The URL can be used to link to this page

05/25/198922795 Barton Road Grand Terrace California 92324-5295 u-- Civic Center (714) 824-6621 Byron R Matteson Mayor Hugh J Grant Mayor Pro Tempore - Gene Carlstrom Barbara Pfenmghausen Jim Smgley Council Members Thomas J Schwab City Manager May 25, 1989 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Regular Meetings 2nd and 4th Thursdays — 6 00 p in Council Chambers Grand Terrace Civic Center 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92324-5295 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS May 25, 1989 22795 Barton Rd 6 00 P.M. * Call to Order �* Invocation - Reverend Dale Goddard, Inland Christian Center * Pledge of Allegiance * Roll Call STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS COUNCIL ACTION CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1 Approval of 5/11/89 Minutes Approve 2 Approve Check Register No 052589 Approve ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO ADJOURNED JOINT REGULAR CRA ITY OUN I MEETINGS TO BE TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR MAY 30, 3 JUNE 1, 989 CONVENE CITY COUNCIL Items to delete 2 SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Presentation by Chief Driscoll (CDF) regarding the Proposition 4 Override 3 CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine & non -controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion Any Council Member, Staff Member or Citizen may request removal of an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Approve A Approve Check Register No 052589 B Ratify 5/25/89 CRA Action C Waive full reading of Ordinances on agenda r ` COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF 05/25/89 - Page 2 of 2 RECOMMENDATION D. Approve 5/11/89 Minutes Approve E Rejection of GTLC 89-01 (Osborne) Reject 4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 5 ORAL REPORTS A. COMMITTEE REPORTS B COUNCIL REPORTS 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS - 6 30 P M A Consideration of TPM 89-2 for lot Approve consolidation purposes B Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of SA-89-3 (Michael Palmer & Assc ) 7 UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Reconsideration of the formation of the Reconsider lighting assessment district 8 NEW BUSINESS A. Set budget hearings B. Year end budget adjustments C. Consideration of the proposed San Approve Bernardino County Waste Management Plan 9 CLOSED SESSION ADJOURN CITY COUNCIL TO ADJOURNED JOINT REGULAR CITY C N A MEETINGS TO BE TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR MAY 30, 3 JUNE 1, 1989. THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED CITY COUNCIL/CRA MEETING WILL BE HELD 6/08/89 -------------------------------------------------- AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS FOR THE 6/08/89 MEETING MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CITY MANAGER"S OFFICE BY 6/01/89 COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF GRAND TERRACE �COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES \0.+Yy`' REGULAR MEETING - MAY 11, 1989 A regular meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency, City of Grand Terrace, was held in the Council Chambers, Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on May 11, 1989, at 6 05 p.m. PRESENT Byron Matteson, Chairman Hugh J. Grant, Vice -Chairman Barbara Pfennighausen, Agency Member Jim Singley, Agency Member Gene Carlstrom, Agency Member Thomas J. Schwab, Executive Director Randall Anstine, Assistant City Manager John Harper, City Attorney David Sawyer, Community Development Director Juanita Brown, Secretary Joe Kicak, City Engineer ABSENT APPROVAL OF APRIL 27, 1989 CRA MINUTES 5 CRA-89-12 MOTION BY VICE-CHAIRMAN GRANT, SECOND BY AGENCY MEMBER CARLSTROM, CARRIED 4-0-0-1 (AGENCY MEMBER PFENNIGHAUSEN ABSTAINED), to approve April 27, 1989 CRA Minutes. Chairman Matteson adjourned the CRA meeting at 6 10 p.m. until the next regular City Council/CRA meeting which is scheduled to be held on Thursday, May 25, 1989 at 6 00 p.m. CHAIRMAN of the City of Grand Terrace SECRETARY of the City of Grand Terrace LCiA A(._tij' ICI i ^j0� COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF GRAND TERRACE,-,, T DATE MAID 1989 L" ,,CHECK REI FER NO CRA052589 CHECK OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF MAY 25, 1989 NUMBER VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 19988 19995 20004 20007 20017 20027 GENE CARLSTROM HUGH GRANT BYRON MATTESON MORELAND AND ASSOCIATES BARBARA PFENNIGHAUSEN JAMES SINGLEY STIPENDS FOR MAY, 1989 STIPENDS FOR MAY, 1989 STIPENDS FOR MAY, 1989 PROGRESS BILLING ON AUDIT OF REVENUE BONDS STIPENDS FOR MAY, 1989 STIPENDS FOR MAY, 1989 TOTAL $ 150 00 150 00 150 00 2,529 05 150 00 150 00 $ 3,279 05 I CERTIFY THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLDEGE, THE AFORELISTED CHECKS FOR PAYMENT OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIABILITIES HAVE BEEN AUDITED BY ME AND ARE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE EXPENDITURES FOR THE OPERATION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY THOMAS SCHWAB TREASURER CITY OF GRANS TERRACE DATE MAY L 1989 CHECK REG',_ ER NO 052589 ;HECK OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF MAY 25, 1989 LUMBER VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT '6164 16165 '6166 '6167 D6168 D6169 P6170 P6171 P6172 P6173 P6174 P6175 P6176 P6177 P6178 P6179 P6180 P6181 P6182 19980 19981 19982 19983 c} P SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY AMP SHOP POSTMASTER-COLTON SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY A & H RENTS SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY I/E, LEAGUE OF CA CITIES ADAIR PHOTOGRAPHY SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY ALL PRO CONSTRUCTION MIKE TODD GEORGE KOPILOFF ADI TOM ALBERSON CASH PAYMENTS FOR 5/4/89 $ 119 09 CASH PAYMENTS FOR 5/4/89 104 80 REPAIR VIDEO CASSETTE PLAYER 120 02 BULK MAILING FOR RECREATION BROCHURES 100 00 CASH PAYMENTS FOR 5/5/89 97 81 WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE FOR APRIL, 1989 1,388 31 CASH PAYMENTS FOR 5/9/89 127 01 CASH PAYMENTS FOR 5/10/89 322 25 CASH PAYMENTS FOR 5/10/89 203 13 CASH PAYMENTS FOR 5/11/89 26 17 CASH PAYMENTS FOR 5/I1/89 21 34 RENT SNO-CONE MACHINE FOR SAFETY FAIR 40 00 CASH PAYMENTS FOR 5/15/89 83 37 CASH PAYMENTS FOR 5/15/89 49 52 BI-MONTHLY MEETING 54 75 SITTING FOR JIM SINGLEY COUNCIL PICTURE 30 00 CASH PAYMENTS FOR 5/16/89 77 18 CASH PAYMENTS FOR 5/16/89 89 35 STREET REPAIRS, MINONA, WORK ON BALLFIELD, WORK AT PICO PARK,REPAIR SEWER LINE, PICO/MT VERNON, AND FILL SEPTIC TANK ON PARK, GRAND TERRACE ROAD 23,986 99 REIMBURSEMENT FOR FORM HOLDER FOR CITIZENS PATROL CAR 28 57 REFUND, WASTE WATER DISPOSAL DERVICES 9187 LETTER FOLDING MACHINE 269 09 INSTRUCTOR, KARATE 240+00 , 1,f t! rrl�,r�1r,3 air ,, , CITY OF GRAt,T TERRACE DATE MAY'�-_, 1989 CHECK REL-,�FER NO 052589 CHECK OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF MAY 25, 1989 NUMBER VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 19984 ALL PRO CONSTRUCTION 10% RETENTION ON DEMOLITION OF BUILDING AND WORK ON UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE EXTENTION $ 7,500 00 19985 BARR COMMERCIAL DOOR REPAIR DOOR, LIBRARY 40 75 19986 BASTANCHURY BOTTLED WATER BOTTLED WATER FOR CIVIC CENTER AND DAY CARE 55 80 19987 STATE OF CALIFORNIA MAINTENANCE AND ENERGY FOR LIGHTS AT BARTON/215, MARCH, 1989 501 79 19988 GENE CARLSTROM STIPENDS FOR MAY, 1989 150 00 19989 CONSTANCE'CHAPMAN CLEAN REST ROOMS AT PARK (6 DAYS) 120 00 19990 CHIEF AUTO PARTS OIL, EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER 51,90 19991 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DIST LIGHT FIXTURES, CIVIC CENTER 33 60 19992 COMPLETE BUSINESS SYSTEMS MAJOR PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ON TOSHIBA COPIER 308 92 19993 CONLIN BROTHERS SOFTBALLS FOR SLO-PITCH SOFTBALL 717 41 19994 DUNN-EDWARDS CORP PAINT FOR STREETS (RED) 52 05 19995 HUGH GRANT STIPENDS FOR MAY, 1989 150 00 19996 HARPER & BURNS LEGAL SERVICES FOR APRIL, 1989 2,655 00 19997 HYDREX PEST CONTROL PEST CONTROL FOR CIVIC CENTER, MAY, 1989 48 00 19998 INTERNATIONAL MAILING SYSTEMS RENT POSTAGE METER, APRIL-JUNE, 1989 99 38 19999 HOLLY JAMESON INSTRUCTOR, AEROBICS 91 20 20000 KICAK AND ASSOCIATES ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR 4/10-5/7/89 12,791 85 20001 KLEEN-LINE CORPORATION JANITORIAL SUPPLIES, CIVIC CENTER 232 47 20002 LAKESHORE CURRICULUM SUPPLIES FOR TINY TOTS 145 45 20003 MASTER LEASE CORPORATION LEASE PAYMENT ON COPIER FOR JUNE, 1989 556 15 20004 BYRON MATTESON STIPENDS FOR MAY, 1989 64 65 20005 MINUTE MAN PRESS CORRECTION NOTICES AND FLIERS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS 132 89 20006 MOORE SERVICES MEDICAL SUPPLIES, EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER 254 04 20007 JEAN MYERS CROSSING GUARD 5/1-5/12/89 127'20 CITY OF GRANS TERRACE DATE MAY 1989 CHECK REC, ER NO 052589 ;HECK OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF gUMBER VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 20009 NCR CORPORATION 20010 PHIL PAGE 20011 PACIFIC BELL 20012 PADDEN COMPANY 20013 PARAMOUNT LITHOGRAPH 20014 THE PETRA COMPANIES 20015 CORINNE PETTIT 20016 PERRY'S STATIONARY 20017 BARBARA PFENNIGHAUSEN 20018 PETTY CASH 20019 CATH PIERSON 20020 ADRIAN REYNOSA 20021 JOHN ROBERTS 20022 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 20023 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 20024 SHERIFF FLOYD TIDWELL 20025 MICHELLE SHOEMAKER 20026 SIGNAL MAINTENANCE INC 20027 JAMES SINGLEY 20028 SMART AND FINAL 20029 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY 20030 SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY 20031 THE SUN COMPUTER SUPPORT FOR JUNE, 1989 PARK CLEAN-UP FOR APRIL, 1989 TELEPHONE FOR DAY CARE, COMPUTER MODEM, FAX MACHINE, AND CIVIC CENTER PAY PHONES LEASE PAYMENT ON MAIL MACHINE AND OLYMPIA, JUNE, 1989 FLIERS FOR SAFETY FAIR NEWLETTER FOR CRIME PREVENTION COMMITTEE INSTRUCTOR, LOW IMPACT AEROBICS OFFICE SUPPLIES STIPENDS FOR MAY, 1989 REIMBURSE PETTY CASH FOR DAY CARE INSTRUCTOR, TINY TUMBLERS AND GYMNASTICS SCOREKEEPER FOR SLO-PITCH SOFTBALL, 5/7-5/11/89 PAYMENT ON PARKLAND FOR JUNE, 1989 HANDWORK, WEED CONTROL PAPER FOR COPIERS LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CRIME PREVENTION OFFICER FOR JUNE, 1989 BABYSITTER FOR AEROBICS, 4/1-5/19/89 SIGNAL MAINTENANCE FOR APRIL, 1989 AND REPAIR ON SIGNAL STIPENDS FOR MAY, 1989 SUPPLIES FOR COUNCIL MEETINGS ELECTRIC FOR CITY BUILDINGS, CIVIC CENTER, BARTON/PALM, TWO LIGHTS AT PARK ON DEBERRY, SIGNALS, AND STREET LIGHTS GAS FOR CITY BUILDINGS AND CIVIC CENTER NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND AD FOR RECREATION $ 34 98 100 00 316 60 179 17 200 00 27 24 93 75 556 96 64 65 193 67 482 40 117 50 2,071 56 95 00 642 80 60,274 00 60 00 821 09 150 00 56 71 5,313'r29 251' 80 ,. j 136t 52 „3} �rS I t0 CITY OF GRANS TERRACE DATE MAYI__i 1989 CHECK RE( ER NO 052589 HECK OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF MAY 25, 1989 NUMBER VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 20032 TRI-COUNTY OFFICIALS 20033 VERATEX CORPORATION 20034 VISA 20035 WEST-COMPUTIL CORPORATION 20036 WEST PUBLISHING COMPANY UMPIRES FOR SLO-PITCH SOFTBALL, 5/1-5/15/89 MEDICAL SUPPLIES, EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER CITY CLERK'S CONFERENCE, MEETINGS IN COLTON AND RIVERSIDE, BUILDING/MAINTENANCE CONF , AND PLANNING CONFERENCE PROCESS PARING CITATIONS, APRIL, 1989 CALIFORNIA CODE UPDATE TOTAL $ 238 00 236 50 1,543 30 28 35 16 28 $128,771 24 I CERTIFY THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE AFORELISTED CHECKS FOR PAYMENT OF CITY LIABILITIES HAVE BEEN AUDITED BY ME AND ARE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE EXPENDITURES FOR THE OPERATION OF THE CITY 5� THOMAS SCHWAB FINANCE DIRECTOR II I ili Ir k�',4a fli m,1. 4 PENDING CITY COUNCIL APh'MAC CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MAY 11, 1989 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace was called to order in the Council Chambers, Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on May 11, 1989, at 6 00 p.m. PRESENT Byron Matteson, Mayor Hugh J. Grant, Mayor Pro Tem Barbara Pfennighausen, Councilmember Jim Singley, Councilmember Gene Carlstrom, Councilmember Thomas J. Schwab, City Manager/Finance Director Randall Anstine, Assistant City Manager John Harper, City Attorney David Sawyer, Community Development Director Juanita Brown, Deputy City Clerk Joe Kicak, City Engineer ABSENT The meeting was opened with invocation by Pastor Larry Wilson, Praise Fellowship Foursquare Church, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Mayor Pro Tem Grant. Mayor Matteson convened City Council meeting at 6 05 p.m. Mayor Matteson reconvened City Council meeting at 6 10 p.m. ITEMS TO DELETE None. SPECIAL PRESENTATION 2A. Mayor Matteson read a Proclamation proclaiming the month of May 1989 as "Good Posture Month" and the week of May 15-21, 1989 as "Chiropractic Wellness Week." Dr. Cynthia Williams was present to accept the proclamation. CONSENT CALENDAR CC-89-66 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GRANT, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SINGLEY, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar with the removal of Item A. tt < c� �J Air � br{l_ �A-S <-e�l ii�)�; � F Gc�l r Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 2 Councilmember Pfennighausen noted that she was absent at the April 27, 1989 meeting, therefore, she would not vote on the approval of the April 27, 1989 Minutes. B. RATIFY 5/11/89 CRA ACTION C. WAIVE FULL READING OF ORDINANCES ON AGENDA D. APPROVE CHECK REGISTER NO. 042789 E. RATIFY 4/27/89 CRA ACTION F. WAIVE FULL READING OF ORDINANCES ON AGENDA G. APPROVE 4/13/89 MINUTES H. APPROVE 4/27/89 MINUTES I. APPROVE 5/4/89 MINUTES ITEM FOR DISCUSSION 3A. APPROVE CHECK REGISTER NO. 051189 Mayor Matteson questioned Item 19936. He asked why the amount was so much for fertilization of the parks. Assistant City Manager Anstine indicated that the cost was for both the Terrace Hills Community Park and the Griffin Park. CC-89-67 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER PFENNIGHAUSEN, CARRIED 5-0, to approve Check Register No. 051189. Mayor Pro Tem Grant pointed out a clerical error in the May 4, 1989 minutes. CC-89-68 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GRANT, SECOND BY MAYOR MATTESON, CARRIED 5-0, to accept the May 4, 1989 Minutes with correction as stated PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Gene McMeans, 1450 Washington St., Colton, reported that the Footh177Journal was bought by the Colton Courier and will no longer be in Grand Terrace. Dennis Evans, 22064 DeBerry St., Grand Terrace, had questions regarding the lighting assessment district. He asked how staff arrived at the number of lights needed and what the approximate cost of the project was. He asked Council why they objected to the lighting assessment Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 3 district being voted on by the people. He asked for the status of the L.J. Snow Ford project. City Manager Schwab, reported that the City Engineer worked closely with Southern California Edison to arrive at the figures for the lighting assessment district and the project would be approximately 1 1/2 million dollars. He also reported that negotiations are no longer being i conducted with L.J. Snow Ford. ORAL REPORTS Mayor Matteson, reported that he has heard from many concerned residents in the City and, therefore, asked that the lighting assessment district issue be put on the next agenda so Council may reconsider. Mayor Pro Tem Grant, stated that he is in favor of reconsideration as requested by the Mayor. Councilmember Singley, concurred as well. Councilmember Pfennighausen, reported that she has received numerous phone calls from people who do not want street lights and agreed that they should be reconsidered. John R. Taylor, 22843 Vista Grande Way, Grand Terrace, reported that the problems, which he previously reported regarding the holes in Vista Grande Way and the debris at the park, have been taken care of and wanted to thank the person responsible. He offered to make the first donation when the adopt -a -tree program is in effect. Tony Petta, 11875 Eton, Grand Terrace, stated that two major concerns of the people of Grand Terrace are police protection and the lack of lights in the City. He felt that there is no way of knowing the details of the lighting assessment district unless a study is made. Sandy Windbigler, Grand Terrace Chamber of Commerce, reported that the CPR Bill, which was sent to Sacramento, passed 14-0 with no opposition. She gave an update of Chamber events and invited the community to participate in the Safety Fair. 5A. COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. Emergency Operations Committee (a) Council accepted Minutes of 2/20/89. (b) Council accepted Minutes of 3/20/89. Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 4 CC-89-69 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER PFENNIGHAUSEN, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM GRANT, CARRIED 5-0, to accept the resignation of Edward Luers with regret and a special thank you. Crime Prevention Committee Dick Rollins reported that the Crime Prevention Committee Minutes will be presented to Council at the next meeting. 2. Parks & Recreation Committee Paks & Recreation Chairman Weeks reported that two scholarships are available and four applications have been received. After careful consideration, the committee has made their selection as stated in their report. He felt Council needed to make a motion regarding same. CC-89-70 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SINGLEY, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER PFENNIGHAUSEN, CARRIED 5-0, to award $500 scholarships to Henry Moser and Monica Taylor. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7A. Authorization to go to bid for Barton Rd. improvements. City Manager Schwab, gave his staff report and recommended that ounce authorize staff to go out out to bid for the Barton Road street improvement project, indicating that the total cost of the improvement project is currently budgeted with the exception of the landscaping element, which was added subsequent to our budget cycle. CC-89-71 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND, BY COUNCILMEMBER PFENNIGHAUSEN, CARRIED 5-0, to go out to bid for the Barton Road street improvement project. 5B. Council Reports Councilmember Pfennighausen, reported that as a member of the San Bernardino Valley Water District Advisory Commission, she toured the State Water Project and encouraged everyone to become better informed. She reported that the problems with the audio broadcast of the Council meetings will be taken care of and encouraged residents to continue to view the meetings. She indicated that she has been informed that the City is no longer going to mail the newsletters for the Seniors group and asked if the Seniors were given prior notice. She also expressed concern about the flood control problem on Pico Street and asked that something be done about it. Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 5 Assistant City Manager Anstine, indicated that the cost of mailing the news letters is being transferred from the Community Services budget to the Seniors budget and at no time were they told that the City is no longer going to do the mailing for them. He indicated that there was a misunderstanding. City Manager Schwab, reported that he did receive a complaint from Mrs. Haslen regarding her garden wall and requested that the City fix her planter. He met with her and it was decided that she would remove a tree that was damaging her garden wall and the City would rebuild a head wall to divert the water. At that time all parties were satisfied. Councilmember Pfennighausen, asked City Engineer Kicak if a wall, as described by City Manager Schwab, would keep the water from flowing into her yard. City Engineer Kicak, indicated that he would have to see the area and report back to Council. Councilmember Carlstrom, reported that he met with Assemblyman Paul Woodruff last week and discussed issues involving the City, and also talked to Senator Bill Leonard, Jr. and mentioned that as a Council we would like to talk to him about some of the issues of the City, whereby we might be able to get some grants or funds into the City to address our traffic problems. Councilmember Singley, reported that he attended the Crime Prevention Committee meeting and was made aware that the Citizen Patrol has been in effect one year and commended them and the Community Services Officer for all their hard work. Mayor Pro Tem Grant, reported that he represented the City as the alternate to the Omnitrans Transportation Board and represented the community as the principal to the SANBAG Commission. He reported that the Art Show by the Historical & Cultural Committee was a success. Mayor Matteson recessed City Council at 7 20 p.m. Mayor Matteson reconvened City Council at 7 35 p.m. 7B. Drainage Improvements on Michigan Ave. City Engineer Kicak, gave his staff report explaining that the current drainage facility located in that area is insufficient to handle the runoff and no curb and gutter facilities exist to channel the flow properly into the Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 6 existing drainage facility. He recommended that Council authorize the construction of the improved drainage facilities, and authorize staff to put the project out to public bid. CC-89-72 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER PFENNIGHAUSEN, CARRIED 5-0, to authorize drainage improvements on Michigan Ave. and to go out to bid. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Jack Ingalls, Grand Terrace Chamber of Commerce, expressed his concern that the Off -Street Parking Ordinance is too strict and suggested that alternatives be built into the Ordinance. Due to input by the public and advice from City Attorney Harper, Council concurred that the Ordinances on residential zoning and off-street parking should be readvertised and put back to the first reading. CC-89-73 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GRANT, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER PFENNIGHAUSEN, CARRIED 4-1 (COUNCILMEMBER SINGLEY VOTED NOE), to continue Zoning amendment Z-89-1B and Z-89-1A, in relation to residential zoning and off-street parking, and readvertise for a Public Hearing. NEW BUSINESS 8A. Consideration of Dedication -- 11830 Mt. Vernon Ave. (McDuffeeT City Manager Schwab, the City Council has indicated to staff that the area in front of Dr. McDuffee's home at 1130 Mt. Vernon Ave. would potentially become a hazard in the future when Phase II of Forest City Dillon is in. Now that Phase I is complete, in that the roadway does not traverse straight down the street and his property jutts out into what is currently pavement on the area that will be south and north of that site. With that in mind, the City Council directed staff to solve that problem and we've come to you tonight with two alternatives. Dr. McDuffee has indicated that he would dedicate additional right-of-way for full improvement of the frontage property,and I have indicated in my staff report what that cost would be. In subsequent converstions with Dr. McDuffee, since I have written the report, he has indicated that we have somewhat misinterpreted his offer, that he did not expect street lighting or landscaping. He's here tonight and can clarify what his position is, but at this point staff is not recommending full improvements on that parcel. What we are recommending, should the Council want to identify that as Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 7 an area that we should straighten out the pavement, is to do so within our current right-of-way, which the City currently has dedicated to them. The problem that will cause the homeowner is that it is going to require removal of some shrubbery that creates screening for Dr. McDuffee as well as movement of the fence out of the right-of-way area to do the pavement. Dr. Terry McDuffee, 11830 S. Mt. Vernon, Grand Terrace, originally the City of Grand Terrace contacted me and requested that I make the dedication and offered to install improvements. We responded to that somewhat belatedly because of the great deal of smoke that was in the air surrounding apartment development and issues that I thought were pertinent that have either been resolved or ignored at this point and are beside the point except for the fact that that's the reason it's been two years since the first letter went out until my response came back. I would like to say that when I wrote back in response to the Counci 1 , what I offered was to make the dedication if they would do exactly what they had said that they would like to do, which is to put in curbs, gutters, sidewalks and paving. The possible difference would be street lights. I did include street lights as a condition, the matter of landscaping was not one that had really entered by mind until I spoke with Tom. My feeling about the street lights is that there's a reasonable time to put improvements in and if these other improvements are being done you've budgeted $15,000 for two street lights and I don't know what the zoning requires as far as the spacing of street lights along 321 frontage feet, but I presume that's what the requirement is. It seems to me it would make a lot of sense to put those improvements in at that time especially in light of the fact that the Council is considering further lighting in the City and for safety considerations, etc. I didn't include landscaping and that's a matter that can be discussed. I've looked over the construction estimate and there are a few points I would like to have clarification on. Included in here is a retaining wall 50 linear feet, Joe could you explain. City Engineer Kicak, the retaining wall that is identified in that particular cross estimate is a wall that would be required as a result of the grading that has occured on the adjacent property. In order for us to construct the improvements within the right-of-way, and without encroaching onto the private property, since there is a fairly deep ravine there. That is why we are proposing the retaining wall. Dr. McDuffee, and then there are drainage facilities inc uced at a cost of $5,000, what are those drainage facilities. Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 8 City Engineer Kicak, the drainage facilities that we are referring to, there's a low point as you know at that location. We have requested that Forest City Dillon accept all of the drainage that was tributary to that point. There is still a need to pick up drainage at that location and put it down into the same system that at the present time is flowing over the side, we would have to pick it up at that point and basically what were talking about is a catch basin or an inlet structure. Dr. McDuffee, in front of you are staff recommendations that include the break -down of the cost. I've had an opportunity to review those, they've come up with a total estimated cost of $39,115.25 to put in the proper improvements that need to be put in there. Included in that is $2,500 for landscaping, $1,500 for street lighting, and those two items are perhaps up to question, otherwise there has been an indication that the alternative plan, which is a temporary structure, temporary plan to put paving in and I'm not sure it solves the safety concern as far as pedestrian traffic. I question whether it solves it at all and I certainly do not believe that it solves it adequately. The estimate for that improvement is 12 to 14 thousand, and as I look at these figures I think I see there is a fly in the ointment. There are a lot of these items that will be necessary whether you go with the proper improvements or if you go with the temporary plan. Matters of clearing and grubbing, grading and excavation. If a retaining wall is going to be necessary for one plan, it's going to be necessary for the other and so are drainage structures and the paving and the base and the overlay are all going to be the same, and when you total up those items it comes to slightly under $12,000 rapidly approaching the estimated 12 to 14 thousand. If you add to that the cost of the drainage structure, which has been omitted apparently, and you add to that the cost of engineering, and you include additional asphalt to pave the shoulder or to build the berm, seems to me that you are going to come up with closer to $20,000 than 12 to 14 thousand. Furthermore, I question the necessity of the retaining wall if this can be done with my cooperation. Any back filling that needs to be done or grading on my property, I'll gladly give an easement to do it if the thing is done to my satisfaction. I think that there isn't an accurate representation of what the temporary cost will be. I think it's going to be much greater than you've estimated. City Engineer Kicak, What we were saying is that with the temporary improvement, as proposed, we would widen the roadway without removing any major planting on Dr. McDuffee's property. The roadway would be widened to the same line as the current pavement exists adjacent to the Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 9 north. There would be no curb and gutter because we would have only one foot behind the face of the curb which is six inches behind the back of the curb to do any grading. We could not do any grading within a public right-of-way in that 115 feet, which is the northernly most portion without encroaching on his property. The alternate plan proposes strictly going in there and grading the area, putting in the base as would be required under the other proposal, removal of very little of any planting and paving the roadway to that same width. Mayor Matteson, what about the engineering cost? Would you still need a retaining wall? City Engineer Kicak, no, you would not because the reason you need a retaining wall is because you're widening the right-of-way to the ultimate and constructing improvements to the ultimate which is now 44 feet. The improvements that would be proposed under the alternate plan would go out to 30 feet. That would give you 14 feet within the existing public right-of-way to perform any grading or sloping and/or provide for drainage in that particular area. I personally would like to see the improvement done, but I think it's important for the City Council to recognize the alternative. Mayor Matteson, the question on the retaining wall, that he says he would allow you to fill rather than build the retaining wall, would that work? City Engineer Kicak, I am not certain how the impact of the already completed grading on the adjacent property would impact elimination of the wall because there is an existing channel there and they are fairly close to the channel on the adjacent property with their final grade and our sidewalk is probably 8 or 9 feet above that at least. Dr. McDuffee, it's about 10 or 12. City Engineer Kicak, so without encroaching, perhaps if Dr. McDuffee gave us the right to encroach, I don't know whether we could eliminate going onto the adjacent property and still widen the right-of-way to the ultimate. Dr. McDuffee, Forest City didn't hesitate to run the back fill down on my property when they did the grading. I don't think I would mind a whole lot more if it was the City if the plan is done to my satisfaction. Joe, you said 14 feet there and you would have to get base for widening the road up 12 feet above the existing grade two to one slope runs that out a lot further than your right-of-way. Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 10 City Engineer Kicak, I believe, Dr. McDuffee, that widening as I said the pavement that we are proposing to construct under the alternate would require very little or no filling. If it did, it could be done within the existing. Dr. McDuffee, I would have to see the engineering plans on that e ore I could agree with it. I'm quite familiar with that ravine, and there's a good 10 or 12 feet difference in elevation between the street level and the bottom of the ravine and I submit that you really can't do your temporary grading without building the retaining wall. There will be necessary grubbing and clearing to do the temporary widening. It's going to take out a whole row of pomagranite bushes along the front of the property. In addition, there's a very old and beautiful night blooming cactus that sits on the corner of the property. It's entirely on my property but it's within a foot of the right-of-way and it's about 3 feet above the elevation of the road and you can not come in and do the temporary plan without butchering that plant, I don't believe. I oppose very much to seeing that happen. My position is plain and simple that I think that if this is going to be done at all, it should be done properly. I'm willing to make the dedication so that it can be done properly and I'm very much unwilling to see it done partially. I'm offering to do what the City asked of me and offered to do initially and my position is that it needs to be done completely and I oppose it otherwise. Mayor Matteson, again, what items do you say are not really necessary7 1he street lights, the landscaping? Dr. McDuffee, I think the street lights are necessary and I think that it would be a little foolish to put the improvements in without doing the street lights at the same time. I don't particularly like the street lights shining in my window. I think there's a proper time to do it and the time is when the improvements are being done and I did include street lights in my conditions. I did not include landscaping at an estimated cost of $2,500, that's really the only thing on this list that I see that I didn't originally include. I would like to see it landscaped, I would be willing to compromise if you would like to put the landscaping in, I will provide the water. A big concern that you have is that it's going to require a water meter to irrigate and the property has adequate irrigation shares and if landscaping was installed, I'm willing to take care of the cost of irrigation. The maintenance is another big item and I don't know how the City manages that if you have a landscaping district or you propose to build one to deal with the Barton Road situation, but that's really the only Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 11 item on here that I see as unnecessary. Again, if you want to put the improvements in, I'll give you grading easements and you can put however much fill dirt in that ravine that you want. I will not do that if you put a temporary job on it. Mayor Matteson, returned discussion to Council. Mayor Mattson, we have the decision now here of widening the street at a cost of 12 to 14 thousand or making all the improvements at close to $40,000, what is the Council's desire? Mayor Pro Tem Grant, if we basically don't do anything and leave it as it is with the widening of the road, what do you see is the danger? A mention was made by Dr. McDuffee of children walking along there and traffic and other safety. Is that a real issue in your opinion? I know there's no way you can predict what's going to happen, I talked to Tom about this and the Smith property was that way for a long time and there fortunately were no accidents, but of course you only need one to create a problem. City Manager Schwab, I think that from a pedestrian standpoint obviously having no sidewalk, if a person is going to go down that side of the street, they will have to walk out in the street. My own personal opinion as to whether that is a vehicular safety problem, I could show you areas on Mt. Vernon further south where that problem is much more exagerated in that there is properties that stick out onto Mt. Vernon much more than it does at Dr. McDuffee's property. The condition has existed in front of Mrs. Smith's home the place where they had the large pine tree and to my knowledge I can not recall that there was an accident as a result of that. Pedestrian safety probably is an issue. My opinion is that it is not a substantial safety problem for vehicles. Mayor Matteson, I think the pedestrian safety problem is worse on Michigan than on Mt. Vernon. Councilmember Singley, that's the point I was going to bring up, we got an estimate here a few meetings ago of about $85,000 to put sidewalks of some sort along Michigan, and I agree that putting a sidewalk there and doing all the improvements would probably be a very safe thing to do and a good thing to do, but your talking $40,000 for a short sidewalk there and your talking $85,000 for a sidewalk down where school children do walk and further south down on Mt. Vernon there is the bike shop where there is a fence that sticks all the way to the curb and people have to walk z Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 12 in the street around that. There comes a point when the City only has so many funds and you have to judge where best to use these funds. I personally believe that the sidewalks on Michigan are much more important for the school children and the safety of the people who live in our community than doing anything on Dr. McDuffee's property at this time. Councilmember Pfennighausen, in the first place, the sidewalk in front of Dr. McDuffee's house is not costing $39,000, the sidewalk in front of Dr. McDuffee's house as set forth on the spec's to put curb, gutter and sidewalks would be $10,272 that's what the sidewalk costs and the curb and gutter. So it's not the same issue as the issue and it shouldn't be an either/or issue. We may have to put this into another budget year. Councilmember Singley, how do you come up with $10,000? Councilmember Pfennighausen, on the construction cost estimate, curb and gutter for 321 feet at $10 a foot is $3,210 Mayor Matteson, that's the breakdown, but you have to do all these other things before you can do that. Councilmember Pfennighausen, but were going to have to do other stuff that's not put down anyway. Councilmember Singley, and that costs $39,000. You can put a sidewalk there but your going to have to prepare that, your going to have to do the engineering. You might be able to cut that by $1,500 by not putting in street lights and you might be able to cut that by $2,500 by not putting in landscaping, but your going to still have about 25 to 30 thousand dollars to prepare the sidewalk and the curb. Councilmember Pfennighausen, I kept saying this was going To happen and it has happened now and it is important that these facilities go in on both sides so there is continuity along that street. I'm not for doing the landscaping, that can go, but I think the street should be widened with curb, gutter and sidewalk. I think we should do whatever is necessary. Mayor Matteson, I think if the street is widened, that's a large parcel of land and when someone developes it, they are going to have to put that in. Councilmember Sin le , by doing this we are improving the value of Dr. McDuffee s property. The people who are going to benefit from this are the people living in the Forest Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 13 City Dillon Apartment complex, providing them with a walkway to the shoping center. Is there a way to walk through the Forest City Dillon property Phases I and II to get to that shopping center without having to go on Mt. Vernon? CitX Manager Schwab, once it is complete, you probably co, but I don't think people will do that. Councilmember Carlstom, we have allowed Forest City Dillon to go down there and develop and it is my understanding that there is about 17 units per acre, we may increase population by probably 60 to 75 people an acre, so we do have a condition that we didn't have before. We had the apartment project and also we've got construction on further down toward Barton Rd. where there is more people and I feel that we need to develop that along there between the two Forest Dillon projects, which is Dr. McDuffee's and also south of that toward Barton Rd. I think that we should make that a uniform street through there. The traffic goes through there at speeds of 50 to 55 mph and we say were going to let our children and adults walk on that street. I don't think we're being very wise and I recommend that we go ahead and put that sidewalk and curbs and gutters in if we decide to widen the street. Councilmember Singley, the City Attorney has just informed me that we can require the improvement under Chapter 27 of the Improvement Act of 1911 and assess 100% back to the property owner the cost of this improvement. City Attorney Harper, Chapter 27 of the act provides for essentially completion of partially completed sidewalks and allows the construction of the improvement and the assessment of the cost of that improvement to the benefiting property owner. City Manager Schwab, I don't think there is any intention o doing any improvement that we're planning on charging back to Dr. McDuffee. You need to remember that this was our offer to him. Mayor Matteson, there are a lot of areas in the City that need sidewalks and curbs and gutters and since Proposition 13 passed, the only way we can get these is when developers come in and develop the property and we can require them to put them in. We don't have the money to complete all the sidewalks and curbs and $40,000 is a lot of money for one small project and that's not a heavy traffic area. MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, to widen the street without complete improvements. Motion died for lack of Second. Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 14 Councilmember Singley, I'd like to explain why I didn't back the motion. I m obviously against the cost of the improvement. I'm not against the idea of safety. I agree that it's important that these sidewalks be built and we have to be careful where we spend our limited resources and, therefore, if we can somehow work with Dr. McDuffee to cut some of these costs, I would be willing to support the complete building of the sidewalk, curb and gutters. Councilmember Pfennighausen, we are asking Dr. McDuffee to give us property. He isn't asking us to buy the right-of-way, he is offering to give it to us. I think that the City did make the offer two years ago and now Dr. McDuffee is saying he'll give us the property, but do the job right. I think we need to remember that this is a quality community and that is a main entry street into our City. I think that if it requires that we do this in another budget year then do it in another budget year, if we don't have the funds now. If we do have the funds, then lets do it now. Do we have adequate funds to handle this project in this budget year? City Manager Schwab, Obviously we have well in excess of 40,000 in our reserves and within our unappropriated fund balances, so I think it's not an issue of whether we can afford to do this one $40,000 project certainly we could do the project. It's a matter of whether that's where you want to spend your $40,000. We have sufficient funds to where we could fund this project. Councilmember Pfennighausen, my concern is that are we coming down to a critical financial situation at the end of our budget year? We're getting ready to start working on our preliminary budget, we will be adopting a budget hopefully by June 30th, we're talking about less than two months. Financially, where do we stand, and do we need to consider this in another budget year? City Manager Schwab, our current budget that is going to be developed and given to Council on the 19th does not take this into consideration, our carry over fund balances do not take into account the expenditure of this $40,000. Should we take on this project, we would have to reduce the fund balance that we are projecting at the end of the year by the amount of the appropriation. Councilmember Pfennighausen, I also have a concern I would ike to express at this point, I think that it's rather crass to ask a citizen to give up his property and then sit and tell him that we have the right to charge him for the improvements along the front of it. Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 15 Councilmember Carlstrom, what improvements, Dr. McDuffee, would you settle for as far as cost. What actually do you feel the cost would be to complete the project? Dr. McDuffee, there were at least three or four serious accidents in front of Mrs. Smith's house in the fifteen years that I've lived there, with at least one or two fatalities. As far as compromises on the projections, as I look over this I really think that the matter of the retaining wall can be eliminated or reduced considerably that amounts to $2,500 by the estimate. I still question whether there is going to be required $5,000 worth of drainage facilities. I've said all along I'll compromise on the landscaping if you want to leave it in or leave it out. It's an opportunity to make it look nice, it is the major street through the City, it is a sizable chunk of frontage. I don't know that it compares exactly to the other situations in the City and I'm sure some of those are important, but in the scheme of things, if it's the safety of the children and the citizens I think that items like this deserve a fairly high priority in the budget. Street lighting, I've stated my position on that. I'll give whatever easement you need for grading. I suspect that this estimate may be a little bit higher than it needs to be, but a lot of time things cost more than you think. I don't think the matter of the fence is a big item, I'll gladly move the fence out of the way. I would hope that those couple of palm trees that are fairly close to the street that may fall in your right-of-way could be gone around by the sidewalk I think it's possible to leave those. There is other landscaping and shrubbery that will have to go, and I haven't attempted to estimate the cost of that. Councilmember Carlstrom, from what you are saying, we could possibly cut $5,000 off of that. Dr. McDuffee, I think the big item is the drainage and I can't address that I think that's a $5,000 possibility. I think that the retaining wall is another $2,500 possibility. Then you come down to $4,000 for street lights and landscaping and my feeling is that you should definitely include the street lights if you don't want to include the landscaping. Councilmember Carlstrom, how far from your property is the nearest street ight? Dr. McDuffee, right on the property line to the north. What is t e interval that street lights must be? Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 16 City Engineer Kicak, the spacing requirements are 160 feet plus or minus 20. Councilmember Carlstrom, so that would require at least one street light. Dr. McDuffee, I suppose it's up to the City Council to determine that one street light would be adequate and I'm sure that the plans for Forest City Phase II are complete, is there a street light right on the property line or not? City Engineer Kicak, right off hand I can't answer, but I would like to make a comment at this point and tell the Mayor and City Council and Dr. McDuffee that this is an estimate. We are attempting to cut the cost based on this estimate and actually try to design a project right here. I have no problem with that. My experience in estimating over a few years is that I've been a low bidder and I have been a high bidder of six or seven contractors, so the only thing I can do is look at the project. Without the benefit of having it detail designed, the estimate, to the best of my ability, would be the anticipated cost which could be plus or minus 20% one way or the other and I would say that in this particular case I would feel very comfortable with the $39,000 as being a reasonable or perhaps a little high estimate. As far as what we can eliminate and cannot eliminate, is when we start talking about retaining walls until we can actually do the survey on that property. I think to start designing a project here in the Council Chambers is probably somewhat inappropriate. Dr. McDuffee, I'll just say that I'm willing t you to try to indicated, and if on my part, I'm done properly. reduce the cost in the ways the engineering requires some willing to cooperate if this work with that I've cooperation project is Councilmember Singley, in response to Councilmember Pfennighausen s comments about it being crass to go back on what the City said, I'd like to point out to her that this letter was sent to Dr. McDuffee on February 23, 1987 the response from Dr. McDuffee came March 22, 1989 that's two years and a month later. Are City proposals suppose to be indefinite? We have to look at a number of projects and what I'm getting is that I agree that this is a safety issue for people walking on sidewalks but what I'm hearing from Mrs. Pfennighausen is that her priorities now are no longer the sidewalks for the kids on Michigan Ave. walking to the school, but now this one piece of property for an apartment complex, which I believe she opposed vigorously. I would agree with you that maybe this is an item that we should continue in the budget and I agree with Dr. Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 17 McDuffee that it prioritized and in continue this to Michigan walkway consideration. is a safety issue and should be highly that area I would entertain a motion to the budget hearings and place both the and this walkway on the budget for Councilmember Pfennighausen, I made no separation and I made no choice, I have said they are all necessary and I am supportive of all of them. CC-89-74 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER PFENNIGHAUSEN, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CARLSTROM, CARRIED 4-1 (MAYOR PRO TEM GRANT VOTED NOE), that curbs, gutters and sidewalks be constructed along the frontage of the McDuffee property for the purposes of safe passage of automobiles and pedestrians and that improvements such as street lights become a negotiated item and when a complete study is done and the plans are drawn come back to us with the price and to appropriate not to exceed $2,500 for engineering. 