The URL can be used to link to this page

03/09/2006 :copy 0 GRAND TERR CE MarCh 9, 2006' , 22795 Barton'Road. Grand Terrace _ California 92313-5295 Civic Center, (909)824-6621 ; Fax(909)783-7629' Fax•(909)783-2600 MaryettaFern CITY OF GR_ AND.. TERRACE _ . Mayor Bea Coetes ; Mayor Pro Tem. - r Herman+Hi►ltey -CRA/CITY;C,OUNCIL Lee Ann Garcia Ji1n:Dli�ler • . - REGULAR 1VIEETINGS - •t- Council Members - r ;• '` Tbon,asJ:Sehwab, 2�, AND 4TH,Thursday 6:00. 7 m.: Citj Manager / - __ 1 - - - „- -_ -, ,• F` is : •' r ,-- _ _ •. , Council. Chambers . Grand Terrace Civic Center , 22795 Barton+Road.. „ CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS March 9,2006 GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER 4:30 PM 22795 Barton Road 2. THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMPLIES WITH THE AMERICANSWITH 'Ou" IPATE IN TMS-,MEETINC4;.P_L EAgi,6 I -THw CITY 8,11 HOURS PRIOR TO-THE MEETING AT OFFICE- _99):8i4-66fi, LEAST el ! 01 :0 T `A-REQUEST�: IF,,YO'UDESERE!�rO.,AD.DRESS,.T�EIE;ICI'ry.icoi*cjtbi�MdTHE Mgt"T&Gi PLEASE COMP LE SPEAK�FOltMAV,AI]LABLE�,,ATTIPW,)ENftANC-EAND'P",S"'E'NTff-TO�THE-,CIT�Y.C-LERX.'SiPE"-AKER.S-,W]EL-L. CAL-LED-UP.,ON,-BY-THE'MAYOR.AT'THE -,T P PMTE IME. Call to Order- Invocation- Pledge of Allegiance- Roll Call- STAFF COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS RECOMMENDATION ACTION GOAL SETTING WORKSHOP-4:30 P.M.(COMMUNITY ROOM) CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY-6 P.M. 1. Approval of 02-23-2006 Minutes Approve 2. Mid-Year Budget Adjustments Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Approve ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1. Items to Delete 2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS-None 3. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. Any Council Member,Staff Member,or Citizen may request removal of an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. A. Approve Check Register Dated March 9,2006 Approve B. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda C. Approval of 02-23-2006 Minutes Approve D. Close of Escrow-22874 Arliss I I COUNCIL AGENDA 03-09-2006 PAGE 2 OF 2 AGENDA ITEMS STAFF COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS ACTION 4. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the opportunity for members of the public to comment on any items not appearing on the regular agenda. Because of restrictions contained in California Law,the City Council is prohibited from discussing or acting on any item not on the agenda. The Mayor may request a brief response from staff to questions raised during public comment. 5. REPORTS A. Committee Reports-None B. Council Reports 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Specific Plan No.05-02(SP-05-02),Vesting Tentative Tract Approve Map No. 05-03 (TTM-05-03/County No. 17766) and Environmental Review Case No. 05-21 (E-05-21) to construct a 35 single family condominium development Ordinance of the City Council Approving Specific Plan No. 05-02 (SP-05-02) for a condominium subdivision with 35 single family detached units on a 3.7 acre site located on the westerly side of Mt. Vernon Avenue at 11830 Mt. Vernon Avenue and Environmental Review Case No. 05-21 (E-05- 21) Mitigated Negative Declaration as Provided by the California Environmental Quality Act Resolution of the City of Grand Terrace Approving Tentative Tract Map No. 05-03 (TTM 17766)for a 35 Single Family Residential Condominium Development in the City of Grand Terrace 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS-None 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Circulation Prioritization Study Findings and Recommendations B. Mid-Year Budget Adjustments Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Approve C. Schedule Budget Hearing Dates for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Schedule Preliminary Budget 9. CLOSED SESSION-None ADJOURN A SPECIAL CRA/CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BE HELD ON THURSDAY,MARCH 23,2006 AT 6:00 P.M. • CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES REGULAR MEETING-FEBRUARY 23, 2006 A regular meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency, City of Grand Terrace,was held in the Council Chambers,Grand Terrace Civic Center,22795 Barton Road,Grand Terrace,California, on February 23, 2006 at 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Maryetta Ferre, Chairman Bea Cortes, Vice-Chairman Herman Hilkey, Agency Member Lee Ann Garcia,Agency Member Jim Miller, Agency Member Tom Schwab, Executive Director Brenda Mesa, City Clerk Steve Berry, Assistant City Manager Richard Shields,Building& Safety Director John Harper, City Attorney Lt. Hector Guerra, Sheriff s Department ABSENT: Larry Ronnow,Finance Director Gary Koontz, Community Development Director APPROVAL OF 01-26-2006 MINUTES CRA-2006-05 MOTION BY AGENCY MEMBER HILKEY, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM CORTES, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the January 26, 2006 Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAN BERNARDINO 48" WATER SUPPLY PIPELINE (TRAUTWEIN CONSTRUCTIONI CRA-2006-06 MOTION BY AGENCY MEMBER HILKEY,SECOND BY AGENCY MEMBER GARCIA, CARRIED 5-0, to accept the low bid in the amount of $1,775,661 submitted by Trautwein Construction and authorize the execution of an agreement between the CRA and the contractor, and direct staff to issue a Notice to Proceed. CLOSED SESSION - REAL ESTATE NEGOTIATIONS - INSTRUCTION TO NEGOTIATOR, APN #1167-231-11, 1167-231-08, 1167-231-04, 1167-231-02, AND 1167-331-01 Bill Hays,22114 DeBerry Street,the Brown Act: Section 54956.8:Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a legislative body of a local agency may hold a CRA AGENDA ITEM NO. i Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes February 23,2006 Page 2 closed session with its negotiator prior to the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property by or for the local agency to grant authority to its negotiator regarding the price and terms of payment for the purchase, sale, exchange or lease. However, prior to the closed session,the legislative body of the local agency shall hold an open and public session in which it identifies its negotiator, the real property real or real properties which the negotiators may concern, and the persons with whom its negotiators may negotiate. The Council has repeatedly violated this section with the apparent blessing of Mr.Harper who's responsibility is to advise the Council against such violations. Mr. Harper and Mr. Schwab repeatedly have claimed that the City does not have to disclose with whom or for how much he has negotiated, citing the Brown Act states they do not have to disclose until escrow closes. Councilman Miller has stated he always carries a copy of the Brown Act with him. I request that Councilman Miller pass his copy down to Mr. Harper and Mr. Harper give us the exact section of the Brown Act that states that escrow must close first. I have made the sections of the Brown Act a matter of public record that state just the opposite. From the advice of the attorneys of the First Amend Coalition the City is Requested to"CURE AND CORRECT"all past instances and to abide by the Brown Act in the future. This demand to "cure and correct" now puts the City under the legal obligation to do so now. Beginning with whom the RDA/City is negotiating on the Arliss Street house. By refusing to abide by the Brown Act the City risks law suits by the community to force them to become law abiding. I respectfully request that this statement be made a part of the public minutes of this meeting verbatim. City Attorney Harper,indicated that the Community Redevelopment Agency and the City Council will be meeting in Closed Session. He stated that the authorized representative of the City is Tom Schwab, City Manager. The Negotiator for the Real Estate Negotiations is the City Manager, Tom Schwab. The purpose of the Closed Session under both the Redevelopment Agency and the City is to discuss price and terms. The negotiations will be with the respective property owners. Under the Redevelopment Agency those property owners would be the Jacobson Group and Ms. Stringfield. For 22874 Arliss the representative is Bobbie Forbes. Chairman Ferr6 announced that the agency met in Closed Session to discuss Real Estate Negotiations - Instruction to Negotiator, Apn #1167-231-11, 1167-231-08, 1167-231-04, 1167-231-02,and 1167-331-01 and that there was no reportable action taken. Chairman Ferre adjourned the Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting at 8:00 p.m.,until the next CRA/City Council Meeting scheduled to be held on Thursday, March 9, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes February 23,2006 Page 3 SECRETARY of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace CHAIRMAN of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Agency of GRAND TERRACE • STAFF REPORT Finance Department c1Tr . O GRf+ND TERR C CRA ITEM(X) COUNCIL ITEM( ) MEETING DATE: March 9, 2006 AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT: MID YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS -FY 05-06 FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED XX Traditionally the annual mid-year budget review has been held at the first council meeting in February. Since the agenda of February 9 was dedicated to matters involving the Colton Unified School District, and because I was already pre-registered for the annual CSMFO conference on February 23, I am presenting the review at this meeting. Staff is requesting the revenue estimates adjustment to the adopted budget as listed on Attachment 1. Additional grant reimbursement for the Rollins Park renovation project was received in December and was not an amount certain when the budget was adopted. Audit guidelines require that any changes that increase or decrease total revenue estimates or total appropriations require Board approval. There are no additional appropriations requested. The Agency Board passed the FY 2005-2006 Budget on May 26, 2005. From July 1, 2005, through February 28, 2006, a total of$1,628,354 appropriation adjustments were made for redevelopment purposes.Schedule A, Budget Adjustments FY 2005-2006, lists these items along with those of the City. A mid year fund balance analysis is also attached. The Project Fund surplus assumes the sale of property to Colton USD for the high school. The construction phase of the senior housing project will continue into the next fiscal year so it is unlikely that the Housing Fund appropriations will be spent as originally budgeted by June 30. CRA AGENDA ITEM NO. Community Redevelopment Agency of GRAND TERRACE Staff Recommends that the Agency Board: APPROVE THE REVENUE ADJUSTMENT TO THE FY05-06 AGENCY BUDGET AS PRESENTED BY STAFF ON ATTACHMENT 1 OF THE MID YEAR REPORT. City of Grand Terrace Finance Department Mernorandurn To: Tom Schwab Redevelopment Agency Board From: Larry Ronnow Subject: Mid-Year Adjustments - Redevelopment Date: February 2, 2006 FY05-06 Revenue Adiustments: 32-300-02,Rollins Park Grant Funding- $174,789 Additional grant funding was received to reimburse the Agency Project Fund for costs incurred last year for the Rollins Park renovation project. This additional grant money was not a certainty before the budget was prepared and adopted, and therefore it was not included in the original estimates. FY05-06 Appropriations Adjustments: None requested. ATTACHMENT 1 SCHEDULE A CITY OF GRAND TERRACE & REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS FY 2005-2006 /01/05 TO 1228/2006 DATE REV EXPEND DESCRIPTIONS 7/1105 ci Y 11:1: 21 Outstanding.purchs$>:ordders at 613010;5: eralFund: COUNT ../1/05: ci ty 5 850 t)utstan.din0,......s :orde{::at:6/.30105:»Street:.F r}d 7/1105: city :.: ..... 10�ooc,00� 5 840 C).ut tanding:pure..bAse order:at 6134%Q5- 1QI Q Fund '7/1/05 ci 11 400-255 :. .... 42;$64 Outstandin >'.iarGhase<orders::af fi/301fl5:_-6ae;Tax:Fund: 15 5- 00-7b6 P 1:6-9Q0.-xxx 7/1/05 era 37,100 Outstandin 7/1/05 era g purchase order at 6/30/05 -CRA Projects 32-600-xxx 46,950 Outstanding purchase orders at 6/30/05 -CRA Housing 34-)ooc-xooc 7l1'4/.05. ci 11; QQt.. �oniinuing Appro nations-:i alrrt:Ave:G is tl Raft 7/1:4/.QS ci : . 980fi: Continuii7g::Apprapriatiidns»StreiaisReairs.{:Iitiest Nile - .7/141.05. ci ty 1:5 . : - ... :::: .. :. ..... 000 Gantinuin. 1:1-400:255. 7114/06 c.i 0<Appr±opnatiarts Q :erleji<Seaf. ty 72;. ::.....:...::. . . 441 Continuirig:ApiFupnaticns=NP1S.Wasi::RaGfs/Glaifier T6;900-255 7/14/05 era 21.57�-.71'3. 409,184 Property Purchase -21974 DeBerry 8l14(05 .. ...... 32-600-216 y. {29J725j AdjustMeasiire:. e:Year'Plan. 8/11/Q5 ci ty 20.006-:Adjust M`easure:[:R..Year°Plan - $/11%Q ei . 20-200:71:7 OrOQO :�4d�tstfulsure#rive Yearf'Ir .:. 20:200=722 8/11/05 era 24=240=723 889,840 Property Purchase-21992 DeBerry 32-600-214 10/13/05 era 245,280 Property Purchase - Parcel 1167-141-08 32-600-215 $ - $ 1,972,681 y22,251: :Genetal:.Fun d 15 fi56 Stre.d.tF. id 4Q:.AQN1D' 578E4 :Gas:Tad.. and .Meastire::l 72,441. Sewer fund 1,581,404 CRA Project 46,950 CRA Housing $ - $ 1,972,681 050ftIIj.xls R( horii ilo A • Available FY FY FY FY FY Midyear Midyear Projected CITY AND CRA OF GRAND TERRACE FUND 2005-2006 2005-2006 2005-2006 2005-2006 2005-2006 Revenue& Appropriations Available ANALYSIS AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE BALANCE Revenues Transfers In Appropriations Transfers Out Adjustments Transfers In Transfers Out FUND PROJECTED THROUGH 6/30/2006 6/30/2005 (Estimated) (Estimated) (Budgeted) (Budgeted) As of 2/28/06 Adjustments Adjustments BALANCE 6/30/2006 GENERAL FUND-Undesignated 2,781,413 4,353,968 300,000 (4,183,973) (42,222) (122,251) (17,536) (33,710) 3,035,689 GENERAL FUND - Designated 925,558 925,558 GENERAL FUND- CLEEP Reserve 57,451 57,451 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 3,764,422 4,353,968 300,000 (4,183,973) (42,222) (122,251) (17,536) (33,710) 4,018,698 Street Fund 142,786 380,060 (28,617) (15,656) 25,144 503,717 Stortn:gratn;Fur<d : Park Fund 18,667 37,660 (5,723) 50,604 :AB:3229 COPS Fund: ;. 0: 100550: ;12ot4 :; :24Q586:` Air Quality Improvement Fund 10,614 15,840 1,100) (5,840) 19,514 r as°Tax�Fund :: 2500.4 :246 4`�9: 15 222: 459931) :f.: :(57;$.64): :. 1:44760. Traffic Safety Fund 74,376 64,863 (7,646) (120,496) 11,097__ TDA Fund 0 :Measur..e f Fund: 131,l9'i6..;.:: 1 6 7 i8 .440 .603.1. .... .(7..275): 2 40U): 135;5fl.Waste Water Disposal Fund 1,614,721 1,573,014 (1,551,088) (125,000) (72,441) (44,799) 1,394,407 LSCPw:t'GMTG:Assessment Dist: 13 57i 42;325 101`93 Bike Lane Capital Fund (3,214) 50 00.0 10,000 (60,000) treet:Jmproyetr ent'Prcje. a: :($4M: Barton Rd. Bridge Project (144,965) 0 24,000 (24,000) (144,965) TOTAL OTHER FUNDS 2,080,327 2,714,094 287,718 (2,500,414) (245,496) (222,076) 49,144 (71,199) 2,092,098 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND (357;233) 3,154,424 (375,796) (1,581,404) 174,789 1,014,780 DEBT SERI/I:C.:FUND: :2620;904 41332$$ fi13t4 (423fi35F LOW & MODERATE HOUSING 8,038,422 3,180,007 331,;313: (10,206,739) (913,477) (46,950) _ 51;263 TOTAL CRA,FUNDS 10,302,093 10,467,719 613,477 (14,818,891) (913,477) (1,628,354) 174,789 0 4,197,356 TOTAL-ALL FUNDS 16,146,842 17,535,781 1,201,195 (21,503,278) (1,201,195) (1,972,681) 206,397 (104,909) 10,308,152 MID-YEAR FUND BALANCE ANALYSIS • a �r • vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 03/01/2006 5:04:32PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code: bofa Voucher Date Vendor 'Invoice Description/Account Amount 57098 2/22/2006 006285 RIVERSIDE HIGHLAND WATER CO DEC-JAN Dec/Jan water svc. 10-450-238-000-000 2,706.88 10-190-238-000-000 336.62 10-190-719-000-000 122.98 10-440-238-000-000 110.60 10-805-238-000-000 106.63 26-600-239-000-000 77.88 26-601-239-000-000 22.40 34-500-724-000-000 58.28 34-700-709-000-000 9.08 34-700-710-000-000 9.08 34-700-767-000-000 80.53 Total : 3,640.96 57099 2/22/2006 004350 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES, INLANC 020306 Registration-Lee Ann Garcia 3/2/06 10-110-270-000-000 35.00 Total : 35.00 57100 2/22/2006 010290 KAISER PERMANENTE 855753204 HEALTH INS-LEE ANN GARCIA 10-110-142-000-000 290.51 10-110-120-000-000 18.03 Total : 308.54 57101 2/22/2006 006720 SO.CA.EDISON COMPANY 021506 Closing Bill-22874 Arliss Dr. 10-190-719-000-000 5.25 Total : 5.25 57102 2/22/2006 006730 SO.CA.GAS COMPANY 021706 Jan/Feb Gas charges 10-190-238-000-000 9.93 Total : 9.93 57103 2/22/2006 001907 COSTCO#478 04780900958 C. CARE SUPPLIES 10-440-220-000-000 109.58 10-440-228-000-000 61.34 Total : 170.92 57104 2/22/2006 005452 PACIFICARE OF CALIFORNIA Feb. 2006 FEB. HEALTH INSURANCE Page: 1 J vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 03/01/2006 5:04:32PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code: bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 57104 2/22/2006 005452 PACIFICARE OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) 10-175-142-000-000 121.87 10-370-142-000-000 834.38 10-380-142-000-000 290.51 10-440-142-000-000 795.57 10-450-142-000-000 243.90 21-572-142-000-000 327.98 32-370-142-000-000 238.40 34-400-142-000-000 1,255.95 10-022-61-00 7,904.95 10-180-142-000-000 885.67 10-120-142-000-000 870.49 10-125-142-000-000 487.80 - 10-140-142-000-000 1,078.84 10-172-142-000-000 152.33 Total : 15,488.64 57105 2/23/2006 004587 MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK Feb.2006 Feb. MHN 10-440-142-000-000 156.08 10-450-142-000-000 5.58 21-572-142-000-000 5.57 32-370-142-000-000 2.35 34-400-142-000-000 18.52 34-800-142-000-000 11.15 10-120-142-000-000 11.15 10-125-142-000-000 11.15 10-140-142-000-000 16.68 10-172-142-000-000 2.91 10-175-142-000-000 2.35 10-180-142-000-000 16.70 10-370-142-000-000 7.73 10-380-142-000-000 5.58 Total : 273.50 57106 2/23/2006 003420 INLAND COUNTIES INSURANCE SVCS Feb. 2006 Feb. Dental &Vision Ins. 10-022-63-00 1,213.30 Page: 2 • !� i` • vchlist 0 Sucher List • 03/01/2006 5:04:32PM Page., 3 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code: bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 57106 2/23/2006 003420 INLAND COUNTIES INSURANCE SVCS (Continued) Total : 1,213.30 57107 2/23/2006 006772 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY std-Feb. STANDARD INS-LIFE AND DISABILITY 10-120-142-000-000 19.50 10-125-142-000-000 13.00 10-140-142-000-000 19.50 10-172-142-000-000 3.26 10-175-142-000-000 2.60 10-180-142-000-000- 18.88 10-370-142-000-000 8.22 10-380-142-000-000 6.50 10-440-142-000-000 76.75 10-450-142-000-000 6.50 .21-572-142-000-000 5.87 32-370-142-000-000 2.35- 34-400 142-000-000 21.32 34-800-142-000=000 19.50 " 10-022-63-00 1,280.43 Total : 1,504.18 57108 2/23/2006 001206 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION JAN-FEB Jan-Feb Visa-Charges 10-120-210-000-000 11.74 10-110-270-000-000 65.19 23-200-12-00 35.98 23-200-61-00 50.00 10-180-210-000-000 66.78 10-180-245-000-000 45.00 10-120-270-000-000 546.06 10-190-256-000-000 18.30 10-808-247-000-000 150.42 10-440-223-000-000 33.44 10-440-228-000-000 85.73 Total : 1,108.64 57109 2/27/2006 005702 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT PRend 2/10/06 PR end 2/10/06 contributions 10-022-62-00 12,296.39 Total : 12,296.39 Page: 3 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 03/01/2006 5:04:32PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code: bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 57110 2/27/2006 010425 GRAND TERRACE MARTIAL ARTS FEB2006 Martial Arts Contract Feb 2006 10-430-27 829.50 Total : 829.50 57111 2/27/2006 004350 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES, INLANE 022306 Reg. fee-League for Ferre' - 10-110-270-000-000 70.00 Total : 70.00 57112 2/27/2006 010600 MULTIMEDIA SALES&MARKETING 429957 Radio Ad. for Child Care 10-440-230-000-000 85.50 Total : 85.60 57113 2/28/2008 010601 MC GINNIS REMODELING 968 Child Care bathroom restoration -10-440-245-000-000 3,709.44 Total : 3,709.44 57114 3/9/2006 010594 AEI-CASC ENGINEERING INC. 506041 REVIEW/REVISE GEN PLAN DOCS 10-370-255-000-000 5,460.00 Total : 5,460.00 57115 3/9/2006 010308 AMERICAN ROTARY BROOM CO. INC 243324 Broom Kit for street sweeper 16-900-254-000-000 168.84 Total : 168.84 57116 3/9/2006 001840 COLTON, CITY OF 000568 Flow monitoring-trunkline 21-570-802-000-000 1,050.00 000590 ANIMAL CONTROL CODE ENFORCEMENT 10-190-25&000-000 3,291.66 Total : 4,341.66 57117 3/9/2006 001867 COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE SUPPLY 141638 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 10-450-245-000-000 218.23 Total : 218.23 57118 A/9/2006 001662 CSMFO 42325 Membership Dues 2006-07 10-140-265-000-000 120.00 Total : 120.00 Page: 4 • Ocher0 i vchlist List Page: 5 03/01/2006 5:04:32PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code: bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 57119 3/9/2006 001930 DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION B925898 LEGAL ADVERTISING 10-125-230-000-000 38.70 Total : 38.70 57120 3/9/2006 003210 DEPT 32-2500233683 0166954015180 SUPPLIES 10-440-245-000-000 20.11 0224038020866 SUPPLIES 10-180-246-000-000 29.03 Total : 49.14 57121 3/9/2006 002165 DRUG ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM 6140 LAWN CARE 34-700-767-000-000 40.00 Total : 40.00 57122 3/9/2006 002187 DUNN-EDWARDS CORP. 00180199407 PAINT SUPPLIES 10-180-245-000-000 12.91 Total : 12.91 57123 3/9/2006 002275 ESRI 91197601 TRAINING 10-380-268-000-000 175.00 Total : 175.00 57124 3/9/2006 010424 FAMILY SRVC ASSN OF RIVERSIDE FEB06 1ST 5 YEARS CONFERENCE 10-440-270-000-000 150.00 Total : 150.00 57125 3/9/2006 002740 FRUIT GROWERS SUPPLY 32078030 SUPPLIES 10-450-245-000-000 85.01 32078100 SUPPLIES 10-450-245-000-000 120.10 32078157 SUPPLIES 10-450-245-000-000 56.58 Total : 261.69 57126 3/9/2006 003171 HINDERLITER de LLAMAS &ASSOC. 00113731N 1st Qtr. Sales Tax Svc. 10-140-250-000-000 150.00 32-370-255-000-000 150.00 Page: 5 vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 03101/2006 5:04:32PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code: bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 57126 3/9/2006 003171 HINDERLITER de LLAMAS &ASSOC. (Continued) Total : 300.00 57127 3/9/2006 003224 HYDRO-SCAPE PRODUCTS INC. 04324702 LANDSCAPE/MAINT SUPPLIES 10-450-245-000-000 111.88 Total : 111.88 57128 3/9/2006 006880 IDENTIX IDENTIFICATION SRVS JAN06 Print processinq-L. Sanchez 10-440-228-000-000 97.00 Total : 97.00 57129 3/9/2006 010576 INLAND EMPIRE ROOFING SUPPLY 47043 CITY HALL'S SKYLIGHT PANELS 10-180-245-000-000 151.93 Total : 151.93 57130 3/9/2006 010339 INT'L COUNCIUSHOPPING CENTERS 1221625 06-07 Member dues.-G. Koontz 10-370-265-000-000 100.00 1221626 -06=07 Membership-R. Megna 10-370-265-000-000 50.00 Total : 150.00 57131 3/9/2006 010520 K&A ENGINEERING 5714 ENGINEERING SERVICES 10-370-255-000-000 401.59 Total : 401.59 57132 3/9/2006 003867 K. D. SALES 150115 SUPPLIES 10-180-245-000-000 62.41 Total : 62.41 57133 3/9/2006' 004299 LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS , 212508 #AP 303 TODDLER CHANGING PAD 10-440-228-000-000 37.74 10-440-228-000-000 28.55 Total : 66.29 57134 3/9/2006 010599 LIGHTHOUSE PROMOTIONS&PLANNI 1004 G.T. DAYS EVENT PLANNING FEES 23-200-12-00 1,000.00 Total : 1,000.00 57135 3/9/2006 010367 LOMA LINDA UNIV. HEALTH CARE FEB06 NEW HIRE PHYSICALS& EMP INJ'S Page: 6 vchlist 0 Mucher List • 03/01/2006 5:04:32PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Page: 7 Bank code : bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 57135, 3/9/2006 010367 LOMA LINDA UNIV. HEALTH CARE (Continued) 10-190-224-000-000 281.00 Total : 281.00 57136 3/9/2006 010041 NOLTE ASSOCIATES INC. 6020516 H2O PIPE ROLACATION 32-600-205-000-000 615.80 32-600-208-000-000 615.80 Total : 1,231.60 57137 3/9/2006 010530 NORTHERN SAFETY CO. INC. P137890200011 Maint. Dept. Shoe Covers 10-180-218-000-000 30.52 Total : 30.52 57138 3/9/2006 010560 OF SAN BERNARDINO, REAL ESTATE SE RP054/06 R/W ACQUISITION-BRIDGE 47-100-250-001-000 4,355.00 Total : 4,365.00 57139 3/9/2006 005450 OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY SAU06425V306 ELEVATOR MAINT 10-180-245-000-000 303.49 Total : 303.49 57140 3/9/2006 005584 PETTY CASH 021706 Replenish petty cash for City Hall 10-370-220-000-000 70.00 - 10-370-271-000-000 11.40 10-450-245-000-000 71.11 10-110-220-000-000 39.19 10-140-210-000-000 32.31 10-175-220-000-000 12.00 10-180-210-000-000 5.38 10-180-245-000-000 22.14 10-180-268-000-000 25.00 10-180-272-000-000 25.28 10-190-209-000-000 5.00 10-190-210-000-000 4.40 10-190-226-000-000 30.00 total : 353.21 57141 3/9/2006 005586 PETTY CASH 022706 Petty Cash-Child Care Page: 7 vchlist Voucher List Page: 8 03/01/2006 5:04:32PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code: bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 57141 3/9/2006 005586 PETTY CASH (Continued) 10-440-220-000-000 11.23 10-440-223-000-000 55.93 10-440-228-000-000 87.52 Total : 154.68 57142 3/9/2006 005673 RENTAL SERVICE CORPORATION 27072221001 RENTAL OF EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES 10-180-218-000-000 11.09 Total : 11.09 57143 3/9/2006 010171 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 2734 SIGNAL MAINTENANCE AND DAMAGE REPAIR 16-510-255-000-000 362.25 2735 SIGNAL MAINTENANCE AND DAMAGE REPAIR - 16-510-255-000-000 879.26 Total : 1,241.51 57144 3/9/2006 006285 RIVERSIDE HIGHLAND WATER CO 2232 SEWER BILLING OUTSOURCE 21-572-255-000-000 1,569.29 2233 SEWER BILLING OUTSOURCE 21-572-255-000-000 1,581.09 Total : 3,150.38 57145 3/9/2006 006310 ROADRUNNER STORAGE 2786 Fin. Dept. Storage-February 10-140-241-000-000 89.00 Total : 89.00 57146 3/9/2006 006435 SAN BERNARDINO, CITY OF 1152 ANIMAL SHELTER SERVICES 10-190-256-000-000 468.00 - Total : 468.00 57147 3/9/2006 007005 SO CAL LOCKSMITH 108716, Ignition lock w/keys for dump truck 10-180-246-000-000 194.16 109416 keys for City dump truck 10-440-245-000-000 14.48 Total : 208.64 57148 3/9/2006 006778 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 9160105754 Code Enf. Ofc Supplies 34-800-210-000-000 191.03 Page: 8 rOucher ! i vchlist List Page: 9 03/01/2006 6:04:32PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code: bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 57148 3/9/2006 006778 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN (Continued) Total : 191.03 57149 3/9/2006 006898 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF L.A. 602.161745 FOOD SUPPLIES 10-440-220-000-000 534.08 602161746 FOOD SUPPLIES 10-440-220-000-000 40.20 602220645 FOOD SUPPLIES 10-440-220-000-000 449.52 Total : 1,023.80 57150 3/9/2006 010586 THE JAMIESON GROUP 200616 PROVIDE PROF. SRVS FY 05/06 10-370-255-000-000 2,900.00 Total : 2,900.00 57151 3/9/2006 010397 TIM GODDARD'S PLUMBING 14742 Fire Station drain cleaning 10-190-272-000-000 89.00 11 Total : 89.00 57152 3/9/2006 007034 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 563 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 10-370-255-000-000 210.00 10-180-255-000-000 325.00 567 TRAFFIC MITIGATION STUDY 11-500-255-000-000 4,340.00 572 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 10-370-255-000-000 420.00 11-500-255-000-000 315.00 Total : 5,610.00 57153 3/9/2006 010519 XEROX CAPITAL SERVICES, LLC 015842850 XEROX MACHINE 10-190-700-000-000 351.69 Total : 351.69 57154 3/9/2006 007987 XEROX CORPORATION 015842849 COPIER USAGE 10-190-700-000-000 318.22 Total : 318.22 57 Vouchers for bank code: bofa Bank total : 76,488.82 Page: 9 vchlist Voucher List Page: 10 03/01/2006 5:04:32PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Bank code: bofa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 57 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 76,488.82 t certify that, to the best of knowlddge, the afore-listed checks for payment of City and Community Redevelopment Agency liabilities have been audited by me and are necessary and appropriate expenditures for the operation of the City and Agency. Lary Aonnow, Finance Director Page: 10 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING-FEBRUARY 23, 2006 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace was called to order in the Council Chambers,Grand Terrace Civic Center,22795 Barton Road,Grand Terrace,California,on February 23, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Maryetta Ferr6, Mayor Bea Cortes, Mayor Pro Tem Herman Hilkey, Councilmember Lee Ann Garcia, Councilmember Jim Miller, Councilmember Tom Schwab, City Manager Brenda Mesa, City Clerk Steve Berry, Assistant City Manager Richard Shields,Building & Safety Director John Harper, City Attorney Lt. Hector Guerra, Sheriff's Department ABSENT: Larry Ronnow,Finance Director Gary Koontz, Community Development Director The City Council meeting was opened with Invocation by Pastor Roberto Garcia, Terrace Crest Baptist Church, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Mayor Pro.Tem Cortes. 