Loading...
09/21/2000GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 21, 2000 The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California on September 21, 2000 at 7:02 p.m., by Chairwoman Fran Van Gelder. PRESENT: Fran Van Gelder, Chairperson Doug Wilson, Vice -Chairperson Maryetta Ferre', Commissioner Mary Trainor, Commissioner Patrizia Materassi, Director of Community and Economic Development John Lampe, Associate Planner Steve Cumblidge, Planning Technician Pat Groeneveld, CEDD Secretary ABSENT: Matthew Addington, Commissioner 7:02 P.M. CONVENED SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Trainor Roll Call • Public address to Commission shall be limited to three minutes unless extended by the Chairman. Should you desire to make a longer presentation, please make written request to be agendized to the Director of Community and Economic Development. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: NONE This is a time for anyone in the audience to speak on any item which is not on the agenda for this meeting. ITEM #1 PLANNING COMMISSIONER MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 20, 2000. MOTION PC-2000-23 Motion was made by Commissioner Trainor to approve the minutes of the July 20, 2000, Planning Commission Meeting. Motion was seconded by Commissioner VViIson. MOTION VOTE PC-2000-23 Motion approved 3-0-1-1. Commissioner Trainor abstained and Commissioner Addington absent. ITEM # 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 2000, 2000. MOTION PCM-2000-24 Motion was made by Chairwoman Van Gelder to approve the minutes of the August 17, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Trainor. MOTION VOTE PCM-2000-24 Motion approved. 3-0-1-1 Commissioner Ferre' abstained. Commissioner Addington absent. ITEM # 3 SA-00-081E-00-08 APPLICATIONS FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, 1,835 SQUARE FEET, AT 22322 VAN BUREN STREET, GRAND TERRACE, CA, 92313 COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Planning Technician Steve Cumblidge presented the Staff Report, noting the proposal is to construct a single family residential dwelling on an existing 7,260 square foot lot. A former single family residence at the site was demolished. The proposed new house has 1,357 square feet of living area in a single story floor plan with three bedrooms, two bathrooms, a living room and kitchen with an attached, 496 square foot, two car garage. Mr. Cumblidge noted the proposed house is the same design as built previously by the Community Redevelopment Agency — the home at the corner of Van Buren Street and Murado Avenue - in reverse plan with slightly different trim. Overheads of the proposed home were provided by Mr. Cumblidge. Staffs recommended Conditions of Approval are geared towards integrating the proposed house into an existing, relatively built out neighborhood. Architectural recommendations provide divided light style windows for all windows visible from the street. Another strong recommendation was that side yard fences, which are visible from the public street, be masonry, i.e. split face block, stucco, or slump stone all with a decorative cap, instead of 2 wood with decorative gates. This recommendation would, in Staffs opinion, establish a more finished appearance to this new construction proposed in an established neighborhood. Conditions also include the placement of 3, twenty-four inch box trees, one in the street parkway and two in the front yard and the installation of front yard landscaping and irrigation. Mr. Cumblidge concluded the report and offered to answer any questions. Chairperson Van Gelder asked if any other Staff member would like to comment. Director Materassi suggested Director Barham address the Commission as he was the "developer' in this case. Virgil Barham, Director of Building and Safety/Public Works began his address to the Commission by providing background information on the City Rehab Program. The Program has purchased 37 properties within the City in the last five years, the start of the program. Thirty were existing houses were rehabilitated and sold to first time buyers. The property Mr. Cumblidge referred to at the corner of Van Buren and Mirado was the program's first venture into building a new facility. Director Barham explained that many communities have many REO's -real estate that's owned by lenders. These properties have been foreclosed or in someway defaulted. He reported that Grand Terrace has zero REO's. The department tries to be aggressive in cleaning up repossessed or defaulted homes. Director Barham shared a picture of the lot proposed for development, noting that it is the middle house between two corner lots. He described the propose home noting the differences from the first home constructed - mirror image, different treatment on the entry way, a roofline that will be gabled and over the entry, a different color brick, and a distinct trim color. At the conclusion of Director Barham's report, Chairwoman Van Gelder opened the floor to questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Wilson noted the General Plan goals of the City were to attempt to upscale the housing stock. He inquired if consideration was given to constructing a two story house and what decision making process was used in determining the specifications for the proposed house. Director Barham responded that no consideration had been given to a two story house. The program is a low and moderate income program. Care is given not to overprice the homes, which would put them beyond the means of first time buyers, while maintaining a quality product and enhancement to the specific neighborhood and the City in general. Director Barham stated that the majority of the homes coming into the program are located below Mount Vernon as other areas of the City would be to costly for the program. Commissioner Wilson asked for a brief overview of the program, including price range(s), whether or not this is a revenue source, how any citizen in the City of Grand Terrace lock into information regarding this program. The Commissioner noted that the proposed sale price of the new home is $140,000, which is not low income. 