The URL can be used to link to this page

09/23/1993 w..wwrF FILE COPY iRRND TERR"C iiat ~♦�FM♦EA •°' September 23, 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 L } H 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 23 , 1993 GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER 6:00 P.M. 22795 Barton Road Call to Order - * Invocation - Pastor Tom Comstock, Assembly of God * Pledge of Allegiance - * Roll Call - STAFF COUNCIL CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS ACTION 1. Approval of 09/09/93 Minutes Approve 2. Approval of Check Register No. Approve CRA092393 ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ...AVENE CITY COUNCIL 1. Items to Delete 2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS A. Recycling Family of the Month August 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. 092393 ' Approve B. Ratify 09/23/93 CRA Action C. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda - COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF COUNCIL 09/23/93 - Page 2 of 2 RECOMMENDATIONS ACTION D. Approve 9/09/93 Minutes Approve E. Resolution Supporting Ride Share Adopt Week - October 4-8, 1993 F. Bid Award - Barton Road Improve- Award ments 4. PUBLIC COMMENT 5. ORAL REPORTS A. Committee Reports 1. Crime Prevention Committee (a) Minutes of 8/09/93 Accept (b) Request for Funds - Approve Red Ribbon Week (c) Request for Funds - Approve Computer Software (d) Accept Member Resignation Appoint and Appoint Richard Peters as a Regular Member 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 Ad)ourn THE NEXT REGULAR CRA/CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON OCTOBER 14, 1993 AT 6:00 P.M.. AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS FOR THE 10/14/93 MEETING MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BY NOON 10/07/93. PENDING C R A APPROVAL CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - SEPTEMBER 9, 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 September 9, 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 Patrizia Materassi, Community Development Director Phil Bush, Finance Director Sgt. Mike Howell, Sheriff's Department ABSENT: Randall Anstine, Assistant City Manager Joe Kicak, City Engineer John Harper, City Attorney APPROVAL OF 08/26/93 MINUTES CRA-93-41 MOTION BY AGENCY MEMBER SINGLEY, SECOND BY AGENCY MEMBER CARLSTROM, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the August 26, 1993 CRA Minutes. APPROVAL OF CHECK REGISTER NO. CRA090993 CRA-93-42 MOTION BY AGENCY MEMBER SINGLEY, SECOND BY AGENCY MEMBER CARLSTROM, CARRIED 5-0, to approve Check Register No. CRA090993 . Chairman Matteson adjourned the regular CRA meeting at 6:10 p.m. , until the next regular City Council/CRA meeting, which is scheduled to be held on Thursday, September 23, 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 C. R A AGENDA ITEM NO. 1. “ I CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1 DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 1993 CHECK REGISTER NO.092393 OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AB OF: SEPTEMBER 23, 1993 CHECK NO. VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT P9116 PETTY CASH FOR REHABILITATION PROGRAM EXPENSES $ 24 .85 28108 KITE & DAY SIGN COMPANY MATERIAL FOR SIGNS AT BARTON CENTER 250.00 28119 GENE CARLSTROM STIPENDS FOR SEPTEMBER, 1993 150.00 28121 C) RONALD CHRISTIANSON STIPENDS FOR SEPTEMBER, 1993 150.00 3] 28128 > HERMAN IILKEY STIPENDS FOR SEPTEMBER, 1993 150.00 28133 G) BYRON MATTESON STIPENDS FOR SEPTEMBER, 1993 1:1 150.00 ER 28146 1g JAMES SINGLEY STIPENDS FOR SEPTEMBER, 1993 0 150.00 EJ TOTAL: Z $ 1,024.85 n I CBEl ��'Y THAT, TO THE BEET OF MY INOWI4BDGE� THE ABOVE LISTED CHECKS FOR PAYMENT Off'! THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPI+IT AGENCY J,IABII,ITIEB HAVE BEEN AUDITED BY ME AND ARE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE TENDITURES FOR THE OPERA'.Q)N OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. il PHIL BUSH FINANCE DIRECTOR r (_ CITY OF GRAND TERRACE 1 DATE; SEPTEMBER 23, 1993 CHECK REGISTER NO:092393 OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: SEPTEMBER 23, 1993 CHECK NO. VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT P9102 POSTMASTER-COLTON POSTAGE FOR METER $ 2, 000. 00 P9103 POSTMASTER-COLTON POSTAGE, CITY NEWSLETTER/RECREATION BROCHURES 514 .71 P9104 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 9/3/93 532.07 P9105 SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 9/3/93 124 .56 P9106 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 9/7/93 155.21 P9107 SUE-DEL TALENT AGENCY DEPOSIT FOR ENTERTAINMENT,VOLUNTEER PICNIC 300. 00 P9108 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 9/8/93 272.66 P9109 SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 9/8/93 109.34 P9110 MARGARET AYARS PAYROLL ADVANCE FOR P/R ENDING 9/10/93 762.13 P9111 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 9/9/93 403.03 P9112 POSTMASTER-COLTON POSTAGE,AIR QUALITY SURVEY, PLANNING C)O 2,942. 62 P9113 LARRY MAINEZ PLANNING TECHNICIAN, 8/28-9/10/93 Z m 656.80 n Z P9114 ii CONCEPT FOR MARKETING BUTTONS FOR RED RIBBON WEEK,BALANCE DUE 1" G 802.59 Z P9115 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY CASH PAYMENTS FOR 9/13/93 /3 n 271.23 M P9116 w PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT FOR GENERAL PETTY CASH-FINANCE 2177, 471.57 P d CITY OF GRAND TERRACE 2 DATE; SEPTEMBER 23, 1993 CHECK REGISTER NO:092393 OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: SEPTEMBER 23, 1993 CHECK NO. VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT P9117 BANK OF AMERICA FEDERAL PAYROLL DEPOSIT FOR P/R 9/10/93 $ 5,757.49 P9118 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPT. STATE PAYROLL DEPOSIT FOR P/R 9/10/93 1, 020. 68 P9119 LEAGUE OF CA CITIES REGISTRATION FOR CONFERENCE, SAN FRANCISCO 1,400.50 28104 OLIVIA JACKSON REIMBURSEMENT FOR CHILD CARE SERVICES 240. 00 28105 UNOCAL FUEL FOR LCC MEETING, MONTEREY 30.30 28106 METLIFE - LIFE INSURANCE FOR HUGH GRANT, (6 MONTHS), 701.98 28107 CORPORATE COMPUTER NETWORK COMPUTER CABLE, PLANNING 238. 09 28109 PAUL OSBORNE REFUND, WASTE WATER DISPOSAL SERVICES 5.20 28110 ANGELINA ALCALA REFUND, WASTE WATER DISPOSAL SERVICES 9. 60 28111 DAVID/AVA KRESHEK REFUND, WASTE WATER DISPOSAL SERVICES 2.00 28112 MICHAEL SIMPSON REFUND, WASTE WATER DISPOSAL SERVICES 2.80 28113 A & A PRODUCE PRODUCE, CHILD CARE 43.20 28114 ACCENT PRINT & DESIGN PRINT BUSINESS CARDS/TOUR-DE-TERRACE BROCHURES 606. 41 28115 ASCOM RENT POSTAGE METER, 10/93-1/94 146.27 28116 BFI DISPOSAL REFUSE PICK-UP, SENIOR CENTER, SEPT. 1993 76.73 1 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE 4 DATE; SEPTEMBER 23, 1993 - CHECK REGISTER NO:092393 OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF; SEPTEMBER 23, 1993 CHECK NO. VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 28132 METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. LIFE INSURANCE FOR OCTOBER, 1993 $ 211. 20 28133 BYRON MATTESON STIPENDS FOR SEPTEMBER, 1993 300.00 28134 ONE STOP LANDSCAPE SUPPLY DUMP CHARGES FOR AUGUST, 1993 90. 00 28135 pACIFICARE HEALTH INSURANCE FOR OCTOBER, 1993 5,214.65 28136 PATTON'S SALES CORP PARTITIONS FOR CHILD CARE 1, 234 . 44 - 28137 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT, CHILD CARE 114. 57 28138 KATHY PIERSON INSTRUCTOR, TINY TUMBLERS/GYMNASTICS 570.40 28139 PRUDENTIAL SERVICES HEALTH NETWORK INSURANCE, OCTOBER, 1993 809.88 28140 ADRIAN REYNOSA SCOREKEEPER,SLO-PITCH SOFTBALL 147.00 28141 S.E. RYKOFF & COMPANY FOOD, CHILD CARE 901. 05 28142 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING PUBLICATION 97.25 28143 SHERIFF RICHARD WILLIAMS LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CRIME PREVENTION OFFICER FOR OCTOBER, 1993 71,472.00 28144 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO DUMPING CHARGE, 7/19-8/12/93 743.84 28145 SIGNAL MAINTENANCE INC. SIGNAL MAINTENANCE FOR AUG. 1993 AND SIGNAL REPAIR AT BARTON/MICHIGAN 388.03 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE 3 DATE; SEPTEMBER 23, 1993 CHECR REGISTER NO:092393 OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF: SEPTEMBER 23, 1993 CHECK NO. VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 28117 BRUNICK,ALVEREZ,& BATTERSBY FEES FOR BOOKING FEES LITIGATION $ 14 . 36 28118 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC FOR BARTON/215, JUNE, 1993 69.71 28119 GENE CARLSTROM STIPENDS FOR SEPTEMBER, 1993 300.00 28120 CHEM-LITE INDUSTRIES STREET MAINTENANCE/CHILD CARE SUPPLIES 160.20 28121 RONALD CHRISTIANSON STIPENDS FOR SEPTEMBER, 1993 300.00 28122 CITY OF COLTON WASTE WATER DISPOSAL SERVICES,SEPT. 1993 52 321. 27 28123 WEST-COMPUTIL , PROCESS PARKING CITES, JAN-JULY, 1993 24.00 28124 DICKSON COMPANY STREET SWEEPING FOR AUGUST, 1993 1, 776. 60 28125 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY MAINTENANCE ON KODAK COPIER, JULY AND AUGUST, AND EXTRA COPIES FOR JULY, 1993 525.20 28126 HANIGAN BUSINESS FORMS PRINT FORMS, FINANCE 70.04 28127 WILLIAM HAYWARD INSTRUCTOR, KARATE 798 . 00 28128 HERMAN HILKEY STIPENDS FOR- SEPTEMBER, 1993 300. 00 28129 INLAND COUNTIES INSURANCE LIFE AND DENTAL INSURANCE FOR OCT. 1993 653.71 28130 INTERSTATE BRANDS CORP. BAKERY GOODS FOR CHILD CARE 57.83 28131 METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. LIFE INSURANCE FOR OCTOBER, 1993 568.65 r w r CITY OF GRAND TERRACE 5 DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 1993 CHECK REGISTER NO:092393 OUTSTANDING DEMANDS AS OF; SEPTEMBER 23, 1993 CHECK NO. VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 28146 JAMES SINGLEY STIPENDS FOR SEPTEMBER, 1993 $ 300. 00 28147 SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY SUPPLIES FOR CHILD CARE 97.69 28148 L J SNOW FORD REPAIRS ON CITY TRUCK 286.09 28149 SOUTHERN CA EDISON COMPANY ELECTRIC FOR STREET LIGHTS, BALL PARK LIGHTS, PARKS, SIGNALS, AND SENIOR CENTER 4,878.99' 28150 SOUTHERN CA GAS COMPANY GAS FOR SENIOR CENTER 12 .82 28151 THE SUN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS 262.70 28152 TRI-COUNTY OFFICIALS UMPIRES, SLO-PITCH SOFTBALL 108.00' 28153 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT ALERT NOTIFICATION, AUGUST, 1993 32 . 50 28154 WESTERN EXTERMINATORS PEST CONTROL, CITY OWNED FACILITIES,AUG. 1993 145. 00 28155 WEST PUBLISHERS CALIFORNIA CODE UPDATES 24.26 28156 YOSEMITE WATERS,INC. BOTTLED WATER FOR CITY OWNED FACILITIES 178.90 TOTAL: $ 167,160.60 I CERTIFY THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE ABOVE LISTED CHECKS FOR PAYMENT OF CITY LIABILITIES HAVE BEEN AUDITED BY ME AND ARE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE EXPENDITURES FOR THE OPERATION OF THE CITY. PHIL BUSH, FINANCE DIRECTOR PENDING CITY CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COUNCIL APPROVAL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - SEPTEMBER 9, 1993 A regular meeting of the City Counci.1 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 September 9, 1993 at 6:00 P.M. tv, 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 Patrizia Materassi, Community Development Director Phil Bush, Finance Director Sgt. Mike Howell, Sheriff's Department ABSENT: Randall Anstine, Assistant City Manager Joe Kicak, City Engineer John Harper, City Attorney The meeting was opened with invocation by Pastor Roger Greenwalt, First Baptist Church of Grand Terrace, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilmember Singley. Mayor Matteson convened City Council meeting at 6:00 P.M. Mayor Matteson reconvened City Council meeting at 6:10 P.M. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 2A. Proclamation - "Days of Caring" October 8-9, 1993 Mayor Matteson read a Proclamation designating October 8-9, 1993 as "Days of Caring. " CONSENT CALENDAR CC-93-136 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER HILKEY, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the Consent Calendar. A. APPROVE CHECK REGISTER NO. 090993 B.- RATIFY 09/09/93 CRA ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA I tl 3 c Council Minutes - 09/09/93 Page 2 C. WAIVE FULL READING OF ORDINANCES ON AGENDA D. APPROVE 8/26/93. MINUTES E. DECLARE COMPUTERS AND TRUCK SURPLUS PROPERTY F. DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM G. AUTHORIZATION TO ATTEND LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES MEETING IN SAN FRANCISCO H. AUTHORIZATION TO GO TO BID FOR STREET STRIPING PUBLIC COMMENT Dick Rollins, 22700 DeBerry Street, Grand Terrace; requested an explanation of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program. City Manager Schwab, responded that the City must adopt the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program in order to receive federal funding. He added that the program certifies that the City does not discriminate against a minority or women-owned businesses. Dick Rollins, 22700 DeBerry Street, Grand Terrace; indicated his willingness to research various City Ordinances that directly affect the citizens and expressed his desire that a list of those Ordinances be published in the City's newsletter. He mentioned Ordinances that regulate yard sales and the posting of signs on utility poles, long-term parking for recreational vehicles and trailers on the street, noise, and litter. He announced that as of 1993, the City of Grand Terrace still has the lowest crime rate per capita in Southern California. ORAL REPORTS 5A. Committee Reports 1. Emergency Operations Committee r (a) Minutes of 7/20/93 CC-93-137 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SINGLEY, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER HILKEY,_ CARRIED 5-0, to accept the Emergency Operations Committee Minutes of July 20, 1993 . Council Minutes - 09/09/93 Page 3 5B. Council Reports Mayor Matteson, extending condolences to the family, stated that Mr. Dale Krause passed away on Saturday, September 4, 1993 . He explained that Mr. Krause was a long-time resident of the City and remarked that Mr. Krause was one of the five boys who graduated from Grand Terrace Elementary School in 1951. He announced that October 9, 1993 will be clean-up day in the City, relating that a dumpster will be located at City Hall until 3 :30 p.m. but stressing that no trash will be accepted after that time. He commented that the Country Fair will be held on November 6, 1993 from 10: 00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the Community Center at 22130 Barton Road. He also noted that the Friends of the Library will hold their annual book sale at City Hall on September 24 and 25, adding that the group is seeking book donations for the sale. He commented further that the County will provide a flu shot clinic at the Lawrence Hutton Community Center in Colton on November 3 , 1993 from 2:00 p.m. to 4: 00 p.m. , indicating that the cost will be $3 . 00. He announced that the City of Colton will hold a meeting at Colton City Hall on September 15, 1993 at 4:00 p.m. to discuss the street improvements and construction on Mt. Vernon at Washington Street. City Manager Schwab, revealed that Grand Terrace has been working with the City of Colton regarding that location. He indicated that the construction plans originally included the elimination of the I- 215 on-ramp at the base of the hill on Mt. Vernon, which would force travellers coming down Mt. Vernon to proceed to the on-ramp farther down Washington near Fiesta Village in order to access the freeway. He remarked, however, that Grand Terrace successfully lobbied Colton to maintain the on- ramp. Mayor Matteson, indicated that the City of Colton will hold a Chamber of Commerce Mixer at the old western town in Colton following the Colton Council meeting of September 15, 1993 . He requested that staff investigate the status of the completion of the street on Barton Road near the bridge. He reported further that the City/County Conference will be held in Lake Arrowhead on November 4 and 5, urging Council to attend the meeting. Council Minutes - 09/09/93 Page 4 Mayor Pro Tem Christianson, remarked that City Engineer Kicak supplied a report to Council regarding the improvements on the railroad crossing at Main Street. He stated that the report indicated that Mr. Kicak had contacted the railroad, adding that the crossing, where Metrolink plans to locate a station, will be improved within one year. He remarked further that the railroad company will investigate the crossing area. He announced that the Chamber of Commerce has scheduled a Chamber Mixer on Wednesday from 5: 00 to 7: 00 p.m. at Classic Fitness at 22125 Barton Road, Suite 500, adjacent to the Chief Auto Parts store near Michigan. He added that the graffiti "Paint the Wall Day" will be held on September 19, 1993 from 7: 00 a.m. to Noon and urged the public to participate or donate funds to the project, remarking that interested individuals can contact the Chamber office at 783-3581. He announced that the Tour de Terrace will be held on October 3, 1993, adding that riders of all ages on single or tandem bikes can participate in the ride. He announced that the Tour de Terrace entries must be postmarked no later than September 23, 1993 and (-) suggested that interested individuals contact Karen Gerber at City Hall. Gene Carlstrom, reported that he attended the monthly SANBAG meeting and commented that the meeting highlighted the Homeless Coalition of San Bernardino Valley. He added that there are over 1, 000 homeless people in the San Bernardino area. He remarked further that Supervisor Barbara Riordan was instrumental in providing a video about the Homeless Coalition for the meeting. He stated further that T.V. personality, Stephanie Edwards, attended the meeting and was presented with a plaque for volunteering her services in presenting the video to those in attendance at the meeting. Councilmember Singley, reported that he attended the San Bernardino County Gang and Drug Task Force meeting at the Sheriff's Department headquarters and related that "Choices" was the meeting topic. Explaining that D.A.R.E. is a drug intervention program at the elementary school level, he stated that Choices is an extension of D.A.R.E. at the junior high and high school level. He announced that the Choices program has received international acclaim, adding that the first international Council Minutes - 09/09/93 Page 5 convention for the program will be held September 26-30 at the Arrowhead Springs Hotel. He stated that he will report to Council following the convention. He commented further that he attended a SANBAG Major Projects Task Force meeting on Measure I on behalf of City Manager Schwab, reporting that due to the sluggish economy, there S . is a projected shortfall in funding for freeway improvements, arterial improvements, and the paving of local city streets. He indicated that Gary Moon, Project Director, implied that money would not be diverted from City governments for street improvements. He praised the emergency veterinarian clinic in the City which is operated by Dr. Terry McDuffee. Councilmember Hilkev, reported that Omnitrans placed their General Manager on leave and appointed a new General Manager but asserted that those changes will not affect the City's efforts to obtain a new bus route in Grand Terrace. He urged the public to complete and return the questionnaire in the City's newsletter. He urged the public to sign the petition for the formation of a Grand Terrace School District, adding that the petitions are at Stater Brother's market in Grand Terrace. Mayor Matteson, questioned whether the City needs its own bus route. Councilmember Hilkey, explained that the current bus, which is operated by the Riverside Transit Authority, travels down Michigan and into Loma Linda; however, he argued that seniors in Grand Terrace need transportation that will carry them to businesses in the Cooley Ranch or Fiesta Village areas. City Manager Schwab, summarized that the City is attempting to become a part of the Omnitrans loop. Mayor Matteson, inquired whether any tests or studies show that a route in Grand Terrace is warranted. Councilmember Hilkey, replied that the Transit Needs Survey in the City's newsletter will answer whether the City needs a bus route. Council Minutes - 09/09/93 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING 6A. Zoning Amendment - Z-93-01 (Accessory Structures) Mayor Matteson read a letter from Doug A. Wilson for the record: "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 ongoing policy. 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 misinterpretation, 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 part of your decision making process: 1 J Council Minutes - 09/09/93 Page 7 Issues of privacy 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 possible exception of conditional approval of subdivisions or sensitive in-fill developments in exchange for creative design solutions. Subjective enforcement of unreasonable property 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 primarily 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. Council Minutes - 09/09/93 Page 8 The true purpose of site plan review is to promote orderly development, evaluate and mitigate significant environmental impacts, and ensure 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 the manipulation of the laws of the land to sacrifice the imagination of young children as manifested in something as simple as a playhouse in order to satisfy the advantage of a selfish 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. " Mayor Matteson opened discussion to the public, there being none, he returned discussion to Council. CC-93-138 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CARLSTROM, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SINGLEY, to table the Public Hearing for Zoning Amendment Z-93-01. Motion #CC-93-138 was withdrawn. ,--- � Mayor Matteson directed staff to develop criteria for the regulation of accessory structures and to bring those criteria back to Council at the next Council Meeting for review for inclusion in the Ordinance. CC-93-139 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CARLSTROM, CARRIED 5-0, to continue ,the Public Hearing for Zoning Amendment Z-93-01 to the regularly scheduled City Council Meeting of September 23, 1993 at 6:00 p.m. Council Minutes - 09/09/93 Page 9 ORDER OF ADJOURNMENT Mayor Matteson adjourned the City Council Meeting at 7:00 p.m. , until the next regular CRA/City Council Meeting, which is scheduled to be held on Thursday, September 23, i 1993 . ._J CITY CLERK of the City of Grand Terrace MAYOR of the City of Grand Terrace ....,,> N R� • c'T ( 1i1 Planning taRAND TERR c . Department DATE: September 23, 1993 TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: California Rideshare Week October 4-8, 1993. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution Background The Planning Department is subnuttmg for your review and approval, a resolution committing to participate in the Cahforma Rideshare Week(Attachment A). This ndeshare resolution is in accordance with the Planning Department program entitled "Emission Reduction Through, Education, Job Creation, and Relocation"which commenced on June 2, 1993 (funded by South Coast Air Quality Management District). This program is a multi- city effort which mcludes the City of Grand Terrace, the City of Colton, and the City of Loma Linda. All three cities have been working together to create an air quality publication which educates the community on ndeshanng and other forms of transportation that reduce mobile source air pollution (see attached) Also, included in this publication are short commuter surveys which will allow the City of Grand Terrace to plan for facilities that reduce smog and congestion on our freeways, and allow resident to work closer to their homes. These facilities include park and ride lots,telecommutmg center, and small business incubators. It is the hope of the Planning Department that all three cities will approve this resolution, and participate in the State Rideshare Week. COUNCIL AGENDA i1EM13E- 22795 Barton Road•Grand Terrace,California 92324-5295•(909) 824-6621 Recommendation A. Approve resolution committing to participate m the California Ride Share Week. Respectfully submitted, Patrizia Materassi Community Development Director Attachment. A - Resolution. Attached: Air Quality Publication. PM:LM.Im G\wp\plammmg\ndewlux { RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA, COMMITTING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CALIFORNIA RIDESHARE WEEK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AB2766 DISCRETIONARY CONTRACT ENTITLED "EMISSION REDUCTION THROUGH EDUCATION, JOB CREATION AND RELOCATION' WHEREAS, the State of Cahforma is promoting alternatives to dnvmg alone L ` during the California Rideshare Week, October 4-8, 1993, and WHEREAS, the hope that a temporary ndeshare commitment will turn into a more permanent one, and WHEREAS, the City of Grand Terrace has entered into a contract with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) to reduce air pollution from mobile source emissions by developmg a multi-city air quality publication, which will allow the City of Grand Terrace, the City of Colton, the City of Loma Linda, Commuter Transportation Services (CTS), and local businesses and residents to explore ideas on how promote clean air, and good driving habits, and WHEREAS, the City of Grand Terrace is promoting a ndeshare week in the first issue of the air quality publication which satisfies the requirements of phase 1 task 3 (Promote Rideshare Week) of the AB2766 Discretionary Contract; WHEREAS,The City of Grand Terrace is committed to improving the public health, safety and welfare, mcludmg air quality NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Grand Terrace as follows: Section 1 The City of Grand Terrace agrees to participate in the California Rideshare Week. The ndeshare week is designated for October 4-8 Section 2 The City of Grand Terrace will survey its employees with the help of CTS for ndeshare matching. Section 3 The City of Grand Terrace will advertise the ndeshare week on the Comcast Cable Network, and in the first issue of the multi- city Air Quality Publication. Section 4 The City of Grand Terrace will jam, the City of Loma Linda, and the City of Colton to promote and participate in the California Rideshare Week. Attachment A Adopted this twenty third 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 California, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on the Twenty Third day of September, 1993 by the following vote AYES NOES. ABSENT. ABSTAIN City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney I STAFF REPORT CRA ITEM ( ) COUNCIL ITEM (X) MEETING DATE. 9/23/93 SUBJECT- BARTON ROAD IMPROVEMENTS On September 17, 1993, the bids were received, opened, and read aloud for the Barton Road Improvements project. The City received only one (1) bid. Said bid was submitted by Keeney & Son, Inc., of Grand Terrace, in the amount of $210,000 00. This project was bid in five phases: • Phase 1 - Construct block wall on the northside of Barton Road from the 215 on-ramp to the edge of walk (approximately 140' west of Vivienda). $57,398 00 • Phase 2 - Demolition of sidewalk along north and south sides of Barton Road from the 215 off-ramp to Michigan Street to create planters including handicap ramps. Landscaping and irrigation for north and south sides of Barton Road. $39,930.00 _ • Phase 3 - Roadway and sidewalk improvements at the intersection , of Barton Road and Mt. Vernon Avenue. Barton Road median and accent paving improvement areas. $42,056 00 • Phase 4- landscape roadway and sidewalk improvements at 215 on/off- ramps at Barton Road within the Caltrans right-of-way. $43,231.00 • Phase 5 - Landscape improvements along LaCrosse Road. $27,035.00 The bidders were required to submit bids on each phase of the project The bid results of Keeney & Son are attached to this staff report. As Council may recall,this is the third attempt by the City at bidding this project. Presently, the City has budgeted $120,000 00 for this project. At this time, staff is recommending the following: • Authorize staff to negotiate a contract with Keeney & Son. • Authorize staff to proceed with construction of phases 1 & 2 • Appropriate $123,172 from the Community Redevelopment Agency. • Authorize acceptance of real estate security in lieu of construction bonds. Completion of phases 1 & 2 would cost a total of $97,328.00. This leaves a balance of $22,672 from the original appropriation. Council could then appropriate the remaining $112,672.00 balance from the Community Redevelopment Agency Capital Projects Fund, in order to complete the entire project. Staff is also recommending that an additional 5% ($10,500.00) be appropriated for contingency reserve,bringing the total allocation up to $123,172.00 from the CRA Capital Projects Fund. - COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM#3F Staff Recommends- AUTHORIZE STAFF TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH KEENEY& SON, INC.,IN THE AMOUNT OF $210,000.00; ACCEPT A REAL ESTATE SECURITY IN LIEU OF BONDING;APPROPRIATE $123,172.00 FROM THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND TO COMPLETE PHASES 3-5. t1-'—lb-1'J'JS 11!1 VJ H UF1 KHA-CRSC 909-686-8091 TO 7832755 -P 02 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE BARTON ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PHASE I -BLOCK WALL IMPROVEMENTS BID SCHEDULE I , z Construct Block Wall on the northside of Barton Road from the 215 on-ramp to edge of walk (approximately 140'west of Vivienda). BIDDER Keeney & Son, Inc. (Company Name) BID SCHEDULE: JTEM ITEM CQST- A. Mobilization - 17, 01 8.0 0 B. Site Demolition - - $ 1.50 0.0 0 Wail Canstructiom - $ 3 8 .8 8 Q.o U - - - t : SUBTOTAL AMOUN rOF BID SCHEDULE I IN NUMBERS: $ 5T,398 _00 - _____ — _ _-- - SUBTOTAL AMOUNT OF BID SCHEDULE IINWORDS: $ Fifty Seven Thousand, Three Hundred Ninety Eight Dollars ------- .._-_.-_--_-._ - -F. � .-•.'y- - - _ - ' ▪ }�.i`iF�. L't-i r' ':--- -~Ar:- - _ - J,f`.. -rJJl.. "{*'•aa', t - -y P�.'",--' `"�- y� "-{} _ _ Y_ ti 2-. -Tt. - _ .,r,,,- ri-fit'-ti..._.-._ _ .. —..- may. d-:.- -Y+" :e l?,.;' �j---3' - i,crH:.... ,v�,,;fa-r.o-lam ..�.� `d+ -- �+== " _ - - -"'i^-.`..-�wa, t �`.i�_'a1aSx�y.�*.�r� 4�'? - r=-•,� ..sue ,y* y�. `J.�'C �f 'ie vro- , r s - mot + a r-c -,-�.5. ;-4,50100' ' 'OrV" - - - • - Y ; �� t ti f yy, - •- ` 3 - 'rt°�az�^.'4.:r=n r _:�..i ,.-n .._� - 1..... L."J.„. .4.... ..J 1 - 1 1 -4-1'.l1i . .j_ --- 'Li r...,- -- t" i> t �1^ _ ,- If t Gr I, v rr r�,M i -p . ,- s. .k Ii,r - CITY OF GRAND TERRACE 3 '.. -� ' BARTON ROAD IMPROVEMENTS z,"._ f t j ria -,'3 PHASE II-BID SCHEDULE II ., t .. , "Lt i.• 4II;1..,z- tT moo lition of sigan idewalk k as planter*including handicapBarton Road from the 215 off-ramp r ; 14— P ramps.. Landscaping and irriga- it 1f r,it lion for north and south sides of Barton Road. i 'ha '- r'-�'6. ,.s_..h BIDDER Keeney & Son, Inc"_ _ `-•44,,F,�,e k" (Company Name) _ - _ r _ - - ' r• '' .; BIs y, �- �... .. relA' i1�_p :r* .,t a, Yy S�r � Q .'..vy C:cam▪ y4,, •.= - a.. ...:N4• s -,•d..:v a.r, . _.n,LSr-• e COW- i w4 iC11LL . i , „� tiy- µ 1 . __ {v % "r • " -.T- _�_.y.._._c-- i.- ",tf ... . . � _�� _ 'lx ` I $ +5 Kam" V :*t'e- ., .....'_,...._.,_ r_ L 2 :�_ ,t, w_ A. 1 rMaiilizo J proaCfie ;,�, �.-4 .. _ - `S2rG0�.Dr. 4' x}<?,. F54-,--r.— r C � - - S " '1e _ezvri'"C- L 1teDemolltton . - j �. -,•ram ^ , ^ $ . L7V. (' ,� S " 446 - r,.- _-- . -.....--'^c-.-..°41$+ . --, - _- -" '` .`-�..Y.-__-`^ _ -_ •- r - , ). -s.rr.,t" t — ^ D. ^ anting - -4 _ t See C" _4r „ ' - E`.:_e`a c zon - __N_;: _ $10,r?lQ 1-:-,.,,.1,..._1-=' ., y. i. SUTIT_OTAtAMOUNTOFBID_SCHED_UL_EILIN EI _ _ -. 4` '' 3 'v.,., r_ _ + _ L _ _ - ~ice u j'S1.' Y F a #rya l. ✓' .i" t-• -� "at .9. t.-7K`� y� .....Y 1 "�.c Y ` ..•' „ 3 cY� :t:5 1 �r -�•y- _ .-.Y -;a•+-+ ....x- ,.._ •i {Wit , t 1. �j t.e-�'•'�..,,,.!"p.'-.cam- �.tw.' • Z To.._w'w`... "•„q4.4., �9 J' i. 'a`r. i s. .� �4 a �. +. }-a �',Y,�..teS7i� �'r"'. ! .s z rr :4:sk:'--‘44+7r+*�'"'... � .-�-ti.� ,„.�=".t J-„1 Y ,i V"--SurfFA L-Amo ILA rOI BII SCH_T ILIN TWO1 D_Sz , .�%-' ' = _•.=_ ,, 4 ;, i,� 1141W m yk , �4„A,, ,` ,,,,a„` "" '' y"rCB+aP:y1i' , ..1g' 1^1 - r T .-4..�� E _ ,w,.�.-� _ ._Y _,., _- ..f.,. ta.L La,. _��7-r,` r t� ''< rT 2_ 7r) , _ • '- Fty pS- '-9.t., s s 4 "y Ss w �^L�.ly' mn..,c -4n`� CFJEL`M ,, .-�,,,5^:Ss,t* t .-, ; -"^a wt. r ''':'`;n._ _ va.w •.+>;. ass"jY L .,,,, a,,,. -wr.-. ,y 7,r !'.' +,. ,,.'*. «"Q 'Y' ,--- Cr[ r • < .▪ �+ .i i a..s,'F,.r. w. p ,,,C. C { ,a��'tt f.: n' ` +.. q° ,p.� IT ^, ' r.t d., .+.44 �,y.. ,,, 4,".. ,.- .„ y �^ .. 4T "`,•,' #..#il: '•.4^,7 , ,:1•Z' .� 7"' e✓I ...^,s+'1�'1.E A't y �kv.-� -a'r a ." +-r�i,k� '•+',vim,,,�;c, ' (1 .F t7 . ° fir' t ,n 5.1. -....C�+'wS`h1 A S.L,ry is,..✓ ` '4. '�i a t1 ; - 'yp! s �• �61�~ 3-�` '" "s2, t�i 'a!3�W k�Fla !+.,�•i t l-& -..- V'r' _!l 1 ,".1 'M.. w G7y- f.. 'vAN" t si r.' �+sw,. 3 ,fit ,r 9 d�•.`t�. tF^ '3" ^'�. ? '�i�J�1'�� y„�",y , es ,+��` sr.�,{�a,x+7t � ■iki?rt� � ' '-.:4i ..rr � ,itf7� l do. `J,y,vov." a,,'r+ i^. �`� - 4...t-D`',"r '',/'}„ , ,P -54&-`' • 5 ,e•-., "2 ,n, .S .1' r 4.jy,yr ! ,S a • '4",1, •,i r pqt..r 9�4,. ^' ,a,,,. 3� "J' S'K M3'��.4� y!' �r > y, - -.l 1 •- ,. Y rF `L ,.c'`w,vim..r'F. j, •t, .•� 1rY y X' -. �y 1 t s"�h , fr�M G"Z .f� 3 T' .4 - ., r .. ti+�'":8"�j+�M x ,-,,,;TA.,..„ ,...� -.;,a�7. A.._aj `4��:GL`r "T ,L..y :''�a :.<t...s "t/lk' .:� s� .�:'� r�.�.t`��`i, + � �e �E P.'�"`s.y a.�,s a�-ry ri.v...... C , ' .4 "71 • '. ,,,,„ wn '' .f raiC-i 411 ''� .,,..14 r t ` $��yyv,,^•14 f 4. �*. » 4 1. '1w 6.a�t1� '" a1 ✓ .. r ',y .