COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS JUNE 22, 2006
GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER 6:00 PM
22795 Barton Road
IF YOU DESIRE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL DURING THE MEETING, PLEASE COMPLETE A REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM AVAILABLE AT THE ENTRANCE AND PRESENT IT TO THE CITY CLERK. SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED UPON BY THE MAYOR AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMPLIES WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. IF YOU REQUIRE SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, PLEASE CALL THE CITY CLERKS OFFICE AT (909) 824-6621 AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
* Call to Order -
* Invocation -
* Pledge of Allegiance -
* Roll Call -
AGENDA ITEMS
CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1. Approval of 06-08-2006 Minutes
Staff Recommendation - Approve
2. Annual Statement of Investment Policy
Staff Recommendation - Adopt
ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
1. Items to Delete
2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Fun in the Sun, Safe Summer 2006
B. Arson & Bomb Detail/Presentation on Fireworks - Dan Glozer
C. Proclamation - Terrace Hills Middle School
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. Any Council Member, Staff Member, or Citizen may request removal of an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
A. Approve Check Register Dated June 22, 2006
Staff Recommendation – Approve
Gramps Questions: Who got paid for what, and how was it paid with what monies? This information should be available on the City Web Site…
B. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda
C. Approval of 06-08-2006 Minutes
Staff Recommendation - Approve
D. Resolution Calling a General Municipal Election - November 7, 2006
Staff Recommendation – Adopt
Gramps Note: Folks wanting to Run for the Open Council Seats and the Seat of Mayor of Grand Terrace should start thinking about gathering up the paper work from the City Clerk.
E. Annual Statement of Investment Policy
Staff Recommendation - Adopt
F. Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Appropriations Limit
Staff Recommendation – Adopt
Gramps Recommendation - All Contractors or Suppliers conducting business with the City of Grand Terrace in excess of $5,000.00 for a one time contract, or a supply contract expected to have a cumulative value of over $5,000.00 in a year shall be under open competitive bid including employment contracts, and professional services contracts. In addition all should have proper City Business Licenses. This includes the City Manager’s Contract, City Attorny’s Contract, City Engineer’s Contract, and the Employment Contract of Richard Rollings.
G. Special Events Permit Requested by Calvary, The Brook for the Use of Rollins Park for a Fourth of July Day Picnic Open to the Public on July 4, 2006 from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Staff Recommendation – Approve
Gramps Question: If a family of Zoroastrians, Muslims, or Greek Orthodox Christians wanted to use the park will the folks from “The Brook” allow them to enjoy the public facility without an invitation to convert to their church? Is this a public event or use of public property on a national holiday to prostelitize/convert anyone who may want to use the park on that particular day?
Will “The Brook” be banned from the use of fireworks in the park, as the “PUBLIC” was not to use fireworks in the park as it would be too Dangerous, and liability to the city. Are we being told… Public Bad…. The Brook Good? What is the message here?
H. Cancellation of July 27, 2006 City Council Meeting
Staff Recommendation - Cancel
I. HVAC Financing Agreement with Zion Bank Replacing the Agreement with Municipal Services Group, Inc.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the opportunity for members of the public to comment on any items not appearing on the regular agenda. Because of restrictions contained in California Law, the City Council is prohibited from discussing or acting on any item not on the agenda. The Mayor may request a brief response from staff to questions raised during public comment.
5. REPORTS
J. Committee Reports
1. Historical & Cultural Activities Committee
Staff Recommendation - Accept
a. Minutes of May 1, 2006
Staff Recommendation - Accept
2. Emergency Operations Committee
a. Minutes of May 2, 2006
Staff Recommendation - Accept
B. Council Reports
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 2006-2007 Annual Assessment Landscaping and Lighting District No. 89-1
Staff Recommendation - Adopt
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Solid Waste Management Rate Adjustments
Staff Recommendation - Approve
B. Sheriff’s Department Report
Staff Recommendation – Make Recommendations
C. The San Bernardino Convention and Visitor’s Bureau Proposal for a San Bernardino California Welcome Center
Staff Recommendation - Authorize
D. Reappointment of Commission/Committee Members
Staff Recommendation – Reappoint
Gramps Comment: How about an open invitation to the Community for persons interested in serving on the Committees. List the Committees and see if there is a need for each one.
The Goals or Task Statement of the Committees may need to be evaluated:
GT Days Committee should be refocused to include in its objective to hold a day of Youth Activities Fund Drive as the PURPOSE of GT DAYS.
The Historical Preservation Committee should include Youth in its Planning of Events:
IF the YOUTH aren’t included why Preserve the History. Youth Art, and Activities such as 4H
Each Committee should look to the inclusion of the energy of the Youth who have time and the physical strength to carryout many activities IF they were incorporated into the planning rather than excluded from participation.
Each Committee should be refocused to serve all the community, and in particular those elements underserved in the community. Youth between 7th and 12th grades are neglected in the planning of this community. This is an under utilized resource, and a missed opportunity.
9. CLOSED SESSION – None
Gramps Asks:
What happened to the Closed Session on Labor Negotiations. There was no report of Action Taken made Public. IN SPITE of Public Comment requesting consultation related to City Manager Tom Schwab’s performance evaluation, including his lies told to the City Council and Public specifically regarding a “Signed Lease”, which later was proven to be a false statement?
ADJOURN
THE NEXT CRA/CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON HURSDAY, JULY 13, 2006 AT 6:00 P.M.
AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS FOR THE 07-13-2006 MEETING MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE BY NOON 07-06-2006.
In the Sun Telegram a GT Citizen Asks and Important Question about Contracted Services:
Disappearing act
http://www.sbsun.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?article=3873887
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it the role of the city attorney to advise, protect and represent the city they represent? The City of Grand Terrace is paying City Attorney John R. Harper thousands of dollars in fees, and yet, what happens when the city gets sued? Harper refers the lawsuit to a private law firm which charges thousands of dollars to represent the city, and guess who pays for that? Grand Terrace has been inundated with lawsuits against it for decisions made by the City Council. Decisions based on Harper's advice. But when it comes down to defending, Harper is nowhere to be found. It is very disturbing to me when I attend City Council meetings and see Harper rocking in his chair and giving advice to the council when such advice has proven to be costly to the city and us - its resident taxpayers.
If Harper is not up to defending the city, why not get a private law firm to represent the city and advise? Why pay both as we are doing now?
KAREN CASTRO
Grand Terrace
Minutes to be Approved
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 8, 2006
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace was called to order in the Council Chambers, Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on June 8, 2006, at 6:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Maryetta Ferré, Mayor
Bea Cortes, Mayor Pro Tem
Herman Hilkey, Councilmember
Lee Ann Garcia, Councilmember
Jim Miller, Councilmember
Tom Schwab, City Manager
Steve Berry, Assistant City Manager
Brenda Mesa, City Clerk
Larry Ronnow, Finance Director
Gary Koontz, Community Development Director
Richard Shields, Building & Safety Director
John Harper, City Attorney
Captain Mike Howell, Sheriff’s Department
ABSENT: None
The City Council meeting was opened with Invocation by Raul Montano, Calvary, The Brook Church, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilmember Jim Miller.
CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ITEMS TO DELETE - None
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - None
CONSENT CALENDAR
CC-2006-60 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM CORTES, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the following Consent Calendar Items with the removal of Items 3A. and 3D.:
3B. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda
3C. Approval of 05-25-2006 Minutes
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
3A. Approve Check Register Dated June 8, 2006
Council Minutes June 8, 2006 Page 2
CC-2006-61 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA, CARRIED 5-0, to approve Check Register Dated June 8, 2006.
