health and Safety
i) Long term
ii) During construction (e.g. methods of excavation, storage and disposal of
excavated materials, etc.)
b. The natural environment including unique wildlife habitats, native vegetation,
major and minor natural drainage flows, natural topography, etc.
c. Socio -cultural resources, including resources of significant historical,
archeological, or cultural importance to the public, which may have unique scientific or
educational value
E
d. Recreational, esthetic and scenic resources, including views of and from slope
areas, vistas from major public view corridors and public lands, site planning, grading and
landscaping consistent with the character of the City's predominant land forms, etc.
3. Program components
The attached draft is offered in addition to the consultants proposal for
Commission consideration. Each of the eleven items enumerated by the Commission has
been addressed. The components (which sometimes overlap) are as follows:
a. Applicability: (Projects subject to regulation)
i. Thresholds which reflect different levels of environmental concern and
ii. Criteria and guidelines: The yardstick against which each project is to be
measured and the groundrules for the conduct of the environmental assessment. (If this
were a permanent ordinance, some survey work would likely already have been done and
the criteria spelled out in the General Plan itself. In this case, interim criteria would be
contained in the ordnance and all the survey information would be developed through
project -spec engineering and environmental studies.
b. Categories of hillside slopes
i.Maximum density for each slope category
ii. Miminum percentage of land to be left in its natural state
iii. Method of calculation for slope density
c. Procedures
L Findings
ii. Exemptions
iii. Variances
iv. Application requirements
d. Development and Design Standards
L General development standards
ii. Grading standards
iii. Site Planning Standards:
iv. Landscape standards
v. Architectural standards (Note: Limits are proposed for the building envelop,
construction materials and palette. Consequently, it may not be necessary for the
3
Commission to review the design of individual residences under the interim ordinance. If a
project doesn't meet the spirit of the guidelines, staff could refer it to the Commission for
review. A Design Review Board is contemplared as part of the Development Code
currently being prepared by the General Plan consultant)
vi. Drainage standards
vii. Circulation standards
viii. Wall and fence standards
W
4 l o ;7C At_C,L�) 1,rL�L 0.�
0 F-L�,ti� i o R ^'
i �S NJArL)e'A
A2_
SECTION 9117 90
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS c
9117.1 PURPOSE (' ITY
The purpose and intent of the Hill ie Development Standard is to implement the( uTrjt t ,N1
goals, objective and policies of the. =Development
to the preservation and
maintenance of the natural character and visual amenities of hillsides as a scenic
resource of the City and relating to protection from geologic hazards, such as
unstable soils and erosion.
1111115 9117.2 APPLICABILITY
All development within the Hillside Management Area, d=byAhe
s3 shall conform with the standards set forth in this
Section; however, they shall not be applied so as to preclude the reasonable
development of a residence on a legally -created parcel. Approval of a specific
plan, tentative subdivision map or planned development permit shall constitute
approval of the development's conformity with the requirements of this Section.
9117.3 FINDINGS
The Commission or Planning Director may approve an application for development
within the Hillside Management Area only if all of the following findings of fact can
be made in a positive manner:
1. The natural topographic character of hillsides as exhibited in prominent
ridgeline silhouette and backdrop, rounded hill form and angled hillside
slopes will be maintained and/or reinforced.
2. Significant natural systems and resources associated with hillside
environments, including but not limited to prominent ridgelines, significant
vegetation and wildlife habitats, special geological features, steep slopes,
mom and important historic or cultural man-made features, will be maintained to
the maximum extent feasible.
3. The visual character of hillsides will be maintained, recognizing both the
importance of the exposure of hillside development to off-site public views
and the importance of providing panoramic views from the hillside.
IX -9117-1
Density
-- --- -`-
"Average slope" of a parcel of land or ' -ally
portion thereof shall be computed by applying
the formula
S = 0.00229 1 L
A
to the natural slope cf the land before any grad-
ing is commenced, as determined from a topo-
graphic map conforming to national mapping
standards and having a scale not less than one
inch equals 200 feet and a contour interval not
less than five (5') feet. The letters in such
formula shall have the following sig Ill fica lice:
S = Average percent slope:
I = Contour interval, in feet
L = Summation of length of contours, in
feet: and
A = Area in acres of the parcdl brim_ con-
sidered.
The density for property within this zone
shall be computed in accordance with the
following scale:
Average Percent
of Slopes
10- 14.9%
15 - 19.9%
20 -24.9%
25 -29.9%
30 -34.9%
35 and over
Average Percent
Slope of Site
0.0- 14.97o
15.0 - 17.4%
17.5 - 19.9%
20.0 - 22.4%
22.5 - 24.9%
25.0 - 27.4%
27.5 - 29.9%
30.0 -32.4%
32.5 - 34.9%
35.0 and above %
Maximum Density
(D/U per Gross Acre)
2.0
1.6
1.2
:8
.4
A
Minimum Percent of Site
to Remain in Natural
State (No Cut or Fill) or Be
Developed Solely For Recrea-
tional Purposes
32.5%
40.0`,'0
47.5%n
55.0%
6'_.5%
70.0%
77.5%
85.0%
92.5%
100.0%
A-3
9117.9 VARIANCE FROM STANDARDS
As part of an application for development within the Hillside Management
Area, the applicant may also apply for a variance from the requirements of
the Hillside Development Standards if any or all of the following
circumstances exist:
a. There is an internal conflict within the Hillside Development Standards
such that the attainment of one objective or requirement can only be
achieved by permitting non -attainment of another objective or
requirement.
b. There is conflict between the Hillside Development Standards and
other City regulations or ordinances applicable to development of the
property.
C. Compliance with the Hillside Development Standards may endanger
the public health or safety. In cases where such a conflict exists
between this Ordinance and the provisions of the Grading Ordinance,
the Grading Ordinance shall control over the Hillside Development
Standards.
d. Due to special conditions or exceptional characteristics of the
property or its location, the strict application of the development
requirements would not achieve the goals and objectives of these
Standards.
2. The application for a variance shall be accompanied by a written statement
. setting forth the following infprmation:
a. The location of the proposed variance.
b. The provision of the Hillside Development Standards from which the
applicant proposes to vary.
C. The nature and extent of the proposed variance.
d. A description of the alternatives to the variance which were
considered by the applicant and the basis for their rejection.
40
1F ��&&H I1.0NS
VA � [ /X N C, V� P-�
ACIC' � C') PJ
a
B Z
Section 17.24.030
Application Filing Requirements
A. A natural features map, which shall identify all existing slope banks, ridgelines,
canyons, natural drainage courses, federally recognized blue line streams, rock
outcroppings, and existing vegetation. Also depicted shall be landslides and other
existing geologic hazards.
B. A conceptual grading plan, which shall include the following items in addition to
those required by the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 19.04.060 or as
part of the Submittal Requirement Checklist:
1. A legend with appropriate symbols which should include, but not be limited
to, the following items: top of wail, top of curb, high point, low point,
elevation of significant trees, spot elevations, pad and finished floor
elevations, and change in direction of drainage.
2. A separate map with proposed fill areas colored in green and cut areas
colored in red, with areas where cut and fill exceed depths established in the
hillside development guidelines and standards clearly shown. Additionally,
the areas of cut and fill, calculated as a percentage of the total site area,
shall be included on the plan.
3. Contours shall be shown for existing and natural land conditions and proposed
work. Existing contours shall be depicted with a dashed line with every fifth
contour darker, and proposed contours shall be depicted as above except with
a solid line. Contours shall be shown according to the following schedule:
Natural Slope Maximum Interval Feet
L7-% -ft 2
,}fWE- zc% 5
C. A conceptual drainage and flood control facilities map describing planned drainage
improvements.
D. A Slope Analysis Map for the purpose of determining the amount and location of
land as it exists in its natural state falling into each slope category as specified
below. For the slope map, the applicant shall use a base topographical map of the
subject site, prepared and signed by a registered civil engineer or licensed land
surveyor, which shall have a scale of not less than i inch to 100 feet and a contour
interval of not more than 2 feet provided that the contour interval may be 5 feet
when the slope is more than 20 percent. This base topographical map shall include
all adjoining properties within 150 feet of
bands in the range of 0 the site boundaries. Delineate slope
to 15
rce, 15
up to 20 percent, 20 up to 25 percent,225 up 1 o 30 percent,t and 3g per ent or
greater. Also included shall be a tabulation of the land Jarea in each slope
category specified in acres.
3c)p. ^Tc.
-165 Jp tD 't)/
v
Section 17.24.030
it3
The exact method for computing the percent slope and area of each slope
category should be sufficiently described and presented so that a review can be
readily made. also, a heavy, solid line indicating the S percent grade differential
shall be clearly marked on the plan, and an additional copy of the map shall be
submitted with the slope percentage categories depicted in contrasting colors.
Provide a sufficient number of slope profiles to clearly illustrate the extent of the
proposed grading. A minimum of 3 slope profiles shall be included with the slope
analysis. The slope profiles shall:
Be drawn at the same scale and indexed, or keyed, to the slope analysis map,
grading plan, and project site map.
2. Show existing and proposed topography, structures, and infrastructures.
Proposed topography, structures,. and infrastructures shall be drawn with a
solid, heavy line. Existing topography and features shall be drawn with a
thin or dashed line.
3. The slope profile shall extend far enough from the project site boundary to
clearly show impact on adjacent property, at least 150 feet.
4. The profiles shall be drawn along those locations of the project site where:
(a) The greatest alteration of existing topography is proposed; and,
(b) The most intense or bulky development is proposed; and,
(c) The site is most visible from surrounding land uses; and,
(d) At all site boundaries illustrating maximum and minimum conditions.
