Loading...
06/04/1992GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING TUNE 40 1992 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 June 4, 1992 at 7:10 p.m. by Chairman Dan Buchanan. PRESENT: Dan Buchanan, Chairman Stanley Hargrave, Vice -Chairman Ray Munson, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner Ron Wright, Commissioner Maria C. Muett, Associate Planner Larry Mainez, Planning Intern Maggie Alford, Planning Secretary ABSENT: None. PLEDGE: Stanley Hargrave, Vice -Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 6:30 P.M. The Associate Planner said that a gentleman from EMCON, a consultant firm working with the Assistant City Manager in meeting the regional authorities guidelines for Household Hazardous Waste Element and Source Reduction and Recycling Element is here to answer any questions. She said staff is providing this for informational purposes so they know what this plan generally is about. She said the responsibility the Planning Department had was looking at the initial study and environmental issue. She said the Assistant City Manager is working on the element and the actual technical end of it, and City Council is the authoritative body, and they will be the body reviewing and voting on this. She said Mr. Perry can answer any questions, and they will be looking at it from the Planning Commission's perspective of a project -by -project, for example, if a compost -type site comes in or a lumber yard, etc., and how this additional regulation would fit onto this project, so naturally, the project would come before them anyway for land use. She said this evening, they are giving the commission a very general look at it and will go into more detail for them as the plan gets approved, and they will be given Fd some standards and guidelines so they know what their official capacity will be in looking at this element. She said she has before them draft initial studies, and the lead agency is the State, who said it met the requirements, so now they are ready for City Council to adopt it. She said it does not become a part of the General Plan; it is just an additional regional control. She introduced Mike Perry from EMCON, stating that the consultant was hired by most of the Inland Empire cities. MIKE PERRY EMCON Mr. Perry said in 1989, the State of California passed the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, which requires each city and each county to develop a plan by which it will effectively reduce or recycle the amount of waste it is currently generating by 25% by the year 1995 and increases this diversion to 50% by the year 2000. He stated that within the legislation itself, it is specified exactly how the plans were to be developed, what the plans were to analyze, what options in many cases were available or at least had to be evaluated, and also provided for some penalties for non-compliance. He said, in brief, if the city or county either does not submit its plan or does not achieve its recycling and diversion goals, it can be subject to up to as much as $10,000 per day fine; therefore, it became an important process for each city to look at very seriously. He stated that, within the eastern San Bernardino Valley, 10 cities got together under a loosely -formed memo of understanding by which they hired a single consultant to develop plans for all 10 cities. He said the concept behind this was that solid waste, although it is forced to be looked at on a city -by -city basis, often is more of a regional issue - each city can not be expected to develop its own mature recovery facility to divert 25% or 50% of its waste stream as it is just not cost effective, so the MOU and the 10 cities got together, hiring a single consulting firm to assist all of the cities within the MOU to prepare the plan. He said the plan started out as a waste characterization study, of which each cities waste stream was analyzed and broken down into 35 categories or types of waste, looking at types of waste from aluminum cans down to the percentage of diapers found in the waste stream. He said, based upon this information, a plan was developed by which the city could effectively reduce that amount of waste being generated, and in brief, the impact it has upon the Planning Commission is, much of the responsibility for implementing this plan will loosely fall upon them. He said when development occurs within the City, ideally, they will have to look at it from a standpoint of, "Well, how is this new development going to assist us in achieving our goals?", particularly with environmental impact report for large development, whether they be shopping centers or real estate developments, as those types of issues need to be looked at and hopefully incorporated within the conditions of approval of any 2 particular project. Commissioner Sims asked if this plan includes construction waste as well as waste generated by residents. Mr. Perry said at this time, construction demolition waste is targeted as a waste type generated from the City, that the City will be attempting to get a handle on to reduce the amount that's entering landfills. Commissioner Sims asked if it would include debris generated from construction itself, to which Mr. Perry agreed. Commissioner Sims asked if the purpose of the program was to try to minimise waste going to the landfills themselves, and asked if the program was associated with the recycling program being implemented right now. He asked how the cost issues were being addressed. Mr. Perry said the SRRE tried to identify those costs that would be associated with implementation of the plan itself. He said the plan is a very comprehensive plan, running from educational programs to actually counting wastes and doing waste audits