Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
03/28/1991
FILE COPY ...... (ITy GRAND TERR`C �'VEM�eA f • MARCH 28, 1991 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace CITY OF GRAND TERRACE California 92324-5295 Civic Center (714) 824-6621 Regular Meetings _ = 2nd and 4th Thursday - 6:00 p.m. Byron R Matteson Mayor Hugh J Grant Mayor Pro Tempore Gene Carlstrom Ronald M Christianson Herman Hilkey Council Members Thomas J Schwab City Manager Council Chambers Grand Terrace Civic Center 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92324-5295 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS March 28, 1991 GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER 6 00 P M 22795 Barton Road * Call to Order - *I- Invocation - Pastor Lowell Hamill , Praise Fellowship Foursquare Church x Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call - STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS COUNCIL ACTION CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY --- 1 Approval of 3/14/91 Minutes Approve 2 Approval of Check Register No CRA032891 Approve ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY -- WENE CITY COUNCIL 1 Items to Delete 2 SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS A Certificate of Service - Barbara Pfennighausen B Proclamation - "Victims of Pornography Week" May 5-11, 1991 C Proclamation - "Earthquake Preparedness Month - April 1991" D Daniel Santo , California Financial Services - Presentation on Fianancing Land Banking and Stadium Authority 3 CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine & non-controversial 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 COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF 03/28/91 - Page 2 of 3 RECOMMENDATION COUNCIL ACTION A Approve Check Register No 032891 Approve B Ratify 3/28/91 CRA Action C Waive full reading of Ordinance on Agenda D Approve 3/14/91 Minutes Approve I E Bond Release (Forest City) F Request from Lion ' s Club to assist in fumigation of Community Center G Reject Liability Claim 91-01 (Woods) 4 PUBLIC COMMENT 5 ORAL REPORTS A Committee Reports 1 Historical & Cultural Committee (a) Minutes of 3/4/91 Accept 2 Crime Prevention Committee (a) Minutes of 2/20/91 Accept B Council Reports 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS - 6 00 P M A Prioritize CDBG Project B Z-89-03 & TTM-89-04 (Churchwell ) C TTM-90-06 (Petta) D Recycling Agreement 7 UNFINISHED BUSINESS None 8 NEW BUSINESS None COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF 03/28/91 - Page 3 of 3 RECOMMENDATION COUNCIL ACTION 9 CLOSED SESSION ADJOURN r THE NEXT REGULAR CRA/CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON APRIL 11, 1991 AT 6 00 P M AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS FOR THE 4/11/91 MEETING MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BY NOON 4/04/91 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PENDING CRA APPROVAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MARCH 14, 1991 A regular meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency, City of Grand Terrace, was held in the Council Chambers , Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road , Grand Terrace, California , on March 14, 1991 , at 6 00 p m PRESENT Byron Matteson , Chairman Hugh J Grant, Vice-Chairman Gene Carlstrom, Agency Member Ronald Christianson , Agency Member Herman Hilkey, Agency Member r Thomas J Schwab , Executive Director Randall Anstine , Assistant City Manager David Sawyer, Community Development Director Brenda Stanfill , Deputy City Clerk John Harper, City Attorney Joe Kicak , City Engineer ABSENT None APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 28, 1991 CRA MINUTES CRA-91-09 MOTION BY AGENCY MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY AGENCY MEMBER CARLSTROM, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the February 28, 1991 Minutes. Mayor Matteson adjourned the CRA meeting at 6 10 p m , until the next regular City Council /CRA meeting , which is scheduled to be held on Thursday, March 28, 1991 at 6 00 p m 1 SECRETARY of the City of Grand Terrace CHAIRMAN of the City of Grand Terrace C R A AGENDA ITEM NO. L r i_rmnimu Io fi H MrrW"f/VAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF GR/ TERRACE DATE MARCH 28, 1991 CHECK REGISTER NO CRA032891 CHECK OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF MARCH 28, 1991 NUMBER VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT P7140 LOUISE SMITH REIMBURSEMENT FOR OFFICE SUPPLIES $ 15 06 P7143 THOMAS SCHWAB REIMBURSEMENT FOR OFFICE SUPPLIES 46 54 23107 GENE CARLSTROM STIPENDS FOR MARCH, 1991 150 00 23108 RONALD CHRISTIANSON STIPENDS FOR MARCH, 1991 150 00 23112 HUGH GRANT STIPENDS FOR MARCH, 1991 150 00 23118 HERMAN HILKEY STIPENDS FOR MARCH, 1991 150 00 23127 BYRON MATTESON STIPENDS FOR MARCH, 1991 150 00 23135 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT, GENERAL PETTY CASH 19 64 TOTAL $831 24 n XI 1, I CERTIFY THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE AFORELISTED CHECKS FOR PAYMENT OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIABILITIES HAVE BEEN AUDITED BY ME AND ARE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE EXPENDITURES m FOR THE OPERATION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITITHOMAS SCHWAB OTREASURER CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Certificate of Service P7,: enced To BARBARA. PFENNIGHA USEN 0WHEREAS, Barbara Pfennighausen gave eight years of full-time service as a Council Member to the City 0 of Grand Terrace and its residents, and C 0 WHEREAS, during Barbara's term she was voted 1985 Citizen of the Year, and r WHEREAS, Barbara served on many committees and boards, some of which include the Economic f) Development Committee, the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Advisory Commission, and the San Bernardino County Disaster Council, C NOW, THEREFORE, I, BYRON R MATTESON, Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace, on behalf of the City Council, City Staff, and citizens do hereby commend and thank Barbara Pfennighausen for her many years of service given to the City of Grand Terrace 7 r ` " \ t i\ \1 , , / i t i ' J r '' ` i t I t 1 1 , I , 1 I ; I i t ' t 1 ). ) r 1 >; 1 Jt 'i'.' I{ /il, ii +lt 6 I 1 1 I "V i, 1 l r„, r ` 101 (Alf, fix T f+ 1 11 j 1 'r < , I 0 y i '1 ,I t,r r { ut " 1 ., "I K t / ?, rr i i� f i� j" V 11 f L' r i tI t ''�+ I ,�1 - f 's r )„ 3� p 'J i ti •,, ,1 ' t ,� ( �r Le.... ;4 r1 �, 1 r, 9 1 1 ' i , 11 r ,,. ., t 1 ' 1 , Lj t 1 j1 , I i Y( t' y , I v t r\ A L , f� 12- C' ,..t Ls. . t \ >t 1 IIVICIIMS OF PORNOGRAPHY WEEK" May 5 - 11, 1991 WHEREAS, the I tughter of children is the most precious sound in life, and WHEREAS, there is nothing more distressful than an abused child whose pain circumvents laughter, and WHEREAS, the memories of childhood are cherished for a lifetime, and WHEREAS, the experiences of childhood influence an adult's emotional, sexual and physical behavior, and WIILREAS, the attitudes children carry into adulthood are passed on to yet another generation, and WHEREAS, people who exploit and abuse children rob them of pleasant childhood memories, and WHEREAS, studies show a high correlation between addiction to pornography and child molestation and other crimes, and WHEREAS, victims of pornography have suffered the loss of everything innocent and precious, and WHEREAS, the California State Legislature has proclaimed Victims of Pornography Week as an annual Statewide event, and WHEREAS, Bay Area Citizens Against Pornography, legislators, law enforcement, parents, educators, mental health experts, social services agencies, civic leaders, parents, youth and religious organi7ations are united in their concern for victims of pornography, and WHEREAS, we wish to express Compassion for all victims of pornography, regardless of their age, and WHEREAS, we desire to bu known as A CITY I'll LET) WITH HAPPY CHILDHOOD MEMORIES, NOW, 'THEREFORE, 1, BYRON R MA1 TESON, Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace on behalf of the Cit} Council, do hereby proclaim May 5 I I, 1991 as VICTIMS OF PORNOGRAPHY WEEK in the City of Grand Terrace and urge all citizens to show compassion for the victims of pornography and assist in efforts to KEEP CHILDHOOD MEMORIES HAPPY! Mayor of the City of Grand terrace and of the City Council thereof r ,, . This 28th day of March, 1991 t i'' I r" it M1 , I �' I j ' K, l' I ' COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM #A l 1 / l i t , r t , l S i Y r ` , r t ' i 1 fir: ! 'i tY ) �r�15 Sri s iFl 1v}pl ir)iP� 1I ' i ` ) i li � ram!k l r, 31 �r rr iJ �/ '`� '1 ti C/ I - y 1 i; - f CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS MONTH APRIL 1991 WHEREAS, the State of California continues to experience significant seismic activity, cis esidenced by the October 17, 1989Lorna Piieta earthquake, which killed 63 persons, 'muted mote than 3,000, and caused an estimated $5 9 billion in damage, and WHEREAS, Goveinot Pete Wilson has expressed his commitment to earthquake preparedness by pioclamung Apiil as California Earthquake Preparedness Month and urging Califoi mans to learn earthquake safety measures, and WHEREAS, the loss of life and pioperty con be greatly reduced 1f appropriate earthquake preparedness measures we taken before, during, and after a damaging earthquake, and WHEREAS, these lifesaving procedures will be highlighted luting the month of Apia as the Governor's Office of Emergency Set vices, with the assistance of city and county emergency sei s ices offices and whet governmental agencies, service organizations, educational institutions, businesses, and Neighborhood Watch groups, provides earthquake safety information to citizens throughout the state, and WHEREAS, the measures presented in the "BEAT THE QUAKE" campaign should uicrease public awareness tegaiding proper piocediues to follow during a tremor, and WHEREAS, this importont cal thquake safety i fotniation should be studied and observed throughout the yew in oider to reduce injuries, loss of life, and piopetty damage during an carthquake, NOW, THEREFORE, 1, BYRON R MA71F_SON, Mayor of the City of Gland Tel'ace, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby pioclaun April 1991 as California Earthquake Prepay ednes s Month and encow age all citizens to enhance their knowledge and awat ends s of propel safety pleasures to follow before, dining, and after an earthquake Mayor of the City of Gland Teilace and of the City Council thereof This 28th day of Match, 1991 1 r, 1 `r COUNCIL AGENDA MEM# ac , m! NDING CITY CITY OF GRHNu TERRACE CX' ICILAPPROVAL DATE MARCH 28, 1991 CHECK REGISTER NO 032891 CHECK OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF MARCH 28, 1991 NUMBER VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT P7121 PERS FOR PAYROLL ENDING 3/1/91 $ 2,545 53 P7122 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 3/7/91 439 03 P7123 SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 3/7/91 344 31 P7124 ALL PRO CONSTRUCTION REPAIR AC SINK AND REMOVE DIRT, MOUNT VERNON, STORM DRAIN CLEAN-UP 16,078 00 P7125 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 3/11/91 183 76 P7126 SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 3/11/91 133 17 P7127 STATE COMPENSATION INS FUND WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE FOR FEBRUARY, 1991 1,737 39 P7128 A QWIK X-POSURE PROCESS FILM FOR CRIME PREVENTION/CRIME BUSTERS 38 39 P7129 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 3/13/91 33 43 P7130 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT FOR CHILD CARE 316 90 P7131 n SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 3/14/91 138 08 P7132 C SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 2/15/91 (REPLACE CHECK LOST IN MAIL) 699 89 P7133 n JON-MICHELLE PROMOS DEPOSIT ON SHIRTS AND CAPS FOR SAFETY FAIR 950 00 P7134 F ALL PRO CONSTRUCTION SEAL COAT/ OVERLAY STREETS, VARIOUS LOCATIONS 19,991 06 P7135 3' SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 3/18/91 426 83 P7136 Z SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 3/18/91 324 44 P7137 D DAVID SAWYER PLANNING SERVICES FOR FEBRUARY, 1991 3,270 00 P7138 - SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 3/19/91 324 11 P71393„ SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 3/19/91 148 66 P7140 4t LOUISE SMITH REIEMBURSEMENT FOR OFFICE SUPPLIES 196 48 P7141 U3 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 3/20/91 79 00 P7142 POSTMASTER-COLTON BULK MAILING, RECREATION BROCHURES 182 70 P7143 THOMAS SCHWAB CSMFO CONFERENCE, TAC MEETING, AND OFFICE SUPPLIES 80 43 1 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE DATE MARCH 28, 1991 CHECK REGISTER NO 032891 CHECK OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF MARCH 28, 1991 NUMBER VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT P7144 G T AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE GRANT 4TH QUARTER, 1990/91 $ 8,750 00 P7145 ALL PRO CONSTRUCTION AC PATCH, VARIOUS LOCATIONS 1 ,972 00 P7146 LOUISE SMITH REIMBURSEMENT FOR OFFICE SUPPLIES 71 06 23089 CITY OF HIGHLAND COUNTY BOOKING FEES, LITIGATION 500 00 23090 WILLIS H OPAL COOK REFUND, BUILDING PERMITS 600 00 23091 F C GRAND TERRACE REFUND, TEMPORARY SIGN PERMIT 100 00 23092 INLAND EMPIRE MANAGERS ASSOC DUES FOR 1991 15 00 23093 SIMON & SCHUSTER ACTIVITY BOOK, DAY CARE 30 68 23094 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AD/DONATION FOR FIRE FIGHTERS 100 00 23095 INSTRUCTOR BOOK CLUB TEACHERS CLIP TIPS, CHILD CARE 7 96 23096 WILLIAM BOICE REFUND, WASTE WATER DISPOSAL SERVICES 7 65 23097 H R REMINGTON PROPERTIES REFUND, WASTE WATER DISPOSAL SERVICES 11 05 23098 AT&T INFORMATION CENTER MAINTENANCE ON PHONES, MARCH, 1991 168 90 23099 ACCENT PRINT & DESIGN PRINT NOTICES OF INSPECTION AND DESK PADS 255 96 23100 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER 42 00 23101 BASTANCHURY BOTTLED WATER BOTTLED WATER FOR CIVIC CENTER AND CHILD CARE 178 34 23102 BECKLEY CARDY SUPPLIES FOR DAY CARE 14 23 23103 D M BERTINO MANUFACTURERS EXPAND WORK AREA IN RECREATION/PLANNING 3,870 91 23104 BROWN, HARPER,BURNS & HENTSCHKE LEGAL SERVICES FOR FEBRUARY, 1991 2,613 50 23105 BRUNNER CONSULTING PROGRESS PAYMENT ON JOB CLASS STUDY 216 90 23106 DANIEL BUCHANAN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, 3/7/91 50 00 23107 GENE CARLSTROM STIPENDS FOR MARCH, 1991 300 00 23108 RONALD CHRISTIANSON STIPENDS FOR MARCH, 1991 , AND REFUND ON CANDIDATE FILING 337 78 23109 DICKSON CO/INLAND EMPIRE STREET SWEEPTnir_ FOR FEBRUARY, 1991 1,725 00 9 CITY OF GRi u TERRACE DATE MARCH 28, 1991 CHECK REGISTER NO 032891 CHECK OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF MARCH 28, 1991 NUMBER VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 23110 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY MAINTENANCE ON KODAK COPIER, FEBRUARY, 1991 EXTRA COPIES ON KODAK COPIER $ 326 79 23111 KAREN GERBER MONITOR, CIVIC CENTER, (4 NIGHTS) , CA PARKS AND RECREATION CONFERENCE 130 17 23112 HUGH GRANT STIPENDS FOR MARCH, 1991 300 00 23113 GREENWOOD' S UNIFORMS UNIFORM FOR CITIZENS PATROL MEMBER 43 43 23114 STANLEY HARGRAVE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, 3/7/91 , AND REFUND ON CANDIDATE FILING 87 78 23115 JERRY HAWKINSON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, 3/7/91 50 00 23116 WILLIAM HAYWARD INSTRUCTOR, KARATE 448 00 23117 HEALTH NET HEALTH INSURANCE FOR APRIL , 1991 2,750 16 23118 HERMAN HILKEY STIPENDS FOR MARCH, 1991 , AND REFUND ON CANDIDATE FILING 337 78 23119 HYDREX PEST CONTROL PEST CONTROL, CIVIC CENTER, 3/9/91 73 00 23120 INLAND COUNTIES INSUANCE DENTAL/LIFE INSURANCE FOR APRIL , 1991 110 25 23121 INLAND EMPIRE STAGES LIMITED BUS FOR RECREATION EXCURSION, YOSIMITE 2,534 00 23122 INLAND PRINTING LETTERHEAD, CRIME PREVENTION 40 52 23123 INT' L CONFERENCE BLDG OFFICIALS HANDBOOK ON BUILDING CODES 68 48 23124 INT' L MAILING SYSTEMS RENT POSTAGE METER, APRIL-JULY, 1991 131 00 23125 ALECIA LUCAS MONITOR, CIVIC CENTER (6 NIGHTS) 151 05 23126 MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS LON DISTANCE PHONE 33 12 23127 BYRON MATTESON STIPENDS FOR MARCH, 1991 300 00 23128 METROPOLITIAN LIFE INSURANCE LIFE INSURANCE, GRANT (6 MONTHS) 701 98 23129 MR TV VIDEO VIDEO CAMERA, TV/VCR, TAPES AND BATTERY, EMERGENCY OPERATION CENTER 1,555 86 23130 RAY MUNSON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, 3/7/91 50 00 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE DATE MARCH 28, 1991 CHECK REGISTER NO 032891 CHECK OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF MARCH 28, 1991 NUMBER VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 23131 NCR CORPORATION SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE FOR APRIL, 1991 $ 66 03 23132 PHIL PAGE OPEN/CLOSE PARK ON DEBERRY, FEBRUARY, 1991 70 00 23133 PACIFIC BELL PHONE FOR DAY CARE, COMPUTER MODEM, FAX MACHINE, AND PAY PHONES AT CIVIC CENTER 163 15 23134 THE PETRA COMPANIES SPRING BROCHURES, RECREATION 2,236 50 23135 PETTY CASH REIMBURSE PETTY CASH, GENERAL 332 77 23136 PETTY CASH REIMBURSE PETTY CASH, CHILD CARE/TINY TOTS 398 38 23137 BARBARA PFENNIGHAUSEN REFUND FOR CANDIDATE FILING 37 78 23138 KATHY PIERSON INSTRUCTOR, GYMNASTICS AND TINY TUMBLERS 515 20 23139 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPANY NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 167 76 23140 ADRIAN REYNOSA SCOREKEEPER FOR SLO-PITCH SOFTBALL, 2/21/91 38 50 23141 JOHN ROBERTS PAYMENT ON PARKSITE, G T ROAD, APRIL, 1991 6,871 76 23142 ROYAL CARE LANDSCAPE SERVICES FOR TERRACE PINES, MARCH, 1991 250 00 23143 SHERIFF DICK WILLIAMS LAW ENFORCEMENT/C P 0 FOR APRIL, 1991 74,432 00 23144 SIGNAL MAINTENANCE INC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE FOR FEBRUARY, 1991 272 64 23145 TRACY SIMMONS INSTRUCTOR FOR EASTER WORKSHOP 68 40 23146 JIM SIMS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, 3/7/91 50 00 23147 JAMES SINGLEY REFUND FOR CANDIDATE FILING 37 78 23148 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY ELECTRIC FOR BALL PARK LIGHTS, THREE CITY BUILDINGS, BARTON/PALM, TWO LIGHTS AT PARK ON DEBERRY, ONE LIGHT AT PARK ON PICO, SPRINKLERS AT PARK ON DEBERRY, SIGNALS, AND STREET LIGHTS 4,721 21 23149 SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY GAS FOR THREE CITY BUILDINGS AND CIVIC CENTER 338 03 23150 THE SUN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS, VACANCIES, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION" 1,087 62 4 1 ' CITY OF GRHivu TERRACE DATE MARCH 28, 1991 CHECK REGISTER NO 032891 CHECK OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF MARCH 28, 1991 NUMBER VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 23151 CATHY TOTH INSTRUCTOR FOR EASTER WORKSHOP/AEROBICS $ 241 20 23152 TRI-COUNTY OFFICIALS UMPIRES FOR SLO-PITCH SOFTBALL, 3/1-3/15/91 54 00 23153 FRAN VAN GELDER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, 3/7/91 50 00 23154 VISA CSMFO AND CPRS CONFERENCES 588 69 23155 WEARGUARD WORK CLOTHES SHIRTS, MAINTENANCE 118 94 23156 WEST-COMPUTIL CORP PROCESS PARKING CITATIONS, JANUARY , 1991 15 00 23157 WESTERN CITY MAGAZINE AD FOR PLANNER 180 00 23158 WEST PUBLISHING COMPANY CALIFORNIA CODE UPDATE 19 54 23159 RONALD WRIGHT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, 3/7/91 50 00 TOTAL $174,296 76 I CERTIFY THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE AFORELISTED CHECKS FOR PAYMENT OF CITY LIABILITIES HAVE BEEN AUDITED BY ME AND ARE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE EXPENDITURES FOR THE OPERATION OF THE CITY THOMAS SCHWAB FINANCE DIRECTOR 5 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PENDING CITY CITY COUNCIL MINUTES COUNCIL APPROVAL REGULAR MEETING - MARCH 14, 1991 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace was called to order in the Council Chambers, Grand Terrace Civic Center , 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace , California, on March 14, 1991 at 6 00 p m PRESENT Byron Matteson, Mayor Hugh J Grant, Mayor Pro Tem Gene Carlstrom, Councilmember Ronald Christianson , Councilmember Herman Hilkey, Councilmember Thomas J Schwab, City Manager/Finance Director Randall Anstine , Assistant City Manager David Sawyer , Community Development Director Brenda Stanfill , Deputy City Clerk John Harper , City Attorney Joe Kicak, City Engineer ABSENT None The meeting was opened with invocation by Pastor Salim Elias, Azure Hills Seventh-Day Adventist Church, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Sheriff Dick Williams Mayor Matteson convened City Council meeting at 6 00 p m Mayor Matteson reconvened City Council meeting at 6 10 p m ITEMS TO DELETE 5A 2(a) - Chamber of Commerce Use of EOC Building SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 2A Sheriff Dick Williams introduced himself and the Executive Staff of the San Bernardino County Sheriff' s Department CONSENT CALENDAR CC-91-32 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CARLSTROM, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER HILKEY, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the Consent Calendar A APPROVE CHECK REGISTER NO 031491 B RATIFY 03/14/91 CRA ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEN 41 3 c Council Minutes - 3/14/91 Page 2 C WAIVE FULL READING OF ORDINANCES ON AGENDA D APPROVE 2/28/91 MINUTES E LIGHTING SUBSIDY FOR COLTON/TERRACE LITTLE LEAGUE F GRANT OF EASEMENT TO SCE G APPROVAL OF COMMUNITY AWARENESS DAY PARADE PUBLIC COMMENT Barbara Pfennighausen, 22111 Ladera St , Grand Terrace , expressed concern regarding the number of unattended open garages in the City, commenting that an 'open garage is an invitation for crime She also expressed concern for the safety of young children who engage in door-to-door fund raising activities without the accompaniment of an adult or instructions in safety Don Tisor, 12781 Reed Ave , Grand Terrace , stated that he is a representative of the Colton/Terrace Little League and added that coaches, managers, and parents are instructed in fund raising safety He commented further that Little League is expensive and encouraged the public to contribuite to fund raising He also invited the Mayor , Council , and the public to Opening Day ceremonies, which will be held at Colton Municipal Park on Saturday, April 6, 1991 Community Services Officer Korgan, thanked the Council for permitting the fifth annual Safety Fair , which has been renamed Community Awareness Day (Grand Terrace Day) , and issued a general invitation to the public for the Community Awareness Day Parade , which is to be held on Saturday, June 1, 1991 Ronald Turner, 23269 Palm Ave , Grand Terrace , requested use of the cul-de-sac on Palm Ave for parking for a social event, which will be held on Sunday, March 24, 1991 from 1 00 p m to 5 00 p m He indicated that he has used the cul-de-sac previously for the same purpose He also thanked the Sheriff' s Department for reducing the graffiti problem in the area He stated that the neighbors are aware of their plans to close the street City Manager Schwab, stated that normally a request for a street closure is presented to Council for action but indicated that there was not sufficient time to follow procedure in this case He added that if the Council did grant the closure , the City could accommodate the request It was the consensus of Council to grant the request for the closure of the cul-de-sac on Palm Avenue on March 24, 1991 from 1 00 p m to 5 00 p m Council Minutes - 3/14/91 Page 3 Ed O 'Neal , 22608 Minona Dr , Grand Terrace , expressed concern about solid waste disposal and stated that on March 13-16 a meeting to exchange information on technological developments in solid waste disposal was taking place in Las Vegas He stated that the seminar for March 15, 1991 will be "Technology Based Investment Opportunities, " adding that the chairman and speaker will be John Preston , Director , Technology Licensing Office , Massachusetts Institute of Technology He stated that Mr Preston will relate that in 1980 the only advance in technology was an improvement in the ability to relocate waste from one location to another He commented that we have not approached the problem of actually decreasing the waste stream and quoted from Mr Preston ' s projections stating, " In the 1990 ' s, new technologies are emerging that promise to treat hazardous and other waste with significant advantages over technology The new technologies are cheaper , safer , and create useable by-products and handle highly heterogeneous waste " He explained that there will be no curbside pick-up since the complete truck load of waste will be handled with technology He added that on Tuesday, April 2, 1991, he will travel to a reclamation facitlity to observe the disposal process and invited Council to attend the trip City Manager Schwab, reported on the tree removal at the Senior Citizen site , stating that when the Plot Plan was designed, the tree in question was located in the driveway and, therefore , was removed He added that due to a lack of communication between the Administration and the Engineering department, the driveway was not redesigned to accommodate the tree, adding that the City will use more diligence in the future to ensure that the remaining trees are properly maintained in place ORAL REPORTS 5A Committee Reports 1 Crime Prevention Committee (a) Minutes of 1/14/91 CC-91-33 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GRANT, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0, to accept the Crime Prevention Committee minutes of January 14, 1991 ( b) Appointment of new members CC-91-34 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CARLSTROM, CARRIED 5-0, to accept the resignation of Ronald Wright as a full member of the Crime Prevention Committee and accept him as an alternate member and to accept Philomene Spisak as a full member and Mike Fasenmyer as a new alternate member of the Committee 2 Emergency Operations Committee Council Minutes - 3/14/91 Page 4 (a) Minutes of 10/15/90 and 11/19/90 CC-91-35 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GRANT, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CARLSTROM, CARRIED 5-0, to accept the Emergency Operations Committee minutes of October 15, 1990 and November 19, 1990 3 Parks and Recreation Committee (a) Minutes of 2/4/91 CC-91-36 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CARLSTROM, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM GRANT, CARRIED 5-0, to accept the Parks and Recreation Committee minutes of February 4, 1991 5B Council Reports Councilmember Hilkey, expressed concern that too many meetings are scheduled outside the City limits and stated that the organizations should meet inside the City to assist in supporting area businesses He announced that Comcast is presently airing public notices and extended his thanks to Mike Marron of Comcast for his assistance with the advertising He stated that public announcements can be taken over the phone by the City Clerk's Department or taken directly to Comcast He indicated that the rates for commercial advertising are $10 00 for the first page of text, which is 8 lines high and 30 spaces wide, and $8 00 for the second page per week He stated that an ad can be run for two weeks for $17 50, adding that the ads are repeated every 15-20 minutes He announced that construction has begun on the Curatolo property and inquired about the status of the hardware store at the corner of Mt Vernon and Barton He queried the Community Development Director as to whether there were any problems that needed to be addressed for that project He also inquired about the project For the liquor store site Community Development Director Sawyer, stated that the project at the corner of Mt Vernon and Barton Road is currently in Plan Check and indicated that the developer is in the process of securing the building permits and will be breaking ground in a few more weeks He indicated that they have applied for a demolitian permit but added that nothing further has been done He stated that the parcel map, which would be discussed later at that same meeting, would be the last decision that the Council would need to address regarding that project He stated that the liquor store project has slowed down and added that the developer has asked the City for assistance He indicated that he and the City Manager will meet with the developer to determine the validity of the delay Councilmember Carlstrom, commented that he spoke with Bill Harrison, pu is er o t e Colton Courier, regarding establishing a newspaper in Grand Terrace He stated that Mr Harrison indicated Council Minutes - 3/14/91 Page 5 that the Colton Courier is awaiting a response from Grand Terrace with legal advertising He indicated that a strong response from Grand Terrace would prompt Mr Harrison to consider developing a paper for the City Councilmember Christianson, indicated that he participated in the Railcycle tour with the Mayor and the City Manager to view the proposed Amboy landfill site and expressed his belief that it appears to be a promising proposal to solve the County's landfill problems for the next 100 years Mayor Pro Tem Grant, referenced a letter dated February 28, 1991 which he received from the District Director of Cal Trans He indicated that the letter confirmed that studies have been initiated on the modification of the I-215 freeway He stated that the letter indicated that within the next thirty days any citizen , organization , or political entity should provide input to Cal Trans regarding the issue He stated that Cal Trans is simply widening the freeway and not modifying any ingress or egress and stressed that the public needs to respond to the issue promptly In reference to an article which appeared in a local newspaper detailing the poor business climate of the City, he stated the belief that the Chamber and the City are not necessarily at fault, indicating that a business person must have the ability to profitably and successfully operate that business He concluded that that newspaper is inaccurate and negative in its coverage of the City and expressed his desire that he see something positive in the newspaper about Grand Terrace Mayor Matteson, added that although the Sun made a report on the progress of businesses in Grand Terrace, neither the City nor the Chamber of Commerce were consulted regarding plans for expansion in Grand Terrace He announced that he has a letter from Paul Woodruff, Assemblyman for San Bernardino County, advising the City of a Hearing of the Senate Elections and Reapportionment which is scheduled for April 5, 1991 at 1 00 Committee, Supervisor ' s Chambers in San Bernardino Countyp m in the Board of He that the focus of the Hearing will be on Senate and ad Congressional districts He also announced that the March of Dimes WalkAmerica 1991 will be held on April 28, 1991 in conjunction with the City of Loma Linda and added that more information will be available later He expressed appreciation to the Colton Joint Unified School District for keeping the citizenry of Grand Terrace informed about events occuring in the School District He stated that Railcycle is a partnership between Waste Management of North America and the Atchison , Topeka, and Santa Fe railroad companies, explaining that the system incorporates collection, recycling, rail transporation , and remote disposal in eastern San Bernardino County He indicated that the system will be in service in late 1993 to respond to the need for recycling and source reduction created by the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 He stated that Railcycle will construct plants in various locations Council Minutes - 3/14/91 Page 6 in Southern California where the trash will be dumped and sorted He explained that the remaining unrecyclable materials will then be removed and transported to the 4,000 acre landfill site in Amboy, adding that the site is expected to accommodate waste disposal for over 100 years He elaborated on the highway project, stating that the expansion will traverse the corridor from I-60 near Moreno Valley along I-215 up to the Orange Show Road offramp in the San Bernardino area He added that the project will include widening the interchanges at I-15, I-60, and I-91 PUBLIC HEARING 6A TTM-90-06 (Potomac West) Mayor Matteson opened discussion to the public CC-91-37 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM GRANT, CARRIED 4-0-0-1 (COUNCILMEMBER CARLSTROM ABSTAINED) , to approve TTM-90-06 subject to the following conditions 1 The subject property shall be annexed to the City's existing Lighting and Landscaping District 2 All recommendations listed in the City Engineer ' s memorandum to the City dated December 7, 1990 shall be complied with, and 3 The project must comply with all recommendations listed in the County of San Bernardino, Office of Special Districts ' memorandum to the City dated December 3, 1990 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7A Graffiti Policy CC-91-38 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GRANT, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CARLSTROM, CARRIED 5-0, to approve Staff' s recommendation to adopt a graffiti removal program utilizing volunteers and San Bernardino County Work Release crews and to establish (714) 824-6637 as a graffiti removal hotline NEW BUSINESS 8A Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Real Property - 22400 Barton Road CC-91-39 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM GRANT, CARRIED 5-0, to enter into a purchase agreement for purchase and sale of real property at 22400 Barton Road with joint escrow instructions and to authorize the Mayor to sign on behalf of the City with the following conditions Council Minutes - 3/14/91 Page 7 1 That the lender will approve releasing the parcel that the City wishes to purchase, and 2 That the appraisal be equal to or above the puchase price , and 3 That the City Staff obtain financing that is acceptable to City Council ORDER OF ADJOURNMENT Mayor Matteson adjourned the City Council meeting at 7 30 p m , until the next regular CRA/City Council Meeting, which is scheduled to be held on Thursday, March 28, 1991 Deputy City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace MAYOR of the City of Grand Terrace Apo (ITy ) 'hi' / W 0 12-9 1099 GROND TERR c 1` STAFF REPORT Date March 11 , 1991 22795 Balton Rudd Gland Tilau Meeting Date March 28, 1991 C 9''4 `9' CI\IL CLntu Subject Bond Release - Grading (71 I) , ?I 6621 All of the bonds for Phase II of Forest City Grand Terrace p ro ect have been released except for the Grading Bond The City is still holding this bond in the amount of $40,000 00 All the work secured by subject bond has been completed Staff recommends that Bylon R \ta1Lon City Council release the $40,000 00 bond for Grading of Phase II \t Forest City Grand Terrace Flugh 1 GI int I I NI nor P o lu,, n E JK/ct real Calltitiom na ,- I Clubtlanson Heiman HIIILL\ coun,.ii Thonia5 I SLI)\+ah cm \Iin _Li C COUNCIL.AGENDA ITEM#3 DATE 3/21/91 STAFF REPORT CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM ( xx) MEETING DATE 3/28/91 SUBJECT REQUEST FROM THE LION ' S CLUB TO ASSIST IN FUMIGATION OF , ,1 k THE COMMUNITY CENTER FUNDING REQUIRED XX NO FUNDING REQUIRED The City has received a request (attached) from the Lion ' s Club to have the City assist the Lion ' s Club in fumigation of the Community Center to eliminate the current threat of termite infestation The Lion ' s Club had an inspection made and it was determined that termite damage is present. The immediate solution is to fumigate the building , which has a cost of $2 , 750 The Lion ' s Club indicated they would , from that point on , provide a yearly termite service to keep the problem under control As Council is aware , the Lion ' s Clubs ' primary project is to provide the Senior Center to the community of Grand Terrace , and pay for the maintenance, utilities and upkeep costs in conjunction with special project help from the Women ' s Club and other organizations In addition to the Seniors and our Child Care and Tiny Tot Programs , many local organizations utilize the Community Center STAFF RECOMMENDS COUNCIL APPROPRIATE $2 , 750 FOR THE PURPOSE OF TENTING AND FUMIGATING THE COMMUNITY CENTER TS ma Attachment COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM #3 _��0 S, 0 GRAND TERRACE LIONS CLUB ti•\N�„or!r 22797 Barton Road, Box 149, Grand Terrace CA 92324 (714) 824-54 (- I T / rc r,"'Ir I r F'Pflf I r , TY irr, ' 1r r' IYIf l f11'1 '1("11,1f1C-3 - /r=1M 1, to r(11 I r1(1,r{r1 (--1-lr, I- T.- 1- -I I r( -1, 'r Li rl r_,_,r r- I f1 r r r r r, I F I 1 IJI, rII 1 1.(r:LJi:3P'Y , r) 1 rIr)1 i t II_ (,F,ITIT F, I r' ,I 1 I , I' I< I_ I ( ; 1 1 , 11 ,Ir , 1 (!}-)r I r-(_0' III 1 1 I1 i I;, r,r i iI I r) I off; 1 III III n-IF .1 Ir, ' I () 1 1 ( IN I 1 1 , '"rlrlral II I i' r I NI f I IT' 11[) J_ I Ir, I I I 'I ' I I 1 I -"--1-1- -- 1- - 1+) ,I, Ii; I. I, Hill I THI. III I T, i '- r1; F i ll '1 ( I I11 , I II 1 III, I I 0' C I T, L I_ 1,11l''I- I1I, , III IiI 1 1=I f-'I I'_ti in I_ I of rt, f T I'I 'I- }-11 III I--1 I I 'J -T 1 t l-rrl 7, ii /I I ,I1 I ' Ir,1-II it rll t- `1r I 11-1(I , , III- 1 Ir111'� l 'I1r ! III- " I III;I 1 ` 1 , , <„ 1 I r- I ' ,11' 1 (I' 1111 ' I 11 I I r I ( ) I II IIil ,, (, 11Il 1, , I II I 1 ( I. i 1' I IlI )\' ()I "'II ( ' ( ' !miff 1 1' II I j II 1, 1IIf 1I11 ' I lid 'ItyI ' ram' Ir I I 11 f-s I II- r{f1(1f.) Ill ill W I ,f,, r I I(11 I II (1 (.,' }/ 1 l 'H I ' r( (-.r'r1 .1 III WI- r 11'N1 ( (' I 1 (1N III 0 141P) 1 It 1L'(1I lr1N II ( 1II 1FI 1 111 .1', r'i lI1I 1 HI r,'(, II11I-Hi )10( I- r11 I1 {1 ( r)1,11r11JNT1 'r I I 1,,1I I-( I r II I , rII r I I l IF l I(JI JI I I f l if NI r(IICI (fir`1T\ I'I 11i I III' II T I 01 I , r"r II 1 1- 11l I I 1 1 'mi. r(lf 1 HI - III r)I'TrlI IN 1 III 1 , 7', )O f'I r ',I (Ire PL-c'I'I I 1 f l IL I `r' r- 4e.,..(//i„,/a..t--t-e—,......-e.---c--( 111 I I r1(11-4,) IRI 1 'NI-P1 T}I NI I ( 'P(ll\11) If_III''J( r L f(IN1 ( LlIT/ DATE March 22 , 1991 STAFF REPORT CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITCM ( ) MEETING DATE March 28 , 1991 SUBJECT REJECT GRAND TERRACE LIABILITY CLAIM 91-01 The City of Grand Terrace has received a claim (GTLC 91-01) in the amount of $50 , 000 for general damages , pain and suffering , and an estimated $500 in medical expenses for an injury that occurred when a walk-way light fell and allegedly injured the claimant STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT COUNCIL REJECT CLAIM NO GTLC 91-01 AND REFER THE CLAIM TO OUR CLAIMS ADJUSTOR FOR PROCESSING TS bt Attachment COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM #3 CLAIM FOR DL\MRGE OR INJUROATE.5_ 9_7gI rlmw I/.574M f;IIv Claims co- death , rnlury to person, or to personal property must be f tle�cj 20 G�tte�ildpciriK AACL 100 cats ofter the occurrence (Gov Code, Sec 911 2) C1 Claims for damages to real property must be filed not later than 1 yieo[laft c` _ r4_9stkl, (Go,. Code, Sec 01 1 2) I n° CIT" OF Grand Terrace Sarah Woods , a minor (D 0 B 1/1/82 ) , 34346 Fish Hatchery Road through her mother, Eva Woods , Ment.cne, -CA. 9_23.59 ( 714 ) 321-3658 9 Name of Claimant Address Zip Phone /Age c/o Bruce M Leyden, 710 Brookside Avenue, suite #2, Redlands , CA 92373 _ Hddres, to which Claimant wishes notices sent HEN did damage or injury occur? January 29, 1991 HERE dic+ enmage or inlu,, occur? Immediately outside Grand Terrace Library on walkway LOW and L' Jer what circumstances did damage or injury occur ? On above date, the claimant was with a group of other school children _going to said library. She was insured when a portion of the lamp lighting the walkway fell on her foot The lamp and/i its parts were not bolted to brackets in concrete although at ShQy-d have been since it was heavy and potentially dangerous WHAT parricular action by the City, or its employees, caused the alleged damage or injury? (Include names of employees, if known) ' The failure to properly secure and maintain the said lamp although it was — forseeable that it could present a risk to minor children. ,!,'HAT sum do you claim" Include the estimated amount of any prospective loss, insofar as it may be kno\'n e the time of the presentar.on of this claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed Attach estimates or bills, if possible) Estimated medical specials to date $ 500_00 Future medical - not known at this time $ Unknown pain and suffering, etc $ 50 , 000 . 00 General damages , e — Total Amount Claimed $ 50 , 500 00 plus NAMES and addresses of witnesses, Doctors and Hospitals Doctors at Kaiser Hospttal , Fontana, Cal z fnrni a School teacher and children accompanying claimant, names and addresses not presently known. L„ March 18, 1991 r,r11• HISTO1ICA & CULTURAL ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE RECEIVED MAR 1 1 1991 Minutes of March 4, 1991 Meeting CITY CLERK'S DEPT The meeting was called to order by chairman Vi Gratson at 7 10 PM. Tnose present were Ann Petta, Marie Schmidt, Vi Gratson, Irene Mason, Pauline Grant and Hannah Laister. The Secretary ' s minutes for lebruary were read and approved, motion mace by Ann, seconded by Marie. The Committee now has a full roster. Treasurer reported a balance of $1,329. 