Loading...
09-25-2014 - SP CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Council ChambersSpecial Meeting6:30 PM CALL TO ORDER Roll Call Attendee NamePresentAbsentLateArrived Chairman Tom Comstock Vice-Chairman Ryan Stephens Commissioner Tara Cesena Commissioner Jeffrey Allen Commissioner Edward A. Giroux PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PRESENTATION PUBLIC ADDRESS Public address to the Commission shall be limited to three minutes unless extended by the Chairman. Should you desire to make a longer presentation, please make written request to be agendized to the Director of Community Development Department. This is the opportunity for members of the public to comment on any items not appearing on the regular agenda. Because of restrictions contained in California Law, the Planning Commission may not discuss or act on any itemnot on the agenda, but may briefly respond to statements made or ask a question for clarification. The Chairman may also request a brief response from staff to questions raised during public comment or may request a matter be agendized for a future meeting. 1.CONSENT CALENDAR 1.Approval of Minutes Regular Meeting 09/04/2014 DEPARTMENT: CITY CLERK City of Grand TerracePage 1 AgendaGrand TerracePlanning CommissionSeptember 25, 2014 2. ACTION ITEMS 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.Tentative Tract Map 14-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 18071) RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2014-___, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ENVIRONMENTAL ADDENDUM AND APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14-01 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18071) A SUBDIVISON OF AN 8.26 ACRE PARCEL INTO 17 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND TWO LETTER LOTS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PICO STREET APPROXIMATELY 150 EAST OF KINGFISHER ROAD. DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4. WORKSHOP 1.Discussion of City of Grand Terrace Sign Code RECOMMENDATION: Discuss and provide direction to proposed revisions to window and temporary signs, and provide direction on freestanding signs. DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 5. INFORMATION TO COMMISSIONERS 6. INFORMATION FROM COMMISSIONERS ADJOURN ADJOURN TO THE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION TO BE HELD ON OCTOBER 2, 2014. days preceding the meeting. City of Grand Terrace Page 2 1.1 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CouncilChambersRegular Meeting6:30 PM CALL TO ORDER Chairman Comstock convened the Meeting of the Planning Commission and Site and Architectural Review Board at 6:33 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Allen. Attendee NameTitleStatusArrived Tom ComstockChairmanPresent Ryan StephensVice-ChairmanPresent Tara CesenaCommissionerPresent Jeffrey AllenCommissionerPresent Edward A. GirouxCommissionerAbsent Sandra MolinaCommunity Development DirectorPresent Ivy TsaiAssistant City AttorneyPresent PRESENTATION PUBLIC ADDRESS Public address to the Commission shall be limited to three minutes unless extended by the Chairman. Should you desire to make a longer presentation, please make written request to be agendized to the Director of Community Development Department. This is the opportunity for members of the public to comment on any items not appearing on the regular agenda. Because of restrictions contained in California Law, the Planning Commission may not discuss or act on any item not on the agenda, but may briefly respond to statements made or ask a question for clarification. The Chairman may also request a brief response from staff to questions raised during public comment or may request a matter be agendized for a future meeting. A.CONSENT CALENDAR 1.Approval of Minutes Regular Meeting 08/07/2014 City of Grand TerracePage 1 Packet Pg. 3 1.1 MinutesGrand Terrace Planning CommissionSeptember 4, 2014 RESULT: ACCEPTED \[UNANIMOUS\] MOVER: Ryan Stephens, Vice-Chairman SECONDER: Tara Cesena, Commissioner AYES: Tom Comstock, Ryan Stephens, Tara Cesena, Jeffrey Allen ABSENT: Edward A. Giroux B.ACTION ITEMS C.PUBLIC HEARINGS D.WORKSHOP 2.Discussion of City of Grand Terrace Sign Code Community Development Director Molina presented the staff report on the Sign Ordinance. Commissioner Ceseña asked how a business owner knows they need a permit, if they are informed or just fined. Director Molina responded that they are informed and efforts toward compliance are made before any citations are issued. Chairman Comstock asked about the sign permit process. Director Molina responded that sign permits are reviewed and issued if compliant with code and that a $50 sign fee is required. Chairman Comstock requested information regarding building permit fees. Director Molina indicated that monument and wall signs require building permits and, if the sign is illuminated, an electrical permit is also required. Chairman Comstock opened the public portion of the workshop. Doug Wilson, 12168 Observation, indicated that businesses are noticed, but not as expressed by staff. A certain business received daily citations for 17 days, with fines of about $4,000, and that is the process. Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Sep 4, 2014 6:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) He expressed that signs that have been up for years should not be fined. Consideration should be given to the impact that Freeway construction has on businesses. He noted a strip of land will be taken from the Shell, Arco and GT PitStop properties. He felt the number of political signs can cause sign pollution. Anne-Marie Gross, 22757 Barton Road, stated she loves her location, that Grand Terrace is not Beverly Hills, and that the rules are outrageous. Ms. Gross indicated that she spoke with Councilmember McNaboe who indicated that she should be able to have signs during tax season, but that she is in business 365 days a year. She felt the rules are chasing away small businesses. Alicia Lomas-Gross, 12197 Country Club Lane, stated she has a tanning business and expressed that there are not a lot of banners. On July 27, 2013 she took pictures of businesses with banners, and that City of Grand Terrace Page 2 Packet Pg. 4 1.1 MinutesGrand Terrace Planning CommissionSeptember 4, 2014 only recently have they come down. On window signs, law enforcement needs to see into businesses, Frank Tetley, 12139 Mt. Vernon, stated that a state senator recently spoke at the Lions Club about business and that California is last on the list because business are overtaxed and over regulated. He indicated that prosecution is heavy handed enforcement and fines can add up quickly. He felt the tone of the July 22 Council agenda was more about aesthetics. The purpose of the sign ordinance should have a more formal statement, and that intrusion needs to be for a good purpose. Edmund Esquivel, 12210 Michigan St. #I, owner of a smog business, stated that the trend is towards flags, and he had to cut a 15 foot high flag in half. He only has one flag and wants more street exposure. He wants to be able to have a tasteful15-foot high flag. Chairman Comstock asked if it was the industrial center on Michigan, and wondered if a larger monument would help. Mr. Esquivel indicated that he is speaking to the owner about it. He knows of other cities that allow 5-6 signs. Chairman Comstock expressed that new businesses should have an opportunity for a banner sign. import and indicated that they cannot change their window signs. They are a seasonal business and need signs190 days of the year. She indicated that there should be a yearly fee for temporary signs and that businesses could choose the months they want to display signs. Malcolm