Loading...
02/01/1996GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 1, 1996 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 February 1, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson, Doug Wilson. PRESENT: Doug Wilson, Chairperson Matthew Addington, Commissioner LeeAnn Garcia, Commissioner Moire Huss, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner James Winkler, Assistant City Attorney Patrizia Materassi, Community Development Director Virgil Barham, Building & Safety/Public Works Director Steve Faris, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Larry Mainez, Planning Technician Hally Cappiello, Planning Intern Glen Krieger, Planning Consultant Pat Peterson, Community Development Department Secretary ABSENT: Jimmy Sims, Chairperson Ray Munson, Commissioner 6:05 P.M. CONVENED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION Economic Development Workshop presented by Steve Gibson, President of the Riverside Downtown Association. Mr. Gibson gave a slide presentation and a handout was distributed to those in attendance: "Public/Private Partnerships, Organizational Options, Thoughts on Grand Terrace". Time was also made available for a question and answer period. PRESENT: Byron Matteson, Mayor Dan Buchanan, Council Member Herman Hilkey, Council Member JoAnn Johnson, General Plan Task Force Member Phyllis Sternberg, General Plan Task Force Member Bill Bartel, President -Elect, Chamber of Commerce Chuck Collier, President, Chamber of Commerce Don Larkin, Chamber Member 7:05 P.M. ADJOURNED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION 1.197.111 ��� 1 1 1 I Call to Order * Pledge of Allegiance by Commissioner Matthew Addington * Roll Call Public address to Commission shall be limited to three minutes unless extended by the Chairperson. Should you desire to make a longer presentation, please make written request to be agendized to the Community Development Director. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. ITEM#1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 4, 1996 MOTION PCM-96-04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 4, 1996 Motion by Commissioner Van Gelder to approve Planning Commission meeting minutes of January 4, 1996. Motion seconded by Commissioner Huss. MOTION VOTE PCM-96-04 Motion carried. 5-0-2-0. Chairperson Sims and Commissioner Munson absent. ITEM #2 CUP-95-06/SA-95-15 BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES dba LOMA LINDA DISPOSAL AN APPLICATION FOR A PERMANENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF A MATERIALS RECYCLING FACILITY TO PROVIDE MATERIAL PROCESSING CAPABILITIES FOR LOMA LINDA DISPOSAL. 21516 MAIN STREET, GRAND TERRACE, CA Commissioner Addington announced he would be abstaining from the participation and voting on this agenda item. Staff report presented by Glen Krieger, Planning Consultant. Staff recommended approval of the project subject to proposed conditions of approval. Chairperson Wilson inquired about condition #9 relating to requirement of filing a parcel maps He asked if the same thing could be accomplished with a covenant to hold the two parcels as one parcel. Glen said the issue is more complicated. Although a lot merger is possible there are a number of improvements conditioned by the County of San Bernardino in the 1970s when these two parcels were created. Some of those conditions were never complied with and the property has changed hands numerous times. There are still a number of important improvements outstanding and the City desires those improvements be made within a short period of time. Virgil Barham, Building & Safety/Public Works Director explained improvements need to be made to the property to the sanitary sewer system, water requirements need to be met and street dedications need to made with full improvements. These upgrades would bring the project site into full compliance with public works requirements. These upgrades would be accomplished as part of the parcel map requirement. Commissioner Huss expressed concern about the lack of proposed lighting and the security plan related to the north side of the northernmost building. Director explained the Commission has the authority to impose further conditions regarding additional lighting requirements. Director Materassi introduced Captain Steve Faris of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to the Planning Commission. Applicant was invited to address the Planning Commission. Gary Koontz Browning -Ferris Industries 10412 Richardson Loma Linda, CA He said the firm as reviewed the staff report and proposed conditions of approval and agrees to all conditions as submitted. Regarding the security lighting, he said the company is very concerned about security and adequate lighting. Lights will be added as needed and on -site security personnel will be there during "off hours". 3 Commissioner Van Gelder asked if there will be strictly commercial recycling. Mr. Koontz replied the project has two components. The first is actual sorting and processing of commingled recyclable material. The primary focus of this facility will be fiber (mixed paper) sorting. The second component is a drop-off or buy back service where residents can sell newspaper, cans, etc. He deferred further discussion of how this facility will benefit the City of Grand Terrace to Steve Berry, General Manager of Browning -Ferris Industries. Steve Berry Browning -Ferris Industries 10412 Richardson Street Loma Linda, CA He explained AB939 passed in 1989, requiring cities to reduce trash by 25 % by 1995 and 50 % by the year 2000. In order to comply with the 50 % requirement for Grand Terrace and Loma Linda the recycling material must be increased. Fiber material represents the largest component of residential waste. Cardboard, chipboard and junk mail will be the main targets of this increased fiber material processing. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the number of residential recycling bins will increase. Mr. Berry replied there will still be only one bin per household. 7:28 P.M. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Adam Ornelas 16 Highland Avenue Highgrove, California Said he has lived there 35 years and lives directly across the street from the proposed facility. Said there were tremendous problems with blowing newspapers when Central City Recycling was previously at this location. He said he wrote letters to various city officials complaining of the noise created at the facility. Another concern was citizens who bring shopping carts full of recyclables and leave the carts and trash in the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Huss asked if Mr. Ornelas has concerns about the proposed hours of operation of the new facility. Mr. Ornelas reviewed the proposed business hours. He also expressed concern about the degrading of surrounding properties because recyclers are not clean -they do not add to the neighborhood. Louis Mejia 61 Highland Avenue Highgrove, California He said he is concerned about the undesirables bring recyclables to the facility. They leave shopping carts and whatever they do not sell in the streets, gutters and on lawns. Another concern is dust created by truck traffic. 4 Richard A. Barnett Chair, of Riverside County Service Area #126 474 Prospect Avenue Highgrove, CA 92507 He said their main concerns are potential noise and blowing paper problems. He asked for assurance from BFI that they will be responsible for not only the inside of their boundaries but the shopping carts on the street and keep the surrounding area clean. He asked if there will be after-hours maintenance performed at the facility which will produce noise during night time hours. Director Materassi said according to the proposed hours of operation the applicant has agreed with, the property and facility maintenance are to be conducted during the day time hours, 9:00 p.m. is the latest. Director said the project has been conditioned in case the noise exceeds ambient noise levels then the applicant is required to provide mitigation measures. Glen said condition #17 specifically addresses noise produced by maintenance and testing of equipment which starts before 7:00 a.m. Mr. Barnett asked for the name of a specific person to contact in the event a problem develops involving the concerns he has just expressed. Director Materassi suggested contacting BFI directly and if the problem is not resolved then he should contact the City. Glen said the applicant has agreed to screen the open