11/10/2005 1-L E Copy,
r-lit. 4 1,
0
GRAND TERR CE November 10,'_2005 `
22795 Barton Road
Grand Terrace
California.92313-5295
Civic Center .. >.
(909)824-6621
Fax(909)783-7629
= Fax(909)783-2600 -
Maryetta.Fer"r6 QTY OF GRAND TERRACE '
• Mayor , •, _ -` _ -
Bea Cortes '
Mayor Pro Tem -
CRA/CITY COUNCIL',
Herman Hilkey
ee'Ann Garcia.,' REGULAR MEETINGS
Jim Miller
Council Members
Thomas-J.Sehwab 2ND AND,4- H-Thursday - 6:00 p.m:
City Manager
Council Chambers
Grand Terrace Civic Center
22795-BA-rton Road
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS NOVEMBER 10,2005
GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER 6:00 PM
22795 Barton Road
THEKCITI',OF-GRAND TERRACE COMPLIES WPTH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIE$,A.CT;OF 1990::IF YOU
r.
\`- J `REQUIRESPECIAL:°ASSISTANCE;TO P.ARTICIP,.ATE IN THIS:MEETING,PLEASECALL THE CITY CLERK'S'.
OFFICE AT(909)"824=6621"AT'LEAS,T 48;HOURS PRIOR TO,THE MEETING. -',• _ ' °� = � ' �- �;• -
IF YOUDESIRE TO ADDRESS:THE CITY.COUNCIL DURING==THE�MEETING;P EASKCOM-ftiTE A.REQUEST =
F..
TG SPEAK FORM AVAILABLE AT-TIIE'ENTRANCE AND PRESENT IT,TO THE CITY CLERIf; SPEAKERS`WILY>
LLED UPQN BY THE MAYOR AT:THE'APPROPRIATE TIME:
* Call to Order-
* Invocation-Chuck Collier,United States Air Force Chief Master Sergeant
* Pledge of Allegiance-Don Larkin,United States Army Sergeant/Former Council Member
* Roll Call-
STAFF COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEMS RECOMMENDATION ACTION
CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1. Approval of 10-27-2005 Minutes Approve
2. Closed Session - Settlement Agreement, Citizens for a Better
Grand Terrace vs.the City of Grand Terrace
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 November 10,2005 Approve
B. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda
C. Approval of 10-27-2005 Minutes Approve
i
COUNCIL AGENDA
11-10-2005 PAGE 2 OF 3
AGENDA ITEMS STAFF COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATIONS ACTION
D. Booking Fee Settlement Agreement with the County of San Approve
Bernardino
E. Resolution in Support of the California Reading and Approve
Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and
Renovation Bond Act of 2006
F. Resolution-Extension for the Bicycle Transportation Approve
Account Program(BTA)Between the City of Grand
Terrace and Caltrans,Agreement No. 03/04-08S-BD-02
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
1. Emergency Operations Committee
a. Minutes of October 4,2005 Accept
B. Council Reports
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. A Resolution Approving Tentative Tract Map No. 04-01 Approve
(TTM 16624) for a 15 Unit Single Family Residential
Development with one Open Space Lot in the City of Grand
Terrace,California
An Ordinance Approving Specific Plan No. 04-02 (SP-04-
02) for a Lot Subdivision with 15 Single Family Detached
Units and One Open Space Lot on a Two Acre Site Located
on the North Side of De Berry Street Between the Gage
Canal on the West and Mt. Vernon on the East and
Environmental Review Case No.04-01(E-04-0 1)-Mitigated
Negative Declaration as Provided by the California
Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)
jB. City Wide User Fee and Rate Study Adopt
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Grand
Terrace,California,Amending Title 4 of the Municipal Code
and Establishing User Fees
COUNCIL AGENDA
11-10-2005 PAGE 3 OF 3
AGENDA ITEMS STAFF COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATIONS ACTION
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Second Reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the Approve
City of Grand Terrace, California Establishing Fines for
Failure to Obtain a Street Cut Permit and Failure to Perform
Street Cut Construction in Accordance to the Specifications
as Described in the Specifications for Construction Within
the Public Right of Way
8. NEW BUSINESS-None
9. CLOSED SESSION-None
ADJOURN
THE NEXT CRA/CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON
THURSDAY,DECEMBER 8, 2005 AT 7.30 P.M.
AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS FOR THE 12-08-2005 MEETING
MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK'S
OFFICE BY NOON 12-01-2005.
C [-,,A
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING- OCTOBER 27, 2005
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 October 27, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Maryetta Ferr6, Chairman
Bea Cortes, Vice-Chairman
Herman Hilkey, Agency Member
Lee Ann Garcia, Agency Member
Jim Miller, Agency Member
Tom Schwab, Executive Director
Brenda Stanfill, City Clerk
Steve Berry, Assistant City Manager
Larry Ronnow, Finance Director
Richard Shields,Building&Safety Director
Gary Koontz, Community Development Director
John Harper, City Attorney
ABSENT: Lt. Hector Guerra, Sheriff's Department
APPROVAL OF 10-13-2005 MINUTES
CRA-2005-27 MOTION BY VICE-CHAIItMAN CORTES,SECOND BY CHAIRMAN FERR.E,
CARRIED 3-0-1-1(AGENCY MEMBERHILKEY WAS ABSENT AND AGENCY
MEMBER GARCIA ABSTAINED), to approve the October 13, 2005 Community
Redevelopment Agency Minutes.
REGULATORY AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CORPORATION FOR
BETTER HOUSING, A NONPROFIT AFFORDABLE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, A PUBLIC BODY,
CORPORATE AND POLITIC, AND THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY,A PUBLIC BODY,CORPORATE
AND POLITIC
Charles Hornsby,22656 Brentwood Street,To Whom it may concern,please describe to the
Citizen's of Grand Terrace why high per density housing with three story buildings is
permitted in the R-1 Zone. Meanwhile high per density housing and such tall buildings are
not permitted anywhere else in town, in fact, local builders are discouraged from building
apartments of any kind anywhere in town. It appears that your housing element does not
conform to the General Plan of the City of Grand Terrace and that these multi family rules
CIA AGENDA ITEM NO. I
i
i
I
Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes
October 27,2005
Page 2
are only different for your redevelopment agency projects. Where are the ordinances that you
have changed the development code with? What specific resolutions have you passed to
modify the building rules only for redevelopment or city projects? Your specific Plan is
suppose to have rules for development and standards of construction so that projects can be
monitored for conformity with the plan. Where is your plan? The open space and
conservation plans for the City call for more parks,yet much of the land for this project will
be fenced off and limited to anyone but the apartment dwellers. This is not a City park or
open space. The 11 million dollar bond request is for the Corporation for Better Housing to
acquire and to development the property along with the 8.4 million in City funded
Redevelopment money and a $1 per year lease that looks like a big give away from the
citizen's of Grand Terrace in order to put high-per density in the middle of quiet residential
homes with no regards to the rules and plans on file that you are suppose to follow. You are
suppose to help and protect our communities not destroy them. I respectfully request that
you put this project on hold until some of these issues are addressed and come back with a
better prof ect and a more appropriate location in town and that the Citizen's of Grand Terrace
can support because it meets the above legal requirements. He asked the Council to specify
the minimum age limit in the agreement and why there is such a high percent low income
housing. He stated that on page 2 it seems to indicate that there will no longer be a passive
park because it refers to the 4 acres as a landscaped area.
Barney Karger, 11668 Bernardo Way, stated that this is a gigantic rip off. He feels that they
don't understand what they are doing.
Mary Silverstein, Corporation for Better Housing, stated that by law the age minimum has
to be 55 or older, however, at the request of the City the age has been set at 62 and above.
City Manager Schwab,stated that there have been no changes to the park as described in the
project approved by the Council and Redevelopment Agency.
i
Mary Silverstein, stated that the only changes were the additions that were requested.
Community and Economic Development Director Koontz, stated that the first entitlement
that was approved by the City Council was a General Plan Amendment that re-designated
the entire property to a medium-high density residential designation. They then approved
a specific plan, which basically implemented a new zoning standard which had all the
development standards in it. Anything that was not specifically defined in the specific plan
relates directly back to current City Ordinances concerning building permits and
requirements that are handled by the Department of Building and Safety. The Permits are
in place and the Resolutions and Ordinances have been approved.
CRA-2005-28 MOTION BY AGENCY MEMBER GARCIA, SECOND BY VICE-CHAIRMAN
CORTES, CARRIED 5-0, to adopt the Regulatory Agreement, entered into as of
Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes
October 27,2005
Page 3
October 27, 2005, By and Between Corporation for Better Housing, a Nonprofit
Affordable Development Corporation, the City of Grand Terrace, a Public Body,
Corporate and Politic, and the City of Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment
Agency, a Public Body, Corporate and Politic
Chairman Ferr6 adjourned the Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting at 6.20 p.m.,until the
next CRA/City Council Meeting scheduled to be held on Thursday,November 10,2005,at 6:00 p.m.
SECRETARY of the Community Redevelopment
Agency of the.City of Grand Terrace
CHAIRMAN of the Community Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Grand Terrace
�J
Check Regist( ,)ated November 10, 2005
vchlist Voucher List
Page: 1
11/02/2005 3:33:14PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code: bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
56455 10/24/2005 010079 CASH 10212005 Purchase Parcel#1167-141-08
32-600-215-000-000 230,573.81
Total : 230,573.81
56456 10/25/2005 001907 COSTCO#478 0478 09 0069 2; CHILD CARE SUPPLIES
10-440-228-000-000 42.67
10-440-220-000-000 65.57
Total : 108.24
56457 10/31/2005 006285 RIVERSIDE HIGHLAND WATER CO Aug/Sept. 2005 Aug/Sept. Water& Fees
10-190-238-000-000 681.41
26-600-239-000-000 319.96
26-601-239-000-000 133.34
10-440-238-000-000 127.26
10-190-719-000-000 .93.38
34-500-724-000-000 58.28
34-700-767-000-000 138.02
34-700-709-000-000 9.08
34-700-710-000-000 9.08
10-805-238-000-000 179.20
10-450-238-000-000 6,739.52
Total : 8,488.53
56458 10/31/2005 001907 COSTCO#478 0478 07 0220 5 CHILD CARE SUPPLIES
10-440-228-000-000 42.68
10-440-220-000-000 88.10
Total : 130.78
56459 11/1/2005 010564 BROWN, KALISHA 1128 BIRTHDAY BONUS
10-440-110-000-000 50.00
Total : 50.00
56460 11/1/2005 010132 CISNEROS, SHEILA 1107 BIRTHDAY BONUS
10-440-110-000-000 50.00
Total : 50.00
56461 11/1/2005 010563 ALLDREDGE, AMINA 1109 BIRTHDAY BONUS
Page: 1
G0MM AGE-10A PTEM C10m 3/4
—vcij+is-t Voucher is
_ Page: _____ 2
- - -- ------------- - - - - - -
11/0212005---3:33:14PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code: bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
56461 11/1/2005 010563 ALLDREDGE, AMINA (Continued)
10-120-110-000-000 50.00
Total : 50.00
56462 11/1/2005 010133 KOONTZ, GARY 1112 BIRTHDAY BONUS
10-370-110-000-000 30.00
32-370-110-000-000 15.00
34-400-11.0-000-000 5.00
Total : 50.00
56463 11/1/2005 001365 BARBU, DRAGOS S. 1120 BIRTHDAY BONUS
10-370-110-000-000 50.00
Total : 50.00
56464 11/1/2005 010422 HANNA, TERRI 1121 BIRTHDAY BONUS
10-440-110-000-000 50.00
Total : 50.00
56465 11/1/2005 010137 DUNLOP, KAREN 1123 BIRTHDAY BONUS
10-440-110-000-000 50.00
Total : 50.00
56466 11/1/2005 001391 BERRY, STEVE 1124 BIRTHDAY BONUS
10-180-110-000-000 50.00
Total : 50.00
56467 11/1/2005 005702 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT 102105 PERS FOR PAYROLL END 10 21 05
10-022-62-00 12,072.69
Total : 12,072.69
56468 11/2/2005 010340 BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA, PERS-CH Nov. 2005 HEALTH INS B CORTES
10-110-142-000-000 373.40
Total : 373.40
56469 11/2/2005 001206 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION Sept/Oct. 2005 Sept/Oct VISA Charges
Page: 2
vchlist Voucher List Page: 3
11/02/2005 3:33:14PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code: bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
56469 11/2/2005 001206 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION (Continued)
34-800-272-000-000 95.04
23-200-63-00 20.17
23-200-64-00 825.41
10-110-270-000-000 2,702.78
10-120-270-000-000 754.59
10-125-222-000-000 226.01
10-180-218-000-000 25.25
10-180-245-000-000 103.44
10-180-246-000-000 115.00
10-190-220-000-000 207.41
10-380-249-000-000 19.50
10-440-228-000-000 19.49
16-900-254-000-000 710.06
32-200-210-000-000 17.95
32-200-270-000-000 535.11
32-370-270-000-000 260.00
34-800-270-000-000 343.96
Total : 6,981.17
56470 11/10/2005 001001 AA EQUIPMENT CO. INC. 833368 REPAIR& PURCHASE
10-450-246-000-000 2,537.68
833368a John Deere Mower Model 855 Repair
10-450-246-000-000 1,445.18
Total : 3,982.86
56471 11/10/2005 010178 ALMAREZ, ALEXIS 10172005 .2005 Med. Reimbursement Benefit
10-440-139-000-000 58.57
Total : 58.57
56472 11/10/2005 010125 BATES, DAWN 10242005 2005 Med. Reimbursement Benefit
10-440-139-000-000 576.67
Total : 576.67
56473 11/10/2005 010538 BRAUNSTEIN, ELLEN 10262005 Karger Story
10-180-255-000-000 150.00
Total : 150.00
Page: 3
Vchlost
-,----Voucher List -- - Page:----_4 -
- --- - - --- -- - -
11/02/2005 3:33:14PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code : bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
56474 11/10/2005 001484 BROWN INDUSTRIES 106-04608 PINS
10-440-228-000-000 57.90
Total : 57.90
56475 11/10/2005 010403 CITY OF REDLANDS AR112648 Sept. CNG fuel
34-800-272-000-000 45.65
10-180-272-000-000 110.63
- Total : 156.28
56476 11/10/2005 001532 CNA SURETY 0601 69076652 Surety Bond-B. Stanfill-0601-69076652
10-190-260-000-000 175.00
Total : 175.00
56477 11/10/2005 001840 COLTON, CITY OF 000525 ANIMAL CONTROL CODE ENFORCEMENT
10-190-256-000-000 3,291.66
Total : 3,291.66
56478 11/10/2005 001867 COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE SUPPLY 139722 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES
10-450-245-000-000 50.50
Total : 50.50
56479 11/10/2005 001909 COVERBIND CORPORATION 93401 Doc covers
10-370-210-000-000 340.50
Total : 340.50
56480 11/10/2005 010144 CRUZ, MICHAEL. 10172005 2005 Med Reimbursement Benefit
10-180-139-000-000 500.00
Total : 500.00
56481 11/10/2005 003210 DEPT 32-2500233683 19851/4017286 SUPPLIES
10-180-245-000-000 187.74
20721/3298238 SUPPLIES
10-180-245-000-000 16.70
20826/3017332 SUPPLIES
10-180-245-000-000 24.77
21981/2054479 SUPPLIES
10-180-245-000-000 50.58
Page: 4
vchlist Voucher List
Page: 5
11/02/2005 3:33:14PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code : bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
56481 11/10/2005 003210 DEPT 32-2500233683 (Continued)
25525/8041698 SUPPLIES
10-450-245-000-000 178.57
26720/7276434 Sweeper supplies
16-900-254-000-000 18.29
31117/2022297 Halloween Haunt supplies
23-200-64-00 106.96
Total : 583.61
56482 11/10/2005 002025 DIEHL EVANS &COMPANY LLP 10272005 2005 Gov't Tax Seminar-Ronnow
10-140-270-000-000 195.00
Total : 195.00
56483 11/10/2005 010020 DRIVER ALLIANT INSURANCE, SPECIAL 848242 Halloween Haunt Ins
23-200-64-00 378.75
848434 Country Fair Ins.
10-180-220-000-000 315.62
Total : 694.37
56484 11/10/2005 002165 DRUG ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM 5978 LAWN CARE
34-700-767-000-000 40.00
Total : 40.00
56485 11/10/2005 002187 DUNN-EDWARDS CORP. 00180182157 PAINT SUPPLIES
10-180-245-000-000 19.54
00180182161 PAINT SUPPLIES
10-180-245-000-000 29.28
00180183184 60 gal. Graffiti paint
10-180-245-000-'000 900.96
Total : 949.78
56486 11/10/2005 010328 EGN CONSTRUCTION #2 CORPORATE YARD
21-573-713-000=000 52,380.00
Total : 52,380.00
56487 ' 11/10/2005 010461 ENVIRONMENTAL VEHICLE SERVICES 5088 CNG site inspection
15-500-706-000-000 350.00
Page: 5
vehiffist
Voucher List --Page:-- 6
- - - - - -- - ---- ----- - - -- -------- - - -- -
11/02/2005 --3:33:14PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code: bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
56487 11/10/2005 010461 ENVIRONMENTAL VEHICLE SERVICES (Continued) Total : 360.00
56488 11/10/2005 002727 FREEMAN COMPANY, J R 311583-0 Office supplies
10-120-210-000-000 26.77
Total : 26.77
56489 11/10/2005 002740 FRUIT GROWERS SUPPLY 32075212 SUPPLIES
10-450-245-000-000 13.17
32075316 SUPPLIES
10-450-245-000-000 6.58
32075377 SUPPLIES
10-450-245-000-000 0.52
32075535 SUPPLIES
10-450-245-000-000 20.44
32075651 Echo Back Pack Blower
10-180-218-000-000 430.92
Total : 471.63
56490 11/10/2005 002901 G.T. AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 3796-lunch Oct. Lunches-Berry& Schwab
10-180-270-000-000 8.00
10-120-270-000-000 8.00
Total : 16.00
56491 11/10/2005 010559 GST 478457 3 hrs. Eden service
10-140-255-000-000 285.00
Total : 285.00
56492 11/10/2005 003152 HARPER & BURNS LLPN Sept. 2005 Sept. Prof. Services
10-160-250-000-000 3,660.00
Total : 3,660.00
56493 11/10/2005 010482 HEADSETS.COM 1567649-01 WIRELESS HEADSET FOR COMM SERVICES
10-180-210-000-000 380.25
Total : 380.25
56494 11/10/2005 003216 HOUSTON & HARRIS PCS, INC. 05-11239 SEWER MAINTENANCE AND HYDROWASING
21-573-602-000-000 1,906.35
Page: 6
vchlist `Voucher List
Page: 7
11/02/2005 3:33:14PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code : bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
56494 11/10/2005 003216 HOUSTON & HARRIS PCS, INC. (Continued) Total : 1,906.35
56495 11/10/2005 003224 HYDRO-SCAPE PRODUCTS INC. 4156084-00 LANDSCAPE/MAINT SUPPLIES
10-450-245-000-000 65.31
4165959-00 LANDSCAPE/MAINT SUPPLIES
10-450-245-000-000 176.14
4174900-00 LANDSCAPE/MAINT SUPPLIES
10-450-245-000-000 178.55
Total : 420.00
56496 11/10/2005 010124 JACKSON, CANDICE 10242005 2005 Med. Reimbursement Benefit
10-440-139-000-000 171.61
Total : 171.61
56497 11/10/2005 003800 JAGUAR COMPUTER SYSTEMS INC 44255 INTERNET WEBSITE HOSTING
10-180-255-000-000 75.00
Total : 75.00
56498 11/10/2005 010473 JESSE HERNANDEZ CONCRETE 10182005 Bollards for CNG fueling station
15-500-706-000-000 1,200.00
Total : 1,200.00
56499 11/10/2005 010520 K&A ENGINEERING 5448 ENGINEERING SERVICES
10-370-255-000-000 1,145.00
Total : 1,145.00
56500 11/10/2005 010357 LINDBLAD, JENNIFER 10242005 2005 Med. Reimbursement Benefit
10-440-139-000-000 159.95
Total : 159.95
56501 11/10/2005 010561 LOPEZ, BARBARA 10252005 Refund banner fee
10 200-07 10.00
Total : 10.00
56502 11/10/2005 005555 LUNSFORD, PATRICIA 11012005 Reimburse desk chair purchase
10-140-210-000-000 74.35
Total : 74.35
Page: 7
vchlist
- ----- - --- Voucher.List - -- - — -- -- - -- - - Page:----- - 8 -
11/02/2005 333.14PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code: bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
56503 11/10/2005 010013 MAURICIO,VERA 10172005 2005 Med. Reimbursement Benefit
10-440-139-000-000 57.16
Total : 57.16
56504 11/10/2005 004670 MIRACLE MILE CAR WASH 402493 CAR WASHES AND OIL CHANGES
10-180-272-000-000 6.00
10-440-272-000-000 109.00
- otal : 115.00
56505 11/10%2005 00.47.85 MULLINS, MICHAEL 10242005 2005 Med Reimbursement Benefit
10-180-139-000-000 647.00
Total : 547.00
56506 11/10/2005 005041 NEW PIG CORPORATION 4304150-00 Deluxe Variety Pack
21-573-602-000-000 100.24
.Total : 100.24
56507 11/10/2005 010530 NORTHERN SAFETY CO. INC. 1012884400017 Kevlar sleeves
16-900-254-000-000 53.45
Total : 53.45
56508 11/10/2005 001456 OFFICE MAX-A BOISE COMPANY 511176 Data Cartridges
10-140-210-.000-000 68.66
576559 10 rms yellow paper -
10-440-210-000-000 37.93
641428 Copy paper
10-190-212-000-000 111.64
668472 Office supplies
10-370-210-000-000 117.97
Total : 336.20
56509 11/10/2005 005450 OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY SAU06425VB05 ELEVATOR MAINT
10-180-245-000-000 303.49
Total : 303.49
56510 11/10/2005 010558 PARK TECHNOLOGY GROUP 1.1214 REPAIR CABLES
21-573-713-000-000 1,880.34
J �
Page: 8
� tl
vchlist oucher List t\-"
Page: 9
11/02/2005 3:33:14PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code: bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
56510 11/10/2005 010558 PARK TECHNOLOGY GROUP (Continued)
11214a Cableing balance
21-573-713-000-000 441.62
Total : 2,321.96
56511 11/10/2005 005584 PETTY CASH 10312005 Reimburse petty cash
10-110-270-000-000 12.50
10-120-270-000-000 2.25
10-125-271-000-000 26.39
10-140-271-000-000 16.20
10-180-268-000-000 12.00
10-180-272-000-000 34.33
10-180-270-000-000 12.50
10-190-210-000-000 5.94
10-190-211-000-000 84.18
10-440-245-000-000 1.99
10-808-247-000-000 44.33
34-500-726-000-000 35.00
34-800-272-000-000 14.83
Total : 302.44
56512 11/10/2005 005586 PETTY CASH 11012005 Reimburse Petty Cash
10-440-220-000-000 30.01
10-440-223-000-000 98.68
10-440-228-000-000 88.73
23-200-14-00 24.26
Total : 241.68
56513 11/10/2005 010400 POSITIVE PROMOTIONS 02216804 PINS
23-200-14-00 160.14
Total : 160.14
56514 11/10/2005 005663 PRECIE, DENNICE 10242005 2005 Med. Reimbursement Benefit
10-440-139-000-000 100.76
Total : 100.76
56515 11/10/2005 010565 QUICK LANE Q34625 Veh. Maint El184576
Page: 9
vehimst
_ _ _ __ _ Voucher__ Is _ Page:--—10--- --
--- - ------- -
-11/02/2005_-3:3314PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code : bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
56515 11/10/2005 010565 QUICK LANE (Continued)
10-180-272-000-000 40.19
Total : 40.19
56516 11/10/2005 010171 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 514 NEW CONTROLLER FOR FIRE DEPT
16-510-255-000-000 2,640.00
Total : 2,640.00
-56517- 11/10/2005 006310 ROADRUNNER STORAGE 2058-Nov. 2005 Nov. Storage Rent
10-140-241-000-000 89.00
Total : 89.00
56518 11/10/2005 010249 ROGERS, ANDERSON, MALODY ET AL 17543 ANNUAL AUDIT
10-140-250-000-000 1,475.00
33-300-250-000-000 1,000.00
32-200-250-000-000 2,000.00
34-400-251-000-000 3,025.00
Total : 7,500.00
56519 11/10/2005 006335 ROQUET PAVING INC. 0913-05 STREET REPAIRS
16-900-260-000-000 30,892.00
Total : 30,892.00
56520 11/10/2005 006341 ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP INC. 0016954 TRACK TAX INCREMENT, PASS THRU, STMT OF
34-400-251-000-000 2,680.00
Total : 2,680.00
56521 11/10/2005 006453 S.B. COUNTY AUDITOR/CONTROLLER 1874 BOOKING FEES
10-410-259-000-000 479.16
Total : 479.16
56522 11/10/2005 006557 S.B. COUNTY DEPT. PUBLIC WORKS FC 080/06 NPDES FLOOD CONTROL SERVICE AGREEMENT
12-903-701-000-000 3,305.00
Total : 3,305.00
56523 11/10/2005 006505 S.B. COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 2005-08 Sept. C. Care Diesel fuel
10-440-272-000-000 97.24
Page: 10
vchlist ! �
�"'eher List Page: 11
11/02/2005 3:33:14PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code : bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
56523 11/10/2005 006505 S.B. COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT (Continued) Total : 97.24
56524 11/10/2005 006510 S.B. COUNTY INFORMATION OCU0509M Pager Access-6 mos.
10-180-240-000-000 30.00
Total : 30.00
56525 11/10/2005 006559 S.B. COUNTY VEHICLE SERVICES GG 04/1169 CNG fuel-C. Care van
10-440-272-000-000 11.97
Total : 11.97
56526 11/10/2005 010562 SAINATH, RAMAIYER 10242005 Refund C. Care Credit
10-440-23 71.25
Total : 71.25
56527 11/10/2005 006435 SAN BERNARDINO, CITY OF 818 ANIMAL SHELTER SERVICES
1'0-190-256-000-000 285.50
Total : 285.50
56528 11110/2005 010543 SCHOLASTIC CLASSROOM MAGAZINES M3374982 1 PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES
10-440-228-000-000 66.83
Total : 66.83
56529 11/10/2005 006614 SCHWAB, THOMAS 10172005 2005 Med. Reimbursement Benefit
10-120-139-000-000 91.78
Total : 91.78
56530 11/10/2005 006720 SO.CA.EDISON COMPANY Oct. 2005 Oct. Electricity
34-400-238-000-000 89.31
10-175-238-000-000 32.48
10-172-238-000-000 40.59
10-440-238-000-000 981.91
10-190-719-000-000 12.65
16-510-238-000-000 267.13
10-190-238-000-000 2,943.92
10-450-238-000-000 1,182.97
Total : 5,550.96
56531 11/10/2005 010549 SOUTHCOAST RV 10074 REPAIR ROOF IN EOC CAMMAND TRAILER
Page: 11
veh'mst
_ _ Voucher_ 1st __ _ _ ___ _ _ Page:-- - -12
11/02/2005 3:33:14PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code: bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
56531 11/10/2005 010549 SOUTHCOAST RV (Continued)
10-808-245-000-000 1,300.00
Total : 1,300.00
56532 11/10/2005 006778 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 562556 15 006 1 Office supplies
34-400-210-000-000 45.22
9157123230 Office supplies
10-370-210-000-000 14.85
Total : 60.07
56533 11/10/2005 010544 SUV ACCESSORIES, STRONG'S TRUCK,35451 RACK FOR TRUCKS
10-180-272-000-000 558.00
10-180-272-000-000 43.25
-Total : 601.25
56534 11/10/2005 006898 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF L.A. 5101111804 FOOD SUPPLIES
10-440-220-000-000 39.38
5101905890 FOOD SUPPLIES
10-440-220-000-000 432.96
5101905908 FOOD SUPPLIES
10-440-220-000-000 79.62
510201731 5 FOOD SUPPLIES
10-440-220-000-000 86.70
Total : 638.66
56535 11/10/2005 010423 THE BLACKWELL GROUP 50919 APPRAISAL SERVICES
32-600-212-000-000 1,000.00
Total : 1,000.00
56536 11/10/2005 010024 THE HARTFORD 83 10353171 Public Employee Bond-B. Stanfill
10-190-260-000-000 397.00
Total : 397.00
56537 11/10/2005 007010 TOTH, CATHERINE 10172005 2005 Med Reimbursement Benefit
10-440-139-000-000 253.00
Total : 253.00
Page. 12
F
vchlist Voucher List Page: 13
11/02/2005 3:33:14PM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
Bank code : bofa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
56538 11/10/2005 010252 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS INC 5307 CITYWIDE STREET STRIPING
20-200-723-000-000 3,019.08
5308 RED CURB
20-200-723-000-000 2,435.00
Total : 5,454.08
56539 11/10/2005 007579 VARELA, CATALINA 10242005 2005 Med Reimbursement Benefit
10-440-139-000-000 101.45
Total : 101.45
56540 11/10/2005 007795 WAXIE 69174061 03 SUPPLIES
10-180-245-000-000 247.99
Total : 247.99
5654.1 11/10/2005 007843 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC 38970 CITYWIDE TREE TRIM REMOVAL
16-900-260-000-000 972.00
Total : 972.00
56542 11/10/2005 007880 WEST GROUP 810015468 LEGISLATIVE UPDATES
10-125-250-000-000 141.70
Total : 141.70
56543 11/10/2005 007920 WILLDAN 062-8254 Sept. Plan Review& Inspections
10-172-250-000-000 1,807.08
34-400-251-000-000 1,505.00
062-8255 Sept. Eng. Plan Checks
10-172-250-000-000 665.00
Total : 3,977.08
56544 11/10/2005 007984 YOSEMITE WATERS Sept. 2005 BOTTLED WATER SERVICES
1.0-190-238-000-000 119.00
10-440-238-000-000 73.55
10-805-238-000-000 29.75
34-400-238-000-000 17.35
I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the afore-listed Total : 239.65
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 Bank total : 407,517.56
the City and Agency.
Page. 13
Larry Ron ow, Finance Director
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
auL .yL yiv_'VL_`_'
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING- OCTOBER 27, 2005
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 October
27, 2005, at 6:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Maryetta Ferr6, Mayor
Bea Cortes, Mayor Pro Tern
Herman Hilkey, Councilmember
Lee Ann Garcia, Councilmember
Jim Miller, Councilmember
Tom Schwab, City Manager
Brenda Stanfill, City Clerk
Steve Berry, Assistant City Manager
Larry Ronnow, Finance Director
Richard Shields, Building& Safety Director
Gary Koontz, Community Development Director
John Harper, City Attorney
ABSENT: Lt. Hector Guerra, Sheriffs Department
The City Council meeting was opened with Invocation by Carmen Ibanez,Azure Hills Seventh-Day
Adventist Church, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Mayor Pro Tern Bea Cortes.
