The URL can be used to link to this page

09/09/1993 , c..w..w.rF FILE COPY • LIT ). 191 �'VEM�EA�• September 9, 1993 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace CITY OF GRAND TERRACE ( California 92324-5295 Civic Center (909)824-6621 Fax(909)783-7629 Regular Meetings 2nd and 4th Thursday - 6:00 p.m. Byron R Matteson Mayor Ronald M Christianson Mayor Pro Tempore d_< } Gene Carlstrom Herman Hilkey Jim Singley 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 September 9, 1993 GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER 6: 00 P.M. 22795 Barton Road i Call to Order - * Invocation - Pastor Roger Greenwalt, First Baptist Church of Grand Terrace * Pledge of Allegiance - * Roll Call - STAFF COUNCIL CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS ACTION 1. Approval of 08/26/93 Minutes Approve 2. Approval of Check Register No. Approve CRA090993 ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ,:LLIVENE CITY COUNCIL 1. Items to Delete 2 . SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS A. Proclamation - "Days of Caring" October 8-9, 1993 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 with- out discussion. Any Councilmember, Staff Member, or Citizen may request removal of an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. A. Approve Check Register No. 090993 Approve B. Ratify 09/09/93 CRA Action C. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF COUNCIL 09/09/93 - Page 2 of 2 RECOMMENDATIONS ACTION D. Approve 8/26/93 Minutes Approve E. Declare Computers and Truck Approve Surplus Property F. Disadvantaged Business Enter- Approve prise Program G. Authorization to Attend League Authorize of California Cities Meeting in San Francisco H. Authorization to go to Bid for Authorize Street Striping 4. PUBLIC COMMENT 5. ORAL REPORTS A. Committee Reports 1. Emergency Operations Committee (a) Minutes of 7/20/93 B. Council Reports 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 6:00 P.M. A. Zoning Amendment - Z-93-01 (Ac- cessory Structures) 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None 8. NEW BUSINESS None 9. CLOSED SESSION Ad3ourn T�M THE NEXT REGULAR CRA/CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON SEPTEMBER 23, 1993 AT 6:00 P.M. AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS FOR THE 9/23/93 MEETING MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BY NOON 09/16/93 .- PENDING C R A APPROVAL CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - AUGUST 26, 1993 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 August 26, 1993 at 6: 00 p.m. - PRESENT: Byron Matteson, Chairman Ronald Christianson, Vice-Chairman Gene Carlstrom, Agency Member Herman Hilkey, Agency Member Jim Singley, Agency Member Thomas J. Schwab, Executive Director Brenda Stanfill, Secretary Randall Anstine, Assistant City Manager Patrizia Materassi, Community Development Director Phil Bush, Finance Director Joe Kicak, City Engineer John Harper, City Attorney Lt. Rodney Hoops, Sheriff's Department ABSENT: None APPROVAL OF 08/12/93 MINUTES CRA-93-38 MOTION BY VICE.-CHAIRMAN CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY AGENCY MEMBER SINGLEY, CARRIED 4-0-0-1 (CHAIRMAN MATTESON ABSTAINED) , to approve the August 12, 1993 CRA Minutes. APPROVAL OF CHECK REGISTER NO. CRA082693 CRA-93-39 MOTION BY VICE-CHAIRMAN CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY AGENCY MEMBER SINGLEY, CARRIED 5-0, to approve Check Register No. CRA082693 . CONTRACT FOR A MOBILE HOME CONVERSION STUDY CRA-93-40 MOTION BY AGENCY MEMBER SINGLEY, SECOND BY VICE-CHAIRMAN CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0, to adopt the Consulting Agreement, to be approved by the City Attorney, authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a Consulting Agreement with the London Group for the Mobile Home Park Conversion Study. C RA AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 CRA Minutes - 08/26/93 Page 2 Chairman Matteson adjourned the regular CRA meeting at 6: 35 p.m. , until the next regular City Council/CRA meeting, which is scheduled to be held on Thursday, September 9, 1993 at 6: 00 p.m. SECRETARY of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace CHAIRMAN of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1 DATE; SEPTEMBER 9, 1.993 CHECK REGISTER NO. 090993 OUTBTANKN3 DEMANDS AS OF: SEPTEMBER 9, 1993 CHECK NO. VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT P9084 UNITED STATES ESCROW LOAN, MOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM $ 34,531. 00 28053 NITE & DAY SIGN COMPANY SIGNS FOR BARTON CENTER 3,597.50 28074 KICAK & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM, 7/26-8/22/93 216.50 $ 38,345. 00 0 XI I CERTIFY THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE ABOVE LISTED CHECKS FOR PAYMENT OF THE COMMUNITY RED VELOPMENT AGENCY LIABILITIES HAVE BEEN AUDITED BY ME AND ARE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE EXPENDITURE; FOR THE PERATION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. NI 0 R.1i d f G) PHI BUSH i� FIN CE DIRECTORDi Z 57.0 "4 0 2 A y J J L i r , ` r ' „J I $r ' , f y 1 r _ t 1_` j '.. 'may_ '^nJ A d ';.. ry r •_ • - ; 1993 DAYS OF CARING WHEREAS, the residents of the Inland Empire have joined together y through the decades with a deep-rooted sense of caring, of neighbor helping _ neighbor, to strengthen our communities and create and maintain quality of life in the region, and WHEREAS, over the years our generous and inventive citizens have - - created an ingenious network of volunteer organizations to give help where help , is needed, and --- , r..a.r =r,m,- WHEREAS, Days of Caring will bring together community-minded - - ��,-,� volunteers in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties who represent a cross `- ..y section of business, industry, government, labor, schools, churches and service �-- clubs, to help solve critical human needs such as homelessness, hunger and ' - -- poverty, and ---- Y_.. WHEREAS, United Way will match these volunteers with projects -a- agencies cannot afford to have done because of limited funds or human resources, — - and - `„` WHEREAS, these days of volunteering will make a positive and ::,-- �- significant impact on the community, yA .. �a,ry NOW, THEREFORE, I, Byron R. Matteson, Mayor of the City of Grand T. -f -Y=� Terrace, on behalf of the City Council, declare OCTOBER 8 & 9, 1993 AS ; DAYS OF CARING IN THE INLAND EMPIRE and express our deep - ---� --r�,,.;.-r appreciation for the assistance and resources made available by Arrowhead ;Y� ,� United Way and United Way of the Inland Valleys and their volunteers for the _.w._ .c` successful public/pnzvate sector collaboration in creating and supporting this L.A., '' impact endeavor ................. ..� • .,1. i s mil N, • ...id,' ._ .Y,' .r-,. S "i '' '�'.: Mayor ofthe Guy ofGrand Terrace •�"`— ,, `' ru.� J -J ,r•,—..era,. • ' and of the City Council thereof. :..r.:, 5 `rrc-..�e,,�- s. v . ,, ''', �'. :i ;`le -PPis ',of September,;:499 MM CITY OF GRAND TERRACE 1 DATE; SEPTEMBER 9, 1993 CHECK REGISTER NO:090993 O JTBTAPTNG DEMANDS ' AS OF; SEPTEMBER 9, 1993 ` CHECK NO. VENDOR = DESCRIPTION AMOUNT P9081 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 8/18/93 $ 409 20 P90821 SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 8/18/93 193 10 P9083� I CARNRGIE COUNCIL PUBLICATION FOR GRAFFITI DIVERSION 13 . 00 P9085 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 8/20/93 127 63 P90861 SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 8/20/93 74 . 61 P9087= SOUTHERN] CA EDISON COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 8/23/93 24 91 P9088 SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 8/23/93 20 86 P9089 APPLICATIONS UNLIMITED WINDOW' TINTING, COUNCIL CHAMBERS 75 00 P9090 R H A ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR BARTON ROAD AND PICO PAR4‹, DULY, 1993 3,893.13 P9091 ELICIA ENGLEMAN TERMINATION, PAY P/R ENDING, 8/24/93 C) 129 27 P9092 WILLIAM HAYWARD INSTRUCTOR, KARATE Z rii 672 00 P9093 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 8/26/93 r-" 178.71 Mfg) P9094 SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 8/26/93 1 C) 118.96 P9095 QJ LARRY MAINEZ PLANNING TECHNICIAN, 8/16-8/27/93 a "< 562.91 r P9096 PERS RETIREMENT FOR PAYROLL ENDING 8/27/93 4,732.58 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE 2 ' 1 ,DOTE: S ER`9, 199 f 1 a CHECK REGISTER N0: 090993 714.7 OUTSTAAPP0 DEEDS lB OF; SEPTEMBERt 9, 1993 ti # ' a 1 , CHECK NO: VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT I , 1 , P9097 CHILD CARE CENTER EMPLOYEE CHILD CARE PAYMENTS,SEPT.93 $ 1, 267 . 00 P9098 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY DISABILITY INSURANCE, SEPT.93 713 . 72 P9099 PEBSCO DEFERRED COMPENSATION,AUGUST, 1993 6,721.88 P9100 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 8/31/93 254 . 74 P9101 SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 8/31/93 20.90 28050 SUSAN MORRONE REFUND, CHILD CARE SERVICES 55.00 28051 PAM HUDSPETH TOYS FOR CHILD CARE 100. 98 28052 ICMA PUBLICATION, PLANNING 25.45 28054 A & A PRODUCE PRODUCE FOR CHILD CARE 180. 20 L28055 AT&T INFORMATION CENTER RENT PHONE,EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER 19.08 c28056' "— ACCENT PRINT & DESIGN PRINT PERMITS, SENIOR NEWSLETTER, CITY NEWSLETTER/RECREATION BROCHURES 4,206 53 { — 1 1 f i 28057 , �ffi ILMATTPW-ADDINGTON i 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING,8/19/93 50.00 28058 -114r 1 IMARGARE'V ALFORD REIMBURSEMENT FOR LOCAL MILEAGE 22.00 28059 RANDAI,L ANSTINE AUTO ALLOWANCE FOR SEPT. 1993 200.00 , CITY OF GRAND TERRACE 3 )ATE; SE PTEMBE t 9, 1993 CHECK REGISTER NO: 090993 3UTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF; SEPTEMBER 9, 1993 2HECR NO. VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 28060 ARID IMAGE SYSTEMS MAINTENANCE, PANASONIC COPIER,AUG. 1993 $ 121. 29 28061 B & G RENTALS RENT EQUIPMENT, MAINTENANCE 301.50 28062 BAYLESS STATIONERS OFFICE SUPPLIES 331 27 28063 DANIEL BUCHANAN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, 8/19/93 50 00 28064 CMBTA DIVISION IV REGISTRATION FOR QUARTERLY MEETING 15 00 28065 EWING IRRIGATION IRRIGATION SUPPLIES 373 62 28066 FEDERAL EXPRESS MAIL EXPRESS MAIL, CITY MANAGER 22 50 28067 GALL'S INC. WHISTLES, CROSSING GUARDS 60 35 28068 KAREN GERBER MONITOR RECREATION PROGRAMS 39.75 28069 .a ' HONEYWELL, INC. MAINTENANCE, HVAC UNIT, SEPT 93 1,078.58 28070- — INLAND EMPIRE STAGES BUS FOR RECREATION EXCURSION 7, 020 00 28071 — — ` INMARr NAME SIGN 13 78 ( l'e;'6i 'i.. r , 1 28072 INTERSTATE BRANDS CORP. BAKERY GOODS FOR CHILD CARE 66 72 28073 JANI KING JANITORIAL SERVICE,CHILD CLRE,AUG. 1993 809 00 28074 KICAK & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERING SERVICES, 7/26-8/22/93 12,q71 50 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE 4 DATE; SEPTEMBER 9, 1993 CHECK REGISTER NO: 090993 OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF; SEPTEMBER 9, 1993 CHECK NO. VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 28075 MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHONE FOR 7/11-8/10/93 $ 45. 81 28076 PATRIZIA MATERASSI AUTO ALLOWANCE FOR SEPTEMBER, 1993 200.00 28077 GREG MEMENDREZ DAIRY PRODUCTS FOR CHILD CARE 279 60 28078 RAY MUNSON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, 8/19/93 50.00 28079 OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY MAINTENANCE ON ELEVATOR, SEPT 1993 225 63 28080 PACIFIC BELL PHONE FOR CIVIC CENTER,CHILD CARE, AND SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER 724.92 28081 ti PAGENET PAGERS FOR SEPTEMBER, 1993 44 00 28082 PETTY CASH REIMBURSE PETTY CASH,CHILD CARE 153 . 19 28083 PRO PAVING REPAIR STREETS, VARIOUS LOCATIONS 7 , 240. 60 28084 QUALITY LIGHT MAINTENANCE REPLACE LIGHTS, CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT 4 , 600 00 28085 RADIO SHACK SMALL EQUIPMENT, EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER 96 45 28086 S.E. RY1COFF & COMPANY FOOD FOR CHILD CARE 837 61 28087 SAM'S CLUB MEMBERSHIP, CHILD CARE 25 00 28088 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO WEED ABATEMENT, JAN-JUNE, 1993 2,000.00 r CITY OF GRAND TERRACE 5 DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 1993 CHECK REGISTER NO: 000993 DUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF; SEPTEMBER 9, 1993 HECK NO. VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 28089 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CAL—ID FOR 1993/1994 $ 7 , 930. 00 28090 SHERIFF RICHARD WILLIAMS LAW ENFORCEMENT/CRIME PREVENTION OFFICER FOR JULY, AUGUST, & SEPTEMBER, 1993 214 , 422 . 00 2g091. , Ja THOMAS SCHWAB AUTO ALLOWANCE FOR SEPTEMBER, 1993 200.00 28092 ., JIM SIMS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, 8/19/93 50.00 28093 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY ELECTRIC FOR CIVIC CENTER, SIGNAL, AND ONE LIGHT AT PICO PARK 4,019.85 , , 28094 , STATE COMPENSATION INS.FUND WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE FOR AUG. 1993 5,201.81 28095 STOP INDUSTRIES SUPPLIES FOR CHILD CARE 384 89 28096 THE SUN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 762.32 28097 TEXACO REFINING/MARKETING FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES/EQUIPMENT 234.42 28098 TOYS R US SUPPLIES FOR CHILD CARE 444.65 28099 WAXIE JANITORIAL SUPPLIES,CHILD CARE 22.68 28100 , ;, WESTEC SECURITY,INC. SECURITY FOR CHILD CARE, OCT—DEC, 1993 387.00 28101 DOUG WILSON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, 8/19/93 50.00 28102 YOSEIITE WATERS BOTTLED WATER FOR CITY OWNED FACILITIES 118.34 u CITY OF GRAND TERRACE 6 A TE; S pTEMQE , 9, 199 fr CHECK REGISTER NO: 090993 p QUTPTAAD TWO DEM iDa 7!S r Off'; SEPTEMBE 2 9, 1993 __--____--- CHECK NO. VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 11 ' ' PAYROLL FOR AUGUST, 1993 $125,795 65 i t TOTAL: $424,204. 63 s I I CERTIFY THAT, TQ THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE ABOVE LISTED CHECKS FOR PAYMENT OF THE CITY LIABILITIES HAVE BEEN AUDITED BY ME AND NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE EXPENDITURES FOR THE OPERATION OF THE CITY. PHIL BUSH FINANCE DIRECTOR 1 PENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL CITY OF GRAND TERRACE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - AUGUST 26, 1993 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 August 26, 1993 at 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Byron Matteson, Mayor Ronald Christianson, Mayor Pro Tempore Gene Carlstrom, Councilmember Herman Hilkey, Councilmember Jim Singley, Councilmember Thomas J. Schwab, City Manager Brenda Stanfill, City Clerk Randall Anstine, Assistant City Manager Patrizia Materassi, Community Development Director Phil Bush, Finance Director Joe Kicak, City Engineer John Harper, City Attorney Lt. Rodney Hoops, Sheriff's Department ABSENT: None The meeting was opened with invocation by Councilmember Herman Hilkey, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilmember Carlstrom. Mayor Matteson convened City Council meeting at 6:00 P.M. Mayor Matteson reconvened City Council meeting at 6: 35 P.M. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 2A. Recvclinct Family of the Month - July 1993 Mayor Matteson announced that John K. Matthews and family of 11733 Eton Drive received the Recycling Family of the Month Award for July 1993 and were the recipients of merchant gift certificates from -JB's restaurant, Flowers by Yvonne, and the Food Connection. - 2B. Certificate of Commendation - Colton Joint Unified School District Mayor- Matteson presented the Colton Joint Unified School District with a Certificate of Commendation, COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM#3 fl Council Minutes - 08/26/93 Page 2 which cites that Terrace View Elementary School received the 1993 California Distinguished Schools Award and recognizes the School District's exemplary endeavor to fulfill the educational needs of the community. Dr. Fischer, Superintendent of the Colton Joint Unified School District, accepted the award and praised Terrace View Elementary School Principal, Maryette Ferre. 