01/18/2007 l �
Community and Economic Development Department
I I AMENDED
(ALIf0RHIA
GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
January 18,2007
The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace-PlanninV Commission was called to order
at the Grand Terrace Civic Center. 22795 Barton Road. Grand Terrace. California, on
Tanuary 18, 2007 at 7:03 mm..by Chaimerson'Doug Wilson.
PRESENT: Doug Wilson, Chairperson
Matthew Addington,Vice Chairperson
Tom Comstock, Commissioner
Darcy McNaboe, Commissioner
Brian Phelps, Commissioner
Gary Koontz, Community Development Director
John Lampe,Associate Planner
Jerina Cordova,Planning Secretary
7:03 P.M. CONVENE SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
® Call to Order
• Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Comstock
• Roll Call
• Public address to Commission shall be limited to three minutes unless extended by
the Chairman. Should you desire to make a longer presentation, please make written
request to be agendized to the Director of Community and Economic Development.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Chair Wilson: This is the Public Participation. This is the time for anyone in the
audience to speak on any item that is not on the Agenda for this meeting.
BILL HARES
DeBerry Street
Grand Terrace, CA 92313
22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92313-5295 9 909/ 824-6621
Travel back in time with me, if you will, when the Citizens packed this chamber in
opposition to the OAC and the Commission didn't vote on it that night. The postponed
their vote for another Two (2) weeks. Fortunately, for the Citizens that project was stopped
by a lawsuit. It is because of people who pay attention to what is going on. There was
Eighteen Million Dollars ($18,000,000.00) in traffic mitigation fees that should have gone to
the developer that did not. It would have been paid on the taxpayer's backs.
Now we have grading and Miguel's going on down the street. I am sure that you are aware
of Plan B. You have all seen it right, in the grading plans? Mr. Schwab told me that Mr.
Jacobsen would come before the Planning Commission and before the Council for approval
of all of this. I have not seen any approval by the Council or the Planning Commission. I
just wonder if there is anyone up there paying attention. If you look at the grading it is way
beyond for what is Miguel's. It is going into seven (7) parcels. I would like to know what
the Planning Commission plans on doing about this and why are we not adhering to the law.
Chair Wilson: Thank you Mr. Hayes. I believe I can answer this, but I will ask staff if
they would_like to address the issue that Mr. Hayes brought up.
Gary L. Koontz, Director: The grading on the site for the pads,was approved per what
the Planning Commission approved. There were some minor grade differences and final
engineering. However, because this project is a stand alone project, even though it has been
Master Planned as part of the over all project, there is some off site grading because of the
slopes and interim detention base. The grading includes the area where the drive-way is,
which ultimately will be the main entrance to the over all project plus, dealing with the
slopes on the grades that are out there right now.
Chair Wilson: Are we to understand that there is an off site grading letter from the other
property owners and that allows for the differential in the grading? If we are going to take a
flat pad and then grade it back at 10-12 ft. high slope with at 2-1 (which is allowed in the
Grading Ordinance), then that would produce in effect, where there would be off site
grading required in order to be able to get back to that flat pad?
Gary L. Koontz,Director: Yes.
Chair Wilson: Are we to understand that the Grading Ordinance allows for that kind of
thing to happen as long as there is a letter from the other owners to allow it to take place,be
it temporarily,permanently or whatever?
Gary L. Koontz, Director: Yes.
Chair Wilson: Mr. Hayes brings a very important item, and that is we do know that we
have reviewed Miguel Jr's as an item under the Specific Plan; that was reviewed as existing
zoning and allowable zoning in that area. As far as it being a part of any Plan or Master
Plan;it can be a stand alone project because it is consistent with the zoning the way it stands
now,without any consideration for a Master Plan, for a supposed Town Center.
Gary L. Koontz, Director: That area, in the Specific Plan, that it is Master Plan area 1.
The entire area must be planned as an over all project of which we have done through the
sharing of drive ways,parking areas, etc. So it has been planned.
- 2 -
Whatever happens with Miguel's, the rest of the project will be built around it, consistent
with that plan.
Chair Wilson: Thank you Mr. Hayes.
PATRICIA FARLEY
12513 Michigan Street
Grand Terrace, CA 92313
I don't know how it can be a stand alone project,with no access roads. That is obscured. It
is not a stand alone project it has no entrance and it is part of a plan. I don't know how that
makes sense to you that it is legal.
ITEMS:
1. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
November 16, 2006
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
Vice Chair Wilson: Requested corrections I will move for approval with one
correction. Page 8, "send from the street" should be "seen
from the street".
-- MOTION PC-01-2007 Vice Chair Addington made a motion to approve with
corrections of the minutes of November 16,2006
Chair Wilson Seconded.
MOTION VOTE
PC-01-2007: Approved 5-0-0-0
2. SP-06-01, SA-06-08 Specific Plan No. 06-01 (SP-06-01), Site and Architectural
SA-06-09, SA-06-10 Review No. 06-08 (SA-06-08, Site and Architectural Review
SA-06-11,TTM-06 No.06-09 (SA-06-09), Site and Architectural Review No. 06-
-02 &E-06-08 10 (SA-06-10), Site and Architectural Review No. 06-11 (SA-
06-11),Tentative Parcel Map No. 06-02 (TTM-06-02) County
No. 17593) Environmental Review Case No. 06-08 (E-06-08)
has been filed in order to construct a total of six (6), two-
story, single family residential units each with an attached
two-car garage. In addition,the project will consist of four
plans with six elevation styles. Units will range in size from
about 1,876 square feet of living area to about 2,129 square
feet of living area. This project will also be a small lot
subdivision with lot sizes ranging from about 3,720 square
feet to about 8,460 square feet.
- 3 -
APPLICANTS: Techno-Dynamics Consultants,Inc.
LOCATION: 21910 Vivienda Avenue (an approximately.82 of an acre
parcel
located on the northeasterly corner of the intersection of
Grand Terrace Road and Vivienda Avenue).
RECOMMENDATION: Open the public hearing, receive the staff report and
testimony, close the public hearing and deny SP-06-01, SA-
06-08, SA-06-09, SA-06-10,TTM-06-02&E-06-08
John Lampe,Associate Planner: The request tonight is to construct to construct six
(6),two-story single family residential units. The proposed residential structures will be
constructed on what is called a "small-lot" subdivision
OVERHEAD PHOTOS
1. Subject Site: The subject site is an approximately .82 of an acre parcel located on the
northeast corner Vivienda Avenue and Grand terrace Road westerly of the 215 Freeway.
The site has frontage on Vivienda Avenue of about 230 feet, the maximum North South
dimension of 170 feet.
The site is presently occupied by a single family, one-story structure in this location and
garage/shed structure on the easterly side of the property in this location.
There are a few existing trees on the site, mainly along the Arroyo which runs along the
northerly side next to a natural drainage course or arroyo.
The site generally slopes away from Vivienda Avenue approximately 5% or so and when it
gets to the Arroyo it drops off fairly steeply.
The surrounding areas are basically a one-story, single family neighborhood with the
exception of a duplex to the immediate east of the site, a 4-plex across to the southeast and
another duplex to the south on Grand Terrace Road. The remainder of the development is
single-family, essentially all one story development with the exception of the house in this
location because it does have a small second story addition.
Vivienda Avenue itself is presently a 25 foot wide paved street without full improvements;
there are no curbs,gutters or sidewalks,which have been recommended as a requirement of
the approval of this project. Grand Terrace Road is a 60 foot wide local street; it does have
curbs and gutters along the frontage of the subject site but no sidewalks. No additional
street dedication is required by the Public Works Department for this project.
The site is located in the R2 (low-medium density residential) zone. It is also located in the
"MDR" category of the General Plan.
r
The surrounding properties along Vivienda Avenue and Grand Terrace Road are also
located in the R2 zone excepting for the Grand Terrace Mobile Home Park to the south of
-4-
the subject site along Grand Terrace Road and the Sycamore Canyon a small mobile home
park and the Grand Royal Mobile Home Park in this location which is zoned R3.
2. Site plan: The site plan shows the proposed development consisting of six (6) single
family detached units. All of the units will be occupied by two-story residential structures.
Access will be provided by Vivienda Ave for this lot which is lot 3 and 2, lot 1 and 6 will
front on Grand Terrace Road and the vehicular access to those lots will take place from
Grand Terrace Road. The two interior lots will gain vehicular access by means of Vivienda
Court which is the proposed street.
The existing setbacks in the R2 zone are 25 feet for the front yard, 20 feet for the rear yard
and 10 and 5 feet for the side yard with the corner side yard are 15 feet.