-r K i , ,* I'ya-.. ,.,, Y..J".h - , - .-. Y ,..L .. I•GMs Y+V'a ..- r T. S. n Y �� 1 1 f�'1 s vip''. i AY',• 53 " ', gyi r'„ -tK, .. -- _ r <i a. 1^ a s r^� •., u - s,�s�, +^{) '2k 'A':Y i:. ,,<, r,,13�...i.y�4,.03r., ,tpr• -t .t. 7,-�; 4t ar tom_. e ..rut ,rt- t h>,. err $6J 21 :fit)' i,z^'<. 'TM" ,- - ---9., °ram -. ""..'i. `...-. r,,.2' Z4 k.. .i--4 tik.., s. , .t '�Y' .. -4 µ ' a._ ''-i� '{ - ,a- ,.-.--V .'t... ,.,,„.ems _F ,,- V)A _ �,V 4,7 n `'. , _ _'tF+4 «1 ~,,.'r��.u'. „tilq,. xi.d"..t. . ?=_ ":Lk' > =mTaq •2 T>• y� - ?�, ;ti.i�'i"s - $• ll '» r ,t qr�;, i5'".' •r_. --, --, ...Jr GS GJ I INI.J1 I INnn—c,mmk., VU17-0+:10—dICJ1 TO 7832755 P 04 • CITY OF GRAND TERRACE BARTON ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PHASE HI-BID SCHEDULE III , , Roadway and Sidewalk Improvements at the Intersection of Barton Road and Mt. Vernon Avenue. Barton Road median and accent paving improvement areas. BIDDER Keeney & Son, Inc. (Company Name) BIR.$ DULE: ITEM ITEM COST A. Mobilization $ 8, 000_00- i,I, , B. Site Demolition $ 5, 030.00 C Site:Consttnction J 29,026_00_ — — -r—� _— — _— -- — -- --- - - SUBTTLAOUN rOFBID-SCHEDULK III IN NUMBERS: 42, � 0 5 6-.0 0 `^ ~SUBTOTALAAMOUNLOFBID SCHEDULE III IN WORDS:. - Forty Twa Thousand. Fifty Six Dollars c : -i ryr.. — 42 f.� r r ,.-e41�N ww__�.,,e. .:L 4... le .. ? - -_ - -vim -4..r_._e .+ i_ -T.zr..u...�_ � ram_ Sys- k `w _ r t 1 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE 1 r ;--T ; r r i BARTON ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ,`DTI PHASE IV-BID SCHEDULE IV r�•. . *r a..-ttre r. L «i t Bn•,�i.• 11 Landscape,Roadwayand Sidewalk Improvements at 215 On/Off Ramps at Barton Road, - `¢�. > Within trans Right of Way.. _ ,';t :n_ 1 .,„19 e m* tr BIDDER ,Keeney & Son,. Inc. - l',t ',,:. 1y' „ts �(. ^fz•,z ,tr c, , q' - J- w y* (Company Name) t. r p.. r`t 'ri, k.- BID SCHEDULE: - 4 t ;,t 1 ITEM JT COST . ��g`` i, A. Mobilization $ 6 .8 5 a.oft M , P.b B. Site Demolition - $ ? 7 C {� -: �'• -' - 3•165tQaka ter' _,i C: • Site Constructio• n. - — - _ _ e Tip•-».'Z OZL _� _ - "-.'.• =z-.W....-_---,_ - - - 7. 6ri r' ` Q Q:. . S y..� J r`..+a�t�;:1 "•it• S, *..„Y�•a_:.- .. - -_ �1 r. } :.�►�t. ,• ▪may • r�•- rand-capes alnten e Nin (9 D8�► PP r- ,44.+ `• � t° y4+.`'et h t a .� tit:r_ F.....P. +n. .ram-•<.- ;_--- '-_' S^ -e .4yr.�'n xa ,r,. sic-.rir-e^:-. .. - - - - •.' " `s =.° M- SUBTOTALAMOUNTOE`BIII;SCHEDULEIV'INNUMBERS� It. ' 4n t • j° ..-`$ —43,-2 3I_UO - - - _�..�_ - __- - •- - <_ � "'= ' - = "" -- SUBTOTAL AMOUNTOFBID SC ULE WINWORDS ▪ n - VIA- - -w-• - •' ,- s•- •-r—..w.•, L-t. +e*W.2'""--.-- .a-- - - . = _s F '� ^'": : 'I•�' '? .'- $ Fortvr Three Thous- snd Twa'H'undred- Thirty One Darlar� -- `" '="'"4 vri- 1`�= G-" ---.-r-",,---`.,.aL.-i .�.�z: Pam' .`s 2, .q„q. , . _ o-nw. `t�`2:i''.zd ` }=s ey+y z ar J•_•,.- ...... ...,•�-,,,-4..-«...•-,�' ., -44--4-.s r L - t . 'i `�? ,y t� a A*} • >c*rf-.•_A' :.T''i?.- ;`,. _4w„k�.--- �'7 -- ", .'t K -r` y J - ^ .I . _--+ -'e`c'"'' _„- v 1 t-r'•`r ,_E'.'� t.`(• �Yr • _•_ _ ..a..y: i'1.�4� .c Ts• ^c a r .•.ri F- { t'< �•� 1 ., 't•' :'. (M.+dr $4>� r 'r•V 4-.1.,,^ n.s 1 *Y .a -r -- N v t • ,: NZ..?,- fit. L.tr.._.''c. -"ce y S•a i� ^t4 er a ' "'- ._ >...' n •« :,r~y�r M d - Y ay �i ; .3! ...2 p�.< yy. Y�"1 ."t• _. . .✓t "s k^s,1-.'lt.4 ' .� - t 'f' - _. •- r` },. .•~ T's�'4:.. 'Y" L I+'si7,.t4.1......33.x. ir.• :aa..--..3=*.r : wr.�n,, .=� AT a''''T^.r.^.t- "` .�i. .la' w .ti.1�,.. r, a i¢ '�^,,�.' , '� ' ,'.wn'r' Y` .� _ ..i.« , r ,. .c ,,.,47., + ' a 1 .Lti.��nt 4 :_ 1, d • fin.,. .} - Iss t.r.^ 9r ;„ „r' 4 ..5,,.(• si t7 ^+"."...-ia ^S - d • i"% r `xM ..sa.'�o�?'..�� .,.'.L a .,I. ea,atrit. t.. r •t e d. . �t,�,.i !s a ra a' i_ ,,• n p I ,�-,a. .- .�[{�,.w-'D"- 4 - t,� ;qy F j_,ti/Tt1.�t,5�.fr• C - / 7`e r4'y�P +1{^t ^ ' .. i ),,.h1 •••• .Y....'.y h - • F tt 4- T y T.i��I .i L� r_ -a-- F. -,a/' N3'- � ."-,,tic y t M7 ^ .. j V• .1+ i f T,j `Fw4Y•..C. 7 R��rCi r { j' ,.d N-z '•vn s,� L;. --'---, in s ,= '�.�...r .. rin SYL,. +l ti tF^,�."'c..r,{.. : . - e>'rr r rj y �3. a �l' to 'T-',1r � .*-7r,-r" ' -s'i~. ^ - -..i ;:;--42-.'tl..>�b.Th ."�.:e w. � ~ ' r ...+ ' . �,.."'47- :- s ...M._ ,pa., ,�.v h4:,, E` S'tii, �a ...`_`-r° �t� T!.. - „ �.t :`...... r r-'- - 4w.a y,.it c.,. y.:•i I a ,,•G,•C=ate...{. �.,+ ' 'j� r x µ 'k- S'' . - �'�%` ... r t t i `Yt',. re..Y•� �' 1.f _i. "":!-V-11 Yn •••-7-D,-(�S :t cl'1 +� r }c a Y + it • yv> ". a: ' ,n„''�'' t xi 's''. ,S. `X `I/� '' ` ?4 i • - . _y.SA. t(r rl tr4•T r,r.,,t -' ,' 1'ems s "4 7 AY..',r }�$ ,t « s '*•-r i:--• ' - r *."- 3 .�c- :dd '�$"'i), r.:, . rf;'+r `r.'K' «-d:e'T 1 .,,;r-.r' L .7t"r-"- f F_-" .r- .4. • . .., J-• y.„ "'* :..� -,< - `" F++=n„ fnti `it f•• ... 1'`J Ir+iFnc`Syr ▪ t?'. .: z. �, • h+, ..f ?if - ers'_i.1. - ° _ 1, rrya t''S�f.•.,. �'.S L trraf .T `,pw _j.ram(, 4 ... y4 i : - - -- -- • �� e+rottb-t+by1 TO 7832755 P.06 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE BARTON ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PHASE V-BID SCHEDULE V Landscape Improvements Along LaCrosse Road. BIDDER Keeney & Son, Inc. (Company Name) BID SCHEDULE: ITEM co T A. Mobilization - $4 . 260 . 00 B. Site Demolition $1 nnn norY C Flirtation F D. Planting $` i qPP r E. _ Landscape Maintenance-Ninety(90) Day $ sPP SUBTOTAL AMOUNTOF BID SCHEDULE YIN NUMBERS:. 2.7, a35..o0 SUBTOTAL AMOUNT OF BID SCHEDULE Y IN WORDS: Twenty Seven Thousand,Thirty Five Dollars ` r - _ T - RECEIVED CITY OF (RAND TERRACE - - - CRIME PREVENTION COI IITTEE MEETING, AUGUST 9, 1993 2ITY CLERK'S DEPT MMrl[TrES: The regular monthly meeting of the Crime Prevention Committee was called to order in the Conference Room of the Civic Center at 1800 hours. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jo Ann Johnson, Chairperson, Phil Spisak, Vice Chair- person, Harold Lord, Treasurer, Be Gigandet, Dick Peters and Dick Rollins, Secretary. Members Absent: Howard Panek, Mike Fasenmyer City Staff: Sharon Korgan, Community Services Officer Guests; Debra Meuller The Minutes of June 14, 1993 were read and approved as written. There were no Mix ites of July 12, 1993 due to the lack of a quorum as many of the members were on vacation ZTEMS.: #1 Debra Meuller made a report on the activity in obtaining participants -) in the Parade for the next Grand Terrace Days event she also reported that she and her family are pT nnine to move out of the State in the Fall and that we would need a new coordinator for her tasks. #2 It was requested that two Action Items be prepared one accepting the resignation of member Gus Schmidt who is moving to South Dakota and the other recommending that Dick Peters be established as a full member from an alternate member. #3 It was requested that the records show that Phil Spisak had been excused from the meeting of June 14, 1993 and that the record be changed from the wording in the Minutes of that meeting identifying that it was an UNEXCUSED abscencel Harold Lord made the report on the budget results and reported on the current amounts now in the Committee's budget for the 1993/1994. term. The Finance Departmeniz report indicated amounts that had been allocated. #5 Sharon Korgan submitted her report stating that there would be no funding this year for the annual C.C.P.O.A. Trainang Conference in Sacramento. #6 Sharon Korgan reported on the nlw memberships of the Citizen Patrol and that new classes would begin in the Fall. There being no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 1910 hours. Re fail submitted, k�� COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM# s P Lo H L COMMITTEE REPORTS COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 1993 COMMISSION/COMMITTEE: CRIV2 EVEN ION COMMITTEE at : SEPTEMBER 13, 1993 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR ALLOCATION OF $400.00 RED RIBBON WEEK PROBLEM: The Crime Prevention Commattee requests the City Council and Staff to allocate an amount of $400.00 for use to provide neccessary materials for the planned activities for the annual 'Red Ribbon' anti drug program sponsored each year by the Crime Prevention Committee and the City of Grand Terrace. Materials and activities for both schools and businesses and participation of all citizens. Funds within the Committee's Budget have been set aside for these activities. REQUESTED ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY COUNCIL AND/OR STAFF: It is requested that the City Council vote on the request and approve said request. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM# 51;1(b) COMMITTEE REPORTS COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 1993 COMMISSION/COMMITTEE: CRIME PREVNCION COMMITTEE DATE: SEPTEMBER 13, 1993 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR ALIOCAT ION OF $400.00 The Crime Prevention Committee requests the City PROBLEM: Council and Staff to allocate an amount of $400.00 for aclr7,tional computer software materials for use in the Crime Prevention Programs scheduled for the fiscal year 1993/1994. This software includes materials for upgrading software presently being used by the Community Services Officer. Funds within the Committee's Budget are adequately available. REOUESTED ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY COUNCIL AND/OR STAFF: It is requested that the City Council vote on the request and approve said request. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM# 1.CC. COMMITTEE REPORTS COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 23, 19'93 COMMISSIONICOMMITlEE: Crime Prevention Committee DATE: September 17, 1993 SUBJECT: The Resignation of August Schmidt/Appoint Richard Peters as a Regular Member PROBLEM: August Schmidt, a Regular Member of the Crime Prevention Committee has turned in his resignation due to the fact that he is moving to South Dakota. REOUESTED ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY COUNCIL AND/OR STAFF: Accept the resignation of August Schmidt and approve Richard Peters as a Regular Member (Currently he is an Alternate Member) to the Committee to fill the vacancy. His term will end on June 30, 1994. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM#5as.(& April 19, 1993 22656 De Berry St . Grand Terrace, CA 92324 Dear Mr. Anstine: I 'm giving notice, herein, of my resignation from the Grand Terrace Crime Prevention Committee. This is prompted by the fact that I 'm moving out of the area. Sincerely yours , -.0 `{-41.Lc.04 August E. Schmidt cc: Community Service Officer San Bernardino Sheriff Dept. pQ d aaQ'�f r cep b LIT} Planning •GRAND TERR-Ca t' Department e. ti ♦V DATE: September 23, 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 of ordinance amendment including Playhouse Review Guidelines and Negative Declaration *************************************** BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: At its meeting of September 9, 1993, the City Council considered subject project and directed staff to develop guidelines for review of playhouses to be included in proposed ordinance amendment. Staff has completed the task and is submitting the matenal for City Council consideration. The only alteration on previously submitted ordinance is that any new construction or accessory structures of 6' in height or below are now exempt from planning review with the exception of elevated decks Please refer to page s 10 through 13 of Attachment 1.A for Playhouse Review Guidelines. For the City Council's information, the proposed guidelines are based on staff review of various playhouse complaint cases,input from management,the City Attorney and Mr.Doug Wilson. Illustration of a few cases will be presented at the meeting. Respectfully submitted, TittUah—T-C-1727)- Patnzia Materassi Community Development Director - Attachments. 