Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/9/1992Next Resolution No. 92-26 F."Iff SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AUDITORIUM 21865 E. COPLEY DRIVE DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 November 9, 1992 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 pm. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Flamenbaum, vice Chairman MacBride, Grothe, Li and Meyer MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is the time and place for the general public to address the members of the Planning Commission on any item that is within their jurisdiction, allowing the public an opportunity to speak on non-public hearing and non -agenda items. Please complete a Sneaker's Card for the recording Secretary (completion of this form is voluntary). There is a five minute maximum time limit when addressing the Planning Commission. 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: 1. Minutes of September 14, October 12 and October 26, 1992 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: 2. Planned Sign Program No. 92-2: A request to develop a Planned Sign Program for an existing Business Center. Location: Walnut Business Center 20418 Walnut Drive Applicant: James V. Camp, Burke Commercial Development 412 Corporate Park Dr., Ste 210, Irvine, CA Owner: Cornerstone'Partners, Walnut, Ltd. 412 Corporate Park Dr., Ste. 130 Irvine, CA 92714 Environmental Determination: Categorically Exempt Section 15301, Class 1 (g) INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: Verbal status report on major projects. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Staff - Administrative Meeting Review Planning Commissioners ADJOURNMENT: November 23, 1992 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION . SEPTEMBER 14, 1992 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Chairman Flamenbaum. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Meyer, Li, Grothe, Vice Chairman MacBride, and Chairman Flamenbaum. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, and Associate Planner Robert Searcy PUBLIC HEARINGS: CDD/DeStefano opened the public hearing and reported that as a result of the f erendum filed against the General Plan the City Attorney advises all pubic hearing matters be continued to September 28, 1992. The commission continued all public hearing agenda items to September 28, 1992. INFORMATION: Discussion ensued regarding the General Plan status, process and project review during the period preceding the conclusion of the referendum. ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/Flamenbaum announced a meeting at Brea Civic Center on Wednesday, September 16, 1992, at 6:30 p.m. in Rm. A regarding 277 acres within Brea's Tonner Canyon, up for a residential development. 28 additional acres may also be up for development. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 7:38 p.m. Respectively, James DeStefano Secretary Attest: Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 1992 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Chairman Flamenbaum. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Meyer, Grothe, Li, Vice Chairman MacBride, and Chairman Flamenbaum. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, Assistant City Attorney Bill Curley, Deputy City Attorney Craig Fox, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. CONSENT CALENDAR: CDD/DeStefano recommended that approval of the Minutes of September 14, 1992 be postponed to the Minutes of next meeting because a copy of those minutes were Sept. 14 & 28, not included in all of the Commissioner's packets. 1992 The Commission concurred. Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Minutes of September 28, 1992, as presented. OLD BUSINESS: CDD/DeStefano requested the City Attorney to give the Commission an update on the issues pertaining CUP 89-528 and to the referendum petition. DR 92-03 DCA/Curley reported that the proponents of the referendum petition have brought suit against the City, and are attempting to get a temporary, restraining order seeking to preclude some or all issuance of building permits. As the matter proceeded, it was finally stipulated that the City would act under Ordinance No. 4, the emergency ordinance in place that mimics the OPR extension that the City had. Therefore, the resolutions approved tonight will be amended, to reflect the findings that are set forth in Ordinance No. 4. CDD/DeStefano explained that Ordinance No. 4 (1992), which was adopted by the City Council in September, contains two clauses: (1) the Commission's approval action must include a finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan; and (2) the Commission's approval action must include a finding that there is a substantial probability that the project will not be detrimental to, or interfere with, the adopted General Plan. Therefore, the City can proceed with every project on tonight's agenda, and with all of the projects contemplated for the next several meetings. Staff will await further direction from October 12, 1992 Page 2 the City Attorney's office, and/or the courts, on the referendum issue. AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the request for approval -to amend -.existing Conditional - Use Permit 89-528 and Development Review 92-3. The applicant is requesting to construct a new Burger King Restaurant with drive-through facilities. A revised site plan has been prepared, by the applicant, which takes into account the concerns expressed by the Commission at the last public hearing. However, staff feels that the following items have not been adequately addressed: the concrete sidewalk, on the site that borders the carwash, still remains, and.has not been changed to landscaping, as was directed; staff does not feel that the indicated pedestrian access from Grand Ave., to the carwash, is possible because of the grade elevation; and the concerns regarding the entrance to the site have not been addressed. These outstanding issues have not yet been reviewed by the City Engineer. It is recommended that the Commission approve Resolution 92-18, Resolution 92- 19, Development Review 92-3, and amendment CUP 89528, with the listed conditions, and with direction that the applicant conform the site plan to the conditions and directions given by the Planning commission. AP/Searcy then read the following corrections, as presented by the City Attorney, to the Findings of, Fact, of the draft Resolutions: part B, Resolution, item 3, of Resolution 92-18 and 92-19, will read, "The Planning commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole, including the findings set forth below, and the changes and alteration which have been incorporated into and condition upon the proposed project set forth in the application, there is no evidence before this Planning Commission that the project proposed herein will have the potential for adverse affect on wildlife resources or the habitat .upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse affects contained in section 753.5d of Title 14 of California Code Regulations."; item 5, of Resolution 92-18 and 92-19, will read, "Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Commission, in conformance with Ordinance No. 4 (1992), of the City of Diamond Bar, hereby finds as follows:"; item 5, subsection (a), of Resolution 92-18 and 92-19, will remain the same but subsection (b) will now read, "Substantial evidence exist, considering the record as a whole, to the October 12, 1992 Page 3 project as proposed and conditioned herein, will not be detrimental or interfere with the adopted General Plan."; and item 8, of Resolution 92-19, and item 6 of Resolution 92-18, is to be deleted because it is a,California Code procedure that is. only applicable at the City Council level, and not at the Planning Commission level.. C/Grothe stated that he would prefer that either the City Engineer review the project before the Commission condition the project, or condition the project that approval has to be obtained from the City Engineer. He then stated that since the concrete sidewalk, on the site that borders the carwash, now leads somewhere, it can remain. He also stated that he'! would like to have a I foot candle as a minimum lighting level on the site. C/Meyer made the following comments: the Commission need only provide direction, from a policy standpoint, that a "landing" be created, and the specifics can be left to the City Engineer; there needs to be a condition attached to the lot, restricting the off site sign; and specific reference to the name of the fast food establishment, as indicated in Resolution 92-19, item 5, under Planning Division Conditions, should be eliminated, and referred to generically. C/Grothe requested staff to, review the original conditions of approval because he was under the impression that one of the original conditions was that.any one of these three lots, left vacant, was too be landscaped. Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve Resolution 92- 18, as amended by staff. DCA/Curley, in response to C/Mey I er's concern for the off-site sign, stated that he is comfortable with the way it is presently conditioned. Motion was made by VC/MacBride and seconded by C/Grothe to approve Resolution 92-19, as amended by staff, and with the following proviso: the applicant shall provide a lighting plan, which provides - f or a minimum of 1.0 foot candles over the entire parcel; the applicant shall provide the City with drawings for the Grand Ave. entrance, incorporating the driveway entrance, the "flat" landing area, and the sidewalk area, to be designed pursuant to the approval of the City Engineer; and October 12, 1992 Page 4 that the words "Burger King" be deleted and replaced by the word "fast food". C/Meyer stated that he would prefer that the project be -conditioned to be adequately lighted for security measures, to be. approved by the Sheriffs Department and the City Engineer, as opposed to arbitrarily requiring 1.0 foot candle. C/Li concurred. C/Grothe stated that ordinances, in other cities, are usually written requiring either an average foot candle, usually. higher than the 5.0 foot candle range, across the lot, or to have a -minimum foot candle, which is what he prefers. He stated that staff could be requested to review ordinances from other cities, and bring back an appropriate study at the next meeting. Chair/ Flamenbaum proposed that the condition either be changed to adequate, lighting, or request the City Engineer - to come up with an appropriate standard because he is not able to quantify 1.0 foot candle. C/Meyer inquired if the applicant feels that a 1.0 foot candle across the entire site can be achieved. Charles Cobb, representing the applicant, stated that their engineer has indicated that he feels. that 1.0 foot candle can be achieved. The Commission voted on the Motion made by VC/MacBride and seconded by C/Grothe to approve Resolution 92-19, as amended by staff, and with the following proviso: the applicant shall provide a lighting plan, which provides for a minimum of 1.0 foot candles over the entire parcel; the applicant shall provide the City with drawings for the Grand Ave. entrance, incorporating the driveway entrance, the "flat" landing area, and the sidewalk area, to be designed pursuant to the approval of the City Engineer; and that the words "Burger King" be deleted and replaced by the word "fast food". AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Li , Grothe, and VC/MacBride. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Flamenbaum. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. The Motion CARRIED. CDD/DeStef ano stated that Hardy Strozier, of the NEW BUSINESS: Planning Associates, would present the proposed the October 12, 1992 Page 5 South Point South Point Master Plan, an area of about 170 Master Plan acres, generally located north of Pathfinder, and Project west of Brea Canyon Road. The City encouraged the developers, who had indicated an interest, beginning last year, to develope a master plan, in order to process their projects to the City. The City has hired Hardy Strozier to provide the overall project management, coordination and consultation to the City. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 7:52 p.m. to allow the Commission time to review the displayed graphics of the project. Chair/Flamenbaum reconvened the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Hardy Strozier, of the Planning Associates, outlined the proposal for the South Point Master Plan Project. During the course of his ,presentation, Mr. Strozier outlined the master plan alternatives, utilizing the displayed graphics. He stated that all State and School District permits have been approved, including the certified EIR. However, there may be additional permits required from the Fish and Game Department of the State of California, and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, regarding filling operations in Sandstone Canyon. He then reviewed the development proposal as follows: a 30 acre South Point Middle School site; a 40 acre Arciero single family residential tract (#32400), for 93 lots, with an average minimize size lot of 7,200 sq. ft.; a 48 acre RNP residential subdivision tract (#51407), for 92 lots, with a minimum size lot of 8,000 sq. ft.; a 30 acre commercial site that would have 10 to 15 acres of property transferred to the City as part of a development agreement and vesting transaction between these developers; a 26 acre park site dedicated and transferred to the City, from the RnP development interest, in which the City would be granted about 10 acres of usable park area; a transferring of approximately 2 acres of land, known as Larkstone Park, from the City to the School District for South Point School purposes; an acquisition, of the City, for approximately 4 acres of Water District land; there is 6 acres of City/County right-of-way, that would be part of a transfer to Arciero, RnP, and the City's commercial interests; and the proposed project entitlements entails a development agreement, a zone change, a Master Development Plan, and perhaps a CUP for Hillside Management. He then summarized the four alternatives, to the proposed development, as October 12, 1992 Page 6 submitted to the Commission.. The difference between the alternatives relates to the land use potential in the commercial site, the linkage to the South Point Middle School, the through access of Larkstone -Drive, the amount of usable park acreage, and the position, on the site, of the permanent South Point Middle School. Mr. Strozier stated that their objective is to present this proposal to the Planning Commission, for review, in November of 1992, and to the City Council by January of 1993. Chair/ Flamenbaum inquired if, from an engineering standpoint, various portions of the project can be extricated so that if there is a problem with the blue line stream, South Point School can still move the dirt to the Arciero property without impacting the blue line stream. Hardy Strozier explained that the objective is to move this request through the Commission to the City Council as a total Master Plan application, as was submitted by the property owners. The project is inextricably tied together by it's master plan of grading, and it's master plan of land exchanges. Hardy Strozier, in response to a series of Commission inquiries, made the following comments: The Walnut Unified School District is desirous to move the stockpile of dirt, and negotiate a land transaction now owned by the City of Diamond Bar; the City wants to facilitate a master plan for the 15 acre commercial site, and the 15 acre park area; RnP is desirous to develop 92 lots, with a land trade of City property to school property; Arciero want to develop 93 lots, and obtain land from the City for the would be excess right-of-way; there is not yet an application, before the City, by Mr. Patel, but it is anticipated that he will soon file a subdivision map; there has not been any comment made from the environmentalists regarding Sandstone Canyon; the School District officials, and the City of Diamond Bar feel that.Larkstone Drive should not be a through road; the Master Plan Project will comply with the Hillside Ordinance; and this project will be presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission for their- input to the passive/active recreation area. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 9:07 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:25 p.m. CONTINUED CDD/DeStefano presented the staff report regarding October 12, 1992 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARING: the request, by the applicant Brilliant Signs, Inc., to develop a Planned Sign Program for the Planned Sign Sunset Village, located at 1241 S.Grand Avenue. Program No. 92-1 Staf f presented slides, during the staff report, of the variety of signs presently existing at the commercial shopping center. It is recommended that the commission approve the Planned Sign Program, the Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the attached' resolution. One of the conditions listed is that the Commission approve not only Exhibit "All, the applicants proposal, but also Exhibit "A -lot I which is the modifications outlined by the City staff. Barbara Cohen, with Brilliant Signs, inc., stated that the landlord would like to build a canopy, and extend the fascia to make room for three signs. The applicant is willing to make any changes deemed appropriate. AP/Searcy, in response to C/Meyer's inquiry, stated that staff sought to allow the applicant to put one sign on the fascia, that would be centered, and then two additional signs located under the canopy, so that it is more compatible with the rest of the fascia in the center. The Public Hearing was declared opened. Hearing no testimony, the Public Hearing was declared closed. Following discussion, the.Commission concurred that the design of the sign needs to be more consistent with the prevailing style of the center. Chair/Flamenbaum requested the following: the words "the Orange city code", on page 3, of Exhibit "A", item E. l.a., should be changed to read "the Diamond Bar city code."; and item H.2, Immoral or Unlawful Advertising, on page 5, Exhibit "A", should be deleted. DCA/Fox explained that the document expresses liability and obligations between tenants and landlords. The City's approval is simply to the concept, and not to what the landlord confines the tenant to. AP/Searcy stated that staff suggests that the reference reading, "allowing this to extend for a period of five years", should be omitted. Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by VC/MacBride October 12® 1992 Page 8 and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve Planned Sign Program No. 92-1, subject to the deletion of the five year term, as indicated by staff, and that page 8, of the applicants submittal, be changed to provide for "a maximum 30 inch high parapet on top of the existing fascia, constructed of similar material aterial that would accommodate at least two signs, and would provide for the total of three signs, within the area that they have designated." The special condition in Exhibit "A-111, subsection 1, that reads, "Wall signs for units E & G, shall share the angled fascia centered vertically and horizontally and not exceed 80% of the angled fascia length.", should be deleted. CUP 92-5 Chair/ Flamenbaum stated that, - because he leases DR 92-2 space in the adjacent building to this project, he will abstain from discussion and voting of this item. Chair/Flamenbaum left the auditorium at 10:00 p.m. AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the request, by the applicant Gary Simning, for approval to demolish the existing Arco gasoline service station, located at 3302 S. Diamond Bar Blvd., and to construct a new 2,700 square foot, 24 hour AM/PM mini -mart. The proposed convenience store use will sell gasoline and miscellaneous products, including the sale of beer and wine for off-site consumption. The .89 acre site is in the Commercial Planned Development Zone (CPD). The Development Review application is required for all new commercial construction to determine architectural compatibility. He reviewed the application analysis, as presented in the staff report. It is' recommended that the Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit No. 92-5, Development Review No. 92-2, Findings of Fact and conditions as listed within the attached Resolutions. C/Meyer noted that the Sign Ordinance may be too restrictive since most sign plans or programs, before the Commission, have some sort of exception to the existing code. AP/Searcy, in response to C/Meyer, stated that, to assure that the lot line adjustment would not create a burden to the existing office building and create a deficient parking standard, staff required them to turn in plans for both project sites. The completion of one project should dictate the other. october.12, 1992 Page 9 C/Meyer stated that one of the conditions of approval should require that the underground tanks be removed in. the event that the service station use is abandoned for six months. C/Grothe stated that the signs on the new building ought to conform to the Sign Ordinance. He also objected to the compact parking stalls. The Public Hearing wasdeclaredopened.. Gary Simning, representing Atlantic Richfield, gave the. following responses to the Commission's comments: even though the size of the monument sign deviates from the City's standards, it is required by State Law, and is not an option; there is only one sign on each side of the building, which is in conformance to the Sign Ordinance; Arco will be reconfiguring the parking lot, and the work on the parking lot will be completed prior to beginning construction; and, as a matter of policy, we remove the tanks within 6 months, but we will not object to have that as one of the conditions. C/Li inquired how much tax, this proposed project, will generated to the City. I Gary Simning stated that it is estimated that this new facility will generate approximately $50,000 a year in taxes, to the City, which is an increase of about $30,000 a year. C/Meyer suggested that the trash enclosures would be better 'located more internally within the project site, as opposed to locating it near the drive approach. Gary Simning stated that the applicant is willing to locate the trash enclosures internally, as so indicated on the original submittal. In response to C/Meyer's inquiry, he stated that the owner of the adjacent office building prefers the landscaping, over the block wall. Hearing no further testimony, the Public Hearing was declared closed. AP/Searcy pointed out that the City Engineer requires a contribution to traffic mitigation programs. This will probably be a forthcoming requirement for this project as it goes through plan check. October 12, 1992 Page 10 Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded.by C/Li and CARRIED to recommend approval of the Resolution for Development Review 9-02, subject to Ordinance No. 4. Chair/Flamenbaum abstained. Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED to approve Resolution 92-22 for CUP 92- 5, subject to Ordinance No.4, and with the addition of condition #12 to indicate that, "If the project is abandoned for more than 180 consecutive days, that all underground vessels would be removed from the site.", and condition #13 to indicate that "The traffic impact fees, as per the negative declaration, would be paid as required by the City Engineer." Chair/Flamenbaum abstained. Chair/Flamenbaum returned to the auditorium at 10:22 p.m. ZCA 92-2 CDD/DeStefano presented the staff report. Pursuant to comments received from the Planning Commission Hillside at previous public hearings and additional staff Management analysis, a revised Hillside Management Ordinance Ordinance is attached for the commission's consideration. The revised ordinance has been prepared with the assistance of Mr. Horst Schorr, acting as the City's consultant to. the development of this project. Content changes from the Interim ordinance are redline to identify new material, and strikeout to identify deletions. A revised slope density formula and graphic is provided, as well as further explanations of text through the use of graphics. It is recommended that the Commission review and adopt the attached Hillside Management Ordinance. Chair/ Flamenbaum inquired if the consultant Horst Schorr likes the Ordinance. VC/MacBride made the following corrections: page 1, bottom line, correct the spelling of "complement"; and page 2, top paragraph, correct the spelling of "reveqetation". He inquired why item 2, under section 5, page 2, has been deleted. CDD/DeStefano responded that the consultant Horst Schorr has previously indicated that he approves of the draft Ordinance. The only area that may differ from the Commission's opinion is that he concurs, with the Director opinion, that a slope density formula is not the key issue in terms of determining how many dwelling units can be developed on a given hillside. With respect to the deletion of section 5, item 2, page 2, because October 12, 1992 Page 11 staff had difficult in determining what real relevance the remnants of a wild fire would have on grading, it was deleted. VC/MacBride suggested that the sketch, for conventional grading, on page 15, should be better drawn to illustrate it's effects. C/Li noted that the graph on page 9, subsection A. Calculating Average Slopes, does not. indicate a curve. CDD/DeStefano explained that subsection A has an incomplete graphic. The graphic indicates the percent of land, to be maintained in it's natural state, and another access that deals with the percent of average slope. However, it does not direct the reader toward any particular conclusion. The graphic is one that has been utilized in the City of La Habra Heights, they incorporate a third "line" that deals with the size of the parcel. The difference between La Habra Heights and Diamond Bar is that La Habra Heights indicates the largest parcel as being five acres, and the parcels in Diamond Bar typically start at 15 acres. The whole issue of calculating the average slope, and what is done with it in terms of slope density, is one that has been difficult to respond to. Most cities have some arbitrary formula wherein a certain average slope equates to a certain percentage of the lot to remain in it's natural state. The difficulty with that is that there is no explanation as to why this formula is better than. some other formula, therefore, it is difficult to determine if it is applicable to Diamond Bar, or if Diamond Bar should create our own criteria. C/Meyer explained that the standards at La Habra Heights are applicable after the subdivision, and that each subdivided parcel has to comply with these standards. After the five acres, then 80% of the site has to be left in an open area, if the average slope is above 50%. He suggested that the City would be more responsive to community feelings to reduce density in hillside areas, and to good planning practices, by setting a density formula that correlates to the average slope of lots, in which the steeper the slope, the larger the subdivided parcel has to be. CDD/DeStefano referred the Commission to the examples, presented in the staff report, of formulas used in other cities. He explained how the formulas are calculated. October 12, 1992 FT-r-rTJ5W,q C/Li noted that, if the natural grading is used for calculating average slopes, then it appears that the developer is being penalized for using land. form grading because the average slope becomes greater, and the percentage of land to be maintained, in the natural state, becomes greater. CDD/DeStefano stated that, if the Ordinance can be interpreted that way, it is the opposite of what is trying to be achieved. The average slope calculation is meant to be on the existing natural grade, as determined by the formula. C/Meyer suggested that the formula be based on the existing pad or on an approved pad, and that the formulas be worked out at the time that the map is being submitted. The Ordinance is taking away design incentives because it is too finitely written. The standards should be flexible in terms of the hillside. C/Li, noting that subcategory B, Slope Category, items 1-4, provides the technique to comply with this code, and subcategory A, provides a formula, stated that the two paragraphs conflict with each other. He suggested that the Director or the Planning commission be given discretionary review. CDD/DeStefano stated that he had originally proposed to eliminate the slope density formulas to calculate the average slope, and to keep the slope category discussion, but not relate density to the average slope. The commission concurred that sub section A, Calculating Average Slopes, should be deleted. They also concurred to table the matter to the next meeting, and that any further Commis ' sion comments should be directed to staff before the next meeting. The Public Hearing was declared opened. Hearing no testimony, the Public Hearing was declared closed. ZCA 92-3 CDD/DeStefano recommended that the Commission review the revised CM Ordinance. and adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the revised list of permitted and conditionally permitted land uses. CDD/DeStefano stated that there should be a clause added, to become subsection E, on page 159, that October 12, 1992 Page 13 would read, "Properties within the CM Zone, and. located at the southeast corner of Grand Ave. and Golden Springs Drive, shall submit a planned development/master plan for City review and approval." This clause would implement the planned development requirement within the General Plan for that portion of our community. The Public Hearing was declared opened. Hearing no testimony, the Public Hearing was declared closed. CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/Meyer's inquiries, explained. that grading projects were excluded because they are covered under other permits already required by the City, and they don't require a Conditional Use Permit. The reason that farming is not permitted on vacant CM Zone properties is because staff does not feel that it would be an appropriate use for the five CM zone areas presently in the City. Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the revised list of permitted and conditionally permitted land uses, and as modified by staff, on page 159, new subsection E which outlines a Planned Development requirement for properties located at the southern corner of Grand Avenue and Golden Springs. INFORMATION: CDD/DeStefano informed the Commission of his decision ,in the following four Administrative Development Review items: approval an Mr. Toby's 8,700 square foot home in "The Country", on Shadow Canyon; continuance for Mr. Woo's proposal to add 3,700 square feet to his existing 3,700 square foot home because of engineering issues yet" to be resolved; approval of a 7,200 square foot home at Braided Mane; and approval of a 1,200 square foot addition to an existing 2,400 square foot home at 1519 Kiowa Crest. CDD/DeStefano informed the Commission that the City Council adopted an Interim Ordinance which severely restricts land uses permitted within the agricultural zoned property, that is also general planned as agriculture. The only area in the City that this applies to is our sphere of influence. CDD/DeStefano informed the Commission on the following: the Commission has received a copy of October 12, 1992 the TTC agenda; staff has provided the Commission with a copy of a memorandum entitled, "Current Status of Major Applications"; staff has also provided the Commission with a copy of staff's in- house log of projects that have been currently worked on or has recently been approved; and the City Council has awarded the construction contract for the Heritage Park Community Building project. C/Meyer stated that the Commission ought to commence reviewing the Development Code, to include the Sign Ordinance. CDD/DeStefano suggested that the Commission have study sessions to discuss the creation of a new Development Code. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Chair/ Flamenbaum informed the Commission that the California League of City Annual Conference is to be held on October 13, 1992. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by C/Meyer and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 11:28 p.m. Respectively, James DeStefano Secretary Attest: Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 26, 1992 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality,Management District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, -Diamond Bar, California.' PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Meyer. ROLL CALL: commissioners: Meyer, Grothe, Vice Chairman MacBride, and Chairman Flamenbaum. commissioner Li was absent. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Assistant City Attorney Bill Curley, Deputy City Attorney Craig Fox, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. MATTERS FROM Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig Lane, THE AUDIENCE: reminded the Commission that the referendum is a legal action, . and that they should be concerned about some of the legal stipulations. It was this Planning Commission that passed the General Plan with major revisions that have caused part of the problem regarding the referendum. Don Schad, residing at 1824 Shaded Wood Road, complimented the Planning Commission on the superb job done on the Tree Ordinance, prior to it's demise by the City Council. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Meyer requested that the minutes be continued.to the next meeting because he did not receive copies Minutes of within his packet. Sept.. 14 & Oct. 12,. 1992 Chair/Flamenbaum requested that the Minutes of October 12, 1992 be amended to accurately reflect that he voted against approval of Resolution 92-19. The commission concurred to continue the minutes of September 14, 1992, and October 12, 1992 to the next meeting. CONTINUED CDD/DeStefano presented the staff report regarding PUBLIC HEARINGS: a city initiated request to adopt hillside management standards. The City Council, in October ZCA 92-2 of 1990, adopted interim hillside management (Hillside standards which outlined a series of requirements Management and standards for developing and preserving Ordinance) hillside areas. There have been a few projects that.have been processed through the City system .under those development standards. Only one project, a 19 acre site on Derringer Lane, in "The Country", has been approved. Generally, the standards outline a much less typical linear cut and fill method of grading, utilizing a much more October 26® 1992 Page 2 softened approach using contours, and a technique called land form grading. The Planning Commission has reviewed the document for the past couple of months, and revisions have been incorporated to the document. The only major issue remaining issue before the Planning Commission is to determine whether or not the Commission desires the inclusion of a slope density formula and/or a related preservation of natural area formula. certain Planning Commission members have indicated a desire for a slope density formula as a means to respond to the community's desire to reduce density in hillside areas. Most hillside cities have slope density formulas, but can not articulate why those ordinances were created, or how the formulas were computed. Staff believes that the overall design of the hillside should be determined by, the General Plan Land use classification for the hillside area, and, as a result of site characteristics,. environmental factors, and the city's development review authority. A slope density formula is not necessary in terms of determining the overall best land form and development for a hillside area. Staff has attached copies of slope density formulas ' from nearby hillside cities for comparative purposes. Staff recommend that the Commission review the revised Hillside Management ordinance and recommend that the Ordinance be approved without a slope density formula and forwarded to the City Council for consideration. Chair/Flamenbaum inquired if staff is recommending that the Commission approve the revised Hillside Management Ordinance without the formula for calculating average slope, or without slope categories found on page 9. CDD/DeStefano stated that it is staff's recommendation that no such calculating formula be a part of the ordinance, but that calculating the average slope should remain, without creating the penalty of decreasing density based upon, that average slope. It is recommended that the incomplete graphic on page 9 be deleted, but that the slope categories on page 9 and 10 remain. The Public Hearing was declared opened. Max Maxwell recalled that such a formula was suggested by GPAC but later eliminated from the General Plan. Therefore, there is nothing in the General Plan that has a correlation relating to the density of a development on a hillside. The October 26, 1992 Page 3 citizens want the hillsides preserved, and a simplified formula should be included-. Barbara Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hill Road, stated.that she moved to Diamond Bar because there was green land, and she would be opposed to any suggestion that limits open space. Clair Harmony, residing at 24139 Afamado Lane, inquired how the Ordinance will protect the ridgelines as related to the Bramalea California, Inc. project and Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) . Chair/Flamenbaum explained to Mr. Harmony that the Planning ing Commission has not been presented with any proposed plan for development on the Bramalea property, in regards to the MOU. The Ordinance does attempt to address ridgelines, as well as the general grading characteristics of hills, to restore them to as natural state as possible. The Public Hearing was declared closed. C/Meyer distributed his memorandum regarding his proposed modifications to the draft Hillside Management Ordinance. The following is a summarization of his concerns: hillsides cannot support the densities of flat land; the proposed special development standards, of 10%, could impose significant costs to development; the development standards should not become applicable until the average slope of the property is at least 25%; the General Plan defines significant slope as 25% and above, with a policy for preserving open space, and reducing grading practices and removal of dirt; land form grading requires the displacement of more material, than is generally required with conventional grading practices, and achieves a smaller building pad; the proposed Hillside Management Ordinance does not include a procedure for modification of the standards; the modification procedure should include provisions for public input and should have clearly defined goals that the City would expect a developer to aspire to; there should be some findings of fact that the approval body must make in order to grant a modification of the development standards; a slope density formula should be created to establish the policy that the size of the lot shall be correlated to the average slope of the property, recognizing that there is a difference between flat land and hillside development. He suggested that the City focus in on a community that already has the experience for hillside development, that meets our October 26® 1992 Page 4 goal or vision for our hillsides, instead of recreating the wheel. C/Grothe stated that it was his understanding that, once the technique is learned, land form grading moves considerably less dirt, and costs considerably less money than conventional grading. He believes the special development standard should stay at 10%. The lot size is not near as important as the preservation of the lots and the natural grade. As much of the land, as possible, 'should be left ungraded, getting away from the standard grading cuts and fills. C/Meyer.stated that he concurs with the importance of preserving the natural topography, and getting away from the typical cut and fill method of grading. However, he concurs with the concept used by the City of La Habra Heights, which has very minimal grading standards. Their concept is to move the minimum amount of dirt possible to allow development to occur. They allow and accommodate hillside development, and maintain a significant amount of open area. It is a -balance that has to be achieved parcel by parcel. Because most projects will not be able to comply with the standards in the Hillside Management ordinance, a forum for modification must be created on a site specific review. staff is envisioning the CUP process for such a forum. However, there are no specific standards in place to review such variances. CDD/DeStefano confirmed the existance of a CUP process to propose a development within a hillside area. The Hillside Ordinance has various discussion points that allow for design review by the Planning Commission or the City Council. It is designed more for the initial subdivision. There is also a Development Review ordinance that sets forth compatibility characteristics, and architectural and design characteristics. it is specifically set aside for the final product. Both Ordinances are created as design ordinances, and both have flexibility for the unique situation that each lot in Diamond Bar is going to present. Following discussion, Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED to approve the Hillside Management ordinance without a slope density formula, and deleting the graphic on page 9. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, VC/MacBride, and Chair/Flamenbaum. October 26, 1992 Page 5 NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Li. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8:15 p.m. to be reconvened in Room CC -2 for a study session on the Presentation on South Pointe Master Plan. Chair/Flamenbaum reconvened the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Presentation CDD/DeStefano presented the staff report regarding of South the proposed 170 acre South Pointe Master Plan, Pointe located north of Pathfinder Road, west of Brea Master Plan Canyon Road, south of the residential construction nearest Colima, and east of the City . property boundary limits. He introduced the following individuals: Councilmen Werner; Hardy Strozier, Project Manager for the Master Plan; Jan Dabney, representing RnP Development; Mike Church, representing Arciero & Sons;'Armed Patel, with the Sasak Corporation; Mr. Ronald Hockwalt, District Superintendent of the Walnut Valley Unified School District (WVUSD); and Clay Chapmut, Assistant Superintendent of the WVUSD. The site is comprised of the following 5 major property owners, each with a basic desire to develop this area; the School District, property owner of 31 acres, and desires a permanent middle school; the City of Diamond Bar is the owner of a 7 acre strip along Brea Canyon Road, is in a lease purchase contract for the 4 acre Water District site, and is the owner of the 2.7 acre Larkstone Park site, with a desire to resolve the issue of the trade of the land with the WVUSD; RnP Development, owner of 78 acres, south of the School District site, desires to develop a 40 acre residential, 15 acre commercial, and approximately 25 acre open space product; Arciero & Sons, owner of approximately 41 acres, east of the school property, desires to construct 93 homes and a 6 acre commercial site; and Mr. Patel, owner of 7 acres, adjacent to Morning Sun, desires to develop his acreage. The City saw this desire for development as an opportunity to master plan 5 different sites, instead of having 5 independent developments. The WVUSD has a 400,000 cubic yard Hill on their site that needs to be removed in order to construct the permanent middle school. The fill is to be relocated on the Arciero & Sons property. The City and the WVUSD desire to resolve the issue of Larkstone