HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/28/1991AGENDA
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING
WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
BOARD MEETING ROOM
880 SOUTH LEMON STREET
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91789
January 28, 1991
CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, MacBride, _Vice Chair-
man Harmony, Chairman Schey
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. Generally, items to be discussed are those
which do not appear on this agenda.
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:
i. Minutes of the January 14, 1991, Meeting
OLD BUSINESS: (No Items)
NEW BUSINESS: (No Items)
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: �
2. A City -initiated request to amend certain provisions of Ti-
tle 22 of the Los Angeles County Code, as heretofore adopted
by the City of Diamond Bar, pertaining to signs. (ZCA 91-1)
Continued from January 14, 1991s
3. TT 47722/CUP 89-338/EIR 91-1
A request to allow a subdivision of an existing 19 acre par-
cel into 13 residential lots, a Conditional Use Permit for
hillside management review. Property is zoned R-1, 10,000
Single Family Residential - 10,000 square foot minimum lot
size.
Applicant: Piermarini Enterprises, Inc.
Location: Northwest corner of Derringer Lane and
Ridgeline Road
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Page Two
January 28, 1991
4. CUP 90-0128
A request for a Conditional Use Permit to place a fully au-
tomated videomatic kiosk.
Applicant: Standard Brands Paint Store
Location: 1139 South Diamond Bar Boulevard.
5. Commercial Manufacturing (C-M) Zone
A City initiated request to amend certain provisions of City
Ordinance No. 15 (1990), and No. 15-A (1990), and, as appro-
priate, certain provisions of Title 22 of the Los Angeles
County Code, pertaining to land uses permitted within the
Commercial -Manufacturing (C-M) Zoning Districts within the
City.
6. Development Agreement (DA-2)
A request for a Development Agreement for Gateway Corporate
Center located South of the 57 j Orange Freeway) and off Gol-
den Springs Drive. The Development Agreement will allow
office and commercial development within the Corporate Cen-
ter. The Development Agreement will decrease development
density and restrict land uses to office and commercial de-
velopment. All ordinances in effect at the time of adoption
of the Development Agreement will serve as the development
standard.
Applicant: Zelman Development Company on behalf of
mond Bar Business Associatioh
Location: Gateway Corporate Center
I
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Planning Commissioners
Staff
ADJOURNMENT: To February 11, 1991
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 14, 1991
CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Harmony called the meeting to order
at 7:07 p.m. in the Walnut Valley School District
Board Meeting Room, 880 South Lemon Street, Diamond
Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF
The audience
was led in
the Pledge of Allegiance by
ALLEGIANCE:
Commissioner
MacBride.
ROLL CALL: Commissioner Grothe, Commissioner Lin, Commissioner
MacBride, and Vice Chairman Harmony. Chairman
Schey was absent.
Also present were Planning Director James
DeStefano, Assoc. Planner Robert Searcy, Deputy
City Attorney Bill Curley, City Engineer Sid
Mousavi, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, City
Planner Irwin Kaplan, and Contract Secretary Liz
Myers.
CONSENT CALENDAR: Motion was made by C/MacBride, seconded by C/Lin
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Consent
Calendar and the Minutes of December 10, 1990.
Motion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded by
C/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to reschedule
the order of the agenda for the Public Hearing
Items, in the order of #4, #51 #3, and #6.
NEW BUSINESS: Staff reported the CUP 86-0410 is a request for an
extension of time to construct a three story
CUP 86-410 building, housing professional offices. The
property is located on 1200 South Brea Canyon Road.
Ann Lungu, Planning Technician, reported the
application was filed on September 15, 1985, with
the Department of Regional Planning, to allow for
the construction of a one-story building for the
use ofl retail stores, a three story building for
the use of professional offices, and a zone change
from R-1-8,000 SFR to C3-DP-BE. A public hearing
was held on June 10, 1987, whereas the zone change,
the request to construct for retail stores, and
professional offices were denied at this hearing.
The zone change was denied at a public hearing on
July 1, 1987. At the public hearing, and a de Nova
hearing on November 19, 1987, the matter of the
zone change and the construction of the two
buildings were taken under advisement. The Board
of Supervisors recommended, on December 22, 1987,
that the Regional Planning Commission consider a
revised project for the parcel of land and a zone
change from R-1-8,000 SFR to C3-DP-BE, rather than
C-3-DP-BE. On June 15, 1988, the Regional Planning
staff recommended denial. On January 12, 1989, The
zone change from R-1-8,000 SFR to CPD zone was
approved. The Board of Supervisors declined its
January 14, 1991
Page 2
intention to approve the said CUP, and instructed
the County Council to prepare the findings and
conditions.
The staff recommended a one year extension ending
March 30, 1992. A condition of the extension is
that the project shall go through the design review
process of the City of Diamond Bar. The City
Attorney recommended any tentative subdivision map
requirements of Los Angeles County shall be waived.
VC/Harmony inquired what it would involve to waive
the tentative subdivision map.
Bill Curley, Deputy City Attorney, stated the code
provides, as a mandatory condition of listing out,
a tentative and a final map. The code refers to
the possible subdivisions of larger parcels. In
this case, there is only one single parcel, making
a mandatory map an unnecessary procedure.
C/MacBride asked if there were any correspondence,
from neighbors, on file.
Ann Lungu stated there are three (3) or four (4)
letters, dating 1988 and 1989, from private
individuals, in opposition�to the project.
C/Grothe stated there is no reason for allowing an
extension. He was unable to visualize a three
story structure anywhere in the area, and would
have preferred to have had a site map at hand. He
inquired if the CUP expires on it's own.
Ann Lungu replied that it appears to expire on
March 30, 1991. The applicant is applying for the
extension.
i
C/Grothe requested staff to gather copies of the
opposition letters, as well as the site map, and
bring it back the next meeting.
James DeStefano, Planning Director, clarified the
letters of opposition date back to 1986 and 1987,
when the project was first proposed. There is time
to table the issue and obtain all the information
requested by the Commission.
VC/Harmony noted the letters of opposition may
still be relevant. He suggested a public hearing
may be functional.
C/MacBride summized the purpose of the condition,
which stated the project go through the design
review process, was to enable the Commission to
receive new information to assist in the final
January 14, 1991
Page 3
decision.
James DeStefano stated the approval was for a three
story building. The record is not clear as to what
precise architecture would accommodate the three
story building. If the Commission approves the
extension, the Commission would do the architec-
tural review, in lieu of staff.
VC/Harmony inquired why the project is being given
a one (1) year extension.
James DeStefano explained a (1) one year extension
gives the applicant sufficient time to go through
the design review process, submit drawings for
construction plan check, and go through all of the
construction steps necessary for the commencement
of the development of the project. A six (6) month
extension was deemed a bit tight.
VC/Harmony asked how long the applicant has had
since the last approval.
James DeStefano replied the applicant has had two
(2) years since approval.
VC/Harmony asserted he would like the project to
come back as a brand new project, with a public
hearing. He believed there is more involved than
just a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
C/MacBride clarified if the motion to deny is
approved, the applicant may start de Nova, giving
the Commission ample opportunity to consider all
the ramifications whether there is a protest level.
James DeStefano affirmed the applicant may appeal
to thelCity Council. If they choose not to appeal,
or the City Council concurs with the Commission's
actions to deny the extension request, then they
would need to come back with a full public hearing,
complete plans, and additional data.
Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by VC/Harmony
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to deny the extension of
time for CUP 86-0410.
PUBLIC HEARING Staff reported the CUP 90-0127 is a request to
ITEMS: complete, in two (2) phases, the addition of twenty
nine (29) pads for the placement of mobiles. The
CUP 90-0127 19.5 acre site is currently developed with 118 pads
and is known commonly as the Diamond Bar Estates.
The site is surrounded by industrial uses and
multiple family residences.
Robert Searcy, Assoc. Planner, reported the
January 14, 1991 Page 4
applicant has requested, in writing, a continuance
of this public hearing in order to have time to
clarify some points of concern staff raised in
their report.
VC/Harmony declared the Public Hearing open.
Kevin Bouvian, residing at 21217 E. Washington,
inquired as to what kind of barrier walls will be
located between the park and the railroad. He
asked if a playground for the kids have been
planned.
Rob Searcy replied the barrier wall will be a six
(6) foot, sound proof block wall. After the
completion of phase three (3), there will be no
play area other than what exists currently.
Kevin Bouvian stated, in his opinion, the six (6)
foot wall would not be adequate for the trains, nor
for keeping the children out of the area. The
current wall is fifteen (15) feet and provides no
barrier to sound.
Dwayne Chamberlain, residing at phase 48 of the
Diamond Bar Estates, stated there is presently only
one entry in and out of the park, which is not
adequate. He inquired if, with the addition of 30
more families, better access will be provided.
Rob Searcy reported there is no change in the site
plan as it exists as far as access. There will
remain the one central access existing today.
VC/Harmony noted an extra gate that is now
currently chained closed. He pondered if it
created a fire hazard.
I
Ruth Cornelly, assistant manager of the Diamond Bar
Estates, wondered if the spa and pool facilities
will remain the same to accommodate the residents.
She informed the Commission that the extra gates
are only opened in case of fire.
Rob Searcy reported the pool facility will remain
at the existing club house.
Kathleen Rose, residing at 21259 Cottonwood Lane,
has no objection to the expansion. She questioned
the ownership status of a piece of land on
Cottonwood Lane, which used to be a portion of
Washington street. The portion of land is not
maintained, and is full of tumbleweeds that
residents must cross to get to the condominium
complex across from the Diamond Bar Estates. She
inquired if it was possible to tie in the
January 14, 1991
Page 5
improvement with the development.
VC/Harmony suggested the issue be brought up to
staff after the meeting.
Dwayne Chamberlain wanted to know, if the expansion
is approved, will there be is there provisions to
upgrade the condition of the park. The small
owners association has requested that management
upgrade the lights, and upkeep the grounds. They
are concerned that, with the additional pads,
upkeep will diminish further. He stated the
expansion is acceptable as long as they meet with
the standards, as well.
VC/Harmony suggested the association work with the
Planning staff to elaborate on the ideas, and be
prepared to come back to the Commission.
James DeStefano commented that staff was under the
impression that the residents were notified of the
proposed expansion. He recommended continuing the
item to the first regular meeting in February 1991,
and direct the developer to meet with the residents
to inform them of what is being proposed. In this
manner, the staff, would be able to incorporate all
of these different issues and provide a more
complete report to include the revised staff report
with the appropriate conditions.
C/MacBride affirmed the meeting would be an
excellent opportunity for the residents to have
some input in the developers plans. He wondered
what will happen to the facilities in the present
sump area, to be called a recreation area, when it
is removed.
Ruth Cdrnelly asserted the residents were notified
about the expansion. However, she stated many
questions were not answered and a meeting with the
owners would be helpful to help the residents
prepare for the next Commission meeting.
C/MacBride suggested the residents confer with
staff to set up a meeting date and urged the
residents to communicate their concerns.
Motion was made by C/Grothe,
seconded by
C/MacBride
and CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY to
continue
the public
hearing item
to the meeting
of February
11, 1991.
CUP 90-0117 Staff reported the CUP 90-0117 was a request to
expand an existing adult care facility, in a
renovated single family residence, located in a
residential neighborhood. The expansion will allow
an increase from the current six (6) residents up
January 14, 1991 Page 6
to a maximum of 24 residents.
Rob Searcy reported the subject residence is in
it's original size and shape. The request would
seek to expand it to fifteen (15) bedrooms. The
size would be approximately 6,210 feet, with double
occupancy capabilities, and would house three (3)
employees. The house is located at 1000 Park
Spring Lane, which is in a residential R-1-8, 000
neighborhood. The application would expand the
structure from 2,150 sq. ft. to 6,210 sq. ft. The
parking requirements would increase from two (2) to
nine (9) spaces. There is no signage proposed with
the application. The project is located at the
terminus of a cul-de-sac and is approximately 1/2
acre in size. The total lot coverage ratio for the
project site after the proposed addition will be
approximately twenty-six percent (26%).
Landscaping and open space will comprise over three
quarters of the site and ranges from landscaped
slopes to landscaped pad areas that can be utilized
for recreation. The access to the site is a 105
foot driveway. Parking is planned to be created
along the eastern elevation in what is currently an
embankment supporting the adjacent neighbor's yard.
Providing the parking places at this location could
prove to be prohibitive because of the required
back up area and the necessary improvements, such
as a retaining wall in excess of six (6) feet.
Staff has identified, as a major concern,
compatibility with adjacent single family
residences. In addition to this concern are the
issues related to appropriateness of use and
aesthetics related to the alterations as proposed.
Rob Searcy continued to report that the care for
the residents is not critical care in nature and
basically provides assistance in areas they may
have deficiencies in providing for themselves. The
residents are seniors that range in age from 62 and
older. The total staff required for the facility
is projected to be three (3) employees during the
day shift and two (2) employees for the night
shift. The size of the residential care facility
is a significant intensification beyond the
surrounding land uses, as well as the existing on -
site use. The traffic generated from the site is
likely to increase over the current number of
trips. By state law, and right of zone, small
residential care facilities are deemed to be a
compatible form of residential use within a
residential zone. The threshold has been
delineated to be six (6) persons before
discretionary review is required. The expanded use
does, however, fall within the discretionary action
of local governing bodies. These larger facilities
January 14, 1991 Page 7
are designated for location within multiple family
and transitional zones. Also, the existing parking
is very limited because of the location on a cul-
de-sac. It is foreseen that there would be a
prohibition for any on street parking within the
cul-de-sac area.
Rob Searcy reported the Commission was supplied
with numerous letters from residents both in
support and opposition to the site. Mr. Searcy
indicated that Deputy Luter of the Sheriff's
Department has expressed his concerns that the use
may not be compatible to the adjacent usage, and
the lack of accessibility may create substantial
problems.
James Des tefano stated nine (9) additional letters
were received by staff regarding the project in
which seven (7) of the letters were in support of
the project and (2) were in opposition.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission adopt the
attached resolution of denial based on the findings
as presented.
The Public Heariag was declared open.
Smita Sanghvi, the applicant, residing at 963 Dare
Court, explained her residence is approximately 800
feet from the site. She stated she owns two (2)
boarding care homes for the elderly that are state
licensed. She recounted her educational
qualifications and proceeded to convince the
Commission of the importance for the need of Senior
centers. She asserted that she is providing a
growing need, within the community, for Alzheimer
patients and other related disorders. She depicted
her intentions of the proposed expansion: A walk
in the back; fire sprinklers; a red tile roof; and
a security gate that conforms to fire codes. The
building will go through the state fire marshall
department, licensing department, and the health
and safety department. She argued since the
elderly residents don't have a lot of visitors,
there will be a minimum increase in traffic of
approximately 40 to 50 visitors weekly. She
pointed out that her business is not a retail
outlet. In summarization, she stated the community
needs elderly facilities for Diamond Bar residents
and more help is needed.
VC/Harmony asked if there where any speakers in
favor of the expansion to come forward and limit
their comments to five (5) minutes.
Linda Scheck, program director for the Alzheimer
January 14, 1991 Page 8
Association of Orange County, described the need
for long term care for Alzheimer and related
disorders. She stated Orange County has 420
licensed boarding facilities throughout the County
with approximately six (6) patients each. The
applicant needs to increase the residency to make
it more economical and improve the level of daily
activities.
C/MacBride inquired how many Boarding Homes have
more than six (6) patients.
Linda Scheck replied the exceptions represent
approximately 3% to 4% of the population..
George Bening, 1240 N. VanBuren, Anaheim, the
architect to the project, stated his willingness to
work with staff on any alterations to the project.
VC/Harmony called a five (5) minute recess at 8:30
p.m.
VC/Harmony called the meeting to order at 8:42 p.m.
He requested speakers come forward who are in
opposition to the expansion.
George Bening asserted the property allows for
three (3) to four (4) apartment complexes.
Rob Searcy confirmed the zoning is R-1-800 which
restricts it for single family usage only.
Jim Warner, residing at 23504 E. Grand Rim Court
located above the proposed building site,
presented a letter and a copy of a fire report
dated 1989. He requested the Commission visit the
site and note that building by the hillside would
require drastic 1 grading. He is concerned any
retaining wall would be unable to support the
weight of the hill during a rainy season.
Norman Nissell, residing at 1007 S. Park Spring
Lane, stated complaints about the facility: It has
no parking on the street; there is no area for
their garbage now, which is -frequently scattered by
a stray dog; there is a lack of staff to control
the elderly patients and many times they have
entered into his property; there has been pushing
of the patients by the staff; he has seen staff
drinking in their cars in front of his home; and
the present hillside, which is approximately 30% of
the size of the lot, is not very well maintained.
Fearing a devaluation of the property if the
project is allowed, he does not feel the applicant
should be profitable at his expense.
January 14, 1991
Page 9
Don Chalet, residing at 1027 Banner Ridge Road,
commended the Commission on their diplomatic
approach to reviewing the issue. He was surprised
to receive notification of the expansion. He
stated the location of the facility in a
residential location is not appropriate. He
expressed concerns about the facility: There is
only one street into the cul-de-sac; the expansion
could decrease property value; and allowing this
expansion could set a precedent for future
undesirable ventures. He agreed there is a need
for such facilities, but argued there is a proper
place and location for them.
Dan Nelson, residing at 23520 Grand Rim, stated his
complaints to the project: There is a 40% slope
that would slide into the facility in a heavy rain;
there seems to be a discrepancy with the
information the applicant states, and he would like
clarification; there is doubt the employees are not
capable in handling the patients during an
emergency; the property is not kept up; the red
the roof is not in conformity to the rest of the
neighborhood; the patients are Alzheimers now but
would they include other ailments such as AIDS,
drug addictions, etc. He stated wherehousing
Alzheimer patients in a residential area is
inappropriate.
Roy Smith, residing at 23508 Grand Rim Court,
stated he would not have bought his property if he
had known the facility would have expanded into a
commercial business site.
Jim Jacobs, residing at 1003 Park Spring, stated
patients have wandered into home. There are many
children on the block and the trash, which includes
urine ftnd fecal matter, is a health hazard. The
fire codes require more than just sprinklers as
stated by the applicant. He noted that three (3)
staff members are not adequate to care for twenty-
four (24) patients.
Pat Brody, residing at 1021 Park Spring Lane,
asserted the facility is not appropriate in a
single family home and it belongs in a commercial
area. He is totally against it.
Louise Nissel, residing at 1007 Park Spring Lane,
has witnessed physical abuse, and neglect. It is
unacceptable to increase ,the capacity of the
facility.
Ron Sweenis, residing at 1022 Park Spring Lane,
stated he has stopped speeding employees. The
facility does not belong there.
January 14, 1991 Page 10
Cheryl Jacobs, residing at 1003 Park Spring Lane,
stated she can't argue the need of the care but
questioned the appropriateness of the location.
VC/Harmony confirmed with staff that the existing
facility is not at issue.
James DeStefano stated that a few years ago, the
State of California took away land use authority
from local cities and said a facility with six (6)
patients or less can be permitted in any residen-
tial zone, in any city.
Don Chalet stated he is now aware the facility is
allowed to remain. He asked if there can be
something done in regards to the garbage, and the
care given to the patients.
Smita Sanghvi, the applicant, responded to some of
the concerns expressed by the audience. She stated
that: the facility will have a trash compactor with
additional trash service; there will be no extra
noise with the increase of patients; the ambulances
came six (6) times last year; the location is
perfect because of its seclusion; half of the
people were even unaware of the present facilities;
and fire codes will be met. She stated health care
is very expensive and she is doing her best to keep
the price affordable for her patients.
Peggy Cooperman, in the medical field for fifteen
(15) years, worked in a convalescent home and a
retirement home, stated the applicants patients
should not be allowed to wander in a residential
neighborhood. Such incidents do happen, but the
facilities should be in the appropriate area.
Elita, an employee of the applicant, stated the
trash does not belong only to the applicant. She
explained that what the residents are perceiving to
be abuse is actually the only way to handle the
patients because they have a tendency to become
aggressive. She asserted the extra twenty-four
(24) patients would not be a problem to care for.
Smita Sanghvi noted the security gate will keep
patients from wandering.
Marie Upright stated, after hearing the stated
concerns, it is her opinion the facilities be
declared a nuisance. She noted that many nursing
homes are a lock -in facility and feels the children
should not be witness to these patients.
Roy
Smith,
neighboring
behind the applicant,
stated
his
small
children do
note the moaning and
no4ses
January 14, 1991 Page it
coming from the facilities.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
VC/Harmony inquired if the CUP can limit the type
of care the facility can provide.
James DeStefano confirmed the type of care can be
limited.
VC/Harmony noted there is no turn around area in
the driveway and asked if the fire department has
reviewed and commented on the configuration.
Rob Searcy replied that the plans have not been
submitted to the fire department, as of yet.
VC/Harmony inquired how big the retaining wall in
the back of the facility will be.
Rob Searcy stated the applicant proposed a six (6)
foot wall. However, staff estimated the wall
should be at least twelve (12) feet to give the
appropriate stability.
C/Grothe concurred there is a major need for the
type of care that is currently being offered. He
does not foresee a problem with the fire safety,
trash, and security. These are issues that can be
handled legally. The retaining wall can be
appropriately constructed to retain,the size of the
slope. He stated the problem arises in having such
a facility in a single family resident area. The
constructing of a major commercial facility would
remain as such virtually for life. He does not
feel the facility falls in the zoning of single
family residence.
i
C/Lin concurred, after visiting the site, that the
location is not visible from the street. She is
confident the facility would be able to meet the
codes. However, the zoning is R-1, and a business
of the proposed size, should not be in this type of
neighborhood. It should remain a single family
residence.
C/MacBride informed the audience that all of the
Commissioners have visited the property. He gave
his reassurance that the Commission will do their
best job in evaluating the situation. The issue
addresses the entire community on how the adult
population is cared for. He stated his admiration
on the dedication and the expertise of the
applicant. However, to intensify the use of the
facility would place a too intolerable burden on
the neighborhood. He affirmed the present use
January 14, 1991 Page 12
should remain as it is, and wished the applicant
well in conducting a facility which seems to be
appropriate at the present moment..
C/Lin remarked that deep down, the majority has a
sympathy for those with Alzheimer and a deep
appreciation for those who care for these people.
Neighbors should feel obligated to help the
facility keep on.
VC/Harmony maintained, that upon visiting, he was
impressed with the facility and there was a sense
of caring from the director. The idea of expansion
is too massive of a construction for the pad size.
Every community needs to face its realities and
these type of facilities are needed. However, six
(6) people may be an adequate number to care for.
He urged the neighbors to visit these people and
see them for the circumstance they are in. He
wished the applicant good luck.
Bill Curley noted changes of the draft resolution
presented to them: Page (3), section 3c should be
deleted; section 4a should read "...to accommodate
this density of development and use."; and section
4b should read "...can not reasonably accommodate."
Motion made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/MacBride,
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to pass the Resolution of
Denial for CUP 90-0117, as amended.
Sign Ordinance Staff reported the draft sign ordinance is a
request to amend certain provisions of Title 22 of
the Los Angeles County Code, as heretofore adopted
by the City of Diamond Bar, pertaining to signs.
James Destefano reported the Commission has
received the latest draft sign code package, which
incorporates a discussion of non -conforming signs
and sign abatement. The package has been
distributed to approximately sixty (60) individuals
and organizations for their review and input. The
outstanding issues of the draft sign ordinance
revolves around the need for specific language
refinements.
James Destefano reviewed the key components of the
ordinance in order to be sure the document reflects
the Commission's philosophy and policies on the
issues. A brief discussion will be necessary in
regards to the non -conforming and sign abatement
provisions within the document. Depending upon the
changes, the document should be brought back to the
Commission, at the next meeting, for consideration
of a Resolution of Approval at the next meeting.
January 14, 1991 Page 13
The
key components that staff would like the
Commission
to review are:
1.
page 15, section 106 of the Basic Sign Program
- Is it the Commission's desire to have all
illuminated signs reviewed by the Planning
Commission? There are numerous requests for
signs received daily. A high percentage of
those signs are illuminated.
2.
page 16 - Does the Commission want to review
all wall signs in a multi -use building or
commercial center where more than one wall
sign is proposed? Staff receives numerous
requests of wall signs within existing
commercial centers.
3.
page 17 & 18 - Staff is concerned that signs
may be too small in regards to Commercial Real
Estate. The policy dictates a 24 sq. ft.
maximum sign area for most of the categories.
In reality, there may be great difficulty in
enforcing the policy creating signs in
constant code enforcement resolution. The
same circumstance applies to the sub -division
and model homes signs.
4.
page 18 - It is recommended the political
signs be removed from the ordinance. There
are numerous issues surrounding political
signs. To attempt to set a standard as to the
number of signs, or the square footage area of
the sign, would be unenforceable by the City.
5.
page 19 - Staff would like to re-examine the
issue dealing with the intensity, maximum
wattage of the temporary holiday lighting. It
is now suggested that the lighting must be
removed 30 days after the permit is issued.
Staff noted that in some holidays, 30 days
seem to be excessive. However, the time
period and the retail time period between
about November 15 and January 15 may require
more than, 30 days for this type of holiday
lighting.
6.
page 19 - In regards to the temporary search
light permit, the policy presently refers to
one search light per property. Some shopping
centers are made up of multiple parcels, in
which case, multiple search lights would be
permitted. The ordinance should be clarified
with a definition for shopping centers which
would allow for a certain number of search
lights at a shopping center.
7.
page 24 - Does the Commission want to review
Condominium, Subdivision, or Rental Community
signs where the maximum sign area is 16 square
feet?
8.
page 26 - A variety of Exempt signs, located
in public parks and City facilities, are
suggested to be submitted for an advisory
January 14, 1991 Page 14
architectural review by the Planning
Commission. Staff wished to caution the
Commission that it is more a Council policy
issue as to whether they want to delegate that
specific authority to the Planning Commission,
the Park and Recreation Commission, or to
staff.
VC/Harmony interrupted the report to suggest
the staff review a Council ordinance on
architectural review that delegates
architectural review on development projects,
and so forth, to the Planning Commission.
9. pages 28, 29, & 30 - The areas related to
Prohibited Signs will be stricken from the
final ordinance. To specifically list
permitted signs and list prohibited signs
create a grey area for those signs that fall
somewhere in the middle. It is best to have a
sign ordinance that specifically lists signs
that are permitted and everything else is
deemed to be prohibited.
10. The final 12 pages of the document have some
policy issues that the staff will review with
the Commission, if so desired.
James DeStefano stated there are still some
definitions that need language clarification. As
an example, the definition of sign area needs
clarification because it is very difficult to
understand. He noted there has been very little
comment and input concerning the document from
individuals and organizations.
C/Lin requested staff classify the uses of the free
standing monuments noted on pages 21 and 22.
I
James DeStefano replied, on page 21, it refers to a
free standing sign for a single use. Page 22,
refers to a free standing sign for a commercial
center. The square footage for a sign face area
triples for a commercial center, although height
remains the same.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Rachel Sieger,
residing at
22939 E.
Escerol Drive,
suggested the
Commission
adopt
a conservative
approach to signs in Diamond Bar. The
proliferation of signs in a community effectively
decreases the property value, and quality of a
community. She noted the large number of political
signs and suggested restricting the numbers
allowed.
January 14, 1991 Page 15
Carolyn Gallanzier, residing at 224 N. Elencino
Drive, concurred with the concern of maintaining a
conservative approach with sign policy, and
allowing for exceptions as they appear. She
remarked that political signs should come down
after an election, as quickly as they were put up.
Dan Buffington, 2605 Indian Creek, applauded the
sign ordinance. He is concerned the ordinance
places a large work load onto the Commission and a
burden to the new shop keeper to obtain a sign.
Bob Zirbes, residing at 2141 Tierra Loma Drive,
handed the Commission a survey conducted by the
Diamond Bar Improvement Association (DBIA) regard
ing the sign ordinance. He noted Diamond Bar
residents preferred a stronger sign ordinance in
town and maintain a conservative approach.
Richard Sieger reiterated that the lack of the pro-
liferation of signs keep real estate value high.
Marie Upright. suggested that the ordinance should
include a policy in regards to repairing beat up
sI
gns.
Charles Kauld, residing at 2711 S. Diamond Bar
Blvd., business holder in the Towne Country Center,
urged the Commission to consider the situation of
businesses. Signage is essential to the operation
of a successful business.
