The URL can be used to link to this page

01/10/2012CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS January 10, 2012 GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER 6:00 p.m. 22795 Barton Road THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMPLIES WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. IF YOU REQUIRE SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, PLEASE CALL THE CITY CLERK=S OFFICE AT (909) 824-6621 AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. IF YOU DESIRE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL DURING THE MEETING, PLEASE COMPLETE A REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM AVAILABLE AT THE ENTRANCE AND PRESENT IT TO THE CITY CLERK. SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED UPON BY THE MAYOR AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. ANY DOCUMENTS PROVIDED TO A MAJORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ANY ITEM ON THIS AGENDA WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK=S OFFICE AT CITY HALL LOCATED AT 22795 BARTON ROAD DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. IN ADDITION, SUCH DOCUMENTS WILL BE POSTED ON THE CITY=S WEBSITE AT WWW.CITYOFGRANDTERRACE.ORG * Call to Order – * Invocation – * Pledge of Allegiance – * Roll Call – AGENDA ITEMS STAFF RECOMMENDATION COUNCIL ACTION 6:00 p.m. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL 1. Items to Delete 2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS A. Certificates of Appreciation - Various Members of the Community for Events in October & November, 2011 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 No. 12-27-2011 & 01-10-2012 B. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda C. Approval of 12-13-2011 & 12-20-2011 Minutes D. Award Non-exclusive Services Contract for the Publication of Legal Notices – City News Group, Inc. E. Corrected Treasurer’s Report – September 30, 2011 F. Crime Prevention Committee Member Appointments, Reinstatement and Vacate G. Emergency Operations Committee Member Appointments – James Mejia (Regular Member) and Eileen Young (Alternate Member) H. Historical and Cultural Activities Committee - Committee Appointment (Monteon) I. Emergency Operations Committee Meeting Minutes of 10/04/2011 & 11/01/2011 Approve Approve Award Approve Reinstate/Appoint/ Vacate Appoint Appoint Accept COUNCIL AGENDA 01-10-2012 PAGE 2 OF 2 AGENDA ITEMS STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS COUNCIL ACTION J. Notice of Completion for the Public Improvement Project on Barton Road, Michigan Street, and La Paix Street 4. PUBLIC COMMENT 5. COUNCIL REPORTS 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, California Repealing in their Entirety Ordinance No. 221 and Chapter 5.80 of the Municipal Code and Adopting an Ordinance Establishing a New Chapter 5.80 (Non-Owner Occupied/Rental Property Program) of Title 5 of the Municipal Code B. An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, County of San Bernardino, State of California Adding Section 18.10.090 Planned Residential Development to Chapter 18.10 of Title 18 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Review of Preliminary Design for the New Active Park on Grand Terrace Road 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Resolution - Display of National Motto “In God We Trust” B. Resolution - Consider Whether the City Wishes to Serve as Successor Agency to the Community Redevelopment Agency Pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 3417 C. Fiscal Impact to the General Fund of the California Supreme Court’s Decision in the California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos Case 9. CLOSED SESSION - None ADJOURN CITY COUNCIL CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1. Approval of 12-20-2011 Minutes ADJOURN THE NEXT REGULAR CRA/CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2012 AT 6:00 P.M. AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK=S OFFICE NO LATER THAN 14 CALENDAR DAYS PRECEDING THE MEETING. Approve Repeal Ordinance 221 Schedule Adoption for 1/24/12 Designate Introduce Ordinance Designate Review Consider Adopt Receive/File Approve 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 may not discuss or act on any item not on the agenda, but may briefly respond to statements made or ask a question for clarification. The Mayor may also request a brief response from staff to questions raised during public comment or may request a matter be agendized for a future meeting. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 3A AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: December 27, 2011 Council Item ( X ) CRA Item ( ) TITLE: Check Register No. 12-27-2011 PRESENTED BY: Bernie Simon, Finance Director RECOMMENDATION: Approve BACKGROUND: The Check Register for December 27, 2011 is presented in accordance with Government Code §37202. The attached index to the warrant register is a guideline account list only and is not intended to replace the voluminous list of accounts used by the City and CRA. Expenditure account number formats are XX-XXX-XXX [Fund-Depart-General Account]. Expenditures may be made from trust/agency accounts (fund 23-xxx-) or temporary clearing accounts which do not have budgetary considerations. DISCUSSION: A total of $418,105.99 in accounts payable checks was issued during the period for services, reimbursements, supplies and contracts and are detailed in the attached Check Register sections. Payroll costs for the period amounted to $134,196.95 and are summarized below. Some of the non-routine items include: 67537 Herman Hilkey FY 2011-12 Life Insurance Benefit (net of Medicare Deduction) $1,773.99 67540 Alliant Insurance Srvs. Insurance for the 2011 City Birthday Celebration $189.37 67545 City Clerks Assoc of CA FY 2011-12 Annual Membership for City Clerk T. Martinez $120.00 67554 ESRI G.I.S. License Maintenance for 2012 $4,155.00 Approvals Finance Director (if applicable) BS City Attorney City Manager 67566 Munimetrix Inc Image Flow Lite Software Support $499.00 Some the larger items include: 67526 City of Colton August Wastewater Treatment Balance Due After Advance $2,232.08 67527 City of Colton September Wastewater Treatment $98,960.95 67546 City of Colton Traffic Signal at Main and Iowa Intersection - 2004 cooperative agreement $50,000.00 67573 Rogers, Anderson, Malody, Progress Billing for FY 2010-11 Audit $6,000.00 67582 Tyler Technologies 2012 Eden Accounting Modules annual Maintenance and Licensing $16,620.38 67586 Willdan November Engineering, Plan Review, & Inspection Services $3,990.00 Payroll costs processed for period ending December 27, 2011: Date Period Payroll and payroll costs 11/25/2011 Biweekly $60,667.96 12/09/2011 Biweekly $60,046.01 12/22/2011 Vacation Pay $13,482.98 FISCAL IMPACT: All disbursements are made in accordance with the adopted budget for FY 2011-12. Respectfully submitted: Bernie Simon, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: Check Register – December 27, 2011 Council Action Approved as Recommended: Denied/Other: Council Motion: 12 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 1 Vo u c h e r L i s t CI T Y O F G R A N D T E R R A C E 1 4 : 0 6 : 3 4 P M Pa g e : vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : bo f a Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e De s c r i p t i o n / A c c o u n t Am o u n t 6 7 5 1 9 1 2 / 7 / 2 0 1 1 01 0 9 9 6 CA P U B E M P L O Y E E S ' R E T . S Y S T E M 46 4 5 1 3 9 5 2 8 2 2 3 DE C E M P L O Y E E / D E P E N D E N T H E A L T H I N S U R A N C E 10 - 1 7 5 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 5 7 7 . 2 4 10 - 1 9 0 - 2 6 5 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 6 0 . 3 3 10 - 3 7 0 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 6 4 1 . 3 6 10 - 3 8 0 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 3 2 0 . 6 8 10 - 4 4 0 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 2 , 2 5 6 . 7 0 10 - 4 5 0 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 7 1 . 0 2 10 - 6 2 5 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 9 4 . 5 5 16 - 1 7 5 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 5 1 3 . 1 0 21 - 1 7 5 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 2 9 9 . 3 2 21 - 6 2 5 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 8 3 . 3 6 32 - 2 0 0 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 6 1 9 . 9 7 32 - 3 7 0 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 2 5 6 . 5 5 34 - 4 0 0 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 3 4 2 . 0 9 10 - 0 2 2 - 5 5 - 0 0 1 , 1 1 1 . 7 1 10 - 0 2 2 - 6 1 - 0 0 6 , 1 0 5 . 2 3 10 - 1 2 0 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 3 6 3 . 4 5 10 - 1 2 5 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 3 2 0 . 6 9 10 - 1 4 0 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 9 6 2 . 0 7 10 - 1 7 2 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 4 0 6 . 1 9 To t a l : 1 5 , 6 0 5 . 6 1 6 7 5 2 0 1 2 / 7 / 2 0 1 1 01 1 1 9 4 AM E R I C A N F I D E L I T Y A S S U R A N C E C O A7 5 0 8 6 2 D e c EM P P A I D A C C I D E N T / S U P P L I F E / S U P P S T D I N S 23 - 2 5 0 - 2 0 - 0 0 5 6 9 . 7 6 To t a l : 5 6 9 . 7 6 6 7 5 2 1 1 2 / 7 / 2 0 1 1 01 1 0 9 2 ME T L I F E S B C KM 0 5 7 3 6 7 1 0 0 0 0 1 D E C DE C . E M P L O Y E E / D E P E N D E N T D E N T A L I N S U R A N C E 10 - 0 2 2 - 6 1 - 0 0 1 , 4 4 2 . 4 3 To t a l : 1 , 4 4 2 . 4 3 6 7 5 2 2 1 2 / 7 / 2 0 1 1 01 1 1 9 5 AM E R I C A N F I D E L I T Y A S S U R A N C E C O 68 4 1 9 1 A EM P P A I D F L E X S P E N D I N G / D E P E N D E N T C A R E 23 - 2 5 0 - 1 0 - 0 0 1 , 1 7 0 . 0 0 To t a l : 1 , 1 7 0 . 0 0 6 7 5 2 3 1 2 / 7 / 2 0 1 1 01 1 1 9 6 FI D E L I T Y S E C U R I T Y L I F E 30 6 1 0 7 D e c DE C . E M P L O Y E E P A I D V I S I O N I N S U R A N C E 10 - 0 2 2 - 6 1 - 0 0 1 5 0 . 8 0 1 Pa g e : 12 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 1 Vo u c h e r L i s t CI T Y O F G R A N D T E R R A C E 2 4 : 0 6 : 3 4 P M Pa g e : vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : bo f a Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e De s c r i p t i o n / A c c o u n t Am o u n t (C o n t i n u e d ) To t a l : 1 5 0 . 8 0 6 7 5 2 3 1 2 / 7 / 2 0 1 1 01 1 1 9 6 FI D E L I T Y S E C U R I T Y L I F E 6 7 5 2 4 1 2 / 8 / 2 0 1 1 01 1 1 9 9 PR U D E N T I A L M U N I C I P A L P O O L 00 0 0 3 3 8 9 4 3 D e c EM P L O Y E E P A I D L O N G / S H O R T T E R M D I S A B I L I T Y 10 - 0 2 2 - 6 6 - 0 0 9 9 1 . 1 1 To t a l : 9 9 1 . 1 1 6 7 5 2 5 1 2 / 8 / 2 0 1 1 01 1 1 9 9 PR U D E N T I A L M U N I C I P A L P O O L 00 0 0 3 3 8 6 4 3 a D e c DE C E M P L O Y E E L I F E / A D & D / D E P L I F E / E A P I N S 10 - 1 2 0 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 3 0 . 6 3 10 - 1 2 5 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 1 . 7 3 10 - 1 4 0 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 2 5 . 8 2 10 - 1 7 2 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 0 . 3 1 10 - 1 7 5 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 2 . 0 1 10 - 3 7 0 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 2 7 . 1 8 10 - 3 8 0 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 6 . 8 2 10 - 4 4 0 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 0 1 . 3 9 10 - 4 5 0 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 3 . 3 0 10 - 6 2 5 - 1 1 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 4 . 9 6 16 - 1 7 5 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 0 . 4 3 21 - 1 7 5 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 6 . 6 5 21 - 6 2 5 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 2 . 1 3 32 - 2 0 0 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 8 . 7 7 32 - 3 7 0 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 0 . 4 5 34 - 4 0 0 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 2 . 6 2 34 - 8 0 0 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 3 . 9 9 To t a l : 2 9 9 . 1 9 6 7 5 2 6 1 2 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 1 00 1 8 4 0 CI T Y O F C O L T O N Au g u s t 2 0 1 1 Au g u s t W a s t e w a t e r B a l a n c e D u e 21 - 5 7 0 - 8 0 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 2 , 2 3 2 . 0 8 To t a l : 2 , 2 3 2 . 0 8 6 7 5 2 7 1 2 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 1 00 1 8 4 0 CI T Y O F C O L T O N Se p t e m b e r 2 0 1 1 Se p t e m b e r W a s t e w a t e r T r e a t m e n t 21 - 5 7 0 - 8 0 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 9 8 , 9 6 0 . 9 5 To t a l : 9 8 , 9 6 0 . 9 5 6 7 5 2 8 1 2 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 1 00 6 7 2 0 SO . C A . E D I S O N C O M P A N Y No v e m b e r 2 0 1 1 No v e m b e r E n e r g y U s a g e 2 Pa g e : 12 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 1 Vo u c h e r L i s t CI T Y O F G R A N D T E R R A C E 3 4 : 0 6 : 3 4 P M Pa g e : vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : bo f a Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e De s c r i p t i o n / A c c o u n t Am o u n t 6 7 5 2 8 1 2 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 1 (C o n t i n u e d ) 00 6 7 2 0 SO . C A . E D I S O N C O M P A N Y 10 - 8 0 5 - 2 3 8 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 6 3 7 . 8 4 10 - 1 7 2 - 2 3 8 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 8 0 . 1 1 10 - 1 7 5 - 2 3 8 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 8 0 . 1 1 10 - 4 4 0 - 2 3 8 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 6 2 2 . 0 8 26 - 6 0 0 - 2 3 8 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 4 9 . 8 0 26 - 6 0 1 - 2 3 8 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 4 1 . 5 0 26 - 6 0 2 - 2 3 8 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 5 8 . 1 0 16 - 5 1 0 - 2 3 8 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 6 , 1 0 8 . 9 2 10 - 4 5 0 - 2 3 8 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 , 4 5 1 . 0 4 10 - 1 9 0 - 2 3 8 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 2 , 6 5 0 . 4 1 To t a l : 1 1 , 7 7 9 . 9 1 6 7 5 2 9 1 2 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 1 00 6 7 3 0 SO . C A . G A S C O M P A N Y No v e m b e r 2 0 1 1 NO V E M B E R N A T U R A L G A S / C N G F U E L U S A G E 10 - 1 7 5 - 2 7 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 7 . 8 0 10 - 4 4 0 - 2 7 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 2 . 6 0 34 - 8 0 0 - 2 7 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 2 . 6 0 10 - 1 9 0 - 2 3 8 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 7 0 . 3 7 10 - 4 4 0 - 2 3 8 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 8 4 . 9 1 To t a l : 2 6 8 . 2 8 6 7 5 3 0 1 2 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 1 00 1 2 1 3 AT & T De c e m b e r 2 0 1 1 No v / D e c P h o n e s & I n t e r n e t S e r v i c e 10 - 4 4 0 - 2 3 5 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 3 9 7 . 4 7 10 - 1 9 0 - 2 3 5 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 5 2 4 . 4 2 10 - 4 5 0 - 2 3 5 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 6 6 . 5 0 10 - 8 0 5 - 2 3 5 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 2 0 4 . 5 3 10 - 8 0 8 - 2 3 5 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 5 2 . 0 2 To t a l : 1 , 3 4 4 . 9 4 6 7 5 3 1 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 1 1 01 1 1 3 8 SP A R K L E T T S 96 3 7 1 1 6 1 2 0 1 1 1 No v e m b e r B o t t l e d W a t e r 10 - 1 9 0 - 2 3 8 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 4 9 . 7 6 10 - 4 5 0 - 2 3 8 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 1 . 3 3 10 - 8 0 5 - 2 3 8 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 6 . 8 4 10 - 4 4 0 - 2 3 8 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 4 0 . 0 1 To t a l : 1 0 7 . 9 4 6 7 5 3 2 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 1 1 01 0 2 1 8 CH E V R O N & T E X A C O C A R D S E R V I C E S 32 4 4 7 5 8 0 No v e m b e r V e h i c l e F u e l 3 Pa g e : 12 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 1 Vo u c h e r L i s t CI T Y O F G R A N D T E R R A C E 4 4 : 0 6 : 3 4 P M Pa g e : vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : bo f a Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e De s c r i p t i o n / A c c o u n t Am o u n t 6 7 5 3 2 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 1 1 (C o n t i n u e d ) 01 0 2 1 8 CH E V R O N & T E X A C O C A R D S E R V I C E S 10 - 4 4 0 - 2 7 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 5 6 . 3 6 10 - 1 7 5 - 2 7 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 3 4 8 . 5 9 34 - 8 0 0 - 2 7 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 3 1 . 3 2 To t a l : 4 3 6 . 2 7 6 7 5 3 3 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 1 1 01 0 6 6 4 SH E L L F L E E T M A N A G E M E N T 80 0 0 2 0 9 6 8 7 1 1 2 No v e m b e r V e h i c l e F u e l 10 - 1 7 5 - 2 7 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 4 9 9 . 2 8 To t a l : 4 9 9 . 2 8 6 7 5 3 4 1 2 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 1 01 1 1 8 0 HA Y E S , G E N E E . Ju l - D e c 2 0 1 1 Ju l - D e c H e a l t h I n s u r a n c e R e i m - H a y e s 10 - 1 1 0 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 , 3 5 0 . 0 0 To t a l : 1 , 3 5 0 . 0 0 6 7 5 3 5 1 2 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 1 00 1 0 3 8 VE R I Z O N W I R E L E S S - L A 10 3 3 3 0 0 6 2 9 No v / D e c W i r e l e s s S e r v i c e - P u b l i c W o r k s 10 - 1 7 5 - 2 4 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 9 9 . 0 7 To t a l : 9 9 . 0 7 6 7 5 3 6 1 2 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 1 00 1 9 0 7 CO S T C O # 4 7 8 04 7 8 0 6 0 0 0 8 5 3 C. C A R E S U P P L I E S 10 - 4 4 0 - 2 2 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 5 0 . 5 0 To t a l : 1 5 0 . 5 0 6 7 5 3 7 1 2 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 1 00 3 2 0 0 HI L K E Y , H E R M A N FU 2 0 1 1 - 2 0 1 2 Me d i c a r e D e d u c t i o n - L i f e I n s . B e n e f i t 10 - 0 2 2 - 3 0 - 0 0 -2 6 . 0 1 FY 2 0 1 1 - 2 0 1 2 Co u n c i l L i f e I n s u r a n c e B e n e f i t - H i l k e y 10 - 1 1 0 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 To t a l : 1 , 7 7 3 . 9 9 6 7 5 3 8 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 1 0 2 4 UN I T E D S T A T E S T R E A S U R Y 25 5 3 1 0 Of f i c e S u p p l i e s 34 - 8 0 0 - 2 1 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 5 5 . 6 7 10 - 1 4 0 - 2 1 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 5 5 . 6 7 10 - 3 7 0 - 2 1 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 5 5 . 6 7 To t a l : 1 6 7 . 0 1 6 7 5 3 9 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 1 0 7 2 AD T S E C U R I T Y S E R V I C E S 61 2 6 6 0 0 5 3R D Q T R C H I L D C A R E S E C . M O N I T O R I N G 10 - 4 4 0 - 2 4 7 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 3 7 5 . 0 0 To t a l : 3 7 5 . 0 0 4 Pa g e : 12 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 1 Vo u c h e r L i s t CI T Y O F G R A N D T E R R A C E 5 4 : 0 6 : 3 4 P M Pa g e : vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : bo f a Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e De s c r i p t i o n / A c c o u n t Am o u n t 6 7 5 4 0 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 01 0 7 3 0 AL L I A N T I N S U R A N C E S E R V I C E S , A T T N A C C T S R E C E I V A B L E 42 6 7 1 20 1 1 C i t y B i r t h d a y C e l e b r a t i o n I n s u r a n c e 10 - 8 0 4 - 2 2 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 8 9 . 3 7 To t a l : 1 8 9 . 3 7 6 7 5 4 1 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 01 0 2 9 3 AV A Y A , I N C . 27 3 1 5 3 8 6 5 8 DE C / J A N P H O N E S Y S T E M / V O I C E M A I L M A I N T 10 - 1 9 0 - 2 4 6 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 8 3 . 4 6 To t a l : 1 8 3 . 4 6 6 7 5 4 2 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 01 1 2 1 3 BL A C K & V E A T C H C O R P 11 3 0 3 1 2 Se w e r S t u d y S e r v i c e s 21 - 1 7 5 - 2 5 5 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 5 , 2 4 7 . 7 2 To t a l : 5 , 2 4 7 . 7 2 6 7 5 4 3 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 1 7 4 0 CD W G O V E R N M E N T I N C B3 3 7 8 3 7 TO N E R C A R T R I D G E 10 - 8 0 8 - 7 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 0 5 . 2 3 B6 1 6 1 2 0 EO C C O M P U T E R M O N I T O R 10 - 8 0 8 - 7 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 8 9 . 6 6 To t a l : 2 9 4 . 8 9 6 7 5 4 4 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 01 1 0 3 1 CI N T A S C O R P O R A T I O N # 1 5 0 15 0 4 9 2 8 2 5 C. C A R E P A P E R G O O D S / S U P P L I E S 10 - 4 4 0 - 2 2 8 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 2 6 . 6 6 15 0 5 0 4 8 1 5 C. C A R E P A P E R G O O D S / S U P P L I E S 10 - 4 4 0 - 2 2 8 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 2 0 0 . 5 5 To t a l : 3 2 7 . 2 1 6 7 5 4 5 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 1 7 6 2 CI T Y C L E R K S A S S O C / C A L I F O R N I A 20 1 1 - 2 0 1 2 FY 1 1 - 1 2 A n n u a l M e m b e r s h i p - T . M a r t i n e z 10 - 1 2 5 - 2 6 5 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 2 0 . 0 0 To t a l : 1 2 0 . 0 0 6 7 5 4 6 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 1 8 4 0 CI T Y O F C O L T O N 12 2 0 2 0 1 1 Tr a f f i c S i g n a l - M a i n & I o w a I n t e r s e c t i o n 46 - 9 0 0 - 3 1 4 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 To t a l : 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 6 7 5 4 7 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 01 0 4 0 3 CI T Y O F R E D L A N D S AR 1 3 5 8 4 6 Oc t o b e r C N G F u e l 10 - 4 4 0 - 2 7 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 2 5 . 6 7 AR 1 3 5 9 6 7 No v e m b e r C N G F u e l 10 - 4 4 0 - 2 7 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 5 . 0 6 To t a l : 4 0 . 7 3 5 Pa g e : 12 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 1 Vo u c h e r L i s t CI T Y O F G R A N D T E R R A C E 6 4 : 0 6 : 3 4 P M Pa g e : vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : bo f a Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e De s c r i p t i o n / A c c o u n t Am o u n t 6 7 5 4 8 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 6 4 3 5 CI T Y O F S A N B E R N A R D I N O 56 8 2 DE C E M B E R A N I M A L C O N T R O L S E R V I C E S 10 - 1 8 7 - 2 5 6 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 8 , 6 8 2 . 0 0 To t a l : 8 , 6 8 2 . 0 0 6 7 5 4 9 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 01 0 8 6 6 CI V I C P L U S 93 8 9 3 JA N U A R Y W E B S I T E M A I N T E N A N C E F E E 10 - 1 2 5 - 2 5 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 6 5 2 . 2 5 To t a l : 6 5 2 . 2 5 6 7 5 5 0 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 01 1 0 2 9 CO B R A S I M P L E 12 6 NO V E M B E R C O B R A A D M I N I S T R A T I O N S E R V I C E S 10 - 1 9 0 - 2 2 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 12 9 AU G U S T C O B R A A D M I N I S T R A T I O N S E R V I C E S 10 - 1 9 0 - 2 2 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 To t a l : 1 0 0 . 0 0 6 7 5 5 1 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 01 1 1 6 6 CO R N E R S T O N E R E C O R D S M A N A G E M E N T 01 7 3 7 9 5 NO V E M B E R A R C H I V E T A P E S T O R A G E 10 - 1 4 0 - 2 5 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 5 6 . 6 5 10 - 3 8 0 - 2 5 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 5 6 . 6 5 To t a l : 1 1 3 . 3 0 6 7 5 5 2 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 1 9 0 7 CO S T C O # 4 7 8 04 7 8 1 0 0 0 1 0 5 8 C. C A R E S U P P L I E S 10 - 4 4 0 - 2 2 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 2 3 . 6 1 To t a l : 1 2 3 . 6 1 6 7 5 5 3 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 1 9 5 0 DA T A Q U I C K B1 - 1 9 9 0 5 7 3 No v e m b e r S u b s c r i p t i o n S e r v i c e s 10 - 3 8 0 - 2 5 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 4 3 . 5 0 34 - 8 0 0 - 2 2 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 4 3 . 5 0 10 - 3 7 0 - 2 5 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 4 3 . 5 0 To t a l : 1 3 0 . 5 0 6 7 5 5 4 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 2 2 7 5 ES R I 92 4 2 1 9 6 5 G. I . S . L I C E N S E M A I N T E N A N C E F O R 2 0 1 2 10 - 3 8 0 - 2 5 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 4 , 1 5 5 . 0 0 To t a l : 4 , 1 5 5 . 0 0 6 7 5 5 5 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 2 3 0 1 FE D E X 7- 7 2 0 - 8 4 5 3 2 No v e m b e r D o c u m e n t D e l i v e r y 10 - 1 4 0 - 2 1 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 2 6 . 3 3 To t a l : 2 6 . 3 3 6 7 5 5 6 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 2 7 1 0 FO X O C C U P A T I O N A L M E D I C A L C T . 68 6 7 9 - 3 5 0 9 5 No v N e w E m p l o y e e P h y s i c a l s - A n d e r s o n 6 Pa g e : 12 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 1 Vo u c h e r L i s t CI T Y O F G R A N D T E R R A C E 7 4 : 0 6 : 3 4 P M Pa g e : vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : bo f a Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e De s c r i p t i o n / A c c o u n t Am o u n t 6 7 5 5 6 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 (C o n t i n u e d ) 00 2 7 1 0 FO X O C C U P A T I O N A L M E D I C A L C T . 10 - 1 9 0 - 2 2 4 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 6 3 . 0 0 To t a l : 6 3 . 0 0 6 7 5 5 7 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 2 7 4 0 FR U I T G R O W E R S S U P P L Y 90 9 0 5 6 5 7 Ma i n t S u p p l i e s 10 - 4 5 0 - 2 4 5 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 , 0 8 5 . 4 8 90 9 0 5 6 8 9 Ma i n t S u p p l i e s 10 - 4 5 0 - 2 4 5 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 2 4 . 4 1 To t a l : 1 , 1 0 9 . 8 9 6 7 5 5 8 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 2 9 0 1 G. T . A R E A C H A M B E R O F C O M M E R C E 67 1 2 - R D A DE C E M B E R C O N S U L T A N T S E R V I C E S 32 - 3 7 0 - 2 5 5 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 8 6 0 . 0 0 To t a l : 8 6 0 . 0 0 6 7 5 5 9 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 01 1 0 9 3 GI F F O R D , M A S A K O 12 1 9 2 0 1 1 Ci t y B i r t h d a y C e l e b r a t i o n E x p e n s e R e i m 10 - 8 0 4 - 2 2 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 3 2 . 7 5 To t a l : 3 2 . 7 5 6 7 5 6 0 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 3 1 7 0 Hd L C O R E N & C O N E 00 1 7 7 0 4 - I N Oc t - D e c 2 0 1 1 P r o p e r t y T a x C o n t r a c t 32 - 3 7 0 - 2 5 5 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 6 2 5 . 0 0 To t a l : 6 2 5 . 0 0 6 7 5 6 1 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 01 0 6 3 2 HI G H T E C H S E C U R I T Y S Y S T E M S 98 5 8 1 JA N U A R Y S E C U R I T Y C A M E R A M O N I T O R I N G 10 - 4 5 0 - 2 4 6 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 6 0 . 0 0 10 - 1 9 5 - 2 4 7 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 2 0 . 0 0 To t a l : 8 0 . 0 0 6 7 5 6 2 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 3 2 1 3 HO N E Y W E L L A C S S E R V I C E 10 0 3 2 6 3 Re p a i r s t o H V A C 10 - 1 9 5 - 2 5 7 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 , 0 4 1 . 1 6 35 6 2 5 8 4 3r d Q t r H V A C M a i n t A g r e e m e n t 10 - 1 9 5 - 2 5 7 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 5 , 7 4 3 . 0 0 To t a l : 6 , 7 8 4 . 1 6 6 7 5 6 3 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 2 7 2 7 J. R . F R E E M A N C O M P A N Y 47 4 3 5 8 - 0 Na m e P l a t e f o r n e w C i t y C l e r k - M a r t i n e z 10 - 1 1 0 - 2 1 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 3 . 9 5 To t a l : 1 3 . 9 5 6 7 5 6 4 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 01 0 7 7 3 KE L L A R S W E E P I N G I N C . 64 6 4 No v e m b e r S t r e e t S w e e p i n g 7 Pa g e : 12 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 1 Vo u c h e r L i s t CI T Y O F G R A N D T E R R A C E 8 4 : 0 6 : 3 4 P M Pa g e : vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : bo f a Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e De s c r i p t i o n / A c c o u n t Am o u n t 6 7 5 6 4 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 (C o n t i n u e d ) 01 0 7 7 3 KE L L A R S W E E P I N G I N C . 16 - 9 0 0 - 2 5 4 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 4 , 2 0 0 . 0 0 To t a l : 4 , 2 0 0 . 0 0 6 7 5 6 5 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 01 0 6 1 1 MC N A B O E , D A R C Y De c e m b e r 2 0 1 1 De c H e a l t h I n s u r n a c e R e i m - M c N a b o e 10 - 1 1 0 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 3 1 7 . 0 0 To t a l : 3 1 7 . 0 0 6 7 5 6 6 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 4 7 8 8 MU N I M E T R I X I N C . 12 0 1 0 0 6 Im a g e F l o w L i t e S o f t w a r e S u p p o r t 10 - 1 2 5 - 2 5 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 4 9 9 . 0 0 To t a l : 4 9 9 . 0 0 6 7 5 6 7 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 5 4 0 0 OF F I C E D E P O T 58 7 4 3 5 6 0 5 0 0 1 Of f i c e S u p p l i e s 10 - 4 4 0 - 2 4 6 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 5 3 . 4 7 10 - 4 4 0 - 2 1 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 2 7 . 4 1 58 8 7 1 0 7 8 7 0 0 1 Of f i c e S u p p l i e s 10 - 1 7 5 - 2 1 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 5 1 . 9 9 10 - 1 7 2 - 2 1 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 5 1 . 9 9 58 9 6 6 5 2 1 3 0 0 1 Of f i c e S u p p l i e s 10 - 3 7 0 - 2 1 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 5 3 . 7 5 34 - 8 0 0 - 2 1 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 6 . 5 1 To t a l : 3 4 5 . 1 2 6 7 5 6 8 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 5 6 8 8 PR O T E C T I O N O N E 31 8 9 1 3 4 4 FY 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 B U I L D I N G A L A R M M O N I T O R I N G 10 - 1 9 5 - 2 4 7 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 2 7 . 3 4 To t a l : 1 2 7 . 3 4 6 7 5 6 9 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 01 0 5 6 5 QU I C K L A N E Q1 3 3 2 9 Oi l C h a n g e - 2 0 1 1 F o r d E s c a p e 34 - 8 0 0 - 2 7 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 4 6 . 1 4 To t a l : 4 6 . 1 4 6 7 5 7 0 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 01 0 1 7 1 RE P U B L I C I T S I N C RR - 1 2 2 3 0 9 No v e m b e r R o u t i n e S i g n a l M a i n t e n a n c e 16 - 5 1 0 - 2 5 5 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 7 0 8 . 3 6 RR - 1 2 2 3 1 0 No v e m b e r R e s p o n s e C a l l O u t s & R e p a i r s 16 - 5 1 0 - 2 5 5 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 6 4 . 2 1 To t a l : 7 7 2 . 5 7 6 7 5 7 1 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 6 2 8 5 RI V E R S I D E H I G H L A N D W A T E R C O 22 9 4 Au g / S e p t S e w e r B i l l i n g 8 Pa g e : 12 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 1 Vo u c h e r L i s t CI T Y O F G R A N D T E R R A C E 9 4 : 0 6 : 3 4 P M Pa g e : vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : bo f a Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e De s c r i p t i o n / A c c o u n t Am o u n t 6 7 5 7 1 12 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 (C o n t i n u e d ) 00 6 2 8 5 RI V E R S I D E H I G H L A N D W A T E R C O 21 - 5 7 2 - 2 5 5 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 2 , 4 6 3 . 3 7 To t a l : 2 , 4 6 3 . 3 7 6 7 5 7 2 12 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 6 3 1 0 RO A D R U N N E R S E L F S T O R A G E I N C . 13 8 2 2 JA N U A R Y S T O R A G E R E N T A L 10 - 1 4 0 - 2 4 1 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 1 9 . 0 0 To t a l : 1 1 9 . 0 0 6 7 5 7 3 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 4 9 R O G E R S , A N D E R S O N , M A L O D Y E T A L 3 3 7 8 2 Pr o g r e s s B i l l i n g F Y 1 0- 11 A u d i t 10 - 1 4 0 - 2 5 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 3 , 8 5 8 . 6 0 33 - 1 4 0 - 2 5 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 , 1 5 1 . 4 0 34 - 1 4 0 - 2 5 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 9 9 0 . 0 0 To t a l : 6 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 6 7 5 7 4 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 01 0 1 3 9 RO S E N K I L D , R O C H E L L E 12 1 9 2 0 1 1 Ci t y B i r t h d a y C e l e b r a t i o n E x p e n s e R e i m 10 - 8 0 4 - 2 2 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 5 0 . 5 2 To t a l : 5 0 . 5 2 6 7 5 7 5 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 6 3 4 1 RO S E N O W S P E V A C E K G R O U P I N C . 00 2 7 5 0 6 No v e m b e r G e n e r a l C o n s u l t i n g S e r v i c e s 10 - 1 9 0 - 2 5 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 3 , 1 2 0 . 0 0 00 2 7 5 0 7 No v . F i n a n c i a l / T a x I n c r e m e n t A d m i n 33 - 1 4 0 - 2 5 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 6 7 5 . 0 0 To t a l : 3 , 7 9 5 . 0 0 6 7 5 7 6 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 6 5 1 0 S. B . C O U N T Y I N F O R M A T I O N 12 4 4 3 No v e m b e r P a g e r A c c e s s 10 - 1 7 5 - 2 4 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 9 . 0 0 To t a l : 9 . 0 0 6 7 5 7 7 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 6 5 3 1 S. B . C O U N T Y S H E R I F F 11 3 9 3 DE C E M B E R L A W E N F O R C E M E N T S E R V I C E S 10 - 4 1 0 - 2 5 5 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 4 , 2 4 3 . 0 0 10 - 4 1 0 - 2 5 6 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 4 0 , 5 4 9 . 0 0 14 - 4 1 1 - 2 5 6 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 8 , 3 3 3 . 0 0 To t a l : 1 5 3 , 1 2 5 . 0 0 6 7 5 7 8 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 6 8 9 8 SY S C O F O O D S E R V I C E S O F L . A . 11 2 0 7 2 0 6 7 5 C. C A R E / S C H O O L A G E F O O D & K I T . S U P P L I E S 10 - 4 4 0 - 2 2 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 5 8 8 . 0 9 11 2 1 4 2 0 6 2 2 C. C A R E / S C H O O L A G E F O O D & K I T . S U P P L I E S 10 - 4 4 0 - 2 2 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 7 3 0 . 0 5 9 Pa g e : 12 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 1 Vo u c h e r L i s t CI T Y O F G R A N D T E R R A C E 10 4 : 0 6 : 3 4 P M Pa g e : vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : bo f a Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e De s c r i p t i o n / A c c o u n t Am o u n t (C o n t i n u e d ) To t a l : 1 , 3 1 8 . 1 4 6 7 5 7 8 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 6 8 9 8 SY S C O F O O D S E R V I C E S O F L . A . 6 7 5 7 9 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 01 0 7 1 2 TA S O T E C H , I N C . 10 3 4 BA R R A C U D A S P A M F I L T E R 3 0 0 10 - 3 8 0 - 2 5 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 , 0 1 0 . 2 4 10 3 5 HP S E R V E R R E P L A C E M E N T D R I V E 10 - 3 8 0 - 2 5 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 8 2 . 0 0 To t a l : 1 , 1 9 2 . 2 4 6 7 5 8 0 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 01 1 1 1 0 TI M E W A R N E R C A B L E De c 8 4 4 8 4 0 . . . 7 2 4 5 De c / J a n C a b l e & I n t e r n e t - S r C n t r 10 - 8 0 5 - 2 3 8 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 2 1 . 2 8 To t a l : 1 2 1 . 2 8 6 7 5 8 1 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 7 0 3 4 TR A N S P O R T A T I O N E N G I N E E R I N G 11 6 4 Oc t o b e r T r a f f i c E n g S e r v i c e s 10 - 1 7 5 - 2 5 5 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 9 6 6 . 4 0 To t a l : 9 6 6 . 4 0 6 7 5 8 2 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 2 2 3 9 TY L E R T E C H N O L O G I E S , I N C . 04 5 - 5 8 2 8 3 20 1 2 E d e n A c c o u n t i n g M o d u l e M a i n t 10 - 1 4 0 - 2 4 6 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 6 , 6 2 0 . 3 8 To t a l : 1 6 , 6 2 0 . 3 8 6 7 5 8 3 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 7 2 2 0 UN D E R G R O U N D S E R V I C E A L E R T 11 2 0 1 1 0 2 9 3 No v e m b e r D i g A l e r t T i c k e t s 16 - 9 0 0 - 2 2 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 3 9 . 0 0 To t a l : 3 9 . 0 0 6 7 5 8 4 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 01 1 2 1 0 VA N G U A R D C L E A N I N G S Y S T E M S , I N C 78 8 0 0 ST R I P & W A X F L O O R S 1 0 / 8 / 1 1 10 - 4 4 0 - 2 4 4 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 3 0 0 . 0 0 78 8 7 5 SH A M P O O C A R P E R - C O M M C N T R 1 1 / 2 6 / 1 1 10 - 4 4 0 - 2 4 4 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 3 0 0 . 0 0 79 5 6 2 DE C E M B E R C H I L D C A R E C L E A N I N G S E R V I C E S 10 - 4 4 0 - 2 4 4 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 8 5 0 . 0 0 To t a l : 1 , 4 5 0 . 0 0 6 7 5 8 5 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 7 8 5 4 WE S T E R N E X T E R M I N A T O R S C O 60 2 1 1 1 NO V E M B E R P E S T C O N T R O L S R V S 10 - 1 9 5 - 2 4 5 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 3 4 . 5 0 10 - 8 0 5 - 2 4 5 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 3 5 . 5 0 To t a l : 1 7 0 . 0 0 6 7 5 8 6 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 7 9 2 0 WI L L D A N 00 2 - 1 1 8 6 9 No v P l a n R e v i e w & I n s p e c t i o n S e r v i c e s 10 Pa g e : 12 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 1 Vo u c h e r L i s t CI T Y O F G R A N D T E R R A C E 11 4 : 0 6 : 3 4 P M Pa g e : vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : bo f a Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e De s c r i p t i o n / A c c o u n t Am o u n t 6 7 5 8 6 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 (C o n t i n u e d ) 00 7 9 2 0 WI L L D A N 10 - 1 7 2 - 2 5 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 2 , 5 5 0 . 0 0 00 2 - 1 1 8 7 6 No v e m b e r E n g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s 10 - 1 7 5 - 2 5 5 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 , 4 4 0 . 0 0 To t a l : 3 , 9 9 0 . 0 0 6 7 5 8 7 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 01 0 8 6 4 WI R Z , M A T T De c e m b e r 2 0 1 1 Mi l e a g e R e i m b u r s e m e n t - W i r z 21 - 1 7 5 - 2 7 1 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 4 3 . 3 5 To t a l : 4 3 . 3 5 6 7 5 8 8 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 7 9 8 7 XE R O X C O R P O R A T I O N 05 8 7 1 0 5 2 8 NO V E M B E R X E R O X L E A S E C C 2 6 5 C O P I E R 10 - 1 9 0 - 7 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 2 9 1 . 6 3 05 8 7 1 0 5 2 9 NO V E M B E R X E R O X L E A S E W C 5 7 5 5 A 10 - 1 9 0 - 7 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 3 0 5 . 2 7 To t a l : 5 9 6 . 9 0 Ba n k t o t a l : 4 1 8 , 1 0 5 . 9 9 7 0 Vo u c h e r s f o r b a n k c o d e : bo f a 4 1 8 , 1 0 5 . 9 9 To t a l v o u c h e r s : Vo u c h e r s i n t h i s r e p o r t 7 0 11 Pa g e : Ci t y o f G r a n d T e r r a c e Wa r r a n t R e g i s t e r I n d e x FD N o . Fu n d N a m e De p t N o . De p a r t m e n t N a m e Ge n e r a l A c c o u n t N u m b e r s 10 G E N E R A L F U N D 11 0 C I T Y C O U N C I L 11 0 S A L A R I E S / W A G E S 11 S T R E E T F U N D 12 0 C I T Y M A N A G E R 13 9 E M P L O Y E E S ' B E N E F I T P L A N 12 S T O R M D R A I N F U N D 12 5 C I T Y C L E R K 14 0 R E T I R E M E N T 13 P A R K F U N D 14 0 F I N A N C E 14 2 H E A L T H / L I F E I N S U R A N C E 14 A B 3 2 2 9 C O P S F U N D 16 0 C I T Y A T T O R N E Y 14 3 W O R K E R S ' C O M P E N S A T I O N 15 A I R Q U A L I T Y I M P R O V E M E N T F U N D 17 2 B U I L D I N G & S A F E T Y 13 8 / 1 4 1 M E D I C A R E / S U I 16 G A S T A X F U N D 17 5 P U B L I C W O R K S 21 0 O F F I C E E X P E N S E 17 T R A F F I C S A F E T Y F U N D / T D A F U N D 18 0 C O M M U N I T Y E V E N T S 21 8 - 2 1 9 N O N - C A P I T A L F U R N / S M A L L T O O L S 19 F A C I L I T I E S D E V E L O P M E N T F U N D 18 5 R E N T A L I N S P E C T I O N P R O G R A M 22 0 S P E C I A L D E P A R T M E N T A L E X P 20 M E A S U R E I F U N D 19 0 G E N E R A L G O V E R N M E N T ( N O N - D E P T ) 2 3 0 A D V E R T I S I N G 21 W A S T E W A T E R D I S P O S A L F U N D 19 5 F A C I L I T I E S M A I N T E N A N C E 23 5 C O M M U N I C A T I O N S 22 C O M M U N I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T B L O C K G R A N T 3 7 0 C O M M U N I T Y & E C O N O M I C D E V 23 8 - 2 3 9 U T I L I T I E S 26 L S C P G / L G H T G A S S E S S M E N T D I S T . 38 0 M G T I N F O R M A T I O N S Y S T E M S 24 0 - 2 4 2 R E N T S & L E A S E S 44 B I K E L A N E C A P I T A L F U N D 41 0 L A W E N F O R C E M E N T 24 5 - 2 4 6 M A I N T B L D G G R N D S E Q U I P M N T 46 S T R E E T I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T S 43 0 R E C R E A T I O N S E R V I C E S 25 0 - 2 5 1 P R O F E S S I O N A L S E R V I C E S 47 B A R T O N R D . B R I D G E P R O J E C T 44 0 C H I L D C A R E 25 5 - 2 5 6 C O N T R A C T U A L S E R V I C E S 32 C R A - C A P I T A L P R O J E C T S F U N D 45 0 P A R K S M A I N T E N A N C E 26 0 I N S U R A N C E & S U R E T Y B O N D S 33 C R A - D E B T S E R V I C E F U N D 63 1 S T O R M D R A I N M A I N T E N A N C E 26 5 M E M B E R S H I P S & D U E S 34 C R A - L O W & M O D H O U S I N G 80 1 P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N 26 8 T R A I N I N G 80 2 C R I M E P R E V E N T I O N U N I T 27 0 T R A V E L / C O N F E R E N C E S / M T G S 80 4 H I S T O R I C A L & C U L T U R A L C O M M . 27 2 F U E L & V E H I C L E M A I N T E N A N C E 80 5 S E N I O R C I T I Z E N S P R O G R A M 57 0 W A S T E W A T E R T R E A T M E N T 80 7 P A R K S & R E C C O M M I T T E E 33 - 3 0 0 D E B T S E R V I C E 80 8 E M E R G E N C Y O P E R A T I O N S P R O G . 7X X F A C I L I T I E S I M P R V ( N O C I P ) 70 0 C O M P U T E R - R E L A T E D 70 1 V E H I C L E S & E Q U I P M E N T COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 3A AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: January 10, 2012 Council Item ( X ) CRA Item ( ) TITLE: Check Register No. 01-10-2012 PRESENTED BY: Bernie Simon, Finance Director RECOMMENDATION: Approve BACKGROUND: The Check Register for January 10, 2012 is presented in accordance with Government Code §37202. The attached index to the warrant register is a guideline account list only and is not intended to replace the voluminous list of accounts used by the City and CRA. Expenditure account number formats are XX-XXX-XXX [Fund-Depart-General Account]. Expenditures may be made from trust/agency accounts (fund 23-xxx-) or temporary clearing accounts which do not have budgetary considerations. DISCUSSION: A total of $180,362.05 in accounts payable checks was issued during the period for services, reimbursements, supplies and contracts and are detailed in the attached Check Register sections. Payroll costs for the period amounted to $59,218.22 and are summarized below. Some of the non-routine items include: 67602 Pay Plus Solutions July-December CALPERS Reporting Administration and set up fee $1,082.00 67606 Softerware Inc 2012 EZ Care Software Support Renewal for Child Care $360.00 Approvals Finance Director (if applicable) BS City Attorney City Manager Some the larger items include: 67600 Great-West 457 plan Employee Contributions and Loan Payments for Pay Period Endings 12/9/11 and 12/23/11 $10,186.75 67594 Jones & Mayer November Legal Services $8,000.00 67605 S.B. County Sheriff’s Dept January Law Enforcement Services $153,125.00 Payroll costs processed for period ending January 10, 2012: Date Period Payroll and payroll costs 12/23/2011 Biweekly $59,218.22 FISCAL IMPACT: All disbursements are made in accordance with the adopted budget for FY 2011-12. Respectfully submitted: Bernie Simon, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: Check Register – January 10, 2012 Council Action Approved as Recommended: Denied/Other: Council Motion: 01 / 0 3 / 2 0 1 2 Vo u c h e r L i s t CI T Y O F G R A N D T E R R A C E 1 12 : 4 5 : 0 0 P M Pa g e : vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : bo f a Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e De s c r i p t i o n / A c c o u n t Am o u n t 6 7 5 8 9 12 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 1 2 0 6 AR R O W H E A D C R E D I T U N I O N No v / D e c 2 0 1 1 No v / D e c V i s a C h a r g e s 10 - 4 4 0 - 2 2 8 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 C . C a r e S u p p l i e s 5 1 . 9 2 10 - 4 4 0 - 2 1 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 C . C a r e S u p p l i e s 7 0 . 1 2 To t a l : 1 2 2 . 0 4 6 7 5 9 0 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 1 9 0 7 CO S T C O # 4 7 8 04 7 8 1 2 0 1 4 5 2 4 9 SU P P L I E S - C . C A R E 23 - 2 0 0 - 1 4 - 0 0 1 7 2 . 7 4 To t a l : 1 7 2 . 7 4 6 7 5 9 1 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 00 1 2 1 3 AT & T De c / J a n De c / J a n P h o n e s & I n t e r n e t S e r v i c e 10 - 4 4 0 - 2 3 5 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 8 7 . 4 2 10 - 1 9 0 - 2 3 5 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 4 5 8 . 3 1 To t a l : 5 4 5 . 7 3 6 7 5 9 2 1 / 2 / 2 0 1 2 01 1 1 1 0 TI M E W A R N E R C A B L E De c 8 4 4 8 4 0 . . . 3 8 1 7 De c / J a n C a b l e & I n t e r n e t - S r C n t r 10 - 8 0 5 - 2 3 8 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 5 8 . 9 1 To t a l : 5 8 . 9 1 6 7 5 9 3 1 / 2 / 2 0 1 2 01 1 1 1 0 TI M E W A R N E R C A B L E De c 8 4 4 8 4 0 . . . 3 8 2 5 De c / J a n C a b l e & I n t e r n e t - S r C n t r 10 - 8 0 5 - 2 3 8 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 5 8 . 9 1 To t a l : 5 8 . 9 1 6 7 5 9 4 1 / 2 / 2 0 1 2 01 1 2 1 6 JO N E S & M A Y E R 57 5 9 0 No v e m b e r L e g a l S e r v i c e s 32 - 2 0 0 - 2 5 1 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 10 - 1 6 0 - 2 5 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 To t a l : 8 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 6 7 5 9 5 1 / 3 / 2 0 1 2 00 6 2 8 5 RI V E R S I D E H I G H L A N D W A T E R C O Oc t / D e c 2 0 1 1 Oc t / D e c W a t e r U s a g e & F e e s 1 Pa g e : 01 / 0 3 / 2 0 1 2 Vo u c h e r L i s t CI T Y O F G R A N D T E R R A C E 2 12 : 4 5 : 0 0 P M Pa g e : vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : bo f a Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e De s c r i p t i o n / A c c o u n t Am o u n t 6 7 5 9 5 1 / 3 / 2 0 1 2 (C o n t i n u e d ) 00 6 2 8 5 RI V E R S I D E H I G H L A N D W A T E R C O 10 - 4 5 0 - 2 3 8 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 2 , 4 1 0 . 4 8 10 - 1 9 0 - 2 3 8 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 3 2 8 . 7 1 10 - 4 4 0 - 2 3 8 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 5 4 . 5 4 10 - 8 0 5 - 2 3 8 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 5 9 5 . 0 5 26 - 6 0 0 - 2 3 9 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 2 6 . 9 9 26 - 6 0 1 - 2 3 9 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 4 0 . 3 6 32 - 6 0 0 - 3 0 1 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 0 . 3 0 32 - 6 0 0 - 3 0 7 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 2 0 . 6 0 32 - 6 0 0 - 3 2 6 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 2 0 . 6 0 34 - 7 0 0 - 7 1 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 0 . 3 0 34 - 7 0 0 - 7 6 7 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 0 . 3 0 To t a l : 3 , 7 2 8 . 2 3 6 7 5 9 6 1 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 2 00 1 0 2 4 UN I T E D S T A T E S T R E A S U R Y 25 5 3 1 6 Bu s i n e s s C a r d s 10 - 1 4 0 - 2 1 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 2 6 . 9 4 10 - 1 1 0 - 2 1 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 2 6 . 9 3 10 - 1 7 2 - 2 1 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 2 6 . 9 4 10 - 1 2 5 - 2 1 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 2 6 . 9 4 To t a l : 1 0 7 . 7 5 6 7 5 9 7 1 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 2 01 0 0 7 0 BE A R D S L E Y , K E V I N H O W A R D Oc t - D e c 2 0 1 1 OC T - D E C 2 0 1 1 V I D E O O P E R A T O R - C O U N C I L M T G S 10 - 1 2 5 - 2 5 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 2 5 0 . 0 0 To t a l : 2 5 0 . 0 0 6 7 5 9 8 1 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 2 00 2 0 8 2 DI S C O U N T S C H O O L S U P P L Y D1 5 1 4 6 9 1 0 1 0 2 SC H O O L A G E S U P P L I E S 10 - 4 4 0 - 2 2 3 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 0 6 . 7 0 To t a l : 1 0 6 . 7 0 6 7 5 9 9 1 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 2 00 2 7 9 5 GA R C I A , L E E A N N Ja n 2 0 1 2 Ja n . H e a l t h I n s . R e i m b u r s e m e n t - G a r c i a 10 - 1 1 0 - 1 4 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 4 3 9 . 2 5 To t a l : 4 3 9 . 2 5 6 7 6 0 0 1 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 2 01 0 1 6 4 GR E A T - W E S T PR E n d 1 2 / 9 & 1 2 / 2 3 CO N T R I B U T I O N S / L O A N S - P R E N D 1 2 / 9 & 1 2 / 2 3 10 - 0 2 2 - 6 3 - 0 0 8 , 0 7 4 . 0 3 10 - 0 2 2 - 6 4 - 0 0 2 , 1 1 2 . 7 2 To t a l : 1 0 , 1 8 6 . 7 5 2 Pa g e : 01 / 0 3 / 2 0 1 2 Vo u c h e r L i s t CI T Y O F G R A N D T E R R A C E 3 12 : 4 5 : 0 0 P M Pa g e : vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : bo f a Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e De s c r i p t i o n / A c c o u n t Am o u n t 6 7 6 0 1 1 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 2 00 2 7 2 7 J. R . F R E E M A N C O M P A N Y 47 6 1 9 1 - 1 Of f i c e S u p p l i e s - U p s t a i r s S i g n f o r 10 - 1 2 0 - 2 1 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 4 7 . 3 6 To t a l : 4 7 . 3 6 6 7 6 0 2 1 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 2 01 1 2 1 8 PA Y P L U S S O L U T I O N S , I N C . 16 1 5 Ju l - N o v C a l P e r s R e p o r t i n g A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 10 - 1 4 0 - 2 5 5 - 0 1 0 - 0 0 0 9 8 5 . 0 0 16 4 5 De c e m b e r C a l P e r s R e p o r t i n g 10 - 1 4 0 - 2 5 5 - 0 1 0 - 0 0 0 9 7 . 0 0 To t a l : 1 , 0 8 2 . 0 0 6 7 6 0 3 1 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 2 00 5 5 8 6 PE T T Y C A S H 12 2 2 2 0 1 1 Re p l e n i s h C . C a r e P e t t y C a s h 10 - 4 4 0 - 2 2 1 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 2 1 . 3 5 10 - 4 4 0 - 2 2 8 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 8 7 . 1 4 10 - 4 4 0 - 2 7 2 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 2 6 . 9 5 To t a l : 1 3 5 . 4 4 6 7 6 0 4 1 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 2 01 1 0 7 4 RE D F L E X T R A F F I C S Y S T E M S 34 2 8 1 No v e m b e r C o n t r a c t S e r v i c e s 17 - 9 0 0 - 2 5 5 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 , 8 3 5 . 2 4 To t a l : 1 , 8 3 5 . 2 4 6 7 6 0 5 1 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 2 00 6 5 3 1 S. B . C O U N T Y S H E R I F F 11 4 3 6 JA N U A R Y L A W E N F O R C E M E N T S E R V I C E S 10 - 4 1 0 - 2 5 5 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 4 , 2 4 3 . 0 0 10 - 4 1 0 - 2 5 6 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 4 0 , 5 4 9 . 0 0 14 - 4 1 1 - 2 5 6 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 8 , 3 3 3 . 0 0 To t a l : 1 5 3 , 1 2 5 . 0 0 6 7 6 0 6 1 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 2 00 6 6 8 5 SO F T E R W A R E I N C W8 0 8 8 - 2 0 1 2 20 1 2 E Z C a r e S u p p o r t R e n e w a l - C . C a r e 10 - 4 4 0 - 2 2 8 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 3 6 0 . 0 0 To t a l : 3 6 0 . 0 0 Ba n k t o t a l : 1 8 0 , 3 6 2 . 0 5 1 8 Vo u c h e r s f o r b a n k c o d e : bo f a 1 8 0 , 3 6 2 . 0 5 To t a l v o u c h e r s : Vo u c h e r s i n t h i s r e p o r t 1 8 3 Pa g e : 01 / 0 3 / 2 0 1 2 Vo u c h e r L i s t CI T Y O F G R A N D T E R R A C E 4 12 : 4 5 : 0 0 P M Pa g e : vc h l i s t Ba n k c o d e : bo f a Vo u c h e r Da t e Ve n d o r In v o i c e De s c r i p t i o n / A c c o u n t Am o u n t 4 Pa g e : Ci t y o f G r a n d T e r r a c e Wa r r a n t R e g i s t e r I n d e x FD N o . Fu n d N a m e De p t N o . De p a r t m e n t N a m e Ge n e r a l A c c o u n t N u m b e r s 10 G E N E R A L F U N D 11 0 C I T Y C O U N C I L 11 0 S A L A R I E S / W A G E S 11 S T R E E T F U N D 12 0 C I T Y M A N A G E R 13 9 E M P L O Y E E S ' B E N E F I T P L A N 12 S T O R M D R A I N F U N D 12 5 C I T Y C L E R K 14 0 R E T I R E M E N T 13 P A R K F U N D 14 0 F I N A N C E 14 2 H E A L T H / L I F E I N S U R A N C E 14 A B 3 2 2 9 C O P S F U N D 16 0 C I T Y A T T O R N E Y 14 3 W O R K E R S ' C O M P E N S A T I O N 15 A I R Q U A L I T Y I M P R O V E M E N T F U N D 17 2 B U I L D I N G & S A F E T Y 13 8 / 1 4 1 M E D I C A R E / S U I 16 G A S T A X F U N D 17 5 P U B L I C W O R K S 21 0 O F F I C E E X P E N S E 17 T R A F F I C S A F E T Y F U N D / T D A F U N D 18 0 C O M M U N I T Y E V E N T S 21 8 - 2 1 9 N O N - C A P I T A L F U R N / S M A L L T O O L S 19 F A C I L I T I E S D E V E L O P M E N T F U N D 18 5 R E N T A L I N S P E C T I O N P R O G R A M 22 0 S P E C I A L D E P A R T M E N T A L E X P 20 M E A S U R E I F U N D 19 0 G E N E R A L G O V E R N M E N T ( N O N - D E P T ) 2 3 0 A D V E R T I S I N G 21 W A S T E W A T E R D I S P O S A L F U N D 19 5 F A C I L I T I E S M A I N T E N A N C E 23 5 C O M M U N I C A T I O N S 22 C O M M U N I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T B L O C K G R A N T 3 7 0 C O M M U N I T Y & E C O N O M I C D E V 23 8 - 2 3 9 U T I L I T I E S 26 L S C P G / L G H T G A S S E S S M E N T D I S T . 38 0 M G T I N F O R M A T I O N S Y S T E M S 24 0 - 2 4 2 R E N T S & L E A S E S 44 B I K E L A N E C A P I T A L F U N D 41 0 L A W E N F O R C E M E N T 24 5 - 2 4 6 M A I N T B L D G G R N D S E Q U I P M N T 46 S T R E E T I M P R O V E M E N T P R O J E C T S 43 0 R E C R E A T I O N S E R V I C E S 25 0 - 2 5 1 P R O F E S S I O N A L S E R V I C E S 47 B A R T O N R D . B R I D G E P R O J E C T 44 0 C H I L D C A R E 25 5 - 2 5 6 C O N T R A C T U A L S E R V I C E S 32 C R A - C A P I T A L P R O J E C T S F U N D 45 0 P A R K S M A I N T E N A N C E 26 0 I N S U R A N C E & S U R E T Y B O N D S 33 C R A - D E B T S E R V I C E F U N D 63 1 S T O R M D R A I N M A I N T E N A N C E 26 5 M E M B E R S H I P S & D U E S 34 C R A - L O W & M O D H O U S I N G 80 1 P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N 26 8 T R A I N I N G 80 2 C R I M E P R E V E N T I O N U N I T 27 0 T R A V E L / C O N F E R E N C E S / M T G S 80 4 H I S T O R I C A L & C U L T U R A L C O M M . 27 2 F U E L & V E H I C L E M A I N T E N A N C E 80 5 S E N I O R C I T I Z E N S P R O G R A M 57 0 W A S T E W A T E R T R E A T M E N T 80 7 P A R K S & R E C C O M M I T T E E 33 - 3 0 0 D E B T S E R V I C E 80 8 E M E R G E N C Y O P E R A T I O N S P R O G . 7X X F A C I L I T I E S I M P R V ( N O C I P ) 70 0 C O M P U T E R - R E L A T E D 70 1 V E H I C L E S & E Q U I P M E N T CITY OF GRAND TERRACE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING – DECEMBER 13, 2011 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 December 13, 2011 at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Walt Stanckiewitz, Mayor Lee Ann Garcia, Mayor Pro Tem Darcy McNaboe, Councilmember Bernardo Sandoval, Councilmember Gene Hays, Councilmember Betsy M. Adams, City Manager Tracey Martinez, City Clerk Bernard Simon, Finance Director Joyce Powers, Community & Economic Development Director Richard Shields, Building & Safety Director Richard L. Adams II, City Attorney Sgt. Ed Finneran, San Bernardino County Sheriff =s Department Lt. Steve Dorsey, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department Rick McClintock, San Bernardino County Fire Department ABSENT: None The City Council meeting was opened at 7:30 p.m. with an Invocation by Pastor Tom Comstock, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Mayor Pro Tem Lee Ann Garcia. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS A. Chamber of Commerce Business of the Month Sally McGuire, President of the Grand Terrace Area Chamber of Commerce announced that their Business of the Month for the month of November 2011 is D.A.P. (Drug Alternative Program) and Grand Terrace Chiropractic is their Business of the Month for December 2011. B. Southern California Edison – Resolution of Appreciation Linda Ortiz, Region Manager, Southern California Edison, presented the City Council with a Resolution of Appreciation extending their appreciation for being a valuable and significant part of their history as they celebrate their 125th Anniversary COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 3C Council Minutes 12/13/2011 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR CC-2011-102 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER MCNABOE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SANDOVAL, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the following Consent Calendar Items with the removal of item 3A., 3E: 3B. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda 3C. Approval of 10-25-2011 Minutes 3D. Adoption of San Bernardino Countywide Vision 3F. Contract Landscaping Maintenance Services (EZ Sunnyday Landscape) 3G. Quitclaim of 3,767 Square Feet of Vacated Britton Way in Accordance with the Approved Barton Plaza Commercial Project 3H. Request for a Waiver of the Arterial Improvement Fee for Phase 1 of Barton Plaza to Fund Public Improvements 3I. Waiver of Land Use Review Fee for the Grand Terrace Fire and Rescue Association’s Christmas Tree Lot 3J. Historical and Cultural Activities Committee Meeting Minutes of 10/03/2011 & 11/07/2011 ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR 3A. Approve Check Register No. 11-22-2011 & 12-13-2011 CC-2011-103 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER MCNABOE, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA, CARRIED 5-0, to approve Check Register No. 11- 22-2011 and 12-13-2011. CC-2011-104 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SANDOVAL, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER MCNABOE, CARRIED 5-0, to award Bid GTB-11- 04, for Pico Street Overlay Project to Roquet Paving in the amount of $88,043.42. PUBLIC COMMENT - None COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Darcy McNaboe, it’s hard to believe that it has been a year already since she became a Councilmember. Last year the City was faced tough budget issues. There were some lows with road closures due to the storms in December, budget cuts causing the loss of good long term employees, and they found out that Council Minutes 12/13/2011 Page 3 the opening of the new high school was probably going to be delayed. On the brighter side, she began to think about all of the accomplishments that the City has had throughout the year. The completion of the new Stater Bros., construction has begun on the new retail center that will have a Walgreens and other retail establishments, a new brewery, moved forward on the new West Side Park , local businesses have been recognized by the State Senator and State Assemblyman and we have thanked a lot of our volunteers because we have seen them step up and do events that the City is no longer able to do. She attended the School Board Meeting where they discussed their budget and she was happy to hear that they have settled their dispute with the Teachers Union and they have decided to sell some bonds to help them even out their cash flow. It looks like they may have a good handle on their budget moving forward in to the next year. She is looking forward to working with the Council through the tough times that we are facing in the upcoming year and she is hoping that the State Supreme Court smiles on the City and give us Redevelopment for a few more years. She wished everyone a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and is looking forward to the New Year. Councilmember Gene Hays, has enjoyed working with the Council and is thankful for all of them. He announced that the Grand Terrace Youth Soccer Club 12U Pink Pop Rocks came in second place for the Commissioners Cup. Councilmember Bernardo Sandoval, stated that the challenges that the City faces in the upcoming year will be significant. The Council needs to be proactive and begin looking at options for generating revenues that they can propose to the residents. They need to look at the possibility of implementing a parcel or utility tax. The people of Grand Terrace need to be able to decide what type of City they want to live in and what level of service they desire. He is concerned that if we don’t take some aggressive actions now, come July we have the potential of facing over a million and a half deficit which we will not be able to recover from. If Redevelopment doesn’t go away now, it will in five years and we will not be financially sustainable unless we take some significant actions now. He requested that a discussion item be agendized at an upcoming meeting. City Manager Betsy Adams, stated that we will know what the Supreme Court decides in January. Staff can bring forward a report at the second meeting in January. She also indicated that if the Council wanted to propose a measure it would have to be done during a regular election unless the Council declares a Fiscal Emergency. It was the consensus of the City Council to agendize an item on the January 24, 2012 Agenda to discuss options for generating revenue. Council Minutes 12/13/2011 Page 4 Mayor Pro Tem Lee Ann Garcia, has enjoyed working with the Council this past year. The City is filled with volunteers that care deeply about Grand Terrace. She feels blessed to be a part of this community. She looks forward to talking about options for the upcoming challenges that the City may face. She complimented City Staff on all of their work they do. She reported that the Fire Fighters will have Santa Claus at the Station and that they still have trees available at their tree lot. All proceeds from the tree sales will go toward the purchase of equipment. The Chamber of Commerce is holding their annual decorating contest. The Grand Terrace Woman’s Club is having a tree raffle and tickets can be purchased at Innovations. Jason from Low Brow Ink is doing a Toys for Tots, for every $20 unwrapped toy with a receipt he will give a $50 certificate towards a tattoo. She reported that the Lion’s Club will be having a toy drive. She wished Jim McNaboe a Happy Birthday. She thanked the Historical and Cultural Activities Committee for hosting the City Birthday Party and announced that the Annual Blue Mountain Hike, hosted by Friends of Blue Mountain, will be held on March 10, 2012. She wished everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Mayor Walt Stanckiewitz, feels that the Council has come together well this past year to do what is best for the City. It has been a pleasure serving as the Mayor of Grand Terrace. He wished everyone a Merry Christmas, a Happy Holiday Season and a hope for a very happy and prosperous New Year. