05/15/1989GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
MAY 15, 1989
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 May 15, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Stanley Hargrave.
PRESENT: Stanley Hargrave, Chairman
Jerry Hawkinson, Vice -Chairman
Dan Buchanan, Commissioner
Herman Hilkey, Commissioner
Ray Munson, Commissioner
Jim Sims, Commissioner Lett Meeting Early
Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner
ABSENT:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Stanley Hargrave
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M.
Presentation of the San Bernardino County Hazardous Waste Plan
by Environmental Officer, Pam Bennett.
Discussion on rescheduling the July 3, 1989 Planning Commission
to July 5, 1989.
Discussion on MPA Associates and La Mancha appeal scheduled
before the City Council Meeting of May 25, 1989.
Discussion on the existing problems that still exist at the
Chocolate Forest.
Request by Commissioner Buchanan to confirm his mailing address
for the Chamber of Commerce Newsletter.
Discussion of the April 3, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes. Change on page 1, should read "Planning Commission
Workshop adjourned at 7:00 p.m.".
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - No comments from the public.
1
ITEM #1
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MOTION
PCM-89-47
MOTION
PCM-89-47
VOTE
MOTION
PCM-89-48
MOTION
PCM-89-48
VOTE
Commissioner Munson made the motion to approve the February 6,
1989 Planning Commission Minutes. Commissioner Hawkinson
second.
Motion carried. 6-0-0-1. Commissioner Buchanan abstained.
Chairman Hargrave made the motion to approve the April 3, 1989
Planning Commission Minutes with noted correction on page 1.
Commissioner Sims second.
Motion carried, all ayes. 7-0-0-0.
ITEM #2
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER PAM BENNETT
MOTION
PCM-89-49
Discussion by the Planning Commission regarding the proposed
Hazardous Waste Management Plan as presented during the
workshop by Environmental Officer, Pam Bennett.
Chairman Hargrave made the motion to recommend adoption al of
the San Bernardino County Hazardous Waste Management Plan to
City Council for submittal to the State. Commissioner Van
Gelder second.
2
MOTION
PCM-89-49
VOTE
Motion carried. 6-1-0-0. Commissioner Munson voted noe.
ITEM #3
TPM-89-2
CONSOLIDATION OF TWO PARCEL LOTS
FOREST CITY DILLON
11601 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
LOS ANGELES, CA. 90025
The Community Development Director presented the staff report
with the conditions and recommendations of approval from the
reviewing agencies, the City Engineer and the Planning
Department. He also presented the history of the project and
the purpose of the map.
Commissioner Buchanan asked what initiated the map.
The Community Development Director explained that the Phase II
conditions, per the outcome of the court case was to submit a
map. The settlement was reflected in the conditions of approval
earlier by the Planning Commission.
Discussion by the Planning Commission as to alternative
choices.
The Community Development Director explained that legally this
body does not have any other choice, the standards have been
set.
Discussion by the Planning Commission and the Community
Development Director that what is being considered is whether
the applicant has followed the Subdivision Map Act and did it
correctly. Questions whether the court considered density, a
subdivision map act or initial map act to approve Phase II.
Chairman Hargrave stated that the Planning Commission should
take the recommendation of the Planning Director, all of the
conditions have been met.
The Community Development Director explained that the issues
addressed were discussed earlier by the Planning Commission.
The density and traffic issues were the main items. This map
3
is in compliance with the Site Plan and the General Plan.
Discussion on when the two lots were approved.
The Community Development Director explained that Phase I was
approved prior to May 1987. The Site Plan under Forest City
ownership was denied based on lack of variance on the parking
and zoning issues. He explained the variance procedures and the
Planning Commission earlier approved the Site Plan with
recommendations to City Council for approval. He stated again
that Phase H cannot be denied because it was approved earlier.
Commissioner Hilkey suggested he would like to see the
resolution revised.
The Community Development Director clarified the General Plan's
density of 12 units maximum and the 20% density bonus. He
stated that Phase II was in conformance with the General Plan.
Commissioner Hilkey suggested rephrasing the resolution to
read "consolidation of parcel lots for single family apartments
in compliance with the General Plan."
The Community Development Director clarified that there are
findings which have to be met to approve the map in accordance
with the County and the State.
Commissioner Munson asked if a denial could be appealed to the
City Council.
The Community Development Director strongly urged the Planning
Commission to approve. The applicant was mandated under court
action to do this consolidation of the map per Planning
Commission conditions.
Discussion of the court action between Forest City and the City
of Grand Terrace.
Chairman Hargrave clarified that the Planning Commission is
approving the map which is a condition the applicant is meeting.
The only questionable or non favored area can be the verbage of
the resolution.