5. At least two of the slope profiles shall be roughly parallel to each other and
roughly perpendicular to existing contour lines. At least one other slope
profile shall be roughly at a 45 degree angle to the other slope profiles and
existing contour lines.
Both the slope analysis and slope profiles shall be stamped and signed by either a
registered landscape architect, civil engineer, or land surveyor indicating the
datum, source, and scale of topographic data used in the slope analysis and slope
profiles, and attesting to the fact that the slope analysis and slope profiles have
been accurately calculated and identified consistent with provisions contained in
Sections 17.24.030 D and E.
G. A geologic and soils report, prepared by an approved soils engineering firm and in
sufficient detail to substantiate and support the design concepts presented in the
application as submitted. Additional environmental studies and investigations,
such as, but not limited to, hydrologic, seismic, access/circulation, and biota
research may also be required in order to help in the determination of the
buildable area of a site.
-166-
Bq
H. A statement of conditions for ultimate ownership and maintenance of all parts of
the development including streets, structures and open spaces.
I. In the event that no grading is proposed, i.e., custom lot subdivision, a statement
to that effect shall be filed with a plan which shows possible future house plotting,
lot grading, driveway design, and septic system location for each parcel proposed,
to be prepared on a topographic map drawn at the same scale as the conceptual
grading plan.
J. When unit development is proposed, illustrative building elevations, that show all
sides of the proposed structure(s) and which accurately depict the building
envelope for each lot, shall be provided.
_ K. The following items may be required if determined necessary by the Grading
Committee, City Planner, or Planning Commission to aid in the analysis of the
proposed project to illustrate existing or proposed conditions or both:
1. A topographic model;
2. A line of sight or view analysis;
3. Photographic renderings;
4. Any other illustrative technique determined necessary to aid in review of a
project.
L. Exceptions to the filing requirements for projects identified in Sections
17.24.020A & C shall be determined by the City Planner, or may be referred to
the Planning Commission if determined necessary by the City Planner.
--------- -
�05
EXAMPLE B
Combining 'B' and 'C' is
not a permitted calculation
+-----------fi
iuu
SLOPE FORMULA
Average Cross Slope - Slope 'A' 5'/100' _ .05 = 5%
- Slope 'B' 30'/20' = 1.50 = 150%
- Slope 'C' 6'/30' _ .2 = 20%
GI
,'AN6 �wIGj �IA"Aj Abs
V�L jT -TA A�
G2
RON
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS
The following standards shall apply to all development within the Hillside
Management Area.
A. Views
1. Hillside development is more visible than flatland (level terrain)
development. Therefore, hillside development shall be visually
pleasing.
2. Panoramic views from hillside roads and public places are as
important to the character of the community as views of hillside
development. Therefore, hillside development shall provide for view
opportunities to the greatest extent feasible for all residents of and
visitors to the City.
B. Camouflage
Quality hillside development blends man-made and man -introduced
factors with the natural environment. Therefore, architecture and
landscape shall be harmoniously integrated into the natural
environment.
2. Compatible architecture responds to the natural environment,
incorporating sloped terrain into development rather than eliminating
such terrain. Therefore, the scale, form and surface expression of
architecture shall either blend with or complement the character and
textures of the hillside.
3. Compatible landscaping, like architecture, responds to the natural
environment. Vegetation planted within a developed area creates the
theme and character of the community and shall blend and unify the
architecture. Therefore, vegetation shall be compatible with and
responsive to the environmental conditions of the development site.
C. Compression
Conforming to the gradient of a slope forces development into a more
vertical living environment. Compact development shall be attained
through methods such as clustering and minimizing setback, thereby
minimizing grading and making development less obtrusive.
63
D. Diversiol
1. Diversity in design solutions adds the characteristic of variety to
hillside development. Meandering streets conforming to the
topography, varied setbacks of homes, and individual solutions to
traversing slopes shall be incorporated into the project design.
2. Uniform "stair -stepping" of building pads shall be prohibited to the
greatest extent feasible.
E. Accent and Imace
1. Attention shall be concentrated on significant visual and environmental
elements, including but not limited to ridgelines, significant vegetation
and wildlife habitats, canyons, steep slopes, and important historical
or cultural man-made features. Such elements collectively express
hillside character. Therefore, preservation or restoration of these
elements shall be comprehensively integrated with the hillside
development plan.
_- SITE PLANNING STANDARDS
A. Project Layout
1. Generally, minimizing required setbacks, especially front and rear
setbacks, may lessen the amount of grading by reducing the overall
width of road and structure arrangements. However, before applying
reduced setbacks to a structure, it shall be demonstrated that grading
will be reduced, while still providing for useful private space as part of
the site.
— 2 FEET BEo b
2. Lot lines shall be placed af���the top of major slope areas within public
view corridors to help ensure their maintenance by the downhill
owner.
3. No project shall be approved unless it provides for the minimization of
grading impacts and flexibility in siting structures and circulation, such
as providing for low density and large lots or for higher density and
clustered development.
4. No project shall be approved unless it provides for visual analysis
documentation (including, but not limited to, photographs, sketches,
renderings and a three-dimensional scale model if required by the
C'f
City) relating to ridgeline preservation and recontouring as deemed
:.;
necessary by the City.
B. Lana Controls
1.
As a condition of approval, a subdivision map shall require that all
areas of common open space exposed to public view or major slope
areas shall be developed and maintained in a consistent manner, that
such lands be owned in common by a homeowners association and
that they be developed and maintained as set forth in a declaration of
covenants, conditions and restrictions.
2.
Before a project is approved, major open spaces and natural features
of City-wide significance shall be considered for public ownership.
C. Resource
Preservation
1.
The site plan for a hillside development shall provide for the
preservation of prominent ridgelines in their natural state, protecting
them from development impacts, and maintaining them as a backdrop
for development. "Prominent ridgelines" are those di§sq �
_wah?hdheA�Wnd which form a part of the skyline visible
from any City arterial. Alteration of prominent ridgelines shall be
19
permitted only to accommodate designated trails and
circulation components, viewpoints, fuel modification measures or
other requirements needed to implement the goals and objectives of
the General Plan, or to provide for the public health, safety, or
welfare.
2.
Significant views of prominent ridgelines shall be maintained from
elements of the general circulation plan and other public open
spaces, especially scenic highways.
3.
No point on any structure subject to the provisions of these
Standards shall be closer to a prominent ridgeline than 150 feet
measured horizontally from the center of the ridge or 50 feet
measured vertically on a cross section, whichever is more restrictive,
except that this requirement shall not affect the location of structures
to be placed at or below the lowest visible elevation of a prominent
ridgeline. Lesser setback distances may be authorized by the
Commission if it can be demonstrated that the objectives of these
Standards will be achieved.
GS
5. When the retention of natural or recontoured drainage swaies is
project no ,
re uiredect shall be
4 P approved without a hydrologic analysis
to determine an adequate setback for preservation of natural or
recontoured swales, public safety, and riparian vegetation and wildlife
(if any).
D. Slope Maintenance
1. No tentative subdivision map shall -be approved unless conditioned
upon the preparation and recordation of a declaration of covenants,
conditions and restrictions providing for the development and
maintenance of slopes as required by these Standards.
2. No tentative subdivision map shall be approved unless conditioned
upon the subdivider's supplying a program and/or staff for
maintenance of major manufactured slope areas. Such program shall
be approved prior to approval of a final map and shall include
homeowner slope maintenance requirements and guidelines to be
( incorporated into the declaration of covenants, conditions, and
_ - restrictions.
G(
Animal and Plant life
a. Areas of a site which are identified as having biological significance shall be
preserved whenever possible.
b. Natural vegetation shall be maintained wherever possible. If removal is
required, reestablishment of a compatible plant material will be required at
a ratio of at least 2:1.
C. All exposed slopes and grades areas shall be landscaped with ground
cover, shrubs, and trees.
d. Existing mature trees shall be incorporated into the project where feasible.
e. Water and energy conservation techniques shall be utilized, such as special
irrigation techniques (e.g., drip irrigation), drought tolerant plant species,
alluvial rockscape, etc.
f. Wherever possible, fire resistant native vegetation shall be preserved and
planted.
g., Introduction of ,landscaping within the hillside areas should make maximum
use of texture, color, and be capable of blending in with the natural
landscape, and help to soften the effects of buildings, walls, pavement, and
grading.
h. Screening along roadways should make maximum use of berming and
landscaping but shall not interfere with sight distance.
L%
am — PROMINENT RIDGE - A ridge or hili location which is visible
Sieost from a major arterial, secondary, or collector street, which forms part of
the skyline or is seen as a distinct edge against a backdrop of land at least 300
feet horizontally behind it, or is so designated by the City Planner or Planning
Commission based upon a review of the site.
Mountain backdrop
Geological feature, prominent ridge
t
Prominent geological feature visible as
a distinct edge against a backdrop of
land which is 300' or more horizontally
behind it as viewed from a major arterial,
secondary, or collector street
�1 ------- J;L_
/ Major arterial,
Alluvial fan secondary, or
collector
P�7
N
� � A/\,j lz1� S
La
uz
Grading Standards
1. The following factors shall be taken into consideration in the design of
a project:
a. When space and proper drainage requirements can be met
with approval by the City Engineer, rounding of slope tops and
bottoms shall be accomplished.
b. When slopes cannot be rounded, vegetation shall be used to
alleviate a sharp, angular appearance.
