Loading...
10/19/2000GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 19, 2000 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 19, 2000, at 7:05 p.m., by Chairperson Fran Van Gelder. PRESENT: Fran Van Gelder, Chairperson Doug Wilson, Vice -Chairperson Matthew Addington, Commissioner Mary Trainor, Commissioner Maryetta Ferre', Commissioner Patrizia Materassi, Director of Community and Economic Development Virgil Barham, Director of Building and Safety/Public Works John Lampe, Associate Planner Steve Cumblidge, Planning Technician Pat Groeneveld, CEDD Secretary ABSENT: 7:05 P.M. CONVENED SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING * Call to Order * Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Addington * Roll Call Commissioner Wilson was not present when the meeting was called to order at 7:05pm, but arrived shortly thereafter, at 7:10pm. * Public address to Commission shall be limited to three minutes unless extended by the Chairman. Should you desire to make a longer presentation, please make written request to be agendized to the Community Development Director. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: NONE • This is a time for anyone in the audience to speak on any item which is not on the agenda for this meeting. ITEM 1 MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 21, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: Approval MOTION PC-28-2000 Motion was made by Commissioner Trainor to approve the minutes of the September 21, 2000, Planning Commission Meeting. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Ferre'. MOTION VOTE PC-28-2000 Motion approved 3-0-1-1. Commissioner Addington abstained. Commissioner Wilson absent. ITEM 2 DU-00-01/E-00-11 Infrastructure Study and Environmental Analysis to provide the justification for requiring certain infrastructure requirements. Continuance of public hearing from Planning Commission Meeting of September 21, 2000. APPLICANT: Department of Community and Economic Development City of Grand Terrace LOCATION: The study area includes three legal parcels located at 21496, 21506 and 21516 Main Street in the City of Grand Terrace RECOMMENDATION: Reopen the public hearing, receive testimony, close the public hearing and approve DU-00-01 and E-00-11 providing the legal and environmental justification requiring the described infrastructure improvements for the study area. Associate Planner John Lampe presented the Staff Report, noting this matter had been continued from the meeting of September 21st. Mr. Lampe referred to the overhead display showing the boundaries of the subject study area which includes the three parcels at 21946, Hood Communication, 21506, the Harris Transfer property and the most southerly parcel which fronts directly on Main Street, at 21516 owned by Crystal Properties. Staff met with the property owner at 21496 Main Street, Hood Communication on October 12, and reviewed the Staff Report, Staffs recommendations and answered questions that Hood Communication had about this study. The representatives of Hood Communication indicated their primary concern with the City Study was their concern that the City might reach some conclusions regarding potential code violations on their property and they wanted to reassure the City that they did not have any violations on the property. This was an opportunity for Staff to reassure them that this was not the purpose of the Infrastructure Study. Staff advised the 7 purpose of the Study is to provide the nexus needed to justify the requirement of future infrastructure improvements for the Study area, even when such improvements would be small in scale and minimal in terms of individual impact. The representatives of Hood Communication did indicate that they had no immediate plans to develop the property. In fact, it is their intention to sell the property. Harris Communication, the owner of the property immediately to the south at 21506 Main had entered into an agreement with Hood Communication to purchase the property. Staff was advised this agreement will expire approximately the middle of January, 2001. Hood Communications stated they had no interest in improving the property or participating in a "participation agreement" with the property owners in the area to share the cost of putting in needed infrastructure. Mr. Lampe shared Staffs recommendation that after reopening the public hearing on this date, the Commissioners consider any additional testimony, and adopt the Resolution prepared for this Study, so that the proper legal and environmental justification requiring the described infrastructure improvements of the Study are adopted. Chairperson Van Gelder, receiving no questions to Staff, reopened the Public Hearing, allowing five minutes for public presentations, noting that Commissioner Addington would be the time keeper. Bruce Cash President of United Strategies, Inc. 1905 Business Center Drive San Bernardino Mr. Cash addressed the Chair and the Commission, stating that he appreciated the opportunity to appear a second time on this matter. He did note that his presentation might exceed five minutes, given the gravity of the two reports and the recommendations of Staff. Chairperson Van Gelder suggested Mr. Cash only include the items he did not address on September 21 and that the Commission would consider allowing additional time. Mr. Cash began his presentation to the Commission saying he would pick up where he left off on September 21; his comments reflecting the joint interests of United Strategies' two clients, Crystal Properties, Inc., at 21516 Main Street and Harris Transfer Inc., at 21506 Main Street in Grand Terrace. His comments would specifically regard the infrastructure study and environmental analysis which City Staff believes provides the basis and nexus for requiring certain infrastructure improvements. Mr. Cash reminded the Commission that both Crystal Properties and Harris Transfer invested substantial funds to improve this particular corridor of the City's industrial area, including substantial off -site improvements. Also, Mr. Cash maintained both Crystal Properties and Harris Transfer have executed or caused to be executed, specific letters of condition related to their respective properties, such that both Crystal Properties and Harris Transfer have entered into letters of condition which already obligate them for certain and additional costly off -site improvements within private easement drive which currently serves as a primary access to the properties. He went on to say that under the terms of related conditions and business needs, both Crystal Properties and Harris Transfer continue to make certain improvements in excess of all local, state and federal 3 requirements, investing substantial dollars to improve the image and cleanliness and full Ci utilization of their respective properties. Mr. Cash advised that both of his clients have taken the issue of off -site improvements very seriously and engaged in a discussion, planning and investment to insure responsible planning and action which meet their business needs and insure compliance with commitment already made to the City of Grand Terrace. Mr. Cash continued, stating that in addition to the letters of condition, agreed to by both Crystal Properties and Harris Transfer, both parties are now receiving a specific participation agreement whereby both property owners and possibly others, agree to participate in needed off -site improvements. United Strategies prepared the document, known as the Participation Agreement. United Strategies circulated, for review and comment, as they promised the Commission. Subject to client approval, the Participation Agreement will be comprehensive and equitable to Crystal Properties and Harris Transfer on a gross acreage basis. The signed copy of the Participation Agreement will be provided to the City when United Strategies receives it back from their clients. Mr. Cash advised subject to participation by all those who would benefit from certain off -site improvements, he expected that at minimum, a Participation Agreement between these parties will be in place by week's end. Mr. Cash did, however, question the necessary completeness and adequacy of the Staff Infrastructure Study Report and Environmental Analysis and made the following comments. Firstly, United Strategies had trouble following the Infrastructure Study because the pages were not numbered and three sections were numbered the same in many places. Referring specifically to the section of the Staff Report "The Existing Infrastructure", number 11, Mr. Cash stated that in his view, the proposed Infrastructure Study was unnecessary at the time given the specific off -site conditions already placed on the two properties represented by United Strategies. Mr. Cash advised his firm received correspondence from the City of Grand Terrace, stamped October 18, 2000, placing additional conditions on one of the properties owners, specifically, four additional items. Continuing, Mr. Cash noted that number three was very critical to the issue before the Commission. He quoted, "Prior to the issuance of building permits the requirements of the City Engineer and his memorandum dated 4-15-1999, shall be met". Mr. Cash indicated to the Commission the particular memorandum from the City Engineer dictates what off -site facilities, will in fact, be required. Mr. Cash suggested Staff was asking his clients to construct facilities but that Staff was stating, by virtue of their report, that they need to study to determine what is required. Mr. Cash wondered if the facilities already constructed may have been necessary or not. Additionally, he stated Staff Report fails to require of the City