As a "small-lot" subdivision the proposed setbacks for this project are proposed to be
modified from the standard R2 setbacks. As an example the minimum front yard proposed
will be 15 feet for lot 1; the minimum rear yard proposed will be 10 feet for lots 1 and 3; the
minimum side yard proposed will be 5 feet for lot 1. The front yards will be modified to 20
feet versus the standard 25 feet. The rear yards will be modified to an average interior lot of
10 ft. The two interior lots do have much larger back yards but we will point out later that
most of that back yard is taken up with retaining walls and slopes. The actual flat or more
useful part of the back yard is restricted to the area immediately to the rear of the proposed
units.
The Specific Plan was filed to modify the standards of the R2 zone including setbacks to
those proposed. The Specific Plan will act as the zoning for this project.
�— Each proposed driveway to each two-car garage will have a minimum length of 20 feet. Two
driveways for the two houses facing Grand Terrace Road will have very steep driveways,
11.6% grade. We do have some concern about a problem with a steep driveway. This may
result in problems such as bottoming out when a vehicle backs out into the street. Also, the
driveway for lot 4 has a problem with what is called "a lack of swing room" for backing out
of the garage. It will limit the size of the vehicle that could effectively get in and out of the
garage for lot 4.
The access to the rear lots of lots 4 and 5 will be provided by means of wooden stairways.
Both the Building Department and the Engineer have recommended that that wooden
stairway would be replaced by something more substantial such as concrete stairs. Wooden
stairways would not have a long lifetime because of the "wear and tear" on the wood.
The Site Plan does not show any outdoor activities or patios on the site. However, some of
the lots appear to have undefined "pad" areas called out in the yards.
The Specific Plan contains a discussion on the walls for the proposed project. It indicates
that the residential fencing within the project will be wood fencing with a height of 5-10". It
further indicates that "block retaining walls will be used because of the "grade" differences
between lots and also because of the steep grades of the North end of the site. As the
property sets down towards the Arroyo there will be a series of retaining walls. The plan
further talks about the use of 42" wrought iron fence on top of the retaining walls for safety
purposes. According to the Specific Plan they could be as high as 6 ft.
- 5 -
It should be pointed out that neither the site plan nor the tract map show any wood fencing
on the plans other than the front yard of lot 1, and I think that was a mislabeling although
the symbol in the legend indicates that this will actually be wrought iron fencing and not
wood fencing.
3. Floor plans: The project consists of four different floor plans. The floor plans for units
2 and 3 are rather typical for what is being proposed. Each plan will be two stories with a
second floor and also have a two car garage.
The floor plans among the various units are fairly similar with each having a living room,
dining room,kitchen, bathroom and one bedroom on the first floor and on the second floor
two additional bedrooms, a master bedroom and two additional bathrooms. There are some
differences on the second floor with some of the units having a "seating area" and others
having the "family room" on the second floor instead of the first floor.
These homes will be fairly large ranging in size from 1,876 square feet for the smallest (lot 6)
to the largest 2,129 square feet for the largest on lot 1.
4 Elevations: As noted previously, each residence will have its own architectural treatment.
According to the Specific Plan the "elevation styles will incorporate architectural elements
for the early 20th century California Spanish bungalows." ,
The colored elevations of three of the proposed homes are on the display board to your left.
( 5. Landscaping plan: The preliminary landscaping plan shows a generalized plant palette
-= with the generalized location various plantings. A more detailed discussion on the proposed
"plan palette"was given in the specific plan.
6. Proposed tentative tract map: The Proposed Tentative Tract Map is shown on Exhibit
13. There will be six lots taking access off Vivienda for two of the lots Grand Terrace for
the other two,and a new cul-de-sac,Vivienda Court for the interior lots.
Lot sizes range from 3,721.52 square feet for lot 2 to 8,456.08 for lot 4. Lot 4 is the largest
lot because it does have the steep slopes, that back down to the Arroyo. The total net area
for the lots is .715 acres which excludes the new cul-de-sac.
Again, this is a "small lot subdivision" requiring the necessity for the Specific Plan to
proscribe new standards including lot sizes and setbacks. The minimum lot size in the R2
zone is 10,000 square feet.
7. Conceptual Grading Plan: The Conceptual Grading Plan was shown on Exhibit 14.The
proposed site will be graded to drain from south to north at an average grade of 5%.
Maximum fall from the southeast corner of the property to the northeast corner is around
33 feet where it drops down to the Arroyo that runs along the north side of the property.
There will be an extensive series of retaining walls will be used along the north side of the
development area and between individual lots. The Specific Plan indicates that the
maximum height of any individual retaining wall will be about 6 feet.
- 6 -
The applicant indicates that import of between 2,000 and 3,000 cubic yards of material will
be needed.
The proposed drainage system was evaluated by the City Engineer. Among his many
recommendations, he has recommended that the drainage easement between lots 4 and 5 be
widened to a minimum width of 10 feet. He has also recommended that many of the
"concrete swales" be extended to carry water to on-site drains which will feed into a main
drain which will flow to the Arroyo area to the north. Staff is concerned over this drainage
scheme especially the future maintenance of these on-site drains and what would happen if
they became clogged or plugged.
8. Sections: The applicant provided us with two sections. This is a dramatic way of
showing that to the north beyond the retaining walls; the property drops off down the
Arroyo. The only practical usable thing would be landscaping and not active recreational use
of the rear yard.
We have reviewed this project as to its compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act and the staff feels that if this project were to be approved, it could qualify for a
Class 32 category exemption as that it is an infill type project. Staff has the opinion that this
project is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The combination of density
small-lot size, reduced setbacks and large homes results in a development which does not fit
into the existing character of the surrounding area.
The surrounding area is developed primarily with one story homes with relatively large lots
on Vivienda Avenue with lots much larger then what is supposed.
We did do a lot survey of the lots on Vivienda and down Grand Terrace Road and all of the
lots are substantially larger than what is proposed with the exception of the lot across the
street. The lot is smaller then the largest lot of this project and there is another lot in this
location which is also smaller. All other lots in the area are much larger than what is
proposed.
We feel that this project would be more appropriate if it was developed more towards the
center of town where the Commission has considered and approved other projects like this
project between Canal Street and Mt. Vernon. Besides the basic issue of compatibility the
staff is concerned over additional issues.This project proposes four bedrooms and perhaps a
fifth bedroom that could be converted from the family room and sitting areas yet there are
no back yard patios or recreational amenities for this project. In addition to the drive ways,
especially the one on lot 4 would appear to limit the size of vehicles that maneuver into the
garage because of a lack of"swing room". The engineer is trying to fit that house on that lot
and it doesn't work.
Staff is also concerned over the grading and drainage proposal of this project which would
require the diligent maintenance of on site drains and problems may arise from that. For
these reasons, staff is recommending that this project be denied for the findings that were
included in the resolution of denial which was Attachment 24 of the Staff Report.
Chair Wilson: Do we have any questions for staff before we open the Public Hearing?
-7 -
Vice Chair Addington: Near the end of the report there are possible conditions of
approval, are these representing items that are deficient in the Specific Plan and the exhibits
presented to us, or something else?
John Lampe, Associate Planner: Because we are recommending denial, we did not
prepare any conditions of approval. If the Commission feels that this project has merit, we
recommend that it be continued one month. It will give us time to prepare the appropriate
conditions of approval.
Gary L. Koontz, Director: There are some draft conditions of approval that were
drafted by Public Works and those are in here. Our conditions from the Planning
Department we did not include our standards.
Chair Wilson: So,it is basically a run down of the staff report?
Gary L. Koontz,Director: . Yes.
Chair Wilson: We will open this item for public participation and invite the applicant if
he chooses the address the commission.
PUBLIC SPEAKER
EIEU NGUYEN
(Applicant's Visitor)
i
I am visiting the owner. First of all I would like to say that I am very scared that the letter
said to deny the project. The first time that I came to the city to get some information,
before.I checked the site,the city gave me some information that I can do this and be fine.
I hired a professional architecture to do the work for me and I spent a lot of money over
One Hundred Thousand Dollars. This morning I got a fax from the City that said the
project was denied.
I am here to ask you for advice or anything that can help me to go ahead with the project. I
will follow any conditions. If the City code changes I will do what I can. I spent a lot of
money. All of my savings is in there. If you say that it is denied, you will kill me. I speak
from my heart about the project. All of my investments are here.
I ask you for some advice. When I first met with the City they said yes. I ask for your help.
Chair.Wilson: I invite the first request to speak form,Jeffery Mc Connell.
JEFFEREY McCONNELL
21758 Walnut
Grand Terrace, CA 92313
This area falls is surrounded by Grand Terrace Road, Barton Road, La Crosse and Vivienda.
This whole area is zoned R2, it is currently semi-rural. There are some nice homes on large
lots, but over time as life goes, you will slowly see a transition to a higher density.
- 8 -
Developers will take advantage of what the zoning says and they will maximize or attempt to
maximize their investments (this man here and people in the future).
What is this area going to look like in 20-50 years? It is just part of natural transition. You
as a Commission and the Commission Boards after you have to have the vision to try and
help transform what this area is going to look like. That will be a benefit to Grand Terrace
as opposed to crime infested,high density, trailer park.