1 - Ordinance with amended text-A, B, C and D- 2 - Report to City Council.dated 9-9-93-and its attachments PM.ma c\wp51\planning\zc\z9301 cc2 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM•(DA 22795 Barton Road• Grand Terrace, California 92324-5295•(909)824-6621 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 Zoning 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 1810 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' privacy, 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 staff level review of playhouses and similar effect structures pnor 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 i �AS amen �the Site and Architectural Review,General Regulations, • ��! sections will clarify procedures,making it easier for the T^^ �� Attachment 1 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 properly 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 m full m Attachments A, B, C and D, is approved and adopted by the City Council. Section 2 The Negative Declaration on file in the Planning Department of the City of Grand Terrace, E-93-01, is hereby approved Section 3 Effective Date This Ordinance shall be inn frill 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 meetmg of the City Council of said City held on the 9th day of September, 1993, continued to a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on the 23rd day of September, 1993 and finally adopted and ordered posted at a regular meeting of said City Council on the 14th day of October, 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, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace held on the 14th day of October, 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 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 architectural review m order to achieve the following- A. To ensure that new development and the alteration or enlargement of existing development occurs m a manner that is consistent with the mtent of this title and the General Plan; B To ensure that the location and configuration of structures are visually harmomous with their sites and surrounding sites and structures, that they do not interfere with neighbors' privacy, that they do not unnecessarily block scemc views from other structures and/or public areas, and is 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 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 harmomous 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 1 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 heanng) 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 will be at the discretion of the Community Development Director, with the exception of satellite dishes _Sit and a_chit, _tura ________ Land Use Application, regardless of need for a permit, shall be required in the event any of the following actions or construction occur 1. Any new construction exceeding 6' in height 2 Any remodeling or renovation of a structure which results in a) A change in use or intensity of use (mcludes any proposed use of a structure 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, or d) Additional street access 3 Plan check or clearance of building plans 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 1 3 Any conversion of a single ownership property to a condominium 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 R1 7 2 District under 10' m height aHd--oyer nczz20'--araeightin4he D 1 0 i„ t 1 th 50 -67 Ground floor additions to existing residential structures located m 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 9 All construction of elevated decks 10 Construction of playhouses according to Subsection 18 63 110 of this section Any item which could not be satisfactorily reviewed at staff level may 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 Aoolication The purpose of this application is to allow staff level review of projects of medium scale and impact without the need for a public heanng. related costs and noticing procedures E The following items may be approved by the Plazmufig Commumty - 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 Relining 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 r r b) Structures 1,200 square feet or more m 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 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 heanng 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 y 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 listed below may also be considered). A. The proposed site plan for the property shall be reviewed taking mto consideration the following 1 Placement of all structures and improvements (including adherence to setback requirements) 2 Vehicular mgress and egress ,—' 3 Internal vehicular circulation and parking lot design 4 Pedestrian and vehicular safety 5 Landscaping - 6 Pedestrian amemties 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 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 buildmg materials and colors 3 Height of structures 4 Design and location of all signs c 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 r completeness m 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 A. Completed application form B Site plan, twenty-five (25) bluehne copies plus one (1) bluehne 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 (m square feet) 10 North arrow, graphic and numeric scales C Elevations, twenty-five (25) bluehne 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) bluehne copies plus one (1) blueline copy colored for presentation purposes The landscape plan 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) bluehne 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, bnck, stone or other accent features G 300 foot radius map, property owner mailmg 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 Plamung 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 Cahforma 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 mtent of the Grand Terrace Mumcipal Code and the General Plan 2 The location and configuration of all structures associated with this project are visually harm„mous with this site and surrounding sites and structures, that they do not interfere with the neighbors' privacy, that they do not unnecessarily block scenic views from other structures and/or public areas and are m scale with the townscape and natural landscape-of the area. 3 The architectural design of structures,their materials and colors are visually harmomous 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 1 5 There is no mdiscnmmate cleanng 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 Mumcipal Code 7 Conditions of approval for this project necessary to secure the purposes of the Grand Terrace Mumcipal Code and General 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 withm 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 appropnate 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 rneetmg 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 1 e 8 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 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 m 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 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 forth 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 eae-e€the following actions occur A. The applicant applies for a building permit and commit substantial investment in accordance with the approved plans prior to the expiration date 13---The-appiteent-applies-t-e-the-Plenftmg-Depaftmeftt-fer-aft-extefisien-ef-the `I B A business license is issued in accordance with the Grand Terrace Municipal Code, as applicable 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 Section 18.63.110 Playhouse Review Guidelines Definition Playhouses consist of small structures (maximum of 120 sq ft), with ground-mounted or elevated floor where raised floor does not exceed 6' in height Playhouses are made by property owners. "handyman" or pre-manufactured kits, usually with elevated portions at times connected to other play equipment such as jungle gyms, swings. etc Playhouses are usually built of wood, painted metal and vanous other materials Playhouses are sometimes placed over a tree These structures are built as children play areas It should be noted that pre-manufactured kits are not pre-approved structures and do not necessarily conform to City Codes and to these guidelines Such kits are subject to the uidelmes as much as any playhouses built from scratch by a"handyman"or property owner Playhouses are considered accessory structures or "subordinate structures" to the main residence and shall be built in compatibility with the main residence and with surrounding sites and structures _ Goals The review of a playhouse is therefore to achieve the same goals as the Site and - Architectural Review of a main residence, as listed in the City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code Section 18 63 010 - Purpose "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 unnecessarily block scenic views from other structures and/or public areas, and be in scale with the townscape and natural landscape of the area, IG FG 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, 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 natural vegetation and the excessive and unsightly grading of hillsides, and to preserve the natural landforms" Specific Review Criteria: 1 Location of playhouse shall minimally meet accessory structure setbacks(10'rear and 5' side setbacks from toe or top of slope) and shall not be located on utility easements or public nght-of-way. It is recommended that playhouses be located as not to be visible from neighbors' yards, whenever possible 2 The following cntena apply to all playhouses, but especially to playhouses which are visible from neighbors' yards a Playhouse windows shall not face neighbors' yards but towards the main residence so as not to interfere with neighbors' privacy b Ceiling height on elevated playhouses shall not be suitable for adults (maximum of five and one-half feet) An elevated playhouse which functions as an observation tower or elevated deck shall follow a different set of review criteria and may be subject to a public hearing Playhouses for infants or toddlers who need constant supervision are strongly encouraged to be ground mounted Note that a playhouse shall not be elevated more than 6' from grade, otherwise, the "under floor" will be considered a "story" and the structure will no longer be considered a playhouse Colors shall be compatible with the main residence and with neighbors'fences in such a manner as to blend in as