3 Director Barham replied, advising the program was set up by the Redevelopment Agency and approved by the City Council to purchase homes that were depressed and repossessed to provide first time buyers the ability to have a home in the City. The price of the first home built by the program was $140,000, and will be the same for the house presented for approval tonight. That is the highest price charged to date by the program. The program does not create revenue, in fact, does not break even. The City carries a second on most of the homes, as the applicants cannot affor the full price. Purchasers have to provide their own lender and pre -qualify. They are then interviewed by two different committees and also go before the Redevelopment Agency for approval. The department is currently working on the Palm property purchased by the program. Director Barham advised that staff does their best to keep an eye out for homes that would suit program purposes. When purchased, the department works on the homes furthest out as they are most susceptible to vandalism. Tom Schwab, City Manager, has and does speak to the Chamber and local agencies and groups and has done many presentations. A number of articles have been published in the San Bernardino Sun and the Press Enterprise. The program is publicized quite heavily. Also signs are posted on all the properties with the program's phone number and address. The program is flooded by applicants, many who express a need/desire for more homes. Director Barham stated that there are not a lot of cities that have a program such as this. The public really appreciates the program and ten times the amount of homes that have come into the program could be sold. Commissioner Wilson thanked the Director for the information provided. Director Materassi mentioned to the Commissioners that the 20% of the funds set aside by the Redevelopment Agency must be used for low and moderate income housing or be lost. There is a period of three to four years to use the funds and a cap on price the house. Most cities build apartments or senior housing. Grand Terrace is using the funds in an excellent way while still complying with State requirements. The Housing Element requires low income housing, which the City is not building. Director Materassi noted that is the reason why the City will need to do Town Square, as whoever builds Town Square will be required to construct senior housing of which 15% must be for persons with a lower income or subsidized. The current program is meeting the need for moderate housing, but there is still the need for low income housing. These requirements are State mandated so that the cities will have a balanced provision of housing. Commissioner Wilson explained that was exactly why he asked questions. He has heard complaints from various low income families, three specifically that feel a program like this should work for them. But if the price tag is past a certain point, it doesn't. The Commissioner expressed concern that the low income housing can't always be containerized to multi -family dwellings and there is the appearance that the City swoops in and grabs hold of depressed pieces of property, which by Director Barham's statement is not a revenue producing situation. He also stated the open market and repossessions often allow low income families an opportunity, but if the property is refurbished it becomes price prohibitive and defeats the purpose. The Commissioner noted that the Rehab Program treads a careful line. n Director Materassi advised that some of the units are in great disrepair because they have been abandoned; they are stripped of all the cabinets and toilets and amenities. The amount of money spent to bring the house up to code is substantial. The City program makes no profit and does not intend to. For the City to provide very low income housing it will have to be through different means — such as the Senior housing, mixed use project. Director Materassi advised the persons applying for the Rehab homes must qualify for $90,000 to $100,000 loan. The intent of the program is two -fold, to make available housing for solid families that may have difficulty in qualifying for homes over $100,000 and to maintain the value of property within the City. Director Barham noted that the City is not competing with people trying to buy homes, but homes coming into the project are considered after the City receives a notice of repossession. Commissioner Trainor asked if the City has a particular goal in mind for the number of houses in the Rehab program. She also asked if the homes evaluated were specifically bankruptcies. Director Barham responded that there is no specific goal. Each property is evaluated separately as it becomes available. As a general rule, there is a default of some sort. Also, the program does not compete with the local realty community (in fact the program works closely with local realtors) and does not buy homes that can be sold on the open market. The realtors in the community contact the program when a property is in such a state of deterioration that the reasonable solution for sale is the Rehab program. Commissioner Ferre' noted that since there was an abundance of applicants it would appear that the program is meeting the needs of a certain segment of the Grand Terrace citizenry and her observation that the neighborhoods should be very pleased with the ongoing efforts of the programs to bring/keep the standard of housing high. Director Barham confirmed Commissioner Ferre's statement, noting that the program had met a specific need for a family with a child with multiple sclerosis. The family had rented in the City for years. When they qualified for a home in the Rehab program, the home was designed with amenities specific to their needs, such as a roll in shower, a higher than normal garage roof, etc. It has been Director Barham's experience that all the participants in the program have been very satisfied with the process and the homes purchased. Commissioner Trainor asked how many of these homes or what percentage are purchased by residents of Grand Terrace. Director Barham replied approximately 80%, perhaps higher are purchased by residents or former residents - young people who want to come back to the community to raise their families. Commissioner Trainor stated that she believes this is a wonderful program and it does a couple of things: it gets people into homes that otherwise might not be able to have a home of their own and upgrades the aging housing stock, which was a consideration of the Task Force of which she was a member. The Commissioner asked if their was a waiting list for program homes or if each home was a separate competitive situation. 