11/18/1985 12-8.1046
GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 18, 1985
The adjourned regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission
was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton
Road, Grand Terrace, CA 92324 on November 18, 1985, at 7:00 p.m. by
Chairman Caouette.
PRESENT: Norman Caouette, Chairman
Jerry Hawkinson, Vice-Chairman
Gerald Cole, Commissioner
Vern Andress, Commissioner
Ray Munson, Commissioner
Sandy Collins, Commissioner
John McDowell, Commissioner
Alex Estrada, Planning Director
Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney
Lynn Halligan, Planning Secretary
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE: Led by Commissioner Cole
I. MINUTES
Commissioner McDowell was very grateful and complemented the Staff on
the minutes, many things were covered in the meeting and he could not
find any mistakes.
A. Minutes of October 21, 1985, Planning Commission Meeting.
PCM 85-115 Motion by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson
and seconded by Commissioner Andress
and passed by a 6-0 vote, to approve
the minutes of October 21, 1985, as
submitted.
II. NEW BUSINESS
I
A. Site and Architectural Review SA 85-8, for Specific Plan/
Conditional Use Permit 85-8, Mt. Vernon Villas apartment units,
located north of Barton Road between Mt. Vernon and the Gage
Canal. The applicant is Forest City Dillon.
Chairman Caouette moved to Item No. 2, which was the SA 85-8,
and asked staff to give their comments.
Mr. Alex Estrada, Planning Director, presented the Staff Report.
As mentioned in the Staff report, this Specific Plan and
Conditional Use Permit was denied originally by the Planning
Commission, McMillin Company appealed the decision to the
City Council and the City Council approved the Specific Plan
conditioned upon 12.75 units per acre with a bonus density
of 3 units per acre for Senior Citizens. The applicant has now
submitted his Site & Architectural Review to the Planning
Commission, as you note, the Owner/Applicant at this time is
Forest City Dillon. They are in the process of acquiring this
property and in essence will be developing this project.
However, Mr. Trevino is also involved with some of the site
planning. Mr. Trevino and Ms. Carol Tanner, representing
Forest City Dillon, are in the audience to answer any
questions. If there are any particular questions that you
would like to ask at this time, maybe the applicant can
address them or, if you have any questions of myself, I
would be more than happy to answer them at this time.
Chairman Caouette asked Mr. Estrada, if the Planning
Commission was to approve 1 of 3 alternatives for parking.
Planning Director Estrada responded by stating that the
Zoning Ordinance requires one parking space be enclosed on
three sides. In reviewing past minutes of this project and
other projects, 3 sides is almost meant as a garage without
a door. However, the Site plan that was included in the
Specific Plan that was appealed to the City Council only
showed the 2 sides and it was approved on that condition.
However, in reviewing the Ordinance, the Planning Director
does have the authority to add additional guidelines to
the parking or other areas within the plans. Rather than
make that decision myself, I would like the Commission to
review these alternatives and give me your recommendations.
Chairman Caouette noted in the Staff Report that the applicant
had not yet provided a layout for auxilliary buildings where
the washers/dryers and so forth were to be housed. He asked
the Planning Director if he knew the number of washers and
dryers proposed or required for a project of this size.
Planning Director Estrada did not know the number they were
P.C. Minutes
11-18-85
Page 2
proposing and referred this question to the applicant.
Chairman Caouette asked if there were any other questions of
staff. Since there were none, he asked the applicant or his
representative to address the Commission.
Mr. Al Trevino - 1015 Madison Place, Laguna Beach, CA. addressed
the Planning Commission.
This was the identical plan that was presented to you several
weeks ago at your study session. And it conforms with the
overall specific plan that was approved by City Council, if
there are any questions, I would be happy to answer them. The
one question that you raised regarding washer/dryers, I don't
believe that there were any set numbers that apply to apartments.
Our intent in the building design was to provide space within
each building, in addition, we would provide washer/dryer
facilities in the central building facilities. The exact number
hasn't been determined.
Chairman Caouette asked if the intent was to eventually go
condominium with these units.
Mr. Trevino answered that under Tax Revenue Bonds, the lenders
require that a Condo Map be put on it, but again under the
Mortgage Revenue Bonds, they are committed as apartments for
a period of time.
Commissioner Munson inquired which plan was being considered
for approval, the exhibited plan or the hand-out in the
packets.
Planning Director Estrada responded by stating that originally,
the plan that was submitted was the plan you see up there.
However, that shows 264 units and it shows the Edison Property,
which is not a part of this project approval. The approval is
for 252 units and that's what you have in your plan. The plan
we are considering tonight is the plan that you have there. The
architect apparently did not have time to make the rendering
of that plan that you have there for display tonight. But, this
just gives you the overall concept of the plan that you have in
hand at this time.
Mr. Trevino indicated that it was identical in all respects,
except for the two buildings that were left off of this plan.
Mr. Trevino pointed out the buildings that were not included
in the Commissioners plans.
Commissioner McDowell asked how the Senior Citizens were going
to be designated.
P.C. Minutes
11-18-85
Page 3
Mr. Trevino had not determined that designation. They would
like to separate some of the buildings so that they are in a
quiet area and not mixed with family units. However, the
courts have not looked favorably upon people doing that
because people have a free choice to choose wherever they
care to live, so this is a very sensitive issue at this time.
Chairman Caouette asked Mr. Trevino if the carports proposed
included any kind of storage for the things that go along with
automobiles.
Mr. Trevino indicated that they were going to provide storage
adjacent to the unit. In lieu of providing them in the
carport, it's more protectable. We do have the storage area
adjacent to each unit next to the washer/dryer and hot water
heater area. Equivalent area that you would get in some of the
parking areas but, they have found that people will tend to
store combustible materials, etc. in the carport, which
becomes a fire hazard, plus the policing becomes an insur—
mountable problem.
Chairman Caouette asked what the square footage would be for
these units.