8B. Selection of Barton Rd. Specific Plan Consultants. Mayor Matteson, I live in that area that we are discussing, should I abstain or not? City Attorney Harper, I suppose ultimately it is up to you, but you don't have any conflict as to the selection of a consultant. I suppose that if the consultant recommends a specific plan that affects your property, then you do have to abstain from discussion and voting on that issue, but not as to the selection of the consultant. Councilmember Pfennighausen, even though this appears to be a kind of gray area, yes, he can discuss the consultant or the choice of the consultant, but the consultant is being brought on board to do a specific thing that's going to have an impact on his property different than Fran Carter's or Jim Singley's or mine or anybody elses. Two members of this Council sit in the same position and just for the sake of keeping the peace can I suggest that the two members who have the potential conflict do not get into it because I can tell you that it is going to become an issue if they do. Mayor Matteson, I will participate fully. Councilmember Carlstrom, due to potential conflict of interest, I will abstain from discussion of this. Community Development Director Sawyer, gave his staff report indicating that the selection committee consisting of the City Manager, Community Development Director, Chamber of Commerce President and the Planning Commission Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 18 Chairman, recommends Community Dynamics as the Specific Plan Consultants with a contract not to exceed $42,415. Community Development Director Sawyer indicated that after following up on reference checks, staff feels that the firm of Urban Design is most qualified to provide the type of final product that staff feels is necessary for a successful project in this community. The Planning Department recommends that Council select Urban Design as the firm to prepare the Specific Plan and authorize staff to enter into a contract in an amount not to exceed $48,600. CC-89-75 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SINGLEY, to accept the committees recommendation of Community Dynamics for $42,415. Councilmember Pfennighausen, asked why staff and the committee had different recommendations. Community Development Director Sawyer, explained that the committee chose Community Dynamics first and Urban Design second and the scores were very close. After reviewing work done by both companies, he recommended Urban Design because it was much more graphic and easier to understand for the average person. Councilmember Singley, asked which firm staff would be able to work most effectively within d timely manner. Community Development Director Sawyer, indicated that according to the references, both firms have been highly recommended. Mayor Matteson, asked why a committee was selected if you are not going to listen to their decision. City Manager Schwab, reported that as a member of the committee, he would feel comfortable with any of the top three firms. Stan Hargrave, Planning Commission, stated that David's follow-up was the key to this, and staff will need to work closly with the consultant to ensure that deadlines are met. Jack Ingalls, indicated that he was very impressed with Community Dynamics because of the amount of time they would spend with property owners and staff, the cost and the fact that they did not have a large project at this time. Mayor Pro Tem Grant, asked if all of the committee members had the same choice or if it was a split decision. Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 19 Community Development Director Sawyer, indicated that the committee members varied a little bit. Urban Design was in the top three for everyone. Mayor Matteson, indicated that Community Dynamics seemed to get all the points because the committee gave them the highest score, they have the lowest price, and everyone speaks very highly of them. Mayor Pro Tem Grant, indicated the he understood from Mr. Sawyer that Urban Design would be easier to manage. Councilmember Pfennighausen, stated that if it is going to be important for our staff to work closely with the consultant, and the product in the end is going to be superior, then I support staff's recommendation. Mayor Matteson, was concerned that a committee was formed and then another decision is made. Councilmember Pfennighausen, stated that the committee didn't have the additionalinformation as to the background or the track record. Community Development Director Sawyer, indicated that the committee was formed and made the first round interviews with the consultants, then the committee selected the top three. Of those top three, I did the reference checks and reviewed samples of what they would do for us. My decision for Urban Design was highly influenced by that information that came in after the committee disbanded. The committee members agreed they they would feel comfortable with either of the consultants. Mayor Matteson, stated that if it is that close, why not go with the one that is less expensive. Community Development Director Sawyer, stated that from staff s point of view, it is worth the extra money because it will make their job easier in working with the public. MOTION CC-89-75, FAILED 1-3-0-1 (MAYOR MATTESON VOTED AYE AND COUNCILMEMBER CARLSTROM ABSTAINED). CC-89-76 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GRANT, SECOND BY MAYOR MATTESON, CARRIED 4-0-0-1 (COUNCILMEMBER CARLSTROM ABSTAINED), to select Urban Design. Council Minutes - 05/11/89 Page 20 CLOSED SESSION Council went into closed session to discuss two items Possible Land Acquisition - no action was taken. Settlement with the City of Colton on sewers - it was agreed upon to settle that lawsuit and give the attorney the authority to complete the case. City Attorney Har er, reported that both parties now have the authority to sett�the Colton vs. Grand Terrace lawsuit which involves a dispute over the interpretation of the settlement agreement of the 1977 sewer lawsuit with Grand Terrace paying Colton the compromised amount of $155,000 representing the payments that we have not made that we were obligated to have made under the original settlement agreement. In addition, an accounting for any connections in a two-year period that no one at this point is quite sure we are current on. It's just a mathematical situation. ORDER OF ADJOURNMENT Mayor Matteson adjourned the City Council meeting at 9 40 p.m., until the next regular City Council/CRA meeting, which is scheduled to be held Thursday, May 25, 1989. DEPUTY CITY CLERK of the City of Grand Terrace. MAYOR of the City of Grand Terrace. DATE May 18, 1989 S T A F F R E P O R T CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (xx) MEETING DATE May 25, 1989 SUBJECT REJECT CLAIM GTLC 89-01 FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED x Staff has received a claim against the City for alleged in3uries received by the former tenants at the future park parcel at 22627 Grand Terrace Road The in3uries were supposed to have been as a result of a fall on our property and alleged negligence of the City The damages requested is for $250,000 Our records indicate that the tenants at no time reported any hazardous condition on the property, and our CDF Station has no record of any call for medical assistance on the date of the purported in3ury STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT COUNCIL REJECT CLAIM GTLC 89-01 AND REFER TO OUR LIABILITY CLAIMS ADJUSTOR TS bt FILED IN OFF(CE OF CITY CLERK c---1L-d� CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE DATES -/ 4Tlf,lE 30 m1 CITY CLERK CITY OF Cr:11NO TERRACE Y.Wvy� DATE MAY 10, 1989 BODILY INJURY XXX PROPERTY INJURY TO CITY OF GRAND TERRACE 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92324-5295 f Pursuant to the provisions of Section 905 and 910 of the Government Code of the State of California, demand is hereby made against the treasury of the CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, in the amount of $250,000 00 In support of said claim, the following information is submitted 1 NAME OF CLAIMANT NETTIE OSBORNE 2 ADDRESS OF CLAIMANT 18411 VALLEY BLVD , #29 BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316 3 ADDRESS TO WHICH CLAIMANT DESIRES NOTICE TO BE MAILED, (If different from Item 2) c/o LERNER, MOORE & BATTIN 141 N ARROWHEAD AVE , STE 1 SAN BERNARDINO CA 92408 4 NAME OF LEGAL OWNER OF DAMAGED PROPERTY UPON WHICH CLAIM IS BASED N/A 15 NAME OF REGISTERED OWNER OF DAMAGED PROPERTY UPON WHICH CLAIM IS BASED N/A 6 DATE ALLEGED DAMAGE OCCURRED 11 23/88 7 PLACE WHERE ALLEGED DAMAGE OCCURRED 22627 GRAND TERRACE ROAD, GRAND TERRACE CA 92324 8 TIME OF DAY OR NIGHT DAMAGE OCCURRED APPROX 1 00 P M 9 PUBLIC PROPERTY AND/OR PUBLIC OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES ALLEGED TO BE AT FAULT City of Grand Terrace owned and maintained the premises located at 22627 Grand Terrace Road, Grand Terrace California where the subject inci- dent occurred a 10 MANNER IN WHICH DAMAGES OCCURRED AND NATURE, EXTENT AND AMOUNT OF INJURY OR DAMAGE CLAIMED, TOGETHER WITH BASIS OF COMPUTATION THEREOF Claimant, a lessee of the aforementioned property, fell into a septic tank located in the back yard of said property Claimant alleges that the septic tank was negligently maintained by the City of Grand Terrace, causing claimant to fall and sustain injuries as more fully set forth herein That as a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the defendants, and each of them, as aforesaid, claimant sustained severe injuries consisting of bruises and contusions about claimant's entire body and severe shock to claimant's entire nervous system, that among other injuries, claimant sustained severe injury to claimant's neck, back, limbs and entire body, that claimant had suffered severe pain and still suffers from severe pain and shock and will continue zo suffer from severe pain and shock in the future, all to claimant's general damage in a sum within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court That as a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the defendants, and each of them, as aforesaid, and because of the injuries received by claimant, herein described, claimant has incurred bills for attendance by physicians, x-rays, medication, drugs and the like to date hereof, that claimant is still under the care of physicians and surgeons, and undergoing treatment of the injuries The undersigned, under penalty of perjury, states That the above claim and the items as therein set out are true and correct, that no part thereof has been heretofore paid, and that the amount therein is justly due this claimant, and that the same is presented within 6 months after the accrual of the cause of action DATED May 10, 1989 z Id�� CARLOS L JIMENEZ On Behalf Of Claimant NETTIE OSBORNE Planning Department CRAITEM () AGENDA ITEM NO STAFF REPORT DATE 5-18-89 COUNCIL ITEM () MEETING DATE 5-25-89 SUBJECT Consideration of TPM-89-2 for lot consolidation purposes '1 " FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED X BACKGROUND One of the conditions of approval placed on SP-87-1 (Forest City Dillon's Phase H of the Highlands Apartment Complex) was the recording of a one lot Parcel Map for the purpose of consolidating the existing multiple lots on which the project was proposed The Tentative Map submitted to your Council at this time fulfills this requirement The Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council is for approval as submitted in this report ZONING AND LAND USE Property GP Zone Land Use Subject Property MDR R-3 Vacant To the North MDR R-3 Edison Easement To the South MDR R-3 Vacant and Single Family Residence To the East LDR R-1 Single Family I Residences To the West MDR R-3 Gage Canal 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92324-5295 • (714) 824-6621 ///-�� L ZK uC 69 1 I- - DISCUSSION The subject map merges two independent parcels into one single 19 17 acre parcel for development purposes The boundary lines of the approved Mt Vernon Villas Phase II apartment project (SP/CUP-85-8) All conditions related to this Map have been made a part of the conditions of SP-87-1 RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department along with the Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A) appoving TPM-89-2 as conditioned Respectfully Submitted by David Sawyer, CommuniK Development Director TJ RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA APPROVING TPM 89-2 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Forest City Dillon, has applied for approval of TPM 89-2 to merge two independent parcels into one single 19 17 acre parcel located at 11852 Mt Vernon Avenue (Assessors Parcel Nos 275-251-010 and -076) for the purpose of constructing Phase II of Mt Vernon Villas (SP/CUP 85-8), and WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on May 15, 1989 to hear this application, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve TPM- 89-2 as conditioned, and WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on May 25, 1989 to hear this application, and WHEREAS, the recording of a one lot Parcel Map for the purpose of consolidating existing multiple lots was a condition of approval for SP 87-1, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, California, that the following findings have been made inaccordance with the approval SP-87-1 1 That the site is physically suitable for the proposed type of development 2 That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development 3 That the design of the single parcel and proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat 4 That the design of the parcel or type of proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems or cause threat to life and property from a wildland conflagration 5 That the proposed parcel together with the provisions for its design and improvements are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan 6 That the proposed parcel, its design, density and type of development and improvements conform to the conditions imposed by this chapter, the regulations of the Development Code, and the regulations of any public agency having jurisdiction by law 7 That there exists a Specific Plan covering the area proposed to be included within the project ATTACHMENT A 8 That the proposed land project together with the provisions for its design and improvement are consistent with the adopted Specific Plan for the area NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, California that TPM 89-2 (Exhibit A) is hereby approved subject to the following condition 1 Tentative Parcel Map 89-2 is subject to the conditions of approval of SP 87- 1 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, Califorma, at a regular meeting held the 25th day of May, 1989 by the following vote AYES NOES ABSENT ABSTAIN ATTEST Deputy City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM John Harper, City Attorney Byron Matteson, Mayor City of Grand Terrace m x `R l wcvrs r ,ias 1 z LOT I _ �S - \ o MB 1 I /d l _ x a L 1 W=TT i 1330611TE3, IN rL w G0 nns�zro zck., r �frea�tbvou.r.w�rnMcrhs wr)Wr A"VRw:r,rwrrw AMPOras dups". cs.WarwwaceaAWRA&A r i+ares wee car .52%v~ ax war AP esr war ar �rrrn�xnr .�acrfr .� ciTy a, Ce,f muo rE-eoeleel a•�� ,(.V /42lr4 C R A ITEM O AGENDA ITEM NO Planning Department STAFF REPORT DATE 5-17-89 COUNCIL ITEM (X) MEETING DATE 5-25-89 SUBJECT Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of SA-89-3 0 FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED X BACKGROUND On January 18, 1988, The Planning Commission conditionally approved a proposal to build a 2,805 sq ft commercial structure on the northern portion of the subject site That approval was then appealed to your Council which denied the project based on a finding of non-conformance with the General Plan After approximately a year, the applicant then combined their original parcel with the parcel to the south and is again submitting for site and architectural review The current proposal is for a single 6,283 sq ft commercial structure to be divided into five leasable areas, one of which contains 2,542 sq ft, two areas with 881 sq ft and two areas with 989 sq ft On April 3, 1989, the Site and Architectural Review Board considered the application and denied the project based on non-conformance with the General Plan The applicant has since appealed the Site and Architectural Review Board's decision to your Council (Attachment A) and the item is scheduled for your consideration at this time Included with this report for your information is the Planning Commission's staff report for April 3, 1989 (Attachment B), and the Minutes for that meeting (Attachment C) DISCUSSION Recently, The City Council selected the consulting firm of Urban Design Studio to prepare the Specific Plan for Barton Road This Plan will assist in the implementation 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92324-5295 (714) 824-6621 l0! of the following General Plan Objective, and Implementation Policy Objective "Prevention of "strip -commercial" uses along Barton Road is a major concern It is the intent of the General Plan that new commercial uses be carefully monitored New commercial uses should relate to existing development Isolated commercial projects as well as conversion of residential units to commercial use should be limited and prevented wherever possible " P VI-9 Implementation Pohcv "Commercial areas along Barton Road shall be designated for special study and methods to prevent "strip -commercial" type development investigated, This will require financial and legal cooperation between local merchants, land owners, and the City " P VI-9 The Specific Plan is to be a comprehensive development plan for the Barton Road commercial corridor It will contain specific landuse regulations as well as architectural and site development standards The intent of the plan will be to create a cohesive and interrelated development pattern rather than the "strip development" type of landuse pattern which occurs when individual owners of small or narrow lots develop independently of each other along a commercial street Public hearings are anticipated to begin during the upcoming summer months The proposed project is located on one of the key intersections within the specific plan's study area It is to be a single 6,283 sq ft structure oriented toward Mt Vernon Avenue The location of this structure is such that the future site design and landuse opportunities for this important corner will be severely limited The adjoining properties which make up the balance of this corner, are all owned by the same person who has indicated a desire to redevelop his properties once the specific plan is completed The location and design of the proposed structure prohibits a co-ordinated and inter -related development of this and the adjacent properties As a result, the proposed project clearly meets the definition of a "strip development" project "Strip development" Commercial or office development, which is usually one store in depth, faces on a major street and is developed independent of adjacent properties Consequently, the proposed project is not inconformance with the above referenced objective and implementation policy of the General Plan and will in fact be detrimental to the successful implementation of the General Plan RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department recommends the City Council deny the applicant's appeal, thereby upholding the Site and Architectural Review Board denial of SA-89-3 based on the following findings The Planning Department recommends the Site and Architectural Review Board deny SA- 89-3 based on the following findings The architectural design, location and configuration of the project as proposed will not be visually harmonious with surrounding sites and structures This is in conflict with Section 18 48 020(C) of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code 2 The architectural design, location and configuration of the project as ^� proposed prohibits a harmonious transition between this and adjacent landuses to the north and to the west This is in conflict with Section 18 48 020(E) of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code 3 The architectural design, location and configuration of the project as proposed will be detrimental to both public and private investments in the community by limiting adjacent site development opportunities and jeopardizing the success of the City's Barton Road Specific Plan currently under preparation This is in conflict with Section 18 48 020(D) of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code 4 The architectural design, location and configuration of the project as proposed is detrimental to the character of the zone by not adequately considering other existing or contemplated uses of adjacent properties and in the general area as explained in the staff report This is in conflict with Section 18 48 060(A & B) of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code 5 The architectural design, location and configuration of the project as proposed is inconsistent with the City's General Plan, specificly as described in the staff report regarding the following Objective and Implementation Policy, Objective 'Prevention of "strip -commercial" uses along Barton Road is a major concern It is the intent of the General Plan that new commercial uses be carefully monitored New commercial uses should relate to existing development Isolated commercial projects as well as conversion of residential units to commercial use should be linuted and prevented wherever possible " P VI-9 Implementation Policy "Commercial areas along Barton Road shall be designated for special study and methods to prevent "strip -commercial" type development investigated, This will require financial and legal cooperation between local merchants, land owners, and the City" P VI-9 This is in conflict with Section 18 48 020(A) and 18 48 080(C) of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code Respectfully Submitted by David Sawyer, Commurffy Development Director + _li t- rake � F r �.._ � �. C� 7�iE .i�� Y�-v t 'i �... 7^( =f _S 'S. fYl ■'�1s��%.rGC..-.. if J Y �iFh�✓11 Y_ 1 lii r tfe' 4y^.` "+R`:� $c^'i�y rl F tti } r • Y T"^ -Micheal S } d � Palmer, i t • 1 �.' 7y &-t±As�ociate§Y St » s tx�rd T.: ,:! 34Y'e''q'S.� X J R l "1 -^ -'^•','y.."4%Fa '-� i v .( A- l ri .-y,... _.. _f-+ 4 r i 1 Ir _ " t 1 c S i 4'• _ ese an Y Y ^>•,+..• _ r+ � ..