04/19/2001 i
GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 19, 2001
The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand
Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on April 19, 2001, at 7:05
p.m., by Chairperson Fran Van Gelder.
PRESENT: Fran Van Gelder, Chairperson
Doug Wilson, Vice-Chairperson
Matthew Addington, Commissioner
Brian Whitley, Commissioner
Patrizia Materassi, Director of Community and Economic Development
Michelle Boustedt, CEDD Secretary
ABSENT: Mary Trainor, Commissioner
7:05 P.M. CONVENED SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• Call to Order
• Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Whitley
• Roll Call
• Public address to 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 Community Development Director.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: NONE
• This is the time for anyone in the audience to speak on any item, which is not on the
agenda for this meeting.
1
ITEMS:
1. SA-01-03 Site and Architectural review of a 1,348 square
E-01-02 foot service station/food market, with related
BRSPA-01-01 Environmental Review, Conditional Use Permit,
CUP-01-01 and four Variances from specified development
V-01-01, V-01-02 standards, located at the southwest corner of
V-01-03, V-01-04 Barton Road and Mount Vernon Avenue.
November 16, 2000
APPLICANT: G & M Oil Company, d.b.a. Chevron
LOCATION: 22483 Barton Road
Planning Technician Cumblidge reported that G&M Oil Company submitted application on
February 5, 2001 to construct a self-service gasoline fuel station/food market at the site of the
former Union 76 or Unical service station, located at the southwest corner of Barton Road and
Mount Vernon Avenue. The existing building will be removed, as the site will be paved. A new
facility would be constructed in its place. There are a number of applications associated with the
project, as there are a number of issues regarding land use regulations and development
standards that adversely affect this property because of its size and configuration.
The issues have to be dealt with in order to allow the proposed use within the context of the
standards of the Barton Road Specific Plan. A Zoning change will allow a gas station food
market within the Barton Road Specific Plan at this site only, within the village commercial land
use designation. There are also four Variances associated with the Specific Plan. The site is
approximately 12,414 square feet and is a handicap to its development. It is staffs opinion that a
gas station/convenience market may be the best use of this site at this time.
The site plan is a conventional service station/mini market in that the building at the back corner
of the site, the canopy is in front. There are two driveways, one each on Barton Road and then
on Mount Vernon Avenue. The site will have increased landscaping, whereas there will be
continuous landscape along both street frontages including the parkway, which will be
incorporated in the landscaping of the site, with meandering sidewalks. Also requested of the
applicant is stamped colored concrete at both drive entryways and at the front entrance to the
building, to help delineate to what is a pedestrian and what is a vehicular circulation area. There
are four banks of double-sided fuel pumps that can accommodate up to eight vehicles. The trash
enclosure, air and water dispenser and related fueling equipment are located close to the building
and away from the streets. The building will have to be moved four feet north due to a four-foot
public utility easement. This will result in a landscape planner between the property line and the
building. Originally, the building was going to be built at the property line for what would have
been a tall configuration. Moving the building north four feet will put a landscape planter to the
south side of the building and will relieve what would be an otherwise very tall wall. The
movement of the building has very little impact on the site and the site functions, and will present
a more aesthetic design solution for the south elevation of the building. Staff is proposing to add
condition number 23 that this four-foot public utility easement behind the building shall be
2
landscaped and permanently maintained as well as the rest of the landscape. The architectural
guidelines contained in the Barton Road Specific Plan recommend a rural rustic or cape cod
architectural style. The initial submittal was of a generic stucco box with a mansard type roof. Its
design uses river rock at the base of the building with precast bull nose detail cap work. The roof
is composed of dark gray concrete tiles with a low pitch and exposed rafter tails. There is a small
tower element incorporated into the roof to break up the roofline and to serve as a focal point of
the building. Wood trellis structures are incorporated over the front entrance and on both sides.
The wood trellis on the east side of the building covers and disguises the trash enclosure. Pre-
cast concrete columns with the simple classic designs would support all of the wood trellis
structures. Then stucco is used extensively on the building. As stucco is discouraged as a
dominant exterior finish; the applicant's have incorporated various detail elements and accent
materials to break up what would otherwise be large expansions of stucco. Dark blue accent tiles
are used in diamond pattern as well reveal lines set into the stucco. Staff is asking for and
requiring, that all of the existing retaining walls that are being re-used and retained, be refaced
with the same river rock used on the building. Mature landscaping will be installed, and used of
tropical plants, i.e. Palm Trees are being discouraged. As stated before, landscaping in the
parkways will be incorporated overall design of the site. Another technique that would be used
would be berming between the fueling pump area and the sidewalk in order to reduce the visual
impact of the fueling activities from the street.
One small issue is a need for radius dedication at Barton Road and Mount Vernon Avenue to
accommodate larger truck maneuvers, etc., in the future. Adjusting the street improvements at
this time would completely alter the decorative pavement that is there now, and the City is not in
the position to re do the whole intersection at this time. The applicant has submitted a rendering
of the project that shows how the overall appearance of the building will come across.
Other applications associated with this project include the zone chanqe of Barton Road Specific
Plan 01-01: the site is designated village commercial, and the Barton Road Specific Plan does
not allow auto service stations as a conditionally permitted land use at this time. Because of the
sites physical development hardships due to it's small size, staff is recommending a zone change
amendment of the Barton Road Specific plan to allow gasoline sales and convenience market
excluding automobile service or washing. This zone change would be on this particular site only
with the approval of the conditional use permit of the planning commission. There is a draft
ordinance included in your packet that details how this would be accomplished as an amendment
to the specific plan. Conditional Use Permit 01-01: It should be noted that this proposed use is
generally compatible with land uses and development patterns in the immediate vicinity.
Furthermore, a service station has been a long-term use of this site, however, a conditional use
permit will help the city manage control future changes in the use of this site. Staff is
recommending conditions of approval that will limit the site to what is currently proposed, and that
any substantial changes or additions to the use will require review by the Planning Commission at
the appropriate time. There are four variances: 01-01 is for setbacks. The Barton Road Specific
Plan has no required setbacks in the village commercial area. However, the specific plan
requires (30) thirty-foot front setback for parking areas, including vehicle maneuvering and
access. Because of the size of the site, this use has no choice but to encroach into those
setbacks. Variance 01-02 for landscaping: The specific plan requires 25% of the site to be
landscaped. This project has achieved roughly 12.4% of the site in landscaping, which is a
3
- dramatic improvement as to what is there now. Variance 01-03 vehicle access: The Barton
Road Specific Plan requires vehicle access points to public streets to be located at least 100 feet
from the nearest intersection that is per master plan area number four. This plan is closing two of
the four current driveways that are immediately adjacent to the street intersection and putting new
driveways away from the corner. However, because the lot is only 100' by 125' feet, this
proposed site plan will require a variance from the standard as well. Variance 01-04 the building
location: The Barton Road Specific Plan requires all buildings in the master plan area number
four to be street adjacent located no more than five feet from the street. This proposed site plan
places the building in the back corner of this site and should be noted that the Barton Road
Specific Plan envisions the consolidation and redevelopment of parcels into cohesive projects
that allow for appropriate shared circulation and parking layouts to facilitate street adjacent
buildings. If the adjacent shopping center and the Hollywood Video building and the site were all
under the same ownership and the entire area was redeveloped as one cohesive project, then
perhaps the reverse corner building orientation would be feasible. Because of the size of the site,
and the physical constraints of.that small size, it is staffs opinion that the required findings in
support of the approval of all four variances can be made, the findings are as follows: (a) The
small size of this property constitutes a special circumstance. (b) The strict application of the
development standards of the Barton Road Specific Plan greatly restricts the development
potential of this small site relative to other sites in the vicinity. Other properties in the vicinity are
not similarly small in size and could easily accommodate the development standards of the
Barton Road Specific Plan. The variances are for relief from specified development standards,
which would apply to any use of this property, not just the use proposed. (c) The proposed
development is consistent with the General Plan Commercial Land Use Designation as well as
other provisions of the Grand Terrace General Plan.