94. Old Business The Committee met on February 26th and worked on the Sister City Display Case. Case is now filled and Vi will look into lighting. We also need to find a map and a flag for Italy. The Committee will meet on Tuesday, March 12tn at 1 l-M to work on photographs. Ne Business Due to conflict with the Lions Club, the date of the Art Show has been changed to Sunday, April 28th. Irene will get an article in the Chamber of Commerce Newsletter. Vi will have 25 posters made and 200 flyers to be passed out. She will also ask Randy Anstine to check the display screens for any repairs, paint, etc. The next meeting will be April 1, 1991. Meeting was adjourned at 7 35 PM. Respectfully submitted, 1A04-01_ Hannah Laister, Secretary COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM # 5 P‘1Ca) CRIME PREVENTION COMMITTEE MEETING, FEBRUARY 20, 1991 RECEIVED MINUTES M/\R 1 2 1991 CITY CLERK'S DEPT The Grand Terrace Crime Prevention Committee met at it ' s reg- ular monthly meeting at the Civic Center Conference Room at 1900 hours . MEMBERS PRESENT , JoAnn Johnson, Chairperson, Dick Rollins , Ron Wright , Harold Lord , Howard Panek Debra Mueller and Phil Speisak. MEMBERS ABSENT , Bea Gigandet CITY STAFF, Sharon Korgan GUESTS PRESENT , Mike Fasenmyer ITEMS , #1 The Minutes of the meeting of January 14, 1991 were distributed to the members present for approval It was discovered that Phil Speisak had not been in- cluded in reporting her as a new member on the Comm- tee . The Minutes were approved with the correction as noted and to be re-typed with the correction. #2 Ron Wright ' s letter of resignation as an active member of the Committee was read and accepted with regret . He stated that as a new member of the City's Planning Commission that his volunteer time would be limited . He further stated that he was willing to continue to serve as an Alternate Member on the roster #3 The Committe voted unaninously to accept the resignat- ion of Ron Wright as a regular member and to accept his Alternate Member status Additionally the Committee voted unanimously to accept Phil Speisak as a full member in place of Ron Wright An Action Item is to be filed with the City Clerks office as noted to request the City Coun- cil to accept the changes . #4 A motion was made by Debra Meuller and seconded by Harold Lord to accept the request for membership on the Committee of Mike Fasenmyer after a review of his application The motion carried unanimously. He will be placed as an additional Alternate Member completing the Committee 's membership roster. #5 The Committe discussed the need for appointing a member for the position of Treasurer. It was stated that this postition of making the Committee aware of budget and expenditures throughout the year was vitally important Additionally it is important that when new budget hearings are to be heard by the Counc�.,7f,t ' !itEQ ittit,.haie c0.) input as to expenditures �+v H IVU 1 M �F pAGE 2 ITEMS 1 #6 A report was made by Howard Panek of the Citizen Patrol unit that two new members presently enrolled in the Sheriff ' s Academy being trained as patrol persons He also stated that a new patrol unit is being planned for to replace the present vehicle . No date has been yet established as to it ' s being placed into service . ##7 Sharon Korgan reported that as yet the Crime Buster 's organization has no director and remains to have difficulty in having volunteers for the program. It was further stated that there were plenty of work materials available and that there is presently funds allocated. #8 It was reported that the Neighborhood Watch Program has been faltering in the last several months and that renewed efforts must be made to conduct new meetings . Crime reports within the City have been mounting. It was further discussed that a regular monthly news- letter would be most helpful in order to inform the citizenry of the need for awareness and prevention. ##9 It was also reported that the Block-Parent Program was no longer in effect and that plans for reorgan- izing it would be neccessary next Summer especially due to the new year-round schooling in Grand Terrace #10 Debra Meuller reported on the plans and participation of organizations and groups for the upcoming parade on June 1 , 1991 for Grand Terrace Days , formerly the Safety Fair Discussion revolved around, formalyzing an appropriate name for the day. #11 Sharon Korgan gave an extended update on the work that she has been doing for the various participants during the Fair The Committee voted unanimously in on a motion to obtain an allocation of an additional $500. 00 out of the Committee 's budget for expenses incurred for the Fair . #12 The Committee conducted an election of officers as follows ! JoAnn Johnson, Chairperson, Phil Speisak as Vice Chairperson, Harold Lord as Treasurer and Dick Rollins as Recording Secretary. Mike Fasenmyer would be a back-up Treasurer There being no further business to discuss the meeting was adjourned at 215 hours . Respec ul ubmitted, ick Rol ins Recording Secretary rhr/ STAF REPORT C R A ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (X) DATE 3/22/91 SUBJECT_ PRIORITIZE. CDRG PROJECT LIST PROPOSED ACTION• Approve listing the Senior Citizen Center Improvements, in the amount of$33,000 00 as the number one priority of the Grand Terrace Community Development Block Grant Program BACKGROUND. As Council is aware, Council approved improvements to the Senior Citizen Center, to be the project for the 1991/92 project year Prior to this project going before the County Board of Supervisors for approval and inclusion into the County application, the City must establish all project(s) in an approved list of priorities Since the City only has one project on the submitted list, establishing the priority list should be quite easy I have attached to this report the project proposal as reviewed and approved by the County of San Bernardino FORM MOTION APPROVE LISTING THE SENIOR CENTER IMPROVEMENTS AS THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE FOR THE 1991/92 CDBG PROJECT YEAR RLA COUN CIL AGENDA ITEM# &lg. CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PROJECT PROPOSAL ATTACHMENT At this time, we have received one project proposal for an activity located within your corporate boundaries We have determined that under current Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) regulations, the following project proposal is eligible for CDBG funding City Eligible Project Proposal Proposal Number 193 Senior Activities Center, proposed by the City of Grand Terrace, estimated CDBG cost of $30,000, 100% CDBG funding, furnishings are not eligible for CDBG funding unless they are integral to the senior center structure City Ineligible Project Proposal The following project proposals do not meet CDBG eligibility requirements established by HUD regulations Proposal Number None (•Igr), "„i,) iGRAN(TERRRCE '1M ��alllllll`� Depalt y�J~ t nunt 4M•11w,01• -.i. TO City Council FROM David R Sawyer, Community Development Director DATE March 21, 1991 SUBJECT Staff Report File No Z-89-03 & TTM-89-04 Request Z-89-03 A request to amend the R1-10 rearyard setback requirements 1'1 M-89-04 and E-89-01, Subdivide 4 9 acres into rune residential lots APPLICANT Richard Churchwell LOCATION 23081 Grand Terrace Road (APN#276-411-001) ******************************************************** ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A negative declaration has been prepared for this project and is attached as Attachment A's Exhibit B ZONING AND LANDUSE Property GP Zoning Land Use Subject Property LDR R1-10 Single Family Residence To the West LDR R1-10 Single Family Residence COUNCIL AGENDA REM# 22795 Barton Road • Gland Terrace, California 92324-5295 • (714) 824-6621 Pi open ty GI' Zoning Land Use To the East LDR R1-10 Single Family R1-20 Residences To the North LDR R1-10 Single family Residence To the South LDR R1-10 Vacant DISCUSSION Z-89-03 The current 35 foot rearyard setback requirement was established with the intent to ensure that any future subdivision of property in this district would retain the rural and open feeling of the existing neighborhood The applicant originally requested a change from the required 35 feet to a fifteen foot rearyard setback The Planning Commission felt such a reduction was not appropriate, after discussion the Planning Commission recommended keeping the 35 foot requirement but to allow 10 feet of the required 35 foot setback to have a slope greater than 5% Currently, no portion of the 35 feet may have a slope greater than 5% In redesigning the map the applicant was able to provide the 35 foot rearyard setbacks with 15 feet in slope rather than 10 feet Staff feels 15 feet of slope instead of 10 feet is an acceptable adjustment and that the integrity of the rural and open atmosphere of the surrounding neighborhood and districts will not be jeopardized Although the Planning Commission did recommend 10 feet, staff feels the change is acceptable in light of the revisions to this map and to '1'1 M-90-06 (the only other significant vacant parcel in the R1- 10 District) made subsequent to the Planning Commission making their recommendation The minutes of that meeting and their resolution recommending approval are attached as Attachments B and C Fl M-89-04 On November 20, 1989, the Planning Commission initially considered this project for a tentative tract map to subdivide 4 9± acres in the R1-10 District into 9 residential lots of 10,000 square foot minimum This map was considered by the Planning Commission at various meetings The earlier project showed access provided from Arliss Drive, which was considered less than acceptable to the Planning Commission in its original configuration The applicant then redesigned the street layout of the map and proposed access from Grand Terrace Road rather than Arliss Drive (Attachment A's Exhibit A) The current configuration eliminates many of the concerns the adjacent property owners and staff had regarding the Arliss Drive access On March 7, 1991, the Planning Commission again considered this application The minutes of that meeting and their resolution recommending approval are attached as Attachments E and F REVIEWING AGENCY COMMENTS The following responses have been received from the City's ReviewingA the revised design Agencies es regarding ENGINEERING BUILDING & SAFETY The Engineering/Building & Safety Department's comments are included in their memorandum dated February 14, 1991 and attached as Attachment D's Exh ibit C FORESTRY AND FIRE WARDEN DEPARTMENT The Forestry and Fire Warden Department's comments are included in their m dated November 6, 1989, November 6, 1990 and February emorandums Attachment D's Exhibit D sT 1, 1991 and attached as COLTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT All conditions as recommended by the Colton Unified School District n thes November 9, 1989 (Attachment D's Exhibit E) r letter dated SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS All conditions as recommended by the San Bernardino County Office of Sp ec in their memorandum dated November 7, 1989 (Attachment D's Exhibit F sal Districts RIVERSIDE-CORONA RESOURCE CON ) CONSERVATION DISTRICT All conditions as recommended by the Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation their memorandum dated September 25, 1990 (Attachment D's Exhibit G) District in Als plan is to be submitted to the City of Grand Terrace Planning Department for for ao, anp erosion approval RECOMMENDATIONS PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ZZ_ The Planning Department recommends the Cs ty Council adopting Z-89-03 and its associated negative declaration (E-89 01)the(Attach hen resolution meat A) 1'1 M-89-04 The Planning Department recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving 1'1 M-89-04 and its associated Negative Declaration (E-89-01), subject to the conditions contained therein and as follows (See Attachment B) This recommendation is based on the approval of Z-89-03 as recommended by staff 1 Individual lots shall be subject to Site and Architectural Review 2 The subject property shall be dedicated to the City in order to be annexed to the City's existing Lighting and T andscaping District 3 The Final Tract Map shall be consistent with the California Aqueduct, Riverside Highland Water, East Riverside Irrigation District easements 4 All conditions as recommended by the City Engineer's Department in their recommendations dated February 14, 1991 (Attachment A's Exhibit C) 5 All conditions as recommended by the Forestry and Fire Warden Department in their Memorandum dated November 6, 1989, November 6, 1990, and February 1, 1991 (Attachment A's Exhibit D) 6 All conditions as recommended by the Colton Unified School District in their letter dated November 9, 1989 (Attachment A's Exhibit E) 7 All conditions as recommended by the San Bernardino County Office of Special Districts in their Memorandum dated November 7, 1989 (Attachment A's Exhibit F) 8 All conditions as recommended by the Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District in their memorandum dated September 25, 1990 (Attachment A's Exhibit G) Also, an erosion plan is to be submitted to the City of Grand Terrace Planning Department for approval 9 The area containing the proposed rear slope in Lots 7 and 8 shall be offered for dedication to the City for the purpose of inclusion in the City's Lighting and Landscaping District 10 The mature and healthy Eucalyptus trees on the western border of Lots 1 and 2 shall be preserved unless written approval is given by the Planning Department, prior to the removal of said trees or any other action which would result in substantial damage to said trees 11 As to the remaining mature and healthy trees within the project, they should be preserved where feasible consistent with the necessary grading requirements 12 Consideration of alternative Street lighting, atmosphere lighting if possible g g' with a focus toward rural 13 The pad elevation of Lot 1 shall be reduced by 8 feet, not to feet exceed 1155 It should be noted that Condition #13 as recommended by the Planning Commzsszon requited the pad elevation of Lot 1 be reduced by 8 feet, not to exceed 1152 feet, this was a result of testimony by the adjoining property owner The applicant has met with the adjoining property owner who opposed this pad's original elevation and has worked compromise elevation of 1155 feet out a 14 Each individual lot shall be provided an individual curbside m Clusteied gangboxes shall not be allowed ailbox 15 A Will Serve Letter shall be obtained from the Riverside Highland District g Water Respectfully Submitted, avid R Sawyer, Community Development Director RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING Z-89-03 AND ITS ASSOCIATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (E-89-01) WHEREAS, the applicant, Mr Richard Churchwell applied for an amendment to Section 18 12 040 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code and WHEREAS, said amendment, Z-89-03 changes the R1-10 rearyard setback requirement to allow 15 feet to have a slope gi eater than 5%, and WHEREAS, said amendment is attached as Exhibit "A", and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act, and Initial Study has been conducted and a Negative Declaration (E-89-01) has been prepared and is attached as Exhibit "B", and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on December 4, 1990, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council approval of Z-89-03 (with a 10 feet of slope) and its associated negative declaration (E-89-01) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, California, that SECTION 1 The Negative Declaration (E-89-01), set out in full in attached Exhibit B is hereby approved SECTION 2 The Zoning Ordinance Amendment Z-89-03, amending Section 18 12 040 changing the R1-10 District's 35 ' feet rearyard setback requirement to allow 15 feet of said setback to have a slope greater than 5% set out in full in Exhibit A is hereby approved ATTACHMENT A PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Grand Teriace, California, at a regular meeting held the 28th day of March, 1991 by the following vote AYES NOES ABSENT ABSTAIN Byron Matteson Mayor A l'I EST Deputy City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM John Harper, City Attorney TABLE 18 . 10 040 Site Development Standards DEVELOPMENT ISSUE RH R20 R10 R72 R2 R3 . .. . . . ilimim omm mmimmommw mommimmigit mmili+.mmil .......rmson .ate Area (Minimum square feet) - a 20, 000 10 , 000 7 , 200 10 , 000 12 , 000 Width (Minimum linear feet) a 100 60 60 60 60 * Interior Lot* Corner Lot - e 100 70 70 70 70 Lot Depth (Minimum linear feet) - e 150 100 100 100 100 Street Frontage (Minimum linear feet) - 8 50 40 40 40 CO Setbacks (Minimum linear feet) * Front Yard - e 25 b 25 b 25 b 25 b 25 * Rear Yard - a 35 b 35 b 20 b 20 b 20 b * Side Yard - Interior Lot M ► l With Driveway - a 10 b 10 b 10 b 10 b 10 X Without Driveway - 5 b 5 b 5 b 5 b 10 b Corner Lot Streetside - a 15 b 15 b 15 b 15 b 15 Not Streetside - 8 5 b 5 b 5 b 5 b 10 b U0 H I I/ l TABLE 18 . 10 . 040 (Cont ) Site Development Standards DEVELOWENT IBBUE RH R20 R10 R72 R2 R3 imensmingimmod immuNuuret mimmisimmint .rrmmi .gym Density (Allowable dwelling units per acre) - e 1-2 1-4 1-5 1-9 1-12 Living Area (Minimum square feet) * Single Family - 8 1, 350 d 1, 350 d 1, 350 d 1, 350 d 1 , 350 * Duplex, Triplex, Fourplex and Multiple Family - One (1) Bedroom - - - - 800 d 800 - Two (2) Bedroom - - - - 1, 000 d 1 , 000 d Height (Maximum linear feet) - a 35 e 35 e 35 e 35 e 35 e Lot Coverage (Maximum percent) - a 40 50 50 60 ` 60 Distance Between Buildings (Minimum linear feet) - a 5 5 5 20 20 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 Table 18 10 . 040 Footnotes (Continued) project basis in consideration of the existing topography and other physical constraints 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 of open space and minimize the project ' s impact on the physical environment b 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, the 35 foot rearyard setback may include -1-0 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 c 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 "Living area" shall be defined as the enclosed area of a residential dwelling unit, excluding porches, patios, I t Table 18 . 10 . 040 Footnotes (Continued) carports, garages , storage areas, or auxiliary rooms "Multiple Family" shall be defined as one (1) or two (2 ) bedroom units only e In the R1-7 2 District, accessory structures shall not exceed ten ( 10) feet in height unless approved by the Site and Architectural Review Board, and in no case shall exceed twenty (20) feet in height In the R1-20, R1-10 , R2 and R3 Districts accessory structures shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height 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 airy jet Phnning 'WINDTERRACE; Dep tment NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to_ the California Environmental Quality Act, a Negative Declaration is hereby filed on the below referenced project, on the basis that said project will not have a significant effect on the environment DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT TTM-89-04 , a tentative tract map subdividing 4 9 acres into 9 single family lots of 10 , 000 square foot minimum This property is located in the City ' s R1-10 zone and within the General Plan ' s Low Density Residential landuse designation (see attached map) APPLICANT Richard Churchwell Owners - N Stafford and Dorothea G Cooley LOCATION 23081 Grand Terrace Road (APN# 276-411-001) FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT Based upon the attached Initial Study, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment David Sawyer, / Date Community Development Director City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92324-5295 • (714))�82`66 1� R C.I 1 Y OF GRAND 1 ERRACL PI ANNING DEPAR IMENT INI I IAL ENVIRONMENT AL STUDY I Background 1 Name of Pi oponent City of Grand Terrace 2 Address and Phone Number of Proponent City of Grand Terrace 22 /95 Barton Road , Grand Terrace, CA 92324-5295 Attention David Sawyer Planning Director 3 Date of Environmental Assessment /0 — 7-4-4` e /q 4 Agency Requiring Assessment City of Grand Ter race 5 Name of Proposal , if applicable \ T')- \ — 81 - 0 2- 6 Location of Proposal q So 0 I G R Pci-I �EcQA-c- R0F'r� W t---1 --7 G9 - ( ( - 0 0 ( ) II Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are provided on attached sheets ) Yes Maybe No 1 Earth Will the proposal result in a Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures' b Disruptions, displacements , compac- tion or overcovering of the soil' �/ c Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features' d The destruction covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features' e Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils either on or or off site' tV i r — — — 'c MdybL t'10 - - I Changes in deposition or ei osion of beach sands or changes in siltation deposition or erosion Which may modify the channel of a r iver of str earn or the bed of the ocean or any hay, inlet or lake7 g Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earth quakes , landslides , mudslides , ground failure, or similar hazards.) V 2 Air. Will the proposal result in a Substantial air emissions or deterior- ation of ambient air quality? b The creation of objectionable odors' c Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate whether locally or r egionally7 f/- 3 Water Will the proposal result in a Substantial changes in currents , or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters7 b Substantial changes in absorption rates drainage patterns , or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters7 d Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water qual- ity, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity f Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters7 ( - - - Yc /ddyl)( - - ' to - q Change in the quantity of ground waters either through dir ect addi- tions or withdrawals or through inter - ception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations ? 11 Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies' i Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flood- ing or tidal waves? 1l Plant Life Will the proposal result in r/ a Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass crops, and aquatic plants) ? b Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants' c Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation , or in a barrier to the normal replenish- ment of existing species? d Substantial reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop' 1/ 5 Animal Life Will the proposal result in a Change in the diversity of species or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including rep- tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects) ? b Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Yc > Maybe No 6 Noise Will the proposal result in a Increases in existing noise levels' b Lxposur c of people to sever e noise levels' t7 7 Light and Glare Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare' 8 Land Use Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area' V 9 Natural Resources Will the proposal result in a Substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources" ✓ b Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource' (� 10 Risk of Upset Will the proposal involve a A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including , but not limited to oil , pesticides , chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions' b Possible interference with an emerg- ency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan' 11 Population Will the proposal alter the location , distribution density, or growth rate of the human population of an area' 12 Housing Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing' 13 Transportation/Circulation Will the pro- proposal result in a Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement' RE) _._ _ -_ r , __1 4,3 y li t r Yr� _-_ _____ b Effec« on existing par king facrli- Lies or demand for new par king ? c Substantial impact upon exi tang tr ansportation systems? d Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , bicyclists or pedestrians' 17 14 Public Services Will the proposal have substantial effect upon , or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas a Fire protection? b Police protection? 1/ c SchooIs 7 —.) d Parks or other recreational faci- lities / e Maintenance of public facilities , including roads' f Other governmental ser vices' 15 Energy Will the proposal result in a Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? ✓ b Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy , or re- quire the development of new sources of energy 16 Utilities Will the proposal result in a need for new systems , or substantial alterations to the following utilities a Power or natural gas7 Yes Maybe No b Communications systems' c Water ' l7 d Sewer or septic tanks' V e Storm water drainage' v f Solid waste and disposal' 17 Human Health Will the proposal result in a Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health) ' b Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18 Aesthetics Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view' 19 Recreation Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities' 20 Cultural Resources a Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeo- logical site' b Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building , structure, or object' c Does the proposa' have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values' Ye , Maybc No --- d Will the pi oposal restrict existing - - - — - r cligious or 5acr ed uses within the potential impact ar ea.' 21 Mandator y Findings of Significance a Does the pr oject have the potential to degrade the quality of the environ- ment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species , cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history / or prehistory 1/ b Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environ- mental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which oc- curs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts / will endure well into the future ) V c Does the project have impacts which are individually limited , but cumu- latively considerable? (A project's impact on two or more separate resources may be relatively small , but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant ) d Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substan- tial adverse effects on human beings / either directly or indirectly? ✓ l 1 I !i'IkONMLN I AL DI 11_kmINA 1 ION On the basis of this initial evaluation I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the envii onment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the proposed project could have a signi- ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi- ficant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on attached sheets have been added to the project A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED I find the pr oposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required David Sawyer Planning fLector /0 — 4 -g7 '' Gate 3ignaturCe>17 For City of Grand Terrace i .LIT DISCUSSION or THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 1 b, 3 b The development of this currently vacant site will result in the over covering of a certain percentage of the soil This impact will be mitigated by utilizing proper drainage methods which reviewed and approved by the Building and Engineering Department — 6 a The existing noise levels will increase as a result of the development of residential uses in an area that is currently vacant This impact will be within the allowable levels as set in the Master Environmental Analysis for the General Plan 8 The existing landuse will change from vacant land to single family residential uses in accordance with the adopted General Plan • I y ,w1,o. �, ,,I l cs/crrv/7/oc cu,,.,� II / TFi(/TR117 f3RC711 /9463 V. L�r_�'^��jjj��� ' ITeI / 1 `l�r of{t NI^r,... 11 f 1 w V.4 u w_. ��x 'l 1 llt 1. - 11 T it l ` I R/ ?b A L /i:1 . 1�1 ,�. Ion ' M ' I I / �-'4 t>r` 1 I. ,I ,v^^'^'o \ T� G r�.��0` ,P/-10 q Itij u v w� �+c l K I �lC�`�S`'`-S �% ...��'4� rr?A Ill -et, I I , ! �rA � .\ � __' LOT 15 7;I`Ip Hb0 11 amfta��/' '• ••�wn,,� � �1i ly LOT u �Jl /1rC c2I 3/ .4// gr b /� QfC —.w' .r.. 171 I „-f,11 1 1 i -1�rJ ,y a ,•� T • � es ` r�l_ �'(*'I R�/D a ,. $I,u•..-. �Ij� � �, p INOnJir'p• V',-% I. �. ~//t e� i ,' \eR< i��1 1M1 r �a v...3 1-.. �I(S • _ of.• u ,1ii ' •Iti �+ f -•+�� 40014,11111 Vere/w/- / 4,7 , / tt GLFX' 4Y ir.n.V / r.... Itt / 2/ 10 1 rili ,.",___ ....sl,r-ir• VAGaNr ' r ~oii o/ ` a L— nwrrrr '��,� '� iT \ / fX r ��cn<..o<re¢»I.,»0v y,A,//++cri.r,.S©s/�.rcr a//o/+ Lg r A S; ! .. v11 t�, gut rsl Z-�� r��i�`�1 � = % Ii�r� ��� ���a = I / i l..u...e.ut..�.�.�e-..r ' 411111. /4.'411Td �acraur 1 j •,; ( C� 4 ,, -teaI i I? `'�'S•. •��' V 4� .��/ // l(i Alf 7 r 1..,`,`1 1, ..,,' LC:I d Ii �' �V ///r// x-,crNrvx ...<..1, I�.l`,... 3„ , — 1/ I ,�� }/ / / / t0 \ R/-7L r./anti, ., L... 1. - Ivt....r t r 1 Lo-r lam' , \ t a' /�/ 1 r Jr\ /b(» //✓ 1 // .-.� w...�..u..�tt 1w1 t ....r111 I c__ =1,1 I Y.�GaNr �� �� I♦ r\\ t 1� l..Vl `,ill� �,�rltiul l...�-•. ..1 ., r '• t. /Y//CAC r•rii / � 1 ,1..1...1 ( ' '. .t ,..r..aa._<-.', "~tyl.`.t.. `.. p'1NE ` I I r// ��jl /� T �/rr� z�ai(sAw o. riarlvrc lOoO M-/- � " _ ,.• ^"' //r r/// /�-s/crNrix C c�G�NO r / / / /T I r / —✓—`��� e. 1 r•� .�.. // t �/� / (JII�/ #1110,10P- !T ~/ems uM1v.<a(04.6.0...5 Il�� rs" I I 1t /J// //// rJ �___ a �C.Tis/�. /`.T �M'=->>oIY/ye, ene rnr:v f 1�/ 1. wad es exJro a enrs ur, �-� i - .vrrC../ri to y..o-Yim Utic LOr L"' // /S 11� / -e-- ws/e,res to/s ous an[me 7YY/ SC'�rrw 6nvN y�� ///r// / /}C'.YL-47//K �Wrs X^rwv to K / r- /NCrG.t•}/Now}„ w rNO rCr w'!tt.0 jQ / // I J/ _ /NWCAKS SCe...+C'err VC' •t-J //YOT CDC n S.1t! , p PO RI, 'm LO r:N /// / • /f"0 l4rLYU/('7�"C>•!C,vC CCl1/(qv JFW =o r�1„_,1 Iti Hamlin() wow TERRf+CC• Department NOTICE OF FILING NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, a Negative r— , Declaration is hereby filed on the below referenced project, on the basis that said project will not have a significant effect on the environment DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT TTM-89-04 , a tentative tract map subdividing 4 9+ acres into 9 single family lots of 10, 000 square feet minimum This property is located in the City ' s R1-10 zone and within the General Plan ' s Low Density Residential landuse designation APPLICANT Richard Churchwell Owners - N Stafford and Dorthea G Cooley LOCATION 23081 Grand Terrace Road (APN W276-411-001) ***************************************************************** Copies of the Negative Declaration and Initial Study for this project are available for review at the City of Grand Terrace Planning Department, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace (714-824- 6621), Anyone wishing to comment on this project may do so prior to January 10, 1989 All comments should be directed to David Sawyer, Community Development Director, City of Grand Terrace /2 - 9 - � David Sawyer, Date Community Development Director City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92324-5295 • (714) 824-6621 ITEM #1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMI3ER 13, 1990 MOTION PCM-91-1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 13, 1990 Commissioner Van Gelder made a motion to approve the November 13, 1990 minutes Vice-Chairman Buchanan second MOTION VOTE PCM-91-1 Motion carries 4-0-1-1 Commissioner Sims absent Commissioner Hargrave abstained ITEM #2 Z-89-03 RICHARD K CHtJRCHWELL 23081 GRAND 'TERRACE ROAD GT AN APPLICATION FOR A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 35' TO 20' The Community Development Director presented the staff report Vice-Chairman Buchanan asked if the zone change would apply in any R1-10 Zone, to which the Community Development Director agreed Vice-Chairman Buchanan asked if staff made this type of analysis with respect to the Petta project The Community Development Director stated that they have looked at the Petta project, and the slopes in the Petta project are not as great as those m the Churchwell project Commissioner Hargrave asked if it was in staffs view to take a district on the south side of a major artery (Barton Road) and include this as justification for this project when there is very little on the north side of Barton Road with that type of setback He said they also have some adjoining vacant tracts which will eventually be developed 2 ATTACHMENT B The Community Development Director stated that the R1-10 Zone is rather small, and the Petta and Churchwell properties are about the only remaining properties that are significantly vacant and can be subdivided He said that the property to the south of Barton Road doesn't dictate how the area north of Barton Road should develop Comnussioner Hargrave stated that with the slopes, there is maybe one parcel m Churchwell's project that does not meet the 35' setback The Community Development Director stated that Lot 4 would be close to 30' and Lot 5 would be 25' Vice-Chairman Buchanan felt they may be disregarding the agricultural overlay notion with the setback reductions The Corrunuruty Development Director stated that the agricultural overlay zone was an answer to the citizens that lived in the area, as it had developed with a rural atmosphere and they wanted to keep that Chairman Hawkinson called up the applicant DOUG SHACKELTON J F DAVIDSON AND ASSOCIATES 3880 LEMON STREET RIVERSIDE Mr Shackelton stated that they concur with staffs recommendation and analysis He stated that they did not believe the zone change would jeopardize the integrity of the zone or development He stated that the setbacks will be closer to 35' than 20' Commissioner Van Gelder was concerned about the size of the houses, stating that the size of the pads could not allow them to be as large as the existing one Mr Shackelton stated that the houses have not been selected yet, but a two- story dwelling could approach the size of the existing dwelling 7 24 P M PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TERRY MARTINEZ 22950 ARLISS DRIVE GT 3 Ms Martinez stated that she felt at a disadvantage as they received the information at 5 15 p m on Friday and didn't have much time to prepare She stated that regarding the setbacks, she stated that the Community Development Director stated that he wished to keep the rural atmosphere, which is why they kept the 35' setbacks, and now he feels they can reduce it , to 20' and maintain the rural atmosphere She felt this was possible on the Churchwell project as the lots were quite large and they have the slopes She stated that the minutes reflect that Commissioner Munson stated that if you set this as precedence, then it possibly could come back to haunt them, and she felt this was a real possibility in the Petta project, as his lot sizes are down to the minimum and he wants the setbacks down to the minimum She stated that in the minutes of the last meeting, it was asked that the developer come back with an alternative plan with the rear yard setbacks as is, and this has never materialized ELIZA.BETH KENNEDY 11831 PRESTON STREET GT Ms Kennedy asked the Commuruty Development Director to qualify the R1- 20 Zone which borders the Churchwell project The Community Development Director stated that the R1-20 Zone is directly north across Arliss Drive, and a portion of the R1-20 Zone does border a portion of this map Ms Kennedy stated that as a property owner whose land is included in the R1-10 Zone and abuts these proposed developments, she would like to express an objection to the proposed 20' rear yard setback She said that when they expressed no objection to the zone change from R1-20 to R1-10, it was with the understanding that the requirements for the rear yard setback would remain at 35' in the new R1-10 zone She felt that allowing 20' rear yard setbacks will jeopardize their current ability as property owners to keep horses on their property and on the adjacent properties already developed She said that at least one property is land-locked, and can only be used for agncultural purposes She said that these conditions apply directly to at least two properties on Preston Street and two on Victoria, and if 20' rear yard setbacks are allowed, she asked what would prevent property owners from constructing retaining walls along his or her rear yard property line, thus reducing their slope requirement and expanding their buildable space to within 20' of his property line, precluding the 70' required for their corrals Comnussioner Hargrave asked for the location of Ms Kennedy's property 4 Ms Kennedy stated that they border Churchwell's Lot 3 on the west propel ty line The Community Development Director indicated this on the map He stated that the Agricultural Overlay Zone states that all animals, except household pets, shall be kept at a minimum distance of 70' from any adjacent dwelling, school or church located on adjoining parcels Commissioner Hargrave asked if Ms Kennedy has preference before Lot 3 owners, even though she doesn't currently have horses The Community Development Director stated that if she does not have horses now, then the new property owner next to her could have an extension of the home that could go into that 70' area, and Ms Kennedy would have to come in later and meet the 70' distance Commissioner Hargrave asked the depth of Ms Kennedy's property from Preston to the east Ms Kennedy stated that she would not be able to have horses with the 2 to 1 slope that will be required from Preston Street on their bank in their front yard She said they have 250 42 feet from Preston Street back, and they have approximately a 20' bank from Preston Street that they will have to make into a 2 to 1 slope She stated that she does not have an objection to the overall 35' setback with a 20' setback to the banks ROMAYNE CHINNOCK 22935 ARLISS DRIVE GT Mr Chinnock stated that he is immediately adjacent to the Churchwell property on the westerly side He said that they have been trying to receive information for many months as to what would come forward tonight, and he has made numerous calls to the City Planning Department, and the reply was always that nothing had been submitted, and as of 5 00 p m Friday, nothing had been submitted and the packets were not posted until after the legal time for this public hearing He said that there is only one reason to change the setbacks, and that is to make it possible to put more dwellings in any given piece of property, and in doing that, they exacerbate the traffic problem He stated that, from the minutes of the last meeting, Commissioner Munson also had a problem with Lot 8, and stated that not much is being said about the 35' setback, which caused him concern, and that down the road the 20' would come to haunt them He urged the commission to take into account the residents in the area and not rezone to the 20' setback 5 BARBARA PFENNIGHAUSEN 22111 LADERA G1' Ms Pfenrughausen asked where the AP Zone comes down into the triangle that abuts the R1-10 The Community Development Director indicated this on the map, stating that it is a portion of the Barton Road Specific Plan He said that the triangle's northern boundary is Victoria Street Ms Pfenrighausen concurred with those opposed to the change from 35' to 20' setback,with the exception that where slopes can be incorporated to retain the integrity of the 35', and that the Churchwell property could be accepted, but she would have great reservation and would be opposed to an overall zone change that would allow all R1-10 properties to fall under this She stated that this zoning code is relatively new, and assumed that staff and City Council did consider these things at the time, and if an exception needs to be made, it should be made on a project-by-project basis Mr Shackelton stated that they truly believe the approval of this zone change will not jeopardize the integrity of the neighborhood of this development He felt there was more emphasis being place on this issue than is justified He pointed out, lot by lot, what the rear setback situation would be if approved He said that Lot 1 will have a 20' setback from the toe of the slope, and he would estimate the horizontal distance of the slope to be 40', so the rear setback is 60' from a practical standpoint, Lot 2 is a 30' horizontal distance on the slope, so the setback is 50', Lot 3 varies from 35' to 25', Lot 4 has approximately 29', Lot 5 is right at 25' if the dwelling is built there, Lot 9 is an existing dwelling, Lot 6 is 25' to 30', Lot 7 is probably 40', Lot 8 is 20' plus 8' or 9' He stated that if the flexibility is taken away, the dwellings will be shoved out to the street BARBARA. PFENNIGHAUSEN 22111 LADERA GT Ms Pfenmghausen said that she doesn't have great disagreement with what has been presented with regard to the Churchwell project, but her disagreement is in making this a general zone change on all R1-10 properties She said that if they cannot meet the setbacks on the Churchwell project, then they will have to subdivide their project into larger lots which would be a benefit to the community 6 ROMAYNE CHINNOCK 22935 ARLISS DRIVE GT Mr Chinnock was confused as to how to proceed, as he hears discussion that this proposal will cover both tentative tract maps tonight, but they are not supposed to be discussing them together He said that he and his neighbors are not opposed to the development of this land, but they would like to see this land harmonious with the neighborhood as it is now He said that he _ does not have a lot of objection to the setbacks as they are shown on Mr Churchwell's property but asked if the consideration is to change the zoning for the setbacks on all of R1-10 or just this tentative tract map The Community Development Director stated that it would affect all of the R1-10 Zone Mr Chinnock stated that he would urge the Planning Commission to not take this action, for it will create a tremendous amount of problems and will exacerbate the traffic problem TERRY MARTINEZ 22950 ARLISS DRIVE GT Ms Martinez stated that she was not opposed to the rear yard setbacks as Churchwell's tract map shows, but she was disturbed by a comment made by the representative of J F Davidson, who said that if they decide they do not want to pass this, then they will have to move the houses up toward the street Chairman Hawkinson stated that they are at the same disadvantage as they don't have Site and Architectural plans at this point, so the locations and sizes of the houses are not yet proposed The Community Development Director stated that the tentative maps are indicating the setback areas and thereby identifying the buildable pad areas He said that the 20' and 25' setbacks can be moved to 35', which will reduce the actual size of the buildable pads and reduce the options of the property owners for Site and Architectural Review He said that it will also restrict the Site and Architectural Review Board's ability to place the home, but it is not dictating that the homes be moved out to the street, as another alternative is the realignment of lot lines 7 58 P M PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7 The Community Development Director stated that all the legal posting notifications were met, as state law requires a 72 hour notification and bang of the agendas, which actually falls on Saturday evening, and packets available at 5 00 p m Friday were Commissioner Hargrave asked if there was anything in the procedures if t zoning change was not approved, that prohibits them tohis go on to the Churchwell application and give it some sort of variance The Community Development Director stated that they can continue with the agenda and hear both of the maps, but staffs recommendation would change to continue the items to be redesigned He said that no vanance has been applied for or advertised for, so this could not be considered Commissioner Hargrave asked if there was a discussion on wort setbacks ps with 35' The Community Development Director stated that the applicant did submit anything addressing that issue not Commissioner Van Gelder asked if they have regulations regarding the frontage of property The Community Development Director stated that there is a 25' front ro nt yard Commissioner Van Gelder asked what kind of findings they would be for in order to approve a variance looking The Community Development Director stated that there would have te finding that there is something physically unique about this property to ba a that problem is that they may be able to lose one lot, but they p would havei analyze thatto Vice-Chairman Buchanan stated that he made a motion and withdrew it at the last public hearing on this that the zone be modified to re uire a overall setback and a minimum of a 20' setback from the beginn n of a 5 slope He asked if they took this course, would theybe ru g ny developers or homeowners creating slopes where slopes aren't negcessa sk of The Community Development Director felt the overall costnecessary would prohibit that of the grading The City Engineer stated that it is unlikely, but possible 8 Vice-Chairman Buchanan expressed inclination to suggest modification of the zoning ordinance that would require a 35' overall setback from the property line with a minimum 20' setback from a slope He felt this offers flexibility and addresses the speakers' concerns, and a substantial number of the lots would conform MOTION PCM-91-2 Z-89-03 Vice-Chairman Buchanan made a motion to recommend to City Council adoption of Z-89-03 with a footnote requiring a 35' overall rear yard setback with a minimum 20' setback measured from the slope to the structure The Community Development Director stated that it should be worded that the nummum setback would be 35', and 10-15' may be included in a slope over 5% Vice Chairman Buchanan stated that he would prefer 10' and included this in his motion Commissioner Hargrave seconded for discussion The Community Development Director described it on the drawing board Commissioner Munson asked about retaining walls being put up The Community Development Director stated that they can-put up retaining walls Commissioner Hargrave asked what the minimum level setback would be from the structure itself moving back to the toe of any slope The Community Development Director stated that it would be 25' with the motion as it is stated Commissioner Munson stated that in looking at Lot 9 versus Lot 8, it shows there will be a 20' setback from the existing house on Lot 8 The Commumty Development Director stated that Lot 9 has the existing house on it, and there will be a 20' setback to the rear property line, and then a 10-12' slope in distance and a 20' setback Commissioner Munson asked if they would allow the 20' setback on Lot 9 9 The Community Development Director stated that this would not affect Lot 8, as they do not consider slopes in that aspect for front yards He stated that Lots 3, 5, 6 and maybe 4 of the Churchwell map would be adversely affected to where they would have to redesign or change the pad areas, and on the Petta map, perhaps one lot would be adversely affected Commissioner Hargrave asked if Lot 9 would have to come into conformity with these requirements The Community Development Director stated that it would, because they are creating lot lines around it Commissioner Hargrave discussed whether 20' or 25' level setback is the right number Commissioner Munson felt 20' is a nice sized backyard Comirussioner Van Gelder felt 20' was small, and that it doesn't create a country atmosphere The Community Development Director stated that the rear yard setback will affect main residential structures and additions to the main residential structures He said that an accessory structure can go within 10' of the rear yard setback, and a patio cover can go within 5' of that area Vice-Chairman Buchanan felt 25' was more appropnate to retain the rural atmosphere MOTION VOTE PCM-91-2 Motion carries 5-0-1-0 Commissioner Sims absent 8 35 P M TO 8 40 P M - RECESS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TEMPORARILY ADJOURNED AT 8 40 P M SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED AT 8 40 P M 10 RESOLUTION NO 9 0- 1 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, I RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONING AMENDMENT Z-89-03 WITH REGARDS TO REARYARD SE i'BACK REQUIREMENTS IN THE R1-10 DIS I'RICI AND ITS ASSOCIA 1'ED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO 'THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE WHEREAS, the applicant, Mr Richard Churchwell applied for an amendment. to Section 18 10 040 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code and WHEREAS, said amendment, Z-89-03 changes the R1-10 District 35 feet rearyard setback requirement to allow 10 feet of slope that is greater than 5% to be located in said setback, and WHEREAS, said amendment is attached as Exhibit "A", and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act, and Initial Study has been conducted and a Negative Declaration has been prepared and is attached as Exhibit "B", and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on December 11, 1989 and was continued indefinitely by the applicant, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on November 13, 1990, and continued indefinitely, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on December 4, 1990, ATTACHMENT C NOW, `I IIEREF ORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace, California, that SECTION 1 The Negative Declaration, set out in full in attached Exhibit B is hereby recommended for approval to the City Council SEC:I'ION 2 The Zoning Ordinance Amendment Z-89-03, amending Section 18 12 040 changing the R1-10 District's 35 feet rearyard setback requirement to allow 10' feet of slope that is greater than 5% to be located within said setback, set out in full in Exhibit A is hereby recommended for approval to the City Council PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planiung Commission of the City of Grand Terrace, California, at a regular meeting held the 04th day of December, 1990 by the following vote AYES 5 - Chairman Hawkinson, Vice-Chairman Buchanan, Commissioners Munson, Van Gelder and Hargrave NOES 0 ABSENT 1 - Commissioner Sims ABSTAIN 0 , 0 , / ' (....