Park. The developers have an interest in developing the vacant land that, they own, and have a proposal, generally, to merge several public and private interests into :a October 26, 1992 Page 6 development with an opportunity for public benefit. The developments provide an opportunity to resolve the traffic problems that exist from buses and automobiles traveling Larkstone and Lemon to get to the school site, and resolves the need, of a looped water system and storm drain improvements for the permanent school site. Mr. Patel, by participating in this overall master plan, has an opportunity to link Diamond Bar, utilizing utilities and grading. The City has an opportunity to not only resolve the various issues, but to receive some future economic benefit. The developers propose the development of acreage for a commercial center site of 15+ acres, and a recreational site of 25 acres, resolving a deficiency in our parks and recreation system. There is an opportunity to resolve, traffic issues in terms of needed signalization, and the widening of Brea Canyon Road. The issues are significant vacant land, particularly on the RnP property, which has been identified in the General Plan, as a biological resource, and the Arciero property, which both contain significant Oak and Walnut woodland. Though the acreage, has been vacant for many years, it is privately held and has development rights. Through a variety of State laws, the developers have the ability to request further development rights from the City. CDD/DeStefano stated that the principal developers will now briefly discuss their project proposal. Chair/Flamenbaum inquired of the location and the size of the proposed secondary road. He also inquired if there were other benefits to the City to tie all the parcels together, as opposed to separately considering the South Pointe Middle School Project and the Arciero Development. CDD/DeStefano stated that the proposed secondary road would likely become a residential collector street, located off of Brea Canyon Road (generally, across from Chuck -E -Cheese), traversing the RnP area, and heading to the cul-de-sac at the end of Larkstone Drive. He then explained that the benefit, to the City, of tying all the parcels together is that the utility systems would be looped together (such as the streets, the storm drains, and the water lines), resolving the proposed land use patterns at one time, and recreational park spare needs, grading pattern.and site planning. Mr. Patel requested CDD/DeStefano to summarize his proposed project. October 26, 1992 Page 7 CDD/DeStefano stated that Mr. Patel owns 7 acres of property adjacent to Morning Sun, which is in the County area adjacent to the western edge of Diamond 'Bar. He is proposing a project that subdivides his 7 acres into 26 lots, with lot sizes of 8,000 feet to 9,600 feet, and pad sizes of about 6,900 to 7,500 feet. The area is currently. zoned up to 6DU/acre, but is classified by the General Plan at 3DU/acre. Jan Dabney, Senior Partner of JC Dabney & Associates, representing RnP Development and Arciero presented the general concept of the master plan, stated that RnP asked him to approach the City, 2 years ago, on the development potential of the 78 acres, not knowing at that time, that Mr. Arciero has been in the process for three years of trying to develop his parcel. RnP approached City Manager Van Nort, as well as CDD/DeStefano, to indicate interest in meeting with the Council members, -on .a one by one basis, to see what they felt the property warranted, and what the community needed. Mr. Dabney, and one of the then owners, met with the City Manager and two Council members at a time throughout the day. Several concerns were brought up by each Council members, many of which were environmental concerns, and some of which were concerns with the traffic impact on the Larkstone surrounding area due to the school development. Mr. Dabney indicated that they had also met with the WVUSD. The Council, as a whole, was basically concerned with the development of the South Pointe Middle.School. After talking with the Council members, which included Councilmen Nardella at that time, felt that consideration for recreational facilities, traffic mitigation, etc. was a necessary part of this development.. There was a strong concern about the development in the area, based on what the developers could do for the community, and how the community could benefit from our development. They requested that we produce a focus biological study on Sandstone Canyon before they made any decision whether or not there was development potential there or not. We provided a preliminary biological review for the Canyon, prepared by Robert Bein, Williams and Frost, an environmental company, not as a. public document, but as a courtesy to help the Council evaluate the area. City Manager Van Nort and CDD/DeStefano suggested that we take the 170 acres, remove all the property ownership lines, and approach this development, based on the 170 gross acres, and let the residential lots or parks fall out within the development. The WVUSD basically agreed that this October 26, � x.992 Page 8 was a fine concept, as long as the school was situated on the purchased property. The City, Arciero, and RnP, basically got together and planned what they felt was a possible development _.sequence for .specific environmental issues. We went through many numerous conceptual type configurations on development, never based on any specific number* of residential units, acreage of commercial, or of park, but rather based on the concept of where these items should be within the 170 acres. The City and WVUSD do desire to work together within this master plan to create additional benefit, not specifically for • the school, or specifically for the City treasury, but for the community at large. The Arciero Development, as of today, has been in the approval process for about five years. They sold property to the school district, with the understanding that they would remove the 400,000 additional yardage off the site. Mr. Arciero presented subdivision plans to the City but had trouble with the approval .process because there was not enough benefit to the community. One of the problems that the Arciero Development had was that his secondary access road would have to either continue through Larkstone Drive, or down Rapid View. Mr. Arciero was asked to join with RnP, the City, and the WVUSD to go through this master plan, thus removing the impact of his traffic out of the Rapid View cul-de-sac, and improving the internal circulation. Mr Patel's submitted map gives through access and emergency access across the entire project without going through the existing subdivision within the City. CDD/DeStefano stated that Hardy Strozier, the City's Project Manager, will merge all the plans together and begin to resolve some of - the differences between the maps. Dr. Hockwalt, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum, stated that the design plan presented, for the Middle School, has been submitted and approved by the State. Jan Dabney stated that the proposed RnP development, of it's 77.8 acres, has 26 acres of park, 22 acres of commercial; and approximately 92 residential lots, with the transferring of land in which RnP obtains 2.8 acres, and transfers 26 acres of property to the City for parks facilities. The proposal would incorporate a secondary street out to Morning Sun. In response to C/Meyer, he stated that the proposed density for the RnP proposal is October 26, 1992 Page 9 1.53 units per acre, based upon the gross of the residential area. In response to Chair/Flamenbaum, Jan Dabney stated that the EIR incorporates the entire 170 acre project, including some parameters of the School District. VC/MacBride inquired how much of the "blue) line" stream will be preserved with this , development project. Jan Dabney stated that, in this proposal, the blue line stream that runs to the Canyon would be entirely filled in. In the 27 acre park site, 15 acres of the park site would be set aside in its natural setting, and include additional plantings, off the developed area, and transferred into that natural setting. One of the requests of the Council was that we ensure that the open space and open area, including the two areas that belong to the homeowners association currently, have a means for migration for any animal life. - C/Meyer inquired if this project would comply with the concept in the Hillside Management Ordinance. Jan Dabney noted that the project has many grades that exceed 10%. With landform grading, a lot of yardage most be moved to preserve as much existing features as possible, yet .still yield' enough density to warrant the additional cost of grading.. It is a common misconception that landform grading actually is an economical way to approach this development project. Landform grading gives the original appearance of the project, keeping the ridgelines and, hillsides intact, but it also drives up the costs. We have, throughout this project, used land form grading. The master plan team has done all the hydrology. studies, traffic studies, and drainage studies. This development will resolve some of the drainage problems existing on Larkstone Drive. CDD/DeStefano summarized the proposed project as follows: a 31 acre School District site with a permanent facility; a 25 acre park or open space site; a 30 acre commercial site; and about 85 acres of residential development that would house approximately 220 dwelling units. Hardy Strozier, of the Planning Associates, stated that a Master Development Plan, a Development Agreement outlining the different trade offs and October 26® 1992 Page 10 benefits to the City and the developer, and a full EIR will come to the City for review. it is anticipated that the EIR can be published around mid November of 1992. This project can realistically come.before the Planning Commission some time mid January of 1993. Chair/Plamenbaum inquired why the school's improvements have to be incumbered by the rest of this project. Hardy Strozier explained that the school's EIR contemplates the Arciero project. If the school district were to change it's project, another EIR would be required, which would further delay the construction of South Pointe Middle School. Furthermore, the various water systems, needed to serve the school, comes through the Arciero and RnP properties. Also, the secondary circulation system, that would access the school, is viable and necessary. CDD/DeStefano stated that the City Council, as indicated by Mr. Dabney, has previewed this project, the School Board previewed the project about 2 weeks* ago, and the Parks and Recreation Commission, and the Traffic and Transportation Commission will have a similar introductory session of this Master Plan. The City staff, the City consultant, and the Development members are available to answer any questions. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 9:40 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:50 p.m. Don Schad, Vice President of the Homeowners Association, described Sandstone Canyon as a living biological laboratory because it has forms of vegetation found no place else, and it has everything [vegetation], in one place, that is scattered throughout Diamond Bar. Sandstone Canyon is our most precious gift in the City: the children love it; it maintains itself at no cost to any one; and many programs of all the sciences could be included just by retaining this for the citizens. He addressed the Commission regarding an alternative plan for Sandstone Canyon, and highlighted the following: a Children's Wilderness Museum; a nature trail; preserving the heritage trees; an astronomical observatory; educational programs; and the'Middle School. He beseeched the commission to see how magnificent the wilderness area is before making a determination. He October 26, 1992 Page it suggested that Sandstone Canyon be deeded to the Tonner Canyon Wilderness Conservancy. Max Maxwell informed the Commission that Mr. Schad has his own conservancy, the Tonner Canyon Wilderness Conservancy, and has the support from the other conservancy in Southern California. Clair Harmony inquired what will happen to the hillsides along Brea Canyon as a result of this project. He also inquired of the development plans for the City's property along Tonner Canyon, and how it ties into this project. Chair/Flamenbaum explained to Mr. Harmony that because the Planning Commission has not received any information regarding those areas, the Commission is unable to respond to his questions. Norman Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hills Road, stated the following: Williman J. Brock, in 1980, sold all the homes on top of the hill, and the land below is extremely unstable; the Pathfinder Homeowners Association owns the RnP land by Mr. Patel's property; and Mr. Patel only owns three house lots, not 7 acres, and pays homeowners dues. He also pointed out the LA County flood control easement by the blue line stream. Jan Dabney stated he has thoroughly reviewed the legal documents, and RnP owns the entire 78 acres. The two lots, indicated by Mr. Cushane, was originally owned by the Homeowners Association but these parcels were removed, by amendment to the Homeowner's documents, in 1982. Barbara Beach Cushane pointed out that the Homeowners Association pays taxes on this land, and has done so since 1983. We are required to assure that the grade does not fail. The State Department has required that we put thousands of dollars in escrow, so that if there is land slippage we are responsible to repair it. Jan Dabney also noted that there are no flood control easements, on the easterly side of RnP's 77.83 acres of property, as it approaches the blue line stream. Norman Beach Cushane stated that their property will be ruined, if this land is developed, because of the increase in noise and because of the effects of development. October 26, 1992 Page 12 Tom Van Winkle, a resident, inquired if there will be a noticed EIR scoping session. He stated that the area "All triangle should be included in the noticing radius because the area would be impacted by the increased traffic from this development. Hardy Strozier stated that a full EIR is being prepared. The draft EIR will be circulated to responsible agencies and residents, within the noticing radius, and given an opportunity to respond to the document, and raise issues. Ann Flesher, residing at 20647 Larkstone Drive, inquired of the intent to mitigate the problems on Larkstone Drive such as drainage, before the next rainfall, traffic, and vandalism to property from school children. Hardy Strozier explained that alternative plans were prepared in order to contemplate different scenarios for the EIR, such as through traffic, non -through traffic, recreation uses at different intensities, and so forth, so that the Commission gets the full range of development, and no development, opportunities in the area. Max Maxwell suggested that the impacts of CalTrans plans to widen the 57 freeway be considered in the EIR, as well as the plans to widen the Pathfinder bridge. Clair Harmony inquired if the intent is to put the proposed commercial area along the City property on Brea Canyon Road. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that it appears that there is a 27 to 30 acre commercial area proposed north of the proposed secondary road, and west on Brea Canyon Road. Barbara Beach Cushane inquired if a study was done to confirm that there are tenants for this proposed commercial area since so many commercial centers throughout the City have.vacancies. Jan Dabney stated that no study has been conducted. The proposed plan does not show any type of development on that commercial area. No one will spend millions of dollars to construct a commercial site, in this economy, only to have it sit vacant. CDD/DeStefano explained that the Draft EIR will consider a variety of conceptual alternatives, including a density substantially less than this October 26, 1992 Page 13 project, and a density more than this project, for study purposes. - The DEIR will show alternatives for commercial development in order to address various issues, including projected traffic patterns. Jan Dabney stated that the final development concept will be a product of the Planning Commission's, the Council's, and the public's input. George Berret, a member of the Pathfinder Homeowners Association, asked what process is used to select a member of the Planning Commission. Chair/ Flamenbaum explained that the commissioners are appointed by the City Council, and can be removed by the City Council. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 10:50 p.m. Respectively, James DeStefano Secretary Attest: Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman e ' �1! . * -Wy a'.,, tij VT i30 REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: CASE/FILE NUMBER: APPLICATION REQUEST: PROPERTY LOCATION: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: BACKGROUND: City of • • :. ReportPLANNING COMMISSION Staff 2 October 29, 1992 November 9, 1992. Planned Sign Program No. 92-2 A request to develop a Planned Sign Program for a business center. Walnut Business Center 20418 Walnut Drive Diamond Bar, CA,91765 Diversified Signs & Graphics 725 Eastwood Santa Ana, CA 92701 Cornerstone Partners Walnut, Ltd. 42 Corporate Park #130 Irvine, CA 92714 The applicants, Diversified Signs & Graphs and Cornerstone Partners Walnut, Ltd. , are requesting approval of .a Planned Sign Program for an existing business center, approximately 8. 67 acres, named Walnut Business Center. The project site is located within a M -1.5 -BE (Restricted Heavy Manufacturing -Billboard Exclusion) zone and according to the General Plan, has a land use designation of I(Light Industrial). The types of uses which are existing within the business center are light manufacturing, sales, office, warehouse, testing laboratories, and a faith center. Generally, the following uses and zones surround the subject site: to the north is M -1.5 -BE zone; to the south the Pomona Freeway; to the west is the City of F� Industry; to the east is R -A-8,000 (Residential Agricultural - minimum lot size 8,000 square feet). The business center consists of one parcel with ten (10) one story structures. At this time, the property owner of the Walnut Business Center is going through the subdivision process in order to convert the business center into a commercial condominium. Thepurposeand intent of the Sign Ordinance is to encourage the use of modest signs which are harmonious with existing signs, to assure the appropriate level of review, and as much as is feasible, to bring existing signs into compliance with the provisions of the Sign Ordinance while giving due regard for the needs of the business community. The Ordinance also states that when more than one wall sign is requested in a commercial center, Planning Commission review and approval is required. The sign Ordinance encourages Planned Sign Programs to be obtained for business centers to guarantee that the purpose and intent of the Sign Ordinance is met. A Planned Sign Program also allows a business center to apply for more than one wall sign for review and approval by staff. The results, if approved, is a much more timely review for future individual submittals when the Planned Sign Program criteria is met. APPLICATION ANALYSIS: Each tenant in the business center currently has at least one wall sign located on the facia above the entrance of their unit or on the facia adjacent to the entrance of their unit. Several tenant have wall signs, on their unit, facing the freeway. There are two monument signs at each entrance to Yellowbrick Road which is a private street. Also, several tenants have banners which have not been reviewed or approved by the City. There are no new signs being proposed or changes to. existing signs as part of this application. Existing primary wall signs for the business center consists of non -illuminated white plexiglass panels with vinyl copy installed in aluminum frames provided by the property owner. The size of the panels vary according to the size of the unit occupied by the tenant. Buildings 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 have a sign face area of 20 square feet. Buildings 1, 2, and 3 have a sign face area of 10.64 square feet. The sign face areas are less than the Sign Ordinance permits. The applicant is requesting copy colors, for the primary wall signs, to be black, dark grey, burgundy, blue or teal. The colors of the buildings are off-white and grey. In order to give uniformity and consistency to the business center, staff feels the applicant should limit the color palette for the primary wall 2 signs. The applicant is requesting several style of lettering for the primary wall signs. The styles are Helvetica Bold, Optima Bold, Souvenir, and Times Bold. Staff agrees with the choices of letter styles and feels that the variety does not interfere with establishing uniformity within the business center due to the fact that the sign face area are minimal and primary signs are the same colors as the buildings. The subject site has two illuminated monument signs located at each entrance to the business center at Yellowbrick Road and Walnut Drive. The illuminated monument signs are five (5) feet in height and six (6) feet width equaling a sign face area of 30 feet which is in compliance with the Sign ordinance. The base of the signs igns are constructed of cast concrete and have a sheet metal cabinet of 12 inches by 72 inches. The background of the sign cabinets are dark grey with white Helvetica Medium copy stating the name of the business center. Staff feels that the monument signs are appropriate and are compatible with the primary wall signs and the buildings. As per the Sign Ordinance, address numerals will need to be added to each of the monument signs. Secondary wall signs are located on several buildings which are facing the freeway. Two of these