Loading...
01/15/2009 Y' li r Community and Economic Development Department ' I " (ALIf0RNIA GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JOINT WORKSHOP WITH CITY COUNCIL AND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 15,2009 A ioint workshop of the Grand Terrace Citv Council and Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on January 15, 2009 at 6:00 p.m.,by Mavor Marvetta Ferre. PRESENT: Maryetta Ferre, Mayor Lee Ann Garcia, Mayor Pro Tern Bea Cortes, Councilmember Jim Miller, Councilmember Walt Stanckiewitz, Councilmember Doug Wilson, Chairman Matthew Addington,Vice-Chairman Tom Comstock, Commissioner Brian Phelps, Commissioner Darcy McNaboe, Commissioner Brenda Mesa, City Clerk Steve Berry, Acting City Manager Joyce Powers, Community&Economic Development Director Richard Shields, Building & Safety Director Sandra Molina, Senior Planner ABSENT: Tom Schwab, City Manager Bernard Simon,Finance Director John Harper, City Attorney Lt. Mike Newcombe, San Bernardino County Sheriff s Department John Salvate, San Bernardino County Fire Department CONVENE PUBLIC JOINT WORKSHOP PUBLIC COMMENT Rita Schwark 21952 Grand Terrace Road Stated that she lives on the west side of the freeway. She stated that the City already has two large trailer courts in her area and if the City is mandated or has to put housing in she would prefer upper class homes. She feels that the City does not need any more trailer parks or apartments. She stated that the traffic in that area is getting unbearable. 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92313-5295 • 9D9/ 824-6621 1 -- Charles Hornsby 22656 Brentwood Street stated that he supports the Planning Commission remaining at 7:00 p.m. He suggested having staff members that have to go to the Planning Commission meetings come in late on the meeting days that way there is no additional costs involved, if the time change is due to budgetary reasons. He feels that the City should have a budget workshop soon encouraging all the members of the public to come in and see where all of the money goes. He feels that if we can't pay for the special events,we shouldn't have them. ITEM 1 -DRAFT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT Joyce Powers, Community and Economic Development Director, expressed her appreciation for the City Council and Planning Commission participating in the Workshop. She stated that this workshop is one of many to get us to the point of approving the General Plan. The current Housing Element has now expired. We are required to be updated as part of the General Plan. In addition to that, we are also required to have the Housing Element certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). They have met with staff and reviewed the drafts, their comments are included in the information provided to the Council and Commission. She stated that Sandra Molina, Senior Planner has prepared the presentation and will be sharing it with the Council and Commission. She feels that at the end of the presentation _ the Council and Commission will have a good idea of the decisions points that still need to be done, which are very few. Staff will spell out what is required to be included in the Housing Element, where the Regional Housing Needs Assessment numbers come from, which is completed by HCD. They tell all of the cities and counties what their requirements are. HCD also puts out information on the income limits to qualify for housing in certain income ranges, staff will go over that briefly as well. Once the presentation has concluded staff will be happy to take comments from the Council, Commission and general public. At the very end staff will be discussing some recommendations to look at parcels that are already zoned for multi-family housing and how that could assist the City in meeting the requirements of the State. In addition to that, the City also has some single family projects that have been discussed that could also qualify to meet that final number. Sandra Molina, Senior Planner, indicated that this is workshop number 15, the Commission has had a series of workshops in 2007 and 2008. We are very happy to have the Council and the Commission discussing this very important element this evening. The first workshop that was held with the Commission in 2007 was a brief, generalized overview of housing element law. There was a review of the Draft Housing Element, which was a more in depth workshop with the Commission in April of 2007. That draft was sent to HCD and they sent the City a comment letter. An internal draft was generated, where staff responded to the comment letter and met with them in November of 2008 and based upon that meeting staff has generated another internal draft, which has been provided to the Council and Commission for discussion. She indicated that she provided zoning maps for the Council and Commission to review potential sites. - Handouts were also provided on density information on existing multi-family projects. The Housing Element and what is to be included in it is outlined by State Law. Part of that is a 2 review of the progress of the prior Housing Element, an assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints. Based upon that assessment, we then come up with a housing program. The way our element is broken down into three bold action statements and then there is a series of programs to implement those actions. They also quantify how many housing units based on those programs they anticipate constructed within the planning period. Our Regional Housing Needs Assessment is based upon an allocation that is given to us by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). This is a regional assessment that is broken down to county and cities. We need to accommodate our fair share allocation and SCAG has indicated