The URL can be used to link to this page

06/14/199022795 Barton Road Grand Terrace California 92324-5295 Civic Center (714) 824-6621 Byron R Matteson Mayor Hugh J Grant Mayor Pro Tempore Gene Carlstrom Barbara Pfenmghausen 5 Jim Smgley - Council Members Thomas J Schwab City Manager FILE COPY June 14, 1990 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Regular Meetings 2nd and 4th Thursdays — 6 00 p m. 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 June 14, 1990 GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER 6 00 P M 2?795 Barton Road * Call to Order - r- Invocation - Pastor Tom Comstock, Assembly of God * Pledge of Allegiance k Roll Call STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS COUNCIL ACTION CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY _ 1 Approval of 5/24/90 Minutes Approve ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONVENE CITY COUNCIL Items to Delete 2 SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS A Introduction of "Miss Grand Terrace" B Proclamation - "Preservation of United Present States Route 66 as an Historic Highway" 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 061490 B Ratify 6/14/90 CRA Action C 4Wai ve -Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda - --- = - - - -� --- - - COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF 6/14/90 - Page 2 of 2 RECOMMENDATION D Approve 5/24/90 Minutes Approve E Councilmember's Request for Reconsider- ation of Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision SA-()0-03 (Outdoor Designs/Genel) F Bid Specifications for Senior Center PUBLIC COMMENT 5 ORAL REPORTS A Committee Reports 1 Parks & Recreation Committee (a) Upgrade of Pico Parksite B Council Reports 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS - 6 00 P i1 A Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision SA-90-03 (Outdoor Designs/Genel) B Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision SA-90-09 (Cather/O'Connor) C. SP-90-01, TTM-90-01, E-90-01 (Porter De- velopment/Hansen) 7 UNFINISHED BUSINESS A Policy Regarding Proclamations 8 NEW BUSINESS A Appropriation for FY 89/90 SCJPIA General Liability Retroactive Payment 9 CLOSED SESSION ADJOURN THE NEXT REGULAR CRA/CITY COUNCIL MEETING !WILL BE HELD ON JUNE 28, 1990 AT 6 00 P M -------------------------------------------------- AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS FOR THE 6/28/90 MEETING - 1tfST=&E—tUBMIfTETD rN WRITING -TO -THE CITY—C-L=ERK--S` OFFICE BY NOON 6/21/90 COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF GRAND TERRACE FE :, I }`' "� � ��AL � COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MAY 24, 1990 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 24, 1990, at 6 05 p.m PRESENT 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 David Sawyer, Community Development Director Joe Kicak, City Engineer Alan Burns, Deputy City Attorney ABSENT Byron Matteson, Chairman Juanita Brown, Secretary John Harper, City Attorney APPROVAL OF MAY 10, 1990 CRA MINUTES CRA-90-16 MOTION BY AGENCY MEMBER SINGLEY, SECOND BY VICE-CHAIRMAN GRANT, CARRIED 4-0-1-0 (CHAIRMAN MATTESON WAS ABSENT), to approve May 10, 1990 CRA Minutes with stated correction. APPROVAL OF CHECK REGISTER NO. CRA052490 CRA-90-17 MOTION BY AGENCY MEMBER PFENNIGHAUSEN, SECOND BY AGENCY MEMBER SINGLEY, CARRIED 4-0-1-0 (CHAIRMAN MATTESON WAS ABSENT), to approve Check Register No. CRA052490. Vice -Chairman Grant 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, June 14, 1990 at 6 00 p.m. CHAIRMAN of the City of Grand Terrace SECRETARY of the City of Grand Terrace —__ - - - CRA AGErJDA iTLN-,`!� � — ---_ 'wig, s, LM t-/ ry4S,,- ivi n - `� PRESERVATION OF UNITED STATES ROUTE 66- -�� AS AN HISTORIC HIGHWAY ti WHEREAS, United States Route 66, a two thousand -mile highway from Chicago, Illinois, to Santa Monica, California, has played a major role in the twentieth-century history of our country, and - - WHEREAS, Route 66 has become a symbol of the American ��- ,�.� [ people's heritage of travel and their legacy of seeking a better life, and - WHEREAS, Route 66 served as a funnel for the r=�{� twentieth-century migration from the Dust Bowl of the Central States, and WHEREAS, Route 66 has been memorialized in such books as �1 "Grapes of Wrath", songs, motion pictures, and television programs, ` and has become an accepted part of American popular culture, and _ ^�T i �fl WHEREAS, during the early 1980's structures and features along Route 66 began to disappear and the historical value lost to the - c, w„ Nation r "` NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City-- C of Grand Terrace takes this opportunity to encourage that Route 66 be _ commemorated as a Nationally significant highway that was one of the- �� longest and earliest transcontinental roadways in America and that (Z Route 66 be preserved as an historic highway % _ -- Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace--- _ and of the City Council thereof This-14th day of June- 1990-= - - -- CHECK ,I NUMBER it P6705 ,I P6706 P6767 P6708 P6709 , P6710 P671 P6712 P67,13 P6714 P67,15 , P67,16 P6717 P6718 P6719 P67, 20 P021� ' P6722 P67,h P6724 P6725 P67`26 P6727 (_N3 P6728 , I IIi CITY OF GR, " TERRACE DATE JUivr. 14, 1990 f? I�sslt�'s x CI 9 6� CHECK RLui_)TER NO 051490 OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF JUNE 14, 1990 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT It SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY I. - CASH PAYMENTS FOR 5/16/90 $ 69 07 ;SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 5/16/90 35 59 1 'SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 5/18/90 443 67 SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 5/18/90 268 77 POSTMASTER-COLTON BULK MAIL FOR RECREATION SPRING BROCHURES 462 23 BARBARA HUMPHRIES REFUND FOR CANCELLED EXCURSION 314 00 ib RMEN UHALLEY REFUND FOR CANCELLED EXCURSION 314 00 JOHN FREDERICK REFUND FOR CANCELLED EXCURSION 314 00 SOUTHERN CA CITY CLERK ASSOC QUARTERLY MEETING 25 00 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 5/22/90 198 92 SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 5/22/90 91 25 WALKING MAN DISTRIBUTE FLYERS FOR SAFETY FAIR 425 00 GERI'S SCREENPRINT DEPOSIT FOR T-SHIRTS FOR CRIME BUSTERS 391 24 (RIVERSIDE COUNTY CHILD CARE CHILD CARE CONFERENCE 25 00 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 5/24/90 136 46 ,SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 5/24/90 96 81 1,MATICH CORPORATION PROGRESS PAYMENTS FOR MICHIGAN AND BARTON ROAD PROJECTS 165,108 23 i;THOMAS SCHWAB ADVANCE ON PAYROLL FOR PAY PERIOD ENDING 5/25/90 1,216 35 11'SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 5/29/90 135 80 4SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 5/29/90 197 04 *TO GIANT PARTS FOR REPAIRS ON S-10 PICK-UP 49 58 ,ALL PRO CONSTRUCTION REPAIRS ON STREETS, VARIOUS LOCATIONS 6,593 00 1,��ERS FOR PAYROLL ENDING 5/25/90 2,653 73 jI}OUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 5/31/90 75 86 f il'i 'ji�l l CHECK NUMBER P6729 P6730' P67{31' P6732 P673,3, P6734 P67# P6736` P6737,' 21690 216911 21693 2169 2165� r 21696 2169�' 21698E 21699" I� 21700� 2170II`1' 217d,2� 217, Q3, 21704 � I' 217,05' , 1 CITY OF GRP�` TERRACE DATE JUR 14, 1990 CHECK RE_. -TER NO 061490 '1 OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF JUNE 14, 1990 VENDOR DESCRIPTION iI, SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY IGERI'S SCREENPRINT 'SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY OiRCO BLOCK WILLIAM HAYWARD SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY (YODELING MERLE ,1MERICAN PLANNING ASSOC AVE BERTINO i t C R CORPORATION 111HAMPION ROOFS LIONEL ARNOLD RANK NOVELLI VALE COOLEY I ARIA CANTEE it H AND OPEL COOK AT & T INFORMATION CENTER IIII,, , ,RANDALL ANSTINE �A R A /SAN BERNARDINO ASTANCHURY BOTTLED WATER �BECKLEY CARDY JBIG 0 TIRES I' I CASH PAYMENTS FOR 5/31/90 BALANCE DUE ON T-SHIRTS FOR CRIME BUSTERS CASH PAYMENTS FOR 6/4/90 CASH PAYMENTS FOR 6/4/90 UPGRADE BLOCK WALL ON BARTON ROAD INSTRUCTOR, KARATE CASH PAYMENTS FOR 6/6/90 CASH PAYMENTS FOR 6/6/90 ENTERTAINMENT FOR SAFETY FAIR PLANNING REFERENCE BOOK REFUND FOR SLO-PITCH SOFTBALL REGISTRATION REWIRE COMPUTER, FINANCE OVERPAYMENT ON PERMIT REBUILD CHECK VALVE AT PARK REFUND,WASTE WATER DISPOSAL SERVICES REFUND,WASTE WATER DISPOSAL SERVICES REFUND,WASTE WATER DISPOSAL SERVICES REFUND ON CANCELLED PROJECT, PLANNING RENT PHONE, EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER AUTO ALLOWANCE FOR JUNE, 1990 AIR CONDITIONER FOR CHILD CARE VAN BOTTLED WATER FOR CIVIC CENTER AND CHILD CARE SUPPLIES FOR CHILD CARE REPAIRS FOR S-10 PICK-UP AMOUNT 41 28 391 24 31 22 74 81 1,019 73 105 00 70 16 11 65 125 00 20 00 240 00 106 75 10 00 245 15 17 00 7 65 8 50 1,569 00 4 38 200 00 675 00 157 80 23 45 223 39 2 CITY OF GRP" TERRACE DATE JL,,� 14, 1990 CHECK RE --- TER NO 061490 CHECK OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF JUNE 14, 1990 NUMBER VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2170,E BOB'S SPEEDE SPEEDOMETER SVC REPAIR SPEEDOMETER, CHILD CARE VAN $ 60 59 2170 DANIEL BUCHANAN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, 5/15/90 35 00 21708 CONSTANCE CHAPMAN CLEAN REST ROOMS AT PARK (8 DAYS) 160 00 21709 CHILD CRAFT EQUIPMENT FOR CHILD CARE 191 04 21710 CHEM-LITE INDUSTRIES TRASH LINERS, STREET MAINTENANCE 159 48 21711 CITY OF COLTON WASTE WATER DISPOSAL SERVICES FOR JUNE, 1990 AND CONNECTIONS MAY, 1990 57,640 33 21712 CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS FIRST AID SUPPLIES, CHILD CARE 36 44 21713 DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES CLASS B LICENSE, CHILD CARE 55 00 21714 DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES CLASS B LICENSE, CHILD CARE 55 00 21715 DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES CLASS B LICENSE, CHILD CARE 55 00 21716 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY MAINTENANCE ON KODAK COPIER, APRIL, 1990 150 51 21717 EASTMAN KODAK CREDIT CORP LEASE ON KODAK COPIER, JUNE, 1990 223 27 21711;8 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP EXPRESS MAIL 22 50 217,119 FLOWERS BY YVONNE FLOWERS FOR MATTESON 46 44 2172O FIRST COLONY LIFE INSURANCE INSURANCE FOR SINGLEY 115 00 2171 GT LOCK AND KEY DUPLICATE KEYS 68 02 217P2 HARBER COMPANY CONCRETE CORINGS 100 00 217,h, STANLEY HARGRAVE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, 5/15/90 AND PLANNING CONFERENCE 163 06 217t�,4 JERRY HAWKINSON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, 5/15/90 35 00 , y 217,2'5 HERMAN HILKEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, 5/15/90 35 00 21726 HONEYWELL, INC REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE ON HVAC UNIT, JUNE, 1990 1,515 09 217,1Z7 KICAK AND ASSOCIATES ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR 4/29-5/27/90 18,222 02 217j28 MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS LONG DISTANCE PHONE 37 65 3 CITY OF GRP,,,""-, TERRACE DATE JU_ 14, 1990 CHECK RE_TER NO 061490 CHECK OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF JUNE 14, 1990 NUMBER VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 21729 M & D FINISHLAND DISPLAY CASE, HISTORICAL/CULTURAL COMMITTEE $ 1,601 25 21730 MCKENZIE-SCOTT COMPANY MAINTENANCE ON OLYMPIA OLYTEXT, ONE YEAR 249 50 21731 MINUTE MAN PRESS INSERTS, SUMMER BROCHURE, NEWSLETTERS AND FLYERS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS 711 54 21732 RAY MUNSON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, 5/15/90 35 00 21733 JEAN MYERS CROSSING GUARD FOR 5/7-6/l/90 266 00 21734 OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY MAINTENANCE ON ELEVATOR, JUNE, 1990 209 94 21735 PHIL PAGE OPEN/CLOSE PARK ON DEBERRY, MARCH, 1990 75 00 21736 PACIFIC BELL PHONE FOR CHILD CARE, SENIOR CITIZENS, COMPUTER MODEM, EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER, CIVIC CENTER, FAX MACHINE AND PAY PHONES AT CIVIC CENTER 945 30 2173I7, PAGENET AIR TIME AND MAINTENANCE ON PAGERS, JUNE, 1990 33 00 21738, PAR4MOUNT LITHOGRAPH FLYERS FOR SAFETY FAIR 382 22 21739, THE PETRA COMPANIES RUBBER STAMPS, RECREATION SUMMER BROCHURES, AND RECEIPTS 3,761 88 21740 PETTY CASH REIEMBURSE PETTY CASH FOR CHILD CARE 163 03 21�141 R H A LANDSCAPE DESIGN, BARTON ROAD 906 71 21742 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO DUMPING CHARGES FOR 4/16-5/15/90 656 50 21743 DAVID SAWYER AUTO ALLOWANCE FOR JUNE, 1990 200 00 217f414 THOMAS SCHWAB AUTO ALLOWANCE FOR JUNE, 1990 200 00 21745 JIM SIMS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, 5/15/90 35 00 21746 1 LOUISE SMITH REIMBUREMENT FOR SUPPLIES FOR EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER 47 36 217,47 SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY SUPPLIES FOR SAFETY FAIR, RECREATION 71 50 1 21748 SOFTEWARE WIZARD RIBBONS FOR COMPUTER 31 88 217,14116 SOLANO PRESS ZONING LAW UPDATES 71 00 217150 SO CA MUNICIPAL ATHLETIC FED TEAM REGISTRATION FOR SLO-PITCH SOFTBALL 36 00 i 4 CITY OF GRAM - TERRACE DATE JUNE 14, 1990 CHECK REGi3iER NO 061490 CHECK OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF JUNE 14, 1990 NUMBER VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 21751 STATE COMPENSATION INS 21752 THE SUN 21753 UNOCAL 21754 URBAN DESIGN 21755 FRAN VAN GELDER 21756 WEST-COMPUTIL CORP 21757 WMI SERVICES-PERRIS FUND ANNUAL CIGA FOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE ADS FOR RECREATION AIDES AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FUEL FOR CITY TRUCKS, EQUIPMENT, AND CHILD CARE VAN SITE PLAN REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, 5/15/90 PROCESS PARKING CITATIONS, APRIL, 1990 STREET SWEEPING FOR MAY, 1990 PAYROLL FOR MAY, 1990 TOTAL $ 235 30 676 68 295 26 318 22 35 00 13 75 1,644 00 66,175 11 $344,283 13 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 THOMAS SCHWAB FINANCE DIRECTOR PENID!! ac- CI y CITY OF GRAND TERRACE C0111 ,C L CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MAY 24, 1990 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 24, 1990, at 6 00 p.m. PRESENT 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 David Sawyer, Community Development Director Alan Burns, Deputy City Attorney Joe Kicak, City Engineer ABSENT Byron Matteson, Mayor Juanita Brown, City Clerk John Harper, City Attorney The meeting was opened with invocation by Reverend Dale Goddard, Inland Christian Center, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilmember Singley. Mayor Pro Tem Grant convened City Council meeting at 6 00 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Grant reconvened City Council meeting at 6 05 p.m. ITEMS TO DELETE None CONSENT CALENDAR CC-90-44 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER PFENNIGHAUSEN, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SINGLEY, CARRIED 4-0-1-0 (MAYOR MATTESON WAS ABSENT), to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar with the removal of Item A. B. RATIFY 5/24/90 CRA ACTION C. WAIVE FULL READING OF ORDINANCES ON AGENDA D APPROVE 5/10/90 MINUTES E. REJECTION OF GTLC-90-02 (ARCHER) C r'aVr`]L AGENDA ITF—M a 3 D Council Minutes - 5/24/90 Page 2 ITEM FOR DISCUSSION 3A. APPROVE CHECK REGISTER NO. 052490 Councilmember Pfenni hsuen, questioned check No. P6689. She asked why a 329 stereo was needed for the Child Care van. City Manager Schwab, indicated that the stereo is replacing the one that came with the van and it is used to play tapes to entertain the children Mayor Pro Tem Grant, questioned check No. 21637 - Regional Air Quality Element, SANBAG. City Manager Schwab, indicated that Council previously entered into a joint agreement with SANBAG to do a regional air quality element, which we will include with our element CC-90-45 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER PFENNIGHAUSEN, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM GRANT, CARRIED 4-0-1-0 (MAYOR MATTESON WAS ABSENT), to approve Check Register No. 052490. PUBLIC COMMENT ORAL REPORTS Debra Mueller, 22608 La Paix, Grand Terrace, announced that the Safety Fair will be held on June 3rd and encouraged everyone to attend. Gene McMeans, Manager, Riverside Highland Water Co , thanked Council and City staff for their help on the Water Conservation Seminar held on May 12th. Peggy Taylor, 22843 Vista Grande Way, Grand Terrace, expressed concern about children waiting in front of schools for a ride when the school is completely empty. She felt that the school has a responsibility to know where the children are at all times. Dick Rollins, Crime Prevention Committee, indicated that the traffic on DeBerry Street travels at a high rate of speed and requested that the speed limit be posted on the street. 5A. Committee Reports 1. Crime Prevention Committee Debra Mueller, indicated that she has resigned as Chairman of the Crime Prevention Committee due to a busy schedule and Ed O'Neal is now the Chairman until September when she will take over. Council Minutes - 5/24/90 Page 3 CC-90-46 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GRANT, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SINGLEY, CARRIED 4-0-1-0 (MAYOR MATTESON WAS ABSENT), to accept the March 12, 1990 Crime Prevention Committee Minutes. 2. Historical & Cultural Committee CC-90-47 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GRANT, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER PFENNIGHAUSEN, CARRIED 4-0-1-0 (MAYOR MATTESON WAS ABSENT), to accept the May 7, 1990 Historical & Cultural Committee Minutes. 5B. Council Reports Councilmember Singley, indicated that Grand Terrace has been listed as one of the lowest crime rate cities in California and felt that we owe it to the fine job of our police force and the Crime Prevention Committee. He urged everyone to attend the Safety Fair on June 3rd. Gene Carlstrom, indicated that he is pleased with the work that was done on Canal St. Councilmember Pfenni hausen, indicated that as the representative on the Advisory Commission for the Water Board, she attended a meeting on May 23rd where she gained valuable information on the management of the water basin. She informed Council that it is time for reappointment to the Advisory Commission and if they want to make any changes, action should be taken at this time. Mayor Pro Tem Grant, reported that he attended the Water Conservation Seminar on May 12th and the Solid Waste Advisory Board meeting on May 17th. He encouraged the citizens of Grand Terrace to vote on June 5th and indicated that he is pleased to see the political signs removed from the new grass on Barton Road. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7A. Citizen Request To Form School Task Force C,ty Manager Schwab, reported that at the City Council Meeting of May loth, Council requested that a citizen request for a School Task Force be agendized for this meeting. He indicated that Advisory Committees do exist to study a range of school issues and felt that the education of children and the operation of the School District do not fall within the ,jurisdiction of the City Council. He felt that it would be inappropriate for the City Council to convene a Task Force to advise another political ,jurisdiction as to how it might conduct its affairs and felt it would further widen the gap in the working relationship that is necessary to provide the best possible environment to educate our children. Council Minutes - 5/24/90 Page 4 Stan Hargrave, 12048 Canary Ct , Grand Terrace, indicated that according to the 1987 school impact study there was a short term solution and a long term solution. The short term solution was year-round school, which has already begun and the long term solution is a bonding issue to solve the building problems. He stated that the School Board does not need permission to put a bonding issue on the ballot but they can not pay for campaigning. It must be funded and promoted by the r communities in the district. He indicated that Grand Terrace is not even on the list of probable locations for a new school. He felt that day care, senior citizens and private education are the three basic needs of the City and suggested that Council look into initiating a program similar to what is being done in Los Angeles and Santa Monica, whereby government and business join together to fund facilities. He felt that the three needs can be combined into one type of development. He felt that this could be done without the use of consultants by utilizing City staff and people in the community. C,ty Mana er Schwab, indicated that Grand Terrace has always looked at density within the City to make sure we do not over- build and felt that when we are built out, we will be able to handle the number of students using the year-round system. He felt that this is the reason that no school sites have been identified within our boundaries. He indicated that all large pieces of residential land in Grand Terrace are in the planning process. He indicated that the City has a 4.6 acre parcel and there are plans to put a facility for senior citizens on that parcel. He stated that the child care and senior needs are being addressed. He indicated that he will look into the business -government partnership program. Although, he felt that our business base is small and the resources may not exist. Councilmember Pfenni hausen, asked if the PTA has been approached to address some of the concerns. Stan Hargrave, indicated that he has not formally approached the PTA, but the feedback he has gotten from the current and incoming president is that they feel they shouldn't get involved in political issues. He felt that this is an educational issue rather than a political issue Debra Mueller, 22608 La Paix, Grand Terrace, stated that she is opposed to a school task force. She indicated that the parents are no longer invited to attend the PTA general meetings and there is no communication with the parents. She stated that she does not agree with the bond issue. She felt that It would not benefit our City and we would be campaigning for a school in the City of Colton where they have not controlled their growth. She stated that she 1s in favor of forming our own school district expressing concern about children attending our Council Minutes - 5/24/90 Page 5 schools who do not live in the boundaries. She informed Council that Terrace View school is in need of a new intercom system and the parents have been told to use the PTA funds, which have traditionally been used for school activities. Councilmember Pfenni hausen, stated that it is the parents right to participate in PTA and they should not allow the PTA to restrict them. Barbara Fasenm er, indicated this has been taking place since the year-round school issue has come up. Mayor Pro Tem Grant, agreed that the parents should insist on their right to speak at PTA meetings. Linda Heney, PTA President, stated that their by-laws reflect closed executive board meetings and they were told that they must be changed if they want to continue to have open board meetings. She indicated that the change is being considered. Stan Ha,grave, felt that plans should be made to combine the senior center and child care facility stating that it would financially benefit the City. He felt that crosswalks and warning signals should be installed to warn drivers of children crossing before year-round school begins. Barbara Pfennighausen, felt that it is not within our ,jurisdiction to set up a citizen task force to advise another governmental entity. She stated that the parents should not allow themselves to be disenfranchised from PTA. She stated that PTA is, by definition, a politically active group and should be involved in all school issues. She indicated that she will not fight for a bond issue to build schools in other communities as long as there is a need in Grand Terrace. She stated that the school board identified Grand Terrace School as unsafe for students in 1982 and the conditions have not gotten better over the years. She felt that Grand Terrace needs a new school. She stated that she is not in favor of the recall, but there are other things that can be done. She encouraged the residents to write to the legislators to try and change the stipulations for the use of lottery funds. She indicated that the 4 6 acre parcel of land was purchased for a park site and asked what will be done for a park now that it is being used for a senior center and child care facility. city Manager Schwab, stated that at the time he recommended that Council purchase the park site the plans always included the vision to someday place a child care facility on the parcel because it is next to the school. A senior center, however, was not included in the plans. Council Minutes - 5/24/90 Page 6 Councilmember Pfennighausen, requested a list of the people who have submitted plans for all the vacant residential property as well as a parcel map with those pieces of property marked. She also requested that a letter be sent to the school district asking why we have substandard communication systems in our schools. Councilmember Singley, reminded everyone that the bond issue would benefit our students due to the fact that our high school students are housed in Colton CC-90-48 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SINGLEY, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CARLSTROM, CARRIED 4-0-1-0 (MAYOR MATTESON WAS ABSENT), not to form a school task force. Council directed staff to install signs and crosswalks for the children crossing Mt. Vernon for year-round school 7B. Consider SB 1859 New County Formation Procedures City Manager Schwab, indicated that at the meeting of May loth Council directed staff to place on the Agenda, Senate Bill 1859 (New County Formation Procedures) for consideration of support or opposition. Staff feels that the current system allows input from all residents in the county. A formation of a new county will affect all members of the existing county, and it seems only appropriate that all voters within the county be given an opportunity to be heard in a county formation vote. Mayor Pro Tem Grant, indicated that he is opposed to SB 1859 stating that it would be a miscarriage of justice to the people in the remainder of the county. He stated that if it is the consensus of this Council to oppose this Bill, he would like both the Assembly and the State Senate informed of our opposition. Councilmember Carlstrom, indicated that he is also opposed to the new county formation procedures stating that he sees no advantage to dividing the county. CC-90-49 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SINGLEY, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CARLSTROM, to adopt a Resolution opposing SB 1859 New County Formation Procedures and said Resolution be sent to the State Senators and Assemblymen. Councilmember Pfenni hausen, felt that the financial impact of dividing this county would be disastrous. She felt that the legislators have done a poor job informing the people and indicated that she would like to see along with this, a letter stating that good and accurate information as to the opposition should be supplied to the people of this county. MOTION CC-90-49 CARRIED 4-0-1-0 (MAYOR MATTESON WAS ABSENT). Council Minutes - 5/24/90 Page 7 NEW BUSINESS Mayor Pro Tem Grant recessed City Council at 8 20 p.m Mayor Pro Tem Grant reconvened City Council at 8 30 p.m. 8A. Set Budget Hearings City Manager Schwab, indicated that the preliminary budget will be distributed to the City Council on Tuesday, June 5th. He anticipated that, as in the past, the hearing will require two evening meetings. It was the consensus of Council to schedule the Budget Hearings for June 21st and 26th at 6 00 p.m. 8B. Establish policy for Barton Road block walls Community Development Director Sawyer, indicated that in conjunction with the beautification elements of the Barton Road Specific Plan, staff is requesting that Council establish a policy to assist homeowners located in a defined area in upgrading any proposed block wall along Barton Road to a decorative slumpstone block wall to match that which the City has previously installed at the northeast corner of Barton Road and Arliss Drive. The recommended area for this program is along the north side of Barton Road, east of Arliss Drive and west of Preston Street. The purpose of this program is to obtain an attractive uniform wall along Barton Road which will serve as a visual and sound barrier between the residents and the traffic along Barton Road and be aesthetically pleasing and consistent with previous and planned improvements along Barton Road. He indicated that when an applicant applies to the City for a permit to construct a block wall in the program area, the City would then pay the difference to upgrade it to a decorative slumpstone block wall. Councilmember Carlstrom, clarified that this will only occur if the property owner decides to put in a block wall City Manager Schwab, indicated that we will offer to pay the difference, but it would not be mandatory. Councilmember Pfennighausen, felt that it should be required that they put in slumpstone walls rather than precision block walls. CC-90-50 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER PFENNIGHAUSEN, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SINGLEY, CARRIED 4-0-1-0 (MAYOR MATTESON WAS ABSENT), to establish a policy that tan slumpstone block walls be made standard along Barton Road and the City will assist the property owners with the difference in cost between slumpstone and precision block walls at the time they choose to replace their current wall Council Minutes - 5/24/90 Page 8 ORDER OF ADJOURNMENT Mayor Pro Tem Grant adjourned the City Council meeting at 8 45 p.m , until the next regular CRA/City Council meeting, which is scheduled to be held Thursday, June 14, 1990. CITY CLERK of the City of Grand Terrace. MAYOR of the City of Grand Terrace. 