Loading...
08/17/1988GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST 17, 1988 A special meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California on August 17, 1988 at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Stanley Hargrave. PRESENT: Stanley Hargrave, Chairman Dan Buchanan, Commissioner Herman Hilkey, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner David Sawyer, Community Development Director Joe Kicak, City Engineer Jeri Ram, Associate Planner Maria Muett, Planning Secretary ABSENT: Jerry Hawkinson, Vice -Chairman Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner John Harper, City Attorney PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Chairman Hargrave PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. No workshop due to special meeting. Chairman Hargrave opened the special meeting introducing the only item on the agenda, TPM-88-1 and TM-88-2. Item #1 Riverside Highland Water Barney Karger TPM-88-1 and TM-88-2 Water Reservoir/19 lots for single family residences Pico Avenue near Blue Mountain Crt. The Planning Director presented the staff report with the conditions and recommendations of approval by the City Engineer, reviewing agencies and staff. (He stated that condition #2 can be amended to state that the tank itself shall be painted in a color 1 approved by the Community Development Director, also the reservoir tank shall not extend higher than 10' above the required 6' high block wall which is a change from the condition stated in the staff report). Chairman Hargrave asked the Community Development Director what processing procedures should be taken in handling TPM-88-1 and TM-88-2. The Community Development Director suggested starting with the tentative tract map (TM-88-2). He stated that anything dealing with the tentative tract map will relate to the tentative parcel map. Chairman Hargrave asked the City Engineer to give his comments on the overall project. The City Engineer stated that he had no real problems with either map but would want to be assured that there is a delineated easement through lot #1 of the parcel map which is parcel A of the tract map. The only requirement in regards to the grading is that it is completed in accordance with the UBC and the tank design meets safety standards. The City Engineer explained that his main concerns with the tract map were as follows. With respect to keeping the palm trees on Pico Street he felt it would be a maj or mistake. He wanted to bring to the attention of the Planning Commission that the traffic circulation for the four easterly lots on the subdivision would have to make u-turns. The same thing would be true of the island with respect to the potential parcels on the southeast corners of Blue Mountain Court and Pico. Those parcels would have access to Pico Street in order to go westerly and would have to go around the island. The City Engineer pointed out for the record that he did not see any provisions on the tentative map that would indicate any interception of the drainage from Blue Mountain and disposal of the runoff. In the design stage this needs to be recognized as a problem. giscussion on the procedures in constructing the water reservoir and roadway according to standards set by the State of California, Department of Water Resources. 2 Discussion regarding the City Engineer's recommendation of a traffic index level of 5 on Pico Boulevard, which is not a high index. Discussion on the Environmental Study of the two issues; the tank and the actual tract. The Planning Commissioners expressed concern with exposure of the tank and the tract to hazards such as earthquakes. The Community Development Director explained that a great portion of Grand Terrace is exposed to earthquake activity. He stated that through approval of the map they are approving 19 homes which are going to be in an area, according to the Master Environmental Assesssment Report, likely to have strong to very strong shaking in the event of an earthquake. Discussion on the possibility of alerting the potential homebuyers of the earthquake hazard at that site through some type of City Risk Management. The Community Development Director indicated it could be mentioned in the CC&Rs. Discussion on adequate water drainage and catch basins from Blue Mountain. The City Engineer stated that the developer's engineer would normally design and construct a facility to protect the properties downstream from the water flow coming down from the west slope of Blue Mountain. He explained that a geologist would be needed to evaluate the condition of the large boulders on Blue Mountain. Chairman Hargrave asked the City Engineer if there was enough cause to deny the tract map based upon state of the art engineering and would that be an issue easily defended, if a catastrophe occurred. The City Engineer stated that could be appropriately answered by the City Attorney. Discussion on saving the palm trees in a median island. It was questioned whether or not the City was liable for upkeep and maintenance. Discussion on traffic flow in and out of the project onto Pico Avenue. Commissioner Sims questioned what 