(�.? .. .41`^�-t»t. 1205 J STREET_" SUITE F SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101' RECEIVED - (619) 2360595 FAX (619) 236-0557 f - APR 1 0 1989 } April S, 1989 ^ITY CLERK'S {KEPT I City of Brand Terrace Civic Center 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, California 92324 ATTENTIONP ANITA BROWN CITY CLERK RE: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING April 3, 1989 -- Case SA-89--3 Dear Ms. Brown: At the above referenced meeting, our client, M.S. Partnership, was denied the right to develop the property located at 22484 through 22468 Barton Road in your city. The reasons given for denial are unsatisfactory to us and to our client and contrary to California Law. Please consider this letter our formal request of appeal to the Qity Council. Enclosed is our checkfor the appeal fee in the amount of $133.00, payable to the City of ©rand Terrace, per our telephone conversation today Please contact our office with the hearing date at your earliest convenience. Respectfully Submitted, I Palmer and Associates ,James B. Bolton Senior Planner ATTACHMENT A t'o t FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: Site and Architectural Review Board David Sawyer, Community Development Director April 3, 1989 Staff Report, SA-89-3 MS Partnership 22484 - 22488 Barton Road ZONING AND LAND USE BYRON R MATTESON Mayor BARBARA PFENNIGHAUSEN Mayor Pro Tem Council Members HUGHJ GRANT DENNIS L EVANS SUSAN CRAWFORD THOMAS J SCHWAB City Manager PROPERTY GP ZONING LAND USE Subject Property GC C-2 Partially developed with a barbershop and liquor store To the North GC C-2 Bicycle shop To the South GC C-2 Gas station To the East GC C-2 Vacant market To the West GC C-2 Retail shops BACKGROUND On January 18, 1988, The Planning Commission conditionally approved a proposal to build a 2,805 sq ft commercial structure on the northern portion of the subject site That approval was then appealed to the City Council which denied the project based on a finding of non-conformance with the General Plan The applicant has now combined the northern parcel with their parcel to the south and is again submitting for site and architectural review The current proposal is for a single 6,283 sq ft commercial structure to be divided into five leasable areas, one of which contains 21`542 sq. ft , two areas with 881 sq ft and two areas with 989 sq ft ATTACHMENT B 22795 BARTON ROAD 9 GRAND TERRACE, CA 92324-5295 9 CIVIC CENTER — (714) 824-6621 DISCUSSION AND PLANNING ISSUES General Plan Issues Recently, The City Council authorized staff to send out Request For Proposals for the preparation of a Specific Plan for Barton Road This Plan will assist in the implementation of the following General Plan Objective, and Implementation Policy, Ob-lective "Prevention of "strip -commercial" uses along Barton Road is a maj or concern It is the intent of the General Plan that new commercial uses be carefully monitored New commercial uses should relate to existing development Isolated commercial projects as well as conversion of residential units to commercial use should be limited and prevented wherever possible " P VI-9 Implementation Policy "Commercial areas along Barton Road shall be designated for special study and methods to prevent "strip -commercial" type development investigated, This will require financial and legal cooperation between local merchants, land owners, and the City " P VI-9 The Request for Proposals have been sent out to consultant firms and their proposals are due in the Planning Department on April 7, 1989 Public hearings are anticipated to begin during the upcoming summer months The Specific Plan is to be a comprehensive development plan for the Barton Road commercial corridor It will contain specific landuse regulations as well as architectural and site development standards The intent of the plan will be to create a cohesive and interrelated development pattern rather than the "strip development" type of landuse pattern which occurs when individual owners of small or narrow lots develop independently of each other along a commercial street The proposed project is located on one of the key intersections within the specific plan's study area It is to be a single 6,283 sq ft structure oriented toward Mt Vernon Avenue (see Attachment A) The location of this structure is such that the future site design and landuse opportunities for this important corner will be severely limited The adjoining properties which make up the balance of this corner, are all owned by the same person who has indicated a desire to redevelop his properties once the specific plan is completed The location and design of the proposed structure prohibits a co-ordinated and inter -related development of this and the adjacent properties As a result, the proposed project clearly meets the definition of a "strip development" project "Strip development" Commercial or office development, which is usually one store in depth, faces on a ma]or street and is developed independent of adjacent properties. Consequently, the proposed project is not inconformance with the above referenced objective and implementation policy of the General Plan and will in fact be detrimental to the successful implementation of the General Plan Architecture The architectural features of the building are limited to the east and south elevations and include a blue slate metal roof, a white wooden cornice, gray stucco walls with brick veneer highlighting floor to ceiling aluminum storefront windows The western and northern elevations are flat, blank walls with no relief features As a result when viewing this structure from Barton Road (the southern elevation) and Briton Way (the northern elevation) it appears that the design has been sliced in half and only a portion of the building has been built It is staff's opinion that the architectural features included on the south and east elevations should also be continued throughout the north and west elevations Landscaping Landscaping for the project consists of Marathon sod, Gazanias, Star Jasmine, Indian Hawthorne and Suger Bush shrubs, and Liquidamber trees Parking The Applicant has provided 38 standard parking spaces with one handicapped space and one loading space This meets the requirements of the Municipal Code in relation to parking The project also meets the required 5% landscaping requirement for the parking area REVIEWING AGENCY COMMENTS The following comments were received on this project from our reviewing agencies 1 Memorandum from Forestry and Fire Warden Department dated March 8, 1989 (Attachment B), 2 Memorandum from Colton Unified School District dated March 8, 1989 (Attachment C), 3 Memorandum from City Engineer dated March 31, 1989 (Attachment D). 4 Memorandum from the Department of Environmental Health Services dated March 16, 1989 (Attachment E) For your information, please find attached as Attachment F, the following items, Planning Commission Minutes of December 7, 1987 and January 18, 1988, City Council Minutes of March 10, 1988, and the traffic report prepared for the applicant's previous submittal PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department recommends the Site and Architectural Review Board deny SA-89-3 based on the following findings 1 The architectural design, location and configuration of the project as proposed will not be visually harmonious with surrounding sites and structures This is in conflict with Section 18 48 030(C) of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code 2 The architectural design, location and configuration of the project as proposed prohibits a harmonious transition between this and adjacent landuses to the north and to the west This is in conflict with Section 18 48 030(E) of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code 3 The architectural design, location and configuration of the project as proposed will be detrimental to both public and private investments in the community by limiting adjacent site development opportunities and jeopardizing the success of the City's Barton Road Specific Plan currently under preparation This is in conflict with Section 18 48 030(D) of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code 4 The architectural design, location and configuration of the project as proposed is detrimental to the character of the zone by not adequately considering other existing or contemplated uses of adjacent properties and in the general area as explained in the staff report This is in conflict with Section 18 48 060(A & B) of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code 5 The architectural design, location and configuration of the project as proposed is inconsistent with the City's General Plan, specifically as described in the staff report regarding the following Objective and Implementation Policy, Ob3ective "Prevention of "strip -commercial" uses along Barton Road is a major concern. It is the intent of the General Plan that new commercial uses be carefully monitored. New commercial uses should relate to existing development Isolated commercial proDects as well as conversion of residential units to commercial use should be limited and prevented wherever possible " P VI-9 Implementation Policy "Commercial areas along Barton Road shall be designated for special study and methods to prevent "strip -commercial" type development investigated, This will require financial and legal cooperation between local merchants, land owners, and the City " P VI-9 This is in conflict with Section 18 48 030(A) of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code �;:e fu Submitted 7 Diavid Sawyer `/ Community Development Director U1111W1 111 Of Gr'aftd Ter~-a'ce- Planning Departrr(--.nt application CATION OP PROJECT (ADDRESS) ASSESSOR S PARCEL t PILC N4 vAE OP PROPOSER PROJfiGT RELATED FILES �ALICANT"8 NAME !IDRflBS Ian 5 J N DDF oNe GENERAL PLE C 2 C- ❑ SITE APPROVAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ❑ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ MINOR DEVIATION l-) -ONDITIONAL USE PERMIT LI VARIANQE L DE6CAIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (A /�7- -r ENERAL INFO JAA� TIQN HEQUIRED l5E V REVIEW REQUESTED ❑ ZONE CHANGE ❑ TRACT MAP C� PARCEL MAP ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ❑ CERT OF COMPLIANCE ❑ SIGN PERMIT OJECT DESCRIPTION B) �i ( Ul ./�`TI' U-� G t9 , '),3(0 b5 q,5- CA ( ❑ SPECIFIC PLAN APPROVAL ❑ DETERMINATION OF USE OWNER CERTIFICATION I CERTIFY THAT I AM PRESENTLY THE LEGAL OWNER FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY FURTHER, I ACKNOWLEDGE THE FILING OF THIS APPLICATION AND CERTIFY THAT ALL OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION 1S TRUE AND ACCURATE DATE —2 7 DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED DATE APPLICATION ACCEPTED -4 - SIGNATURE - ATTACHMENT A RECEIYED BY LL-FE,REI�BD t - RECEIPT NO [I. ,`' 7 939 STAFF ASSICINED ,E )M MARCH 8, 1989 CITY OF GRAND TLRRACE Planning Dept DAV1D J DRISCOLL, Chief County Fire Warden REFERENCE NO SA 09-03 APN FIRE PR=, CrlON RLM1RE MEC\71'S CHECKED BOXES WILL APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT t E r MAR 20 1989 r Fl The above referenced project is protected by the Forestry )01 & Fire Warden Dept Prior to construction occurring on any parcel the a4mer shall contact the fire department for verification of current fire protection development requireimenLs F2 All new construction shall coirply with applicable sections of the )02 1985 Uniform Fire Code (Ordinance No 106) , Development Code, Community Plans, and other statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations regarding Fires and fire prevention adopLed by the State of California F3 The street address shall be posted with a minimum of three (3) 303 nch numbers, visible from the street in accordance with San Bernardino ounty Ordinance No 2108, prior to occupancy Posted numbers shall contrast with their background and be vi sible and legible from the street I F4 Each chimney used uz conjunction with any fireplace or any 304 beating appliance Ln which solid or liquid fuel is used shall be maint- ainud with an approved spark arrestor as identified in the Uniform Fire Cocl e F5 All flammable vegetation shall be removed from each building 305 site a mu_nnrum distance of Lhirty (30) feet from any flammable building material, including a finished structure F6 The development and each phase thereof shall have two points 306 of vehicular access for fire and other emergency equipment, and for routes of escape which will safely handle evacuations as required in the Development Code F7 Private roadways which exceed one -hundred and fifty (150) in 307 length shall be approved by the fire agency having jurisdiction, and shall be extended to within one -hundred m-id fif Ly (150) feet of and shall give reasonable access to all porLions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building An access road shall be provided within fifty (50) feeL of all buildings is the natural grade between the access road and building is in excess of thirty percent (30%) Where (1) ATTACHMENT B - the access roadway cannot be provided, approved fire protection system or systems shall be provided as required and approved by the fire department F8 A turn -around shall be required at the end of each roadway 150 .FOOB feet or more in length and shall be approved by the fire department Cul-de-sac length shall not exceed six hundred (600) feet except as identified in the Development Code F9 Private road maintenance, including but not limited to grading .17009 and snow remval, shall be provided for prior to recordation or approval Written documentation shall be submitted to the fire agency having - jurisdiction X1 F10 All fire protection systems designed to meet the fire flow .FO10 requirements specifide in the Conditions of Appzoval for this project shall be approved by the fire agency having jurisdiction prior to the installation of said systems Said systems shall be installed and made serviceable prior to recordation unless construction of said systems has been bonded for a s required by the water purveyor Water for fire protection, as required by the fire agency having jurisdiction, shall be in and operable prior to the start of building construction and shall be over and above the average daily consumption of water The following are minimum requirements for your proposed development A System Standards *Fire Flow 2500 GPM @20 psi Residual Pressure Duration 2 Hour/s Hydrant Spacing 300 Feet between hydrants *If blank, flow to be determined by calculation when additional construction information is received B Distribution System Mains 6 inch minimum Laterials 6 inch minimum Riser 6 inch minimum C Fire Hydrants Numbers 2 Total l pe 6 Inch w/ 2 - 2 1/2 lnch outlet/s with National Standard thread and with 1 - 4 inch pumper connection Street Valve 6 Inch Gate 1XI Fll The required fire flaw shall be determined by appropriate cal- Imil (2) culations, using the 1974 editin of the Insurance Services Office (ISO) "Guide for the Determination of Required Fire Flow " F12 In areas without water -serving utilities, the fire protection 3F012 water system shall be based on NFPA Pamphlet No 1231, "Water Supplies for Suburban and Rural Fire Fighting" A storage reservoir must be provided for each parcel, the minimum capacity to be maintained shall be determined by the fire department 1XI F13 The developer or his engineer shall furnish the fire department IFS with two copies of water system inprovement plans where fire protection water systems are required The fire department shall also sign all water plans prior to recordation F14 Nbuntain Fire Zone building regulations specified in San Bernardino 3F014 County Ordinance No 2475 shall be strictly enforced F15 A greenbelt or fuel modification zone shall be required Req- U015 uirements will be site specific to the protect The greenbelt/zone plan must be filed with and approved by the fire department with 3urisdiction prior to recordation of the final map Maintenance of said greenbelts - and/or fuel modification zones shall be provided for with approval from the fire department )uesLions and/or co"ients may be directed to the Fire Protection Planning SecLion, County Government Center, 385 North Arrowhead, lst Floor, San Bernard- Ln, ralifornia, 92415-0186, or call 714-387-4225 Thank you for your coopeia- Lton Sx.ncex ely, BY I NANCY BEST r'ire rrotection eianning inspector Z!c MPA M S PARTNER SHIP RIVERSIDE HIGHLAND WATER 3517 FILE The following are (X) Non -Standard Conditions I I Clarifications I I Comments INTERIOR TURNING RADIUS SHALL BE INCREASED TO ACCOMDDATE FIRE APPARATUS (3) NON-STANDARD CONDITIONS NAME. MPA/MS PARTNERSHIP REFERENCE # SA89-03 LOCATION 22484-22488 N Barton Rd Grand Terrace, Ca 92324 THE FOLLOWING NON-STANDARD CONDITIONS SHALL APPLY TO THIS PROJECT BASED UPON PLANS SUBMITTED TO THIS OFFICE PLEASE CONTACT THE INDICATED FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING OFFICE FOR THE APPLICABLE STANDARD AND PROCEDURE FOR COMPLIANCE X� F16 Fire extinguishers are required in accordance with Uniform Fire Code Standard #10-1 F17 Any gated access shall be approved by the Fire Department and emergency access arrangements made prior to occupancy F18 Additional requirements may be applied due to the lack of sufficient information to review Please submit building plans and declaration of use for proper application of codes F19 The building occupancy is under the jurisdiction of the State Fire Marshal Written documentation of review and inspection required prior to final occupancy Contact the West Covina Office at 818-960-6441 F20 All flammable liquid storage and dispensing shall be in compliance with the applicable sections of the Uniform Fire Code Article 79 Plan review and permit to operate are required F21 All commercial Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) storage and dispensing shall be in compliance with the Uniform Fire Code Article 82 and County Ordinance #3054 Plan review and permit to operate are required IXI F22 All -access roadways shall be in accordance with County Ordinance #3055 F23 Development is within the Safety Foothills Hazardous Protective Overlay Area (Greenbelt Standards) Compliance with the provisions of County Ordinance 43108 as applicable and determined by the Fire Department shall be required In those areas not so designated under said ordinance, the appropriate Community Plan Overlay Ordinance will apply F24 An automatic fire alarm system is required. Said system shall be installed to the requirements of Uniform Fire Code Standard #10-2. F25 Additional requirements shall be required as noted on attachments —r FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT• LOCATION PROJECT BYRON R MATTESON Mayor BARBARA• PFENNIGHAUSEN Mayor Pro Tom Council Members HUGH J GRANT DENNIS L EVANS SUSAN CRAWFORD THOMAS J SCHWAB City Manager February 28, 1989 SA-89-03 MPA/MS PARTNERSHIP 22484-22488 NORTH BARTON ROAD AN APPLICATION FOR A SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A COMMERCIAL RETAIL CENTER, 6,283 SQ FT. Dear Reviewing Agencies The above referenced application is on file with the Grand Terrace Planning Department Please submit any comments your agency may have regarding this application to the attention of David R Sawyer, Community Development Director, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, 92324 Your comments must be received in this office no later than March 15, 1989 (WEDNESDAY) Sincerely, David R Sawyer Community Development Director DRS/mcm 22795 BARTON ROAD • GRAND TERRACE, CA 92324-5295 o CIVIC CENTER — (714) 824-6621 FILE NUMBER' APPLICANT: LOCATION. MAR 08 1�b9 February 28, 1989 SA-89-03 MPA/MS PARTNERSHIP 22484-22488 NORTH BARTON ROAD BYRON R MATTESON Mayor BARBARA PFENNIGHAUSEN Mayor Pro Tem Council Members HUGHJ GRANT DENNIS L EVANS SUSAN CRAWFORD THOMAS J SCHWAB City Manager PROJECT. AN APPLICATION FOR A SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A COMMERCIAL RETAIL CENTER, 6,283 SQ FT. Dear Reviewing Agencies The above referenced application is on file with the Grand Terrace Planning Department Please submit any comments your agency may have regarding this application to the attention of David R Sawyer, Community Development Director, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, 92324 Your comments must be received in this office no later than March 15, 1989 (WEDNESDAY) Sincerely, David R Sawyer Community Development Director DRS/mcm The Colton Joint Unified School District is impacted at the present time As a result, the district is charging a fee of $ 25 per sq ft of covered and enclosed commercial space This fee will increase to $ 26 per sq ft on June 1, 1989 At this time, CJUSD has no objections to the above referenced project other than to recommend the City's Historical and Scenic Preservation Committee be notified of the potential loss of one of the community's first commercial buildings Yz,�� 1 - Kent Van Gelder ATTACHMENT C Coordinator, School Facilities 22795 BARTON ROAD 9 GRAND TERRACE, CA 92324-5295 • CIVIC CENTER — (714) 824-6621 22795 Barton Road Grand Teriace r nia 92324-5295 Civic. Center (714) 824-6621 Planning Depai tment The City engineer's comments are the same as his memorandum dated October 14, 1987 regarding the applicant's previous submittal with the exception of the amount required for the traffic light fund The adjusted traffic light fee will be provided to you at the time of the meeting ATTACHMENT D PLANNING DEPARTMENT W 0 12-8 5083 SA 87-11 MEMORANDUM BYRON R MATTESON Mayor BARBARA PFENNIGHAUSEN Mayor Pro Tom Council Members HUGH J GRANT DENNIS L EVANS SUSAN CRAWFORD THOMASJ SCHWAB City Manager To David Sawyer, Planning Director From Joseph Kicak, City Engineer Date October 14, 1987 Subject SA 87-11 ----------------------------------------------------------- The following requirements should be considered as conditions of approval for subject project 1 Dedicate to provide for forty four (44) feet of right-of-way westerly of centerline of Mt Vernon Avenue 2 If standard curb and gutter does not exist, construct standard curb and gutter at thirty two (32) feet from centerline 3 Construct standard sidewalk 4. Install ornamental street lights 5 Obtain from Riverside Highland Water Company and provide to the City a copy of "Will Serve Letter" 6 Evaluate traffic impact on A4t. Vernon Avenue resulting from the proposed development 7 Pay into the traffic signal fund for upgrading of the signal at Barton Road and Mt Vernon Avenue J %, 8 All utilities shall be underground 9 All improvements to be designed by owner's civil engineer to the specifications of the City JK wl 22795 BARTON ROAD • GRAND TERRACE, CA 92324-5295 • CIVIC CENTER — (714) 824-6621 FILE NUMBER APPLICANT: LOCATION. PROJECT: BYRON R MATTESON Mayor BARBARA PFENNIGHAUSEN Mayor Pro Tem Council Members HUGHJ GRANT DENNIS L EVANS SUSAN CRAWFORD THOMAS J SCHWAB City Manager February 28, 1989 MAR 2 3 16j�9 SA-89-03 MPA/MS PARTNERSHIP 22484-22488 NORTH BARTON ROAD AN APPLICATION FOR A SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A COMMERCIAL RETAIL CENTER, 6,283 SQ FT. Dear Reviewing Agencies The above referenced application is on file with the Grand Terrace Planning Department Please submit any comments your agency may have regarding this application to the attention of David R Sawyer, Community Development Director, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, 92324 Your comments must be received in this office no later than March 15, 1989 (WEDNESDAY) Sincerely, David R Sawyer Community Development Director DRS mcm �~ S(� b 7L /f� 0"W Alla'e S �s 35��-`L(�-�z 22795 BARTON ROAD • GRAND TERRACE, CA 92324-5298 CIVIJ AI4 N(M4 FQ4,6�2T E get our answer on Lhe legal clues Lion the Planning Director stated that the Commission may w)sh to defer this FurLher action until later in the meeting The CiLy Attornoy did indicate that he would be here tonight Chairman Caouette stated that he would recommend that they do that He suggested that they tale up the next item on the agenda Mr Kostel asked for clarification if the Commission would have an opinion tonight on whether or not there was something to do with site #1 Ile explained that they have already been working towards arranging for drilling and they really need to know if there was going to be a lengthy delay Chairman Caouette clarified Lliat at this point the only delay they were laolcing at was until the Commission f1113she-, with the next -item and with luck the City AL Forney "ou 1 d be here to give a l ztt le guidance Pl ANNI.NG COMMISSION ADJOURNFD Al 7 45 P M SITE AND ARCHIlhCPURAL RFVtEW BOARD C'ONVFNTD AF 7 45 P M SA-87-I1 M S Part Uers M p BSK Fngineering Commercial Devel ollmenL The Planning Director presented Lhe stafi report with recommendat)ons and conditions from reviewing agencies and the Citv Engineer Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder referred to the completed traffic control study She asked if the anticipated traffic increase from this project and the apartment project to the west were considered in this study The Planning Director slated that the Engineering Department reviewed the report and he did not know to what extent the number of trips had been included from those apartment projects He stated that thev should not condition this project based on trips from another project Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelde1 asked if the study included what was already exzsLing in regard, to traffic T(� �gg )a-7-07 ATTACHMENT F problems The Planning Director stated that this was a new commercial SLructure and iL will create h amount of traffic traps He mentioned that Lhey need to ask if those traffic trips are going to ktck what was there, now over a threshold and thus create a problem lheref ore t hey wou l d l oo1: a L t he ea is -Li ng traps t tirough that area and then come up wish a total after the new proposed trips had been added to chat Commissioner Hargrave referred to page two, paragraph 6, of the sLaff report He asked what Lhe problems were before staff reviewed the project and once the project was reviewed what changes were made to concur that the project dad not have a traffic problem based on revisions Lhat staff suggested accordingly The Planning Director st atecl that one of the concerns was how the entrance and exit onto Mt Vernon Avenue would affect the intersection as far as queang and the distance to that inLersecLioa That was reviewed by CG Engineering and Kicalc and Associates and they felt that the distance was adequate for the trips and fo> the capacity of that intersection There was concern from the planning point of view whether or not one entrance would be sufficient- and whether or not staff wanted to prevent any other access onto the property to Lhe south The original proposal was that there would be thru traffic at this point of access He further mentioned that the original plan called for a driveway Lhat would come down and eat onto Barton Road The City Engineer's Office took a look at that and reviewed the study that was done and as a result, staff had the applicant- move some parking spaces into that area, and would require wheel stops to block Lhat access The Planning Director stated that the other issue was whether or not this particular use would create more traffic than what the new intersection would be able to handle and the City Engineer's Office felt that the improvement plans for -this intersection would be able to handle the newly genera Led tratflc from this sate Commissioner Hargrave men Lioned that according to the site plan there was one driveway with ingress/egress out of Lhe same drivewav the Plann) i)g D) re c Lor stated Lhat was correct 13 Commissioner Hargrave asked what study CG Engineering was using to base their tratflc count on He asked if they were usin' lite old study from 1983 or are they using current. studies based on trip meters If so, are the trip meters set for certain streets in the city or was the study based on all circulation patterns in that area the Planning Director stated that CG Engineering was the firm that had prepared the earlier traffic study for that triangular area and they were using that as a base Commissioner Hargrave mentioned that they could have used the old studies which had been dealing with the old traffic patterns The Planning Director stated that for the base they did use the old traffic study They, however, did take a look at the impact from this particular structure and used current standards Commissioner Cole referred to condition #31, about the vehicular access between parcels He asked if that was put in with the future building in mind so there can be access through