2005-29 �f RESOLUTION NO, 05- 29
RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THX CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.04-01 (TTM 16624)FOR A 15 UNIT
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH ONE OPEN SPACE LOT
IN THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE,CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the applicant, Massaro and Welsh, Civil Engineers, has applied for the approval of
Tentative Tract Map No.04-01 (TTM 16624)to create a 15 unit single family residential subdivision with one
open space lot on a 2 acre parcel in the City of Grand Terrace; and,
WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearings were held by the Planning Commission on August
19,2004,January 20,2005,May 18, 2005, July 21,2005 and September 15,2005; and
WHEREAS,under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),Article 6,Section 15070,the
proposed project for 15 single family residential units and one opens space lot qualifies for a Mitigated
Negative Declaration in that there is no substantial evidence that the project, as conditioned, will have a
significant impact on the environment. The environmental assessment of this project was completed under
Environmental Review Case No. 04-01; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 04-01
(TTM 16624)to the City Council at its meeting of September 15,2005; and
WHEREAS,a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on October 13,2005 and
on November 13, 2005 regarding the approval of Tentative Tract Map-04-01 (TTM 16624).
NOW THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and
improvements is consistent with the General Plan in that the overall density and lot
size conform to the General Plan and that all required improvements will be provided;
and
2. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development in that
the site is fairly level, is served by adequate public services and utilities and the
project conforms to the provisions of Specific Plan No. 04-02; and
3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially or avoidable injure fish or wildlife
or their habitat in that this is an urban infill project with no wildlife habitats on the
site; and
4. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious
i
public health problems in that all necessary public utilities and services will be
provided; and
ATTACHMENT 3
r 5. ' The proposed subdivision, its design, density and type of development and
improvements conform to the regulations of City Subdivision Ordinance and the
regulations of any public agency having jurisdiction by law in that the proposed
development conforms to the Medium Density Residential Category of the General
Plan and Specific Plan No. 04-02 developed for this project and allowed by Chapter
18.20 of the City's Zoning Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Tentative Tract Map No. 04-01 (TMM 16624)is hereby
approved subject to the following conditions:
General Conditions of Approval:
1. Details shown on the tentative tract map are not necessarily approved. Any details which are
inconsistent with requirements of ordinance,general conditions of approval,or City policies
must be specifically approved in the final map or improvement plan approvals
2. Comply with all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act.
3. Approval for filing of this land division is contingent upon approval of plans and
specifications mentioned below. If the improvements are not installed prior to the filing of
this division, the developer must submit an Undertaking Agreement and a faithful
performance and labor and materials bond in the amount estimated by the City guaranteeing
the installation of the improvements.
4. The City reserves the right to impose any new plan check and/or permit fees approved by the
City Council subsequent to tentative approval of this map.
Conditions Prior to Final Map Approval:
5. Upon approval of these conditions and prior to becoming final and binding, the applicant
must agree to and sign the"Acceptance of Conditions"form. The content of the form to be
prepared by the Community Development Department.
6. Provide a"will serve"letter from the Riverside Highland Water Company.
7. Monumentation of the tract map boundaries and lot boundaries is required.
8. A final tract map prepared by,or under the direction of a registered civil engineer authorized
to practice land surveying, or a licensed land surveyor,must be processed through the City
prior to being filed with the County Recorder.
9. A preliminary subdivision guarantee is required showing all fee interest holders and
encumbrances. An updated title report shall be provided before the final tract map is released
for filing with the County Recorder.
10. Pay all required fees for the processing and approval of the final tract map.
11. Pay off any remaining sewer assessment balance on the original parcel.
12. Submit to the City Council for acceptance;all agreements,bonds for performance,bonds for
labor and material for the following:
A. Grading
B. Sanitary sewer improvements
C. Storm drain improvements
D. Water system improvements
E. Street, curb, gutter&sidewalks
F. Street lights
G. Final property corner survey monuments -'
13. Provide a cash deposit in the amount of 10%of the total estimated cost of the items required
by Condition No. 9 above.
14. The applicant and/or developer shall do the following:
a. Install three street lights on De Berry Street.
b. Saw cut wings on curbs to maintain 10%maximum side slope for handicap ramps
at both corners on Mirado Avenue.
C. Remove and replace all curb depressions on De Berry Street;remove and replace all
damaged curb and gutter on all streets and cut asphalt paving back 12" frm removed
gutters; and install match up paving.
d. Cut back tree branches hanging over the alley along the northerly property line.
e. Remove and replace damaged concrete swale in alley and repave each side of swale
after utilities installed.
15. The applicant and/or developer shall move the Edison power pole on Lot 2 if Southern
California Edison concludes that the proposed driveway for Lot 2 will conflict with the
existing pole's location.