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6A. State COPS SLESF Grant – FY 2011-12 Expenditure Plan Finance Director Bernie Simon indicated that agencies receiving SLESF money must have a formal expenditure plan approved by the governing body. The Agency must then report how such funds were spent in comparison to the approved spending plan at the end of the fiscal year. He indicated that the public shall have an opportunity to comment on this item. Mayor Stanckiewitz opened the Public Hearing for discussion, there being none he returned discussion to Council. CC-2011-105 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SANDOVAL, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the State COPS SLESF Grant FY 2011-12 Expenditure Plan. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS 8A. Vacation Sell Back Council Minutes 12/13/2011 Page 5 CC-2011-106 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GARCIA, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER MCNABOE, CARRIED 5-0, to adopt a Resolution Approving a One-Time Option to Sell back a Limited Amount of Accrued Vacation or Personal Leave Hours. Mayor Stanckiewitz recessed the City Council Meeting at 8:13 p.m. The City Council Meeting was reconvened at 8:14 p.m. CLOSED SESSION 9A. Public Employee Performance Evaluation per Government Code Section 54957 (b) Title: City Manager The City Council recessed into Closed Session at 8:15 p.m. The City Council Meeting was reconvened at 8:37 p.m. Mayor Stanckiewitz announced that the Council met in Closed Session concerning Public Employee Performance Evaluation per Government Code Section 54957 (b) for the City Manager. The City Council established a process and time line to complete the performance evaluation of the City Manager. Mayor Stanckiewitz adjourned the meeting at 8:38 p.m., until the next City Council Meeting which is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. CITY CLERK of the City of Grand Terrace MAYOR of the City of Grand Terrace CITY OF GRAND TERRACE CITY COUNCIL & COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING – DECEMBER 20, 2011 A special meeting of the City Council and Community Redevelopment Agency 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 December 20, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. PRESENT: Walt Stanckiewitz, Mayor/Chairman Lee Ann Garcia, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice-Chairman Darcy McNaboe, Councilmember/Agency Member Bernardo Sandoval, Councilmember/Agency Member Gene Hays, Councilmember/Agency Member Betsy M. Adams, City Manager Tracey Martinez, City Clerk Bernard Simon, Finance Director Joyce Powers, Community & Economic Development Director Richard L. Adams II, City Attorney ABSENT: Richard Shields, Building & Safety Director Sgt. Ed Finneran, San Bernardino County Sheriff =s Department Rick McClintock, San Bernardino County Fire Department The City Council and Community Redevelopment Agency meeting was opened at 6:30 p.m. with an Invocation by Councilmember Darcy McNaboe, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilmember Bernardo Sandoval. 1. Annual Report to the Legislative Body for the Agency’s Activities in Fiscal Year 2010-11 Community Redevelopment Agency: Approve the 2010-11 Annual Report for presentation to the City Council and authorize the Agency Executive Director to make any minor corrections necessary to ensure accuracy of the reports. CRA-2011-56 MOTION BY VICE-CHAIRMAN GARCIA, SECOND BY AGENCY MEMBER SANDOVAL, CARRIED 5-0, to Approve the 2010-11 Annual Report for presentation to the City Council and authorize the Agency Executive Director to make any minor corrections necessary to ensure accuracy of the reports City Council: Accept and file the 2010-11 Annual Report for the Community Redevelopment Agency. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 3C Council Minutes 12/20/2011 Page 2 CC-2011-107 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER MCNABOE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SANDOVAL, CARRIED 5-0, to Accept and File the 2010-11 Annual Report for the Community Redevelopment Agency. Mayor Stanckiewitz adjourned the City Council and Community Redevelopment Agency meeting at 7:45 p.m., until the next City Council Meeting which is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. CITY CLERK of the City of Grand Terrace MAYOR of the City of Grand Terrace AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: January 10, 2012 Council Item ( X ) CRA Item ( ) TITLE: Award Non-Exclusive Services Contract for the Publication of Legal Notices – City News Group, Inc. PRESENTED BY: Tracey Martinez, City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: Award the Non-Exclusive Services Contract for the Publication of Legal Notices from January 2012 through June 30, 2013 to City News Group, Inc. BACKGROUND: Pursuant to Government Code Sections 6000-6008, the City publishes various legal notices throughout the year to fulfill its legal obligation. Since incorporation, the City has utilized the San Bernardino County Sun, the Precinct Reporter and the City News Group, Inc. for the publication of its legal notices. The City has never entered into an agreement for services with any of the entities mentioned above. In the recent years, the City has utilized the San Bernardino Sun for its publishing needs at a rate of $2.20 per agate line, 2” column width. The City Clerk’s Department and the Community and Economic Development Department publish legal notices on a regular basis. During Fiscal Year 2010/2011 the City spent approximately $6,850.00 in legal advertising and for Fiscal Year 2011/2011 approximately $1,555.00 has been spent to date. Due to the budget constraints the City continues to face, a Request for Proposals for the Publication of Legal Notices was issued with the intent to enter into a non-exclusive services contract for the publication of legal notices at a competitive fixed rate for a period of 16 months. DISCUSSION: On November 14, 2011, the Request for Proposals for the Publication of Legal Notices was sent to the San Bernardino County Sun, The Press Enterprise and the City News COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 3D Approvals Finance Director (if applicable) n/a City Attorney RLA City Manager bma Group, Inc. and also posted it on the City’s website with a deadline of December 8, 2011. The City received one proposal, from City News Group, Inc. The rate proposed is $1.21 per agate line, 1.25” column width. The City News Group, Inc. will publish Notice of Public Hearings, Summary of Ordinances, Request for Bid Notices, Election Notices, Notices of Meetings and other items, as required, every Thursday. The circulation of the newspaper for Grand Terrace is 2,510 with a total circulation of 18,990. The City News Group, Inc. has agreed to all of the specifications required in the Request for Proposals with only one modification as follows: “Grand Terrace City News requests that the Proposal and Contract maintain equivalent language under bullet #21 in the proposal and Item #8 in the Contract.” Staff requested that the City Attorney review the above request and the City Attorney has agreed that Item 8 in the Contract should read as follows: The Contract shall hold harmless, defend and indemnify the City of Grand Terrace and its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, expenses, costs (including without limitation costs and fees of litigation) of every nature arising out of or in connection with Contractor’s performance of work hereunder or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in the agreement, except such loss or damage which was caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. Staff is confident the City Newspaper Group, Inc. will be able to provide the service necessary to fulfill the City’s obligation for the publication of legal notices pursuant to Government Code Sections 6000-6008. In the event that there is a deadline that can not be met by the City News Group, Inc. the City may use another publication that can meet the deadline. The City News Group, Inc. meets all the requirements of the City and proposed a competitive rate. An added benefit is that it is also a local business. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council award the Non-Exclusive Services Contract for the Publication of Legal Notices from January 2012 through June 30, 2013 with City News Group, Inc. and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT: The City Clerk’s Department and the Community Economic Development Department budgeted for the costs associated with publishing legal notices as part of the Fiscal Year 2011-12 operating budget for the City and the Community Redevelopment Agency. There will be no impact to the budget from the approval of the Non-Exclusive Services Contract for the Publication of Legal Notices with the City News Group, Inc. Respectfully submitted: /s/ Tracey R. Martinez Tracey R. Martinez, City Clerk Attachments: A. Request for Proposal for Publication of Legal Notices B. Proposal received from City News Group, Inc. C. Proposed Non-exclusive Services Agreement for Publication of Legal Notices Council Action Approved as Recommended: Denied/Other: Council Motion: ATTACHMENT A Request for Proposals for Publication of Legal Notices City of Grand Terrace Request for Proposals for Publication of Legal Notices January 2011 to June 30, 2013 Dated: November 14, 2011 Sealed Proposals must be submitted before Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 5:00 p.m. to: City of Grand Terrace City Clerk Department 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92313 Contact: City of Grand Terrace City Clerk Department (909) 430-2230 2 Request for Proposal for Publication of Legal Notices INTRODUCTION The City of Grand Terrace is soliciting proposals for the provision of publishing of legal notices pursuant to Government Code Sections 6000 – 6008, for the City for a 16 month period, beginning January 1, 2012. Upon selection of the most qualified, cost effective and responsive adjudicated newspaper, the City will enter into a non-exclusive contract for services. This Request for Proposal (RFP) describes the City’s basic needs. You are encouraged to identify other services beyond these minimum required services which you can provide to address the City’s needs and describe any progressive approaches that would reduce City costs and/or increase advertising efficiency and effectiveness. 1. GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS The City of Grand Terrace (“City”) is seeking proposals for the publishing of legal notices from newspapers of general circulation adjudicated in the City of Grand Terrace; In no case shall the contract prices for such publication exceed the customary rates charged by such newspaper for the publication of legal notices of a private character; Each bidder shall be held responsible for familiarizing themselves with conditions to be encountered and requirements of the specifications; Proposals must be made on the forms furnished by the City. (Note: Do not remove the specifications or any of the pages herein but submit as a complete package with any additional information to be provided by the company); A sample of a City of Grand Terrace contract is attached. (Note: All contracts shall be reviewed and approved as to form by the City Attorney prior to execution); The proposal and contract that may be awarded related to it, shall be valid from January 10, 2012 to June 30, 2013; The City of Grand Terrace reserves the right to evaluate the proposal based on several qualifications including circulation of the paper, days published, experience, samples, lead time and cost; Attached hereto, and becoming a part of the proposal and contract, shall be proof that the publication is an adjudicated newspaper of general circulation within the City of Grand Terrace as set forth in California Government Code Sections 6000-6008; 3 Request for Proposal for Publication of Legal Notices Prices quoted on the proposal shall be in effect from date of proposal until June 30, 2013; In the event that a newspaper that is awarded a non-exclusive advertising contract for the City is unable to publish on the date required by the City, the City may choose an alternate qualified newspaper in order to meet publication deadline/requirements; Advertisements and notices shall be placed in the body of the newspaper and shall be published for the number of days directed by the officer requiring such publication. Publishing of advertisements and other notices on a supplemental sheet to the newspaper will not be acceptable; The contractor shall submit a draft of submitted publications to be proofread by the respective City department. If errors are found after the sample proof has been checked, a revised corrected proof shall be submitted immediately to said department for approval prior to the publication. All printing done hereunder that does not strictly comply with the copy furnished shall be corrected and republished at the expense of the contractor; During the term of the contract, two Affidavits of Publication delivered to the City within one week of the last publication of the item will be required; Official legal notices for the City will consist of printing and publishing such items as: Notice of Public Hearings, Summary of Ordinances, Request for Bid Notices, Election Notices, Notice of Meetings, and such other items as may be required by the City; Total expenditures for publication services during the contract period are estimated (without guarantee) to be $12,000.00. Invoicing and Payment: The contractor must be willing and able to provide two different accounts and invoicing for the City consisting of: City Clerk and Community Development/Planning. Invoices shall include the name of the City department and/or City employee who ordered the advertising; or a coded system sufficient to identify the department responsible for placing the order; Contractor shall have the capability to receive typeset matter and proofs via email. Contractor shall provide City an email address to be used for transmission of typeset matter; A current City business registration is to be in effect during the term of the contract. 4 Request for Proposal for Publication of Legal Notices General Liability Insurance in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City, to protect the City from claims and shall be in effect during the term of the contract. The Contactor shall provide verification of insurance coverage to the City prior to the work commencing. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the contractor’s obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time. The Contractor shall hold harmless, defend and indemnify the City of Grand Terrace and its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, expenses, costs (including without limitation costs and fees of litigation) of every nature arising out of or in connection with Contractor’s performance of work hereunder or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in the agreement, except such loss or damage which was caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, and to waive minor irregularities in any proposal; The City reserves the right to request clarification of information submitted, and to request additional information from the respondent. In the event that the proposer has concerns with any of the terms as stated in the Request for Proposals for Publication of Legal Notices or the proposed Services Contract for Publication of Legal Notices shall state so in writing and provide suggested alternative language. 5 Request for Proposal for Publication of Legal Notices Proposal for Publication of Legal Notices Per line cost and column width legal Price for second publication (following week) Cost to publish “Attachment A” as a legal ad, to typeset and set up no larger than eight point: Submit proofs of the sample ads as part of your proposal. Days of week published Required lead time for publication including proofreading by City: Day ___________________ Time Extra cost for late submittals Required lead time for retractions or corrections Holidays observed City of Grand Terrace circulation Total circulation Declaration of Non-Collusion: The undersigned certifies (or declares) under penalty of perjury that this proposal is genuine and not sham or collusive, or made in the interest or on behalf of any person, firm, or corporation not herein named; that the contractor has not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any other contractor to put up a sham proposal, or any other person, firm, or corporation to refrain from bidding, and that the contractor has not in any manner sought by collusion to secure to himself/herself any advantage over other contractors. Declaration of Adjudication: The undersigned certifies (or declares) under penalty of perjury that the named newspaper is adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Grand Terrace by the State of California (as defined by Government Code Section 6000, et. Seq.). 6 Request for Proposal for Publication of Legal Notices Errors and Omissions: The undersigned understands and agrees that the City of Grand Terrace will not be responsible for any errors or omissions on the part of the undersigned in making this proposal. Declaration of Non-Discrimination: In the performance of any contract pursuant to these specifications, the undersigned understands and agrees that it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of age, sex, marital status, physical handicap, race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin. Contractor will take affirmative action to ensure the applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their age, sex, marital status, physical handicap, race, 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. Contractor shall post in a conspicuous place, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provisions of this Fair Employment Practices paragraph. Declaration of Customary Rates: The undersigned certifies (or declares) under penalty of perjury that the above proposed rates do not exceed the customary rates charged by the newspaper for the publication of legal notices of a private character. Proposal submitted by: Newspaper Name Address Phone Number, Fax Number, E-Mail Authorized Signature Printed Name Title Date City of Grand Terrace Request for Proposals for Publication of Legal Notices Attachment A CITY OF GRAND TERRACE NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 PLACE: Council Chambers, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, CA TIME: 6:00 P.M. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE IS SCHEDULED TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE ABOVE TIME AND PLACE REGARDING THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: An Ordinance of the City of City of Grand Terrace Electing to Comply with and Participate in the Alternative Voluntary Redevelopment Program Contained in Part 1.9 of Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Code Anyone wishing to speak in favor or opposition to the above listed item will be given the opportunity. Any questions regarding the public hearing may be addressed to Betsy Adams, City Manager, City of Grand Terrace, at (909) 430-2245. City of Grand Terrace Request for Proposals for Publication of Legal Notices Non-Exclusive Contract CITY OF GRAND TERRACE NON-EXCLUSIVE SERVICES CONTRACT PUBLICATION OF LEGAL NOTICES THIS CONTRACT, made and executed this ______ day of __________, 2011, by and between the City of Grand Terrace, California, hereinafter referred to as “CITY” and _______________________, hereinafter referred to as “CONTRACTOR”: WITNESSETH: The CITY and CONTRACTOR do mutually agree as follows: 1. The Notice Inviting Proposals, Proposal, Specifications and all amendments thereof, when approved by the parties hereto, copies of which are attached hereto, are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Contract by reference, as though fully set forth herein, and all of the foregoing shall constitute the Contract documents. 2. CONTRACTOR agrees to publish legal notices as specified in the Contract documents and in the manner specified therein for the period of January 11, 2011 to June 30, 2012. 3. CITY agrees to pay contractor the amount specified in the Contract documents and in the manner specified herein. 4. Time is of the essence of this Contract. If contractor should fail to publish legal notices as specified in paragraph 2 above, CITY may give 30 days written notice to Contractor to provide the required service in a timely and accurate manner, and if the CONTRACTOR fails to do so, the CONTRACTOR shall be liable to the CITY for damages incurred, including, but not limited to, the price differential in procuring legal advertising in conformance with the Contract documents on the open market from another vendor, with or without advertised competitive proposals. 5. CONTRACTOR agrees that in the performance of this Contract, CONTRACTOR is an independent Contractor, not an employee, agent or officer of the CITY. 6. This Contract shall be interpreted, construed and given effect in all respects according to the laws of the State of California. 7. CONTRACTOR shall not assign this Contract, or any part thereof, or any monies due or to be become due thereunder without prior written permission of the CITY. 8. CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and hold harmless the CITY, and its officers and employees, from and against any and all claims, demands, suits, damage, injury and liability, including costs and expenses incurred in connection therewith, however caused, resulting from, arising out of, or in any way connected with the performance of this contract. 9. CONTRACTOR shall hold the CITY, its officers, agents and employees, harmless from liability of any nature of kind, including costs and expenses, for infringement or use of a copyrighted or un-copyrighted composition, secret process, patented or unpatented invention, article or appliance furnished or used in connection with the contract. 10. CONTRACTOR warrants that no gratuities (in the form of entertainment, gifts, or otherwise) were offered or given by the CONTRACTOR, or any agenda or representative of the CONTRACTOR, to any officer or employee of the CITY with a view toward securing the Contract or securing a favorable treatment with respect to any determinations concerning the performance of the Contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, the CITY shall have the right to terminate the contract, either in whole or in part, and any loss or damage sustained by the CITY in procuring in the open market legal publication shall be borne and paid by the CONTRACTOR. The rights and remedies of the CITY provided in this clause shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under the Contract. 11. Right and remedies of CITY for default: In the event of cancellation of the Contract, either in whole or in part, by reason of default or breach thereof by the CONTRACTOR, any loss or damage sustained by the CITY in procuring legal publications which the CONTRACTOR therein agreed to supply shall be borne and paid by the CONTRACTOR. The rights and remedies of the CITY provided above shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under the contract. 12. Subject to the provisions of this Contract, all terms, covenants, conditions and provisions hereof shall inure and shall bind each of the parties. Contractor CITY OF GRAND TERRACE ___________________________ Walt Stanckiewitz, Mayor By ________________________ Date: Title _______________________ Attest: Approved as to form: City Clerk City Attorney ATTACHMENT B Proposal Received from City News Group, Inc. City News Group CITY NEWS GROUP, INC. December 8, 2011 Tracey Martinez-City Clerk City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, Ca. 92313 Re: Grand Terrace City News' RFP Proposal to Provide Legal Publications for the City of Grand Terrace Dear Tracey: As the only adjudicated newspaper in the city of Grand Terrace, Grand Terrace City News is pleased to submit their application in response to the Request for Proposal for Publication of Legal Notices. As per your general specifications, our qualifications are as follows: Specification: The City of Grand Terrace ("City") is seeking proposals for the publishing of legal notices from newspapers of general circulation adjudicated in the City of Grand Terrace? Answer: Grand Terrace City News, under the corporate umbrella of City News Group (CNG), Inc. is the only adjudicated newspaper in the City of Grand Terrace. Specification: In no case shall the contract prices for such publication exceed the customary rates charged by such newspaper for the publication of legal notices of a private character? Answer: Our prices are and have been lower than the rates the City has historically paid. Specification: Each bidder shall be held responsible for familiarizing themselves with conditions to be encountered and requirements of the specifications? Answer: During the years of 2006-2008, the Grand Terrace City News published legal notices with impeccable accuracy at the request of the City, and continually maintains up-to-date familiarity with regard to the specifications and requirements of publishing legal notices. Specification: Proposals must be made on the forms furnished by the City. (Note: Do not remove the specifications or any of the pages herein but submit as a complete package with any additional information to be provided by the company? Answer: As per the request of the City, please find attached forms, furnished by the City and filled out by Grand Terrace City News. Specification: A sample of a City of Grand Terrace contract is attached. (Note: All contracts shall be reviewed and approved as to form by the City Attorney prior to execution)? Answer: Grand Terrace City News shall upon the granting of said contract, provide a copy of the contract to the CNG attorney to be reviewed and approved prior to execution. 22797 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, Ca 92313 I Ph: 909.370.1200IFax: 909.825.1116 Specification: The proposal and contract that may be awarded related to it, shall be valid from January 10, 2012 to June 30, 2013? Answer: Grand Terrace City News agrees to the service dates established in the proposal. Specification: The City of Grand Terrace reserves the right to evaluate the proposal based on several qualifications including circulation of the paper, days published, experience, samples, lead time and cost? Answer: Please find the attached form, furnished by the City, containing Grand Terrace City News' information on the following: circulation numbers, days of publication, experience, samples, lead time, and cost. Specification: Attached hereto, and becoming a part of the proposal and contract, shall be proof that the publication is an adjudicated newspaper of general circulation within the City of Grand Terrace as set forth in California Government Code Sections 6000-6008? Answer: As requested, please find Attachment "C", a copy of our Judgment establishing the Grand Terrace City News as One of General Circulation for the City of Grand Terrace. Specification: Prices quoted on the proposal shall be in effect from date of proposal until June 30, 2013? Answer: Grand Terrace City News agrees that prices quoted on the proposal shall be in effect from date of proposal until June 30, 2013. Specification: In the event that a newspaper that is awarded a non-exclusive advertising contract for the City is unable to publish on the date required by the City, the City may choose an alternate qualified newspaper in order to meet publication deadline/requirements? Answer: Grand Terrace City News agrees to this stipulation, however the Grand Terrace City News should be used when ever reasonably possible because it is the most reasonable and economically feasible avenue for the City to take. Specification: Advertisements and notices shall be placed in the body of the newspaper and shall be published for the number of days directed by the officer requiring such publication. Publishing of advertisements and other notices on a supplemental sheet to the newspaper will not be acceptable? Answer: Grand Terrace City News publishes our legal notices within the body of the newspaper and not on any supplemental sheet within the newspaper. Specification: The contractor shall submit a draft of submitted publications to be proofread by the respective City department. If errors are found after the sample proof has been checked, a revised corrected proof shall be submitted immediately to said department for approval prior to the publication. All printing done hereunder that does not strictly comply with the copy furnished shall be corrected and republished at the expense of the contractor? Answer: As stated above, a regular practice of Grand Terrace City News is to provide parties requesting the publication of legal notices with confirmation, draft, and charges prior to the execution of publishing. Specification: During the term of the contract, two Affidavits of Publication delivered to the City within one week of the last publication of the item will be required? Answer: Because of our convenient location, right next door to the City, we have the capability of delivering a proof of publication the same day of publication, if needed. We have completed exactly that in the past. Our regular delivery of legal ad proof of publication is post marked the next day. Specification: Official legal notices for the City will consist of printing and publishing such items as: Notice of Public Hearings, Summary of Ordinances, Request for Bid Notices, Election Notices, Notice of Meetings, and such other items as may be required by the City? Answer: As the only adjudicated newspaper in the city of Grand Terrace, we have the in-depth knowledge and capability to publish Notice of Public Hearings, Summary of Ordinances, Request for Bid Notices, Election Notices, Notice of Meetings, and such other items as may be required by the City. Specification: Total expenditures for publication services during the contract period are estimated (without guarantee) to be $12,000? Answer: This amount may be less if the calculation was based on the average of the last two years. Specification: Invoicing and Payment: The contractor must be willing and able to provide two different' accounts and invoicing for the City consisting of: City Clerk and Community Development/Planning. Invoices shall include the name of the City department and/or City employee who ordered the advertising; or a coded system sufficient to identify the department responsible for placing the order? Answer: Grand Terrace City News, has a bookkeeping system allowing more than one department of any entity to be invoiced at the same time. This will allow us to provide one account / invoicing for the City Clerk and another for the Community Development/Planning Department. Specification: Contractor shall have the capability to receive typeset matter and proofs via email. Contractor shall provide City an email address to be used for transmission of typeset matter? Answer: As a regular practice the Grand Terrace City News, provides confirmation, draft, and charges of any legal notices publishing via email. The email address to be used for transmission of typeset matter with regard to legal notices is legalads@citynewsgroup.com . Specification: A current City business registration is to be in effect during the term of the contract? Answer: As requested, please find Attachment "D" a copy of the business license for the Grand Terrace City News located at 22797 Barton Road in Grand Terrace, CA 92313. We look forward to the City supporting its economy by doing business with a Grand Terrace-based company. Specification: General Liability Insurance in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VI', unless otherwise acceptable to the City, to protect the City from claims and shall be in effect during the term of the contract? Answer: As requested, please find attached a copy of the Proof of Insurance for the Grand Terrace City News, under the corporate umbrella of City News Group, Inc. located at 22797 Barton Road in Grand Terrace, CA 92313. Attachment "E" displays proof of General Liability Insurance. Specification: The Contractor shall provide verification of insurance coverage to the City prior to the work commencing. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the contractor's obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time? Answer: Grand Terrace City News shall provide certified copies of insurance upon request. Specification: The Contractor shall hold harmless, defend and indemnify the City of Grand Terrace and its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, expenses, costs (including without limitation costs and fees of litigation) of every nature arising out of or in connection with Contractor's performance of work hereunder or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in the agreement, except such loss or damage which was caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City? Answer: Grand Terrace City News requests that the Proposal and the Contract maintain equivalent language i.e. Proposal: Bullet #21 ...hold harmless ..."except such loss or damage which was caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City." Contract: Item 8 ...hold harmless..."however caused" Specification: The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, and to waive minor irregularities in any proposal? Answer: Grand Terrace City News agrees in accordance with the government code covering legal publications. Specification: The City reserves the right to request clarification of information submitted, and to request additional information from the respondent? Answer: With customer service being at the forefront of Grand Terrace City News' daily mission, staff will be happy to clarify any questions the City has with regard to information submitted. Specification: In the event that the proposer has concerns with any of terms as stated in the Request for Proposals for Publication of Legal Notices or the proposed Services Contract for Publication of Legal Notices shall state so in writing and provide suggested alternative language? Answer: In the event that the proposer has concerns with any of the terms as stated in the Request for Proposals for Publication of Legal Notices or the proposed Services Contract for Publication of Legal Notices, suggested alternative language will be stated in writing prior to execution of Contract. In the spirit of the City of Grand Terrace supporting a local Grand Terrace business, it is our desire to provide all of your newspaper publication needs. The City News Group, Inc. looks forward to working with Grand Terrace City staff and the City Council to provide professional legal notices at a significant lower price than what the City has historically paid. We feel that we are the right choice for your advertising needs, and we are looking forward to serving you in the near future. Thank you for your consideration of this proposal and we are available to answer any questions that you may have about our services. Sincerely, Margie Miller Publisher of the Grand Terrace City News City News Group, Inc. City of Grand Terrace Request for Proposals for Publication of Legal Notices January 2011 to June 30, 2013 Dated: November 14, 2011 Sealed Proposals must be submitted before Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 5:00 p.m. to: City of Grand Terrace City Clerk Department 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92313 Contact: City of Grand Terrace City Clerk Department (909) 430-2230 2 Request for Proposal for Publication of Legal Notices INTRODUCTION The City of Grand Terrace is soliciting proposals for the provision of publishing of legal notices pursuant to Government Code Sections 6000 — 6008, for the City for a 16 month period, beginning January 1, 2012. Upon selection of the most qualified, cost effective and responsive adjudicated newspaper, the City will enter into a non-exclusive contract for services. This Request for Proposal (RFP) describes the City's basic needs. You are encouraged to identify other services beyond these minimum required services which you can provide to address the City's needs and describe any progressive approaches that would reduce City costs and/or increase advertising efficiency and effectiveness. 1. GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS •The City of Grand Terrace ("City") is seeking proposals for the publishing of legal notices from newspapers of general circulation adjudicated in the City of Grand Terrace; •In no case shall the contract prices for such publication exceed the customary rates charged by such newspaper for the publication of legal notices of a private character; •Each bidder shall be held responsible for familiarizing themselves with conditions to be encountered and requirements of the specifications; •Proposals must be made on the forms furnished by the City. (Note: Do not remove the specifications or any of the pages herein but submit as a complete package with any additional information to be provided by the company); •A sample of a City of Grand Terrace contract is attached. (Note: All contracts shall be reviewed and approved as to form by the City Attorney prior to execution); •The proposal and contract that may be awarded related to it, shall be valid from January 10, 2012 to June 30, 2013; •The City of Grand Terrace reserves the right to evaluate the proposal based on several qualifications including circulation of the paper, days published, experience, samples, lead time and cost; •Attached hereto, and becoming a part of the proposal and contract, shall be proof that the publication is an adjudicated newspaper of general circulation within the City of Grand Terrace as set forth in California Government Code Sections 6000-6008; 3 I Request for Proposal for Publication of Legal Notices •Prices quoted on the proposal shall be in effect from date of proposal until June 30, 2013; •In the event that a newspaper that is awarded a non-exclusive advertising contract for the City is unable to publish on the date required by the City, the City may choose an alternate qualified newspaper in order to meet publication deadline/requirements; •Advertisements and notices shall be placed in the body of the newspaper and shall be published for the number of days directed by the officer requiring such publication. Publishing of advertisements and other notices on a supplemental sheet to the newspaper will not be acceptable; •The contractor shall submit a draft of submitted publications to be proofread by the respective City department. If errors are found after the sample proof has been checked, a revised corrected proof shall be submitted immediately to said department for approval prior to the publication. All printing done hereunder that does not strictly comply with the copy furnished shall be corrected and republished at the expense of the contractor; •During the term of the contract, two Affidavits of Publication delivered to the City within one week of the last publication of the item will be required; •Official legal notices for the City will consist of printing and publishing such items as: Notice of Public Hearings, Summary of Ordinances, Request for Bid Notices, Election Notices, Notice of Meetings, and such other items as may be required by the City; •Total expenditures for publication services during the contract period are estimated (without guarantee) to be $12,000.00. •Invoicing and Payment: The contractor must be willing and able to provide two different accounts and invoicing for the City consisting of: City Clerk and Community Development/Planning. Invoices shall include the name of the City department and/or City employee who ordered the advertising; or a coded system sufficient to identify the department responsible for placing the order; •Contractor shall have the capability to receive typeset matter and proofs via email. Contractor shall provide City an email address to be used for transmission of typeset matter; •A current City business registration is to be in effect during the term of the contract. 4 Request for Proposal for Publication of Legal Notices •General Liability Insurance in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City, to protect the City from claims and shall be in effect during the term of the contract. •The Contactor shall provide verification of insurance coverage to the City prior to the work commencing. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the contractor's obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time. •The Contractor shall hold harmless, defend and indemnify the City of Grand Terrace and its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, expenses, costs (including without limitation costs and fees of litigation) of every nature arising out of or in connection with Contractor's performance of work hereunder or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in the agreement, except such loss or damage which was caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. •The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, and to waive minor irregularities in any proposal; •The City reserves the right to request clarification of information submitted, and to request additional information from the respondent. •In the event that the proposer has concerns with any of the terms as stated in the Request for Proposals for Publication of Legal Notices or the proposed Services Contract for Publication of Legal Notices shall state so in writing and provide suggested alternative language. 5 I Request for Proposal for Publication of Legal Notices Proposal for Publication of Legal Notices Per line cost and column width legal Price for second publication (following week) Cost to publish "Attachment A" as a legal ad, to typeset and set up no larger than eight point: $1.21 per Agate Line 1.25" Column Width Same as above See Attachment A(1) and A(2) Submit proofs of the sample ads as part of your proposal. Days of week published Every Thursday Required lead time for publication including proofreading by City: 3 p.m. (proof must be returned Day Wednesday Time by 4 p.m. Wednesday Extra cost for late submittals N/A 3 p.m. (proof must be returned Required lead time for retractions or corrections by 4 p.m. Wednesday Holidays observed See Attachment "B" City of Grand Terrace circulation 2,510 Total circulation 18,990 Declaration of Non-Collusion: The undersigned certifies (or declares) under penalty of perjury that this proposal is genuine and not sham or collusive, or made in the interest or on behalf of any person, firm, or corporation not herein named; that the contractor has not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any other contractor to put up a sham proposal, or any other person, firm, or corporation to refrain from bidding, and that the contractor has not in any manner sought by collusion to secure to himself/herself any advantage over other contractors. Declaration of Adjudication: The undersigned certifies (or declares) under penalty of perjury that the named newspaper is adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Grand Terrace by the State of California (as defined by Government Code Section 6000, et. Seq.). Authoriz Signature 6 I Request for Proposal for Publication of Legal Notices Errors and Omissions: The undersigned understands and agrees that the City of Grand Terrace will not be responsible for any errors or omissions on the part of the undersigned in making this proposal. Declaration of Non-Discrimination: In the performance of any contract pursuant to these specifications, the undersigned understands and agrees that it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of age, sex, marital status, physical handicap, race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin. Contractor will take affirmative action to ensure the applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their age, sex, marital status, physical handicap, race, 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. Contractor shall post in a conspicuous place, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provisions of this Fair Employment Practices paragraph. Declaration of Customary Rates: The undersigned certifies (or declares) under penalty of perjury that the above proposed rates do not exceed the customary rates charged by the newspaper for the publication of legal notices of a private character. Proposal submitted by: Grand Terrace City News Newspaper Name 22797 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, CA 92313 Address 909 -370 -1200 909 -825 -1116 legalads@citynewsgroup.com Phone Number, Fax Number, E-Mail Margie Miller Printed Name Publisher Title 12 -8 -11 Date City of Grand Terrace Request for Proposals for Publication of Legal Notices Attachment A CITY OF GRAND TERRACE NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 PLACE: Council Chambers, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, CA TIME: 6:00 P.M. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE IS SCHEDULED TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE ABOVE TIME AND PLACE REGARDING THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: An Ordinance of the City of City of Grand Terrace Electing to Comply with and Participate in the Alternative Voluntary Redevelopment Program Contained in Part 1.9 of Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Code Anyone wishing to speak in favor or opposition to the above listed item will be given the opportunity. Any questions regarding the public hearing may be addressed to Betsy Adams, City Manager, City of Grand Terrace, at (909) 430-2245. City of Grand Terrace Request for Proposals for Publication of Legal Notices Non-Exclusive Contract CITY OF GRAND TERRACE NON-EXCLUSIVE SERVICES CONTRACT PUBLICATION OF LEGAL NOTICES THIS CONTRACT, made and executed this day of , 2011, by and between the City of Grand Terrace, California, hereinafter referred to as "CITY" and , hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR": WITNESSETH: The CITY and CONTRACTOR do mutually agree as follows: 1.The Notice Inviting Proposals, Proposal, Specifications and all amendments thereof, when approved by the parties hereto, copies of which are attached hereto, are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Contract by reference, as though fully set forth herein, and all of the foregoing shall constitute the Contract documents. 2.CONTRACTOR agrees to publish legal notices as specified in the Contract documents and in the manner specified therein for the period of January 11, 2011 to June 30, 2012. 3.CITY agrees to pay contractor the amount specified in the Contract documents and in the manner specified herein. 4.Time is of the essence of this Contract. If contractor should fail to publish legal notices as specified in paragraph 2 above, CITY may give 30 days written notice to Contractor to provide the required service in a timely and accurate manner, and if the CONTRACTOR fails to do so, the CONTRACTOR shall be liable to the CITY for damages incurred, including, but not limited to, the price differential in procuring legal advertising in conformance with the Contract documents on the open market from another vendor, with or without advertised competitive proposals. 5.CONTRACTOR agrees that in the performance of this Contract, CONTRACTOR is an independent Contractor, not an employee, agent or officer of the CITY. 6.This Contract shall be interpreted, construed and given effect in all respects according to the laws of the State of California. 7.CONTRACTOR shall not assign this Contract, or any part thereof, or any monies due or to be become due thereunder without prior written permission of the CITY. 8.CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and hold harmless the CITY, and its officers and employees, from and against any and all claims, demands, suits, damage, injury and liability, including costs and expenses incurred in connection therewith, however caused, resulting from, arising out of, or in any way connected with the performance of this contract. 9.CONTRACTOR shall hold the CITY, its officers, agents and employees, harmless from liability of any nature of kind, including costs and expenses, for infringement or use of a copyrighted or un-copyrighted composition, secret process, patented or unpatented invention, article or appliance furnished or used in connection with the contract. 10.CONTRACTOR warrants that no gratuities (in the form of entertainment, gifts, or otherwise) were offered or given by the CONTRACTOR, or any agenda or representative of the CONTRACTOR, to any officer or employee of the CITY with a view toward securing the Contract or securing a favorable treatment with respect to any determinations concerning the performance of the Contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, the CITY shall have the right to terminate the contract, either in whole or in part, and any loss or damage sustained by the CITY in procuring in the open market legal publication shall be borne and paid by the CONTRACTOR. The rights and remedies of the CITY provided in this clause shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under the Contract. 11.Right and remedies of CITY for default: In the event of cancellation of the Contract, either in whole or in part, by reason of default or breach thereof by the CONTRACTOR, any loss or damage sustained by the CITY in procuring legal publications which the CONTRACTOR therein agreed to supply shall be borne and paid by the CONTRACTOR. The rights and remedies of the CITY provided above shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under the contract. 12.Subject to the provisions of this Contract, all terms, covenants, conditions and provisions hereof shall inure and shall bind each of the parties. Contractor CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Walt Stanckiewitz, Mayor By Title Attest: Date: Approved as to form: City Clerk City Attorney Attachment A(1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) ) ss. County of San Bernardino ) I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California: I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the Grand Terrace City News, a newspaper that has been adjudged to be a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Bernardino, State of California, on July 25, 1996. Case No. SCV-30069 for the City of Grand Terrace, County of San Bernardino, State of California; that the notice of which the annexed is a true printed copy, has been published in each regular and extra issue, and not in any supplement there of, of said newspaper on the following dates, to wit: MMIDD/YYYY "I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct" Executed at Grand Terrace, San Bernardino County, California, on Date: MM/DD/YYYY PROOF OF PUBLICATION CITY OF GRAND TERRACE NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 PLACE: Council Chambers, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, CA TIME: 6:00 P.M. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE IS SCHEDULED TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE ABOVE TIME AND PLACE REGARDING THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: An Ordinance of the City of City of Grand Terrace Electing to Comply with and Participate in the Alterna- tive Voluntary Redevelopment Pro- gram Contained in Part 1.9 of Divi- sion 24 of the California Health and Safety Code Anyone wishing to speak in favor or opposition to the above listed item will be given the opportunity. Any questions regarding the public hear- ing may be addressed to Betsy Adams, City Manager, City of Grand Terrace, at (909)430-2245. At 5.5 point*, Times New Roman font: $1.21 per agate line X 28 agate lines X 1 insert = $33.88 *point size to be determined by city attorney or city staff to accomodate their budget purposes Signature City News Group, Inc. 22797 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92313 (909) 370-1200 Attachment A(2) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) ) ss. County of San Bernardino ) I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California: I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the Grand Terrace City News, a newspaper that has been adjudged to be a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Bernardino, State of California, on July 25, 1996. Case No. SCV-30069 for the City of Grand Terrace, County of San Bernardino, State of California; that the notice of which the annexed is a true printed copy, has been published in each regular and extra issue, and not in any supplement there of, of said newspaper on the following dates, to wit: MM/DD/YYYY "I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct" Executed at Grand Terrace, San Bernardino County, California, on Date: MM/DD/YYYY Signature City News Group, Inc. 22797 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92313 (909) 370-1200 PROOF OF PUBLICATION CITY OF GRAND TER- RACE NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Tuesday, Decem- ber 13, 2011 PLACE: Council Cham- bers, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, CA TIME: 6:00 P.M. THE CITY COUN- CIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE IS SCHEDULED TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE ABOVE TIME AND PLACE REGARD- ING THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: An Ordinance of the City of City of Grand Ter- race Electing to Comply with and Participate in the Alternative Voluntary Redevelopment Program Contained in Part 1.9 of Division 24 of the Cali- fornia Health and Safety Code Anyone wishing to speak in favor or opposition to the above listed item will be given the opportunity. Any questions regarding the public hearing may be addressed to Betsy Ad- ams, City Manager, City of Grand Terrace, at (909) 430-2245. At 8 point*, Times New Roman font: $1.21 per agate line X 62 agate lines X 1 insert = $75.02 *point size to be determined by city attorney or city staff to accomodate their budget purposes Attachment "B" Holidays observed by Grand Terrace City News of City News Group, Inc.: •January 1 (New Year's Day) •Memorial Day •July 4 th (Independence Day) •Labor Day •Thanksgiving and the Friday after •Christmas Day Attachment "C" JO 11996 ,0 San Sernarditi 0 Supr`iolim u centrer trivis Co urt SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR TEE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO Case No. SCV 30069 JUDGMENT ASCERTAIN-LNG AND ESTABLISHING NEWSPAPER AS ONE OF GENERAL CIRCULATION [Gov C § 6023) The verified petition of Marty Bachman to have the standing of Grand Terrace City News ascertained and established as a newspaper,,,Of general circulation, as defined in Section 6000 of the Government Code, came on regularly for hearing by the court on July 25, 1996, in Department 2 of the above-entitled court. Petitioner appeared by his attorney William J. Ward of Ward & Ward. No one appeared to contest the petition. Evidence both oral and documentary was introduced and on proof made to the satisfaction of the court, the court finds as follows: 1. The substance of the petition and notice of intention of petitioner to apply to the court on a named day for an order declaring the newspaper to be a newspaper of general circulation was duly published pursuant to Section 6062 of the Government Code, proof of such publication was duly made, and the court set the petition for hearing, as required by Sections 6021 and 6022 of the Government Code. /// 1/C0002/002/JUDGMENT.100 (Page 1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In the Matter of the Petition of Marty Bachman to Have.the Standing of the Grand Terrace City News as a Newspaper of Ascertained and General, Circulation Established. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2.The Grand Terrace City News is a newspaper of general circulation, published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a good. character in the City of Grand Terrace, County of San Bernardino, California. 3.The petitioning newspaper has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, numbering 30 in the City of Grand Terrace and elsewhere in the surrounding area. 4.For more than one year preceding the filing of the petition, the petitioning newspaper has been established under the name of Grand Terrace City News and has been printed and published at regular intervals in the County of San Bernardino. 5.During the whole of such one-year period (as that term is defined in the Government Code); the mechanical work of producing the petitioning newspaper, that is, the work of typesetting and impressing type on paper, has been performed in the County of San Bernardino; the newspaper has been issued from the same county where it is printed and sold; and it has been both printed and published in the county of San Bernardino; and it has been published as a weekly newspaper on each Thursday and has had an average weekly circulation of 3,000. WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Grand Terrace City News is a newspaper of general circulation, as defined in section 6000 of the Government Code, for the City of Grand Terrace, County of San Bernardino, California. DATED: JUL 1,9g6 AKE'S A, €0 1iv917:. Judge of the Superior Court (JUDGMENT) (Page 2) I II I Date of Expiration: 12/31/2011 CALIFORNIA Attachment "D" Impala A1ERMARK AND., !ME! FIR R S = 24155 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE BUSINESS LICENSE CERTIFICATE The person, firm or corporation named below is hereby granted this certificate as the receipt of taxes paid to the City for the business described below Granting of this certificate does not entitle the holder to operate or maintain a business in violation of any law or ordinance. The City does not pass on the qualifications of the holder of this certificate. TYPE OF BUSINESS Gross Receipts BUSINESS ADDRESS 22797 BARTON RD BUSINESS NAME CITY NEWS GROUP ATTN: MARGARET MILLER MAILING 22996 PALM AVE ADDRESS GRAND TERRACE, CA 92313-5333 N •N: 1 A EMIR) E AN T N 1EW BUSINESS Attachment "E" Golden Eagle Insurance. MC1KIr(Ol 111..crly Ma.) Group :orming a part of Policy Number: CBP 8655378 Coverage Is Provided In PEERLESS INSURANCE COMPANY - A STOCK COMPANY Named Insured: MARGARET MILLER DBA: MILLER ASSOCIATES DBA: CITY NEWS Agent: JORDAN INSURANCE SERVICES INC Agent Code: 4292740 Agent Phone: (909)-888-2231 rOTAL ADVANCE PREMIUM FOR ALL LIABILITY COVERAGE PARTS 574. 0 0 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART DECLARATIONS .IMITS OF INSURANCE Each Occurrence Limit $ 1, 0 0 0, 0 0 0 Damage To Premises Rented To You Limit $ 10 0 , 0 0 0 Any One Premise Medical Expense Limit 5 , 0 0 0 Any One Person 'ersonal and Advertising Injury Limit $ 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 Any One Person or Organization 3eneral Aggregate Limit (Other Than Products/Completed Operations) $ 2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 'roducts/Completed Operations Aggregate Limit $ 2 , 000 , 000 .00ATION OF PREMISES .ocation Number Address of All Premises You Own, Rent or Occupy 0 01 22797 BARTON RD GRAND TERRACE CA 92313 'REMIUIVI ;lass Classification Description ;ode Rates Advance Premium Premium Territory Prods/ All Prods/ All Base Code Comp Ops Other Comp Ops Other ;A .00ATION 001 2-19 (12/02) INSURED COPY ATTACHMENT C Proposed Non-exclusive Services Agreement for Publication of Legal Notices CITY OF GRAND TERRACE NON-EXCLUSIVE SERVICES CONTRACT PUBLICATION OF LEGAL NOTICES THIS CONTRACT, made and executed this ______ day of __________, 2011, by and between the City of Grand Terrace, California, hereinafter referred to as “CITY” and _______________________, hereinafter referred to as “CONTRACTOR”: WITNESSETH: The CITY and CONTRACTOR do mutually agree as follows: 1. The Notice Inviting Proposals, Proposal, Specifications and all amendments thereof, when approved by the parties hereto, copies of which are attached hereto, are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Contract by reference, as though fully set forth herein, and all of the foregoing shall constitute the Contract documents. 2. CONTRACTOR agrees to publish legal notices as specified in the Contract documents and in the manner specified therein for the period of January 11, 2011 to June 30, 2012. 3. CITY agrees to pay contractor the amount specified in the Contract documents and in the manner specified herein. 4. Time is of the essence of this Contract. If contractor should fail to publish legal notices as specified in paragraph 2 above, CITY may give 30 days written notice to Contractor to provide the required service in a timely and accurate manner, and if the CONTRACTOR fails to do so, the CONTRACTOR shall be liable to the CITY for damages incurred, including, but not limited to, the price differential in procuring legal advertising in conformance with the Contract documents on the open market from another vendor, with or without advertised competitive proposals. 5. CONTRACTOR agrees that in the performance of this Contract, CONTRACTOR is an independent Contractor, not an employee, agent or officer of the CITY. 6. This Contract shall be interpreted, construed and given effect in all respects according to the laws of the State of California. 7. CONTRACTOR shall not assign this Contract, or any part thereof, or any monies due or to be become due thereunder without prior written permission of the CITY. 8. CONTRACTOR shall hold harmless, defend and indemnify the City of Grand Terrace and its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, expenses, costs (including without limitation costs and fees of litigation) of every nature arising out of or in connection with Contractor’s performance of work hereunder or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in the agreement, except such loss or damage which was caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. 9. CONTRACTOR shall hold the CITY, its officers, agents and employees, harmless from liability of any nature of kind, including costs and expenses, for infringement or use of a copyrighted or un-copyrighted composition, secret process, patented or unpatented invention, article or appliance furnished or used in connection with the contract. 10. CONTRACTOR warrants that no gratuities (in the form of entertainment, gifts, or otherwise) were offered or given by the CONTRACTOR, or any agenda or representative of the CONTRACTOR, to any officer or employee of the CITY with a view toward securing the Contract or securing a favorable treatment with respect to any determinations concerning the performance of the Contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, the CITY shall have the right to terminate the contract, either in whole or in part, and any loss or damage sustained by the CITY in procuring in the open market legal publication shall be borne and paid by the CONTRACTOR. The rights and remedies of the CITY provided in this clause shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under the Contract. 