Gross stated that one size does not fit all and that there should be leeway based on need. He felt small and large business should be treated differently. Commissioner Allen inquired on the timeline to process a temporary sign permit, and Director Molina responded. Bill Hussey stated he went to GT Smog, and only knew it was there because he saw the flag. He expressed that the City needs to take care of small business; they bring in revenue. Interim City Manager Henderson conveyed to the Commission that it is importation to understand the ros and cons and has heard that the City is not business friendly. Whatever the new code is adopted by the City Council on the recommendation of the Planning Commission, staff will implement. The Council has decided in the interim to enforce the existing sign code until the new code is written. Interim City Manager Henderson stated there are a number of cities with restrictive codes that are also some of the most successful, and cited Rancho Cucamonga as an example. Interim City Manager Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Sep 4, 2014 6:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) Henderson reiterated that whatever code is adopted it will be implemented uniformly, consistently and others that it does apply to, but not to them. He stressed the code has be enforceable and equitable, and Interim City Manager Henderson stated that the voluntary compliance is what is being sought. This is an opportunity to push the re-set button, and to promote economic development as the goal. Jeffrey McConnell, resident, thanked everyone that showed up. He asked what is the difference between banners and flags and suggested that a center without a monument sign should be allowed more flags. He asked about the holiday season and what would be allowed and that temporary signs should not require a fee. City of Grand Terrace Page 3 Packet Pg. 5 1.1 MinutesGrand Terrace Planning CommissionSeptember 4, 2014 Chairman Comstock closed the public comment portion of the workshop. Vice Chair Stephens stated the City has been complicit in regard to sign compliance, and that a properly Manager Henderson that it is time to hit the re-set button. He stated that even temporary signs need a permit, and that when there are too many (banner and swoops) and are out too long they no longer have value. Vice Chair Stephens suggested, that on window signs, we consider a limit on the percentage of window coverage and not require a permit since they are not on the street. He also clarified that the existing sign code exempted holiday signs. Commissioner Ceseña asked for clarification on non-conforming status and how it is determined, and indicated that perhaps more monuments should be considered. Commissioner Allen asked who determines whether a window sign is allowed 20% or 25%. Director Molina stated that it depends on the type of the sign, but this is a portion of the code where clarity is needed. Chairman Comstock stated that some businesses are dependent on foot traffic. GT Smog needs visibility. A fabrication use may not need visibility as people will research and find those specialty businesses. Higher traffic businesses should be in a different category. Special category businesses might be able to have a yearly permit that they can put up or down whenever. There needs to be a different way to look at it. Chairman Comstock thinks there are too many political signs. He stated that new businesses should be able to have sign information and suggested using the City website. He asked about establishing a special program and that perhaps fees could be based on the size of the business. Interim City Manager Henderson advised the Commission that the City is currently re-doing the website site to make it more user friendly and that development service fees are also being updated. Chairman Comstock suggested consideration of additional monument signs for centers such as those on Michigan Street and perhaps smaller monuments or a variance process. Commissioner Ceseña suggested a fee reduction for 501(c)(3) organizations. The Commission indicated that they are agreeable to conducting special meetings to discuss the sign code. E. INFORMATION TO COMMISSIONERS F. INFORMATION FROM COMMISSIONERS ADJOURN Chairman Comstock adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m. Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Sep 4, 2014 6:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) City of Grand Terrace Page 4 Packet Pg. 6 3.1 AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE:September 25, 2014 TITLE:Tentative Tract Map 14-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 18071) PRESENTED BY:Sandra Molina, Community Development Director RECOMMENDATION:ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2014-___, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ENVIRONMENTAL ADDENDUM AND APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14-01 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18071) A SUBDIVISON OF AN 8.26 ACRE PARCEL INTO 17 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND TWO LETTER LOTS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PICO STREET APPROXIMATELY 150 EAST OF KINGFISHER ROAD. PROPOSAL/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Jason Karger, is requesting approval of Tentative Tract Map 14-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 18071). The Project site is located on the north side of Pico Street approximately 150 feet east of Kingfisher Street. The site totals 8.26 acres and is zoned R1-10 (Single Family Residential). The applicant is proposing to subdivide the parcel into 17 single family lots measuring aminimum of 10,000 square feet, and two open space letter lots. Lot A consists of a 100-foot wide State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR) easement and Lot B is a drainage basin for water quality purposes. Ordinance, the City Council has final approval authority on tentative tract maps. However, the Planning Commission has reviewing authority and makes a recommendation to the City Council. The attached resolution that recommendation. BACKGROUND: On May 18, 2006 and August 24, 2006, the Planning Commission and City Council took respective actions approving Tentative Tract Map 06-01 (TTM No. 18071), including the adoption of an environmental Mitigated Negative Declaration approving the Environmental Initial Study. The approval included a Zone Change from R1-20 to R1-10 and the creation of 18 single family lots. The 2006 tentative tract map was designed so that the public street would be Packet Pg. 7 3.1 constructed on the DWR easement and a condition of approval required the applicant to obtain DWR approvals prior to recordation of the tentative tract map. After years of effort, the applicant was unable to secure DWR approvals to construct the public street within the DWR easement; thereby necessitating re-configuration of the proposed subdivision. The reconfiguration shifts the public street to the west so that it is no longer within the DWR easement. A 30-foot wide access road will cross the DWR easement to provide access to 5 lots on the east side of the easement. Each lot complies with the minimum lot size and lot dimension requirements contained in the Municipal Code for the R1-10 zone district, and public road improvements and utilities to serve the Project will be installed. The re-plotting of the lots and roadways is substantially similar to the 2006 tentative map approval, which is shown in Attachment 2. For comparison purposes a reduction of Tentative Tract Map 18071 is included in Attachment 3. SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA: The site is more-or-less rectangularly shaped but with an irregular eastern boundary. It