3D. Reject Liability Claim GTLC-05-08 (Hornsby)
CC-2006-62 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HILKEY, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, CARRIED 4-1-0-0 (MAYOR FERRÉ VOTED NO), to table Rejecting Liability Claim GTLC-05-08 (Hornsby) until Council receives the comments from the adjuster and his logic behind his recommendation.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Bill Hays, 22114 De Berry, served Maryetta Ferré and Lee Ann Garcia with Notices of Intent to Circulate a Recall Petition. He stated that he and other people in the Community will come before the Council during upcoming meetings giving their reasons why they feel Maryetta Ferré and Lee Ann Garcia should be recalled.
REPORTS
5A. Committee Reports
1. Crime Prevention Committee
a. Minutes of April 10, 2006
CC-2006-63 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM CORTES, CARRIED 5-0, to accept the April 10, 2006 Minutes of the Crime Prevention Committee
5B. Council Reports
Mayor Pro Tem Cortes, reported that she has spoken to Lt. Guerra with regards to crime in the City. She stated that a man went to the door of a resident and claimed that they were building a fence behind her home and that they needed to come inside the home to take measurements. Once inside the home they began to steal items from her. Her son came in the process and there was a scuffle. She requested that Captain Howell give a report on the incident.
Captain Mike Howell, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, reported that they refer to these as gypsy scams and that they have been taking place for many years. They are a non-violent group of individuals that go through communities commit a crime and leave immediately. It is a way to steal small valuable items that will go unnoticed. This is the only incident of that nature that has happened in Grand
Council Minutes June 8, 2006 Page 3
Terrace and in the surrounding areas. He feels that it was a transit that took advantage of an opportunity.
Mayor Pro Tem Cortes, reported that there have been more crime incidents taking place throughout the community and requested that another Deputy be added to Grand Terrace. She asked the City Manager what he thinks about adding another Deputy.
City Manager Schwab, responded that staff is bringing a study back to the Council on Law Enforcement and it would be at that time for Council to make their recommendations. This will take place either the last meeting in June or the first meeting in July.
Mayor Pro Tem Cortes, thanked Assistant City Manager Berry for doing an outstanding job with the Grand Terrace Days Parade and feels that this was one of the best Grand Terrace Days ever. She said that next years theme may be a Country Western theme.
Councilmember Hilkey, thanked staff for a great Grand Terrace Days. He reported that the grass at the park looked wonderful. He expressed his concern with the relationship between the City and the Blue Mountain Outlook. He confirmed that the law enforcement contract will be discussed during a regular meeting. He wants to make sure that the response time is discussed and that the coverage is custom fitted to the City’s needs.
Councilmember Garcia, thanked staff for an outstanding Grand Terrace Days. She reported that on June 10, 2006 the Fire Department will be holding their Annual Pancake Breakfast, all proceeds will go to station #23. She is a major proponent of the Citizen’s Patrol and the Crime Prevention Committee and would like to see the role of those two included in the presentation that will be given by the Department. She has heard of a program called ASafe Communities@ and would like to see if this could be implemented in Grand Terrace. She reported that at the Chamber of Commerce Luncheon someone from the Sheriff’s Department bomb squad will be giving a presentation on fireworks. She stated that with regards to recall notice that all of the allegations that have been stated are false. She will continue to work for the good of the City. She would ask that every resident, when asked to sign something, to look into the facts before you take somebody’s word.
Councilmember Miller, also thanked staff for Grand Terrace Days. He was disappointed with the voter turn out on election day. He feels that we need to come up with some type of campaign to get the voters out. San Bernardino County had the lowest number of voter turnout. Monday is the second meeting of the Traffic Mitigation Committee and he invited everyone to attend.
Council Minutes June 8, 2006 Page 4
Mayor Ferré, expressed her appreciation for all of the work that was put into Grand Terrace Days. She stated that the Crime Prevention Committee is a wonderful group of volunteers that look closely after the safety of the City as well as the Citizen’s Patrol. When the review is done on the department they should be given credit for what they do and continue to support them. In regards to the serving of the petition, she feels that it is really important that the Grand Terrace residents seriously consider putting their passion toward the solving of problems, making of suggestions and the supporting of decisions that will make this city prosper not toward distractions that can destroy a community such as recall petitions that have been served three times due to insufficiency.
PUBLIC HEARING
6A. Zone Change Case No. 06-01 (ZC-06-01), Tentative Tract Map No. 06-01 (TTM-06-01/County No. 18071) and Environmental Review Case No. 06-03 (E-06-03) to Change the Existing R1-20 Zoning to R1-10 Zoning on a 8.26 Acre Parcel and to Subdivide the Property into 20 Single Family Lots.
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace Approving Zone Change No. 06-01 (Z-06-01) to Change the Existing R1-20 Zoning to R1-10 and Delete the AG Overlay Zone for an 8.26 Acre Parcel Located on the Northerly Side of Pico Street Starting Approximately 150 Feet Easterly of the Intersection of Pico Street and Kingfisher Road and Environmental Case No. 06-03 (E-06-03) - Mitigated Negative Declaration as Provided by the California Environmental Quality Act
Resolution by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, State of California, Approving Tentative Tract Map No. 06-01 (County No. TTM 18071) for a 20 Lot Single Family Residential Development on a 8.26 Acre Parcel Located on the North Side of Pico Street 150 East Kingfisher Road in the City of Grand Terrace, California
John Lampe, Planner, reported that there is a request from Karger homes to change the existing zoning on the subject site from R1-20 (Very Low Density Single Family - minimum required area 20,000 sq. ft.) Zoning to R1-10 (Low Density Single Family - minimum required area 10,000 sq ft.) Zoning . Also proposed is Tentative Tract Map No. 06-01 (County No. 18071) to subdivide the site into 20 single family lots in conformance with the new zoning designation. The Planning Commission and Staff recommend that the City Council adopt the Ordinance changing the existing R1-20 Zoning to R1-10 Zoning based on the findings in the Ordinance and recommend the approval of the Resolution of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 06-01 (County No. 18071) based on the findings in the Resolution and subject to the recommended conditions of approval.
Councilmember Miller, questioned what the vote was from the Planning Commission.
Council Minutes June 8, 2006 P age 5
Planner Lampe, responded that there were only three members present that evening and that it was 2-1.
Councilmember Miller, stated that the question was asked AWhy do we need to change the zoning?@
Planner Lampe, responded that the zoning change would be appropriate given the fact that the property is constrained by various extensive easements. When the map was approved there was variance that was granted to modify the lot size. To make this work the Commission felt that it would be appropriate.
Mayor Pro Tem Cortes, requested clarification on the drainage.
Councilmember Hilkey, indicated that he has some questions with regards to the drainage off of the water tank and landscaping around the tank.
Planner Lampe, stated that he has seen the wall, however, no landscaping.
Building & Safety Director Richard Shields, responded that trees have been planted with irrigation.
Councilmember Hilkey, stated that he too, would like clarification regarding the drainage.
Councilmember Garcia, stated that she enjoyed the map that was included in the packet.
Bill McKeever, 647 N. Main Street, Riverside, responded that the drains along the west side, there is an existing concrete channel located along the easterly boundary of the tract to the west that is within a public drainage easement. Originally, that channel was designed to intercept water from an area once this property is developed that drainage area will be reduced to a small portion and the back of the lots. In effect they are reducing the amount of water that will be contributing to the existing concrete channel. He addressed the drainage off the reservoir site and explained. The ultimate plan is to bring the storm drain out and have it discharge to the street.