Discussion on how this project could be approved without the
Planning Commission approving the density which is opposed to
the current General Plan.
4
The Community Development Director explained that the Planning
Commission approved the Specific Plan. Staff recommended
approveal at that time and still does. The zoning is okay with
the density bonus. The findings are approved according to the
Planning Commission findings.
Commissioner Buchanan suggested that the wording of the
resolution be changed to read "Now therefore... have previously
been made". Therefore since these findings were made
previously and adjudicated by a court of law.
Vice -Chairman asked if it is a problem with the City Attorney
would it come back to the Planning Commission.
The Community Development Director stated that it would.
MOTION
PCM-89-50
Commissioner Van Gelder made the motion to recommend approval
of TPM-89-2 with conditions of approval as recommended by staff
with no changes. Chairman Hargrave second.
i
L Discussion by the Planning Commission regarding a revision of
wording of the proposed resolution.
MOTION
AMEND
PCM-89-50
The Community Development Director made the suggestion that the
wording of the resolution be revised to read "...Whereas the
issues identified of the following findings have been made
previously by the Planning Commission in the approval of SP/CUP
85-8; and ...Now, Therefore be it resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Grand Terrace, California, that the
following findings have been made in accordance with the
previous approval of SP/CUP 85-8."
Commissioner Van Gelder amended her motion to recommend
approval of TPM-89-2 with conditions of approval and
recommendations by staff including wording revision of the
resolution as follows, "Whereas the issues identified of the
following findings have been made previously by the Planning
Commission in the approval of SP/CUP 85-8; and ... Now,
5
MOTION
VOTE
PCM-89-50
Therefore be it resolved by the Planning Commission of the City
of Grand Terrace, California, that the following findings have
been made in accordance with the previous approval of SP/CUP 85-
8." Second concurred.
Motion carried. 5-1-0-1. Commissioner Hilkey voted noe and
Commissioner Buchanan abstained.
Commissioner Hilkey wanted to state for the record that his
concerns were Planning oriented and not political.
ITEM #4
CUP-89-2
JOHN RUFFCORN
23187 GLENDORA
GRAND TERRACE, CA.
The Community Development Director presented the staff report
with the conditions from the reviewing agencies, the City
Engineer and Planning Department along with recommendation of
approval.
Discussion on the condition regarding compliance with
California State Law Mandate 6585.1 and 6585.2 which should be
corrected to read Government Code.
PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 8:20 P.M.
MR. JOHN RUFFCORN
23187 GLENDORA
GRAND TERRACE, CA.
Mr. Ruffcorn asked the Planning Commission if school fees were
applicable on his project.
Chairman Hargrave stated that school fees were not applicable
when dealing with senior age.
Commissioner Hilkey clarified that school fees are applicable
if the valuation of the project is over $20,000.
Z
PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED AT 8:20 P.M.
MOTION
PCM-89-51
MOTION
VOTE
PCM-89-51
Commissioner Hilkey made the motion to approve CUP-89-2 with
modification to item #3, changing California State Law to
Government Code. Commissioner Hawkinson second.
Motion carried, all ayes. 7-0-0-0.
BREAK FROM 8:25 P.M. TO 8:45 P.M.
PLANNING DISCUSSION RECONVENED AT 8:45 P.M.
It was pointed out to Chairman Hargrave that the public hearing
portion of Item #3, Forest City Dillon, the Tentative Parcel
Map 89-2 had not been convened and needed to be reopened for
legal process. Therefore the vote would have to be nullified
due to lack of public input.
ITEM #3
TPM-89-2
FOREST CITY DILLON
PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 8:45 P.M.
No public input.
PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED AT 8:45 P.M.
MOTION
PCM-89-52
Commissioner Van Gelder made the motion that motion PCM-89-51
(TPM-89-2) be null and void due to error of not opening Public
7
MOTION
VOTE
PCM-89-52
MOTION
PCM-89-53
MOTION
PCM-89-53
VOTE
Hearing for this item. Chairman Hargrave second.
Motion carried, all ayes. 7-0-0-0.
Commissioner Van Gelder made a motion to recommend approval of
TPM-89-2 with conditions of approval and recommendations by
staff including wording revision of the resolution as follows,
"Whereas the issues identified of the following findings have
been made previously by the Planning Commission in the approval
of SP/CUP 85-8; and ... Now, Therefore be it resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace, California,
that the following findings have been made in accordance with
the previous approval of SP/CUP 85-8." Chairman Hargrave
second.
Motion carried. 5-0-0-2. Commissioners Buchanan and Hilkey
abstained.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION CONVENED
ITEM #5
CUP-89-1 (ANNEX ADDITION)
ADVOCATE SCHOOL
KENNETH CLARK/ARCHITECT
11980 MT. VERNON AVENUE
GRAND TERRACE
The Community Development Director presented the staff report
with the conditions and recommendations of approval from the
Reviewing Agencies, the City Engineer and Planning Department.