The project is also proposing a series of signs. There is a monument sign located at the corner,
which contains the standard Chevron logo, and state mandated pricing signs. There is a package
of signage that goes on the canopy, and that is dictated by the Chevron Corporate Franchise, and
a food market sign on the building. The monument sign and the other signs are generally
consistent with the Specific Plan.
One un-resolved issue at this point is in regard to the City reader board message sign mentioned
in the Building and Safety Public Works Report. It is agreed that the size of the sign as shown in
the building official's report would be inappropriate for the small of the site. There is a
supplemental memorandum from G & M Oil Company regarding their position on the City ID
monument sign illustrating alternative pole signs in case City reader board is required. We have
been discussing potential solutions and were asked to develop a potential concept. It is staffs
opinion that perhaps the City identity statement could be incorporated into an 18 to 24 inch
retaining wall at the corner of site which is a potential solution that the applicant has deemed as
an acceptable compromise. The applicant doesn't agree with the reader board sign. It is too big
for the site and affects readability of the station price sign.
Director Materassi added that a member of the Council brought up the issue of the signs,
whereas she was interested in having an automated reader board in a central location in Grand
Terrace. One sign was approved for the Rite Aid. A reader board was going to be installed on
top of the City monument sign. The Council Member agreed one reader board would be
4
sufficient. An additional condition should be made that staff and the applicant will work on a
solution and bring it to the City Council for final approval and consideration. Director Materassi
recommends that this issue be left open for the Council, but to also have the Commission give
their own recommendations.
Planning Technician Cumblidge reported the applicant did provide some photos of other sites that
have been built. Their track record has been to take existing stations and remodel them.
Planning Technician Cumblidge reported that G & M Oil Company are starting construction of
new stations at various locations to better their image, which works out to be less costly. The
Community and Economic Development Department recommends that the Commission
recommend approval of this project and the associated negative declaration to the City Council
subject to the conditions of approval as amended. We added condition number 23, regarding the
landscaping behind the building, as the building moves four feet north, and condition 24 regarding
staff and the applicant working on a compromised signage solution to accommodate the wishes
of the City Council Members.
Chair Van Gelder commended the staff for the work done on the project, and appreciated the
discouragement in the use of palm trees. She expressed her concerns about the Grand Terrace
sign, in which she didn't see any point in having it; and was in agreement with sending it to the
Council. With that, Chair Van Gelder asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Addington had concerns with regard to the left turn out on Mount Vernon Avenue
and posting a no left turn sign. Commissioner Addington noticed the site configuration was
similar to the AM/PM station or Arco station down the street; and as people try even to make a
right turn out onto Barton Road, they slow down traffic and they congest the intersection.
Commissioner Addington wanted to know if there was any thoughts in giving a right turn only into
the driveway, with a no exit back out onto Barton Road?
Director Materassi did not think this condition was recommended. She advised that the plans
were sent to Craig Neausteder, the traffic engineer, and the deletions of two driveways was the
only recommendation at this time.
Commissioner Addington expressed his concerns with two intersections getting congested
because of a service station. He felt that it would be a nice addition to that corner and really
spruce up the town. But the traffic congestion was an issue to him.
Commissioner Wilson had questions with regard to the Barton Road Specific Plan, how did the
Commission get to the point where the use of a gas station was excluded use in this site.
Director Materassi reported that per the Specific Plan, most of the uses on this area of the village
core located at Mount Vernon and Barton Road are to be all pedestrian oriented for retail such as
ice cream stores and the like. Nothing larger than 5,000 square feet would be considered.
Commissioner Wilson stated his reasoning for bringing the question up is because the
Commission has to go through a zone change and a CUP in order to be able to implement a gas
station. Historically the use on this corner has always been a gas station. Commissioner
5
- Addington asked if the variance being requested was going to ride with the land or would it be on
a case-by-case situation?
Director ,Materassi informed Commissioner Wilson that Planning Technician Cumblidge was
proposing for it to be for any use proposed only for this property due to it's hardships, unless the
Planning Commission felt differently about it.
Commissioner Wilson was not aware that it could be done with the sites or that one could get a
variance to ride with the land/site, and thought that it was project specific.
Director Materassi informed that these proposed amendments and variances are to be site
specific. She also informed Commissioner Wilson that project specific amendments could be
done for this particular use, or could also be done for the whole Barton Road area. In terms of
the Variance to run with the site, she will check with the City Attorney.
Commissioner Addington asked if the variances are going to run with the land, are the variances
going to be recorded with the recorder's office?
Director Materassi replied that it was not required in the conditions, and asked Commissioner
Addington if he thought it should be required.
Commissioner Addington asked how else would they run with the land/site?
Director Materassi informed that the planning department refers back to the previous files, if a
person were to apply for another project, the department sees the covenants on the project, and
basically go back to the files of previous approvals.
Commissioner Addington felt that if they are going to run with the land, they should be recorded.
Director Materassi will ask the City Attorney what would be the best way to put it on record.
Commissioner Wilson expressed that he would not be in favor of stamped driveways. In which
he feels in his experience would be a bad idea in heavily traffic areas, where it breaks up over
time. Commissioner Wilson felt that washed concrete or something similar would work.
Commissioner Wilson also expressed that he would not in favor of a reverse corner sitting.
Considering the fact that. As for the Grand Terrace sign, assuming that we leave the flexibility, is
it the intention of the city to supplement the owner in the construction of the sign, or is the owner
going to have to adhere to the entire sign project?
Director Materassi informed Commissioner Addington that the city would supplement by putting
that particular portion in.
Commissioner Whitley wanted to know if there was going to be a single monument sign facing
one direction, and would it be visible from both streets?
6
Planning Technician Cumblidge replied that it would be a double-faced sign at the diagonal
relative to the corner so that it would be readily visible from almost any direction but only one
sign.
Commissioner Whitley also wanted to know how the Grand Terrace sign line up with a
meandering sidewalk, and if potential vandalism would occur with the sign, was there anything
that could easily protect the sign against it.
Planning Technician Cumblidge informed him that this design is only conceptual to get the feeling
of how the retaining wall relative to the monument sign could be located. The intent would be to
have the retaining wall be curved and parallel as the same radius as the property line corner. So
it would be curved. Planning Technician Cumblidge is envisioning that the letters would be
recessed into concrete in order not to be easily vandalized.
Director Materassi informed that the city would install the sign, but the applicant would take care
of the maintenance of it.
Chair Van Gelder asked if there would be a casing on the outside of that sign, so if it were to get
spray painted, how would it get cleaned off.
Director Materassi suggested sandblasting and repainting.
Chair Van Gelder opened up the public hearing and asked Mr. Miller if he would like to address
the commission first.
Ad Miller
Camden Development
Laguna Beach, CA
Ari Miller, the property owner; thanked Steve Cumblidge for doing such a wonderful detailed
report. With regard to the sign maintenance, one of the things that can be done is coat the sign
with anti-graffiti coating, that way people who try to spray paint will not succeed. It is a good way
to protect the sign from potential graffiti. In the larger scope of planning with the City, this
property has been a gas station from the 1920's to now. The proposed project would eliminate
the state that it exists in now, and replaces it with a very nice upgraded Chevron station and
would bring Chevron to the community of Grand Terrace, offering the residents another option to
purchase gas.
Chair Van Gelder asked if there was any chance of having a full service island? If not, would
there be a chance that if there was a full service island one day a week or one day a month?
Being that there is a lot of senior citizens in town and would appreciate a full service island.
Mr. Miller informed Chairman Van Gelder that he would have to turn that question over to the
applicant who will be offering the Chevron Station.
7
- Andrea Fiscus, the applicant with G & M Oil Company expressed the problem that the State of
California requires for one to have fuel pricing signs and if one has self serve and full serve, the
requirements would be a full additional sign stating the fueling prices for full service as opposed
to just have a self service sign which this sign has a design for.
Chair Van Gelder asked if it was possible to make another sign, or add that number to the sign.
Andrea Fiscus informed that it would add one more full section to the sign, and it would be
something that was up to the City. The site was very small.
Chair Van Gelder felt that it would be appreciated within the senior community.