3 purpose the median island would have at the entrance. The City Engineer clarified that he had no problem with the median or the formation of a Home Association to maintain the landscaping in a public right of way, that would be up to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Sims expressed his concerns and asked if there would be any advantage to this type of tone being set and extended downhill. The City Engineer described the surrounding existing projects. He explained that the median island could probably go as far as Oriole Avenue. Discussion on the westside of the project and the proposed sewer and storm drain easement. The Planning Commission discussed whose responsibility it would be to maintain it. The City Engineer explained that the City would not accept that easement for maintenance. He explained that lot #5 had a large grade differential and a sanitary sewer service would have to be provided for that parcel. He did not feel it would be feasible to serve that parcel back into the cul-de-sac but it would seem more appropriate to provide service to the first three parcels on the west side or the east side of the cul-de-sac running north and south of lots #3 and #4. Then take everything from there on down into an easement on the west property side and take it out to Pico. Discussion on the existing sewer that extends from Pico and Oriole. Discussion by the Planning Commission on the proposed drainage system and if cross off drainage would be acceptable. The City Engineer explained that they are not desireable. Discussion on maintainance of the drainage system under the CC&Rs. The City Engineer discussed feasibily of forming a landscaping and lighting district within the tract and letting the property owners pay for it. 4 The Community Development Director suggested that Gene Mc Means, Riverside Highland Water, address the drainage plans at the appropriate time. Gene Mc Means Riverside Highland Water Mr. Mc Means stated that the soils report was performed by Argon GF Technical Consultants and their recommendation was to use AWWA (100D) Zone 4 seismic on the tank. Discussion on standards that had to be met for the construction of the tank. Also, presentation of the project by the Riverside Highland Water Company. Discussion between the Planning Commission, City Engineer and staff on the current density R-1 7.2, current zoning, proposed zoning and consistencies in the surrounding areas of the project. Also early history dealing with the moratorium in the City as it pertained to the tentative parcel map (11821). Commissioner Buchanan questioned what practical effect there was in combining the parcel and tract map for approval. The Planning Director pointed out that technically the Planning Commission could deny the tentative tract map and approve the parcel map. The applicant needs to know now how to sell the lot off to the water company and keep the remainder parcel for future subdivision. Discussion on clarification of what the Planning Commission should address in regards to the parcel map and its uses according to legal standards. Commissioner Buchanan questioned if the Environmental Study adequately dealt with grading, drainage hazards, tank rupture hazards and earthquake problems. The Planning Director explained the CEQA process and the responsibilities of the Planning Commission as an Advisory Body in considering the Negative Declaration. He explained that the seismic issues are dealt with on a larger scale in the revised and proposed General Plan. 5 Discussion amongst the Planning Commissioners on their concerns of installing a 2 million gallon water storage tank near a residential development. The Planning Director referred to Section 18.57.60, which deals with general regulations and exceptions in dealing with public and underground facilities. He pointed out that it was not necessary to have a Conditional Use Permit, only building permits for the construction of the tank itself. Commissioner Buchanan referred to the drainage patterns that would occur in this tract and the existing patterns on the unimproved property. (Refer to 3b and 3c of the Environmental Study). The Planning Director explained that 3b should probably be a "maybe" instead of a yes due to the property being vacant. It could be changed to indicate the property is being developed in accordance to the General Plan and accepted changes as long as the grading patterns and grading facilities meet the approval of the City Engineeer. Definition and discussion of hazardous materials as they related to the Initial Study. Commissioner Buchanan referred to the City Engineer's recommendations for approval, specifically #6a, b, and c (adequate drainage). The City Engineer clarified his recommendation that the intent was not to allow any water runoff from this tract or the westerly boundary of this tract to flow onto the adjacent private property. He suggested an independent study by the applicant's engineer to determine quantity of water runoff from Blue Mountain and plans for handling the situation. Discussion on the planned construction of curb and gutter in tract 13205 to carry the water