ITEMS TO DELETE -None
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS -None
CONSENT CALENDAR
CC-2005-114 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM CORTES, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
GARCIA,CARRIED 5-0,to approve the following Consent Calendar Items with the
removal of items: 3E. and 3G.:
3A. Approve Check Register Dated October 27, 2005
3B. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda
3C. Approval of 10-13-2005 Minutes
3D. Approval of Final Parcel Map 17041 (Northwest Corner of Grand Terrace
Road and Barton Road)
3F. Release Bonds - Tract 14816 (Grand Terrace Properties/Citizen's Business
Bank)
Council Minutes
October 27,2005
Page 2
ITEMS REMOVED FROM CALENDAR
3E. Approval of Tract Map 16985, for a 55 Unit Condominium Project (North
Side of De Berry Street at Reed Avenue)
Patricia Farley, 12513 Michigan Street, stated that according to the Housing Element this
area is not zoned for this type of project.
Community and Economic Development Director Gary Koontz, stated that the parcel is
zoned R3, which is a medium density residential land use designation. The project is
consistent with the zones and designations. Staff has been working with the State on the
Housing Element and the State has been pushing for high-density residential "affordable
housing". The only way we saw affordable housing in Grand Terrace to comply with what
they are doing is with the Senior Housing Project. Staff had to designate areas that could be
zoned high-density residential and there is an area in the Housing Element that shows
different areas where it could be higher density zoning,however it doesn't say it is.
Cily Manager Schwab, stated that this project is well within the zoning requirements.
CC-2005-115 MOTION BYCOUNCILMEMBERHILKEY,SECOND BYCOUNCILMEMBER
GARCIA,CARRIED 5-0,to approve Tract Map 16985,for a 55 Unit Condominium
Project (North Side of De Berry Street at Reed Avenue).
3G. Regulatory Agreement by and Between Corporation for Better Housing,a Nonprofit
Affordable Development Corporation, the City of Grand Terrace, a Public Body,
Corporate and Politic, and the City of Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment
Agency, a Public Body, Corporate and Politic
Patricia Farley, 12513 Michigan Street, feels as though this shouldn't be approved and that
she has concerns with the zoning and how it was changed and feels as thought the Council
is not addressing the issues.
CC-2005-116 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HILKEY, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM
CORTES, CARRIED 5-0 to adopt Regulatory Agreement by and Between
Corporation for Better Housing, a Nonprofit Affordable Development Corporation,
the City of Grand Terrace, a Public Body, Corporate and Politic, and the City of
Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Agency, a Public Body, Corporate and
Politic
PUBLIC COMMENT
BarneyKarg , 11668 Bernardo Way,stated that the County apartment license fee is$22.50
Council Minutes
October 27,2005
Page 3
and questioned why the City won't do it for the same fee. He stated that there are a lot of no-
bid projects being awarded in the City.
Sylvia Robles, 23008 Orangewood Court, feels that Redevelopment Agencies have over
stepped their boundaries. She feels that there is a need to have a public workshop on the
Redevelopment Agency and how it was formed,and where they are right now in their debts.
^� She referred to a letter from the auditor controller.
Patricia Farley, 12513 Michigan Street, stated that she looked through the Environmental
Impact Report for the proposed new high school and that she is alarmed with the project and
the impacts that it will have on the community. She feels that they should look into other
alternatives.
Charles Hornsby, 22656 Brentwood Street, stated that at the last council meeting he
questioned what a buffer zone is. He stated that the dictionary's definition of buffer is
something that lessens, absorbs, or protects against the shock of an impact. Buffer Zone is
defined as a neutral area between hostile forces that serves to prevent conflict. They define
zone as an area or region distinguished from adjacent parts by a distinctive feature or
characteristic, a section or an area of territory used for a specific purpose. He again asked
the City Council to define what they perceive to be buffer zones. He feels that the City
makes up the rules as they go along. He stated that the typical person that goes into City Hall
gets no help.
City Manager Schwab, stated that the Redevelopment Agencies are becoming some what
controversial. It is his observation that in the history of Grand Terrace's Redevelopment
Agency, the benefits have far outweighed any negatives that might come from
Redevelopment. There was a letter from the controller regarding several items in the audit
and staff has responded to those and have been accepted and subsequently cleared by the
state. Staff is also commenting on the EIR for the High School. The High School is the
Colton Joint Unified School Districts' project. There are a lot of traffic issues that need to
be dealt with. One thing to consider is that the High School will not come back to the
Planning Commission or the City Council. If citizen's want to comment on EIR the right
body to talk to is the School District.
ORAL REPORTS
5A. Committee Reports -None
COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Garcia, apologized to Mr. Hornsby for not being helped in the manner that
he felt that he should. She stated that she has some background in planning and stated that
Council Minutes
October 27,2005
Page 4
a buffer zone would be specific to whatever project you were looking at but a buffer zone is
intended to mean if you have two types of areas you want to make sure that there is
something in-between that allows for a transition. Something that allows them to be
compatible and to maintain the integrity of each. She questioned what the response deadline
is for the EIR for the proposed new high school.
Community and Economic Development Director Koontz,responded that it was a week ago.
Councilmember Garcia, questioned if the city's response would be available for the public
to look at.
Community and Economic Development Director, responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Garcia, stated that Redevelopment does need to be talked about and that
maybe in the future it should be discussed in an open forum. She stated that in her opinion
to date Redevelopment has been a benefit to Grand Terrace. It is important to take into
account where the City is financially in terms of debt. She stated that to her knowledge there
is not a lot of interaction between school districts and city's when it comes to circulation
issues. It would be helpful as we move forward on the circulation plan that we look closely
at how circulation is going including the new high school. She reminded everyone about the
Halloween Haunt, the Country Fair, and City Birthday Party.
Assistant Ci , Mana er Beny,announced that the Halloween Haunt will be held on Monday,
October 31,2005 at Pico Park. He gave an overview of the events and activities that will be
taking place that evening and encouraged everyone to attend. The Country Fair that is put
on by the Historical and Cultural Activities Committee will be held on November 5, 2005
at the Lion's Community Center.
Councilmember Hilkev,reported that the principal of Terrace View Elementary School and
staff are cooking at McDonalds this evening with all proceeds going to the school. He
commended Councilwoman Garcia on her suggestions on the use of the Webpage. He stated
that the Council needs to do a better job of explaining what the Redevelopment Agency is
and how it works and the value of it. He would like to see staff explain the Housing
Element. He stated that it is a demand on the City by the State and not what the people of
jGrand Terrace want. He stated that buffer zone is a general term and it changes. He stated
that Grand Terrace residents had an opportunity to have a small school district and a small
high school and it was voted down. Most people in town are excited about the new high
school.
Councilmember Miller; stated that it is important to remember that we are here to serve the
community and that we need to provide good customer service that is needed. Buffer Zones
depends upon projects and it is a general term that is used. A crime study was done and
Council Minutes
October 27,2005
Page 5
Grand Terrace has a very low crime rate and should be very proud of the law enforcement
that is provided. He announced that the Lion's Club will be having their pancake breakfast
on Sunday,November 6,2005 from 7:00 a.m to 11:30 a.m.and encourage everyone to come
out. He reported that November 8,2005 is election day and encouraged everyone to get out
and vote.
Mayor Pro Tem Cortes, indicated that Community and Economic Development Director
_= Koontz provided her with an explanation of a Buffer Zone.
Community and Economic Development Director Koontz, stated that he read through the
General Plan looking for references to buffer zones and only found one that was relative to
industrial projects that were required to do buffering from other developments and other
types of land uses-using burms, walls, landscaping and setbacks. In the zoning ordinance
under Industrial and Commercial Developments,there are additional setback requirements
and buffering requirements of landscaping and walls from commercial industrial that are next
to residential developments. There is not a specific definition that he could find. It is a
commonly used term and the City does implement it.
Mayor Pro Tem Cortes, stated that the Planning Commission meetings are in the Blue
Mountain Outlook calendar. She stated that she saw new cables on DeBerry and Van Buren
�. and questioned what they were.
Assistant City Manager Berry, responded that it is part of the city-wide traffic study that is
going on now. It will be brought to the Council to show the results.
Mayor Pro Tem Cortes, reported that she is entering her chili in the Cooking Contest at the
Country Fair on Saturday, November 5,.2005. She stated that the Woman's Club will be
having their BBQ at the fair as well and that there are still tickets available.
Mayor Ferr6, questioned if the Gas Co. is doing something on Palm between Barton Road
and Honey Hill Drive.
Building and Safety/Housing Director Richard Shields, responded that the Gas Co. is
replacing the lines in the street and should be completed by next week.
Mayor Ferr6, is very proud of the crime report for Grand Terrace. She feels that customer
service is important and knows that the City Manager will address that issue. She questioned
if it might be possible to put together a sheet of information on the Redevelopment Agency
in the Blue Mountain Outlook.
Councilmember Hikey, stated that staff is looking at a hearing device for those who are
impaired for use in the Council Chambers and requested if anyone has any suggestions on
Council Minutes
October 27,2005
Page 6
a device that works to let Assistant City Manager Berry know.
PUBLIC HEARING
6A. Street Cut Policy and an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace,
California Establishing Fines for Failure to Obtain a Street Cut Permit and Failure
to Perform Street Cut Construction in Accordance to the Specifications as Described
in the Specifications for Construction Within the Public Right of Way
Assistant City Manager Berry stated that the City of Grand Terrace established its current
guideline for "Specifications for Construction within the Public Right-of-way" under the
1990 State of California manual of Traffic Controls. This guideline established by the city
engineer(GTMC 12.08.220) dictates how contractors/utility companies cut into our public
right-of-way(e.g. streets and sidewalks)by trenching,removing pavement and asphalt, and
restoring existing improvements.
Staff has been working since the fall of 2004 to develop a more comprehensive street cut
policy that helps maintain the integrity of our roads and balances the interests of public
utilities. The new street cut policy and ordinance was a culmination of the following:
• Researching other city's street-cut specification
• Meetings with utility officials and Utility Councils
• Working with paving contractors
• Combining the "Best Management Practices" for a new street-cut policy
Staff requests that Council approve a policy for specifications for Construction Within the
Public Right-of-Way and adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Grand
Terrace, California Establishing Fines for Failure to Perform Street Cut Construction in
Accordance to the Specifications as Described in the Specifications for Construction within
the Public Right of Way.
Councilmember Hilkev, questioned if this applied to private property.
Building&Safety/Housing Director Shields,responded that it is for the public right of way
only.
Councilmember Hilkev, questioned if they do work on private property they are exempt.
i
Building & Safety/Housing Director Shields, responded that they are regulated by the
building code, plumbing code, electrical code, etc.
Councilmember Hilkev, stated that he didn't see the cable company listed.
r
Council Minutes
October 27,2005
Page 7
Assistant City Manager Berry, stated that they are not exempt
Councilmember Hilkev, indicated that the utility companies are exempt from the fines and
that they are the ones that will be doing most of the cuts into the public right-of-way.
Assistant City Manager Berry, stated that they guarantee the integrity of their trench repairs
in perpetuity and that any trench failures will require the respected utility to re-patch the
street section per the specifications for each occurrence.
Councilmember Hilkev, questioned who the fines will apply to.
Assistant Ci , Manager Berry, responded a contractor. The utility companies are required
to do all of the required cuts they just won't be fined.
Councilmember Hilkev, feels as though there is no value to the ordinance.
Councilmember Garcia, questioned if the utility companies don't do the cuts per
specifications is there a specified time frame on when it will be fixed.
Beverly Powell, Southern California Edison, emphasized that the franchise is a strong
document and will be honored. She stated that she doesn't know what the time line is,
however,when she receives a call she reports it immediately. There hasn't been any street
projects in Grand Terrace in years.
Lea Peterson,Public Affairs Manager,the Gas Company, stated that she has been working
with Assistant City Manager Berry and Building&Safety/Housing Director Richard Shields.
She stated that part of franchise agreement if they do not comply the City has the right to take
the franchise away. In all of the years there hasn't been a problem. She thanked staff for
working with the utility companies with regards to this street cut policy and ordinance.
Councilmember Garcia, questioned if they worked with a representative from SBC.
Assistant CitManager Berry, responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Garcia, stated that she sees a lot of SBC trucks in the residential areas and
questioned if someone wants DSL will they have to cut the streets.
Assistant Ci , Manager Berry,responded that DSL uses the existing phone lines.
Councilmember Miller,questioned if there were other utility companies that were contacted
besides the ones listed in the policy.
Council Minutes
October 27,2005
Page 8
Assistant City ManagerrrX, stated that the franchise utilities were the ones that were
contacted.
Councilmember Miller, questioned the failure rate on the different cuts and which utility
companies cuts failed the most.
Assistant City Manager Berry, responded that he doesn't have a failure rate and feels that
after driving the City there is not one utility company that is worse than another. All trenches
will fail over time.
Building_& Safety/Housing Director Shields, stated that trenches will fail over time due to
moisture.
Councilmember Miller, questioned what the policy has been in the past on contacting the
utility companies about failures.
Assistant City Manager Berry,responded that until now he has only contacted them on two
failures that he has noticed. Once this ordinance passes he is going to go out and do a heavy
inspection on all of the sites.
Councilmember Miller,expressed his concern with the utility companies being exempt from
items 5 and 6 of the Compaction and Paving Requirements.
Assistant CitManager Berry, stated that they are still required for their compaction tests,
follow the methods described in"The California Inter-Utility Site Restoration Committee
- Site Restoration Guidelines" and obligated to the workmanship guarantee.
Building&Safety/Housing Director Shields,stated that a lot of the requirements in the Site
Restoration guide are duplicate to some of the requirement in the policy that is why that
particular verbiage is in there.
Mayor Pro Tern Cortes, questioned who is liable for the fine if a resident hires a contractor
and they don't get a permit.
Building&Safeiy/Housing Director Shields,responded that the contractor would get fined.
It is not typical that a homeowner would purchase a street cut permit.
Mayor Ferr6, stated that it is not just a fine that we are looking at but the way the cuts are
made and how they are patched.
Councilmember Garcia, questioned if Verizon is exempt from this policy.
Council Minutes
October 27,2005
Page 9
Ci!y Attorney Harper, stated that if the ordinance and policy are applicable then they are not
exempt from it.
Mayor Ferre opened the public hearing for discussion, there being none she returned
discussion to the Council.
CC-2005-117 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM CORTES, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
GARCIA, CARRIED 5-0, to Approve a Policy for Specifications for Construction
Within the Public Right-of-way and Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the
City of Grand Terrace,California Establishing Fines for Failure to Perform Street Cut
Construction in Accordance.to the Specifications as Described in the Specifications
for Construction Within the Public Right of Way.
6B. TEFRA Hearing-A Resolution Approving,Authorizing and Directing Execution of
an Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Relating to the
California Statewide Communities Development Authority
A Resolution Approving the Issuance of Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds by the
California Statewide Communities Development Authority
City Manager Schwab stated that the City has received a request from the California
Statewide Communities Development Authority to join its Amended and Restated Joint
Exercise of Powers Agreement and conduct a public hearing as required by the Internal
Revenue Code in order to issue tax-exempt revenue bonds in the aggregate amount not to
exceed$10.5 million on behalf of Corporation for Better Housing. The Developer will use
the proceeds of the Bonds for the acquisition and construction of a 120-unit senior housing
project located at 22627 Grand Terrace Road in the City of Grand Terrace. There is no direct
or indirect financial impact to the City of Grand Terrace as a result of the proposed financing.
The Authority will issue tax-exempt revenue bonds on behalf ofthe Project. The tax-exempt
revenue bonds are payable solely out of the revenues derived by the Developer from the
applicable Project: No financial obligations are placed on the City for project financing costs
or debt repayment. Staff recommends Council conduct a public hearing regarding the
issuance of"private activity bonds" for the purpose of development of a 120 unit multi-
family housing project generally known as Blue Mountain Senior Villas. Staff recommends
Council approve the agreement and adopt the resolutions.
Councilmember Miller, confirmed that there are no direct or indirect costs to the City.
City Manager Schwab, stated that there are no direct or indirect costs to the City.
Councilmember Hilkey; questioned if this was a change from the original agreement.
City Attorney Harper, stated that there is an existing Joint Powers Authority and that Grand
Terrace needs to join it and in order to do that it has to be amended to include Grand Terrace.
Council Minutes
October 27,2005
Page 10
Councilmember Hilkev, questioned if these bonds were part of the original plan.
City Manager Schwab, responded that it was part of the original financing plan.
Councilmember Hilkev, questioned why it wasn't included in the decisions being made
before. It seems like it is being added on because it says amend.
City Manager Schwab,stated that we aren't amending any action that Council has approved.
City Attorney Harper, stated that there is a Joint Powers Authority which is composed of a
variety of other cities in California we are amending that JPA to join.
Mayor Ferre opened discussion to the public.
Anita McGaughey, 22481 Barton Road, feels that the developer doesn't have any of their
own money involved in the project. She referred to page 4 of the agreement where there is
a wrong date and suggested that the document may not have been reviewed and that they
should consider postponing this item for two weeks.
Mayor Ferre returned discussion to Council.
Councilmember Hilkev, questioned who the developer is.
City Manager Schwab,responded that Corporation for Better Housing is the developer and
questioned if he wanted to know who the contractor is.
Councilmember Hilkev,the owner,contractor,developer. He thought that when we started
off the City was the owner and developer.
MM Silverstein, Corporation for Better Housing,the owner of the land is the City of Grand
Terrace, the developer is Corporation for Better Housing. There is a ground lease that was
approved at the last Council Meeting between Corporation for Better Housing and the City.
,I
The contractor is VLH Construction.
CC-2005-118 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM CORTES, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
GARCIA, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement Relating to the California Statewide Communities Development
Authority and approve a Resolution Authorizing and Directing Execution of an
Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Relating to the
California Statewide Communities Development Authority and a Resolution of the
City Council of the City of Grand Terrace Approving the Issuance of Multifamily
Housing Revenue Bonds by the California Statewide Communities Development
Authority.
Council Minutes
October 27,2005
Page 11
UNFINISHED BUSINESS -None
NEW BUSINESS
8A. Ad Hoc Committee for Fireworks
Bobbie Forbes, 11850 Burns Avenue,knows that the sale of fireworks is a great fundraiser
for the youth leagues, however she is against it because of what it does to the animals.
CC-2005-119 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM CORTES, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
HILKEY, CARRIED 5-0, to create an ad hoc committee for fireworks and the
committee to consist of the following with a report back to Council no later than
February 2006:
• Councilmember Lee Ann Garcia
• A representative from the Sheriffs Department
• A representative from the County Fire Department
• A representative from City Staff
• A Representative from the Grand Terrace Community Soccer Club and
Grand Terrace Little League
\, A representative from the Crime Prevention Committee
• Two residents from Grand Terrace(Kim Hathaway and Lou Ann Archibold)
• A representative from the Fireworks Industry
8B. Non-owner Occupied/Rental Property Program
Karen Fricke, AAGIE, indicated that she has been working with staff on the policy and
appreciates the fact that they have been able to come together with a program that works for
everyone and is looking forward to working with City Staff in the future.
TontiPetta, 11875 Eton Drive, supports the program.
Thelma Winkler Beach, 12570 Mt. Vernon Avenue, confirmed that if a rental unit is under
an owner occupied property it is exempt from the program.
CC-2005-120 MOTION BY MAYOR FERRE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER HILKEY,
CARRIED 5-0,to approve the Non-owner Occupied/Rental Property Program with
the following changes:there will be Exterior Inspections Only,to have a 3 year plan
where after three years if the owner hasn't received any violations they will receive
a 50%reduction in their fee and will continue to do so until they receive a violation,
and that all Violation Notices be mailed by First Class and Certified Mail. Give
Notice to the County of San Bernardino to Terminate the Current Rental Inspection
Council Minutes
October 27,2005
Page 12
Program effective January 1, 2007.
8C. Consulting Agreement for General Plan Evaluation
CC-2005-121 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HILKEY, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM
CORTES, CARRIED 5-0, to authorize the funding for the General Plan evaluation
and to authorize staff to award a consulting agreement to AEI-CASC in the amount - P
of$6,000 with a 21 day schedule.
CLOSED SESSION
9A. Real Estate Negotiation-22874 Arliss
Mayor Ferre reported that the Council met in Closed Session to discuss Real Estate
Negotiations at 22874 Arliss and that there was no action taken.
Mayor Ferre adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m. until the next CRA/City Council Meeting which
is scheduled to be held on Thursday,November 10, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.
CITY CLERK of the City of Grand Terrace
MAYOR of the City of Grand Terrace
I
STAFF REPORT
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
CRA ITEM(X) COUNCIL ITEM Q MEETING DATE: November 10,2005
SUBJECT: BOOKING FEE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
FUNDING REQUIRED: YES Q NO (X)
On February 10, 2001 the City entered into an Agreement with the County of San Bernardino setting
the rate for booking and processing of those arrested at a rate of$159.72. In November of 2004
Senate Bill 1102 was enacted into law. This legislation reduced the amount of booking fees that can
be collected by counties beginning in Fiscal Year(FY) 2005-06.to fees no greater than one-half of
actual administrative costs, including overhead costs permitted according to federal Circular A87
standards, and in no event greater than the fee charged by a county to cities on January 1, 2004.
Effective FY 2005-06,this legislation also repealed all state reimbursement to cities for payment to
counties for booking fees.
Based on Senate Bill 1102, the County performed an updated cost studying and calculated a new
cost per booking in the amount of$192.92,which would have allowed the County to impose a new
fee for each booking in the amount of $96.46. Instead of imposing such a permissible fee,
representative of cities and the County met informally and agreed upon a booking fee to be charged
by the County to the Cities at a.rate of$79.86 per booking for a period of three years. $79.86 equals
one half of the former rate of$159.72.
,By July 1, 2006 the cities and the County will be required to meet for the purposes of negotiating and
recommending a methodology to calculate booking fees and a process to adjust the fees after
• expiration of the three year period.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO RELATING TO BOOKING FEES.
COUi. A
I
SUPPLEMENTAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RELATING TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE
ADMINISTRATIVE FEES
This Supplemental Settlement Agreement (hereinafter referred to as
"Agreement") is entered into between the COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, for itself,
its employees, servants- 'representatives, officers, officials, agents and departments
(hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY") and the CITY OF ADELANTO, TOWN OF
APPLE VALLEY, CITY OF BARSTOW, CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE, CITY OF CHINO,
CITY OF CHINO HILLS,-CITY OF COLTON, CITY OF FONTANA, CITY OF GRAND
TERRACE, CITY OF HESPERIA, CITY OF HIGHLAND, CITY OF LOMA LINDA, CITY
OF MONTCLAIR, CITY OF NEEDLES, CITY OF ONTARIO, CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CITY OF PEDLANDS, CITY OF RIALTO, CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO, CITY OF TWENTYRINE PALMS, CITY OF UPLAND, CITY OF
VICTORVILLE, CITY OF YUCAIPA, and the TOWN OF YUCCA VALLEY (hereinafter
referred to as "CITIES AND TOWNS"). COUNTY and CITIES AND TOWNS are
collectively referred to herein as the "Parties". The Parties agree as follows:
All CITIES AND TOWNS other than the CITY OF NEEDLES have previously
entered, into "the Settlement Agreement " with COUNTY concerning payment of booking
and processing fees (criminal justice administrative fees pursuant to California
Government Code section 29550, hereinafter referred to as "booking fees"), that was
incorporated as part of the judgment entered by the Sacramento County Superior Court
in City of Adelanto, et al., v. County of San Bernardino, Judicial Council Coordination
Proceeding No. 2584. THE CITY OF NEEDLES and COUNTY have previously entered
into "the separate Settlement Agreement" concerning payment of booking fees.
References to "Settlement:Agreements" in this Agreement shall mean the agreements
identified in the preceding two sentences. These Settlement Agreements provided for
the COUNTY to charge actual costs for booking fees after February 10, 2001.
Thereafter, almost all of the parties comprising the CITIES AND TOWNS entered into a
supplemental settlement agreement with COUNTY for booking fees to be paid at the flat
rate of$159.72 for each booking and other processing (hereinafter referred to as
"booking"), so long as CITIES AND TOWNS agreed to apply all realized savings to
I
expenditures for public safety, as referred to in California Government Code section
29950 and defined in the "ORDER" identified in the Settlement Agreements, performed
by the COUNTY in connection with arrests made within the jurisdictional boundaries of
CITIES AND TOWNS after February 10, 2001. This rate was to remain in effect unless
COUNTY's actual costs incurred for booking, as referred to in California Government
Code section 29550, and as defined by "the ORDER"'identified in the Settlement
Agreements, increased by twenty-five percent (25%) or more over the COUNTY's
actual costs as of February 10, 2001, or in the event that the State of California's
reimbursement for booking fees incurred by the CITIES AND TOWNS within the County
of San Bernardino was reduced by twenty.-five (25%) or more, in which alternative event
a new booking fee was to be negotiated by COUNTY and CITIES AND TOWNS.
In November of 2004 Senate Bill 1102 was enacted into law. This legislation
amended California Government Code section 29550 to reduce the amount of booking
fees that can be collected by counties beginning in Fiscal Year (FY) 2005-06 to fees no
greater than one-half of actual administrative costs, including overhead costs permitted
according to federal Circular A87 standards, and in no event greater than the fee
�} charged by county to cities on January 1, 2004. Effective FY 2005-06, this legislation
also repealed all state reimbursement to cities for payments to counties for booking
fees.
Based on the above legislative changes, in March of 2005 the COUNTY
performed an updated cost study employing the same methodology that was used when
earlier agreements between CITIES AND TOWNS and COUNTY were executed, and
taking into account increased salary and benefit costs, and a dramatic rise in the
number of bookings compared with previous years. Based on the results of this study,
COUNTY calculated that current costs per booking were $192.92, which would have
allowed COUNTY to impose a new fee for each booking in the amount of$96.46, which
represents one-half of the County's newly calculated cost per booking.
But, instead of imposing such a permissible fee, representatives of CITIES AND
TOWNS and COUNTY met informally and agreed upon a booking fee to be charged by
COUNTY to CITIES AND TOWNS at the rate of$79.86 per booking.for a period of three
years. This fee was enacted by the COUNTY Board of Supervisors on May 17, 2005 to
i
I ,
I
take effect.on July 1, 2005, at which time the Board of Supervisor also directed the
County Administrative Officer and County Counsel to prepare agreements with CITIES
AND TOWNS for later approval,,and to continue meeting with city managers or other
representatives of CITIES AND TOWNS to define a methodology for calculation of
booking fees, and to establish a process to adjust the fees after expiration of the three-
year period in which the fees are to be imposed at the rate of$79.86 per booking.
CITIES AND TOWNS and COUNTY agree that the booking fee to be charged by
COUNTY to CITIES AND TOWNS shall be at the rate of$79.86 per booking for a
period of three years beginning July 1, 2005 and ending on June 30, 2008.
j CITIES AND TOWNS.and COUNTY also agree that they shall meet with each
other from time to time to negotiate and recommend to the Parties by July 1, 2006 a
' defined methodology for calculation of booking fees, and a process to adjust future
booking fees once the present enacted fee expires on June 30, 2008.
On or before December 1, 2005, COUNTY agrees to provide to CITIES AND
TOWNS a detailed written;explanation of COUNTY's methodology and a step-by-step
explanation of the process used for calculating booking fees for CITIES AND TOWNS.
Within sixty (60) days of receipt of COUNTY's methodology and process used to
calculate booking fees, any one or more of CITIES AND TOWNS shall provide to all
other Parties a detailed written explanation of any alternative methodology and/or
process proposed by any one or more of CITIES AND TOWNS.
j Following these exchanges-of information, CITIES AND TOWNS and COUNTY
I -
shall meet on or before July 1, 2006 for the purposes of negotiating and recommending
to the Parties a methodology to calculate booking fees, and a process to adjust the fees
after expiration of the three-year period in which fees are to be imposed at the rate of
$79.86 per booking. Any such recommendations shall be included in a proposed
amendment to this Agreement and transmitted to each of the Parties for their approval.
If, thereafter, COUNTY and CITIES AND TOWNS mutually agree upon a defined
methodology for calculation of booking fees, as well as a fee adjustment process and
I
implementation, the agreed upon methodology and process shall be implemented within
thirty (30) days of the date of the executed amendment to this agreement or,other
agreement as the Parties deem appropriate.
If, instead, no agreement is reached by.COUNTY and CITIES AND TOWNS on
either the methodology to be used to calculate booking fees, or on a process to adjust
booking fees in the future, or on both methodology and process, on or before January 1,
2008, an impasse shall be declared (unless COUNTY and CITIES AND TOWNS agree
on a further extension of time to attempt to reach agreement on these issues). In such
an event, after expiration of the three-year period in which fees are to be imposed at the
rate of$79.86 per booking, COUNTY may then employ a methodology for calculation of
booking fees and a process to adjust fees in the future as are allowable by law, which
methodology and process any one or more of CITIES AND TOWNS shall be free to
challenge in the Superior Court of the State of California if they so desire. If that occurs,
the final decision of the highest reviewing court shall thereafter be binding on the Parties
concerning methodology for calculation of booking fees and the process to adjust such
fees until such time.as the law changes with respect thereto.
All provisions contained in judgments entered in City ofAdelanto, et al. v. County
of San Bernardino, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 2584, and the original
Settlement Agreements and supplemental settlement agreements between the Parties
relating to booking fees that are not in direct conflict with the terms of this supplemental
settlement agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties are freely and voluntarily entering into and
signing this Agreement on the respective dates indicated below.