areas around the block wall to prevent papers blowing into the neighborhood during times of high winds. Mr. Barnett asked if the gates will be open during business hours, as the noise created by the gates opening and closing to allow entrance of trucks is objectionable. Frank Garza 44 Highland Avenue Highgrove, California He said he is concerned about the promises they heard about the previous projects over the years. The noise caused by movement of steel storage containers shook and vibrated the houses. He also complained of blowing paper in the past and people trespassing on his property to clean up the papers. He said residents attempted to deal directly with the previous recycling firm at this location and they were nonresponsive to the citizen complaints. He also complained of the noise of large trucks arriving to deliver large containers of recyclables during night time hours; the noise of the gates, the containers being off-loaded and reloaded. Another problem was the burglar alarm being set off on a regular basis. He said the sheriff's office eventually stopped responding as they apparently were false alarms. Mr. Koontz returned to the podium to address the concerns of citizens. He explained BFI is a customer service oriented company with the goal of keeping their customers happy. He said the entire building will be fenced with gates to avoid blowing paper. The intent is to leave the materials gates open during business hours except in windy conditions when the gates will be closed to prevent papers escaping into the neighborhood. The opening of the building facing 5 the residents will be sealed off. There will be no operations in the alley between the building and wall. That area will be strictly to drive the transfer trucks to the loading dock. Regarding the noise issues the intent is to do maintenance primarily during normal daylight business hours. He said BFI will be responsible to clean up the area adjacent to this property of materials left by their customers, and if a problem develops regarding undesirables the buy- back facility will be closed. They are planning to have on -site security to avoid the situation with burglar alarms going off. An alarm system will probably be used in the office buildings for security. If the alarm repeated goes off he said they will look at changing the system. Chairperson Wilson asked what BFI will do to handle the dust and vibration issues. Mr. Koontz said they expect very little dust from this commingled paper, cans, bottles, etc. He said they are inspected on a regular basis by the Health Department so a dust problem will be handled quickly. Dust from traffic should not be a problem because the entire operating area where trucks will travel is paved in concrete. The parking and drive -around areas will be paved in asphalt. He said 85 % of the site will be paved in asphalt and concrete. The bin storage area will be rejuvenated with more gravel. He said if dust in the public right of way adjacent to the facility becomes an issue it will be taken care of. Commissioner Huss asked about moving steel bins and the subsequent noise factor. Mr. Koontz said that activity is not anticipated. She asked again about the gates. He said the gates will be closed unless there are maintenance activities taking place. She asked about the "daily clean-up". He said their intention is to keep the facility clean on a daily basis to avoid blowing paper into the surrounding neighborhood. He said goal is to clean the tipping floor at the end of every day to avoid a fire hazard as well as blowing paper. Regarding the alarm she asked if they would consider updating the alarm to a silent alarm. Mr. Koontz said they want an emergency response alarm which does not annoy residents. Commissioner Garcia asked if the delivery trucks are open box trucks. Mr. Koontz said they are required to be covered or enclosed. He said BFI would rather know from the residents when a problem exists so BFI can address the problem and be good neighbors. Director Materassi told the Commissioners there were no air quality review or any health department agencies on the previous CUPS for this property. Those agencies were notified of this proposed project and no comments have been received regarding dust or other health concerns requiring conditions. Kathy Cochran 393 Murphy Ave. Highgrove, California Said she is on the Highgrove board of County Service Area #126. She asked if it might be possible for the Planning Commission and advisory board to visit an existing BFI facility. Director Materassi said it would be possible if the Planning Commission decides they require that site visit to have enough information to approve the project. Chairperson Wilson told Ms. Cochran he will take her suggestion under advisement. 2 8:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. Mr. Koontz explained they do not currently have an existing facility that does the same type work. They currently send recyclables to competitors in this area. Commissioner Huss said she feels comfortable working with BFI and with the idea that this will be a neighborhood agreement. She said she is glad this will not be a 24 hr. operation. MOTION PCM-96-05 CUP-95-06/SA-95-15/E-95-15 Motion by Chairperson Wilson to add as condition #20, appointment of a single contact person at BFI in the event of complaints or problems. Also, add as condition #21, BFI shall maintain the public areas south of the property. Motion seconded by Commissioner Van Gelder. MOTION VOTE PCM-96-05 CUP-95-06/SA-95-15/E-95-15 Motion carried. 4-0-2-1. Commissioner Addington abstained. Chairperson Sims and Commissioner Munson absent. MOTION PCM-96-06 CUP-95-06/SA-95-15/E-95-15 Motion by Commissioner Huss to approve CUP-95-06/SA-95-15 and E-95-15 with amended conditions. Motion seconded by Commissioner Van Gelder. MOTION VOTE PCM-96-06 Motion carried. 4-0-2-1. Commissioner Addington abstained. Chairperson Sims and Commissioner Munson absent. 8:15 P.M. FIVE MINUTE RECESS. 8:25 P.M. RECONVENED MEETING Chairman Wilson: We are ready to reconvene the Planning Commission Meeting. 7 ITEM #3 DU-95-02 LARRY HALSTEAD AN APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF USE, TO ALLOW OUTDOOR WEDDINGS, RECEPTIONS, FAMILY REUNIONS, CLASS REUNIONS, SEMINARS, CIVIC FUNCTIONS, RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES, NATURE TOURS, ETC., IN A RESIDENTIAL (R-2) ZONE. 21894 VIVIENDA, GRAND TERRACE (These are verbatim minutes as requested by the Community Development Director). Is there a staff report? Director Materassi: Yes, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners before the staff report, I'd like to mention the applicant requested to submit some additional material. Chairman Wilson: I understand the applicant has some material to distribute to the Planning Commissioners. This is a Determination of Use hearing and we have no problem receiving the material. The only difficulty we have is that it will most likely be impossible for us to review it. If you wish us to review these materials in relation to this action, then it might be appropriate to continue this matter. If not then we will submit it for the record and use that information for later reference. Please give the City Attorney the materials for review then we can proceed. Mr. Winkler, Assistant City Attorney: I did put on the desk before the Planning Commissioners two documents which the Counsel for the applicant has requested that I submit to the Commissioners. Out of courtesy I told her that I would give you these documents. One is the September 28, 1995 letter which is really the application for Determination of Use and the other is the October 11, 1995 letter which is in response to certain information requested and the submission of certain information requested from the Community Development Department to complete the application. If you look at the staff report, most of the substance of these letters is already quoted in the staff report itself. As far as these letters are concerned, there's really nothing that's not already in your staff report. There are a couple of allegations made by the attorney in legal positions also in there. If you want to take a look at that I would say I would give you those. (Assistant City Attorney continued reviewing documents submitted.) (Pause while Commissioners read documents submitted by Assistant City Attorney.) Chairman Wilson: Can we continue with the staff report? Director Materassi: The City Attorney is still reviewing the materials and will