The URL can be used to link to this page

10/09/2003 FILE COPY , '. 0 GRatioTERR CE October 9,2003 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace California 92313-5295 Civic Center (909)824-6621 Fax(909)783- 629 Fax(909)783-2600' CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Lee Ann Garcia Mayor CRA/CITY COUNCIL - Maryetta Ferre Mayor Pro Tern REGULAR MEETINGS' - Herman Hilkey DonLarkin 2ND AND 4TH Thursday - 6:30:p.m. Bea Cortes CouncilMembeis ' Thomas J.Schwab City Manager - - Council"Chambers Grand'Terrace Civic Center 22795 Barton 'Road Grand Terrace, CA 92313-5295 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS OCTOBER 9,2003 GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER 5:30 PM 22795 Barton Road THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMPLIES WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990.IFYOU REQUIRE SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING,PLEASE CALL THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT(909)824-6621 AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. 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. * Call to Order- * Invocation- * Pledge of Allegiance- * Roll Call- STAFF COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS RECOMMENDATION ACTION 5:30 PM-WORKSHOP 1. Discussion on Transportation/Capital Improvement Program CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1. Approval of 09-25-2003 Minutes Approve ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1. Items to Delete 2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS A. Proclamation-Ride Share Week-October 6-10,2003 3. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. 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 October 9,2003 Approve B. Ratify 10-09-2003 CRA Action COUNCIL AGENDA 10-09-2003 PAGE 2 OF 2 AGENDA ITEMS STAFF COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS ACTION C. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda D. Approval of 09-25-2003 Minutes Approve E. Award Contract - Traffic Signal - De Berry Street & Mt. Award Vernon Avenue 4. PUBLIC COMMENT 5. ORAL REPORTS A. Committee Reports 1. Historical&Cultural Activities Committee a., Minutes of 09-08-2003 Accept B. Council Reports 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. An Ordinance of the City of Grand Terrace, California Approve Approving General Plan Amendment GPA-03-01, E-03-05 Adding the Noise Element and Respective Negative Declaration 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS-None 8. NEW BUSINESS-None 9. CLOSED SESSION-None ADJOURN THE NEXT CRA/CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON THURSDAY,OCTOBER 23,2003 AT 6:30 P.M. AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS FOR THE 10-23-2003 MEETING MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BY NOON 10-16-2003. l STAFF REPORT O GROND TERR C City Manager's Office , CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (X) MEETING DATE: October 9, 2003 SUBJECT: Transportation Workshop FUNDING REQUIRED ( ) NO FUNDING REQUIRED (X) Pursuant to Council request Staff has developed information on all pending and current transportation and circulation related projects. Attached you will find a detailed recap of the projects and a corresponding map outlining the said projects. Staff will make a brief presentation outlining each project and entertain discussion and questions from the Council. Workshop Item #1 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project#1 Project Name: I-215 Widening Location: I-10 south to 60/91/215 interchange Description: Widen I-215 to add one HOV lane and one additional lane. Requires planning, engineering, environmental analysis, and right-of-way acquisition. Estimated Cost: N/A Funding Source: Federal Highway Administration - Schedule: N/A Project#2 Project Name: Outdoor Adventures Center Location: South of Barton Rd, east of I-215, north of Pico Street Description: Construction infrastructure to support the OAC Specific Plan. Improvements to include: ■ Extension of Commerce Way south to tie into Taylor Street ■ Additional internal street improvements ■ Relocation and extension of water and sewer lines ■ Relocation and extension of flood control facilities ■ Construction of the lake and surrounding landscaping Estimated Cost: $8 - $9 million Funding Source: Community Facilities District,private developer funds, state and federal grants Schedule: Start late 2004, early 2005 Project#3 Project Name: New High School Location: North of Main Street, east of Taylor Street, south of Pico Street Description: Development of new public high school by the Colton Joint Unified School District to accommodate approximately 3,000 students. Project will require improvements to Main Street and a possible traffic signal at Main Street and Michigan. Other improvements will be determined as part of the projects environmental review process. Estimated Cost: N/A Funding Source: State school funds, District bond measure Schedule: To be completed in 2007 Project#4 Project Name: I-215 Interim Improvements Location: Barton Road interchange Description: Widen Barton Road freeway bridge by one additional lane. Reconstruct the northbound on ramp and off ramp to provide direct access into the Outdoor Adventures Center. Requires upfront engineering and environmental review. Estimated Cost: $6 million Funding Source: Federal highway funds, Community Facilities District Schedule: 2005 1 Project#5 Project Name: Rollins Park Renovation Project Location: Richard Rollins Park/Terrace Hills Middle School Description: Renovation of the park and school playfields into a youth soccer park with playgrounds,jogging trails, a concession stand, and parking lot. Estimated Cost: $2.2 million Funding Source: CUSD RDA passthrough, Land &Water Conservation Fund Grant, 2000 and 2002 State Bond Acts Schedule: 1"Quarter 2004. Delays have occurred due to issues associated with review by the Division of the State Architect related to ADA accessibility on the school property. Project#6 Project Name: Sav-On Drugs Location: Northeast corner of Barton Road and Mt. Vernon Avenue Description: Development of a new drug store and retail commercial site. Project is required to re-stripe the Barton/Mt. Vernon intersection to allow for right turn pockets. Estimated Cost: N/A Funding Source: Private development funds Schedule: 2004 Project#7 Project Name: Mt. Vernon Avenue/Grand Terrace Road Project Location: Intersection of Mt. Vernon Road, Grand Terrace Road, and Canal Street Description: Widen Mt. Vernon Road to a full width from the Highlands Apartments to the intersection including curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Construct drainage improvements associated with the intersection. Estimated Cost: $270,000 Funding Source: Measure I Schedule Mid 2004 Project#8 Project Name: Grand Terrace Road Widening Location: Between Mt. Vernon and Grand Terrace Elementary School Description: Roadway widening including curb, gutter, and sidewalks. Estimated Cost: $57,000 Funding Source: Community Development Block Grant Schedule: 2004 Project#9 Project Name Barton Road/Grand Terrace Intersection Location: Northeast corner of Barton Road and Grand Terrace Road Description: Widen intersection to full width improvement. Estimated Cost: $50,000 Funding Source: Private developer funds, Low/Mod Housing Fund Schedule: Mid 2004 2 Project#10 Project Name: Barton Road Railroad Bridge Reconstruction Location: Barton Road and Union Pacific Rail Crossing Description: Reconstruct railroad bridge Estimated Cost: $3 million Funding Source: Caltrans, local matching funds from Grand Terrace and Colton Schedule: N/A Project#11 Project Name: Grand Terrace Road and Newport Road Improvement Location: Southeast corner of Newport Road and Grand Terrace Road Description: Replace the broken storm drain and reconstruct the road for proper stormwater runoff Estimated Cost: $57,000 Funding Source: Measure I, Storm Drain Fund Schedule: Late 2003 Project#12 Project Name: Barton Road/Grand Terrace Road Traffic Signal Location: Barton Road at Grand Terrace Road Description: Construct new traffic signal Estimated Cost: $150,000 Funding Source: SANBAG Schedule: N/A Project#13 Project Name: Mt. Vernon Avenue/De Berry Street Traffic Signal Location: Mt. Vernon Avenue at De Berry Street Description: Construct new traffic signal Estimated Cost: $150,000 Funding Source: Safe Routes to Schools Grant? Schedule: 2004 Project#14 Project Name: Mt. Vernon Avenue/Van Buren Street Traffic Signal Location: Mt. Vernon Avenue at Van Buren Street Description: Construct new traffic,signal Estimated Cost: $150,000 Funding Source: Spring Mountain Ranch traffic mitigation funds Schedule: TBD Project#15 Project Name: Mt. Vernon Avenue/Pico Street Traffic Signal Location: Mt. Vernon Avenue/Pico Street Description: Construct new traffic signal Estimated Cost: $150,000 Funding Source: Spring Mountain Ranch traffic mitigation funds Schedule: TBD 3 Project#16 Project Name: Mt. Vernon Avenue/Main Street Traffic Signal Location: Mt. Vernon Avenue/Main Street Description: Construct new traffic signal Estimated Cost: $150,000 Funding Source: Spring Mountain Ranch traffic mitigation funds Schedule: TBD -- Project#17 Project Name: Mt. Vernon Widening Location: Main Street to Pico Street Description: Widen roadway to ultimate width Estimated Cost: $300,000 Funding Source: Spring Mountain Ranch traffic mitigation funds Schedule: TBD Project#18 Project Name: Mt. Vernon Side Street Traffic Calming improvements Location: De Berry Street, Van Buren Street, Pico Street on either side of Mt. Vernon Description: Provide traffic calming measures associated with the Mt. Vernon improvements relating to Spring Mountain Ranch Estimated Cost: $50,000 Funding Source: Spring Mountain Ranch traffic mitigation funds Schedule: TBD Project#19 Project Name: City Wide Slurry Seal Program Location: All residential streets within the city limits Description: Slurry sea] with latex and crumb rubber for darker roads Estimated Cost: $180,000 Funding Source: Measure I Schedule: 2003-05 Project#20 Project Name: Michigan Street/Commerce Way Traffic Signal Location: Michigan Street-at Commerce Way Description: Construct new traffic signal. May be constructed in association with the Outdoors Adventures Center Estimated Cost: $150,000 Funding Source: Measure I Schedule: 2004-05 4 Project#21 Project Name: Michigan Street Pavement Rehabilitation Location: Ladera Street to Raven Way Description: Rehabilitate roadway paving Estimated Cost: $23,000 Funding Source: Measure I Schedule: 2005-06 Project#22 Project Name: Pico Street Pavement Rehabilitation -, Location: Reed Avenue to Royal Avenue Description: Rehabilitate roadway paving Estimated Cost: $87,500 Funding Source: Measure I Schedule: 2005-06 Project#23 Project Name: Pico Street Pavement Rehabilitation Location: Oriole Avenue to Blue Mountain Court Description: Rehabilitate roadway paving Estimated Cost: $37,500 Funding Source: Measure I Schedule: 2005-06 Project#24 Project Name: Mount Vernon Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation Location: Main Street to Van Buren Street Description: Rehabilitate roadway paving Estimated Cost: $132,000 Funding Source: Measure I Schedule: 2006-07 Project#25 Project Name: Mount Vernon Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation Location: De Berry Street to Van Buren Street Description: Rehabilitate roadway paving Estimated Cost: $123,000 Funding Source: Measure I Schedule: 2005-06 5 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES REGULAR MEETING- SEPTEMBER 25, 2003 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 September 25, 2003 at 6:30 p.m. PRESENT: Lee Ann Garcia, Chairman Maryetta Ferr6, Vice-Chairman Herman Hilkey, Agency Member Don Larkin, Agency Member Bea Cortes, Agency Member Brenda Stanfill, City Clerk Steve Berry, Assistant City Manager Larry Ronnow,Finance Director Jerry Glander, Building & Safety Director John Harper, City Attorney Lt. Lee Watkins, Sheriff's Department ABSENT: Tom Schwab, Executive Director Gary Koontz, Community Development Director APPROVAL OF 09-11-2003 MINUTES CRA-2003-30 MOTION BY AGENCY MEMBER CORTES, SECOND BY VICE-CHAIRMAN FERRE, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the September 11, 2003 Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes. Chairman Garcia adjourned the Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting at 6:35 p.m.,until the next CRA/City Council Meeting scheduled to be held on Thursday, October 9, 2003, at 6:30 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 CRA AGENDA ITEM NO. r V Ell T, V V X Z_ V, Vw." • jz: Z A�7 z%� N -A Aik- 0 A A4 - CALIFORNIA RIDESDAR.E.1 WEEK October 6-10, 2003 WHEREAS,thousands of commuters throughout California will be trying t an alternative comin ute aspart ofthe 18'h ann ual California Rideshare Week, and WHEREAS, this statewide campaign promotes carpooling, vanpooling, trying transit and rail, biking, walking and telecommuting as methods that help reduce auto traffic and air pollution; the San Bernardino Associated Governments'InlandEmpire Commuter Services is working with employers and community organizations throughout the region -to organize events that help c tinuters give ridesharing a try, and oil D WHEREAS, the City of Grand Terrace supports the California Ridesha re Week campaign and urges all City residents and employees to try an alternative method of transportation at least once during the week; ty f NOW, THEREFORE, I, Lee Ann .Garcia Mayor of the Ci o Grand Teri-ace, on behalf of the City Council, do herebyproclaim October 6-10,2003as "CALIFORNIA RIDESHARE WEEK." Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace And of the City Council thereof. This 9' day of October, 2003. 61 v ITEM' Check Register Dated October 9, 2003 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 10/02/2003 10:35:58AM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code : bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 52346 9/23/2003 005702 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT 091203 PERS FOR PAYROLL END 9 12 03 10-022-62-00 5,973.62 Total : 5,973.62 52347 9/25/2003 004316 LARKIN, DON Sept. 2003 Sept. Agency Stipend 32-200-120-000-000 150.00 Total : 150.00 52348 9/25/2003 003200 HILKEY, HERMAN Sept. 2003 Sept. Council &Agency Stipends 32-200-120-000-000 150.00 10-110-120-000-000 250.00 Total : 400.00 52349 9/25/2003 002450 FERRE', MARYETTA Sept. 2003 Sept. Council &Agency Stipends 32-200-120-000-000 150.00 10-110-120-000-000 250.00 Total : 400.00 52350 9/25/2003 002795 GARCIA, LEE ANN Sept. 2003 Sept. Council &Agency Stipends 32-200-120-000-000 150.00 10-110-120-000-000 250.00 Total : 400.00 52351 9/25/2003 010147 CORTES, BEA Sept. 2003 Sept. Council &Agency Stipends 32-200-120-000-000 150.00 10-110-120-000-000 250.00 Total : 400.00 52352 9/25/2003 010148 GRAND TERRACE SENIORS Sept. 2003 Larkin Sept. stipend donation 10-110-120-000-000 250.00 Total : 250.00 52353 9/29/2003 010064 MASTERTECH 5119 Podium Microphone Pro 47 TL 10-180-245-000-000 193.94 Total : 193.94 52354 9/29/2003 005529 SBC CALIFORNIA Aug/Sept Aug/Sept phone service 2�j Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 10/02/2003 10:35:58AM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code : bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 52354 9/29/2003 005529 SBC CALIFORNIA (Continued) 10-440-235-000-000 16.15 Aug/Sept2003 Aug./Sept. Pico Pk phone 10-450-235-000-000 54.08 10-440-235-000-000 52.14 10-190-235-000-000 1.70 Total : 124.07 52355 10/9/2003 010019 5 POINT AUTO SERVICE 6296 C. Care Dodge Van Service 10-440-272-000-000 29.95 Total : 29.95 52356 10/9/2003 001024 ACCENT PRINT& DESIGN 230784 Halloween Haunt flyer mailers 23-200-64-00 908.72 230785 Print Halloween flyers 23-200-64-00 72.97 Total : 981.69 52357 10/9/2003 001040 ADDINGTON, MATTHEW Sept. 2003 Sept. Planning Comm. Stipend 10-801-120-000-000 50.00 Total : 50.00 52358 10/9/2003 001072 ADT SECURITY SERVICES 55671185 CHILD CARE MONITORING 10-440-247-000-000 375.00 Total : 375.00 52359 10/9/2003 001383 BARR COMMERCIAL DOOR INC. 5109 DOOR REPAIR 10-180-245-000-000 3,700.00 Total : 3,700.00 52360 10/9/2003 010260 BEAUTY GALLERY 06072003 G.T. Days Punky Hair Colors 23-200-12-00 96.98 Total : 96.98 52361 10/9/2003 010084 BIDNEY, ROBERT Sept. 2003 Sept. Planning Comm. Stipend 10-801-120-000-000 50.00 Total : 50.00 Page: 2 vchlist V' ".:,:her List Page: 3 10/02/2003 10:35:58AM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code : bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 52362 10/9/2003 001456 BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS 865133 Colored &xerox paper 10-190-212-000-000 88.80 10-440-210-000-000 227.50 10-190-212-000-000 6.88 10-440-210-000-000 17.63 Total : 340.81 52363 10/9/2003 001494 BURTRONICS BUSINESS SYSTEMS 362133 2 bxs. riso masters 10-190-212-000-000 330.27 Total : 330.27 52364 10/9/2003 001713 CA. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION 165090 Aug. 1-215 signal energy/maint. 