Irwin Kaplan, City Planner, inquired if the Commis-
sion wished to include a CUP provision for food,
fuel and lodging signs adjacent to the freeway that
would allow for freeway visibility, appropriate to
the neighborhood. There is no such provision and
it would be inappropriate to write in a code sec-
tion for freeway visibility. However, a limited
CUP, allowing the Commission the opportunity to
hear special circumstances may be appropriate.
C/MacBride asserted there is a need for such a pro-
vision because; there is an intense interest in it;
it is justified and will save .a lot of trouble down
the road. He would like to see Mr. Kaplan's sug-
gestion implemented.
VC/Harmony inquired how exceptions in regard to
pole signs were stated.
James
DeStefano
recalled the issue
was concluded in
which
any use,
with some set of
unique circum-
stance, would seem to be eligible to process a
variance request describing those circumstances
which caused a need to deviate from the established
January 14, 1991
age,16
codes. The maximum height of six (6) feet would
remain in effect. There was no talk, specifically,
about public uses, which have raised some concerns,
that are adjacent to the freeway. It was generally
discussed how one may go about receiving an appro-
val for a sign that differed from the prescribed
standards.
Irwin Kaplan explained that a variance is a dif-
ficult procedure to determine if it is a variance
for height, location, or freeway access. He sug-
gested using the CUP as an alternative.
Bill Curley stated a variance gives a very narrow
set of parameters. The CUP gives a broader range
of flexibility.
Irwin Kaplan suggested using a CUP procedure that
is narrowly focused.
VC/Harmony. stated the words in the CUP should be
tough and the definition should be beyond question.
Irwin Kaplan suggested, in regards to signs in
multi use buildings, the Commission distinguish
between signs from new tenants in existing centers
as opposed to a new center with a series of new
signs. The former may not need to be part of a
plan sign program that needs review by the Planning
Commission.
Irwin Kaplan stated the Commission distinguished
between signs that are non conforming by virtue of
type of signs, as opposed to signs that are non
conforming because of size. Type of signs would be
a pole sign or a roof sign. In the discussion, it
was determined that the illegal type of signs would
be phased out after the fifteen (15) years. Signs
that were illegal in all respects, except size,
would continue until such time the business
changed, as opposed to trying to go on an
enforcement campaign. As the document is now
written, it makes no distinguish between signs that
are non conforming by virtue of size, versus signs
that are non conforming by virtue of type. Our
original discussion stated we would go after the
signs that were of a type no longer to be legal.
Bill Curley rebutted that the structured has been
broadened rather than trying to develop a definable
criteria. By directly articulating all the signs
the Commission approves or disapproves, gets into
an area fraught with both definitional and equal
protection challenges. The way its structured,
they shall be permitted to remain for fifteen (15)
years", puts us up to our threshold time where we
January 14, 1991 Page 17
can remove them without having to pay. Whether or
not there is aggressive removal is an unspoken
issue. There is no penalty to a jurisdiction for
failure to enforce it's own standards. The
structure gets you around the scenario of
justifying removal of one sign but not another. We
tried to craft in as much flexibility.
Irwin Kaplan remarked it is a policy issue. Either
way, fifteen (15) years down the road, the City
will have to enforce something.
VC/Harmony asked for clarification if all signs
will be abated in fifteen (15) years or if signs
will be abated by size, shape and configuration.
Bill Curley explained, as of now, it is structured
in such a way that it leaves it unspoken. The state
standards have been met.
C/Grothe concurred in allowing staff some authority
over approval of sign replacements, in existing
shopping centers, that conform to the codes and
ordinances. He stated there should be
specifications to a six (6) foot height sign that
is not geared to, some topographical situation. He
asserted, in regards to a CUP or a variance with
pole signs, specific rules and conditions should be
devised describing a full set of uniformed
guidelines.
C/Lin noted the ordinance draft is thorough and
conservative. She stated concern of the topography
and location for the different business centers.
She believed a CUP must be adopted to establish
guidelines that can be followed in the future. She
has begun taking pictures of the commercial centers
to sees the percentage of signs that would be non
conforming or in violation to the code.
VC/Harmony reviewed parts of the document he had
questions on:
1. page 2 of non conforming signs, paragraph 4 He requested the meaning be, explained.
Bill Curley explained it refers to site or
center rehabs in which a sign, sensibly, may
or may not be need to be changed to
accommodate the site used but, with the 50%
factor, they might as well redo anyway.
2. page 1 of non conforming signs, paragraph 2 -
He questioned how it applies to multiple
advertisers on pole signs.
Bill Curley explained it allows partial
January 14, 1991 Page 18
removal of a sign.
3. page 2, section 102B. 5b. - He noted the
application process was not to be done.
James DeStefano concurred and stated the
section will be removed.
4. page 3, section 102B. 5c. - He inquired why a
Planning Director would waive a requirement
and for what situations.
Bill Curley pondered that initially it began
as an amalgamation of a variety of City
standards that may have picked up something at
a time when a Planning Director's scope
included building official.
James DeStefano stated the item will be
reviewed.
5.
page 4, top line
- He wanted "th" removed.
6.
page 5, item F
- He requested a clear
definition of "right
of way".
7.
page 5, item
G - He would like some
consideration for
arabic numerals included.
8.
page 6, section
106E - He would like the
definition of the area of a sign to be
improved.
9.
page 8, item L
- He noted the definition
sounds more like
an ordinance.
10.
page 11, item II
- He noted the definition
sounds more like
an ordinance.
James DeStefano stated section LL on page 11
will be removed.
11. page 12, item PP - He suggested including the
word "candidate".
12. page 15, section 106 - He corrected the typing
error which should read "...Planning Director
or...".
James DeStefano noted wording such as "
...Planning Director or his..." will be
amended to read ..."his/her".
13. page 16, section 106A - He noted that maximum
height of wall signs was left blank.
James DeStefano explained that maximum height
needs to be stricken to allow the flexibility
to create signs of various lettering heights,
shapes, and so forth.
14. page 17, item B - He inquired to the measuring
January 14, 1991 Page 19
14. page 17,
item B
- He inquired
to the measuring
of the
signs.
James DeStefano explained that sign face area
refers to per face. He inquired if the
Commission wants 24 square feet to be the
limit, especially in regards to real estate.
15. page 18,
item B6 - He inquired
as
to why the
section
on political sign will
be
removed.
Bill Curley explained political signs may have
loose restrictions but they may not be
strictly regulated because of the dangers of
trifling with the first amendment.
16. page 22, section lO8D.3 - He requested
examples to the meaning of the special
condition.
Irwin Kaplan responded that the special
condition is in response to the Commissions
concern of shopping centers in a hole whereby
some of the buildings had their backs to the
roadway. The Commission felt they ought to be
entitled to Man additional sign on the rear of
the building as well as the front. A concern
is to keep the signs uniformed. The special
condition allows the aggregate square footage
of signage on that building front and rear to
exceed the 100 square feet. The size it may
exceed will be at the Commissions discretion.
Motion was made by C/MacBride, seconded by C/Grothe
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the Public
Hearing to the next regular meeting of January 28,
1991.
I
DA 90-2 Staff reported DA 90-2 is a request for a
Development Agreement for Gateway Corporate Center
located South of the 57 Freeway and off Golden
Springs Drive.
James DeStefano reported a development agreement
was drafted for review by the Gateway people, as
well as the internal City staff, and City Attorney.
More time is needed to sort out a variety of
issues. Staff recommended the issue be continued
to the meeting of February 11, 1991.
Public Hearing was declared open.
Motion was made by C/MacBride, seconded by C/Lin
anA CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the Public
Hearing to the meeting of February 11, 1991.
January 14, 1991 Page 20
ANNOUNCEMENTS: VC/Harmony inquired of the Commissions interest in
a Speakers Bureau.
C/Grothe recommended the City maintain a list of
possible speakers to be kept at the City office.
C/MacBride stated he was uncomfortable with the
idea.
C/Lin concurred with the other Commissioners.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/MacBride
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at
11:40 p.m.
Clair Harmony
Vice Chairman
James DeStefano
Secretary/Planning Commission
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commissioners
VIA: James DeStefano, Director of Planning
FROM: V Irwin M. Kaplan, City Planner
SUBJECT: Refinement of Proposed Sign Code
DATE: January 25, 1991
At the meeting of January 14, the Planning Commission expressed
interest in a sign code provision which would address such prob-
lems as has been experienced by the Ramada Inn which is adjacent
to, but virtually invisible from the freeway. The Commission also
reiterated its intent that any such provision should not be spew
cial purpose zoning to solve the problem of the Ramada Inn. (The
"variance" procedure was felt to be inappropriate, since a free-
way -oriented sign for the Ramada Inn might be construed as a grant
of a privilege not available to others).
In addition, the Commission specified that any provision for free-
way oriented signage should be tightly drawn, since the Commis-
sion's purpose is to discourage signage along the freeways. With
this in mind, the following guidelines are suggested:
1. Limit Freestanding Sianaae Only to Places of Lodging.
2.
Obviously, if more businesses are eligible for such signage,
more freestanding signs can be expected. Traditionally,
where freeway signage is permitted, food, fuel and lodging
are the uses eligible for signage. As proposed, only hotels
and motels would be eligible for freestanding signs.
Such signs would be permitted only for uses which adjoin
freeway rights -of -way and would be generally subject to the
regulations of the Planned Sign Program. In other words, the
main departure from the code as proposed, would be to permit
signs on properties adjoining freeway rights -of -way to adver-
tise only food and fuel, if the front entrance faced a direc-
tion other than the freeway. Such signs would also be per-
mitted for hotels and motels in lieu of freestanding signs.
Require All Such Signs to be Subject to a CUP.
A) Guidelines, rather than specific standards, are proposed
for freestanding signs for places of lodging. These
Memorandum
January 25, 1991
Page Two
would address such issues as location, size, architec-
tural treatment, etc., and require that the Commission
make findings in order to approve such requests. In
other words, if the findings cannot be made, it would be
incumbent upon the Commission to deny the request.
B) The standards of the Planned Sign Program would apply to
wall signs for food and fuel service, but additional
flexibility is proposed in the application of these
standards. The purpose would be to give the Commission
the opportunity to evaluate each situation on the mer-
its. As would be the case for freestanding signs, find-
ings of consistency with the intent of the ordinance
would be needed in order to approve the request.
4. Criteria for Approval and Specific Issues to be Addressed in
Making the Required Findings.
A) Freestanding Signs for Places of Lodging
1) Signs shall reflect the architecture of the prin-
cipal building which is being advertised,
2) The size and the height of the sign shall be dic-
tated by the minimum size and height required to
be visible and readable for a distance generally
not to exceed 1,500 feet from the location of the
sign in the direction of the freeway, based upon
the attached schedule (Exhibit "A")
a) If, in order to be visible from more than one
direction along the freeway, the size and/or
heightl of the sign will be substantially
greater than would be needed to be visible
from one direction, the Commission may not
approve signage which would be visible from
more than one direction.
b) If the configuration, elevation or geometry
of the freeway will restrict visibility of
the proposed sign to less than 1,500 feet,
the height and size of such sign will be re-
duced'accordingly.
c) Information on freestanding signs shall be
limited to the name and logo of the facility
to be advertised.
Memorandum
January 25, 1991
Page Three
3) `Such signs shall be limited to one per site.
4) The commission may permit additional text or
height than might otherwise be permitted, if sign -
age is integrated into the overall design of the
principal building in lieu of a freestanding sign.
5) Freestanding signs shall be located on the site in
a manner clearly designed to be visible primarily
from the freeway, with the support structure for
said freestanding sign to be located and con-
structed in a manner which will minimize visibili-
ty from other surrounding public rights -of -way and
public areas.
Be Wall signs adjoining freeways
1) An additional sign may be permitted on a building,
inorder to advertise food, fuel and lodging on a
building wall which does not contain the front
entrance, but which adjoins and is visible from
the freeway.
2) Information shall be limited to the name and logo
of the advertised business, unless such wall sign
is in lieu of a permitted freestanding sign.
3) The number of such wall signs shall be limited to
one per eligible use, subject to the size limita-
tions of this section.
4) One additional sign may be granted, if it is in
lieu of a permitted freestanding sign.
c. The commission shall deny an application for a sign if:
1) It is deemed to violate the intent of this sec-
tion, or
2) Specific findings cannot be made in support of
each of the guidelines enumerated herein.
/- .
�F�IP�I-t- n�+"
Viewing Distance
Sign readership for various character
heights at different speeds
haracter
Height•
~ ~ ~ O O
N N � O
O
M
Farthest Distance that
the sign will be readable 1/4 1/3 1/2 6/10
mile mile mile mile
Character Reading Viewing Exposure in Seconds
Height in Distance 20MPH 30MPH 40MPH 50MPIi 60MPH
Inches In Feet (29.3) (44.0) (58.7) (73.3) (88.0)
18 900 30.7 20.5 15.3 12.3 10.2
24 1200 41.0 27.3 20.4 16.4 13.6
30 1500 51.2 34:1 25.6 20.5 17.0
36 1800 ��1.4 40.9 30.7 24.5 20.5
42 2100 1.7 47.7 35.7 28.6 23.9
48 2400 81.9 54.5 40.0 32.7 27.3
60 3000 102.4 68.2 51.1 40.9 34.1
NOTATIONS:
1. The general rule of 50 feet of distance for each inch of character
height was developed for 3M Co, by Dr. Lauer in a series of studies
25-30 years ago. If the sign is directly in view, the distance applies. If
there is considerable set-baek from the road, the distance would be
the hypotenuse.
2. The feet traveled per second is indicated in the parenthesis.
3. The data in the 3-7 columns is viewing exposure in seconds for
moving vehicles.
IC 9.0 - 9/87
City of Diamond Bar
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Co(�mmissioners
FROM: James DeStefano, Director of PlannYnq
SUBJECT: Draft Sign Ordinance
DATE: January 25, 1991
On January 14, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed the latest Draft
Sign Code package. The Ordinance included a discussion of nonconform-
ing signs and sign abatement language. Before that meeting, staff
mailed draft copies of that ordinance to over sixty individuals and
organizations for their review and input. Staff brought to the atten-
tion of the Planning Commission, several key components of the
ordinance regarding philosophy and policy issues. Several questions
and clarifications were asked for by various members of the Planning
Commission. Attached to this memorandum is a copy of the Planning Com-
mission Minutes, relative to the Sign Ordinance discussion. Key compo-
nents of the ordinance, as outlined within the minutes and expressed at
the last meeting still remain to be addressed by the Commission. Clar-
ification of language, typographical errors and a variety of minor
changes have been made within the attached Sign Ordinance. Additional-
ly, in a separate freestanding memo from Irwin Kaplan is a discussion
regarding a Conditional Use Permit for freeway -oriented signage. Staff
is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the changes to
the Draft Ordinance, discuss the remaining outstanding issues and upon
conclusion of the hearing, adopt a Resolution recommending approval of
the Sign Ordinance and forwarding the document to the City Council.
JDS:pjs
Attachment
SIGN
SECTION 100. PURPOSE AND INTENT.
The purpose and intent of the draft Sign ordinance 'is
as follows:
A. To encourage the use of modest signs with due
regard for the needs of the business community.
B. To encourage signs which are harmonious with other
existing signs.
C. To assure an appropriate level of review prior to
approval of sign permits.
D. To bring existing signs, as much as is feasible,
into compliance with the provisions of the Sign Ordinance.
SECTION 102. p'
A. PERMITS; REQUIRED PERMITS; PERMIT ISSUER.
1.
Permits
are required for
all signs except
those specifically
exempted
from the permit
requirements by this
Sign ordinance.
2. Permits may be issued by the Planning
kw I
Director, or hisndesignee, for all signs listed in (Section 106)
of this Ordinance
(Basic Sign
Program), subject
to
those
conditions listed
in Section
102 D (Guidelines)
of
this
Ordinance.
3. Permits may be issued by the Planning
Director, or his designee, upon direction from the Planning
Commission or City Council for any sign(s) listed within (Section
108) (Planned Sign category).
1
B. APPLICATION FOR PERMITS
Applications for sign permits shall be made upon forms
provided by the Planning Director, or his designee, and shall
containI or have attached thereto, the following information and
material:
1. The name, address, and telephone number of
the owner of the property on which the signs) are to be located.
2. The name, address, and telephone number of
the applicant (owner of the sign).
3. The name, address, and telephone number of
the sign contractor, if any.
4. The location of'the building, structure or
lot to which or upon which the sign or other advertising
structure is to be attached or erected.
15.1 Three (3) copies of a plan and elevations
showing the:�JJ
l a•) Sign(s) height, size, proposed colors,
type style, elevation above final grade level, proposed location
on the premises of the sign structure, its relationship to
adjacent"buildings or structures,-&� the method of illumination
tt% C tOOV5 a0AJ
and materials proposed to be used.
b
- Leea ,
+ho e o ma
F.l
Structural details and calculations
signed by a person competent and qualified to prepare such
Awr
information. The Planning Director or his designee may, in their
sole discretion, waive such requirement.
6. Photographs showing the premises and adjacent
property at the time of making the application.
7. Such other information as the Planning
Director, or hi ^d ignee, shall deem reasonable and necessary to
ensure safety of construction and compliance with this and all
other ordinances of the City.
�C REVIEW OF SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION; APPEAL PROCESS
1. In consideration of the issuance of a sign
permit, the factors noted below shall be utilized by the Planning
Director, or hi designee, as guidelines for determining that a
submitted sign proposal furthers the intent and purpose
established by this Ordinance.
2. An appeal from a decision of the Planning r+)�v
relative to the, application of the review guidelines
contained herein shall be made to the Planning Commission. Such
appeal shall be filed with the Secretary of the Commission in
writing within ten (10) days after the date of mailing of
notification to .the Applicant by the Planning Director or his/hare/'
designee that any submitted sign proposal has been denied or
modifications are required to effect conformance with the
guidelines. An appeal from the Planning Commission decision may
be made to the City Council if such appeal is filed in writing
W14WYN -GPM, Cl o) A,e V ff &HiL\ +N& cf &b % n%
notification of the Planning Commission action.
In determining the consistency of each proposed sign
with the purposes of this Ordinance, the following guidelines
shall be applied:
1. That the proposed sign will be legible to the
intended audience under normal viewing conditions, based on its
proposed location and the design of its visual element.
2. That the proposed sign will not obscure from
view or detract from existing signs, based on its location,
shape, color and other similar considerations.
3. That the proposed sign will be in harmony
with adjacent properties and surroundings, based on the size,
shape, height, color, placement, and the proximity of such
proposed sign to adjacent properties and surroundings.
4. That the proposed structure, sign or display
will be designed, constructed and located so that it will not
constitute a hazard to the public..
5. That the proposed sign is not designed to
have the advertising thereon maintained primarily to be viewed
from a freeway, unless specifically provided for under the terms
of this Ordinance.
3
The appropriate fee, as determined by resolution of the
City Council, shall be collected by the Planning Direc"t"o�r, or his
designee, upon application for any sign permit.OV " pflNave
SECTION 104.
GENERAL REGULATIONS
B. No freestanding sign shall be located less than 25
linear feet from an adjoining property line, except that a sign
may be located no less than 10 feet from the ultimate ��
right-of-way.
C. Signs shall be constructed of fire resistant
material. Where glass or plastic are used, these materials shall
be shatter -resistant.
D. The Director of Planning may approve minor
alterations of signs approved within a planned sign program.
E. .Sign materials and colors shall be consistent with
building materials attached or adjacent to signs.
F. No sign shall be placed on or over public
right-of-way unless permission has been granted byACity Council
or the Council's designee. I�f vhk ht%hi2 �s 6✓
G. Sign copy in non-Latin/RomanAalphabet characters
must contain thereon a generic description written in English of
the nature of such business or use. Such translation shall be
visible from the nearest public street.
1
7
H. Business signs shall be limited to those portions
of a building within which such business is located or conducted.
SECTION 106. DEFINITIONS
A. Advertising device: Any balloon, flag, pennant,
banner, propeller, oscillating., rotating, pulsating or stationary
light or other contrivance (except lawfully permitted signs) used
to attract attention. (See "Sign".)
B. Advertising display: Any device, contrivance,
statue or structure (other than a sign) used as a display,
regardless of size and shape, for the purpose of attracting
attention.
C. Advertising structure. outdoor: A structure of
any kind or character erected or maj„ntained for the purpose of
advertising a business, activity, service or product not sold or
produced on the premises upon which said structure is placed.
D. Alteration: Any change of copy, sign face, color,
size, shape, illumination, position, location, construction or
supporting structure of any sign.
E. Area of a sign: The-evrt44z rea within the single
continuous perimeter of not more than eight (8) straight lines
enclosing the extreme limits of writing, representation, emblem
or any figure of similar character, together with any material or
color forming any integral part of the displayAA;. -te
�m. .... case of a sign designed with more
0
than one exterior, surface, the area shall be computed as
including only the maximum single display surface which is
visible from any ground position at one time.
Unless otherwise specified, the supports, uprights or
structure on which any sign is supported shall not be included in
determining the sign area unless such supports, uprights or
structure are designed in such a manner as to form an integral
background of the display.
F. Attached Sian: Any sign which is permanently
affixed to a building, including wall signs.
G. Attraction board: A changeable copy on premise
wall or freestanding sign which contains messages related to
upcoming events at restaurants, movie theatres,
niaht,��-or similar uses.
H. Awnina sign: A sign attached to or written upon
an awning` —(,See—��a�agp—s�grt" :-r-- Chi A b'v' WX/Alv/t��Uee
I. Banner sign: Any sign hung either with or without
frames, possessing written communication applied to non -rigid
paper, plastic, non-rigial material or fabric of any kind, and
capable of being viewed from any public right-of-way, parking
area, or neighboring property.
J. Building frontage: The lineal extent of a
building or activity which has frontage on either a public
right-of-way or parking area. The length of the building facing
the public right-of-way or parking lot shall be used to determine
the amount of signage permitted.
K. Buildina identification sian:A Sign attached to a
building which designates the name and/or address of a business
or organization.
L. Business sign: A sign displaying information
pertaining to goods or services offered or produced by the
business located on
/// the property but not including advertising
devices/displays. / tip the—}denting—__
--„�,,,a �f r,,,� cL/ m�.o coast-east—o-f—bus-i-rress—signs—shal'I—Ys�—'—'-tl
s�ness---
*+ame of the user • ( � ) t-ha�ame—or.�aanes--o.£—the--owner-(-sj--oi--thy----
—LYE--aeldr__- _.`r ;- premises, rees an ing'cisl`n�-ss—s'icJi'i—�aiT�en�--�
'--sha-1-1—rn*_}rxde�ie sir-eet—adei-r-ess—o-f—�Y�e—business—adver�isea---..__
__�;gnG ehaii nc,t �,e--a�-leweFl-t�-adver�rse-the-proc4uct-s�-sal-ci-or-- ---,
p�n�asl o� the_i_ndi�idua3-ser-v��es-per�or-med-Qn-the premiso-s--
_fir e�� j brodt �ts�or_sew-vi-ees a-re-an--i'fitegral- part of- th-e
i d ent kfy kng-name---oi-ttri�-b-us i n e s s.
M. Canoov sign: Any sign which is not illuminated,
which is attached to the underside of a projecting canopy
protruding over a private or public sidewalk or right-of-way.
(See "Awning sign".)
N. Changeable copy sign: Any sign designed and
intended to have an \easily and readily changeable copy�-such
— o attraction board..)
(43e&
0
O. Civic organizations Sian: A
sign which has copy, limited to organization name, address, and
civic/ patriotic or religious events conducted on the property.
P. Commercial center: Any site containing two (2) or
more commercial activities, for which signage is proposed.
Q. Condominium, subdivision or rental community sign
(permanent): A wall or .freestanding sign which has copy limited
to the name of the condominium, subdivision or rental community,
I
ncluding apartments, located on the property.
R. Construction sign: AAsign which states the name
of the future site occupant and/or the name, address and/or phone
numbers of related construction, architectural, and financial
firms. _,
S. Electronic message board sign: A -sign with a
fixed or changing display composed of a series of lights, but not
including time and temperature displays.
T. Entrance/Exit signs: A sign which has copy
limited to the words "Entrance" or "Exit" and is located at
commercial driveways or mIdunted at building entrances or exits.
U. Flag: An advertising device, but not including
national flags or flags of political subdivisions.
V. Flashing or animated sign: A sign intermittently
emitting light, or which has any illumination which is not
maintained in constant intensity, color or pattern, including
electronic. reader boards, except time and temperature displays.
0
W. Freestanding sign: Any sign permanently or
temporarily
attached to
the ground
which does not have a
building as
its piF4�ma;;y
structural
support.
X. premise sign.
advertising the opening of a new business.
Gv�cl e,
Y. -C#r level: Ground elevation at the closest
point of the adjacent building or curb level of the adjacent
right-of-way, whichever is closerj�V'j'Vwo� �Oce&b:-, &r-*1geSt .
Z. Government offices and quasi -official signs: A
sign
displaying information
pertaining
to services
offered by
City,
County, State or other
official
governmental
agencies.
AA. Height of a sian: The vertical distance measured
from (average).n�wn� (lowest point of elevation) level along the
base of the sign structure, to the highest point of the
structure.
BB. Hours of operation sign: A wall or window sign
designating hours of opening and closing.
CC. Illuminated sign: A sign which has characters,
letters, figures, designsior outline backlighted or internally
illuminated by electric lights or luminous tubes.
DD. Incidental sign: A wall or window sign indicating
type of credit card accepted, trade affiliation, etc.
EE. Institutional sign: A re arrdi-�tg� sign
which has copy limited to the name/address of an institution
located on the property, i.e., a hospital, school, library or
other public facility.
X. Liquidation sign: An on premise sign advertising
a one time only clearance, liquidation or going out of business
sale.
GG. Locro: A name, symbol, or trademark of a company,
business, or organization.
HH. Menu board: A changeable copy wall or
freestanding sign limited to a listing of food sold on premises,
including prices.
II. Monument Sian: A low profile freestanding sign
which may be internally or externally illuminated, erected with
its base on the ground and which is designed to incorporate
design and building materials which complement the architectural
theme of the buildings of the premises, the prase of �nonum�nt—
vt—exeeeelI-B11�n—he
area
JJ. Piameplate:, A wall mounted sign of no more than
four (4) square feet identifying the building name or address, or
the name of the owner of the premises.
KK Nonconforming sign: A sign which complied with
all applicable regulations at the time it was installed, but
which is now in conflict with the provisions of this chapter.
r r ors •---�ver}� C t gn i s ger
,,its, advert
lei
l 7�`
9�-c^oa7L
MM. Outdoor advertisina sign: A sign, including
billboards, or the sign structure on which it is to be placed,
the purpose of which is to advertise products or services that
"M Vukl
are not produced, stored,Aor sold on the property upon which the
sign or structure is
located,
but not
including travel direction
or bus/bench shelter
signs in
public
rights -of -way.
NN. Portable sign: A sign not securely attached or
fixed to the ground or to a permanent structure; or upon a
vehicle
or trailer used
as
a stationary advertising display, the
primary
purpose of which
is
to serve as a base , platform, or
support
for the sign, or
to
which the sign is otherwise affixed
or attached.
oo. Pole sign: A freestanding sign supported by one
or more uprights.
PP. Political sian: A temporary sign conveying a
message relating to a political issueA upcoming election or
ballot issue. iI
QQ. Price sian: A sign limited to the name or
identification of items or products for sale on the premises, and
the price of said items or products.
RR. Projecting sign: A sign which projects more than
twelve (12 ) inches from -t " F a building and wh4:eh has
if
9m puck btp ddtky fvY 'tt4 SVpperT#
SS. Real estate sian: A temporary sign indicating
12
that the premises on which the sign is located is for sale, lease
or rent.
nrouert�[_,�
ORoof sign: An attached sign constructed upon or
over a roof, or placed so as to extend above the visible
t-ke—bum-iu-rng--i ��-?� o i entify.
WW. Sian: Any device used for visual communication or
attraction, including any announcement, declaration,
demonstration, display, illustration, insignia, or symbol used to
advertise or promote the interests of any person, together with
all parts, materials, frame and background thereof.
"Sign" and "adv1r ising__dev' "sh^11 t inc1lltiP the
1. Official notices issued by any�Durt or
2 Notices posted by any public officer in
13
- ommuni irec Iona 'ors; —,
<--artthor� aed �i�L-b'ede�'al�—St' tnax'ity-, -and--� r r
�lr--Hsp3ay prices or other messages not less
---t inches behind ui ing in ows.