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace :alii a 92324-5295 Civic Center (714) 824-6621 Byron R Matteson ' Mayor Hugh J Grant Mayor Pro Tempore arbara Pfennighausen Jim Singley ne Carlstrom Council Members Thomas J Schwab City Manager May 15, 1990 TO Nita Brown, City Clerk FROM Councilmember Jim Singley I hereby request that you place on the June 14, 1990 Council Agenda, when a full Council will be in attendance, Council reconsideration of Appeal of the Planning Commis- sion's decision regarding SA-90-03 Jim Singley Councilmember �_C 11 , , �;I, INDA 14 E'd.'f j 3 E DATE 6/7/90 STAFF REPORT CRA ITEM O COUNCIL ITEM (X) MEETING DATE 6/14/90 SUBJECT Bid Specifications for Senior Center Background: On May 31, 1990, City staff received official "approval to proceed", from the County of San Bernardino, regarding the Senior Center Modular Unit. Attached to this report please find said approval to proceed. Pursuant to the request of Council, the modular specifications are before Council for review. After review of the specifications, staff will need authorization from Council to solicit public bids for this project. Form Motion: DIRECT CITY STAFF TO SOLICIT PUBLIC BIDS, FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE SENIOR CITIZENS MODULAR UNIT. [R )EPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT , \�`�\`III�I��j PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY 14) 3874573 �� j/� �� THOMAS R LAURIN 74 West Fifth Street • San Bernardino CA 92415 0040 • (7��'►I(1�\�� Director May 31, 199Q City of Grand Terrace Community Services Department 22795 Barton Road Grand`Terrace, CA 92324-5295 Attn Randy Anstine RE APPROVAL TO PROCEED Delegate Agency Ci Pro3ect/Activity Name ECD Pro3ect Number _ ECD Case Number of Grand Terrace Improvements to Grand Terrace - Senior Activities Center 106-15301 00000821 The San Bernardino County Department of Economic and Community Development has reviewed your request dated May 9, 1990, and authorizes the delegate agency to proceed with the following action- - Issue an Invitation to Bid for construction services contract for the construction of a 2000 square foot Senior Activities Facility - Modular Unit Pro3ect will include all off -site improvements Approval of the above action is sub3ect to the following -conditions) - Insert the attached State (issued February, 1990) and Federal (CA90-2, Modification #5) Prevailing Wage Decisions into the bid package prior to issuance Contact this office on the tenth (loth) day before the bid opening to ascertain the prevailing wage dicasions in effect at that time If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, I can be reached at (714) 387-4583 Sincerely, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT THOMAS R LAURIN, Director �, 0.--, 1, DOUGLAS PAYNE ECD Division Chief DP BT pn cc ECD Fiscal H,'RP" M MAYS Board of Supervisors co.inty Admi^ist at Or icrr MARSHA TUROCI First District BARBARA CRAM RIORDAN Third District B L WGR-W41 Aarniw,trator ION D NIIKELS Second District LARRN WALKER Fourth Distnc Envi Cr m *n 0 tbi c \,rocks Aqency I R05ERT L HAr,S %1OCK Fifth D st ict City of Grand Terrace Notice Inviting Bids Plans and Specifications for City of Grand Terrace San Bernardino County, California City Council Mayor, Byron Matteson Mayor Pro Tem, Hugh J. Grant Councilperson Barbara Pfennighausen Councilperson Jim Singley Councilperson Gene Carlstrom Prepared By Community Services Department 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA. 92324 (714) 824-6621 ,U GA DUE: DATE: CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT NOTICE INVITING BIDS Submit bid in a sealed envelope mark as indicated below: Bidders Name and address City of Grand Terrace City Clerk's Office 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA. 92324 Bid No. Due: Hour: 2:00 p.m. Project Description: Temporary Modular Unit for the Senior Citizens. Sealed proposals will be received at the City of Grand Terrace, City Clerk's Office, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, CA. 92324, until 2:00 p.m., / /90 at which time they will be publicly opened and read at the same address. Non-refundable price is $10.00 per set of Plans & Specifications (tax included) -4 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE STATE OF CALIFORNIA NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS INVITING SEALED BIDS AGENCY: CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PROJECT IDENTIFICATION: TEMPORARY MODULAR UNIT FOR THE SENIOR CITIZENS PLACE PLANS ARE ON FILE: City Finance Department 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, CA. 92324 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above named City, acting by and through its Governing Body, hereinafter referred to as 'CITY' will receive up to, but not later than the above stated time, sealed bids for the award of a contract for the above project. Bids shall be received in the place identified above, and shall be opened and publicly read aloud at the above stated time and place. No bids will be received unless it is made on a proposal form furnished by the City of Grand Terrace. Each bid must be accompanied by Cash (Certified or Cashier's Check or Bidder's Bond) made payable to the City of Grand Terrace for an amount equal to at least ten percent (10%) of the maximum amount of the bid. The check or bid bond shall be given as a guarantee that the bidder shall execute the contract if it is awarded to him in conformity with the contract fifteen (15) calendar days after notice of award. The City has obtained from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations the general prevailing rate of per diem wages in the locality in which this work is to be performed for each craft or type of workman needed to execute the contract. These rates are on file at the City Clerk's Office, located at the City Hall, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California. Copies may be obtained on request. A copy of these rates shall be posted at the job site. The foregoing schedule of per diem wages is based upon a working day of eight (8) hours. The rate for holiday and overtime work shall be at least time and one-half. It shall be mandatory upon this contractor to whom the contract is awarded, and upon any subcontractor under him, to pay not less than the said specified rates to all workmen employed by them in the execution of the contract. All bids are to be compared on the basis of the Engineer's estimate of the quantities of work to be done. No bid will be accepted from a contractor who has not been licensed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 9, Division III of Business and Professional Code. A payment bond and a performance bond will be required prior to execution of the contract. The payment bond shall be in the form set forth in the contract documents. Plans and Specifications may be obtained at the office of the Finance Department, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, CA 92324. The special attention of prospective bidder's is called to the "Proposal requirements and Conditions" annexed to the blank form of proposal for full directions as to bidding etcetera. The City of Grand Terrace reserves the right to reject any and all bids. No bidder may withdraw his bid for a period of 60 days after the time set for the opening thereof. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA. CITY CLERK CITY OF GRAND TERRACE DATE: t -y a CITY OF GRAND TERRACE NOTICE INVITING BIDS BID NO. Bidders Name and Address BID DUE: PLACE: Deliver sealed proposals to the City Clerk, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, prior to the hour indicated above so that receipt of bid may be properly noted and publicly read soon thereafter. Plans and Specifications may be seen and/or obtained in the City Finance Department, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California_ FEE $10.00 non-refundable. Successful bidder will obtain a City of Grand Terrace Business License, if they do not already hold one. The successful bidder will submit its Affirmative Action Program for review by the City Clerk. DESCRIPTION OF WORK: ACQUISITION AND INSTALLATION OF A TEMPORARY MODULAR UNIT FOR THE SENIOR CITIZENS. For a more detailed description, please refer to the attached plans and technical specifications. A proposal guarantee in the form of a Cashier's Check, Certified Check, or Bid Bond in the amount of 10% of the total bid must accompany bid. Bid prices shall be firm for 60 days from date of proposal opening to permit staff evaluation and Council award. Upon award, prices quoted will be in effect for the term of the Contract. TIME OF COMPLETION: The Contractor shall be allotted the number of working days as specified in the Contract to complete the work to the satisfaction of the Owner. The City Council reserves the right to waive any irregularities or information, to reject any or all bids or to make an award to the lowest responsible bidder for any combination of bid items. The City shall also reserve the right to delete any bid item or combination of bid items without affecting the quoted bid prices. DATE STATE CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO. CITY BUSINESS LICENSE NO. (if available) CORPORATE SEAL Corporation incorporated under the State of BIDDER'S NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TELEPHONE: (Area Code) BY. - (Signature) Print or type name TITLE: Names and addresses of all members of copartnership or names and titles of all officers of the corporation: (Note here any addenda received) r -r 4 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE In compliance with the Notice Inviting Bids, published by your City, the undersigned hereby proposes to furnish all materials, equipment and all labor and methods and do all things necessary for the proper furnishing of the equipment, in strict and complete accord with the specifications now on file with the City Finance Department at the prices set forth in the attached bid schedule. The undersigned hereby declares, as bidder, that he/she has examined the specifications and also understands that all equipment to be furnished shall be for the bid price, and that the undersigned has also checked all figures shown and understands that neither the City of Grand Terrace nor any officer thereof will be responsible for any errors or omissions on the part of the undersigned in submitting this proposal. The City Council reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, waive any irregularities in bidding or to award the contract to other than the lowest bidder. Enclosed is the proposal guaranty, made payable to the City of Grand Terrace, for the sum of $ , which is not less than ten percent (10%) of the total amount of this bid. In accordance with Subsection 2-3 of the Standard Specifications, the following subcontractors are listed: NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS ITEMS OF WORK TO BE SUBCONTRACTORS: SUBCONTRACTED: INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS CITY OF GRAND TERRACE BID NO.: CITY CLERICS OFFICE DUE: 22795 BARTON ROAD GRAND TERRACE, CA 92324 Submit bid in sealed envelope as indicated on the cover sheet �- BIDS NOT DELIVERED PRIOR TO THE HOUR INDICATED WILL BE REJECTED WE ARE PLEASED TO ISSUE THE ENCLOSED SPECIFICATIONS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION FORM OF PROPOSAL- The bidder shall submit a complete proposal which will include the following forms that are attached herein. The bidder shall submit the Notice Inviting Bids pages A-1, A 2 and A-3, Bid Form Pages B-5 and B-G, all pages included in Bid Schedule Section C, Form of Bid Bond pages D-1 and D-2 and Information required of Bidders page E-1. The complete proposal shall be enclosed in a sealed envelope bearing the name of the bidder and of the project. In the event there is more than one bidding schedule, the bidder may bid on any individual schedule or on any combination of schedules. All quotations must be signed with the firm's name and by a responsible officer or employee. Obligations assumed by such signature must be fulfilled. Prices quoted by the bidder shall be exclusive of Federal Excise Taxes pursuant to exemption of political subdivision of a state by Federal Law. Prices quoted by the bidder shall mean total cost to the City Freight on Board delivered to the City of Grand Terrace. ADDENDA: Any addenda issued during the time of biddings forming a part of the documents shall be acknowledged on the next page of the bidding schedule and will be made a part of the contract. DELIVERY OF PROPOSAL: The proposal shall be delivered by the time and to the place stipulated in the Notice Inviting Bids. It is the bidder's sole responsibility to see that his proposal is received in proper time. Any proposal received after the scheduled closing time for receipt of k proposal will be returned to the bidder unopened. WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSAL: If for any reasons you do not wish to bid on the project, mark NO BID and state your reasons for not bidding at this time. This withdrawal request must be signed by the bidder or his authorized representative. Such written request must be delivered to the place stipulated in the Notice Inviting Bids prior to the scheduled closing time for receipt of proposals. By following the necessary withdrawal procedures, you will enhance our efforts to keep our bidders list current. The withdrawal of a proposal shall not prejudice the right of a bidder to file a new proposal. OPENING OF PROPOSALS: The proposals will be publicly opened and read at the time and place stipulated in the Notice Inviting Bids. The City Council of the City of Grand Terrace reserves the right to reject any and all proposals and or waive any informalities thereon. We hope you will attend our formal bid opening and obtain the results as we are unable to complete our evaluation and furnish this information by phone until noon the following day. The complete proposal including proposal guaranty shall be enclosed in sealed envelope, endorsed with the bidder's company name and address on upper left corner, the bid number, name of project, hour and date of bid opening as shown in Notice Inviting Bids and the words'Sealed Bid". Sealed bids shall be addressed to the City Clerk, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California 92324. MODIFICATIONS AND ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL- Unauthorized conditions, limitations, or provisos attached to a proposal will render it informal and may cause its rejection. The completed proposal forms shall be without interlineations, alterations, or erasures. Alternative proposals will not be considered unless specified. Oral, telegraphic, or telephonic proposals or modifications will be considered. The City of Grand Terrace cannot honor any explanation or changes in the bid documents unless written addendum has been issued. DISCREPANCIES IN PROPOSALS: In the event there is more than one bid item in a bidding schedule, the bidder shall furnish a price for all bid items in the schedule, and failure to do so will render the proposal informal and may cause its rejection. In the event there are unit price bid items in a bidding schedule and the "amount" indicated for a unit price bid item does not equal the product of the unit price and quantity, the unit price shall govern and the amount will be corrected. PROPOSAL GUARANTEE: Each proposal shall be accompanied by a certified or cashier's check or bid bond in the amount of not less than 10 percent of the total amount named in the proposal. Said check or bond _ shall be made payable to the Owner and shall be given as a guarantee that the bidder, if awarded the work, will enter into a contract within 10 calendar days after receipt of the contract from the Owner, and will furnish the necessary insurance certificates, faithful performance bond, and labor and material bond; each of said bonds to be in the amount stated in the Notice Inviting Bids. In case of refusal or failure to enter into said contract, the check or bid bond, as the case may be, shall be forfeited to the Owner. If the bidder elects to furnish a bid bond as his proposal guarantee, he shall use the bid bond form bound herein, or one conforming substantially to it in form. BIDDER'S EXAMINATION OF SITE: Before submitting a proposal, the bidder shall carefully examine the drawings, specifications, and other contract documents, and he shall visit the site of the work. It will be assumed that the bidder is familiar with existing site conditions and that he has a clear understanding of the requirements of the contract regarding the furnishing of materials and performance of work. The submission of a proposal shall be considered conclusive evidence that the bidder has investigated and is satisfied with the character, quality, quantities of work to be performed and materials to be furnished. COMPETENCY OF BIDDERS: In selecting the lowest responsible bidder, consideration will be given not only to the financial standing but also to the general competency of the bidder for the performance of the work covered by the proposal. To this end, each proposal shall be supported by a statement of the bidder's experience as of recent date on the form entitled "INFORMATION REQUIRED OF BIDDER,' bound herein. The bidder shall have recently constructed not less than 3 projects of similar type and complexity. No proposal for the work will be accepted from a contractor who is not licensed in accordance with applicable state law. .�- 4. CONTRACTOR'S LICENSING LAWS: In all state projects where federal funds are involved, no bid submitted shall be invalidated by the laws of this state. However, at the time the contract is awarded, the contractor shall be properly licensed in accordance with the laws of this state. The first payment for work or material under any contract shall not be made by the Controller unless and until the Registrar of Contractors certifies to the Controller that the records of the Contractors State License Board indicate that the contractor was properly licensed at the time the contract ( was awarded. Any bidder or contractor not so licensed shall be subject to all legal penalties imposed by law, including, but not limited to, any appropriate disciplinary action by the Contractors State License Board. The department shall include a statement to that effect in the standard form of prequalification questionnaire and financial statement. Failure of the bidder to obtain proper and adequate licensing for an award of a contract shall constitute a failure to execute the contract as provided in Section 10181 and shall result in the forfeiture of the security of the bidder. DISQUALIFICATION OF BIDDERS: More than one proposal from an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, or association under the same or different names will not be considered. Reasonable grounds for believing that any bidder is interested in more than one proposal for the work contemplated will cause rejection of all proposals in which such bidder is interested. If there is reason for believing that collusion exists among the bidders, all bids will be rejected and none of the participants in such collusion will be considered in future proposals. No proposal will be accepted from a contractor who is not licensed in accordance with the provision of Chapter 9 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code. RETURN OF PROPOSAL GUARANTEE: The Owner will return the proposal guarantees accompanying such of the proposals as are not considered in making the award once the contract has been finally executed. AWARD OF CONTRACT: Award of a contract, if it be awarded, will be based primarily on the lowest overall cost to the Owner, and will be made to a responsible bidder whose proposal complies with all the requirements prescribed. Preference will be given by the City of Grand Terrace to the lowest responsible bidder furnishing products made in the ,%. Continental United States. Where the price of an acceptable American Made product is within 5% of a non -American made product, award will be made to the domestic manufacturer. Evaluation of the bidder's experience and additional information requested on the form "INFORMATION REQUIRED OF BIDDERS," bound herein, also will be a determining factor in arriving at an award. Any such award will be made within 60 calendar days after opening of the proposals. Unless otherwise indicated, a single award will not be made for less than all the bid items in an individual bidding schedule. In the event there is more than one bidding schedule, the Owner may award schedules individually or in combination. The Owner reserves the right to reject any or all bids, to waive any informality in a bid, and to make awards in the interests of the Owner. The apparent low bidder will be notified prior to recommendation for award if such adjustments are deemed necessary. BUY AMERICA REQUIREMENTS: Attention is directed to the "Buy America" requirements of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (Section 165) and the regulations adopted pursuant thereto. In accordance with said laws and regulations, all manufacturing processes for cement and steel materials furnished for incorporation into the work on this project shall occur in the United States. The requirements imposed by said law and regulations do not prevent a minimal use of foreign cement or steel materials if the cost of such materials used does not exceed one -tenth of 1 percent (0.1 %) of the total contract cost or $2,500, whichever is greater. The contractor shall furnish the Engineer acceptable documentation of the quantity and value of any foreign cement or steel prior to incorporating such materials into the work. EXECUTION OF CONTRACT: The bidder to whom award is made shall execute a written contract with the Owner on the form of agreement provided, shall secure all insurance and shall furnish all certificates and bonds required by the specifications within 10 calendar days after receipt of the contract from the Owner. No contract shall be binding upon the City until the City Attorney has approved the contract execution between the City and contractor. Failure or refusal to enter into a contract as herein provided or to conform to any of the stipulated 1 ,. requirements in connection therewith shall be just cause for annulment of the award and the forfeiture of the proposal guarantee. If the successful bidder refuses or fails to execute the contract, the Owner may award the contract to the second lowest responsible bidder. If the second lowest responsible bidder refuses or fails to execute the contract, the Owner may award the contract to the third lowest bidder to execute the contract, such bidder's guarantees shall be likewise forfeited to the Owner. TIME OF COMPLETION: The Contractor shall be allotted the number of working days as specified in the contract to complete the work to the satisfaction of the Owner. t 1- �. BID FORM Bids due no later than 2:00 p.m. on the at the office of the City Clerk. TO: CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, acting by and through its Governing Body, herein called the 'CITY". Pursuant to and in compliance with your Notice to Contractors calling for Bids and other documents relating thereto, the undersigned bidder, having familiarized himself with the terms of the Contract, the local conditions affecting the performance of the Contract, and the cost of the work at the place where the work is to be done, and with the drawings and specifications and other Contract Documents, hereby proposed and agrees to perform within the time stipulated, the Contract, including all of its component parts, and everything required to be performed, and to provide and furnish any and all applicable taxes, utility and transportation services necessary to perform the Contract and complete in a workmanlike manner all of the work required in connection with the project known as: All in strict conformity with the drawings and specifications and other contract documents, including addenda No. , and , on file at the OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, CITY HALL, 22795 BARTON ROAD, GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, 92324, for the sum of: :: - t c r DOLLARS($ ) (SEE BID SCHEDULE FOR COST BREAKDOWN BY ITEMS) -r ;. TECHNICAL SPECTFICAVONS CITY OF GRAND TERRACE TEMPORARY MODUL.A.R. OFFICE 1. 48' x 60'approximately 2880 sq ft. 2 Minimum 4 ton air conditioning vented and ducted to each room. 3 Forced air heating vented and ducted to each room 4 Insulation: a. R-11 in walls and floor. b. R-19 in the roof. 5. Drywall a. Wallboard shall be gypsum board 5/8" thick, and long enough to eliminate end joints Long edges of board shall be tapered to receive tape. Wallboards shall conform to ASTM C36-62. b. Drywall shall be by one of the following: 1. Firecode 60 - U.S. Gypsum Company 2. Fire -Shield - Gold Bond - National Gypsum Company 3. Firestop - Bestwall Gypsum Company c. Fastening shall be screws as directed by the drywall manufacturer and in accordance with U.B.C. and Title 21 6. Doors: a. All doors to be at least 36" inches wide. b. All interior doors shall be solid core veneered flush doors 1-3/4" thick, Type A or B construction. c. Interior doors shall comply with the following standard: AWI- Section 1300, NFPO -80, or NNWDA-wood flush door hallmark cert d. Face veneer of all interior doors, shall be high pressure decorative laminated plastic, prefit and premachined for finished hardware. Color will be selected by City. e. Tops and bottoms of all doors shall be sealed. 7. 110/230 volt, single phase, 100 amp main service, per unit. ,, 4, 8 Recessed fluorescent lighting throughout 9 Tires, wheels and axles included, but removed and stored 10 T 1-11 or similar siding material for exterior walls 11 Skirting around entire unit(s) and must match exterior siding. 12 Front door must be ramped for handicapped accessibility. 13 Rear door must have a steps, railing and landing with rubber treads 14 Vinyl Flooring a All resilient floor tiles shall be new standard commercial grade vinyl asbestos tile Vinyl the shall be 12" x 12" x 1 /8" thick. Approved the shall be Arstrong; Kentile; Azrock Floor Products; GAF Corp. b. Submet three (3) samples for approval The City shall retain one sample selected for quality control c. Feather -edge strips required where the tile meets exposed flooring. 15. Ceiling structure will be T-bar type construction. 16. Modular unit must meet all Federal and State of California requirements. 17. Delivered and set up on site. Site preparation and utilities by the City of Grand Terrace. u e l4 1 Aw.v, cr..s T� 'ram '32 K 6q 7 Huh e Tr-o Gos C+rrcn JI +rn ). t- ,,• -�'!ar a W n I�� 11�+ •�� 1zut, cirIJ'r--2 S IC 1YGIiC > V `�i K3(� I? 1— �Z fV1 3 C— c�t�rl SIOnI C O M M I S S I O N A N D C O M M I T T E E R E P O R T S COUNCIL MEETING DATE May 24, 1990 DATE May 7, 1990 COMMISSION/COMMITTEE Parks & Recreation SUBJECT Upgrading of Pico Parksite PROBLEH Facts On April 4, 1990 Mr Michael O'Connell came before the Council requesting that the Pico Parksite be upgraded so that Little League games could be played during the daylight hours this Summer. The Committee recomends that permanent type bases, pitching mound rubbers, a home -run fence, bleacher seats, portable restrooms and trash cans be installed. The Edison Company has tentatively approved these types of non -permanent additions. In addition, upon surveyance of the field, the Committee recomends that some kind of a guard be installed over an old sprinkler head/outlet to prevent injury to players. It was also discovered that the east driveway approach to the parking lot needed to be patched and/or repaired. ALTERNATIVES SOLUTION For the City to asses work that could be performed in order to bring up standards for safe and efficient playing of baseball by the Little League organization of Grand Terrace. Make whatever improvements that can be performed under the terms of the lease with Southern California Edison and what is available within the constraints of the City's fiscal budget. REQUESTED ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY COUNCIL AND/OR STAFF Instruct Staff to ascertain what costs would be incurred to make the above improvements and to return to Council with a factual report. �7,Y,IN L A-k$L.%I In i i- A -'_.. Iq l (a) Planning Department TO City Council FROM David R Sawyer, Community Development Director DATE June 7, 1990 SUBJECT Appeal of SA-90-03 APPLICANT James and Jeanette Genel LOCATION 22720 Raven Way REQUEST An Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Denying Site and Architectural Review of a Patio Cover and Overhead Deck BACKGROUND This project is before you per Councilman Singley's request to place this item on the agenda for reconsideration If your body approves the reconsideration motion, then the issue will be reconsidered later in the meeting as scheduled on your agenda DRS Sincerely, David R Sawyer, n` Community Development Director C'AI�'T-'.i, AIX-o 6A 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92324-5295 9 (714) 824-6621 PAo�eti�� Ltn�� SA—Ro-o3 5A 3Atec„!�� L.arce NamE nb7E Z/3A To 66 ev,ci rl-vM GAki"6C ZAQ �51ogy Jo,s i (I Level) NvtE Sp, FP -on LGU.C�- AOwE /ow•ti\ vi wpo'i Lf ec- NoiE-.�r CvT cocS o. ,calj woo As S flo-14 (�- tj Lt 22' bPwc , , ( QCoT PtRN NAm� �t�fRE < 6i n�LL�,6nr1G iE GENt L 1) SP,hnt_ 5TP, awn-1 L07, 3 f\pA?