As a local realtor and resident in this area, I wanted to come up here and give you my
experience, my views and some of my opinions to help you see what this area will look like
in the future or should look like. Not just making a decision based on applications or
whatever it may be, and our children are stuck with it 20-30 years down the line.
In this area we can do one of several things like apartments. Grand Terrace, as we know,
don't want any more apartments in town; mobile home parks, and Grand Terrace doesn't
want any mobile home parks. That leaves single family houses,which is not maximizing the
property. There are condos and townhouses. In the famous words of Barney Karger, "the
difference between condos and apartments is about five years", unfortunately that is how
condos go, some not all. I will point to Terrace Pines (townhouses) basically all rented out.
They maintain them,well,but they are still all rented out.
That leaves what we call in the business "Patio Homes",large houses on small lots. They are
increasingly popular for busy two-parent working households. They are always out and
about.They don't have time to mow the lawn, they don't want to maintain it, and they are
on the go. They pull their boat out of storage and go somewhere.
The benefit of"Patio Homes"is that they are larger. They maintain higher real estate value,
which is a major goal in Grand Terrace. They tend to hold larger families as oppose to the
young couple, "Empty Nesters", who are somewhat transitional. They don't have ties with
children,to the school and they tend to stay longer and they are less likely to be rented out.
What I am trying to tell you and implore upon you,is to try to look to the future of what this
area is going to look like and what you think can benefit Grand Terrace.
There are a lot of them in Loma Linda. They look real nice. The problem is that they have
a lot more vacant land and we are limited. We need a mixed housing unit; we don't have
many patio homes. I think we need more.
William Kaminsky
Intersection of Barnes &Vivienda
I travel that road quite a bit and Grand Terrace Road quite a bit. There is a stop sign at that
intersection there itself, however,we have a lot of folks that run that intersection. There is a
substantial amount of glass in that section quite often. Stop signs might stop somebody but
that still doesn't stop you from having an accident. When I saw Lot 1, you will notice on
that intersection that there is poor site distance. The building set backs are quite up there,
we already have a site distance problem. What hasn't been addressed is that Grand Terrace
Road slopes down at a substantial rate. If you put any vegetation there you can't see around
that corner. We have eighteen wheelers on that road, they tend to run the intersection
because they like to go down Arroyo as fast as possible and come up the other side. Next
- 9 -
thing you know they see a stop sign and they can't stop. Anyone who is on Vivienda has to
really watch out. Now we are having a building put up there and we won't be able to see
__. anything,you will have a lot more glass from collisions from people running it. We need Lot
1 set back to normal distances which used to be in the 25-35 ft. range instead of crowding.
BOBBI FORBES
11815 Burns Avenue
Grand Terrace, CA 92313
We all see things a little differently. I live on the other side of the bridge near Jeffery and
William. That neighborhood won't accommodate this project because all the houses are on
bigger lots. There will be too many people in the neighborhood with this many units there.
I see that it appears that there is a driveway at the bottom of the hill,going down the hill on
Vivienda. Am I correct? That is going to be horrible for anybody backing in and out. Cars
wreck there all the time. We don't just always have glass, we have accidents there that no
one knows about because they happen in the middle of the night it is in an area where
people don't have to call the cops, they just call tow trucks.
The ravine floods all the time, when we are blessed with rain. I think that particular
driveway on that street would be a very bad decision. I don't think a lot of people are
familiar with that neighborhood. Some of you are because you have driven down there
when we were talking about Man Hole Builders.
I don't think that many homes are good I am looking at safety and the amount of people in
the neighborhood. William, Jeffery and I don't think the same. The units that are there
don't bring a lot of cars because they are all two bedrooms one bath for the most part. The
houses are not very big either and you are talking about bringing in 1,800 sq. ft. homes, there
is just going to be too many people. Personally, I just don't think that it is going to
accommodate it on that size of a Lot.
Janice McShinaff (not sure of the spelling) was to be here and Janet Ridge had an accident
tonight and they are not able to be here. That is two more people that own land there that
care.
Chair Wilson: Any others that would like to speak on this particular item?
TIM NGUYEN
23285 Westwood
Grand Terrace, CA 92313
When I came to this county 20 years ago, when I moved out here, I started doing business
around here. I love this city. I own two pieces of property on Westwood and one on
Vivienda. How I look at it is in that area the back yards look dirty, it doesn't look good for
the City.
I understand we are here to make the City look better. When I saw that piece of land I
loved it. I checked with the City, they said it could either be an apartment, condo or
- 10-
housing. Now I'm here with the City to make an offer for the house. Apartments would
just make problems for the City.
I just want you to put money to the side. This is my retirement. I work hard seven days a
week. I own several businesses around here, four nail shops. I work around the clock. The
Blue Mountain Real Estate knows who I am.
All I am asking for is to make it nice for the City. I don't ask for more or less. When I
bought my house it looked like a trashy house. I put in over One Hundred Thousand
Dollars to try and make a difference.
That is the reason why I come to you,I have been here eleven years and I love it here. What
I am trying to say is I want you to be fair to me. Let's make a change to that land.
Where I live, I think they are too conservative no one wants to spend money on their house.
Even Honey Hills, they are only worth Five Hundred Thousand and they should be at least
One Million dollars because no one wants to fix them.
The house next to me doesn't clean up their yard. The fence falls down and no one wants to
fix it.
Chair Wilson: Okay we will close the Public Participation and come back to the
Commission for a Motion.
Vice Chair Addington: Staff, the cul-de-sac in the Specific Plan it refers to a standard
drawing 120 and 120a. What is the width of that cul-de-sac in the standard drawings? Does
anyone know off the top of their heads?
Gary L. Koontz, Director: Unfortunately, Rich Shields couldn't be here tonight, he
decided to break his ankle at a site inspection today.
Vice Chair Addington: In looking at everything from a technical stand point, based
upon my background and what I usually do as a Planning Commissioner, some of these
plans are very good. The grading plan looks like it was prepared by an expert. However, I
see a lot of challenges in other plans there Specific Plan has a lot of challenges. Their
drainage study is not even close, storm drains are not close and I understand that the sewer
was addressed and the sewer does work. I have concerns with the side entrances and the site
distances around the corner and the location of some of the driveways.
I do sympathize with the applicant with One Hundred Thousand Dollars, he probably got a
good deal with architectural fees and engineering fees coming into this, but looking at what
is being proposed in this area for this zone, it doesn't fit. Whether we deny or continue it
tonight he still has to go through a reapplication with a different project right?
Gary L. Koontz, Director: Because this is a subdivision and a Specific Plan, it has to go
to the City Council.
Vice Chair Addington: Even if we deny it?
- 11 -
Gary L. Koontz, Director: Yes. It would be your recommendation. If you recommend
denial, that is what we will present to them. If they decide to deny it, it can be refiled, but
only after 6 months per the Subdivision Ordinance
Chair Wilson: But he can re-file a different project?
Gary L. Koontz,Director: Yes.
Vice Chair Addington: But moving forward, if we make a whole bunch of
recommendations he will still have to redesign the entire project one way or the other.
Although I sympathize with his investment, I personally don't feel that this is a good fit for
that community.
Gary L. Koontz, Director: Your options tonight are to take staffls recommendation
directly or you can continue it off calendar with direction of how many lots you would like
to see or what kind of design you would like to see, or approve it with conditions and we
continue it for Thirty days to make changes.
Our recommendation is for denial. If you elect not to deny it and come up with ideas of
what you want to see,that is another option and we can continue it off calendar.
Vice Chair Addington: I paused to see if there was any other input from the
Commission.
Commissioner Comstock: I have a few comments. The applicant has asked for some
-- advice.regarding the design of this property and staff has prepared several items within our
packet on why this project is not a good fit for this piece of property.
A few that came to my mind, I am a pastor and common sense kind of guy and I can see
that the drive way going down Grand Terrace Road will be a problem. That kind of a pitch
going in and out of the driveway and also the site on the corner, or lack there of, is a major
problem. I also have some issues with the drainage and with the retaining wall going down
the Arroyo and how the drain water was going to be removed off the property. That site,
according to Mrs. Forbes,is already flooding.
I had some friends that lived up on the hill in a rental unit, they often saw problems with
rain water and I feel that it needs to be addressed.
I think it would be good to sit down with staff and go over the concerns because they work
with these projects on a technical basis everyday. If they suggest that this is what you need
to do to conform to code, I think it would be a good idea to take note to that and try and
incorporate that into your design plans.
As you can see I am not in favor of this project as it stands.
Commissioner Phelps: I also, have a lot of issues with the retaining walls the six foot
fence with wrought iron at the top is just too much for that. It would be better to leave it as
natural and enjoy the beauty of the Arroyo as it is with fewer houses that fit that are a little
better. To me it looks as if the lot is over packed compared to the lots surrounding it.