there He asked if that was the idea so the Cornmission could grant the applicant permission at that time, only in the event that the second building was put in The Planning Director explained that was only in the event that the second building would come through and that entire coiner would be re1D 1 annned and resubmitLed Statt would not want to apr)rove it ii that liquor store was staving We feel that was not a situation we would want 1 o approve now or in the suture Vir_e-('hdirwoman Van Gelder expressed her concern that the applicant should be aware that if the Commission did certain things on this pro)e(_t that it will reflect on another pro3ect For example, the placement of the building if the Commission approved at would have an effect on any future plans The Planning Director stated that it definitely would Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder referred to the 26' between the west side of the building and the property line She asked how much of that space could be utilized as part of the building and the applicant still have the required amount of landscaping 14 the Planning Director explained that all of the property that is directly west of the building was not included in the landscaping figure That figure represents that which is within the parking area The applicant could wipe out all of that landscaped area and sti11 meet the parking landscaping requirement The building that they are wanting to do later will eliminate much of those larger landscaped areas When they come back to do that they would have to provide more landscaping in another portion which would be the property to the south to balance that out Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder slated that it would become one development instead of two The Planning Director stated that was correct He expJained that as the applicant pointed out they would be coming back in wil h a resubm3 ttal not only for this site but the combined sites, because the building they want to bi-IIg in later would ci oss the property lines One of our conditions would be the elimination of that line and a one l of subdivision be. completed He e\plained, that_ way the lots could be combined and staff could look at the entire project as one project Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder expressed her concern with the 26'of space She felt that it was wasted space and could attract problems in the area of vandalism Vice - Chairwoman Van Gelder suggested transferring the 26' to the front of the building or transferring the 26' into the building itself She suggested taking the space in the project dnd converting it into two stores, three stores out of the area would be too small The Planning Director stated that when square footage is added onto a building staff needs to look at the parking He mentioned that they are one space over what was required so that would give thern 200-250 sq ft of building space they could add on and still meet the parking requirement He mentioned that the type of tenants that would probably go into a small type of environment such as this creates a situation where parking is always critical He suggested that the best thing would probably be to move o,,er and lef them pick up some space in the building and move the landscaping from the west side to the east side Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked if there was less tharr 1000 sq ft in each section Zhe Planning Director stated that it would be less depending how the applicant divided i1 up 15 M Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder referred l.o a previous project which had less than JOOO sq feet and the Planning Commission's agreement that this was too small Chairman Caouetie suggested that one solution was to take the 26' and move it over to the Mt Vernon side and move the building back The other suggestion was the possibility of landscaping the lot on the south property line He asked the Planning Director for comments on the feasibility of accomplishing either one of those The Planning Director mentioned that movement of the landscaping over to the Mt Vernon side and that it would be a plus for the project He stated that the landscaping in the corner would be dead space and would not benefit anyone He said that if it were moved it would be a plus for the project From an overall design view He stated that putting a landscaping portion on the south property line where the access issue was of concern would prevent anyone from going over those wheel stops to get Lo Bar Lon Road If at is necessary in the future as the conditions are worded he could require it at the time it was needed He mentioned that. he would be concerned with how such a landscaped area would effect the required parking dimensions Commissioner Sims stated 11-18L it has been mentioned that there were problems with leasing of the liquor store property He asked if there was anv time lane the applicant, would be to l l,,ing about as to when they were thinking about putting in another s1 ruct ure in this area the Planning Director explained that he had indications that the lease with the Iiquor store was one of the problems Commissioner Hargrave referred to Zone C-2 and asked what things could not be put into this structure as far as tenants The Planning Director stated that the commercial C-Z Zone is the ieLail lone 'They are looking for retail shops, walkin and driveup facilities The code is broken into two different sections One allows uses to come in without a use permit and the other, uses which would requir P a C oaLdi Li ona 1 use permit We don' L have a section of the code which just lasLs a prohibitive use for a pdrttcular cone so vour answer would be 16 anything other than retail stores, personal services, appliance stores, bakeries, banks, barber shops, department stores, beauty shops, hardware stores, mortuaries, offices, bookstores, nurseries, restaurants, shoe repair shops Those types of uses can go in just by coming in and meeting the parking requirements Conditional Use Permits would be needed for auto repair shops, clothes cleaning establishments, second hand sales, pet shops, hotels and new or used car lots, public service stations, public garages, and restaurants which include consumption of liquor Anything that is not listed in that would be a use that would r►ot be permitted, such as an industrial type use, cabinet shop, and any of the Conditional Use Permit uses which the Commission would then deny Additionally, it would be a difficulty coming into this particular site with a restaurant because of the additional parking that would be required for a restaurant type use Commissioner Sims asked if that would apply even if the restaurant were a non —liquor establishment the Planning Director stated that it would He mentioned that 11ow our code for restaurants is "Restaurants, nightclubs, and other similar places requires one parking place for each three seats and for every 50 sq ft of floor area where seats may be placed and a minimum of ten parking spaces provided He further mentioned that the applicant had a total of 18 parking spaces A 1,000 sq ft sandwich shop restaurant would require ten (10) of those spaces If the whole area was used for a restaurant the Commission would be looking at floor space, seating area, etc It would be very difficult to squeeze in parking for that under the current code When the code is revised after the General Plan is completed it would have to meet any changes and would be looking more at a use type structure for the code which may increase restaurant requirements Whether liquor is served or not, right now makes no difference Chairman Caouette asked the applicant or representative to address the Commission Mr Bhal Kavthekar ASK Engineering Associates 14730 Beach Blvd #207 17 ,,i Mirada, CA 90618 Mr Kavthe kar introduced Mr Jerry Dowd of M S Partnership and stated they would be glad to answer any questions from the Planning Commission He stated that they agreed with all of the recommendations tin the staff report Chairman Caouette asked if he would comment on the Commission's diSCusSLon on taking the landscape area and moving it onto the Mt Version side of the building Mr Dowd stated that he understood that this was not part of the required landscaping He referred to Vi_ce— Ch irwo an Van Gelder's idea that he would want to in egraTe the development when he does the second part of the project He stated that at that point in time he was planning to do extensive landscaping at the section of Mt Veinon and Barton Road One of the ideas or recommendations that the Planning Commission stated earlier was to add some landscaping through the parking area which he would be willing to do The biggest problem with moving the building in was that as he built another ouiId3ng at some future date, somewhere in 3-4 years, he would be creating a dead space or unleasable space with no visibility with any of the tenants He stated that one of the things they have done in the past, especially when they have built the other building, was to create gate work and L integrate the two architectures of the buiIdings so that there would not be an open area He mentioned at this point in time this project has a trash enclosure in there and he would be w1L13ng to add additional landscaping up in the front towards the street He stated that it would be hest to close off that area to prevent the public from having access It was put on the Site Plan but it was not required to meet any city code He Celt that the landscaping info the parking area was a much better idea Commissioner Cole asked if there were any studies as far as where the future building would be located or if they would be physically attached He asked if there was Some thought as to the physical separation regarding the two buildings Mr Dowd mentioned that then would like to get rid of the liquor store due to the traffic problems it causes However, they have an existing lease for about 3 1/2 years so they are forced to live with that lease Whenever he develops the second building he would be 16 required to dedicate about 17' feet along Barton and izi addition to that there was a 50 foot building setback The buildings will come pretty close to each other enough so that a rod iron gate would work Commissioner Cole mentioned that the Commission's concern is when the building is put in there it would be fairly close to the existing building and the future building then you are really creating a dead space back there Mr Dowd stated that thev were going to try to get them as close as possible He mentioned that they would be putting in a block wall along the northerly property line He stated that his biggest problem was developing something on its own but not sometning that would create a dead retail space or no visibil3T-y from a major street The preliminary plans lie had done for landscaping showed substantidl landscaping at the intersection Commissioner Munson asked specifically how many square feet were proposed in the second building Mr Dowd replied 3491 sq teet Commissioner Munson. asked if that would go along the property line Mr Dowd replied it would go along the west property line which would bacl, up against the e),isting building Commissioner Munson asked if these was 17' ft plus 50' ft for the trout of the building The Planning Director reminded the Commission that they are having to look at this as a project on its own Also, remember when the protect comes back to add the second building they will have to start from scratch as far as a Site and Architectural Review approval He mentioned that the Commission would be considering all of those items at that time as to where the trash enclosure should be, parking decisions, where signage should be placed all of these items will have to be dealt with then Mr Dowd stated that he understood this because from their standpoint they are looking at 3-4 years in time Commissioner Sims stated tlidt it sounded as if the applicant had put in some thought to a second ouilding He stated thrit the Comma ssi on was truing to l ook at 19 this project and felt that it would not be compatible with a protect that may occur 3-4 years from now He questioned as Lo how he could justiiy in his mind the location of the huilding and the planning of the project and if it would be compatible with what would be happening la Ler He menu oned that they are dealing with numbers but nothing concrete Lo lool. at The Planning Director explained that, this was a project that he would like to do in one overall site review } However, the applicant is corning in no%F on the 1st phase with its own separate legal parcel and that the applicant wants to come back and combine it with another parcel later From a planning point of view it has to be looked at as the one application now, but keeping in mind that there are some things that can happen in the future We don't want to give any indication aL Lhis time that something will be approved in the future Basically, the applicant is gambling That the Commisstoli is going to approve this project and that the applicant will be able to do what they have planned later Commissioner Sims asked why he could not see the preliminary layouts on the future development Mr Dowd explained Lhat originally theN were going to submit one plan but decided that in everyone's best interest because it was 4 years off and could not phase the development to build a second building when. the liquor store lease was up He stated That the biggest problem for the City and themselves was the phase development parking The Planning Director stated that he had a preliminary plan which the applicant had )ust handed to him and reemphasized that it was prelimi-nary He mentioned that s Laf i had not done a z ev i ew on it Commissioner Sims stated that he had the same concerns as Vice —Chairwoman Van Gelder with the landscaping, parking and gate enclosure in relationship with the future building The Planning Direcior mentioned that as he passed the pre t i minaz y plans to keep in mind that staff had not studied Lhem and thev are not reaoy for actual subinitLal Chairman CaouPtte suggested that as a stand alone he had a problem wiLh the landscaped area, where it was and really felt it would be better oif with the 20 landscaping dlong Barton Road He meni toned that looking at the future preliminary plans he did not see that improving with a second building it was still a problem area wi Liz dead space Commissioner Munson asked how much dedication would be on the westside of Mt Vernon, north of Barton Road He asked the app]icant if they were planning to dedicate any of that property to the City Mr Dowd explained that there was 11' as part of the proposal that was being dedicated along with all of the o f f s 1 t e improvements that would be done along Mt Vernon Commissioner Munson referred to the driveway near the liquor store Ile mentioned that if 11' is removed from the proposed bu3Iding, will that eliminate the driveway' The Pl ann) ng 1)1 7 e r t or meni ) oned that the J 1 ' of dedica.t I on was out y on t III s parce 1 and staff was hindered from rpcftij ring any dedi cats on on the soiitherl� parcel which wouJd affect the liquor store at this time Commissioner Hawkinson clarified that at some point in time there will probably be a need for a turn pocket az tine intersecti oil lheretore , that would be -cne 2nd Phase and was there some ,Lreet dedication along there Mr Dowd men ti on(,d chat there ) s an 11' dedicai ) on and then ic would go Lo 17' along Barton Road, but it can't be dedicated uiitil the liquor store is torn down CommiSSiOner Hargrave mentioned that he was concerned also with ilie dead space and was not sure if he was in agreement with the applicanL as far as dead space for renLing He assumed Lhat there would not be anything to the north. of the trash enclosure area He pointed out the dilemma the Commission had in dealing with a "possible SPC011d building Commissioner Hargrave pointed out Lhat he would like to see maximum usage of the property as tar as square footage and felt that this location is a key area for the City of Grand Terrace Mr Dowd asked for a continuance to come back with the projecL Chairman Caouet to a5]ced it two wp(,ks would be sufficient 21 the Planning DirecLor stated that the next meeting would be December 21, 1987 and the agenda already had two different items for SZLe and Architectural Review He suggested continuing to the first meeting in January, unless this would be an undue hardship on the applicant in which case it coula be continued to December 21st, 1987 Mr Dowd mentioned that he had no problem with continuance til January 4, L988 The Planning Director asked the Commission if there were any par LicuIar issues that they would want to see or want staff to look at Chairman Caouette referred to earlier discussion on moving the building back some and removing the landscaping He stated that he also wondered about adding some square iootage in that process qhe Planning Director stated that he had also noticed Lhere was some concern about the traffic study and asked if there were any questions along that line Commissioner Hargrave stated thal lie thought the base traffic study was dated 1985 but requested staff to check with the City Engineer The Planning Director mentioned that the current traffic study did have a date of October 1987 and had pro3ected generated trips added onto that number but thought the traffic base was 1985 He statea staff would check on the base traffic study used Commissioner Hargrave requested the developers not to change the trash enclosure area while preparing for the next meeting The Planning Director pointed out that the Commission will be looking at design alternatives Mr Dowd stated ihaf he felt the greatest concern from the Commission was to minimize the dead space ana remove Some of the landscaping along 1`1t Vernon as a trade oft Chairman Caoueite requested the applicant to consider putting J andscapi ng along the soul kern portion Mr Dowd asked would it be better to look at stones rather than a landscaping area 22 Comllii s s i one Munson suggested tyi ng t he building Logethrr w3LIz a slanted visual connection This would not provide as wide a frontage but it would provide the visibili.ly Commissioner Hawkinson asked if there would be a limited dccess and possible difficulty in dumpster entrance for the enclosed trash area The Planning Director slated that he had similar concerns in putting the trash area back in the corner He mentioned Lhdt it may be convenient for the applicant in placing it back there but the wheeling in and out of the dumpsters can cause damage to landscaping and pavement Staff has been working with the applicant in remedying those concerns MO.L ION PCM-87-83 Chairman CaoueLte moved that SA-87-31 be continued to January 4 , 3 988 Comrnis53 over Munson seconded the rno-L3 on MOT10N CARRIED ALL AYES PLANNING COMMISSION MCEflNG RECONVENLD AT 8 35 P M Chairman CaouetLe mentioned tnat there was still unfinished business, items #2,#3, anti #4 Uhe Commission did not have Lhe benefit of the presence of Lhe City Attornev at this meeting yet He asked the Planning Director 3f this should be continued to d later date to allow some sort of discovery on the issue of the placement of the roadway Commissioner Hawkinson asked if the City of Riverside would be receptive to a relocation of the well, if it does prove there 3s a conflict, or would there be a major street alignment The Planning Director stated that the well site was designed with a 50' buffer between the sewer lines and a 50' buffer between the property line of parcel #1 and the actual dwelling site of the well Theti may run into problems if Lhey have to move the well and come in too close wiLh the existing sewer lines As it 3s proposed now on the map and what the Planning ConsultanL is considering for the alignment of that road, Lhe well sites would have to be moved and they wouldn't be able Jo move t he si re w3-Lliin the parcel 23 they would that have to move the parcel over in order to do Commissioner Cole asked if because of the pie13mindry study, as far as the road realignment, would There be a major impact one way or the other The Planning D)rector stated that he did not see how there would be an impact for -that area but there would be a burden for cextain property owners -�� Commissioner Cole ment)oned that he understood the C)-tv 5Qiv side ha ac qui red the property h��y eminent maa n ��here f or e there would be a new legal liar t l e t o move it over 50 ft or whatever 'Ilze Planning Director Suggesl ed that the best compromise would be to move this item to the next meet zng and a that time rece3 ve the answers to trig legal questions hopefully by that time i MOTION PCM-87-84 Mr loostei slated that the possible road al) gnment has caught the City of Riverside by surprise He stated tliat they had to go through eminen-t domain and need to go ahead due to the lack of water availabre from other sources pr7 or 10 the summer deddl i ne He mentioned that they xould apprec)ate the Commission's efforts to speed this up Chairman Caouettc made the motion to continue TPM-87-6, CUP-87-13, and SA-67-13 until the December 21, 1987 Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Hawkinson seconded MOTION CARRIED ALI, AYES SITE AND ARCHIIECJURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNFD AT 8 45 P ,q PLANNING COMMISSION, MEETING ADJOURNED Ar 8 45 P M ReC tTily Submr t-t ed , David R SaWyer, Planning Di recl or 7 24 Approved By, C N rLn �Caouet to , Cha) rrnan Planning Cornmit,s i on 7 HE MI NU IL5 )'ROM ]HT- NOVFMB,R 2, 1987 i`( E j 1 tC, COMMISSIONER HAWKINSON SI CONDi D MOTION VOTE PCM-88-1 ?101 ION CARRTI'l) ('HAIR',1AN CAOIJl i 7F AI3) i A 1 \i1 1) n- 0-1-0 MOTION PCM-88-2 11/16/87 MINUTFS P C MEETING COMMISSIONER HAWKI\90N MAIJF 7HE °101I0\ 10 HPPROI/E THE MI NUI FS FROM FHE NOVEMBER 16, 1987 AYI1H CORRECTIONS AS NOTED IN THE PIJ]31,1 C 1 U]l1�SHc)I� SESSION VI C'E-CHAIRWONAN VAN GEE DER Sl COND MOTION VOTE PCM-88-2 i MOTION CARRIED 4-0-2-0 , CO` 111 S5I 0NE149 ill \�)o \ AND HARGRAVE ABSTAINED PLANNING CO0M.LSSI0N MEh7.Ij$3 ADJ01j1z$31) Al i 05 P 11 SITE AND ARCHITFC7 URAL REVIEW BOARD C'ONYENED A C 7 05 P m ITEM #3 SA-87-11 MS PARTNERSHIP 22488 BARTON ROAD COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE The Planning Director etiplained chat tli)s item xNas first presented at the December 7t1,, J 988 Planning Commission Meeting At that time the Cornmis-�ion was concerned wa th the proposed location of the structure and the landscaping area whic.)) %%8S located west of the buz1ding Fhe applicant is `19 Development, and the location of the development is at 22488 Barton Road Since that meeting staft has mr-i \�31h `1-) V, ,?c, Ml� u-T-� I-)S-g8 Partnership and has reiterated the Commission s concerns expressed at that meeting In an efiort to address those concerns the applicant has revised the project by replacing the green landscaped area w111Z an enclosed paved access area utility panels only 71i1s dreg will not have a solid roof and would not be counted as square footage The applicant feels that this will worl\ well wi th any additional future Bevel opinent (The applicant had provided staff with a rendering of how the two buildings would he developed in the future) The applicant had indicated that they wished to keep the structure in it,., originally proposed location in recognition of the Planning Commission's previous concerns regarding the (now proposed) P_ncloSed area In the west of tie structure and tlip appl a caiil 's dPsire 1 o 1)e a close to Mt Vernon Avenue 75 possible titafi J P I that the conch 1 i ons 1 i 51 ed in the s t_afi repo, i would be an apluropri (3-Le comprom) se to parties The Planning Di recto) present ec1 the staff re»ol-i with the recommendations from the C'i-cy Fngineer and Reviewing Agency es 7 ne Planning 1)cpari meni recommended that the Planning Comm) S s l oil approve SA-87-11 subject to the eleven (Jl) condationS mentioned i ii the staff report presented at Tile December 7, 1988 Pldnna ng Commission meeting and the additional four (4) concaitions t isteci in -tie current staff report Chairman Caouette asked if there were ail) questions from staff Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked what si2,e lattice work was being considered for the utility area The Planning Director stated that the size, as indicated in the applicant's presentation, would have openings large enough for someone to crawl in He suggested that the concern be addressed io the applicant Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder expressed concern with children getting in there with electrical equipment The Pl anna ng Di reel or cl ara fa ed 1 lin l a l l oi t lie utilities are located wit ha n panel s chid t ha t t herr would be no physical dcce55 watlaouit a 1,ev 111e heaght of the f ence would he the game <)s THP walls He mentioned thni the oulside appearance would l oolc as if i he hu i 7 d r.ng ea tended ) nto that area The Planning Comin3 ss1on l ool�Pd at the pj any, and -the renderings Commissioner HargravP aSkPcl what the advalli ages and da sadvant ages ware 1 ti re gord9 to s i ypF or coil cPpl 'the Pl arena ng 1)a reci or sl atPd that i hP appl icani had concerns over chat area being dead space This was a way that they could go in and use ihaI area From staf f' s po) n