XX. Sian copy: Any word, letter, number, figurer
design or other symbolic representation incorporated into or
depicted upon a sign.
alvea 6v A,spi&Ay
YY. Sian face: The-s�`��}3
ZZ. Sian structure: Any structure which supports any
sign.
AAA. Site: One or more parcels of land identified by
the assessor's records where an integrated building development
has been approved or proposed. The site shall include all
parcels of land contained within or a part of the development
application. An integrated building development shall include all
parcels served by common access ways, driveway, parking and
landscaping.
BBB. Special event sign: A temporary sign which
conveys a message related to a civic, patriotic or religious
event.
CCC. Subdivision/model-home sign: A sign which
identifies a subdivision for sale, and which is located on the
property being advertised.
14
DDD. Temporary Holiday Lighting or Window Trimming: Low
intensity lighting consisting of continuous bulbs which may flash
or blink used to commemorate a patriotic civic or religious
event, or decorative trim surrounding the window.
EEE. Temporary Sian: Any sign displayed for a limited
period of time and capable of being viewed from any public
right-of-way, parking areMq,or neighboring property.
GGG. Wall sign: Any sign which is attached �im�i erected,,Lrv�hj`'yv
on the exterior wall of a building including the parapet, with
the display surface of the sign parallel to the building wall,
and which does not project more than twelve (12) inches from the
building,—eefheight�z—the--
HHH. Window sign: Any sign posted, placed or affixed
Yk2.�-iZ,viov c9-t= 'j'tte s-tv'uc�'i'!'vvousn
in or on any window visible from°'a-pulali�ghttiF�=•._�kiag�
a CviV%C(0LV. SECTION 106. BASIC SIGN PROGRAM.
The following signs may be approved by the Planning
,W /hwr
Director 4T hisgdesignee.
rnary-�s3-ida� ligh-tixag-a�+ci
15
A. Permanent:
1. Wall signs for individual uses:
(Olax. Area: 1 sq. ft. per 1 1 ineal foot
Frontage, to a maximum 100
sq, ft. per use.
Max. Number: 1 per outer wall
Ve-'t�'SE�3
i3e3g a or parapet.
Special Conditions: No permit shall be
issued for a wall sign in a multi -use
building or commercial center in which more
than one sign is proposed without Planning
Commission review and approval.
Zone: Commercial
2. Canopy and awning signs:
Max. Area: Limited to letters or numbers
no greater than 7 inches in
height designating business
name or address..
.Max. Number: 1 per use
Zone: Commercial
16
B. Temporary:
1. Commercial Real Estate Sign:
Max. Area: 24 sq. ft.
Configuration: Wall or Freestanding
Max. Number 1 per site
Max. Freestanding Height: 6 ft.
Special Conditions: Permit valid for one
year after permit issuance, may be renewed.
Zone: Commercial
2. Construction Sign:
Max. Area: 24 sq. ft.
Configuration: Wall or Freestanding
Max. Number: h per site
Max. Freestanding Height: 6 ft.
Special Conditions: Permit for sign issued
after construction permit is issued; sign
must be removed upon issuance of occupancy
permit.
Zone:Ii All
3. Subdivision/Model Home Sales Signs
Max. Area: 16 sq. ft.
Configuration: Wall or Freestanding
Max. Number: 1 per entrance
Max. Freestanding Height: 4 ft.
17
Special Conditions: Permit valid for six
months, renewable.
Zone: Any
4. Grand Opening Sign:
Max. Area: 16 sq. ft.
Configuration: Wall or Window
Max. Number: 2 per use.
Special Conditions: Permit valid for 30 days
Zone: Commercial
5. Liquidation Sale Sign
Max. Area: 16 sq. ft.
Configuration: Wall or Window
Max. Number: 2 per use
Special Conditions: Permit valid for 30 days
Zone: Commercial
Mc3-X-�--AY'B�'--=�a--��-•—� �en�'Yd=-=ram *rlp5
24 S.q,.f Win,.,.,, r-e-i-a-}--z-OTTes
I�
onfia3lrat_ ion: Wall or Freestanding
Max. }dt�m�er�—z ga�propErt}
Max*--- anc}ing—H��girt —4—f es en is
Special Event:
Max. Area: 24 sq. ft.
Configuration: Wall, Window or Portable
Max. Number: 1 per use
Special Conditions: Must be removed within
ten days following special event. Permit
issued not more than 6o days prior to event.
Zone:
Commercial
Temporary Holiday Lighting: 1 J
Max. Area: —Nf}4— AeZ 4e AeelW� iv b2
Configuration: ° lkq�
Max. Number: bye
special Conditions: Must be removed within
30 days after permit issuance. Maximum
intensity of 25 watts. Trim not to exceed
7" in height or width.
Zone:
�11
Temporary Searchlight Permit:
Max. Area: N/A
Configuration: N/A
Max. Number: 1 Searchlight per property
Special Conditions: A temporary searchlight
i
permii may be used for special events such
as, but not limited to, Grand Openings and
Premier showings. Such permits may be
granted for a maximum period of ten days.
The ten days may be consecutive or may occur
within a 30 day period. Permit shall be
granted one time per year.
Zone:
19
Commercial
SECTION 108. PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM
The following signs must be approved by the Planning
Commission:
A. Sign illumination shall be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. No lighting shall interfere with traffic or
regulatory lighting in color or intensity, nor create confusion
for motorists or pedestrians in travel.
2. The intensity of lighting and the hours of
operation shall be restricted for sign lighting visible from,
directed toward or reflecting upon residential properties.
3. Lighting shall be consistent with existing
conforming commercial and/or residential properties.
B. For single use buildings with 200 feet or more of
frontage, a Planned Sign Program may be approve4which exceeds the
maximum aggregate sign area up to a limit of 200 sq. ft.,
provided that:
1. No single wall sign so approved exceeds 100
�I
sq. ft., and no freestanding sign exceeds 24 sq. ft> As -kA r
N�ronkS 6 �y
2. Any two signs placed on the same frontage vwvdhayl 2
which taken together exceed 100 sq. ft. shall be separated by no
less than one-half the length of the building frontage.
C. No planned sign program shall be approved which
allows any combination of signs which exceed an overall maximum
of 100 sq* ft. per use, except as stated by the provisions of
this ordinance.
20
bll
1.
3
Standards:
Freestanding Monument:
Max.
Area:
24 sq. ft.
Max.
Number:
1 per frontage
in excess of 99 ft*
for structures
less than 4 stories
1 per frontage
for structures 4
stories or greater
Max.
Height:
6 feet
Zone:
Commercial
Window
Signs:
Max.
Area:
25 percent of
contiguous window
frz�a
Max. Number: 2 peY"use
Zone: Commercial
Wall Signs for multi -use buildings or
commercial centers:
Max. Area: 1 sq. ft. per 1 lineal foot
peArPsn A val 14, h?Cnfi
Frontage to a maximum of 100 sq.
1CYTt a PeA' I iineea4 f�feb
ft. per street level uses plusAup -fwhkc
A WCA')a "V PA Z'6 Pw
toA100 sqo ft. for uses not locatedsr-'�
at street level which are visible F�
from the street, courtyard, or
public parking area and which are
individually accessible directly
from the outside, such as along a
common balcony or walkway.
21
A pnaii , n� SiC� Mir1 R' �4ti M lTy� c,v' 4 �.q vitl L 7 Jr
YrrNs ` J
Ttae W��� b fkrcli C'.0 7�tz rEo,v i �ti za,�cf >jtovt,) � ),414 WALL
E✓1C4S A IF f-c- jzr6611—off"-buA t1 Sty' s 1:LA N /�z rKzc i�� cnJ
W4 �S VISt.At, jvi vG Fk�4w,r� titGN iS-0r 1t� iN IAL.
'GX[FST,a� ti(
of A,;P,�vli Sf?✓t..,� t't>-�'� t.�.a� �; .F E
5r�:�s rye
Ns µrT,ui SS2✓rt7 ST,tI.�tiS t�tSPS.v ..vG �L +w)
Max. Number: 1 per use per outer wall
5
6.
ocat ion: Same as Basic Sign Program
pacial Conditions: Sign on rear wall maynexceed
:g9�egatz-100 sq. ft. maximum,
�-�iiB 2'n-•,���-z�.++„;-�-uviiii v�hET-
Businesses with frontages less
han 25 feet may be approved for sign area up to
5 sqe ft.
one: Commercial
Freestanding Monument�Afor commercial centers:
Max. Area:
Max. Height:
72 sq. ft.
6 feet
Max. Number: 1 sign per entrance
special Conditions: Shall not be counted toward
maximum sign area otherwise permitted.
Zone:
Commercial
Government flags over 12 sq, ft. in area or
6 ft.
in
height:
Max.
Area:
II
Determined
by Planning Commission
Max. Height: 35 feet
Max. Number: Determined by Planning Commission
Zone: All
Building I.D. Sign:
Max. Area: 36 sq. ft.
Max. Height: Must be mounted at a height no
less than 25 ft.
22
Max. Number: 1 per building
Special Conditions: (a) Signs mounted at a
building level higher than 45 feet may be no
larger than 2% of the vertical exterior wall
upon which the sign is located; (b) Up to 4
Building I.D. Signs may be approved for buildings
when such signs are mounted at a building height
greater than 75 feet, limited to one sign per
building side; (c) Up to two Building I.D. Signs
may be approved when signs are mounted higher than
45 ft.; (d) Building I.D. Signs larger than 36 sq*
ft. may not be used on properties containing
freestanding signs; T e) Building I.D. Signs shall
not be counted towards maximum sign area; and
(f) Building I.D. Signs are allowed only on
buildings.the heights of which are no less than
45 feet.
Zone: Commercial
7. Civic organization Signs/Institutional Signs:
a. Freestanding Monument:
Max. Area: 24 sq. ft. in commercial zones
16 sq* ft. in residential zones
Max. Height: 4 feet
23
Max. Number: 1 per frontage in excess of 99 feet
_. in commercial zones
L �''. 1 per frontage along public streets
tiWK
al.citcAn ae, ��rea{-eY-�. � of 200 feet efz
residential —canes— VSeS.
Zone: All
Special Conditions: Copy may be changeable. Sign
must not be located within fifty feet of any
residential use.
b. Wall Signs:
Max. Area: 1 sq. ft. sign area per 1 linear
foot frontage, to a maximum of
100 sq. ft. in commercial zones.
1 sq. ft. sign area per 1 linear
foot frontage, to a maximum of
50 sq. feet in residential zones.
Max. Number: 1 per frontage on public streets.
Zone: All
Special Conditions: Copy may be changeable. Must
not be located within fifty feet of any
residential use.
8. Condominium, Subdivision or Rental Community
Sign (Permanent):
Max. Area: 16 sq. ft.
Max. Height:. 4 ft.
Configuration: Wall or freestanding monument
Max. Number: 1 per frontage in excess of 200 ft.
_.: Zone' All
Special Conditions: Must not be located within
fifty feet of any residential use which is not
part of the condominium project, subdivision or
rental community located on the property. Height
is to be measured from ground level along the
base of the sign structure to the top of the sign
area.
O VhJ
9 . Attraction "etn rri- Board:
Max. Area: 24 sq. ft.j'i
Max. Height: 6 ft. in commercial zones
Configuration: Freestanding monument
Max. Number: 1 per frontage along public streets
in excess of 99 feet
Wall Signs:
Max. Area: 1 sqv ft. sign area per 1 ft*
r%. frontage along a public street to
l 6�/ 1
1
8vl-emed
a maximum of 100 sq. ft.
Max. Number: 1 per use, except theatre marquees
Location: Same as Basic Sign Program
Special Conditions: Theatre marquees shall be
determined by Planning Commission,
TION 110. EXEMPT SIGNS
A. Government required traffic and directional signs.
Be Official City monument signs located at City
limitse such signs shall be submitted for an advisory
architectural review by Planning Commission prior to sign
installation.
C. Monument signs on City park grounds or at City
facilities. Such signs shall be submitted for an advisory
architectural review by Planning Commission prior to sign
installation.
D. Entrance/Exit Signs (wall or window):
Area: 1 sq. ft.
Configuration: Wall or window
Number: 1 per entrance plus 1 per exit
we
Special Conditions: Must be consistent in color,
WIC+
background and letteringem� other signs on the
property.
E. Real Estate Signs:
Area: 6 sq. ft.
Height: 8 ft.
�I
Configuration: Freestanding, window (one window
sign allowed per ground level
lease space)
Number: 1 per property
special Conditions: Removed upon sale, lease or
rent of property. May not be used in conjunction
with commercial real estate signs.
26 e
F. Nameplate/Address Sign:
____ - _ Area:..- -. ___ 4—sq>_--ft:---
Configuration: Wall
Number: 2 per building
Special Conditions: May be illuminated with
lighting no greater than 25 watts.
G. Hours of Operation:
Area: 1 sq. ft.
Configuration: Wall or window
Number: 1 per use
H. Incidental Sign:
Area: 1 sq, ft.
Configuration: Wall�or window
Number: 1 per use
I. Security Protection:
Area: 1 sq. ft.
Height: 1 ft.
Configuration: Wall or freestanding
Number: � 1 per property
Special Conditions:�utilize pole uprights.
J. No Trespassing Sign: I'1�
Area: 2 sq. ft. 1
Height: 2 ft.
Configuration: Wall or freestanding
Number: 1 per property
Special Conditions: May utilize pole uprights.
K. Flags:
-- —Area: - 12"sq.-ft. per flag
Height: 6 ft.
Number: 2 per property
Special Conditions: Must represent government
body or unit and may be pole mounted.
L. Warning Signs as required by Federal, State or
City regulations:
Area: 4 sq. ft.
Height: 4 ft.
Configuration: Wall or freestanding
Special Conditions: May use pole uprights. .
M. Signs located within 'the interior of buildings or
the interior of malls, when such signs are incapable of being
viewed from the outside of said building or mall..
SEZITION 112. PROHIBITED SIGNS
less expressly pe 'tted elsewhere in this chapter,
the following signs a/pro'bited:
A. A ofses or outdoor advertising sign or
billboard placed o pproperty for the purpose of
advertising a busine '' not on the property upon which the sign is
placed.
B. lashing, m ing, pulsating, or intermittently
lighted si7earchlights,
electronic reader boards, time and temperatures
signs and
Co Signs which conflict with or imitate any traff'6
control- evices-due'to�color,- wording, -design, location or
illuminati n, or which interfere with the safe and e£ficie t flow
of vehicular and/or pedestrian traffic.
D. nimals or human beings, live or simula ed,
designed or used o as to attract attention to the p emises.
E. Loud peakers, or signs which emit s und, odor, or
visible matter other han menu boards.
F. Signs wi mechanical movement.
G. Roof signs.
H. Projecting s ns.
I. Permanent pole igns.
J. Changeable copy signs, xcept theatre marquees'
civic organization/institutional s' s and attraction boards, as
specified under the provisions of hi code.
K. Banners, non-gov rnmenta flags, kits, pennants,
balloons, or other such adver ising devic s or displays.
L. Signs which constitute a nui ance or hazard due to
such factors as location !intensity of light reflectivity.
M. Signs w ich no longer identify a ona fide
business conducted the premises. Such signs shell be removed
by the owner of t e business or property within sixt (60) days
of the business closing date.
N. Vehicle signs, trailer signs, signs affixe to
automobile trucks, trailers, or other vehicles parked on a
property within the City for the principal purpose of advertisi\�riq
29
display
s
square
the bus
It is a prima faci violation of this secti if the
g medium utilized on the vehicle is a sign, device, or
separate from the vehicle, or if the cop is readily
and if the device or structure exce ds nine (9)
t\ in area and the vehicle is parked n the street or on
ss premises to which the advertising relates or in
reasonable proximity thereto and the loc ion of the advertising
is reasonably calculated to direct an server towards the
business. It shal\bensidered tha advertising was the
principal purpose parking o the vehicle, notwithstanding
the fact that thee is dr en to and from the business
premises on a daily base .
O. SVor
the public right
otherwise specif
P. P
is property or projecting within
with an encroachment permit or as
ion.
as required by law as in the
case of fuel salart of me\nu and attraction boards.
Q. y other sign or advd\as
device, not
1
expressly pe itted by this division.
Any sign continuously with individual
light bu s or string of lights, exceerwise provided by
this s ction.
S. Portable signs, unless approved �S Temporary
1 Event Signs. \
SECTION 114. NON -CONFORMING SIGNS
N\3011\SiGNORD\DB 3 0
AFT
SECTION 114. Non -conforming signs.
(A) Intent of provisions. It is the intent of����r�`N
section to recognize that the eventual elimination of =Axisting
signs that are not in conformity with the provisions of this
section is necessary to insure that the City of Diamond Bar
maintains the highest level of visual esthetics and community
benefits.
(B) General requirements. The following requirements
shall apply to all advertising displays which satisfy any of the
criteria set forth hereinunder. A non -conforming advertising
display shall be an advertising display which is not in
conformity with the provisions of this Title. All non -conforming
advertising displays may be required to be removed, without
compensation, by the City if they satisfy any of the following
criteria:
1. Any advertising display originally erected or
installed without first complying with all ordinances and
regulations in effect at the time of its construction and
erection or use.
2. Any advertising display which was lawfully
erected and whose use has ceased, or the structure upon which the
display has been abandoned by its owner, for a period of not less
than n1net-y-(-0- days. The costs incurred in removing an
abandoned display may be charged to the legal owner. Abandoned
advertising displays shall mean,
�p0�'h� phiz �.�
for purposes of this Subsection,
i
q
j+ any display remaining in place or not maintained for a period of
i him -moo) --calendar days which no longer advertises or
identifies and on -going business, product, or service available
on the business premise where the display is located.
3. Any advertising display which has been more
than fifty percent (500) destroyed, and the destruction is other
than facial copy replacement, and the display cannot be repaired
within thirty (30) days of the date of its destruction.
4. _�A\ advertising display whose owner, outside
of a change of copy, requests permission to remodel and remodels
that advertising display, t�.expanc)s/or enlarges the building or
land use upon which the ad
display is affected by the
or the cost of constructio
advertising display �e�cceed
reconstruction o
5
display is located, and the
enIargement, remodeling,
enlargement;
fifty percent (5
building.
remodeling of .the
of the cost of
Any advertising display whose owner seeks
relocation thereof and actually relocates the advertising
display. I
6. Any advertising display for which there is an
agreement between the advertising display owner and the City or
County, for its removal as of any specific date.
7.
Any
advertising
display
which
is
temporary.
8.
Any
advertising
display
which
is
or may
become a danger to the public or is unsafe.
r /L
tr /D'
9. Any advertising display which constitutes a
- -`;
traffic hazard
Any on -premises advertising display which does not meet
J)Tfl �i T T 'T/pL.�:�,) GoCA()o.�j
any of the above -described criteriay3hall be permitted to remain
for fifteen (15) years from the effective date of the adoption of
this ordinance.
(C) New Permits.
The City shall not deny, refuse to issue or condition
the issuance of a business license or a permit to construct a new
legal on -premises advertising display upon the removal,
conformance, repair, modification or abatement of any other
on -premises advertising display on the same real property where
the business is to be or has been maintained if both of the
following apply: _.
i. Theother display is located within the same
commercial complex which is zoned for commercial occupancy or
use, but at a different business location from that for which the
permit or license is sought.
2. The other display is not owned or controlled by
the permit applicant, and the permit applicant is not the agent
of the person who owns or controls the other display.
(D) Alteration of Non -conforming Advertising Displays.
During the fifteen (15) year period during which a
non -conforming legally in -place, on -premises advertising display
may continue to be used, the City shall not deny, refuse to
issue, or condition the issuance of a permit for modification or
3
alteration to the display upon change of ownership of any
existing business -cif the modification_or alteration does not
include a structural change in the displayX,�N)
711E )=x-T Q-I D Rr Nc,�L ai >v; NCC .
(E) Special Circumstances; Height or Size of on -site
Advertisingt Displays.
No on -premises advertising display shall be required to
be removed on the sole inexclusive basis of its height or size if
special topographic circumstances would result in a material
impairment of visibility of the display or the owner's or user's
ability to adequately and effectively continue to communicate to
the public through the use of the display. The owner or user may
maintain the advertising display at the business premises and at
a location necessary for continued public visibility at the
height or size at which the display was previously erected
pursuant to all applicable codes, regulations and permits. Such
signs shall be deemed to be in conformance with this Title.
(F) On -premises Advertising Display Abatement.
The City Council may declare, by resolution, as public
nuisances and abate all iilegal on -premises advertising displays
located within its jurisdiction. For purposes of this Section,
illegal on -premise advertising displays shall be those described
in Subsection B, above. The resolution shall describe the
property upon which or in front of which the nuisance exists by
giving its lot and block number according to the County
Assessor's map and street address, if known. Any number of
parcels of private property may be included in one resolution.
3
1. Notice of Hearing. Prior -to the adoption of the
resolution by the City Council, the City Clerk shall send not
less than a ten (10) days' written notice to all persons owning
property described in the proposed resolution. The notice shall
be mailed to each person on whom the described property is
assessed on the last equalized assessment roll available on the
date the notice is prepared. The notice shall state the date,
time and place of the hearing and generally describe the purpose
of the hearing and the nature of the illegality of the display.
2. Posting of Notice. After adoption of the
resolution, the enforcement officer shall cause notices to be
conspicuously posted on or in front of the property on or in
front of which the display exists.
(a) Form of notice. Notice shall be
substantially in the following form:
NOTICE TO REMOVE ILLEGAL ADVERTISING DISPLAY
Notice is hereby given that on the
19 , the City Council of the City of
Diamond Bar adopted a resolution declaring a resolution
that an illegal advertising display is located on or in
front of this property which constitutes a public
nuisance and must be abated by the removal of the
illegal display. Otherwise, it will be removed, and the
nuisance abated by the City. The cost of removal will
be assessed upon the property from or in front of which
the display is removed and will constitute a lien upon
5
the property until paid. Reference,is hereby made to
the resolution for further particulars. A copy of this
resolution is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
All property owners having any objection to the
proposed removal of the display are hereby notified to
attend a meeting of the City Council of the City of
Diamond Bar to be held on
at a.m./p.m. at ( location_ ),
when their objections will be heard and given due
consideration.
Dated this day of
19
Title
City of Diamond Bar
(b) This notice shall be posted at least ten (10)
days prior to the time for hearing objections by the City Council
of the City of Diamond Bar.
(c) Written Notice of Proposed Abatement. In
addition to posting notice of the resolution and notice of the
meeting when objections will be heard, the City Council shall
direct the City Clerk to mail written notice of the proposed
abatement to all persons owning property described in the
resolution. The Clerk shall cause the written notice to be
mailed to each person on whom the described property is assessed
Gf
in the last equalized assessment roll available on the date the
resolution was adopted by the legislative body.
The City Clerk shall confirm with the County
Assessor the names and addresses of all the persons owning
property described in the resolution. The addresses of the
owners shown on the assessment roll is conclusively deemed to be
the proper address for the purpose of mailing the notice. I£ the
County of Los Angeles poses any charges upon the City for the
actual costs of furnishing the list, the City shall reimburse the
County, and such costs shall be a part of the cost of abatement
assessed against the property owner.
The notices mailed by the City Clerk shall be
mailed at least ten (10) days prior to the time for hearing
objections by the City Council. The notices mailed by the Clerk
shall be substantially in the form of the form of notice set
forth hereinabove.
(G) Hearing; Continuances; Objections; Finality of
Decision; Order to Abate.
At the time stated in the notices, the City Council
shall hear and consider all objections to the proposed removal of
the on -premises advertising display. It may continue the hearing
from time to time. By motion or resolution at the conclusion of
the hearing, the legislative body shall allow or overrule any
objections. At that time, the legislative body acquires
jurisdiction to proceed and perform the work of removal.
7
The decision of the legislative body is final. If
objections have not been made, or after the City Council has
disposed of those made, the Council shall order the enforcement
officer to abate the nuisance by having the display removed. The
order shall be made by motion or resolution.
(H) Entry Uoon Private Property.
The enforcement officer may enter private property to
abate the nuisance.
Costs.
(I) Removal � Owner; Special Assessment and Lien for
Before the enforcement officer takes action, the
property owner may remove the illegal on -premises advertising
display at the owner's own cost and expense. Notwithstanding
such action, in any matter in which an order to abate has been
issued, the City Council may, by motion or resolution, further
order that a special assessment and lien shall be limited to the
costs incurred by the City in enforcing abatement upon the
property, including investigation, boundary determination,
I
measurement, clerical, and other related costs.
(J) Cost of Abatement, Itemization.
1. The enforcement officer shall keep an account of
the cost of abatement of an illegal on -premises advertising
display in front of or on each separate parcel of property where
the work is done. He or she shall submit to the City Council,
for confirmation, an itemized written report showing that cost.
0
2. A copy of the report shall- be posted at least
three (3) days prior to its submission to the City Council, on or
near the City Council chambers door, with notice of the time of
submission.
3. At the time fixed. for receiving considering the
report, the City Council shall hear it with any objections of .the
property owners liable to be assessed for the abatement. The
City Council may modify the report if it is deemed necessary.
The City Council shall then confirm the report by motion or
resolution.
(K) Abatement by Contract.
The nuisance may, in the sole discretion of the City
Council, be abated by performance on a contract awarded by the
City Council on the basis of competitive bids let to the lowest
responsible bidder. The contractor performing the contract shall
keep an itemized account and submit such itemized written report
for each separate parcel of property acquired by Subsection J,
above.
(L) Cost of Abatement; Special Assessment and Lien.
1. Cost of abatement in front of or upon each parcel
of property, and the cost incurred by ,the City in enforcing
abatement upon the parcel or parcels, including investigation,
bond redetermination, measurement, clerical, and other related
costs, are a special assessment against that parcel. After the
assessment is made and confirmed, a lien attaches on the parcel
upon recordation of the order confirming the assessment in the
L•7
office of the Los Angeles County Recorder-. In the event any real
property to which a lien would attach has been transferred or
conveyed to a bona fide purchaser for value, or if the lien of a
bona fide incumbrancer for value has been created and attaches
thereon, prior to the date on which the first installment of the
assessment would become delinquent, the lien which would
otherwise be imposed by this Section shall not attach to the real
property and the costs of abatement and the costs of enforcing
abatement, as confirmed, relating to the property shall be
transferred to the unsecured roll for collection.
2. Upon confirmation of the report, a copy shall be
given
to
the
County Assessor
and Tax
Collector, who shall add the
amount
of
the
assessment to
the next
regular tax bill levied
against the parcel for municipal purposes.
3. The City shall file a certified copy of the report
with the County Assessor, Tax Collector and County Auditor on or
before August 10th of each calendar year. The description of the
parcels reported shall beIthose used for the same parcels on the
Los Angeles County Assessor's Map Books for the current year.
4. The City shall request the County Auditor to enter
each assessment on the County tax roll office at the parcel of
Land.
The City Shall further request the County Auditor to
collect the amount of the assessment at the time and in the
manner of ordinary municipal taxes. Any delinquencies in the
10
amount due are subject to the same penalties and procedures of
foreclosure provided for ordinary municipal taxes.
The City Council may determine that, in lieu of
collecting the entire assessment at the time and in the manner of
ordinary municipal taxes, incremental assessment of Fifty Dollars
($50.00) or more may be made in annual installments, not to
exceed five (5) installments, and collected one installment at a
time at the time and in the manner of ordinary municipal taxes in
successive years. The amount of any delinquent installment shall
be subject to the same penalties and procedures for foreclosure
and sale provided for ordinary municipal taxes. The payment of
assessments
so
deferred shall
bear
interest on
the unpaid
balance
at a rate to
be
determined by
the
City Council,
but not to
exceed
six percent (6%) per annum.
The City acknowledges that the County Tax Collector, at
his or her own discretion, may collect assessments without
reference to the general taxes by issuing separate bills and
receipts for the assessments. It is acknowledged that the lien
of assessment has the priority of the taxes with which it is
collected, and further, that all laws relating to levy,
collection and enforcement of County taxes apply to these special
assessments.
(M) Issuance of Receipts for Abatement Costs.
The enforcement officer may receive the amount due on
the abatement costs and issue receipts at any time after the
confirmation of the report and until ten (10) days before a copy
081
is given to the Assessor and Tax Collector or, where a certified
copy is filed with the County Auditor, until August 1st following
the confirmation of the report.
(N) Refund of Assessments.