Approved as to form:
Dated: , 2005 RONALD D. REITZ
COUNTY COUNSEL
By:
DENNIS TILTON
Deputy County Counsel
Attorneys for COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Dated: 12005 RICHARD WATSON GERSHON
By:
MARGUERITE P. BATTERSBY
� 1
1
Dated: ',-2005 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
By:
BILL POSTMUS
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
Dated: , 2005 CITY OF ADELANTO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
CITY OF ADELANTO
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
d
4 ,
[mayors or city managers of all other cities and towns signing in counterpart
Dated: , 2005 TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY
By:
,
Mayor
ATTEST:
TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
Dated: , 2005 CITY OF BARSTOW
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
CITY OF BARSTOW
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
[mayors or city managers of all other cities and towns signing in counterpart
Dated: , 2005' CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
[mayors or city managers of all other cities and towns signing in counterpart
Dated: , 2005 CITY OF CHINO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
CITY OF CHINO
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
[mayors or city managers of all other cities and towns signing in counterpart
Dated: , 2005 CITY OF CHINO HILLS
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
CITY OF CHINO HILLS
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
[mayors or city managers of all other cities and towns signing in counterpart
-Dated: 12005 CITY OF COLTON
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
CITY OF COLTON
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
[mayors or city managers of all other cities and towns signing in counterpart
Dated: , 2005 CITY OF FONTANA
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
CITY OF FONTANA
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
[mayors or city managers of all other cities and towns signing in counterpart
Dated: ,-2005 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
[mayors or city managers of all other cities and towns signing in counterpart
Dated: , 2005 CITY OF HESPERIA
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
CITY OF HESPERIA
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
[mayors or city managers of all other cities and towns signing in counterpart
Dated: , 2005 CITY OF HIGHLAND _
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
CITY OF HIGHLAND
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
[mayors or city managers of all other cities and towns signing in counterpart
Dated: , 2005 CITY OF LOMA LINDA
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
CITY OF LOMA LINDA
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
[mayors or city managers of all other cities,.and towns signing in counterpart
Dated: , 2005 CITY OF MONTCLAIR
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
CITY OF MONTCLAIR
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
[mayors or city managers of all other cities and towns signing in counterpart
Dated: , 2005 CITY OF NEEDLES
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
CITY OF NEEDLES
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
[mayors or city managers of all other cities and towns signing in counterpart
Dated: , 2005 CITY OF ONTARIO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
CITY OF ONTARIO
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
[mayors or city managers of all other cities and towns signing in counterpart
Dated: , 2005 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
[mayors or city managers of all other cities and towns signing in counterpart
Dated: , 2005 CITY OF REDLANDS
By:
Mayor
I
ATTEST:
CITY OF REDLANDS
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
[mayors or city managers of all other cities and towns signing in counterpart
Dated: , 2005 CITY OF RIALTO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
CITY OF RIALTO
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
[mayors or city managers of all other cities and towns signing in counterpart
Dated: , 2005 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
[mayors or city managers of all other cities and towns signing in counterpart
Dated: , 2005 CITY OF TWENTYNINE PALMS
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
CITY OF TWENTYNINE PALMS
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
[mayors or city managers of all other cities and towns signing in counterpart
Dated: , 2005 CITY OF UPLAND
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
CITY OF UPLAND
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
[mayors or city managers of all other cities and towns signing in counterpart
Dated: , 2005 CITY OF VICTORVILLE
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
CITY OF VICTORVILLE
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
[mayors or city managers of all other cities and towns signing in counterpart
Dated: , 2005 CITY OF YUCAIPA
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
CITY OF YUCAIPA
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
[mayors or city managers of all other cities and towns signing in counterpart
Dated: , 2005 TOWN OF YUCCA VALLEY
U By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
TOWN OF YUCCA VALLEY
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT OF THE
CALIFORNIA READING AND LITERACY IMPROVEMENT
AND PUBLIC LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION AND
RENOVATION BOND ACT OF 2006
WHEREAS, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed into law the California
Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond
~f Act of.2006; and
WHEREAS, approval by voters of that bond would authorize the State of California
to sell $600 million in bonds to assist local governments in the construction of public
libraries; and
WHEREAS, passage of that bond, which will appear on the June 2006 ballot, will
permit many cities and counties across the state to construct library facilities; and
WHEREAS, the California State Library has identified that at least 579 unfunded
library construction projects which total $4.4 billion in need statewide; and
WHEREAS, our community will continue to have ongoing needs for public library
services; and
WHEREAS, use of existing libraries continues to grow and expand as new libraries
are added, new services offered, and hours increased;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Grand Terrace supports
the passage and funding of the California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public
Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2006, and urges all citizens, community
leaders, and organizations in Grand Terrace to lend their support to the creation of this
public library bond fund.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of November, 2005..
Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace
ATTEST:
City Clerk of the City of Grand
Terrace
DATE:November 2,2006
C
T��T) W.O.#12.645 jo "lr/
(� ` 'G`X;"rs`: •N'ia �'t't..a r'.SS� z'i'%'N.. ^'�'r•__''[K':i 's.ssv'a?i--y..;2,^•.F":Is�i �.. �a''r�i3=^Jv{✓='��•� mar..-i.
V < ''«r:�`��» q7 ';c�';-��_ - .,4;�;...t.;.... -_ .:'-,'h"- __�..•.,>.4.a�"'., or,,r�a'r`::?_.rr•.,x:' ..�,>u:�:rt N:u;;3�i.z.£
>_'i,'.' ;"r:`> s :"a.;: fj :..x. ^r»..�r..�.r;ar,°s:p.^r 1..:°"•. _
.ac:�'. ;"R,-�Y��,F •:u;. ,.-y"".^.:,:sw '.a.m,.<•;«>,+.. ,.. :x ;n,l;.^ - ;-Y,�y-:: s.t-<a-..r..._.. .;tii:
,:3`. v�,.✓s: �:��i�i �;t .�1:.;ar"'r.�. S' i,xn;a.;' ..s 'r-..:
't9"r` E" 1, '?'Y'[':.z:'. i:ir� T°Lf jC, ..Ya,f+r..;.,Y`' cj•�, nrs':,s
CST � '•'/.'` <i.T .k�-:..'`.:.: :).. -..k:'t- `tbi': :'T�:°\�'.:3Y":"F:".:�.F�..r'-:Y3r%::.Ye.i
Y
GRRnD reRR C CRA () COUNCIL ITEM(X) MEETING DATE: November 10,2005
C6 FUNDING REQUIRED_ NO FUNDING REQUIRED X
H �5
SUBJECT: Extension for the Bicycle Transportation Account
DEPARTMENT OF Program.(BTA),between the City of Grand Terrace
BUILDING& SAFETY, and Caltrans, Agreement No., 03/04-08S-BD-02.
PUBLIC WORKS
AND HOUSING LOCATION: Barton Road between Mt. Vernon Avenue and
22795 Barton Road Michigan.
Suite B
Grand Terrace RECOMMENDATIONS: 1.) Direct Staff to request a twelve (12) month
California 92313-5295 extension,to December 31, 2006, from Caltrans to
Civic Center
(9 Civic
is Center
implement the bike lane project on Barton Road
Fax (909) 825-7506 pursuant to BTA Grant 2003/2004.
2.) Approve Resolution No., 2005 ,
agreeing to an extension of time for the BTA Grant.
BACKGROUND:
On January 21, 2004, the City received approval of a Bicycle Transportation Account
(BTA)grant(2003/2004)in the amount of $50,000 for construction of a commuter Class
lI bike lane on Barton Road between Michigan Street and Mt.Vernon Avenue. This bike
lane segment is designated as a Class II bike lane on the City's Bicycle Transportation Plan
(BTP). A Class II bike lane will likely prohibit street parking on this roadway segment.
Staff is currently working with Caltrans to seek approval to modify the current BTA grant
to allow for construction of a Class III bike lane that would allow street parking. The
request for extension of time will allow Staff to conclude its discussion with Caltrans and
possibly implement the project.
ANALYSIS :
Pursuant to Government Code Section 16304.3, requesting an extension for unspent
encumbered state budget requires approval through the Department of Finance(DOF). If
the City is requesting to extend the life of the funds,the extension request must include the
City Councils approval indicating concurrence with the request. If the DOF approves an
extension request for the project, it would grant a Cooperative Work Agreement. If no
approval is granted, the project must be completed pursuant to the original Bicycle
Transportation Account Project and be completed by April 1, 2006.
Attachment: Resolution No., 2005
Local Agency- State Agreement, Bicycle Transportation Account Project
Government Code Section 16304.3
1 0UMC@L AQL ,rDA m T E"7 C�o.
RESOLUTION NO.,2005-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE,
AGREEING TO AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION ACCOUNT NO., 03/04-08S-BD-02
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 16304.3, extensions require approval of
the City Council, and
WHEREAS, the extension of State budget authority requires the approval of the Department of
Transportation in the form of a Cooperative Work Agreement, and
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace that
the City Council agrees to the extension of time for the construction of the Bicycle Transportation
Agreement(BTA),No., 03/04-08S-BD-02
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the signing of this resolution by the Mayor authorizes the
extension of time on behalf of the City of Grand Terrace.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2005
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
i
i
I
..v,. ra�ai nvVJUVu Hl1GVliT ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER• • ,Governor
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF LOCAL ASSISTANCE,MS 1
1120 N STREET
P.O.BOX 942874
SACRAMENTO,CA 94274-0001 Flexyourpowed
PHONE (916)653-0036 Be energy efficient!
FAX (916)653-1905
January 29, 2004
Mr. Jerry GIander
City of Grand Terrace
22795 Barton Road
Grand Terrace, CA 92313-5295
Dear Mr. Glander:
Subject: Bicycle Transportation Account Program
The following project(s) has/have been approved for funding under the 2003/2004
funding cycle of the Bicycle Transportation Account(BTA) Program.
Construct commuter Class II Bikeway'gap' closure, on Barton Road between Mt. Vernon
Avenue and Michigan Avenue.
Enclosed is the Local Agency , - State Agreement for your 2003/2004 Bicycle
Transportation Account(BTA)project. Please review, sign and return the original to:
r-
David Priebe
Bicycle Facilities Unit, MS-1
California Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 942874.
Sacramento, CA 95274-0001
Please keep a copy of the agreement for your BTA project file. If you have questions
about the agreement or the BTA program, please contact me by phone at (916) 653-0036
or e-mail at david_priebe@dot.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
DAVID PRIEBE ,
Bicycle Facilities Unit
Division of Local Assistance
Enclosure
c: District Local Assistance Office
"Caltrans improves mobility across California"
LOCAL AGENCY-STATE AGREEMENT
BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION ACCOUNT PROJECT
_8 City of Grand Terrace AGREEMENT NO. BTA 03/04-08-SBD-02
District Local Agency
THIS AGREEMENT,made in duplicate this 1st day of July 2003, by and between the City of
Grand Terrace,a political subdivision of the State of California,hereinafter referred to as
"LOCAL AGENCY",and the State of California,acting by and through the Department of
Transportation,hereinafter referred to as"STATE".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, under the provisions of Streets and Highways Code Section 2106(b)and Sections
890 through 894.2,as implemented by regulations in Title 21,Chapter 2,Subchapter 10 of the
California Administrative Code,funds have been allocated to LOCAL AGENCY for the
construction of a Bicycle Transportation Account project selected by LOCAL AGENCY and
described in EXHIBIT A attached hereto;and
WHEREAS,under provisions of the California Administrative Code,STATE is required to enter
into an agreement with LOCAL AGENCY relative to design standards,the handling and
accounting of funds,time for completion,and all other phases of the project,
THEREFORE,the parties agree as follows:
ARTICLE I-Project Administration
1. The project or projects described in Exhibit A,hereinafter referred to as "the project", shall be
constructed as provided in this agreement and in accordance with the laws applicable to
LOCAL AGENCY.In the event of a conflict,the teens of this agreement shall prevail.
2. Construction may be performed by contract or LOCAL AGENCY.LOCAL AGENCY shall
prepare all documents necessary for advertising,advertise,award and administer the contract
including inspection of work performed and payments to the contractor as the same becomes
due.
3. Prior to advertising,LOCAL AGENCY shall prepare a complete set of contract plans. Such
plans shall conform to uniform specifications and to design and safety standards as described
in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual-Bikeway Planning and Design-Chapter 1000.
4. The estimated costs of the project are as shown in Exhibit A.LOCAL AGENCY may, at its
option,award contracts for amounts in excess of said estimates,and final project expenditures
may exceed said estimates if sufficient local funds are available to finance the excess. It is
understood,however,that the allocation-of Bicycle Transportation Account funds will not
exceed that shown for each item in Exhibit A. -
5. In the event the final costs of the project are less than said estimate by reason of low bid or
otherwise,the allocation of Bicycle Transportation Account funds will be decreased in
relationship to the percent funded by Bicycle Transportation Account.
6. Local Agency shall submit an acceptable final accounting of actual project costs and a written
request for payment by April 30,2006. State shall pay to the local agency the Bicycle
Transportation Account share of the actual.cost of the project prior to June 30,2006, the
expiration date of the Bicycle Transportation Account funds included in this project.
7. All costs charged to this agreement by LOCAL AGENCY shall be supported by properly
executed payrolls,time records,invoices and vouchers,evidenced in proper detail the nature
and propriety of the charges,and shall be costs allowable under the California Bicycle
Transportation Act.
8. STATE may,at its option,declare this agreement void if a contract for construction of the
project has not been awarded by LOCAL AGENCY on or before the end of the fiscal year
following the fiscal year in which funds for the project are allocated.
9. If the project is a cooperative project and includes work on a State highway,it shall be the
subject of a separate cooperative agreement between the STATE and LOCAL AGENCY.
10. The Legislature of the State of California,and the Governor of the State of California,each
within their respective jurisdictions,have prescribed certain employment practices with
respect to contract and other work financed with State funds.LOCAL AGENCY shall ensure
that work performed under this agreement conforms with the rules and regulations
embodying such requirements where they are applicable.Any agreement or service contract
entered into by LOCAL AGENCY for performance of work connected with the project shall
incorporate Exhibit B rttached hereto.
ARTICLE H-Rights-of-Way
I. Such rights-of-way as are necessary for the construction of the project shall be furnished by
{� LOCAL AGENCY.Right-of--way costs may be included as an eligible item of total costs.
2. LOCAL AGENCY agrees to hold STATE harmless from any liability which may result in
the event the right-of--way is not clear prior to award of contract.The furnishing of
rights-of-way as provided for herein includes in addition to all real property required for the
improvement,free and clear of obstruction and encumbrances,the payment of damages to
real property not actually taken but.injuriously affected-by the proposed improvement.
LOCAL AGENCY shall pay from its own funds any costs which arise.out of delays to the
contractor because utility facilities.have not been removed or relocated,or because
rights-of-'way have not been made available to the contractor for the orderly prosecution of
the work.
3. Should LOCAL AGENCY,in acquiring right-of-way for the project,displace an individual,
family,business,farm operation,or nonprofit organization,relocation payments and services
will be provided in compliance with the-applicable State laws.The public will be adequately
informed of the relocation payments and services which will be available and,to-the greatest
extent practicable no person lawfully occupying real property shall be required to move from
his dwelling or to move his business or farm o_ peration without at least 90 days written notice
from LOCAL AGENCY. -
ARTICLE III-Engineering
1. "Preliminary engineering"as used herein includes all preliminary work related to the project,
including,but not restricted to preliminary surveys and reports,laboratory work, soil
investigations,preparation of plans,designs,and advertising. "Construction engineering"as
used herein includes actual inspection and supervision of construction work,construction
staking,laboratory and field testing,field reports and records,estimates,final reports,and
allowable expenses of employees engaged in such activities.
2. Preliminary and construction engineering costs included in the estimate contained in Exhibit
A are eligible project costs.STATE reimbursement to LOCAL AGENCY will be on the basis
of the actual cost thereof to LOCAL AGENCY including compensation and expense of
personnel working on the project,required materials,and automotive expense provided,
however, that LOCAL AGENCY shall contribute its general administrative and overhead
expense.
ARTICLE IV-Miscellaneous Provisions
I. If STATE is named as a defendant in any suit arising from the construction,maintenance or
operation of the project,LOCAL AGENCY will,at request of STATE,assume full
responsibility for the conduct of the defense or will provide such assistance as STATE will
require,and will pay any judgments issued against STATE and all costs in connection with
the defense.STATE reserves the right to represent itself in any litigation in which STATE's
interests are at stake.
2. LOCAL AGENCY shall maintain an accurate and detailed record of costs for this project.
Such records shall be retained and made available to STATE's auditors for examination for a
minimum period of three years from date of final payment of expenditures from Bicycle
Transportation Account.
3. Upon acceptance of the completed project by the awarding authority, or upon the contractor's
being relieved of the duty of maintaining and protecting certain portions of the work,LOCAL
AGENCY shall assume responsibility for maintaining the project.
4. Minor changes may be made in the project as described in Exhibit A upon notice to STATE.
No major change,however, may be made in said project except pursuant to an amendment to
this agreement duly executed by STATE and LOCAL AGENCY.
i
5. LOCAL AGENCY shall certify CEQA compliance or documentation of Categorical
Exemption determination as defined in Title 14 of the State Administrative Code-Department
of Resources guidelines.
i 6. Nothing in the provisions of this agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to or
rights in third parties not parties to this agreement or affect the legal liability of either party to
this agreement by imposing any standard of care different than the standard of care imposed
by law. ,
7. It is understood and agreed that neither the STATE'iior any of its officers or employees is
responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be
done in connection with the project.It is understood and agreed that pursuant to Government
Code section 895.4 LOCAL AGENCY shall defend, indemnify and save harmless the
STATE,all officers and employees from all claims,suits or actions of every name, kind and
description brought forth,or on account of,injuries to or death of any person including but
not limited to workmen and the public,or damage to property arising out of or in any way .
connected to the project or the completed facility.
8. With respect to third party claims against LOCAL AGENCY arising out of or in any way
connected to the project or the completed facility,LOCAL AGENCY waives any and all
rights to,any type of express,implied or comparative indemnity against the STATE,its
officers or employees.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have executed this agreement by their duly authorized
officers.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA " LOCAL AGENCY
Department of Transportation City of Grand Terrace
ell
, �r
KEN McGUIRE,Chief -D to Name. Date
Bicycle Facilities Unit �"
Division of Local Assistance C + 1' 4 ne" .
Title
EXHIBIT A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION.AND COSTS
Local Agency:City of Grand Terrace Agreement No.BTA 03/04-08-SBD-.02
ARTICLE V-Project Location and Description of Work-
Location:City of Grand Terrace
Description of Work:Construct a Class II Bikeway on Barton Road from Mt. Vernon Avenue to
Michigan Avenue.
Net Length:n/a
ARTICLE VI-Project Funding
Bicycle Transportation Account: $50,000
Local Agency: $7,000
Other: $0
Total Project Cost: $57.000
Percent Funding By Local Agency: 12.3%
Percent Funding By State: 87.7%
EXHIBIT B
FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT ADDENDUM
1. In the performance of the contract,the Contractor will not discriminate against any
employee or applicant for employment because of'ace,sex,color,religion,ancestry,or national
origin.The Contractor will-take affirmative action.to ensure that applicants are employed,and
i that employees are treated during..employment,without regard to their race,sex,color,religion,
ancestry,or national origin. Such action shall include,but not be limited to,the following:
employment,upgrading,demotion or transfer,recruitment or recruitment advertising;layoff or
termination;rates of pay or other forms of compensation;and selection for training, including
apprenticeship.The Contractor shall post in conspicuous places,available to employees and
applicants lic ants for employment,notices to be provided by the State or local agency setting forth the
provisions of this Fair Employment and Housing section. %�•
2. The Contractor will permit access to'his records of employment,employment
advertisements,application forms,and other pertinent data and records by the State Fair
C Employment and Housing Commission,or any other agency of the State of California designated
! by the awarding authority,for'Ithe purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with the Fair
Employment and Housing section of this contract.
3. Remedies for Willful Violations:
(a) The State or local agency will determine a willful violation of the Fair Employment
and Housing provision to have;occurred upon receipt of a final judgment having that effect from a
! court in an action to which Contractor was a party,or upon receipt of a w_-itten notice from the
Fair Employment and Housing'Commission that it has investigated and determined that the
Contractor has violated the Fair, Employment and Housing Act and has issued an order or
obtained an injunction under Government Code Sections 12900,et seq. -_
i
(b) For willful violation of this Fair Employment-and Housin the State or
g provision,
local agency shall have the right to terminate this contract either in whole or in-part,and any loss
! or damage sustained by the State of local-agency in securing the goods or services hereunder shall
be borne and paid for the Contractor and by his surety under the performance bond, if any,and
the State or local agency may deduct from any moneys due or that thereafter may become due to
the Contractor,the difference between the price named in the contract and the actual cost thereof
to the State or local agency.
f •
------------------------ -End Exhibit B
j C -
I hereby certify upon my own pers9nal know edge that budgeted funds are available for this encumbrance.
fAccounting Officer:
� g Date:�ZZ /,eZZ/jJ,4_ _ $ 5_ 0 0
Fiscal Fund
CE
Statutes Item. Year Program BC Category Source BTA Funds
,003 bGli"/Of-Q�`1 y0y 120;0 010 jJ1 G 12'ZDOr�o
i
i
i
Page 1
]itation/Title
30VT § 16304 .3 , Approved cooperative work agreements; appropriations;
application of section
'211863 West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code§ 16304.3
WEST'S ANNOTATED CALIFORNIA CODES
GOVERNMENT CODE
TITLE 2. GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DIVISION 4. FISCAL AFFAIRS
PART 2. STATE FUNDS
CHAPTER 1. GENERAL
Current through Ch. 168 of 2005 Reg.Sess. urgency legislation&Governor's Reorganization Plans No. I &2 of
2005
16304.3.Approved cooperative work agreements; appropriations; application of section
(a)Notwithstanding Section 16304, an appropriation for-an approved cooperative work agreement shall be available for
xpenditure as provided in this section.
(b)An approved cooperative work agreement is a binding contract or agreement between multiple parties, including the state it
ther governmental entities, or private nonprofit organizations, for work that cannot be completed for valid and substantial reasons
uring the period of time for which the funding is available for liquidation, and that meets all of the following criteria:
i
(1)The cooperative work agreement has been approved by the.Department of Finance.
(2)The work to be completed is consistent with the intent of the original appropriation.
(3)The cooperative work agreement is funded only from appropriations for local assistance.
(c)Only that portion of the appropriation already.encumbered upon approval of the cooperative work agreement by the
)epartment of Finance shall be available to complete the work specified in the agreement. Any unencumbered or disencumbered
alance shall revert to the fund of origin consistent with standard state accounting practices.
(d)The unliquidated balance subject to the approved cooperative work agreement shall revert to the fund of origin no later than
ight years from the date of the original appropriation.
(e)This section shall not apply to cooperative work agreements entered into prior to January 1, 2001.
CREDIT(S)
I dded by Stats.2000,c.364(S.B.220),§2.)
<General Materials (GM)-References,Annotations,or Tables>
.urrent through Ch. 168 of 2005 Reg.Sess. urgency legislation &Governor's Reorganization Plans No. 1 &2 of 2005
° 2005 Thomson/West . No claim to original U. S . Govt . works .
H"ECE
VED
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE I
EMERGENCY OPERATIONS COMMITTEE ; ��i� Q 2 ZOOS
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OETY OF GRAND TERRACe
October 4,2005 CITY CLERK'S DEPARTMENT
The Grand Terrace Emergency Operations Committee met at the regular time at the Emergency
Operations Center at 22795 Barton Road, Building 3. The meeting was called to order by
Chairperson, Vic Pfennighausen at 6:04 p.m. Agendas were distributed.
MEMBERS PRESENT—JoAnn Johnson, Vic Pfennighausen, Debra Hurst and-Glenn Nichols.
MEMBERS ABSENT—Rich Haubert and Dottie Raborn.
CITY STAFF—None.
GUESTS PRESENT/INTRODUCTIONS—Stisfin Taylor who also submitted an application.for
membership. Application and Action Item will be sent to Council on October 13th.
CORRESPONDANCE—Letter from Mayor, Maryetta Ferre' accepting new member Debra Hurst.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA with motion by Debra Hurst and second by Glenn Nichols.
r APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 as written. Motion by Debra Hurst and
second by Glenn Nichols.
LIAISON REPORT by Steve Berry(Report by Vic Pfennighausen in Steve's absence).
a. City will pay the$25 fee for anyone who would like to take the C.E.R.T. (Community
Emergency Response Team) training which will be on Wednesdays from October 12 to
November 16.
b. Maintenance yard is still in disarray with many problems with water lines and other
things.
c. Cell phone tower is on hold for now. May eventually be installed somewhere on property.
Possibly nearer to Barton Road. It must meet certain planning codes.
d. Volunteer picnic was very nice with nice gifts for everyone. Great food.
e. SaveOn is going very well with visible progress every day.
f. Several projects going on around town.
g. Water lines to EOC should be replaced with all new pipe and valve.
EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES REPORT by Vic Pfennighausen
a. Will move things from outside to inside before rain. Just until storage unit is brought
back.
b. Southwestern Division Convention (for Amateur Radio) was held in Riverside. It was a
very successful event. JoAnn went.
c. Trailer was taken this morning to be repaired. Hoist will be removed, roof replaced, a
new vent that will have a louvered cover over it to prevent any water from getting in.
Cost will be between $800 and $1000 and should be done in about a week.
d. Some of the phone lines in the Community Room have been repaired and are working
(#14, 430-2267 and #13, 430-2266). One line remains out of order. (#8,430-2261)
COUSICIL
i
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Several work projects need to be done or have not been completed.
NEW BUSINESS
a. Still working on new members.
b. Arrangements for Vic, JoAnn, Debra, Susan and Glenn to meet Monday, October 10`h at
EOC and outline strategy for various projects which include computer work, filing, map
making, organizing, Office-in-a-Box, etc.
TRAINING/SPEAKERS
a. New member Debra and new applicant Susan were given study material on SEMS to be
studied at home.
b. Also, video and DVD of Electrical Safety for First Responders (45 minutes)were given to
Debra and Susan who will pass along to other members when they have viewed them.
c. A telephone list was-exchanged for member's convenience.
ADJOURNMENT at 7:13 p.m.
JoAnn Jo l n, Secretary
NEXT MEETING WILL BE TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2005 AT 6 P.M.
i
i
t -
i
i
? :: `
3., Community and Economic Development Department
CALIFORNIA
x _ ...
- u4
•f ti
- TAW PORT-�STA FARE - -
a v,
/ CRA ITEM O COUNCIL ITEM (X ) MEETING DATE: November 10, 2.005
FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED X
SUBJECT: Specific Plan No.04-02(SP-04-02),Tentative Tract Map No.
04-01 (TTM-04-01/County No. 16624) and Environmental
Review Case No. 04-01 (E-04-01) to build 15 single family
residences (Continued from the meeting of October 13,
2005.)
APPLICANT: Massaro and Welsh, Civil Engineers for Jason Karger,
Developer
LOCATION: Approximately 2 acre site consisting of two vacant parcels
located on the northerly side of De Berry Street between
the Gage Canal on the west and Mt.Vernon Avenue on the
east
RECOMMENDATION: Open the Continued Public Hearing on the proposed
Specific Plan and'Tentative Tract Map; Receive any new
testimony; Close the Continued Hearing and Approve the
Ordinance for Specific Plan No. 04-02 for First Reading
and' Approve- the Resolution for Approval of Tentative
Tract Map No. 04-01
Background:
This project was continued from the City Council meeting of October 13,2005. The motion
to continue the matter directed Staff to ask the developer to consider lowering the number
of units proposed to allow for an off-street parking area which would be gated to restrict its
use for the guests and visitors of the proposed development. The Staff was also directed
to ask the developer to consider a Home Owners' Association, "HOA," and to determine
who is the owner of the 20 foot alley-way along the northerly property line.
Staff met with the developer and his engineer following the public hearing on October 131n
The developer felt that reducing the number of units and providing an off-street parking
22795 Barton Road 9 Grand Terrace, California 925 • 9 9 824-6621
i I
i
I I
I
area would not solve the problem of providing for guest parking for the new development.
He felt that the restriction of such an off-street parking lot solely for the use by guests
would be very difficult to control and would not solve the problem of guest parking or of the
more general problem of people from the apartment project parking along De Berry.., He
suggested that a better solution would be to post the north side of De Berry with a 3-hour
parking limit which would discourage parking from the apartment complex but would also
-provide for guest parking for the new proposed 15 unit project.
i The developer also felt that an "HOK would not be practical for such a relatively small
project, especially since-there will be;no common areas that will need to be controlled or �-
maintained. In addition, regarding the issue of landscape maintenance along De Berry,
Section 18.73.210 (B)of the Municipal Code presently contains provisions that require the
individual homeowner to maintain their-front yard landscaping.
i
I
Finally, the developer's engineer provided Staff with a copy of the Tract Map No. 6551
recorded in 1963. This map allowed for the subdivision of the area to the immediate north
of the subject site and included the 20-foot alley-ways. The notations on the recorded map
clearly indicate that the alleys were dedicated as part of the public-right-of-way. It is clear
from reviewing the recorded tract map that the City "owns" the alley-ways.
The remainder of this Staff report remains the same as that presented to the Council
at the meeting of October 13, 2005.
The proposed project consists of fifteen (15) detached, single family homes on fifteen
residential lots with an average lot size of 5,468 square feet. The homes will all be one
story in height. All but-two;will have garages on the back with vehicular access provided
by a 20-foot wide public alley in the back. A sixteenth lot proposed on the corner of De
Berry Street and Mt. Vernon Avenue will be offered to the City as a proposed park site.
The subject site consists of two parcels totaling about 2 acres located on the northerly side
of De Berry Street between the Gage Canal on the west and Mt. Vernon Avenue on the
east. The property is very long, .about 800 feet, but only 100 feet deep. It is a difficult
piece of propertyto develop which was left over-when the area was subdivided many years
ago. It also lies directly across the street from.a large apartment development,"The Crest".
It should be noted that the only requests that are before the City Council are the proposed
Specific Plan No. 04-02 and the proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 04-01 to subdivide the
subject site. Four companion Site and Architectural Review applications, SA-04-02, SA-
04-03, SA-04-04 and SA-04-05,have alreadybeen approved bythe Planning Commission
contingent upon the approval of the Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map by. the City
Council. The Site and Architectural Review applications were for the design and
1 appearance of the individual homes proposed for this development.
This project was originally filed on February 5, 2004,-almost two years ago, and was heard
on five different occasions, by the Planning Commission. The last hearing was held on
September 15, 2005 at which time the Commission recommended this project to the City
{ Council. During this long period of time, the project underwent several revisions including
the deletion of a 4-unit apartment building on the corner of De-Berry and Mt. Vernon; a
widening of the proposed side yards; the varying of the front yard setbacks; and revised
architectural designs for the homes.
In early June of this year, Staff was informed that the son of the-original developer had
taken over the project and that he intended to modify the project to make it more
acceptable to the Planning Commission based on their comments at earlier public hearings
on this project. The applicant, Massaro and Welsh, who represented the original
developer, remained involved but now represents the son of the developer, i.e. the "new"
developer.
In July of this year, after reviewing a new map and proposal by the new developer, the
Planning Commission expressed an opinion that the new developer was going in the right
direction and that "the proposal looked a lot better than what was originally presented"to
them.
Specific Plan:
The City's Zoning Code does not contain an existing zoning classification that would
accommodate the proposed project. Therefore, the applicant on behalf of the developer
filed Specific Plan No. 04-02 to permit the proposed project to go.forward with lot sizes and
setbacks not conforming to existing zoning standards. The City does not have a residential
zone that would permit lots as small as the 4,460 square feet as proposed by this project
or the typical lot size of 5,450 square feet. In addition, the front yard setbacks were varied
from the standard 25 feet for residential lots.
The proposed Specific Plan was modified several times to meet the requirements of the
- Government Code and to reflect changes in the proposed project itself. As such the
Specific Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission on September 15th of this
year will serve as the "zoning" for this project.
A copy of the proposed Specific Plan No. 04-02, as recommended for approval by the
City's Planning°Commission, is attached here as Exhibit A.
Tentative Tract Map:
The Tentative Tract Map, TTM-04-01, shows 16 individual lots. Fourteen of the lots will
front on De Berry and the two next to the Gage Canal will front on Mirado Street. Fifteen
of the lots will be developed with single family homes. The sixteenth end lot next to Mt.
