No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1a - Planning Commission Appeal - Church of the Good Shepherdm ... no. cca ,.g­ 5,1 3 ° 421 "_tyot - STAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: September 16, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director By: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator Lisa Flores, Planning Services Manager Jordan Chamberlin, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF MODIFICATION NO. MC 13 -26 AND SIGN DESIGN REVIEW NO. SADR 13 -52 FOR ONE NEW 7' -1" HIGH BY 8' -6" WIDE, DOUBLE -SIDED ELECTRONIC MONUMENT SIGN INSTEAD OF TWO NEW ELECTRONIC SIGNS AT THE CHURCH OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD AT 400 W. DUARTE ROAD Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 7035 SUMMARY The appellant, Mr. Wayne Whitehill, representative for the Church of the Good Shepherd filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to permit only one, double -sided monument sign with electronic message boards, at the Church of the Good Shepherd at 400 W. Duarte Road — see the attached proposed plans, and photos of the subject property and neighboring properties — Attachment No. 3. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution No. 7035 to conditionally approve the appeal and allow two doubled -sided electronic monument signs with the removal of all existing freestanding signs along the Duarte Road and Holly Avenue street frontages. BACKGROUND The subject property is a 3.64 acre corner lot, zoned R -3 (High- Density Multiple - Family Residential). It is developed with a church built in 1956. It is common throughout the City for churches to be located on residentially -zoned properties with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The properties to the north and west are also zoned R -3. The property to the south is zoned R -1 (Single - Family Residential). The property to the east is zoned S- 2 (Public Purpose) and is occupied by Holly Avenue Elementary School. Appeal of MC 13 -26 & SADR 13 -52 Signs for the Church of the Good Shepherd September 16, 2014 Page 2 of 5 On October 24, 2013, CalWest Lighting Services, on behalf of the Church of the Good Shepherd, filed Sign Design Review No. SADR 13 -52 and Modification No. MC 13 -26 for two new, 7' -1" high by 8' -6" wide, double -sided monument signs with light- emitting diode (LED) displays. Adding two new signs would result in a total of four freestanding signs on the site. The R -3 zoning regulations do not address signs for non - residential uses. In the absence of any sign requirements for churches, the City's commercial sign regulations are used as a guideline for review, and consideration of such proposals is handled through the Modification process. In this case, the proposal is to allow two illuminated signs with LED color displays on a property that is zoned R -3. In comparison to commercial signs, the proposed new signs were to be located closer than 200 feet apart from the existing monument signs, would exceed the maximum allowable sign area, and would be closer than 100 feet from a residentially -zoned property. Modification Committee Action On April 8, 2014, the Modification Committee conditionally approved the applications on a 3 -0 vote to allow only one double -sided 7' -1" high by 8' -6" wide monument sign with LED display, instead of the two signs requested because the combined total of all the existing and new signs would be excessive for this corner lot — see Attachment No. 5. The applicant was granted the option to locate the sign along either the street frontage on Duarte Road, or along Holly Avenue. If the sign was to be placed along Duarte Road, it was to be located at least 200 feet apart from the other signs. The messages on the LED boards were to be displayed from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM daily, instead of 6:00 AM to 11:59 PM as requested. On April 14, 2014, the appellant filed an appeal for reconsideration to allow two monument signs — see Attachment No. 4. Planning Commission Action On May 27, 2014, the Planning Commission voted 2 -1, with two Commissioners having recused themselves, to deny the appeal and conditionally approve the applications for one new sign (as approved by the Modification Committee) to be placed on the street frontage along Duarte Road, and it could be closer than 200 feet from any of the existing signs. A copy of the Planning Commission minutes and a summary of the discussion are attached (Attachment No. 4). On June 3, 2014, Mr. Wayne Whitehill, representing the Church of the Good Shepherd, filed an appeal stating that the proposal has been revised based on the Planning Commission's concerns and comments, and requests that the City Council consider allowing two new signs with the removal of the four existing freestanding signs — see Attachment No. 3. DISCUSSION Currently, the site has four signs: two monument signs for the Church of the Good Shepherd, and two ground mounted signs, each supported by two posts on solid bases, Appeal of MC 13 -26 & SADR 13 -52 Signs for the Church of the Good Shepherd September 16, 2014 Page 3 of 5 to identify the Church's nursery school (refer to the attached site plan, sign chart and photos of existing signs — Attachment No. 3). The R -3 regulations do not address signs for non - residential uses. In the absence of any requirements for signs for churches, the City's commercial sign regulations are used as a guideline for review, and consideration of such proposals is handled through the Modification process. Each new monument sign would be comprised of almond colored stucco for the body — see the proposed plans (Attachment No. 2). The quoins and architectural features on top of each sign would be made of high- density foam, painted almond and dark brown. The lettering and logo will be dark red and internally - illuminated. The design of each sign, as well as the colors and materials, are consistent with the existing Church building. The appellant has decided that it is important to have two, doubled- sided, monument signs with LED message boards and has proposed to remove the existing freestanding signs along both street frontages. This proposal, as revised since the Planning Commission meeting, is consistent with the City's commercial requirements regarding the number of signs, the distance between the signs, and the maximum allowable sign area. The revisions address the concerns regarding the number of signs that would be on the property and the resulting visual clutter that was identified by the Modification Committee and the Planning Commission. The proposal, as revised, is consistent with the City's sign regulations and design guidelines, and satisfies the purpose of a Modification by securing an appropriate improvement of the property, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. All existing freestanding signs shall be removed from the Duarte Road and Holly Avenue street frontages, and two, double -sided monument signs with a LED message board on each side shall be permitted; one perpendicular to W. Duarte Road, and one perpendicular to Holly Avenue. The maximum size of the signs shall not exceed 7' -1" in height by 8' -6" in width. The two signs shall be located at least 200 feet apart. 2. The digital displays on the LED message boards cannot change more frequently than once a minute, and may only be displayed between the hours of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM, daily. 3. No videos, flashing, blinking, or moving images shall be permitted within a given message. Simple transitions between messages are acceptable. Examples of acceptable transitions would include, but not be limited to, fading out /in or sliding in from a single direction. Examples of prohibited animations would include, but not be limited to, spinning, bouncing, dissolving, or zooming animations. 4. The signs shall be operated and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the proposal and plans submitted and approved for SADR 13 -52 and MC 13 -26 Appeal of MC 13 -26 & SADR 13 -52 Signs for the Church of the Good Shepherd September 16, 2014 Page 4 of 5 by the City Council, and shall be subject to periodic inspections, after which the provisions of this approval may be adjusted after due notice to address any adverse impacts to the adjacent streets, rights -of -way, and /or the neighboring uses and properties. 5. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officials, officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or conditional approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and /or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or conditional approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, Modification Committee, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and /or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officials, officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 6. Approval of MC 13 -26 and SADR 13 -52 shall not be of effect unless on or before 30 calendar days after approval of this project, the property owner /applicant has executed and filed with the Community Development Administrator or designee an Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the proposed signs are considered accessory structures, and are Categorically Exempt per Section 15311 (Class 11) of the CEQA Guidelines. PUBLIC NOTICE Public hearing notices for this appeal were mailed on September 4, 2014 to the owners and tenants of those properties within 100 -feet of the subject site, and to the applicant and appellant. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed project will have no significant fiscal impact on the City. Appeal of MC 13 -26 & SADR 13 -52 Signs for the Church of the Good Shepherd September 16, 2014 Page 5 of 5 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 7035 approving Modification No. MC 13 -26 and Sign Design Review No. SADR 13 -52 with a Class 11 categorical exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") for two new 7' -1" high by 8' -6" wide, double -sided monument signs with electronic message boards at 400 W. Duarte, subject to the aforementioned Conditions of Approval. Approved_ Dominic Laz�areft� City Manager Attachment No. 1: Resolution No. 7035 Attachment No. 2: Appeal Letters and Revised Plans from the Appellant Attachment No. 3: Site Plans (Existing, As Approved by the Modification Committee, & As Approved by the Planning Commission) and Photos Attachment No. 4: Minutes Excerpt, Summary of Discussion, and Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments from May 27, 2014 Attachment No. 5: Modification Committee Staff Report and Attachments from April 8, 2014 RESOLUTION NO. 7035 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MODIFICATION NO. MC 13 -26 AND SIGN DESIGN REVIEW NO. SADR 13 -52 WITH A CLASS 11 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FOR TWO NEW 7' -1" HIGH BY 8' -6" WIDE, DOUBLE - SIDED MONUMENT SIGNS WITH ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARDS AT 400 W. DUARTE ROAD WHEREAS, on October 24, 2013, applications were filed by CalWest Lighting Services for the design review and a Modification for two, new, 7' -1" high by 8' -6" wide, double -sided monument signs with electronic message boards at 400 W. Duarte Road, Development Services Department Case Nos. MC 13 -26 and SADR 13 -52; and WHEREAS, on April 8, 2014, a duly- noticed public hearing was held by the Modification Committee at which all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, and at which the Modification Committee voted 3 -0 to conditionally approve the project for only one, double -sided monument sign; and WHEREAS, on April 14, 2014, Mr. Wayne Whitehill, the representative for the Church of the Good Shepherd United Methodist, filed a timely appeal of the Modification Committee's action; and WHEREAS, on May 27, 2014, a duly- noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission, at which all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, and at which the Planning Commission voted 2 -1 to deny the appeal and conditionally approve the project for only one double -sided monument sign to be located along the Duarte Road frontage; and WHEREAS, on June 30, 2014, Mr. Whitehill, filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's action; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2014, a duly - noticed public hearing was held by the City Council at which all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services Department in the staff report dated September 16, 2014 are true and correct. SECTION 2. This Council finds: 1. That the proposed project as revised, together with the provisions for its design and improvement and the following conditions of approval, is consistent with the City's Sign Regulations and design guidelines, and satisfies the purpose of a Modification by securing an appropriate improvement of the property. 2. That pursuant to the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is Categorically Exempt per Section 15311 (Class 11) of the CEQA Guidelines. SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission approves MC 13- 26 and SADR 13 -52, for two, new, double -sided monument signs with electronic message boards at 400 W. Duarte Road, subject to the following conditions: 1. All existing freestanding signs shall be removed from the Duarte Road and Holly Avenue street frontages, and two double -sided monument signs with a LED message board on each side shall be permitted; one perpendicular to W. Duarte Road, and one perpendicular to Holly Avenue. The size of the signs shall not exceed T -1" in height by 8' -6" in width. The two signs shall be located at least 200 feet apart. -2- 7035 2. The digital displays on the LED message boards cannot change more frequently than once a minute and may only be displayed between the hours of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM, daily. 3. No videos, flashing or blinking, or moving images shall be permitted within a given message. Simple transitions between messages are acceptable. Examples of acceptable transitions would include, but not be limited to, fading out/in or sliding in from a single direction. Examples of prohibited animations would include, but not be limited to, spinning, bouncing, dissolving, or zooming animations. 4. The signs shall be operated and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the proposal and plans submitted TO and approved by the City Council for SADR 13 -52 and MC 13 -26, and shall be subject to periodic inspections, after which the provisions of this approval may be adjusted after due notice to address any adverse impacts to the adjacent streets, rights -of -way, and/or the neighboring uses and properties. 5. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officials, officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or conditional approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and /or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or conditional approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, Modification Committee, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in -3- 7035 Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and/or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officials, officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 6. Approval of MC 13 -26 and SADR 13 -52 shall not be of effect unless on or before 30 calendar days after approval of this project, the property owner and applicant have executed and filed with the Community Development Administrator or designee an Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this day of 12014. ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: 7 Et� R �a Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney Mayor of the City of Arcadia -4- 7035 + r.s�s�ntiFi . -J of 01 O®®d �icphird KItcd Nahadi', -t a JUN 0 3 2014 NOTICE OF APPEAL � i nEng SerVICeS � June 3, 2014 Ew of Arcadia To the City of Arcadia, Planning Department, Attention: Lisa L. Flores, Planning Services Manager; Jordin Chamberlin, Assistant Planner Re: Modification Noe MC13 -26 and Sign Design Review No. SADR 13 -52 To Consider the Modifications and Design for Two New 7'1" High by 8' -6' Wide, Double -sided Monument Signs With a LED Message Board at 400 We Duarte Road (DOA Church of the Good Shepherd United Methodist) Please take notice, that Applicant, Church of the Good Shepherd, United Methodist, Arcadia, California, hereby appeals from the decision of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia rendered on May 27, 2014 and the Modification Committee decision. Applicant requests a hearing of the appealed issues to the City Council of the City of Arcadia as soon as practical. Church of the Good Shepherd has not completed its preparation at this time with respect to the issues, however, the grounds for appeal are as follows. Issues on Appeal: 1) The number of signs to be placed on the applicant's property. The Commission voted to allow only one double -sided monument sign with a LED message board on each side of the sign. Applicant /Appellant is applying for two double faced signs to be permitted on the subject property, one on Duarte Road and one on Holly Avenue as per the 400 West Duane Road o Arcadia, California 91007 a Telephone (626) 447 -2181 - Fax (626) 447 -5043 www.goodshepherdarcadia.org Page Two, Notice of Appeal, Modification No. MC 13 -26 and SADR 1352 original plans and specifications submitted to the Planning Department, without a valid reason other than "clutter ". 