The URL can be used to link to this page

03/28/2002 CITr L� COPY , GWIND TEktR ce March 28,2002 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace California 92313=5295 Civic Center (909)824-6621 Fax(909)783-7629 'ae(909)783-2000 .-CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Dan Buchanan ' Mayor CRA/CITY-COUNCIL" Lcc Ann Garcia = Mayor ProTem. REGULARMEETINGS - Hrr;nan Hilkey DonLarkin 2ND AND 4M Thursdays -' 6:00--p.m. . - Nfaryctta Ferre Caunril Members Thomds 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 MARCH 28, 2002 GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER 6:00 P.M. 22795 Barton Road ' - - L1 TIE S-A - O, FJ99CS WDISME C D FCOP.LI V 1THT ANN TH YObf',!THECITYO .GRATDTERXCEM i x. .�REUMS EdO S , ING -LEASK,. . . CITY,CLERK7Q ,,T ra. LU, Mr, URS. 0 -T19 - NIJAE-A 2 110.FFICK 24* 21�AT. ST?4& OR T.W.TTIM.MEEMiG HAN!zUNDE,kiP',U' 1BLIC&MTHE" "'T 1��-YOODES M"I„Q','`ADDRE-S "D.7 .1 �LXASR`,'-C WtETSK' KRE 9P F RM,'-,AVAM`ABLK",THE,, 'QUVE9T',�V Mkift"You, hAk 0 W, YVE RK,,iSPTA.MR&,MUXBE�.0 !ED,UPON,, !KAXOX TIJ ,V T in, VW 4 ....... "No i Z u�,v Call to Order- Invocation- Pledge of Allegiance- Roll Call- STAFF COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS RECOMMENDATION ACTION CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1. Approval of 03-14-2002 Minutes Approve 2. Check Register CR0206 Approve 3. Richard Rollins Park/Terrace Hills Middle School Renovation Authorize Project Design Contract ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1. Items to Delete 2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS A. Proclamation-Child Abuse Prevention Month-April 2002 B. Proclamation-National Community Development Week- April 1 -7,2002 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. Approval of Check Register CO206 Approve B. Ratify 03-28-2002 CPA Action C. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda D. Approval of 03-14-2002 Minutes Approve E. Resolution Filing an Application with the California Approve/Authorize Department of Parks and Recreation for Land and Water Conservation Funds I 1 11 i I COUNCIL AGENDA '- 03-28-2002 PAGE 2 OF 2 1 1 I I AGENDA ITEMS STAFF COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS ACTION F. Resolution Filing an Application with the California Approve/Authorize Department of Parks and Recreation[for Per Capita Grant Program Funds G. Resolution Filing an Application with the California Approve/Authorize Department of Parks :and Recreation!for Roberti-Z'Berg- Harris Open Space Program Local Assistance Funds H. Economic Development Update 4. PUBLIC COMMENT I ' 5. ORAL REPORTS A. Committee Reports 1. Emergency Operations Committee a. Minutes of February 4,2002 Accept, I 2. Historical and Cultural Activities Committee a. Minutes of March 4,2002 Accept B. Council Reports � I 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS ! A. An Ordinance of the i City,of Grand,Terrace, California, Approve- Amending the Grand Terrace Zoning Code by Adding I , 4 Certain Definitions to Chapter 18.06'Relative to.Second j Family Unit and Single Family Detached Residential; By Amending Chapter 18.69 Regarding the Provisions for Second Family Units Ito Comply with State Law; and by Modifying Table 18.1 Q.030 to Allow for a Second,Full Sized i Single Family Unit in the City's Multifamily Residential i Zones. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS i I A. Northwest Comer Parking at Mt. Vernon /Grand Terrace Road I 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Franchise Amendment:Waste Management Services Approve I I 9. CLOSED SESSION A. City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation ADJOURN f ' i f I THE NEXT CRA/CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON THURSDAY APRIL 11 2002. .......................z..................:.................................... .................................... AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS FOR THE 04=11-2002 MEETING MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BY NOON 04-04-2002. f PENDING C R A APPROVAL. CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MARCH 14,2002 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 March 14, 2002 at 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Dan Buchanan, Chairman Lee Ann Garcia, Vice-Chairwoman Herman Hilkey, Agency Member Don Larkin, Agency Member Maryetta Ferre, Agency Member Tom Schwab, Executive Director Brenda Stanfill, City Clerk Steve Berry, Assistant City Manager Larry Ronnow, Finance Director Jerry Glander,Building& Safety Director Lt. Hector Guerra, Sheriff's Department 1 ABSENT• John Harper, City Attorney APPROVAL OF 02-28-2002 MINUTES CRA-2002-15 MOTION BY AGENCY MEMBER HILKEY,SECOND BY AGENCY MEMBER FERRE, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the February 28, 2002 Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes. CHECK REGISTER CR0205 CRA-2002-16 MOTION BY AGENCY MEMBER LARKIN, SECOND BY VICE- CHA]RWOMAN GARCIA, CARRIED 5-0, to approve check register CR0205. SECOND TAX INCREMENT AGREEMENT WITH COLTON JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT CRA-2002-17 MOTION BY AGENCY:MEMBER HICKEY,SECOND BY AGENCY MEMBER LARKIN, CARRIED 5-0, to approve a Second Tax Increment Agreement by and Among the City of Grand Terrace, City of Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Agency and Colton Joint Unified School District and authorize the Mayor to execute said Agreement. Chairman Buchanan adjourned the Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting at 6:15 p.m. until GRA AGENDA ITEM NO. I Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes j March 14, 2002 Page 2 the next CRA/City Council Meeting scheduled to be held on Thursday,March 28,2002 at 6:00 p.m. SECRETARY of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace CHAIRMAN of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace I ' I I ' � I ' I � � I i ' I ' I ' � I I I i I i I i I i i ' I '-%'DING C R A APPROVAL CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: MARCH 28, 2002 CHECK REGISTER NO: CR0206 OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: MARCH 28, 2002 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CHECK# VENDOR BIRTHDAY BONUS 15.00 13920 JOHN LAMPE 184.23 13921 VERIZON WIRELESS-LA USAGE-5 CELL PHONES-HOUSING " BIRTHDAY BONUS, , 50.00 13924 JEFF GOLLIHAR 150.00 46736 DAN BUCHANAN MARCH AGENCY STIPEND 100.00 46739 CLEANING SERVICES CLEANING SERVICES-BLDG & SAFETY 75.87 46740 DANKA OFFICE IMAGING COMPANY FEBRUARY BASIC & PER COPY FEES 7,336.68 46744 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS FEBRUARY SERVICES 156.25 46745 EDEN SYSTEMS TRAIN ING-GUAP/BP & INSTALLATION MARCH AGENCY STIPEND 150.00 46747 MARYETTA FERRE' LARKIN MARCH AGENCY DONATION 150.00 46751 G.T. FIRE & RESCUE ASSOCIATION MARCH AGENCY STIPEND 150.00 46752 LEE ANN GARCIA 150.00 46756 HERMAN HICKEY MARCH AGENCY STIPEND PLANNING SERVICES 3/6 THROUGH 3/18/02 715.00 46766 JEFF GOLLIHAR 46775 PETTY CASH 6.00 REIMBURSE PETTY CASH n 00 46781 ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP'INC. TAX INCREMENT TRACKING, ETC. 179.66 38 a 46788 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN OFFICE SUPPLIES . 46792 TEXACO FUEL-HOUSING VEHICLE .51 Q 46802 WESTERN EXTERMINATORS MONTHLY PEST CONTROL-HOUSING 32.00 Z 946989 U.S. BANK TRUST N.A. MARCH BOND LEASE PAYMENT 23,325.92 TOTAL 32 970.12 p r Z O 1 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: MARCH 28, 2002 CHECK REGISTER NO: CR0206 OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: MARCH 28, 2002 I CERTIFY THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,THE AFORE LISTED CHECKS FOR PAYMENT OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIABILITIES HAVE BEEN AUDITIED BY ME AND ARE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE EXPENDITURES FOR THE OPERATION OF THE AGENCY. LARRY RONNOW FINANCE DIRECTOR i �1Ty RAND TER Community Services Department Staff Report MEETING DATE: March 28, 2002 SUBJECT: Richard Rollins Park/Terrace Hills Middle School Renovation Project Design Contract FUNDV G REQUIRED (X) BACKGROLtiD: In January 2001, the City Council approved a design concept for the renovation of Richard Rollins Park. The planned project includes major renovations to both the City park and the athletic fields of Terrace Hill Middle School. The City maintains an agreement with the Colton Unified School District for the joint use of city and school properties for recreational purposes. In March 2002, the City Redevelopment Agency approved an agreement between the Agency and the School District to commit S1,600,000 in Redevelopment Agency tax increment funds.previously allocated to the School District to be used to fund the park renovation project. Additional funds for this project are available through 2000 State Park Bond funds ($162,453) and potential grant monies from the Land and Water Conservation Fund administered through the State Department of Parks and Recreation($150,000 to $200,000). The first task in moving forward with this project was the preparation of a Request For Proposals(RFP) for design services. On February 22, 2002, the City sent RFPs to seven qualified landscape design firms. On March 14, 2002, the City received four proposals. City staff reviewed the proposals for completeness, prior experience with similar projects, overall project understanding, timing, and budgets. Based upon-this reviewed, Staff recommends that the City enter into a professional services agreement with the firm of Community Works Design Group. This recommendation is based upon the following: 1. The firm has extensive experience with similar projects throughout Southern California with many previous projects within the Inland Empire. 2. The firm is locally based in the City of Riverside. All subconsultants are also local. 3. The firm has previous experience with the City of Grand Terrace through their involvement in the design and landscaping of City Hall. 4. Previous clients were contacted regarding the firm's performance. All references indicate that the firm performed their services on time and within budget. 5. They have proposed a realistic timeline of six months for completion of the construction drawings. 6. Their proposal includes all services necessary to design and bid facility construction includine modifications to the conceptual plan, design development drawings, construction documents, bid specifications, and construction management services. 7. Thev have proposed a total fee for services of$117,650, the lowest total fee of all qualified proposers. This amount includes S18,845 for the architectural design of the proposed concession/restroom building that may be reduced or eliminated if a prefabricated building system is used. 1 CRA AGENDA ITEM NO. .� I I I RECOMMENDATION: i That the City Council: j I 1. Authorize,Staff to prepare an agreement for professional design services with Community , Works Design Group for execution by the Mayor. Fiscal Impact: A maximum expenditure of$117,650 of existing Redevelopment Agency tax increment funds previously allocated to the Colton Unified School District. I I i I I i I I � I I i I I i i I � i i i I I I I I I I I I I I i I SOD 4► am att]an CHILD AB USE PREVENTION MONTH April 2002 � ll'HEREAS,April 2002 has been proclaimed as Child Abuse Prevention,Month by the state_and federal government for the purpose ofpromoting community involvement in preventing child abuse; all children have the right to receive the care,protection and guidance a family provides; they have the right to be free from harm and to have their physical, emotional and educational needs met;and WHEREAS,almost 54,000 children a year in the County of San Bernardino are referred to the Department of Children's Services(DCS)forsuspected child abuse and neglect,Children's Assessment Center staff,DCS Social Workers, Public Health Nurses, law enforcement officers, k educators,behavioral health clinicians and others in the field are dedicated,compassionate and skilled individuals working under enormous pressure to protect children;the prevention of child .� abuse requires rigorous solutions, energy,strength, determination and commitment on the part �— of concerned citizens and the community,and WHEREAS,the Blue Ribbon is the international symbol for child abuse prevention;the Children's Network and Children's Fund in partnership with the Department of Children's Services,Department of Public Health,County Superintendent of Schools,Sheriffs Department, Regional Parks, County Fire Department, Child Care Planning Council, Department of Behavioral Health,Transition alAssistanceDepartment,Housing Authority ofthe County ofSan � Bernardino, Preschool Services Department, County Library, Children's Fund Assessment Center, Loma Linda Children's HospitallSafe Kids Coalition, Arrowhead Regional Medical Center, with the Guasti, Mojave Narrows and Yucaipa Regional Planning Committees have planned a Blue Ribbon:Media Campaign,Educational Materials Distribution,the Annual Shine 4 A Light on Child Abuse Awards Breakfast and the Annual Celebration of Family events for the K month of April to increase awareness of child abuse; - NOW, THEREFORE,I,Dan Buchanan,.Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace, on behalf of the City Council,do hereby proclaim April 2002 as Child Abuse Prevention Month in the City X of Grand Terrace and encourage citizens to participate in the events and to join in the efforts to end child abuses Jfayor of the City of Grand Terrace and of the City Council thereof. This 28'''day of March, 2002. V,.0 <ZZZ;> C'frl it U NATIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEEK April 1 - April 7, 2002 :== a . WHEREAS, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program has 3' operated since 1975 to provide local governments with_the resources required to meet the r needs of persons of low and moderate income, and CDBG funds are used by thousands K :; ofneighborhood based non profit organizations throughout the nation to addresspressing k` neighborhood and human service needs; and J WHEREAS, the Community Development Block Grant Program has had a yr "� significant impact on our local economies through job creation and retention,physical redevelopment and improved local tax bases; and �'� WHEREAS, City, USA and local governments have clearly demonstrated the capacity to administer and customize the CDBG program to identify and resolve pressing local problems,such as affordable housing neighborhood and human services needs,jobs c creation and retention and physical redevelopment; x NOW, THEREFORE, 1, Dan Buchanan,Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace,on 0 behal o the City Council do hereb oin with San Bernardino County in celebratin the l f ty yj ty ' g. o� 28'anniversary of the Community Development Block Grant Program,and proclaim the �x week of April 1 -April 7, 2002 as National Community Development Week in the City of' - ---� Grand Terrace and urge all citizens to join us in recognizing the Community Development k Program and the importance it serves to our community. r''"' X: Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace and of the City Council thereof. This 28' day of March, 2002. �,.� _ PcXb,;-�G C9TY COUNCIL APPROVAL ,-CITY OF GRAND TERRACE CHECK REGISTER NO: CO206 DATE: MARCH 28, 2002 . OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: MARCH 28, 2002 CHECK NO. VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 4,258.17 13919 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM PIERS RTHDAY BONUFOR OLL ENDED 3/1/02 35.00 13920 JOHN LAMPE 181.41 13922 PACIFIC BELL PHONE SERVICE CHARGES ELECTRICITY-STREET LIGHTS/SR. 13923 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY CENTER, ETC. 4,992.77 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 90.33 13925 HOME DEPOT BIRTHDAY BONUS 50.00 13926 ALEXIS ALMAREZ BIRTHDAY BONUS 50.00 13927 JOHN HERNANDEZ 60.00 13928 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DINNER MEETING 3/21-FERRE & GARCIA REIMBURSE CHILD CARE EXPENSE 35.91 46733 SANDRA AH=SUE 235.98 46734 ASCOM HASLER MAILING SYSTEMS 4TH QUARTER MAILING MACHINE RENTAL 209 7- 46735 BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 209.79 50.00 46736 DAN BUCHANAN MARCH.COUNCIL STIPEND 3,000.00 46737 CALIFORNIA CONSERVATION CORPS TRAFFIC SIGNS AN DRAINSTORM NS EPT14 46738 CENTRAL CITY SIGN SERVICE ENANCE & REPAIR 33535. n 46740 DANKA OFFICE IMAGING COMPANY FEBRUARY BASIC & PER COPY FEES 562.14 .08 86 O 46741 DATA PRINT SUPPLIES FOR PLOTTER a 46742 DENISE YU REFUND-DROPPED FROM C. CARE PROGRAM 34. z 31.34 AINTENANCE SUPPLIES n 46743 DUNN-EDWARDS CORPORATION TRAIN NG GL/AP/BP &INSTALLATION 156.25 F 46745 EDEN SYSTEMS 55.25 D 46746 FEDEX DOCUMENT DELIVERY 46747 MARYETTA FERRE' MARCH COUNCIL STIPEND 258.00 m 46748 FOX OCCUPATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS 29'00 C7 46749 J.R. FREEMAN COMPANY OFFICE SUPPLIES. 279.15 n 46750 FRUIT GROWERS SUPPLY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 100. 46751 G.T. FIRE & RESCUE ASSOCIATION LARKIN MARCH STIPEND DONATION 00.00 46752 LEE ANN GARCIA MARCH COUNCIL STIPEND 0.00 Z 46753 GARY L. KOONTZ CONSULTANT/PROJECT MGT FEES 2,000.00 �O CITY OF GRAND TERRACE DATE: MARCH 28, 2002 CHECK REGISTER NO: CO206 OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: MARCH 28, 2002 CHECK NO. VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 46754 GOLDEN PROTECTIVE SERVICES GLOVES FOR CHILD CARE CENTER 171.97 _46755__-HARPER_&.BURNS LLPN____--_-__ ___-_______ F_EBRUARY LEGAL SERVICES 892.50 46756 HERMAN HILKEY MARCH COUNCIL STIPEND - 46757 HOME DEPOT MAINTENANCE/REPAIR SUPPLIES 102.69 46758 HONEYWELL, INC. 4TH QUARTER FEES-CIVIC CENTER/FIRE STATION 4,608.25 46759 HOSE MAN INC. REPAIR SUPPLIES 5.55 _467.60__HYDRO-SCAPE_PRODUCTS INC. - IRRIGATION SUPPLIES 1,070.53 46761 INSIGHT BACK UP TAPES 46762 INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION BREAD-PRODUCTS-CHILD CARE 60.58 46763 J & M TROPHIES , ENGRAVED BRASS PLATE-MATERASSI 10.78 46764 JAGUAR COMPUTER SYSTEMS INC. NOVELL SERVER REPAIR & EDEN SERVER PMT 1,948.82 46765 JANI-KING OF COLTON MARCH CLEANING SERVICES-CHILD CARE 809.00 46767 JOHN LANSING REIMBURSE VALENTINE DINNER EXPENSES 47.57 46768 JP STRIPING STREET STRIPING 650.00 46769 KELLY PAPER NCR FORM PAPER 74.84 46770 LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS CHILD CARE SUPPLIES 802.12 46771 DON LARKIN MARCH COUNCIL STIPEND 150.00 46772 LEJA SURVEYING CONSTRUCTION STAKING 690.00 46773 MIRACLE MILE CAR WASH OIL CHANGE & CAR WASHES 26.42 46774 PACIFIC BELL PHONE CHARGES 350.83 - - 46--7-7-5-P-E-T-T-Y-CASH - REIMBURSEP_ETLY_CASH-CIT_Y_HAL1 _- 238.46 46776 PETTY CASH REIMBURSE PETTY CASH-CHILD CARE 401.74 46777 PRIMA 2002 ANNUAL DUES-SCHWAB 55.00 46778 RAMIREZ CONSTRUCTION INC. PATCH MANHOLE-PICO 300.00 46779 RENTAL SERVICE CORPORATION RENTAL-TRACTOR/LOADER 2WD 147.49 46780 ROQUET PAVING INC. 32 LF CURB/GUTTER TAYLOR & MAIN '1_,_600-00--- 46782 S.B. COUNTY AUDITOR/CONTROLLER .FEBRUARY BOOKING FEES M 1,916.64 46783 S-.B.-COUNTY VEHICLE SERVICES - ROAD REPAIR SUPPLIES 95.79 - _ CITY OF GRAND TERRACE DATE: MARCH 28, 2002 CHECK REGISTER NO: CO206 OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: MARCH 28, 2002 CHECK NO. VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 55 46784 S.B. COUNTY WASTE SYSTEMS DIVISION FEBRUARY DUMP CHARGES 48 46785 SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY COLLEGE WORKSHOP-4 CHILD CARE EMPLOYEES' 80..00 46786 SIGNAL MAINTENANCE INC. FEBRUARY TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE 390.35 46787 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY NATURAL GAS-CITY FACILITIES & CNG VAN J 360.15 46788 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN OFFICE SUPPLIES 19.33 46789 STEVEN CUMBLIDGE REIMBURSE CONFERENCE EXPENSES 39.00 46790 SYLVAN/IDENTIX CHILD CARE"FINGERPRINTS-RICHARD & DUNLOP 194.00 � FOOD SUPPLIES-CHILD CARE 1,13344 46791 SYSCO 470.94 46792 TEXACO FUEL-CITY VEHICLES 46793 TRAFFIC SPECIALTIES BARRICADES .00 46794 UNDERGROUND'SERVICE ALERT FAX NOTIFICATION OF CONSTRUCTION 389.00 46795 VALLEY TIRE COMPANY BALANCE/MOUNT USED TIRE 50.00 46796 VAVRINEK TRINE DAY& COMPANY FISCAL YEAR AUDIT 2,025.00 46797 VICTORIA CLUB LUNCH EON-MATERASSI GOING AWAY 954.93 46798 W.E.C. ELECTRIC INC. ROLLINS PARK LIGHT FIXTURE REPAIR 1,190.00 46799 WAXIE JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 77.75 46800 WEST GROUP^ CA CODE UPDATES F/Y 01-02 109.91 46801 WESTERN EMULSIONS INC. BARTON ROAD STREET REPAIR 8,888.00 46802 WESTERN EXTERMINATORS MONTHLY PEST CONTROL-CITY FACILITIES 158.00 46803 WILLDAN PLAN CHECK/ENGINEER SERVICES_ 475.00 46804 WIRZ & COMPANY BUSINESS CARDS 258.00 4.6805 YOSEMITE WATERS COFFEE SUPPLIES 8.99 46806 YOSEMITE WATERS BOTTLED WATER-CITY FACILITIES 148.44 GRAND TOTAL $55,523.51 3 i CITY OF GRAND TERRACE DATE: MARCH 28, 2002 CHECK REGISTER NO: CO206 OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF:, MARCH 28, 2002 CHECK NO. VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT - t I CERTIFY THAT,TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,THE AFORE LISTED CHECKS FOR PAYMENT OF CITY LIABILITIES HAVE BEEN AUDITED BY ME AND ARE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE EXPENDITURES FOR THE OPERATION OF THE CITY. LARRY RONNOW' FINANCE DIRECTOR -)IINIG CITY CITY OF GRAND TERRACE C �•L APPROVAL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MARCH 14, 2002 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 March 14, 2002, at 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Dan Buchanan, Mayor Lee Ann Garcia, Mayor Pro Tem Herman Hilkey, Councilmember Don Larkin, Councilmember Niaryetta Ferr6, Councilmember Tom Schwab, City Manager Brenda Stanfill, City Clerk Steve Berry, Assistant City Manager Larry Ronnow, Finance Director Jerry Glander, Building & Safety Director Lt. Hector Guerra, Sheriff's Department r ABSENT: John Harper, City Attorney The meeting was opened with invocation by Councilwoman Maryetta Ferr6, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Mayor Pro Tem. Lee Ann Garcia. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Wendy Williams, Omnitrans, gave a presentation on the highlights of the services that Omnitrans provides in the City of Grand Terrace including the recently implemented service OrrniLink. Councilmember Larkin read a Proclamation proclaiming March 2002 as American Red Cross Month in the City of Grand Terrace and urging the community to support the noble humanitarian mission of the American Red Cross. Mayor Buchanan presented the Proclamation to Linda Kemper, a representative from the American Red Cross. Linda Kemper, thanked the City for their support. Councilman Herman Hilkey presented a plaque to Gene Carlstrom on behalf of SANBAG for his service on their Board. Gene Carlstrom,gave an overview of the projects that he participated in as a Board Member of SANBAG and thanked Councilman Hilkey for the plaque and indicated that he enjoyed COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. T, I I i I I Council Minutes I NMarch 14, 2002 j Page 2 working with S'ANBAG as a representative of the City. I � 2A. Household Hazardous Waste Video I Assistant City Manager Steve Berry presented a preview of the Household Hazardous Waste I I Video. 2B. Conunendation - Fran VanGelder Councilmembdr Ferre read a Commendation for outgoing Planning Commissioner Fran VanGelder for her service both as Planning Commissioner and, Planning Commission Chairman to the City of Grand Terrace and extending our sincere thanks for her service. CONSENT CALENDAR CC-2002-18 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HILKEY,SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER LARKIN, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the following consent calendar items: 3A. Approval of Check Register CO205 3B. 