Chair Van Gelder closed the public hearing for this particular case, and asked the Commissioners
for their thoughts on the Grand Terrace sign.
Commissioner Addington commented that he liked the idea of the City identity.
Commissioner Whitley felt that he was somewhat neutral on it. He can see the pros and cons of
it. But if done appropriately he would be supportive of it.
Commissioner Wilson commented that he would be in favor.
Chair Van Gelder wanted to know what the height of the sign would be.
Planning Technician Cumblidge informed that the sign would be 18 to 24 inches. Very low key
relative to the pricing sign, which has to be by State Law, plainly visible.
Chair Van Gelder conceded as condition number 24 then that staff will work the Council on the
issue.
Commissioner Addington wanted to know if any of the other commissioners were concerned with
the congestion at the intersection and if it should be a right out only onto Barton Road.
Chair Van Gelder asked what Commissioner Addington's suggested alternative be.
Commissioner Addington suggested right in only and you exit at Mount Vernon.
Chair Van Gelder informed Commissioner Addington that it would be a problem, at least it is a
problem at the gas station down the hill, which has the one-way entrance only, and it causes
quite a backup of cars. With that Chair Van Gelder asked the Commission if there were any other
conditions that they would like to address.
Commissioner Addington had a question with regard to number eleven, the corner ready
dedication. Does the City of Grand Terrace do property curbs for this radius dedication, or is it
the corner cutback type?
8
City Engineer Bill Addington responded that the reason that the requirement is there is because
the site plans had indicated that the radius on that corner was going to be lengthened to a thirty-
five foot radius. The intersection has a slightly smaller radius and has already been landscaped
and textured and the ramps are already in place. The thought behind the condition is to provide
for the right of way should the corner ever need to be widened in the future.
Commissioner Addington asked if the plan was for a cutback or a curb radius.
Bill Addington responded that the plan he reviewed showed it to be a curb radius.
Commissioner Addington wanted to know if any of the Commission wanted to address anything
on the stamped concrete?
Commissioner Wilson responded that he can see that the language can be modified to have a
rather than special stamped colored concrete paving just to say that it would be a distinguishing
material or something similar to it. Commissioner Wilson added that there should be three or four
different alternatives other than the stamped concrete.
Commissioner Addington had one final question with regard to hours. He noticed in the signage
of other stations say 24 hours. Will the sign say 24-hour facility, or does the Barton Road Specific
Plan give guidelines as to when they can be in operation.
Director Materassi informed that the hours of operation have not been reviewed as of yet and the
applicant may be able to provide that information.
Chair Van Gelder commented that she really liked the idea of having recessed windows, and
thought it was a great idea.
Chair Van Gelder stated that condition number 14 would be changed from the stamped colored
concrete to a distinguished paving. Number 21 will state "shall' instead of "should". Number 22
will state "shall' instead of "should". Number 23 is the landscaping and was not sure of the
verbage.
Planning Technician Cumblidge stated that condition number 23 would read, "the four feet public
utility easement behind the building shall be landscaped and permanently maintained."
Chair Van Gelder stated that condition number 24 would be that with regard to the Grand Terrace
sign, the staff and the applicant will work with the Council on the definitive style of it.
Director Materassi further suggested that condition number 24 should read "the staff and
applicant would work to bring a proposal to the Council which would include a sign of a minor
scale such as the sketch submitted by the applicant and staff instead of the larger reader board."
Chair Van Gelder agreed.
9
Jerry Glander suggested that if river rock was going to be used, it should be specified and
required that it be coated with a special clear coating that lends itself to easily remove graffiti, and
to seal the rock, mortar and grout.
Chair Van Gelder asked what condition would the suggestion fit under.
Commissioner Addington suggested that it would fit close to condition 21. Condition 21 would
have to be revised to say retaining walls and building walls.
Commissioner Wilson suggested that condition 21 should include the signs as well.
MOTION
PC-05-2001 Commissioner Addington made a motion that to amend the conditions as
discussed.
Commissioner Wilson seconded the motion.
MOTION
VOTE
PC-05-2001 Motion approved 4-0-0-1. Commissioner Trainor absent.
MOTION Commission Addington made a motion for recommendation or approval of
PC-06-2001 the project in the associated negative declaration to the City Council, subject
to the conditions of approval contained herein.
Commissioner Whitley seconded the motion.
MOTION
VOTE
PC-06-2001 Motion approved 4-0-0-1. Commissioner Trainor absent.
2. SA-01-014 Application to modify the approval of 5,600
E-01-03 square foot metal building as allowed under
Administrative S.A.-01 and E-00-01 by requesting a period
of five (5) years to complete various on and off-site
improvements and other requirements.
APPLICANT: United Strategies, Inc. on behalf of Harris Transfer, Inc.
LOCATION: 21506 Main Street
RECOMMENDATION: Approval Subject to conditions.
10
Planning Associate Lampe reported the subject site of the applicant's request is a four-acre
parcel located at 21506 Main Street. Last year under administrative review by staff, the staff
approved a 5,600 square foot metal building going into the southwest corner of that particular
site. The property in question is zoned industrial, that is M2 Zoning, as are other parcels in the
immediate vicinity. The property takes access by means of a private driveway running in a
northerly direction off of Main street to the south of the subject site. The applicant is asking for a
period of five years to complete certain improvements that were imposed when the staff approved
this project last year under administrative site and architectural review case number 00-01.
Specific details of the applicant's request are listed in a letter attached to the staffs report. The
request relates to the requirements of the department of building and safety regarding street
dedication and various street improvements and other improvements to the property. The city
engineer and the building official are available to answer any questions that the Commission may
have in regard to this request. Staff feels that given the costs involved and the time that it will
take to do some of these improvements that it would be reasonable to give the applicant some
additional time to complete those basic infrastructure improvements. Staff also believes that
some of the conditions that were imposed under the original administrative review that approved
this project could be modified to some extent. But staff does not feel it is appropriate to grant five
years to complete all of the conditions of this project. The applicant has submitted the letter,
which breaks down the various requests.
The first part of the applicant's request is that certain requirements from the Department of
Building and Safety be deferred for five years. These have to do with items such as the submittal
�+ of street improvements and sewer plans. Staff feels that it would be reasonable to have an
extension of six months from the issuance of the building permit for the proposed 5,600 square
foot building. Secondly, the applicant is asking that street improvement for proposed streets that
would run normally on Main Street provided access to those parcels off of Main Street, those
street improvements be deferred for a period of five years. Staff does not feel that it is
reasonable and is recommending a one-year deferral be approved in this case from the time of
the issuance of the building permit for the proposed 5,600 square foot building. The applicant is
asking that the street dedication which is required for the proposed street be deferred for a period
of five years. The staff feels that it would not be appropriate to defer the dedication at this time,
actual dedication costs very little, and that it would be appropriate to require the dedication before
the issuance of building permits for the proposed building. Staff has modified the conditions with
the consultation of the Building and Safety Department. Item 7-4 is the new suggested condition
that is on page three of the revised resolution item two: "The offer for street dedication shall
made prior to the issuance of building permits. The original requirement by the County of San
Bernardino wherefore a sixty foot dedication." The city is willing to accept a fifty-foot dedication
due to the specific circumstances related to this property. The dedication can terminate in a cul-
de-sac and the entry of the most northerly parcel.
The applicant is also asking that sewer facilities needed to comply with the City of Grand Terrace
Municipal Code be deferred for five years. Again, Staff does not feel that this is reasonable.
Something more in the order of one-year deferral seems reasonable. Lastly, this is an area that
the Commissioners remember has been the subject to much discussion regarding availability of
certain services. Staff is asking that the applicant provide proof of domestic water service from
11
the City of Colton, for the site prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the
proposed building. In addition, the applicant is asking that Condition eight, which was
recommended by the City Engineer be deferred. It is not so much asking for a deferral on this
item, as it is the applicant is suggesting that an adequate grading plan has been submitted and
has met the requirements in the City Engineer's memorandum regarding this project. It is to the
Staffs understanding in talking to the City Engineer after the staff report is written that there are
still some items that have to supplied by the Applicant before the City Engineer is satisfied in his
review of this particular site. Staff feels that because there might have been some
misunderstanding or disagreement about what information had originally been submitted that it
would have been the original condition that required this information be supplied prior to the
issuance of the building permit that it be supplied within a period of six months from the building
permit issuance.