2) Objection to approval of the location of only one sign, which is to be located on Duarte Road, which is inconsistent with the Modification Committee's ruling that applicant had the option of placing only one sign on either Duarte Road or Holly Avenue. Additionally, prior to issuance of a building permit for the sign, the approval of the location of the one sign, being dependent on the approval by the Planning Services Manager, or designee, which in effect is not an approval of the sign location. Additionally, if the approval is not satisfactory to the designee, it would require another hearing before the Modification Committee, or the Planning Commission. It serves no purpose to have someone approve the location of the sign, prior to issuance of the building permit and is not consistent with the intent of the commission to allow one sign "closer than 200 feet from the existing signage on the site ". 3) The hours of operation of the messages. Applicant seeks to display messages from 6:00 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. daily — over and above the 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. cut -off periods. 4) The failure of the Staff from the beginning of the process through to the hearing at the Planning Commission to advise the Modification Committee, or the Planning Commission, that the Project location depicted by the Staff was not accurate or correct and that appellant owns the two single family zoned properties to the south of the applicant's property along Holly Avenue. 5) The failure of the Staff to fairly and reasonably confer with the applicant from the start of the process until to two days before the Modification Page 3, Notice of Appeal, Modification No. MC 13 -26 and SADR 13 -52 Committee hearing, that the Staff would not recommend two signs, even though for four years the Staff knew applicant was planning on placing two signs on its property. 6) The inadequate and untimely notice to the Applicant of the Staff's determination of its recommendations prior to both public hearings. Applicant was not provided adequate time to prepare for either hearing. 7) A violation of applicant's civil rights under the 15t Amendment of the United States Constitution in denying it the right to broadcast messages of its services and activities and limiting the applicant to one sign, while others in the community are being allowed two sign. S) A violation of applicant's rights under RLUIPA, the Religious Land Use and Instrumental Persons Act of 2000. This law bars zoning restrictions that impose a "substantial burden" on the religious exercise of a person or institution. Wayne Whitehill Chairman, Board of Trustees Church of the Good Shepherd United Methodist, Arcadia, California City of Arcadia Planning Services 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 Church of the NO �hcphcrd��_�_�. .o lui[lt old eOgg �� ._t E AUG 1 41W Pietming Services August 14, 20 4 City of Arcadi-ca Attention: Ms. Lisa L. FIores, Planning Services Manager Ms. Jordan Chamberlin, Assistant Plammer Re: Modification No. MC14 -26 and Sign Design Review No. SADR 13 -52 To Consider the Modifications and Design for Two New 7' 1" High by 8' 6" Wide, Double -sided Monument Signs with LED Message Boards at Duarte Road and Holly Avenue (D.B.A. Church of the Good Shepherd United Methodist); Appeal to City Council Dear Ms. Flores and Ms. Chamberlin: In response to your request for a follow -up to the Church of the Good Shepherd's notice of appeal of the Planning Commission decision of May 27, 2014, and our subsequent meeting with the two of you, Reverend Wood, and myself, the Church of the Good Shepherd ("CGS ") proposes the following to meet Staff concerns as conditions of approval for the erection of the two double -sided signs: I.) During construction applicant will remove all existing monuments and monument signs along Duarte Road and Holly Avenue, specifically the one at the corner; the one large monument along Duarte Road and two small monuments on Holly Avenue and Duarte Road. I1.) The electronic portions of new signs will be limited to hours of operation between 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. (The electronic portion shall be turned off between 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) III.) The electronic messages on the new signs will be changed not more than once per minute. IV.) CGS agrees to conditions 4, 5, and 6 of the Planning Commission decision, as follows: (4) No videos, flashing or blinking, or moving animated images shall be permitted within a given message per AMC Sec. 9262.4.3(C). Simple transitions between messages are acceptable. An example of an acceptable transition would include, not be limited to: fading out/in or sliding in from a single direction. An 400 West Duarte Road • Arcadia, California 91007 `Telephone (626) 447 -2181 e Fax (626) 447 -5043 www.goodshephordarcadia.org example of prohibited animations would include, but not be limited to: spirming, bouncing, dissolving, or zooming animations. (5) The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, it officials, officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or conditional approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and /or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or conditional approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, Modification Committee, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and /or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officials, officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. (6) Approval of MC 13 -26 and SADR 13 -52 shall not be of effect unless on or before 30 calendar days after approval of this project, the property owner /applicant has executed and filed with the Community Development Administrator or designee an Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. The Church of the Good Shepherd continues to propose as a compromise to the May 27, 2014 Planning Commission decision, that it construct two new double -sided monument signs with LED message boards on its property at 400 W. Duarte Road, as per submitted plans and specifications, and as per the Cal West site plan, and consistent with the 200 foot distance between the signs, with one along Duarte Road and one along Holly Avenue. Finally, CGS continues to request the continuance of the City Council hearing of CGS's appeal from the Planning Commission decision of May 27, 2014, to the City Council meeting on September 17, 2014. Thank you for courtesies in this matter. Cordially, i Wayne Whitehill Chairman, Board of Trustees Church of the Good Shepherd, United Methodist Arcadia, California Q (1) -C U) �o 0 0 CD (1) .c 0 U ll U LU V Q C) Q F- 2 ry W a w W �m o� 0 a 0 c v v N O r- Cn > �f 0000 CD 'c-' r J OC.)OO LO LL co O U� ❑f]_[� s; t - a H Z U_ 1 I t) c N �X N Q vi c N C N 0 0 L CO j 0C P C Co c � 2 o) U) .N Q 2 !L if SP wr-- Q r�0- �oaao a UJizO w aLo� F" - u"a QQ_o� Yo 4o °¢ Eu G ❑o?� u❑ o�s�oa oiu - me °oo `pW -o o-P6c�i� a N - W (6 U E ❑ W a. Wm m z z z n CD F 3 W U Q Q Q co N_ O h W � U C6 C i r Qj N Q i U) ❑ (p o E o � 0 m t 7 F O O E 7� •C C p L rL V U C4 z -) Q U a Q �j [7 CO CO Co <gq�rV m eD 10 2u`°mz 0 mm0 fizp'ay NN❑ IQQ� m F 'o m101p m0 3 z= '3 - iILLL3 Liin (D > Li V) % \ 2I, 2 § ƒn � \2\ � � \ A. |e u & / ate§/ } ( % \G « 131 i RRb EL < } Ld § k m A 3 o < § < § cn § ( § c m e it {� < A G \ ) { � § E \ �E\ { } § G w e u e \ } < 03 M CD 2 " 0 u �-<GQco §7cn§ Ez « -- =o,W, ¥ 56Mm "o° � } zz (g (L La noAe gqjo � .a) ° 2 \ ±� % Qom@ oua6aa Ginn L. f-- Q o a� NN U °nFSo �n 0 ti <rn o F 3 °OrwLo' c� 3�ona °o 'a� 6up0��� o -_ H-WE F �iS�r -F9 V W a N N al W 7 }} C r Q l9 U E 01 Q O I m Z Z Q Z _Z o FD w U Q ❑ Q ❑ ch Cl) N O F. C Q � a U m a L C ti in m N C N B c% ❑ lu b :L- ❑ ❑ E C7 m � a � C � i- N ❑ a � � � c o c 0 r ujco mm2 >mmmp ¢� ;meo w . U COD rD =Ummz o •mmo 4mgUNNN W W m�7� W [TS la La mo .3 z= 3 oaUU..3 d} •C U UJ� { � CL rD /y= GC3 Erl 0u 0 ¥ }E2 <E < co 3� k\ \E §® @/ a/ Q� \ � \ R a \ •� / E § zi § 'E g CT _ § m\�\ �2 L3 \ Q 0 j \ LL oL3 § § kE W k � 4a 0 � � O O u C) � g� D b ƒm � loft, �\ J� J 4 ®r ` R j/ 'Atz a. � } k Tu E e { \ k ± ) k < e ) ¥ g @ > E u IE _ < 0 § � 'e a ) cu 2 } Izt Lo Cl) � 4a 0 � � O O u C) � g� D b ƒm � loft, �\ J� J 4 ®r ` R j/ 'Atz a. � } k Tu E e { \ k ± ) k < e ) ¥ g @ > E u IE _ < 0 \2C3 ;J <§ -`o ® <QjfO 0.003 E _ " to § §§) Go m LE) `& \(}1L2 /3/ E: % � 0 CO Q u ) cu rt � � m �2� \ E / 0 is /e a 2 0 rG 7 D60 c L) �. oIL W\{f 673 IƒG -E¥ \ 3 Cc ƒ \§ uco < \ \ i / n uIL ❑ < \2C3 ;J <§ -`o ® <QjfO 0.003 E _ " to § §§) Go m LE) `& \(}1L2 /3/ E: % � 0 CO Q G W � o O 5 ° z �a z � w O C C ua z U 2 N 3 W F-L K r�nn c L!J Ir Vim- �- Sm UJ to ru N � G 0 3 Ln o EL -I C M En N m -� !" m Fo .I m m N QI m p b�fu m W �- N_ 0 N Q o - 0- w U ao. o N J_o�� o a� icz F "o op 20 3e oop cu W <cp�rn ua L �`a>uaS [D Llo u�m> Su J$tl� a 'Q 5 p. LLI o�,pa 3 uo s S3 LL, � �ts�eea LL -g3ep �ry PLL z' � a U � tOt f— N z ca O C o 4 E d Q W � d O m m O m Q Z EC W = z z F- w U LU d Q d cyl Q m Lu N in O r � O m Q Q m LO Ip � U Lu a o EL 'y L N a � U) a m Lu -o o it (D Cl) CL O E [] C O 7 cr U 1- fA U co Z - [L u � °a j p m m � ¢0 -�U CD LO Ummz O mmp lC2d -U) QQmUN1�r 3 W m m E 0) m lD 1p (D (D 3 zT LL 3 ao(3 Lb _ U L UJCO m� r u LL! I 1� o C c 7 N LL ¢ w U a n Ln o EL -I C M En N m -� !" m Fo .I m m N QI m p b�fu m W �- N_ 0 N Q o - 0- w U ao. o N J_o�� o a� icz F "o op 20 3e oop cu W <cp�rn ua L �`a>uaS [D Llo u�m> Su J$tl� a 'Q 5 p. LLI o�,pa 3 uo s S3 LL, � �ts�eea LL -g3ep �ry PLL z' � a U � tOt f— N z ca O C o 4 E d Q W � d O m m O m Q Z EC W = z z F- w U LU d Q d cyl Q m Lu N in O r � O m Q Q m LO Ip � U Lu a o EL 'y L N a � U) a m Lu -o o it (D Cl) CL O E [] C O 7 cr U 1- fA U co Z - [L u � °a j p m m � ¢0 -�U CD LO Ummz O mmp lC2d -U) QQmUN1�r 3 W m m E 0) m lD 1p (D (D 3 zT LL 3 ao(3 Lb _ U L UJCO Z�— u I u J �E m = oil m oo gm m _ a ` w u oa m Z W = N u¢l ¢ ❑ ~ �E ca-i N p D [l) w LL a ui A�i aZS 's 7 N 2 �! Pj 4 p 2 °n ZF Z F p ❑ 4u v so �sz° 4�u�u'7 z Lj �70 f2 win 2w ❑�N W tvm pinto C] oz��z zin a ws�a J ¢m�um� U3 of cJ c W . n n Z 5 cD z A L-2., J a J 7 3�a' i v a 0 0 cr O LU LU cx F- LU n m [U M ci Lu OEn 0 w ED ¢ c H ❑ O ILL m W � N_ CD N VQ ❑ a I� o °ou; R OW 2 OW , U ft �7 MOB W Ea . TIP uo a ' gu `r Qjb§ZZRq KU G 0 J1=n - P uo- LLJ 8 �1 uj _ U �So�FFPuG Z 0 a C] r M c W W CO v E0 `o m a W O pQ E3 Z Z a ¢ Q W Z � z = o 3 I— EA U Q Q Q Q LU En 0 LUH M O N CO o 0 ll1 w o cc LIl QO � U a � uj L C EL fA ❑ f9 LCI O r a CD Cij m a m C H ❑ o U C O O U co W W 0 0 uIL LL. r]m W� >g3mm0 Qp,�U mmm =UmmZ Q mpp dmuawaa lelWmmN m m to l CD 3 zi 3 FoaL3 U) N .0 U L Q r _ r icy r ' Av of • AL Y AO "I tf ip � tt I, a J Cam• ;y�r- F ,ii � ' : i 1 i. r o- x� t �l r _ r icy r ' Av of • AL Y AO "I tf ip � tt I, a J Cam• ;y�r- F ,ii � ' : i 1 i. r o- x� Z Q J CL w F- F5 Z C) F ' C / //�^� co W yJ X Q w . F jj f R' ' 1 a a� N H a' 7i w a CN cn a O X N co n c co EL ' 0 = 0 co x co x O O X O L r r r O T N N U N U O co N _ _ N E_ co co X X L.0 N X _ (O O ' - (fl M M� co 0 O x 0 0 0 Q E � � a c o a a O O co 0) 0) S 0) S 0) S N w w w w co Q m U 0 c 0) c 0) c t) c t) i) in J Q O a CL LU Q W F- 5 C G O U Z O LL U F3 i c >, cn � a) 0 E )- a = c cn C.) 0) •' o vi co L O N o c Q co N p a) o � "- co ) .) U o -t Co 0 m Co Co 0 m 0 �0 _a a) E 0) O 7� o O U 4- cn 0) o -E >Ea)d Z '(2) a O_ -0 co I� 7- ' ~ `• n� - F a a� N H a' 7i + w L.0 ao Nn io C-. a= ch O ih cn O x a) N c N C, M { � co I i I ! a a� N H a' 7i + w L.0 ao Nn io C-. a= ch O ih cn O x a) N c N C, M d � co o D O c ' X L O T N im N N U a) U O co ch r N E ao o x x _ LO a) — �-a o > o O x c a) E c �- � a) E O Q O 0 O U) O co 0 N N X � O N X W W N a m U c c LM in U)) U) \J O a CL Q Z O O Z Z J !, CL , "O N_ L a, U N ;_ co O y Q� U x Co O co -a —� U co p O E_ N OL N � � N C 0) 4-- N O O �O•N= t) a� E , c zoCL ='( .ate j I� { I i I ! a a� N H a' 7i ++ w l 6 � .. ch co ch r_ ' co V to O .— x N N N r- ^ N O M E C CO O r D O = c cn O x ^ x ^ L a x i C? M i T N a� N N U N U O co r w E �_ � � D x x = Ln N — ^ O O O > O O x E c �- E O Q O 0 O � N U) O co 0 N Mn x � O N x W W cn Q m U c LM c LM in U) U) Proposed location of the monument sign on W. Duarte Road and existing sign to be removed Proposed location of monument sign on Holly Avenue Existing monument sign on W. Duarte Road Existing ground mounted sign on W. Duarte Road Existing three -sided monument sign at the corner of W. Duarte Road and Holly Avenue Existing ground mounted sign on Holly Avenue Multi- family properties located to the north _W Anww Single family residence located to the northeast y" f - Holly Avenue Elementary School located to the east Single family residence located to the south Multi- family residences located to the west FA �lu uxxW ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, May 27, 2014 CALL TO ORDER — Chairman Beranek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Arcadia City Council Chambers. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Baerg, Beranek, Chiao, Falzone, and Parrille ABSENT: None SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS A copy of an email message regarding Item 1 was distributed to the Commissioners. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued from April 22, 2014, Regular Meeting - Text Amendment No. 14 -01, continued from May 13, 2014 meeting, with an Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to initiate the following changes to the Smoking Prohibited regulations, the Commercial and Industrial Zoning regulations, and the Conditional Uses regulations of the Arcadia Municipal Code: a. Amending the Smoking Prohibited regulations in Section 4290. b. Adding new definitions on smoking, smoking lounges, and the use of electronic cigarettes and similar devices in Section 9220 et seq. C. Amending the Conditional Use Permit requirement to allow Smoking Lounges in Section 9275.1 et seq. d. Amending the Parking Requirements to include Smoking Lounges in Sections 9265.1 and 9269.5. e. Repealing the Lot Coverage limitation in the Planned Industrial District (M -1) zone. f. Adding a Floor Area Ratio of 50% in the Commercial Planned Development (CPD -1), Commercial Office (C -O), Limited Commercial (C -1), General Commercial (C -2), Commercial Manufacturing (CM), and Planned Industrial District (M -1) zones, Article IX, Chapter 2, Part 6, for consistency with the General Plan. Recommended action: Find that this project is exempt from CEQA, and forward a recommendation to the City Council. Associate Planner, Tom Li, presented the staff report. 5 -27 -14 Chairman Beranek opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this Item. Sarkis Ekshian asked for clarification on this Text Amendment. Patricia Huff spoke in favor of the Text Amendment. Chairman Beranek asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to this item. There were none. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Parrille, seconded by Commissioner Falzone to close the public hearing. Without objection, the motion was approved. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Baerg, seconded by Commissioner Falzone, to table this item until more data is available. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Baerg, Falzone, and Parrille NOES: Commissioners Beranek and Chiao Chairman Beranek and Commissioner Parrille recused themselves from the next item and left the Council Chambers. Vice Chairman Falzone assumed the Chair. 2. The applicant is appealing the Modification Committee's conditional approval of Modification No. MC 13 -26 and Sign Architectural Design Review No. SADR 13 -52 for two new 7' -1" high by 8' -6" wide, double -sided monument signs with electronic message boards at 400 W. Duarte Road (DBA: Church of the Good Shepherd United Methodist): a. A total of four monument signs (two existing and two new signs) with a combined total sign area of 411 square feet; and b. Allow the two new monument signs to be illuminated. Applicant: CalWest Lighting Services, Agent Representing the Church of the Good Shepherd United Methodist Recommended action: Deny appeal and uphold Modification Committee's decision Assistant Planner, Jordan Chamberlin, presented the staff report. Vice Chairman Falzone asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this appeal. The following responded: • UT 5 -27 -14 Jim Romo Sarah Murphy Wayne Whitehill David Raymond Channing Lushbough Vice Chairman Falzone asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to this appeal. There were none. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Chiao, seconded by Commissioner Falzone to close the public hearing. Without objection, the motion was approved. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Baerg, seconded by Commissioner Chiao, to deny the appeal and uphold the Modification Committee's decision to conditionally approve the application for only one sign on Duarte Road. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Baerg and Chiao NOES: Commissioner Falzone RECUSED: Commissioners Beranek and Parrille There is a five working day appeal period following the Planning Commission's decision. Appeals are to be filed by 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, June 4, 2014. Chairman Beranek and Commissioner Parrille rejoined the meeting. 3. Resolution No. 1905 - The applicant is requesting approval for a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 14 -05 (72769)) and Multiple - Family Architectural Design Review (MFADR 13 -36) for a proposed three -unit, residential condominium development at 130 Alta Street. Applicant: Benjamin Zhu, Designer Recommended action: Conditional approval Associate Planner, Tim Schwehr, presented the staff report. Chairman Beranek opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to speak in support of this project. Benjamin Zhu, Applicant and Project Designer, responded. Chairman Beranek asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to this project. Alex Sajac, a neighbor, responded. 5 -27 -14 Chairman Beranek asked if the applicant would like to speak in rebuttal. Benjamin Zhu responded. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Chiao, seconded by Commissioner Baerg to close the public hearing. Without objection, the motion was approved. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Baerg, seconded by Commissioner Chiao, to adopt Resolution No. 1905 to conditionally approve Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 14 -05 (72769) and Multiple - Family Architectural Design Review No. MFADR 13 -36 with a Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a three -unit, residential condominium development at 130 Alta Street. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Baerg, Chiao, Falzone, Parrille and Beranek NOES: None There is a ten calendar day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution. Appeals are to be filed by 4:30 p.m. on Friday, June 6, 2014. Commissioner Ching recused himself from the next item and left the Council Chambers. 4. Resolution No. 1906 — The applicant is requesting approval for a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 72783) the following Modifications (MP 13 -17), and Multiple - Family Architectural Design Review ( MFADR 13 -43) for a proposed six -unit residential condominium development at 803 Arcadia Avenue: a. Side yard setbacks of 9' -0" in lieu of 10' -0" required, and b. 9' -0" wide private open spaces in lieu of 10' -0" required. Applicant: Ben Wu of Sun Homeland, Inc., Property Owner Recommended action: Conditional approval Associate Planner, Tom Li, presented the staff report. Chairman Beranek opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to speak in support of this project. Jason Zhay, Project Architect, responded. Chairman Beranek asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to this project. There were none. 5 -27 -14 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Falzone, seconded by Commissioner Chiao to close the public hearing. Without objection, the motion was approved. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Baerg, to adopt Resolution No. 1906 to conditionally approve Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 72783 and Multiple - Family Architectural Design Review No. MFADR 13 -43 with a Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a six -unit, residential condominium development at 803 Arcadia Avenue. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Baerg, Chiao, Falzone and Beranek NOES: Commissioner Parrille RECUSED: Commissioner Chiao There is a ten calendar day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution. Appeals are to be filed by 4:30 p.m. on Friday, June 6, 2014. Commissioner Ching rejoined meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR 5. Minutes of the May 13, 2014, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Recommended action: Approve MOTION Without objection the minutes were approved. MATTERS FROM COUNCIL LIAISON Nothing to report. FROM PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Nothing to report. MATTERS FROM MODIFICATION COMMITTEE Commissioner Falzone reported that the Modification Committee meeting was cancelled. MATTERS FROM STAFF INCLUDING UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS 5 -27 -14 Mr. Kasama said the next agenda will include a Modification for a house on Orange Grove that was approved by the HOA but the applicants are requesting setback modifications, and a 20 unit condo project at 550 S. Second Avenue. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Beranek adjourned this meeting at 8:47 p.m. to June 10, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia. ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission Chairman, Planning Commission 5 -27 -14 V AR � aonyq ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION OF ITEM NO. 2 Tuesday, May 27, 2014 2. The applicant is appealing the Modification Committee's conditional approval of Modification No. MC 13 -26 and Sign Architectural Design Review No. SADR 13 -52 for two new 7' -1" high by 8' -6" wide, double -sided monument signs with electronic message boards at 400 W. Duarte Road (DBA: Church of the Good Shepherd United Methodist): a. A total of four monument signs (two existing and two new signs) with a combined total sign area of 411 square feet; and b. Allow the two new monument signs to be illuminated. Applicant: CalWest Lighting Services, Agent Representing the Church of the Good Shepherd United Methodist Recommended action: Deny appeal and uphold Modification Committee's decision Vice Chairman Falzone — The Public Hearing is now open. Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor? Reverend Phil Wood — Good evening Commissioners, Mr. Kasama, Councilmember Tay, staff. My name if Philip Bertolo Wood. I served over the last 18 years as the senior pastor for Church of the Good Shepherd, United Methodists, 42 years as a United Methodist minister in this Southern California area. The Church of the Good Shepherd has been in this community now for 69 years at the same site. The Church has had this monument as a significant part of its landscaping all this time. Our journey that has brought us here to you this evening began 14 years ago. My former associate, Reverend Mellissa Roux McKinnen brought a program to us that would enable us to help the children and the families within walking distance of Holly Avenue School and thereby of the church and this program simply was called Trunk or Treat. It was an opportunity for our church members to bring their vehicles into our large parking lot on Duarte Road to decorate the trunk, to open it up, and to invite the whole community to come and have a safe Halloween for the children. We did not have signage for that so we went about the process of going and purchasing some banners and we built a couple of frames and we put one on Duarte and one on Holly so that we could attract traffic going north and south on Holly and east and west on Duarte to let the community know what was going on. The event attracted 400 children the first time we did it. We continue to do that every year, our highest number reached just a couple of years ago was over 900 children. However, as you well know, our City does not allow for free standing banners and so four years ago when we became aware that this was a regulation and being good citizens that we are, we began the process of discerning how we might produce some monument signs that could communicate to the community activities that we were not only having at the church specifically religious but also those activities that we would be having that would be of general interest to the public. And so, one of our members, David Raymond, began the process by visiting the Planning Commission office, or Planning Office, excuse me, and receiving a copy of the guidelines. Four years specifically ago, our Board of Trustees became owners, if you will, of this process and I accompanied the Chair of our Board, Mr. Wayne Whitehill, and my associate at that time, Reverend Steven Wilson, to the office because none of us knew where to begin. And so, in good faith we came to our Planning Office and we asked "What do we need to do? What do we need to consider ?" And we found the staff to be very helpful; however, they said there are no guidelines for church signs. We do have Commercial guidelines but you as a church do not fall within that category. So let's give you a copy, which we took. And you can look at these and you can come back with whatever you produce as an offer for us to look at. So throughout this four year period of time we've done our very best to design something that first of all would meet the needs of what we believe to be important for our church program, not only specifically for us, but for the whole community, to make it safe, that is to have a large enough message board that it would not cause people to be unduly distracted as they were driving and to be something that would be complementary to the church architecture. We engaged the efforts of Stewart Signs, which is one of the national leaders in terms of sign production. They came up with the design that you have before you which is in keeping with our church facilities, the colors as well. Throughout this four year period of time we would continue to ask the question, on a very informal basis, coming into our Planning Office and saying, "What do we need to do. How are we doing ?" And we never received any negative answer that we were going in the wrong direction. We never found out for instance that we were zones R -1 or R -3 until we were within days of the Modification Committee meeting. We'd never been informed of that. We had never been informed that the signs were not going to be approved so we continued in good faith to move forward. In fact when you look at your packet in front of you, you should find three documents that we think are rather important. First of all, on page 2 of the 7 that is in the staff report you'll notice there is a drawing and it does not indicate to us one sign only. There's nothing in that drawing which we received that said one sign only so we continued to move forward to our Modification Committee meeting, or actually applying for this, believing that two signs were alright. And secondly, again if you look at page 5 of 7 where there are the Modifications that our City Planner had recommended, again there is no indication to us even at that moment that only one sign was going to be allowed. Now on October 29 of last year and you should have this letter again in your packet, we were asked by the Planner who was reviewing our application to submit some idea as to what was going to be added to the signs, some ideas of test, and you should have those in front of you. You'll not only find that those include church events but also continue to include civic events because one thing that United Methodists as a Christian denomination and Church of the Good Shepherd has always been about is being part of the community and being active in promoting the Discussion of Summary Appeal of MC 13 -26 and SADR 13 -52 May 27, 2014 Page 2 welfare of all people inclusively in a community. And if look down on the second page of that document, signed by the Chair of our Board of Trustees, you will note that when there were civic events we would be broadcasting those on the sign board. It's also important, Commissioners, that you know that during the terrible wind storm that we experienced here the Church of the Good Shepherd was the only place within, by our estimation, conservatively, a half mile radius that had power the morning after the wind storm. And having found that to be the case, in the letter that Mr. Whitehill sent to our Planning Office, we have voluntarily stated that in the case of an emergency of this sort in the future, we want the City to take control of the information on those signs and to broadcast that to all the residents. We believe that it's very important to have the two signs because first of all, the Chapel is between the two signs. You cannot see one from, or the other, from either of the two streets. We're concerned about it being inclusive again, reaching the traffic going North and South on Holly as well as East and West on Duarte. Thank you. Vice Chairman Falzone — Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor? Mr. Jim Romo - Mr. Chairman Vice Chairman Falzone — We'd like you to keep your comments to five minutes if you could and please sign in. Mr. Romo - I will. Mr. Chairman, other members of the Commission, Councilman Tay — Congratulations by the way. I haven't had a chance to congratulate you on your recent election, and staff. My name if Jim Romo. I've been a long time resident of the City of Arcadia and I am also a practicing attorney but I am not appearing this evening as an attorney. I am appearing on behalf of the Board of Trustees of which I am a member and I have been a member for a number of years for the Church of the Good Shepherd. And during that tenure on the Board of Trustees I have been part of the Trustee group that has looked at signage and the issue of what we might be able to put up on our property in order to do some of the ministry that the Church has an obligation to do and I'm, I appreciate that the Staff has left the drawing or rendering up there of what we worked on. And it took as Reverend Wood indicated; it took a number of years of deliberating, discussing, debating how those signs would look. As a member of Arcadia, I'm particularly concerned about signage in Arcadia because I think in some ways it might take away from the beauty of the City. And so with that in mind I was part of the group that came up with what I think was a very aesthetic looking sign, all along being concerned about creating something that would be a distraction to our community and also present some type of safety hazard as well. All those things were part of the deliberation that this Board of Trustees went through and I hope you appreciate the work that we have done in that respect. As we will have later on a speaker from the company that Reverend Wood referred to, we consulted with a company that is one of the leading manufacturers of signs of this kind in the country so that we were sure that Discussion of Summary Appeal of MC 13 -26 and SADR 13 -52 May 27, 2014 Page 3 we were doing something that was appropriate. I am going to limit the rest of my comments to just a few issues. You heard Reverend Wood refer to the fact that during the entire process, our engagement with members of the City staff, we did not hear at any time that there was an issue concerning the number of signs that we were considering. It was known what our proposal was, that we were planning on putting one sign on Duarte and one sign on Holly and so we went about our business thinking all along that we were going to be able to do something of this sort and did not learn until we received the Staff Report prior to the Modification Committee hearing that we were going to be limited to one sign. So all along, we've expended money in order to engage a company in terms of the design of the signs so we have, and those of you who are attorneys, and I know some of you are that sit on the Commission, there's this issue of detrimental reliance. That we, in fact, relied upon the fact that we were never advised along the way that there was going to be issues with respect to the signage, certainly the number that we were looking at. So I would like the Commission to consider that notion when you are looking at and deliberating upon the appeal that the Church of the Good Shepherd has put before you. It was also referenced this evening about the zoning of our particular property and as Reverend Wood said earlier we learned in this process that we're R -1, R -3 but yet we're being held to the signage requirements set forth for Commercial property, C -1 zone property. And if we're going to be held to that standard I would like the Commission to take note of, in the Municipal Code, there is a Section, this is Section 9262.4.6 that does allow an exception for another sign. Obviously the general rule is that there will be one free - standing sign on property. However, there is an exception recognized within the Code that allows for a second sign if it meets certain conditions and you'll hear from one of the other speakers that will come forward this evening, there is a willingness on the part of the Church to have some discussion with the City over the issue of clutter so that we might perhaps fall within the standards of the boundaries of the exception. What it boils down to in our mind, is a matter of fairness. Not having heard along the way, and by the way these are not intended to be disparaging remarks about the Staff at all because, as Reverend Wood indicated, we worked very closely with them, we appreciate the work that they put into something like this. The report obviously demonstrates that there is a lot of effort that goes into these types of considerations. But it is really from our perspective a matter of fairness. We operated under a certain notion that we were going to be able to do these things, particularly with respect to the number of signs. We didn't learn about this until the last minute and when again we believe that there's some ability to deal with this on the level of fairness. And the last point, if I have just a minute left and that is with respect to the signage that appears around the Church across the street at the Holly Avenue School and further on down Duarte at the High School, they have signs. They have two signs at the High School and certainly at Holly they have one sign that's within a 100 distance, 100 feet of residences in the area. Now I recognize that this is outside of the jurisdiction of the City, that the School District is a subdivision of the State and therefore don't fall within the purview of our Municipal Code in that respect. But, if you look at those signs, from our perspective, they do not create safety hazards, they do not Discussion of Summary Appeal of MC 13 -26 and SADR 13 -52 May 27, 2014 Page 4 take away from the aesthetic value of our community in any way and we would like similar consideration for what we're proposing to be done at the Church of the Good Shepherd. And thank you very much for the time. Vice Chairman Falzone — Anyone else to speak in favor? Don't forget to sign in. Ms. Sarah Murphy- May I be able to hand something out to you? Gentlemen? Would that be okay? Vice Chairman Falzone — Umhum. Ms. Murphy — So gentlemen, my name is Sarah Murphy and I represent Stewart Signs. I flew in from Florida yesterday to be here to support the church. We've been around for over 40 years as Steward Sign Co. and I've been working with Stewart Signs for about three years now. A lot of training that comes from our company is quite extensive for on -going training but extensive for about two to three months. And, one of the documents here that I handed you is something that I wanted to share with you about why we educated and suggested the signage that we did for the Good Shepherd. Steward Signs has been in business for over 40 years. We're a national sign manufacturer. We work worldwide as well. We work hand -in -hand with the military, with schools, municipal, civic, business and church. And one of the first things