Mr. Trevino indicated that the two bedroom master bedroom
suite is approximately 909 square feet. The average square
footage for each unit will be approximately 870 square feet,
the one bedroom unit will be approximately 606 square feet.
Commissioner Andress asked about that Edison Property that
they are proposing to improve. What is the plan for
maintaining this property.
Mr. Trevino indicated that this Edison property was not
included in this submittal. Those additions were considered
minor additions to the Specific Plan and the interpretation
was that it would be a major addition to the Specific Plan
and we would have to go through public hearings, etc. to
include that as part of the Specific Plan. So at this time,
we are not including the Edison property as part of this plan.
Commissioner McDowell wanted to know what were the proposed
project boundaries.
Mr. Trevino indicated that there is a drainage swale that
runs through, it's a concrete lined swale constructed and
that's the boundary line. The large Edison Tower happens to
be located in this area and this small triangle is City
property. Our intent to try and resolve that whole section
P.C. Minutes
11-18-85
Page 4
in our original presentation.
Commissioner Munson asked Mr. Trevino if he had substantial
evidence that carports are safer. Do you have any sub-
stantiating evidence.
Mr. Trevino indicated that he did not say that at all, he
said from a design standpoint that in a site like this in a
rental apartment, that you get a greater feeling of open space
from the standpoint of safety, fire, only I was referring to
that we felt that based on the experience that some very
major developers have, like the Irvine Co. , Mission Viejo Co. ,
who build 2-3,000 of these a year, have come to a conclusion
that carports present a better solution than garages.
Commissioner Munson asked Mr. Trevino what evidence he had to
support this theory.
Mr. Trevino stated that the major developers have done
extensive studies.
Commissioner Munson replied, to me a carport is cheap.
Mr. Trevino indicated the only argument that one can present
is that in the Newport Beach area for instance, which has
the highest per capita income almost in the nation, these
people do use carports and these are rentals that go from
$800 to $1400 a month for a one bedroom or two bedroom.
When you say it's cheap I think that I really don't know
what you mean by cheap, because a carport from a visual
standpoint allows the space to continue, it allows people
to not be pinned in and to walk more freely through the
site. I think much of this is a matter of taste. I
think your view is probably very defensible, I think that
the view of major developers can be defensible. I don't
think there is right or wrong in this particular case.
Commissioner Munson asked Mr. Trevino what would you say
if as a condition of approval, garages were required.
Mr. Trevino replied that I think the Ordinance is very clear
that the structure is to be enclosed on 3 sides, it doesn't
say how it's to be enclosed, it doesn't specify individual
unit, and I think the Attorney would be the one that would
have to make a judgement.
Vice-Chairman Hawkinson asked Mr. Trevino if he had a Phasing
Plan for this project.
Mr. Trevino replied that no, there are several aspects that we
P.C. Minutes
11-18-85
Page 5
have to contend with, such as the crossing of the Gage Canal.
In our discussions with the City, they feel very confident
that this will be resolved before occupancy is granted on any
of these units. But, let's assume the worst conditions, that
there is a stretch out in the crossing of the Gage Canal and I
think we would have to reconsider the phasing and put in a
temporary access to allow emergency vehicles in and out of the
development. But at this time, our plans call for the crossing
of the Gage Canal.
Commissioner McDowell- As far as I can see the Planning
Director's position about C on Page 5 is solved by the Ordinance
is that right Mr. Estrada.
Planning Director Estrada replied yes, if those are the wishes
of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner McDowell asked do we have to concur or what?
Planning Director Estrada - Well sir, on Item # 1, as I
mentioned the carport type of parking was part of the Specific
Plan that was approved by the City Council. What I am saying,
as Planning Director, is that according to the Ordinance, I have
the authority to include additional guidelines for circulation
or parking facilities etc. What I am asking the Planning
Commission tonight, is to determine what type of parking
structure they would like to see in this development. The
Commissioner must select one of three different parking
structure alternatives.
Commissioner McDowell asked are we supposed to take a vote
of approval?
Mr. Estrada responded I would like to see the Commission
vote on each of these items separately as a separate motion.
Chairman Caouette- If we were to take no action on the Parking,
wouldn't the parking proposal in the plan become the approved
parking? In other words, if we do nothing wouldn't it stay
as just the covered parking as proposed?
Mr. Estrada- Yes it would stay as two sided parking, as per
the Specific Plan.
Commissioner McDowell replied somewhere along during this meeting
we must take that up separately and vote on it, is that correct.
Mr. Estrada responded that is correct.
Commissioner Cole - On this parking situation, what we have
P.C. Minutes
11-18-85
Page 6
now is covered parking with 2 sides enclosed. Is that
correct?
Planning Director Estrada responded that's correct. There is
a parking typical section in your plans that indicates two
sides.
Commissioner Collins asked what is determined by Planning
Department as enclosed on 3 sides? Does that mean you don't
have to have a garage door?
Planning Director Estrada responded the Zoning Ordinance states
one parking space shall be enclosed on 3 sides and shall be
a minimum of 10' by 20' and that could mean, and maybe the
City Attorney can help me out on that, interpreted as carport
with 3 sides or an individual parking space with 3 sides.
Commissioner Collins apparently you don't consider it a one
car garage.
Mr. Estrada - I would not, but maybe the City Attorney can
help me out on that because that's a little vague in the
Ordinance.
Mr. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney- One car garages would
certainly fall in that category, but the proposed carport is
less than a one car garage.
Chairman Caouette- Because it has no door?
Mr. Hopkins, responded a garage would have four sides.
Chairman Caouette- We could specifically condition it for
one car garages.
Commissioner Andress stated at the present time, just so I
understand correctly, we are talking about these carports
being each one having 3 sides covered. The back, two sides
and a roof? Is that true Mr. Trevino?
Mr. Trevino replied right now we are talking about a carport
and the ends of the carports are covered.