'Ratify 03-14-2002 CRA Action I � 3C. 'Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda 3D. Approval of 02-28-2002 Minutes 3E. Resolution Submitting a Funding Request Form to the Department of Conservation for Programs Consistent with the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reductions Act I PUBLIC CO.NUNTENT -None I ORAL REPORTS I I 5A. Committee Reports i I 1. Historical and Cultural Activities Committee a. Minutes'-Of February 4, 2002 i CC-2002-19 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HILKEY,SECOND BY COUNCILME MBER FERRE,CARRIED'5-0,to accept the February4,2002 minutes of the Historical and Cultural Activities Committee. COUNCIL REPORTS I I � Mavor Pro Tem Garcia, reported that Grand Terrace Days will be'on June 1, 2002 and that, I Council Minutes March 14, 2002 Page 3 the theme is a Red, White and Blue Salute to Heroes. She expressed her excitement for the event. Assistant City Manager Be!U,indicated that the Riverside Orange Blossom Festival will be helping with the Festival portion of the event. The parade portion will be as it usually is. The Festival will be held at the Richard Rollins Park. MayorPro Terri Garcia,reported that the Annual Art Show will be held on May 5,2002. She indicated.that she is very excited about building a video library for the City. Councilmember Larkin, expressed his appreciation for all of the dedication and service that Fran VanGelder provided to the City. He congratulated Robert Ziprick and Floyd Petersen that were re-elected to the Loma Linda City Council as well as Rudy Hernandez that was re- } elected to the Colton City Council. He reported that opening ceremonies for Little League will be held on Saturday, March 23, 2002 at 10:00 a.m. He reminded everyone that Riverside Highland Water Company will behaving their annual meeting on March 28,2002 at 9:00 a.m. in the Grand Terrace Council Chambers. He reported that the Miss Grand Terrace Pageant is coming up on April 6, 2002. Councilmember Ferr6,reported that she participates on a committee that is deciding how the Bond Money will be spent by the Colton Joint unified School District and that the committee approved the districts request to hire an architect to draw the plans for the new high school and a new elementary school. She reported that the District is still in negotiations for property for the new high school. She indicated that a new high school is going to be built in the Grand Terrace area. Councilmember Hilkev, indicated that he attended a meeting at the Lion's Community Center on the Composting Facility in Colton that is proposing to move his location a mile away from his current site. Mayor Buchanan, indicated that he will not be at the next Council meeting that is scheduled for March 28, 2002. PUBLIC HEARING - None UNFINISHED BUSINESS -None NEW BUSINESS 8A. Northwest Corner Parking at Mt. Vernon/Grand Terrace Road . I I I i i li I Council Minutes March 14, 2002 i Page 4 I I I I i CC-2002-20 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER LARKIN,to direct staff;to look at the possibility of removing the no parking requirement on the Northwest Corner of Mt. Vernon and Grand Terrace Road and to bring back a recommendation to Council. Motion died due to a lack of a second. i CC-2002-21 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER LARKIN, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA, CARRIED 4-1-0-0 (COUT.NCILMEMBER HILKEY VOTED NO), to direct staff to look into the possibility of removing the no parking requirement on the Northwest Corner of Mt. Vernon and Grand Terrace Road!including looking into safety a j d liability issues and to bring back a recommendation to Council. I 813. Set Date for Planning Commission Application Deadline to Fill Vacancy Created by the Resignation of Fran VanGelder and Schedule a Meeting Date to Conduct Interviews I CC-2002-21 MOTION BY MAYOR BUCHANAN,SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER FERRE, CARRIED 5-0, to authorize the City Clerk to post the vacancy ,and accept applications to fill the unexpired teen on the Planning Commission and set an application deadline for April 19, 2002 at 5:00 p.m. and to 'schedule Interviews for April 25, 2002 at 5:06 p.m. I 8C. Legislative Update Mayor Pro Tem Garcia indicated that the Legislative Task Force met on Thursday, I February 28, 2002 and gave an overview on the items that were discussed. She requested a Resolution that would allow city employees and city council members to have,payroll deductions toward Action for Better Cities if they choose to, be agendized for the next Council meeting. I ' It was the consensus of the Council to write letters of support for AB2863 an opposition letter for AB680 and a letter of support for AB2022. I I 8D. Schedule Budget Meeting for FY 2002-2003 Preliminary Budget Z. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule a Budget Meeting on May 14, 2002 at 5:00 p.m. to discuss the FY 2002-2003 Preliminary Budget. CLOSED SESSION - None I � ORDER OF ADJOURNMENT i i I I ' ry .. Council Minutes March 14, 2002 Page 5 Mayor Buchanan adjourned the City Council Meeting at 7:45 p.m.,until the next CRA/City Council Meeting which is scheduled to be held on Thursday, March 28, 2002 at 6:00 p.m. CITY CLERK of the City of Grand Terrace �l MAYOR of the City of Grand Terrace IT Y RAMD TERR C Community Services Department ,Staff Report MEETING DATE: March 28;2002 SLBJECT: AUTHORIZATION FOR CITY iVfANAGER TO APPLY TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION FOR LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUNDS. NO FUNI DLNG REQUIRED BACKGROUND: Public Law 88-578 authorized the establishment of the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant- In-Aid (LCWF) program. The program provides matching funds to qualified jurisdictions and agencies to acquire and develop facilities for public outdoor recreation. The program requires a 50 percent local matching fund that will be provided through the $1,600,000 of Redevelopment Funds previously allocated to this project. The California Department of Parks and Recreation is responsible for program administration. City staff is currently moving forward with the design and development of the Richard Rollins Park Renovation Project. Staff has determined that certain facilities within the renovation project are eligible ' for funding under the LWCF grant program. Total funding to be requesting is approximately $155,000. Under the state grant guidelines, the application package must include a resolution from the City Council authorizing staff to file the application. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. ADOPT A RESULTION OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA approving the filing of an application with the California Department of Parks and Recreation for Land and Water Conservation Funds, and 2. AUTHORIZE Staff to submit the necessary forms. Fiscal Impact: The City may receive grant funds totaling up to S155,000 for improvements to Richard Rollins Park. CCJNCIL AGENDA ITEM N013E RESOLUTION NO 2002- 4 � A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUNDS FOR THE RICHARD ROLLI S PARK RENOVATION PROJECT ! WHEREAS, the Congress under Public Law SS-578 has authorized the establ'�ishment of a Federal Land and Water ConserN ation Fund Grant-In-Aid Program,providing matching funds to the State of California and its political subdivisions for acquiring lands and developing facilities for J public outdoor recreation purposes; and WHEREAS.the State Department of Parks and Recreation is responsible for administration of the program in the state,setting up necessan rules and procedures go%erring application by local agencies under the program; and WHEREAS. said adopted procedures established by the State Department of Parks and Recreation require the applicant to certify by resolution the approval !of applications and thel availability of local matching funds prior to submission of said applications to the state; and WHEREAS, the proposed Richard Rollins Park Renovation Project is consistent with the Statewide Comprehensive Recreation Resources Plan: California Outdoor Recreation Plan - 1994;1 and WHEREAS. the project must be compatible with the land use plans of those jurisdictions' immediately surrounding project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby; i 1. Approves the ',filing,of an application for Land and Water Conservation Fund assistance; and ?. Certifies that said agencyhas matching funds from the following source: City Redevelopment Funds can finance 10,0 percent of the project. half of%%-hich will be reimbursed; and 3. Certifies that the project ,is compatible with the land use plans of those jurisdictions immediately surrounding the project; and 4. Appoints the.City Manager as agent of the city to cor:duct all negotiations and execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to, applications, agreements, amendments, billini statements and so on, hich may be necessan for the completion of the aforementioned Project. Resolution No. 2002- PASSED, APPROVED AND .kDOPTED this 28th day of March. 2002. Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace - I, BREtiDA STA_-NFILL, City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace. do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2002- «as introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on the 28' day of March, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Brenda Stanfill. Cite Clerk- Approved as to form: Cit} Attorney CITY . RAflO TERR C Community Services Department Staff Report MEETING DATE: March 28, 2002 SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION FOR CITY MANAGER TO APPLY TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION FOR PER CAPITA GRANT PROGRINI FUNDS UNDER THE SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, CLEEN WATER. CLEAN AIR AND COASTAL PROTECTION BOND ACT OF 2000. NO FUNDING REQUIRED BACKGROUti'D: The Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 provides funds state bond funding for open space and recreational needs for qualified cities and other jurisdictions throughout the State of California. One of the programs provided by this Bond Act is the Per Capita Grant Program. This program allocated available bond funds to qualified jurisdictions based upon population. The City of Grand Terrace was given an allocation of$123.000. These funds may be used for the acquisition, development and special maintenance of recreation lands and facilities as well as innovative recreation programs. They are intended to be used to help fund high priority projects that satisfy the most urgent recreation needs of a community. In order to receive these funds, a qualified city must first pass a resolution approving the City's application for this funding. Upon receipt of this resolution, the Department of Parks and recreation will prepare a contract for execution by the City, acknowledging that the funds will be used in compliance with Bond Act guidelines. The City may then submit applications for funding specific recreation projects with the funds. No matching local funds a re required. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. ADOPT A RESULTION OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA approving the filing of an application with the California Department of Parks and Recreation for Per Capita Grant Program funds, and 2. AUTHORIZE Staff to submit the necessary forms. Fiscal Impact: The City will receive up to $123,000 in 2000 Bond Act funds for eligible projects.. C:.I , AGENDA IT--:J N0. j I 1 RESOLUTION No 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL.OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE PER CAPITA GRANT PROGRAM UNDER THE SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, AND COASTAL PROTECTION BOND ACT OF 2000 WHEREAS, t 1 he people of the State of California have enacted the Per Capita Grant , Program which provides funds to meet the urgent need for safe, open and accessible local recreational opportunities that provide positive park and recreational facilities for increased alternatives to social problems; and WHEREAS,the California Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated' the responsibility for the administration of the grant program, setting up necessary procedures; and r WHEREAS, said procedures established by the California Department of Parks ands Recreation require the Applicant's Governing Body to certify by resolution the approval of the Applicant to apply for the Per Capita Allocation; and WHEREAS,Ithe Applicant will enter into a Contract with the State of California; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council: i 1. Approves the filing of an Application for local assistance funds from the Per Capita Grant Program under the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000; and 2. Certifies that the Applicant has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project(s); and ! ;. Certifies that the Applicant has reviewed, understands and agrees to the General Provisions contained in the Contract shown in the Procedural Guide; and f 4. Appoints the City Manager as agent to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to Applications, agreements, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of p'toject(s). I PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28 7H day of March, 2002. i Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace I I I ' Resolution No. 2002- ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace I, BRENDA STANFILL, City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2002- was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on the 28`" day of March, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Brenda Stanfill, City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney `1 T Y i PJIND TERR C Community Services Department Staff Report MEETING DATE: March 28, 2002 SLBJECT: AUTHORIZATION FOR CITY MANAGER TO APPLY TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION FOR ROBERTI-Z'BER-HARRIS OPEN SPACE PROGRAM ALLOCATION. NO FUNDING REQUIRED B ACKGROUN"D: The Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 provides funds state bond funding for open space and recreational needs for qualified cities and other jurisdictions throughout the State of California. One of the programs provided by this Bond Act is the Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris Block Grant Program. This program allocated available bond funds to qualified jurisdictions based upon population. The City of Grand Terrace was given an allocation of$39,453. These funds may be used for the acquisition, development and special maintenance of recreation lands and facilities as well as innovative recreation programs. They are intended to be used to help fund high priority projects that satisfy the most urgent recreation needs of a community. i In order to receive these funds, a qualified city must first pass a resolution approving the City's application for this funding Upon receipt of this resolution, the Department of Parks and recreation will prepare a contract for execution by the City, acknowledging that the funds will be used in compliance with Bond Act guidelines. The City may then submit applications for funding specific recreation projects with the funds. These funds are matching funds and may be used to fund up to 70 percent of an eligible project. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. ADOPT A RESULTION OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA approving the tiling of an application with the California Department of Parks and Recreation for Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris Open Space Program local assistance funds, and 2. AUTHORIZE Staff to submit the necessary forms. Fiscal Impact: The City will receive up to $39,453 in 2000 Bond Act funds for eligible projects.. TEM N0;OUNCIL AGENDA I i i RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVM THE APPLICANT TO APPLY FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE ROBERTI-Z'BERG-HARRIS OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PROGRAM T—NDER THE SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, CLEAT WATER, CLEAN AIR AND COSTAL PROTECTION BOND FACT OF 2000 WHEREAS,the people of the State ofCalifornia haN e enacted the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean .�it and Costal Protection Bond Act of 2000 which provides funds for the Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris Open Space Program; and WHEREAS,the Legislature of the State of California has enacted the Roberti-Z'BerQ-Harris %thich provides funds to certain political subd Open Space Program, ivisions of the State of, California for acquiring lands and for developing facilities to meet urban recreational needs; and WHEREAS,the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the grant program, setting up necessary procedures; and; WHEREAS, said procedures established by the California Department of Parks and, Recreation require the Applicant's Governing Body to certify by resolution the approval of the Applicant to apply for the Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris allocation; and WHEREAS, th i e Applicant will enter into a Contract with the State of California; NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby; I 1. Approves the filing of an application for local assistance funds from the Roberti-Z'Berg- Harris Open Space Pro;-ram under the Safe Neighborhood Parks,Clean Water,Clean Air and Costal Protection Bond Act of 2000. and 2. Certifies that the Applicant has or will have sufficient funds to'operate and maintain the project(s); and 3. viewed, understands, and agrees to the General provisions Certifies that the Applicant has re contained in the Contract shc%%-n in the Procedural Guide; and 4. Appoints the City Manager as agent to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents includin&. but not limited to, applications, agreements, payment requests and so on, %\hich maybe necessary for the completion of the Project(s). i i Resolution No 2002- PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of March, 2002. Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace i 1 - ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace I, BRENDA ST ANFILL, City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2002-_ was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on the 28`h day of March,2002, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Brenda Stanfill, City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney `1Tr . GRAMI)TERR CE Community De%elopr;ent Department STAFF REPORT �- CRA ITEM ( COUNCIL ITEM (X) MEETING DATE: March 28, 2002 FUNDING REQUIRED: NO FUNDING REQUIRED : SUBJECT: Economic Development Plan Summary RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUMMARY This summary is describes some of the variety of economic development activities, actions and work products developed to date, in the context of an overall economic development strategy status document. Five specific areas are covered in this summary: The identification of four potential development target areas, the role of Economic Development Systems(EDS), participation with the Inland Empire Economic Partnership (IEEP), the Keep Existing Employers Prosperous (KEEP) program, discussion about the City's economic development budget, and what the next step in the program may be. An Economic Development Program binder illustrating this Executive Summary is available at the Community and Economic Development Department and will be available at the meeting. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TARGET AREAS Four target areas have been identified for their development potential with positive effects on the Grand Terrace economy, and on the City's retail sales tax income as well as property tax base. Three of the target areas are commercial/retail and the fourth is targeted for commerciall'industrial opportunities. Area One - Freeway Commercial This area is zoned CM - Commercial Manufacturing which allows for a unique blend of commercial and very light industrial uses. The target area includes high visibility freeway frontage lands, and is among the last undeveloped freeway frontage sites in the region. Businesses/industries the City is targeting for this area typically locate and benefit from the visibility from the freeway. These include but are not limited to: • Recreational vehicles, personal watercraft (jet skis), boats, motorcycles, etc.. 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 923I3-529?a`(EO AI rrEM NO.3H i • Specialty sporting goods • High volume restaurants. This is the first priority; for EDS in their ongoing recruitment efforts, as this) area can halve the most immediate and most positive effect on,the City's sales tax revenue stream. Such businesses producing I j high levels of sales tax revenue will be necessary to finance the orderly logical development of the target area. j Challenges facing logical and appropriate development in this area are infrastructure and access, as vVell as awkward lot configurations with multiple owners. Commerce Way, which now terminates at the north _ edge of the target area is master planned to be built through the target area with ultimate access to Main Street to the south. Development of Commerce Way will provide necessary access to the target area and 11 help to remove existing and future truck traffic from Michigan Street which runs through mostly residential neighborhoods. Access to the target area now is via De Berry Street and Van Buren Street which both terminate in dead ends with inadequate turnarounds and no through circulation for either I trucks or high volume traffic. Topography, the current location of se%�er lines/easements. a storm drain, and a major eater supply j pipeline for the City of Riverside, make development of the area significantly more difficult and more costly- than would be expected for vacant land. This makes the City's intervention through its redevelopment agency necessary in order to assure the orderly development ofthe target area. r The 59.5 acre target area is awkwardly subdivided into 22 parcels among H different owners. Coordination of logical development is made significantly more difficult by the 'existing lot configurations and multiple owners. Some owners may have unrealistic expectations as to the market value of the land, without taking into account the development challenges facing the area. The use of eminent domain by the City's Redevelopment Agency may be warranted, and in fact may need to be employed. This area was considered top priority by the economist John Husing, "it has the potential to change the make up of Grand Terrace." Also, John Husing stated that the architectural style or the quality of j construction in this area would be the front end for the rest of Grand Terrace. Area Two —Town Square at Barton Road i The Town Square project area is slated for a mixed use type of development incorporating retail shops with a major anchor store (grocery store) and senior housing, all surrounding a one acre plaza deN eloped in a sophisticated urban'village design concept. j � j I Target businesses for the Town Square project are those found in a retail tenant mix appropriate for a maturing, family oriented. and increasingly affluent community. The tenant, mix includes, but is not limited to the following: • Full service supermarket • Pharmacy/drugstore • Hardware store' • Health food/nutrition • Bakery I • Full service restaurant • Art supplies/frames • Crafts/hobbies i i j I I • Coffee house/bagel cafe The entire Barton Road commercial area is the second priority for EDS recruitment efforts. The Town Square site is a major goal for the economic enhancement of the area. The Cit,,'s Redevelopment A-enc} is actively acquiring properties within this project area in order to facilitate its ultimate development Area Three—C2 General Commercial The C2—General Commercial includes 14.8 acres of property on either side of Barton Road west of the I- 215 Freeway, and a 9.15 acre parcel at the northwest corner of Michigan Street and Main Street. A goal for this target area is to work with current property owners and businesses to attract complimentary businesses appropriate for each respective setting. Target businesses are being determined at this time. This target area is priority number three for the EDS recruitment effort. Area Four—Commercial/Industrial The City's Redevelopment Agency is the primary land owner for this target area. A potential goal for this area is to secure a master developer who would construct a speculative built or "build to suit" project. Such a project would perhaps be a campus oriented industrial park setting incorporating a variety of building types and sizes with built in flexibility and high tech communication technology to accommodate a diverse range of potential users. The Zoning is MR—Restricted 'Manufacturing and M2— Industrial. These designations allow for a wide range of cleaner manufacturing, assembly, distribution �l and sales types of businesses with low environmental impact. Target industries include: • Clean light industrial with employment and tax producing uses such as "end user" construction materials suppliers with a high proportion of retail sales tax generating transactions. • High technology industries associated with the medical field. • Power plants The Community and Economic Development Department Staff has been marketing the area in target industry publications. Staff is NNorking towards State of California Infrastructure Bank funding for needed road and utility improvements, as well as applying for street improvement grants. Staff is also working with a real estate firm (Lee and Associates), as well as the Inland Empire Economic Partnership to develop an action plan and specific plan for the target area. In case a specific plan is developed by the City, it could incorporate Target area No. 1 as well. ECONO?NIC DEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS (EDS)—RETAIL RECRUITMENT In the year 2000, the consulting firm Economic Development Systems (EDS) was hired to represent the Citv of Grand Terrace in its efforts to conduct a retail recruitment program to attract new retail businesses to the City. EDS principal Jim Harrigan conducted a retail void analysis of the Grand Terrace market area to determine what types of retail businesses should be actively recruited for the area, substantiating and helping to formulate target areas and niche businesses. EDS' expertise is to line up retailers for existing centers and find developers and investors to work with retailers. Two retail recruitment forums were held in the City to inform the business community of this activity. INLAND E1tPIRE ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP(IEEP) The City is actively involved with the IEEP, which operates as a regional economic development and marketing collaborative ,between numerous local cities. The IEEP conducts marketing campaigns, business location services and other activities to support economic development in the region, nationally and internationally. Grand Terrace has solicited the support of the IEEP for packaging the project area four to attract a master developer. The city is also extensively featured in the IEEP marketing materials. j KEEP EXISTING EMPLOYERS PROSPEROUS(KEEP) I i I In an effort to sustain and enhance a healthy local business climate, the City's Community and Economic Development Department is launching a multi-faceted ("KEEP") program to help local business. Elements of the program include, and are not limited to the following: • Visiting local businesses on an on-going basis to leam about their needs and provide support; • Helping"Gazelles"to thrive (Gazelles are existing businesses that are growing fast, have the potential for further growth, and/or are interested in expanding their business); • Sending welcome letters and economic development information to all new businesses; • Communicating via e-letters: • Upgrading the economic development section of the City's Nveb site and making it interactive for the benefit of local businesses; • Conduct"supplier surveys" to recruit businesses that would compliment existing local businesses and ' help them to grow; and, • Grants for local businesses, etc... As part of the "KEEP" Program. the City now has received a $50,000 grant, from the County of San Bernardino to provide matching grants to local businesses for making buildings more attractive to residents and visitors. 