that happens in our industry is that whatever the organization is, they'll call and reach out to us and say "look, we're interested in getting a sign ". One of the first things we do as a company is we suggest to them certain things about their property, about their setbacks, about their speed limits and this is basically what this document shows. It's a study that talks about the safety of readability of a sign. During that process, in good faith, as well as a company, because we're a national sign manufacturer, we obviously don't install signs in every single location. So one way that we ask them to do is to contact their local zoning to make sure that what they're hoping to accomplish is allowed because we obviously respect every city to what they ask of them. One of the areas that I work in is the LA County as well as the Chicago and other areas but I work in pretty big cities. Some of my experience has been in the Chicago area and with all due respect just speaking of experience, they had a set guideline that is for churches separate from other organizations because the way that churches work, just like a school has their own set of rules, is different. The way the community, the events, the things that are going on are more explicit than just a regular business trying to advertise. We work as a group together. And so one of the things that has happened in Chicago is that they set aside certain rules and square footage, height restrictions, things of that sort, and what they had found after a couple of years now, is that they placed a moratorium for a year on LEDs because what had happened is that the amount of LEDs that continue to grow in the suburb areas as well as the cities had become a distraction is what they were coming by but what they also found is that after a year of delegating that some of the rules that they set aside as to the height restrictions, the setbacks had to be Discussion of Summary Appeal of MC 13 -26 and SADR 13 -52 May 27, 2014 Page 5 relooked at because every lot was by a case by case situation as well as like if there is a fence obviously their six foot height restriction isn't going to be able to communicate their information out to the public because they're stuck with a fence that a sign cannot reach the community. So what they have found is just like what you have here at this moment is a Modification hearing that allows discussion of the lot in general as how the signage is going to reach and the message not be silent. And so it goes before the Aldermen to be discussed, to be reviewed and they as well make a decision as to what can be done. And so what I'm finding is as well as the LA area, we're finding, the funny thing is, the signage that is currently in your area is done by Steward Signs and again the School Districts fall under a different jurisdiction and so LA County and school area depends on Stewart Signs as being their complete sign company and all the specs that we write are very specific. So the unfortunate event for the school system in different areas is that they follow a spec and a spec only. They don't follow based upon a case by case scenario that we like to use to help the community with the aesthetic look, with the communication. They're under their own rules. And for that I apologize as a company because we don't personally go in there to say we're just going to do whatever we want. They're just a different system and so I hope that you take into consideration that after many years of study the reason that we chose these signs is just like what the church has said that they were really adamant about making sure that the sign beautify the area. They were really adamant about the fact that they've got a lot of information to share with the community. I as well educated with them the amount of traffic, we do traffic study counts here which I have another document if you find the interest in reviewing it that talks about the amount of cars that are passing on Duarte as well as Holly Avenue on a daily basis, on a weekly basis, and so you know, I had suggested as much as the church did as well that because of the separation and the lot size and based upon the experience that I've had in the industry now that two signs is still recommended because you have a nursery, you have a school, so you have information that you need to share about what's going on in that nursery and school and then you have information that you need to share about what's going on in the church. And again, when it comes to the gaudiness or the distraction of the drivers I can reassure you Commissioners, (unintelligible) and so, with that, that's what I have to share. Vice Chairman Falzone — Right on time. Ms. Murphy — I thank you for your time. Commissioner Chiao — I have a few questions for you if you don't mind. Ms. Murphy —Sure Discussion of Summary Appeal of MC 13 -26 and SADR 13 -52 May 27, 2014 Page 6 Commissioner Chiao - I heard some conflicting testimony so I'd like to maybe get you to help me clarify this. Earlier you mentioned that you suggested to the church to contact local zoning to determine whether the proposed signage is allowable in the city. Ms. Murphy — That's right. Commissioner Chiao — And they later you mentioned that you recommended that there should be two signs at this specific location because it's just — it doesn't create any type of danger to drivers driving by and that aesthetically it looks fine and that with regard to the message being delivered to either street whether it be Holly or Duarte that two signs would be more appropriate. Ms. Murphy —That's correct. Commissioner Chiao — Okay so did you or anybody from your company also contact the city's zoning to determine whether two signs would be allowable in our city pursuant to our Municipal Code or was it just the church? Ms. Murphy — Once again, it's referred that if the church had looked into the situation as they said they presented the information to the City Council or to the Planning Department Zoning Office plus the signage that is currently on the property, there is no indication as if the direction that we're moving forward in is a no -go. So I personally, myself did not contact them on my own to say "Is this allowed ?" It's the relationship with the community with the church, with the City Planning Office that we highly recommend. Commissioner Chiao — Okay. I was just curious because we heard Mr. Romo earlier mention detrimental reliance. I'm just trying to figure out at what point the City, I'm sorry, the Church got the notion that this was allowed but then was not. Because we're talking about fairness here based on Steward Signs experience in different cities I was just trying to figure out if there was a recommendation given to the church with regard to one sign, two signs or more signs. Could you reconcile that for me please? Ms. Murphy — Sure. I think the conversations have always been in the light of what are you trying to accomplish. That's our goal is to try to help the organization figure out what is it that you are trying to accomplish. It is not uncommon for a property to not be allowed to have two signs. It's my own community in Sarasota, Florida, we are allowed to have two signs depending on the lot size, depending on you know the separation as what they suggested sometimes. So again, we educate, we share by experience in how things are done but we share with the church or organization, okay this is what you are trying to accomplish. You're going to want to take that information and send it in to the Planning Office and find out if that's going to be okay. And, with all due respect, I think if this is answering your question, I think this is the process we were following — is Discussion of Summary Appeal of MC 13 -26 and SADR 13 -52 May 27, 2014 Page 7 that okay this is what we're wanting to accomplish, this is what we're wanting to do and that's what they did so at no time was there any indication as if the desired two signs to send the message was not allowed. Commissioner Chiao —Okay. I understand. Ms. Murphy — Am I answering your question? Commissioner Chiao — I think so. I think so. I'm just trying to figure out what's most fair because there were, there was testimony that the church has spent a lot of money relying on the idea that they were allowed to have two signs. I'm just trying to figure out where that came from. Ms. Murphy —Yeah Commissioner Chiao — You know, where this idea came from. And weather Stewart Signs during the design of these plans that we have before us recommended that the church go to the City and speak with them about whether or not two signs would be allowable or whether or not they could just have the two signs that they are seeking. That's just what I'm trying to wrap my mind around. Ms. Murphy — Sure — You know, I really don't have an answer for you specifically on that. I can only share based upon how we process based upon what are you trying to accomplish, how can we get your message, here's our recommendation, you know here's the steps that need to take place to make that happen. And again I think that they were in good faith believing that you know that they were doing the right thing by showing up, presenting drawings. You know, this is what we want to do and hoping to make that a desired product and yes, I can hear that there has been money spent on the project to make sure that it comes out to something that's going to aesthetically beautified to the community. This is very true. Commissioner Chiao — I know the staff report had indicated that if the sign, if two signs Were allowed that the total sign area would be 17% greater than what is allowed for commercial signage, that signs would be significantly larger than existing signs, and that the signs would directly face residential properties. These are the reasons why Staff is concerned at this point. Can you help us with your experience, maybe explain to us how any of that relates to the signs that the Good Shepherd is seeking to place on its property. Ms. Murphy — Yeah absolutely. I would probably also, if it's okay I mean, I could see the sign at the High School, has that caused any issues in the community? Has anybody complained about that sign? Because that sign is extremely tall, it's going to have a larger LED display and it faces perpendicular to the same residential properties Discussion of Summary Appeal of MC 13 -26 and SADR 13 -52 May 27, 2014 Page 8 in front of this church, basically. So by experience is that a cause of an issue based upon their concerns with the community. In retrospect, we, our sign isn't that tall and the reason why we made it a little bit higher than what was suggested which I would probably ask of you as a Council to reconsider that is when you are sitting in a vehicle you are at an eye distance to a sign. If you make that sign any smaller you're taking your visual off the driving sea to look down. There's a reason why we make them at such a leg height so you get a good visual going forward. Now I think it exceeds a little bit of what the recommendation was only because you have the architectural top to it. If were to remove that we're probably a bit closer. However, if you just look at that sign in a box, I don't think that's very attractive. Now the sign that we had shown earlier on the screen about the synagogue, to me that doesn't look very attractive for your community. And so, height -wise it's perfect right on sitting in a vehicle looking straight on. You're not going to be distracted. Perpendicular, obviously, you know, light -wise, I still suggest sometimes the brightness. One of the things we've done sometimes as a company is innovated a brightness censor on it because what we find is if other sign companies will place in the software a brightness level that you have to adjust manually. Well we have found that in the brightest of the day you are competing with the sun and so it's going need to illuminate at a higher percentage. Then you get to night and it needs to decrease because it will blind you. So there are some things that we have innovated in the software to be easy to the eyes, to the driver, to accommodate the requests of the Council, of the City. By example again, Chicago has done studies has placed a moratorium for a year to revamp the concerns and what had happened was that, just like this has suggested, there are times or certain time points that we shut it down or we reduce the Iumes on it. But display size, it really has a lot to do with speed of traffic as the documents states. And so ................... Commissioner Chiao — Okay, final question for you. CalWest Lighting Services, who are they? Ms. Murphy — They are the installer that is the licensed LA installer who will be installing these signs. Commissioner Chiao — Okay, they were the ones that drew the plans pursuant to specifications provided by the church and Stewart Sign Company and then they will also be the installers of the sign. Ms. Murphy —That's correct. Commissioner Chiao — I see, so they're your local contractors I guess. Ms. Murphy —That's correct. Commissioner Chiao — They're separate and distinct from your company. Discussion of Summary Appeal of MC 13 -26 and SADR 13 -52 May 27, 2014 Page 9 Ms. Murphy —That's correct. Commissioner Chiao — Okay. Thank you. Vice Chairman Falzone — Thank you. Anyone else like to speak in favor? Seeing none, is there anyone — oh there I'm sorry. Mr. Wayne Whitehill — Good evening Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Wayne Whitehill. I've been an Arcadia resident for the past 50 years. I've also been involved with the hospital with the Board of Directors for quite some time. I am a member of the Church of the Good Shepherd and have been for the past 46 years and currently the Chairman of the Board of Trustees. I would like to make a few corrections to the materials that you may have seen that might have something to do with your deliberations. I say might have seen because it wasn't until 4:00 today that we received our staff report. The Church of the Good Shepherd owns two houses on Holly Avenue. They're not shown in any of the City plot plans. They're used for Associate Minister and other Church employees. I think that this may answer one of the questions that was asked previously, we were never told that only one LED sign was being considered until a few days before the Modification Committee. So that was kind of the first time that we heard of that. All prior communication, most of it, was in writing showed two signs. What I'd like to do if it's alright, I'd like to pass out some photos of the church with the new LED signs inserted by Photoshop, as such they might not be exactly dimensional as they should be. This will give you a better perspective of the Church campus and what is definitely being removed, what we will propose adding and what we would remove if necessary. So, Photos distributed to Commissioners. There has been some past communication even tonight about the clutter that two new LED signs along with existing signs would create so you can judge for yourself on the subjective clutter issue as you look through some these pictures. Picture No. 1 shows proposed LED sign on the Holly Ave. side looking north. That is — and putting that in will remove one of the monument signs. The City had down that we had, with the two new signs, that we would have six. Two are being removed as soon as the signs go up and I'll get to the point where another will be removed as well. That will leave only three. We also, on that first picture, we can move that a little bit further south which provides more room or more distance from the other monument signs. Picture No. 2 is also the proposed LED sign on Holly Avenue looking north. As I just said that LED sign can be moved south. It also removes one of the monument signs as referred to in the City papers. Now if you look at it carefully, tell me if you can see the historical monument on the corner of Duarte and Holly. Also, do you see any clutter? Moving on to Picture 3, that's an LED sign on Duarte Road looking east. That sign can be removed another 20 or 30 feet west if necessary and another monument sign will be Discussion of Summary Appeal of MC 13 -26 and SADR 13 -52 May 27, 2014 Page 10 removed with this sign. Once again, do you see any clutter? Looking at Picture No.4, standing on the corner looking south on Holly Ave. and west on Duarte, the current monument sign is 50 years old and is not lit. Again that picture shows both of the new LED signs, one off to the right and one off to the left and they can be moved further away. Picture No. 5 looking west on Duarte, the current little sign, I'm sorry that's looking east, the current little sign is for traffic safety so we haven't talked about that at all. The middle right shows an existing wall monument sign which can be moved. The brick enclosed spot lights will also go. Now look at Picture No. 6, that's the same as No. 5 but with the writing removed from the existing wall monument sign; no distance should the proposed LED sign on Duarte Road. And Picture No. 7 is the same s Picture 5 and 6 but with the removal of the brick stucco wall. We can do either 6 or 7 and we will do one or the other so that's another monument sign to be removed, leaving three, the two that we propose, two LED signs and the one historical monument sign which is unlit. Those are the three. That's all I have. Do you have any questions of me? Commissioner Chiao — Sir, just really quickly, I just wanted to know if anybody from the City led you to believe that the Church would be allowed to have two illuminated LED monument signs throughout the Modification process. Mr. Whitehill — As I mentioned earlier, we did receive from the Staff, but it was only a few days before the Modification Committee, that they were recommending one sign. But if you look at some of the information that you have in your Staff Report you'll see where we were talking about two monument signs, one on Duarte