give us an opinion if we are to accept the material at this meeting or if the Planning Commission would need to continue the meeting, if the applicant requests. This is not a public hearing. The neighbors have not been noticed. The City Attorney knows that and he is evaluating if this material is in conflict of a meeting that is not a public hearing. If it is not, then we can not address it at this meeting and it could not be addressed on a continuance either. There is the �" possibility that some of this material could be reviewed today. C Mr. Winkler: As far as the letter in the envelope is concerned, it is basically a four -page position letter of the attorney for the applicant. Three pages plus a paragraph on the fourth page. The first part notes that the other letters I referred to before were not specifically included in the report and notes that she talked with me on this matter and said I would give you these letters, and I have done so. Then the rest of the letter addresses the issues in the staff report and you can either read the letter or listen to the applicant. I assume you are going to give the applicant an opportunity to be heard and in effect he would be reading the letter himself. He's basically having his attorney say in writing what he would be saying verbally. I don't really see any harm in reading the letter or having the applicant read it. As far as whether any residents like this proposed use at this location, is not really that relevant to this particular issue today. This is a Determination of Use, which really goes for the entire zone, not just one particular piece of property. It is an issue of whether or not the proposed use is appropriate or can be anywhere in the zone per current code. If you decided in the negative then he cannot apply for a conditional use permit under this particular zone unless he goes for a zone amendment to change the zone or an amendment to the zone which actually lists the use in the zone. If you decide in the affirmative that this type of use is contemplated in the listed uses and is similar enough that it was the intent of the code to include this type of use then there is a second step for this particular piece of property, assuming that it is in the category of the conditional use permit, he would then come back with the conditional use permit application and the fact that you determined in the positive today doesn't mean one way or the other whether or not this particular piece of property is appropriate or not. Any favorable comments from neighbors really goes, or lack of favorable comments from neighbors, because I understand there have been some unfavorable comments, that really goes to the issue of a conditional use permit, if and when that ever gets to you. Receiving it, there is no harm, but it's not really relevant to you today. Chairperson Wilson: So we will direct the Planning Commission members to consider the materials that we received from you so far, including previous letters from the applicant's attorney, in relation to the actual action here, and that's the Determination of Use. Is that correct? Mr. Winkler: Yes. Chairperson Wilson: Thank you. Let's continue the staff report. Director Materassi: I'd like to mention to you that what the City Attorney presented is basically my staff report. In addition, a portion of the materials received today from the applicant is not relevant to today's meeting. Depending on what happens today, it may be relevant at the next meeting. However, the Assistant City Attorney says it does no harm for you to read the letter in the envelope from the applicant's attorney today, because apparently it has to do with what the applicant is going to tell you. I'm going to read some portions of the report and summarize others. In terms of environmental review, this use is subject to CEQA, so in case the applicant comes back to you in any form or fashion it will need an environmental review. E The zoning is R-2 Low Density Residential. The surrounding areas are R-2 with exception of one parcel to the north which is an Industrial area is down the bluff. All surrounding existing land use is single family. You see, there is a difference between zoning and general plan designation and actual or existing land uses. One is zoning and general plan uses which the City would like to have in those locations; the other is what is out there right now. The general plan would like to have R-2, Low Density Residential, single family and low density multi -family. What is there right now is single family units, which the City is trying to rehab and upgrade. We have a rehab house right across the street on Vivienda. Background: The Determination of Use usually in most planning departments is done by a zoning administrator, a senior planner or planning director. In Grand Terrace many of our procedures are very strict and they need to come before the Commission so you have that authority to make that determination. So basically, your role here is to evaluate the subject use in comparison with other uses permitted in the district and make a determination if the subject use fits in with the other uses specifically listed. Was the intent of the current code to allow this use in the residential area or not? That is what you are asked to decide today. I'd like to read a portion on page 2. Determination of Use consists of a motion of the Planning Commission finding the subject use similar or not in nature and intent to one or more uses listed in the district and whether or not a conditional use permit would be required. This motion should be either in the negative or positive, include factual findings to justify the determination. As listed in the text in italics the determination of use shall not be used to add any new uses to our code. It is only to be used to allow processing of similar uses which are not specifically listed. I don't know if that is clear to you but hopefully it will be by the time I end the report. As I mentioned, this is not a public hearing so the property owners in the 300' radius area have not been noticed. Only the seven complainants who had requested to receive notice have been advised of this meeting. They were told they would not necessarily be able to speak. There are some examples during the last two years to illustrate Determination of Use cases submitted and approved by the Planning Commission. They are all located in commercial/industrial areas and categorically exempt from environmental review. They are as follows: a. Drop off dry cleaners - The use listed was a full operation dry cleaners. The code did not specifically say drop off so we brought it to the Planning Commission and the Commission found the project to be similar to full scale dry cleaners. You would drive through and drop clothes then they send the clothes to another facility which cleans them. It's basically a dry cleaning office. The dry cleaning is not done at the site. Because it was at Town & Country Center we needed the Planning Commission approval. The Commission determined the use is similar and less intense so it was approved. It was determined that the intent of the Barton Rd. Specific Plan was to allow dry cleaning facilities and because the facility doesn't include any environmental issues it did not require a CUP. ! b. Another was a telemarketing fund raising service for veterans of war. It was not specifically listed in any portion of the Barton Rd. Specific Plan, but the Planning 10 Commission found it was similar to office support and financial services which were specifically listed in the Barton Rd. Specific Plan. This project was approved and did not require a CUP. C. Another one was a massage technician -a medical clinic for a chiropractor. It was not listed specifically in the code, but again, the Planning Commission found that use similar in nature and intent with health clinics, which was specifically listed. It was approved without a CUP as health clinics did not need a CUP. These were three of the previous Determinations of Use. Usually we have not used Determinations of Use for high impact projects. It has never been done in a residential area. In terms of the description of use. That's in one of the letters that Mr. Winkler submitted to you. It describes the use from the perspective of the applicant. We basically quoted the whole letter to you. The use proposed is an outdoors assembly type of use. The applicant proposes this use to include outdoor weddings, wedding receptions, family reunions, class