11. Right and remedies of CITY for default: In the event of cancellation of the Contract, either in whole or in part, by reason of default or breach thereof by the CONTRACTOR, any loss or damage sustained by the CITY in procuring legal publications which the CONTRACTOR therein agreed to supply shall be borne and paid by the CONTRACTOR. The rights and remedies of the CITY provided above shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under the contract. 12. Subject to the provisions of this Contract, all terms, covenants, conditions and provisions hereof shall inure and shall bind each of the parties. Contractor CITY OF GRAND TERRACE ___________________________ Betsy M. Adams, City Manager By ________________________ Date: Title _______________________ Attest: Approved as to form: City Clerk City Attorney AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: January 10, 2012 Council Item (X) CRA Item (X) TITLE: Corrected Treasurer’s Report – September 30, 2011 PRESENTED BY: Bernie Simon, Finance Director RECOMMENDATION: Approve the corrected version Treasurer’s Report for the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2011-12. BACKGROUND: The Treasurer’s Report of funds held as cash or invested by the City and the Community Redevelopment Agency should be presented to the governing body quarterly. The Treasurer’s Report for September 30, 2011 was first reviewed by the governing body on November 8, 2011. After questions and discussion, staff was directed to bring the report back at a future meeting. DISCUSSION: During discussion at the November 8 meeting two errors in the staff report were noted. These have been corrected and are summarized as follows: The percentage change in the two Change in Treasury Position tables (Fiscal Year-to-Date Compared to Previous Quarter and Fiscal Year-to-Date Compared to Previous Year) in the staff report now reflect the change from June 30, 2011 to September 30, 2011 and September 30, 2010 to September 30, 2011 respectively. These tables are on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report. The Change in Treasury Position – Fiscal Year-to-Date Compared to Previous Year incorrectly labeled a column as June 30, 2010 now is labeled September 30, 2010. Corrected versions of the Change in Treasury Position Fiscal Year-to-Date Compared to Previous Quarter and the Change in Treasury Position Fiscal Year-to-Date Compared to Previous Year tables are show on the following page: COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 3E Approvals Finance Director (if applicable) B.S. City Attorney RLA City Manager bma CHANGE IN TREASURY POSITION Fiscal Year-to-Date Compared to Previous Quarter Description June 30 2011 Sep 30 2011 $ Change % Chg Investment Pools 34,293,792 31,030,898 -3,262,894 -9.5 Investment Instruments 1,081,032 1,081,008 -24 0 Funds with Bank Institutions 1,834,189 594,777 -1,239,412 -67.6 Total Cash and Investments $37,209,013 $32,706,683 -4,502,330 -12.1 Funds with Fiscal Agent 3,057,800 3,057,800 0 0 Total $40,266,813 $35,764,483 -4,502,330 -11.2 CHANGE IN TREASURY POSITION Fiscal Year-to-Date Compared to Previous Year Description Sep 30 2010 Sep 30 2011 $ Change % Chg Investment Pools 14,307,657 31,030,898 16,723,241 116.9 Investment Instruments 1,081,029 1,081,008 -21 0 Funds with Bank Institutions 783,965 594,777 -189,188 -24.1 Total Cash and Investments $16.172651 $32,706,683 16,534,032 102.2 Funds with Fiscal Agent 1,300,000 3,057,800 1,757,800 135.2 Total $17,472,651 $35,764,483 18,291,832 104.7 A question was raised at the November 8 meeting about the periods presented for comparison in the Treasurer’s Report. The purpose of the Treasurer’s Report is to provide the governing body with the following information: Current cash position of the City and Community Redevelopment Agency. Identify where all cash is held and, if invested, provide information regarding the value, yield, and maturity. Show that there are sufficient cash resources to make economic commitments for the next six months. One way the governing body can monitor the fiscal condition of the City and the Community Redevelopment Agency is to review the cash position. Common benchmarks to do this compare the current quarter to the prior quarter and the current quarter to the same quarter in the prior fiscal year. Since this staff report is for the Treasurer’s Report of September 30, 2011, the comparison would be to June 30, 2011 and September 30, 2010 respectively. Information on the benefits of these two cash reporting comparison periods is provided below: Quarterly change in cash position: Compares the cash position at the end of a quarter to the end of the prior quarter. The cyclical nature of revenues to the City and the Community Redevelopment Agency versus the relatively constant nature of expenditures is shown in a quarterly comparison. An example of this would be property tax revenue of which the majority is received in December and May versus monthly labor and utility costs. Generally, the cash position tends to decrease in the in first and second quarter of a fiscal year and to increase in the third and fourth quarters. One-time revenues such as bond proceeds may also be easier to highlight first in a quarterly change report. Annual change in cash position: Compares the current cash position to the same quarter in the prior year. This comparison smoothes out the cyclical nature of revenues, expenditures paid once a year such as insurance and debt service, and one-time expenditures such as capital projects. An annual change report provides a good view of the cash position trend. There was a question on the change in Funds with Institutions from June 30, 2011 to September 30, 2011 of -$1,239,412 and -208% presented in the staff report on November 8. The dollar amount of the change for this time period is correct but the percentage should be -67.6%. The table below shows the detail for Funds with Institutions (banks) for the quarterly comparison along with the correct percentage: FUNDS WITH INSTITUTIONS Change Quarter-to-Date June 30, 2011 to September 30, 2011 Institution Name 6/30/2011 9/30/2011 $ % Account Total Total Increase / Deposits Deposits -Decrease Bank of America General 1,454,600 240,945 -1,213,655 -83.44% Bank of America Savings 250,031 250,021 -10 0.00% Bank of America Payroll 35,558 9,811 -25,747 -72.41% Bancomer Certificate of Deposit 94,000 94,000 0 0.00% TOTAL 1,834,189 594,777 -1,239,412 -67.57% The Funds with Institutions category in the Treasurer’s Report contains all funds held at state and federally chartered banks. The general bank account is the “clearing house” for all cash receipts and disbursements, excluding payroll. The payroll account is the “clearing house” for payroll checks and payroll taxes. The Finance Department maintains sufficient cash in the general account to clear check disbursements plus a modest amount of funds for unexpected expenses. Cash in the general account determined to be in excess of current needs for disbursements is transferred to interest bearing accounts. Cash is withdrawn from interest bearing accounts and transferred to the general account when current disbursements exceed the amount of cash in the account. Only enough cash is deposited in the payroll account to clear payroll checks and payroll taxes. A review of the general account at June 30, 2011 indicates that the primary reason for the high balance was $979,589 of outstanding checks that where issued close to month end which was also the end of the fiscal year. Below is the table showing the corrected Funds with Institutions percentage for the annual comparison which should be -24.13% instead of the -31.8% reported on November 8: FUNDS WITH INSTITUTIONS Change Prior Year September 30, 2010 to September 30,2011 Institution Name Account 9/30/2010 9/30/2011 $ Total Total Increase / % Deposits Deposits -Decrease Bank of America General 347,876 240,945 -106,931 -30.74% Bank of America Savings 250,062 250,021 -41 -0.02% Bank of America Payroll 92,027 9,811 -82,216 -89.34% Bancomer Certificate of Deposit 94,000 94,000 0 0.00% TOTAL 783,965 594,777 -189,188 -24.13% The information in the Discussion section of this staff report addresses the errors identified on November 8 and also provides information for questions asked at the meeting. The staff report for that meeting of the governing body is included as an attachment to this staff report. FISCAL IMPACT: The purpose of the Treasurer’s Report is to provide information the current cash and investment position of the City and the Community Redevelopment Agency. There is no financial impact from approving the report. Respectfully submitted: /s/ Bernie Simon Bernie Simon, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: November 8, 2011 staff report for Treasurer’s Report – September 30, 2011 Council Action Approved as Recommended: Denied/Other: Council Motion: ATTACHMENT A November 8, 2011 Staff Report for Treasurer’s Report – September 30, 2011 AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: November 8, 2011 Council Item (X) CRA Item ( ) TITLE: Treasurer’s Report – September 30, 2011 PRESENTED BY: Bernie Simon, Finance Director RECOMMENDATION: Approve BACKGROUND: Treasurer’s Report of Cash and Investments should be presented to the governing body quarterly. This reports all cash held and invested by the city. All fiscal agent funds are related to bond issues for which the city has limited authority to access and invest funds as controlled by the bond indenture. DISCUSSION: Quarter-to-Date Total cash and investments decreased $4,502,330 or 13.77% over the previous quarter end for a total of $32,706,683. The cash decrease is attributable to the normal lack of revenue receipts in the first quarter, coupled with large expenditure requirements paid in the first quarter. Some of the large expenditures included $1,397,444 to purchase 14.22 acres on Van Buren, $2,054,577 to US Bank for bond debt service and $127,424 to Zion’s Bank. The average yield continues to stay low as investment income yields continue to decline. LAIF net yield is now approximately .38% in September 2011 compared to 1.51% in June 2009. Overall cash and investments, including cash with fiscal agent, decreased 12.59% to $35,764,483. June 30, 2011 “Cash with Fiscal Agent” did not include the 2011 B Tax Allocation Bond reserve of $476,906 and is now presented correctly for June 30 and September 30, 2011. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 3D Approvals Finance Director (if applicable) B.S. City Attorney RLA City Manager bma Prior Year-to-Date Total cash and investments increased $16,534,032 or 50.55% over the previous year from a total of $32,706,683. Excluding “net” bond proceeds, cash decreased $597,196 from the previous year. Overall cash and investments, including cash with fiscal agent, increased 51.15% to $35,764,483 compared to the same time a year ago. On June 16, 2011, the CRA received $18,528,672 of proceeds from the sale of the 2011A and 2011B Tax Allocation Bonds and an additional $1,757,800 required bond reserve was established with the Trustee from other proceeds. $1,397,444 of proceeds from the 2011B Tax Allocation Bonds were used during the quarter ending September 30, 2011 to purchase property. Change in Treasury Position - Fiscal Year-to-Date Compared to Previous Quarter June 30 2011 Sep 30 2011 Change % Chg Investment Pools 34,293,792 31,030,898 -3,262,894 -10.5 Investment Instruments 1,081,032 1,081,008 -24 0 Funds with Institutions 1,834,189 594,777 -1,239,412 -208 Total Cash and Investments $37,209,013 $32,706,683 -4,502,330 -13.7 Funds with Fiscal Agent 3,057,800 3,057,800 0 0 Total $40,266,813 $35,764,483 $-4,502,330 -12.6 Change in Treasury Position - Fiscal Year-to-Date Compared to Previous Year June 30 2010 Sep 30 2011 Change % Chg Investment Pools 14,307,657 31,030,898 16,723,241 53.9 Investment Instruments 1,081,029 1,081,008 -21 0 Funds with Institutions 783,965 594,777 -189,188 -31.8 Total Cash and Investments $16,172,651 $32,706,683 $16,534,032 50.5 Funds with Fiscal Agent 1,300,000 3,057,800 1,757,800 57.5 Total $17,472,651 $35,764,483 $18,291,832 51.1 FISCAL IMPACT: The purpose of this report is to report the current cash and investment position. There is no financial impact due to this report. Respectfully submitted: /s/ Bernie Simon Bernie Simon, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: Treasurer’s Report September 30, 2011 Treasury Cash Position History to September 30, 2011 Council Action Approved as Recommended: Denied/Other: Council Motion: City of Grand Terrace CRA of Grand Terrace Cash & Investment Report September 30, 2011 FUNDS IN INVESTMENT POOLS Book PAR Market Yield Maturity California Asset Management Program 3,870,363 3,870,363 3,870,363 0.120% n/a State Treasurer - LAIF: City Account 3,753,272 3,753,272 3,760,207 0.380% n/a State Treasurer - LAIF: CRA Account 23,407,263 23,407,263 23,450,510 0.380% n/a TOTAL 31,030,898 31,030,898 31,081,079 INDIVIDUAL INVESTMENT INSTRUMENTS US Bank Safekeeping : First American Treas Oblig Fnd 1,071,782 1,071,782 1,071,782 0.010% n/a First Financial Equity - Money Market 9,226 9,226 9,226 0.050% n/a TOTAL 1,081,008 1,081,008 1,081,008 FUNDS WITH BANK INSTITUTIONS Account Insured Other Total Name Deposits Deposits Deposits Yield Maturity Bank of America General 240,945 0 240,945 0.000% n/a Bank of America Savings 250,000 21 250,021 0.100% n/a Bank of America Payroll 9,811 0 9,811 0.000% n/a Bancomer CD 94,000 0 94,000 0.500% 6/8/12 TOTAL 594,756 21 594,777 GRAND TOTAL Book PAR Market Ave Days Ave Rate INVESTMENTS 32,455,927 32,455,927 32,506,108 1.05 0.332% CASH 250,756 250,756 250,756 GRAND TOTAL 32,706,682 32,706,682 32,756,864 Financing FUNDS WITH FISCAL AGENT Issue Book Par Market Yield Maturity First American Treasury Obligations 2004 TABS 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 0.010% n/a First American Treasury Obligations 2011A TABS 1,280,894 1,280,894 1,280,894 0.010% n/a First American Treasury Obligations 2011B TABS 476,906 476,906 476,906 0.010% n/a TOTAL FUNDS WITH FISCAL AGENT 3,057,800 3,057,800 3,057,800 Duration CITY/CRA INVESTMENT AND CASH POSITION BY QUARTER 9/30 12/31 3/31 6/30 9/30 12/31 3/31 6/30 9/30 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 Investment Pools 14,769,278 16,982,992 16,750,980 17,341,092 14,307,657 14,829,888 15,378,021 34,293,792 31,030,898 1,081,038 1,081,038 1,081,040 1,081,042 1,081,029 1,081,029 1,081,031 1,081,032 1,081,008 Funds with Institutions 583,996 594,460 977,098 456,629 783,965 1,142,412 859,664 1,834,189 594,777 Total Cash and Investments $16,434,312 $18,658,490 $18,809,118 $18,878,763 $16,172,651 $17,053,329 $17,318,716 $37,209,013 $32,706,683 Funds with Fiscal Agent 1,302,464 1,300,086 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 3,057,800 3,057,800 Total $17,736,776 $19,958,576 $20,109,118 $20,178,763 $17,472,651 $18,353,329 $18,618,716 $40,266,813 $35,764,483 Treasury Cash Position-All Funds $0 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 $35,000,000 $40,000,000 Sep - 0 9 Nov -09 Jan - 1 0 Mar - 1 0 May - 10 Jul - 1 0 Sep - 1 0 Nov -10 Jan - 1 1 Mar - 1 1 May - 11 Jul - 1 1 Sep - 1 1 Cash and Investments Funds With Fiscal Agt AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: January 10, 2012 Council Item ( X ) CRA Item ( ) TITLE: Crime Prevention Committee Member Appointments, Reinstatement and Vacate PRESENTED BY: Tracey Martinez, City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: Reinstate Don Bennett as a Regular Member to fill his Unexpired Term on the Crime Prevention Committee Continuing to June 30, 2014, Vacate the Term of Philomene Spisak, Appoint Manuel Baltierra as a Regular Member of the Crime Prevention Committee to fill an unexpired term Continuing to June 30, 2014, Appoint Robert J. Kaplanek as a Regular Member of the Crime Prevention Committee to fill an Unexpired Term Continuing to June 30, 2012 and Appoint Philip H. Robb as a Regular Member of the Crime Prevention Committee to fill an Unexpired Term Continuing to June 30, 2012 BACKGROUND: The Crime Prevention Committee is an advisory group that was established by the City Council. The meetings are held on the second Monday of each month at 4:00 p.m. at City Hall. The Committee is made up of seven voting members and two alternate members. The expiration dates of the terms are staggered on even numbered years so that all of the terms do not expire at the same time. Currently the Crime Prevention Committee has three regular member vacancies, with the possibility of a fourth due to a committee member that has not been attending meetings, and two alternate member vacancies. DISCUSSION: In June of 2010 Committee Members of all City Council advisory groups with terms expiring on June 30, 2010 were sent a letter asking them if they wished at be reappointed to their respective committees. At that time there were three regular member terms and two alternate member terms up for reappointment on the Crime COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 3F Approvals Finance Director (if applicable) n/a City Attorney RLA City Manager bma Prevention Committee. One member indicated that they wanted to be reappointed as a regular member to the Committee, one indicated that they did not wish to seek reappointment and one member was facing circumstances that would prevent him from attending the meetings but wanted to be considered for reinstatement at a later date if possible. The alternate positions had already been vacated. Council reappointed the one committee member on September 14, 2010 and the remaining terms have been vacant since that date. Philomene Spisak has been a long time member of the Crime Prevention Committee however, in the last year she has been unable to attend the meetings. The Policy Manuel that was adopted by the City Council in April, 1988, indicates that the Chairperson has the right to monitor the participation and attendance of appointees. In cases where the Chairperson deems advisable, these cases shall be reviewed with City Staff and/or City Council. Staff has been advised verbally of the lack of attendance by Mrs. Spisak by members of the Committee. Staff contacted Mrs. Spisak with regards to her attendance and she indicated that she wished to remain on the Committee however, she has still been unable to attend the meetings to date. Staff feels that although Mrs. Spisak has been a long time committee member keeping her on the roster is not in the best interest of the Crime Prevention Committee nor the City and it would be best to vacate her term. The City has received three applications for Citizen Service to serve as regular members on the Crime Prevention Committee and one request for reinstatement as a regular member. Applications were received from Manuel Baltierra, Robert J. Kaplanek, and Philip H. Robb. The reinstatement request was made by Don Bennett. The applications were forwarded to the Committee members for their review and recommendation. The Committee met on December 6, 2011 and voted to accept the applications of Manuel Baltierra, Robert J. Kaplanek, and Philip H. Robb all as regular members of the Committee. Although Mr. Bennett was not reappointed in September, 2010, he has faithfully attended the meetings and the members of the Committee have communicated with staff that they are not opposed to him being reinstated as a regular member. If Council vacates the term of Mrs. Spisak, the Committee will have four regular member vacancies and two alternate member vacancies. If Council wishes to appoint Philip H. Robb, Manual Baltierra and Robert J. Kaplanek as regular members and reinstate Don Bennett as a regular member all vacancies on the Committee will be filled with the exception of the two alternate positions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the following: 1. Council vacate the term of Philomene Spisak on the Crime Prevention Committee. 2. Reinstate Don Bennett as a regular member of the Crime Prevention Committee to fill his unexpired term continuing to June 30, 2014. 3. Appoint Manuel Baltierra to fill an unexpired term on the Crime Prevention Committee continuing to June 30, 2014. 4. Appoint Robert J. Kaplanek to fill an unexpired term on the Crime Prevention Committee continuing to June 30, 2012. 5. Appoint Philip H. Robb to fill an unexpired term on the Crime Prevention Committee continuing to June 30, 2012. 6. Direct staff to send letters to all of the individuals informing them of the action taken by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the City. Respectfully submitted: /s/ Tracey R. Martinez Tracey R. Martinez, City Clerk Attachments: A. E-mail from Don Bennett requesting reinstatement to the Crime Prevention Committee B. Committee Request for City Council Action for Manuel Baltierra C. Application Submitted by Manuel Baltierra D. Committee Request for City Council Action for Robert J. Kaplanek E. Application Submitted by Robert J. Kaplanek F. Committee Request for City Council Action for Philip H. Robb G. Application Submitted by Philip H. Robb Council Action Approved as Recommended: Denied/Other: Council Motion: ATTACHMENT A Email from Don Bennett requesting reinstatement to the Crime Prevention Committee (11/21/2011) TRACEY MARTINEZ - Crime Board. Page 1 From: "Don Bennett" <imoxforddon@gmail.com > To: <tmartinez@cityofgrandterrace.org > Date: 11/18/2011 10:10 AM Subject: Crime Board. Tracey As we arranged, here is my application to once again be a member of the Crime board If you would prefer that I submit an actual letter, I can do so. I, Don Bennett, herewith apply to be reinstated as a member of the Crime Board. The earlier circumstances which caused me to discontinue my participation no longer exist, so I would like to 're-volunteer' !! Don Bennett. Don Bennett 12737 Dickens Ct Grand Terrace, CA 92313 ATTACHMENT B Committee Request for City Council Action for Manuel Baltierra COMMITTEE REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING DATE: Jan. 10, 2012 DATE: Dec. 12, 2011 PROBLEM(S): 1. The Crime Prevention Committee has received an application from Manuel Baltierra requesting membership. The Committee has voted to accept him as a member. ALTERNATIVES: Do Nothing SOLUTION(S): 1. Accept the application of Manuel Baltierra as a Member of the Crime Prevention Committee. PROPOSED ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY COUNCIL AND/OR STAFF: The Committee is requesting that: 1. The Council accept the application of Manuel Baltierra and thank him for his interest in the wellbeing of the City of Grand Terrace. ATTACHMENT C Application Submitted by Manuel Baltierra Complete and submit to the City Clerk's Department CITY OF GRAND TERRACE APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN SERVICE REGENED SEP (► 6 2011 OF GRAND TERRACE CALIFORNIA "CLERK'S DEPARTMENT Applying as a member of CRune PPLAJEAJ7704) d.ofrim i //Lei Name 11 /1470-JEL 3 11177FeiZttl Address Business Phone Occupation Pei:D/3,9770,J co,(2.,2EcriOLLS 04C_ZR--- Education (List highest year completed and all degrees), (lc Co( a ET 6 E Are there any workday evenings you could not meet? (V) Yes ( ) No If so, please list 1. c.A.3 tt_L 24aL!ZaeX0_31Luv2_13,) It-11N 4 #3 OUT I-11C CIASS frELL-- oJCE C.J2re/C. Why are you interested in this appointment? aotiunumiC Sea.uict.- l KRIE Ric fp What do you consider to be your major qualifications? 19-i\LO PpA 6i2-41-yo References 1./46/ki PlUe647 t i 4 /4--ffi(LAA1 (7.-ErS bi0 (0-//440 2./q/41/N/L A - S47-124 16 De:Ricci -j(-) Lou 3.Krilg-e-70 f fit EC P (Pri 7 41-101LA) juJeki4 S)Em ". Please attach a written statement containing any additional information you feel would be useful to the City Council. Home Phon ATTACHMENT D Committee Request for City Council Action for Robert J. Kaplanek COMMITTEE REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING DATE: Jan. 10, 2012 DATE: Dec. 12, 2011 PROBLEM(S): 1. The Crime Prevention Committee has received an application from Robert J. Kaplanek requesting membership. The Committee has voted to accept him as a member. ALTERNATIVES: Do Nothing SOLUTION(S): 1. Accept the application of Robert J. Kaplanek as a Member of the Crime Prevention Committee. PROPOSED ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY COUNCIL AND/OR STAFF: The Committee is requesting that: 1. The Council accept the application of Robert J. Kaplanek and thank him for his interest in the wellbeing of the City of Grand Terrace. ATTACHMENT E Application Submitted by Robert J. Kaplanek Grand Terrace CALIFORNIA CITY OF GRAND TERRACE APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN SERVICE, RECEIVED SEP 15 2011! CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Y CLERK'S DEPARTMENT Complete and submit to the City Clerk's Department Applying as a member of CO rne 'TR' ei\-4(0(1 COM rniffe.e. Name -RoY)et--+ TS. K cit-iNx-Lf\E) Address Home Phone Business Phone Occupation bc--‘vec-- Education (List highest year completed and all degrees) ‘cA aka-) ( b't pie) flr‘c • Are there any workday evenings you could not meet? ( ) Yes (X) No If so, please list Why are you interested in this appointment? 6au,&ci „see -4-1,4 c u-r- e . What do you consider to be your major qualifications? It 0 \k(2)(\e64 \ A rW_0Q__r\.&cio ("4e- * References 1..3‘)._7.---ua-oec--, 155 Sea al e ,C 2.Kiry. SA-con,\LLy.i( I I`kicLzi (rim S --, ,G,cuclalar„cs Ccs. 3.5 cU bmr.ten 31 Lib evinrq'acke. Fc ci. Corona_, ex, 9,2FCK, I 1 as..." Please attach a written statement containing any additional information you feel would be useful to the City Council. ATTACHMENT F Committee Request for City Council Action for Philip H. Robb COMMITTEE REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING DATE: Jan. 10, 2012 DATE: Dec. 12, 2011 PROBLEM(S): 1. The Crime Prevention Committee has received an application from Philip H. Robb requesting membership. The Committee has voted to accept him as a member. ALTERNATIVES: Do Nothing SO L UTION(S): 1. Accept the application of Philip H. Robb as a Member of the Crime Prevention Committee. PROPOSED ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY COUNCIL AND/OR STAFF: The Committee is requesting that: 1. The Council accept the application of Philip H. Robb and thank him for his interest in the wellbeing of the City of Grand Terrace. ATTACHMENT G Application Submitted by Philip H. Robb Grand Terrace CALIFORNIA CITY OF GRAND TERRACE APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN SERVICE RECEIVED Applying as a member of CLIAte PRE vE_ArrtePAT Cewirf rr.E. E What do you consider to be your major qualifications? rEora...s EXPEA reArcE As A Complete and submit to the City Clerk's Department OCT 20 2011 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE CLERK'S DEPARTMENT Name Ps./ /Z.:, Address Home Phone Business Phone Occupation i.s.riAAJ, Ag.pury pis-7..24,c - 4 Tro/vitY Education (List highest year completed and all degrees) A.8., PgmeLn=.4 Udivs...es,rr; m• PM, V ),2-4 1AhA T'744e)d-c ,4te44-i_ Sem r,v44-Yj 111 S• La, 1,411/ I V ER5 tr -Y.; PA 44 3edzi.le Are there any workday evenings you could not meet? ( ) Yes (x) No If so, please list Why are you interested in this appointment? z /..)AA3 r re, ieP .2-4•0a, rz/2,2-4-c--E C.,21P1E -PiteE .Q-S P.D5Sia2-‘• e_g I F'Ae•secu rivg "pi 5.4/ 6g,gAlocgt,,A1c.ry. References 1.RE v, SF/A,20"1 6RAfir; RitcPY.-4AJA, d'AfireP6sci.tew oic c.i.a415c .141 BiL.L.Evt.)6.avf., IZE azANDS, CA ?Z 373 2.1.41-4 NI 4- PkG. RAI.) i),..w; 4'44, 5 1 NIAI kW& S DE CA 9.16 0 / 3.V Cierg /- 2 Lac? M4,484E4 AVE., GRAND TERR.4e4) CFA 7.2 3 /3 Please attach a written statement containing any additional information you feel would be useful to the City Council. • a AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: January 10, 2012 Council Item ( X ) CRA Item ( ) TITLE: Emergency Operations Committee Member Appointments – James Mejia (Regular Member) and Eileen Young (Alternate Member) PRESENTED BY: Tracey Martinez, City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: Appoint James Mejia as a Regular Member of the Emergency Operations Committee to Fill an Unexpired Term Continuing to June 30, 2014 and Appoint Eileen Young as an Alternate Member of the Emergency Operations Committee to Fill an Unexpired Term Continuing to June 30, 2012 BACKGROUND: The Emergency Operations Committee is an advisory group that was established by the City Council. The meetings are held on the first Tuesday of each month at 6:00 p.m. in the Emergency Operations Center located 22795 Barton Road, Building #3. The Committee is made up of seven voting members and four alternate members. The expiration dates of the terms are staggered on even numbered years so that all of the terms do not expire at the same time. Currently the Emergency Operations Committee has three regular member vacancies and one alternate member vacancy. DISCUSSION: The City received two applications for Citizen Service to serve on the Emergency Operations Committee; one from James Mejia to serve as a regular member and one from Eileen Young to serve as an alternate member. The applications were forwarded to the Committee members for their review and recommendation. The Committee met on December 6, 2011 and voted to accept the application of Mr. Mejia as a regular member of the Emergency Operations Committee and also voted to accept the application of Ms. Young to serve as an alternate member of the Committee. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 3G Approvals Finance Director (if applicable) n/a City Attorney RLA City Manager bma RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council appoint James Mejia as a regular member of the Emergency Operations Committee to fill an unexpired term continuing to June 30, 2014 and to appoint Eileen Young as an alternate member of the Emergency Operations to fill an unexpired term continuing to June 30, 2012. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the City. Respectfully submitted: /s/ Tracey R. Martinez Tracey R. Martinez, city Clerk Attachments: A. Committee Request for City Council Action for James Mejia B. Application Submitted by James Mejia C. Committee Request for City Council Action for Eileen Young D. Application Submitted by Eileen Young Council Action Approved as Recommended: Denied/Other: Council Motion: ATTACHMENT A Council Request for City Council Action for James Mejia COMMITTEE REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING DATE: Dec. 13, 2011 DATE: Dec. 6, 2011 PROBLEM(S): 1. The Emergency Operations Committee has received an application from James Mejia requesting membership as a Voting Member. The Committee has voted to accept him as a Voting member. ALTERNATIVES: Do Nothing SOLUTION(S): 1. Accept the application of James Mejia as a Voting Member of the Emergency Operations Committee. PROPOSED ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY COUNCIL AND/OR STAFF: The Committee is requesting that: 1. The Council accept the application of James Mejia and thank him for his interest in the wellbeing of the City of Grand Terrace. ATTACHMENT B Application Submitted by James Mejia CITY OF GRAND TERRACE APJLICATION FOR CITIZEN SERVICE Applying as a member of (A44 CE _T 3 S IOU 200,/001 YO0 T AcalitA References ofk-e-S . Cc) niirt,4,. ex(AA_CAMon LA) RI (Ora) CC( IP/kJ vitk tj (11/( tiAtir W aA/14 ,b 0 /1" 3. -AAA Please attach a written statement conteining any additional information you feel would be useful to the City Council. Complete and submit to the City Clerk's Department Name cup&e,s rN\ Address _ Home Phone _ Business Phone I Occupation --Ty-cvv\ se Irrevu c.)-1 ckAnivt..S 4C- Education (List highest year completec and all degrees) )010 e),A. 5c,,,5 Are there any workday evenings you could not meet? (X) Yes ( ) No If so, please list 4h-C, rte) iv\ Pt-T me-utifti) -1 Why are you interested in this appointment? a",Ct.i)e"..644 — ee/lc What do you consider to be your major qualifications? (Out,Osc._54-4,11e,n 4'--o ne u ' i 6049rri (At -) \ I , 1 ',., YR.Avd, r iv ; CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT C Committee Request for Council Action for Eileen Young COMMITTEE REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING DATE: Dec. 13, 2011 DATE: Dec. 6, 2011 PROBLEM(S): 1. The Emergency Operations Committee has received an application from Eileen Young requesting membership as an Alternate Member. The Committee has voted to accept her as an Alternate member. ALTERNATIVES: Do Nothing SOLUTION(S): I. Accept the application of Eileen Young as an Alternate Member of the Emergency Operations Committee. PROPOSED ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY COUNCIL AND/OR STAFF: The Committee is requesting that: 1. The Council accept the application of Eileen Young and thank her for her interest in the wellbeing of the City of Grand Terrace. ATTACHMENT D Application Submitted by Eileen Young CITY OF GRAND TERRACE APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN SERVIci-TCEIVED Grand Terrace CALIFORNIA NOV 0 2011 Complete and submit to the City Clerk's Department Applying as a member of Name P, y) 6 yo n ? Address ITV OF GRAND TERRACE ' ' CLERK'S DEPARTMENT 1-0--n•• •n• Home Phone Business Phone Occupation Education (List highest year completed and all degrees) IF.S Are there any workday evenings you could not meet? (y.) Yes ( ) No If so, please list 011)54- lt1 Ai g (lay 5 Why are you interested in this appointment? e-Ofil/)i 4-Pe ntity\ci aA inkiltres 1 What do you consider to be your major qualifications? ainci 1 A - d pt t4 44).93 Witi24 timitle-te/ 41 1/- 19-07/4-tc a Ldzscl) References 1.,3-6 fi-n n jpirm s6;yk 407-78"3-0aW 2.11-1-40_,n e. Vie-ct,v PAr `fin? 73.3 /ice) 3.1-1-GLZ el 1))3,u ?SI Ceg3 151 Please attach a written statement containing any additional information you feel would be useful to the City Council. AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: January 10, 2012 Council Item ( X ) CRA Item ( ) TITLE: Historical & Cultural Activities Committee – Committee Appointment (Monteon) PRESENTED BY: Tracey Martinez, City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: Appoint Martha A. Monteon as a Regular Member of the Historical & Cultural Activities Committee to Fill an Unexpired Term Continuing to June 30, 2014 BACKGROUND: The Historical & Cultural Activities Committee is an advisory group that was established by the City Council. The meetings are held on the first Monday of each month at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall. The Committee is made up of seven voting members. The expiration dates of the terms are staggered on even numbered years so that all of the terms do not expire at the same time. On October 11, 2011, the City Council accepted the resignation of Gloria Ybarra leaving the Committee with one regular member vacancy expiring on June 30, 2014. DISCUSSION: The City received an application from Martha A. Monteon for Citizen Service to serve on the Historical & Cultural Activities Committee. The application was forwarded to the Committee for their review and recommendation. The Committee met on December 5, 2011 and agreed to accept the application of Ms. Monteon as a regular member of the Historical & Cultural Activities Committee. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council appoint Martha A. Monteon as a regular member of the Historical & Cultural Activities Committee to fill an unexpired term continuing to June 30, 2014. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the City. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 3H Approvals Finance Director (if applicable) n/a City Attorney RLA City Manager bma Respectfully submitted: /s/ Tracey R. Martinez Tracey R. Martinez, City Clerk Attachments: A. Application Submitted by Martha A. Monteon Council Action Approved as Recommended: Denied/Other: Council Motion: ATTACHMENT A Application Submitted by Martha A. Monteon CITY OF GRAND TERRACE 4ECEIVED APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN SERA NOV 0 2011 (51.1f011,41A (1TY OF GRAND TERRACE CLFT1717C Complete and submit to the City Clerk's Department Applying as a member of Historical and Cultural Activities Committee Name Martha A. Monteon Address 11871 Preston St., Grand Terrace CA 92313 Home Phone 909 ) 783 -3863 Business Phone - - - - Occupation Bilingual Translator and Interpreter/Spanish -English (part -time). Education (List highest year completed and all degrees) Liberal Arts Associate 1976 SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY COLLEGE: Major: Secretarial Science G.E.D. Equivalency 1/4 H & R BLOCK: Tax Preparer 1995 Are there any workday evenings you could not meet? ( ) Yes (x ) No If so, please list Why are you interested in this appointment? I have volunteered twice for this committee and several years for the Friends Of The Library. I have been residing in this city for over 25 years. What do you consider to be your major qualifications? Experience serving community and school from teacher's aid, Financial Aid Committee, to PTA Secretary, Treasurer and Vice-President from 1982 to 1995. References SAINT ANTHONY'S CATHOLIC SCHOOL 1510 W 16th. St. 909 887-3810 1.Sister Betty San Bernardino CA 92411 or 909 887-5413 2Stan Bush 11881 Preston St., Grand Terrace 909 824-7384 3 Joe Beltran 3296 "H" St., San Bernardino CA 92405 909 647-5830 Please attach a written statement containing any additional information you feel would be useful to the City Council. CITY OF GRAND TERRACE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Regular Meeting MINUTES October 4, 2011 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 Interim chairperson, Matt Wirz at 6:00 p.m. Agendas and minutes were distributed. Members Present: JoAnn Johnson, Vic Pfennighausen, Susan Taylor, and Lew Neeb Members Absent: Jim Vert, Hanni Bennett and Pete Parsons. City Staff: Matt Wirz Guest Presentations/Introductions: None Correspondence/Communications: None Approval of the October 4, 2011 Agenda- with a motion by JoAnn Johnson and a second by Lew Neeb, the Agenda was approved. Approval of the September 6, 2011 Minutes- with a motion by Lew Neeb and a second by JoAnn Johnson, the Minutes were approved. LIAISON REPORT: Matt Wirz A. City Events- i.Dump Day is scheduled for Saturday, October 22 at the corner of Canal and Mt. Vernon from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. ii.The Halloween Haunt will be held on October 31s t at Rollins Park. iii.The Country Fair4 will be on November 5 th . B. City Manager's Updates- i. Memo Attached from City Manager C. Memo from Tracy Martinez- the City received an interest form from resident Christina Benjamin to assist with the A.M. Radio. Vic will call her to get more information. D. A young man is interested in joining the EOC. He is a volunteer for the American Red Cross and wants a career in emergency management. Matt will contact him. E. Emergency Management Performance Grant will hold a workshop on Wednesday, October 5 th . We are scheduled to receive $7,100 from them this year. EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES REPORT: Vic Pfenninghausen A. Radios COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO.-2, i.AM 1640- Vic reported that we still need help with the radio. He ordered the spare transmitter, but it has not shipped yet. He will follow up on the order. ii.MURS Radio- Vic will order 2 HT batteries for the Ham Radios. iii.Vic reported that Johnson diagnosed our diesel generator that powers the EOC and Safety Buildings and said that the voltage regulator was bad. They replaced it and it still does not work. He has contacted Tim's Mobile Truck Repair to look at it and see what they can do. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: A.Search for new Chairman- to be kept on the table. B.2 vacant positions, I voting and 1 alternate. NEW BUSINESS: i. Member Comments and Suggestions- Vic will prepare a flash drive to be used in case of emergency with instructions for CERT members to report to the EOC. TRAINING/SPEAKERS: Thursday, October 13 th will be a SIMS Training class in Rialto. Let Matt know if you plan to attend. ADJOURNMENT at 6:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sue Taylor, Secretary The next meeting will be held on Tuesday November 1,2011 @ 6:00 P.M. CITY OF GRAND TERRACE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Regular Meeting (no quorum) MINUTES November 1, 2011 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 Vice Chairperson, JoAnn Johnson at 6:00 p.m. Agendas and minutes were distributed. MEMBERS PRESENT — Vic Pfennighausen and JoAnn Johnson only. No quorum. MEMBERS ABSENT — Sue Taylor, Lew Neeb, Jim Vert, Pete Parsons and Hanni Bennett. CITY STAFF — None GUESTS PRESENT/INTRODUCTIONS — James Mejia, Winifred Horspool and Eileen Young. a.James Mejia outlined extensive training and experience that would be very helpful in the Emergency Operations Center. He also indicated that he had received an application for membership and would fill it out and return to the City Clerk. b.Eileen Young also has had considerable experience in setting up for emergencies on a somewhat smaller scale and the willingness to take training. She also would be willing to do such as cataloging supplies, filing and doing computer work and other tasks. She will pick up an application from the City Clerk. CORRESPONDANCE/COMMUNICATIONS — None. APPROVAL OF AGENDA was waived due to lack of quorum. APPROVAL OF MINUTES was waived due to lack of quorum. LIAISON REPORT — covered briefly by JoAnn Johnson. a.City events just past, Halloween Festival last night. Country Fair will be at the Lions Community Center grounds on November 5 th . City Birthday Party will be held on December 13 th with City Council to follow at 7:30. b.City Manager update not available. EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES REPORT by Vic Pfennighausen a. Radio i.AM 1640 working well ii.MURS/Ham Radios all working well. b. Working Mondays — no report. However, Vic reported on the SEMS training session on October 19 th in the community room at City Hall. Went over our connection to the FEMA program and the fact that many of the city staff has changed. This training is essential to the city. c. Items for purchase/Recommendations. Our generator is still not working properly and there has been a recommendation to totally replace it. However this requires much thought. d. Plan to order stand-by unit for the Broadcast Radio is on hold until it can be fit into the budget. This unit enables us to go on air in the event of failure of original unit. oAnn Johnso cting Secretary UNFINISHED BUSINESS a.Search for Chairperson continues. b.At least two vacant positions need to be filled. Perhaps 2 regular plus alternates. NEW BUSINESS — None. TRAINING/SPEAKERS — Nothing planned at this time. ADJOURNMENT at 6:50 p.m. NEXT MEETING WILL BE TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2011 AT 6 P.M. AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: January 10, 2012 Council Item ( X ) CRA Item ( ) TITLE: Notice of Completion for the Public Improvement Project on Barton Road, Michigan Street, and La Paix Street PRESENTED BY: Joyce Powers, Community and Economic Development Director RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached Notice of Completion for the recently completed public improvements on Barton Road, Michigan Street and La Paix Street. BACKGROUND: On April 12, 2011, the City Council awarded a construction contract to Lee and Stires, Inc. for $400,431.41 to construct public improvements within the Michigan Street, Barton Road and La Paix Street rights of way. The Notice to Proceed was issued May 12, 2011. The improvements were funded by the Redevelopment Agency and were completed by August 5, 2011. The Scope of Work for the project included additional travel lanes on Barton Road and Michigan Street, new landscaping, and a new traffic signal. DISCUSSION: Throughout the project, several change orders were implemented to keep the project schedule on track and to minimize impacts on an adjacent business. The change orders were as follows: 1. Additional charge to expedite Edison street light removal $1,214.40 2. Night work to relocate Miguel’s backflow 5,911.16 3. Relocation of irrigation conduits not shown on “as-built” plans 7,456.17 4. Modifications to Miguel’s driveway approach and median to preclude left turns onto Barton Road 11,745.76 5. Install geo fabric in wet subgrade to prevent pavement cracking 1,520.00 6. Final quantity adjustment (asphalt and concrete) and paint curb 12,078.85 7. Additional landscaping on Michigan and Barton 22,460.00 $62,386.34 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 3J Approvals Finance Director (if applicable) B.S. City Attorney RLA City Manager bma With the change orders, the total project budget was $462,817.75. Although the project was completed in August 2011, the Notice of Completion has been held due to the contractor’s maintenance period. Staff is now recommending that the Council approve the attached Notice of Completion dated December 19, 2011 to release $36,281.78 (amount requested by the contractor) of the $46,281.80 retention funds held. The remainder will be paid at the end of the maintenance period, which is March 19, 2012. FISCAL IMPACT: Project design and construction was funded by the Redevelopment Agency. The project accounts have been reconciled by staff and the Webb Associates project manager. The retention funds of $46,281.80 remain in the project account. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Joyce Powers Joyce Powers Community and Economic Development Director ATTACHMENT: Notice of Completion Council Action Approved as Recommended: Denied/Other: Council Motion: AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: January 10, 2012 Council Item ( X ) CRA Item ( ) TITLE: Repeal Municipal Code Chapter 5.80 and Adopt the Proposed New Chapter 5.80 for the Nonowner Occupied/Rental Property Program PRESENTED BY: Joyce Powers, Community and Economic Development Director RECOMMENDATION: 1. Repeal existing Ordinance 221 and Municipal Code Chapter 5.80 establishing the “Nonowner Occupied/Rental Property Program” in their entirety. 2. Conduct a public hearing to introduce an Ordinance establishing a new Chapter 5.80, “Nonowner Occupied/ Rental Property Program,” and read by title only. 3. Schedule adoption of the new Chapter 5.80 for January 24, 2011 and waive further reading. 4. Designate the Community and Economic Development Director or her designee to prepare a summary of the Ordinance pursuant to Government Code 36933(c)(1). BACKGROUND: On October 27, 2005, the City Council approved the Nonowner Occupied/Rental Property Program (Ordinance 221), which became effective on January 1, 2007. When the Program was adopted, the primary goals were to improve the quality of rental properties and the quality of life in neighborhoods. Program fees were established based on a study of staff hours required for certain tasks, and are as follows: COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 6A Approvals Finance Director (if applicable) B.S. City Attorney RLA City Manager bma Fee per unit Apartments 200+ units $36.00 Apartments 1-199 units $48.00 Single-family home $95.00 Re-inspection $47.00 For a property as large as the Highland Apartments, 556 units, the annual fee is now $20,016.000. The annual fee for the Crest Apartments, at 228 units, is $8,208.00. The Program guidelines provide for a 50% fee reduction after three years of successful inspections. On November 8, 2011, staff reviewed recommended modifications to the program with the Council, including additional fee reductions for well-maintained properties and an educational program to assist property owners and managers with the inspection process. The Council directed staff to meet with owners and managers for more discussion before scheduling a public hearing to introduce the new Program criteria for adoption. DICUSSION: Staff met with a group of eleven property owners and managers on December 7, 2011 to discuss the program. The discussion focused primarily on passing inspections to qualify for the good landlord discounts and fee exemptions for “air space” condominiums. Comments received are discussed below. 1. Attendees expressed their desire for an additional fee reduction for “Certified Property Managers” residing at the property. Property managers can obtain certification through the Apartment Association. The required ten classes have been approved as continuing education by the California Department of Real Estate (DRE), but DRE does not issue this certification. Staff commented that the certification would be no guarantee that the property was better maintained and that the discounts should preferably be based on good maintenance practices. 2. One property manager stated the program should be terminated. Others stated the program needs to remain intact because it has improved the exterior maintenance of single family homes, apartments, and duplexes. The evidence of this is the number of properties now qualifying for the Good Landlord reduction. 3. There was some discussion that if “air space” condominium owners are exempt from the program, the homeowner’s association should pay the fee. Staff responded that this may result in these owners paying a higher homeowner’s association fee than owner occupants. 4. The group agreed that inspection appointments should be made for any property of 16 units or more, based on State Law. For fewer units, the appointments would be made upon request. The 16 unit count is based on Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations which requires a manager or other responsible party to reside on site if the property includes 16 or more units. A representative of the Apartment Association of the Greater Inland Empire (AAGIE) attended the meeting and offered to provide separate training for interested owners and managers, to which staff agreed to coordinate. This training would not be a component of the City’s Program. Education and Inspections, Section 5.80.090 Staff has added an educational session entitled “How to Pass Your Inspection,” which is described in Section 5.80.090. This session will be presented in February of each year by staff to review checklists and procedures used by the inspector. Staff will als o provide inspection checklists to the property owners with the annual renewal notices to assist the property owner in meeting the requirements. Staff also recommends modifications changes to Section 5.08.090, Notification of inspection-inspection procedure, for greater efficiency. As currently written, a letter of intent to inspect the property stating a specific date and time for the inspection must be provided to the property owner 14 days prior to the inspection. To reduce staff time required to track timing and send out the notifications, staff proposes to identify the first three to six months of each calendar year for exterior inspections, which would begin after training has been provided. For properties of 16 units or more, staff will schedule the inspection with the owner and/or the property manager. Special notification of an inspection would also be required if there are conditions observed that warrant an interior inspection to ensure occupant health and safety. Condominiums, Section 5.80.040 Staff recommends a fee exemption for air space ownership condominiums because these units do not fit within the program purposes. If the Council concurs, the owners of 62 units would be exempt; reducing program revenue for the current fiscal year by approximately $2,200.00 (30 have already qualified for a 50% fee reduction). The effected condominium complexes include Cape Terrace, Lido, and Azure Hills. Qualifying for a discounted “Good Landlord” fee, Section 5.80.050 As of December, 2011, approximately 135 of the 467 properties in the program have qualified for the 50% reduced fee after being free of violations for three years. Staff recommends that the Council approve an additional 25% reduced fee for properties that have no violations for four consecutive years. If the property has violations after receiving the Good Landlord discount, the fees will revert to the previous level. If the property continues to have violations in the 2nd year of the Good Landlord classification, the fees will revert to the full amount. The recommended overall fee cap per property is $10,000, which will affect the larger complexes. These guidelines are included in Section 5.80.050 proposed for adoption. Staff has not included any additional fee reductions for Certified Property Managers (CPM) as suggested by the discussion group. The coursework includes such topics as leasing skills, rent collection, budgeting, ethics, resident issues, fair housing, and maintenance. Staff recommends that the fee reductions be based on prior performance of high quality maintenance. If the Council desires to include the incentive for CPMs, this can be added to Section 5.80.050 through a motion for approval. Summary Staff’s goal is to implement any modifications before the annual invoice is sent to the property owners. Any new information would be provided along with this mailing. Ordinance 221 initially approved the Program, which was codified as Chapter 5.80 of the Municipal Code in 2007. Therefore, staff’s recommendations include repealing both Ordinance 221 and the existing Chapter 5.80 for record-keeping purposes. Attachment 1 to the agenda report is the proposed Municipal Code Chapter 5.80 for adoption. Staff recommends this approach rather than multiple modifications to the existing Chapter section, which would be more difficult to insert for codification. In addition, the Government Code requires that either the complete Municipal Code Chapter or a summery be published …. The summary preparer must by designated by the Council, which is recommended to be the Community and Economic Development Director. FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated program revenue for the current fiscal year 2011-12, billed in January 2012, of $62,250 will be reduced by approximately $15,000 if the condominium exemption ($2,200) and the program cap of $10,000 are approved. In addition, some owners would qualify for the second reduction to the 25% fee. The 2012-13 revenue will be further reduced due to additional owners qualifying for the 50% and proposed 25% Good Landlord reductions, which will be reviewed during the 2012-13 budget process. Respectfully submitted: /s/ Joyce Powers Joyce Powers, Community and Economic Development Director ATTACHMENTS: New Municipal Code Section 5.80 for adoption Council Action Approved as Recommended: Denied/Other: Council Motion: ATTACHMENT NO. 1 Proposed Chapter 5.80 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA REPEALING IN THEIR ENTIRETY ORDINANCE NO. 221 AND CHAPTER 5.80 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A NEW CHAPTER 5.80 (NON-OWNER OCCUPIED/RENTAL PROPERTY PROGRAM) OF TITLE 5 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, the City Council at their 2005 City-Wide Prioritization Workshop rated a Rental Housing Ordinance as one of their top 10 priorities for in Fiscal Year 2005-06; and WHEREAS, the goal of this program is expected to assist the City to clean up sub-standard rental stock, improve the quality of life in our neighborhoods, and maintain and or increase the economic value of single-family homes and other rental residences; and WHEREAS, on January 1, 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 221 adding Chapter 5.80 (Non-owner Occupied/Rental Property Program) to Title 5 of the Municipal Code. WHEREAS, at a November 8, 2011, City Council meeting the City Council discussed changes to the Non-owner Occupied/Rental Property Program including proposed fee reductions for well-maintained properties and an education program to assist property owners and managers with the inspection process, and directed staff to meet with owners and properties managers of the Program. WHEREAS, on December 7, 2011, a meeting was conducted with owners and managers of the Program to discuss the proposed changes as well as obtain their input on the Program. WHEREAS, on January 10, 2012, the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Ordinance at the Grand Terrace City Hall Council Chambers located 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, CA 92313 and concluded the hearing on that date. WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, as follows: SECTION 1. The proposed Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The Ordinance establishes regulations for the inspection of non-owner occupied and/or rental properties, which would have a significant impact on the environment. SECTION 2. Ordinance No. 221 and Chapter 5.80 of the Municipal Code are repealed in their entirety, and a new Chapter 5.80 (Non-owner Occupied/Rental Property Program) to Title 5 of the Municipal Code is adopted, as follows: “Chapter 5.80 NON-OWNER OCCUPIED/RENTAL PROPERTY PROGRAM Sections: 5.80.010 Purpose. 5.80.020 Definitions. 5.80.030 Scope. 5.80.040 Exemptions. 5.80.050 Annual inspection fee. 5.80.060 Education. 5.80.070 Inspections authorized--Compliance with applicable codes and standards. 5.80.080 Exterior building maintenance standards. 5.80.090 Exterior site maintenance standards. 5.80.100 Interior maintenance standards. 5.80.110 Notification of inspection--Inspection procedure. 5.80.120 Report of Inspection 5.80.130 Reinspection fee. 5.80.140 Violations. 5.80.150 Enforcement. 5.80.160 Civil action – Receivership. 5.80.170 Appeal process. Section 5.80.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to identify substandard non-owner occupied/rental property and to ensure rehabilitation or elimination of non-owner occupied/rental properties that do not meet minimum building and housing code standards, exterior maintenance standards or are not safe to occupy. It is the intention of the city council to establish a program whereby the exteriors of non-owner occupied/rental housing units can be inspected on a regular basis and certified as meeting minimum standards. The City endeavors to target its efforts to properties where violations exist and are a habitual condition of the property without unduly burdening responsible and prudent property owners. Section 5.80.020 Definitions. For purposes of this chapter, the following terms, phrases and words shall have the meanings given herein. Unless otherwise expressly stated, words not defined herein shall be given their common and ordinary meaning. “Apartment house” means any dwelling, which is designed, built, rented, leased, let or hired out for occupation, or which is occupied as the home residence of three or more families living independently of each other in dwelling units. “Applicable codes and standards” means those minimum standards governing residential rental property as contained in the State Housing, Building Fire and Civil Codes. “Approved” means performed in a manner and/or materials consistent with the California Building Code in effect at the time of construction or substantial renovation unless otherwise provided. “Basement” means a story having a clear height of at least seven feet from finished floor to finished ceiling, the floor level of which is below finished grade but not less than four feet below the average finished grade, having floor and walls of approved construction. “Code enforcement” means city personnel responsible for enforcement of applicable municipal and building codes and standards. Also referred to as “inspector”. “Habitually substandard” means rental property with code or standards violations that persist for six months or more after notice of violation has been given and where there has been no attempt to abate the problem. “Inspection fee” means a fee set by the city to cover the cost of administering this program. “Landscape” means areas defined as the general landscape area, rights -of-way and detention or pond areas. “Maintenance standards” means standards, which govern the physical appearance and condition of both the exterior and interior areas of an apartment house. “Non-owner occupied/rental property” means a residential dwelling wherein the owner/landlord gives to another the temporary possession and use of property in exchange for consideration and the latter agrees to return the property to the owner/landlord. “Notification of inspection” means notice from the city to the property owner/agent that the city will be conducting an inspection. “Occupant” means any person who occupies a unit, as a tenant or permittee of the owner, but not an owner-occupied unit. “Owner” means any individual, partnership, corporation including the agent(s) of the owner who has title to a residential rental unit. “Owner occupied” means a residential unit, which is occupied by the owner. “Well-maintained properties” means properties with no existing violations of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code, California Housing Code, California Building Code, California Fire Code or the California Civil Code. Section 5.80.030 Scope. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all existing non-owner occupied/rental property, including parking lots, driveways, landscaping, accessory structures, fences, walls, swimming pools, hot tubs and spas. Hotels, motels, mobilehome parks, bed and breakfasts, and other similar occupancies are specifically excluded from the provisions of this chapter. Code Enforcement Officers will conduct the initial and subsequent inspections. Section 5.80.040 Exemptions. A. Newly Constructed Buildings. Newly constructed buildings shall be exempt from this chapter for a period of one year. The exemption period shall begin on the date a certificate of occupancy is issued. B. Condominiums. Condominium units of which the ownership consists of the interior only, shall be exempt from this chapter. Section 5.80.050 Annual inspection fee. Property owners with buildings subject to inspection shall pay a fee in the amount set forth in the resolution establishing fees and charges for various municipal services, up to a maximum of $10,000 per property. The fee will be used to finance the cost of inspection and enforcement of this program. Should the property owner fail to pay the required fee, the city will recover it, plus accrued interest and penalties, utilizing any remedies provided by law including nuisance abatement or municipal tax lien procedures established by ordinance or state law. A. Good Landlord/Tenant Program. Well-maintained properties that have passed inspections for three consecutive years may qualify to participate in the good landlord/tenant program. For qualifying participants, the property owner will pay an annual inspection fee that is one-half of the City inspection program’s annual fee, provided conditions do not deteriorate to the point where the property would no longer meet eligibility standards for program participation. Well-maintained properties that have passed inspections for four consecutive years will pay an annual inspection fee of 25% of the City inspection program’s annual fee. For properties eligible under the program, a drive-by inspection will be conducted to ensure satisfactory maintenance. B. Any property that participates in the good landlord/tenant program may be removed from the program at any time if it fails to meet any or all of the interior and exterior standards described in this chapter. If a property is removed from the Good Landlord/Tenant Program, the annual fee will be increased to the next highest fee percentage. If the property is still not eligible for the Good Landlord/Tenant Program after the second year, the annual fee will be the full amount. C. At all times, the City shall retain the authority to investigate and address any violation of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code, California Housing Code, California Building Code, California Fire Code or the California Code or Regulations. Section 5.80.060 Education. Annually, each property owner will receive an invitation to an educational session entitled “How to Pass your Inspection”. The educational session will be held in February of each year and presented by City staff. The property owner and/or property managers shall be provided an explanation of what to expect during their inspections that will allow them to objectively assess their own property. The educational session will familiarize property owners, and property managers, with the basic procedures of an inspection, what is considered a violation, and what is considered compliance with the Municipal Code, California Housing Code, California Building Code, California Fire Code and the California Civil Code. Section 5.80.070 Inspections authorized--Compliance with applicable codes and standards. A. Inspections--Conformance with Standards. 