The applicant is also asking that Condition number eleven, regarding landscaping of the site be
revised. He is suggesting that the landscaping not be installed for a period of five years. Staff
would agree to some extent that the original conditions should be modified. The original condition
required the existing landscaping in the frontage of this parcel be refurbished and replanted
where necessary. Staff is suggesting that instead of requiring the time that the street is actually
improved and the improvements are put in; an additional strip of five feet of landscaping provided
for that street, that landscaping would have to go in at the time the street is actually improved
which actually suggests the condition is to be met within one year from the time of issuance of
building permit. The landscaping condition also requires that landscaping along the easterly
boundary of the site for screening the interior of the site from view from the easterly end of this
site; we are suggesting that particular landscaping should go in within six months of the issuance
of the building permit. The suggested modifications have been included on Item six of the staff
report.
In addition the applicant is asking that the fencing plan that was required by the original approval,
to substitute some other kind of security fencing in lieu of the existing barb wire fencing at the
site, and that be done in conjunction with the street improvement plan and in a sense, staff has
agreed with that language, except that the fencing plan should all be done within one year of the
of issuance of the building permit. The fencing plan should be submitted within six months of the
issuance of the building permit. The fencing could be installed at the time the street
improvements are installed.
Not included in the applicants list of suggested modifications, but it does relate to this project,
since the original approval of this project has come to the staffs attention that there are two
additional businesses operating on the site. One is a repair of large vehicles, mainly, this
particular individual specializes in repairing fire engines. There is a large vehicle repair business
being conducted on this site. Also conducting from this site is a wholesale business of re-selling
trucks. Staff is suggesting that a condition be added to appropriate applications from these
businesses be submitted to the City, to be complete prior to the issuance of occupancy for the
proposed 5,600 square foot building.
Lastly, since the deferral of the street improvements, it does require approval of an action from
the City Council, a resolution has been prepared for review and consideration and does include
12
some language calling for a condition to recommend particular items related to basic street
improvements and the sewer connection, those items be ultimately deferred by the City Council.
The project is a 5,600 square building and is located on the southwest corner of the site. Staff
has proposed conditions, which the applicant has not objected to requiring embellishment of the
building. It is a building that is in the back, not visible from the street. Staff did ask that some
minor modifications be done to the appearance of the buildings. Some detailed plans in the staff
report shows the site plans and some of the elevations of the buildings and an actual photograph.
Staff is recommending approval of this particular project for the 5,600 square foot building with
the conditions contained in the resolution. Staff is not recommending that the Commission
approve the five-year deferral of the applicant but that some relief of some modifications be
approved at this time. The applicant has informed Staff that there have been some recent
changes to potential ownership of properties in this area and perhaps the applicant will enlighten
us with that in his presentation.
Director Materassi wanted to add that even though the Staff has not accepted the proposal of the
applicant for five years extension of the conditions, the applicant has been allowed to do all of
these improvements either by time of building permit issuance or Certificate of Occupancy.
Usually, applicants do a lot of conditions because they are very interested in the building
occupancy. That is usually our leverage. As conditioned, we are helping applicant and losing
some leverage. However, it is the Planning Commission' pleasure on what they would like to
have done.
Commissioner Addington had a question on whether staff wanted the conditions or the
improvements in place prior to occupancy.
Director Materassi replied that staff is giving six months to some of the conditions and one year to
others. So staff is not connecting conditions to the Certificate of Occupancy, with a few
exceptions. Previously, the staff was tied up to the Certificate of Occupancy and building permits,
but the applicant is requesting a significant extension. The staff is recommending six months to a
year, which kind of releases the applicant from doing the improvements right away, but it does not
give the applicant the time of five years.
Commissioner Addington asked what would happen if the applicant gets their Certificate of
Occupancy, but does not do the improvements within one year?
Director Materassi replied that the monitoring process such as Code Enforcement would begin.
The Conditional Use Permit would be reviewed, if the applicant is in violation, the Planning
Commission can revoke the approval.
Associate Planner Lampe: Informed the Commission that the applicant has another approval on
this site for the actual trucking business.
Commissioner Addington: asked a question with regard to water or specifically firewater. Is there
sufficient water to satisfy the fire department?
13
Associate Planner Lampe: Replied that the original plans for the building that was approved
under the administrative review last year, were signed off by the fire department. The City of
Colton does.provide water service to those particular properties. This site does have fire service,
but does not have domestic service. It is Staffs suggestion that a condition be added prior to the
Certificate of Occupancy for the building that the applicant has to provide proof that there is
domestic service to the site.
Commissioner Whitley: raised a question with regard to the sewer facilities. Since Staff is
requesting that we give a one-year deferral for installment, are the current facilities satisfactory in
some fashion, does it meet the code?
Planning Associate Lampe: replied that the site has what is called a four-inch lateral that
provides service down to the main at Main Street. The recommendation of the Building and
Safety Department as outlined is that the system be upgraded to appropriate standards.
Commissioner Whitley asked if it would be something which if the building were complete before
improving the sewer connection, would it still function, but maybe just not as efficiently?
Director Materassi answered that it was correct. The sewer facilities are not up to code, but still
functional, provided the illegal businesses on-site do not add to the problem.
Jerry Glander asked if there were any restrooms in the building?
Planning Associate Lampe answered no.
Commissioner Addington asked if any domestic water was brought into the building, it is a shed?
Jerry Glander answered that the structure is an open structure mainly for repair of vehicles.
Commissioner Wilson wanted to know how Staff arrived at the six month to one-year time frame
with regard to an extension.
Planning Associate Lampe replied that some of these improvements are going to cost quite a bit
and that Staff is trying to help local businesses and provide some flexibility to the applicant. Staff
feels that they have some obligation to come up with some sort of a recommendation that is
reasonable. In five year's time, a whole lot of things can change with staff, etc. Nobody will
remember what the original project was. But on the other hand, the costs of these improvements
are high, and Staff wanted to be a little bit flexible rather than responding with a flat no.
Commissioner Wilson asked Planner Lampe if any of the substantial improvements been made?
Planning Associate Lampe answered that the applicant can better address that. The major
improvement out there over the last year or so was with the water fire service that was provided.
The applicant of the next project has paid the meter fees to buy domestic water service to Crystal
Properties to the immediate south of the subject site. The applicants have indicated that the
14
property owner would comply with the domestic water service condition as proposed, so there
has been some knowledge of rather limited progress.
Chair Van Gelder invited the applicant to come to the podium.
Bruce Cash
United Strategies
San Bernardino, Ca
Bruce Cash thanked the Commission and Staff for their efforts in working on this project. Mr.
Cash explained that in the Fall of 2000, the applicants anticipated that Harris Transfer, which is
the four-acre piece, acquired the former Hood Communications Property. The applicant is now
engaged in discussion with Crystal Properties in an attempt to acquire another piece and if in fact,
the applicant is able to achieve that, it adds merit to the existing request. If this acquisition goes
through, the private drive and the improvements that are part of the conditions become a moot
point. Harris Transfers entry point would be at Main Street, and what they intend to do with this
property would be an entirely different submittal to the city; those requirements would likely be
different. With that, the applicant has brought in a major water supply line that is operable, and in
fact exceeds the County of San Bernardino Fire Department's fire code requirements for an
industrial area. There is documentation relative to all of those applications that have come forth
that there are ample fireplugs available for site uses. A fire line also extends on the private
property by use of a private fire service. There are private fire hydrants now to protect both
current tenants on the north side of the parcel and current tenants on the south side of the parcel.
The City of Colton has now installed domestic water service to tenants at this location and have
agreed that the applicant is not in opposition to the conditions that a domestic water service be
installed within the time frame that staff has recommended to the Harris Transfer facility that is
appropriate.