16-510-238-000-000 187.54 Total : 187.54 52365 10/9/2003 010086 COMSTOCK, TOM Sept. 2003 Sept. Planning Comm. Stipend 10-801-120-000-000 50.00 Total : 50.00 52366 10/9/2003 001907 COSTCO#478 47818034026 COSTCO 10-440-220-000-000 12.18 10-440-228-000-000 140.44 Total : 152.62 52367 10/9/2003 010235 D&B INDUSTRIAL SAFETY SUPPLY 4375 SAFETY LOCKER 10-180-710-000-000 662.22 10-180-710-000-000 51.32 Total : 713.54 52368 10/9/2003 001930 DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION B576046 LEGAL ADVERTISING 10-125-230-000-000 306.00 B584408 LEGAL ADVERTISING 10-125-230-000-000 242.55 Total : 548.55 52369 10/9/2003 001937 DANKA OFFICE IMAGING COMPANY 700545661 DANKA COPIER Page: 3 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 10/02/2003 10:35:58AM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code: bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 52369 10/9/2003 001937 DANKA OFFICE IMAGING COMPANY (Continued) 34-400-246-000-000 51.70 10-175-246-000-000 23.50 10-172-246-000-000 18.80 Total : 94.00 52370 10/9/2003 001942 DATA TICKET INC. 8503 PARKING CITATION PROCESSING 10-140-255-000-000 175.00 Total : 175.00 52371 10/9/2003 003210 DEPT 32-2500233683 105414292386 HARDWARE AND SUPPLIES 10-450-245-000-000 74.97 Total : 74.97 52372 10/9/2003 010020 DRIVER ALLIANT INSURANCE, SPECIAL 769394 Spec. Event Liability-Halloween 23-200-64-00 375.00 Total : 375.00 52373 10/9/2003 002187 DUNN-EDWARDS CORP. 00180062394 PAINT SUPPLIES 10-450-245-000-000 24.79 Total : 24.79 52374 10/9/2003 002280 EVER READY EMBROIDERY 227671 UNIFORM SUPPLIES 34-800-218-000-000 94.55 455033 Uniform embroidery 10-180-218-000-000 90.51 Total : 185.06 52375 10/9/2003 002740 FRUIT GROWERS SUPPLY 32057753 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 10-450-245-000-000 21.55 32057809 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 10-450-245-000-000 6.66 32057831 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 10-450-245-000-000 119.65 32057838 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 10-450-245-000-000 40.60 Page: 4 vchlist V ., her List Page: 5 10/02/2003 10:35:58AM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code: bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 52375 10/9/2003 002740 FRUIT GROWERS SUPPLY (Continued) 32057846 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 10-450-245-000-000 28.39 32057867 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 10-450-245-000-000 66.92 32057897 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 10-450-245-000-000 35.02 32057994 CR INV 32057753 C, 10-450-245-000-000 -21.55 32057995 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 10-450-245-000-000 20.00 332585 R3 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 10-450-245-000-000 12.59 332586 R3 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 10-450-245-000-000 10.56 332812 R3 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 10-450-245-000-000 2.27 333116 R3 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 10-450-245-000-000 39.13 CM333156 R3 CREDIT INV.#332586 R3 10-450-245-000-000 -6.17 Total : 375.62 52376 10/9/2003 002901 G.T. AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 3441 CITY CONTRIBUTION FOR JOINT 10-125-213-000-000 620.75 3442 CITY CONTRIBUTION FOR JOINT 10-125-213-000-000 500.00 Total : 1,120.75 52377 10/9/2003 010153 GCS WESTERN POWER & EQUIPMENT X65592 STREET SWEEPER MAINTENANCE 16-900-254-000-000 283.32 Total : 283.32 52378 10/9/2003 010258 GMAC 085676349677 Excess wear charges-EV1 returned 7/23/03 10-180-272-000-000 161.62 Total : 161.62 Page: 5 vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 10/02/2003 10:35:58AM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code: bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 52379 10/9/2003 003178 HENAGON LTD COLTON 38981 SAND/GRAVEL PURCHASES 16-900-226-000-000 11.10 Total : 11.10 52380 10/9/2003 003224 HYDRO-SCAPE PRODUCTS INC. 3037539-00 SPRINKLER MATERIALS 10-450-245-000-000 53.76 3043862-00 SPRINKLER MATERIALS 10-180-245-000-000 23.72 Total : 77,48 52381 10/9/2003 010075 INTOXIMETERS 126581 TRUE-CAL DEVICE FOR USE W/DRY GAS (.082) 10-410-701-000-000 459.50 10-410-701-000-000 33.64 Total : 493.14 52382 10/9/2003 003800 JAGUAR COMPUTER SYSTEMS INC 29926 7/16/03 virus fix 10-380-249-000-000 340.00 30307 Sept. Eden Server Pmt 10-140-701-000-000 291.32 30308 Sept. mail server pmt 10-380-701-000-000 406.10 Total : 1,037.42 52383 10/9/2003 010007 LABORATORIES INC., SIRCHIE FINGER F0320655-IN VARIOUS PIECES OF FORENSIC EQUIPMENT- 10-410-701-000-000 605.55 10-410-701-000-000 22.50 Total : 628.05 52384 10/9/2003 004316 LARKIN, DON 10012003 Reimb. July exp.-Larkin 10-110-270-000-000 27.74 Total : 27.74 52385 10/9/2003 010230 LEIGHTON CONSULTING INC. LCI0000447 OAC 32-600-205-000-000 8,500.00 Total : 8,500.00 52386 10/9/2003 004620 MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS 63339331 Sept. phone usage Page: 6 vchlist v a ; _her List Page: 7 10/02/2003 10:35:58AM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code : bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 52386 10/9/2003 004620 MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (Continued) 10-190-235-000-000 39.03 10-440-235-000-000 301.20 10-805-235-000-000 40.57 10-450-235-000-000 16.97 Total : 397.77 52387 10/9/2003 004670 MIRACLE MILE CAR WASH 564278 CAR WASHES &OIL CHANGES 10-180-272-000-000 2.00 10-440-272-000-000 10.00 Total : 12.00 52388 10/9/2003 010097 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 410575025012 NEXTEL PHONE SERVICE 10-180-240-000-000 288.02 10-440-235-000-000 73.25 Total : 361.27 52389 10/9/2003 010041 NOLTE ASSOCIATES INC. 3120472 150-ACRE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT 32-600-205-000-000 2,594.77 Total : 2,594.77 52390 10/9/2003 005435 ORIENTAL TRADING COMPANY- 524688538-01 Halloween Haunt favors 23-200-64-00 268.27 525572301-01 Halloween Haunt favors 23-200-64-00 61.05 Total : 329.32 52391 10/9/2003 005450 OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY SAU06425VAO ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE 10=180-245-000-000 248.96 Total : 248.96 52392 10/9/2003 010261 PASTERNAK, NICOLE 09242003 Refund (never attended) 10-440-23 19.25 Total : 19.25 52393 10/9/2003 005586 PETTY CASH 09302003 Replenish petty cash Page: 7 vchlist Voucher List Page: 8 10/02/2003 10:35:58AM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code : bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 52393 10/9/2003 005586 PETTY CASH - (Continued) 10-440-221-000-000 56.53 10-440-228-000-000 17.53 10-440-220-000-000 8.34 Total : 82.40 52394 10/9/2003 010255 PONTEM SOFTWARE BY RIA 25442 DOG LICENSE SOFTWARE 10-190-256-000-000 1,205.00 Total : 1,295.00 52395 10/9/2003 005688 PROTECTION ONE 09112003 ALARM MONITORING 10-805-245-000-000 96.00 10-172-246-000-000 20.25 10-175-246-000-000 20.25 34-400-246-000-000 40.50 10-180-247-000-000 75.00 Total : 252.00 52396 10/9/2003 005775 RAMIREZ APPRAISAL SERVICES, IN 22874ARLISS 22874 Arliss appraisal 10-190-719-000-000 275.00 Total : 275.00 52397 10/9/2003 005673 RENTAL SERVICE CORPORATION 17765633-001 RENTAL OF EQUIPMENT 10-180-240-000-000 165.95 17798477-001 Hex Clay spade 10-180-218-000-000 85.55 Total : 251.50 52398 10/9/2003 010171 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 72490 ELECTRICAL MAINTENANCE 16-510-255-000-000 280.00' 72491 Aug. Call-outs-signal maint. 16-510-255-000-000 45.00 Total : 325.00 52399 10/9/2003 010256 RIVERSIDE YMCA GTAuqust03 SUMMER SWIM LESSONS 10-180-250-000-000 5,600.00 Total : 5,600.00 Page: 8 i t • vchlist V^_. -,her List Page: 9 10/02/2003 10:35:58AM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code : bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 52400 10/9/2003 006310 ROADRUNNER STORAGE Oct 2003 Oct. storaqe fee 10-140-241-000-000 63.00 Total : 63.00 52401 10/9/2003 006335 ROQUET PAVING INC. 0704-03 WHEEL CHAIR RAMPS 18-902-254-000-000 22,996.00 16-900-260-000-000 379.00 0807-4b REMOVE & REPLACE BROKEN ASPHALT ALONG 16-900-257-000-000 9,079.50 Total : 32,454.50 52402 10/9/2003 010173 S.B COUNTY REAL ESTATE SRVS. RP018/04 BARTON RD BRIDGE 47-100-250-001-000 3,058.15 Total : 3,058.15 52403 10/9/2003 006531 S.B. COUNTY SHERIFF 4057 SHERIFFS CONTRACT 14-411-256-000-000 5,331.20 10-410-255-000-000 2,760.80 10-410-256-000-000 87,108.00 4057a GRANT FUNDED DEPUTY 14-411-256-000-000 11,667.00 Total : 106,867.00 52404 10/9/2003 006521 S.B. DEPT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH 07082003 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES 10-190-256-000-000 15,653.75 Total : 15,653.75 52405 10/9/2003 006601 SCHOOL-AGE NOTES 45549-1 TEACHER'S BOOKS/PUBLICATIONS— 10-440-223-000-000 78.70 Total : 78.70 52406 10/9/2003 010257 SIERRA LIGHTING INC. 2618 Chq fixture ballast-4 locations-bike 44-200-620-000-000 1,440.00 Total : 1,440.00 52407 10/9/2003 006720 SO.CA.EDISON COMPANY Sept 2003 Sept. Electricity-city facilities Page: 9 vchlist Voucher List Page: 10 10/02/2003 10:35:58AM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code : bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 52407 10/9/2003 006720 SO.CA.EDISON COMPANY (Continued) 34-400-238-000-000 75.82 10-175-238-000-000 27.57 10-172-238-000-000 34.46 15-500-601-000-000 18.79 10-440-238-000-000. 886.79 10-190-238-000-000 2,665.56 16-510-238-000-000 58.57 10-450-238-000-000 89.61 Total : 3,857.17 52408 10/9/2003 006898 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF L.A. 309171220 2 CHILD CARE FOOD , 10-440-220-000-000 490.80 309231771 2 CHILD CARE FOOD 10-440-220-000-000 35.06 3092415003 CHILD CARE FOOD 10-440-220-000-000 491.11 CM 0956535 RET MERCH ORIG INV#309031740 10-440-220-000-000 -11.81 Total : 1,005.16 52409 10/9/2003 007102 T.Y.LIN INTERNATIONAL-MCDANIEL 0309045 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR 47-100-250-001-000 10,655.34 Total : 10,655.34 ' 52410 10/9/2003 010091 TELEPACIFIC COMMUNICATIONS 513929-0 Sept. phone charqes 10-190-235-000-000 918.54 Total : 918.54 52411 10/9/2003 001140 THE ALTEK GROUP 03-390 JuIV G.T. cable commercial 32-370-230-000-000 1,288.00 Total : 1,288.00 52412 10/9/2003 010252 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS INC. 4156 CROSSWALK PAINTING 16-900-220-000-000 4,100.40 Total : 4,100.40 _ Page: 10 1 vchlist V,-' —;Aher List { - " Page: 11 10/02/2003 10:35:58AM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code : bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 52413 1-0/9/2003 007036 TRAFFIC SPECIALTIES INC. 903174 Street sign rivets 16-900-254-000-000 134.69 Total : 134.69 52414 10/9/2003 007034 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 384 TRAFFIC ENG SVCS &GRANT 10-370-255-000-000 346.00 384a Aug.work on Barton Bridge project 47-100-250-001-000 557.50 Total : 903.50 52415 10/9/2003 007539 VALLEY TIRE COMPANY 71244 Sweeper tire repair 16-900-254-000-000 15.00 Total : 15.00 52416 10/9/2003 010262 VARGAS, MEGAN 09242003 Credit upon leaving C. Care program 10-440-21 33.00 Total : 33.00 52417 10/9/2003 007645 VISIBLE 575496980 1098 4-pt forms 10-140-210-000-000 6.71 Total : 6.71 52418 10/9/2003 007-795 WAXIE 331432500 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 10-180-245-000-000 427.00 Total : 427.00 52419 10/9/2003 007880 WEST GROUP 805125911 LEGISLATIVE UPDATES 10-125-250-000-000 133.61 Total : 133.61 52420 10/9/2003 007905 WHITLEY, BRIAN Sept. 2003 Sept. Planning Comm. Stipend 10-801-120-000-000 50.00 Total : 50.00 52421 10/9/2003 007925 WILSON, DOUG Sept. 2003 Sept. Planning Comm. Stipend 10-801-120-000-000 50.00 Total : 50.00 Page: 11 vchlist Voucher List Page: 12 10/02/2003 10:35:58AM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code: bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 52422 10/9/2003 007987 XEROX CORPORATION 097972963 DOWNSTAIRS XEROX 10-190-700-000-000 530.01 097972964 UPSTAIRS XEROX 10-190-700-000-000 318.22 Total : 848.23 77 Vouchers for bank code : bofa Bank total : 225,629.33 77 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 225,629.33 I certify that, to the best -of my knowledge, the afore-listed checks for payment of City and Community Redevelopment Agency liabilities have been audited by me and are necessary and appropriate expenditures for the operation of the City and Agency. Larry Ronnow, Finance Director Page: 12 r rn COUNC(,1- APPROVAL CITY OF GRAND TERRACE ` CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING- SEPTEMBER 25, 2003 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 September 25, 2003, at 6:30 p.m. PRESENT: Lee Ann Garcia,Mayor Maryetta Ferr6,Mayor Pro Tern Herman Hilkey, Councilmember Don Larkin, Councilmember Bea Cortes, Councilmember Brenda Stanfill, City Clerk Steve Berry, Assistant City Manager Larry Ronnow,Finance Director Jerry Glander, Building& Safety Director John Harper, City Attorney Lt. Lee Watkins, Sheriff's Department ABSENT: Tom Schwab, City Manager Gary Koontz, Community Development Director The meeting was opened with invocation by Councilmember Don Larkin, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Mayor Pro Tern Ferre. ITEMS TO ADD CC-2003-109 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBERHILKEY,SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER LARKIN, CARRIED 5-0, to add a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace,California,Approving the Applicant to Apply for Grant Funds for the Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris Block Grant Program Under the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002 CC-2003-110 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CORTES,SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER LARKIN, CARRIED 5-0, to approve a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace,California,Approving the Applicant to Apply for Grant Funds for the Roberti-Z'Berg-Hams Block Grant Program Under the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002 and authorize staff to submit the necessary forms. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS A. Proclamation - Grand Terrace Lions Club 00-UNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. �� Council Minutes September 25, 2003 Page 2 Councilmember Larkin read a Proclamation commending the Grand Terrace Lions Club on their 301h Anniversary and for their efforts and contribution to the Community of Grand Terrace. Mayor Garcia presented the proclamation to Don Smith, President of the Lions Club. Don Smith,President of the Grand Terrace Lion's Club thanked the Council for the Proclamation. He reported that the Lions Club will be holding a pancake breakfast on October 12,2003 at the Community Center and that all of the proceeds will go to the Grand Terrace Branch Library. CONSENT CALENDAR CC-2003-111 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HILKEY, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM FERRE, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the following consent calendar items: 3A. Approval of Check Register Dated September 25, 2003 3B. Ratify 09-25-2003 CRA Action 3C. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda 3D. Approval of 09-11-2003 Minutes 3E. Authorization for the City Clerk to Attend the League of California Cities New Law and Election Seminar in Monterey, December 10-12, 2003 3F. Resolution Supporting a State-Wide Ballot Initiative to Require Voter Approval Before State Government May Take Local Tax Funds PUBLIC COMMENT Thelma Beach, thanked Assistant City Manager Berry for improving the sound in the Council Chambers. ORAL REPORTS 5A. Committee Reports 1. Emergency Operations Committee a. Minutes of 08-05-2003 CC-2003-112 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER LARKIN, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM FERRE, CARRIED 5-0, to accept the August 5, 2003 Minutes of the Emergency Operations Committee. 2. Crime Prevention Committee Council Minutes September 25,2003 Page 3 a. Minutes of 08-11-2003 CC-2003-113 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM FERRE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CORTES, CARRIED 5-0, to accept the August 11, 2003 Minutes of the Crime Prevention Committee. COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Pro Tem Ferre,reported that she was notified that there will not be a Friends of the Library Book Sale,which was advertised in the Blue Mountain News for September 26`h and 27`h, it has been canceled. Councilmember Hilkey,reminded everyone that the Blood Bank is in desperate need of O+ Blood and if you have O+blood type please contact the San Bernardino County Blood Bank. He expressed continued condolences to Councilmember Cortes in the loss of her father and that he appreciates the staff and council coming out and helping to keep her family fed. Councilmember Larkin, reported that the Foundation held another meeting and they are going to be holding some events in the near future to promote it and the benefit that it will have for everyone in the Community. He feels that it is an excellent opportunity for individuals who wish to donate to a particular cause. This will be an organization that will be separate from the City.It is done through the Community Foundation which is a separate non-profit organization. He requested that a report be given at the next Council Meeting. The James Irvine Foundation has agreed that they will match dollar for dollar up to $20,000 for donations that are made by December 11, 2003. He expressed his appreciation to the Grand Terrace Lions Club. He expressed his condolences to Councilmember Cortes for the loss of her father and requested that the meeting be adjourned in the memory of her father, Rafael Hernandez. Councilmember Cortes, reported that,she attended, along with Mayor Garcia, SANBAG's 9`h Annual Employee Partnership. She expressed her gratitude and appreciation to the staff and Council for their support, cards, and flowers. She thanked Councilmember Hilkey for his immediate support and kindness and she is very grateful for his support. Mayor Garcia, expressed her sorrow for the loss of Councilmember Cortes' Father and that her prayers are with her and her family. She reported that the Celebrating Seniors event that was held on September 181h was an outstanding event. There were over 1200 seniors that attended. She is very excited about the opportunity that they have been given through the Community Foundation,that the James Irvine Foundation will match the donation through December 11`h. It is her goal that perhaps they can get$25,000 by our City Birthday Party. She encouraged anyone that is interested and/or a good cook to enter the Country Fair Cooking Contest. The Ride-share program that she attended with Councilmember Cortes Council Minutes September 25,2003 Page 4 is to celebrate employers that participate in ride-sharing. She felt that one of the things Grand Terrace can do as a City is to bring all of the businesses in the community together and do our part in ride-sharing. Ride-share week is coming up October 6—10. It is a way to protect our air and reduce congestion. On Saturday, October 4`h,the Fire Department will be having an open house from 9 am to 1 pm. On Thursday, October 9th the Library will be having their Sidewalk Chalk Art program which is being put together by an Eagle Scout. On Sunday,October 12`'',the Lions Club will be holding their Pancake Breakfast and encouraged