5 Director Barham noted that each home and the applicants are evaluated on its own merit. All persons who apply are kept on file, but the process is not a matter of moving to the head of the list as many criteria are considered, such as the size of home compared to the number of family members as well as the potential buyers preferences for location, etc. Chairperson Van Gelder, opened the Public Hearing as there were no more questions from the Commission, recognizing resident John Gardner. John Gardner Grand Terrace CA Resident John Gardner addressed the Commission, advising that he was neighbor to the site under consideration, the corner house. Mr. Gardner observed many dump trucks depositing dirt at the site, raising it, in his estimation by three feet or more. Mr. Gardner stated he was advised the additional dirt was deposited to correct drainage of the lot to the street; having experience flooding on his property in the past, he fears this grading will cause water to flow to his property. These deposits are pressing on his wooden fence and he fears the fence is "going to go". He questioned the retaining wall(s) that is proposed, as a potential problem and noted that two trees encroach on his property and feels they should be removed. Mr. Gardner noted that Mrs. Gardner had spoken to Director Barham, however Mr. Gardner had not spoken to the Director, although he had asked for personal contact. Q Director Barham noted that an eight foot distance was planned from the property line to new construction, although only five feet are required and a retaining wall was not planned, but a small planter wall. He noted that he had spoken to Mrs. Gardner regarding the trees and she requested that they be left on the site as thy provided substantial shade to the Gardner property. Mr. Gardner responded that he wanted the trees removed as the roots of the trees were tearing up his back yard. Mrs. Gardner expressed concern about potential flooding of their property due to the re -grading of the neighboring lot. Director Barham responded that the proposed property will drain properly to the street and will not create a situation that exposes the Gardner property to flooding. He reiterated that plans call for a small planter wall, not a retaining wall, which will have no impact on the Gardner property. The difference in level between the two properties is less than two feet and was properly designed by an engineer. Commissioner Wilson asked if the Commission could condition it for positive drainage and received a reply in the affirmative. Mr. Gardner asked if the two trees could be removed. Director Barham advised that it would be a significant problem to remove the trees because the trees are not on the program's site and would require reconstruction of the shared fence. Director Barham suggested that the proposed construction be moved two feet to the east, providing a larger margin of distance between the new construction and the Gardner C� property, while maintaining a significant side yard access, fourteen feet, on the new construction. Commissioner Wilson and Director Barham discussed the fine points of the map, Commissioner Wilson noting that no grades are shown for the adjoining properties. Director Barham noted that the detail daylights, and the topal shows the contour lines at the existing properties with the finish grade shown noted by the existing sidewalk grade. Mr. Gardner stated that the plans do not show existing grade. Director Barham concurred, stating that the contour is the existing grade. Chairperson Van Gelder thanked Mr. Gardner and assured him that the Commission and Staff would address his concerns after the close of the public hearing. Chairperson Van Gelder then closed the public hearing and asked the Commission if they would like to address the conditions. MOTION PCM-2000-25 Commissioner Wilson moved that Number Eleven of the General Conditions specify that necessary measures are taken to insure positive drainage from the rear property line to the front property line and so moved. Chairperson Van Gelder seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PCM-2000-25 Commissioner Trainor asked if positive drainage incorporated the retaining wall, if it is determined it will affect the assurance of positive drainage. Director Barham affirmed that it would be an issue relating to the block wall on the frontage. The Planning Department, as part of the Conditions of Approval had requested block walls. Director Barham strongly supports the installation of wooden fencing (a new wooden fence will be installed across the back of the property) as this is less limiting to the new owner's potential need/access to the side yard. Further, he did not think installing decorative gates would be the best use of the program's funds. Director Barham asked the Commission if they approved his earlier suggestion of moving the house two feet east of the submitted proposal. rear, 'cause it's in poor condition and we will be putting new fence across the rear of the property. MOTION PCM-2000-26 Commissioner Trainor moved that the proposed house be moved two feet east — an adjustment to the submitted plan. l Commissioner Ferre' seconded the motion. 7 MOTION VOTE PCM-2000-26 Motion approved. 3-0-0-1. Commissioner Addington absent. Chairperson Van Gelder asked if the Commission would like to address any other issues. Director Barham requested the Commission address the condition requiring block walls and decorative gates, reiterating the difficulty it could cause a potential buyer and the cost to the program. Director Barham advised that wood fencing would be in keeping with the fencing used in the surrounding neighborhood (some wooden, others block) and that standard wooden access gates would provide access without limiting the potential buyer in the future. Director Barham referred to the pictorial display on the board. Discussion over the merits of the fencing and gates took place. Director Materassi directed to the Chair her concern regarding the two trees on the property line with the Gardners. The City makes every effort to retain trees if possible, per City code. Commissioner Trainor noted the trees were an issue to the Gardners and it appeared there was some misunderstanding between the Gardners and the program on the status. The Commissioner shared that she was confused about the ownership of the trees and asked if it was possible to determine. Director Barham stated that the trees were dead on the property line and ownership could not really be established. He stated that he spoke with the property owners and they were adamant about not taking down the trees. Chairperson Van Gelder noted she was very adamant about removing trees. Commissioner Trainor asked about the issues raised regarding the side fences in the architectural review, Condition 13. While she understood the Condition was imposed as pro forma on new construction, she did agree, since this was a rehab in an existing neighborhood with mixed fencing materials, with Director Barhams request to amend the Condition to require wood fencing with a wooden side yard access gate. MOTION PC-2000-27 Commissioner Wilson moved that Condition Number 13 be amended to delete stucco or masonry and insert — side yard fences and gates shall be constructed using 1 x 6 palings, dog-eared at the top, of termite resistant material, such as redwood or cedar. Chairperson Van Gelder seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PC-2000-27 0 Motion approved. 