-' 2:/7... ../4-74;.0 y,..._,.,,.,,,---,_ /J/erry Ha kinsdn, Chairperson c!Plang ug Commission ATTEST A,e, Brenda Stanfill, Deputy City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM John -Iarper, City Attorney TABLE 18 10 040 Site Development Standards DEVELOPMENT ISSUE RH R20 R10 R72 R2 R3 •.............c .ems■ a.........r a..r.. ..�.i almvassnema Area (Minimum square feet) — a 20 , 000 10 , 000 7 , 200 10 , 000 12 , 000 Width (Minimum linear feet) * Interior Lot - a 100 60 60 60 60 * Corner Lot - a 100 70 70 70 70 Lot Depth (Minimum linear feet) - a 150 100 100 100 100 Street Frontage (Minimum linear feet) - a 50 40 40 40 A0 Setbacks (Minimum linear feet) * Front Yard - a 25 b 25 b 25 b 25 b 25 b * Rear Yard - a 35 b 35 b 20 b 20 b 20 b * Side Yard - Interior Lot f With Driveway - ° 10 b 10 b 10 b 10 b 10 b Without Driveway — a 5 b 5 b 5 b 5 b 10 — b Corner Lot „_L. Streetside - a 15 b 15 b 15 b 15 b 15 b Not Streetside — a 5 b 5 b 5 b 5 b 10 b TABLE 18 10 040 (Cont ) Site Development Standards DEVELORMENT ISSUE RH R20 R10 R72 R2 R3 Density (Allowable dwelling units per acre) - a 1-2 1-4 1-5 1-9 1-12 Living Area (Minimum square feet) * Single Family - e 1 350 d * , 1 , 350 d 1, 350 d 1, 350 d 1 , 350 Duplex, Triplex, Fourplex and Multiple Family - One (1) Bedroom - - - 800 d 800 d - Two (2) Bedroom - - - - 1 , 000 d 1, 000 Height (Maximum linear feet) - 8 35 e 35 e 35 e 35 e 35 e Lot Coverage (Maximum percent) - e 40 50 50 60 r 60 Distance Between Buildings (Minimum linear feet) _ a 5 5 5 20 20 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 i-1 , Table 18 10 040 Footnotes (Continued) project basis in consideration of the existing topography and other physical constraints 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 of open space and minimize the project ' s impact on the physical environment b 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, the 35 foot rearyard 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 c 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 includea 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 Housenolds" dwelling units d For the purposes of this Chapter, the following terms shall be defined as follows "Living area" shall be defined as the enclosed area of a residential dwelling unit, excluding porches, patios , Table 18 10 040 Footnotes (Continued) carports , garages , storage areas, or auxiliary rooms "Multiple Family" shall be defined as one (1) or two (2 ) bedroom units only e In the R1-7 2 District, accessory structures shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height unless approved by the Site and Architectural Review Board, and in no case shall exceed twenty (20) feet in height In the R1-20 , R1-10, R2 and R3 Districts accessory structures shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height f Not more than the permitted percent of the total parcel may be devoted to main ana 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 / J Planning (JWND TERRACE Department NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to the California Environmental Qua] ity Act, a Negative Declaration is hereby filed on the below referenced project, on the basis that said project will not have a significant effect on the environment DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT TTM-89-04 , a tentative tract map subdividing 4 9 acres into 9 single family lots of 10 , 000 square foot minimum This property is located in the City ' s R1-10 zone and within the General Plan ' s Low Density Residential landuse designation (see attached map) APPLICANT Richard Churchwell Owners - N Stafford and Dorothea G Cooley LOCATION 23081 Grand Terrace Road (APN# 276-411-001) FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT Based upon the attached Initial Study, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment David Sawyer, / Date Community Development Director City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road • Gland fer(acc,, California 92324-5295 T(714)/82 i -6r6_21( � n CI i Y Or GRAND I ERRACE PLANNING DEPARTMENT INI f IAL ENVIRONMEN >-AL STUDY I Background 1 Name of Pi oponent City of Grand Terrace 2 Address and Phone Number of Pr oponen t City of Grand Terrace 22 /95 Barton Road, Grand Ter race CA 92324-5295 Attention David Sawyer , Planning Director 3 Date of Environmental Assessment /0 — z4_ e? iI Agency Requiring Assessment City of Grand Terrace 5 Name of Proposal if applicable 1 -'p°\ — 0S - 0 /{ 6 Location of Proposal q SO 0 I 6 2 Pcr•-+ —E.C2 E 20A-- ( 1W fri- 1F- -- -2(P - LI ( ( - c)0 C ) ----•, II Environmental Impacts ( Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are provided on attached sheets ) Yes Maybe No 1 Earth Will the proposal result in a Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures' b Disruptions, displacements compac- tion or overcovering of the soil ' ✓ LZ c Substantial change in topography or LZ ground surface relief features' cl The destruction covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features' e Any substantial increase in wind or water el osion of soils either on or or off site' t/ `, c. 10,1\lbt No — -- f Changes in deposition or el osion of beach sands , or changes in siltation deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or sir cam or the bed of the ocean or any bay / inlet or lake? V g Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earth quakes , landslides mudslides ground failure, or similar hazards? 2 Air, Will the proposal result in a Substantial air- emissions or deterior- ation of ambient air quality? V b The creation of objectionable odors? c Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, whether locally or i egionally ' 3 Water Will the proposal result in a Substantial changes in currents , or the - course or direction of water movements , in either marine or fresh waters b Substantial changes in absorption rates drainage patterns or the rate and / amount of surface runoff? V c Alterations to the course or flow ✓ of flood waters? d Change in the amount of surface water / in any water body? __ �/ e Discharge into surface waters , or in any alteration of surface water qual- ity, including , but not limited to , temperature, dissolved oxygen or i turbidity? f Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? --- -- ---- ----- -- --- ` -- - -- -- - t-C= M..)jlbt_ 'CIO - -- - g Change in the quantity of ground waters either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals or through inter- ception of an Oguifer- by cuts or excavations" h Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies' ✓ I Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flood- ing or tidal waves' 4 Plant Life Will the proposal result in a Change in the diversity of species or number of any native species of plants (including trees , shrubs grass crops and aquatic plants) ' b Reduction of the numbers of any unique rare or endangered species 17 of plants' c Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation or in a barrier to the normal replenish- ment of existing species' d Substantial reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop' I,/ 5 Animal Life Will the proposal result in a Change in the diversity of species or numbers of any species of animals (birds , land animals including rep- tiles fish and shellfish , benthic / organisms or insects) ' r/ b Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals' c Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat' ✓ Yc,, Maybe No 6 Noise Will the proposal result in a Increases in existing noise levels' 1 b Exposer e of people to severe noise levels? V 7 Light and Glare Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare' 8 Land Use Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or / planned land use of an area' V 9 Natural Resources Will the proposal r esult in a Substantial increase in the rate of use / of any natural resources' b Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource' / 10 Risk of Upset Will the proposal involve a A risk of an explosion or the release — of hazardous substances (including , but not limited to oil , pesticides , chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions' l/ b Possible interference with an emerg- ency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan' 11 Population Will the proposal alter the location , distribution density , or growth rate of the human population of an area' 12 Housing Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional / housing' V r 13 Transportation/Circulation Will the pro- proposal result in a Generation of substantial additional 1/ vehicular movement' - - --- - - - - --- - \tom- ?I .ylic __No-- - b Effects on existing par king facili- _ ties or demand for new par king ? tV c Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? — d Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods e Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffics r// f Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , bicyclists or pedestrians' 14 Public Services Will the proposal have substartial effect upon , or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas a Fire protection ' — / b Police protection? c Schools 7 d Parks or other recreational faci- lities? / e Maintenance of public facilities r/ including roads? f Other governmental set vices' / 15 Energy Will the proposal result in a Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? ✓ b Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy or re- quire the development of new sources of energy? _ / 16 Utilities Will the proposal result in a need for new systems , or substantial alterations to the following utilities a Power or natural gas' ✓ Yes Maybe No b Communications systems 1 c Wager' d Sewer or septic tanks' e Storm water drainage' V f Solid waste and disposal' 17 Human Health Will the proposal result in a Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health) ' b Exposure of people to potential health hazards' 18 Aesthetics Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view' 19 Recreation Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities' 20 Cultural Resources a Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeo- logical site' b Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building structure, or ob)ect' c Does the proposa' have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values' Yes Maybe No d Will—the proposal restrict existing r eligious or saci ed uses within the / potential impact area' V 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance a Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environ- ment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species , cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels , threaten to eliminate a plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califon nia history / or prehistory' V b Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term , environ- mental goals' (A short-term impact on the environment is one which oc- curs in a relatively brief definitive period of time while long-term impacts / will endure well into the future ) V c Does the project have impacts which are individually limited , but cumu- latively considerable' (A project's impact on two or more separate resources may be relatively small , but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment / is significant ) t/ d Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substan- tial adverse effects on human beings , / either directly or indirectly' ENVIRONMLN I AL DI_I I_RMINL\TION ---- --- ---- — ------ On the basis of this initial evaluation I find that the proposed project COULD NO have a significant effect on the envii onment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the proposed project could have a signi- ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi- ficant effect in this case because the mitigation measures ( described on attached sheets have been added to the project A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required David Sawyer Planning D_r-r_actor JO — 2 zi -e7 Date Signatur 7 For City of Grand Terrace III DISCUSSION or THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 1 b, 3 b The development of this currently vacant site will result in the over covering of a certain percentage of the soil This impact will be mitigated by utilizing proper drainage methods which reviewed and approved by the Building and Engineering Department 6 a The existing noise levels will increase as a result of the development of residential uses in an area that is currently vacant This impact will be within the allowable levels as set in the Master Environmental Analysis for the General Plan 8 The existing landuse will change from vacant land to single family residential uses in accordance with the adopted General Plan 1---,I `` i 7E/VTRT::: ' T//✓O /946 3 (°../F1'° II I I r.�r+nw/Ge rn ..,-. ..1 , L.........-1 y 1, r �. .... _ .. Ir \' [.; i1 I I VISTA I I 111 AV 20 ,* +.4 A1,41 ,VCII•4 � I � ,,, A f� ND, r 11' /� j� 4 ' " O` �7?�L•nl 1�1 0 )lwy II .J ..1 t.., r I \r'ZJ: ��... -4AC _ L0T IJ ; ` q2 11141 uruu' 1 r �r 4` �al/ye ' r� 1 1‘ l w -Lf r4, ✓4CA.vr 1LP fS-.arn ex f)CS/(Z r,/ < / • var 1 v z, �R. 1 yo RI-/O A vsl.m .-. 1.. l �J r 1? ��evr� $ r .\ kI srl Mn/ ,,K �� „» `I,�"); IC 1 wet -, -0 ,*-..---,- korAvavis-.... 0 i ,,,!„,-57:,,-i, 410% . taacc.t./L.O[t motn.W 9br.erfnC/.a�T.nL rnO©jr....,F1 e jirit' ,i /s z.+.->'i 491A. ., t7' N / ..Our .. -....,•r vow tr/m r C ,111,111 \y ` a igi1110 .i� sx-1 ` ' \ /k3 '..i n..-.,1 r....� R//O Ar I Lam),/re I ; y. TM�1 " �J��/ 5.r," 1 /',��`'/ gr FF ZO nl ..-. ..lrl '' .4;37, -�_ -� Q8 1 � � `�d ��1 ! ` r. 1 _'y'J�/�/--/.CSC\ , , .c ._� • 440 ,M1 �0, �� _° , �� •� \ .., �� / 'J\ �'Q�\"j ` 1 , ".te r.. - » .f 4...)nl u.. l -nl_ .. I it, ,.,......_; ......, ... ` ". Z1r�ee,o 1.„ y� • ' v �7 < V� /I r / 1/? // / \ OI u.... ( c Ill 1 a..-..s1'l^_r .4 c III n r)c`S/cY&r/r� Inc.�° n rl ♦ / l t •/\ //i� �T /) !l I� �4 •-- r, l 11 l , 1 1 f III .o. a. A/-/O R^ .acari / ,,�i► \, ..\T. �� �,i/ / l 1 ,. Ij� 1 .r I. ........I yc yr . .o e/O-A I /\ a. ->v� 'A1� �♦� 2_ / /x�/ / uLL».. 11 L. I»I� ,)1 ,-.- 1t• ram.-..1 ... ry1 —I p k 1 I t' 4, `i� . /7/' 04 // //1 / /s--srcc.vrk9r Mrvfll.. r W.a lr..U.. lr .., ( _n I r d' .�'f+' . .. /%',�0// \ R/-7L ,u- ,. I-- - I .. I \•,n f,� .. .1 r-... well 1,,1 1 u 111 1 I...+. - ~1 Lo r l�r „� Li �{p f� r. w1 4 l y \( ^'-' \( r R/-/O-A A• /�j��/Jf\/ V/ \ i I'..1 4. 1...,. c._»�.r w. �... 1.-<_'1 1 1W I I t_!! I ° i'..J7'. I I I ✓i+CANr ' •�' \� ,/' /�,7/�/ l \ 1..1».° r n.... .. I .. ^^I `1{2 I I �/, •, '/S7/ I,('1 A ,,,- �rrz 4ls7 rJo./swwlY,wcrroo ryiiC,71 crux l I ✓✓ r/���//��,�Y4/, [EGG t/O `// / /K'S/CYNr/!�C .9/5 CrY A 1/51 NE '�"' I / /f/ / -r-> /tioc.Tr a.viw 3.�lra a°rx.r Y ° / , / / I 1 — /.,r0'C�P/ CJ..V Lx.-5/CNCC ,r,r...� �rf u r // / / /// / )) .� ,-- ,t---..ry CAV.Lttl C6Cbcb 1..,. I�_„ / / / // / -r- waa.cr rx yriAla 1..//Cn rl°u 4 v 1J 1I / ,/ / --3 - NCKAT.1 CI 3r/M x4 m uu J r° / // , 11 a-- u/orcncy r.,/y.,e c.re ctir I * // / 1 _ ordure"c+,nrrrw 0/eca, I',,,-) _ jY//Life r r/C}V / / // / r / c,/O,v.."////...•wiv rr - _=TyO. 1 0 1 r %o'cAT! tclwvr peer LOr C / / // / iYyGYlr/\ • + [_ /ac.rt rrxor r..wMK'x,'LC �y% / ?•O /VC/GR7 r,11'PxlC Md cCn/(O, nr/C/4f .c(Cr/gV %/7 / a x Mo.ciTI ALK6.-0 Y/C+rA,of ' GMVO r2'/1/•KC/XYJO / ; O.w ,0.00,rzr,r7xrrm.m n+L.ralx,c�v COS6 r .e It, o [oryC // / V/C but Tr NIA lifi ,-.r o�. ..._ �.-M w .L-t r ....to C....t.rr. 1 rr ) 'GRtinoTERRFCE Planning Department NOTICE OF FILING NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, a Negative Declaration is hereby filed on the below referenced project, on the basis that said project will not have a significant effect on the environment DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT TTM-89-04 , a tentative tract map subdividing 4 9+ acres into 9 single family lots of 10, 000 square feet minimum This property is located in the City ' s R1-10 zone and within the General Plan ' s Low Density Residential landuse designation APPLICANT Richard Churchwell Owners - N Stafford and Dorthea G Cooley LOCATION 23081 Grand Terrace Road (APN 11276-411-001) **********, ********, ********************************************* Copies of the Negative Declaration and Initial Study for this project are available for review at the City of Grand Terrace Planning Department, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace (714-824- 6621) Anyone wishing to comment on this project may do so prior to January 10, 1989 All comments should be directed to David Sawyer, Community Development Director, City of Grand Terrace David Sawyer, Date Community Development Director City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92324-5295 • (714) 824-6621 RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND 'TERRACE, CALIFORNIA., APPROVING TTM-89-04, (TENTATIVE TRACI MAP 14483) AND ITS ASSOCIATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (E-89-01) WHEREAS, the Applicant, Richard K Churchwell, has applied for approval of TTM-89-04 (Exhibit A), a tentative tract map 14483, subdividing 4 9± into nine residential lots to be located at 23081 Grand Terrace Road (APN# 276-411-001), and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project per Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (Exhibit B) and said Negative Declaration has been considered by the Planning Commission per Section 15074(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 7, 1991, regarding this application WHEREAS, on March 7, 1991, the Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council of TTM-89-04 and its associated Negative Declaration (E-89-01) subject to the conditions contained herein, and WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on March 28, 1991, regarding this application NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, California, that the following findings are made in relation to TTM-89-04 and E-89- 01, 1 That the site is physically suitable for the proposed type of development, 2 That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development, ATTACHMENT D 3 That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, 4 That the design of the subdivision or type of proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems or cause threat to life and property from a wildland conflagration, 5 That the proposed subdivision together with the provisions for its design and improvements are consistent with the General Plan 6 That the proposed subdivision, its design and density conform to the conditions imposed by this chapter, the regulations of the Development Code, and the regulations of the City of Grand Terrace, 7 That the proposed project has considered the potential use of passive and natural energy saving devices in its design, 8 That the proposed subdivision is within the goals of the City's Housing Element with regards to housing availability NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, California, that 1TM-89-04 (Exhibit A) and the aforementioned Negative Declaration (Exhibit B) are hereby approved subject to the following conditions 1 Individual lots shall be subject to Site and Architectural Review 2 The subject property shall be dedicated to the City in order to be annexed to the City's existing Lighting and Landscaping District 3 The Final Tract Map shall be consistent with the California Aqueduct, Riverside Highland Water, East Riverside Irrigation District easements 4 All conditions as recommended by the City Engineer's Department in their recommendations dated February 14, 1991 (Attachment A's Exhibit C) 5 All conditions as recommended by the Forestry and Fire Warden Department in their memorandum dated November 6, 1989, November 6, 1990, and February 1, 1991 (Attachment A's Exhibit D) 6 All conditions as recommended by the Colton Unified School District in their letter dated November 9, 1989 (Attachment A's Exhibit E) 7 All conditions as recommended by the San Bernardino County Office of Special Districts in their Memorandum dated November 7, 1989 (Attachment A's Exhibit F) 8 All conditions as recommended by the Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District in their memorandum dated September 25, 1990 (Attachment A's Exhibit G) Also, an erosion plan is to be submitted to the City of Grand Terrace Planning Department for approval 9 The area containing the proposed rear slop in Lots 7 and 8 shall be offered for dedication to the City for the purpose of inclusion in the City's Lighting and Landscaping District 10 The mature and healthy Eucalyptus trees on the western border of Lots 1 and 2 shall be preserved unless written approval is given by the Planning Department, prior to the removal of said trees or any other action which would result in substantial damage to said trees 11 As to the remaining mature and healthy trees within the project, they should be preserved where feasible consistent with the necessary grading requirements 12 Consideration of alternative street lighting, with a focus toward rural atmosphere lighting if possible 13 The pad elevation of Lot 1 shall be reduced by 8 feet, not to exceed 1152 feet 14 Each individual lot shall be provided an individual curbside mailbox Clustered gangboxes shall not be allowed 15 A Will Serve Letter shall be obtained from the Riverside Highland Water District PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, California, at a regular meeting held the 28th day of March, 1991 ATTEST Deputy City Clerk of the City Mayor of the City of _} Grand Terrace and of the Grand Terrace and of the City Council thereof City Council thereof I, Brenda Stanfill, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace, 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 28th day of March, 1991, by the following vote AYES NOES ABSENT ABSTAIN Deputy City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM John Harper, City Attorney I " '°I "/�Nn� tAnnfv ,"/n I T�` /Mrya" /ve 7754CT, / /4463 a.l.. WI t I. .l_.r..a 11 f.,. l, / /M'A'Q'.C/_ 4llf.r 3 1. Ir), l v a_°• `•••E 411 --� / I i �.fil ,,,., . I viS7q I / l� �, 1 .e ;1 • I R/ 20 q L 1 ^" ' '� I ��♦.S C'rr`aNDr R/ 11� I 4R ir1l 1MCIl _•t j`4 �T� 4'0w.... VACM�Tin ,If277.1. rG,C�•• 1Quie,.:al.a e...�..ti LJ-r I5 C 1<e. CA 113f1 • Ir111 1f1 1255 II ....II �_&W,!ib. leg 'i`s /r VACANT 11 e..n.a.o cam.I Ai e • 1 111 1-1131 �fQs/GY 4 ,_1 \ I MI . __ �"an -[ri "I j -1 .h IT1�; ,tI '� R/-/O AJI 1011 .`. ... • / ` Y �'^ __ i1/ _1�_ I I , 1` .t 1W Ja'Nr.t) / 111 1 S 10 3 e �►c ^v y' g" A►�S�n��n;• j S:es/;Alt., b / / .. V�ir- -- S '� ,n j .. r �jv /. .i-L �,� �i9 .crer�owx oo<ur m� -- ! NV • s7 ----?-----Al -,i Air - W-1 . I • / `// rncwe c C roe¢w neov am.c m cr.e a.nt.en XYC=5 r to e 3 ®�. l � n*o rrrs _ fir.'' �.�j�1• }lSi'`(['� • • ....a-..CC.ut.La 0...La 1 y' ry.)7F t 1 it L w��-0-.,..' rI _ • •`wiT.1• ` u.. lA.-.tPi.a .. «.., VACANT fl \ ^,, //:e I N --++ i• s /XJ. .---• c� ar�.f...r�' R//O A ,i. •ayA�t7� � � r<hsi� i+ I' 1 �l1" a / r.l..,-.. le1 li yesmili• ' �• 1 yr— __ , �� • �fl��'��q; •, 1) �;� ' n 'P� vl��i �A I• // �,/ \�� 1 n'..a r..`._ e`.•�+,"W 1 a..usmall. ..`l_ .. r Lr.. 4111IP 4, 'ulk .,,,,,,,P 111 1 {'A;7/YT�2a to I \• . ��l I L)/ / ¢� // ^ \ Q a f c iu..t ..-+.1 1.f.. .( u. ne'3/o.-/f/n • R/-/0 A/. ri lt' YACAA!`T / ,} �`� ,,\`�, '.�+, /•illt+d/ 1") e wt.o.��w1 l., 1,..-a 1.7+ r w»e<e r4�`i A.�.. j lIX_'� ,Cl'/-/O-R t } `" a - �, / `� 1 uu� ea ...1 N�.-..a l e....t.1 r. 1 I v ,.. .la 1� . Ul r,..f a O r ,'+,�'nv� / / /� /� t�/ /YS2YNT.lRC ....L..Ca..v ..>^at..1. _ 1..1..-r r 1~ ((``�� Hid 1Q`CS` �� "� / \ / /� R/-7f 1 -._.f-,rlru.. ..a .f f.-..a. ..1....... _.� .. LVT I�� ,'` ,% ,8I ` �� ir/ aL..•1.....•..l....1 1f01 1 ....,111 ,.,.`31 .`Ca... `Y `( V/ n .aa.Lae e_[, W.t 1eau.. I. _4 ur1 .1 f rroe G f `1 � \ 1 Aa far...c Al...W lnllw 1a f...at ► 1. 0,x1r r RI-/O A� A(`� . 1_el t l_..e r 4.4 11 It.. . .)0 CA}l_O G34i//ifdf 9Jl'L AT I I V/Ki•N/' \� / ,//� T ial f...+. .-_.+.. r..►....+f..c..., ....�1.,. . aid 4c SLOE Ce/7LCr 7D J / ••i a l..t..-° f .w.. OvfTw4 cu.!, I I �/ etrZ-r°m/c�� rJoi/a.va.o 7rr7G5Cg/csrn ry'S/./ i Tort i/////�/�J /� �/ CG�C+G"NO rawnwn n.°•.•nol..a exoofr TO eK nv.ao TO,1(CITY C.on.ro I d / .Yi7 fAJa+EIlT TO et vAUT[e.ner rolaclrrt rr..CJ a rICCCY.Cay N.DE„El4'Eo I . /�// / /}C•'/GY'Nr//K /ra cn+ZJ hro,0.S e e,Qjy�,b/,K.4 µ p 9. I 7/ '• /,/ / /�� NpC..'(S C.</9J[KC 2Y'1J T b / /•IA?YA2'!Qn»fo YrVb'O M/YR. ��'r1 9 j /f / ri. /�/// // .. e---- "iA~.acie7l C...a/t�.n iC.rre o. I ra. ,t J�/ / l 14-, /..1. ,,,v? / / ,' --./— .waul^s CX/5lTfd A..Rre,,,-Gd !• --e-- A/CVCA?5 C.1/17.51 3Cl.CY1 L/NC- f I I 4r / / --b-- wotures CALYIA/b 6.9 t.K �/J �test- /Yr/G'AC derewAV / I /A.faum piXrru/v/ty/ �_AT I==-I cor�• / / ,• 1A / tN0,00L-5/AVr3Y 30'NKe / % /X'.l"LY,vr//sY ,j f/ /NeeATJ frcnx/err /t9'/CAK�'fCrh1V 6A4'W.e xrr / / /Ro /N vutr�/rsacaeo wo ecru rn� / �' / / / ON ,waU/n mKci.t,xrarn tti.<- tf1"•.�0 T2'S9✓'S-x e/aU40 ei.��easra ti // / 1 0.... ,T 007:a►7lffrrlo tv rt*r sac,,/r.,v Col .5 e r .e mr er eo/rrr a ..�� ✓/C/PITY/AP AHD .A.P..----� ---•1... of/i[fr[eJ n.:.:e: a...« J 7 Planning °�` ::•+;. ~• Department 6RRI1D�TERRRC y' NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, a Negative Declaration is hereby filed on the below referenced project, on the basis that said project will not have a significant effect on the environment DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT. TTM-89-04 , a tentative tract map subdividing 4 9 acres into 9 single family lots of 10 , 000 square foot minimum This property is located in the City ' s R1-10 zone and within the General Plan' s Low Density Residential landuse designation (see attached map) APPLICANT Richard Churchwell Owners - N Stafford and Dorothea G Cooley LOCATION 23081 Grand Terrace Road (APN# 276-411-001) FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT' Based upon the attached Initial Study, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment David Sawyer, Date Community Development Director City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92324-5295 • (714) 82-6r6__2� C,Il Y OF GRAND TERRACE PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY I Background 1 Name of Pi oponent City of Grand Terrace 2 Address and Phone Number of Pi oponent City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road , Grand Terrace, CA 9232/1-5295 Attention David Sawyer Planning Director L 3 Date of Environmental Assessment /0 — Z�,7 - � l Li Agency Requiring Assessment City of Grand Terrace 5 Name of Proposal , if applicable ` \ ti,pI\ — gel - 0 -2-- 6 Location of Proposal q-5(Pei 6 R Icra -Vt= 2AkcE ROA-'. rC71-13 - - LI ( ( - 00 II Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are provided on attached sheets ) Yes Maybe No 1 Earth Will the proposal result in a Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures' __ 1/ b Disruptions, displacements , compac- tion or overcovering of the soils V/ c Substantial change in topography or / ground surface relief features7 V d The destruction covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features7 e Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils either on or or off site7 - _ Yes Maybe N I Changes in deposition ° -- beach sands °' e1 osion of deposition or changes in siltation erosion which may modify the channel of a river or sti cam or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or lake ? / t. g Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earth quakes, landslides, mudslides , ground failure, or similar hazards? V 2 Air. Will the proposal result in a Substantial air emissions or deterior- ation of ambient air quality? b The creation of objectionable odors' V V c Alteration of air movement or temperature , moisture, climate, w °r anY change in hether locally or r egionally? — 3 Water Will the proposal result in a Substantial changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters' b Substantial changes in absorption drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters d Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? / e Discharge into surface waters, V any alteration of surface water qru l ity, including,erature but not limited to, o, i temperature,, dissolved oxyEZr gen Ygen or f Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters' Y( _ Maybe, 'Jo - -- g Change in the quantity of ground waters , either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals or through inter- ception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations' h Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies' i Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flood- ing or tidal waves? r/ 4 Plant Life Will the proposal result in a Change in the diversity of species , or number of any native species of plants (including trees, shrubs , grass crops, and aquatic plants) ' b Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species / of plants' �/ c Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation , or in a barrier to the normal replenish- ment of existing species' r/ d Substantial reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop7 5 Animal Life Will the proposal result in a Change in the diversity of species , or numbers of any species of animals (birds , land animals including rep- tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects) ' b Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c Deterioration to existing fish or ✓ wildlife habitat? Yes Maybe N_o 6 Noise Will the proposal result in a Increases in existing noise levels' l/ b Exposure of people to severe noise levels' 7 Light and Glare Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare' 8 Land Use Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area ? V 9 Natural Resources Will the proposal result in a Substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? ✓ b Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? l/ 10 Risk of Upset Will the proposal involve a A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? ✓ b Possible interference with an emerg- ency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan' ✓ 11 Population Will the proposal alter the location , distribution , density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? V 12 Housing Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? ' 13 Transportation/Circulation Will the pro- proposal result in a Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b Effects on existing parking facili- ties or demand for new parking' ✓ c Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems' IZ d Alterations to present patterns of circulation of movement of people / and/or goods' V e Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic' f Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , bicyclists or pedestrians' 14 Public Services Will the proposal have substantial effect upon , or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following at eas a Fire protection' ✓ b Police protection' !/ c Schools' i/ �-' d Parks or other recreational faci- lities' t/ e Maintenance of public facilities , / including roads' (/ f Other governmental services' t/ 15 Energy Will the proposal result in a Use of substantial amounts of fuel ✓ or energy' b Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or re- quire the development of new sources of energy' 16 Utilities Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities / a Power or natural gas' ✓ Yes Maybe No b Communications systems' / - _ c Water' d Sewer or septic tanks' e Storm water drainage' y f Solid waste and disposal' 17 Human Health Will the proposal result in a Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health) ' b Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18 Aesthetics Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to / public view7 V 19 Recreation Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity / of existing recreational opportunities' �/ 20 Cultural Resources a Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeo- logical site7 b Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, / structure, or object' t/ c Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural / values' �/ Yes Maybe No ----- - d Will the proposal restrict existing r eligious or saci ed uses within the potential impact area' V 71 Mandatory Findings of Significance a Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environ- ment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species , cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory' b Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environ- mental goals' (A short-term impact on the environment is one which oc- curs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future ) c Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumu- latively considerable' (A project's impact on two or more separate resources may be relatively small , but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant ) d Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substan- tial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly' ENVIIWNMI N 1-"Al_ DI-1 [_CMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation I find that the proposed pr ojcct COULD NOT have a sign effect on the envii onment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATIONcwiltl be prepared I find that although the 9 proposed project could have a signi- ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi- ficant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on attached sheets have been added to the project A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is requrr ed David Sawyer Planning Dncer for 10 — il Date l ______________ ignature For City of Grand Terrace r III DISCUSSION or THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 1 b, 3 b The development of this currently vacant site will result in the over covering of a certain percentage of the soil This impact will be mitigated by utilizing proper drainage methods which reviewed and approved by the Building and Engineering Department — 6 a The existing noise levels will increase as a result of the development of residential uses in an area that is currently vacant This impact will be within the allowable levels as set in the Master Environmental Analysis for the General Plan 8 The existing landuse will change from vacant land to single family residential uses in accordance with the adopted General Plan I I-------- rIn v 1_ I Wa.oW:1/374:11/ GLLSIO�L\„ ,x e I .�"/c�Nnrac -170/TRT/veTX/0 /9A63 r/.enuJ.q,/a //iiiw / ,y1 r1 ,.ararr� ,.3., .au 3 1r.. r-rlr w (' `V r rll 3 rr'3 t r 1\ , :_—_—_,I. '�\ . I Y J S}.� I ) 4,,,,,vp,, i t 11 Ir.l 1.,gal_l , r^;° r. rL ..� u 3_ 1f.1 l s,� ���a10 H `l sp��.� YACAIVIii ,Irrr t 1t� � Y 'i � LO-r ):, �r�\\ .1 rdX Chuctwll a... ^�Aj}�'a�' �iAlly�fi•it+5: i' 1`sctc... cac x, R/ /0AI '�� .: VNCA.VT 11 l t�t,l lxs-axss 11 f'1C`S/,.�.V a X'w'r ji- 3 -l' i'� `. ICalla.• ,` ,333, l' I� I ��_.^__� a'xl _i �� / ] me 1 /.r'..` �� 1.. /. r*-- tI3,1 » 331 I �I -- QT-f-.,�� \.`v _("1is;,V/'2`; Ii1 2� tnl▪ .;a..wtJ'-'" � Sf I 1 --'T+. rdx r. ��• _, ._ 1� J Ia '. 1 ai ra.�, , Gl.. u fll.i • K.�1�_— !a '�-� l �w�n1� �. %nb psi di � Vgcovr / ;�. ' _ -•!_ le ',�S" ,a 3 �� 1 i!f �l'v/=�� i ��41 /V i vec�or ec ooc. cx KbHI 1 S'.. • maC.TAv 1 1` rytM 'lt X / • L_. i+.ln ri>.r - ► ` �•� ly\ ��'• / / � u.:,n,'� Lao c"2"r'nw rac/+•cv, .rx.ac� r-v ccr ...+..�ur...1.wLw ems.. R//O A I asr l J.' A�«I ��� ��7�.. �. �- ...v a! i '--..ra e.u°.ra/„ ' Z-- I . .r r� lR7�ZF nrr,�;.RF.sa '��� \ 1 yy✓� / xs .tom.f. ...`�.';^, ���`1` •`�f�s� rr a�i��� •,:�,.• \ T��/ �/_20 s.1-,.—. 1f d..11 _ .. k, --4111: _ :"Irr , ye rt.r. IP lialy. ...4,exajt 4,k,/a i4..L I,r, k .... . exp.-A.1r. hi) • ' .11/• / - //// ?4-- -<te Si VS lam II"02 __ AC.Af/T `w�. \ ���� Ii f. 0 ,� & cE 7 .. 3.t..:::: c.... 1» nay)y ul 1' ul 1 .f'r^.. t� / // / l C^r n...La gar 1.J...31..of..r -m.e.'tr.�i LOT l4 ' ' A 7 {`Vj` R/ 7r3 Mart OAOT7<I /+ ! ��: / e r 4^ �� \// y �-+roe./oe-.p1..11. »3 3.....'sll `.rl,.t.,a r ca..r n /`� / V/ l r 0".r+...tr C. e/ ►u.a 1...l.n 1.mi..4..IIya 2/3 r y to� l Ct'/T11t4�PrQ.LC. I I YI 'ANr r (� ' �� // \ 111r'.l'.....rl.a Ss,l l.r. .../4.11�. 1.t�.r ll. 3.. .. l / r.e....r TEIiITlR/NKWCLO r �� •/ \\ ,L..3....1 of > ..w..,.r......r_21 t un i� Iw t s / s,n�r"o„am.47 r=r�cr,ce,d,a .4../.7 „xo `o..TO,:/14�,1[,TO T.(OTT o otiw) A / '///yal/,y, / /,_ errr rn..cr a necd.om ro rx� / s V 4 r ,+ .Nr I ��>. //// / /,{f5/ce..t T/.K CC�iL NO '� _t j_` _e, /r / + /// /f/ / vo fl>•fJ I't0/OJ[o,ZMRb twCC r�� NPC.1'['yr C,rC3.)fY.CLWiiX» '.,)..r I lOi. ),.1 / / ' .. + /MXi /(y.q/ 3YrYO GI,'Y.0 a It /� / / •Iw --V— /,NGTGC0 R..]4.0.41,,,,,, / { // cx.ynx.rs N,Trl.`s.W =_T�o� Y/yt.1K ttGYJJl'y!1 // // _ - e__ r//xaw avr.r asl. /II •"« / �� /7['SYY.v/.Mr of / c.'o,c,or�it sr epe- ar a• T1 t'/CAS SeGT TAW a say r xec / ,y / r r /,4C.C. cs ,surge pc r G/19V0 72'51/ YY'/XY90 ./ ',Y' / -'��'- •vr�.c•= r/xae- COT pG' e m w �t•rr Z/ / fxv �a "PhD rlv tw ,�.�� can F.c c""r "La rne-rr)yy�,m rims An<N/,nv ?� �"rc .:>•.-:.'