Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03/24/2015 PC Agenda
PLANNING March 24, 2015 7:00 P.M. City Hall, Windmill Community Room 21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 ..... . - ----- Peter Pirritano Frank Farago Jen "'Fred" Mahike Bob Nishimura Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on Me in the Planning Division of the Community Development Department, located at 21810 Copley Drive, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please call (909) 839-7030 during regular business hours. Written materials distributed to the Planning Commission within 72 hours of the Planning Commission meeting are available for public inspection immediately upon distribution in the City Clerk's office at 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California, during normal business hours. In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title /I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodation (s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting must inform the Community Development Department at (909) 839-7030 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Please refrain from smoking, eating or he City or ulamond tzar uses recycled paper drinking in the Auditorium and encourages you to do the same City nfDiamond Bar Planning Commission MEETING RULES The meetings Ofthe Diamond Bar Planning Commission are open tOthe public. Amember Ofthe public may address the Commission on the subject of one or more agenda items and/or other items of which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission. Arequest ioaddress the Commission should h8submitted iDwriting 8tthe public hearing, k]the Secretary ofthe Commission. As 8 general [U|e. the opportunity for public C000Dl8OtS will take p|8C8 at the discretion Of the Chair. HOVV8Ve[. in OPd8[ to facilitate the Dle8iiOg` p8rSODS who are iOt8[8St8d parties for an item may be n8qU8St8d to give their presentation 8tthe time the ii8OO is C8||ed On the CG|8Od8r. The Chair may limit individual public input to five nliDUteS OO any iL8no; or the Chair may limit the total amount of time allocated for public testimony based on the number of people requesting to speak and the business of the CO[DnliSSiOO. Individuals are requested tOconduct themselves iO8professional and businesslike manner. COOODl8Oi3 and qU8StiOD8 are YV8|CO[De GO that all points of view are considered prior to the CODlDlis8ioD Dl8hiDg recommendations tOthe staff and City Council. In accordance with State Law (Brown Act), all matters to be acted on by the Commission must be posted at least 72 hVU[S prior to the CO00iSsiOD meeting. In CGG8 of emergency or when G SUbi8CL 0@tt8[ arises subsequent to the posting of the agenda, upon making certain findings, the Commission may act onitem that ienot onthe posted agenda. INFORMATION RELATING TO AGENDAS AND ACTIONS OF THE COMMISSION Agendas for Diamond Bar Planning Commission meetings are prepared by the Planning Division of the Community Development Department. Agendas are available 72hours prior hothe meeting oLCity Hall and the public library, and may be @Cc8SS0d by pgnSOO8| computer @tthe contact information below. Every meeting Of the P|8DOiDQ [|ODlrDiS3iOD is r8COnd8d and dUp|iC8[8 F8COndiDgS are available for 8 n0O0iD8| Ch8[Q8. Acordless microphone is available for those persons with mobility impairments who cannot access the public speaking area. The service of the COnd18SS OliCrOphOO8 and SiQD }GDgUGgg iOteq}[8tH[ S8rViC8S are available bVgiving notice atleast three business days iOadvance Ofthe meeting. Please telephone (HOS) 839-7030 between 7:30 8.0D. and 5:30 p.0.. Monday through ThU[SdGy, and 7:30 8.0. and 4:3Op.0,Friday. HELPFUL CONTACT INFORMATION Copies OfAgenda, Rules Ofthe Commission, CDs OfMeetings /SOS\830-7O30 Email: CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 24, 2015 Next Resolution No. 2015-06 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 1. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Frank Farago, Jen "Fred" Mah1ke, Bob Nishimura, Vice Chair Peter Pirritano, Chair Low This is the time and place for the general public to address the members of the Planning Commission on any item that is within their jurisdiction, allowing the public an opportunity to speak on non-public hearing and non -agenda items. Please complete a Speaker's Card for the recordina Secretary (completion of this form is voluntarv). There is a five-minute maximum time limit when addressing the Planning Commission. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine and are approved by a single motion. Consent calendar items may be removed from the agenda by request of the Commission only: 4.1 Minutes of Regular Meeting: March 10, 2015 4.2 Conditional Use Permit No. PL2014-518 (Wireless facility) — Resolution of denial. Project Address: 1355 S. Maple Hill Road (Maple Hill Park) Property Owner: City of Diamond Bar Applicant: Bryce Novak Cortel, LLC 14621 Arroyo Hondo San Diego, CA 92127 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. 91 PUBLIC HEARING(S): PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 7.1 Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2015-010 - Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Sections 22.48 and 22.56, the applicant and property owner are requesting Development Review approval to construct a second -story addition consisting of 487 square feet of floor area to an existing 2,037 square -foot, one-story single-family residence with an attached 493 square -foot, two -car garage on a 0.29 gross acre (12,590 gross square -foot) lot. A Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) is requested to allow a second -story addition to an existing nonconforming structure with a front setback of 10 feet (where 20 feet is required), a nonconforming (south) side setback of eight feet (where 10 feet is required), and a nonconforming distance to the structure on the adjacent lot to the north of 13'-6" (where 15 feet is required). The subject property is zoned Low Density Residential (RL) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential Project Address: 21491 Cold Spring Lane Property Owner: Robert Labella 21491 Cold Spring Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Applicant: Jerry Lutjens 19953 Valley Blvd. Walnut, CA 91789 Environmental Determination: The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on that assessment, the City has determined the project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Article 19 under Section 15301(e) (additions to existing structures) of the CEQA Guidelines. No further environmental review is required. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-10, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9. STAFF COMMENTS / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects MARCH 24, 2015 PAGE 3 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING: CITY COUNCIL MEETING: TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: 11. ADJOURNMENT: PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Thursday, March 26, 2015 — 7:00 p.m. Diamond Bar City Hall Windmill Community Room 21810 Copley Drive Tuesday, April 7, 2015 — 6:30 p.m. South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21825 Copley Dr. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Thursday, April 9 12, 2015 - 7:00 p.m. Diamond Bar City Hall Windmill Community Room 21810 Copley Drive Tuesday, April 14, 2015 — 7:00 p.m. Diamond Bar City Hall, Windmill Community Room 21810 Copley Drive MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR IE. D MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 10, 2015 WIIAAM• •-� Chairman Frank Farago called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. in the City Hall Windmill Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 1. ROLL CALL: Chairman Farago led the Pledge of Allegiance. Present: Commissioners Ruth Low, Jennifer "Fred" Mahlke, Bob Nishimura, Peter Pirritano, and Chairman Frank Farago Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; James Eggarl, Assistant City Attorney; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Josue Espino, Assistant Planner; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. 2. REORGANIZATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION — Selection of Chair and Vice Chair C/Mahlke nominated C/Low to serve as Chair of the Planning Commission. C/Pirritano seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations offered. C/Low was unanimously elected to serve as Chair of the Planning Commission by the following Roll Call vote: C/Mahlke Yes C/Pirritano Yes C/Low Yes C/Nishimura Yes C/Farago Yes C/Mahlke nominated C/Pirritano to serve as Vice Chair of the Planning Commission. C/Nishimura seconded the nomination. C/Pirritano was unanimously elected to serve as Vice Chair of the Planning Commission by the following Roll Call vote: C/Mahlke Yes C/Nishimura Yes C/Farado Yes C/Pirritano Yes Chair/Low Yes MARCH 10, 2015 affowu PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Low thanked outgoing Chair/Farago for his excellent service during the past year. 3. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: 5.1 Minutes of the February 24, 2015, Regular Meeting. C/Nishimura moved, C/Farago seconded, to approve the February 24, 2015, regular meeting minutes as amended by C/Nishimura. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 6. OLD BUSINESS: Em Al COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: None None PUBLIC HEARING(S): Farago, Mahlke, Nishimura, VC/Pirritano, Chair/Low None None 8.1 Develooment Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2014-556 - Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Sections 22.48 and 22.56, the applicant and property owner requested Development Review approval to remodel and construct a multi-level addition consisting of 3,925 square feet of floor area and new balcony area to an existing 4,398 square foot, two story single family residence with an attached 656 square foot, three -car garage on a 0.64 gross acre (28,020 gross square foot) lot. A Minor Conditional Use Permit was requested to allow a multi-level addition to an existing nonconforming structure with a 22 -foot front setback (where 30 feet is required). The subject property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2745 Wagon Train Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 M r- fir LJ i , MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 3' PLANNING COMMISSION PROPERTY OWNERS: Kuei Lien Lo 2745 Wagon Train Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Julieo Gutierrez 1749 N. Arrowhead Avenue San Bernardino, CA 92405 AP/Espino presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PI -2014-556, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Nishimura asked AP/Espino to refer back to the chart for the development standards. He said he noticed that the side yard minimum between adjoining structures for the north side is 30 feet 7 inches and asked if that was correct when the drawings indicated 39.1 feet. He wanted to know where there was a loss of nine (9) feet because he could not find that in the drawings. AP/Espino referred to the drawings and said staff's report contained a typo because there was no addition proposed on that side of the home. The existing home is 39.1 feet on the north side and that staff would correct the error on the chart. C/Nishimura asked if in looking at Sheet 2 for the measurement of 30 feet 7 inches that is reflected on the architect's diagram between the project site and existing house to the north, does the arrow indicate where staff got the measurement for the 30 feet 7 inches between the existing house on the north (right side of the diagram). AP/Espino said he does'not see 30'7" but sees the 39.1 feet which is correct. He pointed to the area in which the 39.1 feet was derived and for reference he asked C/Nishimura to point out the dimension he was referring to. C/Nishimura responded that on Page 2 there is a dimension between the existing house and the house to the north which would be the little bracket on the right side of the diagram. There is a dimension he believes goes from the northeast corner of the garage to the corner of the neighboring home. C/Farago explained to C/Nishimura that he is talking about the same dimension. It is illegible. AP/Espino said that as C/Nishimura mentioned, the existing dimension that was noted in the Table is a typo that should read 39.1 which has not changed. FP MR, a 1�17 MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Nishimura said he visited the site and noticed that the house to the north is slanted so it is closer to the structure to the rear than it is from street level. He asked if it would be more appropriate to take the closest measurement between the house at the northwest corner of the garage to that neighboring house or is it appropriate to use the corner to corner as depicted in the diagram. AP/Espino responded that typically, the measurement is taken from the closest point to the closest point and reference to the plans showing the 39.1 dimension which exceeds the minimum 25 feet it was difficult for staff to make that measurement without getting on the neighbor's property; however, relying on the plans that were submitted by the applicant, staff felt assured that the measurement was in compliance with Code standards. C/Nishimura said this was probably non -consequential for this project but his worry is that if the City keeps accepting measurements given by applicants that the City may run into a problem when it gets closer to the 20 foot or whatever requirement the City has for setbacks between homes and buildings. He believes staff needs to make sure it takes the closest point between the buildings because that is what is being presented to the Commission and the Commission is relying on that measurement. If it was acceptable for staff it should be noted because if staff puts it in the report it means it is staff's measurement also and staff has taken ownership of the measurement of the applicant and it is not staff's if staff believes there is a different measurement. Chair/Low said that rather than having the Commission direct staff as to how they should do their job perhaps the direction from the Commission is that staff do its best to clarify and verify the plans as submitted as to staff's presentation to the Commission and the public. She asked if that would be satisfactory to C/Nishimura. C/Nishimura said yes, it is when information is presented to the Commission the Commission is taking that as the City's information and he thinks the City needs to take ownership of those measurements and make sure the Commission gets the appropriate information or if staff needs to asterisk the information there is disclosure there is information that it may not be exactly 30 feet 1 inch or anything like that. Chair/Low said this is why we have this process of asking questions and presenting the documents and full discussion and the Commission needs to leave it at that that the City does its best practices in this area. C/Farago asked if the "glass tower" was the round structure with the glass inlays for the roof as depicted in drawing 2 in the center of the structure. AP/Espino confirmed that C/Farago was correct. MARCH 10, 2015 r-" PAGE 5 1 � � A A7 NNING COMMISSION C/Low asked if there was a patio cover over the swimming pool which was part of the patio area. Is this an indoor swimming pool that exists? AP/Espino said it is not there and staff calculated the cover as part of the lot coverage. Essentially, it is a large patio cover. Chair/Low opened the public hearing. Luis Vasquez, builder for the project, said that he assisted the architect in the design. He said he was concerned about C/Nishimura questions about the measurement shown on the drawing because the measurement was well beyond the minimum 25 feet requirement. Other than that, he said he was good with the presentation. Chair/Low closed the public hearing. Farago moved, C/Pirritano seconded, to approve Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PI -2014-556, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Mahlke, Nishimura, VC/Pirritano, Chair/Low NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 8.2 Conditional Use Permit No. PL2014-518 - Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.58, the applicant requested Conditional Use Permit approval for a new wireless telecommunications facility consisting of 12 panel antennas, three (3) remote radio units, and a 24 -inch diameter microwave dish antenna on a new 65 foot tall monopine and related equipment, within a 220 square foot enclosure at a public park (Maple Hill Park). The subject site is zoned Low Medium Density Residential (RLM) with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Park (PK). PROJECT ADDRESS: 1355 S. Maple Hill Road (Maple Hill Park) mrelm��� APPLICANT: Bryce Novak Cortel, LLC 14621 Arroyo Hondo San Diego, CA 92127 L�21 ij" 11 MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION AP/Espino presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. PL2014-518, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Nishimura referred AP/Espino to the photograph looking northwest from Maple Hill Road to the proposed location and asked if the tower would be located behind the trees. He asked if the trees were evergreen or deciduous trees and AP/Espinoza said he believed they were deciduous. He visited the site recently and some of the leaves have fallen. C/Nishimura said this photograph was taken when the leaves were full and a little more of the tower may be visible during the winter time. AP/Espino responded that that was correct. At different times of the year there will be different exposure of the antenna structure. C/Farago said that the leaves have fallen off of the trees and the tower Would be very visible at this time. He said he was concerned about the aesthetics. There are no other evergreens in close proximity to the tower and it will stand out. He asked if there was a possibility that evergreens could be planted in the area to camouflage the tree, and AP/Espino said it was within the purview of the Commission to request the applicant add additional trees to camouflage or hide the proposed facility. C/Nishimura said that staff noted in its report that a first attempt was made across the street at Maple Hill Elementary School (to locate the cell site), and asked what happened with that proposal. AP/Espino said he would defer that question to CDD/Gubman who may have more knowledge on that question. CDD/Gubman said he was with the Community Development Department at the time that application was submitted. T -Mobile submitted an application to install a cell tower designed as a flagpole to conceal the tower antennas inside the shroud of the flagpole. That application for a Conditional Use Permit was submitted to the Community Development Department. Staff began processing the application and after the application was taken, the school district's constituents became aware of the proposed installation at the school and from what he heard from T -Mobile representatives was that they did withdraw the application based on the school district making the decision to discontinue their authorization for T -Mobile to apply for the tower on their property. This was about three years ago. I PR_ ei f�, MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Nishimura said so the constituents went to the board is what CDD/Gubman heard and the school district, as a property owner, withdrew the application and CDD/Gubman said that C/Nishimura was correct. C/Nishimura said the property they proposed for the installation was owned by the public school district. CDD/Gubman said that C/Nishimura was correct. C/Nishimura said the City park is also public property. CDD/Gubman said that C/Nishimura was correct. C/Nishimura asked if the City, as landlords, have a right to say we don't want a cell tower there or are we compelled to put a cell tower there and CDD/Gubman explained that staff has consistently given authorization to providers who have approached the City to proceed with an application on public property. This is in keeping with past practice. The discretion whether or not to approve this lies with the Planning Commission and if the Planning Commission approves it and the approval is final then the City Council would then have to make the final decision to enter into a licensing agreement with the carrier to install the cell site on that facility. In speaking with the City Manager's office, they take a neutral position when they are approached and do not make the decision at the beginning of the process whether or not to grant authorization to make an application to CDD/Gubman's department. C/Nishimura said that the phone carrier must have been in communication with somebody at the City to say this concept in theory looks good and to go ahead and apply for it. Again, the question was, as the property owner, can the City just say it does not want a cell tower there. DCA/Eggart responded to C/Nishimura that as the property owner yes, the City has an absolute right to not allow a carrier to construct a tower on its property; however, the decision whether to allow it on City property is within the jurisdiction of the City Council and is not something that is actually before the Planning Commission as part of its decision. The final decision will be made by the City Council when it considers leases for previously approved cell tower applications. C/Nishimura repeated that as a property owner the City could say yes or no regardless of this health concern so they can have any reason to say yes or no and ACA/Eggart said C/Nishimura's statement was correct. C/Nishimura said that CDD/Gubman mentioned something about "past practices" as a reason for the City having allowed cell tower application to be submitted for City -owned properties. He asked if the City ever denied people permission to submit applications to put cell towers anywhere on City property or City rights-of-way. CDD/Gubman responded that he was not aware of any such denial and C/Nishimura said okay, not like the WVUSD which has cell towers on some of their properties including some in the City at Diamond Bar High School, so in this case they deviated from n� 1�I'L.) U-1 #-` j- 'd MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION their past practice and said they did not want one at Maple Hill. Is that correct? CDD/Gubman said he believed that was a fair assessment. C/Farago said that other than the school itself, in order to handle or fill this dark spot in the carrier's coverage, were any other locations considered or brought before the City prior to this location? CDD/Gubman said he was not aware of any other considerations; however, this might be a question for the applicant. The next nearest opportunity site would probably be Chaparral Middle School; however, not being familiar with the propagation needs and topography, etc., he was not aware of any other proposals other than for Maple Hill Elementary across the street. C/Pirritano asked if CDD/Gubman knew of any other available sites. CDD/Gubman asked AP/Espino to put up for viewing, the "Wireless Facilities and Opportunity" map which AP/Espino said was included in staff's report. AP/Espino described the locations of potential sites. Approximately 65 locations were included in the list. CDD/Gubman stated that carriers also have another option which is to locate on existing utility poles such as street lights in the public rights-of-way, or to replace poles with poles that are engineered to accommodate antennas. Most of the City's street lights are Southern California Edison assets. The applicant would be the proper source to expand on that option. Street light poles are lower in height and the carrier may have to look at doing more antennas to distribute throughout the coverage gap effectively since they would not have the advantage of the height to propagate the signal more effectively. C/Mahlke said that something that was addressed in the handbook was the prior facilities, which was something that was discussed early on. The City already has established facilities at Peterson Park, two at Diamond Bar Center and one at Pantera Park. She asked CDD/Gubman to educate her about what the Planning Commission is looking at with 12 panel antennas and three remote radio units and the one 24 -inch microwave dish as compared to the prior installations. AP/Espino said that installations vary based on the carrier's needs but it would be commonplace for a carrier to request multiple antennas with remote radio units. The dishes are not always included in the request but again, it depends on each carrier's needs and how they are trying to service their customers. C/Mahlke said she was trying to figure out if this request included "more" than what is already in place in other parks in the City. AP/Espino said he would say this proposal is comparable to the 85 foot high light pole at Peterson Park where one can see multiple antennas (at least 12) driving the SR57 to the SR60 stretch adjacent to the park. MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Nishimura asked if he was correct to say that the antenna at Pantera Park is camouflaged in a lighting standard for the ball field. AP/Espino responded yes. Camouflaged is subjective, but yes. C/Nishimura said it is one and the same. It is the light standard that was modified to accommodate the antennas and the lighting for the ball field. C/Nishimura said there are a couple of sites at Peterson Park that are against the freeway and they are also on the light standards and not fake trees. The ones at the Diamond Bar Center are two fake trees at the back of the parking lot. He wanted to know if the proposed site was similar to the installation at the Diamond Bar