3-0-0-1. Commissioner Addington absent. MOTION PC-2000-28 Chairperson Van Gelder moved that SA-00-08/E-00-08 be approved. Commissioner Trainor seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PC-2000-28 Motion approved. 3-0-0-1. Commissioner Addinton absent. ITEM 3 DU-00-01/E-00-11 Infrastructure Study and Environmental Analysis to provide the justification for requiring certain infrastructure requirements. APPLICANT: Department of Community and Economic Development City of Grand Terrace LOCATION: The study area includes three legal parcels located at 21496, 0 21506 and 21516 Main Street in the City of Grand Terrace. John Lampe, Associate Planner requested the original Recommendation to the Commission be modified, requesting the Commission receive Staff Report, open the public hearing, receive testimony and continue the matter until the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on October 19th. One of the property owners did not get the Staff Report in a timely manner and requested additional time to review the Staff Report and meet with Staff to discuss the issues. Mr. Lampe then delivered Staffs report, stating the project is the evaluation of the potential environmental impacts on existing and proposed development for a portion of the City of Grand Terrace, located along Main Street, City of Grand Terrace, thereby identifying the infrastructure needs of this area based on the City's General Plan, which is industrial and also the zoning M-2 industrial. The purpose of the Infrastructure Study and Environmental Analysis provide the legal nexus that will be needed by the City of Grand Terrace to justify requiring that all of the infrastructure improvements for the study area be made as development occurs, even as such development maybe small in scale in terms of it's environmental impacts and so called piece -meal type of development. Referring to the screen on the Commission's, Mr. Lampe showed a map of the study area, which measures approximately 11.5 acres and consists of the three addresses, 21496, 21506, 21516 Main Street. Over the years, there have been approximately thirty requests entertained by this Commission or prior Commissions for various types of industrial development for the area ranging from trucking businesses to recycling facilities. The thirty different applications were listed on the Staff Report for the Commission's reference. Many of the prior requests resulted in the so-called piece -meal type of development in the study area generating what Staff feels are adverse impacts because of the lack of infrastructure. Currently, it is Staffs judgment that there is inadequate sewage service, inadequate domestic water service, and inadequate vehicular access in this area. Only recently was a water line put in by the City of Colton to provide adequate fire flow protection for the two most southerly parcels. Mr. Lampe advised he prepared the report under the misconception that the most northerly parcel, 21496, which is owned by Hood Communications had been purchased by the adjacent property owner. It only came to his attention today that the purchase did not take place. As a result of this information, Staff suggested the matter be continued at least until the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission, to give the property owner, Hood Communication, an opportunity to review the Staff report and talk to the Staff about recommendations in the Infrastructure Study. He went on to report the General Plan for the three parcels is industrial. The zoning for all three parcels reflects the General Plan category M-2, Industrial Zoning. The land uses of the three parcels were itemized. The property at the most northerly parcel, 21496 Main, is presently vacant. It had, until recently been used as an inter -state trucking business. Photographs taken last year, when the site was heavy used as a trucking business, were available for the Commission. Presently this lot is vacant. The middle site, at 21506 is also occupied by a trucking business — Harris Trucking which hauls construction materials, mainly sand and gravel. Also on this site is a heavy-duty vehicle repair business, a business that presently is unlicensed. It is presumed in the near, they future will be coming before the Commission for some sort of a zoning entitlement to allow the business to exist at that particular site. The most southerly parcel, 21516 Main Street, has had in the past two tenants, who were actually divided the parcel in half, with only one address. Mr. Lampe ascertained the Commission would remember American Modular which occupied the northerly part of that parcel. American Modular went out of business earlier this year. The site has just recently been occupied by another tenant, who received a temporary Certificate of Occupancy, also to operate the same kind of business, the manufacture of modular units. The southerly part of that parcel is the old BFI building, again, the Commission would remember the recycling case on this property. This site has recently been occupied by another tenant, a pallet distribution facility. So, the southerly parcel is presently occupied by two tenants Mr. Lampe refreshed the Commission's memory, noting in August 1998, the Commission approved an expansion moratorium for this area. At that time, noting the lack of public sewers and inadequate fire flow, the Commission recommended to the City Council that a Moratorium be approved. This Moratorium could be lifted, once adequate fire flow and proper connections to the public waste were put in place. In September of that year, the City Council declined to approve the imposition of the Moratorium, but it did conclude that future development should be made to comply with conditions for lifting the Moratorium as outlined by the Commission, i.e. adequate fire flow and the proper connection to public sewage system. A water line was installed by the City of Colton, in behest of American Modular, in February, of 2000 to provide fire flow protection to facilities on the two parcels 21506 and also 21516. i The City of Colton has provided a "will -serve" letter, indicating that they are willing and able to provide fire flow and domestic service for this area. At the present time, the City of Colton does provide domestic service for the most northerly parcel, that is, Hood Communications 10 at 21496, but not to the two most southerly parcels. They are supplied, in an unusual situation, by the City of Riverside, by a line under Main Street. However, the City of Riverside is quite anxious to have the City of Colton