Discussion of the history of the project from initial phase.
Discussion on fencing for the perimeter of the total project.
The Community Development Director clarified that this proposal
does not alter the original fencing as approved by the earlier
original project.
Discussion on the location of the fire hydrants and compliance
with Fire Warden's Office requirements.
Discussion on improvements required by the City Engineer on the
original project specifically the street lights and location
of same.
Commissioner Van Gelder asked if street trees were required
The Community Development Director explained that the street
trees were required at 40' intervals.
Discussion on interpretation of City Code with respect to
landscaping.
Discussion on why the applicant needs the additional space for
classrooms and office area.
The Community Development Director suggested that the Planning
Commission ask the applicant for an explanation of the detailed
uses of the additional annex area.
Chairman Hargrave asked why the City Engineer has more specific
conditions on this proposal.
The Community Development Director explained that there were
concerns raised during the construction of the first phase. The
City Engineer is now addressing those concerns; drainage and
grading.
Discussion on the Fire Warden's Office additional conditions
for the annex building. Specifically, the requirement of
sprinklers in the proposed annex structure.
Discussion on the parking requirement for the existing,
proposed annex and any future profession that may enter that
site.
The Community Development Director explained that the parking
is adequate for the overall site. The total project was
approved under the office builing guidelines.
9
Commissioner Buchanan referred to the plans which reflected one
access, at the southwest comer, from the annex into the
courtyard. He expressed concern with only one exit being used
in case of fire.
The Community Development Director explained that should be
checked by the Fire Warden's Office.
Discussion on what type of vocational schools would be allowed
in this annex.
The Community Development Director explained that presently
staff does not have any controls because the uses in the
classrooms would be for homemaking purposes.
Chairman Hargrave pointed out that the general purpose of a
Conditional Use Permit is to insure that the proposed use will
not be detrimental to public health, welfare or safety.
Discussion on the previous conditions from the original
project, CUP-87-6.
The Planning Commission expressed concerns that some vocational
uses may exceed acceptable criterion.
The Community Development Director suggested that all
vocational uses other than kitchen or homemaking should receive
prior approval by the Planning Department.
PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 9:15 P.M.
KENNETH CLARK
ARCHITECT
ADVOCATE SCHOOLS
11980 MT. VERNON AVENUE
GRAND TERRACE
Mr. Clark
explained that the fire hydrant
is located at
the
corner and
the street lighting will be in
the middle of
the
street near
the project. With reference to the street trees,
five trees
have been approved on the
original landscaping
plans. He
did clarify that there will be a
stairwell at the
end
of thebuilding and an exit. The doorway was not shown on
the
plan. Mr.
Clark has been the architect since the conception
of
the project
and provided a detailed history
of the project
to
the Planning
Commission.
10
Discussion of school's relationship to the Colton Unified
School District and the County of San Bernardino.
Mr. Clark explained that they are obligated to comply with the
State Building Code.
Discussion of enrollment and ages of the children involved in
the vocational programs. Mr. Clark explained that there would
be approximately 115-120 students of various ages. He also
stated that most of the children using the proposed annex would
be from the first phase building and not driven in from other
locations.
Commissioner Van Gelder asked if there would be a Sheltered
Workshop Program in the proposed annex.
Mr. Clark stated he was certain that would not occur.
Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the annex would be used as a
Rehabilitation Center.
Mr. Clark replied that he was not certain.
Commissioner Van Gelder asked if there would be night classes
or on Saturdays.
Mr. Clark responded no.
The Community Development Director explained that the original
plans showed the vocational classrooms in the first building.
However, those have now been moved to the proposed annex.
Discussion on the intent of the fence around the courtyard. The
intent being to allow an outdoor space for the children.
The Community Development Director suggested an additional
requirement since the area fence is too close to the street.
He suggested that the playground in the rear be used.
Mr. Clark replied that the applicant would be glad to work with
staff to redo that area.
The Community Development Director explained that landscaping
should be done throughout the courtyard area.
Discussion on quantity of the offices and classrooms in the
11
proposed annex. The applicant proposes 12 offices and 25
classrooms.
Chairman Hargrave asked if staff had looked at using chain link
for the courtyard area.
The Community Development Director explained that staff will
need to look at new landscaping plans for the courtyard.
Discussion on the condition from the original CUP which limits
the student enrollment to 120.
Mr. Clark guessed that the maximum age of the students would be
18 years.
Discussion on why proposed additional classroom space.
Mr. Clark explained that the applicant would like to offer more
vocational classes.