C. A rounded and smooth transition shall be made when the
planes of man-made and natural slopes intersect.
d. When significant landforms are "sliced" for construction, the
landforms shall be rounded as much as possible to blend into
natural grade.
e. Manufactured slope faces shall be varied to avoid excessive
"flat -planed" surfaces.
2. No manufactured slope shall exceed 30 feet in height between
terraces or benchcs. .
3. A detailed Soils and Geologic Report shall accompany each Grading
Permit application. The report shall address such items as the
recommended maximum slope angles for natural and manmade cuts
and fill slopes, the effect of saturation or supersaturation of soils due
to over -watering (irrigation), seismic safety, liquefaction, and soil or
rock erosion. The foregoing items are minimum requirements for the
report. The report- shall address any -other items necessary, in the
professional opinion of the soils and/or geologic engineer, and as
required by the City.
iD3
Section 17.24.070
4. To encourage maintenance of slopes for erosion control and aesthetics,
property lines shall be located 2 feet back from the top of slope.
'— All property lines must be 2'
i from the top of slope, never
5. No point on any structure subject to the provisions of this Section shall be
closer to a visually prominent ridgeline than 150 feet measured horizontally
on a topographic map or 50 feet measured vertically on a cross section,
whichever is more restrictive.
6. Lot padding is limited to the boundaries of the structure's foundation and a
usable rear yard area (residential only),of 15 feet adjacent to and between
the structure and top or toe of slope. If it is physically unfeasible to design
a reasonable usable yard area due to conflict with other grading standards,
then other forms of usable open space should be considered such as: decks,
patios, balconies, or other similar forms of built structures designed to fit
the natural topography.
7. No finished slopes greater than 50 percent (2:1) may be created except
beneath the enclosed envelope of a structure where the maximum created
slope is limited to 67 percent (1-1/2:1) or less.
8. Slopes within City -maintained landscape easements shall not exceed a
maximum grade of 3:1 or 33 1/3 percent.
9. Fill shall not exceed a depth of 5 feet at any point except where the
Planning Commission determines that unusual topography, soil conditions,
previous grading, or other unusual circumstances, indicate that such grading
would be reasonable and necessary.
v -A
Gradin
1. Grading shall be phased so that prompt revegetation or construction will
control erosion. Where possible, only those areas which will be built on,
resurfaced, or landscaped shall be disturbed. Top soil shall be stockpiled
during rough grading and used on cut and fill slopes.
2. Grading operations shall be planned to avoid the rainy season, October 15 to
April 15. Grading permits shall only be issued when a plan for erosion
control and silt retention has been approved by the City Planner and Building
Official, without regard to time of year.
3. No excavation or other earth disturbance shall be permitted on any hillside
area prior to the issuance of a grading permit, with the exception of drill
holes and exploratory trenches for the collection of geologic and soil data.
These trenches are to be properly backfilled and in addition, erosion
treatment provided where slopes exceed 20 percent.
(e) Where pad and terrace grading techniques are used, the pad
configuration should be softened with variable, undulating slopes
created to give a more pleasing and natural appearance.
THIS
Toe of slope
Variable slope bank
Undulating slopes surrounding irregular
pad configurations simulate the natural
hillside environment
NOT THIS
Toe of slope
Standard subdivision
rectangular pad
Street
Straight uniform slopes and pad configurations
produce an unnatural and insensitive environment
on hillsides
(c) Where cut or fill conditions are created, slopes should be varied
rather than left at a constant angle which may be unstable or create
an unnatural, rigid, "engineered" appearance.
Varying cut or fill slope creates
a more natural appearance
(d) The angle of any graded slope should be gradually adjusted to the
angle of the natural terrain.
Existing development
Natural grade
I
Existing drainage device
Proposed development
Tract boundary
Variable
Not this
Proposed slope extension
This ,Natural grade
,
Combine slopes to more closely
approximate natural grade
14
p�
(a) Hard edges left by cut and fill operations should be given a rounded
appearance that closely resembles the natural contours of the land.
Small irregular berm accentuates
the top of the slope
Variety in
slope bank ,tr � �`
grading
creates a
natural appear\e
more resembling l 3
nature JJ\
Drainage \
features are \ \\
obscured
Use of radii and uneven slopes
NOT THIS
20130140
Landscaping
accentuates Drainage
contour undulation features
become
very visible
Engineered slope
banks look forced
and unnatural I i
Use of angles and uniform slopes
(b) Manufactured slopes adjacent to roadways should be modulated by
sufficient berming, regrading, and landscaping to create visually
interesting and pleasing streetscapes.
THIS NOT THIS
Variety in
undulating slope /
bank creates
pleasing
roadscap
///PI
IAIJ
Straight
slope bank
heightens
monotony of road•
way landscape
THIS
7e
Larger manufactured slopes should
be located on the uphill side of the
structure to reduce the appearance
of gradl g f►om the street
_ Slopes should be rounded to
provide a more natural appearance
NOT THIS
F -i
N
11��IGN �IANAAN
Retain the integrity
Over -emphasized vertical
NOT THIS structures disrupt the natural
silhouette of the hillside
THIS''
NOT THIS
E3
Siting the
dwelling do
and changi
massing wbw anew owner
views for the uphill house
THIS
NOT THIS
Siting the new
building uphill
near the existing
dwelling will obstruct
f most of the view for the
uphill house
t -L -i
�S
Projects should incorporate clustering, variable setbacks, multiple
orientations, and other site planning techniques to preserve open spaces,
protect natural features, and offer views to residents.
Guest nmrki....
• •�......vrIt Rnon
Cluster
Roof lines follow Prominent knoll
natural elnn e..
--cl, clusters 1- -- -r-• ••.ya
Road below ridge
where feasible
Fi
jh ebS
`:�4NDSCAPETREATMENT
A. Design Regulations Relating to Sloes
1. No project shall be approved unless it provides that all cut and fill
slopes within street rights-of-way, on land held by a homeowners
association, and all slopes over five feet in height shall be landscaped
with a combination of ground cover, shrubs and trees by the
developer prior to completion of the project.
2. Turf that requires mowing shall not be used on slopes in excess of
4:1.
�__3
3. Plant materials used in slope planting shall be fire -retardant,
drought -tolerant introduced species or native plants adapted to and
suitable for providing vigorous rooted growth. Such materials shall
comply with the approved slope plant materials contained in the City
Guidelines and Specifications for Landscape Development.
4. In cases of severe soil problems, where shrubs and tree pits can trap
water leading to slope failure, hydroseed mixes or smaller plant
materials shall be required.
5. Plant materials shall be placed in informal masses to help alleviate the
impact of uniform, graded benches.
6. Shrubs shall be arranged in broad, informal masses of the same plant
materials in overall quantities to provide a minimum of one shrub per
75 square feet. These masses shall be combined to produce a
mounded, textured slope surface, similar to the natural chaparral
vegetation.
7. Trees shall be arranged in informal masses in overall quantities to
provide a minimum of one per 500 square feet. These masses shall
be placed to selectively allow views from housing while partially
screening buildings and reducing the scale of long, steep slopes.
8. Required irrigation systems shall be designed on pad or slope areas
where it has been determined by the soils engineering report that
over watering and super -saturation of soils would jeopardize the
stability of the slope so as to not cause slippage or erosion.
B. Design Regulations Relating to Street Trees
1. Street trees shall be selected which create an intimate scale along the
streetscape and do not overpower narrower streets.
2. The arrangement of street trees shall be carefully planned to create
an informal character and to enhance potential views.
3. Street trees along roads without adjacent development shall be
selectively located to provide an edge to the road. They shall not be
uniformly spaced, but used in groups to enhance and frame views. It
may be appropriate to eliminate trees along roads through natural
open space areas.
1110111111
4. Street tree quantities and types shall be provided as required by the
City Guidelines and Specifications for Landscape Development.
C. Landscape Edae Conditions
1. Special attention shall be given to the interface between development
and open space and internally between structures on slopes to
integrate structures with the natural landscape.
2. Planting along the slope side of development shall be designed to
allow controlled views out, yet partially screen and soften structures.
3. In situations where edge planting at lower levels of slope development
may block views from above, height restrictions on plant materials
shall be applied.
4. Between natural open space and development, a fire break or fuel
modification line shall be provided. This zone shall consist of at least
100 feet and must have non fire-resistant native ground cover
removed, larger trees and shrubs pruned and fire -resistive ground
cover added if necessary.
FS
2. Maintain a "vegetative backdrop" by replanting with native trees. The
vegetation should screen structures to the extent possible at maturity and
preserve the appearance of the natural skyline.
Skyline Planting
__Skyline
Typical building clustering
E. Landscaping
I. Natural landform planting should be used to soften manufactured slopes,
reduce the impact of development on steep slopes or ridgelines, and provide
erosion control.
THIS
Landform planting
Irregular visual plane
in cross-section
O
h�r9..I o 0 0�
Section NZO ,1'6.
NOT THIS
Conventional planting
Uniform visual plana /
in cross-section
r
/ 1
Sectlon
Fj
s
m
CO
v
m
z
m
—0
0 o-<
zcn
n
ss
�m
rm
z
m
m
�m
z'uv
r= C/)
r
< m
mm
�m
z
m
m
FI
m
2
m
c
n
a
W
n
D
m
z
<
v
v
m
D
z
O
s
m
CO
v
m
z
m
—0
0 o-<
zcn
n
ss
�m
rm
z
m
m
�m
z'uv
r= C/)
r
< m
mm
�m
z
m
m
FI
LU
CL
O
w
U
z
w
a
CO
w
T -
w
w
z
w
w
cc
U
J
U
p
cc
w
z
LU
U
4
cr-
cc
w
F -
z
w
w
U
LM
D
cr
w
w
z
w
w
cr
U
}
4.