and one on Holly. Commissioner Chiao — So the first time that they told you that they were recommending one sign was a few days before the Modification meeting. Did anyone from the City suggest or promise that there would be two signs that would be able to be installed at the Church? Mr. Whitehill — They did not but that goes back to another point, it's not so much what was said as what was not said. Vice Chairman Falzone — Anyone else speak in favor? Mr. David Raymond — My name is David Raymond. I conceived of this idea as a member of the Church. I've been a member of the church for 50 years. I proposed the location of the signs as a safety measure for distance from the intersection, so that drivers driving by, they can read the sign, they can maintain their vision on the intersection as they are approaching the most dangerous point. So, I set them at the minimum distance that I could achieve and still have good method of connection to a local computer system. Because of the distance from the corner, the signs not being visible to each other, I felt we needed to have two signs for traffic going both north -south and east -west. So, as they are not visible from each other they don't contribute to Discussion of Summary Appeal of MC 13 -26 and SADR 13 -52 May 27, 2014 Page 11 clutter in any one location. Because they are monument signs as defined by the City they must be perpendicular to the curb, I don't feel that they impact neighbors directly across the street. They won't be able to read the sign directly and the farther you get you may see some light but you see less and less light as you get farther away from the signs. When I read the regulations from the City to start the design process on the signs I was working with the company that made the Masonic Temple signs. The regulations as I read them said that the signs could be even bigger and that our total area would not in any way approach the City regulation for total sign based on our linear curb space. So I felt that we were well within the City regulations even with two signs. The sign I was proposing was even larger than this because, again, it met the City regulations as I read them. Sorry if I made a mistake but it seemed very clear to me that we had plenty of room within the regulations for the area of the sign and the total of two signs that I was suggesting. Vice Chairman Falzone — Anyone else who would like to speak in favor? Come on up. Ms. Murphy — One thing I forgot to mention which was so important when I came anyway and in just a very casual way, you know without ever even seeing their property up close I flew in and I fly out again tomorrow back to Florida, but when I drove to locate the church thank goodness for GPS, and I'm being very open and honest here, because when I drove up Duarte to locate this church, I wouldn't have seen it because the way the architectural building is and the oak trees and just the look of the church and the street and the cars that park, I didn't even know it was the church, you know. And then I took a u -ee and I went around and really try to get a visual, the architectural letters that are on the wall and I mentioned to the gentlemen after I finally arrived, I said, "That's such a hazard, I mean if I had to turn my head to the right to look to your wall, I would have caused a problem here." I would have, you know, I was trying to figure out should I hit the red light, should I hit the green light and then going again but then going again what I did notice was the Holly School sign and I said "There's our sign ". And so I take a right and I'm like okay so I'm on Holly and again, you know I turn around and if I were to go to the left, I recognize it's a school before I recognize it's a church. And so, you know, I said to the gentlemen these signs are really going to make a good impact to let people know that you're here because you've got nothing. You know your voice is silent. I wouldn't have known who you are. And again I think that the streets that are so far apart, and by experience in my own town, the size of the lot sometimes, when we go off our main intersections in our town we've got two signs on different locations because we're coming at two different directions and you'll just pass one up because obviously when you're driving on Duarte you're not going to look to the right to see Holly or if I'm on Holly I'm not going to look that way to Duarte to locate the church. I'm looking straight on. And so, I just kind of wanted to share that as just kind of a guest in this area trying to find something. I wouldn't have known it's the church. Thank you. Discussion of Summary Appeal of MC 13 -26 and SADR 13 -52 May 27, 2014 Page 12 Mr. Channing Lushbough - Good evening. Thank you for your patience. I've spent many years working either on behalf of or against the well -known Food and Drug Administration and the US Department of Agriculture. I have to say that in comparison to the kinds of hundreds of thousands of regulations we confronted there, the Village, I'm sorry, I live in the Village of San Gabriel, I mean the City of Arcadia does not have that kind of well - spelled out regulations. I urge you to do what I did in my very first job which was with the Carnation Company in the pilot research plant where we tried things out. We built something and if it didn't work, fine, it didn't work. I'd like you to consider trying two signs out and if it doesn't work, you'll know that you don't want to do it again. Thank you. Vice Chairman Falzone — Anyone else want to speak in favor? Seeing none, is there anyone who wants to speak in opposition? (None) Is there a motion to close the public hearing? (Unintelligible) — So moved. Vice Chairman Falzone — Is there a second? (Unintelligible) — Second Vice Chairman Falzone — Motion moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing. Without objection, the motion is approved. Is there any further discussion. Commissioner Baerg — Yes Mr. Chairman, I have a question perhaps Ms. Chamberlin can answer. In the Staff Report I see what I think are conflicting recommendations. On the one hand it sometimes will say that the message board can't change more frequently than once every hour but then I also see where it can't change more frequently than once a minute and I just to make sure that I understand it correctly. Assistant Planner Jordan Chamberlin — Staff originally recommended to the Modification Committee that the signage not change more than once an hour and once Modification Committee heard our recommendation, they, in turn recommended no more than once a minute so they created their own condition of approval for once a minute compared to Staff's recommendation of once every hour. Commissioner Baerg — I just had a couple more questions. Is there any requirement that the raised lettering on the brick or stuccoed walls or that the existing brick monuments be removed in connection with installation of these signs? Ms. Chamberlin — So based on what the Modification Committee approved for the sign, if the sign's going to be located on Duarte Road it would need to be 200 feet away from the existing corner sign and that three sided monument sign that they were talking Discussion of Summary Appeal of MC 13 -26 and SADR 13 -52 May 27, 2014 Page 13 about earlier. In order to do that it would need to be located - I don't know if you can pull up the .......... — so they'd require that the new sign would be located 200 feet away from Sign E which would be pretty much in the location of Sign C and thus would require those letters on that wall sign to be removed. Commissioner Baerg — I see. And I just wanted to make sure the total sign area, we're certain that it does exceed the maximum allowable commercial sign area? Ms. Chamberlin — Correct. So with the four signs that would remain, it would be, I think it's, it exceeds the 350 square feet by 61 square feet. Commissioner Baerg — Thank you. Vice Chairman Falzone — If they remove the signs that they say they're going to remove, would they be within the allowable square footage for signage? Planning Services Manager Lisa Flores — Yes Vice Chairman Falzone — They would be. Ms. Chamberlin — No. Ms. Flores — The signage (unintelligible). If you come to the exhibit Mr. Whitehall passed out, I believe it's picture No. 7, in answer to your question, if they were to remove that sign completely, yes it would comply as far as the total sign area and obviously they would move it farther like he indicated so that the sign would be 200 feet apart from the center sign, that three -sided one, and the new sign which is this one here. So this one will be removed as shown in Picture 7. They would push this one farther west so that the distance between A and E would be 200 feet apart. And if the Commission wished to approve it closer than 200 feet apart, you have that ability to do so. Right now it's only a 100 feet apart so it would have to be shifted. Vice Chairman Falzone — In any event, both signs could be 200 feet from the corner? Ms. Flores — Umm. I'm sorry. Vice Chairman Falzone - Is that what you're saying they have to do? Be 200 feet from the monument, from the historic monument that's on the corner now? Ms. Flores — No, from A to E today is about 100 feet apart and then if they were — the new sign along Holly to E, that's about 123 feet apart and code requires it 200 feet apart, so they're short 70 and 100 on this side, Duarte. Discussion of Summary Appeal of MC 13 -26 and SADR 13 -52 May 27, 2014 Page 14 Vice Chairman Falzone — I guess my question is, could both signs be placed 200 feet away from the corner sign, on the corner? Ms. Flores — No, not along Holly. Vice Chairman Falzone — Not along Holly? Ms. Flores — No Vice Chairman Falzone — I thought they........... Ms. Flores — Because there's a parking lot and there's a driveway and that would not be in front of the nursery school so it would totally ............... And actually I have an aerial photo I can show you. So right here is Holly and they want the sign around where the red dot is and all this here is like the driveway and there's just a bunch of foliage. And think they wanted anywhere from this point north, close to the intersection for drive past going north and south bound. So it wouldn't be feasible down here to answer your question. Ideally it would be best where they proposed it if anything. And then just approve a Modification to allow a lesser distance than 200 feet apart. That would be the best alternative if the Commission wished to approve the sign on Holly. Vice Chairman Falzone — Anything further? Is there a motion? Commissioner Baerg — I don't think my proposed motion would be any more satisfaction to the appellant than what they proposed but I think they should have the one sign anywhere along Duarte Road they wish and I don't think they should have to remove any of the existing signage or monuments. I think the real issue is what do you see at night. Vice Chairman Falzone — Am I allowed to make a motion? I would make a motion that we approve their appeal. I've drive up and down the street and the sign on the school is horrendous. It's not a very good looking sign at all and the signs that they have here, if you take it in perspective, they're no bigger than two sheets of plywood put together. We don't have a second? Commissioner Baerg — No, I'm just going to ........... I'll make a ........ I'll try a motion that says to approve a project that differs from the Modification's action and the applicant's request and propose that they permitted one sign on Duarte Road but they be permitted to maintain their existing signage and monuments. Vice Chairman Falzone — No second on that either? Commissioner Chiao — I'll second that. Discussion of Summary Appeal of MC 13 -26 and SADR 13 -52 May 27, 2014 Page 15 Vice Chairman Falzone — Motion is made and seconded. Roll call. Senior Administrative Assistant Billie Tone — Commissioner Baerg? Commissioner Baerg — I guess I have to say yes to my own motion. Yes. Commissioner Chiao — Yes. Vice Chairman Falzone — No. Vice Chairman Falzone — Motion is denied. Commissioner Baerg — The motion passes. Vice Chairman Falzone — Oh, the motion passes. Okay, the motion is approved. And there's a five day appeal period following the Commission's decision. Appeals are to be filed by 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, June 4, 2014. Discussion of Summary Appeal of MC 13 -26 and SADR 13 -52 May 27, 2014 Page 16 . /�,UtFOrrn��yd ]ncmp ray d A.V FVa[ 3. 1P9� S TAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: May 27, 2014 TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Jordan Chamberlin, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE MODIFICATION COMMITTEE'S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF MODIFICATION NO. MC 13 -26 AND SIGN DESIGN REVIEW NO. SADR 13 -52 FOR ONE NEW T -1" HIGH BY 8' -6" WIDE, DOUBLE -SIDED MONUMENT SIGN WITH LIGHT - EMITTING DIODE (LED) MESSAGE BOARDS INSTEAD OF TWO NEW SIGNS AT 400 W. DUARTE ROAD Recommended Action: Deny appeal and uphold the Modification Committee's decision. SUMMARY This appeal of the Modification Committee's conditions of approval for Modification No. MC 13 -26 and Sign Design Review No. SADR 13 -52 was submitted by Mr. Wayne Whitehill, the representative for the Church of the Good Shepherd United Methodist. The subject applications were submitted by the sign designer, CalWest Lighting Services, to construct two new 7' -1" high by 8' -6" wide, double -sided monument signs with light- emitting diode (LED) message boards — see the attached aerial photo, proposed plans, and photos of the subject property and neighboring properties. It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Modification Committee's decision. GENERAL INFORMATION APPELLANT: Mr. Wayne Whitehill, Representative for the Church of the Good Shepherd LOCATION: 400 W. Duarte Road REQUEST: An appeal of the Modification Committee's conditional approval of the following Modifications and Sign Design Review for two new 7' -1" high by 8' -6" wide, double -sided monument signs with electronic message boards: a. A total of four monument signs (two existing and two new signs) with a combined total sign area of 411 square feet, and b. Allow the two new monument signs to be illuminated. SITE AREA: 3.64 acres FRONTAGES: Approximately 423 feet along W. Duarte Road Approximately 332 feet along Holly Avenue EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The subject property is a 3.64 acre corner lot, zoned R -3 (High - Density Multiple Family Residential). It is developed with a church built in 1956. SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING: North: Two - story, multiple - family residential development, zoned R -3 South: One and two -story, single- family residential developments, zoned R -1 East: Holly Avenue Elementary School, zoned S -2 West: Two - story, multiple- family residential development, zoned R -3 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Residential — This designation accommodates higher - density attached housing types for both renter and owner households within a neighborhood context. Such housing types generally are located near transit stops, along arterials and transit corridors, and within easy walking distance of shops and services. Appropriate transition to adjacent lower- density neighborhoods is required through use of yards, other open areas, and building heights. This designation accommodates 12 to 30 dwelling units per acre. Other uses that may be appropriate, consistent with zoning regulations, include public and private schools, public parks, and other open space uses. BACKGROUND On October 24, 2013, the applicant filed Sign Design Review No. SADR 13 -52 and Modification No. MC 13 -26 for two new, T -1" high by 8' -6" wide, double -sided monument signs with light - emitting diode (LED) displays encased in each side of the signs. The Modification requests are to allow two illuminated signs with LED color displays on a property that is zoned High- Density Multiple - f=amily Residential (R -3). The new signs are to be located closer than 200 feet apart from the existing monument signs, and closer than 100 feet from a residentially -zoned property. The subject property is a 3.64 acre corner lot, zoned R -3 (High- Density Multiple - Family Residential). It is developed with a church built in 1956 — see the attached aerial photo, and photos of the subject property and neighboring properties. It is common throughout the City for churches to be located on a residentially -zoned property with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The properties to the north and west are also zoned R -3. The property to the south is zoned R -1 (Single - Family Residential). The property to the east is zoned S -2 (Public Purpose) and is currently occupied by Holly Avenue Elementary School. Appeal of MC 13 -26 & SADR 13 -52 400 W. Duarte Road May 27, 2014 — Page 2 of 7 Currently, the site has two monument signs for the Good Shepherd Church and two ground mounted signs, each supported by two posts on solid bases, to identify the Church's nursery school (refer to the attached site plan, sign chart and photos of existing signs). The R -3 regulations, which do not allow illuminated identification signs, do not address signs for nonresidential properties. In absence of requirements for signs on a nonresidential property in an R -3 zone, the City's commercial sign regulations were used as a guideline for review. Consideration of an illuminated sign with an electronic LED display can only be considered through a Modification. This was the process for approval of the signs for the Arcadia Masonic Center and the Arcadia Chamber of Commerce. On April 8, 2014, the Modification Committee conditionally approved the project with a 3 -0 vote to allow one double -sided 7' -1" high by 8' -6" wide monument sign with LED displays, subject to the following conditions. Copies of the Modification Committee staff report and decision letter to the applicant are attached. Only one double -sided monument sign with a LED message board on each side of the sign shall be permitted. The maximum size of the sign shall not exceed 7' -1" in height by 8' -6" in width. The applicant shall select its location (Duarte Rd. or Holly Ave.) and if the sign is placed on Duarte Road, it shall be located at least 200 feet apart from the other signs. The location of the sign shall be approved by the Planning Services Manager, or designee, prior to issuance of a building permit from Building Services. 