Discussion on the proposed annex located in the old church area
on the site. Future plans to demolish the old church structure.
The Community Development Director referred to the original
CUP-87-6 stating that there were only conditions to prevent
after hours activity and barricading the parking area.
PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED AT 9:50 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION CONVENED AT 9:50 P.M.
MOTION
PCM-89-54
MOTION
PCM-89-54
VOTE
Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to revise the resolution
by replacing zoning R-3 to zoning A-P. Commissioner Van Gelder
second.
Motion carried. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Sims absent.
12
MOTION
PCM-89-55
MOTION
PCM-89-55
VOTE
MOTION
PCM-89-56
MOTION
PCM-89-56
VOTE
MOTION
PCM-89-57
Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to add condition #4 that
a revised detailed fencing and landscaping plan of the
courtyard area for the proposed annex be submitted to the
Planning Director for approval. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson
second.
Motion carried. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Sims absent.
Chairman Hargrave made the motion that the hours of operation
for normal classroom functions shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. Commissioner Buchanan second.
Motion carried. 5-1-1-0.
Commissioners Sims absent.
Vice -Chairman Hawkinson voted noe.
The Planning Commission reached a concensus that the size of the
shrubs and trees should be adequate to reflect the traffic noise
from Mt. Vernon Avenue. This should be considered by the
Community Development Director when the detailed landscaping
plan for the courtyard is submitted for his approval.
Commmissioner Van Gelder made the motion to not allow the annex
building to be used for a Sheltered Workshop nor a
Rehabilitation Center. Commissioner Munson second.
Discussion on the pros and cons of whether this motion was
13
necessary since condition # 10 of CUP-87-6 provides a
restrictive measure.
MOTION
PCM-89-57
VOTE
3-3-1-0. Commissioner Sims absent. Split vote therefore
motion did not pass.
MOTION
PCM-89-58
MOTION
PCM-89-58
VOTE
MOTION
PCM-89-59
Commissioner Munson made
the motion that
all
vocational
classrooms shall be limited
to use by students,
both
full-time
and/or part-time enrolled at
this location only.
The
maximum
number of students shall
at no time exceed
120
students.
Chairman Hargrave second.
Motion carried. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Sims absent.
Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she was opposed to the
second floor and not certain the second floor was necessary.
Commissioner Van Gelder made the motion to deny the second floor
from the application. Commissioner Munson second.
Commissioner Munson stated that the applicant needs to justify
the additional space. He feels this facility may become
something else at a later date.
Mr. Clark stated that the headquarters for the Advocate School
is in the L.A. Basin.
Discussion on reasons for having the offices on the second
floor to allow additional vocational classrooms.
14
MOTION
PCM-89-59
VOTE
MOTION
PCM-89-60
MOTION
PCM-89-60
VOTE
MOTION
PCM-89-61
Mr. Clark stated that if the second floor is denied then the
vocation classrooms will be cut in half.
Motion failed, split vote. 3-3-1-0. Commissioners Hilkey,
Van Gelder, Munson voting aye. Commissioners Hargrave,
Hawkinson, Buchanan voting noe. Commissioner Sims absent.
Commissioner Buchanan made the motion that all proposed
vocational curriculum shall be submitted for approval to the
Community Development Director prior to operational use. Vice -
Chairman Hawkinson second.
Motion carried. 5-1-1-0. Commissioner Hilkey voted noe.
Commissioner Sims absent.
Commissioner Munson asked if any of the students would be
driving.
Mr. Clark responded that they would not, all students would be
transported by vans.
Commissioner Munson made the motion that no student parking
facilities shall be provided on the subject site. Chairman
Hargrave second.
15
MOTION
PCM-89-61
VOTE
MOTION
PCM-89-62
MOTION
PCM-89-62
VOTE
MOTION
PCM-89-63
MOTION
PCM-89-63
VOTE
Motion carried. 5-1-1-0. Commissioner Hilkey voted noe.
Commissioner Sims absent.
Discussion on submitting recommendation to City Council to
possibly red curb the street in front of the site.
Discussion on dressing up the rear area of the proposed annex
area with landscaping.
Chairman Hargrave made the motion to approve the amended CUP-
89-1 with conditions #4,#5,#6,#7 and #8. Vice -Chairman
Hawkinson second.
Motion carried, all ayes. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Sims absent.
Chairman Hargrave made the motion to approve SA-89-7 per
conditons of CUP-89-1. Commissioner Hawkinson second.
Motion carried, all ayes. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Sims absent.
16
SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 10:50 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED AT 10:50 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted,
David R. Sawyer,
Community Development Director
Approved by,
i
Stanley Hargra hairm
Planning Co 'ssion
17