HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/8/1990CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 8, 1990
,,„,.:ALL TO ORDER: Chairman Schey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
in the Walnut Valley School District Board Meeting Room,
880 South Lemon Street, Walnut, California.
PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chairman Harmony.
ROLL CALL: Commissioner Lin, Commissioner MacBride, Vice Chairman
Harmony, and Chairman Schey.
Commissioner Grothe absent.
Also present were Planning Director James DeStefano,
Associate Planning Director Robert Searcy, Contract
Planner Larry Weissman, Planning Technician Alin Lungu,
City Attorney Bill Curley, City Engineer Ron Kranzer and
Secretary (contract) Liz Myers.
CONSENT CALENDAR: Chairman Schey presented the Consent Calendar and
requested the minutes of August 27, 1990, September 10,
1990, and September 24, 1990 be pulled for discussion.
No other items appeared.
MINUTES: VC/Harmony asked the minutes of August 27, 1990 page 7,
paragraph 9, second line be deleted, and page 8, second
paragraph be deleted.
Motion was made by C/MacBride, seconded by VC/Harmony and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the minutes of August 27,
1990.
C/MacBride asked the minutes of September 24, 1990 page
9, last paragraph be deleted following the first
sentence.
Motion made by VC/Harmony, seconded by C/Lin and CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY, with Chair/Schey abstaining, to approve the
minutes of September 10, 1990.
Chair/Schey asked the minutes of September 24, 1990 be
corrected to show he called the meeting to order.
C/Lin noted a correction on page 3, paragraph 5 to state
C/Grothe intended to refer to the Diamond Bar Boulevard
entrance, not the Grand entrance.
VC/Harmony wants page 3, paragraph 1 amended to read
...and is concerned with the concept of permeability. He
asked the word "readable" be amended to "contour".
He further asked page 4, paragraph 3 be deleted and page
5, paragraph 1 be amended to show VC/Harmony made the
motion.
Motion made by VC/Harmony, seconded by C/MacBride and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the minutes of September
24, 1990.
MATTERS FROM THE Chair/Schey asked if anyone in the audience would like
AUDIENCE: to address the Commission on any item not appearing on
the agenda.
_01,161n.A.+.Ai.VILxII1VA.k.Wk6NaKr1—,—a.-.4.....„ ..al _,.,--__�............. ......_.........._ _ _
A
October 8, 1990 Page 2
Dan Buffington, 2605 Indian Creek, asked if the item
under New Business (Interim Development Control Ordinance
Draft) included the Hillside Development. The Commission
informed him it was included.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
Tentative Tract Chair/Schey asked for the staff report.
47722 and CUP/OT
89-338: James DeStefano stated the project before the Commission
is an application by Piermarini Enterprises, Inc. to
subdivide a 19 acre site into 16 residential lots. He
explained a Conditional Use Permit is required for the
Hillside Management Review because the bulk of the site
exceeds a 25% slope ratio, and an Oak Tree Permit is
required, because of the removal of approximately ten Oak
trees. He included the Environmental Impact Report for
the Commissions review. He stated, at the request of the
Planning Commission, new notices of the public hearing
was mailed, to approximately 130 property owners of
record surrounding the proposed development site, on
October 4, 1990.
James DeStefano summarized the staff report to the
Commission:
1. Lot Size - The zoning for the project is R-1-10,000
and the Community Plan designation is for non --urban
residential (one unit or less per acre). There are
16 lots on 19 acres which translates to 1.18 acres
per lot, and the lots range in actual size from .42
acres to 2.51 acres. All lots comply with the
Community Plan when lot averages are calculated
but, in the opinion of the staff, this practice is
not a favorable method of achieving the intent of
the non -urban designation.
2. Density/Grading - The density of the hillside
development has a direct impact on the quantity of
grading required. This particular project has a
remedial grading of 80,000 cubic yards necessary
regardless of the number of units proposed on the
site. The project is proposing 16 units, which
will require a grading of 204,000 cubic yards of
dirt. The current ordinance requires a low density
threshold calculation for the development in non
urban hillside management areas and the Community
Plan establishes the maximum permitted density.
When using the low density threshold calculation,
the low density threshold equates to 2.35 units on
19 acres.