Commissioner Andress - Okay, so what are you saying?
Mr. Trevino- The front and the back of a carport would be
open, this is what was approved by the City Council in the
Specific Plan.
Commissioner Andress- So there would be covering on the one
P.C. Minutes
11-18-85
Page 7
wall and 6 - 10 parking spaces and another covering on the
other wall, nothing in back and nothing in front, but only
a roof.
Mr. Trevino- Indicated it would have a roof.
Vice-Chairman Hawkinson asked, In other words for the sake
of clarity, what you are saying is the roof is considered
one of the 3 sides. Is that correct?
Mr. Trevino indicated, As Mr. Estrada said the Ordinance is
not really clear on this, we propose to enclose one side
with shrubbery and landscaping. We prefer to do it with
landscape, so from a structural standpoint, 2 sides would be
enclosed with materials from a structural standpoint. It
is our intention to have a low hedge, which would cover the
main part of the car. We prefer to do it as a landscape
feature rather than as a structural feature.
Commissioner Andress- Mr. Chairman let me ask Ivan, were you
present at the City Council meeting when this was approved
and is it your understanding that what they approved was a
wall made out of shrubbery on one side nothing in the back,
10 or whatever parking spaced down, another shrubbery wall
and a roof, is that what they approved?
Mr. Hopkins- No, I don't think the Council looked at the
proposed parking. That may have been what Al invisioned
and certainly the City Council approved a Specific Plan, they
did not approve a Site and Architectural Plan, which is before
this body. This body will hve to approve that and I see no
problem with you doing exactly as he has indicated if you
wish to waive the 3rd side in favor of shrubbery or whatever,
I think you certainly may. But, I think it will take a
specific action on your part. The Council did not approve a
Site and Architectural Plan. Whether or not he spoke to
that in the Specific Plan, I really can't tell you, if he did,
the City Council was not aware of it.
Commissioner Andress- It's feasible then that somewhere down
the line because of lack of watering what started out as 2
sides, no longer exists as 2 sides and we have a completely
open parking area with a roof over it, because the schrubbery
is dying, is that correct?
Mr. Hopkins- I've lived in a lot of apartments, and I think
that's probably what will happen, but, I am not an expert.
Commissioner Andress- Mr. Trevino are you proposing 252 units?
P.C. Minutes
11-18-85
Page 8
Mr. Trevino- Is that the correct number Mr. Estrada?
Mr. Estrada -Yes.
Mr. Trevino- Do we have guidelines for how many guest parking
spaces are to be provided, a ratio or something?
Mr. Hopkins- Yes sir. It's in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Estrada- According to the Zoning Ordinance Guest Parking
shall be required, but shall not be enclosed, and shall be
labeled guest parking. The number of spaces is to be
approved by the Planning Commission, that's for your
apartments and condominiums, etc. They do not give any
specific's on guest parking spaces, as a guide, under the
PUD District, 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit are required,
plus guest parking shall be provided at the ratio of 1 for
every 4 dwelling units so that can give you a guideline.
However, that's under the PUD Zoning District, the applicant
has proposed 31 guest parking spaces for this project, if the
Commission feels there is a necessity for additional parking
then they have every right to add additional parking spaces
as a requirement.
Commissioner McDowell- As I figure this out, there would be 252
parking spaces to set up for the tenants, then there would be
63 if you have one to four guest parking, not 31.
Mr. Estrada replied yes if this ratio is used.
Commissioner McDowell - What ratio are we using?
Mr. Estrada stated there is no set standard on the number of
guest parking spaces under the R-3 Zoning District that, shall
be determined by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Andress realized the proposal that is before us
would be 1 for every 8 units.
Mr. Estrada answered yes, 1 for every 8 units, that's correct.
Commissioner Andress- The guidelines that you read us, which
are not mandatory or binding, is 1 to 4.
Mr. Estrada- That's correct.
Commissioner Andress - Mr. Trevino, you are proposing 252
units how many people are going to live in each of those units?
Mr. Trevino - 1.5 person average per unit. Because there
P.C. Minutes
11-18-85
Page 9
are many one bedroom units, approximately 30% one bedroom.
Commissioner Andress - Where are you going to park all these
people on X-Mas or Thanksgiving when all their guests arrive?
Mr. Trevino - Let me just clarify a couple of things,
one, the standard guidelines that were read to you are for
Planned Unit Development, which are primarily single family
units, larger units, family type units. Under the Zoning
for apartments, there are no guidelines. It's at the discretion
of the Planning Commission. In other communities, the ratio
for seniors is 1 space per unit.
Commissioner McDowell- Well, do I understand that there are 2
parking spaces for every regular apartment?
Mr. Trevino - Yes.
Commissioner McDowell- 504 spaces of parking regularly assigned
to somebody, then you have 31 guest parking spaces.
Mr. Trevino - 32 spaces.
Mr. Trevino- In most cities, they allow X % of the units to
be compact parking. In this particular Ordinance all stalls
are the same.
Commissioner Cole- Do we allow for compact stalls?
Mr. Hopkins, City Attorney- Referencing most cities does not
have any bearing in our City. We only recognize what we
recognize and the fact that Newport Beach has the highest per
capita income in the United States has absolutely no bearing
on us. They may have a beautiful ordinance, but it really
is not applicable to us.
Commissioner Collins- What type of roof material and siding
is being proposed?
Mr. Trevino- We are using concrete tile on all pitch roofs and
the siding is stucco.
Chairman Caouette- Condition 7 and 8 on Conditions of Approval
refer to acquiring access across the Canal and Number 7 says
prior to the issuance of a building permit, legal access
shall be provided across Gage Canal to the satisfaction of the
City, my question would be to the City Attorney what
constitutes legal access?