The City Council may order a refund of all or part of
an assessment pursuant to this Title if it finds that all or part
of the assessment has been erroneously levied. An assessment, or
part thereof, shall not be refunded unless a claim is filed with
the City Clerk on or before November 1 after the assessment has
become due and payable. The claim shall be verified by the
person who paid the assessment or by the person's guardian,
conservator, executor or administrator.
\ L\1G1110RDSIGN\DB b.6 1 z
_ 1
City of Diamond Bar
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
REPORT DATE: January 24, 1991
MEETING DATE: January 28, 1991
CASE/FILE NUMBER: TT 47722/CUP 89-338/EIR 91-1
APPLICATION REQUEST: A request to allow a subdivision of
an existing 19 acre parcel into 13
residential lots, a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) for hillside management
review and review of an Environmental
Impact Report.
PROPERTY LOCATION: Northwest Corner of Derringer Lane
and Ridgeline Road
PROPERTY OWNER: Piermarini Enterprises, Inc.
2100 South Reservoir
Pomona, CA 91766
(714) 590-4809
APPLICANT: Hunsaker & Associates
10179 Huennekens Street
San Diego, CA 92121
(619) 558-4500
BACKGROUND:
This application is -for the approval of a tentative tract map to devel-
op thirteen (13) single famiay custom homes on a nineteen acre site.
(Exhibit "A") The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for hill-
side management review. This proposed project has been substantially
revised from a previous submittal reviewed by the Planning Commission
in October, 1990. The previous submittal was for a tentative map to
develop sixteen homes on nineteen acres, a CUP for hillside management
and an Oak Tree removal permit for the destruction of ten Oak Trees.
The original submitted project was denied by the Planning Commission on
October 24, 1990.
The proposed project has been developed in conformance with statements
made by -the Planning Commission and staff pertaining to the concerns
relative to the former project, aswell as, responding to the environ-
mental protection of sensitive areas and hillside development, in gen-
eral, as outlined in the City's recently adopted interim hillside de-
velopment control ordinance. The proposed project has been adjusted to
meet several concerns of the City as follows:
January 28, 1991 Agenda
Page Two
1. The original density of the project has been reduced by sixteen
percent.
2. The overall grading of the project has been reduced and now con-
forms to "land form" grading concepts, as outlined within the new
Hillside Ordinance,
3. The requirement for several crib walls has been eliminated.
4. The new project configuration now saves and maintains all existing
Oak Trees on the project site.
5. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been amended in order to
respond to a variety of concerns outlined by staff at the October,
1990 public hearing, as well as provide for a thirteen unit alter-
native design which has become the preferred alternative to the
original project proposal.
APPLICATION ANALYSIS:
The project is located on a vacant nineteen acre irregularly shaped
parcel. The project is bounded by the wear property lines of existing
single family homes, fronting onto Hollow Drive, Coyote Springs Drive,
Bronze Knoll Road, Ridgeline Road with access from Derringer Lane.
The site consists of hilly terrain. A detailed slope analysis map has
been provided which indicates that the slopes range from zero percent
to over thirty-five percent. (Exhibit "C-111, AND "C-2") A thirty inch
Southern California Gas Company high pressure pipeline traverses the
southerly portion of the site.
The property is zoned R-1-10,000. The Community Plan designation is
Non -Urban Residential (one unit or less per acre). The project propos-
es thirteen units on nineteenlacres, which translates to 1.46 acres per
lot. The lots range in size from .5 gross acres to 3.4 gross acres.
The lots proposed will be developed with pads that range from .28 acres
to .48 acres in size. These building pads will be developed with sin-
gle family residential structures which will range in size from approx-
imately five thousand to ten thousand square feet. Exhibit "D" illus-
trates the proposed building envelopes on each pad for purposes of
house siting. Parcels 2, 3, and 4 have been developed with a "stepped"
pad in order to reduce the bulk of the home and break up the building
mass.
To complete the project, under its current design, approximately
170,000 cubic yards of earth will be disturbed as a result of on -site
grading. The quantity of grading necessary has been reduced with the
lower density project now before the Planning Commission. The project
now incorporates land form grading, which provides for a variety of
January 28, 1991 Agenda
Page Three
slope percentages and slope direction, in an undulating pattern which
is similar to existing adjacent terrain. Grading plans indicate a bal-
anced cut and fill of the site. No import or export of material will
be required, other than the exportation of some of the natural grasses
on the site. Hard edges, which would have been left by the previous
cut and fill proposal, will now be given a rounded appearance that more
closely resembles the adjacent natural contours. The reduction of grad-
ing not only respects the natural terrain, but minimizes grading to the
extent that all Oak Trees on the site will now be preserved. Slopes
throughout the project site will have variable ratios from 1.5:1 to
approximately 3.5:1. The grading concept, as proposed, closely re-
flects the philosophy and policies within the Interim Hillside Develop-
ment Standards, which were adopted by the City Council in November,
1990.
In addition to Oak Tree preservation, the conceptual landscape plan now
indicates that approximately four hundred additional trees will be
planted on the site. The trees to be planted will vary in size through-
out the project, utilizing a format that would provide for a mixture of
species type and size. (Exhibit "F") The conceptual landscape plan
illustrates the approximate location and massing of the landscaping
materials.
The project is served by a single cul-de-sac street which extends ap-
proximately fourteen hundred feet from,.,the intersection of Derringer
Lane . The slope of the street ranges from one percent to fifteen per-
cent (1%-15%). At the terminus of the cul-de-sac, a driveway of ap-
proximately three hundred feet has been created to service Lot Eight.
In addition, a secondary fire access is now provided from the driveway
adjacent to Lot Eight, extending through to Bronze Knoll Road.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been prepared for the
proposed project. The applicant selected and retained the firm of D.
G. King Associates, as its environmental consultant, and the DEIR was
prepared by D. G. King Associates. The DEIR assesses the potential
physical environmental impacts associated with the sixteen unit resi-
dential hillside development project as original proposed, as well as
several alternative projects to the original proposal. The thirteen
unit project discussed previously is one of the alternatives described
within the EIR. The thirteen unit alternative reduces the affects on
the environment, specifically, by reducing the amount of grading re-
quired for the project, as well as retain the existing Oak Trees on the
site. The revised project also reduces the number of dwelling units
by approximately sixteen percent. However, that in itself is not
deemed to be a significant affect, with respect to lessening the im-
pacts on the environment.
In accordance with § 15164 of the Administrative Code, staff considers
the changes contained within the revised EIR to constitute an Addendum
t0 the DEIR. Several minor corrections have been made within the EIR;
January 28, 1991 Agenda
Page Four
the most significant of which is the addition of the thirteen unit al-
ternative project which has become the preferred alternative for pur-
poses of environmental review.
To initiate the environmental review process, the City staff prepared
an initial study, which is a checklist that establishes the technical
focus of the DEIR, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was prepared to inform
selected agencies of the project and to solicit their comments or con-
cerns. Those comments or concerns have been incorporated and responded
to within the DEIR. The Draft Environmental Impact Report has been
prepared and submitted to the City for review. A Notice of Completion
(NOC) and availability of the DEIR was given to all organizations and
individuals who had previously requested it.
The effect upon the environment must be taken into account when consid-
ering any specific development project such as the application present-
ly before the Commission. The California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) states that public agencies should not approve projects proposed
if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures that
would lessen the significant measures upon the environment. In Octo-
ber, 1990, the City Planning Commission reviewed a sixteen unit propos-
al and concluded that the project was not appropriate for the site.
Since that time, staff has worked with the developer and his new engi-
neering consultant toward the creation of an alternative project that
mitigates the impacts to the environment and surrounding properties,
meets the hillside development standards contained within our recently
adopted ordinance, and provides for an overall improvement to the sub-
division design.
The DEIR was revised .to identify the environmental impacts related to
geology, topography, hydrology, biological resources, aesthetics, fire
protection and other issues. Grading has been reduced from approxi-
mately 204,000 cubic yards of earth material to the most recent esti-
mate of 170,000 cubic yards.
i
The majority of crib walls have been eliminated, with the exception of
a necessary crib wall, adjacent to the entry driveway to the project.
Additionally, a crib wall is proposed near the most northerly corner of
the project adjacent two homes on Coyote Springs. This second crib
wall may be eliminated, subject to successful negotiation between the
applicant and the adjacent property owners, toward development of a
drainage system that eliminates the need for the crib wall. An alter-
native proposed, not only eliminates the crib wall, but extends the
rear yard area of three homes facing Coyote Springs,
The Draft Environmental Impact Report presented to the Planning Commis-
sion in October, 1990, contained a significant number of supplemental
and/or revised pages, including a variety of changes submitted in the
month prior to public hearing. Attached to this new proposal is a re-
vised DEIR with all corrections provided in revised pages, prepared by
the environmental consultant. Alternate project designs have now been
January 28, 1991 Agenda
Page Six
5. The proposed map and improvements of the proposed subdivision are
consistent with the Community Plan and policies as set forth with
the Hillside Ordinance.
6. The site is physically suited for the proposed thirteen unit'sub-
division and development.
JDS:pjs
Attachments:
Exhibit
A -
Tract Map
Exhibit
B -
Sections
Exhibit
C-1
- Slope Analysis
Exhibit
C-2
- Slope Analysis
Exhibit
D -
Building Envelope
Exhibit
E -
Land Use Map
Exhibit
F -
Conceptual Landscape Plan
Exhibit
G -
Radius Map
Exhibit
H -
CAD Perspective Drawing r
Exhibit
I -
CAD Perspective Drawing
Revised EIR, dated 1-18-91
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Pages dated January 23, 1991
Resolution of Approval
January 28, 1991 Agenda
Page Five
explored in terms of further reducing the impacts associated with the
original project, and from that exploration has evolved a thirteen unit
project, which is preferred by the staff over the original sixteen unit
proposal.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE:
A notice of
public
hearing was
mailed to approximately
130 property
owners surrounding
the site, on January 18, 1991. Additionally, a no-
tice of this
public
hearing was
published within the San
Gabriel Valley
Tribune and
the Inland Valley
Daily Bulletin newspapers
on January 7,
1991.
CONCLUSION:
In the opinion of staff, the project has significantly improved from
the prior submittal. Staff feels that the proposed project now con-
forms with the philosophy of the Hillside Ordinance and is appropriate-
ly designed for the site. We believe the proposed project mitigates
the concerns of the previous submittal and is compatible with the sur-
rounding residential community and physical environment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Reso-
lution which approves the Environmental Impact Report (EIR 91-1), CUP
89-338 for hillside management review and Tentative Tract Map 47722,
with the following finding of fact, and the listed conditions.
Findings of Fact (to support recommendations):
I
1. The Planning Commission finds the Environmental Impact Report has
been completed in compliance with CEQA and that the Commission has
reviewed and considered the information contained within the Envi-
ronmental Impact Report.
2. The Planning Commission finds that changes or alterations have
been incorporated into the project which mitigate or avoid the
significant environmental impacts as identified within the EIR.
3. The proposed project is compatible with the natural scenic and
open space resources of the area.
4. The proposed development demonstrates creative and imaginative
design resulting in a complementary visual quality, which will
benefit current and future community residents.
Addendum Materials for Revised EIR
Tentative Tract No, 47722
13 Lots - 19.08 Acres
City of Diamond Bar
Mr. Jim DeStefano, Director of Planning
21660 E. Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, California 91765
January 23, 1991
re: Additional Information requested and minor corrections to Revised Draft EIR prepared
for Tentative Tract No. 47722 (13-Lot Alternative Design)
Dear Mr. DeStefano:
Attached for your review and use is the Project Engineer's computerized cut and fill analysis
prepared for the 13-lot alternative design for Tentative Tract 47722. Also attached are ten
copies of three replacement pages to be inserted in the Revised EIR. They reflect the following
corrections which were discovered on a page by page reading of the final printed report:
1. Page (i) - Preface:
Correction of wording on items no. 2 and no.4.
2. Page 5-5 - Alternative Design Project Description:
Same correction as above
3. Page 1-6 - Zoning and Land Use: r
Chart has been corrected to reflect current zoning of property (R-1-10,000). The correct
zoning is found throughout the balance of the report.
To facilitate your use of the proposed mitigation measures as possible Conditions of Approval
for the 13-Lot Alternative Design for Tentative Tract 47722, we have taken the various measures
(as originally proposed) and made the necessary adjustments in wording so that they are
applicable to the new alternative. Ten copies are attached.
These mitigation measures can be included among the formal Conditions of Approval attached
to the 13-Lot Design Alternative for Tentative Tract 47722 and the accompanying Conditional
Use Permit (C.U.P. No. 89338) issued by the City of Diamond Bar. Used in conjunction with all
standard Conditions of Approval commonly attached to a tentative residential map, these
measures will be fully adequate to mitigate to an acceptable level any foreseeable impact
determined to be potentially significant. In this way, the City of Diamond Bar will comply fully
with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Beyond the
requirements of CEQA, certain impacts which have been determined not to be initially significant
have been reduced even further where possible through a number of the mitigation measures
proposed.
If you have any questions or need additional
on this project, please call.
,
*-
DoAna M. West
Senior Associate
SIncerely
DMW/wrw
information prior to the scheduled Public Hearing
A California Corporation
❑
Land
Planning and
Design
❑ Environmental Ar}�� iy
10722 Arrow Route, Suite
616,
Rancho
Cucamonga,
California
91730 (714) 987.70�7
Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report
Tentative Tract No. 47722 - City of Diamond Bar
Preface
The project of focus, Tentative Tract No. 47722, is not a new project. It is a project
previously submitted to the City of Diamond Bar, which has been revised to mitigate the
environmental concerns noted in the original review. In addition, while the original project
was under review, the grading standards within the Zoning Ordinance were altered by the
City. The original design submitted could not meet these standards with the design
submitted nor was any design alternative which could meet these standards included in the
original EIR.
Subsequent to the action of the Planning Commission denying the original design, the
Applicant, with the assistance and guidance of the City did develop an alternative design to
the original configuration of Tentative Tract No. 47722 which does meet the new grading
standards. This alternative design was also adjusted to meet the environmental concerns of
the Planning Commission as follows:
1.
The
overall density of the project has been significantly reduced (16 % )
2.
The
overall visual impact resulting from
grading of the project has been significantly
reduced.
3.
The
grading now conforms to "landform
grading" concepts.
4.
The
required number of "crib walls" has
been significantly reduced.
5.
The
revised EIR now.includes both a 2
unit and 13 unit design which have now been
included among the alternatives.
I
This report is a revision and expansion of an original environmental impact report prepared
and previously reviewed by the City of Diamond Bar. The concerns in the original review
have caused revision of the original project design, expansion of this report and the
additional of two alternatives to the original project.
During review and analysis of the original project it was determined that one of the -,
alternatives discussed verbally was actually preferred by both the City and the Applicant.
This alternative is therefore afforded a much more detailed analysis than would have
otherwise been the case. From the viewpoint of community design, community standards
and environmental quality, the expanded alternative has now become the "preferred"
alternative.
Page-i
Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report
Tentative Tract No. 47722 - City of Diamond Bar
Zoning and Land Use
The project conforms to the density and land use specified in the existing zoning, General Plan and
Community Plan designations for the City of Diamond Bar. No amendment in zoning, land use
designation or any other variance is required. Although none of the lots are proposed as "flag" lots or
contain other significant dimensional irregularities, several of the lots do function as flag lots even
though they provide legal frontage along private access roads. Specifically, the Zoning and Land Use
designations currently in effect are met as follows:
Adopted General Plan
Adopted Zoning:
Community Plan
Related Permits
Non -Urban Uses -1.0 D.U./Acre or less
R-1-10,000 --
R-1-10,000
Non -Urban Uses -1.0 D.U./Acre or less
Because the project area contains slopes of 25 % or greater, a Conditional Use Permit for
the local equivalent of the Los Angeles County's Hillside Management requirement is
requested concurrently with Tentative Tract approval. Conditions for development in
accordance with County Hillside Standards has been meet by Tentative Tract No, 47722,
Page 1 - 6
1.0 Executive Summary
Revised D,{aft Environmental Impact Report
Tentative Tract No. 47722 - City of Diamond Bar
Alternative Design Project Description
This design alternative for Tentative Tract 47722 consists of a 13-lot residential subdiviOw"
which was prepared in response to environmental and other concerns raised by the City
Staff and Planning Commission upon receipt and consideration of the original 16-lot
proposal. While the density is, by total percentage, significantly (16%) less than the original
tract, the primary goal was to develop a design alternative which was realistic as a project
alternative that met the Cities newly developed grading and hillside project standards. The
resulting decrease in density was largely a function of meeting the new local development
criteria.
This alternative design was developed concerns and objectives of the Planning Commission
as follows:
1. The overall density of this alternative project has been significantly reduced (this
design alternative proposes 84% the density of the original tract).
2. The overall visual impact resulting from grading of the project has been significantly
reduced. I
3. The grading now conforms to "landform grading" concepts.
4. The required number of "crib walls" has been significantly reduced.
5.0 Project Alternatives
Pages-5
Proposed Mitigation Measures
Tentative Tract No, 47722
13 Lots - 19.08 Acres
Y-A. Existing soil instabilities shall be corrected by remedial grading in conformance
with the approved Final Design and approved Grading Plan for Tentative Tract
47722.
1-B. !t is proposed that unstable material in these areas will be removed, replaced and
compacted to the ultimate grade shown on the Final Approved Design of
Tentative Map. Deposits of alluvium and colluvium will be removed and
compacted as directed by the soils engineer.
Y-C. Major
fill
slopes around the periphery of
the
site
are
to
be installed
at slope ratios
of 2 to
1
and some interior fill slopes will
be
at 1-112
to
1 slope.
1-D. All slopes are to be constructed in accordance with adequate stability
requirements of both the soils consultant and"the City Engineering Department.
1-E. Total grading on site is to be balanced on site in a stable cut and fill arrangement,
according to the provisions of Tentative Tract Map No. 47722 and the
accompanying Grading Plan, subject to the approval of the Engineering
Department of the City of Diamond Bar,
1-F. All grading operations shall conform to the requirement of the City of Diamond
Bar and the standards grading specifications and recommendations presented in
the Preliminary Soils and Geologic Report, pages 5 - 13,
During grading operations, special consideration will be given to areas near and
around the 30-inch high pressure gas line in accordance with the
recommendations of the soils engineer for this project, any additional
requirements of the City of Diamond Bar and the standards of the Southern
California Gas Company and related regulatory agencies.
Page 1
Proposed Mitigation Measures
Tentative Tract No, 47722
13 Lots - 19.08 Acres
2-A. The City of Diamond Bar utilizes the Uniform Building Code. This set of building
regulations contains design and construction standards adequate to mitigate any
potential seismic impacts to a level not considered to be significant.
2-B. In accordance with the proposed design of Tentative Tract No. 47722, no portion
of the existing or replacement line will underlie any primary or secondary
structures.
3-A. Gunite swales will control on
site drainage and
deliver run-off to
existing drainage
systems already constructed
in the residential areas abutting the
site.
3-B. During grading and construction activities, revegetation of disturbed or newly
constructed slopes should be done as quic7dy as is feasible to prevent undue
erosion and lessen any non -point pollution impacts to surface run-off.
3-C. Landscaping and necessary irrigation facilities will be installed as early as is
feasible to stabilize top soil and prevent excessive surface water erosion of newly
placed soil.
3-D. Adequate storm drain facilities will be provided to accommodate increased run-off
and further minimize soil erosion.
I
3-E. Landscaping will be with water -efficient plants, in accordance with the
accompanying landscape plan, subject to approval by the City of Diamond Bar,
3-F. To aid in water recharge, natural drainage areas will be preserved in open space
areas and natural drainage systems will be incorporated, wherever feasible.
Page 2
Proposed Mitigation Measures
Tentative Tract No, 47722
13 Lots - 19.08 Acres
(Limited to short term noise impacts)
4-A. The operation of heavy grading equipment will be limit to specified hours of
operation an site access in accordance with the adopted Standards of the City of
Diamond Bar. No activity will occur prior to 6:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m.
6-A. An Oak Tree Survey has been conducted in compliance with the requirements of
the County Department of Regional Planning. Copies of the survey report have
been submitted to the City of Diamond Bar as part of the technical material on file
for this application.
6-B. Replacement of all Oak Trees removed will be made at a ratio suitable to the City
of Diamond Bar with healthy and otherwise suitable specimens of a size and
quantity as required by the City of Diamond Bar,
6-C. Irrigation for the replacement trees will be provided for a period of three years
which they become established in place and develop the necessary feeder root
system ensuring self-sustainance. Irrigations facilities will be installed as
appropriate on slope areas and maintained by an association of project
homeowners.
6-D. Landscaping for individual homes, view screening for the purpose of affording
privacy to adjacent residences and planting of all common space areas (covered
in the grading process) will be done by the developer from the proposed pallet of
water efficient, biologically adapted and regionally hardy plants materials subject
to approval by the City of Diamond Bar,
Page 3
Proposed Mitigation Measures
Tentative Tract No, 47722
13 Lots - 19.08 Acres
Additional trees from a pallet of suitable evergreens proposed in the Conceptual
Landscape Plan (as approved by the City of Diamond Bar) will be planted as a
visual buffer as required.
7-B. Actual placement and orientation of individual custom homes will depend on such
factors as degree of slope, soil stability, view potential both from the site and as
viewed from off the project site
7-C. The visual quality of home design and structural amenities proposed will meet or
exceed those found throughout "The Country".
7-D. Colored elevations illustrating the scale and amenities of the homes and
landscape detail proposed for Tentative Tract No. 47722 and will be presented to
the City of Diamond Bar for review and consideration prior to Public Hearing on
this project.
(Applicable Mitigation Measures from Section 4.6 Biological Impacts are as
follows:)
6-A. An Oak Tree Survey has been conducted in compliance with the requirements of
the County Department of Regional Planning. Copies of the survey report have
been submitted to the City of Diamond Bar as part of the technical material on file
for this application.
6-8. Replacement of all Oak Trees removed will be made at a ratio suitable to the City
of Diamond Bar with healthy, and otherwise suitable specimens of a size and
quantity as required by the City of Diamond Bar.
6-C. Irrigation for the replacement trees will be provided for a period of three years
which they become established in place and develop the necessary feeder root
system ensuring self-sustainance. Irrigations facilities will be installed as
appropriate on slope areas and maintained by an association of project
homeowners.
6-D. Landscaping for individual homes, view screening for the purpose of affording
privacy to adjacent residences and planting of all common space areas (covered
in the grading process) will be done by the developer from the proposed pallet of
water efficient, biologically adapted and regionally hardy plants materials subject
to approval by the City of Diamond Bar,
Page 4
Proposed Mitigation Measures
Tentative Tract No, 47722
13 Lots - 19.08 Acres
8-A. The developer will bear the cost of providing new underground conduit,
transformers, slab boxes, primary conductor and easement right-of-way.
8-B. Initial costs for the installation of phone service to the project wit! be provided by
the developer in anticipation of reimbursement by General Telephone (after
service is established) through various programs offered by the telephone
company.
8-C. Utility costs and disruption during construction and future repair will be minimized
through the coordination of a joint trench which houses both electrical and
telephone lines, wherever possible.
8-D. The developer will pay all costs required Sanitation District connection fees.
8-E. Adequate access for emergency vehicles and turning radius at the end of each
cul de sac will be provided.
8-F. The developer will pay school fees as may be levied by the Walnut Valley Unified
School District
9.- A. Construction shall be suspended in the vicinity of any cultural, historical or
prehistorical resource encountered during development of the site and leave the
resource in place until a qualified archaeologist can examine the find and
determine proper method of handling the artifact for placement in an appropriate
repository.
Page 5
RESOLUTION NO. PC 91-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT 91-1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-3381 AND
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 47722 TO DEVELOP A THIRTEEN
LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON A NINETEEN ACRE
SITE LOCATED WEST OF DERRINGER LANE, NORTH OF
RIDGELINE ROAD ADJACENT TO THE COUNTRY DEVELOP-
MENT, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA AND MAKING FINDINGS
IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
i. Piermarini Enterprises has filed an application requesting the
issuance of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Tentative Tract Map
approval, and has submitted an Environmental Impact Report,
analyzing the above -mentioned development project, as described
in the title of this resolution, (the project) hereinafter
ii. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a
duly organized municipal corporation of the State of Califor-
nia. On said date, pursuant to the requirements of the Cali-
fornia Government Code § 57376, Title 21 and 22, the City Coun-
cil of the City of Diamond Bar adopted it 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.
iii. Because of its
recent incorporation, the City
of Diamond Bar
lacks an operative
General Plan.
Accordingly,
action was taken
on the subject
Application, as
to consistency
to the General
Plan, pursuant
to the terms and
provisions of
California Gov-
ernment Code §
65360.
iv. A duly noticed publiclhearing on the above -referenced applica-
tion was conducted and concluded on January 28, 1991, prior to
the adoption of this Resolution.
v. All legal prerequisites prior to this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
Now, therefore, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows:
1. The Commission hereby specifically finds that all the facts set
forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and
correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above -referenced public hearing, including written
and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this
Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The project relates to a site which is comprised of ap-
proximately nineteen acres of vacant hillside land within
the R-1, 10,000 and R-1, 40,000 zoning district and is
designated by the Community Plan for non -urban residential
development, in one unit or less per acre. The site is
generally located west of Derringer Lane, north of Ridge -
line Road, and both east and south of The Country (devel-
opment). The site consists of hilly terrain. A slope
analysis indicates that the acreage contains slopes which
range from zero to over thirty-five percent. A thirty
inch in diameter Southern California Gas Company high
pressure gas line traverses the southerly portion of the
site. The applicant's proposal is for a subdivision of
thirteen lots, which will range in size from .5 gross
acres to 3.4 gross acres. Building pads range in size
from .28 acres to .48 acres. The building units planned
for the pads range in size from five to ten thousand
square feet.
b. The property to the north and west of the project site is
zoned R-1-8,000 and presently is developed with detached
single family residential dwelling units. The property to
the east and south of the project site is zoned R-1-40,000
and presently is vacant and undeveloped.
c. The Planning Commission hereby certifies that Environmen-
tal Impact Report (EIR 91-1) has been completed in compli-
ance with the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970, as amended, and the guidelines promulgated thereun-
der, and, further, that the Planning Commission has re-
viewed and considered the information contained in said
Environmental Impact Report (EIR 91-1).
d. The Planning Commission hereby finds that changes or al-
terations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which mitigate or avoid the significant environ-
mental impact therof as identified in said Environmental
Impact Report, Number EIR 91-1.
e. The property is depicted within the Community Plan, as
non -urban residential. There is a reasonable probability
that the project, as proposed, will be consistent with the
proposed General Plan.
f. The site is physically suitable for the type of develop-
ment being proposed as depicted within the Exhibits and as
conditioned herein
g. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improve-
ments will not cause substantial environmental damage or
substantial avoidable injury to .wildlife or their habitat.
Project impacts have been identified within the Environ-
mental Impact Report and mitigation measures have been
proposed and are referenced herein.
h. The
design of the
subdivision
and the
type of improvements
will
not cause serious public
health
problems.
i. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of
density and development.
j. The design and improvements of the proposed subdivision
will not conflict with public easements for access through
or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
k. The use applied for at the location set forth in the ap-
plication is properly one for which a conditional use per-
mit is authorized by the Los Angeles County Code.
1. The use is not detrimental to the existing uses or to uses
specifically permitted within the zone in which the pro-
posed use is to be located.
m. The use will be compatible with other uses in the general
area in which the use is proposed to be located.
n. The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and
shape to accomodate the uses in all of the yards, set-
backs, walls, fences, landscaping and other features re-
quired to adjust the use to the existing or future uses
permitted in the neighborhood.
o. The site for the proposed use relates to streets and high-
ways properly designed and improved to carry the type and
quantity of traffic generated or to be generated by the
proposed use.
p. The conditions imposed are necessary to protect the public
health, convenience, safety and welfare.
q. Based upon the substantial evidence and conclusions set
forth herein above, and conditions set forth below in this
Resolution, presented to the Commission, public hearing as
set forth above, this Commission, in conformance with the
terms and provisions of California Government Code Section
65360, hereby finds the following conditions as deemed ne-
cessary to protect the public health, safety, and general
welfare and are reasonable and proper.
1. The development shall conform to all plans as submit-
ted to and approved by the Planning Commission label-
ed as Exhibits A -I.
2. The development shall incorporate all mitigation mea-
sures and conditions as described within EIR 91-1.
3.
A mitigation monitoring plan shall be developed by
the applicant for review by the City prior to issu-
ance of any grading permit.