of Colton any input as to the water purveyor to this area, noting the Report refers to the City of Riverside, and makes some references to Colton, but no specific request was made of Colton. Also, no mention is made Staffs Report regarding correspondence to or from the City of Colton with regard to the adequacy of water supply. Mr. Cash asked the Commission to recall that in response to specific conditions placed on his clients with regard to improvements on their property, United Strategies provided that information to the City. But in Staffs analysis to determine adequacy of infrastructure, they staff had not make that inquiry. United Strategies found that of interest. Mr. Cash advised that issues regarding sewer laterals, where, in his view simple, as his clients 4 clearly understand that retrofits will be needed. Both clients have directed United Strategies to ,. review existing systems and make recommendations for correction. Mr. Cash continued: the Staff Report asserts there is a potential for flooding, however, no instances can be recited where flooding has occurred. The clients have paid capital improvement fees over the years based on gross acreage. United Strategies found in the record where the property owners paid capital improvement fees to the City to improve infrastructure, but there are no records of any improvements being made. Yet, in applying for current permits, the property owners are being asked to pay those same fees again. Continuing his comments, Mr. Cash stated that under general utilities, the Staff Report concludes that the Infrastructure Study need not consider power, natural gas, telephone or waste services. Mr. Cash declared that it was obvious to anyone from the private sector that these utilities are critical to any industrially zoned property. He stated that under the agency responses in Staffs Report, (also titled number eleven), the City concludes that in lieu of traffic analysis, individual studies be done by every applicant. Mr. Cash noted the Planning Staff requires $10,000, in one case, where the property is being occupied by a tenant doing exactly what the previous tenant was doing. Mr. Cash stated that if an infrastructure study is going to be done it should include a traffic analysis for the entire area. Mr. Cash went on record saying: "The proposed Infrastructure Study as described in the Planning Report, in United Strategies' view, constitutes a planning document and thus is likely subject to a full environmental evaluation of the project under CEQA. A planning report qualifies as a project under CEQA. In our view, the mitigated negative dec and initial study fall short of environmental requirements for a project of this magnitude. Secondly, at the baseline of CEQA protocol the project is likely to render significant public controversy. We certainly know that that would be the case from our clients who are property owners in the area. In our view it requires a full environmental study. Even in the initial study prepared by the Staff, it appears that major elements were overlooked in a rush to justify that such a study, was in fact, required. A couple of examples, one: there is no mention of consideration of possible condemnation action that may be required in order for such improvements to be made for right-of-ways, street improvements and other activities. Secondly, impacts of major power line corridor were completely ignored in the staffs report. Thirdly, an open channel waterway, that is active, exists immediately west of the project area as is displayed on the overhead you have before you. And finally, there is a major rail traffic way located immediately east of all of the properties that are located in this area and yet there is no mention in the staff report in that regard. In addition, there may be other requirements resulting from AB 2838, which was recently signed into law by Governor Davis. There is no mention of the implications of that legislation. In closing, should this Commission elect to proceed anyway with this Infrastructure Study, we suggest strongly, Madam Chair, that there at least be a moratorium on all of the conditions for off -site improvements for property applicants that we represent in that area, so that we are satisfied and our clients are satisfied, that we are not currently being required to construct facilities that your ultimate infrastructure study may deem undersized or inadequate." Chairperson Van Gelder asked if Staff would like to address any of Mr. Cash' concerns. C-1 Director Materassi expressed her disappointment that Mr. Cash had not shared his concerns with Staff in the intervening month, so that review and research could have been completed and shared with Mr. Cash and the Commission via Staff Report. Director Materassi stated she would address the items at the close of the Public Hearing. Adam Ornelas 16 Highland Avenue Highgrove CA Mr. Ornelas apologized to the Commissioners for missed the last meeting, going on to say that he lives right across the street from the proposed buildings. Mr. Ornelas stated this commercial district will never be compatible with the residents. As Mr. Ornelas spoke, it became clear that his area of concern was not the issue before the commission. Director Materassi requested to be excused for interrupting to advise the Commission that Mr. Ornelas was referring to an administrative review made by the staff of the most southerly part of 21516 Main Street. As required by Ordinance, a copy of the notice of this particular application with Staffs suggested conditions of approval for this project was sent to Mr. Ornelas. Director Materassi proposed that she discuss with Mr. Ornalus privately, the status of this particular project. Chairperson Van Gelder thanked Mr. Ornelas and assured him that staff would contact him to discuss his concerns. The Chairperson closed the public hearing and I opened discussion to the Commission. Commissioner Addington expressed concern over two issues brought up by Mr. Cash. The first was capital improvement fees and/ or flood control fees and the possibility of collecting the same fee twice. The Commissioner asked for a history of the fees. The Commissioner's second concern dealt with a statement made by Mr. Cash that inferred condemnation. Director Materassi responded stating that the fees installed by the City sixteen years or more ago, that include flood control and park fees are not what is now understood to be capital improvement fees. The fees currently collected are perhaps 1 % of what the should be and are basically obsolete and not sufficient to make this argument. The only meaningful capital improvement fee in place in the City is the Traffic Impact Fee. The traffic impact fee was calculated on a City build out to provide for the cumulative impact of development and it did not eliminate project specific traffic analysis. The fee structure allows for the requirement of traffic analysis, where applicable Director Barham spoke to Commissioner Addington's inquiry about flood control. He advised that flood control fees are placed upon commercial or industrial additions and they are described in Article 4, of Chapter Fifteen of the Municipal Code. The Code describes when and where those fees would be applicable. Collected fees have been applied when there have been additions or improvements to the activities along the Main Street corridor. As different additions have been made it triggers capital improvement and maintenance fees. These fees are very low. Collected fees go to maintenance and other needs within the City and are not necessarily required to be spent in a certain area. ,N Director Barham noted that several Articles that cover this situation, Three, Four and Five. J' Speaking from memory, Director Barham explained that the Articles address new commercial establishments as well as additions to existing establishments. Any addition over 600 square feet results in the assessment of fees. Multiple, separate additions, even when made within the same year, would generate separate fees for each addition. Fees are charged only once, but individual applications for expansion/addition can and do trigger the assessment of fees. Director Materrasi assured Commissioner Addington that no "condemning" of property was under consideration and believed that Mr. Cash' reference was related to his view that the Study was not as comprehensive as, perhaps, he feels it should be. Director Materassi advised that Staff had not done an Environment Impact Report, as this is an Infrastructure Study. Environment impact reports study everything in the area and have a much broader view. If Staff had done an environmental impact report it would incorporate, for example, a study of the railroad, the canal, and any/everything else and their possible combinations. However, Staffs study was a focused study of the lack of infrastructure and the reason way this lack of infrastructure creates cumulative impacts on the environment. This is not an environmental impact report, so it does not reach the level of being considered a project by itself, under CEQA. The Director disagreed with Mr. Cash' interpretation, stating that she believed Staffs recommendation to the Planning Commission is legal and is valid. Director Wilson ascertained that there was no site specific designation as far as the planning area or infrastructure, but part of a larger whole. He recalled discussion at the September 21, meeting determining that there was no City wide type of study that was involved in relation to this infrastructure and asked for confirmation. Director Materassi responded that the City does have a drainage study, a blueprint of where the major drainage channels and sewer and water maps. The City also has a map of highways and streets approved by the Circulation Element. In response, Commissioner Wilson asked if these particular pieces of property were then, non -conforming. Director Materassi concurred, stating that though they may be non- conforming, they are not necessarily in violation or subject to code enforcement proceedings. Director Materassi continued, advising the applicants have met some/most of the conditions over a period of time. However, the conditions were not sufficient to eliminate the potential impacts on the environment, because of the type development was incremental. Now, the development has created cumulative impact. The area has a capacity to operate large businesses without any infrastructure. We cannot lower City standards and expose the City to liability. The purpose of the Study is to improve the area to support current and future development. To require more of the property owners, we need to have findings of nexus, as the needed infrastructure cannot be developed on the current case by case basis. Commissioner Wilson agreed with the Director's comments, but did ask how we can form the nexus to require these improvements if the property owners are in compliance on a case by case basis. 