04/20/2006 -MAMQ, ' '
I Community and Economic Development
(ALIfORNIA Department
22795 Barton Road
Grand Terrace 46621 GRAND 'TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION
California 5295 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
(909) 826621 April 20,2006
The regular meeting of-the Grand Terrace Planning Comm_ission was called to order at the
Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Gr
and.Terrace, California,.on April 20,
2006;at 7:00 n.m.G bv ChairDerson Doug Wilson.
PRESENT: Doug Wilson, Chairperson
Matthew Addington,Vice Chairperson
Tom Comstock, Commissioner
Robert Bidney, Commissioner
Darcy-McNaboe,.Commissioner
Gary Koontz, Community Development Director
John Lampe, Associate Planner
Rose Smith, Planning Secretary
7:00 P.M. CONVENE SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
+ Pledge of Allegiance.lea' by Commissioner Bidney
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None.
Chair Wilson: Chair Wilson introduced the project.
ITEM:
1. CUP-05-06 & Conditional Use Permit No. 05-06 (CUP-05-06) was tiled for an
E-05-19 "amateur radio antenna structure" consisting of a tower-mast and antennas
on top. The applicants appealed the original proposal;-whicb was denied by
the Planning Commission, to the City Council which on January 12,.2006
sent the matter back to the Planning Commission to consider a "redesign"
of the "amateur radio antenna structure".
APPLICANT: Hans and Eleanor Ehlert
LOCATION: 22830 Lark Street. The site is located on the northwesterly corner of the
intersection of Lark Street and Crane Street. The Assessor's Parcel number
is 1178-161-55.
1
RECOMMENDATION:Open the public hearing, take testimony, close the Public Hearing and
- approve the Resolution of Approval for CUP-05-06 and E-05-19 as
recommended by staff.
STAFF
Associate Planner Lampe greeted the Commission and presented his Staff Report as follows:
This matter was heard by the Planning Commission last year on two earlier occasions September
15, and October 17"' in order to re-advertise for a 75 ft. high antenna structure as seen in the
photograph. The conclusion of that Public Hearing on.the 171h, the Planning Commission denied
the request based on the negative impacts of aesthetics, health & safety issues and the objections
by,the applicant in the September 11, 2005 ,letter to staff. On September 22"d, the applicants
appealed that decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. They felt that the
Planning Commission denied the applicant.the opportunity to express their willingness to accept
the conditions or alternatives to the design. Please see attachment one for a compete statement
of the applicant's appeal to the staff report. The appeal was scheduled January 121h of this year
before-the City.Council. The appellant withdrew the appeal based on his review and analysis on
the comments made by the Planning Commission and neighbors. It was his wish to revise the
project, taking into account-those,:comments. The City Attorney further advised the matter
would be sent back to the Planning Commission and go through the same review process;
=therefore this is why we have the hearing tonight. February 281h, the staff for the applicant sent a
letter to the staff together with a letter from his attorney outlining the applicant's new design
proposal. The new proposal was to keep the antenna in its current site as seen in the photograph
,in the overhead,just about'35 ft. High,whereas,the applicant says 34 % ft. located on the easterly
side of the house. However,•if the City wishes to move the antenna structure to the back of the
house, the applicant would like the option of having the height at 36 ft. when not in operating
use; that is to clear a chimney on the west side of the house, then when he's using it to be able to
crank it up to a maximum height to 60 feet during operating hours. The attorney further pointed
out that this was a reduction from the previously submitted request for an antenna tower structure
height of 75 ft. and that was in November last year.
The subject site to refresh some of the Commissioners is on the northwest corner of Lark and
Crane Streets. The property is about 7,400 s.f. in size. The house was built in the early 2000, the
zoning is R1-7.2. The ham radio antenna is currently located on the site, and was put up in early
June of last year. A stop work order was issued by the City's Building and Safety Department.
A'building permit had not been issued for the tower mast structure. Surrounding area is
essentially developed to single-family residential with the.exception of avocado groves further to
the east of the subject site. I'm sure that most members of the Commission are aware of the
details of this proposal but I will try to go over it in a brief way.
The City does not currently have a specific ordinance for radio antenna structure and ham radio
antennas. Such facilities are not covered by the current City's wireless telecommunication
ordinance, which specifically exempts non-commercial antennas or ham radio antennas.
However, I did submit to the Commission this evening copies of the Zoning Code: Section
1806.020. It does define accessory structures to include antennas, radios, and other towers and
satellite dishes. Furthermore, Table 1810.040, footnote (d), stipulates the height of an accessory
2
structure shall not exceed 20 ft in height. Except that under Section 1873.090 a height greater
than 20 feet can be approved with the issuance of'a Conditional Use Permit. Therefore, the
request tonight for the Conditional Use Permit to increase the height above 20 ft.
The applicant latest proposal did submit some drawings and plans showing plan view of the
antenna on the east side of the house. The plans shows Crane Street side where when the
antenna is rotated, it comes to within just a little over 6 feet of the northerly property line. The
current foundation, which is a concrete block about 5 x 5 feet, is located on the east side of the
house, and when the antenna is rotated, it does go just beyond the public right-of-way line along
Crain Street. This is a plan view of the antenna that's on top of the tower. This is called a yagi
antenna. I think the simplest definition of the "yagi" is that it is just an oversized tv antenna.
This is a grading plan showing the location of existing house that was constructed in the year
2000. The current location of the tower is about this location, located behind the fence in the
corner side yard of the structure. This drawing may be useful in further discussions regarding
where the tower is to go on the property.
Exhibit A3 shows the proposed location of the tower being moved to the back of the house. It
shows that when the "yagi" antenna is rotated it comes to about 3 ft. 8 in. of the northerly
property line.
The applicant also prepared some drawings showing the new heights with his latest design
..proposal. This is only if the City makes him put it behind the house, he liked the option of
:keeping at a minimum height of 36 ft. when the antenna and tower are not in use; and being able
to crank it up. The maximum height would be 60 ft. when it is in use. You may remember that
.there is a hand crank on the tower, which allows it to be cranked up, and this is a fairly typical
for ham radio installation to have a crank-up tower for that purpose.
The staff in considering our recommendation again, reviewed the fact that, as you know, there is
a State law that was passed a few years ago, Assembly Bill 1228 signed by Governor Davis that
essentially says that local jurisdictions have to give a ham radio operators some kind of
entitlement to use his amateur equipment. It does further say that local jurisdictions must
exercise minimum practical regulations to regulate those installations. We have interpreted that
to mean that it falls within two main areas: public safety and aesthetics. Public safety, we feel,
will be resolved by the requirement of the applicant will have to obtain a building permit. When
the applicant came in to talk to me about what kind of permits... what kind of entitlement he
would need for a facility like this, I told him that the City does not have a ham radio antenna
ordinance, but that regardless of what kind of zoning he would need for it, he would have to have
a building permit. That, obviously, we have to be sure that whatever kind of structure goes up is
going to be structurally sound, and will not create or be a public hazard in terms of its
construction. The applicant indicated in his testimony last year that he needed a certain amount
of height for the antenna in order to broadcast or receive radio signal with the wave lengths he
uses. He claims that the higher the tower mast, the less likely there will be interference problems
with the neighbors' electronics, telephones, and whatever. He provided some information that
showed that the lower the height the more interference problems. However, it does seems to
staff, that perhaps there is a little bit of inconsistency this evening in that, apparently, if he keeps
it on the east side of the house, he's perfectly content to keep it at the 34 %z ft. and doesn't need
the 60 ft. as requesting if it goes in back of the house. As part of the processing of the hearings
3
last year, we did some research on ham radio antennas in the Southern California area. One
common theme in those ordinances was that regulations having.to do with visual impacts and
this common theme that, obviously, restrictions that you couldn't put a facility like this either in
the front yard or the corner yard or the side of the house on a corner lot. The idea was to have it
at the back of the property as much as possible in the back yard. Based on that, Staff is again
this evening recommending that the tower and antenna structure be moved back of the house,
and you'll have to prepare a resolution of conditions required that that be done.
This is a drawing that the applicant prepared last year just before the September hearing, in
which he was proposing a minimum height of 30' and 6 % inches for the tower and the antenna,
at that time, he was talking about putting it behind the house. We feel that this would be the
proper height for the antenna when not in use. There is a chimney on the west side of the house.
Looking at the construction drawings of the house, the height of that antenna is about 24 ft.
above grade. That would be just about the height where the antenna structure is. But, again,
when it is not in use, he would not be rotating the antenna so he can lower it to be filled to that
height. In order that he can be allowed to then use the antenna to rotate the yagi antenna, the
condition does allow him to increase the height by a maximum of 3 ft., but no more than 3ft. in
order to clear the chimney. The way the condition reads, recommending that the antenna and
tower structure be kept to a height of 30 ft. and 6 '/z inches when not in use and that it is allowed
to be raised no more than 3 ft. when in use in order to be sure it clears the chimney at the west of
the house. As Exhibit A3 shows, the antenna is going to be on the north side of the house when
it is rotated. It is going to come within about 3 ft. or so of the northerly property line. Again,
this is only when the antenna is operating. I think the assumption is that most times the antenna
.and tower will not be operating. I don't think he's broadcasting to many hours during the day.
When the antenna is not operating, it will be rotated back so that it will be approximately about
'10 feet of the northerly property when not in use. So, that the resting non-use configuration or its
:minimized. The maximize distance between the antenna and the northerly property line. The
staff would prefer a greater distance, but under the circumstances, in order to get the tower mast
and antenna back of the house and screened by the house as much as possible, solution to which
condition to work for where to put the tower mast and antenna. In addition to that, you may
remember, we had a condition last year regarding additional landscaping to be put in his back
yard concerning the tower as much as possible the property's change adjacent especially
awesome visual from Crane Street in this location. So the site and the tower will be screened to
some extent by some landscaping. During the discussion we had with the Commission at that
time, it was suggested we be specific as to what kind of planning, the size to be sure that some
acceptable screening landscaping going back there. In his latest design proposal as enunciated
by his attorney, he does indicate that his new design proposal, he would accept reasonable
requirements, including additional landscaping to the backyard. At least, that is my
understanding.
Lastly, the Commission may remember that we did submit the structural drawings of the tower
mast to Wildan for review. There are some corrections that will have to be done before a permit
be issued after those plans. Again, I think though, that's probably something he's waiting to
make sure...he won't go forward with the plan check until he knows he has his zoning
entitlement for the antenna itself. We did talk to some experts in this field. We talked to the
- National Association of Amateur Radios, and the Amateur Electronic Supply Store, and they
both agree that the wave band that he transmit on receives on that there is probably is not
another antenna effective as the yagi antenna. With that, I did pass out an amended resolution
4
calling on the antenna and tower mast to be moved to the back of the house. One condition
regarding the height, I had scribbed in" modification so the amended resolution includes the
corrected condition of the height.
Our recommendation tonight that the structure and antenna be located behind the residence with
a height not to exceed 30 ft. 6 %Z inches when not in use. Thank you.
Chair Wilson invited the Commissioner to ask questions or comments for staff before open the
public hearing?
Commissioner Comstock: As I'm looking at this Exhibit Al on the screen, it appears to me that
the rotation of the yagi antenna goes over his own property line. Is this true?
Planner Lampe: Exhibit Al is on the east side of the house and is the existing location where the
tower is now. I looked at the detailed construction, grading plan that I put up as Exhibit A2 and
the radius of the antenna. It looks to me like it just goes beyond the property line with that
drawing along Crane Street. So, I'm not quite sure how accurate that drawing is in terms of
showing where the property line is. It certainly does not go out over the street itself; to the
pavement.
Commissioner McNaboe: With the discussion of the maximum height being needed so that
there isn't interference with the neighbors...?
Planner Lampe: That's a question you might want to ask the applicant. He has provided some
information, and it has been alleged that with an antenna that's like 60 ft. or 70 ft. high, it
minimizes the interference with the neighbors.
Commissioner McNaboe: What sort of interference will it have? Is it telephones? Is it
televisions? Is it pacemakers?
Planner Lampe: We've been advised by the City Attorney that questions regarding interference
is really something that has to be referred to the FCC. However, the applicant did provide an
Executive Summary of a study that was done that's part of that September 11 w letter last year,
where they do make the claim that the higher the antenna, the less chance there is for
interference. But, we don't know. We can't give you a quantitative answer.
Commissioner McNaboe: Where the structure is located on the side of the house, is it being used
currently?
Planner Lampe: Yes. It is my understanding that he does transmit and receive... Remember,
under his current design proposal, talking about keeping it at a current height of about 34 1/2 ft. as
shown on the first photograph.
Chair Wilson: Any other questions or comments from the staff to the Commission. If none, we
will then invite the applicant to come to the podium, if he chooses, and speak on behalf of his
proposal.
Raymond Johnson
5
26785 Camino
Temecula, CA
Your applicant, Mr. Ehlert, is not here this evening. He was outside briefly. He has a 100'
degree temperature, and went home. So, as long as he had a temperature, I'd rather him not be
around me.