Councilmember Hilkey, stated that there is an existing concrete drainage on the west side of the property that is going to stay there and it is exposed.
Mr. McKeever, responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Hilkey, questioned where it drains to.
Mr. McKeever, responded that it drains through a parkway drain out into the street section
Council Minutes June 8, 2006 P age 6
on Pico.
Councilmember Hilkey, stated that one of the biggest complaints that has been heard over the past couple of years is a similar drainage on the back side of Observation. He would hate to be a part of any decision making team that didn’t address the same issue that is before them.
Mr. McKeever, responded that he understands Councilmember Hilkey’s concern and explained that even if this property wasn’t draining into that ditch you can’t get to it.
Councilmember Hilkey, questioned if it can be placed underground.
Mr. McKeever, responded that it is possible, however, the problem you run into when you are accepting drainage off an area line that is how do you get it into an underground conduit. The only place that it is underground is right across the Edison easement.
Councilmember Hilkey, confirmed that it comes to their property underground.
Mr. McKeever, responded in effect. He stated that the ditch is not located on the property, it is located on the back of the lots to the west.
Councilmember Hilkey, stated that he feels that the drain need to be covered. He questioned where the nearest drainage is to the property that goes underground and down to the west side of town. He stated that there is a problem with drainage building up.
Mr. McKeever, responded that there is no storm drain on Pico.
Councilmember Hilkey, confirmed that the water that comes off of this site drains down Pico past Mt. Vernon, past Michigan.
Mr. McKeever, concurred. He stated that the drainage goes underground when it crosses Mt. Vernon then it comes back onto the surface on the west side of Mt. Vernon.
Mayor Ferré opened the Public Hearing.
Mark Roberts, 12665 Kingfisher Road, stated that he attended both of the Planning Commission meetings regarding this item. Residents of Kingfisher Road, Blue Mountain Court, Pico Street all raised objections to the subdivision as designed. They raised many concerns regarding including the following; drainage impacts, building a proposed alley right up to their property line, building sewer and a toxic storm water treatment facility in this alley, the height of the series of walls that are proposed, the need to build pads above them, and the potential of two-story homes higher over them. They thought that single story homes might be an answer to partially address these issues. They feel that the proposed zone
Council Minutes June 8, 2006 P age 7
change isn’t necessary, the current zoning allows up to 15 homes, which is similar to and a reasonable transition to the existing larger estate home on Blue Mountain Court. They felt that their flimsy wood fence was an inadequate buffer from the alley and other work that is proposed. Several of them requested that a block wall be built along the shared property line to buffer them from vandalism from this new alley and potential accidents from cars rolling down hill into them. The Planning Commission seem to dismiss this as too expensive. This wall would cost approximately $37,500.00, split among 20 homes is about 1,875.00 per house for 15 homes it would be about $2,500.00. If you think of this as a Development Impact Fee and add it to other fees Grand Terrace charges the total would still be thousands less than what adjoining cities charge. They are also concerned that the zone change will increase traffic on Pico more than the current zoning would. Pico street east of Mt. Vernon is not an arterial street, it’s double loaded with drive-ways and kids on both sides of the street. School bus stops exists on or near Pico, kids walk and bike the street as well as on Oriole. In response to their concerns, the Planning Commission continued the hearing to May 18, however, two of the Commissioners didn’t show to the second hearing and they were not allowed to speak at the second hearing. He feels that the Planning Commission didn’t address their issues. Residents of Kingfisher have much more invested in getting this design right than the developer does. Their mortgages are much higher than what the design costs are. He feels that the Council wouldn’t want an alley build up to their home. He provided a Resolution recommending denial of this application and that is what he recommends.
Denis Kidd, 22874 Pico, stated that he is in favor of this project. He was at the hearings when the project on Kingfisher was approved so he heard all of the testimony and the reason that the ditch was put in there was not only to take care of the 100 year flood but it was to take care of all of the run-off east of the Kingfisher homes and to protect them from all of the run-off to the east. Not just the 100 year flood and not just the run-off from Blue Mountain but from the run-off from the Karger property. The reason the ditch is a big as it is, is because he lobbied for them to put in a big ditch. The reason there is not a pipe there is because in 1969 we had the wettest year that he ever saw, Blue Mountain became saturated and the gully was running day and night like a creek not only was there a lot of water coming down but silt and so there needs to be big ditch that will catch that silt so the ditch doesn’t fill up or the pipe clog so the water doesn’t wash out the houses.
Todd Campbell, 12625 Kingfisher Road, stated that he is against the zone change. The first meeting of the Planning Commission, the residents got up and spoke and it was cut short due to the antenna issue. At the next Planning Commission meeting there were only three Commissioners there and the Public Hearing was closed before the public could comment. He feels that their comments were never addressed. His main concern is the cull-de-sac coming down into his back yard. When he moved into his house he signed a paper that stated that he is liable for cleaning out his section of drainage. He doesn’t like the drainage easement, he doesn’t want them to drain into the drainage easement and he does not like the cull-de-sac.
Council Minutes June 8, 2006 P age 8
Doug McColeman, 12675 Kingfisher Road, addressed the drainage culvert that is on his property behind his fence. They are draining under their fence into the culvert and they have to clean it, which he feels is not acceptable. He stated the houses on the west end will have to have their sewer lines coming down the back bank because of the aqueduct and then have a 10 foot access road, he feels that it isn’t the proper way to do it and that they need to run down the street like everything else. He feels that the zoning needs to remain as it is.
Robert Vasquez, 12635 Kingfisher, stated that he has concerns regarding safety issues, he strongly feels that the design of the tract will pose a possible hazard to he and his family. The area of concern is the cull-de-sac coming off the primary road. According to the plans, at the end of the cull-de-sac there is nothing to prevent an out of control speeding vehicle from jumping the curb going down the embankment and ultimately landing in his backyard. He is not too concerned with the grade. When he purchased his home he was aware that the land to the east of him was going to be developed someday and he was fine with that. He didn’t think he was going to have to worry about having a speeding vehicle crashing into his backyard. When he purchased his home the plans were to have a pool installed, now those plans have been put on hold. They use their backyard constantly and as a parent he doesn’t want to have that worry. He has a concern with drainage. It was brought to attention that the channel was designed for the 100 year flood. He has been there five years and during the heaviest rains he has never experienced any run-off coming directly from the field behind him itself, it has come down the channel. He feels with the proposed development the water is going to be coming into the drain and it won’t take much for the inlets to plug up. He would like Council to take into consideration, when voting on this, their concerns.
Charles Kan, 12645 Kingfisher Road, stated that he has the same concerns as his neighbors. He feels that the sewer and drainage design could be better. He is concerned with soil erosion, traffic and accidents. The sewer system is a major concern for him. When he purchased the home he was told by the agent that the back piece of land would be built with 11 custom. He strongly opposes the zone change.
Mayor Ferré closed the Public Hearing and returned discussion to the Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Cortes, thanked the residents for the professionalism. She requested that staff address the issues of drainage, safety, and sewer.