2C. Proclamation - Elizabeth Murphy Mayor Matteson read a Proclamation honoring Mrs. Elizabeth Murphy's 100th birthday. CONSENT CALENDAR CC-93-132 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SINGLEY, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER HILKEY, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the Consent Calendar. A. APPROVE CHECK REGISTER NO. 082693 B. RATIFY 08/26/93 CRA ACTION C. WAIVE FULL READING OF ORDINANCES ON AGENDA D. APPROVE 8/12/93 MINUTES E. ACCEPT DECLARATION OF DEDICATION (MC DUFFEE) F. AUTHORIZE REDUCTION IN BOND AMOUNT - TRACT 13050 (T.J. AUSTYN) G. AUTHORIZE CALLING FOR BIDS (RECONSTRUCTION OF GRAND TERRACE ROAD) PUBLIC COMMENT Janet Lenaker, 23125 Westwood Street, Grand Terrace; indicating her membership in the group Citizens for a Grand Terrace School District, she expressed satisfaction with the number of people who attended the meeting that was held at City Hall on Wednesday, August 25, 1993 to support the founding of a Grand Terrace School District. She revealed that anyone interested in signing the petition or obtaining further information regarding the development of a Grand Terrace School District can contact the Citizen's group at (909) 424-3352. Z 1 Council Minutes - 08/26/93 Page 3 ORAL REPORTS 5B. Council Reports Councilmember Carlstrom, reported that he presented the City's concerns regarding the proposed changes along the I-215 freeway to SANBAG and indicated that SANBAG is supportive of the City's interests. Mayor Matteson, questioned whether the I-215 changes will affect the fencing or grounds of Grand Terrace Elementary School. Councilmember Carlstrom, responded that the issue of the school grounds was not covered and remarked that the feasibility study projects up to the year 2015. He extended condolences to the family of John and Paula Batista, residents of Grand Terrace for the past 17 years, who lost their 21 year old son, Paul John, to cancer on Friday, August 20, 1993 . City Manager Schwab, explained that the I-215 project plan involves the removal of a 1/2 acre strip of land from the elementary school lot, which will necessitate the relocation of the fence and the construction of a sound attenuation wall at that site. He indicated that the Colton Joint Unified School District contacted the Riverside County Transportation Commission regarding the situation and remarked that the RCTC will purchase property on Vivienda which will be given to the School District as compensation for the property loss. Councilmember Hilkey, indicating that the City is a part of the Omnitrans transportation group, remarked that issues within Omnitrans will not affect the City. He applauded the use- of- the SMART trailer in the City and complimented the EARS program. He urged businesses that are experiencing financial problems to contact the- Chamber for assistance through EARS. He encouraged the public to sign petitions regarding the formation of a Grand Terrace School District. Mayor Matteson, informed the public that the City has not taken any position regarding the formation of the District, explaining that it is an independent group of parents who are advocating for Council Minutes - 08/26/93 Page 4 the development of the District. He asserted further that City Hall is available for use by various groups but stressed that the City does not necessarily endorse any of the organizations that use the City Hall for meeting purposes. PUBLIC HEARING 6A. Zoning Amendment - Z-93-01 (Accessory Structures) CC-93-133 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HILKEY, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SINGLEY, CARRIED 5-0, to continue the Public Hearing for Zoning Amendment Z-93-01 to the regularly scheduled City Council Meeting of September 9, 1993 at 6: 00 p.m. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7A. Second Reading - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrce Amending Title 4 of the Municipal Code and Establishing a Comprehensive Schedule for Fees, Taxes, and Fines for Permits, Licenses, Services, Facilities, and Activities Provided by the City of Grand Terrace CC-93-134 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER HILKEY, CARRIED 5-0, to adopt the Ordinance amending Title 4 of the Municipal Code and establishing a_ comprehensive schedule for fees, taxes, and fines for permits, licenses, services, facilities, and activities provided by the City of Grand Terrace. NEW BUSINESS 8A. Joint Funding of the D.A.R.E. Program Between the City and the Colton Joint Unified School District CC-93-135 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HILKEY, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SINGLEY, CARRIED 5-0, to approve funding the D.A.R.E. program officer_ at Terrace View and Grand Terrace Elementary Schools through Community Development Block Grant funds and in the event that the. CDBG funds are not available, to. approve the pursuit fof a. 50/50 Joint funding of the D.A.R.E.. program- between the City and the Colton Joint Unified School District, with the City's appropriation for the cost of the program to be $12,000 for the 1993/94 budget year. 1 7 f Council Minutes - 08/26/93 Page 5 8B. Traffic Signal - Mt Vernon and Grand Terrace Road/Barton Road and Grand Terrace Road City Engineer Kicak, summarizing that at the previous Council meeting, Staff was directed to investigate the feasibility of installing traffic control at the two locations in question, stated that he reviewed SWARS (State-wide Accident Reporting Systems) and identified the number and type of accidents that have occurred at those locations. He remarked that there should be a minimum of five traffic accidents in excess of $100 in damages in one year at a given location to warrant the installation of a traffic signal. Councilmember Singley, inquired as to the possiblity of installing "stop" signs rather than traffic signals at the sites in question. City Engineer Kicak, acknowledged that installing a "stop" sign would be considerably less expensive than a traffic. signal. Mayor Matteson, citing the excessive cost of installing a traffic signal, remarked that the issue did not need to be discussed. Councilmember Singley, requested that installing "stop" signs at those locations be given consideration and aired his concern regarding the danger inherent in the intersection of Grand Terrace Road and Mt. Vernon. Mayor Matteson, expressed concern regarding the stopping distance available for traffic approaching the top of the hill on Mt. Vernon. He indicated apprehension regarding whether installing a traffic control device at Mt. Vernon and Grand Terrace Road would constitute a greater traffic hazard than leaving the intersection- uncontrolled. City Engineer Kicak, remarked that certain types of accidents may decrease following-the-installation of a "stop" sign at a given intersection but added that year- end_ collisions may increase. He' stated that traffic signals are not-warranted at the locations in question. City Attorney Harper, commented that the City would incur liability should-anyone-injure& in- ari accident prove that the trafficsignal or sign installed by the City contributed to the cause of the accident. Council Minutes - 08/26/93 Page 6 Councilmember Singley, questioned whether the City could incur liability if no action was taken on the matter. City Attorney Harper, stated that the City could be held liable for the faulty design of the street only, adding added that any recovery would be nominal, however. He asserted that the City's examination and subsequent rejection of traffic control at those sites would protect the City from liability. City Engineer Kicak, related that the conditions to warrant the installation of a "stop" sign are identical to those that regulate the installation of traffic signals. Councilmember Singley, questioned the justification for all of the other "stop" signs along Mt. Vernon. City Attorney Harper, revealed that the signs were warranted at the time of installion. Councilmember Singley, indicated that eventually "stop" signs become more effective and safer as drivers become acquainted with the location of the signs and suggested that the matter be returned for further consideration in the future. Councilmember Hilkey, concurred with the dangers at the intersection and suggested that traffic lights be installed without any additional paving. City Engineer Kicak, remarked that the cost estimate did not include more than 200' of curb and gutter, clarifying _that the traffic signal accounts for the excessive cost of_ the project.. Councilmember Singley, inquired whether Measure I. monies could be utilized to fund the proposed project. City Manager Schwab, responed in the affirmative but indicated, his feeling that those monies are not a viable _ __ source of_ funding for, the project, adding that $200,000 would need to be appropriated from the General Fund to complete the project. Mayor Matteson, concluded that enforcing the 25 mph speed limit on Mt. Vernon would resolve the dilemma. Council Minutes - 08/26/93 Page 7 Councilmember Carlstrom, inquired as to the feasiblity of the installation of an amber, flashing warning light suspended over the intersection. City Engineer Kicak, repsonded that there are warning signals on the approach to the intersection in question. ORDER OF ADJOURNMENT Mayor Pro Matteson adjourned the City Council Meeting at 7:16 p.m. , until the next regular CRA/City Council Meeting, which is scheduled to be held on Thursday, September 9, 1993 . CITY CLERK of the City of Grand Terrace MAYOR of the City of Grand Terrace STAFF REPORT DATE September 3, 1993 CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (X) MEETING DATE September 9, 1993 SUBJECT DECLARE COMPUTERS AND TRUCK SURPLUS PROPERTY immumillimimmimmiliminmingimilmimmmiin Staff has recently replaced the Micom dedicated word processors in the City Clerks Department with personal computers due to the operating cost of the old systems. The City is in possession of two Micom computers which are obsolete at this time The City currently owns a Chevrolet S-10 truck (ID# 1GCBA14B5F8167615) which has previously been used for the maintenance crew This truck is no longer needed STAFF RECOMMENDS COUNCIL: DECLARE SAID CHEVROLET TRUCK AND COMPUTERS AS SURPLUS PROPERTY, AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO DISPOSE OF THE EQUIPMENT IN A WAY THAT IS MOST BENEFICIAL TO Tkih CITY OF GRAND TERRACE. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM#3 E STAFF REPORT DATE September 3, 1993 CRA ITEM () COUNCIL ITEM (X) MEETING DATE September 9, 1993 SUBJECT DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM On September 30, 1993 our Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program will expire In order to be a recipient of Department of Transportation funds and subsequent Title 49 CFR, Part 23, the City must annually adopt this program See attached letter from the Department of Transportation _ STAFF RECOMMENDS COUNCIL: ADOPT A DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE AND DIRECT THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH NEXT YEAR'S GOALS IN BOTH MINORITY AND MAJORITY MEDIA WITH A 45-DAY COMMENT PERIOD COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM* 3F STATE ^F CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY _ PETE WILSON Govornor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT B P 0 BOX 231 SAN BERNARDINO CALIFORNIA 92402 I , TDD (909) 383 5959 August 16, 1993 Ms. Nita Brown DBE Liaison Officer City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92324 Dear Ms. Brown: On September 30, 1993 your Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program (DBE) will expire. The 1987 Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act (STURAA) states that for purposes of the Act, women are presumed to be socially and economically disadvantaged. Accordingly, FHWA has eliminated the requirement for separate DB and WBE goals. All projects shall contain only DBE goals of which any or all may be made up of WBE's. The minimum goal is still 10%, but also includes women under the new act. You are required to publish your next year's goals in both minority and majority media with a 45-day comment period for informational purposes. Please be sure advertisement shows the annual goal and the goal period of October 1, 1993 through September 30, 1994. Documentation of advertisement of annual goals must be forwarded to our office. In addition to the renewal of the DBE goal, renewal of your lobbying disclosure certification is required. FHWA requires that all local agencies that are utilizing DOT funds sign the enclosed "Attachment A" titled "Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans and Cooperative Agreements". If non-Federal funds are used for lobbying, the local agency must also sign "Standard Form LLL" which is included as "Attachment B". As the DBE program is a requirement for all federally and state funded projects and the lobbying certification is required for all federally funded projects, it is important that both be kept current. If you have any questions, please call Mary- Patterson at (9091._ x , 383-6460. Very truly yours, J. L. BALCOM Ac_CSIVS° 9 Chief, Local Streets �� \ Attachments , r,= r1. (IT). `•RAND TE• ' 'C-` NOTICE OF MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE moo. ft*. (DBE) GOALS AND RIGHT OF PUBLIC COMMENT • Mcw J• NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to the public that: 1 The City of Grand Terrace has heretofore major adopted project P J DBE overall goals of 10% for the period of October 1, 1993 through September 30, 1994, consisting of utilizing minority business enterprises in all aspects of contracting to the maximum extent feasible and committing itself to substantially increase minority business utilization These goals further include insuring that the City of Grand Terrace, its contractors and subcontractors, which are recipients of federal aid funds, agree to provide minority business enterprises with the maximum opportunity to participate m the performance of contracts and subcontracts and a commitments by the City of Grand Terrace on all its contracts and subcontractors to take all reasonable steps in accordance with 49 CFR 23 to insure that minority business enterprises have the maximum opportunity to compete for and perform contracts 2 The public may inspect the goals and description of how they were set at City Hall, City Clerk's Department 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, CA, for a period of 30 days from the date that this notice is first published. 3 The U S Department of Transportation and the City of Grand Terrace will accept comments on the said goals for 45 days from the date that this notice is first published and said comments shall be considered to be for informational purposes only 4 In addition to the foregoing, interested minority and majority contractor organizations, upon request, shall receive a direct mailing of the complete program with a request that they provide written comments to the City of Grand Terrace on this program Brenda Stanfill • City Clerk Liaison Officer 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92324-5295 • (714) 824-6621 DATE: September 2, 1993 STAFF REPORT CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (xx) MEETING DATE: Sept. 9, 1993 i i SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE COUNCIL AND STAFF TRAVEL TO ANNUAL LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CONFERENCE IN SAN FRANCISCO Pursuant to travel policy, staff is requesting Council authorization to attend the annual California League of Cities Conference being held October 16 through 19, 1993, in San Francisco. Budgeted funds are available for this expense. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT: COUNCIL AUTHORIZE COUNCIL AND STAFF TRAVEL TO ATTEND THE ANNUAL LEAGUE OF CITIES CONFERENCE OCTOBER 16 THROUGH 19, 1993, IN SAN FRANCISCO. t1 TS:bt COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM#3 G STAFF REPORT DATE September 3, 1993 CRA ITEM () COUNCIL ITEM (X) MEETING DATE September 9, 1993 SUBJECT AUTHORIZATION TO GO TO BID FOR STREET STRIPING Specifications are now complete for the annual street striping project At this time, staff is requesting Council authorization to go to public bid, in order to obtain a striping contractor STAFF RECOMMENDS COUNCIL: AUTHORIZE CITY STAFF TO ADVERTISE FOR PUBLIC BIDS FOR THE ANNUAL STREET STRIPING PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT OOIN CL AGENDA nut.3 K RECE1VED EMERGENCY OPERATIONS COMMITTEE l � J , { CITY OF GRAND TERRACE CITY CLERICS DEPT MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 20, 1993 1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by chairman Gary Eldridge. 2. MEMBERS PRESENT:_ Gary Eldridge, Eileen Hodder, Jim Hodder, Vic Phennighausen, Randy Anstine. 3. APPROVAL OF MAY MINUTES: The minutes of the May 18 meeting were read and approved. 4. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT: Randy reported that he had attended Phase I ICS training by the California Department of Forestry. Training sessions can be provided to the committee as soon as the current course is complete. The committee unanimously agreed that this training was mandatory if it is to function efficiently and knowledgably during emergencies. Randy will pursue this. 5. EOUIPMENT/FACILITY STATUS REPORT: a) All communications equipment is functioning correctly. 6. OLD BUSINESS: There was no meeting in_ June due to the lack of a quorum. 7. NEW BUSINESS: The new shelving has arrived and Randy will make arrangements to have them installed. 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. 9. NEXT REGULAR MEETING': The next regular meeting will be held. on August 17 at 7:00 pm. 10. ADJOURN: COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM# 5Pt1(4\) The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 pm. Respectfully submitted, -"e.t.a, a 4.4.14.1A, James A. Hodder, Secretary Emergency Operations Committee f nti C`T Y �� i or��, Planning GRHNDTERR'C5' Department DATE: September 9, 1993 ' TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department • SUBJECT: Z-93-01, Zoning Amendment to clarify the Site and Architectural Review process including, but not limited to, accessory structures. RECOMMENDATION: Approval ***************************************** I BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:. The proposed amendment is in response to several citizen complaints regarding playhouses being built adjacent to rear yard fences interfering with their view of the mountains,_back yard privacy and perceived property values. Similar action was taken on the issue of overhead decks and balcomes which has worked very successfully Staff response in this case consists of reinstating,the review of playhouses_ This time, the review is proposed to be done by staff instead of by the Planning Commission, thus saving applicant's money and tune involved in noticing procedures, etc. During the latest code amer,iment, increasing staff review of minor and_middle-sized projects, the review of playhouses and other structures of similar effect were inadvertently left out. Therefore,_from being required-to be reviewed through a public hearing under previous coder.playhouses were completely left out. Previous design review criteria used a_ 10'_height_ Abave_that height,.au projects.were reviewed by the Commission. .Thus made._ most accessory structures,,such as garages, small room additions,pool rooms, etc.,subject_ to public hearing.. Theheight criteria was replaced by bulk, mass and lot coverage criteria (Le.structure:more=than.65% or main.residence, and so on). The new,criteria_have been., very successful during,this-last year. We have been saving applicant's and the.City money and time=m all these types of reviews:. However, the Code is very ambiguous-regardmg, playhouses:and similar nature,structures. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM#iok 22795 Barton Road«GrandTerrace,California 92324-5295•(909) 824-6621 In view of code ambiguity, Planning Department policy has been one of reviewing all new construction, regardless of permit requirement In fact, many of these structures do not require permits For the information of the City Council, this policy has been very successful For example, the De Berry playhouse will be painted to match the neighbor's fence and the tarp red roof will be replaced with a less brightly colored roof Two rows of Platanus trees will separate view from neighbors' yards The Kentfield playhouse will have its second-story demolished. The Miriam Way playhouse will be reduced in height and painted to match other adjacent structures, and so on. Staff now is requesting City Council official back-up for continuation of current policy In practice, little would change Unless a complaint is filed, we will not go out and look for playhouses to send violation notices In case a complaint is filed, staff would have the authority to impose conditions on the project. On the other hand, staff would also be able to review pi oJect prior to construction, thus avoiding complaints and code enforcement. Structures which do not disturb neighbors'privacy would continue not being reviewed,unless property owner calls for information In this case, the property owner would be told to come in and pay a Plan Check/Land Use Application fee of $33.00 and receive recommendations similar to the ones mentioned in examples above Ultimately, should the City Council deny this amendment, staff will need direction on how to deal with continuing citizen complaints and concerns on this issue. At times, even after staff mentions the Code does not cover certain issues, residents insist that we should help them. This is how current Planning Department policy was developed. ISSUES: 1. Proposed Amendments In addition to amendments on the"accessory structures"deffmtion and specific items related to playhouses and similar effect structures, staff has also cleaned up the text of Site and Architectural Review procedures This will facilitate code interpretation and expedite processing of Site and Architectural Review applications. 2. Mr: Doug Wilson's Letter For the information ofthe City Council,the City Attorney review of subject letterfound that - regulations on views of property from adjacent residences are-a common desigitreview item - andare iii effect in 'Virtually every" city is Orange County, Riverside;San Bernardino-and_' even City and County of Los Angeles. Even though m some cases the issue-is-subjectto'a' Conditional' Use Permit,- staff feels that in case the applicant is -agreeable- to- recommendations which are usually reached through a mutual understanding of issues,there is-no need for al-public hearing of formal Conditional Use Permit procedures or fees. Per the City Attorney's recommendation, "The issue is one for policy decision of the City =� �a AG1?A JIOI4UO3 F r F s In addition, for the information of the City Council, staff has communicated with Mr Wilson His proposed alternative to the denial of proposed legislation is the development of review guidelines for staff benefit when reviewing these as we have done for other accessory structures. Staff is agreeable to this proposed and should City Council agree, staff would work to develop such guidelines RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council move to approve the attached Ordinance and respective Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted, (F)_)1-AAACcc.,_Sb-j^ Patnzia Materassi Commumty Development Director Attachments: 1 - Ordinance with amended text - A, B, C and D 2 - Minutes of August 19, 1993 Planning Commission Meeting 3 - Mr Doug Wilson's letter 4 - Negative Declaration c:\wp51\planning\zc\z93o1 cc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE ADOPTING ZONING AMENDMENT Z-93-01 AND E-93-10 TO CHAPTERS 18.06, 18.10, 18.63 AND 18.73 TO ALLOW CLARIFICATION OF SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PROCEDURES INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, AND THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Zomng Ordinance on August 23, 1990, and WHEREAS, proposed Zoning Amendment Z-93-01 is set out in full in Attachment A - Chapter 18 63, Attachment B - Chapter 18 73, Attachment C - Chapter 18.10 and Attachment D - Chapter 18 06, and WHEREAS, previous code regulations prohibited accessory structures with height exceeding 10' unless approved by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, current code is ambiguous and does not clearly describe procedures of review for certain accessory structures, and WHEREAS, certain accessory structures may interfere with neighbors' pnvacy, such as playhouses, elevated decks, etc., and may be exempt from building permits; and WHEREAS, in view of code ambiguity, Planning Department policy has been to review all new construction regardless of requirement of a permit; and WHEREAS; implementation of this policy has been very successful, however, staff needs official back-up to pursue it further, and WHEREAS, staff proposes to make existing policy official by requiring :tall level review of playhouses and similar effect structures prior to construction, and WHEREAS,staff level review will be incorporated into currently existing"Plan Check or Planning Department clearance of building plans" - a $33 review; and WHEREAS,the plan check of building plan/Land Use Clearance is applicable to all new construction regardless of permit requirement; and WHEREAS, these amendments are in line with and complement the latest amendments which increased staff level reviews to provide applicants of minor and middle- sized projects a more fair review in terms of time, costs and noticing procedures, and ATTACHMENT 1 WHEREAS,amendments to the Site and Architectural Review, General Regulations, Residential Districts and Definitions sections will clarify procedures, making it easier for the applicant to understand and provide staff with clear directions to process applications, implement City regulations and projects' conditions of approval, and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the City of Grand Terrace General Plan, and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental ' Quality Act, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and has been recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and considered by the City Council. This Negative Declaration is available for review at the City Planning Department; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on August 19, 1993, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 19, 1993, recommended to the City Council that proposed Zoning Amendment set out in full in the attachments amending Chapters 18 63, 18.73, 1810 and 18 06, be approved and adopted by the City Council, and WHEREAS, the City Council held a property noticed public hearing on September 9, 1993, for the approval of Z-93-01 and E-93-10. NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, DOES-HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 The proposed Zoning Amendment No Z-93-01, set out in full m Attachments A, B, C and D, is approved and adopted by the City Council. Section 2 The Negative Declaration on file m the Planning Department of the City of Grand Terrace, E-93-01, is hereby approved Section 3 Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be inn full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the 31st day of its adoption_ Section 4- Posting- The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3) public places within fifteen (15) days of its adoption, as designated for such purpose by the City Council. Section 5 First read at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on the 9th day of September, 1993 and finally adopted and ordered posted at a regular meeting of said City Council on the 23rd day of September, 1993 ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace Mayor of the City of Grand Terrace and of the City Council thereof and of the City Council thereof I, BRENDA STANFILL, City Clerk of the City of Grand Terrace, Cahfornia, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on the 23rd day of September,.1993 by the following vote AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: City Clerk Brenda Stanfill Approved as to form. City Attorney - John.Harper _ CHAPTER 18 63 SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Sections 18.63 010 Purpose 18 63 020 Application 18.63 030 Scope 18 63 040 Submittal Process 18 63 050 Public Heanng Process 18 63 060 Approval Process 18 63 070 Appeal Process 18 63 080 - Building Permit Process 18 63 090 Revisions 18 63.100 Expiration/Extensions Section 18.63.010 Purpose: The purpose of this chapter is to empower the Planning Commission-to sit as the City's Site and Architectural Review Board and the Community Development Director with the responsibility for comprehensive site plan.and architecturaL review in.order to achieve the followmg. A. To ensure that new development and the alteration or enlargement of existing development occurs ul a manner that is consistent with the intent of this title and the General Plan; B To ensure that the location and configuration of structures are visually harmonious with their sites and surrounding sites and structures, that they do not interfere with neighbors' privacy, that they do not unnecessanly block scenic views from other structures and/or public areas, and is be m scale with the townscape and natural landscape of the area; C To ensure that the architectural design of structures and their materials and colors are visually harmonious with surrounding development, natural landforms, is functional for the proposed project and is consistent with this title, D To ensure that plans for landscaping and open spaces provide a functional _ and visually pleasing setting for the structures on the site and is harmonious with the.naturaL landscape of the area and nearby developments, E To ensure the.preservation of the natural beauty of the city and its setting, to prevent the indiscriminate clearing of property, the destruction of trees and A natural vegetation and the excessive and unsightly grading of hillsides, and to preserve the natural landforms, F To ensure that the design and location of signs are consistent with the scale and character of the building to which they are attached or otherwise associated with and are consistent with this title Section 18.63.020 Application: There are three (3) levels of applications for Site and Architectural Review- , A Land Use Application, B Administrative Site and Architectural Review. and C Site and Architectural Review (with public hearing) A. Land Use Application The purpose of this section is to empower the Community Development Director or representative with responsibilities for Site and Architectural Review of minor items. yet which may have potential to adversely affect the environment Noticing to adjacent property owners wilt be at the discretion of the Community Development Director, with the exception of satellite dishes. A. Sitc and architectural review Land Use Application, regardless of need for a permit. shall be required in the event any of the following actions occur: 1 Any new construction. 2 Any remodeling or renovation of a structure which results in a) A change in use or intensity of use (includes any proposed use of a structure which has been vacant for a per."3 of six months or more); or _ b) An increase in building size (including bulk area and floor area); or c) Increased capacity; or d) Additional street access. 3 Plan check or clearance of building plans prior to the Building, Department review. including. but not limited to swimming pools. spas. patio covers. enclosures, all types of accessory structures. walls, fences and other structures which do not require administrative or formal Site and Architectural Review , 3 A., conyersion_ef a_-single +�+ersh. operty to n-ee do �JYY lltrl Jlll lJ �J1VE7L ownership or stock cooperative project Any placement of a medular structure in any diet ra aeeordancc with this title to ,-�ter`„ and Architectural Review Board. 1 Patio covers and patio enclosures 24 Sunrooms provided they strictly meet the Planning Commission setback policies, UBC and other construction code regulations 35 Satellite dish antennae provided they can be screened from the street in accordance with code and design standards Notice including location map or site plan shall be mailed to adjacent property owners requesting comments at least two weeks in advance of the Planning Director's decision. 46. Overhead decks provided they strictly meet the Planning Commission design guidelines. 5 Accessory structures located in a R17.2 District under 10' in height mid over 20' in height in the R1_ 10/20 District with less than 500 square feet — 67 Ground floor additions to existing residential structures located in an Ri District where the addition is less than 500 sq. ft. gross floor area and the exterior design and materials of the addition matches the exterior design and materials of the existing structure 8 Fences or walls which do not meet Section 18 73 070 Any item which could not be satisfacto- 'y reviewed at staff level n,.,v be-subject to Site and Architectural Review at the discretion of the Community Development Director The Community Development Director decisions shall be final unless appealed to the Planning-Commission within 10 calendar days Appeals shall be filed with the Planning Department and follow similar rules as the appeals to the City Council (Section 18 63 070) B Administrative Site and Architectural Review Application The purpose of this application is to allow staff level review of projects of medium scale and impact without the need for a public hearing. related costs and noticing procedures G- The following items may be approved by the Planning Community Development Director without going to the Site and Architectural Review Board However, the plans must be routed to all reviewing agencies and notices shall be mailed to adjacent property owners requesting comments within two weeks The Plug Community Development Director decisions shall be final unless appealed to the Planning Commission within 10 calendar days. Appeals shall be filed with the Planning Department and follow similar rules as the appeals to the City Council (Section 18.63 070) 1 All accessory structures except • a) Structures with 65% or more of the square footage of the main residence living area. Living area does not include porches, patios, carports, garages, storage areas, or auxiliary rooms. b) Structures 1,200 square feet or more in size. c) Structures with lot coverage higher than.25%. 2 All room additions except a) Room additions with 65% or more of the square footage of the main residence living area. _ Living area does not mclude porches, patios, carports, garages, storage areas, or auxiliary rooms. C. Site and Architectural Review Application The purpose of this application is to allow major projects to receive full review from the Site and Architectural Review Board through a public hearing process Site and Architectural Review by the Site and Architectural Review Board includes,but is not limited to: 1 _ All items which are not subject to Land Use or Administrative Site and Architectural Review Applications 2 Any conversion of a single ownership property to a condominium ownership or stock cooperative project 3 Any placement of a modular structure in any district in accordance with this title - 4 Any other project subject to "Site and Architectural Review" as listed in this title or in the Barton Road Specific Plan 5 Any item which could not be satisfactorily reviewed at the staff level per discretion of the Community Development Director Section 18.63.030 Scope: Where site and architectural review is required the Site and Architectural Review Board and/or the Community Development Director shall consider the following issues (the Site other relevant issues not lasted below may also be considered) A. The proposed site plan for the property shall be reviewed taking into consideration the following 1 Placement of all structures and improvements (including adherence to setback requirements) 2. Vehicular ingress and egress 3. Internal vehicular circulation and parking lot design 4. Pedestrian and vehicular safety 5. Landscaping 6 -Pedestrian amenities T` Lighting 8. Location:of all service facilities including waste recycling bins 9 Walls and fences 10. Police and fire protection 11. Relationship to adjoining properties, structures and the site's and surrounding area's natural topography 12 Grading and drainage issues 4213 Relationship to existing and/or the planned use of adjoining properties and within the general area 4314 Consistency with this title and the General Plan 15 Traffic control measures B. The proposed architecture of all structures shall be reviewed taking into consideration the following 1. Architectural style and building design 2. Proposed building materials and colors 3 Height of structures 4 Design and location of all signs 5 Size and bulk of the structures in relation to existing and/or planned structures on the subject site, adjoining properties and within the general area 6 Consistency with this title and the General Plan , Section 18 63.040 Submittal Process Applications for site and architectural review shall be submitted to the Planning , Department The Planning Director shall review each application and determine its completeness