down the street. Discussion dealing with the total number of easements as founded on the title report. Commissioner Hilkey asked how the lot sizes were calculated. He specifically referred to lot #9 and the small dimensions restricting building. The Planning Director explained that the easements would restrict the use of that property. It was 6 important that the easements were identified so that the property owner can see the building pad spaces available. Commissioner Hilkey asked if building on the rear of lots #9, #10 and #11 was allowed. The Planning Director explained that lots #10 and #11 were flat and level. The rear portions would be elevated and building would be allowed as long as there were no easements running through there or interferring with the setbacks. On lot #9 a split level home could be built. Discussion of the drainage problem onto Mr. Kidd's property. Explanation by the City Engineer of the condition to accept the drainage from Mr. Kidd's property as it is now tributary to that particular subdivision and take it through that subdivision and dispose of it in a public right of way. This will effect lots 9, 10, 11, 19 plus the tank site. Discussion of the drainage routes into the easterly property line and into lots 9-14 then be tributary into the cul-de-sac, which runs north and south. The City Engineer stated that it was his opinion that there was adequate capacity on the surface to carry the water, and dispose of it onto Pico. Lots 15, 16 and 17 drain directly into Pico and the rest of the lots with possible exception of lot #1 the large portion of it would have to drain into the westerly boundary of the tract. Discussion on the dimensions, restrictions and placement of the tank in relation to the property to the east. Concensus was that there would not be any problem to that property to the east. Discussion regarding the lack of easements indicated on the parcel lots. The City Engineer mentioned a condition should be added for a legal access easement to lot #1 of the parcel map or lot A of the subdivision, dedicated to Riverside Highland Water Company. Discussion on the control of lot #19 belonging either to the Riverside Highland Water or whoever the owner of the easement is. 7 Discussion regarding the palm trees located on Pico. It was the desire of the owner to keep the trees there. There will be a curb median put in by the developer. Chairman Hargrave asked the City Engineer if the end of Pico Road impeded Mr. Kidd's access. The City Engineer mentioned that there are two accesses on Mr. Kidd's property and would have to be maintained at their present condition. Both accesses would have to be handled during the design stages of this draft. Discussion regarding the dirt road on the easterly side of the project. It will be used for emergency traffic. Discussion regarding clarification of the City Engineer's condition #4, dealing with the elevation differential levels between lots #4 and #5. The City Engineer explained his intent was to bring it to the attention of the Planning Commission and staff. BREAK 7:45 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RECONVENED AT 7:55 P.M. Chairman Hargrave opened up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING 7:55 P.M. Gene Mc Means General Manager Riverside Highland Water 1450 Washington Avenue Colton, CA. 92324 Mr. Mc Means gave an overview on the present project. He described the breakage problems with the reservoir from the earlier site. He expressed concern with the water supply shortage in the near future. Presentation of early history on their project proposal to Mr. Karger in 1986. They anticipate the water reservoir project taking approximately 9 months. 8 Mr. Mc Means answered the drainage question stating that the water tank site would be blacktopped. There will be a catch basin to handle the overflow and normal rainfall. They plan to keep the original basin in the location of Pico allowing some drainage into Pico through an 18" line into the street. The access to the reservoir, presently the dirt easement, will be blacktopped with the proper berming. He stated the reason for the request for the separate approval of the lots was due to looking at the total package as part of their negotiations. Mr. Mc Means stated that all elevations, grading and pad elevations conform with the seismic standards. Chairman Hargrave referred to the AWA Standards for the tank and asked when they were last updated. Mr. Mc Means explained that the Chapter 13 standards were updated in 1984. He also said that the AWA is always upgrading and is presently working on the coding requirements. Discussion on the runoff from Blue Mountain, west of the tank site, and adequate drainage into the Riverside Highland Water catch basin. Discussion on the existing 6 ft. wall and future plans for extending it around the project. Commissioner Sims asked for clarification as to why this specific site was chosen for the water reservoir project. Mr. Mc Means explained that they did extensive studies looking at all feasibilities and decided it was to their financial advantage to use the same main that presently feeds into