L of view it had the advantage of not being an opened clultered arFa and at would be out of s)te 17he alternat>,,P to having th)s space being open and landscapes was what we had talked about betore Iti11t, the possabzlaty of a second bai) lcling coma n,,-) in there is a poLeut:ia1 of that being a Lrapped area and aT could collect debris and 1)e a safety prcoiern Without the second building there it would s i rnpl,, be a landscaped area that woulcl he ad)acenr to the building and parking area Also, there would be no reason to have this area walled off Commissioner Hargrave asked If Lhe Piann)i g Director could corne up with some other aPsac1rns that could be 3mptPmented oil i1irs property The Planning Direc-1 or expl ar nett 1 hai 1 he al-1) 1 I c,an was trying to rnaxlrnl7e t he use of the land They are doing thai with the two bats ld)ngs Tt snoazld be noted that there Zs a pro hIem with the exis-L3 ng bui l d) ng ( ) n i ront) prevenr Ilia them from going forward wr th the who 1 e project at once Assuming that Lhere was not a probj ern he tnougn, that the two buildings could be tied rtogether into an "L" shaped building The applicani Indacateo that there were leasing coat prris regards ng that The Planning Director s Caged i hal he thought tho"H concerns could be eliminated with larger units and not having to have an i ndivi dua 1 unit back 1 n t lip corner The corner iinr t cou 1 d be an extension of a larger unit Then )t would nave the frontage, window space and access that tit would need It just depended on how rt was markeled and notiF I would be leased The Planning Director statFd that an "L" shaped bui 1 d a ng wou I be a \ 1 ah 1 e project Commi ssioner S)ms reiterated his concerns over what tlie i ul l pro j ec t Scenari o would be Ile stated that it sti 11 rrl(Ide h)m kin comfori abl e about the other 1. t ems conn ng to I i gli l Now t he P 1 anil3 rig Commi s s i on caririo I know whether or not th i s )A a 5 the best locat)on or tvpe of development for this piece of propert y Ile further asked ) f there was any eons-i derata on g) ven to a fu l ly developed project He Fisk(=cl If the traffic studv gavc- considerati on on the pi e(E of the project or the overall fully -developed project coming )n tiie lieu future The City Engineer stated that the trai f i c si udv was restricted to the one particular parcel project- He stated that it has been looked di from potei,tial deveIopmei,t of the total parc(- I ano i t was dif i ) cu 1 t i o pi eel] ci whi. ch way thr)-L C�econcl parcel. wa 5 go ng I o (Ie ve I op He s t ai eel 1 I,c, L� hF would thi I,l" 1 hat under the dPveI opmPrii ()I t list parts c u ] a r parce I that the posI tl oning ur l h(- driveway wou] a certai nl v ue changPo frorl, i t present coil fIgurcitiorl Trciff)c- volt,me& WOUIU probably, jusi based on i ne si re of tIIP parcel , be an average daily traffic of appro1nlareIy 121 v e h a cles on thzs one si n;l e parce] just I_om3 ni, out of one Single drivewav Commi ssi over Sims asked tree Ci 1 v ]-ngi Weer i i -t)) his opine oil when the other hue ] ding wenI _ n wha t tvpe ol_ general )-oil ��ould i l,a-i create The City ingineer stated again that would cippeii(I on what type of commercial development "oulo be there He thought that it would probabl-, he the same as predicted for that lower poriioz Commissioner Sims looked back to the previous traffic studies and asked if they were compatib]e The City Fngineer stated that under the present driveway configuration it would not be Additional volumes or deveJopment of that propertZ and the driveway configuration would definitely have to change However, there was a way to get that traffic volume in and out of those two parcels without creating an inconven)ence Commissioner Hargrave as]ced what year the trai f i c study was based on to make bis deciszoris The City Eng7 veer slated that thev were tea SPrI on i Iasi year's study, 1987 Commissioner Hargrave asked if the study wds lust on certain streets or was i L done i n regards 1 0 the entire city The Ci 1 y Engineer stated t}iai i t was pri mar) I done at the in1.er9eclic>>1 itself witII specir3 emphdsi s on the inl ersPci i on a w P I i ii, , i n and oui traffi c cit the si gua1 Commissioner HargravP a-,ked t the present signalization was based on Lhe present signal or the proposed change that was done 01, lnat si gnat trati on I lie City Engineer stated i hat i L was done basea on the present He aid not feel that the signal, present or future, would have a tremen(7oi15 iinna( 7 on this particular parcel huL would Dave a grPavr impact on the other p,ircP) 7jie prcpose(71 si 0-,,-1i would provide additional pi otPcl ion for a tur11,I17 radius in and out of 1 hai pFirce l Commissioner Hargrave asked if there would l-)e a left and ri ght turns ng si gnaI rather t Iian z straight proposed signaIizaLion He asked if the proposed closing at the boltom of M-L Zlcrijon and the access going in a norilierly direction �tiould change significantly the potenliat trarfic impacr at this corner The City Engineer statea Lhat he would suggest that the traffic volumes from Grand Terrace Road may decrease Which means that it appears io oe raore cars utilizing Barton Road for on and off ramp to 1-215 rather than what nas been made available Lo us as the proposed plan nc.curred Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelcter asked it thPre were anv traffic studies done wirh the tdea in mind to anticipate what the maximum hui ldout or 1 he Litty would he The City Engineer stat ed thai nad been clone 311 conjunction with the 1984 Genera flan and thev considered several alternatives the tiariic volume pros ec ti on have beE n done i n t 11e (70nera l Plan for our collectors, arlerials as well a5 tnP malor highways for the (7enera L Plan cirC111 abort element Again as Co«uni psi oner )Iclrgrd\ e 1) 0 1 nrecl out jai i ti wtial is 1)rapos Pd a L the have o r `I{ 6 Mr Kavthekar stated that i he wav it w,iS l a) d out tt would hurt the project Commi ss1 on S1rns si a -Led that ai ter hea) ) ngr i lao di9cussion aga) n i t brought up the Second Ialaa-)I He thought that this project %vaS not ready yet He felt that the Commission should be looks ng aT a tL total project instead of approving ,a port ) on of somet htng He suggesl ed brick) ng otf rind wa1 ti tig for the results of the Ir,)ffic analysis and a15o address the commercial use Cluestlon9 that were brought up earlier Commissioner Munson reiterated that the P1altni i1g Director stated this should be tiandIcd as an individual item, torgett 1 ng dial r hero niav or no t be another bui ld) ng bun t 1 there ) s oil) y goi ng to L)e the one hu t 1 d ) ng i toll tie fie I I i t wou l a be a viable pro Ieci an(t CI)(l nol f )I)cl n,l,.ih,11 W-01Lg wl tll i tie propnced yec nncl bu t I o 1 11,f ) f i t should come to pass Commassioner Hargrave-tatr-d tltol 1)e %rou)o -is clie Cornrnl ss) unei s as part of rhel r \V0-. i n nI- jo(-1 oll a lI) ghc- r 1 c ve l and Stal t 1 he i m1)eT11 ' nr someone to eo,lsict.er clew lopl,lg oil i ni par, i citi,cr f area on a 1 arger scale t han what t heti are 1 oor) nc-r at ton) glii iri hi s op) Ill Oil 111 i he shori_ -Ull there were enough mom and Pop ol)erat i un s hu c in the long run he 01 d not tlll rll, i ner( )\ate r Huff ;)i thought far e)tough ouT Vice —Chairwoman Van Gelder recognized there was a mote on on the f loor but i f this pro 1 eci was approved tonight could it be conditioned tnat the building be divided 1 nto two shops 1 ns toad of three She expressed a concern that the Commission should hold off untLl the update on the traific survey is complete Chairman Caouette asked the Planning Director if 111 111s opinion, the buildil)g is moved back an additional 13'6", does drat eliminate llie possibility of the second phase dltogeiher or cant it be modified through the method of construction The Planning Director stated from what Ilia appl zcant has indicated, i he e-,I er ) or of z 1tF bui 1 ding wou l d eti.tend tha t f ar a l l 1 he way i o t he western p)opezty 13ne hecatic,e ut the ett(,Il),Ea 81"erl so he did not see llo\N t hat %Votl l cl prop) h, t t )lr m 14 from going forwnrd w1th Lhe second build)ng as they showed iL in the plans Chai.rrnan CaouetLe aslked if i L would be possab]e -f(-) acqui re the addz Li octal Lra f f )-c i iiforrnati on In Phase I and Phasp II as a Lot al un1L, jf and when the Phase IIT application came jn t The ]'l anni ng Di rector Sto l ec9 t hey could certain] requi re that acldltJ onal Lra f f ) c he looked a t ha f: time and be analyzed Chairman Caouette rnenti oned t hat t he Commission would need That information if they did Phase II and the information they have now for Phase I is adequate The Planning Director said lte felt the ii,f ormai i on was adecfuat e I or 'hasp 1 CIZai rrnan CaouPA t e a,,ke(I foi anv fill t her a Scu 1 nn on t_he root t on Iliere wcts 11olle ciil(l z he vol c NNa- taken MOTION VOTE PCN-88-3 mots on carri ed l I ce-Chairman Val, (7e1 c,er Comm.is s 3 oner s Hargrave cocci 5 ms voted noc 11- ;-0- 0 MOTION P,CM-8 8-4 Vi ce-Chairwoman Van Ge ] der mo% (-d t hat a coed i t i on be added there be two shops i nstpad of 3 ) n r_lte division of the build)ng Commissioner SirnS seconded Chairman-C'aouetLe pointed out a clarlflcaTion lh(.IL the condition suggested dlva5]ons Fhe Planning Director stated iliac he left up to staff and the developer 1'or clarification lip pointed ouL that J or 2 would be fine but 3 wou)cl not Commissionei Hargrave quesi)oned who would ben(-l)t- by the coitd3 tion The renant for t space t�ou 1 o 1 1 ! 15 have a larger c conomi c IDdSP i hnn i eniiii S J or 2 or Spaces Vice-Chai rwoman Van Ge ) der rnenI i oriS)le cii d not want to be that restrictive Commiss3 oner Mkinsoii st at cad I lial the of 1 oper n,,s a reason J or inciki ng I lie hu1 l ding cidcipI Fib I P for three tenant s Also, to keep in niind tli it iioiie of the spaces hcid been 1 eased as yet He St riTrd glut with three bus inessrs they could venerate t a N e s Cornmissi oner Cole asked Vice-Chair�tiomail Van Ge tdei to explain the advanl age of pul 1 i ng tl1P restriction of 2 over 3 Vice -Chairwoman Vail Gelder e\uJalnPC] t1)a1 -rnPre would be Jess Iruffac, less coiigestic,n Mild tlie spaces wei c just too 5111a1 l C omrin sS ,) oncr Hawlki nson Le l r t li ,, Nc i I r n 1Pti t o a c c ornodnI-e 1 he d-ve 1 opc r)e rill e iti nut , P i acl_Lia 1 1y I a I Dint; C1bollt rir�' ] it I t 1'lta i )CO : 1 1 ll ti The clevc l opP1 can sh3 f t \,, o l s 1 of t oe i enrlri' Vi ce—C tia i \,,,ornan Van (fe I cic r (iS) ed 1 L i t 1 S l-)r)SC_' r' e to just 111c k up a well l and move i I Comrnmis91 oiler Hawkinson e-, i-, i a1 nr ct t llar r 1 s I itt le, i J anv, eftorl to r.ic,ve t ho i nt Pi- i o- I lie P I anni nc 01 rev tot ei d i Ic'a I fiat one i n tip that would 1)e inor e 1 ban j u t poplii n �f 0111 t hi1 a 1 woulct be entrances into I he p I ac es I t 11= is designed from the very betel nni ng i o haN e 2 or 3 spaces it wou) d be limiting the future of lio« it would be changing the front age of the si ruci ure5 The monitoring of Su(11 a condition can be done when staff goes through the ini tiai L)t111Q3ng process to make sure tliat the condition is carried out as approved by the Planning Commission The building permits and conditional use permits for the other tenants would have to come tbrougli the Planning Department He mentioned Iliat 1lliat bias being considered was the size to prcvenl t)ic rPa, small unit to be developed and leased Vert ofTen an incubator size spice is leased b% a bu5inrss which is just getting si arced or I emporar` Tlie tenant in a larger space lids i tendniic� to sta) longer than the incubator spac e t,=nuii r 16 MOTION VOTE PCM-88-4 Motion carried CnMai 3 ss) oners liOrgrave, Howki ikon and Munson vo L in&r tiop 4-1-0-0 Chairman Caotrette asl,ed f c,i a1,v l uri hp)- clile(,I i ons on the pro legit ai,d, hec,ririg none procpo(J(-d Lo the next i Lem on the agend(i Vice —Chas rwomcin Van Gelder dsl.E,cl i r i hr P r ctniii ri1, 1>3.rect or had received (3r,v f uri her corrmluil) cal i on from the Advocate 5c 1100 t The Planning Di rector Si ai ed -t bal gist pri or 1 0 I lie end of t lip vc ar he hail rece i% ed commui, i ea La on and they had i ndi cal ed t liev nad croiie, o% er hudl,pl w3 th t he az chii r,c L He st a e0 1 I,'t r lie has commune sated i n 1 e tie) f corn, A o g1 ve t Bern a i_nree month exteuslon fo1 LlLei r Lra 1 1 ers wI Lh -L1)c stipulation chat Lhey have to sl10W i11e l-1lani Director that t hcy are go np forwarcl wi-t h me building in order to have t11a e- tended be-voi)d that time PUBLIC HEARING Gene Mc `leans Riverside Highland Water Colton, Ca Mr Means stated they aniicipaie a need for additional reservoirs and would like help from the Planning Commi s s i on and Ci ty C01111c7 1 ] j, alleviating a f uturp water crisJ s and noL hemp entangled with the General Plan Recision and residential moral on urn d e a d I i nes The Planning l)ire(-ior eN1)1ained that t11e% a e caught i n the rps i del,t i a 1 de -\ e 1 cement rriord t on un, that Mr Barney larger want s 1 o deve l ou 1-1E. stated 1 hat he cctnlloll take i n an app 1 i ( a t i on 3 it order to forward Lb) s pro -Jeri f or the w()7 pi company Regard i Ig I. lie 1'l oriiii 11g Commi ssioir Hears ngs they wi 1 l be l ooki ng ct t some zone ch,-ingpC, in that area regardinl y lot size—) I lie pre l iminciry proposal of Mr kai ger's 1 s a1)proaiIll atpI } 10, 000-1 17 1 01 s I f he carve in wi th c-acme 1 e1 S 1 hpn It W013 Ld be alot ea,,i er ( 0 f orecrist a sc enari 0 Vi ee-Chas rwornan Von GP] dei r)SJccd wh,ii t tie f i me table was presen L I t or t he C,enerci 1 [I I an T ]he Planning Director P�plained thal it was nFing reviewed by staff and wc,ii Ici he a\ai 1 al)i e for pub) i c comments by Lhe 1 si wePtc of 1-Pbruary i i)P public hearings wou 1 -I pr obri1) 1 v not ue ava i 1 areJ � unti 1 1 a L t e i March Commissioner Hargrave asked if the pror,lern in taking new bui ldi itg permit appl i cations was due to the moratorium The Planning Direei or staled tnal 11Fis correct Mr Mc Means stat ecl he itnders t ood the pi obi -ru but felt the water issue needed to he addi PS-ec, th new developments being corni)l erF d Commi s ,i o n e r Hargrave F1sked what ga l 1 01-1aa0Q I d be needed t ivlr Mc Means clari f ied that i lies itioula Z rcrn I mi I t on to 3 rin t t i on i alit.s wi th I rn i t Lion replacing a tank I h,i t r(,qui red i el) t arpineiir t)1 the otIier 2 rni l I i on , L nji l t i 0n wou i d be nePred with the bu i Id out on `ti Verncilt tli,tl i.au'i i C omrni ssi oner Harpi a\ e a51,ec1 If f lic i rni t t , nii 1Nct,, needed to approve t he f i na I (.liecl on boi n i Ile Britton Project and Lhe Mt Xl ernon Villas project If that e)A ra l rni Ilion )s not avai 1 abi e then 1 hev could riot sign off the ii tia I checl Mr Mc Means stated i ha t thev cou 1 (t s) -ri of i because thev do have adequate fire >: J ow but the turnover time in i lie reservoi r required a real maximization of all of the wells The P1 a n n i nl; Di reci or e�p I ained 1 ha t a-, a 1)ocly there was no legal action the Platini ng C ornnti_ss ioii could take 'ihe moral on um i s or, res iclen t i a l development and what they are having to saN i_s no to Mr Karger as the developer of thrii resideni.al trac t 'llie water company has to work out a deal with him and the location 0 f the water i1 e l i Ile explained that he cannot sa3 ves to 11"ir larger development that is preventi,ig M) Karger from saying yes to the water compatiN We 0 U� Mr Tony Petta Commissioner Hargrave asked if the it -pm could be put on the agenda for City Councel The Planning Director stated that 3 t would be appropriate for Mr 11c Mcciics to contact the CI Cv Manager' S 01 flce for such a recfuPSt Commissioner Hargrave asked the PLann]ng U1reCT01 if he would informally coni ari the (_i tN ( ounr 1 Q) let itliern know t hat t lie I-1l cinr>> ng Couuui 4S1 oil concerned with the issue Mr Petta asked i f tric, Coullcl > J e t t i l,e l,eF 0, o Mal nt al n the moral or1 um COli l d i hey 0( ( r-pt I lie propert3 es Lor l he Mora or) um the City At torncey caPlaiac-u i W tV< , „u cl accept Lhe propertics but he was mot sure A H(W WD)J 7 Go i hat Hr presumed Min 01C no oil, nc (Icis some Indical3on 1_hat this lot size and (oniiqurai.ton woul a he sometbi iig z Lev cou l a go a ong w it ), Mr Petta asked if the Counc7i rould St)11 ,e-,) the moratorium hur couid give ri rcct i on alld q i 7e of the lots The Ci tv Ati_ornev poI nTr d 0111 t ha t-hr C hearing process cou 1 d not no l essenoc bpi if ht I e could just be an informal agreement, Loai «oo,,l indicate the l of size Ibeic perhaps Nr Kai ger WILL the wafer company could work oui some: type of pro3ect PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURivLD A7 8 30 P `l Approved by, Norman Caouette, Chairman Planning Commission 19 Respectiully 5uhniiitPd, David R sawyer, Planning I>>rector I 3 Parks and Recreation Committee Council accepted the January 4, 1988 Minutes, as submitted UNFINISHED BUSINESS A SA-87-14 -- A request to construct a recreational vehicle park and commercial center Keeney Planning Director Sawyer advised that the City Engineer has indicated he still has concerns regarding the proposed driveway improvements and that additional information regarding those improvements are necessary Considering this and the fact that the City Engineer's concerns deal with the important issue of public safety, the Planning Department cannot recommend for approval of this project until those concerns are met Bob Keeney, 12139 Mt Vernon, felt that they have met all of the criteria that Council has requested City Engineer Kicak voiced his concerns regarding the traffic that is turning right on LaCrosse, westerly on Barton and a potential conflict with the traffic that 7s traveling westerly on Barton across the bridge He indicated that after his discussion with Mr Keeney's traffic engineer, Dave Brackian, that a solution to that problem would be to tie-in a one -head signal light northwesterly of LaCrosse and Barton that would control the traffic Whereby, the traffic on LaCrosse, will have the right-of-way when the traffic on Barton would stop traveling westerly Mr Keeney concurred Councilmember Evans voiced concern regarding the initial letter that was received from Caltrans expressing their concerns and asked how can we excuse the fact that they Initially had concerns and now they don't CC-88-35 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SHIRLEY, CARRIED 4-1 (COUNCILMEMBER EVANS VOTING NOE), to approve SA-87-14, a request to construct a recreational vehicle park and commerce center, conditional upon deleting Item No 38 and installing a stop light at that intersection B SA-87-11 -- Appeal of Planning Commission Approval MS Partnership Planning Director Sawyer recommended that the City Council uphold the Site and Architectural Review Board's approval of this property, subject to their conditions NCI l M1 mi tpq - o3/lo/RR Stanley Hargrave, 12048 Canary Court, expressed his -feelings against the project which included traffic in the business district and sales tax revenue and suggested that the City should motivate the owners of the 3 parcels to pool their land together into one large development Thereby, obtaining a better tenant, increasing future sales tax base and retail services to the residents Bal Kathkar, President, BSK Engineering, agreed with the conditions set forth at the Planning Commission's hearing, stated that they have done everything that a developer can possibly do to justify to the City that they have met all of the conditions and the Planning Department and Planning Commission have agreed with them and is therefore, asking for approval Councilmember Evans concurred with Mr Hargrave and felt that the intersection at Barton Road and Mt Vernon should make a statement for the City since it is the central business district of Grand Terrace Quentin Smith, 22607 Tanager, owner of the property adjacent to this project, expressed his concern that this project would be a detriment to his property and asked Council to deny this project Tony Fuller, MS Partnership, stated they have done everything the City has asked and felt they were in a Catch-22 Stan Curatolo, stated they have a lease until June of 1990 and would like to keep it until that time, since if they have to move, their rent would triple and they do not have that type of overhead to enable them to pay that CC-88-36 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM PFENNIGHAUSEN, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER EVANS, CARRIED 5-0, to deny the project based on the fact that the plans are not consistent with the General Plan's designated goal for commercial development as detailed on Pages 9 and 10 of Section 6 of the General Plan and direct staff to work with the adjacent property owners on a possible larger development for that area COUNCIL REPORTS Counc7lmember Grant, questioned and received clarification relating to 1 Proposal with Caltrans in the area of Washington Street, eliminating the on ramp to 215 going north 2) Widening Canal Street at McClarren and Barton Road and the utility poles being removed or moved to another location, reported that he attended the SANBAG meeting of March 2, 1988, referenced an article in the Foothill Journal that he felt was not accurate and should have been in the Editorial Section Council Minutes - 03/10/88 OCT w 8 1987 pt1JlNING DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC REPORT FOR PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT MOUNT VERNON AVENUE IN THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PREPARED FOR BSR ENGINEERING & ASSOCIATES, INC. PREPARED BY C G ENGINEERING 2627 SOUTH WATERMAN AVENUE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408 OCTOBER 1987 INTRODUCTION This is the traffic impact analysis for the proposed commercial development in the City of Grand Terrace The study is based upon information provided by Bhal Kavthekar of BSK Engineering and Associates, Inc , Joe Kicak of the City of Grand Terrace and Danny Castro of the County of San Bernardino, Traffic Engineering Department EXISTING CONDITIONS The site consists of a vacant parcel approximately 1/3 acre in size The site is currently zoned C-2 (Commercial) The surrounding properties to the south, north and west are also zoned C-2 and are developed with various retail shops Mount Vernon Avenue borders the site on the east Mount Vernon Avenue adjacent to the site is master planned as a secondary highway. It is currently built to its ultimate width immediately adjacent to the site (64 feet curb to curb) However, immediately north of the site, the curb and gutter on the east side of the street ends resulting in a total street width of 55 feet The street is currently striped for one lane of travel in each direction, however at the intersection with Barton Road, approxi- mar.ely 100 feet south of the site, there are two lanes in each direction with a separate left turn lane Th'e most recent traffic count available for Mount Vernon Avenue (1982) shows an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 6,126 vehicles per day ( both directions) Barton Road, an east/west major arterial, approximately 100 feet south of the project site, is a four -lane roadway with separate left turn lanes at Mount Vernon Avenue The 1987 traffic count from the County of San Bernardino's Barton Road Master Station shows an ADT for Barton Road east of Mount Vernon Avenue of 7,047 vehicles per day Westbound and 6,143 vehicles per day Eastbound The peak hour was found to be either between 4 00 tc 5 00 p m or 5 00 and 6 00 p m for these streets Two curb depressions currently exist along the frontage of the project site The project location is shown in Figure 1 1 U n ' . C r f I ARMOF�1 .1��q -< <«vY T `T ehlr•bl ..� _ _ _ - r•rw, I. 10 rE > 1 S •if'Inl -lIai` f.Er pr rlA Ty lLh i �s..![� K 7 t a ,[� i \� wr.r..r f r- I r CCam�++ Im T 7 n L. rJ �2 oc al -I_' S7 Ecl M 1 i �� s f �Y -fiI ESA iR lu. , I_ F ST L.L_� ' i crr r, p c f r �= F 11 r� 1 r �Ifk.. P cr cf7t- �ElkL,.l �` ,�I., ,t U C T bcm t.rP,y�/f i t I c _+ I...�t L >.- x c�Ec:cyl ,rA G II.Ie r �zp� (, -- I / <FAIRXAY YAItC�R H €� rb T c �' Dlu,+lsL .U�LE\ Q rltl,e w n r - ST I -�� c_lt t 11 N C� I �\ - n-..I7F I - ttp I G B Ir1 -'• - - Ij .'r. 1—^ a�i xc _ IFRWY 1- ' ��_� -vim � i•Y�'= 1 Y 3T 1r i t O,(�L 1 Li'�}"' [� NLU ANDS 1 ..