Mr. McKeever, stated that as of two years ago any land development has to deal with State requirements on water quality management plans. This is connected with the Federal NPDES requirements. At the end of the cull-de-sac they have two separate drainage systems one that deals with the storm flow and the primary function of the storm flow drain system is to protect the homes or whatever is being developed from damage of storm flows, in addition to that they have to provide a system that provides primary treatment for the storm water run-off. The primary treatment for the storm water run-off is based on the first 2/10 of an
Council Minutes June 8, 2006 P age 9
inch that comes off of the project. It is usually accepted that the first 2/10 of an inch contains the vast majority of the pollutants that are going to be flushed off of the project into the storm drain system or wherever they are going to go. He explained the drainage process on the project. He stated that if the Council desires the developer to place the drain underground they can intercept that drainage and put it underground discharge it out into the street and not contribute anything to that existing ditch in the interest in getting along with the neighbors. They can actually show that they can build this project and the net result is that they would be reducing the amount of area substantially that is contributing storm water run-off to the existing ditch. As far as the grades and slopes, even if they go to the other plan the grade on the street is set by the grade of the pipe that is underground. They don’t have the ability to reduce the amount of cover on the pipe. The slope of the back lots will not change even with the 20,000 sq foot lots. The problem they have with the sewer is that the lots don’t drain out to the street and they can’t put sewer in the street because the State Department of Water Resources will not allow them to put parallel sewer in their right-of-way. They have designed the sewer the only way that they could. There are a lot of constraints on the property that won’t change by virtue of just making the lots bigger. It is more expensive to build a single story house as opposed to two story homes. Developers are having a hard time selling single story homes.
Mayor Pro Tem Cortes, requested that he address the cull-de-sac safety issues.
Mr. McKeever, responded that the cull-de-sac is not an un-typical situation. He has designed several projects like that and hasn’t experienced any problems. The 6% grade is not excessive. There are things that we can do, however, he doesn’t see it as a problem.
Councilmember Garcia, thanked the residents for coming out and speaking. She reported that she went out and took a look at the project. She has been asking for a comprehensive infrastructure plan to address drainage. It is a serious issue in Grand Terrace. She is sensitive to the neighbors concerns and feels that we should do what we can to address them. She questioned what is going to be on the other side of the wood fence.
Mr. McKeever, responded that when the existing tract was developed it was their responsibility to protect it from storm water drain-off, which is why the ditch is located on that property. Since that tract was developed the reservoir was built, there is a block wall that was built in conjunction with the reservoir, essentially everything east that could possibly get to that boundary has been eliminated.
Councilmember Garcia, stated that one of residents mentioned the wall and alley.
Mr, McKeever, stated that it is not an alley, an alley is a public access street that is about 20 feet wide. This is an access road for the sewer and the water quality system that is 10 feet wide.
Council Minutes June 8, 2006 P age 10
Councilmember Garcia, even though it is not intended to be public people can have access to it.
Mr. McKeever, stated that they agreed to gate the access road to preclude public access.
Councilmember Garcia, expressed her concern with a potential mosquito issue.
Mr, McKeever, responded that the only place there will be standing water in this proposed system is in the water quality swells. If there is a way to get around that they will but they have to follow the mandated laws. They are all designed not to have water standing for more than 72 hours.
Councilmember Garcia, wants to make sure that as many questions are answered as possible and what the options are.
Councilmember Miller, questioned if the developer has set a meeting with the home owners before the project was brought before the Council.
Mr. McKeever, responded in the negative. He feels that what has been designed is per code. He hears the concerns but is not sure that there is anything that can be done about them.
Councilmember Miller, said that he has a problem with Mr. McKeever saying he has never had a problem with the design of the cull-de-sac. He feels that maybe Mr.
McKeever had never seen a problem, however, there could possibly be something that could happen. He has a concern with the 6% grade. He questioned what changed it from 15 to 20 homes.
Mr. McKeever, stated that they can place some sort of decorative barrier.
Councilmember Miller, questioned if the slope on the west side is going to be manicured and whether there will be sprinklers on it.
Mr. McKeever, responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Miller, questioned who will be controlling the sprinkler system.
Mr. McKeever, responded that the homeowners associations will..
Councilmember Miller, stated that there is a possibility that the sprinklers could run longer than they are suppose to or they run right before the rains and you have a saturated hill. He questioned where that run-off will go.
Mr. McKeever , responded that if there is any irrigation run-off it will go into the low flow drain system.
Council Minutes June 8, 2006 P age 11
Councilmember Miller, questioned if the existing sediment basin will be moved.
Mr. McKeever, responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Miller, questioned when the water comes will the sediment basin be for the first flush or for the storm drain.
Mr. McKeever, responded that the sediment basin goes away. The reason why the sediment basin is there now is because of properties undeveloped. Once the project is developed you have eliminated the sediment problem. The water that comes off of the slopes will go through the water quality swells.
Councilmember Miller, questioned if the access road will have lighting.
Mr. McKeever, responded in the negative.
Councilmember Miller, questioned who will have access to the road.
Mr. McKeever, responded that the City would and the homeowners association.
Councilmember Miller, confirmed that they would be putting a gate at the entrance of the road.
Councilmember Hilkey, stated that he is understanding the first flush interceptor. He questioned if the wood fence would be on the property line.
Mr. McKeever, responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Hilkey, confirmed his understanding of the process of the drainage system.
Mr. McKeever, stated that the law says that when a piece of property is developed, they can not increase run-off to downstream properties. By reducing the area that drains to that they have fulfilled that obligation. They are not impacting the capacity of that channel that is on the other properties.
Councilmember Hilkey, questioned if there was a reason why Brice Canyon is so long.
Mr. McKeever, stated that they are not interested in building more street than they have to. The problem is the width of the cull-de-sac. If they could get it shorter and still provide access to the lots they would.
Councilmember Hilkey, stated that it gives them more lots.
Council Minutes June 8, 2006 P age 12
Mr. McKeever, concurred.
Councilmember Hilkey, requested that staff get new orthoquads that shows what is there now.
Mayor Ferré, the drainage, the sewer, and the access road are the issues. The lot size doesn’t appear to be the issue. She questioned whether it is 15 or 20 homes all of the same issues will exist.
Mr. McKeever, responded in the affirmative. The property has a lot of constraints. They have to work with what they have. The number of lots will have an impact on the financial feasibility of the development of this project.
Mayor Ferré, appreciates the concerns of the residents and the manner in which they presented them.
Councilmember Garcia, questioned if there was ever a plan for a 15 lot project.
Mr. McKeever, the design criteria was to come up with something that was compatible with the adjacent properties but suitable for custom homes. The 20 lots is what they came up with. They feel that this project will be an asset to the community.
Councilmember Garcia, she would like the applicant to have a neighborhood meeting to try and address their concerns and to continue this item.
CC-2006-64 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER HILKEY, CARRIED 5-0 to continue the public hearing to July 13, 2006 for a Zone Change Case No. 06-01 (ZC-06-01), Tentative Tract Map No. 06-01 (TTM-06-01/County No. 18071) and Environmental Review Case No. 06-03 (E-06-03) to Change the Existing R1-20 Zoning to R1-10 Zoning on a 8.26 Acre Parcel and to Subdivide the Property into 20 Single Family Lots and an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace Approving Zone Change No. 06-01 (Z-06-01) to Change the Existing R1-20 Zoning to R1-10 and Delete the AG Overlay Zone for an 8.26 Acre Parcel Located on the Northerly Side of Pico Street Starting Approximately 150 Feet Easterly of the Intersection of Pico Street and Kingfisher Road and Environmental Case No. 06-03 (E-06-03) - Mitigated Negative Declaration as Provided by the California Environmental Quality Act and a Resolution by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, State of California, Approving Tentative Tract Map No. 06-01 (County No. TTM 18071) for a 20 Lot Single Family Residential Development on a 8.26 Acre Parcel Located on the North Side of Pico Street 150 East Kingfisher Road in the City of Grand Terrace, California to allow the Developer to meet with the Kingfisher residents to discuss their concerns.