2. The digital display on the LED message board cannot change more frequently that once a minute and may only operate between the hours of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM, daily. 3. No videos, flashing or blinking, or moving animated images shall be permitted within a given message per AMC Sec. 9262.4.3(C). Simple transitions between messages are acceptable. An example of an acceptable transition would include, but not be limited to, fading out/in or sliding in from a single direction. An example of prohibited animations would include, but not be limited to, spinning, bouncing, dissolving, or zooming animations. On April 14, 2014, Mr. Wayne Whitehill, the representative for the Church of the Good Shepherd United Methodist filed a timely appeal of the Modification Committee's action. Additional letters were received from the Church on April 23, 2014, requesting a postponement of the Planning Commission hearing, and on May 13, 2014, clarifying which conditions of approval the Church wanted to appeal. The appeal, postponement, and appeal clarification letters are attached. DISCUSSION The appellant is appealing the Modification Committee decision to request approval for two doubled -sided monument signs, a total of four freestanding signs on the site, to allow the new signs to be closer than 200 feet from the existing signs, exceed the maximum allowable sign area of 350 square feet, and to be allowed to have messages on the LED displays from 6:00 AM to 11:59 PM, every day. Appeal of MC 13 -26 & SADR 13 -52 400 W. Duarte Road May 27, 2014 — Page 3 of 7 Currently, the site has two monument signs for the Good Shepherd Church and two freestanding signs, each supported by two posts on solid bases, to identify the Church's nursery school (refer to the attached site plan, sign chart and photos of existing signs). The Church proposes to remove the two nursery school signs and replace them with the new monument signs. By allowing two new signs in addition to the existing two monument signs, the total sign area will exceed the maximum allowable commercial sign area of 350 square feet by 61 square feet (17 %). The total sign area of all four monument signs would be 411 square feet. On Duarte Road the applicant is requesting three monument signs within a distance of approximately 260 feet, and on Holly Avenue the two monument signs would be 123 feet apart. Staffs recommendation to the Modification Committee was as follows: Only one double -sided monument sign with a LED message board on each side of the sign shall be permitted. The overall size of the sign shall not exceed 6' -6" in height by T -6" in width. The LED message board shall not exceed 1' -6" in height by 6' -6" in width. The applicant shall select its location (Duarte Rd. or Holly Avenue), and if the sign is placed on Duarte Road it shall be located at least 200 feet away from the other signs. The location of the sign shall be approved by the Planning Services Manager, or designee, prior to issuance of a building permit from Building Services. 2. The digital display on the LED message board cannot change more frequently than once every hour and may only operate between the hours of 7 :00 AM to 10:00 PM, daily. This would allow the message to change regularly without constant movement that could be a distraction for drivers. 3. The digital display on the LED message board shall be limited to text only and no more than two colors. No dimensional graphics, background images, videos, flashing or blinking, or moving animated images shall be permitted within a given message. Simple transitions between messages are acceptable. An example of an acceptable transition would include, but not be limited to: fading out/in or sliding in from a single direction. An example of prohibited animations would include, but not be limited to: spinning, bouncing, dissolving, or zooming animations. Staff determined that a total of four monument signs would create visual clutter and result in a streetscape that would have a commercial appearance, particularly since across the street there is a double -sided pedestal sign with LED displays at the corner of the Holly Avenue Elementary School. Sign Design Review Each new monument sign would be comprised of almond colored stucco for the body. The quoins and architectural feature on top of each sign would be made of high - density foam painted almond and dark brown. The lettering and logo will be dark red and internally - illuminated. The design of each sign, as well as the colors and materials are consistent with Appeal of MC 13 -26 & SADR 13 -52 400 W. Duarte Road May 27, 2014 -- Page 4 of 7 the existing Church building. With conditions of approval, the signs will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and consistent with the City's Sign Design Guidelines. The Modification Committee determined that two new double -sided signs with LED message boards in addition to the existing signs would be excessive, and because the site has two frontages, Holly Avenue and Duarte Road, the proposed signs should meet the minimum distance required between the signs, which would reduce the visual impacts to the streetscape and lessen distractions to motorists. As a result, the Committee approved one double -sided monument sign at the requested size of 7' -1" high by 8' -6" wide with 2' -6" high by 7' -8" wide LED displays. The new sign may be located within 100 feet of a residentially -zoned property, but it must be at least 200 feet away from other monument signs if it is to be located along W. Duarte Road. The messages in the LED displays may change once every minute (no limit on the color or background images) and operate from 7 AM to 10 PM, every day. One of the existing signs must be removed to meet the minimum distance of 200 feet between signs if the new sign is to be located along Duarte Road. Given that the proposed signs would have a total sign area that is 17% greater than what is allowed for commercial signage, be significantly larger than the existing signs, and that the signs would directly face residential properties, staff recommends approval of the sign that the Modification Committee conditionally approved, and denial of the appeal request. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The proposed project qualifies as a Class 11 Exemption for Accessory Structures from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15311 of the CEQA Guidelines. A Preliminary Exemption Assessment is attached to this staff report. PUBLIC NOTICE/COMMENTS Public hearing notices for this appeal of the Modification Committee's conditions of approval for MC 13 -26 and SADR 13 -52 were mailed on May 15, 2014 to the property owners and tenants of those properties within 100 -feet of the subject site -- see the attached radius map. As of May 22, 2014, there were no responses to the public hearing notices. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appeal, and uphold the Modification Committee's findings and decision, including the following conditions of approval: Only one double -sided monument sign with a LED message board on each side of the sign shall be permitted. The maximum size of the sign shall not exceed 7' -1" in height by 8' -6" in width. The applicant shall select its location (W. Duarte Rd. or Holly Ave.), and if the sign is placed along W. Duarte Road it shall be located at least 200 feet apart from the other signs. The location of the sign shall be approved by the Planning Appeal of MC 13 -26 & SADR 13 -52 400 W. Duarte Road May 27, 2014 -- Page 5 of 7 Services Manager, or designee, prior to issuance of a building permit from Building Services. 2. The digital display on the LED message board cannot change more frequently than once a minute and may only operate between the hours of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM, daily. 3. No videos, flashing or blinking, or moving images shall be permitted within a given message per AMC Sec. 9262.4.3(C). Simple transitions between messages are acceptable. An example of an acceptable transition would include, but not be limited to: fading out/in or sliding in from a single direction. An example of prohibited animations would include, but not be limited to: spinning, bouncing, dissolving, or zooming animations. 4. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officials, officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or conditional approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and/or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or conditional approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, Modification Committee, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and /or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officials, officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 5. Approval of MC 13 -26 and SADR 13 -52 shall not be of effect unless on or before 30 calendar days after approval of this project, the property owner /applicant has executed and filed with the Community Development Administrator or designee an Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. 1, r 1 W, 11V I 1 LI [ e X0191 �' i h' i 1 [+1-4 [*R, V-1161 IIs] ki Approval of Appeal If the Planning Commission intends to approve the appeal, the Commission should move to find that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and articulate the revised findings, and any conditions of approval. Denial of Appeal /Uphold Modification Committee Decision If the Planning Commission intends to uphold the Modification Committee's conditional approval, the Commission should move to deny the appeal, state concurrence with the Committee's findings, and uphold the Committee's decision and conditions of approval. Appeal of MC 1326 & SADR 13 -52 400 W. Duarte Road May 27, 2014 - Page 6 of 7 Alternative Action If the Planning Commission wishes to approve a project that differs from both the Modification Committee's action and the applicant/appellant's request, or deny the proposal entirely, the Commission should articulate revised findings and/or conditions to approve or deny MC 13 -26 and/or SADR 13 -52, and move for consideration of the alternative action. If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the May 27, 2014 public hearing, please contact Assistant Planner, Jordan Chamberlin at (626) 821 -4334, orjchamberlin @ArcadiaCA.gov. Approved: Attachments: Aerial Photo with Zoning Information Site Plan and Sign Chart Photos of Existing Signs Architectural Plans Photos of Subject Property & Neighboring Properties April 8, 2014 Modification Committee Staff Report April 9, 2014 Notice of Modification Committee Decision Letter Letter of Appeal — Dated April 14, 1024 Postponement Request Letter — Dated April 23, 2014 Appeal Clarification Letter — Dated May 13, 2014 Preliminary Exemption Assessment 100 -foot Radius Map Appeal of MC 13 -26 & SADR 13 -52 400 W. Duarte Road May 27, 2014 — Page 7 of 7 �y- .. w r ,t 1 i � i ,r i r i r 7 7' i C to EL co V C m 4) 3 H C EE w d � O ifl ao x i- FQ 0o x ti r x in v m x cY) ca E o r c C5 E i� x Cn V yr co x M C to EL co V C m 4) 3 H C EE w d � O ifl ao x i- FQ 0o x ti r x in v m x cY) ca E o r c C5 E i� x Cn V yr co x M c a� � o C w (D m 0 o c v _0 v z a� o -� o O Ch ❑ Q a a mn a°° w w w w a _2) a `. W Q U❑ W U- a� � LM rn 0 N U) N Proposed location of the monument sign (Sign A) on W. Duarte Road and existing sign (Sign D) to be removed Proposed location of monument sign (Sign B) on Holly Avenue and existing sign (Sign F) to be removed Existing monument sign (Sign C) on W. Duarte Road Existing ground mounted sign (Sign D) on W. Duarte Road Existing three -sided monument sign (Sign E) at the corner of W. Duarte Road and Holly Avenue Existing ground mounted sign (Sign F) on Holly Avenue rJoUl A t� V Q U w _0 w w x w �v ®� CD Re Q c c 0 F ` 4) r- r Nr 00QC)CD EN m LO C) 0 a. ii Q w d i' M d. 4' 0 ~ Q a d N m v ry N � W W � a a � z ? c�f33a w U a r�ao M 1 _N Q L m m U m T� °n m c a t � m Q N D to a 'E � m CL C7 m fe a' z 1 °v U O o U d Q coo mm pmmo a0 -U woo �Umm� O ptry Ut mUm�O m fdm16�� v . 3 �Z± 3 °a. U-3 4) iii '~ a a n ry w U in 0 0 z Q Ri O Q Q P7 r M [V d r n O O c� � G tm1 v 0 6 tY Q i gym. V � p1 ° m r= ui ,C c U O O U Q d c7mw� �minm�? p wmp Miaetm �aa IDmZi 0 3 x 3 aa3 puonsq pang tm � C ...,.._ V � � iU Q� iL 6y5kM! 14 €$ § Wgi?p e $ 9."9410 4 !'PRE 5€ Wd P. C3 Y r� to ��r� ❑ Q Ll F .. 4 . o E7 m L U f- co w .1 t= Q ommp tLp Umm r ?+ ©ILx3 v ;L:jau.3 �. CO G3 O .0 U @ , U�� ■ CL k k,\ /2m -� �t0ci to k }E[ <u�« E \ Iu k\ \§ )/ � 4 k •§ Cr E f-E / lu t • « CYP k2 m\ �f � / \ k C-% CU % r_ SO io ra— P R Wf-- ? ■ IL Lo k � _ � § k 3 � { \ $ § 2 m w 3 k k R Lae - -m �M§§o ;2 2uQJ© mlo '� k §n.ILK % o■ ■3§ �' U -j co � § c $ cu Ln Cm ■c <M C/3 kE2 § QE 52` U XL3 7 � �kk �k 2 § co c EMP 2 ■ � CL § & 0 u I Lae - -m �M§§o ;2 2uQJ© mlo '� k §n.ILK % o■ ■3§ �' U -j co � cu to < ° 0- c� �.0 z us D fo p ua I, `< a 9 s z 81 m LLI t ° X m@@ d ny l X04 g g 0sm » "-Fp6 a" Ul g cn ' m ca C3 0 a w LL p N e� zo FLm e� Imo Q Lu (f] -�Wai viei itl jai afc �, (� 3 ❑ Q Q E Q M Ulc3 U3 w m ❑ ji U) T_. to uj o Q m � � w n c V v a E OT C1] 3t m U W ❑']€ N 7 m LU y u a W '1E i! - 'l f" -... � > Um � y u mmu) v ®mg i N N 91 m y wwa m Ea N'o -- IL U. Q zi _e it O .gam= w a ° 2 101 3 �u8 to [u r; d ,y S $rag h V J u l . .J LLJ LUQ Q II F... m F Q a uj I �i T LU II M u oN I ZII m R g O QN a m di 1�- N p LL Fu Q c ar�- Fina wp uj Fro � 0 = 0 a .n n F � o Z m cX2 = a 153 4 0 p Q C3 LU m Z Z CC Z 2 Imo- O Q Q uj © iU 4 h uj 4 0 g v .fl Ul r a v 55� m 4) iu way _ eo o F- r0'- m m Ld m �' m � e ` o � � v Q 0 Icamp Q Co to lo Y mm =�mmZ p aqp atz��— mc�°;m �3mm� wmmm CD Q 3 Z= 3 Multi - family properties located to the north Holly Avenue Elementary School located to the east Single family residence located to the south Multi - family residences located to the west Development Services Department DATE: April 8, 2014 TO: Honorable Chairman and Modification Committee FROM: Lisa L. Flores, Planning Services Manager By: Jordan Chamberlin, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: MODIFICATION NO. MC 13 -26 AND SIGN DESIGN REVIEW NO. SADR 13 -52 TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS AND DESIGN FOR TWO NEW 7'-1" HIGH BY 8' -6" WIDE, DOUBLE -SIDED MONUMENT SIGNS WITH A LED MESSAGE BOARD AT 400 W. DUARTE ROAD (DBA CHURCH OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD UNITED METHODIST): 1. A TOTAL OF FOUR MONUMENT SIGNS (TWO EXISTING AND TWO NEW SIGNS) IN LIEU OF THE MAXIMUM TWO MONUMENT SIGNS PERMITTED ON A LOT (AMC SEC. 9262.4.6(c)); 2. ALLOW THE TOTAL SIGN AREA OF ALL FOUR MONUMENT SIGNS TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIGN AREA OF 350 SQUARE FEET (AMC SEC. 9262.4.6(4)); 3. ALLOW THE NEW MONUMENT SIGN ON DUARTE ROAD TO BE LOCATED WITHIN 100 FEET OF A RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY (AMC SEC. 9262.4.6(b)); 4. ALLOW THE NEW MONUMENT SIGNS TO BE ILLUMINATED WITH A LED MESSAGE BOARD IN AN R -3, HIGH - DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE (AMC SEC. 9255.1.4); AND; 5. ALLOW THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE SIGNS TO BE LOCATED LESS THAN 200 FEET APART (AMC SEC. 9262.4.6(c)). Environmental Status: Categorically Exempt per CEQA Section 15311 Recommendation: Conditional Approval BACKGROUND The subject property is a 3.64 acre corner lot, zoned R -3 (High - Density Multiple Family Residential). It is developed with a multi -story church, built in 1956, which is currently occupied by the Church of the Good Shepherd United Methodist — see the attached aerial photo, and photos of the subject property and neighboring properties. It is common throughout the City for churches to be located on a residentially zoned property as they were permitted with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The properties to the north and west are also zoned R -3. The property to the south is zoned R -1 (Single Family Residential). The property to the east is zoned S -2 (Public Purpose) and is currently occupied by Holly Avenue Elementary School. Modification Application No. MC 13 -26 & SADR 13 -52 April 8, 2014 Page 2 of 5 S -2 (Public Purpose) and is currently occupied by Holly Avenue Elementary School. Currently, the site has two monument signs for the Good Shepherd Church and two ground mounted signs, each supported by two posts on a solid based, to promote the Church's nursery school (refer to the sign table and site plan). In 1962, the corner sign was approved through a modification to allow it to encroach within the special setbacks. The R -3 regulations allow a non - illuminated identification sign, but electronic display on a sign is not typically allowed in the City. However, consideration of an illuminated sign with an electronic LED display can only be considered pursuant to a sign modification. This was the same process that was followed when the Arcadia Masonic Center and Arcadia Chamber of Commerce received approval for its sign with an LED display. DISCUSSION The proposal is to remove the nursery school signs and replace them with two larger doubled - sided monument signs that are each 7' -1" high by 8' -6" wide with an LED display encased in the sign. The LED display will be 1' -10" high by 7' -4" wide on each side of the monument sign. The new signs will be within close proximity to the existing location, one on Duarte Road and the other on