'The program provides eligible property owners up to $7,500 in the form of repayment for costs incurred in qualifi-ing building improvements. These include but are not limited to the following types of improvements: � I • Parking lot and building night lighting • Parking lot and sidewalk cleanup. refurbishing, resealing, and/or re-striping • Landscaping enhancements and outdoor pots of plants • Faeade remodels, repainting and installation of awnings • Certain tenant improvements to bring spaces up to code beyond safety requirements • High-tech wiring of tenant spaces.-etc... To date, approximately half of the grant funds are committed to specific) projects. Among them are the resurfacing of the vvalkw a,-s in front of all the tenant spaces. in the Stater Brothers shopping center (excluding those in front of the grocery store, which were recently'rebuilt), the remodeling and re-landscaping of the parking lot at the Keeney Building at 12139 Mount Vernon, and placing landscape planters in front of the industrial buildings at 21831 Barton Road. Staff is working on further proposals to add enhanced night lighting to' the Town and Country shopping center and landscaping and other enhancements to the building at the northwest corner of Barton Road and Mount Vernon AN-enue. I I i � I i i 1 ECONOMic DEVELOPMENT BUDGET The City's expenditures for economic development should be considered an investment in the future economic vitality of the community and-a realization that a healthy local economy has a direct impact on the City's operating revenues. Other successful economic development departments halve 2 to 10 or more employees dedicated full time to economic development and redevelopment activities. Financial and personnel resources are fundamental to respond fast and effectively to market proposals. NEXT STEPS Schedule the CALED workshop. Experts will evaluate our program and make recommendations towards the development of a comprehensive economic development program. Respectfully prepared by: Steven Cumblidge Assistant Planner Approved by: ipe,irector of Planning Exhibit: Economic Development Program-Binder Attachments: 1 - Project areas map City of (;ran� d Terrace' Potential Devel4nient • reas MICHIGA ■ wit �i y[� ��'4, J• M , _ ..,_ �k4ya��w� 3 Y� Potential / / Development Areas =... fti ti • 1 1 " C2-General Co 111 <` • 1111 " Manufacturing rM2-Commercial/Industrial interstate a a z Planned • 11 Col.lectorStLocal Streets reet RaiIr oads Gland Terrace •� • Grand Twale City L=' ts `' OF GRAND TER; CITY OF GRAND TERRACE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CUNIMITTEINAR 2 1 2002 Regular Meeting MINUTES February 4, 2002 The Grand Terrace Emergency Operations Committee met for the Regular Meeting in the Emergenc} Operations Center at 22795 Barton Road, Building 3 at Civic Center The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Chairperson, Sonia Aiken. MEMBERS PRESENT N ere Sonia Aiken,Vic Pfennighausen, Richard Haubert and JoAnn Johnson. MEMBERS ABSENT - Robert Souter and Gary Eldridge CITY STAFF - Liaison, Steve Berry, Assistant City Manager GUESTS PRESENT - None APPROVAL OF MINUTES of January 7, 2002 was given with no corrections. LIAISON REPORT a. Power for street lights has been fluctuating. b Would like to provide battery back-up. c. At Home in Grand Terrace welcome packet for newcomers in Grand Terrace was unveiled d Landscaping along Barton Road is going well. e Replacement sycamores are planned for Mt Vernon on the south end of the city. f. Also, work will be done along the parkway along Mt Vernon. g. Rollins Park will be remodeled to include five soccer fields h. CDBG funds will probably be applied to curb, gutter and sidewalk in front of Petta Park i. Barton Road will probably be resurfaced on Monday from Dimitri s to Stater's warehouse j Open House at City Hall (Chamber Mixer) will be Wednesday, the 6th from 5.30 to 7.30 k. This will be a really nice affair with food from various venders 1 Would like to put in a homework center at the library. Would come from grant money m. Compost and soil enhancers are being donated by Synogro n. Grand Terrace days parade and venders are being solicited from local and other areas o Saturday, June 1 st is the day and the event will be at Rollins Park. EOC SET-UP TRAI L\G - :`None at .this time, but items were added or replaced as per last month. a Telephone missing from last month was found b Pens have been replaced. c Several lists have been updated (call out, phones, flow charts) d Flashlight, batteries, small first aid kit and Kleenex have been, or will be, added to each box. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. �)Cj EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES REPORT a. All equipment is working well I b. DSL line is in and our computer does not have capacity for our needs c. Suggested up to $1200 in budget be spent for new computer and printer d These items may possibly be purchased for less through Jaguar Computers e Steve will look into it f. Vic wondered how we could get Dragos Barbu involved with Emergency Operations g. It was suggested that he be invited to attend as a guest and see what can be done. h. Operations Office in a Box was completed See EOC Set-up Training above'; i. The trailer situation was discussed Small bus is unacceptable for many reasons. j Need to either;keep our present trailer or budget for new one k Looked at brochures for trailers Steve or Vic will find out price'of tandem wheel trailer 1 Steve will check with Sheriffs department for possible trailer from them. I I OLD BUSINESS a. Copy of letter accepting Gary Eldndge as regular member b Copy of letter dropping Hugh Forbes as member. NEW BUSINESS a. Discussion on application from James Monroe. b Decision that Sonia should call him and issue an invitation to attend a meeting as a guest to begin with. MEMBERS REPORTS AND COMMENTS a. Question of our having badges was raised again and the answer was Probably Not b. Budget must be in by February 25th. Sonia, Vic and Steve will see too it ADJOURNMENT at 8.20 p m. Respectfully submitted, i I j I ?JoAn:nJo on, Secretary i I NEXT MEETING \i ILL BE NLaRCH 4, 2002AT 7 p.m. I i I I i I I I ,:,iTY Or GRAND TERRI.,,_ Historical & Cultural Activities Committee MAR 2 12002 Minutes for March 4, 2002 CITr CLERK The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Pauline Grant. Those present were Pauline, Barbara Tinsley, Ann Petta, Brenda Stanfill, Shelly Rosenkild, Colleen Edmundson and Hannah Laister. Secretary's Minutes: The February minutes will be changed to show meeting time as 7 p.m. The minutes were read and approved on motion by Colleen, seconded by Barbara, all in favor. Colleen returned the tablecloths and pitchers she borrowed. Treasurer's Report: Balande in Budget $808.50, $77.91 in Petty Cash. Historical Report: Ann brought in a history booklet on Grand Terrace prepared by the 8' grade students of Terrace Union School, also the Terrace Tribune Dec. 17, 1980, first issue November 24, 1980. These will be put in our archives. Shelly will look into w•ays to store these things safely on the internet. Lobby Showcase: Colleen will ask the G.T. Woman's Club to look into preparing information for the Showcase to be changed in November 2002. Workshop:Members met on Monday,February 25`h,at noon to work on our many pictures. We will ask Brenda to order four more binders for our history books. Art Show: Posters were ready. Ann has been calling people. She needs more applications. Presentation by Steve Berry:He arrived at 7:30 p.m.and gave us his plans for the 25'BirthdayParty, and also for Grand Terrace Days. Ann was concerned about those people who were used to and enjoyed the pot luck. Colleen made a suggestion that we do both. About our concerns for the Country Fair,he thought we were doing a good job but need more advertisement and publicity. He is working on banners or some other way to show what is going on. He will talk to Lee Ann Garcia who spear-headed the 20' party. Grand Terrace Days will be a Red, White, and Blue Salute to Heroes at Richard Rollins Park June 1, 2002. Steve was very informational. The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. The next meeting will not be on the I`but will be April 8, 2002. Respectfully Submitted, Hannah Laister Secretary &j :CIL AGENDA ITEM No.' � CRAMP TERR C Community Development Department ir.^.:P: �.,...�S"Jil K.'a�yie' - ,. ..L , L•Y ah' _ F: ., i ..- -. -_.. PORT- MEETING ! CRA ITEM O COUNCIL ITEM(X) DATE: March 28,2002 `1 FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED X SUBJECT: Public Hearing amending the Zoning Code(Title 18 of the Municipal Code)of the City of Grand Terrace to Revise the Second Family Unit Provisions and to Allow a Second,Full-sized,Single Family Residence in the Multifamily zones (Z-01-01 and E-01-07) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt First Reading of the Proposed Ordinance to Revise the Second Family Unit Provisions and to Allow a Second, Full-sized, Single Family Residence to the Multifamily Zones and Approve the Negative Declaration as recommended by the Planning Commission. Background: On May 27, 1999 the City Council adopted the current Housing Element for the City,following review and approval by the State Department of Housing and Community Development. The adopted Housing Element contained language that it was the intention and policy of the City to revise the second family unit provisions in the Zoning Code to insure that they meet the requirements of State law and do not constrain the provisions of affordable housing in the Community. More recently,the updated Housing Element approved by the City Council on February 28,2002, pending State review, contained the same language. Given the increase in the number of elderly as revealed by the 2000 census, second family units or "granny flats" will help to satisfy the housing needs of the City. Additionally, second family unit issues came to the Planning Commission's and staff's attention when a request was heard to construct a two bedroom, 1,043 square foot second family unit on Vivienda Avenue in the northwest corner of the City in the fall of 2000. At that hearing itwas pointed out that the current second family unit provisions are inconsistent with State law and recent court decisions. It was also brought out that the existing Zoning Code is unclear about whether a second,full-sized(1,350 square feet or larger) single family residence could be allowed in the City's multifamily zones, i.e.,R2 and R3. In response, the Planning Commission held two public•workshops to review and discuss the issues concerning revising the City's second family unit provisions and allowing for second,full sized single family residences in the R2 and R3 zones. In addition to the two workshops, a public hearing on the proposed changes was held on November 15, 2001 and continued to December 20, 2001. On the latter date the Planning Commission recommended that the proposed Ordinance be adopted by the City Council. Attached to this report is the proposed Ordinance (Attachment 1) which adds has two main parts: 1) it modifies the existing second family unit provisions of the Code;and 2)it allows for second,full sized,single family residential units in the R2 and R3 zones(multifamily zones). The proposed Ordinance was drafted 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 923 WgNeW0 ►11TEsU`1 LOH i I based on the extensive discussion the Planning Commission had on these matters.'(Please see the attached Commission staff reports and minutes for their public hearing on this matter, Attachments 2- 5) The proposed Ordinance adds some needed definitions to the Zoning Code so that there is a clear understanding of the differences between a second family unit and a full sized; single family detached dwelling. The Ordinance also modified the existing second family unit provisions in the Zoning Code by allowing second family units in all of the residential zones including the multifamily zones. Single family units will require an administrative conditional use permit(staff review,no public,hearing)for an attached second family unit and a full,conditional use permit(that which requires a public hearing before the Planning I Commission) for a detached type of second family unit. The present Code requires a full, public hearing conditional use permit for all second family units along with the filing of a site and architectural review case. The new requirements will simplify this'process. In addition,the second part of the proposed Ordinance will allow for a second,full sized single family unit(1,350 square feet or larger)in the R2 and R3 Zones as I - a permitted use. At the workshops and public hearing,several members of the Commission expressed the opinionl,that the size of the second family unit ought to be tied to the size of the property. The proposed Ordinance includes, therefore, a requirement that a"detached"second family unit shall not exceed 10%of the size of the lot or parcel. For a second family unit,which is proposed to be attached to the main residence, it can not exceed 30% of the living area of the main residence nor 10% of the size of the property whichever is the smaller figure. In no instance,however,can any second family unit exceed 1,200 square feet in size nor be smaller than an efficiency type unit as defined by the Building Code, approximately 250 square feet iri size.. The proposed Ordinance contains additional requirements and restrictions among which are: 1)a second unit family project shall provide for landscape compensation for any removed trees or shrubs; 2) the second family unit may be rented but shall not be sold,transferred or assigned separately from the main single family dwelling; 3)a maximum of one second family unit shall be permitted on a lot; and 4) additional off-street parking, beyond that required for the main residence, in all cases at least one parking space. In addition, the proposed Ordinance spells out the specific findings that must be made before a second family unit can be approved either by the Planning Commission or the staff. These findings include the ' requirement that the unit must be"nicely integrated into the`house envelop"and/or the site improving the appearance of the main residence and being an asset to the property" and " the second family unit shall conform to the color,materials, architectural style, and detailing of the main residence..." I Part two of the proposed Ordinance allows for a second full sized, detached single family residence to be constructed on R2 and R3 lots provided such lots are developed with no more than one single family detached dwelling. This will eliminate the existing ambiguity in the Zoning Code where it is unclear whether a second single family residential structure is permitted on an R2 or R3 lot. The proposed Ordinance was reviewed by the City Attorney to make sure it conforms to State law and recent j court decisions. In addition,the proposed Ordinance was evaluated in terms of its potential impact on the environment in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. In making its recommendation, the Planning Commission found that the proposed Ordinance qualifies fora Negative Declaration (Attachment 6)in that it will not have any adverse impacts on the environment. Recommendation: The staff recommends that the City Council adopt the first reading of the Ordinance to revise the Second Family Unit provisions of the Zoning Code;and to allow a second,full-sized,single family residence in the i multi-family zone. It is further recommended that the City Council approve the Negative Declaration in that there is no substantial evidence that the Ordinance will have a significant adverse impacts on the environment. These recommendations are in conformance with the Planning.Commission's action of December 20,2001. 2 5rp.. Respectfully submitted, n Lampe,Associate Planner/Interim Director of Planning 7L:j 1 Attachment: ` Attachment 1: Proposed Ordinance Attachment 2: Planning Commission Staff Report for December 20,2001 Attachment 3: Planning Commission minutes for December 20, 2001 Attachment 4: Planning Commission Staff Report for November 15,2001 Attachment 5: Planning Commission minuets for November 15,2001 Attachment 6:Negative Declaration and Initial Study i c:\N4yFilesUGHN\Secondunits\z0101 council.rpt 3 I I . I i I It j ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, ClILIFORNIA, AMENDING THE GRAND TERRACE ZONING CODE Y ADDING CERTAIN DEFINITIONS TO CHAPTER 18.06 RELATIVE �TO SECOND FAMILY UNIT AND SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL; BY AMENDING CHAPTER 18.69 REGARDING THE PROVISIONS FOR SECOND FAMILY UNITS TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW; AND li Y MODIFYING TABLE 18.10.30 TO ALLOW FOR A SECOND,FULL SIZ D SINGLE FAMILY UNIT IN THE CITY'S MULTIFAMILY SIDENTIAL , ZONES I WHEREAS, a!Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community and Economic Development Department and duly posted for public review and recommended for approval by, the 20, 2001 at a publicly noticed meeting; and Planning Commission on December, W i WHEREAS,the City's Housing Element which was adopted by separate ordinance on May 27, 1999 contains the statement that it is the City's intent to revise the existing Second amily Unit provisions in the Zoning Code to conform to State law;this statement is also included in the Updated Housing Element approved by the Council on February 28, 2002; and WHEREAS, the standards, regulations and provisions of the revised Second Family Unit Ordinance bring about bonformance of said ordinance with State law; and I WHEREAS,the revised Second Family Unit ordinance, in part, provides for an expedited review of said units which will further the goals of the General Plan Housing Elemen I to promote and encourage housing opportunities for the residents of the City of Grand Terrace. WHEREAS,the modifications to the Zoning Code to allow additional full sized second units to the City's multifamily residential'zones on parcels of sufficient size with the proper review will t3' also further the City's Housing Goals of providing and encouraging housing opportunities for the residents of the City of Grand Terrace. WHEREAS,the following findings have been set forth in the.Staff Report to the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace: 1. The proposed ordinance is consistent with the General Plan ink that an updating of the I City's Second Unit Ordinance and the allowing of additional single family detached residences in j City's Goals to add needed housing o the City's the R2 and R3 Zoning Districts will further the t ;. f housing stock and would provide Code flexibility for the property owner. -f a I 2. This proposed amendment to the Grand Terrace Zoning Code is consistent with all;other i ATTACi4MENT 1 , I . applicable requirements of local ordinances and State law in that the proposed amended provisions for second family units and the allowing of additional single family detached residences in the City's multi-family zones will not conflict with any existing provision of the Zoning Code and will be in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. 3.The proposed amendments to the Zoning Code will not be detrimental to the health,safety, morals,comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working within the City of Grand Terrace or be injurious to property or improvements within the City of Grand Terrace. The proposed ordinance will contain provisions to insure that all potential adverse impacts must be fully mitigated following review by appropriate public agencies. NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 18.06.82 is hereby added to Chapter 18.06, Definition, as follows: Section 18.06.82 Second Family Units: "Second family units" means an attached or detached residential dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons It shall include permanent provisions for living sleeping eating, cooking and sanitation on the same parcel as the single family dwelling is situated In no instance shall a second family unit be smaller in size than an area to provide for an"efficiency unit" as defined by the Uniform Building Code nor larger than 1,200 square feet. Section 2. Section 18.06.83 is hereby added to Chapter 18.06, Definitions, as follows: Section 18.06.83 Single Family Detached: A single family detached dwelling is defined as one residential structure containing no more than one dwelling and complying with a minimum living area requirement of 1,350 square feet. It shall also be known as a full sized single family unit or single family dwelling. Section 3. Chapter 18.69, relative to Second Family Units, is modified as follows: CHAPTER 18.69 SECOND FAMILY UNITS Sections: 18.69.010 Purpose 18.69.020 Definition i 18.69.030 Permitted Location 18.69.040 Site Development Standards 18.69.050 Special regulations 18.69.060 Off Street Parking I 18.69.070 Approval Criteria ! 18.69.080 Site and Architectural Revielvpvp Administrative and Non-Administrative Conditional Use Permits i Section 18.69.010 Purpose: The purpose of this chapter is to establish regulations for the placement of second family units and to ensure the placement of such a unit is compatible; with the surrounding neighborhood and single family units. Section 18.69.020 Definition: ` "Second family;units" means an attached or detached residential dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall include permanent provisions for living,sleeping,eating,cooking,and sanitation on the same parcel as the single family dwelling is situated. Section 18.69.030 Permitted Location: i Second family units are-a permitted use in any single-family or multifamily i residential zone district subject to the approval of-a an administrative conditional use permit as set forth in Chapter 18.84 of the Zoning Code if the proposed second family unit is attached to the main residence and to the approval of a conditional use permit requiring a public hearing as set forth in Chapter 18.83 of the Zoning Code if the proposed second family unit is detached from the main residence. Section 18.69.040 Site Development Standards: Site development standards for second family units shall be the same as those required in Chapter 18.10 for the appropriate R1 District except where the special regulations listed in Section 18.69.050 are in conflict with those in Chapter 18.10. In such cases the standards listed in Section 18.69.050 shall apply. Section 18.69.050 Special Regulations: All second family units shall be subject to the following regulations: -A- A. The floor area of the second family unit shall not exceed 640 square ff et-ar 25%of the main ' .30 percent of the living area of the existing main dwelling where the unit is'attached excepting that on lots 25% greater than minimum required area or larger, on a case by case review, the Community and Economic Development Director may permit a greater percentage of the living area as Ionia as it is determined that there will be no adverse effects on adjacent parcels or the community. If the Director can not make such a determination the matter may be referred to the Planning Commission per Section 18 69 080. In addition, the floor area of the second family unit shall not exceed 10 percent of the subject site where the unit is detached In no instance shall any second family unit exceed 1,200 square feet in size nor be-smaller than an area to provide for an"efficiency unit" as defined by the Uniform Building Code. B. Any single family detached dwelling regardless of size of the living area may have at least an attached"efficiency unit"as defined by the Uniform Building Code provided all other requirements of this Ordinance are met. C. The applicant for a second family unit must be an owner-occupant of the main residence. D. A second family unit shall not be located on a parcel upon which a duplex, triplex apartment house or condominium is located. E. A second family unit prroiect shall provide for landscape compensation for any removed trees or shrubs. F. A second family unit shall not be located on a parcel upon which there is located more than one (1) dwelling unit. G. The second family unit may be rented but shall not be sold, transferred or assigned separately from the main single family dwelling. H. A maximum of one second family unit shall be permitted on a lot. I. The site in question must meet the minimum lot area requirements for the Zoning District in which it is located. J. Land use(deed)restrictions must be recorded enforcing the conditions of the conditional use permit before the issuance of building pen-nits to construct the second family unit. K. Conventional metal-sided mobilehomes may not be used as a second family I I I i unit A manufactured home on a permanent foundation may be used as a second family unit provided said manufactured home meets the design requirements of Chapter 18.66 of the Zoning Code and the requirement for a conditional use permit with public hearing before the'Planning Commission_ under Chester 18.83 of the Zoning Code. ' Section 18.69.060 Off Street Parking: In addition to the requirements of Chapter 18.60 for the main single family residence, one (1)parking space shall be provided for the second family unit or one 1)per each bedroom in the unit whichever results in the greatest number of spaces being reauired. The required parking space for the second family unit may be uncovered, shall be located on the same lot as the second family unit, and shall meet the design standards of Chapter 18.60' Section 18.69.070 Approval Criteria: o I In addition to the findings required in Chapter 18.83 for conditional use permits with a public hearing or in Chapter 18.84 for an administrative conditional use permit without a public hearing,the Community and Economic Development Director or Planning Commission shall approve a second family unit only if the following findings can be made: I A. The addition street. is nicely integrated into the "house envelop" and/or the site improvingthe he appearance of the main residence and being an asset to the property. i B. The second family unit is clearly subordinate in size, location, appearance and access to the main residence unless'otherwise approved by the Planning Commission following a public hearing. I I C. The second family unit shall conform to the color, materials, architectural style and detailing of the main residence and shall meet all other applicable building code requirements and development standards of the zone for single family residential structures and accessory structures. I � � D. The second family unit will not be detrimental to the general,health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing', within the neighborhood of the proposed unit or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or within the city. I Section 18.69.080 1— *Pw Administrativei and Non- Administrative Conditional Use Permits:I` 1 All second family units shall be subject to site and architeetural review a conditional use permit in accordance with Chapter f 8.63. 