+._%_/E �` A <r^ I� _.Ftl�'q 51� oLRo A u� �; I 111, J p —t5r J IZJ I(DE _ In I xfi Ij �!t z I x bIRCn ' O ', L / co Eb I I U CT` it lEr' ST�N �- DR III ��'IT I I UAPLF ,T s �I��cnoss a c�f��J\ - -+- /st ! I \S^ �..,/ ' >` z_IIK Rh ST I e\ Q r i li� I 711 I I u_\cZ S�xl_ _ CONGR�E}}SS it t`I 6 I N ST�,I1F 41f GE c�E I ry t tir'' ? cz vuE 5/ jY--i I� I2 `rI p I / DA w EMIT Dn T°fi1PhRE ` %`` T LI II U �p I L3�i Ir FOGG la ST 1 ¢ o- / 1 I i f � Ar�lfv\ L�•i ^ C f i ��Y-L-�IpJD > IY ! s Y SA IT I a ti r^ to J.I MI • ? -,'ar It / PA'•n I c ! �I o18 I . ,py I r ^ (' '' •��,' 'i 'ic..l,I�� qr U II AOI 1 Sy QIST W I P� >4 4 I o Z a Da I r ss �- t_iP I 'R(C {y�� o z EO T I� sY Z z--iy,Y1� f-0 t E' Jam- RANCHO As < /t U ''i wAs... GloH sT I i/o > _J L Eucr N� Or' ,< I t r "ASHI^I(pOty r ST {I © _ I I Ni r r^ ,` 1 s CU ll 1 u A_ I j is C rrDF al I� 1I � U nfCHF LVlVlih• Y\ I F^ G E- 1 � _ I P A„ yT1 I GOrf CDUASr Ecr - -- — — — — — qo l J Q 9 T\Y4.Ufi i �Q O?. I r �� 111 b m Tr,-7 i "'•c _ �L II //!nn! T H � i t. ♦ 2R I - "L zr ' -' I I♦ s K ryY � � 1 � I x �y' �t \� �/ °� Q' I?t i (c��— m I 1 onu e <, ys< at.i 0'4 I i sT I Z r z W Nz iL� wFS�w09'' I oiY =1'< n (�Cl 1 •i 1 i •r,MCC1�9 H l•!. Kis I / d" c OZ I c� < : ♦ uv v4/ ,, V nv BARTON R I CorrlR t'RPI;! � � u-0-- t/A'i'- soro f o = DE snrOT 3Tl OA-GIFY000 ;[✓ - j 1 IF aETIRY ST D S r < a I ¢ BFAAY 51 S1 E"Y rr - I M I I7 f xwEs ST J 9 E S;� �, ` EMI R *'' t P O J E C T S I T q f4 � >&r j' - s.sAw V�yI eUn EN ST < a1v ,11EN.R. IEIII �' '^ r ]MOG ti I I I r r /� - - -- -� - 1 - - ., _ ,- IT. --- _}------_-u-- ; --I- - --- -----1 IL LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS It is proposed to develop the site as shown in the site plan (Figure �) A 2,808 square foot building, consisting of retail shops is )lanned to be constructed One access driveway located in the Jsoutherly portion of the property is proposed for ingress and egress Twenty-one parking spaces are proposed to be provided IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT This report is prepared to analyze the impact of the proposed devel- opment on the existing street system and on the adjacent signalized intersection In addition, an analysis of the driveway intersection with Mount Vernon Avenue will be performed TRIP GENERATION In order to assess the traffic impacts of the development on area circulation and the adjacent intersection, it is necessary to -stimate the volume of traffic that will be generated from the site, hen distribute this traffic to the existing street system Trip generation factors for various land uses have been established .Lrom studies performed by governmental agencies, research institutes and traffic engineers nationwide Trip generation data for this study are based upon information in the Institute of Transportation Engineer's publication, "Trip Generation" (Figure 3) Using the trip generation data from Figure 3 and the square footage in accordance with the site plan (Figure 2), the volume of traffic from the proposed development is estimated Table 1 summarizes the daily traffic generation estimates for both peak hours and total For this study only peak hour traffic will be considered for impacts on area circulation Because the afternoon peak hour has been found to be the heaviest for this area, projected site generated traffic volumes for the p m peak hour will be added to the existing street system TABLE 1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Development Type Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total 2-Way Shop Center - Gen Rate 1 1 0 9 3 5 7 2 7 2 14 7 115 8 Generated Trips (2080 sf) 3 3 10 20 20 41 325 2 ELECTFiC PANELS Tf=\4--3H Er.1GL- T RAMS F PAID P,Z\F2K'G, (4 F EQ' D 21 PR0V)DEC) I71 tiZ:DILA Y l� DEDIGAT IONS 5' LAN DS(:! P Ft-l- 2o 5_ F _ 82 58' 1� Npi I' ► I lJ oNO I I I I I I C I l Ex GA _^ � \ I Ai` 1 F3A R--O N F?. D - MQP GRAND SCHI--ME Tv 4 E-k12 � l (PI -I 4\$ E I ) SITE PLAN I -I( -"\I InE7 f--) SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION RATES Land Use/Building Type Shopoing Center - 0 to 49 999 Gr Sq FtITE Land Use Code 820 Independent Variable —Trips per 1,000 Gross Square Feet Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends Peak A M Enter Hour Between Exit of 7 and 9 Total Adjacent P M Enter Street Between Exit Traffic 4 and 6 Total Average Trip I Rate I Maximum Rate Mlnimum ICorrelationl Rafe Number Average S,ze of of i lndepencent Coefficient, Studies I Variaoie Scud, I 115 8 j 2-70 9 I 21 5 i 18 I 30 7 1 1 4 I 20 3 0 9 4 20 ' 3 5 7 26 8 7 2 1 6 I 23 4 7 2 I i 6 23 14 7 14 ! 30 3 Enter j Peax Hour of Generator A M I Exit i Total 8 5 i I 7 ` 36 3 P M Enter 6 8 I I I i 7 I 22 o Exit 7 0 i I 7 I 9? o Total ` Saturday Vehicle Trip Ends 156.3 I I i 3 ! 40 3 fPeak Hour of Generator Enter Exit Total I Sunday Vehicle Trip Ends Peak Enter Hour of Exit Generator Total Numbers Z, 3, 4 6, 19 Sq 64 Source , , ITE Technical Committee 6A 6—Trip Generation Rates Date 1975 f 1r-\I IF)f_ 0 SITE TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION Traffic has been distributed using an analysis of the site with regard to anticipated desires During the peak hour it is projected that much of the traffic to and from the site will be oriented toward Barton Road The assumed directional breakdown is as follows 1) 30% north via Mount Vernon Avenue, 2) 70% south, east, and west via Mount Vernon Avenue and Barton Road The peak hour volumes were assigned to the proposed driveway as shown in the Site Traffic Flow Diagram (Figure 4) Because the highest peak hour for the surrounding streets and the proposed development is in the afternoon, Figure 4 shows only the P M peak hour driveway volumes These volumes will then be distributed to the street system for an analysis during the highest volume hour All other hours of the day will have volumes less than those shown TRAFFIC IMPACTS A peak hour count was taken at the adjacent intersection of Mount lernon Avenue and Barton Road This count is shown in Figure 5 Projected site peak hour traffic is then added in accordance with the Site Traffic Flow Diagram The total projected flow at this intersection is shown in Figure 6 An analysis of this intersection was made for the peak hour with the results appended to this report Although the existing signal at Barton Road and Mount Vernon Avenue is a two-phase signal, information from the City Engineer's office indicates that an eight -phase traffic actuated signal is planned to be installed at this intersection in the near future Therefore, the analysis of the intersection with existing volumes and projected volumes is performed utilizing the future eight -phase signal and assumed cycle lengths and green times Utilizing existing volumes, the intersection is projected to operate at a high level of service (Level C), sub'sequent to construction of the eight -phase traffic signal The addition of the proposed sine traffic provides a negligible increase in traffic volumes at this intersection and it is projected that the intersection will continue to operate at Level of Service C An analysis of the proposed driveway intersection with Mount Vernon Avenue was also made with the results appended to this report The projected volumes utilizing the access driveway are low and the analysis indicates a high level of service (Level A) for all key movements to and from the proposed driveway 3 FI_pC.T«kG Fop.N F-L R U.5 N E N C- L. I R,,, _ ;F Pao � 4 RE=�I�✓ ti 5' LAf`IL.SCAPE 114-1 ! i rt L` vI LD El: CD - \ I a � �'yCi`.rTINC, P�RKINC� J-- F- t1r! �N I S� n � E r-D ICAT ION Fz--r o R o P, o w J u MSS � R �\ I�l D T t— R S C H C t,,d E iV 4 rPASL I ) PROJECTED SITE TRAFFIC FLOW DIAGRAM XX - PROJECTED P M PEAK HOUR VOLUME (0� APTC N I D? N 1'1 Qo F �1 i ry 1c) A MT. VERNON - BARYON ROAD PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENTS 10-21-87 4 30-5 30 P M 613 -1 s-1 MT. VERNON - BARYON ROAD PROJECTED PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENTS CONCLUSIONS It is the conclusion of this report that the addition of traffic generated by the proposed development will not cause an adverse mpact on area traffic circulation The amount of traffic generated uy a development of this nature is very small compared to the over- all traffic volumes on the adjacent streets There is sufficient excess intersection capacity at the adjacent intersection to provide an acceptable level of service subsequent to development of this site At such time as ultimate improvements on Mount Vernon Avenue north of the project site are completed, the street width will be a con- stant 64 feet, curb to curb throughout the length of Mount Vernon Avenue, with striping providing for two lanes in each direction and a median/turn lane In the interim, Mount Vernon will remain a two-lane roadway with varying widths north of Barton Road The projected turning movements from Mount Vernon Avenue to the proposed project site are not great enough to warrant extension of a separate 'eft turn lane at this time It is the opinion of this report that ith a projected peak hour left turn movement from Mount Vernon of only fourteen vehicles, this movement can be safely made given the existing striping arrangement for the 64 foot street and no restriping is felt to be necessary at this time 102301(57,10) I APPENDIX A EXCERPTS FROM HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL SPECIAL REPORT NO. 209 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD, 1985 Capacity and Level of Service - Signalized Intersections The concepts of capacity and level of service are central to the analysis of intersections, as they are for all types of facilities n intersection analysis, however, the two concepts are not as strongly correlated as they are for other facility types For signalized intersections, capacity and level of service are analyzed separately, and are not simply related to each other It is critical to note at the outset, however, that both capacity and level of service must be fully considered to evaluate the overall operation of a signalized intersection Capacity analysis of intersections results in the computation of volume -capacity (v/c) ratios for individual movements and a com- posite v/c ratio for the sum of critical movements or lane groups within the intersection The v/c ratio is the actual or projected rate of flow on an approach or designated group of lanes during a peak 15-minute interval divided by the capacity of the approach or designated group of lanes Level of service is based on an average Mopped delay per vehicle for various movements within the inter- ,ection While v/c affects delay, there are other parameters that more strongly affect it, such as the quality of progression, length of green phases, cycle lengths, and others Thus, for any given v/c ratio, a range of delay values may result, and vice -versa For this reason, both the capacity and level of service of the intersection must be carefully examined Capacity of Signalized Intersections Capacity at intersections is defined for each approach Inter- section approach capacity is the maximum rate of flow (for the subject approach) which may pass through the intersection under prevailing traffic, roadway, and signalization conditions. The rate of flow is generally measured or projected for a 15-minute period, and capacity is stated in vehicles per hour 0 Traffic conditions include volumes on each approach, the distri- bution of vehicles by movement (left, through, right), the vehicle type distribution within each movement, the location of and use of pus stops within the intersection area, pedestrian crossing flows, nd parking movements within the intersection area Roadway conditions include the basic geometrics of the intersection including the number and width of lanes, grades, and lane -use allocations (including parking lanes) Szgnalization conditions include a full definition of the signal phasing, timing, type of control, and an evaluation of signal progression on each approach Level of Service for Signalized Intersections Level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time Specifically, level -of -service riteria are stated in terms of the average stopped delay per _- ehicle for a 15-minute analysis period The criteria are given in Table A-1 Delay is a complex measure, and is dependent on a number of vari- ables, including the quality of progression, the cycle length, the green ratio, and the v/c ratio for the lane group or approach in qubstion Level -of -Service A describes operations with very low delay, 1 e , less than 5 0 sec per vehicle This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase Most vehicles do not stop at all Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay TABLE A-1 LEVEL -OF -SERVICE CRITERIA. FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Stopped Delay Per Vehicle (Sec) A < 5 0 B 5 1 to 15 0 C 15 1 to 25 0 D 25 1 to 40 0 E 40 1 to 60 0 F > 60 0 Level -of -Service B describes operations with delay in the range of 5 1 to 15 0 sec per vehicle This generally occurs with good pro- gression and/or short cycle lengths More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay Level -of -Service C describes operation with delay in the range of 15 1 to 25 0 sec per vehicle These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping Level -of -Service D describes operations with delay in the range of 25 1 to 40 0 sec per vehicle At level D, the influence of con- gestion becomes more noticeable Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines Individual cycle failures are noticeable Level -of -Service E describes operations with delay in the range of 40 1 to 60 0 sec per vehicle This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay These high delay values generally indicate poor ,progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences Level -of -Service F describes operations with delay in excess of 60 0 sec per vehicle This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, 1 e , when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1 00 with many individual cycle failures Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be mayor contributing causes to such delay levels Level -of -Service Criteria for Unsionalized Intersections Level -of -service criteria are stated in very general terms, and are related to general delay ranges The criteria are given in Table A-2, and are based on the reserve, or unused, capacity of the lane in question M. TABLE A-2 LEVEL -OF -SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Reserve Capacity Level Of Expected Delay To (PCPH) Service Minor Street Traffic >400 A Little or no delay 300-399 B Short traffic delays 200-299 C Average traffic delays 100-199 D Long traffic delays 0- 99 E Very long traffic delays * F * When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme ^elays will be encountered with queuing which may cause severe L .,iongestion affecting other traffic movements in the intersection This condition usually warrants improvement to the intersection Caution should be used in the interpretation of these criteria They are stated in general terms, without specific numeric values It is, therefore, not possible to directly compare an unsignalized LOS with a signalized intersection analysis LOS in terms of specific delay values without collecting delay data directly at the subject site The levels of service for unsianalized intersections are not associated with the delav values cited previously for signalized intersections 9 APPENDIX B INTERSECTION ANALYSES 10 , Lf_i, c o lily +.�tJ\-Il\tDD _ 1 � V J�lt� I 10 _I= rl 11 I1�I marls 1 CJJ , 'rI . I�KV 1 ,jU�I� i_Ih'LI3 �I Iv 'J ..j .�i4J 7 1 — _ -------� s�------ -� - ---- ---� y - 1--- �,OL��TJ I.I�Tio'?�— + IL=soli I ),A, ) 1 yi +L, , 'JC v ' -1 L 1 r � If^' -17 )J IN, I tit - - 71 Cl'1— r M —I lu �f�l- ,-r- r ) , \ r;, i r �- I IU IJ=��3 ! �_ _ ten_ _I T V t -< A A A ( +1 r h h K h �t- -A Y A l 't f F -V if X 't- x 1V � S\L I -. �\ 1 \l t I ' A r ^ 1 J l - \ 1 I 1 I "l � J >_ / _ / ! 1 \ l_I �. .. , C^ + i I '1 r -• � _ 1 l 1 l l J /_ L ``,Y,, i, i C i -• f ,,.� T , 1r1 �I i V I � � a \_ l_ . w�.-r, i r + }- r .�. T .. -r t } sr }- a k Y ;{- .>` t u Y'{ I % )E �` r• -jt I" ' �'- y }" it f. A ) -1 -3 Y y-x i- k- y 1-1 -f r• / s- )L v. t -t- "Try )f -Il.i 37, I l 1 J rl .. _L I _ i LI IIv iI f' 1 Y 'W __�' 'y_.} } 3. � � S rt � T -'t _E ti }' 3L .!r �- � i'_ : 1 Y t �t jc � si : 7' �� i. � Y s Yt ... LL •" x 3_ i• :{ fl ._ -� � yt Sb Y'-?- �1 i- ,Y X- �- �7.-�- ,: Jl .. - .. 1 � '_- k � _ - f -- - -T" , c .- - I _ - _ � - I� I-• • _ � < �- - ° r - r - --- �T r r-(— �.- r _ f"r— - -' --- _F \rat - __—CC i ^t.}.r-1_cnJ lr i r r - - a „) •. ). / ;, 4 ) w- ( .. u A .. ). .. a :. } ) >S ). ) ) r , w ,s A ) n i. }< ? i. ?c x , r . 1� r r L if '� `- -• •., r^ „ r ^F r r-r - n I r - w - -- - 1, el Ar ----------nn---- I ^I r t I _ L ( i I\r Eli ii _/ �,l r-"r^IrJ-� � ./� I (I CI - i rJ _ J-_ -� \1 - I 1F �1 ^ -! ...--- Cl_ r)t i\I r _-,-) -- - -t -- - --- ---- - I I -- - --- ------ - ------ - F FOr-O FICIN !Ir,1_ (F-,; T 7 ( tic (I AD S-'I i t-if\'II t =1 (l L /F rQ r r \ - - ---- -- - - -- -- -- - - , t _ v _ _ r 1 I 1 17 Z_ - - ----- ----- - - - - - r tv. i 1 i l I l I 1 I t n - T I 1 I II I- i 1 I - , 1 1 1 I I I i I I V i 1 1 , I i 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I i I I 1 � I , I I I i rl • LI 1 I _ 1 I r t T ' — 1 1 4 I , s Y i i I t] I I i I 0 1 1 1 II I !> j r1 x 3 I _ I I -Y 1 f � � I I t 'I I I Y IT, - I r'1 I n �I , I li r -1 i , ! I S ,. l I , 1 I l I I ! r } =� , I ICI ; I i:,r • ' I � ' I i' 9 "� I , , ) , -- t , _ r i I _ U) 1 — 1 I I I I I I I I - I ' ' _ I I I I I 1 , I I I i I I I I ' I I I I I , I s l I I I I I - 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1- 7:1 1 J � Ll \_ 1 ✓' _� i � I\.I❑ i 1 ' i l' I� 17'1 }. 4 f ^l�) n 1^1 hl 1' - -, ' ! f - � 1 r,h I,� f - - ti � ' r MOTION VOTE PCM-89-41 Motion carried Commissioner Munson voted noe 6-1-0-0 The applicant was told to contact the Assistant City Manager/Code Enforcement, Randy Anstine, the next day to work on the bonding and the scheduling ADJOURN PLANNING COMMISSION CONVENE SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ITEM #3 MICHAEL PALMER AND ASSOCIATES MS PARTNERSHIP 22484-22488 N. BARTON ROAD 6,283 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL RETAIL STRUCTURE The Community Development Director presented the staff report with the recommendations and conditions submitted by the City Engineer, reviewing agencies and staff Refer to the Planning Department's recommendations of denial He presented the concept of the Barton Road Specific Plan Commissioner Sims referred to the City Council minutes, March 10, 1988 It was stated that Mr Curatolo has the lease on the property until June, 1990 He recalled asking earlier if the Planning Commission were to approve this project would the Commission's decision be null and void at that time the lease ran out The Community Development Director explained that a Site and Architectural approval is valid for one year from the date of approval and it would be keyed with the issuance of building permits The issue of the lease would be a private matter Discussion on the Fire Warden's requirement, dated March 8, 1989, "interior turning radius shall be increased to accomodate fire apparatus " Commissioner Buchanan asked if the plans were sufficient to reflect this request and still meet parking and landscaping requirements 7 ATTACHMENT C The Commumty Development Director responded that the requirements from the Fire Warden's Office were based on the plans that were submitted so they have not been adjusted to reflect the requirement Discussion on the parking and landscaping requirements for this project under current or the proposed parking revisions The Community Development Director explained that it met the current requirements and the proposed parking plan, which has not yet been approved by the City Council This project is overparked by approximately 3-4 spaces thus has plenty of parking for this type of building The only differences between the two codes are bermmg and a 3' high wall or screening material that would be along the perimeter landscaping PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED AT 8 00 P M PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 8 00 P.M Jim Bolton Representative Michael Palmer and Associates (applicant) 1205 "J" Street, Suite F San Diego, CA 92101 MS Partnership (owner) 1630 Adams Avenue Orange, CA 92667 Mr Bolton responded to the questions regarding the General Plan and the Barton Road Specific Plan He referred to Sections 65450 and 65453 of the California Planning and Zoning Laws dealing with Specific Plans He referred to the current General Plan, Section 6-9, " the use of the Specific Plan is required for large commercial developments of 10 acres or more " He stated that he understood the intent of the statement Their project does not consist of ten (10) acres but the City does not have a Specific Plan either He contacted Mr Garcia, Office of Planning and Research, State of California, and understood Mr Bolton's explanation of the project Michael Palmer MS Partnership Developer Mr Palmer addressed two items included in the staff report He referred to the recommendation that the architecture treatment that is currently facing shown on the front and the side facing Barton be extended to the other two sides of the Building He stated that would be in violation of the Uniform Building Code which requires a 30" parafoot extend above any point of the roof on any building wall within 25' of the property line The only solution would be to reduce the building depth by 25' which would accomplish two things, creates a 24' x 25' retail building and would create a 20' dead end corridor between the existing dead end building to the north which would be an architectural disaster Mr Palmer responded to the Planning Department's recommendations Item # 1, architectural design location and configuration would not be visibly harmonious He explained to the north of this particular site was a bicycle shop/converted residence, to the west a 5-10 year old retail commercial area which was almost identical to the character of this building, to the east is an abandoned food market and to the south is a retail commercial building with a service station Item #2, architectural design location and configuration prohibits harmonious blending to the north and south He stated that staff misread the Municipal Code, "promote harmonious transitions between different landuses," these were not adjacent landuses He stated there was a significant difference with that slight change The landuse designation of all adjoining parcels is identical to theirs therefore he did not feel this section of the Code was applicable A smooth transition could easily be accomplished by relocating the loading zone to the north and share a mutual access between their proposed structure and the retail building to the north This would not have a detrimental effect on their parking requirements They could take 3 parking spaces which run along the northerly property line, rotate them 90 degrees and put them in line with the remainder of the spaces in front of the building Regarding item #3, architectural design detrimental to public and private investments, section mentioned 18 48 030 (d) was not listed in the ordinance it only went to subsection (c) Mr Palmer questioned why the investment of the property owner to the north was being protected and his client's investment was not being considered Mr Palmer stated that they have met every requirement that applies to this property therefore this property should be approved In response to Commissioner Sim's question regarding the existing tenant, he has agreed to relocate at this center should it be approved TONY FULLER MS PARTNERSHIP Mr Fuller stated that he has worked with this project since its early conception in 1987 He stated that they worked closely with the Community Development Director to get the original project off the ground and approved by the Planning Commission It seemed that one of the main concerns was the fact that the center was not large enough and the City wanted a larger center incorporating the pieces up on the corner now Due to the lease term lasting 1990 because they could not come into any terms with the existing tenant However, as mentioned by Mr Palmer they have reached an agreement with the tenant Now they are able to meet the earlier concerns and have returned with a new project Commissioner Munson asked if it would be possible to start construction before the removal of existing building Mr Fuller explained that they would remove existing building and then develop the new building The Community Development Director corrected item #3, typo error, it should read section 18 48 020 (d) He stand behinds all of the recommendations before the Planning Commission He explained the differences between the original and current application Previously the City was not taking any direction towards developing a Specific Plan on Barton Road Now there is a large picture plan for the area and the City Council has authorized a specific plan to be developed This project at this time would be a hinderance to the Specific Plan and the successful completion of that plan Discussion on fencing requirements for the project The Community Development Director anticipated fencing design to blend in with the surrounding areas Discussion on the architectural design of this project and how it is detrimental to the surrounding areas The Commumty Development Director explained that if this building is to go forward as it is designed currently, it would be be a detriment in that it basically turns its back to the surrounding properties It would not allow any interaction between this shop or any future shops to be developed around it The architectural features only deal with 180 degrees of architecture He stressed that it is important to make requirements for 360 degrees architecture particularly on a corner lot and would be surrounded by other commercial development in the future Discussion on the original project submitted in 1987 that contained more architectural relief to the backs of the buildings There were two types of building shapes discussed at that time Commissioner Sims stated