Council Minutes June 8, 2006 P age 13
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS
A. Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 89-1
CC-2006-65 MOTION COUNCILMEMBER HILKEY, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM CORTES, CARRIED 4-0-1-0 (COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA WAS ABSENT), to adopt the Resolution Ordering the Preparation of Plans, Specifications, Cost Estimate, Diagram, Assessment and Report Pursuant to the Provisions of Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, for Proceedings for the Annual Assessment Levy After a Formation of a District and adopt a Resolution approving the Engineer’s AReport@ for the Annual Levy of Assessments for the Fiscal Year 2006-2007 in a District with said City and a Resolution Declaring its Intention to Provide for an Annual Levy and Collection of Assessments for Certain Maintenance in an Existing District, Pursuant to the Provisions of Decision 15, Part 2 of the Street and Highways Code of the State of California, and Setting a Time and Place for the Public Hearing Thereon.
B. Personnel Negotiations - Meet and Confer
CC-2006-66 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM CORTES, CARRIED 5-0, to authorize a 5% salary adjustment for the employees effective July 1, 2006 and to adopt Resolution 2006 next in order rescinding Resolution 2005-08 adjusting the salary ranges for the employees of the City of Grand Terrace and authorize an amendment to the City of Grand Terrace PERS Contract from the current 2.0%at 55 to a proposed 2.7% at 55 and authorizes the Mayor to execute a contract amendment to reflect this change and authorize additional City PERS contribution of 2.9% and the employees will contribute 2.9 % to fund this new benefit.
CLOSED SESSION
A. Personnel Negotiations (GC54957.5) Conference with Labor Negotiations (GC54957.6) Conference with Labor Negotiator Tom Schwab, Steve Berry and Larry Ronnow Representing Unrepresented Employees
Mayor Ferré announced that the Council met in Closed Session to discuss Personnel Negotiations (GC54957.5) Conference with Labor Negotiations (GC54957.6) Conference with Labor Negotiator Tom Schwab, Steve Berry and Larry Ronnow Representing Unrepresented Employees and the following was agreed to; to authorize a 5% salary adjustment for the employees effective July 1, 2006 and to adopt a Resolution 2006 next in order rescinding Resolution 2005-08 adjusting the
Council Minutes June 8, 2006 P age 14
salary ranges for the employees of the City of Grand Terrace and to authorize an amendment to the City of Grand Terrace PERS Contract from the current 2.0%at 55 to a proposed 2.7% at 55 and authorize the Mayor to execute a contract amendment to reflect this change and authorize additional City PERS contribution of 2.9% and that the employees will contribute 2.9 % to fund this new benefit.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 8, 2006
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace was called to order in the Council Chambers, Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on June 8, 2006, at 6:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Maryetta Ferré, Mayor
Bea Cortes, Mayor Pro Tem
Herman Hilkey, Councilmember
Lee Ann Garcia, Councilmember
Jim Miller, Councilmember
Tom Schwab, City Manager
Steve Berry, Assistant City Manager
Brenda Mesa, City Clerk
Larry Ronnow, Finance Director
Gary Koontz, Community Development Director
Richard Shields, Building & Safety Director
John Harper, City Attorney
Captain Mike Howell, Sheriff’s Department
ABSENT: None
The City Council meeting was opened with Invocation by Raul Montano, Calvary, The Brook Church, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilmember Jim Miller.
CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ITEMS TO DELETE - None
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - None
CONSENT CALENDAR
CC-2006-60 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM CORTES, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the following Consent Calendar Items with the removal of Items 3A. and 3D.:
3B. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda
3C. Approval of 05-25-2006 Minutes
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
3A. Approve Check Register Dated June 8, 2006
Council Minutes June 8, 2006 Page 2
CC-2006-61 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA, CARRIED 5-0, to approve Check Register Dated June 8, 2006.
3D. Reject Liability Claim GTLC-05-08 (Hornsby)
CC-2006-62 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HILKEY, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, CARRIED 4-1-0-0 (MAYOR FERRÉ VOTED NO), to table Rejecting Liability Claim GTLC-05-08 (Hornsby) until Council receives the comments from the adjuster and his logic behind his recommendation.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Bill Hays, 22114 De Berry, served Maryetta Ferré and Lee Ann Garcia with Notices of Intent to Circulate a Recall Petition. He stated that he and other people in the Community will come before the Council during upcoming meetings giving their reasons why they feel Maryetta Ferré and Lee Ann Garcia should be recalled.
REPORTS
5A. Committee Reports
1. Crime Prevention Committee
a. Minutes of April 10, 2006
CC-2006-63 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM CORTES, CARRIED 5-0, to accept the April 10, 2006 Minutes of the Crime Prevention Committee
5B. Council Reports
Mayor Pro Tem Cortes, reported that she has spoken to Lt. Guerra with regards to crime in the City. She stated that a man went to the door of a resident and claimed that they were building a fence behind her home and that they needed to come inside the home to take measurements. Once inside the home they began to steal items from her. Her son came in the process and there was a scuffle. She requested that Captain Howell give a report on the incident.
Captain Mike Howell, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, reported that they refer to these as gypsy scams and that they have been taking place for many years. They are a non-violent group of individuals that go through communities commit a crime and leave immediately. It is a way to steal small valuable items that will go unnoticed. This is the only incident of that nature that has happened in Grand
Council Minutes June 8, 2006 Page 3
Terrace and in the surrounding areas. He feels that it was a transit that took advantage of an opportunity.
Mayor Pro Tem Cortes, reported that there have been more crime incidents taking place throughout the community and requested that another Deputy be added to Grand Terrace. She asked the City Manager what he thinks about adding another Deputy.
City Manager Schwab, responded that staff is bringing a study back to the Council on Law Enforcement and it would be at that time for Council to make their recommendations. This will take place either the last meeting in June or the first meeting in July.
Mayor Pro Tem Cortes, thanked Assistant City Manager Berry for doing an outstanding job with the Grand Terrace Days Parade and feels that this was one of the best Grand Terrace Days ever. She said that next years theme may be a Country Western theme.
Councilmember Hilkey, thanked staff for a great Grand Terrace Days. He reported that the grass at the park looked wonderful. He expressed his concern with the relationship between the City and the Blue Mountain Outlook. He confirmed that the law enforcement contract will be discussed during a regular meeting. He wants to make sure that the response time is discussed and that the coverage is custom fitted to the City’s needs.
Councilmember Garcia, thanked staff for an outstanding Grand Terrace Days. She reported that on June 10, 2006 the Fire Department will be holding their Annual Pancake Breakfast, all proceeds will go to station #23. She is a major proponent of the Citizen’s Patrol and the Crime Prevention Committee and would like to see the role of those two included in the presentation that will be given by the Department. She has heard of a program called ASafe Communities@ and would like to see if this could be implemented in Grand Terrace. She reported that at the Chamber of Commerce Luncheon someone from the Sheriff’s Department bomb squad will be giving a presentation on fireworks. She stated that with regards to recall notice that all of the allegations that have been stated are false. She will continue to work for the good of the City. She would ask that every resident, when asked to sign something, to look into the facts before you take somebody’s word.
Councilmember Miller, also thanked staff for Grand Terrace Days. He was disappointed with the voter turn out on election day. He feels that we need to come up with some type of campaign to get the voters out. San Bernardino County had the lowest number of voter turnout. Monday is the second meeting of the Traffic Mitigation Committee and he invited everyone to attend.