There are two sewer laterals at the location and there is an appropriately sized lateral tied to the
sewer trunk main for the property located on the south side of the parcel. So the only remaining
issue of which the City Engineer has pointed out is Staff believes that this lateral which is
currently four inches in diameter that ties to what is believed to be an eight inch main in Main
Street is undersized. The Applicant is concurring that the lateral needs to be replaced. However,
the staff also pointed out that what is being proposed by Harris Transfer to locate the
maintenance building here, there are no restroom facilities, there are no additional employees
that will be generated as a result of this. There is no additional loading, as it has existed there for
many years. The applicant has not been able to find any record of complaints relative to a
problem with a sewer back up of any kind. The applicant was told that all the business owners
couldn't afford to do what needs to be done.
The last major accomplishment in this area was a signing of a participation agreement among the
property owners, being Harris Transfer owning a portion now, and Crystal Properties owning
another portion, in which they have agreed that they will make the necessary improvements
should the acquisition of this site does not take place. Those discussions are currently under
way. The applicant feels that it is simply too early to make additional modifications until the
acquisition results come about. Mr. Cash spoke of an issue brought up by the Staff with regard to
15
Precision Fleet Repair, which was echoed in the meeting of March 19th. Precision Fleet Repair is
a vehicle repair business. The city has already put the applicant on notice in writing that prior to
occupancy of this 5,600 square foot building that Precision Fleet Repair has to bring forward the
proper applications. The applicant has notified them of that, and a copy of that notice was
provided to the staff. It was also brought to our attention that there was wholesale activity going
on relative to the trucks being sold as part of the Harris Transfer operational role. The Applicant
has advised the owner of Harris Transfer that the city will require a separate application.
However, the Applicant's observation of wholesale truck activity is limited and as the applicant's
understand the property is located in the City of Colton, not in the City of Grand Terrace. The
Applicant does not believe the staffs recommendations in terms of timing are inappropriate and
certainly can go a long way in an existing small business owner in number one, affording to do
the improvements that are left to be done, but most importantly, not forcing them to run out and
do some improvements now before lot consolidation takes place with the southerly parcel. With
that Mr. Cash offered to answer any questions.
Commissioner Addington asked what the applicant's intended use be, should they acquire the
third parcel?
Bruce Cash explained that there was a clear attempt to acquire the third parcel, and is not
finalized as yet.
Commissioner Addington assured Mr. Cash that he understood, but if it should be acquired what
was the intended use?
- Bruce Cash explained that the intent is to utilize all three parcels for the Harris Transfer trucking
operation as an overflow for the existing operation. There are issues pending before the city with
regard to the existing tenants on this property on the southerly portion. They have lease
agreements and the applicant expects to honor those lease agreements. What might occur when
those lease agreements expire is that the property owner intends to utilize this entire piece for the
expansion of the operation.
Commissioner Addington asked if the applicant should acquire all three parcels, would the
applicant be looking at a reversion date combining the three into one?
Bruce Cash replied that he has advised the applicant that it would be an appropriate move, and
would occur.
Commissioner Addington raised a question with regard to the truck repair business, Precision
Fleet Repair, were they leasing the building or land?
Bruce Cash explained that it is to his understanding that they occupy space in a building that
exists already on the property and do limited repair of vehicles on the site. Bruce Cash also
explained that it is to his understanding that there is an agreement that was going to occur within
the time frame that staff has already indicated.
Commissioner Addington asked if Precision Truck Repair be occupying the 5,600 building?
16
Bruce Cash answered that he did not know, and the staff may have more knowledge than he
does.
Planning Associate Lampe answered that Staff did not have any knowledge. It was to his
understanding that it was going to be used by Harris Trucking for the maintenance of some of the
vehicles in the fleet. Precision Fleet Repair occupies a building in the rear of the site next to the
railroad. Presumably as a Conditional Use Permit Application, Harris Transfer will have to make
an application with the City prior to the occupancy of the proposed building.
Chair Van Gelder announced that this is a Public Hearing, if anyone in the audience would like to
speak of this issue; you may do so at this time. If not, before we bring it back to the commission,
we will take a ten-minute break.
Chair Van Gelder announced that the public hearing has been closed, so we will begin with the
Commission discussion and actions.
Commissioner Addington asked a question with regard to the precise truck repair business. Has
this been looked into and discussed with the City Attorney whether or not having two businesses
on the same property is violating the Subdivision Map Act?
Planning Associate Lampe answered that it was not discussed with the City Attorney. Perhaps
that's an issue that will be examined with the applicant if Precision Fleet Repair does make their
application under the required conditions.
Director Materassi explained it is done by policy. If their uses are permanent and they will be
there more than five years, then we require a parcel map and a subdivision of the lot, but if they
have month-to-month leases or yearly leases, the city attorney usually doesn't require a parcel
map. So it will need to be looked into when they submit their applications for the CUP.
Chair Van Gelder opened up with Condition number 7 for discussion.
Commissioner Addington had a question with regard to Condition number 7.1, street
improvement and sewer plans shall be submitted to the city within six month of issuance of the
building permit, or prior of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, when will these be
required to be constructed, prior to occupancy or after occupancy?
Planning Associate Lampe explained that there are additional conditions that would indicate that
the actual installation of street improvements are being deferred for one year, and also the actual
sewer improvements being deferred for one year. The plans are required to be submitted within
six months.
Commissioner Addington asked if it is from one year after the building permit? Or after
occupancy?
17
Planning Associate Lampe pointed out that it is proposed to be one year from the time of
issuance of building permits.
Chair Van Gelder asked a question with regard to Condition eight, and wanted to know if this was
the condition that you wanted to bring on to the Council regarding the landscaping?
Commissioner Wilson felt that it didn't make sense for a grading plan to be submitted after the
building is built.
Commissioner Addington agreed with Commissioner Whitley'% point.
Director Materassi explained that the grading plan for the building was already submitted. With
that, Director Materassi asked that Bill Addington, the City Engineer step up to clarify.
Bill Addington
City Engineer
City of Grand Terrace
Bill Addington explained that the problem with Condition number eight referred to his letter of April
13, 1999, in which it speaks to the inadequacy of the submittal. The letter speaks to inadequacy
of the submittal and it makes no sense to ask for the continuance of six months after the fact.
Bill Addington explained that he would like to see the plans submitted and reviewed and
appropriately checked before anything happens with the building.
Director Materassi wanted to clarify that the plans that were received covered only the grading
around the building, as no grading changes were to take place, but that the City Engineer
requested a larger grading plan The City Engineer really requested was needed to take the whole
site.
Bill Addington addressed Director Materassi and explained that he never saw any grading plans,
and didn't know what plans she was referring to. He also advised that there have never been
adequate grading plans submitted to him on the building or site for this project.
Commissioner Addington asked if the Commission should possibly go back to the original
condition and use "shall be met prior to" instead of the verbage within six months of?
Bill Addington: agreed.
Commissioner Addington advised that the old verbage would be put back.
Chair Van Gelder opened Condition number eleven up for discussion.
Commissioner Addington asked why the timing of landscaping would be done six month
afterwards?
18
Planning Associate Lampe explained the staff is suggesting the landscaping be put on the
easterly side of the property to screen somewhat of the the interior of the site, that the
landscaping shall be installed within six months at the time of the issuance of building permit.
That the landscaping that is called for the westerly side of the street is installed at the time of the
actual street improvements.
Commissioner Addington asked when the building permits would be issued and when occupancy
would be. Has the applicant ever given staff any timing as to when he would be ready to submit
plans and request building permits in the city?
Planning Associate Lampe replied that the plans have been in plan check since September of last
year. They have gone to plan check, and perhaps the Building Department can better respond to
the question than him. All the structural plans have been reviewed with some of the conditions
that the applicant felt needed some modification on the original approval, and also apparently the
grading permit are ready to go.
Jerry Glander replied that the issuance of the Building Permit is pending on Commission
approval.
Director Materassi mentioned that there was a mistake on the grading plan. She was under the
impression that the City Engineer had reviewed the preliminary/partial site grading plan, but it had
not been done.