- 12 -
The difficulty with the driveways are forced in, it doesn't work. I defiantly have a problem
with lot 6. I live in a house that has a very steep drive way, they are useless except for
parking on. I also have a problem with the size of the cul-de-sac. I prefer to see it a little
wider in the bulb side of it so that the fire trucks can get around in it.
I'm not in favor of this at all.
Chair Wilson: There is a reason why that this area is zoned R2 medium low. In relation
to the zoning the way it exists you can see that it is somewhat compatible with the
surrounding uses. If you were to take the straight zone and not figure for subtraction of
road ways 3 units would fit on a Thirty-One Thousand sq. ft. lot.
What we have before us is twice that. I agree with staff's recommendation that it is not
compatible for this area. I agree with the assessment that there are some concerns about
traffic circulation and configuration of the lot and drainage. I agree with my fellow
commissioners that it does not appear to fit the Land Use of the surrounding area.
The applicant is asking for direction and he was asking us to be fair,-and I believe that he
deserves fair consideration. It is also my understanding that when the project was first
proposed there has been a time frame of about seven months between the time it was
proposed and the complete package prepared for this commission and that is a lot of time.
In that time I can appreciate the fact that the applicant can spend a great deal of money in
design. I do believe that there is a use available and I think that it is still appropriate to the
zoning. I would not be in favor of the project as it stands but I would be in favor or a
continuance (off calendar) to allow a re-design for the investment of the applicant to be
revised and perhaps add to the character of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Comstock: Are you making a motion to that affect?
Chair Wilson: No I was just telling you what I was thinking. I have not made a motion.
The Chair would entertain a motion.
Commissioner McNaboe: I will make that motion that you described; to continue `Off
Calendar",to reevaluate the project.
Chair Wilson: I would seconded
Vice Chair Addington: Is that going to include any conditions or comments for the
continuance?
Chair Wilson: Chair would be glad to entertain any additional comments.
Vice Chair Addington: If this is going to move forward as a continuance, these are some
of the items I would like to see:
• Not six lots. I think it would be more appropriate to have 3 or 4,
• Not those large retaining walls,which would handle graffiti,
• No retaining walls along the property line, which are extremely hard to plant and
maintain on someone else's property,
- 13 -
• What comes back to us for review, their drainage study was very much inadequate,
their storm drain analysis was very much inadequate, their S.U.S.M.P. is very
appropriate for LA County but in San Bernardino County we do a Water Quality
Management Plan. I would like to have a site analysis at the intersection, traffic
control issues (working with the traffic engineer along Grand Terrace Road).
Basically, address the storm drain so we don't take storm drain from the public water
to the private back to the public systems again. A lot of the comments that were
made from the City Engineer,which is K&A who made those comments, need to be
addressed.
Commissioner Phelps: I would like to see strict adherence to the set back rules on
Grand Terrace and Vivienda (Lot 1). With the site problems on that corner, I would like to
see enough room. 25 ft would be sufficient to see a car coming around that corner.
I would also like to see the slope remain natural.
Commissioner Comstock: I have a question for Commissioner Addington. You
mention you would not like to see any kind of retaining walls. Are you referring to the rear
of the property?
Vice Chair Addington: What I am referring to is the rear of the property along the north
of the property line, they have walls right along the line. For the homeowner to go out and
maintain anything or water anything, because in their Specific Plan they call for creeping ivy
at the base of the wall, that is not the homeowner's property. The homeowner is not going
t to walk around and maintain anything,plus graffiti.
Commissioner Comstock: The point that I wanted to bring up is the Easterly/Westerly
down slope and was wondering if you would be in favor of having some small retaining
walls to delineate lots if there are 3 lots put there.
Vice Chair Addington: I wouldn't mind small retaining walls, but I would like them as
off set from the property line so that the planting can be on the owner's property to the
point that they can maintain it.
I would also like to see a different color board. I am not sure that the green and blue roofs
match the home styles in the area. I want to see one that matches the surrounding homes.
Commissioner Comstock: I am not against two-story structures; I think that is an
adequate way to address square footage concerns. We don't need to keep it to a single story.
But I would also like to see the adherence to the setbacks per the requirement of the code.
Vice Chair Addington: I don't have any concerns about the two-story homes either. I
don't think I heard any concerns from the residents about having two-story homes.
Chair Wilson: Please vote.
MOTION PC-01-2007 Commissioner McNaboe makes a motion for a
continuance "Off Calendar"
Chair Wilson Seconded.
- 14 -
MOTION VOTE
- PC-01-2007: Approved 5-0-0-0
3. SA-06-19 and E-06-15: SA-06-19 and E-06-15 to construct a single-story addition
of 1,048 square feet of living area onto an existing single
family residence of 927 square feet at 22195 McClarren
Street (APN# 0275-242-17).There will be a new master
bedroom, master bathroom,walk-in closet,laundry,and an
additional bedroom and full bathroom.The existing living
room and kitchen will be enlarged
APPLICANTS: Roman Romero Palomino
LOCATION: 22195 McClarren Street (APN# 0275-242-17)
APPLICANT: Roman Palomino
LOCATION: 22195 McClarren Street, Grand Terrace (APN 0275-242-17)
RECOMMENDATION: Open the Public Hearing,receive testimony, close the
public hearing, and approve SA-06-19, and E-06-15 to
construct a single-story single family residential addition of
1,048 square feet.
Chair Wilson: Do we have a staff report?
Richard Garcia,Assistant Planner: The applicant Roman Romero Palomino is proposing
to construct a single story addition of 1,048 square feet of living area onto an existing single
family residence of 927 sq. ft. at 22195 McClarrent Street.
OVERHEAD PHOTOS
1. This aerial accurately depicts the subject site as a single family residence with a
detached garage on an 18,990 sq. ft. lot. The surrounding area is primarily residential R2
with the exception of the parcels to the south. These are Zoned General Commercial C2.
2. The site indicates the location of the residence. The proposed addition will contain
1,048 of living area.
The new construction will be attached to the east, west and north elevations of the
existing structure. A 10x10 ft. gazebo will built in the rear yard.
The addition will be set back 67 ft. from the rear property line and 64 ft. from the
- , front property line. The main entry will front on the east elevation.
- 15 -
The landscaping plan is showing on the site plan and includes existing mature trees,
new turf, shrubs and ornamentals.
The existing chain link fence will be removed upon completion of construction.
3. The floor plan shows that there will be a new master bedroom, master bathroom,
walk-in closet, laundry an additional bedroom, bathroom, office and a gazebo in the rear
yard.
The living room will be extended and a prefabricated fireplace will be built in the
living room.
4. The elevations indicate the use of composition shingles on the roof, 6 inch trim
around the windows and doorways, a sliding glass door on the rear elevation, stucco walls,
double entry light fixtures and vinyl grid windows.
The project is a categorically exempt Class 3 project per the California
Environmental Quality Act. The reason that we are here tonight is because a Planning
Commission Public Hearing is required for increased square footage of 65% or more of the
main residential living area.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed addition
under Site and Architectural Review case number SA-06-19 and Environment Review case
number E-06-15 as called for by the attached Resolution of Approval.
Chair Wilson: In these Proposed Conditions,item number 3 Public Works Condition,
- install one concrete ornamental street light in the right-of-way and pay one year of energy
cost. Is that a little heavy for a rebuild? Isn't that something that should be shared among
the group?
Gary L. Koontz,Director: Rich should be here to respond to his own conditions. This
is his standard practice on anything. He just requires it. If you should choose to delay or
make other arrangements, that is your decision.
Chair Wilson: I would like to see a"Cash in Lieu" because,I think to burden this guy
with doing the public improvements in front and the street,it is a little excessive.
Vice Chair Addington: When I went by that site,I didn't look for street lights. Could
you refresh my memory, does this street have street lights on it?
Richard Garcia,Assistant Planner: There are no street lights in this location. Up the
street,there is a newer development,that may have street lights,but there are none in this
area.
Vice Chair Addington: Along this street has there been a Master Layout of these street
lights? Or just conditioning, a street light, for this property, as he develops? What is the cost
of a street light?
Gary L. Koontz, Director: It goes up every day. But it is probably in the$2,500.00
range.
- 16 -
Chair Wilson: Any additional comments before we open public hearing? Okay we will
invite the applicant to come to the stand and address his/her project.
i
ALICIA ROMERO
(On behalf of her husband the Applicant)
22195 McClarren Street
Grand Terrace, California 92313
Everyone is very excited about this project. As you can see we only have 927 sq ft.in
our house. It is a two bedroom and we are a family of 5,two girls one boy and some
puppies. We cannot wait to start building. There is one thing that I am concerned about
and it was brought to your attention is and that is,there are no street lights.When we moved
into our property we noticed that there were no street lights what so ever. We purchased an
ornamental light to put on our property. There are other requirements which are curb,
gutter and sidewalks. There are no other houses that have done that. I am asking you to be
fair to everybody who has built more than 65% on their property. Consider that it is a lot
money to invest in the property,if we do that it is going to take a little bit more than that.
