10/21/1999GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 21, 1999
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 October
21, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairwoman, Fran Van Gelder.
PRESENT: Fran Van Gelder, Chairperson
Matt Addington, Commissioner
Mary Trainor, Commissioner
Patrizia Materassi, Community and Economic Development Director
John Lampe, Planner
Pat Peterson, CEDD Secretary
ABSENT: Doug Wilson, Vice -Chairperson
7:03 P.M. CONVENED SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
* Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance by Commissioner Trainor
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:
Chairwoman Van Gelder announced the presentation scheduled at the request of
Barney Karger will not take place this evening, but possibly some time in the future.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 2
October 21, 1999
Director Materassi invited Commission Members to call her if they have questions
regarding the letter included in their packet.
Council Member Don Larkin
12168 Mt. Vernon #89
Grand Terrace, CA 92313
He explained he was out of town at the time of the last Planning Commission
meeting. He said he wanted to personally thank all Commission Members for
the support and help given to him as a member of the Planning Commission. He
also said he appreciated the help of staff. In his role as Council Member he said
he will always appreciate the advice and guidance of Commission Members as
the City moves forward with challenges in the future. He also thanked
Chairwoman Van Gelder for the card she mailed.
ITEM#1
WORKSHOP ON ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
Planner, John Lampe presented the staff report. He reviewed the working paper given
to Commission Members in their packet in addition to some background information on
the Administrative Conditional Use Permit process.
Mr. Lampe said he frequently speaks to people at the public counter who want to locate
their small business in an existing center. A CUP is often required by the zoning code,
based on the proposed use. Several citizens and prospective business owners have
come to the counter with proposals for office space uses in the business center at
12210 Michigan Street, in the CM zone. In the CM zone, an office space use requires
a CUP. An administrative review of such cases would expedite applicant's request, fill
vacancies in the city and assist staff in reaching its goals in this time of staff shortage.
He explained the CUP process is an extensive one that may cost applicant up to
$2,000, in addition to the environmental review fee, plus a minimum of 2-3 months
processing time, and finally, a public hearing before the Planning Commission. The
time and money invested by staff for reports, mailing of notices, meetings, and the
public hearing is considerable. There is also additional work after the public hearing as
the project proceeds.
A survey of nearby jurisdictions conducted by staff found three which have an
administrative process in place for minor projects.
1. The County of San Bernardino has a departmental review process to determine
if findings can be made that meet the city code. If those findings are made the
project is then approved by the Zoning Administrator. If findings are not made
the project then follows the normal CUP process with a public hearing.
2. Los Angeles County has a Zoning Administrator who hears all CUPs, but certain
minor CUPs are considered and approved ex-parte without a public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 3
October 21, 1999
3. The City of Corona is working on a similar administrative CUP process
ordinance, directed towards minor CUP uses in existing buildings, or minor
modifications of existing CUPs. Only contiguous properties would be noticed of
the application and pending approval.
Mr. Lampe reviewed the criteria under consideration for the Grand Terrace
Administrative CUP ordinance:
a. Restricted to minor types of requests;
b. Located within an existing building;
C. No greater than 2,000 square feet;
d. All zoning restrictions and standards must be met;
e. All potential adverse affects on the surrounding environment must be fully
mitigated;
f. Meets requirements of a categorical exemption; and
g. Similar to administrative Site and Architectural Review currently in use
Adoption of an Administrative CUP process will offer time and financial benefits to the
applicant in addition to time savings for the Planning Commission which can then focus
on issues that have greater long term significance to the City such as the General Plan
Update, zoning amendment issues and larger projects. Staff efficiency would be
increased by reducing the number of reports, packets, minutes, public notices and
follow-up procedures involved in the public hearings.
An Administrative CUP process would be consistent with the City's development -
friendly policy and would streamline the approval process of minor projects while
allowing the limited staff time to concentrate on larger, more significant projects.
There was a general discussion among staff and Commission Members about the cost
and time savings that an Administrative CUP process would benefit the applicants. All
Commission Members agreed they will recommend approval of an Administrative CUP
process to City Council for adoption.
7:25 P.M. ADJOURNED SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
7:25 P.M. CONVENED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION
• Information to Commissioners
Report by Director Materassi on the League of California Cities Annual
Conference October 10 - 12, 1999, on Smart Growth Principles and
Sustainability Issues.