.,. Planning GRAND TERRrc[ Department 17- NOTICE OF FILING NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, a Negative Declaration is hereby filed on the below referenced project, on the basis that said project will not have a significant effect on the environment DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: TTM-89-04 , a tentative tract map subdividing 4 9± acres into 9 single family lots of 10, 000 square feet minimum This property is located in the City ' s R1-10 zone and within the General Plan ' s Low Density Residential landuse designation APPLICANT Richard Churchwell Owners - N Stafford and Dorthea G Cooley LOCATION- 23081 Grand Terrace Road (APN #276-411-001) ***************************************************************** Copies of the Negative Declaration and Initial Study for this project are available for review at the City of Grand Terrace Planning Department, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace (714-824- 6621) Anyone wishing to comment on this project may do so prior to January 10, 1989 . All comments should be directed to David Sawyer, Community Development Director, City of Grand Terrace /.2 - 61° - David Sawyer, Date Community Development Director City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92324-5295 • (714) 824-6621 ,� C I T Y i : 0_( W 0 12-1 1059 GR ND 7ERR cE MEMORANDUM "%oemai•4•4° TO David Sawyer, Community Development Director 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace FROM Joseph Kicak, City Engineer California 92324-5295 Civic Center DATE February 14, 1991 (714) 824-6621 SUBJECT T T M 14483 (TTM 89-4) Following are recommendations that should be considered as conditions of approval for the proposed project 1 Barton Road Byron R Matteson (a) Construct the balance of curb and gutter, and cross-gutter im- Mavor provements at the intersection of Grand Terrace Road and Barton Road Hugh J Grant Mayor Pro Tempore 2 Grand Terrace Road Gene Carlstrom (a) Dedicate to provide for 30 foot half street onald M Christianson Herman Hilkey (b) Construct standard curb and gutter 18 feet from street center- Council Members 1 1 ne ThomasJ Schwab (c) Construct standard roadway between new curb and 10 feet east of Cit) M tna1,er street centerline 3 Lot "C" - Extension to Grand Terrace Road (a) Dedicate 60 feet of Right-of-Way between northerly subdivision boundary and Grand Terrace Road (b) Construct curb and gutter 18 feet from street centerline (c) Construct standard roadway between curbs 4 Lot "C" (a) Dedicate to provide for 60' of right-of-way (b) Dedicate and provide for standard cul-de-sac at south end of Lot "C" (Temporary, subject to approval by Fire Marshal ) t 1 (c) Construct standard curb, gutter and roadway within Lot "C'" t � XI--1IRIT C Memorandum to David Sawyer February 14, 1991 Page 2 5 Install standard sidewalk 6 All the streets shall be designed to TI=6 for structural section 7 Install ornamental street lights 8 Construct sanitary sewer to serve all parcels 9 Reapportion or pay off any outstanding assessments for Assessment District 1 , CSA 70 Improvement Zone H 10 Lot 9, which is the location of existing residence and other im- provements is now connected to sanitary sewer in Grand Terrace Road Provide for new connection for sanitary sewer for the property 11 Provide adequate drainage facilities 12 Obtain approvals and permits from Department of Water Resources for any facilities to be constructed with DWR right-of-way 13 Pay all the capital improvement fund fees to include sanitary sewer, storm drain, streets and parks (These are to be paid prior to issuance of building permits ) 14 Provide the City with a letter (Prior to issuance of Building Permits) stating that all school fees have been paid 15 All grading shall conform to the requirements of Chapter 70 of U B C 16 Developer shall comply with all of the recommendations of Preliminary Soils Report as well as Engineering Geology Investigation for the proposed development 17 Obtain from Riverside Highland Water Company a "Will Serve Letter" and provide the same to the City 18 This development shall be required to form 1972 Landscaping and Lighting District 19 All improvements shall be designed by persons legally authorized to perform the design specified above, and shall meet all the requirements of the City and various codes JK/ct c -----T750_,„2_______2 _ , y ` (S C L--C_ w`� 55 +� L)2 i .l_.cat ��(�,�./1 C_' _ ""r'lllrrr , f i CI U ri, ,L.-- /- A,_.."_,-,-,_ ' SUBJECT — l 1_ k S63 - 0`/ I DATE —/ l MAGE -.�.,) —1 ' f eQ `�—� c u-� Cl-1 - � t l _ j 1 i jA--, , 4 cALQe, C91,(A -(___-&-C__/ ill ,11)) _ cam_ SIG li-Gr-f------ i g I �,t�LY J s I I SIGNED DATE / 5 RED FORM a5 NO 472 SE PARTS 1 ANO S INTACT POLY PAK (50 5EI.,1 4P172 PART S WILL EC RETURNED WITH REPLY EXHIBIT D CJ�AI v� � �7 A Ill vlIJ A , 111 VVI )AAi/ J_ { v A-/ A- A " A' 4 k Ci( \L11` t+l `t/A 131 ){ \/i1UI\U Ito Protcctlon 1'lonntnp S(r\Icc, Cour " 'o' 'rncnt C+ n(et -rcci_ ear PUBLIC SAFETY c, No Aria uhond Alc m', flrrt (lour n f nrdliO CA 9»15 0186 I I O\ n 1 Io t'LLL DI,cc r I r) 18/ 4)3/ 38/ rr/l 1 t5 i 1f rl ���t�`7� a {(� f z �fSPn�r7i �t��7. wL r�fLt17 11 A\\III �//. K' Fl7 r`�r1},vli� 1 �f i lY" rr 1123 SERVICES y7 Y 2( f „r ° , -� r J� IV,�N �-U�St ����I I�111\� U/l l L —� -�r� TO 2,,;/ 7; �N /8 r/c9- )111 David J Uxzs - J Chief County Dire warden I , - C The following circled conditions apply to your project r ' , Fire Department Reference Number= Th _ (- The above zefe-iienced project is protected by the San 5V Beinaidinu County Forestry & Fire Warden Department Prior to any const_xuctiott occurring on any pdrCel, the applicant shall contact the Fire Department for verification of cuzreut Fire Protection requirements H' All new 'coyir txuctron shall coiaply with the existing Uniforn Fire Code Requirements and all applicable stafucs , codes , ordinances, or standards of the Fire - - // Department t ' - - 43 The street address shall be posted with a minimum of three ( 3 ) inch uumbera , visible from the Street in accordance with San Bernardino County Ordindnce No 2108, prior to occupancy Posted numbers shall contrast r , , with their backyzuuud and be visible and Jegible from - tha street PA F-4 Prior to final inspection or occupancy each chimney used in conjunction with any fireplace or - any heating appliance in which solid or liquid fuel is P1 used shall be maintained with an approved spark arrestor as identified in the Uniform Fire Code. Prior to any construct ion occ_uring , all flammable ,reyetat• ion be removed from each building site d minimum distance of tltixty ( 30) t<et \ t from any flammable building matex iul, including a finished structure. [1 s ,t+e,{ rqi( HARRY rA MAYS IAAI,'iIA TUf,OCI fig 1 Or-t,t,t 11A1 LAMA CPr,f' rt CPUAI IhI,o Ctrth County Aden stc.t OI' c, JO'`I O MSlKCt O41r+c.t LARRY WALKER focu r Olc r'cc roorlcr L HAMMOCh Guth 0 , r.c+ h-C> pi. zu, (.0 f x n , ) zn,,)>c_.L t ion or uL`( ii1) inc_1 tl nncl oa C p )ia o e t he o f nh - 1 l '1 eve c 1. 0 ( 7 ) pozntia of vehicular J, r and of hr_r emergency equipment , and for routes cif c.c\i)e whrc,h will aafcly handle evacuations ds rug( r ' r d in t1 L development code 17-7 Prior to final inspection or occupancy privates r,oadwayc, which exceed one - hundred and f r. f t y ( 150 ) feet in length shall be ofecl by the i Ito Department having 3urisdiction, and shall be exteridea to wi raises one hundi ed and fifty ( 150 ) feet ot, and shall give reasonable access to al.r poi ( ion of the oxtei for walls of the first story of any building At; access road shall be provided within fifty (50) feet of all buildings if the natural grade between the access road and the building is in excess of thii ty percent (30) Where the access roadway ctirnot be provided, an approved fire protection system or systems shall ne provided , as required and approves by the Fire Department . F-8 Prior to final inspection or occupancy a turn-aroand shall be provided at the end of each roadway, one-hundred and fifty (150) feet of more in length and shall be approved by the Fire Department Cul-de-sac length shall not exceed six-hundred (600) feet except as identified in the developmctrt code and approved by the chief P-9 Private road maintenance , including but not limited to grading and snow removal, shall be provided for prior to recordation or approval . Written documentation shall be submitted to the Fire Department having jurisdiction Private fire access 'oads shall provide an all weather surface with minimum paving width of 20 feet F-10 Water systems designed to meet the required fire flow of this development shall be approved by the Fire Department having jurisdiction. The developer shall furnish the Lire Department. with two copies of the water system improvement plan for approval and a letter from the Water Purveyor stating the avaitlabil.ity of the required fire flow prior to recozddtion. Water systems shall be operational dad approved by the Fire Depar. tpent prior to any construction occurring. The required Lire flow shall be determined by appropriate calculations, using the San Bernardino County "Guide for the Deterxination of Required Fire Flow. " I ) Arf.ias hithcut w,ri ct -- uciv1 ,cg u+ i LL1eb , Ulu i1c ,- proLer_t ion water r RyoLem shall. be boc.?d or t.FJ \. pamph, L t numboL 1231 ,nd Unifo, m J J Le Coax- , equireLents (f:1:\\ PrLOL to fuJ ) Uins permits be) ng 13sucd a > ) I � rovr, 1 Lire hydrants ,hn11 be installed :ire hydrants shall be6 ' � � d i a m e t e r w i t h in i n i m u m 0 n e 4" and ono 2 1/2 connection The hydrant typc, shall ha approved by tho Fire Departmcnt P.11 fire hydrant- spacing ahal l be 300 feet with the exception of r,inglo family residential which may be i ncz eat,ed to Guy feet maximum F-12 Prior to final inspection or occupancy this development- shall comply with_ Fire Safety overlay conditions as adopted in County Ordinance Number J341 The development io located in Fire Review Area F-13 Prior to issuance of a building permit a tool modification zone in compliance with county standards i❑ required r-14 Prior to final inspection or occupancy, an approved Fire Department key box is required If automatic elactic security gates are used an approved locic switch is required on each gate in lieu of the box. Questions and/or comments may be directed to the Fire Protection Planning Section, County Government Center, 385 North Arrowhead, 1st Floor, San Bernardincr, California, 92415-U186; or call (714) 387-4225 . Thank you for your co-operation , Sincerely, 7) BY COi(/i16/ / f , a1( .7 Ft2c Protection Planning Officer l/ c c: /3.6 (fiaire / 67_t1Z (64i-V P , - 3 ,s-V 7 r FORESTRY AND FI t/clt__nDEN DEP'A i E V?N i I C Protec.Uon Plnnning $crvlrca ' Cour ti Cor.0-nine v Cede < i ut�rr�! OF S�il\ „N;1' 385 No A.rrou here Avenue f trat Floor 4 Srn Bernardino CA 9241LIPI,C U^P1C1` OF c f r —� (714) 387 4212 387 4213 C hr r_r ccce . rLOt D TiDkcie—L rg" LMERGENCY 1`InaPrnb'1- 6 , 1990 " 1ty of Grand Terrace ` 2279S Barton Road grand Terrace, Ca 92324-5295 + \ I 4i I ' ei Attention David R Sawyer " Community Development Director Re ' TTM 89-04 Richard Churchwell r , I have reviewed the proposed improvements for Arliss Drive Tnis plan does not comply with the fire department conditions sent to the applicant on November 11, 1989 The proposed improvement plan and the original preliminary plan dated Ocober 20, 1989 are not in compliance II , with the following fire department conditions ,t "F--6 Prior to final inspect or occupany the development and each phase thereof whall have two ( 2 ) points of vehicular access for fire and other emergency equipment, and for routes of escape which will safely handle evacuations 33 as required in the development code. " "F-s Prior to final inspection or occupancy a f I turn- around shall be `'' provided at the ena of each roadway, one- hundred and fifty ( 150 ) feet or more in length and shall be approved by the Fire Department Cul-de-sac length shall not exceed six-hundred feet except as identified in the ^ r development code and approved by the chief The Ar11ss proposal gives emergency vehicles secondary } �, �+HII access, but then creates a cul-de-sac at the north end of , the project which requires a redesign Lot 8 's driveway is over 150 feet which requires a turnaround. �' copy of acceptable fire department turnarounds-)ached is a The project is not acceptable as now proposed. crely IJ " � t„111 lr 1," 1 Ernyle ones tarn li �` �-� 7IC Fire P tection Planning Officer I� CI' I NOV Qr" 1990 c applicant I ,r < <r 1 A1/,rr I r ' tl 1 , �/ 13 lcgc COLTO\ JOI \T U \ IFI - 3 SCHOOL DISTRICT 1212 Valencia Drive Colton California 92324 1798 (714)876 4227 r .. November 9, 1989 BOARD OF EDUCATION MRS DORTHA E COOLEY President MRS WENDY S CURRAN City of Grand Terrace Vice President Att David Sawyer MR RAYABRIL JR Community Development Director clerk 22795 Barton Road MRS RUTH 0 HARRIS Grand Terrace, CA 92324 MR ARLIE R HUBBARD MRS PATRICIAI NIX Subject: Tentative Tract 14483 I IRS PHYLLIS V ZIMMERMAN Dear Mr Sawyer The Colton Joint Unifieo School District is impacted at the present time As a result, the school district assesses a fee of ADMINISTRATION. $1 56 per square foot of new residential floor area Unfortunately, the revenue generated by these "builders fees" is MR RUSSELL I DICKINSON not nearly adequate to construct new schools, and is in most Superintendent instances claimed by the state as part of the "Match" MR CHARLES H JORDAN contribution under the State Lease—Purchase Program Assistant Superintendent Personnel The District is very concerned about the effects new residential MR ROBERTW I,RJRPHY projects will have on its existing schools, most of which are at Assistant Superintendent or near capacity As enrollments continue to climb to record Business levels, Districts in western San Bernardino County are seeking MISSNANCYA NORTON methods to finance new schools, and will increasingly look to Assistant Superintendent Curriculum and Instruction cooperate with cities, counties, and developers in identifying MR DANNYCARRASCO appropriate mechanisms (e g RDA Agreements, Site Dedications, Director Administrauve Services etc ) to meet the challenges posed by new growth MRS BONNIE RUSSELL HUNT Director Pupil Personnel Services Please feel free to contact the District Facilities Office if you have any questions, or wish to discuss the matter further Sincerely, // n.gr Greg G Gage Coordinator, School Facilities GGG ns EXHIBIT E Joining Together to Go the Extra Mile 1c89 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO FHHCC OF SPECIAL DISTKIC S ,`' ''''/' COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE w c 7 West Fifth Street San Bernardino CA 92415 0450 (714) 38/ 5940 VERNON G KNOUREK Tolecopior (714) 387 5968 Assistant Administrative Officer for Special Dis ncis November 7 , 1989 Ms Maria Muett City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace , CA 92324-5295 RE COUNTY SERVICE AREA 70 , IMPROVEMENT ZONE H, ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 1 , ASSESSOR"S PARCEL NO 276-411-01 , ASSESSMENT NO 10022 Dear Ms Muett In response to your correspondence dated October 24 , 1989 , regarding your File No TTM-89-04 , please be advised an assessment apportionment must be completed prior to recordation of the final map The project ' s parcel lies within the boundaries of the above referenced assessment district which currently has an active bond issue for sewer improvements The applicant is required to provide proof of assessment apportionment or proof of assessment payoff The apportion- ment will equitably divide the assessment among the subdivided parcels For additional information , please contact Karen Rizzo at ( 714) 387-5973 Sincerely, KAREN RIZZO Special Assessment Manager Development Services Division Office of Special Districts KR gw EXHIBIT F mil,,PS\oc_co9O Riverside-Corona Resource conservation District a 9�o�� 2023 CHICAGO AVENUE B14 • RIVERSIDE CALIFORNIA 92507 • PHONE(714)683 7691 C-NSER\J P'- September 25, 1990 Dear City of Grand Terrace, We acknowledge receipt of the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for T M o9_0 on 0 n Ssn Be - :c County CaliToiiva that was addressed to the USDA, Soil Conservation Service and the Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation Distract on September 25, 1990 for review and comment_ We have reviewed the above Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and find that 1 There are no controversial items in the report within the realm of the Soil Conservation Service's expertise and responsibilities a We do not find any senous potential problems with soil erosion and/or flooding within the project area_ b There is no Pnme, State, Unique or Locally Important Farmland involved in the project area c We find no conflict with any SCS on-going or planned programs or projects We find that the items listed below should be reviewed by your committee In review of the above application, we recommend an erosion control plan be included in overall plan to address wind and water erosion both during and after construction We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this proposed project. Sincerely, _ eX-.,-. ,, ;2 7; . ___/, STANLEY COOL.FY Vice-President 1=XHIBIT G GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MARCH 7, 1991 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 March 7, 1991 at 7 00 p m by Chairman Jerry Hawkinson PRESENT Jerry Hawkinson, Chairman Dan Buchanan, Vice-Chairman Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner Ron Wright, Commissioner David Sawyer, Community Development Director Maria Muett, Assistant Planner Maggie Barder, Planning Secretary Joe Kicak, City Engineer Alan Burns, City Attorney ABSENT None PLEDGE Jim Sims, Commissioner PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6 30 P M Information from staff to Planning Commissioners Information from Planning Commissioners to staff PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7 00 P M PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7 00 P M 1 ATTACHMFNT F PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None ITEM #1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 21, 1991 MOTION P CM-91-41 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 21, 1991 Vice-Chairman Buchanan made a motion to approve the February 21, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting minutes Commissioner Sims second MOTION VOTE PCM-91-41 Motion carries 5-0-1-1 Commissioner Hargrave absent Chairman Hawkinson abstained ITEM #2 TTM-89-04, E-89-01 RICHARD K. CHURCHWELL 23081 GRAND TERRACE ROAD GT AN APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO SUBDIVIDE 4 9± ACRES IN THE RI-10 DISTRICT INTO 9 RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF 10,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM, NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR TTM-89-04 The Community Development Director presented the staff report Commissioner Sims stated that he would be abstairung 7 05 P M OPENED PUBLIC HEARING TERRY MARTINEZ 22950 A.RLISS DRIVE GT Ms Martinez stated she would like to see the Eucalyptus trees preserved and that this be made a condition She was opposed to the elevations of the pads, especially Pad 1, which is right in front of her house She said the pad will 2 start 9' above their front yard, and the house will be on top of that, and if it is two-story, there will be about 20' of house She said Pad 4 is higher than that She expressed concern about the drainage She presented a statement from her next door neighbor who was unable to attend, Edith Crinklaw of 22940 Arliss Drive Ms Crinklaw was opposed to having the Eucalyptus trees removed and was concerned about the grading ROMAYNE CHINNOCK 22935 ARLISS DRIVE GT Mr Chinnock was concerned about the Eucalyptus trees and the elevation of Lot 1 He said that the topography of the natural land is significantly altered by the tentative tract map He said that the pad to the east of his house is not significantly different, as his house is at 1158' and the pad calls for 1163' He said that his swimming pool is at an elevation of 1148', and from the pool to the east there is a downward slope, but the pad is at 1160' as it is presently called out for He felt that if they approved it at 1160' and they put a two- story house on it, this would be a tremendous barrier and would bring about a 10% devaluation to his property, according to one appraiser He expressed concern about the drainage flowing toward his property AARON MARTINTEZ 22950 ARLISS DRIVE GT Mr Martinez expressed concern about the drainage He presented Mr Churchwell's and Mr Petta's maps combined to show how many lots drain toward the low point He also expressed concern about the pad elevations ROBERT WUNNER 22959 GRAND TERRACE ROAD GT Mr Wunner stated that he is affected the most by this project but is in favor of it, feeling that Mr Churchwell will adjust the minor points TONY PETTA 11875 ETON DRIVE GT Mr Petta was satisfied that this project meets all the requirements, and felt the Planning and Engineering Departments would be very protective toward the neighbors 3 ROMAYNE CHINNOCK 22935 ARLISS DRIVE GT Mr Chinnock expressed concern that what is approved tonight will be followed by the Planning and Engineering Departments RICHARD CHURCHWELL 23081 GRAND TERRACE ROAD GT Mr Churchwell stated that he will commit to letting the Eucalyptus trees remain He stated that they realigned the lots because of complaints of possible through traffic, and in so doing, they did raise the elevation of Lot 1 He said that he would commit to work to significantly reduce the height of the lot in the grading plan, stating that there is no reason it could not drain to the side to the drainage easement He said that the drainage must meet code 7 29 P M CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawkinson brought the item back to the commission He asked the City Engineer if there would be problems with the submitted elevations The City Engineer stated that it can be handled from the engineering standpoint, but he felt this issue the neighbors are addressing are aesthetics, and they will enforce whatever the Planning Commission and Planning Department decide RICHARD CHURCHWELL 23081 GRAND TERRACE ROAD GT Mr Churchwell asked if the commission had any questions Commissioner Wright stated that the road is proposed as it goes north and asked if the elevation is higher there so that the drainage above the property would come down through the easement or if it would go down to Grand Terrace Road Mr Churchwell said a portion would come south, as the elevation rises toward Grand Terrace Road 4 Vice-Chairman Buchanan asked if the utilities would be undergrounded The City Engineer said they could insert it as a condition, but it is part of their ordinance so it wouldn't make any difference Chairman Hawkinson brought the item back to the commission for action Commissioner Van Gelder asked for the City Engineer's comments on the drainage The City Engineer saw no major problems, stating that they are talking about 5 acres on this subdivision and additional acres that would be tributary, a small portion of the tract to the south He said that under the worst conditions, if they had 10 acres total contribution of single family residential, they might be talking about a maximum of 20 cubic feet per second, which would be pretty bad conditions He felt the capacity of Arliss would be closer to 40 or 50 c f s in that area He said that a portion of the tract to the south will drain southerly along the proposed roadway on top of the aqueduct, and will eventually drain onto Preston to Barton Road and into the storm drain system Commissioner Van Gelder asked what bearing this drainage would have on the area that would affect the Martinez residence The City Engineer stated none, as their pad is considerably higher than Arliss He said that the water can be carried in a street section without topping the curb Commissioner Wnght asked if there was a minimum distance the road has to be above the pipeline The City Engineer said this would be controlled by the California Department of Water Resources Commissioner Wright asked about alternative lighting standards The City Engineer stated that they tell the Edison company the street lighting plan that is approved, and they contract for the installation of those lights, and the developer pays Edison directly He did not know if there were alternatives provided by Edison, but they could investigate this He said that the illumination should be the same, no matter what style of light is installed Vice-Chairman Buchanan asked staff for proposed language for the conditions they are adding 5 The Community Development Director recommended an additional condition that the Eucalyptus trees on the western border of Lots 1 and 2 shall be preserved unless written approval is given by the Planning Department prior to removal of said trees or any other action which would result in substantial damage to said trees MOTION PCM-91-42 TTM-89-04, E-89-01 Vice-Chairman Buchanan made that motion as Condition 10 Commissioner Hargrave second Commissioner Hargrave asked if they were proposing to keep the dead trees on the southerly end of this tree line The Community Development Director stated that they can just make this common knowledge Vice-Chairman Buchanan stated that they had imposed a condition on the Petta project that a Pepper Tree be preserved, but he wasn't sure which property it was on, and on Lot 7 and 8, there are existing, mature trees, and he would like to recommend they be preserved where feasible The Community Development Director suggested this as a separate condition He also suggested adding to the current motion, "mature and healthy" Eucalyptus trees on the western border Vice-Chairman Buchanan and Commissioner Hargrave concurred MOTION VOTE PCM-91-42 Motion carries 6-0-0-1 Commissioner Sims abstained MOTION PCM-91-43 TTM-89-04, E-89-01 Vice-Chairman Buchanan made a motion to add Condition 11, which would stated that as to the remaining mature and healthy trees within the project, they should be preserved where feasible consistent with the necessary grading requirements Comrmssioner Hargrave second 6 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-43 Motion carries 6-0-0-1 Commissioner Sims abstained MOTION PCM-91-44 TTM-89-04, E-89-01 Vice-Chairman Buchanan made a motion that Condition 8, regarding the submittal of an erosion plan, be amended to require that the plan also be submitted to the Planning Department for approval Commissioner Hargrave second MOTION VO'I`E PCM-91-44 Motion carries 6-0-0-1 Commissioner Sims abstained Commissioner Van Gelder asked if these conditions would continue on even if the property is passed along to someone else The Community Development Director stated that these conditions are the tentative tract map conditions, and the applicant will be required to meet all the conditions as part of the recordation of the final map and any of the conditions that would then be carried as restrictions on the property would be part of the recorded record He said that the grading of the lots will be as they are approved He said to keep in mind that these homes, per the first condition, are subject to Site and Architectural Review, as this is a standard requirement whether conditioned or not He said that neighbors will be notified for public hearings Commissioner Van Gelder asked about the lighting Vice-Chairman Buchanan stated that on the Petta project, they had a motion approved that the City Engineer consider alternative street lighting with a focus toward a more rural atmosphere if possible MOTION PCM-91-45 TTM-89-04, E-89-01 7 Commissioner Van Gelder made a motion add as Condition 12 that the City Engineer consider alternative street lighting with a focus toward a more rural atmosphere if possible Vice-Chairman Buchanan second MOTION VOTE PCM-91-45 Motion carries 6-0-0-1 Commissioner Sims abstained MOTION PCM-91-46 TTM-89-04, E-89-01 Vice-Chairman Buchanan made a motion to add as Condition 13 that utilities be undergrounded MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF SECOND Vice-Chairman Buchanan asked the Community Development Director for a suggestion regarding the pad elevation The Community Development Director stated they can make a recommendation to the Council that if at all possible, the elevations, of Lot 1 in particular, be lowered He said they may be as specific as they like as this is a recommendation to Council MOTION PCM-91-47 TTM-89-04, E-89-01 Vice-Chairman Buchanan made a motion to add as Condition 13 that the pad elevation on Lot 1 be reduced to an elevation not to exceed 1152', which would be a reduction of 8' Commissioner Hargrave second Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the applicant had indicated he would go 10' lower Vice-Chairman Buchanan was concerned about creating a difference in elevation for Lots 1 and 2 that becomes too dramatic or forces the pad on Lot 1 to be shifted north to a point where it interferes with the proposed drainage along the edge The Community Development Director stated that dropping that elevation 8 could domino all the pads, depending on the engineering aspects Commissioner Wright said that if they went 10', this would put it down to the contour at the existing level, and they would need to have the lot higher so the water would drain into the easement Vice-Chairman Buchanan stated that he was comfortable with 8' Chairman Hawkinson said he would leave it the way it was submitted, allowing the engineer and the applicant look at it and see if it can be worked out between now and the time it goes to City Council Commissioner Hargrave asked if they could make a general recommendation that the elevation of Pad 1 be as low as possible from and engineering standpoint Vice-Chairman Buchanan stated that if the commission would rather state it in a general context, they should vote no on the motion Commissioner Munson said he felt if it were impossible to lower Lot 1, then the applicant has the right to appeal to the Council, stating he would like the commission to stand at the 1152' mark MOTION VOTE PCM-91-47 Motion carries 4-2-0-1 Chairman Hawkinson and Commissioner Van Gelder voted no Commissioner Sims abstained MOTION PCM-91-48 TTM-89-04, E-89-01 Vice-Chairman Buchanan made a motion that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of TTM-89-04 and the Negative Declaration, E-89-01, subject to the conditions set forth in the staff recommendations and as amended tonight Commissioner Hargrave second Commissioner Wright stated that the termination of Arhss doesn't appear to be a logical ending to the street He said that Lot 8 has a long dnveway, and from a law enforcement and safety perspective, by isolating this pad so far back from the street, they have effectively eliminated natural surveillance from other lots 9 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-48 Motion carries 6-0-0-1 Commissioner Sims abstained ITEM #3 TPM-87-03R1 WILLIS AND OPAL COOK 11917 ROSEDALE GT AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 3 23 ACRE LOT IN THE R1-20 DISTRICT INTO TWO PARCELS The Community Development Director stated that the applicant has withdrawn this application 8 15 P M TO825PM - RECESS ITEM #4 CUP-91-02 INLAND LUMBER/R W MFG OF SO CAL 21850 MAIN STREET GT AN APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DUST COLLECTOR FOR AN EXISTING LUMBER COMPANY The Assistant Planner presented the staff report Chairman Hawkinson asked about the supplemental staff report and the applicant's engineer feeling there may be some environmental problems with the location over the septic tank He asked if this septic tank was operational The City Engineer said he did not know, but the sewer was installed on Main Street in 1976, and if they are on septic tank, there should be of record an exemption from the Regional Water Quality Control Board to that effect Vice-Chairman Buchanan asked about the hours of operation The Community Development Director stated that they have not seen this applicant before 10 RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TTM-89-04 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14483) AND ITS ASSOCIATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE WHEREAS, the applicant, Mr Richard Churchwell has applied for approval of a tentative tract map, (Exhibit A) subdividing 4 9 acres into 9 single family lots located at 23081 Grand Terrace Road (APN# 276-411-001), and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project per Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (Exhibit B) and said Negative Declaration has been considered by the Planning Commission per Section 15074(a) of the Cahforrua Environmental Quality Act WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on December 11, 1989, regarding this application and continued indefinitely by the applicant, and, WHEREAS, the applicant in compliance with Section 664521 of the Subdivision Map Act, waived the fifty (50) day period requiring action by the appropriate advisory agency, and, WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on December 04, 1990, regarding this application, and continued indefinitely by the applicant, and, WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on February 21, 1991, regarding this application, and, WHEREAS, a propertly notice public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 7, 1991, regarding this application ATTACHMENT F NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace, California, that the following findings have been made 1 That the site is physically suitable for the proposed type of development, 2 That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development, 3 That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, 4 That the design of the subdivision or type of proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems or cause threat to life and property from a wildland conflagration, 5 That the proposed subdivision together with the provisions for its design and improvements are consistent with the General Plan 6 That the proposed subdivision, its design and density conform to the conditions imposed by this chapter, the regulations of the Development Code, and the regulations of the City of Grand Terrace NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace, California, that TTM-89-04 (Exhibit A) and the aforementioned Negative Declaration (Exhibit B) are hereby recommended to the City Council for approval subject to the following conditions 1 Individual lots shall be subject to Site and Architectural Review 2 The subject property shall be dedicated to the City in order to be annexed to the City's existing Lighting and I andscaping District 3 The Final Tract map shall be consistent with the California Aqueduct, Riverside Highland Water, East Riverside Irrigation District easements 4 All conditions as recommended by the City Engineer's Department in their recommendations dated February 14, 1991 (Attachment A's Exhibit C) 5 All conditions as recommended by the Forestry and Fire Warden Department in their Memorandum dated November 6, 1989, November 6, 1990 and February 1, 1991 (Attachment A's Exhibit D) 6 All conditions as recommended by the Colton Unified School District in their letter dated November 9, 1989 (Attachment A's Exhibit E) 7 All conditions as recommended by the San Bernardino County Office of Special Districts in their Memorandum dated November 7, 1989 (Attachment A's Exhibit F) 8 All conditions as recommended by the Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District in their memorandum dated September 25, 1990 (Attachment A's Exhibit G) Also, an erosion plan is to be submitted to the City of Grand Terrace Planning Department for approval 9 The area containing the proposed rear slope in Lots 7 and 8 shall be offered for dedication to the City for the purpose of inclusion in the City's Lighting and Landscaping District 10 The mature and healthy Eucalyptus trees located on the western property lines of Lots 1 and 2 shall be preserved Trees may be removed upon permission from the Planning Director 11 Where mature and healthy trees exist, they shall be preserved where feasible 12 Rural atmosphere street lighting if possible 13 The pad elevation of Lot 1 shall be reduced by 8 feet, not to exceed 1152 feet PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace, California, at a regular meeting held the 7th day of March 1991 by the following vote AYES 6 - Chairman Hawkinson, Vice-Chairman Buchanan, Commissioners Munson, Hargrave, Van Gelder and Wright NOES 0 ABSENT 0 ABSTAIN 1 - Commissioner Sims Jerry Hawkinson, Chairperson Planning Commission AITEST Brenda Stanfill, Deputy City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM John Harper, City Attorney Planning kGReNO TERRHCE; Dehai tment TO City Council FROM David Sawyer, Community Development Director DATE March 21, 1991 SUBJECT Staff Report File No 1'1'M-90-04/E-90-07 An application for a Tentative Tract Map 14868 and Negative Declaration to subdivide a 3 17 acre, R1-10 parcel into 10 residential lots of 10,000 square foot minimum APPLICANT Tony Petta LOCATION Northwest corner of Victoria and Barton Road (APN# 276-411-02) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and is attached as Exhibit B ZONING AND LANDUSE PROPERTY LOCATION GP ZONING LAND USE Subject Property LDR RI-10 Vacant AG To the West LDR R1-10 Vacant AG To the East LDR R1-10/ Single Family R1-7 2 Residences COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM # �C 22795 Batton Road • Gland Teitace, Calilornia 92324-5295 • (714) 824-6621 Southern California Gas Company The Southern California Gas Company's recommendations in their Memorandums dated August 23, 1990 and August 30, 1990 (Attachment A's Exhibit E) State of California - Department of Transportation The State of California - Department of Transportation's recommendations in their memorandum dated August 23, 1990 (Attachment A's Exhibit F) Riverside Highland Water Co The Riverside Highland Water Company's comments are included in their memorandum dated August 21, 1990 (Attachment A's Exhibit G) Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District The Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District in their letter dated August 27, 1990 (Attachment A's Exhibit I-I) County of San Bernardino - Office of Special Districts The County of San Bernardino - Office of Special Districts in their letter dated September 5, 1990 (Attachment A's Exhibit I) RECOMMENDATIONS At their regular meeting of March 7, 1991, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council approval of TTM-90-04 and its associated Negative Declaration subject to the following conditions 1 Individual lots shall be subject to Site and Architectural Review 2 The subject property shall be dedicated to the City in order to be annexed to the City's existing Lighting and Landscaping District 3 The Final Tract shall be consistent with California Aqueduct, Riverside Irrigation District and other legal easements 4 All conditions as recommended by the City Engineer's Department in their recommendations dated February 14, 1991 (Attachment A's Exhibit C) 5 All conditions as recommended by the Forestry and Fire Warden Department in their memorandums dated September 14, 1990, November 6, 1990 and February 1, 1991 (Attachment A's Exhibit D) 6 All conditions as recommended by the Southern California Gas Company in their letter dated August 23, 1990 and August 30, 1990 (Attachment A's Exhibit E) 7 All conditions as recommended by the State of California - Department of Transportation in their letter dated August 23, 1990 (Attachment A's Exhibit F) 8 All conditions as recommended by the Riverside Highland Water Company in their letter dated August 21, 1990 (Attachment A's Exhibit G) 9 All conditions as recommended by the Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District in their letter dated August 27, 1990 (Attachment A's Exhibit H) Submittal of an erosion control plan to the City of Grand Terrace Planning Department for approval 10 All conditions as recommended by the County of San Bernardino - Office of Special Districts in their letter dated September 5, 1990 (Attachment A's Exhibit 1) 11 The area containing the proposed slope in Lots 6 and 10 facing Barton Road shall be offered for dedication to the City for the purpose of inclusion in the City's Lighting and Landscaping District 12 Preservation of the large pepper tree in the northwest corner of Lot 8, if feasible 13 Victoria Street shall be widened to its fullest extent, where dedicated or not, north of the center line all the way from Preston Avenue to the development PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Department recommends approval by your body of two additional conditions 14 Each individual lot shall be provided an individual curbside mailbox Clustered gangboxes shall not be allowed 15 A Will Serve Letter shall be obtained from the Riverside Highland Water District The Planning Department recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving 1'1 M-90-04 and its associated Negative Declaration (E-90-07, Exhibit B) subject to the conditions contained therein (See Attachment A) *This recommendation is based on the Council's approval of Z-89-03 Respectfully Submitted, -----D David R awyer, Community Develop ent Director RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND 1'I RRACE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING 'I'IM-90-04 (Tentative Tract Map 14868) AND E-90-07 THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHEREAS, the Applicant, Tony Petta has applied for approval of a tentative tract map '1'I M-90-04 (Exhibit A) and E-90-07 (Exhibit B) for a subdivision of 3 17 acre, R1-10 parcel into 10 residential lots of 10,000 square foot minimum to be located at the northwest corner of Victoria and Barton Road (APN 276-411-002), and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project per Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (Exhibit B) and said Negative Declaration has been considered by the Planning Commission per Section 15074(a) of the Cahforrua Environmental Quality Act WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on February 21, 1991, regarding this application, and, WHEREAS, on February 21, 1991 the Planning Commission recommended approval of I'1 M-90-04 and E-90-07 and its Negative Declaration to City Council, and WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on March 28, 1991, regarding this application NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, California, that the following findings are made in relation to 1"I M-90-04 and E-90- 07 1 That the site is physically suitable for the proposed type of development, 2 That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development, ATTACHMENT A 3 That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, 4 That the design of the subdivision or type of proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems or cause threat to life and property from a wildland conflagration, 5 That the proposed subdivision together with the provisions for its design and improvements are consistent with the General Plan 6 That the proposed subdivision, its design and density conform to the conditions imposed by this chapter, the regulations of the Development Code, and the regulations of the City of Grand Terrace, 7 That the proposed project has considered the potential use of passive and natural energy saving devices in its design, 8 That the proposed subdivision is within the goals of the City's Housing Element with regards to housing availability NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, California, that A The Negative Declaration attached as Exhibit B is hereby approved, B 1'I M-90-04 (Exhibit A is hereby approved subject to the following conditions 1 Individual lots shall be subject to Site and Architectural Review 2 The subject property shall be dedicated to the City in order to be annexed to the City's existing Lighting and Landscaping District 3 The Final Tract shall be consistent with California Aqueduct, Riverside Irrigation District and other legal easements 4 All conditions as recommended by the City Engineer's Department in their recommendations dated February 14, 1991 (Attachment A's Exhibit C) 5 All conditions as recommended by the Forestry and Fire Warden Department in their memorandums dated September 14, 1990, November 6, 1990 and February 1, 1991 (Attachment A's Exhibit D) 6 All conditions as recommended by the Southern Cahfonua Gas Company in their letter dated August 23, 1990 and August 30, 1990 (Attachment A's Exhibit E) 7 All conditions as recommended by the State of California - Department of Transportation in their letter dated August 23, 1990 (Attachment A's Exhibit F) 8 All conditions as recommended by the Riverside Highland Water Company in their letter dated August 21, 1990 (Attachment A's Exhibit G) 9 All conditions as recommended by the Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District in their letter dated August 27, 1990 (Attachment A's Exhibit H) Submittal of an erosion control plan to the City of Grand Terrace Planning Department for approval 10 All conditions as recommended by the County of San Bernardino - Office of Special Districts in their letter dated September 5, 1990 (Attachment A's Exhibit I) 11 The area containing the proposed slope in Lots 6 and 10 facing Barton Road shall be offered for dedication to the City for the purpose of inclusion in the City's Lighting and T andscaping District 12 Preservation of the large pepper tree in the northwest corner of Lot 8, if feasible 13 Victoria Street shall be widened to its fullest extent, where dedicated or not, north of the center line all the way from Preston Avenue to the development 14 Each individual lot shall be provided an individual curbside mailbox Clustered gangboxes shall not be allowed 15 A Will Serve Letter shall be obtained from the Riverside Highland Water District PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, California, at a regular meeting held the 28th day of March, 1991 AFIEST Deputy City Clerk of the City Mayor of the City of Grand of Grand Terrace and of the Terrace and of the City City Council thereof Council thereof I, BRENDA STANFILL, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace, 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 28th day of March, 1991, by the following vote AYES NOES ABSENT ABSTAIN Deputy City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM John Harper City Attorney 1:71 !1 I>.IY 1RJG -' 1 ALY / /iLI /r I ../ GI / IN THE CITY OF GRTERRACEA+O TERRACE �TT� f _ - / C..trwAww 111 C eT 4AN B6R [NO COU+TY CALIFORNIA 11( _ ^�_ )/ TENTATIVE TRACT NO 14868 � I �., ' �` / \ L ` 'i 1 BEING A SUBOIv ISIDN Of A PMTION Of LOT IA CF THE VISTA A .DE _—_ F--� ^-le TRACT AS F OAN BY NAP ON FILE IY BOOK17 Cr RAPS AT PAGE 10 II� - RECORDS OF SAN BERNAPD INO COUNTY CALIFORNIAI 0 SCALE I J OI 1�` r �- L"l� 1 GiY`fAl 1 'c. /I1/�,C7 r �10 1�;4 8J :Nt.C7:::::::::::C.:92324 ACEL ND ,.fAEAb3 / ..7 6fIi ACESGROSS/T//O,a I I l�• , 1LV01{rY �w txca.vr I �' `yI ~ CV �r� P+I ,' •. \~,r_----•�-�"'� CEv£LO£RI -L' \ TIAuGEL TOE PETT ARANONARE ENGELINE P iDRIVEt(B75 EATON DRIVE III �_ 1 - v •, l- J� \ � E CA 9232A Rare TERRACE CA 9232 �•p ///a liV` �� .