4.
A final and detailed landscape and full -coverage au-
tomatic irrigation system shall be provided prior to
the issuance of building permits and subject tot he
approval of the Director of Planning. Tree staking,
soil preparation and planting detail shall be shown
on final landscape plans. Water conservation design
and maintenance and drought tolerant landscape plant-
ing shall be incorporated whenever feasible into the
final design of the landscape and irrigation plans
for the site.
5.
Textured concrete paving shall be provided at the
project entry, subject to the approval of the City,
to break up large masses of asphalt/concrete areas.
6.
The lighting fixtures adjacent to interior property
lines shall be approved by the Director of Planning
as to type and height of fixtures.
7.
All slope planting and irrigation shall be continu-
ously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition
by the developer until each individual unit is sold
and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occu-
pance for those units, and inspection shall be con-
ducted by the Planning Department to determine that
the planting is in satisfactory condition.
8.
All off -site, landscaping, grading, and other im-
provements shall be completed prior to the occupancy
of any unit.
9.
Erosion control plans for all slopes adjacent to ma-
jor arterial and collector roadways shall be submit-
ted at the time of Grading Plan Review and be ap-
proved by the City Engineer.
10.
Grading shall be in significant conformance to the
Tentative Tract Map and the proposed grading that is
approved by the Planning Commission. Surety shall be
posted to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
the City Attorney to guarantee completion of the
grading within the project.
11.
Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, a complete
hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by a
Registered Civil Engineer to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
12.
Emergency secondary access shall be provided adjacent
to Lot 8 in accordance with the Los Angeles County
Fire Department Standards and the City.
13.
Exterior construction activities (grading, framing,
etc.) shall be restricted to 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Monday through Saturday, except that interior con-
struction activities shall not be limited. All con-
struction equipment shall be property muffled to re-
duce noise levels. Transportation of equipment and
materials and operation of heavy grading equipment
shall also be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m.' All equipment staging areas shall be sited
on the subject property. Dust generated by construc-
tion activities shall be reduced by watering the soil
prior to and during grading activities.
14.
A variety ofPmaterials and colors shall be used on
the proposed houses to the satisfaction of the Plan-
ning Director.
15.
A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
(CC&R's and Articles of Incorporation of the Home-
owners' Association, subject to the approval of the
City Attorney, shall be recorded with this map and
placed on file with the Planning Department.
16.
The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted
Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, uni-
form Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all
other applicable codes, ordinances and regulations in
effect at the time of issuance of relative permits.
17.
Prior to any occupancy permit being granted, these
conditions and all improvements shall be completed to
the satisfaction of the City.
18.
The use authorized by this approval shall be com-
menced or construction necessary and incidental
thereto shall be started on or before the time limit
specified herein and thereafter diligently advanced
on or before one (1) year after the expiration of the
appeal period.
19.
The applicant shall pay all environmental review and
processing fees prior to recordation of the tract map
as required by the Director of Planning.
20.
The applicant shall pay development fees (including,
but not limited to, Planning, Building, Park, and
school fees) at the established rates prior to issu-
ance of Building Permits, as required by the Director
of Planning.
21.
The applicant shall pay all engineering fees at the
established rates as required by the City Engineer.
22.
The applicant shall comply with all conditions as
listed within Exhibit "A" which is comprised of a
four page interoffice memorandum from the City Engi-
neer to thel Director of Planning, dated January 23,
1991, and attached hereto.
Based upon the substantial evidence, conclusions and conditions set
forth herein above, this Commission, in conformance with the terms and
provisions of California Government Code § 65360, hereby approves the
applications referenced herein.
The Planning Commission Secretary is hereby directed (a) to certify to
the adoption of this Resolution and, (b) forthwith transmit a certified
copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, return receipt requested,
to Piermarini Enterprises, Inc., 2100 South Reservoir, Pomona, CA 91766
I, James DeStefano, Secretary to the City of Diamond Bar Planning
Commission do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was
passed, adopted and approved at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of
1991, by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAINED: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
Secretary to the Planning Commission
JXHIi7(t "A
1 of.4
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Pg.
TO: Jim DeStefano, Director of Planning
FROM: Sid Jalal Mousav(i `
City Engineer/Public Works Director
SUBJECT* TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 47722
DATE: January 23, 1991
The following is a list of the Engineering Department's
conditions for approval:
1.
The review of the tentative map is conducted to ensure
that the project will meet all City requirements, and,
therefore, the details and notes shown on tentative map
will be approved upon review of detail street, sewer,
grading and drainage plans, and hydrology study.
2.
The subdivider shall pay for all costs associated with
plan check, review of documents, permit and inspection,
as required by the City.
3.
All conditions of the State Map Act and the City's
Subdivision Ordinance must be met prior to recordation.
4.
All conditions of the Los Angeles County Fire Depart-
ment must be met, verified, and approved by the City
prior to recordation of the map.
5.
All special assessments, utilities, sewer or storm
drain connection fees are to be paid prior to
recordation.
6. All requirements of the serving utilities are to be met
or guaranteed prior to recording the final map.
7. The Final Map shall be based on a field survey.
8. All surveying for the proposed development will be done
by the developer, including the establishment of
centerline ties.
9. Along with final map, surveyor must submit closure
sheets.
10. All improvement plans required for this development
must be submitted along with final map. Plan check of
the final map will not commence until all maps are
submitted.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 47722
January 23, 1991
Page 2
11.
All improvement plans must be submitted in triplicate.
12.
An 8-1/2" x 11" reduction of the final map must be
submitted along with the final map.
13.
After the final map records, a mylar and two blueline
prints shall be submitted to the Engineering Department
at no cost to the City. Building permits will not be
issued until the aforementioned items of the recorded
map are received by the Engineering Department,
14.
If connecting to L.A. County Flood Control District
facilities., copy of all calculations and plans must be
submitted to L.A.C.F.C.D. Los Angeles County F.C.D.'s
permit is required for tie-in. A copy of this permit
must be submitted to the City prior to approval of the
grading plan.
15.
Considering the slope of the street, mitigation
measures must be developed in order to minimize the
traffic hazard. All traffic improvement plans must be
approved by City Engineer prior to recordation of the
map.
16.
Street or area lighting plan must be developed to
improve nighttime visibility to the satisfaction of the
City.
17. A hydrology study, along with drainage improvement
plan, will be required. These plans must be approved
by L.A.F.C.D. and the City prior to filing of the final
map.
18. Offer of easement for all utilities and drainage or
other facilities must be drawn on the final map.
19. All street names must be approved by the City prior to
recordation of final map. These names must not be
duplicated within a radius of 20 miles. House
numbering clearance is required prior to approval of
the final map. Street name signs must be provided and
installed prior to issuance of the occupancy permit.
20. A final tract map must be completely signed by the City
prior to filing with the County Recorder.
21. The central angles of the right-of-way radius returns
shall not differ by more than 10 degrees on local
streets.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 47722
January 23, 1991
Page 3
22.
Any broken or damaged curb, gutter, sidewalk, and
pavement on streets within or abutting the sub-
division must be repaired.
,
23.
Driveways will not be permitted within 25 feet upstream
of any catch basins when street grades exceed 6%.
24.
Prior to final approval, the subdivider shall enter
into an agreement with City's franchised cable T.V.
operator to permit the installation of cable in a
common utility trench.
25.
The vertical alignment shall be adjusted to,provide for
a landing, where necessary, to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
26.
The subdivider shall install and dedicate main line
sewers and serve each lot/parcel with a separate house
lateral or have approved and bonded sewer plans on file
with the City.
27.
The subdivider shall submit an area study to the City
Engineer to determine whether capacity is available in
the sewerage system to be used as the outlet for the
sewers in this land division. If the system is found
to have insufficient capacity, the problem must be
resolved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer,
1
28.
The subdivider shall send a print of the land division
map to the County Sanitation District, with a request
for annexation. Such annexation must be assured in
writing.
29*
off -site improvements are required to join the existing
gravity sewer in Coyote Springs Drive.
30.
A preliminary soil report must be submitted and
approved prior to approval of the final map. The
report must be prepared based upon adequate test
borings or excavations, and shall (1) describe'any soil
or geologic conditions(s) which, if not corrected,
might lead to structural damage or slope failure, and
(2) recommend actions necessary to prevent structural
damage or slope failure. A soil expansion index test
is required and shall be done in accordance with the
procedures of UBC Std. No. 29-2.
31. As a means of mitigating potential environmental
impacts, the applicant shall suspend construction in
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 47722
January 23, 1991
Page 4
the vicinity of a cultural resource encountered during
development of the site, and leave the resource in
place until a qualified archaeologist can examine them
and determine appropriate mitigation measures. The
applicant shall comply with measures recommended by the
archaeologist and approved by the City.
32. A water system with appurtenant facilities to serve all
lots in the land division must be provided.. The system
shall include fire hydrants of the type and location as
determined by the Los Angeles County Fire Department
and the City. The water mains shall be sized to accom-
modate the total domestic and fire flows.
33. The rough grading plan must be based on a detailed
engineering geology report and/or soils engineering
report and must be specifically approved by the
geologist and/or geotechnical engineer and show all
recommendations submitted by them. A grading plan must
be submitted and approved by City Engineer prior to
approval of the final map. Developer shall pay for all
costs associated with certifying the grading by regis-
tered soils/geotechnical engineer and City's inspection
fee.
Should you have any questions, please let me know.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
REPORT DATE:
MEETING DATE:
CASE/FILE NUMBER:
APPLICATION REQUEST:
PROPERTY LOCATION:
PROPERTY OWNER:
APPLICANT:
BACRGROUND:
City of Diamond Bar
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
4
January 17, 1991
January 28, 1991
CUP 90-0128
To place a fully automated videomatic
kiosk in the parking lot of Standard
Brands Paint Store.
1139 South Diamond Bar Boulevard
Standard Brands Paint
4300 West 190th Street
Torrance, CA 90509
Video Kiosk Corporation
Rudy E. Figueroa, Project Management
2002 Locust Court
Ontario, CA 91761
The applicant, Video Kiosk Corporation, is requesting a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) to construct a fully automated video kiosk in the parking
lot of an existing commercial shopping center. This kiosk is a fully
automated video store, open 24 hours a day, and will not contain any
employees. The kiosk will occupy two parking spaces.
The shopping center is approximately 5.24 acres. Primary uses in this
shopping center are Standard Brands Paint Company, Jack -in -the -Box,
First Interstate Bank, Firestone, along with retail uses in the exist-
ing two story building on this site. The parcel which is owned by
Standard Brands Paint is 1.29 Acres.
More than
adequate
parking
will
remain for both the
existing commercial
shopping
center as
well as
the
proposed kiosk.
The proposed location of the videomatic kiosk is in a C-3-BE (Unlimited
commercial - Billboard Exclusion) zone. This use is not permitted in
this zone by right, but is compatible with uses allowed in this zone,
therefore, a CUP is necessary.
January 28, 1991 Agenda
Page Two
Generally, the following uses surround the subject site: to the north
and west is R-3-8,000 25U (Limited multiple residence - 8,00o square
feet lot, 25 units) zone; to the south is C-3-BE zone, to the east is
C-3-BE and R-3-8,000 25U.
The video kiosk, being fully automated, dispenses the video by robot
through a credit card authorization.
The structure is 10 ' X 8'6" equaling 85 square feet in area. This
structure is made of metal walls, painted white with surface mounted
cassette display cases. The facia is also metal, painted white with
red burgundy accent bands. The kiosk is not totally enclosed, but is
open at both ends, allowing for easy access and service. Customers
will stand under a glass type roof structure when renting videos.
The installation of this structure will entail removal of existing as-
phalt which will be replaced by a concrete slab with footing. The con-
crete slab that is 18' X 18' equaling 324 square feet or two standard
parking spaces. The structure will be anchored with six inch bolts in
ten places onto the concrete slab. The height of the structure will be
11' above grade. The architectural style of the shopping center is
contemporary with red tile monsard roof. The architectural style of
the kiosk is contemporary which helps it to be compatible with this
center.
Regular service
of this kiosk will
be done twice a week by
the owner -
Standard Brands
Paint. If the computer fails, a message
is sent di-
rectly to the main office of Video
Kiosk Corporation. The
main office
has technicians
which are on duty 24
hours a day to service
the comput-
er.
The signage shown on the elevations and photo are not included as part
of this approval process. Agwever, signage exceeds the square footage
allowed by the Los Angeles County Planning and Zoning Code. Before
signs are installed, the applicant will need to obtain the necessary
approvals from the Planning Department.
The same type of videomatic kiosk is located in the City of Industry
and the City of Costa Mesa. In conferring with these two cities, the
use does not appear to have safety or vandalism problems. Deputy Larry
Luter of the Walnut Sheriff's Department, states that one incident of
vandalism was reported at the location in the City of Industry.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed use does not have
the potential to degrade the quality of the environment in the long
term or short term. Also, the proposed use will not cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. On the
January 28, 1991 Agenda
Page Three
basis of this initial study the staff finds that the proposed project
could not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative
Declaration has been prepared.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
This item has been advertised in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the
Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. Notices were mailed to prop-
erty owners within a 300 foot radius of the project site on January 9,
1991.
Findings of Fact (to support recommendation):
1.
The proposed conditional use is in substantial compliance with
the Community Plan.
2.
The proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the
health or welfare of persons residing or working in the sur-
rounding area.
3.
The proposed conditional use will not have an adverse impact on
adjacent or adjoining residential and commercial uses. It will
not be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valua-
tion of property of other person located in vicinity of the
proposed project.
4.
The site for the proposed project is adequately served by Grand
Boulevard and Diamond Bar Boulevard,
5.
The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size
(1.29 acres) and shape to accommodate the development of the
proposed use. This commercial shopping center has good visi-
bility, easy access, and adequate parking for the proposed pro-
ject.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Negative Dec-
laration and CUP 90-0128 with the Findings of Fact and conditions list-
ed.
Attachments:
Exhibit
A
- Application
Exhibit
B
- Initial Study
Exhibit
C
- Negative Declaration
Exhibit
D
- Site Plan
Exhibit
E
- Elevations
Exhibit
F
- Photo of Structure
Exhibit
G
- Structure Details
Exhibit
H
- Correspondence
AJL:pjs
RESOLUTION NO. PC 91-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR REQUESTING APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PER-
MIT 90-0128, AN APPLICATION TO ALLOW A FULLY AUTOMATED
VIDEO KIOSK AT 1139 SOUTH DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD ON THE
STANDARD BRANDS PAINT STORE PARCEL - PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL
MAP 16890, MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
A. Recitals.
1. Rudy Figueroa, on behalf of Video Kiosk Corporation and Stan-
dard Brands Paint has filed an application for a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) located at 1139 South Diamond Bar Boulevard,
Diamond Bar, Ca., as described in the title of this resolution.
Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use
Permit application is referred to as "the Application."
2. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a
duly organized municipal corporation of the State of Califor-
nia. On said date, pursuant to the requirements of the Cali-
fornia Government Code Section 57376, Title 21 and 22, the City
Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted it 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. Because of its recent incorporation, the City of Diamond Bar
lacks an operative General Plan. Accordingly, action was taken
on the subject Application, as to consistency to, the General
Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of California Gov-
ernment Code Section 65360.
4. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, on January
28, 1991, conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said Ap-
plication and concluded said public hearing on that date.
5. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
B. Resolution,
NOW,. THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows:
1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of
the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution
are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above -referenced January 28, 1991, public hearing,
and oral testimony provided at the hearing, this Commission
hereby specifically finds as follows:
(a) The Application applies to property presently zoned C-3-
BE, north side of Diamond Bar Blvd, located at 1139 Dia-
mond Bar Boulevard, City of Diamond Bar, California.
(b) Generally, the property to the north and west of the sub-
ject site is zoned R-3-8,000 25U, south of the subject
site is zoned C-3-BE, east of the subject site is zoned C-
3-BE and R-3-8,000 25U.
(c) The property is in compliance with the commercial category
of the Community Plan.
(d) The conditional use will not adversely affect the health
or welfare of persons residing or working in the surround-
ing area.
(e) The conditional use will not have an adverse impact on
adjacent or adjoining residential and commercial uses. It
will not be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment,
or valuation of property of other persons located in the
vicinity.
(f) The nature, condition, and size of the site has been con-
sidered. The site is adequate to accommodate the use.
(g) The project will not have a significant effect on the en-
vironment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared.
(h) Notification to the public hearing for this project has
been made.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence and conclusions set forth
herein above, and conditions set forth below in this Resolu-
tion, presented to the Commission on January 28, 1991, public
hearing as set forth above, this Commission, in conformance
with the terms and provisions of California Government Code
Section 65360, hereby finds and concludes as follows:
(a) The approval shall be exercised within a period of one
yearI
(b) This project shall be developed in substantial conformance
with plans which have been submitted for this case,
(c) All on -site utiliity services shall be installed under-
ground,
(d) During construction, the site shall be maintained in such
a way as to prevent spillage or building material from the
public right-of-way,
(e) Any work to be done within the City right-of-way requires
prior approval from the Engineering Department of the City
of Diamond Bar. The appropriate permits are to be obtain-
ed and all construction is to be per City specifications.
(f) The applicant shall submit a revised site plan with handi-
cap access and parking, a landscape plan and a lighting
plan to the City for review and approval before Building
Permits can be issued,
(g) Applicant shall provide two trash cans made of materials
compatible to the site to be located at each open end of
the kiosk,
(h) Present landscaping at the site of the videomatic kiosk
shall be added to. A landscape plan shall be submitted to
the Planning Department.
(i) Applicant shall maintain and service the kiosk in such a
manner which would keep the structure as attractive as
when first constructed,
(j) Applicant shall sign a written statement stating that he
has read, understands, and agrees to the conditions of the
granting of CUP 90-0128,
4. Based upon the findings and conditions set forth, the Commis-
sion during the above -referenced January 28, 1991, public hear-
ing, and upon the specific findings of fact set forth in para-
graphs 1, 2 and 3, above, this Commission hereby approves this
CUP 90-0128.
5. An initial study has been prepared for CUP 90-0128 pursuant to
Section S 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines,
6. The Planning Commission Secretary is hereby directed to:
(a) Certify the adoption of this Resolution, and,
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by
certified mail, returned receipt requested to Videomatic
Kiosk Corporation and Standard Brands Paint at the address
listed in records of the City of Diamond Bar.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 28 day of January, 1991.
I, James DeStefano, .Secretary to the City of Diamond Bar Planning
Commission do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was
passed, adopted and approved at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of
1991, by the following vote: '
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAINED: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
Secretary to the Planning Commission
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CUP 9V-V148
Applicant: Video Kiosk Corporation
Rudy E. Figueroa, Project Manager
Proposal: To place a structure to house a 24 our fully automated
videomatic kiosk in the parking lot of Standard Brands
Paint Store
Location: 1139 South Diamond Bar Boulevard
General location is the northeast corner of Grand and
Diamond Bar Boulevard.
Environmental Findings: The proposed project, as determined by the
Planning Department in the City of Diamond
Bar, will not have a significant effect on
the environment. This conclusion is based
on the attached environmental checklist and
the staff report for the subject CUP.
(Attach checklist to Staff Report)
AJL:pjs
,:.
�� � '
,� . .
Olmy;.{OEM DI"fOVD YAE ,-
D$PA1T2''iEVT Oe PL?,I,IT_NG
� � . N- 1..te�4�,y __ .. _
�.
OE PLANNING (71-4-3"—a��3195 '
�� DEPART`.�'NT `\\\
1 t t � f ,:,,'cton w u drlav scion. aiiacn
;nlarmat.on fs necessary tar i vr<w of aLL ooficaaons, failure m fir"msh m a y-�
Th` Ivlltlwing re �77r1��� n�/ / �•
ex ra hero �1 neeesiarY. Please read ;nsituCi of r_irelullY- � .i,U f � '
A PLICANT �G'CIZ L-CGirS�APPLICANT'S AGc T Clher
RECORD OwNERI51 �;j��Yj.%O C� lFnSinr_r,'Licensed urvryor, is also a
cJ/�7 (� � and 0/ease ind'c re J 9i _r � n!
` r1 L 7/�!—`/ ' 3-337.3'Srnr/ /2 /���iJ`%'['
rriaw� 1'rA t ovw.�� t C Namc ""�"{.."�—
Name ��Q m�• '— ,.,,C res �
u� �� r � �RU b Adtlr-ii
Address � Cav � i
C:[v�vvgha �A' c:ry .I
trld rota O/.. ..r-�-SI a ?bone( "�1
oSOq Phvnr121� Z,t`I- Z l zoaT-'�.-__�"'-{-�,-�;_-__- n re,. ntl
Zia arY. � :using names. aedreues, antl ngnawres vl me . of oa«nertn�os. ;o
(At:acn seoar ate c. .I necess v mtl
direeori of :aroorat<ani.l mrz revues:.
C."iNsc.v��-ry': :o :ne Na ^ ��(• �' ."^� �`i�on 3ec�n'� i lPi� care
////?J � i, � .l,ro
$ignetl �F (aII recorG a I ra :ne 'ues: oI my
[=q'1F%C.1ilCN: /cv �ernCv
undm pem/P/ o/ Orlury :nat ;ne �nlvin+mvn nernn aro•rar. a corer_
knvwiee5e. ate _ , � LL �
� � ,n /I �,,�y,
Sgnee oo �r�n[ or ae I t A9 1 IJ,V i .
` 3 �, r,. So. (� ,,,, w �a � :[err..
Icon°" (Suer. seeress or ds;ance :mm norei c eii
tc��a� CYeik CL.r„��h
! and IStreetl
between LyV w� /
_nrd D�itr�c.
mane (Lana use. nat oasts( :one(
C''—_------�_
CS —_TBG assHsor�----- -
USGS
Planning Area - Sueerwsorul D�nric:
a;_ ..
_ ,'•�f [.
r
Cdnvan; C;[v
'' Gen I a Gt 9 ry
- �/q�1 Local Plan
Lv 1 P an l.ate�9 Y (il �d"ISt�Yiblel
•" _-Proicc.-5,z<-lswss.a¢es
i fY / P: Dire. Denvty---
w C ` \ \ Par
., P-e Gses ., .__...,.,.,�_. .k J �Ct � dUv t` Q Y 1 r, d
i�
,,, , Pr t Uie of Ste ' / v�
r _.,_ -_ �� cu
lie avv6edbr
IF
IF
IF
I IF
Comes:.e ••vote' Source �, ragavac
M':nart o _er.]nr 0•ipWal — Sanitation Ots an pt
G advrg of WC by Aool•ant?
Yes � No A.nount !snow necessary graomg des;gn a plan or
Wit mau 1RIPTICN (Alto ne•sn n ing t e Prolsosed lots/proiec:l II pennomng for Zone mange, tack
Coal me OESC a, hound]r�n alto area su s ,o Me change.
seem nesa who„ at exrn.�
A?PRGPg1A TO, 9URCENS OF PRGCF MUST ACCOMPANY EACH TYPE CF REQV EST — Gtieck ea h reeuesi
agaited for and coal Plzte aaaraor"ate se_.iam.
PLAN AMENOMENT REQUEST
Countywide•local Plan or Area Plan Land Use Map Cftange'.
F-am To
Acres From ,o Acres
.vide (Gen Cev ouunq 3 S c. `.sgns.: Mao Clange'
C:-.er panty �a Ace
Acres °m
From iO
ssl :a C-sunrYw•Ce'Lpcal ur Area a an „esire<entity Stir
-- •y Allowed 3v Ial C:Y P!an lbt L-cal P!]n �----�'
—oral ?raleC Units Carrent.
Ta t]I Pra let': Units per met: ea It
(ai C:'J?`an Amended Ib� Ldca� Plan Amend ce
ai
Total Acres Involved "
:Cl
5E RvtCES Ex.sung and P•aoosea
Gas S E:eenc cdu<]ewn
AC_eis
Sheriff - ..
C ZCNE CHANGE REQUEST —
Zane: From
Acres .a Acres
CGNOITIONAL USE PERMT, vARtANCE. NONCONFORMING RE'si ANO OTHER P`—RMI TS
I
Ora. No.
Permit Type
Area devoted to' strueur es Po<n soace __------'
7rolec: 5Ite: Grass Atza Na at Lots -
and Proonsed density ----
Resieenttal F-olee: Na of fladrs urst3i Acres
G ss Aro
Numoe• andal In4rs
Fe::ae�l1al aar. T•ae Rec_%tea
?-ov�dea To tat eG.+nee �—
Tara. p•�aeo --
CERTIFIED PROPERTY OWNER'S LIST
AFFIDAVIT
ZONING CASs NO.
STATE OF CA LIFORNIA
- tlec!are under penalty of
penury. Pursuant to Sepaon 2015-5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that the attached list contains the names and
l of the County of Los Angeles as owners
addresses of all persons -who are shown on the latest available assessment rol
of the subject property and as owning property within a distance of five hundred 15001 feet from the exterior
boundaries of Property legally described as:
\�I �v \' �G2 California. :his
Executed at ��
day of
Signature
3 8[
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING
INITIAL. STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE
TO THE APPLICANT:
The California Eaviromental Nalit- Act rluir=_s a review o_` your Provos pcoject for..Fossibla
2m irorrent3l impacts. This Initial Stucv Pcoccss is Inc=--nceo to dot ^,.,1n2 the tr of e.^.vimn-
mental doc'nenc3tion n2cessari to have your project considered by the County. The Initial Stud
consists of a complete' quest ardfo=�e�1mattn e�eainnutcfrQoureviewingvaeeencies an with
of potential imcacts prePar=i by sta_f--
s_ial ex er`ise. This process can be exaecit2 with your coouer3tlon_
The Oro; act file mus- inctuce the
followi exhibi s , wnich you -ust provide (check boxes are
Orovidec vour use)-
1. Initial Stuc'v Questionnaire - In ca oletix t: -s cuestiors :r=_, all ruesti^_ns s`nc1 'o_
ars.+ers' as c�ciat=_1'v as cess:bie (attac-4 ex_r: _aces i= ❑2cess=_r•v;. i� tz�cesc:-Y'
Lora: c'v:si°n, _ slcuLc c.e ant:cleat that suture cevelcr=ert '.+111 tag:z Place, an,.;
_..c puestionnair=_ copietz accurcir�'y. Pre'-imin3r. graclnc and/or decele ent
cncec s shccic sus c__ - - - n° -�.e -=ce corstr' ct'_cr. is art:o: ce.
;7,� 2. Cevelocsnent Pi an with Contours showing:
tie c onos ce`:eioa 2nt or xss'_'cie '_ccacer.;
L^e l csttcn anC _3`jcli _ r _ rCS
.'let:ve v2=0t3=:°::__11CSt:c1'7C the Locat.On, :rem, '.^.e=__t. and c_ .
(m235ured 1 !'7 f�2' ground level) of an,
Oak ___e5; a'L C) ?•C:Sr'_-G
and pr,3Ocsec landsC3clnC.
:1cnSc-
`!cun-^s _ocr '_xtr- _doles
y
vOIEc I vc _ ;EC _s _ie San _
of the -• are
elation to
Vicinity Map cf aperocriata scatia showi x tee s::bject proper-v in r
-^ `fiC3Rt OR
nearbv streets and other VS:C31 Le3tur2s. r'2t ma05 (sari d5
,as Guide) in urban areasorJ.S.G.S. r�;ad S;zets :n _uLsl areas sx ulc be
used. (Quad Sheets are available at ;zany .Lao stores or fry the CePar Est of
t e Interior G2olocic Sur•vev, 300 North Los lrgeLes St__et, ftcem 7038,
Anceies—this is the Federal Builcinc in Los Arcel2s civic canter.)
4. Photographs of the sit=, ad iCc3z_ons a r: surroundi❑c ar=_a. An index map
keve to the pnetwracns s;nCCL3 b2 Pravid sew:rg tie lccaclon and direct:cr.
cf each pnot3cr3oC*m
/ Ceneralized land use map c' aPerceriate scale for the cccject site arc
s::rrCun lnc JC>02rt:es,
Wlt n 'Uses early lai:eiec.
'_e
cues t:onra:re!
v OFYATION
FAiL:TRE :G SUBH"T .1L.I. icECL�:"-S MAT`—•RIALS Afm TO PRGVIDE CC2•PLE':L' QUESTIONNAIRE Ii'7E'
^7iv overt^ -v FNFr .YS LN PRIx:SSI*7G YCL•R C. E.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE -BURDEN OF PROOF SEC. 22,56,040
t•�
In addition to the information required in the application, the applicant shall substantiate to the
rtisfaction of the Zoning Board and/or Commission, the following facts:
A. That the requested use at the location proposed will not:
1. - Adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing or
working in the surroundhag area, or
2. Be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of
other persons located in the vicinity of the site, or
3, Jeopardize, endanger -or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health,
safety or general welfare.