at businesses throughout the City - it's not just recycling, it's education, source reduction, composting - there are many facets to it. He said the funding aspect of the plan they identified, as consultant for the City, they tried to identify those costs associated with implementing the plan and then allowed the City Manager's office to evaluate how those funds would be generated and how they would be used once they are generated for the plan itself. Commissioner Sims said that what he is maybe suggesting is that a condition of development may be that they have to pay a fee of some sort associated with the management of the waste product that they would be generating out of their specific project. Mr. Perry said this is certainly one way of generating funds to pay for the program. He said other ways being used by other cities are, as they already have a recycling surcharge on their refuse collection, typically that does not touch the commercial and industrial businesses within a City, so a similar type of fee is being established by many cities for their commercial, industrial and multi -family residential units that are using the 3 1/2 cu. yd. bins, so that they are paying what amounts to an equal share toward implementation of the City wide fund program. Commissioner Sims asked how this is enforced. 3 The Associate Planner said the Planning Director will be getting more information as to standards implemented on these projects when appropriate. She said they will be reviewing this information to the commission through workshop sessions, but at this point, they are just starting out. Commissioner Sims said he felt kind of uncomfortable with this kind of thing, because all of a sudden, they are placed in a position of authority, and this will cost somebody some money, someplace, and they need to be very aware of what the impacts are. The Associate Planner said the Assistant City Manager is working on this with the consultant as to the framework of this plan, implementation tool and some of the enforcement end of it and meeting the State requirement, and they are working on what their mechanism tools are from the Planning Commission responsibility. Commissioner Wright said recently in the City of Riverside, apparently they are going to have yard waste pickup on one day and paper waste on another. He asked, in that we only have one trash pickup day a week, if the plan has some way of separating the grass clippings, for example. Mr. Perry said the green waste program that is identified within the SRRE is looking more at a drop-off program than a curbside collection program, working specifically with gardeners regarding agencies or companies and with residents, rather than wanting to take a large load of tree limbs and grass clippings to the landfill themselves, would be able to utilize a drop-off center, which would be picked up on a regular basis and then taken as clean waste to a composting facility within the area. Commissioner Wright asked if there is any particular site where the compost pile is going to end up. Mr. Perry said at the time of the plan preparation, there were no high prospects for the siting of the composting facility within the City of Grand Terrace, and it was recognized that a regional site would have to be evaluated. He said there are several companies that are looking into siting composting facilities within the area and within the region to assist the cities in implementing their SRRE's. Commissioner Wright asked if there was any consideration by local ordinance requiring mulching lawnmowers to decrease the amount. 4 Mr. Perry said the plan itself is much like a General Plan, in that it sets guidelines, and those guidelines can be refined and honed at a later date as necessary and as the programs are implemented. He said some cities have decided to work in-house first and have started to buy multi -mowers for their parks and recreation and school programs, and once they have worked out the details of that, then they will be looking at encouraging their residences to do much of the same thing. Chairman Buchanan asked for some insight on how the issues dealt with in this plan are going to be impacting the commission's work and their decision making process, and specifically, what kind of authority does something like this add to their ability to condition a project, for example, if someone came in with a child care facility, in the past they would look at safety issues and appropriate fencing and setbacks, etc.; would they now have the authority to add conditions such as, "You can not require the parents to use disposable diapers". He said this would be a lot more intrusive in the conducting of somebody's business than they have normally been in the past. Mr. Perry said he is hesitant to answer this, as these are legal issues and he is not an attorney. He said there have been communities that have required child care centers to not use disposable diapers and require the parents to bring in cloth diapers or pay an extra charge for cloth diapers. He said these are hotly contested issues, and he doesn't think the full ramification of some of these policies has made it through the courts to be determined. He said the Planning Commission certainly has the ability to set conditions of approval which are related to solid waste, and being a consultant that is trying to assist cities in reducing their waste streams, he highly encourages them to take a close look at the businesses and see if there are things they can do that can reduce the amount of waste that they are generating. Chairman Buchanan said that normally on land use issues, if someone comes in for a Conditional Use Permit or Site and Architectural Review, the scope of their inquiry is limited to how they impact the aesthetics, traffic circulation, etc. He said it doesn't make much of a stretch to think about how they impact other infrastructures, such as solid waste management and consider that, although, that is something in their experience that has generally been dealt with when necessary as part of an environmental assessment or impact report, and not on a day-to-day, project -by -project basis, but he can see how there are a lot of projects, such as lumberyards which create a lot of sawdust and other types of businesses that generate a lot of trash, and he wonders if they have the power now to start adding as conditions or even turn down projects because they generate too much waste. 