signs do not have permits. These signs will need to conform to the Sign Code and the adopted Planned Sign Program. Staff feels that the applicant should limit the color palette for the secondary wall signs in order acheive continuity and compatibity among the signage throughout the business center. Several tenants are using banners as temporary signage for special events. These banners have not been reviewed and permitted by the Planning Department. Tenants desiring to use temporary signage will need to submit an application to the City. Two billboards are existing on the subject site. Both are located at the rear portion of the site facing the freeway adjacent to building 7A and building 9. In a file sent to the City from Regional Planning, there is a Certificate of Zoning Compliance which verifies the approval of the installation of the two billboards in compliance with code. The following is a comparison of the proposed. Planned Sign Program the City's Sign ordinance. DEFINITIONS: For definitions refer to the Sign Ordinance of the City of Diamond Bar. 3 yTENANT SIGNAGE: REQUEST 1. PRIMARY WALL SIGNS Buildings 4, 5, 6, 7 8,_ 9, and 10 shall have a sign face area of 20 sq. ft. The panel shall be white plexiglass with dark grey, black, burgundy, blue, or teal vinyl copy. Lettering styles shall be Helvetica Bold, Optima Bold, Souvenir, -or Times Bold. Placement of signs shall be on the sign band area above the entrance of a unit or on the sign area band adjacent to the entrance of a unit. Copy shall- not exceed 65 of available sign area. 2. SECONDARY WALL SIGNAGE Secondary wall signage is permitted for tenants which are fronting , the freeway - buildings/uhits 6, 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b, 9, and 10. Signage shall consist of 2 in. thick, 2 lb. foam letters with plexiglass faces and 3/4 in. gold trim cap. Foam returns shall be painted black. Colors of copy shall be red, blue, black, or green. Lettering style shall be Helvetica Bold, Optima Bold, Souvenir, or Times Bold. Sign area shall be 1 sq. ft. per lineal ft. of building frontage, to a maximum of 100 sq. ft. Maximum sign length shall not exceed 75% of building frontage. Maximum letter height shall be 30 in. Minimum letter height shall be 10 in. Maximum height for multiple lines of copy shall not exceed 48 in. including space between lines. Sign 4 1-19CANNYA061 i. WALL SIGNS Individual - uses- 'shall have'a maximum sign area of 1.25 sq. ft. per 1 lineal foot of. frontage, to a maximum of 125 sq. ft. per use. sign shall not exceed 800 of building frontage. Maximum number - 1 per outer wall. Special Conditions: No permit shall be issued for a wall sign in a multi -use building or commercial center in which more than one sign is proposed without Planning Commission review and approval. 2. SECONDARY SIGNAGE Same standards which apply to wall signs. installation shall be centered horizontally over tenants frontage and within the top 25% of building elevation. 3. WINDOW SIGNS White vinyl window lettering shall be permitted with prior design approval by the property owner. Maximum allowable area shall be 25% of contiguous window area or 50 sq. ft. which ever is less. 4. MONUMENT SIGNS Site shall * consist of 2 illuminated monument signs which are existing and located at each entrance of the business center at Yellowbrick Rd and Walnut Dr. signs are fabricate of a cast concrete base with a sheet metal cabinet measuring 12 in. by 72 in. The signs are 5 ft. in height and 6 ft. in width equalling in area to 30 sq. ft. The cabinet face background shall be dark grey with White Helvetica Medium copy stating "Walnut Business Center". No other monument signs shall be permitted. 5. TEMPORARY SIGNS Proposed Planned sign Program does not address temporary signs. 5 Shall not exceed a maximum area of 25 % of contiguous window area or 100 sq. ft. whichever is less. Locations - 1st. and 2nd. floor only. 4. MONUMENT SIGNS Freestanding monument sign for a commercial center'shall'have a maximum sign area of 72 sq. ft. and a maximum height of 6 ft. one sign per frontage along a public street. Special Conditions: Shall not be counted toward maximum sign area otherwise permitted. 5. TEMPORARY SIGNS Banners and Inflatable signs: a. Windblown devices including but not limited to pennants, streamers, and banners, may be placed upon property commercially zoned and utilized as such, erected for the purpose of advertising a special event of special sale, may be permitted subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. b. Tethered balloons and/or inflatable devices erected for the purpose of advertising a special event or special sale, may be placed upon freeway oriented commercial property A 0 subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. c. All temporary signs within this section are subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director as to the -' sign location-.. design, color, size, height, and other considerations. d. The maximum sign area for banners is one (1) sq. ft. of signage per lineal ft. of frontage. e. Tethered balloons and/or inflatable devices may not exceed a height of 60 ft. from grade. f. A maximum of 4 permits.may be approved for any single business location within a calendar year with the cumulative total of display days not to exceed 60 days. g. No sign permitted in this section * shall restrict, pedestrian or vehicular traffic, impair motorist visibility, create a hazard, or impair the visibility of signs on or off the premises. h. Application shall be made on forms provided by the City. A fee of $25.00 shall be submitted with the application form to cover the cost of the cost of processing. the sign permit. . Exhibit "All dated November 9, 1992 is the Planned Sign Program submitted by the applicant. Exhibit "A-111 are amendments which staff would like to incorporated into the applicant's Planned Sign Program. The amendments include the following: 1. Monument Sign: Address numerals shall be added per the Sign ordinance and Fire Department. 2. Temporary Signs: Temporary. signs are not permitted by the Sign Ordinance. At this time, there is an interim ordinance allowing temporary signs. since, this ordinance is for a specific time, staff feel that all temporary signs shall comply with the City ordinance. Staff feels that the incorporation of these amendments will create a more effective Planned Sign Program. A Planned Sign Program will be beneficial for the business center. It will create consistency in lettering size, style, color, and location. It will establish uniformity in placement and fulfill the purpose and intent of the Sign Ordinance. It would give the business center a neat and orderly appearance. A Planned Sign Program will also streamline the review process. If the Planned Sign Program is approved, it will become effective immediately. Some of the effect of the Planned Sign Program will not be seen immediately, but over a period of time as new tenants lease space and signs are replaced. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed Planned Sign Program will not have a significant effect on the environment and is.categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301.Class 1. (g) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: A Planned Sign Program review by the Planning commission does not require a public hearing. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approved the Planned Sign Program, Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the attached resolution. 7 Prepared by: n J. gu Planning Technic Attachments: Draft Resolution of Approval Proposed Planned Sign Program - Exhibit "A1° dated November 9, 1992 Exhibit 1°A-1" Amendment dated November 9, 1992 Slide Presentation Application 8 A" lffl% 110*11, RESOLUTION NO. 92 -XX 'A A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 92-2 AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION (SECTION 15301 B. (g),, Class 1) AN APPLICATION FOR A PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM AND THREE WALL SIGNS FOR A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS CENTER LOCATED AT 20418 WALNUT DRIVE. BETWEEN YELLOWBRICK ROAD AND TUCKER LANE. A. Recitals 1. Diversified Signs and Graphics and Cornerstone Partners Walnut, Ltd. have filed an application for Planned Sign Program No '. 92-2 for Walnut Business Center located at 20418 Walnut Dr., Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, Cali- fornia, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review application is referred to as "Application". 2. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal organization of the State of California. On said date, pursuant to the requirements of the California Government Code Section 57376, Title 21 and 22, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 1, thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and 22 of the Los Angeles County Code contains the Development Code of the County of Los Angeles now currently applicable to development applications, including the subject Application, within the City of Diamond Bar. 3. The City of Diamond Bar lacks an operative General Plan. Accordingly, action was taken on the subject application, as to consistency with the, General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of Ordinance No.4 (1992) of the City of Diamond Bar. 4. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, on November 9, 1992 conducted a duly noticed public meeting on said Application. 5. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolu- tion have occurred. B. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 0 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 finds and determines that the project identified above. in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15301. Class 1. B. (g) of Division 6 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole,including the findings set forth below, and ,changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed project set forth in the application, there, is no evidence before this Commission that the project as proposed by the Application, and conditioned for approval herein, will have the potential of an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence presented in the record before the Commission, the Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph, the Applicant shall pay all fees required for the filing of a Notice of Determination and any other fees imposed by the California Department of Fish and Game prior to the issuance of any building.permits. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Commission, in conformance with Ordinance No. 4 (1992) of the City of Diamond Bar hereby finds as follows: (a) The project relates to a site of approximately 8.67 acres called Walnut Business Center which is comprised of ten (10 ) buildings with uses such as light manufacturing, sales, offices, warehouses, testing laboratories,. and a faith center within the M -1.5 -BE zone with General Plan designation of Light Manufacturing (I) and is located at 20418 Walnut Dr., City of Diamond Bar, California. (b) Generally, property to the north is M -1.5 -BE zone.; property to the south is the Pomona Freeway; property to the east is R -A-8,000 zone; and property to the west is the City of Industry. iq (c) The subject site for the project is adequately served by Walnut Drive and Lemon Avenue. (d) The nature, condition, and size of the site has been considered. Thesiteis adequate in size to accommodate the use. (e) Substantial evidence exists, considering the record as a whole, to determine that the project, as proposed and conditioned herein, will not be detrimental to or interfere with the contemplated General Plan. (f) This project is in compliance with the Sign Ordinance. (g) Approval of impact on commercial detrimental property of and will welfare of area. this project will not adjacent or adjoining uses. It will not to the use, enjoyment, other persons located not adversely affect persons residing in have an adverse residential or be materially or valuation of in the vicinity the health or the surrounding 5. Based upon the substantial evidence and conclusion set forth herein above in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, -4, and conditions set forth below in this Resolution, presented to the Planning Commission on November 9, 1992, public meeting as set forth above, the Commission, hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) The project shall substantially conform to all plans dated November 9, 1992 as submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission labeled Exhibit "All and "A-111. (b) The applicant shall submit to the City, within 30 days of approval of this grant, a revised Planned Sign Program which incorporate the amendments of Exhibit "A-111 into Exhibit "All dated November 9, 1992. (c) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed, at the City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department, their affidavit statingthat they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this grant. Further, this grant shall not be effective until the permittee pays I remaining Planning Division processing fees. 3 (d) It is hereby declared that and made a condition of this permit that if any condition' hereof is violated, or if any law, statue, or ordinance is violated, the permit may be revoked; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of thirty (30) days. (e) This Commission hereby provides notice to Diversified :Signs and Graphics and Cornerstone Partners Walnut, Ltd. that the time within which judicial review of the decision represented by this Resolution must be sought is governed by the provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedures Section 1994.6 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 Diversified Signs and Graphics located at 725 Eastwood, Santa Ana, CA 92701* and Cornerstone Partners Walnut, Ltd. located at 42 Corporate Park #130, Irvine, CA 92714. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1992, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. BY: Bruce Flamenbaum, Chairman I, James Destefano, Secretary of the Planning commission of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning* Commission held on the 9th day of November, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: [COMMISSIONERS:] NOES: [COMMISSIONERS:] ABSENT: [COMMISSIONERS:] ABSTAIN: [COMMISSIONERS:] ATTEST: James DeStefano, Secretary 4 PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM N0. 92-2 EXHIBIT "A-1" NOVEMBER 9, 1992 DEFINITIONS: For definitions refer to the Sign Ordinance of the City of Diamond Bar. (Ordinance No.5, 1991) TENANT SIGNAGE: 1. MONUMENT SIGN: Address numerals shall be added per the Sign Ordinance and Fire Department . 2. TEMPORARY SIGN requirements shall comply with the City's sign ordinance. Cott' of I?"aMIOND E..s1a a [Tanning Department Sion GriteriteW, �,A 20350-20490 bJ Lt J UT, r.4 T, �'il F n u an b e : I NTR iDYgT I ON This manual has been prepared as a g i de far• de=_.i g and Ci�N%�j2 installation of tenants and buyers occupying the Walnut Business Center. The specifications indicated within this manual are intended to help each achieve visual identific.a.tion. Tena.nt_. and Buyers agree to design , construct, install aJ maintain signage at their sole _ o _tand expense in accordance with th i : sign cr• i teri a., as set forth below, prior to tenant business in the center. Conformance to detailed sign drawings and specifications which have obtained prior approval of the 1 andlard. owner and the City of Diamond Bar wi 1 1 be _.tr• i c t 1 x enforced and any non -conforming sign mu ..t be brought to conformance at the :.ole expense of tenant or buyer erecting the same. The landlord/owner sha.l 1 administer and interpret this sign cr i ter i a. This criteria shall apply equally to occupants of all building_.. GENERAL REQ II REt'1tIETS - ALL TENANTS AND BUYERS 1) Each tenant or buyer shall submit for approval before fabrication, not less than two copies of detailed drawings indicating size, location, layout, design, materials, and color of the proposed sign, concurrently with sufficient architectural draw i ng to show, exact relationship with building frontage. Attention: Property Manager Cornerstone Partners Inc. 42 Corporate Park., Ste 210 Irvine, Ca. 92714 2) Prior• to fabrication, detailed draining•_. of signs shall be =.ubmi teed to the Ci ty of Di a.mond Bar for rev i ew and approval . These dr•a.wi ngs must be =_.i fined by the 1 andl ord owner prior to being submitted to the c i ty. 3) Each tenant or buyer steal 1 obta.i n and pay the ent i re cost of all permit.•_, approvals, construction, installation, and maintenance of it's respective sign. ` ) No tenant or buyer shat 1 a.ff i x upon any J1 ass or other mater i al on the storefront any si gns unl e_.=. the;. =.hal 1 f i r _.t have received the written approval of the handl or•d / owner and are con=.ista.nt with the guidelines set forth in this. cr i ter i a.. 5 No advertising placards, banners, pennant._., insignias or'trademarks shall be affixed upon the storefront with the exception of: ri. Banners which publicize special events ( such as Grand Opening) will be allowed, subject to the time 1 imi tat i ons and permit requirements of the City of Diamond Bar and the owners / landlord. 6) Each Tenant shall be responsible for it's sign contractor. All signs shall be constructed by a professional licensed ..i gn contractor. ?) Tenant or buyer shall be responsible for removal of their sign Within thirty days after leaving site. The removal of the sign shall include the repair of the wall surface back to it's original condition. ti) No animated, flashing, audible or smoking signs will be permitted. ?) No free standing signs will be permitted. DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 1) PRIC'1AR`r` SIGNAGE (All Tenants or Buyers) A) Primary signage shall consist of White Plexigla.$s tenant panels with vinyl copy installed i n existing aluminum frames provided by landlord r� owners. (See Pr•imar• Sign detail) B) All copy to consist of 2 t••'{i l . Gerber High Performance vinyl. Available colors shall consist of Black 1220-12) ,Dk Grey (220-41) , Bur•gandy (220-50 , Blue (220-37), Teal (220-96) . Cj Available Letter Styles to include Helvetica. Bold, Optima Semi Bold, Souvenir and Time=_. Bald. D) Copy shall not exceed 65%: of Available Sign area 2) SECONDARY SIGNAGE (Freeway Elevations) A) Secondary Signage is permitted for tenants with elevations fronting the freeway. (Uni t #'_. 61 7a., 7b, Ga., db, 9, 10) B) ^i.gnage shall consist of 2" thick, 2 lb density foam letters with plexiglass faces and 3/4" geld trim cap. Foam returns shall be painted black. C) Faces shall be 1/8" Rohm & Ha.as pl ex i gl zass. colors. permitted shall include #2793 (Red) , 42050 (Blue) , #2025 '%Bl a.cb ; , or, #2030 (Green) G) Letter _.t. --le_. permitted shall include Helvetica. Bald, Optima. Semi Bald, Souvenir- and Time_. Bald, E.? Mz-:Lximum sign area shall consist of 1 Sq Ft per 1 Lineal foot of building frontage, to a. maximum of 100 `q Ft. Maximum sign length not to exceed 75z.' of building frontage. Fi Maximum letter height shall be 30". Minimum letter height shall be iii" Maximum height for mul tiple l ines of copy sha.l i not exceed 48" including space between l i rtes. G) Letter=. shall be installed with GE clear, silicone, Hi Sign installations steal 1 be centered hor i zonta.l l -,v over tenants frontage and uji thin the tap 25X of building elevation. 3) WIi'dDOW SIGNAGE ( All Tenants and Buyers) A) White vinyl l.,,ii nc1ovl lettering sha.l 1 be permitted with prior design approval by the landlord l ora n e r• . B? Maximum allowable area shall be 25' of contiguous wi nclov,, area or 50 Ba. Ft, iiah i chever is less. 47 FREE STANDING SIGNS (Existing) A Free stand ng =_.i gn_. sha.l 1 consi _.t of tixio ex i =_.t i ng i l luminated monument _.ign_.. Signs are fabricated of a. cast concrete base v)i th a. sheet metal cabinet . Face consists of blue pl ex ba.c4;ground w t Uhi to He1vetica. t1edium Cop.,,- "I,: a.1 nut Bu s i n e ss :enter". Cabinet size 12° x B) No ether Freestanding sign. shal1 be per -mi tted. r PRIMARY SIGN DETAIL L)A ell L � I =10" f - p , 4i lffkl ["it I,T 1: 1-, Q F- W/:�- p ��c K- 6, p C, c tv. FL ­ IA solLOliOc,-s (q5 cl, 'Ito) CvL'. 7f I F-NAN'T TYPICAL ELEVATION SECONDARY 'c-:"IGNAGE 6c� T, PIP, E --o (n E m CP cn 0 m z --i m m KWOM P4 m toll, X 0 " v v 4 MIM H W H CITY OF DIAMOND BAP. DEPARTMENT OF PLAN&:,;_*; ­1'(i 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 (714)396-5676 Fax (714)861-3117 REQUEST FOR SIGN REVIEW Record Owner(s) Caseff 2,`Filed 7 Fee $ _500. Receipt _ Fg- -7 By Applicant Name Cornerstone Partners, Walnut, Ltd. Same (Last name first) Address 42 Corporate Park, Suite 130 city Irvine,, CA zip_ 92714 Phone( 714) 757-2737 ( Applicant's Agent James V Camp Burke Commercial Development 42 Corporate Park, Suite 210 Irvine, CA 92714 (714) 474-7710 ALL SIGNS GREATER THAN 6 FT. IN HEIGHT REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Certification: 1, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information herein provided is correct to the best of my knowledge. Printed Name James V., Camp (Applicant or Agent) -Signed Date (Applicant or Agent) Location- 20418 Walnut Drive,, Diamond Bar 91765 (Street address or tract and Lot number) Zoning HNM List number size and type of sign(s) requested. (Example: 2 - 51 x 101 Freestanding, double faced signs 16 ft.high I - 31 x 24, Wall sign) E',Xt5-FjAJG 6tG,)_)iffG6_ -A LlDO U1 OLL S(61J5 Fa it -7 Q Length of lot frontage(s), if freestanding or roof sign(s) If roof sign, height of building Length *of building (space occupied) frontage, if wall sign CONSENT: I consent to the submission of the application accompanying this request. Signed (alt r Date 1 i } � .r; ... x cN�';E$'ff;�:4ier . .: 1" .: ,, _ _.. il.e .11 �$3 .,yy.._ yy L�Si'�{M� '�rm, � File rMoviF we by ®� and is ready for File re iew d b c" on,y- • G i' dept and is ready for ction by CityqWh