Director Materassi referred to APA Planning Advisory Service Report
#467, "A Planner's Guide to Sustainable Development" which was part of
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 4
October 21, 1999
the packet for this meeting. She explained the concepts of sustainability
will be used in developing the General Plan Land Use and Conservation
Elements. She asked Commission Members to read the material in
preparation for a workshop to review and provide input on the
Conservation Element update. Staff will begin drafting the element once
a Planning Technician has been hired.
Chairwoman Van Gelder made the observation that she believes the
approach and decisions about projects and the City's future made by the
Planning Commission are already based upon sustainability principles.
Director Materassi agreed, and referred back to the update of the
Conservation Element. She would like the Commission and Council
Members to suggest specific actions related to conservation to be
included in a resolution and as part of the update of the Conservation
Element.
Director Materassi referred to Page 10, of the Guide which defines
sustainability as "Development which meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs."
Director Materassi discussed many organizations, conferences and
summits, from global to local in nature, formed to set sustainability goals.
She reviewed the strategy adopted by the City of Olympia, Washington
for Reduction of Greenhouse/Ozone-Depleting Gas Emissions. The
strategy focuses on three major categories:
A. Municipal Operations, i.e., encourage use of carpools, buses and
bicycles by city employees;
B. Regulation, i.e., in updates of zoning code and development
standards, consider revisions to reduce vehicle use and increase
tree cover (e.g., revise street standards to encourage bike paths,
street trees, slow streets, and bicycle/pedestrian paths; revise
parking requirements; require open space in all new development;
require solar orientation and access; establish incentives for
energy and space -efficient subdivision design; zone for mixed -use
neighborhoods); and
C. Education/Incentives, i.e., offer recognition/awards for private
businesses and organizations that promote energy efficiency and
reduce air pollution.
The City Council of Santa Monica, California adopted a "Sustainable City
Program" in 1993, after more than a year of work by the Task Force on
the Environment. The task force, a group of local professionals, with
expertise in diverse fields, conducted workshops and solicited opinions of
members of the community. The result was their set of "Sustainable
Development Principles" and Goals for Sustainability which include:
a. Sustainability guides the city policy
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 5
October 21, 1999
b.
Protection of the natural environment is one of the highest
priorities.
C.
The quality of the environment and economic health are
interdependent
d.
All decisions have an environmental impact
e.
Successful programs and policies require community awareness,
responsibility, involvement and education
f.
The city recognizes its linkage with regional, national and global
community
g.
Environmental issues most important to the community will be
addressed first, and the most cost-effective programs and policies
will be selected.
h.
The city is committed to procurement decisions that minimize
negative environmental and social impacts
Sustainability principles have now evolved from environmental to urban
planning and other fields, i.e., "Smart Growth," "Livable Communities"
and "New Urbanism." Compact development facilitates multi -modal
transportation which saves open space and agriculture land and helps to
insure clean air. Compact development and revitalization of the city core,
in addition to emphasis on city identity are among the key principles of
sustainability, in terms of urban planning.
Santa Monica has adopted Goals for Sustainability in the areas of
resource conservation policy goals; transportation goals; pollution
prevention and public health protection goals; and community and
economic development.
League of California Cities - Director Materassi told Commission
Members she recently attended the Annual League Conference in San
Jose. She spoke on the subject of "Downtown Redevelopment - Realistic
Expectations".
In response to Chairwoman Van Gelder's inquiry Director Materassi said
the City has issued a demolition permit for the GTI Market and two
adjacent houses for the Rite Aid Project. She spoke with the developer
who said Rite Aid recently went through some restructuring and he feels
positive about the project. Walgreen's and Sav-on drug stores may be
interested in the site if Rite Aid should back out of the project.
— The Hollywood Video project appears to be moving forward. Director
Materassi said she is working with the developer to interest him in
developing the site at the southwest corner of Barton and Mt. Vernon in
conjunction with the Hollywood Video project. To date there are no
applications in house, however, there are architectural firms working on
plans.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 6
October 21, 1999
— The most recent investor in the Town Square Project has pulled out of the
project. Developer has been unable to secure a movie theater anchor for
the project so she is exploring the idea of a major grocery store as the
major anchor.
There are several building projects in the talking stages:
- Bob Keeney is talking about remodeling his office building or build
another.
- Joe Kohorst of Mr. TV/Video would like to build a warehouse.
- Bill McKeever is talking about building an office on Barton Rd. east of
the Urgent Care Center.
7:65 P.M. ADJOURNED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION
NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 18. 1999.
Respectfully submitted,
Approved by,
Patrizia Materassi Fran Van Gelder
Community and Economic Development Director Chairperson, Planning
Commission
11-09-99:pp
wAp1ann1ng\minutes\10-21-99.min