in accordance with planning department policy Upon determination that an application is complete, the application shall be scheduled either for review by the Site and ; Architectural Review Board or by the Planning Community Development Director as applicable according to Section 18 63 020 Land Use Applications may be completed by assigned planners at the counter or taken in for review as needed An application for site and architectural review shall contain the following- 1 A. Completed application form • B Site plan, twenty-five (25) blueline copies plus one (1) blueline copy colored for presentation purposes The site plan shall be a fully dimensioned drawing clearly showing 1 All buildings, property lines and easements 2 All parking spaces, driveways and drive aisles 3 All landscaped areas 4 All walls and fences 5 Location of all signs 6 Public improvements to the street centerline 7 Site address and assessor's parcel number 8. Property owner name and address- 9 Number of lots and their sizes (in square feet) 10. North arrow, graphic and numeric scales C Elevations, twenty-five (25) blueline copies plus one (1) bluehne copy colored for presentation purposes The elevations shall be scaled, dimensioned drawings of each side of each building and/or sign D Landscape plan, twenty-five (25) blueline copies plus one (1) bluehne copy colored for presentation purposes The landscape plarrshall show the location of all proposed plant material, common and botanical names, quantities and sizes,paved areas and paving materials and property lines. E Grading Plan, twenty-five (25) blueline copies plus one (1)- bluehne copy colored for presentation purposes The grading plan shall show existing and proposed topography for the site and within 100 feet of the property lines The plan shall also show all trees with a trunk diameter greater than four inches F Material Board, one (1) 8 1/2" by 11" mounting board-showing samples of exterior design elements such as roofing material, paint chips, brick, stone or . other accent features G 300 foot radius map, property owner mailing list keyed to the radius map and a signed mailing list affidavit H Application fee In case of Administrative Site and Architectural Review and Land Use Applications, the number of plans and specific requirements will be determined by the Community Development Director on a case-by-case basis according to the scale and impact of projects The Plaftuffig Community Development Director may require additional information or delete certain requirements from an application depending on the specific situation Section 18.63.050 Public Hearing: The Site and Architectural Review Board shall hold a public hearing on any proposed site and architectural review application and shall notice said hearing in accordance with Section 65091 of the California Government Code. Section 18.63.060 Approval Process: After review of an application, the Site and Architectural Review Board shall approve the application only if: - A. The following findings are made; 1 The proposed project is consistent with the intent of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code and the General Plan. 2 The location and configuration of all structures associated with this project are visually harmonious with this site and surrounding sites and structures, that they do not interfere with the neighbors' privacy, that_they do not unnecessanly block scemc views from other structures and/or public areas and are in scale with the townscape and natural landscape of the area. 3 The architectural design of structures,their materials and colors are visually harmonious with surrounding development,natural landforms, are functional for the proposed project and are consistent with the- Grand Terrace Municipal Code. 4 The plan for landscaping and open spaces provide a functional and visually pleasing setting for the structures on this site and is harmonious with the natural landscape of the area and nearby developments. 5 There is no indiscriminate clearing of property, destruction of trees or natural vegetation or the- excessive and unsightly grading of hillsides, thus the natural beauty of the city, its setting and natural landforms are preserved 6 The design and location of all signs associated with this project are consistent with the scale and character of the building to which they are attached or otherwise associated with and are consistent with the Grand Terrace Municipal Code 7. Conditions of approval for this project necessary to secure the purposes of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code and General Plan are made a part of this approval. ' I I Section 18.63.070 Appeal Process: The decision of the Site and Architectural Review Board shall be final unless appealed to the City Council within ten (10) calendar days Such an appeal may be made by the applicant, any member of the City Council or any other interested person. A. An appeal of a Site and Architectural Review Board decision shall be made in the following manner. 1. Filing with the City Clerk's Office a completed Application for Appeal. 2. Payment of the appropriate.appeal fee. B. After accepting an application for appeal, the City Clerk shall set a date for the City Council to hear the appeal. Notices of the appeal shall be given to the applicant, the Site and Architectural Review Board and the appellant. C The Site and Architectural Review Board shall submit a report to the City Council containing the reasons for the Board's decision and the minutes of its meeting regarding the appealed decision D The City Council shall hear the appeal and make its own determination regarding the application and its consistency with this title and the General Plan Upon such determination, the City Council shall uphold, modify or reverse the Site and Architectural Review Board's decision. If during the City Council's hearing of the appeal, new information is provided that was not considered by the Site and Architectural Review Board, the City Council may refer the application back_to the Site and Architectural Review Board for reconsideration of the application with the new information. e ✓ ' ' J JJ l t ` II[ Section 18 63 080 Building Permit Process. After the appropriate appeal period has ended or after a final determination is made by the City Council, the applicant may submit for building permits The application shall include three (3) sets of the approved site plan, elevations, landscape plan and grading plan, each set shall be approved and signed by the Planning Community Development Director and shall have attached to it a copy of any conditions of approval required by the Site and Architectural Review Board or the City Council. Two of the required sets of plans shall be submitted to the Department of Building and Safety along with the appropriate construction specification plans for the approved project The third set shall be kept on file in the Planning Department The Department of Building and Safety shall then prepare the appropriate permits in accordance with all applicable state and local codes Section 18.63.090 Minor Alterations and Revisions: An applicant may request minor alterations or revisions to approved plans by the Site and Architectural Review Board after the initial approval of the plans as follows. A. Minor alterations to the approved plans which result in a change to the extenor facade of a structure, any element of the landscaping plan or the design of the site plan may be approved by the Planning Community Development Director. Other minor alterations may be approved by the Building and Safety Director. All approved minor alterations shall not result m a substantial change from the approved plans. B Any proposed revisions which result in a substantial change to the approved plans shall be submitted to the Site and Architectural Review Board for consideration pursuant to the procedures set forth in this chapter for initial application Section 18.63.160 Expiration and Extensions- The approval of a site and architectural review application shall expire one (1) year from the date of its approval unless one of the following actions occur A. The applicant applies for a building permit and commit sufficient investment in accordance with the approved plans prior to the expiration date approval prior to-the expiration date B A business license is issued in accordance with the Grand Terrace Municipal Code C The applicant has complied with all applicable conditions of approval In case the applicant is not able to comply with Sections A. B or C of the aforementioned section. then the applicant shall apply for an extension of the one-year compliance period pnor to expiration date The Planning Director may upon application by the applicant,extend the period of approval for a length of time up to one year No approval shall be extended to a date beyond two _ (2) years from the date of the initial approval. { i { _ T a CHAPTER 18.73 GENERAL REGULATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS Sections 18 73 010 Purpose 18.73 020 Application 18.73.030 Ammal and Fowl Enclosures 18 73 040 Attached Accessory Structures 18 73 050 Building Sites of Record 18 73 060 Dedication for and Construction of Public Improvements 18 73 070 Fence and Wall Height 18.73 080 Fire Control Regulations 18 73 090 Height Limit Exceptions 18 73 100 Keeping of Ammals 18 73 110 Narrow Lots of Record 18.73.120 Occupancy 18.73 130 Property Maintenance 18.73.140 Reapplication after Denial 18.73.150 Relocation of Structures 18.73 160 Removal or Dumping of Soil, Sand or Other Matenal 18.73.170 Swimming Pools, Spas and Other Bodies of Water 18.73.180 Temporary Manufactured Housing Installations 18_73.190 Utility Undergrounding 18.73.200 - VisnaL Screening of Unsightly Uses 18.73.210 - Yards Section 18.73.010 Purpose: The purpose of this chapter is to establish general regulations and specify accepted exceptions to the provisions of this title Section 18.73.020 Application: The provisions specified in this title are subject to the general regulations and exceptions listed irr this chapter. Section 18.73.030 Animal and Fowl Enclosures:. No stable,paddock, coop, pen or other enclosure for the maintenance or raising of animals or fowl shall be established or maintained closer than twenty feet to any residence. B 2 The maximum height of a fence or wall, solid or otherwise shall be eight (8) feet from the surface of the ground C Where a grade differential exists between buildings sites, the height of the fence or wall shall be measured from the higher grade D The permitted height of a fence or wall may be increased or reduced if 1 The Director of Building and Safety determines such an increase or reduction is necessary to maintain proper vehicular and pedestrian safety , 2 The Community Development Director through the Administrative Site and Architectural Review Board may approves a greater or lesser height Section 18.73.080 Fire Control Regulations: The fire control regulations of the Uniform Building Code shall apply to all setback and yard requirements of this title - Section 18.73.090 Height Limit Exceptions: Chimneys, cupolas, flag poles, monuments, radio and-other towers, water tanks, church steeples, mechanical appurtenances and similar structures may be permitted m excess of height linuts with the approval of a conditional use permit Section 18.73.100 Keeping of Animals- Except as permitted by Chapter 18 53, the keeping of animals, other than household pets is prohibited within the City Section 18 73 110 Narrow Lots of Record: , On any parcel of land of an average width of less than fifty (50) feet,which parcel was' T under one ownership at the time of, or is shown as a lot on any subdivision map-filed in the-`' County Recorder's Office prior to February 11, 1982, when the owner owns no adjoining land, the width of each side yard may be reduced to ten percent (10%) of the width of such parcel, but in no case shall be less than three (3) feet _ _ - , - i CHAPTER 13 10 RH, RI, R2 and R3 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Sections: 1810 010 Purpose 18.10 020 Residential Districts 18.10 030 Use Regulations 18 10.040 Site Development Standards - 1810 050 Off Street Parking 1810 060 Residential Street Parking 1810 070 ,Signs 1810 080 Site and Architectural Review Section 18.10.010 Purpose: The residential zones contained in this Chapter are intended to carry out the goals and objectives of the Community's General Plan, with respect to residential uses. These goals and objectives are to be achieved through the following purposes established for the residential zones: 1 To provide for development in accordance with the General Plan. 2. To promote the most appropriate and efficient use of the land while providing a variety of housing opportunities to the community. 3 To promote a compatible relationship between residential, commercial and other types of land uses located in the community 4 To promote the public health, safety, and welfare through encouraging the appropriate type and size of development for the community 5 To manage development with respect to its type, size and location in order to prevent harmful encroachment of disruptive development into the community's residential neighborhoods Section 18.10.020 Residential Districts: The following distracts are designed to implement the goals and objectives of the General Plan Each district contains specific land use regulations and density ranges for development 1 RH, Hillside Residential District: This district is intended for very low C NN Table 18. 10.040 Footnotes (Continued) 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 requiz`ements 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, carports, garages, storage areas, or auxiliary rooms. "Multiple Family" shall be defined as one (1) or two (2) bedroom units only. e In the 1l 7 . 2 B}strEet, aeeeeeery etrueturee ohall net ____^_d ten (10) feet in height unless appreved by the Site and Arch}teetural RevIew Beard, and in no ctacc ohall exceed twenty (29-) feet in Wit. I the R1-2-9, R1 1A, R2 and R3 Bictricta Accessory strictures shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height, with exceptions as listed in Section 18 . 73 .090 of this Chapter. f. Not more than the permitted percent of the total parcel may be devoted to main and accessory structures, parking areas, driveways and covered patios. The remaining percent of the total parcel shall be devoted to open areas such as landscaping, lawn, outdoor recreational facilities, incidental to residential development, including swimming pools, tennis courts, putting greens, uncovered patios and walkways. Said open areas shall consist of not less than two hundred (200) square feet of open space per dwelling unit. CHAPTER 18.06 DEFINITIONS Sections 18 06 005 Applicability 18.06.010 Abut 18.06 015 Access or accessway 18.06 020 Accessory structure 18.06 025 Accessory living quarters 18 06 030 Addition 18 06 035 Airport 18 06 040 : Alcoholic beverages 18.06 045 Alley 18.06 050 Altered 18 06 055 Altered, structurally 18 06 060 Amendment 18.06.065 Apartment 18.06.070 Automobile wrecking 18 06 075 Awning 18 06.080- Basement 18.06.085 Billboard 18.06.090 Boardinghouse or roominghouse 18.06.095 Boarding school 18.06.100 Breezeway 18.06.105 Building 18.06.110 Building, main or principal 18.06.115 Building site 18.06 120 Business 18 06 125 Business face 18 06 130 Business frontage 18.06.135 Carport 18.06.140 Centerline 18.06.145 Church 18.06.150 City 18 06 155 Civic center 18.06.160 Clinic 18.06.165 Club 18.06.170 Commission or planning commission 18.06:175 Condominium 18 06 180 Contiguous 18.06.185 Copy 18.06 190 Council or city council 18.06 195 Day 18 06.200 Day care, child D 18 06 895 Street line 18 06 900 Street side 18 06 905 Structure 18 06 906 Sunrooms 18 06 910 Trailer 18 06 915 Trailer park or mobile home park 18 06.920 Trailer, residential 18 06.925 Trailer space 18 06 930 Use s 18 06 935 Variance 18 06 940 Yard 18 06 945 Yard, front 18 06 950 Yard, rear 18 06 955 : Yard, side 18 06 960 Zone 18.06 965 Zone, change of 18 06 970 Zoning map Section 18.06.005 Applicability: For the purpose of this title, certain terms used are defined as follows in this chapter.. Section 18.06.010 Abut: "Abut" means contiguous to. For example, two adjoining lots with a common property line are considered to be abuttmg Section 18.06.015 Access or accessway "Access"or"Accessway" means the place or way by which pedestrians and vehicles have safe, adequate and usable ingress and egress to a property or use as required by this title. Section 18.06.020 Accessory structure: "Accessory structure" means a building, part of a building, or structure which is subordinate-- to, and the use of which is incidental to that of the main building, structure or use on-the- same lot It does not mean separate living quarters or guest house but does mean and-is '- - not limited to playhouses. storage sheds, elevated decks, patio covers,patio enclosures,Type 1 and Type 2 Sunrooms, antennas. radio and other towers and satellite dishes Section 18.06.025 Accessory living quarters: GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 19, 1993 The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, Cahforma on August 19, 1993 at 7 00 p m. by Chairman Dan Buchanan. PRESENT: Dan Buchanan, Chairman Jim Sims, Vice-Chairman Matthew Addmgton, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Doug Wilson, Commissioner Patnzia Materassi, Community Development Director Maria C. Muett, Associate Planner Maggie Alford, Planning Secretary ABSENT: Moire Huss,.Commissioner _Fran Van.Gelder, Commissioner PLEDGE: Jun Sims, Vice-Chairman CONVENED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION AT 6:42 P.M. The Community Development Director stated that the commissioners who were absent at the previous meeting could vote on SA-92-11 (Drechsler) tonight if they have read the minutes and feel comfortable in doing so. The Community Development Director summarized what took place at the City Council Meeting regarding the Sign Inventory, stating that Council voted for a partial moratonum,which would involve notices being sent but no code enforcement to take place for three months,unless in cases of safety or major violation. Vice-Chairman Sims expressed frustration with the sign problem and the fact that-code enforcement can not take place. _ _ ADJOURNED.PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION AT T:IO P.M. 1 Attachment 2 Chairman Buchanan made a motion to approve SA-92-11 as conditioned and amended Commissioner Wilson seconded MOTION VOTE PCM-93-56 Motion carves 3-1-2-1. Commissioner Addington voted no. Commissioners Huss and Van Gelder absent Commissioner Munson abstained ADJOURNED SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AT 8:28 P.M. RECONVENED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:28 P.M. ---�i ITEM #2 Z-93-01 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE CITYWIDE ZONING AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY THE SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PROCESS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Commissioner Wilson excused himself from this project, both discussion and ' vote. The Community Development Directorpresented the'staff report.