Center. AP/Espino said it was similar in the fact that it was an artificial tree. The two at the Diamond Bar Center are 45 feet high and resemble elm trees. The proposed project is a 65 -foot high artificial pine tree. Chair/Low asked to again see a photo depicting the installation and whether the applicant had additional photos of actual installations. AP/Espino responded that the applicant indicated yes and that he will display them on the screen. Chair/Low asked AP/Espino to put up the slide that shows the coverage and coverage gap. AP/Espino explained that the slide showed the map of coverage without the site. Chair/Low asked for an explanation of the various colors with respect to cell service. AP/Espino stated that the darker green colors are the optimum level for cell phone reception/transmission inside of a building. The lighter green is reception/transmission through a vehicle and the yellow is reception/transmission outdoors. The gray areas are shady at best and the white is non-existent reception/transmission. Chair/Low asked if AP/Espino could provide an overlay of the coverage area with the inclusion of the proposed cell site. AP/Espino responded that he did not have an overlay but could toggle between the slides showing coverage without the proposed site and with the proposed site. Chair/Low said the map was deceptive and asked how far the coverage would be extended. AP/Espino said it was approximately '/2 mile distance to Diamond Bar Boulevard and scattered into the neighborhood. Chair/Low asked if staff had any knowledge that these cell tower "trees" resulted in any vandalism to the community and AP/Espino said he was not aware of any. CDD/Gubman said he was aware of copper wire being stolen from field lighting and did not recall at Pantera Park whether the pole that houses the cell site was vandalized in that way. This type of theft is always a risk. Chair/Low asked the height of the existing trees that would surround the proposed cell tower and AP/Espino responded that there are numerous mature Eucalyptus trees that can grow well over the proposed 65 foot high cell tower. There are trees located along the steep hillside incline and there are mature trees that are higher than the proposed tree depending on where they are located, whether above or below the grade of the proposed facility. According to what he N ✓ RAFT MARCH MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION sees, some of the trees exceed 65 feet. Chair/Low asked if the existing trees would be endangered by the existence, construction and installation of this cell tower and AP/Espino responded that there are small trees/large brush along the south end of the tennis court that will be cleared for installation of the enclosure. No trees will be damaged or removed as a result of the installation of the monopine. Chair/Low opened the public hearing. Bryce Novak, Agent for T -Mobile, showed a photograph of a recently installed T -Mobile 65 foot monopine in Arcadia which was installed in August 2014. The branch count of the proposed installation would be similar to what the photo indicates. He showed another photograph of a 75 foot monopine which was installed in Riverside in the summer of 2014. The reason T -Mobile needs the 65 foot monopine at Maple Hill Park is due to the coverage gap which is due to the topography of the subdivision. The hills of Diamond Bar present challenges for carriers. A lot of T -Mobile sites are along the freeway and there is one along Diamond Bar Boulevard. These sites are not high enough to provide coverage to the subdivision. Between November 2014 and February 2015, T -Mobile has received approximately 25 complaints in the call center for T -Mobile from this specific search ring. Over the course of a year there have been over 100 complaints of dropped calls. T -Mobile is not the only customer that suffers from such complaints. Verizon has one bar coverage at this park in this subdivision. In order to fill in this coverage gap it has to have the necessary elevation and this park is the only option for T -Mobile to provide/ coverage to this subdivision. C/Pirritano asked if the applicant was indicating there could be other providers on this same pole and T -Mobile said C/Pirritano was correct and why the monopole was being designed to allow additional carriers and why 65 feet was needed to provide a reasonable co -location height at the 39 foot rad. C/Pirritano asked if there were other cell towers in the vicinity on which T -Mobile could co -locate. Mr. Novak said that there were no existing cell towers that would cover the specific quarter -mile subdivision. C/Pirritano asked if there was a cell phone company that provided coverage to the subdivision and whether Mr. Novak could identify that location and co -locate on that site rather than install a new site. Mr. Novak said his company completed a "fun run" where he accompanied a T -Mobile radio frequency engineer while the engineer circled the entire coverage gap looking for existing sites and new location sites. Mr. Novak reiterated that there is nothing for T -Mobile within that coverage area with an elevation that would provide coverage to the coverage gap area. a0AT MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Nishimura said he had the same question which was not answered to his satisfaction. He has AT&T and while he is not advertising AT&T he has never had problems in that area. He asked if Mr. Novak knew the location of the AT&T site and whether it would provide a possible site for co -location. As it is, the Commission is being asked to weigh in on this project and for all he knows, this is the only alternative because there are no other alternatives that were presented to the Commission. Mr. Novak explained that before carriers hand these types of search rings off and send specialists out to review the areas to site acquisition firms such as the firm for which he works, they approach the different carriers and tower companies to locate their installations. C/Nishimura asked if in this instance Mr. Novak knew that that happened or whether he was just saying this usually happens. C/Nishimura said that it seems to him that for this project Mr. Novak is not sure whether this happened or not. C/Nishimura asked Mr. Novak if he can say that this happened. Mr. Novak said no, he can only say that he drove the area with the engineer. C/Nishimura said that was not his question. His question was, does Mr. Novak know if the process he described before where all of the alternatives were considered by the carrier, whoever it may be, had different alternatives — did they know that AT&T has a tower and that AT&T said no to co -locating. Is there something across in Diamond Bar Boulevard in The Country for example, because they are higher, which might provide another alternative site. C/Nishimura said the Planning Commission was not being presented with any other alternatives and no one is telling the Commission that there have been any other alternatives other than Maple Hill Elementary School across the street which was denied. Mr. Novak responded to C/Nishimura that he has seen two emails going to the tower companies (Crown Castle and ATC) where T -Mobile's development manager approached AT&T and Verizon. Other than that, he cannot say whether they actually did so. C/Nishimura asked if T -Mobile would own the tower or lease it from Cortel, LLC and whether they would have first right -of -refusal and an advantage in going into the project with Cortel. Mr. Novak said that T -Mobile would own the tower. C/Nishimura said so if they own the tower they could set the rents for a co -locator and Mr. Novak explained that rents are set between carriers who have a Master Lease Agreement. Each carrier has set pricing they can charge each other on each other's towers. C/Nishimura stated that T -Mobile could make money on another carrier coming in to lease out the other space on the tree. Mr. Novak said yes, just as another carrier can make money off of T -Mobile if m, n b_o tMN MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION T -Mobile went on their cell site. C/Nishimura asked Mr. Novak if he knew of any other alternatives and whether T -Mobile felt it was more of a business decision where they could make money on a new site or whether it was more expensive to try and lease long-term at another site from another carrier. Chair/Low asked the City Attorney if this was a proper area of inquiry by the Planning Commission to ask about the business application or business decisions behind this application and ACA/Eggart responded that certainly the questions about the investigation done to co -locate on other towers is a pertinent question. C/Nishimura asked Mr. Novak if T -Mobile, the company he is representing, looked at any other alternative spaces that would help cover a majority of the area where there is currently a gap in coverage. Mr. Novak again -explained that 1i—isjob was to drive the area with the engineer to iden ify any existing sites that might not show up on the FCC website and tower company websites to see if something was missed and he is testifying that he drove the entire neighborhood. C/Nishimura stated that Mr. Novak is showing the Planning Commission a map that is just for T -Mobile, not for AT&T or any of the other carriers. Mr. Novak said the map is a T -Mobile map. C/Nishimura reiterated that he has never had coverage problems at Maple Hill Park and it seems to be a big gap for T -Mobile. He again asked, 1) what are the other carriers doing to provide coverage in this area because he knows there is coverage in this area, 2) did T -Mobile consider working with these other areas to see if they can provide a majority of coverage that is missing, and 3) what are the alternatives because there are no alternatives presented to this Commission. Mr. Novak said that from his understanding and he has a T -Mobile Radio Frequency Engineer here to testify, the reason why C/Nishimura is getting coverage with his AT&T cell phone at Maple Hill Park is that they work off of a specific frequency band that provides longer distances of coverage. Mr. Novak further explained that he is not privy to the information about which cell site might be covering that particular area. He does know that the AT&T 1900 frequency band allows more expansive coverage than T -Mobile's. C/Nishimura asked if anything at The Country across Diamond Bar Boulevard was explored or if there were any other alternative places where one could get substantial coverage that the Planning Commission does not know about. Mr. Novak said that the other side of Diamond Bar Boulevard would be well outside of the coverage deficiency area and if a cell site was placed there, because of the lower elevations and distance from the area, only a fraction of the area covered by the new cell site would be covered which would make no sense. One can see a lot of that kind of proliferation close to Diamond Bar RDRAF17 MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION Boulevard which already has coverage. C/Nishimura asked Mr. Novak if he was saying there were no other alternatives other than this monopine pole and Mr. Novak again said there are no other alternatives. C/Nishimura asked if it would solve the problem if antennas could be put on some of the existing Edison light poles. Mr. Novak said the problem would be that those are extremely costly and there is a population in this neighborhood of 3,000. Light poles are put in highly dense urban environments which can justify the cost. If these antennas were placed on a light pole there would be coverage between five and 10 light poles. C/Nishimura said but it can be done, it would just be more expensive for the provider. Mr. Novak said that in his experience, for these antennas to be running in neighborhoods, opposition to the project is even higher than what it would be if T -Mobile proposed to install more than one cell site in an open park. C/Nishimura commented that is cheaper to put one fake tree in a park -----ffian it -is to maybe put smaller antenna arrays on five or six different light poles and Mr. Novak responded that as a property owner because they would be closer to residences, it would be more tenable to place the tower in the park which is an open environment. C/Farago directed his question to staff stating C/Nishimura indicated that there are arrays on existing light poles illuminating ball fields and he wanted to know if there were light standards at the park used to illuminate the tennis courts that these antennas could be placed on rather than installing a monopine. CDD/Gubman responded that to the best of his recollection, the tallest light poles at Maple Hill Park would be at the tennis courts and he did not believe they were higher than 18-25 feet high. C/Farago asked Mr. Novak if it was true that he personally traveled the area looking for service for T -Mobile but there was no real investigation with respect to alternative cell towers that T -Mobile could possibly lease space on. Mr. Novak said he identified every cell site in this general coverage area, most of which are along Diamond Bar Boulevard and Grand Avenue at lower elevations. This specific coverage gap cannot be closed by putting antenna on one of the City's major street arteries. There is only one solution in this instance which is the higher elevation site. C/Nishimura asked if Mr. Novak's statement was that he looked at all of the T -Mobile towers and not everybody's towers. Mr. Novak said that C/Nishimura's statement was not true. This map was created to justify T -Mobile's coverage gap. He reiterated that he personally drove the entire area with T -Mobile's engineer to look at and identify every cell site on every street that was not documented, and he is not aware of any cell sites in the subdivision. C/Nishimura said that it is not depicted on this map. Mr. Novak h '10RAFT '2 MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION said that was correct because he was not asked to provide that information, only the T -Mobile information. Abigail Tata, 1311 Solera Lane, said her daughter goes to Maple Hill Elementary School and she did not receive notification about this project. In fact, the location where the public hearing notice is posted only is visible during non -school hours. She was unaware of this until a week ago and asked if the City had a responsibility to charge the school to inform parents because she believes most parents do not know about this project unless they park in the park and walk in front of the sign. She does not recognize anyone in the audience from the school or school district and does not know what the school's level of involvement is in regards to this project and it makes her wonder if the school benefits from this project and that is why there was no notification to parents. She has concerns about health effects and things that are arguable. Denis Paul, 1429 Blenbury Drive, said he and his wife have lived in their home for the past 36 years and this is the first time he has come before the Commission. He commended the Commissioners on the depth of their questions and did not know coming into this tonight whether this would be a "rubber stamping" or serious inquiry. His son went to Maple Hill and played in the park. He has never before seen an opposition united in this community against a singular project such as he is seeing now. He was pleased by the presentation. He did not look at the related materials but believed staff had done a good job in presenting the information. In a way, it has heightened his concern. When seeing that the WVUSD, his former employer, declined this project and as a former principal of Diamond Bar High School where there was a plethora of cell towers, he believed that coverage issues were also fiscal issues. He is concerned by WVUSD's opposition and wanted to know why the school district did not take advantage of this project. He shares his neighbors' concerns with the aesthetics and health issues. He is also concerned about infringing on the park. Staff mentioned three parks — Peterson Park, Diamond Bar Center and Pantera Park which are all much bigger parks. Also, the size of the enclosure associated with this tower is a proportional issue. He is glad the Commissioners picked up on the co -location possibilities. The Commission will be approving a site that will be open to other providers. He too has AT&T and has no problem. The only answer he heard to his question about why not tag on to another provider's site and why this was the only alternative was that T -Mobile's coverage is not as widespread as AT&T because they have a different frequency. So it seems that the kids will suffer because of a single inferior carrier. Another question is the fiscal impact of this site. If this is approved by the City Council, where will the money go? f ru, I D 7, 1! �'a i-% �,] -7 9 MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 15 PLANNING COMMISSION Will it go to help kids, improve the park or go into the General Fund? The neighborhood does not want this huge infringement on a small park. C/Nishimura asked the City Attorney if people were required to give their name and address during a public hearing and ACA/Eggart responded "no." Junko Takeya, Birdseye Drive, said the small portion of the park where T -Mobile is requesting to place this tower is right next to the area where most families go when they have birthday celebrations or gatherings. This is going to be so intrusive on that area because there is no way it will look like a native tree. When people sit at the picnic tables off to the side they will see the enclosure because it cannot be hidden. This park is too small to allow this structure. More and more, green spaces are being destroyed for housing developments in Diamond Bar and other cities. Hillsides are coming down for these developments and the City needs to protect what little green space is left. This park has been in this community for decades and this fake "tree" will be an eyesore to this beautiful little community park. According to Municipal Code Section 22.72.020 it states under number 2 that display boards will be placed in at least three public places in the area of the property. There is only one display board located in a place where unless one intentionally goes to the board they will not see the notice. She visits the park every day and walks through the entire park. Even if she were to go down the footpath and make a left turn on Maple Hill she would not notice the display board. Most of the park visitors park along the side of the park if they are going to Little League games, enter through the gate and come back out or drive into the parking lot and then exit their vehicles, go up to the footpath, go to the tennis courts, go to the field or go to the playground. No one ever walks to the front side to look at the sign. This is a blatant attempt to adhere to the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law which is to notify the public about what is taking place. She is opposed to T -Mobile putting up the monopine. She too has AT&T and her cell service is fine. She has no problem getting service in the park and around the neighborhood. Evelyn Li, Blenbury Drive, said four years ago she and her husband bought their house specifically for this park and the nearby schools. She delivered a baby four months ago and read up on cell phone radiation which could lead to birth defects, Alzheimer's, and cancer and she knows the Commission cannot make its decision based on health but all of the residents and people who use the park are really concerned about the health issues. She is an AT&T customer and has no problem with her wireless connection in the area. She hopes that T -Mobile can find out how AT&T is able to provide service and perhaps co-partner with them for LJ )� P-11 T MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 16 PLANNING COMMISSION another site. She hoped this tower would not be placed at this site. Mrs. Li asked about the approval and appeal process. ACA/Eggart said that regardless of what the Planning Commission's decision is, anyone can appeal the matter to the City Council. The appeal period is 10 days from the Planning Commission's decision to file paperwork with the City Clerk's office. C/Nishimura directed his question to CDD/Gubman and asked him the amount of the appeal fee. CDD/Gubman responded that the appeal fee is $711 for a member of the public to appeal the project or for an applicant to appeal the denial. The City Council has the discretion to call the matter up for a public hearing. For that to happen the matter would have to be placed on the next City Council agenda and a majority of the City Council would have to vote to call the matter up for a hearing. Staff will notify the City Council of the Planning Commission's decision. In addition, staff notifies the City Council when there is a matter of controversy such as this as part of the information conveyed. C/Nishimura said that either party can go through the City Council or pay the fee to file an appeal. CDD/Gubman responded "yes." C/Nishimura asked how soon a Council Member would need to put this on the agenda to meet the time constraints. ACA/Eggart said it would need to be agendized for the next City Council meeting and it would need to be done this week for next Tuesday's meeting. ACA/Eggart stated that before the Planning Commission this evening is a proposed resolution to approve. If the Planning Commission is inclined to deny the project, the law requires that the denial be in writing (supported by written findings) so in that instance, the Planning Commission would need to continue the matter until the next Planning Commission meeting in order to allow written findings to be developed for the Commission's consideration which means that the action would take place at the next Planning Commission meeting. C/Nishimura asked if in the event the Planning Commission approved the project, an individual or individuals could file an appeal and pay the $711 appeal fee or try to get to their Council Member by Thursday in time to get the matter agendized for the next Council meeting. By what day does the Council Member have to place the matter on next Tuesday's meeting agenda and CDD/Gubman responded that the City Council agenda goes out on Friday at about 3:00 p.m. Chair/Low said that to her it sounded like C/Nishimura was saying that the individual either had to pay the appeal fee or talk to a City Council Member r-71 W -1 T FAI ; f]■ 1 2015 PAGE 17 PLANNING COMMISSION to get the matter placed on next Tuesday's agenda which does not sound correct to her. ACA/Eggart explained that there are two separate processes for appealing the Planning Commission decisions as set forth in the Municipal Code. The first allows the City Council as a body to call up the item without an appeal which needs to be done within 10 days of the decision. Therefore, the matter would need to get put on an agenda for a City Council meeting within 10 days of the decision in order for the City Council to vote on whether they wanted to call up an item and hold a public hearing or let the Planning Commission's decision stand. Separate and apart from that, individuals, applicants, and members of the public can appeal and file a formal appeal in writing with the City Clerk and pay the appeal fee regardless of what the City Council does on its own. The City is not necessarily acting in response to a request from the public but as a practical matter, if people have concerns they can let their City Council Members know and that is how City Council Members become aware that there may be an issue they should consider. Chair/Low said it sounded to her like all one had to do was get on the phone and talk to his or her favorite Council person. It sounded nefarious to her and she did not believe that was the intention of the process. ACA/Eggart said it was not the intention of the process and under these circumstances, regardless of the Planning Commission's decision, staff would notify the City Council Members the next day of the Planning Commission's decision so that they would have an opportunity to consider placing the matter on next Tuesday's agenda, should they chose to do so. Evelyn Li asked if she was being advised to talk to a Council Member tomorrow and Chair/Low advised her to wait until the end of the public hearing to see what the Commission decides. Mrs. Li said that even if the Commission disapproves the matter, the applicant might appeal the Commission's decision and in that event, would this entire process would take place again. ACA/Eggart again explained that if the matter is appealed to the City Council, or if the City Council votes to take up the matter absent an appeal, the exact same process will occur again before the City Council with a public hearing, public notices, publishing it in the newspaper and posting it on the property and the entire presentation will take place once again. LIU! P71 - MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 18 PLANNING COMMISSIOR Mrs. U said asked confirmation that that if the Commission disapproves the proposed project then this is the end of this proposal? ACA/Eggart again reiterated that the applicant would have an opportunity to file an appeal. Tyra Caballero lives about .3 miles from the park. She and her two kids visit the park frequently to walk their dog and enjoy birthday parties. Her six year old son attends Maple Hill Elementary School across the street and when she was discussing this matter with her husband her six year old overheard the conversation and when the word "cancer" came up he asked if it would burn if he gets cancer and wondered what it would be like with Jesus in Heaven. No child should have anxiety about going to school and no parent should have anxiety about