Chair Van Gelder raised discussion for Condition number nineteen-existing barbed wire shall be
replaced within six months or before issuing building permits.
Commissioner Addington wanted to know if street plans have been submitted for review?
Jerry Glander replied that there has been no application for review of any grading plans or street
plans.
Chair Van Gelder wanted to know if condition number nineteen needed to be corrected or left
alone?
Director Materassi replied that she thought that the verbage was correct and no changes needed
to be made.
Planning Associate Lampe explained that Condition number nineteen actually should include
some language that the security fencing be installed when the street improvements are installed,
which is allowed to be put in within one year of the time of issuance of building permits.
Chair Van Gelder asked if there was a motion for these changes and conditions?
MOTION
PC-07-2001 Commissioner Addington made a motion to approve or to modify the
conditions as was discussed.
19
Chair Van Gelder seconded the motion.
MOTION
VOTE
PC-07-2001 Motion approved 4-0-0-1. Commissioner Trainor absent.
MOTION
PC-08-2001 Chair Van Gelder made a motion that the Planning Commission adopt the
resolution calling for the approval of SA-01-04 and E-01-03 as amended and
recommends to City Council time deferrals on certain improvements as
discussed.
Commissioner Wilson seconded the motion.
MOTION
VOTE
PC-08-2001 Motion approved 4-0-0-1. Commissioner Trainor absent.
3. CUP-98-04-A-3 Application to modify some of the original
Conditions of CUP Case No. 98-04 and EA-98-10 to request
a five (6) year period to complete remaining improvements.
APPLICANT: United Strategies, Inc., on behalf of Crystal Properties, Inc.,
and Jensen Construction Development.
LOCATION: 21616 Main Street(north one-half parcel)
RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions
Chair Van Gelder asked for the staff report for Item Number Three, United Strategies, Inc. on
behalf of Crystal Properties, Inc., and Jensen Construction Development.
Planning Associate Lampe reported that this application, in some ways, has been before the
Commission once before. This is the old American Modular that occupies the northerly
approximately two acres of 21516 Main Street. There is an existing industrial building at that
location. As the Commission, may recall in late 1998, the American Modular came in and asked
for a Conditional Use Permit to be allowed to occupy the rear portion of the existing industrial
building. At that time, the Commission did approve that request with several conditions of
approval. Basically, they had one year to complete many of those conditions, which required
various improvements to the site. In October of last year, another tenant was found for that
property. The applicant came in and asked the Staff not to revoke one CUP and asked for an
additional six months to complete those various conditions. They were given until March the
20
sixteenth of this year to complete those conditions that had to do with such matters as dedication
for the street on the westerly side of the property and paving and striping of the parking lot;
screening of the site from public view with appropriate fencing and landscaping conditions,
etcetera. They did not meet the deadline of March the sixteenth. This necessitated the request
at this time.
Again, the applicant has provided the City with a letter outlining the five-year deferral for the many
of these improvements. Staff is at the position of trying to be somewhat flexible in this situation,
and do not feel that five years is an appropriate amount of time to defer these improvements. On
the other hand, the Staff does not want to put existing business out on the street. It is staffs
recommendations, which we feel are reasonable, and somewhat of a compromise from what the
applicant wants and what the prior condition was on the site. With that, Mr. Lampe reported the
various items at the applicant's request. In the letter that was included in the staff report, the
applicant is asking that the requirement for off street parking for this business be deferred for five
years. Staff believes that it would be more appropriate that this deferral be no more than six
months. This was the condition that was originally imposed at the 1998 meeting a year and a half
ago. It is Staffs opinion that another six months would be a reasonable amount of time to
complete that condition. Secondly, the applicant is asking that the conditions that are
recommended by the City's Building and Safety Department be deferred for five years. Staff
does not feel that it is appropriate, and the street dedication should be made within a reasonable
amount of time. In Staffs recommendation, one-month the Commissions approval with this
project and the actual dedication should be made. The Condition 11-A Item three of the revised
resolution says: The offer for the street dedication will be made within one month of the approval
of this request on May 19, 2001. Original requirements by the County of San Bernardino were of
a sixty-foot dedication. The City is willing to accept the fifty-foot dedication due to specific
circumstances related to this property. The dedication should terminate at the cull-de-sac entry of
the most northerly parcel. There was also a condition that was justified by Building and Safety
that domestic water service is provided as the applicant has indicated that the prior meters
providing for domestic service were installed by the City of Colton for this particular site. The
applicant is asking that the sewer facilities needed to comply with the City of Grand Terrace be
deferred for a period of five years. The Staff does not feel that it is reasonable. It is Staffs
recommendation that the deferral granted would not exceed one year from the time of this
approval. The third point, the applicant is asking according to the landscaping plans, to put in
landscaping for site deferred for five years. The staff feels that no more than six months would be
appropriate. Another point, in relation to the off site parking, the applicant has requested the site
be appropriately surfaced and striped, that requirement would be deferred for five years. Staff
feels that an additional period of six months would be more appropriate. This is a condition that
was originally imposed in the late 1998. Condition number sixteen, has been revised slightly from
what was on staff report and reads: All conditions or improvements shall be completed within one
year of this approval, except where an earlier deadline has been set by another condition of
approval. Another point in the applicant's letter that is related to the prior discussion regarding
the sewer facilities, the applicant is indicating that because of the existing laterals and service for
this particular site, this is a matter to be deferred for five years. The staff feels that it is not
appropriate and is suggesting that the deferral for connection with the public waste system should
be no more than one year. And lastly, the applicant is asking that a requirement from the original
21
approval to screen the interior of the site to be deferred for five years. The staff feels that no
more than a six-month from approval is appropriate.
A recent field investigation of the site revealed the triangular shaped parcel to the immediate east
of 21516 looks rather unsightly. There is a lot of debris. Apparently, the tenant at 21516 normally
uses that site to store some of the units that he is producing and also storage of a large trash
dumpster. Staff is suggesting that a condition be added to this approval requiring the applicant
and/or property owner assure that the particular location be kept in a clean and trash free
condition. The Staff would like to point that the applicant and the property owner have complied
with one of the conditions of the original CUP and that they have paid the $10,000.00 traffic
mitigation fee that was originally required from American Modular. The Applicant has installed
the domestic water service for this particular parcel.
There was a condition with the last extension of time if you will for this particular site that was
granted in October of last year, requiring a parcel map be filed prior to the deadline, which was
March 16th. Staff has not seen that application yet, and would like to clarify from the applicant
what his intentions are regarding the filing of the required parcel number. Again, that is to divide
21516 into two equal or less parcels, one to the north, Jensen Construction tenant, and one to the
south, the old BMI Building. Parcel maps to be provided for this parcel had an original deadline of
March 16th to file that map. Perhaps the revelation with regard to future ownership of this whole
area has some bearing on the applicant's intention, we would like to have that point clarified.
Staff is suggesting that a condition be added that the required parcel map be filed. We are
prepared to recommend the extension of time. In general terms, the maximum amount of time
that Staff is suggesting be no more than one year of issuance of building permit for all conditions
or 6 months as recommended in certain cases.
Chair Van Gelder asked if there were any questions of staff?
Commissioner Addington had a question with regard to the conditions that the applicant is
requesting extension of. Has the applicant started construction of any of them?
Planning Associate Lampe answered not to his knowledge. But in a recent field investigation, the
only improvement seen is the installation of the water line in the early part of last year. There are
two fire hydrants on the site.
Chair Van Gelder invited Mr. Cash to address the Commission.
Bruce Cash
United Strategies, Inc.
1905 Business Center Drive
San Bernardino
Bruce Cash thanked the staff for their work on this particular issue. Mr. Cash stated that it was
brought to his attention recently at the March 19th meeting that there was some parking of trailers,
and some debris in this area. Within the last couple of weeks, those trailers have been moved.