- v" Chairman Buchanan said this was a good move from the intangible stuff they were discussing before to actually puttn it down in ordinance form and cleaning it up and tying in all of those things that we wanted to do. Vice-Chairman Suns said this is l ke a one-time situation, where somebody comes and playhouse or some structure and staff notifies the-neighbors and nobody complains and it gets approved administratively by stafc then the neighbors move and a different set of neighbors come in; what if they don't like it? The Community Development Director-said the structure:has,already been approved, as ft is a one-time review.. She safdif they changwgthe colorortake the roof off and use it as--an observation tower-then it will:be subject to another review. She stated that if they-have revised,it significantly,_and,for example, if the structure was to be of very pale color or to match the fence or something hke that and they change it completely and change the use of S it instead of a playhouse to be an observation tower with the windows looking over the swimming pool, then it breaks the conditions the approval was based on which would trigger another review Vice-Chairman Sims said it is nice to see something in writing Commissioner Addington said on Section 18 63 100 of Attachment A, Expiration and Extensions, Item A, staff has added, "and commit sufficient investment", this seems a little general, and he is a little unclear on this issue The Community Development Director said she basically util»ed the wording that is already in the Code for a Conditional Use Permit She said she wasn't actually thinking about playhouses, she was thinking about the James Harber project. She said every time they have a Conditional Use Permit and the applicant's do not follow the conditions, they have the authority to revoke the project, with the Site and Architecture, the way it was worded before, they took a permit and that's it, or if they request an extension, it could be forever, in non-compliance with the conditions of approval, and they have a case where a person is there for 15 years, and they couldn't revoke the Site and Architectural Review because there is permit taken. Commissioner Addington asked if the permit had expired. r The Community Development Director said the permit expired, but that expiration is already into the jurisdiction.of the lrngrneermg Department, and the Planning Department can not revoke the Site and Architecture because they took a permit. She said the Building Official could revoke the permit, because it was never finalled, and in that particular situation, they did not have an inspection to final. She said with Conditional Use Permits, she does have that authority, so she just used the same wording for the Site and Architecture just to give staff a little more strength,but what she really means in terms of"commit sufficient mvestment"is, for example,if you take a permit but do not implement any of that and do not start the work, and you come back a year later and ask for an extension and don't do anything about what you propose, it should really expire; why should you be able to get so many extensions without proper reevaluation_of the project? _ Commissioner Addmgton asked who grants the extensions. The Community Development Director said she-has-the authority to grant extensions twice, up to two years, and then they'll need to come to the Planning Commission, but according to the previous wording, if you have a permit, you can always ask for an extension, and if not to her, to the Planning Commission. 6 Commissioner Addington asked if they can deny it, to which the Community Development Director responded m the affirmative Vice-Chairman Sims said the point is somebody comes in with plans and they want to pull a permit and then accomplish that, then all of a sudden, they find they don't have enough money because they get a bid or something like that on it and they don't have enough money to build it and they don't proceed with it over the years, so we have provisions that the Planning Director can extend that permit for up to two years. He said after that point in time, codes may change, standards may change, concrete may get harder, that type of thing, that the old permit was issued under He stated they have to have the opportunity to void that original permit so new standards can be applied However, if they have gone in and, say, poured a concrete slab, that is sufficient investment in that patio structure He said this was the purpose of putting this in here so that the permit could be extended. The Community Development Director said the reason this item is here is to apply to larger projects when applicants are not meeting Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Addington said it states that, "the approval of a Site and Architectural Review application shall expire,etc.,unless the following actions occur", and when you turn the page to the new Item B, "A business license is issued in accordance.with the Grand Terrace Municipal Code". He asked if , - someone wants to go in and put something on their own property if they would have to go-get a business license.. The Community Development Director said it should say, "as applicable" She said they only need a business license for certain items that provide income. Commissioner Addmgton asked if was appropriate to make that motion. Chairman Buchanan said they need to open public testimony for this, and then they will have to come back to it_ Commissioner Addington:asked if there is still a.minimum-of 125 sq. ft. to require a building permit,and if this is still there,has it disappeared or is the minimum reduced_ The Community Development Director saidit is still_there._She-said they are not amending the UmfornrguildingCode,andthere is no permitneed unless -structures go above 125 sq_ft.,more than one.story and have footings. She said what she is changing is that she would have the authority to review it, even though a permit may not be needed_ She said right now, their "Plan 7 Check of Working Drawings" is only a clearance for things that need permits She said a lot of playhouses don't need permits, so when people call, staff has no authority to ask them to come for a review She said staff would be able to impose conditions, and if the applicant doesn't like it, they can appeal her decision to the Commission. Commissioner Addington said previously there was a height restriction of 10', and he asked if this was modified The Community Development Director said yes, through the latest amendments, because that used to be a criteria to bring structures to the Plamung Commission, and the intention of the latest amendments was to decrease the amount of minor projects that would come to this body She said at that time, they were also thinking to increase the fees for public hearing items, and now they did, so it would be less fees for the applicant,less length of the process, (inaudible) much simpler and much easier, so basically, by having these projects reviewed at staff level, it would be much easier on the applicant. They took the 10' criteria out, because basically all accessory structures are above 10' She said they deleted that and replaced it with the bulk, mass criteria and lot coverage, so when structures are very bulky or above 65% of the main structure, and if they are larger than 1,200 sq. ft. and if they cover more than 25% of the lot, then they will come to the Commission, otherwise they will be reviewed at staff level. By replacing that 10' criteria they eliminated the review of a lot of the playhouses, and at that time,playhouses needed to come to the Commission. Currently,it would cost $550 to come here if they had not changed that criteria. She said the way the Code is written, there are a lot of footnotes in a lot of areas that if they just looked at one section, other requirements will be missed. She said in some areas of the Code, there is no reference sending you to another section so there are things not clear. In other words, current Code has sections that still require playhouses to come to the Planning Commission and other areas say "no" She said by doing this amendment now, it is going to clear the wording completely There will be no more ambiguity in the Code. She said playhouses are proposed not to come to the Planning Commission, they would not require administrative review, they would only require over-the-counter review, Land Use Approval, by the Planning Director. Only controversial cases would require notice to the adjacent neighbors. The fee would be of $33.00 instead of$100 or$500. So staff would have that authority; a little bit, not as much as they had before at all, but a little bit of authority to impose conditions, so that issue does not become code enforcement hopefully if it is addressed before construction_ She said if they put in their newsletters, for example, that all the playhouses should be reviewed,maybe more people are going to call staff before building playhouses, so they will know how to build them. Planning Department staff will tell them to build them far away so the 8 neighbors won't see them, they can build two stones, it doesn't matter,but put them in a place where the neighbors don't see them, or at least according to accessory structures setbacks and compatible in colors and matenals 8:51 P.M. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING DOUG WILSON 12168 OBSERVATION G.T. Mr Wilson stressed he is not speaking as a member of the Commission at this time, that he has withdrawn his participation in relation to being a member of the Commission, but he does speak as a citizen of the City of Grand Terrace He said he has reviewed the public information regarding this proposed change and the ordinance, and what he personally finds unacceptable within the body of the proposed revision is the concept of over- legislating our approval process to include playhouses He said if they ask themselves the question, "What is the nature of a playhouse?", a playhouse is a temporary use, and in 99% of the cases, you can qualify it as a temporary , use, by nature it is, it is not a habitable use, it ordinarily has no permanent foundation to it, and if it does, it ordinarily has something holding it up from the ground, but not construed as a really permanent foundation. He said children grow up and move away, and playhouses are not there forever, and if you view in respect of the fact that a changeable landscape is a normal condition in single family or multi-family houses, that trees effect our views and effect our pnvacy ratios, but we do not legislate whether a tree can be built in a particular place. He said by definition, he takes issue with what the Planning Director has stated so far as the U.B C. addressing the case of a playhouse, and he quoted,per the 1991 U B C., Chapter 3,under Permits and Inspections, Section 301 b-i, "One-story, detached accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds,playhouses and similar uses provided the projected roof area does not exceed 120 sq. ft. are classified as work exempt from a permit" He said the Department of Building and Safety, due to the nature of the playhouse, does not require a permit for a playhouse, and it considers a playhouse a temporary use as long as it is less than 120 sq. ft., that is to say, a building permit shall not be required for it: He said he is not sure he understands the idea of the Building and Safety Department, who is responsible in a large respect for protecting the interests of the community with regard to protection from hazards or unsuitable conditions, and the U.B.C. was actually established with the concept that_ minimums are established to make sure that there are no dangers or conditions that would ; harm the citizens or whatever; that when they propose to legislate under a planning situation a review of something that doesn't even-require a building permit, that they have overstepped their boundaries as citizenry. He said by 9 practicality, a playhouse is a temporary use, you won't be living there, most are kits, under this new proposed legislation, all playhouses would be reviewed - you could even classify a dog house as a temporary use, or rather a use suitable for a review by the Planning Department He said he wouldn't ask for an answer, but asked if any structure can be allowed in the City that directly violates City ordinances or by its nature represent a significant threat to life or safety, setting aside the issue which he believes is an arbitrary one, and that is, the issue of the almighty property value companson9 He said no, that any person m the City who sets about constructing even a temporary use knowing that it might endanger another is a criminal, in essence, but at the same time, if they construct it and are just not aware or choose to make themselves aware of minimum standards adopted by the City to preserve the rights and safety of its residents, if he or she constructs a structure that is a hazard or is defined under CC&Rs which are legally binding documents, as a result of either ignorance or stubbornness, and is notified to either correct the condition yet refuses to comply with the law, the government, in its role as a police authority, has the right to revert to legal means to remove the hazard He said they already have that condition, and if a playhouse, for example, is set within a side yard closer that 5', it is against the Zoning Code, it is illegal, if it is taller than 20', it may also be against the Zoning Code, and at this point, he beheves that the Code does not provide for a visual criteria or a scenic analysis; he believes that becomes a completely subjective situation. He asked, "What is the function-of Plannmg9", to which he answered, to review proposed uses and insure that the laws of the jurisdiction will not be violated; this often includes protection of wildlife, mitigation of impacts,projection to insure quality oflife, redevelopment to mitigate natural and economic cycles, in short, to help people live together by establishing reasonable standards and enforcing them. He said what is proposed tonight is beyond reason, and he personally feels that it is over-legislation, but he would like to clarify that he believes that the items that have been shown in the proposed public report that clarify situations with regard to procedural. situations with the exception of playhouses, those that specifically address playhouses and include playhouses as an accessory structure,he believes those items are called for, and he does believe that they clarify the procedures and open up the opportunity for Planning Staff-in the City of Grand_Terrace to review things without taking them to the Planning Commission and unnecessarily tying up their volunteer staff in that way- He said he would like to say again that if Building.and Safety ignores these structures, why does Planning feel as if they should create-a-situation where they would be reviewed. He said.he does not believe that it is=in the best-interest of the City of Grand Terrace to inherit a latent liability-if this change is made, not to mention the cost and social implications; it just reinforces the previous discussions by the Commission at public testimony last week. He urged them to leave the ordinance as it is with exception of the clarification and language 1 v 10 that straighten out the procedural items, but he urged the Commission to exempt playhouses from this review process Vice-Chairman Sims said the Planning Department needs to be concerned about the setbacks of the playhouses and where they put these facilities and these kits into areas that could potentially harm the children who are playing in them He asked how he would think that these things would become known to the Planning Department so they could made that determination if the playhouses were improperly placed in the setbacks and is not placed in an area that could cause potential harm He said he was a little bit confused, as Mr Wilson seemed to say that the people that do those things are criminals and should be brought into compliance A local person would not even know those rules if they were not brought to their attention in some manner Vice- Chairman Suns said he was curious why Mr Wilson felt the Planning Department was trying to create overlegislation as Vice-Chairman Sims felt this was not going to over-legislate but was going to provide information to people to help them place those things in the proper areas Mr Wilson said the difference is, at this point, those items are being addressed on a policy basis, on a case-by-case basis. Vice-Chauman Sims said on a complaint basis. Mr Wilson.said on a complaint basis or a.case-by-case volunteer, the person comes in and utilizes the services of the Planning Department and asks; the few that would actually want to know whether they were going to inherit some sort of liability by sticking something right up against their fence. He said every citizen in the City of Grand Terrace has that opportunity to do that, and he believes that vehicle already exists and doesn't think it is necessary when you consider the nature of the playhouse that you would have to go through a formal Planning review, because he believes they are creating a step that really isn't there, and he doesn't know of any other way of explaining it other than the fact that the building permit process does not require anything of that definition to be even reviewed,so he thinks if the City of Grand Terrace feels it is necessary to step into the role of kind of arbitrary or judiciary view, he believes in the proposed language it states something to the effect about if it would affect the scenic views. He said he thinks we're still in the realm, unless they can give some sort of criteria in this proposed change to the ordinance, of what would interrupt a scenic view, it's bad legislation to set up the instance where it's completely judiciary on the part of the staff or even on the part of the Planning Commission to decide what cutting somebody's view off is. He gave a short example. to the south of him is a house that's had an improvement put upon it,and he received no notice of this,and it is definitely ! a large add-on._He said it cuts off his view, and he has a wide vista, but it cut 11 off a portion of his view, but he received no notice on this He said this is a permanent structure, but because it is defined under the Code as not requiring a notice on it, that situation took place He said he honestly thinks they are going overboard here with this legislation for playhouses, and he would like to think that he can build a playhouse and work out his problems with his neighbors, and he believes that is what this country is supposed to be about and they have stepped away from it and they need to step back towards it ( 9:06 P.M. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Buchanan brought this item back to the Planning Commission for discussion. Vice-Chairman Sims asked where it says specifically in the proposed Code that playhouses were accessory structures Chairman Buchanan said it is m the definition chapter The Community Development Director said it is various areas, including in the accessory structures definition. Currently, the playhouses are not clearly stated in the accessory structures. If they are not considered accessory structures, they could not even regulate the distance of the setback, because if they are not an accessory structure, then they don't even have setback requirements. Vice-Chairman Suns asked if they are being reactive to the complaint of a single property owner or if there has there been a number of complaints that have created a growing pattern. The Community Development Director said they can say that most complaints are received in the summer, but it happens a lot_ She thinks views and pnvacy issues can vary according to different areas. She said she was in Italy and everybody builds on top of each other, and their houses are all three stones high and very close to each other She said the other day they went to Beverly Hills and Century City and there are buildings of 20 stones adjacent to houses that are still there and are Just one or two stones high, so depending on the location you are in,there are perceived property values and perceived privacy nghts. She said in Grand Terrace,.it is very clear, and she thinks the evidence is provided to them by the number of complaints they receive that residents perceive that they have a certain.freedom with their property and a certain pnvacy that needs to be respected, and she thinks that the calls they have been receiving in many cases is sufficient for staff to take as a public nuisance, because they receive complaints of people extremely 12 upset and trying to get petitions and talk to all their neighbors Apparently, for the values of the community because of the size of the lots or the location, people feel they should maintain the level of freedom and back yard privacy they have now She said on Wilshire Boulevard, it is impossible to maintain privacy because of the nature of the land use She said it is impossible to maintain privacy m some of the cities in Italy, but right here m Grand Terrace, it is possible, with a minimum review of those houses, it is very possible to maintain privacy and do not decrease the property values People that call staff say that staff is allowing their neighbors to interfere and lower their property values. She said from staff's perspective, they feel there is a problem, and they feel it is staff's duty to provide certain help; it is the Planning Department's duty to help because it has to do with the protection of the property values, enhancement of property values, and so she feels it is her job to take care of this issue based on the type of complaints and the number of complaints they have received. Vice-Chairman Sims asked, then, if this is complaint-driven. The Community Development Director said yes, basically Vice-Chairman Sims said,when it's complaint driven,and they make contact with whoever is making the complaint, is she saying they are going to charge him money to help him, or is she just going to go up to him and say, "You've - - got it in the wrong place, you've got to move it over there". He-asked if he - ¢ - gets charged for all of that. The Community Development Director stated that they contact property owners, discuss issues and make recommendations. Most times property owners agree. With this proposal, they will proceed to submit sketches and pay a $33 00 fee. Vice-Chairman Sims asked if,when they get a complaint,they go out and visit the site, and let the guy know there has been a.complaint here_ The Community Development Director said this is correct. Vice-Chairman Sims asked if it is not just a simple-matter, sometimes, that M the playhouse or accessory structure is just in the-wrong_placeL The Community Development Director said sometimes-that's_all: -Vice-Chairman Sims asked if they can lust tell him_ifs m,the wrong place. The Community Development Director said unfortunately,no, as-sometimes even if you tell them it is in the wrong place, if you don't have the authority, 13 they can say, "Okay, but I'm going to leave,it there" She mentioned that this is not just complaint-driven She said for the last five years, with the previous Director, they were subject to the Planning Commission review, so it was just in the last six months when she altered the criteria, so they have been receiving complaints and can not tell property owners they need to go to the Planning Commission like David Sawyer used to tell them before, nor that there structure is illegal She said in the past, he has resolved several cases in that way and they have demolished it and that's it, but right now, she has no right to do that, so it's not just complaint-driven, it is that she doesn't have that power anymore, not even to review the playhouses at staff level Vice-Chairman Sims said she wouldn't know about it unless somebody complained about it He said they don't go drive around the City looking for these things trying to create revenue for the City The Community Development Director said they don't have staff to do that. Vice-Chairman man Suns said it is his firm belief that the Planning Department has the responsibility to know where issues are causing problems and to try to take care of those problems for the betterment of the whole. He said he thinks it is a good move on their part to move it away from this body into a more over-the-counter type of scenario to help the citizens understand the rules and regulations that they may not totally be aware of, and yes, that costs a certain amount of dollars to implement that, and it has to save someone a tremendous amount of grief later on in trying to get a waiver on conditions. Chairman Buchanan said he agrees with a lot of what Mr. Wilson said, that there's something distasteful about getting to the point of legislating playhouses and back yards He said on the other hand, it's obviously a real issue, and it has to be addressed in some way, and while he finds it somewhat distasteful that people would have to come to the PIanning Department to process an application to put a playhouse up in the back yard, unless people axe required to go through some kind of process, you never get an advanced opportunity to deal with setback issues, privacy issues, height issues, material issues that can be dealt with satisfactorily He said he thinks the gist of this is that it's staffs feeling that a lot of the problems will be headed off and dealt with up front rather than m an angry neighbor situation a little bit farther down the road, and he thinks from a planning standpoint, the proposed ordinance is well-designed and makes a.lot of sense, and he thinks _ Mr._ Wilson has raised valid policy issues of government-participation in people's use of their back yard and where you draw the-line in protecting neighbor's privacy from another neighbor's recreation. He said maybe he's advocating some responsibility, but they are only recommending or not 14 recommending this to the City Council for adoption, and he thinks it is up to the City Council to make that kind of policy decision, because he thinks it really does boil down to what the Community Development Director was talking about -- is this community willing to commit its Planning Staff resources to trying to head off privacy issue concerns and neighbor vs neighbor concerns, and if this were Italy or downtown L A. or something, it wouldn't make sense to try and do that, here maybe it does make more sense, and he thinks that is kind of an ultimate policy issue that the City Council is really better equipped as elected representatives to deal with He said from his perspective as a Planning Commissioner, he thinks that this cleans up a lot of problems and actually gives staff the ability to deal with something formally that they have been struggling to deal with informally, even though they have been dealing with it fairly successfully informally, and he is a believer in having things structured a little better than that rather than Just relying on the Community Development Director's persuasive abilities and luck He said he is willing to recommend that this be approved to the City Council, and if the City Council makes a determination from a policy standpoint that this is going too far in terms of looking into people's back yards, etc, that's fine, he thinks that playhouses still need to be considered an accessory structure because they are an accessory structure, and if they are a certain size, they do require building permits, and if they are small they don't, that's fine,but because staff has found that there is evidence that playhouses become a volatile neighborhood issue, and staffs believes and he tends to agree that the more effective way of dealing with that would be up front rather than after the fact, because the alternative is if they are not going to get involved ii this, then staff should be directed by City Council to take the position when a neighbor comes in to complain that they do not do anything about that and not even get involved ii the mediation — you're either not going to be involved, or if you're going to be involved, you should be involved up front. The Community Development Director said she thinks staff could deal with the issue through the Nuisance Abatement Code Enforcement procedures if the issue was declared a nuisance. Chairman Buchanan said the playhouse has to be considered an accessory structure, he is convinced of that, and if it falls within a violation as an accessory structure if it is encroaching,if it is over height, something like that, then yes, nuisance abatement action would be appropriate, even in the absence of some initial review process. He said what nuisance abatement would not do is allow them to deal with an aesthetically distasteful, as long as it does not present any safety hazard, if it Just looks bad, they wouldn't really be able to deal with that from a nuisance abatement standpoint. 15 { The Community Development Director said it depends, because the Nuisance Ordinance says if you have a petition from the neighbors and the peace of the neighbors is being disturbed by the structure, they could declare it a nuisance and staff would need to abate it themselves Chairman Buchanan said he can see it tnggenng the process, but he doesn't believe that their Nuisance Abatement statute makes neighbor complaints the criteria for something being a nuisance, maybe beginning the process, but he '' doesn't think that a neighbor comes in and complains that he thinks something is a nuisance, that that establishes it as a nuisance He said it isn't like you gather the neighbors together and say, "All those that think this is a nuisance, raise your hands, those that don't raise your hands" and you take a vote and if the majority says it is a nuisance, it is a nuisance He said he doesn't believe that is the law He said it might be sufficient for starting the process. The Community Development Director said the way it reads right now, it says that any violations for the Municipal Code could be considered a nuisance. Chairman Buchanan said that is the problem — what is a violation of the Municipal Code? He said if a playhouse is within the setbacks and does not exceed the height requirement, it is not going to be a violation of the Municipal Code, and even if it intrudes on three or four neighbors' privacy, it is not going to be a violation of the Municipal Code, and therefore, nuisance abatement would not do anything about.that_ The Community Development Director asked what about the violation of the peace of the neighborhood, as they have wording that says that if it violates the peace of the neighborhood, and if they receive a petition of five or six neighbors that says that doesn't make sense to them. Chairman Buchanan said he thinks the City Attorney will tell her that, "I don't like going out in my back yard and seeing that because I can see the kids looking down in my back yard"is a violation of the peace of the neighborhood issue; if the kids are up their yelling and screaming at 11.00 p.m., that is something different He said he thinks her hands are probably more tied than she even thinks they are in terms of dealing with these problems as it currently exists, and that is why he is currently in favor of seeing it cleaned.up.. MOTION PCM 93-57 Z-93-01 16 Chairman Buchanan made a motion that the Planning Commission , recommend City Council approval of Z-93-01 Commissioner Munson seconded Chairman Buchanan asked if there was an environmental assessment. The Community Development Director said just as a recommendation, as staff will present this to the City Council for their approval Chairman Buchanan asked if that had been noticed. The Community Development Director said it had not, and they are just making a recommendation that staff prepares one. Chairman Buchanan recommended that staff prepare an environmental assessment. Commissioner Munson concurred MOTION VOTE PCM 93-57 Motion carves. 3-1-3-0. Commissioner Addington voted no. Commissioners Huss, Van Gelder and Wilson absent. ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 9Z4 P.M. NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1993. i Respectfully submitted, Approved by, _ _ Q-2.4.Auct . Patnzia._Materassl - Dan Buchanan Community Development Director Chairman,Planning.Commission. 