1. Conduct Interviews and Consider Making an Appointment to Fill a Vacancy on the Planning Commission Mayor Ferr6 announced that the following is a list of individuals that Council will consider for making an appointment to the Planning Commission to fill the vacancy that currently exists: Frank Roppolo Robert Stewart Janice Martin Brian Phelps Jeffrey Allen Dani Bubier Brian Reinarz Margie Miller Darcy McNaboe CC-2006-16 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HILKEY, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM CORTES, CARRIED 5-0,to appoint Darcy McNaboe to fill the unexpired term on the Planning Commission and Brian Phelps to fill the next vacancy that occurs. C-07,U CC L AQ EiD,A ITEM NO],3 C, Council Minutes February 23,2006 Page 2 ITEMS TO DELETE -None SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS A. National Child Passenger Safety Week-February 12-18, 2006 Councilmember Garcia read a proclamation proclaiming the third week in February, 2006 as "Child Passenger Safety Week"in the City of Grand Terrace and encourage all citizens to perform and support child passenger safety practices. Penni Overstreet-MurphX, Fire Prevention Specialist, San Bernardino County Fire Department and member of the Traffic Action Safety Taskforce, gave a brief presentation on child passenger safety and the importance of it. CONSENT CALENDAR CC-2006-17 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM CORTES, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA,CARRIED 5-0,to approve the following Consent Calendar Items with the removal of item 3C.: 3A. Approve Check Register Dated February 23, 2006 3B. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda a ITEM REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 3C. Approval of 01-26-2006 Minutes CC-2006-18 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM CORTES, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the January 26, 2006 Minutes with the indicated correction. PUBLIC COMMENT Patricia Farley, 12513 Michigan Street, expressed her concern with the expansion of the trucking business on Michigan. She realizes that all of the members of the current Council may not have been a part of the decision,however, Council Members have the obligation to become informed. She stated that Mr.Swertfeger is expanding his business and has violated more than one of the conditions. She stated that he has requested a permit to continue to expand and build on that property. She feels that the Council needs to listen to the complaints and understand them. She feels that this business should not be allowed to expand but it needs to be completely removed. Trucks come in and out of the business at all • hours. She requested that the City hire a good attorney to protect the residents with regards Council Minutes February 23,2006 Page 3 to this business. Bill Hays, 22114 De Berry Street, in the last several weeks the teenage gang that runs Michigan and DeBerry Street has been converging after 1:00 a.m. There have been a couple of times I have called the Sheriff's Office when the subjects were entering the back yard of my neighbor. The response time once was about 40 minutes and the second time the same early a.m. night was not at all. I confronted them myself and just before they split up and ran, here is the sprinkler head they broke off and threw at me. These subjects wear black hooded sweatshirts and pull the hoods over their faces. Even if it weren't pitch black you would be unable to give a description other than height. I pay about$80.00 a year for a 75 watt street light on Michigan. The corner of Michigan and DeBerry are where these punks congregate and then do their mischief going east on DeBerry. Two weeks ago I had to call my neighbors, the owners of Stonewood Construction and have Gary turn on his outside lights because several of this little gang had entered his property. As soon as the lights came on they ran. My other neighbors,the Leathers on Michigan and the Smiths on DeBerry were victims of auto burglaries, neither of which were reported to the Sheriff's Department because they felt it would do no good. The Leathers vehicle they attempted to set on fire. My request to the City is that since you won't provide us with adequate protection at least provide us with deterrent. Take three hundred dollars a year of the 24 million dollar budget and install three street lights. One on the telephone pole on the North/East corner ofDeBerry and Michigan. One on the next telephone pole going east on DeBerry on the North side of the street and the third on one of the telephone poles between the one described above and our property and Councilwoman Cortes' home. These are dark sections of the street that allow this group to create their trouble. I request the City respond to this request before someone gets hurt by these delinquents. Now at the Council Meeting last month I asked the question,in writing,what is the source of the$24,000,000 in this year's budget? Even when in writing Mr. Schwab did not answer the question. I request he do so this time. BarneyIKarger, 11668 Bernardo Way,apologized to Jo Stringfield fornot listening to her and feels that she is a good member of Grand Terrace. He feels that the City is not doing the right thing and feels that they are not dealing in good faith. City Manager Schwab, stated that the Swertfeger operation pre-dates incorporation of the City and is there as a pre-existing non-conforming use. A metal building was approved some time ago. Staff is negotiating with Swertfeger on their public improvements required for the building of the metal building. He stated that staff will look at putting in street lights in the locations that Mr.Hays described. He feels that he did in fact answer all of the questions that Mr. Hays asked at the last meeting and in terms of a $24 million dollar budget, we have never had a budget of that size. The City's budget averages between 10 and 13 million dollars. He stated that two letters have been sent out to Ms. Stringfield and one phone call with her attorney so staff is in contact with her. Staff has been in contact for a long time with Mr.Yasin in negotiating for the purchase of his property. He met with Mr.Yasin personally Council Minutes February 23,2006 Page 4 this week and have a meeting scheduled for next week to negotiate the terms of his sale of the property. Councilmember Garcia, requested clarification on when Swertfeger's business came to Grand Terrace in writing. ORAL REPORTS 5A. Committee Reports 1. Historical and Cultural Activities Committee a. Minutes of January 9, 2006 CC-2006-19 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM CORTES, CARRIED 5-0, to accept the January 9, 2006 Minutes of the Historical and Cultural Activities Committee. 2. Emergency Operations Committee a. Minutes of January 3, 2006 CC-2006-20 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM CORTES, CARRIED 5-0, to accept the January 3, 2006 Minutes of the Crime Prevention Committee. 3. Crime Prevention Committee a. Appoint Alternate Member(Hurst) CC-2006-21 MOTION BY COUNCILMEM 3ER GARCIA, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM CORTES, CARRIED 5-0, to Appoint Debra Hurst as an alternate member of the Crime Prevention Committee. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Hilkey, expressed his satisfaction that staff is putting together a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and the City Council and CRA to discuss the development along Barton Road. It is his desire that it be an open session that allows for more public input than the content of the City Council Meetings. He has asked that the Chamber of Commerce chair or host a meeting that show both developers and they are a little hesitant. His concern with having it at City Hall is that it tends to be another dog and pony show for the City. He is concerned if there are the same restrictions on communications at this meeting that there are at Council Meetings we won't accomplish what needs to be accomplished. His memory doesn't match what he has heard about Swertfeger's business. He would also like to see a thorough report on the originatiorrof that company. He doesn't • Council Minutes February 23,2006 Page 5 remember approving a metal building and feels that it is a filthy eyesore and doesn't understand why we aren't citing them the way we should. He requested clarification on what offers were made to Jo Stringfield. His expectancy after the last meeting was that the process is that we come up with a value and that someone makes an offer for that value and expected to see that fairly quickly. 10 Councilmember Garcia, complimented the new SSS Officer Amber Emon, who is getting on the graffiti issue. She appreciates Mr. Hays' recommendations. Expressed her concern when the Edison line in front of the Highlands Apartment came down and wants to make sure that Edison makes sure the poles are secure and safe. She reported that La Pasta Italia has Ravioli Fridays,where they have different types of Ravioli and encouraged everyone to try it. She said that the owners of Siyaka live in Grand Terrace and encouraged everyone to try their restaurant. She reported that it looks like we are getting an ice cream shop in Grand Terrace,which would be a nice addition to the City. s Mayor Pro Tem Cortes, stated that Mr. Larkin had an announcement to make with regards to Riverside Highland Water Co. Don Larkin, 1450 E.Washington, Colton,stated that he is representing Riverside Highland Water Company and that the Annual Stockholders Meeting will be held on March 23,2006 ' at 9:00 a.m. at City Hall. All property owners are encouraged to attend or to be sure to fill out their proxy. Mayor Pro Tem Cortes, requested that the editor of the Blue Mountain Outlook put that information in the next issue as well as the Child Passenger Safety information. Mayor Ferr6, reported that she will be representing the City of Grand Terrace at the City Selection Committee Meeting on March 1. At that meeting they will appoint a chair and vice-chair for the City Selection Committee and they will appoint a primary member and an alternate member for the Local Agency Formation Committee(LAFCO). She stated that if any of the Councilmembers have anyone that they would like to highlight, please let her know after the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING 6A. Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) Program Year 2006-07 Steve Berry, Assistant City Manager, reported that the City of Grand Terrace is under contract with the County of San Bernardino Department of Economic and Community Development (ECD) who is responsible for the review and compliance of programs conducted within Grand Terrace. This includes not only the conducting of the grant process, but also the administration of project implementation and compliance. The County has a Council Minutes February 23,2006 Page 6 process which follows the guidelines of HUD in requiring public hearings and input into the grant allocation process for these funds. For Grand Terrace,this includes a public hearing, submittal of recommended projects to ECD who qualifies for the eligible programs, then returns those to the City for prioritization and funding. Additionally, during the grant process, outside agencies may submit projects directly to the County, however, the final determination of the spending of the City allocation is with the purview of the city Council. The City has been notified to expect$54,000 for FY 2006-07. There is a 15%funding limit for public service activities. Staff is recommending the following list for funding: Public Service Projects: 1. San Bernardino County Library,Log No. 32142,continuation of Literacy Education at the Grand Terrace Library Branch. Total request is for$10,000 staff recommends full funding of our maximum public service amount of$8,100. Capital Improvement Projects: 1. City of Grand Terrace,Log No. 32023,New-Install Audible signal devices at Major Traff c Intersections (Preston and Barton, Canal and Barton, DeBerry and Mt. Vernon) in Grand Terrace. Estimated project funding cost $15,000. 2. City of Grand Terrace, Log No. 32024, Hearing Assisted Wireless Station for City Council Chambers. Estimated project funding cost$8,000. Mayor Ferr6 opened the Public Hearing. Patricia Farley, 12513 Michigan Street, stated that if the public had more access to the staff reports she would be better informed on the options. She commended the Council on getting some of the minutes on the web and hopes that all of them get on there including the Planning Commission and that they are complete and accurate as to what the individuals state. She feels that she has been misunderstood because of her gruffness and introduced who she is. She stated that she is a special education teacher and has a long career in special education and cares very much about kids and knows what to expect from them. As a teacher she has to plan how they are going to move through her room etc. without doing graffiti and fighting. It makes her angry when a developer comes in and insults her intelligence. She feels that she is a good resource for the Council. She feels that when Council is making decisions they rely on staff to advise them and they need to know what the information means that is provided. She is not opposed to libraries, senior citizens,and a high school she is opposed to what has been let loose in the community and feels that the Council does not know what is going to happen and she feels like she doesn't have enough time to tell them. She feels that they should be obligated to listen to the residents for more than three minutes. She requested that the Council make themselves available. She indicated that there is a community awareness group which would be a good opportunity for • Council-Minutes February 23,2006 Page 7 the Council to come and meet with and talk to them. Mayor Ferr6 returned discussion to the Council. Councilmember Hilkey, questioned what happened to the piece of property that they were going to use CDBG funds to clean up. City Manager Schwab,responded that K&J Plating is about to go bankrupt and the City is doing everything that we can to try and take over the site and clean it up using block grant money. We are negotiating with The State Department of Toxic Substance Control(DTSC) on a mitigation plan, however, the process is very long. Councilmember Hilkev, stated that the audible signal devices can be annoying and questioned if there is a better project to spend the money on.• He questioned if the City is allocating CDBG money to the library does the Council have some say so in the running of the library. He feels that it is not going in the direction like it was before and it seems like the City has no control over it. CityManager Schwab, responded that we do not have any direct control. We are giving a grant to the County Library system to operate. He feels that if there was a specific issue that needed to be addressed that they would listen. Councilmember Garcia, questioned if they wanted to further discuss the Audible Signal devices, would there be time. Assistant Ci Mana eg r Berry,responded that Council is just approving the amount that will be allocated to the project, however, the project can be modified. Mayor Pro Tem Cortes, feels that the Audible Signal Devices are helpful. Mayor Ferr6, questioned if Council is approving the amount of money to be funded and the locations will be determined later. Assistant City Manager Berry,responded that the locations were included in the report. City Manager Schwab, stated that staff will go out to bid and will request bids for each intersection so that it is not an all or nothing project. CC-2006-22 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HILKEY,SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA,CARRIED 5-0,to approve the following list of projects for the allocation of County of San Bernardino Department ofEconomic and Community Development • (CDBG)Funds for the 2006-2007 Program Year: Council Minutes February 23,2006 • Page 8 Public Service Projects: 1. San Bernardino County Library, Log No. 32142, continuation of Literacy Education at the Grand Terrace Library Branch. Total request is for$10,000 staff recommends full funding of our maximum public service amount of $8,100. Capital Improvement Projects: 1. City of Grand Terrace, Log No..32023,New-Install Audible signal devices at Major Traffic Intersections (Preston and Barton, Canal and Barton, DeBerry and Mt.Vernon) in Grand Terrace. Estimated project funding cost $15,000. 2. City of Grand Terrace,Log No.32024,Hearing Assisted Wireless Station for City Council Chambers. Estimated project funding cost $8,000. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7A. Fireworks Sub Committee Recommendation CC-2006-23 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HILKEY,SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA, CARRIED 4-1-0-0 (COUNCILMEMBER MILLER VOTED NO), to accept the following recommendations made by the Ad Hoc Committee with the understanding that the Ordinance will be approved by the Council.: 1. The Committee recommended the City continue to allow the sale of safe and sane fireworks. 2. Modify the sale period to July I" - 4`h, 9 am - 9 pm (presently June 28, 12 noon-July 5, 11:59 pm)and modify the discharge dates July 1"-4', 9 am- 11 pm (presently June 28, 12 noon- July 5, 11:59 pm) 3. Increase fines for use of illegal fireworks to the maximum allowable to either $1,000 or $2,000 depending on the City Attorney's interpretation of the maximum allowable by law. 4. Enforcement as recommended by the Sheriff's Department and the Fire Department: Sheriff's : during the sales period (currently 4 days)provide 1 Supervisor, 1 Detective, 2 Deputies, and 1 Evidence Technician; Fire Department:up the staff to 2 engines(8 personnel)on the 31d considering the day of the week.the 4'falls on. 5. Maintain the current ordinance that allows only youth sports groups to participate in the sale and continue to limit it to one location. 6. Create a no discharge area in the Honey Hills and the bluff area north of Grand Terrace Road between Mt. Vernon and Barton Road Council Minutes February 23,2006 Page 9 7. Open parks on the evening of the 4'' of July if fireworks are banned in the above described areas. 8. Committee to meet after the 4`' of July to evaluate statistics on number of calls for service and make any new recommendation to Council if appropriate. 9. Inform residents in all possible media outlets of the new rules and fines. . 10. Posters of current notices and fines located at the sales booth. 11. Create an internal tip line for the 4'of July to direct law enforcement and fire to fireworks related calls. 12. Surcharge of 3% on fireworks sales for partial reimbursement for extra law enforcement. 13. Accept TNT's offer to pay for one day of law enforcement's costs and purchase an ad in the newspaper promoting new rules and fines. 14. Copies of the rules and fines to be handed out-at the fireworks stand. 15. Create and man a fireworks booth at GT Days to promote fireworks safety. NEW BUSINESS 8A. Cancellation of Council Meeting: March 23, 2006 CC-2006-24 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM CORTES, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA, CARRIED 5-0, to cancel the March 23, 2006 City Council Meeting. 8B. Moratorium or Regulation on Amateur Antenna Structures CC-2006-25 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM CORTES, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER,CARRIED 5-0,to direct staff to develop an ordinance with regards to the regulation on Amateur Antenna Structures and bring a draft to Council within 45 days and to adopt a moratorium for the interim. 8C. Joint Community Facilities Agreement (JCFA) with Riverside Unified School District, Developer Fee Reimbursement Agreement CC-2006-26 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER,SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA, CARRIED 5-0,to approve a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace approving(1)Joint Community Facilities Agreement with Riverside Unified School District (Community Facilities District No. 23) and (2) Agreement Providing for Reimbursement of Development Fees from Bond Proceeds. 8D. Schedule a Joint City Council/CRA/Planning Commission Meeting CC-2006-27 MOTION BY MAYOR FERRE, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM CORTES, CARRIED 5-0, to schedule a special joint meeting between the City Council/CRA Council Minutes February 23,2006 Page 10 - and Planning Commission on March 23,2006 at 6:00 p.m.to have Jacobson and Ms. Stringfield present to the Council their proposed projects for the Towne Square Center. CLOSED SESSION 9A. Real Estate Update, 22874 Arliss City Attorney Harper indicated that the Community Redevelopment Agency and the City Council will be meeting in Closed Session. He stated that the authorized representative of the City is Tom Schwab, City Manager. The Negotiator for the Real Estate Negotiations is the City Manager, Tom Schwab. , The purpose of the Closed Session under both the Redevelopment Agency and the City is to discuss price and terms. The negotiations will be with the respective property owners. Under the Redevelopment Agency those property owners would be the Jacobson Group and Ms. Stringfield. For 22874 Arliss the representative is Bobbie Forbes. Mayor Ferr6 announced that the Council met in Closed Session to discuss the Real Estate Update for 22874 Arliss. Mayor Pro Tem Cortes recused herself. The home at 22874 Arliss sold for$505,000.00 to Tim and Lori Gould. An item will be on the next Council agenda to this effect. Mayor Ferre adjourned the meeting at 9:51 p.m., until the next CRA/City Council Meeting which is scheduled to be held on Thursday, March 9, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. CITY CLERK of the.City of Grand Terrace MAYOR of the City of Grand Terrace i • PORT STAFF RE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE CRA ITEM() COUNCIL ITEM(X) MEETING DATE: March 9,2006 SUBJECT: Close of Escrow-22874 Arliss Drive • FUNDING REQUIRED: YES 0 NO (X) The real estate transaction between the City of Grand Terrace and Timothy & Laurie Gould for the purchase of the house at 22874 Arliss Drive, Grand Terrace, CA, closed escrow on February 13,2006. The purchase price was $505,000. c� Tr 0 6RANV'ERR c Community and Economic Development Department - AFF'R T a�.. EPO" 4 _ wta I CRA ITEM ( COUNCIL ITEM (X) MEETING DATE: March 9, 2006 FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED X SUBJECT: Specific Plan No.05-02(SP-05-02),Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 05-03 (TTM-05-03/County No. 17766) and Environmental Review Case No. 05-21 (E-05-21) to construct a 35 single family condominium development (Continued from the meeting of January 26 20061 APPLICANT: The Greystone Group, Inc. and Sequoia Equities LOCATION: 11830 Mt. Vernon Avenue (An approximately 3.7 acre parcel located on the westerly side of Mt. Vernon Avenue t about 750 feet southerly of the intersection of Mt. Vernon Avenue and Brentwood Street.) RECOMMENDATION: Open the Continued Public Hearing on the proposed Specific Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map; Receive any testimony; Close the Hearing and Approve the Ordinance for Specific Plan No. 05-02 for First Reading and Approve the Resolution for Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 05-03 Background: The first public hearing for this project was held on January 26, 20006 and was continued to a future Council meeting in order to allow the staff to work with the applicants to address several concerns raised at the public hearing. These concerns consisted of the following items: 1. Traffic Study 2. Wood fences- vs. block walls on the perimeter of the project. 3. Need fo more opens space and recreation facilities. 4. On-street parking problems. 5. Offsite drainage through the Highlands apartments 6. Need for a lighting plan. 22795 Barton Road - Grand Terrace, California 92j3-1-3=5295 H�%fJgI& firEA N Qe f „� The staff met with the applicants on two occasions following the January 26" public hearing. We also contacted the City's Traffic Engineer who responded in writing as to the necessity for a traffic study. The following discussion is based on those meetings and the response from the City's Traffic Engineer. At the January 26 public hearing, the necessity of a "traffic study" was raised mainly because of the number of bedrooms proposed for this development. The City's Traffic Engineer indicated in a memorandum dated February 13, 2006 that "a traffic impact analysis is not required"even taking into consideration the number of bedrooms proposed. A copy of this memorandum is attached to this report. (Please see Attachment 1A.) Additionally, Mr. Craig Neustaedter, the City's Traffic Engineer, will be present at the continued public hearing to answer any additional questions regarding traffic issues. Regarding the fencing and block wall on the perimeter of the project, the applicants have indicated that they are proposing a 5 foot high, white vinyl fence on the perimeter of the site. In some locations,this vinyl fence will be located on top of a block retaining wall. The applicants have indicated that they feel the white vinyl fence will break-up the appearance and height of the perimeter retaining wall and fencing, especially along the southerly boundary of the project where the retaining wall and fencing will have an average height of about 10 feet. The proposed vinyl fence and retaining wall are shown on Section "B"of Attachment 2A. Also shown is the proposed 5 foot high precision block wall with split faced pilasters along Mt. Vernon on Section "A" of Attachment 2A For the proposed recreational facilities, the applicants have prepared a detailed plan 1 showing a "tot lot"for the-open space area in the middle of the development. The "tot lot" is shown on Attachment 3A included in this report. In regards to the amount of open space for this development, the applicants will make a short presentation to show how this proposed development is similar to other developments in Southern California where similar layouts have worked. The amount of parking provided for this development will greatly exceed the amount of parking required by the City's Zoning Code. Each unit will have two spaces in a garage and two additional open parking spaces in front of the garage. In addition, there are two, open parking areas on the north side of the interior island area, near the open recreation area, and on the east side of this interior island area. This parking will serve the needs of guest or visitor parking. The total amount of open parking in these two areas is 18 spaces. Given the number of parking spaces provided per unit (two in the garage and two on the driveway in front of the garage)and the,18 spaces in the two guest parking areas,the total amount of parking provided will be 158 spaces. The amount of parking required underthe Code is 79. So,the amount of off-street parking is exactly twice what is required by Code. (158_2=79)In addition,the applicants have provided a drawing,Attachment4A,showing the parking layout for the project. Regarding the drainage for the site and the effect on the downstream Highlands property to the west, the applicant's engineer will be present to discuss in detail how this drainage system for the development will work. It should also be pointed out that the City Engineer is satisfied that the proposed drainage;system will work. Lastly,the applicants have provided staff with a lighting plan for the development showing that there will be five(5)lighting standards distributed throughout the development around the middle island. (Please see Attachment 5A for the street light drawing.) In addition,one of the conditions of approval for the Site and Architectural Review requires the submittal of an exterior lighting plan. Staff feels that this will be adequate number of lighting standards to provide interior lighting to the project. The Planning Commission's and staffs recommendation remains the same as for the January 26" meeting that this development be approved. For reference and continuity, Staff has also provided a copy of the Staff report from the r January 261h meeting along with the Exhibits for that report. The proposed Ordinance for the Specific Plan No. 05-02 and the proposed Resolution of Approval for the Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 05-03 are labeled Exhibits 4 and 5 respectively, Recommendation: The Planning Commission and Staff recommend that the City Council approve the Ordinance for the Adoption of Specific Plan'No. 05-02 (Exhibit 4) and the Resolution of Approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 05-03 (County No. 17766) (Exhibit 5). Respectfully submitted, Approved by: 14 1� A. Jon Lampe Gary . Koontz As ,ciate Planner Community Development Director GLK:JL:jl Attachments: Attachment 1A - Memorandum from City's Traffic Engineer dated 2/13/06 Attachment 2A- Section"A"and Section"B"showing proposed walls/fences Attachment 3A - Tot Lot Exhibit provided by the applicants Attachment 4A- Site Plan showing parking layout for the development Attachment 5A - Street Light Exhibit provided by the applicants Attachment 6A- Staff Report dated 1/26/06 Exhibits: Exhibit A - Specific Plan No. 05-02 (Document) Exhibit B - Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study, E-05-21 Exhibit 1 - Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 05-03 (County No. 17766) Exhibit 2 - Planning Commission Staff Report for 1.2/15/05 Exhibit 3 - Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of 12/15/05 Exhibit 4 - Ordinance Approving and Adopting SP-5-02 Exhibit 5 - Resolution of Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 05-03 c:1MyFiles\JOHN\Greystone\SP-05-02counciirpt.continued TEP . P.O. Box 18355 phone:949 552 4357 Irvine CA 92623 fax: 909494 4408 e-mail:tepirvine@sbcglobal.net mobile: 909 263 0383 February 13, 2006 To: Gary Koontz, Community Development Director City of Grand Terrace From: Craig S. Neustaedter, City Traffic Engineering Consultant Subject: Greenbrier Project (Specific Plan #05-02) Traffic Impact Analysis The following is my response concerning the recommendation to have a traffic impact analysis prepared by the applicant for the Greenbrier Project: The proposed project includes 35 single-family dwelling units. The project site is located west of Mount Vernon Ave., south of the intersection with Grand Terrace Road/Canal Street. Project access will be taken from Mount Vernon Ave.. Based on ITE trip generation factors, it is estimated that the project will generate 26 trips in the typical weekday a.m. peak hour and 35 trips in the typical weekday p.m. peak hour. The average weekday two-way trip generation for the project is estimated at 335 trips. The project trip generation has been questioned because many of the Greenbrier units will have four bedrooms. The ITE trip generation manual does not discuss whether or not the rate data for single family dwelling units is appropriate for units with four bedrooms. Given that the ITE trip generation manual is silent on this question, it is possible that the predicted project trip generation may be slightly low. However, it is extremely unlikely that the forecasted project trip generation would be more than 25% greater than the estimates cited above. The two major intersections most adjacent to the project site are Mount Vernon Ave. at Grand Terrace Road/Canal Street and Mount Vernon Ave. at Barton Road. All trips going to and from the project site will pass through either one of these two intersections. The following table summarizes the estimated contribution of traffic generated by the Greenbrier Project to these two intersections. Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Mount Vernon at: Project Inter: °/sage Project Inter. %age volume* volume volume* volume Grand Terrace 16 627 ' 3 22 1076 2 Barton 16 2258' 7 22 2874 .7 *Project volume assumes 25% increase for four-bedroom units. Both of these intersections have recently been analyzed as part of the circulation privatization study that TEP has completed for the city. The results of this study show that Transportation Engineering and Planning, Inc. ATTACHMENT lA currently Mount Vernon at Grand Terrace Road/Canal Street operates at level of service (LOS)A in the a.m. peak hour and LOS B in the p.m. peak hour. The intersection of Mount Vernon at Barton Road operates at LOS C in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. The study also shows that the intersection of Mount Vernon at Grand Terrace Road/Canal Street currently warrants signalization. This improvement is currently needed, and is not attributable to future impacts of the Greenbrier Project. However, if this project is approved it will be required to pay the city's development impact fee for circulation improvements. A portion of these fees may be earmarked for construction of the traffic signal. Based on the information detailed above, it can easily be concluded that the Greenbrier -' Project would have no significant traffic impacts. A traffic impact analysis is not needed. Transportation Engineering and Planning, Inc. Community and Economic Development Department CAL IFORNIA a, STAFF REPORT CRA ITEM ( COUNCIL ITEM (X) MEETING DATE: January 26, 2006 FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED X SUBJECT: Specific Plan No.05-02(SP-05-02),Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 05-03 (TTM-05-03/County No. 17766) and Environmental Review Case No. 05-21 (E-05-21) to construct a 35 single family condominium development APPLICANT: The Greystone Group, Inc. and Sequoia Equities LOCATION: 11830 Mt. Vernon Avenue (An approximately 3.7 acre parcel located on the westerly side of Mt. Vernon Avenue about 750 feet southerly of the intersection of Mt. Vernon Avenue and Brentwood Street.) RECOMMENDATION: Open the Public Hearing on the proposed Specific Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map; Receive any testimony; Close the Hearing and Approve the Ordinance for Specific Plan No. 05-02 for First Reading and Approve the Resolution forApproval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 05-03 Background: The applicants are requesting approval to construct 35 single family, detached, condominium units with garage parking (total of 70 parking spaces) and 18 open guest parking. All of the units will be two-stories in height with a "California Spanish bungalow" style. "Lot" sizes for the individual units will range from 2,676 feet to 4,341 square feet. The average "lot" size will be about 3,000 sq. ft. A common open space area of about 5,300 sq. ft. will be located in the center of the development. The site will be accessed by a single, non-gated vehicular entrance from Mt. Vernon at its southeast corner. The internal street system will be provided by a 26 foot wide loop private street. Th ere will also be a 26 foot wide emergency vehicle access to provide secondary access to the interior of the site. With a proposed density of 9.5 units per acre, the applicants believe this proposed new development will act as a "transition" between the existing single family 22795 Barton Road - Grand Terrace, California 92313-5295 - 9o9i s24--EMPI 4 ►rrr i Ar 'nX rF.NT 6A homes on the east side of Mt. Vernon and the Highlands Apartments on the west side of Mt. Vernon. The subject site is presently occupied by an older single family residence and several accessory buildings and structures which will be demolished for the new development. The topography of the site slopes downward from east to west with a grade of about 4.5%. In addition,there are substantial slopes on the perimeter of the property with the steepest being along the southerly boundary of the site. The Highlands Apartments which average about 17 units/acre lie to the north, west and south and are, mainly, at a lower elevation than the subject site.The proposed project will be enclosed by a 6 foot high screening wall and a decorative fence with pilasters along Mt. Vernon. On December 15,2005 the Planning Commission unanimously recommended to the City Council the approval of Specific Plan No. 05-02 (SP-05-02) and Vesting Tentative Tract No.05-03(VTTM-05-03). The Planning Commission also approved Site and Architectural Review applications No.'s 05-19 and 05-24 (one for each proposed floor plan) contingent upon the approval of the Specific Plan and the Vesting Tentative Tract Map. The Site and Architectural Review applications were for the design and appearance of the individual single family units. It should be noted that the only requests that are before the City Council are the proposed Specific Plan No. 05-02 and the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 05-03 to subdivide the subject site. The two companion Site and Architectural Review applications, SA-05-19 and SA-05-24 have already been approved by the Planning Commission. Specific Plan: The site is located in the R3 (Medium Density Residential) Zone as is the surrounding Highlands Apartments complex. The City's Zoning Code does not contain an existing zoning classification, including the R3 Zone, that would accommodate the proposed project. Therefore, the applicants filed Specific Plan No. 05-02 to permit the requested project to go forward with the proposed development standards. The Specific Plan contains a detailed discussion of the proposed project including types of uses, architectural styles, development standards to be employed, grading/drainage discussion and proposed phasing. It also includes a description of the project setting, site characteristics, surrounding uses and a statement as to the project's relationship to the City's General Plan. As such, the submitted Specific Plan meets the requirements of the Government Code and will serve as the future zoning for the site. A copy of the proposed Specific Plan No. 05-02, as recommended for approval by the City's Planning Commission, is attached here as Exhibit A. Vestinq Tentative Tract Map: This project is a proposed condominium development; therefore, the necessity for the tentative tract map. The"vesting"portion of the map means that the rules and regulations of the City at the time the filing of the tract map was deemed "complete"will apply to this project. As a condominium project, only one lot is shown on the map. Individual buyers will be purchasing"air rights"to their individual unit and not an in lot. The "lot lines" shown on the site plan of the project are akin to the "lot lines"in mobilehome development and will not be recorded "lot lines" for subdivision purposes. The proposed vesting tentative map shows such details as the existing development on the site, existing utilities, adjacent streets, existing easements,the location of existing and proposed storm drains, the proposed BMP (Best Management Practices) storm filter (NPDES requirement) and a proposed 8" sewer line. Also, the street sections for Mt. Vernon and the private interior loop drive are shown. The blue line copy of the vesting tentative tract map is attached as Exhibit 1. In addition, for a detailed review of this proposal and.the minutes of the Planning Commission's public hearing on this matter, please see Exhibits 2 and 3 attached to this report. Environmental Review: After completing the Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been proposed for this project. The requirements of lawforthe Mitigated Negative Declaration have been met including the mandatory public review period. This project qualifies for a Mitigated Negative Declaration on the grounds that it will not'have a significant adverse impact on the environment with the proposed mitigation conditions. The Mitigated Negative -- Declaration proposed under E-05-21 for this project is attached here as Exhibit B. Recommendation: The Planning Commission and Staff recommend that the City Council approve the Ordinance for the Adoption of Specific Plan No. 05-02 (Exhibit 4) and the Resolution of Approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 05-03 (County No. 17766) (Exhibit 5). Respectfully submitted, Approved by: Z Jo mpe Gary L. oontz AsVC to Planner Community Development Director JL.jI Exhibits: Exhibit A - Specific Plan No. 05-02 (Document) Exhibit B - Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study, E-05-21 Exhibit 1 - Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 05-03 (County No. 17766) Exhibit 2 - Planning Commission Staff Report for 12/15/05 Exhibit 3 - Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of 12/15/05 Exhibit 4 - Ordinance Approving and Adopting SP-5-02 Exhibit 5 - Resolution of Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 05-03 c:IMyFilesUGHMGreystonelSP-05-02counciirpt PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION r Document Type: Negative Declaration (Mitigated) Date: November 22,2005 Project Title: SP-05-02,VTTM-05-03, SA-05-19, SA--05-24 and E-05-21 Project Location: 11830 Mt. Vernon Avenue (An approximately 3.7 acre parcel located on the westerly side of Mt. Vernon Avenue about 750 feet southerly of the intersection of Mt.Vernon.Avenue and Brentwood Street.) ■ Description of Project: The proposed project will be made up of 35 condominium units to be sold to individual home buyers. The project will consist of two-story single-family residential units with three and four bedrooms. It will be developed as a condominium type of subdivision. A vesting tentative tract(VTTM-05-03, County No. 17766)has been filed for this development as it is a condominium project. Sp-05-02 has been filed as a Specific Plan for this project detailing the architectural style, parking, setbacks, access, landscaping,walls and fencing details/standards for the development. There will be two models, a Plan 1 of about 1,658 sq.ft. and a Plan 2 of about 1,771 sq.ft. SA-0519 and SA-05-24 have bee filed for each model. Project Proponent: The Greystone Group, Inc. and Sequoia Equities Lead Agency: Community Development Department, City of Grand Terrace Contact Person: Gary L. Koontz, Community Development Director (909)430-2247 Public Review Period: Began:Tuesday, November 22,2005 Ended: March 9,2006 Public Hearings/Meetings: Planning Commission—Thursday, December 12005 and City Council on Thursday, January 26, 2006 and Thursday, March 9,2006 Environmental Finding: Based on an Initial Study, attached hereto, prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of approving SP-05-02,VTTM-05-03, SA-05-19, SA-05-24 and E-05-21, the said project qualifies for a Mitigated Negative Declaration on the grounds that it will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment with the recommended mitigation conditions. Signature: Gary L. Koontz, Community Development Director EXHIBIT B c:\MyFiles\JOHN\Greystone\negativedclaratonSP-05-02 City of Grand Terrace Community Development Department Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Specific Plan No. 05-02, Site and Architectural Review Case No.'s 05-19 and 05-24, Tentative Tract No. 05-03 and Environmental Review Case No.05-21 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Grand Terrace r-� Community Development Department 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace,CA 92313 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Gary L. Koontz, Community Development Director or John Lampe,Associate Planner (909)430-2247 4. Project Location: 11830 Mt. Vernon Avenue (An approximately 3.7 acre parcel located on the westerly side of Mt. Vernon Avenue about 750 feet southerly of the intersection of Mt. Vernon Avenue and Brentwood Street.) 5. Project Sponsor's Name The Greystone Group,Inc.and Sequoia Equities 6. General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential 7. Zoning: "R3"(Medium Density Residential) 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 project will be made up of 35 condominium units to be sold to individual home buyers. It will consist of two-story single-family residential units with three and four bedrooms. The project will be developed as a condominium typ ofsubdivision. A tentative tract(TTM-05-03,County No.17766)has been filed as a Specific Plan for this project detailing the architectural style,parking,setbacks,access,landscaping,walls and fencing details/standards for the development. There will be two models,a Plan 1 of about 1,658 sq.ft.and a Plan 2 of about 1,771 sq.ft. SA-05-19 and SA-6-24 have been filed for each model. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:(Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) North: The Highlands Apartment Complex, Zoned R3 East: Single family homes, Zoned R1;7.2 South: The Highland Apartment Complex,private school,and convalescent home,Zoned R3 and AP West: The Highland Apartment Complex,Zoned R3 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement) City of Grand Terrace Department ofBuilding and Safety—building and grading permits;County of San Bernardino Fire Department—plan check requirements;Riverside Highland Water Company for water connection and service;and City of Grand Terrace Public Works for sewer connection. Community Development Department 1 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑Land Use and Planning ❑ Transportation/Circulation ❑ Public Services C3 Population and Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities and Services Systems 0 Geological Problems ❑Energy and Mineral Resources ❑Aesthetics ❑Water ❑Hazards ❑Cultural Resources r"s ❑Air Quality ❑Noise ❑Recreation Determination: ❑Mandatory Findings of Significance 0n 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 MITIGATED 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 ' act" or "potentially potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there WILL NOT be significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. k' I I A 4%,/a r Si ture Date Gary L. Koontz Community Development Director Printed Name Title Community Development Department 2 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A"No Impact"answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved(e.g.the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on'project-specific factors as well.as general standards(e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved,including off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct,and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potential Significant Impact"is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or.more "Potential Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, and EIR is required. 4) "Potential Significant Unless Mitigated Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potential Significant Impact"to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level(mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses,"may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier Analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). References to a previously prepared or outside document should,where appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. Community Development Department 3 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated I. Land Use and Planning. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general elan designation or zoning? ❑ ❑ ❑ (Source: General Plan Categories Map; and Zoning District Map—This will mitigated by the filing of a Specific Plan which will act as the Zoning for this site.) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or ❑ ❑ ❑ policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?(There are no known agencies where the proposed project would cause a conflict.) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (Zoning District Map,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) �) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community(including a low-income or ❑ minority community)? .(The site is relatively small and ❑ ❑ is-vacant. It will not divide any portion of the community.) A brief explanation to answer I: The proposed is inconsistent with'some development standards of the existing R3 zoning of the site;therefore,a Specific Plan has been filed which will act as the new zoning for the site with new development standards. The Specific Plan will have to be written to conform to the requirements of State Law. The project with its modified development standards could be incompatible with nearby single family development but the potential impact will be less than significant because of the proposed landscaping and architectural design. In addition,there are no agricultural resources in Grand Terrace and no part of the community will be disrupted by this project. Finding:Potential impact reduced to a level of insignificance with mitigation measure. If approved, the Specific Plan will eliminate the conflicts with the existing R3 Zoning of the site. Community Development Department 4 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated II. Population and Housing. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections?(This project is consistent ❑ ❑ ❑ with the City's General Plan and the number of units proposed is about 80%of the maximum density allowed in the existing R3 Zone.) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or ❑ ❑ ❑ indirectly(e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)?(This project is an "infill"type project; the number of unit proposed will not necessitate any expansion of services.) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable ❑ ❑ ❑ housing? (The property is presently occupied by an old single family residence which is substandard and need of renovation.) A brief explanation to answer H: The proposed project is relatively small in size. The zoning of this site has been R3 for a number of years. The proposed l+� project is only about 80%of the maximum allowed by the existing R3 zoning. The project is consistent with the City's'General Plan and will not exceed population projections for the City. It will also not induce growth because of its relative small size. In addition,the property is occupied by a substandard residence which will be replaced by the new development. III Geologic Problems. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (General Plan MEA/EIR-ES-4) ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Seismic ground shaking?(GP MEA/EIR-II-1) ❑ ❑ c) Seismic ground failure,including liquefaction? (GP ❑ ❑ ❑ MEA/EIR-II-1) d) Seiches,tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (GP 1VIEA/EIR ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Landslides or mudflows? (GP MEA/EIR II-1) ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (GP ❑ ❑ ❑ _ , MEA/EIR II-20) g) Subsidence of the land? (GP MEA/EIR II-1,Append ❑ ❑ ❑ B) h) Expansive soil? (GP MEA/EIR II-1,Append B-4) ❑ ❑ ❑ I) Unique geologic or physical features? (GP MEA/EIR ❑ ❑ ❑ T II-1) Community Development Department 5 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated A brief explanation to answer III; No active or potentially active fault traces cross the site. The only known potential geologic hazard to the site is from seismic ground shaking which is not unusual for any site in Southern California. This and any other geologic hazard will be mitigated by the requirements that all residential structures shall be designed and constructed to meet the seismic standards of the Uniform Building Code. Also,ajaik.Wort will be required before the issuance of a grading permit or building permits for this project for the construction f re dences. Finding:Potential impact reduced to a level of insignificance with mitigation measure:This project must meet the requirements that all residential structures be designed and constructed to meet the seismic standards of the Uniform Building Code. IV. Water. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (GP MEA/E1R Il 1 ❑ ❑ Append B) ❑ b) Expose to people or property to water related hazards ❑ ❑ - such as flooding? (GP NIEA/EIR II-1) ❑ c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of ❑ ❑ ❑surface water quality(e.g., temperature, dissolved -oxygen or turbidity)?(GP MEA/EIR 11-1) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water ❑ ❑ ❑ body? (GP MEA/E1R II 1) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water ❑ ❑ ❑ movements? O fl 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 N EA/EIR II 1) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (GP ❑ ❑ ❑ — MEA/EIR II-1) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (GP MEA/EIR 11-1, and ❑ ❑ ❑ a �' Regional WCA Report) 1) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑ -- otherwise available for public water supplies? (GP - MEA/EIR H-1) Community Development Department 6 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated A brief explanation to answer IV: The proposed project is to construct 35 single family residential units. There will be some increase in impermeable surface area;however,the existing storm drain system in the area will be handle'the additional runoff. The submitted hydrology has indicated the ainount of run-off from this project: In addition,before grading permits are issued for this project all NPDES requirements will have to be met which should ensure that many of the impact to water resources will be eliminated. These, requirements have been set out in the required"Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan." Also,all water for the use of this, project will be provide by the local water provider,the Riverside Highland Water Company. V. Air Quality. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ existing or projected air quality violation? (GP MEA/E1R II-14, and AQMP) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?',(The Element ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ contains an implementing action to reduce such exposure) c) Alter air movement,moisture, or temperature, or cause ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ any change in climate? (Any such implementing actions are designed to have a positive effect on the region's air quality) d) Create objectionable odors? (No specific odor causing ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ proposals are included in the Element) A brief explanation to answer V: The proposed project is relatively small size. With only 35 units it does not have the capacity to significantly impact the air quality of the region. There will be a very small increase in air pollution primarily from the vehicles of the new residents; however,this will not be significant. Finding:Potential impact reduced to a level of insignificance with mitigation measure. For the grading of the site where dust will be generated,appropriate dust control measures will be integrated into grading plans and activities as required by the City as part of the conditions of the grading permit. Community Development Department 7 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (TCM Ordinance 147) g) Rail,waterborne or air traffic impacts?() ❑ ❑ ❑ Brief explanation to answer VI: The proposed project is to has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer. He concluded that because of its relatively small size that a traffic study would not be required even though there will be some slight increase n traffic which will not be significant. In addition,he stated:"The project will have no significant traffic impacts on the adjacent streets and intersections." The export of 25,000 cubic yards of earth will be mitigated by r quiring that the proposed haul route be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director to minimize effects on the neighborhood. a the potential Community Development Department 8 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated VII. Biological Resources. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered,threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to ❑ ❑ ❑ plants, fish,insects, animals, and birds)? (GP N[EA/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 ❑ ❑ ❑ MEA/EIR 11-20) d) Wetland habitat(e.g.,marsh,riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (GP MEABIR II-20) ❑ ❑ ❑ 6� Brief explanation to answer VH: No rare or endangered species are known to live in the urban areas of Grand Terrace. In addition,there are no desirable large trees on the site or wetland habitats. No adverse impacts to biological resources are expected from the development of this project. VIII. Energy and Mineral Resources. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy ❑ ❑ ❑ conservation plans? (GP MEA/EIR II-19, and Append D) b) Use non-renewable resources in a ❑ ❑ ❑ wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ ❑ ❑ known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (GP MEA/EIR 11-19, and Append B) Community Development Department 9 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Brief explanation to answer VIII: No mineral resources have been identified in the City.Therefore the development of the proposed 35 residential units will not adversely impact any mineral resources. In addition,the project will have to be constructed in compliance with the energy standards of the building code. 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 M[EA/EIR II 7) b) Possible interference with ❑ ❑ ❑ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?(GT Emergency Plan,and GP MEA/EIR R-13) 0 The creation of any health hazard or ❑ ❑ ❑ � potential health hazard? (GP MEA/EIR H-1) d) Exposure of people to existing ❑ ❑ ❑ sources of potential health hazards? (GP MEA/EIR II-1) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with ❑ ❑ ❑ flammable brush, grass, or trees? (GP MEA/EIR II-6) Brief explanation to answer IX: There are no known hazards on the site or the immediate surrounding area including areas of flammable brush. In addition,this is a residential project with no storage of hazardous materials other than what would normally be found in a residential setting;however,such storage will not be significant. Community Development Department 10 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated X. Noise. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? (City Noise Element) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ �, b) Exposure of people to severe noise _ levels? (City Noise Element) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ Brief explanation to answer X. There will be some increase in ambient noise level simply from having 35 new homes on the site which is presently vacant except for one older residence; however,this increase will not be significant. In addition,the site is located just west of Mt. Vernon Avenue which has been identified in the City's Noise Element as an existing and future noise generator. However, this will be mitigate by the conditioning that this project conform to the requirement of the Building Code for interior noise insulation for any structures impacted by noise from Mt. Vernon. Finding:Potential impact reduced'to a level of insignificance with mitigation measures. This development will be conditioned to comply with all requirements of the Building Code for interior noise insulation if required. The noise i associated with the export of 25,000 cubic yards of earth will be minimized by the City's Noise Ordinance which restrict ! such activities between 7:00 a.m.and 10:00 p.m `- 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. This proposed project for 35 single family residential units is relatively small in size. As for any residential project there will be some effect on public services but because of the relatively small size of the project all of these effects will be less than significant. In addition,there will be an increase in the City's property tax base because of the development of existing vacant land and the developer will also'have to pay the school impact fee for this project before building permits are issued. Community 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 a Mitigation Incorporated XH. Utilities and Services Systems. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alternations to the following utilities: r , a) Power or natural gas? (GP MEA/EIR 11-32,II 33) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ b) Communications systems? (GP MEA/EIR 11-33) ❑ 0Local or regional water treatment or ❑ ■ ❑ distribution facilities? (GP ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ N EA/EIR II-30) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (GP NIEA/E1R 11-30) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ e) Storm water drainage? (GP MEA/EIR 11-33) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 0 Solid waste disposal? (GP MEA/EIR 11-32) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ �J S) Local or regional water supplies? (GP MEA/EIR 11-30) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Brief explanation of answer 3M. This proposed project for 35 single family homes is relatively small in size. As for any residential project there will be some effect on utility services but because of the size of the project all of these effects will be less than significant.In addition,no individual utility has identified any problems in being unable to service this project. MH. Aesthetics. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ highway? (GP MEA/EIR 11-22) b) Have a demonstrable negative ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ aesthetic effect? (Proposed site plan and project elevations ) c) Create light or glare? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Brief explanation to answer XIII. The proposed project does not lie near scenic highway or will block scenic vistas. In addition,any potential aesthetic impacts will be mitigated by the conditions of the project such as the regulation of the architectural design and the requirement for a landscaping plan. Community Development Department 12 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated XIV. Cultural Resources. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (GP NffiA/EIR 11-20) ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Disturb archaeological resources? (GP MEA/EIR II-20) ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Affect historical resources? (GP MEA/EIR 11-22) ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect ❑ ❑ ❑ unique ethnic cultural values? (GP MEA/EIR II-22) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact ❑ ❑ ❑ area? ( ) Brief explanation to answer XIV. No known palentological,archaelogical or historical resources exist on the site. No cultural values or sacred uses will be impacted by this project.. XV. Recreation. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or ❑ ❑ ❑ other recreational facilities? (GP MEA/EIR H-21) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (GP MEA/EIR II-21) ❑ ❑ ❑ Brief explanation to answer XV. As the project is residential,there will be some increase in the demand for and affect on recreational resources;however, as only 35 units are involved such effects will be less than significant. In addition,there will on-site recreational facilities which will mitigate the demand for public recreation facilities. Community Development Department 13 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated XVI. Mandatory findings of significance. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the ❑ ❑ ❑ environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife Population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plant or animal, eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,to the ❑ { disadvantage of long-term, ❑ ❑ ■ environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of other probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ adverse effect on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Community Development Department 14 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis i f Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Brief explanation to answers XVI. No Impact.The proposed project is relatively small with only 35 units. Any effects on the environment resulting from this project will either be less than significant or will be fully mitigated by the regulations of the submitted Specific Plan or the required permits such as the building and grading permits. XVII. Earlier Analysis. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR, or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. ■ Used the Grand:Terrace General Plan Master Environmental Assessment and EIR for most of the base impact information. Both documents are available at the Grand Terrace Community and Economic Development Department. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist we] 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 JL jl Grand Terrace Community 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. County of Mendocino,202 Cal.App.3d 296(1988);Leonoff v.Monterey Board of Supervisors,22 Cal.App.3d 1337(1990) c:1MyFilesUOHN\Karger\Karger2-5-05\E-04-01 Community Development Department -15 Initial Study and Environmental Analysis Community and Economic Development Department CALIFORNIA I TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Community Development Department DATE: Thursday,December 15,2005 SUBJECT: SP-05-02, SA-05-19, SA-05-24, Vesting Map TTM-05-03, (County No. 17766)and E-05-21 to construct a 35 unit single family condominium project on 3.7 acres APPLICANT: The Greystone Group,Inc. and Sequoia Equities LOCATION: 11830 Mt. Vernon Avenue(An approximately 3.7 acre parcel located on the westerly side of Mt. Vernon Avenue about 750 feet southerly of the intersection of Mt. Vernon Avenue and Brentwood Street.) RECOMMENDATION: Open the public hearing,receive the staff report and testimony, close the hearing and approve the Resolution calling for the approval of SA-05-19, SA-05-25 and E-04-21 and recommend to the City Council the approval of the Resolution calling for the approval of Vesting Map TTM-05-03 and the adoption of the Ordinance for SP-05-02 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval to construct 35 single family residential units with attached garage parking for residents and open parking for guests. "Lot"sizes will range from 2,676 square feet to 4,341 square feet. The average"lot"size is 2,941 square feet. The site will be accessed by 22795 Barton Road 0 Grand Terrace, California 923- EXHIBIT 2 - a single,non-gated vehicular access to Mt.Vernon at its southeast comer. The internal street system will be provided by a 26 foot wide loop private street. There will also be a 26 foot wide Emergency Vehicle Access to provide secondary access to the interior of the site. The site will also include passive landscape statement adjacent to the main entry as well as an active open space in the center of the development. With a proposed density of 9.5 units per acre, the applicant believes this proposed new residential development will act as a "transitional element" between existing single-family community on the east side of Mt.Vernon Avenue and the Highland Apartments on the west side of Mt.Vernon. The applicant further points out that this proposal will replace an aging and poorly maintained residence in the neighborhood with"an attractive,vibrant ' neighborhood that will complement the otherwise positive fabric ofthe community..."(The proposed request and applicants quotes were taken from page II-1 of SP-05-02,.Exhibit A.) SITE AND SURROUND AREA: The subject site is an approximately 3.7 acre parcel located on the west side.of Mt.Vernon Avenue about 750 southerly of the intersection of Mt. Vernon Avenue and Brentwood Street. The site is presently occupied by single family residence, a swimming pool and at least four wood and/or corrugated metal accessory structures. All of these buildings are located on the northerly side of the site. The existing structures and other facilities on the site will be demolished and the site will be cleared for the proposed project. The site still contains numerous mature trees as part of the existing residential development. The r- topography of the site slopes from east to west. The existing site slopes about 4.5%in a westerly direction with Mt.Vernon Avenue as the high point of the subject site. The site falls nearly 25 feet from east to west and steps down creating three more or less level pad areas at its westerly end. There are substantial slopes throughout the perimeter of the property with the steepest being along the southerly edge. It should be pointed out that the Highlands Apartments to the north, west and south of the site mainly lie at a lower elevation than.the subject site. As noted above, the surrounding area is developed with the'Highlands Apartment complex to the north,west and south. The area to the east on the easterly side of Mt.Vernon Avenue is developed with single family residential uses. The Highlands Apartment complex consists of two-story structures while most of the homes on the east side of Mt. Vernon are one-story in height. The average density of the Highlands is about 17 dwelling units per acre based on past calculations by Staff. Mt. Vernon Avenue is a 88 foot-wide Secondary Highway as shown on the City's Circulation Element. It is developed with curbs,gutters and meandering sidewalks on its westerly side at this location. No request have been made by the City's Public Works department for right-of-way or street improvements. The City's Master Plan of Storm Drains shows no storm drains along this section of Mt. Vernon excepting for a short 24" segment bringing water across Mt.Vernon from the east side to the west side located at the south end of the site. For an aerial view of the site and surrounding area,please see Attachment 1. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING: The site is located in the R3(Medium Density Residential)Zone. This site has been zoned for multi- family use for at least 20 years. The site is also located in the"MDR"(Medium Density Residential) Category of the City's General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the Ci General Plan and falls within.the density limitations of the R3 Zone. The maximum density allowed in the R3 Zone is 12 units per acre. At 35 units,the overall density of this project is approximately 9.5 units/acre which is consistent with the R3 Zone. The properties to the north,west and south of the subject site are located also in the R3 DensityResidential)Zone.Properties to the east are located in the R1-7.2(Single FamilyRes(Medium - Minimum required area 7,200 sq. .ft.)Zone. Both of these zones are consistent with the City's General Plan land use categories. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Specific Plan Document: A Specific Plan document was submitted for this project and has been labeled Exhibit A. Since the R3 (Medium Density Residential)would not accommodate this proposed project,it was necessary to file a Specific Plan. In addition the City's General Plan contains a policy that requires a Specific \� Plan for those J ro'ect exceedin P g 20 or more units. A Specific Plan under Sections 65450 and 65457 of the Government Code must contain a text and a diagram or diagrams that specify all of the following in detail: • Distribution,location,and extent of the uses of land,including open space,within the area covered by the plan. • Proposed distribution,location,extent and intensity of major components ofpublic and private transportation,sewage,water,drainage,solid waste disposal,energy,and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan. • Standards and criteria by which development will proceed and, where applicable, standards for conversation, development, and utilization of natural resources. • A program�of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out the matters listed above. Exhibit A contains a description of the project setting,subject site characteristics,surrounding uses and a statement as to the project's relationship to the City's General Plan. It also includes a detailed discussion of the proposed project including types of uses, architectural styles, development ( standards to be employed, grading/drainage discussion and proposed phasing. The Specific Plan concludes with a discussion on the infrastructure which will service the new development including utilities,sewer service and traffic control. It should be pointed out that the Specific Plan document includes reduced copies of all of the plans and exhibits for this project. As such, the submitted Specific Plan No. 05-02 does meet these requirements of the Govemment Code. As such,the Specific Plan will serve as the"zoning"for this project. An Ordinance to adopt the Specific Plan has been prepared for the Commission's consideration for a recommendation to the City Council. The Ordinance is included at the end of this Staff Report as Attachment 25. Site Plan: The site plan, marked Exhibit 1, shows the proposed development consisting of 35 single family detached units distributed throughout the development. All of the units will be two stories in height. Interior access will be provided by a 26 foot wide interior drive with a"loop"configuration and with the main entrance and exit to Mt. Vernon located in the southeast comer of the site. A second "emergency only"entrance from Mt. Vernon to the site will be provided in the northeast comer to satisfy the Fire Department. The two-story single family residential units will be setback 19 feet from the Mt.Vernon right-of- way and approximately 6 to 12 feet from the interior southerly,westerly and northerly property lines. The typical rear setback for the homes along the northerly property line will be 9 feet;for the homes on the southerly property line the rear setback will be typically 10.6 feet. The homes in the interior will have larger rear setbacks of up to 14.8 feet. In addition,the single family residential units will be set back 10 to 13 feet from the interior drive loop system for most of the units. The distance between residential buildings will be 8 feet. It should be pointed out that with some of the units setting 10 feet back of the interior drive, the individual driveways to these units will only measure 15 feet or so in length. A full sized car parked in one of these driveways could block the sidewalk along the interior drive. A 5-foot wide sidewalk is proposed around the outside edge of the interior drive loop. Staff is suggesting that if this project is approved,it be conditioned that no individual driveway be less than 18 feet in length as measured between the garage door and the outer edge of the sidewalk. The proposed parking includes two spaces in each garage for a total of 70 covered spaces. Also, there are 18 open spaces for guest or visitor parking.This open guest parking is located in two areas; one near the open space area in the center of the development and the other near the southeast main entrance. In addition, potential parking on the individual driveways to each unit could provide another 70 off-street spaces. All of this parking is located in the interior of the development and will not be readily visible from Mt. Vemon. Two common open space areas are shown on the site plan, Exhibit 1. The larger of the two is located in the center of the development,towards its westerly side. This open space will be 5,268 square feet in size. No development features are shown for this open space area excepting for a what appears to be walkway crossing through the middle of the open area. Also, one of the open guest parking areas lies adjacent to this open space area; and an underground detention is shown at this location. The other open space area measures some 1,892 square feet in size and lies just south and next to the southeast main entrance. No improvements are shown for this latter open space area. Additional outside recreational amenities will be provided in the form an exterior patio area for each residential unit. This patio area typically measures about 12'x 15'. A five to six foot block wall presently is constructed along the northerly, westerly and southerly boundaries of the subject site. This development proposes to replace this fencing with a retaining wall ' the proposed height shown on the Conceptual Grading Plan,Exhibit 13. On top of this wall fo t high screening wall is proposed along these same property boundaries. Along the Mt. y Vernon outage the fencing will include"enhanced pilasters.." The location of this fencing has not been indicated on the site plan or the conceptual grading plan. Interior residential fencing between units will be 5 ft. - 10 in. and will be painted wood with gates. For a detailed discussion of the fencing for this development,please see page I1-5 of the Specific Plan. A 8 %z"x 11"reduction of the site plan has been included in this staff report as Attachment 2. Floor Plans: The project consists of two floor plans with three different,alternate elevations for each of these two floor plans. Both floor plans will have a two-car garage and both will be two stories in height. According to the Specific Plan the design and layout of these units will utilize a concept called the "Pocket lot." The floor plans will focus on private outdoor space. This space is created by creating a notch in the rear of the floor plan to be occupied by the private patio pointed out above. In /y addition,the Specific Plan points out that"living and eating spaces orient towards this`pocket'and create a living arrangement that enhances the connection between indoor space and private outdoor space." The two proposed floor plans have been labeled"Plan 1"(Exhibit 2)and"Plan 2"(Exhibit 6). Plan 1 includes a kitchen, living, dining room, %z bath and garage on the first floor, and the master bedroom,two bathrooms and two additional bedroom on the second floor. The total living area of Plan 1 is 1,801 square feet. Plan 2 has generally the same layout as Plan 1 but is slightly bigger with 1,828 square feet. In addition,there is an option for a fourth bedroom with a total size of the unit at 1,963 square feet. A 8 %s" x 11" reduction of the floor plan of"Plan 1" has been attached to the staff report as Attachment 3; and, of"Plan 2"as Attachment 4. Elevations: The architectural style of this project incorporates, according to the Specific Plan, elements from early 20' Century California Spanish bungalows. Low pitched roofs and barrel shaped roof tile accent the Spanish character of the architecture. Stucco walls provide a modern interpretation ofthe use of plaster walls typical of the early Spanish bungalow style. Further, the window shapes and sizes provide a "street friendly presence to the home." The use of decorative wrought iron and shutters will accent the home and complement the Spanish style. The proposed colors will be subdued while highlighting the California Spanish bungalow style. The proposed alternate elevations for Plan 1 and Plan 2 are shown on Exhibits 3,4 and 5 for Plan 1 and Exhibits 7, 8, and 9 for Plan 2. 8 V?x 11 reductions of Plan 1 alternates are included here as Attachments 5, 6, and 7 and Plan 2 alternates as Attachments 8, 9, and 10. Preliminary Landscaping: The preliminary landscaping plan is shown on Exhibit 10. The preliminary landscape plan shows a generalized plant pallette including trees,shrubs,vines and groundcovers and generalized location of various plantings. A more detailed discussion of the proposed"plant palette"is given on page H-4 of the Specific Plan. In addition, the "Plant Legend" on Exhibit 10 shows that all of the proposed trees will be 24" and 36"box in size. As shown on the preliminary landscaping plan, the applicant will include in the landscaping the adjacent parkways along Mt.Vernon. The Municipal Code requires the planting of street trees every 40 feet along both the street frontage,if necessary as there are already street trees along this section of Mt.Vernon. The applicant will be required to plant and maintain the adjacent parkway. A detailed landscaping and irrigation plan will be required to be submitted and to be approved prior to the issuance of building permits. In addition,all of the landscaping will have to be installed prior to the final occupancy of the development. A 8 %i'x 11"reduction of the preliminary landscaping plan is shown as Attachment 11. Tentative Tract Mao: This is a proposed condominium development; therefore,the necessity for the tentative map. The tentative map is shown on Exhibit 11. The County number issued by the County Recorder's Office is"Tract No. 17766." As a condominium project,only one lot is shown. Individual buyers will be purchasing"air rights"to their individual unit and not an individual lot. The conditions of approval include the requirement that there be a homeowners' association which will have the responsibility of managing and maintaining this development. The"lot lines"shown on the site plan are"akin" to the"lot lines"in a mobilehome development and will not be recorded"lot lines"for subdivision purposes. The proposed tentative map shows such details as existing development on the site,existing utilities, adjacent streets,existing easements,the location of existing and proposed storm drains,the proposed BMP storm filter and the proposed 8" sewer line. Also, the street sections for Mt. Vernon and the private interior loop drive are also shown on the tentative tract map. The"vesting"portion means that the rules and regulations of the City at the time the filing of the map is deemed"complete"will apply, by law, to this subdivision proposal. Lastly, this tentative map was reviewed by the City Engineer and found to be acceptable. A 8 %" x I V reduction of the tentative map is attached hereto as Attachment 12. i Conceptual Grading; The conceptual grading plan is shown on Exhibit 12. The os ro p p ed site will be graded to drain from east to west at an average grade of 5.0%. East to west fall will be approximately 20 feet wi e th theet and the lowest pad on the west end of easterly edge of the site having a high point of 1,087.50 f the site being 1,065.40 feet.Retaining walls will be used on nearly all ofthe south,west and northern boundaries of the site. No retaining walls will needed along the Mt. Vemon frontage. The maximum retaining wall height will be 10.5 feet along the southeasterly side of the project. Most of the retaining wall heights,however,will range from 3 feet to 6.5 feet. The grading of the site will generate approximately 25,000 cubic yards of export. To mitigate the export operation, Staff suggests that conditions be imposed to limit the hours of grading of the site and that the proposed haul route for the exporting trucks be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of any grading permits. Storm water will be collected via an underground storm drain system and outlet through the retaining wall near the southwest comer of the site. This storm drain system will also accept off-site water currently being accepted onto the subject property from Mt. Vernon Avenue. The storm water will exit the site via an outlet through the retaining wall onto the neighboring apartment site to.the west. The site will also generate an additional flow due to the addition of non-pervious materials. This additional flow will be detained on site in an underground detention system underneath the open space,pocket park in the center of the development. The proposed structural BMP to treat the site water will be a storm filter or equivalent that will be (- employed to comply with the City's Stone water Ordinance as part of the NPDES requirements. This BUT will be designed to treat the"first flush"in a storm event as well as nuisance water from irrigation. A 8 %"x 11" reduction of the preliminary grading plan is shown on Attachment 13 in the staff report. Phasing: This project is proposed to be "phased"consisting of three phases. A detailed discussion of the proposed phasing is given on page II-5 of the Specific Plan. A condition requiring the submittal of a phasing plan/schedule to be approved by the City has been included in the Resolution of Approval, Attachment 23 for the Site and Architectural Review applications. Color and Material Board, A"Color and Materials"board for this project will be made available at the public hearing for the Planning Commission's information and review. The board contains the color scheme that will be used throughout the project along with of the stucco and roof tile. The applicant has described these colors as "subdued"but highlighting the architectural style of the residential units. REVIEWING AGENCY COMMENTS: The following comments were made by various local agencies in reviewing this project. The Department of Environmental Health: Please refer to the comment made by the Department of Environmental Health in its notation dated October 3,2005 (Attachment 14). Colton Joint Unified School District: Please refer to the comments made by the Colton Joint Unified School District in its letter dated October 3, 2005. (Attachment 15) The City Engineer: Please see the revised memorandum to Staff from the City Engineer on this project dated December 8,2005. (Please see Attachment 16). City Traffic Engineer: Please refer to the comments made by the city traffic Engineer in his memoranda to Staff dated �. October 9,2005 and December 2,2005 (Attachment 17 and Attachment 18) ' Building and Safety: Pleaser refer to the comments made by the Director of Building and Safety/Public Works in his memorandum of October 10, 2005 (Attachment 19). County of San Bernardino Fire Department Community Safety Division: Please refer to the comments made by the County Fire Department in its letter dated November 1, 2005 (Attachment 20). Riverside Highland water Company: Please refer to the letter to staff from the Riverside Highland Water Company dated November 3, 2005. (Attachment 21). Sequoia Equities: Please see the letter from the adjacent property owner,Sequoia Equities,allowing for connection of sewer and storm water drainage systems to cross the adjacent property to the west in order to service the subject site. The letter is dated November 14, 2005 (Attachment 22) TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE: The project proponent will be required to pay traffic signal improvement p rovem ent and circulation improvement fees as set forth by Ordinance No. 190. Said fees for medium density development are $80/unit for the signal improvement fee and$650/unit(District B)for the circulation improvement fee. These fees are to be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This project to construct 35 single family detached condominium units in the has qualified for a Mitigated Negative Declaration under the provisions of the California Environmental in that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment. Copies of theNegviity ce Declaration and the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist with the mandatory finding ofno impact for this project are attached hereto as Exhibit B. FINDINGS: Section 18.63.060 of the Zoning Code requires that specific findings be made by the Planning Commission in approving a site and architectural review application. These findings have been incorporated into the Resolution of Approval (Attachment 23) for the requested two Site and Architectural Review applications. In addition, the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that specific findings be made prior to the C� approval of the tentative map. These findings are: a) The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvements is consistent with the General Plan; and b) The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development;and c) The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially or avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; and d) The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; and e) The proposed subdivision, its design, density and type of development and improvements conform to the regulations of the City's Development Code and the regulations of any public agency having jurisdiction by law. Specific findings based on these requirements have been incorporated into the Resolution of Approval (Attachment 24) for the tentative map which will be heard and acted on by the City Council. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Upon the approval g oval b the Planning Commission, the proposed project will be subject to the recommended conditions as included in the Resolution of Approval(Attachment 23)for the two site and architectural review applications. Upon approval by the City Council, the proposed tentative map for the condominiums will be subj ect to the recommended conditions included in the Resolution of Approval(Attachment 24)for the tentative map. The Site and Architectural Review requests will not be effective unless and until the proposed tentative map is approved by the City and Council and is recorded. ANALYSIS: This site has been zoned for R3 uses for at,least 20 years. The proposed project is consistent with both the City's General Plan and the Zoning Code. The project will be nicely designed in the "California Spanish bungalow"style to fit in with the surrounding residential neighborhood which includes the Highlands Apartments. The development will,provide a transition use between the apartment development west of Mt. Vemon and the single family residential use on the east side. Finally, the applicant is proposing a condominium development with individual home ownership which should alleviate some of the past objections from the community about rental development in the City. This is a well thought out and well designed project which will be an asset to the City. It will develop a vacant site which in currently;development with an aging residential structure and i rf accessory structures. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed 35 single family development under SA-05-19, SA-05-24 and E-05-21 as called for by the attached Resolution of Approval (Attachment 23) subject to the approval of the tentative map, TTM-05-03 by the City Council;and that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council its approval of TTM-05- 03 as called for by the attached Resolution of Approval (Attachment 24) for the condominium tentative map and that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the approval of the Specific Plan No.05-02 and the Adoption of the Ordinance for Specific Plan No.05-02.(Attachment 25) Respectfully submitted, E hn Lampe,A�iateer Gary L. toontz, Co&munity Development Director GLK:JL jl EXHIBIT A Specific Plan No. 05-02 document EXHIBIT B Mitigated Negative Declaration with Initial Study EXHIBIT 1 Site Plan of project EXHIBIT 2 Plan 1 -floor plan EXHIBIT 3 Plan 1 - alternative#1 elevation EXHIBIT 4 Plan 1 -alternative#2 elevation EXHIBIT 5 Plan 1 -alternative#3 elevation EXHIBIT 6 Plan 2- floor plan EXHIBIT 7 Plan 2-alternative#1 elevation EXHIBIT 8 Plan 2-alternative#2 elevation EXHIBIT 9 Plan 2-alternative#3 elevation EXHIBIT 10 Preliminary Landscaping Plan EXHIBIT 11 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 05-03 EXHIBIT 12 Preliminary Grading Plan ATTACBMENT 1 Aerial photograph of site and surrounding area ATTACHMENT 2 8 %2"x I I"reduction of site plan ATTACHMENT 3 8 %a"x 11"reduction of Plan 1 floor plan ATTACHMENT 4 8 %2"x I I"reduction of Plan 2 floor plan ATTACHMENT 5 8 Y2"x I I"alternative#1 for Plan 1 ATTACHMENT 6 8 %2"x I I" alternative#2 for Plan 1 ATTACHMENT 7 8 %2 to x I I" alternative#3 for Plan 1 ATTACHNffiNT 8 8 %2"x I I" alternative#1 for Plan 2 .ATTACHMENT 9 8 %2"x I I" alternative#2 for Plan 2 _ .ATTACHMENT 10 8 % x I I" alternative#3 for Plan 2 ATTACHMENT 11 8 %2"x I I"preliminary landscaping plan ATTACHMENT 12 8 %2"x I I"vesting TTM-05-03 ATTACHMENT 13 8 %2"x I I"preliminary grading plan ATTACHMENT 14 Comments from the Department of Environmental Health dated 10/03/05 ATTACHMENT 15 Letter from the Colton Unified School District dated 10/03/05 ATTACHMENT 16 Memorandum from the City Engineer dated 10/05/05 ATTACHMENT 17 Memorandum from the City Traffic Engineer dated 10/09/05 ATTACHMENT 18 Memorandum from the City Traffic Engineer dated 12/02/05 ATTACHMENT 19 Memorandum from the Director of Building and Safety dated 10/10/05 ATTACEMENT 20 Letter from the County of San Bernardino Fire Department dated 10/10/05 ATTACHMENT 21 Letter from the Riverside Highland Water Company dated 11/03/05 ATTACHMENT 22 Letter from Sequoia Equities dated 11/14/05 ATTACHMENT 23 Resolution of Approval for SA-05-19 and SA-05-24 c:UNyFilesVOHN\Gmld\SA404-09-1 Oconmmport . a:r't^•!r�'.a •'��"+•' ,r• ,r,a. - .. ,+ �w1"�1m,,y� T►T,�I� •;�•'�•`�(��_ __._—._.-.�;.'r,i -- —. — — �' — — r.— —�—R�— n._' `�' 'S� �.�.t.-«..,�,.,,_ `y��._�v __ r7 hb^771' jo L. e-v 1 1 ; I , I: I 1 I - � ,� � �,�; �•��,- _ -'�+-� -- �-� •�`I -, FLU ; . \4 ' it •I I ' ` ---.�I. '' I' o I� �.y� -- - •. _ �'T •;� a �' � 3 - ..�• � a9�c._ - H �n • a:� (40 �,�j t� �____ \ ` '} /�, -f�.'.Ilj:7^_:.-S. >•i�l _ ,,.;;.sy-;4�,•�. ems.�'�ys'• ^,'p'+!'�; L--. _ •'. t-._. ��-:ifs-'-r .., I - ._. • .'l l;. �� J ..: "i� -..... .'�, .'i t;.r.'�fs.'-w'�.sfl• ,i:. '�Tµi..~Y � :1, 1.7 1t----------- .:.Ail'..:Y_ _ _ I +it `! {#! T'•--'.^!: IT.��)°. :. �'�•-�' 1 S:`-Rs'i ��`.•'!'-..�t11•/"^e�� I I z •nc=r_ "UmEm- i �y ZONING INEppy_npN. , -----^•_ Q: MIS 2 r�ycv„'4• = •a M an ar as��r..nrw aun I IN.cET • lotm•n.b v-rr urru m mvmp1d(QfYUWE19 UIYII A � " `r.�' ,r�, bri°•m wmw..w n.rr..Imw �ri _--r�r, .'. p w�'�w4 •o•...vn.n.n,r Ndi E14/ w,:m:s mmi mn.Ir IOIYMSl7�Q 1.IYy -_____ roron.rvu urru ,,R;: ••�./••.NI ••MM.wN urrb r IM1QHp•It/rl 'V W-]r1y��p�f.C,kryT. �� I�V1r.�.Iw.t rrAY-tiLY{1.•.JY n°rl nn ' fp a� ,Rll~r rlw�0 Y"pu Y®, �Yia1� hR b lls f�l wuYwf IY 1°L n bl Ywpl ,w Yw. TI11P4v. :=r�� 'a- ro.u iara mr vrrrn r�mw I�',' - w w..r•..nn w' +.� t..r r•Mm UHE -.r•Iw.. /.o rfr.r..W GROUP Conccptual5ite Plan )FUSCOE IK- Green6riar - ` ::.==w•w,. -. �...wa- LR+_� f I rlrri rla ri �' I I i LAW 1�Y I Yuri I I IL Y7 -- r Plan 1 1, 801 SF H w Y 4 1, cif TM ...NG. Clgr of QW fus4m.WIConl. gym-' .M 1 I I is lLJIME ra■a I } I moo a..l 1L lOY s oaaa.r ► vb 1 1 i LAD I � � I ► aR Ln• Rq 3 Ak MR ■J6 O Ip M I OPTIONAL BEDAM 4 ` 11 WA of I I u i 1" Plan 2 1, 828 s . f. 1,963 s.f. w/ Opt. Bedrm. 4 y ap TM •••�• ••• I iv ra runr� _ �- OWUP uc� Green6riar -.-.�.� ♦t rt 1'r- '1�- TT 1: w T � - Yltttlll'/11 1 / txjmW REAR ML Wn.i.l.lyro Plan 1 Co.e..4.-tll....t .. .cr... C. "A" Elevations ~° Wil .. r....twlll.l. 1. .I rmw u/►.... TI.. J, dw..l lrr L'w..Llr.l L. Uq..Llw Ii.L.y WI' 4•u r. •Lug Y..L y y TH N1tiYlW1N ' M Grccn6riar rr.-.r r.11,,.r A 1.r.tow of Gr..A t••..u•Glltoml. r rrl�w� rid .yrM� Mr '1 L r•r•r-r r.r,.r... r ■ a � y k ti BEAR — �----- -- La y � r - r r•r r r r r r r r r� . r y trJ BDwr ra..r.r. r_...a Plan c• ..rarw aue"r T..1. H NBN Elevations li. .wr.Colr�r 1. ar.aw o/r.r n r• J. D--.1 L..r—.:h r,ryyr .• 0--.a 1—Glw►- L. .w..a.alw"I ■. u.a.w.T U y TFi ROUT Grccn6riar w glow uty of.[...T..a.c., hll[.anl. tm Y iv kk REAR FRONT T 1 LE" 1 IRI[Cu1i rtt.rl.l.L..a10 .. L'OK'r.0 0T11.Ilrgt Plan 1 r. pa f. .,t...... "ft.,T.11. D. IOw.I...rl. a. Z C Elevations a-d r. rw.e�� O rrutt.r. 1:. .m 1.01a... no (b.1 1. .1,n /►C T11) .1. 0w•.Ir.1 lr..Co..tO .l.rl .. O.r.r.t lw■TI!.Wt 1-•..r. L. D-Ott"4.D'4 CVt: nr• 11. •rtle Vent 0 . . Wl.1 t• 1'-0• 1 y��l'W� , Tpj- � L�X7d Ip �jrccn6riar �= 1 � r a i It8/►R e r ILK , rrr Lmrr MEW y awl' ww.l.l.L.•.N Z Plan 2 C. •N•..••&.•..T•11. "A" Elevations y .. .-..ul•M1t a. od wtu.N .• tiyy C•rM7 T. tlaww u/fur Tau J, llrw�r.11p Gwu.1.1 yL1 00 •• IYN.aN/..N•T11.N.l luua... L• +tia•r•l:•.G•D1.01111•.l.r• ■. Mtar Y••a TM .•.M 1•'..t•-N. �r W1 N NA/ Green6riar M"W •Irea rr'rti eltT•!Ot••a T•rr•ey 411 r•rn i• wrW REAR „Aa,"r p I Inn LELp �l RICM + ". 71.rcn Plan 2 °• !.,«.° T..1. o, wed►..cl. .. woe rot.na I 11 "B" Elevations • 7°Y •r• yc. SlmYt ccwoo ora i* .lw�► oa�.tlT Light a. mcc 5-Tit. n o0.0 .t1l1 N .--t..GAI. Qoob.. M. Au•c Y..t 0 1 r le.l.1 t•.7•.o• 111Y37JNJ _ T - LAX" °' Cjrccn6riarw POP rwww City or GA A Terra.Cal norm. r�M191_ 727IIII. •n4111 l f ZL FM ti JIM, pucw ON it .4 _100or� LIMIT RICH" Plan 2 WOVOle.dRaf eg Teal,"C" Elevations WM ft.n.f G. "t-d CWwn, w. wood collhal O It M. AILIC W*ot Circcn6liar CILY [GgwA hrsww,C,,, 'y,.` ,` 't'�ti �r�r+' ��; ili• •� ,'C{ �«"•^�-+�t6Y i.k 4aJ ��.ntr`jk'� 7, 6 tr�� .a.��;,�+ir ''r' ` �• dos �...r ��or "�. �.�Aiiss'°: � �1�Al4 �;C t;r� Jii�'i�5 �. �;'. N',Cl.,._ � )� �• �� ,c 1..,...SL•, nisi rin VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT M _. A ; No. 17766 x= , FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES sell �. ' IN THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, - "" t COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIAEA . ; sr• +rr.,r r rya , +a^�: •r•.,�; f. ,a,;..,• :.w-'yam-' r;: I ��yq�_��•��,��d�� s '•,` _._.�� f; .•X•..,•. «\�1, 'Mf• �' ,,•�, .•r ( 4'! '�! 'f,R. I �� ,1 �•n.�.��•�:L'f Y'f6/'iTiRAle. / I.,, -• ._.�• •�� it 3T r\ .� .t/Jn !, �.�, � -+r:'!/1 T�-'�'r��y. I ,/1 , �T•rar_ I .,.•�. .:'�.� ,n. �:. ..� ' �` -_. �;', qI'r-.-,-1..,.�� ' I lOIYrO JRdW.//dl� ` •>••..: :-t -"r_•-- '?!'�'•, +A t,.tc^,:2. "1.j + Imo. .�r:...:� j- ere -71 ��T:,`�"L 'rLFF I.�„�4..W + 1 ._I _ ,��a�h�i�s�r•.� f,_-__ __ , .�_.d •-,.h i �. .a `� %�11 �•j:P''o'�'�� Y•n r..i 1p_ ��1 ` '^-� L_L��.�II•-tl�Al�MO..lONL• ✓'I ._---__ �_1 r'.. _•_M i , � .�1.}.. ..t r___'(i'S ..G • - i�ifr '7/"1•rZ'S.�7�SLT• t r =.: ... ��1`p � , •:��• "_; !. + � .S �� 1 i •-_ +... I � ..1 •n.. q •` g¢ •fir• •,.—..�r..� .'�.�i�: +. ...•�• �I I "�".�.r � s�, ._ - _ —__ �t:�, - •r�_ .� L'�..•_e-k-:_:•=__ -�-'-:- _ _�__s * , - �r�� —^�`+ �•R � 1 ' ` w rr.� a�+�w .�f �+o�7tr •.T�r„r..`^�!� .j• .'� �,_• ... 1- ..1� .. _ - r- �Y+_: t a wj'• � _ +} ILL �r +111 '1!. '.�� h`. {t ay? �':5 -' .Kr .1.1�..F.;.i.;iF I rA `''r`!\ ."t.� r•r,' r ••i�,r " ..:...3'��. f i 1 { -..: ,'.;t. L� R,.*tk r 1 't \,1 : i Il�= •�#,iii` ,• ; 7loam m rac.. � :Z7Z OHM t� .. l_ � '' V � •1�� o.�•'LIfr.Jift�' � �_o -- — i •- _ Ev_ — ... s ._ x -Jr. ---_— — - w.�.. �� , • ; v .-+— � ° •1 ._.-. _. y flflry(YCNpY i6 a GR.PIIM•N-AIJ.: j flfM.LL M N —-- -- — - -- - f1 FUSCOE VESTING TENTATIVE >w TRACT YAP a TRACT NO. 17766 ;�� • "�_..._.._ .ark FOR CONDOYINIUY PURPOSES ',hur •".,�" eppe11 1 a 1 r I • /- YIF!�,�.wr/. �! 1 --,�,� F,�al F,�1 {{1��G..y'� F�j,'oi. , i . r.o•I ns.rs �• �> �'�rir": ."�•` .+i.•. it .. ' I � ;i�• its' '3 r., i `` � `1` :� '`r,`°' •, i 'tom' r•�i ,`� ` `' ' ' �f , .��-_�..: �i � k'"- ..n p•`°'` � .t� 1• ,T.� � !.u}gt� (•.¢w.. iu�a ,Y". '. -'�� A t •I _.—....—r , r c:•`I► aY' i' '; : k' 'rt-�orw , '., .ii.l \ i4• ,, +g^ ..'i: `''mm� y nwma '�~ mnr 1-•rn.,rna n.,r.m I-- / - - tl _ . T r ., •yam I i"'-•---! .`(�'• 4.. � i(,�1 ,1,�-:r1 "' , r .�'.-I ! .7 A imiu, I i I I l ---n- V, -- ' + �r..r Irr' ryo-� IWIm. �^ 1•o-nn ! iw.nn. I �y,.s •W� nuM• mob, I •1 I .. X. Lt 71 't `od qi• air---'-- '� r'_.' ---- .P!'' };+. - - a 1 y.,, _. ._.zL.. ., ,1�. .- kI - - ! ,' ' 9V y � w rrr GRAPH)"WALK 'ILA ' FUSCOE `� CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN ' --®— p-�--� Green6riar - IL' T r D GINE �R OCT 0 4 2005 Community and Economic Development MICHELLE F.gOUSTEDT DePartment planninglGj ailment munily Services Dep DATE: September 21,2005 FILE NO'S: Specific Plan No. 05-02, Site and Architectural Review Case No.05-19,Vesting ITentative Tract Map No. 05-03 (County No. 17766) and Environmental Review Case No. 05-21 APPLICANT: The Greyston Group,Inc.and Sequoia Equities LOCATION: 11830 Mt. Vernon Avenue (An approximately 3.7 acre parcel located on the westerly side of Mt Vernon Avenue about 700 feet south of the intersection of Mt. Vernon and Brentwood Street) SUBJECT: This project will consist of a total of a total of 35 condominium single family residential units with attached garages for resident parking and open parking for guests. The project will consist of two plans,a Plan 1 of 1,658 sq.fl.and a Plan 2 of 1,771 sq.fL Each plan will have three bedrooms. Dear Reviewing Agency. The applicants are proposing to construct the above described project if approved by the City. The S fic Plan has been filed for the development standards of the project The site and arc review e applications has been filed to control the project design.. The vesting tentative map has been filed will be a condominium type of project with individual ownership of each unit The environmental review application was submitted to satisfy the"CEQA"requirements for a discretionary project of this type. These applications will be heard concurrently by the City's Planning Commission. The specific lan and the vesting tentative map will also go before the City Council if the Planning Commission recommends their approval. Enclosed with this letter are copies of the proposed plans for this development, fl including the vesting tentative tract map, preliminary grading plan, site plan, plans, elevations, and preliminary landscaping plan. IN ORDER TO INCORPORATE ANY COMMENTS YOUR AGENCY MAY HAVE AB UT THI PROJECT INTO THE 30-DAY COMPLETENESS REVIEW PERIOD LETTER. MX RESPECTFULLY REOUEST YOUR COMMENTS BY FRIDAY OCTOBER 14"' 2005 If you have any questions about this request or proposal,please do not hesitate to contact John Lampe Associate Planner,with the Grand Terrace Community Development Department at(909)430-2247. XcereCtrs h.Je,Associa Planner JL71 Attachments: Various plans and exhibits for SP-05-02,SA-05-19,TTM-05-03 &E-05-21 c:1MyFila\]OHNNGmysWnlaprwy,ltr 22795 Barton Road•Grand Terrace, California 92313-54^ ATTACHMENT 14 Colt n joint Unified School District Dennis D- Byas,Superintendent Robert Stranger, Ph.D.,Assistant Superintendent, Business Services Alice H. Grundman, Director of Facilities and Construction BOARD ®F EDUCATIQN � Mr.David R.Zamora,Pmident Mrs.Marge Mendoza-Ware,Via Pnai i� ECENE joining Together to Co the Extra Mile Mr.Robert D.Armenta, Clerk Mr.Tobin A.Brinker 0CT 112005 Mr.Mark Hoover Mr.Frank A.lbarra MICHELLE F. BOUSTEDT Mr.Kent Taylor Planning/C•xnmunity - Services Department October 3, 2005 John Lampe,Associate Planner City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92313 RE: Tentative Tract Map 05-03 35 Condominium Units Dear Mr. Lampe: - The Colton Joint Unified School District Is In receipt of your transmittal for the above. named project. The District is growing at a rate faster than permanent school facilities can be financed and built. All of our school facilities are currently at or over capacity. The District's current K-12 enrollment is 24,783 and Is expected to continue to Increase. In an effort to meet classroom needs, the.Board of Education has Implemented year- round schedules, and until adequate funding for facilities can be assured, the District will continue to consider all alternatives for housing students. In addition to General Obligation Bonds, Colton Joint Unified School District has pursued other funding strategies including the State School Facilities Program, and mitigation agreements with developers, as well as Community Facilities Districts. The proposed project is currently within the boundaries of the following schools: Current School Enrollment Grand Terrace Elementary School 704 Terrace Hills Middle School 1,105 Colton High School 3.555 1212 Valencia Drive-Colton, CA 92324-1798-(909)5W5001 ATTACHMENT 15 -Commitnment to Equd Opportunity Mr. John Lampe October 3, 2005 Page two The current walking distances are as follows: K-8 1 mile or less 7-8 1 IM mass or less 9-12 2 miles or less The District knows how Im qualified teachers and ' miP�ant it Is to have a comprehensive curriculum. highly size, and designed and constructed�� st s are accessible. ad Community needs. greatest sensltivity of students and in r eladve Eo the e encourage the d e►s�of this project to contact the Dlstrid to In the planning stage, P loci will have and how we can address the8ein s br y Please contact me If you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely. r Cice H. Grundman Director, Facilities Planning & Construction AHG:cch 190.195.05 12/8/2005 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE (Grevstone Group, Inc.l (; 11830 Mt. Vernon Avenue SP 05-02 AR 05-19 TTM 05-03 (17766) ER 05-21 John: Please note these conditions are just as they were the first time around exce t I added a new COA (#13) and I modified the COA now shown as#17. And of course this resulted in re-numbering all COA from #14 to#31. Larry COA 1. The Final Map shall be prepared in accordance with the subdivision map act. 2. The final map shall include an easement for the private street,for all publicly owned facilities, and private utilities. 3. A Homeowner's Association shall be established for the maintenance of all on- site open spaces,private streets,water quality facilities,drainage facilities,on-site lighting, and the tract's Mt.Vernon Avenue frontage. 4. The CC&Rs shall be prepared and submitted for the City Attorney's review and { approval. 5. Upon approval of these conditions,and prior to becoming final and binding,the applicant shall agree to and sign the"Acceptance of Condition"letter. The letter form and content to be prepared by the Community Development Department. 6. Provide a"will serve"letter from the Riverside Highland Water Company. 7. A final tract map prepared by a'registered civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying,or a licensed land surveyor,must be processed through the City prior to being filed with the County Recorder. 8. A preliminary subdivision guarantee is required showing all fee interest holders and encumbrances. An updated title report shall be provided before the final tract map is released for filing with the County Recorder. 9. Prior to the final map approval,;there shall also be filed with the City Engineer, a statement for the water purveyor indicating the project is in compliance with the fire Chief s fire flow requirements.Final map shall be filed with the County recorder and one(1)Mylar copy of the filed map shall be submitted to the City offices prior to the issuance of any building permits. i C:\DOCUME—I\JOHNLA—I\LOCALS-1\Temp\190.195.05 TRM-05-03 (17766) SPOS- 02 ERC-05-21 Dec 07,2005.doc ATTACHMENT 16 12/8/2005 190.195.05 10. The applicant and or owner shall provide a"Water Quality Management Plan"for the project for review and approval by the City of Grand Terrace prior to the issuance of Building Permits/Grading Permit. The WQMP shall conform to the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program and as required and approved by the Community Development Director. The project requires a WQMP by exceeding the threshold as set by Category(2)Construction of 10 units or more of single family residence,multi-family residents, condominiums, apartments, etc.; and(8) the construction of Parking lots of 5,000 square feet or more. 11.Prior to the issuance of Grading Permits, the applicant shall comply with the City of Grand Terrace Stormwater System Ordinance(Ordinance No. 142, Subsection 1.010, 1993) and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board's NPDES Permit for San Bernardino County as required under the Clean Water Act. 12.The applicant shall obtain all required clearances and/or permits from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to the issuance of any building or Grading Permits. 13. The Stormwater 360 precast stormfilter shall be designed and submitted to the SARWQCB for approvals. The HOA CC&Rs shall contain instructions for the care, maintenance, and testing of the water quality facility, including, but not limited to any restrictions to landscaping fertilizers, nitrogen, and/or pathogens. 14. A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a Civil Engineer in accordance with the standards of the County of San Bernardino Hydrology and Design Manual to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The Drainage Study shall include,but not be limited to,the evaluation of the capacity of the downstream storm drain. The study shall include the design of all facilities required to mitigate downstream deficiencies and impacts to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. 15. The developer shall demonstrate that all legal rights to drain storm water onto the down stream properties to a sufficient outlet exist or the Developer shall obtain those rights prior to the Final Map approval. 16. Prior to recordation the downstream sewer system shall be analyzed to insure there is sufficient capacity for the proposed development. The study shall include the design of all facilities require to mitigate downstream deficiencies and impacts to the sewer system. 17. The developer shall obtain sewer easements for the construction of all required downstream sewer improvements on private property and rights to utilize the sewer capacity ofprivately owned downstream sewer mains prior to the Final Map approval. C:\DOCUME—IIJOHNLA-1\LOCALS-1\Temp\190.195.05 TRM-05-03 (17766)SP05- 02 BRC-05-21 Dec 07, 2005.doc 190.195.05 12/8/2005 18. A preliminary soils report/Geotechnical investigation shall be prepared for the project. 19. Prior to recordation a Grading Plan shall be prepared by a Civil Engineer based on the recommendations of a Geotechnical Report. 20. All slopes over 4 feet in height shall be irrigated and landscaped. 21.Developer shall construct all missing public improvements along the frontage of Mt.Vernon Avenue in accordance with City requirements. 22. Improvement Plans shall be prepared by a Civil Engineer to design the facilities required by the Drainage Study and the Sewer Study. 23.Prior to any work within the Public Right-Of-Way,improvement plans shall be prepared by a Civil Engineer and approved by the City, and an Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the City of Grand Terrace. 24.All on-site and off-site curbs,gutters,paving, street lights, sewer laterals,water services,utilities,grading, storm drain improvements shall be installed prior to map recordation or a sufficient surety shall be posted to guarantee their installation. 25.Unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development,all planter areas shall be separated from parking and paved areas by a 6"concrete curb. 26.All parking areas shall be surfaced and maintained with asphalt,concrete,or other Permanent,impervious surfacing material as required by Section 18.60.040B of the Zoning Code. 27. The on-site structural section for streets within this project shall be based on the "R-value"of subgrade material after streets are brought to rough grade. The Geotechnical Engineer shall provide preliminary structural recommendations based on the City's design standards for local streets. 28. The private Street Lights and parking lot lighting shall be designed to minimize impacts to the adjacent residential units. A lighting plan shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of building permits. Night lighting for the buildings and parking areas shall be designed to reflect away from nearby residential areas and public roadways. Light standards on the site shall not exceed eighteen feet in height as measured from the finished grade of the parking surface. C:\DOCUME—I\JOHNLA 1\LOCALS-1\Temp\190.195.05 TRM-05-03 (17766) SP05- 02 ERC-05-21 Dec 07,2005.doc 12/8/2005 190.195.05 29. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the developer shall submit a final geotechnical report addressing conformance with the preliminary soils report and a rough grade certification prepared by the Civil Engineer 30.Prior to Certificate of Occupancy the Developer shall construct all missing and/or damaged public improvements along the frontage of Mt. Vernon Avenue to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works or provide a surety satisfactory to the City. r 31. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy the Developer shall construct all missing and/or damaged public improvements along the frontage of Mt. Vernon Avenue. C C:\DOCUNM—I\JOHNLA—I\LOCALS—I\Temp\190.195.05 TRM-05-03 (17766)SP05- 02 ERC-05-21 Dec 07,2005.doc TEP.w P.O. Box 18355 phone:949 552 4357 ; Irvine CA 92623 fax:909494 4408 e-mail:toplivineasbcglobal.not nubile:909 263 0383 Date: October 9. 2005 To: John Lampe, Associate Manner, City of Grand Terrace From: Craig S. Neustaedter, Registered Traffic Engineer(TR1433) Subject: Comments on 35 unit condominium project Location: 11830 Mt.Vernon Av. Fife No: S.P. # 05-02 and Architectural Review Case M&19 1. Applicant should provide signing and striping plan for internal circulation and project access. 2. Applicant should confirm that turn radif are adequate for internal circulation. Standard size passenger vehicles should be able to make turns without encroaching Into opposing lanes. 3. Applicant should confirm that stopping sight distance at driveway on Mount Vernon Av. Is adequate. �I Transports don Englnndng and Planning, !no ATTACHMENT 17 P.O. Box 18355 TEP , Irvine CA 92623 phone:949 552 4357 e-mail:tepirvine@sbcglobal.net fax:90 mobile::909 09 263 0383 Date: December 2, 2005 To: John Lampe, Associate Planner, City of Grand Terrace Frorn: Craig S. Neustaedter, Registered Traffic Engineer(TR1433) Subject: Comments on Greystone Project Location: 11830 Mount Vernon Ave. File No: SP#05— 02 1 reviewed the response to my-comments dated October 9, 2005 from Fuscoe Engineering concerning the above referenced project. The Fuscoe Engineering comments adequately respond to my comments. Transportation Engineering and Planning,Inc. ATTACHMENT 18 MEMORANDUM Building and Safety/Public Works Department Conditions of Approval Date: October 10,2005 Applicant: The Greystone Group,Inc. Address of Applicant: 341 Bayside Drive,Suite 7,Newport Beach,Ca 92660 Site Location: 11830 Mk Vernon Avenue,Grand Terrace,Ca Telephone: 949-566-9230 W.O.M. 1241-5417 Provide two (2) of the following construction plans and information for review of the proposed projea I'he plans you will submit to the Planning Department can be counted as plans required by Building and Safety. The Initial plan review usually will take three weeks on most projects once Building and Safety receives the applicants package from the Planning Department You will r receive a work order number at the time you submit plans for the proposed project A plan review fee will be charged for reviewing the plans. This fee will be determined at later date when plans are submitted for review. Permit fees will also be charged for each building. These.fees are in addition to the fees paid to the Planning Department Sets (2) Title Report (2) Record Survey (2) Street Improvement Plans,to include curb, gutter,sidewalk, and paving, street lights,etc. (2) Sewer Plans (2) Water Plans (2) Architectural Plans (2 ) Structural Plans (2 ) Structural Calculations (2) Plot/Site Plans (2) Electrical Plans (2) Electrical Load Calculations (2) Plumbing Plans/Isometrics, Water, Sewer and Gas. (2) Mechanical Plans (2) Mechanical Duct Layout Plans (2) Roof and Floor Truss Plans (2) Title 24 Energy Calculation Page I of 4 ATTACHMENT 19 (2) Hydrology Study (2 ) Geology Report (2 ) Soils Report (2 ) Grading Plan (2 ) Precise Grading Plan (2 ) Water Quality Management Plan, (WQNT) or (SWEPP) and Erosion Control Plan For NPDES (2 ) Temporary Construction Fence Plan uildle:and Safetv/PubL;s Works[''am,to hrmadon L1 All structures shall be designed in accordance with the 2001 California Mechanical Code, 2001 Plumbing Code, and the 2004 Electrical Code ado red by Code,the to o California. Design all structures to comply for Seismic Zone(4)wind speed 70 MPitbelcpos ure The Developer/Owner is responsible for the coordination of the final Developer/Owner shall obtain clearnaces from each final ° ° T� nal building inspection from Building&Saf department and division prior to requesting a and Safety Job Card g 'tY Each ag"y shall sign the bottom of the Building Building and Safety inspection requests and Public Works (24)hours in advance for the next daytiOn��°be made twenty request a" kpection. Please contact(909) 825-3925. You may also q inspection at the Building d Safety public counter at 22795 Barton Road,Suite"B';Grand Terrace, C' Construction site shall be protected by a security maintained at all times to protect pedestrs• ian fence. The fencing and screening shall be Toilet facilities shall be provided for construction workers and such facilities shall be a sanitary condition. Construction toilet facilities of the non-sewer m ZAA type shall conform at ANSI All construction materials which are not used shall be recycled. Receipts from the recycle coin responsible for excepting the materials shall be kept in the construction office•Copies ofthe receipts �y shall be given to the City inspector. p� pts Construction projects which require temporary electrical Building d Safety. No temporaryPower shall obtain an electrical permit from following items are in place and approved ay owerBuild will and granted to a project unless one of the approved b Building and Safety and the Planning Departme, (A) Installation of a construction trailer, or, (B) Security fenced area where the electrical power will be located. Installation of construction/sales trailers must be located on private property, No trailers can located in the public street right of way. be C Public Works Conditions Page 2 of 4 1. Install concrete sidewalk extensions beyond the rear portion of a driveway approach providing less than 2%cross fall for disabled access. 