O
z
U
w
a
O
LL
O
E
��
,N 6 l f -s ICON � .ANhApbs
G 2-
ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS
A. Building Form
- 1. Design and placement of structures shall respond to both the
cross-sectional slope and the silhouette contour of the hillsides.
Structures shall be designed to minimize creation of flat pads.
Single-family units shall be compact and split-level 'rf possible.
Multi -family units may be designed with two stories upslope and two
stories downslope.
2. Building forms shall be scaled to the particular environmental setting
so as to complement the hillside character and to avoid excessively
massive forms that detract from the hillside character. Building
facades shall use plane changes or overhangs to create shadow lines
to further break up massive forms.
3. Front yard setback may be minimized to reduce the amount of
building mass located on a slope. Private rear yard space may be
provided with a small yard, terrace or deck. Buildings on slopes shall
step back or down with the topography.
4. A majority of the roof pitches shall be placed to angle with the slope.
However, variations shall be provided to avoid a monotonous
application. Collective mass roof lines shall reflect the
naturally -occurring ridgeline silhouettes and topographical variation, or
create an overall variety that blends with the hillside. Totally flat roof
lines shall be avoided.
G-3
�- On ridgelines not designated as prominent, and used for continuous
development along the ridgetop, collective roof lines shall be kept low
in profile, and the natural silhouette of the ridge shall be repeated with
smooth transitions in height from building to building. Consideration
of this ridgeline treatment may take variations and landscape features
into account.
B. Building Exteriors
1. Colors of the buildings shall be selected to blend with the natural
colors and hues of the surrounding hillsides. A color palette shall
include off-white, browns, greens or other earth tones.
2. Surface materials shall be rough -textured to blend with the
coarseness of landscaping and natural vegetation. Textured stucco,
wood, earthtone brick and coarse block are appropriate.
3. A harmonious mixture of materials, color and forms combined to
achieve a mottled effect shall be used to blend with the natural
hillsides.
4. Roof materials shall be of rough -textured, fire -retardant material. Roof
I i colors shall be of darker tones, including browns, black, greens and
__ _----- - terracotta. Bright colors shall be avoided.
C. Architectural Elements
1. Free-standing walls integral to a structure shall be of the same
material and design as the structure. The height of such walls shall
not exceed six feet.
2. Where fences and walls occur on privately -owned property within
slope areas, their designs shall be as uniform as possible.
3. Continuous rear yard fences and walls across the tops of slopes shall
be coordinated in design and use of materials.
4. Wall setbacks on slopes shall not allow more than four feet of solid
wall or fence to show above the sight line projected along the slope
angle.
5. Retaining walls shall be designed with smooth, continuous lines that
conform to the topography. Maximum wall height at the base of
slopes along roadways shall not exceed five feet in order to avoid a
contained, channel -like effect.
6. Retaining wall structures used to accommodate a patio or terrace
shall conform to the natural hillside profile as much as possible.
Excessively high retaining walls shall be avoided.
7. In deck construction, the distance between structure and grade shall
conform to the natural hillside profile as much as possible.
Excessively high distances between structures and grade shall be
prohibited.
Uq
C-�5
1. Building Height
Applicable only to in -fill construction on existing lots of record.
a. The maximum height of a proposed structure shall not exceed the mid -point
of the structure on the immediately uphill lot.
b. Where there is no structure on the immediately uphill lot, the maximum
height shall not exceed a point eight (8) feet above the average ground
level of the uphill lot, '6 -)7 r N N a ('ti S E ,�4i 7ti,4.�) 35 -
FEE -7' ABo-vE_ F71N1546t-A,3
C. "Immediately uphill lot" shall mean an adjacent lot, whether or not separated
by streets, easements, or the like, which has an average ground level higher
than the average ground level of the subject lot. If more than one lot meets
the definition of "immediately uphill lot" then the measurements required by
this section shall be made against the lower lot )3 v ( /N rN 0 CA s E-
f{161A0X _r II -J 35 FEET X18ovE Fi-,s rtG,2Ar)�>
d. "Midpoint shall be that point equidistant from the foundation at ground level
to the apex of the roof, but not including roof structures, stairways, tanks,
ventilating fans, or similar equipment required to operate and maintain the
building and fire or parapet walls, skylights, towers, flagpoles, chimneys,
smokestacks, wireless and television masts, or similar structures.
G. Nothing in this section shall be construed to allow the height of a structure
to exceed that pilowed in the applicable land use district.
(b) Uphill lot - A maximum height of 2W feet is permitted at the
minimum front setback and shall extend up and toward the rear of the
lot at a 45 degree angle to a maximum overall height of 35' feet as
measured from finished grade. A maximum height at the side
setbacks shall be 20 feet extending up toward the center of the lot at
a 45 degree angle to a maximum height of 35 feet as measured from
finished grade.
BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR UPHILL LOT
W- WA
4s
HMinimum side setback
Street Elevation
Minimum front setback
Uphill Section
(c) Cross Slope lots - A maximum overall height of 3. feet is permitted,
as measured from finished grade, from the minimum front setback
extending toward the rear of the lot. The maximum height at the side
setbacks shall be 20 feet extending up toward the center of the lot at
a 45 degree angle to a maximum of 35ieet as measured from finished
grade.
BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR CROSS LOT SLOPE
WO
Minimum side setback
Street Elevation
D. Architecture
1.
The building envelope for all structures shall be as follows:
(a) Downhill lot - An overall maximum height of 35feet is permitted, as
measured from finished grade, from the minimum front setback
-extending towards the rear of the lot. The maximum height at the
side setbacks shall be 20 feet extending up towards the center of the
lot at a 45 degree angle to a maximum height of 35 feet as measured
from finished grade.
BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR DOWNHILL LOT
I
i
35j
35'
`- 4s
Minimum front setback
15
y
-
3-9•
CL 20
a`
Downhill
Section 7 f- Minimum side setback
Rear setback
Street Elevation
THIS
Height limit
Large roof sections to
poraliei the average slope
Building envelope
Softening of large
vertical surfaces
NOT THIS
i Maximum height limit
ght limit
THIS NOT THIS
Terraced decks do not 6' 6" Overhanging de
increase building bulk make building
" seem more
wF massive
Effective bulk with _ �-
or without decks Effective bulk
Building correctly fits
into the ground and
minimizes the effect
on the hillside
Use of roof decks, low
level decks, and side of
building decks
High profile building
stands out on the
hillside
Avoid decks hanging
from the downhill side
with long pole supports
L
THIS
Terracing reduces bulk
•%F/,G3i
Imo(_
Effective bulk
Effective bulk
Smaller overhangs for individual floors
or windows help break-up mass and
protect against excessive sunlight
Ui0
NOT THIS
Cantilever makes building
appear taller, more
monumentat ,
IM
Effective bulk
Excessive roof overha
results in additional
visual bulk
Effective bulk
THIS
Large roof areas broken up
Use of natural materials and window
placement in small increments create
interesting small scale patterns
Break up massing of structural elements
to more closely approximate the natural
slope
Stone foundations and retaining walls
relate to the ground
NOT THIS
Massive roof area is very visible in
contrast to the natural slope
Large facade of one material, even
if modulated by windows, seems plain
v. To the extent possible, the width of a building, measured in the direction of
the slope, shall be filling and to better "fit" the house to the natural terrain.ized in order to limit the ount of cutting and
THIS
Building pulls back from
steeper slopes and ravines Minor building
on the hillside protrusions which
a are perpendicular to the
a contours are acceptable
but should be stepped or
o inset in the hillside
0
o
i NOT THIS
Building is parallel with
the contours
Building is perpendicular to the contours
J
HI
N
IJ � I c N � I -A kj , bs
NZ
b. Grading shall be designed to:
(1) Conserve natural topographic features and appearances by means .4
of land sculpturing to blend graded slopes and benches with natural
topography.
(2) Retain major natural topographic features such as canyons and
prominent landmarks.
C. All graded areas shall be protected from wind and water erosion through
acceptable slope stabilization methods such as planting, walls, or netting.
Interim erosion control plans shall be required, certified by the project
engineer, and reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department.
No cut or fill slopes shall be created which exceed thirty (30) vertical feet in
height without the approval of the Planning Commission.
H5
H. Drainage
1. Debris basins and energy dissipating devices shall be provided, where
necessary, to reduce erosion when grading is undertaken in the hillside
areas. Natural drainage courses shall be protected from grading activity. In
instances where crossing is required, a natural crossing and bank protection
shall be preferred over steel and concrete systems.. Where brow ditches are
required, they shall be naturalized with plant materials and native rocks.
2. Building and grading permits shall not be issued for construction on any site
without an approved location for disposal of run-off waters, including, but
not limited to, such facilities as a drainage channel, public street or alley, or
private drainage easement, which are not adequately protected from off-site
drainage.
3. The use of cross lot drainage shall be minimized. In situations where this is
not possible using conventional design, optional techniques including, but not
limited to, single loaded streets and reduced densities shall be considered.
Extensive use of cross lot drainage shall be subject to Planning Commission
review and may be considered only after demonstration that this method will
not adversely affect the proposed lots or adjacent properties, and that it is
absolutely required in order to minimize the amount of grading which would
result with conventional drainage practices.