3. Roadways - There is a cul-de-sac proposed,
extending 1620 feet from the intersection with
j' Derringer Lane to the terminus of Lane "B"
(excluding the primary access service road serving
lots 5 and 6). The site plan indicates slopes of
October 8, 1990
i
C!
a
M
7.
Page 3
up to 15%. Driveways have pavement widths which
varies from 16 feet to 20 feet. The parcels with
driveway access have the required frontage on the
main road, but not the driveway access needed
because of grade differences between the road and
the building pad.
Oak Trees - The existing ordinance requires 2 oak
trees be replaced for every one oak tree removed.
The Planning Commission has established an oak tree
replacement policy that exceeds the minimum
requirements. The 10 oak trees identified for
removal would be replaced with 30 oak trees with
24" minimum box size.
EIR - DG King Associates has been retained by the
applicant as its environmental consultant and the
DEIR was prepared by them. The EIR assesses the
potential physical environmental impacts associated
with the proposed project. To initiate the
environmental review process, the City staff
prepared an initial study, which is a checklist
establishing the technical focus of the DEIR. A
notice of preparation was prepared to inform
selected agencies of the project and to solicit
their comments or concerns. Those comments have
been incorporated and responded to within the EIR.
A draft EIR has been prepared and submitted to the
City for review and then a Notice of Completion, to
indicate the availability of the DEIR, will be
given to all the organizations and individuals who
had previously requested it. The effect upon the
environment must be taken into account when
considering a specific development project. The
California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, states
public agencies should not approve projects
proposed if there are feasible alternatives or
feasible mitigation measures that would lessen the
significant effects upon the environment. If the
City finds changes or alterations in the project
are not feasible, or that the unavoidable
significant environmental effects are acceptable,
there must be adequate evidence on the record to
support such a finding. The Government Code
Section 66474 requires the denial of a tentative
map by the Planning Commission when the design of
the sub -division or its improvements are likely to
cause substantial environmental damage.
Video - Helicopter ride around the City to view the
development in the immediate area as heading toward
the site. The helicopter flew over the site, then
swung around and returned in another direction,
enabling a front on -view, matching the model.
Background - The site consists of hilly terrain. A
slope analysis indicates 6.17 acres are located on
slopes of 0 - 25%, 10.54 acres are found on
October 8, 1990 Page 4
slopes of 25-505-'o, and 2.38 acres exceed a 50%
slope. A 30" Southern California Gas Company high
pressure gas line traverses the southern portion of
the site. The applicant is proposing a subdivision
of 16 lots which will range in size from 18,400 sq.
ft. to 109,400 sq. ft. of lot area. Pad areas
range in size from 8,300 to 20,900 sq. ft. The
dwelling units planned for the pads would range
from 5,000 to 10,000 sq. ft. in size.
8. Discussion - Grading plans indicate a balanced cut
and fill of the site. No import of material will
be required. Export of some material is expected
to grub the site of natural grasses and various
trees. It is expected that grading utilizing
earthmovers will require 11 to 45 days to conclude
grading activities and -the noise and dust
associated with such activity may be affected by
conditions such as weather and hours of operation.
Grading plans indicate the maximum height for cut
slopes is 80 feet and the maximum depth of the fill
is 95 feet. Slopes throughout the project site
will have a variable slope ratios of from 1 to 4
for crib walls proposed to 2 to 1 (2 feet of
horizontal space is required for each 1 foot in
vertical height). Adjacent to these slopes will
be the flat building pads which will be developed
for the construction of the residents. Access to
this site will be via Derringer Lane and
construction workers will commute daily. The
applicant has not identified where the construction
vehicles will -park -and remain during non -working
hours.
The staff has reviewed the developer's DEIR, including
several dozen revised pages of maps, charts, and the
latest text received October 2, 1990. As a result of the
review, staff maintained a high level of concern
regarding the adequacy of the DEIR. Staff felt the DEIR
does not appropriately address the inconsistency between
the proposed project and the Community Plan.
Summation of the variety of goals within the Community
Plan:
1. Maintain the rural setting of the community.
2. Minimizing the alteration -of the natural terrain.
3. Minimizing the alteration of the natural hillside.
4. Preserving the major ridgeline.
5. Minimizing the adverse visual impacts.
6. Minimizing grading.
' 7. Protecting the visual quality of highly scenic
areas.