Council Minutes June 8, 2006 Page 4
Mayor Ferré, expressed her appreciation for all of the work that was put into Grand Terrace Days. She stated that the Crime Prevention Committee is a wonderful group of volunteers that look closely after the safety of the City as well as the Citizen’s Patrol. When the review is done on the department they should be given credit for what they do and continue to support them. In regards to the serving of the petition, she feels that it is really important that the Grand Terrace residents seriously consider putting their passion toward the solving of problems, making of suggestions and the supporting of decisions that will make this city prosper not toward distractions that can destroy a community such as recall petitions that have been served three times due to insufficiency.
PUBLIC HEARING
6A. Zone Change Case No. 06-01 (ZC-06-01), Tentative Tract Map No. 06-01 (TTM-06-01/County No. 18071) and Environmental Review Case No. 06-03 (E-06-03) to Change the Existing R1-20 Zoning to R1-10 Zoning on a 8.26 Acre Parcel and to Subdivide the Property into 20 Single Family Lots.
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace Approving Zone Change No. 06-01 (Z-06-01) to Change the Existing R1-20 Zoning to R1-10 and Delete the AG Overlay Zone for an 8.26 Acre Parcel Located on the Northerly Side of Pico Street Starting Approximately 150 Feet Easterly of the Intersection of Pico Street and Kingfisher Road and Environmental Case No. 06-03 (E-06-03) - Mitigated Negative Declaration as Provided by the California Environmental Quality Act
Resolution by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, State of California, Approving Tentative Tract Map No. 06-01 (County No. TTM 18071) for a 20 Lot Single Family Residential Development on a 8.26 Acre Parcel Located on the North Side of Pico Street 150 East Kingfisher Road in the City of Grand Terrace, California
John Lampe, Planner, reported that there is a request from Karger homes to change the existing zoning on the subject site from R1-20 (Very Low Density Single Family - minimum required area 20,000 sq. ft.) Zoning to R1-10 (Low Density Single Family - minimum required area 10,000 sq ft.) Zoning . Also proposed is Tentative Tract Map No. 06-01 (County No. 18071) to subdivide the site into 20 single family lots in conformance with the new zoning designation. The Planning Commission and Staff recommend that the City Council adopt the Ordinance changing the existing R1-20 Zoning to R1-10 Zoning based on the findings in the Ordinance and recommend the approval of the Resolution of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 06-01 (County No. 18071) based on the findings in the Resolution and subject to the recommended conditions of approval.
Councilmember Miller, questioned what the vote was from the Planning Commission.
Council Minutes June 8, 2006 P age 5
Planner Lampe, responded that there were only three members present that evening and that it was 2-1.
Councilmember Miller, stated that the question was asked AWhy do we need to change the zoning?@
Planner Lampe, responded that the zoning change would be appropriate given the fact that the property is constrained by various extensive easements. When the map was approved there was variance that was granted to modify the lot size. To make this work the Commission felt that it would be appropriate.
Mayor Pro Tem Cortes, requested clarification on the drainage.
Councilmember Hilkey, indicated that he has some questions with regards to the drainage off of the water tank and landscaping around the tank.
Planner Lampe, stated that he has seen the wall, however, no landscaping.
Building & Safety Director Richard Shields, responded that trees have been planted with irrigation.
Councilmember Hilkey, stated that he too, would like clarification regarding the drainage.
Councilmember Garcia, stated that she enjoyed the map that was included in the packet.
Bill McKeever, 647 N. Main Street, Riverside, responded that the drains along the west side, there is an existing concrete channel located along the easterly boundary of the tract to the west that is within a public drainage easement. Originally, that channel was designed to intercept water from an area once this property is developed that drainage area will be reduced to a small portion and the back of the lots. In effect they are reducing the amount of water that will be contributing to the existing concrete channel. He addressed the drainage off the reservoir site and explained. The ultimate plan is to bring the storm drain out and have it discharge to the street.
Councilmember Hilkey, stated that there is an existing concrete drainage on the west side of the property that is going to stay there and it is exposed.
Mr. McKeever, responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Hilkey, questioned where it drains to.
Mr. McKeever, responded that it drains through a parkway drain out into the street section
Council Minutes June 8, 2006 P age 6
on Pico.
Councilmember Hilkey, stated that one of the biggest complaints that has been heard over the past couple of years is a similar drainage on the back side of Observation. He would hate to be a part of any decision making team that didn’t address the same issue that is before them.
Mr. McKeever, responded that he understands Councilmember Hilkey’s concern and explained that even if this property wasn’t draining into that ditch you can’t get to it.
Councilmember Hilkey, questioned if it can be placed underground.
Mr. McKeever, responded that it is possible, however, the problem you run into when you are accepting drainage off an area line that is how do you get it into an underground conduit. The only place that it is underground is right across the Edison easement.
Councilmember Hilkey, confirmed that it comes to their property underground.
Mr. McKeever, responded in effect. He stated that the ditch is not located on the property, it is located on the back of the lots to the west.
Councilmember Hilkey, stated that he feels that the drain need to be covered. He questioned where the nearest drainage is to the property that goes underground and down to the west side of town. He stated that there is a problem with drainage building up.
Mr. McKeever, responded that there is no storm drain on Pico.
Councilmember Hilkey, confirmed that the water that comes off of this site drains down Pico past Mt. Vernon, past Michigan.
Mr. McKeever, concurred. He stated that the drainage goes underground when it crosses Mt. Vernon then it comes back onto the surface on the west side of Mt. Vernon.
Mayor Ferré opened the Public Hearing.
Mark Roberts, 12665 Kingfisher Road, stated that he attended both of the Planning Commission meetings regarding this item. Residents of Kingfisher Road, Blue Mountain Court, Pico Street all raised objections to the subdivision as designed. They raised many concerns regarding including the following; drainage impacts, building a proposed alley right up to their property line, building sewer and a toxic storm water treatment facility in this alley, the height of the series of walls that are proposed, the need to build pads above them, and the potential of two-story homes higher over them. They thought that single story homes might be an answer to partially address these issues. They feel that the proposed zone
Council Minutes June 8, 2006 P age 7
change isn’t necessary, the current zoning allows up to 15 homes, which is similar to and a reasonable transition to the existing larger estate home on Blue Mountain Court. They felt that their flimsy wood fence was an inadequate buffer from the alley and other work that is proposed. Several of them requested that a block wall be built along the shared property line to buffer them from vandalism from this new alley and potential accidents from cars rolling down hill into them. The Planning Commission seem to dismiss this as too expensive. This wall would cost approximately $37,500.00, split among 20 homes is about 1,875.00 per house for 15 homes it would be about $2,500.00. If you think of this as a Development Impact Fee and add it to other fees Grand Terrace charges the total would still be thousands less than what adjoining cities charge. They are also concerned that the zone change will increase traffic on Pico more than the current zoning would. Pico street east of Mt. Vernon is not an arterial street, it’s double loaded with drive-ways and kids on both sides of the street. School bus stops exists on or near Pico, kids walk and bike the street as well as on Oriole. In response to their concerns, the Planning Commission continued the hearing to May 18, however, two of the Commissioners didn’t show to the second hearing and they were not allowed to speak at the second hearing. He feels that the Planning Commission didn’t address their issues. Residents of Kingfisher have much more invested in getting this design right than the developer does. Their mortgages are much higher than what the design costs are. He feels that the Council wouldn’t want an alley build up to their home. He provided a Resolution recommending denial of this application and that is what he recommends.
Denis Kidd, 22874 Pico, stated that he is in favor of this project. He was at the hearings when the project on Kingfisher was approved so he heard all of the testimony and the reason that the ditch was put in there was not only to take care of the 100 year flood but it was to take care of all of the run-off east of the Kingfisher homes and to protect them from all of the run-off to the east. Not just the 100 year flood and not just the run-off from Blue Mountain but from the run-off from the Karger property. The reason the ditch is a big as it is, is because he lobbied for them to put in a big ditch. The reason there is not a pipe there is because in 1969 we had the wettest year that he ever saw, Blue Mountain became saturated and the gully was running day and night like a creek not only was there a lot of water coming down but silt and so there needs to be big ditch that will catch that silt so the ditch doesn’t fill up or the pipe clog so the water doesn’t wash out the houses.