Hy
4. Where cross lot drainage is utilized, the following shall apply:
(a) Project interiors - One lot may drain across one other lot if an
easement is provided within either an improved, open V-swale gutter
which has a naturalized appearance, or within a closed drainage pipe
which shall be a minimum 12 inches in diameter. In both cases, an
integral wall shall be constructed. This drainage shall be conveyed to
either a public street or to a drainage easement. If drainage is
conveyed to a private easement, it shall be maintained by a
homeowners' association; otherwise, the drainage shall be conveyed to
a public easement such as a public alley, paseo, or trail. The
easement width shall be determined on an individual basis and shall be
dependent on appropriate hydrologic studies and access requirements.
HOME
Both wall and drainage device to be constructed
with the subdivision and not left for individual
homeowners to complete
Width as determined by
appropriate hydrologic studies
,Concrete open channel with
naturalized appearance or
underground pipe both with
integral wall
(b) Project boundaries - On-site drainage shall be conveyed in an Is
improved open V-swale gutter, which has a naturalized appearance, or
within an underground pipe in either a private drainage easement,
which is to be maintained by a homeowners' association, or it shall be
conveyed in a public easement such as a public alley, paseo, or trail ki
The easement width shall be determined on an individual basis and
'shall be dependent on appropriate hydrologic studies and access
requirements. 11
Is
Roadway
have a natural hydrologic studies Either public or private
appearance landscaped pedestrian
paseoItrail/ alley easement
NEW
H�
Easement width
A
A
W1 =as required for maintainance and access (12' min)
W2 =as required to convey drainage
W3 =slope width
W =Total easement width
G. Drainage
1. Where possible, drainage channels should be placed in less visible locations,
and more importantly, should receive a naturalizing treatment including
native rock, colored concrete, and landscaping so that the structure appears
as- an integral part of the environment. In all cases, an AC or concrete
liner shall be used in addition to a naturalizing treatment.
THIS
Variable
NOT THIS
Use of native rocks to
naturalize man-made
brow ditch
Typical brow ditch with
A.C. or concrete liner
2. Natural drainage courses should be preserved and enhanced to the extent
possible. Rather than filling them in, drainage features should be
incorporated as an integral part of the project design in order to enhance the
overall quality and aesthetics of a site, to provide attractive open space
vistas, and to preserve the natural character of the area.
_ )
{ ?; y,
�1::i X000 odf .a �j �F �n .b7 \�� �'( � _"" 1Lgn•'� ���' rdGc
(tt111,� ,'I �" o� °�. �,., pg� _ I � n : r ... �=—tom', ', ° : r ! O ,�;; o. Cpi ,• `���.. • ? ..c
= • ..tc�' 0 0
$0. '1� 1Nlme `.'"1.' .v,.o - .-°° .. 8� o„'•
,. 2 'e n�i 'e� °�A O ��•��W m0O �'o '�`�le'��C 1 .�. ..i`I/f�w�$ ” IoA �~,�n'+� .
(Y
H. Trails
1. Trails are an integral part of a hillside area and provide recreation areas for
equestrian, hiking, and biking uses. They can also function as a means to
take up grade or to convey drainage.
In hillside areas, it is not always necessary to provide full improvements for
trails. A more natural experience may be achieved, and the amount of
grading required can be reduced, by providing minimal improvements in
appropriate areas, such as undevelopable, steep slopes.
Wr l
✓ .. JZ'+ •�,,,� c L Sib
W_
i
=2
7. CIRCULATION
INA. General Layout
1. The following factors shall be taken into consideration by a project's
design:
a. Circulation shall be aligned to conform to the natural grades as
much as possible. Long stretches of straight road shall be
avoided by utilizing gentle horizontal and vertical curves.
b. Roads that run either directly parallel or perpendicular to the
slope shall be avoided in order to reduce grading and to aid in
drainage.
C. Bridges shall be considered for roads crossing drainage ways
and canyons of exceptional environmental setting to eliminate
excess fill when structural requirements do not negate the
intent of environmental preservation.
d. Proper sight distances shall be maintained. Subject to the
approval of the City Engineer, three-way intersections at angles
at less than 90 degree shall be considered to reduce grading
requirements.
Z Or Opportunities should be created for public views from roadways and
public open spaces iby selective placement of structures at key
locations.
:Z 3
4. On -street parking shall be provided for in a flexible manner. Parallel
parking may be eliminated to reduce road width in critical areas and
provided for in on -street bays at more suitable locations.
5. Common drives in single-family developments may be permitted if
grading is reduced by their use.
1. When provided, parallel parking shall be located on one side only and
be limited to eight feet in width.
2. The following factors shall be taken into consideration by a project's
design.
a. Road sections shall meet appropriate standards for hillside
roads as found in the City subdivision Ordinance or adopted
specific plans, subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
b. Sidewalks may be permitted directly adjacent to the curb on
one or both sides of the street in order to minimize grading.
C. All underground utilities shall be located, when possible, in a
common trench in the parkway or under the sidewalk.
d. When placement of roads near ridges and on slopes is
proposed,' acceptable placements shall include a split roadway
section to accommodate grade, knob removal to
accommodate views from the road, and the rounding off of cut
slopes to enhance appearance.
2. Ingress and Egress
A tentative tract or parcel map shall provide for at least 2 different standard routes
for ingress or egress. Standard ingress/egress route is a route which is dedicated to
the City and has minimum paved width of 24 feet.
3. Street Standards
Streets in the Hillside Areas shall conform to the following standards:
a. local hillside street standards shall be used to minimize grading and erosion
potential while providing adequate access for vehicles, including
emergency vehicles. The right-of-way may be a minimum of 48.5 feet with
40 feet of paved width and parking on both sides and a sidewalk on 1 side.
b. Grades of streets in the hillside areas shall be as provided in this subsection,
unless otherwise approved in writing by the Public Services, Fire, and Public
Works Departments. Hillside collector and arterial streets shall not exceed
8 percent. Hillside residential local streets shall not exceed 12 percent.
C. Minimum horizontal curve of streets shall be in accordance with Caltrans
computational methods using design speed estimated by the Public Works
Department.
d. One way streets may be permitted where it can be shown that they reduce
the overall amount of required cut and fill grading.
e. Cul-de-sacs to a maximum of 750 feet in length may be permitted with a
maximum of 30 dwelling units, and to a maximum of 1000 feet in length with
a maximum of 20 dwelling units and shat! terminate with a turn around area
not less than 35 feet in radius to curb face.
�+ All other street improvement standards shall conform to the standard plans
and specifications of the City of Diamond Bar.
z5
Driveways
1.
Driveway grades above 15 percent may be permitted up to a maximum of 20
percent, provided they are aligned with the natural contours of the land, if
determined necessary to achieve site design, and if all safety considerations
have been met to the satisfaction of the Building and Fire Officials. Proper
design considerations shall be employed, including such items as vertical
curves and parking landings. In any case, parking landings shall be utilized
on all drives over 10 percent grade.
2.
Driveways shall not be permitted which exceed 20 percent slope except that
one length, not at the point of access-; of not more than 10 feet may have a
slope of 22 percent.
3.
On driveways with a slope of 20 percent or greater, a coarse paving
material, or grooves for traction, must be incorporated into the
construction. These driveways shall not exceed 100 feet in length from
bottom of approach tostructure.
4.
Retaining walls, not to exceed 4 feet in height, shall be permitted for soil
stabilization adjacent to a driveway; although within the minimum required
street front setback, individual retaining walls shall not exceed 3 feet in
height. Otherwise, terraced retaining walls shall be utilized which are
separated by a minimum of 3 feet and appropriate landscaping.
-�5.
Adjacent to driveways, slopes not greater than 50 percent (2:1) will be
permitted.
6.
Driveways shall enter public/private streets maintaining adequate line -of -
sight.
7.
Within the right-of-way, driveways shall not be located within 5 feet of any
side property line. Exceptions may be considered based on lot size, percent
slope, and use as a common (joint) driveway.
e. Roadways should conform to the natural landform. They should not greatly
alter the physical and visual character of a hillside by creating large notches
in ridgelines or by defining wide straight alignments. Reduced road sections,
split sections, and parking bays should be considered in the lay -out of hillside
streets to reduce grading.
THIS
Reduce grading by
/ aligning roads along
natural grades
NOT THIS
Roads and hillside grading
Avoid running counter
to steep grades
A \� /
To get from A to B, route selection would
be somewhere between perpendicular and
parallel to the contours
Eb.
1
Avoid running counter
to steep grades
A \� /
To get from A to B, route selection would
be somewhere between perpendicular and
parallel to the contours
Eb.
No parking
Stabilize and reforest
distributed banks
Separate sidewalk
Parking ba
Steep slope
Split section Roadway
Steep slopes
Possible trail Sidewalk
Roadway
Flatter slope
NOT THIS
I Unnatural edge condi
Cut slope
into hiiisid
Roadway
Knob remaining
from roadway cut
Roadway
Too steep for plants
to become established
Mass grading to accommodate
one level arterial highway
Natural gr
Roadway \
THIS
Round off cut slope
to conform to the
natural contour of
the hill
Roadway
Round off cut slopes
Remove small knobs
on roadway cut
\ to conform to the
\ natural grade
Vista
Roadway
Round off Split roadway sections to
Zcut slopes accommodate grade
I� change
\ Natural grade
Roadway \ \ 1
Roadway
1 � 1
C. 'w'-Roadwa
1, Where retaining walls are proven to be absolutely necessary adjacent to
roadways or within street setbacks, they shall be limited to 3 feet in height
in order to avoid obstruction of motorist's and pedestrian's field of view and
to- create an aesthetically pleasing streetscape. Otherwise, terraced or
stepped structures shall be utilized, which are separated by a minimum of 3
feet and appropriate landscaping.