B. That the proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards,
walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, landscaping and other development
features prescribed in this Title 22, or as is otherwise required in order to integrate
said use with the uses in the surrounding area. II
TL 5`1`�i wr i5 �4 Gbrvly� nNv Kih�_
i
j
C. That the proposed site is adequately served.
1. By highways or streets of sufficient width and improved as necessary to
carry the kind and quantity of traffic such use would generate, and
2. By other public or private service facilities as are required.
�L
APPLICATION CHECKLIST
' ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT _ ❑PARKING PERMIT _
❑ VARIANCE _ ❑ZONE CHANGE
' �� -. I ❑ NONCONFORMING REVIEW _ ❑GENE RAL PLAN AMENDMENT
❑ OTHER _._
VES NO
- CASE FOLDER FOfl EACH CASE Zone, Thomas Guide Page, Zone D'stnet,
Complete mlormat on, Case No., S.D. No., HNM No.,
' � location, dale filed, posted on Fly Sheet/HNM, other cases on properly
- ZONING APPLICATION
' - - Item: riled in nomnletely and corremly
—__ signatures m appronrim�::pace:
- —� Legal description really describes subject property and matches property on House Numherinq Map
BURDEN OF PROOF FORM IN EACH CASE COMPLETED
VICINITY MAP$
- Ali maps lolded no larger than 8" x 14" and has location shown on Iront
' - Seven reyuired ,
_ One Land Use Man (subject properly clearly outlined) 700'radius
One Ownership Map lzubject property clearly oudined) 500'radius
-- Completed Ownership List
-- Completed Ownership List Allidavit
- -- Two sets of self adhesive address labels (typed)
- Five blank maps
Two additional blank mans i1 filing a Plan Amendment
_ TENANT NOTIF (CATION AGREEMENT COMPLETED
' PLOT PLAN$
_ Ali plos plans folded no larger than 8" x 14" and has location shown on front.
- -- Six required, sufficient size for Hearing Room use lapprox, 2' x 4'1
-- Sublect property clearly outlined and dimensioned
- North arrow and scale
_ All existing and prnposed improvemenu shown w Ih dimensions
- � -- He ghts (stones) of all buddmgs, walls, fences, towers, etc.
"— —_ All vans shown (s ze, height, mcat on, type)
- - D stance Irom all structures to nearest lot I ne�dislance between structures
- Parking Ifot) spaces dimens oned,landscaped areas, dr'vaways requued walls and wheel stops shown.
Improvements in and dedicated widths of adjacent streets and highways indicated and dimensioned
Show distance from property l� and din ntg ruses) sitaml pedslw ihaCounrtypEng neer determined
- - '— Interior floor plan lit assembly
-- occupant loaf
PLOT PLANS —ORDINANCE STANDARDS
_ Height
Yards
- - —_ Are I
'— Density
- Lot Coverage '
- Outside Storage, Outside Storage Section 22.52.560
- — —_ 1 Outside Display, Outside Display Section 22.52560
Parking -
Numher of Spaces Ino. bedrooms, floor plans, occupant load)
'— Paving, marking, wheel stops
' - Walls hoot, side, rear (location, height, material)
- � - - -- -- Landscaping
- -- Lighting
_ INITIAL STUDY OUESTIONNAIflE COMPLETED
' Photographs )All Cases)
- $UPPLEM�NTARYINFORMATION
Renderings orelevations,
- - '— RPD {sloping terrain) Section 22.20.460: statistical table
' CPD Section 22.2H.340
MPD Section 22.32.150
' Mobilehome Parks Section 22.52.500
-- -- Caretaker Mobilehome Questionnaire
-- Automobile Dismantling Yards Section 22.52.3fi0
"— Parking Permits Section 22.56.1070
- a) Set of Site plans as it no parking permit is applied for
- —� b) $et of site plans as it parking permit were granted
(STAFF USE)
PROJECT NCPBER(s):
INITIAL s=y QUESTION!. IRE
err r - � •'•
Proje t Applicant ((O�wTeL): (� `-
kjt cob yank
�c3c2ss
_—
r��-- --� 05 o q21 5 (4
ib�Vc��cbt
zl3 21y- 2411
Project Reoresenntative:
Co r7�awd 55eq�
Name
to G o Uj Cojvkk 0 w. --
�}- ?ddr2ss
?etion ccI est= arc project iescLip\t:or.\: nl i --
'Ja�
locacicn of proles
:a. 2rsz.^.: use of s Vern
-�--
G✓� t It ---' f--=r-.•-'-'t-• _�x
z '
?C. ?rv':':CUs U52 O: s: �Z Cr s:-UC tULes: =-
.�_ 7L2?52 .1st a'-1 -:r2'llous Cases q1/ 0h4C
relates LO CRls pL O, eCt:
JV
C'ire 3:L Jr3R:l'1C
VCU pLanr, I rK, i'1t Uri
_Rds25 CC Cn:s /%� I_ Ves exola:n:
J,
3. Nu"her Of rlOOr
7. Project area:
Coves.? j:: s:LUCtures, — —_
- a. ?Lest..^.t z„r,;�• _--
L R scspin open s_ace:
Toc.:' aver: ----
'�maatic 'rubLc
weni-G dt c\
y. ;N
.,u,l:
Residential projects:
11_ Ncr�er Ind rm � oc anit>: _---------------- —
l2. Schools:
tuna` scion'_ di strict (3; =--��s =:1e pro': ty? ______—_______—_—_-____
Ara existi:x sctcoi `3ciiities ad�.uat=_ to meet project nex's? /Y/ /N/
ii not, ��na`_ provisiors wi11 be r..a:?e Eoc adr'i`ional cL=ss_oms?
Non -Residential projects:
=_ nea_ast
__s.:enc:;:
s2 of
_ -
__3car
52n5: C`'JP
;15e \�: '1C0
_=
nCs;::=1=,
_-` �
15.
ti�:.�er
..L
_ ci,y�.�s
a:tii
sni[_s.
_--C
l�. `!a.`C:'it_'l •—�'.C1GVP�s CeT SC___. ___ __\ 11
l3. Icec_:_`.• any: �� przccts _�1'a.co �C�.'t4� S --
�� �C _Cr C'2�C- CCF_: ='!Cns ,._<e, St :La CC CC x:1C� ::a'3 _.'CS�.[:C=S 5'.:C"'1 35 ..11, �S.1 C:Ce5�
_ i
Z0. Do year ccer3'_icrs .rczc_ 3�. presscrizec t3nia? /Y/ lM"/ L yes, aspiai^: � ---
�_. _ce..^.t y a _ _ =.. :..__-, r='-c e or 2xpiosi•J-� ..�__-__.�_s �.. .._ _:cacy.: or,-s:t_ Nfl�
ci3....
-
- asp
_'r,..-
J
-- Yes, _
,^I:
B. &wiRotmE: TAL iNFoRmArioN
1. Envirormental Setting -- Project Site A�
a. z\ sLi C. lS S=r•1Ct'1r 5 !�/SJ h_�__
�J. iJcxn:r3n:,f 'Si Does
*C. V_ge ::3 ticn
2. &nvirormental SettinG -- SurrouncHng Area
a. sLix cszs.strcturas i=y�s,
�/ CL-------- - ------ --
Toccyr3c;w sloces
i. Cul t'.:r31,t1: sL7C1 �31 resour_jes
3. are :':per•= a ; .�=;cr =rees on _ � .
tne �.t- , .ac'_uc�^c ca%: _._ems? ,'Y/ I[ es, t•.� ana nc-��r: _----------
4. .ti_' I =n�� naurel �ataccour s, sur`3ce °toa x_ �-, etc,
sa _
c:::n:� ':;rcuc:: oroiecr 3e•:�aoa::ene?: /Y/ IE yes, es�i3_-: ----
,r.s,.�_s
B. IIJVIRONMENTALINFORMATION (cont.)
j. �raC: nC'
will tie projac- I` ye„ �cw �sny ::iil it be _
recuire grading? /Y; ; coot= yar.is?---------- balancc.� on sae? �/"I/
If no* oalanc��, :ier=_ will d-rr. be o::ts±ne3 or iepcs? ced'?-----------`-`�--
6. Ace Here any i�ertifiaol•> landslides other major geologic iazards on t;ze grocect�
(including uncor.:pacted fill)? /Y/ If yes, exrtain:-------------_--
7. Is tie Grope-w ie�c-=`_� wi _iin a hi•�n lira is=3r: 3r?� f~11a1J2s '+�_`_a :C,OC2rateL'f de s?
vege-acicr.? �[/ /7� Discjrce =e ne.i:asc dire sc=t'_cn: _
5. Ncise:
cxis-.irr� rcise sources a_ sit=: �/�QvL� —_ ------
Noise to be Generate✓ by proiec_: /v OVI-�- � __ -- ----
9. F��-yes:
�'�'ors gereraty� by ?✓Gigot:—�/�/,\�11�C------ ---
C..".l::d tJx:c F_T.12s �:+�--2:�er3=cr_'.' l" V —__— II f ` / 1
10. ;v1_at ene^y-corsar:inc cesicrs crater___ "___ be cs�? Wt�I �1^Swltitla b'^t�d1�—
li
CiIilIFIGATION: I hereby certify that tine stat��ents fuznished above girl in the attacned
exhibits present the data aril information requir�l for this initial
evaluation to t_he best of my ability, and t*�at the facts, statEments,
and information presented are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge anpd belief.
Date: 0 '21 � ���%2��.''
'�- Signature) —_-------
For: �/ i � CJU'�..,� \O- —
City of Diamond ear!WdalStudyFom
_ ,;.Fey;Page I
�ItilOCOPLEY DRIVE SUITE 100
l'DDIAMOND RARt CA 917654177
EAST
7l4w860"2489 FAX
1. Background:
1. Name of.Appiicant:
2. Address and Phone Number of
4. Date of Environmental Information Submittal:
80w\ 1�
5. Date of Environmental Checklist Submittal:
6, Lead Agency (Agency Requiring Checklist):
7. Name of Proposal if applicable ( Tract No, 9 Subdivision): ,
8. Related Applications (under the authority of this environmental determination):
Yes No
Variance:
Conditional Use Permit:
Zone Change:
.General Plan Amendment:
(Attach Completed Environmental Information Fprm)
PHYLLIS E. PAPEN".`ppUL VKORCHER GARY H. WERNER GARY G. MILLER JOHN A. FORBING ROBERT L. VAN NORT -
-,:Mayor.Pro Tem Caundlmember Councilmemba Couaalmember City Manager
Mayor -..
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR USES RECYCLED PAPER -
i.
City of Diamond Bar Initial Study Form
Page 2
11. Environmental Impacts:
(Explanations and additional Information to supplement all "yes" and 'possibly" answers are required to be
submitted on attached sheets)
1. Earth. Wilt the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features?
d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical feature?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition, erosion of stream banks or land adjacent to standing water,
changes in siltation, deposition or other processes which may modify the channel of
constant or intermittently flowing water as well as the areas surrounding permanent
or intermittent standing water?
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such s earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
Yes No Possibl
y
2. Atr. Wlli the proposal result in: '"
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? V
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any changes in climate,
either locally or regionally? V
3. Water. Witt the proposal result in: -
a. Changes in currents or the course or direction ofIwater movements? t�
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the rate and amount of surface run-off? ✓
c. Alterations of the course or flow of flood waters? I/
d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any body of water? I/
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality including but
not limited to dissolved oxygen and turbidity?. /
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters?y
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals,
or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ✓
1. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding?
Cfry of Diamond Bar Initial Study Form
Page 3
Yes No Possibly
4, Plain Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique rare or endangered species of plants?
c. Reduction in the size of sensitive habitat areas or plant communities which are recognized
as sensitive?
d. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species?
e. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? /
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of animals (birds, land ��
animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms and insects)?
b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique rare or endangered species of animals?
c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or in a barrier to the normal migration ✓
or movement of resident species?
d. Reduction in size or deterioration in quality of existing fish or wildlife habitat?
6. Noise. WIII the proposal result In:
a. Significant increases in existing noise levels? J—�
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels —L
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal result in: I /
a. Significant new light and glare or contribute significantly to existing levels of light and glare?
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in: /
a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use in an area?
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? J—�
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal Involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including but not limited
to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset condition? I
b. Probable interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan?
City of Diamond Bar Initial Study P)rm
Page 4
Yes No Posslbiy
11, Population. Will the proposal: j
a. After the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area?
12. Housing. Wtll the proposal affect:
a. Existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing?
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
a. Generation of Substantial additional vehicular movement? l�
b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking?
c. Substantial impact on existing transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and goods.
e. Alterations to waterbome, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
14. Public Services. Will the proposal:
a. Have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered governmental services in any
of the following areas:
1. Fire protection? V
2. Police protection? V
3. Schools? }�
4. Parks or other recreational facilities?
I
5. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
6.Other governmental services? V
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of Sueor energy? /
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing energy sources or require the development
of new sources of energy?
76. Utilities. Will the proposal result in:
a. A need for new systems, or Substantial alterations to public utilities?
Clry of D/amond Bay fnldal Smdy Fonn
Page 5
Yes No
77. Human HeaRh. WIII the proposal result In:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? �
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? t�
y8. Aesthetics. Witl the proposal result In:
a. The obstn/ction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in �/
the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to the public view?
19. Recreation. WIII the proposat result In:
a. An impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? l�
20. Cultural Resources. Wait the proposal result In:
a. The alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site?
b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? V
c. A physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
d. Restrictions on existing religious or sacred uses wfthin the potential impact area.
Possibly
Cly o/ Diamond Bar rnitlar Study Form
Page 6
Yes No Possibly
4 a. Mandatory Findings of Significance?
a. Does the proposed project have the potential to degrade the quai'dy of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate or
significantly reduce a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the proposed project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term, environmental goals?
c. Does the pro�osed project pose impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively
considerable . L/
d. Does the project pose environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
III Discussion of Environmental Evaluation:
(Attach Narraffve)
IV. Determinatton:
On the basis of this Initial evaluation: �
I find that the proposed pro ect COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECORATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on the attached sheet have been incorporated into the proposed project.
A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. _
i find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Signature:
Title:
Forthe City of Diamond Bar, California
I. Background
1. Name of Applicant: \ AGO elQL K 00,Rfop 12T 10nl
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent:
3.
Name,
Address
and
Phone
of
Project
Contact:
d.
Date
!a-
of Environmental
(—it7
Information
Submittal:
5.
Date
of Environmental
Checklist
Submittal:
6,
Lead
Agency
(Agency
Required
Checklist):
7.
Name of
Proposal
if applicable
(Tract No.
if Subdivision):
8. Related Applications (under the authority of this environmental
determination): N/)4i
Variance:
Conditional Use Permit: II ✓
Zone Change:
General Plan Amendment:
(Attach Completed Environmental Information Form)
II. Environmental Impacts:
(Explanations and additional information to supplement all "yes" and "possibly"
answers are required to be submitted on attached sheets)
YES NO POSSIBLY
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in
/ geologic substructures?
V b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
overcovering of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief
/ features?
✓ d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical feature?
✓ e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition, erosion of stream
banks or land adjacent to standing water,
changes in siltation, deposition or other
processes which may modify the channel of
constant or intermittently flowin: water as
well as Me areas surrounding permanent or
intermittent standing water?
i/
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar
hazards?
?.: Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
/ of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
V
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any changes in climate,
either locally or regionally?
% 3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents or the course or
direction of water movements?
YES NO/ POSSIBLY
J
✓f
b.
Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of surface
run-off?
c.
Alterations of the course or flow of flood
waters?
d.
Changes in the amount of surface water in
any body of water?
e.
Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality including
but not limited to dissolved oxygen and
turbidity?
f.
Alteration of the direction or rate of flow
of ground waters?
g.
Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or
withdrawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
h.
Substantial reduction in the amount of water
otherwise available for public water
supplies?
i.
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding?
4. Plant
Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species, or number
of any species of plants (including trees,
to
shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
b.
Reduction in the numbers of any unique rare
of endangered species of plants?
c.
Reduction in the size of sensitive habitat
areas or plant communities which are
recognized as sensitive?
d.
Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species?
e.
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop?
YES NO POSSIBLY
4. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number
of any species of animals (birds, land
animals including reptiles, fish, and
` shellfish, benthic organisms and insects)?
b. Reduction in the numbers of nay unique rare
or endangered species of animals?
Jc. Introduction of new species of animals into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal
migration or movement of resident species?
Jd. Reduction in size or deterioration in quality
of existing fish or wildlife habitat?
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
✓ a. Significant increases in existing noise
levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal result in:
✓ a. Significant new light and glare or contribute
significantly to existing levels of light
and glare?
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in:
V/ a. A substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use in an area?
II(
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources?
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in:
✓ a. A risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset condition?
YES NO POSSIBLY
✓ b. Probable interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan?
11. Population. Will the proposal:
/ a. Alter the location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the human population of
an area?
/ 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect:
J a. Existing housing, or create a demand for
additional housing?
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
V/ a. Generation of Substantial additional
vehicular movement?
b. Effects ron existing parking facilities or
demand for new parking?
/ c. Substantial impact on existing transportation
` systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people and goods,
r e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air
traffic?
f.� Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
14. Public Services. Will the proposal:
a. Have an effect upon, or result in the need
for new or altered governmental services in
any of the following areas:
V// 1. Fire Protection?
2. Police Protection?
V/ 3. Schools?
c
YES NO� POSSIBLY
4. Parks or other recreational facilities?
5. Maintenance of public facilities,
Iincluding roads?
6. Other governmental services?
J15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Useof substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
f b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
energy sources or require the development
of new sources of energy?
J16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in:
a. A need for new systems, or Substantial
alterations to public utilities?
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
v� a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards?
�i 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view
open to the public, or will the proposal
II result in the creation of an aesthetically
offensive site open to the public view?
19, Recreation. Will the proposal result in:
V/ a. An impact upon the p p quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
/ 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. The alteration of or the destruction of a
prehistoric or historic archaeological site?
YES NO� POSSIBLY
b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building, structure
or object?
c. A
physical
change which would affect
unique
ethnic
cultural
values?
d. Restrictions one:cistin6 religious or sacred
uses within the potential impact area.
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance?
a. Does the proposed project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or lwildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self sustaininz
levels, threaten to eliminate or
significantly reduce a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods crf California history or prehistory?
b. Does the proposed project have the potential
to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage
of long-term, environmental goals?
c. Does the proposed project pose impacts which
are individually limited but cu:uulati;ely
considerable?
d. Does the project pose environmental effects
�� which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION:
(Attach Narrative)
IV. DETERMINATION:
On�basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a
significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a
significant
not
be
effect
a significant
on the environment,
effect in
this case
there
because
will
the
mitigation
measures
described
on
the attached
sheet
have
A
MITIGATED
been
incorporated into the
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
proposed
[TILL BE
project.
PREPARED.
I find that the proposed proiect 1L1Y hate a significant
effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
Date7—yc Signature: i 14� Y,� �L
7
Title ( iCftX�l tif/
For the City Diamond Bar, Cahi�f�ornia
ITfepCTT17TT
im.05.1,111
<
h
o*
` AC
� �. B ! Video K�io� `Corgporation
,
\\
!
�
|
|
_(
40
�
l•,;
«�
»y[w E
[
I
mom
die
Ord, I
a;F.I
pES'vd;aci,'g,8,'"i lif
use lip.a GYBE. E•g Ba]2Y �'I.' �. n 1 d a it
7in
RYcF"$ 1 sBFas1TB���`°r I4 . W k;\B _—
Tdsi B d s:° Boa / 1
in
"- _ car$ ��� [S B I#§ Ar 'i
. ; r f /" 4 / / Ili P" m . jI
3
i Z
$¢e� 114It
� B.
// �'
I Ike
It
de d
/� ` __:�
Id
VV
gien ..._.�_�T eA Ike
ei
V Z
ded
14
Z as ='a I z I Il /y-1 I,It - ,n m
f o z 9r� _I =��P I . Ift . ..i—�') I �.. ni'e
at-7—� TTr (y� -r—II i5ycgr. ;� �eke
..¢�= N
`* F 1 Ton 1' I B
P P 9 _ 5 — —' L 2$ I� t i cP t
"F� Z M� 3 t.
'1; - --- ;, rl '. I I del
^d+i zj;, yaaj F7.
s11 - �_I I �; D I 9a
I�r did 0a Yn$ v fx� l Sid I' d _.. J1 ( R;: I 1
C '�'O ,.�_.I I 1 I 1 Y I u I Q 1
t r Y. — a -1 jr;
t {rVent
a 1 '7 wa m N m � wtr- re
r >:
- w
IIIeoF�' terFE ^I _ kid k J I I rm p€mn du a 5 C
l MIN
2 I I I I i f
Scy�° °
k JB' n ; Ir L —1 —1 I p IN
�yLn t F
tl ..$figs n ` �p.>"I I �1 ''. I ; p�' I ( I ( de
j�f'LLre
w �m y IN
b 05� ci SS kP 1,9M— rxIt
ke
^II (/� I ( `nL FL
I"M • !P I Y'J / I 1 � � i o D $ U
pder
P/rn
•� , dip'E yA
/ /
did,
/� / s B .��-{��-/♦♦♦ e iy I�}sy�.v1 It I do: dewU m —
or-
er
rx it
it ; 4 Y �� �Net"-L� J lFr It. I ill .
t�4 j21
ded
.rr it _® /
8t $
re
ao _Ir y S D j-� 1 1 n3 >£ A="
I 9 I Bt y / i i �: �FIL II m n o •� e� lr P)3 p
B r �: C'YBB �x7 I m ' A0 c pA�F
1 CpYg yw 1'FA. x'M 'op�FL�a@nL
E 4 5i^ i m. S I ° L aIt
M r
I j.. ;�fj CF•oA -�del�" 53� 1.; 1. iF Rn� aimLDgZ I
w ^ to o t 6; °ozl dap
To! ,g ' [pC orj :>S [it m -miic °w�FNnm
IJ @$o tBa 4444gFI I' "u, „• Ny' $> U P "
V J o ]a. ✓ jT 1 1 1 It
l a' f r c o f N Z i L o.
a 6�1y:mN0 oa�N °
•: �� I t 11
rl11 j•y� n 3 4 U Ip m 1
.. _ , a N F
fit It PI a
\Awe n S f + Ad Erg
rt, del
,mm� pia �i i .- ` a c o .
rt 4AZD e�. IdAWININ w P r �L� 1 � � � An daAn g g�m$i ITc Oil
4 R Dor i SY. Bg gyF 4 I m. c i mom 3m �'.
ys F gygyai 7 �= C r; s gym'"—$>
- GF ors, i i ed e J c'sy
N I .: ..re
Loo<in, South
YIVGU IMI I� IINIL• Y11/L1/yl Ll:ol
rr,
M_61k+L at')
I115�'f?;Oh�(Yr Wk•X�
it
�I!.' 41 r,r,y c,
_..._... a-- ' i
LC P�,k:Mc?
4 1G d �'
�l• 1141rK, x 311' .JC In�iA
�)
_ � s% fit H f 6 �n tw-:, . PJ A cAc
A}�G�+Dtz �'�i ilk P�'+�c��„-,.......�
;�., -�r; �•,i: -, raj-,e;,,
yif(e/ ter. 3
�>��a11 S_i_I-I Deta�
5 Lr rr471�
ptJ Gt.� �r�ce
�ra�e• l�e�.a�
K
sc»atdE : %2 pzlc.�
C�
.a �1 of al: o.
r� o
Avon-
Neh4j
Q,G.J.. F.gSNltilS- EviH $iCfn.
Ron Arakelian
1636 Derringer Lane
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
January
17,
1991
City of Diamond Bar
City Planning Department
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite #190
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
RE: Video Kiosk Corporation
ATTENTION: Ann J. Lungu
This letter is in reference to the Public Hearing to be held on
January 28, 1991 to discuss the request to place a fully automat-
ed videomatic kiosk in the parking lot of the Standard Brands
Paint Store located at 1139 South Diamond Bar Boulevard.
I will not be able to attend the Public Hearing. However, as a
resident of Diamond Bar, I would e it noted by way of this
letter that I am opposed to this request and against the instal-
lation of an automated videomatic kiosk in this parking lot.
Sincerely,
it
Ron Arakelian _-'
SFiN 24 '91 17�57 SUNNIEST HSSET M�f9T.
ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
January 23, 2991
Mz. Paul W: Reash
Real Lstate Manager
Standard Brands Paint Company
4306 West 190th Street
Torrance, California 90509-295b
Pgat-It'°brand fax transmittal memo 76'77
N of pagoa �
To � UA�fI
From ��e
C.
De
u�,✓,✓J,//tee t+�/r—
Phone
,s� aso-3o9c�
`ETA FAX
RE: DIAMOND BAR SHOPPINCr CENTER
PROPOSED INSTATI..ATION OF AUTOMATED VIDEO HIOSK
Dear Paul:
We are in zeceipt of a Notice of Pubic Hearing in regard to the above referenced
installation, a copy of wllich is enclosed.
This letter is to ga on record regarding the approved�location of the Kiosk. The owner of
the property located at 1155 So. Diamond $ar Blvd., Diamond Bar, California, has
approved the location indicated on the attached site map. -Said approval is required by our
Reciprocal Easement and Development Agreement.
Also, thank you far agreeing to forward copies of the approved plans prior to commencing
work.
Should you have any questions, you may reach me at (714) 2$0-3090,
Sincerely,
STJNWEST '
ASS MANACxEMENT CORPORATION
Pat Musolf
Pzaperty Manager
PM:klc
cc: Ann J.Lungu, Diamond $ar Planning Dept.
12udy Figueroa, 'Video T{iosk Corporation
Carol Karno, SUNWEST
P.D. Box 19600
Irvine, Caiifornld 32773
7t4l250-3090
J�1N 24 '91 17�5=
;n ,nntieM10
.-N^�nma�o^
�:
W
r
� �
LtiJ
� V
a
� as a
� a ¢ �'
� ��� 4o a
Fug av+�"
NO. c�7=zpao
I.F
J 4
J Z ? �
Q �, �.`dPaOSyr
�,�,
N
� `�M=N��
Wa � �RNN
�a
Q'S
m � N[i ..
y � J
�y� W �
V .G LL �
r �
4 "o���`°
g �� oU4��
c "�-�
h amp--�Y
SLINWEST gSSET h1Gh1T.
2
:.� � aQy
�� 4. �a�
��' t;~ '� N m z
� '•,a-.
'. .I ill � -
�".
A.'.
i
j ���', �,.:µ I Ijl , i � �I 1
1NYN(1a153y g 1'IU'r I���I � f I � I i
t$ N3alltl4 Mtl31Sa3 I I � I
� olxaM u�rdx �
zxadww ;' I � i �' I i, I
3�vueow
� lwddmslxsx � '
alenitlnay zxzon+'ea -, � I � I i t i
dONS lie3� 319a11aFr —
3]NYx(1 Na 3t9Y'11tlAa = �
dl8'niYAYo NN07tl
'J.
-!-`:a',- g a it ll�l I�I! ��
°..; . ..
..,
c� = a
-- `: ae �
m ca w
o' ¢ x
- StlYSDa� 3Ulil� � '> �
:.,f ` I. , i I i ..
�`
a
i
o
t
w 3
� 3+
� -
o
m _
d
m -
p
O
s
Q
in�v3nd aNvti�
G,} L
a� "�� �� � w c"�
G _q Lq �P A G
F iis~ w: �{ a 'b'
v
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
REPORT DATE:
CASEJFILE NUMBER:
APPLICATION REQUEST:
PROPERTY LOCATION:
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER:
BACRGROUND:
City of Diamond Bar
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
5
JANUARY 23, 1991
JANUARY 28, 1991
ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT 91-1
THIS IS A REQUEST TO CONSIDER THE IN-
CLUSION OR EXCLUSION OF THE CHURCH
LAND USE WITHIN THE CM (COMMERCIAL -
MANUFACTURING) ZONES.