that for us, during this planning period is 329 housing units. These units are mixed up to accommodate different housing income groups. The 329 is broken up as follows: Regional Housing Need Assessment 2006-2014 Income Level I RHNA Target Very Low 180 Low 155 Moderate 163 Upper 1131 Total 1329 This is based upon the median income for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The median income for a family of four is $59,200.00. Staff has provided a synopsis of what they felt the remaining issues are with the HCD. One of the things that HCD wanted them to do was broaden the public participation efforts. Staff has done that with this joint workshop, especially since it is a joint workshop and we are looking at making some policy decisions. Staff placed advertisement in the San Bernardino County Sun, posted it on the website and posted it at our usual posting locations. Staff took a further step by sending it out to local organizations and charities that would have an interest in housing. HCD wanted staff to reassess the Viability of identified sites in the R-2 and R-3 zone districts that were identified to accommodate housing units. Part of the Housing Element is to go back and identify either vacant sites or underutilized sites within the city that could accommodate additional housing units. One of the concerns that HCD expressed was that we are a small community, we are primarily built out and many of our R-2 and R-3 zoned districts are smaller lots and technically we are meeting the requirements of the law, however, how practical is it for a smaller lot to accommodate three or four more units. Staff was asked to focus on the larger lots. She indicated that there is a provision in the Government Code that says that you can't have a no net loss provision, which basically says that if we have an R-3 zoned parcel and it accommodates 20 units and we decide for whatever reason to improve it with 10 units, we have essentially lost 10 units and the law says where are those 10 units going to be made up at. Staff went back and re-assessed and made modifications to the element to address their concern. The most significant comment that was made by HCD was that the City is technically meeting the provisions of the law and they see that the City can accommodate the 329 units that have been allocated, however, they want the City to take it a step further. HCD focuses on meeting the lower income groups. The senior housing project will 3 accommodate 108 of the lower income households. Our allocation is 135 so the difference is 27. They are saying identify for them sites that would accommodate those 27. They are not saying you have to build it, they are saying show us the sizes, zone it under density that would make it more encouraging for higher density development and then you will be meeting the requirements. They stated that there were a couple of ways to do this. One option is to change the density to 20 units per acre or we can establish some type of affordable housing overlay. The affordable housing overlay would only come into play when an affordable housing project is being proposed on a particular parcel that has an overlay. Staff feels that it is in the community's better interest to ensure that if we are going to provide the density we are going to get the units that we need, staff is recommending the overlay. Staff went through an exercise of identifying potential properties that could have an overlay. We would like to focus our efforts on this and possibly get some policy direction from Council and Commission. She indicated that the City owns a small 0.63 acre parcel near the Highland Apartments and that it has the potential to accommodate 7 to 12 units. Because this property is owned by the City, staff feels that this is one of the best opportunities to create affordable housing. Other potential parcels include approximately 2.48 acres on Grand Terrace Road just north of Grand Terrace Mobile Home Park. This site can accommodate 29 to 49 units (site A). A 1.47 acre parcel site at the southwest corner of Vivienda and La Crosse Avenue can accommodate 29 units (site B). A 1.03 acre parcel on the northeast corner of Van Buren Street and the Gage Canal which could possibly include an adjacent 0.38 acre parcel if they are assembled could accommodate 16 to 20 units (site Q. There is a 1.04 acre parcel on the north side of Van Buren Street west of Mount Vernon Avenue, which could accommodate 12-20 units (site D). HCD has asked staff to potentially identify sites that could accommodate the 27 units. The properties that are shown and recommended for potential overlay could in theory support more than 27 units, however, staff is not saying that all of them will be developed. We are identifying sites that could potentially accommodate affordable housing, however, there are other programs in the works that could take an existing single family home and acquire that and improve it and make it available for lower income households. We anticipate that those 27 units that HCD is concerned with will also be made up during the Housing Element Program years through single family housing. Staff is recommending that the Council and Commission direct staff to create/establish an affordable housing overlay district that would only come into play for affordable housing at a higher density should a project come in that staff feels will meet that 27 units and direct staff to forward the Housing Element Draft based upon this direction to HCD. Chair Wilson questioned what the net housing would be if an affordable housing overlay is established. Senior Planner Molina responded that it would depend on the density. She indicated that it would satisfy HCD's request. She indicated that the draft will be forwarded to HCD and that they will be amenable to certifying it, however, they won't certify it until it goes through the process and it is ultimately adopted by the Council. As part of the General Plan Update, you will see this draft as well as the other elements go through the Commission hearing process and ultimately to the City Council process. She recommends that the Council and the Commission open the workshop up for discussion and questions. She stated that staff is anticipating having a workshop on the Land Use Element next month. 