sending their child to school. No resident should be anxious about living near this site. She appealed with the Planning Commission to vote no on putting this cell tower in the community. Robert Coventry, 22241 Croll Court, said he is one of the largest employers in Diamond Bar and like Mr. Paul has lived here for a long time and this is his first time coming to a meeting. His property overlooks Maple Hill Park and there are three important things when buying a property which are location, location, location. There is a lot of stuff on the internet about property value and how cell towers affect property values. Many have spoken about health concerns and whether true or not, is a valid and perceived issue. He does not want to suffer a decline in property value which adversely affects the City. In Diamond Bar, there is a 1.14567% property tax rate and if his property taxes go down the money to the City goes down. The fiscal impact of that issue is of concern to him. The hideous looking fake trees in such a small park compared to the much larger parks mentioned are not in the middle of a community. These are small single family residential areas. He has two children, one at Diamond Bar High School and one at Chaparral Middle School who both went to Maple Hill Elementary School. Every Thursday he and his family took a big bag of cans and donated them to Maple Hill Elementary because they needed money. Every month his family dropped off paper because they needed money. If the school district needs money so badly why would they turn down a proposition to make money and he thinks that needs to be looked into. Also, T -Mobile has the least market share of any of the major carriers and how many people in Diamond Bar in this 3,000 person subdivision are affected by T -Mobile. Not one speaker has mentioned they have T -Mobile service. He has Verizon. Every morning driving down he loses signal and in the afternoon driving up Deerfoot he loses signal. He asked Verizon if they could put a tower in the area and they said no. If AT&T works, people have an opportunity. This (tower) is not something that is needed. A Google real estate survey says that 94 percent of the people state they 2 UluRAFT , MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 19 PLANNING COMMISSION would not buy a property that has a view of a cell tower. That information could hugely affect his ability to sell his home. He has been in his home for 16 years and does not plan to move. At the same time he does not want something hideous he has to look at every time he looks out his backyard and when he takes the kids and dog to the park. At a height of 65 ft and this being the only pine tree in the area where there are Eucalyptus trees only, this would stand out like a sore thumb. Also, the pictures the Commission was shown did not include the microwave (dish) and he did not believe the microwave could be camouflaged as well as regular antennas so people will see a big round dish on the fake tree. He asked the Commission to please find a better way. Nancy Kim has a son in kindergarten at Maple Hill Elementary School. Every day at 1:15 p.m. he and his friends go to the park. Every day at 2:30 p.m. a lot of kids (100, 200, or 300) go to the park because the parents park at the park to pick up their kids. Kids play at that park every day. It is right in front of the school. The kids are very curious and they will want to go touch the tree. Please consider the lives of the kids and deny the project. Teruni Evans lives in north Diamond Bar and drives her kids to Maple Hill Elementary. She is a parent and was not notified about this project. She found out through Facebook when somebody posted the information. She is a T -Mobile customer but she does not want a cell tower at that location. If it is between her kids and other kids versus her getting cell service she is okay not getting the cell service. She asked the Commission to deny the project. Robert Lin, long time Diamond Bar resident, said this was his first time attending a Planning Commission meeting. He commended the Commissioners for their level of inquiry on this matter. He is opposed to this project. He is a board certified family physician and to him, health is everything. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, radio frequency is classified as a possible carcinogen and that being said, regardless of the reason for the WVUSD denying the initial placement at Maple Hill Elementary School, placing a cell tower directly across from a school is tantamount to placing it at the school and exposing the kids. The applicant mentioned that the Development Code allows for wireless facilities on public property but that is an inherent conflict of interest because T -Mobile is making money off of the risk of exposing kids who visit the park and come into the vicinity of the tower after school. Historically, there has 1�2r-, -1 ,17 R A is 3 MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 20 PLANNING COMMISSION been denial of cell phone towers in the City of Diamond Bar. In 2008 an application for a cell tower to be placed in Ronald Reagan Park was denied. He is a Verizon customer and has no problem with transmission while traversing the neighborhood park. Venny Carranza, speaking on behalf of Scott Wolfe read a letter written by Scott Wolfe who is the son of Blair Barnes, the homeowner. Blair and Scott have lived at 1463 Maple Hill Road in Diamond Bar since the subdivision was built in 1977. Mr. Carranza said that when he first moved to California he lived in Hollywood which was crazy. When his friend Scott Wolfe offered that Diamond Bar would be a great place to live he visited the City and saw the beautiful scenic view and decided to move to Diamond Bar. He walks his dog every day to the park and it is beautiful. After working in Hollywood all day it is nice to come home to a calm and serene setting. Mr. Carranza read Scott Wolfe's letter. "I Scott Wolfe, resident and owner of the property located at 1463 Maple Hill Road am registering my total and complete objection to any cell phone tower construction at Maple Hill Park located at 1355 Maple Hills Road. Public residential parks are there for one purpose and one purpose only, to allow residents, their children and their dogs to enjoy a public space set aside for recreational purposes only. Maple Hill Park is a community park that is used for recreation purposes by soccer teams, for family games, picnics, kite flying and a multitude of other purposes. Any construction of any cell phone tower at the park could interfere with that. As a taxpaying citizen of Diamond Bar, my tax dollars go to care for my City Park that I enjoy. I am surprised that the City of Diamond Bar would even entertain the idea of building a cell phone tower in a public space enjoyed by and built for residents of the community. I'm sure the cell phone company would not care less about possible impact of the tower at the park being that they are from San Diego. They do not live here. Once again, I am registering my total and complete objection to any construction of any cell phone tower at Maple Hill Park." /s/ Respectfully, Scott Wolfe RECESS: Chair/Low recessed the meeting at 9:00 p.m. RECONVENE: Chair/Low reconvened the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Kupferman, Birds Eye Dr., stated that he has a degree in engineering, and this proposal does not make sense from an engineering perspective. This is unacceptable. He said he realizes somebody wants to make money and that is T -Mobile. Good for them and they can put it in their house and not where I live. He does not want them there. He has AT&T and has no Q-1Oma 'il J MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 21 PLANNING COMMISSION problem with reception. If a T -Mobile customer has a problem they can switch. There is no reason to take the whole neighborhood down because of selfish reasons. He asked the Commission to kindly disapprove the cell tower because it does not belong here. Cindy Pan said that Maple Hill Elementary is her school and she does not want a cell tower in the park. She grew up in Diamond Bar and went to Diamond Bar High School where she ran cross-country. Her team went to Maple Hill Park to stretch and run and that fake tree will not be ideal because kids go there all of the time and she does not want the cell tower there. Why is this project being discussed tonight when residents do not know about it? She reads the quarterly newsletter but did not see anything about this project. Her suggestion to T -Mobile is if they want coverage for people who live in the subdivision they should partner with AT&T. Obviously, they already have coverage in the area and T -Mobile can make a deal with them and T -Mobile can keep their customers. The most important thing is for customers to have the coverage they need but there should not be a cell tower in a public park where kids will want to touch the tree and try to climb it. She graduated from Cal Poly with a Chemical Engineering Degree and she knows safety is a huge issue, especially for kids. What is being proposed is definitely not safe. Chair/Low closed the public hearing at 9:14 p.m. C/Nishimura asked where the money would go if the application is approved and a lease is approved and CDD/Gubman responded that it would go into the City's General Fund. C/Nishimura said that one of the speakers brought up Section 22.720.20 of the City's Development Code and asked if she was correct in stating the Code requires that there needs to be three signs/notices posted on the property. CDD/Gubman responded no, that is an inaccurate reading of that Code Section. There is a requirement to post the property with a notice board and copies of the notice need to be posted at three designated sites. AC/Marquez stated that the three designated posting sites are at Heritage Park, the AQMD Building and the Diamond Bar Library. In addition, the notice is posted on the City's website. Chair/Low asked if this project was in compliance with the notification process and AP/Espino responded affirmatively. C/Nishimura asked if notices could be placed in any three public places in the area of the property and whether it could be placed in three other places in north Diamond Bar to meet the Code requirements. Or, is it at designated ffi'i DRAFT MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 22 PLANNING COMMISSION places, which this (Code Section) does not specify. The way the Code reads, does that mean these notices can be posted at any three public places to meet the requirements for this code? ACA/Eggart explained through the Chair that the intent of the provision is that the property itself be posted and in addition to that, the City posts notice at three additional public locations. For purposes of interpretation of that code section, the City has pre -identified public places where it posts all public notices and all public notices and all public hearings are posted at the same three places as previously identified by AC/Marquez. C/Nishimura again asked if notices could be placed at any three public places in the City to meet code requirements and ACA/Eggart said he believed the City would direct where notices are to be posted. C/Nishimura asked the attorney if he would like to see the code. Is it any three public places because it seems like people are having problems getting the notices and if it is not in the code, maybe the code needs to be fixed to specify the designated places because the way he reads the code, it says "in at least three public places in the area of the property." First of all, does that mean they could post them at three places at Pantera Park? People do not know where to go look at these public places. And, what does it mean "in the area of the property?" Does it mean in the City, does it mean in two blocks, does it mean in 300 feet? In his opinion, it is all subjective. He said he was referring to Section 22.72.020 subsection 132b. ACA Eggart requested time to read the Code Section. He stated that he better understood the Commissioner's question after having looked at the code. He can see how the code can be read in different ways. All he can tell the Commissioner is how the Code has been applied historically for years by the City. The City has consistently interpreted the Code in a way that the City posts the three notices in the public places and controls where they are posted and always posts notices of public hearings for Planning Commission meetings and City Council meetings in the same places with the idea that if it does, then it designates those places ahead of time and everybody will know where to go look. Certainly, as a Commissioner C/Nishimura has the prerogative to believe that the City's processes can be improved and he can make that comment. What the City did in this case is consistent with what it has done historically for all prior public hearings. C/Nishimura said that somebody reading this would not know where these three public places are and whether they change or if they are consistent. Is that correct? ACA/Eggart said that reading this code section does not identify them. C/Nishimura asked where are the three public places where all of these notices are posted. AC/Marquez repeated that they are posted MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 23 PLANNING COMMISSION at the Diamond Bar Library, Heritage Park and the AQIVID Building and on the City's website. C/Nishimura asked if there is anywhere in north Diamond Bar. AC/Marquez responded, that in this case, the AQMD Building is the closest to north Diamond Bar. C/Nishimura responded "interesting." C/Farago said the aesthetics of this tower are an area of concern for him, especially with the equipment box. He wanted to know who chose the location because it could not be any closer to where a majority of people congregate for picnics and tennis as well as, being more centrally located within the park. And why was this particular type of fake tree chosen which is not representative of any of the other trees in the park. AP/Espino responded that staff worked with the applicant. Initially, the proposal was to locate the tree adjacent to the street which would have made it very visible from the school across the street. The applicant worked with the Community Services Department for a location on the park property. When Planning staff got involved in locating the tree there were two other alternatives staff felt were more aesthetically pleasing for a location. Planning staff felt that the location adjacent to the public street was not a very suitable location for visibility issues because it would be taking up space in the open ball field area. The second location that was contemplated was up in the landscaped area between the walkways which staff also did not believe would be suitable. As staff looked around the park, staff contemplated various areas such as behind the tennis courts which proved to be unfeasible and which also did not meet the minimum distance requirements to residential parcels. The best location at the park that staff could recommend was at the proposed location which is behind the tennis courts and not in any actively used park areas. The equipment structure was contemplated to be behind the tennis courts, which is currently occupied by brush so it seemed to staff to be a suitable location. The fake pine tree was going to be located at the top of the hill where it would be surrounded by existing vegetation and blocked from view from the street. Again, staff worked with the applicant to consider various locations at the site and ultimately determined the proposed site to be the best location. C/Farago asked why the park was chosen and why private property was not considered. AP/Espino reiterated that the applicant is proposing this location and based on the requirements and topography felt this was the best location. In addition, the City's standards for wireless facilities state they are not allowed on residentially zoned properties that contain FT -I MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 24 PLANNING COMMISSION residential structures, which constitutes a majority of this neighborhood. The only two alternatives, and given that the school district had denied a previous request, included the park or an area within the public right-of-way to accommodate the coverage gap. C/Farago asked if any other alternatives to this type of tree were considered for a tower and whether this was aesthetically the best possible option. AP/Espino responded that staff worked with the applicant's initial recommendation of a Mono -Eucalyptus and was informed that a eucalyptus is not a co -locatable tree and would house only one carrier which would not meet the intent of the first preferred location as identified in the City's code. There are pine trees in the neighborhood some of which are across the street at the school. In addition, the pine tree gives height to accommodate the coverage. The only larger tree that fits in that setting would be an artificial Eucalyptus but again, it would not be a co -locatable facility as required by the City's Code. C/Farago said that this was really the better of two bad alternatives. AP/Espino responded that one could say that. C/Nishimura said that AP/Espino referenced that some of the alternatives would accommodate only one carrier which was not consistent with the applicant's desire to be able to accommodate two carriers. Is that correct? AP/Espino said that initially, the applicant was not looking at a co -locatable facility. As previously stated, the City code requires a co -locatable facility. C/Nishimura responded that being able to have one carrier costs more money, but given economics of scale, is obviously cheaper and one can make more money, is that correct. AP/Espino said potentially, sure. C/Nishimura said that the Commission is hearing that T -Mobile wants to increase their coverage and could that be done with one carrier on one pole. AP/Espino said he did not know the logistics of that because to get coverage for only one carrier limits coverage to customers who have only T -Mobile. If the facility was going to be a one -carrier pole it would be the T -Mobile's pole. C/Nishimura asked who the applicant is in this project and what carrier will go on the pole. AP/Espino replied that it would be T -Mobile. C/Nishimura then asked for confirmation that T -Mobile would be constructing the cell site and everything the Commission has seen thus far about coverage is all about T -Mobile. AP/Espino said "correct." C/Nishimura said he was wondering out loud whether accommodating a second carrier would just be gravy on something that they already wanted to do. As far as that goes before a vote is taken he has a few more questions. C/Nishimura said the applicant said there were 25 complaints last month and asked if that was correct. Mr. Novak corrected C/Nishimura that he MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 25 PLANNING COMMISSION stated there were 25 complaints over a three month period which he said would equate to hundreds of complaints over a year. Chair/Low asked if the Commission was supposed to reopen the public comments because the applicant was asked to address Commissioners questions. ACA/Eggart said that if the Commission wanted the applicant to speak, the public hearing would need to be reopened. Chair/Low reopened the public hearing. C/Nishimura said so there were 25 complaints over a three month period and asked over what three month period Mr. Novak was referring to and Mr. Novak reiterated December 2014, January 2015 and February 2015. C/Nishimura asked how many complaints were from the same person and Mr. Novak said the complaints were from 25 different people from 25 different customer billing addresses within the coverage area. C/Nishimura said that there is a chance that some of these complaints could be duplicate complaints. Mr. Novak said that he believed that when carriers documented complaints for search rings, they documented them as separate customer complaints. C/Nishimura asked Mr. Novak if he knew for a fact beyond a reasonable doubt that these were 25 separate complaints. Mr. Novak said he does not work for T -Mobile. C/Nishimura asked if Mr. Novak knew anything about the complaints during the past year. Mr. Novak responded that for this project the search ring started over a year ago, so for T -Mobile to provide him with this search area radius for a tower indicates to him that they have received complaints over several years. C/Nishimura said but we do not know how many complaints were received over the past year. He said that Mr. Novak had been pretty detailed on complaints during the last three months so either T -Mobile did not provide Mr. Novak with that the information or he does not know the information about the number of complaints over the past year. Mr. Novak reiterated that the information provided to him covers the three month period as stated. Again, these search rings are provided to him because there have been complaints dating back many years which is the reason the provider seeks his assistance. C/Nishimura asked when T -Mobile received the first complaint. Mr. Novak said he was trying to emphasize that this search ring would not have been created without prior complaints which is why and where the entire process starts. Carriers run demographic studies based on how many people are in the quarter -mile radius, how much coverage ...... C/Nishimura interrupted to MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 26 PLANNING COMMISSION ask if the complaints for three months were in compliance with what was done prior to submission of this application and prior to the WVUSD project and Mr. Novak responded yes. C/Nishimura said that what Mr. Novak is telling him is that. these projects generate these search rings so we already know that WVUSD denied use of their site across the street. In his opinion, one would think that if the same process were followed there would have been a search ring about complaints in that area for the proposed tower at Maple Hill Elementary School. Mr. Novak said that any site, whether it is at Maple Hill Elementary School or at Chaparral Middle School would fall within the same search ring. C/Nishimura asked if there was any data available about complaints when the Maple Hill School project was in process and Mr. Novak said that neither he nor his company was involved with the school application and he would not be privy to that information. C/Nishimura asked if the radio frequency equipment is turned off during maintenance. Mr. Novak responded that technicians visit the site two or three times a month on average to service the cabinets and equipment shelter. There are modification projects that take place every two to three years where carriers upgrade antennas and RRU'g. C/Nishimura said his question was if pine needles fall off and they need to be replaced would the tower be taken down for the safety of the workers or is the tower left live while they are maintaining equipment 65 feet up in the air. Mr. Novak said that towers are usually turned off during modification and C/Nishimura said "why is that?" Mr. Novak said because there is live electricity. C/Nishimura said but if they are just replacing the pine needles why do they turn the towers off and Mr. Novak responded "as a precaution" and C/Nishimura said "because it is unsafe" and Mr. Novak said he is not authorized to go into details about modifications. C/Nishimura said it sounded like it was a safety issue for the workers that the tower would be turned off while they were replacing pine needles. He said he could understand if they were cutting wires or fixing things. Mr. Novak said that the pine needles are designed to last a long time. There are provisions that T -Mobile will care for the site. C/Nishimura said it sounds like you are saying that if you were just to replace something 65 or 85 feet up in the air that the tower would go down (be shut down) for the safety of the worker. Mr. Novak said he was not a safety expert and such a determination would be up to the safety experts to decide whether a precautionary power down of the site was necessary. MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 27 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Nishimura said that somebody mentioned a round dish and wanted to know if a round dish was part of this tower. Mr. Novak responded that as stated in staff's report, there is a proposed 24 -inch microwave dish that will be installed on the monopine. C/Nishimura asked where the dish would be located. Mr. Novak said it would be placed at approximately the second line down between the two antenna arms as shown on the drawing. C/Nishimura asked if there was a picture of the dish and Mr. Novak said that he believed some of the other elevations might show it better. It is designed to be mostly concealed by the pine needles. C/Nishimura said he did not see a circle on the drawings and Mr. Novak said he believed it was called out on the drawings. C/Nishimura asked Mr. Novak to approach the dais and show him where it might be. As requested, Mr. Novak approached the dais in order to point to a place on the drawing where the dish would reside. He said that the drawing indicated where the proposed T -Mobile 24 -inch microwave dish would be mounted on the monopine which indicated the dish would be installed at an elevation of about 46 feet at the mid -point of the dish. C/Nishimura stated that the circular disc is not represented on that picture but the arms of the other antennas are. Mr. Novak said it is designed as accurately as possible to represent what a monopine would look like when it is installed. C/Nishimura asked if the circular disc would be seen from a certain view and Mr. Novak said that based on the drawings it is in the eye of