Staffs review of the DEIR:
October 8, 1990 Page 5
1. A complete review, of a "reasonable" alternative to
the project, is lacking. It was requested, from
the consultant, to have an analysis of alternative
densities on the site to protect the ridgeline,
reduce grading and come up with a development. The
applicant was asked three different alternatives be
examined: a 6 unit alternative; an 8 unit
alternative; and two unit alternative.
2. The DEIR identifies several significant impacts and
indicates the environmental effects can be reduced
to a level of insignificance, but alternative
project designs have not adequately been explored
in terms of further reducing impacts associated
with the project.
3. The grading techniques, and the extent of the
earth movement proposed, if approved, would
establish a new precedent and policy for hillside
development within the City. An examination, of
such a policy and its impacts, should be explored
in a cumulative environmental setting. The DEIR
does not adequately explore the cumulative impacts
of the proposed project.
4. The DEIR indicates the project will be a visual
boon both tothe occupants and the viewers from
afar, with the proposed landscaping. The staff has
found no evidence in the DEIR which supports this
conclusion.
5. The determination of whether or not impacts are
significant and adverse is an issue for Commission
consideration. If the Commission determines there
will be significant adverse impacts, then it must
determine the benefits of the projects to the
Community, outweigh the adverse impacts,and
recommend to Council a Statement of Overriding
Considerations be made by the City Council before
approving the plan.
James DeStefano concluded, since the application is for
several discretionary permits, the Commission has several
options:
1. Approve the project and impose conditions.
2. Deny the project.
3. Continue the matter until further information
is provided.
Staff emphasized policy, and not feasibility, is needed
to dictate the form which development should take, and
declared the proposed project:
1. Does not conform with the Community Plan.
2. Is fundamentally too intense for the site.
3. Inadequately mitigates the impacts of
development.
October 8, 1990 Page 6
4. Is inappropriate for its surroundings.
5. Results in an inferior site plan.
James DeStefano recommended the Planning Commission
direct the staff to prepare a resolution of Denial,
without prejudice, and bring it back for the Commissions
final consideration.
Chair/Schey asked for clarification as to how the
density, in averaging lot size, is determined within the
Plan.
Robert Searcy, Associate Planning Director, stated the
Plan does not dictate an amount of specificity toward
application, but the staff uses a lot by lot
determination.
C/MacBride asked if the County proceeded on an average
concept, and was told, by Robert Searcy, that it did.
Chair/Schey opened the hearing to the public and asked
the applicant to make the presentation.
Frank Piermarini, developer in Diamond Bar for 17 years,
and resident for 16 years, stated the goal, for the 19
acre parcel, is to build the finest luxury homes that
average 1.18 acres, ranging from 5,000 to 10,OOOt-sq.ft,
all individually designed, completely irrigated, and
landscaped. Mr. Piermarini perceived the property as a
liability with a potential fire hazard, slide area, and
noise and erosion problems that is to be solved on the
completion of the development. He stated the designs will
fit within the guidelines of the Country and has tried to
present to staff and the neighbors a good project.
Don King, office located at 10722 Arrow Route Ste. 616,
Rancho Cucamanga, addressed the topics of concern of the
EIR:
1. Grading
a. Remedial grading of 80,000 cubic yards a
safety reason to mitigate existing geological
problems.
b. Grading is to be done at once.
C. The final grading plan is adjustable to any
new City standards using CUP condition.
2. Road Grades
a. Concerning the 15% grading, the County had
granted a negative declaration in the original
r development and was also approved by the
q County Fire Department.
3. Gas Line
a. The gas line is to be relocated.
b. The Gas Company will approve the final
--- - --- -- ,,.i,.l,._I .. "", �.w..1-11,1rx., � �-.„.....'u �-_-- —TT177 n o �iI —_ —_
I� III, mu- Ir. � i--
October 8, 1990
Page 7
layout, design, and construction of the new
line.
C. The Gas Company will do the hookup and the
disconnecting.
d. The safety requirements are stingingly
enforced by the Gas Company and they assume
all liability.