much as possible Brightly colored playhouses visible from neighbors' yards are strongly discouraged Pastel colors such as off-white, cream and light tan are encouraged This applies to all construction elements, such as walls, pilasters, roof and trim In case playhouses barely meet the accessory structure setback requirements, a row of London Plane trees or other trees are encouraged to be planted surrounding the structure to diminish visual impact of structure on adjacent residences Construction materials shall not include glass. cardboard or sheet aluminum roofing No electrical or plumbing elements are allowed First quality matenals are recommended, since playhouses do not require permits and aesthetics and safety of construction is critical f Playhouses shall be constructed so as not to obstruct scenic views of the mountains or valley and shall be on scale with adjacent development on and off-site. i e 1.1 Hilly areas- In areas of small lots (7.200 sq ft or less). a 120 sq ft, elevated playhouse (12'in height) at 5' from the property line may be perceived as a "huge structure"if seen from a neighbor's yard,especially when in a descendent topography It is recommended that special attention be given to views when in areas with topographic gradients 2) Areas with existing accessory structures In the case where other surrounding accessory structures are of 8 to 10' in height,a playhouse with height exceeding 10'is strongly discouraged Harmony with scale of surrounding development is to be achieved 3) Flat areas- In case proposed playhouse is the first accessory structure with overall height above 6' in a specific area (3 to 4 adjacent properties), it is strongly recommended that it be ground-mounted and located so as not to be visible from neighbors' yards (roof can be visible) Preservation of existing feeling of openness and space is desired whenever possible Unless this structure blends in "perfectly" with its surroundings. rt is likely to create significant controversy Playhouses on trees a When playhouses are installed on a live tree without alterations to the appearance of the tree,they are considered self-screened, however, all other cntena will apply b When playhouses are installed on a dead or significantly altered or chopped tree with-or without posts of support, they are subject to the guidelines as any other playhouse.. Note that in case these structures are larger than 120 sq ft, they are considered illegal structures and shall be demolished. A building permit is not applicable Chopping or destroying trees to install tree houses is strongly discouraged _ 1Z r4 ! Trees have several natural functions, such as cooling the environment, cleaning the air by producing oxygen, fertilizing and protecting soil from erosion and many more. Trees help to create the very same scenic view which enhance property values Observations provide evidence that there is a very significant correlation between amount of trees on private and public spaces with high image cities and neighborhoods While one tree may be interrupting a scenic view, all the neighborhood trees, including the one in question, together help maintain and enhance the quality of life and property values in that community Review Procedures Required: 1 Playhouses exceeding 6'in overall height are subject to playhouse review criteria and require Community Development Director clearance(Land Use Approval application - $33 00 fee) Playhouses are exempt from building permit 2 Playhouses which are 6' or below in overall height are exempt from both permit and planning review Note that small structures exceeding 120 sq ft, with second story, are not considered playhouses and are subject to permit When subject to a permit, such a structure will need to meet habitable standards, including, but not limited to. Title 24, energy conservation, electrical, plumbing. etc. This basically transforms the small structure into a "recreation room" of"accessory living quarters" Process In case your proposed playhouse meets all criteria. an over the counter approval will be granted Otherwise, noticing to adjacent neighbors may be required to avoid complaints in the future At the end of two weeks, if no complaints are received, the application will be approved subject to the Community Development Director's recommendation To expedite the process,the applicant has the option to bring support letters from the neighbors In case neighbors are concerned, a meeting will take place for exchange of information Usually, it resolves all questions and the project can proceed Ultimately, in case the applicant is not accepting of the Community Development Director's approval recommendations, then he/she can appeal to the Planning Commission per Section 18 63 070 13 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 Matenal 18 73 170 _ Swimming Pools, Spas and Other Bodies of Water 18 73 180 Temporary Manufactured Housing Installations 18 73 190 Utility Undergroundmg - 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 f - 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 and may he reduced to ten percent (10%) of the width of such parcel, but in no case shall he less than three (3) feet I5 CHAPTER 18.10 RH, R1, R2 and R3 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Sections: 18.10.010 Purpose 18.10 020 Residential Distracts 18.10.030 Use Regulations 18.10 040 Site Development Standards 1810 050 Off Street Parking 18.10 060 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 vanety 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 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 l RH, Hillside Residential Dist'ict This district is intended for very low C Ib (_ 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 the ro osed projectmeetspercent (25%) shall be approved if P P the requil`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 �n the Ri 7 . ; District, accessory otructures shall not exceed ten (10) fcct in tie-kg Accessory structures shall not exceed twenty ' , as listed in Section 18 . 73 . 090 of this Chapter. ) feet in height. with exceptions 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 1S 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 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 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 abutting 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 to‘;erc and satellite dishes Section 18 06 025 Accessory living quarters 19 Ty • Planning 6RRND TERR-C s Department rl_,� i ti ,. •VCM.i. • DATE: September 9, 1993 TO: City Council FROM: Planning Det,.rtment SUBJECT• Z-93-01, Zoning Amendment to clarify the Site and Architectural Review process including, but not limited to, accessory structures. RECOMMENDATION: Approval ***************************************** BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The proposed amendment is in response to several citizen complaints regarding playhouses being built adjacent to rear yard fences mterfenng with their view of the mountains, back yard pnvacy and perceived property values Similar action was taken on the issue of overhead decks and balcomes which has worked very successfully Staff response m this case consists of remstatmg 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 time involved in noticing procedures, etc Dumas the latest code amendment, increasing staff review of minor and middle-sized projects, the review of playhouses and other structures of similar effect were madvertently left out Therefore, from being required to be reviewed through a public hearing under previous code, playhouses were completely left out Previous design review criteria used a 10' height Above that height, all projects were reviewed by the Commission. This made most accessory structures, such as garages, small room additions, pool rooms, etc, subject to public hearing The height cntena was replaced by bulk, mass and lot coverage criteria f (i e structure more than 65% or main residence, and so on) The new cntena have been very successful dunng this last year We have been saving applicant's and the City money and time in all these types of reviews However, the Code is very ambiguous regarding playhouses and similar nature structures Attachment 2 22795 Barton Road•Grand Terrace,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 bnghtly 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 m 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 authonty to impose conditions on the project. On the other hand, staff would also be able to review project pnor to construction, thus avoiding complaints and code enforcement Structures which do not disturb neighbors'pnvacy 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"definition 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 of the City Council,the City Attorney review of subject letter found that regulations on views of property from adjacent residences are a common design review item and are in effect in "virtually every" city in Orange County, Riverside, San Bernardino and even City and County of Los Angeles Even though in some cases the issue is subject to 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 a pubhc 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 Council" In addition, for the information of the City Council, staff has communicated with Mr Wilson His proposed alternative to the demal 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, Patrizia Materassi Community Development Director Attachments 1 - Ordinance with wended 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\z9301 cc GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 19, 1993 The regular meetmg of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road,'Grand Terrace, California on August 19, 1993 at 7 00 p m. by Chairman Dan Buchanan. PRESENT: Dan Buchanan, Chairman Jim Sims, Vice-Chairman Matthew Addington, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Doug Wilson, Commissioner Patrizia Materassi, Community Development Director Maria C Muett, Associate Planner Maggie Alford, Planning Secretary ABSENT: Moire Huss, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner PLEDGE: Jim 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 summanzed what took place at the City Council Meeting regarding the Sign Inventory, stot.-4 that Council voted for a partial moratorium, 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 7:10 P M 1 Attachment 2 4 } , Chairman Buchanan made a motion to approve SA-92-11 as conditioned and amended Commissioner Wilson seconded MOTION VOTE PCM-93-56 Motion comes. 