04/04/1988C
e
GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 4, 1988
The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was
called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton
Road, Grand Terrace, California on April 4, 1988, at 7:00 p.m.
by Chairman, Norman Caouette.
PRESENT: Norman Caouette, Chairman
Fran Van Gelder, Vice -Chairwoman
Gerald Cole, Commissioner
Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner
Jerry Hawkinson, Commissioner
Ray Munson, Commissioner
Jim Sims, Commissioner
ABSENT:
Pledge of Allegiance: Vice -Chairwoman Fran Van Gelder
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. MINUTES
WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M.
Information/Comments
Information/Comments
Information/Comments
Associates
WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M.
from Staff.
from Commissioners
from Consultants/Wildan and
PLANNING COMMISSION CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M.
Chairman Caouette introduced the continuation from
the March 21, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting on
the General Plan and Environmental Impact Review.
Staff prepared a summation of the Public Hearing
and Chairman Caouette mentioned that the Public
Hearing was closed and presented the staff
recommendation of the General Plan open for
discussion this evening by the Planning
Commission. He suggested that they start with the
plan as submitted and handle each individual item
that is submitted for change based on the
concensus of the Planning Commission and hold it
open for discussion and followed by motions. It
c�
L91
would then be necessary to approve the plan as
submitted or with recommended amendments by the
Commission.
Commissioner Hargrave asked for clarification as
to what the present General Plan Code required as
it related to Michigan Avenue, south of De Berry
to Main Street. He asked if the present code
stated that there should be 44' foot wide from
center line to curb line.
The City Engineer confirmed that was correct.
Commissioner Hargrave asked if under the present
code, at least half of Michigan, was not up to
code under our present code regulations.
The City Engineer stated that was correct. He
referred to a map which showed the portions of
Michigan Street which are 44', current standard,
and what portions of Michigan are 33', which is
the proposed standard from De Berry south. He
clarified that he was speaking about the right of
way width for a secondary highway, which Michigan
is designated right now, is 88'. The curb to
curb is 64'. The proposed is 66' of right of way
and 40' pavement within that right of way, giving
an 11' parkways on each side, except north of De
Berry. That area of Michigan would remain at 88'.
(He referred to the areas shaded in orange on his
map, 44' from centerline to the property line.
The areas shaded in blue are 33' from centerline).
He stated that the current plan or improvement is
in accordance with the existing and or proposed
standard.
Commissioner Hargrave asked if the orange area was
44' and has already been improved.
The City Engineer stated that the orange colored
area has already been constructed to the standard
and the blue area has not been improved but would
need to go to the minimum of 44' from centerline
to curbline.
The City Engineer concurred that was correct with
the current General Plan.
Commissioner. Hargrave mentioned that all of the
testimony which was heard at the Public Hearing
stated they did not want that expanded, perhaps
they did not know that was built already into
2
the General Plan.
The City Engineer stated that there were three
items which needed to be recognized. The right of
way is that portion which is dedicated for public
use, at the present time 33' feet on each side of
center line of Michigan Street all the way down to
Main Street. That right of way which is now
existing would meet the requirements of the
proposed General Plan with respect to circulation
from De Berry south. The second item which should
be recognized is that the improvements within that
right of way will be 20' from centerline or 40'
between curbs. The third thing is that where the
pavement currently exists is not necessarily the
ultimate width of the roadway.
Commissioner Hargrave asked how the property owner
would know where their property lines were.
The City Engineer mentioned that it is indicated
on the title policy.
Commissioner Hargrave asked if a property owner
whose property is not in conformance with the code
would he need to comply with the code before he is
issued a permit to improve their property, under
Ocurrent General Plan.
The City Engineer stated if a property owner were
to come in and requested a permit in excess of
640' sq. ft. they would be required to dedicate
11' additional feet to provide for the 44' half
street. Also, they would be required to install
curb and gutter at 32' from center line.
Finally, they would be required to pave between
that curb and the existing paving or center line
so that it conforms. In most cases when you have
a single lot that is in the middle of an
unimproved block it is not practical to install
the improvements in front of that block only. The
City Council has had a policy from the beginning
of this city that they would request the property
owner to sign an agreement that at such time the
City requests that those improvements be installed
or pay for the installation by the property owner.
Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder mentioned that it
should not be assumed that the property owners do
not know where their property lines or street
lines end according to the General Plan.
0
Commissioner Sims referred to the map used by the
City Engineer which showed the existing right of
way at 44' feet, and the other at 33' feet. If
the General Plan is amended to show the collector
at 66' wide, south of De Berry, wouldn't that
present a problem.
The City Engineer stated that the street would
look awkward because there are improvements
already in that were constructed along a whole
block next to the block wall. Those areas would
remain at 32' feet, the City would have no reason
to go in to remove or replace those and probably
what would happen would be to stripe those areas
to protect ourselves as far as traffic movement.