18.83 requiring a public hearing' before the I I I I Planninp, Commission for a detached type unit and with Chapter 18.84 allowing for an administrative review and approval by the Director without a public hearing for an attached type unit These provisions shall apply in all cases unless the approval criteria specified in this Chapter are not met for an attached type unit in which case the matter shall be referred to the Planning Commission for a public hearing as specified in Chapter 18.83 of the Zoning Code. Section 4. Table 18.10.030 shall be modified as follows: r USES RH R20 R10 R7.2 R2 R3 A. Residential Uses Single Family P P P P Pa Pb (Detached), Full Sized Second Family Unit C C C C C C (As Permitted Per Chapter 18.69 Section 5. The following footnotes shall be added to Table 18.10.030 as follows: Table 18.10.030 Footnotes a. A second single family detached unit (full sized single family detached dwelling)shall be permitted in the R2 zone provided that the lot or parcel in question meets the minimum area requirement for the R2 zone and that said lot or parcel is developed with no more than one single family detached dwelling. A site and architectural review application for the second family detached unit in accordance with Chapter 18.63 of the Zoning Code shall be required to be approved prior to the issuance of building permits. In addition, all development standards of the underlying zone must be adhered to;and any division in ownership among the structures on the lot or parcel in question shall conform to the subdivision laws of the State and City. b. A second family detached unit (full sized single family detached dwelling) shall be permitted in the R3 zone provided-that the lot or parcel in question meets the minimum area requirements for the R3 zone and that said lot or parcel is developed with no more than one single family detached dwelling. A site and architectural review application for the second family detached unit in accordance with Chapter 18.63 of the Zoning Code shall be required to be approved prior to the issuance of building permits. In addition, all development standards of the underlying zone must be adhered to; and any division in ownership among the structures on the lot or parcel in question shall conform to the subdivision laws of the State and City. - I i Section 6. The Negative Declaration, E-01-07, attached hereto, is hereby approved. Section 7. Effective Date:,:The Ordinance shall be in full force and effect at 112:01 a.m. on the 31 st day of its adoption. Section 8. 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. I Section 9. First read at a regular meeting of the City Council ofisaid City held on the 2002 and finally adopted and ordered posted at a regular j meeting of said City Council on the , 2002. I ATTEST: ' I City Clerk of the City of Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace Grand Terrace and of the and of the City:Council thereof. 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 1 Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on the , 2002 by the following vote: AYES: I NOES: ABSENT: : ABSTAIN: City Clerk Brenda Stanfill Approved as to form: I i City Attorney I John Harper c:\MyFiles\JOHN\Secondunits\draftordinance3 ' � I i cITy �aRAND TERR e Community Development Department TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Community and Economic Development Department DATE: December 20, 2001 (Continued from November 15, 2001) SUBJECT• Z-01-01,Proposed-Ordinance to Revised the Second Family Unit • Provisions and to Allow a Second, Full-sized, Single Family Residence in the Multifamily Zones; and E-01-07, a Proposed Negative Declaration that Said Ordinance will not have a Significant Impact on.the Environment APPLICANT: City of Grand Terrace - Department of Community and Economic Development LOCATION: City-wide RECOMMENDATION: Review proposed changes to the Ordinance to Amend the Second Family Unit Provisions and to Allow a Second Full- Sized Single Family Unit in the Multifamily Residential Zones d recommend that the City Council approved the Proposed Ordinance,as modified, and adopt the proposed Negative Declaration. DISCUSSION: A public hearing was held on this matter at the last meeting of the Planning Commission on November 15, 2001. (A copy of the staff report for that meeting has been attached for-your reference, see Attachment 1), Prior to that meeting, the Commission had held two workshop sessions to review and discuss the issues regarding revising the City's Second Family Unit provisions and allowing for full sized, single family residential units in the City,5 multifamily zones. ATTACHMENT 2 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92313-5295 a (909) 824-6621 I I During the public hearing and discussion that followed several issues were raised by members of the Commission and the one person who testified at the hearing. These issues dwelt around two main topics. i First,it was pointed out that there-was a problem with the smaller single family dwellings and the provisions for attached second family units. The original Ordinance limited attached second family units to no more than 30%of the living area of the main residence and also limited the minimum size of a second family unit to no more than 400 square feet. This meant that any house with less than 1,333 square feet of living area could not qualify for an attached second'family unit. As there are a significant number of residences in the City smaller than this,there were a significant number of residences which would not qualify for an attached single family unit. Staff has suggested several changes to remedy this situation. First,we have modified the definition of the minimum size of a second family unit to"be no smaller than an"efficiency unit"as defined by the Uniform Building Code. (Staff has also attached a page from the Uniform Building Code with the definition of an"efficiency dwelling unit', for the Commission's information,please see Attachment 2.) This is a more logical lower 1unit than the original 400 square foot limit in that it is tied to the Building Code. In addition, we have alsoadded a new provision under Section 18.69.050 (C) to 1permit any single family detached dwelling regardless of size of the living area to have an"efficiency unit"as defined by the Building Code as long as all other requirements', of the Ordinance are met. We believe that these changes will eliminate this particular deficiency in the original proposal and satisfy the motion made by the Commission on November 15'to revise the Ordinance to provide for this change. i i Second,the Commission also approved a motion to revise the Ordinance to allow Ifor larger attached single family units on larger lots'on a case by case basis. Staff has revised Section 18.69.050(B)to incorporate the changes instructed by the Commission. Specifically,the revised Ordinance now allows for they Community and Economic Development Director to approve attached second family units greater than 30%I�of the living area of the main residence;where the subject site/lot is 25%greater than the minimum required area or larger on a case by case review if the Director can find that there will be no adverse effect on adjacent parcels or the community. If the Director can not make this determination,the matter may,if the applicant wishes,be referred to the Planning Commission. This proposed change is presented below as"Option 1 " Ms.Robinson,who testified at the public1earing,believes that all second family units,regardless of whether they are attached or detached,should be tied to the size of the lot or parcel in question. Staff believes that this could result in many attached second family units being as large as the main residence resulting in the creation of duplexes and,the subversion of the City's R1 zones by allowing R2 fuses. Ms. Robinson has replied to the staff s concerns that many, if not most, of the smaller R1-7.2 lots in the City wild not be able to have an attached second family unit because of requirements for setbacks and for off-street parking;and therefore, the concerns over subverting the RI zones are unfounded. She believes that it's only the larger lots and parcels in the City that will be able to have enough area to have a secondifamily unit together with the required off-street parking. She also believes that this will be a simpler way to administer the proposed Ordinance and eliminates the subjective)determination required by the Director as discussed in"Option 1" above. I � Ms. Robinson is also opposed to the requirement for a public hearing for detached units but there was no direction from the Commission to modify this requirement. I As indicated above, staff is concerned ',with the creation of duplex type units and thereby sulbvert the R1 zoning in the City. Attachment 3 shows a sketch which demonstrates what could happen if the 30% requirement is eliminated for a small residence on a relatively large lot. Staff,however,has written a revision that incorporates the elimination of the 300/6 requirement for attached units; and it simply requires that both attached and detached units be tied to thejsize of th lot or parcel in I i i I I i i question. This is provided for your review and consideration below as"Option 2." REVISIONS: Existing Section 18.06.82 Second Family 11-15-01 "Second f�nfify tinits" means an aftelled-or-detached residential dwellinst unit shall ineltid-:permanent -12rovisijwnss for livine. sleeping, eating. cooking.—=d sanitation on the -ame pareel—dS fthe sinele faini1v dwelling is U. "I Lim 1,200 square feet. Proposed Section 18.06.82 Second Family Units: Revision "Second family units" means an attached or detached residential dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single family dwelling is situated. In no instance shall a second family unit be smaller in size than an area to provide for an "efficiency unit"as defined by the Uniform Building Code nor larger than 1,200 square feet. Existing Section 18.69.050 Special Regulations: 11-15-01 B. The floor area of the second family unit shall not exceed fite main residefice's living area which VV M is lesset.5 0 pereent of the-4iving-m-ea it is atbached and shall not exceed 10 Mrcent of the subiect site whei,the unit is detacheA. hi pider to make the second family unit nionortional to lot size, itrno instmice shall any second fmnilv unit exceed i,200 souare feet or 10 ve,cent of the subiect site -WO-lichle-Vet is sinalle, Also.no second fmnily wilt shall b� sinallerthmi 400 sqttare feet i OPTION ONE: - Section 18.69.050 Special Regulations: "Option I" B. The floor area of the second family unit shall not exceed 25%of the mafitreside=e's living areavvifich ever is lesser.30 percent of the living area of the existing main dwelling where the unit is attached excepting that on lots 25% greater than minimum required area or larger, on a case by case review, the Community and Economic Development Director may permit a greater percentage of the living area as long as it is determined that there will be no adverse effects on adjacent parcels or the community. If the � I I I � I Director can not'make such a determination the matter may be referred to the Planning Commission per Section 18.69.080. In addition the floor area of the second family unit shall not exceed 10 percent of,the subject site where the unit is detached. In no instance shall any second family unit exceed 1,200 square feet in size nor be smaller than an area to provide for an"efficiency unit" as defined by the Uniform Building Code. C. Ariy single family detached dwelling regardless'of size of the living area may have at least an attached"efficiency unit"as defined by the Uniform Building Code provided all other requirements of this Ordinande are met { ' I Explanation: This option keeps the relationship between the second family unit and the size of the main residence, while it allows for both: a)flexibilityfor larger lots, (25%greater than minimum area orgreater)and also, b)flexibility for smaller houses to have a second family unit OPTION TWO: Section 18.69.050 Special Regulations: j "Option 2" B. The floor area of the second family units shall not exceed oil'thvnrain� ' . 1'0 percent of,the subject site whether the unit is attached or detached or 1,200 square feet whichever is smaller. Also,nd second family unit shall be smaller than an area to provide for an I efficiency type unit as defined by the Uniform Building Code. , � I Explanation: This option does not relate the second family unit size with the size of the principal residence. Therefore, there is a potential to create duplexes and more rentals in single family districts. The 30% requirement is deleted. The reference to the "efficiency unit" has been kept to provide a lower limit!on the size of a second family unit. The first citation shows what was in the proposed Ordinance presented to the Commission at the public hearing on November 15,2001,labeled existing. Below the citations, are the proposed modifications to the Ordinance. For the discussion regarding',the 30% requirement for attached units!staff has presented two "options"for the Commission's review and consideration. The first"option"is based on the discussion and ! motions made by the Commission at the November 15t'meeting. The second"option"is based on the input ! from Ms. Robinson who would like to see the 30% relationship eliminated entirely and tie the size of all second family units, both attached and detached,to the size of the lot. Staff has incorporated the provisions of"Option 1" into the attached proposed Ordinance(Attachment 4). RECOMMENDATION: i I The Staff recommends to the Planning Commission that it recommend to the City Council the adoption of the proposed Ordinance(incorporating the changes discussed above with "Option 1") ! Z-01-01,for second family units in the City's residential zones and second,full sized single family ! ! I i � i residential in the multifamily zones(Attachment 4)and approval of the Negative Declaration,E-01- 07 (Attachment 6). This recommendation is based on-the following findings: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan in that the proposed Ordinance will further and carry out the goals, objective and 'policies of the Housing Element of the General Plan including the provision in the Housing Element to revise the Second Family Unit Ordinance to comply with State law and the general goal of providing and encouraging a supply of housing suitable to the needs and sufficient in number to serve existing and future residents of the City of Grand Terrace. 2. The proposed amendment to the Grand Terrace Zoning Code is consistent with all other applicable requirements of local ordinances and state law in that the proposed revisions to the Second Family Unit Ordinance and the addition of provisions for a second,full sized single family residence in the multifamily zones will not conflict with any existing provision of the Zoning Code and will be in conformance with the CalifornhvEnvironmental Quality Act. 3.The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the health,safety,morals,comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or working within the City of Grand Terrace or be injurious to property or improvements within the City of Grand Terrace. All individual housing projects falling under the provisions of the proposed Ordinance will be separately evaluated to insure that all potential adverse impacts must be fully mitigated before building permits are issued. -J Respectfully submitted, Approved by: VJLampe,Associate Planner Patrizia Materassi Community and Economic Development Director JL:j 1 Attachments: Attachment 1 —Planning Commission report on Z-01-01/E-01-07 dated 11-15-01 Attachment 2=Definition of`Efficiency Dwellin&Unit"from the Uniform Building Code Attachment 3 -Sketch of a smaller main residence with a larger second family unit allowed by elimination the 30%requirement. Attachment 4-Proposed Ordinance for Second Family Unit and Second, Full Sized Residential in Multifamily Zones Attachment 5 -Environmental Checklist Form (Initial Study)for E-01-07 Attachment 6-Proposed Negative Declaration for e-01-07 c:\MyFiles\John\Seocndunits\Z-61-Olcommreportll-15.rpt2 t S I �. GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING I DECEMBER 20, 2001 • The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission vas called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on December 20, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., by Chairperson Fran Van Gelder. j PRESENT: Fran Van Gelder, Chairperson Doug Wilson, Vice Chairperson Brian Whitley, Commissioner John Lampe, Associate Planner Michelle Boustedt, CEDD Secretary 1 - I ABSENT: Matthew Addington, Commissioner Mary Trainor, Commissioner Patrizia Materassi, CEDD Director 7:02 P.M. I CONVENE SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/ I PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Call to Order • Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Whitley Roll Call • Public address to Commission shall be limited to three minutes unless extended by the Chairman. Should you desire to make a longer presentation, please make written request to be agendized to the Director;of Community and Economic Development. I PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:I NONE ATTACHMEEAT 3 � I I J II I I I MOTION: Chair Van Gelder moved to.continue the Housing PC-37-2001 Element to, the next scheduled Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Wilson seconded the motion MOTION VOTE Approved 3-0-0-2. PC-37-2001: Commissioner Addington absent Commissioner Trainor absent 3. Z-01-01, �( E-01-07 Proposed Ordinance to_ Revised the Second Family Unit Provisions to Allow a Second, Full-sized, Single Family Residence in the Multi-Family Zones; and E- 01-01, a Proposed Negative Declaration that Said Ordinance will not have a Significant Impact on the Environment. APPLICANT: City of Grand Terrace — Department of Community and Economic Development. LOCATION: Citywide RECOMMENDATION: Review proposed changes to the Ordinance to Amend the,Second Family Unit Provisions and to allow a Second Full Sized Single Family Unit in the Multifamily Residential Zones and recommend .that the City Council approve the,Proposed .Ordinance, as modified, and adopt the proposed Negative Declaration. Planning Associate Lampe reported that at the Planning Commission meeting held on November 15, 2001,. the .Commission requested the Staff to bring back the proposed Second Family Unit Ordinance incorporating changes discussed and agreed to by the Commission. At the previous meeting, the Commission had approved two motions. The first Motion"was that the percentage of living area be consistent with t_he minimum 400 square feet so. that any size of house may be allowed to have an-attached second family unit with a minimum 400 square foot size. The second 'Motion was that the Staff was to.. address cases in which an attached unit on a lot that is larger than the minimum required area by 25% should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. -if there were potential for negative impacts upon adjacent neighbors or the neighborhood, Staff would bring the application to the Planning Commission for review and approval. 3 In response to these Motions, the Staff amended Section 18.06.82, in which the proposed Ordinance relates to the definition of a Second Family Unit. The 40d square foot minimum requirement has been removed and has tied the 400 square foot -minimum requirement to an efficiency unit, which is defined in. ;the uniform building code. 1 The excerpt of the building code was included for reference in the Staff Report as Attachment 12. The Staff felt that this was a imore logical minimum cut-off than the original 400square feet. In Addition, in order to allow any house to have, at least an efficiency type unit, we are recommending that an additiona', provision be added to the ;Ordinance that in Section 1869050C,' which reads as follows: Any Single-family detached dwelling regardless of the size of the living area may have at least an attached efficiency unit as defined by the Uniform Building Code, provided tall of the requirements in this Ordinance are met. Staff believes that these particular changes satisfy the intent of the first motion that was made by the Commission to modify the Ordinance. In response to the second Motion to review the proposed attached units on a cas by-case basis related to lot size, the Staff modified Section 18169.050.B to reflect the, language, which now reads as follows: The floor area of the second family unit shall not exceed 30% of the living area of the existing main dwelling where the unit is attached, excepting that on lots 25% greater than the minimum required area o� larger, on a case 'by case, review, the Community and Economic Developmen# Director may permit a greater percentage of the living area as long as it ►s determined that there will be no adverse effects on the adjacent parcels or th community. If the Director cannot make such a determination, them tter may b ; referred to the Planning Commission, per Section 18.69.0801 In addition, the flood x area of, the Second family unit shall not exceed 10% of the (subject site where the , I. unit is detached. In no,instance shall any second.famny unit exceed 1200 square feet in size or be smaller than an area,to provide for an efficiency unit as defined'by . the Uniform Building Code. ; Staff has incorporated this langdage into the propose Ordinance reflecting each motion of the Commission. The Staff has presented th above as Option 1. Mrs. Robinson of Stonewood Construction came to the on i al Hearin and made 9 9 some recommendations., One of Ms. Robinson's comments) was to tie the size of, the unit to the size of the.lot. Both attached and detached should be tied solely tq the size of the lot. The Staff had some concems with this proposal as situations may arise where small residences will end up .with an attached single-family unit to the rear larger than the main.residence. This would encourage more of a d plex type oaf development rather than the second family unit. This Option was presented a Option 2'of the;Staff Report' Staff is recommending that!the Planning Commission approve the proposed revise Second Family!Unit with Option 1 as discussed; also, to call dpon the City Council t� adopt the proposed Ordinance based on the recommendation and findings that thi� proposed Ordinance is consistent with the General Plan and all other applicable requirements of local Ordinances and the State Law and that the propose 4 �'�°''°`.,`•l'`'�'is=s> ,y ,N;i.