THIS
Ui
« 3 n
X17 - m
Z-Z_ 3' max
3' max
3' max
Strut
Street
Where adjacent to a steep hillside, minimal grading for the road and
right-of-way, with a transition to a natural landscape, can be utilized
to provide an open and more rural appearance.
u
NJ
i it
b4• � Pio \`
ao>oc
(d) A split roadway increases the amount and appearance of landscaping,
and the median can be used to handle drainage.
;F M1
L 7 `` s,� F... . P c l ✓ '6 i5� t .�� "• .f 1 �', tin\ '2.'r' ,_IIr `+�1
'•`�`(j�. .`r%„�,r y`�,- Y� .�. `7� fir' ��.(° •l"(6 fn'al �`�Jy, f•
\ � \,' \�,'-fit•\\
W L�
�N ISS ICON
D. Wails and Fences
1. Walls and fences can be used to define a sense of place and create an
attractive appearance. However, walls should not dominate a view, and
their height should be limited adjacent to a street or trail or within a rear
yard. Terracing and extensive landscaping can reduce the effective bulk. In
addition, street front walls should incorporate varying design and natural
materials. The use of open view fencing is encouraged, so long as adequate
public safety and residential privacy are maintained.
�m
4.7
_ r -� m• � as
A
THIS
Planting naturally follows
the average slope
Screening required -'
Transition area
NOT THIS
Open see-thru fencing that
blends into the natural environment
3.5'maximum retaining wall
solid wall
1.5'(not allowed)
careening
between natural conaotron
and developed area with no transition
THIS
Planting pockets on stepped
retaining wall allow screen
planting at several levels
� 1^
No effective bulk
NOT THIS
Effective bu
r -
r
No planting possible due
to toe of retaining wall
Large concrete retaining wall
surfaces can be seen for miles
and take years to conceal
with planting and trees
biAM40x)b
ILLS! n€ �i✓�NAG���=�I
a >YY'O ZW,
o so.y G d^
mw
'C. d y p td, a
y bat• ,a E a o E i y'o 0
war".,
.. a dF 4l U^ � F w Vvd Oii .�.0 d .� rron �Ay d 7 d 3 p, }❑,"tn
¢ H tR'f1 d yl. ^. 'q boy p O U.G !w y O y a T
.s G w' w a 'F m o d m C
ryu 8 ¢O to o F .>.� Bo 0 3 a ro E o.yo
a.� o G.aai Oso, a oU
m �w mwN ZQ :3 v O.•a = oa u, ro E dx c da
ro d O y >�___ W O y L F O a 0 4 g 4 y }' O N >,a ti o ro> •� N'O ti
>"'' •" of �^^ fA of 3 C y u a ^ t.%, cyd '�-' w0 Q w cod N y •� ."O,,a qp .>N. ro N p
wEdai3dm a
=0 bp pE dNo �E� d 3,t^, .o yroai
C N y 0. �'C m u m c� •y, a tad 0, E 'dC. o u CO o~ K
v�m`-� V4u 3dm"6oy�a.Eamo'y'oU E'n w^ u,�h
•� c6 d y ti W N �'G ro `� o Tiv D. ro N Uai N O O p N O. d 'v a s
N N N •v 2 •^o w •y'• U ro w N yp N .0 xV. V id 3 ryn 4 F O y w d b •� :EW
y
arttl. ..r c�9 asci c3.o.,vd 4,0 �' mEdFiE md.c Z, a�.'o >0 >
.cpo 3� ZEE 4�a.u�i,N wE'�„ roo ms'51 s.°' ew0,00 dt':^Tjy dHa
O W 4 .0 d d
uc°cro°Op a'up.°F°W oawy o hyo, •,E�, ^'mea; �.$F,n GA•cma�i y`Ec
C04. bq N G
N.G
>' m' F 4 7 G 3 •p.'m •- .p ro 'd0 o A m
dy �,Do Q a F.w d cd E� d N cOC d a N U d 'O id N> 4T T>itl y'O 7
:Gx.N�� � WEEd:,T.c4r..FcoFri�s`y+vo,•�^GooCro^Ndo4
.7dGyo"E a aF oyro m av>0o yooaro; 4 Uawd^0
E�o
CI ro4� :E dUG
u
y p 4
r,@ N O O rp• O V d w Q
AIT4cHMENT I
C 0 b E-
7 .1 a
t6 G d
O x L a'Oi O d ^cd o N N
W t W p C ro '
a
++ E
i'.ap 1.1210. m T d
mw aui rob
to
r O y ro
N� U O Y.E .N to td F
Q ran y b9 N� d d d
� w o
wOwroo�'o so.
(7r i�^ C Nydr rob y
PrcEu w m 0 a4i
W
¢ U � B C d •a .�
ama ro�c.� m
26•� o 0 you, ro cy 4 0
�o d � Troa E b
r a o s. is d G
Ul "O O O O aa d=•g V
viQ.a ro a^ d�F �i y
droll
N W y� G d a •a+ � tC
a �'aEyU•3 a '�
yO,NF b9F�O Oyx
Fx
° i0 xc.'y
Ap O
U
yN
p'0%.y 110
BaR,°,�Ea..°'.a,c
sp.❑
p' ���
aE cro
�
N>>,,�
°a.��
F .°'
°�
b4 YF• p
Y
0 �
V
., � Y ', �
p
a°i V
Ti Y N
R- °x,
N •a
•^
ho
y N G Y N
rO�
to O
O
Y F
G cy0 y v� p .°D � u iU•
o d
t U �..>.� �
qw " C
� •^
°'K
aoi � N
w
m
b b o f
% G E co
NR Y
•c
0.
^O. ° 0 Z
O
a ON h
Oma
.UG
c0 N t0 Y
x
cd
•G �"'
YO N E
Y
bD=
Ny
d 0p O N
6 ., i +' U
d ,••i N
>, >>
�^ N O
O L d
G u
b
ctl 'C
O
F F O '^ •� '"'
R E
p U
ti U
3
@ N
a R�
^E
o°Ga
E N
z
u
Eu
�
2
mN�
0 6 !G
N O
X t0 W
N 'O
Go
•O"
G y
'�^� rxn GOi cp6
.
.0 o •o A' c N O ' VI
'O
E 'b
'N
N -- N F Q•
y
N aG> ..�.
^ N
: •c
0 ° .o
W
` R m o Y o c o F
N
d
U M
fx^C w o
° "
.r'1Ti �% bq
°v N ^tl
o>�
bp
C.
y W O W
G
O d Y CN U w tD y
O >>
[G''cC SU• >>
Ti
p
Ti td
P4 F p G y Rs c ci u
0 ." m
o
p p m m'�
c
od
F
oa.
o p E E
pyo
0R.6�nm
DoE.
W
^'Hd>ax>40O�ca
0.0P.
N'O^CCw^ym
N�w�.Yix
N'CJF
u > °' •5 F'G
[L>C3°�
❑
a u _ ce
`d
Oi N.O
Qrn oo,r,yW
m o
ro
ty
R, G o _
•„G^,yro^
�^'�Ec
�ct
aFi�aFi ..^r,.0
_ w
ca'''"E:^�reo"o6�yF,e��
�Rx +, �droti bo
•N
."NS;
O m$°1
U
c'`^opo
iaN
��
ti•��^
<oocQa3o.-i m��'"
yy„
WNL
o
E
om
�u.��e
b x N U' U Q U x O
y R
y O cai U
O
O
N4
a w<p l[�.G mw�
F
O R
d
o
N
Qw
S1 a^i V] E
� Nw F N•p N � m >,
O y'O •E p d C O Y E O U G ttl EC-� i• N 0 0 Y. N'F N ° '> N C O
P. � R 7 E R ca p, O "O :> Y � R p .°.' " o r• a�'C m by '"', p N ca •N m ^"
o N;dEo"^ oN u oEE.�xRud -rod +' L� y❑ mu°
NOEQ>Oy NO�Ow R.O=Eti..N.00I G-QNpN'Cy �F FO G^'
ro0��.O E'a �cdyG Lx OW >,^°YN Oaf
=�O�
�Lya °'a•o `"sd.a„ �,c wF �c '�%�� R.UNEN 'O.'ou 1 0 0—
o.,.
`" `° d m a. N o -p ro o •� ^' m �'� En...� w d b d a R.
x,.,yk�FRu� y°'`°''p �mp„oa�c°i �;�3auiyd ¢'� bgNy dm vro
��.^>.oy3� 5y.�ro�''G'� a��y �•md�.on �iu� aki �.�ie� yy >,3
U N ..'. L .] C7 > '.^^ N •'�, of C F
�E•o a.cro� �E•Dp of Fu � >•-o w o
m � ro 3,a h ^c ro o o �' o �xL. o?,�y � �•dE c pL°', '� N � d �'n � �
GCN rou•�-'+N
+p':E d °' v o ❑ yx aNix � �.°.,U:, v Q1 B °''4 � o �'b FG c ro °x r>'d a �
� N N :•, a+ N t^ E •00 N o E G'
>,� eros a•�P..>. a•,^`"_-, o° a G�F E Fti'o may" o o a E a S o cFa wa'�vY Via.