reunions, seminars, city functions, religious ceremonies and nature tours. It's more than outdoor weddings. In planning that is classified as general assembly uses. They say the maximum number of people would be 250. They are requesting to have at least one event per day. They state service of food and alcohol is proposed to be provided by outdoor caterers, not through themselves. Fliers (attachment B) describe the various packages and costs available. I also requested them to submit for your review their policy on disc jockeys. This explains in more detail the scope of the proposed use. Our code describes the uses allowed in the residential district. It says "all activities associated with the proposed use will be proposed outdoors, except for restroom and changing facilities which are provided in the existing residence." The proposed property contains an existing residence, detached garage and studio, detached studio deck an elevated gazebo and a parking lot area. It is an outdoor general assembly type of use. I'd like to take you through our residential R-2 list of permitted uses. What we did is list the uses as they appear in the code. In front of that it says "P" if they are permitted through a normal site & architecture review or CUP. If it is a normal Site & Architecture it says "I"'. If it is through a CUP is says "C". For the information of the Commission, normal Site & Architecture has three levels: it can be done over the counter; through a land use review if the project is very small and done at the administrative level; and it can be brought to the Commission as a Site & Architecture Public Hearing. A CUP always comes to the Commission. Each of these uses is either permitted through one of the three levels of Site and Architecture, or through a CUP. The next column is "Types of Projects/Uses/Nature of Uses and Intent Per Code". Under that type of use these are the types of projects we receive and that is the intent of the code. The next column is "Similarities with Subject Use" (staff's analysis). I'm going to read our findings for you. You need to evaluate these findings to see if you agree with them. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission support staffs findings which determined the proposed use is not similar in nature and intent with other uses specifically listed in the district. 11 Now I'll read to you the fmdings: The first use is "Single Family Detached". Is there any similarities with this proposed use? No. The second use is "Single Family Attached (duplexes and triplexes)". Is there any similarities? No. Multi -Family Dwellings (Planned Unit Developments). Are similarities with condos and townhouses? No. Mobile Home Park. Installation or remodel of mobile home park. Are there similarities with proposed use? No. Chairperson Wilson: Excuse me, Patrizia, I don't think we have to go through all of the items. We can take a couple of minutes to re -review the various items for the Planning Commission. Director Materassi: I would like to highlight the ones which have some type of question, if that is possible. Chairperson Wilson: Let's skip on down past the "nos" then. Get to the one that says "yes". Director Materassi: O.K. Home Occupations; Regulates all Home Business activities which bring no customers to the house. Are there similarities to Home Occupations? Yes. There is similarities to Home Occupations because the subject is business out of the home. However, it brings 250 customers to the house, whereas, our Home Occupations do not allow any customers to the house. It is a similarity but it voids itself, by the fact that the characteristics of the use do not meet the ordinance. The other use that has similar impact is the church uses. Church uses are also considered to be assembly type of uses, however our code does not specifically list general assembly uses. Examples of general assembly uses can be card clubs, banquet facilities, night clubs, restaurants, stadiums. You can imagine if the Planning Commission finds that this use is similar to churches, therefore similar to all the other general assembly facilities it is like opening a can of worms. Basically, all of these other uses would be indirectly considered permitted in the residential area. Once you say one type of assembly use is similar to churches and the intent of our code is to allow churches plus all of these other assembly uses you are indirectly stating that the intent of the residential code is to allow assembly uses like restaurants, stadiums and the like, as well. I want to make that clear to you. I'd like to highlight to you that churches sometimes have significant impact on neighborhoods however most neighbors accept impact from church services. The more accessory uses at churches, for instance, schools and other types of uses, the more complaints we will receive. At this time if you check the complaint log you will see we vary rarely have complaints involving churches. We have very many complaints about Home Occupations, complaints about business out of the house. That is another item I want to show you how different those 12 types of uses are in nature. One is a "for profit" business, a commercial business and the other one is a non-profit organization which is there for the spiritual growth and benefit of the worshipers. That is another difference. The third difference is that they are proposing an every day service. Churches usually meet only once a week. This would increase the intensity of the use tremendously. At least in Grand Terrace churches don't have a lot of the accessory uses like outdoor weddings, alcohol. The final thing here in terms of comparing churches is the fact that churches are permitted in the residential area with a minimum of three acre sites. This particular site would need to have a zoning amendment if it is considered similar to a church because it does not have three acres. The three acres is to mitigate the impact of the church. This is one of the uses that could have the most similar impacts, however, the nature and intent of the churches, in staff's opinion, is completely different than the proposed use. We also have outdoor recreation facilities that one could argue are similar to what applicant is proposing, however, on the residential area the intent of the code is to allow swimming pool houses, recreation rooms, hobby rooms for the family. Not for assembly uses and not for large numbers of customers with the level of intensity that this would have potentially on an everyday basis. According to staff's opinion this use is not similar to any of the other uses listed in the residential district in nature and intent. For example in the CM district, it does say "assembly uses". If it were the intent of our code to have assembly uses of this nature or others like stadiums and large restaurants, restaurants, night clubs in the residential area it would be stated so. We feel very comfortable that the intent of our residential ordinance is to keep our neighborhoods very safe, quiet and not mixed with commercial uses. You can see how strong our home occupation ordinance is. I believe that the way the code is written now, this use does not belong in the residential area. The recommendation of staff is that the Planning Commission consider our evidence and staff findings and determine that the use is not similar in nature and intent with other uses specifically listed in the code. This concludes my staff report. We do have some recommendations from the other departments which could be used in further planning approvals if necessary, but they do not necessarily apply to this particular determination. I will be glad to answer any questions. Chairperson Wilson: Are there any questions for staff? Commissioner Addington: On this Determination of Use, is this for a permitted use, a conditional use or am I putting the cart ahead of the horse? Director Materassi: That is your determination because the Determination of Use is for you to look at the uses allowed in the code as written right now and determine if this use is similar. If you feel this use is supposed to be allowed, then you need to determine if it should be allowed through a CUP or just a Site & Architecture. Mr. Winkler: If for example you believe it is similar to a church use that requires a CUP, then they would have to come back for the CUP. If you feel it is similar in nature to multiple family units, that is a permitted use, then there would be no necessity for a CUP. 13 Director Materassi: In the past