everyone to come out and support the Lions Club and the Grand Terrace Branch Library. Tickets can be purchase at the Library or in the City Manager's Office and from any member of the Lions Club. On October 29"', the Library will hold a Halloween event in the Library and the Halloween Haunt will be held on October 3151. The Country Fair will be held on Saturday, November 1, 2003. The Lion's Club will be having their Pot of Gold event on November 15`h. On Wednesday,October 29`h there will be a meeting for all elected officials to attend where SCAG will be giving a presentation,on the Regional Transportation Plan. She reported that individuals can purchase tiles that will be placed at Richard Rollins Park for the Community Pride Walk. Tiles can be purchased until mid December. PUBLIC HEARING -None UNFINISHED BUSINESS -None NEW BUSINESS 8A. Consider Direct Election of Mayoral Position Thelma Beach, 12570 Mt. Vernon Avenue, questioned what the population was in Grand Terrace twenty five years ago. She feels that with the growth that the City has had over the past 25 years the residents of Grand Terrace deserve the right to an elected Mayor and that they should have an opportunity to decide who that Mayor would be. She feels that there have been some good Mayors over the years,however,they were appointed by 4 or 5 people. The Mayor's position is an important position and should have more voices saying who should have this position. Betty Guzman,23202 Glendora Drive,thanked the Mayor for the opportunity to clarify what the intention is of the citizens of Grand Terrace. She feels that she made it clear that their intentions are to make a permanent solution. They are not here to remove the current Mayor and then go back to same old business of not having a voice. They would like the Mayor and Council to give Grand Terrace citizens a voice through their vote. They would like the right and respect from the Council to allow them to vote. They do not want to force the issue upon the Council by doing a petition,however,they are able to do that if they have to. They would like to know that the Council is listening to the residents and respecting their wishes to allow Council Minutes September 25,2003 Page 5 them to be heard in City Hall through their vote. She feels that costs should not be an issue. If Council will allow $1,000 to be spent on the purchase of a Court Jester, which really doesn't do much for a City, she is sure that to make a big change and allow the residents of the City a voice, the costs would really be just a drop in bucket. She feels that a directly elected Mayor is important for the future and the direction of the City. -- Wayne Newman,22574 Van Buren Street, feels that residents need to get more involved in the political actions at the local level and state level. He stated that he doesn't have any political ambitions,however,he does have some underlying concerns about the way things are being done without the individual citizens having a choice on the ones that they elect. They are simply asking to allow the citizens to have a choice and voice on who the Mayor is. He indicated that he has suggested in the past that the City hold informal Town Meetings. Councilmember Larkin, questioned if the group has an opinion on the number of years the Mayor's term would be. Frank Guzman, 23202 Glendora,responded that they don't have the details at this point. Councilmember Larkin, questioned what the group feels the main advantage is on directly electing the Mayor. Frank Guzman,responded that each citizen of Grand Terrace would be given the power to elect whoever they feel can do a good job. It gives the elected official more clout to go into other communities and say that I was elected by the people. It will give some credence to the Mayorship because at this point what we see is that three individuals will decide who is going to be Mayor. We as citizens have a right as a voice to come to you and say this is who we want and that is the voice we are seeking. Councilmember Larkin, questioned if they feel like there is anything other than the fact the citizens aren't directly electing the Mayor that is wrong with the current system. Frank Guzman,responded that the current system is flawed. We area City that has just had a Birthday of 25 years and has a citizenship that has grown. The problems are different and the solutions that we are seeking are different than those of 25 years ago. Councilmember Larkin, questioned if there are any other positions that they would like to see elected. Frank Guzman,responded that Councilmember Larkin is going outside of the issue. All they are asking is if the City Council will place electing the Mayor on the ballot. Councilm ember Hi Ike y,questioned ifMayor Pro Tern is also something they are considering Council Minutes September 25,2003 Page 6 as part of this measure. Frank Guzman, responded that all they want is for the Mayor to be an elected position. Councilmember Hilkey, stated that he is unsure where they would go into the details on whether they would be elected for a two year term or a four year term or if the Mayor has anymore power than the Council. City Attorney Harper,responded whenever staff is directed to do so. The Council will have to adopt a formal Resolution calling an Election and establishing what the question is. This can't be done tonight. Councilmember Cortes, questioned when it would be determined whether the term would be for two years or for four years. City Attorngy Harper, indicated that it would have to be determined at the time the Resolution was formally adopted calling the Election. Mayor Pro Tem Ferr6, questioned if the position of Mayor in a general law City is an honorary position. City Attorney Harper,responded in the affirmative in the sense that the Mayor has no other legal voting power that is different than any of the other Councilmembers. Mayor Pro Tem Ferr6, stated that if the Mayor is elected directly they will have no more power than if the City did not directly elect the Mayor. City Attorney Harper, concurred. Mayor Pro Tem Ferr6, state&that the issue of who is Mayor,Mayor Pro Tem and who will serve on what committee has taken a lot of this Council's time and effort and has caused some strain in the Council. So in her opinion there are much bigger issues and challenges facing this City. If we can take this issue and have the voters decide if they want to directly elect a Mayor and elect one of the five Councilmembers to become Mayor perhaps this is something that Council should consider. r City Attompy aape , stated that assuming that this goes on the ballot and the choice is to have an elected Mayor it is not necessarily one of the current Councilmembers that would be the Mayor. Mayor Pro Tem Ferr6, indicated that what she meant was of a Council of five one would be an elected Mayor. Council Minutes September 25,2003 Page 7 City Attorney arper,responded in the affirmative. He indicated that the Mayor is not a full time position nor is it a paid position. Manor Garcia,indicated that she agrees whole heartedly on the comments the speakers have made. She thanked the residents for their time and efforts. Councilmember Larkin, feels that it is very important that the Council engages in citizenry. The residents do elect their representatives. He did have some questions and he sees some significant disadvantages in having a directly elected Mayor position. He feels that Grand Terrace has very informal Council Meetings and feels that anyone at anytime can have a direct voice. If he could see one advantage to directly voting to elect a Mayor then he would be inclined to support it. It is not a point of saying that it shouldn't be the citizens making the choice. Every time they go to elect a City Council Member they are making a choice. Councilmember Hilkey,questioned if we approve this and it comes back to the Council with the details worked out about who replaces the councilmember that runs successfully for Mayor, is it a two year term is it a four year term, and does it include Mayor Pro Tem. Will the Council be able to reconsider. He is not excited about directly electing the Mayor, however,he is very much in favor of a change. I would like to bring it back at a time when we know all of the details with the understanding that we.can cast it aside at that time. City Attorney Harper,indicated that there is really only two details,one do you want to elect the Mayor or not and two what the term is. These are the only two questions that should go on the ballot. City's do not have to have a Mayor Pro Tem that is strictly up to the Council and will be appointed by the Council. The statute tells you what to do in the event that a Councilmember successfully runs for Mayor creating a vacancy on the Council. CC-2003-114 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HILKEY, SECOND BY MAYOR GARCIA, CARRIED 3-2-0-0(C,OUNCILMEMBERS LARKIN AND CORTES VOTED NO), to approve placing on the ballot the issue of directly electing the Mayor on the March 2004 ballot and direct staff to prepare a resolution calling the election. Mayor Garcia indicated that she would like the Council to work towards working together in a positive manner. CLOSED SESSION 9A. Real Estate Negotiations - 22874 Arliss Drive Mayor Garcia announced that the Council met in Closed Session to discuss Real Estate Negotiations at 22874 Arliss Drive and that there was no reportable action taken. Council Minutes September 25,2003 Page 8 ORDER OF ADJOURNMENT Mayor Garcia adjourned the City Council Meeting at.7:55 p.m.,in Memory of Councilmember Bea Cortes' Father Rafael Hernandez, until the next CRA/City Council Meeting which is scheduled to be held on Thursday, October 9, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. CITY CLERK of the City of Grand Terrace MAYOR of the City of Grand Terrace T Date: October 2,2003 a� c� W. O. # 12.639 GRPMD TERRAC Staff Report UGH 11001e DEPARTMENT OF CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (X) BUILDING& SAFETY, MEETING DATE: October 9, 2003 PUBLIC WORKS AND HOUSING SUBJECT: Traffic Signal-De Berry Street & Mt. Vernon Avenue 22795 Barton Road , Suite B FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED XX Grand Terrace California 92313-5295 Civic Center On August 12, 2003, the City Council directed Staff to advertise for bids for the (909) 825-3825 construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of De Berry Street and Mt. Vernon Fax (909) 825-7506 Avenue. Being a Safe Route to School (SR25) Grant Project, it has Federal Funding requiring a long and arduous process; however, we are getting closer to final approval. The bidding process was very successful providing seven qualified contractors. Following are the results of the bidding process: 1. DBX, Inc. Temecula $107,729.00 2. Pouk & Steinle Riverside $113,977.00 i 3. Sierra Pacific Riverside $118,389.00 d 4. Steiny & Company Baldwin Park $118,668.00 5. Moore Electric Corona $124,153.00 6. Pete & Sons Const. Riverside $128,900.00 7. R&M Electric Const. Lake Forest $129,875.00 After checking the references of DBX,Inc.from Temecula,staff is satisfied with their qualifications. STAFF RECOMMENDS THATTHE CITY COUNCIL: 1. Authorize Staff to award the contract for construction of traffic signals at De Berry and Mt. Vernon to DBX Inc. for the amount of$107,729.00 C"0 Z "-H AGENDA I T E h h N0� 4 RECEIVED Historical & Cultural Activities Committee Minutes for September 8, 2003 SEP 2 2 2003 CITY OF GRAND TERRAME CITY CLER DEPARTME The meeting was called to order by Chairman Pauline Grant at 7 p.m. Those present were NTauline, Masako Gifford,Ann Petta,Frances Carter,Brenda Stanfill,Shelly Rosenkild,Colleen Edmundson and Hannah Laister. The first few minutes were spent welcoming Masako to the Committee with Ann explaining our goals, things we do, etc. Secretary's Minutes: The minutes for July were read and approved on motion by Ann, seconded by Colleen, all in favor. Treasurer's Report:Balance in the Budget $944.16,S84.41 in Petty Cash. Colleen donated a silver tray to the Committee. Historical Report: Ann reported that she is working on a 25 year display!'Council, Seniors, Child Care. Francis is still compiling her family history. Council meetings have been moved back to Thursdays. Country Fair: Arin has 5 applications to date. She is calling everyone. Colleen reported she had acquired the square dancers and has Sarah Jay, a long time resident volunteering her help. Barbara Tinsley has said she will help with the cooking contest, she will be asked. Steve Berry has offered a 25 foot hi oh Jester Balloon which will be used at the Halloween Haunt. All were in favor of that. Jimbo (we will get his real name) from the seniors has agreed to play music, we will pay him $100.00. A vote was taken on this, all were in favor. We will have a scarecrow contest and ask the judges to do both the food and scarecrows. Prizes are being offered for the raffle, Pauline will donate a penguin,Ann will decide on something. Hannah an afghan and a stuffed dog. The Dance Academy will dance which brings in a lot of people. Kiss a Cow: We will try to get the librarian to tell us her plans,then we will vote on this item at the next meeting. Election: Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer. There were no new nominations, therefore, Pauline Grant, Chairman, Hannah Laister, Secretary, Colleen Edmundson, Treasurer, were elected unanimously. Scrapbooks:Hannah stated that her eyesight would just not allow herto do the scrapbooks anymore, after 23 years. Shelly volunteered to take over this job. Since the City pays for the newspapers, Brenda will arrange to have this transferred to Shelly. The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. The next meeting will be October 6, 2003. Respectfully Submitted, f � Hannah Laister Secretary COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM N01,5Q a 1 I , * Community and Economic Development (ALHORNIA Department 22795 Barton'Road Grand Terrace -California 92313-5295 (909) 824-6621 STAFF REPORT CRA ITEM ( COUNCIL ITEM (X ) MEETING DATE: October 9, 2003 FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED X SUBJECT: Public Hearing for the Noise Element RECOMMENDATION: Open the Public Hearing on the Noise Element, GPA-03-01 and E-03-05; Receive any testimony; Approve the Noise Element as Recommended by the Planning Commission; Approve the Negative Declaration; and Adopt the Noise Element by Ordinance Background: Following its public hearing on the proposed Noise Element on July 17,2003, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve and adopt by ordinance the proposed Noise Element. (See Attachments 1 and 2 on the public hearing held by the Planning Commission.) State law requires each jurisdiction to have a general plan with seven (7) mandatory elements including a "Noise Element." The purpose of the Noise Element is to limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels according to State Guidelines. The approval of the Noise Element by the Council satisfies these requirements of State law. Because of the technical requirements in the State's Guidelines for the preparation of the Noise Element, the City hired the firm of "Wieland Associates, Inc." to 'do the technical noised data gathering and analysis. This firm has had a lot of experience in preparing technical noise studies for various cities in Southern California. The technical noise information was presented to the City in the form of a "Technical Memorandum" which formed the basis of the proposed Noise Element. L CCYLFb 1C-?L AGENDA rMM N0A1 Lpf� The Noise Element has been written and prepared to comply with the State's Guidelines and contains a detailed discussion on the existing and future noise environments in the City of Grand Terrace (Please see Attachment 3 for a' copy of the Noise Element as recommended by the Planning Commission). A total of twenty (20) locations within Grand Terrace were surveyed to measure existing noise levels. The noise measurements taken at these locations demonstrated that the most significant noise producing activities within the City involve transportation activities such as the traffic on the 1-215 Freeway; arterial streets such as Barton Road and Mt. Vernon Avenue; and the rail lines in the western part of the city. To address the identified noise issues in the City, the Noise Element proposes various goals, objectives and policies to guide the City's decision makers. The proposed goals of the Element call for developing those, control measures to reduce the impact from transportation noise and non-transportation noise; and to prevent and mitigate excessive noise exposure to the `residents and businesses of the City. To carry out these goals, there are various objectives and policies in the Noise Element for the City to follow including proposals such as using noise control measures to reach specific noise levels along the 1-215 Freeway and to prevent or mitigate future noise resulting from the projected increase in the number of trains running through the westerly portion of the City. Other proposed actions call for implementing a review ,process of the City's existing ordinance on noise; minimizing the impacts of construction noise on adjacent land uses by limiting the permitted hours of activity;and adopting guidelines that establish acceptable noise standards for various land uses throughout the City. Finally, an Initial Study was prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts by approving the Noise Element as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This evaluation concluded that the Noise Element qualifies for a Negative Declaration on the grounds that the Noise Element will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment (Please see Attachment 4 for a copy of the Negative Declaration and attached Initial Study.) Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council open the public hearing on the Noise Element; receive any testimony on the Noise Element; approve the Noise Element as recommended by the Planning Commission; approve the Negative Declaration as required by the California Environmental Quality Act; and adopt the said Noise Element by Ordinance (Attachment 5) Respectfully submitted, Approved by: f i John Lampe Gary L. Koontz Associate Planner Community Development Director GKL:JL:jl Attachments: Attachment 1: Planning Commission report on the Proposed Noise Element dated July 17, 2003 Attachment 2: Planning Commission minutes of July 17), 2003 on the Commission's public hearing on the Noise Element Attachment 3: Noise Element dated October 9,2003 as recommended by the Planning Commission Attachment 4: Negative Declaration and Initial Study for the Noise Element Attachment 5: Ordinance for the adoption of the Noise Element cA... NOISE-ELEMENT\noisecouncil.rpt CITY . 0 FROND TERZ cE Community and Economic Development Department i TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 17, 2003 SUBJECT: GPA-03-01 and E-03-05 - Proposed Noise Element of the General Plan and Environmental Review of the Proposed Element APPLICANT: City of Grand Terrace/Community Development Department LOCATION: Citywide RECOMMENDATION: Open the Public Hearing for the Proposed Noise Element;receive any testimony; discuss the Proposed Noise Element; and recommend to the City Council the approval and adoption of the Proposed Noise Element by Ordinance as part of the City's General Plan INTRODUCTION: State law requires each jurisdiction to have a general plan with seven(7)mandatory elements. The Noise Element is one of the mandatory elements of the General Plan along with such other elements as the Land Use, Housing and Circulation Elements. The City has been engaged over the past few years in updating its General Plan. Most recently,the Housing Element was updated as required by the State. Before that,the Open Space and Circulation Elements had been updated. The preparation of this Proposed Noise Element (Please see Exhibit 1) is but the latest effort to update the City's entire General Plan. BACKGROUND: The purpose of the Noise Element is to limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels. The State's Noise Element Guidelines require that local governments must "analyze and ATTACHMENT 1 22795 Barton Road ® Grand Terrace, California 92313-5295 0 (909) 824-6621 quantify"noise levels and the extent of noise exposure through actual measurements. Technical data relating to mobile and stationary sources must be collected and synthesized into noise control policies and programs that "minimize the exposure of community residents to excessive noise." According to the Guidelines,noise level contours must be mapped and the conclusions of the Noise Element must be used as a basis for land use decisions. The Noise Element is, therefore, directly related to the Land Use, Circulation and Housing Elements of the General Plan. Because of these technical requirements in the State's Guidelines for Noise Elements,the City hired the firm of"Wieland Associate,Inc."to do the technical noise date gathering and analysis. This firm has had a lot of experience in preparing technical noise studies for various cities in Southern California. This technical information is provided in the"Technical Memorandum"which has been attached to the Noise Element as "Attachment 3." In addition to providing technical information on noise levels,measurements and existing and future noise environments in the City,the "Technical Memorandum"made specific recommendations on the goals and policies for the Noise Element and on the implementation programs to carry out those goals and policies. The Proposed Noise Element is based on these recommendations. ELEMENT OVERVIEW: The Proposed Noise Element, Exhibit 1, has been written and prepared to comply with the State's Guidelines. It contains a detailed discussion on the existing and future noise environments in the City of Grand Terrace. The most significant noise-producing activities within the City involve transportation activities such as traffic on the I-215 Freeway, arterial streets, rail lines and aircraft operations. A total of twenty(20) locations within the City were surveyed to measure the existing noise levels. These measurement sites were chosen to determine primarilythe impact of noise on residential areas from transportation activities. Figure 1 of the Proposed Noise Element shows these 20 locations. Figures 2 and 3 of the Proposed Noise Element show the CNEL contours for the existing and future noise conditions within the City. Large scale versions of these figures are shown on Attachments 1 and 2 of the Proposed Element. These are separate fold-out maps of the City included in your report. CNEL is a technical term used to measure noise levels; it is based not only on noise levels but also the duration of the noise and the time of day the noise is experienced. (The exact definition is provided on page 16 of the Element.) These CNEL contour results shown that there is excessive noise along the I-215 Freeway and certain arterials streets such as Barton Road, Michigan Avenue and Mt. Vernon Avenue. In addition, another source of excessive noise is the approximately 40 trains operating each day on the BNSF rail line.The Element notes that"effective reduction of noise associated with transportation is necessary to ensure protection from the detrimental effects of excessive noise." The Element also identifies some stationary noise sources in the City. The Proposed Element points out that "these noise sources may not be the most significant noise sources in the entire City; but, none-the-less,"stationary noise is a detriment to residential land uses when commercial or industrial uses are adjacent to each other." An example of such a stationary noise source is the lumberyard 1 which abuts a residential area in the southern part of the City, west of Michigan. The Noise Element also lists five noise-sensitive, non-residential locations within an existing or future excessive noise area. This includes the Grand Terrace Elementary School adjacent to the I- 215 Freeway. To address the identified noise issues in the City, the new Noise Element proposes various goals, objectives and some 36 policies. The three proposed goals of the Element call for developing those control measures to reduce the impact from transportation noise; for developing those measures to control non-transportation noise; and for preventing and mitigating the excessive exposure to noise by residential and commercial uses. To carry out these goals,there are six objectives with specific actions proposed such as using noise control measures to reach specific noise levels along the I-215 Freeway and to prevent or mitigate future noise resulting from the increase in the number of trains running through the City. To guide the City in future decision making to reach these goals and objectives, the Element proposes 36 policies such as pursuing construction of noise barriers along the I-215 Freeway and BNSF rail lines where residences exist next to the track; encouraging the Public Utilities Commission and railroads to minimize the level of noise produced by train movements by reducing speeds and improving vehicle technology; implementing a review process of the City's noise ordinance; minimizing the impacts of construction noise on adjacent land uses by limiting the permitted hours of activity; and, adopting guidelines that establish acceptable noise standards for various land uses throughout the City. Finally, there is a recommended Implementation Program to implement the goals, objective and policies of the Noise Element. This Implementation Program covers transportation and non- transportation noise control and proposes programs to carry out noise standards in making future land use decisions. WORKSHOP: On May 15, 2003 the Planning Commission held a workshop to discuss the draft Noise Element. A copy•of the minutes, Exhibit 2, of that workshop are attached for the Commission's review. At the end of the workshop, the Chairman concluded that the draft Element was to the Commission's satisfaction and requested that the staff take the next steps to formalizing the Noise Element. Following the workshop, minor changes were made to the Element, mainly for topographical reasons, and the environmental documentation was prepared. PUBLIC REVIEW: The notice of this public hearing was published in the an Bernardino County Sun on June 28,2003 with an 1/8 page, display type advertisement as required for any Citywide matter. In addition, Section 65352 of the Government Code requires that the planning agency shall notify all adjacent jurisdictions,the local school district,the local agency formation commission and local water district of any proposed amendment to the General Plan. Besides this notification, Staff referred the Proposed Noise Element to various City departments and County agencies for review. The City Engineer commented on the Proposed Noise Element in his memorandum to Staff dated July 7, 2003 attached as Exhibit 3. Any other comments on the Proposed Element received after the writing of this report will be presented to the Planning Commission at the public hearing on July 17, 2003. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Following the workshop on May 15, 2003, the staff reviewed the Proposed Noise Element for potential environmental impacts as required by the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Staff concluded that the Proposed Element qualified for a Negative Declaration, Exhibit 4, on the grounds that the Proposed Noise Element will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. This conclusion was made following the preparation of the Initial Study, Exhibit 5, which evaluated the potential environmental effects of the Proposed Noise.Element. CONCLUSION: The Proposed Noise Element has been prepared in conformance with State Guidelines based on technical studies conducted by an acoustical consultant. In addition, the Proposed Noise Element was evaluated for environmental effects as required by CEQA and it was found that there will be no adverse effects on the environment when the Noise Element becomes part of the General Plan. RECOMMENDATION: The staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the Council adopt the attached Proposed Ordinance, Exhibit 6, adding the Noise Element to the City's General Plan. Respectfully submitted, 1 �f o i Lampe, A sociate PTdnner Gary L. oontz, 210olmmunity Development Director Attachment: Exhibit 1 -Proposed Noise Element to the General Plan Exhibit 2 -Planning Commission Minutes of May 15,2003 workshop Exhibit 3 - Memorandum from the City Engineer dated July 7, 2003 Exhibit 4 - Proposed Negative Declaration Exhibit 5 -Initial Study Exhibit 6 - Proposed Ordinance Adding the Noise Element to the General Plan cA....VOHNINOISE_ELEMEN Acommworkshop.rpt MOTION: PC-22-2003 Commissioner Addington made a motion to approve The Planning Commission Meeting minutes dated June 19, 2003. Commissioner Bidney seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE: PC-22-2003 Approved 3-0-2-0 Commissioner Whitley Absent Commissioner Comstock Absent V 2. GPA-03-01, E-03-05 Proposed Noise Element of the General Plan and Environmental Review of the Proposed Element. APPLICANT: City of Grand Terrace/Community Development Department. LOCATION: Citywide. RECOMMENDATION: Open the Public Hearing for the Proposed Noise Element; receive' any testimony; discuss the Proposed Noise Element; and recommend to the City Council the approval and adoption of the Proposed Noise Element by Ordinance as part of the City's General Plan. Associate Planner Lampe reported that a few changes were made to the proposed Noise Element that was brought before the Commission in May of this year. The State Law requires that each jurisdiction have a General Plan with seven mandatory elements including the Noise Element. The proposed element, as presented, is the latest effort to update the City's General Plan. To assist in the preparation of the Noise Element, the State has required guidelines in which the preparation of the Noise Element the City must analyze and quantify the noise levels and extended noise exposure within in the City through actual field measurements. The City hired an acoustical consultant to prepare the technical portion of the noise element. The firm is experienced in preparing technical noise studies and has done so for various cities within the State of California. Twenty locations were surveyed throughout the city with a noise meter. The study was done primarily to determine the impact of noise within residential areas near transportation activities. The most significant noise producing activity was the traffic on the 1-215 Freeway, the railroad, and traffic within the city streets. The State guidelines do require that noise contours be prepared showing what areas in the City are exposed to having excessive noise levels. The heavier noise 2 ATTACHMENT 2 exposure for properties along the 1-215 Freeway, and along Barton Road and a portion of Mt. Vernon. The noise consultant also did a projection on future noise conditions. The areas in the future that will be exposed to heavy noise will primarily be located around the 1-215 Freeway and the westerly portion of the city next to the railroad tracks; along'with increased transportation traffic at Barton and Mt. Vernon Streets. The Noise Element also discusses stationary sources of noise within the City from commercial or industrial sites. These stationary sources are not as significant as the noise coming from the transportation sources. The lumber yard within the City limits is one source of industrial noise that has been produced, but may soon be eliminated with the acquisition of land for the new high school site. The Consultant has recommended that the City should make an effort to reach various goals and objectives in trying to develop an environment where excessive noise is controlled. The three main goals related to noise control are dealing with the transportation and non-transportation noise and minimizing excessive exposure to noise produced by stationary sources of noise producing sites. To carry out the goals and objectives, there are various policies and recommendations of the element that deal with various measures that the city can undertake to develop recommendations to minimize and mitigate noise produced from transportation. With regard to comments from -the various agencies, suggestions were made by the City's Traffic Engineer, Craig Neustaedter Mr. Neustaedter recommended that changing the name of the reference to the Riverside/San Bernardino transportation agencies to their actual name which is RTA and Omnitrans. The second recommendation was to have the City support putting in a grade separation for the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Railroad near Main Street to eliminate the use of horns or whistles, in which the railroads are required to blast prior to an approach of a street which does not have a grade separation. Associate Planner Lampe concluded that the Staff recommends that the Noise Element has been in conformance with the State Guidelines based on technical studies that were conducted by the qualified acoustical consultant. The Staff is recommending that the Commission recommend to the City Council to adopt the attached Ordinance calling for the addition of the new Noise Element of the City's General Plan Chair Wilson invited the Commission to ask questions of Staff. Vice Chair Addington asked if the Traffic Engineer was proposing additional policies or has his suggestions already been included in the proposed Ordinance. Associate Planner Lampe answered that it was a suggestion to add the policies, and has not been included in the Ordinance. Vice Chair Addington asked if the railroad was contacted with regard to the suggested grade separation 3 Associate Planner Lampe replied that since the suggestion was only received a couple of days before the Planning Commission meeting, they were not contacted as yet. Vice Chair Addington asked if there was any discussion of putting in a grade separation on behalf of the proposed high school. Planning Director Koontz replied that there has been discussion, and if there is an interchange constructed at Main Street, there will be a need for a grade separation at the crossing Commissioner Bidney asked if a grade separation will be put in at Main Street, how it will affect the bridge at Barton Road on the westerly portion of the City. Planning Director Koontz replied that there are plans for that bridge and are in direct relation to the proposed Outdoor Adventures Center. These plans have been sent to Congressman Lewis's office to request funding for interim improvements with regard to widening the bridge, building a new off ramp and various other improvements. Chair Wilson asked that in relation to the railroad and air traffic noise, is there any recourse other than civil actions to force the lowering of those noise levels? Planning Director Koontz replied that the railroads are not very easy to deal with and will be difficult to come to an agreement. With the Alameda Corridor projecting an r- additional twenty trains could be added to the existing line. The Outdoor Adventures Center is evaluating removing the Union Pacific spur and directing that traffic onto the BNSF main line. This would mote the rail noise contours further to the west Vice Chair Addington asked if there will need to be a motion for the suggested grade separation. Associate Planner Lampe replied that a separate motion would need to be made to include the grade separation as suggested by the traffic engineer. Chair Wilson opened and closed the Public Hearing for comment MOTION: PC-23-2003 Chair Wilson made a motion to approve Proposed Noise Element of the General Plan and Environmental Review of the Proposed Element. Vice Chair Addington seconded the motion MOTION VOTE: PC-23-2003 Approved 3-0-2-0 4 Commissioner Whitley Absent Commissioner Comstock Absent MOTION: PC-24-2003 Vice Chair Addington made a motion to amend the Noise Element and support the construction of the grade separation at Main Street and railroad lines Commissioner Bidney seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE: PC-24-2003 Approved 3-0-2-0 Commissioner Whitley Absent Commissioner Comstock Absent ADJqWRN SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMM SION MEETING CONVEN UBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION 7:25 PM s Informa ' n to Commissioners Planning Director oontz reported that the Outdoor Adventure Center is moving forward. The Specifi' Plan is being written and the Notice of Preparation for the EIR will go out within the n t week. The School District has de an agreement with the City to negotiate with a real estate acquisition for a prop ed high school site in the City. The City has a new- RV Ordin ce A portion of the new RV Ordinance involves changes to the Zoning Ordinanc Proposed changes to reflect the RV Ordinance concerning the storage of vehicles nd parking of RV's in residential front yards. A special meeting needs to be schedul d with regard to this Ordinance within the next few months. This meeting may be he on one of the first Thursdays of the month when no Planning Commission Meetings rescheduled. The Barton Road Specific plan is near ompletion and may be presented at September's scheduled meeting. • Information from Commissioners Vice Chair Addington reported that he will be on va ation and will not be attending August's Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Addington asked Staff what the estimated time f me for the completion of Rollins Park. 5 PROPOSED NOISE ELEMENT FOR THE CITE' OF GRAND TERRACE (October 9, 2003) J ATTACHMENT 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY................................................................................................................ i TABLEOF CONTENTS.......................................................................................... PURPOSE................................................................................................................... 