take over that domestic service. The property at 21496, the most northerly parcel, is not connected to a public sewer system at this time. They have an on -site system, where it is believed there have been some problems in the past. The parcel at 21506, the Harris Transfer property, is connected to the public system by a four inch lateral line. It is Staffs understanding this line should be upgraded to a full main line pipe. This particular line should be upgraded. The northerly half of the property at 21516 Main Street, is connected to the same four inch lateral by a connection that did not receive City approval and must be upgraded. On the southerly half of 21516 Main, there is a small modular office facility as part of that parcel. This facility does have a four inch lateral that connects to a sewer line running along Main Street. Access to the three parcels presently takes place by means of a private, paved, undedicated street, actually a driveway. It has no other improvements - no curbs, gutters or walks. This is an easement that provides access to the three parcels in question. The three parcels presently drain towards the west, there is no drain structure to handle runoff. In addition, there is a large storm drain that underlies the middle parcel at 21506 Main, for the purpose of providing at least partial flood protection. It is the conclusion of Staff that this is an inadequate situation and there is a potential for flooding of these three parcels. Lastly. it was Staffs conclusion that the landscaping does not meet the City standards for adequate landscaping and screening on these sites. The area lacks proper landscaping and screening for industrial uses. There is very minimal landscaping along the private easement that provides access to the parcels on the westerly side of these parcels and also on Main Street. Additionally, on -site paving and parking are inadequate for these parcels. This is a result of past piece -meal type development. The study makes specific recommendations as listed in the Staff Report. 1. New sewer facilities to adequately handle the industrial uses in the area. 2. Dedication of a street for adequate vehicular access along the westerly boundary of the parcels in question. 3. Provision of appropriate street improvements as required by the City. 4. New drainage facilities to mitigate any drainage of flooding problems. 5. Adequate water service provided in the study area for both domestic and fire flow purposes. 6. Adequate Streetscape and Screening for development. 7. Adequate On -site Paving and Parking. These recommendations are based on input provided to Planning Staff by the Director of Building and Safety and Housing and also by the City Engineer. Staffs report included recommendations relative on -site paving and parking. Showing there is a need and concern for properly landscaped perimeter of these industrial sites from the public right of way along Main Street, Railroad right of way which lies to the easterly end of the subject three sites and the potential future road lying along the western boundary of the three parcels. The Environmental Analysis, consisting of the Negative Declaration and Initial Study, showed this lack of infrastructure that occurred in the past, will result, and has resulted in a significant cumulative impact to the community of Grand Terrace. The current uses of the subject sites, relating to the current number of employees, truck traffic, noise, esthetics, etc. without the concurrent provision for adequate infrastructure, will result in a cumulative 11 impact. The Environmental Review provides what Staff believes is the legal nexus to show that infrastructure improvements are needed, even for the smallest project, in order to mitigate potential adverse effects resulting from uses that are allowed under the current City's General Plan. Mr. Lampe concluded his report, reiterating that Staff recommends the Commission receive public testimony and continued the matter to October 19,2000. Mr. Lampe thanked the Commission for their attention and asked the Commissioners to review some thirty photographs of the area covered in the Staff Report displayed on the board. The Commissioners moved to the board and reviewed the photographs. Chairperson Van Gelder asked if other Staff members present would like to comment.. Director Barham responded to the Chairperson by stating over the years, many different projects have come to the Commission for this area. Staff recommends conditions and each time conditions have basically been the same: dedication of the street improvements, installation of main line sewers from Main Street to the cul-de-sac, and installation of the curbs, gutters and paving to adequately serve the properties. The properties are just to the east of Riverside Canal, which is a open canal. There have been cars parked on these properties that just rolled into that canal because it's level with the property. In fact, it slopes to the west. Director Barham suggested City Engineer, Bill Addington, would also address drainage and the storm drain facilities; he went on to advise that the County of Riverside installed a large storm drain facility on Center Street with the improvement of Center Street from Mount Vernon west to the railroad tracks down to Iowa Street. As part of the street improvement program they also installed a large storm drain facility, a 66 inch storm drain pipe that, that collects water from Mount Vernon, takes it west to the railroad tracks, transfers that water through a box structure towards Main Street and then stops at Main Street. The City would not allow them to cross the City line until the County of Riverside demonstrated adequately how they were going to transfer all that water through a 48 inch pipe under the railroad. It went back and forth for a year, nearly to litigation. The issues was resolved through the County counsel and the City attorney. However, it was indicated by Riverside County Flood Control that the pipe transporting the water should be at least a 66 or 72 inches. The railroad took exception. They would not build a pipe to bring the water from the Edison property onto the property that is 21506 Main, the center parcel. So it crosses under the Riverside Canal into an open channel through what is known as the "Yum-Yum" property, the Yum-Yum Restaurant. The City has been named in different litigation for damages resulting from flooding, injuries and property damage that has taken place on that property. It has been turned over to our insurance carrier. The matter goes back to 1978 when just prior to becoming a City, this issue was a Condition of Approval from the Planning Department of the County of San Bernardino. It was even noted that these