Commissioner Sims stated that it would be a
liability to reduce the width of the streets in
the sections that are already set.
Vice —Chairwoman Van Gelder asked the City Engineer
to address the subject of the widening of Mt.
Vernon north of Barton Road.
The City Engineer stated that the current plan for
Mt. Vernon is 88', 32'from centerline, and 12'
behind the curb for a total of 44' feet for the
half street.
He continued to state that on the westerly side of
Barton Road, from the liquor store all the way up
to the Edison property, the curb as it now
exists would be constructed by Forest City Dillon
at the ultimate location at 32' from center line
with the exception of one parcel which belongs to
Dr. Mc Duffy. Everything else with the exception
of that one parcel would be at its ultimate
width. If you look at the alignment from the
liquor store northerly on the westside that
alignment would continue all the way to the
channel and ultimately to Grand Terrace Road and
Canal Street. On the easterly side the right of
way as well as the improvements are in their
proper location to approximately the top of the
hill as you go to Barton Road. The rest of it is
non—standard in accordance to the 88' right of
way.
Chairman Caouette asked Mr. Hahs, Wildan and
Associates, to address the concerns of the 120' on
Barton Road and also the concerns regarding
Commerce Way.
re
Mr. Hahs stated that at the first concept of
Barton Road with a 120' corridor, they assumed a
six lane section, with a median island and
effectively no parking. However, as the City
Engineer pointed out, within a 100' right of way
using a six lane travel section without the
additional right of way you would not have the
availability of either a median island or a
turning lane in the center within that right of
way section to be able to have the six travel
lanes.
Mr. Hahs mentioned in relation to Commerce Way
that when they visually observed the concept of
splitting those areas and trying to figure out an
optimum of where to put the street they
considered the very issue that Mr. Kicak brought
up and that was the lots south of Pico that have
their backyards edging some line. They
envisioned, although it should be some specific
plan line for that street, that there should be
a block wall and the street would actually be on
the west side of the property line and could not
see having that street go through their backyards,
which would mean taking 33' from the backyards
which could totally take out the property. He
agreed with the City Engineer's suggestion that
they do a specific plan at a future date to
determine exactly how the right of way is
determined and also how the development will be
affected.
Mr. Hahs stated that as far as the width of
Michigan Street he did not see that many widened
sections but there is always the possibility of
leaving the curb and pavement out there and to
come along with a project and reduce the right of
way and insert a 40-44' section throughout that
whole area. Just leaving the curb as it is now
is not necessarily the absolute last answer on
how to solve those problems.
Chairman Caouette asked if Barton Road were
reduced to 100', two lanes in each direction, with
a median strip and off street parking would that
be possible. Also, what level of service would
that be subject to.
Mr. Hahs mentioned that it would probably lower
the level of service down to the very low D range
or maybe even go into the next level which would
be E. That was why they recommended going up to
5
the six lane section.
Commissioner Cole asked it the drop in Levels
would be only during the peak hours.
Mr.. Hates stated they used the planning method in
determining the level of service. They use a
certain split and assumed directional flow which
are not actual counts. This is done as typical
practice when you talk about levels of service.
It is calculated for the peak hours.
Commissioner Cole asked if you had the median
strip with left turn lanes would that change the
two lanes going in each direction. Would it help
or hinder if it were left with 100' right of way
and two lanes in each direction.
Mr. Hahs stated that it would be better than the
four lanes without the continous left turn lane.
If you widened it out and made a six lane section
you would not have the left turn lanes nor a
divider and he would suspect there would be some
problems.
Commissioner Munson asked if the consultants had
ever gone back to where a median had been
installed to see what the effect had been on the
businesses and size of the streets.
Mr. Hahs referred to a project in Bakersfield. He
stated that anytime a median is installed that
reduces left turns it has a very good effect on
reducing accidents.
Chairman Caouette reiterated what Mr. Hahs was
saying and that with six lanes you should have a
median divider for a truly safe situation.
Mr. Hahs stated that all he could recommend was a
higher level of service and there are certain
amenities that will make the roads safer than
others. Their recommendation is based upon a
viable good level of service street.
Chairman Caouette referred to the City Engineer's
comments that there were programs already in
effect that may deem that impractical, impossible
or at least very expensive. He asked if that
would be a correct assumption.
Mr. Hahs stated that what the City Engineer
6
c,
mentioned was a viable comment.
Chairman Caouette stated that what bothered him
was that this was leading towards the situation
where what was really needed was a 120' right of
way and six lanes in each direction and a median
strip, it was not really likely that they would
get it. He asked Mr. Hahs if he agreed with him.