�tSS ,i5� F �-Zn2o PAVEn,wr ,>CN�T 132oS-1 IS`( 7)Q Lc14ILVI3,(-mtv� TL-hA,,1C `11)V IRrzPAr°;z L-,,,-I1(`783- Jal,iaftTc G i-`1 S) 2.no S,otY ,u,iT 6� 6'o" FFctic: Dkr t Cf�OSS 5iP1Et-C �i a., � - rnT 1990 COPyA,5 tir 1950 l SCALE ��n�t{-liicLl ITEM 6A REVISED ATTACHMENT A 1 r F7 — , i I 3� Of S�u/�fE FE&T I — ----- ; 1 I , 6� 1 6• p ,. F,zE.c�c N� 2 I i Z17— 3 2z7 Io Cae iN� TE;WA46 4z3Zr/ C2os5 SreEE-Is A%T dEiLro/ 0/-",e z _ , Planning Department TO. Site and Architectural Review Board FROM Mama C Muett, Assistant Planner 4�5 DATE March 15, 1990 SUBJECT. Staff Report File No SA-90-03 Request- An application for Site and Architectural Review Approval for a patio cover and overhead deck on a single faintly dwelling in a R-1/7 2 District ******************************** APPLICANT. Outdoor Designs Property Owner - James and Jeanette Genel ADDRESS: 22720 Raven Way ZONING AND LAND USE• Pro e GP Zonin Subject Property LDR R-1/7 2 To the West LDR R-1/7 2 To the East LDR. R-1/7 2 To the North LDR R-1/7 2 To the South LDR R-1/7 2 5-10-90 CC Land Use Single Family Residence Single Family Residence Single Family Residence Single Family Residence Single Family Residence ATTACHMENT A 22795 Barton Road 0 Grand Terrace, California 92324-5295 • (714) 824-6621 PC STAFF REPORTS 3-15-90 & 5-10-90 BACKGROUND Pursuant to GTMC, Residential Ordinance, Section 18 12 040, in the R-1/7 2 District, "accessory structures shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height unless approved by the Site and Architectural Review Board, and in no case shall exceed twenty (20) feet in height" On February 23, 1990, the applicant submitted an application for Site and Architectural Review of an outdoor deck and patio cover for a single family dwelling located on 22720 Raven Way (Attachment A) The total height of the patio and deck is approximately 15 feet The proposed deck will have 171 square feet and the patio will have 183 square feet Total square footage of the project is 254 square feet The applicant proposes to construct a spiral staircase attached to the ease side of the residence Pursuant to GTMC, Residential Ordinance, Section 18 57130, structures such as outside stairways may project no closer than four feet to any side lot line The spiral staircase (as indicated on the plans) will measure approximately 13' height and 5' in diameter This will provide an allowance of at least 9 feet to the side lot property line The project meets all required front, rear and side yard setbacks for accessory structures in the R-1/7 2 District ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN The applicant is proposing to construct the patio cover and outside deck with douglas fir of #2 grade or better. The spiral staircase will consist of aluminum materials. REVIEWING AGENCY COMMENTS The following responses have been received from the City's Reviewing Agencies Engineering/Building and Safety Refer to memorandum from Engineering/Building and Safety dated March 15, 1990, to the Planning Department (Attachment B) Forestry and Fire Warden Department No Fire Department requirements for this project. Refer to comments dated February 28, 1990 (Attachment C) PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS• The Planning Department recommends approval of SA-90-03 subject to the following conditions 1 The proposed project shall be constructed in accordance with the Site and Architectural design as approved by the Site and Architectural Review Board on March 20, 1990, attached as Attachment A, and minor changes or clarification may be made by the Planning Department. r- 2 The applicant shall obtain the appropriate building perauts pulled for the construction of the patio, outside deck, and staircase 3 All recommendations listed in the City Engineer's memorandum to the City dated March 15, 1990 (Attachment B) 4 All aspects of the proposed project includigg building maintenance shall be maintained in a clean and functional manner in accordance with this approval and the overall goals and objectives of the City of Grand Terrace Respectfully Subnutted, Maria C Muett, Assistant Planner iu u 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace ,alifornia 92324-5295 Civic Center k714) 824-6621 Byron R Matteson Mayor Hugh J Grant Mayor Pro Tempore arbara Pfennighausen Jim Singley -ne Carlstrom 'ouncil Members Thomas J Schwab City Manager W 0 12-8 5134 M E M O R A N D U M TO David Sawyer, Community Development Director FROM Joseph Kicak, City Engineer DATE March 15, 1990 SUBJECT SA-90-3 i. Please be advised that drainage of the rear -yard should be taken into consideration if this addition is permitted 2. All construction shall conform to the requirements of U B.C. _J- Zo - 90 Pe M"+I ns ATTACHi1/iENT B ..--v 'I1\ - I.J-)u FILE NO APPLICANT LO CA'I ION PROJECT Planning Department February 23, 1990 SA-90-3 Outdoor Designs/Genel 22720 Raven Way, Grand Terrace An application for Site and Architectural Review of a balcony and lattice cover for a single family dwelling Dear Reviewing Agency 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 Any such replies must be received in this office no later than Tuesday, March 13, 1990. UTILITY COMPANIES- No input is necessary unless you have existing rights of ways or easements YOUR RESPONSES CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT IF YOTJ DO NOT MEET THE DEADLINE Sincerely, David R. Say.,yer Community Developme Director t 1 DRS nib S � J � Enclosure pep c Z o- 9 o P C ATTACHMENT C 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92324-5295 • (714) 824-6621 I r Planning Department TO City Council FROM David Sawyer, Community Development Director DATE May 10, 1990 SUBJECT- Appeal of sa-90-03 APPLICANT James and Jeanette Genel LOCATION 22720 Raven Way REQUEST An appeal of Planning Commission Decision denying Site and Architectural Review of a patio cover and overhead deck ****************************************** Background - On April 17, 1990, the Site and Architectural Review Board denied SA-90-03 based on the finding that the proposed patio and deck is inconsistent with the general character of the existing neighborhood and that it is intrusive on adjacent properties Subsequently, the applicant has appealed the Site and Architectural Review Board's decision and is before the City Council at this time Included with this report is the staff report and recommendations regarding the revised plans (Attachment A), the draft minutes from that meeting regarding this application (Attachment B) and the applicant's plans (Attachment C) Recommendation Staff feels that although the facts regarding this application are the same as at the time of the Site and Architectural Review Board's decision, in consideration of the Site and Architectural Review Board's concerns over the size of the overhead deck area, staff 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92324-5295 ® (714) 824-6621 recommends the City Council consider approving a smaller version of the overhead deck which will allow for casual observation of the area's vistas, but not be large enough to be a play are party area Therefor the Planning Department recommends the overhead deck portion of the application be reduced to not greater than 150 square feet Sincerely, c � David R Sawyer Community Development Director rlr�lII ' + ' � I I I+ i I /N r I I /y,,// oT� 7�- 1,3" TtJ r'�c 184lGr �iPcn-I 2- r-P lmll. � --5o r z• T I NOT, 3'-FK42'2 4C?�UGL2 �� Zc!Z /Jo7� ,-�' Cur E,041cs ,wv cuoo� r ' Z•3 o'r 5r.4%ew�u - a� z 3� u/�.e� ,� rsF CcO,v( 17/ /�3 5 v/,.t'E FEAT cF Ga-Z7-i G� \ cc��2- Cam'° t 3 e J 5-10-90 CC pc� 2 ATTACHMENT C Z17- 3 /%,en�7' APPrPd_�ENeI� �, Y 'v L-il- -JA'6 7�+«a76 C-�NEL APR , 0 1990 Z72 9z Zv � MTG S�t�90 Coo s-s SreEe75 C' C 0 SECTIONI TABLE "A" DECK JOIST SPAN SIZE SPACING SPAN 2 x 6 12" 0.0 10'-6" 16' O.0 9'-2" 24" 0 C V-6" 2 x 8 12" 0 C 14 ' -0" 16" O.0 12'-0" 24" 0 C 9'-8" 2 x 10 16" O.0 15'-5" 24" 0 C 12'-6" 2 x 121 24" 0 C 15'-4" 4 x 6 12" O C 16'-0" 16" O.C. 14'-0" 24" O.0 11'-5" 4 x 81 24" 0 C 15'-0" --/ELEVATION' TABLE "B"1 JOIST SPAN HEADER FOOTING SIZE 18"sq x 18"deep SPAN SIZE TO 16' 6' 4 x 8 OR 2-2 x 10 TO 8' 8' 4 x 8 2-2 x OR 10 of" TO 16' 8' 4 10 TO 8' 10' 4 x 10 2-2 x OR 12 " TO 14' 10' 4 x 12 TO 10' 12' 6 x 10 2419sa x 18' eep TO 10' 14 6 x 12 TABLE "C"' (SEE NOTE 02) LEDGER BOLTS -(3/8" x 5"Iong) STAGGERED JOIST SPAN SPACING 8' 8" 10' 7" O (' 12' 0 C 14' 5" 0 r 16" 141, 0 C. NOTES 1- ALL LUMBER SHALL BE DOUG FIR fit GRADE OR BETTER 2- ALL BOLTS SHALL HAVE PRE -DRILLED HOLES Ck4"O) 8- ALL LEDGERS SHALL BE A MIN OF 2 x 10 �++IcATlrI�IG. PL.-'- cc;� -./ [2opi C., oa u,r rl C-9 `V --STRl.P C. SI04-- W1Ij1-Q 601.rS OK ,mod 11At s, 7 1/PtU.1_ i z a1 co u Uf6 i.iH�f0►-1 Tb O.� •CPIU�- Y 7►PS7C0�/ S D REAFZ ELEVA•TIOW TA F L_ E i�•� RAFTER SP�.NS (��) j St�E SP�GlfV �jQG.ti1 04 1 7r 14-11" Z,C I .a- ,1 s I 1 !i It J 6'- 2' 1 24' ,1 1-4- 10- xR- z� - ;� x Jo 12' a 1 G" I U 1 �' _ 2• 24• 11 10 -Il' I 1 i2 11 iL-2�' aI_- 1- t It Lw-t f'1G» GOV>Q�G1I.1l� pnt�Y� r-- FAS�1h IaC FT R 5P7�.-1NCr usr-O.1 - >b C X Tom- 0-L -�.- H!wADEtZ 5Pi:l KJ`f`TYFl S�1+u tf S 2i -vIZIc - n-mic - ICQ T..o� ac -.. T..ot_,s 'r)r T'l7aT � i YP� r, CJr l_ N c]v RO53- 5r-C710� -TA 5 L E ' E5' HEADERS 1�AJ=TEr2 L�tEADER S17.ta.A.1 �Sfln.N I ti17l= 10 X 8 1-1' 4x,2 t Z' TO ad 12 di x 12 1q' 4X14 LEDGER DE?"AIi_ 1e n 1 s-r'G, rcoo� � Ex1yT� t_J:: J O1tT N GO►.1Ti+-luoUs 1-�06J:3C/ 5:.�1C �tZ>r A.Jr AA.P'rr&A w,T►+ 60L.T TO >`�• >Lt� SPAN I:n' 6K��%1 TFto.N OR ECZLJAL. TO 14-0 1.1s!? I/Z'':t;, x S" LAIi e5 INVERTED HEADER DESIGN OPTION ..L Lkowa Two �X,ti(/,•�2 SUOSTiTUT & t~o n ONE QXM£M, (.sr-c A � 6 F"o; SPAN LIMI LIST ST Prices shown are effective at tlrr,e of Effective January 1, 1990 PRICEprinting and are subject to change The Leading Manufacturer of Spiral Stair Kits Main Plant and Showroom Other Showroom/ Warehouse Locations (You can call collect when placing an order at one of CONNECTICUT IM PENNSYLVANIA CALIFORNIA 3683 Pomona Blvd FLORIDA TEXAS ILLINOIS 6556 Superior Ave 8718 Wesipark Drive 886 Cambridge Drive Stamford Executive Park 500 West Avenue P O Box 547 400 Reed Road Pomona CA 91768 Sarasota FL 34231 Houston TX 77063 Regent Business Center Tel (713) 789 0648 Elk Grove IL 60007 Stamford CT 0 6902 Broomall PA 19008 Tel (714) 598 5766 Tel (813) 923 1479 Tel (708) 5illage 2 9010 Tel (203) 258466 Tel (215) 544 7100 Fax (714) 598 6648 Fax (813) 923 6176 Fax (708) 952 0496 Fax (203) 967 4677 Fax (215) 544 7297 Outside PA Call Toll Free 1 800 523 14' Spiral Stair Kits up at our plant in Brooms ll! PA Sales Tax will be added If you are picking up order,) All prices shown are for orders that are picked Warehou,)e De,)Irnatlon Charge (plu,) 1111(' s Il(, lax) Plc,ase s( ( pay( from one of our branches Iher( v, it) ad(iilicmal Fits 11001 to floor I its floor to floor I'nr r Kit Size bright~ Irun1 Fill( hi I(hl,) burn t Kit ,vt ) Standard Spirals 3 6 Diarn 1 1-Riser 12-Riser 13-Riser 4 0 Diann 11 Riser 12 Riser 13 Riser 4 6 Dian, 11-Riser 12 Riser 13 Riser 5 0 Diam 5 6 Diam /6 81 81 89J 8'0 96 /b 8i 81 1, 11 810 1l0 1/2 Turn Stair 1- a it, Id, uv( rsittti it you It t"t % rk 4 12 Riser 8 1 89 $ / 10 S 425 Combination Stair wood or rfake0oard traad (ovennt,� tequirt.d lot sareN S 475 11 Riser 16 80 $ 790 $ 525 12 Riser 81 88 S 815 13 Riser 8 9 95 $ 880 $ 515 S 5/0 S 62 S 570 $ 630 690 $ 725 $ /80 6 0 Diam 81/ 96 $ 835 6 6 Diam 81/ 96 $1475 t 7 0 Diam 81/ 96 $1575 t Price for kit with 13 Riser,) If you should require fewer than 13 Risers your kit price will be reduced Please call with your height specifications to confirm the number of risers needed 76 81 81/ 89 8 10 ) (' 81 ()0 81/ 96 t Includes aluminum handrail 2 in between spindles per tread and closed end tread,) UBC Spirals IS( e not( b( low) > 0 Diarn 1 1 Riser / d 8 1 _ ' r ri 0 It')'/ 13 Riser 88 96/ 5 6 Diam 1 1 I (r,)(_t / 4 8 1 12 Riser 80 8 9 / 1,3 Riser 88 9 6'Y 6 0 Diam 11 Riser 74 81 12 Riser 80 8 9%,, 13 Riser 88 9 6'/ Closed tread rnd,) it)( ludo d $ Imi: $1011, $1100 ;,1 1 130 $1290 $ I ,390 S1240 S1345 $1450 Note UBC Spiral Stair Kits havf- 30" Treads 600 Landings (see page 15 of our brochure for layout of q 1 or 42 landings) an Aluminum Handrail 2 in between Spindles per tread and are designed to meet the dimensional ri-quirements ut the Uniform Budding Code (U B C i and the B O C A National Buildinq Code of 1987 (L A City Fabricator I u is I 1 `)0 SI Ind ad III III It I 1 I I Check your local code require ments Special Order Kits Stairs for Non Standard floor lu fluor hughts as well as Multi Story and Cuslon, Uiameti-i ur Custom Layout are avddablu I ut (iddilturwl information and price gLlOtiilin() ( (111 u5 loll It( (, at 800 523 7427 In Penn,)yly ini I only ( III uti ( 01I1"(11 11 215 544 7100 Planning Department TO City Council FROM David Sawyer, Community Development Director DATE June 7, 1990 SUBJECT Appeal of SA-90-09 APPLICANT Robert W L Cather LOCATION 22725 Raven Way REQUEST An Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Denying Site and Architectural Review of a Patio Cover and Overhead Deck BACKGROUND On May 15, 1990, Site and Architectural Review Board denied this project (SA-90-09) based on the finding that the proposed patio cover and overhead deck is inconsistent with the general character of the existing neighborhood and that it is intrusive on adjacent properties Subsequently, the applicant has appealed the Site and Architectural Review Board's decision and is before the City Council at this time Included with this report is the staff report and recommendations regarding the applicant's proposal to the Planning Commission (Attachment A) and the approved minutes from the meeting regarding this application (Attachment B) RECOMMENDATION Staff feels that although the facts regarding this application are the same as at the time of the Site and Architectural Review Board's decision, in consideration of the Site and Architectural Review Board's concerns over the size of the overhead deck area, staff recommends the City Council consider approving a smaller version of the overhead deck which will allow for casual observation of the area's vistas, but not be large enough to be g- F,INCA" Ac"k-l'Joll d, M x 66 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92324-5295 . (714) 824-6621 a play or party area Therefore, the Planning Department recommends the overhead deck portion of the application be reduced to not greater than 150 square feet Sincerely, David R Sawyer, Community Development Director DRS Planning Department TO Site and Architectural Review Board FROM Maria C Muett, Assistant Planner DATE May 1, 1990 SUBJECT Staff Report File No SA-90-09 Request An application for Site and Architectural Review approval for a patio and a balcony in a R1-7 2 District APPLICANT: Robert W L. Cather LOCATION. 22725 Raven Way ZONING AND LAND USE Pro e GP Zoning Land Use Subject Property LDR R1-7 2 Single Family Residence To the West LDR R1-7 2 Single Family Residence To the East LDR R1-7 2 Single Family Residence To the North LDR R1-7 2 Single Family Residence To the South LDR R1-7 2 Single Family Residence ITEM 6 22795 Barton 1Zoad • Grand Terrace California 92324-5295 a• (714) 824-6621 br% e-r A M7 D1=D DTC �- 1-n Q ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSTS This project is categorically exempt, Class 3, per California Environmental Quality Act BACKGROUND On April 4, 1990, the applicant submitted an application for Site and Architectural Review approval of a patio and balcony located at 22725 Raven Way (Attachment A) As noted in the Grand Terrace Municipal Code, Residential Ordinance 18 020 040 (E), "In the R1-7 2 District accessory structures shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height unless approved by the Site and Architectural Review Board, and in no case shall exceed twenty (20) feet in height" ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN The proposed project will be 9' by 17'6", a balcony on the second floor Also, a 23' x 14' patio in the rear yard The materials proposed to be used will be Douglas Fir #2 or better The color of the structure will match the trim of the existing house You have before you this evening a sample of the wood and the color sampling The applicant has provided pictures of other construction projects they have completed in the surrounding areas The project meets the required setbacks for accessory structures in the R1-7 2 District REVIEWING AGENCY COMMENTS - Ile following responses have been received from the City's Reviewing Agencies En neenng/Building and Safety_ Refer to memorandum dated April 11, 1990, from the Engineering/Building and Safety Department (Attachment B) Forestry and Fire Warden Department Refer to memorandum dated April 23, 1990, from the Forestry and Fire Warden Department (Attachment C) Riverside Highland Water No requirements received as of this date AdJacent Property Owners Notification letters mailed to adjacent property owners (Attachment D) PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS. The Planning Department recommends approval of SA-90-09 subject to the following conditions 1 The proposed project shall be constructed in accordance with the Site and Architectural design as approved by the Site and Architecture Review Board on May 1, 1990, attached as Attachment A, and minor changes or clarification must be made by the Planning Department 2 The applicant shall obtain appropriate building permits for the construction of the patio, and balcony 3 All recommendations listed in the City Engineer's memorandum to the Planning Department dated April 11, 1990 (Attachment B) 4 All aspects of the proposed project mcludmg building mamtenance shall be maintained in a clean and functional manner m accordance with this approval and the overall goals and objectives of the City of Grand Terrace Respectfully Submitted, �) 17Z L Mana C Muett, Assistant Planner F.C.ric�= '3z/ ATTQ r.PKAPKIT n n;: N I C: n P.C.M�gS.�S-to 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace -al' ua 92324-5295 Civic Center (714) 824-6621 Byron R Matteson Mayor Hugh J Grant Mayor Pro Tempore arb!i— Pfennighausen Jim Singley Gene Carlstrom Council Members Thomas J Schwab City Manager W 0 12-8 5138 M E M O R A N D U M TO David Sawyer, Community Development Director FROM Joseph Kicak, City Engineer y DATE April 11, 1990 SUBJECT SA-90-09 Following recommendations should be considered conditions of approval for subject project 1 Submit detail plans for the proposed construction to comply with U B C 2 Obtain all necessary building permits ®TT ®r-NnAFNT R l/� Sern r _ -to -orr n nt tes April 23, 1990 REGV% /' P 241990 >> ` - 'o tc J + 7lt t LZ I Y I�I t l r Ian f i l,i C Y r for r David R Sawyer s Y„ Community Development Director Grand Terrace Planning Department t4 22795 Barton Road r - Grand Terrace, CA 92324 n` `�" t_ Re. Reference #SA-90-09 Balcony for Single Family Dwelling 22725 Raven Way, Grand Terrace L Dear Mr Sawyer M a Please be advised, there are no Fire Department requirements for this pr03ect im-'-st zj VA Sincerely, s- CDtF1 i-- na L DAVID J DRISCOLL, Chief County Fire Warden J� L./ Mot, By Ernylee W . Jones 0- c 2 Fire Protection Planning Officer a-, FtF o EWJ/em - ninq c File ll ATTACHMENT C April 20, 1990 Property Owner 22730 Robin Way Grand Terrace, CA 92324 Re SA-90-09, 22725 Raven Way Dear Owner, Planning Department According to the Grand Terrace Municipal Code Residential Ordinance 18 020 040 (E), "In the R1-7.2 District, accessory structures shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height unless approved by the Site and Architectural Review Board, and in no case shall exceed twenty (20) feet in height This is to inform you that the property owner of 22725 Raven Way has submitted a Site and Architectural review application for approval to construct a patio and overhead deck in their rear yard Staff has been directed by the Planning Commission to inform the adjacent property owners of this application. The plans for the proposed balcony are available for review at City Hall Please inform the Planning Department of any comments you may have regarding this project by April 25, 1990 Or if you wish, you may speak before the Planning Commission on May 1, 1990 at 7 00 p m. c.\wp\plan�\sar\sa9o09.adJ Sincerely, ZzAd'd 7f Jdd� David R Sawyer Community Development Director ATTACHMENT D 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92324-5295 a (714) 824-6621 May 2, 1990 Mr Robert W L Cather 22725 Raven Way Grand Terrace, CA 92324 Re SA-90-09 Patio and Balcony Dear Mr Cather, Planning Department On May 1, 1990, the Grand Terrace Planning Commission continued your project until May 15, 1990 based on the following 1 Revision of project to reflect smaller balcony area Please submit 10 sets of revised site and structural plans to the Planning Department by May 10, 1990 If you should have any questions please contact the Planning Department at 714-824-6621 Sincerely, o� Maria C Muett, Assistant Planner mcm/ 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92324-5295 9 (714) 824-6621 Planning Department TO Site and Architectural Review Board FROM Maria C Muett, Assistant Planner DATE May 15, 1990 SUBJECT Staff Report File No SA-90-09 Request An application for Site and Architectural Review approval for a patio and a balcony in a R1-7 2 District APPLICANT Robert W L Cather LOCATION: 22725 Raven Way ZONING AND LAND USE- PropejU GP Zoning Land Use Subject Property LDR R1-7 2 Single Fanuly Residence To the West LDR R1-7 2 Single Family Residence To the East LDR R1-7 2 Single Family Residence To the North LDR R1-7 2 Single Family Residence To the South LDR R1-7 2 Single Family Residence 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92324-5295 • (714) 824-6621 1 r 1 r- \ I r- DISCUSSION This item was continued from the May 1, meeting to enable staff to develop a policy regarding overhead decks and balconies Staff will discuss the contents of such a policy with the Planning Commission during the public workshop portion of your meeting PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Department recommends the Site and Architectural Review Board consider the proposed project in light of the policy guidelines to be discussed earlier mthis meeting and if the Board's decision is for approval of SA-90-09 such approval should be subject to the following conditions 1 The proposed project shall be constructed in accordance with the Site and Architectural design as approved by the Site and Architecture Review Board on May 1, 1990, attached as Attachment A, and minor changes or clarification must be made by the Planning Department 2 The applicant shall obtain appropriate building permits for the construction of the patio, and balcony 3 All recommendations listed in the City Engineer's memorandum to the Planning Department dated April 11, 1990 4 All aspects of the proposed project including building maintenance shall be maintained in a clean and functional manner in accordance with this approval and the overall goals and objectives of the City of Grand Terrace Respectfully Submitted, David Sawyer, Community Development Director GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MAY 1t 1990 The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on May 1, 1990 at 7 00 p m by Chairman Jerry Hawkinson PRESENT Jerry Hawkinson, Chairman Dan Buchanan, Vice -Chairman Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner Herman Hnikey, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner David R Sawyer, Community Development Director Maria C Muett, Assistant Planner Maggie Barder, Secretary ABSENT None PLEDGE Jim Sims, Commissioner PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6 30 P M Information from staff to Planning Commissioners Information from Planning Commissioners to staff Discussion of appeal of Blaisdell and Genel Discussion of revision of Title 18 Discussion of satellite dish ordinance Discussion of G T I building status 1 ATTACHMENT B Of'% A Alnll I71=Q r.- 1 -Qn R r-.- 1 r-.-an ITEM #6 SA-90-09 MICHAEL O'CONNOR/ROBERT W L CATHER 22725 RAVEN WAY GT AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A BALCONY FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN A RI-7 2 DISTRICT The Assistant Planner presented the staff report Commissioner Buchanan asked if staff received any input in response to the letters to the adjacent property owners The Assistant Planner stated that staff received one comment from a resident directly to the rear of the property reflecting some disapproval of the project due to low resale value and a possible viewing onto their rear yard Chairman Hawkinson asked how many adjacent property owners received letters The Assistant Planner stated that staff mailed out 5 letters Chairman Hawkinson called the applicant up ROBERT CATHER 22725 RAVEN WAY GT Comnussmoner Hargrave asked if the purpose of the balcony was for viewing purposes Mr Cather stated that it was for viewing of the surrounding countryside Commissioner Hargrave asked why it needs to be this large Mr Cather stated that the house is extensively wide at the back, and the patio is approximately 42 feet wide by 14 feet deep, and to have some recreational area to sit upstairs and enjoy the view of the mountains and accommodate some patio furniture, it would be nice to have an area that would be comfortable He stated that they already have the poured patio and footings in place, which was all done in September of 1989, which was all approved Commissioner Hargrave stated that he is concerned that the houses are built to close together and aren't really built with the idea of having balconies He 17 stated that he has a problem with the square footage and the privacy element Mr Cather stated that all of the homes that were built by T J Austyn in the Grand Terrace Horizons area are of two story construction, and all master bedrooms are in the rear of the houses, and at this time you can't have any privacy without keeping your drapes and blinds drawn because you can look right into the neighbors bedroom He stated that he brought a picture of the residence to the east of his, which already has a sizeable balcony approved and installed He stated that in Phase 3, the construction managers already have an approved and installed balcony, so there are two existing balconies in the area right now that are fairly sized or bigger than his Commmssioner Hargrave stated that he assumed that these two balconies did not come before Site and Architectural Review because they are not over 8 feet The Community Development Director stated that 1) A few of them may have come through prior to the zone change that requires that, or 2) There were a couple that came in directly after that zone change and staff did not pick up on the fact that they were over the 8 feet, and they went through the normal permit process, but should have come to Site and Architectural Review Mr Cather stated that they have quite a bit of adequate land between homes, and in the immediate area of his house, there are probably eight single family residences that are planning on submitting application for balconies Commissioner Hargrave stated that he will probably object to all of them if they are of a size that is being discussed tonight, but he thinks they can be done with a smaller square footage area Mr Cather stated that he had a letter from the neighbor to the east of him stating that they would go along with this size of balcony, as well as a letter from the neighbor to the west of him Commissioner Sims stated that one drawing shows a lattice roof going all the way up to the eave of the roof, and he asked if the lattice roof would be 16 feet up on the air Mr Cather stated that it is going up to the bottom of the second story, and only the railing will be projected above the patio roof Commissioner Sims asked if they would be going from the 9' X 12' balcony area into the 23' X 14' patio roof, to which Mr Cather responded in the IM negative Commissioner Sims asked if there was a slope at the rear of the property Mr Cather stated that there is a very slight slope, and the property behind him is higher than he is Commissioner Sims stated that he has no problem with this, as long as no attempt is made to vary the size during construction, and perhaps they should make a condition stating this Commissioner Buchanan asked if the only access was from the room on the second floor, which Mr Cather verified Commissioner Van Gelder asked how many neighbors who said that it was okay to do this plan to come in with plans for a similar project Mr Cather stated that approximately five were planning to come in Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she had a problem with this Mr Cather stated that this was not going to be a 24 hour nest for him as he does work 8 to 12 hours a day, 6 to 7 days a week Commissioner Hilkey stated that the biggest problem they have is that they denied a similar structure at the last meeting He stated that three houses up there is a balcony that looks to be around 12 feet, but if that balcony is next to you, you lose your view of Blue Mountain He stated that they should either postpone this until City Council acts on the last denial, or else be consistent and deny it Chairman Hawkinson asked if the applicant would consider something on a smaller scale than what he has proposed Mr Cather stated that when he submitted the drawings, the City Inspector recommended reducing the size, which they did in depth by about 2 1/2 feet Chairman Hawkinson stated that it seems that the main problem seems to be the size, but if the home changes ownership, there is also concern that the next owner may not have the same intent as this property owner 19 MIKE HUSS 22735 RAVEN WAY GT Mr Huss stated that he is in favor of the balcony, and that all of the neighbors are at different elevations anyway, and being two story houses, they can see into every house if you want to and don't need a balcony to do it He stated that they are on a hill, and he doesn't think another balcony would be hindering the neighbors Commissioner Hargrave asked if he was planning on building a balcony Mr Huss stated that he is planning to, but it will be smaller He stated that Mr Cather pulled the permit before they changed the zoning, so they had footings put in and approved, and now something has changed and the footings are useless The Community Development Director stated that the permits were only for the slabs, and whenever an applicant comes in, it is department policy to explain this to them He stated that often an applicant will come in to put down the patio slab but doesn't have the money to do a cover at the same time and want to do it later He stated that they can either get the permit for the cover at that time, but then they are subject to the time restrictions of completing it, the only way to get around that is to have the Building Department go out on a special inspection of the patio slab and indicate what type of footings they will put in and what type of weight that would bear, but this is not a