Chair Wilson: What we will find as a rule for"New Construction"is a lot of folks figure
that when you do new construction you don't get burdened with curb and gutter or
pavement improvements and maybe a street light or something like that, at that time that
you will"dodge the bullet". That is not true. What takes place is that there will be an
assessment and when appropriate and when the City determines that there is right-of-way or
safety,there will be an assessment of the property for Frontage.There is never really a time
that you will"dodge the bullet",in the long run.
I think we will need to consider a public works condition for the merit that it has. I think we
will leave that for some discussion.
Any others that would like to speak on this particular item please state your name and
address.
BILL HAYES
22185 McClarren Street
Grand Terrace, California 92313
I am all in favor of giving these people permission to add onto their home. As far as street
lights I have lived there since 1957 there has been no street lights no curbs or anything else.
Just a year ago a man across the street did an extensive remodel which is much more than
these two are doing and there was nothing said about street lights. I don't think we should
make it hard on them and require them to do something that hasn't been there for years
Vice Chair Addington: Staff,I could barely hear him. Can you give me a recap on what
he just said?
Richard Garcia,Assistant Planner: He stated that a neighbor had made extensive
remodeling in the past recent years and were not required to make street light improvements
or curb and gutter.
- 17 -
Commissioner Comstock: I know that we do see some projects that come before the
Planning Commission in regards to over 65%. I am assuming that the other project that was
mentioned was under 65% and therefore it must have been handled in house.
Is it a standard policy, for all the projects that come through,to require street improvements
and street lighting?
Gary L. Koontz, Director: Again,I am speaking for Mr. Shields. These are his
requirements and not ours. The way we see it is that it is Public Work's standard policy to
ask for them.
Commissioner Comstock: Okay,thank you.
Chair Wilson: Any other speakers? No. Okay we will close the public speaking and bring
it back to Commission for comments, discussion or a motion.
Vice Chair Addington: I am glad that they want to stay in Grand Terrace and that they
want to expand their house and looking at that elevation's it does look nice. However,I do
agree with Public Works on the street improvements and I also agree with them on the
street light.
Commissioner Comstock: I am looking at staying uniform.
Vice Chair Addington: I remember projects in the past where we have conditioned for
one street light and two street lots. If there was a corner we have conditioned for light on
each street. I do recall specific cases where they are asking for one light.
Commissioner Comstock: I can think of four projects that we have reviewed over the
last year that we have required that.
Chair Wilson: Staff,in our Ordinance,it does allow for a "Cash in Lieu".when it comes
to public improvements?
Gary L. Koontz,Director: That bonding has a variety of ways to handle it. Mr. Shields
is very good in working with people to find the easiest way to do it.
Chair Wilson: It may be appropriate in this particular case, so I would like to revise the
condition to read"Or Cash in Lieu".
Vice Chair Addington: For what amount?
Chair Wilson: I will let them determine it.
Gary L. Koontz, Director: Are you looking at Public Works Condition#3? Street lights.
Chair Wilson: Correct.
Vice Chair Addington: This brings up a question then. How does the "Cash in Lieu"
work? How is now being determined?
- 18 -
Gary L. Koontz,Director: That will be determined by Mr. Shields.
Chair Wilson: I believe what they will do is study the improvement area, do a cost
estimate,like he would as a Civil Engineer, and then determine what the pro-rata share is
and they will set up a fund to be able to do "Cash in Lieu" contribution. It will be held in
trust and when they do that particular improvement they will draw from that trust.
Vice Chair Addington: Have we done that in the past on projects?
Gary L. Koontz, Director: I believe that we have.
Commissioner Comstock: I have a point of clarification,Public Works Condition#3 is
regarding an ornamental street light and Condition#1 is missing public improvements of
curb and gutter. Are you referring to both conditions #1 and#3?
Vice Chair Addington: I thought it was just for#3. I will share my thoughts then. The
"In Lieu" part I don't agree with,I think we should at least have the improvements out
there.
Commissioner McNaboe: My understanding of"Cash in Lieu"meant they would (the
owners of the property doing the improvements) would pay the money that would be put up
for the improvements. They wouldn't be responsible for coordinating those improvements
but the improvements would be done.
Chair Wilson: The improvements would be done by the City.
Vice Chair Addington: Do we have a Master Plan to improve McClarren,with no
Master Plan there is no money to go with it.
Gary L. Koontz, Director: At this point we have no Master Plan and no funding for
doing any additional improvements on McClarren at this time.
Vice Chair Addington: So then the money would go into a Trust Fund and sit there for
who knows how many years?
Chair Wilson: A lot of times when you have a rural condition like this,it is not unusual
to be able to do that.
Vice Chair Addington: I am just trying to figure out what is best for the area and best
for the community. I agree with your points a lot. I just have a different opinion as to what
should be constructed now versus what could be constructed in a far future date.
Chair Wilson: I understand. Do we have any further discussion? I have moved that I
would like to change conditions #1 and#3. We should vote on that item.
MOTION PC-03-2007 Chair Wilson made a motion to change item#1 and#3.
With Amendment: Commissioner Comstock seconded.
- 19 -
MOTION VOTE
- PC-03-2007
- With Amendment: 4-1-0-0 for change of item#1 and#3
MOTION PC-03-2007: Commissioner Comstock made a motion to approve as
amended.
Commissioner Phelps seconded.
Chair Wilson: Any further discussion?
Vice Chair Addington: I am trying to think of this one. I am in support of the house
and I am in support of the expansion. I didn't vote for the change in conditions. The yes
vote will have the house go through and that is what I really want. I am ready to vote.
Chair Wilson: Any further discussion?Please vote.
MOTION VOTE
PC-03-2007: 5-0-0-0
ADTOURN SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
CONVENE PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION
• Information to Commissioners
1. APPLICANTS: City of Grand Terrace-Department of Community
Development
SUBJECT: Workshop on General Plan
LOCATION: City-Wide
RECOMMENDATION: No Action by the Commission is required.
Gary L. Koontz, Director: We would like to jump right in to the General Plan Update.
Don't ask me how I got PLADN in there.
Chair Wilson: Thank you public for sticking around. I know this is very important to
you.
Gary L. Koontz, Director: We would like to start our workshops sessions with the
update of the General Plan. This session is not an action type session. It is an overview of
what we think we need to do and what kind of actions we need to take and tasks that the
Planning Commission will be involved with.
- 20 -
The current general plan was originally adopted in 1988. Since that time elements have
- either been updated or added up to the Noise element which was approved by your
Commission in 2003.
Under State Law the mandatory elements that we need to include in a General Plan are Land
Use, Circulation, Open Space, Conservation, Safety, Noise and Housing. State Law also
allows a wide variety of Supplemental Elements such as Air Quality, Economics, Airports
and whole other range of things that could be added. But these seven are required by law.
Currently, this is where are different elements stand: Land Use Plan was originally approved
in 1988 with some minor revision here and there for specific sites; Circulation was last
approved and updated in 1998; Housing was updated in 2002; Conservation in 1988; Open
Space was updated in 2000; Safety was in 1988; and Noise was the last one in 2003. We do
have an optional Air Quality Element that was approved in 1999.
In this aerial photo here is the City. It is more or less Built Out. There are a few pieces of
land that are left near the freeway, Blue Mountain a few pieces scattered around the
mountain. We do have some of the parcels left.
One of the issues we need to look at in term of the General Plan is Redevelopment. We
have areas that over the course of time will be redeveloped. The General Plan will probably
be looking at Land Uses up through the year 2030-2035. We have a lot of stuff that is
established that won't change. We do have some areas that we do need to address along
with Circulation and a variety of other issues.
The issues that we need to look at are; one,we need to comply with current State Law's,we
need to update the database, demographics, land uses basically the existing conditions, we
need to look at some changes in State guidelines in addressing things like transit oriented
development, environmental justice etc. A lot of these in the case of what we are dealing
with aren't major issues but they do need to be included as some sort of response in the
plan. We need to go aback and look at Land use designations for specific parcels to make
sure that everything is still consistent or the direction that we really want to go in.
Concurrent with that we need to look at traffic patterns and volumes because things have
changed over the years; mostly from surrounding developments from other communities.
We need to look at these other communities. We have stuff happening in the City of Colton
and in Highgrove that are going to impact us by Land Use,Traffic as well as Public Services.
A couple of things I want to look at or have the Commission seriously consider; one, is the
area we just talked about which is Vivienda and Grand Terrace Road, and look at the Land
Uses we have and seriously considering "what do we really want to see in this area" in the
future. This is an area that is zoned R2 it is primarily rural residential and it is in a state of
transition. We need to seriously look at that area. I would like you to look at the industrial
area where Manhole Builder's once was. We had a lot of conversation on whether it was
appropriate Land Use or not. We also need to look at Blue Mountain again. We need to be
sure that everything is consistent and we have to understand what we want to do in there.