Mr. Hahs clarified that if the City determines
thats what you are going to get then that is what
you will get. If you determine that you want a
120' with a median., and are willing to cross all
of the hurdles including the change in
undergrounding, and the change in construction
project and are willing to accept all of these
additional problems then you can get it. Again.,
it is a situation where it is the choice of the
City not the consultant's.
Chairman Caouette clarified that what the choice
would come down to would be either the 120' and
improvements with level of service A (but was
corrected by Mr. Hahs that the level of service
would be at C) and then without them then would
drop to level of service D or possibly E.
Chairman Caouette asked for any further questions.
Commissioner Sims stated that he felt the
statement was rather wishy—washy referring to
whether it should be 120' or 100'. He felt there
should be a definite answer.
Mr. Hahs stated that he recommends the six lane,
120'section to give a service level of C. If you
don't do that you will end up with a situation
that the people in the community will encounter
traffic problems as the community develops.
Commissioner Sims clarified that the city would
see a lower level of service if they do not
accomodate the 120' section.
Mr. Hahs stated that was correct.
Chairman Caouette opened discussion for any part
of the General Plan that has not been proposed.
He clarified for the Commission to take the
proposal point by point.
Commissioner Sims expressed his concern over some
7
e
of the designations that have been called for and
asked assistance from staff for clarification and
purposes, particularly the Business Park
designation and the reasoning behind converting
residential properties to either commercial or
light industrial setting. He understood the
reasoning for the Business Park to attract large
corporate headquarters but questioned its
feasibility.
Mr. Ross Geller referred to the existing General
Plan landuse map which was one of the major
reasons why they were hired to come in here. The
fact is that all of the red in the southwest
portion was a dream that was never going to come
true. It was not like the consultants were coming
in and rectro-fitting houses, if one looks at the
planning process they were confronted with a
situation where the red area if a regional mall
was ever to come about then that was when some
serious impacts would have also come to the city.
They looked at it from that standpoint and they
were looking at the General Plan at least from
there, looking at some alternative landuses for
that area. He stated that he did believe if
Grand Terrace did their planning now and have a
program together to attract those types of users,
yes they can get those types of uses. If we wait
and do nothing, have marginal landuses into the
future you are going to end up with marginal
industrial uses, fill-in uses, spot development-
and when it all comes together you are not going
to get the best because you haven't put forth a
good planning program. He stated that he felt you
could get corporate usage here in Grand Terrace.
He stated that after the last Planning Commission
Meeting the public indicated they had a problem
with changing their landuses. Again it was a
long transition and he foresaw getting the
project started outside of where the residential
areas are but we have to acknowledge the fact that
if the City pursues that type of use that over
the course of the program those residential
landuses are going to have to be looked at for
some sort of transition.
Commissioner Sims stated that he really wished
the consultant to say that because it really
didn't come across like that at the public
hearing. It seemed to him that there are a row
of residential parcels along Michigan and the
consultant has now come through and called those
areas industrial. He asked if that was really
the thing to do or was the consultant really
looking at it as if this were a nice block and
this block here would make a nice industrial area,
was that the basic reasoning behind it.
Mr. Geller asked if he were referring to the area
of residential houses by Wildan Pump.
Commissioner Sims said that was correct.
Mr. Geller said that particular area caused
problems because they were shallow lots, up
against an industrial area and the rest of the
area all around it was residential but basically
they were going to be left there as an island.
He stated that was about the softest spot in the
plan as he saw it. They would always be impacted
by what was going on in back of them but they
could stand as an island if the City wanted it.
The only way that would ever go industrial, this
particular property, is if Wildan decided that
there was a landuse conflict there and they would
just as soon buy up this property, which is never
going to happen, and turn it into additional
storage area or buy the property to landscape it.
Commissioner Sims stated that probably the
residential areas would just remain for awhile.
He asked if it wouldn't be more appropriate, along
Michigan especially up near De Berry or around
Pico, to consider what they are saying and maybe
keep the light industrial but exclude those areas
which seemed to want to stay residential and
create some type of treatment when industrial
projects came in to protect the security of those
residential homes.
Mr. Geller stated that was a good point. On one
hand from a political standpoint, in terms of
response to the community it is an alternative.
On the other hand at the last public hearing we
had here we filled the audience and what I kept
hearing was don't do this to our property so that
we can put more investment into our property and
we can enjoy our property. If we are serious
about going ahead with this plan we are just
perpetuating another game by saying, leave this
residential and as everything builds up around ,you
and it is time for you to transition we'll let you
spend more money on your property, invest more
money on your property and come back and say it is
9
time to change it. That is almost perpetuating a
landuse problem for the future so that is the
balance there.