has 670 feet of frontage along Pico Street and a north-south dimension of about 620 feet. The property is presently vacant and appears to have been rough graded at some point in the past. Also, the site is bounded by wood fences on the west and north. In addition, there is a slump stone block wall around a two million gallon water reservoir and along the easterly boundary of the site. There are a number of easements running through the property. The 100-foot wide DWR easement runs north-south and at an angle through the center of the property. side of the 100 foot easement. A 60- easement runs along the north side of the property. Riverside Highland Water Company has a 24-inch water line easement and a 10-foot wide access easement along the easterly property line of the site. Vehicle access to the site is provided by Pico Street which is a 66 foot wide local collector street. The surrounding area is developed to single family homes to the west, north and south. Also, to the southwest are located a former convent and a seminary. To the east, as pointed out above, is the two million gallon water reservoir owned by Riverside Highland Water Company and an avocado orchard. Surrounding uses are as follows: Zoning General Plan Existing Land Uses Packet Pg. 8 3.1 North R1-7.2 and R1-20 Low Density Residential Single family residential East R1-20 Low Density Residential Single family residential South R1-20 Low Density Residential Former convent and seminary West R1-7.2 Low Density Residential Single family residential ANALYSIS: General Plan/Zoning Consistency The Project site is designated Low Density Residential (LDR) on the General Plan Land Use Map. The LDR designation limits land uses to single family detached residential units at a density of 0-5 dwelling units per acre. Project density is two dwelling units per acre. The site is zoned R1-10 Low Density Single Family Residential. This zone district requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Lot sizes range from 10,000 square feet to just over 15,000 square feet. The minimum lot size is greater than those residential properties to the north and west, which have minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet. Each lot meets the development standards for the R1-10 zone including lot area, lot width and lot depth, and requirement that only 10 feet of the required 35 foot rear yard can be taken up by slope areas in excess of 5%. Subsequent development of the lots will be subject to Site and Architectural Review. However, as designed, each lot can support the plotting of a residential home. The applicant anticipates the size of the homes to be at least 2,000 square feet. Circulation/Access The Project site is bound by Pico Street, a 66 foot wide local collector roadway which serves Lots 13 through 17. The applicant will be required to improve Pico Street along the project frontage. Jaden Court will be constructed to the west of the DWR easement, and will measure 48-feet wide. Parking will only be permitted on one side of this street, and Lots 1-7 will take direct access onto it. Lots 8 through 12 will access Jaden Court through a 30-foot wide drive-aisle named Bryce Court. Bryce Court will lead to a 26-foot wide access easement that serves Lots 8 through 12. DWR staff will not provide final approval or issue an encroachment permit over the DWR easement until complete improvement plans are submitted. Improvement plans Packet Pg. 9 3.1 will not be prepared until after tentative tract map approval. However, DWR representatives did receive a copy of the tentative tract map and staff verbally spoke with Mr. Mann, Bahadur, of the Real Estate Division of the DWR. Mr. Mann stated -foot wide access road. As with the original approval, final map approval will not be granted by the City until the applicant secures DWR approvals. County Fire has also reviewed the design of the tentative map, including access roads, and is in accordance with it. Conceptual Grading: The preliminary grading plan has also been included and is shown on the tentative tract map. Pad elevations are indicated on each lot. Generally, lots will be decreasing in elevation from east to west and from north to south. The overall property has about a 50 foot fall as measured along the Pico Street frontage. As dirt was imported to the site in the past, the grading will be balanced on-site. As part of final map acceptance the applicant will be required to provide a final geotechnical soils report. The soils report will determine whether imported soil can be used for site development and will also include soil preparation information for building pads and roadways. A drainage easement is proposed along the rear of Lots 1 through 7, for cross lot drainage leading to Lot B. A preliminary drainage report and water quality management plan was prepared, and final reports will be required as part of the final map process. Open Space Lots Lot A encompasses the DWR easement and Lot B is the water quality basin. The dscape maintenance district for maintenance of these parcels. Annual assessments levied to the property owners within the map will pay for ongoing maintenance and repairs. Annexation into the district is required as a condition of final map approval. Agency Review The Project Plans were distributed to various agencies for their comments. Conditions of approval relating to public works, engineering and building and safety items are included in the Building and Safety memorandum dated July 18, 2014, and are included in the resolution. Riverside Highland Water Company indicated that they can serve the Project and final water improvement plans will require their review and approval. A condition of approval to this effect has been incorporated into the resolution. Packet Pg. 10 3.1 San Bernardino County Fire has reviewed the reconfigured lot and street layout, including access and roadways. County Fire has provided conditions of approval in a memorandum dated September 11, 2014, for the project and they are included in the resolution. Southern California Edison also reviewed the Project plans and determined that the Project would not interfere with existing Edison easements. The Cities of Grand Terrace and Colton entered into wastewater agreements whereby the City leases the wastewater system to Colton for maintenance. Pursuant to the Sewer Services Agreement, new construction must be reviewed and approved by the City of Colton. The City of Colton has reviewed the tentative tract map and provided conditions of approval, which are also attached to the resolution. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: On August 24, 2006, the City Council adopted the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Project. In doing so, the City Council found that the Project would not have a significant impact on the environment. In response to technical changes to the site design, staff has prepared an Addendum to the previously adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to revise the project description to reflect a 17 lot subdivision with two letter lots consisting of the DWR easement and a water quality basin. In response to DWR requirements, the subdivision has been redesigned to shift the public street to the west so that it is no longer within the DWR easement. A 30-foot wide access road will cross the DWR easement to provide access to 5 lots on the east side of the easement. Each lot complies with the minimum lot size and lot dimension requirements contained in the Municipal Code for R1-10 zone district, and public road improvements and utilities to serve the Project will be installed. The purpose of the Addendum is to reflect the technical changes to the subdivision design. The adopted Environmental Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration contains Mitigation Measures related to geology, water quality, air quality and noise, which remain applicable to the Project. No revisions to the adopted mitigation measures are proposed. Additionally, pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required. Substantial changes are not proposed, nor do substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken, that would require major revisions to the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new Packet Pg. 11 3.1 significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; the Project will not have significant effects that were not discussed in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration; effects will not be substantially more severe than shown in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration; and the applicant will comply with mitigation measures contained in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration. PUBLIC NOTICE: Public notice of the Project was provided, including publishing in the Grand Terrace City News, mailing notices to property owners within 300 feet of the site, 10 days prior to the meeting date. In addition, a copy of the notice was posted in three public places. In response to the public notice, two property owners have inquired about the Project. A nearby resident came to the public counter to inquire about the lot sizes and also commented on drainage. A portion of the site will drain to Lot B and some drainage will continue to outlet onto Pico Street as it currently does. A second resident contacted staff to inquire on the quality of on-site soils, and the timeline of tentative map approvals. CONCLUSION: The Project site presents many challenges to site design. Existing easements, especially the 100-foot wide drainage easement which cannot be used as a public street, the existing water tank and natural grades all constrain design. However, given these constraints, the applicant has been able to design a subdivision that complies with the zoning and general plan land use designations. The Project will create 17 additional residential units that will assist the City accommodate its growth demands contained in the Housing Element. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending City Council approval. ATTACHMENTS: #0: PC Resolution_9.25.2014 #0: 2006 Tentative Tract Map #0: TTM 18071 - Reduction APPROVALS: Sandra Molina Completed 09/18/2014 1:40 PM City Attorney Completed 09/18/2014 3:33 PM Community Development Completed 09/18/2014 4:36 PM Planning Commission Pending Packet Pg. 12 3.1.a RESOLUTION NO. 2014- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ENVIRONMENTAL ADDENDUM AND APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14-01 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18071) A SUBDIVISON OF AN 8.26 ACRE PARCEL INTO 17 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND TWO LETTER LOTS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PICO STREET APPROXIMATELY 150 EAST OF KINGFISHER ROAD WHEREAS, on May 18, 2006 and August 24of 2006, the Planning Commission and City Council took respective actions approving Tentative Tract Map No. 18071 to subidivide 8.26 acres into 18 single family lots and adopting an environmental Mitigated Negative Declaration, concluding that that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant impact on the environment; and WHEREAS, was unable to secure approval from the State of California Department of Water Resources to construct a public street as required by the conditions of approval; thereby, necessitating Applicant to submit Tentative Tract Map 14-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 18071) to reconfigure the proposed residential lots and public street, resulting in the subdivision of the 8.26 acres into 17 single family lots and two letter lots ( WHEREAS, the Project site is zoned R1-10 Low Density Residential and designated Low Density Residential on the General Plan Land Use Map, located on the north side of Pico Street and approximately 150 feet east of Kingfisher Road. The Project site is vacant and a 100-foot wide Department of Water Resources easement traverses the Project site; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an Addendum to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ("Addendum") previously adopted for the Project has been prepared; and WHEREAS, on September 25, 2014, the Planning Commission conducted a duly #1: PC Resolution_9.25.2014 (1561 : Tentative Tract Map 14-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 18071)) noticed public hearing at the Council Chambers located at 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California and concluded the hearing on said date; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Page 1 of 9 Packet Pg. 13 3.1.a NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Planning Commission hereby finds that pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required. Substantial changes are not proposed, nor do substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken, that would require major revisions to the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; the Project will not have significant effects not discussed in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration; effects will not be substantially more severe than shown in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration; and the applicant will comply with mitigation measures contained in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. The Planning Commission finds as follows with respect to Tentative Tract Map 14- 01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 18071): a. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the City General Plan and any applicable specific plan for the area. The proposed single family residential Project at a density of 2 dwelling units per acre is consistent with the Low Density Residential (LDR) General Plan designation, which is intended for detached single family residential. It conforms to several General Plan policies relating to the construction of roadways and utilities to serve the Project, and Housing Element policies to encourage housing development of various types and designs. b. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the City General Plan and any applicable specific plan for the area. The design at 2 dwelling units per acre conforms to the density limitation of the LDR designation. The Project conforms to several General Plan policies relating to the construction of roadways and utilities to serve the Project, and Housing Element policies to encourage housing development of various types and designs. #1: PC Resolution_9.25.2014 (1561 : Tentative Tract Map 14-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 18071)) c. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map. The site can support the Project at the proposed density of 2 dwelling units per acre. d. The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements are not likely to Page 2 of 9 Packet Pg. 14 3.1.a cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, as evidenced by the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted for the Project. e. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. f. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. g. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will not be provided. h. In approving the subdivision the approving authority has considered its effects and the effects of adopted ordinances and actions relating to the review and approval of subdivisions on the housing needs of the region and balanced those needs against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, this Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the Addendum prepared for the Project and approve Tentative Tract Map 14-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 18071), subject to the following conditions of approval: General Conditions of Approval: 1. Approval of Tentative Tract Map 14-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 18071) is granted to subdivide 8.26 acres into seventeen (17) single family lots, two open space lots on property located on the north side of Pico Street, east of Kingfisher Street, -181-01. This approval is granted based on the application materials submitted by Karger Homes, represented by Jason Karger on July 10, 2014, including the Tentative Tract Map with preliminary grading information prepared by W.J. McKeever, Inc, dated September 16, 2014. These plans are approved as submitted and conditioned herein, and shall not be further #1: PC Resolution_9.25.2014 (1561 : Tentative Tract Map 14-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 18071)) altered except as modified by these conditions of approval, and unless reviewed and approved by the affected city departments. 2. This approval shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date of adoption of this resolution. This approval shall become null and void if a final map has not been timely filed prior to the expiration date in accordance with the provisions of the Page 3 of 9 Packet Pg. 15 3.1.a Subdivision Map Act. An extension of time may be granted by the Community Development Director upon submittal of a time extension request and appropriate filing fees. In granting any such time extension the City may impose new conditions and standards on the tentative map, pursuant to Section 66452.6(e) of the California Government Code. 3. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers, attorneys and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding (collectively referred to as "proceeding") brought against the City or its agents, officers, attorneys or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the City's decision to approve the tentative tract development, approval or authorization and approvals conditions or approval and certifications under CEQA and/or any mitigation monitoring program, but excluding any subdivision approval governed by California Government Code § 66474.9, and which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. This indemnification shall include, but not limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorneys' fees and other costs liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by applicant, the City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding.. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project 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 officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, employees and attorneys for all costs incurred in additional investigation and/or study of, or for supplementing, preparing, redrafting, revising, or amending any document (such as a negative declaration, EIR, specific plan or General Plan amendment), if made necessary by said proceeding and if applicant desires to pursue securing such approvals, after initiation of such proceeding, which are conditioned on the approval of such documents, and shall Indemnify the City for all the City's costs, fees, and damages that the City incurs in enforcing these indemnification provisions. 4. Any details which are inconsistent with requirements of state and local ordinances, #1: PC Resolution_9.25.2014 (1561 : Tentative Tract Map 14-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 18071)) conditions of approval, or City policies must be specifically modified to comply with state and local ordinances, conditions of approval, or City policies, or must be approved in the final map or improvement plan approvals 5. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, and Title 17 (Subdivisions) contained in the Grand Terrace Municipal Code. Page 4 of 9 Packet Pg. 16 3.1.a 6. In the event that exhibits and written conditions are inconsistent, the written conditions shall prevail. 7. Upon approval of these conditions and prior to becoming final and binding, the content shall be prepared by the Community and Economic Development Department. 8. The applicant shall obtain Site and Architectural Review approval for construction of the residences. 9. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Building and Safety/Public Works Department, including the conditions of approval contained in the Memorandum dated July __, 2014, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 10. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the San Bernardino County Fire Department, Office of the Fire Marshal Community Safety Division, including the conditions of approval contained in their letter dated September ___, 2014, attached hereto attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 11. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City of Colton Public Works Department Water & Wastewater Department, including the conditions of approval contained in their letter dated July 24, 2014, attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 12. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Conditions Prior to Final Map Approval: 13. A soils report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. Any recommendations included in the soil study shall be incorporated into the design of the precise grading and paving plan as appropriate. 14. Prior to final map approval, a drainage study shall be prepared by a Civil Engineer in accordance with the standards of the County of San Bernardino Hydrology and Design Manual to the satisfaction of the City. The Drainage Study shall include, but not be limited to, the evaluation of the capacity of the downstream storm drain. The study shall include the design of all facilities required to mitigate downstream #1: PC Resolution_9.25.2014 (1561 : Tentative Tract Map 14-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 18071)) deficiencies and impacts to the satisfaction of the City. 15. The applicant shall prepare improvement plans, in accordance with the City Subdivision Ordinance. Page 5 of 9 Packet Pg. 17 3.1.a 16. If any public improvement required as part of the approval of the subdivision will not be completed and accepted prior to approval of the final tract map, then prior to a determination of a complete and timely filing of the final tract map, the subdivider, at his expense, shall be required to enter into a subdivision improvement agreement, with the City to complete said public improvements in shall be guaranteed by the security specified in this Section and Section 66499 et seq. of the Subdivision Map Act. 17. Upon approval of these conditions and prior to becoming final and binding, the content of the form to be prepared by the Community and Economic Development Department. 18. Provide a 19. Grading on all lots shall include contour grading techniques 20. Corner monuments indicating the new property corners shall be set in accordance with the California Subdivision Map Act, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Appropriate documentations that the monuments have been set must be submitted to the City Engineer. 21. A final tract prepared by, or under the direction of a registered civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying, or a licensed land surveyor, must be processed through the City prior to being filed with the County Recorder. 22. The applicant shall submit a title report and subdivision guarantee showing all fee interest holders, all interest holders whose interest could ripen into a fee, all trust deeds, together with the names of the trustee and all easement holders. The account for this title report shall remain open until the final parcel map is filed with the County Recorder. No easements shall be granted and recorded until after the final map is recorded, unless approved by the City Engineer and subordinated to any City easements by a certification upon the title sheet of the final map, prior to the grant. 