Vernon will be -offered to the City for future park purposes. A blue-line copy of the
proposed Tentative Tract Map has been provided to the Council as Exhibit 1.
Access to the garages of the lots fronting on De Berry will be provided by means of a 20
foot alley running along the northerly property line of the site. These garages will be
located in back of the residences. The two houses fronting on Mirado, however, will have
their garages on the front of the house. The average lot size will be 5,465 square feet with
a typical depth of 100 feet and width of 54.5 feet. Two of the lots will be smaller than this
average with three larger.
The tentative tract map also shows the foot prints of the proposed residential structures
and what floor plans will be located on what lots. The front yard of each unit will vary from
15 to 20 feet; the average front yard will be 17 feet. The interior lots fronting on De Berry
will each have side yards of 9.5.feet on the garage side and. 5 feet for the other side with
the exception of the corner lots, the 45 foot wide lot on Mirado and the residential lot (Lot
r
I
15) next to the proposed park which will have a 19.5 foot side yard. The garage for this
latter lot will not front directly onto the alley but will have a separate driveway coming off
the alley at an angle. The County Fire Department indicated that there would be no
problem with the proposed access to Lot 15.
4 For the Council's information and review, the Staff report to the Planning Commission for
this project for the meeting of September 15, 2005 has been attached along with all of the
Attachments for that report. (Please see Attachment 1.) Also included are the draft
minutes for the September 15, 2005 Planning Commission meeting on this project where
the Commission recommended this project for approval to the Council. (Please see
Attachment 2.) -
Environmental Review:
After completing the Initial;Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has-been proposed for
this project. The requirements of law forthe 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
i the environment with the proposed mitigation conditions. The Mitigated Negative
Declaration proposed under E-04-01 for this project is attached here as Exhibit B.
Recommendation:
i As noted above, this is a very difficult piece of property to develop. Not only does if have
an unusual shape, long and narrow, but it lies directly across the street from a large
apartment project. Because of these circumstances, both Staff and the Commission felt
that some sort of modification of the typical R1 standards would be appropriate as
proposed under the Specific Plan. Both the Staff and Commission have spent a very long
time working with the applicant and the prior developer and also the new developer to
come up with a good recommendation to the Council for this property. With the changes
made by the new developer, the Planning Commission felt it could make that
recommendation for this project.
i
The Planning Commission and Staff recommend for approval the Ordinance for the
Adoption of the Specific Plan No. 04-02 (Attachment 3)and the Resolution of Approval for
Tentative Tract Map No. 04-01 (Attachment 4).
Respectfully submitted, Approved by:
46
fI
I
4 Lamp Gary L. Koontz
j ss ciate Planner Community Development Director
i
Exhibits: Exhibit 1 - Tentative Tract Map No. 04-01 (County No. 16624)
Exhibit A - Specific Plan. No. 04-02 (Document)
Exhibit B - Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study
Attachments: Attachment 1 - Planning Commission Staff Report 9/15/05
Attachment 2 - Draft Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of 9/15/05
Attachment 3 - Resolution of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 04-01
Attachment 4 - Ordinance Approving and Adopting SP-04-02
y-
c:\MyFiles\J OH N\Kadar\councilreportS P-04-02.#2
i
SPECIFIC PLAN
I No. 04-01
Tract No. 16624
Mt. Vernon-De Berry
ICity of Grand Terrace
I
a
I �
i
EXHIBIT A
i
i
�I
II
Specific Plan
�r No. 04-02
City of Grand Terrace
L ! August 2005
LJ
I
I
Prepared for:
I Mr. Barney Karger
11668 Bernardo Way
Grand Terrace, CA 92313
IPrepared by:
Massaro and Welsh, Civil Engineers-Planners-Land Surveyors
I 1572 N. Waterman Ave., Suite 5
San Bernardino, CA 92404
(909) 883-9355
I
' tVernon—De Be i Grand Terrace
Specific Plan M. Y rry City o f
' Specific Plan Outline
' Section 1 —Introduction
A. Purpose and Intent
' B. Project Location
C. Project Setting
I D. Existing Conditions
E. General Notes
Section 2—Master Plan
A. Conceptual Landscape
' B. Infrastructure
Section 3 —Implementation
' A. Development Standards
IEXHIBITS
LocationMap............................................................................................. 1-1
ExistingLand Use Map.............................................................................. 1-2
AssessorsParcel Map................................................................................. 1-3
I General Plan Map ..................................................................................... 1-4
ZoningMap ...............................................................................................1-5
Reduction of Tentative Tract Map.............................................................. 1-6
I Conceptual Grading Plan............................................................................ 1-7
Preliminary Landscape Plan....................................................................... 1-8
UtilityServices .......................................................................................... 1-9
Fencing&Walls...:................... ............................................................... 1-10
Fencing&Walls... ..................... . 1-10A
I
I I
II
i
I
I
Page 3 of 26
' Mt. Vernon—De.Be City of Grand Terrace
Specific Plan �Y tY
' Section 1 —Introduction
' A.Purpose and Intent.
The implementation of this Specific Plan-will provide for the development of the project
' site with the goals and objectives of the City of Grand Terrace General Plan. The
regulations contained herein are intended to allow for development standards created
specifically for the project area while ensuring substantial compliance with the spirit,
' intent, and provisions of the various ordinances of the City of Grand Terrace.
B. Project Location
I
The project encompasses 2.0 acres and is located along the North side of De Berry
Avenue between Mt. Vernon Avenue to the east and Gage.Cnal to the west. The
IAssessor's Parcel Numbers are 1167-321-03, 04. Township 2 South, Range 4 West,
Northeast'/4 of Section 5.
IC. Project.Setting
This project is an infill type of project. To the north of the site are single-family homes
' and apartments, minimum lot size is 1,200 S.F. built approximately 40 years ago. To the
south of the site and across De Berry Street is an apartment complex called "The Crest",
Iconsisting of 228 units,built-around 1978.
`- To the west of the site is the Gage Canal, and west of the Gage Canal is vacant land.
ITo the southwest of the site are single-family homes, minimum lot size 7,200 S.F. built
40 years ago.
ITo the northeast of the site on the east side of Mt.'Vernon Avenue are single-family
homes, minimum lot size.7,200 S.F. built 40 years ago.
ITo the southeast of the site on the east side of Mt. Vernon Avenue is a school site.
ID. Existing Conditions
The site consists of two parcels of vacant land 1.80 acres and 0.20 acres totaling 2.0
acres. The dimensions of the site are as follows: The 1.80 acre site is 781.25 feet by
100.00 feet, and the 0.20 acre site is 98.00 feet by 100.00 feet. The site falls in east to
west direction from an'elevation of 1055 to an elevation of 1028. The property slopes
I downward toward the west at rates between 2 and 7 percent. A dedicated 20 foot wide
alley runs along the north.of the site. This alley is shown on Tract Map No. 6551, M.B.
88/26-27.
I
I
Page 4 of 26
I
I
BARTON RD. Z
� U �
' W ~ N
DE 50TO 5T
Cml�,
OE BERRY 5T
I CT NO 16 24
VAN BUREN 5T.
I LOCATION ALAP
NOT TO SCALE
I '
I I
1
i
II
I
I ,
� I
OCATTON 1 LAP IT'
L
' 1-1
IPAGE 5 OF 26
I
I 1111YAl11"11",IIIPa9E Ptn. East Riverside Land Company, M.B. 6/44 City of Grand Terrace 1167 — 32
0/AO YA,OIEI 11.101 ONLY.
Tax Rate Area
a�a 16001
a
A
lua
31 ]'-for
95
\"`.....�✓✓- 98 e9 BU 91 92 93 94
I Ei
10�Js isl is JB-IOA Yfq slt• Sa Ss e1 Ph.1 60 61 67 fiJ e6 Ifi 66
J I \�. Csmmoa Arff
Ill.
4uufel an z ,
O2.71 -5+- 29 28 27 0. 26 25 24 23 J;�gW6 IS 14 13 13 11 10 9 e 7 6 5Mg
77 !e as J A sJ f7 si N /! 4 11 YO ]9 Je J7 JY 3a 7f 9Ptn.15 s15 0 rI6 iT 19 19 20 21 22 23 34AC. 3]^ u.0 n.ea 03
1 �,� ----- �,---- 1
I ' ,w -13 I7 E
uss1 14n. 14 2 10 9 9 7 6 5I.II AcJ 13 Ih -i. u.3f 0.21 a.fo usa u.fs u.m
L76 AC. I f.es us
-__ 66�1' la 07 a "6• , Pln. 16(s
wif `l' 7a I ea ss AC.)
aslu ,r.af J�4 , S 1 1.82 AC. as I
1 — Bf BfRRfi-----� ------------ ---------------------------rrTHV-------1—
I I 33
REVISED
11J0na A,
a/Oe199/C
Assessors flap J052g
I Ptn Tract No 11135, B.B. 155/40-42 Ph. N.E.1/4, Sec. 5 Book 1167 Page 32'"'
JUNE 1998 Tract No. 6551, M.B. 88/26-27 T-2S., R.4W. Son Bernardino County
INOT TO SCALE
I
I
I
I
I ASSESSORS PARCEL MAP EXMBI'
1-3
IPAGE 60F26
I
' Plan Mt. Vernon—De Berry City of Grand Terrace
Speck P ,
I
E. General Notes
' 1. General Plan and Zoning
The General Plan for the site is in the category of Medium Density Residential(MDR).
I Under the General Plan(MDR)will allow up to 12 units per acre for development. The
site is zoned medium density residential(R3). Under the Zoning R3 the minimum lot
size is 12,000 S.F., interior;lot widths are 60 feet, comer lot widths are 70 feet, lot depths
I eet, side yards are 5 and 10 feet, and rear yards
are 100 feet, front yard setbacks are 25 f r
are 20 feet.
IThe project does not fit the requirements of the Medium Density Residential (R3)Zone
or any city zone. Therefore, a Specific Plan is required which provides the zoning
requirements and standards specific to this site and the proposed project.
I
Lot 1 (a comer lot)has a width of 60 feet and a depth of 100 feet, with a 15 foot street
side yard.setback, and 5 foot side yard setback. Lots 2 through 12 have a width of 54.5
feet and a depth of 100 feet,with a 9.5 and 5 foot side yard setback. Lots 1 through 12
and 15 have a front yard variable setback between 15 feet and 20 feet and a rear yard
variable setback between 6 feet and 11 feet.
Lot 13 and 14 have a front yard setback of 20 feet and a rear setback of 19 and 18 feet,
respectively, and a 5 foot side yard setback and a 15 foot side street yard setback for Lot
I 14.
Lot 15 has an average width of 64.5 feet and a depth of 100 feet, with a 19.5 and 5.0 foot
I side yard setback.
Lot"A" which is immediately to the east of Lot 15 has an average width of 58 feet and a
I depth of 100 feet and will.be offered to be dedicated to the City of Grand Terrace for a
park.
IUnder the existing R3 zoning site development standards, the project meets the minimum
depth of 100 feet, and side yard setback of 5 feet, and corner lot setback of 15 feet.
IAny details or issues not specifically addressed by the Specific Plan regulations shall be
subject to the regulations of the governing agency. Definitions of terms shall also be as
defined in the codes of the City of Grand Terrace.
2. City Circulation Element
IAccess to the project is provided by De Berry Street which is classified as a 66-foot wide,
i
two-lane local collector on the General Plan's Circulation Element. There are curbs and
gutters along De Berry Street but no sidewalks. Mirado Avenue is a 60 foot wide local
I street with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. A dedicated 20 foot wide alley will provide
access into the garages located on the rear of the lot. The 20 foot wide alley was shown
Page 7 of 26
jGq
LLI
,.�,.j-C rY•�'k� '�� 'c "! e„' *.!�„»'� C �•i}.'•�"'IIf •Ih„I;r;!{,��I' h,,l i} ( +I �' y I �}�!I II I���'. di' `.M •).I I�I!!}'•11,!
Rr"I
;�` k� ,�ih,.%�r�."�? 5 (#�f (��i'.l''11i3i sin�r ,ii;l}!i.: �� !•„,., `,i..dr::t�['tr�.,; ,�II{ I�''1 'tj�� I '`ijll,
.�rrast •,w� t�.C.t ,a..r.v:; ry°,",�'�, I` �I'� ly.I:} -j�i�11• tl, I{t' j(+ 1 .i�ti�ti +•ilf t��.;, I{I ,;I, '.Ilr.l�l�""�, �j C�
C14
LL-
fil
00
Ld
.+ter. r,. , u,,,l„,.{I, I' t�fl{ftl ,11� m „r NI,I} rl,� { I u '91.01
1Y
LL1
.�,,�: �+�+,' .`•vr,,5�':'^-;S+i^a.*y e•S�eM ,�-',?`"�rii.++�:�Prt,.. � 4�A'ila'. II y I'} r;:�li�Iti �)i �
C)i
'ZN W�lt sw CC)
LU
LG
�I
— 'i
;I
d
General Plan Lanause Map
BARTON
City Of -�
Grand Terrace
CEV T U.�cl,gnnc�t:kpmmh-nt
LAPAI\ ST
U
U
� General Plan Land Use:
y� DE SOTO ST
x > OE SOTO ST ��
_ F � Low Density '
{{ Residential
Medium Density
DE BERRY sT Residential
tss_
* x Hill, ow Density
Me
Residential
\1AR MI. g` Hillside-Open Space
m
OffiCC CO111rIlCI'Clal _
+`4x'`�
�tAvls sT > :� a °. 43`;= General Commercial
Industrial
Floodplain-Industrial
C:1RD1 'CARD1NAL ST
r ( - ffl
Public
_� L
L±__-I -
GENERAL PLAN MAP EXHIBIT
1-4
'._`' PAGE 9 OF 26
+ t '
i
Zon in e Ma,9
f BARTON City
__ O 1+
b].11J J
r
Grand Terrace
;. t Ih u:upnara I}_p:�uncnl
E^ I CENPF' fl I \tarh]uu}
A R\IX ST
i r 1
z Zoning P�n Land Usc:
o o '
iW a ai z 1._._, RI-7?-Single FmnilyRcsidential
La DE SOTO l La—W
s >H-j DE Sulu STR1-10-LowDensity Single Family
R 120-V Loa-Density Single Family
RI I-Hillside Residential
> DE BERRY ST 0 112-Loa Medium Density Residential
-- - •- ��' '::='u�'.'- r_{ IL3 Medium Density Residential
BRSP-General Commercial
BRSP-Village Commercial
BRSP-Office Professional
AN Administrative Professional
_ LLL/ 'i Y ; ® C2-General Commercial
al.a is si ', ''-
F: 0 C-%-[-Commercial Manufacturing
but-Restricted Nianuracturing
b12-Industrial
C\RII i C•LRDINAL ST
PUB-Public Facilities
FP-Flood Plain Overlay District
L'� AG-.agricultural Overlay District
i J
LI
I I,
I
ZONING MAP EDIT
1-5
PAGE 10 OF 26
i
' S ECI c Plan Mt. Vernon—De Berry City of Grand Terrace
P fi
on Tract Map No. 6551, recorded as M.B. 88/26-27. Improvements to De Berry Street
U
and Mirado Avenue and the alley per the Grand Terrace Municipal Code Chapter 15.28
i Article I. i
j 1. Sawcut wings on curbs to maintain 10% maximum side slope for handicap ramps at
both corners on Mira&Avenue.
' I 2. Remove and replace all curb depressions on De Berry Street, all damaged curb and
gutter on all streets, cut,asphalt paving back 12" from removed gutters, and install
Ij match up paving.
A 6 foot wide non-recorded Southern California.Edison easement runs immediately
south of the alley. The garages served by the alley will be setback a variable distance
I between 6 feet to 11 feet from the edge of the alley to provide a variable backup
.i
fdistance between 26 feet to 31 feet for the garage parking of each unit.
The two lots facing Mirado Street will have the garages in front of the house. The
rear yards will back up!to Gage Canal.
3. Site Plan
IThe site plan shows the location of a total of 15 single-family homes and Lot"A"
kdedicated to the City of Grand Terrace for a park. There are 13 proposed homes located
on De Berry Street between Mt. Vernon Avenue and Mirado Avenue and 2 proposed
Ihomes at the northwest corner of De Berry Street and Mirado Avenue. The 13 proposed
j homes facing De Berry Street have a variable front yard setback between 15 feet to 20
' feet. There are three different floor plans with elevations showing which floor plan will
I ' be constructed on each lot. The proposed 20 foot wide easement for ingress and egress
will be granted by separate instrument and recorded in the San Bernardino County
Recorder's Office.
l
I
4. Floor Plans
If The site will have four(4), different plans for the proposed single family houses.
C
Plan 1 will contain 1,606 square feet of living area consisting of a living room, family
I ;E room, dining area,kitchen, 3 bedrooms, and 2 baths. Plan 1 is located on Lots 13 and 14
j on the west side of Mirado Avenue.
I �
Plan 2 will contain 1,704 square feet of living area. There will be a great room, country
kitchen,three bedrooms, a den or fourth bedroom, and two baths. The garage is attached
to the rear of the house with access provided by the 20 foot wide alley along the northerly
property line. Plan 2 is located on Lots 3, 5, 9, and 12.
' Plan 3 will contain 1,818 square feet of living area with a layout almost the same as"Plan
2", but with no den or fourth bedroom option. The garage.is also attached to the back of
j the house. Plan'3 will be-located on Lots 1, 4, 7, 8, and 15.
I
Page 11 of 26
II
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 16624
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
1Y 1 I
...... 1
TTI
'j"'�'mdT.'-�` @ _ • e,7�e�
m PAN
28,2
4
A
A mow/ I c-/' 4 i 1 � •� `�a�� I`�W is R Ili ' ' ""�u�d-A I Aw 111uu�a �� 1w'�� M`I � � e
` -i`�m•.njn DEZMRY
1
eac_ -•rs-
_ m.
ems WSSARD 1� WELSH ly:.ylry,n
I
' Terrace
Specific Plan - Mt. Vernon—De Berry City of Grand
Plan 4 will contain 1,733 square feet of living area. It will have a great room,.kitchen,
three bedrooms, and two baths. The garage-will also be located on the back of the house.
Plan 4 will be located on Lots 2, 6, and 10.
5. Elevations
Plan 1-The house will have a contemporary design with a strong Spanish influence
fincluding the use of arches`over the windows and file roofs. Plan 1 has the garage on the
Ii front.
Plan 2 and Plan 3 have a very similar appearance in terms of the window treatment,
Iarches, columns,file roofs,,and roofline. These plans have the garage on the back facing
the alley; therefore,there is no garage door on the front elevations.
I ,4
Plan 4 also has a strong Spanish influence, but the front has a different roof line and
different window treatment from the first three plans. The use of cross-gabled roof and
extensive use of window panes gives this plan a unique appearance.
I
Since the proposed concrete-sidewalks are next to the concrete curb and gutter,this will
give a variable distance from the back of the sidewalk to face of the houses between 21
II and 26 feet for a front yard. The back yards vary with an average 30 feet by 40 feet
f rectanglar yard. The design of the homes with the garage attached to the rear gives a
spacious feel to the front and back yards.
I
! 6. Conceptual Grading Plan -
I ; The site has a gentle slope.falling toward the Gage Canal on the west side of the site.
Small-concrete block retaining walls will be used between the property lines. A 5-foot
wooden fence will be attached to the concrete block retaining wall. The reason for the
I I small walls between the property lines is that we have to meet the proposed property line
elevations along De Berry Street and the existing elevations for the 20 foot wide alley.
I ! Also, city policies state that we can not have cross lot drainage. Therefore,to meet these
fconditions a small wall will have to be placed between the lots.
i
I ! Grading Standards: At the time of development within the Specific Plan area a complete
soils engineering report indicating.evidence of a safe and stable development for the
I improvements anticipated shall be submitted with the grading plans. The
I I recommendations by the geologists and soils engineer shall be incorporated into the
grading plan design prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
An N.P.D.E.S. Compliance Study and a hydrology Study has been submitted to the City
I
planning staff.
,I
Page-13 of 26
,I
PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE �3
/ -- - -- � �-�--•�_---'c-=}rv_�-�1c�. Tr��T/C rC 1�}r������L , 1 /
\. � �' ♦O// �I�' asv % i 4mA
�
/''�
lk
1 g 7� - a•, i i Q 9 o�i f f 9 � f. Q 1 � 1 ; Q r "_ :.Q / �.�,�'' *�� �'va
�Q1 ^ � \ if r;'_ jig, i � 9 �r�" � �'1 ' I°"" ii f Q i 1 � � 'Ba`� r I ��• 'r%,L} \`� yt�yr• C"�L::u �..
'1 y, � �/ f S i I r �r�rf' ` � �- "yi` 1/ ad rc - ' /A A�,• i � � .' 1 �i�r"a � T� v.�r.m vwerm M ,_}.�_,
1 �aw. ���oiryr en .L DF40W (S R`fi i
\ 1 ` �
nv y. �.ur/wem vm®rn �� e.n.r asR+urmmuv ea¢l9®
/"WEISH Y
I '
V
' Specific �y c Plan Mt. Vernon—De Be
P .� City of Grand Terrace
II Section 2—Master Plan
A. Conceptual Landscape Plan
LANDSCAPE SPECIFIC PLAN FOR TRACT#16624, GRAND TERRACE, CA.
I 1
STREET TREES:
• One street tree per lot or one tree per 60 lineal feet for the entire block. Twenty-
five street trees will be required.
i -
Ij • All street trees shall be clean, require little maintenance,be structurally strong,
insect and disease resistant, and require little pruning. Tree selection shall be
from the approved tree-list. They shall be a minimum 24" box size.
• Trees shall not be planted less than 25 feet from the beginning of the curb return
at intersections; 10 feet from streetlights; 10 feet from fire hydrants, and 10 feet
� from driveways.
• Trees with a limited root structure are recommended near sidewalks in order to
I I minimize sidewalk and curb breakage.
All trees to be guaranteed by contractor for sixty-days after occupancy.
i
LIST OF APPROVED STREET TREES FOR GRAND TERRACE:
j v Arecas#wm romanzoffianum Cocos Palm
I '` • Cupaniopsis anacardioides Carrotwood
• Eucalyptus sideroxylon rosea Red Iron Bark
I • Fraxinus uhdei "Tomlinson Tomlinson's Ash
I ® Ginkgo biloba fastigiated male) Maidenhair Tree
• Koelreuteria bipinnata Goldenrain Tree
• Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle
I • Liquidamber styraciflua American Sweetgum
• Magnolia grandiora cv- Southern Magnolia
I I ® Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine
• Pimis pinea (with pot) Italian Stone Pine
• Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistachio
I • Plantanus acerifolta, London Plane Tree
• Quercus ilex Holly Oak
• Quercus virginia Louisiana Live Oak
I { ® Trachycarpus fortunei (excelsa) Windmill Palm
• Washington filifera California Fan Palm
• Washington robusta Mexican Fan Palm
Page 15 of 26
I '
.I
Specific Plan 1lNlt Ve"'rnon—De Berry City of Grand Terrace
IMAINTENANCE:
I • All landscape is to be maintained by the individual homeowner per individual lot.
• Landscape areas should be maintained in an attractive condition at all times.
• are pruned per attached details; under no circumstances are trees to be
Trees a to be prun p ,
topped.
ILANDSCAPE SPECIFIC PLAN FOR TRACT#16624, GRAND TERRACE, CA.
SAFETY:
I '
• Landscaping shall provide.adequate sight distance for motorists and pedestrians
Ientering and exiting a site and shall not interfere with circulation effectiveness.
• Water overspray on hardscape areas.should be avoided and kept to a minimum.
I • Sprinkler heads on fixed risers are permitted adjacent to a structure.
PLANT MATERIALS:
• Front yard landscape designs soften arch elements, provide privacy between lots,
accent front entries and provide seasonal color and interest.
• Underplanting shall be low-profile shrubs, groundcover and grasses.
IShrubs and groundcovers should be selected based on their eventual size to avoid
Ian `overgrown' or`butchered' appearance.
• Trees should'.be planted a minimum of 5 feet from adjoining property fences and
walls.
• Deciduous trees from the approved tree list shall be used in south facing outdoor
areas around buildings to provide solar access during winter months, while
providing shade in summer months.
PLANTING REQUIREMENTS:.
• All front and side yards to be landscaped by developer and maintained by
homeowners. Backyards are to be left for homeowner's to landscape according to
their individual taste.
Page 16 of 26 ,
Specific Plan Mt. Vernon—De Berry City of Grand Terrace
I
• Minimum one tree per every 1,000 sq. ft. of total landscape area, exclusive of
required street trees. These trees shall provide a background to street tree
Iplantings.
f • Minimum one shrub (5 gal.)per every 25 sq. ft. of landscape area, exclusive of
turf areas.
I WATER CONSERVATION:
' • Turf areas should be limited to 50%of the total landscape area, planting the
remaining area with shrubs, groundcover and/or hardscape.
I • Select trees, shrubs and groundcovers that are drought,tolerant.
Shrub and groundcover areas shall be covered with mulch to improve water
I ,I holding capacity of the soil.
j All irrigation systems to be automatic and programmed to the time of least
evaporation..
I I
I
I `
I
i
�I
I
I , J
IPage 17 of 26
f '
I
9 1
2 4
I THE TREE IS TRIMMED T❑ ACHIEVE
A SYMMETRICAL BALANCE THAT
MAINTAINS THE TREE'S MAXIMUM
I 8 HEALTH AND AESTHETIC VALUE,
c� THE TRIMMING INCLUDES1
3 5 1, TRIMMING "DOUBLE LEADERS" WITH
I 7 A WEAK CROTCH, SELECT ONE
6 LEADER AND REMOVE THE ❑THER,
2, PRUNING "SL❑W GROWING HANGERS"
I ❑R "DR❑PPERS" BACK T❑ A PRIMARY
OR SEC❑NDARY BRANCH,
3, PRUNING THE "BRANCH STUBS" ❑N
THE TRUNK BACK T❑ THE BRANCH
I C❑LLAR,
4, PRUNING "WATER SP❑UTS" FLUSH T❑
THE BRANCH,
5. PRUNING ALL "BASE SUCKERS" FLUSH
TO THE BASE F❑R THE TREE.
I 6, PRUNING ALL "GIRDLING ROOTS" TO
PREVENT FURTHER DAMAGE,
7, REMOVING ALL "R❑OT SUCKERS" BY
I PRUNING,
8, PRUNING TREE SKIRT TO LEGAL
HEIGHT,
9, REM❑VING RUBBING, WEAK, DEAD ❑R
ICROSSING BRANCHES,
I ALS❑ REM❑VE ALL IVY, DEBRIS, MISTLETOE, AND
UNDESIRABLE SUCKER GR❑WTH, THIS C❑MPLETE
TRIMMING IS PERFORMED FROM THE GR❑UND ❑R
FR❑M AN AERIAL DEVICE, IT INV❑LVES MAKING
I POWER, OR HAND SAW CUTS AND ALL NECESSARY
POLE SAW ❑R PRUNING WORK, UNDER NO
CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL THE TREE BE POLLARDED
❑R 'T❑PPED'. ALL PRUNING SHALL BE SUPERVISED
I BY A CERTIFIED ARB❑RIST, PRUNING SHALL CONF❑RM
T❑ NATI❑NAL ARBORIST ASS❑CIATION STANDARDS.
I
TREE PRUNING
IPAGE 18 OF 26
I entative .1 ract # G 624
IANDSCAPE PLlN
N.W CORNER MT VERNON AVE. AND DE BERRY STREET
mally Kwgm
GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA 1 s148882'andalwAhl (� — I 4.'' ,..% I ...
61404 Urfact,CA 92113 s
flag)020-0011
i!w
LD
'01
C
DE BERG
cy)
U"1, 24 L fr" L.'
DONrr
f. t 3:�lv S,
I o rand Terrace
Speck Plan Mt. Vernon—De Berry City f G
' B. Infrastructure
I 1. Water System- The Riverside Highland Water Company will provide water service to
the development. A proposed 6'water main will be located in the alley and will serve
Lots 1 through Lot 15. An existing 6"water main in Mirado Avenue will serve Lots 13
Iand 14. Locations of proposed water meters are shown on the tentative tract map.
2. Sewer System- The wastewater is collected by the City of Grand Terrace collection
Isystem, but treated at the City of Colton plant.
3. Electrical power will be provided by the Southern California Edison Company based
Iupon a user fee, a 6 foot non-recorded easement is located south of the 20 foot alley, four
(4)power poles are located in this 6 foot easement.
I4. Solid waste disposal will be provided by USA Waste Disposal.
5. Natural gas service will be provided by the Southern California Gas Company with
Imonthly user fees applied.
6. Storm drain.system-An existing 48"R.C.P. storm drain system is located in De Berry
IStreet and collects the onsite runoff for the site.
I _
I
I
I
I
I
Page 20 of 26
I
I
i
I
I
I
I ,
I
20' ALLEY 6'
ON-REGORDED
EASEMENT
i
I4' ll' .5'
EX15T. A.G. FAVErENT 3' EX15T. GONG. 5WA4E
I I
t ROF05ED 6" WATER MAIN- -OO
I
FROF05ED 8" 5ENER MAIN- -o
Ii
I
I '
I �
I �
UT'II,= SERVICES Exl. TT
1-9
PAGE 21 OF 26
' Specific Plan Mt. Vernon-De Berry City of Grand Terrace
ISection 3-Implementation
IA Development Standards
a. Lot Area-Each of the following Lots 1 through 15 will have the said amount of
Isquare footage for each lot and the corresponding house plan type and the house
plan square footage:
Lot Square Footage of House Plan Type House Plan Square Footage
` Each Lot
1 5,914 Plan 3-R 1,818
I2 5,450 Plan 4-R 1,733
3 5,450 Plan 2-R 1,704
I 4 5,000 Plan 3-R 1,818
5 5,000 Plan 2-R 1,704
6 5,000 Plan 4-R 1,733
I 7 5,000 Plan 3 1,818
8 5,000 Plan 3 . 1,818
9 5,000 Plan 2 1,704
I10 5,000 Plan 4-R 1,733
11 5,000 Plan 3 R 1,818
12 5,450 Plan 2-R 1,704
13 4,460 Plan 1-R 1,606
U 14 5,293 Plan 1 1,606
15 6,407 Plan 3 1,818
Lot LWY5,600 Dedicated.to the City N/A
for use as a park
Average lot.size= 5,468 S.F.
I
Page 22 of 26
i
Specific Plan Mt. Vernon—De Berry City of Grand Terrace
Ib. Lot Dimensions Each of the following Lots 1 through 15 and Lot"A" will have
the said amount of width and depth:
Lot Width Depth
1 607 100'
' ! 2 54.5' 100'
3 54.5' 100'
4 54.5' 1007
I 5 54.5' 100'
6 54.5' 1007
7 54.5' 100'
I E 8 54.5' 100'
9 54.5' 100'
I 10 54.57 100'
11 54.5' 100'
12 54.5' 100'
I13 45' 99'
14 55' 97'
j 15 64.5' 100'
ILot"A" 58' 100'
r
c. Building Height=No building or structure shall exceed two and one-half(2 '/z)
I stories or thirty-five(35)feet in height.