Mr. Hopkins - If we have a right to go across Gage Canal, that
P.C. Minutes
11-18-85
Page 10
would certainly constitute legal access. We do not at this
time have it, we are in the process of negotiating with the
City of Riverside and with the Gage Canal Company to acquire
that right. The Gage Canal and the City of Riverside have
not been amenable to granting that access to the developer
and when it is acquired it will be through the City and the
developer is really at the total pleasure of the City and of
the other two parties. We would recommend that the City
assess that cost to the developer and others in a similar
position. But, at this time, we do not know what it will cost.
And it is probably an impossible condition for the developer to
meet unless he has an unlimited supply of money of which to
buy the access.
Chairman Caouette- The way that this condition is worded it
simply means to have a legal right to cross. It makes no
reference to actually building the access across the Canal.
The question that there is a condition that follows Number 8,
it says access across the Gage Canal from this site shall be
construction in the manner approved by the City Engineer and
the Gage Canal Company. There is a reference to time in
Condition No. 7 about having legal access, which is only
paper, but there is no reference to time when the actual
street has to be built.
Mr. Hopkins- That particular condition could be satisfied
through a covenant that would be a requirement of the
project. We do not have any conditions yet to build across,
although the Gage Canal and the City of Riverside have
conditions to protect the structural integrity of the Canal
and the crossings. The developer would have to build in
accordance with these specifications that will be laid out
by the City Engineer of Grand Terrace, the City Engineer
of the City of Riverside and the Gage Canal Engineer in
agreement between the three (3) of them. I think that there
probably would be no disagreement from a developer, he
understands generally the significance of that requirement
and the costs.
Commissioner Cole - Could we make a condition that within a
certain period of time, after achieving the right to put
the crossing, that the crossing be constructed?
Mr. Hopkins - I think you could. One of the problems we have
is that the Gage Canal and the City of Riverside are wanting
to require an access road that would traverse and parallel
the Canal on the east side. It would then obviously put us in
the position of litigating unless we are unable to convince
the City of Riverside and Gage Canal to drop that requirement.
As the City Attorney, I have no particular preference whether
P.C. Minutes
11-18-85
Page 11
or not there is a road that parallels the Canal on the East side.
Other than I would prefer not to have to litigate over simply
a construction of a road. As far as I am concerned, I am
willing to concede the point that there would be a road. Now,
whether that is the best method or not, it what you have to
consider and then that particular issue, but, you should decide
that issue rather than I as the City Attorney. That condition
has some meaning to you, but not to me as the City Attorney,
because I'm simply charged with the issue to get across the
Canal, not to parallel the Canal.
Chairman Caouette - If we approve this plan the way it is today,
and the Canal Company denies more than one access and then it
follows that a frontage road has to be put in, it will become the
burden of the City to litigate and not the property owner.
Mr. Hopkins - Certainly, I assume the City Council will approve
passing on the costs of litigation onto the developer, however,
that is a policy matter. They simply tell me to proceed or not
to proceed on litigation. At this stage, I would suspect that
we should put on some general condition of approval. They have
asked that we parallel the Gage Canal on the East side, they
have declined to have any uses mainly of the jogging and bicycle
variety over the Canal property itself. They have agreed to
landscaping subject to their general provisions and conditions.
And, as to the enlargement of the Canal Street itself, they
are probably generally amiable to that, but the conditions have
not yet been set forth.
Chairman Caouette - If we were to approve the plan as it is today,
the final solution was that there had to be frontage road, this
plan would change substantially, for example where we have
parking, we would have frontage road. Would the property owner
have to come back with the new plan to rectify that situation.
Mr. Hopkins - Yes Sir.
Mr. Trevino - The idea was to develop this road straight through,
there is nothing that says it has to be adjacent as long as it
parallels. This road happens to be under one ownership, the
intent is to connect this and to indeed parallel the Gage Canal,
so that you do get traffic distribution internally and then you
have minimum number of units going across the Gage Canal.
Mr. Hopkins - Mr. Trevino is probably correct, in that, if you
stop and analyze why the Gage Canal is interested in a parallel
road, it's simply to collect the traffic, so that they can have
one (1) point to cross over the Canal. They don't really care
about the traffic pattern in that area, that's your concern.
Their only concern is to collect the traffic to bring it to
P.C. Minutes
11-18-85
Page 12
one point to cross the Canal and so Mr. Trevino's point is
probably correct.
Chairman Caouette - So that in effect, the road, the driveway
that we have going through the project would become access
for adjoining properties to get onto Canal Street?
Mr. Hopkins - Yes.
Chairman Caouette - Do you have any language for dealing with
this particular situation?
Mr. Hopkins - I would make certain that the developement
encompass whatever agreement we arrive at with the Gage Canal
and with the City of Riverside. That obligation or a pro-rata
share of that obligation would be passed to this developer.
Commissioner McDowell- I am against the frontage road, because
it takes up so much space.
Mr. Hopkins - That is the greatest point of disagreement that
we have with the City of Riverside and the Gage Canal at this
time, which is the number of crossing points. One point of
crossing is not acceptable to us, we have indicated a minimum
of 3. I have not yet been told by anyone how many points of
crossing I should obtain. I have arbitrarily selected 3
with no sound reason for it, 1 doesn't seem reasonable and
20 seems unreasonable. Someplace in between is a more
reasonable figure and what that number is I don't know, the
City Engineer, Planning Commission and/or City Council,
someone is going to have to tell me what is a reasonable
number.
Commissioner Cole - Is that three (3) in addition to the
crossings that already exist?
Mr. Hopkins - No, the City of Riverside and the Gage Canal
do not want to continue any of those crossing, they are talk-
ing about one (1) crossing. The others are all under permit
and license and they would revoke the permits and licenses
or at least their preliminary proposal. If the City tells me
to get three (3), I will get (3), the fact that the City of
Riverside and or the Gage Canal drops the 3 licenses and
permits, is between them and the existing permittees or
licensees. I am not being paid by the permittees or
licensees to protect their interest. If the City wants to
retain all of them, then we are almost assured of going to
litigation, because the City of Riverside seems very adament
in eliminating individual licensees and permittees.