�,�.,�.:`�!;."4�,,%a'',:' . Ordinance will not be detrimental to the,health, safety, morals, or general welfare of residences within the City. Chair Van Gelder asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner Whitley asked Planning Associate Lampe with regard to Option 1: Is there an upper limit in terms of the discretion of the Economic Development Director on the size_ of a single family unit? Would it be the Commission's pleasure to consider some type of a parameter to serve as a guide as to what would be an acceptable percentage or upper unit? Commissioner Wilson pointed out to Commission Whitley that on Page 4 of the second portion of the Staff Report, a parameter or upper limit of 1,200 square feet has been,given. Commissioner Whitley indicated that his.questions were satisfactorily answered. MOTION PC-38-2001: Commissioner Wilson made a motion to approve the Second Family Unit Ordinance to include Option 1. Commissioner Whitley seconded the motion. r MOTION VOTE -' PC-38-2001: Approved 3-0-0-1. Commissioner Addington absent Commissioner Trainor absent ADJOURN SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENE PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION Information from Commissioners Commissioner Wilson reported that there is a homeowner on the East side of Preston Street that has a temporary chain link fence in the front yard and has had it for quite awhile now. Planning Associate Lampe replied that Code Enforcement Department is aware of the issue and is currently researching the City's code. ChairVan Gelder wanted to know the status of the KEEP Program. 5 i Planning Associate.Lampe informed the Commission of the meeting that was held on December 19, 2001 to provide further information to business owners. Six interested parties have inquired about the program so far; and one business owner has submitted the required paperwork. • Information to Commissioners Planning Associate Lampe reported the status of the La Mesa RV Center. The;City is working with the company's to build anew facility. 1 � k The La Mancha building hash been improved, and a new tenant will be moving in by the end of the year. Joanne Lombardo is working on the housing element and will be presenting-itAo' the Commission at the next Planning Commission Meeting. ADJOURN PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION AT 7:32 PM ; NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON JANUARY 17, ,2002 I I Respectfully Submitted, j Approved By; J n Lampe, A sociate Planner Fran Van Gelder, Chairperson F Patrizia Materassi Planning Commission' Community and!Economic Development 6 , Joe_ITr 6Ranv TER R cE Community Development Department TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Community and Economic Development Department DATE: November 15, 2001 SUBJECT: Z-01-01,Proposed Ordinance to Revised the Second Family Unit Provisions and to Allow a Second, Full-sized, Single Family Residence in the Multifamily Zones; and E-01-01, a Proposed Negative Declaration that Said Ordinance will not have a Significant Impact on the Environment APPLICANT: City of Grand Terrace - Department of Community and Economic Development LOCATION: City-wide RECOMMENDATION: Open the Public Hearing on Z-01-01 and E-01-07, hear testimony, close the public -hearing and recommend that the City Council approve the Proposed Ordinance to Amend the Second Family Unit _ and to Allow a' Second Full Sized Single Family Unit in the Multifamily Residential Zones and approve the proposed Negative Declaration. I. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission has held two workshops to review and discuss the issues, concerning revising the City's-Second Family Unit provisions and allowing'for full sized, single family residential in the City's multifamily zones. These workshops were held on May 17'and July 19' of this year. Copies of the minutes of these two meetings are attached for your reference. (Please see Attachments 2 and 3) At the July 19'' workshop the Planning Commission discussed a draft of the proposed ordinance ATTACHMENT 4 22795 Barton Road ,, Grand Terrace, California 92313-5295 m (909) 824-6621 I Most of the discussion centered around whether a public hearing should be required for a second family unit or an administrative review by staff would be appropriate. It wa's noted that if large room additions are presently reviewed administratively by staff, it would be appropriate to allow for the same review for an attached type,second family units,where the second family unit is connected to the main residence. However, for detached type units, where the second'family unit is separated from the main residence, a public hearing before the Planning Commission should be required. 1 Accordingly,the Planning Commission approved a motion to include in the proposed Second Family Unit Ordinance a provision that attached single family units be reviewed and approved administratively by staff and that detached single family units be required to come before the Planning Commission with a public hearing for review and approval by the Commission. r A majority of the members present approved this motion. II. PURPOSE: a On October 19th, 2000 the Planning Commission heard a request by Storiewood Construction for a two bedroom, 1;043 square foot second family unit (CUP-00-0I/SA-00-10) at 22020 Vivienda Avenue. In the staff report, it was pointed out that the City's Zoning Ordinance contains some inconsistencies with State Law with respect to second family units. It was additionally noted that per the City's General Plan Housing Element, adopted by Ordinance, (noted below),�staff would bring to the Planning Commission an amendment to modify the City's Development Code to comply with State law. In addition, as part of this review process,the concept of second family units as rental units of 1,350 square feet or more instead of the maximum 1,200 square feet proscribed by State law would also be discussed. Local builders have requested that there be no conditional use permit requirement for second single family units and/or there be no restriction of 1,200 square feet for second family units in the R2 and R3 but second family units be full sized. i The City's Housing Element was amended in May of 1999 by the City Council. The Housing Element contains the following language regarding the City's Second Unit Ordinance: The City, adopted a second unit ordinance with the Zoning Code amendments of 1988(chapter 18.69 of Zoning Code). Second family units are now permitted to code in all single family residential districts.' Second family units, unless properly monitored and maintained, may negatively affect local property values. Therefore,the City does not encourage their construction unless they provide housing for senior citizens. The City intends to revise the ordinance to ensure that specific standards meet State law and do not constrain the provision of affordable housing. Second units will be eligible for partial financing with Redevelopment Agency funds j when proposed at specifically identified sites within the City and intended , for occupancy by senior citizens. The purpose of the proposed Ordinance is to revise the Second Family Unit Ordinance and to allow for a second, full sized single family residential unit in the multifamily zones reflecting the reasons outlined above but also incorporating the comments and emotion made by the Planning Commission resulting from the two workshops on the proposed Ordinance. I i III. PROPOSED ORDINANCE: Attached to this report is the proposed Ordinance which will add certain definitions to the Zoning Code; will modify the existing Second Family Unit provisions of the Code; and will allow for a second, full sized single family residential units in the City's multifamily zoning districts as permitted uses subject to a site and architectural review.(Please see Attachment 1 for the proposed Ordinance.) Staff has prepared this ordinance based on the draft that was submitted to you on July 10-together with the comments made by members of the Commission in the discussion on this topic both on May 17`'and July 19''. In most instances staff has attempted to follow what appeared to be a majority J point of view on the various aspects discussed on second family units and full sized single family units. In addition,we made attached single family units subject to an administrative review by staff and detached single family units subject to a public hearing before the Planning Commission. This was in keeping with the motion approved by the Planing Commission at the conclusion of the second workshop on July 19th. In the proposed Ordinance,we have added some;needed definitions to the Zoning Code so that there is a clear understanding of the differences between a second family unit and a full sized, single family detached dwelling. We have also modified the existing second family unit provisions in the Zoning Code by allowing second family units in all of the residential zones including multifamily with the issuance of an administrative conditional use permit, which would be an administrative review by staff for attached type units, and with the issuance of a"regular"conditional use permit requiring a public hearing before the Planning Commission for detached type units. In addition, a public hearing before the Planning Commission would also take place if the proposed attached single family unit does not meet certain approval criteria specified in the proposed Ordinance. Also, as noted above, we have proposed that the R2 and R3 zones be modified to allow for a second, full sized single family unit as a permitted use subject to a site and architectural review. As indicated earlier, staff followed the comments that were made at the two, earlier workshops. However,on the occupancy issue discussed on May 17th,we did not see the necessity of requiring at least one adult to occupy the second family unit if it were rented out. This would be a very difficult requirement to enforce. Besides a reasonable assumption can be made that if a unit is rented out,there must be a financially responsible person living in the unit which most likely would be an adult anyway. For these reasons,we have tied the occupancy of the second family units to the health and safety issue of overcrowding which is defined as an occupancy of more than one person per room. This,we feel, is a more critical occupancy issue and which would stand any potential legal tests regarding occupancy which may occur as have occurred for"age"restrictions. At the workshops,several members of the Planning Commission expressed the opinion that the size of the second family units ought to be tied to the size of the:lot in question. We have added a provision to the proposed Ordinance that a detached second family unit shall not exceed 10%of the lot and that an attached unit,while it can not exceed 30% of the living area of the main residence, must also not exceed 10% of the lot. We have also added some upper and lower limits to the allowable sizes which are 400 square feet as a minimum and 1,200 square feet as a maximum, following the lead of State law. (Please see Attachment 4 for table on units sizes.) As an example of how this size regulation will work,we have prepared the following calculations for a typical 7,200 square foot lot in the R1-7.2 zone; this zone, by the way, covers most of the residential areas in the City: i I I EXAMPLE: Lot Size = 7,200 square feet I House = 2,000 square feet I ' Attached Unit = 600 square feet, maximum(s30% of residence) or j Detached Unit= 720 square feet, maximum (s 10% of the lot size) I Lot Coverage = 43% (assuming there is a 400 square foot garage) w/detached unit Maximum for the zone is 50% We have included a provision in the proposed Ordinance that any trees or shrubs on the site, removed because of the construction of the second family unit, must be replaced; a provision that a conventional metal-sided mobilehome can not be used as a second unit but must be a manufactured home on a permanent foundation meeting the design requirements of the Zoning Code; and a j rewording of the requirement for recording the land use restrictions for the second family unit so that now said restrictions must be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. For the approval criteria, we have included a requirement that the second family unit must be j integrated into the"house envelop,"meaning it has to be architecturally compatible with the existing house,follow the roof line and not look like an add on. We have also required that the second family unit must be clearly subordinate in size,location,appearance and access to the main residence. For a attached type unit,which normally would be reviewed administratively by staff, if it did not meet these criteria,in the judgement of the Director,then the proposed attached unit would have to go to the Planning Commission for a public hearing with a full notice to all property owners within 300 feet just like what is required for a detached type unit. Also,we have added to the approval criteria a requirement that the second family unit must conform to the color, materials, architectural style f I and detailing of the main residence and must meet all requirements of the building and zoning codes. Lastly,it should be noted that besides allowing for an administrative reviev process for certain types of Second Family Units,i.e.,attached units,the proposed Ordinance will additionally streamline the process by eliminating the current requirement that a site and architectural review be concurrently filed with the conditional use permit. Staff believes that the design and layout of the proposed Second Family Unit can be adequately reviewed through the conditional use permit he and there is no necessity for a second application. The last part of the proposed Ordinance modifies Table 18.10.030 of the Zoning Code to allow second single family(full sized)units in the R2 and R3 zones as permitted uses, i.e.,no conditional use permit required. This was in keeping with comments made by members of the Planning Commission that they would have no problem allowing for second single family(full sized) units in the multifamily zones. Footnotes have been included indicating that these second,units would only be allowed if the property is developed with no more than one single;family detached unit and the lot in question meets the minimum area requirement of the Zoning Code. Staff feels that allowing such units will not have any additional impact on City services than what. is currently allowed in the R2 and R3 zones. Such units will still be required to have a site and architectural review which is the current requirement for all single family(full sized) residential units). Staff did not propose that second, full sized, single family units be permitted in the single family I I I I I I zones because of the anticipated impact such a proposal could have on services and the residential environment. III.ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Based on the initial study and environmental review under E-01-07, the proposed Ordinance is deemed to qualify for Negative Declaration. (See Attachments 4 and 5, the Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration.) IV. CITY ATTORNEY: We have submitted the proposed Ordinance to the City Attorney for review and comment. Because of time constraints,we are not able to include his comments, if any,in this report;but we will report his review to the Planning Commission at the November 15, 2001 public hearing. V. RECOMMENDATION: The Staff-recommends to the Planning Commission that it recommend to the City Council the adoption of the proposed Ordinance,Z-01-01,for second family units in the City's residential zones and second,full sized single family residential in the multifamily zones and approval oftheNegative Declaration,E-01-07. This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan in that the proposed Ordinance will further and carry out the goals, objective and policies of the Housing Element of the General Plan including the provision in the Housing Element to revise the Second Family Unit Ordinance to comply with State law and the general goal of providing and encouraging a supply of housing suitable to the needs and sufficient in number to serve existing and future residents of the City of Grand Terrace. 2. The proposed amendment to the Grand Terrace Zoning Code is consistent with all other applicable requirements of local ordinances and state law in that the proposed revisions to the Second Family Unit Ordinance and the addition of provisions for a second,full sized single family residence in the multifamily zones will not conflict with any existing provision of the Zoning Code and will be in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. 3.The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the health,safety,morals,comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or working within the City of Grand Terrace or be injurious to property or improvements within the City of Grand Terrace;r All individual housing projects falling under the provisions of the proposed Ordinance will be separately evaluated to insure that all potential adverse impacts must be fully mitigated before building permits are issued.. residential in the;multifamily zones(Attachment 4)and approval of the Negative Declaration,E-01- 07(Attachment 6). i I This recommendation isbased on the following findings: R 1. The proposed, project is consistent with the General Plan in that the; proposed Ordinance will further and carry out the goals,,objective and policies of the Housing Element of the General Plan including the provision in the Housing Element to revise the Second Family Unit Ordinance to comply with State law and the general goal of providing and encouraging a supply of housing suitable to the needs and sufficient in number to serve existing and future residents of the City of Grand Terrace. 2. The proposed amendment to the Grand Terrace Zoning Code is consistent with all other applicable requirements of local ordinances and state law in that the ,proposed revisions to the Second Family Unit Ordinance and the addition of provisions fora second,full sized',single family residence in the multifamily zones will not conflict with any existing provision ofthe'Zoning Code and will be in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. 3.The proposed;amendment will not be detrimental to the health,safety,morals,comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or working within the City of Grand Terrace or be injurious to property or improvements within the City of Grand Terrace. All individual housing projects falling under the provisions of the proposed Ordinance will be separately evaluated to insure that all potential adverse impacts must be fully mitigated before building permits are issued- I Respectfully submitted, Approved by: (!An Lampe, Associate Planner Patrizia Materassi Community and Economic Development Director; i JL:jl Attachments: Attachment 1 —Planning Commission report on Z-01-0I/E-01-07 dated 11-15-01 Attachment 2—Definition of"Efficiency Dwelling Unit"from the Uniform Building Code Attachment 3 -Sketch of a smaller main residence with a larger'second family unit allowed by elimination the 30%requirement. Attachment 4 -Proposed Ordinance for Second Family Unit and Second, Full Sized Residential in Multifamily Zones l Attachment 5 - Environmental Checklist Form (Initial Study) for E-01-07 Attachment 6 - Proposed Negative Declaration for e-01-07 { C I cAMyFi1es\John\Seocndunits\Z-01-01 commreportl 1,-15.rpt2 I I i 5 ! i GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 2001 The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on November 15, 2001 at 7:00 p.m., by Chairperson Fran Van Gelder. PRESENT: Fran Van Gelder, Chairperson Doug Wilson, Vice Chairperson Matthew Addington, Commissioner Mary Trainor, Commissioner Brian Whitley, Commissioner Patrizia Materassi, CEDD'Director John Lampe, Associate Planner Michelle Boustedt, CEDD Secretary ' 7:00 P.M. , CONVENED SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • Call to Order • ` Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Trainor • Roll Call • Public,address to Commission shall be limited to three minutes unless extended by the Chairman. Should you desire to make a longer presentation, please make written request to be agendized to the Community Development Director. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: NONE • This is the time for anyone in the audience to speak on any item, which is not on the agenda for this meeting. ATTACHMENT 5' 1 Essco decided to move'into that building instead. Mr. Coffin has spoken to the owner of Essco Electric in which he said that 'sales have increased ten-fold since they have relocated to Grand Terrace. Mr. Coffin stated that all licensed contractors such as plumbers or electricians who pay sales tax will far exceed the 30% requirement that has been put into the Conditional Use Permit. Greg Goatcher - - Riverside Winnelson 12011 Honey Hill Drive; Grand Terrace Mr. Goatcher informed the Commission that he was happy to relocate in the City of Grand Terrace and has occupied a building located at the Junction of the 91� 215 and 60 freeways for six years. The Barton Road exit proves to be superior compared to where the; business is� currently located. Mr. Goatcher thanked the Commission and welcomed any questions tha they may have. Chair Van Gelder askedif anyone else wanted to speak in favor of or against this application. Corinne Robinson Stonewood Construction 22145 DeBerry Street Grand Terrace i Ms. Robinson stated that Riverside Winnelson Company was the type of stable business that the City of Grand Terrace needs, and encourages the land- owner to bring in more businesses of this nature to support;the City's tax structure. Chair Van Gelder closed the public, hearing and brought the items back to the Commission for discussion and action. MOTION PC-32-2001 + Commissioner Trainor moved to appro�e the conditions of approval' subject to the six conditions of approval as presented before the Commission f Commissioner Whitley seconded the motion . MOTION VOTE: ; Motion approved 5-0-0-0. PC-32-2001 Commissioner Trainor absent i &. -Z-01-01, E-01-07 Proposed Ordinance to Revised the Second Family Unit Provisions to Allow a Second, Full-sized, ,Single Family Residence in the Multi-Family Zones; and �E-01-01, a , Proposed Negative Declaration that Said Ordinaj�ce will not ' have a Significant Impact on the Environment. 4 Rl APPLICANT: City of Grand Terrace —Department of Community and Economic Development.' LOCATION: .Citywide RECOMMENDATION: Open the Public Bearing on Z-01-01 and E-01-07, hear testimony, close the public hearing and recommend that the City Council approve the Proposed Ordinance to Amend the Second Family Unit and to Allow a Second Full ,Sized Single Family Unit in the Multifamily Residential Zones and approve the proposed Negative Declaration. Planning Associate Lampe reported that the public hearing was for the proposed ordinance to revise the Second Family Unit Ordinance and to allow a second full-size single-family residence in the city's multi-family zone. The Planning Commission held two workshops to discuss the issues concerning revising the second unit family ordinance, and also allowing for a full size single-family residence in the multi-family zone. At the last workshop that was held on July 19th,-the Planning Commission discussed the draft of this proposed ordinance. Most of the discussion centered on whether a public hearing should be required for a second family unit or whether an administrative review could be performed by the Staff. It was noted that is large room additions are presently reviewed and administratively by Staff, it would also be appropriate to allow for the same kind of review for an attached type single-family unit where the single-family unit is attached or connected to the main residence. However, it was consensus of the Commission that detached type of units, that is where the second family unit is separated from the main residence, and that a public hearing before the Commission should and would be required. Accordingly, at the July workshop, the Planning Commission approved the motion to include the second family unit in the Ordinance a provision that_attached single-family units, which is those units that are attached to the main residence could be reviewed and approved administratively by Staff, but that detached single-family units come before the Planning Commission for a public hearing. Following the workshop input, the Staff did prepare the Ordinance presented at-this meeting to.follow the guidelines as instructed by the Commission. This particular Ordinance came out of issues that have been discussed at various times before the Planning Commission. The latest was when there was a second unit request on Vivienda. The applicant of that particular project is present at this meeting that has some comments for the Ordinance. It is the intention to City to revise the second family unit ordinance to comply with State Law. The Staff did prepare the ordinance based on the comments that have come out of the workshop of the Planning Commission specifically, included in the proposed ordinance, provisions allowing for administrative review for attached type of units and the public hearing. process for the detached units. The Ordinance also includes various features such as clarifying definition as to what is the second family unit versus a full-size single-family residence. The Ordinance does go above and beyond the second family unit Ordinance by allowing a full size second family residence in the R2 and R3 Zones. In addition, at the workshop, several of the members of the Planning Commission expressed the opinion that the size of 5 4 the second family unit will tie into ,the size of the property of the Ilot in question. This particular Ordinance indicates that the detached single-family residence should, not exceed 10% of the lot area and an attached unit should not exceed 30% of the,living area of the main residence. Staff also included upper and lower limits on the size of the second family unit. These particular limits came out of the Ordinance that the State has Iformuiated for second family units. i An initial study of an environmental review was performed of the proposed Ordinance and the Staff is recommending that the Ordinance does qualify for a negative, declaration and initial study, a post-negative declaration is, included in the Staff Report. The proposed Ordinance was reviewed by the City Attorney, land indicated that the Ordinance' is consistent with the State Law and there are no provisions that the Ordinance does not',comply with the State Law. The Staff does recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the adoption of the proposed Ordinance Z-01-01, the revision of the Second Family Unit Ordinance, and also to allow a second full-size single-family residence in the R2 and R3 Zones and the approval of the Negative Declaration. Chair Van Gelder opened up the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to speak before the Commission. I Corinne Robinson Stonewood Construction } r. 22145 DeDerry-Street Grand Terrace Ms. Robinson commended the Staff for their promptness in completing her application request. Ms.'Robinson's company builds many of the second familyr residence! here and in many other cities. When the second family unit application was filed for the property on Vivienda, she says she experienced inconsistency in the Code and would like to!address the inconsistencies during this meeting. , Ms. Robinson expressed her concern on how this Ordinance is being adopted,. In Ms. Robinson's opinion, the provision � for living, sleeping, eating andl sanitation within the minimum amount of square footage being 400 feet would be virtually impossible. Also, Ms Robinson is not in favorlof the concept of allowing Staff to administratively approve attached units, but not able to approve -detached units. Many of her clientele are limited income residents and cannot afford the $2000-$3000 application fees as charged by the'City. Jeffrey McConnell F 21758 Walnut Avenue Grand Terrace -Mr. McConnell expressed his opinion with regard to the City being too'strict with I he residents as far as the City Ordinances and Provisions. Mr. McConnell feels that the! City should review applications on a case-per-case basis. j g j • a .r,R'r+' iC�yi'�`r'^,�i,,;:d;+ rrF"';t,+�i��1.'