that he recalled the applicant at that time asking for input from the Planning Commission regarding what this body would like to see The comments then were the same as what are being stated now by the Community Development Director 10 Commissioner Buchanan stated that denial of this project is difficult to do on the basis of a pending Specific Plan He did not feel the Commission had a choice if they were to remain consistent He referred to the California Spirits project on Michigan Avenue and Barton Road which was turned down for basically the same reasons, establishing development standards under the Specific Plan It would make staffs and the Planning Commission's job easier if there would be a formal moratorium or delaying action implemented by the City Council in anticipation of the Specific Plan n the meantime the burden falls on staff to recommend to this body to follow to maintain a consistency and wait for a Specific Plan to materialize For those reasons he supports staffs recommendations at this time Commissioner Munson asked if Mr Barney Karger would still like to comment on this project Since the Public Hearing had been adjourned, Chairman Hargrave asked if it would be the concensus of this Commission to allow Mr Karger to give public testimony Concensus given to allow Mr Karger to give public testimony PUBLIC HEARING RECONVENED AT 8.30 P M BARNEY KARGER GRAND TERRACE, CA Mr Karger vigourously opposed denials to earlier projects and this project on Barton Road This project is trapped because no one around the applicant wants to sell and therefore the project could not expand He expressed his opposition to the Community Development Director requiring a wall on his project to facilitate parking If parking is required then the building should be moved to the side for access Developers need guidelines The wait for the Specific Plan costs money for developers Mr Bolton applauded the decision to implement a General Plan and improve the City of Grand Terrace However, request for proposals are not implementations and adoptions Their project is now and is still before the Specific Plan Mr Fuller addressed the concern in reference to the neighboring properties He reiterated the original project history involving the previous tenant and lease It was impractical for them to buy out the existing tenants back then 11 MOTION PCM-89-42 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-42 At the beginning of 1988, when the City Council denied their project, they incurred substantial damage even though they felt they had a legal parcel on the lot At that time they were in escrow and today they are owners of the property They have followed the recommendations and handled the lease issue and if the project is not approved this evening they will incur additional financial damages Discussion between the City Attorney and the Planning Commission on the feasibility of continuing this item until the completion of the Specific Plan The City Attorney presented two options for the Commission One would be to deny the project based upon its lack of compliance with the goals and objectives of the General Plan Second, the project could be continued to another date Site and Architectural Reviews do not involve Notice Public Hearings The threshold issue is the General Plan issue Definition and purpose of a Specific Plan Chairman Hargrave expressed his opposition to the project when it was originally presented in 1987 due to it being a strip center He still had concerns with the architecture and since it was a major throughway that corner needed an upgraded architecture Currently, the City is attempted to bring in Specific Plans for the Barton Road Corridor The City should be allowed to do that so the long range planning of the City can be enhanced Chairman Hargrave made the motion to deny SA-89-3 based on the findings and recommendations in the staff report Commissioner Sims second Commissioner Buchanan stated that the blueprint guideline requested by Mr Karger is valid He perceived that to be the intent of a Specific Plan Motion carries Commissioner Munson voting noe 6-1-0-0 Chairman Hargrave asked for a concensus from the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to City Council that if this project, in a different 12 form, is brought back to the Planning Commission that they take into account the fees paid so far by the applicant and give consideration on behalf of those fees previously paid Concensus of approval by the Planning Commission The Community Development Director explained to the applicant that they have a ten day appeal period for this application If they so choose to make contact with the City Clerk's Office SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 8 40 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:40 P.M. Respectfully Subnutted, David R Sawyer, Community Development Director 4/3/89 RC Meeting mcm Approved by, Stanley Hargrave, Chairman Planning Commission 13 DATE May 18, 1989 S T A F F R E P O R T CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (xx) MEETING DATE May 25, 1989 SUBJECT RECONSIDERATION OF THE FORMATION OF THE LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED At the meeting of May llth Mayor Matteson requested the issue of the formation of the lighting district be placed before the City Council for reconsideration The only public comment received to date regarding the formation of the lighting assessment district has been negative I understand that there has been at least two petitions circulated asking the Council to reconsider and not form an assessment district STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT COUNCIL RECONSIDER THE FORMATION OF THE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AND DIRECT STAFF TO IMMEDIATELY CEASE ANY WORK TOWARDS FORMATION OF A LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT TS bt A yF I, FFE.cE! , ? DATE May 18, 1989 S T A FF R E P O R T CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (xx) MEETING DATE May 25, 1989 SUBJECT SET BUDGET HEARINGS ------------------------------------------------------------------ FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED XX A draft copy of the City's preliminary budget will be distributed to the City Council on Monday, May 22 It is anticipated that, as in the past, the hearings will require two evening meetings Staff is recommending the hearings be held May 30, 31 or June lst TS bt COUNCIL AGE;wOk. 6 5�rA ,84 �f DATE May 24, 1989 S T A F F R E P O R T CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (xx) MEETING DATE May 25, 1989 SUBJECT YEAR-END BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS -- FISCAL YEAR 1988-89 ------------------------------------------------------------------ FUNDING REQUIRED X 46 NO FUNDING REQUIRED In the 1988-89 budget year, with the exception of four accounts, the projections were fairly accurate Four departmental line items, however, either came in over the projected expenditure or will be over by the end of the fiscal year These accounts are listed as Follows 10-180-245 -- Maintenance of Building and Grounds This line item is estimated using the combination of the routine maintenance contracts, which we can project, and'repairs that are estimated Several things have caused this line item to go over budget Prior to our Honeywell HVAC Maintenance Contract all breakdown repairs of our HVAC system was paid for out of this account We sustained a compressor fire at the fire station which ruined the compressor and, therefore, needed to be replaced There also has been vandalism of the Civic Center's sprinkler system consisting mostly of stolen or damaged sprinkler heads As the Civic Center and Fire Station age, I anticipate our maintenance costs will continue to rise Whenever possible, we try to offset this increase by using our in-house maintenance personnel Staff is requesting an appropriation of $3,500 to cover the current shortage in the account 10-190-238 -- Utilities As Council is aware, the Honeywell Energy Management System has been installed It is presently anticipated that the expenditure for this system will be directly offset by utility savings However, in the current fiscal year the management system will only have been on line for approximately two months We are projecting the utility accounts to be over budget $7,000 by year-end and are requesting an appropriation of $7,000 which will bring the utility appropriation to a total of $45,000 k i i STAFF REPORT -- YEAR END BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS Page Two 10-631-240 and 255 -- Storm Drain -Maintenance The Storm Drain Maintenance Fund is budgeted by estimation of possible repairs or cleanup as needed We have had a dry year and have utilized this dry period to repair and rebuild much of the facilities within our system We are anticipating that we will over -expend the Storm Drain Maintenance Budget by $12,000, and are requesting an appropriation from the Storm Drain Fund of $12,000 for a total line item appropriation in the two accounts of $27, 000 10-915-703 -- Rehabilitation of The Community Center When originally appi oved by tc,e Coun(-il to participate t if ty percent with the Lions Club on lowering the ceiling and adding additional cooling to the building, we requested that Council authorize the use of Park Grant money for this purpose Subsequent zo that time, the county has indicated to us that our Block Grant money could only be used for the Senior/Community Center We are requesting that Council make an appropriation for $3,800 from CDBG funds so that we can allow the park money to revert back to the Park Fund for use on parks STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT COUNCIL APPROPRIATE THE FOLLOWING 10-180-245 -- MAINTENANCE BUILDING AND GROUNDS -- $3,500 10-190-238 -- UTILITIES -- $7,000 10-631-240 -- STORM DRAIN MAINTENANCE -- $12,000 and 255 10-915-703 -- REHABILITATION OF THE COMMUNITY CENTER -- $3,800 TS bt CRAITEM () AGENDA ITEM NO STAFF REPORT DATE 5-18-89 COUNCIL ITEM (X) MEETING DATE 5-25-89 Planning Department SUBJECT Consideration of the proposed San Bernardino County Hazardous Waste Management Plan FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED X DISCUSSION: Inaccordance with recent legislation, San Bernardino County has prepared a draft Hazardous Waste Management Plan for submittal to the State of California for review As a part of the submittal process, over 50010 of the Cities within the Plan's jurisdiction must recommend that the Plan be sent to the State for review This recommendation is not an approval of the plan but simply an Okay for it to be sent to the State for their review After the State reviews the Plan each city will have the opportunity to adopt the Plan as their own as is, with changes or reject it entirely A representative from the County will be on hand at your meeting to make a presentation of the Plan for your information A copy of the Plan is included in your packet RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends the Draft San Bernardino County Hazardous California for review purposes only City Council approve the submittal of the Waste Management Plan to the State of Respectfully Submitted by David Sawyer, Commu ty Development Director 22795 Barton Road 9 Grand Terrace, California 92324-5295 (714) 824-6621 n Vernon he fel t thai Lhey would have I reevajilate those figures As Zs known they were vary much to opposition as well as City of Colton to the proposals of Cal. Trans Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked wl,al would he done i f this project were cipproved and t 3 ve vears from now someone want s to bu i Id nexI Lo 3 1 and are told 1 hey cannot because (he (-I ty does not have the facilities The City Engineer stated thai what lie was suggesting was based on the traffic pro7ectDons on Mt Vernon, north of Bcirton Road, or bases] on the assumption of widening I-215 which is a tremendous traffic generator out of the area The proposal for Lhe on -ramp to I-215 northerly off of ML Vernon, is that the on-rarnl) would he eliminated and i he nn-ramp I o L-2 L5 f rom i he Grand ferrac e area going nori her l y iron] �1I lrernoll I o Fiesta Village is i%ould rena-in lie would Suggc-1 that Barton Road is going) t o be i >>e rucl for ari ei towards I215 rather Ilian it Vernon and based on that he said tha L i ne 1984 c j r(-1ll aT -1u)1 e i c rneni o the traffic volumes I hai (-)rP prolecTed f or LuP year 2004 may he on the nigh side, 11151 M-1sPcj on t those facts Chairman Caouette a, -,]zed if there wt-re a)i� fortnc�r questions from staff He ie(pie3L(-d that. al)oiDe,-)n`t address the Cominisston Bhal Kavthekar M S Partnership BSK Engineering Assoc 14730 Beach Blvd #207 La Mirada, CA 90638 He stated that he represented "I S Partnership, the developer for the site Chairman Caouette asl,,ed if lhP maler1aI board was current Mr Kavthekar stated that was correct and It wds the material board that was submitted to the staff Chairman Caouette asked the applicant if )-le wol, familiar with the cond3 tions that were proposed by 7 staff , to move the bua 1 di ng Lo i he wesi about J i' Mr Kavtlie kar stated that during the last hearing the landscaping and secl udPd area av<as co1,5a dea (,J to be d collector of junk and grime area He slated that 1 hey have now r;ncl osed that who)(, portion wL11, wal is the hel €fl,L of the but 1 da_t,g The e l eva L e on s will show t l,c, I I t 1 ooI s ] a xe F, (-oilLll,ouS butJdang Al the I)resent tilde I JLeY havr the usabl e bua 1 ding at i he I E:gErl sei h,,)( 1, t , rnl t ()), it Vernon Avenue He St at ect 1 hat t iiP� wou I o I Ike to keep it there from a i enal,canl poem of view HP stated that it 1 hey mope the bu I 1 d a ng 13' over, the corner slot would DP VPIv l,,,r(i 1c ] ease 1n acicli tio17 to t hat t hPv «ou 1 0 I,c,vP t take Inf o account i ne secotld T)has(� when that happens at would cover 1 hP J 1' port l on a010 Wou 1 ci not have any visibility H( SilggeSiPd 1 i,r,, t l,P` shoal d J ook at Phase I and Phatie I I to We i i,c r ids suggested in 1 he last Ilubl 7 r- HPFir i n; IyP si a ed the Commission shoo ld be iM)11 1118 FIT r„o d1 f i (-rc1,C renderings One subnie tteCI a ti,e J r,s- pub , ( heay)ng dealing with PhasP 1, ana to II,P ief-c of thaL an encore bualning wati, Lnes ad(IItlonrl.J %�C) t area which they are shows t,&r f Chaa rman Caouei t.e asked file appl e cans a f 1 lie,, would be subrnittang a modification oT 1lteer developmenL `1r kavtnekar Stal ect i ha7 e i, the l a5i hear) nf; question was what the LoLa l pi olect wou I cl be T\,c, years down the road and 1 slat shouidn' L cause t,i, Commission to approve somethl-ng they don' t J a l.e He slated that was whai they have atLempteci to du for this heara ng He stated that this hear i 1,- was for parcel 1 only, mitt also to have an overall look at parcel L and parcel 2 The rendering that was being passed around was wiial the modified project would look Like with the walls extended into the garden area lbe of ber rendering showed the two huilclings tl.ed to ethPl Chaa rrnan Caouei i e as]ced about t hP tei,ca nq n,a rPr, -1 1 which appeared to be a grape S [elks llg Mr Kavi he].ar asked e J he was ref erra n(,r i o sic, walls Lhat they were e),tendlitg around tilt areci He stated thcit would be regular W oc], wo 1 i,, ivl In stucco on a L , wood( n becir,is t o Lie Lhem together s1 ru ctura l 1 y at the top Chai rman C riouet Le c 1 ari f i cad thai he %4 a 5 i a 1 lci n- abou t the f enci ng a 1 on g t he propertl l i ne , not the building walls Mr Kavi hekar st ated t h a t a the presen l t i me there was a block well with chain lint, on top, hO they have the intenlion of finishing t comp]eteiti with a block wall Chairman Caouette asked if tl,a i was a rolldi t i onclI item, for a property wall along the west_ propertti line The Planning Director stated that it was not because iL went between the two commercial properties, but ii iL were ad]aceni to residenliat properties Llien it would be required (Mr Kavt.hekar then passecl the seconn rendering ) Commissioner Sims asked that if i lte� are -1c) I ool, at iL as a loLal project could the Pl�innjmr Director alert ert llie C'ommi ssi on to some of t lie problems that are out Lhere He asl,ed t`nat some of the concerns were on 1 tie i ni ti a i Fai I i el project He stated that hi s interest wa-, 111)w t 11- 1 concerns wou i d address t he second pncase 'Ihe Planning Director staled thar Lhe con, eriis with the 3nclivictuaI lot iuciuden, as tar a:; traff i c weal CI d 110L provic,c' any 1 1103-01 Cr 1, -11 c1 Or access onto Lhe sC,conCl. i of (-1nc ncC �-e a s 1) access onto Barton kono t hroligli i here true t c, the current problems with trafti.c already 1 Mere staff blocked ihat access to where there was only one entrance and ei,it onto Mt Vernon The o'liar concern that Lhe Planning Director nad was IuSt nialci ng sure that they included a 1 l of t rie park 1 iig that was required for the Code alga landscaping; They originally had the trash racilities bdcl, behind the building and he di d nor fee l tlial was an appropriate location The l oca ti on of t lie building itselt was discussed and he felt tnat Lhe way the but l di ng was oriented right ncM was i lie best if they were 10 nave the surrounding properties do something an the future 1S ith tzi s pare cular I o L they would have to turn their bawl: on somebody 1)ut this would allow them in the future to be less of an impact on the surrounding developments Commissioner Sims asked that. if the liquor stare I were to go away Allen would the second Phase have any traffic problems created by having an entrance onto Barton Road The Planning Director stated that they caid not analyze this completely The t raftic study just looked at the one lot but he felt that it would not be a major problem He stated that t Iie3 would be gi ving it con si derrn ti on i n t he f u t ure 14- s tated t ha t they have to l ool. at t he f urtire because the apl)li can t i 5 rneni i oil rya i ne feasibility of but Idi ng cinot her part of t lie pr of eci ] t may be , however, i hat tliey ma . riot be able to do that f or wha lever reason l he P 1 arini nQ Commission may request i liri t t hey cornP i n irnd Cleve) op that pi ec e of property on i is own or t_Cie� may try to combs ne wi th I he propel i y to t wPSi or t hey may not develop ar,yi hi.ng cit. a L i t whi cis would probably he the best i hi ng l or i lint c ori,er) and f i.l l it in wi t li 1 ano,,r<api ng anct part iug t nun not )raving t o have t.t1P a(,r P5s rI'rli to -P t intersection Commission Pr Sims asl`ed i f there i=)nv 'Fj' 1 Irt'% could gec some viable c'omrnicrricilt fi'orn the applicant on 1-he f u turc, dp,- e 1 opmew l'he Pianntng Director titai ed t h<t he r e t n< I. I here was no w a v tlie3 could it the aT'f i i r r were to withdraw and rr'F a tc r a total cle ve = opine u for both s i tes t hen thry cou i d do ` liai a1)(1 consider saying that the Cirst building \ti,is Pha"o I and the second bu).ldirrg was Phase Il Commissioner Sims asked i.f it were proper to ass-, that another Zraffic analysis oe done as U condition on the first phase to satisfy si afr that the second phase would be compatible Also, this could be some assurance from an engineering standpoint that this would not create a monster i) we approve this one portion of it Commissioner Cole asked if t)iev %Oul o not be exchanging -the traffic from the corner hui Idtng now to the tuture when they put the Sccond phase in The Planning Director s t ai e d that the new tali-1 l cii nor would not be 0 to � , but wcru i o proms t> j y he \ t o , because they wou 1 d t)P r eii t aci ng wine o l n,ai What it boils down I is r\lie ther ttie Conimi r,,, i oi can condi-Li oil the ex) s l i,io app) l co i on I or rr 10 study on how a future development on Lie adlacenl property woti ld e Lfc,c t it The City AI I orney s t a t ed t-hat the app 1 1 cant n, 15 i ndicat ed they want A lie hui l di.nt 0rdted anti sit tiaI.ecl wi tb t boul;bl t o hot h phases Ne staff ec1 that lie did not- sec, any i eason wily t [-icy eouJa ncz look at both Phases' traffic studies Clcai_rman Caoitette a,,ked i ot- any f „rtlzcr cruPsti ons Mr kavtbekar Stated That I_beir prodert i s-only for the single development- and they have met all of the Codes J'he Irafiic studv reelected little effect on the intersection itself and t he clesi_gn of Phase I and pi oposed f uture Phase l t iias from their standpoint a satisfviug architectural project Tony Fuller M S Partnership 1634 Adams Orange, CA He referred to the coticii Li on of tno, , Iig y',c building 1 3 ' He statecl that ii om t-tie pre,,ent drawi ng the Comma ss i on was look3 i,;; a L , +ne riir) buildings as proposed was going Ic, t-al%P 7-9 or the front -age of than otia lciittg li t 1)P DroIc,r moved anal ltei J 3as I I,e t ommi s,,i on way ati, , t,,- , then he iaouid nave ano-t-liei 20' of ut,vi si t e "1,ac e for any tenant He men t ione(a I ha t t lle i of anct space would be difficult to lease PUBLIC HEARING ADJOUf NPE) AT 7 40 P M PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Hargrave asked ivl,at Il,e 133cLure9 here that were dtsplayea on the bulletin board Mr Kavthelcar expl ained the pro IeCI f rom ttte bui.l d3 ngs in relation Ln the property tine by use of the photographs Vice —Chairwoman Van Gelder e~,pressed tier concern wi Lli the three shops and I he sma 1 1 square footage She suggested dividing,* them into Iwo shops instead of three 11 Mr Kavthekar explained 11-ical a t the presen-1 i 1 me the app13 cant had experl.enced the best square footage rental with a mom and pop cntrepenaur along the line of 900-1000 Sct ft However, at this time there was no leasing requirement on Flee square footage V1 ce-Chairwoman Van Gelder asked 1 t there was anv need to have t lie Commi-ssl on ( oncll tl on t he qualitl t� of shops The Planning Dir eci or s1 a Led that the C'ornrnl s s1 on can certainly cond1 tl on t lie rnl nlmum Square foot -age or number of shops Vice-Chril_rwornan Van bolder a5lceo i or c l art f i cal ion on 1 he square footage of t lie one Shop v r,- rn she believed was 835 Sct I eel Mr Kav1 hekar si at cd t lial t 11eti 'Ycrc alp 1 clec i1, o 3 equal part s The Planning Oirector sll a, ed 1 hdi 7 r1e shoo c�5e5� to Mt Vernon v ou ld oe 32 wI cIe dnd t rie o T ner t \No would be 25'wide Chairman Caouet -t e asked for a,)% furl nPr cru-sl 1 onL, irons the applicant or slat t Commissioner Hargrave aslrPrl i ne l l,znn ng 71, eel 01 if t he app 1 l callt.' s re -,pon E ; c, t Ile col1C i 1 oil changed the recommendat 1 on l rorn staf IF The Planning Director Stated that the cond>_tlon would stay the same He si ated ttlat trie,, are moveng the building over half the aistance end this area could be a landscaped area ad7aceni to Mt Vernon Avenue 7 ka t 13 wou t d iio i r e t hd t much of a detrlmeat to the project ane7 in ilie future 1.f the second building is built, particularly if the condition would require only two divisions in the building, It would ha%e less of an impact The Illa1 n reason NNhv h1 s recommendatl on stays the same ivaS t>ecau-,e t tic future building may nol come 1rl and t n e n t rle building could stand alolLe on a piece of property It would sit bets ex on thal locate on because of the landScaping and would be centered hPtter Commissioner Hargrave s t ai ec1 l h(i t 1 1-11 s nrc(-i I S very s1 gnif>_c ant l or l lie C l.t t rlll(l 15 z lie most cents a I to the traffic pi ob ) c fits 11cw clnc, > >i t '1c- 12 3 r MOTION PCM-88-3 future He f e It t liat i hev a re at a Point Willi tlh] s pro )ect t liat i f 1 his ; I i o i i I d not he 1 liere on the small l of then the area uec ds io hc, I (-)ok(,cl at o1i a much brocider scope 1:1 co) whar I-, t,ei nor dolle 1 on ght because of I is m7 gnI f3 ran1 t r a f f I c anti economi c I mpact t 0 1111s Pi t v He wotu i ri I I ke ( 0 see outlets that would have a murk 1)ro(-J(1e1 commercial appeal to t he C ) t y, a more mecii urn t vpe tenant base t ha L would come i n 1 )i e) e He s t a r ed that he did not f ee 1 t lta r the CI ty, , 4' I t 11 t III s project, was getting what it wolf i cI want out of that property Commissioner Munson recommended tt,iat SA-d7-1 I be approved subject Lo t he 1 I rondi-tions 1 ) St ect in the s L a f f report and the above additional h conditions Commi ss1oner flaw-. i nson seconded z lie inoLlon Commissioner Hawkinson referrea 110 the second project, which showed hypothe ti ca 1 1y r lie f111 1 deve l opmenL that looks ] lke the i oof is c ?n z 1, o1, s and has the presentation of the "_"-,,lzaped bulIdin- Mr KavthP]�ar e�p1aI iled Mat t,],� rwo l"otl I c' be connnectec wtt h the service pcine 1 , \N I I Iz a narrow alley, which would be accessEd to tliat area Commissioner Hawkinson elari fled ttlac would stl I 1 be open space as indicated in the b i 1lepr> »t Mr Kavthekar confirmed that wa s correc -L and 1 t was not part of the building Commissioner Hawkinson aslc(,a thdt if the second phase of building would be the same square footage as the tirst Mr Kavthekar s t at ed that ) L wou 1 d be s I ht 1 y more, but pretty close to ttlie same size Commissioner Hawkinson asked if -the area tN i th the square panels was I e conf tgured to 11lLere a diagonal glass would be placed across the front so that it would be a usable space, would LIiaL hurt the pr o f ec L in regards to the parking spaces 13