1 EXISTING AND FUTURE NOISE ENVIRONMENTS........................................ I NOISE SURVEY RESULTS........................................................................... I COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL (CNEL) CONTOURS........ 3 MOBILE NOISE SOURCES............................................................................ 3 FREEWAY TRAFFIC NOISE................................................................ 3 TRAFFIC NOISE FROM MAJOR AND SECONDAR YARTERIALS... 7 NOISE FROM TRAIN MOVEMENTS ON THE BNSF RAIL LINE...... 7 NOISE FROM TRAIN MOVEMENTS ON THE SP RAIL LINE............. 7 NOISE FROM SAN BERNARDINO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT........ 7 STATIONARY NOISE SOURCE.................................................................... 7 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NOISE.................................. .............. 7 CONSTR UCTION ACTIVIT).............................................. .. ... .......... 8 SENSITIVE NON-RESIDENTIAL RECEPTORS.......................................... 8 RECOMMENDED NOISE ELEMENT GOALS AND POLICIES...................... 8 TRANSPORTATION NOISE CONTROL....................................................... 8 GOAL ]........................ ......................................................................... 8 NON-TRANSPORTATION NOISE CONTROL............................................. 10 GOAL2........................... .......... ....................... .. .......................... 10 NOISE AND LAND USE PLANNING INTEGRATION.................................. 10 GOAL3...... .............. .. ...... ......... ............................... .... .................... 10 NOISE ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM......................................... 14 TRANSPORTATION NOISE CONTROL........................................................ 14 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS............................................. 14 MOTOR VEHICLE NOISE CONTROL............................ . . . ........... 14 RAIL LINE NOISE CONTROL.............................................................. 14 AVIA TION....................... ................................................. ................... 14 NON-TRANSPORTATION NOISE CONTROL......................... .................... 15 NOISE ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT. ....................... ..................... 15 NOISE AND LAND USE PLANNING INTEGRATION................................. 15 NOISE ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT................................................ 15 ii COMMUNITY STANDARDS APPLICATION........................................ 15 NOISEINSULATION.............................................................................. 15 ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS................................... .................................. 15 GENERAL TERMS (NOISE EVALUATION AND MEASUREMENT).............. 15 A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL....................................................................... 15 COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL (CNEL)................................. ]6 ACCEPTABLE EXTERIOR NOISE EXPOSURES.......................................... 16 ACCEPTABLE INTERIOR NOISE EXPOSURES........................................... 16 ANNOYANCE AND HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS...................................... 20 GENERAL HEARING LOSS OR DAMAGE....... .................................... 20 -INTERFERENCE 141ITH ORAL COMMUNICATION.... ........................ 20 SLEEP INTERFERENCE. . ..... . ............. ... . . . ............................. 20 DEFINITIONS....................................................................'.......................................... 20 REFERENCES............................................................................................................. 22 LIST OF TABLES TABLE ] INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS.............. I 1 TABLE 2 NOISE/LAND USE COMPATIBILITY MATRIX................... 13 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 LOCATION OF THE NOISE MEASUREMENT POSITIONS... 2 FIGURE 2 EXISTING (1999) CNEL NOISE CONTOURS........................... 4 FIGURE 3 FUTURE (2015) CNEL NOISE CONTOURS............................. 5 FIGURE 4 CNEL CONTOURS FOR SAN BERDO. AIRPORT................... 6 FIGURE 5 COMMON NOISE SOURCES/A-WEIGHTED NOISE.............. 17 FIGURE 6 COMMON CNEL NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS....................... 18 FIGURE 7 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE.....19 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT I - EXISTING CNEL NOISE CONTOURS MAP (LARGE SCALE) ATTACHMENT 2 - FUTURE CNEL NOISE CONTOURS MAP (LARGE SCALE) ATTACHMENT 3 - TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM OF THE NOISE ELEMENT r iii THE NOISE ELEMENT FOR THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE I. Purpose: TheNoise Element of a General Plan is the basis for achieving and maintaining environmental noise control. The Element establishes goals,policies, and programs so that residents of the City of Grand Terrace will be protected from excessive noise. It also is an essential element for updating and maintaining the land use. circulation and housing elements. — f The Noise Element establishes guidelines to govern future construction and noise abatement programs by identifying major noise sources. These noise sources are both mobile noise and stationary noise. It also inventories sensitive receptors such as schools, religious institutes; convalescent homes and sensitive wildlife habitats. It also determines the extent of noise problems in the community, and inventories existing and proposed land use controls in conjunction with noise contours. By using existing and projected noise contours,the City can select and impose methods of noise attenuation and the protection of residential land uses and other sensitive receptors from existing and foreseeable noise problems. The Noise Element is one of the mandatory elements of the City's General Plan. State law requires each jurisdiction to have a general plan with seven (7) mandatory elements. These include the land use element, circulation element, housing element, conservation element, open space element, safety element and the noise element. This Noise Element will replace the noise hazards discussion in the Hazards Element of the existing General Plan of the City. II. Existing and Future Noise Environments: The most significant noise-producing activities within the City of Grand Terrace involve transportation activities These include arterial streets, the I-215 Freeway, rail lines, and aircraft operations. In addition, numerous fixed sources of noise exist within portions of the city. The following section provides a discussion of the noise measurements obtained and an inventory of noise sources. From these measurements and complementing analytical procedures, noise exposure contours have been derived and noise impacts identified for the City of Grand Terrace. A. Noise Survey Results: A total of twenty (20)locations within the City of Grand Terrace were surveyed to establish the existing noise levels. These measurement sites were selected to determine the impact of noise on residential areas due to traffic on the major arterials (including the 1-215 freeway), train movements on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe(BNSF)and Southern Pacific(SP)rail lines, and flight operations from San Bernardino International Airport. A total of six (6) 24- hour noise measurements, and fourteen (14) limited noise measurements were obtained throughout the City. Figure 1 provides the location of the noise measurement positions. Appendix II of the attached Teclulical Memorandum provides the noise level data measured at each position. 1 Cn. OF COV, 11 _ e ' //' .�..:,",.. ��-- nmmmu®m�nm111�TIIifl tl i��'-•• —7- 1iI1W!- 'J,IOld'. I� •�`l':---I I c I - ` �� ';., .. pmn)ro— �I � it ✓ —_ I I;ull �r-• �� I �. ..r I I (l:ul Ii 10 151R.uum�ll>n� W1 12 file Ifl !i�j,I '__ � �'td � 1 III I ��I .�� II I I _ �� 11711i11�llllll" ��• ' . �:_: wl 1 i � otiu r1(Illdl " --- ---�� :��. . �r,m l4il� - —C_• Y>� d�1111u1 I( '}';`+^��++�%'` 0' _-•-� I��., � ,yl ME 14 15 ITI 17 141 . ........ r CITY OF � GRAND T.TJRRACF . Location of the Noise Measurement Positions , FIGURE 1 - I The following provides an inventory of noise sources measured within the City of Grand Terrace and the ranges of maximum sound levels generated by these sources: Noise Source Range of Sound Levels Commercial jet flyover 46 to 67 dB(A) Private aircraft flyover 47 to 59 dB (A) Traffic on city streets 56 to 82 dB(A) Traffic on the I-215 freeway 66 to 73 dB(A) Activity at the lumberyard 58 to 79 dB(A) These noise sources were measured at various locations throughout the City. Therefore, the noise levels are not necessarily indicative of any particular area or location. B. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) Contours: Figures 2 and 3 provide the CNEL contours for the existing and future noise environments within the City of Grand Terrace, respectively. Two 400-scale exhibits are also available in the offices of the City of Grand Terrace Community Development Department.Both provide the CNEL contours ranging from 60 to 80 dB in 5 dB increments. Appendix II of the Technical Memorandum provides the noise level data measured at each position. The CNEL contours for the major arterials and freeway within the City of Grand Terrace have been developed utilizing a methodology based on a simplified version of the Federal Highway Administration's Traffic Noise Model and traffic data-obtained from Caltrans and the City of Grand Terrace (with the extension of Commerce Way, without the North-South Corridor project,and without the Iowa extension).The railroad contours were developed based on Wyle Laboratories computational procedures using data obtained from the various-rail companies and Metrolia, The CNEL contour for flight operations at San Bernardino International Airport as they impact the City of Grand Ten-ace are provided in Figure 4. These contours have been obtained from reports provided by the Inland Valley Development Agency and San Bernardino International Airport Authority. C. Mobile Noise source: The most significant noise-producing activity within the City of Grand Terrace involves transportation activities including arterial streets. the I-215 Freeway, rail lines, and aircraft operations. These noise sources were measured at various locations throughout the City. Therefore,the noise levels are not necessarily indicative of any particular area or location. Freeway Traffic Noise. The results of 24-hour measurements indicate CNELs of 75 to 80 dB at rear yards with direct exposure to the freeway. This level is higher than is considered acceptable and will compromise the welfare of residents exposed to the noise for a long period of time. 3 - - 1��:� ^ �p ,, I Illlln IIIIWI I II:I .� .e ,:` ,'_- ➢UUUIIfUII➢f!Uf➢12'(I I i i�;rrl�n�1.:•� "�' _'� ., . � �= � ,. C Z c. •CAa� ,�/pp'1 /' I _ ,11•I^III�! I'�'n '��Uillo�= �y; ,•`i ,y�> _ dIIIII- ...' _ — - W)HOP oi;,7•n' )�illli��l r�� 7i_,'. "r,ifl!ililllll,I'I r= -••:':c', �allmmul IIrI 1 ��)_'.��h�llll i 1 u ...�� :�.. I unomuuniu nInU�01G)nll.11lllhlll,•u IIIIN.: 010111 unM r l➢ ➢ ��ll �'' �lilillil'JI r r1'I l 1�.�I P;duVTUUV-'.ii,�!]'('1�YIYJi — ° , ---- _ ��11��1�> 1 --- — .�IIOJ➢ IIIIIIIII,,I'II I (' n111111�nI'll I�I PP 1111 11111k'. - l•'g N nnm In1 umpn mm 191,11P1,111IIIIIiIiI QU➢➢➢➢➢➢ °IUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIW'` �`��I I I � _ .�>�i� �i, I•. - = III► I f "IIVIIIVWIIll�l1➢" _:�_•__ .-,ry,_ . •--— = s.�,..rnr._ .�1 F-..•1�UAI •1.1!�Iy 110,11,111, 1.....LLC 1, c.� P'I�''' �1 I!I IPn nl I .,i .•vr IMIAM u�- � ��'��,_%�!IJ�!Il��IIJ!I� n �Ni�U➢G�II ,,r,1��= ' / - — — II!�7l�111191(4fi=- I1 _ 11• ,. �: I - --_-_ - - IYJJ4 IlllOf (L�:_... . _ c ! .�•�,•,_frr1�I" 1 taouonu . U�J LI , .:IP;IP�!IIITI�- - NMI Irll� I CITY OF Existing (1999) CNEL Noise Contours rIGURE 2 GRAND TERRACE CD mi ------ Iiuui wl pact 11 1 AL, H. M1111 II Man iq Ilummila 'Im D M IM B 0 9, -TIT HOW TT= IVIBU CITY Oil - Future (2015) CNEL Noise Contours 3 GLAND TERRACE PIOTITON AF Aix 9 7 ....... GOUICIAQY [T, r A S A I I A,11 jjt4 r) t/ o Airpor( Mas er Plan I P & D Technologfes , — f...,r.^ �` I V ,� � ��F �'// -- ter_ ..r1 I I T A Y A — Nv . ...... If 7000 CAI.E IR rEE I -411 Tr --T r CJTJI' 01, CTPv-11IATjDr- TE-RRACE CAJEL Contours for San Bernardino International Airport Reuse Plan FIGURE 4 Traffic Noise From Maior and Seconda7y Arterials: The CNEL values at noise-sensitive locations directly adjacent to the following arterials exceed 65 dB. Hence, the noise exposure at these areas is considered excessive: Arterials Reach Time Frame Barton Road La Cadena to Hilltop Existing & Future De Berry Street Commerce to Michigan Existing La Cadena Drive Barton to Rancho Existing & Future Michigan Avenue Barton to Van Buren Existing & Future Van Buren to Main Future Mt. Vernon Avenue Main to Van Buren Future Van Buren to Barton Existing & Future Transportation-related activities are primary sources of noise affecting the quality of life in Grand Terrace. Effective reduction of noise associated with transportation is necessary to ensure protection from the detrimental effects of excessive noise. Noise frrom Train Movements on the BNSF Rail Line: Currently,there are approximately 30 freight trains and 9 Metrolink trains per day operating on the BNSF rail line within the City of Grand Terrace. This current level of operation generates an umnitigated CNEL in the range of 70 to 75 dB. Future volumes are expected to increase to 67 freight trains and 22 Metrolink trains per day.This is expected to increase the umnitigated CNEL to 75 to 80 dB. Both the current and projected CNELs are considered to be a significant impact requiring mitigation.The primary source of annoyance is late night and early morning train passes. Noise frrom Train Movements on the SP Rail Line. Information provided by the rail company indicates that current operations on the SP rail spur consist of two trains or less per day. There are no plans to increase this volume in the future. Because ofthis low level of activity,the impact of this noise source is considered insignificant. Noise from San Bernardino International Airport. In December 1999,noise measurements were obtained in Grand Terrace in order to assess the noise exposure being generated throughout the area by flight operations at San Bernardino International Airport. The results of the measurements indicate maximum noise levels of 46 to 67 dB(A) due to over flights. Based on information provided by the Inland Valley Development Agency and San Bernardino International Airport Authority, the CNEL generated by the airport is less than 60 dB tlu•oughout the city. Therefore, the impact is considered to be potentially insignificant. D. Stationary Noise Source: These noise sources may not be the most significant noise to the entire city:but none the less stationary noise are a detriment to residential land use when commercial and residential uses 7 are adjacent to each other. C0172777erciallb7dustrial Noise. In general; commercial/industrial noise within the City of Grand Terrace is not considered excessive. However; where residential locations are adjacent to industrial zones or trucking operations, a significant impact may exist. This impact is primarily related to noise generated by: • loading dock operations, • trucks entering and leaving the area, and • mechanical equipment located both inside and outside the building(s). _ An example of this occurs at the residential community on Tanager Street and Royal Avenue. These homes abut a lumberyard. Measurements obtained at a residence in this community indicate maximum noise levels that range from 57 to 79 dB(A). Construction Activity. The impact of construction noise that occurs during the daytime is considered minimal for no more than two or tluee months of activity. However, late night and weekend disturbances caused by construction noise may create a significant impact when experienced at nearby residential locations. E. Sensitive Non-Residential Receptors: In general,the sound levels at noise-sensitive non-residential locations within the City are not considered excessive. However, the following areas are located within an existing or future 65 dB CNEL contour: Terrace Hills Junior High School, Religious school on Barton Road east of Mi. Vernon Avenue, Private school on Mt. Vernon Avenue north of Barton Road, Grand Terrace Elementary School on Barton Road, and Grand Terrace Library. IIl. Recommended Noise Element Goals and Policies: A substantial portion of the city is affected by various sources of noise. The following goals, objectives and polices are intended to address identified noise issues in the community: A. Transportation Noise Control: Transportation related activities are primary sources of noise affecting the quality of life in Grand Terrace. Effective reduction of noise associated with transportation is necessary to ensure protection from the detrimental effects of excessive noise. Goal No. 1: (Transportation Noise Control) Use noise control measures to reduce the impact from transportation noise sources. 