3.o�N"•^G FCOw FO' WAN �603Noo 0
N� � .^^� y°J„ •O Y D O'00 N a� N w E O N O� G N tU. L wbq V� .n 0 0 .G 'v R.ti O O
R•^ � .� > y -o p R,E N � � a:H .� ._ u o x s o +• p d � R'? _a.,'
L .^ .o � •o d E x .-
mo po AC'S °'°x:a mom >woa o N.�N=�c'mm
xoyoum=d-cLY_m ❑ 3a"G NCO o, N. Y' =x
�o�v�•o yo..o mti .:�uami��Eo•3 �".�-_o ..WQ6ic ='� v
o'c u•o x.�c moo°
A7 u'"'Nro Q•�'u'.^+F., .b aS E.-.3 .: civFc+S�n'd'3.
y_ aiW v m p^xrp Y^
su.>yauiuroaEi F>F �E>�o"cdm::mY a`di 3E �N a, aftli
av°'N °'� aa, - a•c� � Eti;� aw E c. c.w G � � - �� � �
-
atoLc
3 64' tE 6�•+1 N .O � y
•c SuNo '"> E
Y ..� •L � L, � 3 N N
b
tio�
v N n U R R G k 0
114
�x E
Er 36FO Eo°E
eA� o o� m ro m ro y
G U O N Ti NN N C O y
.0 '• O> .' N U� y N y
U v. R� U U R' d i^•
o v•o o �--
`�^C�
c°'•o E bL -. is x �n
� F
:.� •SLEo .x., m.•.
Ndaa GEy �'O '^G.W.G row d GN irroNMYC >+ ON ro "'' G GdG roA
m G roa ro Y �'" a d Y. p• d ro N 6 C U p Oq ro E 7 ro Y y
Y w>Gp dy.a y".srb roro A P.a
G D a p
drop dr�.0 aroiE s. 'oy pN `° Go > cd, rax GYrod d o °, x. A
ho>0 Gaol
09 td d M
r5 d_ a G Y O a dk a G rob a '�%' .. o d Y 'C 'y i. b0 m •o 0. p
d m m'a ro N E b9 b9 ?� G d G d o u y'aO C^ s
d y >� m G m E 'm ,•G„ ro ro G y d R g,. d W M 'a . d i� R,q o tG ❑G
o E;n ,n Gai N a°i ad, -F " i' G• d N
� a—
P, N •E W 'v N N y `�' �'"' H y is •O ,L Y Weq P'i�: m is p N d 0. d'p^ •d .yG a
u d ^, '6 Y •+ m N d Y w G Y ,,u, E G m ro a U is m p ,G B G A Y�^ ro
w+ ° d .'-= .p N 3+ ro R Y Y d S d
^m ud� dib Emco E,n o Iraui�Smbo 's.0 i Wcs"'p W
d Y E a G G, N'c1 R•G E R G
., +� �EY a'ro v, odd oy R,-. pY od s. E.'°�u•� d"^ a R' � Naw coU'
p as R... m r~A y p N •c E d o it Gy p xO ro m Y d E o u d
�
GFL Oa W W7 yW�t cd •dO Vy� �Yea yoG visit w..Mr CroN R�d q Y=7HaxN
NU
R aroi w N N u d'O ° d
d d'Cro Nm 'OG
d mP. '.ran 'aWh,y Wsd.w doro0Nm•�c of�yYro .^mpNa^rody
•0bD= d
y pOd m ro-..p QP. A'u G O OU^y
aa>
ocimcm� °G' 3' 'd^ mo ESN Edo,
Q 11�yyo��m�3�y y.aE m,mdrou`u°dro
=:B �G O G�
Ei c% F A. a G F .o bco E 3 cye F vi F u ai E" u d E" From •�, E cx o y `° d 3 Q :: su.:G r. _o •^'o r.,
xbl G .Q d m v y •�i .p v y y .p d i, y �'o y m d'S, 3 0 •.+ Y FG O ^ro `. G ... a v >aY v 0 0
�a..,.�m gip, v��xharoi �;dtiA a.wv
u G m
d o ro CV •y^ A d +' itl i ro x d Y .-� x. C m m
'a^> o x �y d Cw'E �''• 0. d d d E O '= d U :� x '""' y q N N rn G. rdn
:n 'S 3$C7 ont°,m oro w2 cd.� oma^ moo" ° y m>, •�
u o 3 E c >w rox E Rx G ro NY o GA Yv1
y >> d d y .�„ ro Y d ^O d Y
d O G ro'p d ro •d F, C '> d A x U x .., .a 4 0. 0 G x d Y "� Y O O O •aq
ro bAx w Y E y R p �� R Y d �.+ m G p •a ° >,.-. " u d "' E ro R G by ro
^C E O L N 'D W '„'v W G O W d y U ro y. Y
G G 3 y it .-. d d bb ro 0 d O d 3> .... d '.' K F. d d G O^[ W •i�jO�
d
u•ao'o�'N�um :m�•cd '.co aw�"3".cG3 `a'� x> o��Ymro,aod., .C -a`4 �°m.>. �W'aoa`°a'i^d�morn^Nydx
ro o'`3io 0>
do daw Ep.Sxdoyoc daca^o
914 �Waro K eon 0
40
0
10 0GP. d >W y' do
d ro° i, 0.G y •a W G A F � p C Wp d Y R N E >,x f. � O� W ro ro y b O
x., d !.^. m ' x'� a, d d'L5 d sd. o •a A v m d a x ^a x •o y d
> o
y�oE AEddd Gaw oRro.Cm ro m °d°ARG �GG.sd¢'m.�Go `u°Eda
m °�o m°yjox zy boy'""°oo °' o afri '�N=dam dyEro��osN.Nvmy�'��ti
{, G N dri B G C d d x> N •a ..>. id. O> _ d d x r�7ri O W
m y0 Ntl
O Of+� 0.ro i, d.�a •^ddN^=y
oU bW'GWEC iiCr'.0iYrEOaAdLVr U�Ldx "r"ybpdd �dd .y�.. +CR'i�G'xN''a.'GiWi dy.0dd.Yd,Ya�WY'.^rG maro�YdYroNU F wdwO3¢WY°>dd
_aas,yadC
Erdi�G..,y
c°'
dN a'c roq El 'Q b, —0 ;^o�m 3 RE s.Nm�YEW, r •o .c en aY oa
R'^Gx,� aG dtr Y.^
•v�oG'ar. yc�aym o,ca'o>,.c G�Q1N 3.=3'�^bAd::»p1 ao�AN R•��C7'^n boy ap°. ms, �cw aWro:3
Em
G C .A" d y y ro y c o o N E d V cC x •o ....
p
o o x m s Y A d Y P, O ro E d a E dR d O
G u .p RNx C, d d^ G m ro G x„Y, R bo ° d Yw R
'" 'Na •NA.ctl> oU]NEY mf/��R".dOy^c> Esc d o aE wN dxos. ^ate c� borax >, row
mama a.pl1>:°dv0vuvmga_a.^d000 by o y>o� Am
o s,'^> E � d G � UQ+-, .e d Y a�"i af'i . •a ro ° R•o � .o ... RE Ew q E d N �.�
N N �., O p a a d U y d .Y' .r b u R 0. ro Op U N y s^ M N � •.N. EU^ � a° G d x .-� y N N
NR.f� " d>dWmEa m d rn m y Gd •�mro OEY. d ;?°�^:as .3
m °� G bo G 3di G o E y d d° N u
a0Er°n'aEma :�.°> ��dd'o
W
V � N C N U V 'a M N � � A •O
O � V 0 4
bq _O O "'
C'VC N Gzz
v-Y^"^'Ya •5c E4 v >,.n rod=000
H •c ..ANNA uvsV. �., `o'
L P U y N N
xd' N cua .a.ks O u oF O^c W,2YLb0=
N
uw.N. N'C,�CW.O�N.�d OO�N Ak^VI��>N�'� .NNyYW
•-UAi N W N F Oq � p '^VA Gl � P. aj Yvroi N d FG 'u °' o Via o N � .:: N O
w >�Y 5C N6N Oo �Y t3a.VPu AEva,�NyN4°� FRo ei
A a 5 v rOj� x E Y N y A ..V. 'D Y aG .LV' Fa p' N .0 w =' y a c•,C
V •X G by
Mw
cFEE
C O N V cd a4 a •O ro F E
p C = V O E k � pvq t> 'in .O R. C w V Q A.L vroi
Q4' h9 a) p V 'N "> 'o a .^�. a) y 4 Y V
N4'CJ tkd V Y y v •vc �_ E: A o N 4y W 4•C, >a.'G.a O ..a�.' ^^ O
y� WU�.Cti d o� kk"O�Y bo A>roOa
�Em��o.'m id :' •cw�^''v cW—.upc�„Go.C'�uov.-
w y F A• ,d V> ca �"� ro V U ^ ""' N > t O i P' b9^ .Y_. `� :� a d
.n..��El wG2'00v-;'_N-..°��cEc�
v a; N C ^ •C .L 4... `-' � o c^ � P' P •. � 'C ro � 1O .� w0 0 � � ,r
y C A C d O Y
F
p.5 (G N ro a
Z P. C o w
O A• N V F
2N�i ti Os V V
O GP; ro F Y �/j F 5Vv
~Nva m.Y, c roN
V O V h A
Q f0N
,o C't�t
zaA3 G aro' 20
T+ w by
by k aa'"i vs�
_ •� C•r0 � d aF'• F �b9 C
N y Y E 4 r-� tFa v
A >a •O w
y^.• m O vVi O
• V w y O Q ^C � y y .�.> > ai 0. m N O N bol a•�^N N Y v t N
E F V bA
Yw uia ^o F � � G'h o G•o o � o Gp bn� a: o?; ia'a N �:� ro � o F >, �
0 07 G c o Z•Vo 0 3 y
.cao v Yv� o XP.Ao o V :tti tea. z.Fcdu b4 v
•O � m w v^ >, C d R u V F •b N C V °� G 4:!� cC � V � a ro� c w •C O
bac
0 C°
C C C F VZ Y O N k 4 Y .0 V
VmO•�y �:0 N�P' G Go>>O dckd �..'+"EA... aiEOcka UVJYYNuro _'N °' m
>Au`ammv/" W.^Yro w •3o�y� yA .a_va�iyoE�o. ooeviEG aroi� ASA, .o.,
.= � O A y CFy Y b •O V.� G V V v. bq Vas .,p F V F O F iaY Y
N .. m °N'sF c �w y o o ro^ A is a>i Vats v�-�+F'
VES SCC a�O QC+dL id�y�tFd coi N:w_^�N trod m•a o.Nm sV.vd NTVA o
O V G a bq �� x N !a yV„ O A SO•� � V .> is � ._+ G A k V N V� V Via A> ;� V ,,u, '� F
o �y N.G bo,y .Vc 4v rop.�4��ya'"i vy �y_G.GAo•� ''cud .^moo=aFi idvo y�A o
dSV" V G N y ra/! a Nj d O
ys�,�L��i.=�+'."O�mm> �.N_•`a�° oN� .myd� a �.pyN^CT.-', •c �cGa CV5.� �O �yiG �u°' �'pg^NtiG�ci '���d^O OGG �•aD cVvOGdi�D NG•aA "�D. " yyC 0
v4 �w4tpG , ..bNXA vA
otio ,cONFrooRAo
0MSL NC
m A�>+ G.0 4V
Y y U y o N x =,=w
X,' y v
N `� E F v s � A _ -c E +''G A ^c ,o w o v, � �•., a v �'c G NmS �, i.. td v m 3 •a °"� to ;a m F a,'
0
.. o•n `IVY A E c,00 p:E E' po�a;m"'v'v mo..o^u3m'O ass^O�w 0•0,•v:=•c a..=_:❑
G_Gu0 .-. ca �.av m,c ..a k`•_..L _^ceaoU'�� �avv>>F �
WyY V. -i S FY G_N CU�uNNG�NO,ti wN'O Oe,Y.,V
W SOr a ^ V O P4..4..' d ? A. wti C •^ �' > � .L bA." Y ro dpi ro d s O L d
c'>... 3Ey AG3 N coo> w �_v..,EA'Gvp. uETiY� A 4
aFi
Y
0
V
a
v
DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE �/� M �Np�e Chapter 1.3
2. Ingress and Egress�7-r.Jo�(�
A tentative tract or parcel map shall provide for at least 2 different standard routes
for ingress or egress. Standard ingress/egress route is a route which is dedicated to
the City and has minimum paved width of 24 feet.