NOT APPLICABLE
r�4Y�i)� �?w.�uC]�I��J•�y
In October of 1990 the City Council adopted an interim ordinance (Num-
ber 15-1990) amending the list of permitted and conditionally permitted
uses within the CM zone. The City Council is increasingly concerned
with the City's financial future and adopted the interim ordinance in
order to provide the necessary study time to review the most advanta-
geous and appropriate land uses for the CM zone.
In light of the ever expanding fiscal constraints placed on local mu-
nicipalities, the City Council directed the planning staff to research
land use controls to maximize the City's financial future via sales tax
generating properties. It was felt that an interim ordinance used to
provide supplemental controls for the increasing development pressure
on the remaining commercial properties would be appropriate.
The CM zones are located, generally, adjacent to or nearby the Pomona
and Orange Freeways. There are two parcels in CM zones located north
of the Pomona Freeway. Both of these parcels front the border between
Diamond Bar and the City of Industry with one parcel located west of
Brea Canyon Road on Lycoming Road and the other is located east of Brea
Canyon on Washington Street. Diamond Bar Blvd is developed from Sunset
Crossing to Highland Valley Drive with CM zoned property adjacent to
the Pomona Freeway. Overlooking the 57 and 60 Freeways, stretching
from the merger of the two freeways to the Grand Ave - Golden Springs
intersection, the largest CM zone lies waiting for future development.
As a result of these concerns, the City Council adopted emergency Ordi-
January 28, 1991 Agenda
Page Two
As a result of -these concerns, the City Council adopted emergency Ordi-
nance No. 15 (1990) on October 16, 1990. This ordinance effectively
removed all non -revenue producing land uses (with the exception of ac-
cessory uses) from the CM zone as a mechanism to grant additional land
use controls in the period preceding the forthcoming General Plan. The
duration of this emergency ordinance extended for a period of 45 days.
As a result, the City Council met again on November 13, 1990 to extend
the ordinance to the 16th of October, 1991. The City Council can, if
necessity dictates, reevaluate this ordinance and extend it for an ad-
ditional time period, not to exceed two years, as provided in Califor-
nia Government Code section 65858 (a).
The Council, as a result of public testimony presented at the public
hearing, directed staff to provide the Planning Commission the opportu-
nity to investigate the appropriateness for reintroducing the Church
use into the CM zone. The recommendation of the Planning Commission
will then be presented to the Council in the form of a resolution.
APPLICATION ANALYSIS:
The impetus for the CM zone interim ordinance
is an outgrowth
of
con-
cern for the
orderly
planning and use
of the City's limited
land
re-
sources. The
Council
has undertaken a
comprehensive General
Plan
re-
view and has also been involved in Economic Development discussions to
address the long term economic objectives. As a result, the interim
ordinance was initiated in order not to preempt the planning process.
The interim ordinance was deemed to be an appropriate control mechanism
that would allow the orderly planning process to continue in a manner
consistent with the primary purposes of the CM zone, without the need
to impose a complete development moratorium. For the City of Diamond
Bar the impact is far felt and long reaching. The City currently pos-
sesses five CM zones and this zone represents the greatest potential
for new commercial development throughout the City.
Two of the five CM zones are developed with mobile home parks although
the Community Plan cites the land use as being incompatible. The CM
zone along Diamond Bar Blvd. is developed by retail commercial, restau-
rant and office uses. Gateway Corporate Center is developed in much
the same manner with the addition of the Days Hotel. The remaining CM
zone located 'on the southwest corner of Golden Springs Road and Grand
Avenue is developed with an unoccupied office building and vacant
developable pads.
Currently, none of the CM zones within the City are developed with
churches. Churches in the City are developed on sites zoned for resi-
dential development and no churches are developed in commercially or
industrially zoned areas although legally permissible.
January 28, 1991 Agenda
Page Three
After surveying_10 surrounding -_communities four cities were found to
expressly` proh:btt the development of churches in commercial zones.
The remainder of the cities have instituted a review and permitting
procedure by which church projects must be submitted for a discretion-
ary review and public hearing in order to receive a conditional use
permit within commercial zones. The reason for this procedure is that
compatibility is not automatically assumed, so that each case is evalu-
ated on the merits. Most often this land use is not considered to be
compatible with most types of uses located in commercially zoned areas.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The project has been deemed to have no negative impacts and to be Cat-
egorically Exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated there-
under pursuant to the Section 15305 of Division 6 of Title 14 of the
-. California Code of Regulations.
The Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission evaluate the
information presented and find the interim Ordinance 15-A (1990) in its
present form to be an adequate land use control until such time that
the General Plan is adopted.
ATTACHMENTS:
Map identifying CM zones within the city.
II. Ordinance 15A (1990)
III. City Development Policies Survey
\rls
ORDINANCE NO. 15-A (1990)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR EXTENDING THE TERM OF AN INTERIM
ZONING ORDINANCE? ORDINANCE NO. 15 (1990)
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858 AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
(i) On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was
established as a duly organized municipal corporation of the State
of California and, on that date, the City Council adopted, by
reference, the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances of the
City, including Title 22 thereof pertaining to Planning and Zoning
Regulations for the City of Diamond Bar. (Hereinafter said Title 22
shall be referred to as "the Zoning Ordinance.")
(ii) On October 16, 1990,ypursuant to the provisions of
California Government Code Section 65858(a), this City.Council
adopted its Ordinance No. 15 (1990) adopting interim zoning
regulations pertaining to land use proposals for non-commercial or
manufacturing uses in the C-M, Commercial Manufacturing Zoning
District within the City.
(iii) Pursuant to the provisions of California Government
Code Section 65858(d) this City Council issued its written report
describing the measures, taken to alleviate the conditions which led
to the adoption of Ordinance No. 15 (1990) at least ten (10) days
prior to the expiration of Ordinance No. 15 ( 1990) .
(iv) A duly noticed public- hearing as required by
California Government Code Section 65858 (a) was conducted and
concluded prior to the adoption of this Ordinance.
(v) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this
Ordinance have occurred.
B. ordinance.
The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does ordain
as follows:
Section 1. The City Council hereby specifically finds
that all the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this
Ordinance are true and correct.
Section 2. The City Council hereby finds and determines
that the adoption of this Ordinance is categorically exempt from
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder
pursuant to Section 15305 of Division 6 of Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations. r
Section 3. The City Council finds and determines that the
development of proposed amendments .to the Zoning Ordinance are
continuing; however, such development of amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance cannot be completed prior to the expiration of Ordinance
No. 15 (1990).
Section 4. The ,City Council hereby specifically finds
that there are land uses permitted within the C-M, Commercial
Manufacturing Zone, the approval of which would contradict the
ultimate goals and objectives of the General Plan and would not be
subject to adequate local review under the provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance unless Ordinance No. 15 (1990) is extended and, further,
that the approval of any such land uses under the current
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would result in an immediate
threat to the public health, safety or welfare of persons and
property within the City of Diamond Bar,
Section 5. Ordinance No. 15 (1990) of the City of Diamond
Bar, as heretofore enacted under the authority of California
Government Code section 65858(a), hereby is extended and shall be
of no further force and effect as of the 16th day of October, 1991,
unless the City Council has extended said Ordinance in the manner
provided in said Section 65858(a).
Section 6. This Ordinance hereby is declared to be an
urgency measure pursuant to the terms of California Government Code
Sections 65858(a) and 36937(b), and this Ordinance shall take
effect immediately upon adoption.
Section 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption
of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted in three
(3) public places within the City of Diamond Bar pursuant to the
provisions of Resolution No. 89-6.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 13th day of November
1990.
�l
Mayor
I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced. at a
regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held
on the 13th day of November 1990, and was finally passed at a
regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held
on the 13th day of November, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Horcher, Kim, Papen, Mayor Pro Tem
Forbing and Mayor Werner
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
None
ABSTAINED:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
None
ATTEST: r'.
Lynda Burgess, Ci-ty Clerk
of the City of Diamond Bar
STATE OF CALIFO
COUNTY OF LOS AI�VGELES SS
CITY OFDIAMO
INDBAR J
• LYNDA BURGESS CITY CLERK OF THE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, DO HEREBY CERTIFY
THE FORGOING TO BE A FULL, TRUE AND
CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL AS SAME
APPEARS ES FILEAI;,IYOFFICE,
BV WITNESS 1i' IEREOF, AVE HER SET
MY HAND AND q},XED I H SEAL H . CITY
OF �DI�AMOND THE OF c
19`7J AR' THIS„2"7rh_— ll
— -- _ AY
�- LYNDA BURGESS, C(I'y CLERK
Deputy <
ATTACHMENT "A"
C-itiI COI�I�TERCI�IL ibla\ttF.�C7tiRI; iG ZOtiE
Sections:
�� 33.330 Permitted uses.
??.33.2=,'0 accessory- uses.
3?'.'33.3�0 Uses subject to director's review and approval.
�?.?8.?60 uses subject to per-;its.
-?3?5.?70 Development standards.
. "'5.33O Permitted uses. Prl'mISCS in ZonaC-`i -.�•, he us�� ��r.
-.. Thy loilowine commercial uxs:
1. Sales.
— .-�ntiquc shops_
' --� — .=.ppfianec stows. household.
— .art g�(Icrics.
— art supply stores.
' — auction houses, excluding animal auctions.
' — automobile sales. sale of new ar,d used motor vehicles.
— automobile supple stures, provided aI(;cpair activities arc con-
, " ducted within an rncloscd buildine.
— Bakcn shops. `
. — Bicycle shops.
— Boat and other marine sales.
— Bookstores.
. — Ccramicsishops.
— Clothine stores.
— Contectio��ry or candy stores.
` Y Delicatessens.
— Department stores.
— Disabilit}�rehabilitationandtraininecenters.exceptthatassembly
and manutacturin� are permiaed ani�•as provided in subsection B
of this szction. -
_ — Dress shops.
— Druestores.
— Feed and Brain sales.
. — Florist shops.
. � — Fruit and veeetable markets.
— Furniture stores.
— Furrier shops.
— Gih shops.
22?3? !0 Accessorn uses. Premises in Zone C-N1 may be used fur:
A, The following accessory uses. subject to the same limitations and condi-
tions provided in Section 22.33.040 (Zone C-H):
Accessory buildings and structures.
— Building materials. storage of.
B. The following additional accesson uses. subject to the same limitations
and conditions provided in Section ??.?3.i90 (Zone C-3):
— automobile bod\ and fender repair. painting and ucLclste:;ea. v:he
incidental to the sale of new automobiles.
— Boats, minor repair of:
— Manufacturing. processing. treating and pac!;aging incident_I to and
operated in conjunction with the business conduc;cd on
except as othcrv-isc provided as a principal use in Section ' ._`
C. The follo:�:ing additional accessory uses:
— Signs. as provided in Part 10 of C•rmaptcr 22.fl.
(Ord. 1=94 Ch. 3 art. 3 159.n
23.250 Uses subject to director's review and apornval. Ifsit, c ns i<<e: -
for arc first submitted to and approved by the director, premises in Zom C- f ma
be used for:
A. The followina uses. subject to the same limitations arc c %ci;iens
provided in Section'_'.?3.050 (Zone C-h7:
22 23.260 uses subject to permits. Premises in Zone C-VI may bz used for:
- AI > -The following uses provided a conditional use permit has `rsz been
obtained as provided in Part I of Chapter 22.�0, and v:hiiz such per -it is in full
force and effect in conformity with the conditions ofsuc;: ozrmit tor:
— Hotels.
Motels.
— Offices_ busines) for professional.` _ .r
Restaurants and other eating establishments. including food take -
Out.
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR )
I, TOMMYE A. NICE Deputy City Clerk of the City of Diamond
Bar, California, hereby certify that on November 20, 1990, I
caused to be posted ORDINANCE NO. 15A (1990) a copy of which is
attached hereto and by reference made a part of this certificate.
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed at Diamond Bar, California this 20th day of
November, 1990.
/s/ Tommve A. Nice
TOMMYE A. NICE
Deputy City Clerk of the
City of Diamond Bar
,.�n � : r �
_ - �.
� ����
. � ......
K-
LlJ
e�
=
Lrl
In
w
L
CL
a
F-
<-
W
CD
O
J
W
Lu
C:)
F-
ui
U"I
InU-
u
F--i
LLJ
F-
H
'd]
Ca!
CL/
J
_J
t3L
CLi
-
H
S
(n
W
CD
S
J
O
Cl
S
C.L..
....!
"-'
J
I!l
J
2
Ct
Ln
U"I
S
- S
H
W
w
W
t u
4�1
41.1
t_7
CL
LU
fn
M
LC
CL
L1
W
h%l
r`j
+V
L
-LLJ
W
LU
„W-
W
J
J
^
C7
1_r I
17)
�j
m
CD
-..-J
C)
=
r7i
C::1
W
L5
Ln
,...
S
._
I:i
r 1
1=
L}
.._
—
In
u.1
cz,
o
z
L1
p
2
J
S
H
J
r-,.y
CC
CL
Ck_
+�
W
In
S
CD
=!r-
IZ
u
CL
CL
Is
0j
0
off
—
-1
—
z
=n
W
U
CD
L)
U
F-
H
O
CD
z
CL
GL.
Lrt
S
J
U-I
F-
CL
S
CL4
....
CE
a
.s
Q=
H
�
F-
F
W
� sl
w
w
F—
F-
C c
u i
CDCD
W
CL
UJ L 1
CI
O
W-
.u.
-•. W
O
C'7
w
rV
O
fV
tV
p
{-
I_n
M:�-
Ln F-
In
V)
J
. W
1=
Ld
W
h
O =n
. CL!..=
S
CV x
S
12
M
S.
S
W
S
O
S
S
W
S
..._
C2
CL
C4
_=
H
rL}
W
F=1
S
o
o
u
ac
}-
S -
S_
F-
1--1..
CL/
CV
_
Ln
LU
H
S
m
J
(,
S
co
CL1
U
U
rO
Fti
Ln
Ln
INTEROFFICE
TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commissioners
VIA: James DeStefano, Director of P1 g
FROM: Irwin M. Kaplan, Interim City Plann r
SUBJECT: Status of Gateway Corporate Center Development
Agreement
DATE: January 23, 1991
Representatives of Zelman Development Company have reviewed a
draft of the provisions to be included in the Development Agree-
ment, which was accepted in principle by the Planning Commission
in September, 1990. '
As a result of a subsequent
it was agreed that two basic
meeting with Diamond Bar City staff,
areas of concern required additional
work
before this
project
could move forward. They are:
1. The Procedure to be Used to Implement the Plan
Since Zelman Development Company felt that they could not
commit those properties they no longer own to the City's
planning requirements, a development agreement would not cov-
er all the properties in Gateway Corporate Center. Accord-
ingly, the City would have to impose regulations upon the
entire Center, if all properties were to be included.
Staff is now exploring alternative regulatory mechanisms to
accomplish this, with the corollary objective of finding a
mechanism which can be implemented quickly. Among the al-
ternatives being explored, together with their timing impli-
cations, are the Development Agreement, an Interim Zoning
Ordinance and a Specific Plan,
2. Unresolved Substantive Issues
A variety of issues were raised by Zelman in response to the
draft of the draft provisions of the development agreement:
Among the more significant are:
a. Trip Budget and Monitoring Program
Sid Mousavi, City Engineer, and Zelman representatives
will meet to reconcile differences.
b. A Pedestrian Travel Network
In conjunction with Sid Mousavi, Byron Pinckert, Zel-
man's architect, will prepare three alternative pedes-
Memorandum to James DeStefano
Page Two
January 23, 1991
trian plans which are designed to connect proposed hotel and res-
taurant sites with the central concentration of office uses. (Of-
fice uses along Bridgegate and Valley Vista Drives will not be
connected, since there appears to be no practical opportunity to
create pedestrian connections which are shorter than the connec-
tions along the existing roadway.
The resulting designs will then be evaluated to deter-
mine:
i. Whether or not they are practical alternatives
which will be used as intended,
ii. If they can meet the state's requirements for han-
dicap access, and
iii. If the cost of installation and maintenance appear
reasonable in the context of the total develop-
ment.
c. Right-of-way width for access street into Parcel #2.
Although the Planning Commission accepted the idea of a
reduction in right-of-way as requested by the applicant,
neither Jim DeStefano or Sid Mousavi had evaluated the
proposal. They will review the issue and report to the
Commission.
An important corollary issue - which needs to be ad-
dressed if the wider right-of-way alternative is to be
required, is the setback which will be required from the
street. The objective would be to maintain an appropri-
ate setback for aesthetic and functional purposes, while
not penalizing the amount of development permitted on
the site.
I
d. Uses Subject to Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
Staff will work with the applicant to distinguish be-
tween uses which are clearly ancillary in nature and
those which are primary generators of traffic and park-
ing demand. The major concern was for health clubs
which, by virtue of their size or location, could either
be easily absorbed into the Center, or could pose a ma-
jor traffic and parking problem.
The objective would be to simplify the process, so that
a CUP would not be needed for uses which are in support
of the primary uses in the Center, so they would not
need to go through a protracted CUP process.
Memorandum to James DeStefano
Page Three
January 23, 1991
e. A variety of miscellaneous issues were raised which were
not deemed to affect the substantive issues. These will
be addressed by staff.
As a result, it is doubtful that all issues can be addressed by
staff and the developer prior to the Planning Commission meeting
of February 11, 1991, as reported at our last Planning Commisison
meeting.
We would recommend, however, that this matter be reviewed on Feb-
ruary 11th with staff to provide an additional update and status
report at that time.
JDS:IMK:pjs
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 28e 1991
F__fCALL 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, Diamond Bar,
California.
PLEDGE OF
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
ALLEGIANCE:
Vice Chairman Harmony.
ROLL CALL:
Commissioner Grothe, Commissioner Lin, Commissioner
Draft Sign
MacBride, Vice Chairman Harmony, and Chairman
Ordinance
Schey.
Also present were Planning Director James
DeStefano, Assoc. Planner Robert Searcy, Deputy
City Attorney Bill Curley, City Engineer Sid
Mousavi, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, and
Contract Secretary Liz Myers.
CONSENT CALENDAR:-
Chair/Schey requested, because of his absence at
the last meeting, that the Minutes of January 14,
1991 be=pulled from the Consent Calendar.
Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/Lin and
CARRIED to,approve the Minutes of January 14, 1991.
p I
AYES: Commissioner Lin, Commissioner Grothe,
Commissioner MacBride, and Vice Chairman
Harmony.
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Chairman Schey
PUBLIC HEARING
Staff reported the Planning Commission reviewed the
ITEMS:
latest Draft Sign Code package at the last meeting
of January 14, 1991. The Ordinance included a
Draft Sign
discussion of non -conforming signs and sign
Ordinance
abatement language. Staff mailed out copies of the
document to over sixty (60) organizations. There
hap been relatively little input, at staff level,
regarding the extensive policies and details of the
Ordinance. The changes and clarifications made by
the Planning Commission have been highlighted in a
hand written format in order to have them stand out
within the new Sign Ordinance. A memorandum has
been prepared on the issue of specific signage
program for fuel, food, and lodging uses adjacent
to the freeway. In a separate freestanding memo,
from Irwin Kaplan, there is a discussion regarding
a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for freeway -oriented
signage, and the type of criteria utilized to
examine whether the sign is appropriate or not. He
suggested limiting it to lodging only, in an
attempt not to have an additional overlay of large
January 28,, 1991 Page 2
fast food signs and gas station signs adjacent to JI'�
the freeway. Staff recommended the Planning
Commission consider the changes to the Draft
Ordinance and discuss the remaining outstanding
issues. It is hoped any outstanding issues can be
resolved and, at the next meeting, adopt a
resolution recommending approval of the Sign
Ordinance to be forwarded to the City Council,
VC/Harmony stated the language on page 5, section
0, of the Ordinance, needs some additional work.
He stated that "arabic numerals" was the correct
designation. In regards to Mr. Kaplan's
memorandum, section 4, item b.2 and b.4, he
inquired to the type of sign, "in lieu of", is
referring to.
James DeStefano, Planning Director, responded, as
an example, "in lieu of a permitted freestanding
sign" could mean granting an additional wall sign
to be seen from the freeway, in lieu of a monument,
low scale, or tall free standing sign out on the
street, which would normally be permitted.
VC/Harmony asked if it permitted a tall free
standing sign.
James DeStefano stated the discussion in the memo
is not specifically clear but, based upon the new
ordinance, it could only be six (6) feet.
Chair/Schey noted, in context of the memo, that it
is suggested that someone might be eligible for a
freestanding freeway sign, through a CUP. If they
chose to have a wall sign instead, it wouldi be
limited to the same name, and logo combination they
would have had on a freestanding sign.
DeStefano agreed and added, sub section 4, allows
for an additional wall signage in lieu of the
freestanding sign.
VC/Harmony stated what is really being said,
subject to approval of pole signs and free standing
signs, is that they will give up something they
don't have in order to have the wall sign. The CUP
would have to be approved in order to give itiup.
He believed this to be a wrong characterization.
VC/Harmony stated his difficulty in dealingwith
the definitions and criteria for the CUP® They are tlu
not tough enough, and if they were too tough then
they would be too mechanical. He would prefer to
leave out the concept of the CUP, and let it, go
with a variance.
INA- -MI .A_._,_�_�.�__1!. .11.eM ..R ,, .,-: ��, ;�i,�ir'°-�', rr�•Alnr n r7 e;q�',i ,«„ t�6�.0 n�u,uva✓nv, .n,x�,,, Mnerc�&3,^.v, 0
January 28, 1991
Page 3
rrF- v
i 1 �
C/MacBride stated, in reference to Mr. Kaplan's
memo, he had difficulty disassociating lodging
signs from fuel and food signs. Freeway traffic is
bound up with lodging, food, and fuel. If the
conditions, stated in the memo, are applied to
lodging, there needs to be more discussion because
food and fuel are so strongly related to the
traveler. It is important to be alert to the needs
of those businesses which are freeway oriented.
There are businesses that ought to be recognized
and visible, in terms of commercial activity, from
the access control facilities. The community wants
a conservative and highly restricted sign
ordinance. However, the Commission needs to
respect both sides of the issue and come up with a
balance that is proper, appropriate, and effective.
C/Grothe stated he is somewhat opposed to the Sign
Ordinance because it is the most restrictive of any
other city sign ordinance within a ten (10) mile
radius. These are the cities our businesses will
have!to compete with.
C/Lin pointed out that Diamond Bar is now urban
ideveloped and travelers expect food and lodging to
exist on every freeway off ramp. The lodging may
not be available everywhere and therefore, there
might be a need for the freeway signs for lodging.
Our intent, from the beginning, was to eliminate or
reduce, as much as possible, the amount of
freestanding or pole signage. However, from the
merchants point of view, we do need to discuss some
kind of balance for them in the Sign Ordinance.
Chair/Schey maintained, if the Commission is
somewhat opposed to the concept of freeway signs
but acknowledged the fact there are times when they
are appropriate, he would leave it as a variance
situation placing the burden on -the applicant to
convince the Commission that a freeway sign is
warranted. A variance is preferable over the CUP
because signs would not be approved unless there is
a particular circumstance that makes it
exceptionally warranted in a particular situation.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Joe Murphy, minister of the Congregational Church
located at 1048 Canyon Spring Lane, stated he is
still awaiting approval to replace the existing 15
foot by 10 foot sign with two (2) small 2(1/2) foot
tall signs. He pointed out churches have a need to
be visible to survive and flourish within the
community. The existing restriction of 24 square
feet would be inadequate to give them visibility.
-- I P 1 11111 1111 1111 - 1 - 1 1- - , ,,&., i � , , .
January 28, 1991 Page 4
He beseeched the Commission to consider an
exception for churches.!y'
The ]Public Hearing was declared closed.
VC/Harmony requested staff to review the
regulations relating to churches, and/or any
special provisions available.
James DeStefano explained that Dr. Murphy obtained
a CLIP several years ago from Los Angeles County.
One of the provisions of the CUP required that
additional signage be reviewed by the Planning
Commission. The basic issue is one of fulfilling
the conditions of the original use permit, as well
as a desire for additional signage that is above
and beyond what the present code will allow, and
the proposed code would allow.
Larry Smith, residing at 22536 Ridgeline, a member
of the Church and in charge of the remodeling,
clarified they are not requesting a sign in
addition to the sign they already have. They are
looking to replacing the sign with two (2) concrete
monument sign on both sides of the driveway, on
Diamond Bar Blvd. Each sign would be approximately
25 square feet, with eight (8) aluminum letters,', on
the face, with the Church name.
Dr. Murphy informed the Commission the Church is in
a residential zone area, therefore, under the
existing code, they would only be allowed signage
with a total a sixteen (16) square feet for a
Church almost a city block long.
C/MacBride inquired if there is a process within
the structure whereby this example could be
approached on a variance, a CUP, or another
procedure.
James DeStefano explained the process would be one
of a variance. The application, in this example,
would come into the staff, be checked by 'the
criteria, be denied, and then the applicant could
come to the Commission with a variance request.
Various criteria would have to be met in order to
justify the approval of a variance. The criteria
would include issues dealing with topography, size
and shape of the property, site distance, 'and
location of the signs. The tests would) be.a,=
significantly stronger. Approving a variance gives
policy direction to staff which, in essence, sets a
precedent in a general sense.
VC/Harmony declared he would like to discuss the
January 28, 1991
CUP, with Mr. Kaplan, more extensively.
James De5tefano specified the memo was prepared
from the discussion, of the last meeting, in
regards to signs adjacent to the freeways. If the
philosophy of the memorandum is accepted, it would
be turned into strict standards to be put into the
final ordinance. -The CUP process discussed in the
memo does not apply itself to the issues being
discussed in regards to the Church situation.
Chair/Schey noted the Commission does not seem to
have any opposition to the various changes made to
the text of the Ordinance. The main issue seems to
be if freeway signs should be granted the ability
to be approved through a CUP and; if, in certain
types and categories of signs, the Commission
should allow a CUP process to be implemented. The
Commission needs to decide what particular type of
signs should be reviewed under the CUP process.
C/MacBride stated the category of Civic
Organizations and Institutional signs should be in
the parameters of the CUP.
C/Grothe would like monument signs to be
considered. He also stated there ought to be more
flexibility in regards to the square footage of
signs in relation to larger buildings.
Motion was made by C/MacBride, seconded by
VC/Harmony and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff
to implement the changes in the text that were
lined in pursuant to the last hearing; arrange a
hearing that Mr. Kaplan could attend to discuss his
memorandum; look into the potential implementation
of the CUP process and what standards it might
require for insertion into the four (4) categories
outlined: 1. freeway signs. 2. civic
organizations and institutions. 3. monument signs.
4. signs on buildings over three (3) stories; and
to continue the hearing to the next meeting of
February 11, 1991.
TT 47722/ Staff reported the application is for the approval
CUP 89-338/ of a tentative tract map to develop thirteen (13)
EIR 91-1 single family custom homes on a nineteen acre site.
The previous submittal was for a tentative map to
develop sixteen homes on the same nineteen acres.
The original submitted project was denied without
prejudice by the Planning Commission on October 24,
1990. Since that time, the developer has worked
very hard with the City staff towards the creation
of the project that is before the Commission. The
proposed project has been adjusted to meet several
-- II II J1 VIfliII-'!1 I!II, 1_.47�----`-- L.I.I Id. Al hIIIII, I I. II, 11 L. --._....
January 28, 1.991
Page -6
concerns of the City as follows:
1.
It has a substantial adherence to "land form"
grading.
2.
It saves all existing oak trees,
3,.
The original project density has been reduced
by sixteen percent.
4.
The overall grading has been reduced from
about '204,000 cubic yards to about 170,000
cubic yards of dirt movement.
5.
The bulk of the crib walls on the perimeters
of the project have been removed with the
exception of a crib wall necessary at the
drive entrance adjacent to Derringer Lane, and
another crib wall that may be required for the
drainage debris basin at the most northerly
portion of the site.
6.
The relocation of the gas line has been
diminished as well as the subsequent earth
movements.
7.
The proposed lots will range from 1/2 acre to
3,4 acres. The average lot size is one and
half acres. The pads of each of the lots will
range from .2 acres to .4 acres in size. The
homes proposed to be constructed are in the
range of about 5,000 to 10,000 square feet;.
8.
The developer has located the developable
building envelops of the specific pads. This
allows siting on the homes so they are not;as
massive from afar, and allows review on, an
independent basis for conformance with that
building envelop.
9.