1. A City Code Enforcement Officer shall conduct an annual exterior inspection of all non-owner occupied/rental properties located within the City. If at the time of the exterior inspection violations are found or other probable cause is present to believe there may be violations within the interior of the property, the inspecting officer may request that an interior inspection be completed. In the event a tenant in possession of a property to be inspected refuses access to said property, the City Attorney is authorized to obtain from a court of competent jurisdiction any warrant necessary based on just cause, to conduct the inspection. 2. Buildings shall be maintained in accordance with the code standard that was in effect at the time the building was constructed, and any additional requirements mandated by the Municipal Code or State Law. B. Noncomplying Structures. Structures and premises that do not comply with the provisions of this code and the codes listed above must be altered or repaired to obtain the required level of compliance or demolished. Section 5.80.080 Exterior building maintenance standards. In addition to the California Model Building Codes and City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code, and California Health and Safety Code, residential non-owner occupied/rental buildings shall meet the following exterior building maintenance standards: A. Buildings, or portions thereof, shall have exterior walls that are weather tight, or watertight, and kept free of deterioration, holes, breaks, or loose boards or coverings. Roof surfaces shall be watertight and not have any defects that will allow water to enter into the structure. B. The exterior finish of all structures shall be maintained. If the exterior finish of a structure is paint or stain, the structure shall be painted or stained prior to a time when the exterior finish has substantially deteriorated. C. All architectural projections such as cornices, moldings, lintels, sills and similar projections shall be maintained in good repair and free of defects. D. All chimneys, antennas, vents, gutters and downspouts and similar projections or building accessories shall be structurally sound and in good repair. Such projections shall be properly secured, when applicable, to an exterior wall or roof. E. Windows shall be weather tight, free from loose and broken glass and cracks that could cause physical injury or allow the elements to enter the structure. Exterior doors shall be maintained weather tight, water tight and rodent proof. Exterior doors of rental dwelling units shall be solid core or equivalent and be provided with an inside thumb-turn deadbolt-locking device that tightly secures the main entry door. F. All structures and exterior property shall be maintained free of rodent, insect or vermin infestation, which creates an unsafe or unsanitary environment on the subject, or adjacent buildings or properties. G. All accessory structures shall be maintained in a state of good repair or removed from the site. Such structures shall include, but not be limited to, clubhouses, offices, maintenance buildings, carports, retaining walls, fences, garages, swimming pools, spas, hot tubs, and miscellaneous sheds or structures. Section 5.80.090 Exterior site maintenance standards. In addition to the California Model Building Codes and City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code and Health and Safety Code, residential non-owner occupied/rental buildings shall meet the following exterior site maintenance standards: A. There shall be no accumulation of weeds, vegetation, junk (to include, but not be limited to, abandoned, unused or nonoperational appliances, equipment, vehicles, machinery, or household furnishings), dead organic matter (including lawns), debris, garbage, stagnant water, combustible materials or similar materials or conditions. B. All parking areas shall be improved with an impervious surface and kept free of potholes, cracks or other deterioration. All striping and signage, including parking signage and fire lane or access signage, shall be maintained in good condition and clearly legible. C. All landscape and hardscape areas shall be maintained so as not to constitute a public nuisance. D. Refuse enclosures shall be installed and maintained at multi-family properties. Oversized trash that will not fit within the refuse enclosure shall be removed from the property. Sections 5.80.100 Interior maintenance standards. In addition to the California Model Building Codes and Health and Safety Code, residential non-owner occupied/rental buildings shall meet the following interior maintenance standards as defined in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 25 definition of a “habitable” rental unit: A. Plumbing facilities in good working order, including hot and cold running water, connected to a sewage disposal system; B. Gas facilities in good working order; C. Heating facilities in good working order; D. An electric system, including lighting, wiring, and equipment, in good working order; E. Clean and sanitary buildings, grounds, and appurtenances (detached garage, garden, etc.) free from debris, garbage, rodents, and vermin; F. Adequate trash receptacles in good repair; G. Floors, stairways, and railings in good repair; H. A working toilet, wash basin, and bathtub or shower; I. A kitchen with a sink not made of absorbent material. J. Natural light in every room through windows or skylights. Windows in each room must be able to open at least halfway for ventilation, unless a fan provides mechanical ventilation; K. Safe fire or emergency exits leading to a street or hallway. Stairs, hallways, and exits must be kept litter-free. Storage areas, garages, and basements must be kept free of combustible materials; L. Operable thumb-turn deadbolt locks on the interior of the main entry doors of rental units, and operable locking or security devices on windows; and M. Working smoke detectors in all units of multi-unit buildings, such as duplexes and apartment complexes. Apartment complexes also must have smoke detectors in common stairwells. Effective July 1, 2011, the Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act (Senate Bill – SB 183) requires all single-family homes with an attached garage or a fossil fuel source to install carbon monoxide alarms within the home by July 1, 2011. Owners of multi-family leased or rental dwellings, such as apartment buildings, have until January 1, 2013 to comply with the law. Section 5.80.110 Notification of inspection--Inspection procedure. A. The exterior of the property will be inspected within the first three to six months of each calendar year. The property owner or property manager may request a scheduled inspection. For properties of 16 units or more, the inspector will contact the property owner or property manager to set an appointment for the inspection. B. If probable cause is observed to warrant an interior inspection, a letter of intent to inspect the property shall be mailed to the property owner stating an approximate date and time of inspection . C. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner to notify any individual tenants of an interior inspection. D. At the invitation of the tenant in possession of the property, City Code Enforcement Officers may enter the property for scheduled or unscheduled inspection. Section 5.80.120 Report of Inspection. Upon completion of the property inspection, the inspector shall send a written report of inspection, via regular mail, to the property owner. The report of inspection shall contain an itemization of the violation(s) and set period of time for correction ranging from twenty-four hours to up to sixty days. Section 5.80.130 Reinspection fee. Upon inspection, the inspector may instruct the owner of the facility to perform work, take action, or refrain from action to ensure compliance with applicable codes. If the inspector discovers upon reinspection that the work, action, or inaction requested was not performed, the property owner shall be charged a reinspection fee to the extent set forth in the resolution establishing fees and charges for various municipal services. Should the property owner fail to pay the required fee, the City will recover the amount of the fee plus accrued interest and penalties utilizing any remedies provided by law including nuisance abatement or municipal tax lien procedures established by ordinance or state law. Section 5.80.140 Violations. A. Notice of Violation. Whenever the inspector determines that a violation of this chapter exists, the inspector shall give notice of violation and an order to correct to the property owner. The notice shall be in writing, sent via both mail and certified mail, and shall describe the violation in sufficient detail so that a reasonable owner would understand the violation(s) and have the opportunity to correct said violation(s). B. Time for Correction. The notice shall provide a reasonable time for correction, ranging from twenty-four hours to up to ninety days from the date of the notice of violation mailing, depending upon the severity of the violation. The owner may request an extension of time. The extension may be granted if the inspector determines that substantial progress is being made to correct the violation. C. Building Permits Required. Building permits for the correction of violations shall be issued, as required by the California Building Code, through the City Building and Safety/Public Works Department. D. Reinspections. Reinspections will be conducted to verify that the violations identified on the initial inspection have been corrected. Any violations that were not noted on the initial inspection report, but are discovered on the reinspection due to subsequent damage or deterioration, shall be subject to correction. Section 5.80.150 Enforcement. Each violation that continues after the set date of correction with no attempt to abate the violation shall be subject to a one hundred dollar fine, two hundred dollars for the second citation, and five hundred dollars for the third and subsequent citations per violation. The failure of any property owner to pay fines assessed by administrative citation, within the specified time, will result in the city’s pursuit of all legal remedies available to recover amount of the fine, penalties, and associated costs. Further, the City intends to utilize the provisions of California Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 17274 and 24436.5 to encourage the elimination of substandard conditions in non-owner occupied/rental property. Said section provides for the disallowance of state income tax interest, depreciation, taxes, or amortization deductions that are derived from the ownership of rental housing that is not in compliance. The City is also authorized to use the remedies set forth in the California Building Code and the California Code of Regulations. If after the City has pursued all available options under the law and the property still has not been brought into full compliance with applicable codes and standards, the City will use reasonable means to abate the nuisance and seek recovery from the property owner. Such steps shall be taken no later than twelve months after the initial violation is found. In extreme cases recovery may include the use of civil actions, specifically receivership proceedings. Section 5.80.160 Civil action--Receivership. The City may petition the Superior Court for the appointment of a receiver over a substandard property if the property owner has failed to comply with the terms of a notice or order to repair issued by the City. The petition seeks to authorize the receiver to rehabilitate the property, borrow funds as necessary to pay for the rehabilitation and other receivership costs, and secure any incurred debt with a recorded super-priority lien on the property. The petition seeks a preliminary injunction that would order the property owner and other interested parties to immediately turn over possession of the property to the receiver, prohibit the owner and other interested parties from collecting income from the property, interfering with the receiver, or encumbering the property during the receivership. The petition seeks to prohibit existing mortgages from undertaking foreclosure proceedings against the property during the receivership. Section 5.80.170 Appeal process. Any person desiring to appeal a determination of the inspector may appeal in writing and submit an advance deposit of the fine or fee to the City Clerk’s office, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, CA 92313 within 15 days from the date the citation or reinspection fee was issued. An appeal will result in an administrative hearing. The determination of the administrative hearing officer shall be final.” SECTION 3. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of it irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions of it be declared invalid or unconstitutional. If for any reason any portion of this ordinance is declared invalid or unconstitutional, then all other provisions shall remain valid and enforceable. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days from the date of 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 purpose by the City Council SECTION 6. First introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 10th day of January, 2012 and finally adopted and ordered posted at a regular meeting of said City Council on the 24th day of January, 2012. ATTEST: ______________________________ _____________________________ 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 I, Tracey Martinez, City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 10th of January 2012, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on the 24th day of January 2012, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ________________________________ Tracey Martinez, City Clerk Approved as to form: ________________________________ Richard L. Adams, City Attorney AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: January 10, 2012 Council Item ( X ) CRA Item ( ) TITLE: Zoning Code Amendment 11-02; New Section 18.10.090 Planned Residential Development PRESENTED BY: Joyce Powers, Director of Community and Economic Development RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a public hearing on the proposed Ordinance to add Section 18.10.090 Planned Residential Development to Chapter 18.10 of Title 18 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code, read by title only, waive further reading, and introduce Zoning Code Amendment 11-02; and Designate the Community and Economic Development Director or her designee to prepare a summary of the Ordinance for publishing by the City Clerk pursuant to Government Code 36933(c)(1). BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission conducted two workshops and two hearings on proposed Zoning Code Amendment 11-02 to add Planned Residential Development standards to Chapter 18.10 of the Zoning Code. At the conclusion of the public hearing the Commission voted 4-1 recommending that the City Council adopt the Code Amendment. Copies of the staff report, correspondence and minutes from the four meetings were previously forwarded to the City Council by separate transmittal on December 5, 2011, and are also attached this report. Planned residential development standards are intended to allow flexibility in development standards, so that a superior development product (i.e. site design, architecture, grading) can be achieved. The Commission believed it to be important that the PRD standards be amenable to multiple family infill lots that were constrained either by size, shape or topography. The impetus for creating the provisions was public COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 6B Approvals Finance Director (if applicable) N/A City Attorney RLA City Manager bma comments received during previous public workshops regarding the need for such provisions, and separate meetings with staff and a developer that spoke on this topic during a public workshop, and also with the Planning Commission Chairman who also expressed this need during a meeting with staff. July 21, 2011 Workshop The first workshop was conducted on July 21, 2011, to briefly discuss the topic of planned residential development. As stated, inherent in a PRD is a degree of flexibility in site design and/or development standards. In some cities, the level of flexibility is left open ended and subject to the Commission’s and/or Council’s discretion. In others, it is very specific, or at the very least a baseline to work from is provided. Attachment 1 includes the staff report, adopted minutes and correspondence received for this workshop. At the conclusion of that workshop, the Commission directed staff to draft provisions for a PRD ordinance that could be discussed in a subsequent workshop. Two overriding considerations in drafting the provisions were to (1) create flexible standards that would facilitate development on otherwise constrained lots; and (2) limit the use of the provisions to R2 and R3 zone districts. September 1, 2011 Workshop Based on the direction from the July 21, 2011, meeting, staff prepared proposed Section 18.10.090 (Planned Residential Developments) to be incorporated into Chapter 18.10 of the Zoning Code. The approach was to take the existing standards that would apply in the R2 and R3 zones, and “flex” them to better accommodate constrained lots. For instance, the setbacks are proposed to be slightly reduced, such as allowing a 20 foot front yard setback instead of 25 feet, and a 15 foot rear yard setback instead of 20 feet. Although reduced, the setbacks still provide for separation from adjacent lots. This workshop discussed the various provisions that would apply to such developments. The staff report, minutes and correspondence received for the September 1 st workshop are included in Attachment 2. As directed by the Commission, staff identified those lots that would benefit from these provisions, and specifically identify them in Subsection A of the proposed Code language. Those lots are shown in Attachment 3, for reference. This Subsection also allows for other R2 and R3 lots to be considered on a case by case basis. Subsection C is the key component to the PDR provisions, because it dictates what the built product will look like, and how it will fit into the surrounding neighborhood. The maximum density of the R2 district is 9 units per acre and 12 units per acre in the R3 zone. The provisions also allow for density bonuses for projects that exceed the minimum required standards. State law already regulates density bonuses when affordable housing is provided, and under state law, a density bonus is granted based on the number of base units dedicated to affordable income households. For instance, a 20-unit project that restricts 10% (2) of the total units to low-income households would be granted a 20% (4-unit) density bonus. A 20-unit common interest development project that restricts 10% (2) of the total units to moderate income households would be granted a 5% (1 unit) density bonus. The lower the targeted household income and the higher the percentage of units geared towards those income levels, the higher the density bonus. State law allows up to a 35% density bonus. The proposed PRD ordinance also proposes to allow a density bonus if a project exceeds basic construction requirements such as meeting LEED certifications (20% bonus), or exceeding Title 24 requirements (10%) bonus. Procedurally, Site and Architectural Review and subdivision applications would be required to be filed, and at the time of the filing the applicant would need to state that the PRD provisions are being requested. Based on the public discussion and correspondence received for this meeting the Commission directed staff to make changes, including allowing rounding up of fractional results when determining density; reducing the minimum lot size of small lot subdivisions to 3,500 square feet from 4,500 square feet; and directed staff to notice the amendment for a public hearing. The staff report, adopted minutes and correspondence received for this workshop are attached as Attachment 2. October 6, 2011 Public Hearing The Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Ordinance. The draft Ordinance provisions contained the changes that the Commission directed staff to make from the September 1st workshop. During this hearing the Commission further directed staff to make changes relating to the fractional remainder threshold (0.55 or greater) that would allow rounding up to determine the number of permitted dwelling units, open space coverage, a clarification on building height and other minor changes. A lengthy discussion ensued during this hearing on the regulations regarding density bonuses. It was proposed by the Chairman that a density bonus be allowed on lots that may have development constraints due to its physical characteristics, such as shape or topography. Staff expressed their concern that the PRD provisions already address the issue of facilitating development on constrained lots by virtue of flexing the development standards; that to allow more units did not make sense given that the lot is already constrained; and that there was a risk that further reductions in development standards would be needed to allow the bonuses. Ultimately, the Commission directed staff to add a fourth density bonus provision that would allow a 10% bonus for lots that are constrained by irregular shape, irregular topography or other physical constraints. The Commission also clarified it was not their intent to allow cumulative use of the four density bonus provisions so that a developer could only choose one provision. The staff reports, minutes and correspondence for this hearing are contained in Attachment 4. October 20, 2011 Continued Public hearing On October 20th the Commission continued the public hearing. Staff presented the Commission with the proposed Ordinance reflecting the changes that the Commission directed staff to make from the October 6 th hearing. Included in the staff report packet was an email from the Chairman reiterating his support for the density bonus provisions and further indicates that the density bonus provisions should be cumulative. The discussion at this meeting focused again on the density bonus provisions. The Chairman opened the meeting by explaining the purpose of the PRD provisions, the permitted densities in other jurisdictions, and his position that of the four bonus provisions, the third and fourth provisions should be cumulative. Staff reiterated their difficulty with the added density bonus provision stating that flexibility has already been provided to constrained lots, and also that provision for density bonuses was initially intended as an incentive for developers to provide a community benefit such as affordable housing, or energy efficient development; and that the discussion has veered away from that premise. After considerable discussion the majority of the Commission agreed that the density bonus provisions should not be cumulative; and voted 4-1 recommending that the Council adopt the Planned Residential Development regulations. The staff reports, minutes and correspondence for this hearing are contained in Attachment 5, and the adopted Planning Commission Resolution is Attachment 6 . The preceding information is a brief background of the meetings and discussions that took place on this topic. It should be noted that one Commissioner, although agreeing with the need to facilitate development, did express concern throughout the process of the potential dilution of the City’s standards. DISCUSSION: The idea of providing flexibility so that smaller constrained lots can be built upon does have merit. Some jurisdictions require a developer to meet the standards of the underlying zone district, and allow the developer to identify which standards they wish to deviate from, so that the level of flexibility is evaluated on a case by case basis based on the project’s merits. Some provide varying levels of development standards. The Commission in this case determined that it would be appropriate to have established standards with the flexibility written into them, and through the review process, including public input, some of the standards have been “flexed” even further. Attachment 7 contains the proposed Ordinance for the Council’s consideration. The density bonus provisions are shown below. Since the Commission’s meeting, staff has further evaluated the density bonus provisions as they relate to energy efficiency, their implementation and the likely size of such projects. It is recommended that the introductory paragraph clearly indicate that consideration of a density bonus is based on the “merits” of the project, including the ability to meet the development standards. This provision would not apply to affordable housing projects, which are allowed development incentives pursuant to state law. Further, based on staff’s review of this section with the building plan checker, staff recommends subparagraph ”b” cite LEED for Homes, which is geared towards residential projects, and that subparagraph “c” specify “energy efficiency”. Lastly, staff requests that the Council consider deletion of subparagraph “d”. 2. Density bonus: A density bonus, as shown below, may be considered by the Planning Commission, based on the merits of the project, including that all applicable development standards are met. Only one density bonus may be granted. a. Notwithstanding Subsection 2 above, Aa density bonus shall be granted for affordable housing developments in accordance with the density bonus provisions of Government Code Section 65915; or b. A 20% density bonus with evidence that the project can be certified in LEED for Homes, California Green Builder or equivalent standard; or c. A 10% density bonus for construction of the project to meet or exceed more than a 20% increase in energy efficiency above Title 24 requirements or; d. A 10% density bonus on sites constrained by irregular shape, irregular topography, or other unusual physical constraints. These recommended changes implement the purpose of the proposed PRD ordinance and do not require re-consideration before the Planning Commission. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed Ordinance would establish regulatory provisions for planned residential development projects. No new filing fee is proposed. Any proposal for new development is subject to Site and Architectural Review, and the PRD standards would be folded into that process. As with any new development, general fund revenue could increase from filing, permitting fees and property tax; however, the amount is uncertain. Respectfully submitted: /s/ Joyce Powers Joyce Powers Community and Economic Development Director Prepared by: /s/ Sandra Molina Sandra Molina Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. July 21, 2011 Workshop materials 2. September 1, 2011 Workshop materials 3. Aerials of properties identified in PRD Ordinance 4. October 6, 2011 Public hearing materials 5. October 20, 2011 Public hearing materials 6. Adopted Planning Commission Resolution 7. Ordinance adopting Planned Residential Development standards Council Action Approved as Recommended: Denied/Other: Council Motion: Attachment 1 Reports, Correspondence and Minutes Planning Commission Workshop July 21, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CALIFORNIA TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Members of the Planning Commission Community and Economic Development Department July 21, 2011 Workshop #5 — Zoning Code Update RECOMMENDATION: Provide input and direction on Planned Unit Development provisions Public Workshop #5 is to discuss a possible new chapter regulating planned unit developments (PUD), also referred to as planned residential developments. A PUD is typically, though not necessarily, filed over large project sites and serves as a master plan for the development of the site. It can include residential, commercial, industrial or mixed uses. In many instances it is used in hillside areas or areas with environmental resources, so that development can be clustered and steep hillside areas can be avoided or environmental resources protected. Inherent in PUD's is a degree of flexibility in site design and/or development standards so that a better product (i.e. site design, architecture, grading, etc.) can be achieved. In some cities, the level of flexibility is left open ended and subject to the Commission's and/or Council's discretion. In others, it is very specific, or at the very least a baseline to work from is provided. Attachment 1 is a chart of seven different agencies with provisions for PUD's. The City of Rancho Cucamonga requires the preparation of a specific plan. The specific plan would identify permitted uses, would create the development standards and architecture. The specific plan allows the developer to propose whatever standards work for the site and the product that is proposed to be developed. The other cities in the chart, at a minimum, use the underlying zone standards to set a baseline. The City of Hercules allows minor exceptions for any development standard. The City of Moreno Valley allows flexibility only in certain areas, and the remainder of the cities establish the standards in the underlying zone district as a baseline, and then specify certain standards, such as for lot coverage or open space. Density bonuses are allowed under strict parameters, such as affordable housing, or in the cases of Yucaipa and SB County if some publicly valuable resources, above the norm, is provided. J Y E POWERS Community and Economic Development Director Staff Report Workshop #5, Zoning Code Update Page 2 of 2 Prior to the General Plan Update the previous staff had gone through a series of workshops for a Zoning Code update, which include PUD provisions. Attachment 2 is a copy of the 2007 draft provisions. These provisions mirror those of the City of San Bernardino. It defers to the underlying zone district for density; establishes a minimum lot size if 5,000 square feet for small lot subdivisions. It limits the number of attached units to 6 units, and sets height limitation for attached and detached structures. It establishes a perimeter boundary setback of 15 feet, which makes sense from an interface standpoint, especially where adjacent to single family uses, and also establishes a minimum 15 foot separation between structures, including structures within a small lot subdivision. It requires 30% open space for PUD's with 12 units or more, exclusive of roadways, parking areas, and slopes greater than 8%. It requires amenities based on the number of units provided. The open space and amenities requirements are appropriate given that one premise of the flexibility of the PUD is that it allows for more area for open space and amenities. The draft does not address parking requirements or private open space. The 2007 draft does not address density bonuses. In accordance with state law, density bonuses are allowed when affordable housing is provided. If density bonuses were to be considered, staff recommends that the City consider provisions such as the County of SB which allows a bonus based on some exceptional merit of the project, including amenities above the minimum requirement. The City of Riverside allows them for superior design such as LEED certification, or proximity to basic community resources, such as banks, community centers, medical offices, or retail centers. CONCLUSION: Staff requests that the Planning Commission consider the information provided, and using the 2007 draft PUD provisions as a starting point to provide staff direction on drafting a PUD chapter. Respectfully Submitted, Prepared by, Attachments: 1, PUD Chart 2. 2007 Draft PUD provisions SANDRA MOLINA Senior Planner Y:IZoning Code Update\Workshops\PC Workshop #5_PUD_7.21.2011.doc At ta c hm e n t 1 1 Ri v e r s id e Pl a n n e d R e s id e n t i a l De ve lo p me nt p erm it Re s id e n t ia l o n ly blq U OZ J e d tj. c§.' if, 0 -2 a ..r, -g- 12 sr z , tr, 0 43Eiitt:! ?22=21 "n <43 '2 :6 40Z ?GiE0-E= c,,,.....m 0 cozo.au Ye s , w he n P RD c o ns is t o f tw o d if f e re n t z o ne s , a n d to p ro te c t r e s o u r c e s / o ra c le s Ye s , w he n s u p e r io r d e s i g n is p ro v id e d: L E ED ce r t if i c a ti o n , p ro x im i ty to sp u e ip a ll 1 dn o Re s id e n tia l a n d ag ric u lt u r a l z o n e s Ba s e d o n z o n in g a n d slo p e o f p ro p er ty .):1'3 2 a ik 'OralEi 5 t .`" 0 g .1-6 E';-Ce .6' -50:5-2 ../i 0 -0 .=z, -ozE E74&°,1:'E 8 Ea zi k-,,,. 8 No t id e n t if i e d Ye s , w it h a ff o rda bl e pro j e c ts Pe r z o n in g Mu s t h a v e s u ff i c ie n t la n d t o a c c o mm o da te pr oje c t S al 1 Mo r e no V a ll e y dn o Re s id e n ti a l a n d m ix e d u s e Pe r z o n in g ai; a', 1;01 15-8i0v Bp.a E-ifis = 2a=,= USW 121p4 ,Eg2"-Eg >.5 ,9z8 0-0- m 2RuERm No , b u t c lu s te r in g a ll o w e d On ly a ff o r da bl e ho u s in g Pe r u n de r ly in g z o ne 1 a c r e No t a dd r e s s e d Ra n c ho Cu c a m o ng a Sp ec if i c p la n *u s e s t he Sp ec if i c P l a n p ro c e s s , a ll o ws f l e x ib il it y He r c u le s De s ig n R e v ie w An y z o ne Pe r z o n in g li F :g p'' E .0 2,6 1,,v Mo .§(74 v12-0:2 gigom 2005 clgE0.... ,R.gg ES -c. clIgleig No t i d e n ti fi e d SO ), Pe r z o n in g No t i d e n tifi e d SS A Yu c a ip a Pl a nn e d D e v e lo p me n t Re v ie w RL - Ru r a l L i v in g , R S S in g le Re s . , R M M u lt ip le Re s . , C G Ge n e r a l Co r n . , C S Se rv ic e Co r n . , I C C o mm u n it y In d. , I N In s t i t u t io na l As p e rm it t e d b y L U d is tr ic t. Re v ie w in g a u tho r it y m a y g ra n t d e ns it y b o nu s o r tr a n s fe r Pe r z o n in g d i s tr ic t. St a nda r ds fo r: c ir c u la tio n, par ki n g , p riv a te a n d c o mm o n op e n s p ac e , p re s e r v a t i o n o f re s o u rc e s , p er im e t e r bu ff e r in g Ye s , p er c e rta in c r it e r ia 10 % p u b li c ly v a l u a b le re s o u r c e p ro vid e d, pu bl i c /q ua s i p ubl ic i t e m pro vid e d a bo v e /b e y o n d n o rm , a me n it y /c o nv e n ie nc e /e x c e ll e nc e i n d e s ig n b e y on d n o rm Pe r z o n in g No t i d e n ti f i e d sa „1 / 4 Sa n Be rn a r di n o De v e lo p me nt P e rm it RU - 1, RU - 2 Re s id e n tia l Ur ba n, RM Re s id e ntia l Me d iu m, RM H Re s . Me d Hi g h, R H R e s . H i g h Pe r z o n in g d i s tr ic t, ( att a c he d / d e ta c he d) de ns it y t r a n s fe r t o p ro m o te c lu s te r in g - OS p re s e rv a ti o n s .pali §g-T-Oa Ea iii2:5 -Min -ai W 2 UES C V toE"--E°E) 4r...7.,WiE1-4t f'g Z:12 ifi .c >-2-2 04 i8P.2Pl t-% tilig.dm*g 3 0.-=mEot2082, Ye s t o p ro mo te c lu s te r in g Ye s , t o p ro m o te c lu s te rin g a n d o p e n s p ac e p re s e r v a t io n Pe r z o n in g d i s tr ic t] No t i d e n tif i e d Ye s , 5 0 0 0 S F — 5' m in . , 1 5 ' m in . s e p ar a tio n b e tw e e n u n it s Co u n ty o f S a n B e r n a r di n o P l a nn e d D e ve lo p me n t Pe r m it , e x p ec ts h i g he r qu a li t y An y z o ne , a ll o ws f o r re s id e ntia l, c o m me rc ia l, i n d, o r m ix e d u s e d e v e lo p me n ts As p e r m it t e d b y z o n in g d is tr ic t. R e vie win g a u tho r it y ma y g ra n t d e ns it y b o nu s o r tr a ns fe r, o r SP ; a ls o reg u la te d b y s lo p e o f P ro p ert y 29. 2 . 02E R u ,,,RoE 2 w >„mg e o 15 2-n20166' t.,n'.-..8z ,u. ,..omwe-...,1 0.2 -4.•ou-,8',; -152.6 '..x=6..:82 .2.2.s_s. ; re.g' Li .; _ ,. m . e ci., imt 7,6 -0 2 p§ N2 -628u5tgoi 4124.42.1,3 2 -0.20A 0.0...<0.0A -6.0..m Ye s , p er c e r ta in c r it e r ia 1 0% p u bl i c ly v a lu a ble re so u rc e p ro v id e d, p u b li c / q ua s i p u bl ic it e m p ro v id e d a bo v e /b e y on d n or m , a me n it y /c onv e n ie n c e /e x ce ll e nc e in d e s ig n b e y o n d n o rm p er z o n in g d is tr ic t 5 a c r e s , o r 1 a cr e i f m o r e eff e c ti v e p la nn in g t o o l SO A Ap p l i c a tio n Zo n es Pe r m it t e d De ns it y t o E 4g a, ii 43 > 0 10. 00 De n s it y Tr an s fe r m c o m Z' Z c a) 0 Us e s a llo w e d Pr o j e c t S iz e Sm a ll lo ts Attachment 2 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS PROPOSED IN 2007 AS FOOTNOTE "j" OF TABLE 18.10.040 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Planned Unit Developments are subject to the following provisions: 1.Intent Planned Unit Development (PUD) including Clustered Subdivisions and Small Lot Divisions are permitted in Residential Urban Land Use Districts subject to Conditional Use Permit and Site and Architectural Review. Attached and detached single-family dwelling units are permitted. The purpose of allowing these types of developments is to promote residential amenities beyond those expected in conventional residential developments, to achieve greater flexibility in design, to encourage well planned neighborhoods through creative and imaginative planning as a unit, to provide for appropriate use of land which is sufficiently unique in its physical characteristics or other circumstances to warrant special methods of development, to reduce development problems in hillside areas and to preserve areas of natural scenic beauty through the encouragement of integrated planning and design. 2.Density The underlying Residential Land Use District or the Hillside Management Overlay District (which ever is the lower allowable density) shall determine the maximum number of dwelling units allowed in a PUD Zoning District. Density transfer throughout the PUD project area is permitted for the promotion of clustering units in those areas suited to development and thus preserving the open space and natural features of the site. 3.Minimum Lot Size The minimum lot size for a detached single-family unit in a Small Lot Subdivision shall be 5,000 square feet. PUD's may create various lot sizes to accommodate the creation of attached single-family dwelling units or Clustered Subdivisions. 4.Site Coverage Structures shall not occupy more than 40% of the gross site area. 5.Structure Height/Number of Attached Dwelling Units Detached single-family structures shall not exceed 2'A stories or 35 feet. Attached single-family structures shall not exceed 3 stories or 42 feet. The maximum average number of single-family units attached in any manner to form a single structure shall be 6. 6.Setbacks The minimum front, rear, and side structural setback from the project perimeter boundary shall be 15 feet. The minimum dwelling unit side structural setback from other dwelling unit structures is 15 feet plus 1 foot for each 15 feet of structural length. In small lot subdivisions the minimum side setback is 5 feet with a 15 foot minimum dwelling unit separation. 7.Open Space All Planned Unit Developments (PUD's) with 12 or more dwelling units shall provide 30% useable open space for passive and active recreational uses. Useable open space areas shall not include: right-of-ways; vehicle parking areas; areas adjacent to or between any structures less than 15 feet apart; setbacks; patios and private yards; or, slope areas greater than 8 percent. Slopes greater than 8 percent may be approved in the Hillside Management Overlay District by the Director as useable open space. 8.Amenities All Planned Unit Developments (PUD's) shall provide recreational amenities within the site which may include: a swimming pool; spa; clubhouse; tot lot with play equipment; picnic shelter — barbecue area; court game facilities such as tennis, basketball, or racquetball; or, day care facilities. The type of amenities shall be approved by the Planning Commission and provided according to the following schedule: Units Amenities 0-5 0 6-25 1 26-50 2 Note: Add 1 amenity for each 100 units or fraction thereof for project 51+ 9.Private Streets Private streets shall be permitted when there is a home owner's association established to maintain them. The streets shall be built to standards and specifications for public works construction. 10.Maintenance and Completion of Open Space, Amenities, Landscaping and Manufactured Slopes No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, home owner's association, assessment district or other approved appropriate entity has been legally formed with the right to assess all those properties which are jointly owned or benefited to operate and maintain all of the mutually available features of the development including, but not limited to, open space, amenities, landscaping or slope maintenance landscaping (which may be on private lots adjacent to street rights-of-way). Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) may be developed and recorded for the development subject to the preview and approval of the City Attorney. The recorded CC&R's shall permit the enforcement by the City, if required. No lot or dwelling unit shall be sold unless all approved and required opens pace, amenities, landscaping, or other improvements, or approved phase thereof, have been completed or completion is assured by a financing guarantee method approved by the City of Grand Terrace. 11.Fire Department Standards: Every Planned Unit Development (PUD's) shall comply with all requirements of the Fire Department of the County of San Bernardino. 12.Living Area (minimum square feet) The following minimum living area requirements shall apply to any residential dwelling constructed in the PUD zone: a.Single family: 1,350 square feet b.One bedroom duplex, triplex, or apartment building: 800 square feet c.Two bedroom duplex, triplex, or apartment building: 1,000 square feet d.Three bedroom duplex, triplex, or apartment building: 1,250 square feet July 21, 2011 To: Sandra Molina Fm: Darryl Moore Re: PUD Workshop RECEIVED JUL 2 1 2011 Community & Economic Development Department Thank you for your materials regarding this workshop. I have analyzed them and have the following comments: I see 2 objectives to this effort: A.To facilitate current projects --to be able to legally create PUD's to facilitate FHA financing. There are condo/townhouses in town now that could possibly move forward, but won't be able to without PUD's. B.To facilitate future projects—to liberalize development rules to allow difficult infill parcels to be developed producing revenue for the city, tax base and customer support for city retail and services. As always, the devil is in the details. When I look over the standards you have proposed I see them as hindering rather than facilitating development. Cape Terrace is one of the best projects in town and it could not pass the rules you have proposed; so we have the situation where a 40 year old project couldn't even pass the rules we are trying modernize! I am going to comment on specific standards, but also consider that it may be useful to differentiate between attached and detached products for the standards. Specific Comments on Standards: Lot Size: 5,000 is way too big to be workable. For detached you should allow down to 3500sf. For attached you should allow down to 1200sf. The latter number may seem shocking, but you have to consider what is included. For a small 3 bedroom 2 story condo with a back yard, it can be fitted on a 1300 sf "lot" net of the drives and common areas. For detached, you can look at Mission Village in Riverside at 1 st and Market. They have about 3500 sf lots and drives and recreation are in a common area. We did a small infill tract in La Palma a few years back and they had a 5000 sf min lot size, but they allowed us to go out to the middle of the private drive to calculate the 5000 sf. So we put 2400sf 2 story house on effectively 4500 sf lots with 25' back yards. So if we were shooting for a 1500-1750sf entry level house, we could make it work on a 3500sf lot. Also you might want to consider having a minimum of 3 bedrooms. Limit on Attached Units: You say 6, but Azure Hills has 10 and it works. (They broke it up with articulation). What is wrong with 10? Setback: You propose 15'; I think this should only apply if abutting an R-1 zone. Otherwise is should be 10' or whatever the Fire Department. Do we really care what the setback is next to R-3 or commercial? I have a project over on Van Buren I would like to move forward right now. It has 10' back yards that back up against 10' back yards in the apartments. There is no logical reason why our R-3 development should have 15' setbacks when the units behind us have 10'. Open Space: The 30% open space, if it excludes drives could be a real deal killer. If you have to have a number I would like to see it be 20% minimum, a combination of private and common open space (common open space is recreational areas, landscape and walkways net of drives). Parking Requirements: I think parking should be 2 dedicated per unit (garage) and 1 guest per 6 units. Amenities: The amenity table starts after 5 units. I think it should start after 12 units — i.e. 0-12 0 amenities 13-25 1 amenity — etc Maximum Lot Coverage: You propose 40%. This works for two story product. CALIFORNIA Community and Economic Development Department GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING JULY 21, 2011 The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on July 21, 2011, at 6:30 p.m., by Chairman Doug Wilson. PRESENT: Doug Wilson, Chairman Matthew Addington, Vice Chairman Tom Comstock, Commissioner Robert Bailes, Commissioner Ohm Kongtang, Commissioner Joyce Powers, Community and Economic Development Director Sandra Molina, Senior Planner Mari Montes, Secretary 6:30 P.M.: CONVENE SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Chairman Wilson convened the Site and Architectural Review Board/Planning Commission meeting. •Call to Order — Chairman Wilson •Pledge of Allegiance — Commissioner Kongtang •Roll Call — All present •Public address to the Commission shall be limited to three minutes unless extended by the Chairman. Should you desire to make a longer presentation, please make written request to be agendized to the Director of Community and Economic Development. 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 Planning Commission may not discuss or act on any item not on the agenda, but may briefly respond to statements made or ask a question for clarification. The Chairman may also request a brief response from staff to questions raised during public comment or may request a matter be agendized for a future meeting. 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, 92313-5295 909/824-6621 Fax 909/783-2600 GENERAL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Jeffery McConnell — Stated the Lion's Club will be having a Free Eye & Sight Clinic on July 30 th at the Lion's Club Community Center. They will be having free eye exams and distributing free recycled, used prescription glasses. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR 1.1 MINUTES: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 21, 2011 RECOMMENDATION: Approval MOTION PC 13-2011 Commissioner Comstock made a motion to approve the minutes of April 21, 2011 Second by Vice Chairman Addington. Motion carries 4 — 1 with Chairman Wilson abstaining. 2.PUBLIC WORKSHOP 2.1 SUBJECT: Workshop #5 — Zoning Code Update RECOMMENDATION: Provide input and direction on planned unit development provisions Sandra Molina, Senior Planner — Stated at the previous workshop there were members of the public that spoke with regard to the possible need for some new provisions in the Code of planned unit developments or planned residential developments. There was a meeting with a member of the public, Mr. Daryl Moore, and another separate discussion with Chairman Wilson to talk about provisions for planned unit developments. Staff decided to hold a Public Workshop on the item. Staff contacted a few different cities and provided a table for the Commission's reference. During the 2007 Zoning Code workshops by previous staff there were some provisions for planned unit developments. A planned unit development can have varying density, housing products, commercial, mixed use or industrial projects. It allows a degree of flexibility for site development. They can be found in the areas with steep hillsides or environmental resources that need to be protected. There is hillside area in the City that at some point will be developed. The 2 Planning Commission Minutes-07/21/2011 General Plan calls for this to be developed under a specific plan. There are many infill development and constrained lots. When going through the Housing Element Update it was difficult to find residential zone lots that would support the housing allocation the City received. There is also the Mixed Use Area on the west side of the City and would be developed under a Specific Plan. A planned unit development allows to have flexibility from the development standards. There was an e-mail from Daryl Moore and supporting the need for planned unit development. Mr. Moore is looking at 2 or 3 projects within the City where he would like to see the planned unit development standards attached. Chairman Wilson also provided some comments. There is a need from basic standards and allowance for flexibility from the underlying zone district. Chairman Wilson — Commented the purpose behind this situation is to recognize substantial infill conditions that do not relate to the southwest area of the City. Would like to focus on a residential thought pattern. PUD's are set up to manipulate spaces. A PRD is set up so the tools could be bequeathed to the Planning Department, Planning Commission and Public Hearing. Chairman Wilson provided further comments on PRD/PUD issues. Commissioner Comstock — Asked staff if they knew how many irregular lots there are in the City that would fall under this development standard? Senior Planner Molina — Responded there are about 3-5, they are smaller infill irregular lots and have constraints to them. Joyce Power, Community Economic Development Director — Added that in terms to irregular she can only think two lots, one being the Redevelopment Agency owned parcel on Canal and the other property located off of Van Buren. Chairman Wilson — Asked if there was an understanding in regards to attachment one. The application, zones permitted, density, development standards and density bonus. Does not know if there has to be a minimum lot size to consider the circumstance? PUBLIC COMMENT Bobbie Forbes, 11850 Burns Avenue — Indicated she noticed a truck parked on Barton Road and approached the driver and advised how to arrive to his destination, the Castle and Cook warehouse. She suggested that the business should place signs to direct truck drivers where to go as the drivers go into the residential neighborhoods, get lost and get their vehicles stuck on the smaller streets. Ms. Forbes then commented on the different parcels that are available to build on,. She has a client who has on odd shaped property, multi family dwelling, for up to nine condos. Referred to the Hidden Gate complex units. They are undesirable as they have no private space. There are many in foreclosure and need cash sales as they were not set up for FHA home loans. Indicated it is really important to get housing available for FHA and VA 3 Planning Commission Minutes-07/21/2011 customers. She is looking forward to changes in the type of development that comes to Grand Terrace. Daryl Moore, Minona Avenue — Referred to a memo he submitted to the Planning Commission and has a few additions. On page 2, the parking issue should be revised from 1 in 6 to 1 in 4. Mr. Moore feels there should be some ability to have some density included due to the potential applications that could be plugged into a residential neighborhood. Another other issue is the mixed use, as there is the potential as the community develops to place mixed use. He also commented there is a diversity of housing stock as the City is composed of large lots. Now there is a need for diversity, as some residents do not want yards. Mr. Moore referred back to the density issue, a 12 building units per acre, R-3 zoning. Eighteen is not unusual for a two-story product as this would be very easy to design with open space and plenty of parking. Chairman Wilson — Commented that flexibility is important. Referred to the comment by Mr. Moore, that a lot size of 5,000 is to big to be workable. For detached there should allow down to a 3,500 square foot lot. How would this work for a condominium project? Daryl Moore — Responded when one goes to the Riverside area there are two story houses, roughly about 3,500 square foot lots and gets into how lots are defined. Gave an example of a project in the City La Palma of a project built on 4,500 square foot lots and how desirable these homes were and how quickly they sold. As well this creates side yard living, you use all the set backs for one site for one house and can be an effective use of land. Chairman Wilson — Stated his comments in relation to the draft on attachment two. He believes that fire regulations in a PUD is what would govern. May have underlying ordinances that specify for standard residential development but if one ends up with a rear lot line against a commercial location or side location the primary (inaudible). Chairman believes the way the draft ordinance is worded is possibly too structured. Staff would need the flexibility to be able to address per the Fire Department. Jeffery McConnell, 21758 Walnut Avenue - Indicated the goal is to effectively develop infill lots with a variety of products. He has previously spoken about the lack of different types of inventory, specifically patio homes. Mr. McConnell provided comments on the Hidden Gate, Lydo, Canal, and Cape Terrace homes projects. Suggested there may need to be an increase to density and flexibility for projects due to the bad economy. In reference to the density portion, 16-18, one of the goals would be the efficiency and flexibility, possibly 12-18 units per project. Would encourage the developer to look at the project and see if this would work. Suggested there would be a viable need for two bedroom projects without yards for the baby boomers. Commissioner Comstock — Asked if Mr. McConnell was referring to single family units or attached units? Jeffery McConnell — Responded, attached units, anything within a PUD/PRD. 4 Planning Commission Minutes-07/21/2011 Commissioner Comstock — Asked if Mr. McConnell indicated there were not a lot of these in town? Jeffery McConnell — Responded he did not think were a lot in town. Even two bedroom houses are rare within Grand Terrace. Commissioner Comstock — Indicated there were several places, for example the Lydo. Persons could not get in and purchase due to the financial restrictions. There is a lot of stock available. Jeffery McConnell — Commented the Lydo were apartments, two bedrooms. Gave his previous experience with condo development and the financial aspect. Commissioner Comstock — Responded Mr. McConnell has real estate experience. Does he not see the issue where homes were set up to be purchased as condos and are going to be rental units once the private investor comes in? Jeffery McConnell — Responded the investors with money are buying up the real estate, are purchasing and turning them into rentals. Chairman Wilson — Indicated PRD's are more desirable for ownership and financing. Jeffery McConnell — Referred to a wall exhibit, indicated his comments and preferences. Chairman Wilson — Clarified there was an issue raised within the City's bedroom community, if there is an amount of density and intensity to be able to service the amount of commercial. Provided further comments on density and intensity. Jeffery McConnell — Confirmed the City is boxed in, there is only room to grow to the south. Commented on the future retail construction along the freeway. Daryl Moore — Commented on the proposed ordinance, would like to see this move along. Bobbie Forbes, 11850 Burns Avenue — Commented she has known Mr. Moore for many years and is very knowledgeable in a large territory. In speaking to Mr. Moore she does not believe he is just out to take care of himself, he cares what gets built within the community. He has many good ideas and can be trusted. Director Powers — Indicated she would like to narrow the discussion on how to proceed. There have been many good comments presented and have seen many of the projects such as the patio homes. Staff is not looking into creating a PUD zoning district, are trying to complete a process for these projects and provide some leeway but still provide for a Public Hearing process. Chairman Wilson — Commented he wanted to address each issue. Would like to forward to Staff a Newport Beach ordinance, pick it apart and find something that may be helpful. Indicated the key is flexibility and design. Reducing development in problem hillside areas is important and it would probably never be considered in any circumstance. 5 Planning Commission Minutes-07/21/2011 Commissioner Comstock — Stated his understanding from previous discussions was the main reason for putting this forward was for hillside development, not for infill issues. Referred to having an odd sized lot in a R-1 zone area and introducing higher density in those areas. Commissioner is against this, as residents purchased their homes expecting certain amount of density. As far as the intent for the old zoning, in 2007, was to cover hillside areas where the infill is. Chairman Wilson — Agreed with Community and Economic Development Director, R-2 and R-3 should be the focus in relation to the issues. Believes and agrees with the higher density development and in relation to the comment on R-3, looking at the density cap could be applicable. Continued his comments with underlying residential land use district or hillside management overlay district. Indicated this would fall under Commissioner Comstock's comments, keeping more towards a R-2, R-3 circumstance. Indicated Staff was correct in identifying the density bonus system. Have previously discussed topography irregular parcels with possible amenities or more parking that could be provided if they fit in the land plan. Commissioner Comstock — Would not want to see medium and high density lots to be considered under the scenario as the CVS and Stater Bros projects. Would like to keep the zoning as it is currently. As far as kicking up the density, it could become a difficult issue, it would need to proceed with caution. Senior Planner Molina — Stated Staff have identified two lots to be zoned at a higher density per Housing Element. She asked if there would be more of a comfort level if the lots were identified as constrained, odd shaped or other? As these would be the lots the would benefit from a PUD. Commissioner Comstock — Agreed he would feel more comfortable with the suggestion. If not this would open a door and would allow developers do what they would want as they would be referring to the zoning. Vice Chairman Addington —Agreed with Commissioner Comstock's comments. Senior Planner Molina — Indicated part of the intent is to acknowledge some lots are constrained. Chairman Wilson — Stated he does not see an applicability with a minimum lot size as much as the Director has stipulated. It should be tied to the R2, R3 zones. He does not think there is a need for minimum lot size, maybe one acre. Anything under this could be handled on a case by case basis. Vice Chairman Addington — Indicated that 5,000 square feet would be the minimum size that would be proposed to develop. He asked if Chairman Wilson was referring to the general land area boundaries? Chairman Wilson — Responded yes. In some of the ordinances, it states that the minimum lot size, R-1, is an 5,000 square foot lot. Or is it 7.2? 6 Planning Commission Minutes-07/21/2011 Senior Planner Molina — Answered it was 7,200. The draft because it considered PUD's in the R1 zone, which has a minimum lot size of 7,200, believes this is why the 5,000 square foot made sense. If there is reference to an R-2 or R-3 zone district there could be a product designed as single family detached. Chairman Wilson — Referred to occupying no more than 40% of the gross site area. He asked where did this come from? In mind with the hillside item, this would be a big consideration. Does not believe it is applicable. Senior Planner Molina — Responded the underlying zone allows for more of coverage. Chairman Wilson — Stated they would go for the under lying zone. Senior Planner Molina — Indicated the underlying zone also states for open space and relates to lot coverage. May want to consider driveways and drive isles as part of the lot coverage. This would be a discussion for the next workshop. Chairman Wilson — Read the details on the item. He asked if the wording was out of a Code? Senior Planner Molina — Responded she believes this was taken from the City of San Bernardino as this is word for word. The City maximum height allowance is 35 feet. Chairman Wilson — Asked if this was for a single-family detached structure? Senior Planner Molina — Confirmed. Chairman Wilson — Asked if what is in the books is a start in relation to an attached product? As for the set backs, he would like to stay with the fire regulations. Commissioner Comstock — Commented on the zero set back. Has spoken to residents who live in a house and who have kids next door playing with a ball and they do not like the noise. Would have to take this in consideration as this situation lowers the quality of life for people. He would like to see a 5 foot set back on each side. Vice Chairman Addington — Stated he agrees with Commissioner Comstock on the item. Chairman Wilson — Commented on the discussion for the desirability of private open space. Believes this should take a priority of a kind. Senior Planner Molina — Asked what Chairman is referring to when indicating priority of? Chairman Wilson — Answered private, over general, all open space. Commissioner Comstock — Seconds the comment, as he has heard this comment several times from people. 