Commissioner. Sims referred to the alignment of
Commerce Way from Pico to Main and just looking at
the numbers it just seemed that something was not
quite right there. All the generations the
consultants were talking about was going to occur
along the southwestern corner of the City, where
the Edison property is located.
Mr. Geller disagreed and felt that was not
correct.
Commissioner Sims clarified that the consultant
was saying that the traffic was coming easterly,
down Michigan, down Commerce and just south of
Barton on Michigan.
Mr. Hahs stated that what they assumed with the
distribution of trips there would be some traffic
from the southwest coming in via Main Street and
by Commerce and therefore a greater amount of
traffic utilizing that area coming in from Barton
Road back around in the northern section of the
Commerce Way. He clarified that what they are
talking about is two way traffic. He would make
the assumption that 80% of the trips that come in
and turn left, when they come back out turn right.
Commissioner Sims asked what other alternatives
for the alignment of Commerce were given in this
area.
Mr. Hahs stated that they had a given alignment
which was that area which ran into the Taylor
alignment, however, that does not provide the
collection of that area. That was a peripheral
street. With the other plan, that plan put in a
large interchange and that was probably an
acceptable type of operation for that traffic
coming off of both freeways and using that as an
access point into the high density commercial.
This is proposed to be a much lower traffic
generator as far as traffic volume is concerned
and the high intensive regional shopping center
that was planned before. The street alignment
that we are suggesting for the Commerce Street
alignment is more aligned for providing an equal
sided collection of that area than the peripheral
street concept. The main thing we were trying to
10
M.
consider is the collection of that traffic along
the corridor.
Commissioner Sims stated that the main thing that
he was trying to bring out was that there were
other alternatives looked at.
Mr. Hahs concurred that was correct.
Commissioner Sims stated that the General Plan
really did not spell out the alternatives or
restrictions but perhaps it did not have to to any
great extent but it should give recommendations
based on other alternatives.
Mr. Hahs stated that the closer the corridor is to
Michigan the more trips are going to be on
Commerce Center than on Michigan. Therefore,
they wanted to keep the industrial. trips out of
the residential area. There were many factors
involved.
Commissioner Sims referred to the public hearing
and dominant wishes of the citizenry there and
felt something could be done possibly with the
light industrial scheme to try and retain a
�i corridor of residential along Michigan.
�J Mr. Geller stated that the alternative would be to
do what has been done in the last General Plan. If
you went with an alternative item as a regional
mall you would have to do some sensitive planning
to secure those houses.
Commissioner Sims asked if there would really be
an island. He was talking about an area that
would be abutting industrial development.
Mr. Geller stated that he did not think the
residential area went that far west. He pointed
out that the residential area was basically around
Michigan and halfway through that section.
Commissioner Sims was suggesting that the
residential as now existing adjacent to Michigan
running all the way up and down Michigan, that
would be nixed out if we went to light industrial
usage. (He pointed on the map referring to
parcels and homes). He asked if it could be
worked out if they could cut back with the light
industrial area or does it have to be all the way
to Michigan.
11
Mr. Geller stated that he thought it could be
worked out.
Commissioner Sims stated that he thought the
business park was alright but doubted if it was
going to generate all of the revenue.
Mr. Geller asked if there was a problem with
light industrial except for the area along
Michigan and that could be taken care of.
Commissioner Sims said no there was no problem
with light industrial, except for the concept of
changing existing zoning.
The Planning Director pointed out on the map the
existing General Plan. He referred to the
residential and commercial areas as submitted in
the proposed General Plan. He stated that leaving
the areas residential, they were odd shaped lots
they were not a nice subdivision and some of those
properties could not make full use of the
residential. It is not simply those homes going
residential it is a real mixture.
Commissioner Hargrave asked the Chairman if he
wished to stay on this theme or go to another
theme.
Chairman Caouette stated he would prefer to take
one theme at a time and bring it to some sort of
conclusion.
Commissioner Hargrave stated he has a different:
viewpoint than Commissioner Sims and did not
share the futuristic views as were presented. It
takes more than the City Council to decide to do
certain things it has to be a decision that is
supportable by the community. He pointed out that
developers need an economic incentive to come into
the City. He stated that based on the small land
mass that is left he dial not see that trying to
make this something that is going to be fought
tooth and nail in the future it does not make anv
sense. From his experience, he stated that
corporate tenants do not like to be in areas in
which they are enclosed because it does not give
them a good corporate image.