Hunsaker and Assoc. was the engineer hired by
the applicant and Horste Schor was suggested
to the applicant to consult with by the City
staff.
10.
The project now incorporates a much softer
concept of development with one long cul-de-
sac reduced 250 feet from the previous
proposal. A secondary emergency fire access
from lot 8 through to Bronze Knoll Road has
been added.
11.
After all the grading, the terrain is put back
into a configuration that respects the natural
environment.
12.
The landscape plan incorporates revegetation,
whereby the vegetation will be species from
within the general environment, as well as
species new to the environment but `eery
compatible. More trees will be incorporated
than originally existed.
13.
The EIR concerns have been mitigated as far as
»h4=
staff is concerned. The blue line stream is
indeed off the site.
James DeStefano stated, in regards to the project's
January 28® 1991 P1&4e-,7
appearance from afar, the developer submitted a
computer enhanced graphic image of the project,
including three (3) sets of slides, in graphic
illustration, showing the existing setting, and the
proposed project from afar. James DeStefano
presented the slides to the Commission.
James DeStefano stated, in staff's opinion, the
project has been significantly improved from the
prior submittal. Staff feels that the proposed
project now conforms with the philosophy of the
Hillside Ordinance and is appropriately designed
for the site. Staff has articulated sixty (60)
conditions on different issues important to make
sure the development approval clearly expressed
what the Hillside Ordinance says, and what is
wished for future hillside subdivisions. Staff
recommended the Planning Commission adopt the
attached Resolution which approves the
Environmental Impact report (EIR 91-1), CUP 89-338
for hillside management review and Tentative Tract
Map 47722, with the attached findings of fact, and
the listed conditions.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Frank Piermarini, applicant, commended staff
personnel for their professional and considerate
manner. He verbally reviewed the list of previous
concerns, as stated in the staff report, that have
been mitigated. He stated the custom homes will be
color coordinated to blend into the natural
terrain. The landscape will be maintained until
each home is sold. The pads will be left
unlandscaped until the completion of each home.
The grading of offsites will take approximately
three (3) to four (4) months, assuming a minimum of
problems arise. The plan for the entire project
will be out in about two and one half years after
the grading is complete. He stated he felt
confident of conforming to Diamond Harps criteria.
The project will be an enhancement to the City.
Lex Williman, a planner with Hunsaker and Assoc.,
presented a map of the proposed tract. He pointed
out there are no straight lines and stated that
undulation is the key to "land form" grading.
There are variable slopes of 3 to 1, 2 to 1, 1(1/2)
to 1. The 1(1/2) to 1 are the side slopes between
the various pads which will be hidden by the units
as constructed. All of the slopes around the edge
are a minimum of 2 to 1, and some up to 3 (1/2) to
1. Adjacent to the existing units, there is a
basin that a butts the Piermarini property to these
units. Two options are being proposed: 1. Fill
January 28, 19 91 Page 8
the hole, connect to the drainage, eliminate any,,!i
crib wall, and come up from the slope undulating
around onto the project. 2. Leave the properties
alone, create a crib wall no higher than the
existing pads and come up from there creating�an
undulating slope.. He stated there is a clustering
of trees around swales to conform to natural
terrain.
Chair/Schey inquired if the applicant was
comfortable that the drainage situation is such
that if the sump is filled, the drainage could
adequately be taken away without any danger lof
inundation to the rear of those homes.
Lex Williman responded the preliminary
investigation indicated there is no problem. There
has not been a complete hydrology study. There Js
a storm drain existing at the bottom of the hill
which would connect into that pipe, eliminate the
catch basin, and pick the drainage up elsewhere.
The Public Hearing was declared open for those'in
favor of the project.
Jack Wolf, residing on Ridgeline, commended Frank
Piermarini and his projects. He stated the Country
is willing to have his projects as part of theirs.
The hillside would remain intact and the projIect
would actually enhance the area.
Chair/Schey requested speakers for those in
opposition to the project.
Pat Brazer, residing at 23497 Coyote Springs,
commended the Piermarini developments but stated
the development would obstruct the view from his
home. He stated the development would look like a
postage stamp on the hillside and would be at odds
with the surroundings; the crib walls are ugly; the
pads are too small for the size of the homes;,the
cutting will affect the existing homes; and the
removal of the gas line can be very dangerous. He
suggested the original recommendation of two (2)'' or
three (3) homes would be ideal.
Dennis O'Donnell, residing at 23550 Coyote Springs,
stated his apprehension that the homes may come
down into his backyard. He is concerned about the
drainage situation and concerned about the impacts
on the natural hillside. i 9
Claudia Huff, residing at 1641 Fire Hallow, stated
the project is fundamentally too intense. Since
there are very few hills left in Diamond Bar, this
3
JR a
January 28, 1991 Patve.9'
hillside should be well guarded. She inquired if
there will be regrading, and if so would the
existing residents be looking across space to the
crib walls. The property is zoned for two (2)
homes. The grading does not sound like a vast
improvement. She asked the Commission to
reconsider the amount of homes to be allowed in the
particular area.
Frank Piermarini responded the property is zoned R-
1-10,000, and 30 to 50 smaller homes could be built
if so desired. The pads are as big as two (2) of
the existing lots, in most cases. There will be no
visual crib walls. Trees will be planted that will
not block the view.
Chair/Schey inquired if the access for the grading
will be taken entirely off of the applicants site.
Frank Piermarini affirmed they will not be on
anyone's property, with the exception of three (3)
lots. If the owners of these lots preferred not to
see the crib walls, the lots can be flattened out
with their permission.
j Chair/Schey received affirmation from Frank:-
Piermarini that the light green shading on the^=
presented map is all natural terrain.
Chair Schey inquired of City Engineer, Sid Mousavi,
if the approval of the grading plan normally
required a full geotechnical report to be done, and
if the recommendation of the report would be
implemented in the grading plan.
Sid Mousavi responded that that is the normal
process of the grading plan.
Lex Williman, in response to Chair/Schey's
concerns, stated there are a series of ditches that
have been constructed and there will be additional
ditches made for the storm drains. In response to
relocating the gas line, he stated Southern
California Gas (SCG) will do all the work. The
portion that is being relocated will be constructed
to the new line either adjacent or over the old
line while the old line is live. At some point,
they will shut down the old line, tie in the new,
and probably slur in the abandoned line. Grading
1 will occur over the top of the line before it is
relocalped and in the presence of representatives
from the SCG.
VC/Harmony inquired how much time will lapse from
the time it will take to complete grading and to
January 28, 1991 Page 10
landscape the slopes.
Frank Piermarini explained that grading will take
between 3(1/2) to 4 months. As soon as the grading
is completed, we will landscape all the slopes, but
not the pads. The vegetation will be growing while
we are building.
Lex Williman stated, in regards to VC/Harmony's
concern, that a preliminary hydrology study has
been done taking into consideration the
permeability of the street and the houses. IIn
every case it goes up three (3) to four (4)'CPS,
which is very small. The additional run off can be
handled.
James DeStefano stated there is a condition within
the document which calls for a complete hydrology
study to be submitted to the City. It wouldibe
subjected to review and approval by the City
Engineer.
11
VC/Harmony stated he wants a provision to eliminate
the construction of tennis courts. He finds them
visually ugly and they tends to add more run off ,y!;
than it's permeability.
C; r
Frank Piermarini stated he would not object to a
condition of no tennis courts.
VC/Harmony noted that the grading appeared steep, at
the end of the cul-de-sac. He inquired of it's
length.
Lex Williman responded that there is a vertical
curve that has a transition from the steep portion
of the street, which is 15%, down to a 3% portion
into the cul-de-sac. The grade varies within the
points.
VC/Harmony pointed out that going up steep grading
is not a problem in regards to fire access.
However, there must be sufficient turn around
points and maneuverability for the fire equipment.
Frank Piermarini stated the cul-de-sac will be
connected to the existing ones in the Country. He
pointed out there is also an additional five i(5)
feet of grassy area, giving a 50 foot radius, that
will be grassed off and is driveable.
C/Grothe asserted he would like a condition stating
any home exceeding 5,000 square feet must have an
additional five (5) foot set back on each side.
,2r ' ,. r_ . �,.,�,:�h��,:ti,m. .. ��•�,i ..� .� .�anwu °��s, ��aest a ,ikw3�n
January 28, 1991
Page 11
Chair/Schey stated he would like a condition
prohibiting any retaining walls that would
interfere with any of the land form grading or
extend beyond the designated pad areas.
VC/Harmony requested staff to go over the concept
of the Interim Ordinance in regards to the three
(3) houses on different elevations, which he
assumes will contour to the hillside, and the
concept of building on a ridgeline as opposed to
off a ridgeline.
James DeStefano stated there are only three (3)
lots that have breaks of about five (5) feet in the
levels of the pad. It was done specifically to
break up the massing of the homes. This project,
with the varying pads, and the landscaping all
around the pads, will create a softer ridgeline
appearance. The prominent ridgeline feature will
be a mixing of various landscaping, pads and
building materials to be utilized in the homes.
C/Lin questioned the negotiating process in the
Condition of Approval concerning the street or area
lighting plan.
James DeStefano explained there are engineering
conditions and planning conditions. The planning
condition states that lighting fixtures adjacent to
the interior property lines would be approved by
the Director of Planning as to type and height of
fixtures. The purpose was to allow some
illumination but not creating a glowing hillside
because of lighting intensity.
Chair/Schey would like the wording "orientation of
the lights" added to the condition.
Sid Mousavi explained the engineering condition is
to minimizes the night time visibility problem.
VC/Harmony inquired if wildlife would be able to
migrate through the properties.
Piermarini assured the Commission that the wildlife
would be able to roam free.
Chair/Schey stated he is impressed by the
significant efforts made by Mr. Piermarini. He is
comfortable with the existing Conditions of
Approval as they have been adjusted.
Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by VC/Harmony
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the resolution
subject to the conditions and findings made by
January 28, 1991
Page 12
staff, to also include the amended conditions of:
#4 - to add to the beginning of the second sentence
to read "Fenced details, tree staking...". #6 -oto
add ..shall be approved by the Director lof
Planning as to type, orientation, and height.".
Add a new condition #23 - "Tennis courts would'be
allowed, with a maximum 6 foot wall, and ;no
lighting. If the lot is by itself without a house
structure, the wall 'of the tennis court could golto
8 feet high.". Add a new condition #24 - "Dwelling
units in excess of 5,000 square feet of gross floor
area shall have minimum side yard setbacks of ten
(10) feet and fifteen (15) feet from the edge j of
the property line.". In addition, crib walls
should be allowed if all reasonable efforts have
been made to implement the preferred option (either
filling the hole in the patch ,basin or leaving it
alone) to the satisfaction of the staff.
Chair/Schey called a recess at 10:10 p.m. The
meeting was called to order at 10.20 p.m.
CUP 90-0128
Ann Lundu, Planning Technician, reported that the
Automated
applicant, Video Kiosk Corporation, is requesting a
Videomatic
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a fully
Kiosk
automated video kiosk in the parking lot of,
Standard Brands Paint Store. The kiosk is a fully
"
automated video store, open 24 hours a day, and
will not contain any employees. The kiosk will
occupy two (2) parking spaces. More than adequate
parking will remain for both the existing
commercial shopping center, as well as the proposed
kiosk. The video kiosk dispenses the video by
robot through credit card authorization. Regular
service, of this kiosk, will be done twice a week
by the owner, Standard Brands Paint. If the
computer fails, a message is sent directly tothe
main office of Video Kiosk Corporation. The main
office has technicians which are on duty 24 hours a
day to service the computer.
Ann Lundu reported the environmental evaluation
shows that the proposed use does not have 'the
potential to degrade the quality of the environment
in the long term or short term. The proposed use
will not cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings either directly or indirectly. On the basis
of this initial study, the staff finds that ,the
proposed project could not have a significant
effect on the environment and a Negative
Declaration has been prepared. Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission approve the Negative
Declaration and CUP 90-0128 with the Findings of
}
Fact and conditions listed.
January 28, 1991 Page 13
i
Rudy Figueroa, Project Manager, office located at
3002 Locust Ct., Ontario, stated he is waiting for
the final approval of the exact location of the
kiosk. He asked the Commission to offer them the
flexibility to relocate the kiosk, with the
Planning Department's approval. He stated he has
read the agreement and will comply with all of the
conditions if the project is approved. He
displayed an artist's rendition of the kiosk
appearance. The two different sizes of the kiosk
are 8(1/2) feet by 10 feet and 8(1/2) feet by 15
feet. The glass is a bronze tint, not totally
opaque. It is fully automated and operates through
robotics. The kiosk hold the. top hits and can hold
approximately 1,300 movies at a time.
VC/Harmony asked how much traffic it will generate.
Rudy Figueroa stated the traffic study conducted in
the County of Orange did not show any trip
generation information within the traffic -
engineering manual. He explained they haven't had
enough experience with the six (6) kiosks to give
adequate information. There is an estimate of
seventy (70) trips over a twenty four (24) hour
period.
C/MacBride inquired who determines the menu of each
kiosk. He asked if there are problems with
vandalism.
Rudy Figueroa asserted the parent company assist
each franchisee in determining the movie
selections. The franchisee has the final decision.
However, "adult movies" are not allowed and anyone
who violates that agreement is subject to losing
their franchise. They are unaware of any vandalism
problem.
VC/Harmony asked if the interior is lighted at
night. He remarked that the whole building looks
like a sign. It can be in violation of the sign
ordinance which states that an area of greater than
25% cannot be visible through the window.
Rudy Figueroa confirmed the building is lighted on
the interior. He stated his awareness that signs
are not part of tonight's approval and that a new
F sign ordinance is in progress.
Chair Sche
/ y suggested, if the project is deemed to
be an acceptable use, the applicant can find some
way to accommodate the sign ordinance,
January 28, 1991
Page 14
VC/Harmony stated there should be a traffic study
included as well.
Rudy Figueroa stated they will abide by the sign
ordinance.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Dan Buffington, residing at 2605 Indian Creek,
inquired if there is adequate parking.
Ann Lundu replied there is sufficient parking to
accommodate the kiosk.
Bill Valeo, residing at 157 Cottonwood Cove, is
concerned about vandalism, the deterioration of the
building, the rental of pornography, and the
display of explicit posters.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
VC/Harmony pointed out that it is not known what
the traffic generation is, nor what the
requirements are that apply to this particular
usage.
Robert Searcy, Assoc. Planner, responded one
consideration of the trip generated by this use is
that it would be considered as an off peak hour
use. The traffic generation would not coincide
with the generation of the normal commercial
i center.
C/Grothe inquired how many parking spaces are being
allotted for this project.
Ann Lungu responded a handicap and two (2) other
spaces must be provided.
C/Grothe remarked that there needs to be more
landscaping. He pointed out that architecturally
the kiosk does not match the center and something
needs to be altered to tie it in. The signage on
the top needs to conform to the sign ordinance. He
stated he considers the titles on the inside of the
building as more of a display of the product, as, in
a display window.
VC/Harmony concurred the building is not
architecturally compatible with the center. It is
subjected to vandalism and crime. He maintained
the structure as a whole is a sign. The City is
trying to avoid this kind of visual pollution.
Rudy Figueroa stated there is not sufficient data
C
January 28, 1991
ZCA 91-2
C -M Zone
l
Page 15
to base a traffic study on; the Sign Ordinance will
be adhered to; they will accept a condition
requiring a land use restriction to prevent
pornography; and landscaping will be done. He
stated he would like the original plan approved as
presented.
Chair/Schey stated the project is not a
particularly good use for the property and opposes
small buildings being piece mealed throughout the
City.
Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/MacBride
and CARRIED to continue the project to the next
regularly scheduled meeting with direction to the
applicant to work with staff to submit a revised
plan indicating a landscape plan, a revision to the
architectural design and work up a program whereby
they would be in conformance with the proposed Sign
Ordinance.
AYES: C/Lin, C/MacBride, and C/Grothe
NAYS: VC/Harmony and Chair/Schey
James DeStefano corrected the case number to zone
change amendment ZCA 91-2.
Robert Searcy reported in October of 1990, the City
Council adopted an Interim Ordinance amending the
list of permitted and conditionally permitted uses
within the CM zone. The City Council is
increasingly concerned with the City's financial
future and adopted the Interim Ordinance in order
to provide the necessary study time to review the
most advantageous and appropriate land uses for the
CM zone. In light of the ever expanding fiscal
constraints placed on local municipalities, the
City Council directed the planning staff to
research land use controls to maximize the City's
financial future via sales tax generating
properties. It was felt that an Interim Ordinance
used to provide supplemental controls for the
increasing development pressure on the remaining
commercial properties, would be appropriate. The
impetus of the CM zone ordinance is the outgrowth
of concern for orderly planning and use of the
City's limited land and resources. They have been
involved in economic development. discussions to
address the long term economic objectives of the
City. As a result, the Interim Ordinance was
initiated in order not to preempt current planning
procedures and policies. The Interim Ordinance was
deemed an appropriate land use control mechanism
that would allow an orderly planning process to
continue in a manner consistent with the primary
purposes of the CM zone, without the need to impose
January 28, 3991 Page 16
a complete development moratorium. For the Citylof
!d,_
Diamond Bar, the impact is far felt and long
reaching. The City currently possesses five areas
zoned C -M. This zone represents the greatest
potential for new commercial development throughout
the City. As a result of these concerns, the City
Council adopted Emergency Ordinance No. 15 (1990)
on October 16, 1990, This ordinance effectively
removed all non -revenue producing land uses ( with
the exception of accessory uses) from the CM zone
as a mechanism to grant additional land use
controls in the period preceding the forthcoming
General Plan. The durationof this emergency
ordinance extended for a period of 45 days. As a
result, the City Council met again on November 13,
1990 to extend the Ordinance' to the 16th of
October, 1991. The City Council can, if necessity
dictates, reevaluate this ordinance and extend it
for an additional time period,', not to exceed two
years, as provided in California Government Code
section 65858 (a).
After surveying 10 surrounding communities, four
cities were found to expressly prohibit the
development of churches in commercial zones. The ®r',
remainder of the cities have instituted a review
and permitting procedure, by which church projects
must be submitted for a discretionary review and
public hearing, in order to receive a Conditional
Use Ppermit (CUP) within commercial zones.
Currently, as a result of public testimony
presented at the public hearing, the Council
directed staff to provide the Planning Commission
the opportunity to investigate the appropriateness
for reintroducing the Church use into the CM zone.
Chair/Schey asked how the amendment would affect
the development agreement for the Gateway
Corporation.
Robert Searcy responded, to his understanding, the
development agreement supersedes all zoning unless
otherwise stated.
Bill Curley, Deputy City Attorney, stated the uses
and utilization of that particular site is crafted
by contract.
Chair/Schey question if the Council's intent ofthe
amendment is to limit the uses within the zone to
those uses that will generate sales tax; or
transient occupancy tax.
Robert Searcy concurred, and explained the City of
Diamond Bar is at a point where correct land use
January 28, 1991 Page, 17
planning be implement to guarantee the viability of
the City.
James DeStefano stated when the City Council
adopted the urgency ordinance in October, they
stripped out all service oriented commercial. The
focus was to concentrate on retail sales tax and
freeway oriented commercial, to look at all the
remaining freeway oriented frontage, which is
principally Gateway and the property on Grand and
Golden Springs. The purpose was to determine the
highest and best use of the acreage, match the land
use needs, as well as the fiscal and economic
needs, and combine all through the zoning code
and/or the general plan process. At the November
Hearing, to extend the Interim Ordinance, the City
Council directed staff to bring the matter to the.
Planning Commission to specifically look at
Churches within the Commercial Manufacturing (CM) -
zone. The issue should be examined in a city-wide
setting, rather than the development of a specific
church at a specific location, and ,decide if a
specific church use is something desirable in a CM
zone wherever a CM zone exists in the City.
j�
Chair/Schey inquired what zone presently allows for
churches.
James DeStefano replied all the churches presently
in Diamond Bar are in residential zones but are
permitted in commercial and industrial zones as
well. .
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Dan Buffington asserted the importance that the
City realizes that the fiscalization of land use
will become more and more important. It is
important Diamond Bar hold on to their limited
amount of commercial areas for their revenue
production.
Randy Hurtle, residing at 2503 Terrywood, Hacienda
Heights, employed by Majestic Realty Co. is
representing a Church interested in purchasing a
piece of property zoned for CM. He stated, to his
understanding, the City Council discussed at great
lengths on how to accommodate the possible purchase
of a property zoned CM, for the use of a church.
The final decision was to approve the Interim
Ordinance but allow staff to initiate an amendment
to allow church uses in CM zoned property. It is
not being proposed that land use controls not be
accomplished in the City. However, the Planning
Commission should review each church on it's own
January 28, 1991
Page 18
merits, allow church uses in a CM zone piece of
property, with a CLIP to be issued by the Planning
Commission.
Bill Valeo stated, in his opinion, the Council
accepted the Church's proposal to buy the property.
It was sent to the Planning Commission for an
amendment for a CUP for the building. The property
is currently vacant. The Church has a book store
which last year generated taxes, from the sale) of
the books, of approximately one million dollars a
year. The Church has approximately 5,000 members
which will generate revenue throughout the City,.
Scott Brooks, attorney with Downey Savings, present
owner of the property, stated the minutes from the
City Council clearly indicates the Council directed
staff to prepare an amendment, to the particular
ordinance, to review for the possibility of
allowing a church, and/or related uses, to be put
into the CM zone. Downey Savings is not selling
the entire parcel, which is approximately 20 acres.
The Church is planning on buying 13 acres. The
property is undeveloped, except for the one vacant
building. The intent is to help the City in it's
need for creating and getting revenue. However,
the directive from staff has been somewhat
misaligned.
Maurice MacCallister, president of Downey Savings
and Loan, stated the people are allowed to buy the
property for a church. They have had trouble
getting retail people to develop the land. he
building is worth 11 million dollars and should not
sit vacant.
Brent Covan, residing at Rodando Beach, stated ithe
need for a larger building to house the members of
their Church.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
VC/Harmony inquired what the sales generation, of
the rook store is, and the type of paritioners
involved with it.
Bernard Grant, works at Calvary Chapel in West
Covina, stated there is a Radio Ministry. The bj'ook
store services Christian books, literatures, and
tapes. There is an International Ministry as well.
The book store made an estimate of one million
dollars in revenues this past year, which is sales
taxable. There is approximately 5,000 members,
excluding the children.
11
January 28, 1991
Page 19
Chair/Schey noted the issue is not the particular
property or the ownership of the property, but the
CM zone. A church does not have to be permitted in
every zone, but that's not to say this building
couldn't be used for a church based on a change of
zone. If a CM zone is not an appropriate zone,
then maybe a change of zone is appropriate.
C/Grothe specified he is unclear as to what was the
exact directive from the City Council. He inquired
if the directive is to make a CUP or a zone change
on one specific project, or to tie a zoning issue
to a specific project.
James DeStefano stated the Council adopted the
Interim Ordinance in November. It was directed
that this issue be brought back specifically to the
Planning Commission for further consideration. The
purpose tonight is to make a recommendation to the
City Council as to whether or not the Interim
Ordinance adopted should remain as is, or should be
amended, and the manner it should be amended. The
County ordinance permitted churches and a variety
of other service related uses. Thebulkof those
were eliminated, as well as the :bulk of uses"=
permitted with a CUP. .....
indicated one of the options the
Commission could recommend is to allow a review
process on a case by case basis.
James DeStefano concurred and stated if the
Commission believes the use is appropriate for the
zone, then should it have a CUP attached to it.
The purpose of the Interim Ordinance was to allow
time to review specific uses.
SIC/Harmony stated his agreement with the concept of
restricting uses for economic development purposes,
but not when it comes to a church, especially on
that will bring in revenue. It should be
reviewable.
Chair/Schey stated a blanket prohibition of
services does not seem to be the appropriate means
of achieving the end results desired. Many service
cases are adjunct to a commercially revenue
producing project.
C/MacBride requested a reading from the document
stating the exact direction from City Council.
James DeStefano read directly from the minutes of
the November 13, 1990 indicating that the City
Council adopted the ordinance and they directed
January 28, 1991 Page 20
staff to draft a zoning ordinance amendment, forMNi
review at the earliest opportunity by the Planning
Commission, to allow for a CUP process to allow
churches and related uses.
Chair/Schey questioned if the Council wanted to
direct staff to draft a CUP provision for churches.
It is Council's Emergency Interim ordinance so why
is the Planning Commission being called upon to
review the issue.
James DeStefano explained the Council found it
important to adopt and extend the Interim ordinance
for commercial manufacturing issues. At the same
it was decided that it was important for the issue
of churches within the CM zone be discussed
further. The issue was referred to the Planning
Commission, and the discussions and conclusionsare
to be brought back to the Council for final their
consideration.
C/MacBride noted that there are different
interpretations of the minutes, as written.
Chair/Schey asked if the Planning Commission has
before them a CUP process amendment to a ";L'
resolution.
James DeStefano stated that the Commission has,
before them, an ordinance adopted by the Council in
November, and a report from staff suggesting it is
left status quo. If the Commission feels churches
should be permitted within the zone, then staff
should so be directed, and the decision will be
forwarded, with the minutes of the meeting, to the
City Council. If the Commission believes churches
should be permitted with a CUP, with a review at
the Commission level, then that decision will be
informed to the Council. The Council will
discussed the issue based upon the Commission's
recommendation.
VC/Harmony suggested the Commission develop a CUP
process, to be forwarded to the Council, as 'was
requested.
C/Grothe stated his interpretation of the minutes
are asking staff to draft an.amendment to the
ordinance to allow churches in an area with a CUP.
Staff should draft an amendment and bring it back
to the next meeting to be voted upon by ithe
Commission.
James DeStefano emphasized that staff could only
come back with standards for all churches on a CUP.
January 28, 1991
Page 21
The process would take a considerable amount of
time.
Chair/Schey noted that staff has interpreted the
minutes differently than the Commission has
interpreted the minutes. He stated the issue
should be deferred until there is a further reading
from Council as to what the exact direction is.
C/Lin summarized that if the Commission responds in
favor of continuing the Emergency Interim
Ordinance, then we would consider to introduce the
CUP for church use because it would be excluded in
this zone.
C/MacBride stated the Council wants a CUP process,
to allow churches and related use as an exception.
He complimented staff on their broader vision of
determining the request to consider the inclusion
or exclusion of the church land use. However,
staff went far beyond the Council's stated
position. The Council wants a CUP process, and a
decision that allows churches as an exception to
the stated ordinance.
James DeStefano contended there is not a need, from
a staff standpoint, to do a great deal of research
on all of the potential church problems in all of
the potential CM zones within the City. It appears
the Commission is asking for standards to give to
the City Council.
Chair/Schey stated, for the purposes of the
Emergency Interim Ordinance, the Commission is
looking for a procedure by which a property could
be looked at as far as applicability for a church
within a CM zone.
James DeStefano stated, if the direction of the
Commission is to say that churches should be
permissible with a CUP, the message sent to the
City Council states when the specific application
comes in, then the impacts can be addressed in
regards to that use, at that location.
Chair/Schey reiterated that the Council has asked
the staff to generate the process for the
Commission to review and make a recommendation.
James DeStefano clarified that all staff would be
doing is telling the City Council that a church use
may be permissible with approval of a use permit.
Chair/Schey maintained that the Commission is
directing staff exactly as the Council had
January 28, 1991 Page 22
requested.
Motion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded 1 by
C/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff
to generate a draft CUP provision, without
standards, for the Emergency Interim Ordinancehat
would create a method by which churches as attse
would be permitted within the revised CM zone, to
be placed on the next regular meeting agenda.
Development Staff recommended a continuance.
Agreement (DA -2)
The Public Hearing was declared open.
VC/Harmony requested staff to prepare an answer on,
in regards to Zelman's decision that they could not
commit those properties no longer owned, the
affects on the total trip budget concept.
Motion was made by C/MacBride, seconded by C/Gro the
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter
until the next regular meeting of February 1 1,
1991.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: Chair/Schey requested the subject on the
reorganization of the Commission be placed on the
agenda. I
James DeStefaho handed the Commission, as per Sithe
Planning Commission's request, an internal guide
projecting tentative forthcoming issues to be heard
by the Planning Commission. He stated the guide
may serve useful, to the Planning Commission, to
give some idea as to where things are going in the
next couple of months.
ADJOURNMENT'. Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/MacBride
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at
12:20 a.m.
Dvido�Schey
Chairman
Attest:
Jam s DeStefano
Secretary/Planning Commission
I
I