If I may explain a little bit. Mr. Ehlert, priorlto constructing the facility, contacted the City and
received an e-mail from the City, indicating that as long as the height is less than 35 ft. that no
Conditional Use Permit or any other permit was necessary. After he received that e-mail from
the City, he went ahead and constructed the tower where it apparently is. The City subsequent to
that e-mail decided that they had made a mistake and you really do need to have a permit. Mr.
Ehlert did not want to get into a fight with the neighbors over whether it was located on the side
or back...rather than the back
His position is one of saying, it really doesn't make a great deal of difference to him other than...
He put it there in good faith based upon the email he got from the City saying no permits
required. Now, if he has to move it, it's going to cost him about $5,000 to relocate it; and, based
on that, he would like to have some consideration in terms of being able to have an increased
height. Originally,he had requested a maximum height of 75 ft. antenna which remove, and now
60 ft. which is top of the mast item I think it goes up
,The height of the tower itself is.basically 55 ft. What he is requesting is, as I've said, if you do
wish to have him relocate to the back, he's ability to operate at a higher height, and that's not
-unusual. In other cities, they do have ordinances regulating amateur radios. They do require a-
,maximum height of 35 ft., when it's not in use and 60ft. to 70 ft., typically when it is in use. He
is not allowed to do anything other than what is permitted in FCC regulations. The FCC also
regulates electronic equipment so that they have to be able to accept some sort of interference
from all sorts of different devices in any event. So, it's not really a problem. Secondarily, it's
not something this City has any jurisdiction over, because it's FCC that has to do with all this.
Basically, the City only has two areas in which they have any power to act; and that is on the
basis of aesthetics and the other is safety. With safety, referring to the blowing down-type
safety. You can't do anything on the basis of some kind of health impact. So, really, there are
those two items: the building code and the address any safety issues in terms of it toppling. Mr.
Ehlert, in talking with him this evening before I came in here, has made a second proposal to
kind of fine tune what he had requested. He primarily utilizes the system very nighttime hours
because he gets a better reception, but what he is requested is that his request be modified, in
fact, to allow him to utilize the 60 ft. height between sunset and sunrise, in other words, when it's
dark. That is a reasonable accommodation on his part, and to not accept that, basically, would be
unreasonable on the City's part, because of the issue of aesthetics, which is really the only issue
the City has. Whether it's a 35 ft. or 60 ft. is somewhat irrelevant when it's dark; and so what he
saying is during day-time hours, he'll have it down to the 30 ft. 6 inches, but during the
nighttime hours, when it's dark out, he would like to have the 60 ft. height. What he would do
would be to install a motorized drive on the tower so that he doesn't have to hand crank it which
then takes it up to the 55 ft. tower height. So, I think that would address the issue; and that, as I
- said, that's typical of how City ordinances deal with this issue...you allow higher height. The
reason the State of California enact legislation as they did is because of the fact that ham radios
provide viable emergency communication services throughout the country, particularly during
6
emergencies. That's why that legislation was there, and that is why the Feds have similar
legislation. That, basically, summarizes his position...simply saying you know based on the fact
that if you want him to move it to the back, he's going to incur an additional $5,000 cost. He
really would like to be able to operate it with the higher heights, so he can get that reception
during night-time hours when it's not visible.
Chair Wilson: Any Commissioners have any questions for Mr. Johnson?
Vice Chair Addington: Looking at a letter here in our packet...you are his legal counsel?
Mr. Johnson: Yes.
Vice Chair Addington: The question I have for you, based on what's in your letter, there's
compensation here for $5,000. Is this a commercial structure? Does he make money off of it?
Mr. Johnson: No. No. No. No. Based on the fact that he received the e-mail from the City
saying that as long as it's less than 35 ft. he doesn't need to file any permits. If the City wants
him to move it, he's going to have to tear out the foundation there. He's going to have to cut out
a section of his patio and redo the footing where the patio is and have it reinstalled tower in the
new location. He estimates that it will cost around $5,000 to do that. He's kind of saying, I did
what I thought I was supposed to do, I contacted the City. The City said I didn't need to do
anything. I built it based upon that. Now, the City wants me to move it. He.'s willing to do it.
It's going to cost him money, but based on the fact that it's going to cost him money, he would
like to have the City give him consideration, saying o.k. we'll allow you to have it at the higher
height during dark hours.
Vice Chair Addington: O.k.
Mr. Johnson: Not that he's asking for any compensation. It's just a simple matter of that's what
it is going to cost him.
Vice Chair Addington: He desires a height of 60 ft.?
Mr. Johnson: That's correct. The tower height itself will be approximately 55 ft., and there's a
connection between the top of the tower and the bottom of the Yagi antenna system and there an
extension that above the antenna system that goes down to support the fiberglass antenna.
Basically, it's a fiberglass-type antenna, and there's a wire that goes out and it's motorized so
depending on the frequency it broadcast it either rolls out or not. The total overall height
would be at 60 ft. Once again, he is requesting the ability to do that during very dark hours....
Vice Chair Addington: O.k. What power wattage does he use?
Mr. Johnson: I don't recall. Based on other systems,they are not typically very powerful.
Commissioner Bidney: When the foundation was installed after the e-mail from the City, was it
installed by a legitimate contractor?
7
Mr. Johnson: Yes. It was engineered by the Tower Company, and it was installed pursuant to
the engineering drawings done by the Tower Company.
Commissioner Bidney: Well, whoever that was, should have known that you need a permit for
any kind of construction. I don't know what the City is right now. I'll have to ask Richard. Of
$150 or more, you need a permit, even if you pour sidewalk. So, if it was a legitimate contractor
that did this, then he didn't get a city license, and he should have know the law to begin with. I
don't know...there are a lot of legalities there.
Mr. Johnson: Well, it would be a question of whether or not the contractor was one who
normally does a lot of business within the City of Grand Terrace. I don't know. Mr. Ehlert did
have the e-mail that said that as long as it under 35 ft., no CUP or other permits were required.
So, I think he was acting in good faith. I don't think there was any question he was acting
I think the City initially made a mistake, and realized after the fact...and that happens, mistakes
happen. We should make the best of it at this point in time. We like to have consideration of the
City in terms of being able to use it during dark hours to help compensate for the fact that he is
going to have another expense.
Commissioner Comstock: I think you'll a little mistaken regarding this antenna, because the
City received numerous complaints from the neighbors across the street regarding a guy wire that
was attached from the structure to one of the City's street signs; and your client came in and
installed this structure, which encroaches on the public right-of-way. There was no
consideration for property values or aesthetic values of the neighboring houses across the street
and in the neighborhood. Your client went ahead and installed the structure, really without any
kind of guidance at all. I also noticed in the packet that we received that the engineering
company that the City hired to check the calculations on the structure itself, found that the
structure grossly underestimated wind blow calculations, and there were mistakes that were
made on the structure itself, if I'm reading the engineer's report correctly. We have
responsibility in the Planning Commission to make sure that this structure is not going to
encroach on public safety, and I don't think putting a structure in without a permit or having any
of the City engineers or planning staff to check the plans or any of the engineer calculations, I
don't think that was a legitimate use. Having said all that, I realize that our hands are tied, and I
would like to make this public comment of our former Governor because of sever poor decisions
in the legislature. I think this was one of the worst he pushed through the legislature from the
standpoint of the property values of the people who are across the street. Not only that, but when
we talk about dark, he wants to put the structure up when it's dark and it won't have any
encroachment upon other people aesthetics. You know what, they can go out, sit in their patio in
the cool of the evening or late in the evening and look at the moon or look at the stars and have
that 60 ft. structure sticking up there, and it will encroach upon their freedom and their rights as
property owners. I think that we, also, as a Planning Commission, have a responsibility to guard
the rights of those who bought their property up on the hill there. Because of the aesthetic value;
because of the ability to see the lights at night; because of the ability to not .... Let me hit
something else: all the utilities in that neighborhood are underground. To say this structure does
not encroach or infringe upon any other the neighbors there is just ludicrous, in my opinion.
I also know that there are several other ham radio opportunities for your client to be able to
choose. I do know, having driven by his house on a couple of occasions, that there are two or
three accessory structures on the front of the house - - rather large, rather unsightly. I'm rather
disappointed at this point. He keeps pushing us, and pushing us, and pushing us as though this
8
is...it's a hobby that he has. We have modern day communication techniques and availability
- that we don't need to use hand radio any longer. We have satellite and cell phone use and other
forms of radio and microwave transmission. Having said all that, I'm rather disappointed that
your client's not here to answer up to the neighbors for the issues that he's creating here in this
neighborhood. I do know from the last Planning Commission meeting we had sitting here'
looking at the structure as we're seeing it represented on the screen, one of the realtors in the
community said that she was having a difficult time; and I believe she still has not sold the house
that she was trying to sell for a customer because of this structure; and every client that came
through to look at the house complained about the size and the encroachment of this structure
and the house they were looking at. There are several issued here. It's more than just an issue to
go out and play with his radio set. It's devaluing the houses up there. It's causing a lot of grief
among the neighbors, and there's been no, to my knowledge, attempts to try to get together with
the neighbors and try to give the neighbors an adequate feel for what he's trying to do here. He
just went ahead and did it, and I'm in agreement with Commissioner Bidney when I.think there
were some illegalities there in assembling this structure in the first place.
Mr. Johnson: One of the things that I can tell you is that during emergencies, one of the first
things that goes are land lines and cell phones. All cell phones rely upon microwave
connections, and when an earthquake hits, it knocks all the microwave dishes out of alignment,
and so you lose out on a lot of cellular connections. Ham radios are important to have for a long
time and that's why the State of California and the Federal government both has passed
legislation restriction. I don't say it's bad or good. That's just what the law is. Mr. Ehlert,prior
to construction, did ask the City what was required. The City gave him communication that said,
as long as it's under 35 ft., we don't require a Conditional Use Permit or any other permit." He
was happy with that e-mail. The City made a mistake, and that happens; but lair. Ehlert did what
;he was suppose to do beforehand. He contacted the City, asked the City what he needed to do.
The City told him what he needed to do, and he acted in response to that. The bottom line is that
the law is what it is. Place reasonable restrictions on the use. Do you suggest that the reasonable
restriction in this case would be the height that you propose during hours when it's not in
operation?
Commissioner Comstock: When Mr. Ehlert originally submitted his request, were there any
drawing included with that request?
Planner Lampe: This is the drawing that Mr. Ehlert gave me when we were discussing what kind
of entitlements he would need for this project. It shows a 55 ft. high tower. The code clearly
says that anytime a height modification is required, it shall be done by a Conditional Use Permit
granted by the Planning Commission. I indicated in my e-mail to Mr. Ehlert that since your
proposed radio antenna tower will be higher than the height limit of the R1, you need a
Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Commission. Mr. Ehlert never described to me a
proposal of 35 ft. or less. He never once said, "What would be the requirements if I kept it under
35 ft.?" I based my e-mail to him on his verbal description and this drawing to me that he was
going to have a 55 ft. high tower. Once we found out it was up, without a building permit,
without any zoning, we went back to the zoning code. We re-analyzed the definitions of what a
structure like this is. It is an accessory structure. We looked at the definitions for the height of
an accessory structure. There's provision in the Zoning Code, a copy of which has been given to
the Commission that says for an accessory structure, the height limit is 20 ft. It doesn't really
9
matter what the height is. It's under the proposal that he gave me -- 55 ft. -- it required a
Conditional Use Permit.
Chair Wilson: Thank you.
Planner Lampe: I already told him, verbally, that he needed a building permit.
Chair Wilson: John, thank you for that clarification. I believe that the rest of the Commission
has in their packet
10
And I would suggest that there may have been some miscommunication between the parties, but
I would recommend that we sidestep for the moment any question about the validity of faithful
performance,their reliance on an e-mail communication.
Commissioner Comstock: I was just bringing that point forward, because it appears to me that
Counsel for Mr. Ehlert is using that as one of the reasons why we should allow him greater
latitude in the use of his yagi antenna.
Chair Wilson: I understand. Thank you. Mr. Johnson, before your leave, Mr. Ehlert's basis for
his appeal on November 21, 2005 cited several items, and I would like to focus on each one of
them, if I can:
1. The Planning Commission improperly restricted the applicant to 3 minutes for their
Dresentation.
I would say probably that we've been able to breach that problem.
2. The Planning Commission denied the applicant the oDDortunity to exDress his willingness
to accept conditions or discuss alternatives.
I think at this particular forum, we have plenty of information in relation to alternatives,
but if it comes to it to discuss alternatives, we are, obviously, open and we would believe
that the applicant might be open.
3. Several of the Commissioners' decisions were based upon concerns that we are not
DroDerly within the iurisdiction of the Citv.
I believer that we have been advised by the staff what is within our jurisdiction and what
is not within our jurisdiction to decide; and you've offered some comments in relations to
that so I think that we have plenty material here. So, I think we are within a fairly firm
jurisdictional basis to be able to analyze this particular issue, so if we can go forward
from that basis. Thank you.
Chair Wilson: Any other questions or comments or anything we haven't already covered with
Mr. Johnson?
Chair Addington: Since Mr. Ehlert is out ill tonight, and I wish him well, has he authorized you
to speak on his behalf tonight?
Mr. Johnson: Yes, he has.