permit for the patio cover but rather for the footing that would support that size of a patio cover, and they do their best to indicate to the applicants that this is only what it is for and it does not guarantee approval for the patio cover Mr Huss stated that they were aware that this was the case, that they did pull the permit for the slab and footings, and the footings were inspected He stated that he was under the impression that the time period was six months, and you could also get an extension on that permit, which would go toward putting in a deck or cover The Community Development Director stated that there is still some misunderstanding, as the permit was not for a patio cover, but only for a slab and the footings, which is still a good permit, which is good for 180 days He stated that the permit did not permit a patio cover, but rather the footings that would support a patio cover of a certain weight Mr Huss stated that he understood that, but they did put those things in 20 feeling that they would be able to pull a permit and do the balcony or sun deck at a future point in time, not under the impression that lots of rules were going to change on them Commissioner Hargrave stated that the neighbor to his east has a stairwell up to the observation deck He asked if he would prefer that there was not a staircase there Mr Huss stated that he doesn't believe in a stairwell for security purposes, but to each his own Mr Cather stated that on his drawings he submitted for approval, it states "proposed patio and cover with footings" and it gives the footings for the future, proposed sun deck, and on the yellow tag, it says patio slab and lattice cover Chairman Hawkinson stated that he didn't hear any reference to a balcony or sun deck Mr Cather stated that the one drawing that has the approved stamp by the Department of Building and Safety says "proposed patio cover with footings" Chairman Hawkinson stated that a patio cover brings one thing to nand, and a balcony brings something different to rind PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Chairman Hawkinson brought it back to the Planning Commission for action Commissioner Buchanan stated that each of these need to be reviewed case by case, but they should not get into a random practice of approving some and denying others He asked if staff had any overall planning concept problems with rear yard observation decks The Community Development Director stated that it is up to the individual homeowners and their surrounding neighbors He stated that from a planning point of view, there isn't anything that is inherently wrong with this type of concept, and each one needs to be taken individually with the adjoining neighbors' comments He stated that this one is borderline as far as the size goes and would prefer to see it reduced, and he agreed with Commissioner Hargrave that if the purpose is to view, you don't need a large area to do that, if you are creating a party area, it should be ground level Commissioner Buchanan stated that neighbors should get a veto power in 21 MOTION PCM-90-47 SA-90-09 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-47 certain cases He stated that he is concerned that a whole stream of decisions will keep coming up and asked if the Planning Comnussion and City Council could somehow develop some guidelines for consistency The Community Development Director stated that any accessory structure over eight feet high requires Site and Architectural Review He stated that when they review Title 18, he plans to propose this be increased to 10 feet He stated that he would check with the City Attorney to see how much they can do Commissioner Hargrave stated that he will give this application some consideration if he will reduce the square footage Commissioner Van Gelder suggested they come up with a formula for the size of a balcony Commissioner Hilkey stated that he is going to make a motion to deny this, and next meeting have staff come up with recommendations and guidelines Chairman Hawkinson asked if he wanted to deny it or continue it Commissioner Hilkey stated that they could come back with a smaller one Commissioner Hilkey made a motion to continue SA-90-09 until the next meeting, and staff could recommend some guidelines Commissioner Hargrave second Commissioner Munson stated that until it is unanimous that the deck is not objectionable, privacy is being invaded Motion carries 5-2-0-0 Comnussioners Munson and Van Gelder voting no SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 10 25 P M 22 GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MAY 15, 1990 The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on May 15, 1990 at 7 00 p m by Chairman Jerry Hawkinson PRESENT- Jerry Hawkinson, Chairman Dan Buchanan, Vice -Chairman Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner Herman Hilkey, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Jim Suns, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner David R Sawyer, Community Development Director Maria C Muett, Assistant Planner Maggie Barder, Secretary ABSENT None PLEDGE. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6.30 P.M. Information from staff to Planning Comnussioners Information from Planning Comnussioners to staff Presentation by Ken Clark of the Advocate School perimeter fence PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7.00 P M PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7.00 P M PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None MOIRA HUFFS 22735 RAVEN WAY GT Ms Huffs stated that she was just trying to get them to go ahead and set some guidelines so that some of the people here wouldn't have already started with the footings, and assuming that something has changed from along the way, there are other balconies in the area right now, and she can't even imagine that they would have come up against problems like they have right now She said that if there had been guidelines in the first place just to even consider at all, maybe everything would have been smaller and the problems wouldn't even have been there She stated that she thinks that it is a good idea that they have set something for the people to look at, and individual consideration taken after that PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TEMPORARILY ADJOURNED AT 9 05 P.M SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED AT 9 15 P M ITEM #5 SA-90-09 MICHAEL O'CONNOR/ROBERT W.L. CATHER 22725 RAVEN WAY GT AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A BALCONY FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN A R1-7 2 DISTRICT The Community Development Director presented the staff report Chairman Hawkinson asked if there was any favorable or unfavorable feedback from surrounding property owners The Community Development Director stated that the neighbor to the rear had called in and indicated that she was concerned about the proximity and size of the deck, as well as the invasion of privacy into her rear yard area Commissioner Hargrave asked if it would be reasonable to downsize this to 125 square feet The Community Development Director, referring to the plans, stated that reducing from one side would conflict with where the applicant plans on 13 putting the door, so it would have to come from one of the other directions Chairman Hawkinson called the applicant up ROBERT CATHER 22725 RAVEN WAY G T. Mr Cather submitted photos of the view from the bedroom windows and of the back of the house He referred to the plans, indicating the location of the planter area and flower bed, as well as the new doorway Commissioner Sims asked about the color Mr Cather stated that it will match the house Commissioner Sims asked what the patio roofing was Mr Cather stated that it would be open lattice Commissioner Sims asked what he would really be doing up there Mr Cather stated that he would like to have a table and chairs, a couple of lounges and some plants Commissioner Hargrave asked if they could make the deck 16 feet wide instead of 17 and 8 feet in depth instead of 9 Mr Cather stated that the footings are already in place Commissioner Hargrave asked if they could leave the width at 17 feet but bring the depth from 9 feet to 8 feet Commissioner Buchanan stated that if size is a concern, one possibility is to have the railing inset to reduce the usable square footage Mr Cather stated that this would be acceptable Chairman Hawkinson asked if the person who complained was expressing modest or extreme concern The Assistant Planner stated that the neighbor was greatly concerned about real estate value and privacy invasion, but there was no emotional conversation per se 14 Mr Cather stated that he talked to the neighbor prior to the May 1 meeting, and she said she had no problem, but that it wouldn't matter anyway because she was going to rent the house out MOIRA HUFFS 22735 RAVEN WAY GT MOTION PCM-90-54 SA-90-09 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-54 MOTION PCM-90-55 SA-90-09 Ms Huffs stated that the woman behind him doesn't live there anymore, but she is at a higher elevation and so are they, and his patio is on the side of all of the higher elevations She stated that he isn't overlooking the lower - terraced yards She stated that as soon as you go into the model homes, you can see into everybody's back yard Chairman Hawkinson brought it back to Commission for action Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to add as a condition that the railing on the sun deck be set in at least 12 inches from the 9' X 17' dimension all the way around the deck resulting in an actual interior area of the deck not to exceed 8 feet in depth and 15 feet in length Commissioner Sims second Commissioner Van Gelder stated that it is not unusual for a person to give one response when face-to-face with a person and give an entirely different response over the telephone to staff, and if there is one objection, that is all it should take Chairman Hawkinson added that there are probably a lot of people that are intimidated enough speaking in public that might be reluctant to come down before this group Motion carries 6-1-0-0 Commissioner Van Gelder voting no 15 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-55 MOTION PCM-90-56 SA-90-09 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-56 Commissioner Buchanan made the motion that the color and the architectural style of the balcony be coordinated with the building and be subject to review by the Planning Director Commissioner Sims second Motion carries 7-0-0-0 Commissioner Buchanan conditioned by staff with Commissioner Sims second made the motion to approve SA-90-09 as the two additional conditions added tonight Commissioner Hilkey stated that he is going to vote for it only because the footings are already in, but in the future he probably won't support it as much, especially this size The Community Development Director stated that the way that the process is set up right now, a patio slab and footings do not meet Site and Architectural Review He stated that since the rash of permits that have come in for footings for overhead decks, they are permitting them only because through the code there is nothing to say no to, but they are advising them more strongly now that this is not a permit for an overhead deck, and it does not mean that the Planning Commission will vote for a deck that will match these footings and they may end up having to tear these footings out He stated that they are actually writing these on the permits now Chairman Hawkinson stated that he is not going to vote for it, but he was very much in favor of the conditions that they discussed because if it does go through, he wants to make sure it is appropriately conditioned He stated that he is not going to vote for it because of the one objection Commissioner Hargrave stated that he is not going to vote for the motion. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if staff has told people who put their 16 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-56 footings in that they cannot guarantee them anything The Community Development Director stated that verbally, yes Commissioner Hargrave asked if they had told this gentleman The Community Development Director stated that his recollection is that they did, but now they are writing it on the permits Commissioner Munson stated that he is concerned about the privacy as they had one objection, so he is going to vote no Motion fails 3-4-0-0 Commissioners Hilkey, Buchanan and Sims voting yes The Community Development Director stated that there is a 10 day appeal period Mr Cather stated that on the footings, in order to get the permit, they had to be on the drawings and have them pre -inspected, which he did back in September He stated that they were instructed to put those in at that time The Community Development Director stated that this is true Commissioner Hargrave stated that he would have changed his vote had he known that prior to the vote simply because citizens are told certain things and they have an obligation to carry forward on this He asked if another motion could be brought to the floor The Community Development Director stated that anyone who was on the negative side of a decision can ask for the item to be considered He stated that if an applicant comes in with a patio cover, they don't need to deal with Site and Architectural Review, but if the applicant comes in with an overhead deck, then they have to deal with that He stated that if the applicant has a patio cover and later decides to go to an overhead deck, the footings may not be adequate He stated that if they say in the beginning that they want to put an overhead deck in, the building inspector must know the size of the deck in order to approve the footings going into the ground, and the City is only going through this trouble to make it convenient for the applicant without having to go through the 180 day process He stated that the applicant may think he is getting approval for the overhead deck, but he is not, and staff 17 MOTION PCM-90-57 SA-90-09 does its best to impress upon the applicant that this is not for the deck itself, but rather for the footings only He stated that now they are being extremely particular because of the recent issues, but in September they didn't have these issues He stated that he doesn't know who took in the application, but that was the policy of staff at that time Commssioner Buchanan stated that approval of the footings, although necessary in order to build the overhead deck, does not constitute any promise, commitment or obligation on the part of the City to approve, authorize or allow an overhead deck, whether it is the same as what is on the plan or completely different He stated that he wants to be very careful that they are not setting any precedent that they are giving someone special consideration for some kind of entitlement that they don't truly have Commissioner Hargrave stated that he would like to see the approvals when they come in He stated that, looking at Mr Cather's rendering, which has the Planning Department's approval on it and dated 9-22-89, says "Proposed patio and cover with footings for future sun deck" He stated that the specific words "sun deck" appear on this schematic, which the Planning Department has put there approval on, and he can see where the applicant may think the sun deck would be approved, as it is stamped, signed and dated The City Attorney stated that motion reconsider requires someone on the winning side to move that the matter be reconsidered and that motion be successful Commissioner Hargrave made the motion that the matter be reconsidered Commissioner Sims second Chairman Hawkinson stated that regardless of the footmg situation, somebody in the commumty objected, and this is why he voted against it Commissioner Buchanan stated that he has no basic objection to the application, but Commissioner Hargrave's comments about his motive for reconsideration trouble him on the grounds that he thinks they are treading into a very dangerous situation if they are going to say that a plan that refers to some future aspect constitutes some kind of entitlement MOTION VOTE PCM-90-57 MOTION PCM-90-58 SA-90-09 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-56 5:2- d - o Motion carries 5=04zO Chairman Hawkinson and Commissioner Van Gelder voting no Commissioner Hargrave made the motion to continue SA-90-09 to the next regularly scheduled Site and Architectural meeting Motion dies for lack of second Commissioner Hargrave stated that he will vote against the project supply to get it back to the City Council, and if Mr Cather doesn't come in and ask for a re -hearing, he will on his behalf, as he feels this needs to go to City Council Commissioner Hilkey stated that he is not crazy about the size of the deck, and he wishes it were 50 square feet smaller, but he has no problem with this sun deck Motion fails 3-4-0-0 Commissioners Hilkey, Buchanan and Sims voting yes SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 10.20 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RECONVENED AT 10 20 ITEM #4 Z-90-01, E-90-02 REPEAL OF TITLE 18 OF THE GRAND TERRACE MUNICIPAL CODE (THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE) AND ADOPTION OF A REVISED TITLE 18, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED REVISION OF TITLE 18 The Community Development Director stated that what they have before 19 Commissioner Munson stated that he would like to see the City start something right away to generate such a fund The City Attorney stated that they can only consider only what is on the agenda, which is the project He stated that they really don't have the ability to get into a discussion of future traffic mitigation measures, as they are limited by statute to consideration of the project since that is what is on the agenda MOTION PCM-90-51 SP-90-01, TTM-90-01, E-90-01 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-51 Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to add a condition that the CC&R's reflect that on -street parking will not be allowed as one of the conditions of the homeowner's association Commissioner Buchanan second Motion carries 7-0-0-0 MOTION PCM-90-52 SP-90-04 TTM-90-01, E-90-01 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-52 Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to approve SP-90-01, TTM-90-01 and E-90-01 as well as the Negative Declaration Commissioner Munson second Motion carries 7-0-0-0 ITEM #3 OVERHEAD DECK POLICY The Community Development Director stated that they are looking at the second overhead deck which has been submitted in the last month or so He stated that the first deck was denied by the Planning Commission on the basis of intrusion of privacy onto adjoining properties He stated that the first 10 decision by their body was appealed to the City Council, and the City Council then denied the appeal and upheld their denial of the project, and that the overhead deck was derued as it was proposed, however it has been indicated they may be reconsidering the item in the future regarding a smaller overhead deck which might be acceptable, so the purpose of continuing the item on tonight's agenda until tonight was so that the Planning Commission could get a feeling from the Council on what their attitude was toward the overhead decks He stated that unfortunately, the way it came down, their action really doesn't give them much guidance He stated that they have a couple of alternatives this evening staff was planning on discussing with the Commission about some recommended policy concepts, and whether or not they want to make a decision on the applicant this evening or put that off into the future, and whether or not the applicant feels that this would be acceptable to him, but to begin with, they would like to go over an overhead deck policy He stated that from staffs point of view, there are basically three issues that Planning Commission has indicated as being important issues that need to be dealt with when an overhead deck is considered, including the size of the overhead deck portion He stated that staffs impression is that they are not concerned about the patio cover portion, but rather the overhead, balcony area, the area of a patio cover which would be designed so as to hold and be approved for a second -story purpose He stated that the area of this, how big it is, has been a concern He stated that the second concern is the access to the area is it interior only, is there exterior access, is the exterior access necessary, what is the purpose of the deck area, and how is it going to be used, and this would dictate the exterior access and whether or not it is appropriate He stated that the third concern is the location of the overhead deck, in proximity to side property lines, and whether or not the deck is right on the allowed setback line of 5 feet from a property line, which in some cases would mean that the adjacent property owner would get the feeling that somebody is standing and looking down at you as opposed to being set back away from the property line, closer to the house, where it is more like "the neighbor is out on his deck over there and not above me" He stated that these are the three, perhaps four, issues that are of question the area size, access to the deck, proximity of the deck to the property lines and intended use of the deck He stated that he would like to open it up to discussion and determine what the individual Commissioners feel about the different issues He stated that he would start it off with a recommendation from staff s point of view as far as the area size He stated that staff feels an area size of 150 square feet is probably the limit that staff would feel comfortable recommending He stated that, to help the Commissioners visualize this, he has defined 150 square feet and 100 square feet with yellow and orange markings on the back wall He stated that the ceihng height is 8 feet, and from pillar to pillar is 20 feet, so this is approximately 160 square feet with an eight foot deck He stated that the orange markings indicate a 150 square 7 foot deck, and the yellow markings indicate a 100 square foot deck He stated that staff feels that the 100 square feet would be a little too small to feel comfortable with a chair, a small table, and one or two lounge chairs, and still have room to stand and move around He stated that the 150 square feet is large enough to have elbow room, with a couple of lounge chairs and a table to sit at and have lunch or a drink He stated that it is not large enough to where it is a party area He stated that as far as the stairs and exterior access goes, staff feels that tlus is really integrated with the purpose of the deck, and that he doesn't see that it is appropriate that a neighbor should be burdened with an outdoor party area for neighbors and other people to congregate, but he does think it is appropriate, and not pushing the bounds of privacy too far to allow a deck that is large enough when the intent of it is for that resident to go out and relax, so staff would recommend that there be no exterior stairs, and that the only access to the deck be from inside the house with a second -story access point He stated that in most cases, with the second -story houses that have been built in Grand Terrace, particularly the new homes, the floor plans would dictate that access would be through a master bedroom, and in that case, it would eliminate much of the concern that it becomes a party area, because most people don't want everyone traipsing through their bedroom to get to a party He stated that regarding the proxinuty to the setback lines, staff would recommend that no exterior overhead deck area be closer than 15 feet to any property line, patio covers would still be able to go within 5 feet, but the overhead balcony area should be pulled back 15 feet from the property lines He then opened it up to the Planning Commission Commissioner Sous stated that he really didn't have a problem with the size of the deck but was more concerned with the architectural aspect He stated that 150 square feet is a little bit too big Commissioner Munson stated that he feels decks are injurious to him Commissioner Hargrave stated that he has a problem with the size of decks He stated that he would try to convince the applicant to go more towards the 100 square foot area, as this is ample room for observation purposes He agreed that there should only be one access out of the upstairs area He stated that 15 feet is a mummum setback requirement he would like to see, and he wouldn't hesitate going to 20 feet from the property line He stated that any structure above the line of sight on a residence is an obtrusion and an obstruction into the air space Commissioner Buchanan stated that the basic guidelines staff came up with were good, but he would like to see them indicate that an observation deck was not a necessity, but rather an optional structure He stated that the 150 square foot maximum is probably a fair guideline, and he stated that he could not see any situation where he would be inclined to approve a deck with exterior access He stated that the 15 foot minimum setback is a good guideline, recognizing that in some cases 25 feet may not be enough of a setback Chairman Hawkinson stated that he has no difficulty with the 150 square foot guideline, but the key to it is that it must fit architecturally He stated that if each request came in with all of the immediate property owners' permission, this may help ease their minds Commissioner Van Gelder stated that the agenda addresses this item as "Overhead Deck Policy" She asked if they are going to come up with a list of items that will be items and will be fixed The Community Development Director stated no, that they are not creating an ordinance or any set of rules that is set in concrete He stated that this will be incorporated into a handout which will include the building permit process and suggested guidelines that the Planning Commission has indicated that they would like to see decks adhered to Commssioner Van Gelder stated that the area size guideline should be given a range, for example between 100 and 130 square feet She agreed that there should be no stairs on the outside She expressed concern about the railing She stated that she has a problem with decks in general, as they invade the privacy of the neighbors, and as far as having letters of consent for the neighbors, this is fine for now, but when the houses change hands, there may be unhappy neighbors Commissioner Hilkey asked what the City Council said The Community Development Director stated that they denied the deck, and the City Council got off onto an issue of safety regarding children on the deck, the distance between the vertical posts and the height of the rail, and if a person was to fall over, where they would fall, and basically denied the project based on the primary reason of safety, as they thought it was inappropriate, and that was one of the major concerns that they had He stated that they also some concern regarding the intrusion of privacy, location and size of the deck, but it appears there may be some opinion on the Council that they would be amenable to approval of a smaller deck, so it may be brought back to the Council at a later date, but as it stands right now, that deck was denied Comrmssioner Hilkey asked if there were any requirements the Engineering Department would catch that would require certain size or height railings 0 The Community Development Director stated that the Uniform Building Code has certain requirements, and addresses this sufficiently The City Attorney stated that the way to make it more astringent is by amending the City's adoption of the U B C , as it is adopted by ordinance Commissioner Hilkey stated that he would be more in favor of a 100 foot decking and 20 feet rather than 15 feet He stated that he could see where outside access would be useful BARBA.RA, PFENNIGHAUSEN 22111 LADERA GT Ms Pfennighausen stated that when she came tonight, she wasn't going to speak to any of the issues, but when the Planning Director makes reference that nothing of substance came out of the discussion on decks from the Council, as he was going down his list of things that he is recommending, they are all things that came out of the discussion of the Council, and a primary one being exterior access She stated that she remembers vividly because that was one of her basic concerns, that a child could climb from the patio area to the deck area She stated that the applicant had indicated that they would keep their children under control at all times, which is a challenge to any parent, and as Commissioner Van Gelder alluded, children have a way of getting places that you've determined they never will She stated that at least if access is limited from inside, there is a little better control, but that does not mean accidents cannot happen She stated that she thinks that the point that was made that some 300 foot decks might blend in well, say particularly up on the side of the hill, she feels 150 feet is a little bit too big, but if she is understanding, and she asked for clarification, that doesn't mean that they can necessarily build 150 foot deck, that just means that this is the point of reference from which they are going to be working She stated that she thought that the discussion at the Council meeting was a little more than above average intelligence of most of the Council discussions The Community Development Director stated that staff would like to have a motion that would list the size, exterior stairway and the setback requirements MOTION PCM-90-53 OVERHEAD DECK GUIDELINES Commissioner Buchanan made the motion that staff adopt, formalize and 10 make available to applicants the following general guidelines reflecting the Planning Commission's general attitude towards overhead decks 1 Overhead decks can be architecturally unattractive or invasive to neighborhood privacy and are recognized as unnecessary for adequate habitation 2 Any overhead