the beholder. C/Nishimura said that Mr. Novak is presenting this issue and making the statement that this is what would be seen. C/Nishimura does not see a circle on the drawing so he does not know if it will be on the outside and he does not know how camouflaged it will be. He knows that with his DIRECTV dish if his Eucalyptus tree gets in front of it he gets no service. He is not an expert but he would think that things cannot be placed in front of this dish. Mr. Novak explained that the tree and needles are designed to allow penetration of radio frequencies. C/Nishimura asked if the 24 -inch dish would be seen or not. Mr. Novak said it would be highly concealed. C/Farago asked if Mr. Novak said that he was able to identify the 25 complaints over a three month period as having been from residents identified through their billing addresses. Mr. Novak explained that when complaints come into the call centers, billing addresses are used to identify the complainant. C/Farago said it did not necessarily equate to folks living in the area of lost coverage. Mr. Novak said that in fact, it did. The 25 complaints fall within the coverage deficient area. C/Farago asked how many customers T -Mobile has in that area because it seems that most of FT -1 Lf �:-J: 9 UPI AT` T MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 28 PLANNING COMMISSION the speakers have another provider and Mr. Novak asked if C/Farago is referring to the area that currently has no coverage, the area inside the car, outside the car or some other area. C/Nishimura asked if the 25 complaints could be from people who were driving through the City complaining about the lack of coverage at Maple Hill Park. How does Mr. Novak know that all 25 complaints are from residents and in what area they reside. Are people complaining because they can't get coverage at their homes or maybe the complaints are from people that transfer to WVUSD that visit the park to play for AYSO? There are a lot of people that transfer to the elementary school. Are there people from out of town complaining that they were on the phone and there was no coverage so they want to register a complaint? Mr. Novak responded that he knows T -Mobile trains its customer service reps to vet these complaints so that these search rings can be issued. Again, they take complaints, look at the coverage in the area .... C/Nishimura said he thinks what Mr. Novak is trying to present is very relevant to the Commission and the City. Again, are these residents that are complaining or non-residents that are complaining? Mr. Novak again stated that these are customers with billing addresses within this deficient coverage area. C/Nishimura asked how far that deficient coverage area goes and Mr. Novak again stated that it goes up to about'/2 mile. C/Farago said that what he was trying to ascertain was what percentage the 25 customers represented for the totality of T -Mobile customers within the deficient coverage area subdivision. Mr. Novak said that when they did the coverage analysis it was based on the coverage of 3,000 residents in the area. C/Nishimura again asked if all 25 complaints came from the deficient coverage area or from other parts of the City or do complaints come from people in the fringe areas. Mr. Novak responded that 90 percent of the complaints came from within a quarter of a mile. There were a few complaints from Diamond Bar Boulevard but that represents a small portion. C/Nishimura asked if Mr. Novak knows his statement to be fact. Are his statements true and can he back up his statements that all 25 complaints are within a quarter mile radius. Chair/Low said that C/Nishimura was asking for information that Mr. Novak may not be able to provide at this time. She asked the City Attorney to advise her on whether..... C/Nishimura said he wanted answers to his questions and would not be interrupted. Chair/Low said she agreed with C/Nishimura and was asking that Mr. Novak provide that information to staff MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 29 PLANNING COMMISSION for vetting and that staff report back to the Commission at the next meeting so that this hearing could be continued. Chair/Low stated that C/Nishimura is asking for important and relevant information all of the Commissioners need in order to make an informed decision. ACA/Eggart said that Chair/Low's request was reasonable and if the Commission chose to do so it could continue the public hearing to a date certain which would be the next Planning Commission meeting. He said he would recommend asking the applicant's opinion regarding a continuance because as a matter of law, there are time limits within which the City must act on this matter. If the applicant objects and wants the Commission to make its decision tonight that needs to be a part of the record. Chair/Low asked C/Nishimura to provide his questions at this time so that the applicant could provide the information for the benefit of the Commission and public, after which she would ask if the applicant had an objection to continuing the public hearing. C/Nishimura said he wanted to hear if the applicant had an objection to continuing first and Chair/Low stated that C/Nishimura should ask his questions at this time for the benefit of the entire Commission. C/Nishimura said that one of the data points Mr. Novak presented is that there were 25 complaints and C/Nishimura wants to know the date of the each complaint, the location that is being complained about and the location of the billing address, as well as, supporting methodology about how this data is gathered. Again, he does not know if it is 25 people driving through the City to get to Chino Hills or if it is 25 people who live in the area that are complaining about that area. And he does not know if the complaints are about any of the areas that are getting mitigated outside of the Maple Hill community. Chair/Low asked if Mr. Novak understood what C/Nishimura was asking and Mr. Novak said yes, and in his opinion, if he were to provide the Commissioner with the data that it would not matter. He believes he presented a case where there is a coverage deficiency that T -Mobile is trying to cover and that he had provided backup and justification for this project and he respectfully asked for the Commission's decision tonight. Mr. Coventry said that T -Mobile is using December 2014 and January and February 2015 as data and Mr. Novak is being reluctant to share that with the Commission. At Christmas time a lot of people get cell phones and if he were to get his kid a T -Mobile phone, bring it home and it not work, that MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 30 PLANNING COMMISSION would be a problem with using December data. He would like to see a much broader range of data and specifics on the billing addresses. He has an office on Brea Canyon which is a billing address for 125 or 140 cell phones for his company and if he were to lodge a complaint it would look like it was at his building when it might be in another area. Again, he has an issue with the December timeframe because of the Christmas purchase. When he bought his home in 1999 he tried AT&T, Verizon and he picked Verizon. AT&T gave him a phone for two weeks to try and it did not work at that time. Karen Johnson, 22423 Mountain Laurel Way, said she was opposed to this project. She had T -Mobile service for 11 years and recently stopped the service. With T -Mobile she was able to get service at her home which is very close to the park. Coverage tends to drop at the stop sign at Maple Hill and Mountain Laurel Way where coverage gets spotty and then coverage comes back up as one drives up the hill. Junko Takeya said she believed the Commissioner's concern about who is complaining is very relevant to this decision because if it is not people in the immediate neighborhood and it is people who live in The Country, this tower needs to be in The Country. It is very possible this is what is going on with this application because The Country would never allow a cell tower in its community. She pointed out that while there may be trees at the location proposed for this tower, the area is not densely populated with trees, so the other trees will do little to disguise the trunk of this tower. Roger Yu wanted to know why the Commission was wasting everybody's time because people do not want this tower. Only 25 people have complained. Mr. Kupferman said that he is a college professor and from an engineering point of view this project does not make sense. Maple Hill is like a small canyon and it does not make sense to place a tower at the park. Ling Li said this discussion is about nuking a few hundred innocent kids for 25 complaints. Kui Kim said that in front of the elementary school there are small children where the City is planning to install the cell phone tower which makes no sense to her. She does not know whether anyone here explained the justification for this project. As a mother of children it does not make sense to her and she is furious with the City about how they can make a decision (to place a cell tower) in front of an elementary school. ffl DRAFT MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 31 PLANNING COMMISSION Junko Takeya said she was shocked that the applicant came in complaining about an area that lacks coverage and cannot tell this Commission and residents how many T -Mobile customers this actually affects. How can Mr. Novak not have that number? Pramod Gutha, T -Mobile Engineer, said he -brought coverage maps. He drove around the area with cell phones to quantify and record the coverage that is available in the area. Chair/Low closed the public hearing. C/Farago said he was concerned about due diligence in determining that this is the right location. Within the coverage area it just so happens that the cell tower location would land in a park. Looking at all of the renderings and what is being proposed, the aesthetics still concern him because the tower looks like it would detract from that park and neighborhood. It is a real concern that what this application brings forth to the Commission is the better of two bad options, which he believes handcuffs the Commission. C/Nishimura said that what the Commission is considering is a Resolution that was prepared by staff and of course, the City has to come up with Findings of Fact. Under the Conditional Use Permit section on Page 2, the last sentence says "therefore, the proposed facility will have no adverse affects in the surrounding area" so the Commission has to say yes or no. No. 5 says "granting the Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district on which the property is located" so the Commission has to say yes or no and staff has written it in such a way that it is not detrimental. Midway into the page it says "wireless telecommunications facilities No. 1 — taking into consideration alternative sites that are available" and he did not hear that any alternative sites were available other than the suggestion maybe they could go on street poles. He said he wanted to point out these statements in the Resolution to the public and his colleagues because the Commission is being asked to approve or disapprove the Resolution that is before the Commission. ACA/Eggart said a moment ago he stated that the Commission should defer to the applicant whether or not to continue the hearing. He said he was backing away from that statement because he wanted to give the Commission an opportunity to do what is best and there are a few options that he would like to cover. The Commission could vote to approve the Resolution currently before it. If the Commission wants to deny the project, /F -1-1r -, ra) I'M_WhN M a rOW24 9ACJW aWTMIkIIkEeU016A M I kyl 16M Eel it is not in a position to do so this evening and if the majority of the Commission is leaning toward denial of the project there are parameters, because of the Federal Law placed upon the Commissioners that provide guidance as to which Facts upon which the Commission can base its denial. The two options would be to go through the Findings and have the Commission provide Facts constituting substantial evidence to support why the Commission is unable to support at least some of the required Findings. That could be done this evening or the hearing could be continued, which would then allow staff to come back with a proposed Resolution of Denial based on what the Commission tells staff the Commission could consider at the next meeting. This would be the most expedient solution. However, if the Commission decides not to continue the public hearing the Commission would go through the process of developing those Facts and the Commission would then direct staff to prepare the Resolution for consent only at the next Planning Commission meeting. Chair/Low thanked ACA/Eggart for the very good advice. Chair/Low had questions about the Findings of Facts and asked that they be fleshed out. Additionally, she felt it would be prudent to do so and to know the steps subsequent to the Commission's decision this evening. C/Farago said he was trying to understand ACA/Eggart's statement. If the Commission considers a continuance to allow staff to come back with a recommendation of denial, is that what ACA/Eggart just said? ACA/Eggart stated that not only because this is an area of Federal Law but especially because Federal Law expressly says so, the Commission is prohibited from denying a project unless it adopts written Findings of Fact supporting the denial. There are no such Findings of Fact supporting denial before the Commission and so there is nothing for the Commission to adopt. Therefore, the Commission cannot make the motion tonight to deny. All that the Commission can do is to direct staff to prepare a Resolution now consistent with the Findings and Facts that the Commission gives staff to be considered at the next meeting, if that is what the Commission wants to do. C/Mahlke said that from what she understood, the Commission absolutely cannot deny this project based on perceived health concerns, but the Commission can, tonight, based on aesthetic compatibility, or what the Commission perceives to be aesthetic compatibility. Is that correct? MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 33 PLANNING COMMISSION ACA/Eggart responded that the law on this matter is actually pretty complicated. He asked Chair/Low if she would like for him to go through the parameters of the law and Chair/Low said she would if he would please be brief. ACA/Eggart stated, so as staff said, the Planning Commission's ability to act on this area is firstly preempted by the Federal Telecommunications Act. In considering and acting on the present application, the Commission is limited to applying the standards set forth in the City's Code, and those standards are generally set forth in the Draft Resolution i.e., the required Findings. As he said, any denial has to be in writing and supported by substantial evidence. Section 332(c)(7) of the Federal Telecommunications Act expressly prohibits the City from denying or regulating the placement or construction of wireless facilities on the basis of environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that facilities comply with the FCC's regulations on radio frequency emissions which would be a condition of any approval. Finally and importantly, the Federal Act provides that a city's action on an application cannot unreasonably discriminate among providers of wireless services and cannot prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services by a particular carrier. What that means is that a basis of the denial cannot be that AT&T provides coverage in the area, therefore it does not matter whether T -Mobile does or not. This is not a legitimate basis under the Federal Law. T -Mobile has to have an opportunity to compete with AT&T essentially. Secondly, if T -Mobile has a significant gap of coverage in the area and they have presented evidence that there is a gap of coverage, the question is whether it is "significant" and the Commission's discretion is further circumscribed and, T -Mobile could potentially challenge it. If there is a significant gap in coverage T -Mobile can show, they would also have to show that the manner in which they propose to fill that gap is the least intrusive on the values that the denial seeks to serve. Presumably, any denial would be based on aesthetics grounds and, that placement in a park is incompatible with the public's use of the park. T -Mobile would have to show that it is this particular monopine at this specific location that is the only way possible to close the coverage gap. So, when the Commission is making Facts and Findings, consider whether evidence of alternatives have been provided. C/Farago said he did not believe there was evidence provided that shows that any other alternative sites were presented to the Commission other than the park and other locations within the park in addition to the representation of denial at the school. Other than that he has seen nothing else in looking at the coverage map that any other areas were considered and brought to this Commission, so basically all the Commission has to AFT MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 34 PLANNING COMMISSION consider are the facts as presented. So now the Commission is left with determining that the Commission would have to assume that this location is T -Mobile's choice and what they are putting there is not detrimental to the aesthetics and the use of the park, and whether it conforms to the City requirements or in the opinion of the residents. So if the Commission motioned for a denial based on that assumption, would that fall within the Federal guidelines? ACA/Eggart said that he believed the Commission could make such a motion, yes. C/Farago so moved. C/Nishimura seconded. ACA/Eggart asked for clarification that the motion directs staff to prepare a proposed Resolution of Denial supported by those facts. Chair/Low said the way she understood what ACA/Eggart said, the Commission is unable to make a denial of the application at this time so therefore, the Commission has to direct staff to prepare Findings of Facts based upon tonight's discussion so that the denial is a proper denial. Is that what ACA/Eggart said? ACA/Eggart said not exactly, that he was explaining the parameters. He was not trying to say that the Commission is unable to make Findings that are consistent with Federal Law - he just wanted to make sure that the Commission had the full picture before taking action. He does not want the Commission to come back and say that he did not tell the Commission they could not do that. As C/Mahlke asked, aesthetics is a common ground and a major concern for the Planning Commission which is what the Commission does (make those determinations). And there has been evidence provided in the record that there are lots of concerns whether this is the optimum solution from an aesthetics standards point and he believes staff has enough of those facts that they can articulate those particular facts. Chair/Low asked if the proper way to do it was to vote tonight or come back for the vote after the Resolution is prepared. ACA/Eggart said it was up to the Commission. The Commission has two options, again assuming the majority of the Commission is in support of the motion to direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial. The first option is to stop and direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial based on what staff heard tonight and have staff bring the Resolution of Denial back for consideration. In that case, he would recommend that the Commission continue the public hearing because staff will be preparing a document the public should have an opportunity to comment on because they have not yet seen the document. Or, he can articulate verbally Findings he believes MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 35 PLANNING COMMISSION are consistent with what he has heard from the Commissioners and they can say "yes, that's what we want you to write" and direct staff to do it. In that case the Commission would not have to continue the public hearing. The applicant has said he wants a decision. In that case staff would bring back the Resolution without a public hearing at the next meeting for the Commission's approval on consent calendar without public testimony. C/Mahlke asked for clarification. One of the key phrases she heard ACA/Eggart was "least intrusive." If the Commission decides to vote tonight with the idea that this vote hangs on what has been presented tonight and the Facts provided to the Commission have not been shown to be the "least intrusive" and the Commission does not necessarily say that it is not "aesthetically pleasing." If the Commission picks "least intrusive" as a potential reason to say "no" to this particular idea does that mean that the applicant can reapply with more Findings of Facts and reopen the issue or is it an entirely new application process and would that be potentially different than if the Commission had decided to deny the project on something else like "aesthetics." Either way, is the Commission leaving the door open for reapplication? ACA/Eggart suggested that the Commission state all of their reasons for requesting a denial. Chair/Low recognized CIDID/Gubman who asked to consult with ACA/Eggart. Chair/Low responded affirmatively. ACA/Eggart asked if the Commission wished him to articulate as best he could on the fly a general outline of the Findings he would propose to put in a Resolution for the Commission's consideration. Chair/Low said yes, based on tonight's discussion. ACA/Eggart said that in order to approve this application the Commission needs to make each and every one of the Findings required by the Municipal Code. That includes the five required Findings for a Conditional Use Permit, as well as, the Findings required by Section 22.42.130 for Wireless Facilities. Based on the comments he heard from some of the Commissioners he would say that the Commission would say that Findings 3, 4 and 5 of the Conditional Use Permit Findings cannot be made. Finding 3 is "that the design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with existing and future land uses in the vicinity." He would surmise that the Commission would say that this particular cell tower facility, its size and location, given the size, location and E D � RiA F 7 MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 36 PLANNING COMMISSION use of the park, is not compatible with the nearby existing residences or the public's use of the park in which it is located. He would say that the Commission would probably find that the subject site, i.e., the park, is not physically suitable for the type of use being proposed because it is a heavily used park and the particular site within the park in which the facility is located, is located near areas that are heavily used, therefore, the large cell tower would be highly visible for those users; and, that granting the CUP will be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety and convenience for those same reasons. In addition, the specific Findings required to be made for wireless telecommunications facilities under 22.42.130 which include environmental integration. To the extent to which the proposed facility blends into the surrounding environment and is architecturally integrated into a concealing structure, taking into consideration alternative sites, evidence has been presented that it is a monopine and none of the other natural trees around the monopine are of a similar variety. C/Nishimura said what about the fact that there were no alternative sites considered. ACA/Eggart said he would not say that is completely accurate but the Commission can say that there is "not" evidence before the Commission that all alternative sites were investigated and considered. ACA/Eggart continued. Another factor to consider is size. He has heard objections about the size of this particular facility being 65 feet tall which is taller than the other monopine facilities in other public parks. This is in particular relationship to the surrounding and supporting structures. There are no large structures in this park to speak of. C/Nishimura asked if it could also be argued that T -Mobile could increase their coverage with a single carrier on a shorter pole and that is not one of the options before the Commission because they want a double pole and that it is why it is higher. Chair/Low said that was not part of the Findings. ACA/Eggart said he did not want to dampen C/Nishimura's enthusiasm for making the Findings but he is not sure that there are a lot of facts in the record about what would and would not work so without further investigation he would be cautious about making that Finding. ACA/Eggart continued. Another factor is residential proximity. Obviously, this tower would be located within 100 or 200 feet of residences. Chair/Low said that the code section says it has to be at least 78 feet from a residence and this tower is 89 feet. ACA/Eggart acknowledged that the proposed distance conforms to the minimum code requirement but it is still adjacent to residences. He does not have to include that Finding if the Commission M�� 1 PAGE 37 Fin PLANNING COMMISSION does not wish to do so. He is just putting it out for consideration. Chair/Low said that it was part of the consideration. However, it does 'Meet the distance requirement. ACA/Eggart said he would not include that as a Finding. ACA/Eggart concluded that "not the least intrusive" means to address the aesthetics issues raised and the issues of interfering with the public's use of the park in which it is proposed, primarily based on Commissioner comments that it is unclear that .there are no alternative sites proposed outside of this park that could provide coverage in this area. CDD/Gubman asked to address the topic of co -location. For informational purposes, Finding No. 6 for these wireless telecommunications facilities, lists certain orders of preference for types of facilities. The intent of the City's Telecommunications Ordinance is to encourage co -location in order to reduce the number of individual structures. So that is the basis for the co -location. The City would indeed expect this park, if deemed to be an appropriate location for wireless telecommunication facilities, to have more carriers who would wish to locate on the facility in the park. And the guidance in the Ordinance for co -location is to minimize those aesthetics and the over -intensification effects of multiple poles rather than fewer co - locatable poles. C/Farago asked if what ACA/Eggart outlined was for the Commission to move forward with a motion for a Resolution of Denial as outlined by counsel that the Commission votes on this evening, and that the Resolution would be brought back without public hearing or comment which is pretty much at the request of the applicant that a decision be made tonight. ACA/Eggart said that was what he just outlined. C/Farago amended his motion to direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial as outlined by ACA/Eggart because the Commission cannot make the Findings of Fact as required for an approval. C/Nishimura seconded the amended motion. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: FAI "I Q kJ 'I Farago, Mahlke, Nishimura, VC/Pirritano, Chair/Low None None ACA/Eggart stated that the applicant has 10 days to file an appeal from the date of the Planning Commission's final decision. Because the Commission will not be adopting the Findings of Fact to support the denial until the next IL- 10, 2015 PAGE38 PLANNING COMMISSION Planning Commission meeting, the time to appeal will not commence until the Planning Commission has voted on the Resolution. 9. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Mahlke thanked everyone for their support tonight. C/Pirritano thanked ACA/Eggart and staff for providing all of the information the Commission needed to make its decision. C/Farago said that staff did an excellent job this evening and he appreciated all of the information and support allowing the Commission to come to this decision on a Very controversial topic. Congratulations to Chair/Low and VC/Pirritano on their appointments. He said he looked forward to this year under their leadership. C/Nishimura thanked staff for their hard work and thanked the citizens of the neighborhood who came out and expressed their concern for their neighborhood. He encouraged all citizens of Diamond Bar to get educated about how government works and to get involved in the decision making process that affects their neighborhoods and families Chair/Low thanked staff and ACA/Eggart for the help and guidance and said she hoped the Commission made the correct decision tonight. 10. STAFF COMMENTS/IN FORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Gubman reported that the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for March 24. Currently, there is only one item on that agenda which is an addition to a single family residence on the easterly side of Cold Spring. Staff will endeavor to bring the minutes for tonight's meeting, as well as the resolution articulates the Denial Findings as expressed verbally which will be placed on the Consent Calendar. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. T-,) MARCH 10, 2015 PAGE 39 PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Farago adjourned the regular meeting at 10:24 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 24th day of March, 2015. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director Ruth Low, Chairperson DATE: March 24, 2015 TO: Chairperson Low and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Greg Gubman, AICP, Community Development Director SU15JECT: Resolution for Denial of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. PL2014-518 (Cell Site at Maple Hill Park) On March 10, 2015, the Planning Commission 'conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding a request for -a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of a new w wireless telecommunications facility at a public park. The Planning Commission took public comment, discussed the matter, and voted 5-0 to deny the request based on prescribed findings. The Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution for denial. The enclosed resolution contains written findings for denial of a request to allow the installation of a new wireless telecommunications facility consisting of 12 panel antennas, three (3) remote radio units, and a 24 -inch diameter microwave dish antenna on a 65 -foot high artificial tree (monopine) and associated above -ground equipment cabinets within a 220 square -foot enclosure at a public park (Maple hill Park). Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution denying Conditional Use Permit No. PL2014-518 based on the findings contained therein.. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2015 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PL 2014-518 TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY CONSISTING OF 12 PANEL ANTENNAS, THREE (3) REMOTE RADIO UNITS, AND A 24 -INCH DIAMETER MICROWAVE DISH ANTENNA ON A 65 -FOOT HIGH ARTIFICIAL TREE (MONOPINE) AND ASSOCIATED ABOVE -GROUND EQUIPMENT CABINETS WITHIN A 220 SQUARE -FOOT ENCLOSURE AT A PUBLIC PARK (MAPLE HILL PARK), LOCATED AT 1355 MAPLE HILL ROAD, DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 (APN: 8293-030-900). A. RECITALS 1. The applicant, Bryce Novak, Cortell, LLC, representing T -Mobile, has filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2014-518 to allow the installation of a new wireless telecommunications facility at a public park (Maple Hill Park), Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, California. The proposed wireless telecommunications facility would consist of 12 panel antennas, three (3) remote radio units (RRUs), and a 24 -inch diameter microwave dish antenna on a 65 -foot high monopine and associated above -ground equipment cabinets proposed to be located within a 288 square -foot lease space consisting of a 9'-5" high, 220 square -foot split face block enclosure structure. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the proposed Conditional Use Permit and new wireless telecommunications facility are collectively be referred to as the "Project." 2. The subject site is a 5.43 gross acre public park (Maple Hill Park) owned by the City of Diamond Bar. It is located in the Low Medium Density Residential (RLM) zone with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Park. The legal description of the subject property is a Portion of Lot 93 of Tract 31038. The Assessor's Parcel Number is 8293-030-900. Maple Hill Park is surrounded on three sides by single-family residential homes and by Maple Hill Elementary School to the east, and its amenities are frequently used by reside * nts of the surrounding residential neighborhoods and students from Maple Hill Elementary School. 3. The proposed 65 -foot tall monopine structure would be located on top of a landscaped knoll on the southeast side of the tennis courts within- the. park. Improved picnic areas are located to the east of the tennis courts near the proposed locations of the monopine and equipment cabinet structure.' When viewed from the street, the proposed monopine would appear to be located within a cluster of existing deciduous trees. 4. On February 26, 2015, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the Project site. In addition, public notices were posted at the City's three designated community posting sites and the Project site was posted with a display board. On February 27, 2015, notification of the public hearing for this project was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015 -XX 5. On March 10, 2015, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing, received a staff report and information concerning the Project from City Staff, solicited testimony and evidence from the applicant and all other interested individuals, and concluded said hearing on that date. The applicant and all other interested individuals were given an opportunity to be fully heard and to present evidence at the public hearing. 6. The applicant's representative(s) provided testimony in support of the proposed Project at the public hearing. Numerous members of the public provided test . imony in opposition to the proposed Project at the public hearing. No members of the public other than the applicant's representative(s) provided testimony in support of the Project. Reasons cited at the public hearing by individuals in opposition to approval of the Project included, without limitation: that the size of the proposed facilities was too large in proportion to the relatively small area of Maple Hill Park; that the other public parks within the City in which wireless telecommunications facilities have been installed are much larger than Maple Hill Park; that the proposed artificial monopine structure was out of character with the park and surrounding area; that the proposed monopine would not blend into the surroundings or be adequately screened because the natural trees surrounding it were all of a deciduous variety, rather than pine trees or other types of evergreen trees more similar to a "monopine"; that the proposed Project would interfere with the public's use of the park; that the location within the park at which the proposed wireless telecommunications facilities would be located was too close to, and would be highly visible from, areas at which people congregate and that are frequently used by the public, including a picnic area frequently used by park patrons for birthday parties and other gatherings; that installation of the proposed Project would result in. a reduction in property values of the surrounding residential properties; that other carriers were able to provide coverage in the area the applicant is seeking to cover with the proposed Project; and that potential alternative sites at which the applicant could install or co -locate a facility to serve its desired coverage area may exist and that the applicant had not fully investigated or considered these alternatives. 7. In order to approve Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2014-518, all of the findings prescribed under Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Section 22.58 must be made. In addition, in determining whether to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a wireless telecommunications facility, the Planning Commission must consider the factors set forth in DBMC Section 22.42.130. 8. The Planning Commission gave due and careful consideration to the matter during its meeting of March 10, 2015 and, following conclusion of the public hearing, voted unanimously to direct City Staff to prepare this Resolution denying the application for a Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2014-518 based on the facts and reasons stated in this Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015 -XX 1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct; 2. The Planning Commission hereby determines that because the application is denied, the Project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the provisions of Article 19, Section 15270(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. 3. The Planning Commission hereby denies the application for Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2014-518 because, based on the totality of information provided, the Planning Commission has determined, for the reasons set forth below, that several of the factors it is required to consider pursuant to DBMC Section 22.42.130 -suggest that the proposed type and size of wireless telecommunications facility proposed is inappropriate for the proposed location within Maple Hill Park and dictate against approval of the proposed Project and that not all of the required findings set forth in DBMC Section 22.58 can be made. 4. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the following required findings for approval of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to DBMC Section 22.58 cannot be made: A. "The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity;" B. "The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed including access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses and the absence of physical constraints;" and C. "Granting the Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located." The facts and reasons supporting this determination include the following: These required findings cannot be made because, due to its size, type and location, the proposed wireless telecommunications facility will not be compatible with the public's use of Maple Hill Park for park purposes or with the surrounding residential land uses. The proposed new freestanding wireless telecommunications facility would be located in Maple Hill Park. Maple Hill Park is a relatively small, but frequently used, 5.3 acre public park containing many amenities, including tennis courts, picnic areas, playground equipment and open fields. Maple Hill Park is surrounded on three sides by single-family residential homes and by Maple Hill Elementary School to the east, and, according to testimony provided at the public hearing, its amenities are frequently used by residents of the surrounding residential neighborhoods and students from Maple Hill Elementary School. The proposed 65 -foot Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015 -XX monopine would be highly visible to users within the park and some of the residential properties adjacent to the park. Although the proposed monopine would appear to be located within a cluster of existing natural trees when viewed from the street, these natural trees are of deciduous varieties and there are no existing pine trees or other trees of an evergreen variety located near the location of the proposed monopine. As a result, the proposed 65 -foot monopine would stand out, especially in winter months, and would not blend into the surroundings or be adequately screened from the view of park users or surrounding residential properties. In addition, the location of the proposed monopine and block wall enclosure structure would be near to areas at which people congregate and that are frequently used by the public, including a picnic area frequently used by park patrons for birthday parties and other gatherings. The proposed facilities would be highly visible from these areas. The proposed wireless telecommunications facility is also too large to be located in Maple Hill Park, which is a relatively small community park immediately adjacent to residential uses. The City has previously approved the installation of wireless telecommunications facilities in three other public parks within the City — Peterson Park, Diamond Bar Center, and Pantera Park, but each of these three other parks are larger than Maple Hill Park and the types of wireless telecommunications facilities approved are of a different character than the proposed Project. The wireless telecommunications facilities located in Peterson Park and Pantera Park are co -located on light poles and do not involve artificial tree structures. At Diamond Bar Center, there are two 45 -foot tall "monoelms" containing co -located facilities. The proposed 65 -foot mono -pine is significantly taller than the "monoelms" located at the Diamond Bar Center and would have a significantly greater visual impact than the facilities co - located on light poles at Peterson Park and Pantera Park. Pursuant to DBMC Section 22.42.130, "the extent to which the proposed facility blends into the surrounding environment, " "the extent to which the proposed facility is screened or camouflaged by existing or proposed topography, vegetation, buildings, or other structures, " and "the total size of the proposed facility, particularly in relation to surrounding and supporting structures" are all factors the Planning Commission is required to consider in evaluating an application for a Conditional Use Permit for a wireless telecommunications facility. Based on the facts stated above, a// three of these factors suggest that the proposed type and size of wireless telecommunications facility proposed is inappropriate for the proposed location within Maple Hill Park and dictate against approving the proposed Conditional Use Permit. Finally, there may be alternative, less -intrusive ways for T -Mobile to close the asserted gap in its service coverage than through the proposed Project. Based on testimony provided at the public hearing, customers of AT&T receive adequate coverage in the subject area; however, the applicant's representative was unable to confirm the location or type of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015 -XX facility utilized by AT&T to provide this service coverage and/or whether it was possible to co -locate on the same facility as AT&T or another facility in a nearby location. In addition, based on testimony provided by the applicant's representative, potential alternative means exist to provide service coverage in this area, such as co -locating on existing utility facilities in the public right of way, however, these alternatives would be more expensive than the proposed Project. At the public hearing, the applicant's representative was asked whether he would like the public hearing to be continued in order to allow for an opportunity for additional information to be provided to the Planning Commission, and he indicated that he preferred that the Planning Commission not continue the public hearing and, instead, vote on the application at the March 10, 2015 meeting. Accordingly, based on the testimony and evidence provided at the public hearing, the Planning Commission finds that there is insufficient evidence in the record to conclude that there are not potential, less - intrusive alternative sites at which the applicant could install or co -locate a facility to close the asserted gap in T -Mobile's service coverage and that the applicant has not fully investigated or considered such alternatives. 5. The Planning Commission shall: a. Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and b. Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail to the applicant, Bryce Novak, Cortell, LLC, 14621 Arroyo Hondo, San Diego, CA 92127. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2015, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. IN Ruth Low, Chairperson 1, Greg Gubman, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ATTEST: Greg Gubman, Secretary Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015 -XX FIT 0 i ( GSITA DOW CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - 21810 COPLEY DRIVE - DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 - TEL. (909) 839-7030 - FAX (909) 861-3117 MEETING DATE: March 24, 2015 CASE/FILE NUMBER: Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-010 PROJECT LOCATION: 21491 Cold Spring Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (APN 8714-004-012) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential (RL) ZONING DISTRICT: . Low Density Residential (RL) PROPERTY OWNER: Robert Labella 21491 Cold Spring Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Jerry Lutjens 19953 Valley Blvd. Walnut, CA 91789 The applicant is requesting approval of a Development Review (DR) application to construct a second -story addition consisting of 487 square feet of floor area to an existing 2,037 square - foot, one-story single-family residence with an attached 493 square -foot garage on a 0.29 gross acre (12,590 square -foot) lot. A Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) is requested to allow a second -story addition to a structure with existing setbacks and distance separations to neighboring houses that do not conform to current development standards. Adopt ' the attached Resolution (Attachment 1) approving Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-01 0, based on the findings of Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Sections 22.48 and 22.56, subject to conditions. The project site is located on the east side of Cold Spring Lane, north of Barbi Lane. The property was developed in 1977 under Los Angeles County standards with a 2,037 square -foot single family residence and a 493 square -foot garage on a 0.29 gross acre (12,590 square - foot) lot. There are no protected trees on site. The existing house is situated toward the front of the lot, 10 feet from the front property line. The property is legally described as Lot 44 of Tract No. 32974, and the Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) is 8714-004-012. The following table describes the surrounding land uses located adjacent to the subject property: Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2015-010 Page 2 of 7 North _- Project Site 0 South Panoramic Street View of Project Site (Note: the appearance of street curvature is caused by panoramic distortion; the project site is not on a corner) The proposed second story addition is located at the front of the existing residence, above the garage. The addition consists of the following components: The existing one-story home consists of common areas (living room, dining room, family room, and kitchen), an office, and three bedrooms and two bathrooms. There are no significant changes to the layout on the first floor. The new second floor includes a new bedroom with walk-in closet and bathroom. The second floor addition will be recessed 2'-2" from the front of the house, directly above the garage area. The height of the existing house is approximately 19'-6" and the height of the proposed addition is approximately 22'-6", measured from the finished grade to the highest point of the roofline. Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL -2015-010 Page 3 of 7 Existing Proposed Total First Level Living Area 2,037 s.f. 0 s.f. 2,037 s.f. Garage Area 493 s.f. 0 s.f. 493 s.f. Front Porch Area 270 s.f. 0 s.f. 270 s.f. Total First Level Area 2,800 s.f Second Level Living Area 0 s.f. 487 s.f. 487 s.f. Total Second Level Area 487 s.f. Total Living Area 2037 s.f. 487 s.f. 2,524 s.f. Total Garage Area 493 s.f. 0 s.f. 493 s.f. Total Porch 270 s.f. 0 s.f. 270 s.f. TOTAL FLOOR AREA 2,800 s.f. 487 s.f. 3,287 s.f. The existing one-story home consists of common areas (living room, dining room, family room, and kitchen), an office, and three bedrooms and two bathrooms. There are no significant changes to the layout on the first floor. The new second floor includes a new bedroom with walk-in closet and bathroom. The second floor addition will be recessed 2'-2" from the front of the house, directly above the garage area. The height of the existing house is approximately 19'-6" and the height of the proposed addition is approximately 22'-6", measured from the finished grade to the highest point of the roofline. Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL -2015-010 Page 3 of 7 The existing residence has a nonconforming front setback of 10 feet (where 20 feet is required), a nonconforming (south) side setback of eight feet (where 10 feet is required), and a nonconforming distance to the structure on the adjacent lot to the north of 13'-6" (where 15 feet is required). By definition, the residence is considered a "nonconforming structure" (DBMC Section 22.68.030). Approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit is required to allow an expansion of a nonconforming structure if the expansion is not limited to the ground floor. The architecture of the existing residence is a 1970s tract home. The proposed addition is designed to blend into the existing house by using the same architectural elements and building materials as the existing residence. WMA FAWOSED 001 lWirt WMI ('I I , !RIUKIN ---------- i j' -------------- FA -7471 West (Front) Elevation :_r The proposed project requires two separate, but interrelated, land use approvals: Development Review (DR) and a Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP). The analysis that follows provides the basis for staff's recommendation to approve the DR and MCUP applications. is =-- ffM-zMHM=(JII Amlwsl Additions that substantially change the appearance of an existing residence require Planning Commission approval of a DR application. Development Review approval is required to ensure compliance with the City's General Plan policies, development standards, and design guidelines, and to minimize adverse effects of the proposed project upon the surrounding properties and the City in general. As stated in Section 22.48.010 of the Development Code, the Development Review process was established to ensure that new development and additions to existing development are consistent with the General Plan "through the promotion of high functional and aesthetic standards to complement and add to the economic, physical, and social character" of Diamond Bar. Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2015-010 Page 4 of 7 Development Standards: The following table compares the proposed project with the City's development standards for residential development in the RL zone: * Minor Conditional Use Permit is requested to allow the continuation of a nonconformina structure because the addition is not limited to the ground floor. See MCUP discussion on pages 5-6. Site and Grading Configuration: The property is an irregular shaped lot. The existing house is situated on a level pad at the front of the property. An ascending slope is located at the rear third of the property. The second story addition will be added above the existing first floor of the residence, directly above the garage area on the south side of the house. As such, no grading is required to accommodate the addition. Architectural Features, Colors, and Materials: The architecture of the existing residence is a 1970s tract design with textured stucco and decorative stone veneer on exterior walls, and a cross -gable roof with composite shingles. The proposed design will maintain architectural integrity by incorporating similar fenestration patterns, and matching exterior colors and building materials. The roof of the proposed addition at the front of the house will be integrated with the existing roof by matching the existing 5:12 pitch. Landscaping: Landscape plans are not required because the site is already developed, and because the project is exempt from the City's Water Conservation Landscaping Ordinance. The ordinance would only apply if 5,000 square feet or more of the existing landscaped area was being altered. However, landscaping that is damaged during construction will need to be restored upon project completion. This requirement is included as a condition of approval. An MCUP is required if a change or expansion of a nonconforming structure is greater than 50 percent of the existing square footage of all structures on site, or if the addition is not limited to the ground floor. Current development standards require a minimum setback of 20 feet from the front property line, at least one side setback with a minimum of 10 feet from the respective side property line, and a minimum distance of 15 feet between structures on adjacent lots. The existing residence has a nonconforming front setback of 10 feet, a nonconforming (south) side setback of eight feet, and a nonconforming distance to the structure on the adjacent lot to the Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2015-010 Page 5 of 7 �re� Stand ands _1&4' on one side and —1 – iTIFTM Nrmm' F -O" on the other side 8'– south side 8'– south side ef H- c 1T -T – n#rth s4e 13'-6" – north side • 15'– south side 16– south side tYbaCk ��, Bill 10 V-6" feet 1�1111051-wrmn� 1. Rw'g 't n fl, mn • 2 -car garaq—e * Minor Conditional Use Permit is requested to allow the continuation of a nonconformina structure because the addition is not limited to the ground floor. See MCUP discussion on pages 5-6. Site and Grading Configuration: The property is an irregular shaped lot. The existing house is situated on a level pad at the front of the property. An ascending slope is located at the rear third of the property. The second story addition will be added above the existing first floor of the residence, directly above the garage area on the south side of the house. As such, no grading is required to accommodate the addition. Architectural Features, Colors, and Materials: The architecture of the existing residence is a 1970s tract design with textured stucco and decorative stone veneer on exterior walls, and a cross -gable roof with composite shingles. The proposed design will maintain architectural integrity by incorporating similar fenestration patterns, and matching exterior colors and building materials. The roof of the proposed addition at the front of the house will be integrated with the existing roof by matching the existing 5:12 pitch. Landscaping: Landscape plans are not required because the site is already developed, and because the project is exempt from the City's Water Conservation Landscaping Ordinance. The ordinance would only apply if 5,000 square feet or more of the existing landscaped area was being altered. However, landscaping that is damaged during construction will need to be restored upon project completion. This requirement is included as a condition of approval. An MCUP is required if a change or expansion of a nonconforming structure is greater than 50 percent of the existing square footage of all structures on site, or if the addition is not limited to the ground floor. Current development standards require a minimum setback of 20 feet from the front property line, at least one side setback with a minimum of 10 feet from the respective side property line, and a minimum distance of 15 feet between structures on adjacent lots. The existing residence has a nonconforming front setback of 10 feet, a nonconforming (south) side setback of eight feet, and a nonconforming distance to the structure on the adjacent lot to the Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2015-010 Page 5 of 7 north of 13'-13". The front portion of the proposed addition will not further encroach into the nonconforming front setback and will be recessed 2'-2" from the front fagade of the house. The City recognizes that homeowners should be allowed to make appropriate improvements to their properties, even if the existing improvements do not fully conform to current development standards. Therefore, the City has established the IVICUP process for such additions, subject to the findings set forth in the Development Code. IVICUPs are normally subject to approval of the City's Hearing Officer (typically the Community Development Director). However, because this IVICUP is being reviewed as part of a DR application, both land use entitlements are subject to review and approval of the Planning Commission. Staff believes that approving the IVICUP as described above is appropriate and compatible with other residences in the neighborhood, based on the following facts and observations: The existing dwelling was built in 1977, prior to the incorporation of the City of Diamond Bar; The proposed addition will be recessed from the front fagade and not further encroach into the existing nonconforming front setback of 10' to the front property line and Will maintain existing distances of eight feet to the south side property line and 13'-6" to the structure on the adjacent lot to the north; and Neighboring properties have nonconforming setbacks, so the proposed project will remain consistent with other homes within the neighborhood. The proposed project complies with the goals and objectives as set forth in the adopted General Plan in terms of land use and density. The project is designed to be compatible with and enhance the character of the existing homes in the neighborhood. The massing of the building is softened by creating articulation of the front fagade by recessing the second -story addition approximately 2'-2" from the garage on the first floor. Furthermore, the addition will match the existing home in color and building materials and will incorporate similar architectural features. Therefore, the addition will be visually integrated into the existing home and not negatively impact the look and character of the neighborhood. The project incorporates the principles of the City's Residential Design Guidelines as follows: A gradual transitionbetween the project and adjacent uses is achieved through appropriate setbacks, building height, landscaping, and window and door placement; ® Elevations are treated with detailed architectural elements; Roof lines are representative of the design and scale of the structure through vertical and horizontal articulations; Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2015-010 Page 6 of 7 Placement and relationship of windows, doors, and other window openings are carefully integrated with the building's overall design; Proper screening for ground and roof -mounted equipment is architecturally compatible with the dwelling in terms of materials, color, shape, and size and blends in with the proposed building design; The addition is visually integrated with the primary structure, by utilizing similar colors and materials throughout the proposed addition; and e Large wall expanses without windows or doors are avoided. The Public Works Department and Building and Safety Division reviewed this project, and their comments are included in the.attached resolution as conditions of approval. On March 12, 2015, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the project site. On March 13, 2015, the notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. A notice display board was posted at the site, and a copy of the notice was posted at the City's three designated community posting sites. No comments have been received as of the publication date of this report. This project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on that assessment, the City has determined the project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to the provisions of Article 19 Section 15301(e) (additions to existing structures) of the CEQA Guidelines. No further environmental review is required. Prepared by: &Josu�Espino lst ssis nt Planner Attachments: Reviewed by: ..Zr Grace'ee` Senior Planner 1. Draft Resolution No. 2015 -XX and Standard Conditions of Approval 2. Site Plan, Floor Plans, and Elevations Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2015-010 Page 7 of 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2015 -XX �i • � 1 11 '' � x',� x. The property owner, Robert Labella, and applicant, Jerry Lutjens, have filed an application for Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-010 to construct a second -story addition consisting of 487 square feet of floor area to an existing 2,037 square -foot, one-story single-family residence with an attached 493 square -foot garage located at 21491 Cold Spring Lane, Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, California. 2. The following approvals are requested from the Planning Commission: (a) Development Review to construct a second -story addition consisting of 487 square feet of floor area at the front of the house. (b) Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow a second -story addition to an existing nonconforming structure with a front setback of 10 feet (where 20 feet is required), a nonconforming (south) side setback of eight feet (where 10 feet is required), and a nonconforming distance to the structure on the adjacent lot to the north of 13'-6" (where 15 feet is required). Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit shall be referred to as the "Proposed Project." 3. The subject property is made up of one parcel totaling 12,590 gross square feet (0.29 gross acres). It is located in the Low Density Residential (RL) zone with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential. 4. The legal description of the subject property is Lot 44 of Tract 32974. The Assessor's Parcel Number is 8714-004-012. 5. On March 12, 2015, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the Project site. On March 13, 2015, notification of the public hearing for this project was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. In addition to the published and mailed notices, the project site was posted with a public hearing notice on a display board, and the notice was posted at the City's three designated locations. 6. On March 24, 2015, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing, solicited testimony from all interested individuals, and concluded said hearing on that date. NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct; and 2. The Planning Commission hereby determines the Project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the provisions of Article 19, Section 15301 (e) (additions to existing structures) of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. C. FINDINGS OF FACT Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein and as prescribed under Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Sections 22.48, 22.56, and 22.68, this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: Development Review Findings (DBMC Section 22.48.040) 1 The design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the applicable elements of the City's General Plan, City Design Guidelines, and development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for special areas (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards or planned developments). The design and layout of the proposed second -story addition consisting of 487 square feet of floor area to the existing one-story single-family residence is consistent with the City's General Plan, City Design Guidelines and development standards with the exception to an existing nonconforming front setback of 10 feet, where 20 feet is required, the existing nonconforming (south) side setback of eight feet, where 10 feet is required, and a nonconforming distance to the structure on the adjacent lot to the north of 13'-6" (where 15 feet is required). The addition is proposed at the front of the residence, directly above the garage. The front portion of proposed addition will not further encroach into the 2 Planning Commission Resolution No. PL2015-XX nonconforming front setback and will be recessed Z-2" from the front fagade of the house. The project is designed to blend into the existing house by using the same architectural elements and building materials as the existing residence. The project site is not part of any theme area, specific plan, community plan, boulevard or planned development. 2. The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. The proposed addition will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments because the use of the project site is designed for a single-family home and the surrounding uses are also single- family homes. In addition, no protected trees exist on site. The proposed addition will not interfere with vehicular or pedestrian movements, such as access or other functional requirements of a single-family home because it complies with the requirements for driveway widths and is a continuation of an existing use. 3. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain and enhance the harmonious, orderly and attractive* development contemplated by Chapter 22.48: Development Review Standards, the City's Design Guidelines, the City's General Plan, or any applicable specific plan. The project is designed to be compatible with and enhance the character of the existing homes in the neighborhood. The massing of the building is softened by creating articulation of the front fagade by recessing the second -story addition approximately 2=2" from the garage on the first floor. Furthermore, the addition will match the existing home in color and building materials and will incorporate similar architectural features. Therefore, the addition will be visually integrated into the existing home and not negatively impact the look and character of the neighborhood. 4. The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, color, and will remain aesthetically appealing. The architecture of the existing residence is a 1970s tract design with textured stucco and decorative stone veneer on exterior walls, and a cross -gable roof with composite shingles. The proposed design will maintain architectural integrity by incorporating similar fenestration patterns, and matching exterior colors and building materials. The roof of the proposed addition will be integrated with the existing roof by matching the existing 5:12 pitch. Consistent building elements 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. PL2015-XX have been achieved through the utilization of similar architectural features and building materials. 5. The proposed development will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative effect on property values or resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. Before the issuance of any City permits, the proposed project is required to comply with all conditions within the approved resolution, and the Building and Safety Division, and Public Works Departments requirements. Through the permit and inspection process, the referenced agencies will ensure that the proposed project is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. 6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set forth under Article 19 Section 15301 (e) (additions to existing structures) of the CEOA guidelines. Minor Conditional Use Permit Findings (DBMC Section 22.56.040) The proposed use is allowed within the subject zoning district with the approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Development Code and the Municipal Code. The existing single-family dwelling is a permitted use in the RL zone. A Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) is requested to allow a second -story addition to an existing nonconforming structure with a front setback of 10 feet (where 20 feet is required), a nonconforming (south) side setback of eight feet (where 10 feet is required), and a nonconforming distance to the structure on the adjacent lot to the north of I3'-6" (where 15 feet is required). The substandard distance from the structure to the front and (south) side property lines; and substandard distance to the structure on the adjacent lot to the north renders the project nonconforming. The addition of a nonconforming structure requires approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit because the addition is not limited to the ground floor. The proposed second -story addition consisting of 487 square feet of floor area to an existing one-story home complies with a// other development standards of the RL zone. 2. The proposed use is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan. 4 Planning Commission Resolution No. PL2015-XX The proposed addition to a single-family dwelling unit is consistent with the City's adopted General Plan. The site is not subject to the provisions of any specific plan. 3. The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. The existing single-family dwelling and the proposed second -story addition consisting of 487 square feet of floor area will not encroach into the existing nonconforming front setback of 10 feet to the front property line and will be recessed 2'-2" from the front fagade of the house. The proposed project is located at the front of the home and will maintain the existing nonconforming (south) side setback of eight feet and a nonconforming distance to the structure on the adjacent lot to the north of I3'-6" The design of the existing single-family dwelling and the proposed addition are compatible with the character of the existing homes in the neighborhood because neighboring properties have nonconforming setbacks. 4. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed including access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and the absence of physical constraints. The subject site is physically suitable for the existing single-family residential dwelling and the proposed addition. The existing and proposed use of land is consistent with the surrounding land uses. The proposed addition of floor area is consistent with the development standards for the RL zone and will not encroach into the existing nonconforming front and (south) side setbacks, and nonconforming distance to the structure on the adjacent lot to the north. 5. Granting the Minor Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located. The granting, of the Minor Conditional Use Permit will allow the addition of the existing single-family dwelling unit in a manner similar with existing dwelling units located in the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed expansion of the dwelling unit will not negatively impact the public interest, health, safety convenience or welfare. 6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set forth under Article 19 Section 15301 (e) (additions to existing structure) of the CEQA Guidelines. 5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PL2015-XX Non -Conforming Structures Findings (D13MC Section 22.68.030) \J The addition, enlargement, extension, reconstruction, relocation or structural alteration of the nonconforming structure would not result in the structure becoming: Incompatible with other structures in the neighborhood. The proposed second -story addition of floor area is consistent with the development standards for the RL zone. The existing single-family dwelling and the proposed second -story addition consisting of 487 square feet of floor area will not encroach into the existing nonconforming front setback of 10 feet to the front property line and will be recessed 2'-2" from the front fagade of the house. The proposed project is located at the front home and will maintain the existing nonconforming (south) side setback of eight feet and a nonconforming distance to the structure on the adjacent lot to the north of I3'-6". The existing and proposed use of land is consistent with the surrounding land uses and structures in the neighborhood. Neighboring properties also have nonconforming setbacks, so the proposed project will remain consistent with other homes within the neighborhood. 2. Inconsistent with the general plan or any applicable specific plan. The proposed addition to a single-family dwelling unit is consistent with the City's adopted .General Plan. The site is not subject to the provisions of any specific plan. 3. A restriction to the eventual/future compliance with the applicable regulations of this Development Code. The existing and proposed use of land is consistent with the surrounding land uses with similar front and side setbacks to nonconforming structures and nonconforming distances to structures on adjacent lots. The proposed addition of floor area is consistent with the development standards for the RL zone and will not encroach into the existing nonconforming front and (south) side setbacks, and nonconforming distance to the structure on the adjacent lot to the north. 4. Detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood. Before the issuance of any City permits, the proposed project is required to comply with all conditions within the approved resolution, and the Building and Safety Division and Public Works/Engineering Departments requirements. Through the permit and inspection process, the referenced agencies will ensure that the proposed project is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. 6 Planning Commission Resolution No. PL2015-XX 5. Detrimental and/or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood. The addition to the existing single-family dwelling unit will be constructed in a manner similar with existing dwelling units located in the surrounding community and will not be detrimental and/or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves this Application, subject to the following conditions: 1 Development shall substantially comply with the plans and documents presented to the Planning Commission at the public hearing. 2. Standard Conditions.. The applicant shall comply with the standard development conditions attached hereto. The Planning Commission shall: a. Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and b. Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail to the property owner, Robert Labella, 21491 Cold Spring Lane, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 and applicant, Jerry Lutjens, 19953 Valley Blvd., Walnut, CA 91789. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24th DAY OF MARCH 2015, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. A-0 Ruth Low, Chairperson 1, Greg Gubman, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ATTEST: Greg Gubman, Secretary 7 Planning Commission Resolution No. PL2015-XX COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ir I q 1! M I F 111 USE PERMITS, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL NEW AND REMODELED STRUCTURES PROJECT #: Development Review and Minor Conditional Use No. PL 2015-010 SUBJECT: To construct a second -story addition consisting of 487 square feet of floor area to. an existing 2,037 square -foot, one-story single-family residence with an attached 493 square -foot garage; and a Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) is to allow a second -story addition to an existing nonconforming structure with a front setback of 10 feet (where 20 feet is required), a nonconforming (south) side setback of eight feet (where 10 feet is required), and a nonconforming distance to the structure on the adjacent lot to the north of 13'-6" (where 15 feet is required). PROPERTT Robert Labella 4WNER: 21491 Cold Spring Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Jerry Lutjens 19953 Valley Blvd. Walnut, CA 91789 LOCATION: 21491 Cold Spring Lane, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its officers, agents and employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding to attack, set-aside, void or annul, the approval of Development Review and Minor Conditional Use 8 Planning Commission Resolution No. PL2015-XX Permit No. PL2015-01 0 brought within the time period provided by Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the city and/or its officers, agents and employees are made a party of any such action: (a) Applicant shall provide a defense to the City defendants or at the City's option reimburse the City its costs of defense, including reasonable attorneys fees, incurred in defense of such claims. (b) Applicant shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the City defendants. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action of proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof. - 2. This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant and owner of the property involved have filed, within twenty-one (21) days of approval of this Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-01 0, at the City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this approval. Further, this approval shall not be effective until the applicants pay remaining City processing fees, school fees and fees for the review of submitted reports. 3. All designers, architects, engineers, and contractors associated with this project shall obtain a Diamond Bar Business License; and a zoning approval for those businesses located in Diamond Bar. 4. Signed copies of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015 -XX, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. I 5. Prior to the plan check, revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval. 6. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all conditions of approval shall be completed. 7. The project site shall be maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of approval and all laws, or other applicable regulations. 8. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and any applicable Specific Plan in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 9. All site, grading, landscape/irrigation, and roof plans, and elevation plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of City permits (such as grading, 9 Planning Commission Resolution No. PL2015-XX tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.,) or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 10. The property owner/applicant shall remove the public hearing notice board within three days of this project's approval. 11. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of City Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works Department, and the Fire Department. B. FEES/DEPOSITS Applicant shall pay development fees (including but not limited to Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works Department and Mitigation Monitoring) at the established rates, prior to issuance of building or grading permit (whichever comes first), as required by the City. School fees as required shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permit. In addition, the applicant shall pay all remaining prorated City project review and processing fees prior to issuance of grading or building permit, whichever comes first. 2. Prior to any plan check, all deposit accounts for the processing of this project shall have no deficits. C. TIME LIMITS 1. The approval of Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-01 0 expires within two years from the date of approval if the use has not been exercised as defined pursuant to Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Section 22.66.050(b)(1). In accordance with DBMC Section 22.60.050(c), the applicant may request, in writing, a one-year time extension for Planning Commission consideration. Such a request must be submitted to the Planning Division prior to the expiration date and be accompanied by the review fee in accordance with the Fee Schedule in effect at the time of submittal. 1 This approval is to construct a 487 square -foot, second -story addition to an existing one-story home located at 21491 Cold Spring Lane, as described in the staff report and depicted on the approved plans on file with the Planning Division, subject to the conditions listed herein. 2. The construction documents submitted for plan check shall be in substantial compliance with the architectural plans approved by the Planning Commission, as modified pursuant to the conditions below. If the plan check submittal is not in substantial compliance with the approved Development Review submittal, the plans may require further staff review and re -notification of the surrounding property owners, which may delay the project and entail additional fees. 10 Planning Commission Resolution No. PL2015-XX 3. To ensure compliance with the provisions of the Planning Commission approval, a final inspection is required from the Planning Division when work for any phase of the project has been completed. The applicant shall inform the Planning Division and schedule an appointment for such an inspection. 4. The above conditions shall run with the land and shall be binding upon all future owners, operators, or successors thereto of the property. Non-compliance with any condition of approval or mitigation measure imposed as a condition of the approval shall constitute a violation of the City's Development Code. Violations may be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Development Code. 5. Failure to comply with any of the conditions set forth above or as subsequently amended in writing by the City, may result in failure to obtain a building final and/or a certificate of occupancy until full compliance is reached. The City's requirement for full compliance may require minor corrections and/or complete demolition of a non-compliant improvement, regardless of costs incurred where the project does not comply with h design requirements and approvals that the applicant agreed to when permits were pulled to construct the project. 6. The project site shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the approved plans submitted to, approved, and amended herein by the Planning Commission, collectively attached referenced as site plans, floor plans, architectural elevations, and landscape plans on file with. the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code regulations. 7. All ground -mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, air conditioning condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berms, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 8. All roof -mounted equipment shall be screened from public view. 9. All structures, including walls, trash enclosures, canopies, etc., shall be maintained in a structurally sound, safe manner with a clean, orderly appearance. All graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours by the property owners/occupant. 10. All landscaping, structures, architectural features and public improvements damaged during construction shall be repaired or replaced upon project completion. The site shall be maintained in a condition, which is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement approved herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or 11 Planning Commission Resolution No. PL2015-XX subsequent to construction shall be done only by the property owner, applicant or by a duly permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas within the City. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor used has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. 2. Mandatory solid waste disposal services shall be provided by the City franchised waste hauler to all parcels/lots or uses affected by approval of this project. I I Wei OW0091 N I a MYTHL"'WA I Ion K I IMI 1 :11111111-014 W-91TA I Z' U F-111NOOKeTATINMI111 1 An Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted concurrently with the drainage plan clearly detailing erosion control measures for review and approval. These measures shall be implemented during construction. The erosion control plan shall conform to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards and incorporate the appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's) as specified in the Storm Water BMP Certification. 2. Grading and construction activities and the transportation of equipment and materials and operation of heavy grading equipment shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Dust generated by grading and construction activities shall be reduced by watering the soil prior to and during the activities and in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 402 and Rule 403. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. Additionally, all construction equipment shall be properly muffled to reduce noise levels. Detailed drainage system information of the lot shall be submitted. All drainage/runoff from the development shall be conveyed from the site to the natural drainage course. No on-site drainage shall be conveyed to adjacent parcels, unless that is the natural drainage course. I Wel %Z4!K_*JN I MR FIER"ANTIN In ON` 1:80-91 IN KNO17111 REMO] 0 RIJ I I Wf!�� The 2013 California Building Code series applies and shall be adhered to. 12 Planning Commission Resolution No. PL2015-XX 2. Plumbing fixtures shall be low flow type per California Civil Code 1101.1 to 1101.8. They shall be provided for inspection approval. 3. Solid waste management of construction material shall incorporate recycling material collection per Diamond Bar Municipal Code 8.16 of Title 8. The contractor shall complete all required forms and pay applicable deposits prior to permit. 4. Provisions for Cal Green shall be implemented onto plans and certification shall be provided by a third party as required by the Building Division. Specific water, waste, low VOC, and related conservation measures shall be shown on plans. Construction shall conform to the current Cal Green Code. 5. Construction activities causing the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work shall be conducted Monday — Saturday between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. 6. All structures and property shall be maintained in a safe and clean manner during construction. The property shall be free of debris, trash, and weeds. 7. Footings shall be designed for expansive conditions with at least 24" embedment for exterior footings and 18" for interior footings and two #4 top and bottom. 8. A drainage plan shall show drainage away from building structures and property lines and shall be approved for plan check. 9. Pool barriers shall remain at all times. Where they are removed, a "stop work" order shall apply and no work shall occur until the barrier is replaced. 10. An occupancy separation shall be provided between the garage and habitable space. WE 13 Planning Commission Resolution No, PL2015-XX ROOM , . 1 OWNER:21491 COLD SPRING LANE DIAMOND BAR, CA. 91765 ROBERT .. LABELLA A P 8714-004-012 ,, ' • 32974 4 NESFBOR NEA2881 _ 2' X YAM UTICENCY MD CDHMAIOIt to= AVER LSE PROAE IABIE 10 SIM7N EACH R.IA®a FIXRAE ND TRIM SHALL REDUCED FLOW RMR PER TAB E 4.3032 OR PROVDE C=Tl*oN TD 9aNl TWFNiY PEI == I NM WALTER USE BAVNG. PowrtuR CONTROL SOF NOTE FOR OTMM OF DUCT OPEN NS W AM PROTECTION OF LEC GIG EAWENT DORM CO STR UCli* PER SECTOR 4-W4.1.1,PROME NOES PER SECTM 43042 FOR FMW MATERIAL PO LUrMr MOREL VEIMTCA M OF COMIPIAacE YNM TM SECTION SYL BE PRG'DFD AT TIE PEDt16T OT BIADNO AND s+E1r oN68N NSPECNB. DocalmRAnox sIPLL HaAIOE. BR Nm LaED m, TIE FBLOWING uvN FAcn NERs PRODUCT sRDFcaION FIm vDarATIW of OH-sE PRODUCT CONMNDS GVIPET ssTESN stat MIt TIE TEsnNc Arra PROW FOUIEMDFIS PER 43Ma PR07DE FOO AND TABUZ AS tECUMARY. IITDNW MBSIV E CONRROI• WRR RDMOER BY 2010 ON: S FEOIAED FIAT ALL CONL7ElE 5118 FDIAaU10R A 4-NQES TRICK BAs: CO 1/2 NCFR OR RMGi CLEAN AOC ECATE SHALL BE RROIDFD MNN A BAPLAT BAPoNER N NW COmAm ILIAL COXUE7E IHR A ICK M YS DE9QR� N1iCH NL. MDTE55 BLEEDNO. SRIRO%GE. AND CMOAa SWU BE USM PRM NOTE FOR iTQbTOIE CORTW OF BMma WTFRWS PER SWPOU 43055 INDOOR AIR QUALITY MD EMM' PRM NO16: BUTIR00M EaNUSf n45 tnsw ETQWAST BIECTLY FROM BM* DOW SIAL BE DOOM STM OOMPLWIT AND DUCTED TO OUISmE OF DIABM" UrAE55 RNmDTNNC AS A C01✓POTEM OF WFOLE FDUSE VDRLADN SYEIEY. FMS Wsf BE CBtIRIBIID BY A KMWW YNFICN stall BE 1EWLY AOCFSSBE (NWOh1M CONTROLS S IAL BE CAPARE OF ABIU571EM EkTAEDI A TELATNE HWOTIY RMCE OF 50 TO M PERCENT. 1. BEFORE MUONO A TLDUEST FOR A FOE NSPECIOR PlFASE RDD AM COMPLY WON THE APPLICABLE MOML7E1• PATNC F>RE DFPAIMIT IEOURElE711S AS N W TIE APPROlED PLARS AOomONWI.Y. THE PERSONA IN7A16lNG ALE N3PECTION R fESPONSBE FOR M ERNO TIE IRSPWIOR ON TIE ROYDIFN• ACEs TD TIE AREA rs=F a *GPECTION AND RAYNC M APPROVED SD W PIANS AM S PPOR NO DOWMWM AVAILABLE AT TRE TIE OF THE BLQPEC m MLLAACCEPT A BMW NSPEOTOMMTEWIF_'T. TEASE CALME RRE REVENR IN TO N REOUEST A FIRE OMEN IBM) 307-1306. S M APPROVED MAM IB ADORMS SILL BE PROADED ON ALL HEW AND DVW B R NM N 97G1 A POSTOOa AS TO BE PLAILY VSW A a tFSEIE FROM T E 511 F�2/T2 OR ROAB FRMM TIE PROPERTY. NUMBERS SQL. BE A YNMW OF R•4Hw iNfiT Br NOi SMOTE MO BE A CWIRkSINO BIPCpp1AD. (2013 Churow FIFE CODE SECRON 5¢5.1) - 4. SMBE DETECaR SRVL. BE PROJEED N r ROW EBR SUiPI1O ftIRf4E AM AT A PON( COM LY iDCADO N THE CORADOR Bt MFA GMNO ACCEiS N EACH SUOPAE sLDrNc AREA (2013 aC SECOW W7.2n2 2013 CRC SECION 8314) S FOR tE1T CONSRNICTOlI M APPRaIED CALBON YOra7mE ALAfAI Spa BE IWALED N DAIILiC UMTS Ala N SLDN7C IMUS YMN IIItCII FilEi.-BUPoYIO NTLW7GS ARE NSTAiL.ED AND N VNEUNG INiS THAT aMVE ATTACHED GUNES OR EI051NO DWELU N TIDUE A ;AND DIXINSSALTERXI SEmIW R31 REPAIRS OR AMERCMM ONE 4 PRDP= LE 201.16' PROPERTY UNE 180m' . ' ATTIC VENT CALCULATION: 2m t ATTIC ARDL (��-�-� 487 SOFT. PROVE u 5aS rNAIICED� � 1ARPP1`R 1/3 aF ROOFJ UPPER Dom VDm PRODERt 14k1 N) 120 50. RFPER PROVOM 12L—SQA LIPPER (Eawm �+.-.. Lam CAVE VERBS SQA PROYMM l-1-1 CAYFNIS is sa 0L) LEINER PROADM 2Q8 sox Lam R oauffi u m Sax TOTAL PRXVM Am—sox TOW LEPOIEu 23t sox VERIFY APPROVALS FOR ANY ENCROACHMENTS INTO TY LINES LINES OR SETBACKS "i SQUARE FOOTAGE TABLE: ETTIC. tst Ftaal Zan So. Fr. D00. PORCH -------r-----r-- C�BIE VENT (q rnNc,1ANEwAr i i I 1 I I . I I (-)IFMGE I I I i 10' D I i i I i T I V � i PROPO4ED j j 2ND FCR. ADDITION I i TOW. U&M E SPACE I 4 NESFBOR NEA2881 _ 2' X YAM UTICENCY MD CDHMAIOIt to= AVER LSE PROAE IABIE 10 SIM7N EACH R.IA®a FIXRAE ND TRIM SHALL REDUCED FLOW RMR PER TAB E 4.3032 OR PROVDE C=Tl*oN TD 9aNl TWFNiY PEI == I NM WALTER USE BAVNG. PowrtuR CONTROL SOF NOTE FOR OTMM OF DUCT OPEN NS W AM PROTECTION OF LEC GIG EAWENT DORM CO STR UCli* PER SECTOR 4-W4.1.1,PROME NOES PER SECTM 43042 FOR FMW MATERIAL PO LUrMr MOREL VEIMTCA M OF COMIPIAacE YNM TM SECTION SYL BE PRG'DFD AT TIE PEDt16T OT BIADNO AND s+E1r oN68N NSPECNB. DocalmRAnox sIPLL HaAIOE. BR Nm LaED m, TIE FBLOWING uvN FAcn NERs PRODUCT sRDFcaION FIm vDarATIW of OH-sE PRODUCT CONMNDS GVIPET ssTESN stat MIt TIE TEsnNc Arra PROW FOUIEMDFIS PER 43Ma PR07DE FOO AND TABUZ AS tECUMARY. IITDNW MBSIV E CONRROI• WRR RDMOER BY 2010 ON: S FEOIAED FIAT ALL CONL7ElE 5118 FDIAaU10R A 4-NQES TRICK BAs: CO 1/2 NCFR OR RMGi CLEAN AOC ECATE SHALL BE RROIDFD MNN A BAPLAT BAPoNER N NW COmAm ILIAL COXUE7E IHR A ICK M YS DE9QR� N1iCH NL. MDTE55 BLEEDNO. SRIRO%GE. AND CMOAa SWU BE USM PRM NOTE FOR iTQbTOIE CORTW OF BMma WTFRWS PER SWPOU 43055 INDOOR AIR QUALITY MD EMM' PRM NO16: BUTIR00M EaNUSf n45 tnsw ETQWAST BIECTLY FROM BM* DOW SIAL BE DOOM STM OOMPLWIT AND DUCTED TO OUISmE OF DIABM" UrAE55 RNmDTNNC AS A C01✓POTEM OF WFOLE FDUSE VDRLADN SYEIEY. FMS Wsf BE CBtIRIBIID BY A KMWW YNFICN stall BE 1EWLY AOCFSSBE (NWOh1M CONTROLS S IAL BE CAPARE OF ABIU571EM EkTAEDI A TELATNE HWOTIY RMCE OF 50 TO M PERCENT. 1. BEFORE MUONO A TLDUEST FOR A FOE NSPECIOR PlFASE RDD AM COMPLY WON THE APPLICABLE MOML7E1• PATNC F>RE DFPAIMIT IEOURElE711S AS N W TIE APPROlED PLARS AOomONWI.Y. THE PERSONA IN7A16lNG ALE N3PECTION R fESPONSBE FOR M ERNO TIE IRSPWIOR ON TIE ROYDIFN• ACEs TD TIE AREA rs=F a *GPECTION AND RAYNC M APPROVED SD W PIANS AM S PPOR NO DOWMWM AVAILABLE AT TRE TIE OF THE BLQPEC m MLLAACCEPT A BMW NSPEOTOMMTEWIF_'T. TEASE CALME RRE REVENR IN TO N REOUEST A FIRE OMEN IBM) 307-1306. S M APPROVED MAM IB ADORMS SILL BE PROADED ON ALL HEW AND DVW B R NM N 97G1 A POSTOOa AS TO BE PLAILY VSW A a tFSEIE FROM T E 511 F�2/T2 OR ROAB FRMM TIE PROPERTY. NUMBERS SQL. BE A YNMW OF R•4Hw iNfiT Br NOi SMOTE MO BE A CWIRkSINO BIPCpp1AD. (2013 Churow FIFE CODE SECRON 5¢5.1) - 4. SMBE DETECaR SRVL. BE PROJEED N r ROW EBR SUiPI1O ftIRf4E AM AT A PON( COM LY iDCADO N THE CORADOR Bt MFA GMNO ACCEiS N EACH SUOPAE sLDrNc AREA (2013 aC SECOW W7.2n2 2013 CRC SECION 8314) S FOR tE1T CONSRNICTOlI M APPRaIED CALBON YOra7mE ALAfAI Spa BE IWALED N DAIILiC UMTS Ala N SLDN7C IMUS YMN IIItCII FilEi.-BUPoYIO NTLW7GS ARE NSTAiL.ED AND N VNEUNG INiS THAT aMVE ATTACHED GUNES OR EI051NO DWELU N TIDUE A ;AND DIXINSSALTERXI SEmIW R31 REPAIRS OR AMERCMM ONE 4 PRDP= LE 201.16' PROPERTY UNE 180m' . ' ATTIC VENT CALCULATION: 2m t ATTIC ARDL (��-�-� 487 SOFT. PROVE u 5aS rNAIICED� � 1ARPP1`R 1/3 aF ROOFJ UPPER Dom VDm PRODERt 14k1 N) 120 50. RFPER PROVOM 12L—SQA LIPPER (Eawm �+.-.. Lam CAVE VERBS SQA PROYMM l-1-1 CAYFNIS is sa 0L) LEINER PROADM 2Q8 sox Lam R oauffi u m Sax TOTAL PRXVM Am—sox TOW LEPOIEu 23t sox VERIFY APPROVALS FOR ANY ENCROACHMENTS INTO TY LINES LINES OR SETBACKS "i SQUARE FOOTAGE TABLE: ETTIC. tst Ftaal Zan So. Fr. D00. PORCH 270 50. m TERAL. FOOTPRINT 2000 SIL Fr. ADD'L 210 now 487 Sl Fr. TOW. U&M E SPACE 2374 SC FT. (E) GwAm 50. Fr. 493 so. Fr. NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION Jim (E) SWIMMING POOL SITE/ROOF PLAN SCALE: 118"=l' -G' SITE COVERAGE: DMTNO FOaIPW 2300 So. Fr. AEW FOEORNT o SG Fr. TERAL. FOOTPRINT 2000 SIL Fr. 5 POWER 8 LIGHTING LAYOUTTt rn LOT AREA 12590 SM Fr. SEE COVETUDE 2221A SL Fr. NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION ROOF NOTES NDDATES 5:12 sIlI VDIRECTON AS SHORN ROOF PIAN NOTES 1, SEE GVNEM NOTES FOR ROOF NOTES. 2 OVffdW rs 1r AT EAVE CGTON S. BO (a MAIM EIRG) 7N' AT RAZE COs • (i0 WTCH EATG.)NWa1 3. PROME ANTC R rW VDIIIARON AS PER SECTION 15053 aF THE CAUFDFNMA BWLNO CODE SIMDED PORTON DDUIE D=M TO REMAIN. ALL LANDSCAPING TO BE RESTORED AND REMAIN AFTER CONSTRUCTION N 1 SITE PLAN: DRAWING INDEX 2 FLOOR PLAN 3 ELEVATIONS 4 SECTIONS; DETAILS 5 POWER 8 LIGHTING LAYOUTTt rn TITLE -24 T2 TITLE -24 3v�r� GOVERNING CODES CALNOMM YAM CDOE 2013 EBiON ClliOIeNrE3D MK COOS 2013 EDITION NNA CALFOIMECWNCAL COOS 2013 EMM CkFMM PLUMBINGCODE, 2013 EDITION CALIFORNIA EEECTICGY. CODE. 2013 DORM T-24 ENERGY STMEWM 2013 EM ON CALFORNIA FIRE CODE 2013 EDNION PROJECT INFORMATION ISE OF SIROMIE sm COR TlacnBa TTPE T -B OCCUPAwf TYPE rjN VICINITY MAP N.T.S. /L11 0 Z C9 Z 0 r» z z g LU Q Z w o co Z O H 0 p Q K 0 U O w w aENz w� Z 1D �C! gZQN� �v.-v - a o� w 0<06 tomo! OO V w)w �Om•- Z m [D aLZt-- s O �Eq ORS 0 Of NOQa DATEISSUFD: 11d 14 DEMNEDBY: LANDMARK DMYN BY: JAICA JOB NItMBER: 21450 SHEET: OF 8 4 UPPER FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" (F7 8050 XO% E KITCHEN i I 1 I( II I f-- �: O I 1 � P E DINING E LIVING (E) 2-3650 SL ti4'-1' (E) 2668 FX E FAMILY (E) 2668 FX (E) 5050 SL (E) 6068 SLDR. (El M BDRM. K E BDRM. 2 DOOR O POOL 1 (E) EQUIPMENT 2. O (E) 7068 BI -PASS E BDRM. 2 DOOR E OFFICE LOWER FLOOR PLAN (E) SH k P -1 L v (E) 2868 (N) 2x4 CRIPPLE WALL 1' TYPE 'X' GYP. DD. FOR I& CONST�TSHE PER C.D.C. 302.4 E%0. 3 SHPll. BE TPLLED ON WAl1S AND CESUNGS ADJA LMNG SPACE AND ALL WW"AND;P PORUit CUPANRCY SEP ON E GARAGE LINE OF 2ND FUR. EXTENSION,ABV----- (E) 16' z 7' SECT. GAR.'DR. TO BE TEMPORARILY REMOVED k RE -HUNG 120'-8' B 4 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" I �( B[ lCl onli � 1. 2. THE COrCTOR/SUBCONTRACTORS SHPll CONFlRIA W/ WIDMARK REMODEtERS AND DISCREPANCIES P TOR TO ANYANY -___-- __ i 3, ATTICS: ACCESS, DRAFTSTOPS ALIO VENTILATION. PER C.B.C. SECTION 1505. ATOBEG6• IIBO•ATI6ERY u(E)_ 868 BUILDING: ACCESS, MEANS OF EGRESS FACILITIES AND EMERGENCY `� O O q ,ACCESS 5. SAFETY GLAZING. PER C-04 SECTION 2406. VERIFY ON SITE THE (E) 2668 g 5 -m� B. RTW A _! A p ®� O �y 1 ye - ...I ._......�' WATER HEATER PROTECTION FROM DA -WE- PER C.P.C. SECTION 510.0. I I(E) 2868....,., IIE PR. 2668 DR. 8. (E) 2868 3'-5' E%i C. n i ERO-sD. -- G8 N. UP 1A / / E OFFICE LOWER FLOOR PLAN (E) SH k P -1 L v (E) 2868 (N) 2x4 CRIPPLE WALL 1' TYPE 'X' GYP. DD. FOR I& CONST�TSHE PER C.D.C. 302.4 E%0. 3 SHPll. BE TPLLED ON WAl1S AND CESUNGS ADJA LMNG SPACE AND ALL WW"AND;P PORUit CUPANRCY SEP ON E GARAGE LINE OF 2ND FUR. EXTENSION,ABV----- (E) 16' z 7' SECT. GAR.'DR. TO BE TEMPORARILY REMOVED k RE -HUNG 120'-8' B 4 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" I VERIFY All EXISTING DIMENSIONS ON SITE. 1. 2. THE COrCTOR/SUBCONTRACTORS SHPll CONFlRIA W/ WIDMARK REMODEtERS AND DISCREPANCIES P TOR TO ANYANY WORK ROCEIoil:DINCCIES S. 3, ATTICS: ACCESS, DRAFTSTOPS ALIO VENTILATION. PER C.B.C. SECTION 1505. 4. BUILDING: ACCESS, MEANS OF EGRESS FACILITIES AND EMERGENCY `� ESCAPE PER C.B.C. SECTION 310.4, q c m 5. SAFETY GLAZING. PER C-04 SECTION 2406. VERIFY ON SITE THE EXACT DIMENSIONS OF EXISTING WINDOWS TO BE REPLACED. g 5 -m� B. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT LOCATION AND DAMAGE PROTECTION. ®� O �y ��'^ S e �' m PER C.M.C. SECTION 308. ye 7, WATER HEATER PROTECTION FROM DA -WE- PER C.P.C. SECTION 510.0. c s 5 TS 8. AFCI REQUIRED AT NEW BEDROOMS.¢ e � ° PER SECTION 210-12 OF ELECTRICAL CODE yg 3 d,y 9.WATER HEATER PROTECTION FROM DAMAGE, PER C.P.C. SECTION 510.0. to. THE FOLLOWING FLOW RATE STANDARDS SET BY THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION SHALL APPLY: A WATER CLOSET: 1.6 GPM B. SHOWERHEADS: 2.5 CPM C. SINK FAUCETS: 2.5 GPM It. PROVIDE ANTI -SCALDING VALVE IN SHOWERS, TUB AND SHOWERS. 12. ACCESS PANEL (12'x12') REQUIRED FOR TUB TRAP SUP -JOINT OR USE NON -SUP WELDED JOINTS. ELECTRICAL LEGEND i �p�EiU(G PAN of o RECESS RECESSED WATER ROOM BO% BOX LOCAITON C.F.I. DUPLEX OUTIET EXHAUST OUR UNIT FAULT ® EX.FAN EXH EXNINTERRUPTER PAN .FAH ELECT SWITCH non lL0 ELECT SWITCH d PH TELEPHONE THREE WAY ELECT SWITCH CHIME D00R BELL '�' FOUR WAY CHIME DOOR BELL/ .¢. LIGHT FIXTURE P.B. e CEILING MOUNTED BG NLE DOOR , y. LIGHT FIXTURE OPENER BUTT tflt LIGH FIXTURE ED SMOKE DEFECTOR �,�I� EXHAUST FAN k O£o. W/ B411ERY BACK-UP °� LIGHT COMBO. k DITE(iCONNECiK1N DETECTOR SHALL SOIR D All RECESSED ALARM AUDIBLE IN ALL SLEEPING AREAS GHT ELECTRICAL FURNITURE JUNCTION BOX DOWNUGHT 1/2 DUPLEX OUTLET NOT HALF HOT _I KEY GAS VALVE KEY �c DUPLEX OUTLET -F F.C. FUEL GAS ®. 22b+ DUPLEX OUFLEf 220 VOLTS -+ H.B. WATER HOSE BIB WP DUPLEX OUTLET -I- C.W. COLD WATER GFl WATERPROOF FAULT SMO OUT GROJITTERRUPTTR -+- Ny, HOT WATER SNB OUT _ LIGHT FIXTURE .a- H.B. HOSE 818 WITH �... RLORSCAPI LlCHT S.O.V. SHUT OFF VALVE EETT z ELECTRICAL NOTES CL VERIFY THAT A SMOKE DEFECTOR IS PROVIDED IN EACH SLEEPING ROOM AND IN Z � J. EACH CORRIDOR OR AREA GIVING ACCESS TO EACH SLEEPING ARE (31).9.4.3411). MW- p DETECTORS SHALL SOUND AN AUDIBLE ALARM IN ALL SLEEPING AREAS OF Z.. O 2, SMOKE THE DWELLING UNIT IN WHICH THEY ARE LOCATED. O SMOKESHO )) 3. KKEp HDINNIGSHA —_ BATTERUNBACSS K UP kWSSE OBE HALL BTECTDR. WITH ORS 4. AFCIREQUIRED AT NEW BEDROOMS, PER SECTION 210-12 OF ELECTRICAL CODE Z O E= 0 0 Q O WI LI- D O d N WU.) Z Cp g� c� m Z¢ m �Qc) CF ED gom9 0Z V W W Z _OW I,_ 2 --. m In Z WALL LEGEND: q � cv p Q EL EXISTING WALL TO REMIT DATEISSUED: 11.04.14 DESIGNEDBY: LANDMARK ---- 7 EXISTING WALL TO BE DEMOLISHED 1111- BY; JAICA JOB NUMBER: 21458 TENEMMEMEEM NEW 2x4 FRAMING SHEET: E% 7. TOD-IN FC' FlNESWNED MATCH ITN. ADJACENT OFIS L AL ON-SRE UTILITIES SHALL BE PLACED UNDERGROUND AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT. ANY EQUIPMENT, WHETHER ON THE ROOF, SIDE OF A STRUCTURE OR ON THE GROUND, SHOULD BE PROPERLY SCREENED, THE METHOD OF SCREENING SHOULD BE ARCHITECTURALLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE DWELUNG IN TERMS MATERIALS, CALORS, SCREENING. UTILITY AND AND WIPME�NT SHOULTHE DLDING BE PLACED NN IN WHICH ME NOT EXPOSED TO NEW FROM THE STREET WHERE POSSIBLE THE 2013 CNJL'URNA BUILDING CODE SERIES APPUES AND SNAIL BE ADHERED M. PLUMBING FISXTURES SHALL BE LOW FLOW TYPE PER CALIFORNIA CML CODE 1101.1 TO 1101.8. THEY SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR INSPECTDN APPROVAL SCUD WASTE MWeENT OF CONBIRUCIION MATFRW. SHUT INCORPORATE TLi a.NTHE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE MALL REQUIRED( FORMSS AN PAY F APPLICABLE DEPOSITS PRHOR TO PERMIT. PROVISIONS FOR CFL GREEN SFWL BE IMPLEMENTED ONTO PUNS AND DMS FIC SPEC N WATER CAST LGA' VOC, ANA THIRD D RELATED (ART AS REQ SERVED ATTION E BUILDING MEASURES SHALL BE SHOWN ON PIANS. CONSTRUCTION SH41. CONFORM TO THE CURRENT CAL GREEN CODE CONSTRUCTION AfIMRES CAMSING THE OPERATION OF NRI' TOdS OR EQUIPMENT BEECONDUCTEDD IN NT CONSTRUCTION. BETWEEN THE OF 7M•OOUAO AND WORK 5 7:00 P.M. ALL STRUCTURES AND PROPERTY SRU BE MAINTAINED IN A SAFE AND CLEAN MANNER DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE PROPERTY SHALL BE FREE OF DEBRIS, TRASH, AND WEEDS. FOOTINGS SHALL BE DESIGNED FOR EXPAN!M ODNDITKNS WITH AT LEAST 2e EMBEDMENT FOR DOERIOR FOOTINGS AND 18' FOR INTERIOR FOOTINGS AND 2/4 TOP AND BOTTOM. A DRAINAGE ESOSSHOW APEAWAY FORM CIG SIRUNRES AND PROPERTY UNANHAl BE APPROVED FOR PLANHECK. WORK' OROIER SHALL APPLY L MMS SH41 REMANNANDTNO WORK SNAU. OCCUR UNTIL THE BATHEY ARE RRIER IS OP REPLACED. AN OCCUPANCY SEPARATION We BE PROVIDED BETWEEN THE GARAGE AND HABITABLE SPACE IN EROSION CONTIRIX. PUN SHALL BE SUBMITTED CONCURRDMY WITH THE DR4NAGE PVN CLEARLY BEARING EROSION CONTROL MElSURES FOR REVIEW AND Al LAN THESE MEASURES SHALL RE IMPLEMENTED DURING CONSRRUCILOM. THE EROSION CONTROL PIAN SHALL CONFORM TO NATIONAL pOHDTANT INSCLWRGE EllMiNATN)N SYSTEM (NPOES) STMONNS AND INCORPORATE THE MPROPRATE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACIiCES (BMA's) AS SPECIFIED IN THE STORM WATER BMP CERRFlCATION. GRADING AND CONSRRUUN ACT=T NLD TIE TRANSPORTARON OF EWIPMEM AND MATEIRIAIS AND OPEtRADON OF HEAVY GRADING E,,, SMALL BE UMTTED.TU BEIWEEI THE HOURS OF 7:00 AM. MD 5:00 P.N., MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY. DUST GENERATED I GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION ADTMTIES SHNJ. BE RmtIOm BY WAIERBNG THE SILL PRIOR TO AND DURING THE AOM E ACCORDWCE MATH SOUTH COAST NR QLALTtY MNAOEMEM DISTINCT RULE 402 AND RULE 403. RLOINMED Wh1ER SEAIL DE USED WHENE1irER P05518LE ADDINON4I.Y, ALL CONSTRUCfpN EOUIPIIFM SH41 BE PROPERLY MUFFLED TO REDUCE NOISE LEVELS. DEF4LED DRAINAGE SYSTEM INFORMATION OF THE LOT SWll. BE SUBMITTED. LL MNADEO/�RUNOFP FROM THE DEVELDPMENT SCALL BE CONVEYED FROM 7NE SITE 70 YHE NATUPAL DRAINAGE COURSE ND ON -SIRE DRAINAGE SHP11 DE COMPETED TO ADIACENT PARCELS, UNLESS THAT 5 THE NATURAL DRAINAGE COURSE NORTH (LEFT) ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" (NA 'A'. IEDCC ES -1475 ON 7SHINGLES ' COLOR 6 PATTERN TO MATCH AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO EXTG. ((FNTT SIUCCO- TO BES do CIEDft BE ILEVE Lf. r U LIU.LI - - - - - _11....[�....11.....1L. .1J.:1L..