4. Question of the Intermittent Blue Line Stream
a. The original review showed there was a
possibility the development encroached on a
Blue Line Stream.
b. The actual scale and the topographic analysis
later showed the two Intermittent Blue Line
Stream were not on the subject site.
C. The applicant is waiting for a response from
the California Fish and Game, and assume no
response is a silent agreement.
5. Crib walls retaining the creation of new slopes
a. The tallest section of crib wall is 28 feet
and would move horizontally 4 feet, therefore
fitting comfortably in the 50 feet of the
highest section of the crib wall.
b. The walls are not solid and will be covered
with landscaping.
6. Proposed Landscaping
a. Replacement trees will be provided by City
standards.
b. The site is now barren, and is a fire hazard,
without visual --amenity.
C. The new landscaping is proposed to cover the
entire site and the applicant will assume
responsibility in maintaining the landscaping.
d. There will be a variety of trees and tree
sizes proposed in a conceptual landscape plan.
e. The landscaping must meet the Country
standards.
7. Buffering and Privacy
a. The applicant net with the adjacent neighbors
at a neighborhood meeting and offered to plant
trees where buffering is needed - on neighbors
property if necessary.
b. There will be trees and bushes planted to
screen and assure privacy of neighbors.
8. Viewshed and Visibility: Aesthetics
a. The applicant has provided a scale model to
fully show what the proposal will look like.
b. There is a complete photographic survey
showing the existing site from both near and
far.
9. Ridgelines
a. The photographic survey shows the current
ridgeline as barren of trees.
b. A new ridgeline would be created by the
- — - - — - -- __ __ -- — —L..— , dJ16 VI .. _..-t.-,-. ,[. ,,,. .,. ,_..«...._ . _., I- -.1--_...__,.___ _.,a.m_.,...,..._ - -- — - _ - --- - ---- - -
October 8, 1990 Page 8
crowns of new trees, included in the
development. The grading and new slopes would
blend into the background because it would be
green rather than light tan as now
exists in the summer.
10. Environmental Review
a. originally the project had been reviewed by
the County and they found no significant
impacts and granted a negative declaration.
The City is not sure of the analysis done by
the County and a Focused EIR was requested.
The Focused EIR (one of 8 units and one of 6'
units) was prepared following the requirements
of the CEQA. No significant impacts on the
environment were found to occur should the
project be built as proposed.
b. The FEIR is by law only an informational
document which identifies what would likely
occur if the project were built as proposed.
By law, an FEIR cannot assume an advocacy
position.
C. The suggestion that the Commission cannot
certify the FEIR, or approve the proposed
project without making findings or overriding
concern, is leading since the Commission has
not yet determined whether a significant
4 impact would occur. significant impact is
properly defined by the CEQA.
d. Certification of the EIR, merely acknowledges
the City followed the rules of CEQA in
preparation of the FEIR. It does not
acknowledge anything else. The proposed
project may still be approved or denied
whether there are environmental impacts or
not.
Don King, finished with his prepared response, continued
with answers to some of the questions raised by the staff
report.
1. Density and Grading
a. There is an exception on the site because the
remedial grading is not a safe set of ground,
and should be done regardless.
b. The relocation of the gas line involves
grading.
C. The statement, "with a density approving the
low-density threshold, the quantity of
required grading can be projected to decrease
�.., accordingly.", is not supported by the data in
the EIR.
jl 2. Roadways
a. The roads and the gradient proposed are
consistent with the County codes.
October 8, 1990 Page 9
3. Oak Trees
a. The applicant has proposed to meet the City
standards and, as stated, there would be
additional landscaping.
b. Long term maintenance is negotiable with the
City and the applicant or as authorized by the
City.
4. Landscaping
a. The landscaping plan was submitted and had
been changed to meet the Country standards.
Don King discussed the report of the EIR:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
In regards to the statement, " Disagreement among
experts does not make an EIR adequate.", he added,
"nor inadequate". The question of adequacy deals
with the amount of information available to make an
adequate decision.
The applicant had replaced supplemental and revised
pages of the EIR, instead of placing them in the
appendix of the EIR, in hopes of creating less
confusement.
The lots are larger then the minimum required in
the community Plan.