Todd Campbell, 12625 Kingfisher Road, stated that he is against the zone change. The first meeting of the Planning Commission, the residents got up and spoke and it was cut short due to the antenna issue. At the next Planning Commission meeting there were only three Commissioners there and the Public Hearing was closed before the public could comment. He feels that their comments were never addressed. His main concern is the cull-de-sac coming down into his back yard. When he moved into his house he signed a paper that stated that he is liable for cleaning out his section of drainage. He doesn’t like the drainage easement, he doesn’t want them to drain into the drainage easement and he does not like the cull-de-sac.
Council Minutes June 8, 2006 P age 8
Doug McColeman, 12675 Kingfisher Road, addressed the drainage culvert that is on his property behind his fence. They are draining under their fence into the culvert and they have to clean it, which he feels is not acceptable. He stated the houses on the west end will have to have their sewer lines coming down the back bank because of the aqueduct and then have a 10 foot access road, he feels that it isn’t the proper way to do it and that they need to run down the street like everything else. He feels that the zoning needs to remain as it is.
Robert Vasquez, 12635 Kingfisher, stated that he has concerns regarding safety issues, he strongly feels that the design of the tract will pose a possible hazard to he and his family. The area of concern is the cull-de-sac coming off the primary road. According to the plans, at the end of the cull-de-sac there is nothing to prevent an out of control speeding vehicle from jumping the curb going down the embankment and ultimately landing in his backyard. He is not too concerned with the grade. When he purchased his home he was aware that the land to the east of him was going to be developed someday and he was fine with that. He didn’t think he was going to have to worry about having a speeding vehicle crashing into his backyard. When he purchased his home the plans were to have a pool installed, now those plans have been put on hold. They use their backyard constantly and as a parent he doesn’t want to have that worry. He has a concern with drainage. It was brought to attention that the channel was designed for the 100 year flood. He has been there five years and during the heaviest rains he has never experienced any run-off coming directly from the field behind him itself, it has come down the channel. He feels with the proposed development the water is going to be coming into the drain and it won’t take much for the inlets to plug up. He would like Council to take into consideration, when voting on this, their concerns.
Charles Kan, 12645 Kingfisher Road, stated that he has the same concerns as his neighbors. He feels that the sewer and drainage design could be better. He is concerned with soil erosion, traffic and accidents. The sewer system is a major concern for him. When he purchased the home he was told by the agent that the back piece of land would be built with 11 custom. He strongly opposes the zone change.
Mayor Ferré closed the Public Hearing and returned discussion to the Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Cortes, thanked the residents for the professionalism. She requested that staff address the issues of drainage, safety, and sewer.
Mr. McKeever, stated that as of two years ago any land development has to deal with State requirements on water quality management plans. This is connected with the Federal NPDES requirements. At the end of the cull-de-sac they have two separate drainage systems one that deals with the storm flow and the primary function of the storm flow drain system is to protect the homes or whatever is being developed from damage of storm flows, in addition to that they have to provide a system that provides primary treatment for the storm water run-off. The primary treatment for the storm water run-off is based on the first 2/10 of an
Council Minutes June 8, 2006 P age 9
inch that comes off of the project. It is usually accepted that the first 2/10 of an inch contains the vast majority of the pollutants that are going to be flushed off of the project into the storm drain system or wherever they are going to go. He explained the drainage process on the project. He stated that if the Council desires the developer to place the drain underground they can intercept that drainage and put it underground discharge it out into the street and not contribute anything to that existing ditch in the interest in getting along with the neighbors. They can actually show that they can build this project and the net result is that they would be reducing the amount of area substantially that is contributing storm water run-off to the existing ditch. As far as the grades and slopes, even if they go to the other plan the grade on the street is set by the grade of the pipe that is underground. They don’t have the ability to reduce the amount of cover on the pipe. The slope of the back lots will not change even with the 20,000 sq foot lots. The problem they have with the sewer is that the lots don’t drain out to the street and they can’t put sewer in the street because the State Department of Water Resources will not allow them to put parallel sewer in their right-of-way. They have designed the sewer the only way that they could. There are a lot of constraints on the property that won’t change by virtue of just making the lots bigger. It is more expensive to build a single story house as opposed to two story homes. Developers are having a hard time selling single story homes.
Mayor Pro Tem Cortes, requested that he address the cull-de-sac safety issues.
Mr. McKeever, responded that the cull-de-sac is not an un-typical situation. He has designed several projects like that and hasn’t experienced any problems. The 6% grade is not excessive. There are things that we can do, however, he doesn’t see it as a problem.
Councilmember Garcia, thanked the residents for coming out and speaking. She reported that she went out and took a look at the project. She has been asking for a comprehensive infrastructure plan to address drainage. It is a serious issue in Grand Terrace. She is sensitive to the neighbors concerns and feels that we should do what we can to address them. She questioned what is going to be on the other side of the wood fence.
Mr. McKeever, responded that when the existing tract was developed it was their responsibility to protect it from storm water drain-off, which is why the ditch is located on that property. Since that tract was developed the reservoir was built, there is a block wall that was built in conjunction with the reservoir, essentially everything east that could possibly get to that boundary has been eliminated.
Councilmember Garcia, stated that one of residents mentioned the wall and alley.
Mr, McKeever, stated that it is not an alley, an alley is a public access street that is about 20 feet wide. This is an access road for the sewer and the water quality system that is 10 feet wide.
Council Minutes June 8, 2006 P age 10
Councilmember Garcia, even though it is not intended to be public people can have access to it.
Mr. McKeever, stated that they agreed to gate the access road to preclude public access.
Councilmember Garcia, expressed her concern with a potential mosquito issue.
Mr, McKeever, responded that the only place there will be standing water in this proposed system is in the water quality swells. If there is a way to get around that they will but they have to follow the mandated laws. They are all designed not to have water standing for more than 72 hours.
Councilmember Garcia, wants to make sure that as many questions are answered as possible and what the options are.
Councilmember Miller, questioned if the developer has set a meeting with the home owners before the project was brought before the Council.
Mr. McKeever, responded in the negative. He feels that what has been designed is per code. He hears the concerns but is not sure that there is anything that can be done about them.
Councilmember Miller, said that he has a problem with Mr. McKeever saying he has never had a problem with the design of the cull-de-sac. He feels that maybe Mr.
McKeever had never seen a problem, however, there could possibly be something that could happen. He has a concern with the 6% grade. He questioned what changed it from 15 to 20 homes.
Mr. McKeever, stated that they can place some sort of decorative barrier.
Councilmember Miller, questioned if the slope on the west side is going to be manicured and whether there will be sprinklers on it.
Mr. McKeever, responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Miller, questioned who will be controlling the sprinkler system.
Mr. McKeever, responded that the homeowners associations will..
Councilmember Miller, stated that there is a possibility that the sprinklers could run longer than they are suppose to or they run right before the rains and you have a saturated hill. He questioned where that run-off will go.
Mr. McKeever , responded that if there is any irrigation run-off it will go into the low flow drain system.
Council Minutes June 8, 2006 P age 11
Councilmember Miller, questioned if the existing sediment basin will be moved.
Mr. McKeever, responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Miller, questioned when the water comes will the sediment basin be for the first flush or for the storm drain.