^ t (71A) e25 8608 ,I Iw�vT{j \RIsl s ! _ J , \ \ V.2_,..,,,,.,,,,, A \ 1 _ EHGIFEER 0CI RAA( I Q ��� —_'_ ? ) �� ,/ / J F OAYIOSON ASSOCIATES INC Ff IA TOP OF 1 IRON a F IIII JASeeY •' y7,, \ LJ` Y��\ v�/ IJ91 0 SOUTH NT /ERNON AVENLE AGGEO LS 2722 AT CFN1 a E fly -t4 N n.thi \ _ R/ 1PA cX I II 0 CA 9z3z ROAD AND BARTONof ROAD ca Y AI/)1Ty �� .. 171+1025 1002 ROAD ANO BAR ROAD II2 e.�rs ` It` '�" / •+ f ; A \ EL VAT ON II 3 2 (\Y Ili { I�..� of ,/� I}� \1 I - �� �) '- - I r ) f (p/7 s/ • V _ '�^`/ ///L DOSINK UTILITIES A. t ,.o r Q r ` 1 { + / / //• t/ RI TO AGRICULTURAL OVERLAY ZONE LECTRIC SOUTHERN C D lIIW I �I t.R,.y ' . 1I , It--J��J - ff / GENERAL IAnO u5E OES IGNAT ION- AS OV TNERn C V CJ SINGLE FaNilr RES DENTTAL WI74 WATER RIVERS OE N R III \ ,ny� * to ✓ ��I ��=? ��• 10 000 5 F RIN LOT SEVER CI Y OF GRANOLA !� { g , - �'� �� // TELEPHONE PAC FIC BELL �XNN , // ,.,.) I)� \ 1y.� 1 y� V I • I ~ 1 I ♦ •C /,y�/// ,y\ E.L9DF?ATS — I` �� I I /° �/ -y'/ ,(/ \ 1/�, I RIVERSIDEEASED FOR WATER CATI DITCHES DISTR CT OE VES N FAVOR OF EAS en t ' ; J� I // t` "'111___ \], till I L . I1 l� =v t // 7� / � INBOO2 IRA CATION DISTRICT PER OE D RECORDEDOFSAN ERNE 2f A I Y I ' I // 1.�J /� IN BOOK 2+o PAGE I61 OF DEE05 RE OR05 OF SAN BER•+AR4 tl 1 l • 1 y ; \f/y/� I,T1 EXACTYLOCATION I5 NOT DISCLOSED DF RECORD 1 LLJ �l �prA��' e / I �� (� •/..\\iTT2 EASEMENT FOR MAT R PIR FI. I +.: +I'' t /r S I i l Y DEED RECORDED MARCH IS 1909 19 BOOK RA PAGE SE R S }` 1 • :.� V, , .,*'' vl :,+,, / ` W l tiff RECORDS OF SAN BEPNARD IND CIXINTY t - Mei j `, / 1 EXACT LOCATION IS NOT DISCLOSED OF RECORD I tll /y��yl, 4,,,..r;���it 11 i J �r! 3 EASEMENT FOR RATER PIPELINES ANO 0 V RSION BOX IN A VA Jy ` �'''''''' ' �/m / + r JOHN A RONCO ET UX PER DEED RECORDED JtLY 30 19 2 2270 PAGE I87 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAN BERNARDINC .,L S ! ,.,AH�/ . �/ • l,'/ EXACT LOCATION IS NOT DISCLOSED OF RECORD II �J 1•R ! i `/ i` + 1—_ O EASEMENT FOR P PELINES IN FAVOR OF HE STA OF CAL 0,, A A\ I / Y� t f/, P_R DEED RECORDED NAY B 1970 IN BOCK 7 39 P GE 200 3W. --TI / •, jflll OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAN BERNARO NO COVNTY Imo— _, — _— ..1. ldaAr•:►+��1:0A / ' irririr �A�-T 'e• POTf TTYCe VT7TI000... ILO 6.oc.C7+7AOJ TO eE r+•wV7ED TO THE OTT OF G•w0 TET.•Yf..E L / / ► / IS / EAe,OAFIR TO ME V�STED Hof,/Q>•GENT TP.CT r6 PECd•OED AHD DEVELOPED AP RL 5/Q_c/77AL Mill - ' f 7- I / 1 T I^.wTSIYA/77.Ct Ili l L7 (\ \ // XLr ,/11 -Nz I a I Cer.Tw / i r_Z 1. ._r 'P �'►� ,TA' a cT STING TONTOVR A »z,r(+vX t..R ( Si INO ROVT9/TREE • CXI TING in LDIN0 AAA." L< N•li/I/ .IjL • -,- EXIST NG RATER AIN A Al >D JC _ - EXISTING SERFS LINE /I A /f n ,! A /r _ — r I TING FAS LINE J.1ECT ON Or LOW f 1t_7vlr I r Il 1_T I r�'" •� I i/JI I N SURFACE / _ TaF !off- �'f I� a OARS FEET ELEV .A/ ��' �T- - �� 1 I• 0 ...., Oil DI`rG SETBACK LINE mil\ o- x HATED 100 rR TDRN FLOW = TYPICAL SECTION TYPICAL SECTION vICIMITY NAi A I SLOPE JIB J. �,- ._ _ . VICTORIA STREET LOT A LOT I --TOT I7 PLC GRRAY.0 SC4 t ",'�^Z'' � IC,T7'CAL( LOT rX Y1l[ I �'�;= U eras A AO s AVAC/Sf! , - .I/O ../O-7J/.s+C/3) T1 5,sOCT/ OR/ H D t i 4 � I'lannulg nno rEritrcc� Department A1 1 NOTICE OF FILING NEGA FIVE DECLARATION ' Pursuant to the Califoriva Environmental Quality Act, a Negative Declaration is hereby filed on the below referenced project, on the basis that said project will not have a significant effect on the environment DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECV TTM-90-04, a Tentative Tract Map 14868, and E-90-07 (Environmental Review) subdividing 3 17 acres into 11 residential lots of 10,000 square foot minimum m a R1-10 zone district and Agricultural Overlay Zone This project is within the General Plan's Low Density Residential landuse designation APPLICANT Tony Petta LOCATION NW Corner of Victoria Avenue and Barton Road (APN# 276-411-02) ***************************************************************************** Copies of the Negative Declaration and Initial Study for this project are available for review at the City of Grand Terrace Planning Department, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace (714824-6421) Anyone wishing to comment on this project may do so prior to September 26, 1990 All comments should be directed to David Sawyer, Community Development Director David R. Sawyer, Date Community Development Director City of Grand Terrace EXHIBIT B o9g9d_S?Qc • (714 824-6621 °f� >arx+ Planning RfitiD l E RitfIcE: Devil tmcnl *• ,waro NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, a Negative Declaration is hereby filed on the below referenced project, on the basis that said project will not have a significant effect on the environment DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT TTM-90-04, a Tentative Tract Map 14868, and E-90-07 (Environmental Review)subdividing 3 17 acres into 11 residential lots of 10,000 square foot minimum m a R1-10 Zone Distract and Agricultural Overlay Zone This project is within the General Plan's Low Density Residential landuse designation APPLICANT Tony Petta LOCATION N W Corner of Victoria Avenue and Barton Road (APN# 276-411-02) FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFEC1' Based upon the atached Initial Study, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment David Sawyer, Date Community Development Director City of Grand Terrace indui/ - ei n el A C'1 r-C _ !'"7I A\ n rl A l c'l Y om-rsrt„izcsr-r=sty=c,,,.l^ _ .;u .�a..�-'Frn-r3-z,� nY` Y - ^---- �- r�- �.,�.�r:K"r.., _—„� ,,,�=�.`� 'o:- •, —�+-__-- CI rY OF GRAND TERRACE PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY I Background 1 Name of Proponent City of Grand Terrace 2 Address and Phone Number of Proponent City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road , Grand Terrace, CA 92324-5295 Attention David Sawyer Planning Director 3 Date of Environmental Assessment 4 Agency Requiring Assessment City of Grand Terrace 7 01/V PE7TA 5 Name of Proposal, if applicable 6 Location of Proposal A/ of 'e�G/Q OF V/CTOR/A Ak1i) A(?-1—ON Srgs5T5 II Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are provided on attached sheets ) Yes Maybe No 1 Earth Will the proposal result in a Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures' b Disruptions, displacements, compac- tion or overcovering of the soil" c Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features' d The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features' e Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils either on or or off site' �—,'ten�v�fliY.i �, -—.,..-r_� _ �� mac-�.,w,� �i,�rs__���_ "t-� Yes Maybe No f Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands or changes in siltation deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake7 g Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earth quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards' 2 Air Will the proposal result in a Substantial air emissions or deterior- ation of ambient air quality b The creation of objectionable odors? c Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in \/ climate, whether locally or regionally 3 Water Will the proposal result in a Substantial changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters7 b Substantial changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff c Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters7 d Change in the amount of surface water in any water body7 e Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water qual- ity, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or \� turbidity' 1` f Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters" s- 1:;;"Gx=>�. _- -_ - - Yes Maybe No g Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or through inter- ception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies' X r Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flood- ing or tidal waves? x 4 Plant Life Will the proposal result in a Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass crops, and aquatic plants) b Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? , c Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation, for in a barrier to the normal replenih- ment of existing species. d Substantial reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop7 5 Animal Life Will the proposal result in a Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including rep- tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals' c Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Yes Maybe No 6 Noise Will the proposal esult in a Increases in existing noise levels' b Exposure of people to severe noise levels' 7 Light and Glare Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare' 8 Land Use Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area' 9 Natural Resources Will the proposal result in a Substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources' b Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource' 10 Risk of Upset Will the proposal involve a A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil , pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions' b Possible interference with an emerg- ency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan' 11 . Population Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area' 12 Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional 1 , housing' 13 Transportation/Circulation Will the pro- proposal result in a Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement' Yes Maybe No b Effects on existing parking facili- ties or demand for new parking7 c Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14 Public Services Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas a Fire protection. b Police protection? c Schools? d Parks or other recreational faci- lities? (/ e Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15 Energy Will the proposal result in. a Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or re- quire the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a _ need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities a Power or natural gas' j' -- - `r`- _ _ _ _ ____ —_ �� __ -_ --- _—r— '�-- _ _* •.,cam=-�� Yes Maybe No b Communications systems' c Water7 d Sewer or septic tanl<s7 x e Storm water drainage? X f Solid waste and disposal. 17 Human Health Will the proposal result in a Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18 Aesthetics Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. 19 Recreation Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities./ 20 Cultural Resources a Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeo- logical site b Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or objects c Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values' Yes Maybe No d Will the proposal r estrict existing religious or sacr ed uses within the potential impact ar ea7 l 21 Mandatory F►ndings of Significance a Does the project have the potential to degrade the qual►ty of the environ- ment substant►ally reduce the habitat of a f►sh or w►ldl►fe spec►es, cause a f►sh or w►ldl►fe populat►on to drop below self susta►n►ng levels, threaten to el►minate a plant or animal or el►minate ►mportant examples of the major per►ods of Cal►forn►a h►story or preh►story? b Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term env►ron- mental goals? (A short-term ►mpact on the environment is one wh►ch oc- curs ►n a relat►vely br►ef, def►n►t►ve per►od of t►me wh►le long-term ►mpacts w►ll endure well ►nto the future ) c Does the project have ►mpacts wh►ch are ►nd►v►dually l►m►ted, but cumu- latively cons►derable? (A project's ►mpact on two or more separate resources may be relat►vely small, but where the effect of the total of those ►mpacts on the env►ronment ►s s►gn►ficant ) d Does the project have env►ronmental effects wh►ch will cause substan- tial adverse effects on human be►ngs, either d►rectly or ►nd►rectly? l� _r= „*"..'.�r.. r,�. ��--sx _ _ �_ ,�-sue —_ _ ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared —— I find that although the proposed project could have a signi- ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi- ficant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on attached sheets have been added to the project A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required David Sawyer Planning Du--ector G Date Signature For City of Grand Terrace III DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 1 b, 3 b The development of this currently vacant site will result in the overcovering of a certain percentage of the soil This impact will be mitigated by utilizing proper drainage methods which will be reviewed and approved by the Building and Engmeenng Department. 6 a There may be an increase of noise Ievel during development to a site that is currently vacant. This impact will be within the allowable levels as set in the Master Environmental Analysis for the General Plan. 8 The existing land use will change from vacant land to low density residential uses in accordance with the adopted General Plan. 13 a The future development of 11 residential lots may result in the increase of additional vehicular movement. This impact will be within the allowable Emits set in the Traffic Circulation Element of the General PIan / I ) 1:_+1 Y l7 i/ 1 !DE: 1 f(f ( T TY1 L 1/ / +1... IN THE C ITT OF GRAND TEMAC£ I/'e .+ / SAN BERAAROINO COINTY CALIFORNIA III I � �\1 f d I__ ! _ �� I. TENTATIVE TRACT NO 14868 I. , BEING A SUGOIVISION OF A PORTION OF LOT IA Of THE VISTA GRANDE 4 C �..•�-�-� TRACT AS SHORN BY MAP OR FILE IN BOO( 17 OF RAPS AT PAGE 10 IlI9 -`— .�✓ l p _� I RECORDS OF SAN BERNAPOIVO COUNTY CALIFORNIA III T^ r [7 I� ,XJNE 1990 SCALE 1 5J --�—�'• '' ff L 1`(J C11 I2h. 7l\ACT r 1\I O 1,-.483 A9 15 PARCEL!q ACREAGE II / Al/D A ,iv 3 Jr / ,/ -or .T.P / 276 A11-002 11 ACRES GROSS III _ .L N!CGA/T ( /# .�- Jr, cNER DEYELDPER /a� `� " M1_` ` �>`� (• 1 •O' Jt TANTHONY AND AMGELIME PETTA ANTHONY AND ANGELINE PE A �- - . 11875 EATEN DRIVE 11B75 EATON DRIVE 1 �\ +� GRAND TERRACE CA 9232e GRAND TERRACE CA 9232e III» jIiII �� ... T•IF T ' '• Cf� \ 171AI B23 8606 171,1825 8600 e Ipwww //AOl/ ��L. }1y�,; ��•3�'=' \ ENGINEER BEMC»u s 77. IIIV F JrR= �,,i. __ \ 1 \ ,J J F DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES INC F1 IA TOP OF 1 SON IPF �T �- \ L l` y,� ,/ 1094 0 SOUTH MT VERNON AVENUE tAGGEO LS 2722 Al CENfra N III 9Ab.�• ,}. ,1 N-1, \ �( , COL TON CA 9272A IN ERSEC ION OF OBAu0 raaACE I1�_ / �nW Pm �Q '� R/ 1 u 1714)625 1082 POAO ANO BARTON RTONAP000 t 63 02 I / I /7P!Q/ l V`T / 201INY UTILITIES IIlh \ r - I r -0 1 �I 6.. vJ /'- � . / / / / Ji I/ RI 10 AGRICULTUPAL OVEPLAY ZONE ELECTRIC SOUTHERN CA D v IIi 1 I A L.—J.[ �} GENERAL LANE USE DESIGNATION GAS SOUTHERN CA GAS W �. 1 A1I/RY I i I �l ' F- _J_ — %L/ / SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH WATER RI VERS IOE N ML '+] I`� � X. tif7J + r/"� 1 / / 10 000 S F WIN LOT SE ER CITY OF GRANS as W 11• 5 i f �I ..+ I 'a ✓ S �� / /J{ I� TELEPHONE PACIF C BELL ^ / O `�1 1 • L Div/n I 1c �\ .( / / lJ) 111 1, fK 7 r--� I i I .I 1F J ♦ / / ) FJ�9E)EJrT7 — / OR.. lit1'�,,,,..I ,�l ` /O 't. �/�///�f L� I EASE.CNT FOR WATER DITCHES AND PIPELINLS IN FAVOR OF AS` 1 /77 11 ^ `AK- �f , ' r771( / //p�IC V. RIVERSIDE IPRi GAi ON DISTRICT PER OE D DECORCEO DUNE 21 ) III C I \\ roo 7h.0 7i� 11 r r tv I F it tor f� 1 / n�J/rt i AL. / p i• JJ 1� CIN OUNTY TAO PAGE 161 OF DEEDS RECORDS OF SAN 9ERva RO 1 ` + 1 ,rne SJ yyf 1 ) EXACT LOCATION IS NOT DISCLOSED OF RECORD II TTTt �R 1�/ \� ♦• '7,/ / ., i/ �tl 2 EASEMENT FOR wATER PIPELINES IN FAVOR OF MiLO BAR, -A lS -j GEED RECORDED MARCH 16 1909 In BOCK 432 PAGE 96 F „ If IS ,,} / • �,i / RECORDS Of SAN BERNARDINO CCIOATY 111111 I1' l rill's�1011.111111b A �' s �[�� v/ •,�• ,j'i i',V. EXACT LOCATION IS NOT DISCLOSED OF RECORD I rA' WE E I� S / e -4 Y ♦ V'.♦� A ` "F 3 EASEMENT FOR RATER PIPELINES ANo DIVERSION BOX iN FAVOR DF II -„.✓F) • q �`''1■'�' / A E JOHN A RONCO ET UX PER DEED RECOROKO JUI.Y 30 1948 V 960w (I�r ,w/m / /I 2270 PAGE I87 of OFFICIAL AECOPOS OF SAN BEPNAROIVO r uvT I,f.. S / .,�rxi, ' EXACT LOCATION IS HOT DISCLOSED OF PECOPO I III L -- 6� A / / O EASEMENT FOR PIPELINES IN F VCR OF THE STATE OF CAL FOP A I I "R .86 I Ili / /e , 1--'— PER DEED PEC0PDE0 MAY 6 1970 IN BOOK 7e79 PAGE 200 OF �� ` , '�Cxor.�AtiV _ 7„� , '•�1 .'b f� /�7t___ OPLITTEL RECORDS OF SAN BERN RO1H0 COUNTY .... . r•6-Z /lr/ ./6[L.✓/L�C (PLOTTED) — • rt r• I i I V /,o '� • IF Eft. V*ARr Tv.wC.AT6 F.wwcNr TO RE JTPJCT TO CJ'EO of awo TEJRw� + _5 IN`� �''� 1. / EA CM TO eE v/f ATEo rwEN...AGENT T7A,LT a RECO�•OCO AAAJ 00,ELO,E0 1 Ap—Ai4C 4.177)L l—rcsc�vnr ( I \ T• / 1 iAC7 10 9-:Hz Ali( �i�.7 ry �' / 111 a )"75 i� i9 II ^ '1. r rrCSI) f r;.Ci-1 LEGpO a I , CC-TI ) /O.,.,..IlwaT eoCi I + r' ,L.•r a,sN 40 FX STING CONTOUR }Ma Met AMA}Ma A+r2 AI,E p <ISTING SHRUB/TREE EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING RATER MAIN 1A, )< A, •µ••S'1.' Jp —M— EXIST NG EWER LINE a' Z ,O ,( !t _ — Y ST NG GAS LINE errs .7 RECTION OF FLOW rd 1 Il� II} F N 5N SURf ACE IJ7vR-IT1�tor 'r IA.�T DTI ,co r 11oe` A�y� -- 50t1AaE FEET ^-11T ■ _ �� �/!'� PROPOSED PAO ELEV 7 U7� L� o r� BUILDING SETBACK L NE EST MATED 100 TR TORN FLOW TYPICAL 9ECTTOM TTT ICAI 6ER T[.+ y 1R D.,.A+.... - ..-,1.,-� rICIXTT7 7A.M T A 2 t SL DPf .,.°o.T.c�w VICTORIA nOT 70 8 LOT A LKm TTOnnl 9 .+.( � 1 ,� U"»' .c r Pant! . a/LT r0-2.0<C11) 5N'o r/CF/ clT r J �_.l -1 y�:5,/�z UJ 0 12-1 1063 GRRNDTERREiCE,. ok - +". M E M 0 R A N D U 11 4 fMalA 4� 22795 Barton Road TO David Sawyer, Community Development Director Grand Terrace California 92324-5295 FROM Joseph Kicak, City Engineer Civic Center (714) 824 6621 DATE February 14, 1991 SUBJECT T T M 14868 Following recommendations should be considered as conditions of approval for subject tract map General Comments 13yron R Matteson M,}or 1 Victoria Street and Lot B (street within the subdivision exceed the maximum length of a single point access street, however it is my Hugh J Grant understanding that Fire Marshal approved this as temporary measures Mayor Pro Tempore with condition that temporary turn around facilities are provided Gene Carlstrom 2 Drainage from Lots 1 , 2, 3, 8 and 9 is tributary to the north, to a M Christianson privately owned parcel Provisions to accept and convey that Herman Hilkey drainage to a Council Members public right-of-way without erosion must be made Recommendations Thomas J Schwab City Manager 1 Victoria Street Current width of Victoria Street paving is approximately 20 feet and in very poor condition This street provides the only access to the proposed subdivision Portion of the run-off from the subdivision is tributary to Victoria Street and therefore must be contained within the public right-of-way of Victoria Street (a) Construct curb and gutter on the southerly side of Victoria Street, 18 feet from street centerline (b) Construct standard roadway in Victoria Street from the lip of gutter to a point 10 feet north of street centerline (Design TI=6) 2 Lot A and B (a) Dedicate to provide for 60 feet of right-of-way (b) Construct curb and gutter 18 feet from street centerline ( DIT Memo to David Sawyer February 14, 1991 Page 2 (c ) Construct standard roadway between curbs (TI=6) (d) Dedicate roadway for turn around facilities to accommodate emergency vehicles and construct roadway for that purpose, as may be required by the fire marshal (TI=6) 3 Construct standard sidewalk 4 Install ornamental street lights 5 Install sanitary sewer to serve all lots 6 Show proof of paying off the sewer assessment 7 Obtain approval from State of California, Department of Water Resources for all proposed construction within D W R R/W 8 Provide drainage study and adequate drainage facilities based on that report 9 Submit grading plan for the proposed subdivision 10 Pay all capital improvement fund fees 11 All utilities shall be underground 12 Street name(s) shall be approved by Historical Committee of the City of Grand Terrace 13 All improvements shall be designed by owner' s civil engineer to the specifications of the City JK/ct �i __ 'P.,,,,,.e.� l,,r 1n,yr ...«. .vt—=.r.....+...+r-.A r,<.-' ..... rxxx.�..'i��-_.J IT C_ _ I- ( _ I ti 1 r ,;1 >E^1r Y ------ --- ' '3) =-c. ,'1`2." ,c i 1 .J(-,r] 0 cJ ✓ r _ ` ` _, _ 1 n I i1 r cto cE C � z Lo st , ui _ '_-`JCL:}.." ' ` r SIG ? rLJ J- F=4 c--0 c.Y \w IC 111 / / 0 SIGNED D\;C RECAFQ{ 4S 472 SCNb h1lATi 1 AND s INTACT POLY PAK i.5,, SETA .T�'4'i ----- PAR1 3 WILL 5E RETUkNcD WITH REPO EXHIr: IT D TOPCSTRY AND Fin_ {tti 1DEN DEPARIMEN - OUNTY OF SAN BCRNAPDINO I,,, Prot(ctlon f'lnnntn3 Sotvl<cr+ County c,otc t In(nt Carter OFFICE OF PUBLIC S' (MN' 385 No Arrov.hc+od Avcnue I I„t Floor Scn Bernardino CA 9215 01.66 rLOYU TlL`WLLL Dlccctor (714) 387 4212 387 4219 \\\I lit _ y� '7 i�-' ✓ �h -�s �` T 4.— � \\\t.„{j, EMERGENCY SERVICES •�S:j1T.�• ��5�::;�?,.�e�;�:;�:�.�';ir.; :r;; r.axmmws...m.g.a1=_-- �,5.� ',:.'.�''.tC. +t..,r!..•. / \\\ � .-........—` •�f �T+���iJ'r•.x ti:•. :rn.•:.�:-.r,.ah.•�•d �Y.,.^�1Grn. r�s3..•�`S�C .' ,\ No\,embcr 6, 1990 ita.0 rt,r ,+f„ t� 014-y of Crar _. ;r,.,_af:e rk "" ' 22795 Balton Road Grand Terrace, Ca 92324-5295 I. , t" +" T Attention David R Sawyer Community Development Director Ay7,,,rt Re TTM 90-04/TR 14868 tic"- Tony Petta PM w 1— , I have Lcviewc-.d the revised tentative tract map for the ,, , , above project This plan does not comply with the fire ,,, _, r,L department conditions sent to the applicant on September 14 , 1990. The proposed plan is not in compliance with the Ic 1, ,, u following fire department conditions: it,It •' u' "F-6 Prior to final inspect or occupany the ltfl ` t`J development and each phase thereof whall have two ( 2) points "' " of vehicular access for fire and other emergency equipment, and for routes of escape which will safely handle evacuations t ,I, ' I " ' as required in the development code. " }< ''" 1Al AI" V11" "F-8 . Prior to final inspection or occupancy a turn- around shall be provided at the end of each roadway, one- rsrt'<'n` hundred and fifty (150 ) feet or more in length and shall be , Iv v;• Art approved by the Fire Department Cul-de-sac length shall not ona<,v^i' exceed six-hundred feet except as identified in the c,,4 c l development code and approved by the chief. " (' t• 'I H' Tentative Tiact 14483 to the north of this project was unable to get easements needed to continue Vicotria Street to Arliss which would open the access to this project at both I ,,,,, (-ttc./µ. ends. This creates a cul-de-sac over 600 feet for this k (1r,, � ,71 project Another area of concern is the driveways for lots 10 and 11 There must be a turnaround for any driveways over ti,,,,n� v,y4+ LEI 150 feet. ;umm,c Valli y The project is not acceptable as now proposed. Y r 'I S eLely, a. L. ly Ii 4✓ L. l.) (Lot, lure, V�It t -'� N O V 0 71990 rnylee J es, in Fire Prot ction Planning Officer (t , ' i c c cP - 4#nt I rit 't f u wn ' t<< I 1=0RES ERN AND FIRE ,;.,A_ DEN DEPARTMENT ,..AUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO i Ire Protection Plann1n9 Set rices - County Government Center OrrICE Of PUBLIC SAFETY 3ci5 No Arrowhead Avenue I irst floor • San Bernardino CA 92415 0186 IZOYD TIDWI I I, Director (111) 387-4212 387-4213 A I I l:DRISCOLC'Chte ., '.. , . .. , u • ����tllll�1i/ , . ,. .�; : . • r. :�7 v•.►„c v:.is:� � 7 3�1 .y., -.3:'• f;�a, ��� : /j, J.. , ��:� �;�,: ( , EMERGENCY SERVICES . ... ,:> 7 , s'.,.; . . • . _ , ►,rt . -'2� :.• �� _ r , •SHERIFF . . .. { 9- ( L--( -5 0 I Date To ---A_ �� e The following cir ed conditions apply to your project. Fire Department Reference Number T-riv\ ( Q-0'-1 -1 The above referenced project is protected by the San Bernardino County Forestry and Fire Warden Department. _ Prior to any construction occurring on any parcel, the applicant shall contact the Fire Department for verification of current Fire Protection requirements. 01/0 All new construction shall comply with the existing Unifoilu Fire Code Requirements and all applicable , _ statues, codes, ordinances, or standards of the Fire Department. - F-3 The street address shall be posted with a minimum of four ( 4) inch numbers, visible from the street and during the hours of darkness the numbers shall be low voltage internally electrically illuminated. Posted numbers shall contrast with their background L . and be legible from the street in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code. Where building set backs exceed - 100 feet from the roadway, additional contrasting four ( 4) inch numbers shall be displayed at the property access entrance. -4 Prior to final inspection or occupancy each chimney used in conjunction with any fireplace or any heating appliance in which solid or liquid fuel is used shall be maintained with an approved spark arrester as identified in the Uniform Fire Code.P-5 Prior to any construction occurring, all flammable vegetation shall be removed from each building site a minimum distance of thirty (30) feet from any flammable building material, including a finished structure. -6 Prior to final inspection or occupancy the development and each phase thereof shall have two (2) points of vehicular access for fire and other emergency equipment, and for routes of escape which will safely handle evacuations as required in the development code F-7 Prior to final inspection or occupancy, private roadways which exceed one-hundred and fifty (150 ) feet in length shall be approved by the Fire Department having jurisdiction, and shall be extended to within one hundred and fifty (150) feet of, and shall give reasonable access to all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building. An access road shall be provided within fifty ( 50 ) feet of all buildings if the natural grade between the access road and the building is in excess of thirty percent (30) . Where the access roadway cannot be provided, an approved fire protection system or systems shall be provided, as required and approved by the Fire Department. '-8 Prior to final inspection or occupancy a turn-around shall be provided at the end of each roadway, one- hundred and fifty (150) feet or more in length and shall be approved by the Fire Department. Cul-de-sac length shall not exceed six-hundred ( 600) feet except as identified in the development code and approved by the chief. F-9 Private road maintenance, including but not limited to grading and snow removal, shall be provided for prior to recordation or approval. Written documentation shall be submitted to the Fire Department having jurisdiction. Private fire access roads shall provide an all weather surface with minimum paving width of twenty (20) feet. 10 Water systems designed to meet the required fire flow of this development shall be approved by the Fire Department having jurisdiction. The developer shall furnish the Fire Department with two copies of the water system improvement plan for approval and a letter from the Water Purveyor stating the availability of the required fire flow prior to recordation. Water systems shall be operational and approved by the Fire Department prior to any construction occurring. The required fire flow shall be determined by appropriate calculations, using the San Bernardino County "Guide for the Determination of Required Fire Flow." In areas without water-serving utilities, the fire protection water system shall be based on NFPA pamphlet number 1231 and Uniform fire Code requirements. F-3 0 MS-IL3 THROUGH IL5 Water systems designed to meet the required fire flow shall be operational and approved by the Fire Department prior to any construction occurring. The required fire flow shall be determined by appropriate calculations, using the San Bernardino County "Guide For The DeteLiuination of Required Fire Flow" In areas without water-serving utilities, or fire protection water serving utilities, the fire protection water system shall be based on N.F P.A. Pamphlet Number 1231 and the San Bernardino County Uniform Fire Code. F-11 Prior to Building penuits being issued approved fire hydrants and fire hydrant pavement markers shall be installed. Fire hydrants shall be 6" diameter with a minimum one 4" and one 2 1/2" connection. The hydrant and, fire hydrant markers shall be approved by Fire Department. All fire hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet with the exception of single family residential which may be increased to 600 feet maximum. F-12 Prior to final inspection or occupancy this development shall comply with Fire Safety overlay conditions as adopted in County Ordinance Number 3341. The development is located in Fire Review Area_ F-13 Prior to issuance of a building permit a fuel modification zone in compliance with county standards is required. F-14 Prior to final inspection or occupancy, an approved Fire Department key box is required. If automatic electric security gates are used an approved lock switch is required on each gate in lieu of the box. Questions and/or conuuents may be directed to the Fire Protection Planning Section; County Government Center, 385 North Arrowhead, 1st Floor, San Bernardino, California, 92415-0186; or call (714) 387-4225. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, DAVID J. DRISCOLL, Chief C ty Fire Warden By Fire Pro ectiq Planning Officer c: pL1 NNiNG- REG'D AUG 27 1990 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (Nis COMPANY 1981 LUGONIA AVENUE REDLANDS CALIFORNIA MAILING ADDRESS BOX 3003 REDLANDS CALIFORNIA 92373 9982 August 23 1990 (,ity ot brand Terrace community Development Director 22795 Barton Road brand Terrace (,A 92324-5295 A [TEN T IUN David R Sawyer SUBJtcl File No lTM- i0-04 E-90-07 the division and development ot File No TTM-90-U4 E-90-UI will interfere with the free and complete exercise of Southern California bas company ' s pipeline easement Southern (,alifornia bas company operates and maintains facilities within the bounds of the subject area Southern California bas company therefore must object to the recordation of File No rTM-9U-04 E-90-07 until more detailed plans are available and satisfactory arrangements can be made with the petitioner Please contact Mr Roger Baughman for arrangements at ( 774 ) 335- 7970 quomSincere- ,' en Soverns , Technical Supervisor KbS pat F X HIRI I P PLP r 'f I\J REC' J 1-1 U U ! i9�r1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8 P 0 BOX 231 SAN BERNARDINO CALIFORNIA 92402 �y TDD (714) 383 4609 August 23 , 1990 08-SBd-215-1 3 Mr David R Sawyer Planning Department City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92324-5295 Dear Mr Sawyer Tentative Tract Map 90-04 in the City of Grand Terrace Although the traffic generated by this proposal does not appear to have a significant effect on the state highway system, consideration must be given to the cumulative effect of continued development in this area Any measures necessary to mitigate the cumulative impact of traffic are to be considered If you have any questions, please contact Tom Meyers at (714) 383-6908 or FAX (714) 383-4936 Very truly yours, 04 // HARVEY J SAWYER Chief, Transportation Planning Branch B EXHIBIT F �o�f��� RE C'D Ra U�, 22 1 9 9 r 5 .� 1450 Washington Stied •• Colton, California 92324 •• (714) 825-4128 r �. SErIv�1G .,,y August21 , 1990 City of Grand:Terrace 22795 Barton Rd Grand Terrace, Ca 92324-5295 DAVID SAWYER Community Development Director RE North west corner of Victoria and Barton TTM-90-04 Tentative Tract #14868 Dear David, Riverside Highland Water Company has a 10" steel water main in Victoria Street Lot 6 of this tract seems to have a slope on top of that water main This could be a problem when the grading is done To meet fire flows in this tract the water main will need to be extended north of the tract to Arliss then west on Arliss to Preston St Maybe the developers of tract 14483 and 14868 could work on this problem together Thank You Sincerely, Rich Haubert Distribution Superintendent RH/kb AYH—II1-1IT C' „DE-co_ o Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District m U a co 2023 CHICAGO AVENUE B14 • RIVERSIDE CALIFORNIA 92507 • PHONE(714)683 7691 NSER� T\O August 27, 1990 Dear City of Grand Terrace, We acknowledge receipt of the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for TTM-90-04, E-90-07 in San Bernardino County, California that was addressed to the USDA, Soil Conservation Service and the Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District on August 23, 1990 for review and comment We have reviewed the above Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and find that 1 There are no controversial items in the report within the realm of the Soil Conservation Service's expertise and responsibilities a. We do not find any senous potential problems with soil erosion and/or flooding within the project area. b There is no Prune, State, Unique or Locally Important Farmland involved in the project area c We find no conflict with any SCS on-going or planned programs or projects �2 We find that the items listed below should be reviewed by your committee In review of the above application, we recommend an erosion control plan be included in overall plan to address wind and water erosion both during and after construction We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this proposed project. Sincerely, STANLEY COOT.FY Vice-President FXHIBIT H P OFFICE OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS ��� L ) �q �\ ' ,,, ��I I/� COUNTY OF SAN BERNARD � 'fi •:.�t. "' RY#+ ":� Mx"�rr' a sas=. < rw, i,..•{; \ :1 /��J COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE 01 4tk a� - tM.:.. ,U;�!�.p�t r,l.'i;F i4;'e..�:.VI,y v" . _ 'r ; _ `. G. ^+:i!L� i•.I � r^ r�'r',r�i�+C�`X%tC`�y.LVA'.+"�.a�.�`,'L'�v 157 West Fifth Street • San Bernardino CA 92415 0450 (714) 387 5940 !