Should it all be open space? What should we do with it? I think it is worth another review.
- A lot of the other stuff is already built out and it is going to be very difficult to deal with.
We need to look at the whole city and if people bring up issues on certain areas we need to
consider it.
- 21 -
We need to go back through the current General Plan. We need to look at the Goals,
Objectives and Policies to see if they really still apply to the conditions we are dealing with
now and what we see as the future conditions.
Included in your packets is a summary of all the existing Goals, Objectives and Policies from
element to element so that you can start reviewing and seeing what we are starting with. We
also need to look at the old formal recommendations of the 1995 General Plan committee to
see how those relate to what we are doing now. The goal is to come with a single
comprehensive document that is easy to read and all the information is there and it is up to
date.
We also need to prepare the Environmental Assessment documentation per current CEQA
guidelines. What I am proposing is a new document that uses this format. We have an
introduction that talks about Existing Conditions, Land Use Policies which includes goals,
policies, land use plans and designation, circulation element, housing and then a combined
open space/conservation element (very common these days) ,public safety and I want to add
a public services and facilities element. This looks at Police, Fire protection, schools, water,
and sewer to see how they relate to what we are doing in terms of Land Use.
I am not expecting a lot of change in the Noise Element because it is only a couple of years
old. However,I want to reformat that to match the format of the rest of the document.
Environmental Assessment,we are definitely going to prepare a full program environmental
impact report. At the end of last year I sent out proposals to many of the qualified
consultants to do it. I have received three back and I am in negotiation now, I have
- interviewed all three of them. We have talked about scope, fees, schedules and the whole
nine yards. I am expecting to be able to pick one by the end of this month.
We have also, sent out a separate RFP for a Traffic Impact Analysis, we are focusing the
traffic issue on our Traffic Engineer, Craig Neustaedter, so he will be working on that
concurrently with what we are doing and then putting it all back together again. We really
wanted him to oversee that and the traffic impact analysis. We will have that on its way
shortly.
Commission Task, the way we see it is the first thing we need to do is review current goals
and policies and how they apply to the current conditions. We need to establish and modify
goals and policies for each of the elements to reflect what we are dealing with now and how
we see things in the future. I want to review the Land Use designations, specific
designations on parcels and the over designation categories to see if they apply or needed
changes that need to be made.
We need to look at the circulation system, modify street designation if appropriate. The
Council had appointed a traffic committee and we want to look at their recommendations
and impact. Craig has been actively involved in that so we will be pulling all of that together
and using that as part of our database.
We need to look at all the other elements and how they relate to all the others but primarily
Land Use. We need to update Safety. We need the most up to date flood plane information
seismic information and high fire information, things of that sort. We need to look at Parks
and Recreation and how it relates to the Land Use issues. Housing is one of those issues
that is really dictated by the State. Every five years we have to look at Regional Housing
- 22 -
Needs Allocation Numbers or RHNA numbers and I have been spending most of the last
couple of months arguing with SCAG and SANBAG about the numbers they wanted to
give us, which were extremely high and we got them cut down drastically. They were
projecting (in their original numbers) us to increase by 2035 the housing stock by about
50%. My question was "where are we going to put them". We spent a lot of time knocking
those down to make it realistic. I think we are there but the numbers that we need to use for
the Housing element are not available until July 2007. We are going to move forward with
draft numbers,but we really can't finalize until we have those numbers at hand.
Tonight we are giving you an overview of what direction we want to go in. The schedule is
to be a schedule series of Public Workshops before your Commission, to take testimony and
to discuss things so I can give my staff direction. The next Workshop, I am planning on
having on the February 15`h meeting. We are going to award a contract hopefully in the
beginning of February for the EIR and they will start there data collection. If things work
the way I hope they do we will probably have a Draft EIR out on the "street" around late
summer or early fall. I am expecting Public Hearings on the full General Plan and EIR .
sometime the end of this year or early 2008.
The way I would like to approach this is, the staff has been working on kind of a draft of
what we think it should look like. We have looked at the existing goals and objectives and
kind of pulled the ones out that don't look like they apply anymore and put in new ones that
we think will work better.
Starting at the next meeting we have given you the existing goals, objectives and policies. I
want to give you what we see as a first draft of some of the new goals and policies which will
include some of the old stuff as well as the new stuff. This will give you something to start
working on. The other way of doing it is to start from scratch to ask, what do you want to
do for goals? I think we will spend a lot of time fruitlessly going through hour after hour of
stuff that we really don't need to but from this it will give you a starting point,you can make
changes, additions and revisions anything you want to do. Basically, something to just start
looking at and then have a series of meetings every month hitting a couple of elements at a
time. Hopefully by May or June we will have a consensus of what the document is going to
look like so we can finish up the EIR that addresses a draft plan to go forward with.
I am open to comments or suggestions. If you would like to go in another direction just let
me know. However you would like to approach it.
Chair Wilson: I like the General Plan. It is a great tool. I don't know if you know I was
involved in the last General Plan update. We did have a lot of good ideas. There has been a
lot of discussion over the last few months in relation to those things. I think it is kind of
interesting over time how things evolve. A lot of things that we talked about in the General
Plan task force circumstances have now come to highlight. I didn't hear anything about
Land Use in relation to Redevelopment.
Gary L. Koontz, Director: We need to look at that and how it relates to the current
redevelopment plan we have. A lot of stuff that we are dealing with, because we are very
short of raw-land, if there is significant development especially ten to fifteen years form now
after all the raw-land is gone;it will be through redevelopment activities of some of the older
buildings being removed and new stuff being built.
- 23 -
Chair Wilson: There needs to be a substantial investment in alternates for commercial
recreational situations because our predominant Land Use vacancies at this point are
centered around commercial and industrial. We have had heavy focus on that including
litigation in relation to it.
I think the General Plan is a good tool for us to be able to move forward as a community
rather than piece meal. I think that is another area that is going to have a heavy focus. I
don't think anybody will deny that. I think that Traffic Circulation is really important as well
especially what is going to impact us regionally. I can see that being really important. I am
looking forward to this to be honest.
Commissioner Comstock: In looking at this I am thinking that we are going to want to
get as many people from the community involved with this as we can. I was curious as to
what will be done to accomplish that.
Gary L. Koontz, Director: Our goal is to have multiple Public Workshops in front of
your Commission of which you will be taking testimony. We will be recoding it and
incorporating things as appropriate.
Commissioner Comstock: Is there any chance of having the meetings in regards to the
General Plan televised?How can we get word out?
Gary L. Koontz,Director: We can check.
Commissioner Comstock: This is a major thing for our city and I want to make sure that
everybody knows that we are doing this and because I know that in the past I know that
people have accused us of not being open and upfront. I want to make sure that every
person knows that we are updating the General Plan, so that they can have input
Chair Wilson: Months before it was an active there were huge mailers around the entire
community. The unfortunate thing is all in timing. We put things on a refrigerator and then
it depends on what takes place and what our priorities are at the time.
Gary L. Koontz, Director: One of the things we are doing right now is updating our
website. We are getting a whole new website system in and if it goes as planned, we are
going to be able to post draft elements on the website for people to review electronically.
Commissioner Comstock: I know that the City Council meetings are televised; maybe
we can make an announcement at some of the City Council meetings regarding the updating
and the open sessions on this.
Gary L: Koontz, Director: We will be briefing the City Council on a regular basis as far
as status.
Chair Wilson: One other item I believe that needs to have special focus is Recreational
Opportunities. I am not talking just parks either. I think that there is a huge faction within
the community that is looking for some enriched Recreational opportunities. There is a lot
of opportunity here. Do we have any other comments?
- 24 -
Vice Chair Addington: Currently we have an optional element for the Air Quality and I
remember we went through a lot of work with that. I don't see it as an element that as we
move forward but I do notice that we have an Air quality policy under the natural resources
element. Are we still keeping some form of the Air Quality in this?
Gary L. Koontz, Director: For the time being since we are not amending it. It is still part
of the General Plan as an element. It is my goal right now to address the seven basic
elements as required by law and get that out of the way, update the plan and get us a plan
that is completely compliant with State Law. From there we can add things later if need be.
It is going to be a big enough task just taking care of the basics.
Vice Chair Addington: So would the Air Quality element move forward in the new plan
or fade away?
Gary L. Koontz, Director: For the time being we will attach it to the plan but I am not
looking right now at that. Air Quality could be a very complicated issue.
Vice Chair Addington: It is. I am not looking at updating it. I just don't want to loose
it. We put a lot of work into that and I think that would be important as we move forward
with the industrial.
Gary L. Koontz, Director: It is an adopted element so and unless the City Council moved
to delete it from the General Plan it is a part of it. You can either have it the way it is (status
quo) or you can amend things to update them or you can delete them. We are not going to
-- delete it. It is going to be attached as is.