7 Planning Commission Minutes-07/21/2011 Chairman Wilson — Added staff should be careful on the useable open space definition. May want to look at this, as it looks like it is skewed toward the hillside. Commissioner Comstock — Asked if it is possible to distinguish in the wording, for hillside as opposed to non-hillside uses. Director Powers — Answered yes. Staff can take a look at parcels that are constrained. Senior Planner Molina — Indicated Staff also envisions a separate hillside chapter. Chairman Wilson — Referred to item 8, believes this is a good starting point. There may be more desirable amenities than just a swimming pool. Would give a bigger tool to work with. Senior Planner Molina — Stated she does agree with Mr. Moore on the amenities, there should be a higher threshold. Perhaps 12 is the threshold. Commissioner Comstock — Believes this stands to reason if the intent is to shift back to more private space over open space. The threshold should be lowered for public amenities. Chairman Wilson — Stated to item 9 and 10, believes this addresses Homeowners Association maintenance. There should be some models that staff would be able to draw from to clean up the language. When referring to roads and open space area there should be some device in place to be able to maintain these things or it would be considered private open space. Vice Chairman Addington — In relation to item number 9, it indicates "built to standards and specification for public works construction". This can be interpreted two ways and may want to clarify this. May want to rephrase this to City standards. Senior Planner Molina — Referenced to the width at the Hidden Gate project, staff will look at the minimum street width. Vice Chairman Addington — Indicated most cities for private streets will indicate, you can build a private street but curb to curb has to be per the city construction standards. Commissioner Comstock — Commented in reference to item #10. CC&R is an immediate red flag for most persons. Asked if there was a way to work around this? As this would make it more difficult to sell, persons would not want to pay an absorbent amount of homeowner association or have additional CC&R fees put on the property. Senior Planner Molina — Responded staff would have to confirm with the City Attorney. There would have to be some method for maintenance of common areas. Can explore and see if there are other alternatives. Chairman Wilson — Commented cities will take over the area if the maintenance is not kept up. 8 Planning Commission Minutes-07/2112011 Chairman Wilson - Item 11, have to be per Fire Department standards. Chairman Wilson — Commented this seems a little pumped up? Senior Planner Molina — Responded staff will take a look into this and speak to the City Attorney and have the ability to mandate minimum unit size, square footage. Chairman Wilson — Asked if he could enter, into the record, the Newport Beach information. Considered may be wanting to start over and be a little more prepared, use the information as a guideline. Senior Planner Molina — Commented in reviewing all the different cities did notice a lot of codes and procedures on PRD's. She noticed this was very similar to a Specific Plan and very much geared toward larger projects. In the City there are infill, smaller lots. Was wondering how complicated this would make the process for an acre and a half project. Vice Chairman Addington — Asked what are the advantages and disadvantages to doing a Specific Plan versus everything that is being proposed this evening? Senior Planner Molina — Responded in her view, a Specific Plan allows you to write your own rule book, a mini Zoning Code for the property that is being covered. If staff modifies what was being reviewed, referring to attachment 2 as it was being covered step by step, staff talked about certain issues they felt they wanted establish. A base line of a minimum lot size. Comment was made by Commissioner Comstock that a 5 foot set back should be in place. Through the PUD this would establish the minimum standards and when a developer comes in they would know where to start from. Chairman Wilson — Commented there was much information provided by the audience and Commissioners and thanked them. Senior Planner Molina — Responded staff appreciated all the input and will be helpful. 3.INFORMATION TO COMMISSIONERS Director Powers — Commented there was update provided from the Code Enforcement Officer regarding to the four properties the Chairman had asked about. Informed Commissioners that the Walgreen's project would go before City Council on July 26 th . 4.INFORMATION FROM COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Comstock — Commented on the curb and gutter that has been placed along Michigan. Noticed some was done in asphalt and some done in concrete. Asked if this a temporary fix? Director Powers — Indicated the asphalt is temporary and will be removed when the interchange is constructed. 9 Planning Commission Minutes-07/21/2011 Respectfully Submitted, Approved B Doug Wilson, Chairman Community and Economic Planning Commission Development Director Jo ce(%Powers Commissioner Bailes — Asked about a residence that is being built, on the east side of Honey Hills. It is a 3 story residence and goes into the slide of the slope and does not recall this being presented to Planning Commission. Senior Planner Molina — Responded she has noticed the construction work and recalls this project, Mr. Cronister's house. Went before Council last year and requested a waiver on park fees. Vice Chairman Addington — Commented he noticed the new poles that have gone in for the new traffic signal. Also thanked Code Enforcement staff for having the water service turned on at 23046 Peacock for irrigation. CHAIRMAN WILSON ADJOURNED THE SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO THE NEXT MEETING TO BE HELD ON , AUGUST 4, 2011. 10 Planning Commission Minutes-07/21/2011 Attachment 2 Reports, Correspondence and Minutes Planning Commission Workshop September 1, 2011 Grand Terrace CALIFORtilk PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Community and Economic Development Department DATE: September 1, 2011 SUBJECT: Workshop #6 — Zoning Code Update RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a public workshop on Planned Residential Development provisions BACKGROUND On July 21, 2011, the Planning Commission conducted a public workshop on planned residential development (PRD) provisions. Based on the discussion, which included public input, staff was directed to draft provisions for such developments. The purpose of this workshop to discuss proposed Section 18.10.090 (Planned Residential Development). Attachment 1 contains proposed Section 18.10.090. Attachment 2 is the existing Chapter 18.10 (RH, R1, R2 and R3 Residential Districts) and contains the existing residential development standards, which can be compared to the proposed Code Section. DISCUSSION Subsection A Purpose During the workshop it was indicated that the provisions should be for the purpose of providing flexibility for infill lots that maybe be constrained because of their size or location. It was also discussed that the flexibility of PRD's should result in a better design and product. Subsection B Applicability It was expressed that PRD standards should only apply to limited areas within the R2 and R3 zones. This subsection clearly states R2 and R3 zones, and identifies specific properties where a PRD could be proposed, and gives the Planning Commission the Staff Report Workshop #6, Zoning Code Update Page 2 of 4 flexibility to consider other R2 and R3 sites on a case by case basis. This subsection states that the site must measure at least 22,000 square feet, which is roughly 1/2 an acre, and that only those uses permitted in the underlying zone are permitted in the PRD. The draft language from 2007 stated that the minimum project area should measure one acre. The Commission could consider the one acre size, which would further limit where PRD's would be permitted. Of the six properties identified, only three would meet this criterion. Subsection C Development Standards This subsection also limits density to that of the underlying zone district. The maximum density of the R2 district is 9 units per acre and 12 units per acre in the R3 zone. Also, pursuant to the adopted Housing Element the City will be re-zoning two sites in the City to a maximum of 20 units per acre. The draft provisions propose to allow density bonuses for projects that exceed the minimum required standards. Pursuant to state law a bonus would be granted when affordable housing is proposed. The entire project does not have to be affordable to be affordable to qualify for a density bonus. Under state law, a density bonus is granted based on the number of base units dedicated to affordable income households. For instance, a 20-unit project that restricts 10% (2) of the total units to low-income households would be granted a 20% (4-unit) density bonus. A 20-unit common interest development project that restricts 10% (2) of the total units to moderate income households would be granted a 5% (1 unit) density bonus. As the percentage of units geared towards affordable households increases, so does the amount of the density bonus. The proposed provisions would also allow a density bonus if the project is LEED certified or some equivalent standard, or exceeds basic Title 24 requirements. Density bonuses granted for affordable housing projects can exceed General Plan density. However, all other bonuses may require a general plan amendment. Lot coverage is proposed at 60% and would include all structures. However, unlike existing provisions for R3 zones it would not include paved areas. 25% of open space is proposed to be required. Paved areas, drive aisles, parking areas, private patios, or areas between structures less than 10 feet in any dimension could not be counted towards open space coverage. Also, only 10% of open space amenity areas could count towards this requirement. At least 250 square feet of private open space for each unit is required. Also because it is such a limited space, we are proposing that all private open space dimensions are at least 10 feet. YAZoning Code UpdatelWorkshops\PC Workshop #6_PUD_9.1.2011.doc Staff Report Workshop #6, Zoning Code Update Page 3 of 4 Amenities are required for any project with 12 or more units, and the number of required amenities increases as the number of units increase. Amenities may include a swimming pool, clubhouse, tot lot with play equipment, picnic shelter with barbeque area, basketball, tennis, or other recreational amenities, and are subject to the Commissions approval. The height of structures is 35 feet, and three stories are permitted within the 35 feet when the PRD is adjacent an R2 or R3 district. The street or drive aisle width, curb to curb, is 26 feet with no on street parking. The width requirement would increase with 3-story projects. Two points of access to a public street are required, except that with County Fire and City Engineer approval the requirement can be modified if emergency access is determined to be adequate for the project. At the July 21 st workshop, Chairman Wilson suggested deferring setbacks to whatever the Fire Code would allow. There are many variables that are considered under the Building Code, and ultimately it could allow a zero setback from an interior property line. Staff is suggesting that it would be more appropriate to have an established setback, which a developer could then request to vary from. The PRD regulations envisions that setbacks would be required based on the type of project proposed. For typical multi-family projects such as Hidden Gate or Grand Canal there would be perimeter setbacks that would be applicable. These are comparable to the existing setbacks for R2 and R3 zones, except that the front and rear setbacks are proposed to be reduced. Then there are "interior" setbacks. From curb face we are suggesting 10 feet, however, driveways would need to be 15 feet deep. In addition, a 15-foot separation is proposed in between onsite structures. Where a small lot subdivision is proposed, such as the homes on DeBerry Street, they will be treated as conventional single family homes, but with reduced setbacks. However, we are suggesting a minimum of 10 feet between residences, and would recommend zero lot line set back for detached garages only. Also, staff recommends a lot size of no less than 4,500 square feet. The DeBerry project has lot sizes of no less than 5,000 square feet. The front setback would need to be at least 15 feet. The proposed Code section defers to the Off-Street parking chapter for parking requirements, and each unit will be required to have a two-car garage. However, staff is recommending that on-street parking be allowed on one side of the street, and that this parking count towards guest parking, provided that the street measures at least 36 feet wide. If the interior streets are restricted to one-way traffic, parking can be accommodated on both sides of the street at the 36-foot width per Fire Code. Y:\Zoning Code Update\Workshops\PC Workshop #6_PUD_9.1.2011.doc Staff Report Workshop #6, Zoning Code Update Page 4 of 4 Subsection D through G These subsections state that a PRD is subject to Site and Architectural Review and lists the findings, in addition to the SA findings, that must be made to approve the PRD. A tentative map is also required. The regulations also give the Director the authority to approve minor changes. Minor changes could include a change in an architectural feature or modification to landscaping areas. Major changes such as a proposed changed in number of units or relocation of buildings, would return to the Planning Commission for approval. Subsection H The subsection requires the establishment of a HOA to ensure that there is an entity in place to assess maintenance costs for the maintenance of common areas such as roads, driveways, landscaping and amenity areas, and CC&R's that informs and binds the HOA to such maintenance. During the July 21 st workshop, Commissioner Comstock had inquired if there was an alternative to CC&R's. Staff conveyed this question to the City Attorney who responded that there really is not and that it is important to require both the HOA and CC&R's. CONCLUSION: Staff requests that the Planning Commission review proposed Section 18.10.090 (Planned Residential Development), provide input and direct staff to schedule the public hearing. The Code amendment requires the adoption of an Ordinance, and would require a public hearing before the Planning Commission, and a public hearing before the City Council prior to Council adoption. Respectfully Submitted, Prepared by, )41 „ /61 /( / (;11 JOYCE POWERS SANDRA MOLINA Community and Economic Senior Planner Development Director Attachments: 1. Proposed Section 18.10.090 (Planned Residential Development) 2.Existing Chapter 18.10 (RH, R1, R2 and R3 Residential Districts) 3.Maps depicting R2 and R3 sites Y:1Zoning Code Update\Workshops\PC Workshop #6_PUD_9.1.2011.doc Attachement 1 PROPOSED SECTION 18.10.090 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Section 18.10.090 Planned Residential Development A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide a process for approving a planned residential development that is intended to: 1.Allow for flexibility and creativity in the development of infill lots otherwise constrained due to lot size, configuration and/or surroundings; 2.Provide a method whereby land may be designed and developed as a unified site by taking advantage of efficient site planning techniques thereby resulting in a more efficient use of land, a better living environment, excellence of design, and related enhanced amenities than is otherwise possible through strict application of the development standards of the underlying zoning classification; 3.Ensure development that meets high standards of environmental quality, public health and safety, the efficient use of the City's resources, and the purpose, intent, goals, policies, actions, and land use designations of the General Plan, and any applicable specific plan; and B. Applicability. 1.Permitted zones. A planned residential development shall be permitted on those parcels identified in Exhibit A of this Section, within the R2—Low Medium and R3—Medium Density Residential Zone districts. As determined by the Planning Commission on a case by case basis, a planned residential development may be proposed on a site not identified in Exhibit A. a. A planned residential development may be proposed on the following properties: Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 0275-191-15, 0275-211-09, 0275-211-58, 0275-251-04, 0276-202-74, and 1167- 341-038. 2.Minimum Site Area. A planned residential development may only be requested for a site(s) with a minimum size of 22,000 square feet. 3.Permitted Uses. A planned residential development project shall not authorize a use that is not allowed in the base zoning district. C. Development Standards. 1. Density: Density within a planned residential development shall comply with the permitted density of the underlying zone district. 2. Density bonus: A density bonus may be granted as follows: a.A density bonus shall be granted for affordable housing developments in accordance with the density bonus provisions of Government Code Section 65915; b.A 20% density bonus with evidence that the project can be certified in LEED, California Green Builder or equivalent standard; or c A 10% density bonus for construction of the project to meet or exceed more than a 20% increase above Title 24 requirements. 3. Lot coverage: Lot coverage shall not exceed 60% of the lot area. Lot coverage includes primary and accessory structures, covered patios and garages. 4. Open space: A minimum of 25% of the lot area shall be open and unobstructed. Paved areas, drive aisles, parking areas, private patios, or areas between structures less than 10 feet in any dimension, shall not be counted towards open space coverage. Ten percent of open amenity areas may be counted toward the open space requirement. 5. Private open space: A minimum of 250 square feet of private open space per dwelling unit, with no dimension less than 10 feet. Architectural elements with no habitable space may encroach into private open spaces. 6. Amenities: Amenities may include a swimming pool, clubhouse, tot lot with play equipment, picnic shelter with barbeque area, basketball, tennis, or other recreational amenities. The type of amenities shall be approved by the Planning Commission. Amenities shall be provided as follows: Number of Units Number of Amenities 0-11 0 12-24 1 25-50 2 51-75 3 75+ as determined by the Planning Commission Note: Where a mix of attached and detached units is proposed, amenities shall be provided pursuant to this subsection. Page 2 of 6 7 Height: 35 feet, 2 1/2 stories. Three-stories may be permitted when adjacent to R-2 or R-3 zone district. 8. Circulation a.Private streets shall be permitted only when a Homeowner's Association is established to maintain them. b.Private streets shall be built to public works construction standards. c.Street/Drive Aisle Width: A minimum of 26 feet, curb to curb with no on-street parking shall be provided. Where one-way access is proposed, the minimum width shall conform to County Fire standards. d.Two points of vehicular ingress and egress to a public street shall be provided. Except that for smaller projects or where the applicant can show that this is a physical impossibility, the appropriate fire authority may modify this requirement if the fire authority determines that emergency access is adequate for the project. 9. Number of attached dwelling units. Attached dwelling units shall not exceed 8 units. Any building with 6 or more units shall provide a minimum two foot variation along the building wall plane. 10. Project Setbacks: a. Perimeter setbacks: i.Front yard: 20 feet ii.Rear yard: 15 feet iii.Side yard: 10 feet iv.Street Side yard: 10 feet b. Attached units shall also adhere to the following setbacks: i.A minimum setback of 10 feet from the curb face, except that a minimum driveway depth of 15 feet shall be provided. ii.A minimum of 15 feet between attached buildings. c. Detached units shall adhere to the following standards: Page 3 of 6 i.Minimum lot size: 4,500 net square feet ii.Lot coverage: 60% iii.Front yard setback: An average of 16 feet, but no less than 15 feet iv.Rear yard setback: 15 feet v.Side yard setbacks: 5 feet and 8 feet vi.Zero lot line setback: Shall apply to detached garages only. vii.Distance between detached garage and main residence: 5 feet 12.Parking. Parking shall be in accordance with Chapter 18.60 (Off Street Parking), with the following exceptions: a. On-street parking may be credited towards guest parking, provided that a curb to curb street width of a minimum of 36 feet is provided, with parking only on one side of the street. 13.Storage and Trash Areas. All storage and trash areas shall be located within enclosed areas completely screened from public view. Common storage and trash areas shall be within 200 feet of the dwelling served. D. Procedures. 1.Planned residential developments shall be processed in accordance with Chapter 18.63 (Site and Architectural Review). The application shall include all of the information and materials specified by the Site and Architectural Review application, together with the required fee in compliance with the City's adopted fee schedule. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide evidence in support of the findings required by subsection (F) of this section (Findings and Decision). 2.The application shall be accompanied by a tentative map that shall be filed and processed in accordance with Title 17 (Subdivisions) of the Municipal Code. E. Review Authority. The Commission may approve, conditionally approve, or deny a planned residential development, provided that the findings contained in subsection (F) of this section (Findings and Decision), and in Chapter 18.63 (Site and Architectural Review), can be made. Page 4 of 6 F Findings and Decision. The Commission may approve or conditionally approve a planned residential development only after first making all of the findings contained in Section 18.63.060 (Approval Process) and the following: 1.The development includes only uses allowed within the base zoning district. 2.The development is compatible with other development within the zoning district and general neighborhood of the proposed project. 3.The project would produce a development of higher quality and greater excellence of design than that might otherwise result from using the standard development regulations. 4.The subject site is adequate in terms of size, shape, topography, and circumstances to accommodate the proposed development. 5.The project includes improved quality of life provisions and enhanced amenities, including an additional and appropriate variety of structure placement and orientation opportunities, appropriate mix of structure sizes, high quality architectural design, common open space, landscaping, parking areas, private open space, and sustainable improvement standards (e.g., energy efficient building design, construction, and operation. G. Minor Changes by Director. 1.Minor changes in a planned residential development that do not involve an increase in the number of dwelling units or intensity of use or a change of use may be approved by the Director, pursuant to Section 18.63.020.0 (Administrative Site and Architectural Review). 2.Proposed changes that are not deemed minor shall be subject to review and approval by the original review authority. H. Common Ownership - Land or Improvements 1. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's). Where a Planned Residential Development contains any land or improvement proposed to be held in common ownership, the applicant shall submit a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R's) with the final map establishing a Home Owner's Association subject to Community and Economic Development Director and the City Attorney approval. Such declaration shall set forth provisions for maintenance of all common areas, payment of taxes and all other privileges and responsibilities of the common ownership. The CC&R's shall include provisions prohibiting the Page 5 of 6 homeowners' association (HOA) from quitclaiming, selling or otherwise transferring the land held in common ownership to private property owners. 2.The City shall be made a party of the CC&R's. The City's participation shall be specifically limited to enforcement of the HOA's maintenance obligation. 3.Amendments to CC&R's. The provisions of approved CC&R's shall not be amended without the prior approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney who at his or her discretion may refer the matter to the Planning Commission. Requests for amendments to existing CC&R's shall be submitted to the Planning Division. 4.Maintenance. All private streets, walkways, parking areas, landscaped areas, storage areas, screening, sewers, drainage facilities, utilities, open space, recreation facilities and other improvements not dedicated to public use shall be maintained by the property owners. Provisions acceptable to the affected City Departments shall be made for the preservation and maintenance of all such improvements prior to the issuance of building permits. 5.Failure to Maintain Constitutes a Public Nuisance. All commonly-owned lots, improvements and facilities shall be preserved and maintained in a safe condition and in a state of good repair. Any failure to so maintain is unlawful and a public nuisance endangering the health, safety and general welfare of the public and a detriment to the surrounding community. Page 6 of 6 At tachment 2 EXHIBIT D CHAPTER 18.10 RH, R1, R2, R3 and R3-S RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS The following Section and Tables shall be modified as follows: Section 18.10.020 Residential Districts: The following districts are designed to implement the goals and objectives of the General Plan. Each district contains specific laud use regulations and density ranges for development. A.RH, Hillside Residential District: This district is intended for very low density single family residential development with a maximum retention of open space. It is located in the portions of the City identified in the General Plan's Master Environmental Analysis as having severe development limitations related to topography and soil conditions. The maximum density allowed in this district is one (1) dwelling unit per gross acre. B.R1-20, Very Low Single Family Residential District: This district is intended for very low density single family residential use. The minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet with a maximum density of two (2) dwelling units per gross acre. C.R1-10, Low Density Single Family Residential District: This district is intended for low density single family residential use. The minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet with a maximum density of four (4) dwelling units per gross acre. D.R1-7.2, Single Family Residential District: This district is intended for single family residential use. The minimum lot size is 7,200 square feet with a maximum density of five (5) dwelling units per gross acre. E.R2, Low Medium Density Residential District: This district is intended for single family residential use and low density multiple family development. The minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet with a maximum density of nine (9) dwelling units per gross acre. F.R3, Medium Density Residential District: This district is intended for medium density multiple family development. The minimum lot size is 12,000 square feet with a maximum density of twelve-plus (12+) dwelling units per gross acre. (Ord. 126 §2, Exh. A(part), 1990) G.R3 -S, Medium Family, Senior Citizen: This district is intended for the development of senior citizen housing. The maximum density shall not exceed 20 units per acre. The development standards shall be established though specific plan process. TABLE 18.10.030 Land Use Regulations: Permitted Uses RH R20 R10 R7.2 R2 R3 R3-S A. Residential Uses Single Family (Detached), Full Sized PP P P P" P ° - Single Family (Attached) (Duplexes, Triplexes, and Fourplexes consisting of One (1)Bedroom and/or Two (2) Bedroom Units Only) - - - - P P - Multiple Family Units (Planned Unit Developments consisting of one (1) and/or Two (2) Bedroom Units Only) - - - - P P - Manufactured Housing (As Permitted Per Chapter 18.66) Mobile Home Park - - - - C C - Senior Citizen Housing - - - - - - P 4 B. Residential Accessory Uses Accessory Structure P p p P P p pd Second Family Unit (As Permitted Per Chapter 18.69) C C C C CC- Guest House C C C C CC- Private Garage P p P p PP - Private Swimming Pool PP P p P P pd Home occupation (As Permitted Per Chapter 5.06) P p P P P P P ° Keeping of Cats and Dogs (Maximum of Two (2) Each) P P p P PPP ° Other Accessory Uses (As Approved by the Planning Director) P p p p p p Pd C. Other Uses Churches (Minimum Three-Acre Parcel) C C C C C C - Schools (Private and Parochial) C C C C CC- Public Park and Playground P P P p PP - Public Facilities (And Quasi- Public) C C C C CC- Day Care Center (Six (8) or Less Children) P P P P P P - Day Care Center (Seven (9) or More Children) C C C C CC- Residential Care Facility (Six (6) or Less Patients) PP P P PP- Residential Care Facility (Seven (7) or More Patients) C C C C CC- Utility or Service Facility C C C C CC- Outdoor Recreation Facility C C C C CC- D. Temporary Uses Temporary Uses (As approved by Planning Director) P P P P P p P ° Temporary Trailers (As Approved by Planning Director) P p P P PPP° Table 18.10.030 Footnotes a.A second single family detached unit (full sized single family detached dwelling) shall be permitted in the R2 zone provided that the lot or parcel in question meets the minimum area requirement for the R2 zone and that said lot or parcel is developed with no more than one single family detached dwelling. A site and architectural review application for the second family detached unit in accordance with Chapter 18.63 of the Zoning Code shall be required to be approved prior to the issuance of building permits. In addition, all development standards of the underlying zone must be adhered to; and any division in ownership among the structures on the lot or parcel in question shall conform to the subdivision laws of the State and City. b.A second family detached unit (full sized single family detached dwelling) shall be permitted in the R3 zone provided that the lot or parcel in question meets the minimum area requirements for the R3 zone and that said lot or parcel is developed with no more than one single family detached dwelling. A site and architectural review application for the second family detached unit in accordance with Chapter 18.63 of the Zoning Code shall be required to be approved prior to the issuance of building permits. In addition, all development standards of the underlying zone must be adhered to; and any division in ownership among the structures on the lot or parcel in question shall conform to the subdivision laws of the State and City. c."P" stands for "Permitted Use" where the use is permitted by right; and "C" stands for "Conditional Use" where the use requires a conditional use permit. d.Senior citizen housing is allowed in the R3-S up to maximum density of 20 unit/acre. A specific plan will be required for all senior citizen housing projects in this zone. Some accessory and temporary uses as indicated will be allowed in the R3-S zone with the approval of the Community Development Director. TABLE 18.10.040 Site Development Standards DEVELOPMENT ISSUE RH R20 R10 R7.2 R2 R3 R3-S Area (Minimum square feet) _ I 20,000 10,000 7,200 10,000 12,000 g Width (Minimum linear feet) * Interior Lot * Corner Lot _ a _ A 88 60 70 60 70 60 70 60 70 00 b e Lot Dept (Minimum linear feet) a 150 100 100 100 100 g Street Frontage _ a 50 40 40 40 40 g (Minimum linear feet) Setbacks (Minimum linear feet) * Front Yard a _ 25 b 25 b 25 b 25 b 25 b * Rear Yard a _ 35b 3 35b 20b 20 b 20 b * Side Yard - Interior Lot With Garage _ a 10b 10 b 10 b 10 b 10 b Without Gar. _ a 5 b 5b 5b 5b 5b - Corner Lot Street side _ a 15` 15` 15e 15e 15' No Street side _ a 5 5 5 5 10 Density (Allowable dwelling units per acre) _ a 1-2 1-4 1-5 1-9 1-12' Max. 20 Living Area ea be b e (Minimum square feet) a 1,350 d 1,350d 1,350d 1,350d 1,350d * Single Family * Duplex, Triplex, Four-plea and Multiple Family - One (1) Bedroom _ _ _ _ 800d 800d - Two (2) Bedroom - _ _ - 1,000 d 1,000 d Height (Maximum linear feet) _ a 35' 35' 35' 35` 35' s Lot Coverage _ a 40 50 50 60 1 60 s (Maximum percent) Distance Between Buildings a 5 5 5 20 20 g (Minimum linear feet) • Table 18.10.040 Footnotes a.A specific plan shall be required for all proposed projects (including tentative parcel or tract maps) which include any property located within this district. Such a specific plan shall establish site development standards on a project by project basis in consideration of the existing topography and other physical constraints. b.The specific plan shall not create a density greater than one (1) dwelling unit per gross acre and shall be consistent with the City's General Plan. The specific plan may consider a clustered development concept in order to preserve large areas open space and minimize the project's impact on the physical environment. c.The following exceptions apply to front, rear and side yard requirements as noted: 1.The minimum side and rear yard setback for a patio cover shall be five (5) feet. 2.The minimum rear yard setback for an accessory structure shall be ten (10) feet. 3.Slopes exceeding five percent (5%) shall be permitted no closer to a residential structure than a distance equal to the required side and rear yard setbacks. In the R1-10 District and the R1-20 District, the 35 foot rear yard setback may include 10 feet of slope that is greater than 5%. 4.In the case of a parcel or tract map, the twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback requirement may range from twenty-two (22) feet to twenty-eight (28) feet, with an average of twenty-five (25) feet for all proposed lots. 5.In the case where an existing legal non-conforming structure is located within a required setback area, the legal non-conforming structure may be enlarged within the required setback area subject to the following conditions: a)The proposed addition does not further reduce the depth of the existing setback area; and b)The proposed addition is located no closer than 5' from any property line. c)Density bonus 1)A density bonus of up to twenty percent (20%) may be approved with a conditional use permit or specific plan if various off-site improvements which benefit the general public are included in the project. 2)A density bonus of at least twenty-five percent (25%) shall be approved if the proposed project meets the requirements of Chapter 4.2 of the California Government Code regarding "Lower" and "Low or Moderate Income Households" dwelling units. d. For the purposes of this Chapter, the following terms shall be defined as follows: 1."Living area" shall be defined as the enclosed area of a residential dwelling unit, excluding porches, patios, carports, garages, storage areas, or auxiliary rooms. 2."Multiple Family" shall be defined as one (1) or two (2) bedroom units only. e. Accessory structures shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height, with exceptions as listed in Section 18.73.090 of this Chapter. f.Not more than the permitted percent of the total parcel may be devoted to main and accessory structures, parking areas, driveways and covered patios. The remaining percent of the total parcel shall be devoted to open areas such as landscaping, lawn, outdoor recreational facilities incidental to residential development, including swimming pools, tennis courts, putting greens, uncovered patios and walkways. Said open areas shall consist of not less than two hundred (200) square feet of open space per dwelling unit. g.Senior citizen housing's development standards will be established through, the specific plan process. All senior citizens housing projects in the R3-S zone will reouire specific plan process; however. In no circumstance shall the density exceed 20 unit/acre. ^,l'7A:17.7-3,.VI '444 • • Attachment 3 a_ * CD CD cn 0 -0 0 -0 Tj (E.-• (1) z =ii • • Li • • z a) (T) 0 DJ ?< CD CD N -cz 6 r.) 'CT N CT Q o- --% CCD 6 -_, I 0 -a OD a) 0 . 01 RECEIVED August 30, 2011 To: Sandra Molina Fm: Darryl Moore Re: PRD workshop AUG 3 0 2011 Community & Economic Development Department I have read your draft ordinance and I think it is good. But I have a couple of suggestions. First, in the list of amenities, allow a pocket park amounting to at least 2% of the site area to count as an amenity. Second, under Parking allow parking on one side if the street is 30' wide and on 2 sides if it is 34' wide — all subject to Fire Department approval. For reference, Minona St. is 36' curb to curb. One planning strategy is to make the streets a little narrow so that people are forced to slow down. Using Minona again as an example, with cars parked on both sides, people sometimes zoom down the street at over 40 mph. So, overly wide streets are not necessarily a plus. Also I would like to have the following language considered for inclusion in the ordinance: C.1.a. Rounding. If application of the underlying zoning density to the project acreage results in a fractional unit entitlement, then the allowed units may be increased to the next whole number unit. This rounding shall be done before crediting any density bonus allowances. If such bonuses also result in a fractional unit entitlement, then that entitlement shall be rounded to the next whole unit. b.Lot Consolidations. If lots in a previously approved tract are consolidated to fewer lots in a revised tract map, then the revised tract shall be entitled to a 10% density bonus. c.Grandfathering. Any density allowed in a previously approved final tract map shall be allowed in any revision of the tract map provided there is no change in the boundaries of the tract. Page 1 of 1 SANDRA MOLINA - PRD Ordinance From: ''Darryl Moore" <dmoore@catanzarite.corn> To: "SANDRA MOLINA" <SMOLINA@cityofgrandterrace.org > Date: 8/31/2011 3:20 PM Subject: PRD Ordinance Sand ra- I noticed one more clause in your proposed ordinance I have a concern with. It is section 10.c.vi. Zero Lot Line Setback. I have an application lam looking at where we might want to ask for zero lot line against an attached garage and I don't think there is a problem (I can show you a site plan). To me this should be grantable by the Director next a garage (attached or otherwise) and next to any wall without windows. Also note that there is a jump in your numbering. You skip from section 10 to section 12. I didn't see a section 11. Darryl E. Moore Aegis Builders & Developers 2331 W. Lincoln Ave. Anaheim, Ca 92801 cell 626.827.4496 ph 714.520,5544 fax 714.520.0680 file://C: \Documents and Settinas\ smolina\Local Settings \ Temn \ XPor R/R1 /9(111 Community and Economic Development Department Grand Terrace CALIFORNIA GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2011 The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on September 1, 2011, at 6:30 p.m., by Chairman Doug Wilson. PRESENT: Doug Wilson, Chairman Matthew Addington, Vice Chairman Tom Comstock, Commissioner Robert Bailes, Commissioner Sandra Molina, Senior Planner John Harper, City Attorney Mari Montes, Secretary 6:30 P.M.: CONVENE SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Chairman Wilson convened the Site and Architectural Review Board/Planning Commission meeting. •Call to Order — Chairman Wilson •Pledge of Allegiance — Commissioner Comstock •Roll Call — Absent, Commissioner Kongtang •Public address to the Commission shall be limited to three minutes unless extended by the Chairman. Should you desire to make a longer presentation, please make written request to be agendized to the Director of Community and Economic Development. 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 Planning Commission may not discuss or act on any item not on the agenda, but may briefly respond to statements made or ask a question for clarification. The Chairman may also request a brief response from staff to questions raised during public comment or may request a matter be agendized for a future meeting. 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, 92313-5295 909/824-6621 Fax 909/783-2600 GENERAL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: R.A. "Barney" Barnett, 474 Prospect Avenue, Highgrove — Provided an update on the Metrolink station. RCTC would like to place a station stop at Marlborough Avenue but would not benefit Grand Terrace. Grand Terrace has supported the station stop at Highgrove since 2001, with a letter of recommendation. There has been a second idea to use the property that RCTC owns in Highgrove for a regional stop. There will be an upcoming meeting and they will be looking at Highgrove again for a station stop. Mr. Barnett provided an article to the Planning Commission that he has written and published in the Highgrove local paper with information on the station project. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR 1.1 MINUTES: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 2, 2011 RECOMMENDATION: Approval MOTION PC 14-2011 Commissioner Comstock made a motion to approve the minutes of June 2, 2011. Second by Commissioner Bailes Motion carries 4-1, with Commissioner Kongtang absent. 1.2 MINUTES: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 14, 2011 RECOMMENDATION: Approval MOTION PC 15-2011 Commissioner Comstock made a motion to approve the minutes of July 14, 2011. Second by Vice Chairman Addington Motion carries 4-1, with Commissioner Kongtang absent. 2.PUBLIC WORKSHOP 2.1 SUBJECT: Workshop #6 — Zoning Code Update RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a public workshop on Planned Residential Development provisions 2 Planning Commission Minutes-09/0112011 Senior Planner Molina — Stated the workshop is based on the direction from previous Planning Commission meetings. Referred to the staff report with attachments provided and site plans from previously discussed condo projects for reference. Attachment #2, is the current development standards, which was provided for comparison purposes when reviewing the draft PRD provisions. Presented the regulations that are proposed to be inserted into the existing residential chapter. These types of regulations would make more sense in an area of the City that are infill and constrained so there is the flexibility that would help the site develop. Section A refers to the purpose of the guidelines. There was previous discussion of some concern of blanket of PRD provisions that could be applied to any property in the City. Specifically, that it should not be done in the single family residential districts, would apply to the R-2 or R-3 districts. The Commission wanted more of a comfort level as to which lots Staff were talking about. Section B identifies potential properties that the provisions could be applied upon. Staff is not proposing a zone change to identify the particular lots as PRD. Attachment #3 shows aerial photographs of the lots. There are five parcels that are referred. The PRD would not allow any use not allowed by the underlining zone, also the density for the General Plan and Zone consistency would also have to be within the density standards of the R- 2 or R-3 zone. Another item that was referred to were provisions for density bonuses. State Law grants density bonus if affordable housing is provided. Chairman Wilson — Asked what was the understanding for the cap on the density bonus? Senior Planner Molina — Responded depending on the households that are geared for the affordable units. The lower income household would garner a greater density bonus as opposed to a moderate income household, the City is bound to this by the State. Chairman Wilson — Asked if what is being mentioned is on a case by case basis? Is staff considering a point system or going on the Director's feel? Senior Planner Molina — Responded it would not be a point system but on some quantification. Indicated there was some correspondence on behalf of Daryl Moore and provided a copy to the Commission. Noted that City Attorney, John Harper is present this evening to provide further comments. Lot coverage, 60% is what the City Code refers to at this time. What is different is the Development Code states the paved driveway and parking area count towards lot coverage. City staff is not proposing to include, this would apply strictly to structures. Open space, City staff is requesting a minimum of 25% of the lot to be open space. This could not be the paved area or drive isles. If any of these areas are less than 10 feet in any dimension then it would not be counted towards open space. Staff is trying to avoid where the only landscaping within a project area is an amenity. Private open space, City is referring that at least 250 square feet should be private open space. Commissioner Comstock — Asked if a homeowner comes in, and would like to place a shed or other structure and diminishes the size of the patio area. What does the City have in place to prevent something like this happening? Chairman Wilson — Responded, there would the CC&R's and building restrictions. City Attorney John Harper — There would be a required building permit and the homeowner would have to prove it is not violating lot coverage. Chairman Wilson — Commented in addition to this there are setbacks. The homeowner could not place such structure on the property line, they would have to observe side yard setbacks. 3 Planning Commission Minutes-09/01/2011 Senior Planner Molina — Continued with the amenities. If there 12 or more units then there would be a need for an amenity. The amenities are subject to the Planning Commission's approval. If there was ever a PRD project with 75 units or more the Planning Commission would determine how many amenities would be required. One of the things that the PRD is trying to do is cover both the attached multi family units and detached single family in the R-2 and R-3 district. What has been written in the note to amenities is when there is the mix of those two type of uses it makes sense to have amenities. The height is what the zoning district limits, 35 feet. You can have 3 stories if you are adjacent to a R-2 or R-3 zone. On the circulation many of these projects will probably be private streets. A comment by Vice Chairman Addington mentioned that the project should be specific to public works construction standards and not right a way standards under the City requirement. Senior Planner Molina did speak with the Fire Department and mentioned the minimum street width would be 26 feet. Depending on the project may want two points of in and out access. Would defer this to the Fire Department and based on project see what would be appropriate. Staff is requesting articulation, when there are attached units. For project setbacks Staff is trying to address the two different types of products. Under the project setbacks, when there is an attached multi family project the perimeter setbacks make sense. The Code requires 25 feet for front yard, 15 feet for rear yard, 10 feet for side yard and 10 feet for street/side yard. When there are attached units from a curb face there should be certain setbacks. Staff considered an 18 foot setback to support a car, however is recommending a drive way should be at least 15 feet. Chairman Wilson — Asked if Staff wanted to indicate what the garage setback should be versus the house? Senior Planner Molina — Responded yes, asked if this setback would be sufficient to park a car? Chairman Wilson — Responded not necessarily. Vice Chairman Addington — Commented that in many cases the driveway would be 5 feet long. Chairman Wilson — Commented there should be a stipulation that there be an automatic roll up garage door. Senior Planner Molina — Indicated that another reason for the setback from the curb face is that at a 5 to 10 foot setback you get an area that is landscaped and get a nicer product, more of a family neighborhood. Vice Chairman Addington — Concurred with the suggestion. Commissioner Comstock — Commented he is not comfortable changing the standards away from the current zoning standards. Senior Planner Molina — Stated when looking at the projects these are built to the current standards. There were some variances provided for the project. This process is to provide some flexibility. Understands Commissioner Comstock's concern but the previous projects were from the current zoning standards. Commissioner Comstock — Commented to the public comments and testimony on how small the homes are and how narrow the streets are. He has noticed when projects are presented and are asking for variances based on the current zoning. He does not see this as a benefit, to the quality of life or service vehicles. The setbacks were set in the Zoning Code for a reason. He is 4 Planning Commission Minutes-09/0112011 not comfortable to establish different standards in the PRD Code, then having the builder come in and change the Code some more. Vice Chairman Addington — Commented he understood Commissioner Comstock concerns. Understands the need for PRD's but is not sure if the City is ready for these projects. States Senior Planner Molina is doing an excellent job. The setbacks that are being presented would work well for the quality of life within the City. Chairman Wilson — Commented that not everyone wants to buy a space where a home gets a car outside. Sometimes though it encourages people to use their garage. When space is provided for vehicle outside people find a reason to place junk in the garage. Probably may need to address from this point. Believes it would be good to hear from the public on their thoughts. Senior Planner Molina — Indicated she understands where Commissioner Comstock is coming from and that he is raising a valid point on the standards. What some other cities have done is say developer's could request to deviate from any of the R-2 standards and then look at it on a case by case basis but have the baseline that's in place. Maybe this would address the concerns of the public and members of the Commission. With regard to the parking issue, it is being stated if one provides the minimum width that the Fire Department wants and a little more then street parking can be done. The PRD section lists the procedures, which is to follow the Site and Architectural Review. Would establish what the findings would be, which is what the Site and Architectural Review requires but have also added additional ones to justify the flexibility in the standards. Commented on the letter provided by Mr. Daryl Moore. He liked what he saw but did have a few suggestions. One was to allow a pocket park to count as an amenity if the project met the site area. He believes it is a case by case basis depending on the site constraints. Mr. Moore asked about the street parking. Senior Planner Molina would like to consult more with the Fire Department and traffic engineer on this matter. Chairman Wilson — Commented on the Fire Department street width, referred to the 20 foot minimum parking width. He provided an example on the 2.5 acres of commercial property on Mount Vernon and Barton Road. If there is an eight foot width parking space and another eight foot width parking space this would equal the minimum width, 36 feet, on both sides. Senior Planner Molina — Indicated Mr. Moore did give an example of the local streets having a curb to curb width of 36 feet. She did ask the Fire Department for this type of project, what the minimum with would be and they confirmed it was 26 feet. That was also the minimum for the fire lanes at the Barton Plaza project. She understands the concern and would like to consult some more with the Fire Department on this matter. Chairman Wilson — Asked Senior Planner Molina when she follows up on this matter could she determine where to measure from when there is rolled curb. As there are times you can pick up another foot and a half on a rolled curb and lends itself to the R-2 and R-3 issues. Senior Planner Molina — Continued that Mr. Moore also included additional recommendations, one being the rounding of numbers. This was looked at in the Zoning Code update. Referred to Attorney John Harper and stated the sense is if it does not exceed the maximum density this might be something that could be looked at on the rounding. John Harper — Responded he did not believe there was any philosophical or legal objection. Was not quite sure and is assuming, rounding means that if exceeded by some fixed percentage. 5 Planning Commission Minutes-09/01/2011 Chairman Wilson — Stated if one is referring to 4.6 this would mean 5. John Harper — Indicated Staff may want to add some specific factional amount. Chairman Wilson — Stated this is something that could be included in definition. Senior Planner Molina — Stated another two recommendations, from Mr. Moore, allowing a density bonus for lot consolidation and to allow Grandfathering for previously approved tracts. These raise density concerns, the only density bonus that does not require a general plan amendment to be consistent would be an affordable housing density bonus. John Harper — Commented the lot consolidation, if one exceeds the density by two lots, (10%) then you would reduce it by two lots to comply with the density. You would get the 10% bonus and would be back were one started. In addition there is no potential for density bonus or otherwise, excluding affordable housing, for exceeding per general plan. Vice Chairman Addington — Commented on lot consolidations. Refers to what Mr. Moore was indicating, if the parcel was reverted back to acreage, change the zoning, redevelop and then obtain the additional bonuses. This would be Planning Commission and Staff decision should this ever come up. Senior Planner Molina — Indicated this scenario already has the rezoning folded into it. As she understands, Mr. Moore is proposing the bonus would apply for a lot consolidation without the zone change. Vice Chairman Addington — Stated he is looking at this from the subdivision map book. Chairman Wilson — Indicated instead of going back and forth, would allow Mr. Moore define what he is referring to. Asked for response on a previous request, what the average densities are for R-2 and R-3 zones for the area. Senior Planner Molina — Responded she obtained some information but would need to verify the numbers. Provided the requested information. Chairman Wilson — Commented the City is behind in relation to allowable densities, other than an affordable. Chairman asked if the General Plan goes past 12? Senior Planner Molina — Responded it identifies when it would go 20 units per acre, but would still need to do the General Plan amendment and rezoning. Vice Chairman Addington — Indicate when referring to the site must measure 22,000 square feet, can it be noted if this gross or net acreage? Senior Planner Molina — Responded City would be referring to net acreage, would not count the street width. Vice Chairman Addington — Requested for this to be defined some place to make a little more clearer. For examples on the LEEDS and other equivalent standards, can a definition be given as to what standard is being referred to? Chairman Wilson — Referred to item #5, private open space. Asked Staff if they believed this would encourage open space. Would like to add this to City policy, that would encourage private open space. 6 Planning Commission Minutes-09/01/2011 Senior Planner Molina — Responded this can be added. Asked if encouraging would mean a higher minimum square footage? Chairman Wilson — Indicated this would be O.K., wanted to make sure there was some degree of private open space. PUBLIC COMMENT Daryl Moore, 22750 Minona Drive — Commented on the impact on this concept. This would not change the character of Grand Terrace, this would help get projects started. The reference has been made to the problems at the Hidden Gate and various projects within the City. He believes the items that need to be looked at are the projects that are being referred to as a different type of product, not just a cookie cutter. If they are properly executed it would be an asset to the City. Mr. Moore provided a letter to Senior Planner Molina, but did miss an item on item #4. On the 25% open space, this ordinance is written for both attached and detached units. The 25% is too high and should be lowered to 15%. The private open space is very important, referred to item #4, Staff excluded private patios and believes they should be included. Under item #10, there was a minimum lot of 4,500 square foot and Mr. Moore suggested a 3,500 square foot lot. For PUD facilities and garage serving under a rear drive it is feasible to have a lot this small. In regards to the rounding and Grandfathering, this is language he developed to resolve the density problem. Commented and referred to the Preston lot. Bobbie Forbes, 11850 Burns Avenue — Indicated she is glad to see the communication and changes. The point about parking in front the of the garage, she believes the vehicles would be parked sideways. Residents do not want to walk when it comes to enter their homes. Bigger vehicles can barely get through, someone should drive thru and see the issues. Extra parking is real important as most homes have more than two cars or a work truck. Jeffery McConnell, Walnut Avenue — Commented on the minimum square foot lots. When there is a large minimum square foot lot, 3,500 sq. ft., this eliminates the reason why people do not do two bedroom units because it is not cost effective. When there is a square foot of 3,500- 4,500 this would allow a 3 bedroom, 2 bath house. There is a need for variety of housing stock, including multiple dwellings. Does see the need for these type of homes as you will have families wanting to move into and stay in Grand Terrace due to the incoming high school. Asked Staff what full build-out of the Grand Terrace Housing Element really is, as far as the numbers in population? If some of the projects do not receive the amount or desired approval then this would take out of the full build out. There is a need for more demographics in the City. If the City bumps up a little higher density it still would not be as dense as other cities. Allowing the density there would be benefit of $1.6 million dollars in building fees and would help the City overall. Directed his comment to Commissioner Comstock, each project goes before design and architectural review process. If it is not what is desired then you can make changes at that point. Moved on to the Karger project, they have a four foot apron. Made a suggestion of minimum garage with 22 feet and the door shifted to the side. This would leave enough space for residents to build storage areas. Indicated there was a need for multiple element stock. There has been past comments that there is no desire to build apartment complexes. Chairman Wilson — Indicated page 4 of 6, detached units. Item #1, minimum lot size, believes it is a valid point about two bedroom, two bath units. Asked Staff what the other cities are doing? 