I I Building Setbacks
LOT FRONT B.S.L. REAAR B.S.L. SIDE YARD B.S.L.
1 20 6 15/5
I 2 15 11 9.5/5
3 17 9 9.5/5
4 19 7 9.5 /5
I5 17 9 9.5 /5
j 6' 15 11 9.5 /5
7 17 9 9.5 /5
I i 8 19 7 9.5 /5
9 17 9 9.5 /5
10 15 11 9.5 /5
I11 19 7 9.5 /5
12 17 9 9.5/5
13 20 19 515
I 14 20 18 15 /5
4 15 16 10 19.5 /5
f �
I
i
Page 23 of 26
ICity o Grand Terrace
Speck Plan Mt. VernonYernon—De Berry ty f
I
d. Driveways
' 1) Concrete driveway approaches for Lots 1 through 12 will be served from the
twenty (20)foot wide alley.
' 2 Concrete driveway approach for Lot 15 will be served from the twenty(20)
foot wide alley.
I3 Concrete driveways approaches for Lots 13 and 14 will be served from
Mirado Avenue.
I
e. Fences and Walls
IFences and walls shall not exceed six(6) feet in height shall be permitted along
the front,rear and side property lines. Six(6) feet in height wrought iron gates
shall be placed along the frontyard setback along De Berry Street. The property
Iline at the north along the alley and the sideyard setback will be served by a five
(5)foot high wooden fence.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 24 of 26
i
I
I
I
I � �
5' H16H WOODEN
I FENCE (TYFICAL)
x
5` 5'
I
x
2-&"x8"x16" CONCRETE
' BLOCKS (TYPICAL)
ISIDE YARD WALL FENCE DETAIL BETWEEN LOTS I THROUGH LOT 15
I
I � .
i
I i �
I �
5, 5,
I � -
6' HIGH WROUGHT IRON
I _ FENCE (TYPICAL)
I
I I
i
I &'-H16H WROUGHT IRON FENCE FA6IN6
DE BERRY STREET AND MIRAOO AVENUE
I
I FENCIlVG & WALLS EXC L IT
1-10
IPAGE 25 OF 26
I
I
I.
I•
I
I y-
5'-HIGH 1N0051EN FENCE (TYPICAL)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I F`ENC'1NG & WALLS E,U:iBIT
1-l0A
IPAGE 26 OF 26
I
I
jY
f
i
I
I
i
f
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Document Type: Negative Declaration (Mitigated)
Date: Jurie 30, 2005
Project.Title: SP-04-02, TTM-04-01, SA-04=02, SA--04-03, SA-04-04, SA-04-05, SA-04-06
and E-04-01
Project Location: 2 acres located on the north side of De Berry Street between the Gage Canal
on the west and Mt. Vernon on the east. Property measures-approximately
950.feet in length with a depth of 100 feet.
I ,
■ Description of Project: The proposed consists of a total of 16 lots, 15 will be developed with
single family detached type units on individual lots ranging in size from about 4,500 square feet to
about 6,400 square feet. The 161h lot will be left undeveloped as open space or a mini-park. The
i Specific Plan has been submited along with the Tentative Tract Map detailing lot dimensions,
setbacks, house plan types,floor area, square footages, proposed landscaping,fences, block
j walls,walls and infrastructure. The Site and Architectural;Review application have been filed for
{ each housing product, i.e., each single family floor plan.
i Project Proponent: Massaro&Welsh, Civil Engineers
i
F Lead Agency: Community Development Department, City of Grand Terrace
I
Contact Person: Gary L. Koontz, Community Development Director
(909)430-2247
f '
Public Review Period: Began:Thursday, June 30, 2005 Ended: November 10, 2005
1
Public Hearings/Meetings:; Plan ning'Commission -Thursday, Sept. 15, 2005 at 7:00 P.M.
i City Council -Thursday, October 13, 2005 at 6:00 P.M. and
City Council -Thursday, November 10, 2005 at 6:00 P.M.
Environmental Finding:
Based on an Initial Study, attached hereto, prepared to evaluate the potential
environmental impacts of approving SP-04-02, TTM-04-01, SA-04-02, SA-04-03,SA-
I 04-04, SA-04-05 and E-04-01, 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.
i
Signature:
Gary L. Koontz, Community Development Director
f �
EXHIBIT B
I I
c:\MyFiles\JOHN\Karger\Karger2-5-05\negativedeclarationSP-04-=021
I
City of Grand Terrace
Community Development Department
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Specific Plan No. 04-02, Site and Architectural Review Case
No.'s 04-02,04-03,04-04,04-05,04-06,Tentative Tract No.04-
01 and Environmental Review Case No.04-01
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Grand Terrace
Community Development Department
22795 Barton Road
Grand Terrace,CA 92313
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Gary L. Koontz, Community Development Director or John
Lampe,Associate Planner (909)430-2247
4. Project Location: Approximately 2 acre vacant area located generally on the north
side of De Berry Street between the Gage Canal right-of-way on
the west and Mt.Vernon Avenue on the east. The property in
question is a long linear area with an average depth of 100 feet
and an overall length of about 950 feet.
5. Project Sponsor's Name Massaro&Welsh,Civil Engineers
6. General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential
i 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 proposed consists of a total of 16 lots, 15 will be developed with single family detached type units on
individual lots ranging in size from about 4,500 square feet to about 6,400 square feet. The 16`h lot will be left
undeveloped as open space or mini-park. The Specific Plan(SP-04-02)has been submitted along with the
Tentative Tract Map (TTM-04-01) detailing lot dimensions, setbacks, house plan types, floor area, square
footages, proposed landscaping, fences, block walls, walls and infrastructure. The Site and Architectural
Review applications have been filed for each housing product,i.e.,each single family floor plan.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:(Briefly describe the project's surroundings.)
North: Mixture of single family homes, duplexes and four-plexes. Also a townhouse condominium
project(Cape Terrace). Zoned R3
East: Single family homes and the Terrace Middle School. Zoned R1-7.2 and PUB
South: The Crest Apartments.Zoned R3
West: The Gage Canal and farther to the west a recently approved 55 unit townhouse condominium
project on 4.8 acres and single family residential. Zoned R3 and R1-7.2
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement)
Community Development Department 1 Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
i
i
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.
? Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one impact that
f is a"Potentially Significant Impact"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
■Land Use and Planning ElTransportation/Circulation El Public Services
❑ Population and Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities and Services Systems
i Geological Problems ❑Energy and Mineral Resources ❑Aesthetics
❑Water ❑Hazards 0-Cultural Resources
■Air Quality ; ■Noise Cl Recreation
El Findings of Significance
Determination:
On the basis of this initial evaluation(To-be completed by the Lead Agency):
i
❑ 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.
j ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effects)on the environment,but at least-one effect
1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document to applicable legal standards,and 2)has been addressed
by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a
"potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated.," An.ENVIRONMENTAL'
IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I ❑ 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
Eman earlier EIR pursuant to;applicable standards and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
j EIR,including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
C ' -
Signature Date
Gary L. Koontz Community Development Director
Printed Name Title
i
Evaluation of Environmental;Impacts:
Community Development Department 2 Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
f'' I '
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
r
f -
I
C j
j sues(and Support Information Source's): Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant impact
I
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
i
Incorporated
I
. Land Use and Planning. Would the proposal:
I 1 '
I
i r ,
a) Conflict with general plan 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
j Code)
Affect agricultural resources or operations(e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
impacts to soils or farmlands,nor 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. )
b 'ef explanation to answer I:
The proposed is inconsistent with 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 setbacks and lot sizes 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.
I
I
i
I
i
I
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 less than that allowed by the existing R3
Zone.)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or ❑ ❑ ❑
indirectly(e.g. through projects iri 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 vacant.)
-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
-� project is only about 60%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 small size. In
addition,the property is vacant and will not displace any existing housing,affordable or otherwise.
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 MEA/EIR ❑ ❑ ❑ U
II-1)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (GP MEA/EIR II-1) ❑ ❑ ❑
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (GP ❑ ❑ ❑
MEA/EIR II-20)
g) Subsidence of the land? (GP MEA/EIR II-1, Append ❑ ❑ ❑
B)
h) Expansive soil? (GP MEA/EIR II-1, Append B-4) ❑ ❑ ❑
I) Unique geologic or physical features? (GP MEA/EIR ❑ ❑ ❑
II-1)
Community Development Department 5 Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
I I
I
Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
I Incorporated
I
brief explanation to answer III:
No active or potentially active fault traces cross the site. The only Down 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,a soils report will be required before the issuance of a grading permit or building permits for
i
this project for the construction of 15 residences.
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.
. Water. Would the proposal result in:
G
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (GP MEA/EIR Il-1 ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Append B)
i b) Expose to people or property to water related hazards ❑ ❑ ❑
such as flooding? (GP MEA/EIR 11-1)
c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of ❑ ❑ ❑
surface water quality(e.g., temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (GP MEA/EIR II-1)
) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water ❑ ❑ ❑
body? (GP MEA/EIR Il-1)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water ❑ ❑ ❑
movements? ()
Changes in the quality of ground waters, either through ❑ ❑ ❑ _
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through
substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability?
(GP MEA/EIR H-1)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (GP ❑ ❑ ❑
i` MEA/EIR H-1)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (GP MEA/EIR II-1, ❑ ❑
f and 97 Regional WCA Report)
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑
otherwise available for public water supplies? (GP
MEA/EIR H-1)
I
G
I
CommunityDevelopment p Department 6 Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
' I
4
Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No.
Significant Significant Significant impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
A brief explanation to answer 1V:
The proposed project is to construct 15 single family homes. There will be some increase in impermeable surface area;
however,there is a 42"r.c.p.along De Berry which will handle the slight increase from this project.The submitted hydrology
(Preliminary Hydrology Report for Tract No.16624 by Paul Welsh,May 20,2005)has indicated the amount 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
submitted"Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan"prepared by Massaro&Welsh,January 6,2005). 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/EIR II-14, and AQW)
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Jany 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 15 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
I
I
f
Isles(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
.I Transportation/Circulation. Would the proposal result
) Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ❑ ❑ ❑
(Trans. Engineering and Planning Consultant)
). Hazards to safety from,design features (e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑
isharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
f incompatible uses? ( )-
j ) Inadequate emergency access or access to ❑ ❑ ❑
f nearby uses? ( )
C ) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ❑ ❑ ❑
j ) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or ❑ ❑ ❑
i
bicyclists? (TCM Ordinance 147)
Conflicts with adopted'policies supporting ❑ ❑ ❑
alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (TCM Ordinance 147)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? O ❑ ❑ ❑
I
Bri of 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
j adjacent streets and intersections."
I I -
I
i
i
i
i
I
I
I
{4
I '
I
' ; 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
MEA/EIR II-20,Append C)
b) Locally designated species (e.g.,heritage
trees)? (GP NIEA/EIR H-20) ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (GP ❑ ❑ ❑
MEA/EIR II-20)
d) Wetland habitat(e.g., marsh, riparian, and
vernal pool)? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
(GP MEA/EIR H-20) ❑ ❑ ❑
Brief explanation to answer VII:
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 II-19, and Append B)
Community Development Department 9 Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
i
i
Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Brief explanation to answer VIII:,
No mineral resources have been identified in the City. Therefore the development of the proposed 15 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 MEVEIR 11-7)
b) Possible interference with ❑ ❑ ❑
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? (GT
f Emergency Plan, and GP N1EA/EIR
I II-13)
i c) The creation of any health hazard or ❑ ❑ ❑
potential health hazard? (GP
k
MEABIR I1-1)
I
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 11-6)
I •
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.
f
I '
i
I i
Community Development D artment 10
t � Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
l
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?
r -
(City Noise Element) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
�r 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 15 new homes on the site which is presently vacant;
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
recommendations of the noise study required for this project which include conforming to the requirement of the Building
Code for interior noise insulation.
Finding:Potential impact reduced to a level of insignificance with mitigation measures. The recommendations of the
submitted noise study("Acoustical Evaluation for Tract No. 16624,Wieland Associates,Inc.,May 2005)will be
conditioned for this project along with conforming to the requirements of the Building Code for interior noise insulation if
required.
M. 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 X1.
This proposed project for 15 single family homes is small in size. As for any residential project there will be some effect
on public services but because of the 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
� I -
1 I
t
; I
i
I
t
i
t "
I
Issues(and Support Information Source's): Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant impact
Impact Unless Impact:
j Mitigation
f Incorporated
MI. Utilities and Services{Systems. Would the
proposal result in a need'for new systems or
i supplies, or substantial alternations to the following
utilities:
I
a) Power or natural gas? (GP
MEA/EIR II-32, II-33) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
b) Communications systems? (GP
MEA/EIR-II-33) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
c) Local or regional water treatment or
-distribution facilities? (GP ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
MEA/EIR.II-30)
' d) Sewer or septic tanks? (GP
j MEA/EIRIII-30) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
e) Storm water drainage? (GP
i
MEA/EIR II-33) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
f) Solid waste disposal? (GP
MEA/EIR II-32) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ r
g) Local or regional water supplies? -
(GP MEA/EIR II-30) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
-Brief explanation of answer JUI.
This proposed project for 15 single family homes is 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
utility has identified any problems in being unable to service this project.
XIII. Aesthetics. Would the;proposal:
I
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
highway? (GP MEA/EIR II-22)
b) Have a demonstrable negative ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
aesthetic effect? (Proposed site plan
and project elevations ) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
c) _ Create light�or glare?
Brief explanation to answer)III.
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 requirement for a landscaping plan.
I
I
Community Development Department 12 Initial Study and Environmental
a ! Analysis
i
I
Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
XIV. Cultural Resources. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
(GP MEA/EIR H-20) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
(GP MEA/EIR II-20) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
c) Affect historical resources? (GP
MMA/EIR H-22) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
d) Have the potential to cause a
physical change which would affect ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
unique ethnic cultural values? (GP
NIEA/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. The site was probably rough graded a number of years ago when the surrounding area was
developed.
XV. Recreation. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for
neighborhood or regional parks or ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
other recreational facilities? (GP
MEA/EIR II-21)
b) Affect existing recreational
opportunities? (GP MEA/EIR 11-21) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Brief explanation to answer XV.
As the project is residential,there will be some increase in the demand for and affect on recreational resources;however,
as only 15 units are involved such effects will be less than significant. In addition,the developer is offering the lot next to
the Mt.Vernon right-of-way as a vest-pocket park to the City.
Community Development Department 13 Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
I 1 '
Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant impact
{ Impact Unless Impact
I
Mitigation
I
Incorporated
j XVI. Mandatory finding's of significance.
j
a) Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the ❑ ❑ ❑ ti
environment, substantially reduce
i
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
i community,reduce the number or
{ restrict the range of rare or
f endangered plant or animal,
eliminate,important examples of the
major periods of California history
i or prehistory?
E 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
i 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
j projects.)
d) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial ❑ ❑ ❑
adverse effect on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
I -
I '
i
CommunityDevelopment Department 14 Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
Issues(and Support Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Brief explanation to answers XVI.
No Impact.The proposed project is relatively small with only 15 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 were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation
measured based on the earlier analysis.
■ Not Applicable
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are"Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,"describe the mitigation measured which were incorporated or refined
from the earlier document and the extent they address site specific conditions for the
project.
■ Not Applicable
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:\MyFilesUOBNIKarger\Karger2-5-05\E-04-01
Community Development Department 15 Initial Study and Environmental
Analysis
i
I
VFaa�
I , , Community and Economic Development
(ALHORNIA Department
I
2795 Barton Road
rand Terrace
California 92313-5295
( 09) 824-6621
j TO: Planning Commission Members
i
j FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: Thursday, September 15, 2005
SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR SP-04-02, SA-04-02, SA-
04-03, SA-04-04, SA-04-05, TTM-04-01 AND E-04-01
APPLICANT: Massaro and Welsh, Civil Engineers
j LOCATION: Approximately 2 acre vacant area consisting of two parcels located
on the north side of De Berry Street between the Gage Canal on the -,
west and Mt. Vernon on the east.
RECOMMENDATION: Re-open the public hearing and receive the staff report and any
testimony, close the hearing and approve the Resolution calling for
the Approval of SA-04-02, SA-04-03, SA-04-04 and SA-04-05 and
Recommend to the City Council the Resolution for Approval of
TTM-04-01 (Tentative Tract No. 16624) and the Adoption of the
Ordinance for SP-04-02
i
BACKGROUND:
This is the continued public hearing for SP-04-02,SA-04-02,SA-04-03,SA-04-04,SA-04-05,TTM-
04-01 an E-04-01 to construct a single family residential project on a two(2)acre site located on the
north side of De Berry Street between the Gage Canal on the west and Mt. Vernon on the east.
(Please see Attachment 1, the aerial photo of the subject site.)
This project was filed on February 5, 2004 and has been heard on four prior occasions before the
Planning Commission. It was first heard on August 19,2004, secondly on January 201'of this year,
thirdly on May 18"' of this year and fourth (and last) on July 21st. During this period the project
i underwent several revisions including the deletion of an 4-unit apartment building on the corner of
ATTACHMENT A NT .
Mt. Vernon and De Berry, a widening of the side yards and varying of the front yard setbacks.
In early June, Staff was informed that the son of the developer had taken over the project and that
he intended to modify the tentative map to add an additional single family lot and reduce the size of
a proposed open space lot next to Mt. Vernon.
On June 22"d Staff received a second revised tentative tract map showing 15 single family residential
lots and with a 5,600 square foot open space area to be dedicated as a park on the corner of De Berry
and Mt. Vernon. A revised Specific Plan showing these latest'changes was received by Staff on
n August 15, 2005.
At the last meeting on this project on July 21s`,members of the Commission expressed an opinion
that the son of the developer was going in the right direction and that "the proposal looked a lot
better than what was originally presented." The Commission members also expressed a wish to see
the front yard setbacks varied more along with the street elevations of the proposed homes. (Please
see Attachment 2, the minutes of the July 2 1"meeting on this project.)
On August 15`'', Staff received a revised tentative tract incorporating those changes reviewed by the
Planning Commission at the July 21"meeting along with modified front yard setbacks ranging from
15 feet to 20 feet along De Berry. On August 15`'we also received revised front elevations and
revised floor plans for Plans 1, 2 ,3 and 4.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Tentative Tract Map and Site Plan:
The latest revised tentative tract map shows 15 single family lots ranging in size from 4,460 square
feet for the smallest to 6,407 square feet for the largest as shown on Exhibit 1. The end lot next to
Mt.Vernon will be dedicated to the City as a vest-pocket park as noted above. Two of the lots will
front on Mirado Avenue; the rest will front on De Berry. Access to garages for the residences
fronting on De Berry will be provided by a 20 foot wide alley running along the northerly property
line of the site. The garages will lie to the rear of the house. The two house fronting on Mirado,
however,will have their garages on the front of the house. Most of the residential lots will be 54.5
feet in width; however, Lot 13 fronting on Mirado will be 45 feet wide and the two lots next to the
proposed park site will each be 59.5 feet in width. The average lot depth will be 100 feet. (A 8 V?
x I V reduction of this latest revised tract map is included as Attachment 3.)
The tentative map also shows the foot prints of the proposed residential structures and what floor
plans will be located on what lot. The front yard of each unit will vary from 20 feet to 15 feet; the
average front yard will be 17 feet. The interior lots fronting on De Berry will each have side yards
of 9.5 feet on the garage side and 5 feet for the other side of the lot with the exception of the corner
lots,the 45 foot wide lot on Mirado and the end lot(Lot 15)next.to the future park which will have
a side yard of 19.5 feet. The garage of this latter lot will not front directly onto the alley but will
have a separate driveway coming off the driveway. The County Fire Department indicated that there
would be no problem with the proposed access to Lot 15 and the Fire Department recommended
i
several items which have been incorporated into the conditions of approval for the tentative map.
We also asked for input from the firm of"Waste Management" about trash truck access. "Waste
Management"indicated that there would be no problem providing trash service for the new homes.
In addition, a breakdown of the individual lot sizes, on what plans will be located on which lots and
of the house plan square footages is shown in the upper right corner of the tract map/site plan.
I
This latest proposed map does follow the recommendations of the City Manager in his letter dated
September 5,2003 where he outlined a potential"compromise"position on this project. In his letter,
the City Manager indicated that Staff would like to see the side yards of the non-garage site of the
single family lots increased from 5 feet to 10 feet to provide more usable open space;the elimination
of the two-story 4-plex on the corner because of access issues; and to provide a"green belt area for
a small park where the 4-plex had been proposed." (Please see Attachment 4 for a copy of the City
Manager's letter.)
Elevations and Floor Plans:
On August 15th, the Son of the Developer also submitted new elevations and floor plans for four
"Plans"for the proposal. "Plan 1"will have the garages on the front and will be utilized for the two
! lots west of Mirado. The other plans, "Plan 2," "Plan 3" and "Plan 4" will be built on those lots
fronting on De Berry. The plans will be mainly 3 bedroom with 2 baths, country kitchens, great
rooms and attached garages. One of the plans, "Plan 3" will have optional fourth bedroom or den.
The drawings showing the elevations and floor plans are labeled Exhibits 2, 3, 4 and 5.
The elevations will reflect a strong"Spanish"influence with stucco exterior,tile roofs,architectural '
embellishments around windows and doors and earth tone colors. Each floor plan will have 2 to 3
front elevations to add variety to the appearance of the homes from the street. (8 %"x 11"reduction
of the floor plans and elevations are included as Attachment 5, Attachment 6, Attachment 7 and
Attachment 8.)
j A large"Color and Materials"board has been submitted and will be exhibited at the public hearing
for the Commission's review and information.
Preliminary Landsca iinng Plan:
A preliminary landscaping plan has been submitted for the proposed project showing landscaping
for the front yard and the parkway as shown on Exhibit 6. Most of the proposed trees are on the
City's approved list of street trees. Even though the latest preliminary landscaping plan does not
show the variable front yard setback,the final installed landscaping will have to be substantially the
same as shown on the preliminary landscaping plan. (A 8 %"x 11"reduction of the landscaping plan
is included as Attachment 9.)
Conceptual Grading:
The conceptual grading plan has been included as Exhibit 7. The site has a gently slope with a"fall"
towards the Gage Canal. A detailed grading plan and soils report will be required to be submitted
i
i
during"plan check"before a grading permit is issued for this project. The latest revised grading plan
shows additional information requested by earlier reviews. (Please see Attachment 10 for a 8 %2"x
11" reduction of the grading plan.)
Specific Plan Document:
A revised Specific Plan document was submitted for this project on August 15`h and labeled Exhibit
A. Since the City's Zoning Code does not have a zoning classification that would accommodate the
proposed development, it was necessary to file for a specific plan. A specific plan may be used as
one of the methods of implementing the City's General Plan for a specific area. Typically,it is used
to provide land use regulation where the jurisdictions zoning code does not have the standards to
permit the development of a particular project. Also, a specific plan is applied to a "specific"
geographic area within the local jurisdiction. Specific plans are often employed, in addition, to
provide for both flexibility for innovative project and for a more detailed review and mechanism to
control the development.
As stated above, the City's Zoning Code does not contain an existing zoning classification that
would accommodate the applicant's project. Therefore,the applicant has filed SP-04-02 to permit
the proposed project to go forward with lot sizes and setbacks not conforming to current zoning
standards. The City does not have a residential zone that would permit lots as small as 4,460 square
feet as proposed by this project or a typical lot size of 5,000 square feet.
This latest revision of the proposed Specific Plan No. 04-02 does meet the requirements of Section
65450 through 65457 of the Government Code. As such the revised and updated 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 its recommendation to the City Council. The Ordinance is
included in this Staff report as one of the attachments.
REVIEWING AGENCY COMMENTS:
The following comments were made by various agencies in reviewing this project:
The Riverside Highland Water Company
Please refer to the letter to staff from the Riverside Highland Water Company dated February 20,
2004. (Attachment 11)
Fire Department,Hazardous Materials Division:
Please refer to the letter to staff from the County Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division,
dated February 24, 2004. (Attachment 12)
The Gage Canal Company.
Please refer to the letter from the Gage Canal Company dated March 2, 2004. (Attachment 13)
I I
1
l I
The City Traffic Engineer:
f
1
Pleaser refer to the comments made by the City Traffic Engineer in his three memorandums on this
project dated March 3,2004,;July 7, 2005 and August 11, 2005. (Attachment 14, 15 and 16)
I
{
Building and Safety/Public Works:
Please refer to the comments made by the Director of Building and Safety/Public Works in his
i memorandum dated August 8, 2005. (Attachment 17) �
I
i Department of Public Health:!;
t Please see the letter for the Department of Public Health-Environmental Health Services dated June
24, 2005 regarding this project. (Attachment 18)
County of San Bernardino Fire Department. Communi , Safety Division:
f
Please see the comments made by the County Fire Department in its letter dated March 15, 2004
(Attachment 19) and it had written notes dated July 15, 2005 (Attachment 20).
I
l The Gas Company:
I
Please refer to the letter from the Gas Company on this project dated June 28,2005(Attachment 21).
i
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
The project proponent will be required to pay traffic signal improvements 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
r fee. These fees are to be paid prior to the issuance of building permits.
I
ENVIRONMENTAL:
i
4 With the information submitted by the'applicant including a hydrology study and a"SWPPP"plan,
Staff was able to complete the initial Study and a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for this
project. These latter two documents were made available for a 21 day public review starting on
Thursday,June 30,20.05. Staff does not believe that the minor changes in the design of this project
would warrant revising this original environmental assessment for this project. (Please see Exhibit
r B—the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study for this project.)
I
l
FINDINGS:
i Section 18.63.060 of the Zoning Code requires that specific findings be made by the Planning
I
f
Commission in approving a site and architectural review application. These findings are:
1. The proposed project is consistent with the intent of the Grand Terrace Municipal
Code and the General Plan.
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 with 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.
3. The architectural design of structures, their materials, and colors are visually
harmonious with surrounding development and natural landforms;are functional for
the proposed project; and are consistent with the Grand Terrace Municipal Code.
4. The plan for landscaping and open spaces provides a functional and visually pleasing
setting for the structures on this site and is harmonious s with the natural landscape
of the area and hereby developments.
5. There is no indiscriminate clearing of 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 are preserved.
6. The design and locations of all signs associated with this project are consistent with
the scale and character of the building 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.
In addition, the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that specific findings be made prior to the
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 orwildlife
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
f regulations of any public agency having jurisdiction by law.
Findings for the Specific Plan are based on Section 18.90.040 of the Zoning Code for zoning
amendments. These findings have been incorporated into the proposed Ordinance for the Specific
Plan,Attachment 24.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Upon approval by the Planning Commission,the proposed project will be subject to the Conditions
of Approval for the four Site;and Architectural Reviews (Attachment 22)and the Tentative Tract
Map(Attachment 23).
1 ;
RECOMMENDATION:
Staffrecommends that the Planning Commission approve the Resolution ofApproval for SA-04-02,
SA-04-03, SA-04-04 and SA-04-05 (Attachment 22) and recommend for approval to the City
Council the Resolution of Approval for TTM-04-01 (Tentative Tract Map No. 16624)(Attachment
23) and the Ordinance Adopting the Specific Plan, SP-04-02 (Attachment,24).
k
Respectfully submitted, _
Z:
Lampe,Associate Planner Gary L.1600ntz, Cqw6unity Development Director
GLK:JL jl ;
f
Exhibits: Exhibit 1 Tentative Tract Map No. 16624 and Site Plan
Exhibit 2 Plan 1 Elevations and floor plan
! Exhibit 3 Plan 2 Elevations and floor plan
Exhibit 4 Plan 3 Elevations and floor plan
Exhibit 5 Plan 4 Elevations and floor plan
Exhibit 6 Preliminary Landscaping Plan
Exhibit 7 Conceptual Grading Plan
Exhibit A Specific Plan No. 04-02 Document
Exhibit B Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study
j Attachments6OAttachment 1 Aerial photograph of site and surrounding area
Attachment 2 Minutes of the July 21', last, meeting of Planning Commission
Attachment 3 8 %2"x 11" reduction of tentative tract map and site plan
Attachment 4 Letter from the City Manager dated Sept. 5`h,2003
i 6oAttachment 5 &%2 "x 11"reduction of Plan 1 elevations and floor plan
1/4ttachment 6 8 %2 "x 11"reduction of Plan 2 elevations and floor plan
✓Rttachment 7 & %2 "x 11"reduction of Plan 3 elevations and floor plan
✓attachment 8 8 %2 "x 11"reduction of Plan 4 elevations and floor plan
i
Attachment 9 8 % "x 11" reduction of preliminary landscaping plan
Attachment 10 8 % "x 11" reduction of preliminary grading plan
Attachment 11 Letter from the Riverside Highland Water Company 2/20/04
Attachment 12 Letter from County Fire- Haz Met dated 2/24/04
Attachment 13 Letter from the Gage Canal Company dated 3/2/04
Attachment 14 Memorandum from the City Traffic Engineer 3/3/04
Attachment 15 Memorandum from the City Traffic Engineer 7/7/05
Attachment 16 Memorandum from the City Traffic Engineer 8/11/05
Attachment 17 Memorandum from Director of Building and Safety 8/08/05
Attachment 18 Letter from Environmental Health Services 6/24/05
- ' Attachment 19 Letter from the County Fire- Community Services 3/15/04
Attachment 20 Notes from County Fire- Community Serices dated 7/15/05
Attachment 21 Letter from the Gas Company dated 6/28/05
Attachment 22 Resolution ofApproval for SA-04-02,SA-04-03,SA-04-04&SA-04-
05
Attachment 23 Resolution for Approval for TTM-04-01 (TTM 16624)
Attachment 24 Ordinance Adopting Specific Plan No. 04-02
c:\MyFilesUOHN\Kargerlkarger2-5-04\SP-04-02comm.rpt5
.i',t
.4z-V�- mt-T'N'T,
71 �aa
OAT M
V,tm.
3V
Rim
�p �', :�4S'�.1;:L" _ .I• a'r:^- li +Sy:kf.,'i!` _ :'�- f�'t,n{ n '��� `� ' :t � ��r�•,
FFMCWTVVII, ell
W.I
-. ILW
V.f..,11-� ti_�.Gwt.•y.,. ���Y.:.e:�,,um..s. S .""i.L''.,1:':4.''"�.. E�'r fr•. ...,�' � J �:La•.. �t��i
0.1v
z M ME 5 M. ,
-ITRI,MI.