Holly Avenue. The LED board will only display fixed or changing text that is in full color, graphics, and background images, but no videos, motion or animated graphics are proposed. The Church will not promote more than six (6) church activities and /or messages each day and each message will change every five (5) minutes. The LED message board would only operate between the hours of 6:00 AM to midnight, every day. The Church has also offered the City the use of the LED electronic board in emergency situations as a way to communicate information to the residents. The proposed project requires approval of the following modifications: A total of four monument signs (two existing and two new signs) in lieu of the maximum two monument signs permitted on a lot; 2. Allow the total sign area of all four monument signs to exceed the maximum allowable sign area of 350 square feet; 3. Allow the new monument sign on Duarte Road to be located within 100 feet of a residentially zoned property; 4. Allow the new monument signs to be illuminated with a LED message board in an R -3, Multiple Family Residential Zone; and; 5. Allow the distance between the signs to be located less than 200 feet apart. The proposed modifications would allow for a total of four monument signs, two more than what is allowed by code that will exceed the maximum allowable sign area of 350 square feet by 61 square feet. The total sign area of all four signs would be 411 square feet. The proposed signs will also be located closer than 200 feet apart, and within 100 feet of a residentially zoned property. Given that the proposed signs would be 17% greater than what is allowed by code, significantly larger than the existing signs, illuminated and include a LED message board, and adjacent to residential uses, it is recommended that only one double -sided monument sign be permitted and that the overall size be reduced to approximately 6' -6" in height by 7' -6" in width. The reasoning behind a smaller sign for the Church's property is because the church site directly faces multi - family and single family residential properties. Also, the size and number of signs would create visual clutter on -site and to the streetscape by creating a more commercial appearance especially since continuing across the street on Duarte Road there is another Modification Application No. MC 13 -26 & SADR 13 -52 April 8, 2014 Page 3 of 5 signs it would lessen the impact to the neighboring residential properties and preserve the existing characteristic of the neighborhood. Staff also recommends restricting the sign area given to the LED display from 2' -6" in height by 7' -8" in width to V -6" in height by 6' -6" in width, and it is recommended that the messages on the LED message board be limited to the following regulations which is slightly different from what the applicant proposed: The LED message board shall only operate between the hours of 7 AM to 10 PM, every day. The message should not change more frequently than once every hour. This would allow the message to change regularly without constant movement that could be a distraction for drivers. • Display only plain, text based messages (no background pictures) and limit the texts to no more than two colors. For comparison, the LED message board that was approved for the Arcadia Masonic Lodge on Duarte Road is V -6" in height x 7' -6" in width and can remain lit throughout the day, but the message cannot change more than once a day. As recommended, the revised sign would be more in line with the other sign that is located on an institutional property in the City. In regards to the distance between the signs, if the applicant selects the Duarte Road location it is recommended that the sign shall be relocated to comply with code, and meet the minimum distance of 200 feet between signs. The Engineering Division reviewed the proposal in regards to potential impacts to traffic, parking design, and visibility, and determined that either location for the signs would not create an impact. Sign Design Review The signs would be comprised of almond colored stucco for the body, the quoins and architectural feature on top of the signs would be made out of high density foam painted almond and dark brown. The letters and logo will be dark red and internally illuminated. With the recommended conditions of approval, the signs will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and consistent with the City's Architectural Design Guidelines for Commercial and Industrial Signing. ENVIRONMENTAL, ANALYSIS The proposed project qualifies as a Class 11 Exemption for Accessory Structures from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15311 of the CEQA Guidelines. A Preliminary Exemption Assessment is attached to this staff report. PUBLIC COMMENTS Public notice of this item was mailed on March 28, 2014 to the owners of those properties within 100 -feet of the subject site. Staff did not receive any public comments on this project from residents. Modification Application No. MC 13 -26 & SADR 13 -52 April 8, 2014 Page 4 of 5 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Modification Committee find that this project is exempt per CEQA Section 15311, and conditionally approve Modification No. MC 13 -26 and SADR 13 -52, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. Only one double -sided monument sign with a LED message board on each side of the sign shall be permitted. The overall height of the sign shall not exceed 6' -6" in height by 7' -6" in width. The LED message board shall not exceed 1' -6" in height by 6' -6" in width. The applicant shall select its location (Duarte Rd. or Holly Avenue), and if the sign is placed on Duarte Road it shall be located at least 200 feet apart from the other signs. The location of the sign shall be approved by the Planning Services Manager, or designee, prior to issuance of a building permit from Building Services. 2. The digital display on the LED message board cannot change more frequently than once every hour and may only operate between the hours of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM, daily. This would allow the message to change regularly without constant movement that could be a distraction for drivers. 3. The digital display on the LED message board shall be limited to text only and no more than two colors. No dimensional graphics, background images, videos, flashing or blinking, or moving animated images shall be permitted within a given message. Simple transitions between messages are acceptable. An example of an acceptable transition would include, not be limited to: fading out/in or sliding in from a single direction. An example of prohibited animations would include, but not be limited to: spinning, bouncing, dissolving, or zooming animations. 4. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officials, officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or conditional approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and/or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or conditional approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, Modification Committee, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and/or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officials, officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 5. Approval of MC 13 -26 and SADR 13 -52 shall not be of effect unless on or before 30 calendar days after approval of this project, the property owner /applicant has executed and filed with the Community Development Administrator or designee an Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. Modification Application No. MC 13 -26 & SADR 13 -52 April 8, 2014 Page 5 of 5 Approved: Lisa L. Flor Planning Se ices Manager Attachments: Sign Table and Site Plan Aerial Photo with Zoning Information Photos of Subject Property & Neighboring Properties Architectural Plans 100 -foot Radius Map Preliminary Exemption Assessment :6111 01 Development Services Department Jason )AI'uckeberg Assistrrsrr Cif), Afamiaci f Dnielopzucur ,Sm4ccs Director 240 1 C'A 1- 111111ingron 1 ?ri%i Posr Office Box 60021 Arcadia, EA 91060-6021 1626) 574-54 15 (626) -47 -33309 Fay t4'ti'w 6. a rcjdi;t.i a. L,s April 9, 2014 CalWest Lighting Services Attn: Nikki Gomez 11912 Woodruff Avenue Downey, CA 90241 Subject, Sign Architectural Design Review No. SADR 13 -62 and Modification Application No. MC 13 -26 Project Address: 400 West Duarte Road Dear Ms. Gomez: At its April 8, 2014, meeting, the Modification Committee voted 3 -0 to conditionally approve Sign Architectural Design Review Nei. SADR 13 -52 and Modification Application No. MC 13 -26, subject to the following conditions: 1. Only one doable -sided monument sign with a LED message board on each side of the sign shall be permitted. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed 7'-1" in height by 8' -6" in width. The applicant shall select its location (Duarte Rd. or Holly Avenue), and if the sign is placed on Duarte Road it shall be located at least 200 feet apart from the other signs. The location. of the sign shall be approved by the Planning Services Manager, or designee, prior to issuance of a building permit from Building Services, 2. The digital display on the LED message board cannot change more frequently than once a minute and may only operate between the hours of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM, daily. No videos, flashing or blinking, or moving animated images shall be permitted within a given message per AMC Sec.. 9262.4.3(C). Simple transitions between messages are acceptable. An example. of an acceptable transition would include, not be limited to: fading out/in or sliding in from a single direction: An example of prohibited animations would Include, but not be limited to: spinning, bouncing, dissolving, or zooming animations. 4. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officials, officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or conditional approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and/or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or conditional approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, Modification Committee, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and /or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officials, officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 5. Approval of MC 13-26 and SADR 13 -52 shall not be of effect unless on or before 30 calendar days after approval of this project, the property ownerlapplicant has executed and filed with the Community Development Administrator or designee an Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. There is a five (5) working day appeal period for this application. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Community Development Division With a $540.p0 appeal fee by 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 15, 2014. This approval shall expire in one year (April 16, 2015) from the effective date unless a building permit is issued and the construction is diligently pursued, a certification of occupancy has been issued, or the approval is renewed. The final plans must be consistent with the approved design concept plans and any conditions of approval. Any inconsistency from the approved design concept plans may prohibit the issuance of a building permit. A building permit ,must be obtained prior to any construction activity. Please contact. Building Services at (626) 574 -5416 to determine the type of documentation, plans, and fees for the appropriate permit. This approval letter must be presented to Building Services to initiate the permitting process. If you have any questions regarding the above approval, please contact Jordan Chamberlin, Assistant Planner at (626) 821 -4334 or by email at jchamberlln @ci.arcadia.ca.us. Thank you. Sincerely, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Community Development Division i Planning Services .r-- Jordan Chamberlin Assistant Planner c; Wayne Whitehill and Church Trustees, Property Owners RECEIVED APR 14 `2014 NOTICE OF APPEAL 9 P1811ig Service", April 14, 2014 L City of Arcadia To the City of Arcadia, Planning Department, Attention: Lisa L. Flores, Planning Services Manager Re: Modification No. MC14 -26 and Sign Design Review No. SADR 13- 52 To Consider the Modifications and Design for Two New 7'1" High by 8' -6' Wide, Double -sided Monument Signs With a LED Message Board at 400 W. Duarte Road (DBA Church of the Good Shepherd United Methodist) Please take notice, that Applicant, Church of the Good Shepherd, United Methodist, Arcadia, California, hereby appeals from the decision of the Modification Committee rendered on April 8, 2014. Applicant requests a hearing of the appealed issues to the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia as soon as practical. Issues on Appeal: 1) The number of signs to be placed on the applicant's property. Applicant /Appellant is requesting two double faced signs permitted on the subject property. 2) The objection to approval of location of signs prior to issuance of building permit. 400 West Duarte Road o Arcadia, California 91007 u Telephone (626) 447 -2161 .f=ax (626) 447 -5043 www.goodshepherdarcadia.org Page Two, Notice of Appeal, Modification No. MC 14 -26 and SADR 13- 52 3) The hours of operation of the messages. Applicant seeks to display messages from 6:00 A.M to 11:59 P.M. daily. 4) The size of the area of the signs in terms of square footage and inclusive of original dimensions of the LED portion. 5) The color of the signs. 6) The display of the signs. 7) The inadequate and untimely notice to the Church of the Staff Recommendation. Wayne Whitehill Chairman, Board of Trustees Church of the Good Shepherd United Methodist, Arcadia, California z 6nob � REC JVF MAY I. 3 2014. NOTICE OF APPEAL F�znnl � t May 13, 2014 ty of Area �� To the City of Arcadia, Planning Department, Attention: Lisa IM. Flores, Planning Servic s Nlanager Re: Modification No. MC14 -26 and Sign Design Review No. SADR 13 -52 To Consider. the. Modifications and Design for Two New 7'1" High by 8' -6' Wide, Double -sided Monument Signs With a LED Message Board at 400 W. Duarte Road (DBA Church of the Good Shepherd United Methodist) Please take notice, that Applicant, Church of the Good Shepherd, United Methodist, Arcadia, California, hereby appeals from the decision of the Modification Committee rendered on April 8, 2014. Applicant requests a hearing of the appealed issues to the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia as soon as practical. Church of the Good Shepherd has not completed its preparation at this time with respect to the issues, however, as Lo clarification our response is as follows. Issues on Appeal: 1) The number of signs to be placed on the applicant's property. Applicant /Appellant is requesting two double faced signs permitted on the subject property, one on Duarte Road and one on Holly Avenue as per the plans and specifications. 400 West Duarte Road • Arcadia - California 91007 • (626) 447 -2181 • Fax (626) 447 -5043 Page Two, Notice of Appeal, Modification No. MC 14 -26 and SADR 13 -52 2) The objection to approval of location of signs prior to issuance of building permit. If the commission approves two signs and the locations, it serves no purpose to have someone approve location after issuance of the building permit. 3) The hours of operation of the messages. Applicant seeks to display messages from 6:00 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. daily -- over and above the 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. cut -off periods. 4) The size of the area of the signs in terms of square footage and inclusive of original dimensions of the LED portion per the plans and specifications. 5) The color of the signs per the plans and specifications. 6) The display of the signs per the plans and specifications. 7) The inadequate and untimely notice to the Church of the Staff Recommendation. Church of the Good Shepherd was not provided adequate time to prepare. Wayne Whitehill Chairman, Board of Trustees Church of the Good Shepherd United Methodist, Arcadia, California PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT (Certificate of Determination When Attached to Notice of Exemption) 1. Name or description of project: Appeal of Modification Application No. MC 13 -26 and Sign Design Review No. SADR 13 -52. 