He suggested further that Commerce Way should go
through to Van Buren. He could not rationalize
the street going any further because of various
12
c�
reasons. There is a corporate tenant that owns a
large block of land, SCE. It is a public
corporation and has a continual and predictable
stream of income. Therefore, they are not under
a normal commercial compulsion to sell the land
for economic purposes. From a planning viewpoint
it does make sense to stick a road there however
from an economic viewpoint he could not see
Edison agreeing to help pay to put that road
through there. Another corporate tenant, along
Pico, is the Inland Lumber that occupies a
considerable amount of property which Commerce is
being proposed to go through. He could not see
the land owner agreeing to allow us to put a road
through there. It serves them very little
economic purpose. Based upon those two large
landowners we are going to need major cooperation
from them and he could not see how we could
motivate them unless we went to condemnation but
that would be a more judicous situation. The
city does not have the extra money to throw
around for a fight. He stated that the city is
primarily a bedroom community and lets deal with
what we have.
He reiterated stopping Commerce Way at Van Buren,
(pointing to the commercial area of the city on
the map). He stated that the planning problems
are the light industrial area and mixture of the
residential there. Therefore, rather than
getting the people to move he would leave the home
owners there and develop the area already situated
over to where the commercial line would end and
develop the whole area out commercially (again
pointing to the map to show the boundaries). He
pointing to an area which was low density
residential and keeping it as same, to avoid
future costs of attempting to change it. He
moved down the map and referred to an area which
was already occupied by either homes or a used
storage facility, in his opinion it was already
developed out ( not the way he would have liked
to have seen it). Again, extremely expensive
for the City to try and move the residents out
of there. The only open land mass that is there
at the present time is the block right there. He
suggested letting the block (pointed out on the
map) develop out to the predominant area which
is low density residential having the area
conform to what is already there. On the west
side of the proposed throughway, which is
available for either light industrial or
13
0
G
e
commercial purposes and could easily take the
theme which is in there and have it develop down
into here (pointing at the map). It could be
developed to be light industrial, commercial or
a park theme. For the future it could be required
that SCE develop the area at higher light
industrial standard than what is normally done
simply to cooperate with them if they cooperate
with us.
He referred to the Inland Lumber property. The
other area owned by the Lumberyard, the vacant
lot, he had mixed emotions about letting it
stay light industrial or possibly consider
putting it as a commercial zone. The reason he is
not in complete favor of letting it stay as
light industrial is because of the development
of the surrounding areas and the development in
the County of Riverside of the 200 single
family homes. Therefore, the whole predominant
area is single family homes and could justify
economically letting the sector be commercial
(pointing to the map) to help support the area in
small way. The land owner could be convinced
over some period of time that it would for his
best economic interest to perhaps make that
commercial.
Chairman Caouette asked if the area north of Van
Buren and west of Commerce, the block in there,
was Commissioner Hargrave suggesting commercial or
did he also mean business park.
Commissioner
Hargrave
stated that through
proper
zoning rather
than
a landuse situation that
you
could leave
enough
flexibility in the
zoning
requirement to
accomodate
any reasonable
type of
development
be
it commercial or
light
industrial.
Chairman Caouette asked if he had a preference of
commercial vs. business park.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that he did not feel
the business park was a waste of time, but not
feasible. In order to make any development happen
within the municipality two things must be kept
in mind. The first was what was attainable from a
fiscal standpoint. The second was that the city
does not have the ability to give developers
certain types of tax—free grants or bonding
because of the city's base, therefore the City
14
unable to give developers an incentive.
Developers do not feel very good about going in
and developing large land masses that have been
left vacant for a long time because they feel
there must be some reason for the land mass not
being developed earlier. He reiterated that
flexibility is a major theme.
Chairman Caouette asked staff if the traffic
impact was considered associated with the
residential development as opposed to a business
park in that area, would that be cause for a
wider Michigan Street.
Mr. Hahs stated that with what was presented it
was a totally different plan than he had looked
at. He stated that what they had tried to do was
to take into consideration the landuse given by
the plan that was shown and try to accomodate
that landuse with street system, with the lowest
impact on the land, highest return street system
and again trying to reduce traffic along Michigan.
Chairman Caouette asked if in general terms if you
had 40 acres of a business park vs. 40 acres of
single family residential, would one generate more
traffic than the other.
Mr. Hahs stated that the single family residential
would probably create a slightly more trips than
the industrial park that is proposed. However
if you look at the Attractors Generators Concept,
different directions during different times of
days, the attraction would be reversed.
Chairman Caouette clarified by saying instead of
rushing towards the Barton Road offramp they
would be coming from Barton Road back to this
direction.
Mr. Hahs stated that the more residential you
put into a community the worse it would be
because you would have more trips into the ramp
instead of coming off of it.
The Planning Director referred to Commissioner
Hargrave's suggestion. It is quite a bit
different than the proposed plan as far as
landuse. Procedurally it is important that the
Commission know it would be necessary to take
different tracks down the road. If we were to go
with a change like this we are going to have to
15
E
look at the EIR to make sure that it covers
all of those changes. We would have to reopen
the public hearing so that the public could
comment on the new plan that you are considering.