16. Submit a soils report and hydrology study prepared by a California registered civil engineer.
17. Show all easements on the Final Tract Map.
18. Do not show building footprints on the Final Tract Map.
19. Prior to final map approval,plans for all required street improvements shall be submitted to
and approved by the City.
20. Dedicate vehicular access right directly to De Berry Street for all lots fronting directly onto
that street,Lots 3 through Lot 15.
21. Prior to the final map approval,the developer shall submit sewer plans to the City for review
and approval. All residential units within the proposed subdivision shall be served by the
public sewer system.
22. Prior to final map approval, grading and drainage plans,which must be approved prior to the
final map,shall be submitted to the City to provide for contributory drainage from adjoining
properties and including dedication of necessary easements.
23. Prior to final map approval,plans and specifications for the water system facilities shall be
submitted for approval to the Riverside Highland Water Company. The subdivider shall
submit an agreement and other evidence, satisfactory to the City, indicating that the
subdivider has entered into a contract a contract with the water purveyor guaranteeing
payment and installation of the water improvements.
24. Prior to the final map approval,there shall also be filed with the City Engineer,a statement
from the water purveyor indicating subdivider compliance with the Fire Chief s fire flow
requirements.
Conditions After the Final Map Approval:
25. Final map shall be filed with the County recorder and one(1)Mylar copy of the filed map
shall be submitted to the City offices prior to the issuance of any building permits.
Conditions Prior to Grading:
26. Comply with all N.P.D.E.S.requirements.
27. Comply with W.Q.M.P.requirements.
PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council ofthe City of Grand Terrace,California at a regular
meeting held on the 10`h day of November,2005.
ATTEST:
City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace and Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace and
of the City Council thereof of the City Council thereof
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
John Harper
c:\MyFiles\JOHN\Kadar\\TTM-04-04resolution.council.rev
L
Council Minutes ( 4
November 10,2005-
`Eage;4
the equipment and tree trimming that was going on at City Hall on the same day as Election
Day and suggested using better planning next time. He suggested that when the homes are
demolished on Barton Road that the entire lot be cleared so that people can't congregate.
Mavor Pro Tern Cortes, reported that SANBAG Board of Directors voted and approved to
receive proposals from contractors for the management of the signal synchronization. Two
will be chosen because it is two tier. The first tier is the I10 Signal lights and the second tier
is the major cities signals. They are hoping to begin the project in spring and that it will be
completed six months after that. There will be a total of 600 signal lights. She stated that
there was an incident on De Berry and Stonewood and requested a report on what happened.
Lt.Hector Guerra. San Bernardino Countv Sheriff s Department,reported that over the past
few weeks they have seen more of a problem with graffiti. He stated that approximately 20
individuals ranging in age of 12 years to the early 20's that live in town have been hanging
around in the commercial areas. While the Deputies were making their efforts to get them
to stop hanging out in the commercial areas they resorted to the residential areas. On Sunday
they went out in force and created.a lot of havoc in the neighborhoods. After investigating
and input from residents they were able to make approximately half a dozen arrests. He
indicated that those in the group are responsible for most of the graffiti that has been done v4
in town. He stated that_the information that was provided by local residents helped
:F
tremendously.
Citv Manager Tom Schwab, stated that the City received a request from the Department to
tear down the three empty homes on Barton Road and that in turn staff has requested the
Developer to do so. He feels that this will help in eliminating the problem.
Mavor Pro Tem Cortes,stated that she appreciates the work of the Sheriff's Department. She
stated that Ed O'Neal was a long time resident and volunteer and gave the funeral
arrangement information.
PUBLIC HEARING,
--
;Mayor Pro rTem,,recused:..he`rself_�from�.-this item and turned the--meetin r to -'
C,ouncilmember:Hilkey.
6A �A Resolution Approving:Tentative Tract Map No 04`O 1 (TTM 15624)_for a I S LTmt
µSingleF h Operi mity o
sdentalDpm oneRe amly
Grand-Terrace, California,
!n Ordinance Approving Specific Plan No. 04-02 (SP-04-02) for a Lot Subdivision
An
y with 15 Single Family Detached Units and One Open Space Lot on a Two Acre Site
Located on the North Side of De Berry Street Between the Gage Canal on the West
Council Minutes
November 10, 1005
Page 5
and Mt. Vernon on the East and Environmental Review Case No. 04-01 (E-04-01)-
Mitigated Negative Declaration as Provided by the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA)
John Lampe. Associate Planner, reported that this project was continued from the City
Council meeting of October 13, 2005. The motion to continue the matter directed staff to
ask the developer to consider lowering the number of units proposed to allow for an off-street
parking area which would be gated to restrict its use for the guests and visitors of the
proposed development. The staff was also directed to ask the developer to consider a Home
Owners' Association, "HOA," and to determine who the owner of the 20 foot alley-way
along the northerly property line. Staff met with the developer and his engineer following
the public hearing on October 13`h. The developer felt that reducing the number of units and
providing off-street parking would not solve the problem of providing for guest parking for
the new development. He felt that the restriction of such an off-street parking lot solely for
use by guests would be very difficult to control and would not solve the problem of guest
parking along De Berry. He suggested that a better solution would be to post the north side
of DeBerry Kith a 3-hour parking limit which would discourage parking from the apartment
complex but would also provide for guest parking for the new proposed 15 unit project. The
developer also felt that an"HOA" would not be practical for such relatively small project,
especially since there will be no common areas that will need to be controlled or maintained.