conditions should be met before the final map was recorded. It seems apparent that some things fell between the cracks at the time the County stopped handing that function and the City became incorporated. As a result, this property developed in it's current state and Staff is attempting to rectify the matter. Director Materassi confirmed Director Barham's observations that the drainage issue is a condition from twenty years ago. Development occurred little by little making it difficult for Staff to require huge amounts of infrastructure. The cumulative effect of this development has reached a capacity with potential for significant environmental impact on the 12 environment, which is why Staff presented its Report to the Commission. As yet, we haven't had a big fire, a huge flood or any accidents just small, contained sewer problems. An attempt is being made to avoid major impact from taking place. Staffs report supports the finding of a lack of infrastructure in the study area in relation to the amount of development �- operation in that area. With approval of the Recommendation, Staff would be able to require infrastructure, even for small sized development in the area. Director Materassi used the illustration of a glass so full of water that one last drop causes the entire glass to overflow. She requested the Commission evaluate the findings, hopefully finding them true and approving the project. Commissioner Wilson stated that is has been his experience that most City entities have master plan infrastructures. From the standpoint of sewer and drainage facilities, he asked how this fits into the City master infrastructure system. Bill Addington Consulting City Engineer 22737 Barton Road Suite B Grand Terrace CA 92313 City Engineer, Bill Addington introduced himself and agreed with the Commissioner that it was a good question. Mr. Addington suggested reading between the lines. In 1978 the County approved the formation of these three parcels. The middle parcel, as he recalled, was approved for the use of aluminum salvage. A Coors collection facility for aluminum cans that were processed, crushed and packed; a very small operation. The gore point on the north was thought to be a good place for truck storage or a construction yard and that happened. There is a storm drain through that center parcel, but no one is exactly certain where as good, accurate mapping that would come with standards of care of approving a project was never done. There are sewers, but in the study area there never was a sewer installated to City standard. Instead there are a series of makeshift plumbing code types of construction that takes sewage out to Main Street. Mr. Addington explained that every time the areas is reviewed it has been a concern. Repeatedly it's asked: how do we take something in use, which continually comes up for another use, when the streets were not designed and built as would have been if approval had been given by the Commission on the front end. We don't have the infrastructure, the water, or the sewer. To the best of Mr. Addington's knowledge, the City as never had good topographic mapping and grading designs that would handle the drainage requirements. Storm drains, which are a real concern, should be analyzed by the developers engineer and those engineers should tell the City what problems they anticipate and how they intend to solve them. The City in turn, would review the submission. The review process for the City is reactionary. Someone proposes a project and Staff examines and critiques the proposal, advises and comes to an agreement. Commissioner Wilson took exception, stating his understanding is that usually the City would have a master plan or master structures so developers could react to those guidelines. The Commissioner asked if the City had those guidelines in place now. Engineer Addington responded affirmatively, explaining that general plan law and zoning f law are in essence, the master plan. Also, the planning department functions in assuring the requirements are met. 13 Commissioner Wilson offered that this has been the problem in the past, noting the County was lax in relation to the implementation of a master plan kind of system for infrastructure, resulting in the current dilemma. He agreed the piece -meal development of the property has not helped the situation. But questioned mandating other improvements based on the codes, since the City does not have a master plan. The Commissioner asked how we could determine what portion or particular improvement a property holder had to assume and the process Staff used to ascertain a four inch lateral was not adequate to handle the drainage from these properties. Engineer Addington explained the issue is the contiguous use of the property. That use requires a that sewer main and manhole(s) be constructed to meet the City standards. The sewer system standards are adopted and dealt with by all municipal entities — such as a manhole every 350 feet. Commissioner Wilson concurred when speaking of the public right of way, but understood this is private property with an easement, existing or implied, with no public dedication within those parcels other than the canal. He expressed his difficulty in coming to terms with implementation in these circumstances. Engineer Addington agreed with the Commissioner's assessment, but advised the need exists. Director Materassi advised a finding of nexus was required. Staff, when presented with a single application for the area can require certain improvements, but those improvements cannot be more costly than the improvement itself. State law and the courts support that no more than 10% of the value of the investment may be charged for improvements. In the past, Staff asked for the improvements, but because the projects are so tiny they did not have the legal power to require the improvements before occupancy. Often, the applicants are offered two or three years comply with Staffs action plan. Staff works with the applicant to determine what is feasible compared to City requirements. Even though the City has Code and Ordinance, Staff cannot impose the improvement the investment is not enough. The result is a cumulative impact. One more truck in the area will be too many trucks. There is no street, no sewer. The situation has developed to the point that Staff cannot approve any more development without creating a sweatshop environment. The option now is to find the situation cumulatively, has become to a point where there is very clear evidence of potential negative impacts to the environment. With this finding Staff will be able to require these improvements. Commissioner Wilson stated that he understood the concept but felt a finding of cumulative impact