when the Planning Commission found a use similar they required a CUP, however if the use proposed was of different intensity and impact the requirement could change also. Even if you find the proposed use is similar to a use that now requires a CUP you could delete that CUP or you could keep it. It is your determination. If this use is found to be similar to churches a CUP could not be submitted right away because we have a requirement for a zoning amendment because there is a requirement for three acres minimum which is a use restriction. It is not a variance item, it is a use restriction so you will need the zoning amendment in this case. Chairperson Wilson: Commissioner Garcia. Commissioner Garcia: Patrizia, if we do determine that it is a use that is accepted we are not then saying that the door is open for this to happen "as is". It will always have to come to us for determination if someone else comes with another proposal and wants to do this sort of thing, right?; it's not like setting a precedence for which projects do not need to be reviewed. Chairperson Wilson: Basically, what it's telling you here is that there are some permitted uses and some CUPs. If you determine one of them is similar to a use requiring a CUP use then there are also other restrictions you have to look at in relation to that, but then the applicant would be required to submit an application for a CUP. Director Materassi: The point is if you find this use similar to churches then from now on every time there is someone who comes to the counter saying "I want to have this use in an industrial area, can I have it?", for example an assembly use like a card club. Right now general assembly uses are not listed in the residential district. If you find that this general assembly use is similar to churches you are considering that from now on if I have a proposal at the counter on general assembly uses I will need to consider that use permitted in the residential district, either subject to a CUP or a Site & Architecture. Commissioner Garcia: But it would have to come back to us? Director Materassi: Only if it is of a large scale. If it is subject to a CUP or if it is a large scale item which requires a Site & Architecture with a public hearing. Commissioner Garcia: If anything is similar it's the church, which requires a CUP. Everything else is out of the question. Chairperson Wilson: Are there any other questions of staff? I've got a couple. Can you tell me if in any way this use is similar to a Home Occupation? Director Materassi: Yes, because it is a business out of the home. Chairperson Wilson: With home occupations there are some serious restrictions on parking requirements and you really can't run a business out of the home unless it is the person who owns the home and they are the ones running the business and they use their personal vehicles for the business. 14 Do we have any other uses in the R-2 zone that typify this use? A large assembly situation in an R-2 zone in the City, as a precedent for this? Director Materassi: None that I know of . Chairperson Wilson: Assistant City Attorney, do you know of any? Mr. Winkler: No, I don't know of any. I think the issue the applicant's attorney hit on is the church issue and I think you noticed that is the one that I think causes the concerns. Churches often hold weddings, therefore why isn't this similar? The reverse of that is on Saturday night I'm going to have a spaghetti dinner at my church. Does that mean that restaurants are automatically O.K. in an R-2 zone by the same logic? Many functions that churches could have are those now open to the R-2 area? I think the staff report's position was "no" that is not the intent of our current code. To open it up to all sorts of general assembly type of conduct. On the other hand I'm sure the applicant and his attorney are saying that a wedding is a wedding and it is similar in use so that is the issue that is before you. The staff's recommendation I think is very plausible and if you accept it and make that finding based on those facts it would be supportable. If the applicant persuades you otherwise, that it is similar use to a church, you will have to make that finding to support it. Then again if you go that direction then the applicant would have to come back and it is not at all clear that they would be able to get a CUP with the size of the lot, and you'd have everybody coming in, residents on both sides, making their pitch at that point in time. If you decide against the applicant and it is not an appropriate use under those listed then the two avenues to go would be to a traditional zone change which is very cumbersome and not likely changing it to a CM or something, that would affect the entire zone; or to actually change the R-2 list of permitted uses including weddings as a permitted use. That is a possibility that could be done but it is a separate procedure and in fact it is a zoning amendment. Director Materassi: I'd like to make a comment. Another procedure possible as the Assistant City Attorney stated is for the applicant to amend the R-2 zoning district to make this use permitted. In that case the list of uses would not just include single family and churches. It would also include general assembly uses in the R-2 district. The bottom line is should we do a zoning amendment to add this use or do you think this use is already allowed under the churches broad sense? Staff's position is that if the intent of the code was to allow general assembly uses it would be listed already. Staff feels that this is a new use that was not the intent of the code because it is a general assembly use. If it were the intent of the code to allow it would already be listed. Churches are required to have three or more acres. It is very specific. Staff feels the intent of our code is not to allow general assembly uses in the residential area. This would allow the doors to be opened for stadiums, night clubs and restaurants as well. Chairperson Wilson: Commissioner Huss Commissioner Huss: The only thing in town I can think of that relates to this is the senior or community center. What is their zoning? Director Materassi: That is residential however, all the public facilities are listed in the R-2 residential district. It says "public parks and playgrounds, public facilities and quasi public 15 facilities, non-profit corporations." The R-2 district allows public facilities. The difference is the proposed project is a for -profit business run out of a home versus a public non-profit organization. Churches and schools have been allowed in neighborhoods since zoning started because the neighbors accept the impact of those facilities better than they accept those of someone making a profit. Commissioner Huss: On public facilities, the senior center or community center, they could not hold a wedding? Director Materassi: They could do a special event permit. It could not be done every day. Chairperson Wilson: Commissioner Garcia. Commissioner Garcia: I see this as something I need a lot of input from the attorney on. The way I see it, it is procedural thing. It's a matter of the way everything is written. Personally, I would like to see it work. I understand the constraints we have. I don't want to set any kind of precedent that I'm saying I want general assembly uses in residential areas. That's not what I'm saying. I think this use proposes very specific and individual things. That's why I was asking the attorney is this something that would be a case by case issue if we did go that route under the churches? They would have to come back to us for a CUP, right? Mr. Winkler: Yes, it would have to come back as a CUP application. Basically you are not making a decision today on a particular piece of property. However, you are making a decision what would affect the entire zone and everybody that comes in in that zone could make an application based on that. It would be a CUP so each time on a case by case basis after today if you did approve the application by the applicant then each time anybody comes in it would be on a case by case basis. Commissioner Garcia: We're not categorizing it as a general assembly use in this case are we? Mr. Winkler: What staff is saying is that if you adopt the logic that because a church does this function that the same logic would also apply for similar types of functions that churches do. The staff would feel restrained to again look at restaurants as CUPs even though they are not allowed, just because you