23. The applicant shall incorporate into the project design all existing easements #1: PC Resolution_9.25.2014 (1561 : Tentative Tract Map 14-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 18071)) within the project boundaries. In the case where easements are proposed to be abandoned, the applicant shall obtain abandonment of said easements from the affected easement holder(s). If this requirement cannot be accomplished, the project shall be redesigned accordingly and as approved by the City. Page 6 of 9 Packet Pg. 18 3.1.a 24. Easements for all on-site facilities, public and private, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation. Such easements may include, but are not limited to, sewer, water, electric, gas, telephone, storm drains, detention basins, and landscaping 25. Pay all required fees for the processing and approval of the final tract map. 26. Prior to final map approval, all on-site and off-site curbs, gutters, paving, street lights, sewer laterals, water services, utilities, grading, storm drain improvements shall be installed or sufficient surety shall be posted to the satisfaction of the City to guarantee their installation. 27. Prior to final map approval, plans and specifications for the water system facilities shall be submitted for approval to the Riverside Highland Water Company. The subdivider shall submit an agreement and other evidence, satisfactory to the City, indicating that the subdivider has entered into a contract with the water purveyor guaranteeing payment and installation of the water improvements. 28. Prior to the final map approval, there shall also be filed with the City Engineer, a statement from the water purveyor indicating subdivider compliance with the Fire fire flow requirements. 29. Improvement plans for utility connections and services, including water, fire hydrant and/or fire sprinklers, sewer, storm drain, gas, electric, phone, and television, shall be submitted to and approved by the City. 30. Sewer improvement plans must be approved by the City of Colton Wastewater & Utilities Department. 31. The applicant shall record an easement over Lots 8 through 12 for proposed reciprocal access, utility installation and maintenance within the proposed 26-foot wide access road. Prior to recordation, easement documents shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 32. Easements for all on-site facilities, public and private, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation. Such easements may include, but are not limited to, sewer, water, electric, gas, telephone, storm drains, detention basins, and landscaping. #1: PC Resolution_9.25.2014 (1561 : Tentative Tract Map 14-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 18071)) 33. Access rights shall be granted to the City for the purpose of allowing access over private drives within the development for all City vehicles, including police, fire, and other emergency vehicles. The document(s) recording this access shall be prepared by the applicant for review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to recordation. Page 7 of 9 Packet Pg. 19 3.1.a 34. The Public Works Department reserves the right to add conditions of approval to the project after approval and conditions are granted by California Aqueduct officials (State Department of Water Resources) 35. Lot A shall be designed with perimeter fencing and a lockable gate for vehicles by vehicles shall be included. The subdivider shall provide the City keys to the gate. 36. The easterly drainage easement shall be paved as approved by the Community Development Director. 37. Maintenance Assessment District. In compliance with this condition of approval the applicant shall perform the following: a. Retain an engineer to prepare an Assessment District Boundary Map. b. Retain a licensed landscape architect to prepare a landscape and lighting specifications and estimates. c. The landscape plan shall include minor park amenities as may be allowed by the Department of Water Resources, and the 30-foot wide access road on Lot A. d. The landscape plan shall include perimeter fencing and gate access on Lot B, in accordance with Condition No. 35. 38. The applicant shall submit a composite development plan for review and approval. Said composite development plan shall be recorded with the tentative tract map, and shall depict the following for information purposes: a. The proposed easement across Lots 8-12. b. Cross lot drainage easement along Lots 1-7. c. Establishment of the lighting and landscape maintenance assessment district. Conditions After Final Map Approval: #1: PC Resolution_9.25.2014 (1561 : Tentative Tract Map 14-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 18071)) 39. Final map shall be filed with the County recorder and one (1) Mylar copy of the filed map shall be submitted to the City offices prior to the issuance of any building permits. Page 8 of 9 Packet Pg. 20 3.1.a 40. The project shall be constructed in accordance with all the approved plans and conditions of approval, including but not limited to site plans, grading plans, wall plans, and building elevations. 41. Construction and operational activities associated with the project shall comply with the regulations of the Cit Terrace Municipal Code. 42. All perimeter walls shall be decorative, which may include the incorporation of stucco, split-face block, stone veneer and/or other materials that match the colors and materials of the project. 43. The developer shall pay all applicable development impact fees in effect at the time that construction permits are issued by the City. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace, th California, at a regular meeting held on the 25 day of September, 2014. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: __________________________ __________________________ Deborah A. Harrington Tom Comstock Interim City Clerk Chairman #1: PC Resolution_9.25.2014 (1561 : Tentative Tract Map 14-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 18071)) Page 9 of 9 Packet Pg. 21 3.1.b #2: 2006 Tentative Tract Map (1561 : Tentative Tract Map 14-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 18071)) Packet Pg. 22 3.1.c #3: TTM 18071 - Reduction (1561 : Tentative Tract Map 14-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 18071)) Packet Pg. 23 This page left intentionally blank. 4.1 AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE:September 25, 2014 TITLE:Discussion of City of Grand Terrace Sign Code PRESENTED BY:Sandra Molina, Community Development Director RECOMMENDATION:Discuss and provide direction to proposed revisions to window and temporary signs, and provide direction on freestanding signs. 