The General Plan Policy to maintain the original
landscaping is inconsistent to the proposal because
the applicant will put in landscaping where there
is none now.
The remedial grading requires extensive cuts
altering the terrain and the ridgeline. The
question to be determined is: is it consistent to
the General Plan to put the soil back to its
original state, or put the soil back in a manner
allowing development.
The site is not a visual amenity.
As an alternative, 2 units are not reasonable to
build because of the amount of grading required.
Remedial grading is necessary regardless of what is
developed.
The DEIR would set precedent on this site and any
site that has the problems to the extent of this
site. The land is without much use other than
housing.
The consultant does not have the technology to do
computer graphics on houses not designed and add
them to the site for identification.
Frank Piermarini summarized his development will stop the
hazards existing on the land and will develop the land
into a beautiful site. He asked the Commission to
approve the project.
Chair/Schey adjourned the meeting for a recess at 8:45
p.m. and called the meeting to order at 8:53 p.m.
- - ----
---7-_., -
� 11, Vlil 1111 1 11-- _ . .r-�,_ -1.,.1.,..1 i -- 1 IIT7-il 1111 ���i111 71 �11 , .,., _._-
October 8, 1990 Page 10
Chair/Schey declared the Public Hearing open to the
audience in favor of the project.
John Pringle, attorney for the Diamond Bar Country
Estates Association, stated the board of directors
basically supported the development and has reached a
tentative agreement, with Mr. Piermarini, concerning the
access issues through the Country.
Dan Buffington, 2605 Indian Creek, stated as a point of
clarification referring to the General Plan, density is
to be an average.
Alan Kinder, 1800 Derringer, commended Mr. Piermarini
and approves of the development of 16 homes.
Al LaPeter, 23955 Ridgeline, felt the property, is a
tremendous fire hazard and very unsightly.
Lorraine Repucci, resident of Diamond Bar, commended Mr.
Piermarini on his developments and attentiveness to his
projects.
Those in opposition to the project.
Pat Brashere, 13 year resident at 23497 Coyote Springs
Drive, felt the project will obstruct.view of homes, and
will be an eyesore from the freeway. He believed the
Country was to be open and rolling, not condensed.
Tom Kraver, 1678 Bronsnell Rd., is totally opposed to the
development of the 16 units in the area and would like to
preserve the land for the existing wildlife.
Steve Campbell, 23485 E. Coyote Springs Dr., commended
Mr. Piermarinis developments but is concerned with the
nature of setting a precedent. He questioned if future
builders would do similar quality work.
Suzanne Paine, 23494 Coyote Springs, was against the crib
wall and was concerned with the environment and the
wildlife.
Claudia Huff, 1640 Fire Hallow, noted the applicant never
mentioned the alternative of leaving the land as it is.
She felt the 16 unit development is obscene and would
like the area left alone for the wildlife.
Debbie O'Donnell, 23550 Coyote Springs, stated her home
will get the run off during the rainy season and is
concerned about the safety of relocating the gas line.
Bob Huff, 1640 Fire Hallow, felt Mr. Piermarini would do
a good job of development but felt the City should
October 8, 1990
Page 11
avoid overdevelopment.
Toni Lewis, 1504 Hallow Bluff, stated if prior decisions
could be overturned within the General Plan, then it
would make guidelines difficult.
Chair/Schey asked for the Commissioners comments.
VC/Harmony was concerned with the safety of the 15%
grade.
Ron Kranzer, City Engineer, stated 15% is an acceptable
standard on hillside developments but would try to keep
it less if achievable.
VC/Harmony was concerned with the,3 lots serviced by a
driveway with substandard roads, including the road
traversing down the hill. He doubted the ability of the
Fire Department to have sufficient access to the
properties.
Don King responded the drive below the hill was intended
to reduce the grading. He stated the engineer could
eliminate the drive -because those- lots -do have access on
the cul-de-sacs that meet the City standards.
Al Dayton, representative of Piermarini Ent., stated the
drive is necessary for access to the gas line, regardless
of the accessibility of the homes.
VC/Harmony was uncomfortable with the mass of development
occurring on very steep roads, small lots and the safety
regarding fire protection.
Al Dayton stated the plan was approved by the Fire
Department and a negative declaration was obtained from
the County. He explained the cul-de-sac street is
acceptable for accessibility because it has a turn around
for the Fire Trucks.