It would take more work by the consultant at this
point. This is not a plus or minus comment, it
is simply that we would have to change procedure
and renotify a public hearing, we would just
change tracks.
Chairman Caouette asked for clarification in
regards to the deadline mentioned earlier by
the Planning Director to get this information to
City Council and he felt that was a very big
negative.
The Planning Director stated it was but all he is
saying is that we would have to readvertise and
make sure that the people realize the meeting has
been delayed and it would be a new course for
us to follow. It is a big negative but it is not
a killer. If we are going to come up with a
recommendation we need to come up with a
recommendation before that. If that recommendation
comes out to be substantially different we have
to play by State rules and be fair and that's
what we will do just change the meeting.
Chairman Caouette asked if the State law would
require that it be heard once before the Planning
Commission to review the plan and then City
Council. It can't just be discussed here now and
then sent to City Council. It has to have the
public hearing.
The Planning Director stated that was correct and
also if they have to redo the EIR that would
require an additional 30 days noticing public
review period for the EIR also.
Vice —Chairwoman Van Gelder asked a question
regarding the extending of Commerce Way to the
County Line and the reasoning for. this.
Mr. Hahs stated that the whole concept was to try
and get the whole industrial traffic away from
Michigan Avenue as soon as possible. The other
goal was to have a collection street in the
industrial area accessible from both sides of the
development and provide a more attractive
industrial park site for future developers.
16
Commissioner Munson asked if the purpose for the
public hearing was to get the public's input on
what they thought was desireable for this area.
He also thought the Planning Commission was going
to make a recommendation to the City Council. He
asked if the City Council was going to have a
public hearing at any time.
The Planning Director stated that they would
have a public hearing also.
Commissioner Munson asked why if the Planning
Commission were to pursue 75% of Commissioner
Hargrave's proposal would the Planning
Commission still have to have another public
hearing.
The Planning Director stated that the City
Attorney had indicated it would be necessary.
Commissioner Munson asked why.
The Planning Director explained that the Planning
Commission is coming up with a recommendation to
the Council because staff has presented to you the
proposed plan with the public input. The public
made their desires known based on what they saw as
the proposed plan. The Planning Commission is
now in the process of perhaps changing that
proposed plan. The EIR work that was done and its
statiscal data was based on the generation of what
this plan produced. He stated that we are
changing that enough now to where those numbers
are not quite valid. The public would now want
to make their comments to go on a new plan the
Planning Commission is proposing to the Council.
The City Attorney clarified that while you are
hearing several people you did not hear very many
in comparison to the total population in Grand
Terrace. The state law provides public input to
the Planning Commission and to the City Council,
because both are decision making bodies.
Chairman Caouette asked for clarification if the
process usually requires a certain amount of
change and there has to be some latitude, how far
do you go before you step over the fine line to
where it invalidates a previous public hearing.
The City Attorney explained that if the Planning
Commission makes substantial changes and the
17
0
proposed plan as submitted by Commissioner
Hargrave was substantial.
The Planning Director explained that the way to go
about it is to come up with the changes and after
conferring to decide if those were substantial
changes.
Commissioner Munson stated that he did not want
to be put into a position to vote for this plan
or not vote.
The Planning Director stated that was not what
he was saying. He reiterated his earlier
statement that we have a deadline for the City
Council and it has been advertised and it can be
unadvertised. He stated the Council wanted their
input. If they chose a separate plan than what
was there then they should go down that road.
If they are acceptable to the plan and that their
recommendation with either no changes or a few
changes than they should go down that road. He
stated they should not be hesitant about the
deadline.
Commissioner Munson asked if there was enough
change in just that one area that would have to
go back to public hearing.
The Planning Director stated yes.
The City Attorney clarified that the Planning
Commission is charged with coming with a good
General Plan. It is more imperative to come up
with those changes which the Planning
Commission feels is necessary to come up with
viable General Plan rather than meeting an
artificial deadline.
Commissioner Hawkinson presented a different
perspective. He referred to the public hearing
of the March 21st Planning Commission where the
majority of people were concerned with the
widening of Michigan. He referred to an earlier
statement from Commissioner Hargrave where
standards are currently in effect and the public
does not seem to be aware of that.
He felt that we need to take a look at the
undeveloped land there. He does not feel any
further residential development in that area is
good planning. He agreed with the consultant's
18
(7)
G
C_
plan for the commercial designated area. He
referred to the proposed extension of Commerce Way
down to Main, through the SCE and Inland Lumber
properties. He did not see why Commerce Way could
not be realigned. He expressed his concern with
the proposed business park concept and cannot see
it as a reality. Unless there is a way to get
traffic into that area no matter what is put in
there it would not be viable.