2030 VISION STATEMENT: This item supports Goal #3, "Promote Economic Development", by updating the Sign Code and aligning it with the City's 2030 Vision and Economic Development Implementation Plan. BACKGROUND: On September 4, 2014, the Planning Commission conducted a public workshop on the Grand Terrace sign code, to discuss sign issues, with focus on those issues that have proven to be problematic over time. Specifically, there was a discussion on window signs and temporary signs. Several members of the public were in attendance and provided public comment. Staff indicated to the Planning Commission that revisions would be necessary to bring the sign code into compliance with sign laws, and also recommended that the revisions focus on window and banner signs. At the conclusion of the workshop, the Planning Commission directed staff to begin crafting sign code revisions regarding window and temporary signs. However, the Commission also asked that staff look at possible provisions that would allow businesses or property owners to obtain more signage, and also to look at ways to reduce the length of the side code. DISCUSSION: One of the points that staff made to the Planning Commission is that the sign code needed to be simpler and more straightforward. One of the ways to do this is to combine repetitive information into one section. For instance, each zone district has language on window signs (temporary and permanent) and temporary (non-window) signs, so instead of repeating these provisions, this will now be in its own section, applicable City-wide. Currently, revisions to the sign code are being undertaken. Packet Pg. 24 4.1 window and temporary signs with the Planning Commission. However, it is important to be aware of the amount of signage that is already permitted under the current code. A business in the C-2 zone is permitted wall signs on building frontages that face a street or parking lot, a freestanding monument sign, and in some instances, a freeway sign. A total of three such signs are permitted. In addition, a business can have one permanent window sign up to 25% of the window area. The allowable aggregate area for a wall sign includes areas of allowed window signs, and vice versa. The same business is also allowed temporary window signs, not to exceed 20% of the window area. Temporary window signs are limited to 45 days in a 90 day period, not to exceed 120 days in a calendar year. The same business is also allowed a temporary flag, banner (25 square feet in area), or portable sign not to exceed 45 days in a 90 day period, and not to exceed 120 days in a calendar year. A sign permit is required for permanent and temporary signs. Therefore, there are many opportunities for a business to advertise. However, there are also many opportunities to streamline the process, and make it simpler to comply. At the end of the day, the sign code will reflect compromises, but it will also provide the balance previously discussed between a City's desire to promote aesthetically pleasing, vision-compliant signage and a business's desire to effectively promote itself. Window signs The current provisions for temporary and permanent window signage create confusion and make enforcement extremely problematic. (Is it a permanent sign or a temporary sign? Is the sign area 20% or the 25%?) Therefore, staffs recommends eliminating the and simply have provisions for window signs. The business owner can determine best when and if the sign needs to be changed. The current provisions that limit the allowable aggregate area for a wall sign to include the areas of allowed window signs, and vice versa, may also be problematic. Many businesses have not obtained permits for window signs, and for those that may have, it is unclear as to whether the aggregate area was considered. Whether this provision should be continued is an area for discussion. The sign code also limits windows to ground floor spaces. Lastly, consideration should be given to the sign permit requirement. Proposed definition and standards for window signs could include the following: Definitions: Window Sign. Any permanent or temporary sign, picture, letter, character, or Packet Pg. 25 4.1 combination thereof, designed to communicate information about an activity, business, commodity, event, sale, or service that is placed upon and/or inside and/or within three purpose of being visible from the exterior of the window. Standards: Window Signs Businesses in commercial and industrial zoning districts shall be permitted to display window signs, subject to the following regulations: 1. The business must have permanent wall or freestanding signage. 2. No time limit is placed on the display of window signs. 3. A window sign includes any interior sign within three feet of a window which is visible from the exterior of the business. 4. alculating each window pane or panel. The area shall be separate for each building face and for each window. A group of window panes or panels may be considered one window if they are adjoining on the building face and are less than six inches apart. 5. Window signs may cover no more than twenty percent (20%) of the total transparent window area of the business, as defined in subsection 4 of this section. 6. Window signs shall not be illuminated except for signs constructed of neon tube letters and/or symbols. In such instances, window signs may include up to two neon signs per business 7. Between November 15 and January 10, window signs may cover up to fifty percent (50%) of the total window area of the business. 8. No permit is required for window signs. 9. Window signs displaying a commercial message shall be limited to on-site signage only. Off-site signage displaying a commercial message shall not be permitted. 10. Signs shall be cleaned, updated and/or repaired as necessary to maintain an attractive appearance and to ensure safe operation of the sign. Unacceptable sign conditions include broken or missing sign faces, broken or missing letters, chipped or peeling paint, and missing or broken fasteners. Failure to respond to a written request from the city to perform maintenance work shall result in code compliance action. Packet Pg. 26 4.1 Temporary Banners and Flags There are all manner of devices that can be used as temporary signage: banners, balloons, streamers, placards, pennants, and portable a-frames, to name a few. The existing sign code allows a business to have one banner with a maximum sign area of 25 square feet, one flag, or one portable sign subject to a sign permit and limited to 45 days in a 90 day period, not to exceed 120 days in a calendar year. Use of banners is th limited to special events. Concerns expressed at the September 4 workshop included the time limitations and the cost of obtaining permits Most business owners erect either a banner or banner flag. The use of these devices warrants consideration and balance. They are highly visible, and the regulations need to advertising. Therefore, staff is suggesting that the Commission consider prohibiting all temporary sign devices, except for banners and flags. The number of flags/banners permitted per business must be consistent and equitable, and staff does not recommend more than one banner or banner flag. Limiting to one also reduces sign clutter. However, to simplify the time period staff recommends that the banner/flag be permitted for a time period not to exceed 90 days, either consecutive or intermittent. Should a business owner require longer periods, a separate process could be established, such as a conditional use permit. Proposed definitions and standards for temporary signs could include the following: Definitions: Banner. Any type of fabric, vinyl, or similar sign attached to a building or other structure. Flag Sign. Any sign or device in the nature of a banner, flags or other object, designed and installed in such a manner as to move upon being subject to pressure by wind or breeze. Banner signs permitted by this chapter which are not designed to be moved by wind shall not be considered flag signs. Flag signs must be made of fabric or other similar non-rigid material supported or anchored along only one edge. Temporary Sign. A structure or device used for the public display of visual messages or images, which is easily installed with or without common hand tools and which is not intended or suitable for long-term or permanent display (e.g., less than 90 days), due to lightweight or flimsy construction materials. Examples include banners, flags, or similar ground-mounted nonpermanent signs made of paper, cloth, canvas, lightweight fabric, or other non-rigid material, with or without frames. Standards: Temporary Banner and Flags Packet Pg. 27 4.1 A. All paper signs, banners, balloons, streamers, placards, pennants or portable signs that direct, promote, attract, service or that are otherwise designed to attract attention are prohibited, except that the following temporary signs may be displayed in all nonresidential zones subject to the following rules. 