Vice Chair Addington: O.k. Does he accept all the conditions as now proposed?
Mr. Johnson: He does, but, as I've said, he would prefer to be able to operate it at a higher
height during dark hours which a reasonable restriction and probably be unreasonable to restrict
it during dark hours.
r'
11
Chair Wilson: Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant's representive? If not, then we
will open up the Public Hearing, and we have several Request to Speak Form and we also have
another item on the docket, so we will ask you if you will be able to observe the 3 minute rule as
close as you can. I realize that three minutes seems awful short, and I've been there.
Mark Cvikota
22815 Kentfield Street
I've spoken before the Planning Commission and the City Council several times on this issue of
the ham radio antenna application and for the various reason I'll state it again. First of all, it's
health and safety; it's a very large structure in a fairly densely populated residential
neighborhood. The structural integrity of this antenna was a compromise. It could fall. There
are many people, kids playing in the neighborhood and so forth that could be severely injured
and it could cause damage to neighboring property. Also, I have some health concerns about the
radio frequency. I feel this antenna might radiate in the neighborhood, and the corresponding
negative health effects it could have on those living nearby. I have a spoken with a certified
industrial hygienist who has told me that there could very well be negative health effects from
radio frequency power that radiates from these antennas. Anyone who drives by the property
can see that it is a visual nuisance in the neighborhood. Friends of mine that come over to visit
and take a look at it. And to be quite frank with you, Grand Terrace is becoming somewhat of a
laughing stock for allowing this type of structure to be in a well-maintained neighborhood. The
City's web-site touts our beautiful neighborhood is so forth that a tour of our particular street,
which show you that we take great pride in ownership and so forth, and this radio antenna
structure compromises that to a great degree. Also, we talked about property values. Real estate
,professionals have told me that would have a negative effect on property values in the area, and
we are all trying keep our property values as high as possible. This will have a negative. This
has had a negative effect on local real estate professionals might attest to that. It has caused
electronic interference with some cell phones, tv monitors, etc.; and the recommendations this
evening, which I've heard, which is hard to understand that you're allowing a compromise for
this structure to be moved to the back of the neighborhood. That would be directly on my
property line. I have a four-year son in the audience this evening who plays in the backyard on a
daily basis. Once again, if that structure were to fail, and the antenna was to fall into our
backyard when he is playing in that backyard, it could cause critical injury to him and damage to
my property. So, that particular recommendation from staff I think is ludicrous. An antenna to
be able to go up 60 ft. in height in a residential neighborhood, once again, is ludicrous; and it's
ludicrous for any neighborhood to have a 60 ft. structure where people are living nearby. I work
in the public sector myself, and I know about aracies and so forth, and I am involved in
emergency operations committee in case of a catastrophe or disaster locally here. If we allow a
ham radio antenna on some structure on the side of his house or something that's not quite
obtrusive and pose a safety risk, I think that's a reasonable accommodation, in my mind, and
would allow for transmission in the course of a disaster. If our microwave frequency and
communication systems were to fail in an emergency, it would be for a very brief period of time.
I know this from my experience in this area and the use of ham radio communication we
frequently hear would be at best infrequent or nul.
Thank you very much.
12
Lindy Ward
- 22825 Kentfield St.
My property is right behind Mr. Ehlert's. Lucky me. You have pictures again. I get to bring
them many times, so I'm sure you know my backyard by now. That is showing from my back
patio what I get to look at when I sit out by my swimming pool. I'm going to read from my
papers because I'm very upset sitting here listening to the comments tonight, so I'm going to
stick to it because I want to be a good model to my daughter who is here in the audience.
My family lives on Kentfield Street directly behind the Ehlert property. We specificially
purchased the home we live in because we love spending our summers outside this particular
home, which has a beautifully landscaped pool area and an equally beautiful view of Blue
Mountain. With all electrical and phone wiring underground, the neighborhood was also
visually appealing. I've been aware of Mr. Ehlert's hobby as a ham radio for quite some time.
Since Mr. Ehler has quite a few other antennas on his roof, which he originally anchored to the
neighborhood street sign. I became aware of the tower that is in question tonight as Mr. Ehlert,
not an structural engineer, had to remove slats in our fence so that it would fit in his backyard as
he built it on the ground in between his weeds with his wrenches. At that time, I contacted Mr.
Schwab. That's has been about a year. We have been fighting this for a year.
A few days after he'd built this on the ground of his backyard, an automobile tow truck backed
up to his home and hitched up to the tower and erected it. Again, no construction engineer
present. Just on the other side of the fence, if you look at the fence, there is my swimming pool,
and I have a basketball court there. Both of those are frequently used also by my children, my
daughter is 8 years old, and she's on the back patio quite a bit. You're talking about moving a 60
ft. tower within 8 ft. of my property line now, and 3 ft. if it's moved. Regardless of the statistics
that have been presented about wind and sound structure, this was not built by a constructional
engineer. This was built by Mr. Ehlert. I don't have any faith that the strong winds and those
storms we've had recently. We sit and watch that tower because it scares us.
In answer to some of the questions that were asked by the Commissioners this evening, I'd like
to address some of those because I have personal knowledge of those. We had a comment about
non-use operating times. Mr. Ehlert does not use that tower in the evening. I beg to differ. He
uses it at all hours in the day. We know it, because he broadcasts across our television speakers,
both computer speakers in my children's room, and across our cell phones. We have gotten my
8 year old finally settled to the fact that the man who's voice talking coming from her dark
bedroom is not something to be scared of. At six-thirty Christmas morning, he was on his
antenna and woke our family up. He uses that antenna at all hours. When are his non-operating
hours? I don't even know when he works.
We talked about one of the recommendations from staff about landscaping. Mr. Ehlert has never
put a single plant in his yard. And, in fact, when he moved in rather than landscape his yard he
lit his backyard on fire to do his landscaping, and we had to deal with that. If you required him
to put in trees, we have no guarantee that those will ever be taken care of. Let alone the fact
you're asking it to be on Crane. That's basically 3 ft. from my property line, and you're not
asking for any landscaping along that side. I'm insulted. I live in this city and I pay taxes, too;
and, I have rights. I don't see any compensation in terms of the aesthetics of our backyard.
Good faith with the neighbors. That's a joke! We are a very friendly neighborhood. Not once
13
has Mr. Ehlert ever come to us. He dodges out of these meetings. He has dodged out of the last
two. I saw him out front. He looked fine. I'm not going to doubt maybe he was sick. But, he
looked fine to me. He has not faced us. In fact, when some of the neighbors went up to talk to
him, he had a couple of very choice words for them in how much he cared about how much we
felt about his radio antenna. I can not believe that we've back here for a fifth night. Five nights
we've been before either you or the City Council. He's been told no, he's been told no, he's
been told no. When does no mean no?
Lisa Cvikota
22815 Kentfield St.
Not to repeat some of the comments that were already made, but I also want to voice my very
strong opposition to putting that thing in his back yard, which puts it within a few feet of my
property line. My five year old son plays outside. Can you guarantee me that that thing is not
going to fall on my child? Would you want it in your backyard? I was driving through our city
streets today, her day. I love town, I am a very proud citizen of Grand Terrance, and I was
looking at the signs of all the local businesses. You do not allow businesses to have large signs.
Mr. TV and Demetri's are probably the largest in our city. What Mr. Ehlert is asking for doubles
if not triples that, and he's asking for that to go into my backyard. Once again, I'm also
concerned about property values, and I don't think he needs 30 ft. for that. I don't know a lot
about electronics, but even our own city, your emergency communication system, do not have
antennas the size of his. Neither does San Bernardino, Riverside or any of the other areas that
I've looked at. Maybe, if this radio needs a 30 ft. one, other people have ham radios that do not
need the contraptions that he needs. We were told when we had interference that we should go
out and buy more expensive telephones and monitors to relieve the problem. He told us if we
spent more money on those items, we wouldn't have interference. Perhaps, he needs to buy a
different radio that accommodates his residential neighborhood. Thank you.
Jesus C. Morga
22810 Kentfield St.
I can't add more to what been already said. I do want to remind of one thing. This is a hobby,
and strictly a hobby. The thing is ugly. It doesn't belong. It detracts from the neighborhood.
My opinion of what the Planning Commission has recommended is unacceptable. I think the
thing should come down.
Mario Mendoza
22825 Lark St.
Other than what everybody else has said, I strongly believe that a picture says more than words.
That's the view from my front yard on New Years, Christmas and Thanksgiving. Obviously, I'm
opposed to it, and I'm beginning to see a lot of"for sale" signs in the neighborhood. Those signs
have been up for longer than 6 months. I'll probably have to join them, also as I've stated. I said
it in the first meeting. I continue to be amiable to Mr. Ehlert by waving in the morning with
"Hi!."; and I would like to refer to the conservation he introduced the first time we spoke. When
he first went up, Mr. Ehlert, I waved to him, he very happily came across the street and asked me
what I thought. I said, "Well, I'm happy for you, but did you ever consider asking the neighbors
14
if it was going effect anything?" He said, "I really don't care...they can't do anything." Thank
you.
Gene Larochelle
22820 Lark St.
I live below Mr. Ehlert. The law says that we've got to accommodate the ham radio operators.
We didn't talk about what in it for us. We talked about sticking antennas on the back of his
house so no one can see them. Public safety on something like this, in case it fails, it doesn't
matter where he puts it on his lawn. It's going to infringe on the neighbors because that thing is
60 ft. with the wrong foundation, and it's all over with. Its current foundation was built by a
couple of guys who barely speak English coming up with a '72 Ford pick up truck. I guarantee
you that. I've seen it happen. About the radio's RF interference, there are whole studies on
health effects on children; and why should we buy more expensive electronics? Personally, I
have the more expensive electronics, and I don't have any bleed over at my house other than my
home network doesn't work anymore since he's been online. Back to ham radios, my satellite
dish — you wouldn't even see the antenna. He talks about he's a good civic-minded citizen.
When the electricity goes out, where's he going to get the electricity to power this? He would
have big bank of batteries unregulated in his backyard waiting to shore it up handling his
generator and his 100 gallons of gasoline waiting to go up. We refer to him as the Kingford
charcoal guy,because he burns up his backyard. That's all I've got to say.
— Bobbie Forbes
11850 Burns Ave.
I am a resident and a realtor. I will tell you that the house on Crane Street, on Monday, did go
pending. They did discount their price, and it took them over four months to sell their home.
The home adjacent, maybe Lindy Ward forgot to tell you, that her home is now for sale. She's
had to discount her price after 30 days of it not selling. I don't know why she's put her home up
for sale. That's her information to give you, but I do know that I have shown her home several
times and two of the three times had comments, because when I open the blinds next to her bed,
the first thing and only thing they see is the tower from her upstairs bedroom master bedroom
windows, which is quite gorgeous and should be looking out to the view of Riverside. That's
what they see, the tower. So, I think that's it. I'm just updating you on the Crane Street house.
That gentlemen had to pay payments for four months. That was his choice to go on and proceed
with his other home that he was purchasing, but we had a lot of comments regarding the tower
from people that drive by it. I've had many open houses there. It's a beautiful neighborhood
with this scary structure.
Jeffrey McConnell
21758 Walnut Ave.
How many other private structures has the city permitted that encroach on the public right-of-
way? The City Council meeting where the moratorium was discussed on radio towers, I walked
- away under the impression that because he pulled his appeal, his filing was no longer valid and
that he was under moratorium. Maybe, I misunderstood it. I don't fully understand the
15
procedure, but that was I impression that night. Maybe John explained it. I didn't fully
understand it, because I thought he was now under the moratorium.
Microwave dishes that the applicant represent has been said to go skew during earthquakes. I'm
sure that it has happened in the past. I don't doubt it, and I'm sure that they've made
adjustments for that. We all live in an environment and society where the state of the art is
obsoleted every year. People how to upgrade and go to something else.
Property values: All the folks down at Terra Loma Real Estate, Bobbi Forbes, Mr. Bidney, over
the years, have donated hundreds if not thousand of hours trying to raise property values in
Grand Terrace. We're out there in the community at the Lion's Club, I'm the Editor of the
Mountain Outlook, Chamber of Commerce, of which Bobbi is the President, always trying to do
everything, we get up and speak constantly to help protect values and raise property values in
Grand Terrace. This is the place where people want to live. Why did the City require that that
neighborhood contractor/developer put utilities underground? I think the answer speaks for its
self.
My suggestion is that you turndown the application and the appeal process, let this issue default
within the confines of the moratorium (I assume it is still in place), and give the City and the
staff time to fully investigate all amateur radio antenna towers; because I can see just from the
staff s statements and some of the applicants representative statements, that certain things are not
fully understood. When the tower goes up higher, the applicant says less interference. How
much less? One percent, six percent,ten percent oppose to when it's at 30 ft.
Regarding the range, which has never been discussed, how many amps. Nobody seems to know
how many amps. More amps, more range. How far does he need to go now? Does he go to
Alabama, Sacramento, Los Angeles? How far do you need to go in an earthquake? The
Northridge earthquake was centered throughout the San Fernando Valley. I lived in the
outfringes. We didn't loose power or anything for very long, but you only need to go about 20
miles to be totally out of the epicenter area. So, how far does he go now? How far does his band
width needs to go, which is straight up; and how far do you really need to go during times of an
emergency?