^� "'i?' _ ¢it.?-'i +'-.f"• •'+ •p '�'a",^3.' '.i i::;':i.t*,¢"';' ,�,Cvtxl'2i�.' 114�:`'..�f1 ""� i ?t'aan .,' "^,5��i""9's �' �1 �i rti'`�11 d`��,�'us.,
MIMI
gg,,
"Al
ISO
.gpP7
MR, Man: a
MIR MUR-
PWLEIIERII.. 3%,
Z. 5P-U4-UZ aA-U4-UZ r f (� :1Y 1-Yl' 4 V-D / 41(/ C!�
r it SA404-03 SA-04-06
TTM-0"1 E-04-01: Continuation of the project that will consist of an approximately
2 acre vacant area consisting of two parcels located on the
north side of De Berry Street between the Gage Canal on Ae
west and Mt. Vernon Avenue on the east
APPLICANT: Massaro and Welsh, Civil Engineers
LOCATION: Northerly section of De Berry Street between the Gage Canal
on the west and Mt. Vernon Avenue on the east.
RECOMMENDATION: Reopen the public hearing and receive the staff report Review
a new and revised tentative tract map and provide comments
and guidance to the Son of the developer. Continue the public
�- hearing to the meeting of Thursday, August 18, 2005.
Planning Director Koontz wanted to inform the Commission that Staff was unaware of the
overhead projector lamp being burned out There will not be any projection slides at this
meeting, and will be sure to have a new bulb by the next Planning Commission.
Associate Planner Lampe greeted.the Commission and presented his staff report This is a
continuation of this project to construct a single-family residential project consisting of two
acres on the north side of De Berry Street.
The project has been heard three prior times by the Planning Commission. Just before the
last meeting, in which this project was discussed, the Applicant and the Developer showed
up with a revised tract that the staff did not have an opportunity to put into the package f
the Planning Commission. The revised map showed 14 single family lots and on
easterly end next to ML Vernon Avenue,. a 12,000 square foot open spaced lot will be set
aside and would not be developed.
As the Staff needed additional time to analyze the latest revised design, the Commission
continued the Item to this meeting with instructions to the Applicant and the Developer to
come back with the various requests that the Commission had with regard to this project.
Following the Meeting of May 18, 2005, the Staff did receive a revised Specific plan with
the latest revised map. The map was distributed to the various County Agencies and City
Departments for review and comment in early June. Some time afterwards, the Staff was
informed that the Son of the Developer was going to take over the project and it was his
intentions to modify the map by adding an additional, single family lot This lot would be
located next to the undeveloped open space lot facing Mt Vernon.
A second map was presented to Staff which it showed 15 single family lots with a 5,600
square foot open space lot at the east end next to Mt. Vernon. A revised specific plan was
also received and was distributed to various agencies and City departments for review and
comment.
Two lots located at Mirado Street will face onto Mirado Street with garages in the front The
rest of the lots will face De Berry Street. The garages will front an existing alleyway in the-
back. Most of the lots are 54 1/2 feet wide. One side yard has been widened out to 8 1/i.,
3 ATTACHMENT'.
feet to reflect the Commission's input with regard to the side yards being widened out to 10
feet.
The County Fire Department was contacted with regard to fire access from the existing
alleyway. The Applicant met with Mr. Doug Crawford of the San Bernardino County Fire
Department, in which he had four comments that he would like proposed on the map. A
fire flow with 1,250 gallons per minute, along with a new hydrant on De Berry, and the
alleyway posted as one way rather than two ways.
The Staff contacted Waste Management with regard to trash pick up for the area. Waste
Management had no problems with the proposed residences and indicated it will be able to
service the area without problems.
The initial study was completed and a Negative Declaration for the project was propo--1.
Under CEQA, the City is required to provide public notice that the document is availabh r
public review. No documentation or comments from the general public were received.
It is Staffs recommendation that this item be continued to August 18th under the
assumption that no changes will be made to the proposed tract map. ff there are any
changes, the staff is recommending a 60 day continuance to review any changes.
Associate Planner Lampe concluded his staff report
i
Chair Wilson opened the Public Hearing and asked if the Planning Commissioner's had any
i
questions or comments.
I Vice Chair Addington remarked that the proposal looked a lot better than what was
originally presented. Is the open space area going to be irrigated with a lawn?
Planning Director Koontz replied that it is the City Manager's interest in acquiring the piece
to construct and maintain a small pocket park.
Commissioner Comstock wanted to know who will maintain the alleyway.
Associate Planner Lampe replied that the Department of Public Works would need to come
up with an agreement along with the Developer, to make sure that the alleyway is properly
maintained.
1
Vice Chair Addington asked if the alleyway was considered public or private.
Associate Planner Lampe reported that the former Public Works Director, Virgil Barham
had informed Mr. Lampe that the alley was publicly dedicated but that the City had never
accepted the maintenance for the alleyway.
Chair Wilson also agreed with the revised plan and is looking forward to moving forward
with the project. Chair Wilson invited the Applicant to come forward.
Jason KaMer
19236 Dandelion Court
I
l ; Mr. Karger thanked the Commission for their comments and is looking forward to moving
forward with the project.
4
Mr. Karger asked if the Commission had wished�to have several elevations insofar as the
setbacks are concerned, or to vary the setbacks between two and three feet.
Chair Wilson replied that the staff will work with Mr. Karger with regard to what will be
feasible, and will bring it before the Commission in the future.
vice Chair Addington felt that a variance of the front elevations would be feasible and
would look presentable. Also to reduce the front setback to less than 20 feet. Also, to
increase the setback in the rear yard next to the driveways.
Chair Wilson closed the public hearing.
MOTION PC-29-2005: Motion was made by Vice Chair Addington to continue the item
to the September 15, 2005 meeting.
Commissioner Whitley seconded-the motion.
MOTION VOTE
PC-29-2005: Approved 5-040-0
3. SA4M-21, CUP4W-10
E404-12: Construct a completely new auto service station with
convenience market, car wash, delicatessen and freeway sign
APPLICANT: RAMCAM Corp., on behalf of business owner, Mr. Fahim
Tanios
LOCATION: 22045 Barton Road (Approximately .66 acre parcel .located r
the south side of Barton Road just east of the 1-215 Freeway dk,.
ramp. This site was operated as a Texaco and Shell fueling .
station in the past.)
RECOMMENDATION: Open the continued Public Hearing, receive the staff` report and
public testimony, if any, provided guidance to staff and applicant
on the proposed redesign and continue to the next meeting of
August 18, 2005.
Associate Planner Lampe presented his staff report. The project was continued from the
meeting of May 19, 2005. Specifically, the project was continued to allow for a redesign of the
proposed gas station/mini-market building to reflect the California Craftsman style of the Outdoor
Adventures Center Specific Plan. The original design did not comply with the style of
architecture for the area.
There were two other issues related to the project with regard to the color scheme of the canopy
and also the freeway signage.
The Applicant met with the staff and presented a revised architectural style. Staff felt that the
design did not have enough of the California Craftsman design features. The Applicant was
then asked to submit another proposal. On July 13, 2005, a second design proposal was
received from the applicant that has been presented.at this meeting.
5
i ii• ii Iua•
1
t
•..,: September 5, 2003
W
22795 Barton Road Barney Karger - - - -
K
Grand Terrace azger.Construction
California 92313-5295 11668 Bernardo Way
Grand Terrace, CA 92313
�J Civic Center Dear Barney:
(909) 824-6621
Fax (909) 783-7629 1 apologize for the delay in responding to you'regarding,our meeting of
Fax (909) 783-2600 August 25`s regarding your plans for a subdivision at the comer of Mt.
Vernon and De Berry. In reviewing the plans and discussing with the
Planning Departrnent we have'come to an agreement on a compromise F.
that we-could potentially support in moving this project forward to the f
Lee Ann Garcia Planning Commission and the City Council.
Mayor
As you are aware Staff has no approval authority on any projects R
Maryette Ferre however,we do make recommendations to the Planning Commission and
Mayor Pro Tempore the City Council.
Herman Hilkey Your current plans include 15 single-family units and one four-plex at the
UDon Larkin corner of Mt. Vernon and De Berry. As we had indicated previously we
Bea Cortes have some difficulty accepting the 5 ft. side yard concept that you have
Council Members proposed. We are proposing an alternative of increasing that from 5 ft. to
10 ft. on the non-garage side of each lot. This would provide the
Thomas J.Schwab homeowner with a slightly larger yard and a little more usable space on
City Manager the non-garage side. Doing so along the 13 units that will utilize the alley
for garage access,the creation of a 10 ft. side yard will result in the loss
of 1 unit from the current plan.Increasing those side yards would then
move lot#12 to the property line of the four-plexes that sit to the north of
this property.
In regards to the four-plex at the comer of Mt. Vernon and De Berry we
cannot support a 2-story four-plex on this corner. The access issues are
difficult and moving over and eliminating lot 13 actually eliminates the
possibility for access on that particular lot.
In consideration for the fact that this particular development has very
little open space we are proposing that the comer-parcel that is currently
slated for the four-plex be created into a green belt area for a small park,
or some type of amenities that would be available to the residents. It also
would provide a more clear view for the amount of traffic that currently
exists at Mt. Vernon and De Berry.
ATTACHMENT
I '
I
i
Page 2
Karger Letter
9/5/03
I
In summary, although this project does not meet our current minimum
i
standards this compromise would allow the development of 14 single
family units which would provide needed housing in the City and I
believe could be a profitable venture for you.
i
If you wish to:discuss this further please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
I
i
I
Thomas Schwab
City Manager
TS jv
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
. I
i
is LNaWH3VIIV
'L
1
rul:
L • a
I.
t JAL It
�i
. cal
j 1
R
I
mom
I
I um rA
0
I � i
��� t
PLAN 1 KMIGM HOMES,WC. --
GRAND TERRACE —�—
a F"EMWE COUtM,C UR =•- .
MELYNMYiat/e/er eanitruolbn—��-�•-••• �••-�. •• - •• �••_�•�•—�•-•�.•-•��•.
r J
/ • - , - �-�
. ..�1 C�7
n
I((((((t(((r!I(• It(!IC(((f!!!rf i1(fr(!!(f!(•
I f(f(I(trlt((((• �_�. I.!«((trrr/!4!• I�f■ If(Ilrtrltrr[r ■��I
Ir«urt«[u4r' I(4r««44if
It. f Wit
(utr• it", rt« r4«4It.
I r I r«((ur•/ I t(44tt4444u: ._, i:�t4«ut4(rrii
r4u4uu(ff/ 1444 rf4«ft(�• I r4u««4r«r
«fSrru«(!it««t4«ru/
rrr«rfrrr(/i I curt(««:t( ft«r«t« '��■s!
I rrur««(i I[«rc(rr•(r '' I r I uu«[4«
I«t(r(«, I t4«(((r r4 ■ I({{(«(Cr-/ i
ii444`/ - Itur4� ru(. It Mf
««r,/ •, uu t4 r t I ««u/
1 i/ i lifeW4it((44t// I R �Irtj/ ,
Ida,WMA
\
Room Run
for
r(((((r% lu(fOrr two f r4rf}� •,
I.u«uur •'�L juil(irt �E 17i 4iiird �
1(frrt«r,\
7t r({{`{{!(ff 4f/(f•\
1..•...........; jE...i i4ria 1.7 r rtir,(,!\
i
�,.�..�...t......... ...............y
Sffr; SMI 1 f S S f f{ �;;IMyjSSS;SP S;,3SfS1
�il , /
»a�i f�),,,/�1 1►t11 ,f/'Jlfll'1 �� •»»llll me))f.1
MB
1v1)) )M)
1,1»S»»,ft 1� js»I ,■� ;;�J>',;;;�;�);I;1:;1')11,J1lJ)), 1) T ,l 1,»!),»»Jl.
/imm» l)llll»»,»»milmmmm))pin
)),)1
J),»»llll! 1))»»,»»»)LI
►11»)n)S»1 /!1l1,1J,A1►)1 1
»»»), I»,»»w»>r •»►»»»)»,»/Jtl
»' ►»»IJm. 1, /»»»)»»»,I •»»»»,»,n»1
)i /1J)11 1I))J'1 1/»►,),)1) ►l, J)»Jll)1!1)►»)1
»1!)11»)J»,►!».1 »1,J1!)l,„),lp)mmm1 1J!)11)))I»,l!)».,
»»I111 pm11»)1 P. I l»I»»»»l»)JLI
• 4J,►!!!)f 11 l,!J I • II,1»ll„►)!lI,11; m)„1Jl»►►l»».
•»»l»»»)»►»),I • I
»„SS,S»S»,fJ., •)»IM»MMA ,»;m1 »,S»».,
PHIMomm
afmmm»»»,1 »,»»»»l»),.I 1 o»»m»»»zl
!! 1, 1 ■1 )1))„))»,J),11,). 1»),»)J))I
•11)))JJ►»1J),»»� !■1 •)„1►)►/J,JI),1I)J.I /'»►►),1))))'I
J,JI)J!)!►►)/!►J)J.1 »►,»l» ),ll».I 1)Il»»1»n
J»Illf»S»»»» »»»»»»MIA 1,»»»»1»»;I
mmmm
a•
LOW FA ki
sit�
t.
. : 1 0
= KARGER HOMES,
if�11)//JIJ,!) , ,urninfiii
. hf)►lAl l)Ill., J.,`l)ppJ1»)Ilb..�
•//�I►,I/Jlll»1/.1 � l).�h111!)IJ,1I)),
•»�.�1 JJ/lll)1 I � J)1 91/lll)1111L
•»»rj»IM)J, •J»�•»»»m»I
•»m►`»»J»II ��� M.1'm)»»»II
ism •»m?,om) II 11�� d„
/a/ JIIJII.•I1))»»II II) �7I»lll)1
—.11 11»lll.f7Jl»Ill.l I f d)J bl)»/H�1
I� )IlllJlJl.$llll,l. •lll 1►If►11/1
JI!►IJ1IliNJ1))11.1 j � •,)1 1 IJI
•�+ 1J»llJr'Imml 111 )1J/11►L1
•111»1 r Jl"),))1 = •Ill /»DD111.
Wh•)»»!I)III)i ,) /IIIJIJII»II.1
. )I.»1)»»»») ►' »yI»)I»»»»1
lln»m)m.I I r.)»I»»»»»I
»J►)I»1»1JAI •fl)1,))1))II)D.1
•JJ,IIIJI)I1II),J1 01MMIll)MY.1
M)M J IM11)I 1PIMMIl»l»ll
e1 )»IIIIIJJIIMAJ �' l»JJII»I»»111
IMM)I IIIA M-1 on; JD)11I%MID/I.I
yt>i1 •»Il»»»I»11I1.I .r) 1I/J1/1/1,J)»JllI
-HIPIDIMMMA)IlJ))I11JI1)!I»•I JI)ll)I»IIIJJ))IIILI
lI1JJJ11I1,11J1,L1 )JDLI)J,DJ/111.�
"IMI)l)lllllJ)1.1 YIPIP) IMM).
»Il»)»JJl)/1J1.1 IJJ,IIJ7»lII/lJI1
1111►1J1)JIJIl1lL 1J1I1►111J11»lll.l
4»)J)I»,ll„))l i 1)J)JIII)11111)111
:1
u
ML—
■a.! is�■.
■►ter ■■
■r rr i■.
■■■u.■■
.1
_ KAM3MHOLES, rr.
Cfi
M
Ao■9A 1/ �. � ;
fill
# P1I '
� 1
fill
cV
Hill
1
33
1
z � M Jill
� } �Q I j
t ! �
rr ♦ rrwrd 4t : s
1M0l10
ATTACHMENT
PREUMINARY GRADING PLAN
MY OF MUM TEFWAM
Pt
Fit-
ILI f I
§L%l6
r-T
AIM--
k.J-
�_ 1450 E. Washington St. Colton, CA 92324-4696 (909)825-4128 FAX(909)825-173
0 Q P \
February 20, 2004
Mr. John Lampe
City of Grand Terrace
22795 Barton Road
- Grand Terrace, CA 92313
Re: - Tentative Tract No. 16624
Dear Mr: Lampe;
Riverside Highland Water Company has no objection to this project
moving forward, although there are some concerns with the water system.
The east tie-in on Mt. Vernon Avenue to our 24" water main is very deep.
We believe it would make more sense to tie in on De Soto Street. We are willing ,
to work with the developer on this change if necessary.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (909)
825-4128.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
GL�'
Rich Haubert
Distribution Superintendent
RNWss
ATTACHMENT
v u im i T r i n c ucrAK 1 M L.IV T ECONOMIC DEVELOPI
AND PUBLIC SERVICES
OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHAL
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISION PETER R.HILLS
-4 OISouth "E" Street - San Bernardino, CA 92415-0153 Fire Chief
f 9) 386-8401 - Fax (909) 3BR460 County Fre Wardei
�! 24 FEBRUARY 2004
PE C V JE
CITY OF GRAND'TERRACE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
22795 BARTON ROAD
GRAND TERRACE, CA 92313-5295
ATTENTION: JOHN LAMPE,ASSOCIATE PLANNER
FILE NO: SPECIFIC PLAN NO.' 04-01, SITE AND ARCHITECI'URAI,REVIEW
CASE NO'S 04-02, 04-03, 04-04, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 04-01,AND
EINVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CASE NO 04-01
APPLICANT: MASSARO & WELSH, CEVIL ENGINEERS-LAND SURVEYOR
ON BEHALF BARNEY KARGER, OWNER
� j
Dcar Mr. Lampe:
With regards to the above-mentioned file, the San Bernardino County Fire Departm
Hazardous Materiais Division does not have any additional continents for this project.t
Should you have any further questions, comments, or concerns,please feel free to contact
me at (909)386-8401.
KWSTEN RIEGEL, MPH,REHS
Hazardous Materials Field Services Section
I
f
i -
ATTACHMENT
i
PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT GENERAL MANAGER-SEC lK b" �AJUKK
THE GAGE CANAL COMPANY
7452 DUFFERIN AVENUE
RIVERSIDE,CA 92504 ,
909-780-1333
FAX 909-780-1973
March 2, 2004
Jim Lampe
Associate Planner
City of Grand Terrace
Dear Mr. Lampe
Regarding your plans for Tract#16624, The East side of the Gage Canal
property and De Berry Street along Gage's property line adjacent to your
project, show that the elevation on the adjoining lots are higher than the Gage
Canal property. These plans would require a concrete retaining wall at least 2
feet high to prevent water from flowing on to the Gage Canal property.
As for the existing wooden fences, there is a tendency for children to pull the
boards off. Wooden fence posts rot and boards fall off due to the loose nails.
Installing a durable chain link fence would be more effective. -
l j
ATTACHMENT
i
P.O. Box 18355 TEP„l
Irvine CA 92623
' � phone:949 552 4357
e-mail:tepinnneGSbcglobal.net fax:909494 4408
i mobile- 909 263 0383
Date: March 3, 2004
To: John Lampe.'Associate Planner, City of Grand Terrace
From: Craig S. NeLlMaedter, Registered Traffic Engineer (TR1433)
i
Subject: Comments on Specific Plan for 19 Residential Lots
Location: North side of DeBerry between Gage Canal and Mt Vernon Av.
File No: SP-04-01
I The proposed project consists of 15 single-family dwelling units and a two-sto f
i apartment building. On a daily basis, the project will generate 170 vehicle trips In the a�m.
peak hour, the project will generate 13 vehicle trips, and in the m.
generate 18 vehicle trips. The project will have no significant traffic imp cts on the ak hour. the project
streets and Intersections.
Access to'the dwelling unit driveways will be via a 20 ft. wide alley. Parking In the alley can
significantly Impede the through movement of vehicles, including emergency vehicles. It is
a recommended that the alley be signed to prohibit parking.
I .
" i
C
I
i
- i
I
i
f
Transportation Engineering and Planning, Inc.
k
ATTACHMENT
,
TEP ,,
P.O. Box 18355 phone:949 552 4357
Irvine CA 92623 fax:909494 4408
e-mail;tepirvine@sbcglobal.net mobile: 909 263 0383
Date: July 7, 2005
To: John Lampe, Associate Planner, City of Grand Terrace
From: Craig S. Neustaedter, Registered Traffic Engineer(TR1433)
_ Subject: Comments on Residential Specific Plan
Location: DeBerry Street at Mount Vernon Ave.
File No: TTM04-01 (#16624)
The proposed project will consist of 14 single-family dwelling units. Access to the units,
garages will be taken via a proposed alley with a-curb to curb width of 20 feet.
The project will have no significant impact on circulation or parking.
Transportation Engineering and Planning, Inc.
ATTACHMENT
i
TEP
P.O. Box 18355
Irvine CA.92623 phone:949 552 4357
e-mail:tepirvine@sbcglobal.net fax:909494 4408
I
mobile:909 263 0383
1 .
l i Date: August 11, 2005
To: John Lampe,'Associate Planner, City of Grand Terrace
From: Craig S. Neustaedter, Registered Traffic Engineer(TR1433)
Subject: Comments on Specific Plan for Tract Number 16624
Location: North Side of DeBerry between the Gage Canal and Mount
Vernon Ave.
File No: SP404-01 /TTM-04-01
The project proposal will add one dwelling unit to the previously reviewed tract map. The
proposal will have no significant traffic impacts.
I '
I
I - '
I
f
I
i
1
I
Transportation Engineering and Planning, Inc.
ATTACHMENT .. .
��'COMMU1yl?� 12-8.5373 Revised
A1L'1 ORAND v M
TO: John Lampe, Associate Planner
g H FROM: Jerry Glander, Director of Building and Safety/public Works
DEPARTMENT OF
rr 'BUILDING& SAFETY, DATE: August 8, 2005 (Revision No. 2)
PUBLIC WORKS'
AND HOUSING SUBJECT: Specific Plan No.04-01 (SP-04-01),Site and Archit
ectural Review
22795 Barton Road Case No.'s 04-02, 04-03, 04-04, 04-05 & 04-06 (SA-04-02;03;Suite B .04;05;06),Tentative Tract Map 16624
G No.04-01 (TTM4)4-01 _County
Grand Terrace No. an Environmental Review Case No. 04-01 (E-04-01)
California 92313-5295 ) d
Civic Center Approximately 2 acre, vacant area consisting of two parcels
(909) 825-3825 located on the north side of De Berry Street between the Gage
Fax(909) 825-7506 Canal on the west and Mt. Vernon Avenue on the east. Barney
Kar er- 16 lot subdivision
The following recommendations should be considered as conditions prior te-
recordation of Final Map.
-` 1• Pa off any y remaining sewer assessment balance on the original parcel.
2. Submit to City Council for acceptance; all agreements, bonds for
Performance, bonds for labor and material for the following:
A.. Grading
B. Sanitary sewer improvements
C. Storm drain improvements
D. Water system improvements
E. Street, curb, gutter& sidewalks
F. Street lights
G. Final property comer survey monuments
3• Cash deposit in the amount of 10% of total estimated cost.
4. Submit a preliminary soils report prepared by a California Registered Civil
Engineer.
5. Show all easements on Tract Map.
6. Do not show building footprints on Final Tract Map.
ATTACHMENT
12-8.5373
h
(, August 8, 2005
I
After project review and in compliance with the Grand Ten-ace Municipal Code Chapter 15.28
Article I, the following recommendations should be considered as conditions for the proposed
project
I. Provide the following:
A. Plot plan.
B. Grading, drainage plan and N.P.D.E.S.plan.
C. Complete construction plans for structures.
D. Property corner points.
2. All utilities shall be 'run underground.
3. Provide proof of payment of school fees.
4. Pay all plan check,permit and inspection fees.
5. Pay all capital improvement, maintenance, circulation and traffic improvement fees.
6. All improvements shall be designed by persons registered and licensed to perform such work
pursuant to the State of California Business and Professions Code, which shall comply with all
applicable requirements of the 2001 California Building Code,2001 California Electrical Code,2001
California Plumbing Code,2001 California Mechanical Code,American Disabilities Act,(Ca1DAG
2000),Title 24 California Energy Requirements and the Grand Terrace Municipal Code.
7. Install three street lights on DeBeny Street.
8. Saw cut wings on curbs to maintain 10%max.side slope for handicap ramps at both corners
on Mirado Avenue.
{ 9. Remove and replace all curb depressions on De Berry St.,all damaged curb and gutter on all
streets and cut asphalt paving back 12" from removed gutters, install match up paving.
10. Cut back tree branches hanging over alley.
11. Remove &replace damaged concrete Swale in alley and repave each side of swale.
i
i
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
V3115 North Arrowhead Avenue-San Bernardino,CA 92416-0160-(909)884-4056
❑ 1647 East Holt Boulevard-Ontario,CA 91761-(909)458-9673 JAMES A FELTEN,MPA
Public Health Director ;
❑ 13911 Park Avenue-Vlctorville,CA 92392-(760)243-3773
❑ San Berardino County Vector Control Program ERIC K FRYKMAN,MD,MPH,MBA
2355 East 5th Street-San Bernardino,CA 924164)064-(909)388-4600 Health Officer
June 24, 2005 D '=3C� DANIEL J.AVER& REHS
„� ["! o
Chief of Environmental Health
JUN 2 e 1Q05n,.ab..a
MICHELLE F. BOUSTEDT
John Lampe, Associate Planner %nning/C01TIt7lunity
City of Grand Ten-ace Services�Partment Maio
Community and Economic Development Department GrandT F«ft,. up P'�"
�rtaoe
22795 Barton Road vmkwvft
r
Grand Terrace, CA 92313 Lam Linda Y==v"W
SUBJECT: 17M-04-01
Mr.Lampe:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed project for Tentative Tract(TTM-04-01).
Environmental Health Services has reviewed the submitted Tentative Tract Map for this project. At
this time,EHS has no comments.
If you have any questions,please contact me at(909)387-4655.
Sincerely,
iapulVaZarold,REHS
Water& Waste Management
PH:ar
N:.Wam�H—iduanck-U-ua-_urx:Z n M4"I 0&2,W5
ATTACHMENT 10
• COIIM OF SAN BERNARnow
i
COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT ECONOMIC OE1fE1OPtlNT
.w° 'w.w d AM PUBLIC SERVICES 6fl0Ur
OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHAL r �` PETER R. HILLS
COMMUNITY SAFETY DIVISION Fro Cnief
62b South "I"Snitch • San Bernardino,CA 92415-0179 Cnunty Plee warden
(969)306-8400 • Fax(909)311E-8460
MARCH 15,2004
I
i
BERNARDO KARGER
11668 BERN ARDO WAY
GRAND TERRACE,CA 92313
FILE:TM GT04i8736
j LOCATION:DREERRY AVEIVYTE—GRAND TERRACE
PROJECT T Y)PE: APARTMENTS
SQUARE FOOTAGE:5,200
PLANNI ER: JOFLK LAW! E
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
i
applicable:local ordinances,codes,and/or recognized lire protection standards.
The following information of this document sets forth the FIRE C0.iVDrFJ0_NS and GUIDELINES which
are applied to this pmject. ❑ Approved T Approved w/conditions ❑Not Approved
FIRE CONDMONS.,
JurIsdiiction. The above referenced project is under the jurisdiction of the San. Bernardino County
Fire Department herein ("Dire 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 aurrent Uniform Fire Code requirements and all
applicable statutes,codes,ordinances and standards of the Fire Department. [F-1)
Water SvstenL Prior to any land disturbance, the water systems shall be designed to meet the
required fire flow for this devctopment and shall be approved by the Fire Department. The required
fire flow shall be determined by using Appendix TffA of the Uniform Fire Code.
The Fire Flow for this project shall be:
2000 GPM for a 2 Hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure.
Except for individual single family residences, the applicant shall submit four (4) copies of the
water system improvement plans to the Fire Depart went for revriew and approval, New water
systems shall have minimum eight (8) inch mains, six (6) inch :atera':s, six (6) inch riser and an
approved six(6)inch fire hydrant. Standard 903.1 [F-5)
,:..1 I .,,,;1 ,Ati;I;.. �.,..; ATTACHMENTi.tr t'iy a:brrlr.l.Cr.i. !.%:i 1 LC!/ i_' blslrci
I CL.i R OW.1 0. MAC;C;
'fit GT04/8736
MARCH 15,2004
Page 2
]Firg Fee. ITL required fire fees(currently$600.00)shall be paid to the.Fire Deparhnevt.
(F-40a]
Acees . The development and each phase thereof shall have a minimum of 2 points of vehicular
access. These are for firelemvI. Qency equip Tent access and for evacuation routes. Stand
~ 902.2.1-(F-41]
Turnaround. An approved turnaround shall be provided at the end of each roadway one hundred
and fifty(i50)feet or more in length. Cul-de-Sac length shall not exceed six hundred(600) feet;all
roadways shall not exceed a 12 Yo grade and have a minimum of forty(40) foot radius for all turns.
In the FRI or FR2 Fire Safety Overlay District areas,there are additional requirements.
lands d 0 [F-43]
Combustible Protection, prior to combustibles, being placed on the project site an approved
paved road with curb and gutter aid fire hydrants with an acceptable water system shall be
installed. The topcoat of asphalt does not have to bo installed until final inspection and occupancy.
[F=44]
Water system. A water system approved and inspected by the Fire Department is required. The
system shall be operational, prior to any combustibles being stored on the site. The,applicant is
required to provide a minimum of one new six(6) inch fire hydrant assembly with two(2)two and
one half(2 112)inch and one(1)four(4)inch outlet. All fire hydrants shall be spaced no more than
three hundred(300)feat apart and no more than one hundred fifty(150) feet from any portion of a
structure. Detached single fancily 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 any
portion of a detached single family structure. Standard 901A [F-54]
Water 5 stem Certification. fho applicant shall provide the Fire Department with a lett#:r 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 floe►requirements. Fire flow
water supply shall be in place prior to placing combustible materials on the job-site [F-57)
Street Stan. This project is required to have an approved street sign (tempomy or permanent).
The street sign shall be installed on the nearest street comer to the project. Installation of time
temporary sign shall be prior any combustible material being placed on the construction site. Prior
to final inspection and occupancy of the f rst structure, the permanent street sign shall be installed.
Standard 901.4.4 (F72)
Hydrant Marking. Blue reflective pavement markers indicating fire hydrant locat,,ons shall be
installed as specified by the Fire Department. In areas where snow removal occurs or non-paged
roads exist, the blur:reflective hydrant :Harker shall be posted on an approl vd 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)
i
I
I
' I
TR GT0 S'736
MARCH 15,2004
Page 3
Residen a1 Addressing, The street address shall be installed on the building with numbers that are
a minirrum 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 drAness, the numbers shall be internally and
electrically illuminated with a low voltage power source. Numbers shall contrast with their
aackground and be legible from the street. Where the building is fifty (50) feet or more from the
roadway, additional contrasti
enorances. Standard 901.4.4 ng lour (4) inch numbers shall be di is �d at the
5 property access
I [IF`81]
iI1undnated Site Diagram. The applicant shall submit for review and approval a site diagram plan
to the Fire Department. The applicant shall install at each entrance to a multi-family complex an
illuminated diagrammatic representation of the complex,which shows the location of each unit and
each fire hydrant. &andard 901.4.4 [F84]
Spark 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]
y?
FORD
Planning&Engineering Supervisor
i
DCS
1
I '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
MASSARO
WELSH
R1CHARD O.MMSARO,RE PAUL T.WUSkij P.E., LS.'