4 Chair Wilson stated that he realizes that we are talking about establishing a mean density - somewhere between 12 and 20, their default being 20 and out at this point a cap of 12, but in order to be able to accommodate the affordable housing we are probably looking at a 14 density and that is usually what most high density developers are able to accommodate. His concern is that if we identify these areas and satisfy the condition for the Housing Element, how are we going to condition the appeasement in order to make these sites financially feasible. Ordinarily they are housed in a PUD or a special plan area that allows clustering. or irregular parcel considerations, etc. It would seem to him that it would be necessary for us to have that in our pocket before we do this. Senior Planner Molina responded that staff has started to have discussion with affordable housing developers. The discussions have included exactly what Chair Wilson has mentioned. A lot of things come into play as far as the financial feasibility of an affordable housing project, land costs, shape, topography, development standards, set-backs, what type of aesthetic look and height are all considered. What HCD is looking for is that we provide the density absent of any other incentives, density bonuses, etc. There is State law that says that if you are going to provide affordable housing units you can have development incentives provided to you in an effort to make the affordable housing project more feasible. There would be programs in place coupled with State Housing Law incentives to make the site more viable for affordable housing projects. Chair Wilson indicated that he would like to participate in any of the side bar discussion that - pertain to affordable housing. He expressed his concern with the infield sites and the special sensitivity that they will have. Commissioner McNaboe requested clarification on the overlay option. If an overlay is applied to these areas and a project goes in that is not affordable housing will the City be penalized for not building affordable housing. Senior Planner Molina responded that we would not be penalized. Charles Hornsby 22656 Brentwood Street Questioned staff if when the word affordable is used does it always mean government subsidized. He stated that Planning Commissions and City Councils tend to make a lot of decisions about what they are going to do with neighborhoods where they don't live. He feels that all of the affordable housing has been placed in certain areas. All of the members of the Planning Commission and City Council should come up with affordable housing in the areas where there currently is none. Rita Schwark 21952 Grand Terrace Road stated that none of her neighbors or herself received any notification regarding this meeting. 5 Darryl Moore 22750 Minona stated that there is no way that a 10 units per acre project would be feasible. What he feels constitutes good planning for attached units is 14 units per acres for condos or town homes and 18 to 20 for apartments. Senior Planner Molina stated that this is a workshop and it is not a public hearing for a proposed zone change. We are talking about potential sites. After we receive direction staff will move forward with that process. Staff did not do noticing as if we were doing a zone change. Staff notified only those individuals whose properties we talked about this evening. Community and Economic Development Director Powers indicated that she would like to address the affordability and feasibility that Mr. Moore talked about. She stated that in the moderate medium range typically you don't see assistance, those are usually built by the market. The categories that staff is talking about is low and very low income ranges, which are typically assisted and that is why we have our low to moderate housing set-aside fund. Those are the funds that we used to assist the senior project and would probably recommend assistance on the Canal street property through the low and moderate income housing set-aside fund. In addition to that the experienced affordable housing developers typically are able to pull together various funding mechanisms such as State and Federal Tax Credits, Home Funds and in some cases CDBG funds. She is familiar with those funding sources and she is able to address that with any potential developers. , Mayor Pro Tem Garcia questioned when this document will go through the public hearing process and how does it work. Senior Planner Molina responded that if the document is certified by HCD and changes are made after staff would keep them apprised of the changes especially if they are substantive. They may rescind the certification and re-evaluate. Mayor Pro Tem Garcia questioned what the notification will be for the public hearing process. Senior Planner Molina responded that there are statutory requirements that we have to meet. Then there is what we choose to do beyond that. Because this is a General Plan Update, the law says that we can publish a 1/8 of a page legal ad and post. The Council or the Commission can ask that staff go above and beyond that and do other outreach efforts or focused areas. Mayor Pro Tem Garcia stated that she really likes that staff chose the overlay and that it is an incentive based program and that it will be held to the