Vice Chair Addington: Thank you for the clarification. Is it part of the Land Use or are
we also looking at conforming it between the Zoning and the General Plan? As I recall we
have had quite a few items that did not conform.
Gary L. Koontz, Director: Well if you can recall quite some time ago we did submit a
Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment to you. My goal is that if it works out then I want to
attach a new zoning ordinance that could be part of this package where the EIR is certified
and the General Plan is approved and a new Zoning Ordinance is approved thereafter. We
already have done a lot of work on that we are going to dust it off look at it again as we go
through the Land Use element and make sure that everything is consistent and I prefer to do
it all as one action.
Chair Wilson: I will not be available on February 15th so if that is any consideration in
scheduling. It is the day after Valentine's Day and I have scheduled this a while ago.
Gary L. Koontz, Director: I don't want to delay this any more than we already have. I
really want to get these workshops moving. Our Agenda is very light for the 15th is very
light. So we have the time to spend during a regular meeting and we are not scheduling
special meeting or separate meetings. The information for these meetings, I am definitely
trying to get out at least an extra week in advance. I want to give you as much time as
I possible to go through it. That will give you Chair Wilson, time to review and you can get
back to me with your comments and I will share them with the group.
- 25 -
Vice Chair Addington: Is it possible to move the meeting to the first week of February
so that Chair Wilson can attend?
Gary L. Koontz, Director: I need some time. It is the Eighteenth already and to get
something out for you to review I would have to get it out tonight for you to review.
Vice Chair Addington: That is an"all-righter";you can get that out with no problem.
Commissioner Comstock: I am going to be performing a marriage ceremony in New
Mexico on the Fourteenth. It will not give me enough time to get back for the meeting.
Gary L. Koontz,Director: Let me work on this and there is nothing that says you cannot
schedule a workshop meeting on a Tuesday or Wednesday. I just need to make sure that we
don't get tied in with a City Council meeting and everyone shows up at the same time.
If you are open to it I can try and schedule something around everyone's schedule and have
a separate meeting. I need to look at Calendar's I don't want to delay another month on
this.
Vice Chair Addington: Since Council has moved to Tuesday, what about moving it to
February 8`h?
Gary L. Koontz, Director: It might be possible if that is a targeted date you prefer to see
we will do everything we can to make it work.
Vice Chair Addington: What I am thinking is that the General Plan update is very
important to the community as a whole; and I think more than the minimum should be here.
I think we should have four to five commissioners for the General Plan update.
Gary L. Koontz, Director: I would prefer to see all five of you at every one of these
meetings.
Chair Wilson: Marked targets? That is good. Do we have any further discussion?
REQUEST TO SPEAK
BILL HAYES
DeBerry Street
I pay One Hundred Dollars a year for the one on Michigan. Edison just came out and
hooked it up and strung it. So if you want a street light you can get one for One Hundred
bucks a year.
Listening to Mr. Koontz's presentation, and I believe this from the hearts of my bottom,
the public input as Tom says will be nice but they are not going to listen to us. I addressed
these issues a year and a half ago and it is on the record for the Housing and bringing the
General Plan to conform to the State.
- 26 -
I have a question to ask Mr. Koontz a question. You said that there are proposals for
Environmental assessments and you got two of them back. I would like to know who the
company is.
Chair Wilson: If he has an ongoing negotiation I think we will have to...
Gary L. Koontz,Director: What I have done is sent out request for proposals to write
and EIR. I believe we sent it out from three different firms. We have received proposals
back from three firms. Those firms are LSA, Chambers and Ultra Systems.
Bill Hayes: Is one of them the Jamieson Group?
Gary L. Koontz,Director: No.
Bill Hayes: I don't come here with preconceptions. When we discussed the Outdoor
Adventure Center and the General Plan, and it was in the newspaper, everything said we
don't want drive-thru's we don't want tilt-ups. Mr. Megna and Mr. Koontz were given the
power in the project area to change the zoning in the OAC where they saw fit.
No I have seen projects that the zoning was changed for the project rather than the project
changed for the zoning and the Blue Mountain Villas is the prime example. I don't even
know why we put the zoning up there because it doesn't make a difference.
You can all submit what you want to the General Plan but the people that are going to make
the decision what way the General Plan goes it is going to be Mr. Megna,Mr. Koontz,Mr.
Schwab and Mr.Jacobsen. It is going to go how development goes. Housing element hasn't
been updated since 1988 and now the State is on us. The zoning will not make a difference
if a developer wants to change it;it will be changed. It is very nice Tom, that you want to
get the public involved but it has been shown and proven over and over again; no matter
what we bring to the Council or to the City it doesn't matter.
The mayor said we don't want drive-thru's or Tilt-ups and now it is okay because we have
Tilt-ups on Barton Road.
Commissioner Comstock: Bill I would like to address one of your comments. This
document that we are undertaking to revise and update is the Legal Document that we have
to follow. This is the outline of the plan and if we have zoning attached we will have to
follow that. Now within the zoning regulations there are conditions for amending and
special circumstances that allow us to make changes as need be. We want you to be here to
give your input and everyone else who feels like you have not had an opportunity to have a
say how things are put together for the City. The General Plan is the document to give you
the opportunity to voice your concerns; as well as everyone else in the community. We are
not doing this undercover or on our own. It is better for us to get as many people as we can
involved with this so that we spread the responsibility and we don't want to put our names
on the line. We don't want to be the only ones responsible for forming this document. I
can understand that you are frustrated with no being able to get your things heard in the past
but we have documents that need to be updated and this is the opportunity to have your say
on how this stuff gets put together. We will take your opinion as well as everyone else's and
come together and try to assemble that which is reasoned for the community.
- 27 -
Bill Hayes: The City has not followed the General Plan in the past. What makes you
think they are going to follow the one in the future?
Chair Wilson: I think the great thing about our government and the way it is set up.
Everybody gets their opportunity not only to apply but to appeal. I would have to agree that
there have been some appeals that have been supported by the City Council that may
disagree with some members of the community,but that is the beauty of the system. Here is
our shot and opportunity to speak up and there can't be any excuse for not having every
person in this community know that this is taking place. Whoever sits on their butt,in one
of the these chairs,is going to be one of the voters in relation to what happens.
Bill Hayes: As you folks know,I am actively involved. I exercise my rights under the Bill
of Rights to seek address or give my opinion to the government. This is a very good
example a couple of weeks ago. They filed a report to the state for the Redevelopment
Agency that was falsehood. They claimed maintenance and upkeep on dwellings that are
vacant lots and no income from rental properties and no income from the sale of
Redevelopment Agency land. They don't give a real good faith on what is going to happen
with the General Plan or how it is going to be followed.
PATRICIA FARLEY
12513 Michigan Street
Grand Terrace, California 92313
The public is put at a great disadvantage. We don't have access to all of your staff report
documents,nor a chance to look at them or analyze them in a timely manner. We don't
even get them. The night before is not okay. I am questioning about these workshops,I
don't think it is fair to arbitrarily schedule most of the workshops while most of us are at
work and can't attend or if it's a last minute thing and we are surprised. I would like to
know in these workshops are we,like I was told tonight,I have to fill out a form to speak,
am I limited to three minutes? How can we have a proper input and dialogue if we only get
three minutes? At a work shop I want answers and discussion and to be able to come to
every meeting. I want a packet that I can analyze and talk about with my neighbors. I want
to be able to keep asking questions and talk back and forth.
I would also,like to remind you that Grand Terrace is a very small city and what is killing
our city is having the RDA,which is borrowing millions of dollars and putting us at risk and
forcing us to put more housing in the City than we can have reasonably. If we didn't have _
any of this going on it would save our city.
I think that meetings have to be in the evenings. They have to be when people are not at
work. I want to be able to hear every single meeting. I also,resent be presented a final plan
that no one is going to listen to me. I want to be able to give input as it is being drawn. I
don't feel that I can rely on Mr. Steve Berry to get the computer going where I know I am
getting the information. I should be able to get a packet in a timely manner and I want to be
consulted.
Commissioner McNaboe: Are we going to be scheduling the workshops during the
day?
- 28 -
Gary L. Koontz, Director: No. They are going to be Planning Commission Workshops
and they are going to be scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on whatever night.
Chair Wilson: In the past there have been in the General Plan Task Force and it was only
where it worked,but the majority was in regular Planning Commission settings.
Commissioner Comstock: I want to address one other thing that Patricia addressed
regarding the reports and document access. Just so that you know we get a packet six to
seven days prior to this meeting that we have to review a week before. I am wondering if
that information is at the desk or if a person wants to order a copy. I don't want everyone in
the community coming in and thousand of dollars associated to that. Is there any way that
we can disseminate to the community so that they can?
Gary L. Koontz, Director: The day that a Staff report goes out to you it goes out on our
front counter. If there is additional information that anyone needs all they have to do is ask
and we will present it to them.