09-02-93 ma. \wp5AplannmAmmutes\08-19-93.m 17 I / 0 Ni August 25, 1993 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92324 Re Proposed Amendment Z-93-01 Gentlemen Please understand that this letter is written in my capacity as a citizen of Grand Terrace who opposes the adoption of faulty legislation You have before you information prepared by Planning staff regarding a proposed amendment to Chapter 18 of the Zoning Code The staff report recommending Council adoption represents the purposes of the changes as being an effort at clarifying ordinance ambiguities which were a product of earlier Council actions Planning staff would also be authorized to act as a reviewing agency in all uses that might affect privacy or view vistas with respect to adjoining properties. While I agree with Planning Director interpretation that existing language could be construed to burden all new construction with the obligation of a full site review, which currently includes payment of fees that would, in no way,reflect a nexus with environmental or service impacts, I urge you-to only adopt selected clarifications which would have the net effect of updating ordinance wording in keeping with ongomgpohcy Should you elect to complete amendments assuming that previous Council actions were formulated from experience and a record of solid judgement,choosing instead to make simple grammatical corrections to prevent mismterpretation,your Council action would be better identified with a long-standing base of good government which services the needs of the community and promotes economy For your convenience,I have included a copy of the proposed changes red-lined to reflect only minimal clarifications. The alternative could expose the city to needless litigation and inflict further strain on city staff already stretched to satisfy budget restraints Acknowledging the spirit of positive reform in which Z-93-01 revisions were formulated,please include the following items of information as a part of your decision making process Issues of pnvacy and scenic view vistas are subject to individual perspective, and wholly _ beyond the scope of governmental regulation without the adoption of specific companion criteria to measure impact and guarantee equal enforcement Surrounding jurisdictions, including the highly restrictive ordinances and policies of the County and City of Los Angeles find it unjustifiable to regulate land use of non-habitable structures beyond that which is specifically required by applicable zoning, with the ATTACHMENT 3 -2- possible exception of conditional approval of subdivisions or sensitive in-fill developments in exchange for creative design solutions Subjective enforcement of unreasonable ro e p p riy use restrictions is clearly not consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the City of Grand Terrace General Plan. The General Plan does not support legislation for the sole purpose of resolving neighbor disputes which may have little or no relation to a real Zoning or Planning infraction General Plan language relating to promoting compatibility of uses and managing development is intended prunanly as a tool for addressing significant impacts, not ordinary accessory use As stated in public testimony, the 1991 Uniform Building Code does address the issue of accessory use by exempting from the review, permit and inspection process, "One story detached accessory buildings used as tool and storage sheds,playhouses and similar uses, provided the projected roof area does not exceed 120 square feet" Stretching interpretation of nuisance abatement regulations to fit as a vehicle to preserve property values smacks of exclusionary use of police powers. Reactionary response triggered by complaints,resulting in the retroactive infliction of fees,including the potential for further penalties,regardless of compliance with zoning set-back,area and height requirements in effect at the time of construction is illegal The true purpose of site plan review is to promote orderly development, evaluate and mitigate sinnficant environmental impacts and insure public safety for the general welfare of the community In summary, let me just state that it will be a sad day when governments are willing to legislate to the point of mamp.'ation the laws of the land to sacrifice the imsTnat,on of young children as manifested in something as simple as playhouse, in order to satisfy the advantage of a settisn few without any realistic or legal justification Should you desire to contact me regarding any portion of this letter, please consider me completely at your disposal - _ ____,_ cerely -? 1 Doug A. Wilson 12168 Observation Drive - Grand Terrace, CA 92324 909-783-3464 714-759-7770 - t CHAPTER 18 06 DEFINITIONS Sections 18.06.005 Applicability 18.06.010 Abut _' ' 18.06 015 Access or accessway 0 18 06 020 Accessory structure 18 06 025 Accessory living quarters 18 06 030 Addition 18 06.035 -Alcoholic 18 06 040 Alcoholic beverages 18.06.045 Alley 18.06 050 Altered 18.06 055 Altered, structurally 18.06 060 Amendment 18.06.065 Apartment 18.06.070 Automobile wrecking 18.06.075 Awning 18.06.080 Basement 18.06.085 Billboard 18.06.090 Boardinghouse or roominghouse 18 06.095 Boarding school 18.06.100 Breezeway 18.06.105 Building 18.06.110 Building, main or principal 18.06.115 Building site 18.06.120 Busmess 18.06.125 Business face 18.06.130 Business frontage 18.06.135 Carport 18.06.140 Centerline 18.06.145 Church 18.06.150 City 18.06.155 Civic center 18.06.160 Clinic _ 18.06-165 _ Club 18.06.170 Commission or planning commission 18.06.175 Condominium 18.06.180 Contiguous 18.06.185 Copy 18.06.190 Council or city council 18.06.195 Day 18.06.200 Day care, child D lb 06 895 Street line 18 06 900 Street side 18 06 905 Structure 18 06 906 Sunrooms 18 06 910 Trailer 18 06 915 Trailer park or mobile home park 18 06 920 Trailer, residential 18 06.925 Trailer space 18.06 930 Use ;, 18 06 935 Variance 18 06 940 Yard 18 06.945 Yard, front f-- , 18 06 950 Yard, rear 18 06 955 Yard, side 18 06 960 = Zone 18 06.965 Zone, change of 18 06 970 Zoning map Section 18.06.005 Applicability: For the purpose of this title, certain terms used are defined as follows in this chapter. Section 18.06.010 Abut: "Abut" means contiguous to. For example, two adjoining lots with a common property line are considered to be abutting. Section 18.06.015 Access or accessway "Access" or"Accesswa" means the place or way by which pedestrians and vehicles have safe, adequate and usable ingress and egress to a property or use as required by this title_ Section 18.06.020 Accessory structure: "Accessory structure" means a building, part of a building, or structure which is subordinate _. to, and the use of which is incidental to that of the main_building, structure or use on the A' same lot. It does not mean separate living quarters or guest house but does mean - ridpit‘tett-tsqkilh&5<tbrasZsti_agielevated decks,patio covers,patio enclosures,Type 1 and Type 2 Sunrooms. antennas, radio and other towers and satellite dishes. Section 18.06.025 Accessory living quarters: .z. CHAPTER 18 10 RH, R1, R2 and R3 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Sections 18 10.010 Purpose 1810 020 Residential Districts 18 10 030 Use Regulations } 18 10 040 Site Development Standards 1810 050 Off Street Parking 18 10 060 Residential Street Parking 18 10 070 Signs 18 10 080 Site and Architectural Review Section 18.10.010 Purpose: The residential zones contained in this Chapter are intended to carry out the goals and objectives of the Community's General Plan, with respect to residential uses. These goals and objectives are to be achieved through the following purposes established for the residential zones: - 1. To provide for development in accordance with the General PIan. - 2. To promote the most appropriate and efficient use of the land while providing a variety of housing opportunities to the community. 3 To promote a compatible relationship between residential, commercial and other types of land uses located in the community To promote the public health, safety, and welfare through encouraging the appropriate type and size of development for the community 5 To manage development with respect to its type, size and location in order to prevent harmful encroachment of disruptive development into the- community's residential neighborhoods. Section 18.10.020 Residential Districts. The following districts are designed to implement the goals and objectives of the General Plan. Each district contains specific land use regulations and density ranges for development 1 RH, Hillside Residential District- This district is intended for very low C Table 18. 10 . 040 Footnotes (Continued) 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, 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 Dlotriat, aeoessery atraaturee shall net ^.._Ccd ten (10) fcct in }lcight unleoo app e y hAesite- any ehitcotural Review Board, and in no c ce OaUU c cos Accessary structures shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height, with exceptions as listed in Section 18 .73 ,090 of this Chapter. f. Hot 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 opep space per dwelling unit. s � C CHAPTER 18.63 SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Sections 18.63.010 Purpose 18.63.020 Application ' 18.63.030 Scope 18.63.040 Submittal Process 18 63 050 Public Hearing Process 18 63 060 Approval Process 18 63 070 _ Appeal Process 18 63 080 Building Permit Process 18.63.090 Revisions 18,63.100 Expiration/Extensions Section 18.63.010 Purpose: The purpose of this chapter is to empower the Planning Commission to sit as the City's Site and Architectural Review Board and the Community Development Director with the responsibility for comprehensive site plan and v architectural review in order to.achiee the owing: _ A. To ensure that new development and the alteration or enlargement of existing development occurs in a manner that is consistent with the intent of this title and the General Plan; B To ensure that the location and configuration of structures are pious th eir s es and su o ding sites and structures, t e o n rote with Qhbors that they do not unnecessarily block scenic views from other structures and/or public areas,and be in scale with the townscape and natural landscape of the area; C. To ensure that the architectural design of structures and their materials and colors are visually harmonious with surrounding development, natural landforms, is functional for the proposed project and Ls-consistent with this title; D. To ensure that plans for landscaping and open_spaces provide. a functional and visually pleasing setting-for the structures on the site-and is harmonious with the natural landscape-of the area and nearby:developments; E To ensure the preservation of then-atural beauty—of-the-city and its setting, to prevent the indiscriminate clearing of property, the destruction of trees and A natural vegetation and the excessive and unsightly grading of hillsides, and to preserve the natural landforms, F To ensure that the design and location of signs are consistent with the scale and character of the building to which they are attached or otherwise associated with and are consistent with this title. } Section 18.63.020 Application: There are three (3) levels of applications for Site and Architectural Review- A Land Use Application, • B Administrative Site and Architectural Review, and C Site and Architectural Review (with public hearing) A Land Use Application The purpose of this section is to empower the Community Development Director or representative with responsibilities for Site and Architectural Review of nor i Xw ich may have pore tial t adve -ly aff ct the. nvir nment.. N rig adifur pro'air,. •I, ' a ., di. -- o ctthe,Cgm rZ D elly n Dier{ • th , - y. ,j 1Lsr -i � • . - _ nt A_. Sitc and efchrtcctuia1 rcvicw Land Use Application: re ,prilt.fi 3 ate' pe shall be required in the event any of the-folio mg-actions occur: 1 Any new construcnon.z 26Zerlift.fti1" /4 4E1,1r4,ur• 2. Any remodeling or renovation of a-structure which results in: a). _ A change in use-or intensity-of use(includes any prnnosed use of a structui c which has been vacant for a period of six months or more); or - b) _ An. increase in building size (including bulk area and floor - - area); or c) ` Increased capacity;dr- __ - ' l - LlS05--- Jre. d)' -'Additional street access * - To Pi'+ • PIan check or clears of building plans prior to Buildin Deparnnenr-r vie nc n . ut i to- in . pat w cove enc o es, e w s. fens and-other re r do equire mists or al Si and- it al Revie _ 3 Any coFivo s1-efi of ownershi 4 Any placement of a modular struct with this title. to the Sit . L1 Patio covers and patio enclosures. 24 Sunrooms provided they strictly meet the Planning Commission setback policies, UBC and other construction code regulations 35 Satellite dish antennae provided they can be screened from the street in accordance with code and design standards. Notice including location map or site plan shall be mailed to adjacent property owners requesting comments at least two weeks in advance of the Plann mg Director's decision. 45 Overhead decks provided they strictly meet the Planning Commission design guidelines. c and over 20' in height in the R1 10/20 District with less than 500 Gquarc feet -67 Ground floor additions to existing residential structures located in an R1 District where the addition is less than 500 sq. ft. gross floor area and the exterior design and materials of the. addition matches the exterior design and materials of the existing structure. 8_ . Fences or walls which do not meet Section 18.73 070. v item which could n atisfactonly re ed at staff level m subject to Site nd Architectur Review the dis ton the Commu velopment Direct. The5.6mmunity Develo t Director de ns all be fin unless appealed i tir6Planning Commiss wi . 10 calendard peals-shall b ed with th, 'fIa 'ing Departure and follow si lar as the-a eals to the 5co I (Sectio 8.63 0 _ B 4dministranve Site and Architectural Review Atmlicatioir - - The purpose of this application is to allow staff level review of protects of medium scale and impact without the need for a public hearing. related costs and noticing procedures G- The following items may be approved by the Planning Community Development Director without going to the Site and Architectural Review Board However, the plans must be routed to all reviewing agencies and notices shall be mailed to adjacent property owners requesting comments within two weeks The ng Community Development Director decisions shall be final unless appealed to the Planning Commission within 10 calendar days. Appeals shall be filed with the Planning Department and follow similar rules as the appeals to the City Council (Section 18 63.070) 1. All accessory structures except. a) Structures with 65% or more of the square footage of the main residence living area. Living area does not mclude porches, patios, carports, garages, storage areas, or auxiliary rooms. b) Structures 1,200 square feet or more in size. c) Structures with lot coverage higher than 25%. 2. All room additions except: a) Room additions with 65% or more o£the square footage of the maiit residence living- area.. Living area does not include porches, patios, carports, garages, storage areas, or auxiliary rooms. C. Site and Architectural Review Application The purpose of this application is to allow major projects to receive full review from the Site and Architectural Review Board through a public hearing 7rocess Site and Architectural Review by the Site and Architectural Review Ecard includes, but is not limited to 1 All items which are not subject to Land Use or Administrative Site-and Architectural Review Applications. - Any conversion ofa single ownership property to a condominium ownership or stock cooperative project 3 Any placement of a modular structure in any district in accordance with this title R • 4 ✓ sue..... wcm.,.....- r 4 Anv other project subject to "Site and Architectural Review" as listed in this title or in the Barton Road Specific Plan 5 Any item which could not be satisfactorily reviewed at the staff level per discretion of the Community Development Director , } Section 18.63.030 Scope: , Ll Where site and architectural review is required the Site and Architectural Review Board and/or the Community Development Director shall consider the following issues,(thc Site and Architectural Review Beard may also consider 6ther relevant issues not listed below may also be considered). A. The proposed site plan for the property shall be reviewed taking into consideration the following. 1. Placement of all structures and improvements (including adherence to setback requirements) 2. VehicuIar ingress and egress 3 Internal vehicular circulation and parking lot design 4. Pedestrian and vehicular safety ._.., 5. Landscaping 6. Pedestrian amenities 7. Lighting 8. Location of all service facilities including waste recycling bins 9 Walls and fences 10_ Police and fire protection 11. Relationship to adjoining properties, structures and the site's and surrounding area's natural topography 12 Grading and drainage issues -1=13 Relationship to existing and/or the planned use of adjoining properties and within the general area old Consistency with this title and the General Plan 15 Traffic control measures B The proposed architecture of all structures shall be reviewed talang into consideration the following: 1 Architectural style and building design I Proposed building materials and colors Height of structures 4 Design and location of all signs 5 Size and bulk of the structures in relation to existing and/or planned structures on the subject site, adjoining properties and within the general area 6 Consistency with this title and the General Plan Section 18 63 040 Submittal Process Applications for site and architectural review shall be submitted to the Planning Department The Planning Director shall review each application and determine its completeness in accordance with planning department policy Upon determination that an application is complete, the application shall be scheduled either for review by the Site and Architectural Review Board or by the Pleatiffig Community Development Director as applicable according to Section 18 63.020. Land Use Applications may be completed by assigned planners at the counter or taken in for review as needed An application for site and architectural review shall contain the following A. Completed application form B Site plan, twenty-five (25) blueline copies plus one (1) blueline copy colored for presentation purposes. The site plan shall be a fully dimensioned drawing clearly showing: 1 All buildings, property lines and easements 2. All parking spaces, driveways and drive aisles 3. All landscaped areas 4 All walls and fences 5 Location of all signs 6. Public improvements to the street centerline 7 Site address and assessor's parcel number 8. Property owner name and address = 9 Number of lots and their sizes (in square feet) 10 North arrow, graphic and numeric scales. C Elevations, twenty-five (25) blueline copies plus one (1) bluelme copy colored for presentation purposes The elevations shall be scaled, dimensioned drawings of each side of each building and/or sign. D Landscape plan, twenty-five (25) bluelnne copies plus one (1) blueline copy ' colored for presentation purposes. The landscLrz.;Ian shall show the location , of all proposed plant material, common and botanical names, quantities and sizes,paved areas and paving materials and property lines E. Grading Plan, twenty-five_(25) bluelme_copies plus_. one (1) blueline copy colored for presentation purposes The grading plan shah show existing and proposed topography for the site and within 100 feet of the property lines. The plan shall also show all trees with a trunk diameter greater than four inches - - F Material Board, one (1) 8 1/2" by 11" mounting board showing samples of exterior design elements such as roofing material, paint chips, brick, stone or other accent features G 300 foot radius map, property owner mailing list keyed to the radius map and a signed mailing list affidavit H. Application fee. = T In case of Administrative Site and Architectural Review and Land Use Applications. the number of plans and specific requirements will be determined by the Community Development Director on a case-by-case basis according to the scale and impact of projects The Pleaffing Community Development Director may require additional information or delete certain requirements from an application depending on the specific situation. Section 18.63.050 Public Hearing: The Site and Architectural Review Board shall hold a public hearing on any proposed site and architectural review application and shall notice said hearing in accordance with Section 65091 of the C Aliforma Government Code. Section 18.63.060 Approval Process: After review-of an application, the Site.and Architectural Review Board shall approve the application only it A. The following findings are made; 1 The proposed project is consistent with the intent of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code and the General Plan_ 2. The location and configuration of all structures associated with this project are visually harmom us th ite surround.