Chair Wilson: Chair asked if any others would like to address the Commission, and there were
none. The Public Participation was closed and the meeting was turned over to the Commission
for discussion or motion.
Vice Chair Addington: Could the staff elaborate on the moratorium?
Planner Lampe: I believe the moratorium was for only 45 days. It has expired.
Director Koontz: Also, when we went through the appeal, the City Council officially requested
or directed this to go back to the Planning Commission, so at that point it was still a valid
application.
Commissioner McNaboe: In relation to Assembly Bill 1228, which talks about the allowing for
structures to be at height and dimensions sufficient to accommodate amateur radio service and
16
communication, what are those minimum heights and dimensions? What qualifies as sufficient?
i
Planner Lampe: That's the crux of the whole issue. That's why we're here tonight.
Chair Wilson: Does our City Attorney have any:input on that?
City Attorney: Assembly Bill 1228 was recently passed, and there hasn't been a case interpreted
yet, but my understanding is that they left it open and flexible so that different local governments
can consider their own geographical location. I don't think the purpose of the law was to allow
any structure, no matter how big and how far the communication go in, reasonable means that if
something less than a complete total of 100%.
Commissioner McNaboe: So, could a smaller antenna than this one currently in use be
effective?
City Attorney: I think, possibly, yes. There isn't anything in the papers that say that it can not
accept that I heard during discussion, and I believe that I've read in papers, too, that my staff has
talked to some experts about some amateur experts and they have said that as far as the radio that
Mr. Ehlert uses, that is the most effective radio antenna in town, and I'm not sure how effected
others antennas would be.
Commissioner McNaboe: And there are other radio choices?
City Attorney: Again, I am not an expert on amateur radio. I assume there would be.
Commissioner Bidney:. Using a hypothetical plan, supposing this is a no vote. Where do we go?
Where do the city, the attorney and applicant go?
City Attorney: The Permit Streamlining Act does require local legislative bodies make decisions
on permits in a certain length of time. If the legislative body does not make a decision
sometimes permits are deemed approved so I think that a no vote is probably not a
recommendation to take, however the Commission can extend this to the next meeting_
Vice Chair Addington: Following Mr. Bidney's hypothetical questions, hypothetically speaking.
Assume this is approved tonight, what's the procedure to revoke his CUP, should he not comply
with all the conditions.
Planner Lampe: My understanding would be like a revocation of any Conditional Use Permit
would require a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission and consider what conditions
are not being met. Establishment of fact required findings based on testimony presented by staff
and any interested party.
Director Koontz: First go through Code Enforcement issues. He's violating his permit we
would send Code Enforcement out to cite him for it Work that way.
— Vice Chair Addington: So, to help me understand. Is the CUP revoked by staff or is it revoked
by the Planning Commission.
17
Director Koontz: It is revoked by the group that is taking action. You would have to take an
action. Also, in response to Mr. Bidney, if something negative happened here tonight, the
- applicant, again, would have the right to appeal it to the City Council. The City Council has a
right to bring it back here again or take an action on it, pull the appeal, deny the appeal. If a
negative action is taken there,then there is always the option for a legal action.
Commissioner Comstock: Part of the conditions included in the proposed resolutions that we are
looking at would be that the radio antenna would be used during certain hours of operation. It's
obvious to me that all of the residents in the neighborhood will know when Mr. Ehlert is using
this thing when he said he would not. It appears to me that their only recourse is to call the FCC
and complain. I'm just wondering, as a City, how are we going to keep tabs on this thing.
Chair Wilson: Well, at this point, we don't have anything approved.
Director Koontz: If this got approved, and he is operating outside permitted operating hours that
are in the permit, then whoever noticed it would have to call Code Enforcement in City Hall.
They would have to go out there and verify again that it is in operation.
Commissioner Comstock: Yes, but if its hours of operation are from 10 o'clock at night until 6
o'clock in the morning, how are they going to call Code Enforcement to come out and look,
when Code Enforcement doesn't show up to the office until 8 or 9 o'clock in the morning?
'Director Koontz: It's not going to be easy.
=Vice Chair Addington: For this type of accessory structure, is a soils report required?
'Rich Shields: If the design engineer uses the values in the current UPC of 1,000 PSI pressure
and a 100 PSI pressure for lateral, then no. The engineer would not need to have a soils report.
If he showed values above those figures, then we would ask for a soils report.
Vice Chair Addington: In your opinion, what values were used? Higher or Lower?
Rich Shields: He probably used a 1,000, because a soils report is very experience. He's only
showing a wind exposure C at 70 MPH. So, I don't think that any values higher than a 1,000 lbs.
per square foot would be needed.
Director Koontz: I think, Rich, what he is asking for in the structural analysis in the Plan Check
you did, what did he use?
Rich Shields: I don't have that Plan Check in front of me. I'll have to look.
Chair Wilson: I think the appropriate answer might be a soils report might be required if a
structural engineering requires it.
Vice Chair Addington: I have one last questions on this and John I know you've done a lot of
research on this, and I appreciate the research you've done. As we are considering his height
here as one of the many options, in your opinion, could that be accomplished just by affixing it to
the roof instead of an antenna? Do you have enough knowledge to answer that one?
18
Planner Lampe: You mean fixing the yagi antenna to the roof rather than to the tower? Just like
a typical TV?
Vice Chair Addington: Yes, and does that even follow code? Would that even be allowed?
Planner Lampe: Well, there's structural issues. A structure like that to the roof? I suppose that
would be a possibility, if that answers the question, but I'm sure there are some technical issues
that I don't think I am competent to answer.
Vice Chair Addington: Understood, I mean it's kind of a spare-of-the-moment question, John.
Chair Wilson: I think also in relation to what we discussed in the beginning of the meeting the
ground rules of this appellant motion, we had denied the applicant his opportunity to express his
willingness to accept conditions or discuss alternatives, so Vice Chair I think that's completely
appropriate to bring up alternatives, and I would assume that it would have to do_with structional
integrity issues involved, and those that have to be addressed. Any other.questions, I'm holding
mine for the last.
Rich Shields: I have an answer for Commissioner Addington. The engineer used 533 lbs. per sf,
so he was well under the allowable 1,000 in the UPC.
Commissioner Comstock: Have you found other antenna types that can be used to do what the
applicant is wanting to do?
Planner Lampe: There is another antenna that I talked to one of the experts about that is smaller
than the yagi antenna. Both experts that we contacted indicated that the transmission efficiency
would not be the same as this antenna. The antenna has a lot more elements on it, and it actually,
just in my humble opinion, aesthetically it looks less pleasing.
Chair Wilson: Any other questions or comments from staff. I'd like to remind the
Commissioners as well as the audience that in the revised proposed Resolution, Item No. 14 says
this approval shall not be effective until an Acceptance of Conditions form is signed by both
applicants and returned to the Community Development Dept. That the applicants are aware and
accept all of the conditions imposed by this approval. That would be a condition of any approval
of this project. With that in mind, my understanding is that there is a general consensus of
conditions, however, I would move to limit the height of any antenna. Whether it be in the back
yard, front yard or side yard to 20 ft., which I believe correctly interprets accessory structures
under the existing ordinance, as we viewed this particularly item as an accessory structure, that
there is no other ordinance that exists on the books that classify this particularly item for
anything other than an accessory structure, unless we set a president to the contrary with some
other item. This item is in particular an accessory structure, and according to our ordinance, it is
defined as such under 18.06.020, and you will see that also that under Table 18.10.040 Item No.
E, accessory structure shall not exceed 20 ft. in height with the exceptions listed in Section
18.73.090 of this chapter citing Section 18.73.090, it talks about height limit exceptions. It does
allow radio and other towers, stating that they may be permitted an excessive height limits within
the approval of the Conditional Use Permit. The way I understand it, and the way I understand
19
current case law, this body in this City does have the right to govern itself in certain aspects with
this.
MOTION PC-08-2006: Chair Wilson moved that the perspective resolution be modified to
limit the height and this would be Condition No. 6 under our
revised resolution that the height of the tower mast shall not
exceed 20 ft. of the ground in all conditions.
Commissioner Addington seconded the motion.
MOTION VOTE
PC-08-2006: Approved 5-0-0-0
20
MOTION PC-09-2006: Vice Chair Addington moved that Condition No. 12 be amended to
have the planting time limit to be where it should all be planted
within all the planting needs to be done within 45 days of the
approval.
Chair Wilson seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Comstock stated that Condition No. 12 stipulates that sub-plantings shall be a
minimum of 15 gallons and said he would like to see that the 24" box be spaced no more than 4
ft. apart.
Vice Chair Addington asked if that was physically possible.
Commissioner Comstock answered, `If we're talking about Cypress trees that would add a nice
hedge around the backyard where people can't see."
Vice Chair Addington then asked if Cypress was one of the options in Condition 12.
Commissioner Comstock answered"yes."
Vice Chair stated he would then amend his motion accordingly.
Chair Wilson: Second concurs. Please vote.
Secretary Smith: Motion carries. All Ayes.
Chair Wilson asked if there was further discussion on the item. The Chair entertain a motion?
Commissioner Comstock: I don't remember where I saw it, but we were talking about hours of
operation...
City Attorney: We should make sure we get all our final amendments on this item under one
final motion instead of doing a motion and reopening it, and then doing another motion. We
should just do one motion, and at the end of tonight state whatever the conditions needs to be.
Chair Wilson: We'll ask the Clerk to clarify the motions at the end. Will that be satisfactory?
City Attorney: They were all sufficiently temporanious, and I don't believe that I say anybody .
come in or leave the room during this item.
Chair Wilson: Mr. Comstock. Any discussion?
Commissioner Comstock: Yes. In our discussions earlier, the applicant mentioned that he
would like to use this radio structure during the night time hours, and what I'd like to do is to
outline and propose when those hours will be for the other residents who have to live nearby the
structure.
21
MOTION PC-10-2006: Commissioner Comstock proposed that the hours of operation be
limited from 10 o'clock in the evening to 5 o'clock in the morning.
Chair Wilson: We have a second? The motion is on the floor.
Mr. Bidney seconded the motion.
City Attorney:It might be a better option to get all the amendments the Commission would like
to include in this, and then vote on all three as one item.
Chair Wilson: I think we'll have to have a consensus on whether we are going to amend a
particular item. I don't see how we're going to do that unless we do it one at a
time.
Audience member: Mr. Chairman?
Chair Wilson: No, we've already closed the Public Hearing.
Chair Wilson continued to answer the City of Attorney by saying that, "That's fine, we don't
have any problem with that.
Vice Chair Addington asked the City Attorney if this has to do with Robert's Rules of Order or
something else. Where are we going with this?
City Attorney: Roberts' Rules of Order are typically recommended, not mandatory; but,there is a
due process of law. Mr. Johnson has now walked out the room after the condition of our vote.
However, he did so I believe at least it appears with a full understanding agreement of the
continuance of the discussion.
Note for the record, I believe, that it's pretty apparent that the Commission did want to continue
with their discussion, and Mr. Johnson did walk out during that discussion.
The best way and most recommended way is to discuss and form a consensus and then take a
vote, and then if the entire Commission isn't agreeable with the final outcome and it doesn't
pass, then the Commission can only come back and discuss to see if they can get one resolution
into consensus.
Chair Wilson: Thank you. With that in mind... Mr. Comstock?
Commissioner Comstock: I was just trying to protect the rights of the residents in the
community to the hours of operation and when they might be able to document, call Code
Enforcement or report to the FCC or whatever the case may be. We want to give the applicant
reasonable time to be able to use his set from 10 o'clock in the evening until 5 o'clock in the
morning, appears to me to be primarily dark hours. With daylight savings time changing and
twilight coming early and late, I would think that 10 o'clock in the evening until 5 o'clock in the
morning would take that into consideration.
Chair Wilson: Do we have any discussion among the Commissioners?
22
Vice Chair Addington: Do we have a second?
Chair Wilson: We didn't make a motion, and we didn't make a second. I think we need a
discussion. We have consensus?
Vice Chair Addington: Did you say 4 or 5 in the morning?
Commissioner Comstock: 10 at night until 5 o'clock in the morning.
Vice Chair Addington: No, I'm not objective.
Chair Wilson: My personal opinion is we probably don't have a basis for limiting the time frame
that he uses his equipment, at least under the current ordinances that we have; and that might be
constituted as an unreasonable restriction. I would prefer to ask the City Attorney where we
stand on that ground.
City Attorney: Well, I think the applicant has agreed to do it. So, his spokesman says he will be
agreeable to use it during Sunset to sunrise, -and he's expecting consideration, so I think it's
appropriate that considering the fact he'd redo it at that position.
Commissioner Bidney: After we vote on this motion that we just made, could we combine
all...?
Chair Wilson: There not being any other motions in relation to this item, can we restate what we
understand as our motions?
Director Koontz: You're revising Item 6 to not to exceed 20 ft. in height; you're adding a
condition for operating hours of 10:00PM to 5:OOAM; and you want 24 feet box trees planted 4
ft. apart under Item 12; and all landscaping to be in within 45 days.