..u"' "' '`*° • Chair Van Gelder closed the public hearing and brought the items back to the Commission for discussion and action. Commissioner Addington asked if Staff would give a response to the applicant, Ms Robinson's comments regarding the percentage numbers that were discussed at the last workshop. Planning Associate Lampe replied that it is Staffs intent to put some relationship with attached type units between the size of the attached unit and the size of the main residence. The City should not have a,fairly small main house and a large second family unit to the rear. The 30% standard comes from the Ordinance.that the State of California has prepared for suggested institutional guidelines for second family units. It is also the State of California's thinking that attached units should be tied to the size of the existing main residence. Our 30% figure came from the states suggested Guidelines. Ms. Robinson's point brings up validity that a quarter of the houses in the city,are relatively small, or less than the standard 1,350 square-feet. With a minimum of 400 square feet, some of the small residences would not be able to meet the 400 square foot standard. A clause could be added to the Ordinance tying the 30%.standard or,the 400 square foot standard, whichever may be smaller. Director Materassi added that this language would allow the smaller homes that are below 1,350 square feet to have a second family unit attached, which is bigger than 30%, and it would meet the 400 square foot minimum standard. If-a home were less than .1,200 square feet, the Ordinance would still allow a second family unit to be a minimum of 400 square feet. Staffs concerns are with, regard to taking the size of the attached unit and the size of the existing unit's appearance. Commissioner Addington asked if a house is 1,200 square feet, 30% 1,200 would be 400 square feet: So a residence would have to be smaller than 1,200 square feet to not be able to meet the 400 square foot minimum requirement. In the recommendation to the City Council, has this verbage been included or does this need to be added into the Ordinance? Director Materassi reported that it would have to be added into the Ordinance. Commissioner Wilson had some concerns with regard to having a smaller main ,residence and wanting to add a second single-family residence on an assumed 5-acre parcel, and what impact it would make in relation to having an architectural review that provides continuity to the existing design? Would creating a large amount of duplexes violate the City's Code? Director Materassi replied that this was a problem because when a secondary kitchen is installed, and no restrictions are placed on rentals, it could pose as a future code violation problem. If a condition was put in :to the Ordinance with regard to inhibiting the concept of a rental, then it may not comply with the State Law. Commissioner Wilson asked if it would be advisable to set an arbitrary limit of a 10,000 square foot lot and above that the 30% clause may not apply to? Director Materassi replied that the 10% clause would consist of the lot size. 7 i I i I I I I ' I Commissioner Trainor felt that if the size of the structure is relational to the size of the lot, then the restriction should not be in,,excess of 30% of the connected house, or 400 square , feet minimum. Planning Associate Lampe explained the intent of the Second Family Unit Ordinance is to make a reasonable limitation to the size of the unit, and it is the intent of the Staff to adopt a size limit. If a homeowner has a large piece of property, then a clause can be added to review special circumstantial cases by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Trainor felt that she ;would be in favor to add special;, review to, allow ,some cases that do not particularly fit the, Ordinance Numbers for special review. Commissioner Trainor asked if there was a concern of creating more rentals into the ity rather;than second family residences. Planning Associate Lampe reported that the consensus of the last workshop with regard to the Ordinance-was thaf there was potential for detached type of units creating an impact orl the neighborhood, and because of this, the Commission felt that-the; Planning 'Commissio In review process, and notification of the surrounding property owners to come before the Planning Commission for a Public Hearing. Director Materassi added that the Site and Architecture Application and the Conditional Use Permit Application were eliminated with regard to attached single-family 'units. The elimination of these two applications equals an amount of $1,400, 1which would leave an amount of $2,000 to include a Planning Commission Meeting. Ifj no Public Hearing is required, then the fees can be reduced down to $260 if an application is reviewed administratively. i Commissioner Wilson asked if the l State Guideline had addressed the issue of oversized Lots? I i I ' Planning Associate Lampe replied that the State Guidelines did not state any relation to the particular lot size. JJ ' Commissioner Wilson suggested that if the Commission proposed reiwording the Ordinance by stating that the lot sizes in excess of the minimum area of the zoning to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis? Commissioner Addington replied to!Commissioner Wilson by illustrating an example of using an oversized lot of Y2 acre or over 21,000 square feet as an example: If a detached house �s l allowed for up to 30% a 7,000 square foot residence would be allowed, and does not believe that anyone would be wanting to build a 7,000 square foot house.; It was Commissioner Addington's opinion that all of the conditions contained in the Ordinance as presented' seemed to be in compliance with State Law as well as other local agencies. Chair Van Gelder felt that the Commission seemed too concerned about the size of the second family unit, and!feels that senior citizens might not want to care for a larger home. Commissioner Trainor expressed that she was in opposition of Chair Van Gelder's opinion, and felt that there would not be any harm in someone coming before the Planning 8 I I i i I i Commission and having their case reviewed under special circumstances, and-further added that senior citizens may want to have independent living quarters from the main residence. Chair Van Gelder replied to Commissioner Trainor by agreeing that some exceptions can be made possible on a necessary case-by-case basis, and should be further reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Staff will always have a prerogative of bringing applications to the Planning Commission, should the need arise. Commissioner Whitley wanted to clarify and add additional language to the Ordinance that would state that notwithstanding a 30% limitation, no second family unit shall be less than 400 square feet, and asked in reviewing other City Ordinances, was 30% a uniform number or does the number vary? Planning Associate Lampe replied that the 30% figure is a uniform and standard figure that the Cities he reviewed had adopted. Commissioner Whitley felt that there might be families that feel that there are restrictions too limiting to their situations. The definition of a separate single-family unit is when a complete separate living facilities in this addition, particularly an attached unit, where applicant's may not need a separate kitchen. There may be a number of situations where the Second Family Ordinance may not come into play, and may be considered as a room addition, in which the family may reside. Commissioner Addington felt that at this point in time, he was not comfortable in making a recommendation to the City Council with regard to this Ordinance, and felt that Staff should make revisions to the Ordinance and bring it back for Planning Commission approval.. �-' Chair Van Gelder instructed the Commission to be specific about the revisions they are requesting for the Ordinance. Commissioner Wilson wanted to make a suggestion with regard to lot sizes in excess of the zoning of the area to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by Staff. If there were a potential for negative impact, found upon the adjacent neighbors or the neighborhood, then the Staff would use their discretion to bring the application before the Commission for review. Chair Van Gelder asked if Commissioner Wilson was suggesting to include his statement in the revised Ordinance? Commissioner Wilson replied that he wanted to include his suggestion into the Ordinance. MOTION PC-33-2001 Commissioner Wilson made a motion to include the following verbage in the revised Second Family Ordinance as follows: -Staff is to address cases in which an attached unit that contains a lot size that is larger than the minimal required zoning, should be reviewed on a case by case basis. If a potential for negative impact is found upon the adjacent neighbors or the neighborhood, Staff will bring the application before the Planning Commission for review. • 9 I Commissioner Trainor seconded the motion. j MOTION VOTE: PC-33-2001 Motion approved 5-0-0-0 Commissioner Trainor was satisfied with StafFs report in regard to a Conditional Use Application for a detached single-family residence, and had no further comment. I I MOTION PC-34-2001 Commissioner Whitley made a motion that the percentage of the living area be consistent with the minimum 400 square feet, so that any .'size of house may be allowed at the minimum" 400 square foot level. r Chair Van Gelder seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE: PC-34-2001 Motion approved 5-0-0-0 I i MOTION PC-35-2001 Chair Van Gelder made a motion to direct Staff to come back 11 before the Planning Commission with the recommended changes, in the Ordinance. Commissioner Trainor seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE: PC-35-2001 Motion approved 5-0-0-0 8:07 P.M. CONVENED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION • Information fromCom miss ioners None • Information to Commissioners Director Materassi asked the Commission if they would be able to attend the next meeting scheduled for December 20, 2001. I Commissioner Trainor stated that she would not be able to attend the next meeting due to a prior work deadline she would have;to meet on that day. � I Director Materassi updated the Commission with the following: Sav-on did not accept the former Rite Aid site. The real estate representative for the inland: Empire area passed away from a staph infection, therefore, all site considerations were 10 I f - OT, RAND TERR c Community Development Department NEGATIVE DECLARATION ' Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act,a Negative Declaration is hereby filed on the below referenced project, on the basis that said project will not have a significant effect on the environment. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: Z-01-01 and E-01-07, amendment to the Zoning Code(Title 18 of the Municipal Code) of the City of Grand Terrace to add certain definitions to Chapter 18.06 relative to second family unit and single family detached residential; and by amending Chapter 18.69 regarding the provisions for second family units to comply with State law;and by modifying Table 18.10.30 of the Zoning Code to allow for a second,full sized single family units in the City,s multifamily residential zones. The proposed revisions to the Second Unit Ordinance will result in only a minimal number of additional units,less than 100,over the next 20 years. The proposed revisions to the multifamily zones to allow a second, full sized, single family unit will not increase the number of projected residential units in the City. �i APPLICANT: City of Grand Terrace LOCATION: City Wide FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS: Based on the attached Initial Study, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant impact on the environment. J Lampe, Interim Director of Planning Date of Grand Terrace JL:ji c-\wp61\..\planning\john\Secondunits\E0107.nd ATTACHMENT 6 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92313-5295 • (909) 824-6621 I City of Grand Terrace Community and Economic Development Department Environmental Checklist Form & Initial Study ,i 1. Project Title: City of Grand Terrace General Plan Revision--Amend the Zoning Code by Revising the Second Family Unit Ordinance and by Allowing a Second,Full Sized Single Family Unit in the Multifamily Residential Zones, I _ 2. Lead Agency Name;and Address: City of Grand Terrace ` Community and Economic Development Department 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace,CA 92313 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Patrizia Materassi, Community and Economic Development Director: (909)430-2247 i 4. Project Location: City-Wide,City of Grand Terrace,CA 92313 I 5. Project Sponsor's Name City of Grand Terrace Community and Economic Development Department 6. General Plan Designation: N/A i 7. Zoning: N/A 8. 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 prepare and add an amendment to the City of Grand Terrace's Zoning Code to add certain definitions to Chapter 18.06 relative to second family unit and single family detached residential;and by amending Chapter 18.69 regarding the provisions for second family units to comply with State law; and by modifying Table 18.10.30 of the Zoning Code to allow for a second, full sized single family units;in the City's multifamily residential zones. The proposed revisions to the Second Unit Ordinance will result in only a minimal number of addtional units,less than 100,over the next 20 years. The proposed revsions to the multifamily zones to allow a second,full sized,,single family unit will not increase the number of projected`residential units in the City. j I 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) North: N/A. i East: N/A. South: N/A. i 5 West: N/A. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., Permits, financing approval, or participation agreement) I None Community and Economic Development Department 1 i Initial Study and Environmental Analysis I a I 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. N 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. - ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s)on the environment,but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document to applicable legal standards,and 2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis 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 EIRpursuant 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. to Sr Signature Date Patrizia Materassi Community and Economic Development Director Printed Name Title Community and Economic 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 j 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 XVH, "Earlier Analyses,"may be cross-referenced). t 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 1XVII 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. i I I i Community and Economic Development Department 3 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis i 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 lan designation or zoning? ❑ ❑ ❑ (Proposed amendments will modify zoning code which will, by definition eliminate conflicts; City's Housing Element of the General Plan calls for amending the ❑ `❑ ❑ Second Family Unit Ordinance to comply with State law,therefore amendment is consistent with the City's General Plan.) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or ❑ ❑ ❑ policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (There are no known agencies where the proposed amendment 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 Terrace) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an ❑ ❑ ❑ established community (including a low-income or minority communityj? (No specific development is proposed by the amendment to the Zoning Code. ) A brief explanation to answer I: The proposed amendment will modify the City's Zoning Code to bring about conformance of the Second Unit Ordinance with State Law and to allow for a second,full sized unit in the multifamily zones. These proposed changes will by definition be consistent with the City's Zoning Code and are consistent with the policies of the Housing Element of the General Plan and the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Such changes will not conflict with any applicable environmental plans or policies in the area. Provisions in the proposed Second Unit Ordinance will minimize incompatiblity with existing land use. Also,these proposed amendments to the Zoning Code will not affect agricultural resources(there are none to speak of in Grand Terrace)nor disrupt the physical arrangement of the community. Community and Economic 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 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 I housing? O ❑ ❑ ❑ ® i I i A brief explanation to answer II: The proposed project is to revise the City's Second Unit Ordinance. No more than 100 additional)units are expected to result from this amendment. These additional units would come about by the elimination of the conditional use permit requirement for attached,second units. This increase would amount to only approximately 2% of the existing numbe� of dwelling units in the City. No increase in the number of dwelling units projected for the mutifamily residential zones is expected because the proposed Ordinance proposes to restrict any such lot or parcel with a second,full sized,single family unit to no more than two units on the lot or parcel. Therefore, no population projections are expected to be exceeded; nor will these proposals be growth inducing. Lastly,the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code are proposing to add second type units; no displacement of existing housing will occur. III Geologic Problems. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: i a) Fault rupture? (General'Plan MEA/EIR- ES-4) ❑ ❑ ❑ i 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Landslides or mudflows? (GP MEA/EIR II-1) ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil ❑ i ❑ ❑ 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) i Community and Economic 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 A brief explanation to answer III: The proposed project is to amend the City's Second Unit Ordinance and to allow a second,full sized single family residence in the City's multifamily zones. All new structures resulting from these changes will be constructed in the City's residential zones where no identified geological hazards exist. In addtion,any such construction may require the submittal of a grading plan together with soils reports at the discretion of the Director of Building and Safety/Public Works. IV. Water. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the ❑ ❑ ❑ e 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) -Y 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 H-1) -`e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water ❑ ❑ ❑ movements? () 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 H-1) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (GP ❑ ❑ ❑ MEA/EIR II-1) 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 H-1) A brief explanation to answer IV: All construction allowed by these proposed changes to the Zoning Code,to amend the Second Family Unit provisions and to allow a second,full sized,single family residence in the multifamily zones will have to comply with existing standards and requirements for residential construction including the provision that such development connect to a public sewer system or comply with those requirement of the State's Water Quality Control Board. Community and Economic Development Department 6 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis I Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than I,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 ❑ i❑ ❑ existing or projected air quality violation? (GP MEA/EIR H-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 ❑ i� ❑ 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) j A brief explanation to answer V: The proposed project is for residential construction. No institutional uses are proposed which might expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. Also,no industrial or manufacturing uses are proposed which could conceivably alter air movements or create objectionable odors. i I ; ' I j I I I i ' I i Community and Economic 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 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) fl Conflicts with adopted policies supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ f alternative transportation(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (TCM Ordinance 147) g) Rail,waterborne or air traffic impacts? () ❑ ❑ ❑ rief explanation to answer VI: _ The proposed project is an amendment to the Second Family Unit Ordiance and to modify the multifamily residential zones to allow a second,full sized,single family residence. Any increase in the number of dwelling units resulting from making it easier to obtain a Second Family Unit Ordinance because of the elimation of a conditional use permit for attached type second family units will be minimal. Therefore,the potential impact _ to City's traffic and circulation system will be minimal. No increase in the number of projected dwellings is expected from allowing a second,full sized,single family unit in the City's multifamily residential zones. Community and Economic Development Department 8 Initial Study and . Environmental Analysis I j I Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than j No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated I VII. Biological Resources. Would the proposal result j in impacts to: I � I a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or ❑ ❑ ❑ their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (GP MEA/EIR H-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 j MEA/EIR II-20) d) Wetland habitat(e.g., marsh, riparian, and ❑ ❑ ❑ 13 vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ❑ ❑ ❑ (GP MEA/EIR II-20) Brief explanation to answer VII: The proposed project is to revised the Second Unit Family Ordinance and to allow for a second,full sized,single family residential unit in the multifamily zones. All such development resulting from these modifcations will take place within the existing residential areas of the City. Each proposal will be qualified for a"Categorically Exemption"under CEQA. Because of these factors,no adverse impacts to any biological resources are expected. I VIII. Energy and Mineral Resources. Would the j proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy ❑ ❑ ❑ conservation plans? (GP MEA/EIR H-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 f MEA/EIR II-19, and Append B) I Community and Economic 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 Brief explanation to answer VIII: No mineral resources have been identified in the City.The proposed amendments to the Zoning Code are not expected to affect energy conservation plans or non-renewable resources.No potential adverse impacts to energy or mineral resources are expected to result from implementation of the project. 