8 • Objective 1.1 (Free A,ay Traffic Noise): Use noise control measures to reach specific noise levels of those areas along the 1-215 Freeway within the City. • Policy 1.1.1: Pursue construction of new barriers or the augmentation of existing barriers,to reduce noise impacts along the 1-215 freeway along segments directly next to residential areas and Grand Ten-ace Elementary School. • Policy 1.1.2: Encourage, where feasible, noise mitigation measures, such as noise barriers and realignments, in the design and construction of new freeway improvements in the City of Grand Terrace. • Policy 1.1.3: Enforce the State's Vehicle Code noise standards within the City. -" Policy L I A: Consider noise impacts to residential neighborhoods when designating truck routes, freeway improvements, and major circulation corridors. • Objective 1.2 (Traffic Noise From Major and Secondary Arterials): Use noise and traffic control measures to reduce the impact from transportation noise sources to acceptable levels • Policy 1.2.1: Encourage, where feasible, noise mitigation measures, such as noise barriers and realignments, in the design and construction of new roadway projects in the City of Grand Terrace. • Policy 1.2.2: Enforce the State's Vehicle Code noise standards within the City. • Policv 1.2.3: Consider noise impacts to residential neighborhoods when designating truck routes freeway improvements and major circulation corridors. • Policv 1.2.4: Work with the"RTA"and"Oninitrans"to establish bus routes that meet public transportation needs and minimize noise impacts in residential areas. • Policy 1.2.5: Participate in the planning and enviromnental review process for proposed new arterials to ensure that appropriate noise mitigation measures are included in the design of the project. • Objective 1.3: (Air and Rail Line Noise Control): Use noise control measures to prevent or mitigate future noise resulting from the increase in the number of trains traveling through the City and planes flying over the City. • Policy 1.3.1:Pursue the construction of noise barriers along the BNSF and SP rail lines where residences exist next to the track. • Policy 1.3.2: Encourage the Public Utilities Commission,the BNSF Rail Company, the SP Rail Company and Southern California Regional Rail Authority to minimize the level of noise produced by train movements and whistle noise within the City of Grand Terrace by reducing speeds, improving vehicle system technology and developing improved procedures for train engineer whistle blowing. • Policy 1.3.3: Encourage Grand Terrace citizen participation and City involvement on committees that could influence rail activities in San Bernardino/Riverside Counties. • Policy 1.3.4: Encourage Grand Terrace citizen participation and City involvement on committees that would influence future aircraft activities in San Bernardino County. 9 • Policy 1.3.4: Encourage Grand Terrace citizen participation and City involvement on committees that would influence future aircraft activities in San Bernardino County. • Policy 1.3.5: Encourage San Bernardino International Airport to set up noise control procedures and to consider methods to reduce and minimize noise exposure due to aircraft flyovers within the City of Grand Terrace. • Policy 1.3.6: Continue to monitor all San Bernardino International Airport activities to minimize noise impacts within the City resulting from airport operations. • Policy 1.3.7: Work to reduce risks and noise impacts resulting from aircraft operations by (a) participating in and monitoring the planning processes for San Bernardino International Airport; (b) continuing to discourage commercial or general aviation activities that increase noise exposure(c) and preparing possible mitigation measures. • Policy 1.3.8 Support construction of railroad grade separations on Main Street at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad and Southern Pacific rail crossings. B. Non-Transportation Noise Control: Goal No.2(Non-Transportation Noise): Develop those measures to control non-transportation noise impacts. • Objective 2.1: Stationary and Non-mobile Noise Sources. Adopt and enforce appropriate local noise ordinances to effectively control stationary and non-mobile noise sources. These measures will control non-transportation noise to avoid exposure to excessive noise levels thereby maintaining health and safety standards. • Policy 2.1.1: Implement a review process of the City's noise ordinance and City policies and regulations affecting noise. • Policy 2.2.2: Minimize the impacts of construction noise on adjacent land uses by limiting the permitted hours of activity. • Policy 2.2.3: Require City departments to observe state and federal occupational safety and health noise standards • Policy 2.2.4: Require new equipment and vehicles purchased by the City to comply with noise performance standards consistent with available noise reduction technology. C. Noise and Land Use Planning Integration: Goal No. 3: (Noise and Land Use Planning Integration). Prevent and mitigate the adverse impacts of excessive exposure to residential and commercial land uses. • Objective 3.1:Conzmercial/Indastrial Atoise. Incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions to minimize or avoid detrimental impacts,reduce encroachment of non-residential land uses. and enforce the local noise ordinance. • Policy 3.1.1: Adopt planning guidelines that establish acceptable noise standards for various land uses throughout the City of Grand Terrace, as indicated in Table 1. 10 Table 1. Interior and Exterior Noise Standards CNE'L: Land:Use: hritei'iorl Exterior' Residential - Single family, multifamily, duplex, mobile homel 45 dB 65 dB Residential - Transient lodging, hotels, motels, nursing homes, hospitals y V y 45 dB 65 dB Private offices, church sanctuaries, libraries, board rooms; conference rooms, theaters, auditoriums, concert halls, 45 dB --- meeting halls, etc. Schools 45 dB 65 dB General offices, reception, clerical, etc. 50 dB --- Bank lobby, retail store, restaurant, typing pool. etc. 55 dB --- Manufacturing, kitchen, warehousing, etc. 65 dB --- Parks, playgrounds --- 65 dB Golf courses, outdoor spectator sports. amusement parks --- 65 dB Notes: 1. Standard applies to all habitable interior areas. Standard to be achieved with windows and doors closed. Mechanical ventilation shall be provided as required by the Uniform Buildine Code. 2. Standard applies to all habitable exterior living areas including: private _yards,private patios and balconies, common recreation areas, school playgrounds, etc. 11 • Policy 3.1.2: Require new residential developments located in close proximity to existing commercial/industrial operations to provide interior noise mitigation as a condition of approval. • Policy 3.1.3: Require that commercial uses developed as part of any mixed-use project (with residential) not be noise intensive. Design mixed-use structures to prevent commercial noise impacts to the project's residential uses. • Policy 3.1.4: Require new commercial/industrial operations located in proximity to existing or proposed residential areas to incorporate noise mitigation into project design. • Policy 3.1.5: Replace a significant noise generating land use with non-noise generating land uses when plans for future use of areas are developed. • Objective 3.2: Construction Activity-Land Use Compatibility Standards. Minimize the impacts of construction noise and avoid detrimental impacts through the enforcement and implementation of land use compatibility standards, acoustical analysis, the use of noise insulation and the local noise ordinance. • Polio: Minimize the impacts of construction noise on adjacent land uses through limiting the permitted hours of activity. • Policy 3.2.2: Adopt plaiming guidelines that establish acceptable noise standards for various land uses tlu-oughout the city of Grand Terrace, as indicated in Table 1. • Policy 3.2.3: Require new residential developments located in proximity to existing commercial/industrial operations to control residential interior noise levels as a condition of approval. Policy 3.2.4: Require that commercial uses developed as part of a mixed-use project (with residential) not be noise intensive. Design mixed-use structures to prevent transfer of noise from the commercial to the residential use. • Policy3.2.5: Require new commercial/industrial operations located in proximity to existing or proposed residential areas to incorporate noise mitigation into project design. • Policy 3.2.6: Replace a significant noise source with non-noise generating land uses when plans for future use of areas are developed. • Policy 3.2.7: Use noise/land use compatibility standards (Table 2) as a guide for future planning and development. • Polio: Review proposed projects in terms of compatibility with nearby noise- sensitive land uses with the intent of reducing noise impacts. • Policy 3.2.9: Review proposed projects in terms of compatibility with nearby 12 _ � [ Table 2' Noise/Lind Use K`0llll]3fibi}'f« W-ifr'x Land Use Category OVB~dB Legend 55 60 65 70 75 80 -----' Ro,iduohu\ ' Single [am/|y, muUirami|y. duplex NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE Spou/fioJ land uSC is Satisfactory R,u/donon| Mobile homes hao^doo �hoamompdonUmtuny buildings involved are of normal Transient Lodging Motels, hotels conventional construction, without any special noise insulation Schools, Libraries, Churches, reqm,mnen/o Hcopox|� �vnm8 Hnmo` ` . COND[T|DNALLYACCCPTABLG Auditoriums, Concert Halls, m 17 New««nstcoonordevelopment Amphitheaters, _o' N�e,vm& R'_Us Should ho undertaken only after a detailed analysis of tile noise Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator requirements is made and needed Sports, �mu�on`nn/ px,ks noise insulation Rm�u�u included ~ . in the design. Conventional construction, � Playgrounds, l�o/ghbodoodParks huc«idhd000dwindov» vnd ��sha(, xupp|ysyntoms nr air conditioning Golf Courses, R/din��mb|ox. Will nonnx||ymOlCu Como/o,io, NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE 0[Dco and Professional Bo/|d/n&o New construction or development should &onom||y be discouraged If it . does proceed, vdo/uU�duoa|youn[ Commercial Retail, Banks,. /hono�on:duo(ionmqu/mm�o� Kosmomnm Theaters. must bu made and needed noise m' Industrial, y�anu{ho0uring. DlUihco. ou|»b»n �o»Nn* Included m �hod��/�o Wholesale, Service,Stations — CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE /\�ncu||om New construction or development should generally'lot boundertaken Snu,Cn Taken in pod firhm/'A',mnrtNoise Impact Planning Ov/do|mcu for Local Agm`um." [}S. Dept, of Housing and Urbnn Development, TB/NA'472, yJorombo, 1972 ' noise- sensitive land uses with the intent of reducing noise impacts. • Policy 3.2.10: Adopt planning guidelines that establish acceptable noise standards for various land uses throughout the City of Grand Terrace, as indicated in Table 1. • Policy 3.2.11 Apply the state's noise insulation standards to the conversion of existing apartments into condominiums wherever feasible. IV. Noise Element Implementation Program: The following programs will implement the goals, objectives and policies of the City's Noise Element: A. Transportation Noise Control: 1. Roadway Improvement Projects: The principal method of protecting sensitive land uses from traffic noise is the construction of noise barriers in concert with road improvement projects. The City will request, where necessary to mitigate identified adverse significant noise impacts, the inclusion of sound walls, earthen berms, or other acoustical barriers as part of any Caltrans or County roadway project. 2. Motor Vehicle Noise Control: To minimize or reduce noise impacts on residential and other sensitive land uses, the Community Development Department, the Building and Safety/Public Works Department, the Police (Sheriff) Department and the California Highway Patrol will: 1) enforce and periodically evaluate truck and bus movements and routes to reduce impacts on sensitive areas, and 2) promote coordination between City Police (Sheriff) and the California Highway Patrol to enforce the State's Motor Vehicle noise standards. 3. Rail Line Noise Control: The principal methods of protecting sensitive land uses from train vehicle noise are the construction of noise barriers, reduction of vehicle speed; the use of well- maintained welded track, rubberized crossings and whistle blowing procedures. The Community Development Department and the Building and Safety/Public Works Department will seek assistance from the Public Utilities Commission,the Southern California Regional Rail Authority and the Railroads to implement these methods. 4. Aviation Noise: Work to reduce noise impacts resulting from aircraft operations at San Bernardino International Airport by 1) participating and monitoring the planning processes for the airport, and 2) continuing to discourage general and commercial aviation activities that increase noise exposure to sensitive land uses. B. Non-Transportation Noise Control: 1. Noise Ordinance Enforcement: 14 The City will enforce its Noise Ordinance to reduce excessive noise from site- specific sources such as construction activity, mechanical equipment, landscaping maintenance, loud music,truck.-traffic, loading and unloading activities, and other sources. C. Noise and Land Use Planning Integration: 1. Noise Ordinance Enforcement: The Community Development Department and the Police (Sheriff) Department will enforce the City's Noise Ordinance to reduce excessive noise from site- specific sources such as construction sites, mechanical equipment, landscaping maintenance, loud music, truck traffic, loading and unloading activities and other sources. 2. Community Standards Application: The Community Development Department, through the Design Review process, will apply the Noise Element standards of compatibility described in Tables 1 and 2 to new development proposals and methods to'mitigate anticipated impacts such as building orientation and acoustical barriers, shall be applied to meet the standards. 3. Noise Insulation: Interior and exterior noise levels for proposed new development shall be required by the Community Development Department and Building and Safety/Public Works Department to meet the California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24 of the California Administrative Code). These standards shall also be applied to all single-family developments and condominium conversion projects where feasible. 4. Acoustical Analysis: Acoustical analysis reports, prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant, will be required by the Community Development Department for new sensitive land uses within noise impact areas (i.e. area where existing or future CNEL exceeds 60 dB). V. General Terms (Noise Evaluation and Measurement): A-Weiehted Sound Level To establish the A-weighted sound level,the acoustical signal is detected by the microphone and then filtered to weight those portions of the noise that are most annoying to individuals. This weighting of sound energy corresponds approximately to the relative annoyance experienced by humans from noise at various frequencies. The sound levels of a few typical sources of noise that are routinely experienced by people within Grand Terrace are listed in Figure 5. J The A-weighted sound level of traffic noise and other long-term noise producing activities within and around a communityvaries considerably with time.Measures of this varying noise level are accomplished by obtaining statistical samples. For the purposes of this study, the 15 following statistical values have been used: Leq: The energy equivalent(average)sound level. This value is most representative of the long-term amloyance potential as well as other effects of the noise. Lmax: The maximum sound level. Lmin: The minimum sound level. Ln: The sound level exceeded n% of the time (e.g.,L25 is the sound level exceeded 25% of the time). These measures may be recorded to obtain representative samples of the noise during certain time periods (e.g., peak traffic period, late evening, early morning, etc.). Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) It is recognized that a given level of noise may be more or less tolerable depending on the duration of exposure and the time of day during which the noise is experienced. There are several measures of noise exposure that consider not only the variation of noise level but also include temporal characteristics. Of these, the State Department of Aeronautics and the California Commission of Housing and Community Development have adopted the CNEL. This measure weights the average noise level for the evening hours (from 7:00 p.m.to 10:00 p.m.) by 5 dB, and the late evening and early morning hours (from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) by 10 dB.The un-weighted daytime noise levels are combined with these weighted levels and averaged to obtain a CNEL value. Figure 6 indicates the outdoor CNEL at typical locations throughout the Southern California area. Acceptable Exterior Noise Exposures Figure 7 indicates the CNEL considered acceptable for various land use categories. In general, exterior noise exposures at residential locations should not exceed a CNEL of 65 dB. The Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)has recommended a policy stating that an Ldn (or CNEL)of 55 dB should not be exceeded within exterior living spaces. However,the EPA emphasizes that this level of exposure may not be economically feasible, or, in many cases; a practical level to achieve Acceptable Interior Noise Exposures California' s noise insulation standards were officially adopted by the California Commission of Housing and Community Development in 1974 and became effective on August 22. 