Chair Comstock: Twenty-four inch box trees.
Director Koontz: Right.
Commissioner Comstock: And that's surrounding the perimeter of the backyard.
Chair Wilson: Do we have a motion for Chair on these revisions.
Vice Chair Addington: So moved.
The motion has been seconded.
MOTION VOTE
PC-09-2006: Approved 5-0-0-0
MOTION PC-10-2006: Chair will entertain a motion on CUP-05-06 and E-06-19. Do we
have a motion? Well, absent a motion, where do we go from here?
23
Do we want some further discussion in relation to this particular
item? Mr. Addington.
Vice Chair Addington: Based upon what happened at our November meeting, we had some.
pretty good causes to deny this application. Through our motions tonight, as we were not sure
where any of the Commissioners were going with this, do we have any reasons for denial-left on
this project?
Chair Wilson: You're addressing this to the City Attorney?
Vice Chair Addington: To the City Attorney,to City Staff,to my fellow Commissioners.
City Attorney: As a preliminary point, if I could, I think the best process right now is to go on to
the next item on the agenda. The Commission has taken the final vote: I believe this agenda
item has now.concluded. I apologize if I was confused on the last vote. I thought that the final
vote was for the entire CUP?
Director Koontz: No. Those were the amended conditions.
City Attorney: I apologize.
Vice Chair Addington: Yes. Those were the amended conditions. The way I understand it,
-.:Garry, many years ago the Commission voted that within the Commissioner's handbook, we
,,.follow the Roberts' Rules of Order. I understand the due process that our legal counsel has
".brought to us and trying to keep both of these in balance. We can still move forward with
discussions at this point,right?
Director Koontz: Ask the attorney that one.
Vice Chair Addington: O.k., the reason why I asked you is because in that handbook, you're the
Parliamentarian.
Director Koontz: Thanks.
Vice Chair Addington: So, I hate to spring that one on you, Gary.
Director Koontz: I get to defer to the City Attorney.
Vice Chair Addington: Understood.
Commissioner Comstock: I would like to, in discussing this issue, the revised resolution. It is
my understanding that the antenna is going to be removed from the current location in the side
yard and placed in the rear of the house. Is that correct?
Vice Chair Addington: As I recall, that is noted in Condition No. 2, and it would be a location
r'
approved by our Community Development Director.
4
Chair Wilson: Unless otherwise amended.
24
Vice Chair Addington: Now, we also have the height limit of 20 ft., which puts it below the
current roof line. I assume his current roof line is higher than 20 ft.
Director Koontz: It is 20 ft. as we noted on the picture.
Vice Chair Addington: O.k. Is it still rotatable?
Director Koontz: You got me on that one.
Vice Chair Addington: I'm asking questions.
Director Koontz: I question the validity of installing the size of the antenna in the backyard,
sideyard or anywhere, if you require it to be limited to 20 ft.
Commissioner Comstock addressed a question to the City Attorney:
You mentioned earlier that if we do nothing,that's as good as giving approval?
City Attorney: No. If the Commission does nothing, and the time limit expires, then certain
applications are deemed approved, and I believe this is one of them. So the Commission -- the
applicant is left so we can no longer get the concurrence from the applicant, but certain times the
Commission can always extend it to the next hearing date.
- Chair Wilson: So when we talk about time limitation, we are referring to the meeting tonight
;:.and no further. Is that correct?
City Attorney: As are as if the Commission does not act tonight?
City Attorney: The application was originally filed a while ago. It went up to the Council and
the Council sent it back here, so there is a chance that there could be a legal argument that all
that stuff that dates back -- it's been a long time to start to get close to the time specifics. So,
without having the actual applicant in here to agree to a continuance, the think the best thing to
do is to take action tonight.
Commissioner McNaboe: What happens if we approve our revised resolution, and the applicant
decides that he does not want to accept it?
Chair Wilson: Then he is not in compliance with Condition 14.
City Attorney: The applicant or any body can to the Commision decision can appeal it to the
City Council.
Commissioner Bidney: If we deny the applicant tonight, and he appeals to the Council then does
the Council have the right to override us or refer it back to us? Is that their next procedure?
Director Koontz: That's correct. Under an appeals, they can either agree with the appeal and
approve the project, deny the appeal and deny the project or they can send it back to you again
for some reason.
25
Vice Chair Addington: Hypothetically speaking, should this be approved, will the residents have
the opportunity to appeal to the City Council also?
Director Koontz: Anyone can.
MOTION PC-08-2006: Commissioner Comstock made a motion to approve the revised
Resolution No. CUP-05-06 and E-05-19, as amended.
Vice Chair Addington seconded the motion with a request for
discussion.
Chair Wilson: There is one more item on the list, and I think there has been a great deal of
discussion in relation to item number 2, the item about relocating to the back of the main single
family residence. I would like to get a consensus from the commission that that is our intention
hereby making this motion?
Vice Chair Addington and other Commissioners: Yes.
Chair Wilson: Thank you. The item has been.moved for approval and seconded.
Vice Chair Addington: Does this motion include the amendments we made?
Commissioner Comstock: As amended.
Vice Chair Addington: As amended. Thank you.
-Chair Wilson: The item has been moved for approval and seconded. Please vote.
MOTION VOTE
PC-09-2006: Approved 4-1-0-0, with Commissioner voting No
26
i
2. Z-06-01 and The project will consist of changing the existing R1-20 (Very Low
TTM-06-01/ Density Single Family) Zoning to R1-10 (Low Density Single Family)
E-06-03 Zoning under Z-06-01 and subdividing the 8.26 acre site into 20 single
family residential lots.
APPLICANT: Karger Homes
LOCATION: An vacant 8.26 acre parcel located on the northerly side of Pico Street
starting approximately 150 feet easterly of the intersection of Pico Street and
Kingfisher Road.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive the staff report, open the public hearing and receive any
testimony, close the Public Hearing and recommend to the City Council the adoption of the
ordinance changing the existing R1-20 zone to R1-10 and the approval of Tentative Tract Map
No. 06-01,which is County No.18071.
STAFF
Associate Planner Lampe greeted the Commission and presented his Staff Report as follows:
The applicant this evening is asking for permission to change the existing R1-20 very low
density single family minimum required 20,000 sf zoning to an R1-10 low density single family
.minimum required area 10,000 sf zoning. Also proposed is a tentative tract number 06-01,
County No. 18071 to subdivide the subject site into 20 single-family lots in conformance with
the new R1-10 zoning designation. Subject site is approximately 8.6 acres located on the
northerly side of Pico, beginning 150 feet easterly of Kingfisher Road. The site is more or less
rectangular shape, however, it does have a regular easterly boundary. The frontage on Pico St. is
about 670 feet, the northsouth dimension is 620 ft. The site is presently vacant and appears to
have been roughgraded at least on the easterly half of the site as you can see is this relatively old
aerial photograph. The site is bounded on the west and north by wooden fencing from the new
home development (or new in terms of about 5 years). Located at the west of subject site, there
are houses here now. Of course, houses up here, including the case we just heard a little while
ago at the corner of Crane and Lark at this location. Surrounding areas developed to single-
family residential to the north and west of the site, and also on large one-acre lots to the south of
the subject site. The side lines with low density residential category of the General Plan is 1-5
units to the acre, the property is presently zoned R1-20. It was noted that the proposed changes
of R1-10 (10,000 sf zoning), the proposed subdivision are also consistent with the General Plan.
The density of the proposed project will be 2.4 units to the acre, which falls within the density
provisions of the low-density residential category.
This is the zoning map showing the subject site. Properties to the north and west are zoned Rl-
7200. These are properties to the southwest. Properties to the immediate south on Blue
Mountain Ct. are in R1-20 zoning. As to the as well as properties on the east.
The applicant is asking for the change in zone. We noted that the site is impacted by various
constraints including a 100 ft. wide easement of the California Aqueduct running through the
middle of the property and a 60 ft. wide easement running across the north end of the site. There
is also to the immediate east of the site a reservoir, which a typo in the Staff Report refers to as a
2 million, is actually a 3 million gallon reservoir. The applicant feels that the higher density is
27
required to make it possible to develop on the site based on the constraints of the property. We
should also point out that although only a couple of blocks within the proposed tract would be
close to 10,000 sf in size, the average overall size for the proposed 20 lots will be 14,800 sf. The
new zoning would provide a transition between the larger lots to the south and smaller lots to the
west of the property. The site is also located in what we call AG, agricultural overlay zone, as
seen on this map to the east and south of the site, including the subject site. Given the density of
the new project at this site and the proposed zoning, staff feels it would only be appropriate to
delete the subject site from the AG overlay. Therefore, the resolution that's before you this
evening also is a proposal to delete the AG overlay on this subject site.
This is the proposed subdivision on Exhibit 1. You had a large blueline version of this showing
the proposed 20 lots ranging in size from just slightly over 10,000, and 10,200 sf. is the smallest
up to over 22,000 sf. for the largest lot. Again, the average lot size for this project will be 14,
800 sf. Each of the proposed lots will meet the minimum development standards for the
proposed R1 zone including the minimum lot size requirement lot width and lot depth and street
frontage under the zoning code.
The applicant has decided to come back at a later date before the Commission for the actual
plans for the homes that he proposes to build on the 20 lots. We did ask, however, for the
applicant to provide some footprints or studies for future development on some of the smaller
lots. The footprint or study.shown here is the first one for Lot 6, which is located in the westerly
part of the site showing that the property could be developed with the adequate pad size with a
home on that site. This is another lot, again, showing that the property could be developed from
the house footprint on that particular lot and the last was Lot 15, .1 believe. This of the easterly
side of the property next to the reservoir. In addition to that, the applicant this evening just
provided some additional footprint studies for Lots 1, 7, 8, 14, and 16, showing and
._demonstrating again that the properties can be developed in the appropriately designed house
meeting the set-back requirements in the proposed R1-10 zone. Access to the site will be
provided by means on Pico Street, which is a 66 ft. wide local collector requiring full
improvements along the subject site's frontage on Pico Street, including curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, and pave-outs. In addition to that, on Jayden Ct. and Bryce Ct. will be new 60 ft.
wide local streets and a cul-de-sac, again, with full improvements. Shown on the tentative map,
running through the site, the 100 ft. wide easement from California aqueduct at approximately
this location, you can actually see the actual pipeline that plotted there. It's a 108" pipe that runs
along the easterly side or left side of the easement. The applicant and their engineers have had
discussions with the State Department of Water Resources Board about the necessary
encroachment from the State in order to put in the proposed roads and other improvements along
within that easement. They were told by the State, however, that they needed to submit a
complete set of improvement plans before the application can be considered by the State. The
applicant did not feel he could do this until the tentative map has been approved by the City.
However, he has agreed to a condition opposed, which we did include in the Resolution; and
prior to the final map being approved by the City Council that the required encroachment permit
by the State must be granted by the State Department of Water Resources. We did send a copy of
the tentative map up to the State for review, and we also called that office and talked to the
personnel a couple of times, at least, about this project. We were also told that a full set of
- improvement plans would be required before the encroachment permit is to be considered.
However, there was nothing in the proposed tentative map they did get from us, which would
preclude a possible encroachment permit from the state. We did receive, this morning, a faxed
28
letter in response from the State Department of Water Resources, basically outlining which I
gave to each person on the Commission Item 2 trail efore your this evening outlining the process
that the applicant will have to go through to get that encroachment permit. In addition, across
the northerly part of the site is another large easement that is 60 ft. wide, which is to the benefit
of the Southern California Edison lines. Other easements shown on the tentative map include
easements for sewer lines that will run along the easterly side of the aqueduct easement and with
a Bryson Court to serve the new subdivision; and along the easterly side of the property there is
an easement that's currently held by the Riverside Highland Water Company for access to the 3
million gallon reservoir that's located right here, this round structure that on the tentative map.
The site is currently bounded by wooden fencing on the west and north and along the slump
stone walls along the easterly boundary and around the periphery of the water reservoir. Also
shown on the tentative map was exceptional grading plan for the project proposed padded
elevations was shown on each lot. Looking at that it is apparent that the pads will be decreasing
in elevation from east to west and north to south, generally speaking. There is a 50 ft. fall that is
measured along the Pico Street frontage, so there-is some slope to this property. The'new streets,
the new cul-de-sacs within the subdivision will have average grades of 5% to 6%. The
applicant's engineer did inform me that since there's been some grading on the site in the past'(I
guess there was some imported material), that they don't feel any import will be required at this
time. It will be balanced on-site grading. Also, as part of the grading consideration, the
applicant did provide a rather detailed letter outlining the NPDES requirements for this project,
including the discussion of the construction BMPs, post-construction BMPs, the fact that a water
quality management plan will be prepared and submitted to the City along with the final map for
this project. The engineer is present this evening, Mr. Chairman, to answer any questions the
%Commissioners may have about the NPDES requirements. This project-was evaluated in terms
..of CEQA requirements based on the Initial Study, the staff does recommend that the project.does
qualify for mitigated negative declaration in that the project will not have the adverse impact on
she environment. Copies of that proposed negative declaration and initial study are included in
the Staff Report that went to each member of the Planning Commission. We are recommending
that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council the adoption of the ordinance
changing the existing R1-20 zoning to R1-10 zoning together with the deletion of the AG
overlay, that is the agricultural overlay for the subject site, based on the findings of that were
enunciated in the proposed ordinance; and also recommend to the City Council the approval of
the Resolution of Approval of the Tentative Tract Map 06-01 (County No. 18071) based on the
findings and subject to the recommended conditions that were incorporated into the Resolution
of Approval. I believe we also passed out to members of the Commission the proposed
resolution by one of the homeowners in the area, on -which I believe he'll probably expand on
that this evening. That does complete my presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Wilson: Thank you. Any questions to the staff before we open up the Public Hearing?