� �� Telocopier • (714) 387 5968 /%//I \\\\ VERNON G KNOUREK / /I \ AssistaantntAAddministrative Off' for Special Districts September 5, 1990 David Sawyer Community Development Director City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92324-5295 RE: TTM-90-04 IN RE COUNTY SERVICE AREA 70 , IMPROVEMENT ZONE H, ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1, ASSESSOR' S PARCEL NO. 276-411-02 , ASSESSMENT NO. 10-021 Dear Mr Sawyer Our records indicate the above referenced project, as identified by Assessor's Parcel No 276-411-02 , lies within County Service Area 70, Improvement Zone H, Assessment District No 1, has an unpaid special assessment levied against it Government Code Section 66493 (d) the owner of the par el uthat is being subdivided is required to cause the special assessment to be apportioned to the resulting parcels In the alternative the owner may wish to prepay the assessment Therefore, prior to recordation of the Final Map, proof of assessment apportionment or proof of assessment prepayment must be submitted to this agency Please contact me at (714) 387-5829 if you have any questions Ve ly ours R VON WALD Staff Analyst Development Services Division Office of Special Districts a grndtrce ltr/5 EXHIBIT I , t RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TTM-90-04 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14868) AND ITS ASSOCIATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE WHEREAS, the applicant, Mr Tony Petta has applied for approval of a tentative tract map, (Exhibit A) subdividing 3 17 acres into 10 residential lots located at the northwest corner of Victoria Avenue and Barton Road (APN# 276-411-02), and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project per Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (Exhibit B) and said Negative Declaration has been considered by the Planning Commission per Section 15074(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on November 06, 1990, regarding this application and continued indefinitely by the applicant, and, WHEREAS, the applicant in compliance with Section 66452 1 of the Subdivision Map Act, waived the fifty (50) day period requiring action by the appropriate advisory agency, and, WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on December 04, 1990, regarding this application, and, WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on February 21, 1991, regarding this application, and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace, California, that the following findings have been made 1 That the site is physically suitable for the proposed type of development, 2 That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development, 3 That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, ATTACHMENT B 4 That the design of the subdivision or type of proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems or cause threat to life and property from a wildland conflagration, 5 That the proposed subdivision together with the provisions for its design and improvements are consistent with the General Plan 6 That the proposed subdivision, its design and density conform to the conditions imposed by this chapter, the regulations of the Development Code, and the regulations of the City of Grand Terrace NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace, California, that TTM-90-04 (Exhibit A) and the aforementioned Negative Declaration (Exhibit B) are hereby recommended to the City Council for approval subject to the following conditions 1 Individual lots shall be subject to Site and Architectural Review 2 The subject property shall be dedicated to the City in order to be annexed to the City's existing Lighting and Landscaping District 3 The Final Tract shall be consistent with California Aqueduct, Riverside Irrigation District and other legal easements 4 All conditions as recommended by the City Engineer's Department in their recommendations dated February 15, 1991 (Attachment B's Exhibit C) 5 All conditions as recommended by the Forestry and Fire Warden Department in their Memorandum dated February 1, 1991 (Attachment B's Exhibit D) 6 All conditions as recommended by the Southern California Gas Company in their letter dated August 23, 1990 and August 30, 1990 (Attachment B's Exhibit E) 7 All conditions as recommended by the State of California - Department of Transportation in their letter dated August 23, 1990 (Attachment B's Exhibit F) 8 All conditions as recommended by the Riverside Highland Water in their letter dated August 21, 1990 (Attachment B's Exhibit G) 9 All conditions as recommended by the Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District in their letter dated August 27, 1990 (Attachment B's Exhibit H) Submittal of an erosion control plan for approval 10 All conditions as recommended by the County of San Bernardino - Office of Special Districts in their letter dated September 5, 1990 (Attachment B's Exhibit I) 11 The area containing the proposed slope in Lots 6 and 10 facing Barton Road shall be offered for dedication to the City for the purpose of inclusion in the City's Lighting and Landscaping District 12 Preservation of the large pepper tree in the northwest corner of Lot 8, if feasible 13 Victoria Street shall be widened to its fullest extent, whether dedicated or not, north of the center line all the way from Preston Avenue to the development PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Grand Terrace, California, at a regular meeting held the 21st day of February, 1991 by the following vote AYES 5 - Vice-Chairman Buchanan, Commissioners Hargrave, Munson, Van Gelder and Wright NOES 0 ABSENT 1 - Chairman Hawkinson ABSTAIN 1 - Commissioner Sims Dan Buchanan, Vice-Chairman Planning Commission ATIEST Brenda Stanfill, Deputy City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM John Harper, City Attorney GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 21, 1991 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 February 21, 1991 at 7 00 p m by Vice-Chairman Dan Buchanan PRESENT Dan Buchanan, Vice-Chairman Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner Ron Wright, Commissioner David R Sawyer, Community Development Director Maggie Barder, Planning Secretary ABSENT Jerry Hawkinson, Chairman PLEDGE Dan Buchanan, Vice-Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6 30 P M Information from staff to Planning Commissioners Information from Planning Commissioners to staff PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7 00 P M PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7 00 P M PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None 1 ATTACHMENT f ITEM #4 1TM-90-04, E-90-07 I'ONY PETTA NORTHWEST CORNER OF VICTORIA AND BARTON GT AN APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 3 17 ACRE, R1- 10 PARCEL INTO 10 RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF 10,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM, AN APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF TTM-90-04 The Community Development Director presented the staff report Commissioner Sims stated that he would be abstaining from the vote on this item Vice-Chairman Buchanan stated that at the end of Victoria at Preston, the visibility is obscured and asked if there was something that could be done about it The Community Development Director stated that this property has been subject to nuisance abatement proceedings in the last few months and has been cleaned up drastically in the last two weeks He stated that staff would follow up and make sure the sight distance is appropriate 8 54 P M OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Vice-Chairman Buchanan called up the applicant TONY PETTA 11875 ETON DRIVE GT Mr Petta stated that he and his engineer made every attempt to meet the ordinance and code requirements BARBARA PFENNIGHAUSEN 22111 LADERA STREET GT Ms Pfennighausen stated that she was neither opposed nor supported the project She felt it would enhance the City, but her concern was from the Preston Street/Victoria Street aspect She said she was under the understanding that Victoria Street was going to be improved to its full width so that it would flow 11 1 he Community Development Director stated that the Engineer's requirements at this point will be the standard curb and gutter requirement, 18' south of centerline for Victoria Street and 10' north of centerline He said that when the other properties develop in any way, they will be required to add the additional 8' of paving and construct curb and gutter and dedicate the additional 12' for the parkway ELIZABETH KENNEDY 11831 PRESTON GT Ms Kennedy stated that she has a property line in common with Lot 1, and the south property line was incorrectly located on the map She felt none of her concerns regarding the true, existing contours of the land, the proposed grading, the lot elevation and the resulting banks on the west side have been addressed She expressed concern that the pad elevations on this map create or allow 10' embankments along the west property line, and assuming that the contour lines are correct, elevations of Lots 1 - 5 will be raised as much as 11' above their current elevations She said that Lot 1 has a proposed increase of elevation from 4-6', Lot 2 8-10', Lot 3 11', Lot 4 9', and Lot 5 3-5' She said it appeared that some of these lots will require banks with slopes greater than a 2 1 ratio with these elevation changes She pointed out that Lots 1-4 will be raised 2-3' above their current, highest elevations She said there appears to be a 6' difference in elevation along the north side of Lot 1 with no bank represented to account for a 2' difference between this property and the 4' bank shown on the adjoining property tract map to the north She said that how these properties are graded affects decisions for uses of her rear yard and on where to locate their home on their property She said that the proposed increases in elevations for Lots 1-5 along with 35' high structures constructed 10'-15' apart will affect the amount of natural morning light available to properties adjacent to the west and north of this proposed tract She said that drainage for the proposed tract currently flows not only to the north, but it would seem from the existing contours as drawn on the map, it drains to the west to private property along Preston Street and along Victoria Street She said the proposed changes in elevation will increase the drainage to the west and erosion caused by surface and underground drainage from these banks could undermine and jeopardize the integrity of the existing 10' to 4' bank and planned retaining wall, as required by the City on her property She stated that her comments regarding the street lighting and utilities apply to this project Mr Petta stated that he didn't understand the problem Vice-Chairman Buchanan stated that the neighbors are looking at the contour 12 lines and comparing it with the planned pad elevations and are noting that it appears the pad elevations are going to be significantly higher than the existing topography Mr Petta stated that his lot is probably no different than Ms Kennedy's lot, as her lot has high banks with respect to neighbors He asked Mr Addington, an engineer, to advise him Mr Petta stated that from Mr Addington's point of view, his pad is approximately the same elevation as Ms Kennedy's pad ELIZABETH KENNEDY 11831 PRESTON STREET GT Ms Kennedy stated that the proposed pad elevation of Lot 1 is to be 4' higher than her current lot, which is now level with Mr Petta's lot She said that he is speaking of a corner which is 38 73' long, which her property borders She said that their property is level for about 6' of this She said that her bank is 10' tall, however, in her discussion with the City, it has been indicated that she will be required to put in a retaining wall along that bank as it exceeds the 2 1 requirement TONY PETTA 11875 ETON DRIVE GT Mr Petta assured the commissioners and Ms Kennedy that they will meet whatever requirement the City Engineer has to protect the neighboring properties 9 15 P M CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Vice-Chairman Buchanan brought the item back to the commission Commissioner Van Gelder asked how Victoria Street would be striped The Community Development Director stated that this would be up to the Engineering Department Commissioner Hargrave asked about the street width of Victoria Street The Community Development Director stated that there would be 18' of pavement on the south side and 10' on the north side, and noinially you would have 18' on each side He said the minimum safety requirement of the Engineer would be 28' for two-way traffic 13 BILL ADDINGTON 12055 WESTWOOD LANE GT Mr Addington stated that when you have property being built on one side of the street, it is customary to get the 18' to centerline and additional 10' so that you have two lanes and parking He said they would be giving up parking next to the curb on the north side of the street, 6' of paving and 2' of gutter Commissioner Hargrave asked, with regard to the slopes on the west side, if there are problems after the initial grading, if perhaps individual Site and Architectural Review will be a time to address the drainage The Community Development Director stated that Condition 8 of the City Engineer's report states that the applicant shall provide a drainage study Commissioner Munson stated that the Negative Declaration states that the parcel will be divided into 11 residential lots The Community Development Director stated that they will make this correction, as this was the Negative Declaration that was filed and dated previously He said that they have actually mitigated some of the concerns in the Negative Declaration by reducing down to 10 Commissioner Wright stated that between the two tracts, there should be some importation of dirt, and if there is considerable truck activity in the area, special attention should be given to that He expressed interest in alternative lighting standards MOTION PCM-91-31 TTM-90-04, E-90-07 Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to add to Condition 9 that the City of Grand Terrace is notified at the same time and provided with plans as is the Riverside-Corona Resource Conversation District Commissioner Van Gelder second MOTION VOTE PCM-91-31 Motion carries 5-0-1-1 Chairman Hawkinson absent Commissioner Sims abstained 14 MOTION PCM-91-32 1TM-90-04, E-90-07 Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to add to Condition 2 that the City Engineer is asked to consider alternative street lighting with a focus toward a more rural atmosphere if possible The Community Development Director stated they are actually changing the City Engineer's recommended Condition 4 Commissioner Hargrave concurred Vice-Chairman Buchanan second MOTION VOTE PCM-91-32 Motion carries 5-0-1-1 Chairman Hawkinson absent Commissioner Sims abstained Vice-Chairman Buchanan asked for guidance regarding preservation, where feasible, of mature and healthy trees The Community Development Director asked for specific trees Vice-Chairman Buchanan stated that at the junction of the northeast corner of Lots 8 and 9 there is a large Pepper Tree MOTION PCM-91-33 TTM-90-04, E-90-07 Vice-Chairman Buchanan made a motion to add as Condition 12 that the large Pepper Tree at the northeast corner of proposed Lot 8 be preserved if feasible Commissioner Hargrave second MOTION VOTE PCM-91-33 Motion carries 5-0-1-1 Chaunian Hawkinson absent Commissioner Sims abstained Commissioner Hargrave asked where the condition for the difference in 8' of 15 curbing be put in Vice-Chairman Buchanan asked if it would be possible to require the improvement to the north of centerline to the extent that the property has been dedicated to the City The Community Development Director stated that it could be a condition, but they could add, "Be it further resolved" that the Planning Commission feels it appropriate that Victoria Street be widened to its fullest extent north of centerline all the way from Preston Street to the development, and would recommend that Council consider this as a requirement MOTION PCM-91-34 TTM-90-04, E-90-07 Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to add as Condition 13 to extend the dedication to its fullest amount whether or not dedication is presently there or not Commissioner Van Gelder second Commissioner Wright asked who foots the bill if they go north The Community Development Director stated that they can't require the developer to do it He said it is up to the Council to make it a condition or not, and they will have to consider who will be responsible for doing it, and legally he doesn't feel they have the basis to require him to do more than the 10', which the City Engineer said would be safe MOTION VOTE PCM-91-34 Motion carries 5-0-1-1 Chairman Hawkinson absent Commissioner Sims abstained Commissioner Wright felt that if alternative lighting is used, it would seem logical that the same form of lighting be applied in both projects MOTION PCM-91-35 TTM-90-04, E-90-07 Commissioner Munson made a motion to adopt the attached resolution recommending that City Council approve TTM-90-04 and its associated 16 Negative Declaration, E-90-07 subject to the conditions contained herein and added Commissioner Van Gelder second MOTION VOTE PCM-91-35 Motion carries 5-0-1-1 Chairman Hawkinson absent Commissioner Sims abstained ITEM #5 TPM-87-03R1 WILLIS AND OPAL COOK 11917 ROSEDALE GT AN APPLICATION TO SUBDIVIDE A 3 23 ACRE LOT IN THE R1-20 DISTRICT INTO TWO PARCELS Vice-Chairman Buchanan stated that this item has been requested to be continued The Community Development Director stated that staff recommends that this item be continued to the March 7, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting MOTION PCM-91-36 TPM-87-03R1 Vice-Chairman Buchanan made a motion to continue TPM-87-03R1 to the March 7, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Sims second MOTION VOTE PCM-91-36 Motion carries 6-0-1-0 Chairman Hawkinson absent 17 DATE March 21 , 1991 STAFF REPORT CR-, ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM ( XX ) MEETING DATE Mar 28 , 1991 SUBJECT RECYCLING AGREEMENT FUNDING REQUIRED NO FUNDING REQUIRED XX At the City Council meeting of February 21 , 1991 , staff presented a proposal from B F I /Loma Linda Disposal to provide City-wide , curb- side recycling services A public hearing was held and input was received both in favor of and against the proposal The City Council , upon hearing discussion from citizens , as well as a request from Western Waste , directed staff to issue a Request for Proposal ( Attachment 1 ) The Request for Proposal ( R F P ) was sent to Joe Avakian Manager Jack ' s Disposal Cal Disposal P 0 Box 141 26009 E 6th Street San Bernardino , CA 92401 San Bernardino , CA 92410 Mike Arreguin Rick Chiton Edco Disposal BFI /Loma Linda Disposal P 0 Box 1100 P 0 Box 818 Fontana , CA 92334 Loma Linda , CA 92354 Manager Western Waste Systems 800 S Pemescal Corona , CA 91719 B F I indicated that they would submit a proposal similar to the one made on 2/21 /91 ( Attachment 2 ) Jack ' s Disposal indicated that they were not interested in submitting a proposal since they do not provide residential refuse service to Grand Terrace The City has received no other inquiries by phone or correspondence from any of the other companies solicited A suggestion had been made at the Public Hearing that we should wait for the outcome of the City of Grand Terrace ' s Source Reduction and Recycling Element ( S R R E - Attachment 3 ) , currently in its draft form Attachment 3 is the only section that deals with the recycling element The entire S R R E draft is available for review in the City Manager ' s office Also attached as attachment 4 is the draft of the City of Grand COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM# C� STAFF REPORT - - RECYCLING AGREEMENT 3/28/91 Page 2 Terrace ' s Goals and Objectives , Source Reduction and Recycling Element AB 939 Of the nine cities that are working together with Emcon Associates to develop their respective S R R E ' s , each has identified curb-side recycling as a key element in waste stream reduction The SRRE also identifies other major components to meet the State mandated reduction of the waste _ stream These include potential curbside compost pickup , material recovery facilities , landfill transfer stations , as well as other means to meet our waste stream reduction goals of 25% by 1995 and 50% by the year 2 , 000 The City has requested , in our R F P , that the contractor bid a price with the City receiving 100% of the revenue from the recycled materials and a price with the revenue of the recycled materials divided equally between the City and contractor B F I /Loma Linda Disposal bid the requested price , but also submitted a bid which includes the price if the contractor receives 100% of the profits of the recyclable materials B F I has bid the following rates for recycling They also propose a 10% discount for senior citizens This would increase the monthly refuse rates as follows Material Recycling Senior Revenue Base Rate Base Rate Increase Increase 100% City $ 1 94 84¢ 50% City 50% Contractor $ 1 55 45¢ 100% Contractor $ 1 15 05d It appears that the primary concerns of the City Council , and the individuals that came forward were 1 The cost of providing recycling services 2 The impact of the proposal on those individuals who currently undertake comprehensive recycling on their own Council has studied this issue and has reduced the initial proposed cost of $ 1 94 per month by 41 % , which addresses the issue of cost Staff feels that the $ 1 15 increase is a fair price to pay to be environmentally responsible To address the concern of those individuals who currently undertake comprehensive recycling on their own , staff requests that the City Council provide an exemption similar to the one stated in the Refuse Collection Agreement STAFF REPORT -- RECYCLING AGREEMENT 3/28/91 Page 3 Staff would , therefore , recommend that Council consider the third alternative in the proposal in which the contractor receives 100% of the profits from the recycled materials This would result in a net monthly increase to the single-family homeowner of $ 1 15 , with a discounted senior citizen rate increase of 05¢ per month The City of Grand Terrace , as well as all cities within the State of California , are recognizing the impending crisis that we are creating by the throw-away lifestyle that we currently live The State of California , with the passage of Assembly Bill 939 , creates a mandate to reduce our waste stream by 25% by 1995 and 50% by the year 2 , 000 We have identified , in our S R R E , that curb-side recycling is a primary component in the reduction of our waste stream lie also realize that other programs will have to be implemented to compliment curb-side recycling in order to reach our mandated goals If this proposal is accepted , recycling services would be provided to all single-family homeowners currently being served by B F I /Loma Linda Disposal This would not include property owners with 20 , 000 square feet parcels or greater , individuals -_ that were granted special circumstance exemptions from the Refuse Collection Agreement , or property owners receiving refuse service from any hauler other than B F I /Loma Linda Disposal STAFF RECOMMENDS 1 COUNCIL IMPLEMENT THE FIRST STEP TOWARDS ACHEIVING OUR MANDATED WASTE STREAM REDUCTION , AND ACCEPT THE PROPOSAL FROM B F I /LOMA LINDA DISPOSAL TO PROVIDE BI -MONTHLY , CURB-SIDE COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS 2 COUNCIL ACCEPT THE THIRD ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED BY B F I , WITH THE CONTRACTOR RECEIVING 100% OF THE REVENUE FROM THE RECYCLED MATERIALS THIS WOULD RESULT IN A NET INCREASE TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOMEOWNERS OF $ 1 15 PER MONTH AND 05¢ INCREASE PER MONTH TO SENIOR CITIZENS 60 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER 3 STAFF PROVIDE A PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT TO ALLOW SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE EXEMPTIONS , SIMILAR TO THE ONES ALLOWED FOR REFUSE COLLECTION 4 AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE CONTRACT FOR THE COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS WITH B F I /LOMA LINDA DISPOSAL STAFF REPORT - - RECYCLING AGREEMENT 3/28/91 Page 4 5 COUNCIL ADOPT THE ATTACHED RECYCLING RTE(ATTACHMENT 6 ) TO IMPLEMENT THE RATE ADJUSTMENT RWENUTIHE H CURBSIDE RECYCLING PROGRAM IS IMPLEMENTED HEN THE TS yjm Attachments ( 6 ) ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL CURBSIDE , CITY-WIDE RECYCLING PROGRAM FEBRUARY 28 , 1991 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE IS ISSUING A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE CURBSIDE , CITY-WIDE RECYCLING THE DUE DATE FOR SUBMISSION OF THIS PROPOSAL IS MARCH 19 , 1991 BY 5 00 P M 1 Description The City desires to implement a bi -monthly curbside recycling program to its approximately 3 , 000 single-family residential homes The City seeks to utilize a one-bin system , consisting of an 18 gallon or similar bin that will allot' for the collection of newspapers , glass , aluminum cans , tin cans , plastic bottles ( H D P E and P E T ) , and waste motor oil 2 Vehicle Requirements Contractor shall provide a commercially designed vehicle with segregated bins for each commodity , as well as a vehicle mounted tank that is capable of storing the waste oil 3 Collection Contractor must collect the mixed materials on the same day that is designated for normal refuse collection service for residential units This must be coordinated t' ith our franchised refuse hauler and must be done between the hours of 6 00 a m and 5 00 p m 4 Recycling Education Contractor is responsible for providing a City-wide recycling education program using the media , paid advertising , school programs , etc This written program would include quarterly updates with material totals to be the City Council and citizens of Grand Terrace Please show education and marketing plan 5 Commodities Marketing Contractor would be responsible for marketing the material Include plans for providing end markets for the recovered material 6 Rates for Collection The proposal must specify what the rate structure will be and how that rate structure was derived , as well as any discounts that would be offered to senior citizens The proposed rates should be broken down to reflect a rate if the City retains any proceeds of the sale of recycled commodities and a rate if the proceeds of the sales of the commodities are split with the Contractor 50/50 Contractor must bill the residential customer directly with a minimum of quarterly billing Such billing shall also include a return envelope for payment by the residential customer Request for Proposal February 28 , 1991 Page Two 7 Insurance Contractor shall , at all times during the term of this Agreement , maintain in full force and effect Employer ' s Workman ' s Compensation , Public Liability , and Property Damage Insurance All insurance shall be by 110 insurers and for policy limits acceptable to City , and before commencement of work hereunder Contractor agrees to furnish City certificates of insurance or other evidence satisfactory to City to the effect that such insurance has procured and is in force The certificates shall contain the following expressed obligations " This is to certify that the policies of insurance described herein have been issued to the insured for whom this certificate is executed and are in force at this time In the event of cancellation or material change in a policy affecting the certificate holder , thirty ( 30 ) days prior written notice will be given certificate holder " For the purpose of this Agreement , Contractor shall carry 1 the following types of insurance in at least the limits - specified COVERAGES Workman ' s Compensation Statutory Employer ' s Liability $500 , 000 General Liability $2 , 500 , 000 combined including Bodily Injury single limit per and Property Damage occurence Automobile Liability $2 , 500 , 00 combined including Bodily Injury single limit per and Property Damage occurence Excess Liability $5 , 000 , 000 combined single limit per occurence To the extent permitted by law , all or any part of any required insurance coverages may be provided under a plan or plans of self- insurance coverages may be provided by Contractor ' s parent corporation Reouest for Proposal February 28 , 1991 Pace Three 8 Bond ( a ) Performance Bond Contractor will be required to furnish a corporate surety bond City will accept a surety bond currently posted for performance of any other existing Franchises or Agreements ( b ) Power of Attorney Attorney ' s - in-fact who sign performance bonds or contract bonds must file with each bond a certified and effectively dated copy of their power of 9 Term of Contract Proposal must indicate the term of the proposed contract and the proposed severability of , said contract 10 Additional Information Additional information regarding any aspects of this Request for Proposal will be provided by contacting the office of the City Manager at ( 714 ) 824-6621 All proposals must be submitted by March 19 , 1991 by 5 00 p m to the office of the Deputy City Clerk at 22795 Barton Rd , Grand Terrace , CA 92324 All proposals will be considered at the City Council meeting on March 28 , 1991 ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE RecycleNOW Proposal ISubmitted By. Browning-Ferris Industries 10412 Richardson Street Loma Linda, California 92354 March 14, 1991 Loma Linda RecycleNOW Program Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 1 0 DESCRIPTION OF WORK 1 1 Program Description 1 2 Commitment to Start Date 1 3 Hours of Operation 1 4 Types of Materials 1 5 Collection Vehicles 1 6 Containers 1 7 Public Participation 2 0 EXPERIENCE OF BFI 2 1 Overview 2 2 RecycleNOW Personnel and Staffing Levels 2 3 References 3 0 EDUCATION PROGRAM INTRODUCTION Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI) has an exciting opportunity to initiate a curbside recycling program which will help the community reduce the volume of waste entering landfills From its fifteen years of experience in collection and recycling, and its current curbside recycling service to over 200, 000 homes across the Country, BFI has designed a program for Grand Terrace which we feel will establish the state-of-the-art for residential curbside recycling BFI ' s Grand Terrace Curbside RecycleNOW Program will be unique from other programs in the following ways Full Range of Recyclables In addition to the traditional curbside materials of newspapers, cans, and glass, the BFI Grand Terrace RecycleNOW Program will recover plastics and waste oil, materials which could pollute our land and/or water if not properly disposed More Convenient Home Storage We recommend using a single 18-gallon bin If acceptable to the City, each residence will be provided with such a single appropriately sized bin in which to store all recyclable materials and place at the curbside for pick-up BFI ' s single-bin system increases program participation and discourages illegal scavenging BFI successfully uses this system in such diverse communities as Loma Linda and Pasadena, California, Blaine, Minnesota, Jacksonville, Florida, and Edmonton, Alberta Recycling Vehicles Specially Designed for Grand Terrace BFI has designed a unique vehicle for collecting recyclables from 80 , 000 homes in the San Mateo County Curbside RecycleNOW Program The 11 vehicles now servicing the County are considered among the most advanced and efficient currently operating in the Country (see photo in Appendix I) BFI commits to further advance the state-of- the-art with a vehicle specially designed to meet the needs of the Grand Terrace community Emphasis on Community Involvement BFI welcomes the opportunity to work together with the City to create a program in which every citizen can make a contribution to the natural environment We feel that the features of the BFI RecycleNOW proposal will help achieve that objective Yard Waste Recycling Options Yard waste represents approximately 30% of the residential waste stream, 10% of the total waste stream BFI will encourage Grand Terrace residents to compost their yard waste in their backyards This is the most cost effective way of reducing this waste Should yard waste ever be considered an appropriate landfill cover material, then BFI could, at some cost, pick this material up separately and deliver to the landfill 1 0 DESCRIPTION OF WORK 1 1 Program Description The Grand Terrace RecycleNOW Program will have bi-monthly collection of recyclables from participating homes throughout the community Two weeks prior to program start-up, BFI will distribute recycling container (s) to each home in Grand Terrace BFI will, at the same time, also distribute to each home any promotional literature which the City develops and desires to have distributed Residents will be encouraged to place at the curbside on a designated recycling day, recyclable materials , as outlined in Section 2 5 A truck, specially designed for the Grand Terrace RecycleNOW Program (Section 2 6) will stop at each home which has put recyclables out for pick-up The driver will sort the various types of recyclables I into different compartments on the truck Once full, the truck will be taken to where the material will be weighed and processed for Ishipment to market BFI will provide the City of Grand Terrace with detailed monthly reports on the progress , participation, and productivity of the IRecycleNOW Program 1 2 Start Date IBFI is fully capable of starting the Grand Terrace RecycleNOW Program within 90 days of the approval of the City Council I1 3 Hours of Operation Curbside recycling collection in the Grand Terrace RecycleNOW Program I will occur Monday through Friday, between the hours of 6 00 a m and 5 00 p m I1 4 Types of Materials BFI proposes to collect and recycle the following materials in the IGrand Terrace RecycleNOW Program • Newspapers • Glass • Aluminum Cans • Tin Cans • Plastic Bottles 1 • Waste Oil 1 5 Collection Vehicles 1 One (1) vehicle will be required for the Grand Terrace RecycleNOW Program The vehicle will be designed by BFI The cab and chassis will be a Peterbuilt and the body will be constructed by AMREP of Ontario, California BFI programs in CaliforniaAMREP has constructed 12 recycling vehicles for The vehicle will have compartments with 1 flexible sizes and will be equipped with side-loading bins, so as to maximize payload capacity and minimize employee injury from "pitching" heavy materials The vehicle will be equipped with a walk-in cab and dual-drive (left and right-hand drive) * Chassis Peterbuilt 6 CTA @ 210HP Allison 643 auto trans 21, 000 lb rear suspension 9 , 000 lb front suspension Rockwell S cam air brakes 11R22 5 16 ply tires 10 RH steering added by AMREP Body 1989 AMREP 30+ yard recycling body 3 compartments (movable walls) 1-50 gallon used oil tank Unit loads from RHS and dumps from the LHS Each truck will be equipped with semi-automated container tippers * or similar vehicle 1 6 Containers BFI recommends that we provide each residence with a single, (18- gallon) bin for the Grand Terrace Program The single bin has several advantages • convenient, space-saving storage • less curb clutter • lower capital outlay • capacity for bi-monthly service BFI was the first company in the U S to require its curbside recycle bins to be made with recycled material The rectangular bins for the Grand Terrace RecycleNOW Program will be made from recycled HDPE plastic, thus stimulating market demand for this recyclable material The bins will be manufactured in the Los Angeles area 1 7 Public Participation A well-designed public awareness campaign will increase participation in the curbside recycling program In other words, the Program must send the right messages and use the right methods to reach the community The messages should be simple and center around two themes which will appeal to the educated, environmentally sensitive residents of Loma Linda that curbside recycling is convenient and that recycling has environmental and economic benefits to the entire community BFI's Community Affairs Manager, Joyce Hlava, will be available to assist Grand Terrace in the design of the public awareness campaign Samples of BFI public awareness brochures are enclosed for your information 2 0 EXPERIENCE OF BFI 2 1 Overview Since the early 1970's, Browning-Ferris Industries has been solving waste management problems by participating in programs and technologies which provide efficient, economical, and environmentally-sound service to communities throughout the Country Today, BFI is a Fortune 500 company which operates collection, disposal, recycling and waste-to-energy programs in over 700 communities in the United States and 12 foreign countries In the Los Angeles area, BFI currently operates four collection companies (Gardena, Pasadena, Sun Valley, Loma Linda) , two sanitary landfills (Azusa, Sunshine Canyon) , a medical waste company (Vernon) , and a portable services company (El Monte) 1 BFI has been a nationwide leader in recycling since 1973 , when it acquired Consolidated Fibres, Inc and recycled over one million tons I of paper annually Since that time, BFI has diversified its recycling activities and offers the following programs • Residential Curbside Recycling 1 • Commercial Curbside Recycling • Office Waste Reduction Programs • Yard Waste Collection and Recycling • Waste Oil Collection and Recycling • Mixed Waste Processing Centers - The Recyclery • Buy-Back Centers I • Education Programs Today, BFI provides curbside recycling, yard waste collection, waste oil recycling, and integrated resource recovery service to over i 800, 000 homes and families nationwide These programs have been implemented under BFI' s Trademarked "RecycleNOW" name Along with references in Section 2 3 , a comprehensive listing of BFI ' s current 1 recycling activities appears on the following pages The financial strength and proven track record of BFI , combined with the cooperation and participation of the City and local residents, I will make the Grand Terrace RecycleNOW Program one of the premier curbside recycling programs in Southern California Included in the original copy of this proposal is BFI ' s most recent annual report 1 (Appendix II) Curbside Collection Material Collected NORTHEAST REGION AL GL NP PL OC Quincy, MA 28 , 000 units X Clifton Park, NY Subscription 5 , 000 units X E Greenbush, NY Subscription 1, 000 units X Glenville, NY Subscription 2 , 300 units X Guilderland, NY 1, 400 units X X Nifkayuna, NY Subscription 300 units X Rotterdam, NY Subscription 2 , 300 units X TOTAL FOR NORTHEAST REGION 40 , 300 units NORTHWEST REGION Apple Valley, MN Subscription 3 , 000 units X X X Bloomington, MN Subscription 13 , 027 units X X X Burnsville, MN Subscription 2 , 766 units X X X Eagan, MN Subscription 1, 050 units X X X Edina, MN 13 , 361 units X X X Blaine, MN 9 , 200 units X X X Edmonton, Alberta 63 , 000 units X X X I Hennepin Recycling Group (HRG) New Hope 5 , 200 units X X X Crystal 7 , 500 units X X X Brooklyn Center 9 , 300 units X X X Inver Grove, MN Subscription 1, 360 units X X X Lakeville, MN Subscription 650 units X X X Mendota Heights, MN Subscription 202 units X X X I Osseo, MN 706 units X X X Savage, MN Subscription 45 units X X X S St Paul, MN Subscription 1, 580 units X X X I St Louis Park, MN 12 , 000 units X X X X Tonka Bay, MN 1, 100 units X X X West St Paul , MN Subscription 1 , 276 units X X X ITOTAL FOR NORTHWEST REGION 146 , 323 units PACIFIC REGION I Altadena, CA Belmont, CA 14 , 000 units X X X X 6 , 163 units X X X X Burlingame, CA 6 , 417 units X X X X i Foster City, CA 6 , 092 units X X X X Glendale, CA 35 , 000 units X X X X Half Moon Bay, CA 1, 932 units X X X X Hillsborough, CA 3 , 455 units X X X X 1 Pasadena, CA 15 , 000 units X X X Redwood City, CA 15 , 482 units X X X X San Carlos, CA 8 , 081 units X X X X 1 San Mateo, CA 20 , 587 units X X X X San Mateo County, CA 7 , 513 units X X X X Loma Linda, CA 3 , 500 units X X X X ITOTAL FOR PACIFIC REGION 143 , 222 units 2 2 RecycleNOW Personnel and Staffing Levels 1 The Grand Terrace RecycleNOW Program will operate one (1) truck with one (1) operator Assuming average weekly participation levels of 1 30%, the truck and operator will spend an average of eight hours per day, three days per week Customer service representatives, support staff, and management will I operate out of BFI's Loma Linda district office, from where Loma Linda rubbish pick-up is currently serviced by BFI The following experienced BFI personnel will be responsible for planning, implementing and managing the Grand Terrace RecycleNOW Program- 1 I IDavid Little - Project Director I Mr Little has ten years of technical, administrative, and marketing experience in the field of solid waste management He has specialized in the recycling and recovery elements of the industry, with particular emphasis on glass, plastics, nonferrous metals, and I waste paper materials He has designed, implemented, and managed processing facilities for handling these commodities, and used innovative approaches to enhance public participation and expand Iindustry and governmental support for recycling efforts Mr Little was one of the original advisory board members of RecyCal I of Southern California and one of the co-founders of the Recycling Coalition of California Mr Little has testified before state legislative and municipal bodies regarding recycling issues and compliance requirements under state laws He has given presentations I to major industry groups and to recycling associations on numerous occasions I Mr Little studied at the University of Main and San Diego State University and holds a B B A , Business Administration and Finance from National University IRick Chilton - District Manager Mr Chilton is BFI ' s local manager of Loma Linda Disposal Mr I Chilton has overall responsibility for the day to day management of the district In addition to these responsibilities he will oversee the implementation of the RecycleNOW Program IMr Chilton is a graduate of the University of Arizona where he obtained his degree in Business Administration He joined BFI in Houston, spent four years in Saudi Arabia managing operations on the I Persian Gulf, and most recently as Assistant District Manager at BFI' s Los Angeles District ITBN - RecycleNOW Project Supervisor The RecycleNOW Project Supervisor will be responsible for all day-to- 1 day operations of the RecycleNOW Program As such, he/she will be a key BFI representative working with the City' s Recycling Coordinator on all operational aspects of the program I The Project Supervisor will provide input to the program planning process and will be responsible for hiring program employees IJoyce Hlava - Community Affairs Manager Joyce Hlava is responsible for ensuring that BFI projects are developed in accord with the needs and desires of the communities in which BFI operates Ms Hlava is a former Mayor and Council member in the City of Saratoga In that capacity, she served on the Santa Clara County Intergovernmental Council Sold Waste Committee, on the County Transportation Commission, and as a Planning Commissioner in the City of Saratoga and has been active in community organizations such as the League of Women Votes, American Association of University Women, and her local homeowner's association For five years, Ms Hlava was Vice President of Corporate Communications at a Cupertino electronics firm, having primary responsibility for public relations and advertising She worked for two years as a policy analyst on the staff of the San Jose Vice Mayor Ms Hlava is a graduate of the University of Michigan, the CORO Foundation Training Program in Public Affairs, and the Federal Government Management Intern Training Program 2 3 References San Mateo County, CA 76 , 000 homes Mary Griffin, President Richard DeLong Board of Supervisors City Manager San Mateo County, CA San Mateo, CA I415/363-4571 415/377-3300 Mike Garvey Ross Hubbard I City Manager City Manager San Carlos , CA Atherton, CA 415/593-8011 415/325-4457 IPasadena, CA 2 , 000 homes Joe Delaney I Recycling Coordinator } City of Pasadena if, 818/405-4500 IGainsville, FL 6 , 500 homes Phil Smith 904/374-2239 I or Carl Smith 904/374-2215 IFranklin Lakes, NJ 3 , 000 homes Frank DeRosa 201/891-0048 ILafayette Parish, LA 5, 000 homes Mayor - Bobby Guidry 318/233-1130 IMayor - Lewis Kearn 318/332-2171 Ramsey, NJ 4 , 000 homes INick Saros 201/825-3400 Edmonton, ONT 63 , 000 homes IFrancis Hugo 403/428-5748 Wycoff, NJ 4 , 565 homes Bob Shannon 201/891-7000 1 3 . 0 EDUCATION PROGRAM BFI/Loma Linda Disposal has a proven education program that has been developed in cooperation with educators and used throughout the country Locally, over 2 , 000 school children in Loma Linda have participated in this program, which has contributed to the success of the Loma Linda Curbside Recycling Program The ABC's Of Our Education Program A Recycling presentations at the schools B Recycling curriculum for the teachers C Follow-up program A At` the heart of the recycling presentation is the Mobius Character Made up of recycled products , he exemplifies the theme and provides an identity for the children The presentation is administered by the local BFI recycling coordinator The focus is on the three R' s - Reduce-Reuse- Recycle Both local public and private schools are invited to participate B The Mobius curriculum emphasizes recycling because of its immediate, positive effects It teaches that recycling is a major component of integrated waste management The children learn about the nature of the environment and for them to become the leaders in the recycling movement Many parents have commented that the reason they take the time and effort to recycle is due to the interest of their children The school receives a Mobius packet that offers six sections on the environment The chapters include activities on creating a landfill, making recycled paper, and developing a recycling program Also included are awareness exercises on identifying recycled products in the pictures (for lower grades) and exercises for creating solutions to different environment scenarios (for upper grades) C The follow-up program is designed to show the students the results of their city' s recycling efforts and keep them active in the program Visuals include the recycling truck, videos and data on the amount of material recovered For new students, the recycling program is reviewed All students are invited to ask questions relating to this issue Summary The program' s goal is to create awareness of the recycling issue, show the students why we need to recycle, and explain how they can recycle at the curb The Mobius character and curriculum are tools for the students and teachers to learn the recycling process and become leaders in the environmental movement I I I I I I I I I I I I ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT ATTACHMENT 3 FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Preliminary Draft Source Reduction and Recycling Element t and Household Hazardous Waste Element Prepared for City of Grand Terrace March 1991 Prepared by EMCON Associates 3300 North San Fernando Boulevard Burbank, California 91504 4 RECYCLING COMPONENT I ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY 4 RECYCLING COMPONENT (Recycling is the process by which materials otherwise destined for disposal are collected, reprocessed or remanufactured, and reused The purpose of recycling is to preserve the natural resources that go into manufactured goods Recycling also will reduce the increasing costs and environmental impacts associated with solid waste disposal The recycling process includes four elements separation, collection, processing and marketing A program must include each of the elements for genuine recycling to take place As discussed in this section, many alternatives exist for each element of recycling Collection programs, for example, can encompass curbside pickup, commercial or public buy- back/drop-off centers, and nonprofit fund-raising drives for newspaper or aluminum cans This component includes a statement of objectives, a description of existing conditions, an evaluation of program alternatives, an implementation plan, and a monitoring and evaluation program 4 1 OBJECTIVES 4 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS In the 12-month period from (180 tons from biz survey plus CA redemption) 1990, the City's estimated diversion attributable to recycling was approximately tons 4 2 1 Public Recycling Programs The quantity of waste diverted from disposal by the Jurisdiction by is presented in Table 4-1 4 2 2 Private Sector Programs Recycling activities in the private sector include those conducted by California redemption centers waste haulers business and private recycling companies Existing programG were described in detail in Section 2 A8939\E69010I\GRANDTER\RECYCLEDOC 4-1 Rav 3 3/1N1 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY There are --1, California redemption centers in Grand Terrace These centers purchase beverage containers with a California redemption value The quantity of waste material diverted by the recycling activities is presented in Table 4-2 Loma Linda Disposal has an exclusive franchise to collect residential trash in Grand Terrace There are seven haulers licensed to collect commercial refuse Grand Terrace does not have curbside collection of recyclables Drop-off Material diverted through this program is summarized in Table 4-3 Businesses were also surveyed as part of the solid waste generation study to determine the existing level of recycling The details of this survey are included in Section 2 The types and quantities of material recycled by Grand Terrace businesses are summarized in Table 4-4 4 2 3 Local Market Development Activities AB939\Eno 1o1\GRANOTER\RECYCLEDOC 4-2 R9v 3 3/I/ 1 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Table 4-1 Public Sector Recycling Summary Material Quantity Program (tons peryear) City Hall Recycling Newspaper Glass 0 0 et. 