was a band -aid to the circumstance since small property owners or small improvements to existing properties could not support expensive improvements. A finding would give Staff "police power", but the Commissioner did not believe this process provides a clear identification of the nexus, if we don't have a master study of the items in question that requires contributions in lieu of improvements, that can cumulatively then be used as a fund to improve these kinds of areas. The Commissioner asked for further explanation. Director Materassi responded, sympathetic to the complexities involved. She noted the City does have a drainage plan but it does not include the water that comes from Riverside to the City, but. the water that comes from Blue Mountain to Pico. There is a master plan for this street for public, but not private property. Cities do not have the funds to improve private property, nor are they compelled to do so. However, cities required to make certain that 14 operations of a facility do not have a negative impact on the environment. Consequently, if the City is able to state that a facility is operating without infrastructure, potentially creating significant impact to the environment, then the City has the right to tell developers no more permits will be issued until the infrastructure is to code. unless all of this in. If the developer has no funds there will be no development. All that is needed now is a finding that the statements presented to the Commission are true: that continued operation of the businesses in the three parcels will result in a negative impact; that there are/have already been impacts; that City standards have not been met and no infrastructure exists. If the findings are found true, then developers will be required to put in the infrastructure on submission of the next permit for any one of the three parcels. The City has the right to do this. Director Materassi admitted that it is hard on the developers. On the other hand, these businesses have been operating for many years without complying with requirements common to all other development. They have not contributed to the protection of the environment, supported/contributed to the infrastructure, there are not even parcel maps. Director Materassi advised a long term lease (five years or more) obligates the property owner to submit a parcel map. The entire situation is difficult for Staff. Evaluating one project at a time and requiring the infrastructure, even though it's on the Code and Ordinances, is nearly impossible if a $10,000 investment requires a $20,000 improvement. The courts also support. the investor. However, if there is clear and proven evidence of cumulative impact and potential for negative impact on the environment, then requirements necessary can be required. Commissioner Wilson asked if the City determined there was a clear and present danger to the environment, such as an overloaded drainage facility or sewer facility or a driveway that is not adequate for the traffic going through and the property owner does not make the improvements, could the City then make a finding and fund the improvement through a sort of tax. Director Materassi advised that the City does charge capital improvement fees. However, capital improvement fees are for parks and drainage and the fees are very, very low. Also, the residents of Grand Terrace is opposed to fees. Commissioner Wilson responded that he was not referring to fees, but a direct assessment for frontage improvements. As example, if curbing needs to be installed, each property owner would be assessed if it is a finding for the public good. Director Materassi noted the Commission would be receiving public response in the person of Bruce Cash of United Strategies. Mr. Cash is consultant to two of the property owners. Mr. Cash has been speaking with the owners about participating in share -of -cost regarding these improvements. This would be an excellent situation which would be good for the property owners and good for the City. The other option is that the City to stop issuing permits for this area. We can simply advise the property owners not to bring in any new permits for improvements, as they can not be approved. This option is within the realm of City responsibility. No further assessment of the situation is necessary. The resolution before the Commission approves an infrastructure plan for the area and provides the nexus for Staff to have a legal right to require to require these improvements. If approved, Staff would work with each of the business affected, developing an action plan to 15 provide the infrastructure over a period of time. It is not Staffs intent to adversely affect business or property owners, only to provide for the infrastructure Chairperson Van Gelder, determining that there were no other questions for Staff, opened the public hearing. Chairperson Van Gelder, having received his request, asked Bruce Cash to come to the podium. Bruce Cash President United Strategies Inc. 9205 Business Center Drive Suite 101 San Bernardino CA Mr. Cash thanked the Commission for their time and introduced himself. Mr. Cash stated that he has been working tirelessly for over a decade to help in the resolution of the issues in the area. He suggested that some members of the current Commission have seen some success. Mr. Cash applauded Staff for their hard work and effort, recognizing the coordination and energy required. Mr. Cash believes Staff has done a good job and that United Strategies were positive contributors. United Strategies represents their clients Crystal Properties Inc., owners of the property at 21516 Main Street and Harris Transfer Inc. owners of the property at 21506 Main Street. Both companies authorized United Strategies to represent their particular interests and provided written authorization to Staff. Mr. Cash presented copies to the Commissioners. Mr. Cash stated his firm was surprised to discover a third property owner in the industrial corridor. He clarified that United Strategies represents only the property owners at 21516 and 21506 Main Street and have no interest or obligation with regard to property at 21496 Main Street. Mr. Cash advised his comments reflected the joint interests of Crystal Properties and Harris Transfer as related to the infrastructure study and the environmental analysis Staff provided to the Commission as basis for justification for requiring certain infrastructure improvements. Mr. Cash reminded the Commission that Crystal Properties and Harris Transfer invested substantial funds over the years to improve the particular corridor of the City's industrial area including certain offsite improvements. Additionally, both Crystal Properties and Harris Transfer