can argue that that is the type of thing the church does, have dinners and things like that, or bingo. Commissioner Garcia: Are we saying that the proposed use is similar to one of these uses or we actually have to choose that it is ... Mr. Winkler: That it is similar in use and that it was the intent in passing the R-2 zone that this kind of use was intended even though not specifically listed. Commissioner Garcia: Which it probably wasn't. When you write a code like this you don't think of every single possibility. Mr. Winkler: This procedure was allowed to say just because something wasn't specifically listed if it is similar in use and the Planning Commission and Council believe it was the intent, IGol because it is similar in use, then this is the procedure to say this use is good. You are looking at the intent based on similarity. You and the applicant cannot use this procedure to add something that was not the original intent. There is another procedure they need to go through. Director Materassi: Right, so basically, if you find this proposed use similar to churches you are finding that assembly uses are similar to churches. Tomorrow if someone comes into the office to say they are interested in building a stadium in a residential area I will need to accept the application for normal CUP process. Instead, if you find this use is not similar I will tell the stadium they need to amend the zoning code to add the assembly use into the list of R-2 district residential uses. If you say assembly uses are meant to be in residential areas, they are just not specifically listed, but they are meant to be there, then any assembly use that comes in they can follow the CUP process, just as the churches. Mr. Winkler: They could make it narrower than that, by saying weddings. Director Materassi: I was talking about a stadium because it is an assembly use. If someone want to open a restaurant in the R-2 I would need to tell them O.K., go to the Planning Commission with a CUP. It is a permitted use subject to a CUP because they are in an area where general assembly has been considered similar to churches. I would not have the tool to say they must do an amendment to the residential code before submitting a CUP. Is it the intent of the code to have general assembly uses in the residential area or not? If you want this use to come in, he can still come in with a zone change. There are two types of zone change. One is to amend the list of R-2 permitted uses to add this use to it which would go to public hearing. The second is to re -zone the entire area to CM or heavier district to support assembly uses. Both ways would be a public hearing process and the end of the process would probably be a CUP to analyze the site -specific issues. Chairperson Wilson: Commissioner Addington. Commissioner Addington: At this time is it appropriate to make a motion or are there further questions for discussion? Chairperson Wilson: Commissioner Van Gelder. Commissioner Van Gelder: Going to the zone change. Do the residents have any say so about that? Director Materassi: They would. Any type of zoning amendment is a public hearing at the Planning Commission level and the City Council. All of the neighbors would be noticed. Virgil Barham: As far as my involvement tonight, the City Redevelopment Agency is in the process of selling a property diagonally across the street from the subject parcel. Since we may be selling it to people not familiar with the area the City would have to disclose this through the California State Disclosure law to inform them that this is a possibility. As you drive through a community you see a church, you'd know that was there or you'd see a playground and know that was there. In this case it blends into the community and looks like a single-family residence. If the zone is to change I would have to disclose that. That is the concern of the Housing Department. 17 Chairperson Wilson: Any further questions? Commissioner Huss: What were you just talking about? A house where? Are you saying a house near him? Virgil Barham: The City purchased and rehabilitated a home on the comer of Vivienda and Bums. We have not yet disclosed this to this point. We have a potential buyer. If the Planning Commission finds this use is similar in nature and intent we will need to make this disclosure. Chairperson Wilson: Excuse me, Commissioner Huss, I'd like to direct things here. I'm not positive that is something this body needs to be discussing in relation to the actual Determination of Use, although I understand the importance to the City. Commissioner Huss: I understand. Under churches it says a three acre parcel is the minimum. If weddings was listed as a use what would be restricted as well? Director Materassi: It could have been listed individually. You're asking if it would have been listed with a minimal acreage or not. What I could tell you from my understanding of the code it would probably have a site limitation to mitigate the impact similar to the churches. Commissioner Huss: So if weddings were listed, I could see it falling under the churches with a minimum three acre parcel. Is that correct? Director Materassi: It could. If they were listed they probably would be listed that way. Chairperson Wilson: There's also the certain zoning requirements for the particular zone, like front yard setbacks, etc. Any other further questions for staff? MOTION PCM-96-07 Commissioner Addington: I'd like to make a motion regarding DU-95-02 that the Planning Commission has determined that the subject use is not similar in nature and intent with the other uses specifically listed in the R-2 district. Chairperson Wilson: The chair would second. Commissioner Van Gelder: I second with comment. Are we not going to give the applicant an opportunity to speak? Chairperson Wilson: It is not required, although we can. Does the Planning Commission feel like it would be better suited to allow the applicant to speak on the specific item of the Determination of Use? Commissioner Huss: If there is a limitation of time. C Chairperson Wilson: The chair invites the applicant to come up. Please state your name and address for the record. 18 Larry Halstead 21894 Vivienda Avenue Grand Terrace, California Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I was starting to get concerned that I wasn't that I wasn't going to have that opportunity. I have a few things that I want to say and I'll try to make them as brief as possible. First of all, I think it is important to point out that when codes concerning zoning are developed, as one of the Planning Commissioners pointed out, there is absolutely no way to address every foreseeable situation. I think that when you look at real strict definitions you might run into a problem, but there is a problem starting with real strict definitions in that a lot of these terminologies that are in the planning codes in the City of Grand Terrace have not been well defined at all. Partly maybe that's because nothing has come up to trigger them. I would like to say that first of all, when you are talking about Paraiso Gardens, the use that is being bypassed here is the primary use of the facility. That is one of a nature sanctuary. That in itself, you're not going to find anything in the codes that says where does that fall. There is probably four different areas within the permitted use calling for a CUP that are listed starting with ...there are things that are similar with every one of them. I'd like to address a few of them real briefly: The public and quasi public facility. It talks about non-profit. It doesn't go into a lot of detail about that but you should know that it is very much our intention to develop this as a non-profit. It already is non-profit. This isn't something we're doing for profit. This is something we do in order to support the nature sanctuary that we are trying to create there. There are a lot of costs that are involved in that. I think also, that when you're looking at a recreation facility, you're talking about pool houses and recreation rooms and these kinds of things. A lot of those might be found at condominiums an what not. If you'll check that out, you'll find that often those are use for such things as family reunions, wedding receptions, etc. So yes, we have something in common this that use as well. When you're looking at the use of the church, there are several things that I want to point out there. First of all, it was stated that we want to have at least one event. That is