2. Project Location — Identify street 400 W. Duarte Road (between Holly Avenue and West Le Roy address and cross streets or Avenue) attach a map showing project site (preferably a USGS 15' or 7 1/2' topographical map identified by quadrangle name): 3. Entity or person undertaking A. project: B. Other (Private) Cal West Lighting Services (1) Name Domenick Acosta (2) Address 11912 Woodruff Avenue ' Downey, CA 90241 4. Staff Determination: The Lead Agency's Staff, having undertaken and completed a preliminary review of this project in accordance with the Lead Agency's "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" has concluded that this project does not require further environmental assessment because: a. ❑ The proposed action does not constitute a project under CEQA. b. ❑ The project is a Ministerial Project. C. ❑ The project is an Emergency Project. d. ❑ The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study. e. ® The project is categorically exempt. Applicable Exemption Class: 15311 (Class 11, Accessory Structures) f. ❑ The project is statutorily exempt. Applicable Exemption: g. ❑ The project is otherwise exempt on the following basis: h. ❑ The project involves another public agency which constitutes the Lead Agency. Name of Lead Agency: Date: May 15, 2014 Staff: Jordan Chamberlin, Assistant Planner Preliminary Exemption Assessment FORM "A" 400 W. Duarte a Arcadia, CA 91007 100` Radius Printed: Sep 25, 2013 Copyright 2013 - Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, GIS W$ Section. Note: This map represents a quick representation of spatial imagery or vector 0 200 layers using GIS -N£T3. The map should be interpreted in accordance with the GIS- ; ' NET3 Public disclaimer statement. Feet Printed with permission from the Los Angeles County Dept. of Regional Planning. Ghat - -� 1 v�. ,5ueui� 3. L9 STAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: April 8, 2014 TO: Honorable Chairman and Modification Committee FROM: Lisa L. Flores, Planning Services Manager By: Jordan Chamberlin, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: MODIFICATION NO. MC 13 -26 AND SIGN DESIGN REVIEW NO. SADR 13 -52 TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS AND DESIGN FOR TWO NEW 7' -1" HIGH BY 8' -6" WIDE, DOUBLE -SIDED MONUMENT SIGNS WITH A LED MESSAGE BOARD AT 400 W. DUARTE ROAD (DBA CHURCH OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD UNITED METHODIST): 1. A TOTAL OF FOUR MONUMENT SIGNS (TWO EXISTING AND TWO NEW SIGNS) IN LIEU OF THE MAXIMUM TWO MONUMENT SIGNS PERMITTED ON A LOT (AMC SEC. 9262.4.6(c)); 2. ALLOW THE TOTAL SIGN AREA OF ALL FOUR MONUMENT SIGNS TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIGN AREA OF 350 SQUARE FEET (AMC SEC. 9262.4.6(d)); 3. ALLOW THE NEW MONUMENT LOCATED WITHIN 100 FEET OF A (AMC SEC. 9262.4.6(b)); SIGN ON DUARTE ROAD TO BE RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY 4. ALLOW THE NEW MONUMENT SIGNS TO BE ILLUMINATED WITH A LED MESSAGE BOARD IN AN R -3, HIGH - DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE (AMC SEC. 9255.1.4); AND; 5. ALLOW THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE SIGNS TO BE LOCATED LESS THAN 200 FEET APART (AMC SEC. 9262.4.6(c)). Environmental Status: Categorically Exempt per CEQA Section 15311 Recommendation: Conditional Approval BACKGROUND The subject property is a 3.64 acre corner lot, zoned R -3 (High- Density Multiple Family Residential). It is developed with a multi -story church, built in 1956, which is currently occupied by the Church of the Good Shepherd United Methodist — see the attached aerial photo, and photos of the subject property and neighboring properties. It is common throughout the City for churches to be located on a residentially zoned property as they were permitted with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The properties to the north and west are also zoned R -3. The property to the south is zoned R -1 (Single Family Residential). The property to the east is zoned S -2 (Public Purpose) and is currently occupied by Holly Avenue Elementary School. Modification Application fro. MC 13 -26 & SADR 13 -52 April 8, 2014 Page 2 of 5 S -2 (Public Purpose) and is currently occupied by Holly Avenue Elementary School. Currently, the site has two monument signs for the Good Shepherd Church and two ground mounted signs, each supported by two posts on a solid based, to promote the Church's nursery school (refer to the sign table and site plan). In 1962, the corner sign was approved through a modification to allow it to encroach within the special setbacks. The R -3 regulations allow a non - illuminated identification sign, but electronic display on a sign is not typically allowed in the City. However, consideration of an illuminated sign with an electronic LED display can only be considered pursuant to a sign modification. This was the same process that was followed when the Arcadia Masonic Center and Arcadia Chamber of Commerce received approval for its sign with an LED display. DISCUSSION The proposal is to remove the nursery school signs and replace them with two larger doubled - sided monument signs that are each 7' -1" high by 8' -6" wide with an LED display encased in the sign. The LED display will be 1' -10" high by 7' -4" wide on each side of the monument sign. The new signs will be within close proximity to the existing location, one on Duarte Road and the other on Holly Avenue. The LED board will only display fixed or changing text that is in full color, graphics, and background images, but no videos, motion or animated graphics are proposed. The Church will not promote more than six (6) church activities and/or messages each day and each message will change every five (5) minutes. The LED message board would only operate between the hours of 6:00 AM to midnight, every day. The Church has also offered the City the use of the LED electronic board in emergency situations as a way to communicate information to the residents. The proposed project requires approval of the following modifications: A total of four monument signs (two existing and two new signs) in lieu of the maximum two monument signs permitted on a lot; 2. Allow the total sign area of all four monument signs to exceed the maximum allowable sign area of 350 square feet; 3. Allow the new monument sign on Duarte Road to be located within 100 feet of a residentially zoned property; 4. Allow the new monument signs to be illuminated with a LED message board in an R -3, Multiple Family Residential Zone; and; 5. Allow the distance between the signs to be located less than 200 feet apart. The proposed modifications would allow for a total of four monument signs, two more than what is allowed by code that will exceed the maximum allowable sign area of 350 square feet by 61 square feet. The total sign area of all four signs would be 411 square feet. The proposed signs will also be located closer than 200 feet apart, and within 100 feet of a residentially zoned property. Given that the proposed signs would be 17% greater than what is allowed by code, significantly larger than the existing signs, illuminated and include a LED message board, and adjacent to residential uses, it is recommended that only one double -sided monument sign be permitted and that the overall size be reduced to approximately 6' -6" in height by 7' -6" in width. The reasoning behind a smaller sign for the Church's property is because the church site directly faces multi - family and single family residential properties. Also, the size and number of signs would create visual clutter on -site and to the streetscape by creating a more commercial appearance especially since continuing across the street on Duarte Road there is another Modification Application No. MC 13 -26 a SADR 13 -52 April 8, 2014 Page 3 of 5 signs it would lessen the impact to the neighboring residential properties and preserve the existing characteristic of the neighborhood. Staff also recommends restricting the sign area given to the LED display from 2' -6" in height by 7' -8" in width to V -6" in height by 6' -6" in width, and it is recommended that the messages on the LED message board be limited to the following regulations which is slightly different from what the applicant proposed: The LED message board shall only operate between the hours of 7 AM to 10 PM, every day. The message should not change more frequently than once every hour. This would allow the message to change regularly without constant movement that could be a distraction for drivers. Display only plain, text based messages (no background pictures) and limit the texts to no more than two colors. For comparison, the LED message board that was approved for the Arcadia Masonic Lodge on Duarte Road is V -6" in height x 7' -6" in width and can remain lit throughout the day, but the message cannot change more than once a day. As recommended, the revised sign would be more in line with the other sign that is located on an institutional property in the City. In regards to the distance between the signs, if the applicant selects the Duarte Road location it is recommended that the sign shall be relocated to comply with code, and meet the minimum distance of 200 feet between signs. The Engineering Division reviewed the proposal in regards to potential impacts to traffic, parking design, and visibility, and determined that either location for the signs would not create an impact. Sign Design Review The signs would be comprised of almond colored stucco for the body, the quoins and architectural feature on top of the signs would be made out of high density foam painted almond and dark brown. The letters and logo will be dark red and internally illuminated. With the recommended conditions of approval, the signs will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and consistent with the City's Architectural Design Guidelines for Commercial and Industrial Signing. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The proposed project qualifies as a Class 11 Exemption for Accessory Structures from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15311 of the CEQA Guidelines. A Preliminary Exemption Assessment is attached to this staff report. PUBLIC COMMENTS Public notice of this item was mailed on March 28, 2014 to the owners of those properties within 100 -feet of the subject site. Staff did not receive any public comments on this project from residents. Modification Application No. MC 13 -26 & SADR 13 -52 April 8, 2014 Page 4 of 5 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Modification Committee find that this project is exempt per CEQA Section 15311, and conditionally approve Modification No. MC 13 -26 and SADR 13 -52, subject to the following conditions of approval: Only one double -sided monument sign with a LED message board on each side of the sign shall be permitted. The overall height of the sign shall not exceed 6' -6" in height by 7' -6" in width. The LED message board shall not exceed 1' -6" in height by 6' -6" in width. The applicant shall select its location (Duarte Rd. or Holly Avenue), and if the sign is placed on Duarte Road it shall be located at least 200 feet apart from the other signs. The location of the sign shall be approved by the Planning Services Manager, or designee, prior to issuance of a building permit from Building Services. 2. The digital display on the LED message board cannot change more frequently than once every hour and may only operate between the hours of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM, daily. This would allow the message to change regularly without constant movement that could be a distraction for drivers. 3. The digital display on the LED message board shall be limited to text only and no more than two colors. No dimensional graphics, background images, videos, flashing or blinking, or moving animated images shall be permitted within a given message. Simple transitions between messages are acceptable. An example of an acceptable transition would include, not be limited to: fading out/in or sliding in from a single direction. An example of prohibited animations would include, but not be limited to: spinning, bouncing, dissolving, or zooming animations. 4. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officials, officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or conditional approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and/or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or conditional approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, Modification Committee, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and/or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officials, officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 5. Approval of MC 13 -26 and SADR 13 -52 shall not be of effect unless on or before 30 calendar days after approval of this project, the property owner /applicant has executed and filed with the Community Development Administrator or designee an Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. Modification Application No. Mc 13 -26 & SADR 13 -52 April 8, 2014 Page 5 of 5 Approved: Ci 11 Lisa L. Flor Planning Se ices Manager Attachments: Sign Table and Site Plan Aerial Photo with Zoning Information Photos of Subject Property & Neighboring Properties Architectural Plans 100-foot Radius Map Preliminary Exemption Assessment BA u.i Dd II s 1` I m - -777- iv 11 I • I r a a� m j Y Al. IS Site iddress' 400 W DUA ° TE RD Pro e r Owners : CHURCH OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD Parcel IOMUGn wlWrl City Of Arcadla S This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and Is For Report generated 02- Apr -21}14 reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be aMrate, Current, or otherwise reliable. Page 1 of i Proposed location of the monument sign on W. Duarte Road and existing sign to be removed Proposed location of monument sign on Holly Avenue Shurrh of the (boob thepherb OWM 'Pomp 400 Existing monument sign on W. Duarte Road Existing pole mounted sign on W. Duarte Road i '- ,f I� �� "Tim 10, �IWI�I�tlf Existing three-sided monument sign at the corner of W. Duarte Road and Holly Avenue Existing pole mounted sign on Holly Avenue Multi - family properties located to the north Single family residence located to the northeast Holly Avenue Elementary School located to the east Single family residence located to the south i Mufti - family residence located to the west OD g U) (D Ja WIN LU CD U 0 w rt w L �W CD L) C U � � r cq > tr m 4-- Q CD CD zi 63 r Q 1 d -� 0Uao CD CD c6 (D .. 2P- /� En ,. \\ Q \ \�2\ ru « \ k Ea3 � � m n- < \ (� 2 D A > § u ƒ e < e ( a f c )�L §A! ]71 \�k (2/ \ :� ) § \} G @ g / } CE G ƒ / U ®2;J ` aj 9 <Q ;2 .03 CO Ejf!& 2321§ `q` LE) 3 ez«3 e9E it. a @nAo ,qj;l o � �CM In Qg§ O�m g® M# Up / \ .2R � UQ5 G \� £ � e \ � j (2 2 g P a § ( / § ( 0 § G ( G §2; ;R `2GMg �G (Ii ;2 e .o ce 0-X rZr »!'D [a �°`¥ ( §ƒ /} U3 Li % L) C/) { \ \ _w j ƒ/ \�\ wc�• ;§J] 2222 <v #4 j / L a\ \ ��� / - \ ! } R � � 4.3 \ .§ Cr E °2 / + ©'e } § § ® ®75 / //\ ¥ / / / LE cl% {S kE 5 m m # in j§ I� � .Li Q � 0 � o O u Q'17 � c R c § \§ � \ \\m \ ƒ\ o AGE LLj \ {\ _ �C\ ± M [I: E£w � \E 0 X U) S RM G� CD o � /$\ E \. > 2 y�t3 16b CL m\j m \ \ \ (< 9 j \ \ � < e ( ❑ cn {�\ § \ C °E\ § I u & ®3 C-3/ (]S § w a k § ( u o e / E / d�CO ;J `5; ;9 &( § \\ ,w mu�o aan§ oec�. \(fL\$ \� 7 2 > O2m . 3 f CJ LU EL ED G Is C3 tj 9 u S fn ru CU Q 13 gib" m K is 03 4;"d L Lu E r ci acFFO L 0 U IL 0 0 o Cc t W LL, LLI (D < Z Z L < (D z z F U < LU 0 < fl) 0 o cn UJ w 0 a cn ru L) LLJ iu Ln 2i 0 cd 0 EL F- C3 :5 -q- C) C) 03 w M z -,j IE LL, 13 U fl. uj P3 Ell C3 :i > lu co cu 0 <0�;y133 yUromZ .1100 a: 2: cl- tj v — m - -fD �91UWE in m 11 ma z k 9 a) > U Lfl:l E I TtLmo M Z 41 .......... En < M fl w d i LjF—I 0 T ih W CU Q 13 gib" m K is 03 4;"d L Lu E r ci acFFO L 0 U IL 0 0 o Cc t W LL, LLI (D < Z Z L < (D z z F U < LU 0 < fl) 0 o cn UJ w 0 a cn ru L) LLJ iu Ln 2i 0 cd 0 EL F- C3 :5 -q- C) C) 03 w M z -,j IE LL, 13 U fl. uj P3 Ell C3 :i > lu co cu 0 <0�;y133 yUromZ .1100 a: 2: cl- tj v — m - -fD �91UWE in m 11 ma z k 9 a) > ° n 5 tow to - u p ^t ioz P El J rt L7J °sr ° V 9 y"� rw tN CNp�j+ Iu n tl q v U Nb ° � in �S�ri S IL t� LU �rpf �S n w E- LQ N H � j . to u. 7f ... [9w u 5 �J ¢° Z L]� z dr mL i-1 I_IR.. 0 °zu=i 9.�'; L V J M 6 0 O LL LUO LU Q F Q it O u_ I Q, I O LL O m W �` CU Q o - � Z9 - r� =z�w � H�i •'} 9r m �t_a o �Li7fGU LU Lu 2r. Q U z U a U o 7 } C V ID 0: o fi m a w o t°zz 2z M o r 3 r— 6 U Q n ¢ n LU rn U f- m LL.f 4 co r M w o LLJ f� Q ❑ m U ° LL, G to Q in Q LL r vJ ❑ � -- o LLI c E3 Eli _F m O ° : C p O p t F U LU b o U a ui Qprry m La U3 �um mz p mph sz�v- gMq¢UUN .10 Wulmmp 0MID Iq m � zi '3 ° aL3 cn °� m m ��a 1i _I 4 1� I L• -�- C •• q n J. -- s rn i n e Q ° n 5 tow to - u p ^t ioz P El J rt L7J °sr ° V 9 y"� rw tN CNp�j+ Iu n tl q v U Nb ° � in �S�ri S IL t� LU �rpf �S n w E- LQ N H � j . to u. 7f ... [9w u 5 �J ¢° Z L]� z dr mL i-1 I_IR.. 0 °zu=i 9.�'; L V J M 6 0 O LL LUO LU Q F Q it O u_ I Q, I O LL O m W �` CU Q o - � Z9 - r� =z�w � H�i •'} 9r m �t_a o �Li7fGU LU Lu 2r. Q U z U a U o 7 } C V ID 0: o fi m a w o t°zz 2z M o r 3 r— 6 U Q n ¢ n LU rn U f- m LL.f 4 co r M w o LLJ f� Q ❑ m U ° LL, G to Q in Q LL r vJ ❑ � -- o LLI c E3 Eli _F m O ° : C p O p t F U LU b o U a ui Qprry m La U3 �um mz p mph sz�v- gMq¢UUN .10 Wulmmp 0MID Iq m � zi '3 ° aL3 cn °� m m ��a S. 1 PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT e (Certificate of Determination When Attached to Notice of Exemption) 1. Name or description of project: Modification Application No. MC 13 -26 and Sign Design Review No. SADR 13 -52. 2. Project Location — Identify street 400 W. Duarte Road (between Holly Avenue and West Le Roy address and cross streets or Avenue) attach a map showing project site (preferably a USGS 15' or 7 112' topographical map identified by quadrangle name): 3. Entity or person undertaking A. project: B. Other (Private) Cal West Lighting Services (1) Name Domenick Acosta (2) Address i 11912 Woodruff Avenue Downey, CA 90241 4. Staff Determination: The Lead Agency's Staff, having undertaken and completed a preliminary review of this project in accordance with the Lead Agency's "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" has concluded that this project does not require further environmental assessment because: a. ❑ The proposed action does not constitute a project under CEQA. b. ❑ The project is a Ministerial Project. C. ❑ The project is an Emergency Project. d. ❑ The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study. e. ❑X The project is categorically exempt. Applicable Exemption Class: 15311 (Class 11, Accessory Structures) f. ❑ The project is statutorily exempt, i Applicable Exemption: i g. ❑ The project is otherwise exempt on the following basis: h. ❑ The project involves another public agency which constitutes the Lead Agency. Name of Lead Agency: I Date: March 11, 2014 Staff: Jordan Chamberlin, Assistant Planner Preliminary Exemption Assessment FORM "A" 1 U 1 c i 1 1 �_y r 0 ,x � v V Distri t 5 ; a: r i t Q?. + t �. rye+ wEi {{ rl I,_. 400 W. Duarte Road, Arcadia, CA 91007 100' Radius Printed: Sep 25, 2013 N 1] 20D Feet Ipyright 2013 - Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, GIS ction. de: This map represents a quick representation of spatial imagery or vector ers using GIS -NEf3. The map should be interpreted in accordance with the GIS- .73 Public disclaimer statement. nted with permission from the Los Angeles County Dept. of Regional Planning. of fof i • , �iriaunr� ''"v��✓"