high standards of development that we require. She thanked staff for their efforts. Chair Wilson asked a question of staff but cut off by end of tape. Community and Economic Development Director Powers responded that this can be achieved _ over the plan period. In addition to the multi-unit projects we are also looking at some single 6 family projects, such as the acquisition program that we have been talking about. Staff has made a couple of offers on property. She feels very confident that we can make a good dent in the 27 without necessarily building one large multi-family project. Commissioner Comstock stated that staff mentioned excluding the Barton Road Specific Plan and he knows that it has been within the last year that the Planning Commission has had some discussions regarding some of the projects that are going on in town. He hasn't seen any mixed use residential in the Town Square project and is unsure about the Grand Crossings project. There were some discussions about the feasibility issues on putting some mixed use residential in that project and that was the desire when putting together the Barton Road Specific Plan to try and cut the emissions and be more environmentally friendly. If the developer were to provide some low-mod housing in the Grand Crossings project, would we be able to satisfy some of our numbers. Community and Economic Development Director Powers responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Cortes stated that as of January 1, 2009, our SB375 took into effect and that means that every city in the State of California has to fulfill the RENA requirements and we only have 31/2 years to complete this program. Were not just doing this because we want to, it is required. It was the consensus of the City Council and the Planning Commission for staff to proceed with preparing the "affordable housing" overlay zone and moving forward with the draft Housing Element program so that staff can review it with HCD prior to being incorporated into the General Plan. Mayor Ferr6 adjourned the meeting at 6:59 p.m.,until the next City Council Meeting which is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, January 27, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Plannine Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on January 15,2009 at 7:00 mm., by Chairman Wilson. PRESENT: Doug Wilson, Chairperson Matthew Addington,Vice Chairperson Tom Comstock, Commissioner Brian Phelps, Commissioner Darcy McNaboe, Commissioner Joyce Powers, Community and Economic Development Director Sandra Molina, Senior Planner Brenda Mesa, City Clerk Richard Shields, Building and Safety Director Allan Williams, Planning Technician ABSENT: None 7 �— 7:00 P.M. CONVENE SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Chairman Wilson convened the Site and Architecture Review Board/ Planning Commission meeting. • Call to Order • Roll Call ITEMS: 1. MINUTES: Amended Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 20, 2008 RECOMMENDATION: Approval Chair Wilson indicated that he has requested a slight modification in relation to the Public Participation portion in New Business: Proposal for new start time for regular meetings beginning January 15, 2009. MOTION PC-01-2009 Motion by Commission Phelps Second by Vice-Chair Addington to approve the November 20, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes. 5-0 Motion carries 2. SA 08-10, & A proposal to develop approximately 2.32 acres of land zoned R1 CUP 08-09 — 7.2 by constructing a 5,320 square foot fellowship/dining hall and a 4,448 square foot sanctuary under one structure, and remodeling an existing sanctuary into classrooms. Associated parking, landscaping and lighting will be installed. APPLICANT: Calvary Deaf Church, represented by Tom Mathers LOCATION: 22010 Pico Street, Grand Terrace, CA (Assessor's Parcel Number 1167-201-02) RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a Public Hearing and move to adopt a Resolution approving SA 08-09 and CUP 08-08 Sandra Molina, Senior Planner stated that the Planning Technician Allan Williams will be presenting the item. Allan Williams, Planning Technician reported that the project area is approximately 2.32 acres in the R1-7.2 Zone and will be constructed in three phases. To the north the project is surrounded by M-2 industrial zoning and to the east, west, and south it is Single Family 8 Residential. The first phase will consist of constructing the entire shell of the entire structure including the inside of the fellowship hall and the site improvements. The second phase will include the construction of the new sanctuary inside the previously constructed shell. The third phase will consist of the remodel of the existing sanctuary into two classrooms and an office. At the end of phase two the steeple will be removed from the existing sanctuary and a steeple will be added to the new sanctuary. He stated that the shell of the building will be constructed 25 feet behind the existing sanctuary. Approximately 53% of the site is covered in landscaping. The property is designated Low Density Residential and the General Plan does provide for institutional uses. Staff found this project to be consistent with the Noise, Natural Resources, Visual Resources and Circulation Elements of the General Plan. Under the designing code, single family residential does provide for a church use on a minimum of 3 acre parcel. The project is on a 2.32 acre parcel; however, it is not increasing in intensity, therefore staff does not see this as a problem with approving this project. They are providing 54 stalls when the project requires 48. They have included a variety of 24 inch box trees and numerous shrubs for the landscaping of the project. The site is accessible by vehicle on the west side of the driveway coming off