7 Director Materassi concurred with the Commissioner and advised that was the purpose of the Study. The Study evaluated the three properties, how the development took place, the types of infrastructure that is missing and the level of non-compliance with City standards. The property owners are not necessarily non -compliant themselves, because the conditions imposed on them did not require the level of improvement really needed because the development didn't allow it. The fact that this happened many times has created cumulative impacts. The matter needs to be resolved. The Commission's approval of the Resolution will give Staff the authority enforce stricter conditions and due dates. Commissioner Wilson asked if approval would impose retroactive compliance on the property owners. Director Materassi responded that it will not. As applications for development come to Staff, they will be able to enforce City standards. MOTION PC-29-2000 MOTION VOTE PC-29-2000 ITEM 3 SA-00-11 /E-00-12 APPLICANT: LOCATION: Chairperson Van Gelder moved that the Commission approve Du-00- 01/E-00-11, providing the legal and environmental justification requiring the described infrastructure improvement through the study area. Commissioner Trainor seconded the motion. Motion approved 4-1-0-0. Commissioner Wilson dissenting. RECOMMENDATION: Site and Architectural and Environmental Review applications to construct an 11, 781 square foot office, salesroom and warehouse for a wholesale building products supplier within the Commercial Manufacturing District of the City of Grand Terrace, County of San Bernardino. C-Y Development Company James C. Coffin, Owner 22070 Commerce Way Grand Terrace CA 92313 Approval subject to conditions Steve Cumblidge, Planning Technician provided the Staff Report to Commission. Stating Staff conducted an Initial Study and determined the proposed project did not have a significant effect on the environment and a proposed negative declaration had been prepared. The project is located in the commercial/manufacturing Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use designates the subject property general commercial. C-Y Development submitted the Site and Architectural application for the construction of a building for a wholesale plumbing supplies dealer who will file a Conditional Use Permit Application as the tenant for this building. The architecture of the new building will closely resemble that of the Superior Pool Products building to the west, giving the project the appearance of being within a larger business park type setting. Mr. Cumblidge advised that an issued with the Site Plan on this project had been resolved - the Site Plan indicated two loading doors, one facing north and the other facing Commerce Way. This configuration was designed for the particular needs of the potential user, who had specified this configuration as important to their business. Staff proposed a condition that the roll -up door facing Commerce Way be used only for vehicles entering and or existing the building and could not be used for backing and maneuvering of trucks to or from Commerce Way or loading goods and materials to or from trucks parked on Commerce Way. The Staff report concluded. Commissioner Addington asked how the imposed Condition would be enforced and if Staff had discussion with the applicant about the need for this use. Mr. Cumblidge stated that the applicant and future tenant had been contacted. The future tenant will be entering the building from the back and exiting from the front. If the Condition is violated, it would become a Code Enforcement issue. Bill McEver 647 N. Main Street Mr. McEver addressed the Commission as the engineers for the applicant. He explained that the front door is actually an exit door. The future tenant, a plumbing supplier, will take orders via computer, bring the trucks in at night, load them for morning delivery and exit at the front door. Mr. McEever had reviewed the Conditions of Approval and concurred with the Conditions. He did note concern, as the changes were made to the Conditions, but the Resolution presented to the Commission were of the first draft of the Conditions, not the revised Conditions. Director Materassi thanked Mr. McEver and noted that the Conditions on the Resolution would be amended. Commissioner Addington asked Mr. McEver if he had reviewed Caltrans letter of September 13, outlining their concerns regarding the retaining wall along their right-of-way and if there were any engineering concerns and if it could be mitigated. Mr. McEver was in receipt of the Caltrans letter and advised that it was the same situation his firm dealt with in the construction of the Superior Pool project adjacent to the proposed project. With the Superior Pool project the wall was held back about one foot from their right-of-way. Caltrans fence was not removed. It is their intention to do the same with this project. Chairperson Van Gelder opened the Public Hearing on the matter. There was no public comment. MOTION PC-30-2000 Motion was made by Commissioner Wilson to approve SA-00-1 1 /E-00-1 2. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Ferre'. MOTION VOTE PC-30-2000 Motion approved 5-0-0-0. ITEM 4 SP 92-01-A-1 Application to Modify Specific Plan UP-99-02 No. 92-01 and related applications SA-99-07/E-99-07 to expand an existing telecommunications facility located on Blue Mountain, including the addition of a 110 foot high tower, second equipment building and other equipment, including 12 foot diameter satellite dishes. APPLICANT: JSM Associates (Property owner — American Tower) LOCATION: 15000 Honey Hill Road the top of Blue Mountain Grand Terrace CA 92313 RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions. John Lampe, Associate Planner presented the Staff Report to the Commission. The subject of the Application provides for the modification of the Specific Plan approved in 1992 by the City of Grand Terrace. There is an existing telecommunications facility on the top of Blue Mountain consisting of a 12 x 48 foot equipment building and 75 foot tower. Referring to visual aids, Mr. Lampe called the Commission's attention to the area to the right of the picture, the immediate east, which is the City of Colton. The subject of the Application is all within the City of Grand Terrace. The area is rural hillside, an open space category. All areas in the immediate vicinity are vacant with the exception to the immediate north of the subject site, where an existing additional telecommunication tower, owned by P & L Communication, is located. The facility has been in place a number of years and is mentioned in Staffs written report. The Grand Terrace General Plan designates the subject property as open space. The applicant did receive a letter from the City when the Open Space Element was done indicating that the Element would not preclude additional telecommunications facilities on the top of the mountain. Mr. Lampe referenced the attachment to Staffs report. Mr. Lampe referred to another photograph showing existing development on the top of Blue Mountain, the perspective showing the existing communications facilities. As indicated in Staffs report, the existing site was subject to a Specific Plan in 1992, which approved the 12 x 40 foot equipment building and 75' tower at the location. What the Commission is considering currently, is a modification of that original Specific Plan, namely, to add an 18 x 40 foot equipment building, a 110 foot high telecommunications tower, and four additional ground mounted satellite dishes. In April, 2000, a lot line adjustment was requested by American Tower to resolve the configuration of this parcel, which is one-half acre in size. Phase Two of the 1992 approval did allow for additional equipment buildings. The Application under consideration proposes an equipment building approximately 242 square 10 feet larger than the 1992 approval. Mr. Lampe explained that the main difference between cl; what was approved in 1992 and what is before the Commission is the addition of the 110' telecommunications tower, which will be located 55 or 60 feet west of the 75 foot tower. The Applicant supplied Staff with the elevation showing the configuration of the tower. It will be used to mount various types of communication devices/antennas. The Applicant submitted justification for the height of the tower, indicating the height is necessary for it to receive the proper communication between the site and various