Vice Chair Addington: In type of development, John, we have dimensions for the lots
themselves? We have dimensions for the pads noted in the ordinance itself, in the zoning codes?
Planner Lampe: No.
Vice Chair Addington: Thank you.
Chair Wilson: We invite the applicant to address the Commission on his application.
29
Jason Karger
19236 Dandelion Ct.
Good evening. As you see from the last project, my father seems to like to pass down projects
that have unique in nature from the smaller square footage lots to, of course, the lots that have a
100 ft. wide easement going through them. That said, I'd like to benefit the community by
developing this area of Pico St. and taking care of some of the vegetation and drainage problems
that the lot itself has probably had over the years. We're asking the City to reduce the
requirements of the 20,000 sf lots based upon the surround area with 85%-95% of it being 72 sf.
or larger. I've lived in Grand Terrace over 20 years. So, what I am proposing is to try to better
the City by developing the area and building houses that would appreciate the area. That's all I
have to say.
Chair Wilson: Thank you. Anybody have any questions or comments for"Mr. Karger while he is
at podium? The Commissioners thank you. Chair Wilson invited the applicant's representative,
Mr. McKeever, to address the Commission in relations to the site.
Bill McKeever
647 N. Main Street
Riverside, CA
We've reported quite extensively with the staff on this. We've reviewed all the conditions and
we concur with them. Other than that, I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Chair Wilson: Am I correct in stating that this particular parcel is an irregular size or irregular
shape?
Bill McKeever: Yes sir, you are.
Chair Wilson: Also, that we have kind of an unusual obstacle to deal with in the fact that you
have a 100 ft. wide easement with a high-pressure water main that runs from Silverwood Lake
down to Lake Perris, and it is a Department of Water Resources easement. It is capable of
sustaining some type of structures across the easement, which will be later defined; but it is an
abnormal kind of obstacle for a piece of property to deal with.
Bill McKeever: It is very much an obstacle. From the physical nature of it and, also, from the
nature of how difficult the Department of Water Resources has to deal with
Chair Wilson: Yes, and I also notice that there are many easements that also go parallel to this
particular water easement.
Bill McKeever: Yes. That's correct. On of the problems we have to deal with is the fact that
DWR will not permit sewer lines within their easement. You can cross the easement, but you
can't run parallel. That's something that I've dealt with in the past, and there is no appeal on
that.
30
Chair Wilson: How wide is the overall easement, and because you've got a 100 ft. wide plus
- , a...?
Bill McKeever: Well, you've got a 100 ft. wide easement, and then on the east side there's
already a water line in there, the 24" feeder line, that feeds that reservoir, and in addition to that
there's another line, a 12" line in there, that's connected to the reservoir up off the end of Van
Buren that are in a higher pressure zone that serve this area, including this tract. So, you've got
the DWR right-of-way, then you have a water line, and then you have the sewer easement.
Chair Wilson: Thank you. This is a hill-side project. Is that correct? That carries its own kinds
of restrictions design wise.
Bill McKeever: Yes. It carries the normal physical constrictions of a steeper site.
Chair Wilson: And because it is steeper, that means that much of the area has to be eaten up by
slops and those kinds of considerations to be able to make up the difference with the hill side.
Bill McKeever: That's correct.
Chair Wilson: Thank you. What I'm trying to outline here is that in instances of irregular
parcels with abnormal obstacles hillside conditions, the planning agency does have discretion in
addressing uses under those kinds of circumstances. It doesn't necessarily excuse a re-zone
automatically allow it, but it does give us a little bit of discretionary understanding so far as a
what a realistic use of a property is for allowable use is. Last item, is it correct that what was
stated by Mr. Karger that there are adjacencies that are primarily 7.2 zoned uses or in that range?
Bill McKeever: Yes. The tract to the north is zoned 7200 sf, and those are 7200 sf lots. The
tract to the west is zoned 7200 sf, but those are 10,000 sf lots, and then if you go down south,
there's the 10-acre parcel in there that is occupied by the church and the Sisters of St. Bennadict
Monastery; and then the larger parcels to the east, but then if you go south of there you get back
into 7200 sf. lots again. And, I might,just as aside, if you note up there on the northeast corner
of this site, the rectangular object up there. That is the Riverside Highland Water Company's old
original reservoir in that area, and that's an underground concrete line with a wood frame and a
tin roof on it. The 3 million gallon reservoir was constructed to ultimately replace that; and as
you can see; they have to be on the same elevation and that's what dictated the location for the 3
million gallon reservoir. It has to be on the same elevation as the other one. The current plans
are when the new reservoir come on line down there in the Spring Mountain Ranch project, then
we will finally abandon that old underground reservoir; but, Mr. Karger was good enough to
work with the water company and provide that site for that 3 million gallon reservoir some years
ago, and that's also a restriction on the developbility of the site.
Chair Wilson: Did he grant that fee or was he compensated?
Bill McKeever: Yes.
Vice Chair Addington: Thanked Mr. McKeever for preparing the extra lot exhibits on such short
notice, and explained that one of the issues he usually touches on is the water quality. He asked
him if he could give me a brief explanation on how this is working?
31
_ Bill McKeever: Well, as you know, there are a number of different BMPs or Best Management
Practices that we can use for the permanent water quality management plans. One of them is to
enhances grass swale. Basically, it's a grass swale with the filter system underneath it and a sub-
drain. Basically, the design is based on a contact time:where the water has to stay within those
swales for 7 minutes to provide the filtration and the separation if you need to enhance or remove
the pollutants from the water. We can go back to the tentative map, Rich. What we've done is
provided grass swales on Lot 1 and 2. Sections on those areas indicate that just below that there
are cross sections that show how those work. We've integrated the grass swales into the swales
with stepped walls. Another thing is to get the contact time on those grass swales; they have to
be a very flat grade. The grade going down Pico St. and in the area is about 6 1/2 %, so the
function of the walls is to keep the grade on the swale, very flat in relation to the road. So, as it
proceeds to the west, the road drops down at a faster rate than the swale does. So, those walls
will vary in height along there to accommodate that. After they go through the swale, there will
be a surface stream in addition to the sub-drain system, and they'll be piped out through a
parkway drain back out into the street.
Vice Chair Addington: O.k. Looking at this very creative solution for the water quality, the
question I have is since they are on individual lots, who will get the long-term maintenance on
those?
Bill McKeever: There will be Homeowners Association involved with this tract to do common
maintenance items such as the water quality management features.
Vice Chair Addington: O.K., and then looking at the catch basins that are near Lots 02 and 16?
Those are for...
Bill McKeever: Those are for water quality only. Those will be very small. They'll be designed
to take the first flush. They are not a storm drain-type system. It's strictly the initial two/tenths
of an inch water that comes off the property, it will be routed through those grassy swales, and
then once you exceed that capacity, the water will just go on right by that and continue down the
street.
Vice Chair Addington: O.k. I do have a few more questions. Two of them are addressed to
Rich, but I would like for you to be able to participate in any of the answers. Rich, on Lot 15,
Exhibit A4, the house is proposed to be very close to the 10' sewer easement, and is that an issue
for City maintenance.
Rich Shields: No. It is not, as long as it not crossing the line.
Vice Chair Addington: I know how difficult DWR can be to work with. It's my understanding,
historically, that if DWR comes in and does any pipe repairs, they will restore the ground to its
original state when they put in their pipe? Does the City have any issues on additional pipe
repairs that we should be aware of?
Rich Shields: Well, we do. If you look at my condition, which will direct you to the Public
Works Condition No. 7, I kind of held out a condition there that after DWR gets done with their
approval, that Public Works can go back in and recondition the project based on some of their
32
J
conditions; and one of those is going to be finding out whether or not the streets will be repaired
in the event there's a break.
Vice Chair Addington: Which one are your reading off of?
Rich Shields: Excuse me? Did you give them, John?
Director Koontz: It's Attachment 8, Building & Safety Conditions, Item 7.
Rich Schields: I'll just read it to you: "The Public Works Department reserves the right to add
Conditions of Approval to the project and after approval of conditions are granted by the
California Aqueduct officials." What I'm basically saying is once the applicant obtains that
approval, then we have to go back and revisit their approval and see what the conditions are.
There is a good possibility that there will language that will need to be placed in the HOA that
will cover repairs to curb, gutter, asphalt, sewer line, etc.
Vice Chair Addington: Thank you. Bill, it's kind of unusual to have conditions granted after the
fact. Any issues or concerns from the applicant?
Bill McKeever: Well, we've considered this, and this is something we discussed with the staff
because of the difficulty in trying... In fact, DWR will not give us any kind of response until we
file the formal permit application. So, we realize that we are in a little bit of unusual-situation
here, and we are aware of this particular issue that you brought up, and we're just going to have
to deal with it. We discussed some alternatives, we're considering the alternatives, and we're
just going to have to deal with it to the satisfaction of both DWR and the City when it comes up.
I did have quite a lengthy discussion with Mr. Beck at DWR. We are familiar with their
permitting requirements. They have a very extensive manual. We have made a concerted effort
to meet all of their criteria, and I am just kind of disgusted in general with them. They will not
make any kind of commitment at this point. I feel that we are in pretty good shape as far as
addressing their concerns.
Vice Chair Addington: Alright. Thank you. One last question I have Bill, and one thing I'd like
to say is thank you for putting together such clean tentative maps. It's a pleasure to look at these
versus some of the maps that we get, but looking at Lot 18, you're proposing a 48" RCP draining
off of the 42" RCP from the reservoir site. What I don't understand is where does 48" RCP
discharge?
Bill McKeever: I apologize for that. That's got to discharge in the street. We'll have to design
the transition structure.....
Vice Chair Addington:. Off the top of your head, you know how big those flow are?
Bill McKeever: Actually, I think your neighbors
Vice Chair Addington: Sometimes staff gives me a peak at those
Vice Chair Addington: O.k. Where I'm going with this is, being a fellow engineer, a 48" pipe
implies a whole bunch of water, and an under-sidewalk drain doesn't take a lot of water. This
33
was one thing I was having trouble visualizing on your tentative map, and my biggest concern is
I don't want a big 48"pipe exposed with water coming out to hit a pedestrian or anything.
Bill McKeever: No. We don't want to do that. All of the existing drainage ditch along the east
boundary of the tract, west of us...., we don't have to maintain the integrity of the site.
Vice Chair Addington: O.k. You're going from a 42" to a 48", I assume you've run hydralics
and you need the bigger pipe. You can't go to something smaller?
Bill McKeever: Well,we'll have to revisit that when we do the final plans.
Vice Chair Addington: O.k.
Bill McKeever: That was one we designed when we did the reservoir site: Tho pipe from the
access road on the east down through the reservoir site, and then the stub-out into that lot, those
are existing now. We've got to do some relocation in there. There are a couple of things we
have to relocate, which are the 24'' feeder lines to the reservoir and the storm drain, because
when those things were originally designed we were anticipating 15 layout of this property. We
know those are additional things we going to get to.
Vice Chair Addington: Alright. Thank you very much.
.:_Chair.Wilson: Any other questions for the applicant's civil engineer? None? Thank you. We
- will open up the public testimony. Our first speaker will be Denis Kidd.
Denis Kidd
22874 Pico St.
I own the avocado grove to the east of the project, and I support this project.
Chair Wilson: Thank you. Our next speaker will be Vickie Kazaltzes. Please state your name
and address for the record.
Vickie Kazaltzes
22855 Pico St.
Two years ago, we purchased a half-an-acre lot across the street from there. We built a custom
home. It's a beautiful area, it's quiet. That's why we did build our home there. Most of the
homes up there are half-an-acre and bigger lots. If all those homes come across the street, I
believe that it will decrease the value of our homes, bring more traffic, and that's all I have to
say. I am opposed to all that.
Todd Campbell
12625 Kingfisher Rd.
I am against this zone change from R1-20 lots to our R1-10. Not only will the increase the
l traffic, but me and a whole bunch of other neighbors have some major concerns about the
proposed drainage. I am concerned about the small cul-de-sac in Lots 7 & 6. We did not see any
34
proposed drainage to catch the runoff of these proposed slopes. As of right now, it looks like
they are going to be draining on to my property underneath my fence and into the existing
drainage that is there. Now, when I signed a document buying the house we recognized that
there is a drainage for a 100-year storm, not for proposed drainage underneath my fence into the
concrete ditch. I'm also concerned about the cul-de-sac being 35 feet off of my property fence,
and if you look at that that has a design rate of 6% coming down that street. What's to stop an
automobile or anything else that goes down that street and cannot stop. Well, it'll be my wooden
fence and our backyard, because once it hits that curb, I don't think that 2 to 1 slope is going to
be stopping that car or anything that comes down that street. Also, you have two small catch
basins that go down to, I believe, an 8" storm drain pvc that goes down filtering into the grass
swale. Well, if you look, there's also a middle storm drain that is proposed on to draining into
that existing concrete ditch. So, I don't know if he got an easement to drain on to some else's
property. That's trying to work it out with the neighbor, but he's going to be draining into that
concrete ditch, which, again, as far as I know, is settled for the 100-year storm.