Mr. McKeever, responded that the sediment basin goes away. The reason why the sediment basin is there now is because of properties undeveloped. Once the project is developed you have eliminated the sediment problem. The water that comes off of the slopes will go through the water quality swells.
Councilmember Miller, questioned if the access road will have lighting.
Mr. McKeever, responded in the negative.
Councilmember Miller, questioned who will have access to the road.
Mr. McKeever, responded that the City would and the homeowners association.
Councilmember Miller, confirmed that they would be putting a gate at the entrance of the road.
Councilmember Hilkey, stated that he is understanding the first flush interceptor. He questioned if the wood fence would be on the property line.
Mr. McKeever, responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Hilkey, confirmed his understanding of the process of the drainage system.
Mr. McKeever, stated that the law says that when a piece of property is developed, they can not increase run-off to downstream properties. By reducing the area that drains to that they have fulfilled that obligation. They are not impacting the capacity of that channel that is on the other properties.
Councilmember Hilkey, questioned if there was a reason why Brice Canyon is so long.
Mr. McKeever, stated that they are not interested in building more street than they have to. The problem is the width of the cull-de-sac. If they could get it shorter and still provide access to the lots they would.
Councilmember Hilkey, stated that it gives them more lots.
Council Minutes June 8, 2006 P age 12
Mr. McKeever, concurred.
Councilmember Hilkey, requested that staff get new orthoquads that shows what is there now.
Mayor Ferré, the drainage, the sewer, and the access road are the issues. The lot size doesn’t appear to be the issue. She questioned whether it is 15 or 20 homes all of the same issues will exist.
Mr. McKeever, responded in the affirmative. The property has a lot of constraints. They have to work with what they have. The number of lots will have an impact on the financial feasibility of the development of this project.
Mayor Ferré, appreciates the concerns of the residents and the manner in which they presented them.
Councilmember Garcia, questioned if there was ever a plan for a 15 lot project.
Mr. McKeever, the design criteria was to come up with something that was compatible with the adjacent properties but suitable for custom homes. The 20 lots is what they came up with. They feel that this project will be an asset to the community.
Councilmember Garcia, she would like the applicant to have a neighborhood meeting to try and address their concerns and to continue this item.
CC-2006-64 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER HILKEY, CARRIED 5-0 to continue the public hearing to July 13, 2006 for a Zone Change Case No. 06-01 (ZC-06-01), Tentative Tract Map No. 06-01 (TTM-06-01/County No. 18071) and Environmental Review Case No. 06-03 (E-06-03) to Change the Existing R1-20 Zoning to R1-10 Zoning on a 8.26 Acre Parcel and to Subdivide the Property into 20 Single Family Lots and an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace Approving Zone Change No. 06-01 (Z-06-01) to Change the Existing R1-20 Zoning to R1-10 and Delete the AG Overlay Zone for an 8.26 Acre Parcel Located on the Northerly Side of Pico Street Starting Approximately 150 Feet Easterly of the Intersection of Pico Street and Kingfisher Road and Environmental Case No. 06-03 (E-06-03) - Mitigated Negative Declaration as Provided by the California Environmental Quality Act and a Resolution by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, State of California, Approving Tentative Tract Map No. 06-01 (County No. TTM 18071) for a 20 Lot Single Family Residential Development on a 8.26 Acre Parcel Located on the North Side of Pico Street 150 East Kingfisher Road in the City of Grand Terrace, California to allow the Developer to meet with the Kingfisher residents to discuss their concerns.
Council Minutes June 8, 2006 P age 13
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS
A. Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 89-1
CC-2006-65 MOTION COUNCILMEMBER HILKEY, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM CORTES, CARRIED 4-0-1-0 (COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA WAS ABSENT), to adopt the Resolution Ordering the Preparation of Plans, Specifications, Cost Estimate, Diagram, Assessment and Report Pursuant to the Provisions of Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, for Proceedings for the Annual Assessment Levy After a Formation of a District and adopt a Resolution approving the Engineer’s AReport@ for the Annual Levy of Assessments for the Fiscal Year 2006-2007 in a District with said City and a Resolution Declaring its Intention to Provide for an Annual Levy and Collection of Assessments for Certain Maintenance in an Existing District, Pursuant to the Provisions of Decision 15, Part 2 of the Street and Highways Code of the State of California, and Setting a Time and Place for the Public Hearing Thereon.
B. Personnel Negotiations - Meet and Confer
CC-2006-66 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM CORTES, CARRIED 5-0, to authorize a 5% salary adjustment for the employees effective July 1, 2006 and to adopt Resolution 2006 next in order rescinding Resolution 2005-08 adjusting the salary ranges for the employees of the City of Grand Terrace and authorize an amendment to the City of Grand Terrace PERS Contract from the current 2.0%at 55 to a proposed 2.7% at 55 and authorizes the Mayor to execute a contract amendment to reflect this change and authorize additional City PERS contribution of 2.9% and the employees will contribute 2.9 % to fund this new benefit.
CLOSED SESSION
A. Personnel Negotiations (GC54957.5) Conference with Labor Negotiations (GC54957.6) Conference with Labor Negotiator Tom Schwab, Steve Berry and Larry Ronnow Representing Unrepresented Employees
Mayor Ferré announced that the Council met in Closed Session to discuss Personnel Negotiations (GC54957.5) Conference with Labor Negotiations (GC54957.6) Conference with Labor Negotiator Tom Schwab, Steve Berry and Larry Ronnow Representing Unrepresented Employees and the following was agreed to; to authorize a 5% salary adjustment for the employees effective July 1, 2006 and to adopt a Resolution 2006 next in order rescinding Resolution 2005-08 adjusting the
Council Minutes June 8, 2006 P age 14
salary ranges for the employees of the City of Grand Terrace and to authorize an amendment to the City of Grand Terrace PERS Contract from the current 2.0%at 55 to a proposed 2.7% at 55 and authorize the Mayor to execute a contract amendment to reflect this change and authorize additional City PERS contribution of 2.9% and that the employees will contribute 2.9 % to fund this new benefit.
Mayor Ferré adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m., until the next CRA/City Council Meeting which is scheduled to be held on Thursday, June 22, 2006 at 6:00 p.m.
CITY CLERK of the City of Grand Terrace
MAYOR of the City of Grand Terrace
CITY CLERK of the City of Grand Terrace
MAYOR of the City of Grand Terrace
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 8, 2006
A regular meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency, City of Grand Terrace, was held in the Council Chambers, Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on June 8, 2006 at 6:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Maryetta Ferré, Chairman
Bea Cortes, Vice-Chairman
Herman Hilkey, Agency Member
Lee Ann Garcia, Agency Member
Jim Miller, Agency Member
Tom Schwab, City Manager
Steve Berry, Assistant City Manager
Brenda Mesa, City Clerk
Larry Ronnow, Finance Director
Gary Koontz, Community Development Director
Richard Shields, Building & Safety Director
John Harper, City Attorney
Captain Mike Howell, Sheriff’s Department
ABSENT: None
CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
APPROVAL OF 05-25-2006 MINUTES
CRA-2006-16 MOTION BY VICE-CHAIRMAN CORTES, SECOND BY AGENCY MEMBER GARCIA, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the May 25, 2006 Community
Redevelopment Agency Minutes.
Chairman Ferré adjourned the Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting at 6:10 p.m.,
until the next CRA/City Council Meeting scheduled to be held on Thursday, June 22, 2006, at 6:00 p.m.
SECRETARY of the Community Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Grand Terrace
CHAIRMAN of the Community Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Grand Terrace