3. Street Standards
Streets in the Hillside Areas shall conform to the following standards:
a. Local hillside street standards shall be used to minimize grading and erosion
potential while providing adequate access for vehicles, including
emergency vehicles. The right-of-way may be a minimum of 48.5 feet with
40 feet of paved width and parking on both sides and a sidewalk on 1 side.
b. Grades of streets in the hillside areas shall be as provided in this subsection,
unless otherwise approved in writing by the Public Services, Fire, and Public
Works Departments. Hillside collector and arterial streets shall not exceed
8 percent. Hillside residential local streets shall not exceed 12 percent.
C. Minimum horizontal curve of streets shall be in accordance with Caltrans
computational methods using design speed estimated by the Public Works
Department.
d. One way streets may be permitted where it can be shown that they reduce
the overall amount of required cut and fill grading.
e. Cul-de-sacs to a maximum of 750 feet in length may be permitted with a
maximum of 30 dwelling units, and to a maximum of 1000 feet in length with
a maximum of 20 dwelling units and shall terminate with a turn around area
not less than 35 feet in radius to curb face.
f. Sidewalks on only one side of a street may be permitted in hillside areas
subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
g. All other street improvement standards shall conform to the standard plans
and specifications of the City of Diamond Bar.
i
4. Soils/Grading
a. Grading of any site shall conform to the following grading standards, based
upon the percent of the natural slope. The City Engineer shall review and
make recommendation to the Planning Commission on the proposed
grading.
(1) 0-15% - Redistribution of earth over large areas may be permitted.
(2) 15+ -25%- Some grading may occur, but Iandforms must retain their
natural character. Padded building sites may be allowed, but
custom foundations, split level design, stacking and clustering is
expected to mitigate the need for large padded building areas.
Rev. September 20, 1990 . 13
DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE
Chapter 1.3
(3) 25+ - 30% - Limited grading may occur, however, major
topographic features shall retain their natural landforms. Special
hillside architectural and design techniques are expected in order
to conform to the natural land form.
(4) 30+ - 40%- Development and limited grading can only occur in this
category if it can be clearly demonstrated that safety,
environmental, and aesthetic impacts will be avoided.
(5) Greater than 40%, - Development is prohibited in this slope category.
Very limited grading for access reasons and development of existing
lots of record, if 0 can be clearly demonstrated that safety,
environmental, and aesthetic impacts will be avoided or minimized.
b. Grading shall be designed to:
(1) Conserve natural topographic features and appearances by means
of land sculpturing 10 blend graded slopes and benches with natural
topography.
(2) Retain major natural topographic features such as canyons and
prominent landmarks.
C. All graded areas shall be protected from wind and water erosion through
acceptable slope stabilization methods such as planting, walls, or netting.
Interim erosion control plans shall be required, certified by the project
engineer, and reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department,
d.
e.
5. Design
a.
b.
C.
d.
Slopes created by grading of the site shall not exceed 50 percent or 2:1,
without a soils report and stabilization study indicating a greater permissible
slope.
No cut or fill slopes shall be created which exceed thirty (30) vertical feet in
height without the approval of the Planning Commission.
Dwelling units and structures shall be compatible with the natural
surroundings of the area and shall not dominate the natural environment.
Exterior finishes of dwelling units and structures should blend in with natural
surroundings by using earth tone colors and avoiding reflective materials or
finishes.
Site design should utilize varying setbacks, building heights, innovative
building techniques, and building and wall forms which serve to blend
buildings into the terrain.
Dwelling units and structures shall be sited in a manner that will:
(1) Retain outward views from each unit;
Rev. September 20, 1990 14
I
I
F
DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE Chapter 1.3
(2) Preserve or enhance vistas, particularly those seen from public
places;
e1 (3) Preserve visually significant rock outcroppings, natural hydrology,
native plant materials, and areas of visual or historical significance.
e. The highest point of any structures shall not be located above the ridgeline
(i.e., a ground line located at the highest elevation of a connected series
of major and minor hills or mountains).
(1) Use the natural ridgeline as a backdrop for structures;
(2) Use landscape plant materials as a backdrop; and
(3) Use the structure to maximize concealment of cut slopes.
f. Retaining Walls/Fences
(1) Retaining walls shall be used in the following manner:
Upslope - One wall per lot not exceeding 8 feet in height.
Downslope - One wall per lot not exceeding 42 inches in height may
be used.
Lots slopina with the street of access or other conditions - One
retaining wall on each side of the lot may be used not exceeding 42
inches in height.
Retaining walls adjacent to driveways - Walls being an integral part
of the structure may exceed 8 feet in height if necessary.
(2) Exposed retaining walls facing roadways shall be no greater than 5
feet in height.
(3) Where retaining walls face roadways, they shall be built of natural
materials indigenous to the area (i.e., rock facing).
6. Water/Drainage
a. On-site catch basins or siltation basins, as well as energy absorbing devices,
may be required as a means to prevent erosion as well as to provide for
ground water recharge.
b. Natural drainage courses should be protected from grading activity
C. Where brow ditches are required, naturalize with plant materials and native
rocks.
d. Maximum coverage of a parcel by impervious surfaces shall not exceed 40
percent of the gross land area, and such maximum may be reduced by the
Director in areas where the slope exceeds -15 percent.
Rev. September 20, 1990 15
DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE
7. Animal and Plant Life
Chapter 1.3
a. Areas of a site which are identified as having biological significance shall be
preserved whenever possible.
b. Natural vegetation shall be maintained wherever possible. If removal is
required, reestablishment of a compatible plant material will be required at
a ratio of at least 2:1.
C. All exposed slopes and grades areas shall be landscaped with ground
cover, shrubs, and trees.
d. Existing mature trees shall be incorporated into the project where feasible.
e. Water and energy conservation techniques shall be utilized, such as special
irrigation techniques (e.g., drip irrigation), drought tolerant plant species,
alluvial rockscope, etc.
f. Wherever possible, fire resistant native vegetation shall be preserved and
planted.
g.. Introduction of landscaping within the hillside areas should make maximum
use of texture, color, and be capable of blending in with the natural
landscape, and help to soften the effects of buildings, walls, pavement, and
grading.
h. Screening along roadways should make maximum use of berming and
landscaping but shall not interfere with sight distance.
Section 1.3.13 Improvement Standards and Plans
A. Improvement Standards
1. Standards for design and improvements of subdivisions and other developments
shall be in accordance with the applicable Sections of this Title, the City's General
Plan, any Specific Plans adopted by the City of Diamond Bar the requirements of
Title_ of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code, and such other standards as may,
from time to time, be adopted by the City Council, and incorporated herein by
reference.
2. In the absence of a standard for an improvement, the City Engineer may establish
a standard in keeping with good construction and engineering practices.
B. Improvement Plans Required
1. All Improvements constructed or installed in subdivisions or other residential,
commercial, or industrial developments shall be in accordance with detailed plans
and specifications as approved in writing by the City Engineer prior to
commencement of said improvement work.
Rev. September 20, 1990 16
[it