2. All work performed in the public right of way shall be in compliance with the Public Works Construction Handbook. (Green Book) 3. Prior to permits,applicant shall pay,capital improvement which include,street park,storm drain,circulation and traffic improvement fees.Sewer Assessment Fee District No. 1 CSA 70, shall be paid in full. t y_ 4. All on site utilities shall be shall be underground to each structure. 5. Street cut permits are required before work begins in the right of way. Submit plans for review to the Public Works Department prior to street cuts. 6. Pursuant to Section 721.1 of the California Plumbing Code,an easements will need to be established and recorded with the County Recorder for each property.Language will need to be provided regarding the maintenance on the downstream sewer line. This language will need to be part of the homeowner association agreement and also be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to recording the tract map. G.T.M.C. Chapter 13.04, Section 140 and 13.04.160 7. All proposed public street improvements shall be designed by persons registered and licensed pursuant to the Business and Professions Code 8. Storm water easements will need to be established and recorded with the County Recorder for each property discharging storm water. Language will need to be provided regarding maintenance of the downstream storm water facilities. This language will need to be part of the homeowner association agreement and also be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to recording the tract map. G.T.M.C.Chapter 13.20. 9. Public street improvements exist at right of way. Repair any damaged sidewalk, curb or gutter due to damaged from construction. 10. Submit clearance documents from the servicing utility for the vault area next to public right of way located on the front north side of the property. Building Permit Conditions 1. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, on site water service shall be installed and approved by the responsible agency. On site Fire Hydrants shall be approved by the Fire Department.No flammable materials will be allowed on the site until the Fire Hydrants are established and approved. No flammable construction materials shall be placed on the site without approvals by the Fire Department. All street and access roadways around the project shall be paved for emergency response vehicles before flammable materials are placed on the project. Page 3 of 4 1 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, site grading pad certifications shall be submitted to Building and Safety from the engineer of record. Also,prior to concrete placement,submit a certification for the finish floor elevations and set certification need to reflect that the backs for each structure. The Compaction am in conformance with the Precise Grading Plans. Com pac reports shall accompany pad certifications. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits,provide a certificate from the Colton Unified School District stating that all school fees have been paid 4. Prior to issuance of building permits,provide Building and Safety with a will serve letter from Riverside Highland Water Company. S. The property shall be connected to the public sewer service. Sevier fees shall be paid prior to building permit, 6. All construction projects shall comply with the National Pollutant Discharge System,% (NPDES). NPDES reports shall be submitted with projects plans at tie Elimination p an 7. Dumping of debris was witnessed years ago toward the rear of this from the soils engineer on the abatement of the debris. °pert Provide report CAM AI&Wndkim d.PPmvaraoltom Homan,12-&AI7.wpd Page 4 of 4 COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO s� OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHAL COMMUNITY SAFETY DIVISION 620 South"E"Street—San Bernardino,,CA 92415-0179 (909 845-(0 9)386-8463-(909)386-8466 Fax(909) 6 NOVEMBER 1,2005 EXPIRATION: NOVEMBER 2006 GREYSTONE GROUP 341 BAYSIDE DRIVE,STE. 7 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660 FILE: MIS GTO5116168 LOCATION: 11830 MT VERNON AVE—GRAND TERRACE PROJECT TYPE: SITEIARCHITECTURE REVIEW TRACT: 17766 PLANNER:JOHN LAMPE Dear Applicant: With respect to the conditions of approval regarding_the above referenced project, the San Bernardino County Fire Department requires the following fire protection measures to be provided in accordance with applicable local ordinances,codes, and/or recognized fire protection standards. The following information of this document sets forth the FIRE CONDITIONS and GUIDELINES which-are applied to this project. Approved w/conditions ❑ Not Approved / ❑Approved ®APP - FIRE CONDITIONS: Jurisdiction The above referenced project is under the jurisdiction of the San Bernardino County Fire Department herein ("Fire Department"). Prior to any construction occurring on any parcel, the applicant shall contact the Fire Department for verification of current fire protection requirements. All new construction shall comply with the current Uniform Fire Code requirements and all applicable statutes, codes, ordinances and standards of the Fire Department. [F-1] Water System. Prior to any land disturbance, the water systems shall be designed to meet the required fire flow for this development and shall be approved by the Fire Department. The required fire flow shall be determined by using Appendix IIIA of the Uniform Fire Code. Standard 903J IF-51 The Fire Flow for this project shall be: 1,250 GPM for a 2 Hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. Fire Flow based on 3.600 sa.ft.Structure. Fire Fee. The required fire fees (curientN S"1.01) shall be paid to the San Bernardino County Fire Department/Community Safety Division (909)386-8465.This fee is in addition to fire fees that are paid to the City of Grand Terrace. [F-40] Access. The development and each phase thereof,shall have a minimum of 2 points of vehicular access. These are for fire/emergency equipment access and for evacuation routes. Standard 902.2.1 [F-41] ATTACHMENT 20 MIS GT05/16168 November 1,2005 PAGE 2 CTurnaround. An approved turnaround shall be provided at the end of each roadway one hundred and f 150 feet or more in length. Cul-de-sac length shall not exceed six hundred (600) feet; all roadways shall not exceed a 12 % grade and have a minimum of forty five (45) foot radius for all turns. In the FS1, FS2 or FS-3 Fire Safety Overlay District areas, there are additional requirements. Standard 902.2.1 [F-43] Combustible Protection. Prior to combustibles, being placed on the project site an approved paved road with curb and gutter and fire hydrants with an acceptable fire flow shall be installed. The topcoat of asphalt does not have to be installed until final inspection and occupancy. [F-44] Water System Residential. A water system approved by the Fire Department is required. The system shall be operational, prior to any combustibles being stored on the site. Detached single family residential developments may increase the spacing between hydrants to be no more than six hundred (600)feet and no more than three hundred (300)feet (as measured along vehicular travel-ways)from the driveway on the address side of the proposed single family structure.Standard 901.4 [F-544] Water System Certification. The applicant shall provide the Fire Department with a letter from the serving water company, certifying that the required water improvements have been made or that the existing fire hydrants and water system will meet distance and fire flow requirements. Fire flow water supply shall be In place prior to placing combustible materials on the job-site. [F-57] Street Sign. This project Is required to have an approved street sign (temporary or permanent). The street sign shall be installed on the nearest street comer to the project. Installation of the temporary sign shall be prior any combustible material being placed on the construction site. Prior to final inspection and occupancy of the first structure, the permanent street sign shall be installed. Standard 901.4.4 [F72] lydrant Marking. Blue reflective pavement markers indicating fire hydrant locations shall be installed as specified jy the Fire Department. In areas where snow remo val occurs or non-paved roads exist, the blue reflective hydrant marker shall be posted on an approved post along the side of the road, no more than three(3)feet from the hydrant and at least six(6)feet high above the adjacent road. Standard 901.4.3. [F80] Residential Addressing. The street address shall be installed on the building with numbers that are a minimum of four (4) inches in height and with a one half(%:) inch stroke. The address shall be visible from the street. During the hours of darkness, the numbers shall be Internally and electrically Illuminated with a low voltage power source. Numbers shall contrast with their background and be legible from the street. Where the building is fifty(50) feet or more from the roadway, additional contrasting four (4) inch numbers shall be displayed at the property access entrances. Standard 901.4.4 [F81) Saark Arrestor. An approved spark arrestor is required. Every chimney that is used in conjunction with any fireplace or any heating appliance In which solid or liquid fuel are used, shall have an approved spark arrestor visible from the ground that is maintained in conformance with the Uniform Fire Code. [F87] Additional Comments: 1) Emergency access road shall be AC paving and the gate shall have an approved Knox lock.. 2) Roadway leading to lots 11, 12, 13 8 14 shall be a minimum of 26 feet. Sincerely, DOUG CRAWFORD,Planning&Engineering Supervisor San Bernardino County Fire Department Community Safety Division DC:ts PS�O•O "'y�C/yc " = " '' ' H� 1450 E.Washington St. • Colton,CA 92324-4696 • (909)825-4128 FAX(909)825-1715 �t►q � R \/ November 3, 2005 Mr. John Lampe City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92313 Re: Green Briar Tract#17766 Dear John; Riverside Highland Water Company has no problem with Tract #17766. However, the developer does need to contact the water company regarding water stock and other water related fees. Thank you. Sincerely, ja4'L -�L� Rich Haubert Distribution Superintendent RNHIss ATTACHMENT 21 Nov. 1 o. [Vu) i s iorm � WUUTA EWUHIES 9252563780 NO. 3232—P. 2— 43 8IO00I1 EQUITIES November 14, 2005 City of Grand Terrace Attn: Gary Koontz RE: Grand Terrace Land Dear Mr. Koontz: As owners of the Highlands Apartments we have reviewed the plans submitted by the developer of the property which our apartment community surrounds, and we are agreeable, subject to our engineer's review of the final engineering plans, to allow for the connection of sewer and storm water drainage systems for the 35 homes In question, into or on-site systems for these utilities. The proposed development's preliminary plans appear acceptable, and when their final plans are complete, we look forward to reviewing those. Assuming they are in accordance with all local and state design guidelines, we see no problems. ' Further, we welcome the development of the 35 high quality single d homes as a welcome use for this site, which will greatly improve a currentaesmettcs of this site. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. North Waterford Apartments, a California limited partnership By: Sequoia Equities VH, LLC �G� %14, a California limited Uabllity Company A �0 Its: General Partner By: Mark S. rter Its: Member Manager Rod FAWad hammewXangjextew COOPORATZ OMCES: 1777 OOT1L1>O D11m.subs 300 WALNUT c"EX,CA 94594 ATTACHMENT 22 L"um 1410UuL 3"am"Mm SAN rw+cluo RM AREA RESOLUTION NO. 05 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL CASE NO. 05-19, SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 05-24 AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CASE NO. 05-21 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 35 UNIT CONDOMINIUM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT CONSISTING OF A "PLAN 1" OF 1,801 SO. FT. AND OF A"PLANT OF 1,828 SQ. FT. WHICH WILL BE TWO STORIES IN HEIGHT COVERED UNDER SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 05-02 ON A 3.7 ACRE PARCEL AT 11830 MOUNT VERNON AVENUE, 750 FEET SOUTHERLY OF THE INTERSECTION OF MT. VERNON WITH BRENTWOOD STREET WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for the approval of Site and Architectural Review Case No. 05-19 and Architectural Review Case No. 05-24 and Environmental Review Case No. 04-21 to construct a 35 unit condominium single family residential project; and WHEREAS,the applicant has additionally applied fora tentative tract map,TTM-05- 03 (County No. 17766)for the condominium portion of this project to be considered by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace: and WHEREAS,a properly noticed public hearingwas held bythe Planning Commission on Thursday, December 15, 2005; and WHEREAS, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Article 6, Section 15070, the proposed project for 35 condominium units qualifies for a Mitigated Negative Declaration in that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant impact on the environment. The environmental assessment of this project was completed under Environmental Review Case No. 05-21. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS: 1. The proposed project and uses, consisting of a 35 single-family detached type condominium units with appurtenant facilities is consistent with the intent of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code and the General Plan in that it meets the standards of the Zoning Code as modified by Specific Plan No. 05-02 2. The locations and configuration of all structures associated with this project are visually harmonious with this site and surrounding sites and structures, that they do not interfere wit the neighbors' privacy, that they do not unnecessarily block scenic views from other structures and/or public areas, and are in scale with the townscape and natural landscape of the area. The design and appearance of the 35 unit project will be consistent with the 1 ATTACHMENT 23 existing residential development in the area and the City. In addition,the site will be appropriately landscaped to blend in with existing development and the setbacks and landscaping of the project will proved a buffer and transition to the single family homes on the east side of Mt. Vernon Avenue. 3. The architectural design of the development,its materials,and colors utilizing earthtones are visually harmonious with surrounding residential development to the north,west and south of the subject site. The design is both functional for the proposed project and is consistent with the Grand Terrace Municipal Code. Said materials will match existing materials and colors within the adjacent residential areas. 4. The plan for future landscaping and open space provides a functional and visually pleasing setting for the residential structures on the subject site and is harmonious with the nearby and adjacent residential developments. The proposed landscaping of the site will minimize any visual impacts to the surrounding area. 5. Because the site is mainly vacant and undeveloped with no natural vegetation and is not part of a hillside,there will be no indiscriminate clearing of the property, destruction of trees or natural vegetation or the excessive and unsightly grading of hillsides. Thus the natural beauty of the City, its setting and natural landforms will be preserved. 6. The design and location of any signs associated with this project will be subject to the approval of a sign program to insure that the signs will be consistent with the scale and character of the buildings to which they are attached or otherwise associated with and are consistent with the Grand Terrace Municipal Code. 7. Conditions of approval for this project necessary to secure the purposes of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code and General Plan are made a part of this approval as set forth in the accompanying Resolution of Approval.- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that SA-05-19 and SA-05-24 are hereby approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed 35 unit condominium residential project shall be maintained in conformance with the Site and Architectural Review Applications as approved by the Planning Commission on December 15, 2005. All plans shall be consistent in terms of property lines and other measurements. Minor changes or clarifications may be made by the Community Development Director.or his designee. 2. The proposed colors and materials to be employed shall be in substantial conformance with the color and materials board and other exhibits shown at the public hearing on December 15, 2005. 2 3. Pay all applicable development fees, park fees, and school impact fees. 4. All construction activity related to this project shall comply with the City's noise ordinance as stipulated in Chapter 8.108 of the Municipal Code. 5. All construction debris shall be collected and placed in appropriate containers on a daily basis, and the construction site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner. 6. All mechanical equipmentforthis development shall be screened from public view, and all rooftop mechanical equipment will be screened from view by either the architectural features of the buildings or by screening to be approved by the Community Development Director. 7. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations listed in the memorandums from the Director of Building and Safety/Public Works in his memorandum dated October 10, 2005. 8. The applicant shall comply with the requirements in the letter from the County Fire Department, Community Safety Division, it its letter dated November 1, 2005. 10. A decorative wall/fence shall be provided along Mt. Vernon Avenue. Said wall/fence shall be setback 10 feet from the Mt. Vernon right-of-way line excepting where this distance needs to be modified because of line-of-site issues. A,detailed fencing plan showing the design,appearance and location of all fencing shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of any building permits. 11. A precise grading plan with soils report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of any grading permit for this project. 12. This project shall provide at least two covered parking spaces in a garage and at least one open guest parking space for every four proposed units distributed throughout the development. 13. Three copies of landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval. Said plans to be prepared by a licensed ;landscape architect and shall be in substantial conformance with the preliminary landscaping plan exhibited at the public hearing. Said plans to be'submitted prior to the issuance of building permits for the new construction. All,landscaping and irrigation facilities shall be installed prior to the final occupancy of the any residential building. 14, The proposed landscaping for this development shall include the parkway in front of the site along Mt.-Vernon Avenue. The developer or homeowner's association shall be responsible for the maintenance of this parkway landscaping. 3 15. The proposed open space lot in the middle of the proposed development shall include some sort of active recreational amenities. A detailed plan of this open space area shall be submitted to and be approved by the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 16. No building or portion of a building shall be constructed within the 19 foot setback as measured from the Mt. Vernon Avenue right-of-way excepting for patio covers which shall be constructed of wood. 17. No building or portion of a building or structure shall be constructed closer to the northerly, westerly or southerly property lines of the site than what is shown on Exhibit 1 -the site plan of the proposed development. Exceptions may be made for patio covers which shall be constructed of wood and for the adjustment of the location of the buildings to accommodate the minimum 18 foot driveways required by Condition No. 18; however, in no instance shall a structure be closer than 5 feet to any interior property line. 18. The driveways in front of each individual garage shall have a minimum length, as measured from the garage door to backside of the proposed sidewalk or edge of the interior loop drive where there is no sidewalk, of 18 feet. In addition, all garage doors shall be of the "roll-up"type. 19. Any signs proposed for this project shall be subject to the sign regulations of the R3 Zone and to a separate sign permit application to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. 20. All parking areas shall be surfaced and maintained with asphalt, concrete or other permanent, impervious surfacing material as required by Section 18.60.040 B of the Zoning Code. 21. For any outside lighting proposed, a lighting plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of building permits. Night lighting for the buildings and parking areas shall be designed to reflect away from nearby residential areas and public roadways. Light standards on the site shall not exceed eighteen feet in height as measured from the finished grade of the parking surface. 22. The developer shall pay the appropriate traffic impact fees as required by City Ordinance No. 190 prior to the issuance of building permits. 27. All contractors working on this project shall acquire a valid City business licence. 28. This approval for SA-05-19 and SA-05-24 shall not be effective until and unless the accompanying Specific Plan No. 05-02 and Tentative Tract Map, No. 05-03 are approved by the City Council and the final map is recorded. No building permits shall be issued until the final map has been recorded. 4 29. Prior to the issuance'of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with the City of Grand Terrace Stormwater System Ordinance(Ordinance No. 142, Subsection 1.010, 1993)and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board's NPDES Permit for San Bernardino County, as required under the Clean Water Act. 30. A "phasing plan" indicating the proposed phasing and timing of the development shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of building permits. 31. The approval shall not. be effective until the developer/owner signs the "Acceptance of Conditions"form that he/she is aware of and accepts all of the conditions of approval as imposed by the Planning Commission at the conclusion of the public bearing. 32. This approval shall expire one (1)year from the date of its approval unless the applicant has filed for a building permit. In case the applicant can not comply with this deadline,then the applicant shall apply for an extension of the one-year prior to thel original expiration date. Said time extension to be granted by the Community Development Director. In conformance with Section 18.63.100 of the Zoning Code, no additional time beyond two (2) years from the date of the initial approval shall be granted. 33. Priorto the issuance of grading permits,the developer shall submit an"export plan"to the Community Development Director for review. Said "export plan" shall indicate the days and hours in which dirt will be exported from the site r and shall also indicated the proposed haul route for the trucks exporting dirt from the site. No grading permit shall be issued until the submitted "export plan" is approved by the Director. 34. For"Unit 1"on the southeast corner of the site next to the open space area, the east side of the building facing Mt. Vernon shall 'be architecturally embellished to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Plans showing this architectural embellishment shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of any building permits PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace; California, at a regular meeting held on the 15th day of December, 2005. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 5 ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Brenda Stanfill, Doug Wilson, City Clerk Chairperson, Planning Commission c:\MyFiiesUGHMGreystonelSA-05-19-05.24resoiution 6 Bud Howell 11821 Mt Vemon Avenue Mr. Howell states that he has lived at is address for many years and is very happy with the job that the Planning Commission as done. Mr. Howell is concerned with the areas that have red curbs for no parking and eels that it could pose as a problem in the future. Most of the houses within the area hav alleyways with garages. The only parking on the streets are for guests. Should the City decide to have no street parking in front of these homes, the single family residences with n the area will be greatly affected Planning Director Koontz replied that the decisions of where the curbs are to be painted red are the concern of the Community Servi es Department and the City Council. ITEMS: 1. MINUTES Planning Co mission Meeting Minutes of November 3 2005 RECOMMENDATION: Approval MOTION PC-45-2005: Vice Chair A ington made a motion to approve the minutes of November 4, 005 Vice Chair Addington wanted to add that 3rior to voting on the final item, he wanted to note the long pause prior to making his motion MOTION VOTE Commissioner Comstock Seconded the motion PC-45-2005: Approved 4-0- -1 Commissioner idney Abstained 2. MINUTES Planning Co mission Meeting Minutes of November 17, 2005 RECOMMENDATION: Approval MOTION PC-46-2005: Vice Chair Ad ington made a motion to approve the minutes of November 17, 2005 Commissioner Comstock Seconded the motion MOTION VOTE PC-46-2005: Approved 4-0- -0 3. SP-05-02, SA-05-19, SA-05-24, TTM-05-03 E-05-21: SP-05-02, SA-05-19, SA-05-24, Vesting Map TTM-05-03, (County No. 17766) and E-05-21 to construct a 35 single unit single family condominium project on 3.7 acres. EXHIBIT 3 2 APPLICANT: The Greystone Group, Inc. and Sequoia Equities LOCATION: 11830 Mt. Vernon Avenue An approximately located on the westerly side of Mt. Vernon Avenue about 750 parcel southerly of the intersection of Mt. Vernon Avenue and Brentwood Street.) RECOMMENDATION: Open the Public Hearing, receive the staff report and testimony, close the Hearing and approve the Resolution calling for the approval of SA-05-19, SA-05-25 and E-04-21 and recommend to the City Council the approval of the Resolution calling for the approval of Vesting Map TTM-05-03 and the adoption of the Ordinance for SP-05-02. Associate Planner Lampe greeted the Commission and presented his Staff Report. A proposal has been made to construct a 35 unit single family residential condominium project on a 3.7 acre parcel. The subject site is located on the westerly side of Mt. Vernon. The property is located approximately 750 feet southerly of the intersection of Brentwood Street and Mt. Vernon Avenue. The site is presently occupied by a single family home that was built in 1922. Also on the site is a swimming pool and various accessory buildings that were used for agricultural purposes in the past. The house and the out buildings will be removed if this project is approved. The site contains numerous mature trees and slopes approximately 4' 1/2% to the west. The high point of the site is located along Mt. Vernon with a drop of about 25 feet to the westerly end of the property. In addition, there are substantial slopes on the perimeter towards the Highland Apartments which are located to the north of the subject site. The site is enclosed on the westerly, northerly and southerly sides by the Highlands Apartments. The average density of the project is 17 units to the acre. The east side of Mt. Vernon is single family detached housing in the R1 Zone. Mt. Vernon Avenue is an 88 foot wide secondary highway and as shown on the City's Circulation Element. It is presently developed with curbs, gutters and meandering sidewalk on the westerly side in front of the subject site. The subject site is located in the R3 or the Medium Density Residential Zone, and the "MDR" (Medium Density Residential) category of the City's General Plan. The maximum density allowed in the R3 Zone is 12 units per acre, with a bonus which would allow up to 15 units to the acre. The proponents could have come before the Commission this evening for an apartment project, with 12 or more units per acre under the existing R3 Zone. However, a condominium type of project has been proposed with 9112 units to the acre. The site plans illustrates the proposed project consisting of 35 detached single family residential units located throughout the development all the way to the westerly end of the project. It will be serviced by a 26 wide drive in a loop configuration with one entrance off of ML Vernon Avenue. The fire department has required that there will.be a separate means of access to the property located here for emergency purposes only. 3 The units will be set back about 19 feet from the Mt. Vernon right of way to the residential structures. Also, from the westerly and northerly property lines, the setback will be averaging about nine feet. The units will be setback ten to thirteen feet from the interior loop drive which provides interior access to the property. The units will be sitting approximately ten to thirteen feet back from the edge of the drive. The distance between units will be eight feet. A zero lot line type of configuration will be provided but the spaces are not lots in the sense of the Subdivision Map Act. Each buyer will be given the air rights to the actual unit itself