Chairman Caouette stated that he was not firmly
convinced that a business park is the solution
for that area. The advantage out there is that
there are large parcels of land that could be
assembled for that purpose. However, he does
believe that a business park is more viable than a
large commercial area. The business park would
have less traffic impact than a commericial
development. He does not feel placing residential
there is practical. He felt that the proposed
General Plan is the most reasonable he has seen
yet, though the boundaries are extended too far.
Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder commended Wildan and
Associates for their work completed on this
plan. This document should be used as a guideline
to help the Planning Commission make a decision.
The Planning Commission should take into
consideration the public input. She mentioned
that she would like to see Commerce Way realigned
so that it goes all the way to the County line.
She would not like to see it go through the
individual properties that were identified
earlier. She expressed concern with the
conflict of the commercial, business park and the
light industrial.
Commissioner Hargrave emphasized again that a door
be left open for developers to develop these
parcels and there must be economic motivators. We
can maintain the bedroom community, and try to
elevate this area of the city to a higher usage
factor so that we can increase the tax base. The
zoning requirments can guide the development of
this area, either light industrial or commercial,
to give us flexibility for future planning staff,
Planning Commissions and Councils to make
decisions.
Chairman Caouette asked if the Planning Commission
were to consider the same basic plan and keep
Commerce Way in the manner proposed and business
19
0
park concept and take the areas along south of
De Berry and west of Michigan, that currently has
a significant amount of residential uses, look at
the residential as Commissioner Hargrave had
suggested and to simply continue that down to Van
Buren and keep the remainder as proposed. In your
opinion would we be in the realm of acceptability
to pass public hearing.
The City Attorney stated that would probably be
appropriate but he would want to look at the final
proposal by the Planning Commission.
Chairman Caouette reiterated his suggestion;
taking the rectangle (pointing to the map)
painting it light yellow for low density
residential. On the previous General Plan it is
that area shown as low density residential with
the exception of the one intrusive rectangular
piece (pointing to the map), also bring the yellow
down to Van Buren and encompassing the single lots
along Michigan Street shown as low density
residential.
ADJOURNED FOR A TEN MINUTE BREAK AT 8:45 P.M.
CONVENED AT 9:05 P.M.
0 Chairman Caouette clarified what two options were
available to the Planning Commission. Either to
adopt the proposed General Plan without much
deviation in accordance with the previous Public
Hearing or request an alternative of staff based
on some of the Planning Commission's discussion
and return back for another Public Hearing. He
encouraged more discussion to obtain the Planning
Commission's views on the plan laid out before
them now.
Commissioner Sims referred to the proposed
Commerce Way. He expressed his concerns with the
alignment of Commerce Way south of Van Buren.
He asked if it would be possible to create a
situation in the General Plan indicating stopping
Commerce Way at Van Buren but indicate in some
verbage that the alignment of. Commerce would
continue southerly in some manner but not
indicate specifically the location of it per se.
Mr. Geller explained that they foresaw everything
south of Van Buren as happening way in the future.
In terms of the stages of development they
20
MOTION
PCM-88-9
N,
anticipated something happening north of De
Berry and then south of De Berry to Van Duren
because SCE and Wildan Pump are already there,
they would not anticipate a need for that road
anywhere in the near future anyway. As a
compromise something could be written into the
document that talks in terms of when the need
arises and when traffic volume gets to a certain
point. This is a theoretical connection, the
alignment needs to consider some of the points
that were brought up at the meeting this evening.
The ultimate configuration needs to show a
connection to Main Street or the County line if
this area is developed. Their analysis was
based on full development of the area. Through
verbage they could talk about some phasing
program.
Commissioner Sims reiterated his suggestion
because it offers flexibility and not the finality
thus comparable to everyone's liking.
Chairman Caouette referred to Mr. Kicak's
reference to that street, subject to approval by
the City Council. If enough changes take place
so that it has to go back to public hearing then
so be it. He encouraged a motion regarding the
alignment on Commerce Way.
Commissioner Sims made the motion that the General
Plan be revised to show the alignment of Commerce
Drive ending at Van Buren with a consideration
given for a precise alignment plan in the future
for the alignment south of Van Buren to Main
Street. Commissioner Hargrave second.
Commissioner Hawkinson expressed his concerns with
Commerce Way stopping at Van Buren and should
consider the specific plan of where it should go
from there. He would like to see something
definite as it goes down to Main Street without
impacting any existing construction.
21
0
AMENDED MOTION
PCM-88-9
MOTION VOTE
PCM-88-9
MOTION
PCM-88-10
Commissioner Sims stated that he would amend his
motion to reflect that. Commissioner Hargrave
concurred.
The Planning Director asked for clarification of "
the existing construction".