signals received. One of the concerns in reviewing the project was the esthetics. The Applicant was asked to prepare a line of site study from one of the more significant intersections within the City, the intersection of Barton Road and Mt. Vernon. A photograph showing this intersection was included in Staff report. The tower is visible depending on a variety of factors such as the position in the City from which Blue Mountain is viewed. Conditions require that the tower be painted with non -reflective type paint in a color that will blend with background of the sky. This will minimize the visual effect. Staff report notes the tower will be somewhat more visible from the southeast portion of the City, mainly because it will not be screened or masked by the top portion of the mountain top. Staff did go out to additional intersections in the City and the view displayed was rather typical of what you would see from most portions of the City. The site plan shows the site will be enclosed by chain link fencing with security type fencing on top, something other than barbed wire. Conditions require that any rocks or boulders removed from the site by grading are to be relocated on the perimeter of the site. The developer will be required to hire a qualified botanist to replant the area. As noted in the Staff Report, the area is subject to a 1992 Specific Plan. That approval did allow for two additional buildings to be located at this site. Preliminary information on grading soils, controlling erosion of the access road, as the access road has some erosion problems, was submitted. Conditions suggested by the Director of Building mitigate the erosion problems and provide for maintenance of the access road to the top of the mountain. Although the 1992 plan allows for this a portion of this project one of Staffs concerns was that this particular location conform to the Wireless Communications Ordinance of 1997. The current application was Conditioned to comply with the 1997 Ordinance. This matter is a little bit complicated in the sense that it requires an Ordinance to modify the Specific Plan; if approved by the Planning Commission, will require a public hearing process and approval by the City Council. Mr. Lampe concluded Staffs report. Chairperson Van Gelder opened the floor to questions to the Staff. Commissioner Trainor referred to an aeronautical study, included in Staffs report, listing a determination of "no hazard to air navigation". The Commissioner questioned the specific determination and noted that the determination had expired on 12-8-99. Also, while the determination does not require marking and lighting per aviation safety, the Commissioner asked if Staff considered having the tower marked at the very top. Mr. Lampe suggested the applicant address these issues as they quite often work with both the FAA and FCC. 11 Commissioner Addington expressed his concern about the visual aspects of the towers from the south end of the City and asked if the project would be subject to the Ordinance requiring camouflage. He also asked if the Ordinance provided a maximum height of towers. Director Materassi responded that the Ordinance does not require camouflage, it encourages and recommends that all towers be disguised if possible, and it does not necessarily address the height of towers. The applicants have advised that the proposed use does not lend itself to disguise. Also, there is no irrigation systems. The applicant did submit some justification and they are at the meeting prepared to discuss their application with the Commission. Director Materassi continued, stating the intent of the Ordinance was not retroactive. The Specific Plan, approved in 1992, included a "Phase Two". The application before the Commission was essentially for the "Phase Two", build out. Any future applications of this type would be subject to following the Wireless Ordinance specifically. Commissioner Ferre asked Mr. Lampe to clarify the maximum number of towers allowed. Mr. Lampe replied that one of the Conditions of the recommended approval is that no other tower be constructed within 800 feet of the existing and the proposed tower, which effectively limits it to just the two towers on the subject site. Ray Galvin American Tower Corporation 2550 N. Hollywood #4 Burbank CA Ray Galvin of American Tower Corporation addressed the Commission expressing his appreciation for the opportunity to answer any questions or concerns. Mr. Galvin stated that American Tower reviewed the Staff report and the Conditions and will comply with all Conditions. He went on to say that to the best of his firm's knowledge the FAA requirement is still applicable. They had not sent anything saying the original letter was withdrawn or anything of that sort. The FAA requires additional regulations when a tower is over 200 feet; American Tower's application is for a 110 foot tower, so those particular FAA regulations with respect to flight do not apply Chaiperson Van Gelder inquired about the height of the tower. Mr. Galvin advised that American Tower has tenants that require that specific height. The tower is being built for specific state, local and federal agencies, particularly the DEA, not commercial or private carriers. The DEA requires a height of 110 feet so they can cover a broad area. Commissioner Addington referred to the elevation views submitted to the Commission, noting that a lot of electronic equipment will be attached to the tower and it was not attractive, in his opinion. The Commissioner asked why American Tower did not propose any type of stealthing. Mr. Galvan said that stealthing on Blue Mountain would be difficult because of the terrain and lack of irrigation. Mr. Galvin said that if the installation were closer within the City and type of network was a PCS (personal communications system) type of a project, then the antenna or the tower would be stealthed. Because the proposed tower is not close to the City proper, American Tower designed the tower per existing towers. The proposed tower is a multi- •. 12 carrier tower, with a capacity of four or five carriers. The height is necessary to avoid interference with lower towers sending/receiving personal communication. Also, the height addresses the state and federal agencies height requirements. Commissioner Wilson asked what the distance between the proposed tower and the corner of Mt. Vernon and Barton Road was. Mr. Lampe responded that it was two miles from the center of the City, plus or minus. Jeff McHadadd American TowerCorporation 2550 N. Hollywood #4 Burbank CA Jeff McHaddad of American Tower asked to further address the issues of location, height and stealthing. Mr. McHaddad advised that American Tower is a tower company that services state, federal and county agencies as well designing systems for cellular and PCS. If the firm were to design a cellular or PCS network in Grand Terrace, it would be well within the City where the residents are using the wireless phones and where small businesses use wireless technology. It would also be located near a highway. The proposed facility would not work for those types of applications. This facility is specifically for the County of Riverside, the Post Office, DEA and the dishes on the ground for the Navy. Facilities of this magnitude need to be put off the beaten path, on very high elevations. There is no way to stealth these types of applications unlike cellular/PCS, which would definitely be stealthed. Director Materassi asked, using as example Swiftcom, a wireless company, if they could be a tenant on this project and if their needs could be accommodated. Mr. McHaddad replied that if their system were similar to cellular and PCS they could not use the proposed facility. It "sees" too much and would interfere with all their other facilities and will create capacity problems. Commissioner Ferre' noted that Staff report does not propose landscaping, but does Condition that a mixture of native plants seeds shall be prepared and approved by a qualified botanist and hydro seeded. The Commissioner asked if lupines could be included. Mr. Galvin replied in the affirmative. Mr. McHaddad questioned Draft Condition 15, Item 2, which states in part "requiring a letter outlining the terms of the lease". The American Tower is not leasing the property, but owns it. Commissioner Addington also felt this Conditions should remain in case a future lease would be involved. Director Materassi requested that the Commissioners require the applicant to secure an updated letter from the FAA. 13 MOTION PC-31-2000 Motion was made by Chairperson Van Gelder to adopt the Ordinance amending SP-92-01, adopt the proposed mitigated negative declaration under E-99-07 and approve CUP-99-02/SA-99-06, subject to approval by the City Council. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Wilson. MOTION VOTE PC-31-2000 Motion approved 4-1-0-0. Commissioner Addington dissenting. Commissioner Trainor amended the motion to include a 16th condition that would require the applicant provide to the City prior to it's presentation to the City Council updated information from the FAA and/or FCC, as appropriate, with regard to the lighting of the top of the tower for air traffic safety. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Ferre' MOTION VOTE PC-32-2000 Motion approved 5-0-0-0. Director Materassi asked to review several items before continuing. The applicant requested a change to Item 2, Condition 15, that outlined the terms of the lease. The Director asked if the Condition should be deleted or if additional explanation be requested from the applicant. Also, the matter of the lupines was not resolved Commissioner Wilson restated the Condition - all manufactured slopes should be replanted with a native plant list approved by qualified botanist. Said native plant list should be submitted to the City per review prior to the issuance of all permits. He believed that gave Staff enough latitude to be able to approve the inclusion of lupines at the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Addington and Chairperson Van Gelder determined the Condition could stand as stated. ITEM 5 CUP-00-01/SA-00-10 Applications for a Conditional Use Permit and Site and Architectural Review for a two bedroom, 1,043 square foot granny flat with an attached 480 square foot garage. APPLICANT: Stonewood Construction LOCATION: 22020 Vivienda Avenue Grand Terrace CA 92313 14 RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions. Planning Technician Steve Cumblidge presented Staffs report, advising the environmental review of this project is categorically exempt per the California Environmental Quality Act regarding the new construction or conversion of small structures. Per General Plan and Zoning, the project is located in the medium density residential land use classification of the General Plan and the R-2, low/medium density residential zoning district. The applications are for a second family, or granny flat, to be constructed on the lot with the existing single family residence, owned by Mr. Leonard J. Mestas. It is Staffs understanding that Mr. Mestas will live in the new unit and his sister will live in the existing house.. A second family unit is defined by the Grand Terrace Zoning Ordinance as attached or detached residential dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation on the same parcel as the single family dwelling. Per the Grand Terrace Zoning Ordinance, all second family units shall be subject to the following regulations: the second family unit shall be used for the sole occupancy of one adult or two adult persons who are sixty years of age or over. The floor area of the second family unit shall not exceed 640 square feet and the applicant for the second family unit must be an owner/occupant of the main residence. The City's Zoning Ordinance does contain some inconsistencies with State law and where those occur, State law takes precedence in regards to second family units. Per State law, such units can be up to 1200 square feet in size instead of 640 square feet. The proposed unit is approximately 1000 square feet. In addition to the findings required for a conditional use permit, the Planning Commission shall also approve a second family unit only if the following findings can be made: the addition of the second family unit does not alter the front elevation of the main residence or is not visible from a public street. In this case, the proposed second family unit does not alter the existing residence and is designed to closely match the design of the existing residence. The second family unit is clearly subordinate in size, location and appearance to the main residence. The living area of the proposed second unit is less than half the size of the existing residence and is located mostly to the rear and side of the existing residence. Lastly, the second family unit will not be detrimental to the general health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing within the neighborhood of the proposed unit, or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or within the City. In this case, the proposed second family unit is in character with the types of dwellings present in the area and will be occupied by the owner or member of the owner's family. As an aside, per the City's new General Plan Housing element, Staff will bring to the Planning Commission an Amendment to bring the Zoning Ordinance into compliance with State law, as regards second units. As part of the process, the concept of second family units as rental units with 1350 square feet or more, instead of only as granny flats, will be discussed. The design of the proposed unit consists of 1340 sq ft of living area with a 480 sq ft attached two car garage. The floor plan indicates a great room concept with kitchen, laundry, dining room, plus two bedrooms and two bathrooms. Architecture of the proposed accessory unit is simple ranch style, closely consistent with the style of the existing house which was built in 1956. Colors and materials will match and be very similar. Existing landscaping will be supplemented in the area west of the driveway with the remainder of the existing front yard 15 landscaping not being altered. As with all residences, it's subject to the Circulation Improvement Fee Ordinance 190, adopted by the City Council in February of 2000. There are some issues regarding this application. The applicant has requested several waivers and deferments involving street improvements, etc. The reviewing agencies and management have met and resolved these — and final recommendations have been set in place to satisfy them. Edison had been contacted regarding electrical under grounding. Edison indicated that they would only provide one electrical service to the site. The existing service is above ground and the new service to the second unit would be via the existing service, so no new service would be run to this unit, but a new meter would be beside the existing meter on the main residence and the new service run under ground from the main residence to the new unit. Staff is not opposed to deferment a in this case. Mr. Cumblidge concluded the report. Commissioner Addington, having reviewed the site plan, noted the rear of the site slopes down onto other property. He asked if there were any drainage concerns that need to be mitigated. Director Barham indicated that it is a requirement for a grading plan to be submitted to the City Engineer for approval and all the drainage requirements will have to be met. Director Materassi note the preliminary grading plan was accepted as part of the site plan. The contractor will need to provide more detail, but the proposal appears to be fine. Corrine Robinson Stonewood Construction Company Corrine Robinson of Stonewood Construction, addressed the Commission as Father Leonard Mestas' representative. Ms. Robinson shared with the Commissioners that she felt better or more correct information could have been supplied by Staff regarding this project. She stated that Father Mestas believed his property as an R-2, would allow he and his sister to build a separate dwelling there. When Ms. Robinson came in to meet with Staff, she also believed that was the case. However, it was not, as City Ordinance does not allow, in an R-2 property, a separate dwelling. Ms. Robinson relayed her strong disagreement with the economic impact of that finding on her clients. As a result a CUP for granny dwellings was submitted. Father Leonard is a retiring Catholic priest. He and his sister have pooled their assets and they meets all the qualifications. But, after meeting all the qualifications on a 1040 square foot house, the fees were $20,000. Ms. Robinson said, "That's $20 a square foot, any way you look at it - to try and build a retiring senior's home And to add insult to injury I had tried to talk to the school district. The fees just went up on school fees to $3.87 a square foot. And how is one senior going to impact that, but he still has to pay the $3.87 a square foot." Ms. Robinson stated that she does appreciate that fact that Staff has worked with her and ironed out the difficulties. However, she did state that she felt morally obligated to mention the difficulties encountered and the increased costs in filing a CUP. Commissioner Wilson addressed Ms. Robinson's concern about the Ordinance and assured her that the Commission and Staff would address those issues. He asked Ms. Robinson to specify her areas of concern with lack of information provided by Staff. The Commissioner also 16 told Ms. Robinson that school fees are set by the School District and the City is not involved in the matter. Ms. Robinson advised the Commission that they should be involved in school fees and have influence regarding retiring seniors, as example. Ms. Robinson continued, declining to specify an employee, but designed plans according to information given by Staff, working under that assumption. Because statue was misinterpreted, it required redesign, at cost. Ms. Robinson stated that she felt every public servant needs to be aware of the fact that the public totally depends on the information they give. Director Wilson and Ms. Robinson discussed the matter further. Ms. Robinson stated that she would prefer not to take valuable time to discuss the issue, but would be happy to meet with any/all of the Commissioners at a different time. Commissioner Addington asked Director Materassi if under the Conditional Use Permit, the Conditions run with the land. He asked how, when a new buyer come at some point in time, they will know the Conditions apply to the property they are purchasing. Director Materassi advised that the Conditions run with the land at City Hall. Staff does not ask for them to be recorded unless the Director of Building and Safety I has a special covenant. The City is not required these to be recorded in the Assessor's office or Recorders office. So if the Conditions were violated in the future, Staff would only know via complaint and the matter would be resolved by Code Enforcement. Commissioner Ferre' asked if the Director had met with Mrs. Robinson regarding the misunderstanding. Director Materassi said she did. Grand Terrace's code is a little stricter than most about second family units. The code protects our neighborhoods. She explained that if you were a person from outside or a person just reading the code perhaps it is not as clear as it could be. Interpreting code is difficult for new planners; it's difficult for old planners, That is why the process takes time and why there is a review process. Commissioner Ferre' asked if this incident has raised the level of awareness for everybody on the staff. Director Materassi said yes, and noted that the Ordinance needs to be brought up to State Code. State Code changed, preempting Grand Terrace's code. The matter must be addressed to consider both State and City code. It will be brought to the Commission for review and determination. MOTION PC-33-2000 Motion was made by Commissioner Addington to approve CUP-00-01/SA- 00-10. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Trainor. MOTION VOTE PC-33-2000 Motion approved 5-0-0-0. 17 1 k0JiU CUP 98-04-A-2 Application to modify some of the original conditions of CUP Case No. 98-04 and EA 98-10 to extend the Date of Compliance 180 days to March 16, 2001. APPLICANT: United Strategies, Inc LOCATION: 21516 Main Street Grand Terrace CA 92313 RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions. Associate Planner, John Lampe presented Staffs report. The application has to do with the former American Modular site, requesting there be an alteration of the conditions that were imposed by the Commission on September 16, of 1999. The matter began when Staff had an inquiry by the head of the Jensen Construction development company regarding the American Modular location. The original conditional use permit on this site allowed American Modular to to extend their operation into the rear of the building. Mr. Lampe referred to the site plan on the overhead. The original conditional use permit issued in 1988 allowed American Modular to operate in the front of that building. They expanded into the rear of the building and came before the Commission to have the expansion to the rear to be recognized by the City and to have the proper conditional use permit approval. They received the approval, by the Commission on September 16, 1999. There were thirty-three Conditions on the original approval. One of those conditions had to do with installing a water line to assure that there be proper fire protection service for this particular location. They were given 60 days to put that water line in. There were additional problems related to the fact that the underlying property was in bankruptcy. The end result was that the water line was completed early in February of 2000. However, soon after the installation of the water line for the fire flow, American Modular went bankrupt. Apparently they lost one their major contracts, so the subject site became vacant. Staff was anticipating a revocation of the conditional use permit for non-compliance with the original conditions that were imposed by the conditional use permit, many of which had to do with putting in certain improvements on the property which had not taken place. Then an inquiry was received from Mr. Jensen to occupy this site. Mr. Jensen is in a very similar business to American Modular. He upgrades, remodels and it is his intention to actually manufacture, modular offices. A copy of his letter of intent was included in the Staff report. Following this original inquiry by Mr. Jensen, United Strategies made some inquires as to how Mr. Jensen could occupy the American Modular site under the original conditional use permit. CEDD Department did write United Strategies a letter outlining six preliminary steps, or tasks that would have to be met before Mr. Jensen would be allowed to receive the certificate of occupancy and conduct his business at the subject site. Those six tasks are an attachment to the Staff report. These items have been completed either by Mr. Jensen or by the property owner, Carol Walker Ng. Mrs. Ng actually signed the acceptance of conditions of the original grant indicating her responsibility. There is a letter in the file of her willingness to comply with all of the conditions of the original approval. One of the items that was required in the six necessary steps dealt with filing a modification of those original conditions to allow more time to put in the needed infrastructure as required by certain conditions of that original approval. Therefore, the application before the Commission essentially allows the applicant and the property owner to have additional time, until March 16, 2001, to put in and comply with many of those conditions which are outlined in the Staff report. Pending the outcome of the request before the Commission, Mr. Jensen, in that he met most of the conditions with the some exception, was allowed to occupy the site with a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. That is subject to the approval of the application by the Commission. As part of the application, the applicant did submit a list of the thirty-three original Conditions, Attachment 4, of the Staff report, indicating there were eight different Conditions where they asked for a six month extension until March the 16th, 2001, specifically, Conditions 3, 11, 12, 15, 16, 20, 24 and 25, most having to do with infrastructure improvements. In addition Conditions 8, 14, 27 and 28 also require certain improvements but the applicant did not request additional time. Staff assumes those Conditions will be completed. This request was referred to Public Works, the City Engineer and the Traffic Engineering Consultant. They did not have any additional requirements over what was approved under the original approval in 1999. The Community and Economic Development Department takes the position that because the property was empty for some six months, perhaps it is understandable that not all of the Conditions of the original approval could be met. This is also an opportunity for the City to see the site cleaned up and improved and once again become a viable business. Staff was in basic support of the applicants request for a time extension to comply to March 16, 2001. However, Staff did make note that if these Conditions are not met by March 16, 2001, Staff will take proceedings to begin revocation of the original conditional use permit. Also, Staff does not support the applicant's request that payment of the Traffic Mitigation Fee called for by Condition Twenty-four be delayed until March the 16th , 2001. Staff does not see any reason why such payment cannot be made immediately. Staff noted that they had no problem with extending the time to file a required parcel map on this subject site, also to include the property to the immediate south. Those two parcels have one address. They have never been legally divided. That will require a parcel map to be filed. Although Staff has no problem with extending the filing of the parcel map to March 16, 2001, Staff did recommend that the final map resulting from that filing be recorded from nine months of the time of the map's filing. With that, we have supplied the Commission with recommended conditions of approval and that does complete the staffs report. If the Commissioners have any questions I'll be glad to try to answer them. Commissioner Addington asked if the parcel map is being required because Mr. Jensen is leasing only the area with white background, (referring to the site map) that is 1.9 acres and not the shaded background which was referred to as the BFI site. He asked for confirmation that Staff was willing to extend the parcel map requirement for 180 days, as the Commissioner believed that to be a violation of the Subdivision Map Act. Mr. Lampe stated that the Commissioner was correct that the parcel map was required because of the terms of the lease. Staff did support the extension of the parcel map filing as this was a matter considered when the original approval was granted by the Commission. 19 Director Materassi stated that Mr. Jensen had been given a temporary conditional use permit. If the Conditions are approved by the Commission and accepted by the applicant, then they would be in violation of the map act. Violations in this area have been a concern for over ten years, so Staff believes an extension would be better than code enforcement action. Bruce Cash President of United Strategies, Inc. 1905 Business Center Drive San Bernardino Mr. Cash began his presentation by asking the Commission to recall that the because of the problems that were incurred by American Modular, the property owner had to step up and pay the off site infrastructure fees, about $80,000. The public improvements were made and the project done. Unfortunately, in that span of time, American Modular went into bankruptcy. The property was vacant and as a result there was no income stream at all, on that property. Never the less, the property owner proceeded, followed through with the commitment she made to the City and completed the project. The current tenant on the site, occupied the property on the 1st of September. The need for a 180 day extension is specifically to allow for some income in order to recover the costs incurred. Mr. Cash stated they were willing to embrace all of the Conditions. The property owner signed the Conditions and is willing to meet all the Conditions within a 180 day period. Mr. Cash did ask, on Condition 24, for an extension to March 16, 2001, as the property owner cannot afford to pay the Traffic Mitigation Fee of $10,000 at this time. Mr. Cash indicated that this is an amount greater than will be recovered from this property in all the revenue from September 1 until March 1. Mr. Cash stated that City Staff had been to the site and could see a positive result, just since September 1. Mr. Cash believes that 180 days will provide the property owner with the incentive to make additional off site improvements. Mr. Cash maintains the property owner is a partner with