deck must be architecturally harmonious with the structure it is attached to as well as surrounding structures 3 Any overhead deck will be reviewed in the context of the conditions of the applicant's property and surrounding properties 4 As a general rule, a deck should not exceed 125 square feet 5 Decks should be limited to access from the interior of the structure, and there should be no exterior stairs or access 6 Decks should be set back at least 15 feet from any property line 7 The application for Site and Architectural Review to the Planing Commission should include a letter of consent signed by all adjacent property owners Commissioner Hargrave second Chairman Hawkinson asked if 125 square feet could be gotten around by a variance Commissioner Buchanan stated that he understands it to be lust a guideline, as someone could come in and try to convince the Planning Con=ssion of why it needs to be 150 square feet rather than 125, for example He stated that this is not written in stone, it is lust a guideline Commissioner Hilkey stated that he likes 100 square feet better Commissioner Hargrave stated that he would also like 100 square feet Commissioner Munson stated he in favor of the 20 foot set back He stated that he would question the requirement to have all neighbors sign a petition to allow a deck, and he would be more in favor of the City contacting the neighbors He stated that he is concerned that after the permit is approved, 11 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-53 they put up a ladder on the outside The Community Development Director stated that they have the authority to enforce the Site and Architectural approval, which would involve the Nuisance Abatement Hearing process and enforce the code Commissioner Hargrave asked if Commissioner Buchanan would agree to amend that staff send a letter out versus the applicant going out and getting the neighbors' signatures Commissioner Buchanan stated that he feels both are important He stated that it is important that staff notify everybody, but would like to see staff suggest to the applicant that they affirmatively acquire the consent He stated that he doesn't see it as a requirement Commissioner Van Gelder stated that if they settle on 100 or 125 square feet and someone comes in with 150 square feet, then they are back at square one, because they will have to go back through this whole process and make the determination at that time Commissioner Buchanan stated that they are giving staff and applicants a foundation and insight and a place to start working The City Attorney stated that the alternative would be to direct staff to prepare an ordinance to set forth those guidelines as other than guidelines Commissioner Sims stated that there are no black and white issues, and each project will have to be treated individually He stated that the guidelines will give a starting point but it doesn't set it in concrete Chairman Hawkinson asked if anyone had a problem with lowering the square footage to 100 Commissioner Buchanan stated that he was happy with 125, but he would be happy to amend if the majority was for 100 Motion carries 6-1-0-0 Commissioner Hilkey voting no Commissioner Hargrave asked if the Chairman would allow the member in the audience to speak 12 MOIRA HUFFS 22735 RAVEN WAY GT Ms Huffs stated that she was just trying to get them to go ahead and set some guidelines so that some of the people here wouldn't have already started with the footings, and assuming that something has changed from along the way, there are other balconies in the area right now, and she can't even imagine that they would have come up against problems like they have right now She said that if there had been guidelines in the first place just to even consider at all, maybe everything would have been smaller and the problems wouldn't even have been there She stated that she thinks that it is a good idea that they have set something for the people to look at, and individual consideration taken after that PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TEMPORARILY ADJOURNED AT 9 05 P M SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED AT 9.15 P.M ITEM #5 SA-90-09 MICHAEL O'CONNOR/ROBERT W L CATHER 22725 RAVEN WAY GT AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A BALCONY FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN A R1-7.2 DISTRICT The Community Development Director presented the staff report Chairman Hawkinson asked if there was any favorable or unfavorable feedback from surrounding property owners The Community Development Director stated that the neighbor to the rear had called in and indicated that she was concerned about the proximity and size of the deck, as well as the invasion of privacy into her rear yard area Commissioner Hargrave asked if it would be reasonable to downsize this to 125 square feet The Community Development Director, referring to the plans, stated that reducing from one side would conflict with where the applicant plans on 13 6.;"' 21 1990 REC D MXIY APPLICATION FOR APPEAL .APPELLANT NAME�� ADDRESS -f3 p\a�-Do CITY PHONE NO SUBJECT PROPERTY ` ADDRESS This application is for the purpose of appealing the following /A Planning Commission Decision Y A Site and Architectural Review Board Decision Other File or Permit number 'SA -'A O - O9 Please specify what portions of the Planning Commission's or Site and Architectui al Review Board's decision you are appealing Please state any facts regarding this case which you feel are in dispute O is l�-- Please explain why you feel the Planning Commission's or Site and Architectural Review Board's decision should be changed by the City Council Be specific and include any evidence which supports your position D %� 12 � Y cc) uJ-f c� c� WE-h(Z- CPy;K--t::� bur' `ro ,�.151 l'IUITY o f- I�SyC STATEMENT OF VERIFICATION I verify that the information I have provided in this application is true and correct 4pelant Date \PLANNING\CE\APLAPPL Planning Department TO City Council FROM David Sawyer, Community Development Director DATE June 7, 1990 SUBJECT Staff Report File No TTM-90-01/SP-90-01/E-90-01 An application for a Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Map 14816 and Negative Declaration for a 19 unit residential planned unit development in the R2 District ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A negative declaration has been prepared for this project and is attached as Exhibit F ZONING AND LANDUSE PROPERTY LOCATION GP ZONING LAND USE Subject Property MDR R2 Vacant To the West MDR R2 Single Fanuly Residences/ Duplexes To the East To the North To the South MDR R2 Single Family Residences/ Duplexes MDR R2 MDR/GC R2/C2 Single Family Residences/ Duplexes Mobile Home RV Park 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92324-5295 9 (714) 824-6621 BACKGROUND On March 26, 1990, the Planning Department accepted the applicant's applications for Specific Plan, Tentative Map and Negative Declaration for a 19 unit residential planned unit development in the R2 District, located on the east side of Grand Terrace Road (see Attachment Xs Exhibit A) On April 17, 1990 the Planning Commission considered this project and continued it for appropriate revisions to the May 1, 1990 meeting and again to the May 15, 1990 meeting On May 15, 1990, the Planning Commission recommended approval to your body of TTM-90-01 (Tract Map 14816), SP-90-01, and E-90-01 The resolution and minutes from those meetings are attached as Attachment B DISCUSSION The subject property contains approximately 2 53 acres of land in an R2 Zone (Low Medium Density Residential District) and is presently vacant The tentative map proposes to subdivide the property into 19 individual lots The development will consist entirely of 3-bedroom single family detached units, each with 1,556 to 1,572 square feet of living area and attached two car garages The project is designed as a planned unit development with the individual units (structure and area of footprint only) being sold independently and the remainder of the property to be held in ownership by the Homeowner's Association the majority of which is to be common ground available to all of the homeowners Each unit will have a small fenced backyard for private use by that particular homeowner but the area will actually be in ownership by the Homeowner's Association To accomplish this planned unit development concept, a specific plan and tentative map is required The attached specific plan (Attachment Ns Exhibit A) describes the project, its site design and layout (the tentative tract map is included in the specific map as Appendix E), its architecture, any environmental constraints, public facilities availability, its relationship to the General Plan and its impact on the community REVIEWING AGENCY COMMENTS - The following responses have been received from the City's Reviewing Agencies Engineering/Building and Safety The Building and Engineering Department's recommendations are included in their Memorandum dated April 11, 1990 (Attachment A's Exhibit B) Forestry and Fire Warden Department The Fire Department's comments are included in their Memorandums dated February 27, March 13, and April 6, 1990 (Attachment A's Exhibit C) Riverside Highland Water Co The Water District's comments are included in their memorandums dated February 28 and March 27, 1990 (Attachment A's Exhibit D) Colton Unified School District The School District's comments are included in their letters dated March 12, 1990 and April 17, 1990 (Attachment A's Exhibit E) It should be noted that the Planning Department received the first letter from the Colton Unified School District on March 12, 1990 regarding the Tentative Tract Map (TTM-90-01) with the standard comment that fees are charged In addition, on April 17, 1990, staff received a second letter referencing TTM-90-01 and Si -90-01 Your council should consider this second letter when considering the project's Negative Declaration RECOMMENDATION ti The Planning Department recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving TTM-90-01, SP-90-01 and E-90-01 and the associated Negative Declaration subject to the conditions of approval contained therein (See Attachment A) Sincerely, David R Sawy , Community Development Director MCM RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TTM- 90-01, SP-90-01, and E-90-01 THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHEREAS, the Applicant, Roger Peter Porter Development has applied for approval of SP-90-01 (Exhibit A), a tentative tract map TTM-90-01 (Exhibit A's Appendix E) and E-90-01 for a 19 unit residential planned unit development to be located at 21941 Grand Terrace Road Avenue (APN 275-231-044), and WHEREAS, the adopting of SP-90-01 incorporates all the issues addressed in site and architectural review, and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project per Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (Exhibit B) and said Negative Declaration has been considered by the Planning Commussion per Section 15074(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on April 17, 1990 regarding this application, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued this application to the next meeting scheduled on May 1, 1990, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued this application to the next meeting scheduled on May 15, 1990, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval on 5-15-90 of TTM- 90-01, SP-90-1, E-90-01 and its Negative Declaration to City Council, and WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on June 14, 1990, regarding these matters NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, California, that the following findings are made in relation to TTM-90-01, SP-90-01 and E-90-1 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, ATTACHMENT A 3 That the design of the subdivision and the 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 subdivision 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 subdivision together with the provisions for its design and improvements are consistent with the General Plan 6 That the proposed subdivision, its design and density conform to the conditions imposed by this chapter, the regulations of the Development Code, and the regulations of the City of Grand Terrace, 7 That the proposed project has considered the potential use of passive and natural energy saving devices in its design, 8 That the proposed subdivision is within the goals of the City's Housing Element with regards to housing availability NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, California, that A The Negative Declaration attached as Exhibit B is hereby approved, B TTM-90-01 (Exhibit A's Appendix E) is hereby approved subject to the following conditions 1 The applicant shall meet all of the requirements recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated April 11, 1990 attached as Exhibit B 2 The applicant shall meet all of the requirements recommended by the Forestry and Fire Warden Department in their memorandums dated February 27, March 13 and April 6, 1990 attached as Exhibit C 3 The applicant shall meet all of the requirements recommended by the Riverside Highland Water District in their memorandums dated February 28 and March 27, 1990 attached as Exhibit D 4 The applicant shall pay the appropriate school fees as identified in the Colton Unified School District's letter dated March 12, 1990 attached as Exhibit E 5 A six foot high decorative block wall shall be constructed along the perimeter of the project Front entry wall design with intermitter brick and rod iron effect Close last two sections along the west elevation of Lot 19 to provide privacy along the side and rear yard Cap top portion of perimeter fence The materials and wall treatment of the required block walls and interior shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to construction 6 Cable television shall be provided to each unit 7 All heating and air conditioning equipment shall be ground mounted and screened from view 8 A Homeowners Association shall be established for the purpose of ownership and maintenance of all common owned property, including streets and infrastructure within the boundaries of the project 9 Covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be established, approved by the Planning Director and City Attorney, and shall be recorded at the County Recorder's Office 10 A detailed planting and irrigation plan shall be approved by the Planning Department 11 The proposed project shall be constructed in accordance with the Specific Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission on May 15, 1990 attached as Exhibit A, minor changes or clarification may be made by the Planning Department 12 All aspects of the proposed project including landscaping, irrigation systems, and building maintenance shall be maintained in a clean and functional manner in accordance with this approval and the overall goals and objectives of the City of Grand Terrace 13 The proposed project shall be constructed with upgraded drywall consisting of 5/8" X quality 14 All garage doors shall be vertical roll up style 15 Covenants, conditions and restrictions shall include restriction "No Parking In The Street" and restriction of guest parking spaces for use by guests only and not storage of vehicles 16 Side and rear elevations submitted to the April 17, 1990, Planning Commission Meeting and the revised front elevations submitted to the May 1, 1990, Planning Commission Meeting have been approved 17 Adequate drainage over the front door of all homes, this may require a gutter system over the door Adequate drainage shall be determined by the Planning Director 18 Indirect lighting in the recreation area ADOPTED this 14th day of June, 1990 ATTEST City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace and of the City Council thereof Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace and of the City Council thereof I, JUANITA BROWN, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the city of Grand Terrace held on the 24th day of August, 1989, by the following vote AYES NOES ABSENT ABSTAIN Deputy City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM John Harper City Attorney 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace .ali--- a 92324-5295 Civic Center (714) 824-6621 Byron R Matteson Mayor Hugh J Grant Mayor Pro Tempore iarbara Pfennighausen Jim Singley ene Carlstrom Council Member Thomas J Schwab City Manager W 0 12-1 1061 M E M O R A N D U M TO David Sawyer, Community Development Director FROM Joseph Kicak, City Enginee� DATE April 11, 1990 SUBJECT Tentative Tract Map 14816 Following comments and recommendations should be considered as conditions of approval for the subject map 1 Construct curb and gutter 22 feet from street centerline 2 Construct standard roadway between new curb and street centerline 3 Construct standard sidewalk 4 Provide adequate drainage facilities to include for the tributary areas from the east 5 Install ornamental street lights 6 Provide detail grading plan 7 Pay all capital improvement funds to the City and the school fees 8 Street pattern and the widths subject to Fire Marshal's approval 9 Construct sanitary sewer to serve all lots 10 Obtain a will serve letter from Riverside Highland Water Company 11 All improvements to be designed by owner's civil engineer to the specifications of the City 12 Show proof of paying sewer assessments or reapportion the same ExHiBi-r B COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OFFICE OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS R �\�`l/f�/% ro , r'•t-r^-� -- ,�"'kc+�+sr rn, �1�f q'3`ii 3� elf ti �S^jt3^t^✓f''�ih,t f^tl"'��gLr'"��^,��"'�',t. f"t"�"M1°-ie3.rh��`'��1 eh. `�s��:� rr'1 q �.tY� s.>sf 4„t+ .y p��J _' _- C"'�# ,y � 'R `` � , kh� '�..��r �F �e'y'" �i~t� �� "'�-`1. 157 West Fifth Street • San Bernardino CA 92415 0450 • (714) 387 5940/ri �� VERNON G KNOUREK Telecopier • (714) 387 5968 l Assistant Administrative Officer for Special Districts April 17, 1990 David Sawyer Community Development Director City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92324-5295 RE: SP-90-01 AND TTM-90-1 IN RE. COUNTY SERVICE AREA 70, IMPROVEMENT ZONE H, ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 275-231-44, ASSESSMENT NO. 3028 Dear Mr Sawyer Our records indicate the above referenced proDect, as .identified by Assessor's Parcel No 275-231-44, lies within County Service Area 70, Improvement Zone H, Assessment District No 1, having an unpaid special assessment levied against it Pursuant to Government Code Section 66493(d) the owner of the parcel that is being subdivided is required to cause the special assessment to be apportioned to the resulting parcels In the alternative the owner may wish to prepay the assessment Therefore, prior to recordation of the Final Map, proof of assessment apportionment or proof of assessment prepayment must be submitted to this agency Please contact me at (714) 387-5973 if you have any questions Very truly yours, KAREN RIZZO Special Assessments Manager Development Services Division Office of Special Districts a comdd ltr/dw3/5 U FORESTRY AND FIRE.( 'ARDEN DEPARTMENT`(~ COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINC t Fire Protection Planning Services ; County Government Center 385 No Arrowhead Avenue First Floor San Bernardino CA 92415-0186 OFFICE OF PUBLIC SAFETY (714) 387-4212, 387-4213 FLOYD TIDWELL Director EMERGENCY SERVICES DATE: —7 j �CyO 1/1��\�\\\ FROM: David J. Driscoll, Chief County Fire Warden The following circled conditions apply to your project. Fire Department Reference Number: 71-M �b - F'- The above referenced project is protected by the San Bernardino County Forestry & Fire Warden Department. Prior to any construction occurring on any parcel, the applicant shall contact the Fire Department for verification of current Fire Protection requirements. F-2 All new construction shall comply with the existing Uniform Fire Code Requirements and all applicable statues, codes, ordinances, or standards of the Fire Department, F-3 The street address shall be posted with a minimum of three (3) inch numbers, visible from the street in accordance with San Bernardino County Ordinance No. 2108, prior to occupancy. Posted numbers shall contrast with their background and be visible and legible from the street. F-4 Prior to final inspection or occupancy each chimney used in conjunction with any fireplace or any heating appliance in which solid or liquid fuel is used shall be maintained with an approved spark arrestor as identified in the Uniform Fire Code. CF5 Prior to any construction occuring, all flammable vegetation shall be removed from each building site a minimum distance of thirty (30) feet from any flammable building material, including a finished structure. EXHIBIT C F-6 Prior to final inspection or occupancy the development and each phase thereof shall have two (2) points of vehicular access for fire and other emergency equipment, and for routes of escalLe which will safely handle evacua ions as —required in the development code. F-7 Prior to final inspection or occupancy private roadways which exceed one -hundred and fifty (150) feet in length shall be approved by the Fire Department having Jurisdiction, and shall be extended to within one hundred and fifty (150) feet of, and shall give reasonable access to all portion of the exterior walls of the first story of any building. An access road shall be provided within fifty (50) feet of all buildings if the natural grade between the access road and the building is in excess of thirty percent (30). Where the access roadway cannot be provided, an approved fire protection system or systems shall be provided, as required and approved by the Fire Department. F-8 Prior to final inspection or occupancy a turn -around shall be provided at the end of each roadway, one -hundred and fifty (150) 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 and approved by the chief. F-9 Private road maintenance, including but not limited to grading and snow removal, shall be provided for prior to recordation or approval. Written documentation shall be submitted to the Fire Department having jurisdiction. Private fire access roads shall provide an all weather surface with minimum paving width of 20 feet. -1 Water systems designed to meet the required fire flow of this development shall be approved by the Fire Department having jurisdiction. The developer shall furnish the Fire Department with two copies of the water system improvement plan for approval and a letter from the Water Purveyor stating the availability of the required fire flow prior to recordation. Water systems shall be operational and approved by the Fire Department prior to any construction occurring. The required fire flow shall be determined by appropriate calculations, using the San Bernardino County 'Guide for the Determination of Required Fire Flow." In areas without water -serving utilities, the fire protection water system shall be based on NFPA pamphlet number 1231 and Uniform Fire Code requirements. F_1 Prior to Building permits being issued approved fire hydrants shall be installed. Fire hydrants shall be 6" d i a m e t e r w i t h a m i n i m u m o n e 4" and one 2 1/2" connection. The hydrant type shall be approved by the Fire Department. All fire hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet with the exception of single family residential which may be increased to 600 feet maximum. F-12 Prior to final inspection or occupancy this development shall comply with Fire Safety overlay conditions as adopted in County Ordinance Number 3341. The development is located in Fire Review Area F-13 Prior to issuance of a building permit a fuel modification zone in compliance with county standards is required. F-14 Prior to final inspection or occupancy, an approved Fare Department key box is required. If automatic electric security gates are used an approved lock switch is required on each gate in lieu of the box. Questions and/or comments may be directed to the Fire Protection Planning Section; County Government Center, 385 North Arrowhead, 1st Floor, San Bernardino, California, 92415-0186; or call (714) 387-4225. Thank you for your co-operation. Sincerely, o � BY F Protec ion Planning Officer 4A p� I UT� oV G ro- A Terr6� FORESTRY AND FIRE Vl RDEN DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO Fire Protection Planning Services • County Government Center OFFICE OF PUBLIC SAFETY 385 No Arrowhead Avenue, First Floor • San Bernardino, CA 92415-0186 FLOYD TIDWELL Director (714) 3874212, 387-4213 EMERGENCY SERVICES Maicn 13, 1990 Foger Peter Porter Developers 3837 East 7th Street Lung Beach, California 90804 Re Fire Protection Conditions East Side Grand Terrace Rd, South of Vivienda City of Grand Terrace Reference No. TTM 90-1 Bozena: T have spoken with Paul Miller, Fire Marshall regarding your Dro3ect in Grand Terrace. The agreed upon conditions of your plot plans are as follows: 1. 20 foot emergency fire access west of the pool area. Must be paved, red curbs, at least four (4) no parking signs posted. 2. Fire flow requirements are 1500 gallons per minute. Hydrant spacing is 600 feet. These requirements will satisfy original conditions F-6, F-8 and F-9. If you have any further questions regarding your conditions, please contact our office. Sincerely, David J. Driscoll, Chief County Fire Warden By Ernyl on s Fire 6ecct on Planning Officer c David R. Sawyer, Community Development Director Grand Terrace Riverside Highland Water Company, _ stRif g fhc L.U. I l v' , of (% l An t, lit U ,lks REC'D AP 0 9 1990 Itlh r April 6, 1990 t31..t1< Iku iu I c.l, I ,� E3xo1 f nerr, P- u1 ,CI1l ( 'ill rldJa Cl y of Gl , id T n-Le David R Sawyer c1l,`I d, 11— City of Grand Terrace Cr &-)fr I ftik Planning Department CUI)pLr M ,tir tar 22795 Barton Road t ritrport Grand Terrace, CA 92324-5295 Re. Reference #90-1 r . ,kin East Side Grand Terrace Rd., South of Vivienda lldoald City of Grand Terrace Ill -,(' I "1KL HJ,11 UL Dear David. cr)I1 IIL I-ifsh arld Applicant has addressed all Fire Department concerns. We I I01rL,t,ad VaIJLV have no further requirements or conditions at this time. J(,,rt,o V1I1<y JL, tua T e Sincerely, 1CI)r) I o,r,a I nda DAVID J DRISCOLL, Chief c.nf) I I C'I11 t, t ail y County Fire Warden L, ,, C LI li rtrtL fINIolo ;., " I'LV C'-t,, 6,11 By: Ernyle Jones Fire P ection Planning Officer I'�tFr Dim Pf 'in t'Wiil^'v lCl HE d 11f J ' ill S,i it t.r G xmy ' 'I I AL a �unuru �� 9y WOOOL 'all t, c file \ J Pd EWJ/em icl:h, Il'v alrti r r �u.L, ( t rs I'osl b F —7,3.. C v5 iii�•, >.,! „, i „c(„Illr._tff t L/'f�l' rt, R r ,rt tir 61INT L PiPNII,1 jc.%\ FI li Ul tr r l �y (1 f i�/�i q T coNs �`o, 00 F� REC'D MA 0 2 1990 1450 Washington Street • Colton, California 92324 e (714) 825-4128 DAVID SAWYER City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, Ca 92324 RE File No TTM-90-1 David, February 28, 1990 After reviewing this map we have some concerns that the developer should be aware of The San Bernardino County fire marshall will assign a high fire flow for this project because of the housing density Our opinion is that this project would need an 8" looped system Requiring that 900' of off -site 8" water inain installation and a easement through the property to the north of this project. Also, we are not sure if this developer or owner are aware of the fees to Riverside Highland Water Company A copy of the letter will go to the developer for his use Fee Structure 20 units Capacity Charge 25,000 20 meters & boxes 3,100 Inspection Fee 600 Plan Check 400 10 Shares of Stock RHWCo. 