'lasts6L U D L Alu Alv / — NW La. Table 4-2 California Redemption Center Recycling Summary Material Quantity Program (tons per year) CA Redemption Centers Aluminum Glass 0 Plastic 0 Total 0 0 ARomEavO1011GRANDTERVRECYCLE DOC 43 NV 3 3/1i91 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Table 4-3 Private Hauler Recycling Summary Residential Commercial Industrial Waste Type Waste Type Waste Type Aluminum cans Corrugated cardboard Corrugated cardboard Ferrous metals and tin cans pallets Mixed paper Wood waste including pallets Nonferr me a s /� aluminu / ,e sp r D Sand White g si I / (applian Hig' .r e I er Yard waste Other paper Wood waste including pallets Aluminum cans Rock concrete brick Ferrous metals and tin cans Sand soil or dirt Nonferrous metals aluminum scrap White goods (appliances etc ) Food waste Wood waste including pallets Rock concrete brick Sand soil or dirt Weight = tons/mo Weight = tons/mo Weight = tons/mo Source of Information City of private hauler surveys AB930\E600 101\ORANDTERIRECYCLEDOC 4_4 Rev 3 3/I/DI ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Table 4-4 __ Business Recycling Summary Commodity Commercial Industrial Lbs Recycled per Year Lbs Recycled per Year Agricultural crop residues Aluminum cans 0 0 Batteries 0 0 Bi metal c.. tamers D � 0 CA rede . .. t o gl A 0 Colored ledger Computer 0 Computer •.. 0 0 ICorrugated cardboard 0 0 I Ferrous metals and tin cans 0 0 Film plastics 0 0 Food waste 0 0 a HDPE containers 0 0 0 J Kratt paper 0 Mixed or other paper 0 0 Newspaper 0 0 Nonferrous metals 0 0 Oil 0 0 Other recyclable glass 0 0 Other waste (film and parts) 0 0 PET containers 0 0 Polystyrene (foam) 0 0 Refillable glass beverage 0 0 containers 0 0 Rock concrete brick Sand, soil, and dirt 0 0 Textiles and leather 0 0 Tires and rubber products 0 0 White goods 0 0 White ledger 0 0 Wood waste n 0 Yard waste 0 0 0 0 Total 0 I 0 AB039\E001 o i 1ORANDTER\RECYCLE 00C 4-5 Rev 3 3/1e91 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY 4 2 4 Targeted Materials The materials targeted for diversion through recycling are highlighted in Table 4-5 These materials were targeted based on volume, weight, hazard of material and consumption of nonrenewable resources considerations The targeted materials are currently in the disposal waste stream and could be diverted through recycling 4 3 PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES Fourteen recycling alternatives are identified and then evaluated using the set of criteria presented in Section 1 5 Alternatives 1 through 7 address collection, Alternatives 8 through 10 address processing, and Alternatives 11 through 14 address institutional changes The alternatives are listed below Alternative 1 - Source-Separated Residential Curbside Collection Alternative 2 - Commingled Residential Curbside Collection Alternative 3 - Mobile Collection System Alternative 4 - Drop-Off Centers Alternative 5 - Buy-Back Centers Alternative 6 - Multifamily Collection Alternative 7 - Commercial/Industrial Source Separated Collection Alternative 8 - Manual Material Recovery Alternative 9 - Mechanized Material Recovery Alternative 10 - Salvage at Solid Waste Facilities Alternative 11 - Recycling Business Preference Alternative 12 - Zoning and Code Changes Alternative 13 - Rate Structure Modification Alternative 14 - Market Development Activities AB030\E600101\GRANOTER\RECYCLE OOC 4-6 Rev 3 3/IN1 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Table 4-5 Materials Targeted for Recycling Waste Material Selection Criteria Corrugated Cardboard High market value large portion of commercial/industrial waste stream by volume easily recovered Newspaper Established markets largest paper component of residential wastes easily recovered and also present in commercial/industrial waste Glass Consumer awareness makes recovery easy, consumer demands recyclability Aluminum Cans Easily recovered high market value, established market Ferrous metals Easily recovered, largest component of total metals in the waste stream High grade paper Strong existing markets, existing programs for commercial sector and consumer demands for recyclability Plastics (HDPE containers, Plastic containers are a significant PET containers, film plastics) portion of residential waste by volume consumer demands for recyclability, film plastics are largest portion of waste stream 4 3 1 Alternative 1 - Source-Separated Residential Curbside Collection Collection of source separated residential waste can be accomplished through the use of a multiple-container system Multiple-container systems typically use a separate container for each commodity being collected These systems offer an advantage over commingling a variety of recyclables in one large container because source-separated recyclables require less processing once the materials are collected Disadvantages associated with a multiple-container system include less flexibility as additional recyclable commodities are added to a program (i e , the number of containers becomes too great) and the difficulty some A8e3mE690,o11GRANDTERIREcycLEDOc 4_7 Rav 3 3/1r01 Table 4-6 Recycling Alternatives Evaluation Summary Alternatives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Cntena Source-Separated Commingled Mobile Drop Off Buy Back Multifamily Commercial/ Curbside Curbside Collection Center Center Industrial _ Effectiveness in Reducing Waste Quantity High High Low Medium Medium High High Absence of Hazards Medium Medium High Medium Medium Medium Medium Flexibility Low High Low Medium High Medium High Limited Shift in Waste Type Generation High High High High High High High Implementabilrty Medium Medium High Medium Medium Medium High Facility Needs Medium Low Medium Low Low Medium High Consistency with Local Policies High High Low Medium High High High Absence of institutional Barriers High High High Medium High Medium High Estimated Cost Rating Medium Low High Medium High Medium Medium End Uses High High High High High High High Alternatives 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Catena Manual Mechanized Salvaging Recycling Zoning Rate Market Recovery Recovery Business Code Structure Development Preference Changes Modifications Effectiveness in Reducing Waste Quantity Low High Low Low Medium High High Absence of Hazards Low Low High High High Medium High Flexibility High High High Low High Low High Limited Shift in Waste Type Generation High High High High Medium Medium High Implementability Low Low Low Low Medium Medium Low Facility Needs High Low High High High High High Consistency with Local Policies Low High Low High High High Low Absence of Institutional Barriers Low Medium Low Low High High Low Estimated Cost Rating High Low High High High High Low End Uses High High High High High High High '�Mac3,"f101 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY users face in transporting materials to the curb A significant drawback associated with collection in the separate container system is that source- separated commodities generally are kept in separate containers on the collection truck, requiring the truck to be emptied when any of the containers reaches capacity At times, this results in the collection truck returning to the processing or transfer point with less than a full load Effectiveness in Reducing Waste Quantity Source-separated curbside collection is an effective method of diverting materials from disposal Comparative tests in Seattle, Washington have demonstrated that multiple-container systems generally have a higher recovery rate than single-container systems Curbside collection programs can reduce the total waste generation between 3-7% Absence of Hazards Direct hazards associated with this alternative are considered minimal In some communities, instituting additional service levels to collect recyclables at the curb could mean more traffic on residential streets with resulting safety concerns and consumption of nonrenewable resources Flexibility This system offers less flexibility than a commingled curbside system to accommodate additional commodities as markets become available Limited Shift in Waste Type Generation No shift in waste type generation is expected Implementability This program can be implemented during the short term and continued through the medium term Facility Needs Once materials are collected, some form of processing may be required to market the recyclables This may be as simple as delivering containers of unprocessed materials to a processing plant or operating a facility to sort and bail materials for sale Source separated materials require less processing and a smaller investment in processing equipment Consistency with Local Policies This alternative is generally consistent with local policies, plans, and ordinances Absence of Institutional Barriers No barriers are anticipated AB939\E690101\GRANDTER\RECYCICDOC 4-8 Roy 3 3/1/01 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Estimated Cost Rating The cost of separate containers depends upon their type and size With each set consisting of three items, a set of stacking crates costs about $16 Thus, the cost of providing a set of containers to every household could range between $00000 and $00000 The cost for collection is discussed in Section 4 4 End Uses There are established markets for recyclables in the Riverside-San Bernardino area In addition, West Coast recycling benefits from the presence of strong off-shore markets which help maintain both demand and price levels 4 3 2 Alternative 2 - Commingled Residential Curbside Collection Commingled systems generally utilize a wheeled 30- to 90-gallon container for the storage of recyclables The materials are rolled to the curbside for regular pickup by automated collection vehicles A single, wheeled container offers both convenience and flexibility for adding other commodities Effectiveness in Reducing Waste Quantity Diversion potential is directly affected by container size and frequency of collection With proper container selection and at least twice-a-month collection, diversion rates for curbside programs may range between 3-7% Absence of Hazards Direct hazards associated with this alternative are considered minimal (similar to the source-separated system) There are additional risks associated with operating a processing plant Flexibility The commingled system is more flexible since it is simply a matter of allowing residents to place additional commodities in the container Limited Shift in Waste Type Generation This system will not create shifts in the types of waste generated Implementability This program can be implemented during the short term and continued through the medium term Facility Needs A commingled system rPquires facilities for manual or mechanized sorting to separate materials for marketing Therefore construction of a new facility or a contract with an existing facility would be required ADo3ME6901 o I IGRANDTEMRECYCLC DOC 4-9 Rev 3 3/I/DI ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Consistency with Local Policies This alternative is generally consistent with local policies, plans, and ordinances Absence of Institutional Barriers No barriers are anticipated Estimated Cost Rating The commingled system is more costly to implement than a separate container system both in terms of container cost and for additional processing to separate the commingled materials End Uses There established markets for existing recycling programs In addition, West Coast recycling benefits from the presence of strong off- shore markets which help maintain both demand and price levels 4 3 3 Alternative 3 - Mobile Collection System Mobile collection systems have traditionally taken the form of buy-back centers serving lower density areas and rural communities Generally, the operator establishes a schedule to be at a certain location during specified hours It is an inexpensive way to serve a number of communities with the same equipment Effectiveness in Reducing Waste Quantity Mobile collection systems ill are effective collection approaches for dispersed population However, in Grand Terrace, the residential areas are fairly dense Effectiveness may be reduced by residents' confusion about when and where collection will take place Absence of Hazards This system may create a potential traffic hazards as individuals visiting the collection point would need to drive to different (and possibly unfamiliar) locales Flexibility Mobile collection systems have limited flexibility in terms of dealing with changing conditions Increases in participation may cause problems such as traffic queing Limited Shift in Waste Type Generation This system would not cause a shift in waste type generation implementability This program could be implemented during the short- term planning period Facility Needs The City or contractor would need a facility to process the materials collected Consistency with Local Policies This program appears to be consistent with local plans and policies A8939\E690191\GRANOTER\RECYCLEDOC 4-10 Rov 3 3/1ro1 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Absence of Institutional Barriers There are no institutional barriers associated with this alternative Estimated Cost Rating It is a relatively inexpensive approach to providing limited recycling opportunities End Uses As with all recycling collection programs, markets currently exist for certain commodities, but not for others 4 3 4 Alternative 4 - Drop-Off Centers Drop-off centers can be any size, from neighborhood sites using European-style domes to large centers They can be manned or unmanned To be effective, drop-off centers must be conveniently located and provide easy access Grand Terrace has X drop-off center(s), (name and locations) These facilities Effectiveness in Reducing Waste Quantity Drop-off centers can be effective in reducing the waste stream provided they are operated in concert with an effective education and public information program It is possible to divert 3-5% of the total waste stream with a system of drop-off centers Absence of Hazards There are a number of potential liabilities associated with unattended drop-off sites These include handling of glass containers, potential for contamination of recyclables, and illegal dumping of wastes Flexibility Drop-off centers offer some degree of flexibility to respond to changing markets and other conditions Limited Shift in Waste Type Generation Drop-off centers can be used to target specific commodities in the waste stream and will not create a shift in waste generation Implementability This alternative can be implemented during the short term and continued through the mPdln im term providing zoning requirements for siting could be overcome Facility Needs This program would require the City to acquire or establish a number of drop-off sites throughout the city and establish a processing center to handle the materials collected AB939\E6Q0101\GRANDTER\RECYCLaDOC 4-11 Rev 3 3/I/D1 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Consistency with Local Policies Some changes may be necessary in zoning codes or home owner association regulations to allow neighborhood drop-off centers in residential areas Absence of Institutional Barriers Local zoning requirements for siting drop-off facilities would have to be overcome Estimated Cost Rating A drop-off program will be the most effective where residents are issued containers to store recyclables until they are taken to the collection-point This helps institutionalize the program, but it adds considerably to the program cost A series of drop-off sites eliminates the considerable capital and operating expenses associated with collecting materials at the curbside However, there are still site acquisition, preparation, capital, and operating expenses to be considered End Uses There are established markets for existing recycling programs In addition, West Coast recycling benefits from the presence of strong off- shore markets which help maintain both demand and price levels 4 3 5 Alternative 5 - Buy-Back Centers Buy-back centers focus on the more valuable commodities in the waste 11 stream, commodities for which there are ready, reliable markets Buy- back centers can be operated in conjunction with a residetial curbside or drop-off collection program to offer citizens the option of selling their materials Buy-back centers have been the backbone of recycling in many communities for more than 25 years Effectiveness in Reducing Waste Quantity Buy-back centers are not very effective in reducing the overall waste stream because of the limited types and quantities of materials in the residential being targeted Where buy-backs are willing to serve as drop-off locations as well (that is accepting, but not paying for certain materials), the overall effectiveness increases to the 1-3% range Absence of Hazards There are some potential hazards with bringing workers and the public in close proximity to industrial equipment However, they are considered controllable Flexibility Buy-back centers with personnpl on-site offer more flexibility in dealing with changing conditions Limited Shift in Waste Type Generation No shift in waste type generation is expected AB9391E690101\ORANDTERIRECYCLCD0Q 4-12 Rov 3 3/1/91 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY implementability Buy-back centers are generally operated by private entrepreneurs Facility Needs As noted, a site, facility and processing equipment would be needed Consistency with Local Policies This program is consistent with the City's plans and policies and overall statement of goals Absence of Institutional Barriers It is difficult for a city to become directly involved in buying and selling commodities where the market price and conditions can change overnight Estimated Cost Rating A new central buy-back center would have relatively high capital costs Section 4 4 presents costs End Uses There are established markets for existing recycling programs In addition, West Coast recycling benefits from the presence of strong off-shore markets, which help maintain both demand and price levels 4 3 6 Alternative 6 - Multifamily Collection Establishing effective multifamily recycling programs is a priority for the City of Grand Terrace Some future growth is expected to involve multifamily development including apartments and condominiums Multifamily housing typically involves a variety of different populations, renters, homeowners, and seniors With rental property, there is a problem with transiency in terms of changes in property managers, on-site managers, and tenants Keeping residents aware of the recycling program and how it works often it is difficult While new facilities can be designed with space for recycling in mind, many older facilities, whether apartments, condominiums, or mobile-home parks, do not have room Tradeoffs may be necessary to trade open space or parking requirements to accommodate recycling containers Effectiveness in Reducing Waste Quantity This alternative addresses a considerable source of waste generation, which promises to be a major contributor in the future years A well run program will have a relatively large impact on the waste stream Absence of Hazards There are physical hazards associated with dumping glass and handling of other recyclables A©030\E800101\GRANOTER\RECYCLEDOC 4-13 Rev 3 3/1/01 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Flexibility This program is adaptable to changing conditions if the City implements a volunteer program to keep residents informed of changes in the program Limited Shift In Waste Type Generation No shifts in waste type generation are expected Implementability This alternative can be implemented during the short term and continued through the medium term Facility Needs This could be a major obstacle at some existing multi- family developments as the programs grows since space generally is at a premium Tradeoffs may be needed to use parking or open space for recycling containers The City can require that recycling be included in plans for new developments or changes in existing facilities Consistency with Local Policies This program may require changes in the city's zoning and building codes It is consistent with ongoing programs Absence of Institutional Barriers There are no institutional barriers to this alternative Estimated Cost Rating The City can require that recycling opportunities be made available at all multiple-dwelling units, that residents be provided with containers, and that development owners contract for collection of recyclables The City can provide technical assistance, education, and public information services on source reduction and recycling The collection costs associated with these programs are moderate End Uses There ar established markets for existing recycling programs In addition, West Coast recycling benefits from the presence of strong off- shore markets, which help maintain both demand and price levels 4 3 7 Alternative 7 - Commercial/Industrial Collection Programs A number of collection programs, which target specific commodities in the commercial and industrial waste streams are possible Based on the results of the solid waste generation study fiver materials are targeted for collection programs in the short term These materials include • paper glass A09391E690101\GRANOTC14\RECYCLEOOC 4-14 Roy 3 3/1/01 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY • wood metal • plastic These programs are discussed below The commercial/industrial collection program (independent of commodity) is then evaluated in this section Office paper collection programs are easy to establish at most businesses and industries and should target all grades of office paper, ledger, and computer printout The City can provide technical assistance in setting up a program through its waste evaluation services and public education program Many businesses already have instituted cardboard recycling programs, but a significant amount remains in the waste stream Large generators of corrugated containers, such as supermarkets, appliance stores, and discount houses, may already have recycling programs, complete with a compactor, in place In a typical shopping center, the major tenants or anchors generally will have a compactor, but will not cooperate with the smaller tenants because of time and other constraints Most businesses generate some corrugated, but often not enough to make it attractive for private entrepreneurs to set up collection routes Where routes do exist, the service often ends when the value of corrugated falls Programs targeting glass typically involve restaurants and taverns while other materials such as wood pallets and a variety of metals and plastics can be identified with various warehousing and manufacturing businesses Effectiveness in Reducing Waste Quantity This program would be aimed at making a significant reduction in the commercial and industrial landfilled waste stream Absence of Hazards Breakage always is a problem with handling glass It poses a danger to those handling the materials, but also can result in unusable mixed glass cullet There are also potential problems associated with storing combustible materials Both these potential hazards are considered controlled and minimal Flexibility Once these collection programs are put in place and business people agree to establish programs and train their employees, it is difficult to temporarily discontinue collecting the material because of a downturn in the market AB933\E690101\ORANDTER\RECYCLEDOC 4-15 Rev 3 3/1/91 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Limited Shift in Waste Type Generation No shifts in waste type generation are expected Implementablllty This program can be implemented during the short term and medium term for a variety of commodities Facility Needs Businesses and industry will have to allocate space for additional containers or in some cases, one of the existing containers can ' be replaced with a recycling container Consistency with Local Policies The City may wish to reexamine a variety of codes and regulations to accommodate this program New construction would be required to include space for materials storage There may be individual instances of problems with fire codes in the storage of paper products for collection Absence of Institutional Barriers There should be no institutional barriers Estimated Cost Rating The City can provide technical assistance to help generators keep the material out of the waste stream and encourage the private entrepreneurs to establish collection routes to serve these businesses In addition, haulers currently serving these businesses will provide separate bins for materials where there is adequate volume End Uses The value of paper is expected to increase during the next several years as the availability of cardboard shrinks There are a number of market forces at play that will cause paper manufacturers to begin substituting high grades for corrugated in various applications The market for corrugated is expected to improve significantly during the short term raising the market price proportionately Lower grades of paper (such as mixed paper) are typically subject to market fluctuations Glass recyclers demand cullet separated by color The glass market is relatively stable but limited Wood and construction materials are also sought by processors for reuse The market for various grades of plastics varies by type 4 3 8 Alternative 8 - Manual Material Recovery Manual recovery operations generally Gorisists of dumping uncompacted commercial loads on a prepared surface and having workers pull recyclables from the waste stream This type of operation is often done around a solid waste facility, such as a landfill or transfer station where the nonrecovered material can then be cleared for disposal AB939\E690101\ORANDTER\RECYCLEDOC 4-16 Rev 3 3/1ro1 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Effectiveness in Reducing Waste Quantity This operation is effective at recovering targeted materials, but not very effective overall Absence of Hazards Workers face a variety of hazards from exposure to the waste stream Any program involving workers hand sorting trash exposes people to sharp objects, such as needles, glass, lagged edges, etc , as well as medical wastes and hazardous materials Flexibility This alternative would be very responsive to changing conditions Limited Shift in Waste Type Generation No shifts in waste type generation are expected Implementabllity This alternative could be implemented during the short term Facility Needs A building to provide shelter for workers and to store recyclables would be required Consistency with Local Policies This alternative may require changes in city regulations and landfill permit conditions regarding scavenging Absence of Institutional Barriers Private haulers control 100% the commercial waste stream The City might have to enact a flow control ordinance to have materials delivered to a central point for processing, or the City could require haulers operating in the city to process the commercial waste stream Estimated Cost Rating This alternative is labor-intensive and costs are dependent upon the level of effort, need for permanent facilities and mechanized equipment to move the trash Capital costs could range between $7 and $9 million, including property costs, design, construction and equipment End Uses This program would be market-dependent 4 3 9 Alternative 9 - Mechanized Material Recovery Material recovery involving mechanized sorting of waste to recover recyclable materials represents a gignif!cant long-term capital expenditure for site, buildings, and equipment A facility can be designed to recover a variety of materials and can accommodate large volumes of material AMC)\E6o01O1\ORANDTER\RCCYCLE DOC 4-17 Rev 3 3/1/01 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Effectiveness in Reducing Waste Quantity A materials processing facility could remove 20% to 25% of material from the waste stream Absence of Hazards Workers are exposed to safety hazards working around heavy equipment and machinery Flexibility This alternative is not very flexible Mechanical process lines are difficult to change over to different commodities Limited Shift In Waste Type Generation No shifts in waste type generation are expected Implementability This alternative could be implemented during the medium term Facility Needs Major capital expenditures for buildings and processing equipment Consistency with Local Policies This alternative may require zoning changes to permit siting Absence of Institutional Barriers The City does not control a significant enough portion of the waste stream and tip fees would be higher than local landfills Estimated Cost Rating Costs for material recovery facilities can be quite high Material recovery facilities generally serve larger regional areas and are dependent on some form of flow control to guarantee adequate quantities of materials to satisfy lending institutions Capital costs may range from $10 million to $25 million End Uses Commodities separated for marketing often are contaminated and meet only low-end markets, which are the first to disappear in a market downturn 4 3 10 Alternative 10 - Salvage at Solid Waste Facilities This alternative would involve workers pulling large, easily identifiable items such as appliances, hot-water heaters, mattresses, wood pallets, etc , from the waste stream to be set aside for recycling It is very similar to Alternative 8 with the exception of the inrget materials Effectiveness in Reducing Waste Quantity This alternative would have very little impact A89391E6901011GRANDTERIRECYCLEDCC 4-18 Rev 3 3/1/91 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Absence of Hazards Workers face a variety of hazards from exposure to the waste stream Any program involving workers hand sorting trash exposes people to sharp objects, such as needles, glass, lagged edges, etc , as well as medical wastes and hazardous materials Flexibility This alternative is very responsive to changing conditions Limited Shift in Waste Type Generation No shift in waste generation type is expected Implementability This alternative can be implemented during the short term Facility Needs No facilities are needed Consistency with Local Policies This alternative may require change in anti-scavenging regulations and landfill permits Absence of institutional Barriers No institutional barriers are expected Estimated Cost Rating No capital costs are required Annual costs for labor would be approximately $100,000 End Uses Salvaged materials would be dependent on the same markets as the other processing alternatives 4 3 11 Alternative 11 - Recycling Business Preference The City can encourage market development for waste processing or processing of specialized waste streams by accommodating facility development through changes in the zoning/building codes or license fees Additionally, the City may wish to work with the state in establishing a Recycling Market Development Zone under a new state program Effectiveness in Reducing Waste Quantity This alternative is highly speculative in that it assumes there are entrepreneurs willing to establish businesses and that they can be attracted to a willing host through relaxed regulations However, this could have a major impact on the quantity of wastes being diverted, although the actual amounts are difficult to quantify Absence of Hazards Hazards associated with this alternative relate to the highly speculative nature of the undertaking and those associated with processing the mixed waste stream Flexibility This alternative would be adaptable to changing conditions A©03o\E6B0101\ORANOTER\RECYCLE.00C 4-19 Rev 3 3/1/01 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Limited Shift in Waste Type Generation No shifts in waste type generation are expected Implementability This could be implemented during the medium term Facility Needs No new City facilities would be required Consistency with Local Policies This alternative is consistent with current Grand Terrace policies, plans, and goals of encouraging business to locate within the City However, no policies currently exist to give preferences to waste processing Absence of Institutional Barriers Zoning and building codes and license fee structures would need to be changed Estimated Cost Rating Relying on the private sector to develop a diversion program would be very cost effective for the City itself Low cost loans and other incentives are available to private entrepreneurs through the Recycling Market Development Zone program End Uses Markets would dictate whether an entrepreneur proceeded with a planned facility and what the facility would include 4 3 12 Alternative 12 - Zoning and Code Changes The City could require developers to conduct a study of wastes to be generated and design facilities to accommodate recycling programs This program would be run in conjunction with one of the other alternatives Effectiveness in Reducing Waste Quantity This alternative would help facilitate recycling programs in the private sector The actual diversion rates are difficult to estimate Absence of Hazards No hazards are identified Flexibility This alternative could be flexible if the zoning and code changes were written to accommodate changes Limited Shift In Waste Type Generation No shifts in waste type generation are expected Implementability This alternative could h, implemented during the short term and continued through the medium term Facility Needs New buildings would be designed with recycling in mind Consistency with Local Policies This alternative would be consistent A80301E6901O1\GRANDTER\RECYCLE DOC 4-20 Rev 3 3/1/01 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Absence of Institutional Barriers Moderate resistance from developers is expected Estimated Cost Rating This costs for this alternative are considered under source reduction End Uses This program would not be dependent upon markets for recyclables 4 3 13 Alternative 13 - Rate Structure Modifications The City could initiate rate structure changes similar to those discussed in the Source Reduction Component The new rates would be based on the amount of waste generated Effectiveness in Reducing Waste Quantity This alternative would provide a strong incentive to do something with waste other then disposing of it Absence of Hazards This alternative presents an insignificant potential for hazard The possibility of increased illegal dumping exists Flexibility This alternative is not very flexible because it requires public notice, hearings, and action by the City Council Limited Shift in Waste Type Generation Rate structure modifications could result in positive changes with more attention paid to end uses and recyclability Implementability This could be implemented during the short term and continued through the medium term This alternative would be implemented in concert with the automated refuse collection and new green waste collection program Facility Needs No facilities are needed Consistency with Local Policies This would be consistent with the City's goals and objectives Absence of Institutional Barriers Opposition from residents and the business community to increased solid waste costs Need to be used in conjunction with other alternatives to in intain fee equity between accounts served by the City crews and by private haulers Estimated Cost Rating The costs for this alternative are considered in Section 3 AB930\E69o101\GRANDTER\RECYCLEDOC 4-21 Rcv 3 3/1/01 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT ' FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY End Uses Not applicable 4 3 14 Alternative 14 - Market Development Activities The City could facilitate additional recycling by working to develop new markets for materials by subsidizing the minimum price paid for materials and by buying products made from postconsumer wastes Effectiveness in Reducing Waste Quantity This would help facilitate recycling but would have little direct benefit on reducing the waste stream Absence of Hazards No hazards are associated with this alternative Flexibility This alternative could be very responsive to changes in the mari,a'place Limited Shift in Waste Type Generation This would have a positive impac t Implementability This alternative could be implemented as a contingency measure on a short-term basis providing local funding is available and staff was hired to oversee the program Facility Needs This alternative would not require facilities Consistency with Local Policies The procurement of products with recycled content would be consistent with local policy Subsidizing market prices would not Absence of Institutional Barriers There would be opposition to local government subsidizing market prices Estimated Cost Rating This program could be very expensive in terms of subsidizing market prices, but could make the difference between reaching the 50% goal in the medium term End Uses This alternative would help develop and expand markets for recycled products 4 4 PROGRAM SELECTION The following programs have been selected to enable Grand Terrace to achieve a 25 percent diversion rate in the short-term planning period and to meet the state-mandated goals of reducing the waste stream 50% by the year 2000 A©930\E690101\GRANDTER\RECYCLE.DOC 4-22 Roy 3 3nro7 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY 4 4 1 Short-Term Planning Period The alternatives selected for the short term provide a cost-effective program to allow Grand Terrace to maintain its current diversion and get an early start on the challenges presented by the 50% goal All of the selected alternatives are cost effective, can be implemented within the short term, and do not face significant technological or institutional barriers The risks associated with markets are acceptable and the alternatives either result in significant reductions in the waste stream or help set the stage for additional programs Alternatives 1 and 2 - Curbside Collection Program The City will use municipal crews to augment its current program using either a multiple- container system or a commingled system Yard waste and refuse will be collected separately Alternative 4 - Drop-Off Centers The City will develop / drop-off sites targeting i _ gi,brz.Y c,r--r Alternative 5 - Buy-Back Center The City will work with Central City Recycling Center to ��-r >_,�L. a. c -,t- At,--( f.tA..t 5,gs,,.2,Le: rs oP now Alternative 6 - Multifamily Collection The City will require multiple dwelling developments to provide recycling opportunities for residents The City will work with building owners to allocate space for recycling containers Alternative 7 - Commercial/Industrial Programs The City will institute a commercial/industrial waste audit program to provide technical assistance in setting up a variety of programs In addition, the City (along with private recyclers) will continue the existing commercial industrial recycling programs Alternative 12 - Zoning and Code Changes The City will require new businesses to complete a survey of wastes to be generated and to design facilities to accommodate waste reduction activities and facilities to reduce their waste stream by 50% by 2000 Alternative 13 - Rate Structure Modification The City will institute volume-based user fees for residential refuse collection and a comparable fee structure or surcharge on the waste stream serviced by the private sector The rate structure will be designed to encourage users to generate less waste and recycle more materials currently being disposed A8930\E60o 1 o i\GRANDTERIRECYCLE DOC 4-23 Roy 3 3/I/01 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Alternative 14 - Market Development The City will institute a procurement policy specifying products containing postconsumer waste as part of its marketing program In addition, the City will continue its education and public information program 4 4 2 Medium-Term Planning Period For the medium term, the City will continue to make refinements to the above-referenced programs based on operating experience, new technologies, market conditions, and other factors impacting these programs The program planned for the medium term reflects more the need to deal with specific waste types remaining in the waste stream which must be diverted if Grand Terrace is to achieve its year 2000 goal Attitudes toward recycling are expected to become more supportive as the public becomes more and more familiar with the solid waste problem and the tools available to solve it Grand Terrace will also benefit from improved regional, national, and international markets for commodities now regarded as low value to valueless or hard to recycle 4 4 3 Estimated Diversion Quantities The estimated diversion over the short term which results from implementing the selected recycling programs is summarized in Table 4-7 4 4 4 Anticipated End-Users of Recycled Materials The following markets are anticipated for the short-term planning period • Paper Paperstock brokers • Metals Area scrap dealers and California Redemption Centers • Glass California Redemption Centers or glass benefication centers White Goods Area scrap dealers • Plastics Area processors A©039\E600101\ORANDTER\RECYCLEDOC 4-24 Rev 3 3/1N1 Table 4-7 Estimated Diversion for Selected Alternatives Short-Term Diversion Long-Term Diversion Commodity by Alternative (tons/mo) (tons/mo) Curbside Collection Paper 303 250 1 Glass 62 76 Plastic 11 23 Metal 23 Subtotal I 38 6 Drop f A 1aperV379 ,lass I 121 vlastte I I 7 27 Metal 4138 Subtotal 342 486 Multifamily Collection Paper 93 293 Glass 19 33 Plastic 7 Metal 8 13 Subtotal 123 346 Commercial/Industnal Paper 655 960 Glass 75 89 Plastic 31 77 Metal 190 115 Subtotal 951 1,241 Zoning/Code Changes NA NA Rate Structure Modifications NA NA Market Development NA NA Additional Annual Diversion 1,815 2 460 Additional Annual Diversion Rate 12 3% 16 6% AB079VE600101VTABLESVTABLE4 DOC Ray 4 2/27/91 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY For the medium-term period, short-term markets are expected to continue New markets will develop but cannot be specified at this time 4 4 5 Facility Needs Facilities and equipment will be required for several of the recycling program alternatives, including the curbside program, drop-off sites and multifamily collection program - FM�Iti 1rR) R Co, r ir (J,r!ti A- �a c_� P(o�rc� Cc t2BC/De Co(1rcnZ� The City will be making a significant capital expenditure, for the curbside L ��program, including trucks, containers, and the recycling/processing center T, c A I10�' A S✓fA c .