In addition,regarding the issue of landscape maintenance along DeBerry,Section 18.73.210
(B) of the Municipal Code presently contains provisions that require the individual
homeowner to maintain their front yard landscaping. Finally, the developer's engineer
provided Staff with a copy of the Tract Map No. 6551 recorded in 1963. This map allowed
for the subdivision of the area to the immediate north of the subject site and included the 20-
foot alley-ways. The notations on the recorded map clearly indicate that the alleys were
dedicated as part of the public-right-of-way. It is clear from reviewing the recorded tract map
that the City"owns" the alley-ways. The Planning Commission and Staff recommend for
approval the Ordinance for the Adoption of the Specific Plan No. 04-02 and the Resolution
of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 04-01.
Councilmember Miller.stated that each Councilmember has had the opportunity to speak to
the developer and that he would like to be reassured that the items that they talked about will
be implemented.
Councilmember Garcia, questioned what the space is between the park and the first house.
Community and Economic Developer Director Koontz. responded that there is no space.
There is the house with the side-yard set-back and then the lot. It is either part of the open
space lot or part of the residential lot.
Counciimen,ber Garcia. cuestioned if it will l a,e a fence between residential lot and the
Council Minutes (-
s;
November 10,2005
Page 6
park.
Community and Economic Develonment Director Koontz,responded that there will be some
type of fence or wall along the property line.
Councilmember Garcia, questioned the North property line.
Community and Economic Develonment Director Koontz, stated at this point there is no
plans.
Councilmember Garcia, questioned if lighting deters criminal activity.
Lt. Guerra,responded that it can't hurt.
Councilmember Garcia,stated that in the future the City may want to look at cull-de-sacs in
the City and see what the lighting situations are.
Councilmember Miller, questioned what can be done to place street lights along this alley
way as part of the approval.
Communitv and Economic Develonment Director Koontz, responded that there are some
lights along the alley-way. Council can condition the project to have staff double check the
visibility of the street lights and improve the situation.
Councilmember Hilkev, questioned if the street lights are in the alley.
Community and Economic Develonment Director Koontz, stated that there are some street
lights attached to the power poles along the alley.
Citv Manauer Schwab,stated that Council can condition the project to have motion censored
lighting on every garage in the back.
Councilmember Hilkev. questioned if the lighting could have some sort of circuit that
couldn't be turned off.
Communitv and Economic Develonment Director Koontz,, would like the applicant to
respond to the lighting circuit. A condition can be added to take special care and emphasis
on security lighting in the alley and to have staff work with the applicant to figure out the
best way to do that.
brought re u e
✓'-� Councilmember Hilkev., stated that there were some concerns that were g p that h f.
hasn't heard addressed.
Council Minutes
November 10,2005
Page 7
Community and Economic Development Director Koontz, stated that he thought staff had
addressed the concerns.
Councilmember Hilkev. stated that they were going to widen the parking so that each house
would have a pad for parking.
Community and Economic Development Director Koontz.stated that it was discussed during
the presentation. That would be included in the CC&R's the provision that they would be
allowed at their own discretion to add another parking space next to the garage.
Councilmember Hilkev, stated that there will be CC&R's one will let them know that there
is a parking issue, so when they buy the house they will know that there is a parking issue
and two they are allowed to install a parking stall if they choose to if not they will have a
compound parking issue.
Community and Economic Development Director Koontz,responded in the affirmative. He
stated that they want that in the CC&R's because the City has to approve the CC&R's before
the map is recorded.
Councilmember Miller. he feels that having the pad in the back will help with the parking
situation. He is not supportive of limiting the parking to 3-hours on DeBerry.
Jason Karaer, 19236 Dandelion Court,stated that at the conclusion of the last meeting there
were basically three items of concerns. First being the alley-way, which was determined to
be owned by the City. The second being the parking issue. It will be included in the
CC&R's that it is a public street and that anyone can park on the street and also they will
offer as an option that they can add additional parking spaces in the rear of the property.