VC/Harmony inquired as to how tall the crib wall, on the
west edge, will be above the existing grade.
Al Dayton stated the wall is 18 feet high, however 12
feet of the crib wall will be below the grade adjacent to
the existing houses, and will not be visible.
VC/Harmony ascertained the development will create a
negative visual impact to the hillside and may not meet
SEQA requirements.
VC/Harmony asked the applicant if a plan was submitted
during the grading phase, that would mitigate any storm
runoff.
Al Dayton stated an erosion control plan would be
qA a II I6 V,,.�
.AldI...wln._.Wj .,-. i..,i_,., _.,.�..m_Vcsu, C^'^,wrvk.n row,�w�.r-r._..�-....�.c.^_ —,". uniw..w.....m._mmi_. .. _ _
October 8, 1990 Page 12
developed at the same time as the final grading plan.
Ron Kranzer explained the City has strict guidelines on
erosion maintenance and the developer is responsible to
maintain any erosion control devices.
C/MacBride asked the location of the reconstitution of
the major line of unstable land.
Don King responded it would be exactly where it is now in
horizontal alignment and it would merely be a change in
vertical alignment consistent with the grading.
C/MacBride requested James DeStefanos viewpoint of the
video.
James DeStefano noted the hills are steeper than
visualized on the map, and he saw much more trees on the
site that may be affected by the grading.
Chair/Schey is concerned about the excessive grading
necessary to develop the proposed site, and felt the
overall density is too great; given the restraints on it.
He is not convinced the grading required would not be
lessen, if less homes are built on the site. He stated
the impacts, of this development, are almost entirely
going to be felt by residents outside the Country,
therefore what they allow is irrelevant to the case. He
concluded, there is too much development, in thisBitein
this particular circumstance.
VC/Harmony summarized .the project is out of character
with the Community plan.
C/MacBride perceived Diamond Bar to want to limit
development to reflect the feeling of country living.
Chair/Schey declared the Public Hearing closed.
C/Lin suggested developing guidelines for a compromise
between the applicant and the neighbors. She had no
objections to developing the land but had reservations to
the number of lots planned.
Motion made by VC/Harmony, seconded by C/MacBride and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff to prepare, for the
next available..meeting,, resolutions denying, without
prejudice, the Oak Tree, CUP, the Tentative Tract, and
making an appropriate finding of the EIR.
r -,Draft Sign Chair/Schey asked for the staff report.
Ordinance:
Larry Weissman, Contract Planner, stated the purpose of
�.= the discussion is to describe the goals, the structure
and the rationale of the draft sign program.
111,-__. ,1]111 1111 _ii,..... , :. r„- � ..- _ -;i r'ill 11 i1777'
October 8, 1990
fav
Page 13
1. The Goals of the Ordinance:
a. To encourage use of modest signs with due
regards for the needs of the business
community.
b. To ensure sign permit applications receive an
appropriate level of review.
C. To bring existing signs, as much as is
practical, into compliance with any
regulations which is ultimately adopted.
He stated the draft ordinance seeks to achieve these
goals through the application of design and locational
standards, in the system sign categories, which
determines the level of review required for various
signs.
The draft ordinance includes:
1. Provisions for the maximum size area and heights,
which reflect the minimum height necessary, for
effective communication of messages,including
provisions for special circumstances, which may
justify exceeding the proposed maximum.
2. Locational standards to minimize impacts in
commercial and residential areas.
3. The creation of four (4) sign groups:
a. Planned Signs -,for Planning -Commission Review
b. Basic Signs - for staff review
C. Exempt Signs - no permit required
d. Prohibited Signs - not permitted in any zone
4. The prohibited signs will probably be given high
priority in any sign abatement program.
Examples of changes if the draft is adopted:
1. The 12 foot pole, and pylon sign located on Colima
and Brea Canyon, and on Diamond Bar Blvd. by the
freeway, would be prohibited.
2. Wall signs would be limited to a maximum area of
100 sq.ft. for business use.
3. Temporary signs, such as Commercial Real Estate
signs,, and -Subdivision sale signs, would be reduced
in size.