OTHER SIDE OF TAPE
It is very close to my fence and I really don't care for that pad looking right down into my
bedroom window and my backyard. Like I said, I'm against this change. I'd rather see 8 or 10
custom homes in there, because this is zoned for farm animals. I don't know really anywhere
else that allows 10,000 sf lots and zoning for farm animals. I could be wrong, but if you allow
that zoning, people are going to do it. You're going to have horses in there, chickens, or
whatever farm animals you guys allow, you might as well expect it to be there. We'll probably
- -'be back here complaining from the crow of the rooster at 4 in the morning. If this does go
through, which, again, I would not want to see it, I would like to see that cul-de-sac shortened up
quite a bit, and maybe design some lots fanning around the end of the cul-de-sac. So, I'm trying
-to push those homes away from my property fence so where they don't look down on my
bedroom window. Also, it will be blocking the view of the gorgeous Blue Mountain, that I have
come to love. Thank you.
Doug McColeman
12675 Kingfisher Rd.
I've lived there for five years now. I put my family there, and we love the City, and part of it is
the aesthetics. As you mentioned in the previous item about the tower, the pads on these lots are
going to be located 30-35 feet above our pads, which means that's above the peak of our roofs.
You will totally block out Blue Mountain from our view. We will have no view of that at all. I
mean that's one reason we moved here. We knew they were going to build here at some time,
but it was for a minimum of 20,000 sf lots, and it was suppose to be custom homes. That would
be great. We have no problem with that. Again, what Todd said about the large farm animals.
If you change that to10,000 sf lots, that would cause a major problem. Also, if you look at the
cross section of the southwest corner, it's also proposed that there is a access road that goes
along most of those homes on Pico that are down the west side of the property you are talking
about. It doesn't say there's going to be a gate there or anything, but that is going to be an access
road. I think it's because you can't have a sewer line from those houses on the west side of that
property going down by that main water line. So, they are going to be coming down the hill by
that access road. That's going to cause problems, too. We have a wooden fence there, and you
know it's going to be destroyed sometime by some maintenance guy back there with a truck.
35
Also, if you look at that, there's a 3 foot wall there, a grass swale, and a 6 foot wall. That's a
magnet for graffiti. I mean that's going to be a dark area in there. You're going to cause all
kinds of problems with kids going up there, doing stuff they're not suppose to do. There will be
indigents up there. I mean,there could be all kinds of problems there. We knew you or someone
were going to build there sometime, but a 20,000 minimum square foot lot, we could accept that,
but I'm pretty much against this. Thank you.
Robert Vasquez
12635 Kingsfisher Rd.
In looking at the maps, it's going to actually be my house that that drains off of Bryce Court right
into that concrete easement channel. Like Todd and Doug have said prior to me, when we
purchased our homes, we were with the understanding that that was for the 100-year flood, and
we will maintain drainage channels, but I am not going to accept taking regular runoff water
that's going to be coming from their properties up there. It's your channel that I maintain, and
even have to maintain it further; and I get notices periodically, I don't know who says that or
claims that about us not maintaining that channel, but we do maintain it. Because it's for our
protection. That was the agreement when we purchased those homes. As you can see on the
map, if you would please put that up, it will give you guys a better sense of what we're looking
up as far as a.main drain, and I believe it's that pvc pipe going into the concrete channel. Also,
what concern me are the two additional drains. Now, the concern I have with that is: why.
Something is going on here with the grade that the developers feel that they need to add an
;°addition to the drain. Some type of concern here that there's a possibility that something may
happen. If we get overflow during the storms, for some reason, and it doesn't take much for the
little drains to plug up. It's going to jump that. Is there a second, or there even a third source for
catching that water. If there isn't, all that stuff is going to be going right down through our
'fence, not to mention that if there's a good flow; those fences are made of wood and five years.
old. We've got to maintain them now every year, just for stability? There's a possibility of
those wood fences getting knocked down, like Doug mentioned, with maintenance. That road, 1
believe goes up to the very end of my lot. If water flow knock that fence down, now it becomes
a bridge, because it's so close, it's right on that concrete channel. It's just going to fall.right over
it and cover it. Now, we've got a straight shot right to my residence. As they have said prior to
me, we were aware of the houses being built. We were told that when we purchased our home.
We were also told that the concrete channel was for the 100-year flood. No where was it said or
was it in writing that it was going to, in the future, be used to take excess water, which for the
most part, other than storms, is going to be used for the little catch drains for runoff water, not to
mention the mosquitoes and all that good stuff. But, as far as this planning right in here in this
access road, a couple recommendations if I may add is either divert that concrete channel out to
their access maintenance road and give it all back to the City of Grand Terrace to maintain. Or,
if this is going to go through, accommodate us with a 6 foot block wall with some type of weep
hole we cab provide drainage in an emergency, but not take the brunt of it on any given storm, if
these little drains were to plug up. Thank you.
Chales Kan
12645 Kingfisher Rd.
I don't want to sound redundant, but I do have grave concerns as my good neighbors have
presented. Before I purchased the home, several times I questioned about that piece of land. As
36
far as I was informed. There were going to be 8-10 custom homes. Perhaps I was even thinking
that I make be able to trade up someday, which would be beautiful. Grand Terrace is beautiful. I
-- look at the whole thing, and I discussed with my neighbors, and I am really concerned about this
project. I strongly oppose as far as the development of 20 homes, and I don't want to repeat
some of the issues about the pipe, the fence, the water. I got notice about the concern about the
maintaining of the drain. I purposely built a step to that drain for my convenience to maintain it.
I quickly went up there and looked on my neighbor's side and the whole area up there and the
drain. I don't see any debris. It was really maintained very well. I don't know the purpose of
that letter was, but all my neighbors maintain it very well. I don't find any debris. So, I don't
know what that letter was all about. I remember reading it about a year ago. So, I strongly
oppose and I request for reconsideration of the development to perhaps even smaller. Needless
to say, but the traffic and it's crowded already in this area; I really have concerns about that.
Thank you.
Michael Thunquest
12615 Kingfisher Rd.
I want to make some reference to the first overhead that shows the tentative plan, if that's o.k.
(Mr. Thunquest requested to use the laser pointer.)
I have three concerns. Overall, I would say I am opposed to the rezoning that would prevail. I
would prefer to have a fewer number of larger homes as far as property values, our own homes.
.But, it's a nice project. You guys did a good job on the tentative map. There are a couple of
flaws that I see. My concerns are in this order: 1) drainage, 2) privacy, and 3) safety. All along
the west side here, there's quite a large slope that comes down to our storm drain and this whole
upper area seems to be underground, which means that any water runoff is going to take soft dirt
and bring it down into our properties, which no provision for any exposed storm drain or
anything there to catch the water. Secondly, along the easement up here, those are slopes that
down sloping as well to the lot. All the water will run on to the easement, which slopes to the
west, and all that water is going to run down on my property, which is the last property on
Kingfisher. Thirdly, there are two lots that are a little questionable, and that Lot 6 & 7. I feel
that the cul-de-sac really comes dangerously to the property lines here, and it appears that the
builders just extended that out to just squeeze more lots out of this area. I mean this one—what
kind of lot is that? Very strange. You know, you can move the cul-de-sac back, and give a little
more room here. Like Todd Campbell mentioned, at night if a car came barreling down that road
and didn't see the end of the cul-de-sac, he'd be right through the fence and in to in his property
there. X out Lot 6 & 7 there, make a little grassy area or something like that, leave the houses
over here. Those are the other two homes that are in question about privacy the distance they're
elevated from the fence, I believe, is about 15 ft. or so. I don't have exact figures, but it appears
that once you get a house there (and I don't know if these are one or two-story homes -- I haven't
heard that), but the view at that elevation looks right down into the backyards of all of the
Kingfisher properties there. That pretty much explains my concerns, mainly drainage along here,
and along here if this tentative plan went through, you should really concentrate on making that
open drainage ditch that fully to catch any water and have it be on their side of the property lines,
and not try to have it feed over on to our property. I heard reference from someone that that may
not even be legal to drain on our property, but I don't have the expertise to say whether that's the
case or not. That's pretty much where I'm at. Thank you.
37
Mark Roberts
12665 Kingfisher Rd.
First of all, I want to thank all of you for volunteering the service to the City.
I'm also guessing that you are all homeowners and wondering how many of you wants to see a
project that zone changed cuts the minimum lot size in half and builds up pads 30 ft. higher than
your home and probably two-story homes on top of that. Probably talking 55 ft. above your
home, and would build an alley right up to your property line - I guess a sewer line and a water
quality treatment facility; and the water quality treatment facility is probably going to grow
increasingly toxic because it's purpose is to treat urban storm water runoff. I suppose this
because the current zoning allows probably up to 15 lots. The current zoning is probably more in
concert with what's developed in the south of this property, and to east what could be developed
I guess would amount to current vacant properties. I feel that decreasing the 20,000 sf lot zoning
is kind of what we,have seen in this area over the years. It further diminishing. I think there's a
chance to build something better. I think what we would prefer as neighbors is to see the zoning
stay "as is". Fifteen lots seem reasonable. I think we would prefer to see wall heights
minimized, pad heights minimized, two-story homes minimums. I would have preferred to see
the whole package instead of seeing just the lots for those homes. We don't know what the
homes will look like. If you approve the subdivision, then the homes that would fit into some of
these lots would appear to be two-story. I guess for utility reasons, if this alleyway has to be
built, I live next to Lots 2 & 1, 1 think a little bit of Lot 3. 1 would like to see it gated at Pico. I'd
like to see our plants replace the block wall. Such a wall prevents being kicked in by kids, run
- ;into by cars, accidentally, and maintaining the utility easement. Today, I emailed an alternate
�;"resolution. I know that in your packet you have one recommendation to prove it, following the
-City of Grand Terrace format, I wrote a different resolution recommending denial I would like to
provide you. Basically, I think the developer should have been directed to meet with us before
they ever submitted anything. We didn't know anything about this project until the hearings. I'd
like to hand out the resolution.
Chair Wilson: I believe we have the resolution in our packets.
Commissioners: Yes, we do.
Chair Wilson: Anything further?
Mark Roberts: I think that's all.
Chair Wilson: Thank you. We do one further request to speak forms. Bobbi Forbes.
Bobbie Forbes
11850 Burns Ave.
Regarding the drainage, I didn't hear everything that was being presented. I am not speaking for
or against anything on the board right now. I just want to mention about the drainage as I have a
house up for sale on Kingfisher, too. That house is on the west side of Kingfisher and has a
drainage in the back on the bottom, and the house that I have for sale hire someone on a periodic
38
basis to clean that out to clean that out and keep it clear. Today, I got a call from my seller that
r said when they were down at the bottom of their slope, the looked next door to where three is
another house for sale, and her drainage has standing water, mud, all the plants from the slope
are growing into that drainage. So, I called Code,Enforcement today to let them know, and
Barry said to me that there is an automatic letter that goes out once a year to neighborhoods
regarding the drainage. So, that's probably what he has gotten. I don't when that happened, but
they are going to send a secondary letter to this other homeowner that has her property for sale.
One of the largest fears in Grand Terrace is the mosquitoes. I think that the drainage needs to be
set up in a manner that it can be cleaned on a regular basis where it's not such an.effort by the
homeowners to take care of it that they've neglected. So, that a concern that I have for any
development in Grand Terrace.
Chair Wilson: I will just add to what Ms. Forbes has stated so far as a regular notice that is
received in the City. People who have drainage structures and conditions, and there has been a
special sensitivity and it's understandable in relation to the alvirus and so-on for any standing
water circumstances as well as just good hygiene. There is a regular notice that goes out. I have
one of those lots that is up against a drainage ditch, and we are obligated to keep it clean, and
we're not obligated under any homeowners association, necessarily,just that.we do get a notice
from the County every so often to do that. So, that's not unusual circumstance. We'd like now
to invite the applicant and/or his civil engineer to address on these issues, if you would.
Someone from the audience: Inaudiable.
- :. i.Chair Wilson: Let's get some answers here first, if you wouldn't mind, you've already had your
time to speak.
Someone from the audience: Inaudiable.
Chair Wilson: Fair enough.
Bill McKeever: Yes, I have a couple of clarifications. Starting on the west side of the project,
that existing concrete ditch that's at the back of the lots along Kingfisher St. is within a public
drain. That whole system comes out of the track to the north. There's a drainage ditch that runs
along the north boundary of this track and then it turns and it goes south. That was all one
project originally the lots on Lark and the lots on Kingfisher. Originally, the system was
designed to pick up runoff off this entire 10 acres with the exception of the Edison easement,
because we had to maintain access for Edison. So, it's pipes that cross the Edison easement.