7 Planning Commission Minutes-09/01/2011 Senior Planner Molina — Referred back to the chart table, a small lot division of 5,000 square feet. Vice Chairman Addington — Asked if the condominium would fall under a different Zoning than the Planned Residential Development? Senior Planner Molina — Responded a condominium could qualify as a Planned Residential Development. Vice Chairman Addington — Asked if there is a condo project then the City would want a minimum lot size? Senior Planner Molina — Responded there are two different products that the section is trying to address. Chairman Wilson — Referred to previous attachment. Various cities are yes on small lots and would be in favor of a 3,500 square feet on a detached project for special circumstances. Vice Chairman Addington — Indicated he knows of other agencies who do go smaller. He has worked on projects where there was 2,000 square feet of building on an 1,800 square foot lot. He agrees that 3,500 square feet is reasonable. Chairman Wilson — Commented on a project in Moreno Valley on Dream Street that was built 30 years ago and became an undesirable. It was not a 3,500 square foot lot, it was a single car garage with a front door. This is not what is happening here, this would be a 50x70 for R-2, R-3 issues. There are specific situations where this can work well for private ownership. Vice Chairman Addington — Indicated the size would work as the typical lot size is 70x100. Would still have green space and zero yard setback, have a decent wide house with a 10 foot wide private space on the side. The Commission should give this consideration in the public discussion. Commissioner Comstock — Stated he is uncomfortable with the concept, as it keeps shrinking. He likes Grand Terrace as is it is different from other communities. Realizes this is envisioned for half of a dozen properties in the community. There was a good point that was brought up regarding the condos, being considered under PRD's. He does not have problem with doing a 3,500 square foot lot on one or two projects provided it fits the project well and is a desirable product. Does have a problem that it's a slope that opens the door. Would like to see the ability to make this a case by case basis and brought before the Planning Commission to vote on each individual project. Vice Chairman Addington — Commented he shares many of the feelings Commission Comstock has, is not a big proponent of the PRD's. Does need to consider that the City is built out, is an infill City. The City should have a baseline for development standards to allow the odd shaped parcels to move forward and develop. There are many benefits to having a lot developed than being bare. The City has a good baseline, should support it and move forward. Jeffery McConnell — Referred to Vivienda and Grand Terrace Road parcel, a project of six units was presented to the Planning Commission a few years back. It went through the architectural and design review and was knocked down. Here is the checkpoint on a case by case basis. Commissioner Comstock — Stated comment. The City purchases a parcel, demolishes the buildings and changes the zoning. Envisions twenty years down the line, that one would want to 8 Planning Commission Minutes-09/01/2011 increase the density. Then you take the PRD code that is being put together today and change the entirety of Grand Terrace. He does not think one would want to see many of these projects within the City. Jeffery McConnell — Asked City staff what is the approximate percentage of multiple dwelling parcels or land area compared to the rest of the City? Senior Planner Molina — Responded she does not have the answer on hand. Jeffery McConnell — Asked if it would it be between 10-20%? It would not be a large percentage. He lives in the neighborhood and worst case scenario would be someone changing the R-1. Does not believe this can be done as the State requires there be a certain amount of percentage of manufacturing, industrial, etc. Vice Chairman Addington — Asked Commissioner Comstock if the example he was alluding to was to what they are doing in the beach communities? Taking a 50 foot wide lot and subdividing it into two 25 foot lots. He understands this is on the ridiculous side. Asked Senior Planner Molina if there is a way the PRD ordinance can be taken and applied to specific lots, through zoning, or something else? Senior Planner Molina — Responded, what has been done is identifying lots where it could occur, not that it would have to occur. If Staff did an overlay on particular lots this does entail the zone change. Staff is trying to avoid a zone change to the map as this would trigger a higher level of the Environmental Review. Vice Chairman Addington — Asked what Senior Planner Molina meant by map? Senior Planner Molina — Responded this would be a change to the text development code and identifies potential lots. It does not create an overlay or a new zone, if it is created then it would be subject to a higher level of review. Vice Chairman Addington — Asked if the project would require a higher level review or a review like the general plan? Senior Planner Molina — Indicated this would require a higher level of review, to specifically identify in the PRD lots. That Staff may want to include as a zone change or an overlay just the ordinance and identifying through some sort of overall or zone change those particular lots. Vice Chairman Addington — Asked if it would be a higher level review of this ordinance? Senior Planner Molina — Responded yes. John Harper — Commented this would apply theoretically in every lot in the City, also as a particular matter it really applies to the City, Inaudible. Chairman Wilson — Indicated it would have to be justified, the market would also have something to do with this. Commissioner Comstock — Commented this issue needs to proceed and move forward, has many objections but has to be comfortable with this. Does agree there should be a review of each project as it comes case by case. 9 Planning Commission Minutes-09/01/2011 Senior Planner Molina — Stated there is another option to say a PRD applicant can flex from any of the standards and leave it open to what is already in the R-2, R-3 zone. The Planning Commission would consider this on case by case basis. Bobbie Forbes — Commented she has had recent issues in showing condos. Has one at Azure Hills in escrow and is a PUD, Cape Terrace is also a PUD. Having them at PUD's keeps the property values up. Have been showing condos in neighboring cities and they are horrible, the HOA's have no money due to the REO's and so the properties are not kept up. Would not like to see this happen here. Daryl Moore — Indicated he has lived in Grand Terrace from many years. He really likes the big lots and the way Staff has written this it would be applicable to R-2, R-3. It does not seem to be very exciting as there are few lots this can be done on. There is always the potential that lots can be rezoned to R-2, R-3, it is possible some homes can be torn down to do this. Would like the Commission to consider the rounding of numbers, perhaps to clarify with the City Attorney, as it seems to him that administrative rounding rules could be implemented without being in conflict with the General Plan. John Harper — Responded Mr. Moore may have misunderstood, the comments of findings of consistency with the General Plan and Zoning had to do with other issues. As for rounding it would be a matter of interpretation. Daryl Moore — Stated under normal rounding rules 0.5 or above you round to next number. Under the current rules his project would get 9.4 and would like to round up to the next unit as it is a good plan. He has not brought his plan forward as it would cost him money to have it drawn and landscaped then have it turned down. It would be a waste of money for him. Chairman Wilson — Stated he hopes there was a consensus. There are a few things they may want to retool. Asked Senior Planner Molina if Staff is to a point where this can be brought back to the Commission as a public hearing as an Ordinance? Senior Planner Molina — Responded yes but was concerned about the 10-day hearing notification from the next meeting. She will look into this and confirm. 10 Planning Commission Minutes-09/01/2011 Respectfully Submitted, Approved By, ( Joy6e Powers Community and Economic Development Director Doug Wilson, Chairman Planning Commission 3.INFORMATION TO COMMISSIONERS None 4.INFORMATION FROM COMMISSIONERS Vice Chairman Addington — Stated he would not able available for the September 15 th meeting. Commissioner Bailes — Stated he would be out of town and not available for the September 15 th meeting. CHAIRMAN WILSON ADJOURNED THE SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO THE NEXT MEETING TO BE HELD ON OCTOBER 6, 2011. 11 Planning Commission Minutes-09/01/2011 Attachment 3 Aerial Photographs of Properties Identified in Ordinance APN: 0275-251-04 Approx. 35,130 sqft. Zone: R3 12 du/ac GP: MDR Identified to be re- designated: 20 du/ac N 12056 Preston St. Approx. 33,977 sqft. Zone: BRSP-OP GP: OP BRSP allows Multi- family infill 12 du/ac N APN: 1167-341-78 Approx. 58,085 sqft. Zone: R3 12 du/ac GP: MDR Identified to be re- designated: 20 du/ac * * Identified to be re- designated: 20 du/ac N APN: 0275-211-09 171,000 sqft. Zone: R2 9 du/ac GP: MDR APN: 0275-191-15 107,726 sqft. Zone: R2 9 du/ac GP: MDR APN: 0275-211-58 35,500 sqft. Zone: R2 9 du/ac GP: MDR N Attachment 4 Reports, Correspondence and Minutes Planning Commission Hearing October 6, 2011 rand Terrace CALIFORNIA PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Community and Economic Development Department DATE: October 6, 2011 SUBJECT: Zoning Code Amendment 11-02 RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a public hearing and move to recommend City Council approval of Zoning Code Amendment 11-02 BACKGROUND On July 21, 2011, and September 1, 2011, the Planning Commission conducted two public workshops on planned residential development (PRD) provisions. At the September meeting, the Commission directed staff to schedule for public hearing proposed new Section 18.10.090 (Planned Residential Development). Attachment 1 contains proposed Section 18.10.090. Changes are shown in underline and strikeout format. DISCUSSION Subsection B Applicability Subsection B.1 identifies specific parcels within the R2 and R3 zones where a PRD could be proposed, and gives the Planning Commission the flexibility to consider other R2 and R3 sites on a case by case basis. This subsection has been revised to delete the reference to the mapping exhibit, as it is simpler to codify without the mapping. However, for reference the aerial maps are shown in Attachment 2. Please note that the size and boundaries of the property on Page 3 of this Attachment have been revised to reflect a recorded lot line adjustment. B.2 has been revised to define "net area", which means the horizontal area within lot lines, excluding any public or private easement, street, public right of way or driveway area. Staff Report Zoning Code Amendment 11-02 Page 2 of 3 Subsection C Development Standards Subsection C.1 has been revised to identify rounding up of fraction/decimal results for multiple family projects. At the September 1, 2011, workshop, a threshold for rounding up was not provided. However, rounding up language for multiple family projects was discussed by the Planning Commission at a January 20, 2011, workshop to discuss new Chapter 18.07 Interpretation of Regulations. The proposed Chapter included a threshold for rounding up on multiple family projects, and the threshold is if the fraction is 0.7 or more. This threshold has been included in the proposed recommendations. Subsection C.10.b has been revised to increase the driveway depth to 17 feet. This has been done in response to a comment from a member of the public that if the driveway depth is not sufficient that residents would park their cars across the driveway, length- wise. Staff researched the exterior length dimensions of various vehicles and the exterior length runs from 14.3 feet to almost 21 feet. The typical sedan such as a Chevy Malibu, Toyota Camry or Honda Accord, are approximately 16 feet in length. Changes to Subsection C.10.c include reduction on the recommended lot size for detached to 3,500 net square feet, and an increase in the front yard setback to accommodate driveway parking, as discussed above. Subsection C.11.a was changed to reduce curb to curb width or driveway width from 36 feet to 33 feet with on street parking on one side. This accommodates County Fire requirements for two-way access and parking on one side of a street. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the Project is not subject to CEQA, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) because the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the Zoning Code Amendment is not subject to CEQA. The Project establishes standards and procedures for planned residential development projects, but does not include any development activities. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice of the hearing was provided by publishing a legal advertisement in The Sun newspaper and public posting a minimum of ten days prior to the October 6, 2011, hearing date. YAZone Change_Amendments\ZCA 11-02_PRD Regs\PC Staff Report_10.6.2011.doc Staff Report Zoning Code Amendment 11-02 Page 3 of 3 CONCLUSION: The proposed Planned Residential Development standards and procedures have been prepared at and in accordance with the Planning Commission's direction. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission move to recommend City Council adoption Section 18.10.090 (Planned Residential Development). Respectfully Submitted, Prepared by, ,2z91e& IbuyA4-- JOYCE POWERS Community and Economic Development Director SANDRA MOLINA Senior Planner Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Resolution w/ proposed PRD regulations 2. Aerial photographs depicting R2 and R3 sites Y:\Zone Change_Amendments1ZCA 11-02_PRD Regs\PC Staff Report_10.6.2011.doc RESOLUTION NO. NO. 2011- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 11-02 TO ADD SECTION 18.10.090 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO CHAPTER 18.10 OF TITLE 18 OF THE GRAND TERRACE MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 65800 and 65850 of the California Government Code, the City may adopt ordinances to regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land as between industry, business, residences, and open space, and other purposes; to regulate the location, height, bulk, number of stories and size of buildings and structures, the size and use of lots, yards, courts and other open spaces, the percentage of a lot which may be occupied by a building or structure, and the intensity of land use; and to establish requirements for off-street parking, in compliance with the California Government Code. WHEREAS, Chapter 18.90 of the Municipal Code provides a process for the amendment of the Zoning Code. WHEREAS, the Project, as contemplated, proposes to establish a new Section 18.10.090 Planned Residential Development in order to facilitate the development of infill lots that may be otherwise constrained due to lot size, configuration, and/or topography. WHEREAS, on July 21, 2011, and September 1, 2011, the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace conducted two public workshops on the planned residential development (PRD) provisions. WHEREAS, on October 6, 2011, the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace conducted a duly noticed public hearing on proposed Section 18.10.090 Planned Residential Development at the Grand Terrace City Hall Council Chambers located 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, CA 92313 and concluded the hearing by voting to recommend City Council approval of the proposed Amendment. WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace, as follows 1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the above Recitals, are true and correct. 2. Based on substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the October 6, 2011, public hearing, including public testimony, and written and oral staff reports, the Planning Commission specifically finds as follows with regard to Zoning Code Amendment 11-02: a.Zone Change 10-01 will not be 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 because any future development in accordance with the provisions are still subject to applicable building and fire codes, and the provisions provide for setbacks, open space, parking and building height regulations. b.Zone Change 10-01 will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or within the city because it will not preclude the continued use and/or development of surrounding properties. c.Zone Change 10-010 is consistent with the latest adopted General Plan, such as Goal 2.1 to provide for balanced growth which seeks to provide a wide range of employment and housing opportunities and maintenance of a healthy, diversified community, and Policy 9.3.1 because it provides incentives for incorporating "green" building design into project design. 3. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend Title 18 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code by adding Section 18.10.090 to Chapter 18.10 described in Exhibit 1 attached hereto. 4. The City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace, California, at a regular meeting held on the 6 th day of October, 2011. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Tracey Martinez City Clerk Doug Wilson Chairman, Planning Commission Page 2 of 8 Exhibit 1 SECTION 18.10.090 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Section 18.10.090 Planned Residential Development A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide a process for approving a planned residential development that is intended to: 1.Allow for flexibility and creativity in the development of infill lots otherwise constrained due to lot size, configuration and/or surroundings; 2.Provide a method whereby land may be designed and developed as a unified site by taking advantage of efficient site planning techniques thereby resulting in a more efficient use of land, a better living environment, excellence of design, and related enhanced amenities than is otherwise possible through strict application of the development standards of the underlying zoning classification; 3.Ensure development that meets high standards of environmental quality, public health and safety, the efficient use of the City's resources, and the purpose, intent, goals, policies, actions, and land use designations of the General Plan, and any applicable specific plan; and B. Applicability. 1.Permitted zones. A planned residential development shall be permitted on those parcels identified A .2 • within the R2—Low Medium and R3—Medium Density Residential Zone districts. As determined by the Planning Commission on a case by case basis, a planned residential development may be proposed on any site other than those listed in subparagraph "a", provided that it meets the applicability requirements of this section a. A planned residential development may be proposed on the following properties: Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 0275-191-15, 0275-211-09, 0275-211-58, 0275-251-04, 0276-202-74, and 1167- 341-038. 2.Minimum Site Area. A planned residential development may only be requested for a site(s) with a minimum size of 22,000 net square feet. a. Net area shall mean the total horizontal area within the lot lines of a lot, excluding public or private easement, any street, drive aisle, or right of way area. Page 3 of 8 Exhibit 1 3. Permitted Uses. A planned residential development project shall not authorize a use that is not allowed in the base zoning district. C. Development Standards. 1. Density: Density within a planned residential development shall comply with the permitted density of the underlying zone district. a. The fractional/decimal results of calculations of the number of multiple housing units allowed within a land use zoning district shall be rounded down to the next lowest whole number. If a fraction is 0.7 or more, the Director may recommend the higher whole number to the Commission based on other development standards and regulations being met. 2. Density bonus: A density bonus may be granted as follows: a.A density bonus shall be granted for affordable housing developments in accordance with the density bonus provisions of Government Code Section 65915; b.A 20% density bonus with evidence that the project can be certified in LEED, California Green Builder or equivalent standard; or c.A 10% density bonus for construction of the project to meet or exceed more than a 20% increase above Title 24 requirements. 3. Lot coverage: Lot coverage shall not exceed 60% of the lot area. Lot coverage includes primary and accessory structures, covered patios and garages. 4. Open space: A minimum of 25% of the lot area shall be open and unobstructed. Paved areas, drive aisles, parking areas, private patios, or areas between structures less than 10 feet in any dimension, shall not be counted towards open space, covet -ago. Ten percent of open amenity areas may be counted toward the open space requirement. 5. Private open space: A minimum of 250 square feet of private open space per dwelling unit shall be provided, with no dimension less than 10 feet. Architectural elements with no habitable space may encroach into private open spaces. 6. Amenities: Amenities may include a swimming pool, clubhouse, tot lot with play equipment, picnic shelter with barbeque area, basketball, tennis, or other recreational amenities. The type of amenities shall be approved by the Planning Commission. Amenities shall be provided as follows: Page 4 of 8 Exhibit 1 Number of Units Number of Amenities 0-11 0 12-24 1 25-50 2 51-75 3 75+ as determined by the Planning Commission Note: Where a mix of attached and detached units is proposed, amenities shall be provided pursuant to this subsection. 7 Height: 35 feet, 2 1/2 stories. Three-stories may be permitted when adjacent to an R-2 or R-3 zone district. 8. Circulation a.Private streets shall be permitted only when a Homeowner's Association is established to maintain them. b.Private streets shall be built to public works construction standards. c.Street/Drive Aisle Width: A minimum of 26 feet, curb to curb with no on-street parking shall be provided. Where one-way access is proposed, the minimum width shall conform to County Fire standards. d.Two points of vehicular ingress and egress to a public street shall be provided. Except that for smaller projects or where the applicant can show that this is a physical impossibility, the appropriate fire authority may modify this requirement if the fire authority determines that emergency access is adequate for the project. 9. Number of attached dwelling units. Attached dwelling units shall not exceed 8 units. Any building with 6 or more units shall provide a minimum two foot variation along the building wall plane. 10. Project Setbacks: a. Perimeter setbacks: i.Front yard: 20 feet ii.Rear yard: 15 feet iii.Side yard: 10 feet Page 5 of 8 Exhibit 1 iv. Street Side yard: 10 feet b. Attached units shall also adhere to the following setbacks: i.A minimum setback of 10 feet from the curb face, except that a minimum driveway depth of 171-5 feet shall be provided. ii.A minimum of 15 feet between attached buildings. c. Detached units shall adhere to the following standards: i.Minimum lot size: 3,5004 ;500 net square feet ii.Lot coverage: 60% iii.Front yard setback: An average of 184-6 feet, but no less than 156 feet iv.Rear yard setback: 15 feet v.Side yard setbacks: 5 feet on one side yard and 8 feet on the other side yard vi.Zero lot line setback: Shall apply to detached garages only. vii.Distance between detached garage and main residence: 5 feet 11.Parking. Parking shall be in accordance with Chapter 18.60 (Off Street Parking), with the following exceptions: a. On-street parking may be credited towards guest parking, provided that a curb to curb street width or driveway width of a minimum of 3336 feet is provided, with parking only on one side of the street. 12.Storage and Trash Areas. All storage and trash areas shall be located within enclosed areas completely screened from public view. Common storage and trash areas shall be within 200 feet of the dwelling served. D. Procedures. 1. Planned residential developments shall be processed in accordance with Chapter 18.63 (Site and Architectural Review). The application shall include all of the information and materials specified by the Site and Architectural Review application, together with the required fee in compliance with the City's adopted fee schedule. It is the responsibility of Page 6 of 8 Exhibit 1 the applicant to provide evidence in support of the findings required by subsection (F) of this section (Findings and Decision). 2. The application shall be accompanied by a tentative map that shall be filed and processed in accordance with Title 17 (Subdivisions) of the Municipal Code. E. Review Authority. The Commission may approve, conditionally approve, or deny a planned residential development, provided that the findings contained in subsection (F) of this section (Findings and Decision), and in Chapter 18.63 (Site and Architectural Review), can be made. F Findings and Decision. The Commission may approve or conditionally approve a planned residential development only after first making all of the findings contained in Section 18.63.060 (Approval Process) and the following: 1.The development includes only uses allowed within the base zoning district. 2.The development is compatible with other development within the zoning district and general neighborhood of the proposed project. 3.The project would produce a development of higher quality and greater excellence of design than that might otherwise result from using the standard development regulations. 4.The subject site is adequate in terms of size, shape, topography, and circumstances to accommodate the proposed development. 5.The project includes improved quality of life provisions and enhanced amenities, including an additional and appropriate variety of structure placement and orientation opportunities, appropriate mix of structure sizes, high quality architectural design, common open space, landscaping, parking areas, private open space, and sustainable improvement standards (e.g., energy efficient building design, construction, and operation. G. Minor Changes by Director. 1.Minor changes in a planned residential development that do not involve an increase in the number of dwelling units or intensity of use or a change of use may be approved by the Director, pursuant to Section 18.63.020.0 (Administrative Site and Architectural Review). 2.Proposed changes that are not deemed minor shall be subject to review and approval by the original review authority. Page 7 of 8 Exhibit 1 H. Common Ownership - Land or Improvements 1.Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's). Where a Planned Residential Development contains any land or improvement proposed to be held in common ownership, the applicant shall submit a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R's) with the final map establishing a Home Owner's Association subject to Community and Economic Development Director and the City Attorney approval. Such declaration shall set forth provisions for maintenance of all common areas, payment of taxes and all other privileges and responsibilities of the common ownership. The CC&R's shall include provisions prohibiting the homeowners' association (HOA) from quitclaiming, selling or otherwise transferring the land held in common ownership to private property owners. 2.The City shall be made a party of the CC&R's. The City's participation shall be specifically limited to enforcement of the HOA's maintenance obligation. 3.Amendments to CC&R's. The provisions of approved CC&R's shall not be amended without the prior approval of the Community Development Director and City Attorney who at his or her discretion may refer the matter to the Planning Commission. Requests for amendments to existing CC&R's shall be submitted to the Community Development Division. 4.Maintenance. All private streets, walkways, parking areas, landscaped areas, storage areas, screening, sewers, drainage facilities, utilities, open space, recreation facilities and other improvements not dedicated to public use shall be maintained by the property owners. Provisions acceptable to the affected City Departments shall be made for the preservation and maintenance of all such improvements prior to the issuance of building permits. 5.Failure to Maintain Constitutes a Public Nuisance. All commonly-owned lots, improvements and facilities shall be preserved and maintained in a safe condition and in a state of good repair. Any failure to so maintain is unlawful and a public nuisance endangering the health, safety and general welfare of the public and a detriment to the surrounding community. Page 8 of 8 Attachment 2 Id e n t if i e d t o b e r e - AP N: 1 1 6 7 - 3 41 - 78 • cn cz LO D 00 "0 0 c\I co ‘— LO co 0 • • -CI) a C 0- o <N * I d e n t i fi e d t o be r e - de s ig na te d: 2 0 du /a c CO L.0 0 1 CO .— ---, N— M CV D I • Ln r- 0) c'J w Ct 0 0 cD • • 0 aj 2 Z Lo c — fl L.6 0 , „C1- ‹ co N L:) RECEIVED Page 1 of 1 SANDRA MOLINA OCT - 6 2011 Goeimaaitrktiemotnitimmaiwammw.""mr Development Department From: "Darryl Moore" <dmoore@catanzarite.com > To: "SANDRA MOLINA" <SMOLINA@cityofgrandterrace.org > Date: 10/6/2011 12:37 PM CC: "Jeffrey McConnell" <jeffreymcconnell@yahoo.com >, "Darryl Moore" <dmoore@catanzarite.corn> Attachments: 111006PUDLtrToGT.doc Sandra- See attached. Also I have some nit-picking editing points I could go over with you if you want. Jeffrey probably covered some already. Note that APN for Preston is not right. I don't have it with me, but there are 13 APN's in total (12 lots plus 1 common lot). Darryl E. Moore Aegis Builders & Developers 2331 W. Lincoln Ave. Anaheim, Ca 92801 cell 626.827.4496 ph 714.520.5544 fax 714.520.0680 file://C: \ Documents and Settings\ smolina\ Local Settins \Temp \XPa... 10/6/2011 October 6, 2011 To: Sandra Molina, Senior Planner From: Darryl E. Moore Re: Zoning Code Amendment 11-02 Sandra- 1 have read your draft amendment and have the following comments. This amendment should provide design flexibility to promote development while maintaining high community standards. It should not create any hurdles that make it more restrictive than the standards that are currently in place. It wouldn't sense to promulgate new ,ostensibly liberalized, standards that would make existing projects unbuildable. In general we should have rules in place that allow diversity of housing stock. I have concerns about the maximum lot coverage of 60% and minimum open space requirement of 25%. Consider maximum lot coverage of 60%. Everybody in the local real estate community agrees that the Azure Hills condominiums are one of best projects in town. It has a lot coverage of 65%, so it would not pass the proposed standards. The reason its coverage is so high is that the units are single story. If we ever wanted a project like that again we would have to allow 65%. Now let's consider the minimum open space requirement of 25%. First, I think this figure is just too high. Second, you absolutely must include the private patios and yards as part of open space. This is some of the most desirable open space and it makes no sense not to include it. Even including it, many good projects would still not be able to achieve 25%. Going back to Azure Hills, it has just underl0% open space. If you didn't count the patios and rear yards, it would be only have about 5% open space. We have projects on the board where we have designed condos with the master bedroom down, a design that local realtors advocate. This design consumes about 4% open space. So if the open space standard is adopted as drafted, it will drive designs toward the bedroom up configuration which is less desirable. I recommended that the maximum lot coverage be increased to 65% and the minimum open space requirement be reduced to 15% and include the space in private patios and yards. We have so many limits on density of development including dwelling units per acre and setbacks, I don't see these changes to the proposed language lowering our community development standards in any way. Finally I don't see why normal math rounding rules of rounding at 0.5 and above should not be used instead of the proposed rule of 0.7 and above. We are only talking about a single unit being added here and there to a project. It will not cause rampant over-building. From: To: Date: Subject: Attachments: Jeffrey McConnell <jeffreymcconnell@yahoo.com > SANDRA MOLINA <SMOLINA@cityofgrandterrace.org > 10/6/2011 4:43 PM Re PRD for tonites meeting and Commissioners 111006 PRD draft change to commission.docx RECEIVED OCT 06 2Q11 community& Economic Development Department Sorry for short notice... these are basically my speaking notes only on paper to be added to the public comments portion of the meeting Jeffrey McConnell Grand Terrace, Ca. 92313 909 824-5333 Home 909 841-JEFF (5333) Cell To: Planning Dept. / Planning Commission October 6, 2011 From: Jeffrey McConnell Re: PRD Ordinance After reviewing all of the ammendments to the proposed ordinance and after using a little due diligence by applying these proposals to existing as well as proposed projects that are coming down the pipeline I am submitting these ideas and suggestions. Keep in mind utilizing my 30 years of experience as a general contractor / developer as well as my 3 decades in the real estate field. 1.Please reference the Staff Report under the title of Discussion...I would like to include the Mixed Use Zone to the R-2 and R-3 zones in the first sentence. The reasoning for this is not only flexibility in the future but the concept utilizing the Mixed Use Zone in the 100+ acre project along the freeway would help both the developer and the staff from having to make changes when that time comes. 2.Please reference the Staff Report page 2 of 3 Subsection C. Development Standards 1 st paragraph. I have gotten the feeling from past meetings (workshops) that the laksdj was leaning towards the .5 or more fraction was sufficient rounding up to one unit or even a smaller unit ie: 1 or 2 bedroom unit....even with a 3 bedroom unit it would not have any real negative effects on most any development project..but could make the difference in the feasabilty in building a smaller project. 3.Please reference Exhibit 1, paragraph A item 1. At the end of this paragraph I think it would be beneficial to add the words " and to promote housing stock diversity and needs". 4.Please reference Exhibit 1, paragraph C, item 2. Please ad subset d. to read " A density bonus shall be granted in exchange for building units smaller than 3 bedroom ( a 2 bedroom with office shall be considered the equivilent of a 3 bedroom in this discussion), ie: for every 2 bedroom units in a project area a density bonus of an additional 2 bedroom unit or smaller will be granted. 5.Please reference Exhibit 1, paragraph C, item 3. Lot coverage shall not exceed 60%....This too low, it will not permit or promote the building of single story or predominately single story units. You could not build the highly desirable Azure Hills Village today with this restriction. It contributes to the two story box development like the "Quads" over at Hidden Gate as well as greatly limiting flexibility and diversity. Granting a bonus density to promote more ist floor living might get too confusing to come up with a formula. It would be easier to to increase the 60% restriction up and then let the developmental process control a desirable end product on a case by case basis. 6.Please reference Exhibit 1, paragraph C, item 4. Open Space. Limiting the open space to 25 % is a problem when you eliminate the highly desirable private space as well as restricting the amenity areas to 10% of open space value is defeating the purpose of providing a quality personal living environment except for those pale white pasty hermits who like to live indoors at all times. A developer could only include the absolute minimum back yard to make the formulas work. There would be no incentive to make the yards any bigger or any side yards at all unless they clearly exceeded 10'. "Ten percent of open amenity areas may be counted toward open space." Grand Canal's pool and deck area is over 1,000 sq ft... Azure Hills is over 600 sq ft. This does not make sense. Darryl Moore and I spent lot of time aplly the 60% maximum and the 25% Minimum standards in items 3 and 4 with the restrictions and they are just too restrictive. They do NOT allow for flexibility and creativity as described in the purpose_of_this_section on page 3 of 8, paragragh A item 1. 7.Please reference Exhibit 1, paragraph C, item 7. Three stories may be permitted when adjacent to an R-2 or R-3 zone district. Please consider adding Commercial and Office Professional zones to this. Additionally please add the words: "except on parcels designated 20 units per acre." At the end of the sentence. 8.Please reference Exhibit 1, paragraph C, item 11. Please add subset b to read something to the effect of Consideration will be given for Senior Living Projects. Thank you for your attention to these items. Sincerely submitted by, Jeffrey McConnell Broker 909 841-(JEFF) 5333 Community and Economic Development Department Grand Terrace CALIFORNIA GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 6, 2011 The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on October 6, 2011, at 6:30 p.m., by Chairman Doug Wilson. PRESENT: Doug Wilson, Chairman Matthew Addington, Vice Chairman Tom Comstock, Commissioner Robert Bailes, Commissioner Ohm Kongtang, Commissioner Joyce Powers, Community and Economic Development Director Sandra Molina, Senior Planner Mari Montes, Secretary 6:30 P.M.: CONVENE SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Chairman Wilson convened the Site and Architectural Review Board/Planning Commission meeting. •Call to Order — Chairman Wilson •Pledge of Allegiance - Commissioner Comstock •Roll Call - All Commissioners Present •Public address to the Commission shall be limited to three minutes unless extended by the Chairman. Should you desire to make a longer presentation, please make written request to be agendized to the Director of Community and Economic Development. 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 Planning Commission may not discuss or act on any item not on the agenda, but may briefly respond to statements made or ask a question for clarification. The Chairman may also request a brief response from staff to questions raised during public comment or may request a matter be agendized for a future meeting. 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, 92313-5295 909/824-6621 Fax 909/783-2600 GENERAL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Jeffery McConnell, Walnut Avenue - Indicated the Lion's Club will be having a Pancake Breakfast on October 16 th from 7:00 — 11:00 a.m.. 1.CONSENT CALENDAR None 2.PUBLIC HEARING 2.1 APPLICANT: City of Grand Terrace PROPOSAL: Zoning Code Amendment 11-02 An application to amend Chapter 18.10 (RH, R1, R2 and R3 Residential Districts) of Title 18 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code by adding new Section 18.10.090 Planned Residential Development. LOCATION: City-wide RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a public hearing and move to recommend City Council approval of Zoning Code Amendment 11-02. Senior Planner Molina — Commented there have been a few workshops for the Planned Residential Development Chapter and at the last meeting the Commission directed Staff to move forward with the hearing. As well the provisions that were proposed, the Commission directed Staff to make a few changes. These changes are reflected in the attachment as underlined and strike out. The staff report limited the discussion to the changes. One of the changes staff initiated is using APN numbers as it would be easier to codify than to have an exhibit. The Commission asked staff to define "net area", and section B.2 defines "net area". There was also a request that the ordinance consider rounding up the number of dwelling units when there is a fraction. Previous discussion did not indicate what the threshold would be. In reviewing previous workshop chapters the threshold was 0.7 units and it was not an automatic rounding up. This was based upon the merits of the project, that it is meeting all the standards that apply to it. For the drive way depths for these projects, Staff is recommending an increase to 17 feet. Also proposing the same for the discussion on C.10. When referring to detached units it is talking about the type of product such as the Krager project. Vice Chairman Addington asked for some clarification as far as the detached units. There may be a need for a definition or we should call it something else other than detached, perhaps small lots subdivisions. Staff went back and changed the recommended width on the curb to curb width for drive way or private streets, from 36 to 33 feet, based on follow up with the Traffic Engineer. 2 Planning Commission Minutes-10/06/2011 Vice Chairman Addington — Asked if this would be parking for one or both sides? Senior Planner Molina — Responded this would be only for the one side. The ordinance states that parking could be provided on both sides if the Fire Department approves an appropriate width. In reviewing the project proposed ordinance for CEQA compliance, Staff determined the project would be exempt. Staff received e-mails from Mr. Daryl Moore and Mr. Jeffery McConnell and this correspondence was provided to the Commission. Staff has reviewed them briefly but not in depth to compare with the ordinance. Commissioner Comstock raised a concern about allowing flexibility with these standards and was concerned Staff would whittle down what the base requirements are under the R-3 zone. Staff made a suggestion based on other cities findings; that the project would have to meet all the standards of the R-3 zone but could request flexibility on any of the standards. Commissioner Comstock — Commented he believes this is a good idea, to have each individual project reviewed merit by merit. Seems to him there is a zoning regulation being created for each of these projects when there are zoning regulations in effect for the entire City now. Vice Chairman Addington — Asked if the City went to what Commissioner Comstock is proposing use the R-3 zoning and then the project is requesting for variances or a specific plan, is the consistency being lost? Does this create some confusion on the Commission's part on how to proceed and approve plus create an additional work load on Staff? Senior Planner Molina — Responded she believes it would be the same level of review for Staff. It's just a matter of which guidelines are being referred to. The concern now is that we have moved further away from the current basic guidelines or requirements. It does not create more work, it is still the same process. Vice Chairman Addington — Asked if in this instance would the applicant/developer file a specific plan on the project? Senior Planner Molina — Responded no, would still have the PRD section. Would look at this on case by case basis as with every project. The standards would stay in place as far as PRD provisions. Joyce Powers, Community and Economic Developer Director — Stated one of the concerns was to reduce the minimum standards to the point where Staff would not know what the project amenities are. Staff would be tied to the reduced standards without seeing the merits of the project. Chairman Wilson — Indicated he is disappointed as have reverted back to some areas that he thought had been smoothed over to make this flexible. Reviewed items. In relation with the density bonus, are citing 3 density bonus grants. The 20% density bonus, there was discussion about various degrees about LEED. Senior Planner Molina — Responded the section identifies LEED but does not limit it to just LEED. Chairman Wilson — Indicated any LEED designation that is greater than 20%. Vice Chairman Addington — Asked if the California Green Builder, is this the California Green Building Code or different organization? 3 Planning Commission Minutes-10/06/2011 Senior Planner Molina — Responded she would have to follow up with the Building Official. Vice Chairman Addington — Indicated California does have a Green Building and he understands for this code cycle it is running on an optional basis, how the cities want to adopt it. For the next code cycle change, it may be a little more restrictive and may require the City to adopt a portion of it. Senior Planner Molina — Indicated that C is an increase over Title 24 requirements. Chairman Wilson — Stated item C is a 10% density bonus for construction of a project over Title 24. May exceed more than 20% increase above Title 24. The City is saving dollars, energy, and more. But there are also other things that are considered such as clustering, lot configuration, topography and a myriad of things. Only these three things qualify as Density Bonus, are missing the mark with other items. Believe there is a need for more tools. Vice Chairman Addington — Referred to Chairman Wilson. In the development world clustering is generally done on larger lots, as small as these lots are it is a cluster. Everything is shrunk down due to the small lot, is not sure about adding a bonus for clustering accomplishes anything because they would be forced to place everything in a small clustering. Chairman Wilson — Stated he would leave this out, was just using as an example of other definitions. There are some odd lots that are left in the City that need to be able contract, it makes it difficult to do it. If you can't get a few considerations in relation to density then the City would be contouring a problem or solving a problem by allowing it to be developed. Chairman referred to irregular topography, hillside lots and the difficulty to develop. Director Powers — Indicated she is puzzled on how to articulate this as a density bonus. Asked Chairman Wilson if he would like to see a density bonus permitted based on irregular topography on an irregular lot shape. Chairman Wilson — Responded, yes. If Staff did not feel comfortable with wording this maybe could be articulated, "granted as follows for these irregular conditions" or "would be considered based on these conditions". As it would be a project merit situation, as it would bring it forward and encourage the developer. Commissioner Comstock — Asked if there are any other conditions Chairman Wilson is suggesting? Chairman Wilson — Responded an infill property, irregular parcels, topography clustering conditions and others. Director Powers — Said this would describe any of the parcels, it would open up a density bonus to any developer. Chairman Wilson — Responded correct. The only issue Staff and Commission is dealing with is the PRD. This would be under the heading of density bonus for a PRD. Vice Chairman Addington — Indicated that Director Powers was referring to item B 1.A, where the Commission defines the properties. If Staff and Commission do not define the properties then would be opening this up city wide, or is it the intent to open the issue up city wide. Chairman Wilson — Responded the intention is to use these density bonus items as they may apply to a PRD. 4 Planning Commission Minutes-10106/2011 Senior Planner Molina — Confirmed this would be any R-2, R-3 zone that a person comes in and asks for a PRD. Chairman Wilson — Responded correct. Senior Planner Molina — Indicated the parcels that were identified were the ones that were in the R-2 zones. In the beginning of this exercise, there was concern from the Commission that this should be limited to smaller infield lots with topography and size concerns. Commissioner Comstock — Stated that was referred to section 18.10.090, A.1. Chairman Wilson — Indicated that a density bonus may only be granted on the three items and it is not consistent. Commissioner Comstock — Asked if Chairman Wilson is suggesting to add on item D, density bonus may be considered for other consideration such as lot configuration, infill issues, irregular parcels, topography, clustering conditions, etc. Chairman Wilson — Confirmed this was correct. Commissioner Comstock — Asked how this would sit with staff? Director Powers — Responded Staff could added this as directed, but this now seems that any parcel is eligible for a density bonus. Commissioner Comstock — Suggested adding words instead of listing the other configurations and issues, "density may be considered on a case by case basis". Chairman Wilson — Commented the goal was to conquer the odd condition. Give Staff a tool to address the odd and unusual condition. Allow the flexibility and consider the unusual conditions in the density bonus scenario. Commissioner Comstock — Commented he is taking the other side of the argument and indicating he is thinking about the irregular lots of the infill condition. There are few infill conditions within the City that would meet the 22,000 square foot net minimum. Is asking if this is something that needs to be addressed? Director Powers — Responded she would assume they are all going to be infill projects. Any project that comes in under a PRD would qualify for a bonus. Director Powers asks if there is a guideline as to the percentage? Senior Planner Molina — Added that one would qualify for a bonus based upon the suggestion that Chairman Wilson is suggesting. Commissioner Comstock — States the more he thinks about this the greater the can of worms this looks to him. If this was a special lot with a special configuration he suggests this should be presented before the Planning Commission and if there is a possibility of granting the variances based on the conditions. The project would be reviewed under a Site and Architectural Review, package up at the same time and present to the Commission. Chairman Wilson — Agrees with Commissioner Comstock, but there is no language within the item of density bonus that would allow the authority. 5 Planning Commission Minutes-10/06/2011 Commissioner Comstock — Asks what kind of a definition would apply on a density bonus? Chairman Wilson — Commented it is a good question. Indicates he sees from 10-20% density bonus for LEED or Title 24 increase. Senior Planner Molina — Responded because the lots are constrained to begin with it could not place lots on it and were able to cluster the six units on the flatter end, would be hard pressed to see how a density bonus would make sense on the property. Chairman Wilson — Indicated could be subject to side yard set back and the rest of it. Senior Planner Molina — Commented this would be very difficult to support more than the six that are being referred to as discussion purposes. Because of the constraints of the lots it may have to be small percentage. Chairman Wilson — Stated he would support a 10%. Senior Planner Molina — Indicated it could not be a huge number because of the constraints to begin with. Commissioner Comstock — Commented he is still trying to figure the logic through on this. If there is a lot that half of the ground space can not be used because of the circumstance, why would Staff want to increase the amount of units per acre? Vice Chairman Addington — Responded it would make sense cost-wise for the developer. There would have to be a rate of return on the developers part for the project to move forward, otherwise the land sits bare and unused. He believes it would be better to have the land developed, have the property value go up with the additional tax revenue come into the City. Senior Planner Molina — Indicated would still have to make sense for the property/site development. Vice Chairman Addington — Responded that are still looking for a balance, was trying to answer one question. Senior Planner Molina — Commented the standards that are established are already a reduction, so would be looking at additional reductions to support more units on irregular shape lot. Would the Planning Commission be looking at a greater reduction in the standards, set backs, parking perhaps? Commissioner Kongtang — Commented maybe adding a D as the Chairman's concern is there are only 3 things for a density bonus. Understands Commissioner Comstock concerns with the case by case project. Does not know what the developer has in mind as can only assume and speculate. Chairman Wilson — Added would still be analyzed as it states, "density bonus may be granted as follows". Commissioner Comstock — Asked if Staff goes with the 20% density bonus for the LEED program, then there would be the affordable housing density bonus. Have the additional 10% under Title 24 and would add an additional 10% for a strange lot configuration, there would be not be bare ground left. Chairman Wilson — Commented may not make sense based on the 60%. 6 Planning Commission Minutes-10/06/2011 Director Powers — Stated that this would place the reviewing Staff in a situation where the people would have the expectation of obtaining a density bonus and that Staff would make all acceptances on setbacks and lot coverage to allow the bonus. But will structure it as the Planning Commission wishes. Chairman Wilson — Stated he does not have a problem with lot coverage not exceeding 60%. This seems to be a fairly good number in relation to the jurisdictions within the area. The open space issue has become too conservative, a minimum of 25% of the lot shall be unobstructed. Believes 20% is a better use as it seems a mean average compared to other jurisdictions. Vice Chairman Addington — Commented on a technical issue would need to consider to move forward as State regulations are becoming more restrictive in regards to water quality issues. If the open space is kept at 25%, would keep all the clean water devices for the storm on the surface instead of placing in the ground. It would be simpler for Staff under bi-annual inspections that are now required by law, to inspect these. He would not have an issue at 25% due to this reason but if Commission would want to bring this down to 20% would work with this as well. Chairman Wilson — Reminded Commission about the paved areas, drive aisles and parking area, private patios or areas between structures less than 10 feet shall not be count toward open space. Are already reducing down and is concerned, can this sentence be derived to intend private open space? Senior Planner Molina — Indicated that Staff is trying to avoid a situation where there was minimal non paved areas. A person could develop a site with some entry landscaping, driveway, garage doors and no large open spaces. The open area would be made up of private open space and is enjoyable by the resident. We're trying to make an aesthetically nice looking project. We like what we see at Hidden Gate and Grand Canal, a traditional streetscape where there is "parkway". She is concerned about receiving projects with a double loaded garage and asphalt. Commissioner Comstock — Asked how far away from the current R-2, R-3 Zoning Code in regards to open space, what is the current Zoning Code indicate regarding this? Senior Planner Molina — The current R-3 zone indicates all covered areas, paved areas and driveways count as coverage. Was already saying the 60% building coverage would not include paved areas, now are indicating it would be 65%. Is concerned we are getting away from the original exercise and perhaps already have in place what is needed. Confirmed the percentage in the Zoning Code. Vice Chairman Addington — Commented if he is understanding correctly the existing code is divided into pervious areas and impervious areas. Senior Planner Molina — Responded yes. Vice Chairman Addington — Asked if Staff is doing something similar, but saying 60% of habitable and useable structure and other impervious areas can also count as open space? Senior Planner Molina — Confirmed yes. 60% could be building coverage, 40% would be non building coverage but of that 40%, 25% needs to be landscaped or amenities. Vice Chairman Addington — Commented it seemed to him that a high density is trying to be achieved with the proposed wording, rather than the standard R-2, R-3 densities. 7 Planning Commission Minutes-1010612011 Senior Planner Molina — Indicated Staff is giving flexibility as to what is considered, land coverage. Vice Chairman Addington — As he understand it he sees no issues, thinks it is good and is helping the developer get a little more density out of this. Chairman Wilson — Asked for clarification, 25% or 20%? Vice Chairman Addington — Responded he has no problem changing it to 20% as previously mentioned. Commissioner Comstock — Indicated he would like to keep 25%. Chairman Wilson — Commented about the street drive aisle widths, understands that the Fire Department enforces 20 feet. Does not understand where the 26 feet requirement comes from? Senior Planner Molina — Responded the information was provided by the Fire Department, minimum 26 feet. Chairman Wilson — Asked if the minimum was 26 feet with no parking on either side of street? Senior Planner Molina — Responded the information did not indicate on any side. Chairman Wilson — Indicated were to add, "no on street parking shall be provided". Chairman Wilson — Commented have changed to a 33 feet if there is to be parking on one side of the street. Senior Planner Molina — Confirmed yes. Chairman Wilson — Asked what would be used as a curb guideline? As there are rolled curb conditions at times. With a rolled curb would agree with the 7 feet but in a standard curb with does not agree with this. Senior Planner Molina — Asked if Chairman would want more on standard curb width? Chairman Wilson — Responded that with a rolled curb you could go down on the depression. Would like to remain consistent within the two. Commissioner Comstock — Asked if Chairman would want to increase 11.A to 34 feet to be consistent with what is found 8.C? Chairman Wilson — Responded he is surprised the Fire Department indicated a minimum 26 foot width as most jurisdictions need a minimum 20 foot width. To him it would seem that with parking on one side it would be some derivative of 28 feet. Vice Chairman Addington — Commented he believes the Fire Department is allowing two way access to allow their truck for clearance around structures and room for vehicles to pass in opposite direction. Chairman Wilson — Asked one more question on item D.2, what happens when there are less than four units in a project? 8 Planning Commission Minutes-10/06/2011 Senior Planner Molina — Responded it would be a parcel map. Chairman Wilson — Asked if it would be a tentative parcel map? Senior Planner Molina — Confirmed yes. Chairman Wilson — Does not know if this should be re-worded to include tentative parcel map or tentative subdivision map or tentative map. Vice Chairman Addington — Indicated the question would be if the City has local ordinance that authorizes a tentative parcel map? Senior Planner Molina — Answered yes. Vice Chairman Addington — States the wording is acceptable. PUBLIC COMMENT Daryl Moore, Minona Drive — Stated he sent a letter to Staff and the Commission with comments and most of the items have been discussed. Is not deeply troubled by the 60% and thinks they would be under the percentage. He also agrees with the 25% reduced to 20% as this would be a bigger stumbling block. Adamantly feels that private open spaces needs to be included. On items B.1, the 17 foot drives, understand this is put in the situation where there is a drive but there is a situation were you would not want to have a drive approach in front of the garage. Is concerned there could be designs where you would not want to have a driveway at all. Referred to Minor Change, does not understand what the phrase "intensity of use" means. Would this be something to preclude the Director from saying, O.K. you don't have a driveway there you can have zero? Questions the 17 foot drives. Chairman Wilson — Asked Staff to comment on G-Minor Changes, could Staff please define what intensity of use would mean? Senior Planner Molina — Responded it is mainly related to intensity density, typically in commercial projects. Chairman Wilson — Indicated this would be a minor change by the Director. Director Powers — Stated it indicates the Director would not approve increase of density use, would be directed to the Planning Commission. Senior Planner Molina — Indicated anything that was substantially different than what was considered originally would come back to the Commission. Chairman Wilson — Recommended to make this density, to indicate that is what it means. There has been a good working relationship and the Director is aware the Planning Commission is pushing and shoving the issue. Commissioner Comstock — Referred to the e -mail provided by Mr. Moore that the APN for the Preston Street project is not correct. Asked Staff to check on this and make sure this is corrected. 9 Planning Commission Minutes-10/06/2011 Senior Planner Molina — Responded the Preston property is not in a residential zone. It is in the Barton Road Specific Plan Office Professional, it would not be listed. Mr. Moore may be wondering how Staff would be getting the PRD standards applicable to Preston; the Barton Road Specific Plan indicates you can fall back to R-3 standards and that would fall under the residential standards. Jeffery McConnell, 21758 Walnut Avenue — In regards to item #1, mixed use, have attended many Council meetings and the term keeps coming up ever since the proposed Grand Crossings project. It included a large mixed use and high end residential, thought the PRD should be included in the mixed use also as this was the developer's intention. One the things he was trying to promote is housing stock. It is very important for diversity, there is not a lot due to the restrictions. Chairman Wilson — Indicated in the General Plan there is wording about promoting house stock diversity needs. Jeffery McConnell — Suggested a density bonus to try and help create one or two bedrooms condos. Referred to his letter and comments on the definitions. Believes the baby boomers would not want to purchase large homes as they are older residents. Moved on to open space, would prefer to go to 20%, mainly the value of a private yard. Referred to the 10% that may be counted towards the open space requirement, he believes this is a reduction. This should be addressed and removed. It would discourage the developer to place an amenity unless he really has too. Proceed to height. Wanted to include accepted parcels designated 20 acres per unit. Was also including next to commercial or office professional as there are large vacant parcels with unusual shapes that are next to office professional. When dealing with many units per acre you would use the full amount of height. Agrees with not placing a 3 story unit next to an R-1 lot. Chairman Wilson — Asked if there is a way to consider mixed-use zone? Senior Planner Molina — Responded the mixed use zone per the General Plan would require a Specific Plan. Chairman Wilson — Continued to item #4. Density bonus granted in exchange for building units smaller than 3 bedrooms, promoting two bedroom units. Commissioner Comstock — Stated this would not be a good idea. Vice Chairman Addington — Asked if the way it is written and proposed now, there would be no limit to any number of bedrooms for a condo or apartment? Senior Planner Molina — Responded yes. Director Powers — Added this is typically a marketing study function. Vice Chairman Addington — Stated he thinks it ought to stay with the market. Commissioner Comstock — Added he understands what Mr. McConnell is trying to do with the suggestion and goes back to the limited amount of parcels there are in the City. He would not want to open the door with the multiple density bonuses. Chairman Wilson — Proceeded with having a 3-story condition that may permitted adjacent to an R-2, R-3 zone, would it be appropriate to possibly have a 3 story condition next to a commercial or office professional. 