the City in working to see that these improvements are made and requested the Commission consider extending Condition 24 until that March, to allow the property owner adequate time to recover some revenue and offset the extraordinary costs that she will incur between now and March. Commissioner Addington asked if the property owner was Crystal Properties and if they were leasing to Mr. Jensen. He also inquired if Crystal Properties had agreed to complying with the Conditions by the March date. Mr. Cash replied in the affirmative to all items, advising the owner had signed the Letter of Conditions and agreed to all improvements. Mr. Ornelas moved to the podium. It was determined that this matter was not his area of concern. As stated earlier in the proceedings, Staff will meet with Mr. Ornelas to answer any/all of his questions. Director Materassi recalled that a deposit of $40,000, was received by the City for the off site improvements and was surprised to learn the water line improvement cost $80,000. The Director went on to clarify the parcel map dilemma. The whole area has never met the subdivision conditions received from the County in 1978. The sites were occupied and the conditions were never met. Issues with parcel maps led to the study Staff presented to the 20 Commission earlier in the evening. Also, Staff requires a parcel map only in the case of a long term lease. Chairperson Van Gelder allowed, although the Public Hearing on the matter was closed, Mr. Cash to address the Commission. Mr. Cash asked to clarify that the deposit Crystal Properties made to the City was 50% of the cost of the water line improvement, or $40,000. Because construction costs were $80,000, his client had roughly $120,000 encumbered during construction. The Chairperson thanked Mr. Cash. Commissioner Addington asked if a CUP was in effect on the subject property. Director Materassi stated that a temporary CUP had been issued as well as a Certificate of Occupancy. The Commissioner then asked, if the property owner didn't put in the improvements within 180 days would the CUP be revoked. The Director advised that Staff could not revoke a CUP, only the Planning Commission, but it would immediately be brought to the Commission by Staff. Commissioner Addington then remarked that he recalled approving extensions on the project over the last two years. The Director agreed, but noted that the tenant is different. Commissioner Trainor asked if, from Staffs perspective, there were a problem in extending the payment date of the Traffic Mitigation Fee to coincide with the March 16th date, 2001, to provide some relief to the property owner. Director Materassi stated Staff helped the property owners and tenants in every way possible, issuing temporary certificate's of occupancy and the like. Although understanding about significant expenditures, the Director believes that the property owner should show good faith by making immediate payment of the Traffic Mitigation Fee. The City is taking on faith the intent of the owner to comply with the Conditions and meeting those Conditions can take a certain amount of time, but the payment of the fees does not take time, just commitment. The Director did defer to the Commission's pleasure. Chairperson Van Gelder called for a ten minute break. After ten minutes, the meeting was reconvened by Chairperson Van Gelder. Commissioner Trainor confirmed with Chairperson Van Gelder that no action on Item Seven of the Conditions would allow the property owner to have until March, 2001, to complete the parcel map filing. Commissioner Addington questioned Director Materassi's use of lease length to determine the need for a parcel map. He asked if this was the City Attorney's interpretation and if we knew the length of the tenants lease. Director Materassi replied that the interpretation was based on case law. The basis for calculation a long term lease is five or more years. Staff does not know the length of the tenants lease, but based on conversation with the applicant and the application, Staff understands that it is a long term lease. Commissioner Addington expressed his concern of the Commission condoning a violation of State law. The Commissioner asked if local Ordinance did not require a tentative parcel map. He also stated that a tentative map is not required at the State level. Director Materassi replied that it was required in the case of four or fewer lots. Also, a tentative and then final map 21 are required for this project. This is the County's Subdivision Ordinance which the City has adopted by reference. MOTION PC-34-2000 Motion made by Commissioner Wilson to approve CUP-00-0 1 /SA-00-1 0. Motion seconded by Commissioner Trainor. MOTION VOTE PC-34-2000 Motion approved 4-1-0-0. Commissioner Addington dissenting. MOTION PC-35-2000 Motion made by Commissioner Addington to strike Condition 7, allowing an additional six months to file the parcel map. Motion died for lack of second. MOTION PC-36-2000 Motion made by Commissioner Trainor to adopt the Resolution calling for the approval of CUP-98-04. Motion modified by Commissioner Trainor to include E-98-10. Motion seconded by Commissioner Ferre'. Second concurred. MOTION VOTE PC-36-2000 Motion approved 4-1-0-0. Commission Addington dissenting. ITEM 7 SA-00-07/E-00-07 Applications for Site and Architectural and Environmental Review to build a 2,624 square foot residential care home (to accommodate six or fewer children) on a vacant lot. APPLICANT: Richard Elshof for property owner Jonathan Joseph LOCATION: 12539 Vivienda Avenue Grand Terrace CA 92313 RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions. Steve Cumblidge, Planning Technician presented Staffs report beginning by advising that as a single family residence Site and Architectural Review the project is categorically exempt per the California Quality Act for new construction or conversion of small structures for environmental review. The project is located in the low density residential land use classification of the Grand Terrace General Plan and the R1-7.2 Single Family Zoning District. 22 The proposal is to construct one new single family residential dwelling on an existing 17, 000 square foot vacant lot located on the east side of Vivienda Avenue just south of Van Buren. Adjacent land uses are predominantly single family residential in character with a more typical 7200 square foot lot size. The proposed house is intended to be used as licensed care facility for six or fewer developmentally disabled, physically handicapped children ages 5 to 18 years, as explained in the applicant's letter of intent, included with Staffs report. State licensed community care facilities of this type are a permitted use in the R1-7.2 Single Family Zoning District, which is in conformance with the requirements with the State of California regarding zoning of community care facilities. State law requires all cities to treat these types of uses the same as single family residences, therefore, the only case before the Planning Commission is the site and architectural review of a single family residence, not the use. The proposed house has a single story floor plan with six bedrooms, two bathrooms, living room, family room, kitchen, and dining area. There is also a small office with its own front entrance. The living area square footage is proposed at 2524 square feet. The house is proposed to have a circular driveway, serving a 540 square foot, two car, attached garage, plus two additional designated off street parking spaces. The architecture of the proposed house will have six inch lath wood style siding on the front elevation and stucco on the rear and side elevations. The roof has multiple elements with gables over the garage and the front porch. The roof will be finished with higher quality, dimensional composition shingles. Trim moldings surround and accentuate the front doors and windows and all windows facing the street will be divided light style. The overall appearance of the proposed house is that of a rambling ranch estate home. The house will have front yard irrigation and landscaping. As with all new residences, it is subject to the Circulation Improvement Fee Ordinance #190, adopted by the City Council, February of 2000. Chairperson Van Gelder thanked Mr. Cumblidge for making it very clear to the Commission that they were to address only the site and architectural avenues of this project; not the usage. Richard Elshof 3041 Stoddard San Bernardino CA Mr. Elshof introduced himself to the Commission. He noted that he has been in this business for the last nineteen years; setting up over 85 homes for the disabled. He had information regarding our program and its place in the community which he made available to the Commission and audience. Chairperson Van Gelder reminded Mr. Elshof that his comments must be restricted to the site and architectural review. Mr. Elshof offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Ferre' asked, with six bedrooms each having an outside door, how the house offered flexibility for alteration to accommodate a typical single family residence. The Commissioner also asked Mr. Elshof to review the proposed four parking spaces and whether 23 or not the back yard would be landscaped. Mr. Elshof responded, explaining that in new construction most master bedrooms have an exiting door. As each of these bedrooms will accommodate a handicapped person, in case of a fire they have to have another way to exit. The home will also be equipped with fire sprinkler systems. These doorways could be converted back into walls without significant effort. Mr. Elshof pointed out the RV parking area at the side of the home, which will accommodate two cars, and two care could be