=sites and structures. t ev t ti e.t h that they do not unnec.cssarily block scenic views from other structures and/or public areas and are in scale with the townscape and natural landscape of the area_ 3 The architectural design of structures,their materials and colors are visually harmonious with surrounding development; natural Iandforms, are: functional for the-proposed project and are consistent with the Grand Terrace Municipal Code. 4 The plan for landscaping and open spaces provide a functional and visually pleasing setting for the structures on this site and is harmonious with the natural landscape of the area and nearby developments_ 5 There is no indiscriminate clearing of property, destruction of trees or natural vegetation or the excessive and unsightly grading of hillsides, thus the natural beauty of the city, its ' setting and natural landforms are preserved 6 The design and location of all signs associated with this project are consistent with the scale and character of the building to which they are attached or otherwise associated with and are consistent with the Grand Terrace Municipal Code. 1 7 Conditions of approval for this project necessary to secure the purposes of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code and General 1 Plan are made a part of this approvaL Section 18.63.070 Appeal Process: ' The decision of the Site and Architectural Review Board shall be final unless appealed to the City Council within ten (10) calendar days Such an appeal may be made by the applicant, any member of the City Council or any other interested person. A. An appeal of a Site and Architectural Review Board decision shall be made in the following manner 1. Filing with the City Clerk's Office a completed Application for Appeal. 2. Payment of the appropriate appeal fee. B. After accepting an application for appeal, the City Clerk shall set a date for the City Council to hear the appeaL Notices of the appeal shall be given to the applicant, the Site and Architectural Review Board and the appellant. C. The Site and Architectural Review Board shall subnut a report to the City Council containing the reasons for the Board's decision and the minutes of its meeting regarding the appealed decision. D The City Council shall hear the appeal and make its own determination regarding the application and its consistency with this title and the General Plan. Upon such determination, the City Council shall uphold, modify or reverse the Site and Architectural Review Board's decision. If during the City Council's_hearing of the appeal, new information is provided that was not considered by the Site and.Architectural Review Board, the City Council may refer the application back to the Site and,Architectural Review Board for , reconsideration of the application with the new information. i i Section 18 63 080 Building Permit Process After the appropriate appeal period has ended or after a final determination is made by the City Council, the applicant may submit for building permits The application shall include three (3) sets of the approved site plan, elevations, landscape plan and grading plan, each set shall be approved and signed by the Pleasing Community Development Director and shall have attached to it a copy of any conditions of approval required by the Site and Architectural Review Board or the City Council. Two of the required sets of plans shall be submitted to the Department of Building and Safety along with the appropnate construction specification plans for the approved project. The third set shall be kept on file in the Planning Department The Department of Building and Safety shall then prepare the appropriate permits in accordance with all applicable state and local codes Section 18.63 090 Minor Alterations and Revisions: An applicant may request minor alterations or revisions to approved plans by the Site and Architectural Review Board after the initial approval of the plans as follows- A. Minor alterations to the approved plans which result in a change to the exterior facade of a structure, any element of the landscaping plan or the design of the site plan may be approved by the Planning Community Development Director. Other minor alterations may be approved by the Building and Safety Director. All approved minor alterations shall not result in a substantial change from the approved plans B Any proposed revisions which result in a substantial change to the approved plans shall be submitted to the Site and Architectural Review Board for consideration pursuant to the procedures set torch in this chapter for initial application_ Section 18 63.100 Expiration and Extensions. The approval of a site and architectural review application shall expire one (1) year from the date of its approval unless one of the following actions occur 4 a 6 S, 1-44' A_ The applicant applies for a building permit and commitss Arr<t investment in accordance with the approved plans prior to the expiration date B The appkcent a rates to the Planning- Dcp :--tci-t for an �.rtcr tent of :he approval pnor to the expiration date B A business license is issued in accordance with the Grand Terrace Municipal Code C The applicant has complied with all applicable conditions of approval In case the applicant is not able to comply with Sections A. B or C of the aforementioned section. then the applicant shall apply for an extension of the one-year compliance period prior to expiration date The Planning Director may upon application by the applicant, extend the period of approval for a length of time up to one year No approval shall be extended to a date beyond two (2) years from the date of the initial approval. z 'f CHAPTER 18 73 GENERAL REGULATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS Sections 18.73.010 Purpose 18.73.020 Application 18.73.030 Animal and Fowl Enclosures 18.73.040 Attached Accessory Structures 18.73 050 Building Sites of Record 18.73 060 Dedication for and Construction of Public Improvements 18.73 070 ~Fence and Wall Height 18.73 080 Fire Control Regulations 18.73 090 Height Limit Exceptions 18.73.100 Keeping of Animals 18.73.110 Narrow Lots of Record 18.73.120 Occupancy 18.73.130 Property Maintenance 18.73.140 Reapplication after Denial 18.73.150 Relocation of Structures 18.73.160 Removal or Dumping of Soil, Sand or Other Material 18.73.170 Swimming Pools,Spas and Other Bodies of Water 18.73.180 Temporary Mannfactured_Housing Installations 18.73.190 Utility Undergrounding 18.73.200 Visual Screening of Unsightly Uses 18.73.210 Yards Section 18.73.010 Purpose: The purpose of this chapter is to establish general regulations and specify accepted exceptions to the provisions of this title. Section 18.73.020 Application: The provisions specified in this title are subject to the general regulations and exceptions listed in this chapter. __ _ . Section 18.73.030 Animal and Fowl Enclosures: No stable, paddock, coop, pen or other enclosure for the maintenance or raising of animals or fowl shall be established or maintained closer than twenty feet to any residence. B 2 The maximum height of a fence or wall, solid or otherwise shall be eight (8) feet from the surface of the ground C Where a grade differential exists between buildings sites, the height of the fence or wall shall be measured from the higher grade D The permitted height of a fence or wall may be increased or reduced if 1 The Director of Building and Safety determines such an increase or reduction is necessary to maintain proper vehicular and pedestrian safety 2 The Community Development Director through the Administrative Site and Architectural Review Board may approves a greater or lesser height. Section 18.73.080 Fire Control Regulations. The fire control regulations of the Uniform Building Code shall apply to all setback and yard requirements of this title. Section 18.73.090 Height Limit Exceptions: Chimneys, cupolas, flag poles, monuments, radio and other towers, water tanks, church steeples, mechanical appurtenances and similar structures may be permitted in excess of height limits with the approval of a conditional use permit. Section 18 73 100 Keeping of Animals Except as permitted by Chapter 18.53, the keeping of animals, other than household pets is prohibited within the City Section 18.73.110 Narrow Lots of Record On any parcel of land of an average width of less than fifty (50) feet, which parcel was under one ownership at the time of, or is shown as a lot on any subdivision map filed in the County Recorder's Office prior to February 11, 1982, when the owner owns no adjoining land, the width of each side yard may be reduced to ten percent (10%) of the width of such parcel but in no case shall be less than three (3) feet_ T } Lt) y o = Planning ;�RAnn TERR c Department NOTICE OF FILING NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to the Califorma Environmental Quality Act, a Negative Declaration is hereby filed on the below referenced project, on the basis that said project will not have a significant effect on the environment DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: Z-93-01 and E-93-10, Zoning Amendment with environmental review to clarify the Site and Architectural review process mcluding, but not limited to, accessory structures APPLICANT: City of Grand Terrace LOCATION: Citywide ********************************************************** 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 (909) 824-6621 Anyone wishing to comment on this project may do so prior to September 17, 1993 All connzznts should be directed to the Planning Department, City of Grand Terrace Pa a Materassi Date Community Development Director City of Grand Terrace , - . ATTACHMENT 4 22795 Barton Road•Grand Terrace,California 92324-5295 •(909) 824-6621 f � 1145:12=-EN ' 1(o Planning 'GRAND TERR c g Department NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to the Cahforma Environmental Quality Act, a Negative Declaration is hereby filed on the below referenced project, on the basis that said project will not have a significant effect on the environment DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT Z-93-01 and E-93-10, Zonmg Amendment with environmental review to clanfy the Site and Architectural review process mcluding, but not limited to, accessory structures APPLICANT: City of Grand Terrace LOCATION: Citywide 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. k , � f r I ikk Patrizia Materassi Date - Community Development Director 4 City of Grand Terrace PM.ma y L e c 7 v 22795 Barton Road«Grand Terrace,California 92324-5295•(909Y824-6621 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY 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 Patnzia Materassi. Planning Director. 714-824-6621 3 Date of Environmental Assessment. Gn-n S-9 9 4 Agency Requiring Assessment City of Grand Terrace LCr- 1A64TtritiS OF.ITE ANL)/ cq cZ(rAL G l�lc?t.til�� 5 Name of Proposal, if applicable zr�,n� Cf m�n � --, �vn n-f' � � :; --(7 ' Zvi m e to/ (ev i et.,)� 6 Location of Proposal. G try Lei E - c,nv Or C.7 R f3 Th i c RP A II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all 'yes" and "maybe" answers are provided on attached sheets ) Yes Maybe No 1 Earth Will proposal result in a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? .� b Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovenng of this soil? c Substantial change m topography or ground surface relief features? 1 Yes Maybe No d The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? k� e Any substantial mcrease m wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? f Changes m deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in situation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X g Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudshdes, ground failure, or similar hazards? x 2. Air Will the proposal result m a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality9 b The creation of objectionable odors c Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any chang: in climate, whether locally or regionally? 3 Water Will the proposal result in a. Substantial changes m currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters 2 Yes Maybe No b Substantial changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoffs X c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d Change in the amount of surface - water in any water body X e Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ti £ Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? _ g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer cuts or excavations? V h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ' i Exposure of people or property to water related hazar-4s such as flooding or tidal wave'' ' 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)? 3 { Yes Maybe No 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 replenishment of existing species? d Substantial reduction in acreage ' of any agricultural crop'? 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 reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of ammais? { c. Detenoration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? \ 6 Noise Will the proposal result 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? 4 Yes Maybe No 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 nonrenewable natural resource 10 Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve. a. A nsk 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 conditions9 b Possible interference with an emergency 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 proposal result in. - a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement9 b Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking9 c Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems9 5 Yes Maybe No d Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X e Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? �( f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians9 1 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 facilities? X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f Other governmental services? 15 Energy Will the proposal result in a. Use of substannal amounts of fuel or energy? b Substantial mcrease in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require 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 6 Yes Maybe No r a Power or natural gas? b Communications systems? X c Water? -)( _= d Sewer or septic tanks? �, e Storm water drainage f Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard Y. (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential Y� 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 m the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to , public view? 19 Recreation Will the proposal result - m an impact upon the quality or quantity Y of existing recreational opportu^tties') 20 Cultural Resources a Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site 7 Yes Maybe No b Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object' c Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area' 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or mums] or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califorma history or prehistory? b Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental g'•dls? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs m 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 cumulatively considerable'? (A project's impact on two or 8 Yes Maybe No more separate resources may be relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant) �C d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly9 C' 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 significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect m this case because the mitigation measures descnbed 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 Patrizia Materassi Planning Director - Z 5^-R 3 2i ,( a. r.Ac , Date Signature For City of Grand Terrace 9 I \ I � 4 { DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY Items #1 - #21. It has been determined that this project will not have any substantial negative impact either cumulative or overall on the environment m any respects as it is only for amendment of processing procedures 1I � I { I " { { It i \ 14 { { {