10 Planning Commission Minutes-10/06/2011 Commissioner Comstock — Commented he would support this. Vice Chairman Addington — Asked what are the staff thoughts about the 2 1/2 stories versus 3 stories? Senior Planner Molina — Responded the 35 feet, 2 1/2 stories is the current limitation. Vice Chairman Addington — Asked if this was the development code? Senior Planner Molina — Confirmed yes. The intent was in a single family residential zone would not have a 3 story project. Reminded the condition that the standards can have flexibility. Chairman Wilson — Indicated it would be appropriate to state it is not appropriate to single family. When it refers to commercial and office then he would support this adding the language as it would be the only other condition one can do. Commission Comstock — Stated this would also come down to the marketability of the residential units. If you have a three story unit next to a commercial parking lot does not think it would promote this kind of use but allows some flexibility in determining this. Director Powers — Commented she is reviewing where in the City this type of scenario would work. Would caution the Commission against allowing this where it is commercial on one side of the project and single-family residential on the other. Senior Planner Molina — Suggested what if the height was 35 feet. Three stories should not be allowed adjacent to any single family residential zone or use. Planning Commission — Concurs with the suggestion. Chairman Wilson — Finished with the last item, consideration for senior living projects. Were going to decide what constituted a density bonus. Bobbie Forbes, 11850 Burns Avenue — Indicated within the last year has been in more condominiums from Redlands to Rancho Cucamonga, Colton, Redlands and Grand Terrace than ever before. It has been an eye opening and is a little more opinioned on the issue. One thing she has noticed is people want an area where they can place a patio table to seat 4 people. Would need to have enough space as there is in the Azure condominiums. Have also noticed if the space is to small for regular use then it is used for storage and looks unattractive. In regards to the Hidden Gate project, when this was built, did the Fire Department approve parking on both sides or just one side? Senior Planner Molina — Responded she did not know, would assume when the Fire Department reviewed this would have required red curbing if just on one side. Bobbie Forbes — This is still a concern as she thinks about large service vehicles and how they get in. As far as the two or three bedrooms in town, there are no one bedrooms. Referred existing projects within the City and the layouts. Chairman Wilson — Asked Ms. Forbes with her expertise, the Planning Commission is planning a minimum 250 square foot private open space. Bobbie Forbes — Responded this seems to work. 11 Planning Commission Minutes-10/06/2011 Vice Chairman Addington — Commented Ms. Forbes brought up the concept of the trash containers and their storage. Various cities and agencies will require those to be stored in the garage, is this something staff has considered, where to store these trash cans? In the Code that is being written this evening, is this an appropriate place to put the location of the trash cans or does this go into a different code. Senior Planner Molina — Responded it would be fine in this Code. Would just need to make sure the garage accommodates the trash bins or the back patio area. This PRD Code assumed it would be common trash area and not individual bins. Does not know if the trash company requires to have their own bin or if they would collect a common trash collection area. Chairman Wilson — Indicated it would depend on the project. Commissioner Comstock — Would like to thank Daryl, Jeffery and Bobbie for their comments on this discussion. Returns to the density issue, open space, drive isles and private versus the public open space. Asked if Chairman Wilson if the Commission could direct staff or get a better direction from Staff of what they would like to see in the Code regarding these issues. Chairman Wilson — Indicate he would like to poll the Commissioners as to who would be in support of a 20% open space. Commissioner Comstock — Asked if the next poll would be including private open space along with the open space? If so would like to have the same poll be asked again if Staff goes back down to an open space. Chairman Wilson — Asked if the Commission would include in the ordinance private open space in the calculation? Vice Chairman Addington — Asked for clarification from Staff where the private open is? Senior Planner Molina — Answered the rear patio area. Vice Chairman Addington — Asked if it is part of the 40%? Senior Planner Molina — Responded anything not covered by the building would be under the 40% open area. Chairman Wilson — Asked for the vote, by show of hand, if you would like include the private open space in the overall calculation of open space. Commissioners — 5 — 0 vote. Chairman Wilson — Will now recast the vote in relation to the overall open space requirement, considering open space will include specifically private open space. Would the Commissioners support a reduction to 20% overall open space? Commissioners — 4 — 1 vote. Senior Planner Molina — Asked for clarification it does or does not include the private patio area. Chairman Wilson — Responded it does include the private open space. 12 Planning Commission Minutes-10/06/2011 Commissioner Comstock — Asked if the Commission is just including the private patio and not including the drive aisles, parking areas. Chairman Wilson — Responded are not including any of those. Continued with minimum set back of 10 feet from curb face except at a minimum driveway depth of 17 feet shall be provided. Has seen situations where other jurisdictions have had exceptions. Chairman believes the roll up door needs to be addressed. If a unit included a roll up door then it would infer that they are not going to be parking in the drive way and use the garages. Commissioner Comstock — Asked if this could be dealt within the CC&R's? Vice Chairman Addington — Indicated he agreed with this. Chairman Wilson — Asked for confirmation that the Commission does not need to legislate the roll-up door issue. Vice Chairman Addington — Indicated he does not think so, should be an architectural or marketing feature. If are looking of exceptions toss out an idea for discussion and exception for zero driveway depth if the driveway is on the access isle or drive isle. Commissioner Comstock — Commented he could see other ways this could be used but would not be a good way to go. A two story condo unit where they maximize the footprint of the lot by moving the driveway out to the drive isle, would not want to see this. Vice Chairman Addington — Indicated they are not moving to the street as Commissioner Comstock is thinking of where the front door is, are moving to a drive aisle. Commissioner Comstock — Responded he understands this and refers to the apartments on Mount Vernon and De Berry Street. When driving down the aisle the whole aisle is garages and would the Commission discourage this kind of development? Does not think this adds to the quality of life. Vice Chairman Addington — Commented he understand what Commissioner Comstock is referring to but if the developer is trying to get his density bonuses and has a small odd shape lot this might be the only way to accomplish his project. Senior Planner Molina — Stated it is difficult to write an ordinance to address each situation. This does not mean someone could not indicate they want to have a reduced set back. It would be based on project merits. Chairman Wilson — Commented Staff and Commission are saying this in words and is good but does not always work well down the line. Another issue for an R-2, R-3 condition, referred to a project in the City of Redlands that is a tuck under situation. There are 6-8 units that have beautiful garage door with a garage abutting into a drive aisle and is at a 0 foot condition for the roll up doors. They have pavers which looks really nice and it works well, it is actually considered a luxury item. Chairman believes there should be some type of provision in relation to the possibility but unsure on how to word it, special conditions might be able to allow a different setback. Senior Planner Molina — Indicated one of the things Staff was trying to discourage is just the drive aisle and garage fronting with little street scape. Because it is difficult to address each and every situation that might arise, base on project merits the Planning Commission might be able to consider other design flexibilities. Believes it would be difficult to address each situation that may come up and every lot would be different and have it's own circumstances. 13 Planning Commission Minutes-10/06/2011 Planning Commission — Concurs. Senior Planning Molina — Confirmed there is consensus on density at 0.55 as the threshold. Planning Commission — Concurs. Senior Planning Molina — There was also discussion on the density bonus adding language that would allow the Commission to consider a bonus for odd, steep, topographical lots. Chairman Wilson — Responded yes, were going to add an item D and correctly categorize it. He would be comfortable with the language that staff would like to consider to word this kind of condition and understandings. Senior Planner Molina — Indicated the limitation was 10%. Commissioner Comstock — Commented maybe indicating up to 10%. Senior Planner Molina — Also added the bonuses are not intended to be cumulative they are "or's". Vice Chairman Addington — Indicated the only "or" he notices is A, if a developer comes in, would notice they would be going for A plus B, C plus B or C, as there is only the one "or". Senior Planner Molina — Will add a statement indicating it is not cumulative and will place the "or" at the end of each one. Their was a discussion for C, detached units, for clarity are referring to a small lot, subdivision type of project. Vice Chairman Addington — Responded he believes so versus detached apartments, the clarification would be helpful. Senior Planner Molina — Would like to have C read, small lot subdivision. Chairman Wilson — Indicated the next option is to revise the ordinance and bring back to the Commission for a vote. Senior Planner Molina — Believes it is important to have the Commission review the changes before it is moved forward to City Council, will continue to the October 20 meeting. 3. INFORMATION TO COMMISSIONERS Director Powers — Advised the Commission that Staff is getting ready to issue the grading permit for the Walgreen's project. Indicated there is a new City Attorney contract and the appointed attorney for the Planning Commission will attend her first meeting in November. Ivy Tsai, Jones and Mayer. Vice Chairman Addington — Asked about the attorney assigned to the Planning Commission. Senior Planner Molina — The understanding is that there will be a specific Planning Commission attorney that will attend every meeting. 14 Planning Commission Minutes-10/06/2011 Director Powers — Extended an invitation to the Commission for the dedication of the new little league field at Pico Park on Friday, October 7 th at 6 p.m. 4. INFORMATION FROM COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Comstock — Indicate the timing on the signal light at Barton Road and Michigan Street is off. Traveling north on Michigan Street to make a left turn to Barton Road, westbound. Chairman Wilson — Attended a Town Hall meeting for an update on Newport Road bridge. As well he received news about the Barton Road project, are close to a final version of the project. CalTrans are starting negotiation with local business for rights of way. Asked for a follow up on a last Code Enforcement issue at 12138 Dos Rios, questionable structure with a garage door. Commissioner Bailes — Asked about the landscaping project at American Metal Recycling. Senior Planner Molina — Responded the conditions indicated the business could open while deferring the landscaping installation until November. Was allowed time as the summer months are not a good time to plant landscaping. Commissioner Bailes — Spoke to Gene Hays regarding the Blue Mountain Beer and was indicated that the beauty salon business moved out and he was acquiring that location to put in a distillery. Informed Mr. Hays he would have to come back before the Commission to fulfill the request. Chairman Wilson — In regards to the metal recycling company, has there been any noise complaints? Senior Planner Molina — Responded she received two complaints, contacted the manager and took care of the issues immediately. Commissioner Comstock — Stated he has used this facility a few times and they are very clean and prompt. CHAIRMAN WILSON ADJOURNED THE SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO THE NEXT MEETING TO BE HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 2011. Respectfully Submitted, Approved By, ()tve___Poliikadv J Olyce Powers Community and Economic Development Director Doug Wilson, Chairman Planning Commission 15 Planning Commission Minutes-10/06/2011 Attachment 5 Reports, Correspondence and Minutes Planning Commission Hearing October 20, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CALIFORNIA TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Community and Economic Development Department DATE: October 20, 2011 SUBJECT: Zoning Code Amendment 11-02 RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a public hearing and move to recommend City Council approval of Zoning Code Amendment 11-02 BACKGROUND On October 6, 2011, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on proposed new Section 18.10.090 (Planned Residential Development). At the hearing, the Commission directed staff to make changes to proposed Section 18.10.090, and continued the hearing to October 20, 2011. Attachment 1 contains proposed Section 18.10.090, with the directed changes. DISCUSSION The following changes were made based on the Commission's direction: Subsection B Applicability Subsection B.4 was added stating that the underlying standards of the base zoning district apply, unless otherwise noted in the Section. Subsection C Development Standards Subsection C.1 was revised to reflect that the unit count of a project would be rounded up when the fraction result is 0.55 or greater. Subsection C.2 was revised to state that only one density bonus would be considered for a project. As directed by the Planning Commission, Subsection C.2 has been revised to add paragraph "d", to allow consideration of a 10% density bonus on sites Staff Report Zoning Code Amendment 11-02 Page 2 of 3 that are constrained by irregular shape or topography, or other unusual physical characteristics. During the meeting staff expressed concern to the Commission that consideration of additional units on an already physically constrained lot seemed counterintuitive. Staff continues to have these concerns for the following reasons: (1) the PRD section was devised in consideration of such constrained lots and development standards have already been reduced to accommodate such consideration; (2) adding additional unit(s) to such constrained lots further burdens and constrains a lot, and (3) typically a density bonus is considered for projects that are design above and beyond basic city standards, such as affordable housing, or energy efficient development; in other words, the merits of a project, rather than lot characteristics. Attachment 2 is an email from Chairman Wilson stating further reasons for supporting density bonus considerations on constrained lots. He further indicates that upon reflection, the density bonus provisions should be cumulative. For the reasons stated above, staff does not support this position. Additionally, the full Commission voted not to make the density bonus provisions cumulative. Subsection C.4 has been revised to reduce the open space requirement to a minimum of 20% from the proposed 25%. Subsection C.7 was revised to state that three stories would not be permitted adjacent to a single family zone or use. The heading of Subsection C.10 was revised to "small lot subdivisions" to better describe the development pattern that these particular standards apply to. Section G Minor Changes by Director Subsection G.1 has been revised to delete "intensity of use". ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the Project is not subject to CEQA, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) because the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the Zoning Code Amendment is not subject to CEQA. The Project establishes standards and procedures for planned residential development projects, but does not include any development activities. Y:\Zone Change_Amendments\ZCA 11-02_PRD Regs\PC Staff Report_10.20.2011.doc Staff Report Zoning Code Amendment 11-02 Page 3 of 3 CONCLUSION: The proposed Planned Residential Development standards and procedures have been prepared in accordance with the Planning Commission's direction. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take action on the proposed amendment, which will be forwarded to the City Council. Respectfully Submitted, Prepared by, SANDRA MOLINA Senior Planner JOYCE POWERS Community and Economic Development Director Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Resolution w/ proposed PRD regulations 2. Email dated October 12, 2011 from Chairman Wilson YAZone Change_Amendments\ZCA 11-02_PRD Regs\PC Staff Report_10.20.2011.doc RESOLUTION NO. NO. 2011- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 11-02 TO ADD SECTION 18.10.090 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO CHAPTER 18.10 OF TITLE 18 OF THE GRAND TERRACE MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 65800 and 65850 of the California Government Code, the City may adopt ordinances to regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land as between industry, business, residences, and open space, and other purposes; to regulate the location, height, bulk, number of stories and size of buildings and structures, the size and use of lots, yards, courts and other open spaces, the percentage of a lot which may be occupied by a building or structure, and the intensity of land use; and to establish requirements for off-street parking, in compliance with the California Government Code. WHEREAS, Chapter 18.90 of the Municipal Code provides a process for the amendment of the Zoning Code. WHEREAS, the Project, as contemplated, proposes to establish a new Section 18.10.090 Planned Residential Development in order to facilitate the development of infill lots that may be otherwise constrained due to lot size, configuration, and/or topography. WHEREAS, on July 21, 2011, and September 1, 2011, the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace conducted two public workshops on the planned residential development (PRD) provisions. WHEREAS, on October 6, 2011, and October 20, 2011, the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace conducted duly noticed public hearings on proposed Section 18.10.090 Planned Residential Development at the Grand Terrace City Hall Council Chambers located 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, CA 92313 and concluded the hearing on October 20, 2011, by voting to recommend City Council approval of the proposed Amendment. WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace, as follows 1.The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the above Recitals, are true and correct. 2.Based on substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the October 6, 2011, public hearing, including public testimony, and written and oral staff reports, the Planning Commission specifically finds as follows with regard to Zoning Code Amendment 11-02: a.Zone Change 11-02 will not be 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 because any future development in accordance with the provisions are still subject to applicable building and fire codes, and the provisions provide for setbacks, open space, parking and building height regulations. b.Zone Change 11-02 will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or within the city because it will not preclude the continued use and/or development of surrounding properties. c.Zone Change 11-02 is consistent with the latest adopted General Plan, such as Goal 2.1 to provide for balanced growth which seeks to provide a wide range of employment and housing opportunities and maintenance of a healthy, diversified community, and Policy 9.3.1 because it provides incentives for incorporating "green" building design into project design. 3.Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend Title 18 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code by adding Section 18.10.090 to Chapter 18.10 described in Exhibit 1 attached hereto. 4.The City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace, California, at a regular meeting held on the 20 th day of October, 2011. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Tracey Martinez Doug Wilson City Clerk Chairman, Planning Commission Page 2 of 8 Exhibit 1 Section 18.10.090 Planned Residential Development A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide a process for approving a planned residential development that is intended to: 1.Allow for flexibility and creativity in the development of infill lots otherwise constrained due to lot size, configuration and/or surroundings; 2.Provide a method whereby land may be designed and developed as a unified site by taking advantage of efficient site planning techniques thereby resulting in a more efficient use of land, a better living environment, excellence of design, and related enhanced amenities than is otherwise possible through strict application of the development standards of the underlying zoning classification; 3.Ensure development that meets high standards of environmental quality, public health and safety, the efficient use of the City's resources, and the purpose, intent, goals, policies, actions, and land use designations of the General Plan, and any applicable specific plan; and B. Applicability. 1.Permitted zones. A planned residential development shall be permitted on those parcels identified, within the R2—Low Medium and R3—Medium Density Residential Zone districts. As determined by the Planning Commission on a case by case basis, a planned residential development may be proposed on any site other than those listed in subparagraph "a", provided that it meets the applicability requirements of this section. a. A planned residential development may be proposed on the following properties: Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 0275-191-15, 0275-211-09, 0275-211-58, 0275-251-04, 0276-202-74, and 1167- 341-078. 2.Minimum Site Area. A planned residential development may only be requested for a site(s) with a minimum size of 22,000 net square feet. a. Net area shall mean the total horizontal area within the lot lines of a lot, excluding public or private easement, any street, drive aisle, or right of way area. 3.Permitted Uses. A planned residential development project shall not authorize a use that is not allowed in the base zoning district. C. Development Standards. Page 3 of 8 Exhibit 1 1. Density: Density within a planned residential development shall comply with the permitted density of the underlying zone district. a. The fractional/decimal results of calculations of the number of multiple housing units allowed within a land use zoning district shall be rounded down to the next lowest whole number. If a fraction is 0.55-7 or more, the Director may recommend the higher whole number to the Commission based on other development standards and regulations being met. 2. Density bonus: A density bonus, as shown below, may be considered by the Planning Commission, based on the merits of the project. Only one density bonus may be granted. A e . • a.A density bonus shall be granted for affordable housing developments in accordance with the density bonus provisions of Government Code Section 65915; or b.A 20% density bonus with evidence that the project can be certified in LEED, California Green Builder or equivalent standard; or c.A 10% density bonus for construction of the project to meet or exceed more than a 20% increase above Title 24 requirements or -, d.A 10% density bonus on sites constrained by irregular shape, irregular topography, or other unusual physical constraints. 3. Lot coverage: Lot coverage shall not exceed 60% of the lot area. Lot coverage includes primary and accessory structures, covered patios and garages. 4. Open space: A minimum of 20%2-5% of the lot area shall be open and unobstructed. Paved areas, drive aisles, parking areas, private patios, or areas between structures less than 10 feet in any dimension, shall not be counted towards open space. Ten percent of open amenity areas may be counted toward the open space requirement. 5. Private open space: A minimum of 250 square feet of private open space per dwelling unit shall be provided, with no dimension less than 10 feet. Architectural elements with no habitable space may encroach into private open spaces. 6. Amenities: Amenities may include a swimming pool, clubhouse, tot lot with play equipment, picnic shelter with barbeque area, basketball, tennis, or other recreational amenities. The type of amenities shall be approved by the Planning Commission. Amenities shall be provided as follows: eelb . 00 . e e • Page 4 of 8 Exhibit 1 Number of Units Number of Amenities 0-11 0 12-24 1 25-50 2 51-75 3 75+ as determined by the Planning Commission Note: Where a mix of attached and detached units is proposed, amenities shall be provided pursuant to this subsection. 7. Height: 35 feet. Three-story structures shall not be permitted adjacent to any Single Family Residential zone or single family use.35 foot, 2 1/2 e •• • - - • zonc 8. Circulation a.Private streets shall be permitted only when a Homeowner's Association is established to maintain them. b.Private streets shall be built to public works construction standards. c.Street/Drive Aisle Width: A minimum of 26 feet, curb to curb with no on-street parking shall be provided. Where one-way access is proposed, the minimum width shall conform to County Fire standards. d.Two points of vehicular ingress and egress to a public street shall be provided. Except that for smaller projects or where the applicant can show that this is a physical impossibility, the appropriate fire authority may modify this requirement if the fire authority determines that emergency access is adequate for the project. 9. Number of attached dwelling units. Attached dwelling units shall not exceed 8 units. Any building with 6 or more units shall provide a minimum two foot variation along the building wall plane. 10. Project Setbacks: a. Perimeter setbacks: i.Front yard: 20 feet ii.Rear yard: 15 feet Page 5 of 8 Exhibit 1 iii.Side yard: 10 feet iv.Street Side yard: 10 feet b. Attached units shall also adhere to the following setbacks: i.A minimum setback of 10 feet from the curb face, except that a minimum driveway depth of 17 feet shall be provided. ii.A minimum of 15 feet between attached buildings. c. Small lot subdivisionsDctachcd units shall adhere to the following standards: i.Minimum lot size: 3,500 net square feet ii.Lot coverage: 60% iii.Front yard setback: An average of 18 feet, but no less than 16 feet iv.Rear yard setback: 15 feet v.Side yard setbacks: 5 feet on one side yard and 8 feet on the other side yard vi.Zero lot line setback: Shall apply to detached garages only. vii.Distance between detached garage and main residence: 5 feet 11.Parking. Parking shall be in accordance with Chapter 18.60 (Off Street Parking), with the following exceptions: a. On-street parking may be credited towards guest parking, provided that a curb to curb street width or driveway width of a minimum of 33 feet is provided, with parking only on one side of the street. 12.Storage and Trash Areas. All storage and trash areas shall be located within enclosed areas completely screened from public view. Common storage and trash areas shall be within 200 feet of the dwelling served. D. Procedures. 1. Planned residential developments shall be processed in accordance with Chapter 18.63 (Site and Architectural Review). The application shall Page 6 of 8 Exhibit 1 include all of the information and materials specified by the Site and Architectural Review application, together with the required fee in compliance with the City's adopted fee schedule. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide evidence in support of the findings required by subsection (F) of this section (Findings and Decision). 2. The application shall be accompanied by a tentative map that shall be filed and processed in accordance with Title 17 (Subdivisions) of the Municipal Code. E. Review Authority. The Commission may approve, conditionally approve, or deny a planned residential development, provided that the findings contained in subsection (F) of this section (Findings and Decision), and in Chapter 18.63 (Site and Architectural Review), can be made. F. Findings and Decision. The Commission may approve or conditionally approve a planned residential development only after first making all of the findings contained in Section 18.63.060 (Approval Process) and the following: 1.The development includes only uses allowed within the base zoning district. 2.The development is compatible with other development within the zoning district and general neighborhood of the proposed project. 3.The project would produce a development of higher quality and greater excellence of design than that might otherwise result from using the standard development regulations. 4.The subject site is adequate in terms of size, shape, topography, and circumstances to accommodate the proposed development. 5.The project includes improved quality of life provisions and enhanced amenities, including an additional and appropriate variety of structure placement and orientation opportunities, appropriate mix of structure sizes, high quality architectural design, common open space, landscaping, parking areas, private open space, and sustainable improvement standards (e.g., energy efficient building design, construction, and operation. G. Minor Changes by Director. 1. Minor changes in a planned residential development that do not involve an increase in density : - _ " e - e - - . or a change of use may be approved by the Director, pursuant to Section 18.63.020.0 (Administrative Site and Architectural Review). Page 7 of 8 Exhibit 1 2. Proposed changes that are not deemed minor shall be subject to review and approval by the original review authority. H. Common Ownership - Land or Improvements 1.Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's). Where a Planned Residential Development contains any land or improvement proposed to be held in common ownership, the applicant shall submit a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R's) with the final map establishing a Home Owner's Association subject to Community and Economic Development Director and the City Attorney approval. Such declaration shall set forth provisions for maintenance of all common areas, payment of taxes and all other privileges and responsibilities of the common ownership. The CC&R's shall include provisions prohibiting the homeowners' association (HOA) from quitclaiming, selling or otherwise transferring the land held in common ownership to private property owners. 2.The City shall be made a party of the CC&R's. The City's participation shall be specifically limited to enforcement of the HOA's maintenance obligation. 3.Amendments to CC&R's. The provisions of approved CC&R's shall not be amended without the prior approval of the Community Development Director and City Attorney who at his or her discretion may refer the matter to the Planning Commission. Requests for amendments to existing CC&R's shall be submitted to the Community Development Division. 4.Maintenance. All private streets, walkways, parking areas, landscaped areas, storage areas, screening, sewers, drainage facilities, utilities, open space, recreation facilities and other improvements not dedicated to public use shall be maintained by the property owners. Provisions acceptable to the affected City Departments shall be made for the preservation and maintenance of all such improvements prior to the issuance of building permits. 5.Failure to Maintain Constitutes a Public Nuisance. All commonly-owned lots, improvements and facilities shall be preserved and maintained in a safe condition and in a state of good repair. Any failure to so maintain is unlawful and a public nuisance endangering the health, safety and general welfare of the public and a detriment to the surrounding community. Page 8 of 8 Page 1 of 1 SANDRA MOLINA - PRD Ordinance From: Doug Wilson <bampa.doug@yahoo.corn> To: Sandra Molina <Smolina@cityofgrandterrace.org > Date: 10/12/2011 11:19 AM Subject: PRD Ordinance Sandra: Once I had a chance to step back from all the discussion that took place during the 060ct1l Planning Commission meeting, I located my laundry list of considerations for PRD density. First, it seems prudent not to state that density bonus integers can't be cummulative. Because we want to encourage features like LEEDs compliance, Affordable, exponential Title 24 conservation measures, landscape buffers, clustering to preserve open space, pedestrian accessibility, handicapped access, useful recreational amenities, parcel assemblage, upgraded elevations, developing an irregular lot, private open space, general open space, bike racks, easements, dedications, unusual topography, impediments (railroad or other), family-friendly design, specialized landscaping, wiping out blight; perhaps cummulative works with an overall "cap" of 20%. The real purpose behind adding paragraph "d." is to provide tools for staffs creative interpretation based on community benefit. To start with, development of infill parcels throughout the City is a community benefit. While large-scale acreage may be viewed by adjacent propery owners as "open space in the rough", small infill ordinarily carries with it erosion control difficulties, nests for vagrants, weed maintenance, insect and pest infestation problems, fire hazard, drainage considerations, etc. One of the parcels identified as a candidate for processing under the proposed RPD ordinance is on the west side of Preston, south of Barton. While the previous project approval mapped the project as 12 units, a better design featuring private open space has been advanced by the applicant proposing 11 unit. If the base zoning for the latest design starts at allowing 9 units, common sense application of considerations for providing a fire turn-around, coping with reverse topography, providing private open space, landscape buffers, pedestrian walk ways, eliminating neighborhood blight, mitigating historic erosion problems, the finance-ability of RPD over condominum; may achieve the developer's objective by applyin -g-d-ensity bonuses with a cummulative cap of 2070 that would justify an ultimate density of 11 units. Hopefully, the above sheds a little light on the subject. Doug Wilson bampa.dougyahoo.com 909.520.8428 cell file: / /C: \Documents and Settings\smolina\Loeal Settinos\Te.mn\XP 1 1) /i9. /9,111 I Jeffrey McConnell <jeffreymcconnellbroker@yahoo.com > "smolina©cityofgrandterrace.org " <smolina©cityofgrandterrace.org > 10/14/2011 7:25 PM PRD amenity change request 101311 letter re prd final.docx RECEIVED From: To: Date: Subject: Attachments: Jeffrey McConnell Broker 909-841-5333 cell 909 824-5333 office fax Ca Lic # 00576534 OCT 1 7 2011 Community & Economic Devekipment Department Sandra, 10/13/11 At the time of writing this letter there is one item that have been bugging me since the last Planning Commission's review of the PRD Ordinance. Under "Development Standards" item (4) "Open Space" the last sentence states "Ten percent of open amenity areas may be counted toward the open space requirement." When an amenity could be a swimming pool and deck area, a common BBQ area, a Tot Lot with seating for parents to watch, or a park like setting for all to enjoy...it seems counterproductive to encourage these "Common Space Amenities" and then not include 90% of the area as part of the "Common Open Space". If I were being required to design an "Amenity" into a project and not have it all included in the "Open Space" requirement, you can bet your bottom ROI dollar that it is going to be as small as I can get away with...thus making the project a little less desirable. So, the point I am trying to make is that 100% of any amenity that is available for use by any and all of the residents within the project boundary or beyond should be fully included into the "Open Space" formulation. Please include this into the packets for the commissioners at the October 20 th meeting. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter, Jeffrey McConnell 909 841-JEFF (5333) CALIFORNIA Community and Economic Development Department GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 20, 2011 The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on October 20, 2011, at 6:30 p.m., by Chairman Doug Wilson. PRESENT: Doug Wilson, Chairman Matthew Addington, Vice Chairman Tom Comstock, Commissioner Robert Bailes, Commissioner Ohm Kongtang, Commissioner Joyce Powers, Community and Economic Development Director Sandra Molina, Senior Planner Mari Montes, Secretary 6:30 P.M.: CONVENE SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Chairman Wilson convened the Site and Architectural Review Board/Planning Commission meeting. •Call to Order — Chairman Wilson •Pledge of Allegiance — Commissioner Bailes •Roll Call - All Present •Public address to the Commission shall be limited to three minutes unless extended by the Chairman. Should you desire to make a longer presentation, please make written request to be agendized to the Director of Community and Economic Development. 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 Planning Commission may not discuss or act on any item not on the agenda, but may briefly respond to statements made or ask a question for clarification. The Chairman may also request a brief response from staff to questions raised during public comment or may request a matter be agendized for a future meeting. 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, 92313-5295 909/824-6621 Fax 909/783-2600 GENERAL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None 1. CONSENT CALENDAR 1.1 MINUTES: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 21, 2011 RECOMMENDATION: Approval MOTION PC-16-2011 Commissioner Comstock made a motion to approve the minutes of July 21, 2011 Second by Commissioner Bailes Motion carries 5 — 0 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2.1 RECOMMENDATION: Zoning Code Amendment 11-02 APPLICANT: City of Grand Terrace LOCATION: City-Wide Conduct a public hearing and move to recommend City Council approval of Zoning Code Amendment 11-02 Sandra Molina, Senior Planner — Indicated this is a continued Public Hearing from the October 6 th meeting. At that meeting the Planning Commission directed Staff to make changes to the proposed ordinance. The Staff report contains the attached resolution for Commission action and it also contains the proposed code amendment. Changes has been made as directed by the Commission, in addition an e-mail from Chairman Wilson presenting his thoughts on a potential change from the direction the Commission provided in respect to density bonuses is attached. The discussion was whether bonuses should be cumulative or not. Commission direction was not to have them cumulative. Chairman Wilson believes Staff and Commission may want to consider doing this. Staff also received an e-mail from Jeffery McConnell proposing to amend the open space provisions, requesting that the last line should be stricken. Chairman Wilson — Stated that what is before the Commission is a resolution that is ground breaking, it is a PRD resolution and that we have had much discussion on it. He would like to state that he is chagrined that he was not prepared to back up the reason for supporting the 20% cap. The Chairman has done much analysis in relation to the item, and has found there 2 Planning Commission Minutes-10120(2011 are huge moves for incentive programs for density bonuses being granted when it comes to affordable. This is in the queue for this situation but it was not the focus of the discussion for density situations. This (density bonuses for affordable housing) would be the premier consideration when it comes to bonuses because it encourages an affordable supply. In this case, we've been warned in public testimony that affordable does not always pencil for the property owners. We were trying to furnish, in addition to the affordable cue set by State statutes, some elections that could be incorporated into their projects and by those amenities, the community benefits, we could then weigh this and allow that flexibility to approve or disapprove the project based on its merits. What he discovered and the Chairman stated he would "load the gun" and tell the Commission what he discovered, which the Commission could then chat about and decide. The City's base density is comparatively low, which was discovered during past discussions on density, this we know. The reason is that we like it that way or we would have changed it. Compared to various cities, we're up to 50% lower than most communities. By doing the PRD and considering a cap on any type of bonus program it still allows the luxury of keeping the base density low. Overall for the City someone could process something in the R-2 or R-3 and not use the PRD, but then still, case by case, we can analyze these different projects. As an example, the Chairman reviewed the City of Riverside's ordinance in relation to density bonuses and PRD, which was easy to identify. Most PRD ordinances are set up with extreme flexibility pass the base density that is shown in a general plan and can give you pretty much anything, which is also what we are not interested in. We want to have control on the circumstance. What they do (Riverside), on an R-3, the small density for an R-3-4,000 circumstance is 10.9, then marches on R3-3,000 it is 14.5, R3-2,500 17.4 per acre, R3-2,000 is 21.8 per acre, and R3-1,500 29 units per acre. What the Commission is doing is the luxury of analyzing each item by itself and determining by means of a cap, starting with the base density. We have an item "A", item "B", item "C" and item "0" and if a developer is willing to comply then we can justify it, but we'll never get will never get more than "blank" percent over base density. Considering that our base density is low, that's why he proposed a 20% cap. With a 10% cap, someone has 25 units, that is maybe 2 extra units. In affordable cues, in other jurisdictions their cap is 20-35%. This is his basis, refers to the e-mail provided, which is self-explanatory. It talks about the various things that could be put in an Item D, where we talk about other options for density bonuses. The Chairman also discussed other things that other jurisdictions consider for density bonuses. He asked that the Commission consider his comments. Commissioner Comstock — Asked what is the maximum allowable density bonus for affordable housing? Senior Planner Molina — Responded the maximum is 35% but is based on a sliding scale. In four different categories, very low income, low income, moderate income and senior units. It does cap at 35% but also in State Law are required to give development incentives. Commissioner Comstock — Stated in considering Chairman Wilson's proposal is wondering if there would be an additional 20% on top of the 35%? Chairman Wilson — Responded that as he understands it, reading through the Government Code, it does specify. It is a sliding scale and there are other accoutrements that go along with affordable. There are considerations for give-a-ways, meaning most of the ordinances carry a give-away clause where set backs can be reduced, shorten a front yard, reduce parking and other items like these. The way our ordinance specifies it, density bonuses can be provided through the provisions of the Government Code so we know that sliding scale is what we are tied to. Then 20% for the LEED, did not specify any specific LEED just encouraging it. Then 3 Planning Commission Minutes-10/2012011 there is 10% density bonus for construction for a 20% increase over Title 24. Most projects have stringent Title 24 anyway. So we are saying that other than first two items, the most you'll get when you accumulate the other items is 20%. It never goes past that. Commissioner Comstock — Stated he felt that he was between a rock and a hard place. Indicated if a developer goes with 35% and adds 20% and then another 20%, then this would be a 75% density bonus. Likes that we are a low-density community. Does recognize this would be for a small amount of parcels. Commissioner suggests shaping the wording a bit. If point "A" and point "B" are used then there is a cap there. If neither of these first two is used, then we can cap at the maximum of 55%. Agrees with a cap, but would like to give some incentive but not too and create a project that will not work. Chairman Wilson — Clarified the options he proposes: A - developer gets a chance at 35%, if not chosen then it is thrown away B - developer gets up to 20%, if not chosen then it is thrown away C and D - maximum cap, cumulative, 35%, and cannot be cumulative on affordable or others Commissioner Comstock — Indicated he agrees with this. Vice Chairman Addington — Stated he understands Commissioner Comstock, has also lived in town for many years and agrees he also like the low density. There needs to be an understanding that the resolution that is being presented is a very technical document. This has been very carefully written by the experts, City Staff, who have been doing this for years. He is hesitant to start changing much of their wording, it has been written in a general manner to allow development to move forward. If the wording gets to specific then the developer is tied down. Has had experience in his career with such issues but had been able to move forward with projects. Vice Chairman has faith with the Staff and is hesitant to make any further changes to the document. Joyce Powers, Community and Economic Development Director — Commented Staff still has a concern about a bonus for the irregular shape and topography as this constrains the buildable area. Can not see how a density bonus would be allowed under these circumstances and still meet the set back requirement and etc. PUBLIC COMMENT Jeffery McConnell, Walnut Avenue — Indicated he touched on the issue at the last meeting and describes pretty well, in the e-mail his concerns. From the development side does not understand why the City would not want to expand outside of the extreme minimal on the amenity if it is not included in the open space. Chairman Wilson — Asked staff to address the items, refers to item #4, reads "10% of open amenity area may be counted towards open space requirement". Senior Planner Molina — Responded this was discussed at the last couple of workshops. Staff was trying to avoid a situation where the amenities constitute the entire open space land and there is minimum decorative enhancement. Chairman Wilson — Asked how would this encourage developed open space? 4 Planning Commission Minutes-10/20/2011 Senior Planner Molina — Responded the requirement is for a minimum of 20% of the lot area to be open space. They will have to meet the requirement to begin with. Jeffery McConnell — Stated it does not encourage development amenities. Chairman Wilson — Indicated technically it could be said, if the developer planted some area it would be called open space as long it is not next to the garage or in concrete driveway and so on. There is no enhancement to value of life, it's just open space. Jeffery McConnell — Comment there is the feeling that what the developer sees as open space is really just something to look at, flowers, grass, trees. Do not see it being used unless it's an amenity. Commissioner Comstock — Commented on smaller shape lot, difficult topography, hillside, if there is half of the space that can developed as a foot print for the land. If the Commission includes the amenities then the developer can place a pool and can serve as a percentage necessary for an open space lot, there would be minimal landscaping. Would want to include a small percentage of landscaping for this. He does not think 100% of amenities included in the open space is something that he can support but does think it should be looked at for increasing it more than 10%. Chairman Wilson — Asked Staff if they know where the 10% came from? Senior Planner Molina — Responded the 10% did not come from anywhere other than Staff trying to avoid the situation that was described by Commissioner Comstock. Commissioner Comstock — Asked if there is anyway to leave this open ended as the project comes in the Planning Commission could make a determination per project basis? This could avoid, for example, a swimming pool as an entirety of the open space. Vice Chairman Addington — Commented this could be a possibility but one item he described previously, if it is left open for interpretation by the Planning Commission it would be left open for interpretation by five plan checkers and may not agree. It would make it more difficult for a developer to decided how to move forward. This resolution would affect approximately five parcel and we are familiar with the parcels and what can be put on them. Is not sure that adding the language and bringing it back to the five plan checkers would help anything. Chairman Wilson — Proposed to replace the 10% to 25% as it would be more applicable. 10% is a small amount to encourage amenities in a project, even though there may be some amenity incentives in relation to other things in the PRD. Vice Chairman Addington — Asked if he could refer back to Director Powers comment on item D, irregular topography and other unusual constraints? Director Powers — Responded if there is a constrained lot the buildable area would be decreased. How would a density bonus be achieved while still keeping below the height limitation or other standards. Understands the Vice Chairman's concerns about useless opens space, however if there is no type of landscaping or attractive feature to the project this would not be considered a desirable project. 5 Planning Commission Minutes-10/20/2011 Chairman Wilson — Clarified the definition of an irregular parcel, when referring to an odd space parcel is referring to alignment not elevation. When referring to topography differences are now referring to elevation difference. Vice Chairman Addington — Asked if it would be the thoughts of Staff to eliminate item D as it is not helpful? Director Powers — Staff has a real concern that the focus is on density and would not be providing an attractive project. Vice Chairman Addington — Referred to item #2. The wording that was proposed to be revised by the Commission "only one density bonus may be granted of these four below", it would be a 20% bonus. So far have been referring to percentages but if Commission goes back to the original wording proposed in the resolution and focus on B and C. Chairman Wilson — Indicated what has been proposed on item A and B, the developer would never go beyond the two caps. It this would be an affordable unit project then the developer would only get to chose up to this. If they were to go to a 20% density bonus for LEED unit then you get the 20%. If they get in option C and D would have to change the language upon the item #2 (inaudible) to allow for the interpretation that cumulatively C and D would never go pass the bonus. There would be an affordable up to 35% and item B, LEED, would go up to 20% or go with one of the others and get up to 20%. Vice Chairman Addington - Indicated he understand the explanation but was referring that he was not sure all the discussion at the last meeting really improved this much. The original wording that was proposed by Staff was very good and is not sure there was great stride in improving. Daryl Moore, 22750 Minona Drive — Commented the concept of having item D bonus with a cap on it was a good idea to get a bit of flexibility. Believes when this finally goes through all these bonuses would not get triggered, maybe someone would get some use of them. Does not think the process would run amuck by adding item D, would add a little flexibility if it is capped. Providing an affordable unit project, and energy efficiency is good, why would this not be incentivized, he does not believe this makes any sense. The way option D would be applied, if someone used item C and received a bonus and overcame some obstacles, does not see why they could not be entitled to a 20% bonus. Commissioner Comstock — Suggested should go back to item #4, regarding the open amenity area. Believes Chairman Wilson proposed a 25% instead of 10%, maybe could start there? Chairman Wilson — Indicated a proposed change to item #4, a change from 10% of open amenity in the last sentence to a 25% of open amenity areas, may be counted toward the open space requirement. Asked for a second motion. Vice Chairman Addington — Responded he would second for discussion purposes. Asked Senior Planner Molina what would be changed, how would the language be affected by going from 10% to 25%? Senior Planner Molina — Referred to the comment made by Chairman Wilson, if this was changed to 25% this would mean 75% could be amenities. Speaking for herself, she does not have a strong objection to 25%. She believes Mr. McConnell has a valid point in the instance of there may be amenities at the low end to try to meet this requirement. The point is that the City 6 Planning Commission Minutes-10/20/2011 wants the amenities per project but does not want the situation as described by Commissioner Comstock. MOTION PC-17-2011 Chairman Wilson made a motion to change item #4, in the last sentence, from 10% of open amenity to a 25% of open amenity areas counting toward the open space requirement. Second by Vice Chairman Addington Motion carries 5 — 0 Chairman Wilson — Stated would move to paragraph two, regarding density bonus. Commissioner Comstock — Requested for further discussion. Under item #2, asked for further clarification on the wording, "a 10% density bonus for construction of the project to meet or exceed more than a 20% increase above Title 24 requirements". Senior Planner Molina — Indicated the way Staff had envisioned it was that Title 24 has standard requirements as far as what needs to be done, then there are tiers. If the developer goes above the Title 24 standards and reaches the 20% efficiency over Title 24 then the density bonus could be supported. Chairman Wilson — Stated Title 24 is the State Code regarding energy conservation. When first proposed it looked at the SCER rating on furnaces, air conditioning systems, and windows. Many architects were free with there glazing. It also has to do with insulation, SCER rating, and can't go below a certain SCER rating on an air conditioning system prior to installation. If the builder chose to go 20% above the minimum this would give the 10% situation. The developer would hit a cap with everyone of these devices, the one place were you don't hit a cap quite so fast is in an air conditioning system. So if you go with a more efficient air conditioning system, over time it would pay you back. That's what Title 24 is about. So with each item it is an incentive, and the flexibility is an incentive to deal with irregular lots. Commissioner Comstock — Thanked Chairman Wilson, the explanation helped. Senior Planner Molina — Commented the City identified a need for creating incentives to help these constraining lots to develop. We looked at flexible setbacks, flexibility in open space and amenity requirements. These are the types of things one would look at when there is a constrained lot, even under State Law when you look at a variance it is because of some inherent characteristic on the property. State Law is very specific and it has to be a development standard, could not give a variance for use or density. That is not what the intent of the ordinance is for, for these constrained lots. Staff has incentivized inherently for constraint lots through these reduced development standards. Another thing that was discussed was that there should be a provision for density bonuses but it should be because it does something for the community. Affordable housing helps the community and housing elements. Energy efficiency is a great thing. If the developer is willing to go above and beyond, then there should be an incentive for this. A density bonus because the lot is merely constrained, Senior Planner Molina is not sure how this goes above and beyond from where this started, it would not be helping 7 Planning Commission Minutes-10/20/2011 affordable housing or conservation. She does not see the need for an incentive just for having a constrained lot when we have already done this with the development standards. Chairman Wilson — Commented he believes there should an incentive to develop an irregular lot, when it has an odd shape to it. Reviews others on the list, private open space, general open space, bike racks, parcel assemblage, and handicap access. There are minimums but when the developer goes above the minimums, that is when something should be incentivized. Are familiar with the affordable, Title 24, LEED is in the same situation but what will give someone an incentive were appropriate to preserve additional open space, to give better pedestrian accessibility, to cope with better unusual topography. When referring to unusual topography sometimes it is necessary to cluster development to allow the rest of the project to work. When referring to the definition of public good some of these things sound right. Chair stated he would entertain further discussion or a motion on the item. Vice Chairman Addington — Commented he is hesitant to make any further wording changes to the wording on this technical document. MOTION PC-18-2011 Vice Chairman Addington made a motion to approve the Zoning Code Amendment 11-02, as amended by the previous motion. Second by Commissioner Comstock Chairman Wilson — Asked for discussion. Stated it is a benefit to community to incentivize some of the items that have been discussed in the e-mail for the PRD ordinance dated October 12 th Chairman called for the vote. Motion carries 4 — 1, with Chairman Wilson voting no. 3. INFORMATION TO COMMISSIONERS Director Powers — Advised the Commissioner the grading has started at the Barton Plaza project. The grading started today for the Walgreen's store. Chairman Wilson — Asked if there is a time table as to when the road would be removed, as it would have serious safety issues. Director Powers — Responded that at this point the street will be fenced off as it has been vacated. The pavement will stay in place for sometime due to the drainage issues, would cause a disruption problem if pulled out. 8 Planning Commission Minutes-10/20/2011 Joyce Powers Doug Wilson, Chairman Planning Commission Community and Economic Development Director 9 4. INFORMATION FROM COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Bailes — Asked if there have been any complaints from the residents to the south of Stater Bros. since they opened, regarding the lighting, trucks, or delivery. Director Powers — Responded there was a complaint today. The deliveries were being made too early in the morning, will have this looked into. Secondly, received a question as to whether the shielding has been installed. Commissioner Comstock — Asked about the traffic light delay at Michigan Street and Barton Road? Secretary Montes — Indicated the complaint was turned in to Republic Electric, will follow up with Republic on the status of this lighting issue. Chairman Wilson — Stated he has had similar difficulties at Barton Road and Preston Street. Has had discussion with Public Works Director and it was indicated that certain bond money that was supposed to be set aside for looking at traffic circulation in the City. Is wondering if there is a time frame when there can be an adjustment to this. Chairman Wilson also expressed kudos to the school district, for creating a 25 parking space area to try to resolve the parking problem along Brentwood. Still needs to address the parking on the north end of the school, Grand Terrace Road. CHAIRMAN WILSON ADJOURNED THE SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO THE NEXT MEETING TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 1, 2011. Respectfully Submitted, Approved By, Planning Commission Minutes-10/20/2011 Attachment 6 Adopted Planning Commission Resolution RESOLUTION NO. NO. 2011- 08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 11-02 TO ADD SECTION 18.10.090 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO CHAPTER 18.10 OF TITLE 18 OF THE GRAND TERRACE MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 65800 and 65850 of the California Government Code, the City may adopt ordinances to regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land as between industry, business, residences, and open space, and other purposes; to regulate the location, height, bulk, number of stories and size of buildings and structures, the size and use of lots, yards, courts and other open spaces, the percentage of a lot which may be occupied by a building or structure, and the intensity of land use; and to establish requirements for off-street parking, in compliance with the California Government Code. WHEREAS, Chapter 18.90 of the Municipal Code provides a process for the amendment of the Zoning Code. WHEREAS, the Project, as contemplated, proposes to establish a new Section 18.10.090 Planned Residential Development in order to facilitate the development of infill lots that may be otherwise constrained due to lot size, configuration, and/or topography. WHEREAS, on July 21, 2011, and September 1, 2011, the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace conducted two public workshops on the planned residential development (PRD) provisions. WHEREAS, on October 6, 2011, and October 20, 2011, the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace conducted duly noticed public hearings on proposed Section 18.10.090 Planned Residential Development at the Grand Terrace City Hall Council Chambers located 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, CA 92313 and concluded the hearing on October 20, 2011, by voting to recommend City Council approval of the proposed Amendment. WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace, as follows 1.The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the above Recitals, are true and correct. 2.Based on substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the October 6, 2011, public hearing, including public testimony, and written and oral staff reports, the Planning Commission specifically finds as follows with regard to Zoning Code Amendment 11-02: a.Zone Change 11-02 will not be 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 because any future development in accordance with the provisions are still subject to applicable building and fire codes, and the provisions provide for setbacks, open space, parking and building height regulations. b.Zone Change 11-02 will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or within the city because it will not preclude the continued use and/or development of surrounding properties. c.Zone Change 11-02 is consistent with the latest adopted General Plan, such as Goal 2.1 to provide for balanced growth which seeks to provide a wide range of employment and housing opportunities and maintenance of a healthy, diversified community, and Policy 9.3.1 because it provides incentives for incorporating "green" building design into project design. 3.Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend Title 18 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code by adding Section 18.10.090 to Chapter 18.10 described in Exhibit 1 attached hereto. 4.The City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace, California, at a regular meeting held on the 20 th day of October, 2011. AYES: 4 - Commissioner's Addington, Comstock, Kongtang, Bailes NOES: 1 - Chairman Wilson ABSENT: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 ATTEST: OR /CU Al,l A L Tracey Inez City Clerk II;( Doug Wilson Chairman, Planning Commission Page 2 of 8 Exhibit 1 Section 18.10.090 Planned Residential Development A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide a process for approving a planned residential development that is intended to: 1.Allow for flexibility and creativity in the development of infill lots otherwise constrained due to lot size, configuration and/or surroundings; 2.Provide a method whereby land may be designed and developed as a unified site by taking advantage of efficient site planning techniques thereby resulting in a more efficient use of land, a better living environment, excellence of design, and related enhanced amenities than is otherwise possible through strict application of the development standards of the underlying zoning classification; 3.Ensure development that meets high standards of environmental quality, public health and safety, the efficient use of the City's resources, and the purpose, intent, goals, policies, actions, and land use designations of the General Plan, and any applicable specific plan; and B. Applicability. 