1. The business must have permanent wall or freestanding signage. 2. Each business may display one banner or flag sign for not more than ninety (90) days in a calendar year. 3. Temporary signs displaying a commercial message shall be limited to on-site signage only. Off-site signage displaying a commercial message shall not be permitted. 4. Temporary signs shall not be illuminated. 5. Signs shall be cleaned, updated and/or repaired as necessary to maintain an attractive appearance and to ensure safe operation of the sign. Unacceptable sign conditions include broken or missing sign faces, broken or missing letters, chipped or peeling paint, and missing or broken fasteners. Failure to respond to a written request from the city to perform maintenance work shall result in revocation of the sign's permit. 6. A permit shall be issued by the community development director. B. In addition, the following provisions apply to banners: 1. The maximum area of a banner shall not exceed 25 square feet. 2. The area of banner shall not be counted toward the maximum permitted area of a permanent sign. 3. Banners shall be attached flat against the wall of the building to which it relates and shall not extend above the roof or eave line. 4. Banners shall not be hung from poles, trees, awnings, eaves or similar structures. 5. Banners shall be hung with permanent attachments, such as bolts or screws. 6. Banners shall not be tied to a structure with rope, string, twine, or similar materials. C. In addition, the following apply to flag signs: 1. The maximum area of a flag sign shall not exceed 25 square feet. Packet Pg. 28 4.1 2. No portion of the flag shall extend closer than five (5) feet to the property line. 3. The height of the flag shall not exceed eight feet. 4. Flag signs shall maintain a five foot separation from other signs. Freestanding Signs The Commission also requested that staff explore whether additional permanent freestanding signage could be allowed for smaller properties. Using the C-2 zone as an example, multiple tenant facilities are permitted one double-faced sign per frontage and up to 36 square feet where street frontage is up to 150 feet with a maximum of 4 panels and a maximum height of 6 feet, and up to 60 square feet of signage where the street frontage is 300 feet or greater and up to eight panels with a maximum height of 8 feet. Freestanding monument signs in the Barton Road Specific Plan are limited to: Twenty- four square feet of sign area for any parcel with less than 300 feet of street frontage and a maximum size of 32 square feet for any parcel with 300 feet or more of street frontage, and a maximum height 6 feet above grade. For comparison purposes, Rancho Cucamonga only allows more than one freestanding sign per street frontage when they can be spaced more than 300 feet apart, or allows more signage when there is over 500 feet of street frontage. The City of Highland allows one per street frontage. Sign area starts at 24 square feet for lots with less than 100 feet of street frontage, up to 66 square feet of sign area for lots with more than 300 feet of street frontage. It is standard practice to limit freestanding signs to one per street frontage for narrower lots and allow more for those lots that have greater street frontage. It is also standard practice to limit the number of tenant panels to ensure that all panels are readable. There are many examples in Grand Terrace and other cities where freestanding signs have so many panels with tiny lettering that a motorist traveling at 30 to 45 miles per hour will not be able to read them; thereby defeating the purpose. It would be more appropriate for these situations to be considered on a case by case basis with the property owner submitting an application for a conditional use permit or variance, and petitioning the Commission to allow additional signage. In this manner, the placement of a second freestanding sign or increased area or height can be taken into consideration in relation to site characteristics and line of sight. ATTACHMENTS: #0: Municode_Chapter 18.80 Signs APPROVALS: Sandra Molina Completed 09/17/2014 8:42 AM Packet Pg. 29 4.1 City Attorney Completed 09/17/2014 2:33 PM Community Development Completed 09/17/2014 2:42 PM Planning Commission Pending Packet Pg. 30 4.1.a #4: Municode_Chapter 18.80 Signs (1560 : Discussion of City of Grand Terrace Sign Code) Packet Pg. 31 4.1.a #4: Municode_Chapter 18.80 Signs (1560 : Discussion of City of Grand Terrace Sign Code) Packet Pg. 32 4.1.a #4: Municode_Chapter 18.80 Signs (1560 : Discussion of City of Grand Terrace Sign Code) Packet Pg. 33 4.1.a #4: Municode_Chapter 18.80 Signs (1560 : Discussion of City of Grand Terrace Sign Code) Packet Pg. 34 4.1.a #4: Municode_Chapter 18.80 Signs (1560 : Discussion of City of Grand Terrace Sign Code) Packet Pg. 35 4.1.a #4: Municode_Chapter 18.80 Signs (1560 : Discussion of City of Grand Terrace Sign Code) Packet Pg. 36 4.1.a #4: Municode_Chapter 18.80 Signs (1560 : Discussion of City of Grand Terrace Sign Code) Packet Pg. 37 4.1.a #4: Municode_Chapter 18.80 Signs (1560 : Discussion of City of Grand Terrace Sign Code) Packet Pg. 38 4.1.a #4: Municode_Chapter 18.80 Signs (1560 : Discussion of City of Grand Terrace Sign Code) Packet Pg. 39 4.1.a #4: Municode_Chapter 18.80 Signs (1560 : Discussion of City of Grand Terrace Sign Code) Packet Pg. 40 4.1.a #4: Municode_Chapter 18.80 Signs (1560 : Discussion of City of Grand Terrace Sign Code) Packet Pg. 41 4.1.a #4: Municode_Chapter 18.80 Signs (1560 : Discussion of City of Grand Terrace Sign Code) Packet Pg. 42 4.1.a #4: Municode_Chapter 18.80 Signs (1560 : Discussion of City of Grand Terrace Sign Code) Packet Pg. 43 4.1.a #4: Municode_Chapter 18.80 Signs (1560 : Discussion of City of Grand Terrace Sign Code) Packet Pg. 44 4.1.a #4: Municode_Chapter 18.80 Signs (1560 : Discussion of City of Grand Terrace Sign Code) Packet Pg. 45 4.1.a #4: Municode_Chapter 18.80 Signs (1560 : Discussion of City of Grand Terrace Sign Code) Packet Pg. 46 4.1.a #4: Municode_Chapter 18.80 Signs (1560 : Discussion of City of Grand Terrace Sign Code) Packet Pg. 47 4.1.a #4: Municode_Chapter 18.80 Signs (1560 : Discussion of City of Grand Terrace Sign Code) Packet Pg. 48 4.1.a #4: Municode_Chapter 18.80 Signs (1560 : Discussion of City of Grand Terrace Sign Code) Packet Pg. 49 4.1.a #4: Municode_Chapter 18.80 Signs (1560 : Discussion of City of Grand Terrace Sign Code) Packet Pg. 50 4.1.a #4: Municode_Chapter 18.80 Signs (1560 : Discussion of City of Grand Terrace Sign Code) Packet Pg. 51 4.1.a #4: Municode_Chapter 18.80 Signs (1560 : Discussion of City of Grand Terrace Sign Code) Packet Pg. 52 4.1.a #4: Municode_Chapter 18.80 Signs (1560 : Discussion of City of Grand Terrace Sign Code) Packet Pg. 53 4.1.a #4: Municode_Chapter 18.80 Signs (1560 : Discussion of City of Grand Terrace Sign Code) Packet Pg. 54 4.1.a #4: Municode_Chapter 18.80 Signs (1560 : Discussion of City of Grand Terrace Sign Code) Packet Pg. 55 4.1.a #4: Municode_Chapter 18.80 Signs (1560 : Discussion of City of Grand Terrace Sign Code) Packet Pg. 56 4.1.a #4: Municode_Chapter 18.80 Signs (1560 : Discussion of City of Grand Terrace Sign Code) Packet Pg. 57 4.1.a #4: Municode_Chapter 18.80 Signs (1560 : Discussion of City of Grand Terrace Sign Code) Packet Pg. 58