25,390 $54,490 The developer or owner must bear all fees to Riverside Highland Water Company and cost of water system on and off site. Thank You, J Rich Haubert Distribution Superintendent RH/kb EXHIBIT E'0P �' V -� 1450 Washington Street • Colton, California 92324 • (714) 825-4128 J � l T� HS�O March 27, 1990 DAVID SAWYER City of Grand Terrace Planning Department 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, Ca 92324 Q11W%1� REC'D MAi 28 1990 RE SP-90-01, TTM-90-01, Roger Peter Porter Development Dear David, Riverside Highland Water Company has now received the Fire Flow requirements for this development After talking to the Developers' Representative about the on and off site water lines they can meet the proper Fire Flow Thank You Sincerely, Rich Haubert Distribution Superintendent RH/kb cc Roger Peter Porter Development COLT ON JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 1212 Valencia Drive, Colton, California 92324-1798 (714) 876-4227 REC,DvmAi 131990 March 12, 1990 BOARD OF EDUcnTtnnt MRS PHYLLIS V ZIMMERMAN President MRS WENDY S CURRAN Vice President MR RAY ABRIL JR Clerk City of Grand Terrace MRS DORTHAE COOLEY Planning Department MRS RUTH O HARRIS Att • David Sawyer MR ARLIE R HUBBARD 22795 Barton Road MRS PATRICIA I NIX Grand Terrace, CA 92324 SUBJECT: TTM-90-1 (TENTATIVE MAP 14816) Dear Mr. Sawyer ADMINISTRATION The Colton Joint Unified School District is impacted at the MR RUSSELLI DICKINSON Superintendent present time. As a result, the school district assesses a fee of $1.56 MR CHARLESH JORDAN Assistant per square foot of new residential floor area. Unfortunately, the revenue generated by these "[builders fees'[ Superintendent Personnel is not nearly adequate to construct new schools, and is in most MR ROBERT W MURPHY Assistant Superintendent instances claimed by the state as part It II contribution under the State Lease-PurehasePrografm, the Match Business MISS NANCYA NORTON The District is very concerned about the effects new residential Assistant Superintendent Curriculum and Instruction projects will have on its existing schools, most of which are at MR DANNYCARRASCO or near capacity. As enrollments continue to climb to record levels, Districts in western San Bernardino Director Administrative Services County are seeking methods to finance new schools, and will increasingly look to MR ROLLIN GRIDER Director Curriculum cooperate with cities, counties, and developers in identifying MRS BONNIE RUSSELL HUNT appropriate mechanisms (e.g. R.D.A. Agreements, Site Dedications, etc.) to meet the challenges by Director Pupil Personnel Services posed new growth. Please feel free to contact the District Facilities Office if you have any questions, or wish to discuss the matter further. Sincerely, Greg G Gage Coordinator, School Facilities GGG ns Joining Together to Go the Extra Mile EXHIBIT E r � . COLTON JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 1212 Valencia Drive, Colton, California 92324-1798 (714) 876-4227 \` 1 REC10 APR 18 1990 April 17, 1990 BOARD f ED M&UQti MRS PHYLLIS V ZIMMERMAN President MRS WENDYS CURRAN Vice President City of Grand Terrace Att David Sawyer Clerk MR RAY ABRIL 22795 Barton Road MRS DORTHA E COOLEY Grand Terrace, CA 92324-5295 MRS RUTHO HARRIS SUBJECT; SP 90-01 AND T.T.M. 90-01 MR ARLIE R HUBBARD MRS PATRICIA I NIX Dear Mr Sawyer The Colton Joint Unifleo School District has completed a review of the above -referenced project, and offers the following comments for consideration in conjunction with the environmental ADMINISTRATION review process MR RUSSELLI DICKINSON * Based on current generation factors (.73/unit), the project Superintendent could be expected to add 14 students to the District. The MR CHARLESH JORDAN generation factor used within the proposed plan is somewhat Assistant Superintendent higher, anticipating 21 school age students. Personnel MR ROBERTW MURPHY The District does not concur with the finding that the Assistant Superintendent Business project will not impact existing school facilities based on MISS NANCYA NORTON its proposed target market, market segment and unit mix. The Assistant Superintendent correlation between new residential development and Curriculum and Instruction enrollment growth is well established, and a finding of no MR DANNYCARRASCO impact as related to school facilities is not entirely Director Administrative Services accurate MR ROLLIN GRIDER Director Curriculum If you have any questions concerning these comments, or wish to MRS BONNIE RUSSELL HUNT discuss the project further, please contact the Facilities Office Director Pupil Personnel Services at (714) 876-4112 Sincerely, Greg G Gage Coordinator, School Facilities GGG ns cc Bob Murphy, Assistant Superintendent, Business Joining Together to Go the Extra Mile Planning Department NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, a Negative Declaration is hereby filed on the below referenced project, on the basis that said project will not have a significant effect on the environment DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT SP-90-01 and TTM-90-01, a planning unit development creating 19 single family residential units on 25 acres of land located in the City's R-2 District (See attached map) APPLICANT Roger Peter Porter Development LOCATION East side of Grand Terrace Road and south of Vivienda Avenue (APN# 275-231-44) FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT Based upon the attached Initial Study, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a sigmficant impact on the environment David R Sawyer, Community Develo ent Director City of Grand Terrace Date EXHIBIT F 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92324-5295 • (714) 824-6621 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY I Background 1 Name of Proponent City of Grand Terrace 2 Address and Phone Number of Proponent City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, CA 92324-5295 Attention David Sawyer, Planning Director 3 Date of Environmental Assessment 4 Agency Requiring Assessment City of Grand Terrace 5 Name of Proposal, if applicable �pqQ� Fes,.., Pnr v _Desld mpi+ 6 Location of Proposal ��A1J� T�RKsF 1Qpf}D II Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are provided on attached sheets ) 1 Earth Will the proposal result in a Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b Disruptions, displacements, compac- tion or overcovering of the soil? c Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? d The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features? e Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or or off site? Yes Maybe No FA .� _""i.-aa' ..`..rsvtci:—�;w _'- _y..�� te.-a ^ '�..s ..+z>- _c4es�ir�"� �_va.... "'_."""— �S •+-.n..-ea = 'n.3 � } Yes Maybe No f Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lakes g Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earth quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2 Air Will the proposal result in a Substantial air emissions or deterior- ation of ambient air quality? — b The creation of objectionable odors? c Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, whether locally or regionally? X 3 Water Will the proposal result in a Substantial changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, ' in either marine or fresh waters? — b Substantial changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water qual- ity, including, but not limited to, i temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? Yes Maybe No g Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals or through inter- ception of an aquifer by cuts or- — excavations7 h Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flood- ing or tidal waves? X_ 4 Plant Life Will the proposal result in a Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants) 7 b Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? c Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenish- ment of existing species? d Substantial reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5 Animal Life Will the proposal result in a Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including rep- tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects) b Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? G Noise Will the proposal result in a Increases in existing noise levels? b Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7 Light and Glare Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? 8 Land Use Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an areal 9 Natural Resources Will the proposal result in a Substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource 10 Risk of Upset Will the proposal involve a A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b Possible interference with an emerg- ency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11 Population Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an areal 12 Housing Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing 7 13 Transportation/Circulation Will the pro - proposal result in a Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? Yes X_ Maybe No X_ x z4- A a Yes Maybe No b Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? c Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? V f-�— f Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X 14 Public Services Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or result to a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas a Fire protection? b Police protection? c Schools? d Parks or other recreational faci- lities? e Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f Other governmental services? 15 Energy Will the proposal result in a Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? �( 1� b Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or re- quire the development of new sources of energy? 16 Utilities Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities a Power or natural gas? Yes Maybe No b Communications systems? — c Water7 d Sewer or septic tanks? e Storm water drainage? f Solid waste and disposal? 17 Human Health Will the proposal result in a Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b Exposure of people to potential health hazards? — �( 18 Aesthetics Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19 Recreation Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20 Cultural Resources a Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeo- logical site? b Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? ' c Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? 21 Yes Maybe No d Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact areal Mandatory Findings of Significance a Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environ- ment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory b Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environ- mental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which oc- curs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future ) c Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumu- latively considerable? (A project's impact on two or more separate resources may be relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant ) d Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substan- tial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the proposed project could have a signi- ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi- ficant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on attached sheets have been added to the project A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required a David Sawyer Planning or 2— L29 q0 ate gnature For City of Grand Terrace III DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 1 b, 3 b The development of this currently vacant site will result in the overcovermg of a certain percentage of the soil This impact will be mitigated by utilizing proper drainage methods which will be reviewed and approved by the Building and Engineering Department 6 a The existing noise levels will increase as a result of the development of residential uses in an area that is currently vacant This impact will be within the allowable levels as set in the Master Environmental Analysis for the General Plan 8 The existing land use will change from vacant land to low medium density residential uses in accordance with the adopted General Plan RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SP-90-01, TTM-90-01 AND E-90-01 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Roger, Peter, Porter, Development has applied for approval of SP-90-01 (Exhibit A), TTM-90-01 (Exhibit Xs Appendix E) to be located at 21941 Grand Terrace Road, and WHEREAS, the adoption of SP-90-01 incorporates all the issues addressed in site and architectural review, and WHEREAS, a negative declaration has been prepared for this project inaccordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on April 17, 1990 regarding this application, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued this application to the next meeting scheduled on May 1, 1990, and WHEREAS, said negative declaration was reviewed by the Planning Coninussion at the time of said public hearing NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace, California that the following findings have been made 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 subdivision and the 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 subdivision 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 subdivision and specific plan together with their provisions for its design and improvements are consistent with the General Plan, 6 That the proposed subdivision, its design and density conform to the ATTACHMENT B conditions imposed by this chapter, the regulations of the Development Code, and the regulations of the City of Grand Terrace, 7 That the proposed project has considered the potential use of passive and natural energy saving devices in its design, 8 That the proposed subdivision is within the goals of the City's Housing Element with regards to housing availability NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Negative Declaration for SP-90-01 (Exhibit F, E-90-01) is hereby recommended for approval, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that SP-90-01, including TTM-90-01 is hereby recommended for approval to the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, California subject to the following conditions 1 The applicant shall meet all of the requirements recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated April 11, 1990 attached as Exhibit B 2 The applicant shall meet all of the requirements recommended by the Forestry and Fire Warden Department in their memorandums dated February 27, March 13 and April 6, 1990 attached as Exhibit C 3 The applicant shall meet all of the requirements recommended by the Riverside Highland Water District in their memorandums dated February 28 and March 27, 1990 attached as Exhibit D 4 The applicant shall pay the appropriate school fee as identified in the Colton Umfied School District's letter dated March 12, 1990 attached as Exhibit E 5 A six foot high decorative block wall shall be constructed along the eastern and southern property lines The existing block wall on the western property line may be utilized for this project, if however, said wall should ever be removed by this or the adjacent property owner a replacement wall, six (6) feet in height shall be constructed The materials for construction of the required block walls shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to construction 6 Cable television shall be provided to each unit 7 All heating and air conditioning equipment shall be ground mounted and screened from view 8 A Homeowners Association shall be established for the purpose of ownership l and maintenance of all common owned property, including streets and infrastructure within the boundaries of the project 9 Covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be established, approved by the Planning Director and City Attorney, and shall be recorded at the County Recorder's Office 10 A detailed planting and irrigation plan shall be approved by the Planning Department 11 The proposed project shall be constructed in accordance with the specific plan as recommended by the Planning Commission on April 17, 1990 attached as Exhibit A, minor changes or clarification may be made by the Planning Department 12 All aspects of the proposed project including landscaping, irrigation systems, and building maintenance shall be maintained in a clean and functional manner in accordance with this approval and the overall goals and objectives of the City of Grand Terrace PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Plammng Commission of the City of Grand Terrace, California at a regular meeting held the 1st day of May, 1990 by the following vote Ayes Noes Absent Abstain ATTEST on, Planning Commission Chairperson Nita Brown, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM John Harper, City Attorney GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING APRIL 17, 1990 The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on April 17, 1990 at 7 00 p m by Chairman Jerry Hawkinson PRESENT. Jerry Hawkinson, Chairman Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner Herman Hilkey, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner David R Sawyer, Community Development Director Maria C Muett, Assistant Planner Maggie Barder, Secretary John Harper, City Attorney ABSENT. Dan Buchanan, Vice -Chairman Jim Sims, Commissioner PLEDGE- Ray Munson, Commissioner PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6 30 P M. Information from staff to Planning Commissioners Information from Planning Commissioners to staff Discussion of League of Cahforma Cities Planning Commissioners Institute PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7 00 P.M 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7 00 P M PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None ITEM #1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 20, 1990 MOTION PCM-90-31 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 20, 1990 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-31 Commissioner Van Gelder made the motion that the minutes of March 20, 1990 be approved Commissioner Hargrave second Motion carries 4-0-3-0 Commissioners Buchanan, Hilkey and Sims absent ITEM #2 t SP-90-01, TTM-90-01, E-90-01 \ J ROGER PETER PORTER DEVELOPMENT EAST SIDE GRAND TERRACE ROAD/SOUTH OF VIVIENDA AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR A 19 UNIT RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; AN APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR A 19 UNIT RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; AN APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF A 19 UNIT RESIDENTIAL. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT The Community Development Director presented the staff report Commissioner Hargrave asked for an explanation of a P U D as well as its function as far as it relates to our city ordinances The Community Development Director stated that a P U D stands for planned unit development, which is usually a closed development which has a specific plan which is prepared for the document and allows you to design an independent cluster of homes and step back from the zoning a little bit and have some clustered in one area, other clustered in another area He stated that often times a P U D consists of multi-faindy units He stated that it is not uncommon for a planned unit development to have 100 units, 50 of which would be single family homes, 25 of which would be in duplexes, and another 25 which would be in two or three multi -family units He stated that there can be a mixture of different types of housing styles within a planned urut development He stated that this particular one has only single family homes, and that the intent of this was to develop and put on the market and in our housing stock single family homes at a price that would be affordable to first-time home buyers He stated that if this development was required to develop at the zoning per this, because it is R-2, the single family homes would be on 10,000 square foot lots, which is larger than our standard single family homes zoned in the rest of the City, and it would make the homes more expensive, and in an area that they wouldn't be attractive to pay that much money because they are surrounded by property which can develop as duplexes or triplexes He stated that this was a compromise concept that would allow single family homes to go in, and yet not have the large lot requirements that are necessary He stated that this particular project is built on R-2 property which is 9 units per acre, which would have allowed 19 units He stated that they are building 17 units, so it is under the density He stated that it breaks out to a 7 8 density rather than 9 units per acre He said that this allows us to do that and also have a map so that people can own property individually He stated that the people who move in will be buying the house, but not the land He stated that they will be buying the structure, everything in it, and the ground underneath it, but only underneath the structure He stated that the remainder of the ground would be common ground, as P U D allows you to do that He stated that this project is very much like a condominium project, except that instead of a buildmg with 8 units in it, they've got a building with one unit in it Commissioner Van Gelder stated that the curb and gutter and roadway is specified, and the rest of the street does not have a curb and gutter or street maintenance She asked if there is anything that the City can do at the present time to cause that to happen The Community Development Director asked if they were speaking of Grand Terrace Avenue, which Commissioner Van Gelder verified He stated no, unless the City wants to go in and develop and put in the curb and gutter or if there are any properties on the street which have deferment agreements where they were allowed to build and sign the deferment agreement that yes, they would put in the streets, curbs and gutters at a time when the City would say it is necessary for them to go in He said that these are the only two ways that the City can make that happen right now Commissioner Van Gelder asked if there were any plans in the immediate future to do that 3 The Community Development Director stated that there are not Chairman Hawkinson called up the applicant ROGER PETER PORTER 3837 EAST 7TH STREET LONG ]BEACH Mr Porter stated that they have tried to bring a quality development to the City, and that they have had a team effort in striving to create a healthy and livable environment within this development He stated they feel honored to be in the City and to present this project He stated that he had the Project Architect, Sergio Estevez and Bozena Jaworslu, one of their spokesmen and architect, and their marketing expert, Gary Oakes with him this evening, should they have any specific questions Commissioner Munson asked if they had developed any other projects like this in the area recently, to which Mr Porter responded in the negative Commissioner Munson asked if this was a new concept as far as they were concerned or if they had seen it somewhere else Mr Porter stated that he had seen it many tunes He said that he is a registered architect and has worked with many developers in the past that have done this type of development Commissioner Munson asked if this was something they were going to see more of Mr Porter stated that he really doesn't know, but he thinks in this particular case there was an initial choice of putting in duplexes or tnplexes as opposed to single family dwellings, but a single family dwelling has more pride of ownership and connotates a better development Commissioner Munson asked what he would guesstimate one of these units to cost Mr Porter stated that the selling price would be approximately $140,000 Commissioner Hargrave asked how he and his staff felt about how the 32 inch culvert in the back of the property was going to function Mr Porter stated that the way he understands it after discussing it with one of the City officials is that the drainage from the adjacent property is coming ►' up against their wall and consequently, they are putting weep holes through that wall to accept the drainage into the culvert He stated that they have a civil engineer that will engineer the slope of that culvert to drain the water out and it will be maintained through the homeowner's association Commissioner Hargrave asked if this would be an open culvert, to which Mr Porter responded in the affirmative Commissioner Hargrave asked if this would pose safety problems, as the development lends itself to first -tune families, and assuming there would be lots of kids here, an open culvert could be a safety problem Mr Porter stated that he understands the open culvert is simply a V-type construction, concrete trough, as opposed to any indentation of any depth, so it would be very similar to any concrete paving with the exception that it would have a slight slope to it Commissioner Hargrave asked if there was a reason why the architect didn't propose to put the culvert on the other side of the fence line versus putting it in the backyard Mr Porter stated that as he recalls when they met with the City, it was determined by the City official to put it on their property as opposed to on the other side, which they agreed to Commissioner Hargrave asked if the idea was that there was not enough room within the setback to transfer it to the other side, to which Mr Porter responded in the affirmative The Community Development Director stated that part of staffs recommendation was that the culvert be on the property owner's side of the wall as it is their maintenance problem He stated that if it is on the other side of the wall, people tend to forget about it and expect the City to take care of it Commissioner Hargrave stated that he has two children, aged 7 and 12, and there doesn't seem to be enough area, based upon his experience with his own children, for children to run around into a park -type of area He stated there is a pool area, which is fine, but he didn't notice any significant amount of park -type of atmosphere for the children to be playing in He stated that he surmised that most kids would then be playing in the streets, and the circulation element would give him some cause for children to be playing within this development in the streets 5 Mr Porter stated that each residence does have a yard area, like any type of development of subdivision, where you would have private, outdoor play - space He stated that they are not opposed to providing some playground equipment, including a sliding board, gym, and so on He stated that as far as providing more open, park space, it is just a matter of limited space He agreed that this would be ideal, but in a development this small, it really puts a constraint to try and give up more open area He stated that there 1s an attempt to provide a recreation building and pool, and with the homeowner's association, that would be very nicely maintained Commissioner Hargrave asked how he would feel about taking Lot 5 out and putting in a park -type of atmosphere Mr Porter stated that they wouldn't want to do that He stated that going into the economics of this, although he doesn't like to bring up numbers, when you get into developments now with the cost of construction going up and the cost of land, the developer is constantly put under a squeeze He stated that they feel comfortable with this, but they would not want to drop their density Chairman Hawkinson asked for any public comment JAMES RAY 21969 VMENDA G T. Mr Ray asked what type of wall would be put in on the west side of the property The Community Development Director stated that the requirement would be for a decorative, block wall, but the material of the wall is not decided upon at this time He stated that it can be discussed at this time and decided upon Mr Ray stated that his problem is that the drainage from La Crosse, all the way from the comer, to Vivienda and across will make a lake if a block wall is put in on the west side of that property He stated that there would have to be some kind of access to let the water go on through The Community Development Director stated that the City Engineer and himself met with the applicant and talked about the drainage, which was one of the major concerns the engineer had regarding this project He stated that there are ways to have the water pass through the walls, and could have openings at the base of the walls that are large enough to continue to accept that drainage He stated that it is a requirement to continue to accept the drainage in the pattern that it comes in now N LYNN ROBERTS 21934 GRAND TERRACE ROAD GT Mr Roberts asked about the drainage, as his property slopes down from Grand Terrace Road He stated that this is the first he has seen anything of it and really doesn't know enough about it Comaussioner Hargrave stated that this is the process for working through this, and if anyone in the audience has any concerns, this is the time to get up to the microphone and voice their concerns Mr Roberts asked if the wall was going to be on the Grand Terrace Road side which is the west side of the property The Community Development Director referred to the colored rendenng and pointed out wall placement and its description Commissioner Hargrave stated that the City Engineer has determined that this property, when developed, cannot change the direction of the water He stated that if there was a material change in the direction of the water, then this would have a negative impact on the project, but the City Engineer, based upon the development standards, says that the flow of the water on that side of the street will follow its normal channel and can be handled in a normal manner without jeopardizing Mr Roberts side of the street Mr Roberts stated that he wonders what would happen if it does Commissioner Hargrave stated that then they would have a problem. Mr Roberts asked if it would be his problem or theirs Commissioner Hargrave stated that it would be both his problem and the City's, but development standards and the City Engineer states that this should not be a problem Mr Roberts stated that the general flow of the water would be toward his house according to the slope Commissioner Hargrave stated that the street is above his house, and there is a natural drainage on both sides of the road The Community Development Director stated that much of the drainage from the property developing to the south, which is the recreational vehicle park, 7 is going to be coming along their accessway out onto Grand Terrace Road, and there are street improvements being required of that development in order to handle that drainage, and this drainage will be in a combination of that He stated that the developer of that project was here this evening also and would be willing to give any detailed comments on what the drainage and improvements actually are He stated that the City Engineer has looked at it and determined that the improvements that are being put in the street to handle that drainage will handle the runoff produced by this project also Mr Roberts stated that once they pave the road for emergency access, there won't be any water soaking into the ground, and it will all hit Grand Terrace Road Commissioner Hargrave stated that the development up on the map and the one he is alluding to, Mr Keeney's, are required to put in curb and gutter to take that flow coming from their properties and put it into its normal drainage, so they aren't going to build the property and not take care of the drainage Mr Roberts stated that they have no curbs and gutters, so it is kind of a strange drainage problem anyway Chairman Hawkinson requested Mr Keeney come up and explain BOB KEENEY 12139 MT. VERNON G.T Mr Keeney stated that, in conjunction with their project, they are coming out with the emergency road, and they are being required to take all of the water coming out of the R V park and put in a culvert down in front of the existing trailer park to a new drainage structure that will go under Grand Terrace Road between Lyle's place and the comer of Barton Road and Grand Terrace Road, and then it will go into the 48 inch line that goes underneath the industrial park. He stated that if there is a problem now, it should be better, as they