of Pico Street and pedestrian access is available through the walk that surrounds the perimeter of the property. The building design will incorporate subtle blues and grays to blend with the existing color scheme of the current sanctuary and material will consist of lap-siding, stucco, metal screed reveals or foam projections, composition shingle and metal seaming roofing as well as solar panels to the sanctuary part of the new structure. The west side of the building where the loading area is located will have numerous glass windows with faux shutters. Staff determined that the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines. This exempts in-fill development project where the site is less than five acres in size and is not viable as habitat for sensitive species. He stated that the notice of this hearing was published, posted, and mailed to the property owners within a 300 foot radius. It is staff s recommendation to conduct the public hearing and move to adopt the Resolution approving Site and Architectural Review 08-10 and Conditional Use Permit 08-09. Chair Wilson requested the history of the original approval of the project. Senior Planner Molina responded that it is her understanding that this church was established under the County. She was told that the current building was moved to this location. It has been owned by the Church for quite a long time and has been occupied by the Deaf Church for a few years. Commissioner Comstock stated that he used to Pastor this church for 17 years. He has been away from this church for 2 %2 to 3 years. He has been in discussions with the Pastor and the architect and his friends at the deaf Church and he is trying to help them get this project completed. The Church was incorporated in 1958. There were two houses on either side of the church on Pico Street when the original property was purchased. The church was brought over from Highgrove. He believes the original cost to move the building was $7,000.00 and $5,000.00 for the piece of property. The property is in need of an upgrade. Chair Wilson asked that Commissioner Comstock confirm that his association won't duly influence his ability to serve his duty as a Planning Commissioner. 9 Commissioner Comstock responded in the affirmative. Chair Wilson opened Public Hearing for discussion. Terry Tarr Architect Oxnard, CA Stated that he is not going to elaborate on the project,however,he is available for questions. Chair Wilson indicated that he has seen the color board and questioned what their decision was based on for the metal roof. Mr. Tarr responded that it was a decision related to the existing facility. The existing facility is grays and white. They wanted to add a little bit more to it so they proposed blue which works very well with grays and a wide metal roof. It is a steel building so it is an inexpensive way to get volume space. It is pre-engineered steel superstructure and then they dress it a little differently so that it doesn't look like a metal building when they are done. The blue related to the gray. Chair Wilson stated that he saw some masonry on the color board and wanted clarification on where that was going to be. Mr. Tarr clarified on the color board where it is going to be, which is near the main entrance of the building. Vice-Chair Addington asked if they are proposing that the roof on the sanctuary be metal. Mr. Tarr responded in the affirmative. Vice-Chair Addington asked what kind of noise during the rainy season can be heard by the surrounding neighbors. Mr. Tarr responded that he has never had a complaint with noise from the neighbors. He has gotten complaints from the noise in the interior if it is raining hard. Bud Childs 8525 San Vacinte Street Riverside, CA Stated that he attends the Deaf Church. The Church building that they currently have is an old building and it needs to be updated and beautified. He has been in construction his whole life. The plans, especially the color schemes, would be an upgrade and beautification of the area. They have had an open house and invited the neighbors to come over and look at what they are proposing. Everyone that has seen it has had nothing but good comments about the project. 10 They are trying to get their CUP and the people that they have spoken to all seem to be in favor of the project and they would appreciate the approval of the Commission. Tom Mather, Pastor 6956 Lincoln Avenue Riverside, CA Stated that he has been the pastor at this Church for about 10 years. They moved to this location when Caltrans took their property. He stated that there will not be another Deaf Church in the Inland Empire as beautiful as this one. There is about 50,000 deaf in the Inland Empire. This will be the second church that he and his wife have built and they are excited about it. Joyce Mather 6956 Lincoln Avenue Riverside, CA She stated that she and her husband have been in deaf ministry for the last 47 years. They have worked with the deaf; however, this has been the most challenging experience for them. It has been a blessing to them to come to Grand Terrace. The neighbors have been nice and they try to be neighborly as well. One of the features that they hope to incorporate in the project is that they want to make it as sound proof on the inside so that they will not be disturbing any of the neighbors. The neighbors have said that they have never heard them. They are looking forward to being able to go beyond the building part and do more in ministry. They appreciate the City of Grand Terrace and the kindness that they have shown them and the help that has been provided to make this transition easy for them. Community and Economic Development Director Powers questioned Commissioner Comstock if he intends to participate on the construction of the project. Commissioner