—r Z—cic r. m fI 141) ,rr7 T The multifamily collection program will require containers for recyclables The City may wish to provide containers to each resident or require that containers and the opportunity to recycle be made available by the private sector For the drop-off sites, the City plans to establish POTS NT, A L _ S aT TLC 4 4 6 Implementation Costs and Revenues This estimated implementation costs are presented in Table 4-8 The expected revenue from these programs is presented in Section 9, Funding Component 4 4 7 Contingency Measures If the existing markets disappear the City will look for new markets The City will adopt a "no turning back" policy and will be proactive in finding markets for materials, consider subsidizing programs, and even landfill collected materials before stopping a collection program 4 5 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION The following section identifies the tasl« required to implement the programs, the agency responsible for implementation, and the implementation schedule and costs for the short and medium term AB0301E6001011QRANOTERIRECYCLEDOC 4-25 Rev 3 3/1/01 Table 4-8 Implementation Costs for Selected Recycling-Afterruttives Alternative Capital Costs ($) - `Annual Costs ($) Curbside 1 1 ,328,000 658,000 Buy-Back/Drop-Off 2 6,023,000 0 Multifamily 3 0 52,000 New Programs4 85,000 Commercial/Industrial Zoning/Code Changes I Rate Structure Modifications Market Development TOTAL 7,351,000 11 795,000 1 Costs based on Refuse Collection Restructunng Report February 1991 by - • -9' • ..'gates Table 5 Option A-2 Assumes source separated biweekly collection Includes trucks and • •rs Annual costs iric,lude all operating and maintenance costs Incremental increase over existing b.eh- s about $310 000 2 Based on City-owned pnvately operated program Pnvate operator o offset by matenals revenue Contract with pnvate operator structured so that City pays no o rating costs Includes property design and construction of Environmental Center including permanent hou old hazardous waste facility 3 Capital and operating costs for multifamily recycling are included in curbside - -- •• •ne existing recycling specialist required for multifamily program 4 New programs combined include one full-time staff person rate study mate :Is, -`.pli: •• and training A8979\p070201\TABLESTABLE4 DOC P. 4 227i9I ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY 4 5 1 Short-Term Implementation Plan The short-term implementation plan for the selected alternatives, including specific tasks, start and finish dates, and City staff responsible for implementation, are shown in Table 4-9 4 5 2 Medium-Term Implementation Plan The medium-term planning period implementation plan consists of continuing the programs that were implemented in the short term 4 5 3 Actions Planned to Deter Scavengers Scavengers remove valuable materials and, where this occurs on a large scale program, economies can be greatly impacted Grand Terrace will adopt an ordinance prohibiting unauthorized removal of recyclable materials at tho curb and will employ any other measures possible to deter scavenging at other collection locations For instance, all collection bins under the commercial/industrial program should be kept locked at all times, only participating businesses should have keys 4 6 MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS This section describes how the recycling program will be monitored and evaluated during its implementation The following will be addressed • Methods used to quantify and monitor achievement of objective Written criteria for evaluating the program's effectiveness • Agencies responsible for the monitoring, evaluation, and reporting • Funding requirements for the monitoring and evaluation activities • Contingency measures that will be implemented if monitoring shows a shortfall in the waste diversion objectives AB93o\E690101\GRANDTER\RECYCLEDOC 4-27 Rev 3 3/1/01 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY 4 5 1 Short-Term Implementation Plan The short-term implementation plan for the selected alternatives, including specific tasks, start and finish dates, and City staff responsible for implementation, are shown in Table 4-9 4 5 2 Medium-Term Implementation Plan The medium-term planning period implementation plan consists of continuing the programs that were implemented in the short term 4 5 3 Actions Planned to Deter Scavengers Scavengers remove valuable materials and, where this occurs on a large scale program, economies can be greatly impacted Grand Terrace will adopt an ordinance prohibiting unauthorized removal of recyclable materials at the curb and will employ any other measures possible to deter scavenging at other collection locations For instance, all collection bins under the commercial/industrial program should be kept locked at all times, only participating businesses should have keys 4 6 MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS This section describes how the recycling program will be monitored and evaluated during its implementation The following will be addressed • Methods used to quantify and monitor achievement of objective • Written criteria for evaluating the program's effectiveness • Agencies responsible for the monitoring, evaluation, and reporting • Funding requirements for the monitoring and evaluation activities Contingency measures that will be implemented if monitoring shows a shortfall in the waste diversion objectives A8O30\E600101\ORANOTER\RECYCLEOOC 4-27 Rev 3 3/1ro1 Table 4-9 Short-Term Implementation Plan Alternative Start Finish Responsibility Alternatives 1 & 2 Residential Curbside Design Program 9/91 4 91 -- —'Assstant Public Works Director Evaluate & Purchase Trucks 6/92 6/91 As ant Public Works Director Phased Implementation 7/92 3 years ant Public Works Director Alternatives 4 & 5 Drop-Off/Buy-Back Issue RFP 1/91 2,91 A istrative Officer Secure Site 2191 6/91 Administrative Officer Design Facility 3/91 6/91 ministrative Officer Construction 9/91 3/91 istrative Officer Operation 4/92 Alternative 6 - Multifamily Public Works Department Public Education Ongoing Add Additional Buildings Ongoing Enlist New Participants Ongoing Alternative 6 - Commercial/Industrial ling Coordinator Establish Waste Audit Program 7/92 Train -auditors 10/92 Prepare Audit Materials 11/92 Contact Businesses 1/93 U Provide On-Site Evaluations 1/93 Alternative 12 Zoning/Code Change • .mrnistrative Officer/Community Review Existing City Regulations 3/92 6/92 lopment Draft Proposed Revision 6/92 10/92 Adopt Changes 10/92 City Council Implement Changes 10/92 Community Development Alternative 13 Rate Structure Modifications ... i Works Department/City Conduct Rate Study 1/92 3/92 M. ger Develop Resolution for Rate Change 3/92 4/92 Adopt Rate Structure 5/92 Alternative 14 Market Development 1994 Public Works Department/City Manager Monitoring Program 5/92 ongoing Public Works Department Rev 4 227/91 AB939\D070201\TABLESTABLE4 DOC ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY 4 6 1 Methods to Monitor Achievement The City of Grand Terrace will establish a variety of reporting programs to accurately quantify and monitor the progress being achieved in recycling by all segments of its population The following five methods will be used 1) random telephone survey, 2) business license reporting, 3) land-use permit reporting, and 4) city purchasing practices, and 5) monthly recycling reports 4 6 1 1 Random Telephone Survey An annual random telephone survey will be instituted to sample the residential population to determine recycling activity 4 6 1 2 Business License Reporting Grand Terrace firms renewing their business licenses will be required to complete a survey form as part of the licensing process which will identify recycling activity , 4 6 1 3 Land Use Permit Reporting A building permit application will be required to address the kinds and amounts of wastes to be generated by the proposed development A recycling plan for diverting these wastes will be required The City would then require annual reports on progress being made on the business license review and work with the firms through waste audits and other technical assistance programs 4 6 1 4 City Purchasing Practices The City's purchasing practices will be surveyed on an annual basis to ensure compliance with the stated objective of encouraging the purchase of products containing recycled content 4 6 1 5 Monthly Recycling Reports 4 6 2 Monitoring/Evaluation Funding Requirements Funding for all monitoring/evaluation programs is discussed in Section 9 AB930\E690101\ORANOTER\RECYCLEDOC 4-29 Roy 3 3/1/r1 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY 4 6 3 Contingency Measures 4 6 3 1 Short-Term Planning Period If the City of Grand Terrace fails to make reasonable progress toward its recycling objectives three steps will be taken Step 1 This step assumes the recycling program objectives are reasonable and that the selected alternatives are adequate to achieve the objectives In this case the monitoring and evaluation program will be re-evaluated to determine if sufficient and timely information is available to accurately evaluate the recycling program's progress If the monitoring and evaluation program is adequate, Step 2 will then be followed If the monitoring and evaluation program is inadequate, then adjustments will be made (e g , more frequent reporting, different quantification techniques) Step 2 This step assumes the monitoring and evaluation procedures are adequate and the program alternatives are properly selected, but the identified objectives are not achievable within the planning period Under this scenario the objectives will be revised downward and the difference in diversion will be taken up with increases in other targets set for the other components (i e , source reduction and composting) Step 3 This step assumes that the monitoring and evaluation programs is adequate and the objectives are attainable, however, the alternatives selected for implementation are inadequate to reach the objectives Under this scenario, the City will evaluate alternative recycling programs for implementation 4 7 3 2 Medium-Term Planning Period If the City of Grand Terrace fails to make reasonable progress toward its year 2000 objectives three steps will be taken These three steps are identical to those for the short-term planning pet iod AB93B\E690101\GRANDTER\RECYCLEDOC 4-30 Rvv 3 3/1/91 ATTACHMENT 4 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE GOALS & OBJECTIVES SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELEMENTS AB 939 GOALS 1 To maximize inter-jurisdiction cooperation or regionalization in integrated waste management planning and implementation East Valley Region of San Bernardino County 2 To achieve maximum source reduction, recycling, and composting by residential, commercial, and industrial waste generators within the City limits 3 To extend the lifetime of existing landfills used by the City of Grand Terrace 4 To divert hazardous wastes from disposal in landfills 5 Strive to develop local, regional, state, and national markets for recyclable commodities 6 Reduce the volume of material transported to landfills as a result of street sweeping operations II OBJECTIVES A SOURCE REDUCTION 1 To reduce the use of non-recyclable materials, and investigate alternative products for non-recyclable products 2 To replace disposable materials and products with reusable materials 3 To reduce packaging 4 To produce copies on both sides of papers 5 To purchase repairable products 6 To conduct waste audit and identify and reduce wastes from generators' production operations, processes, and equipment 7 To promote consistently public information and public education for source reduction, reuse and recycling 8 To reduce the amount of unsolicited mailings received by and disposed of by residents 9 To evaluate the City's mailing system to incorporate multi-use envelopes and forms, and reduce unnecessary letters and forms B RECYCLING 1 To develop Solid Waste Management Master Plan by 1991 2 To achieve at least a 25% participation rate in the City's Citywide Curbside Residential Recycling Program by 1993, and 50% by 2000 3 To ensure that City procurement practices allow purchase preferences, wherever possible, for products made from recycled materials 4 Expand public information and education program to an on-going basis 5 Actively participate in creation of regional recycling markets C COMPOSTING 1 Develop a residential yard waste program by 1995 2 To maximize the amount of composted materials used for City operations 3 Expand the Christmas tree mulching program 4 Work with the City of Colton regarding joint yard/wood waste and sludge program D SPECIAL WASTE 1 To cooperate with neighboring cities to develop local recycling of waste 2 Identify producers and quantity produced, of special waste within the City of Grand Terrace E HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE 1 Reduce the disposal of household hazardous waste in landfills by the year 2000 2 To reduce the amount of household hazardous waste generated within the City through the substitution of safer products 3 Promote markets for recycled household hazardous waste Identify producers and quantity produced, of special waste within the City of Grand Terrace E HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE 1 Reduce the disposal of household hazardous waste in landfills by the year 2000 ATTACHMENT 5 RECYCLING AGREEMENT IS RECYCLING AGREEMENT made and entered into this day of , 1991 by and between the City of Crand `errjce , California ( "City " ) and Loma Linda Disposal Company , J "c ( " Contractor" ) I 1`I WIFNESSETH _ REAS , :ontractor submitted to City a RecycleNOW Proposal dated -ember 6 , 1990 in an effort to initiate a curbside recycling Ircgram for each residence in the City ( the "RecycleNOW Jr :gram" ) and WHERE4S , the City Council of City will approve a resolution providing for the implementation of the RecycleNOW Program , and '!HEREAS , in connection with the RecycleNOW Proaram the City Council of City has determined that City should procure the sec / ices of Contractor to collect , deliver or dispose of Recyclable Materials ( hereinafter defined ) as provided herein , and WFEREAS , Contractor desires to provide such services to CiLv in accordance ,iith the terms of this Agreement , N0;! 1HEREFORE , in consideration of the agreements contained herein , the parties agree as follows 1 Provision of Services by Contractor 1 1 Recycling Services Generally ( a ) Contractor shall provide to City in accordance with and for the consideration provided herein , curbside collection services ( the " Recycling Services " ) for the collection , delivery '~` and in some instances disposal of newspapers , glass , aluminum cans , tin cans , plastic bottles , waste oil , and any other mutually agreed upon materials ( collectively the " Recyclable Materials " and individually a " Recyclable Material " ) , which services shall include the provision by Contractor of the supervision , materials , equipment , labor and all other items necessary to provide such services to City ( b ) Except ,, s otherwise provided herein , the Recycling Services shall be provided by Contractor to City for each Residential Unit ( defined below ) within the City As used in this agreement , " Residential Unit" means a dwelling within the corporate limits of City that is currently being provided with curbside refuse collection A Residential Unit shall be deemed occupied when either water or domestic light and power services are being supplied thereto A condominium dwelling , whether of single or multi - level construction , consisting of four or less contiguous or separate single-family dwelling units , shall be treated as a Residential Unit , except that each single-family dwelling within any such Residential Unit shall be counted separately as a Residential Unit ( c ) City and Contractor recognize that due to market conditions Contractor may be unable to sell a particular Recyclable Material to a Commodity Buyer ( hereinafter defined ) as contemplated by Section 2 hereof In such event , ( i ) Contractor first shall be required to ' dispose of such Recyclable Material by delivery to a Commodity Buyer in connection with such delivery and ( ii ) if Contractor is unable to locate a Commodity Buyer that will accept such Recyclable Material even upon payment of a fee , Contractor shall dispose of such Recyclable Material at a disposal site City shall be obligated to bear any such fees or cost of disposal as provided in Sections 2 3 and 2 4 below Notwithstanding the foregoing , Lhe event a Recyclable Material is not marketable and a fee must be paid to a Commodity Buyer or the material must be disposed of at a disposal site , City may elect to remove such Recyclable material from the list of items subject to this Agreement A thirty day period will be used to determine the feasibility of adding or removing an item from the list of recyclable materials -2- If the City removes a Recyclable Material from the list , City shall prepare a notice explaining such removal which notice will be provided by Contractor Lo each Residential Unit in City participating at such time in the RecycleNOW Program If after removal of a Recyclable Material from the list , such material becomes marketable , City may add such material back to the list of items subject to this Agreement , and City shall prepare a ( written notice explaining the addition of such material which notice will be provided by Contractor to each Residential Unit in the City participating at such time in the RecycleNOW Program Any such notice to remove or restore a Recyclable Material to the list shall be effective with respect to a Residential Unit the day immediately following the day the notice is delivered to such unit ( d ) Lxcept as provided by Section 1 1 ( c ) above , Contractor shall have no obligation Lo dispose of Recyclable Materials other than by delivery to a Commodity Buyer , and in no event should this Agreement be construed as a guarantee by Contractor of a viable market for Recyclable Materials or as to the Availability of a Commodity Buyer for a Recyclable Material 1 2 Collection and Hours of Operation C.,__,2 ( a ) Contractor shall collect Recyclable Materials `rom each Residential Unit two times per month and shall have satisfied such obligation upon Lhe collection or attempt to collect ( in the event a container is not at curbside as required by Section 1 3 ( c ) hereof at such time as Contractor attempts to collect on the day scheduled for such collection and during the hours of operation ) Recyclable Materials ( b ) Contractors curbside collection of Recyclable Materials shall take place only from Monday through Friday between the hours of 6 00 a m and 5 00 p m Any exception to such collection days and hours must be acceptable to both City and Contractor , provided that Contractor may to complete collection on an existing collection route deviate from such schedule without the consent of City if Contractor determines in good faith that an exception is required due to unusual circumstances such as equipment breakdown ( c ) Contractor shall prepare and submit to City for its approval (which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld ) a designation of collection routes and days of collection - 3 - Notice of the collection routes and days of collect established for the Rec cle� established Y NOI! Program will be collectiond initially Units in the promotional literature pdevellopedt all City y provided ovidedtioy Contractor to each developed by the accordanceits expense at 1 3 ( b ) hereof City also shall Unit in least once during each calendar publish ate newspapers published in the immediate area , collectionyear in the routes indicating days of collection a Themap uofb such map shall be of such size h to clearly show published information ervicCitydmayvelecttfor Conractor to pay all or the etinost recycled mereriels reimbursed from fthe tsales oof r cy for approvalContractor may from time to time submit City for w ch proposals for changes in routes or to Upon approval approval shall rot be unreasonably withheld ays f Upon by City of any such proposed changes , provide written notice or such changes g Contractor Residential Units 9 to the affected ( d ) If a scheduled collection day falls on holiday , Contractor may either make the regular such day or observe such holidayby a legal such suspending service on holiday and rescheduling collection for a on theod three days prior to andday within Contractor shall provide notice to affected Residentiala period three days after the holiday the day for any such make-up collection Units of 1 3 Collection Equipment ( a ) Contractor shall vehicles to) provideContthe provide an adequate number of be similar to the vehicle edescribedeini the ' Which vehicleso will dated December 6 , 1990 submitted to City RaccoIyNof Proposal attached hereto as Exhibit A willAll vehicles and otherrf whichp is be kept in good repair , appearanceequipment condition at all times Each vehicle willclearly on each side the identity in a sanitary and telephone number of the Contractor ( b ) Contractor shall , immediately followingontraas Promptly as imnediately by the the execution and deliveryraof ficab this Y parties , provide to each Residential Unit one recycling container together with such concerning the RecycleNOW Program promotional literature desires to have distributed to gResidential Unhe its develops s will bear the P and elveredcost of Contractor to Residential Units andYthencostoofai initially such containers which replaced due Lo normal wear and tear replacing any are damaged by Contractor or must be -4- , T^e cost cf replacement For lost or stolen recycling containers , er for any reason other Lhan those described herein , shall be borne by the owner of the Residential Unit requiring such replacement container City will bear the cost of a new container when resident moves from premises and takes container 'rrth him All recycling containers , whether provided at the . _'-_set of the progra,i or as replacements , shall be 18 gallon bins designed for the purpose of curbside collection of Recyclable ' a :erials and made from recycled plastic of such color and with s., _,a logo as shall be required by City ( c ) City and Contractor agree that Contractor may decline to collect recycling containers which have not been placed at curbside for collection , or in the event construction work is being performed in the right-of-way , as close as practicable to an access point for the collection vehicle CL bside for this purpose means that portion of a right-of-way ad acent to paved or traveled City roadways ( including alleys ) 1 4 Commingling City and Contractor agree that Contractor ' s c ' gation hereunder shall be to collect Recyclable Materials and Cc -tractor shall not be required to collect Recyclable Materials cc-- ingled pith garbage , trash and rubbish normally collected by sa , itation crews Contractor will notify City of the addresses of Residential Units which commingling occurs to indicate it is unacceptable for collection _-� 1 5 Effective Date and Term Contractor shall provide the ser "" ices under this Agreement for a period of five years cc^ Tenc i ng on 2 Delivery or Disposal of Recyclable Materials 2 1 Oirnership City and Contractor agree that upon coliection-57-7ontractor of Recyclable Materials , such materials ( and all proceeds therefrom ) shall be the property of City and Contractor is hereby authorized to sell and otherwise dispose of such Recyclable Materials in accordance with this Agreement Title to the Recyclable Materials shall pass to City at such time as they are placed in Contractor ' s collection vehicle , removed by Contractor from the Residential Unit , whichever last occurs 2 2 , Delivery Contractor will use its best efforts to deliver all Recyclable Materials collected by Contractor pursuant to this Agreement to the buyer or processor such material ( the "Commodity Buyer" ) than ct the time of delivery will pay the highest price for the type and quantity of material delivered , provided that " best efforts " shall not include the hauling of any such material for a distance greater than 20 miles -5- All proceeds received from the sale of Recyclable Materials to a Commodity Buyer , if not paid directly to City , shall be paid to City by Contractor , ( provided that Contractor shall not be responsible to City if any Commodity Buyer fails to pay for any such materials if Contractor exercised reasonable business judgment in the selection of such Commodity Buyer ) 1 2 3 Fee for Delivery If market conditions for a particular Recyclable Material deteriorate such that Contractor is required to pay a fee to deliver the material to a Commodity Buyer , the Contractor shall deliver such material to the Commodity Buyer charging the lowest fee at such time ( subject to mileage limitation for hauling set forth in Section 2 2 hereof ) The amount of any fee paid by Contractor in connection with such delivery shall be paid to Contractor by City by charging City for such amount on a monthly invoice sent to City 2 4 Disposal In the event that Contractor is unable to deliver for processing any Recyclable Material after exercising his best efforts ( as qualified by Section 2 2 hereof ) to deliver any such material to a Commodity Buyer ( whether in exchange for proceeds or upon payment of a fee to such buyer) , then Contractor shall dispose of such material at a disposal site and City shall bear the cost of any such disposal , which cost shall be charged to City on a monthly invoice sent to City 3 Services , Charges and Payment 3 1 Services Rates As consideration for provision of the services to be provided by Contractor under this agreement , Contractor shall charge to each residential unit with the City receiving service a monthly fee based on the following rate ( a ) For the first twelve ( 12 ) months of the term of this Agreement , the service rate shall be $ 1 15 per Residential Unit per month ( b ) For the remaining forty-eight ( 48 ) months of this Agreement , the service rate ( Ihe " Base Service Rate " ) will be subject to adjustment under Sections 3 2 thereof - 6- 3 2 Adjustment to BaserService Rate ( a ) The Base Service Rate determined under Section 3 1 ( b ) above shall be adjusted upward or downward , as the case may be , for the second and subsequent years of the term of this Agreement to reflect changes in the cost of operations , as reflected by fluctuations in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners ana Clerical Workers ( All Items ) for the Los Angeles , Long Beach , Anaheim Area as published by the U S Department of Labor , Bureau of Labor Statistics ( the " Index " ) As of the last month of the first year of the term of this Agreement and every twelve months thereafter ( the " Rate Modification Month " ) , the Base Service Rate shall be increased or decreased for the ensuing twelve-month period in a percentage amount equal to 100 percent of the net percentage change of the Index The net percentage change shall be Equal to the difference between the Index for and the Index for the Rate Modification Month , divided by the Inds ' for In no case shall the adjustment exceed 7% in any calendar year ( b ) As soon as possible after a Pate Modification Montn Contractor shall send to City a comparative statement setting forth ( i ) the Index for ( ii ) the Index Alfor the Rate Modification Month , ( iii ) the net percentage change , and ( iv ) the increase or decrease in the Base Service Charge applicable to the ensuing twelve-month period On the first invoice sent to the Residential Customer of the comparative statement , the Residential Customer shall pay to Contractor or Contractor shall credit to Residential Customer , as the case may be , a lump sum equal to any increase or decrease applicable to that portion of the current twelve-month period with respect to which invoices were sent without regard to adjustment by the net percentage change for such twelve-month period [ ( c ) In addition the foregoing , the Base Service Rate , as adjusted , charged by Contractor shall be increased or decreased , as the case may be , to reflect increases or decreases in :he number and type of Recyclable Materials collected by Contractor as mutually agreed upon by City and Contractor ] [ ( d ) In addition Lo the above , Contractor may petition the City at any Lime for additional rale and price adjustments at reasonaole times on the basis of unusual changes in its cost of operations , such as revised state and federal laws , city ordinances or regulations , changes in location of delivery sites , and for other reasons ] 3 3 Invoices and Payment Contractor shall invoice each Residential Unit receiving service quarterly in advance of service Each invoice shall include the following - 7- ( a ) The service charge for such quarter , as determined under Section 3 1 hereof , ( b ) After a Rate Modification Month , retroactive adjustment required by Section 3 2 the amount of any ( b ) Contracto ( c )to The aggregatecycl fees rPaid for such month by e Materials to Commodity Buyers --- and the aggregate disposal cost charged by Recyclable Materials which Contractor disposes ofCattaacdis for site ( which fees and charges shall increase the service ccharposa ge) , and 9 , ( d ) After a Rate Modification Month , retroactive adjustment required b the amount of any y Section 3 2 ( b ) The above items shall be netted to reflect the net amount for the month to be paid by City to Contractor or , to be paid by Contractor to Cityevente the the net nooice reflects a net amount owed to City together with the inviocee for the month Contractor will be entitled to pant for its services rendered hereunder whether or not Citymcollects any fees from owners of Residential Units for such service 4 Other Obligations of Contractor 4 1 Insurance Contractor shall at all times during the term of this-----Ag�Pement maintain in full force and effect Employer ' s Liability , Workmen ' s Compensation , Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance , including contractual liability coverage for the provisions of Section 4 3 hereof 9 by insurers and for policy limits acceptable itou City e shall be and before commencement of work hereunder Contractor agrees to furnish City certificates of insurance or other evidence satisfactory to City to the effect that such insurance has been procured and is in force The certificates shall contain the followingexpress lieatioTs " This is to certify that the olicesinsunce described herein have been issued toif the oinsuredrafor whom this certificate is executed and are in force at this time In the event of cancellation or material change in a policy affecting the certificate holder , thirty ( 30 ) days prior written notice will be given certificate holder " For the purpose of this Agreement ,following types of insurance in at leassttthetlimitslspecified the -8- COVERAGES Workmen ' s Compensation Statutory Employer ' s Liability $500 , 000 General Liability $2 , 500 , 000 combined including Bodily Injury single limit per and Property Damage occurrence Automobile Liability $2 , 500 , 000 combined including Bodily Injury single limit per and Property Damage occurrence Excess Liability $5 , 000 , 000 combined single limit per occurrence To the extent permitted by lair , all or any part of any required insurance coverages may be provided under a plan or plans of self- insurance The coverage may be provided by Contractor ' s ` parent corporation 4 2 Bond ( a ) Performance Bond Contractor will be required to furnish a corporate surety bond City will accept surety bond currently posted for performance of the Residential Refuse Franchise ( b ) Power of Attorney Attorney ' s - in-fact who sign performance bonds or contract bonds must file with each bond a certified and effectively dated copy of their power of attorney 4 3 Indemnity Contractor hereby agrees to indemnify , defend , and hold harmless City , its officers , agents , servants , and employees from and against any and all suits , actions , legal proceedings , claims , demands , damages , costs , expenses , and attorney ' s fees resulting from a willfull or negligent act or ommission of Contractor , its officers , agents , servants and employees in the performance of this Agreement -9- 4 n Office Contractor shall maintain a business office ecuipped cTith sufficient telephones and shall have a responsible -erson in charge from 8 00 a m to 5 00 p m on regular rcilection days 4 5 Complaints All complaints made to Contractor shall be civen prompt and courteous attention In the event of an alleged _ - Issed scheduled collection , Contractor shall investigate and if such allegation is verified , shall arrange for the collection of 1 `ie Recyclable Materials not collected within ?4 hours after the cPrnnlaint is received 4 6 Compliance with Laws Contractor shall conduct its rations under this Agreement in compliance with all applicable ia,'s , regulations and ordinances except to the extent that any crovision hereof conflicts with an ordinance of City 4 8 Reports Contractor shall prepare and provide to City u , rterly , and to the City Council of City annually , reports s, ecifying in reasonable detail the number of Residential Units Participating in the RecycleN0W Program , the type and nuantiz ,, of Recyclable Materials collected and the proceeds received or fees or costs paid in connection with the processing or disposal of such materials 5 Miscellaneous 5 1 Exclusive Contract Contractor shall have the sole and exclusive franchse , TTse , permit and privilege to provide Recycling Services for Residential Units within the cor-orate limits of City 5 2 Storms and Other Disasters City will grant Contractor reasonable variance from regular schedules and routes in the event such variance is necessary due to any storm , = lcod , hurricane or other disaster or Act of God City also agross to renegotiate the amounts to be paid to Contractor hereunder 1 [i the event Contractor is required to perform services beyond the scope of this Agreement due to any such storm , flood , hurricane or other disasters or act of God 5 3 Force Majeure Contractor ' s obligation to perform services under this Agreement shall he suspended in the event such performance is prevented by strikes , work stopages , storms , floods , hurricanes or other disasters or Acts of God , laws , governmental rules , regulations or orders , and other events or casualties beyond the control of the parties - 10- 5 4 Independent Contractor In rvices hereunder Contractor shall be considered minan tl1inde ependent contractor 5 5 lssignment Contractor shall not assign this Agreement wizhcut the expressed prior written consent of City , [ to come - affiliate exception ] 5 6 Entire Agreement This Agreement embodies the entire understanding between the parties relating to its subject matter , and shall not be modified or terminated except by a writing duly signed by each of the parties hereto No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless in a writing duly signed by the party to be bound 5 7 Amendments This Agreement may not be amended or moc - led except by written instrument signed by each of the par- es hereto 5 3 Termination Due To Changes in Technology In the event of a change in recycling technology that substantially imposes the Tanner of accomplishing the purpose of this agreement , or any chance in Federal or State law that substantially effects the per; cr-lance of this Agreement , either party shall have the right to terminate this contract upon giving the other party at least twelve ( 12 ) months written notice during the initial three ( 3 ) years of the contract or Si ?' ( 6 ) months written notice during the , final two ( 2 ) years of the contract , of intention to terminate If City wishes to terminate due to a change in recycling technology , Contractor will be given first right of refusal in utilizing this new technology 5 9 Termination Due to Contractor ' s Unsatisfactory Performance City reserves the right to terminate this contract upon Contractor ' s material breach of the terms of this Agreement Among the actions or inactions considered to be a material breach shall be failure or refusal to perform duties required to be performed hereunder , including refusal or failure to pick up and dispose of the materials subject to this Agreement , failure to provide disposal containers , pursuant to this Agreement , and significant numbers of founded citizen complaints If City determines a material breach had occured , City shall give Contractor written notice within 48 hours thereof Contractor shall have 30 days within which to cure said breach , if breach can be cured If at the end of 30 days , the breach has not been cured , or immediately , if breach cannot be cured , City shall give Contractor a written notice of termination , said termination to be effective 30 days from the date of said notice If Contractor disputes that a material breach has occured , the Contractor may request arbitration before a mutually acceptable arbitrator , whose decision shall be final - 11 - 5 10 Further Pssurances Each party agrees that it will , upc - the reasonable request of the other party and without further consideration , take such acitons and deliver such document as may bP reasonably necessary to carry out more effectively the terms and provisions of this Agreement 5 11 Counterparts This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts , each of which shall be considered an original , but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the sar-e instrument 5 12 Severability In the event that one or more provisions of :his Agreement shall be held invalid , illegal or unenforceable of the remaining provisions contained therein shall not in any wa ,, be affected or impaired thereby 5 13 Waiver The failure of either party hereto to enforce frc - time to time a strict performance of any of the provisions the eof or its failure to exercise any of the rights hereunder in the event of any default shall not be construed as a waiver of an; such right or a consent to any continuing or subsequent fa ure or breach of either party hereto 5 14 Remedies Cumulative All rights and remedies provided for herein shall be cumulative and in addition to any other r1 : L s or remedies such parties may have at law or in equity 5 15 Notices All notices , demands , requests or other co-runications required by or given under this Agreement shall De in ,citing and shall be deemed given when delivered personally or by commercial courier or when deposited in the mail and sent by rea stared or certified mail , postage prepaid , return receipt recuested , to the parties at the following addresses If to City , to 22795 Barton Rd Grand Terrace , CA 92324 AfTN City Manager If to Contractor , to P 0 Box 818 10412 Richardson Loma Linda , CA 92354 Attention District Manager Or to such other address as either party may have furnished to the other in writing - 12- 5 16 Headings The headings in this Agreement are solely for the convenience of reference and shall be given no effect in the construction or interpretation of this Agreement 5 17 Governing law This Agreement shall be governerd by and construed—in accordance with the laws of the State of California IN WITNESS WHERFOF , the parties hereto have duly executed this Agreement as of the date and year first above written CITY OF GRAND TERRACE By Mayor , City of Grand Terrace ATTEST Deputy City Clerk , City of Grand Terrace LOMA LINDA DISPOSAL COMPANY , INC BY APPROVED AS TO FORM City Attorney , City of Grand Terrace - 13- ATTACHMENT 6 RESOLUTION NO 91-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIIE CITY OF GRAND 'I ERRACE, CALIFORNIA, SETTING FORTII THE NEW REFUSE RATE FOR SINGLE—FAMILY COLLECTION AND RECYCLING SERVICES WHEREAS, the City of Grand Tel i ace has entered into a conti act with BFI/Loma Linda Disposal to pi ovide recycling sex vices, and WHEREAS, it has been determined that a new refuse tate lot standar d single-family collection and t ecy cling sex vices needs to be established NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Gi and lei r ace DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER TIIE FOLLOWING Section 1 That the i efuse r ate fox standar d single-family j collection shall be set at $12 15 pet month A Senior Citizen discount of 10% of the r efuse poi tion of the r ate shall apply fhe Senior discount rate will be set at $11 89 per month Section 2 The rates shall be effect ire only at such time that single family collection and recycling sex vices ai e provided Mayor of the City of Gi and lei x ace and of the City Council then cot A f FESJ Deputy City Clei lc RESOLUTION NO 91-02 PAGE 2 I, BRENDA STANFILL, Deputy City Cleik of the City of the City of Gi and Tei lace, do hei eby ceitify that the fol.egoing Resolution was inti oduced and adopted at a Regulai meeting of the City Council of the City of Gi and `I ei i ace held on the 28th day of Mai ch 1991, by the following vote d ! i i AYES i a NOES t 4. ABSENT t ABSTAIN I Deputy City Cleik t Appioved as to foim 4 1 City Attoi ney