The Applicant has been by the Jensen Construction job site, at the northerly portion of the parcel,
22
and they have appropriately relocated those items. It is the Applicant's understanding that they
have in fact taken some steps to clean up the debris that were in that area. With regard to the
question on the parcel map, the applicant has prepared a draft of the parcel for both of the sites
and have had some limited discussion about the extent of the maps and what would be required
to provide the city as discussed on March 19th, and have run a copy of one of the draft parcel
maps to the meeting. Since that time, there has been an acceleration of discussion on possible
acquisition of this site. The Applicant has every intention of complying with the requirement so
there is no disagreement in the Applicant's part. With regard to improvements, the addition of the
water line has been done. The Applicant feels that they have satisfied the uncertainty of part of
the city and certainly on the part of our company relative to what sewer infrastructure exists on all
of the parcels. That was substantial progress and took time to do that. The sewer survey plans
were shared with the city on March 19th. What was not done was installing sewer lines without
understanding what existed there today. In fact, Mr. Lampe pointed out that domestic water
services to this parcel have been installed. That was a recent completion the Applicant has
provided the city verification of that. Mr. Cash shared photos of the site with members of the
Commission.
Mr. Cash reported that the photographs were taken within the week of the Commission Meeting.
The pictures showed all of the employees of Jensen Construction are parking on the property,
which was required by the city. There has been an incident of off site parking which was brought
to the applicant's attention. The same day, the applicant sent a letter to Jensen Construction
scolding them for not adhering to the condition and they immediately corrected. The applicant
has provided the city with a copy of that letter. The quality of the onsite area that is actually semi
slag area as it exists today. Even though the Applicant has not made a big issue of it, Jensen
Construction only has fifteen employees parking on site, but the city standard requirement would
be that they create fifty-five parking spaces on the property. The tenant will never utilize fifty-five
parking spaces. Nevertheless, that hopefully can be incorporated into some other beneficial use
on the property. The balance of photographs that have been provided is simply of the general
area in which include the private drive. Mr. Cash pointed out that photograph number four gives
the Commission a perspective of the private drive looking northward, the slag rock area that can
be seen was an effort on the part of the property owners to try and beautify the area. Historically,
along the Riverside Channel has been a weeded area, and has not been maintained well. Harris
Transfer and Crystal Properties jointly participated in cleaning up that corridor, so it is a drastic
improvement and speaks well to the effort that the property owners in that area are taking in
terms of pride of their site. Relative to the conditions that require we prepare and engineer, the
street improvement plans and sewer plans, it is premature to do that given the level of
negotiations that are on-going about the acquisition of the site. The Applicant has been saving
money; the property owner is trying to pay his mitigation fee, and were able to get to a point
within the month of March where the Applicant could finally pay that fee. With that, Mr. Cash
invited any questions of the Commission.
Chair Van Gelder asked the Commission if anyone had any questions of Mr. Cash
Commissioner Whitley had a question with respect to the negotiations on the property. Did Mr.
Cash have any sense on how close the parties are on those negotiations in terms of the potential
23
- purchase; is there any estimate of say, one month, two months that there may be some
expectation that it will come to fruition?
Bruce Cash replied that his understanding of the discussions, which have had some of
participation roll in, is that parties agree conceptually as a matter of economics. The financial
history with this property at 21516 is financially upside down. Traffic Mitigation Fee was nothing
more than a result of the site lease revenues that were generated since the last time the applicant
was before the Commission. Within sixty to ninety days, the parties would be at a point where
they can make a definitive decision. The reason they may take that time is because of the history
of this property at 21516, there may be significant tax implications that have to be sorted out.
Chair Van Gelder opened up the public hearing with regard to the item. Due to no public
participation, the public hearing was closed, and the Commission was addressed to open up
discussion.
Jerry Glander had two comments with respect to number one being the sewer laterals. The
modular building that is on the southerly most part of the property has a separate lateral, which is
connected into Main Street lateral, which is legalized. They are being billed for that sewer
connection by Riverside Highland Water Company. The other lateral, which runs up that road
easement, or the driveway along the westerly boundary, has two properties connected to it.
There are separate businesses, which have never been legal, and they are not being billed for
the connection. Neither one of those properties are. This is the issue in question here, if there is
a stoppage or blockage anywhere in that line in the driveway, who's going to maintain and be
responsible for it? This is why Staff is recommending to get this upgraded to a legal sewer main
running up along the westerly side of the property.
The other issue is the issue of Article Three of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code pertaining to
new commercial or industrial buildings Section 15.28.130 requires that offers of dedication be
made prior to the issuance of building permits. This is an area in which the City Council does not
have the authority to waive or wait for land negotiations. It could only be changed by an
amendment to the Grand Terrace Municipal Code.
Commissioner Addington asked if the issue Mr. Glander was addressing was in the conditions or
report or was it a brand new subject?
Jerry Glander replied that this was in the original conditions. It has been, and it's been an issue
that's just been kind of walked over and put aside and ignored for so long. With respect to the
proposal of the purchase of that parcel in making those three into one, if this offer of dedication is
made I think that we could hold that under the suggestion of the planning department for six
months until this matter is resolved, and then record it, if that deal doesn't go through. And if it is
recorded, and they do purchase all property, then that dedicated road could be vacated. Does
that make sense?
Director Materassi added that she was in agreement with Mr. Glander, however, we should not
mix projects. One project is different from the other. One application is for a building permit for
the 5,600 square foot building. This one is a Certificate of Occupancy; it's just the use that has
24
been operating on site for a year and few months and has not complied with the Certificate of
Occupancy requirements. This particular requirement of dedication has been transferred to the
Certificate of Occupancy. But in this case, because the application does not involve a building
permit, the dedication is not mandatory. However, I agree with Mr. Glander that the project
conditions should be imposed regardless of the current status of the property. For instance, the
grading plans required from the City Engineer, or the sewer laterals are very important. We have
no infrastructure information about these parcels.
Commissioner Wilson raised a question in relation to the dedication issue, does it actually state
that a dedication has to be made, or is there a possibility that an easement could be substituted
for that in the meantime.
Director Materassi asked Commissioner Wilson in terms of the application for a building permit, or
for the Certificate of Occupancy?
Commissioner Wilson asked if it is a condition of a building permit, and it is needed for an access
issue, either ingress or egress or just road access. Is this possible to make an offer of dedication
but not actually do a dedicated roadway, and the possibility that it may just actually refer back to a
configuration that the parcel might change?
Director Materassi agreed that it was a good point and asked Commissioner Wilson if he was
suggesting doing an offer of dedication but not for the purpose of a road, just doing a general
easement dedication?
Commissioner Wilson affirmed.
Director Materassi replied that she thought that it was possible but is not on this particular
ordinance mention by Jerry Glander, therefore is not mandatory.
Jerry Glander replied that an easement could be recorded for road purposes over and across the
westerly so many feet of the property, for ingress and egress of those parcels in the back.
Commissioner Wilson asked if the Commission was dealing with a financial situation then Staff is
talking about the expense of engineering an actual dedication versus, say, an easement. An
easement by separate instrument,is not anywhere near the price, but one could get the same for
it. So, it is just a suggestion and it could be a solution.
Jerry Glander advised that the information was referring back to 1978 before the area was
incorporated with the City here and this was a requirement at the time by the San Bernardino
County Planning Commission, and we have been trying all of these years to bring it up.
Director Materassi added that when the City became Incorporated, nobody knew that this had not
been completed. There are a lot of businesses out there that have a lot of hardships and the
Staff also would like to see that done, but from a building permit perspective, the city code really
requires dedications for street improvements of everybody that takes a building permit. When a
Certificate of Occupancy is done with a building that has already been built, it's just a change of
25
tenants or any use, then that requirement is considered to be negotiable. That is partially why
these dedications have not been done yet! However, in this case, if the city were to wait for the
land and the negotiations in order to impose the conditions, it is just going to postpone
improvements further. The businesses out there are constantly changing and there needs to be a
minimum of operation standards enforced by the city.
Jerry Glander added this offer of dedication should be intent to the application for the metal
building for Harris Transfer, which would include the parcel in question at this time. That offer of
dedication would pass along the westerly boundary of his property, in which the subject parcel
would be part of, and included. It would be a separate offer of dedication from each business
with the same terms.