P.C. Minutes
11-18-85
Page 13
Commissioner Collins - Can I ask you to interpret the conditon
that says access across the Gage Canal from site shall be
construction in the manner approved by the City Engineer and
the Gage Canal Company. If the City Engineer says part of that
crossing requirement is to provide access for this triangular
lot through this property, across the Gage Canal, would that
be interpreted under this section?
Mr. Hopkins - I think they should include that triangular lot,
which is a residential lot. If you spend any money on me to
acquire it, it becomes a public right, because he no longer
has a private right it is a public right, and you will all
have a right at that stage. I can't acquire something for
you that becomes a private right, the fact that you spent
public monies makes it a public right. If the City of Grand
Terrace acquires them they are public. But, future owners may
acquire a private right and that would be private to them.
But, we can acquire rights to cross it, but they are public.
Commissioner Cole - I noticed that Mr. Trevino has noted a
future gate location right inside that passage. If we
acquire the right to cross the Gage Canal, will he have a
right to put a gate right inside the property line.
Mr. Hopkins - Inside his property line, but not over anything
we acquire. Although, there has been some recent decision
where the courts have become more lenient on that requirement.
They have allowed in some instances, public property to be
gated whereas, in the past they did not allow that at any
time.
Commissioner Munson - I would like to ask Mr. Estrada a question
about this so called inner collector street, for lack of a
better term, do you think 24 foot wide is wide enough for that
type of traffic, if we only have one access to get across the
Canal?
Mr. Hopkins - If you are asking me, I don't personally think
24 feet is wide enough for anything, and I don't think your
zoning, only if you look at all parts of it put together, allow
for that narrow of a street, I think that the minimum
requirements in any section, and you have to read them
collectively, are greater than 24 feet.
Chairman Caouette - Do you have any comment on that Mr. Estrada?
Mr. Estrada - Yes, I just wanted to comment that I read the
PUD that requires a 30' width road for circulation, then in
another section of the Zoning Ordinance it required a 24 foot
road width. Our main concern would he to see if these street
P.C. Minutes
11-18-85
Page 14
widths would be safe enough for the Fire Department to use for
future fires, or future circulation and that's one of the
conditions that we have the Fire Department review this to see
if this would meet with their standards for circulation.
Mr. Trevino - Just for clarification, normally one lane has a
capacity of about 1800 vehicles per day, depending on many
factors. But, normally in a residential street, it has a
capacity of 900 to 1200 vehicles per day peak hour. There is
no on-street parking under PUD's normal width for one lane.
Where the dimension of 24 feet comes from theoretically and
practically is for a car to back out and it takes 20 to 24
feet for that turning movement. But, from the standpoint of
carrying traffic 24 feet has ample capacity to handle all of the
traffic, since there is no on-street parking, everything is
off-street.
Chairman Caouette - I will open the public testimony on this
project, is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor or against
this project? If not, we will close the public hearing portion
of this and return it to the Commission for discussion.
Commissioner Munson- We had discussed a more attractive type
fencing than displayed on this map, unless I read it wrong.
I read concrete block walls, I just thought that some other
type of fencing had been discussed by Mr. Trevino. As I
understand it, your feeling is that it would be a 3 foot
fence with concrete railing or something else, another 4 feet,
maybe 3 or 4 feet, to give you a total of 6 foot fence, is
that correct?
Mr. Trevino - Yes, I think the Ordinance is fairly clear
that it requires a concrete block on the boundary line of
the property.
Commissioner Cole - Is that the decorative fence, the
combination of block and wrought iron, is that along Mt.
Vernon and Canal would have the 6 foot block wall. Is that
correct?
Mr. Trevino - Yes.
Commissioner Collins - The Conditions of Approval Number 9
states that Canal Street will be improved along the frontage
of the project. Will that include Canal Street along the
triangle?
Mr. Estrada - The way the requirement reads, it should go
along Canal Street along the project site and does not
P.C. Minutes
11-18-85
Page 15
include the Edison Property.
PCM 85-116 Motion by Commissioner Collins and
seconded by Commissioner Andress
and passed by a 6-1 vote, to change
Condition of Approval Number 9 to
read as follows: Canal Street shall
be improved to it's ultimate street
section including sidewalks along the
entire Canal Street frontage of the
project beginning from the Southern
most point of the project along
Canal Street frontage past the Edison
property around the bend."
Commissioner McDowell voted against
the motion.
PCM 85-117 Motion by Commissioner Collins and
seconded by Commissioner Andress and
passed by a 6-1 vote, to change
Condition of Approval Number 20 to
read as follows: "Mt. Vernon Avenue
shall be improved to it's ultimate
half-width street section including
sidewalks along the entire Mt. Vernon
frontage of the project area to the
intersection of Canal Street."
Commissioner McDowell voted against
the motion.
Commissioner Collins - The Specific Plan says there is absolutely
no impaction by putting 1800 more cars on Mt. Vernon. Obviously,
there is impaction. I think we had finally drug it out of people
somewhere along the line in our discussions, that it takes Mt.
Vernon from Level A to Level C. Those traffic signals at an
intersection probably will cost the City somewhere in the
neighborhood of anywhere from $100,000 to $200,000.
Vice-Chairman Hawkinson- This body was talking in terms of an
Assessment District that would address all of these problems.
What is the present status of that particular action at this
point.
Mr. Hopkins - As far as I am aware, there is no present status
on it. The proposal that was presented to the City Council,
by the Developer, was determined not to be feasible.
Chairman Caouette - The original intent was to spread that share
P.C. Minutes
11-18-85
Page 16
out for Canal Street and Barton Road.