the existing reservoir. Discussion on the condition of the existing gunite water reservoir and the need for replacement due to increased demands. The State Health Standards presently do not really accept a reservoir of that nature. Commissioner Munson asked for description and flow pattern of the catch basin. Mr. Mc Means basically described the catch basin as a square concrete box with the elevations coming 9 into that box. The bottom of the box will probably take an 18" line that will go down and under, between two property lines, and discharge into a wide discharge box onto Pico Avenue. Discussion on projected water needs for the City in 1989. Discussion on the reason for the block wall concept to benefit the sale of the lots and from the standpoint of Riverside Highland Water it would provide better security for a water reservoir site. The Planning Department considered it also as a recommendation. Discussion on the maintainence of landscaping and trees along the block wall by Riverside Highland Water Company until the residents take over. Commissioner Munson asked what would happen with the property of the older tank. Mr. Mc Means stated that Riverside Highland Water Company is considering alternatives; Mr. Kidd's expressed interest in using the property, or possibility of sale out to land development, or Riverside Highland Water Company clearing out their responsibility on the property. Discussion on the condition and future use of the water for the planned water reservoir. Discussion on easement locations throughout the proposed project. Commissioner Buchanan asked if there is a baffling system with respect to the sloshing of the water. Mr. Mc Means explained that there will be a systematic device in the interior for control. Discussion on the access to the lot and the location of same alongside the easement. Commissioner Hilkey pointed out that there were certain easements not indicated on the plans. Mr. Mc Means explained that their Engineering staff was considering the easement on lot #13 be the water line easement, for the inlet line and easement between one or the other lots for drainage. 10 Discussion regarding earthquake safeguards taken in planning the water reservoir, drain lines and easements. Chairman Hargrave asked if there would be any problems for Mr. Kidd, adjacent property owner, regarding hookups in the development of this design. Mr. Mc Means explained that this design would not serve Mr. Kidd's property. Mr. Kidd's property would have to be served from Zone 2 or 3 because it is above this tank. Discussion on the feasibility of lowering the tank. Dennis Kidd 22874 Pico Street Grand Terrace, CA. 92324 Mr. Kidd expressed his support for the project. However, he did point out that if his property was to be developed it would become necessary to build a flood control channel across his property. In reference to the dirt road alongside his property, the road is used by utility companies and himself. He expressed that he was opposed to removal of the palm trees. Discussion on the concerns expressed by Mr. Kidd by the Planning Commission and the City Engineer. Discussion regarding lot #9 and the irrigation facilities that are intended to be removed or relocated to Mr. Kidd's satisfaction. The Community there are only report. Mr. Barney Karger 11668 Bernardo Way Grand Terrace, CA. Development Director clarified that four easements indicated on the title Mr. Karger presented the history on the joint project with the Riverside Highland Water Company. In response to inquiries by the Planning Commission he would not consider the parcel split without the tentative tract map. In regards to the westend of the T.J. Austyn property they had indicated they would put in a 11 catch drain. Mr. Karger stated he was certain he could work out a deal. Mr. Karger expressed his intentions of selling off lots to people who wish to build their own custom homes. He provided an overview of the specifications for the lots, homes and landscaping. Chairman Hargrave asked the applicant if he had any problems with the City Engineer's suggestion of landscaping the lighting district for his project. Mr. Karger stated that a lighting district would be needed anyway, so it would be okay to him. Discussion of pros and cons on saving the palm trees/lighting district. Commissioner Sims suggested that more planning be done to save the palm trees and to look at the feasibility of openings in the medians to avoid traffic congestion and hazards. Mr. Karger explained that lots 13-19 would have no problem going down the hill. Access onto lot #1 or #15 would enter onto "A" Road from Pico Avenue. Discussion on median issue and traffic circulation within the proposed lot subdivision. Discussion by the Planning Commission, staff and the applicant on who would have the responsibility of maintaining the palm trees and median. Discussion on the intention of the CC&Rs for the project. Commissioner Buchanan asked the applicant if he had a problem with including in the CC&Rs a requirement for lots #12,#13,#14,#16,#17 and #18 to maintain the proposed landscaping around the perimeter. The applicant stated it