CIVIL ENGINEERS • PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS
FAX (909) 889 9490
-� COYEB SIFT
TE WOPY KESSAW
TO: ...TDIl LJQ'UAC: - DATE: 7! �!ds•._
4a y yF &Z"w re g" C c
TXU TELMCOPY CCKTAINS Z- PAM
DICLUDMIG Tns COVS.13 SEEW t
MESSAGE: -Tiotf-At r
sue`Y L. . d`nnoT
7'ffV- p-*-A Af
&CI T 20 HIS
ATTACHMENT1572 North Waterman Avenue, Suite 5 ' San Bernardino, Cali
r.�
1 - HdSV
} Is s s---�,
oe
A-1
rA �' ' � SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY FIRE DEPT.
> u r�� [ f1 C.� ��' 1. ACCEPTED AS�MP�NTION
2. ACCEPTED AS NOTED.RESUMnSMXM
NOT NECESSARY
i
7- \' `� G�f� f s UNMxEPTABLEIRESUWAT WITH CORRECT1O1dg
4. one -- -
O� TM SNAP DOES NOT 13
RNENTS- - - - - T REUEVE
-- -- ---- ---- --- - - -- - - - O � TFAN F°
R CODE
DOE
Coo
$cDOE
o .i�x� Mtt s nFO -
IDATEIJ��L REMM
—
1
Southern Calltamla
Gas CompanyEcEra
1 W.LugoniaAvenue
TII! D Redlands.CA 92374.9720
Gib Mailing Address:
Company, '��� 01 2005
PO Box 3003,SC8031
Redlands,CA 92373-0306
A Sempra Energy-company MICHELLE F. BOUSTEDT
June 23, 2005 Planning/Community
Services Department
City of Grand Terrace
r� 22795 Barton Road
Grand Terrace, CA 92313-5295
Attention: John Lampe
Re: Tentative Tract Map 04-01 — County No. 16624 — De Berry St. between
Gage and Mt. Vernon Avenue
City of Grand Terrace
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above-referenced project- Please note
that Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above named
project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be provided without any significant
impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's
policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the
time contractual arrangements are made.
t You should be aware that this letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual
commitment to serve the proposed' project, but only as an informational service. The
availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based ,upon present
conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, The Southern
California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities
Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies.
Should these agencies take_any action, which affects gas supply, or the conditions
under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised
conditions.
Typical demand use for:
a. Residential (System Area Average/Use Per Meter) Yearlv
Single Family 799 therms/year dwelling unit
Multi-Family 4 or less units 482 therms/year dwelling unit
Multi-Family 5 or more units 483 therms/year dwelling unit
These averages are based on total gas consumption in residential units served by
Southern Califomia Gas Company, and it should not be implied that any particular
home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy.
ATTACHMENT
i
b. Commercial
1
Due to the fact that construction varies so widely (a glass building vs. a heavily
insulated building) and there is such a wide variation in types of materials and ,
a typical demand figure is not available for this type of construction.
Calculations would need to be made after the building has been designed.
i
We have Demand Side Management programs available to commercial/industrial
customers to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy
of our energy conservation programs, please contact our Commercial/Industrial Support
Center at 1-800-GAS-2000.
J ..
Sin ,
i
B .P. Wilkie
Technical Supervisor
I
DW/ocf
I
' I
I
I
i
i
I�
f
I ,
I
RESOLUTION NO. 05
RESOLUTION OF'THE PLANNING COMMISSION'OF THE CITY OF GRAND
TERRACE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL
CASE NO.'s 04-02, 04-03, 04-04 AND 04-05 AND ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW CASE NO. 04-01 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
FIFTEEN .(15) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES CONSISTING OF
A "PLAN 1"1OF 1,606 SQ. FT., OF A "PLAN 2" OF 1,704 SQ. FT.
OF A "PLAN 3" OF 1,818 SQ. FT. AND OF A "PLAN 4" OF 1,733 SQ. FT.
WHICH WILL BE ONE STORY IN HEIGHT IN AN AREA COVERED
BY SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 04-02 ON A 2 ACRE PARCEL
NORTHERLY SIDE OF DE BERRY STREET BETWEEN THE GAGE
CANAL ON THE WEST AND MT: VERNON AVENUE ON THE EAST
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for the approval of Site and Architectural
Review Case No.'s 04-02, 04-03, 04-04 and 04-05 and Environmental Review Case No.
04-01 to construct 15 single family residential detached units; and
WHEREAS;the applicant has additionally applied for a tentative tract map,TTM-04-
01(County No. 16624)to subdivide the subject site into 16 individual lots to be considered
by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace: and
WHEREAS, properly noticed public hearings on this project was held by the
Planning Commission on August 19,2004,January20,2005, May 18,2005 ,July21,2005
and September 15, 2005; and
WHEREAS, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines,
Article 6, Section 15070, the proposed project for 15 single family residential detached
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. 04-01.
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 15 units single family
residential development with appurtenant facilities and one open space lot
is consistent with the.intent of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code and the
General Plan.in that it meets the use and density provisions of the General .
Plan and is consistent with Specific Plan No.' 04-02 approved as allowed
under Chapter 18.20 of the Zoning Code.
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,
ATTACHMENT J9
I ,
I
I li
i
and are in scale with the townscape and natural landscape of the area. The
design and appearance of the 15 unit project will be consistent with the
existing residential development in this area of 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 ensure the compatibility of
the development with the existing surrounding residential area.
3. The architectural design of the development,its materials,and colors utilizing
earthtones are visually harmonious with surrounding residential development
and natural landforms especially the residential development to the north 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. -!
i 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 aid in making the new residential project
compatible with the surrounding area.
5. Because the site.is 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-04-02, SA-04-03, SA-04-04 and SA-
04-05 are hereby approved subject to the.following conditions:
1. The proposed,15 unit single family residential project and one open space
! lot shall be maintained in conformance with the Site and Architectural Review
Applications as approved by the Planning Commission on September 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 September 15, 2005.
2 1
i
3. 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.'
4. 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.
5. All mechanical equipment for this 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.
6. The applicant shall comply with the following requirements of the Director of
Building and'Safety:
a. Provide for the following at time of plan check:
1. Plot plan.
2. Grading, drainage plan and N.P.D.E.S. plan.
3. Complete construction plans for structures.
4. Property,corner points.
b. All new utilites shall be run underground.
C. Provide proof of payment of school fees.'
d. Pay all plan check, permit and inspection fees.
e. Pay all capital improvement, maintenance, circulation and traffic
improvement fees and park fees.
7.- _ All improvements shall be designed by persons registered and licensed to
perform such work pursuant to the State of California Business and
Professions Code,which shall complywith all applicable requirements of the
2001 California Building Code, 2001 California Electrical Code, 2001
California Plumbing Code, 2001 California Mechanical Code, American
Disabilities Act,(CALDAG 2000),Title 24 California Energy Requirments and
the Grand Terrace.Municipa Code.
8. The applicant shall comply with all requirements. of the County Fire
Department,Community Safety Division,including those requirements listed
in its letter. March 15, 2004.
9. The applicant shall comply with all of the conditions and requirements of the
City of Riverside - Water Division with- respect to the common boundary
between the subject site and the Gage Canal.
10. A detailed fencing plan showing the type, location and' height of proposed
fencing for the 15 residential lots shall be submitted to and approved by the
Community Development Director prior to this issuance of 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.
3
12. This project shall provide at least two,covered parking spaces in a garage.
13. Three copies of landscaping and irrigation plans similar to the preliminary
landscaping plan exhibited at the public hearings shall be submitted to the
Community Development Director for review and approval. Said plans to be
prepared by a licensed'landscape architect. 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. The submitted landscaping plans
shall delete the"weeping willow"trees shown on the preliminary landscaping
plan.
14.. -All residential construction on the subject site shall comply with the setbacks
shown on Exhibit 1 including those for the sideyards and front yards along
j De Berry.
i -
15. Any signs proposed for this project including real estate subdivision signs
I shall comply with the City's Sign Code.
i {
16. All parking areas shall be surfaced and maintained with asphalt, concrete or
other permanent, impervious surfacing material as required,by Section
r 18.60.040 B of the Zoning Code.
17. The developer shall pay the appropriate traffic impact fees as required by
City Ordinance No. 190 prior to the issuance of building permits.
18. All contractors working.on ,this project shall acquire a valid City business
licence.
19. This approval;for SA-04-02, SA-04-03, SA-04-04 and SA-04-05 shall not be
effective until and unless the accompanying tentative tract map, TTM-04-01
is approved by the City Council and the final map is recorded. No building
{ permits shall be issued until the final map has been recorded.
20. Priorto the issuance of building permits,the applicant and/or developer shall
make an offer,of dedication of Lot "A" to the'City of Grand Terrace for the
i purpose of a-park or other recreational uses.
21. 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
I Board's NPDES Permit for San Bernardino County, as required under the
j Clean Water Act.
22. 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 the original expiration date. Said time extension to be
granted by the Community Development Director. In conformance with
4
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.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace,
California, at a regular meeting held on the 15th day of September , 2005.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
.ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Brenda Stanfill, Doug Wilson,
City Clerk Chairperson, Planning Commission
c:\MyFiles\JOHN\Kadar\SA-04-02.03.04.05resolution
5
f
T tower has a top plate with a truss bearing which can be any length. In'this case, it is a
42 of mast. The antenna is mounted two feet bove the bottom of the tower. If the
propo d drawing is used with the 1 inch whip tha is being requested would total 75 feet.
4 j Vice Chair ddington asked the applicant if a intended 'on raising the tower to the
maximum hei t.
I J -
Mr. Ehlert replied t the did intend on raising he tower at certain times.
Commissioner Comsto asked the applican what his normal hours of operation were.
Mr. Ehlert replied that it d ' -ends on whe the bands are open. Mostly during the early
morning hours around 3:00 a to 9:00 am
Vice Chair Addington asked staff ould he Commission choose to continue the item, and
continue with the recently requeste ei t of 75 feet, how long is the public review period.
i
Associate Planner Lampe replied that th item would have to-be re-advertised.
` MOTION PC-39-2005: Vice Chair ddi ton made a motion to Continue CUP-05-06,
E-05-19 t the ovember 17, 2005 Planning Commission
Meeting,
Chair Wil on seconded emotion
MOTION
VOTE PC-39-2005: 4-1-0-0
Commi sioner Comstock ting No
4. SA-04-02, SA-04-03, t/ M)N v
j SA-04-04, SA-04-05, 9 1
45
TTM-04-01, SP-04-02
E-04-01: Continued Public Hearing for an approximately 2, acre vacant
area consisting of two parcels.
I "
l APPLICANT: I Massaro &Welsh, Civil Engineers
LOCATION: North side of De Berry Street between the Gage Canal on the
west and Mt. Vernon on the east.
I
RECOMMENDATION: Re-open the Public Hearing an receive the Staff Report and any
testimony, close the Hearing and Approve the Resolution calling
for the Approval of SA-04-02, SA-04-03, SA-04-04 and SA-04-
I05 and Recommend to the City Council the Resolution for
Approval of TTM-04-01 (Tentative Tract No. 16624) and the
Adoption of the Ordinance for SP-04-02.
r Associate Planner Lampe presented his staff report. The item is a two acre site located on
! the north side of DeBerry to the Gage Canal. The project was heard and filed early in the
year 2004. During the last year, the project has undergone several revisions, including the
deletion of a four unit apartment building on the easterly end of the proposal.
i
f A ."rr .CHME T i 2
13
In June of this year, the staff was informed that the Son of the Developer was to take over
the project and intended to modify the map for one additional lot for a total of 15 single
family residences and to reduce the size of the proposed open space at the end of the
project on the corner of Mt. Vernon and DeBerry Streets.
At the meeting of July 21, 2005, the Planning Commission had expressed the opinion that
the new developer was headed in the ' right direction and there was a significant
improvement to the proposal. The Commission also expressed a desire to see variability in
the front yard setbacks and also in the proposed street elevations.
The latest proposal was received from the new developer in August, and shows a variety of
setbacks as requested by the Planning.Commission. The setbacks ranged any where from
15 to 20 feet.
All reviewing agencies were notified of the revised changes as made by the new developer
in which they had no comments.
The applicant has provided revised floor plans and elevations. There will be two homes
that will have the garage in the front of the residence, because there will be no alley to the
rear of the residences.
The architecture of the residences will be Spanish style with tile roofs and architectural
embellishments around the windows and doors and the use of earth tone colors.
A preliminary landscape plan was supplied by the applicant with use of various trees and
shrubbery in the front of the residences. The final landscaping plan will. have to be in
substantial conformance with the preliminary landscaping that has been submitted.
A revised version of the specific plan was also reviewed. The staff feels that the specific
plan meets the minimum standards as the government code and can be used as the basis
for the proposed ordinance for the specific plan for the project.
The environmental study was completed for the project. Staff is recommending a mitigated
negative declaration be adopted for this project. There was a public review period for the
project beginning in June of 2005.. A resolution has been prepared for the project whereas
the project be recommended to the City Council to approve and adopt the project for the
tentative tract map and approve the ordinance to adopt the specific plan.
Associate Planner Lampe concluded his staff report.
Vice Chair Addington reported an ex parte communication with Associate Planner Lampe in
which he asked questions. Associate Planner Lampe contacted the Engineer, in which the
engineer called Vice Chair Addington with regard to BMP of Lot 15 and pedestrian access
to the pocket park.
Chair Wilson opened up the Public Hearing.
Jason Karger
19236 Dandelion Court
Mr. Karger thanked the Commission and is requesting that the Commission approve the
project.
14
I '
I
i Vice Chair Addington,commented to the applicant that the product is easy to review and
thanked. him.
Planning Director Koontz stated since Jason Karger has taken over the project, he has
been extremely cooperative and very responsive and a pleasure to work with.
j Commissioner Comstock asked Mr. Karger if he was planning on planting willow trees in
the front of the residences.
Mr. Karger replied that he did not intend on planting willow trees in front'of the residences
as his.father wanted to'do.
i Paul Welsh-Engineer
Massaro Welsh Architects
1572 N. Waterman Avenue #5
San Bernardino
I I -
Vice Chair Addington thanked Mr. Welsh for the tentative map and grading plan that was
provided.. Vice Chair;Addington asked Mr. Welsh what clean water BMP's are being
proposed for the project.
r
Mr. Welsh replied that; another member from the,office was going 'to discuss the water
f quality management plan.
i
Doug Massaro-
1572 N. Waterman Avenue #5
San Bernardino
� I K
-Mr. Massaro replied that in order to fulfill the requirements of the water quality management
plan, the storm water; runoff from the development must be treated on site prior to
discharge. The velocity of the runoff must be increased to allow the suspension to settle
{ out prior to leaving the site.
The public works officials were contacted, and what is being proposed is to provide swales
or depressions several;inches to one foot in depth on the south sides of the lots. The
swales are designed to- contain the first flush, thereby removing the pollutants prior to
discharge.
Vice Chair Addington asked Mr. Welsh with regard to lot 15 and what it will look like should
the house be flopped. The reason for'this is to try to provide for a four foot wide ADA
compatible pedestrian easement to the pocket park. At this time,, the garage would be too
close to the property line making pedestrian access unfeasible.
i
Chair Wilson closed the Public Hearing.
f
Vice Chair Addington asked if this project is approved, the landscaping plan as shown does
contain willow trees. Can the proposed willow trees be removed.
Planning Director Koontz replied that a condition can be added to exclude willow trees be
j planted in the front of,the residences.
1
I
15
I
I
MOTION PC-40-2005: Commissioner Comstock made a motion to add a condition to
,the project that there will be no willow trees planted,in the front
of the properties, but to allow appropriate trees to be approved
by the Planning Department.
Vice Chair Addington seconded the motion
MOTION
VOTE PC-40-2005: 5-0-0-0
MOTION PC-41-2005: Vice-Chair Addington made a motion to Approve SA-04-02, SA-
04-03, SA-04-04, SA-04-05, TTM-04-01, SP-04-02 and E-04-01',
-' with the amended condition
Chair Wilson seconded the motion
MOTION
VOTE PC-41-2005: 5-0-0-0
ADJOURN, SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING 8:55 pm
CONVENE PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION
• Information to Commissioners
Sav-On is now under construction.
City Council has approved the Senior Housing project.
Manhole Builders project has been brought back to the Planning Commission and
will be continued to the month of November during the first meeting of the month
which will be November 3, 2005.
• Information from Commissioners
Vice Chair Addington has reported that he will not be attending the October 20, 2005
Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Whitley reported that he will not be attending the October 20, 2005
Planning Commission meeting.
Vice Chair Addington reported that he read an article in the Press Enterprise with
regard to the Outdoor Adventures Center with regard to new plans for the center to
include housing.
Planning Director Koontz replied that there is a new proposal to take a small portion
of the project to make it a.residential area as part of the lifestyle design. The exact
amount of square footage will remain for retail, and the hotel has always been
proposed. In order for this to move forward, the developer will have to come back
with a revised specific plan and a supplemental EIR to reflect the changes to the
project: A full marketing analysis has been performed and this is what the developer
has come up with.' The proposal was made to the City Council as a preliminary
16
1 -
I
I i , RESOLUTION NO. 05_
i RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,APPROVING,TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.04-01 (TTM 16624)FOR A 15 UNIT
i SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH ONE OPEN SPACE LOT
IN THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA
{
WHEREAS, the applicant, Massaro and Welsh, Civil Engineers, has applied for the approval of
Tentative Tract Map No.04-01(TTM 16624)to create a 15 unit single family residential subdivision with one _
j open space lot on a 2 acre parcel in the City of Grand Terrace; and,
WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearings were held by the Planning Commission on August
4 19,2004, January 20,2005,May 18,'2005,July 21,2005 and September 15,2005; and
I
i
i
WHEREAS,under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),Article 6,Section 15070,the
proposed project for 15 single family residential units and one opens space lot qualifies for a Mitigated
Negative Declaration in that there is no substantial evidence .that the project, as conditioned, will have a
significant impact on the environment. The environmental assessment of this project was completed under
Environmental Review Case No.;04-01; and
1
i WHEREAS, the Planning,Commission recommended approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 04-01
j (TTM 16624)to the City Council at its meeting of September 15, 2005; and
WHEREAS,a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on October 13,2005 and
on November 13,2005 regarding the approval of Tentative Tract Map-04-01 (TTM 16624).
NOW THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
I '
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
i r '
2. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development in that
i the site is fairly level, is served.by adequate public services and utilities and the
f
project conforms to the provisions of Specific Plan No. 04-02; 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
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
ATTACHMENT. 3
5. The proposed subdivision, its design, density and type of development and
improvements conform to the regulations of City Subdivision Ordinance 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 Specific Plan No. 04-02 developed for this project and allowed by Chapter
18.20 of the City's Zoning Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Tentative Tract Map No. 04-01 (TMM 16624) 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. Approval for filing of this land division is contingent upon approval of plans and
specifications mentioned below. If the improvements are not installed prior to the filing of
this division, the developer must submit an Undertaking Agreement and a faithful
performance and labor and materials bond in the amount estimated by the City guaranteeing
the installation of the improvements.
4. The City reserves the right to impose any new plan check and/or permit fees approved by the
_ City Council subsequent to tentative approval of this map.
Conditions Prior to Final Map Approval:
5. 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.
6. Provide a"will serve"letter from the Riverside Highland Water Company.
7. Monumentation of the tract map boundaries and lot boundaries is required.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Pay all required fees for the processing and approval of the final tract map.
11. Pay off any remaining sewer assessment balance on the original parcel.
12. Submit to the City Council for acceptance;all agreements,bonds for performance,bonds for
labor and material for the following: ,
I
j A. Grading
B. Sanitary sewer improvements
C. Storm drain improvements
D. Water system improvements
E. Street, curb, gutter&sidewalks
F. Street lights
G. Final property corner survey monuments
i
I
I13. Provide a cash deposit in the amount of 10%of the total estimated cost of the items required
by Condition No. 9 above. —
14. The applicant and/or developer shall do the following:
a. Install three street lights on De Berry Street.
b. Saw cut wings on curbs to maintain 10% maximum side slope for handicap ramps
at both corners on Mirado Avenue.
C. Remove and replace all curb depressions on De Berry Street;remove and replace all
damaged curb and gutter on all streets and cut asphalt paving back 12"frm removed
gutters; and install match up paving.
d. Cut back tree branches hanging over the alley along the northerly property line.
e. Remove and replace damaged concrete swale in alley and repave each side of swale
after utilities installed.
1
I
15. The applicant and/or developer shall move the Edison power pole on Lot 2 if Southern
jCalifornia Edison concludes that the proposed driveway for Lot 2 will conflict with the
j existing pole's location.
16. Submit a soils report and hydrology study prepared by a California registered civil engineer.
i
17. Show all easements on the Final Tract Map.
I
I
18. Do not show building footprints on the Final Tract Map.
19. Prior to final map approval,plans for all required street improvements shall be submitted to
I
and approved by the City.
20. Dedicate vehicular access right directly to De Berry Street for all lots fronting directly onto
that street,Lots 3 through Lot 15.
21. 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 subdivision shall be served by the
public sewer system.
22. Prior to final map approval, grading and drainage plans,which must be approved prior to the
final map,shall be submitted to the City to provide for contributory drainage from adjoining
properties and including dedication of necessary easements.
i
23. 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.
24. 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.
Conditions After the Final Map Approval:
25. 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.
Conditions Prior to Grading:
26. Comply with all N.P.D.E.S.requirements.
27. Comply with W.Q.M.P.requirements.
PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace,California at a regular
meeting held on the 10'day of November, 2005.
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\JOHN\Kadar\\TfM-04-04resolution.counci l.rev
f
i ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
} APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 04-02 (SP-04-02) FOR A 16 LOT SUBDIVISION
WITH 15 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED UNITS AND ONE OPEN SPACE LOT
ON A TWO ACRE SITE LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF DE BERRY STREET
BETWEEN THE GAGE CANAL ON THE WEST AND MT. VERNON ON THE EAST
AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CASE NO. 04-01 (E-04-01) -MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS PROVIDED BY THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
r - WHEREAS, the applicant has filed the necessary applications including four Site and
Architectural Review cases and a tentative tract map to subdivide the subject site into 16 individual
,lots and construct 15 single family detached units; and
WHEREAS, there is no existing zone in the City's Zoning Code to accommodate the size
j and dimensions of the 16 proposed lots; 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
t _
4
WHEREAS,the subject site is along,narrow site which was leftover after the surrounding
area developed and which is difficult to develop under the Zoning standards of the existing Zoning
Code; and
WHEREAS,the proposed project is providing for compensating design characteristics such
as variable front yard setbacks, garages on the back and varied front elevations to make this project
! compatible with the surrounding residential development; and
WHEREAS,the,resulting density-of this project at 7.5 units per acre is not inconsistent with
existing development in the area including a large apartment complex immediately to the south and
a recently approved 55 unit townhouse condominium project to the immediate west; and
{ WHEREAS, Specific Plan No. 04-01,Exhibit A, is consistent with the,General Plan of the
City of Grand Terrace; and
I ,
E WHEREAS,in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
an environmental review for Specific Plan No. 04-01 has been conducted and a Mitigated Negative
_Declaration has been prepared under E-04-01 for this project with the Mitigated Negative
Declaration (Exhibit B) having been considered by both the Planning Commission and the City
Council; and
I
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held properly noticed public hearing on this project
on August 19,,2004, January 20, 2005, May 18, 2005, July 21, 2005 and September 15, 2005; and
ATTACHMENT 4
I
I
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission following the conclusion of the public hearing on
September 15, 2005 recommended that the City Council approve Specific Plan No. 04-02 and the
associated Mitigated Negative Declaration under Environmental Review No. 04-01, 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. 04-02 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 otherrelevant testimony on October 13,2005 and on November
10, 2005 for SP-04-02 and E-04-01.
NOW, THEREFOR, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OFNGRAND TERRACE,
CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Specific Plan No. 04-02 to allow for the development of 15 single family
residence and one open space lot, 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-04-01 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 315L 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 10th day of November, 2005 and finally adopted and
ordered posted at a regular meeting of said City Council on the 8`'
day of December, 2005.
i
I
ATTEST:
I
t
City Clerk of the City of Grand Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace
Terrace and of the City Council and ofthe City Council thereof
I
I
1, BRENDA STANFILL, City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace, California, do hereby
1 certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City
4 Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on the November 10, 2005 by the following vote:
AYES:
i
fi NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
i Brenda Stanfill
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
i
John Harper
City Attorney
i
I
,
I
c:\MyFilesVOHN\Karger\Karger2-5-04\sp04-02ordinance
I
t
I
I
i
c
� TY .
i
RAND TERM-CE Community Services Department
Nnvru
Staff Report
CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (X ) MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 10, 2005
SUBJECT: CITYWIDE USER FEE AND RATE STUDY
FUNDING REQUIRED: ( ) NO FUNDING REQUIRED (X )
RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE AND RECOMMENDED INCREASES, DECREASES,
ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS OF SELECTED USER FEES
Executive Summary
CBIZ Accounting, Tax and Advisory of Orange County, LLC (CBIZ) was engaged by
the City of Grand Terrace to prepare a comprehensive City wide,user fee and rate
study. The city council approved the appropriation of funds for the study amounting to
$10,300 in the FY 05-06 Budget. The Rate .Study document represents the results of
the study-and the recommended user fee increases, decreases, additions and deletions
per staff. Documents are available that describe the methodology used to calculate the
cost of each fee including all salaries, benefits and overhead costs.
Background
The City of Grand Terrace is a contract City providing administrative functions,
planning, building and safety, public works, sewer, animal control and recreation
services to the residents of Grand Terrace. The City of Grand Terrace charges a
number of fees to the community for services rendered to specific individuals using the
service. Building and Safety fees and sewer fees have been excluded from the scope of
this study
Objective
The objective of this project was to prepare a comprehensive City wide user fee and
rate study that will .identify all costs associated with providing specific services. The
last time a fall study was done'and increases were enacted by the council was August
1993.
CGUNPUL AGEMDA RTEM NO (Do
a
i
Scope
The scope of services provided for this project included:
i
• A review of all current fees;
• A survey of each service to determine process and time involved in providing
the service;
' • Focused interviews with affected department staff to ensure our understanding
of the service provided; and
• A calculation of the full cost of each service, including indirect costs.
i
Methodology _.
In order to prepare the user fee and rate study, CBIZ held a kick-off meeting with the
City's project liaisons to discuss the methodology, timing and extent of the services to
be provided. A survey of each fee was distributed to the department primarily
responsible for delivering the particular service. Information obtained from the survey
included the name of the service, description of the service and the amount of time, by
employee classification, required to perform the service.
i Once the surveys were completed, follow-up meetings were held with each department
liaison. These meetings provided the contractor with an opportunity to discuss with the
department any issues regarding the services provided, employees involved in the
process, and explore whether a new fee should be created for a specific service. The
contractor utilized the City's consolidated listing of fees for the basis of the fees
currently charged.
1
The methodology to determine cost of service is based upon the time necessary to
deliver the service, at the fully burdened labor rate for the position delivering the
service. We calculated the fully burdened labor rate for each employee classification.
The fully burdened labor rate includes the following:
• Base labor cost representing the top step salary, by employee classification
update July 2005.
• Actual employee benefits including medical, life, long-term disability, short-
term disability, administrative leave, co-pay, social security, Medicare, PERS
and unemployment.
• Departmental indirect cost rate as documented in Exhibit A. The departmental
indirect cost rates were calculated by dividing departmental indirect costs by
the by total departmental indirect costs.
• General Citywide overhead rate of 8.93% was calculated by CBIZ.
i
California Government Code Section 66016 states, in part... "no local agency shall levy
a new fee or service charge or increase an existing fee or service charge to an amount
which exceeds the estimated amount required to provide the service for which the fee or
service charge is levied. If however, the fees or service charges create revenues in
excess of actual cost, those revenues shall be.used to reduce the fee or service creating
the excess."
The fully burdened cost of providing each service is documented by department in
Exhibits B through G of the Rate Study, and includes the following:
• Fee description;
• Current fee;
,` • Average number of units performed (if no information was available, the count
was left blank);
• Current estimated revenues;
• 'Fully burdened,costs;
• Estimated revenue utilizing the fully burdened cost; and
• Comments
The recommended fees, as proposed by City staff, are included in the scope of this
project under Exhibit "H" of the,Rate Study:
RESULTS
This section highlights the changes in revenue by department. The following schedule
identifies the estimated net change in revenue by department should the City charge the
full-burdened rate. '
Estimated
Projected Estimated Net Change in
Annual Current Annual Annual
Revenue
Revenue Revenue
Department
Finance $ 240 $ 320 $ 80
City Clerk 665 5,666 .5,001
Community Services 2,080 157,901 155,821
Animal Control 16,325 44,495 28,170
Planning 61,660 102,727 41,067
Public Works n/a n/a n/a
Total 80 970 $311,109 SZaQ 139
n/a - there is insufficient information regarding the number of units performed,
therefore, revenue estimates could not be calculated.
I I I
j The following subsections document the new fees proposed for each department.
Finance
.I
Finance is not proposing.any new fees. Finance fees are documented in Exhibit B.
cityClerk
The City Clerk is proposing two new fees.
• Copy of Videotaped Event - this fee covers the cost of providing a,video copy '
,
of an event.
• Copy of Audio Event _ this fee covers the cost of providing an audio taped copy
of an event.
I a .
City Clerk fees are documented in Exhibit C.
Community Services
Community Services is proposing four new fees. These fees are part of a proposed new
program for annual housing inspections.
Rental Inspection External Apartments - this fee covers the cost to provide an
external inspection of apartment houses located within the City. -
• Single Family Home External Inspection - this fee covers the cost to inspect a
single family home.
i
j • Re-inspection Fee - this fee covers the cost to re-inspect a property if
deficiencies were identified during an initial inspection.
I
• NPDES Inspection Fee - this fee covers the cost of the City's outside consultant
to respond to complaints and perform pro-active code enforcement activities.
Community Services fees are documented in Exhibit D.
{ Animal Control
i
I ;
Animal Control is not proposing any new fees. The fully burdened costs for these
j services are documented in Exhibit E.
i
I
i
i
i Planning
I
I t
I
� I
The Planning Department is proposing one new fee and deleting/consolidating several
fees. The fully burdened costs for these services are documented in Exhibit F.
• Non-conforming Status Letter -this fee covers the costs of identifying the status
of a property and preparing a written letter to the customer.
Public Works
Public Works is not proposing any new fees and deleting/consolidating several fees.
Public Works fees are documented in Exhibit G.
Staff Recommendations
ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
AND RECOMMENDED INCREASES, DECREASES, ADDITIONS, AND
DELETIONS OF SELECTED USER FEES
i
I
I
i
i
I
ORDINANCE NO.
I
i
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 4 OF
j THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND ESTABLISHING USER FEES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Title 4 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code is hereby amended and the revised
chapters 4.16, 4.48,4.52,4.56, 4.84,4.88, 4.92,4.100 and a new chapter for rental inspection fees,
I
which are included herewith as Exhibit A, are hereby adopted.