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 II-7) b) Possible interference with ❑ ❑ ❑ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (GT Emergency Plan, and GP MEA/EIR 11-13) c) The creation of any health hazard or ❑ ❑ ❑ potential health hazard? (GP MEA/EIR 1I-1) d) Exposure of people to existing ❑ ❑ ❑ sources of potential health hazards? (GP MEA/EIR H-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 amendments to the City's Zoning Code will result in residential construction. No hazardous conditions are expected to result from this additional residential construction. Any such construction in a fire hazardous area would have to comply fully with all requirements of the County of San Bernardino Fire Department. Community and Economic Development Department 10 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis _ i I Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated I X. Noise. Would the proposal result in: ' I a) Increase in existing noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ (GP MEA/EIR II-10) b) Exposure of people to severe noise ❑ ❑ ❑ levels? (GP MEA/EIR II-10) Brief explanation to answer X. 1 The proposed project is to amend the Second Family Unit Ordinance and to allow a second,full sized,residential unit in the multifamily zones will not increase noise levels. In addition,any construction resulting from these amendments in areas of high ambient noise levels would have to insulate the interiors from outside noise. I 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 amend the Second Family Unit Ordinance and to allow a second,full sized,single family residential unit in the multifamily zones. As noted above in the project description,no significant numbers of dwelling units are expected to result from these amendments. 1 i i i I � Community and Economic Development Department 11 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 II-30) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (GP ❑ ❑ ❑ MEA/EIR II-30) e) Storm water drainage? (GP ❑ ❑ ❑ MEA/EIR II-33) f) Solid waste disposal? .(GP ❑ ❑ ❑ MEA/EIR 1I-32) g) Local or regional water supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑ (GP MEA/EIR II-3 0) Brief explanation of answer XII. The proposed project is to amend the Second Family Unit Ordinance and to allow a second,full sized,single family residential unit in the multifamily zones. As noted above in the project description,no significant numbers of dwelling units are expected to result from these amendments and no need for expansion of utility serves are contemplated. 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? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ -` Community and Economic Development Department 12 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis i Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Brief explanation to answer XIII. There are no scenic highways in Grand Terrace to be effected by these proposed changes. In addition,the small number of units anticipated under these changes will not affect any scenic vistas in the community. The proposed changes to require a review of the design and appearance of the second family units; and the full sized single family units will require a site'and architectural review. These requirements will provide the mechanisms to insure that the development will not have a negative aesthetic effect nor create glare onto adjacent residential parcels. In addition,the proposed Second Family Unit Ordinance contains requirements to insure that the resulting projects are aethetically compatible with the adjoining areas. XIV. Cultural Resources. Would the proposal: I 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 i MEA/EIR II-22) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred ❑ ❑ ❑ uses within the potential impact area? Brief explanation to answer XIV. Implementation of the proposed amendments to the Second Family Unit Ordinance and to the multifamily zones to allow a second,full sized,single family residence are not expected to result in adverse impacts relative to cultural resources. 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 II-21) Community and Economic 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 Brief explanation to answer XV. The relative small increase in the numbers of dwellings projected for the City will not result in any increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. Nor will such a small number affect existing recreational opportunities in the City. .i Community and Economic Development Department 14 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis Issues and Support Information Sources): Potential) Potential) Less than No � PP ) Y Y , Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated XV1. Mandatory findings of significance. i 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 j 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ i, disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that ❑ ❑ ❑ are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? i ("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? ' I i i I I Community and Economic Development Department 15 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis ' i I 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 consists of revising the Second Family Unit Ordinance to bring about its conformance with State Law and to modify the multifamily residential zones to allow a second, full sized, single family residence. As discussed above the increase in the number of residential units over projections made under the General Plan are expected to be very minimal. Therefore, any such amendments to the City's Zoning Code will result in less than a significant impact. 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: i 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 project. ■ Not Applicable Community and Economic Development Department 16 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis i i i I I I Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated PM:JL.jl Grand Terrace Community and Economic Development Dept Authority:Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. References:Public Resources Code Sections 21080(c),21080.1,21080.3,21082.1,21083,21083.3,21093,21094,21151;Sunstrom v. j County of Mendocino,202 Cal.App.3d 296(1988);Leonoffv.Monterey Board of Supervisors,22 Cal.App.3d 1337(1990) i c:\wp61\..\planning\john\Secondunits\E0107.is i I ' I i f i i L I i i f li I I I I Community and Economic Development Department 17 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis I CI Tr ° RANa TERR C STAFF REPORT G City Manager's Office CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (X ) MEETING DATE: March 28, 2002 SUBJECT: Northwest Corner Parking at Mt. Vernon/Grand Terrace Road FUNDING REQUIRED ( ) NO FUNDING REQUIRED (X ) In 1999 the City Council determined that the parking of vehicles for sale was becoming a problem at the City owned parcel at the southwest corner of Mt. Vernon and Grand Terrace Rd., sometimes referred to as lookout point. In order to discourage this practice the Council authorized the installation of no parking signs which generally alleviated the problem. In the spring of 2001 the City Council determined that the parking of vehicles for sale on private property was becoming a general problem in other areas of the city and directed staff to research a method to control off street parking of vehicles for sale. On July 12, 2001 the Council adopted Ordinance#198 establishing PARE NG OF MOTOR VEHICLES FOR SALE which allows the deputies to site any vehicle,displayed for sale on private property without a need for a specific no parking sign. The original purpose of the original signs has been superceded by the current ordinance and for the purpose of eliminating parked vehicles for sale is unnecessary. Staff feels the issue should be confined to whether they wish to allow parking for purposes of other than for sale or not. Staff has not conducted any analysis to determine whether any liability does or does not exist from allowing parking. It would most likely not be prudent to establish potential liability or lack thereof. The issue at this point is simply should the City Council allow parking for purposes other than vehicles for sale. COUNUL AGENDA ITEM NO®. I i STAFF RECOMMENDATION: STAFF RECOMMENDS COUNCIL EVALUATE AND DETERMINE WHETHER IT SHALL ALLOW VEHICLE PARKING FOR OTHER THAN SALE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MT. VERNON AVE. AND GRAND TERRACE ROAD. j 1 � I i i � I � I i I � t i l i A NO TER Community Services Department Staff Report COUNCIL ITEM (XX) MEETING DATE: March 28, 2002 SUBJECT: FRANCHISE AMENDMENT: WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES NO FUNDING REQUIRED BACKGROUND: In 'March 1998, the City of Grand Terrace entered into a revised 10-year franchise agreement with USA Waste of California Inc. DBA Waste Management of the Inland Empire (WM) for residential, industrial and commercial waste pick-up. The Franchise provides for a full range of waste collection services, including recycling and waste diversion programs. The implementation of our waste programs has experienced significant success. Grand Terrace has established a waste diversion rate of over 50%, placing our City in the top 5% of cities in the State of California. DISCUSSION: In recent months, Staff and representatives of WM have been in discussions regarding rate structure for both residential and commercial services and other service enhancements. WM has brought forward a proposal which addresses Staff concerns on these and other topics. Specifically, the issues addressed include the following: • 1. Revision of DEFINTIONS • 2. COMMERCIAL RATE adjustments • 3. RESIDENTIAL RATE adjustments • 4. DELINQUENT RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS • 5. CONTRACT TERM changes • 6. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The proposal from WM is as follows: 1. DEFINITIONS. Two definitions are revised as follows so as to provide curbside trash and recycling services to Grand Royal Mobile Home Park per their request: 1�1u1ti-Family Premises - means residential units such as apartments, condominiums and townhouses, other than Single Family dwellings, having four or more units, which utilize Multi-Family Bins, as defined in this Agreement, and not cans or carts, for the temporary accumulation and collection of Residential Solid Waste. "Multi-Family Units" are covered by this Agreement. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. Franchise Amendment: Waste Management Services Agenda Report March 28, 2002 { Page 2of5 ' I Residential Premises or Single Family Dwelling or Single Family Unit — Generally means a detached building, or each unit of multi-family dwelling, with kitchen facilities, which utilizes one or,more carts or cans, but not Multi-family Bin, for the temporary accumulation and collection of'Residential Solid Waste. For purposes of this definition, mobile home complexes may elect to receive either Multi-family Bin collection Services or Single Family Premises Collection Services by mutual consent of the Contractor and the Customer. j 2. Commercial Rates "- Commercial Rates:'WM proposes to freeze all commercial customers rates that are paying the set Standardized Rates approved by the council for a period of three (3) years: Those customers who are not paying the set Standardized Rate (see Exhibit F) will be adjusted at,a rate of 3% annually, plus the CPI for the next three (3) years. Any commercial customer not yet at the full amount at the Standardized Rate on June 20, 2005 will be adjusted to the full amount of the Standardized Rate. Please see Exhibit A for the rate breakdown of Grand Terrace commercial customers. You will note the following concerning the current commercial customers: 30% (37) will have no rate adjustments for 3 years 42% (54) will have a rate adjustment ranging from $2.08 to $9.64 per month 13% (17) will have a rate adjustment ranging from $12.23 to $23.85 per month 6% (8) will have a rate adjustment ranging from $28.96 to $79.30 per,month 1.5% (2) will have a rate adjustment, one at S 106.27, and the other at $170.88 per month j 3. Residential Rates: WM proposes to keep the monthly residential picklup fee charged to the customer the same ($19.01 for 96 gallon containers $18.01 for 64 gallon service) and waive the 2001 and scheduled 2002 CPI increase of an estimated $0.86 per month for a total residential savings annual savings of S 10.32. The next scheduled CPI'increase will not occur until June 2003. In addition, WM and city staff have negotiated that S.85 per month per resident collected by WM will be used to fund street sweeping services. With this revenue; the city will now be able to provide twice per month street sweeping service. Currently the city offers once per month service. The result will be (1) cleaner streets (2) no additional irate increases to residents (3) compliance with potential NPDES II regulation changes. 4. Delinquent Residential Accounts: For those residential accounts which are delinquent on payments of more than 18 months, cancel services and begin collection proceedings. i In 1998, WM performed an extensive audit of the City to identify addresses which were either not paying, or delinquent in service payments. This audit identified approximately, 300 accounts (most billing problems was a result of the change over in the franchise from BFI to USA/WM). WM was requested by staff to implement a progressive payment system which allowed customers identified to i .1• Franchise Amendnient: Waste <<lanagement Services Agenda Report- March 28, 2002 Page 3of5 pay over the course of months (even years) the accounts to bring them to zero balances. To date there are around 35 outstanding accounts which have refused to bringing their service payments current. Staff and WM have decided that these 35 delinquent accounts shall be provided a "last chance letter", which «'ill allow them to establish a payment program to bring accounts current. Those who refuse will have their services cancelled, forwarded to a collection agency, and code enforcement actions will be instituted. 5. CONTRACT TERM. The following shall replace the existing 10-year FRANCHISE TERM language signed in March of 1998 and set to expire in March of 2008: A. The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of six (6) years and shall commence on April 1, 2002 and end on May 31, 2008. B. On April 1, 2002, and on April V of each subsequent year, the term of this Agreement shall be automatically extended for an additional year ("automatic renewal") so that the term of the Agreement shall remain at a minimum of six (6) years. Should either party wish to terminate the "automatic renewal", such party shall give the other party written notice to that effect at least thirty (30) days prior to April 1', of any year. Such notice shall terminate the "automatic renewal" provisions and the Agreement shall remain in effect only for the six- (6) year balance term. l ADDITIONAL SERVICES: Staff and WM have determined that in exchange for the above contract adjustments, WM would offer the following: Street Sweeping Services to be funded for 2x's per month Currently, street-sweeping service is 1x per month. New NPDES regulations are on the horizon that could require all cities to provide a minimum of 2x's per month service to reduce pollutants entering storm water runoff. With the transfer of the S.85 per month residential rare reduction, the city would be able to fund this additional service at no extra cost to residents, meet potentially new stringent environmental regulations, and beautify the city streets. ADDITIONAL SERVICES PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR (1) Bulky Goods Pick up. Currently, residents receive (2) annual curbside collections of bulky waste. USA Waste shall provide three (3) curbside Bulky Goods pick-ups per Single Family Premise per calendar year at no additional expense to the Premise or to the City. Bulky goods collection shall take place on a premise's regularly scheduled service day by appointment made with a minimum 48 hours notice to WM. i I I I i ' I I Franchise Amendment.; Waste Management Services Agenda Report- March 28, 2002 Page 4 of 5 In addition, Single Family Premises may dispose of additional green waste'utilizing any of the three annual Bulky Goods pickups; provided materials are bundled, no longer than four (4) feet in length and 18 inches in diameter, and are place at curbside on their regular collection day. WM shall not be required to remove automobile bodies or any items which may not be safely handled by two persons. i This program shall not be required to include Commercial or Multi-Family Premises which utilize Bin Service. I This new service will replace the annual bulky item collection at the Fire Station. The April 13, 2002 Bulky Item Collection at the Fire Station will continue'as planned. (2) Containers for Use of City Public Works Department. Upon request Contractor agrees to provide 3 cubic yard or 30 cubic yard containers to the City for use in public land cleanups and local maintenance at not additional cost to the City as agreed These Containers will be serviced on an as-needed basis, and care will be exercised to minimize disposal costs and maximize recycling. To that end, separate container(s) will be dedicated to the collection of green waste, and every effort will be made to divert this material from disposal. (3) Special Event Provisions. Contractor agrees to provide the following services up to four (4) times per calendar year: • Up to ten (10) portable restroom stations • Portable hand wash station l - • Cardboard trash receptacles • Roll-off container for waste consolidation (4) Commercial Recycling Notification Program.' 'Contractor agrees to annually notify all business customers within the City of Grand Terrace, of opportunities relating to recycling and diversion practices available. Initially this will be a mailer, but may be modified by mutual agreement between the City and the Contractor. (5) Composter Subsidy Program. Contractor agrees to provide residential premises requesting backyard composter units at a reduced rate. Said Contractor subsidy shall be up to $20.00 per unit, but not more than half of the unit cost. The balance of the cost shall be billed to the residential customer via the regular billing. This program shall be subsidized to an annual maximum of S500.00 per year by the Contractor. I (6) E-Waste Contractor agrees to collect electronic waste, including devises containing cathode ray tubes (CRT's), even if there becomes an increased or special cost to dispose in the future. Ariy increased cost of disposal or cost to recycle these devises shall be reimbursed to the Contractor at the time of the annual review and adjustment of the "landfill Charge" of the Residential Rate. I � j I Franchise Amendment: Waste Management Services Agenda Report- March 28, 2002 Page 5 of 5 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve an AMENDMENT TO THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE AND USA WASTE OR CALIFORNIA, INC. FOR THE PROVISION OF INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES. FISCAL IMPACT: There will be $.85 per month per home directed to the general fund, an estimated $20,500 per year, to cover the cost of increasing street sweeping from once to twice per month. i I FIRST AMENDMENT TO FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE AND USA WASTE OF CALIFORNIA, INC. FOR THE PROVISION OF INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES I This First Amendment to the Franchise Agreement for Integrated Waste Management Services ("Amendment") is made and entered into this Vt day of April, 2002, by and I between the CITY OF GRAND TERRACE ("City") and Waste Management of the Inland Empire, A division of USA Waste of California, Inc., a Dela«-are Corporation ("Contractor") for Integrated Waste Management Services, including collection, transportation, recycling, composting, and disposal of solid waste, recyclable solid waste, j and construction debris and for providing temporary bin/roll off services for all commercial and industrial and residential premises within the City of Grand Terrace. RECITALS A. WHEREAS, the City and the Contractor entered into a Franchise Agreement for the Integrated Waste Management Services dated March 12, 1998 ("Franchise Agreement"), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "la"; and B. WHEREAS, the City and the Contractor have mutually agreed to modify the terms and conditions of the Franchise Agreement as set forth below in order to improve service levels, comply with comprehensive service, adjust residential rate categories and standardize commercial rates: NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows: I Section 2. DEFINITIONS: Two definitions are revised as follows: i Q. Multi-Family Premises—means residential units such as apartments, condominiums and townhouses, other than Single Family d,,ellings, having four or more units, which utilize Multi-Family Bins, as defined in this Agreement, and not cans or carts, for the temporary accumulation and collection of Residential Solid Waste. "Multi-Family Units" are covered by this Agreement. X. Residential Premises or Single Family Dwelling or Single Family Unit— i Generally means a detached building, or each unit of multi-family dwelling, with kitchen facilities, which utilizes one,or more carts or cans, but not Multi-Family Bin, for the temporary accumulation and collection of Residential Solid Waste. Amendment 1 Grand Terrace 0 3.,2 P02 t i i For purposes of this definition, mobile home complexes ma"y elect to receive either Multi-family Bin collection Services or Single Family Premises,Collection Sen-ices by mutual consent of the Contractor and the Customer. Section 5. SERN'.ICES PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR C. Additional Services The following replaces the existing language in Subsection (2)-Community Cleanup of the Agreement: (2) Bulky Goods Pick up. USA Waste shall provide three (3) curbside Bulky Goods pick-ups per Single Family Premise per calendar year at no additional expense to the Premise or to the City. Bulky goods collection shall take place on a premise's regularly scheduled sen-ice day by appointment made with a minimum 48 hours notice to USA «'aste. Single Family Premises that desire additional Bulky goods collection beyond this free service, shall have the option of either purchasing a Bin for, temporary collection or purchase additional curbside pickups at the rates set forth in Exhibit "D". Such additional pickups shall also require a minimum 48-hour prior notice to USA Waste. In addition, Single Family Premises may dispose of additional �1 green waste utilizing any of the three annual Bulky Goods pickups; provided materials are bundled, no longer than four (4) feet in length and 18 inches in diameter, and are place at curbside on their regular collection day. USA Waste shall not be required to remove automobile bodies or any items which may not be safely handled by two persons. This program shall not be required to include Commercial or Multi-Family Premises which utilize Bin Sen,,ice. The folloNving subsection of Section 5 C. is changed to include 3-cubic yard containers: (8) Containers for Use of City Public Works Department. Upon request Contractor agrees to provide 3 cubic yard or 30 cubic yard containers to the City for use in public land cleanups and local maintenance at not additional cost to the City as a--reed. These Containers will be serviced on an as-needed basis, and care -,will be exercised to minimize disposal costs and maximize recycling. To that end, separate container(s) will be dedicated to the collection of green waste, and every effort will be made to divert this material from disposal. Amendment 1 Grand Terrace 0:'21 02 2 i I I I e � I The following two sections are added to Section 5 C. Additional Services: (11) Special Event Provisions. Contractor agrees to provide the' following services up to four (4) times per calendar year: • lip to ten (10) portable restroom stations • Portable hand wash station ' I • Cardboard trash receptacles • Roll-off container for waste consolidation (12) Commercial Recycling Notification Program. � Contractor agrees to annually notify all business customers within the City of Grand Terrace, of opportunities relating to recycling and diversion practices a�ailable. Initially this will be a mailer, but may be modified by mutual agreement between the City and the Contractor. Section 8. FRANCHISE TERM. i I The following shall replace the existing 1.0-year FRANCHISE TERM language: A. The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of six (6) years and shall cbmmence on April 1, 2002 and end on May 31, 2008. i B. On April 1, 2002, and on April I" of each subsequent year, the term of this Agreement shall be automatically extended for an additional year ("automatic renewal") so that the term of the Agreement shall remain at a minimum of six (6) years. Should either party wish to terminate the "automatic renewal", such party shall give the other party written notice to that effect at least thirty(30) days prior to April Pt, of any year. Such notice shall terminate the "automatic renewal" provisions and the' Agreement shall remain in effect only for the six- (6) rear balance tetra. I Section 19. COMPENSATIOti. Subsection"E" is replaced as follows: ` I E. Escalation of Rates (Commercial): The attached Exhibit "F" is the approved Rate Band for all commercial services. These rates will remain until the July 1, 2002 annual adjustment. The "High" end of this Band shall be established as the "Standardized Rate" for such le%el of service. All commercial customers � currently being charged the high end of this Rate Band shall not be subject to any rate adjustment due to the annual change in the Consumer Pn,ce Index (C'PI) for three years (from July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2005). This Standardized Rate shall no- be adjusted by either party, for this time period. All rates wil? continue to be adjusted for changes in the landfill component of the rate as v.ell as "Extraordinary Adjustments in Rates" as defined in Exhibit "D", Section 5 of the j Agreement. I I I I i I Amendment 1 Grand Terrace 0, 21-02 - _ I � ' I I F 1} l Any ne%� commercial customer or any existing commercial customer requesting new, service or a change in service level shall be billed the Standardized Rate. Existing commercial customers currently not being charged the "Standardized Rate", or a customer not attaining the Standardized Rate by July 1, 2005, shall for the period of time up to July 1, 2005, have the monthly rates adjusted annually as outlined in the Franchise Agreement Exhibit "D" 4. "Annual Adjustments of Rates", plus the folloNvin : In addition to the annual adjustment-in the Consumer Price Index (CPO, the Contractor's Pick up fee portion of the commercial rate shall be adjusted an additional 3% (CPI plus 30 o) for a three (3) year period up to July 1, 2005. Any existing commercial customer rate that attains the level of the "Standardized Rate" for the level of service during this three year period, shall not be adjusted beyond this rate until July 1, 2005. Any commercial customer not yet at the Standardized Rate on June 30, 2005, "vill on Jule 1, 2005 be adjusted to the full amount of the Standardized Rate. The annual rate adjustment based on the change in the Consumer Price Index as outlined in Exhibit "D" (revised herein) of the Franchise Agreement shall equally effect the entire customer base on July 1, 2005. Any commercial customer not at the Standardized Rate as of July 1, 2002, shall at that time, receive a rate adjustment which includes the CPI for July 1, 2001, the CPI for July 1, 2002, and the 3% adjustment, unless the Standardized Rate has been achieved. The attached Exhibit "F" "low end" of the rate band, shall be revised when the March 2002 CPI data is available, and will include the CPI adjustment for July 1, 2001, the CPI adjustment for July 1, 2002, and a 3% adjustment factor. Said Revised Exhibit "F" shall be submitted to the City Manager for review prior to implementation. Said commercial rate adjustments shall be reviewed and approved annually by the City Manager or his.her designated representative. SECTION 19. L. The folloNving shall be added as subsection "L" of this Section of the Agreement: Contractor agrees to freeze the existing Single Family Residential Rates and associated ancillary fees from any adjustment relating to the annual Consumer Price Index (CPO, until July 1, 2003. In addition, all other rates listed within Exhibits "D" and "E" (except those noted above in Subsection "E", associated with the commercial rate escalation) shall not be adjusted until the July 1, 2003 date and shall then only be adjusted based upon the twelve-month period of CPI review. Amendment 1 Grand Terrace 0? 