Comstock responded that it has been discussed however, there has been no contracts drawn. . They are working with a limited budget. He has not had anything but preliminary discussions regarding this. He stated that he holds a general contractors license and he would be willing to help the Church however he can. Chair Wilson questioned if Commissioner Comstock would object to recusing himself from this item. Commissioner Comstock responded that he was planning on doing that. Chair Wilson closed the public hearing and returned discussion to the Commission. Vice-Chair Addington stated that each of the Commissioners look at projects from a different perspective and being an engineer he quickly went to the grading plan. He stated that he has a concern with the drainage and requested assistance from Director of Building and Safety/Public Works Shields. He indicated that he noticed in the northwest corner it looks like the site after it fills up the basin will drain onto a residential lot. He doesn't have the history of the drainage in 11 the area and questioned if he is comfortable that the drainage is satisfied and we will not be causing flooding to that property. Building and Safety/Public Works Director Shields responded that this particular area has an easement that runs down the back for power poles. In addition to that easement there is a drainage easement. The water that comes off of the street to the east comes through that single family residence property historical and drains all the way down to Pico Park. He went out today and walked the site. He was able to talk to the neighbor that is to the west and they indicated that they have never had any drainage from the property. This is an easement from San Bernardino County Flood and because it is an easement no one has constructed any structures in that area that are permanent. The service flows from the project are going to drain into the detention basin. The flows that come up from the street to the east will be accepted into the detention basin and will actually help the situation. He doesn't think that the detention basin will ever fill up enough to drain onto the property. Vice-Chair Addington stated that his only concern is when engineers do detention basins they tend to design them for a single storm event and we have a history of multiple storm events and usually by the third storm event were getting flooding. Commissioner Comstock stated that in the 17 years that he was at the Church they never had a problem with water going off the property. They always had a problem with water coming onto the property from the uphill side. _ Vice-Chairman Addington stated that it is open land so there is a lot of perculation. You get a large building and a large parking lot and you will double or triple the volume of water on that site. He knows that the WQMP was prepared by Wildan and Associates and they have a long standing history of the Inland Empire, having good engineers and good drainage experts so that is a comfort. Commissioner Phelps questioned if the drainage pipe currently on the site was taken into consideration when the calculations were done for the detention basin. Building and Safety/Public Works Director Shields responded in the negative. The pipe that is existing looks like it was put in from a neighbor a long time ago to alleviate the surface flows in the back yard so that their yard can be more usable. He would have done the same thing. In this case it is up to the Church to accept these flows and retain them per NPDES requirements. That pipe will probably be altered depending on the fencing in that area but will still flow to that area. Chair Wilson has the impression that this is a deep lot and questioned if we have satisfied code requirements for fire emergency equipment access and free evacuation routes. Building and Safety/Public Works Director Shields responded in the affirmative. They met with the Fire Department and went over the turning radius of the emergency vehicles and determined that the way that the parking lot was laid would be sufficient. They also required that a fire hydrant be located down towards the phase two sanctuary. It is adequately protected. 12 Chair Wilson asked what type of protected device will be installed on this hydrant assembly so that they are guaranteed water. Building and Safety/Public Works Director Shields responded that he is not familiar with that. He stated that this is a wet system. Riverside Highland Water flushes the system every month. Chair Wilson stated that in these types of uses they see a detector check system. Commissioner Comstock It was 1996 with Don Hough from Riverside Highland Water Company attended their Church There is a fire hydrant directly across the street on Pico and he measured that it was over 80 lbs of water pressure,which is way more than they need. MOTION PC-02-2009 Vice-Chair Addington made a motion second by Commissioner McNaboe to approve SA-08-10 & CUP-08-09. 4-0-0-1 Commissioner Comstock Abstained. • Information to Commissioners Community and Economic Development Director Powers reported that there will be a HAM Radio Committee Meeting on January 22, 2009. • Information from Commissioners Vice-Chair Addington questioned if there has been any determination made on the starting time of the Planning Commission Meetings. Community and Economic Development Director Powers responded that it is her understanding that it is still at 7:00 p.m. She was directed by the Council to agendize an official vote of the Commissioners. CHAIR WILSON ADJOURNED THE SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:40 P.M. TO THE NEXT MEETING TO BE HELD ON FEBRUARY 5, 2009. Respectfully Submitted, Approved By, Joyce Powers, Doug Wilson, Chairman Community and Economic Planning Commission Development Director 13