would not be a problem to include but it is not enforceable. Discussion on suggested 8' width of median strip between lots #17 and #18. Discussion regarding turnaround areas in restricted lot areas, such as lot #19. The City Engineer clarified that there is a need for some type of facility at the end of Pico Street or 12 MOTION PCM-88-65 MOTION VOTE PCM-88-65 turnaround especially for emergency vehicles. His objections to the island was strictly from the traffic circulation standpoint. His objections to the palm trees remaining was strictly from the liability standpoint. He stated that if the lone palm tree remains in the turnaround of Court A and Pico, the tree could be transplanted somewhere in the island. The Community Development Director referred to the existing Municipal Code and the approved street tree list. He explained the process which the Planning Commission could take in appealing to Council to save the palm trees. Discussion on the process for grading approval involving tentative and final maps. Discussion on safeguards needed to insure proper designing of the underground drainage from the reservoir site to Pico. Commissioner Hilkey asked if the Commission approved this map with the additional drainage and it comes out that it requires the California Aqueduct Annex on the eastside of the property would the developer be required to install a concrete slip. The City Engineer explained the concept of the reservoir's drainage system. Also, once the reservoir and site are developed it could only be decided by the applicant's engineer whether they would need additional drainage. The Community Development Director summarized the amended conditions. a) To amend the Negative Declaration to reflect the change on No. #3b, regarding surface runoff. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to amend the Negative Declaration to include a yes on No. #3B. Chairman Hargrave second. Motion carried, all ayes. Commissioners Hawkinson and Van Gelder absent. 5-0-2-0. 13 MOTION PCM-88-66 MOTION VOTE PCM-88-66 MOTION PCM-88-67 Commissioner Munson made the motion that the following conditions be added to TPM-88-1. Commissioner Sims second. A line of trees to be located along the westerly side of the required 6' high block wall with spacing to be approved by the Community Development Director and shall be planted and maintained by the applicant until such time as the lighting and landscaping district shall be established and in effect this shall include the installation of an irrigation system. The line of trees and landscaping materials be agreed upon by the Community Development Director and the applicant. It is the desire of the Planning Commission if at all possible to save the palm trees. The proposed median shall be revised and allowed immediate access to both directions of traffic onto Pico Street and shall be approved by the City Engineer. The installation of an appropriate area at the end of Pico Street shall be designed by and submitted for approval by the City Engineer. Motion carried, all ayes. Commissioners Hawkinson and Van Gelder absent. 5-0-2-0. Commissioner Buchanan requested that the extraneous material be deleted from the City Engineer's recommendations. The Community Development Director be done on a staff level in submittal to the City Council. stated that would preparation for Discussion on the ornamental and street lighting possibly being reviewed at the Site and Architectural Review on the project at a later date. Commissioner Sims made the motion to add the same 14 MOTION VOTE PCM-88-67 MOTION PCM-88-68 MOTION VOTE PCM-88-68 MOTION VOTE PCM-88-69 three conditions as in TPM-88-1, into TTM-88-2. Commissioner Buchanan second. Motion carried, all ayes. Commissioners Hawkinson and Van Gelder absent. 5-0-2-0. Discussion on the special street lighting district according to the Street Codes for the State of California. The City Engineer explained the two alternatives possible for maintenance and landscaping of the street light district. The City Engineer, in response to the Commission's concern of runoff into Mr. Kidd's property, suggested that this can be handled between Mr. Kidd and the applicant on a staff level. Commissioner Hilkey made the motion to approve TPM- 88-1 with the approved conditions and recommendations as amended. Commissioner Munson second. The Planning Commission expressed their dissatisfaction with being forced to make a hasty decision on this project. They stated that the project submittal could have been more detailed. They also praised staff for their extra hours involved in preparation of this staff report. Motion carried. Commissioners Hawkinson and Van Gelder absent. 5-0-2-0. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to approve TTM-88-2 and to adopt the resolution attached to the staff report with the amendments. Commissioner Hilkey second. 15 MOTION VOTE PCM-88-69 Motion carried, all ayes. Commissioners Hawkinson and Van Gelder absent. 5-0-2-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:10 P.M. Approved By, Stanley HaAgrhve Planning ommiss Chairman 16 RespectfullySubmitted, David R. Sawyer, Community Devel pment