Chair Wilson: Okay, so our goal is to get as much information disseminated without
getting ridiculous in relation to copying cost. I don't think we are faced with that.
Gary L. Koontz, Director: We are not in the position to go out and produce one
hundred copies of a document just for discussion purposes every couple of weeks.
Chair Wilson: Well the good thing about this is we can let the City Council make that
decision.
Commissioner Comstock: Regarding the 3 minute limitation, have we ever had a 3
minute limitation?
Chair Wilson: We announced it but we never enforced it. Okay maybe once.
CYNTHIA BIDNEY
12299 Pascal
Grand Terrace, California
I was cruising through your city website today and I came across a new Specific Plan. I am
confused, because I thought the General Plan came first? There is a new Specific Plan and I
am concerned because it shows Reed Avenue going through to Barton Road. I am confused
to the process and maybe you can enlighten me. I just happen to run by it.
Chair Wilson: You are one up on me.
Cynthia Bidney: I am sure that I am one up on a lot of people. I really feel like a lot of
Patricia these things sneak by us because I was told that if I have specific question to our
City Council to our city about the possibility of extending Le Paix to Michigan Street or
Reed Avenue to Barton Road. They said it is not in the plan and obviously it is.
1
- 29 -
Gary L. Koontz, Director: The only thing that I can think of is that she is referring to the
Barton Road Specific Plan,which is on the website. This is the plan that you folks approved
2-3 years ago, the amendment to the Barton Road Specific Plan. In that plan in planning
Master Plan area 1. When it talked about examples of what a Master Plan should or could
look like. It gave a couple of examples and one of those showed Le Paix going through. It
didn't say that is what is going to happen but it shows what something that could be
considered.
Chair Wilson: Is it an alternate?
Gary L. Koontz, Director: Yes, there are two or three alternate, concept designs, saying
here are some things that might be evaluated as part of a Master Plan area. That is the plan
that the Planning Commission and the City Council approved.
Cynthia Bidney: I saw that plan before and I would have noticed that map before. I can
dig it up for you if you like. How can we have a Specific Plan and not have a General Plan?
Chair Wilson: Nothing has been brought before this body as far a Specific Plan or any
kind of change to the Specific Plan area.
Commissioner Comstock: We do have a General Plan and we are going to update the
General Plan.
Cynthia Bidney: I understand that there is a General Plan and I liked it. I read it and I
liked it and I agree with it but what we are doing now doesn't seem to coincide with the
original plan and that is where I am concerned. My concern is how can we have Specific
plans if we don't have an over all plan? My concern is for my neighborhood specifically and
the safety of my children and the children in that neighborhood. We don't have a park. We
have to go up the road. My son is safer playing basketball on my street because the road
goes around. Now they are planning on extending that road all the way through and it looks
like to go through Jo's property and out to Barton Road and you know that will end up
being a thorough way. You just put in a new condo development there of which are a
bunch of walls and they are going to put another series of walls down La Paix. I am really
concerned about the hidden areas and I am concerned about the safety for our area.
Vice Chair Addington: The General Plan is city wide. We are getting ready to go
through a General Plan update and we do have a General Plan in place right now. A
Specific Plan is for a specific set of properties or a specific set of properties or an area. The
Specific Plan depends on a lot of the elements of the General Plan. Everything needs to be
in conformance. It is not that we had one before the other, they both exist and they are
both legal documents that have had the full Environmental and CEQA reviews.
Chair Wilson: But in this case,I believe that the Specific Plan, as being referred to,hasn't
been adopted.
Okay I am trying to determine.
Vice Chair Addington: If I can recall specifically it did show that there is a possibility
that the streets can be extended but that doesn't mean that they will be extended. It is just
an example of what could happen and everything that we saw in the Town Center project
- 30 -
that was presented at our joint meeting with City Council; no roads were going to go
_- through. If the Town Center goes through then that is the end of any roads extending
north. If the Town Center fails and if a different development comes before this body we
can address whatever they propose at that time.
Chair Wilson: The Specific Plan is kind of a tricky little document. It is suppose to work
in concert with the General Plan and in the case of the Barton Road Specific Plan it was set
up as a tool and a mechanism to guide development through the area because it is such a
crucial area to the City. That is the reason why you will see specific plan overlays in concert
with General Plan recommendations. Unless there is an actual sponsor to that Specific Plan,
it doesn't get enacted. Barton Road Specific Plan is a guide line document and there is
flexibility within that document for design reviews and until there is a project proposed like
the Town Center. There is not anything implemented yet so nothing is hard until that takes
place.
Gary L. Koontz,Director: In the Town Center Project, the current General Plan requires
that any commercial project over 10 acres, have a Specific Plan. A Specific Plan has to be
filed on that but has to abide by the guidelines of the Barton Road Specific Plan. We have
not seen a Town Center Specific Plan submitted yet.
Chair Wilson: Okay I believe we covered item#1 let's move onto to item#2.
2. APPLICANTS: Omnitrans, a Joint Powers Authority
_ SUBJECT: Omni Bus Stop Guidelines
LOCATION: City-Wide
RECOMMENDATION: Accept Omnitrans Bus Top Guidelines as design
standards for bus stop designs in the City of Grand
Terrace.
Gary L. Koontz, Director: In September of 2006 we handed out a copy of the draft
guidelines Omnitrans was proposing in terms of bus stop standards. They have now gone
through the guidelines in a series of committees in which Mr. Shields is a part of. In those
guidelines they have asked that all the cities in Omnitrans area accept the guidelines as that.
Whenever a bus stop is proposed or needed that it abide by the minimum standards that
they propose. I am asking you tonight to make a motion to accept Omnitrans standards.
Vice Chair Addington: I have a question and I did review this back in September,
through my technical review of standards everyday, this fell within the realm of every other
standard I have see. However, if we have a project that comes before us that wants specific
architectural things, whether it be the Town Center or something similar, do we have the
ability to modify the architectural themes to match that project?
Gary L. Koontz, Director: Absolutely, these are minimum standards and a lot of it relates
to the geometrics location of it relative to intersections, width of the area that needs to be
cleared; the minimum requirement of what a shelter should look like or what a bench should
look like. This is all of the minimum. You have the engineering side which is safety and we
- 31 -
will have to follow. But if we want to make it as fancy as we want there is no holds bar on
that.
Commissioner Comstock: In reading through this, it appears that they relinquish
ultimate control of the City's jurisdiction of what goes in and how it goes in. However, they
have certain guidelines and they would like to be consulted when thing's regarding bus stops
or anything that may be done in regards to where the bus stop may go, but ultimately it is
our decision to make.
Vice Chair Addington: I will have to admit the last time I read this was September.
Chair Wilson: I think I have a slight disagreement with that. There is a section of 1.7
Resolution of Conflicts between Omnitrans and Jurisdictions. The way I read the resolution
is it appears that basically the decision of the location of bus stops may be up to the local
jurisdiction. If you don't do it in accordance with the way that Omnitrans feels that it will
work out, then there is a way to resolve it but you will have to go through a whole series of
things until you get to the Omnitrans Board of Directors. I don't think I seen an opportunity
for the local jurisdiction to assert it.
Gary L. Koontz, Director: If you look carefully, you will see that it talks mostly about
safety issues. If Omnitrans determines what you want to do with the bus stop is not safe for
them to stop at, they have the right to tell you that and then negotiate that out. But in terms
of what it looks like it specifically says safety issues.
Chair Wilson: According to this it is going to be a city-wide application and you are
asking us to accept the Omnitrans guidelines as design standards for things through the city.
Are we prepared to do that?
Vice Chair Addington: Do we even have any Omnitrans buses running through this
town?
Gary L. Koontz, Director: We have one route that runs through the town over to the
Veteran's Hospital through Riverside.
Vice Chair Addington: Isn't that RTA?
Gary L. Koontz, Director: Oh yeah that is RTA! Right now we don't have any routes
through town. That is not to say that we are not going to have them. We don't know what
ridership is going to look like and we don't know what gas prices are going to be. Ten years
from now you may have a demand you just never know.
Vice Chair Addington: They could still come in the future? Are there any conflicts
between RTA and Omnitrans on any of these issues that we need to be aware of.
Gary L. Koontz, Director: As I said before this is Richard Shields project. If you have a
lot of questions I would suggest that you continue it in order to ask him the questions.
t Commissioner Comstock: I move that we continue this to next meeting.
Chair Wilson: Is a motion necessary?
- 32-
Gary L. Koontz, Director: No, actually I need to check to see if this really is a workshop
item or do we need to have a public hearing and make it a public action. It is probably a
good thing to recommend a continuance.
Chair Wilson: I think that it is going to be continued.
Gary L. Koontz, Director: Do you want to continue it to the next regular meeting which
may be in March?
Planning Commission: Yes.
ADTOURN PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION
NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON FEBRUARY
1, 2007
Respectfully Submitted, Approved ,
v -
- Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director Doug Wilson, Chairman
Planning Commission
- 33 -