Section 2. Conflicts and Ambiguities-In the event of any conflicts or ambiguities between
the provisions of the ordinance and other provisions of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code, the
provisions of this Ordinance shall prevail. Each separate violation shall be a separate offense.
I
Section 3. Severability - If any provision or clause of this Ordinance or the application
thereof to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional or to be otherwise invalid by any
court of competent jurisdiction,such invalidity shall not affect other Ordinance provisions or clauses
or applications thereof which can be implemented without the invalid provisions or clause or
application,and of this end the provisions and clauses of the Ordinance are declared to be severable.
Section 4. 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 5. 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 purposes by the City Council.
Section 6.First read at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on the 10`b day
ofNovember,2005,,and finally adopted and ordered posted at a regular meeting of said City Council
on the 8`h day of December, 2005.
I
I
Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace
and of the City Council thereof.
Attest:
Brenda Stanfill, City Clerk
-1-
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 8`h day of December, 2005, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Brenda Stanfill, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
John Harper, City Attorney
r-
-2-
city ef 6rarrace
---- -- - C-itywide-User-Fee and-Rate.-Study
Staff Recommended Increases
November 2005 -
Fully
Department Burdend Estimated
p Fee.Description Current Fee Proposed Fee Cost Cost Change Comments
4.100.010 Other Fees
Finance Returned Check Fee-- 1 st processing $ 10.00
$
Finance Returned Check Fee-- Each additional rocessing $ 10.00- 1600 $ 16.00 $ 6.00
4.92.010 Public Document Fees Chapter 4.92
- - California-Government
code 6253 allows for fee
covering the direct cost of
an exact copy. Per page is
defined as one side of one
City Clerk Copying $0.20 per )age piece of paper by the City of
p g $.25 per page $ 3.00 $ 0.05 Grand Terrace
The cost of the video tape,
City Clerk Copy of Video Tape $ _ if not provided by the
$ 11.00 $ 11.00 $ 11.00 requester is $1.98
The cost of the audio tape,
City Clerk Copy of Audio Tape $ - $ 11.00 $ 11.00 if not provided by the
$ 11.00 requestor is $.91 each
New Chapter
Community Services Rental Inspection Apartments 200 + units $ - $ 36.00 $ 38.00 $ 36.00 Per unit
Community Services Rental Inspection Apartments 1 - 199 units $ - $ 48.00 $ 49.00 $ 48.00 Per unit
Community Services Single family Home Inspection $ - $ . 95.00 $ 99.00 $ 95.00
Community Sear Vices $ - $ 47.00 $ 47.00 $ 47.00
Community Services NPDES Inspection Fee $ - $ 80.00 $ 80.00 $ 80.00
4.16.010 Animal Control and Licensing Fees 4.16
Animal Control Dog Licence Fees-Spayed/neutered dogs $ 12.00 $ 15. 00 $ 28.00 $ 3.00
4.88.010 Planning Fees 4.88
Pa^-?, of 5
City of Gr..-- Terrace J
Citywide User Fee and Rate Study
Staff Recommended Increases
November 2005
'lanning Adminstrative SAR $ 200 $ 650.00 $ 660.00 $ 450.00
'lanning Full SAR $ 1,400 $ 2,200.00 $2,277.00 $ 800.00
'lanning Admin CUP $ 200 $ 400.00 $ 447.00 $ 200.00
'lanning Standard CUP $ 2,000 $ 2,400.00 $2,396.00 $ 400.00
'lanning Sign Variance $ 300 $ 300.00 $ 308.00 $ -
'lanning Minor Deviation $ 300 $ 300.00 $ 317.00 $
'lanning Standard Variance $ 1,450 $ 1,500.00 $1,493.00 $ 50.00
'lanning . RV Minor Variance $ 50 $ 50.00 $ 57.00 $ -
'lanning GPA $ 1,900 $ 2,100.00 $2,431.00 $ 200.00
'lanning Zone Change $ 1,300 $ 2,200.00 $3,136.00 $ 900.00
'lanning Specific Plan $ 3,000.00 Cost Deposit
'lanning Specific Plan Amendment
'lanning Determiniation of Use $ 225 $ 475.00 $ 453.00 $ 250.00
'lanning Initital Study $ 100 $ 100.00 $ 99.00 $ -
'lanning Negative Declaration $ 400 $ 650.00 $ 658.00 $ 250.00
'lanning EIR Deposit
'lanning EIR-- Fish and Game admin fee $ 35.00 Controlled by the State
'lanning Fish and Game Negative Declaration $1,250.00 Controlled by the State
'lanning Fish and Game EIR $ 850.00 Controlled by the State
'lanning Tent Parcel Map $ 250 $ 1,800.00 $2,083.00 $ 1,550.00
'lanning Tent Tract Map $ 900 $ 2,150.00 $2,474.00 $ 1,250.00
'lanning Revised Tract Map $ 350 $ 1,500.00 $1,650.00 $ 1,150.00
'lanning Final Parcel Map $ 250 $ 500.00 $ 424.00 $ 250:00
'lanning Final Tract Map $ 350 $ 700.00 $ 580.00 $ 350.00
'lanning Lot Line Adjustment $ 750 $ 750.00 $ 784.00 $ -
'lanning Lot Merger $ 500 $ 550.00 $ 550.00 $ 50.00
'lanning Reversion to Acreage $ 500 $ 700.00 $ 700.00 $ 200.00
'lanning Certificate of Compliance $ 900 $ 800.00 $ 846.00 $ (100.00
'lanning Extension of Time $ 200 $ 200.00 $ 219.00 $ -
'Ianning Sign Permit Standard $ 200 $ 150.00 $ 157.00 $ 50.00
'lanning Overall Sign Program $ 375 $ 350.00 $ 355.00 $ 25.00
'lanning Temporary Sign $ 10 $ 50.00 $ 56.00 $ 40.00
'lanning Land Use Application $ 33 $ 50.00 $ 92.00 $ 17.00
'lanning Alteration of Conditions $ 200 $ 1,300.00 $1,321.00 $ 1,100.00
'lanning Appeal of Director's Decision $ 490 $ 700.00 $ 762.00 $ 210.00
'lanning Appeal PC Decision $ - $ 700.00 $ 784.00 $ 700.00
'lanning Non Conformance Letter $ - I $ 100.00 $ 125.00 $ 100.00
Page 2of5
City of Granderrace
Citywide User Fee and Rate Study
Staff Recommended Increases
November 2005
Planning Sign Permit+32 sf $ 200 delete
Planning Standard Deviation delete
Planning Standard CUP +3000 delete
Planning Standard CUP 1500-3000 delete
Planning Standard CUP 500 - 1,499 delete
Public Works Permits and Inspection Fees:
4.48.020 Street Excavations 4.48
Public Works Public Works Permit Fee $ 25.00_ $ _ 58.00 $_ 58. 00 $ 33.00
Public-Works Curb and Gutter $25 + .15 lin. Ft. $58+ $ 0.20 cost per lineal foot
Public Works Cross Gutter $26 + .10 sqr. Ft. $58+ $ 0.12 cost per square foot
Public Works Drive Approach $26 + .10 sqr. Ft. $ 61.00 $ 61.07 cost per approach
Public Works Sidewalk $25 + .10 sqr. Ft. $58 $ 0.20 cost per square foot
Public Works Curb Drains $27 each $ 122. 00 $ 122.15 $ 95.00 each
Public Works Under Sidewalk Drains $27 each $ 122.00 $ 122.15 $ 95.00 each
Public Works Catch Basin $27 each $ 244.00 $ 244.30 $ 217.00 each
Public Works Drainage Channel $25+ .25 sqr ft $58+ $ 0.61 cost per square foot
Public Works Retaining Walls $25 + .25 sqr ft $58+ $ 0.41 cost per square foot
Public Works Subgrade delete combine w/AC pavement
Public Works Base Material delete combine w/AC pavement
Public Works AC Pavement $25+ .0050 sqr. Ft. $58+ $ 0.02 cost per square foot
Public Works AC Berm $25 + .10 lin. Ft. $58+ $ 0.18 cost per square foot
Public Works Overhead Installations $25 per pole delete delete
Public Works Sewer Mains $25 + .20 lin. Ft. $58+ $ 0.61 cost per lineal foot
Public Works Sewer Laterals $25 + .20 lin. Ft. $58+ $ 0.20 cost per lineal foot
Public Works Storm Drains $25+ .20 lin. Ft. $58+ $ 0.76 cost per lineal foot
Public Works Water Lines $25 + .20 lin. Ft. $58+ $ 0.98 cost per lineal foot
Public Works Irrigation Lines $25+ .20 lin. Ft. delete delete
Public Works Electric Lines $25+ .20 lin. Ft. $58+ $ 0.98 cost per lineal foot
Public Works Gas Lines $25+ .20 lin. Ft. $58+ $ 0.98 cost per lineal foot
Public Works TV Cable Lines $25 + .20 lin. Ft. $58+ $ 0.98 cost per lineal foot
Public Works Telephone Lines $25 + .20 lin. Ft. $58+ $ 0.98 cost per lineal foot
Public Works Manholes $25 each $ 183.00 $ 183.22 $ - each
Public Works Street Lights $25 each $ 61.00 $ 61.07 $ 36.00 leach
Pa "`S of 5
l
City of GiG,,-Terrace
Citywide User Fee and Rate Study
Staff Recommended Increases
November 2005
5% of estimated
Public Works Signals cost 5% estimated cost
4.52.010 Moving Permits 4.52
Public Works Moving Permits:
Public Works Oversize Load Permit $ 20.00 $ 20.00 $ - Regulated by the State
4.56.010 Street and Parkway Tree Permits
Public Works Street and Parkway Tree Permits:
Public Works Tree Removal Permit $ 15.00 delete delete
4.84.010 Engineering Fees 4.84
Public Works Engineering Fees:
plus $1500 deposit+ actual
Public Works PreliminaryReview cost contractor cost plus
$ 500.00 $ 534.00 34 10% administration.
plus $1,000 deposit+actual
Public Works Minor Subdivision (Parcel map) $ 250.00 $ 534.00 $ 534.00 $ 284.00 cost contractor cost
plus $2500.00 deposit+
actual cost contractor cost
Public Works Major Subdivision $ 1,000.00 $ 534.00 $ 534.00 $ (466.00) + 10% aministration
plus $1000 deposit+actual
cost contractor cost plus
Public Works Revised Tentative Ma (minor subdivision) $ 250.00 $ 275.00 $ 275.00 $ 25.00 10%administration
plus $5000 deposit+ actual
cost contractor cost plus
Public Works Revised Tentative Map (major subdivision) $ 1,000.00 $ 1,054.00 $1,054.00 $ 54.00 10% administration
Page 4 of 5
it�of GT�� errace
--- -------- ------
- ----------------- ------------ ------- --
--- Citywide-User Fee and Rate Study
Staff Recommended Increases
November 2005
plus $1000 deposit+ actual
cost contractor cost plus
Public Works Final Map/Minor Subdivision (parcel map) $ 416.00 $ 260.00 $ 260.00 $ (156.00) 10% administration
plus $5000 deposit + actual
cost contractor cost plus
Public Works Final Map/Major Subdivision (parcel map) $ 1,054.00 $ 1,054.00 $1,054.00 $ - 10% administration
Public Works Deferred Monumentation:
Public Works 20 lots or less $ 150.00 $ 31.00 $ 31.00 $ (119.00) cost per lot
Public Works 21 lots or greater delete
Public Works Lot Line Adjustments $ 250.00 $ 534.00 $ 534.00 $ 284.00
Public Works Lot Merger $ 50.00 $ 534.00 $ 534.00 $ 484.00
Public Works Reversion to Acreage $ 250.00 $ 534.00 $ 534.00 $ 284.00
Public Works Grading Plan - Revised $ 150.00 $ 534.00 $ 534.00 $ 384.00
Based on Value of
Public Works Public Improvement Fees Work $534.00 $534.00 Unknown
Public Works Printing Costs
Public Works 11 x 17 =0.55 per sheet $0.55 per sheet $ 0.75 $ 0.75 $ 0.25 per sheet
Public Works 18 x 26 = 1.22 per sheet $1.25 per sheet $ 1.31 $ 1.31 $ 0.06 per sheet
Public Works Misc. Maps =0.50 per square foot $0.5 per square foot $ 0.75 $ 0.75 $ 0.25 per square foot
Public Works Deferment/Waiver of Public Improvements $ 60.00 $ 122.00 $ 122.00
Pac--`aof 5
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND
TERRACE, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING FINES FOR FAILURE TO
OBTAIN A STREET CUT PERMIT AND FAILURE TO PERFORM
STREET CUT CONSTRUCTION. IN ACCORDANCE TO THE
SPECIFICATIONS AS DESCRIBED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR
CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
WHEREAS, over the years there has been an increase in the number of street
cuts by public utilities and contractors; and
WHEREAS, all of the public utilities generally have maintained the proper
permits there have been instances where contractors have not obtained permits to cut
into our roads for various construction purposes; and
WHEREAS, under the current street cut policy there is no recourse for those
contractors that do not obtain permits nor for those contractors that perform sub
standard street cut work; and
WHEREAS, all public utilities are exempt for failure to obtain a street cut permit
in cases of emergency but still must comply with the Specifications for Construction
within the Public Right of Way; and
WHEREAS, city staff has had several meetings with public utility officials to take
their input and modify the Specifications for Construction within the Public Right of Way
that meets their needs to our best ability and still maintain the integrity of the policy,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Description of Violation
Street cut permits along with a City of Grand Terrace Construction
Application Package can be obtained from the Public Works Department.
Failure to obtain a permit will result in a fine of $1,000 for each
occurrence.
Fine* $1,000 per each occurrence
*All public utilities are exempt from this requirement for emergency repairs
only
Contractors 'performing street cuts and resulting patching that are not
performed correctly in accordance with Attachment "A" shall be subject to
� EL-J] �®
7
I
i
I
I '
I
a fine of $1,000, or the cost to re-patch the street section correctly (which
ever amount-is greater), for each occurrence.
I
Fine $1,000 per each occurrence or the cost to re-patch the
i street section correctly—whichever is greater.
i Section 2. Effective Date: The Ordinance shall be in full force and effect at 12:01
j a.m. on the 31st day of its adoption.
f Section 3. Positing: 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 4. First read at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on the
23rd day of June,, 2005 and finally adopted and ordered posted at a
regular meeting of said City Council on the 14th day of July,, 2005.
r
ATTEST:
I
i
City Clerk,of the City of Grand Terrace Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace
and of the City Council thereof and of the City Council thereof
l r-.
i
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
j meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on the 14th day of July,
! 2005 by the following vote:
i
I
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
' ABSTAIN:
f
G
City Clerk
I Approved as to form:
I
City Attorney
i
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
ATTACHMENT"A"
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION
WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY
Working hours 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.
Work is to be conducted in accordance with the Grand Terrace Municipal Code, specifically Title 12 "Street,
Sidewalks and Public Places"and the following specifications:
A. PROTECTION AND RESTORATION OF EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS
The contractor shall be responsible for the protection of public and private property adjacent to the work
and shall exercise due caution to avoid damage to such property.
The contractor shall repair or replace all existing improvements public or private which are not designated
for removal (e.g., curbs, sidewalks, driveways, fences, walls, signs, utility installations, pavements,
structures, etc.)which are damaged or removed as a result of its operations; except when a portion of a
sprinkler system within the right-of-way must be removed, the remaining lines shall be reconstructed or
capped. Repairs and replacements shall be at least equal to existing improvements, and shall match them
in finish and dimension.
Trees, lawn, and shrubbery that are not to be removed shall be protected from damage or injury. If
damaged or removed because of the contractor's operations, they shall be restored or replaced in as neatly
the original condition and location as is reasonably possible. Lawns shall be reseeded and covered with
suitable mulch.
The contractor shall give 10 days notice, in writing, to occupants or owners of adjacent property to permit
them to salvage or relocate plants, trees, fences, sprinklers and other improvements within the right-of-way,
which are designed for removal and would be destroyed because of the work.
All costs to the contractor for protecting, removing, and restoring existing improvements shall be absorbed
in its bid.
B. PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
1. TRAFFIC AND ACCESS
The Contractor's operations shall cause no unnecessary inconvenience. The access rights of the public
shall be considered at all times. Unless otherwise authorized, traffic shall be permitted to pass through
the work.All street closures shall be approved by the City. The contractor shall submit a detour plan for
approval.
Safe and adequate pedestrian and vehicular access shall be provided and maintained to fire hydrants,
commercial and industrial establishments, churches, schools, parking lots, service stations, motels, fire
and police stations, hospitals, and establishments of similar nature. Access to these facilities shall be
continuous and unobstructed unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
The contractor shall provide safe and adequate pedestrian zones and public transportation stops.
Pedestrian crossings shall be provided at intervals not exceeding 300 feet, which shall be maintained
unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
The contractor shall provide, at the end of the day, vehicular access to residential driveways except
when necessary construction precludes such access for reasonable periods of time. If backfill has been
completed to such extent that safe access may be provided, and the street is opened to local traffic, the
contractor shall immediately clear the street and driveways and provide and maintain access.
The contractor shall cooperate with the various parties involved in the delivery of mail and the collection
and removal of trash and garbage to maintain existing schedules for these services.
1
i
Grading operations, roadway excavation and backfill construction shall be conducted by the contractor
in a manner to provide a reasonably satisfactory surface for traffic.When rough grading is completed,
the roadbed surface shall be brought to a smooth, even condition satisfactory for traffic.
I _
Unless otherwise authorized, work shall be performed in only one-half the roadway at one time. One-
half shall be kept open and unobstructed until the opposite side is ready for use. If one-half a street
only is being improved, the other half shall be conditioned and maintained as a detour.
The contractor shall absorb in its bid all costs for the above requirements.
2. STREET CLOSURES, DETOURS AND BARRICADES
The Contractor shall comply with all applicable State, County and City requirements for closure of
streets. The contractor shall provide barriers, guards, lights, signs, temporary bridges, flag persons and
watchpersons, advising the public of detours and construction hazards. The contractor shall also be
responsible for compliance with additional public safety requirements, which may arise during
construction. The contractor shall furnish and install and upon completion of the work, promptly remove
all signs and warning devices.
i
At least 48 hours in advance of closing, or partially closing, or of reopening, any street, alley, or other
public thoroughfare, the contractor shall notify the Police, Fire, School Districts Department of
Transportation, Traffic and Engineering Departments of jurisdictional agencies involved, and comply
with their requirements. The City Engineer must first approve deviations in writing.
3. STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS IN PUBLIC STREETS
I
Construction materials may not be stored in streets, roads, or highways. All materials or equipment not
installed or used in the construction shall be stored elsewhere by the contractor at its expense unless
authorized by the City Engineer.
Construction equipment shall not be stored at the worksite before its actual use on the work nor after it
is no longer needed on the work.
Excavated material, except that which is to be used for backfill the same day in the adjacent trench,
may not be stored on public streets, roads, or highways unless otherwise permitted by the City
Engineer.After placing backfill, all excess material shall be removed immediately from the site.
!
C. STREET CUT TRENCH REPAIR
1. Street cut permits and Grand Terrace Construction Application Packages can be obtained from the
Public Works Department). Failure to obtain such a permit will result in a fine of$1,000 for each
occurrence.
2. SBC, The Gas Company, Southern California Edison and Riverside Highland and each of their
j designated contractors (operating under the named utility's permit) are exempt from requirement
number 1 and 4.
I
3. Contractor shall notify Engineering Inspector 24 hours prior to construction of permanent paving or
concrete placement.
4. Contractors performing street cuts and resulting patching that are not performed correctly in
accordance with the corresponding specifications described in this document, or deviate from
specifications without written approval from the City Engineer, shall be subject to a fine of$1000, and
will be required to re-patch the street section per the specifications outlined in this document,for each
occurrence.
i
5. Removal of asphalt and concrete shall be per standard specifications described within this document.
Asphalt shall be straight cut, the limit of concrete removal and replacement shall be determined in the
field by the Engineering Inspector prior to construction.
2
6. All joint lines shall be cut on a straight line parallel with the joint.
7. No open trenches will be permitted overnight.All trenches are to be backfilled and covered with a
minimum of two inches (2")of temporary A.C. paving or trench plates.When steel plates are used they
shall be secured to the existing AC with pins and ramped to prevent vehicular damage. The City
Engineer may recommend additional safety measures if he deems it necessary.
8. The City encourages the use of tunneling or boring to traverse the streets. Mid-block crossings may be
installed by jacking conduit under street. Crossing shall be spaced concurrent with existing utility
infrastructure and approved by the City.
9. Sidewalk cuts---removal and replacement--need to be cut back to the nearest joint and filled
10. Curb and Gutter removals---need to cut back a minimum of 12 inches of asphalt to allow for proper AC
compaction.
11. Temporary and permanent resurfacing shall be per specifications put forth in this document. All
temporary and base course paving shall be installed to the finished surface of the existing pavement.
For longitudinal trenches less than 3 feet in width and greater than 20 feet in length, or transverse
trenches less than 3 feet in width and 8 feet in length,the total surface area of the finish course of
asphalt concrete pavement shall be 24 inches wider than the nominal dimension of the trench. This
shall be achieved by cold-milling the base course asphalt concrete and the existing asphalt concrete to
a depth of 1 1/2 -inch minimum below the existing roadway surface, and 12 inches beyond the edge of
trench in all directions. Cold milling of PCC (Portland cement concrete) improvements, such as gutters
and spandrels, is not allowed. All trench repairs will be consistent with the above description and/or the
Construction Notes in Figure A unless otherwise determined by the City Engineer.
12. Where a series of related cuts are made by one contractor, a series being defined as two or more cuts
that are within 15 feet or less of each other, the series shall be treated as a continuous open trench and
the pavement repair shall be accomplished as herein specified for open trenches unless otherwise
determined by the City Engineer.
13. When patching a street cut made on a street with Petromat overlay, The Contractor will be required to
grind 1 foot wider than the existing patch on all sides at a depth of 1% inches. Replace the Petromat
over grinded surface with AR4000 oil and repave with 1%Z inches of AC.
14. When patching a street after a trench cut, grind.existing AC 1 foot minimum outside of each edge of the
trench at a depth of 1% inches, tack all edges of patches
15. The City will notify all public utilities at least twelve months in advance of any major street overlays. No
street cuts, other than emergency street cuts, will be allowed for two years in the area as described in
the notification to the public utilities. If a street cut occurs by a public utility within the area described in
the notification, the public utility will be responsible for replacement of a portion or the entire area as
described in the notification. This determination will be made by the City Engineer.
16. See Figure A and accompanying Construction Notes for more repair detail.
17. SBC, the Gas Company, Southern California Edison and each of their designated contractors
(operating under the named Utility's permit) are allowed to use"The California Inter-Utility Site
Restoration Committee-Site Restoration Guidelines" or"The American Public Works Association
Standard 133-2". Grind and pave 1'outside of each edge of the trench will depend on existing street
condition and will be determined by the City Engineer.
18. SBC, The Gas Company, Southern California Edison are obligated to the workmanship guarantee as
required by their franchise agreements. Riverside Highland will guarantee the integrity of their trench
repairs in perpetuity. Any trench failures will require the respected utility to repair the trench section per
the specifications outlined in this document for each occurrence
3
i
I
i
I
® I
EXIST.ST.SURFACE 1
IN.
T-i
VARIES
I
U Y �
N L C: Xi
L•J G -
C
C
Figure A '
Co
I ---PIPE OR CONDUIT
I T
MAX. MAX
VARIES
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
EXISTING AC SHALL BE CUT FOR TRENCHING.
BEDDING AND SHADING SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE PUBLIC WORKS
CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES UNLESS OTHERWISE DETERMINED BY THE CITY ENGINEER.
B BACKFILL SHALL BE CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE OR NATIVE MATERIALS APPROVED FOR BACKFILL
CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE SHALL BE 6" MINIMUM THICKNESS OR MATCH EXISTING THICKNESS IF
MORE THAN 6".
5 11F TRENCH IS PERPENDICULAR TO STREET CENTERLINE (STREET CROSSING) OR IF TRENCH WIDTH IS
BLESS THAN 12",A 2 SACK CEMENT SLURRY BACKFILL IS REQUIRED.
6 TOTAL PERMANENT AC THICKNESS FOR TRENCH REPAIR SHALL BE 1"THICKER THAN EXISTING AND
3.5" MINIMUM.
IF THE EXISTING AC THICKNESS IS 3" OR LESS AND/OR THE TRENCH WIDTH IS BETWEEN 12" AND 24
THEN THE FULL PERMANENT AC REPAIR AS DESCRIBED IN CONSTRUCTION NOTE 6 SHALL BE
EXTENDED TO V OUTSIDE OF EACH EDGE OF THE TRENCH AS SHOWN.
$ GRIND EXISTING AC I' MINIMUM OUTSIDE OF EACH EDGE OF THE TRENCH AT A DEPTH OF 1'/2", INLAY
SAID AREA WITH 1 Y? OF AC, FLUSH WITH EXISTING ADJACENT AC SURFACE AND TACK EDGES OF
(PATCHES.
IF EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER LIP, EP, AC BERM, ETC., IS WITHIN 2' OF THE EDGE OF TRENCH. REMOVE
(EXISTING AC WITHIN THIS AREA AND INCLUDE IN REPAIR AS DESCRIBED IN-CONSTRUCTION NOTE 8.
I PERMANENT AC SHALL BE V AR 4000 BASE COURSE WITH '/2" MEDIUM MAX AR 4000 CAP.-
A13PROVED DATE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
REVISIONS
DATE BY MARK APPROVED
STREET CUT TRENCH REPAIR DETAIL
i
i
F 4
D. COMPACTION AND PAVING REQUIREMENTS
1. The Contractor may use the native excavated soil as backfill material on-longitudinal trenches
(direction of the travel lane), compacted to 90% relative density when all conditions enumerated
in CPUC Code, Article 787 are met.All transverse excavations, intersection excavations, and
pothole excavations shall be backfilled with crushed aggregate base; native excavated soil may
be used only with the approval of the City Engineer.
2. Sub grade preparations shall be crushed aggregate base.
3. Asphalt concrete pavement shall consist of a minimum of two courses: 1)A V thick minimum
finish course of 1/2" medium max AR4000 and 2)A base course of B-AR4000 (3/4"aggregate
size). The base course shall be 1"deeper than the existing A.C.
4. Pothole dimensions shall be.a minimum of Tx 3'to allow proper compaction and prevent
damage to existing A.C. in good condition.
5. The Contractor shall not place concrete or asphalt on the project without first having submitted
compaction tests to the Department of Public Works,
6. Testing of materials shall be in accordance with ASTM-D-1557.Written reports by a soils
engineer of these tests accompanied by a plat, showing locations, shall be submitted by the
testing laboratory to the City prior to the next construction operation
7. SBC, the Gas Company, Southern California Edison and each of their designated contractors
(operating under the named Utility's permit)are exempt from requirement number 5 and 6. The
above utilities are responsible for their compaction tests,follow the methods described in "The
California Inter-Utility Site Restoration Committee-Site Restoration Guidelines" and obligate to
the workmanship guarantee.
E. COMPACTION-AND TRENCH SPECIFICATIONS
1. Compaction Requirements
Zone Relative Compaction
Pipe Zone 85%
Backfill/Sub Base 90%
Class II Base 95%
Compaction shall comply with the Specifications For Public Works Construction Hand Book.
2. Water densified backfill, or jetting, is prohibited.
Compaction shall comply with the specifications for public works.construction handbook.
3. Water densified backfill, or jetting is prohibited.
F. CURB AND GUTTER CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR
1. Construction
i
i
i
I
All work shall be done in accordance with the plans, the City of Grand Terrace Standard and the
Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, Green Book—current edition. Contractor
shall be familiar with and responsible for adherence to these standards and specifications.
2. Specifications
Concrete shall consist of Portland cement, concrete aggregate, water and admixture when
approved for use. For construction of curbs, gutters, and extruded curbs, the concrete class shall
be 520-C-2500. (520-D-2500 for extruded curb). Forming and concrete placement shall be in
accordance with City of Grand Terrace Guidelines provided by the City Engineer.
Weakened plane joints shall be constructed not more than 10 feet apart. In constructing control
1 .joints, after preliminary troweling, the concrete shall be parted to a depth of 2 inches with a
straightedge to create a division in the coarse aggregate. The concrete shall then be re-floated to
fill the parted joint with mortar. Finishing of these joints shall be to a minimum depth of one inch
by scoring with a tool which will leave the corners rounded and ensure a free movement of the
concrete at the joint, or by sawing the hardened concrete and covering the exposed area with a
white curing compound.
All newly placed concrete shall be cured in accordance with the specifications. The required
acceptable concrete curing compound to be used shall be a type 2, white pigmented compound
and applied to fresh concrete by means of a spray gun thus forming an impervious membrane
over the exposed surfaces.
I
3. Causes for removal
i Any new work found to be defective or damaged prior to its acceptance shall be repaired or
replaced by the contractor.
j All curb and gutter sections having cracks completely through their entire section or excessive
damage shall require removal. These removals shall be from the weakened plane joint to a limit
beyond the crack or damaged area, with a minimum of a 4-foot section required. No curb and
gutter sections left remaining after the required removal shall be less than a 4-foot minimum
section. All removals will require that the existing section be cut at the weakened plane joint and
limit joint to a minimum depth of 1-1/2 inches with and abrasive type saw or equal, and the entire
section to be reconstructed will be removed. All joints shall be constructed at right angles to the
line of the curb.
The top and face of the finished curb shall be true and straight, and the top surface of curbs shall
be of uniform width,free from humps, sags, or other irregularities. When a straightedge 10 feet
long is laid on top of the curb, face of the curb, or on the surface of the gutter the surface shall be
subject to the following repairs or rejection. Areas exceeding the specifications shall be removed
as defined by the specifications or to the limits determined, as required.
a. Curb
Areas acceptable for repair shall have said repairs made by the provisions within this
specification. Approved mortar or approved equal material shall be used for these repairs.
Scars and depressions having a depth no greater than 1/8 inch with an area less than 2 sq.
inches, and numbering no more than 3 in a 10-foot long section are acceptable and will not
require repair.
The size and number of scars or depressions for repair allowed on the face and top surfaces of
the curb shall not exceed an area greater than 5 square inches in size, and have a maximum
depth no greater than 2" deep, and number no more than one per 10 linear feet of curb. Scars or
i
6
depressions in excess of these provisions shall be cause for removal and replacement of the curb
or curb and gutter.
No repairs shall be allowed at ramps, drive approaches and their respective wings.
b. Gutter
No repairs shall be allowed on the surface of the gutter with reference to flow line, deck, and lip.
Scars or depressions having a depth no greater than 1/8 inch with an area less than 2 sq. inches,
and numbering no more than 3 in a 10-foot long section are acceptable and will not require repair.
Scars or depressions in excess of these provisions shall be cause for removal and replacement
of the curb and gutter or gutter if a cross-gutter.
G. OTHER REQUIREMENTS
1. Replacement of Street Markings and Reflectors
a. Any street markings or reflectors that are damaged or removed during the process of
street cuts or trenching shall be replaced in kind.
7