really misstating the truth. We have stated that we are one of the few and only places, if you're talking about strictly wedding facilities, that limit ourselves to only one event per day. That doesn't mean by any means seven days per week, because primarily everyone wants weddings especially to be on Saturdays. In fact, it has been a rare exception that it's anything more than that. If you contrast that to a church you'll find that there are all kinds of different activities that a church has, including the fact that most of them have some kind of a recreation hall. Weddings and receptions are something that help support those churches in being able to balance their budget and operate their facility overall. We need to avoid that slippery slope argument that you possibly allow something here then next thing you know, I'm hearing a stadium 19 and all kinds of wild ideas being bantered about. It just couldn't be further from the truth. What it is important for this Planning Commission to realize is that when you're looking at saying that yes, it does have similarities to the public/quasi public facility, to the recreational facility; it even has it to the home work facility, and it has things similar to the church facility situation. There are all kinds of things that all of those get into and it doesn't mean that all of a sudden you are opening the door to restaurants and stadiums and all these other things within R-2. What you're stating here is that this nature sanctuary, which as a side aspect of it all, just like churches, just like condominiums that have a rec room or whatever that also will charge for use of those facilities, has a way of supporting itself by doing this. These other issues that might concern this Commission in regard to the appropriateness of it are items that really should be addressed under the CUP process. I think it is a valid application process. It's one that does call for public participation and at that time I'm sure there will be all kinds of people here to voice support and even some opposition in regard to this. I think it's a lot more detailed time to get into some of those aspects of it, but do we have uses that are similar? Yes, we have all kinds of uses that are similar to all four of those that I have mentioned here. I'd like to go back real briefly to the last time that I stood at this podium in front of this Planning Commission and we were appealing a nuisance declaration. At that time the Chairman, Mr. Sims, applauded the activity and in reversing and overthrowing that decision made the statement that this is something that is not a negative impact but is something that the City of Grand Terrace and the people ought to get behind and really support. (speaker was interrupted by Chairperson to facilitate change of recording tape) Mr. Halstead continued: I'd like you to realize that we cannot go with strict definitions; that we don't even have strict definitions. When you start looking at general assembly, what does that mean? How do you define that? Outdoor festival ... how do you define that? What you have to look at is a case by case situation. In every case there isn't any pandora's box that's going to open up just because you decide that in fact, there is similar uses. We're going to have every situation be one where they have to come before you and they have to make the use determination whether or not that fits. You're not going to have a flood of people coming along and saying, yes, I too, want to do a nature sanctuary. We should be so lucky. These other things are subsidiary aspects of it, just as churches do, just as condominiums do, just as all of these different things do. And let's roll up our sleeves and get into those on the CUP part of it. But it seems to me that's really the opportunity where we need to be looking at those various aspects; when we need to see what the negative impacts are. What I want to submit to you tonight is that when we do ... when and if we're allowed to get to that CUP process you're going to see that there are so many overwhelming aspects to what it is we're trying to do, starting with the nature sanctuary, and the many ways we could break that down into positive ways that contributes to this community. That's not going to be possible without some of these other means of support. I don't see anyone coming forward and writing big checks just to support a nature sanctuary. Just like a church needs to 20 balance its budget we have to do that too. What you are going to find if we allow this to go to a CUP process is you're going to find neighbors, including two of them that have written you those letters that are sitting before you now. Those are the two closest neighbors and you're going to find that not only they, but the vast majority of our neighbors really value what it is that we are trying to do there. They value the development that's happening within their community, they value the fact that they see it as something that is not only just an asset to their community, but it is an improvement, it's a constant ongoing improvement because it is a beautification process. There's a lot of aspects of this and simply by denying being able to go to the CUP process we don't even have a chance to get into all that, and there is a lot of that that we could really get into. I think that we could really present some strong arguments as to the value of an urban nature sanctuary in our community, value the aspect that having a place for people to get together and do weddings and family reunions and this type of thing. Understand this, that we don't get the people that want to go to a hotel, we don't get the people that want to go to a church. We get the people that want to go to a nature sanctuary. It falls under the category of garden weddings. We have the opportunity to create a facility that could be the pride of Grand Terrace. There's a lot of things that have happened in this city. I have been here since 1956; our family has had a presence here. I have seen, unfortunately, way too often, real strict definitions come in and opportunities are lost for some wonderful assets that could have happened here in the City of Grand Terrace. The ones that come to mind are ones that are gone forever. You don't revisit those opportunities. If I am not allowed to go forward with what it is I'm trying to do, no one else is going to come behind me. There is not going to be some millionaire who's going to buy my property out of foreclosure or whatever and say "yeh, I want to dump all this money into making it a nature sanctuary." We're talking about some real hard choices here that we have to make in terms of weighing it all out. If you look at our community in general, and you look at where this property is located you will find that it's a real mixed use bag of tricks. I have just about every zone that is listed in the City of Grand Terrace within about a half mile; including I have railroad tracks that abut my property; I have two pumping stations for the two water companies that are there are within just feet away from my property; I have Stater Bros. Warehouse that's not even located in the City of Grand Terrace. It's in the City of Colton. It's half a block away. I have a freeway that's half a block away. We have all kinds of uses and so it's not a neat clean thing, where we can come in a say yes, R-2 zone is everything that's happening over there. It's not everything that's happening there. My property is abutted by all kinds of different uses that are anything but R-2 zoned. If you vote in favor of letting this go to the CUP process you don't close out any options, but you open up the option, and you open an especially important opportunity we have to examine it on a closer look and to see what can happen for the City of Grand Terrace. I can tell you as a former vice-president of the Chamber of Commerce for this City the editor and original founder of the chamber newsletter that took it city-wide, I have nothing but the interest of the City at heart, and I always have. I consider what I'm doing with the nature sanctuary, my number one interest, once again, to be my gift to this City and what I'm trying to do for this City. I know of no other way to do it. I'd be happy to 21 entertain any ideas on how we could support it otherwise. I don't know of any and I think it's real fundamental that we at least allow it to get to the CUP process to hear all sides of it. To hear why I enjoy the vast majority of support 0 of the neighborhood. I