Vice-Chairman Hawkinson- We recognize that you are talking about
the development of the entire area, and if you do it on the
basis of this project, which is the first development in this
area, you are going to tag him with all of the costs, which is
not really fair to him. At the same time, if you let it slide
through you are not going to catch the other developments that
are going to take place subsequent to this. I think the mechanics
need to be worked out somehow to proportionately spread these
costs out over the entire area.
Mr. Hopkins - It is not that the Assessment District is not
feasible at this time, it was too many costs were loaded onto
it to make it a marketable project. Remember these are assessment
districts which are nothing more than a project that sells tax
exempt public bonds to finance a particular or series of particular
public improvements. The bonds are generally marketed on a not
to exceed 4 to 1 ratio. Where the bonds don't exceed 1/4 of the
total value, what is called the true value of the property. They
don't want to buy them, because there is not enough security on
the project.
Commissioner Cole - Is it possible to just make a signalization
fee and assessment based on his share of the property.
Mr. Hopkins - Yes it is, and if that exceeds what he feels is the
profitability of the project, then he simply doesn't proceed with
the project.
PCM 85-118 Motion by Commissioner Collins and
seconded by Commissioner Munson and
failed by a 5-2 vote, to add Condition of
Approval No. 34 that states: "The
Developer will provide traffic signals
in a manner approved by the City Engineer
at the intersection of Mt. Vernon Avenue
and Canal Street.
Commissioner Collins and Munson voted
in favor of the motion.
PCM 85-119 Motion by Commissioner McDowell and
seconded by Commissioner Hawkinson and
passed by a 7-0 vote, to add Condition
of Approval No. 34, which states: "That
the City institute proceedings for a
covenant which would embrace at least
2 signals, one at Mt. Vernon and Canal
Street and one at Canal Street and
P.C. Minutes
11-18-85
Page 17
Barton Road. The cost shall be based
under a percent prorata share to each
area, the covenant does not need any
advance money at this time, but it shall
run with the land when signals or other
improvements, not including parks, will
be required. These property owners will
be required to compensate the City for
the installation of these improvements.
Commissioner Andress- Mr. Chairman, I would like to come back
to these parking spaces. How many guest parking spaces are
we requiring?
Mr. Estrada - Presently, 31 parking spaces and I believe an
additional 32 parking spaces, for a total of 63, if we go by
the PUD ratio. The developer would have to put in another 32
parking spaces around the project site.
Commissioner Andress - I don't think it's our position to say
where those would have to go, that would be the architect's
job. At the present time, they will either be in the vacant
lot represented by the white triangle along Mt. Vernon or
along Gage.
Commissioner Collins- I believe the motion was that we would
have guest parking spaces at a ratio of 1-4. I believe that
is 63, not 65.
Commissioner Munson- I know we are asking for an awful lot. I
am just curious if they could take maybe 25% of the parking
spaces could be more for compact cars which would be 8 X 18
or some such number. But, maybe if we gave them some compact
spaces instead of standard spaces to help get in some more
stalls.
After some discussion among the Commissioners the following
motions were made:
PCM 85-120 Motion by Commissioner Andress and
seconded by Commissioner Munson and
approved by a 5-2 vote to add Condition
of Approval Number 35, which states:
"The Developer shall provide a ratio
of one guest parking space be allocated
for every 4 dwelling units proposed,
which would be a total of 63 guest
parking spaces."
PCM 85-121 Motion by Commissioner Munson and
P.C. Minutes
11-18-85
Page 18
seconded by Commissioner Cole and
approved by a 4-3 vote, to add Condition
of Approval Number 36, which states: "The
Developer shall set aside 25% or 78 of
the total open spaces for compact cars,
size to be determined by Staff."
Chairman Caouette, Vice-Chairman Hawkinson
and Commissioner McDowell voted against
the motion.
Commissioner Munson - In past considerations by this body, has the
Planning Commission felt that 3 sides, enclosed 3 sides automati-
cally was an enclosed garage. Because to me, that's the way I
feel about it, it's really a garage door.
Vice-Chairman Hawkinson - I think unless you have the addition of
the 4th side and the garage door, it's not really a garage.
Commissioner Munson- The projects I have seen on Mt. Vernon all
have enclosed garage doors.
Commissioner Cole - As I understand it you could have enclosed
on 3 sides, but you have one side the back, 20 spaces in there,
the other side and nothing in the front.
Commissioner Collins - The Zoning Code says that there be 2
parking spaces required for each dwelling unit, one parking space
shall be enclosed on 3 sides and shall be a minimum of 10' width
and 20' length. I don't know how anybody can interpret that to
say that you can have 20 of them side by side with nothing in
between.
Commissioner McDowell - I think we also have to think what has
happened before, we sent one of these up with garages on them
and it was turned down by the Council.
Commissioner Cole - I kind of think Commissioner McDowell mentioned
that we have been down this road before, when we made the condition
that it be an enclosed garage. By appeal, it went to City Council
and was rejected. I'm wondering if we aren't going to go down the
same road with this one.
Vice-Chairman Hawkinson- I quite vociferously disagree with most
of the opinions that I'm hearing right now. Because, it is my
understanding clearly that we have turned down the project
originally for the reasons that were spelled out on this report.
And, granted the City Council did subsequently overturn the
decision of this body, but, I think the garages vs. carports
is strictly something that should be addressed in the Site and
P.C. Minutes
11-18-85
Page 19
Architectural Plan. I think you are talking about an
architectural design. And, I think it has nothing whatsoever
to do with the original reasons that this plan was subsequently
passed over by the City Council. I would be very supportive of
the garages. I think that was the opinion of this body that
garages were appropriate in these apartment projects.
PCM 85-122 Motion by Commissioner Collins and
seconded by Commissioner Munson and
passed by a 7-0 vote, to add Condition
of Approval Number 37 which states:
"The Developer shall provide a completely
enclosed garage to meet the covered
parking requirements."