21 02 4 I I i i I SECTION' 21. PUBLIC :ACCESS TO CONTRACTOR � The following shall.be added as subsection "C" of this Section of the Agreement" C. Contractor shall provide a local office for response to all customer inquiries. "Local" shall be defined as an office %vithin Western San Bernardino or Western Riverside Counties of the State of California. I � I I i ' I I I � i i I � � I I I I I � ' I i I I i I I I I ' I I I 1 � I I I � I I j � I I Amendment I Grand Terrace 03 21,02 5 EXHIBIT ',D" (Revised and Effective April 1, 2002) SCHEDULE OF RATES 1. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SERVICE RATE Single family service rates shall be based on the following formula. FORMULA. Contractor's pick-up fee + Street Sweeping/Community Fund — Landfill Fee (Based upon average tons per home) Green Waste Charge + Rec%cling Charge + Household Hazardous Waste Fee + Franchise Fee The Franchise Fee Calculation will be 15% of the Contractors pick-up Charge — Landfill Fee + Green 1;�'aste Charge + Recycling Charge Single Family Monthl`- Residential Rates through June 30, 2003 v,-III be as follows, and thereafter shall be adjusted as outlined in the Agreement: 64 Gallon Container: S18.01 based on the folloNsing: Contractors Pick-up Fee S 10.00 Street Sweeping/ Community Fund S 0.85 Landfill Charge S 1.78 (Based upon 0.723 tons per home per year at S29.52 per ton) Green Waste Charge, S.99 Recycling Charge S 1.87 Franchise Fee S2.32 (15% of Gross) Household Hazardous Waste Fee S.20 96 Gallon Container: S19.01 per month based on the follovi-ing: Contractors Pick-up Fee S10.00 Street Sweeping/ Community Fund S 0.85 Landfill Charge S2.65 (Based upon 1.075 tons per home per year at S29.52 per ton) Green );�'aste Charge S.99 Recycling Charge S1.87 Franchise Fee S2.45 (15% of Gross) Household Hazardous Waste Fee S .20 Amendment 1 Grand Terrace 0: 21 02 6 i i i i 2. MULTI-FAMILY SERVICE RATE: Bin service rates for multi-family units shall be the same as adopted for commercial bin service. I 3. ADDITIONAL SPECIAL SERVICE RATES. i I A. "On Demand" appliance and bulky item pickup at ground level for Multi-family Premises, 'Commercial Premises, or additional collections at Single-Family Premises beyond the three-free requests per year - first item S25.00 and S15.00 for each additional item. B. All persons qualifying, as handicapped by the City shall be entitled to free carryout service to the collection vehicle. The operator may charge for such carryout szryice for any other customer %kho requests it at the rate of S12.00 per month. C. Special enclosure cleanup service as described above, shall be charged at the rate of S45.00 ,per hour, portal to portal. Special cleanup service by pickup truck requested by any customer shall be charged at S45.00 per hour plus any applicable landfill fees. If a compactor refuse truck is necessary, the charge shall be $45.00 per hour plus any applicable landfill fees. D. Individuals shall be entitled to a reasonable discount of the operator's service pickup fee in accordance with the Ordinance. Contractor may, at its discretion, offer lovv4ncome customers the same discount offered by' Southern California Edison. E. Exemption from mandatory service shall be in accordance with the Ordinance. Contractor may, at its discretion, credit the landfill component of the monthly bill for customers v ho are, on vacation for at least 30 consecutive days. Contractor may, at its discretion, charge no monthly rate for a home that is uninhabited and receives no service. Contractor may require property owners to sign a "Vacancy Certificate" at least every six months. If Contractor's field audit discovers that a f house certified to be vacant, is inhabited, Contractor may retroactively charge the property owner to the date of the Vacancy Certificate. F. A "Service Change" fee in the amount of S20.00 may be charged each time a customer' changes to a different service level. The operator will select one calendar month per year, during «hick month, "Service Change" fees will be %%aived for any customer requesting a change in their service level. Customers will be notified by operator regarding the availability of this change option. Amendment 1 Grand Terrace 0: 21�02 - i 4. A\ -JAL ADJUSTMENT OF RATES. As of July I" of each year, the above refuse rates shall be adjusted as follows: A. The landfill fee portion of each rate designated above shall be adjusted in accordance Nvith an increase or decrease percentage to correspond Nvith any increase or decrease percentage in the landfill fee charged by the County of San Bernardino. B. The contractor's pickup fee and the Street Sweeping/Conununity Fund fee designated above shall be adjusted by 90% of the annual change in successive indexes as of the month of March, per the "Consumer Price Index, Los Angeles- Anaheim (unadjusted), All Urban Consumers, All Items" as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 5. EXTRAORDINARY" ADJUSTMENT OF RATES. Subject to the approval of City Council, the Contractor may request special rate its operating conditions significantly change, i.e., the adjustments in the e%ent County of San Bernardino or the City directs the operator to a different landfill, there is a change in State or Federal laws applicable to the operators refuse business, or there is a significant change in the County's collection of tipping fees and fees to operate the Household Hazardous Waste program. 6. SCHEDULE OF FRANCHISE FEES. As of April 1, 2002 Contractor shall pay a Franchise Fee of 1590 of gross revenues, minus the Household Hazardous Waste fee. 7. NON-PAYMENT. Contractor reserves the right to stop service after the customer is 60 days late or longer. Contractor .vill then have the option to confiscate the container. Reinstatement of the account along%with delivery of the container %will be S20.00. All other provisions of the agreement Nvith Exhibits shall remain in full force and effect and shall apply as applicable to this Ameridment. Amendment 1 Grand Terrace 0? 21 02 8 I � I � PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this dad" of March, 2002 I i i CITY OF GRAND TERRACE USA WASTE OF CALIFORNIA, INC. Bv: BN: i titayor and to the City Council thereof District `tanager I I ATTEST: � I By: City Clerk I By. City Attorney i I I I i I I I Amendment 1 Grand Terrace 01 21.03 9 i i WM ail Ili, •I I uqm. Comrtwrclai Role Anaiyl ds City of Grand Inuc• CPI plus 4 O%•Will,Rol.Fla.& 010-a114.16 Hand Mast March 15,2001 110 Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly met.V.r Proposed Maximum '.Vno Se .• M14.1.y Container Container Se"Ics Container Disposal Bervlce Tolai Cubic proposed* N.w Mueis to M6.1t rai. 1.ximu crew 0se 3 at e9 S 77589 S (880) (0) (S660j Customer Name Number Street Account/ Quantity,1 Slze 4 Fro usnc 7 Yards51 BB Som E4.781 3om29E D R 1787 49 Yard3]>8 Increase Reis Rata to Maolmum Maximum Increase Gaidnic Roaen PropeAiea 22J10 Berton Rd GRA•2872 - 1 4 7 5196 11 D4]8 1 2De 1J S$73 49 S6 53 0 00% SS73 68 f 773 86 S (6 60) (6) (o no) Syumore Lodge Trader Park 22117 Grand Terrace Road GRA-78 1 2 I 6 68 S 1U4.08 S 5D 80 S77.B8 - - f0 00 Beauty G.ilery 22485 Barton Rd GRA-3767 /4 06 f 50 80 $73 88 $8 S3 0 00% $73 86 S 77 BS 10 U0 21850 Grand T.u...Road GRA-3725 1 7 1 B 66 f Lunolrum,Tomolhy GRA•3196 1 2 1 868 3 14 06 3 SB 80 $73 86 $0.53 0 DO% S73 86 $ 73 Be6 SOW PH Construction 21911 De Barry SI 1 8 B6 $ 1406 1 5980 f77 BB f8 57 0 00% S73 66 S 73 86 S 30 00 pizza Santa Mons 22413 Harlon Road GRA-7959 1 2 - - Soot) TraUi s Floral Creston. 22473 Henan Road GRA•3823 1 2 1 8.66 3 14.06 S 5B 80 $73 86 S6 53 0 00% $90 UB f 17 BB 1 B.fi6 f 14 08 3 59.60 S7J BB $B SJ 0 OOX 373 86 f 7]B6 S SO 00 WNlnns Medlin Center 22807 Berson Road GRA-3061 1 2 - - $O 00 72577 City Center Court GRA-49 1 3 1 1299 f 71 09 f 77.03 $96.12 17 55 0 00% f96 12 f BB 12 Azure Hills Elertwnlary, GRA 23 1 3 1 12.99 f 21.09 f 77.07 39B 12 $7 SS 0 00% $96 12 S 98 12 S SO 00 Bank of America 22377 Barton Rd 1 ] 1 1299 S 21 OD 3 77 03 $98 12 37 55 0 00% S96 12 S 98 12 S $0 00 Br.vwr,Rochelle 22959 Grand Terrace Road GRA-2989 1 3 1 12 DD 3 71 OD $ 7703 $90 12 37 55 0 00 X $DB 12 1 9B 12 f 10 on Chnsl The Red...f Church 12145 Onole Ava GRA•38 $(t OU 2273/tlanon Rd GRA-17 1 7 1 1299 f 2109 f 770] SDB 12 $155 0010% SD812 3 91117 Or Fed Soaprono 1 7 1 12.90 3 21 09 S 7703 S98 12 S 155 0 OOX 398 12 3 96 12 S $U W G I)G Entsrpn... 22ABO Berton Rd GRA-2677 �S9B 12 37 55 0 00% Soo 12 $ 98 12 f 10 00 1 3 1 1299 S 2109 S 77 03 Grand Terrace Fire Departmonl 22582 City Canter Court GRA-22 ] 1 11 B9 S 21.09 S 7703 Soo 12 $7 55 0 00% $98 12 S B8 12 S SU 00 Grand Terrace Liquor 22493 Harlon Road GRA-3947 1 3 1 12 99 3 21 OD f 77 03 $98 12 $1 55 0 00% 59B 12 S 98 12 3 - SO 00 Grandview fioptul Church 22755 Vista Grande Way-East GRA-19 1 17 9D f 71 OB $ 77 07 $OB 12 $7 55 0 00% $96 17 i 9B 12 3 SOW K o J wiorPlating 21750 M.In SI GRA 2923 1 ] 1 12.99 $ 21 09 3 77 O3 S98 12 S7 55 0 DO'/6 S98 12 S 98 12 S SO 00 111161 C-anol 61 GRA-2957 soon Kailel,Von Gf4A 2615 1 3 1 12 99 ! 71 09 f 77 03 S9fl 12 S7 55 0 00'd $90 17 S 9B 12 Meiji.Ridge Mubll.I'aik 1'/N1 I.Cruse Av. 1Y8 17 !1 55 0 00% S96 17 3 94 12 S $O(flo ro I J I 11 4Y ! 11 UY f !/U3 Rey 6 Robert Keno.y 121J9•MI V.,non Ava GRA 121155 - - 1(1 t01 12017 Praslon SI GRA-3967 i ] I 12 B9 1 21 04 S 77 U7 SY6 I-1 U fX1% S4e 17 ! 46 17 Rob,son,Odel 4 1 17 J2 f 28 12 S 101 62 $129 14 f7 49 O 00% 1129 74 $ 129/4 $ 1000 Huns Tumor Inc 21506 Main SI GRA-3086 1 312974 $7 49 0 00% $134 05 S 134 74 S SO 00 71900 Main SI GRA 26M 1 4 1 t)J2 3 20 12 S 105 93 I9u0uon padnar 11dp 1 7 7 17 37 1 18 17 S 140 97 U111 U5 f 1 14 0 00% 31]4 05 3 t 82 95 S SII 00 Hollywood Video 11411 Hanon VernonGRA 37411 1 3 2 2598 1 4210 3 140 77 $182 Y5 3104 0 00% S Ie105 3 $0 UO Advocate Schools 22125 He no #A GRA-1 3 2 25 98 3 42.18 S 140 77 S182 95 $I 04 0 OU% 1182 D5 3 182 95 1 S0 00 Auto Zone 77125 Henan Rd art GRA-3742 1 $O 00 GRA 3742 t ] 2 2595 S 4216 S 140 77 1182 95 Sl 04 0 00% 1187 BS f 18295 1 Barton Rood Association 22365 Barton Rd 1 3 2 2590 $ 42 16 3 14077 31112 95 $7 04 0 o0% 118I 95 1 102 95 3 - SO 00 Country Archer 22064'V.n Hilton 51 GRA 3579 - SU 00 I59e 3 4218 f 14077 3t8795 3104 000% SIBI.95 Roblee Carpet Cleaning 8.Floor 22011 Harlon Ro@d` GRA 7879 1 7 224604 - SO 00 11960 MI Vernon Ave GRA-1 1 4 2 3464 S 56 24 3 211 05 $200 04 f7 14 0 00% $266 04 f Aawu1•School. 2 34 64 3 58.24 3 211 06 S2B8 10 f7 74 0 Go% $201 13 3 281 10 S SO 00 Svrenroger Equiprnenl Rental, 17438 Henan Ave GRA-2714 2 2 - J 30.97 3 6727 1 217.86 S26113 5721 OOOX 326117 3 28113 5000 Barton Business Cantor 22400 Hanon Rd GRA-2718 1 3 3 38.97 S 63.27 S 217.86 $281 13 37 21 0.00% $281 17 S 281 13 f $0 00 Food connection 22400 Harlon Rd GRA-40 1 ] - James Herber Construction 21999 Van Huron St GRA-71 1 7 3 38 97 S B3 27 f 217AIS $281 t 7 S7 21 0 00% 5S281781 17 3 201.U SO 00 Essco Wholesale Electric 22050 Commerce Way GRA-66 1 7 7 JB 97 ! 87 27 S 281.54 $365 I7 31 04 0 o0% $365 90 f 385 90 $ $0 0a 21516 Mein SI aC GRA-3539 2 3 2 5196 S O4.36 3 28I 54 5385 9U 37 04 0 00% $309 B0 $ 389 90 S Soo 0 Will Bauer Inc. 4 1 51.96 f 84.36 S 304,Be $389 22 $7 49 7 42% SS44 22 S S71 22 S Jensen Slruclurea 21516 Main St GRA•3872 3 Ciro,Richard 22675 0•Aon Rd GRA-2721 1 2 1 8,68 S 1406 f 21101 S42 07 $4 B6 7 42% S44 15 f T]B6 1 J1 79 tU 17 Ofl Cho.Rch res.cu 22675 Ibd..Road GRA-2721 1 2 1 866 S 1406 f 2801 $42 07 S4 86 7 42%% S44 15 S 73 86 S 31 79 Ta l'me..co 7/18 aIB laiun Ro.d. GHA-2106 1 7 1 668 S 1406 S 2801 S42 a/ 14 BB 742% 3N 1S 1 13110 S .3119 It- Take.,... T.o.c.Pin..at/ I.o.c.fine.Ur GHA-2/01 1 2 1 866 S 1406 i 76 01 $77 ll/ S4 56 /41% $44 15 3 !.1 H0 $ .11!J Ice 1:tart Grand TerraceP . fnur I'le• 'J'lunb G-no I air.a Ho.A GRA•2Bfl7 1 1 1 8 M f 1s 06 S 29 30 S43 3A 15 01 !47X $45 5J $ 73 66 S 70 50 o S1 17 J.han..n,W,uum 22n55 Nn 4-1 Ave GRA 2696 1 2 1 see S 1406 3 2930 $44 36 S-1 01 7 42% $46 53 $ 73 Be 3 JO 36 9 32 11 PU F leonny 6 U•.iyn 21 n7o Il.d.n Road GRA 2719 1 2 1 660 S 1406 1 3042 144 4H S5 14 7 47X $48 74 1 73 60 3 29 36 9 11 76 Tilley,Robert 21073!tartan Road GRA•2913 1 2 1 Boo S 1405 S 3228 $46 32 15 35 7 41;• 340 71 3 73 86 S 27 54 a 11 39 Tilley,Robert 21BJ1 Barton Rood GRA-2914 1 2 I see 3 1406 f 3264 $B 90 $5 42 7 42% $49 34 S 7386 3 26 96 B 12 44 Vwerns,Robson 21073(-rrond Terrace Road GRA-2692 1 7 Valley Bank 27119 Iliol Hired GRA•29 1 2 1 age S 14 08 $ J4 JB 140 42 $5 59 7 42% 151 97 ! 73 86 $ 25 44 1 $2 5 La Tie)era Barber Shop 22430 Harlon flood GRA-2920 1 2 1 866 3 1s 0e S 3485 S7B 91 SS 65 7 42% S51 50 S 7J 66 S 74 95 / $2,19 59 D Store Self Storage 21911 De Berry SI GRA-2995 1 2 1 866 f 1406 S 3485 $48 91 S5 65 7 42% $51 SO S 7J.86 f 24 95 Slonawood Construction 22145 De Berry St GRA-2707 1 2 1 066 f 1406 3 4010 $54 16 S5 25 7 42% S57 14 S 77 06 3 19 TO 4 S3 09 The Donut Noose 22409 Barton flood GRA-2722 1 2 1 8 fib f 14 O6 $ 41 70 $56 76 $6 44 7 42% $59 65 $ 73 B6 $ IB 10 The D nut Host 12030 Vlvlend.Ave GRA•2713 1 2 1 868 $ 1406 S 4267 358 77 S6 SS 7 42% S75 90 S 73 B6 S 17 1J 2 S3 17 Barton Center 1245U 5B Harlon HA GRA•2B7B 1 2 2 17,32 S 2e 12 ! 43 76 $71 8B $4 15 T 42%- fT5 17 S 198 OS $ 67 11 t6 $T 55 MCA Slobnt 7116 Harlon Ito GRA 2 1 3 1 17 B9 S 2109 S 4781 Sri"ISO $5 30 7 42% $77 45 S 9B 12 S 19 17 6 1 I'A tau 11.ndell 111n 1 Ilarlun liupl GRA 20 1 3 I 12 D9 f 71 OU 1 4781 36fl 60 S5 70 7 47%% S77 4-1 S 9fl 11 S 14 17 r, 11•.5 Kolranek,Ilan I1!r 111 Mulhig.rl A.. GHA 3550 1 1 1 12 Y9 3 71 O9 S 4/81 ShH 91) 1',SO /4)% $/7 41 $ U6 I/ 3 14 1J 6 $1 VWeo 1/'d15 IN'S Hired GRA 41 1 3 1 1749 S 2109 1 4/81 S6890 15'11) 142% S1245 M, IV 1 bB 12 1 'J'�12 h U',5 Para Vill 11n0u Road GRA J717 I :I lartnn 1 12 99 S 71 O9 S 4J 01 $68 90 15.SO 1 47% 172 45 S 9B 17 1 29 11 r, S 1 55 Rwer o(Lde 1 our rrlirwr•Chrntli I7hhl Minliig•o Ave GRA 2924 1 3 1 tl 9U SS]0 7 42% $72 45$72 45 S bH 17 S 7911 4 SJ;5 Terrace Christ Haplut Church 12354 MI Var 1299 S 21 09 $ 47 81 SN nun Ave GRA-51 1 3 1 47 81 S6 90 $5 30 7 42X $ 9812 $ 29 12 6 $3 55 Terrace Pines NIO Terrace Pines D, 010 GRA-3581 1 3 1 1299 S 2109 S Terrace Pines MIS I.,race Pines Dr GRA•2669 1 3 1 1299 S 2109 S 4181 188 b0 S5 30 7 42% $12 45 S 98 17 3 79 27 6 S3(14 S3 1 P.n.d.nl Crop 11513 Itanoo Hnnl GRA 37 1 7 1 0 66 3 14 05 S 46 b9 Sfi]D5 $7 7B 7 47X $76 69 3 !3 86 1 10 1 S7 BJ Hlue Mountain Chnalnn Center 22010 fine SI GRA 33 1 ] 1 t2 99 $ 2109 S 5161 S12 70 $S 60 7 42% S78 57 f 9B 12 $ 2142 S3 95 Village Plaza 77597 Nation Road GRA 2717 1 7 2 17 32 $ 26 12 $ 5326 Sol 40 $4 70 7 42% $05 35 S 134 OS $ 5165 14 UO T.rroc.Pines 020 12011 Aspen I:ura GRA 4001 1 7 1 1299 S 2109 S 5391 SIS 00 $5 77 )4I% !79 00 3 9B 17 f 2J 12 EXI11 B 1'1' "A" grendleu eceralmenly'1r(u i 4 3111/025.30 PM vvm of 11'.brl.mr 1 nrlrir. I.urnru...1.114.1.Analyst.for If's City of()""it I.rnt. CPI plus 4.0%•With Rate Froolo on Customers.1 Rai.Bond Maximum March 15.2001 110 Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Rai.Par Proposed 200012001 Variance Years Monthly Container Container Service Container Disposal Service Total Cubic Proposed' New Maximum .abtinq rate to Imulmaximum Rate Customer Name Number Street Account/ Ouan11!. 51.0 FnquentYt Vard7 J2 Somp2B.12i Component 07t Ra+$64 14 Yard 4 BO Increase 42% fBB JO 3 R.I.147 72 +3 Ma 6.3 58 Mulmom0 Increase 4 15 Tonace Pine e1 a 02 Tensca P.as Dr GRA-2703 2 2 Coleman,0dl 21516 Palm Avs GRA-2890 1 J 1 12.99 S 21.09 3 72.63 S9J B2 37 77 5 42% $65 17 $ 90 12 3 4 20 I S4 20 Panadent Crop 22747 Berton Road GRA-16 1 7 1 12.99 S 21.09 3 60.12 $81,21 $6 25 7 42% 365.67 3 98 12 3 16 91 J 24 46 Terrace Pines/1] Terrace Pines Or GRA.2695 1 J 1 12 89 3 21.09 3 6050 $81 59 38 26 7 42X $86 OB 3 98 12 3 15 53 3 $4 49 Ounce Madrid Corp 12707 Berton Road GRA-]9 1 ] 1 12.99 $ 21 09 3 51 14 $82 77 36 33 7 42% 386 77 3 95 17 $ 15 09 54 52 22451 Do SOI0 51 GRA-2689 1 3 1 12.99 S 21 09 S 61-97 $fl6116 $0 6] 7 47% $90 06 3 98 17 f 17 06 El CM Apia 1 1299 f 21.09 $ 64 97 $86 06 $6 67 7 42% $90.68 S 98 12 S tI 06 7 $4 62 Johanson,Wltlurll 21677 Do Berry SI GRA-2894 1 J Inland Timber 21850 Main SI GRA 2969 1 J 1 12 99 $ 2109 3 66 71 S90 40 $6 77 7 42% $95 32 $ 9B 17 S 10 72 1 35 12 21758 W.Inul Ave GRA-J2 I ] 1 11 D9 3 I1 OD 3 BD 01 $91 10 $7 94 7 42% $96 27 3 96 12 S 6 02 I 35 77 Churchwell R K 1 7 1 17 99 3 11 09 3 70]0 Sol 39 $7 04 1 42% $96 0+ 3 98 17 S 673 1 S5 27 SOA Korean Church IT4118 MI Vernon Ave GRA 14 96 12 S 6 77 7171fl Wdnul Ave GRA-10 1 7 1 11.99 3 2109 3 7031 59110 ST Oa 742% f9981 f 1 5571 Classic Plumbing Inc 1 J 1 12 09 S 21.09 $ 70.32 $91 41 $7 04 7 42% $90 8] f DB 12 S 6 71 1 Si 72 Grand Tons"Lions Club 0066 Vrvmnda Ave GRA-16 I 17 DD S 21 OD 3 70 33 S91 47 $7 04 7 47% 39664 3 DB 11 3 1 70 Imperial Electric 71813 Pico SI GRA-0 1 ] -- - Luns,Milan_ 21801 Batton Road GRA•2705 7 7 1 17]7 S 2012 3 7520 $124 32 $R 14 7 42% f 1 f 7 12 S 162 71 3 41 40 n 16 E2 RL Carroll Landscape 2204U Van Bunn 51 - GRA-2004 1_ "]- -2 - 25.90 3 42.1e 3 gg g8 -f 1J7 24 S5 09 - 7 47Y_ 1176 92 S 162 95 $ 50 11 5 S7 50 Tmsu Village Plata 11900 Barton Road GRA-2875 1 J -- - 1 $8 10 Domain's 21900 Barton Rd GRA•2861 1 J 1 25 95 3 12.16 S fOB 50 f 15+60 $S 64 7 42% $759 50 S 187 47 S 3574 3 SB t 2 Azure Terrace Apb 12044 Preston Sl GRA-2646 1 8 42 18 3 109 50 $151 66 $5 84 7 42% S 159 80 $ 152 95 S 31 27 J $5 11 77I15 IL11On Rnatl aU GRA•2917 1 3 2 2596 f Maly's 1 0 I 75 D8 1 47 111 3 100 5o St. 15 84 1 4'1% $ISD 89 $ 16117 $ 35/4 7 $R 1 flnu1h.111 Calif 1.1 Jun❑ 111OU Newpud Av. UIIA TS n 4h Truce Towne Cellos 1Yi45[fails I filled (VIA 71 1 .1 7 7508 S 42 to5824 1 114 7380131 $13111 $084 94% 1H410U S 18)Y5 S 7n'�4 1 1e Yr 72U80 cor6meae Way GRA-6 1 4 2 3464 $ 55 24 $ 100 87 $237 11 $6 64 4 94% 2240 04 $ 746 04 3 8 bl I 10 43 California Skills 4 1 74,84 3 56 24 3 10087 f277 11 SB 04 1 94% 3246 W 3 24604 3 893 Clinical Labs 710fll Batton Rd GRA-45 1 0 $691 Orendl Labs Mobile IIm7r4 71845 Grand Terrace Road GRA 1J 2 4 1 3484 $ 5624 1 1D4 28 f750 SO f71] 4 42% $161 47 3 1966 74 3 24 14 2 $9 64 Gwen Her 71161 P7 Its f:111O:i1 OIIA 2691 1 7 t" 2598 S -4716 S 12992 $112 to 3567 747% 110174 f A S1173 Clerko Vinyl Tops 17070 L•Croseo Ave GRA 706J 2 7 1 5196 f 81.76 S tea e8 324911 $4 60 7 a7% �37e1 47 f 385 90 3 11 4 311 11 Terrell Village T ps Park 71000 Batton -0 A GRA-2D15 ] 3 1 3897 $ 8327 S 16626 $229 5] $5 0D 7 12X $141 e/ S 281 M S 64 21 Terraria Pool Products 21900 Done.Road Way GRA-58 1 7 J 38 97 S 6327 3 18265 $245 92 $8 31 7 42% $259 47 S 7e 11] f JS 71 2 S t 3 55 Tradowtnd Apartments 22822 Pat.Ave GRA-28 1 J 4 51.96 S 81.76 $ 164 2B 3266 B5 $5 17 7 42% $261 32 $ 261 04 S 1 3 J9 6 $1,3 67 7 42% $282 32 3 251 1 J S J0 39 7 $1 J 68 M S P.Aner.hip 22488 Berton Road GRA-3056 1 7 3 35.27 $ 6327 S 15443 $247 70 $6 J6 13 76 Truce Pins eJ H/11 816 016 7 enace P.as GRA-2705 3 3 1 JB 97 1 67 27 3 155 7J $249 00 36]9 7 42% S262 70 $ 794 J6 3 45]6 4 $N 19 MI Vernon Heights 12420 MI Vatnun Ave GRA-43 2 3 2 51 96 3 8438 $ 193 28 $256 67 $5]0 7 42% $270 67 S 365 90 S 90 279 6 1 S i 4 33 Miguol'.Re.l.uunl 77419 II.nun Ro.d GRA 2724 1 3 3 3397 3 6]27 3 19]07 S202 34 $6 58 1 47% S297 67 S 36t I1 1 24 54 Tatnc•Pm.1 near 1'.rk 12135 MiUugatr Ave GRA 2110 2 3 2 5195 S 0436 3 19800 5251,l6 SS 4.1 !47% 1297 OS S J65 90 S 6.1 54 $14 rill Tree Terrace Apmirtmenll 22J25 Berton Road GRA-76 1 3 3 3097 3 6327 $ 199 14 $262 41 $6 73 7 42X $277 19 S 281 I l $ 16 77 Southem California Edison 222DO Newlwd Ave GRA- 1 6 1 6495 S 10545 $ 23905 $344 50 S5 70 7 42% $362 24 S 49060 $ 146 810 6 $t 7 74 Mi Vernon Hatghls 12420 Ml Vernon Ave GRA-43 31 5 J The Creel Grand Tensco 22491 Do Barry SI GRA-7166 ] 4 7 17794 7 9I 3 126.54 S 551 20 $38600 $6 97 7 2e% $406 08 S 562 12 S 75 12 5 $19 71 Grand Tatnce 77400 Barton Rd GRA 57 7 1 7 77 94 3 126 S4 f 26020 S]6B 74 S4 06 7 41% 5406 OS S 562 76 S 175 52 4 $7]21 Sun Rise Car.Center 12400 MI Ave GRA 2925 2 3 7 7794 $ 12654 3 31356 S440 10 $5 65 1 42.1. 346337 $ 567 25 S 122 16 Aaun lbna SDA Cents, Ch n 12000 Ml VernonVer on GRA-3 1 3 3 7794 S 12654 f 321 47 $441 96 S5 15 7 42X $471 81 S 56226 S 11430 3 S7.1 fly Frome O.v.lopmatrb Umeg.I 1', 7193-1 V.n Buren SI GRA 3055 .7 7 3 I ID 91 $ 189112 $ 3D0 79 $SRO 11 T4 D0 7 42% 3045 07 3 463]9 S 46]78 6 still 9b Cap.To--Cur.dnrnuu.un 12100 MI V.unun Ave GRA 7920 6 3 7 207114 $ 33145 S 65951 sum go $4 50 1 41% l l 045 90 3 1 463 66 1 4M 0s fl $40 Y4 PuR C.nl.r 12710 M.,Aig.n Ave GRA 2819 h J 1 20164 3 33145 S 65051 sow WI 14 6U 7 4!% SI IN5 W S 1 461 fill $ 408 M n 146 Y4 Th.C-I 61-11 lnu.c. 22491 Ue tleny SI GNA-3I60 9 ] 2 233 82 3 3798) f 785 80 51,185 2) $4 96 7 42% $1.162 98 S 1 5 5 S 301 15 0 S50 46 Grand Royal Mobde Ilome Esmlea 77111 N.w{wA Ave GRA-2027 5 3 3 19485 S 31635 S 785 14 $1.104 50 $567 7 47Y. $1,167 9D S 140565 3 301 15 4 356 a8 Similar OWNS M.1Ra1 22441 8.11on Head GRA 2704 3 J 6 23352 f 37963 S 020.76 $1.200]B $S 1J 7 47% $1,281 2D $ 1,T26 17 S 575 70 6 S66 90 Grand Royal Mobile Home tstatea 7211 I Newport Ave GRA-2927 5 J 4 259.80 S 421.81 3 890.09 $1 311,90 $5 05 7 42% $1,377.94 S 1.89520 S 58330 6 166 W Walden Pump 8 Engineering 22069 Van Buren St GRA-30 2 6 5 25900 S 421.81 $ 1.068.75 $1 490.50 3!74 7 42% $1,569.66 $ 2,811 84 S 746 26 J $T9]0 The Highlands Ap.rtriwils 11150 MI Vernon Ave GRA•7 10 J 7 360 70 3 632 72 S 1 432 18 $7 064 90 $5 30 7 42% 12.171 17 f 1 E 11 JO S 746 40 5 $170 86 -- - ""-- The Highlands Aparinlenls - 11150 MI Vernon Ave -_GRA 7___- 28 _3 _ -_2- -72744 3 1.181 07 3 2.30297 33 484 04- - - S4 79 7 42% $3 854 92-$ 5 122 60 S 1 678 58 0 S 170 86 lid 214 350 193 5,40384 3 8,77367 $7?032 76 $30.1106 43 35 70 585 44%$32 072 89 $39 275 54 S0;469 11 1 7 $1 716 46 'Proposed role Increase uicludas CPI at 90%of 3 0%plus.uppletherilal 4 0% Accounts aI maximum of rate bend did nut receive a r418 urcresse 9-thilna1ata1.0111ylr 1-4 1 EXHIBIT"F" CITY OF GRAND TERRACE MONTHLY COMMERCIAL BIN COLLECTION RATES BIN SIZE - 2 CUBIC YARD 3 CUBIC YARD 4 CUBIC YARD 6 CUBIC YARD 3 CUBIC YARD RATE BAND RATE BAND RATE BAND RATE BAND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION NUMBER OF COLLECTIONS PER WEEK 1 42 07 -73 86 68 90 - 98 12 125 28 - 129 74 151 68 - 187 42 52 19 2 70 73- 134 05 124 62 - 182 95 237 10-246 04 287 60 - 361 17 10439 3 112.80 - 207 91 193 37 -281 13 362 49 - 375 89 441 91 - 549 11 15658 4 154 86 -281 77 262 38 - 379 04 487.87 -505 74 593 60-736 01 208.78 5 196 93 - 355 10 226.29 -477 48 612 99 -635 59 745 28 - 923 42 26097 6 238 99 -429.22 400.13 -575 39 738 11 - 764 38 897 49 - 1,110 84 -- Note Bin rental charge is eliminated on multiple collections per week. Includes 15% City Franchise Fee City of Grand Terrace -Adopted Exclusive Solid Waste Franchise Agreement- USA Waste of California, Inc