3-1-2-1. Commissioner Addington voted no Commissioners , Huss and Van Gelder absent Commissioner Munson abstained 1 ADJOURNED SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AT 8:28 P.M. RECONVENED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:28 P.M. — > ITEM #2 Z-93-01 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE CITYWIDE F 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 Commumty Development Director presented the staff report. Chairman Buchanan said this was a good move from the intangible stuff they were discussing before to actually putting it down in ordinance form and cleaning it up and tying in all of those things that we wanted to do Vice-Chairman Sims said this is like a one-time situation, where somebody comes and playhouse or s LLe structure and staff notifies the neighbors and nobody complains and IL gets approved administratively by staff, 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 it is a one-time review She said if they change the color or take 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 like that and they change it completely and change the use of 5 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 mce to see something in writing Commissioner Addmgton 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 utilized 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. The Community Development Director said the permit expired, but that expiration is already into the jurisdiction of the Engmeermg Department, and the Planning Department can not revoke the Site and Architecture because they took a permit. She said the Buildmg 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 investment"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, wh, Should you be able to g,L so many extensions without proper reevaluation of the project9 Commissioner Addington 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 in 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 m 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 ongmal 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 Addmgton 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 m 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 Addington asked if was appropnate 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 said it is still there. She said they are not amending the Uniform Building Code, and there is no permit need 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 authonty 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 Addmgton 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 Planning 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 m 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 s 1 neighbors won't see them; they can build two stories,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 materials 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 ordmarily 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 m 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 addressmg the case of a playhouse, and he quoted, per the 1991 U B C, Chapter 3, under Permits and Inspections, Section 301 b-1, "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 126 aq 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 stricture can be allowed m 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 comparison? 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, m 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 authonty, 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 believes 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 Planning?", 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 of life, 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 ..nd 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 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 m 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 m some manner. Vice- Chairman Sims said he was cunous why Mr Wilson felt the Planning Department was trymg 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-Chairman Sims said on a complaint basis Mr Wilson said on a complaint basis or a case-by-case volunteer, the person comes m 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 somethmg 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 thi..:.s 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 Ls 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 beheves that is what this country is supposed to be about and they have stepped away from it and they need to step back towards 1t. 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 m the proposed Code that playhouses were accessory structures Chairman Buchanan said it is m the definition chapter The Community Development Director said it is in various areas, mcludmg 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 Sims 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 m 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 h_ids 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 stories 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 rights 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 privacy 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 trymg 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 mamtam privacy m some of the cities m Italy, but nght here in 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 dnven, 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 m 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 Commumty Development Director said this is correc,L Vice-Chairman Sims asked if it is not Just a simple matter, sometimes, that the playhouse or accessory structure is Just in the wrong place The Community Development Director said sometimes that's all Vice-Chairman Sims asked if they can Just tell him it's in 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 Pm 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'm the past, he has resolved several cases m 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 Suns 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 Sims 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 trymg 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 Planning Department to process an application to put a playhouse up in the back yard, unless people are required to go through some kind of process, you never get an advanced opportunity to deal with setback isclles, 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 in 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 — ns this community willing to commit its Planning Staff resources to trying to head off pnvacy 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 t* 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 m 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 staff's 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 in 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 in 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 Commumty 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 t,hairmad 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 triggering 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 m and complains that he thinks something is a nuisance, that that establishes it as a nuisance He said it isn't r 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 :Leir yelling and screaming at 1100 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 Comnssion 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 carries 3-1-3-0. Commissioner Addmgton voted no Commissioners Huss, Van Gelder and Wilson absent. ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 9:24 P.M. NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1993. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, CALWAACtEtAr -i-7.)- . Patrizia Materassi Dan Buchanan Community Development Director Chairman, Planning Commission 09-02-93 ma c\wp51\planning\mmutes\08-19-93 m 17 -) 1 I / 1 - - I % `Li 1 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 Ietter 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 ongoing policy 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 misinterpretation, 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 stram 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 privacy and scenic view vistas are subject to individual perspective and wholly bevona the scope of governmental reguiauon without the adoption of specific companion criteria to measure impact and guarantee equal enforcement Surrounding junsdictions including the higtily 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 speciticall' required b‘ 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 property 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 pnmanly 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 significant 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 mampulati.,L the laws of the land to sacrifice the imagination of young children as manifested in something as simple as playhouse, in order to satisfy the advantage of a selfish tew 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 Doug_ A Wilson 12168 Observation Drive Grand Terrace CA. 92324 909-783-3464 714-75 9-7 7"0 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 12S 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 ' } , 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 m 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"Accesswav" 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 ?Cdr)itizizet a no istbra 11 elevated decks, patio covers, pauo enclosures,Type 1 and Type 2 Sunrooms, antennas, radio and other towers and satellite dishes Section 18 06 025 accessory living Quarters: CHAPTER 18.10 RH, R1, R2 and R3 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Sections: 18.10 010 Purpose 18.10 020 Residential Districts z 18.10 030 Use Regulations . , 18 10 040 Site Development Standards 1810 050 Off Street Parking 18 10 060 Residential Street Parking 1810 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: L, 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 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 tollowing aistricts are designee to implement the goals and objectives of the General Plan Eacn District contains specific lane use regulations and density ranges for development RH Hillside Residential District This district is Intended tor 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 y- 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 , tor 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 i i�-�13c R1 7 . 2 Distrlot,-aeecaoory otruoturco ohall not excccd �- he-j-qht-tinlcoo app =ems h she ^;} a a hitcotural Review Board, and n no ca c&ball exceed twenty (20) feet in height. In the Ri aA, &i 16, R2 and R3 Dictricto Accessory structures shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height, with exceptions as listed in Section 18 73 . 090 of this Chapter. f . Not more than the permitted percent of the total parcel may be devoted to main and accessory structures, parking areas, driveways and covered patios. The remaining percent of the total` parcel shall be devoted to open areas such as landscaping, lawn, outdoor recreational facilities, incidental to residential development, includipg 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 18.63 SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Sections: 18.63.010 Purpose 18.63.020 Application 18.63.030 Scope f(,' 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 1`,---i following: _ 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 all mous th eir s es and su o nding sites and structures, t e o << n ante with ahbors that they do not unnecessarily block scenic views from other structures and for public areas, and i&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 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. z _ Section 18.63.020 Application: There are three (3) levels of applications for Site and Architectural Review• A Land Use Applications • 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 Reviewof 'nori w�h ma have pote tial t adve ly aff ct the . nvir nment. No rig ad pro•mac q o •1 wt e a ., - di o Qf theme omrtnifi�'D el, nt` Die r• th c- • ;u0/11•.a11�:�_� = A. Site and architectural review Land Use Application. re ;a ie,s p nts f4r aN p shall be required in the event any of the follovr ng actions occur: 1 Any new constructionli 2��2 t/i ti-14 A ( try! 