The following is a summary of parking spaces that the Planning
Commission approved at their November 18, 1985, Planning Commission
Meeting:
252 Enclosed Parking Spaces - Garages
171 Open Parking Spaces
63 Open Guest Parking Spaces
3 Handicapped Parking Spaces
78 Open Compact Parking Spaces
567 Total Parking Spaces
Commissioner Collins - I would like to move that based on the
original presentation of this project a denial was made by
this body based on inconsistencies of the Specific Plan. This
Specific Plan has not been resubmitted or updated, I move the
denial of this project on the findings of inconsistencies of the
Specific Plan.
Commissioner Munson- I will 2nd that, because there are some
things I would like to hear.
Vice-Chairman Hawkinson- I would like to know what specific
problems that you are having with this Specific Plan.
Commissioner Collins - I would be more than happy to tell you
that tonight. But, I left the hospital 10 min. to 7:00 and I
wasn't able to stop at my house and pick up the Specific Plan,
which has not been updated or resubmitted. The minutes of that
meeting specifies all the things that are wrong with it.
Vice-Chairman Hawkinson - Well, I would respond to that saying I
think that's largely the reason why the City Council overturned it
to begin with, because they didn't see the same flaws that we did.
I don't see anything that has basically changed. Personally, I
P.C. Minutes
11-18-85
Page 20
think it would not be right at all to hold up this project any
further unless there is some major objection that we can advance.
Mr. Hopkins - The Specific Plan, right or wrong, is not flawed
because the City Council made it unflawed by approving it. So, it
is the Specific Plan whether they should or should not have at
this point is not debateable. The developer has a vested right
to develope pursuant to the Specific Plan, you have only before
you Site and Architectural review pursuant to the quote unquote
unflawed Specific Plan.
Commissioner Collins - If the Specific Plan is unflawed I wish
somebody would explain to me why we have Condition #5.
Mr. Estrada - I can explain that Commissioner Collins, the reason
I have that in there is because I just wanted to make sure that
this Site and Architectural plan should be consistent with the
Specific Plan as approved by the City Council, by that I mean
the number of units, the exact plan as submittted to you in the
handouts, the circulation, etc. All I am saying is that it
should be consistent with the approved Specific Plan.
Mr. Hopkins - I am in some disagreement with Mr. Trevino, not
total disagreement, in what he feels was approved as the
Specific Plan. Because I don't think the Council looked at
everything, they gave some general overall requirements as to
density, but the Council never approved anything more. I am not
defending the Specific Plan, I am simply saying that the Council
approved it and therefore has their stamp of approval. You
can't overrule something that the City Council has done. They
have in fact approved the Specific Plan.
Chairman Caouette - So, it couldn't be denied because of the
Specific Plan it would have to be because of non-conformance
with the approved Specific Plan.
Mr. Hopkins - If that's what the motion says, Site and
Architectural Review does not comply with the Specific Plan,
it doesn't matter.
Commissioner Munson- For the sake of getting something moving,
I will withdraw my 2nd.
Chairman Caouette- The motion dies for lack of a 2nd. Mr.
Attorney earlier you indicated something that may be worthwhile
pursuing, is requiring participation in the pro-rata share for
access over the Canal.
Mr. Hopkins - That would be similar to the motion, that I think
was passed on the signal lights. That the Developer should
P.C. Minutes
11-18-85
Page 21
participate in a pro-rata share to be determined and should
enter into a covenant to participate with the costs to be
determined by the City Engineer of acquiring the access across
the Gage Canal.
PCM 85-123 Motion by Chairman Caouette and
seconded by Commissioner McDowell and
passed by a 7-0 vote, to add Condition
of Approval Number 38, which states:
"The Developer shall participate in
a pro-rata share of costs for acquiring
access across the Gage Canal, with the
costs to be determined by the City
Engineer.
Vice-Chairman Hawkinson- Just one question that I would ask,
do we need to do anything special on the School Impaction fees
relative to this, or is that covered.
Mr. Hopkins - They are already required to pay the School
Impaction fees. Although, while we speak on that subject, it
may be worthwhile just for your information, although it doesn't
affect this particular project, there is some ongoing discussion
of adopting a rule or regulation which would enable the City
Council for unusual circumstances and basically using the same
criteria as we use in the Zoning Ordinance for granting a
variance to waive school impaction fees. Generally, for single
unit development, not for large tract developments or multi-unit
developments. If there are unusual circumstances that I feel
that they should in-fact provide mechanisms to waive the fee
rather than the City to pay it from their purses into the
School District purses.
Chairman Caouette - One thing that I would like to point out
as we've moved along on this project. One thing we don't have
is the layouts for the auxilliary building that is noted. We are
requiring more parking spaces and where those are going to go
I am not sure. And we've also required garages, which would be
a new architectural element. And, there is also the possibility
that based on findings or recommendations by the County Fire
Department, the road width may also change within the project,
all of which just comes up to a sum total of significant changes.
PCM 85-124 Motion by Chairman Caouette and seconded
by Commissioner Andress, approved by a
6-1 vote, to add Condition of Approval
Number 39, which states: "Prior to
issuance of building permits, the appli-
cant shall provide a revised Site Plan
incorporating the auxilliary building
P.C. Minutes
11-18-85
Page 22
layout and architectural design, location
of all parking spaces, both covered and
uncovered architectural design for one
car garage facility and any road width
changes necessitated by comments by the
County Fire Department and it's Site Plan
shall be approved by the Planning
Commission."
Commissioner Munson voted against the
motion.
Commissioner Cole - If the applicant appeals to the City Council
and they overturn one or 5 of these conditions, the revised Site
Plan that we would then get back would reflect any conditions
that the City Council opts not to enforce.
Mr. Hopkins - That's correct.
PCM 85-125 Motion by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and
seconded by Commissioner Cole and passed
by a 5-2 vote, to approve Site and
Architectural Review Plan 85-8, subject
to all 39 Conditions of Approval that
were discussed and approved by the Planning
Commission."
Commissioner's Collins and Munson voted
against the motion.