Thirdly was lighting. There is lighting on the poles and behind on the duplexes. On the back
of each house there will be two coach lights. It is possible to place the lights on a different
circuit,however,what is to prevent someone from unscrewing the light bulbs. He feels that
the HOA issue was addressed in the fact that there is no common area.
Councilmember Garcia.she stated that she prefers motion lights and questioned if they could
be motion.
Jason Kamer. stated that it's not the wiring it's the actual fixture. He stated that there are
two things that people don't like about motion lighting and that is when dogs or cats walk
by it triggers and that motion detectors can go out over time.
Councilnember Nli ller. questioned if there are vehicles parked in the alley-way will it be the
code enforcen.ent officer's responsibility to enforce the parking.
Council Minutes
November 10,2005
Page 8
Citv Manager Schwab, responded that it would more than likely be a deputy. The alley is
only 20 feet wide and if someone parks in the alley they are actually parking in the travel
lane.
Councilmember Hilkev. questioned who the existing lights belong to.
City Manager Schwab. responded that the lights belong to Edison and that the City should
pay the bill.
Councilmember Hilkev,expressed his concern about the parking issue with the owner having
the option of having an extra pad for parking and having them pay for it.
Jason Kamer,really feels that the parking won't be as big of a problem that Council feels that
it will be. He stated that the CC&R's will require that the homeowners park in their garages.
Councilmember Hilkev. questioned if we can include lighting in the CC&R's.
Community and Economic Development Director Koontz,,stated that anything can be in the
i
CC&R's.
/ Councilmember Garcia, questioned if the City can do anything if the homeowner doesn't
comply with the CC&R's.
Citv Attorney John Hamer,responded that it depends on how they are drafted,under normal
circumstances no.
other built
Community and Economic Developmen Di�e the Sheriffls Department to seector Koontz. ted that there eif there are
out alleys in the City and suggested talkingo
problems with crime in those areas.
Lt. Guerra, responded in the negative.
Councilmember Hilkey opened discussion to the Public, there being none he returned
discussion to the Council.
Councilmember Miller,stated that there are CC m sure that the homeowner having an
include
parking regulations in the
newer developments. He stated that he wants o make
option to build a slab for extra parking is not an opportunity for the developer to make more
money. He feels that the developer has worked with the City to address the issues. He feels
that lighting should be added to the CC&R's.
CC-2005-125 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER.SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER `;
_f Council Minutes
November 10,2005
Page 9
GARCIA, CARRIED 3-0-1-1 (MAYOR FERRE WAS ABSENT AND MAYOR
PRO TEM CORTES ABSTAINED), to approve a Resolution Approving Tentative
Tract Map No. 04-01 (TTM 16624) for a 15 Unit Single Family Residential
Development with one Open Space Lot in the City of Grand Terrace, California and
the first reading of an Ordinance Approving Specific Plan No. 04-02(SP-04-02)for
a Lot Subdivision with 15 Single Family Detached Units and One Open Space Lot
on a Two Acre Site Located on the North Side of De Berry Street Between the Gage
Canal on the West and Mt. Vernon on the East and Environmental Review Case No.
04-01 (E-04-01) - Mitigated Negative Declaration as Provided by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) with the understanding that Staff will also
include lighting in the CC&R's.
Councilmember Hilkey returned the meeting to Mayor Pro Tern Cortes.
6B City Wide User Fee and Rate Study
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, California,
Amending Title 4 of the Municipal Code and Establishing User Fees
Assistant City Manager Berry,CBIZ Accounting,Tax and Advisory of Orange County,LLC
(CBIZ)was engaged by the City of Grand Terrace to prepare a comprehensive City wide user
fee and rate study. The Rate Study document represents the results of the study and the
recommended user fee increases,decreases,additions and deletions per staff. The objective
of this project was to prepare a comprehensive City wide user fee and rate study that will
identify all costs associated with providing specific services. The last time a full study was
done and increases were enacted by the council was August 1993. It is Staff s
recommendation to adopt an Ordinance amending title 4 of the Municipal Code and
Recommended Increases, Decreases,Additions, and Deletions of Selected User Fees.
Councilmember Miller, questioned if the study was compared to other cities.
Carol Jacobs. 2301 Dupont Drive, Irvine, responded no and explained that a fee study
comparison is good information to have,however,how cities calculate fees can vary widely
so it's not a good gage to use when looking at fees and the cost to do business in Grand
Terrace.
Assistant Citv Manager Berry,stated that Staff has put together a cost analysis with the most
comparison data available from other cities. Grand Terrace has the lowest user fees in the
area.
Councilmember Miller. questioned how they came up with the fees.
Carol Jacobs,responded that there are a number of componei its ti-,ai are Used. 7'rsu they look