Jerry Glander further added that for the entirely westerly boundary of the two or three parcels in
question, the City should require but hold the dedication for six months, until the issues of the
sale of the land are resolved.
Director Materassi agreed.
Commissioner Addington questioned if this was an unresolved issue, and if there were others?
Director Materassi replied that there were no unresolved issues, unless the applicant is not
agreeing with the conditions that the Planning Commission has set forth. What the applicant is
bringing forth is that there are possibilities of one property owner owning all of the properties,
( which is something that came before the Staff after the report was written and it does not need to
affect the conditions.
Commissioner Whitley asked if it would be much simpler if all the parcels were combined to
eliminate the necessity of a dedication, or alternatively does that make an offer of dedication
much simpler because it is all the same owner, or does it not really matter?
Jerry Glander replied that if there was only one parcel there that fronts on Main Street, there
would be no necessity for a road along the westerly boundary. Unless there is some issue that
planning would have as far as the usage of the buildings on the property.
Director Materassi agreed that the city would not require a dedication. However, it may take time
for the land issue to be resolved. That area of the City is changing constantly, and we would like
to assure an on-going level of operation that meets minimum standards.
Chair Van Gelder invited the Commission to address the conditions that have been presented,
and make any necessary changes. Namely, number three.
Commissioner Addington remarked that he had concerns with the extensions for all of the
conditions.
Chair Van Gelder added that a part of the conditions are being extended for six months, and a
part of them are one year. Chair Van Gelder asked that Staff if that was correct?
26
Commissioner Addington added that his concerns arise that the applicant agrees to comply with
the conditions to make the improvements, but nothing has really been done, like construction of
improvements.
Chair Van Gelder asked if Commissioner Addington had a recommendation.
Commissioner Addington replied that his recommendation was to stay with the original conditions
with no extensions.
Chair Van Gelder asked the Commissioner if he was making that suggestion even though staff is
recommending extensions?
Commissioner Addington replied that even though those conditions have already expired, they
have not been complied with.
Chair Van Gelder asked him to make a motion.
Bruce Cash asked Chair Van Gelder if it would be appropriate to comment?
Chair Van Gelder replied that it wouldn't be, but re-opened the public hearing for Mr. Cash.
Bruce Cash
United Strategies, Inc.
1905 Business Center Drive
San Bernardino
Bruce Cash remarked that the perception that the applicant has signed a condition they never
adhered to is not the case. The applicant has agreed to stand behind the conditions. The
request asked of the applicant is to give additional time in order meet the economic obligation.
With that Mr. Cash thanked the Commission.
Commissioner Addington asked Mr. Cash of the 29 conditions, which were recently issued, how
many have been met so far?
Bruce Cash replied that the property owners have complied with all the application requirements
that have been submitted. They have installed the water system that is fully acceptable and
.operable to produce the fire protection. They have investigated that the sewer connections to
clarify the questions that the city staff had relative to what existed at that location and they have
been working with staff regarding the other conditions at the time that they felt that they needed.
The applicant has also paid $10,000.00 to the city. The property owner is not saying they won't
adhere to the conditions, they are simply saying they cannot meet them economically in the time
frame that was previously approved.
Commissioner Whitley asked Bruce Cash if the Commission were to approve the
recommendations of the staff, would the city be back in the same situation within six months to a
27
year asking for extensions, or can the Commission realistically expect that it will all or at least a
number of conditions be met?
Bruce Cash replied the he could not assure the Commission that economics or other reasons will
not dictate to be back before the Commission, but since 1998, there are more improvements in
the area that has ever existed. Overall the issues of the area are being addressed in a much
slower pace than the applicant would care to see. Mr. Cash informed that he would not and could
not give the Commission any assurance that there would not be any further deferrals in the
future.
Commissioner Wilson had a question for the staff with regard to the pliability of the completion
schedule as part of the conditions to the revised as mandated by a reasonable completion
schedule within thirty days of this ruling?
Director Materassi asked Commissioner Wilson if he was referring to requiring compliance with all
the conditions within thirty days?
Commissioner Wilson replied that he would like to recommend that the Commission request a
completion schedule from the applicant within thirty days of whatever finding made of this
meeting. That would be relinquished from the staff that way the Commission could depend on
some sort of a real completion goal, rather than just to hack away at extensions.
Director Materassi asked if Commissioner Wilson wanted it to be a requirement that the applicant
must submit a completion schedule to the staff?
Commissioner Wilson replied that it was what he wanted.
Director Materassi replied that it would be acceptable with staff.
MOTION
PC-09-2001 Commissioner Wilson moved to approve the resolution for CUP-98-0483 and
recommended that the City Council defer the execution of the street
dedication and defer infrastructure improvements as recommended by staff.
Commissioner Whitley seconded the motion.
MOTION
VOTE
PC-09-2001 Motion approved 4-1-0-1. Commissioner Addington dissenting.
Commissioner Trainor absent.
10:00 P.M. ADJOURNED THE SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
10:00 P.M. CONVENED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION
28
• Information from Commissioners
Chair Van Gelder commented on the new blue entrance signs to the City, and expressed her
pleasure with them.
Chair Van Gelder wanted to know the status of the Rite Aid Site.
Director Materassi relayed good news with regard to Rite Aid in which they have released the
developer, so they have concluded their lawsuit. Ari Miller, one of our developers talked to Val
and he is saying that he is negotiating with Sav On. But Sav On is also considering another site
now. There is also some interest in the town square area by different developers.
Commissioner Addington asked for the whereabouts of the Town Square Area.
Director Materassi described the parcels that are west of Canal Street, south of Barton Road;
from Canal Street to Michigan, including the corner and the mobile home park.
Director Materassi reported that there are about twelve to thirteen acres on that area. Now the
retail recruitment consultant is trying to get other developers interested. Three different
developers have shown interest. The project will consist of mixed uses with senior housing, and
a public plaza and some retail with an anchor store. The anchor being considered now is a
grocery market, like Stater Brothers. The city was really trying to have Stater Brothers to accept
y and expand into that area, and has been trying for almost three months. Jim Harrigan performed
an economic report and found that 50% of the population in Grand Terrace does not shop at
Stater Brothers. So 50% of food purchases and related retail taxes are going outside of town.
Director Materrassi's impression is that a lot of people are going to the Stater Brothers down the
street. And that is why Stater Brothers does not want to build another store.
Commissioner Addington thought that Stater Brothers would want to take the other half of the old
Sprouse Reitz space.
Director Materassi replied that she did not know why they wouldn't and has thought about it as
well. We have been trying to contact Stater Brothers for several months already, and until the
competition gets serious, they will not pay attention.
Commissioner Whitley remarked that if Stater Brothers is getting the sales down the hill, there is
not much incentive to build another store.
Director Materassi replied that the store in Grand Terrace is very busy. It is a store that is old
style and Stater Brothers is not putting any money into it, but they are making a lot of money from
it.
Commissioner Addington felt that the Grand Terrace Stater Brothers lacks is the bakery. Other
than that, this one serves him quite well:
29
Chair Van Gelder asked if the city is going to go ahead with the wall around the Rite Aid site, or
wait?
Director Materassi replied that the developer is not really calling back. She informed that some
bids have been made and the current proposal is for the developers to install a temporary
wooden fence and clear up of the site and grading. The Developer was very close to accepting
that, but then he called me back and said, "Why can't I build a block wall; a typical block wall that
could be there for any tenant?" The bid for his block wall was $100,000.00, which is too much for
him to pay. Director Materassi called again and asked if the site can be cleaned. If the developer
does not respond within the week; the City is going to start code enforcement.
• Information to Commissioners
Director Materassi requested that she would like to delete discussion on the CIP Program today
since the Assistant City Manager's report was not completed; and would like to present it to the
Commission at the next meeting.
10:05 P.M. ADJOURNED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION
NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON MAY 17, 2001.
Respectfully submitted, Approved by,
V,4w ana�� - ��- ��n
Patrizia Materassi Fran Van Gelder
Director of Community Chairperson, Planning Commission
and Economic Development
30