1974. On November 14, 1988, the Building Standards Commission approved revisions to these standards (Title 24, Part 2, California Code of Regulations). The ruling states that. "Interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dB in any habitable room. The noise metric shall be either ... Ldn or ... CNEL, consistent with 16 Threshold of pain 120 dB(A) Disco 110 dB(A) Textile mill Printing plant 100 dB(A) Jackhammer at 50' Po,ver lawn mower at 5' 90 dB(A) Heavy truck at 50' — Concrete mixer at 50' 80 dB(A) -- — Inside car at 40 mph — 10 dB change generally ,perceived as twice or half as loud Vacuum cleaner at 10' 70 dB(A) -- — Car, 60 mph at 100' — Conversational speech 60 dB(A) • ;5 dB change generally Large transformer at 50' — _ 'perceived as quite noticeable Urban residence 50 dB(A) --;3 dB change is generally barely Small town residence — imperceptible 40 dB(A) -- 1 dB change is generally not Soft whisper at 6' — noticeable 30 dB(A) North run of Grand Canyon 20 dB(A) 10 dB(A) Threshold of hearing 0 dB(A) CITY OF Common Noise Sources GRAND TERRACE and A-Weighted Noise Levels FIGURE 5 c 17 90 dB Next to freeway Los Angeles, 3;4 mi from LAX 80 dB Downtown Los Angeles 70 dB Housing on major street Common standard for noise exposure level in exterior residential areas Los Angeles, 8 mi. from LAX Old suburban residential area 60 dB Small town cul-de-sac 50 dB Common standard for noise exposure level its interior residential areas Farm 40 dB 30 dB CITY OF Common CNEL FIGURE 6h G,kAND TERRACE Noise Exposure Levels at Various Locations a 1� Land Use Category CNEL, dB Legend 55 60 65 70 75 80 Residential -Single farllrly, A A 7.79771::'„C::" NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE multifamily, duplex Specified land use is satisfactory based on the assumption that any Residential - Mobile homes A A 13;: :.:.:::; . "•: : ::.:':: buildings involved are of normal Transient Lodging- Motels, hotels A A B conventional construction, without .: .. ..-: :.... <.:. .... any special noise insulation r+Schools, Libraries, Churches, A A regr.rirements Hospitals, Nursing Homes U CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE New construction or development Auditoriums, Concert Hal Is, B ?::: should be undertaken only after a i Amphitheaters, Meeting Halls detailed analysis of the noise requirements is made and needed Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator A A A B;:::: . B'•:: noise insulation features included Sports, Amusement Parks in the design Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks A A A B supply systems or air condilronnrg will normally suffice Golf Courses, Riding Stables, A A A A ...'; :.::•;' Cemeteries' L• NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE Office and Professional Buildings A A A New construction or development B..... ...:.B:.:. . ..c:`:` should generally be discouraged. If it ' does proceed, a detailed analysis of Commercial Retail, Banks, A A A A B,.;' ';"C'':;.: the noise reduction requirements Restaurants, Theaters must be made and needed noise in- Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, A A A A �....B:._. " `B::" `.".:B sulation features included in the design Wholesale, Service Stations CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE New construction or development Agriculture A A A A A A A should generally not be undertaken Source Talcen in part from "Aircraft Noise impact Planning Guidelines for Local Agencies," U S Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, TE/NA-472, November 1972. CITY or GRAND TERRACE Land Use Compatibility 1`6I' Community Noise Envir•olltllents RGURE 7 the noise element of the local general plan." Additionally, the Commission specifies that residential buildings or structures to be located within exterior CNEL (or Ldn) contours of 60 dB or greater of an existing or adopted freeway, expressway,parkway, major street, thoroughfare, rail line, rapid transit line, or industrial noise source shall require an acoustical analysis showing that the building has been designed to limit intruding noise to an interior CNEL of 45 dB. Annoyance and Health Considerations In general, noise may affect the average individual in the following ways: General Hearine Loss or Damaee Sound levels which exceed 85 dB (A), when experienced for long durations during each working day, may result in severe temporary or even permanent hearing loss. State and federal safety and health regulations currently protect workers at levels of exposure that exceed 90 dB (A) for each 8-hour workday. Interference With Oral Communication Speech intelligibility is impaired when sound levels exceed 60 dB (A). The amount of interference.increases with sound level and distance between speaker and listener. Sleep Interference Sound levels that exceed 40 to 45 dB (A) are generally considered to be excessive for sleeping areas within a residence. VI. Definitions: The following common terms are used throughout the Noise Element Technical Memorandum Ambient Noise The composite of noise from all sources near and far. In this context,the ambient noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environ nental noise at a given location. Amplitude A measure of the difference between atmospheric pressure (with no sound present) and the total pressure (with sound present). Although there are other measures of sound amplitude, sound pressure is the fundamental measure.The unit of sound pressure is the decibel,denoted dB. A- Weiehted Sound Pressure Level. dB (A) The sound pressure level, in decibels, as measured on a sound level meter using the A- weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and a very high frequency component of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear and gives good correlation with subjective reactions to noise. 20 Community Noise Equivalent Level. CNEL The average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24-hour day obtained by adding five decibels to the hourly noise levels measured during the evening(from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm) and by adding ten decibels to the hourly noise levels measured during the night(from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am). In this way,CNEL takes into account the lower tolerance of people for noise during evening and nighttime periods. Day-Night Sound Level. Ldn The measure of noise exposure used by the EPA,HUD,FAA and the Department of Defense. It is the same as CNEL except that the weighting considered (in CNEL) between the hours from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm is eliminated. Throughout this technical memorandum, Ldn and } CNEL are assumed to be the same measure.This is consistent with the recommended practice of the State of California Office of Noise Control. Decibel. dB A unit for describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the measured sound to the reference pressure,which is 20 micro Pascals. Because they are logaritlunic,decibels are not additive. If two similar noise sources produce the same amount of noise (e.g., 100 decibels each),the total noise level will be 103 dB,not 200 dB. An increase in noise level of 10 dB is generally perceived as being twice as loud. Exterior Living Space Open area designed for outdoor living and/or recreation. Maximum Noise Level The maximum instantaneous noise level that occurs during a specific time interval. In acoustics, the maximum sound pressure level is understood to be for single events,unless some other kind of level is specified. Noise Annoying, harmful, or unwanted sound. Noise Barrier A structure designed to mitigate the impact generated by a noise source(e.g.,an arterial or rail line)at an adjacent noise-sensitive location.Barriers should be continuous structures without gaps and should be constructed of a material that is impervious to noise(e.g.,concrete block, stucco-on-wood, wood-on-wood, Y4" tempered glass, earthen berm, or any combination of these materials). Noise Contour A line drawn around a noise source indicating constant levels of noise exposure. CNEL is the metric utilized herein to describe community exposure to noise. 21 Noise Impact Area A specific area exposed to significant levels of noise. Noise Reduction The ability of a material to reduce the noise level from one place to another or between one room and another.Noise reduction is specified in decibels. Noise-Sensitive Land Uses Noise-sensitive land uses include, but are not limited to: residences, schools, libraries, hospitals,churches,offices,hotels.motels, and outdoor recreational areas. These typify land uses where suitability is restricted by intrusive noises. Hence, they are termed "noise- sensitive". Noise sensitivity factors include interference with speech communication, subjective judgment of noise acceptability and relative noisiness,need for freedom from noise intrusion,and sleep interference criteria.The Land Use Element of the General Plan provides a description of the residential areas throughout the city and is considered the source for the inventory of noise-sensitive areas. Sound As used herein,sound is a reaction in the ear caused by radiant energy being transmitted from a source by longitudinal pressure waves in air or some other elastic medium. Sound Level Meter A measurement instrument containing a microphone, an amplifier, an output meter, and one or more frequency weighting networks. It is used for the determination of sound levels. VI. References: 1. "Information on Levels of Equipment Noise requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, "U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 1974. 2. "Highway Noise;"U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, FHWW-RD-1 08, FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, December 1978. 3. "Circulation Element, Master Plan of Streets and Highways," adopted August 27, 1998. 4. "City of Grand Terrace, Barton Road/Mt. Vernon Avenue Entering-Exiting Volume Count," Counts Unlimited, July 1998. 5. City of Grand Terrace Census Data Map, October 1999. 22 6. Final Project Study Report on Interstate 215 Between RIV P.M. R38.15 and P.M. 45.33, SBD P.M. 0.00 and P.M. 5.03 and RIV P.M> 18.9 and 44.8," May 1993. 7. "Assessment of Noise Environments Around Railroad Operations, " Wyle Laboratories Report WCR 73.5, July 1973. 8. "Volume 3,Norton Air Force Base Master Plan, San Bernardino International Trade Port, Aviation Environmental Constraints/Potentials, "Aviation System Associates. 9. "Airport Master Plan for the Civilian Use of Norton Air Force Base, " P&D Technologies. 10. "Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of Noise Elements fo the General Plan," Office of Noise Control, California Department of Health, February 1976. 11. "Aircraft Noise Impact Planning Guidelines for Local Agencies,"U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, TE//NA 472,November 1972. 12. T.T. Schultz, "Noise Assessment Guidelines - Technical Background; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Report No. TE/TN 172, 1971. 13. "A Study of the Magnitude of Transportation Noise Generation and Potential Abatement, "U.S. Department of Transportation (a set of seven reports), 1970. 14. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances; " U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,-Report P.B. 206 717 National Technical Information Service No.NTIS 300.1), 1971. 15. "Industrial Noise Manual,"American Industrial Hygiene Association (14125 Prevost Street, Detroit, Michigan 48227). 1966. 16. "Noise Control in Multi-Family Dwellings,"U.S. Department of Housing and Urban development (supersedes FHA No. 750), 1963. 23 t�TY _- f*, i PND: P NEGATIVE DECLARATION Document Type: Negative Declaration Date: October 9,2003 Project Title. Noise Element of the City's General Plan - General Plan Amendment No. 03- 01 & Environmental Review Case No. 03-05 Project Location: Citywide-City of Grand Terrace ■ Description of Project: The project proposes to adopt a new Noise Element for the General Plan of the City of Grand Terrace as required by the Government Code.The new Noise Element has been prepared in conformance with the General Plan Guidelines of the State and will replace current noise provisions in the existing General Plan. The new Noise Element will be considered by the Planning Commission on July 17, 2003 who will make a recommendation to the City Council which will hold its own public hearing on this matter on October 9,2003. _ Project Proponent: Community Development Department, City of Grand Terrace Lead Agency: Community Development Department, City of Grand Terrace Contact Person: Gary L. Koontz, Community Development Director (909)430-2247 Public Review Period: Began:June 28, 2003 Ended: October 9, 2003 Public Hearings/Meetings: Planning Commission—Thursday,July 17, 2003 at 7:00 P.M. City Council -Thursday, October 9, 2003 at 6:30 P.M. Environmental Finding: Based on an Initial Study, attached hereto, prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of approving the Noise Element,the said Noise Element qualifies for a Negative Declaration on the grounds that the said Noise Element will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Signature: 7i Gary L. K-6ontz, Co unity Development Director c:\MyFiles\JOHN\NOIAW-ELEMENT\i3egativedeclarationGPA03-01 ATTACHMENT 4 City of Grand Terrace Community and Economic Development Department Environmental Checklist Form 1 Project Title: City of Grand Terrace General Plan Revision—GPA-03-01/E- 03-05 to adopt a new Noise Element as required by the Government Code. 2. Lead Agency Name and Address City of Grand Terrace Community Development Department 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace,CA 92313 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Gary L.Koontz,Community Development Director: (909)430- 2247 4. Project Location. City-Wide, City of Grand Terrace, CA 92313 5 Project Sponsor's Name City of Grand Terrace Community Development Department 6 General Plan Designation. N/A 7 Zoning: N/A S. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The proposed project is to adopt a new Noise Element for the City's General Plan in conformance with the General Plan Guidelines. State law requires each City and County of have a general plan with seven (7) mandatory elements. The Noise Element is one of the mandatory elements of the General Plan along with such other elements as the Land Use, Housing and Circulation Elements The proposed new Noise Element will replace the existing noise provisions in the Hazards Element of the existmg General Plan. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) North: N/A. East: N/A. South: N/A. West: N/A. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement) None Community Development Department ] Initial Study and Environmental Analysis Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use and Planning ❑ Transportation/Circulation ❑ Public Services ❑ Population and Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities and Services Systems ❑Geological Problems ❑Energy and Mineral Resources ❑Aesthetics ❑Water ❑Hazards ❑ Cultural Resources ❑Air Quality ❑Noise ❑Recreation ❑Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination: On the basis of this initial evaluation(To be completed by the Lead Agency): ® I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required ❑ l find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment,but at least one effect I)has been adequately analyzed m an earlier document to applicable legal standards,and 2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysts as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there WILL NOT be significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. SigSig nature Date Gary L. Koontz Community Development Director Printed Name Title Community Development Department 2 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved,including off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potential Significant Impact"is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potential Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, and EIR is required. 4) "Potential Significant Unless Mitigated Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potential Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level(mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses,'' may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier Analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). References to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. Community Development Department 3 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated I. Land Use and Planning. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan desienation or zoning? ❑ ❑ ❑ (Source: General Plan Categories Map; Zoning District Map; BRSP District Map) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( There are no known agencies where the proposed Noise Element would cause a conflict. ) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ (Zoning District Map, BRSP- Zoning Regulations, City Zoning Code) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (There are no significant agricultural resources in Grand Teri-ace) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an ❑ ❑ ❑ ` established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (No specific development is proposed by the proposed Noise Element. ) A brief explanation to answer 1: The proposed Noise Element will be designed to have a positive effect on the community by proposing goals, objectives and policies to guide the City in minimizing or avoiding the adverse effect of noise on the existing residents of the City and future residents. No conflicts will result with existing or future development in the City. H. Population and Housing. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ A brief explanation to answer I1- The proposed project is to adopt a new Noise Element for the City's General Plan. The purpose of the Noise Element is to limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise not to facilitate new development. Therefore no growth inducement is expected from the adoption of the Noise Element and no disruption of exiting housing stock is anticipated Community Development Department 4 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated M Geologic Problems. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: 'a) Fault rupture? (General Plan MEA/EIR - ES-4) ❑ ❑ ❑ `� b) Seismic ground shaking?(GP MEA/EIR-II-1) ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (GP ❑ ❑ ❑ _ MEA/EIR - II-1) ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Seiches, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (GP MEA/EIR II-1) ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Landslides or mudflows? (GP MEA/EIR II-1) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil ❑ ❑ ❑ conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (GP ❑ ❑ ❑ MEA/EIR II-20) g) Subsidence of the land? (GP MEA/EIR II-1, Append B) ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Expansive soil? (GP MEA/EIR II-1, Append B-4 ) I) Unique geologic or physical features? (GP MEA/EIR ❑ ❑ ❑ II-1) ❑ ❑ ❑ A brief explanation to answer III• The proposed project is to adopt a new Noise Element for the City's General Plan. No specific development is called for by the Noise Element:therefore there will be no geologic problems resulting from the adoption of the Noise Element. Community Development Department 5 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis Issues (and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated IV. Water. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates; drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (GP MEA/EIR II-1 ❑ ❑ ❑ Append B) b) Expose to people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (GP MEA/EIR II-1) ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality(e.g., temperature, dissolved ❑ ❑ ❑ oxygen or turbidity)? (GP MEA/EIR II-1) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (GP MEA/EIR II-1) ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? O ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Changes in the quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception ❑ ❑ ❑ of an aquifer by cuts or excavations; or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (GP MEA/EIR II-1) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (GP MEA/EIR II-l) ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (GP MEA/EIR II-1, ` and 97 Regional WCA Report) ❑ ❑ ❑ I) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (GP ❑ ❑ ❑ MEA/EIR II-1) A brief explanation to answer IV: The proposed project is to adopt a new Noise Element for the City's General Plan. No specific development is called for by the Noise Element,therefore there will be no adverse impacts on water resources resulting from the adoption of the Noise Element. Conununity Development Department 6 Initial Study and Environmental - Analysis Issues (and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated V. Air Quality. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an ❑ ❑ ❑ existing or projected air quality violation? (GP MEA/EIR II-14, and AQMP) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (The Element ❑ ❑ ❑ contains an implementing action to reduce such exposure) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause ❑ ❑ ❑ any change in climate? (Any such implementing actions are designed to have a positive effect on the region's air quality) d) Create objectionable odors? (No specific odor causing ❑ ❑ ❑ proposals are included in the Element ) 1 brief explanation to answer V: The proposed project is to adopt a new Noise Element for the City's General Plan. No specific development is called for by the Noise Element;therefore there will be no adverse impacts on air quality resulting from the adoption of the Noise Element. VI. Transportation/Circulation. Would the proposal result : a) Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ❑ ❑ ❑ (Trans. Engineering and Planning Consultant) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑ sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses? ( ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to ❑ ❑ ❑ nearby uses? ( ) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or ❑ ❑ ❑ bicyclists? (TCM Ordinance 147) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (TCM Ordinance 147) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? () ❑ ❑ ❑ Community Development Department 7 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis Issues (and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Brief explanation to answer VI: The proposed project is to adopt a new Noise Element for the City's General Plan. No specific development is called for by the Noise Element;therefore there will be no adverse impact on traffic in the City or region resulting from the adoption of the Noise Element. _ VII. Biological Resources. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (GP MEA/EIR II-20, Append C) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ trees)? (GP MEA/EIR II-20) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (GP MEA/EIR II-20) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ vernal pool)? ( ) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ❑ ❑ ❑ (GP MEA/EIR II-20) Brief explanation to answer VII: The proposed project is to adopt a new Noise Element for the City's General Plan. No specific development is called for by the Noise Element;therefore there will be no adverse impact on biological resources resulting from the adoption of the Noise Element. Indeed,the positive results of the Noise Element will encourage the protection of the biological resources of the community. Conunnunity Development Department 8 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated V111. ]Energy and Mineral Resources. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ conservation plans? (GP MEA/EIR II-19, and Append D) b) Use non-renewable resources in a ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (GP MEA/EIR II-19, and Append B) Brief explanation to answer VI11. No mineral resources have been identified in the City. The proposed project is to adopt a new Noise Element for the City's General Plan. No specific development is called for by the Noise Element;therefore there will be no impact on energy or mineral resources resulting,from the adoption of the Noise Element. Community Development Department 9 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis Issues (and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated IX. Hazards. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or ❑ ❑ ❑ release of hazardous substance (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? (GP MEA/EIR 11-7) b) Possible interference with ❑ ❑ ❑ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (GT Emergency Plan, and GP MEA/EIR II-13) c) The creation of any health hazard or ❑ ❑ ❑ potential health hazard? (GP MEA/EIR II-1) d) Exposure of people to existing ❑ ❑ ❑ sources of potential health hazards? (GP MEA/EIR II-1) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with ❑ ❑ ❑ flammable brush, grass, or trees? (GP MEA/EIR II-6) Brief explanation to answer IX The proposed project is to adopt a new Noise Element for the City's General Plan. No specific development is called for by the Noise Element;therefore there will be no hazard increases resulting from the adoption of the Noise Element_ X. Noise. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ (GP MEA/EIR II-10) b) Exposure of people to severe noise ❑ ❑ ❑ levels? (GP MEA/EIR II-10) Community Development Department 10 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Brief explanation to answer X. The adoption of the Noise Element will provide the goals, objective and policy guidelines to reduce the exposure of the population to unacceptable noise levels and to reduce overall noise impact in the community. The adoption of a new Noise Element will have a beneficial or positive impact on noise health for the community. XI. Public Services. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ b) Police protection? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ c) Schools? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ d) Maintenance of public facilities, ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ including roads? ( ) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Brief explanation of answer XI. The proposed project is to adopt a new Noise Element for the City's General Plan. No specific development is called for by the Noise Element,therefore there will be no adverse impacts on public services resulting from the adoption of the Noise Element. Community Development Department 1 l Initial Study and Environmental Analysis Issues (and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated XII. Utilities and Services Systems. Would the proposal result in a need for-new systems or supplies; or substantial alternations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (GP ❑ ❑ ❑ MEA/EIR II-32, II-33) b) Communications systems? (GP ❑ ❑ ❑ MEA/EIR II-33) c) Local or regional water treatment or ❑ ❑ ❑ distribution facilities? (GP MEA/EIR I1-30) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (GP ❑ ❑ ❑ MEA/EIR II-3 0) e) Storm water drainage? (GP ❑ ❑ ❑ MEA/EIR II-33) fl Solid waste disposal? (GP ❑ ❑ ❑ MEA/EIR II-32) g) Local or regional water supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑ (GP MEA/EIR II-30) Brief explanation of answer XII. The proposed project is to adopt a new Noise Element for the City's General Plan. No specific development is called for by the Noise Element;therefore there will be no utility and service systems resulting from the adoption of the Noise Element. XIII. Aesthetics. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ highway? (GP MEA/EIR II-22) b) Have a demonstrable negative ❑ ❑ ❑ aesthetic effect? ( ) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ Brief explanation to answer XIII The proposed project is to adopt a new Noise Element for the City's General Plan. No specific development is called for by the Noise Element;therefore there will be no adverse impact on aesthetics resulting from the adoption of the Noise Element. Community Development Department 12 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated XIV. Cultural Resources. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ (GP MEA/EIR II-20) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ (GP MEA/EIR II-20) c) Affect historical resources? (GP ❑ ❑ ❑ MEA/EIR II-22) d) Have the potential to cause a ❑ ❑ ❑ physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (GP MEA/EIR II-22) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred ❑ ❑ ❑ uses within the potential impact area? ( ) Brief explanation to answer XIV. The proposed project is to adopt a new Noise Element for the City's General Plan. No specific development is called for by the Noise Element;therefore there will be no adverse impact on cultural resources resulting from the adoption of the Noise Element. In addition,there are no known archaeological or paleontological resources in the community. XV. Recreation. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for ❑ ❑ ❑ neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (GP MEA/EIR II-21) b) Affect existing recreational ❑ ❑ ❑ opportunities? (GP MEA/EIR 11-21) Brief explanation to answer XV. The proposed project is to adopt a new Noise Element for the City's General Plan. No specific development is called for by the Noise Element;therefore there will be impact to the recreation facilities of the community resulting from the adoption of the Noise Element. Community Development Department 13 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated XVI. Mandatory findings of significance.- a) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plant or animal, eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, envirorunental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of other probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ effects which will cause substantial adverse effect on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Community Development Department 14 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Brief explanation to answers XVI. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is the adoption of a new Noise Element to the City's General Plan. No specific development is proposed by the new Noise Element. Its policies are designed to improve the environment for both existing and future residents of the City. Therefore, the overall environmental impacts, if any, will be.less than significant. XVII. Earlier Analysis. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR, or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. ■ Used the Grand Terrace General Plan Master Environmental Assessment and EIR for most of the base impact information. Both documents are available at the Grand Terrace Community and Economic Development Department. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measured based on the earlier analysis. ■ Not Applicable c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measured which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent they address site specific conditions for the proj ect. ■ Not Applicable J JLJI Grand Terrace Community and Economic Development Dept Community Development Department 15 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis Issues (and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Authority:Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. References:Public Resources Code Sections 21080(c),21080.1,21080.3,21082.1,21083,21083.3,210933 21094,21151;Sunstrom v County of Mendocino,202 Cal.App.3d 296(1988);Leonoff v.Monterey Board of Supervisors,22 Cal.App:3d 1337(1990) c:\wp61\..\planning\john\air\e9911.i.s Community Development Department 16 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY,OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA-03-01,E-03-05 ADDING THE NOISE ELEMENT AND RESPECTIVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHEREAS, per State Law the General Plan is the top hierarchical document providing guidance to the City's orderly growth and development; and WHEREAS, per State Law each element of the City General Plan shall be consistent with each of the others and all other City development documents shall be consistent with it also; and WHEREAS, the Noise Element is consistent with all other General Plan Elements as they stand; and WHEREAS, per State law the General Plan shall be periodically updated to reflect community values, City long term goals and reasonably current data; and WHEREAS,the Government Code of the State requires that a City's General Plan contain a Noise Element; and WHEREAS, the Noise Element will guide the City in enacting those measures to limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels; and WHEREAS,the Noise Element includes the following: 1) a "Summary" covering the main points in the Noise Element; 2) a discussion of the purpose and reason for the Noise Element; 3) the results of a noise survey in the City; 4) a discussion of the future noise enviromnent in the City of Grand Terrace; 5) identification of important noise issues; 6) a statement of goals, objectives and an implementing program; and, 7) a discussion of noise evaluation and measurement terms. WHEREAS, the Noise Element addresses all noise issues outlined in the State Guidelines to prepare a Noise Element for the General Plan; and WHEREAS,the Noise Element has provided the City with specific implementing actions which can guide the City in its responsibilities to enact those measures for achieving and maintaining environmental noise control for the residents of the City; and ATTACHMENT 5 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at its meeting of July 17, 2003, recommended approval of the Noise Element following a public hearing on this matter; and WHEREAS, the City Council,at its meeting of October 9, 2003, held a properly noticed public hearing for the approval of the Noise Element and the respective Negative Declaration. NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Repeal those portions of the existing Hazards Element of the General Plan which relate to Noise Hazards. Section 2: Adopt the Noise Element in full as incorporated hereby as Attachment "A" in this Ordinance. Section 3: Adopt the Negative Declaration, Attachment "B" Section 4: Direct staff to amend any other City document,map or plan which is not in conformance with the adopted Noise Element. Section 5: Effective Date: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the 31 st day of its adoption. Section 6: Posting: The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3) public places within fifteen(15) days of its adoption, as designated for such purpose by the City Council. Section 7: First reading at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on the October 9,2003,and finally adopted and ordered posted at a regular meeting of said City Council on the 23rd day of October, 2003. ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace and of the Grand Terrace and of City Council thereof the City Council thereof I, BRENDA STANFILL, City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace, California„ do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on the 23 rd day of October,2003,by the following vote: AYES : NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: City Clerk Brenda Stanfill Approved as to form: City Attorney John Harper c:\MyFi I esV oli"OI SE-ELEMENIIordinance.noise