have caused to be executed certain letters of conditions related to their respective properties which may obligate them to certain additional costly and offsite improvements within the private easement drive which serves as primary access to their properties. It is Mr. Cash' view that both Crystal Properties and Harris Transfer indicate a willingness to make certain improvements in excess of local, state and federal requirements, investing substantial dollars to improve the image, cleanliness and utilization rate of their respective properties. Both of the clients have taken the issue of offsite improvements very seriously and have engaged actively in discussion, planning and investment in mature, responsible planning and action which first meets their business needs and also ensures compliance with commitments made to the City of Grand Terrace. In addition to the letters of condition agreed to by both Crystal Properties and Harris Transfer, Mr. Cash stated both parties have now authorized a specific participation be developed whereby both property owners and possibly others, agree to participate in -' needed offsite improvements once a completed infrastructure study is approved. United Strategies is preparing the participation agreement and expects a draft to be circulated for 16 review and comment among the parties, on or before October 1, 2000. Mr. Cash further anticipates, subject to client approval, that the participation agreement will be comprehensive and equitable to Crystal Properties and Harris Transfer on a gross acreage basis. A copy of the participation agreement will be provided to the City as a courtesy, so Staff will be informed. Mr. Cash assured the Commission that his clients, Crystal Properties and Harris Transfer, are taking their responsibilities seriously and moving quickly toward participation on a fair share basis of those whom will likely be beneficiaries of such improvements, subject to participation by all of those who will benefit from certain offsite improvements. Mr. Cash expects that at a minimum, a participation agreement between Crystal Properties and Harris Transfer will be in place prior to this Commission's October 19, 2000, meeting. Mr. Cash, advised, regard to the necessity, completeness and adequacy of both the infrastructure study and environmental analysis, that United Strategies would withhold specific comments until all property owners involved and affected in the corridor have had an opportunity to submit their comments. Mr. Cash stated that he reserved the right to make additional oral or written comments should this matter be continued. Chairperson Van Gelder assured Mr. Cash that the public hearing would not be closed but continued and all interested parties would have opportunity to address the Commission. Chairperson Van Gelder gave opportunity to the Commissioners to ask questions of Mr. Cash. Commissioner Wilson asked Mr. Cash if there was a definite scope to the participative agreement and any idea to the relation of percentage of participation to construct? Bruce Cash replied that essentially the participation agreement covers all the categories that have been outlined to date, most of which are included in Staffs infrastructure study. In one respect, Mr. Cash felt, beyond Staffs infrastructure study with regard to offsite utility. Regarding cost, Mr. Cash restated that the property owners, Crystal Properties and Harris Transfer, have made verbal commitments. If those had been the only two property owners there would be 100% agreement. Based on the third owner, gross acreage will calculate to something close to 65 to 70% of participation. MOTION PC-2000-28 MOTION VOTE PC-2000-28 Commissioner Trainor moved that Item Four be continued to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting, scheduled for October 19, 2000. Commissioner Ferre' seconded the motion. Motion approved 3-0-0-1. Commissioner Addington Absent. 17 8:56 P.M. ADJORNED SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 8:66 P.M. CONVENED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION Information to Commissioners Director Materassi advised the Commissioners of items tentatively scheduled for the October 19, 2000, Planning Commission Meeting: a new communications tower on Blue Mountain, Mr. Coffin's new construction for a wholesale plumbing supplier, CUP Amendment for the new tenant of the former American Modular site and an application for a new residence submitted by Stonewood Construction. Staff intends to bring the following items to the Commission in upcoming months: study results of DAP, the Fee Structure Ordinance, the Noise Element, an amendment to the business license procedure and a proposal regarding staff review of certain single family home applications. Director Materassi also noted that Staff has begun preliminary review of an application for a gas station at the corner of Barton Road and Mount Vernon. Further, Director Materassi noted the City had entered into an agreement o purchase approximately forty acres of land from the Edison Company. This purchase will allow the City to secure the future of the area's development. The second Retail Recruitment Forum is scheduled for December 5, and will provide brokers and tenants the opportunity to present properties they represent. Jim Harrigan will provide information gathered. Director Materassi was encouraged by the first Forum and is working to keep the momentum going. Director Materassi thanked the Commissioners who were able to attend the First Forum and asked for their comments. • Information from the Commissioners Chairperson Van Gelder and Commissioner Ferre' attended the August Forum and both expressed enthusiasm for the speakers and content, find the presentation informational and uplifting. Chairperson Van Gelder briefed the assembly on an article that appeared in the Sun, noting that Stater Bros. Would be vacating the Colton facility bordering Grand Terrace within the next two or three years. Commissioner Wilson initiated discussion on the affect Stater Bros. trucks have on local roads and traffic conditions. Directors Barham and Materassi provided information on upcoming improvements to the Barton Road railroad over crosssing and the circumstances involving imposition of infrastructure improvement -or mitigation measures in relation to the impact of the Stater Bros. Warehouse facility on the City of Grand Terrace. 18 9:13 P.M. ADJORNED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSON NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON OCTOBER 19, 2000 Respectfully submitted, Patrizia Materassi Director of Community and Economic Development w/pg/planning/minutes 9-21-OO.doc Approved by, r Fran Van Gelder Chairperson Planning Commission 19