are taking all of their water, and he knows they will be required to put their water into the same culvert on the east side of Grand Terrace Road, and they have to plan for a 100 year flood Mr Ray stated that he noticed there is quite a bit of landfill which came from the R V park and it is up against his fence, and the drainage is going to be a problem He asked how much the property level will be raised Mr Keeney stated that they felt that they might need the dirt, and they were taking it up onto Clark's property and spreading it out there, and if they don't need it there, they will transport it up onto Clark's property He stated that if it is against Mr Ray's fence, they will get it out of there Chairman Hawkinson brought it back to Commission for action Commissioner Munson asked the City Attorney if this was the appropriate time to ask for momes for traffic signals and stop signs to add to the fund that the City will need because of the increased traffic that this project will bring The City Attorney stated that, in a sense, yes, except that the only way that the City is able to do that is pursuant to its existing ordinances, as it is not a condition that the Planning Commission has to consider, if they have an ordinance in place which requires the payment of a fee or contribution to potential signalization or other type of district, then that is taken care of as part of the standard conditions He stated that it is not within the perimeter of the Planning Commission to require it or not require it Commissioner Munson stated that the momes for the apartments started here The Community Development Director stated that the Planning Commission made the recommendation and gave it the Council and the Council did it He stated that the Planning Commission made it as a condition of approval to go to the Council for their consideration. Commission Munson stated that he remembers that the City would go in and curb and gutter a particular road, then back -charge the property owner on a ten year plan on taxes to pay for the improvement The City Attorney stated that this is the formation of an assessment district which requires a number of other things including, under most circumstances, the approval of at least 60% of the affected property owners He stated that it is often a condition of a larger development, and actually a request of the developer more often than not that an assessment district be formed in order to fund public improvements because it allows the developer to finance over ten years at a different interest rate those improvements He stated that if they are talking about signalization, there is the potential in the law to form a district to effect signalization under some circumstances, the City has the ability through ordinance to adopt a fee based upon certain findings, which is more normally what cities do, as it is pretty hard to form an assessment district based on one 17 or 19 project He stated that, as indicated by Commissioner Hargrave's earlier speech, a City can require that a developer pay the cost of what he is causing, but not pay to remedy past situations that were a result of prior property development He stated that a City can 7 require that a developer pay a fee related to signalization, but this city does not apparently require this as a matter of course He stated that there would be a very limited number of circumstances where they could do it simply as a condition of approval He stated that if it were internal to a project, they could require the installation of a signal, because all of the traffic would be affected by the project Commissioner Munson stated that if they didn't have the increased people, they wouldn't need the signalization and the traffic stops He stated that he feels that the people that are building today are causing their problems and therefore, they should pay for it, and until the City starts hitting the developer in their fees for momes for this, he feels it is only right that they tag each development as it comes through for additional monies to be put into a traffic fund The City Attorney stated that this is, as a general matter, okay, it is just that the way of doing that is by adopting the fee by ordinance MOTION PCM-90-32 SP-90-01, TTM-90-01, E-90-01 Commissioner Munson made the recommendation that it be added as a condition that after due thought and study, this project be taxed for U signalization or stop signs Commissioner Hargrave second for discussion purposes Commissioner Hargrave asked if they could present this as a suggestion to Council to review the traffic coming out of this project for this general area and to decide on mitigating measures based upon their findings or the City Engineer's findings, as this would give them a broader view of this problem He stated that he knows he is going for signalization down on Grand Terrace Road and Barton Road, but what if the traffic just goes over to Vivienda, down to La Crosse and out that way Commissioner Munson stated that he feels the City, because of growth, is going to require more signalization He stated that he doesn't think it is proper that the current residents pay for it, and until the ordinance is in place so that the developers pay, he feels they should catch each one as they go through Commissioner Hargrave stated that he agreed with this, but he was trying to see if Commissioner Munson would expand his motion to be a little broader so they can look at the whole area with regard to this project 10 Commmssioner Munson stated that if they don't tag the developer now, he will sneak through Commission Hargrave stated that they were in the Tentative Tract Map hearing, so certainly it is a suggestion they could put on approval of the Tentative Tract Map Commission Munson stated asked if the City Attorney or Commumty Development Director had any suggestions The City Attorney stated that he was not sure if it would solve the problem with this development, but he thinks what he is suggesting is well advised for the City Council to consider He stated that is more than just simply saying they are going to charge $5 per house, as engineering staff is going to have to do a study of the cost of the signal and look at what the benefit area is for the signal, and based upon that cost, do some calculations as to what an appropriate fee might be He stated that probably getting going on it now based upon a recommendation from the Planning Commission is a good idea, but in order for a city to adopt any fee, it has to reasonably related to the services being provided, and the only way of doing that is by doing a comprehensive study to show what costs are, and what, in general, the benefit to those in the affected area might be He stated that the best they can do tonight is suggest whether it is a condition of this project or not and the Community Development Director can pass the word up to the City Council as a formal action from the Planning Commission that they think, since the City does not presently have any vehicle for getting a fee which will result in signahzation in the future, that this is something to be immediately explored and that a fee ordinance be developed Commissioner Hargrave asked if this was going to be a condition or a suggestion Commissioner Munson stated that it was a condition because he does not think the City will act fast enough on this particular project and they won't get any of their money The City Attorney stated that they could require as a condition of this project that, if in the event there is a future signalization or assessment district formed, this project participate in it Commissioner Munson asked if this assessment director would only affect new development and not the current residents The City Attorney stated he couldn't answer that, as it is an assessment 11 engineering question He stated that if you have 100 residents there now, and 101st means they need a signal, should that 101st be the only one that pays for it? Commissioner Munson stated that they aren't after the single homeowner, but rather the projects, and that he thinks a lot of projects have gone through when they should have asked for more money Commissioner Munson stated that basically, the recommendation is that the Planning Director and appropriate others make a study to determine what feasible costs might be incurred in either traffic lights or signals or signs and that this particular development pay their appropriate fee Commissioner Hargrave asked, based upon that motion, would this not, in essence, stop the Tentative Tract Approval until some finding was made to justify the fee The City Attorney stated that all Tentative Maps go to the Council, and he presumes that this would be a subject of some discussion at the Council Meeting He stated that he doesn't know he can suggest that they adopt unenforceable conditions of approval He stated that it would be a condition that would have to be addressed by the developer one way or another prior to obtaining the final map He stated that the enforcement problem can be difficult, which is one of the reasons why he suggested that the condition be if, in the event that there be a district formed in the future, the project participate He stated that since this is a P U D , there will be a requirement that there be CC&R's developed, and that could be reflected in the CC&R's, and as a consequence, every new homeowner is aware of the potential of that occurring He stated that a City would prefer to have the developer pay up- front fees rather than having a to-be-deterrmned fee in the future potentially paid by the future homeowner, but it comes out of the homeowner's pocket one way or the other, whether they see it or not Commissioner Munson stated that they did it before He stated that all the major apartment projects paid The Community Development Director stated that what the City Attorney is talking about doing for this area was done for that area, the Mt Vernon/Barton Road area He stated that the City Engineer's Department did do a study and did determine how many traffic lights would be required and what the cost would be and noted certain properties which would be generating the need for those developments and those particular properties were assessed accordingly on a per unit basis He stated that this was a closed -area project He stated that this is out of that area, just as the 23 unit 12 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-32 apartment project was out of that area He said that what they had talked about at that time was that from looking at that property, the Council basically came to the decision that the property probably should have been in that area because the traffic generated from that really was going to be going out Vivienda and down Canal to the intersection, where one of the lights was to be He said that based on that, they made the suggestion that the City Council consider including that property in that manner, and the project proponent didn't have any problems with that, so it was never really challenged He stated that this is even further removed from that area, which should very likely have its own study He stated that he doesn't know if the engineer would want to put a second intersection light as close to that going in for the off -ramp He stated that perhaps they won't want a light there, but they haven't looked at that yet He stated that if they need that, they should get these people to pay for it when they come through, but unfortunately, this development is stepping in before this has been done He stated that one thing they can do is make a recommendation to the Council that they do that He stated they can make it a condition of this project that the study be done to determine if there is a negative impact on the traffic, and that this be required as a mitigation measure He stated that they didn't feel it would be significant, so they didn't include that at staff level in the environmental review as a condition. He stated that if they feel that it is important enough to do that, they can make it a mitigation measure of this project Commissioner Hargrave stated that if they go the Negative Declaration, Item 13, which states, "Will the proposal result in generation of substantial, additional vehicular traffic9" and the answer is "no", if the body so chooses to make this a "yes", then they would have to mitigate the "no" answer on the Environmental Impact, and that would be the catch-all that would make this thing come up with some reasonable plan Commissioner Munson stated that basically, an ordinance should be prepared so that they don't have to do this at each project He stated that he is prepared to vote Motion fails 2-3-2-0 Commissioners Van Gelder and Munson voting yes Commissioners Buchanan and Sims absent Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she agrees with Commissioner Hargrave's comment about omitting #5, as it appears that this would be a beautiful place for park area She stated that she doesn't think that asking for 13 an omission of one out of nineteen units is asking too much She stated that the other concern she has is with the front elevation of most of these She stated that for a long time, they were receiving prints with basically a block house with no design at all, and that was certainly not desirable, but that these units have gone too much overboard She stated that with colors, for instance, there are warm and cool colors, the cool colors make one very serene and calm whereas warm colors are very energetic and moving She stated that the same thing holds true with the elevations of houses, and if you see a house with a small amount of design, this is more peaceful and serene, but it appears to her that there are squares, circles, half -circles, rectangles, and all of this in addition to the particular style of roofing that is used She stated that she would like to keep enough of it to make it attractive, but it is just not relaxing, that there is no focal point because the whole thing is a focal point She stated that she would like to see a little bit of that "gingerbread" removed Commissioner Hargrave stated that he would like more discussion with the developer on how to work in more area for the children to play in. He stated that this is a give and take process here, and the project will be here longer than he will be ahve, and this is what they need to plan for He stated that this P U D lends itself to a family type of atmosphere, but they need more forethought as to the play area, as there is no reasonably close park area on this side of town for children to go to, which is unfortunate He stated that they need some type of measure to allow children to stay within this development and stay off of the street as much as possible He said that he is not so much concerned with having a swing -set or jungle gym, but rather open area for children to be able to play in He stated that he picked Lot 5 because it was closest to the pool area, but he is not stuck on Lot 5 He stated that this is his big hang-up with the project He said that he would also like more discussion on the out -take area, which he assumes are guest parking areas He asked if their were five guest parking lots and what the requirements are The Community Development Director stated that there wouldn't be any requirement since it is not a multi -family development He stated that under R-21 they'd be looking at one guest parking space per every five units, so they would meet the R-2 requirements, but technically, there are no requirements Commissioner Hargrave stated that the P U D allows tinem to do more creative planning, and this is the reason they have a P U D He stated that maybe there is a little give and take with the three parking spaces, and they cann do a little work to come up with a reasonable approach to the open-air situation 14 The Community Development Director stated that staff looked at the concept, and they felt the recreational facilities were adequate partly because they are not so sold on the fact that it is a young family development, staff kind of leaned the other way, that it is more for a husband and wife who both worked and wanted their own single family home and don't have kids but want to get into the housing market He stated that if he had kids, he would not buy in this development, as it does not have space for the kids Commissioner Hargrave stated that he thought the same of the condominium project behind Town and Country The Community Development Director stated that this is different as those are rental units and these are for people buying their homes Commissioner Hargrave stated that he may be wrong about a lot of kids in there, but certainly 1/4 of the population will be families, just from the sheer price of the homes, which is a good entry level for families to get into He stated that he doesn't think they are being creative enough with the P U D concept, when they allow a little bit more open air, it does well for the project, and they can afford to upscale its price a little to pay for that He stated that all the studies that he sees and are unformed about by other agencies show that the more quality you put into the development, the more the people are willing to pay for it He stated that the developer can get back their cost on this, but he understands they are taking some risk. The Community Development Director stated that there are good points in order to justify both sides, if the price is low, the family can afford to buy it He stated that staff certainly wouldn't argue against more recreational space, but they simply felt what was available would be adequate for the type of project they foresee Commissioner Hargrave asked if they could have some discussion from Mr Porter or his architect about the dimensions of the pool area Mr Porter stated that as developers, they don't know all the answers, and that the exchange of ideas is constructive for all He stated that they certainly want to have a development that will provide a healthy environment, and that the first idea that comes to mind is to eliminate the swimming pool, as it would reduce homeowner's fees, there are always liabilities, and it adds more atmosphere than actual use He stated that if they eliminated the pool and did a little study in that area with the equipment he spoke of that would offer more physical exercise, perhaps a sand area and so on, he thinks maybe they can accomplish what they are after 15 Commissioner Hargrave stated that he is not a big pool fan, so he would tend to agree as far as eliminating the pool, but there is some aesthetic value to that and certainly for the adult purchaser, this is a desirable type of aesthetic asset to have Mr Porter stated that they could provide the large spa, and as a matter of fact there are many developments going in now that do not have the pools Commissioner Van Gelder asked what plans they had for security or lifeguards for the pool Mr Porter stated that the safety of the pool is a concern of the local health department, and they have to post the local signage, it has to be fenced, the fence has to comply with all of their requirements, there has to be safety equipment available, and so they meet the governing codes in all respects, but to have an individual there, no, they did not plan that Commissioner Van Gelder asked what the height requirement was on the fence Mr Porter stated that the height of the pool fence is six feet and the pickets have to be six inches on center, and the locking device on the gate has to be out of the reach of small children He stated that all of these safety features are built in. Commissioner Hargrave stated that according to Commissioner Munson, if they took out Lot 5, it would add $7,000 to the sales price in order to recapture their money back, so they would be selling for $147,000 as opposed to $140,000 GARY OAKES ROGER PETER PORTER DEVELOPMENT Mr Oakes stated that as far as the pricing, he doesn't see why there would be any impact at all on the price Commissioner Hargrave stated that he is just trying to approach it from the developer's viewpoint, that of they have one less lot to develop on, then they have taken away $140,000 in sales price Mr Oakes stated that the problem is convincing the buyer to pay that money because they lost the one unit Commissioner Hargrave stated that they would never know that, and asked 16 how many buyers come in and ask to see the cost sheet BOZENA JAWORSKI ROGER PETER PORTER DEVELOPMENT Ms Jaworski stated that recently, there has been a big problem with the public parks, as the insurance is going up because of the liability of unsupervised children and potential accidents She stated that the more open space they provide and the more equipment they provide, the insurance cost has to be carried through the budget for the homeowner's association, so the people that will be living there would be liable for what is happening in this development She stated that they have to be in control of the situation, and even having a 15 year old teenager, she feels even this open space would not be satisfactory, as he wants a baseball field, biking path, and a lot of space, and there is no way a 19 unit development is going to provide open space for a 15 year old boy Commissioner Hargrave stated that he would agree with that Mr Porter stated that by eliminating the pool, they come up with 100 feet in length He said that if the road is included in the play area, they would have 100' by 65' He stated that the emergency road could be used in the play area and yet serve as an emergency surface He stated that one of doing this would be by using turf -block, which is a concrete block which is perforated and lets certain grasses grow through it, so they would provide more open area that way, and probably a much larger area than from eliminating one of the houses He stated that it is difficult to conceive all of this, but he thinks the area is there He stated that they rely on Jay Molder, a landscape architect, and he thinks if they could do a study to see how that area might actually be utilized for a play area, it might be more meaningful than just trying to assume this, if possible Commissioner Hargrave stated that the likes this suggestion as it is difficult on the spur of the moment, and if he and the rest of the Commission would agree, Mr Porter and the Community Development Director could work on this and come back if they could get a continuance motion Chairman Hawkinson asked if a two week delay would be injurious to this project Mr Porter stated this would be fine Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the Community Development Director saw a problem with counting part of the emergency road as part of the park 17 area The Community Development Director stated that this would depend upon what is proposed for it and if the Fire Department would approve it He stated that they have had mixed emotions in the past regarding turf block, so perhaps they could get fire department comments within the next two weeks Commissioner Van Gelder asked if any of the other Commissioners had a problem with the elevations Commissioner Hargrave asked what they were, as he couldn't tell from the map He stated that he would like to hear her thoughts about it Commissioner Van Gelder said that you see squares, rectangles, half -circles, full circles plus all of the goodies on the roof, and there isn't one focal point - the whole thing is a focal point She stated that she has a problem with that, and she feels the whole thing is unattractive Commissioner Hargrave asked if she would rather each structure have its own focal point as opposed to the whole project blending together Chairman Hawkinson stated that he thinks she would like to see it simplified Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she would like to see one focal point, but tone it down for the rest of the building Commissioner Hargrave asked what she suggests they do not have on the houses to be bring it into conformity with what she wants Commissioner Van Gelder referred to the colored elevations, stating that on these particular renditions, it is not as distinctive as those in the packet ,She stated that she possibly remembered seeing a particular type of garage door on every one She stated that one elevation not only had squares and rectangles, but also the half -circle She continued to point out particular areas which caused her concern She stated that there is no focal point Commissioner Hargrave stated that this is a Site and Architectural matter, and they are in the Tentative Tract discussion at this point The Community Development Director stated that they are discussing the Specific Plan, and Site and Architectural is all wrapped up into that Mr Porter stated that many architects cannot agree themselves on what it good or bad design, it is a matter of individual taste He stated that in this case, they have to design for a market that is going to buy, and if he was designing this for someone else, it would be an entirely different elevation, but Mr Oakes does a detailed study on many projects that are successful and what sells, and they find that by introducing many shapes and cut-up roof lines, it provides a more exciting design He stated that they are looking at a flat drawing without the shades, shadows and landscaping to soften it, and consequently he can see the concern He pointed out that the color board is probably more important than the elevations, or at least equally important He stated that they used a lady by the name of Marian Tate, and all she does is coordinate exterior colors, and they went through a long session of what colors they were going to use on this He stated that if they look at the colors on the renderings, they are much more vibrant and vivid as opposed to the color board, which is more subtle He stated that they would like to leave their elevations as is Commissioner Van Gelder asked for matching of elevations and color board Ms Jaworski explained this while referring to the color board. Mr Porter stated that their roof Ines lead to better interior spaces, as everybody is now playing with volumes in rooms, and this is another reason they hke to get the various roof lines Commissioner Hargrave asked if they found out where the door was on the rendering on the left side Mr Porter stated that he would have Mr Estevez explain where the door is, as it is an indirect entry SERGIO ESTEVEZ ROGER PETER PORTER Mr Estevez referred to the elevation and pointed out the door on the side elevation Commissioner Hargrave stated that, based on the previous discussion, he would like to make a motion to continue the item The City Attorney stated that they need to reopen the public hearing, as presumably they will have public comment from both the applicant and audience members 19 MOTION PCM-90-33 SP-90-01, TTM-90-01, E-90-01 Commissioner Hargrave made the motion to continue with the public hearing for the next regularly scheduled Planning Comrrusslon Meeting Commissioner Van Gelder second Commissioner Hilkey stated that he thought it was important to get all of the comments out now He stated that he has a problem with some things and would like to have them change it before they bring it back in two weeks Chairman Hawkinson stated that he has no problem with that, but he could also bring up his concerns in two weeks Commissioner Hrlkey stated that he would like them to change it before the two weeks He stated that on the elevations they looked at, they were kind of mixed and confusions, and once colored, they look quite a bit different Regarding the swimming pool, he stated this is quite a liability He stated that he saw a similar situation in Las Vegas, where they had a spa and a very shallow wading pool, which provided the cosmetics of a nice pool but has a low liability problem He stated that the guest parking concerns hum a great deal as he thinks it will become a place for the extra car to be parked or the motor home to be parked, and no one would have any responsibility for the visitor parking, unless it is required He stated that the three parking spaces next to Unit 5 would give them a lot more green area Regarding the turf block, he stated that the San Bernardino County Fire Department doesn't have any problem with that and have approved it in other situations He stated that it looks like an extra parking place or a turnout in between Lot 1 and 5, and feels this is too tempting of a parking place The Community Development Director stated that they would need road surfacing material to be in the area required for the vehicle access to the homes back there, and any other, you could radius the curve the opposite way and pick up the turf block in that manner Commissioner Hrlkey asked, on house #5, if it would be advisable to include the side of the house with the wood house to give it more privacy or give the pool privacy from house #5 He stated that he noticed they all had the backyard fenced in, but house #5 seems to share the public area He stated that one thing they have done in Grand Terrace is ask for an upgrade in the side elevations that are on corner lots, and they don't have that problem too much in this development because they have Plan B on all the corner Lots 1, 4, 6 and 7, but in the past they have left that up to the Director of Planning 20 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-33 He stated that he noticed that in the landscaping engineer's plans and the tentative map that the Jacuzzi and pool orientation was different, and he would like to know which orientation plan was going to be used, but if they changed the pool, they would see that again in two weeks He stated that he wanted the staffs opinion on the style of gutter, which is a middle -of -the - street gutter The Community Development Director stated that they don't have any opinion one way or another, and in this type of small, private, enclosed development, it won't have the wear and tear of a public street, and it will be the responsibility of the homeowner's association to maintain the property, so if that is what the proponent