enjoy overwhelming support from the business community because there are myriad of ways in which this ends up helping to stimulate the overall economic status of all kinds of businesses that I could bring in here and would tell you how the little bit of business we bring to them, be it a dry cleaners on linens or a caterer, etc. This makes a major difference on the bottom line. We have a big problem with business flight, with business vacancy in our commercial districts. The businesses in town are hurting. They need business. We have a lot of people who support this project, both neighbors, the business community and the City at large. I really urge you to at least allow this to get to the CUP process. It doesn't close out any options. I doesn't mean that we are going to all of a sudden be building stadiums and all these other horror stories within our residential communities. It's not going to happen. This is a very isolated situation. I think it needs to be treated as such. I really urge you to allow it to go to a CUP process. Thank you. Chairman Wilson: Are there any questions of the applicant? No questions. All right, we'll bring it back to the discussion. Director Materassi: I'd like to make one clarification. If the Planning Commission decides that the use is not similar we are not denying the applicant the right to apply for a CUP. He can still go through the zoning amendment process and come in with a CUP. There are no denials whatsoever. What you're doing here is a procedure that establishes if this use is similar to other uses in the area. You're not telling him he cannot come here with a CUP. If he applies for a zoning amendment, any one of the two zoning amendment processes is approved, the result of that is a CUP. He will be recommended to come in with a CUP, if the zoning amendment is approved. We're not denying him ... nobody is trying to deny him the right to come for a CUP. Commissioner Addington: The motion on the floor is not an attack on the project at all, but rather it is an interpretation of our codes. Not a strict interpretation, but this is a Determination of Use and therefore, an interpretation of our codes. Chairperson Wilson: The motion is on the floor. It has been seconded. Is there any further discussion. If not, please vote. MOTION VOTE PCM-96-07 Motion carried. 3-2-2-0. Commissioner Garcia and Chairperson Wilson voted no. Commissioner Munson and Chairperson Sims absent. Commissioner Garcia: Mr. Chairman, can I ask as a point of clarification how much that process that you said as for as to do the amendment change and the other thing, is that a costly process? 22 Director Materassi: Yes, the CUP is a costly process, too. Commissioner Garcia: Is there any other, I meant that I would just like ... is there a way that the City Attorney and staff ... that there could be some sort of direction to try to work with the client to see if there is any other possible avenue. I meant that is not extremely costly. The one issue that the applicant brought up was that it is very close to a public and if he could find other means, is there some way that he might be able to work with the City so it might be considered some sort of public use if he indeed wants it to be something for the benefit to the City. Director Materassi: Yes, through the zoning amendment he can propose to add just the wedding use if he wants. He can propose any type of uses to be added to the residential district. Commissioner Garcia: No, I was thinking more in terms of working with the City. Director Materassi: Yes, he can propose to the City Manager and if he wants a partnership he has all the rights to do what he wants. He can try to get a non-profit status from the State. He could try to get the Federal Government to establish his property as a nature sanctuary. I'm sure it would need to be larger area and some other conditions he would need to meet to be supported by the Federal Government. He could do all those things. There is no problem on any of those. He can initiate any type of negotiations for any type of use that he would like to bring in. Commissioner Garcia: But the best thing is for him to initiate it , not to have you work with him or anything. So it's best for him to approach the City with some sort of proposal? Director Materassi: If the Planning Commission would like to make a recommendation that staff would do something like this that's possible too. Commissioner Garcia: I don't know if fellow commissioners support that but I meant that if there could be some way just for staff to try to work with the applicant. Director Materassi: In terms of the zoning amendment it's not really very expensive for him. Because relatively, the level of mitigation measures he would need to do for a CUP, it would be almost 15 times or maybe 20 times more expensive than the zoning process itself. The mitigation measures, like when you have a CUP, the City has the right to trigger requirements for street improvements, lighting, mitigation of noise, etc. Once all those conditions are imposed those conditions in terms of price, they are 10 times higher than the cost of the CUP. The cost of the CUP is $2,000. The zoning amendment is another $2,000. But the cost of improving the street and doing all the improvements there would cost much more so if he really wants to pursue that in either way he would need to get a loan or do some work to have some funds to improve that facility to the point that it would not affect the neighbors. This issue is not subject of this meeting though. Chairperson Wilson: I also feel it would be necessary to inform the applicant that he does have the right to appeal any decision of this body. 23 Director Materassi: Correct, within 10 days of this meeting he has the right to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. Chairperson Wilson: Can we move forward? Item #4 on the agenda. ITEM #4 Discussion of invitation to participate in quarterly Planning Commission Regional Meetings regarding topics of mutual concern to cities in the Inland Empire. Chairperson Wilson: We have a handout here regarding the regional meeting. It has a meeting scheduled. Is there anything to add to that? Director Materassi: Yes, would you like to go? Basically the City of Fontana would like to know if the Planning Commissioners would like to participate in these quarterly meeting. They will be discussing telecommunication antennas and other items of mutual interest between Planning Commissioners. It's a Planning Commissioner initiative with the staff of Fontana supporting them. I'd like to know if you would like to go. In terms of cost, there is no fee. They would like us to call them back to RSVP. The first meeting is Thursday, February 15. I will need to know if any of you would like to go then I will call them. Chairperson Wilson: Any comments from the Planning Commission? We can call you to let you know? Director Materassi: Yes. Chairperson Wilson: We'll adjourn the Site and Architecture Review Board and Planning Commission meeting. Next Planning Commission Meeting will be held on March 7, 1996. Director Materassi: I have one more note before we leave. We have a request from Commissioner Garcia. There is a Planner's Institute and we haven't had a chance to discuss this because all of our workshops have been so full of other items and we have not received flier this time. This is usually a workshop item. I usually ask the Planning Commission for volunteers to go to the Planning Commissioners Institute and then we have volunteers from the Planning Commission. In this case we have a volunteer, Commissioner Garcia would like to go to the Planner's Institute conference and I'd like to know if there are any other volunteers to go. In case we have any other volunteers then we will vote who will represent the Planning Commission because we have funding only for one to attend. If we don't decide this today then we can't allocate the funds because it will be too late at the next meeting. Chairperson Wilson: Where is the meeting? Commissioner Garcia: Long Beach. Commissioner Addington: I vote for LeeAnn. Commissioner Van Gelder: I second. Chairperson Wilson: All in favor. 24 Director Materassi: All right, that's all. Thank you. 9:43 P.M. ADJOURNED SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON MARCH 7, 1996. Respectfully submitted, a�� Patrizia Materassi Community Development Director 2-27-96:PP Approv , iz Doug Wilson Chairperson, Planning Commission C:\OFFICE\WPWMWPDOCS\PLANNING\MINUTES\2-01-96.min 25