� ...1I. .l _.1�_ ..1!...1: 5 VER. (� I 12 / T.O.P. �� I II I� 1 1-? - --- -----,--------------- ---- (N) (N) 2x8 FASCIA, TORCH -DOWN' TO (E)••:.: • ,FIASHNG. LATCH (•. ' CTUET' J 12 12 F.F. F.F. (N) ROOF TO LATCH 'i TOMFR NE VENEER (E) / sTUCco ---- - - - — — CONDENSOR UNIT LOCATION (E) UTIUTIES TO REMAIN A SOUTH (RIGHT) ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0' (N) STUCCO TO 1 MATCH EXISTING ({20 SO.IN. VENT MEA)----_ PflOPOSEO BUIU7INO HEIGHT (N) STUCCO -COLOR h 12 12 TEXTURE TO MATCH (E)TO MATCH (E) 5 UNE OF �(EE�I ?YDF P1-kt� 5 TO MATCH (E) m RF PAhh/J1.Y (E) sTUCCO— EAST (REAR) ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" =1'-0" • BLDG HEIGHT ,i _------------------------------- NA d WEST (FRONT) ELEVATION FRMS ea, an.e oesm,"non gy 3<`�am Nc6 _ T_.0•P. (N— "5• TO HUTCH (EA Z tip 3 r i m Za p ma t�Qvc F.F. —-- 0 Z 4 V' Z m �aZc mT OI KN6QIO_ N) ROOF SAVE DATE ISSUED: 11.0114 0 MATCH E) DESIGNED BY: LANDMARK DRAWN BY: JAJCA JOSNUMSER: 21458 SHEET: _ F.F. FlN6H GRADE A OF 6 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 'i SECTION A FE 0 0 it if LI IfI IB' Sgl'z'18''DP.'PAD —-----J 1 III I L, ---,—J SYMBOLS LEGEND I Q POST OR TRIAMER AS NOTED I I I 1 I eRL -HE I I S T MUMBER STUCCO OX ENQNEMNG CA =LAT xd 1 I i I 1 2 I L NEW FOUNDATION tEDGEfi W/ SHADED PORUON OQIOIE IXISTINC 7D REMAIN i I ' � �aR PY I L—i SLAB NOTES: I PER PIANS ... 1. SUB ON GRADE: 4' CONCRETE BUB W/ 3' - O 18' O.C. EACH WAY O COPERUNE OF SUB OYER 2' OF SAND OVER 6 MIL 3 HF818 VISOFEEN OVER COMPACTED SOILS, U.N.D. _ I.C.B.O. ER 5342 •_C �1.11101mlimm III LC.B.O. OR 5342 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" >..., (H) 2x8 (PE��O.G I (N) ba FASCIA \� 12 TO MATCH (E) (- _ 5 VER. (E) NWNCPoCKET - - _. _ _ _ _ M) 2X8 CIA JOIST 66 iB' Or. i/2. ORriYALI. CM R30-CL0. d: WALL FINISH INSULATIONi UNR E OF TEi OOF 1, ••y /� STUDS. TO BE DE1.(OU6HEOC� 20 •I INSULATION 5 DRAB I 1. R13 -WAIL ' "� ..... 8 A, l 10 5 (T�O MATCH�E]- 5 F.F. I, - - (N) FLOOR SHEATHING %'<: ;.�\, I \ T.O.P. 12ooc: //a 8 in nut W� � ;'7ypE/CiP./FDRRR� NR(CONSi (N) 2x6 R/Fh7t Fk7VC.CC0... IXC : 3 SMALL BE Gb 2C O.C. i LTO TO EED OH�W 302 /.ND RUNGS 7IDAC i / II i I [RANO SPAO AND ALL�WAE15iAND'PO5T5 j ' II •`f ttii I T , / i�p�pR7�NNOR IL RbON OF (E1 GARAGE DOOR /' E' E UR. ANCf�BEP�WA i0 BE RE -INSTALLED % GA CPIP2E WALL / LIE 1 ' �rA \'--� TO BE REAIt7v£ ( ) 0 0RkDE \ ,� (E) CONCRETE SUB S SECTION B ®M -F-V 19 13 M S 02-11-15 osswlHECK D --------------- 12 5ggqp555gR �m 183 29 -• / • VER (E) 5 f: _. N �asts " �Ex"I SCALE: 1/4" = T-0" • PHD OR HD PER 4v{ POST MN PLANS k BNPSON� w/ CATALOG CR. STUCCO tEDGEfi W/ 2x SND WALL W/ SHEATHING AS REQUIRED SONO FOCRNG (ET 2x SIUOS 0 16' O.G USE PMEL^, 2x BLR'L 11 10d 0�" -1EId O FA SND SIMPSON A35 O IV D.C. OR2. HEAR PER PIANS 3x SNDS O EDGES PER S.W. SCHEDULE TO tEDGETt i1P.M LANG 6d 0 D.C.'13LL fS REQ -Do -SES' SEE PUN 2z PLATE W/ SILL RAILING PER SHEAR WALL SCHEDULE DRILL HOLES 1H FEEIppDEKpY RpCpB 1 i6'B CEDRLL � W/ •Pil WAS PEA PtS ((EEjj 2x PTDF SILL RATE MD 2z W/5/8' 0 SIMPSON TSBz BU(G. 0 4B' O.C. R SHEATHING OVER - .•j IS°SOY OF RR 0 185 W/ E.N. SFHx:. -\ EPDXY BOLT6 d 1C O.G BOLTS 0 48'0.C. Zx FLOOR JOISTS - EN, <" FE ` Sp. MB CRON ENDED. 7' I.C.B.O. J4845 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _.. .• P�HD Ff1UNAlEttt' USE (Er22) U.N.O. E D W/ SPECIAL. NSP ON z 2x BVII JAI —'\ ^' EL EL IM paLT FDOE w E10m1mrt NCRtTE� iu ml Pro K N. N Mama xrtl e/a w/4 a 12 Ina Z z 2x Is O IIS O.C. EN. 2x JOIST EN. E.N.roaA . O roaA a/a i -a/4 e u 4mo FOa,aA T/a 1-a/4 a fa aTm, T{d0 S NANPANEL—�� 2x ROOF RAFTER 2x SND WALL W/ SHEATHING 2x BIR'G. AT 48' D.C. (E) FOORHO Q O •USE SWPSOV SET EPO7fY I.G8.0. FUM79 OR RR /25278 W/ BLK'G. k EN. PER PLAN A5 REWD. PER PIANS FF31Ea FOR RAISED FLOOR USE LONGER 80L15 , Z D PARALLEL TO EMEND ABOVE FLOOR SHEATHS PER PL°LAN HOLDOWN TO Z _j 7 EXTG. FTG. 4 EXTG. FOUNDATION 1 SCALE: 1'=1'-0' 1 W 0 Q� SHEAR TRANSFER 10 SHEAR TRANSFER POST PER PUN P0M' PER PVN TOE NUL INTO SILL PL O W Q U.I U 0 n. O 51MPSON 578236 W/ 12- 16d O EA END OR 48 W/ i WALL PER PLM! H DxaY e01s 7D cduPLY w/ 9LL iXliNO ete mAE Laaa 4ouw 17- Tod 0 EA END ( (LT �E4Y1V` SIMP. TS22 2x .EMC. SIMP. 111 PUTEi EN. EN. EA SIDEDOUBLE BLOCKING i uS I 0 F.C. OR N.C. 1- 4 a Q Bf/ll PER PUNSINP. EPC +' SLAB .. cr TOP PLATE (q MMU 0 W -F L.L. 4x6 PO -2-2x W/ BC O BOT.0 C3 N POST PER PUN OR (N) FOOTING 0- HEADER/BEAM PER PLAN SEE TND. PLAN POST TO BEAM � I POST STRAP $ CONC. PAD 5 FOOTING 2 g� SHEATHING ASS aLRED Z Q N PER PUNS /4 DOWELS 0 12' 0.G SEE 3 'WRDY PANEL' 18• SCREW HARDY PANEL TO OCCURS W -1 Ey -4 4, NOTCH J 2x PLATE W/ SILL NUUNG PER SHEAR WALL SCHEDULE ABO. EMBED 4' AND EX@7b 12' W/ EPDXY - SEE PUN FUR MODEL NO. 4x PoSS[( WHERE W/4 -1/4f z 3' HFS OR m Q �[ 0 CO o L�17 I,MAX. (DO FLOOR SHEATHING OVER LGB.O. /4945 W/ ENO SPECIAL MSFPCRON SUDS SCCREWB (TYP.) -i J 604 ^ O ZzIO LEDGER W/ NOT OVERCUD @ SLOPE PETE 2z FLOOR JOISTS �� HFS/0410 x 15CNEWS 4x POST PER PIAN WHERE OCCURS G' ~ U Z T Do T W O W 2x BUL'0. E• 16d O e' D.C. TO BLK, BEAN AND PUN O DECKS OR EW.CON16 E ' PER PIAN 7/8 f ESQXY BOLTS �- CIO n Z co SILL PLATE EN. r ., BED ,5 INN WALL O s- - n_ S - = 2z BLY W/ _ _ _ _>®.= SMPSON A35 AT 16' D.C. 2x ENO SND Ico0 22.77 it�: + � O K N O Q CL B.N.----B.N. ". - - OR 2x SHEAR BLOCKING W/ 18d AT B' O.C. J• •N 2_�5 8 WHERE OCCURS SIMP. 'BCG' DATE 158UED: Fi.M•14 A5 REQUIRED. SEE PLAN T&e• ° e TOP OF E%IST. CON °� PER PUN DESIGNED BY: LANDMARK DRAWN BY: JAICA -- _ - _ _ --- - romm 2z SLAB OR CURE P.T.D.F. SILL PLATE - ------- ER n •' JOBNUMBER: 21458 SHEET: EN 2x Bu'c. a m a 2xs GRADE BEAN W/ 2-%5 �4 O 24' 12' Z RES ° 2x SND WALL W/ SHEATHING TOP k ENR AND 0 0.0. O 12' O.C. BEND 135 ° ° AS REQ'D. PFR AND EMEND e PUNS USE 3,000 PSI W/ RAFTER/WALL F12SHEAR TRANSFER 191GRADE SP. INSPECTION BEAM 6 HARDY PANEL DETAIL 3 OF6 =1910NS ELAN CHECK Dnr¢ Dsswnnon .z / 3�, MSF 510,1. U SIM. MST48 Z 4gZ IL IL - - U. � _- - Z LL LL 0 Up __(; / - - - - ---�----_ - __---P-�� S N 0' 0 2 2x12 D. 0 tY.C. D.F. J1 i Z ' O ........... .... .... ....... .... ... ._..... .... ........ ..... ...._. ._ ........ _.......... _ H ' iQ s��I6 Q i/ 4 O 9 I I 9 U O 4 I I 4 w U_ I a N 4 4, 6 6 4 I I W ( PSL 4879 I Z A[7 F1 ) r?, NOTES VJIDY FRAME NA1DY FRAME Z Q N IC80 /5342 ICBG (5342 3/4' PLYWOOD CD -K STRUCT. 1 5 5 Q =0 AND WILED WITH IDd NAILS _ _ co,:, RD N. AND U�'D CH EEX6RNG fiAOR AT ADDITON.'�E 6Y S Z ^ T LOU SUNA-PACIFIC TRECHSHIELD Z On rn Z S 0 6' O.C. B.N. AND EN. AND 12' Q o N < ¢ a 6 4 DATE ISSUED: 11.14.14 DESIGNED BY: LANDMARK DRAWN BY: JA,OA JOBNUMBER: 1 21450 SHEET: 2ND FLOOR FRAMING PLAN SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" 5 OF6 CJ PER PUN W/ 3-i6d ROOF RAFTET2 PER PUN 2x RAFTER 'CALIFORNIA' O END U.N.O. PLYWWOD SHEATHING FRAMED PLYWOOD SHT'G• PER PLAN SCREW PANEL TO TOP PULE PER PUN ROUP (4)-i6d SCREWS HARDY OR SOS SCREWS - 18' W� 1T (1035CIS M N. ) ALTERNATE LOC. T -Z TOP PULE N 2x BUK'G. TO MATCH EXISTING -� EN. EN. 2x CONf. SHAPED' W/ TiUMMED RAFTER PER Ap L HARM PANEL E. SEE PUN FOR -- 2x BLK'G. 2x BUK'G W 16d 0 B' O.C. I `-HFAOER WHERE OCCURS RAFTERS ALT. t5E SI(IP. A'SS 0 24O.C. K TO MATCH REW WADY PANEL TO KING 2-2x TOP PUTS WFISTINGR SEE SND WHERE OCCURS W� ONS WNL FINISH PER PLNt 4-1/4'Pz1m-Pi/4' HES tlR SDS NOTE: IN UEU OF 29 BLOCKING, NAIL 2x 2x SPUDS O ,B' O.C„ SCREWS ) SHAPER W/ 2-16d EACH RAFTER U.N.O. ION° WHERE OCCURS CALIFORNIA HARDY PANEL 5 FRAMED ROOF 3 SHEAR TRANSFER B.N. 2x RIDGE BOARD Sf22,5 048' D.G. SIMP. IN LED OF 2x4 REB PLYWD• ROOF \ X1548 DOUBLE SND OR SHFG. PER PUN 26' RES O / 48' O.C. 2x 8D.C. O •HAY 4x4 POST PER PUN PlRFP� / FIRST ONLY PER PLANSFTFG. 2x FLOOR JOIST / RJ OR RR 2x4 FLAT CONI. N• PER PLµ O 32' O.C. SILL PLATE B.N. 2-18d • DOUBLE FLOOR JOISTS, BEAN OR RIM JOIST 'UIS CJ E PER PLAN WJ (4 18d 0 48' 2-1 -- (j AT OAHR EVER W// HANGER TO JIM ON O.C. N. TO RJL EN• E.N. 2x BARGE FA SIDEOF POSE ABV. 2x BUPG W/ PER PLAN 3-1 TYP 16d 0 B' O.C. 91 2x4 0E ALT: USE SIMP A35 O 24' O.C. 2-2x TOP PLATE EXI 0 CLC. PFR PUN WALL Fl11SH PER PLAN HOLDDOWN SHEAR TRANSFER 2 6 RIDGE 4 BE� S(EW) RODF 7x BLK W/ �EN. 3-16d TO LEDGER g (E) R.R. W/ LUS HANGER 2 E.N. 2x6 O 48' D.C. - 2x LEDGER W/ W/ 4-16d 3-164 EA. ERA. WAY L-6• L.4, - SND .N. ( - --P 4.4 0 (E) CLI. JOIST W/ SYMBOLS LEGEND i � SIMP. UIS HANGERS TO RIM JOIST 7 SHEAR TRANSFER / O POST OR 1PoYlER A9 NDTED A I ----- -- -" - - r.. - -- SIM ANDDRECOROFROOF aII OR FIDOFE MUM PER SCHEDULE Ile' EXPANSIONSHOT. i„ PER PLAN <Aµ� ^' SPAN AN DIRECTION OF CFLNO 1 TYP. RUN OAP. RLLFLEXIBLE EM S ,0ANT'" U.N.O. V V MEMBER PER SCHEDULE K SHFA2 M7MBEL YINMUM PANE. LENGIFI MORD. RE}ER TO SHEAR -1 2.11 CA 1 ( WNL SCHEDULE # I 0 xx a. _. DEFNL NUMBER E� I ..._ .... _.. _. __._ ._ _...._....._ _..._._ ._ ..... _,. _. _.. __ ._.... ....... ... ..... .. .. . a 1ETAl SHEET MHBER 9 8 E BEAM PER � PUN I 6 Fy 1 1 fJ xO ENGINEERING CALCU RATANS gg i A 4 5/8" PLYW= R5ERS MUFOR A FRAMING 1 I 2x8 RA 20 R.R. (1 ifElDS 0 16' O.C. ( V � I i '/'/i!l';'/�f ATT UCN SIRNCEI SHADED PORTION DENDTE I amTD F_-EI$JN I 2x14 STRINGERS AT \ ^ _^t/ !_„_[:_..!_1 FND AIB NIDBPAN 1p TWE TP. EDP. 80, AT ALL N d: CE4NC OF II��-- -- -- -- I LO SPACED� STAIRS AT FLOOR S IrB.S' 2 5/8” PLYWOOD 20'-B' - SET15 GYP. BD, 1 1 8' PLYWOOD is 1/2" 1/4" MIN.- 2" MA)L 9 S P. TYP. RUN is MIN. SIMPSON A35 4 to" U.N.O.0 fl EA END OF BLOCK SHAPED WOOD HANDRAIL TO MEET ALL WIBCRIP ,/8 EXPANSION GAP FILL Him LE REDUIREMBNS SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS - WON T" MIN. SEALA T - TYP. ,max 2x14 1\ NO OhACilTS SOILS PROFILE •' BLADSREWS 4-1/474' Na 1.3 AST FALN ENO h MESPAN ♦\ LWDN�G Hv 1.5 (18" O.G MAK) g/g" TYpA •X• (2) 2x4 P.T. FUMES] GYP. BD. AT T\ -SECURE 70 SLAB 4x6 RLKG WALLS AND CEIllM OF ♦ \ AT BRACKETS FTNCIESED USABLE SPACE UFBE2 SFNR WALL FRAMING ROOF FRAMING PLAN ° . • a. SCALE d; ,e ° . ,f.a 4 ' NOTE RNUNO TO RESIST APPLIED LOAD �SFOUDSHOIRDMEN. TRUCT.1ND PA DRAWINGS. S. ANDRAIL 'I O STAIRS cb__ FLOOR J =1910NS ELAN CHECK Dnr¢ Dsswnnon .z / 3�, MSF 510,1. U SIM. MST48 Z 4gZ IL IL - - U. � _- - Z LL LL 0 Up __(; / - - - - ---�----_ - __---P-�� S N 0' 0 2 2x12 D. 0 tY.C. D.F. J1 i Z ' O ........... .... .... ....... .... ... ._..... .... ........ ..... ...._. ._ ........ _.......... _ H ' iQ s��I6 Q i/ 4 O 9 I I 9 U O 4 I I 4 w U_ I a N 4 4, 6 6 4 I I W ( PSL 4879 I Z A[7 F1 ) r?, NOTES VJIDY FRAME NA1DY FRAME Z Q N IC80 /5342 ICBG (5342 3/4' PLYWOOD CD -K STRUCT. 1 5 5 Q =0 AND WILED WITH IDd NAILS _ _ co,:, RD N. AND U�'D CH EEX6RNG fiAOR AT ADDITON.'�E 6Y S Z ^ T LOU SUNA-PACIFIC TRECHSHIELD Z On rn Z S 0 6' O.C. B.N. AND EN. AND 12' Q o N < ¢ a 6 4 DATE ISSUED: 11.14.14 DESIGNED BY: LANDMARK DRAWN BY: JA,OA JOBNUMBER: 1 21450 SHEET: 2ND FLOOR FRAMING PLAN SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" 5 OF6 GENERAL NOTES 1. EXCEPT WHERE MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENIS ARE NOTEDOR SHOWN ON PUNS, WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM RD C.B.C. LATEST EDNON. 2. WORKING DIMENSIONS SRAU. NOT BE SCU.ED FROM DPAWDIGS. 3. HEMS IDENTIFIED BY TRADE NAMES MAY BE SUBSTRRED BY APPROVED EQUALS, REMODELLING NOTES 1. EXISTING STRUCTURES SHALL BE REVIEWED FOR DIMENSIONAL AND STRUCTURAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE PUNS BY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 2. MAJOR OISCREPANCIES SHAH BE REPORTED TO THE DESIGNER/ENGINEER, 3. CONTACTOR SHALL. PROVIDE PROPER BRACING ARD/OR SHORING MTHE EXISTING STRUCTURE WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED DURING CONSTRUCTION. 4. USE SIMPSON ST6224 TO TIE-IN TO EXISTING TOP PLATES WOOD 1. ALL LUMBER USED FOR STRUCTURAL. PURPOSES SHAD. BE DOUGLAS FIR. SOUTH COAST REGION, ORATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WEST COAST LUMBER BUREAU. 2. MINIMUM GRADES FOR STRUCTURAL LUMBER SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS ROOF AND FLOOR BFNMS NO. 1 ROOF & FLOOR JOISTS NO. 2 DaERRIR WALL STUDS: LESS THAN 10 FEET IN HEIGHT SND OR IN. 3 GREATER THAN 10 FEET NO. 2 INTERIOR PARTITION STUDS SN, OR CONST BLODIONG OR BRIDGING URWY POSTS & HEADERS NO. 2 3. ALL SOLE PLATES AND WOOD THAT A LESS THAN 1-1/2' CLEAR FROM MASONRY OR CONCRETE SILL SHU BE PRESSURE TREATED DOUGLAS FIR. M WALL, FLOOR AND ROOF FRAMING SHALL CONFORM TO CHAPTER 23 OF CBC. FOUNDATION NOTES 1. CONCRETE STRENGTH SHALL BE MIN. 2500 PST IN 28 DAYS. 2. REINFORCING STEEL. SHALL BE MIN. ASTM A 615 GRADE 40. 3. NO TRENCHES ON EXCAVATION 5 FEET OR MORE IN DEPTH INTO WHICH A PERSON IS REWIRED TD DESCEND SCULL BE MADE WITHOUT PROPER PERMITS, 4. SOIL BENEATH FOOTINGS AND SLAB SK41 BE DOMPACIED PER CDC (DOX RELAM COMPACTION MIN.) 5. THE MINIMUM BOLTING FOR SILL PLATES TO FOUNDATION (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) SHAL BE AS FOLLOWS: USE 5/8' INCH DIAMETER ANCHOR BOLTS WITH 7 INCH MINIMUM EMBEDMENT IN CONCRETE SPACING NOT GREATER THAN 4 FELT O.C. NOR FURTHER THAN 12 INCHES FROM THE CORNERS (MINIMUM 2 DOLTS OR PIECE) G. SEE FOUNDATION PLWHFAR WA FURMER BOLTING REQUIRENENiS.LL SCHEDULE TO OEfERMME STRUCTURAL SYMBOLS INDICATES SHFAR W TYPE & LENGTH - REFER TO SHEAR WALL X SHCEDULE AND FRAMING PLAN FOR SILL BOUND, SHfG., ETC. PLACE FIRST BOLT 12' FROM END OF WALL I. FOR SHEAR WALLS 11 AND HIGHER, USE 3X P.T.D.F. SRL PLATE AT GROUND LEVEL & 3X STUDS AT ALL PANEL EDGES WITH STAGGERED MUNG. REFER TO FOOR NOTES 3 & 5 ON SHEAR WALL SCHEDULE. AT EKISIRNG FOOTING USE 2x BLOCKING ON TOP OF EXISTING 2x SILL AND STAGGER EDGE NAILS AND BOLT THROUGH BLOCKING. 2. AT EXISTING FOOTINGS, USE REDHEADS OF SAME SIZE AND SPACING AS PER SILL BOLTING LCBO. +1372 OR MLR KB -11 LCB.O. 14627 MIN. EMBED 7'. SLAB NOTES 1. SLAB ON GRADE 4' CONCRETE SLAB W/ d3 O 18' O.C. EACH WAY 0 CENTERUNE OF SLAB OVER 2' OF SAND OVER 8 MIL VISQUEEN OVER CDMPACTED SOBS, U.N.O. SHEATHING NOTES 1. FLOOR SHEATHING: 3/4' PLYWOOD CO -X STRUCT. 1 (PI -32/18) T&0 GWED AND NAILED WITH 10d HATS O 6' O.C, ON. AND EN. AND 10' O.C. F.N. (OR) USE RATED OSB / MATCH EXISTING TUDOR AT ADDITION. 2. ROOF SHEATHING: LCUISWLI-PACIFIC TRECHSHIELD OSB WITH Bd HALLS 0 8' O.C. B.N. AND EN. AND 12' D.C. F.R. SHEAR WALL SCHEDULE 2001 C.B.C. 2x UDDER W/ x 4' LONG D.C.48' MAX SILL BOLIING SPACING MINK WALL TYPE ALLOWABLE SILL SILL NAILING 12'13 & 14. FALL ON DIFFERENT FRAMING MEMBERS OR FRAMING 10. USE CDX CC OR SN SHTG, IN UEU OF STRUT II 2. WHERE SHEAR WALL SHEATHING IS TO BE APPLIED TO SHEAR BOLTING AT UPPER STORIES ON EACH SIDE SHALL BE STAGGERED, 7/e STUCCO OVER PAPER BACKED W/ 18 GA STAPLES AT e O.C. AT TOP & GOLDS(I.E. HALF THE 0/C SPACING). 11, AT EXISTING FRDODNGS USE REDHEAD WGE ANCHORS �8 BOTTOM PLATES, EDGE OF SHEAR WALL AND ON FIELD (ICED REPORT /1823 00 PLF 5/8' O W O.C. 16d O 8' O.M EMBED 7-1/2'. FEB, 1873) OR(NNE RMU #1318, FEB 1873) OR ICED 01254 FEB. 1972) ON PLANS. 4. PAPER BACKED SELF FURRING EXPANDED METAL LATH IL ALL INFERIOR BEARING AND NON BEARING FOOTINGS NOTE 4 AND B BELOW WITH ICBG APPROVAL TO HAVE 7/32' SHOT PINS AT 32' O.C. & 48' O.C. 15/32' PLYYNOD STRUCT. II OR SID SHTG. WITH 8d NWLS AT 8' D.C. AT 20D PLF 6/8' O 38' O.C. 16d O 6' O.C. EDGES & 12' O.C. FIELD (TABLE 23 -II -1-1 CBC) NOTE 1,9,10 & 11 BELOW 107 15/32' PLYWOOD STRUCT. it OR STD SM'G. WITH 8d 1WLS AT 4' D.C. AT EDGES 285 PLF 5/8-a 26' O.C. 16d O 4' O.0 & 12 O.C. FIELD (TABLE 23-11-1-1 C8C) NOTE 1,6, 0,10 & 11 BELOW PLYWOOD STRUCT, it OR SN SHPG. WITH Bd FOULS AT 4' O.C. AT EDGES 285 PLP 5/8' O 26' O.C. 16d 0 4' O.C. v15/32' & 12' O.C. FIELD (TABLE 23-9-1-1 CBC) NOTE 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10 & 11 BELOW PLYWOOD STRUCT. II OR SID SHT G. WITH Bd NAILS AT 3' D.C. AT EDGES 370 PLP 3x SILL 16d 0 3-1/2' O.C. v15/32' & 12' O.C. FIELD (TAFAE 23-9-1-1 CBC) NOTE 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10 & 11 BELOW 6/8-0 20' B.C. 15/32' PLYWOOD STRUCT. it OR SID SHFG. WITH &r NAILS AT 2' O.C. AT EDGES 480 PLF 3x SILL 16d 0 2-1/2' O.C. ©i & 12 O.C. FIELD (TABLE 23-8-1-1 CBC) NOTE 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10 & 11 BELOW 5/8' 0 16' O.C. 1 15/32' STRUCT. I PLYWD. WITH 10d HALLS AT 2' O.C. AT EDGES & 12' O.0 FIELD 580 PLF 3z SILL N A / OVER 3X STUDS (TABLE 23-11-1-1 CBC) NOTE 1, 3, 5, 6, B, 10 & 11 BELOW 3/4 O 16' O.0 NOTES: 2x UDDER W/ x 4' LONG D.C.48' 1. ALL EDGES OF PLYWOOD SHFARWALLS MUST BE 6. WHERE PLYWOOD IS APPLIED ON BOM FACES OF A 6. USE 1-i/2' X 2-1/2' X 3/16' PLATE WASHERS BLOCKED WITH 2X SOLD BLOKICNG FOR WALL TYPES 9 & 10, AND 3X SOLID BLOCKING FOR WALL TYPES 11, WALL AND HAL SPACING IS LESS THOU 6' O.C. ON EITHER SIDE, PANEL JOINTS SHALL BE OFFSET TO 12'13 & 14. FALL ON DIFFERENT FRAMING MEMBERS OR FRAMING 10. USE CDX CC OR SN SHTG, IN UEU OF STRUT II 2. WHERE SHEAR WALL SHEATHING IS TO BE APPLIED TO SHALL BE 3 -INCHES NOMINAL. OR THICKER & NAILS PLYWOOD. ALLPLYWOOD SHAUL BE DOUGLAS FIR. BOTH SIDES OF WALL, DOUBLE THE NUMBER OF ON EACH SIDE SHALL BE STAGGERED, OTHER SPECIES MAY REWIRE CHANGES. GOLDS(I.E. HALF THE 0/C SPACING). 11, AT EXISTING FRDODNGS USE REDHEAD WGE ANCHORS 7. ALL CONTINUOUS WERIOR FOOTINGS TO HAVE 5/8' TO COMPLY WITH SILL BOLTING. ICBG +1372 MIN. 3. USE 3X PRESSURE TREATED DOUGLAS FIR SILL PLATES X 10' A.B.$ AT 48' O.C. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED EMBED 7-1/2'. AT FDUNDAOON/FlRBF FLOOR ONLY. ON PLANS. 4. PAPER BACKED SELF FURRING EXPANDED METAL LATH IL ALL INFERIOR BEARING AND NON BEARING FOOTINGS WITH ICBG APPROVAL TO HAVE 7/32' SHOT PINS AT 32' O.C. & 48' O.C. RESPECRVELY: LE OZARK JH -67 ICSO REPORT 1280, 5. FRAMING AT ADJOINING PANEL EDGES SHALL BE MAY 1987. 3 -INCH NOMINAL OR WIDER SHAD. BE STAGGERED. TJI JOISTS, MICROLAM AND PARALLAM BEAMS 1. ALL TJI JOISTS, MICROLAM (LVL -LAMINATED VENEER LUMBER) AND PARALLAM (PSL -PARALLEL STRAND LUMBER) ER SHALL CONFORM TO NATIONAL EVALUATION SERVICE COMMITTEE REPORTS NER 119, HER 200, NER 126 AND NER 292. 2. TJI JOISTS AND BEAMS SHALL OF THE SIZE AND SPACING AS NOTED ON THE PLANS. 3, FRAMING HARDWARE SPECIFIED SHALL BE MANUFACTURED BY SIMPSON STRING -TIE COMPANY, INC. WITH HAIL SIZE AND EDMON, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON DRAWINGS. 4. ALL FRAMING MEMBERS SHALL BE ERECTED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDING WED STIFFENERS, BRIDGING, BLOCKING, X -GRACING AND ERECTION BRACING. NAILING SCHEDULE (PER TABLE 23 -II -B-1) THIS NALMG IS TYPICAL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED NABS SHAUBE BOX OR COMMON WIRE SPECIFICALLY DErAJLED CONNECTIONS SHALL BE HALED WITH COMMON WIRE NAILS. J01ST OR RATERS TO SIDES OR SUDS 8 INCHES IN DEPTH OR LESS (3) 16d FOR EACH ADDITONAL 4" DEPTH ADD (1) 16d JOISTS OR RAFTERS AT ALL BEARING TOE HAILS EA SIDE STUDS TO BEARING -TOE NAILS EA SIDE BLOCKING BETWEEN JOISTS/RAFTERS TO THE JOISTS/RAFTERS TOE NAILS EACH SIDE FROM BUCKING TO BEARING WALL TOE NAILS EACH SIDE BLOCKING BETWEEN STUDS AT EACH END -TOE NAILS END NAILS PROGREESNE BLOCKING RAFTER TO BLOCK AND BLOCK TO CONT. RAILER — MULTIPLE STUDS STAGGERED RAILS ON STUDS WIDER THAN 4' RIBBON TO STUDS 2x RIBBON DOUBLE TOP PLATES LOWER PLATE TO STUDS UPPER TO LOWER PLATE AT SPUCES (48' MIN) ON EACH SIDE OF BUTT IN TOP PLATE UPPER TO LOWER PLATE AT INTERSECTION CEIUNG STRIPS 14 PER BEARING (STRONGHOLE TYPE) 2X3 PER BEARING (STRONGHOLD TYPE) PLYWOOD NALUNG (SEE DETAILS &/OR SCHEDULE BUILT-UP BFAMS 20d032' O.C. AT TOP & BOTTOM STAGGERED 1x8 LET -IN BRACES, EACH BEARING (PRE -DRILL HOLES FOR NABS) — (3) 8d — (2) 8d — (2) 10d — (2) 10d — (2) 10d — (2) 16d — (2) 16d 16d 0 24' O.C. — (2) Bd — (2) 16d — (2) 10d 16d 0 16' O.C. — (8) 16d — (8) 16d — (3) ed — (1) 16d (2) 20d O END — (2) 8d SIMP. IS 903/BY 2x UDDER W/ x 4' LONG D.C.48' EN. UD BOLT EA SND 3-16d6d TO LEDGER "4-V LEDGER DETAIL 0 W f - O z J Q CY W z W U' J O) CCQ N U J 0 F CC 0 iMl rn n LU U, z g� g zQ m KOr� BID w<4 DO C) °z^a m;;2' 0 :�¢ax W cvo<(L 0 E z �: 0w (D w cl) w z w C0 w (D cr z w z < z 5> E LLJo f- <T -n -j U<c) w C) Of z i 0 UJ (D Z ISD (ZD 2 5; c) (L Z Z luo) CL 0 < 0- < II z 1[ 11 11 it 11 n ()WO (L X < IL < U 0 z w (D w -j -F0 'ffi 76 -ffi Q .0 .2 .0 :a .2 .2 - .2 "a ; -a :tl _0 'a cu ca cu m w m cu o 0 0 0 0 o 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) cm 0) r- C C: C: cu cu cu m m m m C: Qw .2 .0 .2 .0 .2 0 (U L) ca U U m U cu L) cc 0 m L) C6 U) CL CLa CL CL CL 0. a 0- Q- CL CL 0- CL co cu m ca a) ca (D m a) m a) IL a) m a) a) CL CL CL CL a 0- CL E E E E E E E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L) 0 _0 0 0 �o 0 '0 0 'a 0 _0 0 -a a) �o a) (D a) a) a) a) 0 r C a) a) —0 c r_ =0 0 T .0 > W > a) .20 0 — 0 c *r_ 0 0 > 04 C', M .9 E a) (D .9 E E .9 E m UE w M L) E M -0 E (D IL C\l -a - -a 2 0.40- < c 0- �2 < C,,2 < 00 -, < 0- < 0- �o < 0-'2 < cc c0 co a) dCL a) CL 0. D O' Q) a) 0 0 m U) cu < < < ?� (U -j 0) c (D cu a) > Q) a - E co U) .0 FD CL 3 F- N :3 0 LL < CL w w w w W W Z W Fz- W W w IL < < < z z C? 00 IT CDti'IT C 'T CD M 'T CD LO 6 .0 'T LO Ch L6 a) JLO CL it a) C)C\l 0 C\j C) 0 C4 0C\l 0 CD 0 0 C\l LL LL CL 0- C14 -j Q- CN -j C14 -j N -i IL IL Z) CL CL w D- ry IL n, CL CL cl 0 L) Z, 0 -6 L) a) (D a) a) W'0 > U) 0 a) '0 �o a) Z LLJ cr m a) L) c — -6 0 W U c (D " > _0 2 z w 0 W _0 W '0 70 > (n E a) 0 0 0 E E E M Cc 0 .Co w a) a) 12 (D M -0 M a a > .0 0 (D E E o (u'ff C: C: 0 C: C) a c: c C) c 0 U) CU 0 DL (n ca Fn w C) a) U) (n E w 0 (D u U) 0 Uj 0 (D (n 3� 0 a) (D R 7&, cu m 0 0 (D 0 0 E -Fa W 0 z C: >1 cr, 0 C (U C -n CD — M 0 0', o CL z (.).0 •Z 1:� a) w :�Z- a).2 m M- C ,3- Co Fn .2 ZI N co co LO 3: 0 w a 2 0 ui ;t C) c> t-- (c) cy) Z CL -j t < < CL 11 z CL 1, z N L,) z C\j — (0— < c) — z N — < N — CN L, :s z �: 0w (D w cl) w z w C0 w (D cr z w z < z 5> E LLJo f- <T -n -j U<c) w C) Of z i 0 UJ (D Z ISD (ZD 2 5; c) (L Z Z luo) CL 0 < 0- < II z 1[ 11 11 it 11 n ()WO (L X < IL < U 0 z w (D w -j 7 Z '0 76 75 -cu -ffi W W w w 76 Wu W 'FU W 76 W 2 U) c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 a 0 c 0 a 0 c 0 C: 0 c 0 c 0 C: 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 a) '6 L6 'a 70 "0 '0 '0 'a -a _0 _0 o -o -o 'a 70 io "0 '0 'a -a -0 _0 '0 'a 'a '0 cu cu m m cc cu cu m m cu ca m cu m ca �o �o �o 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) CY) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) cm 0) 0) s s C c F= c c c c s c c s c s CL tl.� CL < W z F v 5 W F B W u F z W co W F 5 .6 ffi cu c C: a a c c C: LD .2 .2 .2 .0 .2 0 a) L) U. a) .0 .2 m .2 .0 ca .2 .2 cu .2 16 16 lc� IM 15 15 1� ZY .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .2 cu 0. 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a -a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a U) a) CL CL CL 0- CL 0. CL a CL CL 0- CL 0- 0- a a) M cu m m m ca m m m m m m m a) Q) (D a) (D a) a) cam m a) in- 0 5; 0- CL a- CL CL CL 0- CL CL a 0- 0- Q- a 0- E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a) 0 o f C.) 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 :3 c C: c C: c C: c c 72 a) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -o '0 70 'a -a '0 'a '0 'a '0 _0 'a 0 L)o a) a) a) a) CD a) a) a) a) (D a) (D a) CL) a) �L- 16 a) -0 0 16 16 16 0 16 16 0 t 0 0 0 0 0 c a a a c c c C: C: a c C: a c c rz c C: c c c c c c c c c c c C: N c - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 *r_ - 0 *;_- - 0 - 0 - 0 '= - 0 - 0 Ir- - 0 - 0 -.0 c = a *= c 4-- c *4-- r_ *;_- C: c c' C: = c c 4-- C: C' m C: = C mm E mm E m M L) E m cu 2E m m 0E cu m PE m m E m m .2 E m m .0 E mm .2 E m m .0 E mm 0E m .2 E mm -() E m .2 E yr .2 L'a .0 - . 'a - . "a - -c- 0 -a 'a " 'a 'a "a " "a - -a - 'a :3 0 EL CL CL,20 C: a 'o CL IR < C: cL c: � CL < C: a _o < 0�,2 < r- D- �o < CL < CL 20 < a _o < C: o -,R < D- �o < C: C� L) < < <.0 -C: a) 2 c cn 00 0 0) a) N U (D N •U) a) 0 U) c "o ro CL 0 >1 CO C) (n CO0 0 0 0 (1) a) n 70 =3 0) c < W a) -0 m 0 m < m L) Z Z -0 L)-6 c rl 0 0 in a) ca. 0 -E 0 E (D (D m 0 .0 cu a) n m < co in < a) =3 Of a) m -5 CL cu 0 U) a) a- 0) E < Q ui ui Lij LLJ ui LLJ LLJ Lli LLJ ui ui LU I -- (D z z z z z z z z z z LO 19 LO LO C) IT LO L6 LO (0 m CY) m 1, C, N m LO m c\l ll� LO C) CY) (fl LO CO CD CD 4 w N Cl 0- C -i 'IT - Cl) - CN a- C) N CD N C) C) cli Cl C\l Cl C) CD C\l 0 N C� CD 0 C) _j IL -j -j D- CL N cli -j -i N N clq EL IL EL DL CL -i a. -j a_ a. D Z) CasL-1 ry Of 0� ry Q- Z) n r) cl 0 > C: Q) a) E CDw > F n a) cu (n c CIO 0 L) c L) c a) L) 0) tn (1) a) a) 0) a) a) CD 0) 70 rn _0 :2 :2 :2 :2 C 0 CL U) •" >1�z 2 C: *cn in P U) (D in U) a) E in (D 0 E a) a- U) �d 0 . - 42 a) = 0 'y-6 CD - a) 2:1 Q) (D -&, U) m cn 5 ❑0 > a) -0 0 C: a) "0 c: ry - LL C: i�� - I -S� E () E c j-- E 0 E W C-) 0 ;� (D < -6 a) 0 0) L) cn Zn c 0 t-- _r_ Q) Cl) m w - -j a a) L- m LL m a) a) a) C: a) T "a 0 0 a) (D 0 U) CD 0 0) a) 0) a) CD E u o aCD (D 0 E c ca CU - 0 (D ui 'a C: , :3 C: 0 - -n cr, r_ iE 0 FY . 0 0 -92 •tn z 0 0 _0 C) 3: C: U-) LO 0 a) 0 >1 -- i m n :;� � - w - in LO U) Of .0 - Ea co 3: C: m �: Go �: 't . - ig 2 _j -o 00 C) '0 1-0 C\j 3: C-) 3: ,t CD ?: - a) ) 70 00 - a) Z 0 a) m :3 0) a) a) tx) in o) Uo a) co a) , a) cD m t-- w CL 0 NZ (N N CO � C-4 r-- r- :S CN z N co z N C-4 Cl) z N z N - NZ CN - c"I < Z CN -2 W, O (n cu U) ER I rm M 0 0 -j F-110 I Iff-A 2 2 1 11-1W I IM 0• STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 1, Stella Marquez, declare as follows: On March 24, 2015, the Diamond Bar Planning Commission will hold a Regular Meeting at 7:00 p.m. at City, Windmill Community Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. I am employed by the City of Diamond Bar. On March 20, 2015, a copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at the following locations: South Coast Quality Management District Auditorium 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar Library 21800 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Heritage Park 2900 Brea Canyon Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 20, 2015, at Diamond Bar, California. —ez Stella Marquez Community Development Department CD:\zstella\affidavitposting.doc VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: z--jq�j TO: Planning Commission SPEAKER NAME: (Please print clearly) ADDRESS: 1\1 DATE: )?CIW /3 q ) -) d", r (Please print clearly) I would like to address the Planning Commission on the above stated item. Please have the Commission Minutes reflect my name and address as printed above Signature Note: This form is intended to assist the Chairman in ensuring that all persons wishing to address the Commission will have the opportunity to do so, and to ensure correct spelling of names in the Minutes. After completion, please submit your form to the Planning Commission Secretary. Thank you.