and also to the small yard surrounding each unit. The lot sizes will range from about 2,600 to 2,700 square feet or a little over 4,300 square feet in size. The average space size will be a little less than 3,000 square feet per unit. Some of the units that will be fronting off of the interior drive setback about ten feet from the drive, and some of the driveways providing access to each garage measure about fifteen feet in length. Staff feels that this could pose a problem should one have a full sized car, the vehicle could probably be backed out or at least block the proposed five foot wide sidewalk which will be located on the outside of the interior loop. To avoid this problem, the Staff is suggesting that the project be modified to some extent that the driveways have at least an eighteen foot minimum depth as measured from the garage to the edge of the loop or the outer edge of the sidewalk. The total onsite parking will consist of a two car garage per unit with 70 parking spaces located within the complex besides the garages. Also shown are two open guest parking areas for guests or visitors with a total of 18 open parking spaces. This onsite parking meets more than the minimum requirements for this project. In addition to that, there will b, additional parking for visitors in front of each garage. There are two common open areas. The larger of the two will be 5,600 square feet and will be located in the westerly center of the project. There is no specific active recreational amenities shown for this area other than a proposed walkway across it. This will also be the location of an underground detention basin which is part of the drainage system of the project. The Staff has suggested that a condition be added that the developers supply recreational plans to provide more active recreational amenities for the site. The secondary location is at the southeast corner of the subject site which will be developed for additional landscaping for the project. At the present time, there is a five to six foot block along the southerly, westerly, and northerly perimeters of the property separating the site from the Highlands Apartments project. This wall will be removed and replaced by a system of retaining walls and a screening wall which will be six feet in height. Interior fencing between the units will consist of wood fencing approximately five to six feet in height with gates between each unit. Along the Mt. Vernon frontage, the specific plan discusses fencing which will be enhanced with pilasters along Mt. Vernon Avenue. The Staff is asking for a fencing plan to be submitted as part of the approval package for this project. Two floor plans have been proposed for the project. Plan One consists of a first floor kitchen, living room, dining room and powder room. The second floor will have a master bedroom and two additional baths and two additional bedrooms. Plan Two consists of a similar floor plan as Plan One, but slightly bigger in terms of square footage for a total of 4 1,828 square feet. There is also an option to add a fourth bedroom with a total square footage of 1,963 square feet. The design concept of the project is that each floor plan will have three elevations to vary the architectural style within the project. The specific plan talks about a theme of early 20th century California Spanish bungalow style with low pitched roofs and barrel shaped roof tiles to accent the character of the buildings. There will also be wrought iron shutters to compliment the Spanish style. The Applicant did provide colored elevations for the three alternatives schemes for each plan and are displayed for the Commission to review. Also submitted with the packet was a preliminary landscaping plan. All of the proposed trees will be 24 to 36 inch box trees. Because this is a condominium project under the State Map Act, the Tentative Tract Map has to be filed under the County of San Bernardino, Number 17766. As part of the Conditions of Approval is that a homeowners association shall be created which will have the responsibility of managing and maintaining this development. A conceptual grading plan was also submitted. The average grade from the easterly end of the property and the westerly part of the property will be 5%. Maximum retaining wall height will be about 10 feet along the southerly boundary of the subject site. In addition, there will be about 25,000 cubic yards of earth that will be exported from the site. The Staff is recommending mitigation of the amount of earth that will be exported from what is essentially a residential site and are suggested that an approved export plan be submitted with the City prior to the issuance of the grading permit to provide regulation and the hours of the grading. The storm water drainage system for the project has been reviewed in detail by the City Engineer, and the City Engineer feels that the submitted plans prepared by the applicant's engineer are feasible. The final part of the specific plan discusses that the project will be developed in phases. Staff has added a condition that phasing for the project be subject to some regulation so that there will be an assurance that the project will be completed in a reasonable amount of time. As part of the CEQA review, it is Staffs opinion that the project does qualify for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and that with the recommended conditions of approval, the project will not have an adverse affect on the environment. In making a recommendation, Staff has considered the following items: (1) This is a site that has been zoned for moderate density development for 20 years. (2) The project is consistent with the zoning under the City's General Plan. (3) The development will be an attractive asset to the City; and (4) the project will provide a transitional use between the apartments west of Mt. Vernon and the single family homes on the east side. Based on the analysis, Staff is recommending to the City Council the approval of the submitted Specific Plan and the approval of the vesting tentative tract map together with the mitigated Negative Declaration, and that the Commission also approve the submitted site and architectural review applications. 5 Associate Planner Lampe concluded that the Conditions of Approval :and the Site and Architectural Review, one of the Conditions, Number 17 states that the setbacks along the northerly, westerly and southerly property lines should be in agreement with what was shown on the site plan with the exception of allowing patio covers to be built on the rear yard setbacks. An exception needs to be added to the effect that the rear setback can be modified to accommodate the 18 foot driveway length. To increase the driveway length, the rear yards would have to be reduced to accommodate the change. Also, Engineering sent a letter to Staff with regard to Condition 25 of the Tract Map which required that the Applicant submit the proposed storm filter for the project to the Water Quality Control Board for approval. The Applicant's engineer suggested a revised language for Condition Number 25. The City Engineer was contacted and he did not ha,'-�, -a problem with the revised language noting the fact that there is language in that revision that states that the storm filter would remain subject to approval of the City Engineer. Associate Planner Lampe concluded his Staff Report. Vice Chair Addington asked with regard to the revised Condition Number 25, does the City issue precise grading permits. Public Works Director Shields replied that the City does require precise grading permits. Vice Chair Addington wanted more information about the section along the westerly property line. Associate Planner Lampe replied' that the Applicant's Engineer has the information. wit'_} regard to that section of the project and will be presenting it before the.Commission. Chair Wilson opened up the Public Hearing. David McMahon-Applicant Greystone Development 341 Bayside #7, Newport Beach Mr. McMahon introduced himself to the Commission and reported that he has brought his Engineer along with his architect to,answer any questions that the Commission may have. John Olivier Fescoe Engineering 16795 Von Karman, Irvine Mr. Olivier greeted the Commission and reported that the Conditions of Approval were reviewed and they are in agreement with the Conditions. With regard to the west wall at the property line, a diagram has been issued to the Commission with regard to the area showing the details of the storm filter drains and the storm drain system. Vice Chair Addington asked Mr. Olivier does the 8 foot by 4 inch high outlet curb have the capacity for the 17 to 18 CFS as proposed. Mr. Olivier,replied that the final engineering is working with the City Staff to confirm those calculations with regard to the outlet curb. 6 Vice Chair Addington asked if there is an emergency overland escape route should an emergency occur. Mr. Olivier replied that there is. Chair Wilson wanted information with regard to the filtering agents that will be proposed. Mr. Olivier replied that per the Water Quality Guidelines that a charcoal filter system will be utilized. Chair Wilson asked what type of curb will be proposed for the project. 1 Mr. Olivier replied that it will be a wedge curb. Chair Wilson wanted more information with regard to the proposed sidewalks around the entire project. David McMahon-Applicant Greystone Development 341 Bayside Drive #7, Newport Beach Mr. McMahon felt that it would be a nice addition to have sidewalks throughout the entire project so that children may be able to ride their bicycles on the sidewalks rather than on the streets. Vice Chair Addington asked with the area along Unit 1, where the east wall facing Mt. Vernon Avenue, is this a proposed flat wall or a zero lot line wall. Mr. McMahon replied that the architect could answer the question. Albert Yolo Architect 2031 Orchard Drive, Newport Beach Mr. Yolo replied that the side of the Unit is the active side where the larger windows and the master bedroom would front that side. Chair Wilson asked with regard to the retention basin, what type of drainage will be used. John Olivier Fescoe Engineering 16795 Von Karman, Irvine Currently, a park element is planned in the area with 60 inch pipes underneath to take the peak flow off of the main storm drain to divert it. Chair Wilson asked if a Maxwell System was considered. Mr. Olivier replied that it was not considered but can be checked with the soils engineer. Chair Wilson asked if any discussion has been made with the fire department. 7 Mr. Olivier met with the fire department with regard to the requirement of the secondary access. Public Works Director Shields asked with regard to the sheet that was passed out by the Applicant's Engineer. In the event a 100 year storm presents itself and there would be water going over the block wall, was there any concern of the water going directly into the garages of the Highland Apartments. Is there any thought about putting in a head wall and directing the flows towards the planter area and exits beyond the residences. Mr. Olivier feels that it can be accommodated to increase the angle of the parkway culvert to get the water flowing in the right direction. At this point, there is no objection to including this in the Conditions. Chair Wilson closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission. Commissioner Bidney asked if there are any amenities proposed for the project. Planning Director Koontz replied that a Condition has been added to include some type of amenity package. Vice Chair Addington asked if on street parking be allowed or permitted within the project. Planning Director Koontz replied that the fire department will not allow on street parking for a street that is at 26 feet. MOTION PC-47-2005: Vice Chair Addington made a motion to add three c�iditions to the project. The first Condition was to add Item 3 to add tt following Condition to SA-05-19 and SA-05-24 as presented by Associate Planner Lampe. The second Condition is to add the revised wording for Condition 25 as presented by the Applicant. The third Condition is to require architectural features along Unit Number 1 at the easterly portion of the property as seen from the street. Commissioner Bidney seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PC-47-2006: Approved 4-0-0-0 MOTION PC-48-2005: Vice ChaVAddinton ade a motion to approve SP-05-02, SA- 05- , S05-03 and E-05-21 with the additional condi ' nroved. Commissk seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PC-48-2005: Approve8 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 05-02 (SP-05-02)FOR A CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION WITH 35 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED UNITS ON A 3.7 ACRE SITE LOCATED-ON THE WESTERLY SIDE OF MT.VERNON AVE. AT 11830 MT. VERNON AVE.AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CASE NO. 05-2'1 (E-05-21)-MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS PROVIDED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHEREAS, the applicant has filed the necessary applications including four Site and Architectural Review cases and a Vesting Tentative Tract Map to create 35 single family detached condominium units; and WHEREAS, there is no existing zone in the City's Zoning Code to accommodate the proposed development; and WHEREAS, the City's General Plan also requires the filing of a Specific Plan for any residential project with more than 20 units; and WHEREAS,Section 18.90.040 of the Zoning Code allows for the adoption of a Specific Plan for those unique properties where the existing zoning provisions are unique or unusual; and WHEREAS,the subject site is an infill site left after the Highlands Apartments developed to the north,west and south; and WHEREAS, the proposed project will represent a transition between the Highlands Apartments on the westerly side of Mt. Vernon Avenue and the single family residential on the easterly side of Mt.Vernon Avenue; and WHEREAS,the resulting density of this project at 9.5 units per acre is not inconsistent with existing development in the area including the large apartment complex,the Highlands Apartments, immediately to the north,west and south; and WHEREAS, Specific Plan No. 05-02,Exhibit A.is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Grand Terrace; and WHEREAS,in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, an environmental review for Specific Plan No.05-02 has been conducted and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared under E-05-21 for this project with the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit B) having been considered by both the Planning Commission and the City Council; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held properly noticed public hearing on this project on December 15, 2005; and EXHIBIT 4 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission following the conclusion of the public hearing on December 15, 2005 recommended that the City Council approve Specific Plan No. 05-02 and the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration under Environmental Review No. 05-21, set out in the attached Exhibits A and B,by adopting this Ordinance; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission in taking the above action found that the proposed Specific Plan No. 05-02 will not be: 1. Detrimental to the health, safety,morals, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or working within,the neighborhood of the proposed amendment or within the city; or 2. Injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or within the City. WHEREAS,the City Council held a properly notice public hearing to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation and other relevant testimony on January 26,2006 and on March 9, 2006 for SP-05-02 and E-05-21. NOW, THEREFOR, THE CITY. COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA,DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Specific Plan No. 05-02 to allow for the development of 35 single family detached condominiums,set out in full in Exhibit A,is.hereby approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace. Section 2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration on file in the offices of the Community Development Department under E-05-21 is hereby approved as Exhibit B. Section 3. Effective Date:This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the 3 1"day of its adoption. Section 4 Posting: The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three(3) public places within fifteen(15) days of its adoption,as designated for such purpose by the City Council. Section 5 First read at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on the;9`h day of March, 2006 and finally adopted and ordered posted at a regular meeting of said City Council on the 23`d day of March, 2006. ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Grand Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace Terrace and of the City Council and of the City Council thereof I, BRENDA STANFILL, City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on the March 9,2006 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Brenda Stanfill City Clerk Approved as to form: John Harper City Attorney c:\MyFilesUGHN\Greystone\sp05-02ordinance RESOLUTION NO. 05_ RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 05-03 (TTM 17766)FOR A 35 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE WHEREAS, the applicant, The Greystone Group Inc. and Sequoia Equities, has applied for the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.05-03(TTM 17766)to create a 35 unit condominium subdivision on a 3.7 acre parcel in the City of Grand Terrace; and, WHEREAS,the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.05-03(County No. 17766)was deemed complete on December 8,2005; and WHEREAS,a properly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on December 15,2005; and WHEREAS,under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),Article 6,Section 15070,the proposed project for 35 condominium units qualifies for a Mitigated Negative Declaration in that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant impact on the environment. The environmental assessment of this project was completed under Environmental Review Case No. 05-21; and r' WHEREAS,the Planning Commission recommended approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 05-03 (TTM 17766)to the City Council at its meeting of December 15,2005;and WHEREAS,a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on January 26,2006 and March 9,2006 regarding the approval of Tentative Tract Map-05-03 (TTM 17766). NOW THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvements is consistent with the General Plan in that the overall density and lot size conform to the General Plan and that all required improvements will be provided; and 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development in that the site is fairly level, is served by adequate public services and utilities and the project conforms to the provisions of the existing zoning; and 3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially or avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat in that this is an urban infill project with no wildlife habitats on the site; and EXHIBIT 5 4. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems in that all necessary public utilities and services will be provided; and 5. The proposed subdivision, its design, density and type of development and improvements conform to the regulations of.the City's Development Code and the regulations of any public agency having jurisdiction by law in that the proposed development conforms to the Medium Density Residential Category of the General Plan and the Zoning as established by Specific Plan No. 05-02. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Tentative Tract Map No. 05-03 (TMM 17766)is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: General Conditions of Approval: 1. Details shown on the tentative tract map are not necessarily approved. Any details which are inconsistent with requirements of ordinance,general conditions of approval,or City policies must be specifically approved in the final map or improvement plan approvals 2. Comply with all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. 3. As a vesting map,this request was deemed complete on December 8,2005. Conditions Prior to Final Map Approval: 4. Upon approval of these conditions and prior to becoming final and binding, the applicant must agree to and sign the"Acceptance of Conditions"form. The content of the form to be prepared by the Community Development Department. 5. Provide a"will serve"letter from the Riverside Highland Water Company. 6. Monumentation of tract map boundaries, street centerline and lot boundaries is required 7. A final tract map prepared by,or under the direction of a registered civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying, or a licensed land surveyor,must be processed through the City prior to being filed with the County Recorder. 8. A preliminary subdivision guarantee is required showing all fee interest holders and encumbrances. An updated title report shall be provided before the final tract map is released for filing with the County Recorder. 9. Pay all required fees for the processing and approval of the final tract map. 10. Submit a preliminary soils/geotechnical report prepared by a California registered civil engineer. 11. Prior to final map approval,a grading plan shall be prepared by a civil engineer based on the recommendations of soils/geotechnical report. 12. Prior to the final map approval,the developer shall submit sewer plans to the City for review and approval. All residential units within the proposed condominium subdivision shall be served by the public sewer system. 13. Prior to final map approval, a drainage study shall be prepared by a Civil Engineer in accordance with the standards of the County of San Bernardino Hydrology and Design Manual to the satisfaction of the City. The Drainage Study shall include,but not be limited - to,the evaluation of the capacity of the downstream storm drain. The study shall include the design of all facilities required to mitigate downstream deficiencies and impacts to the satisfaction of the City. 14. Prior to final map approval,the developer shall demonstrate that all legal rights to drain storm water onto the down stream properties to a sufficient outlet exist or the Developer shall obtain those rights prior to the final map approval. 15. Prior to final map approval,the downstream sewer system shall be analyzed to insure there is sufficient capacity for the proposed development. The study shall include the design of all facilities required to mitigate downstream deficiencies and impacts to the sewer system. 16. Prior to final map approval,the developer shall obtain sewer easements for the construction of all required'downstream sewer improvements on private property and rights to.utilize the sewer capacity of privately owned downstream sewer mains. 17. Prior to final map approval,improvement plans shall be prepared by a civil engineer to design the facilities required by the drainage and sewer studies 18. -Prior to final map approval, the developer shall construct any and all missing public improvements along the frontage of Mt. Vernon Avenue in accordance with City requirements. 19. Prior to final map approval,improvement plans shall be prepared by a civil engineer for any work in the public right-of-way and shall be approved by the City; and the appropriate encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City prior to commencing any such work. 20. Prior to final map approval,all on-site and off-site curbs,gutters,paving,street lights,sewer laterals, water services, utilities, grading, storm drain improvements shall be installed or sufficient surety shall be posted to the satisfaction of the City to guarantee their installation. 21. Prior to final map approval,plans and specifications for the water system facilities shall be submitted for approval to the Riverside Highland Water Company. The subdivider shall submit an agreement and other evidence, satisfactory to the City, indicating that the subdivider has entered into a' contract a contract with the water purveyor guaranteeing payment and installation of the water improvements. 22. Prior to the final map approval,there shall also be filed with the City Engineer,a statement from the water purveyor indicating subdivider compliance with the Fire Chief s fire flow requirements. 23. The project shall be used only for residential uses. Conditions,Covenants,and Restrictions (C,C &R's)shall be recorded as part of this tract. As a minimum,these C, C&R's shall include the provisions for the establishment of a"Homeowner's Association." The C,C& R's shall be submitted to the Community Development Department and City Attorney for review and approval prior to recordation. 24. The Covenants,Conditions,and Restrictions(C,C&R's)applicable to the project property shall be consistent with the terms of this map and all City Codes. If there is a conflict between the CC&R's and any City Code or this map,the City Codes or this map shall prevail. 25. Prior to a precise grading permit being issued,a Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) will be submitted to the City for review. The City shall approve the WQMP prior to granting of a precise grading permit for the proposed development. The WQMP shall include current documentation and/or evidence of the use of the proposed Stormwater 360 precast stormfilter as approved by the Santa Ana Regional Board for use in development projects. The use of the Stormwater 360 precast stormfilter or equivalent will also remain subject to approval by the City Engineer. At the City's discretion, the City Engineer may opt to consult with the Regional Board for verification of approved projects using similar structural devices for water quality treatment. Conditions After the Final Map Approval: 26. Final map shall be filed with the County recorder and one(1)Mylar copy of the filed map shall be submitted to the City offices prior to the issuance of any building permits. PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace,California at a regular meeting held on the 9'day of March,2006. ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace and Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace and of the City Council thereof of the City Council thereof Approved as to form: City Attorney John Harper C:\MyFi les\7OHN\Greystone\TI M-05-03resolution.rev C.STY . RAND TERR C Community Services Department Staff Report MEETING DATE: March 9, 2006 SUBJECT: CIRCULATION PRIORITIZATION STUDY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FUNDING AUTHORIZATION NOT REQUIRED: BACKGROUND: In 2004, staff negotiated with The Shopoff Group traffic mitigation fees for the Spring Mountain Ranch and Spring Brook Estates projects amounting to a total of$649,700. Both of these projects are located in Highgrove--outside the city limits and in Riverside County. Spring Mountain Ranch 1461 units at$200 per unit = $292,200 Spring Brook Estates 650 units at$550 per unit = $375,500 Total = $649,700 In the 2005 City Wide Prioritization Study, council rated a City-Wide Traffic Mitigation plan a 9.5 out of 10, ranking the study number four(4) out of thirty-six(36)priorities. Staff included$25,000 for the study from the expected traffic mitigation funding in the 2005-06 budget. The study was conducted by the city's contracted traffic engineer, Craig Neusteader. Objective of the Study: The purpose of the study was to identify traffic mitigation strategies that should be considered by the City of Grand Terrace over the next five years. Currently, major developments are underway or being planned which will significantly affect traffic flow patterns in the City of Grand Terrace. Most of these projects are being developed in areas adjacent to the city such as Colton or the Highgrove area of unincorporated Riverside County. Loma Linda and Redlands also have several projects that could bring traffic through Grand Terrace as an alternate route to the I-215 and I-10. In addition, the city is also experiencing new growth within its boundaries. • Presentation of Information: Attached is the Grand Terrace Circulation Prioritization Findings and Recommendations. A detailed report substantiating these recommendations will be given at the March 9`h, 2006 council meeting by the city traffic engineer including: • Traffic flow maps • Five-year traffic forecast conditions • Back up data on all findings and recommendations Request from a City Council Member On February 17, 2006, the city manager received the attached memo from Council Member Hilkey requesting the formation of an ad hoc committee to review the report and recommend traffic mitigation priorities back to the city council for final approval. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is asking for direction from Council on the Circulation Prioritization Study Findings and Recommendations including: -Consideration of Council Member Hilkey's request(see attached)to form an ad hoc traffic committee to study the consultant's report and make recommendations back to the council. Grand Terrace Circulation Prioritization Study Findings and Recommendations Speed Humps The assistant city manager submitted a list of eight locations to be considered for the installation of speed humps. These were individually evaluated and prioritized. The following locations meet the screening criteria for speed humps, and are prioritized accordingly: 1. Grand Terrace Road fronting Terrace View Elbmentary School 2. Dos Rios between Palm Avenue and DeBerry Street 3. McClarren between Vivienda and Canal 4. Carhart between Canal and Vivienda The remaining four locations did not meet the screening criteria for speed humps. Pursuant to city policy, the residents adjacent to these streets should be surveyed to determine if a supermajority supports installation of speed humps. If approved by the majority of residents and if sufficient funding is available, plans should be completed for installation of speed humps at each location. Traffic Signals and Intersection Improvements Currently, traffic signals are funded for construction at the following locations: Barton at Grand Terrace Road/Honey Hollow Drive La Cadena at Barton (shared with the city of Colton and San Bernardino County) Main Street at Iowa (shared with the city of Colton and Riverside County) The intersection of Main Street at Iowa will be heavily impacted by future traffic growth. In order to provide a more acceptable level of service, the intersection should be designed to provide a westbound free right turn lane and duel southbound left turn lanes. By 2010, the following intersections should be signalized: Mount Vernon at Canal/Grand Terrace Road Mount Vernon at Van Buren Mount Vernon at Main Street In addition, the intersection of Barton Road at Palm may be considered as a candidate location for signalization. Even though signal warrants for this intersection are not met by the year 2010, signalization may be considered in • order to provide sufficient gaps for left turn movements from Palm. Arterial Street Improvements Over the previous nine-year period, on average arterial traffic volumes in the city of Grand Terrace have grown by approximately 3% per year. However, at one location on Barton Road, east of the 1 215 interchange, traffic has grown at a rate of over 8% per year. Future development patterns indicate that the streets of Barton Road and Mount • Vernon Ave. will be heavily impacted by traffic growth to the year 2010. To encourage a more balanced flow of traffic through the city of Grand Terrace and possibly divert traffic from Barton Road and Mount Vernon, it is recommended that the streets of Main Street and Michigan be completed to their ultimate general plan cross sections. Specifically, the following improvements should be completed: Michigan - widen from Barton to DeBerry Main Street- complete second eastbound through lane from Iowa to Mount Vernon The Main Street improvement is in unincorporated Riverside County. The city should work with Riverside County to expedite completion of this improvement. Main Street is being considered as a prospective route that would improve access between Moreno Valley and cities in San Bernardino County including Rialto, Colton, and Grand Terrace. If Main Street is selected for inclusion in this route, widening of Main Street would be eligible for funding as part of Riverside County's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program. As a TUMF project, funding would also be available to construct a railroad grade separation project on Main Street. Barton Road Improvements The top:priority improvement project for Barton Road is the reconstruction of the railroad over crossing east of La Cadena. This over crossing must be reconstructed in order to provide structural seismic safety. This is a joint project with the city of Colton that is eligible for federal funding up to 88% of the cost of the project. Design plans for the project are nearly complete. The city should move forward to get Caltrans approval to begin construction. For the segment of Barton Road from the 1 215 interchange to Mount Vernon, the city should move forward with the construction of a raised median as called for by the circulation element of the city's general plan. This improvement will enhance the safety and capacity of Barton Road. To a large extent this improvement can be accomplished as a condition of'approval placed on new development that is occurring adjacent to this street segment. • As part of the Iron Horse Hills residential project that is proposed in Colton to the northeast of the city of Grand Terrace, Barton Road will be widened to four lanes. The city of Grand Terrace should consider widening of Barton Road from its northeast city limit to Honey Hollow Drive as a gap closure project. However, this should be considered as a lower priority project relative to the arterial improvements listed above. Interchange Improvements The Barton Road interchange at 1 215 in the city of Grand Terrace will be heavily impacted by future traffic growth. In addition, the La Cadena/Iowa interchange at 1 215 in.the city of Colton will also be impacted by traffic growth. Although this interchange is not in the city of Grand Terrace, it is an important point of access to developing areas in the city, and a prospective alternative route for traffic that would otherwise utilize the Barton interchange. Ultimately, both of these interchanges will be reconstructed as part of the future widening of 1 215 Measure I. project. Reconstruction of these interchanges may not occur for at least 7 to 10 years. Capacity improvements at these interchanges will be needed well in advance of this timeframe. It is recommended that the city of Grand Terrace work with Caltrans, SANBAG and the city of Colton to identify interim improvements, such as ramp lane reconfigurations to enhance capacity. These may be completed in advance of the full reconstruction of these interchanges. Circulation Fees In 1999 the city of Grand Terrace adopted a development impact fee to fund circulation improvements, including most of the improvements recommended in this report. This fee program has not been updated and consequently is no longer adequate to cover the maximum legally eligible cost of proposed improvements that.may be covered by the city's fee program. The fee program should be updated in order for the city to more adequately cover the costs of required circulation improvements. Furthermore, update of the fee program by November 2006 is necessary for the city to be eligible for supplemental funding that will become available under San Bernardino County 's Measure I Program starting in 2010. • x Q i - - MEMO To: Tom Schwab, City Manager From: Herman Hilkey, Council Member Subject: Ad Hoc Committee on Traffic Mitigation Due to Highgrove Growth Date: February 17,2006 I would like to place on the March 9, 2006 agenda, an item asking Gouncil to establish an ad hoc committee to recommend priorities to mitigate traffic on the south side of the City of Grand Terrace caused by the recent residential growth in Highgrove. The specific area of concern, as I see it,would be on Mt. Vernon and Barton to the Riverside County line. I would like Council to direct residents from that vicinity to sit on this committee and to use-the priorities as set forth by our traffic engineer, as a starting point, and this report is attached. In particular I would like to recommend that Patricia Farley and Wayne Youngman be on this ad hoc committee. Thank you. TS:jv STAFF REPORT Finance Department JF CITY GRPMD TERR C • CRA ITEM( ) COUNCIL ITEM(X ) MEETING DATE: March 9, 2006 AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT: MID YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS -FY 05-06 FUNDING REQUIRED XX NO FUNDING REQUIRED Traditionally our annual mid-year budget review has been held at the first council meeting in February. Since the agenda of February 9 was dedicated to matters involving the Colton Unified School District, and because I was already pre-registered for the annual CSMFO conference on February 23, I am presenting the review at this meeting. Staff is requesting the revenue and expense adjustments to the adopted budget as listed on Attachment 1. Total General Fund appropriation requests are$33,710, and one revenue reduction of$17,536, Measure I appropriation of$2,400 and additional traffic congestion relief revenue of $25,144, Sewer Enterprise Fund NPDES costs of$44,799, and Barton Bridge appropriation of$24,000. Council passed the FY 2005-2006 Budget on May 26, 2005. From July 1, 2005 through February 28, 2006, a total of$1,972,681 additional appropriations were made; $122,251 from the General Fund, $222,076 from Special Revenue and Sewer Funds, and$1,628,354 from CRA Funds. There were no city or agency revenue adjustments. These appropriations are listed on Schedule A, Budget Adjustments FY 2005-2006. A mid year fund balance analysis is also attached. The Barton Bridge Project Fund shows the largest deficit at present based on the uncertainty of whether our last reimbursement request for preliminary engineering expenditures will be paid by Cal Trans this fiscal year or next. Other fund deficits will be covered by interfund loans at year end until additional revenues are received. The CRA Project Fund shows a$1 million surplus contingent on the sale of property to Colton USD for the new high school. A 0'U," H%5DA ITE mo H0 1 Staff Recommends that Council: APPROVE REVENUE AND APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FY05-06 CITY BUDGET AS PRESENTED BY STAFF ON ATTACHMENT 1 OF THE MID YEAR REPORT. City of Grand Terrace Finance Department Memorandum To: Tom Schwab City Council • From: Larry Ronnow Subject: Mid-Year Adjustments-City Date: February 2,2006 FY05-06 Revenue Adjustments 10-200-13,Booking Fees Reimbursement—($17,536) This reimbursement revenue from the State was not included in the final State adopted budget and therefore should be removed from our original estimates. 11-300-02,Traffic Congestion Relief Funds,AB2928-$25,143.62 Streets-related grant from the State not given to local agencies since FY02-03 but reinstated for FY05-06. 47-100-01,Measure I Match Funding For Barton Bridge Replacement-$2,400 47-100-02,Colton Match Funding-$2,400 47-100-03,Federal Grant Funding-$19,200 To record funding for right of way acquisition for the Barton Bridge project. Funding is calculated at 80%Federal and 10%each from the Cities of Colton and Grand Terrace. FY05-06 Appropriation Adjustments: 20-999-999,Transfer to Fund 47 Barton Bridge Replacement Project-$2,400 This appropriation is required from Measure I funds for City match as mentioned above in revenue adjustments. The Measure I Five Year Plan will need to be revised accordingly prior to the end of the current fiscal year. 47-100-250-3,Right of Way Acquisition,Barton Bridge Replacement-$24,000 After several years of inactivity and sporadic communication from Cal Trans,the Barton Bridge project appears to be back on track. We anticipate that funds for construction will be required in FY06-07. The following adjustments are listed with justifications on the attached request from Community Services: 10-450-245,Rollins Park Maintenance-$6,000 10-440-245, Child Care Center Bathroom Repair Deductible-$5,000 10-180-255,Civic Center Cleaning Services-$10,000 10-450-246,Unanticipated Major Parks Mower Repairs—$4,000 10-190-721,City Hall Parking Lot Lighting Improvements—$4,210 10-190-256,Animal Control Program-$4,500 21-573-713,Additional NPDES/Corporation Yard Cost Increases-$44,799 The Options concerning the La Cadena Road Improvements on the attached list are to be discussed at the priorities workshop to be held before the council meeting on March 9. Any estimated cost has not been included in the accompanying spreadsheets. ATTACHMENT 1 Memorandum • To: Thomas Schwab,City Manager CC: Larry Ronnow,CFO From: Steve Berry,Assistant City Manager Date: 2/3/2006 • Re: Mid-Year,Amended 2-2-06 Mid-Year requests from Community Services: Grand Terrace Corporate Yard 21-573-713 Nolte Engineering estimate 2-05: $139,102 FY 04105 Budgeted:$122,441,PO was issued for$120,000 Lowest Bidder EGN: $213,707 City staff reduced the project down b negotiations J y g and ehrmnahng lines items off the original bid. EGN revised bid was$137,401 Staff requested several changes to the job: -New water lines 180ft,4"PVC and trenching for SANBAG light synchronization,cement gutters,cement landing steps for Building and Safety,block wall and asphalt basin Total for these changes was$39,798.94 Two concrete slabs were completed by Jesse Hernandez Concrete for$5,000 Total mid-year request for the Corporate Yard Project is$44,798.94 Rollins Park 10-450-245 Park Maintenance-$500 per month for DAP weed control on slopes and all non-field landscape Total=$6,000 1 February 3,2006 • Childcare: 10-440-245 Bathroom repair deductible$5,000 Cleanine Services: 10-180-255 Contracted cleaning services for city hall,community room,council chambers Total=$10,000 Unbudeeted Mower Repairs: 10-180-218 • Park mower mechanical failure Total=$4,000 City Hall Parking Lot Lighting Improvements Replace four lighting standards with higher wattage light-and added spot lights for safety Total=$4,210 La Cadena Road Improvements i Option A 115,000 sq.ft.of I V2 inch overlay with head grinders on connecting streets. Total=$95,000 to$115,000(bid estimate)- -within 6 months,cracks will come back -within 1-2 years,the road will start to come apart again depending on the weather Option 6 With the petromat overlay,grinding,leveling course,and a 3 inch overlay Total =about$195,000 to$225,000(bid estimate) -lasts between 10-15 years NOTE: I have several photos of this road attached so you can see the severity of the problem.. Currently,I am working with SANBAG on funding this project. Craig Neustedter gave me more options to consider. Whatever happens with the funding source---cold-patching this road wilfnot be effective—nor will spot patching since the road is beyond repair. Animal Control. $4,500 for account 10-190-256 • 2 r M P 4 F• �q �,I` 1 i .'a •GY'' y�" r t., �t $� a \. .� ' 1' F .. a.,°'.'+.� f?'h M� •k �A��t°..`, \�., i`�ti 5.�. tr. .,C.•" �"1 ',� � ''� �'-"wl 1�. k'.`��in,ty�� p�.•�� 'Ywk"at? =�dwr; " _ '�fY :�1 ` +R� �• sh`z. ��`w' a«�R�-�.:- � 1" • R�_'','w��+�t.cw `��r"?aft.•�ry�!""'`�� '•i�`*' 'r. �!t�`:��; ga`1��;"� ��r ti4, .':s+`� ,• - '.T,)�' ., s�e��,t�y* �°'is �3 ,�+• � ��1°y t'•<:�`�F4;.!'�R� .p�1:�ti5�� yS�� 5„',; ^.y' � �;? ,R � f'��w � ,P,• 4. , "i 4{' �,`��^,•, � p.off',:. ,.�'�,a.. � i�� `•i �•� .�.,..�i �J�•�•�Y 1n.y�'? xMy� ♦. e~F'��i,,,*>�y ,�� ' �� H �r ;R',;• .r' ��r.,'- ;_ y. �5 �' 'i£? � �' ,'' .�, r' ' ��`,.\p'. 7'i�3:`iw�,,,�i1C�S�,',f A� M �' �, •; 7 '-y�.�`-ti„ '�' ", L•".lY, 7'0 ., '+Lti^'� {`Y '•\'?is '"^ b .A �;} ,k-t%..A'w' -7W a" � �� !�, r"�.F`-``e�"'\.e. t �'•Fj 1 Lt:> x..' �• L,�it '��`>a�•rii �w �}, ��".•��'R��F,�.. 4�y'��'F:.�j-.��}•��L' l t� •7[i +�d�• a��,; �l• '�••� 1�\.L��``.S�4; 'p "�.1 0. J: 'St,,,, 1� � ^.� asp' i ' t'{�a\,�nr, 4�_ :� f:, ,� as .�,%, 'A'� ^��L,1•. ��+4 r�� `�Q:�� L' �'� K� Z ',�� •S�, ��1 � ',,'y;,.t��'AF4�'��'� ';L.;a�1�}4�.�� ,,,� ,] 'r1� 1 t�� ,�r. `�.�. ,'.�31 y � 7�•t�� +� '��+ +a gg IM ag n; x`. :n:•'' "�JF'c�i''a�i`:'• '��m!�C. pk lNl 's, a e. y� y icy: a ��t}1 Cb: \ '�. 'TVV 1 Sr `a�` 1t �• � iX „,. Jn c,u 1 � ��w4�"+��,r yu.,�, �qt e` �� •t *��`�. i�', a�`'1�.+R',�� Effil �[:,,� „4; \•: �71Y'r.+•;' �` [,� ��';, ,c'�, � � - ;�,"�� '•�`r 1�,'L++?,� ,t��M�3,��.4. 14 {,v��'•;p„�:�,`t'�cy�,'�S�Yy\`;, H-'iti yt "`� R+ .� ^?i -r' �'��',•� :.�9y '`� :} �•kl�'�;4.,��i� •s ��t'�•�: + a ,,'1 ti•t 1 , 1 �,. t� `1� '�A�.,,t��'�:�.�t � �,,x• ,� � -uZky ;S�w i1 rr.l:�,rr C•h�x.; 1, t�„>y, 1 '�t.�,!t ,Y�t7�1� •,'�, r. ,�``+f� '� `� wr��`.�a`ta^' >^�� 'C> �4 i lit��'�R",.?e w ,! ir$ e• ��,`!,� C.� �� ,� ry � �d..'�.. ti �,?V.. �.. '� ,�1� f��'�,h.,��)g.Y'�'1';xsl ?.,: `��ay �;{�-.\r'•r y�` f,C 'C1'"' '�n�.'f\�t��. �' d�"h,�s' ,.. ,i .�,�'�,��,�\, '.lt�L a '" t � a t�!�' it1'.1` fit.,?a, z.cl�a .\ 1+ $� "`a �° �..�"r�i � 'r �' i •:Lt,�:•..:*.r. l � � �1•,��.,ts�.7: `9 •� }•`_,' • �I 'c, , +�+V�#y ' �``y` •�� r�R 4'� d�r n4 ;,'j`,'.a'Ff� w�.�"':� +��. `r1ft��j�\' `\. ��`y � 1 �'�'i)��, � t� �' t , ;� •�yk��Y!!4"..tM1�. 4{i ""'!RR ��, ,ti�^ ', �� ;"�'�ti� s� „� '�: ;u�:rq,°j'•, � i. 4 �J�= "�� `,`�}'�� tM��'�tr^S' `t;��,t� �<� �'c��`�. 4, �' ' ;?,'�.y ,.��.. ��ryi i[' ,r•43. ,�` a.. .Y- �� •tir ,l' �'��l ,,t't`,�•,`L:,",4{,„�r•:�•, " �+ '^ > �a •.„ G.i e, ' A �,+,."S�! +k �.'� ^, :3R'''{, ��k'"•�f+'�ra�"fitii',., ' ''+,'fit• ;y'SQ,,.,}��r .�"��". �+?,�= ` 4x,:�Srs�•, r ��,i l��!V��'�"p.!ti,� ��>+ii'r �'•"�,�"�iT:�''•3�+'p4' ''.-2"J '� t +♦ ° iT ' 't A`Syv T x n' �,ti ��tt��',?��♦t",fi:��`�9k]sv�>+,t., � ��.. +,t, ,y: . Y• t v r �dltil�{� "$s� t 1* i�rj14rf'��lJ��r`'. ;]FV iv"L t h�4 a y�'�:• t�Hly,�iy, r W.�-. xt J• ? rt'< c,�". ry Y t�t jy � urn S"t' I�" �Z��alT. e` k. t t�i� ' yam-� �• , 'aw - v "tea�. �� : c i `}�?�' � ,tti r K. x. ()'g •i ! w s �k��t5 ♦a �i 4 t a`xxt "� � ➢��-�C WY 1 p 4�"•J "kQ cka, 4 '� tkr� 5 j � 7•1t c�.r� �LA`'• y��t'•s�„°t� `'y;�� i<j,tiw�„�^h�C. �' ^ay 1+�1 ,��*4S Off^. S. •i,» ,tiY' i a X°' �,}p' � a.t' ti.,yk i`�-,' ', r•w,rptiru'Yy�"�rr-( }[' .cp 'w Y*•�W`.,�f4}� AM1Myy 'Y '�•' ,K*�y k�. `vie Qt �,"� }tiy, 'ti•;�i'�'32 yiv '6 t2 SQS�y} "{ ��e��k�}.w�11"a.T " :�I.R'i ,� 1.• t' ,y MR, y �" &�ai;,a• ,!o n 7p}'�h a ,yyay„ � .ti�a ��z4, '• 5."^tu y "S � ,.,� r..a,� .ti 'n^!1sre+• a,=ri r` a " j, 'ti r•4 k- a ,�ry` '`�`x4{","+' 1t-`.nr"q i�+6:'-•'�`w'r. ' - �"r, ° Y {� Y�;'"+ts�" ,� 't'i• � Il -S_q 9t t'��, "".�r .a. «t ts�.,.. Y tiZ,.n,��.*^�,�•,tt < q..Sr # y s , ki yiYy`�14i`�irri ',Lal � �v ` MA . tk �' "�5`1i 4+�y s� e�,t.�h2'" ">titi,� .�. v'�,,� er •� i ;.k ?" i<b� a",. V�'' fv�� '�'y� �`�.-r�cam;i;t"r! jy�i�z'�f,�H� t��`+'�� {�j+ ,'� �' •mw `Ck�4` i:..�"a�� 't��"w.,fir; a s* >,�. r ti •�'? tt c roc cyh♦t�4 ,.f �t�(? ° t $„aw., �,fr ., N' 1'a k. ��+ n.A "1�a y.,� c .. i �. �J.r•�'''��t t'y��a�';"„�1�� .'�"'��f F ,s''tk . � i.y t�9y, v rY r n t t � r � ?,'$y,ra s„.. NJ•�1 in 1^+f�'� �.. 1k�'4 Y 1�M3��l L °{'7 � y �g� �.,,, i FLf��' K i M 4 e' t tk +. � s fg.,� rhy,; �,,�i!tct s`�i(�+tr�$,.�� + ,�5t"�?�3"` �t t�Y.�'4 �",+ i. i t..�ti• t Yv�4��, tt t :l •}yarti �<�t'.Y�"� L .; .''iu i�it•,a�OS�.k`,.hp+:k,`+'� a�0�(1+k.� flit'. 1�,'ytf''ke�' ♦`� '�a��.. '�4s't�ay";Z'�at,.'fie�J,� � �r 'a �+1 � "i" - :•t;i -. -.vyt �yl 't+. "'�'>,'V4 '"fti b 4: � �tj `t�` �111", � yk "-��`7 -- -��w��2�,�j.5�`4K'+:�{�` a L.1d..Ms.�t,�'7��"� ;'r.. s yh''� i. � y• ..�. •.�.{�.=�Wit yf� `.� • `� s-�-„�-� r t"1- 9{:� `11' \ ��'� '$�'. � ti "e: r '', "��. e• s h- 1{•r- o+�yy 4��d a>' 'c � ^A.i ,�'! ., 1 �•! V'}��; 1 :tti- ..c'-�°,j,;�,:t%3�` �t _ I�'i ..V• Yq}.. a - �Fi - �. .•`1 �'*��. �'}'+'- - �a, '�� _,3L v`iS�t':.. -�+ 'a.,`^� �'. �jit'Ala�;: •_�� S-e �:y s'^�K _ 'a ., 'b?tt;� _ .'tlo w` `e+ w ' ,�>'y - �� '+6�Yv} �`Z'�+?�> .� rr'�.�fy �f�: '��Ys,�i!'+, + .d. ` t: g�• T'�j�_ ^� � Y .,�� a Y�a'`'y��7'�j"��,�.,,��y� s� ''"� `�4 �1,�,:;}r�-,:,k.�.,�,>�'}.� A-Y:x�•`E'.}�.r�i. ka�a �`»� .�`+i:'_,'� �� .-ti' .t�)-��.'�1:.�y�?�;; h'7� ,�,,S,y-`�r�� {.��,{'".��• 4' i- 'C�+;� _ .'rb - �s. � :� .� �, - � ..; �a•• ~�^��'�-t'�At 4`4'.d+ ....a.� �'t-�'i=st4.k rr��, �•'s�'.: •s' e5 t-�'4,�,.� _ p- a -m ��,� S• � �.� f.3.y�br t ,•r�}Y35�� _,��^��µ-^1TC�49'�'S .+.,"'.�y^• fi�,��,`�t� �f� .'.�t 3y`��,3� _:-•,=-"5. Y� ��' :t- .:k'�. ��-'�.at 4"a e '� ,sF,� �' .'Cn�-E.•yY � '4``.. � r•-Y��'h."�},yr�+u„��'�,.i:+ `.y�,�_ 9.•e,��`�`__;��. �.�5�.r'�'i n..„��'�!�".��''�� ,`"��,s t7- 93R ++,xUc• - F• i! a+ t - �4 �r'�r�:,�{,`; .W�a s,� •``�.`•.7;,�'��i,fi��.,��-�'r��-1�".�'?by��`issv`-." Jr •,lit,dmax,., � 3; r•. T �`'^' � .�a��3�t v 2+: z'4`. ~��"�•�'-� �ia � `.e'-,�� '93.�'=r., v `- tij7 'a, •'�y`,rrr;� `"-�-,��`� �5:+ ...` ;"�{r� ��y •'''�'�`'y;;„';-� S:'�?��,y -ri#r'*`rt�� s-- '"��1''�i,� . .z � :-:,L�y'F}l, _�ryx�3�k-�.^ASx=��ST• i'Cy.'y� ;r;a.WG'�k.� '�'. e� i�� a' jl�•�:` i��v'r"t��*^'-'�`i,S-}y}��.k��`�l`§�`S""rk ' F.&. `�i3�M-� `d'»+,S.d t•5�f�.'��F+.��`�''_�?�r+�y�'SR t'i�'-'�..-�y ' '�� -.�:.ts: -'- -• ..w -. _.+. s�:eec,,,,'�t� .�'_ �r��.xY�s?�'��rs�i.,�,��c fir n � _.",:''�., -a_.c:w..��c; ., r�s.,.. _ tY•1` �i4+;x-�,�s�•c:-�-n::� o-�}�:��-:-�y-.r'Y,'.� R>•" _ � ��:��L�'�•--'�_w�:� �"�-�^ _�,M1.Yr_rv+'•.z d-e'`..''^,�-•.• - t ; .'�4:'�L"`Y'y+►�,.�.y""G^�'N [.-� '<_.,._x;�"�`r4''rs- -- - �� '�'� -.��g.��.;��Y"gs s"'$-._`-_- �:,::;= -k~ -.�--?=�=r�-�'`-Yz�'x�= _:e^�':-.�,:, �. •i�2 �.r %:y��?�, €1� . c�'yy�:=4x"�;�'^�e.�k�'�`'c=�a�ar.._ .£::. +s�T6i 8S��T�:, :�°>'��'-iy_ �::.'y�i.�- _ -..1_"'-�iw�`i'fi�e":}l✓�...-;:,^ � �i' ��':' f_r..�'M Y'ra `-s..kar=':='"s`-`fir =z•"^.'.,'t'-;_'?.'' "q:ras;YS._.- `".' „-_4."}4.,_ •,-':C?; ?,#. , ,x..::''z ,awe a _ - ...'�,e-�,>.•-,.z .,r`�;.:.;:vr:ice`= s,-ga.`:'-. o'•�-"-.,r -�''==g`-'�:':`s=' r..._,.,,,.i3•• "�:=-�%-:,�'�sz:�::.=-'gin�_�='f_�;."-"'.,-,,.'-,-�r.-c=. ,a z;}u_ �r•-,`�.,.ss+.h..«�r �;�Ss s.`=•-r'..e.- 'iA�'�"x:a =i-f'��`�"•-w�,,..�.*.�'j�.�,,.''`�,.� _ �.�_wF rtt'�^.7;`a:fti_�a�,.�.t,,r- _-•,�i�,;�I ,�..;r.'.<� M- .1 `{a �-,,, 'fir r„aG` ,�� -s�-�"��'y�,`a-- 'a•,. ``ti<2��a e'�'�, - SKr„ -^,TI#-. _ i` � r<`"t ��;��{n��.w.;=',�,`�£x �:€4:s._si€_ s. ;�-3�, �-,'_,�`�'-".�'�,�.s,-.,�rs.._;c" -� � "�=�;.,}�5�-E?� N. �;°.a; �q t.k_�.•�s - _s-�?-•�•r'�, a- `�� x,t a� :'j'^F- •tea:-�:.'> ;n�?..P�-^�'��.'i_,-c :c y�.,��ri f�.. �-.,.�4•,34.:.�_"�.4-0`,,;•r' ,=-Y;� - �`t�:-i,�•.-:Yz'4..,: 'x;�-_r_-.... �}�r,- =`«. -�+--}., •„�.4�-it:�`�" '�.-s.; ;s,��:s' :�`T•,4��._;j„- ,.G�"�e`:�-4-,#FL:-� I'�- .';� ,:r.,�.= - ` �y�r mu c;-= i::=�f'iSi�,. ,T3}y-c.j - -;,.-.�;-' �_ �:4:, -:'��;'�:y�:a ..r f� xr��,,.tr'•"s�- R:rs '+s'.c�� Y .,S .,a,-:> •,•�t'•^ ;;,� 'n y.,C.a--;�-a,?-»nr.�,. ^G�"`-s.`a'-:,"�.:�:•c - .�-4 �' _ _ ''?,r_:_K--+�>�'--.;vc,.'=3:.="a-a` ,.y-.. .=zz..x �_- - _�} "- - _�. ;t-a?�:` .'s" .•�4=sr' ��.,�f_��>$�i � '�"'"'�';sr J�'- .�s:+ -`i:_,••}...jr^-C'�,a. - ..SC+� - s--�,-� - s - •s.4� �ws� ;h 4 �v�.., --=;:-!C:�-.:.,��-•- •:-. y �_ r '� ° ,K��v�.6'��y��Kt�'-smr��::'� �. a•.¢4.g'- Sy,,.. -#+_� -.sS<•"�.f� '.�_„'�`":^ .,,",s'x'�f e;;.w,^.•'..�7,`gi�"x_ S: �tp$.f. 1.:.t �, ,Yst e� ��• .r.� ,t �':G., �: �-`-".*'` =c,t..s _'" ':�.;s.�,_a'.';'.�u.v'-:L.'T;�,1;;�:�;.,!i` :^t.e� -ss'�';.. •.'Y,t:::�4?`i�F` �r_ ?.<`. �.� �:.s �.35...-r' "-� '';{� .�`c 1.iy,�•��w,n, yr �':f�„gfj.� �}u (=�z',�:.15�.��;.�'��'�-r•.1�,�,-r;=�F"` �'`a "'....^.-;g.�k�i.�'�•`•;.r€ss�.'n• �"a,C�:�,y x.n'�,y� � ..id.,.�,x,::�� ''tier' /) 'k''�t_:� i.,7,-,s t h"Kti ':�• ,{a _ -}::• ..i ..si S ,1.-[SC7t=�1 ;aS;:Y. - "yn�-- `.f -�^'.. .'b�'�J..y 4 {,=rc•F, -••,a:4': S 4 aa, F�.• -ti (.6C:-_.3, tii i�— - - ^•o�..tin-,. !.:'P.' .�-Y� .�";<<i`�'-^'3"" � .�. �L':'.'2�.5..30 ^�Y�1 •r` •sp_ "�.-�'n' _ _+�! .tl •.0` _:.- _- stir .,�i•. e-tia a-.,''� y�:' �}.�,� .'as-�;r _ .��, _ FqX _..-s:-..,. ,�.�.rc�„•.-:»i�:,a. ..._..:. :r:.Ga:1.,'.-_,#.�....L.:.-. �:,.1� .^" _ .: _._..��'v°"�3.`-A.,_._,.ice ...i.r�'r:-�i'._Y:�.Ya•a±t" `��`V SCHEDULE A CITY OF GRAND TERRACE & REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS IFY 2005-2006 (7/01/05 TO 2/28/2006) DATE REV EXPEND DESCRIPTIONS ACCOUNT . ..... '**"*tY 0otgto. . . h -d A.. ...... ...... /1105 d ty. Sj W. D.UN to ' ' 61.....0. &� 1400 T.0.. ..: . . .M 2. 56' . 0 .. ........ 774`105: :.5'- 4 QU:�fd'd' d' t W:1:0 purd Asword- V F' h T..hid: ..q : 77.1-1:1 5: th", 42864. -01-4 .t.. .......0 W150It boa-fix. 7/1/05 cra 37,100 Outstanding purchase order at 6/30/05 -CRA Projects 32-600-xxx 7/1/05 cra 46,950 Outstanding purchase orders at 6/30/05 - CRA Housing 34-xxx-)= 1 45 : . 11 606filifi01h i:i AP A '"....M'.."T0.".0"4', ".. . P: - 164:80 1 I..... .' :a 7114 :city'Y pqg:Appbpr . n :4:8Iria. R . t5 \A bsM lb: 1:400, 6P .784M C o ntinu1p .:.ppTb !qq .0v er y: ea: NM R fif!" . 7.14 .7 AM 0-C .... . .. ...... 7- 7/14/05 cra 409,184 Property Purchase -21974 DeBerry 32-600-216 M. �a...........1 00 V..' Q. 2. A ....sm My Jtv Y." a 5.: -:6, .20:0.0.0-A010 . .... ::.2 0.042*2: ....... 0' an: ................. ...... 8/11/05 cra 889,840 Property Purchase -21992 DeBerry 32-600-214 10/13/05 cra 245,280 Property Purchase - Parcel 1167-141-08 32-600-215 $ $ 1,972,681 .. ..... .. .m%`.2-.&- -G, e he 1:700d d F :S 0 SIB40 AQMQ: G� -ft-ind -7-464--.1" -7- ur .. . ... ... 7.- 41:* S,e'.......F*.**""' .....werf-000 1,581,404 CRA Project 46,950 CRA Housing $ $ 1,972,681 0506m.idadj.xis Schedule A Available FY FY FY FY FY Midyear Midyear Projected CITY AND CRA OF GRAND TERRACE FUND 2005-2006 2005-2006 2005-2006 2005-2006 2005-2006 Revenue& Appropriations Available ANALYSIS AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE BALANCE Revenues Transfers In Appropriations Transfers Out Adjustments Transfers In Transfers Out FUND PROJECTED THROUGH 6/30/2006 6/30/2005 (Estimated) (Estimated) (Budgeted) (Budgeted) As of 2/28/06 Adjustments Adjustments BALANCE 6/30/2006 GENERAL FUND-Undesignated 2,781,413 4,353,968 300,000 (4,183,973) (42,222) (122,251) (17,536) (33,710) 3,035,689 GENERAL FUND- Designated 925,558 925,558 GENERAL FUND- CLEEP Reserve 57,451 57,451 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 3,764,422 4,353,968 300,000 (4,183,973) (42,222) (122,251) (17,536) (33,710) 4,018,698 Street Fund 142,786 380;060 (28,617) (15,656) 25,144 503,717 : + i'rilrait:�uri!d 2$532` 0`535 ::33>02?`: Park Fund 18,667 37,660 (5,723) 50,604 A»3229C4Sund a.. . 1Oo 5i . 120 4G 0 86 :.. ..... ( 4... ..:..�.. :( ssi Air Quality Improvement Fund 10,614 159840 _ (1,100) (5,840) 19,514 fias:Tay l=:txtti:d: 25$$5'4 : 4 479 57 2 59 031'`: 57 864: `'' : 0: Traffic Safety Fund 74,376 64,863 (7,646) (120,496) 11,097 TDA Fund 0 0 Aesur ;:t 1=: itC: 31 31G, �11� 27 ........ ... .......... :.. .... (.........�......... , ...:�.... ) (2�:..0...:�. .;.. �........ Waste Water Disposal Fund 1,614,721 - 1,573,014 (1,551,088) (125,000) (72,441) (44,799) 1,394,407 ,.:.. .:. ..: :...:..:..:.. .. G1 T.G: ►:ssessiriei�t;p st 13:�7� 2 3�5 :... .. ..... .. ................. ,......... Bike Lane Capital Fund (3,214) 50,000 10,000 (60,000) (3,214) street:Jtrp�rauerrititprrijets: :BtD7j p .(84A7): Barton Rd. Bridge Project (144,965) 0 24,000 (24,000) (144,965) TOTAL OTHER FUNDS 2,080,327 2,714,094 287,718 (2,500,41.4) (245,496) (222,076) 49,144 (71,199) 2,092,098 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND (357,233) 3,154,424 (375;796) (1,581,404) 174,789 1,014,780 :..::......... ...:.:.:..::.:..::. ::...::.::.. .. ... :.. . ... D.E T 5iUl:C :.:: .IVl3 ;2 4 41 `'2$ 3<4,> 4 ..: ... . ..:........:.... f=U:..... :. LOW & MODERATE HOUSING 8,038,422 3,180,007 (109206,739) (913,477) (46,950) 51,263 TOTAL CRA FUNDS 10,302,093 10,467,719 613,477 (14,818,891) (913,477) (1,628,354) 174,789 0 4,197,356 TOTAL-ALL FUNDS 16,146,842 17,535,781 1,201,195 (21,503,278) (1,201,195) (1,972,681) 206,397 (104,909) 10,308,152 • MID-YEAR FUNftNCE ANALYSIS • Finance Department c1Tr . 0 GRIND TERR C Staff Report CRA ITEM( ) COUNCIL ITEM(X) MEETING DATE: March 9, 2006 AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT: BUDGET HEARING DATES FOR FY 2006 - 2007 PRELIMINARY BUDGET FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED XX DISCUSSION: The City Council traditionally sets two dates for budget hearings on preliminary departmental budget requests. The FY06-07 Budget Calendar is attached. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council select two dates for public meetings to consider the FY 2006 - 2007 Preliminary Budget. Recommended dates are between May 1 and June 5, 2006. 0 GROND TERR C DATE: January 12,2006 To: City Manager, Council Members, Department Directors, And Committee Members From: Larry Ronnow,Finance Director RE: Budget Calendar - FY2006-2007 January 30, 2006 Budget Worksheet Forms Printouts indicating FY 04-05 budget and actual by account, current year(05-06) budget and year to date actual, and a blank column to be filled in for FY 2006-2007. January 30 Current Fiscal Year-To-Date Actual Expenditure Summary Reports Through December, 2005 (6 months) Distributed. (Due to volume of paper involved, Detail Reports will be produced on request.) Printout of current fiscal year activity is distributed for analysis and comparison purposes. February 27 Completed Budget Worksheet Forms are Returned to Finance Director. Expenditure totals are compiled and consolidated, revenues are estimated and fund balances determined for 1st draft of FY2006-2007 Budget. March 6—9 1st Budget Draft Review by City Manager March 9 Council sets Budget Hearing Date(s) Council sets date(s) for public meeting(s) to consider FY 2006-2007 Budget. Recommended dates are between May 1 —June 5, 2006. March 13 - 17 City Manager- Department Head Budget Meetings City Manager and Finance Director Meet with Department Directors to discuss budget requests. • Page 2 FY 2006-2007 Budget Calendar Dates March 20 to Preparation of Preliminary Budget April 21 Budget Worksheets are returned to Finance Department with recommended changes/corrections. FY 2006-2007 Preliminary Budget is completed and printed. April 24 FY 2006-2007 Preliminary Budget Document Made Available May 1 to FY 2006-2007 Budget Hearings June 5 Council conducts public hearings and budget review on (TBA) date(s) to be arranged. June 22, 2006 Adoption of FY 2006-2007 City and CRA Budgets (target date)