would prefer, then this is fine, as it has been approved by the City Engineer as far as drainage is concerned He stated that there will be no parking along those curbs Commissioner Hilkey asked if the front gates would be locked Mr Porter stated that there will be a security gate Commissioner Hargrave asked if they would see the CC&R's prior to approval of this The Community Development Director stated that this was not intended, but they can make this a condition Commissioner Hargrave stated that he would like to see them He asked if they were made up Mr Porter stated that they haven't gotten into any CC&R's yet because they don't really know if they have a project Motion carries 5-0-2-0 Commissioners Buchanan and Sims absent Chairman Hawkinson stated that he assumed Mr Porter would have some discussion with the Community Development Department on this issues Mr Porter stated that he appreciates the input and understands the main concern is recreation He stated that they will work with staff and return in two weeks 21 GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MAY 1, 1990 The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on May 1, 1990 at 7 00 p in by Chairman Jerry Hawkinson PRESENT Jerry Hawkinson, Chairman Dan Buchanan, Vice -Chairman Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner Herman Hilkey, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Jim Suns, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner David R Sawyer, Community Development Director Maria C Muett, Assistant Planner Maggie Barder, Secretary ABSENT None PLEDGE. Jim Sims, Commissioner PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6.30 P.M Information from staff to Planning Commissioners Information from Planning Commissioners to staff Discussion of appeal of Blaisdell and Genel Discussion of revision of Title 18 Discussion of satellite dish ordinance Discussion of G T I building status 1 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7.00 P M PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7 00 P M PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None ITEM # 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 17, 1990 Chairman Hawkmson suggested continuing this item to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting MOTION PCM-90-41 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 17, 1990 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-41 Commissioner Van Gelder made the motion that the minutes of April 17, 1990 be approved Commissioner Hilkey second Motion carries 7-0-0-0 ITEM #2 SP-90-01, TTM-90-01; E-90-01 ROGER PETER PORTER DEVELOPMENT EAST SIDE GRAND TERRACE ROAD/SOUTH OF VIVIENDA AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR A 19 UNIT RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; AN APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR A 19 UNIT RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; AN APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF A 19 UNIT RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT The Community Development Director presented the staff report Commissioner Sims asked if parking was restricted outside the garage areas, as Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 are clustered together 7 The Community Development Director stated that there is no intent of staff to restrict parking on the road, as it is a private road, but if necessary this could be worked into the CC&R's of the project He stated that the applicant has reduced guest parking to create more open space Commissioner Hilkey asked about the center line gutter and how the City Engineer's memo regarding constructing curb and gutter 22 feet from center line relates to this The Community Development Director stated that this would be separate from the center line drainage facility Chairman Hawkinson asked the applicant up ROGER PETER PORTER 3837 EAST 7TH STREET LONG BEACH Mr Porter stated that they eliminated 2 guest parking spots to create more open space and revised the recreation area and the elevations Commissioner Suns stated that he has a concern with the cars parking in the driveways, as some are 15 feet from the curb to the front of the building He stated that some families may have a few cars, and since the road is only 30 feet, parking is probably going to be restricted Mr Porter stated that they would encourage garage parking, but the driveways will be available for off-street parking Commissioner Sims stated that he is concerned that the back end of the car would be sticking out into the driving lane Mr Porter stated that he would have to look at the plans and come back to this issue Commissioner Hargrave asked for an explanation of the basketball situation as it relates to the fire lane Mr Porter stated that the 1/2 basketball court will be on the fire lane, and this would be paved properly for this activity He stated that there would be no permanent obstructions, and only surface striping would be on the fire lane Commissioner Hargrave asked if the tot lot is 30 feet in diameter 3 Mr Porter stated this is correct Commissioner Hargrave asked the number of feet from the property line of Unit 5 Mr Porter stated that there is a 12 foot side yard between the fence and the structure, and as a barrier between the open area, there is a landscape area that would help visually and audibly Commissioner Hargrave asked if it was 20 feet from the property line to the beginning of the sidewalk, which is broken up with shrubbery Mr Porter stated that this was approximately correct Commissioner Hargrave had a concern as to where the pool equipment enclosure is located, and wondered if it could be put on the other side of the spa and away from the tot lot Mr Porter that they could reorient this, but stated that it will be within a gated area, so it is not accessible unless you can get into the spa area, and to get into the area, health codes require the lock to be a certain height so that children cannot reach the lock to get in Commissioner Sims asked how the fire department's requirement of two points of access would be satisfied Mr Porter stated that they have conferred with the Fire Prevention Bureau and what they have is acceptable Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she appreciated the simplification of the elevations, but she did not recall asking for changes in the two side elevations or in the rear elevation Commissioner Hilkey stated that the transition from the driveway to the north end of the fire lane is an ideal parking place, and they are putting "No Parking" signs there He asked why the transitional material is located where it is instead of matching the existing curbs Mr Porter stated that he doesn't see a problem, and they would like to review this with fire prevention He stated that they will have "No Parking" signs, and if they would paint the southern curb red, this would help Commissioner Hilkey asked what the transition looks like Mr Porter stated that it would be asphalt with a better base and sealer on top to accommodate recreation BOZENA JAWORSKI ROGER PETER PORTER Ms Jaworski stated that the line is painted on the pavement side and fire prevention asked for two more signs Commissioner Hilkey stated that the drawings show a double line crossing the fire lane Ms Jaworski stated that this is paint Commissioner Hilkey asked what would prevent the three parking stalls on the northeast corner from becoming a "used car lot" Ms Jaworski stated that could have a condition in the CC&R's that would control parking in this area She stated that guest parking would be for parking the cars Commissioner Hilkey asked how they would limit it to guest parking Mr Porter stated that they could put more signage, paint the curb red, and put it in the CC&R's, and other than that, it would have to be controlled by the homeowners He stated that if fire prevention would allow them to bring out the fire lane and radius it into the curb, they would be glad to do that The Community Development Director stated that it will probably be used for guest parking and occasional cars or campers, but it will just be a matter for the homeowner's association Commissioner Hilkey asked what the fence is that is in between the tot lot and Lot 5 Mr Porter stated that it is a 6 foot wood fence that goes all the way to the street He stated that they would probably drop that height down in the setback area Commissioner Buchanan asked about the mailbox situation Mr Porter stated that they haven't contacted the postal department to find out what type of mail delivery accommodations they want, but whatever they want, they will put in 5 The Community Development Director stated that they don't have a preference in this development since it is a gate -guarded community Commissioner Buchanan stated that they have been attaching a condition for rain gutter or rainwater control over the front entryway areas to single family residential developments He asked if staff had any input The Community Development Director stated that they can work with the developer to alleviate concern Commissioner Buchanan asked if they would be putting in any gas -operated barbecues in the recreation area Mr Porter stated that if they do, they would not be gas, it would be a free- standing gravel pit Commissioner Sims asked about the driveways Mr Porter stated that they have provided the three guest parking places to mitigate the chance of someone parking in the street Commissioner Sims asked about the probability of having two vehicles per residence Mr Porter stated that they could restrict parking to the garages in the CC&R's He stated that they tried to give everybody private livable space, and if you start shoving the houses back, the trade-off would be taking away private, livable area for the sake of cars Commissioner Sims expressed concern over the safety problem Mr Porter stated that they have tried to provide the best arrangement, but the only measure he can take is to put it as a condition of the CC&R's that people park in their garages Commissioner Sims stated that 15 feet is too short The Community Development Director stated they could make a condition in the CC&R's that there is no parking on the streets or in the driveways He stated that if the curbs are painted red, this would be a deterrent, but he doesn't know if they would want every curb painted red He stated that Planning Commission can require that they have roll -up garage doors He stated that they can put into the CC&R's that the guest parking can only be used for guest parking, and there should be no storage of vehicles or any 6 other materials in those spaces Commissioner Sims asked if the 20 foot setback was a minimum The Community Development Director stated that they are doing a specific plan, so they can set their own standards Commissioner Sims asked if the 32 inch concrete box culvert has a closed top Mr Porter stated that there is a perimeter culvert all the way around the project to catch adjacent drainage and take it to the street, and there is an under -sidewalk culvert that brings it out into the street Commissioner Sims stated that his concern is the cleaning issue when it gets plugged He asked if they would have any problems opening it up Mr Porter stated that as he understands it, the culvert is an open, concrete, V-gutter that goes around the perimeter of all the walls Commissioner Sims asked about the driveways Mr Porter stated they are incorporating overhead, folding garage doors with automatic openers He stated that people do need private, outdoor living area, and he would rather not move the houses back He stated that it would just have to be handled in the CC&R's and the overhead garage door Commissioner Sims asked if the actual entrance road could be widened some more Mr Porter stated that they could put a mimmum strip of landscaping there and make it wider He stated that the fire department wants a 26 foot wide street and they have 30 feet He stated that they could flare the curb in and reduce the landscaping so a car could pull in Commissioner Hargrave stated that they need to resolve the driveway issue He stated that parking is a constant problem, even with CC&R's He stated that 15 feet seems like an awfully short area Mr Porter stated that they could move some of the homes back, but they would like to provide a decent rear yard The Community Development Director stated that the alternative is that the fire department has requested 26 feet and it has been designed at 30 feet He stated that this could be narrowed and they could pick up two feet for W driveway purposes on each side He stated that this would necessitate the conditions for no parking in the road Commission Buchanan asked how wide the street has to be to permit parking on one side only The Community Development Director stated that the nummum street requirement for a public street is 60 foot right-of-way with a 36 foot paved curb -to -curb area Commissioner Buchanan asked if would be any parking with a 26 foot street Commissioner Hargrave stated that there should not be any parking because of the congestion element Mr Porter stated that the street could be reduced to 26 feet, but he has a concern that this would be narrow He stated that perhaps they could compromise, and make it a 28 foot street Commssioner Hawkinson asked if he could live with a condition that no driveway be less than 19 feet The Community Development Director stated that they could give some perimeters a 19 foot driveway and a 15 foot rear yard area He stated that if a high majority of them met these requirements, and all of them meeting either one or the other, they can work with the applicant Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she is reluctant to give up the back yard She stated that she wondered of it would work of there was a sign on the gate that said, "No parking in the driveways," and if there were speed bumps She was concerned about narrowing the street more than one foot The Community Development Director stated that they could make a comparative report that would show how Cape Terrace Townhouses are designed as far as the streets and driveways and their lengths and widths, and some of their concerns or problems The Community Development Director stated that the goal here is to have a 19 foot driveway a 15 foot back yard, and if this is not possible, to sacrifice the back yard Commissioner Sims stated that 30 feet seems mammal as far as curb -to -curb goes, but in some areas you may not need 30 feet He stated that he would want more than 30 feet at the entrance, perhaps 36 feet, and to be a commercial -type driveway Mr Porter stated that he had no problem with this, as long as the City Engineer allows a wider curb Commissioner Hargrave asked if they had settled on any lighting in the recreation area yet Mr Porter stated that one of the provisions is that there be decorative street lighting throughout, and that they will put the proper illumination in the recreation area other than the street lighting Commussioner Hargrave stated that they have a fencing requirement, and was wondering if they would lean toward the cap and rail fencing Mr Porter stated that they would put a cap on the top to give it a finished look Commissioner Hargrave asked if there would be coloring on the fence Mr Porter stated that they have a meaningful color scheme, and they wouldn't want to try to get fences to match the houses He stated that it would be a common theme, stained with the cap possibly being a contrasting color He stated that they would use a colored stain Commissioner Van Gelder asked about the fence running parallel with Grand Terrace Road and the changes that had been discussed at the last meeting The Community Development Director stated that they had not received any direction from the Planning Commission Mr Porter stated that putting up a solid wall does not give a sense of depth and openness He stated that police departments like some of the fence to open so they can see through He stated that the part with the name of it is solid brick, with the name mounted on it The Community Development Director suggested a compromise, referring to the colored rendering He suggested that the back section be closed off Commissioner Hargrave stated that if they had a 36 foot rolling gate, they would need 36 feet either to the left or right to hold the gate Mr Porter stated that they will have to study this and make some adjustments The Community Development Director stated that once the designer looks at GI how they will address widening the road and where the gate would fit, staff can work out some type of a design that would meet what they are looking for Chairman Hawkinson brought it back to Comrmssion for action Commissioner Hargrave asked if there should be a public hearing The Commumty Development Director stated that the public hearing was held at the last meeting, and the item was continued at the point of Planning Commission discussion with the applicant's input, so there is no need for public hearing Chairman Hawkinson declared a ten minute recess Commissioner Hargrave stated that he would like to incorporate all of the recommendations into the conditions The Community Development Director stated that they are looking at having the driveways increased to a mimmum of 19 feet in depth, they are looking to have the back yards 15 feet in depth when possible, to be no less than 10 feet in depth, the entrance is to be widened to 36 feet, with the road width at 30 feet, and if not, at a 28 foot minimum He stated that he would recommend that the CC&R's include provisions for no parking within the street, and that they also restrict the use of the guest parking spaces for guest parking only He stated that he thought they should go through their normal procedure of voting on each one of the amendments and working that into the resolution Comrrussioner Van Gelder stated that she would like to recommend that the front elevations only be changed Ms Jaworski stated that they have to work with some of the front elevations, which wrap around to the side elevations, and also they have eliminated some irregular -shaped windows from the side elevations, so it would end up in between The Community Development Director stated that they had talked about the roll -up door, which was indicated as being a standard in the project, but they may want to list this as a condition also Commissioner Buchanan stated that they need to get language for Condition #5 correct, regarding the block wall He stated that he wouldn't mind seeing some kind of condition for rain water control over the front entrance 10 Commissioner Sims stated that they had also discussed the orientation of the buildings in the cluster of 1, 2, 3 and 4, and flipping 1 and 4 to ease the conflict with the garages MOTION PCM-90-42 SP-90-01, TTM-90-01, E-90-01 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-42 Commissioner Hargrave made the motion to continue SP-90-01, TTM-90-01 and E-90-01 to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting Commission Munson second Commissioner Buchanan asked if the applicant was clear of what was just done Mr Porter stated that he understands all of the conditions, and added the wide driveway, the lighting for the recreation area, the cap on the fence and the stain on the fence Mr Porter stated that they would make every effort to work with Planning staff in making adjustments for the 19 foot driveway and the 15 foot rear yard, and stated there may be a few isolated cases where they cannot accomplish that Commissioner Buchanan stated that they had two choices make some absolutes or continue it and allow them to come back with the best effort, and they decided to go with the continuance Mr Porter asked if the front elevations were okay with the side and rear elevations to be like they were originally Commissioner Buchanan stated that this is appropriate where possible Motion carries 7-0-0-0 The Community Development Director stated that the public hearing portion of this meeting is closed and will not be readvertised 11 GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MAY 15, 1990 The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on May 15, 1990 at 7 00 p in by Chairman Jerry Hawkinson PRESENT Jerry Hawkinson, Chairman Dan Buchanan, Vice -Chairman Stanley Hargrave, Cornrmssioner Herman Hilkey, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Jun Sims, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner David R Sawyer, Community Development Director Maria C Muett, Assistant Planner Maggie Barder, Secretary ABSENT None 19 R191e1 6 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6.30 P.M. Information from staff to Planning Commissioners Information from Planning Commissioners to staff Presentation by Ken Clark of the Advocate School perimeter fence PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7.00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7 00 P M. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None ITEM # 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 17, 1990 MOTION PCM-90-48 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 17, 1990 MOTION VOTE - PCM-90-48 Commissioner Van Gelder made the motion to approve the minutes of the April 17, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Hargrave second Motion carries 5-0-1-1 Commssioner Buchanan absent Commissioner Sims abstaining ITEM #2 SP-90-01, TTM-90-01; E-90-01 ROGER PETER PORTER DEVELOPMENT EAST SIDE GRAND TERRACE ROAD/SOUTH OF VIVIENDA AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR A 19 UNIT RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; AN APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR A 19 UNIT RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AN APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF A 19 UNIT RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT The Community Development Director presented the staff report Commissioner Hargrave asked if the driveways had been reviewed The Community Development Director stated that they were all acceptable to staff Commissioner Hargrave asked if 18 feet was the smallest driveway The Community Development Director stated that the smallest driveway was 18 feet and the smallest rear yard was 12 feet Commissioner Sims stated that there is a discrepancy between the plot plan 7 and the tentative map, as they had talked about a 36 foot wide roadway at the entrance and the tentative map shows 30 feet ROGER PETER PORTER 3837 EAST 7TH STREET LONG BEACH Mr Porter stated that in the rush to change the plans, the engineer failed to show the width of the road as you enter as 36 feet He stated that all the driveways are 19 feet in depth as indicated on the architectural plans He stated that the only other discrepancy is that the guest parking will be fanned out for a better landscape spread Commissioner Sims asked if the 30 foot driveway was shown to widen to 36 feet as you enter due to the gate problem Mr Porter stated that the 10 feet on the north side would accommodate a 10 foot wide gate section sliding back to the north side, and the 20 foot wide section would be sliding back to the south side He stated that they split the gate up that way because to pull back on a 30 foot gate is a problem Commissioner Suns asked about the 32 inch concrete box culvert Mr Porter stated that this will be open and will be a culvert that can be maintained Commissioner Sims asked about the wooden fencing Mr Porter stated that the fencing would be stained with a neutral color with a cap on the top having a contrasting color Commissioner Hargrave asked about how the driveway and the asphalt was going to work Mr Porter stated that the width of the street is 30 feet, curb to curb, with a 24 inch center gutter Commissioner Hargrave asked what the area between the curb and the property line would be Mr Porter stated that it would be landscaped, with a small concrete portion on the front for a walkway Commissioner Hargrave asked if he intended to put up soundproofing wall- board in the houses 3 Mr Porter stated that the wall will not be designed as a sound wall, but it will be insulated, and on all of their houses, they use 5/8", Type X drywall, which is extra dense He stated that standard is 1/2", which is U B C He stated that Type X has a special fire rating, as it is a more compressed board Commissioner Van Gelder asked when the environmentalists come into play as far as determining for the developer what kind of insulation he must have The Community Development Director stated that staff reviews it when it comes in He stated that it is not within the General Plan's sound contours, and there are no specifics as far as U B C goes He stated that they feel the insulation is sufficient Chairman Hawkinson brought it back to Commission for action Commissioner Hargrave asked if someone looks at the landscaping to make sure that we are being attentive to drought types of landscaping The Community Development Director stated that the City of Grand Terrace does not have any water conservation guidelines or planting guidelines in that manner Commissioner Hargrave stated that one of the landscaping engineers could look at the list and tell which ones are going to require a lot of water The Community Development Director stated that they can have staff include guidelines or send them out to a consultant and have them review them BOZENA JAWORSKI ROGER PETER PORTER PROJECT COORDINATOR 3837 EAST 7TH STREET LONG BEACH Ms Jaworski stated that they would work with staff on this Commissioner Sims asked if the minor changes would be handled by staff The Community Development Director stated that the tentative map will be reviewed by the City Engineer before going to it City Council to make sure that they match what is being proposed on the plot plan Commissioner Sims stated that the fencing is indicated as 5/8" drywall, and he asked if they should include the fact that it will be Type X 11 The Community Development Director stated that if he is making an approval based upon this type of a change, then it should be reflected in the document Commissioner Sims stated that the interior fencing is not talked about at all in this document and asked if this would be an appropriate addition to the conditions, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative MOTION PCM-90-49 SP-90-01, TTM-90-01, E-90-01 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-49 Commissioner Sims made the motion to amend Condition #5 to include the interior fencing with the cap and railing and color coordination Commissioner Buchanan second Motion carries 7-0-0-0 MOTION PCM-90-50 SP-90-01, TTM-90-01, E-90-01 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-50 Commissioner Suns made the motion to add a condition that the drywall will be 5/8" with the X designation Commissioner Hargrave second Motion carries 6-1-0-0 Commissioner Munson voting no Commissioner Munson asked if anything was done about additional monies from this development to go toward signahzation or stop signs for the City fund The Community Development Director stated that there was no real basis to justify the condition, but they could recommend to Council that they consider forming a separate assessment district that would include this area, but there 1s no legal mechanism to tag this on as a condition 5 Commissioner Munson stated that he would like to see the City start something right away to generate such a fund The City Attorney stated that they can only consider only what is on the agenda, which is the project He stated that they really don't have the ability to get into a discussion of future traffic mitigation measures, as they are limited by statute to consideration of the project since that is what is on the agenda MOTION PCM-90-51 SP-90-01, TTM-90-01, E-90-01 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-51 Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to add a condition that the CC&R's reflect that on -street parking will not be allowed as one of the conditions of the homeowner's association Commissioner Buchanan second Motion carries 7-0-0-0 MOTION PCM-90-52 SP-90-01, TTM-90-01, E-90-01 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-52 Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to approve SP-90-01, TTM-90-01 and E-90-01 as well as the Negative Declaration Commissioner Munson second Motion carries 7-0-0-0 ITEM #3 OVERHEAD DECK POLICY The Community Development Director stated that they are looking at the second overhead deck which has been submitted in the last month or so He stated that the first deck was denied by the Planning Commission on the basis of intrusion of privacy onto adjoining properties He stated that the first on DATE June 6, 1990 STAFF REPORT CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (xx) MEETING DATE June 14, 1990 SUBJECT POLICY REGARDING PROCLAMATIONS FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED xx The City currently has no policy regarding issuance of proclamations by the Mayor on behalf of himself and the City Council Discussion regarding implementing a policy arose over a proclamation endorsing a political candidate for office Council has directed staff to recommend a policy for Council to consider regarding issuance of proclamations The Mayor issues proclamations on many varied issues The only controversy appears to be that regarding endorsement of political candidates or propositions STAFF RECOMMENDS that the Mayor continue to have the authorization to issue proclamations on behalf of the City Council, however, any proclamations endorsing political candidates or propositions must come before the City Council on the consent calendar for potential discussion and action. TS ma C OWgCIL AGENDA 3 4 EM # 7A DATE u STA' 1 iPU T C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (X) MEETING DATE 6/14/90 AGENDA ITEM NO SUBJECT APPROPRIATION FOR FY 89/90 SCJPIA GENERAL LIABILITY RETROACTIVE PAYMENT FUNDING REQUIRED jNO FUNDING REQUIRED The information for this item will be provided to Council on Monday, June 11 C.i J# 01- AGENDA ITEM 9,4 U 'r `S!