Commissioner Hawkinson stated he did not want to
see Commerce Way split Inland Lumber Company down
the middle. He felt that it should come through
raw land.
Commissioner Hargrave clarified the motion that
they agreed on the map where it showed Commerce
Way as far as Van Buren. After Van Buren all that
we are saying is we have not decided precisely
how Van Buren south to Main Street where that is
going to be it is our intent that there be some
future plan as to continue that extension to Main
Street. With this motion we are not saying
precisely where that line should be from Van
Buren to the south.
Chairman Caouette stated that was correct. He
said that he presumed the alignment shown now
would be conceptually in every broad sense of the
word approved.
MOTION CARRIED. ALL AYES, 7-0.
Chairman Caouette continued discussion.
Commissioner Hawkinson made the motion to accept
the plan as proposed with the exception of
previous motion (the designation that the street
alignment be changed) and with a study looking
into the feasibility of a freeway offramp at De
Berry Avenue. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder
seconded.
22
c�
Chairman Caouette asked for clarification in
regards to offramp or access.
Commissioner Hawkinson stated that he was
considering just a freeway offramp at De Berry,
because it was the only area economically viable.
It would help alleviate the traffic volume on
Barton Road.
Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder referred to previous
history of securing offramps or onr.amps to the
freeway and high costs. She asked how it was
determined that it was not feasible.
Commissioner Hawkinson referred to the last
General Plan, options of freeway accessability,
changes around Barton Road and bridges around De
Berry across the freeway. He quoted Mr. kicak's
estimate range from $6-$15 million dollars. He
further stated that he was not talking about a
full interchange only an offramp to alleviate
traffic and encourage commercial development in
that area.
Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked how the costs of
that offramp compare to the costs of the widening
of 1, 2 or 3 or all of 1 and part of 2 bridges on
Barton Road.
Commissioner Hargrave explained that one bridge
widening would run $10-20 million dollars
currently.
Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder stated that was only
one bridge and there were two others to be
considered.
Commissioner Hargrave clarified that all that
Commissioner Hawkinson is saying is that he would
like to see an offramp and he concurred he did
not have any problems with that. However, he
stated that Cal. Trans would not economically
determine that.
Commissioner Munson asked if they were looking at
the area southwest from Michigan west and Barton
Road south or on the entire city.
Chairman Caouette clarified that the motion as
stated was to approve the plan as submitted and
to look at an offramp. He stated that the way it
was worded was the whole plan with the exception
23
of the changes as recommended on Commerce.
Commissioner Hawkinson stated he was referring to
the entire plan.
Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder withdrew her second.
Commissioner Cole seconded for continuation of
discussion.
The Planning Director stated that Mr. Geller
indicated that that type of change would be
subject to additional work on the EIR.
Commissioner Hawkinson asked what that meant in
terms of time.
The Planning Director explained that there were
two (2) different ways to change an EIR. One was
that if substantial changes occurred it would
require a public hearing with a review period.
The second would require a supplemental EIR which
doesn't require a public hearing which would be
required would depend on the magnitude of changes.
Commissioner Hawkinson asked if the reason for
that was the realignment of Commerce Way.
The Planning Director and Mr. Geller explained the
reason would be due to the offramp because traffic
analysis was based on Barton Road, Michigan and
Commerce Way. If there is a significant change we
need to reexamine the traffic.
Commissioner Hawkinson reiterated the public
hearing and concerns over the widening of
Michigan.
Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked if a new EIR has
to be prepared whose responsibility is it.
The Planning Director stated that it is something
that they could not have the consultant work on
without it going back to the Council. He pointed
out that if we are going with that motion and
approving an offramp then he would suggest not
approving the plan but rather make the
recommendation that we consider the feasibility of
an offramp without spending the money for the EIR
work, without having to go through the public
hearings and then put it on hold to see if an
offramp would work or not.
24
e
OTION
MOTION VOTE
PCM-88-30
PCM-88-31
MOTION VOTE
7 PCM-88-31
Plan for Streets and Highways. Commissioner
Hawkinson second.
MOTION CARRIED. ALL AYES, 7-0-0-0.
Chairman Caouette asked if there were any other
specifics on the plan.
Chairman Caouette made the motion that the
Planning Commission recommend to the City Council
the adoption of General Plan 87-4 and approval of
E-87-1 as presented by staff, including previous
action as approved for the area west of the
freeway, with the amendments recommended by the
Planning Commission. Commissioner Sims second.
MOTION CARRIED. COMMISSIONER HARGRAVE VOTING NOE,
6-1-0-0.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:55 P.M.
Approved By,
tv-
NorrAan Caouette,
Chairman/Planning Commission
49
Respectfully Submitted,
Uavid—R. ii er,
Planning Director