5 Mr. Perry said that types of projects that may be coming before them that are a little more controversial might be Stater Bros. having a 'buy-back" center, and if that facility already has the minimum amount of parking required, and in order to put in this 'buy-back" center, three parking spaces would be lost, therefore the applicant would have to come to the commission for a variance. He said once policies and standards are established for refuse bins in multi- family residential units or commercial businesses, they may have different standards than in the past to allow for storage on -site of those materials that can be recycled. He said in a neighborhood shopping center, a condition of approval may be that if there are five businesses in this neighborhood strip, the project proponent must put in a cardboard bailer that is for use by all of the tenants of the strip center. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if the issue of education as far as Planning staff, Planning Commission and City Council has been addressed yet. The Associate Planner said this workshop is just for basic information, but staff is working to get a procedural implementation tool going, and one good point Commissioner Sims brought up was the code enforcement situation. She said the Assistant City Manager is doing this portion of the project, and the Planning Department staff dealt with the environmental issue. She said the City is one of the last ones to be approved by the City Council, so they are gearing this for July 25, 1992, and in the meantime, staff is working on education so they know what direction they are coming from as a commission. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if they would get planning standards that would be the same for all ten cities or will every city have its own little niche. Mr. Perry said one would hope not, but there is a possibility that if an individual city is well on its way to achieving its overall goals, it may not have the same standards set forth as a city that has a long way to go to achieving its goals. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:10 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:10 P.M. Chairman Buchanan asked everyone to take a moment of silent reflection for Jerry Hawkinson, stating that he resigned from the Planning Commission a short while back and very shortly thereafter passed away. He said that, from his own time on the Planning Commission, he was very appreciative of not only the insight that Jerry has always provided but the example that he set for 6 Commissioner Van Gelder asked if someone was moving into Curatolo's center. The Associate Planner said Chief Auto Parts will be on the comer and the one at the end will be a specialty farmer's produce. She said staff is reviewing the sign program with them and tenant improvements are going on for both suites. Commissioner Van Gelder asked when the gas station was going to open. The Associate Planner said they are open now, as they met their deadline for the non -conforming use to stay legal, and they are still doing some landscaping improvements and their signs have been approved. She said they had many calls from residents that wanted the gas station back, even though Specific Plan -wise, it wasn't the intent for that comer. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked what was in the oil drums sitting there. The Associate Planner said they did a boring and they are testing their soil for contamination, and this was voluntary done by the property owner. She said they are working in conjunction with the County Environmental Health Department to make sure they meet their requirements for that soil. She said they can have up to 1998 to clean up their land. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked about the sign inventory and when staff expected to have that issue before the Commission again. The Associate Planner said it was called back by City Council and is scheduled for June 11. She said the inventory has been completed, and this information will be brought back with a slide presentation. Vice -Chairman Hargrave felt this additional information is significant information which they never had at the hearing, and now their recommendation to the Council may be inappropriate without the Commission reviewing the additional information. The Associate Planner said staff was directed by City Council to provide this information. Vice -Chairman Hargrave stated it is very difficult for a legislative body to give any clear decisions relative to another governmental body when they have one hand tied behind them. He felt this was an inefficient way to run a legislative body. E. him with his leadership and his concern for the City and how that was reflected in this entire process. The Associate Planner stated that City Council will be presenting an In Memorial plaque to Jerry's family on July 11. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Commissioner Wright said in Reche Canyon by the cemetery, the dirt trucks drive through the City, and they are impacting our City. He said he didn't know if this would require an environmental impact report with that amount of dirt, and the trucks run head -to -tail every 30 seconds when they are running, and he feels this is a hazard to other traffic and pedestrians. The Associate Planner said they had this problem a while back, and the California Highway Patrol was assisting them in regulating that, but they will make a notation that this is recurring. She said the Congestion Management Plan is another tool through regional authorities that cites will have to be looking at and addressing, and there are fees attached to that. Commissioner Van Gelder said in one of the windows on the south side of Village Foods, a display has fallen down. Commissioner Wright said there isn't much difference from Village Foods and 7-Eleven. The Associate Planner said she would bring this up with the Planning Director as she is working with the tenant. She said they have had some progress in other areas of concern. Vice -Chairman Hargrave felt Planning should give some suggestions to the tenant to help spruce up Village Foods. The Associate Planner said staff has done this, but they get to a point where they might be overstepping their ability to do this with regard to the interior. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if they have stayed to their agreement as to the percentage of merchandise that is going to be "top quality". The Associate Planner said they have increased some of this merchandise. She said staff is receiving some additional comments from A.B.C., and it looks as if they may be bringing them up again for their hard liquor license, which is one additional use that was helping their inventory. 7 The Associate Planner said this was dictated to staff. Commissioner Sims asked if they could see this information, to which the Associate Planner responded in the positive. Vice -Chairman Hargrave said they could go to the meeting and give public comment. The Associate Planner said she will make the Planning Director aware of this and make communication with the Commission without violating the Brown Act. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if staff has talked to anyone at the Potomac project about their temporary signage, as it seems they are past the temporary time period with the marquis in the front advertising "Suites for Lease". The Associate Planner said they have been notified of this situation and excessive window coverage. She said one of the suites has tried to make an adjustment of the window coverage, and there is still another tenant with excessive window coverage. She said, however, if staff receives a specific complaint, they will take it, but if not, they will include it in the work set forth in the sign inventory. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if staff has informed the new video store in the Stater Bros. center of the Sign Ordinance. The Associate Planner said they have two new tenants there, and they are working possibly together through a common sign company and trying to encourage the property owner to get a sign program going for the center. She said the other tenant is Dollar Mart, which will replace Sprouse Reitz. Commissioner Wright suggested mentioning something to Domino's about their employees with the signs at Barton and Mt. Vernon. He felt there was not a need for one employee on each comer, with 8' long signs. He feels this is creating a visibility problem for the intersection. He said the sign that hangs out from the side of the building that they have weighted down with cinder block is a little much. Commissioner Munson asked if there have been any permits for satellite dishes recently. He said he has noticed two new satellite dishes - one on Kentfield and Warbler and the other is on either Warbler or Miriam Way. He asked if this body gets involved in any of the halfway houses. 6 The Associate Planner said a residential care facility, which are of various types, exceeds six individuals, it would come to the Commission for a Conditional Use Permit as required by the City, but the State is the main authoritative body if it is six or under. She said the City does keep a list of residential care facilities. Commissioner Munson said there are three in his neighborhood, and he feels that one individual is running all three houses. The Associate Planner said he could have three homes, and each home can be licensed for six, and would have to get a Conditional Use Permit to have more than six individuals. ITEM #1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MAY 7, 1992 Chairman Buchanan stated that on page 6 in the middle of the page, it should read Vice -Chairman "Hargrave". MOTION PCM-92-39 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MAY 79 1992 MOTION VOTE PCM-92-39 Commissioner Van Gelder made a motion to approve the May 7, 1992 minutes with the change. Vice -Chairman Hargrave second. Motion carries. 6-0-0-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:34 P.M. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED AT 7:34 P.M. 10 ITEM #2 SA-91-23 MARK AND KIMBERLY SPANGLER 22329 DE BERRY G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A ROOM ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE R1-7.2 DISTRICT The Associate Planner presented the staff report. She said staff would make the correction on the numbering of the conditions. Vice -Chairman Hargrave said on the Engineer's report, on which they have a condition for acceptance, it seems like the Engineer, on point #3, isn't quite sure of what he wants of the applicant. He asked which way he wants to go on the grading situation. The Associate Planner said if sidewalk with the parkway was going to be selected, substantial grading would have to be done and possibly a retaining wall, which the applicant could not afford. She said because of this lower grade, there will probably be minor grading involved in comparison as they are going with the low side of the sidewalk and there will be some specific design articulation. She said the City Engineer is leaving this in as it is basically the same type of condition he originally asked for. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked about point #4, the trimming of the Olive tree with regard to extending into the public right-of-way. The Associate Planner said they are looking at the public right-of-way with regard to the street, however, the tree is not on their property; it is on the next door neighbor's property. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if the tree stumps in the back yard were there for decorative reasons. The Associate Planner said the applicant can answer that, but it would probably be cleared up when construction commences. Commissioner Wright asked if Southern California Edison's pole will remain for some time to come. The Associate Planner said the applicant has worked this out with Southern California Edison, as they wanted to make sure the sidewalk wasn't a problem with them. She said they do not have a problem with the sidewalk being poured around the pole. 11 Commissioner Wright was concerned about how far the pole is from the actual curb face to make sure there is enough clearance by the pole for wheelchairs. The Associate Planner said this will be addressed when the City Engineer works out the specific issues. Commissioner Sims asked about the deferment. The Associate Planner said they are looking at being able to put in the sidewalk that they have proposed and are asking for the deferment on that particular sidewalk. She said if they have to do the other sidewalk, there is no project. Commissioner Sims said it will probably built two years from now. The Associate Planner said they are putting a two-year limit on it because many of the properties around it already have sidewalks. She said standard deferment agreements don't necessarily have time periods, as the verbiage usually states, "when the adjoining properties develop". She said staff and the applicant have come up with the two-year agreement to put some cap on the deferment agreement. Commissioner Sims asked if there are bonds posted to cover the cost. The Associate Planner said this would be worked out when the City Engineer would be taking it to the City Council. Commissioner Sims said staff is asking the Commission to approve a deferment, and there is no real guarantee anything will happen. The Associate Planner said staff is asking them to recommend this to the City Council. Commissioner Sims said no bond issues have been agreed upon and no preliminary estimates have been done, and perhaps two years from now, all of this will get solidified. Chairman Buchanan said they would be giving Site and Architectural approval including the requirement that the sidewalk be constructed. He said they are also saying that if the applicant asks the City Council to defer the construction of the sidewalk, the City Council has the Planning Commission's recommendation that they consider doing that, but the City Council, City Engineer and City Attorney, in preparing the deferment agreement with the 12 property owner, would establish whatever terms the City would require. Commissioner Sims said he wanted to be sure that there will be a sidewalk installed, and he doesn't feel there is that much more cost. Commissioner Van Gelder said she has no problem with the deferment. She asked who is responsible to follow through and make sure this happens if the deferment is granted. The Associate Planner said sometimes bonds have to be posted, so they have a cap time on them, and there are conditions on the project. She said if there are bonds placed on the property, the City Engineer and Planning Department both have the responsibility of keeping a calendar system. She said with bond system, when the project has been completed, those monies need to be released through the auditing system. She said the City Engineer needs to ensure that this project has been done before those monies are released back. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if it was feasible to assume that City Council would agree with the two-year deferment without a bond. The Associate Planner said she is not certain as to how they would do that, but it is up to the City Engineer and City Council. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if they can include this as part of a recommendation. The Associate Planner said that deferment agreements and what goes with them is basically City Council, and the City Engineer prepares the standard requirements for that, which he does in compliance with City Code. She said from the Commission's standpoint, it is basically a recommendation. Chairman Buchanan called up the applicant. MARK SPANGLER 22329 DE BERRY G.T. Mr. Spangler said he is not trying to "duck" the sidewalk. He said he is trying to get it deferred so he has enough funds to increase his home, and he was trying to save the money to do his driveway in concrete at the same time he does the sidewalk along the front, as the driveway has a puddling problem in front of his garage. He noted that it was stated that his existing home was 2,700 sq. ft., but it is only 1,140 and he is adding 984. 13 Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if the back yard is under control. Mr. Spangler said the stumps are from two Eucalyptus trees that had died. He said he hasn't moved them yet as he is waiting for this to go through. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if he confirmed that the Olive tree is on his neighbor's property, which Mr. Spangler confirmed. Commissioner Sims asked if he would feel comfortable in posting a bond for the sidewalk improvements. Mr. Spangler said he isn't sure what that is all about, and he assumed they were putting alien on his house until the sidewalk is done. Commissioner Sims said this is the only opportunity the City has to complete a system that is meant to serve the public, as sidewalks serve the public and enhance property. He said sometimes deferment programs tend to get forgotten, but a bond does make it happen. 7:58 P.M. OPENED/CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Buchanan brought this item back to the Site and Architectural Review Board. Vice -Chairman Hargrave said he would like to discuss the first #4 under conditions of approval. He said it seems as a Planning Commission, they either should recommend a sidewalk be installed, period, and let Council come up with either deferring this and what the deferment agreement should be, but the Commission's jurisdiction would seem to be recommending for or against certain conditions and let the Council, since they have the ultimate say-so and the legislative power to grant deferments and the conditions of the deferments. He said the Commission's job is to uphold the standards relative to the ordinances or to recommend the ordinance be changed, so as this reads, it appears they are suggesting that the Council sign the agreement for deferment. He felt coming from here, this is an incomplete recommendation one way or another. Chairman Buchanan asked if he is suggesting that the 1st #4 be amended to include the two-year limitation. Vice -Chairman said either that or make it simple, stating that the Commission recommends that the sidewalk, per the City Engineer's recommendations, be installed. 14 Chairman Buchanan said the condition of approval immediately above that does this. Commissioner Sims said he doesn't feel it is really proper for them to recommend that a deferment agreement be executed, as this is not their job. The Associate Planner said, in projects past, the Commission has recommended a deferment agreement, but the mechanics are up to the City Council and the City Engineer compiles that. Commissioner Sims stated that he tends to disagree, as he thinks some of the discussions they have had before mentioned that there were going to be bonds issued to cover the cost of the improvements, and that type of language. Chairman Buchanan said he thinks there was testimony coming from the City Engineer when they were asking how this works, and he said normally they have a standard document that requires bonding, etc. Commissioner Sims said they made there decision accordingly based on that information, and right now, they don't have that. The Associate Planner said they are asking from the Commission that recommendation of deferral agreement, which their body can do. She said since it is in the condition of the City Engineer anyway for the sidewalks, whatever way the condition gets met that meets the City Code, that meets that part, but the applicant is asking for the deferral agreement, and the Commission can make that recommendation to the City Council on the deferment. She said the mechanics end of it has been the responsibility of the City Engineer to meet the requirements of the City Council and the City Code, and they don't usually see that. Vice -Chairman Hargrave said they might say, "The Planning Commission recommends sidewalk per the City Engineer's recommendation be installed", unless a deferment agreement is executed, "the sidewalk is to be installed per the terms of the deferment agreement", that way, one way or another, it gets done. Commissioner Van Gelder didn't feel it was unusual for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council, as it is ultimately the decision of the City Council anyway. Commissioner Wright said they made a recommendation on Mrs. Kennedy's house on Preston for deferral of the sidewalk and coming back into her slope, and there was no decision about any particular time element or any bonding, 15 MOTION PCM-92-40 SA-91-23 MOTION VOTE PCM-92-40 MOTION PCM-92-41 SA-91-23 MOTION VOTE PCM-92-41 just that when the other properties in the area develop, she would have to put in her sidewalk and gutter. Commissioner Sims said there wasn't anything else there, and this is the opposite, as there is sidewalk everywhere, except this one piece. He said he would just feel more comfortable with the words included that bonds will be issued. Chairman Buchanan made a motion to amend the 1st Condition #4 to read that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that a deferment agreement be considered with respect to the installation of standard sidewalk from the eastern sidewalk near the curb across the frontage connecting the western sidewalk. Specific design to be approved by the City Engineer in the building permit phase. Further recommended that any deferral agreement be appropriately bonded and limited in time to two years or less. Vice -Chairman Hargrave second. Motion carries. 6-0-0-0. Commissioner Sims made a motion to approve SA-91-23 as amended. Commissioner Munson second. Vice -Chairman Hargrave stated that they need to strike Item #4 out of the City Engineer's recommendations. Commissioner Sims and Commission Munson concurred. Commissioner Wright asked that the re -numbering be in sequential order. Motion carries. 6-0-0-0. 16 SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 8:10 P.M. NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON JUNE 18, 1992. Respectfully submitted, Patrizia Materassi Planning Director 06-26-92:ma 17 Approved by, Dan Buchanan Chairman, Planning Commission