The staff has reviewed the comments made by the
Commission, on the hearing of September 24, 1990, and the
comments on the survey. Some additions have been made to
the ordinance reflecting those comments. The draft, in
its current form, has also been mailed to approximately
60 groups for their statement. It is recommended, the
Commission direct staff to make revisions, and prepare
the draft sign ordinance for clarification, by the City
Attorney, for future recommendations to City Council.
October 8, 1990
Page 14
Chair/Schey asked the Commission for any questions to the
staf f .
VC/Harmony indicated the 4 feet restriction on the
monument signs to be small and would like a compromise to
increase it. He realized the pole signs have been
prohibited but would like to know if there is a
mechanism, through the CUP, to allow for special
circumstances.
James DeStefano informed the Commission there are two
ways to permit special circumstances:
1. Put in a revision stating any sign above "x" feet
requires a Conditional Use Permit.
2. Leave the ordinance as drafted, and a sign above
"x" feet, needs approval of a variance.
He stated either case would have to be substantiated.
Bill Curley, City Attorney, elaborated the CUP gives more
flexibility in the applicants rationale for a special
circumstance, whereas, a variance gives the applicant a
higher standard to overcome and must have certain
discreet characteristics" justifying the change. He
explained the State General Planning Law provides four
(4) discreet criteria for a variance, without exceptions,
and are reflected in the County Code.
VC/Harmony stated if the Commission does not mention the
CUP, then the variance automatically becomes adopted.
Chair/Schey summarized, if the Commission left pole signs
as a prohibited sign, .then by statute, the applicant
would have the ability to ask for a variance.
VC/Harmony would like staff to elaborate on the
Commercial and Real Estate signs.
Larry Weissman explained the Construction and -
Commercial Real Estate sign have been increased to an
area of 24 sq. ft. feet and the height to 6 feet, a change
from 16 sq.ft. and 4 feet in height.
C/MacBride asked if the Commercial and Real Estate signs
were one of the concerns of the Chamber of Commerce.
Staff felt the Chamber of Commerce would find the present
requirements adequate.
C/MacBride inquired as to their concerns on banners,
flags, and pennants.
Larry Weissman stated the present code prohibits banners,
flags, and pennants, including portable signs
-
October 8, 1990 Page 15
and balloons, whereas the survey from the Chambers
indicated the respondents would like to use them on a
temporary basis for special events.
Chair/Schey open the Public Hearing to the audience.
Jeff Nickle, with the Trammell Crow Company, at 18500 E.
Gale, City of Industry, which acquired the building at
1370 Valley Vista, in Gateway Corporate Center, from the
original developer. He would like to bring to the
Commissions attention some of the elements of the signage
program he felt can be architecturally compatible with
the Community and also serve a legitimate commercial
purpose. He urged the Commission to allow nonconforming
signs to exist at a minimum until the current tenant
leaves the City. In regards to Real Estate sign, he felt
the signs should vary in size in accordance to the size
of the project. In his opinion, a permanently mounted
sign, with lanscaping at its base, is very attractive.
In conclusion, he urged the Commission to retain the
flexibility, in the consideration of the ordinance, in
allowing non- conforming signs with special
circumstances.
Don Nardella, 22344 Coyote Springs, representing the
Chamber of Commerce, questioned if it is appropriate for
the Planning Commission to review window signs. He
questioned what a special flag is. He stated there is a
lot of desire among the business Community to see the
draft, and pointed out merchants are'very concerned with
the phasing in of the plan. He would like to see
provisions for temporary lighting for holidays and other
special events. He noted, for Commercial space, the
Commission should make some consideration for the size of
the development in relationship to the size of the sign.
James DeStefano concluded the purpose of the hearing is
to acquire the various ideas and develop them into a real
ordinance.
Chair/Schey declared the Public Hearing closed and asked
for the Commissioners comments.
VC/Harmony, in response to Mr. Nardella comments,
indicated there needs to be some provision directing
window signs. However, he believed the 25% allowed
presently does not give adequate consideration for
special events, or well executed window signs. He asked
staff for the definition of special flags.
Larry Weissman stated special flags indicate the
difference between the permits obtained by the Planned
Sign program and those obtained through the Exempt Signs.