Commissioner McDowell - Before we get out of hand, there are
several things here tonight that are different policy. I would
hope that the Planning Department will put into their units that
anybody else that is going to work in 10, 11, and 12, so that
they know in advance. They come into this meeting knowing that
they are going to have to do certain things, they are going to
have to be subject to the expenses of certain things, so that
they won't have to haggle over it two hours.
Vice-Chairman Hawkinson - We were talking about the feasibility
of some sort of standardized list that might be imposed as
sort of a shopping list or check -off list to all in commercial
project s. It seems to me like this might be the natural place
to start such a thing. We should set some sort of architectural
parameters maybe some sort of landscaping parameters and right on
down the line. And, maybe we should put that in some form of a
motion if that would help, what do you think?
Mr. Estrada - I think that would be helpful. In addressing the
problems that Commissioner McDowell brought up, anytime a
P.C. Minutes
11-18-85
Page 23
developer comes in with a Specific project we hand them over the
Uniform Application, all the forms, etc. And recommend that each
person wanting to develope a major project in the City, get or
acquire a copy of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning
Ordinance points out the different requirements and reading the
requirements for the City of Grand Terrace, sometimes that works
and sometimes that doesn't. Sometimes the Developer would like
to recommend or ask the Commission either waive or accept the plan
to accommodate that specific project and I cannot deprive them
requesting that to the Planning Commission. All I can do is
point out what the standard is from the City and give the
applicant an opportunity to make public his request to the
Planning Commission. I met with the Architect and we tried to
resolve as many problems as we could and have as close as
possible of final plan as we could for this Planning Commission
meeting. I hope this does not happen again, I hope to resolve
other problems for future projects and also give the Planning
Commission an opportunity to review the plans and enough time
to make wise decisions.
Vice-Chairman Hawkinson- Certainly, I wasn't suggesting at all
that the work that we have seen come from you since you have been
in your capacity was any less than top quality. What I was
suggesting was that it should be in the form of a recommendation
to the City Council, so that they form and Ad Hoc Committe to
standardize some of these things that we seem to be looking
for in some of these projects. We have certainly heard a lot
of criticism about how we are so nebulous on a lot of things,
maybe this would help bring some of these things down. I
would accordingly make a recommendation that the City Council
pursue some sort of a committee to set some standards.
Commissioner Collins - I would like to move that this body
direct the Planning Department that as a policy they will
notify by telephone each Planning Commissioner of the date and
time of an appeal that is going to be heard before the City
Council on any Planning Commission matter.
Vice-Chairman Hawkinson- Point of order here, there is another
motion that has been made, but it hasn't had a 2nd yet, but can
you add another motion before?
Chairman Caouette - There is another motion on the floor, would
you care to restate the motion please?
PCM 85-126 Motion by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and
seconded by Commissioner Andress and
passed by a 7-0 vote to recommend that
the City Council establish a Committee
to form planning standards for projects
P.C. Minutes
11-18-85
Page 24
that come before the Planning Commission
to facilitate the entire planning function.
Mr. Estrada - Vice-Chairman Hawkinson, we could include this item
on the December 12, 1985 City Council agenda.
PCM 85-127 Motion by Commissioner Collins and
seconded by Commissioner Andress and
passed by a 5-2 vote to establish a
Planning Department policy that when
a Planning Commission item is appealed
to the City Council, that each Planning
Commissioner be notified of the date and
time by telephone and in writing.
Chairman Caouette and Vice-Chairman
Hawkinson voted against the motion.
Chairman Caouette - Any further business the Planning Commissioners
wish to bring forward this evening.
Commissioner Munson- You will be happy to know I attended the
Planning Commission meeting at Desert Hot Springs, you didn't
miss a thing.
Chairman Caouette - Any other business to come before the
Planning Commission? Mr. Trevino.
Mr. Trevino - As the City Attorney suggested, we will appeal
this to the City Council on the December 12, 1985, this will
save a phone call and a letter. Secondly, I would want to be
on record to say that several weeks ago I did appear at a
workshop session to review the plans in detail, soliciting
your ideas, comments, so that we could revise and make adjust-
ments. At that time, there were no recommendations or
considerations that were put forward to us so that we felt that
after that meeting, what we were preparing was adequate and
meeting your needs and those of the City Council as well.
Because we do have a problem of people being able to afford
housing and since my livelihood is dependant and since I have
spent a great deal of time trying to provide affordable housing,
it was my contention that action would burden unduly the
individual, because we are trying to provide the most space
at the least cost. I think that when we add parking spaces,
we now that we are provide a certain number of units for
seniors and most areas require only one parking space, we are
providing two, and when you are taking green space away and
adding over an acre of asphalt in an area where people are
concerned about economics and heat reflection and so forth.
These are some of the issues that I intend to discuss with the
P.C. Minutes
11-18-85
Page 25
City Council. And I must say very bluntly, this issue of fairness
in the whole 2 years that I have been dealing with this a
great concern to me.
Commissioner Andress - Mr. Chairman I would like to respond to
that. Mr. Trevino, I am not sure that your concept of reality
is the same as mine. If I recall the time that you are referring
to is when you brought this, you suggested that you could
discuss it in 5 minutes, and it took 10 or 15 minutes. We had
nothing in hand to study. We had a number of things that you
suggested including the Edison property, which you have now
eliminated at the request of the City Council. So, I think
that some of your comments should be taken in context of that.
Secondly, I agree with you as far as fairness is concerned, I
think that is the important issue, I think it goes both ways.
It's a two sided street.
Chairman Caouette - Any further discussion. Being no further
discussion, I will adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting at
9:38 p.m. , to the next regularly scheduled meeting at 7:00
p.m. on December 2, 1985.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
A EX E RADA, PLANKING DIRECTOR
APPROVED:
NORMAN CAOUETTE
PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN
P.C. Minutes
11-18-85
Page 26