parked in the driveway. There is also a circular drive. He advised the backyard would be fully landscaped will trees and a block wall completely surrounding the side/back yards. Mr. Cumblidge noted that typically, only the front yard landscaping is conditioned for a typical single family residence. Chairperson Van Gelder asked if the exit doors at each bedroom were stipulated by the State. Mr. Elshof replied the State Fire Marshall requires these doors for people who would need assistance to exit the home in the case of emergency. Commissioner Addington asked if all parking related to the home would be on the property or on the street. Mr. Elshof stated that most parking will be done on the property, as there is ample room. Further, at any given time, four cars would need to be parked in the garage, driveway or RV parking area. Isle Bent 22160 Van Buren Street Ms. Bent addressed the Commission. Ms. Bent lives right around the corner from the proposed house. She asked, if there are six bedrooms and six children, with adult caregivers in this house, why are only two baths planned. Also, Ms. Bent inquired if the payment of the Traffic Improvement Fee meant that a light would be installed on Van Buren. Ms. Bent asked how the City parking code would affect the proposed residence. Director Materassi advised that the fees go towards improvements in the City. An account has been established that all fees from the development go into. When there is enough money, then the City puts the improvement. So at this point, there is no required improvements. You also asked about the parking. The Director noted the City does allow off street parking unless there is a party or something of the like. Chairperson Van Gelder asked what the required number of parking spaces would be. Mr. Cumblidge advised that for this type of use, the zoning ordinance requires one parking space for each employee and one space for the first six children or patients. The proposed house does provide a total of four spaces: two designated off street spaces, two within the enclosed two car garage, required of any single family residence, plus a very large circular driveway which would probably accommodate three or maybe four additional cars, if necessary, off of the street. Staff presumes the parking on the circular driveway would be for visitation. Gary - Resident 22167 Van Buren 24 The gentleman asked if his neighborhood was zoned residential, as the proposal sounded like a business and he wondered if it was allowed. Mr. Cumblidge advised it has long been the intent of the State of California that people who need full time care be placed in the community not in large institutions. The State determined it is healthier for handicapped persons to be in the community. Therefore, the State took away cities rights to zone this kind of use. The State requires cities to recognize that these kinds of uses are single family in character, in terms of zoning and building codes. Cities cannot apply any special standards or place any constraints on them that would not be placed on any single family house. As a State licensed care facility for six or fewer, no different conditions can be placed on the applicant than the City would place on any single family house. The State further states that the caregivers who are employed at the residence, are also to be considered members of the family residing at that home. No standards as to when they come and go, where they park, other than what would be in place for any single family residence, anywhere in the City, can be placed on the residence. Director Materassi stated that the project is before the Commission because they are occupying a new house. If they had rented an existing house the project would not be before the Commission because the City doesn't have any right to regulate the use of six residents. If the number of residents goes above six, then they are required apply for a conditional use permit. In that case, the City has the right to evaluate the compatibility of the use with the residential area around it. The resident then inquired if the use of the home be changed? Director Materassi noted that there are several different types of residential care facilities — medical- drug rehabilitation - physically handicapped - mentally handicapped - and all uses are classified under residential care facilities. The use can be changed and the City cannot regulate if there are six or fewer residents. The State regulates the facilities. They are required to be licensed. The State does notify the City in the case of certain residential care facilities, but the State is the lead agency and is the only agency that has the power to review and license these facilities. The resident asked if there been any changes like that the community, where a facility has changed the use? The Director did not know of any. Staff is trying to evaluate all our residential care facilities. When the Housing Element was done, nearly three years ago, there were thirteen known residential care facilities in the City and no complaints had ever been received. There was one exception and that was not related to any activity of the facility, but the number of such facilities in a given area. Chairperson Van Gelder asked under what conditions would a facility need to come back for a CUP. The Director said if there were more than six residents. The Chairperson asked if the usage changed. That, stated the Director, would not require application for a CUP. The resident at 22167 Van Buren stated that his concern as a resident of the area was for his family. He would be very upset if the use changed from the care of handicapped children to something else, without being notified. Having no say whatsoever was of great concern. He stated that he and his family loved Grand Terrace and welcomed, the facility, but were worried about a change over which they have no control. 25 Commissioner Wilson advised that the project is located in a low density residence land use, R-1-7.2 which allows this kind of use. Director Materassi advised if there is any disturbance or problem with the residence, then code enforcement would apply, as it would with any single family residence. It is the only authority the City has. MOTION PC-37-2000 Motion made by Commissioner Wilson to approve SA-00-07, subject to conditions of approval attached herein. Motion seconded by Chairperson Van Gelder. MOTION VOTE PC-37-2000 Motion approved 5-1-0-0. 9:45 P.M. ADJOURNED SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 9:45 P.M. CONVENED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION • Information from Commissioners Commissioner Addington complimented Director Materassi and Staff on the "good job" that was done on the evening's agenda items. All the Commissioners agreed with Commissioner Addington and added their personal words of support and commendation. • Information to Commissioners Director Materassi congratulated Chairperson Van Gelder as the recipient of the Grand Terrace Volunteer of the Year Award, pointing out that the Commissioner has worked tirelessly on the Planning Commissioner over the years. Chairperson Van Gelder's contribution is greatly appreciated by citizens and staff alike. In response to Commissioner Addington's request for update on the Rite Aid site, Director Materassi stated that Rite Aid is "holding" the development. According to the property owner and developer, Rite Aid is not willing to terminate the lease agreement, and has encouraged the developer to build. The developer, having received no lease from Rite Aid, is unwilling to break ground. Director Materassi does not see the situation changing in the near future. In the short term, in response to Chairperson Van Gelder's inquiry, Director Materassi explained that she had spoken with the property broker about the "nuisance" factor. The Director advised that a letter had been forwarded, requesting grading, fencing, and dust control measures, with suggestions/options for as example, perimeter landscaping. 26 Several income generating proposals, such as Open Markets, Fairs and the like were also presented to the broker. There is every reason to believe the improvements will be made shortly, since the Rite Aid negotiations have stalled. Should cordial requests fail to produce needed results, code enforcement procedures will be initiated. Commissioner Addington asked if any new prospects had developed to replace the failed movie theater development that was part of the Barton Road Specific Plan. Director Materassi advised this particular project had died, however, she has been in contact with the State Infrastructure Bank. The Bank has fifty million dollars to distribute and the Director is trying to secure some of those funds for Grand Terrace. The SIB can subsidize infrastructure, depending on the type of project. The SIB is also looking for sustainable growth - redevelopment of downtowns, industrial parks — projects that generate jobs. The SBI doesn't grant the money, but makes low interest loans. At this point, the Council's position on this matter is not known. Director Materassi would encourage the Council to purchase available land. If the City owned the land, it could issue an RFP and evaluate potential developers and their proposed developments. Also, Jim Harrigan of EDS is marketing the City aggressively with developers. Director Materassi will mail a copy of the City Council report to the Commissioners. 9:51 P.M. ADJOURNED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 16, 2000. Respectfully submitted, U� Patrizia Materassi Director of Community and Economic Development w\pg\PCMeetings\10-19 Minutes-Final.doc Approved by, Fran Van Gelder Chairperson, Planning Commission 27