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 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; or uS65, Jer,1— d) Additional street access -7-o P Plan check or cieara of building_plans prior to , BuiId� in IDenartment r vie nc n . ut i to in 1�15 s, pat cove enc os es, e w s, fens and other res i do equire inistra or al Si and aI Revie 3 Any eeaversioi of a sifigle own ownership or stock cooperative project: 4. Any placement of a modular s with this title • 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. 4f Overhead decks provided they strictly meet the Planning Commission design guidelines. 5. Accessory structures located ' ' and over 20' in height in the R1 10/20 District with less than 500 r,quarc 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 :juld n satisfactorily re ed at staff level m subject to Sitend Architectur. Review the dis non the Commun velopment Directo The Community Develo t Director de ns all be fin unless appealedPlannina Commissii wi 10 calendar d peals shall b led with the'la ing Departmend follow si lar was the-a eals to the 1 (Section , 63 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 Plefirang 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 Plaaaffig 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 o£the square footage of the main 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^rocess Site and Architectural Review by the Site and Arch,:zctural Revie Board 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 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 and Architectural Review Board may also consider &her 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 - 13 Relationship to existing and/or the planned use of adjoining properties and within the general area -I3=a 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 Arcnitectural style and building design 2 Proposed building materials and colors Height of structures -i Design and location or all signs 5 Size and bulk of the structures in relation to existing and/or planned structures on the subject site, adjoining properties and NLitnin the general area 0 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 Pleaftifig 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) bluehne 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) bluelme 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 landscura r'an 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) blueline copies plus one (1) bluehne copy colored for presentation purposes The gracing 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' b% 11" mounting board showing samples of exterior design elements such as roofing material, paint chips, brick, stone or r Y t 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 Planfang 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 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. ?. The location and configuration of all structures associated with this project are visually harmoni us it th ite surround! - sites and structures, t e t i P e t h ' n that they do not unncL:ssanly 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 landforms, are functional for the proposed project and are consistent with the Grand Terrace Municipal Code. 1 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. 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 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 gradmg plan, each set shall be approved and signed by the Meang 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 mmor 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 torth 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 a 6 5 ,44---- A Tne applicant applies for a building pe-mit and commitssl <t investment n accordance with the approved plans prior to the expiration Gate B T.'ti a ciican: app-ttes e ter a z*ECrs— -at the cppr-gal prior to The cxpration date r 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 3 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 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 1.8.73.180 Temporary Manufactured Housing Installations 18.73.190 Utility Undergrounding 18.73.200 Visual Screening of Unsightly Uses 18.73210 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, padaock. 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 or land of an average width of less than tifty (50) teet, which parcel was under one ownership at the time of, or is shown as a lot on any subdivision map filed in the County Recorders Office prior to February 11 1982 when the owner owns no adjoining land the width or each side yard may be reduced to re 1 nercent (10%) or the width of sucn parcel Du: in no case snail be less than three (3) feet Ape __ • • Planning 5RAND TERR C 5 Department LEMP NOTICE OF FILING NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, a Negative Declaration is hereby filed on the below referenced project, on the basis that said project will not have a sigmficant effect on the environment DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: Z-93-01 and E-93-10, Zomng 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 comrr, its should be directed to the Planning Department, City of Grand Terrace 2 j-� Pazia Materassi Date Community Development Director City of Grand Terrace ATTACHMENT 4 22795 Barton Road•Grand Terrace,California 92324-5295 •(909) 824-6621 c+Tr Planning RAND TERR•C Department ~•VfMEA •.• NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, a Negative Declaration is hereby filed on the below referenced project, on the basis that said project will not have a significant effect on the environment DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT Z-93-01 and E-93-10, Zoning Amendment with environmental review to clanfy the Site and Architectural review process mcludmg, 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 l A�' ii J ) C C Patrizia Materassi Date Community Development Director City of Grand Terrace PM ma 22795 Barton Road• Grand Terrace, California 92324-5295 • (909) 824-6621 4 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY I. Background 1 Name of Proponent. City of Grand Terrace ` 2 Address and Phone Number of Proponent City of Grand Terrace 22795 Barton Road. Grand Terrace, CA 92324-5295 Attention- Patnzia Materassi. Planning Director. 714-824-6621 3 Date of Environmental Assessment. Dn S'ci 9 4 Agency Requiring Assessment. City of Grand Terrace � y/,477cj GAF /TE /iNt) ti.Llt-, 5 Name of Proposal, if applicable. Z-i i ill d mW„,ld i n-�- 7 — 9 3 1;'Wi _tap r Yam'/L ��1 rf 6 Location of Proposal rry ui 'DE - c,7 ) c,F ST, i C-{M u 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 in topography or ground surface relief features? 1 Yes Maybe No d The destruction, covering or modification of any umque geologic or physical features x e Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? f Changes in 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? k g Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudshdes, ground failure, or similar hazards? /\\ 2 Air Will the proposal result in a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quahty9 �\ 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 in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either manne or fresh waters? Yes Maybe No b Substantial changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Y c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d Change m the amount of surface water m any water body? ;\ e Discharge mto surface waters, or m any alteration of surface water quality, mcludmg, but not lumted to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g Change m the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through mterception of an aquifer cuts or excavations? V h Substantial reduction m the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies Exposure of people or property to water related hazar-4s such as flooding or tidal waves 4 Plant Life Will the proposal result in a Change in the diversity of species or number of any native species of - plants (including trees, shrubs grass crops and aquatic plants)9 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 k 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 animals? c Deterioration 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`' S Land Use Will the proposal result in s substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area 4 Yes Maybe No 9 Natural Resources. Will the proposal result m. a. Substantial increase m the rate of use of any natural resources? x b. Substantial depletion of any = nonrenewable natural resource? X 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 conditions? 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 movement'? ' b Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking'? c Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems'? 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? X £ Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14 Public Services. Will the proposal - .have substantial effect upon, or result m 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? e Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f Other governmental services? ` 15 Energy Will the proposal result in a Use of substr-itial amounts of fuel or energy? b Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? to Utilities Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities 6 Yes MaybeNo a Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? X c Water? )( d. Sewer or septic tanks? f e Storm water drainage? X f Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result m a Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard )( (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential hazards? v 18. Aesthetics Will the proposal result m 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 in an impact upon the quality or quantity Y of existing recreational opportu^sties? 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? )i 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 animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental g^als9 (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future ) c Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but 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.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or mdirectly9 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 in 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 Patnzia Materassi Planning Director 1-2 Date Signature For City of Grand Terrace 9 w 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 in any respects as it is only for amendment of processmg procedures