Everything on that property drains from east to west. The runoff from the hill was intercepted by
the access road that was put in and the storm drains was put in in conjunction with the reservoir
structure. So„ right now, you have everything except the reservoir site draining into the west
into that ditch that's along the back of the lots on Kingfisher. After this project is graded, that
area will be reduced to slopes on the back of the Lots 1, 2 & 3, and actually, will drain down into
that area. At the cul-de-sac right in front of Lot 9. So, essentially, everything from the back of
those lots that front Jostin St. drain out to the streets. Everything from the back of those lots, the
easement is being intercepted by the street system. So, the area that's draining to that ditch is
greatly reduced even though it will be the runoff from that area will be a little bit more than the
runoff from same area is now by virtue of the project. The area is considerably smaller.
39
Chair Wilson: Talk to me about flow rates and volumes.
Bill McKeever: Well, you can through out a rule of thumb on projects like this. During a 100-
year storm, you're probably looking at about 2 '/2 vespar acres and something like that. There's
nine acres there that drain through it now, and we're probably going to have maybe a little more
than one draining once the project gets approved.
Chair Wilson: So, you're going to decrease the volume and decrease the flow rate.
Bill McKeever: Yes. There will be less water getting to that channel after this project is built
than gets to it now.
Chair Wilson: That's what I wanted to know. Historical drainage. Is this what's dealing with?
Bill McKeever: Historical drainage is all east to west out there. Everything goes. Now, the
issue was raised about the multiple inlets at the of the cul-de-sac. The two small inlets on either
side of the large one or, again, the water quality management features. All the nuisance water
and the first runoff of any storm event will go into that small drainage system and be carried in
the pipe that runs down the access road to that grass swale. So,we won't be adding any nuisance
water. One problem with the subdivisions versus vacant land is you introduce nuisance water.
Well, all the nuisance water in these tracts now, with these water quality management plans, has
to go through the filtration system. So, on this one, it will come out at the end of the cul-de-sac,
it'll go down through the system and down through the swale in the back of.Lots 1 & 2 and then
,out on to Pico St. So, they won't be getting nuisance water that they get now. So, that does
solve that problem. As a matter of fact, Jason and I have already discussed, doing something as
far as securing that access road. We've got the walls in there, and it will be very easy to
'incorporate a gate system into it so there won't be public access to that maintenance road.
Chair Wilson: When you talk about the maintenance road ...
Bill McKeever: Maintenance road on the west boundary. We have to build those walls there to
accommodate those drainage swales grass and water quality swales, so it lends itself to being
fenced off, and we'll go ahead and put a gate there.
Chair Wilson: The homeowners below have an understandable concern about a 6% cul-de-sac
that overlooks their homes. I'm not talking about aesthetic view, what I'm talking about is their
concerns about danger of a vehicle crossing via the cul-de-sac.
40
Bill McKeever: Well, one thing is those cul-de-sacs flatten out and 6% comes down to where
the street starts and then they have to flatten out just to get the grade to work, so there is a flatter
area typically at the end of those cul-de- sacs. Six percent grade is not the same as it is out there
on Pico. I know it sounds like a big.number, but in reality it's really not that steep, and it's a real
short distance. It's only 120 feet or so before it starts to flatten out.
Chair Wilson: Regarding the agricultural overlay issue, is it not correct that this application
includes the ....
Bill McKeever: Yes. That's resolved.
Chair Wilson: To be resolved. So,there would no longer be...
Bill McKeever: That you remove that designation from this property.
Chair Wilson: I think you've already addressed it, but just in case, we Want to elaborate on the
potential for debris or runoff on the west slope. I believe there's a question about how there's
some substantial slopes behind Lots 6 & 7 and so on. Can you address the issue of mitigation
slope erosion in an area like that?
Bill McKeever: Well, the City's grading ordinance requires that it all be landscaped, and each
slope over 3 feet high has to be landscaped. In addition to that, even up there on Lot 7 where we
..;don't have the access road, the building code requires a bench adjacent to the property line; and.
the purpose of that bench is so that people can stand or walk down their and maintain the slopes;
::and then for the rest of it, well have that access road in there that will provide a little bit of a
"buffer for any possible erosion to the slope. But, after the landscaping is established and stable
Chair Wilson: Thank you, Mr. McKeever. I've been approached with the idea that we've been-
in concert here for three hours, and a few of us would like to entertain a .break. So, if you
wouldn't mind, we'd like to take a 5-10 minute break and return.
Chair Wilson: We will reconvene zone change Tentative Tract Map No. 06-01 and
Environmental Review Case No. 06-03. At this time, are there any further questions for the
applicant's civil engineer. Are there any other folks who have not had an opportunity to speak
on this particular item?
John Squires
12711 Blue Mountain Court
Personally, I am opposed to this project. I would like to see the zone stay the way it is. I have
one of the larger lots to the south, and I would like to point out that just a couple of blocks south
of where I'm at there's (I don't know how many thousands of houses are being built on the land
that's being leveled right now, but the south end of Mt. Vernon where the road is closed, that's
going to be a major impact on the traffic in the area; and to build another 20 houses just across
the street from basically where I live, I think it's going to change the whole neighbor, and I'd
rather see it stay the way it is and keep the zoning the way that it's been. I think it would serve
the community better.
41
Chair Wilson: Anyone else who would like to come up?
Colene Sumner
12680 Kingfisher Rd.
I am on the west end of the street, so I don't have the same drainage and issues, but I have a
gorgeous view. I've been in Grand Terrace for 18 years. When I bought my house four years
ago, I was told there would be luxury homes, maybe 10 up above me property values nice and
high. Looking at 20 lots means to me a minimum of 40 more cars up and down my street. I
have two children. Many of my neighbors have children. They all play together on the street.
Pico Street has many children. As it is now, the road that goes up along this property is a single
lane, and there are still cars that go quite fast down that road. Why they are adding 40 more cars
scars me as a parent thinking what's going to happen up there. Of course, the aesthetics is one
thing the safety of my children and my neighbors' children.
Chair Wilson: Thank you. Anyone else who would like to speak on this particular item who has
not had an opportunity to speak on it? I see no takers, then we will close the Public Hearing and
bring it back to the Commission for motion, discussion.
Commissioner Comstock: Mr. Chairman, can I have just a couple more questions for the
applicant and his engineer?
- ,A couple of the issues that have been raised tonight are in regards to the drainage channels. The
'homeowners' association that's being planned for this project, are they going to be taking over,
:maintaining, the drainage canals behind the fences? I'm assuming that that drainage easement
there is supposed to maintain by both sets of property owners.
.Bill McKeever: That's kind of a gray area. There is a public drainage easement on that, but it
located on the other property.
Commissioner Comstock: So, it's located on the downhill, on the Kingfisher property.
Bill McKeever: It was originally intended, when that tract was constructed, we had to make
provisions to intercept the water that was draining off of this property to answer that, that
challenge put into protect those laws and so it was place on that project but it is a public drainage
easement with intended to intercept water coming off this property.
Commissioner Comstock: Second question which has been said regarding lots 6 and 7 off of
Brice Court, I don't know what size homes that are being planned to go in there one or two story
or would there be anyway of maybe putting on a restriction for single story homes on those two
particular pads?
Bill McKeever: Well, everyone looks at single story houses as being as solution to all these
problems, quite frankly they are not. They take a much bigger foot print and secondly they're
more expensive to build than two story houses. Please keep in mind that we were ask to provide
those plotting studies, we took a house and we thought was possibly represented of something
that might be build on these lots. The owner hasn't developed a final architecture, they are not
42
going to be production houses they are going to build houses but they are going to be designed
more to fit the lots then your average production houses that we may end up with a deeper
narrower footprint on the lot to get the same square footage. Those are the things we haven't got
to that design stage yet.
Commissioner Comstock: So your saying that you don't want to be limited, that is to have
limitations placed upon on those two particular lots to one-story?
Bill McKeever: Well, I think we took a house that is fairly typical, that footprint that is on there
is forty foot wide by fifty foot deep and we showed that with a couple small walls we can get that
_house on the lot. I would suggest that when we get into final design we'll probably going to
come up with a house that fits a lot better than that house does. But I see no reason why that lot
shouldn't be there. Please bare in mind that any house that is built out here has to go through the
site`architure review_process and be heard by you and if a house is planned.for site that you don't
think that its right you can make that change.
Commissioner Comstock: In that same. line of we really haven't put much discussion regarding
one of the suggestions a Kingfisher's resident was to replaced the wood fence with a block wall
and I'm looking here trying to figure out, the length of that property between lot 1 and lot 7
approximately...
Bill McKeever: That was a 10 acre parcel and overall it was 660 square so it is approximately
from the center of Pico to our north boundaries 660.
Commissioner Comstock: So that adds considerably the price of the cost of the project to put up
.,.:a block wall. I was just trying to figures if there were ways to settle our differences between the
current residences and the project being proposed here.
MOTION PC -10-2006
Chair Wilson: Perhaps I can interject due to the lateness of the hour but I would like to propose
that there are quite several items for further discussions on this particular case and since this is a
zone change this being contemplating and there has been quite a bit of discussion from the
surrounding homeowners to make a motion to continue this item and direct the applicant to
return with alternate site plans and perhaps we can revisit some of these items at a later date.
Commissioner Bidney: I second that motion.
Vice Chair Addington: While we are at it that drainage on lot 18, if you just give me a little
clarification and just a little more detail on it, I would appreciate it. Thanks Bill.
Chair Wilson: We appreciate the applicant willing to work with the staff and the installation of
this unusual parcel and you made a good presentation and we appreciate that. So, we would like
the opportunity to work through a few of these items.
Vice Chair Addington: The next discussion, are we going to continue it for May 4tn or May 181n
Chair Wilson: We can continue this to a date uncertain or we can continue to a date certain.
43
Vice Chair Addington: I suggest that you continue to May 18tn.
MOTION VOTE
PC-10-2006
Chair Wilson: Motion on the floor to continue and second concurs has amended,please vote.
Secretary Smith: Motion carriers all Ayes.
ADJOURN SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING 8:00 nm
CONVENE PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION
• INFORMATION TO THE COMMISSIONERS
Director Koontz: Three quick items. One, the action you took last time on Essco has been
appealed to the City Council.
Chair Wilson: Are there grounds for the appeal?
`Director Koontz: It the exact same letter you received from the attorney that I handed out at the
:public hearing. Secondly, I have and I'll passed out as you leave, we received a new draft
environment impact report on the Ironhorse Hills project which is that piece in Colton, just
down Barton Road that we talked about in the past. They completely redesigned the project it's
all single family 178 lots no condos it's a whole lot different. I got the project description and
the exhibit. We just received it yesterday so we got until early June, like June 51n to respond.
On May 1 ltn as part of the workshop, we would like to talk about this. I'm putting together my
comments for the EIR to submit to Colton, if you want a complete copy of the EIR it is relatively
focus we can run copies for anyone who is interested and get them out to you.
Chair Wilson: I would very much like to have a copy. The rest of the commissioners would like
to have a copy?
Vice Chair Addington: Yes please
Commissioner McNabor: I would too.
Vice Chair Addington: and you said May 1 ltng
Director Koontz: on May 181n
Vice Chair Addington: I wanted to make sure I wasn't confuse Gary, thank you
Director Koontz: I'm getting tired of Thursday's meeting working past nine.
44
Vice Chair Addington: Your 3`d item.
Director Koontz: The 3`d item, the June hearing we may not have. If there is something critical
that comes up we may have it but that the night my teenager daughter graduates from high
school and I've been told we will be somewhere else. If we need something we may have on one
on the first Thursday of the month instead of the 3`d
Vice Chair Addington: Speaking of being somewhere else I do not know what is on the May 4tn
agenda. I will not be in town, I will not be in the state, if you could get my packet to me much
earlier than the weekend before I fly out I would appreciate it so I can have a written response
for my fellow commissioners for May 4tn
Commissioner Comstock: I don't intend on being here either.
Vice Chair Addington: Well it says next planning commission meeting well be held on May 4tn
Director Koontz: Well were allowed to have one on the 1st and the 3`d
Vice Chair Addington: so, we will be going the 18tnq
Director Koontz: yes, we will be going the 18tn
• Director Koontz: It's only on very special occasions that we have one on the first Thursday of
"ithe month, right now we nothing really in process that would be eligible for a May 41n meeting.
,Vice Chair Addington: I understand but this is the first time that it has ever occurred.
Chair Wilson: Any information from the commissioners?
Chair Wilson: I would to thank all who participated to this evening it was an interesting meeting
and I also like to thank all those who participated in our last council/commission meeting it was
above and beyond the call of duty. I like to thank you for participation and your continued
participation. We will then adjourn this public workshop session to the next planning
commission meeting to be help on May 181n 2006.
ADJOURNED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION 10:15 PM
NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON JUNE 15,2006
Respectfully Submitted, Approve By,
Gary L. oontz, ling Director Doug Wilson, Chairman
Planning Commission
45