1.Permitted zones. A planned residential development shall be permitted on those parcels identified, within the R2—Low Medium and R3—Medium Density Residential Zone districts. As determined by the Planning Commission on a case by case basis, a planned residential development may be proposed on any site other than those listed in subparagraph "a", provided that it meets the applicability requirements of this section. a. A planned residential development may be proposed on the following properties: Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 0275-191-15, 0275-211-09, 0275-211-58, 0275-251-04, 0276-202-74, and 1167- 341-078. 2.Minimum Site Area. A planned residential development may only be requested for a site(s) with a minimum size of 22,000 net square feet. a. Net area shall mean the total horizontal area within the lot lines of a lot, excluding public or private easement, any street, drive aisle, or right of way area. 3.Permitted Uses. A planned residential development project shall not authorize a use that is not allowed in the base zoning district. C. Development Standards. Page 3 of 8 Exhibit 1 1 Density: Density within a planned residential development shall comply with the permitted density of the underlying zone district. a. The fractional/decimal results of calculations of the number of multiple housing units allowed within a land use zoning district shall be rounded down to the next lowest whole number. If a fraction is 0.55 or more, the Director may recommend the higher whole number to the Commission based on other development standards and regulations being met. 2. Density bonus: A density bonus, as shown below, may be considered by the Planning Commission, based on the merits of the project. Only one density bonus may be granted. a.A density bonus shall be granted for affordable housing developments in accordance with the density bonus provisions of Government Code Section 65915; or b.A 20% density bonus with evidence that the project can be certified in LEED, California Green Builder or equivalent standard; or c.A 10% density bonus for construction of the project to meet or exceed more than a 20% increase above Title 24 requirements or ., d.A 10% density bonus on sites constrained by irregular shape, irregular topography, or other unusual physical constraints. 3. Lot coverage: Lot coverage shall not exceed 60% of the lot area. Lot coverage includes primary and accessory structures, covered patios and garages. 4. Open space: A minimum of 20%25% of the lot area shall be open and unobstructed. Paved areas, drive aisles, parking areas, private patios, or areas between structures less than 10 feet in any dimension, shall not be counted towards open space. TenTwenty -five percent of open amenity areas may be counted toward the open space requirement. 5. Private open space: A minimum of 250 square feet of private open space per dwelling unit shall be provided, with no dimension less than 10 feet. Architectural elements with no habitable space may encroach into private open spaces. 6. Amenities: Amenities may include a swimming pool, clubhouse, tot lot with play equipment, picnic shelter with barbeque area, basketball, tennis, or other recreational amenities. The type of amenities shall be approved by the Planning Commission. Amenities shall be provided as follows: 2.. Page 4 of 8 Exhibit 1 Number of Units Number of Amenities 0-11 0 12-24 1 25-50 2 51-75 3 75+ as determined by the Planning Commission Note: Where a mix of attached and detached units is proposed, amenities shall be provided pursuant to this subsection. 7 Height: 35 feet. Three-story structures shall not be permitted adjacent to any Single Family Residential zone or single family use.35 foot, 2 Y2 zone district. 8. Circulation a.Private streets shall be permitted only when a Homeowner's Association is established to maintain them. b.Private streets shall be built to public works construction standards. c.Street/Drive Aisle Width: A minimum of 26 feet, curb to curb with no on-street parking shall be provided. Where one-way access is proposed, the minimum width shall conform to County Fire standards. d.Two points of vehicular ingress and egress to a public street shall be provided. Except that for smaller projects or where the applicant can show that this is a physical impossibility, the appropriate fire authority may modify this requirement if the fire authority determines that emergency access is adequate for the project. 9. Number of attached dwelling units. Attached dwelling units shall not exceed 8 units. Any building with 6 or more units shall provide a minimum two foot variation along the building wall plane. 10. Project Setbacks: a. Perimeter setbacks: i.Front yard: 20 feet ii.Rear yard: 15 feet Page 5 of 8 Exhibit 1 iii.Side yard: 10 feet iv.Street Side yard: 10 feet b. Attached units shall also adhere to the following setbacks: i.A minimum setback of 10 feet from the curb face, except that a minimum driveway depth of 17 feet shall be provided. ii.A minimum of 15 feet between attached buildings. c. Small lot subdivisionsg-e-ta-G4e€1—u-n-its shall adhere to the following standards: i.Minimum lot size: 3,500 net square feet ii.Lot coverage: 60% iii.Front yard setback: An average of 18 feet, but no less than 16 feet iv.Rear yard setback: 15 feet v.Side yard setbacks: 5 feet on one side yard and 8 feet on the other side yard vi.Zero lot line setback: Shall apply to detached garages only. vii.Distance between detached garage and main residence: 5 feet 11.Parking. Parking shall be in accordance with Chapter 18.60 (Off Street Parking), with the following exceptions: a. On-street parking may be credited towards guest parking, provided that a curb to curb street width or driveway width of a minimum of 33 feet is provided, with parking only on one side of the street. 12.Storage and Trash Areas. All storage and trash areas shall be located within enclosed areas completely screened from public view. Common storage and trash areas shall be within 200 feet of the dwelling served. D. Procedures. 1. Planned residential developments shall be processed in accordance with Chapter 18.63 (Site and Architectural Review). The application shall Page 6 of 8 Exhibit 1 include all of the information and materials specified by the Site and Architectural Review application, together with the required fee in compliance with the City's adopted fee schedule. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide evidence in support of the findings required by subsection (F) of this section (Findings and Decision). 2. The application shall be accompanied by a tentative map that shall be filed and processed in accordance with Title 17 (Subdivisions) of the Municipal Code. E. Review Authority. The Commission may approve, conditionally approve, or deny a planned residential development, provided that the findings contained in subsection (F) of this section (Findings and Decision), and in Chapter 18.63 (Site and Architectural Review), can be made. F Findings and Decision. The Commission may approve or conditionally approve a planned residential development only after first making all of the findings contained in Section 18.63.060 (Approval Process) and the following: 1.The development includes only uses allowed within the base zoning district. 2.The development is compatible with other development within the zoning district and general neighborhood of the proposed project. 3.The project would produce a development of higher quality and greater excellence of design than that might otherwise result from using the standard development regulations. 4.The subject site is adequate in terms of size, shape, topography, and circumstances to accommodate the proposed development. 5.The project includes improved quality of life provisions and enhanced amenities, including an additional and appropriate variety of structure placement and orientation opportunities, appropriate mix of structure sizes, high quality architectural design, common open space, landscaping, parking areas, private open space, and sustainable improvement standards (e.g., energy efficient building design, construction, and operation. G. Minor Changes by Director. 1. Minor changes in a planned residential development that do not involve an increase in density e g r ae change of use may be approved by the Director, pursuant to Section 18.63.020.0 (Administrative Site and Architectural Review). Page 7 of 8 Exhibit 1 2. Proposed changes that are not deemed minor shall be subject to review and approval by the original review authority. H. Common Ownership - Land or Improvements 1.Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's). Where a Planned Residential Development contains any land or improvement proposed to be held in common ownership, the applicant shall submit a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R's) with the final map establishing a Home Owner's Association subject to Community and Economic Development Director and the City Attorney approval. Such declaration shall set forth provisions for maintenance of all common areas, payment of taxes and all other privileges and responsibilities of the common ownership. The CC&R's shall include provisions prohibiting the homeowners' association (HOA) from quitclaiming, selling or otherwise transferring the land held in common ownership to private property owners. 2.The City shall be made a party of the CC&R's. The City's participation shall be specifically limited to enforcement of the HOA's maintenance obligation. 3.Amendments to CC&R's. The provisions of approved CC&R's shall not be amended without the prior approval of the Community Development Director and City Attorney who at his or her discretion may refer the matter to the Planning Commission. Requests for amendments to existing CC&R's shall be submitted to the Community Development Division. 4.Maintenance. All private streets, walkways, parking areas, landscaped areas, storage areas, screening, sewers, drainage facilities, utilities, open space, recreation facilities and other improvements not dedicated to public use shall be maintained by the property owners. Provisions acceptable to the affected City Departments shall be made for the preservation and maintenance of all such improvements prior to the issuance of building permits. 5.Failure to Maintain Constitutes a Public Nuisance. All commonly-owned lots, improvements and facilities shall be preserved and maintained in a safe condition and in a state of good repair. Any failure to so maintain is unlawful and a public nuisance endangering the health, safety and general welfare of the public and a detriment to the surrounding community. Page 8 of 8 Attachment 7 City Council Ordinance Adopting Section 18.10.090 Planned Residential Development ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ADDING SECTION 18.10.090 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO CHAPTER 18.10 OF TITLE 18 OF THE GRAND TERRACE MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 65800 and 65850 of the California Government Code, the City may adopt ordinances to regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land as between industry, business, residences, and open space, and other purposes; to regulate the location, height, bulk, number of stories and size of buildings and structures, the size and use of lots, yards, courts and other open spaces, the percentage of a lot which may be occupied by a building or structure, and the intensity of land use; and to establish requirements for off-street parking, in compliance with the California Government Code. WHEREAS, Chapter 18.90 of the Municipal Code provides a process for the amendment of the Zoning Code. WHEREAS, the Project, as contemplated, proposes to establish a new Section 18.10.090 entitled Planned Residential Development in order to facilitate the development of infill lots that may be otherwise constrained due to lot size, configuration, and/or topography. WHEREAS, on July 21, 2011, and September 1, 2011, the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace conducted two public workshops on the planned residential development (PRD) provisions. WHEREAS, on October 6, 2011, and October 20, 2011, the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace conducted duly noticed public hearings on proposed Section 18.10.090 Planned Residential Development at the Grand Terrace City Hall Council Chambers located 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, CA 92313 and concluded the hearing on October 20, 2011, by voting 4-1 to recommend City Council approval of the proposed Amendment. WHEREAS, on January 10, 2012, the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace conducted a duly noticed public hearing on Zoning Code Amendment 11-02 at the Grand Terrace City Hall Council Chambers located 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, CA 92313 and concluded the hearing on that date. WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, as follows Page 2 of 10 SECTION 1. Zoning Code Amendment 11-02 is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The Project establishes standards and procedures for planned residential development projects, but does not include any development activities, which would have a significant impact on the environment. SECTION 2. Zoning Code Amendment 11-02 will not be 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 because any future development in accordance with the provisions are still subject to applicable building and fire codes, and the provisions provide for setbacks, open space, parking and building height regulations. SECTION 3. Zoning Code Amendment 11-02 will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or within the city because it will not preclude the continued use and/or development of surrounding properties. SECTION 4. Zoning Code Amendment 11-02 is consistent with the latest adopted General Plan, such as Goal 2.1 to provide for balanced growth which seeks to provide a wide range of employment and housing opportunities and maintenance of a healthy, diversified community, and Policy 9.3.1 because it provides incentives for incorporating “green” building design into project design. SECTON 5. Section 18.10.090 entitled “Planned Residential Development” is hereby added to Chapter 18.10 of Title 18 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code as described in Exhibit 1 attached hereto. SECTION 6. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of it irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions of it be declared invalid or unconstitutional. If for any reason any portion of this ordinance is declared invalid or unconstitutional, then all other provisions shall remain valid and enforceable. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days from the date of adoption. SECTION 8. First read at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 10th day of January, 2012 and finally adopted and ordered posted at a regular meeting of said City Council on the 24th day of January, 2012. Page 3 of 10 ATTEST: ______________________________ _____________________________ 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 I, Tracey Martinez, City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 10th of January 2012, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on the 24th day of January 2012, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ________________________________ Tracey Martinez, City Clerk Approved as to form: ________________________________ Richard L. Adams, City Attorney Page 4 of 10 Exhibit 1 Section 18.10.090 Planned Residential Development A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide a process for approving a planned residential development that is intended to: 1. Allow for flexibility and creativity in the development of infill lots otherwise constrained due to lot size, configuration and/or surroundings; 2. Provide a method whereby land may be designed and developed as a unified site by taking advantage of efficient site planning techniques thereby resulting in a more efficient use of land, a better living environment, excellence of design, and related enhanced amenities than is otherwise possible through strict application of the development standards of the underlying zoning classification; 3. Ensure development that meets high standards of environmental quality, public health and safety, the efficient use of the City’s resources, and the purpose, intent, goals, policies, actions, and land use designations of the General Plan, and any applicable specific plan. B. Applicability. 1. Permitted zones. A planned residential development shall be permitted on those parcels identified, within the R2–Low Medium and R3–Medium Density Residential Zone districts. As determined by the Planning Commission on a case by case basis, a planned residential development may be proposed on any site other than those listed in subparagraph “a”, provided that it meets the applicability requirements of this section. a. A planned residential development may be proposed on the following properties: Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 0275-191-15, 0275-211-09, 0275-211-58, 0275-251-04, 0276-202-74, and 1167- 341-078. 2. Minimum Site Area. A planned residential development may only be requested for a site(s) with a minimum size of 22,000 net square feet. a. Net area shall mean the total horizontal area within the lot lines of a lot, excluding public or private easement, any street, drive aisle, or right of way area. 3. Permitted Uses. A planned residential development project shall not authorize a use that is not allowed in the base zoning district. Page 5 of 10 C. Development Standards. 1. Density: Density within a planned residential development shall comply with the permitted density of the underlying zone district. a. The fractional/decimal results of calculations of the number of multiple housing units allowed within a land use zoning district shall be rounded down to the next lowest whole number. If a fraction is 0.55 or more, the Director may recommend the higher whole number to the Commission based on other development standards and regulations being met. 2. Density bonus: A density bonus, as shown below, may be considered by the Planning Commission, based on the merits of the project, including that all applicable development standards are met. Only one density bonus may be granted. a. Notwithstanding Subsection 2 above, a density bonus shall be granted for affordable housing developments in accordance with the density bonus provisions of Government Code Section 65915; or b. A 20% density bonus with evidence that the project can be certified in LEED for Homes; or c. A 10% density bonus for construction of the project to meet or exceed more than a 20% increase in energy efficiency above Title 24 requirements or; 3. Lot coverage: Lot coverage shall not exceed 60% of the lot area. Lot coverage includes primary and accessory structures, covered patios and garages. 4. Open space: A minimum of 20% of the lot area shall be open a nd unobstructed. Paved areas, drive aisles, parking areas, private patios, or areas between structures less than 10 feet in any dimension, shall not be counted towards open space. Twenty-five percent of open amenity areas may be counted toward the open space requirement. 5. Private open space: A minimum of 250 square feet of private open space per dwelling unit shall be provided, with no dimension less than 10 feet. Architectural elements with no habitable space may encroach into private open spaces. Page 6 of 10 6. Amenities: Amenities may include a swimming pool, clubhouse, tot lot with play equipment, picnic shelter with barbeque area, basketball, tennis, or other recreational amenities. The type of amenities shall be approved by the Planning Commission. Amenities shall be provided as follows: Number of Units Number of Amenities 0-11 0 12-24 1 25-50 2 51-75 3 75+ as determined by the Planning Commission Note: Where a mix of attached and detached units is proposed, amenities shall be provided pursuant to this subsection. 7. Height: 35 feet. Three-story structures shall not be permitted adjacent to any Single Family Residential zone or single family use. 8. Circulation a. Private streets shall be permitted only when a Homeowner’s Association is established to maintain them. b. Private streets shall be built to public works construction standards. c. Street/Drive Aisle Width: A minimum of 26 feet, curb to curb with no on-street parking shall be provided. Where one-way access is proposed, the minimum width shall conform to County Fire standards. d. Two points of vehicular ingress and egress to a public street shall be provided. Except that for smaller projects or where the applicant can show that this is a physical impossibility, the appropriate fire authority may modify this requirement if the fire authority determines that emergency access is adequate for the project. 9. Number of attached dwelling units. Attached dwelling units shall not exceed 8 units. Any building with 6 or more units shall provide a minimum two foot variation along the building wall plane. Page 7 of 10 10. Project Setbacks: a. Perimeter setbacks: i. Front yard: 20 feet ii. Rear yard: 15 feet iii. Side yard: 10 feet iv. Street Side yard: 10 feet b. Attached units shall also adhere to the following setbacks: i. A minimum setback of 10 feet from the curb face, except that a minimum driveway depth of 17 feet shall be provided. ii. A minimum of 15 feet between attached buildings. c. Small lot subdivisions shall adhere to the following standards: i. Minimum lot size: 3,500 net square feet ii. Lot coverage: 60% iii. Front yard setback: An average of 18 feet, but no less than 16 feet iv. Rear yard setback: 15 feet v. Side yard setbacks: 5 feet on one side yard and 8 feet on the other side yard vi. Zero lot line setback: Shall apply to detached garages only. vii. Distance between detached garage and main residence: 5 feet 11. Parking. Parking shall be in accordance with Chapter 18.60 (Off Street Parking), with the following exceptions: a. On-street parking may be credited towards guest parking, provided that a curb to curb street width or driveway width of a minimum of 33 feet is provided, with parking only on one side of the street. Page 8 of 10 12. Storage and Trash Areas. All storage and trash areas shall be located within enclosed areas completely screened from public view. Common storage and trash areas shall be within 200 feet of the dwelling served. D. Procedures. 1. Planned residential developments shall be processed in accordance with Chapter 18.63 (Site and Architectural Review). The application shall include all of the information and materials specified by the Site and Architectural Review application, together with the required fee in compliance with the City’s adopted fee schedule. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide evidence in support of the findings required by subsection (F) of this section (Findings and Decision). 2. The application shall be accompanied by a tentative map that shall be filed and processed in accordance with Title 17 (Subdivisions) of the Municipal Code. E. Review Authority. The Commission may approve, conditionally approve, or deny a planned residential development, provided that the findings contained in subsection (F) of this section (Findings and Decision), and in Chapter 18.63 (Site and Architectural Review), can be made. F. Findings and Decision. The Commission may approve or conditionally approve a planned residential development only after first making all of the findings contained in Section 18.63.060 (Approval Process) and the following: 1. The development includes only uses allowed within the base zoning district. 2. The development is compatible with other development within the zoning district and general neighborhood of the proposed project. 3. The project would produce a development of higher quality and greater excellence of design than that might otherwise result from using the standard development regulations. 4. The subject site is adequate in terms of size, shape, topography, and circumstances to accommodate the proposed development. 5. The project includes improved quality of life provisions and enhanced amenities, including an additional and appropriate variety of structure placement and orientation opportunities, appropriate mix of structure sizes, high quality architectural design, common open space, landscaping, parking areas, private open space, and sustainable improvement Page 9 of 10 standards (e.g., energy efficient building design, construction, and operation. G. Minor Changes by Director. 1. Minor changes in a planned residential development that do not involve an increase in density or a change of use may be approved by the Director, pursuant to Section 18.63.020.C (Administrative Site and Architectural Review). 2. Proposed changes that are not deemed minor shall be subject to review and approval by the original review authority. H. Common Ownership - Land or Improvements 1. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R’s). Where a Planned Residential Development contains any land or improvement proposed to be held in common ownership, the applicant shall submit a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R’s) with the final map establishing a Home Owner’s Association subject to Community and Economic Development Director and the City Attorney approval. Such declaration shall set forth provisions for maintenance of all common areas, payment of taxes and all other privileges and responsibilities of the common ownership. The CC&R’s shall include provisions prohibiting the homeowners’ association (HOA) from quitclaiming, selling or otherwise transferring the land held in common ownership to private property owners. 2. The City shall be made a party of the CC&R’s. The City’s participati on shall be specifically limited to enforcement of the HOA’s maintenance obligation. 3. Amendments to CC&R’s. The provisions of approved CC&R’s shall not be amended without the prior approval of the Community Development Director and City Attorney who at his or her discretion may refer the matter to the Planning Commission. Requests for amendments to existing CC&R’s shall be submitted to the Community Development Division. 4. Maintenance. All private streets, walkways, parking areas, landscaped areas, storage areas, screening, sewers, drainage facilities, utilities, open space, recreation facilities and other improvements not dedicated to public use shall be maintained by the property owners. Provisions acceptable to the affected City Departments shall be made for the preservation and maintenance of all such improvements prior to the issuance of building permits. Page 10 of 10 5. Failure to Maintain Constitutes a Public Nuisance. All commonly-owned lots, improvements and facilities shall be preserved and maintained in a safe condition and in a state of good repair. Any failure to so maintain is unlawful and a public nuisance endangering the health, safety and general welfare of the public and a detriment to the surrounding community. AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: January 10, 2012 Council Item ( X ) CRA Item ( ) TITLE: Review of Preliminary Design for the New Active Park on Grand Terrace Road PRESENTED BY: Joyce Powers, Community and Economic Development Director RECOMMENDATION: Review the preliminary park design with community members and make any recommendations for modification for the final design. BACKGROUND: In October 2011, the Council selected Albert A. Webb and Associates to design the new park on Grand Terrace Road, funded by the State Department of Parks and Recreation. Since that approval, escrow has closed on the 2.5 acre parcel of land, and the landscape architect and staff met with community members on November 3rd to discuss concepts for the park. Also, on December 15, 2011, the architect and staff met with members of the Historical and Cultural Committee to discuss inclusion of historical elements. When the contract was approved by Council in October, staff advised the Council that a second joint meeting with the community would be held in January 2012, and the final design and construction drawings would be ready for public bidding by July 2012. DISCUSSION: As a result of ideas from many members of the community, beginning with the grant application, a preliminary design has been prepared for review. The landscape architect will review those plans with the Council and community members, receiving any new comments, before preparing the final design and construction drawings. Neighborhood residents have been kept fully informed and are expected to attend the Council meeting of January 10, 2012. Children have also attended the community meetings and excitement is building about this new amenity. City maintenance staff has also been consulted regarding ground coverings and fixtures. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 7A Approvals Finance Director (if applicable) B.S. City Attorney RLA City Manager bma A Power Point presentation will be given by Greg Meek of Webb and Associates. FISCAL IMPACT: All costs of the project are funded by the State grant. Staff has requested an advance of funds for design costs, which has been approved. Respectfully submitted: /s/ Joyce Powers Joyce Powers Community and Economic Development Director Council Action Approved as Recommended: Denied/Other: Council Motion: AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: January 10, 2012 Council Item ( X ) CRA Item ( ) TITLE: Display of National Motto “In God We Trust” PRESENTED BY: Betsy M. Adams RECOMMENDATION: Consider adopting a resolution supporting the display of the national motto “In God We Trust” in the Council Chambers. BACKGROUND: On July 30, 1956, the United States Congress voted to approve “In God We Trust” as the nation’s motto. The motto can be found engraved above the entrance of the United States Senate Chamber as well as above the Speaker’s dias in the House of Representatives. The motto has also been used on U.S. coin currency since 1864 and paper currency since 1957. The U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution in July of 2006 to reaffirm and celebrate the national motto on its 50th anniversary since its formal adaptation. In November of 2011, the House of Representatives passed its own resolution reaffirming the national motto unanimously. In 2002, the City of Bakersfield, California voted in favor of displaying the national motto in their Council Chambers. This prompted Bakersfield Council Member Jacquie Sullivan to encourage cities throughout California to display the motto within their council chambers. Since then, she has created a non-profit organization called In God We Trust - America Inc. whose purpose is to promote the adoption and display of the national motto in cities throughout the nation (Attachment 1). The City has received numerous requests from In God We Trust - America Inc. to consider adopting the national motto and individual members of the City Council have expressed an interest in having this item brought forward for consideration by the Council. DISCUSSION: There are 77 cities in California, and 163 cities throughout the nation, which have adopted and display the national motto in some capacity within their city halls. The County of San Bernardino approved a resolution to display the national motto in the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors’ Chambers on December 14, 2010. Currently, there are eight cities in San Bernardino County which have adopted the national motto - Adelanto, Barstow, Chino, Chino Hills, Colton, Highland, Ontario and Victorville. The COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 8A Approvals Finance Director (if applicable) n/a City Attorney RLA City Manager bma Pacific Justice Institute in Sacramento, a non-profit organization, has committed to defending any governmental entity which encounters any legal opposition to the display of the national motto at no charge to the entity (Attachment 2). LEGAL ANALYSIS: The slogan “In God we Trust” at the national level, appearing on US currency, according to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, is “patriotic and ceremonial” and is NOT “theological or ritualistic” and hence is not a violation of esta blishment clause. Newdow v. Lefevre, 598 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010); Aronow v. United States, 432 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. Cal. 1970). Therefore, the motto can be used in certain circumstances. The United States Supreme Court has not addressed this issue yet, which adds uncertainty, however considering the current make up of the Court it would appear that if the US Supreme Court were to consider this matter, it would most likely uphold the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, if not expand its ruling. While one could challenge the display of the motto in the Grand Terrace Council Chambers; if the City Council’s intent and purpose behind the use of the motto is patriotic/ceremonial and not religious, then more than likely it would be held to be constitutional. In addition, if the display of the motto were challenged, the record of the discussion on the matter at the City Council meeting could be reviewed to determine if the decision to display the motto was for patriotic/ceremonial reasons or religious reasons. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the City or the General Fund. Wildan Pump & Engineering has offered to fabricate and install the national motto “In God We Trust” in the Council Chamber as a donation to the City. Respectfully submitted: /s/ Stephanie Mercado Stephanie Mercado ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Letter from Jacquie Sullivan, Bakersfield City Councilmember Attachment 2 - Letter from Pacific Justice Institute Attachment 3 - Resolution adopting display of national motto Council Action Approved as Recommended: Denied/Other: Council Motion: Our Mission: To Promote Patriotism By Encouraging Elected City Officials To Display Our National Motto, "In God We Trust" In Every City Hall in America Board of Directors President Jacquie Sullivan Bakersfield Councilmember Secretary Mark Abernathy Western Pacific Research,Inc Treasurer Larry Moxley Moxley International Advisory Board Don Clark Former News Anchor CBS Bakersfield Holly Culhane, SPHR P•A•S Associates Tina Miller Business Owner Paul Neufeld Wasco Councilmember Building Contractor Pedro Rios Delano Councilmember Educator Cheryl Rhodes Educator Dan Schaffer KAXL Radio Dave Voss Jesus Shack Tom Watkins Bakersfield Family Medical Center Jacquie Sullivan City Councilmember: Bakersfield, CA In God We Trust — America, Inc. President/Founder IN GOD WE TRUST- AMERICA, INC. P.0.13ckl1715. Bakersfield, CA 93389-1715 • (661) 834-4943 Email: jacquiesullivangingodwetrust-americtore • Website: ingodwetrust-america.org A Non-profit 501c3 educational corporation ID42624857 Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members, The United States of America has much to celebrate. The freedoms we prize were won through enormous pain and sacrifice and are perpetuated through tremendous courage and vision. Now, to help preserve and protect the best of all that America stands for, a volunteer organization, In God We Trust— America, Inc., has been organized and headquartered in Bakersfield, California. Our mission is to encourage each city in our nation to join in prominently and permanently displaying our national motto, "In God We Trust," in every City Hall throughout our great state and across America. "In God We Trust" became our national motto when approved by Congress on July 30, 1956 after the United States led the world through the trauma of World War II. The words have been used on U.S. currency since 1864. The same inspiring slogan is engraved above the entrance to the U.S. Senate Chamber and above the Speaker's dais in the House of Representatives. In both war and peace, these words have been a profound source of strength and guidance to many generations of Americans. In February of 2002, the Bakersfield City Council officially voted "Yes" to display our national motto, "In God We Trust," in their City Hall. These historic words are now prominently displayed in their council chambers and arched above their city seal. To date, a growing number of cities and towns across America are taking similar official action and voting, "Yes" to display our National Motto. We encourage every province across this great land to do the same! Will You Join Us? In God We Trust— America, Inc., has received a significant letter from the President of the Pacific Justice Institute, a non-profit group based in Sacramento, who defends cases threatening our religious liberties and our nation's religious heritage. They are commending our organization for promoting the national motto and assure us that "under applicable case law, such recognitions are clearly constitutional." Should any government entity receive legal threats, the Pacific Justice Institute would be honored to defend them at no charge in state or federal court. Our volunteer organization, In God We Trust — America, Inc., is incorporated with non-profit 501c3 status. We are available to assist you, as a civic leader, with whatever is needed to aid in your participation to approve displaying our nation's motto in your own city hall. As president/Founder of our organization, I will be honored to assist you in any way possible. You may contact me directly at (661) 834-4943 or email at: acquiesu I I ivanAingodwetrust-ameri ca. org. M ay Gric.d ble ss Ame rica an d m 37. America 's trust always be iri God_ Sincerely, CAPITAL OFFICE P.O. Box 276600 • Sacramento, CA 95827 916.857.6900 • FAX 916.857.6902 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OFFICE P.O. Box 11630 • Santa Ana, CA 92711 714.796.7150 • FAX 714.796.7182 SF BAY AREA OFFICE 212-9th Street • Oakland. CA 94607 510.834.7232 • FAX 510.834.8784 PACIFIC JUSTICE INSTITUTE EDWIN MEESE, Ill, ESQ. Fortner Attorney General Advisory Board Chairman BRAn W. DACUS, ESQ. Preafilt KEVIN T. SNIDER, ESQ. Chief Counsel Jacquie Sullivan Founder/President In God We Trust -- America, Inc. Bakersfield, California Re: "In God We Trust" Displays Dear Ms. Sullivan, It has come to our attention that your organization is promoting displays throughout the nation commemorating the national motto, "In God We Trust." We are writing to offer our perspective on this important issue, and also to offer our representation at no charge should any government entities which approve the displays encounter any legal opposition. By way of introduction, Pacific Justice Institute is a nonprofit organization which specializes in defending religious liberty, including our nation's religious heritage. PJI is currently an intervener/defendant which, alongside the U.S. Department of Justice, is providing the legal defense in Newdow v. Lefevre, a lawsuit challenging the inclusion of the national motto on our nation's currency. As you may have heard, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with our position that the motto is constitutional. In its decision filed March 11, 2010, the Ninth Circuit explained that displaying such a venerable reminder of our national heritage and identity as the national motto is unquestionably constitutional. The Ninth Circuit's ruling follows every other court and judge in the nation that has considered the national motto, including the following: •Lambeth v. Bd. of Comm 'is of Davidson County, 407 F.3d 266 (4 th Cir. 2005), held a county board's decision to authorize inscription of "In God We Trust" on facade of county government center did not constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause. •Schmidt v. Cline, 127 F.Supp.2d 1169 (D. Kan. 2000), held constitutional the placement in a county building of posters bearing the motto. The court relied on a previous Tenth Circuit decision finding that the motto has a secular purpose akin to Justice O'Connor's well-known references to "ceremonial deism". •Myers v. Loudoun County School Bd., 251 F. Supp. 2d 1262 (E.D. Va. 2003), upheld as constitutional a school's implementation of a state statute requiring schools to post the national motto in every public school building. Pacific Justice Institute Page 1of 2, Letter to In God We Trust America June 4, 2010 "Raising the Torch ofJusticefor Our Civil Liberties" www.pac$Oustice.org • Numerous Supreme Court decisions and opinions of individual justices have pointed to the national motto as an example of constitutionality, see, e.g, Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 717, n.15 (1977); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 693 (1984); County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 602-3 (1989); Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 45 (1980) (Rehnquist, J., concurring); School Dist. of Abington Twp. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 303 (1963) (Brennan, J. concurring); Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 818 (1983) (Brennan, J. dissenting); Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 322-323 (2000) (Rehnquist, C.J. dissenting); Van Orden v. Perry, 125 S.Ct. 2854, 2879 (2005) (Stevens, J. dissenting); McCreary County v. ACLU, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 2750 (2005) (Scalia, J. dissenting). As the foregoing cases attest, numerous legal authorities at all levels of the federal judiciary and throughout the country support displaying the national motto in a public setting. In conclusion, the Pacific Justice Institute would like to commend your organization for promoting the national motto, and to assure you that under applicable case law, such recognitions are clearly constitutional. Should any government entity receive legal threats from those who oppose even innocuous acknowledgements of religion in public life, the Pacific Justice Institute would be honored to defend them at no charge in state or federal court. To take advantage of this offer, or if you have any other questions about this important issue, please do not hesitate to contact Pacific Justice Institute at either (916) 857-6900 (Northern California office), (510) 834-7232 (Bay Area Office), (714) 796-7150 (Southern California office), or via our website at www.pji.org . Sincerely, Matthew B. McReynolds Staff Attorney PACIFIC JUSTICE INSTITUTE Pacific Justice Institute Page 2 of 2, Letter to In God We Trust America June 4, 2010 RESOLUTION NO. 2011- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING THE DISPLAY OF THE NATIONAL MOTTO “IN GOD WE TRUST” IN THE GRAND TERRACE COUNCIL CHAMBERS IN A PROMINENT LOCATION ABOVE THE SEAL WHEREAS, “In God W e Trust” became the United States national motto on July 30, 1956, shortly after our nation led the world through the trauma of World War II; and WHEREAS, the words have been used on U.S. currency since 1864; and WHEREAS, the same inspiring slogan is engraved above the entrance to the Senate Chamber as well as above the Speaker’s dais in the House of Representatives ; and WHEREAS, in both war and peace, these words have been a profound source of strength and guidance to many generations of Americans; and WHEREAS, the City desires to display this patriotic motto in the Council Chambers as a way to solemnize public occasions and express confidence in our society. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, State of California, does hereby determine that the historic and patriotic words of our national motto, “In God We Trust,” shall be permanently and prominently displayed in the Grand Terrace Council Chambers at City Hall. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, California, held on the 13th day of December, 2011. ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace and and of the City Council thereof of the City Council thereof I TRACEY R. MARTINEZ, City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on the 13th day of December, 2011 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Approved as to form: City Attorney City Clerk AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: January 10, 2012 Council Item ( X ) CRA Item ( ) TITLE: Consider Whether the City Wishes to Serve as Successor Agency to the Community Redevelopment Agency Pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 3417 PRESENTED BY: Betsy M. Adams, City Manager RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution electing to have the City of Grand Terrace serve as the Successor Agency to the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 34173 and electing to have the City of Grand Terrace retain the housing assets and housing functions previously performed by the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 34176 BACKGROUND: On December 29, 2011, the California Supreme Court (Court) upheld AB 26x1, which dissolves all of the redevelopment agencies in California, and struck down AB 27x1, which allowed redevelopment agencies to remain in existence if they opted in to the Voluntary Alternative Redevelop Program (VARP). The City had opted into the VARP by adopting Ordinance No. 259. Because the Agency was going to remain in existence, the City was not required to decide whether it wished to be the Successor Agency to the Agency. DISCUSSION: With the VARP stricken down by the Court, the City has the option of deciding whether or not it wishes to serves as the Successor Agency to the Agency. In general, all of the assets, properties, contracts, leases and records of the Agency are to be transferred to the Successor Agency. Subject to monitoring by, and in some cases the approval of, an Oversight Board, the Successor Agency is responsible for winding up the Agency’s obligations and affairs. City staff and the City Attorney recommend that the City COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 8B Approvals Finance Director (if applicable) B.S. City Attorney RLA City Manager bma undertake this obligation. In carrying out this obligation, AB 26x1 limits the liability of the Successor Agency to: “the extent of the total sum of property tax revenues it receives pursuant to this part [Part 1.85] and the value of the assets transferred to it as the successor agency for a dissolved redevelopment agency.” If the City elects not to serve as the successor Agency, the first taxing agency that submits a resolution electing to be the Successor Agency for the Agency would be permitted to serve in that role. Given the level of discretion that the Successor Agency will have over how to handle the Agency’s dissolution, the City of Grand Terrace is best served by serving as the Successor Agency. Technically, Health& Safety Code Section 34173(d)(1) states that the City would become the successor agency unless it elects not to serve in that function. However, just for clarity, the City Attorney recommends that the City Council take an affirmative action to elect to serve in that role. In footnote 25 of the Supreme Court’s decision, the Court indicated that it was extending the deadline for making the election only to January 13, 2012. For this reason, City staff and the City Attorney recommend adopting the Successor Agency Resolution at the Council Meeting on January 10, 2012. With regard to the housing assets and functions previously performed by the Agency, Health & Safety Code Section 34176 provides for the City to retain these, which has also been included in the Successor Agency Resolution. FISCAL IMPACT: As the Successor Agency to the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace, the City would incur certain administrative costs. ABx1 26 provides that a successor agency is entitled to get up to 5% of the 2011/2012 Tax Increment and 3% of the Tax Increment for each subsequent year, but not less than $250,000 per year, for administrative costs. Respectfully submitted: /s/ Betsy M. Adams Betsy M. Adams, City Manager ATTACHMENT: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, California electing to have the City of Grand Terrace Serve as the Successor Agency to the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 34173 and Electing to Have the City of Grand Terrace Retain the Housing Assets and Housing Functions Previously Performed by the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 34176 Council Action Approved as Recommended: Denied/Other: Council Motion: DOCSOC/1499779v5/022092-0000 RESOLUTION NO. _______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA ELECTING TO HAVE THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE SERVE AS THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 34173 AND ELECTING TO HAVE THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE RETAIN THE HOUSING ASSETS AND HOUSING FUNCTIONS PREVIOUSLY PERFORMED BY THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 34176 WHEREAS, the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace (“Agency”) is a public body, corporate and politic, organized and existing under the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code § 33000 et seq. (“CRL”); and WHEREAS, the City of Grand Terrace is a municipal corporation and general law city under the Constitution of the State of California (“City”); and WHEREAS, on December 29, 2011, in California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos, Case No. S194861, the California Supreme Court upheld AB 26x1, which dissolves all of the redevelopment agencies in California, and struck down AB 27x1, which allowed redevelopment agencies to remain in existence if they opted in to the “Voluntary Alternative Redevelopment Program” (“VARP”).; and WHEREAS, the City had opted into the VARP by adopting Ordinance No. 259; and Resolution 2012- 2 WHEREAS, because the Agency was going to remain in existence, the City was not required to decide whether it wished to be the Successor Agency to the Agency; and WHEREAS, now that the VARP program has been stricken by the Court, the City has the option of deciding whether or not it wishes to serve as the Successor Agency to the Agency; and WHEREAS, in footnote 25 of the Supreme Court’s decision, the Court extended the deadline for making the election only to January 13, 2012; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City of Grand Terrace for the City to serve as the Successor Agency; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 34173(d)(1), the City would automatically became the Successor Agency unless it affirmatively elected not to serve as the Successor Agency by Resolution, but the City wishes to express its intention to serve as the Successor Agency to the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 34176, the City could either opt to retain the housing assets and functions previously performed by the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace or, by default, allow those assets and functions to be assigned to and assumed as provided for in Health and Safety Code Section 34176; and Resolution 2012- 3 WHEREAS, the City wishes to express its intention to have the City of Grand Terrace assume all rights, powers, assets, liabilities, duties, and obligations associated with the housing activities of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference, and constitute a material part of this Resolution. Section 2. The City Council hereby affirmatively elects pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 34173(d)(1) to serve as the Successor Agency to the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace. Section 3. The City Council hereby elects to have the City of Grand Terrace assume all rights, powers, assets, liabilities, duties, and obligations associated with the housing activities of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace in accordance with Health & Safety Code Section 34176. Section 4. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to take such other and further actions, and sign such other and further documents, as is necessary and proper in order to implement this Resolution on behalf of the City. Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of January, 2012. Resolution 2012- 4 Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace I, TRACEY R. MARTINEZ, CITY CLERK of the City of Grand Terrace, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on the 10th day of January, 2012 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Tracey R. Martinez, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: January 10, 2012 Council Item ( X ) CRA Item ( ) TITLE: Fiscal Impact to the General Fund of the California Supreme Court’s Decision in the California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos Case PRESENTED BY: Betsy M. Adams, City Manager RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file information on the fiscal impact to the General Fund of the California Supreme Court’s decision upholding Assembly Bill X1 26 (“Redevelopment Dissolution” bill) and invalidating Assembly Bill X1 27 (“Voluntary Payment” bill). BACKGROUND: On June 29, 2011, the Governor signed budget trailer bills Assembly Bill X1 26 (ABX1 26) and Assembly Bill X1 27 (ABX1 27) which eliminated redevelopment agencies (the “Redevelopment Dissolution” bill) and created a voluntary alternative redevelopment program (the “Voluntary Payment” bill) respectively. On July 18, 2011, California Redevelopment Association (CRA) v. Matosantos was filed in the California Supreme Court (Court) by the California Redevelopment Association, the League of California Cities, and the cities of San Jose and Union City challenging the constitutionality of both bills. On August 17, 2011, the Court issued a stay to prevent redevelopment agencies from being dissolved until the case was decided which largely suspended redevelopment activity. DISCUSSION: On December 29, 2011, in the CRA v. Matosantos case, the Court upheld ABX1 26 and invalidated ABX1 27 thereby eliminating redevelopment agencies and the voluntary option to pay to continue redevelopment. The Court’s decision is the “worst case scenario” for redevelopment. All redevelopment agencies in California will be dissolved effective February 1, 2012 with assets, properties, and documents transferred to successor agencies. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 8C Approvals Finance Director (if applicable) B.S. City Attorney RLA City Manager bma The Court provided a four month extension for all deadlines contained in ABX1 26 that arise prior to May 1, 2012. As the City intends to be the Successor Agency, it will be responsible for preparing a draft Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) of the former Agency, due by March 1, 2012, which will cover the balance of the fiscal year (through June 30, 2012). This will be an update to the draft ROPS prepared by the Agency which was adopted on September 27, 2011. There are several other actions which the City may be required to do to implement the Court’s redevelopment decision which will be addressed in separate staff reports. There appears to be a desire of members of the Legislature to develop legislation which would restore some form of redevelopment. At the time this staff report was prepared such legislation had been drafted. FISCAL IMPACT: On May 24, 2011, the Agency’s fiscal consultant, the Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. (RSG), presented a Fiscal Sustainability Model for Grand Terrace. This model identified a structural deficit in the General Fund which significantly increased with the loss of redevelopment. RSG’s presentation included a chart which, in light of the Court’s redevelopment decision, needs to be revisited. Page 15 of RSG’s presentation provided a projection of General Fund budget reductions needed over the next five years, assuming modest increases in expenditures and revenues. The projections included the impact if redevelopment was eliminated. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2012-13, a shortfall in the General Fund operating budget of nearly $2 million was projected with the elimination of redevelopment. For comparison purposes, the General Fund operating budget for FY 2011-12 is $4.6 million. $548 $822 $1,076 $944 $1,216 Needed budget reductions through 2016 5/24/2011Grand Terrace Fiscal Sustainability Model Since the Fiscal Sustainability Model was developed in May, additional information is known which should reduce the projected revenue shortfall for FY 2012-13, including the following:  Adopted FY 11-12 General Fund operating budget included in excess of $400,000 in on-going expenditure reductions.  Projected General Fund ending fund balance for FY 11-12 is estimated to be $484,000 with Council having the discretion to apply some of this toward the projected FY 12-13 shortfall. This projection includes the $300,000 residual receipts payment in FY 2011-12, with no such payments from the Agency thereafter.  Estimated law enforcement services contract increase of 6% for FY 12-13 may be reduced to no increase based upon recent labor savings actions taken by the County of San Bernardino and the San Bernardino County Safety Employees Benefit Association (SEBA). The anticipated savings should be around $100,000.  Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) grant of $100,000 will offset $100,000 in General Fund law enforcement expense.  Successor Agency to the redevelopment agency will receive an administrative allowance of $250,000 annually which could partially offset $432,000 in salaries and benefits directly charged to the Agency and $522,000 in overhead and other costs allocated to the Agency.  Estimated one-time allocation of Agency fund balances (including Low and Mod) to taxing entities is estimated by RSG at $759,000 for the City, with Council having the discretion to apply some of this toward the projected FY 12-13 shortfall. In addition to the items above, there are others to consider which may impact the General Fund operating budget next fiscal year or in subsequent years.  An increase in property tax revenues to the City from excess tax increment will begin in FY 2012-13. RSG estimates about $151,000 could be received in FY 2012-13 and $321,000 could be received in FY 2013-14. This would be in addition to the City’s statutory payment estimated to be $78,000 in FY 2012-13 and $81,000 in FY 13-14.  As Agency assets are liquidated, RSG estimates the City should receive about 26% (AB8 share of the general levy of approximately 20% plus a higher share of the residual balance in the Auditor-Controller’s special fund as other taxing entities already receive their full share from pass through agreements).  Agreements between a city that created a redevelopment agency and the redevelopment agency are invalidated by section 34178(a) to the Health and Safety Code (added by ABX1 26) and “shall not be binding on the successor agency.” Based on section 34178(a), the assumption has been made that residual receipts payments by the Agency to the City cannot be made after February 1, 2011. I t is not clear whether the City’s payments of $147,000 to the Agency, scheduled to begin in FY 2012-13, may also no longer be valid. To summarize where the General Fund operating budget may be for FY 2012-13 with the loss or redevelopment, without the use of one-time funds ($484,000 fund balance for General Fund and $759,000 allocation of Agency fund balance) the shortfall will be approximately $1.3 million versus the $2.0 million projected in May. It is estimated that there may be in excess of $1.2 million in one-time funds available to mitigate a portion of this shortfall though it will be important to keep in mind that larger General Fund budget shortfalls are anticipated in subsequent years. Additional information on these future budget shortfalls, depending on what is learned over the next month, may be included in the mid-year budget review in February. It will certainly be included in the proposed operating budget for FY 2012-13 to be presented in May. Respectfully submitted: Betsy M. Adams, City Manager ATTACHMENTS: None Council Action Approved as Recommended: Denied/Other: Council Motion: CITY OF GRAND TERRACE CITY COUNCIL & COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING – DECEMBER 20, 2011 A special meeting of the City Council and Community Redevelopment Agency 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 December 20, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. PRESENT: Walt Stanckiewitz, Mayor/Chairman Lee Ann Garcia, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice-Chairman Darcy McNaboe, Councilmember/Agency Member Bernardo Sandoval, Councilmember/Agency Member Gene Hays, Councilmember/Agency Member Betsy M. Adams, City Manager Tracey Martinez, City Clerk Bernard Simon, Finance Director Joyce Powers, Community & Economic Development Director Richard L. Adams II, City Attorney ABSENT: Richard Shields, Building & Safety Director Sgt. Ed Finneran, San Bernardino County Sheriff =s Department Rick McClintock, San Bernardino County Fire Department The City Council and Community Redevelopment Agency meeting was opened at 6:30 p.m. with an Invocation by Councilmember Darcy McNaboe, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilmember Bernardo Sandoval. 1. Annual Report to the Legislative Body for the Agency’s Activities in Fiscal Year 2010-11 Community Redevelopment Agency: Approve the 2010-11 Annual Report for presentation to the City Council and authorize the Agency Executive Director to make any minor corrections necessary to ensure accuracy of the reports. CRA-2011-56 MOTION BY VICE-CHAIRMAN GARCIA, SECOND BY AGENCY MEMBER SANDOVAL, CARRIED 5-0, to Approve the 2010-11 Annual Report for presentation to the City Council and authorize the Agency Executive Director to make any minor corrections necessary to ensure accuracy of the reports City Council: Accept and file the 2010-11 Annual Report for the Community Redevelopment Agency. CRA AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 Council Minutes 12/20/2011 Page 2 CC-2011-107 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER MCNABOE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SANDOVAL, CARRIED 5-0, to Accept and File the 2010-11 Annual Report for the Community Redevelopment Agency. Mayor Stanckiewitz adjourned the City Council and Community Redevelopment Agency meeting at 7:45 p.m., until the next City Council Meeting which is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. CITY CLERK of the City of Grand Terrace MAYOR of the City of Grand Terrace