Flags up to 6 feet in height, within the given
October 8, 1990 Page 16
j size area, are Exempt Signs, and those above that go to
the Planned Sign category. The ordinance does allow for
any governmental flags, national flags and governmental
agency type flags within the height restrictions of the
zone area.
Chair/Schey asked staff if they need to put the draft in
a more conventional ordinance form before taking it to a
formalized Public Hearing.
James DeStefano recommended staff send a follow up letter
stating the Planning Commission has given direction to
develop the ordinance and staff is available for any
discussion about tonights meeting. Staff will then
redistribute the draft ordinance, leading up to a Public
Hearing, to further discuss its merits. He stated staff
could put the draft in a more conventional form by the
first meeting in November.
VC/Harmony preferred the Commission state the changes to
the ordinance, before staff is directed to put the
ordinance in a formal format.
The Commission directed staff to amend:
1. Monument Signs - allowed to go to a maximum height
of 6 feet, with no more than 4 feet being a sign
copy.
2. Window Signs - an additional % put on top of the
present 25% for holidays.
Chair/Schey directed staff to place the structure in an
ordinance format and bring it back to the Commission for
hearing the second meeting in November. He requested
staff, in the mean time, send the follow up letter and
subsequently distributing the draft ordinance.
NEW BUSINESS:
Interim
Staff stated the Council, during the Study Workshop
Development
Session, had agreed the Commission go forth and develop
Control Ordinance
an ordinance. Staff has put together a variety of
Draft:
excerpts from 9 different ordinances. The draft, before
the Commission, has many flaws, but it represents the
direction to declare policy, establish the specifics to
be given developers, and the direction as to the
occurrence of development on the hillside, at least for
the interim. Once the document is polished, it will
represent greatly, the direction of hillside development.
The draft has not been reviewed by Mr. Kranzer, nor by
other departments or operations that may be effected by
it. It is staffs intent to get this to City Council by
next Tuesdays meeting.
-October 8, 1990 Page 17
Bill Curley informed the Commission the Interim
ordinance is a two (2) step process:
1. It takes effect immediately after adoption, and
will run for 45 days. During that period, staff
commences or finishes the final product and thirty
five days into it, a report must be prepared
publicly discussing where they are at in the
process. Generally the report is short. If the
final product is completed, it is adopted through
the normal process, if not, the second step is
adopted.
2. It takes it on for another 10 1/2 months. At the
end of that time, another analysis is given and is
extended it for another year.
Bill Curley stated, if in the first 45 days, the report
finds what was adopted in the Interim is unmanageable, it
can be dropped and the process begins again.
Motion made by C/MacBride and seconded by VC/Harmony and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY for support from the City Council to
adopt the Emergency Interim Ordinance, in its polished
state, and the Commissions expression for :the need of
such an ordinance.
Ron Kranzer wondered how the draft applied, to the
ridgetop development, in the Country: For those asking
for a permit or a site plan now prohibited, but not
contrary to the way the Country has already been
developed, would have a Catch 22 situation.
James DeStefano stated there is a provision allowing for
existing single unit lots to proceed.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: James DeStefano stated November 12, 1990 is a holiday and
November 13, 1990 is a special meeting, thereby
restricting the Planning Commissions meeting for the
Public Hearing.
C/MacBride suggested meeting November 9, 1990 at City
Hall.
James DeStefano suggested having the scheduled meeting of
November 26, 1990, and staff will have the Commissioners
packets ready by November 16, 1990 in order to
concentrate the efforts in one meeting.
^" Chair/Schey stated the only issue that would carry over
j from the missed meeting is the cellular phone sell and
the development code will be a discussion item.
-Ootober 8, 1990 Page 18
jJames DeStefano concurred and included the development
code should be subdivided into discussions, whereas, one
evening would be of residential zones, and another
evening about commercial zones.
Chair/Schey stated to forgo the meeting of November 12,
1990 and meet November 26, 1990 and staff will have the
packets available by November 16, 1990.
VC/Harmony commends the Planning Director on the well
written, informative, and intelligent memorandum of the
Hillside Development.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/MacBride and seconded by VC/Harmony
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 12:05
a.m.
David Schey
Chairman
AAttest:
Jes DeStefano
Secretary/Planning Commission